Research on the Effects and Factors of CSV Activities by Sector in Japanese Firms: Analysis Considering the Relationships with Management and Communication Strategies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript shows a valuable regression model for the understanding of creating shared values. The theoretical introduction, the purpose of the research, and the technical validity of the results are acceptable, but the manuscript needs a major revision before publication. Text editing is poor. Different reference styles are mixed (I do not want to suppose its reason), and spaces, commas, and empty lines are used incorrectly. MDPI offers a comprehensive sample file; it can be and should be followed.

Abbreviations should be avoided in the title and the abstract. All abbreviations should be clear, some explanations are missing. Moreover, “domestic” is not the best choice in an international journal. Please, rethink the title and mark the country in it.

The regression model is appropriate in line with the purposes, but the characteristics of the firms are not presented. I ask the authors to show descriptive statistics and any evaluation of the research objectives.

According to the theoretical implications, the authors should show how it can be derived from the research and the results.

Author Response

Thank you for your peer-reviewed comments. I intend to reflect all requests in the corrections. I would be glad if you could check it out.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Thank you for the opportunity to read this paper. The topic is interesting, but the current version of the paper has some significant shortcomings for publication purposes. Below I will indicate the main ones.

 

Introduction

The introduction must indicate the state of the art of the literature, at least in terms of the research streams on the topic, in order to better highlight the literature gap. It is also appropriate to indicate the theoretical framework of reference. The introduction must explain how the authors intend to address the gap, anticipate the main results and the contribution of the paper to the literature.

I recommend removing the graph from the introduction

 

Theoretical Background and Hypothesis

What theory are the Authors drawing on?

The construction of the hypotheses is missing. The review of the literature does not lead to the clear formulation of the two proposed hypotheses

 

Methodology

I believe it is important to take into consideration the proximity of the business to consumers and the sensitivity of the business from the point of view of environmental issues. These two forms of visibility could create pressure for change. For the codification of these aspects I recommend following the methodology used by

 

Gavana, G., Gottardo, P., & Moisello, A. M. (2017). The effect of equity and bond issues on sustainability disclosure. Family vs non-family Italian firms. Social Responsibility Journal, Vol 13 No 1, pp. 126-142.

 

Branco, M.C. and Rodrigues, L.L. (2008), “Factors influencing social responsibility disclosure by Portuguese companies”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 83 No. 4, pp. 685-701.   It is appropriate to indicate whether the companies are listed or private, because in the first case it would be appropriate to use, as a performance indicator, the market to book as well

 

Author Response

Referring to the literature you introduced, we made significant revisions mainly to the introduction, discussion from theoretical background to hypothesis construction. I also received proofreading of English sentences. However, since no positive impact was observed in the survey period, no special analysis was added after consideration. I would be grateful if you could review it again.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

Your manuscript is formally very well edited both from the point of view of relations to the literature and from the methodological perspective, so it is scientifically adequate for publication in a peer reviewed journal.

However, I must point out an important critical issue: the relationship between the content and results of the research and the topic of sustainability appears very weak. Already the theoretical framework you have provided is not sufficiently argued with respect to this issue.

Since you have chosen the journal Sustainability and the Special Issue "The Impact of Sustainability and Dynamic Capabilities on Global Supply Chain Management," I invite you to read the aims and purposes of both.

Indeed, your manuscript must be consistent with this context.

For this reason I am compelled to assign a revision.

Author Response

Dear　Reviewer

In line with your suggestion, we have included an introduction and a sentence referring to risk management and CSV research in global supply chains in the Theoretical Implications text to show its relationship to the special issue.

In particular, in the theoretical implications, he cites a recent article published in the Journal of Sustainability and carefully describes its relationship to the concept of sustainability.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I maintain my opinion about the benefits of the research. I can see the improvement of the editing, but further efforts are required, as follows:

-         - Abbreviations are not managed properly, it is difficult to identify their meaning, and some explanations are still missing.

-         - Theoretical implications are too long; and include propositions that rather fit an introduction.

-        -  The request for descriptive results (Table 2) seems to be misunderstood. I would like to see more about data collection and direct/primer results that give the bases of the equations and the conclusions.

Author Response

First, we reviewed the theoretical contribution part, and by showing it in the hypothesis construction part, we organized the overall flow and compacted the theoretical contribution. I also fixed the part of destriptive statistics that was difficult to understand. In addition, we have reflected all the points you raised.In addition, I added it because there was no explanation of CSR. Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

-Introduction

The introduction is still very poor

-Theoretical Background and Hypothesis

Three different theories are too much!

Furthermore, there is no effective use of these theories in the paper. The discussion of the results does not take into account the theories presented in the theoretical framework. The literature analyzed is very scarce and the construction of hypotheses is still missing.

Moreover, the references I suggested would be useful from the methodological point of view as I pointed out; my suggestion was not aimed at obtaining indiscriminate citations

 

-Methodology

My observations have not been followed up and I have not been given any results that justify not following my suggestions

 

Author Response

First of all, the description of the introduction part was thickened and significantly modified. In addition, the hypothesis building part was greatly revised, and after narrowing down the theoretical background to two, we made it possible to give a consistent explanation from there. In addition, the explanation of previous research has been reviewed and the citations have been increased. We also reviewed the discussion section and discussed how we contributed to the theory in the theoretical contribution section. As for the methodology, I pointed out that the regression part does not require the introduction of interaction terms by adding a correlation matrix, and for multi-level analysis, after performing an analysis of variance, a centralization treatment was added to the mean. Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I have appreciated your efforts in filling the shortcomings of your manuscript, so I believe that now, this latest version is appropriate for publication.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors followed the instructions of the second review. The improvement is remarkable. I have no other requests; I can recommend the publication after fixing a issue.

The available pdf file in the system include both ’Name (Year)’ and ’[no]’ style citations. This may be the presentation of tracking changes but should be fixed. I consider it as a minor issue.

Author Response

We have revised the way the references are presented in response to your suggestion.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The shortcomings I pointed out in the previous two rounds persist. The quality required for publication in Sustainability has not been achieved

 

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful and accurate peer review comments. I would appreciate it if you could review the attached document for any modifications. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf