Influence of Cultural and Environmental Values of CEOs on Greenhouse Gas Emission Intensity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled: "Cultural and Environmental Values of CEOs on Greenhouse Gas Emission Intensity" is interesting and well prepared. The authors address the important issue of organizational leadership (green managers) and the cultural values of CEOs and their impact on the climate change field. The manuscript is generally well prepared, but I recommend for authors the following minor changes:

-        I recommend that the authors expand the abstract to include practical applications from the implemented findings. Furthermore, the main objective of the research/paper would be useful to add (I could not find it anywhere).

-        Table 2, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8. I don't understand why the table description and notes are embedded in the table title. That fact is confusing (opaque) to the reader.

-        Line 581 is missing a blank line between the text and Table 6.

-        Table 7 (line 615) should be renamed Table 8 because Table 7 is in line 599.

-        Personally, I miss the Discussion section, which is absent in the paper, I recommend the authors to add it!

-        Part 5. Conclusions is extensive but needs to be improved. The authors state that a limitation of the research was: One primary limitation of this study lies in the employment of national measures, such as the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) and Hofstede's cultural values at the country level, as proxies for the environmental values and attitudes of CEOs (lines 657-659). Personally, I believe that both the manuscript and the research design have several limitations that need to be added! An example is that the authors analyse data from 2008-2018. The data analysed is 5 years old and does not include the impact of pandemics and others. Also, I think the authors could have done qualitative analysis (interviews) now and not just planned them for future research. I further recommend the authors to improve and add recommendations for practice, in my opinion it is insufficient to write: Based on our findings, firms would do well to appoint CEOs from green countries and green cultures, as they are expected to exhibit higher incentives to direct firms towards the achievement of a 'greener' and more sustainable vision (line 650-652).

 

Overall, I rate the paper as good and suitable for publication. I wish the authors good luck in their future work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend checking the English language, introduction of abbreviations, minor errors and punctuation.

Author Response

Responses Letter

[Sustainability] Manuscript ID: sustainability-2740009 - Author revision

Title: Cultural and Environmental Values of CEOs on Greenhouse Gas Emission Intensity

 

Dear Editors, and Reviewers,

 

We are very grateful for the opportunity to revise and resubmit the paper based on your valuable comments. We received a referee report and have taken your suggestions fully into consideration by addressing all the issues you raised and reflecting all your comments in this revised paper. Below is a revision template, which highlights our revisions, including the related sections – where necessary. In this revision template, your comments are provided, followed by the authors’ responses. In addition, we have also highlighted our revision in RED within our manuscript for your convenience.

 

Thank you very much for your patience and consideration.

 

Authors

 

Responses Template:

 

Reviewer comments 1

 

The manuscript entitled: "Cultural and Environmental Values of CEOs on Greenhouse Gas Emission Intensity" is interesting and well prepared. The authors address the important issue of organizational leadership (green managers) and the cultural values of CEOs and their impact on the climate change field. The manuscript is generally well prepared, but I recommend for authors the following minor changes:

-        I recommend that the authors expand the abstract to include practical applications from the implemented findings. Furthermore, the main objective of the research/paper would be useful to add (I could not find it anywhere).

 

Response: thanks for this comment. We added both the objective of the paper and the practical applications to the abstract. (See red colour).

 

-        Table 2, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8. I don't understand why the table description and notes are embedded in the table title. That fact is confusing (opaque) to the reader.

-        Line 581 is missing a blank line between the text and Table 6.

 

Response: thanks, we solved this.

 

-        Table 7 (line 615) should be renamed Table 8 because Table 7 is in line 599.

 

Response: thanks, we solved this.

 

-        Personally, I miss the Discussion section, which is absent in the paper, I recommend the authors to add it!

Response: thanks. We added Discussion section. Please see section 4.2.

 

-        Part 5. Conclusions is extensive but needs to be improved. The authors state that a limitation of the research was: One primary limitation of this study lies in the employment of national measures, such as the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) and Hofstede's cultural values at the country level, as proxies for the environmental values and attitudes of CEOs (lines 657-659). Personally, I believe that both the manuscript and the research design have several limitations that need to be added! An example is that the authors analyse data from 2008-2018. The data analysed is 5 years old and does not include the impact of pandemics and others. Also, I think the authors could have done qualitative analysis (interviews) now and not just planned them for future research. I further recommend the authors to improve and add recommendations for practice, in my opinion it is insufficient to write: Based on our findings, firms would do well to appoint CEOs from green countries and green cultures, as they are expected to exhibit higher incentives to direct firms towards the achievement of a 'greener' and more sustainable vision (line 650-652).

 

Response:  We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We  have added discussions on the practical implications, limitations and future research agency. The discussion can be found in the last three paragraphs highlighted in red in the conclusions (page 20-21). We also re-paraphrase  the mentioned sentence.

 

Overall, I rate the paper as good and suitable for publication. I wish the authors good luck in their future work.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend checking the English language, introduction of abbreviations, minor errors and punctuation.

Response: We thank the reviewer for spotting this error, we now proofread the paper using professional services

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is interesting, it deals with an important subject regarding CEOs’ Green Culture and Environmental Values and it is my pleasure to review it.

However, I suggest several recommendations in order to improve the quality of the paper:

 The topic of the paper is up-to-date, relevant and the analysis careful and laborious. However, the objective(s) of the paper (presumed from the main results, as the clear definition of the objective of the paper is difficult to identify in the content of the article), namely "... firms run by CEOs with high environmental-friendly 12 backgrounds and 'green' cultural values are more inclined to aim for better (lower) greenhouse gas emissions ..." seems intuitive and truistic.

In other words, it is hard to believe that CEOs with high environmental-friendly backgrounds / 'green' cultural values would be uninterested or opponents of any initiative aim to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions or protect the environment.

Although suggestive and appropriate to the objectives of the study, the literature review section, is oversized, sometimes detailing excessively the contributions, studies and articles considered relevant. We recommend a compression of it to the relevant aspects, which substantiate the research questions / working hypotheses and guide the definition of the objectives of the study.

Tables 2-8 – the place and content of the sentences following the title (before the actual table) are not clear. Is it a formatting error? Are there further explanations? We recommend revising and adapting the text to the journal's instructions and, respectively, to the academic practice/rules in the field.

What are the hypotheses of the research? Where do they derive them from and how do the authors intend to test them and interpret the results?

Also, in the Conclusions section, we recommend inserting a sentence (or several sentences) mentioning the limits of the research and, implicitly, future research directions on related topics, which could not be addressed (reasons) in this paper. An invitation to an academic and professional debate (practitioners/managers, decision makers) on these topics.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article and good luck!

Author Response

Responses Letter

[Sustainability] Manuscript ID: sustainability-2740009 - Author revision

Title: Cultural and Environmental Values of CEOs on Greenhouse Gas Emission Intensity

 

Dear Editors, and Reviewesr,

 

We are very grateful for the opportunity to revise and resubmit the paper based on your valuable comments. We received a referee report and have taken your suggestions fully into consideration by addressing all the issues you raised and reflecting all your comments in this revised paper. Below is a revision template, which highlights our revisions, including the related sections – where necessary. In this revision template, your comments are provided, followed by the authors’ responses. In addition, we have also highlighted our revision in RED within our manuscript for your convenience.

 

Thank you very much for your patience and consideration.

 

Authors

 

Responses Template:

 

Reviewer comments 2

 

• The topic of the paper is up-to-date, relevant and the analysis careful and laborious. However, the objective(s) of the paper (presumed from the main results, as the clear definition of the objective of the paper is difficult to identify in the content of the article), namely "... firms run by CEOs with high environmental-friendly 12 backgrounds and 'green' cultural values are more inclined to aim for better (lower) greenhouse gas emissions ..." seems intuitive and truistic. In other words, it is hard to believe that CEOs with high environmental-friendly backgrounds / 'green' cultural values would be uninterested, or opponents of any initiative aim to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions or protect the environment.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. An additional paragraph has been added to the introduction to provide clarification on the objectives of the study. Furthermore, the foundation upon which the hypotheses were constructed has been briefly discussed (page 3). The hypotheses primarily emphasize the higher propensity of CEOs with green backgrounds to support green initiatives, rather than an absolute support for environmentally friendly actions and an absence of opposition towards them. It's crucial to note that numerous factors contribute to strategic decision-making, and individuals from environmentally conscious cultures are simply deemed more likely to engage in environmentally friendly initiatives. The hypothesis doesn't imply absolute support or complete opposition; rather, it underscores an increased probability that CEOs from green backgrounds will lead firms toward achieving lower greenhouse gas emissions.

