Effect of Regional Cultural Diversity in Senior Executives on Environmental Protection Investment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors submitted a manuscript that is interesting, and it is linked to the objectives of the journal, however, there are some issues that have to be reconsidered.   

The objective of the manuscript to provide an original insight for on the relations between the regional cultural diversity of senior executives and the environmental protection investment.

The topic addressed is relevant for the journal and for the field of study, in general. The aimed gap is related to the environmental perceptions and sustainable consumption behaviour of South Africans, especially among different demographics and socioeconomic status groups. This study aims to expand the current literature on environmental perceptions and sustainable consumption behaviour and link it with different social groups in this highly unequal society.

The subject area is rather interesting, and, possibly, not enough approached by other scholars, so there is potential room for this manuscript to bring new information, once it reaches the expected level of quality.   

The Abstract has to be reconsidered. The methodology used should be addressed. The abstract should be the high-level summary of a paper and not a simple enumeration of some points grabbed from the paper. It is advisable to make it simpler and clearer. Also, please do not use abbreviations in the Abstract. Lines 8-9, please avoid the repetition (…this study studies…)

For better visibility on databases, the authors are asked not to repeat among keywords the words/concepts included in the title of the article. Entering different words in the title and in the keywords can improve the search for the paper in metasearch engines and internet databases. 

In the introduction, the presentation of the structure of the paper is missing. The objective of the study is neither pointed out, nor enough explained and explained. As the structure of the manuscript is not presented, it is difficult to follow the path the authors propose.

The part of the Literature Review has to be reconsidered, as it is insufficiently developed and spread out in diverse chapters. There are missing relevant information that are needed to construct the literature gap. General text about the topic (one para), focus on its relevance and importance for the industry, practice, and theory. Then briefly inform readers that there is a surge in wellness experience, and xx and xx studies have been organized so far. One para on what has been done so far on the topic. Then talk about research gaps- What are the keys and why are they important or need to be addressed now? Clearly present 3-4 research gaps on this topic. Finally, present the focus of the current study. What are its RQs and details on the method – briefly say about data, country, context, and theory. Which is the novelty and contribution of the study?  

The methodology part is well conceptualized.

The results are consistent and split in 2 chapters.

The discussion is, somehow, mixted with Results. Even if that is not necessarily a bad approach, I suggest creating a new part called “Discussions” were to show an adequate comparison of the results with the previous literature, however, the authors must emphasize the contribution of the manuscript to the literature, leading to theoretical implications.

The conclusions seem to be relevant and do answer the constructed objectives. Also, the limits of the study are well observed and the recommendations are sustained. 

The references are valid and consistent.

The tables and figures are clear and consistent.

 

 

Author Response

The Abstract has to be reconsidered. The methodology used should be addressed. The abstract should be the high-level summary of a paper and not a simple enumeration of some points grabbed from the paper. It is advisable to make it simpler and clearer. Also, please do not use abbreviations in the Abstract. Lines 8-9, please avoid the repetition (…this study studies…)

 

Thank you for the feedback from the reviewer. I have revised the abstract to remove redundant statements such as the heterogeneity of the impact of regional cultural diversity among executives on environmental investment by enterprises in different industries and regions.

 

For better visibility on databases, the authors are asked not to repeat among keywords the words/concepts included in the title of the article. Entering different words in the title and in the keywords can improve the search for the paper in metasearch engines and internet databases.

 

Thank you for the feedback from the reviewer.I replaced two different keywords corporate governance and Sustainable development.

 

In the introduction, the presentation of the structure of the paper is missing. The objective of the study is neither pointed out, nor enough explained and explained. As the structure of the manuscript is not presented, it is difficult to follow the path the authors propose.

 

Thank you for the feedback from the reviewer. I added an introduction to the structure of the article at the end of the first part.

 

The part of the Literature Review has to be reconsidered, as it is insufficiently developed and spread out in diverse chapters. There are missing relevant information that are needed to construct the literature gap. General text about the topic (one para), focus on its relevance and importance for the industry, practice, and theory. Then briefly inform readers that there is a surge in wellness experience, and xx and xx studies have been organized so far. One para on what has been done so far on the topic. Then talk about research gaps- What are the keys and why are they important or need to be addressed now? Clearly present 3-4 research gaps on this topic. Finally, present the focus of the current study. What are its RQs and details on the method – briefly say about data, country, context, and theory. Which is the novelty and contribution of the study?

