Public Pressure, Environmental Policy Uncertainty, and Enterprises’ Environmental Information Disclosure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper adopts the theoretical lens of organizational legitimacy to investigate the influence mechanism of public pressure represented by government environmental regulation, media attention, and institutional investment preference on environmental disclosure practices of a sample of Chinese listed companies operating in heavily polluting industries. Also, authors also tested the influence of environmental policy uncertainty caused by the change of local environmental leadership on the relationship between public pressure and environmental disclosure.

Overall, the paper is well written and clear. Authors deal with an interesting topic that is in line with emerging sustainability journal's issues.

I have only minor suggestions to authors.

Firstly, I suggest authors to cite more papers that have investigated the determinants of environmental disclosure to create more basis for discussion. Also, I suggest authors to dive deep into the legitimacy discosure. Accordingly, the discussion of results should be improved by provding more comparisons with previous studies and more theoretical implications based on legitimacy.

Last, the authors should evidence papers' limitations and more suggestions for future research.

Author Response

Comment # 1

This paper adopts the theoretical lens of organizational legitimacy to investigate the influence mechanism of public pressure represented by government environmental regulation, media attention, and institutional investment preference on environmental disclosure practices of a sample of Chinese listed companies operating in heavily polluting industries. Also, authors also tested the influence of environmental policy uncertainty caused by the change of local environmental leadership on the relationship between public pressure and environmental disclosure.

Response to the reviewer:

We are thankful to the reviewer for devoting his valuable time to review this article and share valuable insights to enhance the manuscript’s quality further.

Comment # 2

Overall, the paper is well written and clear. Authors deal with an interesting topic that is in line with emerging sustainability journal’s issues.

Response to the reviewer:

We are thankful to the reviewer for giving encouraging comments.

Comment # 3

Firstly, I suggest authors to cite more papers that have investigated the determinants of environmental disclosure to create more basis for discussion. Also, I suggest authors to dive deep into the legitimacy disclosure. Accordingly, the discussion of results should be improved by providing more comparisons with previous studies and more theoretical implications based on legitimacy.

Response to the reviewer:

We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments. We have included some relevant literature in the paper to support the thesis of this paper. At the same time, we have also strengthened the discussion about the theoretical significance of this paper in the revision.

Comment # 4

Last, the authors should evidence papers’ limitations and more suggestions for future research.

Response to the reviewer:

We have improved papers’ limitations and future suggestions as well. We believe the reviewer will find our manuscript considerable for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract

No need for the introduction in the abstract (: Enterprises’ Environmental Information Disclosure (EEID) has gained much attention re- 12 cently from the government, investors, media, and stakeholders. Accordingly, higher requirements 13 are put forward for the levels of EEID.).

The abstract needs improvements to include:

1. The main aim of the papers
2. The methodology
3. Contributions, and originality.
4. The implications

Introduction:

1. The introduction in its current format lacks for supportive literature. The author/s should include most recent and up-to-date research studies.
2. The authors mentioned that “A rich discussion on the behavioral motivation and influencing factors of EEID is available in the literature. However, fewer researchers have explored the potential of the EEID mechanism’s pressure from stakeholders to the public. The researchers on the influence of EEID on public pressure to explore more focus on a single or multiple aspects due to selecting different research objects and research angle”, there is no citation or discussion for any study. You can use “for example” and provide some evidences from prior studies.
3. The research gap that justifies your contribution with theory underpinnings need to be discussed. It is necessary to discuss and mention how your research contributes to the strand literature.
4. There are only 4 references in the introduction, you need to enhance the discussion.

 

Theoretical analysis and research hypothesis

1. This section should be renamed as literature review and hypotheses development.
2. The literature lacks for argumentative discussion.
3. The theoretical framework needs to be better articulated and updated. I recommend significantly rewriting the literature review. I strongly recommend investing in in-depth research mapping the state of the art on the subject/topic. Consider eliminating old published studies from 1995 and 1997. Try to maintain recent and up to date studies, at least after 2010.
4. I strongly recommend expanding the theoretical discussion based on a critical literature review, delving deeper into the problem, i.e. specific cut.
5. Your literature review in its current format is a summary of the research studies cited. You need to build argumentative and critical discussion.