“The influences of national values and cultural backgrounds on individual attitudes, mindsets, and behaviours have been extensively explored across disciplines, including sociology, psychology, and management (Hofstede, 2001; Breuer et al., 2014). An individual originated and raised in environments that endorse and encourage specific norms and values, tend to internalize these influences, subconsciously shaping their mindset and values as they assimilate within their respective groups (Arnocky et al., 2007). Drawing on this foundation, our hypotheses posit that CEOs from a culture and background that prioritise environmental concerns are more inclined to support initiatives aimed at protecting the environment. Consequently, firms that are led by these environmentally conscious CEOs are expected to exhibit more eco-friendly practices, including lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The green background as an influence on green behaviours has been supported by various studies, such as Huang & Wei (2023), Hershfield et al. (2014), Husted (2005). These studies highlight how an individual’s cultural and value systems can shape their pro-environmental attitudes and subsequently influence the environmental orientation of the organisations they lead.”

 

• Although suggestive and appropriate to the objectives of the study, the literature review section, is oversized, sometimes detailing excessively the contributions, studies and articles considered relevant. We recommend a compression of it to the relevant aspects, which substantiate the research questions / working hypotheses and guide the definition of the objectives of the study.

Response: Thank you for your helpful feedback. I revisited the literature review section, streamlining the content to enhance conciseness and emphasize the key studies supporting our hypotheses. The section has been refined for greater clarity.Top of Form

• Tables 2-8 – the place and content of the sentences following the title (before the actual table) are not clear. Is it a formatting error? Are there further explanations?

Response: Thank you so much for your detailed notice and comment. It is a formatting error due to different margins set by the journal. I have carefully formatted all the tables, i.e., bringing the title inside, format the row heights as well as columns width.

• We recommend revising and adapting the text to the journal's instructions and, respectively, to the academic practice/rules in the field. What are the hypotheses of the research? Where do they derive them from and how do the authors intend to test them and interpret the results?

Response:  We have added the developed hypotheses –building on both theoretical and empirical supports.

• Also, in the Conclusions section, we recommend inserting a sentence (or several sentences) mentioning the limits of the research and, implicitly, future research directions on related topics, which could not be addressed (reasons) in this paper. An invitation to an academic and professional debate (practitioners/managers, decision makers) on these topics.

Response:  We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We  have added discussions on the practical implications, limitations and future research agency. The discussion can be found in the last three paragraphs highlighted in red in the conclusions (page 20-21).

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. A  big dataset is used in the analysis and more controls for potential confounding variables that can affect the link between CEO traits and environmental outcomes can be implemented.

2. A significant part of analysis of CEOs' environmental views is based on Hofstede's cultural dimensions. This method could ignore individual cultural differences and oversimplify complicated cultural interactions. Also some more literature should be explored to build up theory and background and also discussion and future directions: Clustered institutional investors, shared ESG preferences and low-carbon innovation in family firm. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 194, 122676.

 

Policy incentives, government subsidies, and technological innovation in new energy vehicle enterprises: Evidence from China. Energy Policy, 177, 113527.

E-Commerce Development and Green Technology Innovation: Impact Mechanism and the Spatial Spillover Effect

The influence of green finance availability to retailers on purchase intention: a consumer perspective with the moderating role of consciousness

3. The study's relevance to other contexts is limited by focusing on FTSE250 enterprises. It's possible that the conclusions cannot be applied to businesses in other regions or sectors.

4. Although the study covers ten years, the changes throughout that period are expressed well. A  more thorough study could offer more insightful information on changing patterns. Why the data is only until 2018?

5. The table form appendix should be part of the content. 

6. The paper doesnt have any discussion, it must have discussion in which findings are interpreted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

needs proofreading and editing

Author Response

Responses Letter

[Sustainability] Manuscript ID: sustainability-2740009 - Author revision

Title: Cultural and Environmental Values of CEOs on Greenhouse Gas Emission Intensity

 

Dear Editors, and Reviewers,

 

We are very grateful for the opportunity to revise and resubmit the paper based on your valuable comments. We received a referee report and have taken your suggestions fully into consideration by addressing all the issues you raised and reflecting all your comments in this revised paper. Below is a revision template, which highlights our revisions, including the related sections – where necessary. In this revision template, your comments are provided, followed by the authors’ responses. In addition, we have also highlighted our revision in RED within our manuscript for your convenience.