 

Thank you for the feedback from the reviewer. I have rewritten the literature review section. Divided into three parts, the first part focuses on which characteristics of executives will have an impact on environmental investment; The second part is the existing research that focuses on the impact of a single culture on environmental investment; Finally, it summarizes the research gaps and importance of regional cultural diversity among executives in environmental investment, as well as how this article conducts research.

 

The discussion is, somehow, mixted with Results. Even if that is not necessarily a bad approach, I suggest creating a new part called “Discussions” were to show an adequate comparison of the results with the previous literature, however, the authors must emphasize the contribution of the manuscript to the literature, leading to theoretical implications.

 

Thank you for the feedback from the reviewer. I compare my research findings with previous research findings in the first paragraph of Conclusions and Policy Implications.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the topic under research as being extremely current in the period we are going through. This is the main reason why I consider that the work brings more knowledge in terms of how companies can be managed in the future in such a way that the environment and its protection become a state of being.

The research is harmoniously structured and corresponds to the main purpose of the journal.

However, I believe that improvements can be made in the conclusions section from the point of view of the future directions of the companies, of the concrete strategies that they can implement in the direction of the sustainability of the activities and environmental protection.

Author Response

However, I believe that improvements can be made in the conclusions section from the point of view of the future directions of the companies, of the concrete strategies that they can implement in the direction of the sustainability of the activities and environmental protection.

 

Thank you for the feedback from the reviewer.I have made modifications based on your suggestion in the last paragraph of Conclusions and Policy Implications to incorporate environmental protection investment into the long-term development strategy of the enterprise, and propose requirements for talent based on this strategy.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper needs lot of attention on phrasing the sentences and wordings. For instance:

Line 7, it should be considerable numbers of researchers have focused on ….

Line 9, it should be … evaluates the impacts on …

Line 17, it should be … promoting the rise of …

Line 19, it should be … insignificant.

There are many such erroneous sentences in the text.

The citation format is not uniform throughout. In many references, year is not mentioned.

This paper needs lot of attention on phrasing the sentences and wordings. 

Author Response

Thank you for the feedback from the reviewer. The English of this paper is improved and the format has bee corrected.

Reviewer 4 Report

1- Pending in the abstract:

- research method

- Study location and research sample.

 

2- The authors should clarify why is it important to address this research (questions)

The clarification should be mentioned in the Abstract and with some more details in the introduction of the research.

 

3- The authors can improve the research paper by linking the research model variables to the literature review. Which earlier studies employed the same variable or variables to measure the same phenomenon?

 

4- Authors should benchmark their results with the previous research findings.

 

5- authors could use the below important references:

Atif, M., Alam, M. S., & Hossain, M. (2020). Firm sustainable investment: Are female directors greener?. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8), 3449-3469.

 

Ezzi, F., Salhi, B., & Jarboui, A. (2023). Exploring the relationship between managerial emotional intelligence and environmental performance in energy sector: a mediated moderation analysis. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 17(1), 1-24.

 

Author Response

1- Pending in the abstract:- research method- Study location and research sample.

 

Thank you for the feedback from the reviewer. The research method I use is empirical research, which studies listed companies in China.

 

2- The authors should clarify why is it important to address this research (questions)

 

Thank you for the feedback from the reviewer. I made modifications in the corresponding positions. The important reason for this study is that environmental issues are becoming increasingly serious and investors are paying increasing attention to corporate environmental protection.

 

3- The authors can improve the research paper by linking the research model variables to the literature review. Which earlier studies employed the same variable or variables to measure the same phenomenon?

 

Thank you for the feedback from the reviewer. I mentioned this issue in the empirical testing process by referring to relevant model variables.

 

4- Authors should benchmark their results with the previous research findings.

 

Thank you for the feedback from the reviewer. I compare my research findings with previous research findings in the first paragraph of Conclusions and Policy Implications.

 

5- authors could use the below important references:

 

Thank you for the feedback from the reviewer. I have cited these two articles in my paper, with reference numbers 7 and 15.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors succeded in answering to all my concerns related to the quality of the manuscript. Congratulations. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have submitted the revision satisfactorily.