An Optimal Compensation Agency Model for Sustainability under the Risk Aversion Utility Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the paper is important in understanding the principal-agent relationships and fair compensation model in the situation when revenue maximization meets the requirement for social responsibility and environment ptotection. But to improve the understanding of author's ideas. research results and conclusions some corrections to the paper are needed. In my view it would be better if authors explain the following: 1.the meaning of "sustainability revenue", "sustainability salary compensation", "sustainability payment contract", "sustainable operation cost" so that we can be sure that we understand it properly. 2. the interrelation between "sustainability" and "social responsibility" because authors sometimes use the term "social responsibility of sustainability" or "the company's sustainability as soical responsibility" 3.the introduction should clearly show that paper deals with the case of insurance company and show the specifics of agent-principal role of insurance companies. 

Author Response

Dear Prof. Dr. Michael McAleer, Editor in Chief

Thank you for your handling our paper and providing us the opportunity to revise the paper. We also like to thank the anonymous reviewer for the helpful and valuable comments that make the article more readable and faultless. We have followed the instructions of the reviewer and made the appropriate changes accordingly and also added more recent literatures and practical information to update the manuscript. In submitting, we provide a clean version in which a number of changes have been made, as well as a marked highlight version in which we have marked the major revisions. Meanwhile, the point-by-point concerns of the reviewer’s queries are discussed as follows (revisions marked with red color mean addition and delete with strikethrough). We hope that our revised paper can meet the journal’s and reviewer’s requirements.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is definitely of good quality. However, I lack the practical impact of research. Can a practical example and comparison of the results of these approaches be provided?

Author Response

Dear Prof. Dr. Michael McAleer, Editor in Chief

Thank you for your handling our paper and providing us the opportunity to revise the paper. We also like to thank the anonymous reviewer for the helpful and valuable comments that make the article more readable and faultless. We have followed the instructions of the reviewer and made the appropriate changes accordingly and also added more recent literature and practical information to update the manuscript. In submitting, we provide a clean version in which a number of changes have been made, as well as a marked highlight version in which we have marked the major revisions. Meanwhile, the point-by-point concerns of the reviewer’s queries are discussed as follows (revisions marked with red color mean addition in the whole manuscript). We hope that our revised paper can meet the journal’s and reviewer’s requirements.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I read carefully the paper entitled: ”An Optimal Compensation Agency Model for Sustainability under the Risk Aversion Utility”.

 

I notice that the JRFM teplate is not used.

The authors return with the new format. Keywords should also exist in the abstract: "financial", "risk", "management"

In my opinion, the reader of such a work would have more to gain if the structure were revised.

For example, it would be good to include a short Introduction (one page) and Literature review (1.5 - 2 pages).

Also, a better documentation of the paper implies the extension of References (approx. 50-60  papers).

The text for "Conclusions" is too long. It should be restructured, resynthesized / shortened.

 

It would be good to expand the bibliography with some articles from prestigious scientific journals (WoS) published in 2019 and 2020.

 

All in all, eventually, it may be seen by an English teacher (native).

Author Response

Dear Prof. Dr. Michael McAleer, Editor in Chief

Thank you for your handling our paper and providing us the opportunity to revise the paper. We also like to thank the anonymous reviewer for the helpful and valuable comments that make the article more readable and faultless. We have followed the instructions of the reviewer and made the appropriate changes accordingly and also added more recent literatures and practical information to update the manuscript. In submitting, we provide a clean version in which a number of changes have been made, as well as a marked highlight version in which we have marked the major revisions. Meanwhile, the point-by-point concerns of the reviewer’s queries are discussed as follows (revisions marked with red color mean addition and delete with strikethrough). We hope that our revised paper can meet the journal’s and reviewer’s requirements.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

requested comments have been incorporated

Reviewer 3 Report

The improvements made are notable.