Review Reports
by
- Evangelos Soras * and
- Apostolos G. Christopoulos
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Burak Pirgaip
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review the paper. Here I have some remarks for the authors regarding the article.
1. The title “The requirements of the legislation for reporting on ESG issues: The case of the printing, packaging, paper bagging and labeling sector in Greece” does not clearly reflect the essence of the article. It should be specified.
2. Keywords could be more specific, for example, I would add "Greece".
3. The write-up of the introduction section could be improved for conciseness and a smooth flow of ideas. There needs to be a solid storyline. What is the controversy in the research context (Greece)? How is it relevant to the issue of the study i.e. requirements of the legislation for reporting on ESG issues: The case of the printing, packaging, paper bagging, and labeling sector in Greece. We need to analyze this problem in the broader context, i.e. worldwide, not only in Greece.
4. 33 row. Why Greece is classified as a developing country?
5. Section "Literature review" contains only two theories, but we need not present the theory, but explain the phenomenon in the light of these theories. Additionally, there is no analysis of previous research on the chosen phenomenon: who had researched this problem earlier, what are the research results, and what gap in this field?
6. Authors should analyze requirements for the disclosure of ESG issues in the broader context - what are requirements worldwide, European Union, and the last region - Greece.
7. The section "Data and Methodology" should be improved with an exact explanation of what will be done in the research. I recommend instead presenting the ESG issues calling them variables and showing how it will be calculated index (score) (159-161 rows).
8. 137-139 rows contain the same information as in the introduction.
9. 140-147 rows should be in the introduction with strong argumentation and referencing.
10. I did not find the answer to why it was explored 2020-2021 period. Usually, scientific research uses longer periods.
11. 155-157 rows contain repetition.
12. Additional variables are presented in 163-173 rows. Why authors choose these variables? We need a broader explanation of why these determinants are taken to make the analysis. When authors present previous research in this field, they could take the same variables for their analysis, and to explain them, authors will be able to hypothesize the research questions and compare research results with earlier studies.
13. The text from 219-221 rows needs a more detailed explanation and argumentation.
14. The main problem with the presentation of the results of the study is that the authors refer to the relationship between the two variables as a positive correlation (rows 227, 241, 252, 254, 257, 272, 282, 287, 326, 332) when they have not calculated a correlation (a coefficient). Here, we can only see from the calculations that the different groups have different values for the variables, but this is not a correlation. Please, use another statement to describe the results of the study. Or you can calculate additionally correlation coefficient to make more reasonable conclusions.
15. I did not find a serious discussion of the results and their interpretation in the light of theories and practical implications of the research. Why this research was performed, and to whom it can be interesting and useful? Conclusions in 323-339 rows are written with references, so I don't understand who the author of these sentences... Additionally, there are quite more limitations of the study.
16. Is the term "turnover" the same as total revenue, revenue per year? I suggest changing "turnover" to "revenues" because it is a more usual term in scientific articles.
Good luck!
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish language must be improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to thank you for your time and comments. Please find attached for more details.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to thank you for your time and comments. Please find attached for more details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper examines the compliance of companies in the printing, packaging, paper bagging, and labeling sector in Greece with the requirements of Greek legislation for reporting on ESG issues. The study finds the following:
- The overall average compliance rating of the printing, packaging, paper bagging, and labeling sector in Greece for reporting on ESG issues is below 50%, indicating the need for improvement
- There is a positive correlation between the compliance rating and factors such as total assets, turnover, annual fluctuation in turnover, profits, number of employees, possession of ISO certificates, and involvement of an external auditor .
- Companies active in packaging (cardboard box) and paper bagging have higher compliance ratings compared to those in printing (lithography) and labeling .
- Companies operating in the region of Attica have higher compliance ratings compared to those in other parts of Greece, particularly Northern Greece
- Older companies tend to have higher compliance ratings, suggesting that younger companies may prioritize gaining market share over ESG issues.
The paper is interesting and provides valuable information regarding a local regulation on ESG. However, I have the following reservations:
1- First, there are many typos in the paper that should be corrected after a careful review of the language used.
2- The introduction is concise, but it lacks the contribution of the study. In addition, it does not give any information about why Greece is taken as the study of interest. It is obvious that the specific regulation is the main reason, but what in fact the Management Report of Directors’ Board to General Assembly is should be emphasized more clearly. I recommend a dedicated section explaining the provisions of the regulation either as a subsection within the literature review or as a separate section. The relevant information presented in data and methodology could be moved to that section. I also recommend to give the motivational background in the selection of the sectors in the introduction rather than disclosing it in the data and methodology. Finally, I recommend to provide a brief information on the methodology used in the introduction as well.
2- The literature is very thin and it seems too outdated. I recommend to review the contemporary literature that would give the reader some insights to the subject matter. For instance, the authors may find some relevant pieces that focus on the impact of local ESG regulations around the world. So, the reader could comprehend whether Greece makes a difference in this context.
3- Considering the methodology, I would recommend to give more information about the rating methodology. I understand that firms that cover all thirteen topics, the company will receive a 100% rating, but what about others? Do the authors give the same weight to thirteen topics? How did they evaluate the information? These would be relevant to share with the reader.
4- The stratified analyses are reasonable. However, I would like to see whether the differences among the groups are statistically significant. The results apparently show the positive relation between the compliance rating and the total assets, the turnover, the annual fluctuation in the turnover, the profits for the period, the number of the employees, the possession of ISO certificates and the involvement of an external auditor. However, are the four groups in each stratum different? Can we say that for instance first quadrant is really different than the fourth? This is important because the results, although they provide clues about the relation, may not be exactly saying that, for instance, the average compliance rating of 4th turnover quadrant is significantly higher than the 1st turnover quadrant (table 4). Thus, I recommend at least some tests of differences in means/medians.
5- The methodology section signifies "correlation", however I do not see any correlation analyses at all. Is this pearson correlation? If so, it should be included in the relevant tables.
6- Finally, I would like to know how many companies withing the sample are listed in the stock exchange. I am of the view that listed companies may possess higher ratings compared to the privately held ones.
Good luck...
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to thank you for your time and comments. Please find attached for more details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The title “The requirements of the legislation for reporting on ESG issues: The case of the printing, packaging, paper bagging and labeling sector in Greece” does not reflect the essence of the article. When you read the title, you expect the article to analyze ESG disclosure requirements, but the purpose of the study is quite different. It should be specified. And it will not cause any problems with monitoring of the article.
2. Too many keywords.
3. The write-up of the introduction section must be improved for conciseness and a smooth flow of ideas. There needs to be a solid storyline. Who has analyzed this problem earlier and what additional evidence we will get after the research in Greece in this particular sector? We need to analyze this problem in the broader context, i.e. worldwide, not only in Greece. How economic crisis in Greece affect ESG reporting? We need explanations.
Additionally, all added information needs references, especially statistics data (103-117rows).
4. 49-53 rows. Please, provide exact sources that classify Greece as a developing country. It is very strange... Greece is a developed country according to all sources (see www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/02/weodata/groups.htm#ea
5. 70-87 rows. Companies are obliged to follow Directive 2014/95/EU on
the disclosure of non-financial and diversity information, exceeding both 500 employees and one of the two-dimensional limits (total assets of 20 million EUR and total revenues of 40 million EUR) from 2017. We can not identify this from the text.
6. 134-162 rows present the structure of the article while other authors of the scientific articles present this item in just 4-5 rows. I don't understand why the structure here is so important that it takes so much place.
7. Section "Literature review" presents theories, but authors must interpret and explain the phenomenon in the light of these theories. Additionally, there is no analysis of previous research on the chosen phenomenon: who had researched this problem earlier, what are the research results, and what gap in this field? Why do we need one more research in this particular field?
8. 223-246 rows. Information is very chaotic. I advise avoiding paragraphs with one sentence because we need consistency in the text. 245-246 rows - source is needed.
9. 313-314 rows repeat 305-306 rows.
10. I recommend instead presenting the ESG issues calling them variables and showing how they will be calculated index (score)
11. 327-329 rows. Requirements of the journal don't need to present the source with the edition and the number of pages, title; only year and surname are needed.
12. 400, 428, 459, 484, 509, 530, 586, 621-625, 652 rows. Is this correlation coefficient statistically significant (with p<0,05 or 0,01)? Usually, authors present correlation coefficients with the following values.
13. Additional variables are presented in 317-326 rows. We need a broader explanation of why these determinants are taken to make the analysis. When authors present previous research in this field, they could take the same variables for their analysis, and to explain them, authors will be able to hypothesize the research questions and compare research results with earlier studies.
14. So what are the practical and theoretical implications of the research? Why this research was performed, and to whom it can be interesting and useful? Conclusions in 600-632 are very chaotic.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is quite good.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to thank you for your time and comments. Please find attached for more details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMost (though not all) of my comments have been answered and I am therefore pleased with the revised version. Congratulations on all your hard work! I do, however, recommend a complete read-through of the article to check the formatting, clarify all the abbreviations in the article and proofread the English.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe article must be proofread in English by an experienced, native English-speaking proofreader. The text must be checked for the correct use of grammar and common technical terms, and edited to a level suitable for communicating research in an academic journal.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to thank you for your time and comments. Please find attached for more details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the rigorous work. I can only have a suggestion for the overall layout. The legislation and its provisions can be moved to a special sub-section, e.g. "legal framework", within the literature review.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to thank you for your time and comments. Please find attached for more details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCongratulations! The article looks like more better than its previous versions.
Maybe there are some places where too much legislation acts with repetitions. Additionally, only two improvements can be suggested:
1.730-736 rows about p values are unnecessary, just enough to write that correlation is statistically significant in the paragraph about correlations (725-729 rows). The same is true in the abstract (19-23 rows).
2. The abstract should be shortened according to the requirements of the journal.
Good luck!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your time and comments. Please find attached for more details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf