Next Article in Journal
Changing Technology or Behavior? The Impacts of a Behavioral Disruption
Next Article in Special Issue
Economic and Social Yield of Investing in a Sporting Event: Sustainable Value Creation in a Territory
Previous Article in Journal
An Extenics-Based Scheduled Configuration Methodology for Low-Carbon Product Design in Consideration of Contradictory Problem Solving
Previous Article in Special Issue
Excellence in Sustainable Management in a Changing Environment
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Home Bias and Corporate Environmental Social Responsibility

Sustainability 2021, 13(11), 5860; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115860
by Xing Rong 1, Bingjie Song 2, Tingting Zhang 1 and Kai Liu 3,4,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2021, 13(11), 5860; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115860
Submission received: 16 April 2021 / Revised: 13 May 2021 / Accepted: 20 May 2021 / Published: 23 May 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper analyzes the impact of executives’ hometown identification on corporate environmental social responsibility (CESR) using a sample of Chinese A-share listed companies from 12 2008-2019.

First, it expands the cognition of identity theory. This paper selects China with strong local concepts for testing and finds that the hometown preference of executives in fulfilling environmental and social responsibilities is more based on their pressure in social networks. It expands the literature on the impact of home bias on enterprises and expands our understanding of identity theory. Second, it expands the relevant research on the motivation of CSR fulfillment. The existing literature on CSR uses economic incentive motivation, legitimacy motivation, and moralistic motivation. This article expands the related research on moralist motivation. From the individual level of senior executives, this paper will discuss the factors affecting environmental and social performance.

The paper is well structured in terms of methodology and the results are well supported. However, the authors should justify the period of analysis and have not done so. Why do they analyze the years 2008-2019?

What is missing is that the paper mentions the limitations of the study and clues for future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

See attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop