Impact of Non-Financial Information on Sustainable Reporting of Organisations’ Performance: Case Study on the Companies Listed on the Bucharest Stock Exchange
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The chosen topic is interesting and up to date. However, the presentation could be improved. First of all, authors should check and use the same term ("environment") describing the same things.
Authors declare at the beginning of the article that the data are obtained from the secondary sources, on the other hand, in the text - that "The data have been collected ... from the reports uploaded and available on the web pages of their own entities or from the web page of IIRC". Probably the data from secondary sources is also one of the limitations of the research? It will be worth if the authors clarify this.
The presentation of the tables should be improved. It is necessary to indicate not only the "technical" title of the tables but clear information about the data presented in the tables (ex., The ANOVA Test, "probably" the idea behind these data is not Anova itself).
All illustrations (tables, figures) should answer the following questions: what, where, when, and the measure of presented data (ex. in Table 5 there are presented various numbers and the units of measurement are different - so it is difficult to understand the data and what authors want to present).
The tables themself should be numbered "Table 1" not Table no 1 (it was found in the text and describing the table itself).
It is necessary to indicate the source of data presented in the tables and/or the authorship.
The table presented on page 9 has nighter a number nor title.
Section 2. Review of Specialised Literature - I suggest renaming and indicate what kind of literature/topic it represents.
The section Discussions and conclusions is more related to the conclusions and only on the conclusions of the "case study" but not the entire article.
The page numbering is incorrect (there is a couple of page 2, page 3).
I would propose to revise English as it is complicated to understand the idea in the article.
Author Response
Point 1: The chosen topic is interesting and up to date. However, the presentation could be improved. First of all, authors should check and use the same term ("environment") describing the same things.
Response 1: The authors have verified the paper and the same term("environment") is used.
Point 2: Authors declare at the beginning of the article that the data are obtained from the secondary sources, on the other hand, in the text - that "The data have been collected ... from the reports uploaded and available on the web pages of their own entities or from the web page of IIRC". Probably the data from secondary sources is also one of the limitations of the research? It will be worth if the authors clarify this.
Response 2: The authors have clarified this aspect, the data has been collected from the reports uploaded and available on the web pages of their own entities or from the web page of IIRC.
Point 3: The presentation of the tables should be improved. It is necessary to indicate not only the "technical" title of the tables but clear information about the data presented in the tables (ex., The ANOVA Test, "probably" the idea behind these data is not Anova itself).
Response 3: The authors have improved the presentation of the tables. The titles of table 6 and table 7 have been renamed, offering clearer information on the data presented in the tables.
Point 4: All illustrations (tables, figures) should answer the following questions: what, where, when, and the measure of presented data (ex. in Table 5 there are presented various numbers and the units of measurement are different - so it is difficult to understand the data and what authors want to present).
Response 4: The authors have presented details and explanations for all tables and figures. For instance, in table 5, you can find detailed numerical values explained under the said table.
Point 5: The tables themselves should be numbered "Table 1" not Table no 1 (it was found in the text and describing the table itself).
Response 5: The authors have corrected the numbering of the tables, instead of “Table no. 1”, “Table 1” was written.
Point 6: It is necessary to indicate the source of data presented in the tables and/or the authorship.
Response 6: The source of data and/or the tables’ authors have been added. This was added within the text because the article’s rules of redaction do not allow the source to be mentioned under the tables or under the figure.
Point 7: The table presented on page 9 has neither a number nor title.
Response 7: The authors have added the number and title of the table on page 9.
Point 8: Section 2. Review of Specialized Literature - I suggest renaming and indicate what kind of literature/topic it represents.
Response 8: The authors have renamed Section 2, it’s about Literature Review.
Point 9: The section Discussions and conclusions is more related to the conclusions and only on the conclusions of the "case study" but not the entire article.
Response 9: In the “Discussions and conclusions” section the authors have added some ideas regarding the whole article, besides those regarding the conclusions of the case study.
Point 10: The page numbering is incorrect (there is a couple of page 2, page 3).
Response 10: The authors have corrected the page numbering.
Point 11: I would propose to revise English as it is complicated to understand the idea in the article.
Response 11: The authors have turned to a specialized English translator, with extensive experience in translating economic texts. The translator has also translated articles and books indexed in BDI like:
- Modelling and Simulation in Management: Econometric Models Used in the Management of Organizations (2015), SPRINGER International Publishing, Switzerland.
- Systemic Approaches to Strategic Management (2015), IGI Global Publishing House, USA.
- Industrial Production Management in Flexible Manufacturing Systems (2013), IGI Global Publishing House, USA.
The authors have added a few sources to the bibliography. At row 494-496; 512-515; 522-524; 542-544; 547-550.
The authors used the world- Track Changes feature to review the article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The reviewed paper, Impact of Non-Financial Information on Sustainable Reporting of Organisations’ Performance: Case study on the Companies Listed on the Bucharest Stock Exchange, is an interesting look at what factors may contribute to large companies listed on the Bucharest Stock Exchange complying with international best practices with regards to sustainability reporting. The authors posit two hypotheses regarding why certain companies report or do not and then test these hypotheses using quantitative data derived from information made available by the BSE via the IRIS system.
This research appears to be competently conducted and is clearly a topic of timely importance, given then increased responsibilities of publically-listed companies to report on sustainable practices, both legally and from a PR perspective. That this study was conducted with respect to (the largest?) entities listed on the BSE is of particular interest, given the process of integrating Romania's economy with that of the broader EU. I have no doubt that the readers of Sustainability would find this to be a topic of some interest.
The paper itself is clearly organized, and the authors provide strong evidence for their assertions and conclusions.
However, I do believe this paper would benefit from a small amount of copy editing regarding English language usage and grammar, to improve the clarity and flow of the text.
Additionally, there are a few table errors that could be corrected. In Table 2, a number of the column headers are misaligned (but this may be due to copyediting. Table 3 is missing a title, and also has some misalignments, although fewer than Table 2.
While not an essential addition, I believe that the paper could also benefit from short characterization or table outlining, at least broadly, the 15 companies that are being analyzed as bank, utility, etc. for readers unfamiliar with Romanian businesses.
None of this should be taken as a fundamental criticism of the paper, however, which is quite good!
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
The reviewed paper, Impact of Non-Financial Information on Sustainable Reporting of Organisations’ Performance: Case study on the Companies Listed on the Bucharest Stock Exchange, is an interesting look at what factors may contribute to large companies listed on the Bucharest Stock Exchange complying with international best practices with regards to sustainability reporting. The authors posit two hypotheses regarding why certain companies report or do not and then test these hypotheses using quantitative data derived from information made available by the BSE via the IRIS system.
This research appears to be competently conducted and is clearly a topic of timely importance, given then increased responsibilities of publically-listed companies to report on sustainable practices, both legally and from a PR perspective. That this study was conducted with respect to (the largest?) entities listed on the BSE is of particular interest, given the process of integrating Romania's economy with that of the broader EU. I have no doubt that the readers of Sustainability would find this to be a topic of some interest.
The paper itself is clearly organized, and the authors provide strong evidence for their assertions and conclusions.
Point 1: However, I do believe this paper would benefit from a small amount of copy editing regarding English language usage and grammar, to improve the clarity and flow of the text.
Response 1: The authors have turned to a specialized English translator, with extensive experience in translating economic texts. The translator has also translated articles and books indexed in BDI like:
- Modelling and Simulation in Management: Econometric Models Used in the Management of Organizations (2015), SPRINGER International Publishing, Switzerland.
- Systemic Approaches to Strategic Management (2015), IGI Global Publishing House, USA.
- Industrial Production Management in Flexible Manufacturing Systems (2013), IGI Global Publishing House, USA.
Point 2: Additionally, there are a few table errors that could be corrected. In Table 2, a number of the column headers are misaligned (but this may be due to copyediting. Table 3 is missing a title, and also has some misalignments, although fewer than Table 2.
Response 2: The authors have corrected the errors in table 2 and the wrong column aligners. Also, in table 3, the title was added and the alignment errors were corrected.
Point 3: While not an essential addition, I believe that the paper could also benefit from short characterization or table outlining, at least broadly, the 15 companies that are being analyzed as bank, utility, etc. for readers unfamiliar with Romanian businesses.
Response 3: In the table 1, the authors added a new column that presented a detail of the activity of the 15 companies, for readers unfamiliar with Romanian businesses.
None of this should be taken as a fundamental criticism of the paper, however, which is quite good!
The authors have added a few sources to the bibliography. At row 494-496; 512-515; 522-524; 542-544; 547-550.
The authors used the world- Track Changes feature to review the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
