Ownership by Mutual Funds and Corporate Reporting of Environmental Responsibility: Empirical Evidence from China 2007–2019
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I would recommend to place all long tables like 7,8,11,12 to the appendix to the article. Also it would be better to have introduction and literature review sections separately. As introduction explains the relevance of problem and gives and idea about the paper itself, while literature review gives an overview of other studies in this area, which is currently not the issue. No development of the scientific research problem is given at the present version. Conclusion section needs amendment as currently it is too short and it should also contain discussion on the results received as well as authors opinion on them.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a well written paper. The reason for study is well articulated and the study design is well developed. The same can be said about the analysis. The only suggestion I have is to use some ideas in Kumar et al. (2021) to demonstrate the relevance of the environment for business.
Kumar, S., Sureka, R., Lim, W. M., Kumar Mangla, S., & Goyal, N. (2021). What do we know about business strategy and environmental research? Insights from Business Strategy and the Environment. Business Strategy and the Environment.
It might be worthwhile reviewing relevant papers in Sustainability too so that the paper speaks to the extant discussion on relevant topics in the journal.
Good luck and all the very best!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper deals with ownership by Mutual Funds and Corporate Reporting of Environmental Responsibility. The topic is relevant and interesting, however this paper lacks scientific discussion. There are many papers written on this topic and the gap should be clearly identified by providing the input of this paper in context of other studies. Also, the results of this study should be compared and discussed with other studies in this area. However, this paper even lacks discussion section. The literature review ijn section of formulating hypotheses is also pour. This paper needs major revision and reshaping of this study based on my comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Abstract - it is necessary to clearly indicate the purpose of the research carried out and the research methods used
Introduction – it is necessary to clearly indicate the purpose of the research carried out
Hypothesis development - it is appropriate to write both hypotheses side by side, so it is necessary to move hypothesis 1 directly (a line above) before hypothesis 2.
Research design – I am not making any critical comments, in my opinion this part is written correctly
Empirical Results and Discussion - I am not making any critical comments, in my opinion this part is written correctly
Conclusion – requires a clear indication of the contribution of the obtained results to science and recommendations for economic practice, suggestions for politicians responsible for shaping the environmental protection policy
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed my all comments and correcred paper. The paper is improved significantly and can be published in current form.
