The Overall and Disaggregate China’s Bank Efficiency from Sustainable Business Perspectives
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In INTRODUCTION: The authors might explain the study’s aim more clearly, detailing the method they want to employ. However, the authors do not clarify the method or the contribution of their study. The introduction explains much information on the ICBC on regulatory changes and bank adjustments but provides little detail on the details of the study and its effects.
Suggest that the authors dedicate a specific paragraph on the Theory at the base of the research. They only mention the agency Theory but do not clarify how it is used to read the results. It is interesting excuses of the studies on the bm of the banks that probably should find representation in a theoretical paragraph.
At the end of paragraph 2 they explain the variables employed in the study, but not the model. The reader understands that the authors employed a Tobit regression in the following paragraph Empirical results.
The authors must clarify the hypothesis developed and the models used. The study is based on nine (9) observations; the authors must clarify because they are considered sufficient.
The CONCLUDING REMARKS must indicate how the empirical findings contribute to the literature, practitioners, regulatory, etc.
Author Response
The response letter is in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with an interesting topic, in an appropriate approach.
However, the introductory part is relatively unclear. It is necessary to be able to easily identify the objective of the study, the gap covered, the results obtained and their comparison with the results of other studies.
Best regards,
Author Response
The response letter is in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents the framework for analysis of governance / social / environmental performance of a financial institution. Such an analysis has a goal of presenting the areas where the performance of the analyzed entity can be ameliorated and pinpoint the areas where remedial action may be necessary.
The authors have delineated four key dimensions of analysis and have subsequently presented evidence within each of the analyzed domains. The overall performance of the analyzed institution (ICBC) is disaggregated and subsequently subject to normative analysis, where the authors offered some guidelines with regards to possible remedial action.
The literature review underpinning the study is quite extensive and appropriate with respect to the topic under analysis. The positions cited in the study are relatively up to date.
The methodology used by the authors is an extensive analysis of a case study of a single entity, whose performance record in the environmental / governance / and societal dimensions are subject to subsequent evaluation. The quantitative descriptive analysis conveys the principal points intended by the authors.
Among possible improvements I would suggest the following leaving the final decision on the matter to the authors:
- The methodological contribution of the paper could be described better. In particular, it seems that the paper attempts to present a comprehensive framework for multi-dimensional evaluation of a financial institution from the standpoint of its ESG performance. The authors could include such an argument as one of the key contributions of the paper.
- The discussion part could be elaborated by including suggestions with regards to possible remedial actions on the part of the analyzed entity. This part could be further elaborated.
Overall, the paper presents an attempt to draw attention to the problem of evaluation of ESG performance in the financial sector, a worthy subject for empirical analysis.
Author Response
The response letter is in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
