Mandating Gender Diversity and the Value Relevance of Sustainable Development Disclosure
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review your research.
The article raises the topical issue of the influence of gender diversity in the modern corporate governance, which, ideally, should take into account the requirements of sustainable development.
Below are some comments on the article:
1) Introduction, L 31-34: Would it be worth mentioning the findings of paper [7], rather than just listing the questions that were studied?
2) The method and criteria (AAR, CAR), on which all other conclusions of the study are based, would be worth substantiating in more detail. The title of figure 1 and its content require a clearer explanation. What are "special groups" (L 218)? You could let the reader know that the groups are defined below.
3) Table 4 is somewhat confusing. What is shown in the rows? How does this fit in with the table notes?
Author Response
Mandating Gender Diversity and the Value Relevance of Sustainable Development Disclosure: Evidence from Legislative Change
Thank you for your valuable insights and constructive comments on our research, which have guided us to improve our paper significantly. We provide how we followed suggestions and how we revised according to your comments. Relevant line numbers are indicated in each response if necessary. Please follow the track changes in the manuscript file for our revision.
Comment 1:
Introduction, L 31-34: Would it be worth mentioning the findings of paper [7], rather than just listing the questions that were studied?
Response to comment 1:
Thank you for your suggestions. We added the findings by [7] and try to provide our motivation to conduct this research.
Comment 2:
The method and criteria (AAR, CAR), on which all other conclusions of the study are based, would be worth substantiating in more detail. The title of figure 1 and its content require a clearer explanation. What are "special groups" (L 218)? You could let the reader know that the groups are defined below.
Table 4 is somewhat confusing. What is shown in the rows? How does this fit in with the table notes?
Response to comment 2:
According to your comments, we revised the method section and add more explanations on AAR and CAR with examples. We leave the track changes for your confirmations. We also provide relevant explanations about Table 4 so that the readers should follow our results well.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper addresses one of the most important challenges of the present, respectively the gender diversity issue and aims in the context of corporate governance and challenges to achieve sustainable development by taking account of legislative changes.
The abstract of the paper provides a good overview about the intentions of the research paper, and the results of examining legislative changes affecting investors’ perception on sustainability disclosure via corporate governance mechanisms. The hypotheses are mentioned and also the main findings about the behaviors and experiences of firms with female directors.
The introduction is comprehensive and details well the arguments for the selected approach. The theoretical background is sound and the literature review in the field is well covered. And also provides a well-substantiated argument for the selection of the literature used in building up the reasoning of their research paper.
The literature overview is selected and presented in a comprehensive and explanatory manner, and making visible how the hypotheses of the present paper were developed. The built hypotheses are sound, and the core merit of the paper is the use of various strands and theories for constructing the two guiding hypotheses.
The paper continues by presenting and addressing the main issues that assisted in constructing the research design and selecting the samples, by providing the required framework represented by the legislative changes in Korea, next to the issues regarding sustainable development disclosure and event study.
The methodology selected for calculating the outcomes based on the sustainability reports is sound and in agreement with the stated purposes of the paper, and based on the use of data provided by the firms in the sample.
The empirical results are presented in a comprehensive manner and interpreted according to the formulated hypotheses, bringing substantial arguments for formulating the final findings and conclusions of the paper.
The conclusions are delivering insights into the issues approached by the paper, but it would have been better to provide a more structured framework for the conclusions, and address them in more detail.
The paper is a valuable contribution, and is relevant with respect to the stated goal, as the chosen method of analysis clearly delivers on identifying new paths in investigating the main issue addressed by the paper. However, some minor language revisions are advisable. The paper is recommended for publishing, after the suggested improvements regarding conclusions content and language revisions.
Author Response
Mandating Gender Diversity and the Value Relevance of Sustainable Development Disclosure
Thank you for your valuable insights and constructive comments on our research, which have guided us to improve our paper significantly. We provide how we followed suggestions and how we revised according to your comments. Relevant line numbers are indicated in each response if necessary. Please follow the track changes in the manuscript file for our revision.
Comment 1:
The abstract of the paper provides a good overview about the intentions of the research paper, and the results of examining legislative changes affecting investors’ perception on sustainability disclosure via corporate governance mechanisms. The hypotheses are mentioned and also the main findings about the behaviors and experiences of firms with female directors.
Response to comment 1:
Thank you for your comments.
Comment 2:
The introduction is comprehensive and details well the arguments for the selected approach. The theoretical background is sound and the literature review in the field is well covered. And also provides a well-substantiated argument for the selection of the literature used in building up the reasoning of their research paper.
Response to comment 2:
Thank you for your comments.
Comment 3:
The literature overview is selected and presented in a comprehensive and explanatory manner, and making visible how the hypotheses of the present paper were developed. The built hypotheses are sound, and the core merit of the paper is the use of various strands and theories for constructing the two guiding hypotheses.
Response to comment 3:
Thank you for your comments.
Comment 4:
The paper continues by presenting and addressing the main issues that assisted in constructing the research design and selecting the samples, by providing the required framework represented by the legislative changes in Korea, next to the issues regarding sustainable development disclosure and event study.
Response to comment 4:
Thank you for your comments.
Comment 5:
The methodology selected for calculating the outcomes based on the sustainability reports is sound and in agreement with the stated purposes of the paper, and based on the use of data provided by the firms in the sample.
Response to comment 5:
Thank you for your comments.
Comment 6:
The empirical results are presented in a comprehensive manner and interpreted according to the formulated hypotheses, bringing substantial arguments for formulating the final findings and conclusions of the paper..
Response to comment 6:
Thanks for your comments.
Comment 7:
The conclusions are delivering insights into the issues approached by the paper, but it would have been better to provide a more structured framework for the conclusions, and address them in more detail.
Response to comment 7:
Thanks again for your valuable comments. We restructured the previous conclusion section and change the heading to Discussions and Conclusions. As you suggested, we include the following details:
- Objective and motivation of research
- Methods and findings in this study
- Interpretations and insights of the findings
- Implications for the practitioners and academia (addition during the revision)
- Contributions and limitations
Reviewer 3 Report
The article reads well and is generally understandable. It also discusses an important topic. I have two primary comments.
First, the literature review is limited, not enough (i.e. not comprehensive). I believe you need to add, at least, the views/findings of studies conducted in the field, not necessarily from the Korean perspective, but from a Far-eastern context. How the case of Korea differs from the case of any other Far-Eastern country (probably those countries which share similar cultural traits with Korea).
Second, Please simplify (shorten) the title of the paper. It is a bit distracting. Another minor issue is to extend the section on implications. Please discuss both, practical and social implications in a broader way. We all know that studies on gender differences are countless. Therefore, you need to discuss your implications more explicitly. Good luck.
Author Response
Mandating Gender Diversity and the Value Relevance of Sustainable Development Disclosure
Thank you for your valuable insights and constructive comments on our research, which have guided us to improve our paper significantly. We provide how we followed suggestions and how we revised according to your comments. Relevant line numbers are indicated in each response if necessary. Please follow the track changes in the manuscript file for our revision.
Comment 1:
First, the literature review is limited, not enough (i.e. not comprehensive). I believe you need to add, at least, the views/findings of studies conducted in the field, not necessarily from the Korean perspective, but from a Far-eastern context. How the case of Korea differs from the case of any other Far-Eastern country (probably those countries which share similar cultural traits with Korea).
Response to comment 1:
Thank you for your suggestions. We added more literatures in the hypothesis section and try to extend current reviews of literature in the various contexts. The following literatures are added:
[25]Clarke, J.; Gibson-Sweet, M. The use of corporate social disclosures in the management of reputation and legitimacy: a cross sectoral analysis of UK Top 100 Companies. Business Ethics: A European Review. 1999, 5-13.
[26]Cox, T.; Beale, R. Developing competency to manage diversity: Reading, Cases, and Activities. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 1997.
[29]Hubbard, E. The diversity scorecard. Elsevier, Burlington, MA, 2004.
[30]Herring, C. Does diversity pay?” Race, Gender, and the Business Case for Diversity. American Sociological Review. 2009, 74(2), 208-224.
[34]Turban, S.; Wu, D.; Zhang, L. When gender diversity makes firms more productive. Harvard Business Review (website). February 11, 2019.
[35]Triana, M.; Miller, T.; Trzebiatowski, T. The Double-Edged nature of board gender diversity: Diversity, firm performance, and the power of women directors as predictors of strategic change. Organization Science. 2014, 25 (2), 609-632.
Comment 2:
Second, please simplify (shorten) the title of the paper. It is a bit distracting.
Response to comment 2:
As you suggested, we delete the legislative change from our title and make it shorter. Accordingly, the new title is “Mandating Gender Diversity and the Value Relevance of Sustainable Development Disclosure.”
Comment 3:
Another minor issue is to extend the section on implications. Please discuss both, practical and social implications in a broader way. We all know that studies on gender differences are countless. Therefore, you need to discuss your implications more explicitly.
Response to comment 3:
Thanks again for your valuable comments. Another reviewer also pointed out the structure of conclusion section. We restructured the previous conclusion section and change the heading to Discussions and Conclusions. As you suggested, we include the following details:
- Objective and motivation of research
- Methods and findings in this study
- Interpretations and insights of the findings
- Implications for the practitioners and academia (addition)
- Contributions and limitations
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to read and review your manuscript submitted to Sustainability. After reading the manuscript I can congratulate you. The paper is recommended for publishing.
