Review Reports - The Impact of Corporate Characteristics on Climate Governance Disclosure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Proofreading:
- The manuscript requires professional proofreading. For instance, there are instances of incomplete sentences, such as "climate governance. In addition, we ." and inconsistent use of terms like "governance); sustainability;". Ensuring grammatical correctness and consistent formatting will significantly improve the overall readability.
Research Objectives and Title:
- The research objectives are not clearly defined in the manuscript. It is ambiguous whether the study aims to develop a sustainability disclosure measurement or investigate determinants. I suggest clarifying the research objectives to align with the following revised statement: "The objective of this study was to identify the effect of various sustainability corporate governance variables on the disclosure level of climate change governance." Furthermore, it's essential to reflect this clarity in the manuscript title for better alignment.
Keywords:
- It is advisable to choose the most relevant and specific keywords to enhance the discoverability of your manuscript. Ensure that the selected keywords accurately represent the core themes of your research.
Introduction Focus:
- The introduction should primarily present the research motivation or problem rather than adopting a form of literature review. Clearly articulate the gap or challenge in the existing knowledge that your study addresses. This will engage readers and set the stage for the significance of your research.
  
  1. Please re-structure paper as follows: 1. Introduction, 2. Background, 3. Theoretical literature review, 4. Empirical literature review and hypotheses development, 5. Research design, 6. Empirical results and discussion, and 7. Summary and conclusion.
  
  2. Introduction: the introduction is rushed out. Please clarify your research questions, objectives, background motivation which is the main focus of the introduction as well as the theoretical and empirical motivation and the lines of contributions to the literature.
  
  Khatib, S. F., Abdullah, D. F., Elamer, A., & Hazaea, S. A. (2022). The development of corporate governance literature in Malaysia: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 22(5), 1026-1053.
  
  The authors can do this by sharply articulating your research questions/objectives, identify the potential theoretical, background and theoretical motivation or gaps, and explain how your study contributes to the literature. You can do this by highlighting the weaknesses of prior studies as well. Currently, your introduction is very dry. Additionally, you need state clearly the contributions of the paper. For example, "Consequently, the current paper seeks to make the following contributions to the existing literature. First,…, Second,…., Third, …, Fourth,… and so on". The introduction should be about 5 pages long.
  
  The introduction could benefit from focusing more on the motivation behind conducting the study rather than presenting a comprehensive literature review. While it is essential to provide context, a concise introduction that highlights why this study is significant and necessary can capture readers' attention more effectively.
  
  Contribution: The manuscript lacks a clear statement regarding its contribution to the existing body of literature. Prior studies that you mentioned suggest a positive relationship between ESG ratings and various financial and environmental factors. It is crucial to explicitly state how your study builds upon or extends these prior findings. For example, you could specify what unique aspects of your research design, data, or results distinguish it from previous research.
  
  3. Background - you need to explain why this is the appropriate context (Taiwan) to conduct this study by exploiting regulatory, reform and policy issues and developments within the research context or setting. This should be about two to three pages long.
  
  4. Theoretical framework - Please an overarching theoretical framework that will explain the underlying predictions and hypotheses of interest. In doing so, please explicitly outline how they help link the dependent and independent variables together by drawing on both seminal (old) and recently (newly) published studies. This should be about two to three pages long.
  
  5. Literature review and hypotheses Development - please enhance your hypotheses by: (i) drawing on the theory; (ii) empirical literature; (iii) research setting/contextual insights; and (iv) then setting up your hypotheses. You will do this for each hypothesis. Currently, you have not developed your hypotheses in this way. You will need to do so by drawing on both seminal (old) and recently (newly) published studies highlighting the inconsistency/gaps in the existing studies. At the end, the hypotheses can be formulated base on the theoretical and empirical support.
  support the following statment with khatib 2023 "Transparency and accountability are of growing importance when identifying the pathway to a lower corporate carbon footprint." Khatib, S. F. (2023). The role of share repurchases for firms' social and environmental sustainability. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 183, 1-3.
  
  6. Research design - Please identify, classify and explain your variables - dependent, independent and control variables, as well as any others, such as moderating or mediating variables. Please also explain your sample selection clearly (insert a table tabulating the steps - how many was missing, many had data, how many selected and why) and also clarify in a normative way how the variables are operationalised. Similarly, explain your sample in a tabular form, outlining step by step the total population to the selection of the final sample. Label all your equations, figures and tables in a consecutive manner. Make the tables self-contained by clearly identifying dependent, independent and control variables in the tables.
  
  7. Empirical findings - please link your findings more strongly to the: (i) theory, (ii) empirics, (iii) context; and (iv) highlight their economic, academic/research and policy implications. Closely link up and cite the papers that you have discussed in the background, theory and empirical literature review & and hypotheses development section to the findings you are presenting here.
  
  8. Robustness or additional analyses - please demonstrate how your findings are to alternative measures (e.g., different ways of measuring the key dependent and independent variables), estimations (e.g., lagged structure, GMM estimator, Generalised Least Square regressions, Fixed or random effects regressions, two- or three-stage least squares regression, propensity score matching, difference in difference estimation, probit and logit models, Heckman selection models, and instrumental variables estimation, amongst others) and general endogeneities, OR alternative measures of the DV, OR sub-sampling analysis.
  
  9. Conclusion - Please outline a summary of findings, contributions, implications, limitations and avenues for future research. Especially, expand the discussions relating to implications, limitations and avenues for future research. The conclusion section should not only summarize your findings but also discuss their implications. What do your results mean for investors, fund managers, policymakers, or other stakeholders? How might your research impact decision-making or strategy development in the financial sector? Addressing these questions will add depth to your conclusion and enhance the practical relevance of your study.
  
  10. Typos - please there are considerable number of typos, spelling errors and grammatical mistakes throughout the paper that a careful reading will help you to eliminate them. Seek professional proof-reader's help if deemed appropriate. Improve presentation by clearly labelling equations, tables, sections and subsections.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires professional proofreading. For instance, there are instances of incomplete sentences, such as "climate governance. In addition, we ." and inconsistent use of terms like "governance); sustainability;". Ensuring grammatical correctness and consistent formatting will significantly improve the overall readability.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly review our article. We appreciate it, and we feel that by revising the article according to your comments, it has greatly improved.

Please see our comments in the spreadsheet attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

· Thanks a lot for such good word, that manipulated a recent idea of climate change. Would you please follow the following points to enhance the manuscript to be published.

· Would you please reduce the plagiarism in the total manuscript, as the percentage is quite high (about 31).

· Too much introduction, you need to reduce the content.

· Table 1, (line 311), what is the source of this table?, beside, you have no need to explain them in table as you mentioned them in the introduction.

· I’m sorry, but I don’t understand whether this is review or research article? It is not clear, because the introduction is too long with two sections; however, there is methodology section. Please clear that.

· In table (4), please explain more the title of this table, it is too short.

· Also, Table 4.2, please explain more the table caption

· You may merge some sections in conclusion to reduce it.

· The references don’t follow the journal style

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly review our article. We appreciate it, and we feel that by revising the article according to your comments, it has greatly improved.

Please see our comments in the spreadsheet attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- the abstract should be one paragraph.

- is the following important "Almost every day, we hear about the severity of climate change effects. "

-proofreading is required. for example, see this following "over 20 years [Climate change"

- how decide what is half ?? "However, it has been found that only about half 105 of the sustainability information can be found in the reports" rephrase this statment.

-theoretical arguemetn should be improved. looked on the theoretical discussion provided by Nudging toward diversity in the boardroom: A systematic literature review of board diversity of financial institutions

-avoid short paragraphs.

-300+ references is too much beyond the acceptable number for an article!

-the conclusion is too longe, longer than the introduction. the authors should not make new argument in the conclusion and make it precise and short.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-avoid short paragraphs.

proofreading is required. for example, see this following "over 20 years [Climate change"

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

the manuscript still needs more modifications as:-

The introduction section is still too long (much better with thesis, not paper).

The results is not well represented.

The discussion is not clear.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

please download "Keywords" to begin with the line.

please it is preferred not to add subtitles in discussion section.

Author Response

Hello,

Thank you very much for your review!

Please find our comments to your remarks below:

please download "Keywords" to begin with the line.

revised accordingly

please it is preferred not to add subtitles in discussion section.

revised accordingly, removed all subtitles in section

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the manuscript should be thoroughly improved.

my major concern is that the regression result indicates that none of the independent factors have an impact on the dependent variable. this limits the significance of the study!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

the authors should carefully proofread the article

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your constructive and helpful review. We appreciate your comments and believe that by revising the article according to your suggestions, it has improved substantially.

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thanks a lot for such good work. It manipulates sound subject. However, please follow the next points to enhance the manuscript to be published in Sustainability journal.

· First, please it is not clear whether if this manuscript is research article or review, as you mentioned in the top of manuscript that it is “Article”. While, the introduction section is too long and divided into several sections with sub-titles. Also, in “Research methodology and data” section, it is too small with no details.

· Abstract: it is good, however illustrate too much details. It consists of 550 words; would you please decrease them.

· Keyword: you mentioned 22 keywords, it is too much, and you mentioned all the theories, please reduce them.

· Introduction:

o the second paragraph is totally written from other sources; you need to rephrase it again.

o Generally, there are too much explanation and repetition in the information of the paragraphs, please try to merge the similar paragraph and concise more of certain points in each paragraph.

o The references mentioned within the texts, when you write several successive references (like the ones mentioned in line 434 and 435, would you please write them as [216-220] and not separate. Also, in line 432, please write the references as [209, 210] and not separate.

o In line 498, what is mentioned by “H2” mentioned in the beginning of the paragraph; is it abbreviation for hypothesis? Please mention that.

o In section 3.2. Empirical model, please use the function of insert equation to write the mentioned equations.

· Research methodology and data: section, it is too small with no details.

· Results section: is not clear and data are not well-represented.

· Discussion and Conclusion:

o I don’t think it is good to merge these two sections together.

o As you will find only one paragraph is “Discussion” and the others are conclusion. Also, they are not organized.

· References: they are too poor in organization and not written in correct form anyway.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your constructive and helpful review. We appreciate your comments and believe that by revising the article according to your suggestions, it has improved substantially.

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Specific comments and questions:

1- In the abstract section of the article, several acronyms appear in lines 12,13, and 21 e.g., TCFD, MSCI, ESG and DJSI. Please add their full names.

2- This study is based on 1,400 observations for FY 2020 and uses correlation, univariate, and linear multiple regression analyses. Can the results of the investigation be explicitly described? What results were analyzed for each method? For example, using correlation analysis, what coefficients were calculated? Does it pass the test of significance? What about utilizing regression analysis?

3- How come the table prepared on line 378 has no headings?

4- The introduction section should highlight the innovative points!

5- Also, the presentation of the results is quite abstract, with very little guidance from the reader through the many algorithms and mathematical details. The authors must improve the clarity of the writing.

6- The "Discussion and conclusion" is poor. It provides a lot of vague and redundant information.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your constructive and helpful review. We appreciate your comments and believe that by revising the article according to your suggestions, it has improved substantially.

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed your article and found several areas that need attention and improvement. I appreciate your work and the potential contribution to the field, but there are some critical issues that need to be addressed:

Abstract Length and Focus: The abstract should be concise and focus on the findings and their implications. It is currently too long and should be condensed into one paragraph.

Keywords: Limit the keywords to a maximum of six that best reflect the study. Ensure they accurately represent the core themes and topics of your research.

Proofreading: The article needs careful proofreading to correct typos and grammatical errors. For example, "increase temperatures ([3]." should be "increased temperatures ([3])." Also, "constituent and and climate change" should be revised to remove the repeated "and."

Introduction and Motivation: The introduction should clearly present the research rationale and motivation. While you mentioned that "most of the research on carbon reporting has focused on the rationales for and impacts of voluntary disclosures [44, 45]," it's not clear why this is significant or what gap in the literature your study aims to fill. The authors should clarify the motivation for their research and emphasize that the introduction is not a literature review section.

Contribution of the Study: The contribution of the study needs to be more specific. Phrases like "it adds to the very limited literature on climate-related disclosure for global companies" lack clarity. Explain how your study adds to the existing literature in a more concrete and focused manner.

Avoid Unnecessary Short Paragraphs: Short paragraphs, like the one mentioning Spence's signaling theory, should be integrated into the text or combined with adjacent paragraphs to improve the flow and readability of the article.

Theory Discussion: In empirical research, it's advisable to discuss a limited number of relevant theories and clearly explain their relationships to the research. Remove unnecessary theories that do not directly contribute to the study.

Short Paragraphs: Short paragraphs like "Therefore, we expect that female supervisory board members will also have an impact on CSR reporting" should be integrated into the surrounding text to maintain the flow of the article.

"Climate Change Corporate Governance Disclosure": This term is unclear and undefined. Please rephrase or provide a clear definition for it in the article.

Justify Research Sample: Explain the rationale behind choosing "the 100 largest global companies by market capitalization" as your research sample. Justification for this specific sample is needed.

Macroeconomic and Country Differences: If your research uses a cross-country sample, it's important to discuss how you accounted for macroeconomic and country-specific differences in your analysis.

the manuscript lacks of statistical rigor.

Descriptive Results Table: Consider presenting descriptive results in a single table to enhance the clarity and organization of your findings.

Empirical findings - please link your findings more strongly to the: (i) theory, (ii) empirics, (iii) context; and (iv) highlight their economic, academic/research and policy implications. Closely link up and cite the papers that you have discussed in the background, theory and empirical literature review & and hypotheses development section to the findings you are presenting here.

I encourage you to revise your article addressing these points to enhance its quality and clarity. Your research has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field, and these revisions will help ensure that it is well-received by the academic community.