The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on the Financial Performance of Listed Companies in Thailand
, Pankaewta Lakkanawanit 2,*, Trairong Swatdikun 3 and Wilawan Dungtripop 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Subject is not very original and has been widely covered in the literature throughout various geographic areas and industries.
The empirical methodology is correctly used but neither does it make a relevant contribution to environmental or economic science; neither the results and conclusions are relevant.
However, the following aspects shown in the attached file could help improve the paper for possible publication in a lower-ranking academic journal.
Title: Avoid abbreviations in the title.
Theoretical framework
Legitimacy theory: several papers of Deegan, Lindbloom could be cited.
Literature review:
-Although it is correct to carry out a review of the literature in Thailand, references to international works should also be included, since it is a much studied topic. Papers that have analyzed the relationship between CSR and financial performance
Orlitzky, M., Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D.A., 2011. Strategic corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability. Bus. Soc. 50, 6–27.
Van Beurden, P., Gössling, T. 2008. The Worth of Values – A Literature Review on the Relation Between Corporate Social and Financial Performance. J Bus Ethics 82, 407 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9894-x
McWilliams A, Siegel D (2000) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal
...
-Another issue to clarify is the difference between CSR and CSER. Do they mean the same thing or are they different concepts? I think the term generally used is CSR, which already includes environmental aspects.
-The formulation of the different hypotheses and research questions are quite questionable and lacking in logic or justification. They must be better explained and justified.
For example, what is the logic behind the link between CSER awards and financial performance?
-It is not explained what the CSER activities are and how they are measured. Nor is it explained how many activities they are or how the CSER spending per activity is calculated. So the formulation of the research questions is not understood.
-the last section should be the conclusions and main contributions of the study, not a summary.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is relevant. Objectives are clearly presented and framed and the methodology is suitable for the study.
Therefore, I present some opportunities for improvement.
- I suggest changing some of the keywords because they are vague.
- I suggest that the Theoretical Perspective chapter be a subchapter of Literature Review.
- I also suggest that the Hypothesis Development and Methods be included in a Methodology chapter (to be created).
- Change H1: CSER spending per activity has a "possible" effect on financial performance
- In the Findings and Discussion chapter the tables are very informative, which does not require such an exhaustive description. I suggest you highlight the main findings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The problem discussed in the article is very interesting and undoubtedly actual. The structure of the article is logical, and the presented arguments indicate the validity of the conducted research. Unfortunately, there are some weaknesses in the article.
It is not entirely clear to me how the authors distinguish the concept of corporate social and environmental responsibility (CSER) from the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR covers all areas of the company's operation, both social, economic and environmental. For me, the term "corporate social and environmental responsibility " is therefore a kind of abuse (or even a tautology). Especially that in the article the authors often refer to CSR (e.g. lines 52-57, 61, 65, 185, 276) and cite research on CSR (see literature).
The authors refer to the term "CSER committee" (line 88) without explaining its meaning. The Theoretical Perspective chapter does not quite fit in with the rest of the text. The authors do not refer to the legitimacy theory in any other part of the article.
H1: CSER spending per activity has a possible effect on financial performance is incorrectly formulated. This hypothesis is a non-falsifiable sentence, the authors use the term "possible", thus weakening the categorical nature of their assumptions.
Major revisions:
- Explain the differences between "corporate social and environmental responsibility " and "corporate social responsibility."
- Explain the term "CSER committee".
- Demonstrate the link between the analyzes and the legitimacy theory in the summary and discussion.
- Correctly formulate the H1 hypothesis.
- Explain in detail why the parameters of two models (model A and model B) were estimated.
- Describe in detail the model variables, especially SPEND, AWARD, ACTIVI (indicate what is included in their range).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has improved in the justificación and presentación of results, but in my opinión, it does not make any relevant contribution with respect to the numerous works published on the subject in last decades.
The conclusions and contributions should be improved in their reasoning and presentation, to clarify in what aspects this work represents an advance or novelty in social sciences.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors took into account all suggestions in a satisfactory manner.
