Corporate Sustainability and Financial Performance: The Moderating Effect of CEO Characteristics
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article 'Corporate Sustainability and Financial Performance: The Moderating Effect of CEO Characteristics' addresses an interesting research topic, which was oriented towards the problem of analysing the impact of corporate sustainability on financial performance, as well as investigating whether CEO characteristics affect the relationship between corporate sustainability and financial performance of companies listed on the Saudi Stock Exchange. The authors mainly oriented the research attention on environmental, social and corporate governance measures and their impact on the return on assets and return on equity aspect, which the authors took as an indicator in measuring financial performance. This is a very interesting study in the financial spectrum. The study uses the least squares method (OLS), an area of relationship research, and the GMM system, an area of endogeneity explanation.
The abstract outlines the subject of the study and an outline of the findings, indicating the practical value of the study. The abstract identifies the purpose of the study, the methodology, the main findings. It is worth highlighting the research gap, anchoring the value of the study.
The introduction presents the background of the research, it is worth highlighting more strongly the need for the research and the importance of the topic. It is worth highlighting the existing research gap and the importance of the paper against the background of existing research. It is worth discussing the steps of the research in relation to the methodology used.
Literature review conducted in a multi-faceted manner, correctly. Provides a presentation of the background to the research and its setting in light of the findings. Worth expanding the layout of sources and referring to recent literature in the introductory section - worth studying https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118889
Data and methodology discussed in detail later in the paper in a separate section. Comprehensive discussion.
The "results" section is missing. Information from the current "discussion" item should mostly be moved to the "results" item.
The "Discussion" item should be oriented towards scientific implications.
Summary - correct, referring to the purpose of the research, the results and the practical usefulness of the results.
Literature should be expanded to include recent sources.
In conclusion, I suggest:
- in the executive summary emphasise the research gap, reinforcing the value of the study.
- In the introduction, emphasise more strongly the need for the research and the importance of the topic, and highlight the existing research gap and the importance of the paper against the background of existing research.
- discuss the steps of the research in relation to the methodology used.
- expand the arrangement of sources and refer to recent literature in the introductory section,
- improve the structure - add a results section.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
The article 'Corporate Sustainability and Financial Performance: The Moderating Effect of CEO Characteristics' addresses an interesting research topic, which was oriented towards the problem of analysing the impact of corporate sustainability on financial performance, as well as investigating whether CEO characteristics affect the relationship between corporate sustainability and financial performance of companies listed on the Saudi Stock Exchange. The authors mainly oriented the research attention on environmental, social and corporate governance measures and their impact on the return on assets and return on equity aspect, which the authors took as an indicator in measuring financial performance. This is a very interesting study in the financial spectrum. The study uses the least squares method (OLS), an area of relationship research, and the GMM system, an area of endogeneity explanation.The abstract outlines the subject of the study and an outline of the findings, indicating the practical value of the study. The abstract identifies the purpose of the study, the methodology, the main findings. It is worth highlighting the research gap, anchoring the value of the study. The introduction presents the background of the research, it is worth highlighting more strongly the need for the research and the importance of the topic. It is worth highlighting the existing research gap and the importance of the paper against the background of existing research. It is worth discussing the steps of the research in relation to the methodology used. Literature review conducted in a multi-faceted manner, correctly. Provides a presentation of the background to the research and its setting in light of the findings. Worth expanding the layout of sources and referring to recent literature in the introductory section - worth studying https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118889
Response: we Thank the reviewers for their constructive comments, we amend the article as suggested by the reviewers
In conclusion, I suggest:
- in the executive summary emphasise the research gap, reinforcing the value of the study.
Response: we thank the reviewer for this comment. As suggested by the reviewer, we amend our Abstract by emphasizing more on the research gap of our paper. Please see the abstract amendment highlighted in red.
- In the introduction, emphasise more strongly the need for the research and the importance of the topic, and highlight the existing research gap and the importance of the paper against the background of existing research.
Response: we thank the reviewer for this comment. As suggested by the reviewer, we add more argument to the motivation and importance of the study in the introduction. We also emphasize our contribution in regard to previous literature. Please see the introduction section amendment highlighted in red (pp1-3).
- discuss the steps of the research in relation to the methodology used.
Response: we Thank the reviewer for this comment, we add more clarification in the estimation method section. Please see section 3.3 pp(10-11)
- expand the arrangement of sources and refer to recent literature in the introductory section,
Response: As suggested, we add more recent work across all the paper section sections.
- improve the structure - add a results section.
Response: As suggested, we amend the structure and added the results section.
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is interesting but I would suggest following more recent literature and improving the literature review with no more than 10 years old literature. Also, I suggest removing any citations older than 15 years.
Also, the author can highlight the contribution of the paper further. What is the additional contribution that this article brings to the literature?
I suggest editing of the abstract, introduction and conclusion by highlighting the changes suggested above.
The draft needs some editing. Additionally, the quality of the English can be improved through proofreading.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
The topic is interesting but I would suggest following more recent literature and improving the literature review with no more than 10 years old literature. Also, I suggest removing any citations older than 15 years.
Response: we Thank the reviewers for their constructive comments, we added most of recent literature as suggested by reviewer and trying our possibility to remove old citations. However, some citation refers to theoretical background to the argument.
Also, the author can highlight the contribution of the paper further. What is the additional contribution that this article brings to the literature?
Response: we thank the reviewer for this comment. As suggested by the reviewer, we add more argument to the motivation and importance of the study in the introduction. We also emphasize our contribution in regard to previous literature. Please see the introduction section amendment highlighted in red (pp1-3).
I suggest editing of the abstract, introduction and conclusion by highlighting the changes suggested above.
Response: As suggested, we amended these sections. Please see the amending highlighted in red
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The draft needs some editing. Additionally, the quality of the English can be improved through proofreading.
Response: we Thank the reviewer for spotting this, we did our proofreading using the MDPI English editing services. We also email them to review the article and make sure it has good language quality.
Reviewer 3 Report
The subject of the paper treats the link between Corporate Sustainability and Financial Performance by taking in consideration the Moderating Effect of CEO Characteristics. Due to its importance, this paper will be considered for publication but after a revision taking account of the following comments and suggestions.
* The authors should improve the theoretical basis for addressing the topic of corporate sustainability.
* The negative impacts of corporate sustainability on firms should be shown and discussed. We observe that the authors only focused the positive impact.
* The authors should be discussed the nature of the relationship between corporate sustainability and CEO Characteristics.
* In introduction, the motivation for choosing the topic of Corporate Sustainability and Financial Performance by taking in consideration the Moderating Effect of CEO Characteristics should be significantly improved.
* The importance of using ordinary least squares (OLS) model and SGMM should be further clarified
* The authors should improve the discussion / comparison of the empirical findings with that of prior studies.
* In conclusion, the authors still need to improve the managerial implications of the empirical results.
* A robustness section should be added.
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Reviewer 3
The subject of the paper treats the link between Corporate Sustainability and Financial Performance by taking in consideration the Moderating Effect of CEO Characteristics. Due to its importance, this paper will be considered for publication but after a revision taking account of the following comments and suggestions.
Response: we Thank the reviewers for their constructive comments, we amend the article as suggested by the reviewers
* The authors should improve the theoretical basis for addressing the topic of corporate sustainability.
Response: we Thank the reviewer for this comment, we amend our theoretical basis (highlighted in red) as suggested by the reviewer. Please see section 2.1 p.4
* The negative impacts of corporate sustainability on firms should be shown and discussed. We observe that the authors only focused the positive impact.
Response: we Thank the reviewer for spotting this, we add argument for the possible negative impact. Please see section 2.2 p5 ( line 206 – 234).
* The authors should be discussed the nature of the relationship between corporate sustainability and CEO Characteristics.
Response: we Thank the reviewer for spotting this, we add argument for the relationship between corporate sustainability and CEO Characteristics. Please see section 2.3, pp( 5-6) highlighted in red.
* In introduction, the motivation for choosing the topic of Corporate Sustainability and Financial Performance by taking in consideration the Moderating Effect of CEO Characteristics should be significantly improved.
Response: we thank the reviewer for this comment. As suggested by the reviewer, we add more argument to the motivation and importance of the study in the introduction. We also emphasize our contribution in regard to previous literature. Please see the introduction section amendment highlighted in red (pp1-3).
* The importance of using ordinary least squares (OLS) model and SGMM should be further clarified
Response: we Thank the reviewer for this comment, we add more clarification in the estimation method section. Please see section 3.3 pp(10-11)
* The authors should improve the discussion / comparison of the empirical findings with that of prior studies.
Response: we Thank the reviewer for this comment, we add more discussion and comparison to the results. Please see section 4.2 pp(14)
* In conclusion, the authors still need to improve the managerial implications of the empirical results.
Response: We Thank the reviewer for this comment, we add more discussion to the implications part in the conclusion. Please see section 5 pp(20) highlighted in red.
* A robustness section should be added.
Response: As suggested, we add robustness check section. Please see section 4.2.2. p.18.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate editing of English language required
Response: we Thank the reviewer for spotting this, we did our proofreading using the MDPI English editing services. We also email them to review the article and make sure it has good language quality.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has been improved.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for his constructive comments and encouragement.
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept after minor revision
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for this comment. We review the English quality across the paper. We highlighted the amendment in red. We also attached the MDPI certificate for editing the paper.
