Review Reports - Advancing Energy Transition and Climate Accountability in Wisconsin Firms: A Content Analysis of Corporate Sustainability Reporting

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript requires some modifications to make this manuscript a comprehensive article, specifically hypotheses

Abstract should be rewritten and all empirical results should be clarified
Introduction seems not well structured which must add a paragraph at the start
where are the hypotheses which must be included in this manuscript?
There are typos error and grammatical mistakes which must be removed
Add some latest references from sustainability

Author Response

Comment: Abstract exceeds 200 words and lacks clarity on empirical results.
Response: The Abstract has been rewritten (pp. 1–2) to meet the word limit, following the recommended structure (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion). Empirical findings are now clearly summarized.

Comment: Introduction lacks structure and hypotheses.
Response: A new opening paragraph has been added to the Introduction to frame the study. Instead of hypotheses, four explicit research questions (RQ1–RQ4) are now presented (pp. 4–5). These questions provide clarity on scope and contribution.

Comment: Typos and grammatical errors.
Response: The manuscript has been thoroughly proofread and corrected for grammar, style, and consistency.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper addresses an important topic and contributes with analysis of GRI-based indicators. However, some aspects of the methodology and structure require improvement:

Abstract: exceeds the 200-word limit, try to keep the flow (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion).
Introduction: needs to be explicit the hypotheses and close the section with a sharper aim and expected contribution.
Methods: in relation to content analysis and Spearman correlation, the justification for using only this method is missing. Explain why regression or panel approaches were not feasible and acknowledge the methodological limitations. Specify the software and version used, and provide an annex the coding to ensure reproducibility.
Discussion: could be strengthened by explicitly linking findings back to hypotheses, highlighting study limitations, and proposing future research directions.

Author Response

Comment: Methodology lacks justification for case selection.
Response: Section 3.2 now elaborates on the purposive sampling strategy, with explicit rationale for selecting Wisconsin-based firms in energy, manufacturing, food, and service sectors. Firms were chosen due to their central role in Wisconsin’s energy consumption and climate commitments.

Comment: Why content analysis and Spearman correlation only?
Response: Section 3.3 clarifies that regression and panel models were not feasible due to sample size and heterogeneity. Spearman’s Rank Correlation was selected as an appropriate nonparametric test. Software and version used are now specified, and coding reliability is described.

Comment: Need for coding annex/reproducibility.
Response: A coding framework is provided in an Annex to enhance transparency and reproducibility.

Comment: Manuscript resembles a report more than an academic article.
Response: Results and Discussion sections have been critically reframed to explicitly link findings to research questions, theoretical perspectives, and implications.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting but suffers from significant methodological shortcomings.

Given the nature of the research, the authors do not formulate hypotheses - which is appropriate. However, they could have at least posed research questions. The study also lacks a clearly identified research gap. Furthermore, the research objective does not appear until section 3.3, whereas it should be presented earlier.
The most substantial issues pertain to the methodology for case selection. While the authors state that “We intentionally included firms from the energy, manufacturing, food, and service sectors to capture variation across industries with differing environmental footprints, regulatory exposure, and stakeholder visibility,” they still do not provide a clear explanation of their sampling method (despite implying that it was a sample, as suggested by the statement: “While our sample is not representative of all Wisconsin-based firms…”).
There is also no detailed description of the methodology used for verifying the reports (e.g., whether two individuals independently reviewed them to minimize error, etc.).
Overall, the manuscript resembles a report more than a academic article. From an academic perspective, the results and conclusions are rather superficial. It is also unclear why Table 1 presents data from 19 firms.
Finally, the article does not follow the required formatting template, though this is more a matter for editorial consideration.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comment: Stronger theoretical framing needed; why GRI and not TCFD?
Response: The Introduction and Methods now justify the use of GRI 302/305 as a foundation while also cross-walking with TCFD’s four disclosure pillars. We further reference ISSB/IFRS S2 standards to situate the study in the current global context.

Comment: Lack of engagement with alternative theories.
Response: The Discussion now incorporates accountability theory, legitimacy theory, and impression management, as recommended.

Comment: Weakness in linking results back to research gap.
Response: Each Results subsection now concludes with a statement explicitly tying the findings to one of the four RQs.

Comment: Policy and practice implications missing.
Response: A new Policy and Practice Implications section has been added , including references to ISSB adoption, IFRS S2, and recent ESG assurance literature from 2024–25.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a timely and generally well written article of relevance to the aims and objectives of the Journal.

However, there are a number of omissions, gaps and inconsistencies in the discussion. The following points are noted:

The study’s aim is to focus on how disclosures by alignment by a sample of firms with Wisconsin’s Clean Energy Transition Plan. However, the study’s focus is restricted to more generic ESG disclosures and emissions information. Did you examine the more specific disclosures made by firms that could more directly bear on their alignment with the State’s own transition plan e.g. net zero policy commitments?
Moreover, there is a lack of citation to more specific disclosure frameworks that bear on this issue. For example, the former Task Force for Climate Related Financial disclosures (since adopted in a number of jurisdictions, including IFRS) specified four recommended disclosure areas that firms should align their climate disclosures: risk management, governance, strategy and metrics and targets. Why was the more generic GRI framework chosen instead of this more specific and potentially relevant TCFD framework as the basis for the analysis?
The choice of theoretical frameworks is not clear. In particular, the study avoids alternative theoretical explanations. For example, In the more specific context of social environmental accountability, Chen and Roberts (2010) identify several alternative theoretical motivations for why commercial organizations voluntarily provide transparency about how they deal with climate-related financial risks, often using a combination of standard legitimacy, institutional, resource, and-or stakeholder theories.
Although the sample is stated to comprise 20 Wisconsin firms based in the energy, manufacturing, food, and service sectors. Why were these sectors chosen in particular? For example, the United Kingdom’s Transition Plan Taskforce identified four specific industries which were regarded as high polluting: food production, mining, utilities and oil and gas.
There is a lack of clarification of the relevance and pertinence of firms engaging with auditors to provide external assurance. Does the author refer only to auditor assurance services in general (i.e. that are focused on the financial statements and are subject to a “reasonable assurance” threshold), or to additional non-financial external assurance services related more specifically to their climate-related disclosures (which are subject only to more “limited” assurance), or both? Additionally, did any of the sample firms make reference to their compliance with additional external audit requirements of US government agencies? External auditing agencies include OSHA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Coast Guard, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the Chemical Safety Board?
While reference is made to firms’ voluntary adherence to Science Based Targets, there is a lack of discussion of their broader degree of engagement with climate related commitments, such as that provided by the CDP rating score. Additionally, firms may have made broader commitments to other frameworks, such as the United Nations SDGs, ISO standards. Did any of these sample firms make reference to such frameworks?
The study fails to acknowledge the limitations of the scoping of the analysis. For example, several large US retail firms address broader environmental commitments in their ESG reporting, such as resource conservation strategies, waste management, biodiversity and conservation and supply chain management. Furthermore, what governance structures are in place to explicitly monitor and take responsibility for such strategies? Do any of the sample firms situate their commitment to climate transition through the appointment of chief sustainability officers and-or dedicated senior management board level committees to oversee these climate related commitments?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

Aim and scope of disclosures

Response: We are grateful for this comment. In the revised manuscript, we clarified that while our main analysis centered on ESG disclosures aligned with GRI 302 and 305, we also noted where firms explicitly referenced net-zero targets and climate transition commitments. This provides a closer connection to Wisconsin’s Clean Energy Plan. At the same time, we did not extend the analysis to a systematic evaluation of all net-zero policies, as our study’s central aim was to benchmark ESG disclosure practices rather than conduct a full policy alignment assessment.

Choice of disclosure framework (GRI vs. TCFD/IFRS)

Response: We appreciate the suggestion to engage more closely with the TCFD/IFRS framework. In the revised text, we now highlight the four TCFD disclosure pillars (governance, strategy, risk management, metrics/targets) and discuss their relevance. We retained GRI 302/305 as our primary framework, however, because of its cross-sector comparability in the Wisconsin context. A full re-analysis using TCFD would have required a broader scope than the present study allows.

Theoretical frameworks

Response: Thank you for highlighting this point. We have expanded our theoretical framing to acknowledge alternative perspectives—including institutional, stakeholder, and resource-based theories—drawing on Chen and Roberts (2010). Nevertheless, we maintained our core focus on Accountability Theory and Legitimacy Theory, as these provided the most direct alignment with our research objectives.

Sectoral sample selection

Response: We appreciate the request for more clarity. In the revision, we explained that the sectors were selected for their economic and environmental significance in Wisconsin, as well as their role in energy demand and emissions. We also contrasted this with the UK Transition Plan Taskforce’s focus on high-polluting industries. We did not expand our sample to mining or oil and gas, as these sectors have limited representation in Wisconsin, and their inclusion would move beyond the scope of our state-specific analysis.

External assurance clarification

Response: We are grateful for this constructive suggestion. The revised manuscript now distinguishes between financial audits that provide “reasonable assurance” and ESG/climate disclosure assurance that typically involves “limited assurance.” We also note instances where firms referenced additional oversight by U.S. regulatory agencies (e.g., EPA, OSHA).

Engagement with broader frameworks (CDP, SDGs, ISO)

Response: We agree with the importance of considering broader frameworks. In response, we added observations about where firms mentioned CDP scores, UN SDGs, or ISO standards. However, we did not conduct a full benchmarking of these frameworks across the sample, as this would extend beyond the design and objectives of the present study.

Study limitations and governance structures

Response: We fully acknowledge this valuable point. In the revised manuscript, we expanded the limitations section to state more clearly that our analysis was scoped to energy and climate disclosure indicators and did not cover the full range of ESG commitments such as biodiversity or waste management. We also noted governance mechanisms, such as the appointment of Chief Sustainability Officers and the creation of board-level committees in some firms, to show how climate commitments are being institutionalized.