The Effects of Managerial Competency and Local Religiosity on Corporate Environmental Responsibility
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
A file is attached to address comments of the reviewer 1.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
2 typos line 24 there is tab inserted that should be removed, the word attitudes is cut. Line 42 behavior is misspelled.
It is not clear in section 2 if the paragraph starting line 112 to line 115 should not be moved under hypothesis 2. The link between competent manager and CER then should be made clearer given what is explained at the beginning of section 2. Competent managers make better decision and being CER is a strategic move.
Regarding data and then estimation I think that the category "Industrials" is too heteregeneous for example it includes Delta Airlines and Eaton. These industries are subject to different "green" regulations.
Footnote 6 make clearer that the two variables moves in opposite directions then estimated coefficient should have opposite sign (columns 1 and 2 table 1).
You have a problem with table 2 it seems that SALES and REVENUE are identical variables see also appendix B. Then estimated coefficients and statistics are the same. It is therefore not a kind of robusteness check.
In table in appendix B, you have to check your data. The variable Managerial Competency is in between 0 and 1 then I do not understand that the min is negative and the max positive.
Appendix A is great and very useful it allows to check the data. I really loved this table.
Author Response
A file is attached, addressing comments of the reviewer 2.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the review possibility of this interesting paper. There are a few imperfections those must be improved:
- Look at the introduction and justification for the study in particular by using the literature to provide research gap. This will situate the study in a better context.
- Introduction and literature review are not satisfied. The justification for the study and/or research gap is quite missing apart from the contextual reason.
- Results presentation section is very informative, it should be related to the hypothesis
- Results discussion is not related to previous studies. You can improve the discussions by discussing the implications of each of the key findings. Thus, both theoretical/academic and practical implications. At present, this is weak in the paper.
- The conclusions must be improved, clearly indicating the main conclusion, and relating it to the literature supporting the paper ("according to (...), or" unlike (...) "). There should be presented some recommendations in the conclusion as well as future study proposals
Author Response
A Word file is attached, addressing comments of the Reviewer 3.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
There are many other factors that could be effective in your setting, which you should at least discuss to give readers a more comprehensive view and promote further research. For instance,
- Li, F., Young, B., Morris, T. 2019. Corporate Visibility in Print Media and Corporate Social Responsibility. Sustainability
- Ikram, A., Li, Z.F. and MacDonald, T., 2020. CEO Pay Sensitivity (Delta and Vega) and Corporate Social Responsibility. Sustainability, 12(19), p.7941.
Author Response
The response is attached herewith.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors responded to all comments.
Author Response
We greatly appreciate your kind consideration of our responses. Thank you very much.
