Review Reports - ESG and Firm Performance in Korea: The Moderating Role of CEO Tenure, Ownership Structure, and Foreign Ownership

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled “ESG and Firm Value in Korea: The Moderating Role of Governance Factors” presents an empirical investigation into the relationship between ESG performance and firm performance among Korean publicly listed companies. It offers a well-structured and theoretically grounded analysis that addresses a timely and relevant issue in the context of corporate governance. The study is particularly valuable in its focus on the Korean context, which remains underexplored in ESG literature.

While the paper is interesting and novel in the field, there remain several questions to be addressed. The following actionable suggestions are intended to enhance the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of the manuscript. Below the authors find a short list

The introduction effectively contextualizes the topic within global ESG trends and Korea’s unique corporate landscape. However, the theoretical background could be condensed to reduce redundancy, especially in sections where stakeholder, institutional, and legitimacy theories overlap.
The moderation analysis is well-executed, though it may benefit from a clearer explanation of interaction effects in the discussion section. Providing graphical representations (e.g., interaction plots) would further enhance clarity for readers less familiar with regression techniques.
The results are thoroughly presented and well-tabulated. The tables are informative, although consolidating some information might improve readability. For instance, the moderation analysis could be supported by a summary table highlighting key significant findings.
The English language is generally clear and appropriate for an academic audience. However, occasional awkward phrasings (e.g., overly long sentences or inconsistent terminology like 'firm performance' and 'corporate performance') should be refined for consistency and improved readability. Occasional awkward phrasing (e.g., 'positive moderating effect on the ESG–corporate value relationship') can be refined for smoother readability. Consider using more formal academic expressions where needed. Commas and transitions between clauses could be revised in some instances to prevent ambiguity.
The manuscript is well-referenced, with both Korean and international literature appropriately cited. However, some older references (e.g., pre-2010 studies) could be supplemented with more recent studies to strengthen the review of contemporary developments in ESG performance.
The conclusion section effectively summarizes the findings and connects them back to the hypotheses and theoretical framework. However, the practical implications for policymakers and investors could be elaborated further.
Limitations are well acknowledged, and the suggestions for future research are constructive. The potential for non-linear relationships (e.g., U-shaped effect of ownership concentration) is especially compelling and worthy of deeper exploration.

Based on the strength of the theoretical foundation, robust methodology, and clear empirical findings, this manuscript makes a valuable contribution to ESG research within the context of Korean corporate governance. However, to enhance readability and precision, minor revisions are needed in terms of language and stylistic clarity. Therefore, my overall recommendation is: Accept after minor revisions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is based on data from 620 listed companies in South Korea from 2020 to 2022, analyzing the impact of ESG on corporate market value and financial performance. The research conclusions have certain theoretical and practical significance. However, the paper still has the following shortcomings, as follows:
(1) The title of the manuscript does not clearly summarize the research content. It is recommended that the author revise the manuscript title, especially by removing vague expressions such as governance factors.
(2) The writing of the abstract in the manuscript is not standardized. It is recommended that the author re summarize it from three levels: research background, research content, and research inspiration. The research background should briefly introduce the importance of studying ESG and corporate value, and the research content should be highly summarized from the aspects of research methods, research objects, research intervals, and research viewpoints. The research inspiration should briefly introduce the theoretical and practical value of the research conclusions. Keywords that are not related to the paper, such as consortia, should be excluded.
(3) The manuscript lacks an independent literature review section, making it difficult for readers to understand the importance and innovation of the research work. It is suggested that the author reorganize the relevant literature from the aspects of measuring and influencing factors of enterprise market value, the economic and social impact of ESG, and the relationship between the two, and organize it into a separate literature review chapter, especially emphasizing the shortcomings of existing research and the innovation of the manuscript, and not confusing it with the theoretical analysis in the manuscript.
(4) The empirical sample in the manuscript only involves 620 companies over three years. It is recommended that the author provide a detailed description of the industry attributes, product types, and other characteristics of these companies. The sample time is too short and the number of companies is too small, which can easily lead to ethical concerns about whether the regression results are scientific.
(5) There are some issues with the descriptive statistics in Table 3, such as the lack of abbreviated symbols for each variable, the number of observations should be 1860, and the minimum value for enterprise size being 0, which is difficult to understand. It is recommended that the author carefully revise it.
(6) Suggest deleting the correlation coefficient matrix in Table 5 of the manuscript and adjusting it to Table 4 for the stationarity test of variables.
(7) What is the meaning of the variable FAGE in the main effect test results in Table 5? Why is the coefficient significantly negative? Please explain.
(8) The manuscript lacks robustness and endogeneity tests. Among them, it is suggested that the author conduct robustness tests by adjusting the dependent variable, adjusting the explanatory variable, adjusting the research sample, and adjusting the estimation method to ensure the reliability of the regression results; It is suggested that the author select instrumental variables for endogeneity testing to further clarify the causal relationship between ESG and corporate value. Currently, the empirical results in the manuscript have serious endogeneity issues.
(9) It is recommended that the author carefully proofread all the tables and graphics in the manuscript, and it is necessary to use footnotes for certain explanations. Do not fill in all the content in the tables.
(10) Suggest the author to add some exploratory research, such as spillover effect testing.
(11) Suggest refining the description of limitations and prospects in the manuscript. Currently, there are too many related contents written, which reduces the research value of the manuscript.
(12) The citation format of the references does not meet the requirements of sustainability journals. It is recommended that the author revise them according to the standard format.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting and fits well into the special edition ‘Firm Survival and Sustainable Management.’ However, the following changes should be made:

1. Literature Review: Expand the international framework by incorporating more critical comparisons with emerging markets beyond Korea. A comparative table of previous studies on ESG and firm value across different countries would enrich the article's contribution.

2. Methodological Rigour: Although the models are adequate, there is a lack of discussion about possible endogeneity biases. It is recommended to apply a robustness check with alternative models, such as GMM or regression with instrumental variables (if possible).

3. Moderation Analysis: Visualising the moderation effects with marginal graphs would help strengthen the interpretation. This is particularly important given that interaction coefficients can be difficult to interpret directly.

4. Industry Heterogeneity: Although there is control by sector, it would be interesting to explore whether the effects differ between sectors (e.g., manufacturing vs. services), given the heterogeneity of ESG criteria.

5. Practical Implications: Explore in more detail the practical implications of the findings for different types of stakeholders, including recommendations for public policy or business practices.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In terms of English quality, the article should be revised or submitted for professional linguistic revision in academic English, with a focus on reducing redundancies and simplifying complex constructions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have carefully revised the manuscript according to my suggested revisions, and the relevant conclusions have a certain degree of rationality. Overall, the manuscript meets the requirements for publication in the journal. It is recommended to accept the publication of this manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your thorough and thoughtful feedback. Your detailed review has been immensely helpful in enhancing the quality of the manuscript. Once again, thank you for your valuable contribution.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The new version of the article represents a significant improvement over the previous one, with greater theoretical, methodological, and linguistic clarity.
The introduction and literature review now provide a clearer and more internationally relevant justification for the study.
It is suggested that a figure or graph illustrating the moderating effects of governance variables be included, as this would help to visualise statistically significant interactions and make the findings more accessible to a wider audience.
The discussion could be further strengthened with more specific practical implications, especially for regulators and institutional investors.
Consider including a brief note on possible future limitations related to endogeneity or generalisation of the results to other markets.

Author Response

As suggested by the reviewer, we have included the implications of this study particularly from the perspective of institutional investors. In addition, we have outlined several caveats regarding the generalizability of the findings.