Do Corporate Social Responsibility Categories Distinctly Influence Innovation? A Resource-Based Theory Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Regarding the introduction and research gap. The authors are showing a poor grasp of theory, as the 3 dimensions of CSR and its relationship with innovation are more than explored. I recommend a deeper literature review and a better justification of the gap that leads to the need to do this study and its novelty.
Some arguments are lacking theoretical support. For example, the authors say in the introduction that "The causal relationship between CSR and innovation is complex and empirically questionable.", but in the RL they already state that "Innovation is an intermediate factor between CSR and corporate performance; however, researchers have not reached consensus on the widely studied relationship between CSR and corporate performance." I remind you that this is just one example and a careful review to the coherence of the argument should be conducted.
One of the most troubling issues is the selection of variables. Why these and not others? I recommend a clear choice of the theory (which one should be specified) on which the authors based the conceptual model and variables.
The other major concern is the lack of discussion. After a (too) long presentation of the results the authors jump directly to the conclusions without making the slightest incursion regarding what the study confirms from previous studies (which should be the majority), which eventually contradicts and above all highlights where the study advances the knowledge exists (where I have the biggest doubts, see previous point).
In short, the article does not show a true and proper mastery of the literature and this limitation requires that the article be revisited to demonstrate theoretical depth and coherence.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study on the relationship between CSR and innovation, is well constructed and complete. Both the theoretical and the empirical parts are rich and well balanced in the argumentation. The methodological part presents all the required information and the analyzes follow a clear logics structured on testing the hypotheses. The conclusions synthetize the findings and engage in both academic debate and offer relevant insights for practitioners. 

Minor spelling might be needed - line 12 "frim" instead of "firm" etc. 

Congratulations and good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The research on the topic about the relationship between CSR and innovation is interesting and very important challenging issue. The considerations presented in the article are very current.

But as for details I would like to ask authors to correct before printing, then:

• Line 12 - on frim innovation
• Line 43 - consumers (SCC) - explain abbreviation
• Line 283 – what is the size of your sample?
• Authors should develop a "true" discussion section, In which they broadly comment on the results obtained. I would like to know how the results were similar to or different from other studies. This is not clear.
• Conclusions: Please compile a conclusions section! The authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous review studies and of the working hypotheses and highlight the novel contributions of their research. The implications for research, theory, practice and society are not clear though I can see that these aspects can be elaborated further.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the work on the revision. Most of the topics are now responded. However, I'm still not convinced about the link to the theory. Regarding my concern stated in the last revision:

«One of the most troubling issues is the selection of variables. Why these and not others? I recommend a clear choice of the theory (which one should be specified) on which the authors based the conceptual model and variables.»

The answer of the authors is insufficient, since the support of the variables is more related with the stakeholder theory than yo RBV. This is a serious issue and must be solved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the comments you made.

Author Response

Thanks and we are very appreciated for the positive comment on our manuscript.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

.