 

Study design

1. Please justify the selection of your variables.
2. I have a series concern about the tool of analysis. Fixed-effect model has been used, your DV is a dummy variable scaled as 2,1, and 0???

 

 

Results and Analysis

You have reported the results without any discussion, the analysis and discussion need a significant modification. The results should be discussed in light of the findings from prior studies.

 

other comments:

• The paper needs proofreading

 

 

 

Author Response

We are thankful to the reviewer for devoting his valuable time to review this article and share valuable insights to further enhance the manuscript’s quality.

Comment # 1

Abstract: No need for the introduction in the abstract (: Enterprises’ Environmental Information Disclosure (EEID) has gained much attention recently from the government, investors, media, and stakeholders. Accordingly, higher requirements are put forward for the levels of EEID). The abstract needs improvements to include: 1. The main aim of the papers 2. The methodology 3. Contributions, and originality. 4. The implications

Response to the reviewer:

We are thankful to the reviewer for devoting his valuable time to review this article and share valuable insights to further enhance the manuscript’s quality. We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. We have made necessary deletions to the abstract and made substantial revisions to the article’s purpose, methodology, contribution, and application.

 

Comment # 2

Introduction: The introduction in its current format lacks for supportive literature. The authors should include most recent and up-to date research studies.

Response to the reviewer:

Though less work has been done in this exact research direction; however, we have added several manuscripts in the introduction to support and evidence the research literature. We believe you will find the literature considerable.

Comment # 3

The authors mentioned that “A rich discussion on the behavioral motivation and influencing factors of EEID is available in the literature. However, fewer researchers have explored the potential of the EEID mechanism’s pressure from stakeholders to the public. The researchers on the influence of EEID on public pressure to explore more focus on a single or multiple aspects due to selecting different research objects and research angle”, there is no citation or discussion for any study. You can use “for example” and provide some evidence from prior studies.

Response to the reviewer:

We have added several research papers closely related to this topic; we apologize if we have missed any very important papers, we would appreciate if the reviewer can precisely highlight any importanty work that we have missed here.

Comment # 4

The research gap that justifies your contribution with theory underpinnings need to be discussed. It is necessary to discuss and mention how your research contributes to the strand literature.

Response to the reviewer:

We have rewritten the last paragraph of the introduction to justify our contribution with theory underpinnings needs and how we have goen through the research gap.

Comment # 5

There are only 4 references in the introduction, you need to enhance the discussion.

Response to the reviewer:

As stated earlier, the introduction section has been supplemented with literature.

Comment # 6

Theoretical analysis and research hypothesis: 1. This section should be renamed as literature review and hypotheses development.

Response to the reviewer:

The section has been renamed.

Comment # 7

The literature lacks for argumentative discussion.

Response to the reviewer:

The argumentative discussion has been added.

Comment # 8

The theoretical framework needs to be better articulated and updated. I recommend significantly rewriting the literature review. I strongly recommend investing in in-depth research mapping the state of the art on the subject/topic.

Response to the reviewer:

We appreciate the reviewer for valuable guidance and suggestions. We have tried to focus on the topic concretely. We have been trying to avoid long literature reviews, as they often lack the attention of the readers and lost the critical interest of the topic.

Comment # 9

Consider eliminating old published studies from 1995 and 1997. Try to maintain recent and up to date studies, at least after 2010.

Response to the reviewer:

Thanks to the reviewers for their comments. We agree that we must focus on current works, at the same time, we would like to explain the inclusion of earlier literature in the theoretical analysis section. For example, Darrell and Schwartz (1977) is not relatively recent. But it does play an important role in clarifying the concept of public pressure and promoting future research on public pressure. Therefore, we prefer to keep it in the article.

Comment # 10

I strongly recommend expanding the theoretical discussion based on a critical literature review, delving deeper into the problem, i.e. specific cut.

Response to the reviewer:

We have tried our best to be specific and delve deeper into the problem. We believe the reviewer would find our manuscript considerable for publication in revised form.

Comment # 11

Your literature review in its current format is a summary of the research studies cited. You need to build argumentative and critical discussion.

Response to the reviewer:

The argumentative discussion has been added.

Comment # 12

Study design 1. Please justify the selection of your variables. I have a series concern about the tool of analysis. Fixed effect model has been used, your DV is a dummy variable scaled as 2,1, and 0???

Response to the reviewer:

Thanks to the reviewers for their comments. We have explained in the article how and why the main variables are set.

The main dummy variables in the paper conclude change of local environmental leadership, transfer mode, age and source area. They are scaled as 1 and 0. The detailed explanation for the DVs are explained as follows.

Variable name	Symbol	Calculation method
Change of local environmental leadership	COE	If the director of the DoEE of the province where the enterprise is registered changes, the value is 1; otherwise, it is 0
Transfer mode	Promote	If the director of the DoEE takes office through promotion, the value will be 1; if he is transferred, demoted, or unchanged, the value will be 0
Age	Age	If the director of the DoEE is less than or equal to 55 years old at the time of change, the value is 1; if he is more than 55 years old and there is no change, the value is 0
Source area	Origin	If the enterprise is not located in the city before the new director of the DoEE takes office and belongs to the non-source area, the value is 1, otherwise 0

Comment # 13

Results and Analysis: You have reported the results without any discussion, the analysis and discussion need a significant modification. The results should be discussed in light of the findings from prior studies.

Response to the reviewer:

We appreciate the valuable insights of the reviewer, as mentioned earlier there are few works that exactly match the same scenario, thus it seems not fruitful to compare apples with oranges. However, we have tried our best to polish the manuscript significantly.

Comment # 14

Other comments: The paper needs proofreading

Also, we have got it proofread by a native speaker to polish the whole manuscript in standard American English.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review the article entitled: " Public Pressure, Environmental Policy Uncertainty, and Enterprises' Environmental Information Disclosure".

I found it a very interesting article. It is clear that the authors have worked hard on it, as well as that it has been previously reviewed, hence its current status allows the recommendation to be published.

However, I would like to make a series of recommendations to the authors:

 

- In the introduction it is always good to have a final paragraph in which the structure of the rest of the article is set out.

- In the introduction, it would be good to clearly state the objective of the article and the research questions to be answered with this article.

- In section 2, it would be useful to include at the end a figure in which the proposed model is drawn, indicating the hypotheses. This same drawing could be used in the results section to show the reader graphically the results obtained.

- In the methodology section, the authors could explain a little about the panel data method and why they have chosen it.

For the rest, I consider that it is a good article that can be published.

Congratulations!

 

Author Response

Comment # 1

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review the article entitled: " Public Pressure, Environmental Policy Uncertainty, and Enterprises' Environmental Information Disclosure".

Response to the reviewer:

We are thankful to the reviewer for devoting his valuable time to reviewing this article. We have highlighted all changes in yellow color.

Comment # 2

I found it a very interesting article. It is clear that the authors have worked hard on it, as well as that it has been previously reviewed, hence its current status allows the recommendation to be published.

However, I would like to make a series of recommendations to the authors:

Response to the reviewer:

We are thankful to the reviewer for appreciating words and understating, and realizing the effort done to organize such research work. We have further revised the manuscript according to the comments of the reviewer.

Comment # 3

In the introduction it is always good to have a final paragraph in which the structure of the rest of the article is set out.

Response to the reviewer:

Yes, we agree, and we have added a final paragraph discussing the structure of the paper.

Comment # 4

In the introduction, it would be good to clearly state the objective of the article and the research questions to be answered with this article.

Response to the reviewer:

We agree with the reviewer, and we have stated the objective of the article and the research questions.

Comment # 5

In section 2, it would be useful to include at the end a figure in which the proposed model is drawn, indicating the hypotheses. This same drawing could be used in the results section to show the reader graphically the results obtained.

Response to the reviewer:

We have made a schematic illustration of all hypotheses of this study. We have not added the same picture, as the picture representation might be complex for readers and the repetition of the results mentioned in the table format. We hope the reviewer will agree with it.

Comment # 6

In the methodology section, the authors could explain a little about the panel data method and why they have chosen it.

Response to the reviewer:

We have added a detailed explanation of the panel data accordingly.

Comment # 7

For the rest, I consider that it is a good article that can be published. Congratulations!

Response to the reviewer:

Thanks once again!

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have successfully replied to the reviewers' comments in the report however, they failed to incorporate the comments in the manuscript. The modifications incorporated in the manuscript do not satisfy the comments. 

All modifications should be highlighted. Further, the authors should reply to reviewers comments in a way to show what they have exactly did for each comment rather than explaining and replying to the comment. They should mention in their reply the modifications incorporated in the manuscript for each comment. 

Author Response

Comment # 1

The authors have successfully replied to the reviewers' comments in the report however, they failed to incorporate the comments in the manuscript. The modifications incorporated in the manuscript do not satisfy the comments. 

Response to the reviewer:

We are thankful to the reviewer for devoting his valuable time to re-review the revised manuscript. We have carefully followed the comments of the reviewer and have tried our best to address all the key technical issues. We believe the modification incorporated in the manuscript satisfies the comments, except for the reviewer’s request to rewrite the literature review part. If the reviewer believes that we are missing any important research work, we will appreciate the reviewer for introducing that one to us.

Comment # 2

All modifications should be highlighted. Further, the authors should reply to reviewers comments in a way to show what they have exactly did for each comment rather than explaining and replying to the comment. They should mention in their reply the modifications incorporated in the manuscript for each comment.

Response to the reviewer:

We made changes in changes tracking options in the last file; however, we can understand that reviewer might not be able to see them clearly in the PDF format. Thus, we have highlighted each change in yellow color. We are sorry for our mistake of not mentioning each incorporated change in the rebuttal, we have revised the responses by adding the line numbers with what each change or comment corresponds to. We believe it will be easier for reviewers to follow each change incorporated. If there are more changes requested, please guide us exactly rather than stating general comments.

Revised Responses of the Round 1

Comment # 1

Abstract: No need for the introduction in the abstract (: Enterprises’ Environmental Information Disclosure (EEID) has gained much attention recently from the government, investors, media, and stakeholders. Accordingly, higher requirements are put forward for the levels of EEID). The abstract needs improvements to include: 1. The main aim of the papers 2. The methodology 3. Contributions, and originality. 4. The implications

Response to the reviewer:

We are thankful to the reviewer for devoting his valuable time to review this article and share valuable insights to further enhance the manuscript’s quality. We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. We have made necessary deletions to the abstract and made substantial revisions to the article’s purpose, methodology, contribution, and application.

The reviewer might see we have fully rewritten the abstract as per the reviewer’s guidance.

Comment # 2

Introduction: The introduction in its current format lacks for supportive literature. The authors should include most recent and up-to date research studies.

Response to the reviewer:

Though less work has been done in this exact research direction; however, we have added several manuscripts in the introduction to support and evidence the research literature. We believe you will find the literature considerable.

The reviewer might notice that we have added/cited literature, refer, to lines 57-67.

Comment # 3

The authors mentioned that “A rich discussion on the behavioral motivation and influencing factors of EEID is available in the literature. However, fewer researchers have explored the potential of the EEID mechanism’s pressure from stakeholders to the public. The researchers on the influence of EEID on public pressure to explore more focus on a single or multiple aspects due to selecting different research objects and research angle”, there is no citation or discussion for any study. You can use “for example” and provide some evidence from prior studies.

Response to the reviewer:

We have added several research papers closely related to this topic; we apologize if we have missed any very important papers, we would appreciate it if the reviewer can precisely highlight any important work that we have missed here. Refer to lines 67-72.

Comment # 4

The research gap that justifies your contribution with theory underpinnings needs to be discussed. It is necessary to discuss and mention how your research contributes to the strand literature.

Response to the reviewer:

We have rewritten the last paragraph of the introduction to justify our contribution with theory underpinnings needs and how we have gone through the research gap. Refer to lines, 91-98, and 103-108.

Comment # 5

There are only 4 references in the introduction, you need to enhance the discussion.

Response to the reviewer:

As stated earlier, the introduction section has been supplemented with literature., refer to lines 57-72.

Comment # 6

Theoretical analysis and research hypothesis: 1. This section should be renamed as literature review and hypotheses development.

Response to the reviewer:

The section has been renamed. Refer to line 109.

Comment # 7

The literature lacks for argumentative discussion.

Response to the reviewer:

The argumentative discussion has been added. Refer to lines 142-147.

Comment # 8

The theoretical framework needs to be better articulated and updated. I recommend significantly rewriting the literature review. I strongly recommend investing in in-depth research mapping the state of the art on the subject/topic.

Response to the reviewer:

We appreciate the reviewer for valuable guidance and suggestions. We have tried to focus on the topic concretely. We have been trying to avoid long literature reviews, as they often lack the attention of the readers and lost the critical interest in the topic.

Comment # 9

Consider eliminating old published studies from 1995 and 1997. Try to maintain recent and up to date studies, at least after 2010.

Response to the reviewer:

Thanks to the reviewers for their comments. We agree that we must focus on current works, at the same time, we would like to explain the inclusion of earlier literature in the theoretical analysis section. For example, Darrell and Schwartz (1977) is not relatively recent. But it does play an important role in clarifying the concept of public pressure and promoting future research on public pressure. Therefore, we prefer to keep it in the article. Refer to line 124.

Comment # 10

I strongly recommend expanding the theoretical discussion based on a critical literature review, delving deeper into the problem, i.e. specific cut.

Response to the reviewer:

We have tried our best to be specific and delve deeper into the problem. We believe the reviewer would find our manuscript considered for publication in revised form. Refer to lines 142-147.

Comment # 11

Your literature review in its current format is a summary of the research studies cited. You need to build argumentative and critical discussion.

Response to the reviewer:

The argumentative discussion has been avoided. The neutral discussion from the academia is preferred while talking about the Government policies and Change of Directors, thus, critical arguments have been avoided; however, a general description is made, while highlighting the key research issues.

Comment # 12

Study design 1. Please justify the selection of your variables. I have a series concern about the tool of analysis. Fixed effect model has been used, your DV is a dummy variable scaled as 2,1, and 0???

Response to the reviewer:

Thanks to the reviewers for their comments. We have explained in the article how and why the main variables are set. For details, the reviewer may refer to Table 2.

The main dummy variables in the paper conclude change of local environmental leadership, transfer mode, age and source area. They are scaled as 1 and 0. The detailed explanation for the DVs are explained as follows.

Variable name	Symbol	Calculation method
Change of local environmental leadership	COE	If the director of the DoEE of the province where the enterprise is registered changes, the value is 1; otherwise, it is 0
Transfer mode	Promote	If the director of the DoEE takes office through promotion, the value will be 1; if he is transferred, demoted, or unchanged, the value will be 0
Age	Age	If the director of the DoEE is less than or equal to 55 years old at the time of change, the value is 1; if he is more than 55 years old and there is no change, the value is 0
Source area	Origin	If the enterprise is not located in the city before the new director of the DoEE takes office and belongs to the non-source area, the value is 1, otherwise 0

Comment # 13

Results and Analysis: You have reported the results without any discussion, the analysis and discussion need a significant modification. The results should be discussed in light of the findings from prior studies.

Response to the reviewer:

We appreciate the valuable insights of the reviewer, as mentioned earlier few works exactly match the same scenario, thus it seems not fruitful to compare apples with oranges. However, we have tried our best to polish the manuscript significantly.

