The Relationship between Sustainability Reporting, E-Commerce, Firm Performance and Tax Avoidance with Organizational Culture as Moderating Variable in Small and Medium Enterprises in Palembang

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with a current and very relevant topic. The authors made a major effort to collect the data. At present the paper has two important limitations.
The first concerns the scarce theoretical anchorage. The authors cite agency theory and stakeholder theory but treat these theories too superficially.
In this regard, I recommend some papers that the authors can insert and exploit for a correct explanation of the theories.

Agency theory

Vitolla, F., Raimo, N., & Rubino, M. (2020). Board characteristics and integrated reporting quality: an agency theory perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 1152-1163.

Putra, P. D., Syah, D. H., & Sriwedari, T. (2018). Tax avoidance: Evidence of as a proof of agency theory and tax planning. International Journal of Research & Review, 5(9), 52-60.

Stakeholder theory

Vitolla, F., Raimo, N., Rubino, M., & Garzoni, A. (2019). The impact of national culture on integrated reporting quality. A stakeholder theory approach. Business strategy and the environment, 28(8), 1558-1571.

Manetti, G. (2011). The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: empirical evidence and critical points. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 18(2), 110-122.

Vitolla, F., Raimo, N., Rubino, M., & Garzoni, A. (2019). How pressure from stakeholders affects integrated reporting quality. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6), 1591-1606.

The second concerns the weakness of the conclusions. Authors should extend the conclusions by following the following lineup:

Objectives of the study
Achieved results
Theoretical implications
Practical implications
Limitations
Future research

Good luck to the authors.

Author Response

The paper deals with a current and very relevant topic. The authors made a major effort to collect the data. At present the paper has two important limitations.
The first concerns the scarce theoretical anchorage. The authors cite agency theory and stakeholder theory but treat these theories too superficially.
In this regard, I recommend some papers that the authors can insert and exploit for a correct explanation of the theories.

Agency theory

Vitolla, F., Raimo, N., & Rubino, M. (2020). Board characteristics and integrated reporting quality: an agency theory perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 1152-1163.

Putra, P. D., Syah, D. H., & Sriwedari, T. (2018). Tax avoidance: Evidence of as a proof of agency theory and tax planning. International Journal of Research & Review, 5(9), 52-60.

Stakeholder theory

Vitolla, F., Raimo, N., Rubino, M., & Garzoni, A. (2019). The impact of national culture on integrated reporting quality. A stakeholder theory approach. Business strategy and the environment, 28(8), 1558-1571.

Manetti, G. (2011). The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: empirical evidence and critical points. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 18(2), 110-122.

Vitolla, F., Raimo, N., Rubino, M., & Garzoni, A. (2019). How pressure from stakeholders affects integrated reporting quality. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6), 1591-1606.

Thank you very much for your suggestions for our manuscript.  We had revised our paper and add the papers to cite for the agency theory and stakeholder theory. The references number are [50-51], [55-57].

The second concerns the weakness of the conclusions. Authors should extend the conclusions by following the following lineup:

Objectives of the study
Achieved results
Theoretical implications
Practical implications
Limitations
Future research

Thank you for your suggestions for the conclusion. We revised the conclusion following all the suggestions you have given

Thank you very much.

Best Regards

Luk Luk Fuadah

Good luck to the authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I hope that my recommendations might improve your work to be published in this journal.

Introduction

The introduction in its current wording does not make it easy to read. Paragraphs such as the first and second do not lead the potential reader to the problem posed in the work.

The third paragraph does not show the gap of the work.

The contributions of the work are not academic. The first one is only methodological. And the second is not academic, it simply serves the funder of the work.

Too many research questions are proposed for a quantitative study. WIth one is enough. Are they answered in the work?

Please review and rewrite the introduction to clarify and to improve all these aspects.

Literature review

Please make a brief introduction about what the aim the literature review and why is needed to present the following theories presented, such as agency and stakeholder theories.

The hypotheses development is too vague and does not lead to hypotheses proposed, they have the same problem that paragraphs 1 and 2 in the introduction.

Method

A table of Correlations between theoretical constructs or discriminant validity is needed to confirm that there is not a problem among variables. 

Which analysis of data software is used by the authors?

Results are too descriptive.

Discussion and Conclusions are vague and weak explained.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Authors,

I hope that my recommendations might improve your work to be published in this journal.

Introduction

The introduction in its current wording does not make it easy to read. Paragraphs such as the first and second do not lead the potential reader to the problem posed in the work.

First of all, we would like to thank you for your valuable feedback and suggestion. We had revised our manuscript. We revised the introduction. From the first paragraph showed the previous studies investigate sustainability reporting in SMEs.

The third paragraph does not show the gap of the work.

The third paragraph, we explain about research gaps related to the variables studied in this study.

The contributions of the work are not academic. The first one is only methodological. And the second is not academic, it simply serves the funder of the work.

We had revised our contribution from this manuscript.

Too many research questions are proposed for a quantitative study. WIth one is enough. Are they answered in the work?

We have revised the contribution of this research to explain it more academically in the introduction,

Please review and rewrite the introduction to clarify and to improve all these aspects.

We have revised the introduction in our manuscript.

Literature review

Please make a brief introduction about what the aim the literature review and why is needed to present the following theories presented, such as agency and stakeholder theories.

We have revised our literature review. We add one paragraph before we explain about theories.

The hypotheses development is too vague and does not lead to hypotheses proposed, they have the same problem that paragraphs 1 and 2 in the introduction.

We have revised the hypotheses.

Method

A table of Correlations between theoretical constructs or discriminant validity is needed to confirm that there is not a problem among variables. 

We have added the table describes the correlations between theoretical constructs or discriminant validity.

Which analysis of data software is used by the authors?

We used the Partial Least Square Structural Equation Model

Results are too descriptive.

We have revised the result of this study.

Discussion and Conclusions are vague and weak explained.

We have revised and explained more for discussion and conclusions in our manuscript.

Thank you very much.

Best Regards

Luk Luk Fuadah

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

My comments:

1. The topic of this paper is interesting and it will make contributions in related research field.
2. The section “Literature Review” must be reinforced and improved more. Please discuss some relevant literature based on the research topic and must be linked to the hypothesis.
3. The section “Discussion” must be reinforced more. Please discuss the results of your paper in more detail.
4. The section “Conclusion” must be reinforced more. For example, the contributions to academic research as well as theoretical implications, research limitations, and suggestions for further research.

Author Response

My comments:

1. The topic of this paper is interesting and it will make contributions in related research field.

Thank you very much for your feedback and suggestions for our manuscript. We have revised the contribution in the introduction.

1. The section “Literature Review” must be reinforced and improved more. Please discuss some relevant literature based on the research topic and must be linked to the hypothesis.

We have revised the literature review in our paper.

1. The section “Discussion” must be reinforced more. Please discuss the results of your paper in more detail.

We have revised our discussion in our paper.

1. The section “Conclusion” must be reinforced more. For example, the contributions to academic research as well as theoretical implications, research limitations, and suggestions for further research.

We have revised our conclusion. We describe the theoretical implications and practical implication, research limitation and also suggestions for future research.

Thank you very much.

Best Regards

Luk Luk Fuadah

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

1) Remove table 5 and 6 

2) And redo and put clear and legible high definition figure 1

3) Add a diagram for methods to describe clearly

4) I can't see 2021, 22 citations much. Add 10 of them at least.

5) A SEM image from smart pls or Amos would have improved the script.

6) Add limitations of study and future Research 

7) Theoretical and practical implications as well.

8) Introction part redo problem Statement and more clearly add the info on the article structure 

 

Author Response

1) Remove table 5 and 6 

Thank you very much for your feedback and suggestions for our paper.   We had revised table 5 and table 6 for the table 5, table 6, table 7 and table 8. We have revised all tables. Especially for tables 5 and 6, we revised from the original table 4, it turned out that there was an error in the numbering. Initially table 4 became table 5 which has been revised by separating the first to describe the table about descriptive statistics, table 6 presents Construct reliability and validity, table 7 presents the outer model, table 8 presents Correlations among constructs and discriminant validity.

2) And redo and put clear and legible high definition figure 1

We have revised all figures in our paper.

3) Add a diagram for methods to describe clearly

We added the diagram for the methods

4) I can't see 2021, 22 citations much. Add 10 of them at least.

We have added a reference. The reference numbers are [15-21] and [35-38].

5) A SEM image from smart pls or Amos would have improved the script.

We had added the figure 2 describe the structural model

6) Add limitations of study and future Research 

We have revised the limitation and suggestions for the future research.

7) Theoretical and practical implications as well.

We had added the theoretical and practical implication in the conclusion.

8) Introction part redo problem Statement and more clearly add the info on the article structure 

 We had revised the introduction in our paper.

Thank you very much.

Best Regards

Luk Luk Fuadah

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Well done. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

congratulation on the improvement,

just a minor comment:

Partial Least Square Structural Equation Model is not a statistical software.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is qualified to be published.

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper has been substantially improved.