Corporate Social Responsibility of Chinese Multinational Enterprises: A Review and Future Research Agenda

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Theoretical foundation is very weak.

MNE related research trends need to be presented

CSR could be explained by more various theoretical foundation. The authors need to present it as more organized manners. 

Authors need to to present more about the method for the selection of journal and its criteria using method section. Otherwise, the results are not reliable. 

Conceptual framework is very general. What could become the unique point of conceptual framework?

Author Response

Please see the attached response letter. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors in this study analyzes the corporate social responsibility (CSR) of Chinese multina-tional enterprises (CMNEs) published in top-tier management and international business journals and extracted six key constructs from the literarure review and, examined their interconnections. The article is well written and can be accepted after incorporating the following comments:

1. The abstract doesnt represent the important outcomes of the reserach.

2. The authors should make the disgram to represent the theme of this review article and shows the inputs and the expected outputs.

3. The author could use some simple regression or clustor model to show the significane of this reserach.

4. Nomenclature and Acknowledgements are missing.

Author Response

Please see the attached response letter. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic is actual and vital. Formally this contribution should be classified as a review, not an article. The Authors did not state the review aim/question of this review. The Authors researched CSR theories and concepts, but they are not well described and addressed in the study and discussion. The structure of the paper and the methodology is unclear. Point 2. should be moved after table 2 because it discusses the theories. Why agency theory and upper echelons theory are not concerned? There is also a need for other ideas in table 2 to be mentioned, classified, and somehow concluded in the text. After the Introduction, methodological issues should be discussed, as the research procedure and outcomes are unclear. The Authors should present the following search strategy steps in the scheme and explain which criteria were used for choosing journals (was it IF or other criteria?). The paper does not reference the methodological literature - mainly on review or systematic or integrative review procedures. Torraco 2005, Kraus et al. 2022 and PRISMA guidelines may help the authors improve the review's structure. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the papers reviewed are also unclear. It is unclear how many pieces were excluded and how many of the included documents were concerned exclusively with Chinese multinationals. I recommend introducing supplementary material in the form of a table listing all papers discussed, also showing how the theories and concepts were 'used' in the reviewed papers - as the background of empirical study, as a conceptual background.

Was it tested and developed or just applied for tests? It would also be much easier to understand the topic if, in the Introduction, the Authors included more information on Chinese multinationals. They are scattered in different parts of the text. Why table 2b is separated from 2a, is table 2a on Chinese MNEs or not? The last column of table 4 seems to have a fatal counting error. Figure 1. how is it related to findings on theories and concepts? Is it a conceptual framework of what? The review? There is an inconsistency between the figure 'Firm performance' and table 3 'corporate performance. Some abbreviations need explanation (TMT). The findings on theories and concepts are not included in the concept (Fig.1), nor discussed, e.g. the further use of ideas and concepts. The Authors also should conclude more on the results presented in the tables (theories and concepts).

Author Response

Please see the attached response letter. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I am pleased to report the review comments on the manuscript entitled “Corporate Social Responsibility of Chinese Multinational Enterprises: A Review and Future Research Agenda”.

I lay my concerns below.

1)     “Based on the research gaps identified through a review of previous studies, we provide five directions for future CSR research on CMNE.” What research gaps? Highlight these research gaps in the abstract?

2)     I have a grievous concern on the authors' selection of journals from which they obtained the studies they reviewed. You mentioned that you generated relevant article from 3* and 4* of the ABS ranking, what about, for example, 2* or 1* journals within the ABS ranking? Are articles published by 1* or 2* not good enough. Why the 2018 ABS ranking? Why not the recent 2021 ABS ranking?

3)     The article selection criteria are faulty. The authors have not justified why they used the selection criteria they specified.

4)     In section 3 you mentioned that “we removed CSR studies of MNEs that were not relevant to the Chinese context, which indicated little causal relationship even when both CMNE and CSR existed. Why exclude studies that documented little causal relationship? These studies have been reviewed and published, then why exclude them?

 5)     Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 are descriptive. They do not lead to robust, critical and well synthesized review.

 6)     The authors claimed to have conducted systematic literature review, but careful reading through the work reveals otherwise as the review does not follow the steps in systematic literature review (see, Xiao and Watson, 2017; Snyder, 2019).

7)     Conclusion normally comes before suggestions for future research directions. Besides, I find the suggestion for future research too bulky.  The conclusion is shallow and does not provide any significant information.

References 

Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of planning education and research, 39(1), 93-112.

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of business research, 104, 333-339.

Author Response

Please see the attached response letter. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It is revised well. Please check English once again. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for your revision.

Reviewer 4 Report

I have no further comments.