Green Corporate Governance, Green Finance, and Sustainable Performance Nexus in Chinese SMES: A Mediation Moderation Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

From the overall presentation I would say that interesting research work has been done. The topic is also important for the readers of the journal. However, I have a few more significant challenges with the paper. 

The title should be linked to the content of the paper. The title can be improved. You should include “China” in the title. 

In abstract “Data was collected through a questionnaire survey from 314 SMEs operating in China, and the data analysis was carried out using Smart PLS 4 and SPSS”. In “3. Methodology” section, the authors stated that “The sample population included Executive level employees of the SMEs in Shanghai China”. So, the sample population analyzed = the employees of the SMEs not SMEs. Please clarify. 

The methods section is lacking information on the participant recruitment method, namely: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), b) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment, c) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population. 

I see the sampling to be the most limiting factor of the presented paper. Despite the fact the authors state this limitation, it raises doubts on the relevance of the conclusions. 

It would be appropriate to specify in more detail how this research differs from the already published paper that deals with a similar topic. To increase the significance of the results, the discussion part should embrace the differences and similarities among your findings and those of other scholars. You need to improve the practical and academic implications.   

Please describe the items based on which the variables included in the analysis were constructed. See Table 2 in the case of Green Finance, GF 3 is missing. 

See lines 136-140. There is a double paragraph. “CSR and green credit initiatives can affect …" 

The authors have to pay attention to references inside the paper as well as the reference list. See https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions 

 

Author Response

The author appreciates all of the reviewers for providing insightful comments regarding our research paper and for their many insightful recommendations. In response to their insightful comments, the author has modified the article in several ways. We appreciate your constructive comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of our work. Your valuable input was crucial in developing the final version of the manuscript, which we could not have done without your professional guidance. We appreciate the time and effort you put into evaluating our work and providing detailed feedback, which helped us identify areas for improvement. We much appreciated your feedback, and we made an effort to include as many of your ideas as we could in the article's revision. Furthermore, we trust that the revised version of the paper will surpass your expectations. Moreover, we would also like to thank the reviewers once again for their invaluable contribution to our paper. Your remarks have served as a source of inspiration and motivation for us, and we are honored to have had the opportunity to benefit from your expertise and knowledge.

 

	Reviewer 1 comments:	Comments Addressed
1	The title should be linked to the content of the paper. The title can be improved. You should include “China” in the title.	We appreciate your thoughtful comments on our manuscript title. We appreciate your idea to include "China" in the title so that it more precisely represents the topic of our article. Your suggestion has been carefully considered, and the title has been changed to “Green Corporate Governance, Green Finance, and sustainable performance Nexus in Chinese SMEs: a mediation moderation model”
2	In the abstract “Data was collected through a questionnaire survey from 314 SMEs operating in China, and the data analysis was carried out using Smart PLS 4 and SPSS”. In the “3. Methodology” section, the authors stated that “The sample population included Executive level employees of the SMEs in Shanghai China”. So, the sample population analyzed = the employees of the SMEs, not SMEs. Please clarify	Thank you for raising this issue and bringing our attention to this point. We apologize for any confusion caused by the lack of clarity in a sample of our paper. We would like to clarify that the sample population analyzed in our research paper consists of executive-level employees working in SME's  Shanghai, China. Data was acquired from these employees by questionnaire, and analysis was performed using Smart PLS-SEM. We will ensure that our manuscript more accurately reflects this information. Again, we appreciate your valuable feedback.
3	The methods section is lacking information on the participant recruitment method, namely: a) the recruitment date range (month and year),                                  b) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment,                         c) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population.	a)     We appreciate your valuable suggestion. I have noticed that our research paper lacks this point. To be more specific, from October 2022 to December 2022, senior-level executives from Shanghai-based small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) were recruited as research participants. The recruitment procedure involved sending an email invitation with a link to the online questionnaire survey to potential participants. Participants were selected based on their employment titles and company affiliations, and participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous. Please see highlighted text in the methodology section page number 7 and lines 299-309. b)     We appreciate your valuable comments. I saw that this paper lacks this point. We select respondents who hold a managerial position, one of the inclusion criteria for participant recruitment was being an executive-level employee of a small to medium-sized enterprise (SME) in Shanghai. Participants had to occupy managerial positions such as CEO, CFO, and another managerial post. We selected respondents from organizations with a significant commitment to environmental sustainability page number 7 and lines 299-309. c)     Thank you for your valuable suggestion. True, purposive sampling methods, which include choosing individuals based on particular criteria, may restrict the paper's results' generalizability to a wider population. The objective of a purposive sample is to ensure that the sample is representative of the target population in terms of the research question being investigated. In this paper, we targeted executive-level employees of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Shanghai with an emphasis on environmental sustainability, and the technique of purposive sampling was suitable for accomplishing this objective. Notably, the generalizability of the findings should be evaluated in the context of the particular research query and population of interest. Please also check page number 7 and lines 303-306.
4	I see the sampling to be the most limiting factor of the presented paper. Despite the fact the authors state this limitation, it raises doubts about the relevance of the conclusions.	Thanks for raising this point. The sampling technique used in the paper may indeed have limited the generalizability of the findings to a larger population.   We use a purposive sampling methodology to reach the target audience based on their expertise and experience which limits the generalizability of the results and findings   We targeted the Finance and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) departments of firms with a strong commitment to environmental sustainability. Consequently, our sample was selected to collect the perspectives of organizations actively engaged in green finance and corporate governance practices.   As with any research Paper, the ability to generalize to a larger population must be interpreted with caution. Our findings may predominantly apply to businesses with comparable environmental sustainability characteristics and priorities. However, they may not be representative of the entire population of SMEs or companies in other industries that are not as committed to sustainability. See highlighted text in 7 and lines 303-306.
	It would be appropriate to specify in more detail how this research differs from the already published paper that deals with a similar topic. To increase the significance of the results, the discussion part should embrace the differences and similarities between your findings and those of other scholars. You need to improve the practical and academic implications.	Thank you for giving this valuable comment. We noted that this manuscript lacks some comparison-based similarities and differences between our paper findings with previous research articles. We try to address the comments as; §  The research gap has been more clearly mentioned in the literature part. Please see highlighted text. §  The discussion part has added differences and similarities regarding previous studies. §  Practical and academic implications have been improved in the paper. See highlighted text on page number 13 and line numbers 506-514 and 520-526 as the new addition.
	Please describe the items based on which the variables included in the analysis were constructed. See Table 2 in the case of Green Finance, GF 3 is missing.	Thank you for your insightful comment. This paper is based on primary data and items are adopted from previous studies. ·       I noticed that many studies adopt measurement items which are already been tested for reliability and validity. We mentioned the sources from where we adopted these items. ·       In Smart PLS-SEM some items were removed from the measurement model to enhance the reliability of constructs. The factor loading of GF3  was low, so it was removed to improve the reliability and validity of the constructs. Which is mentioned in the text illustrated above in Table 2.   See highlighted text
	See lines 136-140. There is a double paragraph. “CSR and green credit initiatives can affect …"	Thank you for bringing our attention to this issue. I have noticed that two paragraphs were repeated in the manuscript. We corrected this by paragraph the repeated paragraph see highlighted text in line 136
	The authors have to pay attention to references inside the paper as well as the reference list.	Thank you for your suggestion. I have noticed that there are some issues in our manuscript related to in-text citations and references. We address these issues and mentioned all references in the text and bibliography.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a great and important topic to research. The relationship between corporate governance and sustainability is topical and highly relevant in particular in a Chinese context. The key point to improve though is that the concrete relationship between Green Corporate Governance, Green Finance and Corporate social Responsibility needs to be more clearly explained or defined. It is very hard for the reader to follow the argumentation without clarity of those concepts. How, for example, does CSR mediate the relation between corporate governance and sustainable performance? It is not clear who or what is being mediated. This just needs to be more clearly stated for the reader to be able to follow.

The methodology is great and solid. The statistical results are also clear, but could be presented more clearly (Fig 2 is not clearly explained to the reader).

The authors claim significant impacts on policy making as a result of their research. There is no clear statement or conclusion in the article that outlines what these policies could be other than an encouragement that governments should support  the implementation of green fiance etc. It's not needed, but should then also not be announced in the abstract.

