Differences in Tax Avoidance According to Corporate Sustainability with a Focus on Delisted Firms
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion the structure of the paper, as well as the literature review has been developed. The authors have correctedthe calculations and have suggested major revisions which have the positive impact on the paper.
The authors have also added important information about the reasons of choosing Korea as the case study example, have also provided more details about the definitions and theoretical background (mainly the broad concept of tax avoidance).
The authors have also pointed on how the hypothesis has been proved and what supports their approach.
In my personal opinion the paper can be published in the presented form.
Author Response
Thank you for your positive opinion. We revised the manuscript reflecting the opinions of other reviewer. The revised contents are presented in the attached file. I would appreciate it if you could give me your opinion on whether you agree with the revised content.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The subject is interesting and the authors have presented it very well. However, the results should be developed more with authors' own interpretation (but also referring to the findings of previous studies). In the conclusions, the authors should include more practical implications of their findings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised paper did not address most of the comments in round 1. Below comments remain unsolved:
1. About citations: there's no need to put the author's name and year in the text when you use the sustainability journal reference style. Please refer to other published papers in the journal.
2. A well founded theoretical framework and underlying theory are missing in the literature review to develop the hypothesis.
3. Why choose Korea? Elaborations should be included in the Introduction section and the Literature review section.
4. Section 3.2: Justifications and literature are required for choosing each variable and its measure.
5. More elaborations are required to explain why an effective tax rate can measure tax avoidance.
6. Distribution by year is required for the full sample and delisted firms, respectively.
7. All tables should have the full names and measures of each variable as notes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors improved and revised a lot and have addressed most of my comments. However, I have a question regarding the response given to comment 3 'why choose Korea as the research context?': 'There are various regulations related to delisting in Korea. Therefore, it has suitable conditions for conducting research related to delisting.'
I don't understand this causality. How do delisting regulations form suitable conditions to conduct research? Conventionally, the reason to do research is that the authors found some gaps in the literature or problems from phenomenon. How can regulations become the reasons to conduct research? Can you explain why?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion, the article is a well prepared paper. It contains good structure as well as well it has all the section the academic paper should have. The authors describe the methodology as well as they provide the reader with sufficient calculations which eventually led to conclusions.
I would however suggest authors to stronlgy show why the Sustainability policy plays an important role in internal taxation policy of the company. In other words, what impact taxes have on the company (please provide more theoretical and empirical background - perhaps more literature review of more European, American papers and books?).
What is more, I would suggest to present briefly some international examples like Europe, US perhaps Africa (show to what extent other companies in other countries follow the presented in the paper policy).
I would suggest to present what are the possible further research that can be made with the results authors got. What are the findings for other researchers. In other words, how can the paper and its findings can be used by others? How can we extend the research?
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is challenging for the reader. However, the authors have to improve some aspects:
- to reformulate the abstract so that the purpose and the results of the paper to be clear;
- to develop the research specific objectives and their relevance/added value of the paper in the introductory part;
- to improve the critical review /analysis of the literature in relation with the paper objectives;
- to develop the results interpretation/analysis, not only from the statistical perspective, but especially looking to the theoretical interpretation, the stage of the art presented/included in the literature overview and in relation with the aim , specific objectives and the hypothesis of the paper;
- in the conclusion part, to present more practical implications of the results.
Apart from these aspects, the paper needs proof-reading.
Reviewer 3 Report
1. There are many mistakes in the written language;
2. Citation formats are all wrong;
3. A deviation of the paper title to the content and hypothesis development. There’s no elaboration on the tax strategies (inc. what are the types of tax strategies and how this relates to corporate sustainability). Are you referring to the going concern or listing status when you mention ‘corporate sustainability'? If yes, then this working paper has nothing to do with the sustainability scope of the journal; if no, you need to explain and relate tax strategies, listing status, with ‘corporate sustainability' in the main content.
4. A well-founded theoretical framework and underlying theory are missing in the literature review to develop the hypothesis.
5. Why choose Korea? Elaborations should be included in the Introduction section and the Literature review section.
6. Section 3.2: Justifications and literature are required for choosing each variable and its measure.
7. More elaborations are required to explain why an effective tax rate can measure tax avoidance.
8. Distribution by year is required for the full sample and delisted firms, respectively.
9. All tables should have the full names and measures of each variable as notes.
10. Study limitations and future research avenues are missing in the Conclusion section.
