Is Private Entrepreneurs’ Religiosity Conducive to Environmental Investment? Evidence from China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Although the intentions may be good, and the topic is potentially of great value. The authors may have the proper background for economic-managerial parts of this topic, they fail to convince in all matters related to religion. There are both major and minor drawbacks; they are all outlined and elaborated in my numerous comments and markings throughout the text. Here I mention merely a few. Phrases such as 'believe in religion', 'believe in Eastern religion(s), 'an Eastern religion', 'the environmental effect of Eastern religion' are empty of meaning because used without proper distinction, definition or delimitation. Binaries such as Eastern-Western religions are long outdated; and there is no sign of academic awareness of any crucial distinction between believing and belonging, or between believing and behaving. This creates serious fallacies throughout the research and its outcomes.
(1) there is no clear distinction between ideological or 'ought/should' aspects of a particular religion, on the one hand, and empirical or 'is/are' aspects; (2) there is no explanation of 'positive or negative economic effects' (what does positive or negative refer to, from the authors' perspective?); (3) lack of attention to twentieth-century debates and critical discourses on the academic study of religion (and the proper distinctions and definitions of key terms); (4) the critical discourses on the nexus nature-culture-religion or religion-values-environmental behavior.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is original and very interesting. The quality of the paper is good. The conclusions drawn by the authors are also correct. Here are some comments and remarks:
1.The authors could shortly comment the religiosity in Fujian province with more than 70% of religious entrepreneurs.
2.The therm "Controls" in equations 1 to 4 should be precisely described (as a variable or vector of variables).
3.The authors should address the issue if entrepreneurs are the owners of the companies or just their managers or at least precise if the variable "Largest" relates to the shareholding of entrepreneurs. Moreover there should be some comment about legal forms of the investigated companies (individual entrepreneurs, partnerships, limited liability companies etc.).
4. Variable "Instrumented Religion" (Table 11.) should be specified.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
It is an interesting manuscript and well written. Some comments that can help the authors to make improvements and increase its value are next given.
The authors should make better apparent the practical importance of the study in the introduction section as well as present the practical implications of the research in the conclusion section.
The authors should sufficiently define the theory they adopt and the models they build to test the hypotheses. It enables the reader to understand the theoretical implications of the study the authors note in the conclusion section. For example it is difficult for the reader to understand what means the phrase: ‘The results of our paper support the idea that religion shapes entrepreneurs’ values to evoke consciousness of environmental responsibility...’
They could also make the results section more friendly to the reader by eliminating some details/elements that nothing add to the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have benefited by my previous comments and corrections, but not throughout. This may indicate that the main points of my critique (see my first review) were understood/accepted merely superficially. For this reason I found it necessary to go through the entire text once again and add around hundred comments, suggestions, improvements. Since I am adamant about the two major points - (1) distinguish clearly, systematically and methodologically between your own assumptions, the hypothesis to be tested, and the evidence found in your own work; and express this clearly in the language used; (2) avoid generalizations as if 'Religion' is a universal given; always speak of religions in plural, and be location-specific; try to avoid outdated essentialistic writing about religious matters, and be systematically clear about the language used: not 'believe in religion', but belong/adhere to a specific religion, etc. - my second peer-review is conditional about acceptance. Acceptance only under the condition that all the comments in the text are meticulously followed by corrections by the authors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Two extensive rounds of corrections on my side have been necessary, especially by pointing out fallacies, but the authors have now complied with most of the suggestions. The article has gained considerably in academic-scientific soundness. As a reviewer I do not need to agree with the conclusions, however, but as an article it has become a much more nuanced and reliable statement of position.
Some minor remarks: (line 254 and line 430/p.16 on Definitions: Do not distinguish Catholicism and Christianity; rather note that Christianity is the general umbrella term, all-inclusive, whereas Catholicism may be counted as a separate 'religion' in some Asian statistics (Chinese, Indonesian); and do not forget to adjust Religion_E and Religion_W in the same list of definitions on p.16 into Religion_A and Religion_N.A.
A major remark (also related to the above question of ethical concern): the authors may have their own reasons to deal with Tibetan Buddhism in a specific way, and for excluding it from the general conclusions about the correlation between Buddhism and environmental concern among entrepreneurs. Yet, to do so without giving a proper argument for this exclusion is not acceptable, methodologically nor ethically.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
