Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper will be an excellent contribution to the body of knowledge. With its well structured qualitative approach, well described methodology and logically structured results/discussion section it is well presented and highly engaging peace of research. 

I would recommend that the limitations of the research should be more clearly highlighted in the conclusions, especially the lack of data for some extremely important environmental indicators that were missing due to the unavailability of data, and that a short proposal be given on how to address the problem of unavailability of data more adequately in the future, perhaps through sustainable governance and the like

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.      The innovation of this study needs further clarification in the Introduction section. It does not seem innovative enough to only include several corporate governance indicators into the evaluation system.

2.      It is suggested to improve the logic of introduction section. It may be better to separate the literature review section from the introduction section.

3.      The data sources of firms and other used data need to be given in the paper.

4.      It is suggested to give clearer discussion on the reasons and theoretical basis for the key chosen ESG evaluation indicators.

5.      The evaluation framework constructed in this study is only for electricity industry. Can it also be applied to other industries? How can this application be expanded? Please added more discussion on this.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper'a aim corresponds to Journal areas. However, the paper should be revised before accepting:

1. The abstract should be structured: relevance of the issue, the paper aims, methods and instruments, core results, and implications considering the findings. 

2. Please, explain/clarify what is it mean green and low-carbon sustainable development of electricity companies. From a scientific point of view, it exists the following definitions and concepts low-carbon development, green development and sustainable development. However, the authors outlined green and low-carbon sustainable development. Please, extend the explanation and justify the green and low-carbon sustainable development. 

3. Please, explain what is it mean the dual carbon target. 

4. The statement in the introduction requires relevant citations. An example: China's electricity industry as a major energy consumption sector, is the first to be included in the carbon emissions trading target...

The first edition of GRI's Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (G1) was published by the Global Reporting Initiative and applied triple bottom line theory .... . Wang based on the material element and etc.  Revise the whole text. 

5. Please, don't use long sentences such as Lines 41-45. 

6. Allocate the Literature review as a separate paragraph by adding the analysis of the relevant investigations, not only Chinese scientists. In the end of the introduction, add the paper's aims/hypothesis, and add the originality of the study and contributions, add the paper's structure. 

7. Figure 1 should be revised. It is not clear to understand. 

8.  In addition, Figure 4-Figure 7 needs to be revised too. I recommend leaving only the necessary Figures. The information in the Tables and Figures is similar. 

9. The authors should pay attention to the paper's formatting. Some Titles of Figures from small letters. Citations are not correct. Besides, between citations and words no space. 

10. In Result, leave only the empirical results of the investigations. Allocate the separate paragraphs Discussions. Besides, add the comparison analysis of the obtained findings with the previous investigations. 

11. In conclusion, add the policy implications, limitations and further directions of investigations. 

12. Revise English. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revision is not satisfactory enough.

The current introduction section is too long and not logic enough.  The language needs to be improved.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, thanks for your answers and comments on my suggestions. However, it would be better to add all the explanations which were written to me into the main text. As the future reader should understand:

Why did you not allocate the discussion of your results (as in such form is mixed and difficult to understand);

Why did you not add the comparison analysis of your study with the previous (you added only one long sentence referring to one study [18]? However, in the sentences, you indicated "are consistent with previous studIES'. 

Why did you show similar information in Table and Figures? What is the reason? Explain in the text in detail.  

In my point of view, the paper will be benefited if the authors allocated a literature review as Journal does not have any limitations in the paper length. 

Besides, English, formatting, and typos should be carefully checked. 

 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors again incorporated partly my previous suggestions. Thus, the discussion contain the empirical findings which shoud be in Results. 

Dear authors, please, analyse the relevant papers in your issues. Your material should restructured and the structure should have the logic and sence. In present from, it is again mixed and the similar information in figures and tables. 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf