Environmental, Social, and Governance Disclosures and Market Reaction of Thai-Listed Companies in the Alternative Capital Market

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.     The abstract of this study should also provide some specific policy recommendations.

2.     The inclusion of detailed descriptive statistics in the abstract is not recommended. It is better to discuss the descriptive in detail in the results section.

3.     The main contribution of this study should be highlighted in the background section of this study.

4.     The authors have identified signaling theory as a relevant framework for their research. This paper references signaling theory to explain ESG disclosures as a "signal" to investors; however, signaling theory primarily explains how managers share information to reduce information gaps. It does not directly address ESG performance, particularly environmental factors. The authors should establish a clearer connection between signaling theory and their arguments. Doing so would strengthen their theoretical framework and make the linkage more explicit.

5.     The introduction lacks a clear problem statement and specific research gaps.

6.     There is no explicit justification for the focus on the Market for Alternative Investment (MAI) instead of the main Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET).

7.     Additional explanation about the ESG disclosure scoring method should be provided.

8.     The regression analysis does not address potential endogeneity issues.

9.     Using robustness tests/sensitivity analysis may strengthen the reliability of findings of this study.

10.  A separate section on control variables should be added to provide details on how they were selected and measured.

11.  An additional column in Table 1 should include the source of the measures used for each variable.

12.  The conclusion overstates the practical implications of the findings without providing sufficient supporting evidence.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need improvement

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 "ESG Disclosures and Market Reaction of Thai Listed Companies in the Alternative Capital Market"

Overall Assessment

This study investigates the impact of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) disclosures on the market reaction of companies listed on the Market for Alternative Investment  in Thailand. While the study addresses a relevant topic and provides some interesting insights, there are several areas that require significant improvement before it can be considered for publication. Therefore, I recommend a major revision.

Major Comments

1. Theoretical Framework: The study relies on signaling theory to explain the relationship between ESG disclosures and market reaction. However, the application of the theory is superficial. The authors should elaborate on how signaling theory applies specifically to the Thai context and the mai market. They should also discuss the potential limitations of using signaling theory in this context.  
2. Methodology: The study uses content analysis to measure ESG disclosures. While this is a common approach, the authors should provide more details about the checklist used and how it was validated. They should also discuss the potential limitations of using content analysis to measure ESG disclosures.  
3. Data Analysis: The study uses multiple regression analysis to examine the relationship between ESG disclosures and market reaction. However, the authors should consider using additional statistical techniques to further explore the data. For example, they could use path analysis to examine the mediating role of investor perceptions.
4. Discussion: The discussion section is relatively weak. The authors should provide a more in-depth analysis of their findings and discuss the implications of their study for theory and practice. They should also discuss the limitations of their study in more detail.

Minor Comments

1. Introduction: The introduction could be more engaging. The authors should provide a more compelling rationale for their study and clearly state the research questions.
2. Literature Review: The literature review is adequate but could be more comprehensive. The authors should include more recent studies on ESG disclosures and market reaction.
3. Results: The results section is generally well-written. However, the authors should provide more explanation of their findings.
4. Conclusion: The conclusion is adequate but could be more impactful. The authors should summarize the key findings of their study and discuss the implications of their findings for future research and practice.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English in this paper needs significant improvement

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents substantial empirical evidence regarding the impact of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) disclosures in Thailand's alternative capital market. The research analyzes a large dataset that spans five years (2017–2021) and includes 555 firm-year observations. The study employs a robust statistical approach, utilizing multiple regression analysis while incorporating control variables. This methodology provides a solid foundation for the research, making the study quite valuable.

 

The findings highlight the importance of transparent governance and reveal potential investor skepticism toward environmental initiatives. Future research should incorporate qualitative assessments of ESG factors, track long-term performance, and compare results across different markets to further refine these conclusions.

The article could be accepted in its current form, and I don't have any additional comments on how to improve it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is ready to be published 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The english needs to be improved