Comment # 14

Other comments: The paper needs proofreading

Also, we have got it proofread by a native speaker to polish the whole manuscript in standard American English. The corrections have been made in the revised manuscript, the reviewer might refer to the lines 225, 312-313, 328-331, 399-401, 469, 514-516, 529-533, and 564-565.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The modifications made are not carefully discussed and incorporated. There should be an insightful discussion. It is not a matter of adding some references.  
The topic has a contribution in itself but, the discussion of the literature review does not lead to that contribution. What you have added to justify your contribution is not convenient. 
The literature lacks for argumentative discussion. This comment has not been given consideration by authors. What you have provided is not convenient. 
I strongly recommend expanding the theoretical discussion based on a critical literature review, delving deeper into the problem, i.e. specific cut. & Your literature review in its current format is a summary of the research studies cited. You need to build argumentative and critical discussion. These comments also have not been given enough consideration. 
Study design 1. Please justify the selection of your variables. I have a series concern about the tool of analysis. Fixed effect model has been used, your DV is a dummy variable scaled as 2,1, and 0??? Please provide clear response. Is your DV a score or dummy variable? If the dependent variable is measured in such a way that you have provided, the tool of analysis is not suitable. Otherwise you may  provide any evidence from prior studies that they use the same measure for the same tool of analysis.  
 
You have reported the results without any discussion, the analysis and discussion need a significant modification. The results should be discussed in light of the findings from prior studies. This point also has not received enough consideration. 

Author Response

Comments # 1

The modifications made are not carefully discussed and incorporated. There should be an insightful discussion. It is not a matter of adding some references. 

Response to the reviewer

Dear respected reviewer, we again appreciate your valuable effort to help us improve our article. We have carefully incorporated the changes proposed by all the reviewers, including another new anonymous reviewer. We believe that there is an insightful discussion in the manuscript. We would appreciate it if the reviewer could be specified in the comments. All the new changes have been highlighted in Yellow color for the easiness of the reviewers to find out the changes.

Comments # 2

The topic has a contribution in itself but, the discussion of the literature review does not lead to that contribution. What you have added to justify your contribution is not convenient.

Response to the reviewer

The discussions have already been there in section 4 while addressing results, so we have not added the section for discussion in the revised manuscript.

Comments # 3

The literature lacks for argumentative discussion. This comment has not been given consideration by authors. What you have provided is not convenient.

Response to the reviewer

As mentioned earlier, we have added argumentive discussion. Also, we have got it revised by a native speaker with good knowledge of the subject. You might notice that we have further revised the introduction and have added a section description and research questions in the introduction.

Comments # 4

I strongly recommend expanding the theoretical discussion based on a critical literature review, delving deeper into the problem, i.e. specific cut. & Your literature review in its current format is a summary of the research studies cited. You need to build argumentative and critical discussion. These comments also have not been given enough consideration.

Response to the reviewer

We have tried our best to satisfy the comments of the reviewer. Sorry to say the reviewer has only proposed improving the article's argumentive writing in the last four comments.

Comments # 5

Study design 1. Please justify the selection of your variables. I have a series concern about the tool of analysis. Fixed effect model has been used, your DV is a dummy variable scaled as 2,1, and 0??? Please provide clear response. Is your DV a score or dummy variable? If the dependent variable is measured in such a way that you have provided, the tool of analysis is not suitable. Otherwise you may  provide any evidence from prior studies that they use the same measure for the same tool of analysis. 

Response to the reviewer

We have already added this response in the second round of the review.

The main dummy variables in the paper conclude change of local environmental leadership, transfer mode, age and source area. They are scaled as 1 and 0. The detailed explanation for the DVs are explained as follows.

Variable name	Symbol	Calculation method
Change of local environmental leadership	COE	If the director of the DoEE of the province where the enterprise is registered changes, the value is 1; otherwise, it is 0
Transfer mode	Promote	If the director of the DoEE takes office through promotion, the value will be 1; if he is transferred, demoted, or unchanged, the value will be 0
Age	Age	If the director of the DoEE is less than or equal to 55 years old at the time of change, the value is 1; if he is more than 55 years old and there is no change, the value is 0
Source area	Origin	If the enterprise is not located in the city before the new director of the DoEE takes office and belongs to the non-source area, the value is 1, otherwise 0

 

Comments # 6

You have reported the results without any discussion, the analysis and discussion need a significant modification. The results should be discussed in light of the findings from prior studies. This point also has not received enough consideration.

Response to the reviewer

We will be thankful to the reviewer if you can propose the exact paper he wants to be cited or what work he thinks is missing.