Identifying Key Financial, Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG), Bond, and COVID-19 Factors Affecting Global Shipping Companies—A Hybrid Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been much improved, and my concerns have been thoroughly addressed. Also, thorough response to the comments is much appreciated, congrats

Author Response

Thank you for your opinion. We deeply appreciate it. 

Corresponding author

Hai-Yen Chang 

Reviewer 2 Report

Sustainability

Identifying Key Financial, Environmental, Social, Governance 2 (ESG), Bond, and COVID-19 Factors Affecting Global Shipping 3 Companies – a hybrid MCDM method

The re-written paper is it is distinguished by a significant improvement compared to the last reviewed one.

1. Title:

Please analyse the proposal: ESG, Bond, and COVID-19 Factors Affecting in Global Shipping 3 Companies – a hybrid MCDM method ?

2. Structure and clarity

The structure of the article is correct, and the introduction, and conclusions have been changed to the last reviewed one and are more clarified.

3. Abstract and Introduction

No remarks (the revised version is much better then the paper which was reviewed last time.

4. The literature review

No remarks (the revised version is much better then the paper which was reviewed last time.

5. The methodology

There is still no research thesis (hypothesis) indicated thesis.

It would be recommended to work on the description of the research methodology

6. Conclusions and Discussion

I notice a lot of effort to present the conclusions of the research, now they are very interesting

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Please see the attached file for responses. 

Corresponding author 

Hai-Yen Chang 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper was revised correctly.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you for your comment. We deeply appreciate it. 

Corresponding author

Hai-Yen Chang 

Reviewer 4 Report

Although the goal of the paper is clear, there are several issues that the authors should address in order to make their study publishable.

1)The results are obtained with only 9 companies as the sample and 15 respondents to questionnaires. The results are not representative and there might be bias because of sample selection problems.

2)There are only 9 companies and multiple variables used in the analysis, and that creates a problem of "overfitting" (there is no model to fit here, but is the extracted information generalizable?)

3) The results in which financial performance dominates are hardly surprising when talking about global companies; what would be another method (easier) to establish this result? is this result not mentioned in the reports of the respondents? is this result consistent with what happened to other companies in the global supply chain.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Please see the attached file for the responses. 

Corresponding author 

Hai-Yen Chang 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

I have read the revised version of the paper and the author's response very carefully, and I'm convinced that they have performed the recommended additional analysis and gave any possible explanation for my comments. In this vein, I recommend the publication of the paper. 

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

The manuscript is a valid contribution to the literature with high research input. The paper has been well prepared from a methodological and empirical viewpoint, and it is well structured. The manuscript reverts to the complex problem of evaluating shipping companies from a financial, bond, ESG perspective during COVID-19 for investors.  It evaluates the most important criteria affecting the performance of 101 shipping companies during the 2019-2020 COVID-19 period from the investor perspective. With the use of integrated approach, the fuzzy DANP-mV model the authors analysed effect of the COVID-19 on the international shipping industry, combined financial performance, debt  financing, ESG, and COVID-19 to identify the most important criteria to be considered from the investor perspective, and thereafter ranked the shipping companies based on their performance gap from the ideal level. The findings of this research benefit investors in incorporating shipping stocks in their portfolios.

 However, to improve the manuscript, I would suggest some recommendations.

Major concern:

1. Abstract should be revised, starting form clear purpose (aims) of the study, then addressing research scope and method, and finally the results.
2. In section 1 Introduction above the line 108 aims of research with reference to identified above research gaps should be clearly presented to the reader. Then the text below line 108 follows with the well-presented research contribution to literature.

Minor concern:

3. In table 2 as regards no 7-shipping company there is a lack million TEU, please supplement.
4. In line 167 for clarity’s sake the sentence “The evidence indicated that dry bulk firms had higher production technology (in what terms ? ) than container shipping companies” needs to be specified and elaborated.
5. Finally, some editing works should be made, and all tables should be supplemented by source: e.g., own study, own study based on ………,etc.

I appreciate the proficient writing style and paper editing.

I congratulate the Authors for a very good job and rigorous research of the important and complex problem. It is highly recommended to continue the research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Evaluating shipping companies from financial, bond, ESG perspective during COVID-19 for investor – a fuzzy-DANP-mV  model

In general terms, the paper is well written, although it needs some clarifications.

1. Title:

Please analyse, if the word “Evaluating” is correct in The title`s proposal?

2. Structure and clarity

The structure of the article is correct, but the introduction, and conclusions should be more clarified (please see the details below).

3. Abstract and Introduction

Abstract and Introduction are in some places chaotic, it is difficult to find the methodology of the paper (the goal, the hypothesis, the research methods etc).

4. The literature review

No remarks

5. The methodology

I have no significant comments, nevertheless please consider my remarks that there is no research gap indicated, not indicated thesis / hypothesis.

In Table 1. Dimensions, criteria, and their definitions there is a lack of “going concern” assumption in the context of Covid-pandemic time

6. Conclusions and Discussion

There is no connection between the theory and the identified practice, as well as not link between the state of the art and the conclusions - please consider comparing research results with the state of knowledge (state of the art).

The research results should be confronted against the background of the presented theory, as well as against the background of research results in other regions, to the results so far.

The basic question arising from the research (“so what?”) is not answered.

I would suggest to strengthen the conclusions.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper covers an interesting and important topic of the shipping companies in the contemporary economic system using the example of the Covid-19 global pandemic. The overall quality of the paper is high - the research methods were selected and applied correctly; the conlusions are grounded in the analysis. I have some minor comments.

1. Both abstract and introduction should include more detailed overview of the sample used in the analysis (e.g., their countries of origin, share of the global market etc.).
   
2. The aim of the study seems too vague - it should be more clear and linked to the paper's contribution. Moreover, the scope of the study seems rather narrow and Authors should pay more attention to the explanation of the paper's broader implications.
   
3. The final section should be expanded and include more in-depth discussion of the issues such as comparisons to the results of the previous studies, directions for the future research.

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is well written overall and well structured.  The goal is clearly defined and well explained from the authors.  The literature review is extensive, relevant and theory based. 

The methodology presented in the paper is appropriate for the task at hand. However, I find it possibly uncessary to consider the fuzzification/defuzzification process for obtaining the results. It would be of considerable value added for the paper if the authors consider a robustness analysis of their results by (a) excluding the fuzzification process and following through with the rest of the analysis and (b) provide examples and benchmarking of their results based on a simpler (much simpler) model for obtaining the structure of their results.