Corporate Social Responsibility Practices and Financial Performance of New Ventures: The Moderating Role of Government Support

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read this paper. The following are some of my recommendations that may enhance the contribution to the literature and the development of knowledge.

1)     The authors have chosen to go with the ‘hypothesis development’ style before the analysis, which is fine, but I recommend the authors to argue more about the quality of the hypotheses. It is necessary to further justify the theoretical hypotheses that have already been identified in the literature.

2)     The section ‘Sample and Data Sources’ provides more details on data collection and a simple justification regarding the period analysed. I recommend to detail the information.

3)     I recommend that the authors provide more ‘discussions’ around the ‘results’.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study proposed is an interesting read, a well-designed paper with valuable insights on the topic. The paper adds to the literature in the field of CSR practices of new ventures, as well as in discussing the government support of CSR initiatives. Another added value of the research is connected to the distinction between primary and secondary stakeholders in connection with CSR practices. The focus is on China, which is a very specific case considering the overall important role of the state, even when considering private companies. 

Generally, the paper is well documented. Nevertheless, the references to previous studies investigating the impact of CSR on financial performance, both for businesses in general and for new ventures in particular, are only a few. We suggest a more thorough investigation on this matter. Maybe a table (or two) synthesizing these two lines of investigation would be welcomed to have a succinct and clear image on it. 

We also recommend elaborating more on the types of involvement the Chinese government has in connection with companies' CSR practices. the paper tends to be vague in this matter, specifying that the government is "encouraging" companies to get involved in CSR practices. More details are revealed when presenting the measurement instrument - still, we consider that a detailed presentation of the specific policies in China prior to the methodological aspects would be a plus in understanding the framework and the Chinese economy. 

The methodology is appropriate and clearly presented. The only point where more details might be welcomed is in relation to the secondary stakeholders items. It is not very clear what dimensions are measured and how do they relate both to government support and financial impact. 

The results are well-presented and interesting. We only recommend you insist on discussing the results related to the secondary stakeholders. Also, elaborating more on the implications of the findings for new ventures, as well as for the government, would be welcomed. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I find this article well-written and well-presented. It deals with well-known theme on CSR but in new companies, new business ventures. Also, it deals with very sophisticated statistical analysis, which is always a great plus for the paper and authors. I don t have any other request, I find it ready for publication. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your recognition. We will continue to work hard as always and hope that the article can be smoothly published.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your research presented in the paper. I would like to offer some constructive comments that could significantly enhance the impact and clarity of your paper in several key areas.

1、The use of hierarchical regression analysis is appropriate, but a more in-depth explanation of statistical choices and their implications is needed. Enhancing the clarity and detail in the methodology section would aid understanding and replicability.

2、Addressing Confounding Variables: A more thorough discussion on potential external factors influencing the results is necessary. Steps taken to mitigate these potential confounders would strengthen the study's validity.

3、More explicit acknowledgment of the limitations, including sample representativeness and potential biases, is needed. Discussing these limitations would provide a more balanced view of the research.

4、Elaborating on practical implications for different industrial sectors or countries would make the findings more applicable.

5、Offering specific suggestions for future research, such as exploring other moderating factors or longitudinal studies, would be valuable.

While the overall quality of English is good, the paper could benefit from a final review by a native English speaker, preferably with expertise in academic writing. This could help refine the language further, ensuring that it meets the highest standards of academic publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Author,

I am pleased to inform you that your revised manuscript has been reviewed and is now satisfactory for publication. The revisions you have made adequately address the previously noted concerns and significantly enhance the overall quality and clarity of your research.