Board Diversity and ESG Performance: Evidence from the Italian Banking Sector
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you very much for submitting your paper to the journal. There are several critical issues which lead to rejection; however, I give you another chance to improve substantially and revise the whole paper:
1- Any specific reason(s) you focused on Italy? In other words, is there any special condition for Italy rather than other countries?
2- Data are limited to 2017- 2021, where there is a database and you can easily collect data at any time
3- The tables and figures are not attached in the current version so I cannot judge the statistic and analyses.
4-About the topic, there are several related studies published in the Sustainability journal, you need to include in the paper.
Author Response
1- In recent years, macroeconomic dynamics, social, regulatory and technological developments have determined profound structural changes in the Italian banking sector, with significant repercussions on what will be the future trend of the sector in Italy. In light of the profound transformation of the sector, Italian banks are looking for alternative sources of revenue, by strengthening innovative services on ESG.
2- We have downloaded the database from AIDA by Bureau Van Dijk.
3- We have attached the list of Tables in this revised version (we believe that there was a problem when the file "List of Tables" was uploaded as attachment).
4- We have included some references of prior papers published in the journal "Sustainability" concerning the topic.
We have submitted the article for expert editorial support. We now obtained a good revisioned version of the paper thanks to an extensive editing of English language and style required.
Reviewer 2 Report
I am particularly interested in the findings and discussion of the correlation between female directors on board and banks' ESG performance. There are however a few minor issues needing revision and modification before publication for quality control.
- regarding dependent variables on page 4, the authors misspelled DV as independent variable;
- also on page 4 the authors indicate the use of Table 1 without indicating where it is going to be placed;
- revision of the presentation of tables is desirable: (1) in Table 1, it is not clear why there is a horizontal line between ENV and SOC whilst not between SOC and GOV; (2) in reporting regression results in Table 5, Flush Right is normally used to align data to the right margin
Author Response
1- We have corrected the mistake as suggested by the Reviewer.
2- We have indicated in the text where the Table 1 must be placed.
3 - We have revised the Tables as suggested by the Reviewer. In particular, we have added an horizontal line because it is missing; we have aligned data on the right margin.
We have submitted the article for expert editorial support. We now obtained a good revisioned version of the paper thanks to an extensive editing of English language and style required.
Reviewer 3 Report
Please specify Refinitiv in the abstract (in 2-3 words) and in Introduction (in more details).
I think the paragraph explaining the contribution of the manuscript (p.1) could be more detailed as now it only states that there is a lack of research into the correlation between board diversity and ESG performance in the banking sector.
While providing previous research to formulate your own hypotheses, please specify the context (e.g., For example, in a meta-analysis specifically focused on ESG reporting, Lagasio and Cucari [36] verified that the increasing number of directors in the board is positively related to the ESG voluntary disclosure. Also Esa and Ghazali [37] demonstrated a positive impact of board size on the amount of CSR disclosure in Malaysian firms. However, Giannarakis [31] did not find a statistically significant effect of board size on ESG disclosure. – it is not clear what kind of firms / industries/ countries have been investigated by the stated researchers). The context should be explained here and furthermore.
The manuscript does not contain any tables presenting statistical data, therefore, it is impossible to review the correctness of the calculations.
Please add the information on the total number of Italian banks to provide the reader with the information on which part of them are those 105 banks whose performance you have studied.
Expand OLS in Data and methodology while using fist and then start using abbreviation
Probably the conclusion section can be expanded to reflect how your findings are consistent with previous research.
Author Response
1- We have specified Refinitiv in the "Abstract" and in the "Introduction" as requested by the Reviewer.
2- We have improved the explanation of the contribution of the paper in the literature.
3- We have explained the context as requested by the reviewer, specifying the kind of firms/industries/countries investigated.
4 - We have attached the list of Tables in this revised version of the paper (we believe that there was a problem when the file "List of Tables" was uploaded as attachement.
5- We have specified the total number of Italian banks that identifies the initial sample.
6- We have expanded the word "OLS" the first time the term i s used.
7- We have improved the conclusions in order to better relate the findings with the results of prior literature.
8- We have submitted the article for expert editorial support. We now obtained a good revisioned version of the paper thanks to an extensive editing of English language and style required.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you very much for sending your revised paper; however, still several of the following unsolved issues are reminded:
1- Why the data selected from 2017? Any specific reasons?
2- The tables are not included in the main text, so I am not able to judge the analyses and conclusion part.
3- Still the theoretical issues are rough and need substantial development.
Author Response
1- We have selected a range of 5 years for the analysis in line with prior literature regarding this topic. As the last year for available observations is 2021, 2017 is the first year for data selected.
2- The Tables have been uploaded as a separate file attached to the main text. The Tables are not included in the main text but they are included in a separate file "List of Tables".
3- In the conclusions, we have improved the discussion of the findings according to the theoretical perspectives.
Reviewer 2 Report
Minor revision is required for correcting mistakes and errors. For example, on page 5 ESG_perf is a DV not IDV. Check your sentence in the paragraph on dependent variables. On the same page in the next paragraph, you should spell CO2 , not CO2.
Author Response
1- We have corected the mistakes and errors as suggested by the reviewer as well as other mistakes, errors and typos in the text.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you very much for sending the revised manuscript; however, the tables still do not appear in the paper, and I cannot evaluate the results and analyses. As I mentioned in the first round, you must include all tables and figures in the main text.
Author Response
I have included the tables in the main text for the evaluation of the reviewer. The tables are included after the references.
Round 4
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you very much for sending your revised paper. The current paper stood at standard level.
Author Response
No revisions are requested by the reviwer.