The abstract needs to be rewritten in a simply and understandable fashion. No acronyms should be used unless explained in full before for the reader.

A great article that requires a rewrite in terms of clarity and language editing in some parts, in particular the abstract.

Will benefit from a thorough edit.

Author Response

The author appreciates all of the reviewers for providing insightful comments regarding our research paper and for their many insightful recommendations. In response to their insightful comments, the author has modified the article in several ways. We appreciate your constructive comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of our work. Your valuable input was crucial in developing the final version of the manuscript, which we could not have done without your professional guidance. We appreciate the time and effort you put into evaluating our work and providing detailed feedback, which helped us identify areas for improvement. We much appreciated your feedback, and we made an effort to include as many of your ideas as we could in the article's revision. Furthermore, we trust that the revised version of the paper will surpass your expectations. Moreover, we would also like to thank the reviewers once again for their invaluable contribution to our paper. Your remarks have served as a source of inspiration and motivation for us, and we are honored to have had the opportunity to benefit from your expertise and knowledge.

 

	Reviewer 2
	The key point to improve though is that the concrete relationship between Green Corporate Governance, Green Finance, and Corporate Social Responsibility needs to be more clearly explained or defined. It is very hard for the reader to follow the argumentation without clarity of those concepts. How, for example, does CSR mediate the relationship between corporate governance and sustainable performance? It is not clear who or what is being mediated. This just needs to be more clearly stated for the reader to be able to follow.	Thank you for your valuable feedback. We noticed that there is a need to add a clear definition of constructs.   We address this comment by adding each construct definition to make it easy for the reader to follow the arguments. See Pages #3-5   We also mention the mediating role of CSR and moderating role of Top Management environment concern in more detail. See page#5
	The methodology is great and solid. The statistical results are also clear, but could be presented more clearly (Fig 2 is not clearly explained to the reader).	Thank you for your feedback. We incorporate your suggestion in our paper. As Figure 2 illustrates the measurement model which describes the reliability and validity analysis. I noticed that many studies that used Smart PLS-SEM for analysis similarly used this image. It is discussed in detail and also de illustrated the same findings in Table 1.  see page#9-10
	The authors claim significant impacts on policymaking as a result of their research. There is no clear statement or conclusion in the article that outlines what these policies could be other than an encouragement that governments should support the implementation of green fiancé etc. It's not needed, but should then also not be announced in the abstract.	Thank you for raising this point. I have addressed this issue in our paper. The conclusion is written more clearly, Our findings may have implications for government policy, and we want to describe such implications in more depth in future publications. We will evaluate your suggestions carefully as we work on our next round of studies. See highlighted text page#14, line# 501-509
	The abstract needs to be rewritten simply and understandably. No acronyms should be used unless explained in full before for the reader.	Dear reviewer thank you for bringing our intention to this point. We rewrite the abstract and no acronyms are used to make it more simple and easy for understanding to readers See line # 18-30
	A great article that requires a rewrite in terms of clarity and language editing in some parts, in particular the abstract.	Dear Reviewer thank you for this valuable suggestion. The whole manuscript has been checked for grammatical error and proofread for accuracy.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.       Abstract

The text is a complete description of the paper’s scope

2.       Introduction

Very informative

3.       Literature Review and hypotheses development

Quite well written and the hypothesis development is precise and well-structured

4.       Methodology

Well-developed and a good description of the trend followed in the paper

5.       Data Analysis

The choice of PLS-SEM is optimal and the validation is technically complete

6.       Discussion

Quite good but should be more detailed

7.       Conclusion and recommendations, practical implications

Quite precise, in agreement with the contents of the paper

Author Response

The author appreciates all of the reviewers for providing insightful comments regarding our research paper and for their many insightful recommendations. In response to their insightful comments, the author has modified the article in several ways. We appreciate your constructive comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of our work. Your valuable input was crucial in developing the final version of the manuscript, which we could not have done without your professional guidance. We appreciate the time and effort you put into evaluating our work and providing detailed feedback, which helped us identify areas for improvement. We much appreciated your feedback, and we made an effort to include as many of your ideas as we could in the article's revision. Furthermore, we trust that the revised version of the paper will surpass your expectations. Moreover, we would also like to thank the reviewers once again for their invaluable contribution to our paper. Your remarks have served as a source of inspiration and motivation for us, and we are honored to have had the opportunity to benefit from your expertise and knowledge.

Reviewer 3:
Discussion Quite good but should be more detailed	Thank you dear reviewer for your valuable comments. Your suggestions make our manuscript more worthy. We address this comment by adding a more detailed discussion. See highlighted text in the Discussion part pages # 13-14 lines # 500-509, 516-521

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Decision: Reject

 

Summary:

This study is analyzed impact of top management on sustainability performance in Chinese SMEs by using agency theory and stakeholder theory. And, this study is also analyzed impact of Corporate Governance and Green Finance factors to CSR by using SEM. I think that this type analysis is important. Especially, I think that it is important focus to Chinese SME’s decision structure of management and top managers’ recognition.

However, this study have many of problems likely to under points. Then, I decided “Reject” on this paper.

・English of this paper have many typographical errors and difficult sentences. Then, it is difficult for the reader to understand.

・The reference papers should be written including the name of the authors in manuscript.

・The questionnaire survey items and indicator are not clearly described.

・SEM is a model for structure of psychological and business decisions using “factor analysis”. This model could be analyzed the strength of influence between or among factors. This study evaluates the influence of "top management" on the influence between factors. However, this hypothetical model cannot be analyzed by ordinary SEM, then the methodology needs to be clarified explanations.

・These SEM analysis results do not include statistical validity indexes, such as the Durbin-Watson ratio.

・As SEM applies factor analysis, it should not be possible to conduct an analysis like Figure 3. The methodology by which the analysis was conducted must be explained in manuscript.

Author Response

The author appreciates all of the reviewers for providing insightful comments regarding our research paper and for their many insightful recommendations. In response to their insightful comments, the author has modified the article in several ways. We appreciate your constructive comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of our work. Your valuable input was crucial in developing the final version of the manuscript, which we could not have done without your professional guidance. We appreciate the time and effort you put into evaluating our work and providing detailed feedback, which helped us identify areas for improvement. We much appreciated your feedback, and we made an effort to include as many of your ideas as we could in the article's revision. Furthermore, we trust that the revised version of the paper will surpass your expectations. Moreover, we would also like to thank the reviewers once again for their invaluable contribution to our paper. Your remarks have served as a source of inspiration and motivation for us, and we are honored to have had the opportunity to benefit from your expertise and knowledge.

 

 

Reviewer 4
English of this paper has many typographical errors and difficult sentences. Then, it is difficult for the reader to understand.	Dear Reviewer thank you for this valuable suggestion. The whole manuscript has been checked for grammatical errors and proofread for accuracy.  If there are still some issues, after acceptance we will proofread this manuscript from a native speaker.
The reference papers should be written including the name of the authors in the manuscript.	Thanks for raising this point. We have noticed that some references need to be mentioned with the author's name in the manuscript. We used Mendeley to put references in the manuscript, after adding all references when we convert them to the Sustainability references style all the references converted into numbers. we have addressed this issue in our manuscript. See references and citations in the manuscript.
The questionnaire survey items and indicators are not clearly described.	Thanks for raising this point. Many recent studies are using the same format. As we used already developed a survey. All the items are shown in Figure 2 and Table 1 with construct. See page#8-9
SEM is a model for the structure of psychological and business decisions using “factor analysis”. This model could be analyzed the strength of influence between or among factors. This paper evaluates the influence of "top management" on the influence between factors. However, this hypothetical model cannot be analyzed by ordinary SEM, then the methodology needs to be clarified explanations.	Thank you dear editor for your valuable comment. The analysis part describes that this paper employed PLS-SEM to determine the complex relationship between constructs. PLS-SEM, or Partial least square equation modeling is a statistical method for investigating causal connections between variables. When working with complicated models or little data, this method shines. PLS-SEM is a variant of SEM that does not insist on the normal distribution of variables or the assumption of multivariate normality. PLS-SEM also allows for the simultaneous analysis of several dependent variables and does not need strong heterogeneity requirements. See highlighted text pag#9  line#323-332, 339-347
These SEM analysis results do not include statistical validity indexes, such as the Durbin-Watson ratio.	we want to say thanks to the reviewer for this point. We try to address this comment in our manuscript. One statistical measure of autocorrelation in regression analysis residuals is the Durbin-Watson ratio. The validity of a regression model may also be assessed by other methods than this one. The goodness of fit indexes (GFIs), adjusted goodness of fit indices (AGFIs), and comparative fit indices (CFIs) are often used in SEM analysis to assess the degree to which two models match up. I have mentioned these in this paper. See lines 351-356
As SEM applies factor analysis, it should not be possible to analyze Figure 3. The methodology by which the analysis was conducted must be explained in the manuscript.	Thanks to the reviewer for raising this point. We try to address this comment. We used Smart-PLS4 software for analysis, Algorithm is run to evaluate the measurement model. Many papers published in high-impact journals employed the same methodology to determine the factor analysis. we employ the PLS-SEM methodology to determine the relationship between constructs. Figure 3 describes the structural model evaluation. It is mentioned in text line# 397-404

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Decision: Major Revision

 

Summary:

I think your research is very interesting and your focus is very good.

However, please respond to the following two points in terms of methodology.

ž   Structure equation analysis is a kind of applied factor analysis. It could analyze the influence among factors, but I don't think it could analyze the hypothetical model in Fig.1. Please describe clearly the methodology of how you calculated Fgi.1 model with mathematical equation explanations.

ž   There is a need to explain in detail the variables GG1-7, GF1-4, CSR1-9, SP1-5, and TMEC1-3 that you have analyzed.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

I am writing to express my appreciation for the opportunity to edit my manuscript. I am devoted to increasing the quality of my work and responding to the reviewers' comments. Furthermore, the author thanks to editors, editorial team members, and all the reviewers for their constructive comments regarding our article and the very helpful suggestions. In responding to their thoughtful reviews, the author has made several improvements to the article. This article has greatly benefited from suggested comments and many other improvements prompted by other reviewers’ comments and suggestions. As such, we greatly appreciate the editor/reviewer’s time and efforts devoted to improving our work.

I've carefully considered their comments and made the necessary adjustments to clarify my arguments, provide additional evidence, and address any mistakes or inconsistencies.

I appreciate your attention and cooperation during this process. We hope you will get in touch with me soon and consider publishing our improved work.

 

Sincerely,

Fiza Amjad

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Reference [47-50] does not have the model to handle the structure of Fig. 1, which is used in this study. An intermediate factor is needed.

Also, the Equation listed in Section 3. cannot be used to calculate the results of Figs. 2 and 3. In addition, the content of the Equation does not match Fig.1.

The method is different from the results, so it is not accepted.

Author Response

Dear Academic Editor,
Thank you very much for your patient, quick reply and update response. As you know we have already address all the reviewer comments. Most of the reviewer give us very positive feedback due to which the quality of our paper improve a lot. 
The current reviewer comments we have address in a very logical method.  We have try our best the convince the  reviewer 4. However, some of his point is logically completely not correct. For example his indirect demand of expressing model in a mathematical form. In primary data analysis, we use SMART PLS-SEM which run all equation simultaneously and there is no need to express mathematical equations, and all the relation and finding we can get from software such as Smart-PLS, AMOS etc. However, in the secondary data such as when we are discussing economy etc. we develop some model such DSGE, Stochastic model etc. In that kind of model first we mathematically prove our model and variables and later based on data we get finding. After discussing with the expert from the world top university professor we came to this conclusion all the evidence we provide to the reviewer is enough. If still we are doing same changes it will effect the basic method, and structure of the paper. 
I have also attached the dataset to this submission, the model and results can be cross confirm with provided dataset. I hope this will satisfy the reviewer 4. If still he/she is not satisfied, I will suggest you to send the paper to alternate reviewer in order to save the energy, time and efforts from both side.
I am looking forward to hear some good news from your side.
Thank you very much.
Regards,
Dr. Fiza Amjad,
Central South University China. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf