Company-Level Factors of Non-Financial Reporting Quality under a Mandatory Regime: A Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence in the European Union
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Authors based their work on the integration and analysis of 16 papers dealing with certain domains of non-financial reporting. The authors based their research on a review of the existing literature of 16 papers and made general conclusions. I believe that this kind of research is not well established. First of all, the conclusions are drawn on the basis of only 16 papers. Secondly, the works are from different time periods and cover different countries. do the results apply to the whole EU then? The papers reviewed include different NFRQ variables and different NFRQ sources. How then can their integration and joint analysis and drawing of general conclusions be carried out.
In the paper, the authors did not apply any statistical and mathematical data processing method.
The citation does not comply with the journal's requirements.
One author has 4 self citation.
Because of the above, I believe that the work is not of satisfactory quality for publication in the journal.
Author Response
Please find the response in the attached file. Best regards!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors can consider the following aspects:
In abstract: More clearly outline how the study results contribute to the understanding of the relationship between the NFRQ and the factors mentioned, as well as the possible implications for the future of sustainability reporting.
The proposed introduction is very detailed and provides a comprehensive perspective on the evolution of non-financial reporting and regulation in the European Union. However, to improve clarity and make the text more accessible, it is possible to systematize details about previous studies, which could make the introduction more succinct (some can be included in section 2).
The formulated research questions are well structured and address key issues related to the impact of different factors on the quality of non-financial reporting under the EU Directive.
In section 3.1. a diagram illustrating the flow of the selection process can be included, so that the stages and results are clearly highlighted;
In section 3.2. the criteria for excluding variables can be explained more clearly, possibly using examples to clearly justify the motivation of exclusion decisions.
The findings provide a complex picture of the impact of different factors on the quality of non-financial reporting, highlighting the relationships and influences of company-level variables in the NFRD context.
Author Response
Please find the response in the attached file. Best regards!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article examines the relationship between non-financial reporting quality (NFRQ) and company-level factors under the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive. Sixteen studies from EU companies since 2017 were analyzed, evaluating factors such as size, accounting performance, corporate governance, and sustainability. The results highlight that company size, corporate governance, and sustainability performance (ESG) are positively correlated with NFRQ. Additionally, aspects such as board independence and gender diversity positively influence non-financial reporting quality, emphasizing their importance in enhancing reports during the transition to the new EU Directive 2022/2464.
The article should provide more explicit references to its novelty concerning existing literature. Clearly articulating how the research contributes to the field and what sets it apart from previous studies would enhance its academic significance.
It is recommended to incorporate the figures included in the annex directly into the body of the article. This integration would significantly enhance reader comprehension, allowing readers to engage with the visual data seamlessly while going through the text.
Considering the article's length, it is advisable to consider moving the annexes to an institutional repository. This step would streamline the main article, making it more focused and concise, while still allowing interested readers easy access to supplementary materials via the repository. This adjustment would improve the overall readability and accessibility of the research findings.
Methodology
The methodology description lacks explicit details about the specific process of content analysis used for evaluating annual reports. Providing a step-by-step explanation of how the content analysis was conducted would enhance transparency and allow readers to assess the rigor of the methodology.
The rationale behind the inclusion criteria, particularly the selection of specific variables like ESG disclosure scores and transparency measures, needs to be clearly explained. Justifying why these variables were chosen and how they relate to the research objectives would strengthen the methodology.
While articles in languages other than English were automatically excluded, it’s essential to acknowledge potential language bias. Mentioning the potential limitation and its impact on the inclusivity of the study would demonstrate methodological awareness.
The adjustment made in correlation coefficients due to the mention of "omissions" in one article (Caputo et al., 2021) raises questions about data integrity. A detailed explanation of how and why such adjustments were made is necessary. This ensures transparency and helps readers assess the robustness of the findings.
The methodology section (or better discussion of results) should include an explicit statement about how this study advances existing literature. Highlighting the unique aspects or innovations introduced in this research would clarify its contribution to the field.
It might be beneficial to discuss why a systematic literature review was chosen over other methods and acknowledge the limitations associated with this choice. Exploring alternative methodologies and explaining the rationale for selecting this approach would provide a well-rounded perspective.
We recommend citing the following papers in your research to provide a comprehensive context for your study:
Ivanović, V. (2013). "The Key Characteristics of Financial Reporting in the European System of Central Banks." Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice, 3, 47-69.
Kaczmarek, J., Alonso, S. L. N., Sokołowski, A., Fijorek, K., & Denkowska, S. (2021). "Financial Threat Profiles of Industrial Enterprises in Poland." Oeconomia Copernicana, 12(2), 463-498.
Valaskova, K., Gajdosikova, D., & Belas, J. (2023). "Bankruptcy Prediction in the Post-Pandemic Period: A Case Study of Visegrad Group Countries." Oeconomia Copernicana, 14(1), 253-293.
Sarea, A. M. (2020). "Web-based Financial Reporting Disclosure: Evidence from Selected Banks in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA)." Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice, 9(2), 183-197.
Ullah, Saif, Hussain, Sayed Irshad, Nabi, Agha Amad, and Mubashir, Khurram Ali. "Role of Regulatory Governance in Financial Stability: A Comparison of High and Low-Income Countries." Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice, vol.11, no.1, 2022, pp.207-226. DOI: 10.2478/jcbtp-2022-0009
Citing these works will strengthen the theoretical framework of your research and provide valuable insights into related studies in the field.
Author Response
Please find the response in the attached file. Best regards!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsplease write more detailed information about how the table 5 Results with correlations on Non-Financial Reporting variables was created
Author Response
Please find attached!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author(s)
After a second round review of your paper, I believe that you have made the requested changes. You have also addressed all my concerns in the previous round of review.
I thank you for both the clarity of your cover letter response and the way you have reflected the changes in the paper, making it much easier to read and my valuable time.
Best regards,
Author Response
Please find attached!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
