A Greener Paradigm Shift: The Moderating Role of Board Independence in Sustainability Reporting
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper addresses an important and timely topic, examining the impact of ESG reporting on corporate environmental performance in the context of Pakistan’s non-financial sector, with board independence considered as a moderating factor
The study is well founded from a theoretical point of view (based on stakeholder, agency and upper echelon theories), and is adequately contextualised in the literature on ESG and corporate governance. However, the introduction is excessively dense, with redundant content that sometimes resembles an extensive literature review. The organisation and conciseness of the introduction could be improved, along with better integration of empirical studies, to increase clarity and strengthen the contextual basis of the article.
The study has a solid design, with clearly defined objectives and hypotheses and well-justified methodological approaches. The methodology is detailed and appropriate to the objectives of the study, contributing to its credibility. The use of a large panel data set covering 12 years, combined with multiple empirical methods, increases the robustness and reliability of the results, making the study methodologically sound and empirically rigorous.
Although the theoretical framework is comprehensive and the arguments generally well structured, the discussion section would benefit from greater concision and clearer reflection on unexpected or ambiguous findings. The narrative sometimes becomes overly technical, weakening its overall persuasiveness. The discussion would benefit from clearer organisation, more concise presentation and a stronger focus on critical comparisons with previous studies to increase analytical depth. In particular, mixed or inconclusive results, such as those relating to the environmental pillar score and board independence, require further explanation. Interpreting these results in the context of Pakistan's specific economic, institutional or regulatory environment could provide valuable information and strengthen the overall argument.
The manuscript contains an excessive amount of statistical detail in the main text, such as full regression tables, interaction terms and diagnostic tests, which detracts from its readability. These elements should be transferred to appendices or supplementary material to simplify the main narrative. The main results should be summarised more effectively in concise tables or figures, with more emphasis on interpretation and implications rather than detailed numerical results. This change in focus would greatly improve clarity and help readers to better understand the contributions of the study.
In general, the conclusions are consistent with the findings, but would benefit from more detailed reflection on the mixed results, particularly with regard to the moderating role of board independence. Greater emphasis on these complexities would provide a more balanced and accurate summary of the study's contributions. In addition, the conclusions should be more explicit about the limitations of the study. Claims of generalisability to other developing countries should be made with caution, as Pakistan's unique institutional and regulatory context may limit their applicability.
The manuscript contains many grammatical and syntactical errors, inappropriate phrasing and inconsistent sentence structure, which detract from clarity and weaken the academic tone. We strongly recommend a thorough, professional linguistic revision to improve readability, coherence and overall presentation.
The manuscript is well referenced. There is a strong base of recent and relevant sources.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attached author response file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article deals with an issue that is gaining importance, important from the economic, social and environmental point of view. The defined research objectives, the research gap, as well as the methodology used, including the selected research sample, do not raise any objections. Similarly, the layout of the article and the way most issues are described seem to be sufficient and understandable. However, reading the study gave me a few doubts:
- The authors write that the results of the research conducted in Pakistan can be generalized to other developing or less developed countries, and can they also be generalized to highly developed countries? What do the authors think about this, or have similar studies been conducted on this group of countries?
- The authors formulated two research hypotheses, while in the study they very poorly referred to their verification. In my opinion, Chapter 5 should include a clear verification of both hypotheses, this is the key issue from which we should start our considerations in this part. On the other hand, the other parts of Chapter 5 should be appreciated, including in particular the limitations, directions of future research and recommendations.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attached author response file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors, thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The topic—the moderating role of board independence in ESG reporting among Pakistani non‑financial firms—is both timely and policy‑relevant. Below are some suggestions and comments, aimed at significantly strengthening the current version of the manuscript.
- Introduction
Explicitly state, within the first two paragraphs, the precise research gap in Pakistan regarding board‑level moderation of ESG reporting and frame it as numbered research questions or hypotheses. - Literature Review & Hypotheses
Can you justify in one clear rationale why stakeholder, resource‑based, and agency theories are the most appropriate lenses for examining board independence’s moderating role, rather than other governance theories? - Data & Methodology
Could you provide a concise but complete description of how you calculated CSRSS, ESGS, EIS, and EPS scores (including data sources, indicator weights, and any validation steps) to ensure reproducibility? - Results & Interpretation
Instead of restating table coefficients, can you summarize in a sentence what the magnitude of your key finding (e.g., β=2.13 for ESGS on EIS) means in practical, real‑world terms for Pakistani firms? - Discussion of Findings
How do your main results confirm or challenge the predictions of stakeholder and agency theories, and can you integrate one or two specific comparisons with prior empirical studies? - Conclusion & Policy Implications
Which single, actionable recommendation for regulators or board members best emerges from your findings, and how should future research build directly on your study’s limitations?
Overall, the English is understandable but often wordy and occasionally awkward. Therefore, this manuscript will benefit from proofreading.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attached author response file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised manuscript shows clear improvements in structure, clarity, theoretical integration and methodological rigour. The authors have effectively addressed most of the reviewers' comments. The topic remains highly relevant for ESG and governance research, especially in developing countries such as Pakistan. However, some areas still require attention.
Minor revisions required:
- Clarify mixed findings:
Provide further explanation for the negative or inconclusive relationship between ESG reporting (especially ESGS) and EPS, taking into account possible symbolic compliance or institutional constraints.
- Further interpret board independence:
Discuss the mixed moderating role of board independence and relate it to the Pakistani context.
- Presentation of results (optional):
Consider visually summarising key findings and moving detailed tables to appendices to improve readability.
- Final linguistic review:
A final review by a native speaker is recommended to refine phrasing and flow.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attached author response file. Thank you for your time and thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your constructive comments, which have helped us improve the quality of our work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your efforts in revising your manuscript. The current version of your manuscript has been significantly improved. Best regards.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your time and thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your constructive comments, which have helped us improve the quality of our work. We are glad to hear that you find the revised version significantly improved, and we are grateful for your guidance throughout the review process.
