Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Organizational Resilience in Construction Firms—A Study from China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors: thank you for your article and your contribution. I have reviewed closely and I am sending you my suggestions divided by sections so I hope it's more understandable. I have organized each section into strenghts, weaknesses and suggestions for improvement.
Title and Abstract
- Strengths: The title accurately captures the study's focus on CSR and organizational resilience in construction firms. The abstract provides a general overview of the research.
- Weaknesses: The abstract lacks specificity in describing the methodology. For example, it states that the study uses a "fixed effects model" but does not explain the rationale behind its choice.
- Suggestions for Improvement: Improve the explanation of the methodology by briefly explaining the choice of the fixed effects model. For instance, mention that this model was chosen to control for unobserved heterogeneity across firms .
Introduction
- Strengths: The introduction effectively identifies the research gap and contextualizes the study within the broader literature although it is too focus in the case of China.
- Weaknesses: The statement of the research objectives is somewhat implicit. While the introduction provides a solid background, it does not clearly articulate the study's primary aims.
- Suggestions for Improvement: Explicitly state the research objectives towards the end of the introduction. For example, add a sentence such as, "This study aims to explore the relationship between CSR disclosure and organizational resilience, focusing on the construction industry in China." Also I would suggest to include a final paragraph explaining the structure of the study.
Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypotheses
- Strengths: The section provides a comprehensive review of literature relevant to CSR and organizational resilience.
- Weaknesses: The review is somewhat lengthy and includes some redundancies. For instance, the discussion of CSR categories could be condensed to avoid repetition. Also, it does not really explain the difference in resilience between construction firms and other firms. In addition, an introduction is needed to justify the different points in which the section is structured. The derivation of hypotheses is too straightforward.
- Suggestions for Improvement: Streamline the literature review by consolidating redundant discussions. Additionally, consider using subheadings within this section to improve clarity, such as separating the analysis of CSR categories and the derivation of hypotheses.
Research Design
- Strengths: The research design is well-detailed, with a clear explanation of the data sources and variable selection.
- Weaknesses: Some variables, like “organizational redundancy”, are explained with technical jargon, which could be challenging for readers not familiar with these terms.
- Suggestions for Improvement: Provide brief definitions or explanations of these terms, either in the text or as footnotes. For example, explain “organizational redundancy” as the amount of excess resources a firm maintains to manage uncertainty.
Empirical Research and Results (Lines 299-343)
- Strengths: The empirical results are thoroughly presented with detailed regression analysis.
- Weaknesses: The results are densely packed and may be difficult for some readers to interpret. For example, the explanation of the confirmation of hypotheses is lost in the text when it should be highlighted.
- Suggestions for Improvement: Introduce more tables or figures to visually summarize the key results. For example, Table 4-2 could be supplemented with a bar chart showing the impact of CSR on organizational resilience across different models. Also, remark if the hypotheses are true or not.
Conclusion and Implications (Lines 345-422)
- Strengths: The conclusion effectively summarizes the study's contributions and practical implications.
- Weaknesses: The conclusion is somewhat repetitive, particularly in the discussion of CSR's impact on resilience . Additionally, the discussion on limitations is brief and does not explore potential biases in the data or the generalizability of the findings .
- Suggestions for Improvement: Condense the discussion of findings to avoid repetition. Expand the limitations section to address potential biases, such as the reliance on data from Chinese firms, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other contexts.
Figures and Tables
- Table 4-1 (Descriptive and Correlation Analysis): The table is informative but could be overwhelming due to the number of variables presented. Consider highlighting key correlations that are central to the study’s hypotheses.
- Table 4-2 (Regression Analysis Results): While comprehensive, the table could be supplemented with a visual summary, such as a graph comparing the coefficients for different CSR dimensions.
- General Suggestion: Where appropriate, add more figures or simplify existing tables to enhance readability. For instance, a flowchart explaining the research design, or a visual summary of the hypotheses could be valuable additions. In addition, try not to "cut" the tables into different pages.
Overall Suggestions for Improvement: Consider simplifying some of the more technical explanations and enhancing the discussion of practical implications. Additionally, ensure that key findings and their relevance are prominently featured in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
No comments in here
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the opportunity to review and offer my feedback on the manuscript titled "Impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational resilience in construction firms". This article addresses an interesting theme about corporate social responsibility performance and disclosure, particularly in the areas of shareholder, societal, and employee relations that contribute significantly to the organizational resilience of construction companies, helping them overcome challenges and evolve.
This article presents a novel perspective, as the research aims to better understand how CSR practices can help construction companies navigate challenges and achieve sustainable development.
The article is well presented, with methodological explanations incorporated within the narrative to increase overall coherence. The tables effectively highlight the key findings of the research.
However, there are some minor observations that deserve attention and revision in subsequent drafts of the manuscript:
- all citations in the paper (e.g., Leslie [1], 2022, Xu et al. [2], 2022, Su et al. [3], 2024, etc.) are not used following the journal’s recommendations, please update all the citations and verify all the References to the journal’s rules.
- Line 233, please justify in the text why the period of the analysis was selected between 2010-2020. Is a matter of access to information? There is no information to date?
- the localization of the analysis in Shanghai and Shenzhen maybe included in the title to better prepare the reader for the content of the research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for the reviewed version. The paper has much improved from the first version and your answers were clear. I still would reccomend you to organize a little better the graphical part - figures 2 and 3 take a lot of space and I am not sure if they are necessary - and also to give concrete answers to the hypotheses you have set.
You make several of them but you do not clearly organize the result to assess if they are valid or not, that is what the article would be lacking in my opinion to be ready for publication.
Have a nice day!
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome adjustments should be made
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
