The Impact of Communicating Sustainability and Ethical Behaviour of the Cosmetic Producers: Evidence from Thailand

Reviewers’ comments

Our responses

(A)  Reviewer’s comment

Thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggesitons. We have revised the whole manuscript reponsing to your comments.   

Introduction should be clearly stated research questions and targets first. Then answer several questions: Why is the topic important (or why do you study on it)? What are research questions? What has been studied? What are your contributions? Why is to propose this particular method (This must come from Literature discussion)?

In response to your suggestion, together with the comments from the second reviewer, we have rewritten the entire 1. Introduction, answering the points suggested by you.as below:

Why is this topic important (or why we are researching this topic)?

What are the research questions?

What has been researched? (research gap)

What is the contribution of this research?

Why do you choose this research method?

Conclusions are clear, although the market characteristics the results be used in other countries or only a local case study? I would suggest the author to enhance your theoretical discussion and arrives your debate or argument.

In response to your suggestions, we aim to demonstrate the results obtained from this study in the context of other countries, especially in the context of the emerging market, and to verify the model. The concluding section of the study has been revisited to extend the critical discussion of the results of the empirical analysis in the light of the existing theoretical debate.

In the concluding section, I also mentioned the contribution of this study and the direction of future research, and specified the direction and issues for further extension.

(B)  Reviewer’s comment

The topic of this paper is quite interesting. The reading flow must be improved, particularly in the literature review section. To further improve the quality of this paper, I propose my comments below.

Thank you very much for your constructive suggestions and comments for our manuscript. We have revised the whle manuscript following your feedback. 

Here are our responses to your sugegsitons.

Once again, thank you very much for your precious time and advice to improve our paper. 

In the introduction section, I cannot relate the research problem closely with the research objective of this paper.

Is it possible to combine Section 1.1 and Section 1.2 into one section?

Thank you very much for your constructive comments. In light of your comments, we have combined sections 1.1 and 1.2 into one section to make the logic of the introduction clearer.

We then rewrote the logic to reflect the research gap in the research questions.

Professional proofreading is highly required since there are several grammatical and technical errors throughout this paper.

We have taken your suggestions into account and have ordered a professional English proofreader to improve our English.

I cannot relate all of the literature closely with all of the proposed hypotheses.

In light of your comments, we have re-examined the previous research on the three latent factors and brand loyalty and summarised the theories that underpin the hypotheses derived in Table 1. We added more recent arguments to support the four hypotheses, and clarifies the logic of the hypotheses derivation.

The authors have not indicated where the measurement for each construct come from.

The measurements for each component have been designed and shared from previous academic papers and discussions. Some measurements are shared verbatim from existing sources, while others have been modified to adapt the wording to the latest market conditions and the Thai market context. We have carefully considered all the measurements in the light of the literature review outputs and designed the final questionnaire in line with academic logic and argument.

A new table summarising the theoretical arguments underpinning each latent factor and their relationships have been inserted at the end of the Literature review together with Figure 1.

At the beginning of the section  ‘Conceptual model with hypothesised relationships’, Table1 was inserted

Is the pre-test conducted prior to the survey distribution?

As mentioned above, the questionnaire was first drafted in English against the output of the literature study. We then prepared both Thai and English versions of the questionnaire in anticipation of the large number of non-English speaking respondents, and checked with experts to ensure that the Thai version actually used was reflected in the English version.

The process is presented in the main body of the manuscript (with a citation of Brislin (1980).

Brislin, R. W. (1980) Translation and Content Analysis of Oral and Written Material. In Triandis, H. C. and Berry, J. W. (eds.). Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Vol. 2: Methodology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

We asked 21 Thai volunteers to respond to a pilot version of the Thai questionnaire (version 1), which had been checked and finalised by experts. The resulting feedback (e.g. unclear wording, necessity of better rephrasing, avoidance of duplication, etc.) was re-adjusted to produce an improved version 2. Then, using this version 2, we asked 6 Thai volunteers to answer the questions to make sure there were no problems, and decided on the final version.

In Table 1, is it possible to indicate the respondents' marital status?

The required married and unmarried status has been added to the table.

In Section 4.1.1, try to explain the contents in Table 1 more.

In light of your suggestion, we have created a new Table 2 and shifted the numbers in the table behind. In response to the new Table 2, we have included a summary of the respondents' profiles in the main text.

This paragraph was added above Table 2. The respondents’ average age in our sample is 30.1 years old and most are women (78.5%), which corresponds to the brand’s target. 64.9% are single and 33.6% common-law or married.

Are there any problems with common method bias?

The Common method bias (CMB) was tested and the result was 35.116%, which is less than 50% of the specified value as shown by Podsakoff et. al (2003; 2012), so there was no problem.

This description was added above Table 3. The relevant sources Podsakoff (2003; 2012) were also added in the list of references.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539-569. doi: doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

Try to indicate R square values in Figure 2.

Following your suggestion, we added R2 in the figure 2 and Table6.

In Figure 2, is it possible to indicate the insignificant hypothesis using a dotted line?

Based on your instructions, we have indicated the non-significant hypotheses with dotted lines in Figure 2.

In Section 5, try to indicate the reason for the insignificant hypothesis.

Thank you for your constructive advice. The detailed discussion is added in the section ‘Overview of the comparative analysis’.

In the All sample, two of the three latent factors, except Ethical Behavour, were found to have a significant effect on brand loyalty. On the contrary, only Ethical Behavour does not show a significant relationship. The interpretation of this phenomenon is that consumers in Thailand, as a emerging country, already pay attention to marketing communication about the quality and sustainability of cosmetics and judge these factors as triggers for purchase and repeat business.　The three observables of communicating sustainability (CS) (Attachment to brand with CS; Feel resonance with CS; CS is helpful for nurture my loyalty) are both significant components of the latent factor CS. the latent factor CS. On the other hand, the Ethical Behaviour (EB), which consists of three observables (Social activities; Act ethically; Look after the earth), has not yet been grasped and evaluated with a clear awareness and recognised as a reference factor in product purchasing. (Figure 2 for all samples.) The details are shown in Table 7.

In light of Table 7, the significance of Ethical Behaviour is different between domestic and international brands. In other words, the relationship between domestic brand and international brand is non-significant (H4 is dotted line), but the relationship between domestic brand and international brand is significant. In other words, Thai consumers may change the focus of their purchase decision depending on the country of origin of the product to be purchased. This suggests that Ethical Behaviour may reach a phase in the future where consumers in emerging countries will pay closer attention to manufactures' ethical behavior and influence brand loyalty.

The H4 ’covariance relationship between the three latent factors’ was found to be significant, so although a direct relationship from Ethical behaviour to brand loyalty was rejected, it is possible that Ethical behaviour influences Brand Loyalty via the other two antecedents.

What is the potential contribution of this paper?

Following your suggestions, we have revised the two sections theoretical and practical contributions in the section of Conclusion to make the potential contributions of the paper clearly conveyed to the readers.

We have also added a new paragraph in Conclusion ‘In particular, the development of a practical measure of the determinants of consumer purchasing behavior in emerging markets and the results of an empirical investigation using the measure revealed that consumer awareness and behavior differ depending on the country of origin of the brand. We believe that the results of this study provide a valuable basis for the development of future corporate strategies for communicating with consumers about sustainability’.

Try to extend Section 5.2 more.

Following your suggestion, we have revised the section:

This study has several novel practical contributions. The first one is that the study is based on a relatively large sample of well-educated young consumers (93.5% of the total sample is university and postgraduate graduates), which is relevant to demonstrate young generation's perspectives and attitudes.

The first significant output from the study demonstartes Thai young consumers are not paying attention to business' ethical behaviour whn they make decisions what to buy in cosmetics market.

This brings into focus an issue that has not been the focus of previous research into the buying behaviour of the emerging market and, in particular, the younger generation of Thai consumers. In other words, at present, they do not give much thought to the ethical behaviour of cosmetic manufacturers, a finding that should be taken into account when formulating marketing strategies for cosmetic companies.

On the other hand, it also highlights the need to take into account the different attitudes of consumers depending on whether the brand is international or domestic, and to determine which channels can be used to gain their support and how current consumer behaviour is likely to change over time. In particular, the results clearly suggest that we should carefully monitor how current consumer behaviour changes over time and reflect this in our business strategy.

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Our responses

I do believe that the authors have improved this paper based on my previous comments a lot. To further improve the quality of this paper, I propose my comments below.

Thank you very much for your support to improve our paper.

Should I call Figure 1 Table 1? In the text, the authors describe something related to Table 1. In the bottom of the table, why do the authors indicate Figure 1? Actually, Figure 1 looks like Table 1. If so, I think it is unnecessary to display so-called Figure 1.

Based on your suggestion, we have written the discussion in this part of the paper with detailed reference to the newly revised Table 1.

As for Figure 1, it is the analytical model of this study, so we keep it as it is to make it easier for readers to understand our analytical scope.

For example, as for the proposed hypothesis, "A has a significant impact on B", I cannot see any literature related to A having a significant impact on B. Therefore, I would recommend that the authors try to modify the literature and then make the literature closely with all of the proposed hypotheses again.

Table 1 has been extended to include previous references discussing the relationship between the measures of each observed variable and BL, organized for each variable. Then, based on your suggestions, we rewrote the literature review based on academic discussions that underpin the model for analysis and the observed variables, so that we can clearly present the logic behind the hypothesis development.

As for observed variables in Tables 3 or 4, the authors need to clearly indicate where observed variables come from with references.

I do not see any discussion and conclusion sections.

For each of the observed variables, we have listed the literature referred to. Please see the new table 1.