Exploring the Impact of Corporate Philanthropy on Brand Authenticity in the Luxury Industry: Scale Development and Empirical Studies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review this article. I believe that the article has a lot of potential to be published, but there are many things that need to be clarified. In the methodological part in particular there are several questions:

What criteria have been used to select the 47 articles? Apart from the areas of knowledge. For example, what dates have been selected?

What items have been used for the creation of the Adds Evaluations and Brans Authenticity constructors?

In the "General Discussions" section, the limitations of the research should be included. It would also be good if the section was divided into subsections that explain, on the one hand, the academic contributions and the contributions to the professional world of this study.

Another weak point of the work is that it has few current references. The number of references from the last 4 years should be increased. At least 5 articles from the last 4 years.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1,

We sincerely thank you for the care and time you devoted to evaluating our research. Your comments and insights were an invaluable guide for enhancing the clarity and contributions of the paper.

In the methodological part in particular there are several questions:

1. What criteria have been used to select the 47 articles? Apart from the areas of knowledge. For example, what dates have been selected?

We selected 47 articles considered relevant by the databases EBSCO Host, JSTOR, SpringerLink, Emerald, ScienceDirect, Wiley, SAGE Publications, and Google Scholar on the subject of corporate philanthropy. These articles were published between 1938 and 2022.

 

2. What items have been used for the creation of the Adds Evaluations and Brans Authenticity constructors?

For Ads Evaluation, we reused the items used by Thompson and Malavya and published in 2013 in the Journal of Marketing:

“bad/good," "unfavorable/ favorable," "unpleasant/pleasant," "unconvincing/convinc- ing," and "dislike/like"

 

For the measurement of Brand Authenticity, we adopted the scale developed by Morhart, F.; Malär, L.; Guèvremont, A.; Girardin, F.; Grohmann, B. with 15 items and 4 dimensions :

continuity (a brand with a history, a timeless brand, a brand that

survives times, a brand that survives trends), credibility (a brand

that will not betray you, a brand that accomplishes its value

promise, an honest brand), integrity (a brand that gives back to

its consumers, a brand with moral principles, a brand true to a

set of moral values, a brand that cares about its consumers) and

symbolism (a brand that adds meaning to people's lives, a

brand that reflects important values that people care about, a

brand that connects people with their real selves, a brand that

connects people with what is really important

 

3. In the "General Discussions" section, the limitations of the research should be included.

Limits have been added to the new version.

 

4. It would also be good if the section was divided into subsections that explain, on the one hand, the academic contributions and the contributions to the professional world of this study.

This section has been rewriting. News ideas have been adding.

 

5. Another weak point of the work is that it has few current references. The number of references from the last 4 years should be increased. At least 5 articles from the last 4 year.

This is one of the limitations of our approach with Gephi. Indeed, this approach highlights the central articles on the topic of corporate philanthropy. These are the articles that are regularly cited in numerous research studies. However, in order to be cited and referenced, they must have a certain level of seniority. Therefore, we have acknowledged this limitation in the article while also updating the literature review to improve it, as recommended.

 

New references added:

• Camargo, M. C., Sarsfield, R., Kanninen, M., & Cashore, T. (2023). The Role of Private Philanthropy in Sustainability Standards Harmonization: A Case Study. Sustainability, 15(13), 10635.
• Lin, Y., & Choe, Y. (2022). Impact of Luxury Hotel Customer Experience on Brand Love and Customer Citizenship Behavior. Sustainability, 14(21), 13899.
• Morando, M., & Platania, S. (2022). Luxury tourism consumption in the accommodation sector: The mediation role of destination brand love for potential tourists. Sustainability, 14(7), 4007.
• Santos, E. (2023). From Neglect to Progress: Assessing Social Sustainability and Decent Work in the Tourism Sector. Sustainability, 15(13), 10329.

 Matakanye, R. M., van der Poll, H. M., & Muchara, B. (2021). Do companies in different industries respond differently to stakeholders’ pressures when prioritising environmental, social and governance sustainability performance?. Sustainability, 13(21), 12022.

 

 

Finally, as soon as the article will be accepted, we will make a copy editing.

Thank you once again for your recommendations.

 

Best regards.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

After an initial assessment, I do not consider your paper to meet the journal’s criteria for publication. We have particular concerns about the lack of clear research questions; the robustness of the methods and analysis; the soundness and basis of the conclusions; the contribution to the literature; and the clarity of the narrative and expression. I am not confident that the issues identified could be resolved with even major revisions.

Here are a few major points:

- The abstract is confusing! Please make your abstract attractive to readers (simple sentences without any repetition) and include 2-3 sentences ready to be cited exactly as they are. In 1 paragraph, your abstract should tell the readers why the study is important (maximum 25% of the text), what you did, i.e. your methodology (maximum 25% of the text), and what you found, i.e. main research results and their major implications (50% of the text). This is very important to promote your work because of the growing trend that authors use Google search to find and cite papers based on the abstract (instead of reading the full paper).

- Your theoretical contribution is unclear. The concepts, such as "perceived corporate philanthropy" has already been discussed in the literature.

- The method you used is somehow irrelevant, especially the Gephi methodology.

- The tables are not informative. For instance, you could provide more details in Table 1.

- The unit and level of analysis are confusing.

- Appendix needs a legend.

- Findings must be presented as per the methods used.

Best of luck!

Needs minor revisions in terms of writing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

 

You appear to be unsatisfied with our research. We worked hard to prepare a new version according to your suggestions. We reviewed every part of the paper as you requested to clarify our descriptions in this article. We incorporated the changes listed below in this revised version. We hope that this new version will better meet your expectations.

 

After an initial assessment, I do not consider your paper to meet the journal’s criteria for publication. We have particular concerns about the lack of clear research questions; the robustness of the methods and analysis; the soundness and basis of the conclusions; the contribution to the literature; and the clarity of the narrative and expression. I am not confident that the issues identified could be resolved with even major revisions.

Here are a few major points:

- The abstract is confusing! Please make your abstract attractive to readers (simple sentences without any repetition) and include 2-3 sentences ready to be cited exactly as they are. In 1 paragraph, your abstract should tell the readers why the study is important (maximum 25% of the text), what you did, i.e. your methodology (maximum 25% of the text), and what you found, i.e. main research results and their major implications (50% of the text). This is very important to promote your work because of the growing trend that authors use Google search to find and cite papers based on the abstract (instead of reading the full paper).

We have taken up the abstract in its entirety and followed your recommendations. Thank you for your assistance, which has allowed us to improve our research.

- Your theoretical contribution is unclear. The concepts, such as "perceived corporate philanthropy" has already been discussed in the literature.

In Google Scholar, only 28 articles discuss this concept, and none of these articles propose measures associated with this concept. Similarly, the dimensions that constitute this concept are not mentioned in any of the 28 articles. We continue to hope that you will change your mind regarding the importance and contribution of our research.

- The method you used is somehow irrelevant, especially the Gephi methodology.

Gephi allows for large-scale network analysis. That is to say, using citation data and network analysis, we can identify central articles and clusters using the method proposed by Blondel et al., 2008. This approach, initially used for studying social networks, is increasingly being employed for conducting literature reviews. Several references on similar approaches have been added to justify the relevance of using this method for conducting a literature review.

References :

• Lecy, J. D., & Beatty, K. E. (2012). Representative literature reviews using constrained snowball sampling and citation network analysis. Available at SSRN 1992601
• Cowhitt, T., Butler, T., & Wilson, E. (2020). Using social network analysis to complete literature reviews: a new systematic approach for independent researchers to detect and interpret prominent research programs within large collections of relevant literature. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 23(5), 483-496.
• Hausberg, J. P., Liere-Netheler, K., Packmohr, S., Pakura, S., & Vogelsang, K. (2019). Research streams on digital transformation from a holistic business perspective: a systematic literature review and citation network analysis. Journal of Business Economics, 89, 931-963.

 

- The tables are not informative. For instance, you could provide more details in Table We have implemented your recommendations and, incorporating the insights provided by reviewer 3's comments, we have revamped the structure and content of this table.

- The unit and level of analysis are confusing.

More details on the approach and sequence have been added.

 

- Appendix needs a legend.

This point has been corrected.

 

- Findings must be presented as per the methods used.

We have revised the discussion of the results. We hope that this new presentation brings more clarity and adherence to the epistemological methods used.

Best of luck!

In addition to a bit of luck, we hope that the work and time invested in this new version will bear fruit. Finally, you have to know that, if the article is accepted, we will make a copy editing.

Thank you once again for your recommendations.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Paragraphs are poorly divided throughout the thesis, so readability is somewhat poor.

2. In Table 1, it is necessary to modify the definition in the first column, measures in the second column, and Authors in the third column.

3. Looking at Figure 1, four variables were used, and the four variables' reliability, validity, and discriminant validity analysis should be presented.

4. There are relatively few review contents of society impacts and company performance, so additional content is needed.

5. Three studies were presented, but I wonder if the necessity and results of these studies were well reflected in the discussion and conclusion.

The English sentences are generally good, but there are some awkward expressions, so this part needs review.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3,

 

We sincerely thank you for the care and time you devoted to evaluating our research. Your comments and insights were an invaluable guide for enhancing the clarity and contributions of the paper.

1. Paragraphs are poorly divided throughout the thesis, so readability is somewhat poor.

We reorganized and divided paragraphs as you request.

 

2. In Table 1, it is necessary to modify the definition in the first column, measures in the second column, and Authors in the third column.

Table 1 have been reorganized as you suggest.

3. Looking at Figure 1, four variables were used, and the four variables' reliability, validity, and discriminant validity analysis should be presented.
   These elements have been added.
4. There are relatively few review contents of society impacts and company performance, so additional content is needed.

We have taken your remarks into account and have made the necessary adjustments by adding additional content and updating references in relation to these two aspects.

-For society impacts resents results from Santos (2023) has been add as this authors underline in more details components of society impacts :

“To summarize, this dimension represents the core of philanthropy, which is to create a positive influence on society. These impacts can now be quantified using various indicators that align with the specific cause being supported. For instance, indicators could include the amount of waste collected, literacy rates, life expectancy among vulnerable populations, working conditions, health and safety standards, employee relationships, diversity, human rights, and community engagement. These indicators serve as benchmarks to evaluate the desired objectives of the study (Santos, 2023).”

 

-For company performance:

As you suggest, we add this sentence to the end of the paragraph on the performance section to highlight the difficulty of consensus in the literature.

“The literature examining financial performance is extensive, revealing a lack of consensus regarding the relationship between social performance and the financial performance of companies (McGuire et al., 1988; Waddock and Graves, 1997; Gao and Hafsi, 2019; Orlitzky, Schmidt, and Rynes 2003 for example)”.

 

References :

- Santos, E. (2023). From Neglect to Progress: Assessing Social Sustainability and Decent Work in the Tourism Sector. Sustainability, 15(13), 10-32.

- McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of management Journal, 31(4), 854-872.

- Gao, Y., Yang, H., & Hafsi, T. (2019). Corporate giving and corporate financial performance: the S-curve relationship. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36, 687-713.

- Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic management journal, 18(4), 303-319.

- Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization studies, 24(3), 403-441.

 

5. Three studies were presented, but I wonder if the necessity and results of these studies were well reflected in the discussion and conclusion.

General conclusion has been rewrite. In the new version, we have further highlighted the contributions of the different studies.

We hope that this new version will meet your expectations. We sincerely thank you for your comments, which have helped improve the quality of this article. Finally, if the article is accepted, we will do the copy editing as you suggest.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been greatly improved. So, it seems to me a paper suitable for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your constructive comments and support.

We have improved the English in this new version and the certificate of the copy editing have been sent to the editor.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I am satisfied with the revisions carried out based on earlier feedback. Therefore, I recommend your paper for acceptance, subject to the usual final formatting checks required by the editorial office.

Best of luck!

Please ask a native proofreader to check the final draft.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your constructive comments and support.

We have improved the English in this new version and the certificate of the copy editing have been sent to the editor.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Study 3 in Table 2 mentions confirmatory factor analysis and discriminant validity analysis, but this study does not present the results of confirmatory factor analysis and discriminant validity analysis anywhere.

2. In Table 2, the number of samples for study 3 is 550, and the number of samples for multi-group analysis is 422, but I do not understand why the number of samples is not constant.

3. In Table 5, Cronbach's alpha value, AVE value, and construct reliability are presented, but the four variables' standardized coefficient, standard error, t-value, and p-value should be presented.

4. The contents of Table 3 seem to overlap, but this part needs neat correction. 

5. The tables should be neatly and beautifully modified throughout this study.

6. In Figure 1, the display of the influence coefficient needs to be modified (some values are in commas).

English sentence expression is amicable. It will be even better if there is a review from the original English speaker. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3,

Please find our corrections.

1. Study 3 in Table 2 mentions confirmatory factor analysis and discriminant validity analysis, but this study does not present the results of confirmatory factor analysis and discriminant validity analysis anywhere.

The confirmatory factor analysis and discriminant validity analysis of study 3 is presented in Table 5 with Cronbach’s Alpha, AVE and composite reliability. Following your comment, we have integrated all tables numbers in table 2. This allows readers to find their way around better. We thank you for your relevant comments.

2. In Table 2, the number of samples for study 3 is 550, and the number of samples for multi-group analysis is 422, but I do not understand why the number of samples is not constant.

Sorry for the lack of explanation. Between study 3 and study 4 we removed the 128 respondents who had answered having stayed in a mid-range hotels. Following your comment, we have added this detail in table 2. Your informed eye allows us to provide all the details necessary for a good understanding of the study.

3. In Table 5, Cronbach's alpha value, AVE value, and construct reliability are presented, but the four variables' standardized coefficient, standard error, t-value, and p-value should be presented.

Study 2 aimed at scale purification and items refinement. The objective of this study is not to present the model of study 3. We have therefore removed the convergent validity and reliability for ads advertising and brand familiarity. These 2 concepts had been tested as an indication during this second study. This approach is in line with several works based on scale construction. Following your comments, we have therefore adjusted the indicators presented based on these studies.

References used for this answer:

Joo, S., Miller, E. G., & Fink, J. S. (2019). Consumer evaluations of CSR authenticity: Development and validation of a multidimensional CSR authenticity scale. Journal of business research, 98, 236-249.

Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2013). Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business research, 66(9), 1279-1284.

Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1–14.

 

4. The contents of Table 3 seem to overlap, but this part needs neat correction. 

We fixed this problem.

5. The tables should be neatly and beautifully modified throughout this study.
   
   

We fixed this problem in this new version.

6. In Figure 1, the display of the influence coefficient needs to be modified (some values are in commas).

We apologize for this error, we got mixed up between American and European standards. Figure 1 is now corrected

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English sentence expression is amicable. It will be even better if there is a review from the original English speaker. 

As requested, and proposed in the previous revision, the English has been revised by the "sustainability" copy editing service.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx