Predicting Efficiency of Innovative Disaster Response Practices: Case Study of China’s Corporate Philanthropy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1- The author(s) have a introduction section and explicitly emphasize the contributions of the paper.
2- The paper has a good definition. It is recommended that the author(s) further declare the procedure in more depth and use more definitions.

3- There should be part a part that explains the strengths and limitations of related studies, especially the recent trend and gaps that this manuscript aims to address.

4- It would be wonderful if the shortcomings and gaps in the literature were clarified, particularly regarding how the proposed strategy intends to fill up the gaps in the literature. 

5- A significant number of works that are related. There is no need for further recent references. 

6- It is advisable to offer a full experimental flowchart to do so because this will allow other researchers to reference the suggested approach more easily.

7- Author(s) have describe their methodology and approach.

8- The Tables and Figures have been explained.

9- The author(s) have been providing a detailed explanation of the contribution. 

10- Author(s) made comparisons between their findings and those of other studies

11- The analysis of the results is good, and it should be improved so that it better reflects the contributions of the paper. 

Author Response

Dear Professor, thank you for taking the time to review our work. Your insightful comments have helped us to substantially enhance the quality of our research project. Below is a point-by-point response to your comments.

Comment 1- The author(s) have a introduction section and explicitly emphasize the contributions of the paper.

Response: Dear Professor, thank you for taking the time to review our work. Your encouraged comments have motivated us.

Comment 2- The paper has a good definition. It is recommended that the author(s) further declare the procedure in more depth and use more definitions.

Response: Thank you for your encouraged comments. The variables used are shifted to data and methodology section, detailed definitions are given now.

Comment 3- There should be part a part that explains the strengths and limitations of related studies, especially the recent trend and gaps that this manuscript aims to address.

Response: Thank you for mentioning introduction and conclusion section is updated to address this comment.

Comment 4- It would be wonderful if the shortcomings and gaps in the literature were clarified, particularly regarding how the proposed strategy intends to fill up the gaps in the literature.

Response: Thank you for mentioning, Now last paragraphs of Introduction are addressing the research significance, contribution and problem solved in this study.

Comment 5- A significant number of works that are related. There is no need for further recent references.

Response: Thank you for your encouraged comments.

Comment 6- It is advisable to offer a full experimental flowchart to do so because this will allow other researchers to reference the suggested approach more easily.

Response: Thank you for insightful comment, in data and methodology section model is explained in detail to address this comment.

Comment 7- Author(s) have describe their methodology and approach.

Response: Thank you for taking the time to review our work.

Comment 8- The Tables and Figures have been explained.

Response: Thank you for taking the time to review our work. Your encouraged comments have motivated us.

Comment 9- The author(s) have been providing a detailed explanation of the contribution.

Response: Your encouraged comments have motivated us.

Comment 10- Author(s) made comparisons between their findings and those of other studies

Response: Dear Professor, thank you for taking the time to review our work. Your encouraged comments have motivated us.

Comment 11- The analysis of the results is good, and it should be improved so that it better reflects the contributions of the paper.

Response: Thanks for the comments. We have substantially improved and augmented result section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

In the present manuscript you have conducted a detailed analysis of the literature sources related to the issue of Corporate Philanthropy. 

- The introduction is too long, the readers are academics and practitioners who are not novices and have an overview of the issue.

- The research design, questions, hypotheses and methods are not clearly stated.

- Part 2 is very vague, does not justify the choice of 12 variables in the estimated model. 

- Tables 2-5 follow each other -I think they should be separated by the text.

- The conclusions are not thoroughly supported by the results presented and referenced in the secondary literature.

Indeed, this empirical study lacks a conceptual/theoretical framework that is required to support the aim of the study in a scientific manner. Thus, I do not think this article is suitable for publication in such a high-impact journal.

Author Response

Dear Professor, thank you for taking the time to review our work. Your insightful comments have helped us to substantially enhance the quality of our research project. Below is a point-by-point response to your comments.

Comment: In the present manuscript you have conducted a detailed analysis of the literature sources related to the issue of Corporate Philanthropy.

Response: Thank you for taking the time to review our work, rightly identified.

Comment: The introduction is too long, the readers are academics and practitioners who are not novices and have an overview of the issue.

Response: We have substantially improved and augmented in Introduction section. Last paragraphs of Introduction are addressing the research significance, contribution and problem solved in this study The Introduction part is shrink now and variables used are shifted to data and methodology section.

Comment: The research design, questions, hypotheses and methods are not clearly stated.

Response: Thank you for insightful comment, in data and methodology section model is explained in detail to address this comment.

Comment: Part 2 is very vague, does not justify the choice of 12 variables in the estimated model.

Response: Thanks for the comments. We have substantially improved by adding justification of 12-variable used by literature, as they are used as determinants of Corporate Philanthropy.

Comment: Tables 2-5 follow each other -I think they should be separated by the text.

Response: Thanks for the comments. We have now separated tables by adding the relevant text explanation of tables.

Comment: The conclusions are not thoroughly supported by the results presented and referenced in the secondary literature.

Response: Thanks for the comments. We have substantially improved and augmented significance of the findings and their implications. Also, findings related to the prior studies are included in manuscript

Comment: Indeed, this empirical study lacks a conceptual/theoretical framework that is required to support the aim of the study in a scientific manner. Thus, I do not think this article is suitable for publication in such a high-impact journal.

Response: We have substantially improved and augmented significance of the findings and their implications.

