The Impact of Digitalization and Sustainability on Governance Structures and Corporate Communication: A Cross-Industry and Cross-Country Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Introduction:  Based on the results of previous research it's needed to provide an explanation related to: Digitalization and sustainability, Digitization and communication, Communications and sustainability.

2.  Add section 2.4. The impact of digitalization and sustainability on corporate governance 

3. Add section 2.5. The impact of digitalization and sustainability on corporate Communications.

4. The author needs to elaborate on the managerial implication and theoretical contribution in the Discussion section.

5.  References: I suggest the authors cites more relevant articles from sustainability minimal 3 Journal

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

REVIEW COMMENTS
After the review process, the reviewer would like to give some critical thinking and idea to help authors get their job done efficiently.
I have only a few concerns about the paper and some suggestions that maybe the authors could consider:
1.    To begin with, there are some typos and grammar mistakes. Some long sentences could make readers confused.
2.    In the 'Introduction' section, the proposed research gap and the stated objectives do not meet the criteria of proper synergy. Please make the research gap and the research objectives consistent with each other.
3.    The authors highlighted in the ‘Introduction section’ about combining different technologies such as the IoT, big data analytics, but the authors did not  referred to these technologies or devices that can be used in digitalization. I think that the “Introduction” section can be improved by adding some sentences about the technologies that can be used in the future to enhance the digitalization effectiveness such as but not limited to, ET and EEG wearable device. I suggest some ref. 'neuromarketing research in the last five years: a bibliometric analysis', 'biomedical technology in studying consumers’ subconscious behavior' , which can be beneficial to improve the issue.
4.    It might be appropriate for the authors to write their research questions (RQs) in bullet points to be clear and easy to catch them by readers.
5.    Section 2.1, the authors highlight that "Smart technologies are an “umbrella term” that encompasses all those technological innovations - such as the Internet of  Things, Big Data Analytics, Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence, that have an impact on organisations" what kind of smart technologies you meant or devices in this paragraph? There are many several devices that use in digitalization such as eye-tracking technology, and wireless EEG technology. I suggest a ref. 'current trends in the application of eeg in neuromarketing: a bibliometric analysis' which can be beneficial to improve this issue and to be more clear about smart or innovation technology.
6.    The authors should be more clear about the duration of data collection? For example, the authors selected material till Dec 2021 but they did not refer to the from which year they start select material.
7.    Could the authors explain why they used content analysis in Line 386 then they said we conducted analysis by using thematic analysis techniques in Line 435?
8.    Could the authors explain why they chosen Italy and French personal care, drug and grocery stores sector and ignore the same sectors in Spain?
9.    The authors adopted interpretivisms philosophy which is qualitative method in line 431, then they applied inductive (qualitative) and deductive (quantitative) processes Line 433. Could the authors explain that issue because I am actually confused?
10.    Could the authors clearly refer to the techniques that used in analyzing the collected data? For example, NVivo or what?
11.    The authors should explicitly state the novel contribution of this work and its similarities and differences with their previous publications.
12.    The authors need to clearly articulate the implications of the research results for theory and practice are not included in the article. A detailed explanations of the author’s recommendations should be included. I would suggest writing a section before the conclusion section for the implications. I would suggest the ref. 'neuroimaging techniques in advertising research: main applications, development, and brain regions and processes', which can help in this issue.
13.    The authors need to clearly articulate the limitations and Future research directions should be proposed. I would suggest the ref. 'current trends in the application of eeg in neuromarketing: a bibliometric analysis' which can help in that issue.
14.    For readers to quickly catch your contributions, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges and your original achievements to overcome them in a clearer way in the abstract and introduction.
15.    How could/should your study help the future studies?
If these revisions can be made in the manuscript, I believe that this study can be accepted for publication.
I wish the authors all the very best with this study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments to Author/s

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript draft. It is an important and interesting topic, and it does appear that the authors have novel and interesting results to report in the prospect of digitalization and sustainability. At the moment, it is probably of interest mainly to those researchers who are empirically interested in this dimension.

To respect the time of Journal called upon to review the piece and to ensure the integrity of the journal, I would have expected more care to have been taken in editing before submission. That said, again, it’s an interesting piece with potential. What follows are comments on particular sections of the text:

Abstract is well written.

The Introduction part is developed well and the author/s tries to explain it from every possible dimension. Aims are given in clear war, same as the research questions are developed well and how to accomplish those questions are answered in briefed way.

Literature is nicely developed under the scope of study, author/s clearly explained their study dimension in term of digitization, sustainability and also in term of their desired sectors i.e food and fashion. Satisfied with current format of this section.

Data and methodology section is also explained briefly and there is no ambiguity regarding the data. Brief details are given regarding data source, the author/s efforts are appreciated. I suggest author/s to modify Table 1 in more presentable way.

Findings and conclusion are written well but I will suggest author/s that current study advance comprehensive framework and as the author/s claims that this study is contributing a lot within its dimensions. Therefore, I will suggest author/s to read some recent articles in each country and the included company’s context and add to the literature section. Beside that give some more evidences in term of estimation strategy which they utilize in this manuscript.

Best of Luck!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Article:   The impact of digitalization and sustainability on governance structures and corporate communication. A cross-industry and cross-country approach

 

After reviewing this article, I think it is potential for publication but the authors should revise as comments below:

 

- In the introduction, the authors should emphasize the motivation of the research. Why the research questions are important in Italian, French and Spanish? Why fashion and food sectors are more important than other industries? Please explain and support those arguments

 

- In the literature, The authors have to come up with specific hypotheses relating to research questions. In addition, the authors should review and update recent studies relating to corporate governance, digitalization and sustainability, there are many factors that may affect corporate governance structure which will be the basis for the methodology in the following part. I suggest the authors review and cite some recent studies such as Nguyen (2022b); Pathan and Skully (2010); Nguyen (2022a); Dang and Nguyen (2021); Boone et al. (2007); Nguyen and Dang (2022)… (see reference)

 

 -  There are some typos and grammatical errors, you must check it again carefully.

 

References

 

Boone, A. L., Field, L. C., Karpoff, J. M., & Raheja, C. G. (2007). The determinants of corporate board size and composition: An empirical analysis. Journal of financial economics, 85(1), 66-101.

Dang, V. C., & Nguyen, Q. K. (2021). Internal corporate governance and stock price crash risk: evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 1-18. doi:10.1080/20430795.2021.2006128

Nguyen, Q. K. (2022a). Audit committee effectiveness, bank efficiency and risk-taking: Evidence in ASEAN countries. Cogent Business & Management, 9(1), 2080622.

Nguyen, Q. K. (2022b). Audit committee structure, institutional quality, and bank stability: evidence from ASEAN countries. Finance Research Letters, 46, 102369.

Nguyen, Q. K., & Dang, V. C. (2022). Does the country’s institutional quality enhance the role of risk governance in preventing bank risk? Applied Economics Letters, 1-4.

Pathan, S., & Skully, M. (2010). Endogenously structured boards of directors in banks. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(7), 1590-1606.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

After the review process, the reviewer would like to give some critical thinking and idea to help authors get their job done efficiently.

I have only a few concerns about the paper and some suggestions that maybe the authors could consider:

1.     To begin with, there are some typos and grammar mistakes. Some long sentences could make readers confused.

2.     I think the 'Introduction' section can be improved in term of consumer behaviour toward marketing stimuli and the impact of digitalization on consumer behaviour. So, I would suggest a ref. "consumer behaviour to be considered in advertising: a systematic analysis and future agenda" which can be benefit for authors.

3.     I would suggest the authors to separate the limitations and future directions in section after conclusion section not with the conclusion section.

4.     How could/should your study help future studies?

If these revisions can be made to the manuscript, I believe that this study can be accepted for publication.

I wish the authors all the very best with this study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

once again, we thank you for taking the time to review our research.

We appreciate your feedback, which helped us strengthen our work. we have worked to respond to your comments; for convenience, all revisions have been made by using the “Track Changes” function in the attached revised paper.

Specifically, for point 1: “To begin with, there are some typos and grammar mistakes. Some long sentences could make readers confused.”, we have subjected the paper to a professional proofread in order to strengthen and complete the review process. Please see the attachment.

Point 2.: “I think the 'Introduction' section can be improved in term of consumer behaviour toward marketing stimuli and the impact of digitalization on consumer behaviour. So, I would suggest a ref. "consumer behaviour to be considered in advertising: a systematic analysis and future agenda" which can be benefit for authors”. We thank you for the comment that motivated us to improve the “Introduction” section. The suggested study is very relevant and for this we have reviewed and cited it in the paper.

Point 3.: “I would suggest the authors to separate the limitations and future directions in section after conclusion section not with the conclusion section.” Thank you; we have accepted and followed your suggestion; we have added the sub-paragraph “6.1. Limitations and future research”.

For point 4.: “How could/should your study help future studies?”, we have added in the sub-paragraph 6.1 that: “We believe that our study provides a comprehensive framework by promoting an evolution in the corporate governance structures and corporate communication of food and fashion companies. We hope that this study will help scholars and practitioners to identify governance models and different kinds of corporate communication able to promote digitalization processes and sustainable paths for companies”.

We hope that you find that the revised manuscript has adequately addressed your requests and that our changes and improvements are satisfactory.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This version is better and can be publised.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the opportunity to publish our revised paper.

We have appreciated your feedback, which helped us strengthen our work.

Best Regards

The Author