Impact of Digital Transformation on ESG Management and Corporate Performance: Focusing on the Empirical Comparison between Korea and China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

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.Could you expand on how your study's findings either support or challenge existing theories in the field of digital transformation and ESG management? More in-depth theoretical analysis would strengthen the paper.

2.The methodology is sound but could be more robust. How might the study account for potential biases or limitations in data collection, especially given the cultural and economic differences between Korea and China?

3.Can you provide a more detailed explanation of the data analysis process? How were the variables operationalized, and what steps were taken to ensure the accuracy of the results?

4.The comparative aspect of the study is intriguing but requires deeper exploration. What specific factors might account for the differences observed between Korea and China?

5.The study could benefit from a more comprehensive discussion of the practical implications of its findings. How can businesses and policymakers in Korea and China use this information?

6.While the paper engages with existing literature, it could benefit from a more thorough integration of recent studies. Are there any recent developments in digital transformation and ESG management that could be relevant to your study?

7.Some sections of the paper could be more concise and clearer. Can you revise the paper to enhance its readability?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are occasional instances where the phrasing could be more concise or clearer, and minor grammatical improvements could enhance the overall readability. These issues are not pervasive and do not significantly detract from the understanding of the content, but addressing them would polish the paper further.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript that is now being evaluated demonstrates conciseness, relevance to the topic, and a well-structured presentation. A high degree of interpretability and comprehensibility characterizes the data, and the authors have provided appropriate and consistent interpretations.

I would like to express my appreciation for the substantial enhancements you made to the manuscript throughout the revision process.

Your article was accepted because of the meticulousness and focus on detail you showed in responding to the reviewers' feedback. Your diligence and commitment to implementing the advice and criticisms have surely improved the manuscript's overall quality. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the authors were given the opportunity to revise, to this did not essentially improve the quality of this manuscript.

The innovative and theoretical contributions of this manuscript are very effective. In addition, this manuscript is sorely lacking in extensive and in-depth critique and discussion.

The methods and perspectives used by the authors are very dated, which is not a new thing.

The conclusions of this manuscript do not add much value to the existing body of knowledge.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

I read your manuscript entitled, " The Impact of Digital Transformation on ESG Management and Corporate Performance: Focusing on the Empirical Comparison between Korea and China". The topic of this study is very interesting. However, the following points are worthy of consideration to improve the paper's comprehensibility.

1. The introduction section need further refinement. The study's motivations are not clearly articulated, and the gap the authors intend to address is not well defined.

2. The introduction contains sections of text lacking proper references. For example, the passage from line 37 to line 41 requires additional support from relevant literature.

3. The authors are encouraged to engage in further discussion regarding the theory utilized in this study.

4. Authors are invited to provide further important criteria for checking the structural model, including the effect size, and model fit (SRMR).

5. The discussion section is a critical component that should provide context, meaning, and significance to the findings. It is essential that the authors compare their results to previous research and elucidate how the new findings augment existing knowledge.

 

Good luck in enhancing your study!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I was pleased to have the opportunity to review this manuscript. I think that your study provided a comprehensive understanding of the impact of digital transformation on ESG management and corporate performance is of significant value, and your research model is interesting. My primary concerns surround the contribution and a lack of some depth in discussing the results. I hope you will find useful as you further develop this manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I was pleased to have the opportunity to review this manuscript. I think that your study provided a comprehensive understanding of the impact of digital transformation on ESG management and corporate performance is of significant value, and your research model is interesting. My primary concerns surround the contribution and a lack of some depth in discussing the results. I hope you will find useful as you further develop this manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am appalled by the sophistry of the authors. This manuscript is clearly not of sufficient quality to be published.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have effectively addressed all my suggestions, making the manuscript ready for publication. Congratulations to them on this accomplishment.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your effort to revise this manuscript. I am glad to see you responded the comments I provided. Thank you again. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thank you for your effort to revise this manuscript. I am glad to see you responded the comments I provided. Thank you again. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

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

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Here are three overarching suggestions to enhance the overall quality of your paper in terms of English expression:

 

1. Clarity and Precision:

   - Strive for clarity in each sentence, ensuring that your ideas are conveyed succinctly and precisely.

   - Avoid unnecessary complexity and elaborate on key points to enhance reader understanding.

