Investigating the Relationship Between ESG Performance and Financial Performance During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from the Hotel Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review report

1. Percent match: 9%: is good to be accepted after the full revision of the manuscript.

2. Literature Review: More recent research papers (cited references) uptoday should be joined to this theoritical farmework section.

We recommed to add cleair new theoritical table composed by ( Author's papers, Publication year reference, Results founded). This table will provide more theoritical implications for your findings in this study. And to compare your findings to other cited references ( 2021-2024).

3. Results section:

 * Methodology used:  Join clair figure/ Graphic illustate  your methodology and you main steps.

*  shock depth (SD) and recovery rate (RR) : Join cited references ( authors who had used in theyr research papers)

* The study commenced with a sample of the 50 companies. But, 14 companies were excluded due to incomplete data: Explain more which kind of data were missed in ordder to be excluded from your sample?

*  Table 4. (Comparison of ESG Scores and K-ratios for companies with positive (K>0) and negative 408 (K<0) K-ratios): Could you explain more these numirical results in this table:  

   ** Average ESG Score for 60,9 Vs. 69,6? what the main difference and implication for the sampling companies?

  ** Average G : 9,2 Vs.  62,8? the same to be analysed

  ** Average S : 65,5   Vs. 76,8 ? 

  *** (69,3) : Join ststistical signification note under the table  to specify numbers !

5. Discussion section:  Separe from the result section.

6. Join the limitation section and future recommendation research as new section before the conclusion.

7. The originality/ vlaue of the current study is mendatory to get more visibility and usage for practitioners and policymakers.

8. Grammar and spellings:  check the english language 

G luck

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive suggestions. We have revised the manuscript based on your recommendations, ensuring a more comprehensive literature review, clearer methodology presentation, and improved discussion of results. Specifically:

• We have added recent references (2021–2024) to strengthen the literature review and introduced a summary table that highlights key findings from previous research.
• A methodology figure has been included to illustrate the main analytical steps.
• Additional citations on Shock Depth (SD) and Recovery Rate (RR) have been incorporated to contextualize their application.
• The exclusion of 14 companies from the sample is now clearly explained, detailing the specific missing data that led to their removal.
• We have expanded the interpretation of Table 4, explaining the numerical differences and their implications for ESG performance and financial resilience.
• The discussion has been separated from the results section and further developed to integrate comparisons with previous studies.
• A new section on limitations and future research has been added before the conclusion.
• The manuscript has been language-checked for improved clarity and readability.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Report of "Investigating the relationship between ESG performance and 2 financial performance during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evi- 3 dence from the hotel industry"

The paper has an original idea concerning the use of ESG score combined with the financial variables and instruments. But, it need some implication of environment and crisis in the model. So, I recommend the author to take into account these remarks :

- Try to add more supplementary variables of environnement as : emission of carbone, waste management, emission trading system of cabon given in each hotel, tax of carbon..

The adding of theses variables lead the paper to be more financial analysed 

- Use the "difference and difference" approach to detect the ESG change and include the DID in your model. 

references 

https://journaleska.com/index.php/bmi/article/view/309   (for DID approach)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652624016366 (for ESG variables )

 https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/ (database of carbon) 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and thoughtful suggestions. We appreciate your recommendations regarding the inclusion of environmental variables and the Difference-in-Differences (DID) approach. Below, we address these points and clarify our methodological choices.

• Environmental Variables: While we acknowledge the significance of environmental factors such as carbon emissions and waste management, our study focuses on assessing ESG performance in relation to financial resilience using firm-level ESG scores. Given our research objectives and data constraints, we have not included specific environmental indicators in our methodology. Incorporating additional environmental variables would require a different analytical framework that extends beyond the current study’s scope.
• Difference-in-Differences (DID) Approach: While DID is a valuable method for causal inference, it is not included in our research design. Our methodology is centred on Shock Depth (SD), Recovery Rate (RR), the Value-Added Weekly Index, and K-ratio, which provide a comprehensive assessment of financial resilience during the COVID-19 crisis. These indicators align with our dataset and research goals, ensuring a precise evaluation of ESG-financial performance interactions.

We appreciate your insightful suggestions and hope that this clarification helps to contextualize our methodological choices. Thank you again for your constructive feedback, and we look forward to any further comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents the relationship between Environmental, Social, and Governance performance and financial performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. The methodology employed in this study involve to assess short-term financial resilience use Shock Depth and Recovery Rate indicators and long-term performance through the Value-Added Weekly Index and K-ratio. This finding suggests potential trade-offs between improving financial performance and maintaining governance standards. The study underscores the intricate interplay between ESG and financial metrics during systemic crises, providing valuable insights for risk management and strategic planning in the hospitality sector. The implications of these findings extend to the enhancement of resilience and the alignment of ESG strategies with financial sustainability.

I think, the study is interesting, and the paper is generally well prepared, with relevant data. However, I have following observation and remark.

The work lacks discussion and reference of the obtained results with the results of other researchers. The authors attempted to point out the advantages of their research in the introduction, but without references to the literature. Such a discussion should be found after the presentation of results. Therefore, it is suggested to supplement the work with such a chapter.

Author Response

We appreciate your positive feedback and thoughtful recommendations, particularly regarding strengthening the discussion and linking findings to previous research. In response:

• We have expanded the discussion section by comparing our results with previous studies on ESG and financial performance during systemic crises.
• Additional citations have been included to highlight similarities and differences between our findings and existing literature.
• We have clarified how our research contributes to risk management strategies, financial resilience, and the alignment of ESG strategies with economic sustainability.

Thank you once again for your detailed and valuable feedback. We look forward to your further insights.

Best regards

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We thank you for your revised version draft.

Make sure in the References section the 'Doi references' for each cited reference.

G luck.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and for reviewing our revised draft.

We have carefully updated the References section, ensuring that DOI references have been added to all sources where available. 

We appreciate your time and consideration.

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author must clarify more the empirical models.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your insightful feedback.

We have revised the manuscript to provide a more detailed explanation of the empirical models, including their assumptions, specifications, and justification for their application. You can find these clarifications in lines 171–185 and 193–194. Additional refinements have been made to enhance transparency and improve readability.

We appreciate your time and constructive input.

Best regards