Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Philosophies among Hungarian Business Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the attached document, you can find my comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: Abstract: I suggest reorganize the abstract. It is necessary to explain the topic of the paper, objectives of the paper, methodology, and main findings.

I suggest including the implications of the findings and the main literature contribution of the

manuscript. Moreover, add the importance to study this field.


 

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. The abstract is rewritten as proposed in your comment. General sentences are removed, and the objectives and results have an emphasis in the text.

 

Point 2: Introduction: The authors need to introduce (1) the main findings of the research and (2) the main implications (theoretical and practical) of the results.

The authors need to include the division of the paper (sections of the paper).

 

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. A literature review section is separated, and both sections are extended following your guide.

 

Point 3: Literature review and development of hypothesis: Authors might include theory and empirical studies (findings) that prove the relationship (positive or negative) between variables.

Authors need to discuss the previous studies and their difference from their manuscripts.

I suggest including the following paper in the literature review to emphasize the importance of CSR in firms and countries: A. Tulcanaza-Prieto, H. Shin, Y. Lee and C. Lee, “Relationship among CSR Initiatives and Financial and Non-Financial Corporate Performance in the Ecuadorian Banking Environment,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 1621, pp. 1 17, 2020.

 

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. The literature review is extended with more theoretical and empirical items of prior studies. Table 1 is formulated for summarizing these results. It is to note that studies based on the ATBEQ instrument serve different purposes. Some of the studies present national results or cross-national comparisons, while others use ATBEQ as an explanatory tool like we did. The relationship between CSR perception and ATBEQ scores is a new experiment among these researches.

The suggested paper is valuable; it is added to the paper.

 

Point 4: Empirical design: I suggest reviewing the structure and modification in (1) research methodology (methodology, definition of variables, formulas, models) and (2) data (source of data and period).

The authors need to explain better all variables, use references. I suggest to use a table to describe the variable, its definition, and its calculation. Review the paper suggested of CSR for better understanding.

 

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. The methodological issues are reorganized. Among others, the goals are moved to the introduction (and highlighted in other sections where relevant), research design includes the calculation of ATBEQ factors (Table2), and limitations are moved to conclusions.

 

Point 5: Results: Table 2: Authors need to include a footnote with the meaning of stars * (significance level). Authors need to analyze their findings and their implications in financial, economic, and social context.

Include the similarities/differences between authors’ results with prior findings.

 

Response 5: Thank you for your comment; the missing information is placed in the table. The social context is referred to in the conclusions. We agree that a complex economic and social assessment of the implications would be useful, but it requires further data collection and goes beyond the limits of the present survey. Based on your suggestion we will improve the survey, and this can be the objective of following papers.

According to Point 3, the various utilization of ATBEQ allows a partial comparison of the present and prior results. This is included in Figure 3.

 

Point 6: Conclusion: State the main findings of the research, the contribution of the article, the limitations of the research, and future studies.

 

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. Based on it, the conclusion is completely rewritten.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The knowledge on social responsibility acquired by students is undoubtedly important and translates into the future functioning of the business. For this reason, I consider the topic of the article important and current. The title indicates that research is embedded in two areas: corporate social responsibility and business philosophies. Unfortunately, business philosophies was completely omitted in Abstract and the keywords. Reading the article one has the impression that the authors equate business philosophies with moral philosophies. Is such thinking really correct? The authors aim to: "The study aims to contribute to the knowledge base of understanding CSR in Hungary and allow successful and efficient tools to move forward the achievement of CSR and sustainability goals." (lines 106-108). Can this goal really be achieved on the basis of student surveys? Will the determination of students' knowledge of CSR allow finding effective and efficient tools to accelerate the achievement of CSR goals and sustainable development? Moreover, the authors did not identify these tools.

An unfinished sentence appeared in the text: "For a simple illustration of the" (lines 156-157).

Major revisions:

1. Refer to business philosophies in the article, possibly explain the connections between business philosophies and moral philosophies.

2. Explain why identifying students' knowledge of CSR allows to find effective and efficient tools to accelerate the achievement of CSR and sustainability goals. Indicate what these tools are. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1: The title indicates that research is embedded in two areas: corporate social responsibility and business philosophies. Unfortunately, business philosophies was completely omitted in Abstract and the keywords.


 

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. The abstract is rewritten, taking your suggestion into account. Business philosophies are now included.

 

Point 2: Reading the article one has the impression that the authors equate business philosophies with moral philosophies.

 

Response 2: Thank you for drawing your attention to this. Some papers use ‘moral philosophies’ in the meaning of ‘business philosophies’. Our purpose is to focus on business issues and business philosophies; the moral expression can be misleading. Although morality appears in business philosophy (some explanation is added to the text), a detailed analysis of these goes beyond the goal of the paper. The investigations are limited to business philosophies covered by the ATBEQ instrument.

 

Point 3: “The study aims to contribute to the knowledge base of understanding CSR in Hungary and allow successful and efficient tools to move forward the achievement of CSR and sustainability goals." (lines 106-108). Can this goal really be achieved on the basis of student surveys? Will the determination of students' knowledge of CSR allow finding effective and efficient tools to accelerate the achievement of CSR goals and sustainable development? Moreover, the authors did not identify these tools.

 

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. In short, investigations among business students cannot answer all problems and challenges. At the same time, business students as future decision-makers must be emphasized. The text is modified in the Introduction and Conclusion sections for giving a better emphasis on the reasons of sample selection and the limitations.

 

Point 4: An unfinished sentence appeared in the text: "For a simple illustration of the" (lines 156-157).

 

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. It was an editing mistake. The sentence notes that the interpretation of mean values on this scale is limited. Now it is supplemented. “For a simple illustration of the results, the mean values are used in the figures.”

 

Point 5: 1. Refer to business philosophies in the article, possibly explain the connections between business philosophies and moral philosophies.

 

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. According to Point 2, the use of expressions is modified, and moral aspects are noted. A detailed analysis of your suggestion goes beyond our possibilities within this paper, but we consider addressing this specifically in an appropriate article.

 

Point 6: Explain why identifying students' knowledge of CSR allows to find effective and efficient tools to accelerate the achievement of CSR and sustainability goals. Indicate what these tools are.

 

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. Since the objective of the paper is not the detailed analysis of the CSR tools, methods, and applications, and adding this would significantly shift the focus of the say, we decided to modify the text, and we do not propose this topic unfinished. However, we are grateful for this comment that helps to improve our research and gives a direction for future investigations.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

• The introduction includes a review of the literature. The division into two chapters is suggested. The introduction chapter identifies the study, outlines the objectives and reveals the structure of the manuscript. Authors should create a separate chapter to review the literature on the central theme.
• The research questions are not clear enough. Hence the added value of the study is not clear.
• The conclusion must be improved.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Point 1: The introduction includes a review of the literature. The division into two chapters is suggested. The introduction chapter identifies the study, outlines the objectives and reveals the structure of the manuscript. Authors should create a separate chapter to review the literature on the central theme.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. Separated Introduction and Literature review sections are developed considering your comment. Both are supplemented, and the structure of the paper is added to the text.

 

Point 2: The research questions are not clear enough. Hence the added value of the study is not clear.

 

Response 2: Thank you for your comment. Research questions are reformulated and moved in line with reorganizing the paper structure.

 

Point 3: The conclusion must be improved.

 

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. Considering all notes of the reviewers on this, the conclusion is rewritten.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am absolutely satisfied with the modifications introduced in the article. For me, the content of the article is clear, and the theory and study form a coherent and logical whole. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The changes introduced correspond to the suggestions. The manuscript meets the conditions to be published.