 

2. Consistency in Language and Style:

   - Maintain consistency in academic language and style throughout the paper.

   - Ensure uniform use of terminology, verb tenses, and sentence structures for a polished and cohesive presentation.

 

3. Thorough Proofreading:

   - Conduct a meticulous proofread to catch grammatical errors, typos, and punctuation mistakes.

   - Consider leveraging proofreading tools or seeking feedback from proficient English speakers to refine the language further.

Author Response

 

1. Could you provide more background on the specific gaps in the literature that your paper aims to address? Clarifying how your study bridges these gaps will enhance the paper’s originality.

 

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Existing studies on the influence mechanism of digital transformation on corporate performance mostly explore the direct effects and the academic background is rather weak.

This study tries to enhancing our originality by analyzing the mediating effect of ESG management between digital transformation and corporate performance. In addition, we also used resource-based view theory as the theoretical background. In other words, DT can be a company's resource, and ESG management from DT can bring positive results to the corporate performance.

Another characteristic of this paper is a comparison between Korean and Chinese companies in Asia, which are interested in ESG management and DT.

 

2. Your empirical analysis is commendable; however, I suggest providing more details about the methodology, operational definitions of variables, and model selection. Additionally, a thorough discussion of potential endogeneity issues and how they were addressed would enhance the robustness of your empirical findings.

 

Thank you very much for your suggestion. In this paper, we added some additional explanations on the advice of the reviewer. For example, the detection of VIF, all the VIF values were less than 5. Meanwhile, we tested Q², and all the Q² values were higher than 0, which indicates that the research model has stability.

 

3. Given your emphasis on cross-country comparison, could you discuss any specific challenges or opportunities encountered during data collection and analysis in Korea and China?

 

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Korea and China are adjacent and have similar history and culture. However, the level of digital transformation and ESG management is different in Korea and China. Therefore, using comparison of two countries, we tried to find academic implications as well as policy implications for ESG management and digital transformation.

Results showed that there are different results in the data analysis section, and this difference makes our study more meaningful and valuable.

In order to make the analysis more meaningful, this study selected two regions where economic level comparisons were possible in Korea (Chungcheongbuk-do) and China (Shandong province).

 

4. What led to the choice of the current model in your study? Are there distinctive features that influenced your preference for this model over others? Did you consider alternative models?

 

Digital transformation and ESG operations are two of the biggest challenges facing enterprises today. Therefore, it is worth considering whether there is a connection between the two and whether this connection will affect corporate performance. Since the path between variables is important in the model, we used the structural equation model in the empirical analysis.

Basically, in this study, resource-based view was used as the theoretical background. This is because DT, which affects the performance of a company, can be regarded as a resource. In addition, we tried to examine the relationship between DT and ESG management. ESG management was considered a kind of business process, so it was used as a mediating variable between DT and corporate performance.

 

Regarding alternative model, it was thought that digital transformation could also have a positive moderating effect between ESG management and corporate performance.

 

 

5. How does your model differ from existing studies? What impact do you believe these distinctions have on the academic and practical value of your research?

 

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Most of the existing researches focus on the relationship between digital transformation and corporate performance, or digital transformation and ESG results. However, there are few researches that integrate digital transformation, ESG management and corporate performance.

 

In this study, we carried out empirical tests some relationship among ESG management, digital transformation, and corporate performance at the same time. In addition, this study also has an existing academic basis such as resource-based view.

 

Besides, practical implications necessary for actual business operation were presented through comparison between Korean and Chinese companies. For example, it presents some implications on how to response the use of DT (digital transformation) and ESG management in the actual operation of a company.

 

6. Can you provide more recommendations for future related research? Are there specific areas or questions that require further exploration? What new research directions do you see emerging in this field?

 

This paper provides a theoretical and empirical basis for enterprises to implement DT (digital transformation) and ESG management strategy. In the future, we will consider whether there are some differences in DT and ESG management between different industries.

In addition, this study mainly discusses the mediating effect of ESG management. However, there may be other variables (other than ESG management) between digital transformation and corporate performance.

 

Some limitations at the end of this study could be important future research issues for study.

 

We appreciate your meticulous and positive comments. We are sure our paper is much better thanks to you. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) management and digital transformation are two important parts of current business strategy that are linked. Digital change makes it possible to come up with new ways to deal with environmental problems, which helps a company reach its ESG goals. Digital tools give companies the information they need to make smart ESG decisions, so they can correctly measure, track, and report on their ESG performance.

To sum up, it is essential for companies that want to succeed in a world that is changing rapidly to combine digital transformation with ESG management in order to achieve their goals of addressing environmental and societal concerns at the same time. It entails bringing advances in technology in line with ethical, social, and environmental concerns.

This study aimed to identify key directions and strategies that can enhance corporate performance by analyzing the role of DT and ESG management in future corporate management activities.

The manuscript that is now being evaluated demonstrates conciseness, relevance to the topic, and a presentation that is well-structured. The data have a high level of interpretability and comprehensibility, and the authors have demonstrated interpretations that are appropriate and compatible with each other.

I appreciate that section 2 is very well structured and provides a comprehensive literature review. The authors have effectively synthesized previous research on digital transformation, ESG management, and corporate performance, highlighting the theoretical background. In addition, the authors have also identified gaps in the existing literature, which further emphasizes the need for this study. By addressing these gaps, this research adds value to the field by offering fresh insights and perspectives on the relationship between digital transformation, ESG management, and corporate performance. 

Section 3 Reseasch Hypotheses is a section very well documented. It provides a comprehensive overview of the research hypotheses that will be tested in this study. The authors have thoroughly reviewed the existing literature and have formulated these hypotheses based on previous studies and theoretical frameworks. The well-documented nature of this section ensures that the research questions are grounded in solid theoretical foundations. This enhances the credibility and validity of the study, as it demonstrates the rigorous and systematic approach taken by the authors in formulating their hypotheses. Overall, this section serves as a strong foundation for the subsequent empirical analysis and findings of the study.

The empirical analysis is conducted using a robust methodology that allows for the testing of the research hypotheses. The authors carefully select and collect data from a diverse sample, ensuring that it is representative of the population under study. This enables them to draw accurate and generalizable conclusions from their findings. The statistical techniques employed in the analysis are appropriate and rigorous, further enhancing the reliability of the results. Additionally, the authors provide a detailed explanation of their analytical approach, allowing for transparency and replicability in future research. Overall, the empirical study conducted by the researchers demonstrates a high level of methodological rigor. Furthermore, they assess the validity and reliability of their measures, ensuring that the data collected accurately reflects the constructs being studied. This attention to detail and meticulousness in the research process strengthens the credibility of their findings and contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the field.

The interpretation of the results is also thorough, with the researchers considering alternative explanations and potential limitations of their study. This critical analysis adds depth to their findings and encourages further exploration of the topic. Additionally, the researchers provide recommendations for future research directions, highlighting areas that could benefit from additional investigation and potential avenues for improvement in methodology. This comprehensive approach enhances the overall impact of their study and sets a strong foundation for future research in the field. 

But I have a point about the abstract that I think is crucial to improving the manuscript's quality. I think the abstract would be much clearer and easier to read if the primary findings and aims of the study were presented in a more succinct manner. By condensing the main findings and aims of the study in the abstract, readers can quickly grasp the essence of the research without having to delve into the full manuscript. This would not only enhance the clarity and readability of the abstract but also make it more accessible to a wider audience, including those who may be interested in similar studies or conducting systematic reviews. Additionally, a concise abstract would enable researchers to efficiently identify whether this study aligns with their own research interests and objectives, potentially leading to more collaborations and knowledge exchange within the scientific community. By summarizing the main findings and implications of the research, a concise abstract can save researchers valuable time by quickly determining if the study is relevant to their area of expertise. Ultimately, a well-crafted and concise abstract serves as a powerful tool in promoting the impact and visibility of scientific research.

It is also worth noting that the methodology followed in this study was detailed. The acquired results were consistent and supported the authors' conclusions. The authors also offered a clear and logical framework to the manuscript, making it simple to read and comprehend. Overall, with the proposed keyword improvements, this publication has the potential to reach a larger audience and considerably contribute to the current body of knowledge in the topic. 

Overall, this manuscript has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field and attract attention from researchers, making a valuable contribution to the field and should be considered for publication. 

 

Author Response

 

• I have a point about the abstract that I think is crucial to improving the manuscript's quality. I think the abstract would be much clearer and easier to read if the primary findings and aims of the study were presented in a more succinct manner.

 

 

We think you understood our paper very well.

You wanted to revise some parts of our article, especially focusing on the abstract. Therefore, we revised it considering your comments.

In the case of abstract, as your valuable comments, we have revised it overall. In particular, the summary section has been revised in a more concise and meaningful way. We also try to reveal our findings and aims more clearly.

 

“Digital transformation positively affected ESG management and corporate performance (e.g., non-financial and financial performance). On the other hand, when examining the relationship between ESG management and corporate performance, there were differences between the results from Korea and China.”

 

“The strategic implications for corporate digital transformation and ESG management are suggested. Especially, this study also contributes to the academic aspect by providing new explanations for applying resource-based view theory and the relationship between digital transformation, ESG management, and corporate performance.”

 

Thanks to your valuable comments, we believe the paper has been upgraded further, and thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Abstract:

1. since it is an empirical comparison between Korea and China, the presentation of the findings should reflect this contrast.

2. What is the theoretical basis of this manuscript?

Introduction：

3. The introduction only describes the background that both Korea and China are gradually requiring companies to implement ESG disclosure policies, but why did the authors make an empirical comparison between Korean and Chinese companies? What is the comparability between these two countries? Neither of them is clearly stated.

4.“On the other hand, studies on DT, ESG management, and their effects on corporate management performance are rare. ”The authors are invited to review and summarize the existing research before making this argument.

5. The authors mention in the manuscript that "existing research lacks a theory and framework that integrates DT, ESG management, and firm performance", but the manuscript also fails to propose a sound theoretical framework and lacks research innovation.

Literature Review：

6. The logic of the language needs to be improved. Please present the argument first, then the rationale, and add some logical connectives. In addition, some studies related to the PLS-SEM method were missed.

e.g.,

(2023). Job Satisfaction in Remote Work: The Role of Positive Spillover from Work to Family and Work–Life Balance. Behavioral Sciences. 13, 916. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13110916

(2023). Mechanism of attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control influence the green development behavior of construction enterprises. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, 10, 266. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01724-9

(2023). Managing Disputes for a Sustainable Construction: A Perspective of Settlement Facilitating Elements in Negotiations. Buildings. 13, 2578. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13102578

etc.

Research Hypotheses：

7. The section contains a large number of lists of existing studies and lacks a clear logical line or point of view linking these studies together, especially in section 3.2.

8. Part 3.3 does not discuss financial and non-financial performance separately when describing the impact of digital transformation on business performance, and the subsequent formulation of hypotheses 3.1 and 3.2 appears insufficiently supported.

Empirical Analysis：

9. How is it defined that the authors' questionnaire targets companies interested in digital transformation and ESG management? Could the authors please clearly articulate the basis for the selection of companies.

10. It is recommended that the authors present the descriptions and references of the questionnaire items in a table would be clearer.

11.How can the authors overcome the problem of common method bias in the questionnaire? Please add this test step.

Conclusions：

12. Please compare the empirical results with relevant existing studies or cases, and use a combination of theory and practice to enhance the reliability of the results.

In summary, I would like to ask the authors to carefully revise this manuscript based on the above comments. I sincerely look forward to receiving the revised version.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript entitled "The Impact of Digital Transformation on ESG Management and Corporate Performance: Focusing on the Empirical Comparison between Korea and China". We appreciate your comments and suggestions, which have helped us to improve the manuscript. We have made several changes to the paper. Especially, we mainly marked with green color in the revised version.

We would like to express our sincere appreciation for the Reviewer's diligent work, and we hope that the revisions will meet with approval. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback and suggestions.

 

1. Since it is an empirical comparison between Korea and China, the presentation of the findings should reflect this contrast.

 

Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your comments, in the empirical results, we tried to reflect the comparison between Korea and China. This contrast will make it easier to spot meaningful implications for businesses and policymakers in both countries.

 

(page 13)

“Korea and China have different analysis results on the relationship between ESG management and corporate performance. From the perspective of the relationship between ESG management and non-financial performance, Korea and China showed a positive influence.”

 

“In the case of China, ESG management did not match the financial performance of the company. Since ESG management levels in Korea and China are different, it is judged that they have shown different results. Korea responded by paying attention to ESG management, ahead of China. Hence, the awareness of ESG management by Korean companies rose one step further than that of Chinese companies. In addition, ESG management does not produce short-term profits but affects the financial and non-financial performance of companies in the mid-to-long term. In the case of China,~”

 

2. What is the theoretical basis of this manuscript?

 

Thank you very much for your very important comments.

Resource-based view was used as the theoretical basis for this study. Basically, digital transformation can be regarded as a resource, and this can affect the corporate performance.

 

“The resource-based view theory recognizes that valuable, scarce, inimitable and irreplaceable resources are the key to improving firm performance and providing sustainable competitive advantage. At different stages of digital transformation, enterprises have different requirements for internal organizational structure, digital development strategy and other related resources or capabilities [11]. Drive the digital transformation of the enterprise through coordination between them. DT based on resource-based view theory is an effective means for enterprises to improve performance [12].

”

 

Additionally, the important points for the model's underlying variables are as follows.

Digital technologies have been rapidly changing traditional industries. In the given context, this study reveals the internal influence mechanism of digital transformation (DT) on the corporate performance. In particular, in the case of this study, ESG management, which has recently become an issue, was introduced as a mediating variable between DT and Corporate performance.

 

3. The introduction only describes the background that both Korea and China are gradually requiring companies to implement ESG disclosure policies, but why did the authors make an empirical comparison between Korean and Chinese companies? What is the comparability between these two countries? Neither of them is clearly stated

 

Thank you very much for your suggestion.

Although the introduction only revealed some of the ESG disclosures of the two countries, companies in both countries know that ESG management is essential, and both countries are actively responding to it.

 

Therefore, it was judged that it was a very meaningful to compare ‘China’, Asia’s largest country, and ‘Korea’ in the same culture with China while actively promoting the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

In particular, the two countries have similar levels of history and culture, but there are some differences in political system and economic level. Therefore, we think that comparing two important Asian countries with similar and different aspects is a meaningful study both academically and practically.

Above all, ESG management and DT (digital transformation) are important issues for governments and businesses in both countries now. Therefore, we selected regions where the two countries could be compared, collected samples, and compared the results. We hope the reviewer understands this aims with warm heart. Therefore, we tried to do our best for describing these kinds of contents. Thanks.

 

 

4. “On the other hand, studies on DT, ESG management, and their effects on corporate management performance are rare. ” The authors are invited to review and summarize the existing research before making this argument.

 

Thank you very much for your suggestion.

Since what we mentioned is the ‘introduction’ part, I deleted that sentence.

We changed that sentence as follows.

• “Especially, studies on DT, ESG management, and their effects on corporate management performance are important.” (page 2)

 

5. The authors mention in the manuscript that "existing research lacks a theory and framework that integrates DT, ESG management, and firm performance", but the manuscript also fails to propose a sound theoretical framework and lacks research innovation.

 

Thank you very much for your suggestion.

In this study, the theoretical structure was conducted based on resource-based views, and originality different from previous studies were also attempted.

 

For example, existing studies mainly carried out empirical test the direct impact between digital transformation and corporate performance, but there are few relevant studies on whether there are mediating variables of ESG management between them. Namely, in this study, ESG management was added as a mediating variable in the process of digital transformation to achieve corporate performance.

 

In addition, in this study, by comparing two countries that are meaningful to Asia, we also tried to find valuable implications for not only business man but also scholars and policy officials

 

6. The logic of the language needs to be improved. Please present the argument first, then the rationale, and add some logical connectives. In addition, some studies related to the PLS-SEM method were missed.

 

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We made an overall adjustment, considering your comments, and in particular, we added some related descriptions on the PLS-SEM method.

 

For example, (9 page)

 

“The evaluation stage of PLS-SEM mainly consists of two stages. The first stage is to evaluate the measurement Model (Outer Model), and the second stage is to evaluate the structural model (Inner Model) [78].

 

The determination of multicollinearity between endogenous latent variables and latent variables uses internal model VIF values [79]. As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, it was confirmed that there was no multicollinearity between independent variables because the evaluation result showed that the VIF value was less than the threshold of 5. Table 3 and Table4 lists the specific results. In particular, all the variables used in this research model are higher than the reference value, indicating that the internal consistency is satisfied. In this study, we tried to solve 'common method bias’ by investigating VIF values at the same time, and this was additionally described in the relevant part [80,81]. The VIF values were between 1.57 and 3.4 without exceeding the maximum value of 5. In the method, no risk of CMV (common method variance) was detected.”

 

7. The section contains a large number of lists of existing studies and lacks a clear logical line or point of view linking these studies together, especially in section 3.2.

 

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We adjusted it overall according to the advice of the reviewer. It could be include some limitations to modification, but please understand.

 

“3.2. ESG Management and Corporate Performance (5 page)

ESG management contains the core value that sustainability can be improved by considering financial factors (e.g., sales and operating profit) and non-financial factors (e.g., environmental protection, social problem solving, and governance improvement) [44]. Friede et al. [45] suggested that ESG activities are helpful to business performance, showing that ESG activities and corporate financial performance have had a positive (+) effect in 90% of the 2,000research literature published since 1970. According to Hermundsdottir & Aspelund [46], implementing sustainability innovation, which consists of ESG, adversely affects corporate competitiveness by increasing costs and prices from a traditional and short-term perspective. On the other hand, according to the newly revised mid-to-long-term perspective, it improves corporate competitiveness by reducing costs and improving efficiency. Aouadi and Marsat [47] demonstrated that ESG significantly impacts corporate value and sustainability in the long run.

Jung et al. [48] confirmed that corporate value perception plays a partial mediating role in the relationship between ESG management activities and the management performance of a company. When ESG management is performed, it forms good relationships with stakeholders inside and outside the market in the long run and positively affects corporate reputation and image. Lins et al. [49] reported that corporate activities on ESG can enhance trust between corporations and stake-holders. Kang et al. [50] verified the relationship between ESG management activities and corporate financial characteristics. They showed that the ESG management activities of a company had a positive (+) effect on the corporate value.”

 

 

8. Part 3.3 does not discuss financial and non-financial performance separately when describing the impact of digital transformation on business performance, and the subsequent formulation of hypotheses 3.1 and 3.2 appears insufficiently supported.

 

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have added relevant descriptions to support our hypotheses. Please show page 5 and related pages.

 

9. How is it defined that the authors' questionnaire targets companies interested in digital transformation and ESG management? Could the authors please clearly articulate the basis for the selection of companies.

 

Thank you very much for your suggestion.

This paper focuses on digital transformation, ESG management, and corporate performance, and therefore requires respondents to have a relative understanding of digital transformation and ESG management.

Before the questionnaire is distributed, we reviewed the company's year-end report or talked to corporate leaders to see if the company is eligible to fill out the questionnaire. Thanks.

 

10. It is recommended that the authors present the descriptions and references of the questionnaire items in a table would be clearer.

 

We have listed the description and references of the questionnaire items in the form. Thanks.

 

11. How can the authors overcome the problem of common method bias in the questionnaire? Please add this test step.

 

Thank you very much for your suggestion.

There are various ways to solve the problem of ‘common method bias’. In this study, we tried to solve these problems by investigating VIF values at the same time, and this was additionally described in the relevant part (Kock, 2015; Lee et.al,2023). The VIF did not exceed 5, with a minimum of 1.57 and a maximum of 3.4. In the method, no risk of CMV (common method variance) was detected.

 

Lee, M. J.; Noh. T. O. (2023), “Digitalization capability and sustainable performance in emerging markets: mediating roles of in/out-bound open innovation and coopetition strategy”, Management Decision 12,1-19.

Kock, N. (2015), “Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach”, International Journal of E-Collaboration, Vol. 11(4), 1-10.

 

12. Please compare the empirical results with relevant existing studies or cases, and use a combination of theory and practice to enhance the reliability of the results.

 

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have revised it overall, according to your valuable comments.

 

Thank you for your careful and loving comments. Thanks to you, we think this paper has been upgraded even more. Please understand with warm heart even if there are some limitations. We again really appreciate you for your valuable comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I was shocked that the authors had chosen to revise the manuscript in light of some comments. Please reconsider all comments from last time, I would like to review it one last time.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately, although the authors have selected some of the comments to revise the manuscript, they have not followed all of them. Therefore, I suggest that the authors carefully revise the manuscript in the light of the previous comments. I'm willing to give you one last chance.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did not revise the manuscript in full accordance with their suggestions.