State-Owned Equity Participation and Corporations’ ESG Performance in China: The Mediating Role of Top Management Incentives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

The readability of the paper would improve shall:

a) Please add Multicollinearity test (VIF) for the variables being examined in the paper.

b) Across all regression results, please show the significance of each model (F stat, Sig.)...in addition to the autocorrelation test (D-W) values.

c) Please provide coherent justification for considering a mediating model. References of other papers in the same line of research is quite helpful. That is, how does the mediating model make a difference from other related studies in the literature?

d) It is strongly recommended that a "Robustness Test" is carried out. I would suggest simple and quite test. Please divide the ESG data into Quartiles. Run a regression for Q1 and Q4 to see if the trend and significance change. If they do not, the variables are robust.

I am sure, shall you consider the above-mentioned recommendations, the paper adds value to the related literature.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author(s),

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper.  I agree that this is an important and pertinent topic. Although the idea is a good one, unfortunately, the way in which the study is operationalized holds back its potential contribution.  There are a few areas where I would encourage the authors to give further thought, as follows:

 

• Theoretical literature has not been considered and reviewed. It’s better to observe the connection between the contents. Try to explain everything except the topics in order to establish the necessary coherence.
• Theoretical Development: The literature review must engage in the constructs of your analytical framing in a meaningful way. The literature review section could be improved by being more analytical. In other words, building on the existing literature to highlight what is missing and what is yet to be done and in so doing outline the theoretical puzzles or debates to which this work contributes. I have concerns related to theoretical development, and note the need for a more rigorous critique of the literature to help deepen the theoretical underpinnings of the study.
• Some sentences are without reference. This means that the statements were made by the authors themselves and are not scientifically valid.

 

·       You need a discussion section. The discussion challenges your findings and determines the degree of compatibility with previous research.

·       The discussion section needs to highlight what is new in your findings and what we can learn from a study conducted in this interesting and understudied context. Whilst the introduction sets the stage for the study by justifying the relevance of the study, the discussion is the most important section as it is in the discussion that it is all brought together, and the authors illustrates how and why the study findings advance the literature. Therefore, the discussion needs to illustrate the new insights—the contributions—in a clear and compelling manner. In other words, illustrate what we know now that we did not know before or, in effect, to clearly illustrate the contribution of the study to the different bodies of literature. Furthermore, what are the future research directions based on this new framework?  

·       Theoretical Contributions: Addressing all the points mentioned above will lead to a more in-depth presentation of your data which has a clearer theoretical contribution. What is the theoretical contributions?  

 

·       The authors need to draw substantive conclusions from their results, and suggest, develop recommendations for further research.

·       What are the limitations of this research and how can it be solved by other researchers?

 

 

Best of luck with the further development of the paper.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

: This study examines the unique circumstances surrounding state-owned equity participation in enterprises in China using a sample of 14,758 partially state-owned business and the impact that equity participation may have on the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance of enterprises. The authors have focused on A-share listed firms on the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges and uses data from 2013 to 2021.  Empirical testing shows that state-owned equity participation can significantly improve the ESG performance of enterprises, with this conclusion remaining reliable after a series of robustness tests. Top management incentives are a mediating mechanism for state-owned equity participation in enhancing ESG performance. This study also finds that when state-owned equity participates in large enterprises or companies with a high degree of digital transformation, the effect on ESG performance is greater than that of small to medium-sized enterprises or enterprises with a low level of digital transformation. The findings of this study add to the current body of the existing field of research on the factors influencing corporate ESG performance and the impact of state-owned equity on corporate non-financial performance.  I have reviewed many papers in this area and I believe that this one has the potential to have a major impact on the field if proper modifications are made.  Specific comments follow:

1. I believe that the paper needs additional editing for English.  The issues that I see are not major/significant but they are noticeable.  For instance in line 131 you have written "A lot of studies have examined" while it seems more natural to state "Numerous studies have examined" and my computer system tells me that it should be a specific number - but I think that this suggestion goes beyond what would be expected.  In the next line you have written "Boubakri et al. finds" but as the number of authors in more than one I believe that it should be "find" as opposed to finds.  In line 134 "encourages" should likely be "encourage" and then in line 141 "researches" should likely either be "researchers" or "research" although I can not tell which it should be.  This is a little over 10 lines and there are additional sections of the paper that also could use editing like this.

2. Please provide information about additional information about the validity and reliability of the variables.

3. In tables 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 I am a bit surprised to see "Yes" in a table of correlations.

4. Please add additional specific suggestions for future research which link your findings to previous studies and previous theories.  I believe that you are you are underestimating the potential value added to the literature by your paper so you should be able to have a significant/meaningful impact on the literature in the future.

5.  At this point I also was rather concerned as I started to note "Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW" and yet the paper was submitted in 2023.  This could cause concerns about the originally of the paper however I think that it is that you have taken previous comments seriously and it has taken you a couple of years to make changes to the paper and submit it as a new submission - so you are to be commended for this.

Thank you very much for submitting your paper to Sustainability.  I hope that you find my comments useful at improving the potential value added to the literature by your paper and that you continue to consider Sustainability and other MDPI journals as potential outlets for your finest papers in the future.

 

I believe that the paper needs additional editing for English.  The issues that I see are not major/significant but they are noticeable.  For instance in line 131 you have written "A lot of studies have examined" while it seems more natural to state "Numerous studies have examined" and my computer system tells me that it should be a specific number - but I think that this suggestion goes beyond what would be expected.  In the next line you have written "Boubakri et al. finds" but as the number of authors in more than one I believe that it should be "find" as opposed to finds.  In line 134 "encourages" should likely be "encourage" and then in line 141 "researches" should likely either be "researchers" or "research" although I can not tell which it should be.  This is a little over 10 lines and there are additional sections of the paper that also could use editing like this.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper.