Role of Ethical Marketing in Driving Consumer Brand Relationships and Brand Loyalty: A Sustainable Marketing Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is noticed that required changes are implemented. The positive point is the paper has been improved.

I would like to suggest the following ways to improve this paper:

The contribution should be clarified.

The authors should further clarify what the contribution of the paper is, what is new in this paper? Why should it be published? What is the literature gap covered by this paper? what is the associated interest of this contribution? Has anyone previously suggested the need and interest in developing this specific contribution?

 

The literature review included in the manuscript should serve to synthesize the state of the art in the topic addressed, to describe the main specific contributions made to date, what is the gap that the work tries to fill, how the previous contributions relate to the contribution that is intended to be made in this paper and if it is the case, who previously suggested the need to make the analysis included in this new study.

Overall the quality of LR is acceptable.

 

The contribution of the paper should serve as a basis for developing both the theoretical implications and the managerial implications.

The paper should incorporate a more solid argumentation that allows justifying the reason that allows selecting the explanatory variables that are considered in the empirical analysis.

 

Why Table 1, has different sections? What is the logic? Is that necessary?

 

The authors should explain in more detail the sampling method. They say that data were collected from a snowball sample, but this non-probabilistic method is used in hidden

populations (where potential participants are hard to find), which is not the case. Moreover, snowball sampling is where research participants recruit other

participants for a study, therefore I don’t understand how they could PHONE? Moreover, is the data representative?

 

The presentation of the hypotheses is still confusing on the figure. Furthermore, I suggest the authors improve the argumentation of the hypothesis.

The hypotheses should be formulated separately and should be properly argued. There may be exceptions, if they are many and very similar, but this is the general rule.

The hypotheses formulated should be closely related to the previously conducted literature review.

In the current version of this manuscript the author are including different aspects of previous literature, but it does not exist any convincing storyline in any particular direction.

It is not enough to say that other authors have found similar results. It must be justified why some variables influence others. Possibly, the studies that have found similar results offer arguments that can also be used in this case.

 

Author Response

Dear,

Thanks for the suggestions/comments please see the attachment, thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

well-done with the developed article.

Author Response

Dear Sir, 

Thanks for the nice comments and help. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.