Does SDG Coverage Influence Firm Performance?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The sthudy analyzes the relation between CSR, SDGs variables, and
financial performance using a mixed methodology: content analysis, correlation and regression analysis. The topic is very interesting but I think the paper suffers from some issues that need to be addressed. In the follows some suggestions for improvement:
- First, in terms of the Methodology, the criterion according to which a group of 21 companies was chosen need to be better explained; moreover data collection and data analysis related to content analisys is missing.
- Second, in terms of the measurement items, were these adopted (directly) or adapted (modified) from the original source. It is important that the authors clarify this explicitly in Section 5.
- Third, the section Discussion is missing, I suggest rearranging the current Section 6 into Results and Discussion also improving its consistency. Moreover, I would suggest to better discuss about the theoretical and managerial implications.
- Finally, I think it would be good to give future research and practice a heads up. There is no doubt that the ESG can be considered actionable mechanisms in socio-economic contexts volatile, uncertain, ambiguous, and complex. The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) further
exacerbated the world’s problems, especially in its progress toward the sustainable development goals, which have taken a huge setback because of the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. greater threat of poverty and climate change during and after as compared to before the pandemic era).I leave you some papers that may help you support your contributions: - Weng M. L., Ciasullo M.V., Douglas A., Kumar S., (2022), Environmental social governance (ESG) and total quality management (TQM): A multi-study meta-systematic review. Total Quality & Business Excellence, https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2022.2048952 - Ciasullo Maria V.; Montera R.; Cucari N.; Polese F. (2020) How an international ambidexterity strategy can address the paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Evidence from Chinese emerging market multinationals. Business Strategy and the Environment –doi.org/10.1002/bse.2490. - I hope that the authors will find these comments useful to improve their paper.
Good luck and all the very best!
Author Response
Dear reviewer, please see the response in attachment.
Best Regards
Disney Ramos
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
see attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer, please, in attachment is our response.
Best Regards
Disney Ramos
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been improved by integrating the suggestions.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, it's our pleasure having you as our reviewer, it allows us to improve significantly our manuscript.
Best Regards
Disney Ramos
Reviewer 2 Report
Second Review
Responses to their responses
We appreciated very much your comments. Based on this comments we decided extensively to redefine our research questions and hypotheses to better clarify it, in addicion that, we also changed the manuscript title and key words.
While the purpose of the paper is clearer than before, there are no clearly stated research questions or hypotheses.
We appreciated your question. We have explained in the Methodology the criteria how these companies were selected. Our main goal was to select the industries, so we selected 6 main industries in our sample, in these 6 industries included 21 companies. Because of we didn’t look at all industries in our sample, we considered as a one of the limitation of this article.
The new explanation is much better than simply stating the sample was random, but the results are still going to be skewed towards the banking industry and the authors should not make general statements about industries where their sample size was one. While the authors do state that they only have one company in each of two industries and two or three in others they still make general statements about SDGs in those industries.
We appreciated your observation. We significantly revised it.
The authors did a much better job this time and the discussion was much better focused.
This is an interesting observation, we also concerned about it, it’s also one of our limitations.
The current research focused on the industries that are listed in the Corporate Knights Index
This may be true but still does not make the findings generalizable outside of the Knights Index at best.
We are grateful for all the comments pointed out. We extensively to redefined our research questions and hypotheses to better clarify it, in addition that, we also changed the manuscript title and key words.
Not really what I said for this response but the paper is better focused than before.
We are grateful for all the comments pointed out The typos have been corrected
There are more, see below. Paper should be given a careful proofread.
Grammatical Issues
On page four line 112 should be the complete date not 201.
Even with the new citation method should still use authors names and not the number in the structure of the sentence such as in lines 199, 208 and 214 among many others, using the numbers this way looks awkward.
Line 224 use explaining and not explicating.
Line 254 as a random 4 in it.
Line 246 should be zero hunger not zero hungry
Line 520 need a space between SDG and 1, line 522 space between SDG and 4
Opine in line 275 might not mean what the authors want it to, better to say found, believe etc. not rant
The tables at the end are not labeled, the labels are crossed out.
The authors redid this paper in a very short time, so they need to carefully proofread it, the errors mentioned above are not all of them.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, it's our pleasure to address our responses in attach.
Best Regards
Disney Ramos
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Since the index the authors chose to use seems make the main issues I have with the paper unfixable, maybe the authors should focus on the banking industry and not look at the other industries.
I am glad the authors finally admitted that their findings for samples of one or two are not generalizable to the industries.
You do not need to put the number of the citation at the end of the sentence if the authors names are in the sentence.
I admit the actual citation the authors use in page four line 141 is weird, Emma and Jennifer are the authors given names not their family names.
As far as the language quality evaluation, is 7.2 good enough?
Not sure what else I can say in the third review that has not already been said.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, in attach are our responses.
Best Regards
Disney Ramos
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
