Scoring Sufficiency Economy Philosophy through GRI Standards and Firm Risk: A Case Study of Thai Listed Companies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, 

I want the thank you and the editor for reading your interesting work.

I think the topic is fascinating and all the attempts to reconciling different frameworks are crucial!

Nonetheless, the paper needs some improvements. My suggestions are the follows:

1. The abstract is too short and lacks important highlights such as the topic's relevance, the main results, etc. I suggest completely rewriting this section
2. you start the introduction writing about mandatoriness of listed companies disclosure, but it is not clear to which listed companies you refer. For example, environmental disclosure is also mandatory in the EU!!
3. In my opinion, the entire introductive section has to be rethought. The Introduction usually supplies some key information to understand the relevance of the topic and its contribution to the existing debate. These aspects are completely excluded from your Introduction. Furthermore, if the methodological choices can be shown, methods (also concerning previous studies) are not usually inserted in the Introduction but the methodological section
4. in the sample description, it is not clear why you have chosen to narrow the sample to only 34 companies and if this choice has a significant impact on the reliability of your analysis
5. Table 2 is not easily readable. 
6. I suggest you better explain the data collection process
7. Research limitations, practical and theoretical implications, and further research outlines are not disclosed. You have to integrate the conclusions with these aspects.

Finally, carefully proofread your work! The layout is incorrect, some citations are not compliant with the Journal guidelines, and there are some grammatical errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting but it needs some revisions.

First of all, SEP should be better and deeper explained and it has to be related to the theoretical framework (stakeholder theory) in a comprehensive manner. In other words, how SEP is related to Stakeholder theory or how that theory could explain SEP. Paragraphs 2.2, 2.3. and 2.4 must be related to SEP and they should have more references to the the literature. That part of the paper has to be expanded.

Methods and Findings are well explained.

Conclusions must be revised according to theoretical framework and authors have to recall what is their contributions to knowledge and previous literature.

Extensive editing of English language and style is required.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It has been a pleasure to review this interesting article.

I only have very few suggestions/comments as the methodology adopted is consistent with the aims and structure of the research.

1. As the introduction is very long, I would suggest including a graphical representation (flow chart) that can summarize the second paragraph, helping the reader to better follow the structure of the underlying principles.
2. in the conclusions, to better engage with the professional bodies, instead of the word "survivability" I would suggest "going concern" taken from the accounting standards, as the authors are suggesting later that "the disclosing on environment aspect should no longer be voluntary".
3. Lack of identifications of limitations of the research

Best regards!

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciated the new version of the paper in which the weaknesses of the previous version were overtaken. 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

now the paper is clearer and it better explained the theoretical framework.