 

Thank you very much for your patience and consideration.

 

Authors

 

Responses Template:

 

Reviewer comments 3

 

1. A big dataset is used in the analysis and more controls for potential confounding variables that can affect the link between CEO traits and environmental outcomes can be implemented.

Response: thanks for this comment. We have used several control variables for the association between CEO attributes and greenhouse gas emission as presented as previous studies suggested (CEO age, CEO duality, CEO tenure, board size, independent directors, firm size, capital expenditure, financial leverage, TobinQ, return on assets, property, plant and equipment, and foreign exchange gain/loss). Please see Table 1.

2. A significant part of analysis of CEOs' environmental views is based on Hofstede's cultural dimensions. This method could ignore individual cultural differences and oversimplify complicated cultural interactions. Also some more literature should be explored to build up theory and background and also discussion and future directions: 

Response: Thank you for your helpful feedback. The reason we choose this method because this method supports our hypothesis arguments which emphasize the higher propensity of CEOs with green backgrounds to support green initiatives, rather than an absolute support for environmentally friendly actions and an absence of opposition towards them. It's crucial to note that numerous factors contribute to strategic decision-making, and individuals from environmentally conscious cultures are simply deemed more likely to engage in environmentally friendly initiatives. The hypothesis doesn't imply absolute support or complete opposition; rather, it underscores an increased probability that CEOs from green backgrounds will lead firms toward achieving lower greenhouse gas emissions. We also revisited the literature review section, streamlining the content to enhance conciseness and emphasize the key studies supporting our hypotheses. The section has been refined for greater clarity. We further have added the developed hypotheses –building on both theoretical and empirical supports.Top of Form

3. The study's relevance to other contexts is limited by focusing on FTSE250 enterprises. It's possible that the conclusions cannot be applied to businesses in other regions or sectors.

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We added this point in the limitation which is discussed in the conclusion.

4. Although the study covers ten years, the changes throughout that period are expressed well. A more thorough study could offer more insightful information on changing patterns. Why the data is only until 2018?

Response: thanks for raising this point. The study sample is between 2009 and 2018. We chose this period to avoid the potential effects of global crises e.g., global financial crisis of 2008 and Covid-19 that may influence the validity of our results.

5. The table form appendix should be part of the content. 

Response: we moved the appendix table to section 3.3 (after describing the study variables).

6. The paper doesnt have any discussion, it must have discussion in which findings are interpreted.

Response: Thanks, we added Discussion section. Please see section 4.2.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

needs proofreading and editing

Response: We thank the reviewer for spotting this error, we now proofread the paper using professional services

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the current version of the manuscript, the authors carefully and explicitly addressed the suggestions and recommendations made by us in the previous review.

As a result, the paper is better constructed, clearer and, implicitly, more suitable for publication.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for finding the paper to be more suitable for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. the paper requires better organization. Disucssion which was added as 4.2 cannot be placed before other results. The discussion should be seperate as section 5, and can consist of implications as well

2. Some of the recommendations to put the study in the wider context, and provide recommendations by incorporating and enriching the literature were not considered

3. The tables are too many, and they need merging and consolidating. This affects readability. 

Please deal with all the points carefully.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

fine

Author Response

1. the paper requires better organization. Disucssion which was added as 4.2 cannot be placed before other results. The discussion should be seperate as section 5, and can consist of implications as well

Response: we thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We now amending and merging regression results with discussion to make it easier for reader to read both results and related discussion at the same time. We also added more Implications in the conclusion highlighted in red.

2. Some of the recommendations to put the study in the wider context, and provide recommendations by incorporating and enriching the literature were not considered

Response: we thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We amended the conclusion as suggested.

3. The tables are too many, and they need merging and consolidating. This affects readability. 

Response: we are sorry the reviewer finds the tables too many. However, we could not merge the tables as each table provides a certain test and certain robustness check. These tests were provided to increase the validity of our results. Merging them might confuse the readers.