The Effects of Technology Innovation Activity on CSR: Emphasizing the Nonlinear and Heterogenous Effects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Build a better case for studying the relationship between TIA and CSR. It is not clear why the study is needed.
- Justify the use of BCCI and R&D Expenditures as measures for the two main variables. I am not saying that they don't work, however a stronger justification of their use should be provided eventually with a discussion of why alternative metrics are not a good solution. Providing other works that have adopted BCCI previously would be preferable.
- Provide a better justification of the sample and its representativeness also provide some descriptive figures of the sample
- Fig. 1 is not readable
- The discussion of the results is not provided. Beside the simple presentation of the statistical results, a structured discussion of the results in light of current theory is necessary
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Manuscript ID: Sustainability-1389504
Above all else, we thank you for your thoughtful comments. These have helped substantially to enhance its overall quality. Below we address each of your comments (in italics) in turn and explain our responses. Note that our responses are coloured in yellow-highlighted.
Point 1: Build a better case for studying the relationship between TIA and CSR. It is not clear why the study is needed.
Response 1: Agreed. We state the issues associated with your point on the lines 41- 53. Please check them.
Point 2: Justify the use of BCCI and R&D Expenditures as measures for the two main variables. I am not saying that they don't work, however a stronger justification of their use should be provided eventually with a discussion of why alternative metrics are not a good solution. Providing other works that have adopted BCCI previously would be preferable.
Response 2: Agreed. To effectively response to your point, we indicate the studies [27, 31] on line 187 that adopted the BCCI. You can actually check them on References.
Point 3: Provide a better justification of the sample and its representativeness also provide some descriptive figures of the sample.
Response 3: Good point. On this revision, we address why this study focuses on the Korean case of the sample. Please check this on lines 49-53.
Point 4. Fig. 1 is not readable
Response 4: Corrected. Fig. 1 should be squashed on our initial submission to the Journal. We do not know what happed on the submission process. Fig. 1 is corrected on the version and we would really apologize for any confusion caused.
Point 5: The discussion of the results is not provided. Beside the simple presentation of the statistical results, a structured discussion of the results in light of current theory is necessary
Response 5: Point taken. We attempt to effectively discuss the implications of our empirical results on the 2nd paragraph of Conclusions. Please go through it.
Again, many thanks for your great comments!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper discusses the effect of R&D expenses on CSR at firm level, using a Korean data set. The topic is relevant due the small number of empirical studies that test this relationship. Moreover it provides some methodological novelty, by using quantile regression methods.
However, the paper has some limitations that should be addressed.
Firstly, although the number of studies is scarce, the authors have missed at least two important works that need to be included. The first one, quite recent, performs a cross-country analysis of the impact of R&D on CSR (Fu, L., Boehe, D., & Orlitzky, M. (2020). Are R&D-Intensive firms also corporate social responsibility specialists? A multicountry study. Research policy, 49(8), 104082.). The second one, although older, is important because it discusses the existence of a bidirectional relationship between the two variables (Gallego-Alvarez, I., Prado-Lorenzo, J. M., & Garcıa-Sánchez, I. M. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and innovation: a resource-based theory. Management Decision, 49(10), 1709-1727).
Secondly, it is important that the author/s justify why they were expecting a U-shaped relationship and no and inverted U-shaped one as expressed in the introduction. Moreover, they need to advance a more convincing explanation for the U-shaped relationship found. In the findings section the author/s introduce the argument of proactivity without explaining it or saying how it is assessed in the context of their research. Besides, in the conclusion they mention the existence of an optimal level. But an optimal level occurs when we find an inverted U-shaped relationship with a maximum and not in a U-shaped relationship with a minimum. This needs to be clarified.
I also consider that the choice of main dependent variable needs to be better explained. Why did the author/s opt for R&D expenses and not for R&D intensity? As they acknowledge both are used in the literature. The merits and limitations of the chosen proxy need to be considered.
Moreover, there is the question of the direction of the relationship between the variables. The authors raise this issue in the conclusion, and this was already found by previous research. The authors can run a endogeneity test and check for the directionality of the relationship.
The clarity Figure 1 needs to improved, since the diagonal grey lines make difficult to see what happens in some graphs.
The sentences in lines 78-81 should be merged, since there is a repetition.
The sentence in lines 277-278 need to be rewritten to become clearer.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
Manuscript ID: Sustainability_1389504
First of all, the authors appreciate for your constructive and thoughtful comments. These have helped substantially to improve the exposition of the paper and enhance its overall quality. Below we address each of your comments (in italics) in turn and explain our responses. Note that our responses are coloured in yellow-highlighted.
Point 1: Firstly, although the number of studies is scarce, the authors have missed at least two important works that need to be included. The first one, quite recent, performs a cross-country analysis of the impact of R&D on CSR (Fu, L., Boehe, D., & Orlitzky, M. (2020). Are R&D-Intensive firms also corporate social responsibility specialists? A multicountry study. Research policy, 49(8), 104082.). The second one, although older, is important because it discusses the existence of a bidirectional relationship between the two variables (Gallego-Alvarez, I., Prado-Lorenzo, J. M., & Garcıa-Sánchez, I. M. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and innovation: a resource-based theory. Management Decision, 49(10), 1709-1727).
Response 1: Helpful references. We review the references you recommend on this revision. Please see the lines 103-106 for the former and the lines 112-116 for the latter.
Point 2: Secondly, it is important that the author/s justify why they were expecting a U-shaped relationship and no and inverted U-shaped one as expressed in the introduction. Moreover, they need to advance a more convincing explanation for the U-shaped relationship found. In the findings section the author/s introduce the argument of proactivity without explaining it or saying how it is assessed in the context of their research. Besides, in the conclusion they mention the existence of an optimal level. But an optimal level occurs when we find an inverted U-shaped relationship with a maximum and not in a U-shaped relationship with a minimum. This needs to be clarified.
Response 2: Really agreed. We attempted to effectively address this issue on this revision. Please the lines 55-58 on Introduction and the lines 371-375 on Conclusions.
Point 3: I also consider that the choice of main dependent variable needs to be better explained. Why did the author/s opt for R&D expenses and not for R&D intensity? As they acknowledge both are used in the literature. The merits and limitations of the chosen proxy need to be considered.
Response 3: Point taken. The two proxies for TIA are being accepted on innovation study as known. We think that the two proxies make no serious difference. However, the authors used the R&D expenditures without any change of the expenses on the R&D investment. For referring the use of this proxy, our study indicates the prior studies [3, 8, 32] on lines 200. You can check them on References.
Point 4: Moreover, there is the question of the direction of the relationship between the variables. The authors raise this issue in the conclusion, and this was already found by previous research. The authors can run an endogeneity test and check for the directionality of the relationship.
Response 4: Very sharp point. For a matter for a rigorous study, checking the endogeneity issue should be important (if applicable). To effectively conduct the work, we should select an appropriate instrumental variable to affect the explanatory variable with no correlation with an error term. However, this work should be extremely difficult in the cross- sectional analysis. Even, as far as we understand, this work could be a good topic for a research itself. Given a panel or timeseries study, one can use the lagged variable of the explanatory variable as a satisfactory (not best) instrumental variable. Unfortunately, our study is based on a cross sectional study and so, has no feasible clue for testing for the endogeneity issue. So, it should be really appreciated if you regard it.
Regarding the issue on a bidirectionality (causality) between CSR and TIA is also in line with the endogeneity one. That is, the bidirectionality between two drivers could be effectively examined when the time information is available. So, we ask your regards for this again. For reference, the reference (titled Are R&D-Intensive firms also corporate social responsibility specialists? A multicountry study) with which you provided me effectively conducts the endogeneity and causality, using the panel data
Point 5: The clarity Figure 1 needs to improved, since the diagonal grey lines make difficult to see what happens in some graphs.
Response 5: Corrected. Fig. 1 should be squashed on our initial submission to the Journal. We do not know what happed on the submission process. On this version, Fig. 1 is corrected. We would really apologize for any confusion caused.
Point 6: The sentences in lines 78-81 should be merged, since there is a repetition.
Response 6: Agreed. Revised as suggested. Please see the lines 84-86.
Point 7: The sentence in lines 277-278 need to be rewritten to become clearer.
Response 7: Agreed as well. Done on the lines 288-289.
Again, many thanks for your great comments!
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I am fine with the modifications
