Towards a Korean Sustainable Business Model at National Level: The Influence of Cultural and Political Perceptions of National Image on Consumers’ Behavior
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to read and review this paper. The topic of the paper is relevant. The work is interesting, to highlight different aspects:
- The article is well structured
- The data collected is interesting.
- The problems are clearly stated.
- The theoretical framework are creative.
- The methodology is clearly explained.
- The study conclusions supported are by the analysis.
My following comments are intended to be constructive and hope they are helpful to the authors as they move forward with this project:
Abstract - authors should changed it giving more concrete and important information to the reader. The innovation of the paper is totally missing. The abstract should be improved and have to provide more structured aim, scope, and background, to state the principal objectives and scope of the investigation and describe the paper's originality and value.
The part of introduction does not illustrate clearly the initial innovation of the specific study. Please briefly describe in the last paragraph of the INTRODUCTION section, the content of each section of the paper and include brief information on methods (one sentence).
Research sample - authors should extend research.
Discussion section authors should extend research. This section must compare obtained results with other authors.
Conclusions: This section should emphasis the objective and main results presented in this study. The conclusions must concisely summarise the main points of the paper. This part usually includes four compulsory elements: (1) general summary of the article, its results and findings, (2) implications and recommendations for practice, (3) research limitations, (4) suggestions for future research.
References - too little literature
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1
We are truly grateful for your constructive comments regarding our paper. All of them have been incorporated in our revised document, and our responses to your comments are provided in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
It seems that sentences in the abstract should not be repeated in the text of the paper (in this case in the section: Introduction).
The term "The Korean Wave" is rather familiar to me but not to all international readers. It seems appropriate to explain the term in more detail in the Introduction.
I propose that below Table 4, there should be a text (paragraph) referring to the results in Table 4. It seems that the section (Results) should not end this way.
I would also suggest expanding Section 3.1 Participants. A more detailed description of the research sample seems necessary for the credibility of the study.
In my opinion, the paper is very interesting. It addresses the issue of social - cultural dimensions and perception of SBM. Perhaps the article is not long and based on fragmentary research, but it seems worthy of publication.
Moreover, the issue of the Korean Wave is quite a fascinating phenomenon in itself and therefore research on this topic oriented to an international audience deserves attention.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2
We really appreciate your suggestions regarding our paper. All of your suggestions have been incorporated in the main document and our answers to your comments are provided in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is an interesting experimentation of how cultural and political perceptions of a nation can influence consumers'choices. To be published in Sustainability, it should be improved. Below some suggestions.
1. Title and abstract - the title and abstract do not really reflect the content. The definition of cultural heritage is not clear, so as the definition of sustainable business model, therefore the title could be misleading and create a false expectation in the reader. I would suggest to focus on the topics by changing the title. A suggestion could be (but not mandatory): "Towards a Korean Sustainable Business Model at national level: influence of cultural and political perceptions of national identity on consumers behaviour". If not suitable, please suggest a different title.
The abstract could be more straightforward, focusing on the main research question, the current knowledge gap and the results obtained.
2. Introduction - the introduction is quite general and does not provide the specific definitions needed to understand the assumptions and to frame this study within the current research literature body. The Korean Wave (Hallyu) is not explained. Is it a national policy? A reader who does not know anything about this term, may be confused. A specific definition of "Sustainable Business Model" as intended in this study, as well as of "Cultural Heritage" as intended in this study, is not clearly provided. SBM is usually applied to enterprises selling products or services, so it should be better explained what does it means at the national level. Is it government action? If yes, how is "business" model related to government action? On the same line, cultural heritage is usually defined as the "tangible and intangible cultural capital" of a region / nation, including its historic buildings, sites, traditions (see for example UNESCO definition of tangible and intangible cultural heritage here: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-property/unesco-database-of-national-cultural-heritage-laws/frequently-asked-questions/definition-of-the-cultural-heritage/). Is that the meaning of cultural heritage also in this paper? Or do you mean the "culture" of a nation, as for example the set of shared values and beliefs? In this sense, I would not talk about 'cultural heritage' but just as 'culture'.
3. Literature review - The literature selection is not clear. Why did you analyse the selected resources? Which criteria were used to search and select the relevant literature? You come out with the SEM model in the literature review section, which is quite confusing. I suggest to separate literature review from presentation of SEM model, clearly highlighting the kowledge gap addressed and the specific research question coming from this gap.
4. Methods - Again, methods should be separated from results. The method of the research should be summarized from start to end: literature review, identification of knowledge gap, research tool (survey), analysis tools chosen, results and critical conclusions. The survey should be better explained and presented: its objectives, structure and sections, questions, and target sample of respondents. Results (how many respondents, which age and education level) should be presented in the results section.
5. Discussion - the content of the discussion section is not clear, and this may be linked to the unclarity of the introduction / assumptions. What is the aim of this article? What do you want to demonstrate? For example, some recommendations to policy makers would help to clearly frame the results of the research: based on the results, would you suggest to invest in enhancing the knowledge and perception of Korean culture abroad? Would you suggest that negative perception of politics and foreing relations may have a strong impact on Koreans businesses' exchanges with foreign countries? Should businesses themselves help to enhance the image of Korean national identity as an effective marketing strategy to sell their products abroad? Or is it "selling" not an objective in itself, but a sign of the quality of relationships between countries? It would be very interesting to understand your point of view based on the results obtained in this study.
Specific comments:
- lines 262-265 should be rephrased, it is not clear what you mean
- lines 276-278 if you talk about manipulation, this is a strong sentence that should be better supported by evidence / previous studies
- english editing is necessary, especially the translation of the survey questions is not always very clear, in english some sentences do not really make sense
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3
We really appreciate your careful, meticulous and supportive review of our paper. All of your suggestions have been incorporated in the main document and our responses to your comments are provided in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 4
We are grateful for your positive and supportive review of our manuscript. We believe that our paper has now been further improved, and hope that our final manuscript would provide new insight into your future research.
Thank you again for your supportive review.
Yours sincerely,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
In the Introduction the authors refer to the sections of the paper, scholastic indicating their numbers. I recommend avoiding this numerical manner and referring to a section by its name, followed by a brief rendering of the basic content or idea.
A conclusion on the topic of the paper, highlighted separately (eg. section: Conclusions) at the end of the article would be appropriate to emphasize the results and analysis performed, based on the working hypotheses defined in the paper.
The paper can be published after these minor corrections, which can improve the appearance and presentation of the material.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 5
We really appreciate your constructive comments regarding our manuscript. All of your suggestions have been incorporated in the main document and our responses to your comments are in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
All comments have been addressed carefully and thoughfully. Thank you for considering the comments as valuable for your work. I think that the article is now ready for publication.