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The author mentioned that "In management science and behavioral finance, there has been a long debate on CP and CSR...".  CSR has already a long-established root in areas like accounting/accountability and management/ business ethics. The author may need to explore more relevant literature on the CSR research development in the past 40 years.

2. When citing examples like Hurricane Katrina, the author may need to cite relevant papers such as the classic paper about Katrina in Critical Perspectives on Accounting, and also other papers on CSR and disaster management published in various other journals.

3. I fully understand that this paper is only focused on CP. I was wondering while most studies are getting out of the "charity" aspect of CSR (see, in the case of China, the SCVPS which represents the stakeholder theory), why is the author still only putting emphasis on "charitable donations"?

4. Yes, the focus on CP can work, but only with "thick" theoretical background and support in order to convince the advocates of stakeholder theory and other theories mainly employed in CSR studies.

5. The Wenchuen earthquake took place in 2008. And during the past 14 years, there have been also many natural disasters on the mainland and internationally. The author ought to specify the rationale of choosing this incidence and should there be some comparative information be supplied?

6. It is quite clear that the theoretical part and the discussion part of the paper need significant improvement. Should there be discussions on legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory, resource dependence theory? What about the specific political economy theory in China? Is the author well-versed about the situation of "donations" in mainland China?

7. While I commend the author's management with the data and the analysis, I recommend that the author may want to conduct a deeper literature review on CSR and disasters/scandals/corporate reputation first.

8. Since the author found a relationship between 'un-environmental-friendly' firms had a greater tendency toward higher CP, this is not any significant contribution toward the well established legitimacy theory, which was unfortunately not acknowledged in the paper at all.

9. The author is also suggested to review the correlations of the variables and their meanings. For example, CP and profitability. How does this explain in terms of 'real' CSR and window-dressing?

Author Response

Dear Professor, thank you for taking the time to review our work. Your insightful comments have helped us to substantially enhance the quality of our research project. Below is a point-by-point response to your comments.

Comment: The author mentioned that "In management science and behavioral finance, there has been a long debate on CP and CSR..." CSR has already a long-established root in areas like accounting/accountability and management/ business ethics. The author may need to explore more relevant literature on the CSR research development in the past 40 years.

Response: Thank you for mentioning we have substantially improved and augmented in Introduction section.

Comment 2. When citing examples like Hurricane Katrina, the author may need to cite relevant papers such as the classic paper about Katrina in Critical Perspectives on Accounting, and also other papers on CSR and disaster management published in various other journals.

Response: Thank you for mentioning we have substantially improved and augmented in Introduction section.

Comment 3. I fully understand that this paper is only focused on CP. I was wondering while most studies are getting out of the "charity" aspect of CSR (see, in the case of China, the SCVPS which represents the stakeholder theory), why is the author still only putting emphasis on "charitable donations"?

Response: As philanthropic responsibilities require more volunteering activities to a firm and this study is focused on volunteer aspect of responsibility.

Comment 4. Yes, the focus on CP can work, but only with "thick" theoretical background and support in order to convince the advocates of stakeholder theory and other theories mainly employed in CSR studies.

Response: Thank you for your encouraged comments.

Comment 5. The Wenchuen earthquake took place in 2008. And during the past 14 years, there have been also many natural disasters on the mainland and internationally. The author ought to specify the rationale of choosing this incidence and should there be some comparative information be supplied?

Response: In China Wenchun earthquake is included in top deadliest disaster. After the Wenchuan earthquake in 2008, the government encouraged corporate to participate in disaster assistance. This disaster occurred on May 12, 2008 with almost 69,000 people lost their lives and nearly 370,000 people got injuries and many more were reported lost. The Ritcher scale told the intensity as 8.0 magnitudes. These are main reasons to use it.

Comment 6. It is quite clear that the theoretical part and the discussion part of the paper need significant improvement. Should there be discussions on legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory, resource dependence theory? What about the specific political economy theory in China? Is the author well-versed about the situation of "donations" in mainland China?

Response: Thank you for insightful comment, in data and methodology section model is explained in detail also discussion and conclusion are significantly improved to address this comment

Comment 7. While I commend the author's management with the data and the analysis, I recommend that the author may want to conduct a deeper literature review on CSR and disasters/scandals/corporate reputation first.

Response: We have substantially improved and augmented in Introduction section. Last paragraphs of Introduction are addressing the research significance, contribution and problem solved in this study

Comment 8. Since the author found a relationship between 'un-environmental-friendly' firms had a greater tendency toward higher CP, this is not any significant contribution toward the well established legitimacy theory, which was unfortunately not acknowledged in the paper at all.

Response: Thanks for mentioning discussion and conclusion portion is sustainably improved to address comment.

Comment 9. The author is also suggested to review the correlations of the variables and their meanings. For example, CP and profitability. How does this explain in terms of 'real' CSR and window-dressing?

Response: Your insightful comments have helped us to substantially enhance the result portion.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I recommend accepting your manuscript in its present form.

Good luck with your future research.

Author Response

Comments:

Dear authors,

I recommend accepting your manuscript in its present form.

Good luck with your future research.

Response to Reviewer: 2

Dear Professor, thank you for taking the time to review our work. Your encouraged comments have motivated us. Your insightful comments have helped us to substantially enhance the quality of our research project

Reviewer 3 Report

Please refer to the journal editor's communication with you. Thank you.

Author Response

Please refer to the journal editor's communication with you. Thank you.

Response : OK