The Controversial Link between CSR and Financial Performance: The Mediating Role of Green Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study discusses the effect of CSR adoption on financial performance through the mediating role of green innovation performance. This is an interesting topic, and China sample is an important object. It is suggested that the author should compare the research literature on this relationship abroad to explore whether this theoretical model has been studied abroad and state the incremental contribution of this study. Actually, there are many similar studies to examine the relationship between the three variables.

 

In addition, it is recommended that the content of this study should be written in a logical flow, such as why this topic is important, whether this market grows every year, the gaps of past research, and how this research fills this gap.

 

Good luck!

It is recommended that the author check the grammatical errors in the article again.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with an interesting research topic with respect to the nexus between CSR and financial performance. However, it does not develop it sufficiently. It fails to provide a comprehensive analysis for the main research questions. The motivation of this study paper could be more compelling.  

The analysis of the literature is consistent but meager. In the section of literature review, author(s) should also take into account additional theoretical views that explain the effect of CSR on the financial performance (e.g., legitimacy theory, institutional theory, etc.). In addition, author(s) should explain better the role of green innovation as a mediating factor in the association between CSR and CFP.

The framework of methodology should also be improved. Author(s) selected the Economic pillar of ESG to measure the corporate financial performance and they used this ratio as a dependent variable in their model. Author(s) should justify why the economic pillar of ESG constitute a proper ratio to measure corporate performance. I have concerns on whether the economic pillar of ESG can fully assesses the firms’ financial performance. In essence, by using this index author(s) show the obvious result that CSR positively affects a ratio that captures the firms’ capacity to generate sustainable growth and a high rerurn on investments through its use of best management practices. Appart from the economic pillar, author(s) can also use additional cratios for the financial performance (i.e. the conventional ratios such as ROA, Tobin's Q etc). The paper lacks in the selected empirical methods whilst it also fails to provide evidence for the robustness of the results. Apart from size, age and leverage are there any other control variables that are used as determinants for the financial performance (i.e. liquidity, working capital)?  In table 3, VIFs values for the selected variables should also be included. The results of this study derived from only two pooled regression models without any test for the sensitivity of the results. In this context, the section of methodology should also contain additional tests in order to enhance the robustness of the results. For example, I propose the usage of panel data regression analysis and the selection of GMM method in section of robustness results in order to alleviate concerns for endogeneity. 

I also would expect a better presentation of the results. The research implications can also be improved. Author(s) should work more on the effect of their results on various stakeholders.

 

 

 Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments

Dear Author/s, below are some of my comments that you may consider working on:

The article might hold potential, but in its current format, it is unfortunately very difficult to follow the discussion and to check the accuracy and the validity of the discussion. It might help to have the paper edited by a professional language editor and to proofread with great care to avoid gaps in arguments and duplication in discussion.

Abstract is nicely developed and it mirrors the study properly.

Introduction: It is clear that the author/s distinctly define its rationale. However, the author/s should be specific by narrowing it down to the focus of the study. Make sure that the flow of research is smooth and organize. For instance, clearly explain the research objectives, specifically not in one line.

 

Literature: There is acceptable acknowledgement of the subject literature, but it would add more value if there at the start of the paper already a clear indication of the literature that has already explored the different modes of CSR and CFP. Then the literature dealing with facets that is of specific relevance to the scope of this paper. These issues might be addressed - but it is very hard to follow. I am missing a clear flow of logically connected arguments - without repetition.

Further, strickly follow the journal format and try to go through Instructions for author/s.

Data and methodology section seems fine but I have one major concerns that why the author didn’t include robust analysis. Because author/s just simply regress OLS without any heterogeneity analysis and robust analysis. Because how can author/s claim that their resuts are robust.  

Results should be in accordance with the research questions which is supposed to be presented in the literature part. For instance, present the results for research question 1 first, followed by research question 2 and so on. This is to easily see the alignment of your research questions and results.

Further, I feel that the results presentation is to simple. I will suggest author/s to come up with rich analysis which can cover and support results from each possible side.

Conclusion: The conclusion is good. However, since you have to mention the goals of your study on the introduction part, you may consider mentioning if each of those goals has been achieved. Further, the author/s needs to include policy implications and limitations of the study separately.

 

If permission granted to resubmit, I strongly suggest that the manuscript needs serious revision and supposed to be professionally edited first for the flow of discussion and chained statements. I really found it difficult to follow the discussions.

Best of Luck!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

I strongly suggest that the manuscript needs serious revision and supposed to be professionally edited first for the flow of discussion and chained statements. I really found it difficult to follow the discussions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After reviewing your article again, I found that the variables and hypotheses of this article have been empirically examined in serval studies, so its contribution should not be enough for publication. It is recommended that the author can focus on the theoretical framework and discuss the significant differences from the past literature. Also, you should propose why this research has made a high contribution, because there is no a single theory to fully support your theoretical model, which will represent that it is a data driver article.

None.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for the valuable comments you provided to improve the paper. Although we have tried to address your previous comments, you have mentioned that you are not satisfied with our revisions. Therefore, we revised the paper again as follows, and attached is the newly revised paper according to your comments.

• We revised the article and made corrections in its writing (both in terms of content and English language), and by doing this, we increased the readability and comprehensibility of the article. These changes have been made throughout the article, and they cannot be highlighted in certain parts of our revised paper.
• By revising our manuscript again, we tried to emphasize our research's theoretical and practical contributions and especially the differences between our research and previous ones. As highlighted in the revised paper with green color, research contributions are mentioned both in the introduction and conclusion sections (of course, in more detail in the conclusion). These two sections have been significantly improved compared to the previous version of the article.

Thanks again, and we hope the corrections we made have attracted your positive opinion.

Best regards,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Author(s) have addressed my comments. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments he/she provided to improve the paper, and we are glad that we could address his/her points.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks to the author/s for addressing my comments properly. All the points which I Highlighted were properly addressed by the author/s and I am satisfied with the current version. Further, the manuscript write-up is properly chained, research questions are highlighted properly and the results properly mirror the research questions.  The current formatting is not satisfactory. Author/s nicely cover my points in the robustness analysis with additional analysis, which is very good and I am satisfied with that. Further, I still find few minor mistakes in writeup are still need to be fixed before the manuscript goes under further process, which are;

 

1)    Manuscript Formatting

2)    English Editing

3)    Tables formatting from Table 4-9

Rest I feel the author/s hard work is appreciable.

 

Best of Luck!

The arguments are not properly chained.

Very Long Sentences. 

Formatting is poor 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for the valuable comments you provided to improve the paper, and we are glad that we could address your comments.
We revised the article and made corrections in its writing (both in terms of content and English language), and by doing this, we increased the readability and comprehensibility of the article. 
Regarding your opinion regarding the format of tables 4 to 9, we do not understand how to modify their format. We will do it if it becomes clear to us by the journal. Finally, If the journal tells us what format changes in the manuscript are needed, we will make them.

Thanks again,
Authors

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

After reviewing your article again, I found that the variables and hypotheses of this article have been empirically examined in serval studies, so its contribution should not be enough for publication. It is recommended that the author can focus on the theoretical framework and discuss the significant differences from the past literature. Also, you should propose why this research has made a high contribution, because there is no a single theory to fully support your theoretical model, which will represent that it is a data driver article.

None.