Corporate Social Responsibility: A Victim or a Hero of the COVID-19 Crisis?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a descriptive study that looks at the extent of CSR activities of firms of various characteristics from 4 Central European nations. An overall CSR index was constructed in an additive manner where equal weights are given to each of the 7 CSR categories considered by the paper.

After which, a descriptive study was conducted to compare the scores before and after covid (2018 vs 2021). Except for the Public Works and Energy sector, the scores for all firms, and across all 4 countries, have declined in 2021.

This paper describes the stylized facts quite nicely for firms in the four countries in question. However, why CSR efforts have decreased is unclear, or at least, is not empirically investigated.

The authors may want to discuss how they can perform such exercise to study the mechanism through which CSR efforts were reduced.

A paper you could reference and consider is Corporate social responsibility, corporate financial performance and the confounding effects of economic fluctuations: A meta-analysis by Huang et al. (IRFA, 2020), which discussed the various factors, approaches the existing literature used to study CSR. I would recommend that you add a discussion to talk about possible future work of understanding the mechanism better, because what you have observed may not solely be attributable to Covid-19 (CSR efforts may generally trend downwards).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please edit the English carefully. There are places where there were no spacing between words, especially when the hypotheses were being referred to. At this point, the manuscript is not easy to read and follow. Also, please be clear that your paper is not meant to be causal, and the decline in CSR efforts may not entirely be caused by Covid.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. I thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and recommendations for improvement. If a suggestion was not implemented, an explanation was provided as a response to the comment.

Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files. All changes in revised version of the manuscript were highlighted in yellow with the exception of English editing.

I hope that my manuscript now meets the criteria for publishing in your journal.

Comments 1: This paper describes the stylized facts quite nicely for firms in the four countries in question. However, why CSR efforts have decreased is unclear, or at least, is not empirically investigated. The authors may want to discuss how they can perform such exercise to study the mechanism through which CSR efforts were reduced.

 

Response 1:

Thank you for pointing this out. However, since the aim of the research was to discover the nature of changes, the managers of individual organizations were not interviewed on the reasons at that stage of the empirical inquiry. Therefore, providing such explanations would be mostly speculation not founded on opinions of managers from these organizations. However, I agree that this is an issue that needs to be addressed to fully comprehend the CSR development during a crisis. Therefore, thank for this suggestion for further research.

 

Comments 2: A paper you could reference and consider is Corporate social responsibility, corporate financial performance and the confounding effects of economic fluctuations: A meta-analysis by Huang et al. (IRFA, 2020), which discussed the various factors, approaches the existing literature used to study CSR. I would recommend that you add a discussion to talk about possible future work of understanding the mechanism better, because what you have observed may not solely be attributable to Covid-19 (CSR efforts may generally trend downwards).

Response 2: I agree, therefore, new information was provided in Discussion that addresses the issues and new sources were incorporated.

 

Comments 3: Please be clear that your paper is not meant to be causal, and the decline in CSR efforts may not entirely be caused by Covid.

Response 3: I agree, therefore, new information was provided in Discussion that addresses the issues and new sources were incorporated.

 

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please edit the English carefully. There are places where there were no spacing between words, especially when the hypotheses were being referred to. At this point, the manuscript is not easy to read and follow.

Response: All paper was subjected to English editing. Individual changes and corrections were not marked in the revised version of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

They hypotheses should be bolded - they are really difficult to pull out from the text

The methodology section needs to be rewritten. The first paragraph does not say what methodology is being used. 

Table 2 needs to be redone or put as an appendix

There is no explanation or discussion of the equation (model) used. This must be corrected

Section 4 results - you did not cut our lines 334-336

The results section also needs further explanation of the results, not just a reporting of the results. What do the results mean? How does this make an impact?

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. I thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and recommendations for improvement. If a suggestion was not implemented, an explanation was provided as a response to the comment.

Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files. All changes in revised version of the manuscript were highlighted in yellow with the exception of English editing.

I hope that my manuscript now meets the criteria for publishing in your journal.

Comments 1: They hypotheses should be bolded - they are really difficult to pull out from the text.

Response 1:

Thank you for pointing this out. The format of the corresponding text was adjusted.

 

Comments 2: The methodology section needs to be rewritten. The first paragraph does not say what methodology is being used.

Response 2: I agree, therefore, new information was provided in Methodology that addresses the issues and explanations were added.

 

Comments 3: Table 2 needs to be redone or put as an appendix.

Response 3: I considered changing the Table 2 in Results, however, such changes resulted in either omitting important information or not providing enough evidence on reported issues. Therefore, the table remained the same. Furthermore, I belive that the information in table 2 provides an important overview of overall CSR changes based on various criteria, therefore it needs to be a part of main text.

 

Comments 4: There is no explanation or discussion of the equation (model) used. This must be corrected

Response 4: I agree, therefore, new information was provided in Methodology that addresses the issues and explanations were added.

 

Comments 5: The results section also needs further explanation of the results, not just a reporting of the results. What do the results mean? How does this make an impact?

Response 5: I agree, therefore, new information was provided in Results that addresses the issues and explanations were added.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This paper addresses a current corporate social responsibility issue. Also, the topic is original and innovative.  The content of this research work is interesting and complete. As a reviewer, I make several comments for improvement. 

 

1.Introduction

        The introduction section is well organized.  The research gap and objectives are clear and evident. The paper contributes to the rich body of literature on corporate social responsibility.  However, the author(s) should indicate the research motivation and how this research differs from or relates to previous studies for contributing to the theory? I suggest that the author(s) can claim their contribution to theory in the introduction section.  

2. Literature Review and hypotheses development

         The literature review on corporate social responsibility intention is compelling.  The article gives a clear account of the importance of research constructs and corporate social responsibility and research constructs measurement issues. More importantly, the author(s) integrate more recent papers on the topic. All major relevant terms are discussed at work.

However, the theoretical background can be improved. The theoretical background was not discussed in the research hypotheses development process. For example, corporate social responsibility is regarded as culture or resource in an organization. Some indications about them should be included at the beginning. Furthermore, the article does not incorporate a description of the research framework procedures used and the sequence of work. Please add theoretical background and research framework development.

 

3 Methodology

         The data analysis of CSR involvement indicator (CSRI) needs more discussion. There is little explanation of the CSR involvement indicator (CSRI). Please provide more detail. I comment that more explanation about model development could be combined with CSR involvement indicator (CSRI) in the methodology section. Research variables and constructs will be identified from previous studies or literature reviews. CSR involvement indicator (CSRI) should be explained in a clear and understandable way. Itshould explainmore specifically why the participants were selected and howthe process ofcategorizationof the variables usedin the research model is performed.

 

4. Results

The results for the research should present the results in the logic of the research. Tables should be simplified by following the rules of a research. It is appropriate to identify, explain and discuss its significance implications for the study. The author(s) need to provide more meaningful information based on the findings.

5.Discussion

In the discussions, the author(s) should add the following argument for improvement: What are the major innovations and contributions of this study in either methodological or theoretical perspective comparing existing literature on corporate social responsibility. The important point for the article may make effor to the diagram of the research model. Further research applied theory with many problem solutions in the tests and how the data are interpreted (not developed this point because previous work shows enormous deficiencies or social demand that do not give credibility to the calculated knowledge).  This conclusion would be more meaningful if the research included new concepts and distinctive variables related to corporate social responsibility. In the implication part, the author (s) provide more meaningful information based on the findings. The article should discuss the existence of several existing conditions in the different models. It is appropriate to identify, explain, and discuss its significance and implications for the study.

 

References

The references are homogenized within the text.  Some reference format is suitable.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. I thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and recommendations for improvement. If a suggestion was not implemented, an explanation was provided as a response to the comment.

Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files. All changes in revised version of the manuscript were highlighted in yellow with the exception of English editing.

I hope that my manuscript now meets the criteria for publishing in your journal.

Comments 1: The introduction section is well organized. The research gap and objectives are clear and evident. The paper contributes to the rich body of literature on corporate social responsibility.  However, the author(s) should indicate the research motivation and how this research differs from or relates to previous studies for contributing to the theory? I suggest that the author(s) can claim their contribution to theory in the introduction section. 

Response 1: I agree, therefore, new information was provided in Introduction that addresses the issues.

 

Comments 2: The literature review on corporate social responsibility intention is compelling.  The article gives a clear account of the importance of research constructs and corporate social responsibility and research constructs measurement issues. More importantly, the author(s) integrate more recent papers on the topic. All major relevant terms are discussed at work. However, the theoretical background can be improved. The theoretical background was not discussed in the research hypotheses development process. For example, corporate social responsibility is regarded as culture or resource in an organization. Some indications about them should be included at the beginning.

Response 2: I agree, therefore, new information was provided in Literature review that elaborates the theoretical background of hypotheses development and new sources very added to cite the current studies.

 

Comments 3: Furthermore, the article does not incorporate a description of the research framework procedures used and the sequence of work. Please add theoretical background and research framework development.

Response 3: I agree, therefore, new information was provided in Literature review that addresses the issues.

 

Comments 4: The data analysis of CSR involvement indicator (CSRI) needs more discussion. There is little explanation of the CSR involvement indicator (CSRI). Please provide more detail. I comment that more explanation about model development could be combined with CSR involvement indicator (CSRI) in the methodology section. Research variables and constructs will be identified from previous studies or literature reviews. CSR involvement indicator (CSRI) should be explained in a clear and understandable way.  It should explain more specifically why the participants were selected and how the process of categorization of the variables used in the research model is performed.

Response 4: I agree, therefore, new information was provided in Methodology that addresses the issues and explanations were added.

 

Comments 5: The results for the research should present the results in the logic of the research. Tables should be simplified by following the rules of a research. It is appropriate to identify, explain and discuss its significance implications for the study. The author(s) need to provide more meaningful information based on the findings.

Response 5: I considered simplifying the Table in Results, however, such simplification resulted in either omitting important information or not providing enough evidence on reported issues. Therefore, the tables were not simplified. Implications of the results were further explained. 

 

Comments 6: In the discussions, the author(s) should add the following argument for improvement: What are the major innovations and contributions of this study in either methodological or theoretical perspective comparing existing literature on corporate social responsibility.

Response 6: I agree, therefore, new information was provided in Discussion that addresses the issues and new sources were incorporated.

 

Comments 7: The important point for the article may make effort to the diagram of the research model. Further research applied theory with many problem solutions in the tests and how the data are interpreted (not developed this point because previous work shows enormous deficiencies or social demand that do not give credibility to the calculated knowledge).  This conclusion would be more meaningful if the research included new concepts and distinctive variables related to corporate social responsibility. In the implication part, the author (s) provide more meaningful information based on the findings. The article should discuss the existence of several existing conditions in the different models. It is appropriate to identify, explain, and discuss its significance and implications for the study.

Response 7: I agree, therefore, new information was provided in Discussion that addresses the issues and new sources were incorporated.

 

 

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

Response: All paper was subjected to English editing. Individual changes and corrections were not marked in the revised version of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Mostly I think the changes to the paper responded positively to the comments originally provided. 

However, there are a number of English grammatical mistakes that need to be cleaned up.

I also continue to think Table 2 would be better to be included in an appendix. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Grammar needs to be corrected - mostly in the new sections that the authors submitted.

Author Response

Thank you again for taking the time to review this manuscript. I thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and recommendations for improvement. If a suggestion was not implemented, an explanation was provided as a response to the comment.

Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files. All changes in revised version of the manuscript were highlighted in yellow with the exception of English editing.

I hope that my manuscript now meets the criteria for publishing in your journal.

Comments 1: Mostly I think the changes to the paper responded positively to the comments originally provided.

Response 1:

Thank you!  

 

Comments 2: I also continue to think Table 2 would be better to be included in an appendix.

Response 2: Thank you for the consideration, I believe that the information in table 2 provides an important overview of overall CSR changes based on various criteria, therefore it needs to be a part of main text.

 

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a number of English grammatical mistakes that need to be cleaned up.

Response: All paper was again subjected to English editing that I hope caught all the errors in grammar. Individual changes and corrections were not marked in the revised version of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author(s) reply to the reviewers' comments.  Well done.

Author Response

Thank you again for taking the time to review this manuscript. I thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and recommendations for improvement. If a suggestion was not implemented, an explanation was provided as a response to the comment.

Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files. All changes in revised version of the manuscript were highlighted in yellow with the exception of English editing.

I hope that my manuscript now meets the criteria for publishing in your journal.

Comments 1: The author(s) reply to the reviewers' comments.  Well done.

Response 1: Thank you!

 

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

Response: All paper was again subjected to English editing that I hope caught all the errors in grammar. Individual changes and corrections were not marked in the revised version of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf