The Effect of Women’s Leadership on Carbon Disclosure by the Top 100 Global Energy Leaders
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A very important and topical issue. The article is well prepared from the methodological point of view. The article should be supplemented with missing tables. it should also explain how to calculate the value of the dependent variable. My doubts also concern the sense of making hypotheses, especially since they are very "similar"? In my opinion, it is enough to specify the purpose of the research. Reference should also be made to the very low values of R-squared.
Author Response
Kindly see the below responses to reviewer 1 and also see the attachment for your reference which aligned with the responses we sent to you. Thank you Sir/Madam.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The article should be supplemented with missing tables. it should also explain how to calculate the value of the dependent variable.
Response 1: The missing table has been added to the article. (Please refer to the page 10-11: line 500)
Point 2: It should also explain how to calculate the value of the dependent variable.
Response 2: The dependent variable calculation technique has been added to the article. (Please refer to lines 486 – 499).
Point 3: My doubts also concern the sense of making hypotheses, especially since they are very "similar"? In my opinion, it is enough to specify the purpose of the research.
Response 3: The hypotheses developed in this article were not similar. We rectify the structure of the hypotheses development part to make the hypotheses argued in the right place under the Literature Review section and subsection 2.3 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development. The hypotheses that had been developed previously were not well structured and it made the reviewer confused. Hypothesis 1 is for women’s inclusion as board members, Hypothesis 2 is regarding women board members who are industry experts, Hypothesis 3 refers to women board members who act as advisors, and Hypothesis 4 implies the women board member who poses as community leaders. Therefore, the hypotheses were amended. (Please refer to line 256).
Point 4: Reference should also be made to the very low values of R-squared.
Response 4: The R-squared for the WBMP, WBMIEP, WBMADVP, and WBMCLP models are 39%, 38%, 37%, and 36% respectively. The R-squared obtained in this study is consistent with study Siddique [131], Wang [87], and Asare [156]. However, there are a few more citations for the low values of R-squared under a similar scope of this study were added in this article such as Saeed [159], Slomka [160], and Karim [161]. (Please refer to the lines 652 - 654).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present an innovative work on the leadership of women in the energy sector, with very favorable results between the relationship between the active participation of women and the fight against climate change. The article is very interesting but basically lacks an attractive presentation, I recommend:
-Tables (1-5) are not displayed
-The methodology should include an outline that encompasses the research design process
-The results must be accompanied by statistical graphs that clarify and attract the reader
-The hypotheses referred to on page 9 (Hypothesis 1...hypothesis 4) must specify the following (H1...H4) in order to establish a relationship with the hypotheses on page 12
Author Response
Kindly see the responses replied below and also the attachment file we attached. Thank you so much Sir/Madam.
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Tables (1-5) are not displayed
Response 1: Tables 1 to 5 have been added to the article.
Point 2: The methodology should include an outline that encompasses the research design process
Response 2: The methodology part has been improvised, the research design may be accessed in the estimation method and models. Please refer to the Research Design and Methodology Section, where subsections 3.2.1. Dependent Variable and 3.3 Model Specification Estimation Method and Models were revised. Overall adjustment has been made due to more clarification and justification amendment. (Kindly refer to lines 474 – 494, and 522 – 563 respectively).
Point 3: The results must be accompanied by statistical graphs that clarify and attract the reader
Response 3: The supporting tables have been added to the article to clarify and reaffirm the information and results. (Please refer to Table 1 to Table 5).
Point 4: The hypotheses referred to on page 9 (Hypothesis 1...hypothesis 4) must specify the following (H1...H4) in order to establish a relationship with the hypotheses on page 12
Response 4: The hypotheses that had been developed previously were not well structured and it made the reviewer confused. We rectified the structure of the hypotheses development part to make the hypotheses argued in the right place under the Literature Review section and subsection 2.3 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development. Hypothesis 1 is for women’s inclusion as board members, Hypothesis 2 is regarding women board members who are industry experts, Hypothesis 3 refers to women board members who act as advisors, and Hypothesis 4 implies the women board member who poses as community leaders. Therefore, the hypotheses were amended. (Kindly refer to lines 252 to 434).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Article is highly topical and stress 2 major processes: 1) activities to support climate neutrality and 2) empowerment of women, revealing the significance of woman involvement in climate change mitigation. This concept is important from many aspects. Conclusions are based on high number of literature sources (maybe too many reports from mass media) and in-depth empirical analysis. The quality of the study would be increased, if more information about background date would be provided: sources of data, country representation, company representation etc (maybe as supplementary data)
Language quality is good
Author Response
Kindly refer to the responses replied to below and the file had been attached together in this responses replies. Thank you Sir/Madam.
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: Conclusions are based on a high number of literature sources (maybe too many reports from mass media) and in-depth empirical analysis.
Response 2: The conclusions’ references only for the necessary citations needed. The significance of this study had been mentioned in the conclusion chapter. Possible caveats of the study and ideas for future studies are also discussed. (Kindly refer to line 642).
Point 2: The quality of the study would be increased if more information about background data would be provided: sources of data, country representation, company representation, etc (maybe as supplementary data)
Response 2: More detailed information has been added to the manuscript. The source of data, country representation, and company representation which were initially separated into different files were been added to the amended manuscript. Therefore, please refer to Appendix 1 and Table 1 to Table 5 from the amended manuscript as per attached in this response. Thank you so much for your review. We highly appreciate your prompt and relevant responses. (Kindly refer to Appendix 1 in the appendices page 17 line number 1070, and all the tables in the article).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors
The paper deals with an important question about the role of gender in business life, particularly what comes to openness in environmental responsibility. I have the following remarks for the finishing of the paper.
Abstract: Already at this stage, you should comment the main distinction between male and female decision makers (see below).
Introduction: The chapter is a thorough pilotage to the theme of the paper, but omits the question why women differ from men in the context of the paper. Are women more concerned about future generations, or are they more scrupulous in the duty of disclosure? Concentrating on the latter aspect, are they less fraudulent than men? (As a matter of fact, one third of top leaders, mainly men, in Finnish and Swedish listed companies have criminal background.) If so, the research question enlarges to a more general one. I'd like to see at least some extra flavor in the results of this paper compared to previous literature.
Literature Review and Hypotheses Development: A rather meticulous section, but ends to well organized hypotheses. A minor flaw is that there is only one subchapter 2.1 - I suggest that you use three subchapters so that 2.1 starts right below heading 2, then 2.1 turns to 2.2, and 2.3 presents the hypotheses. As mentioned above, you could also embellish the story somewhat.
Research Design and Methodology: A list of the Top 100 Global Energy Leaders should be given in appendix (and first pointed to already in Introduction). Delete headings 3.2.1 - 3.2.3, and write 3.3 Estimation Method and Models (including a short description of the regression method). At least in my version, the models (1)-(5) appear quite untidy, please try to present them more elegantly.
Analysis and Findings Result: Write the heading as Analysis and Results, and please use more space in 4.2 which should be the core section of the paper. I suppose that, in the final version, Table 5 is placed here, but you should also open its message more wordily (reminding the reader about the meaning of the acronyms). Discuss carefully your results in comparison with those in the previous literature and highlight any new insights that this paper adds to them.
Conclusion and Recommendation: The subchapter headings are unnecessary, and since the chapter is supposed to be based on your own work, the references are unnecessary, too. At the end, you should assess possible caveats of the study and present some ideas of future studies.
References: Impressive list, but make sure that all are relevant to the paper.
The quality of English is good (after sharp proofreading), but there is some need for cleaning inordinate repetition in the introduction and literature review sections.
Author Response
Kindly refer to the responses replied to below and the file had been attached together in this responses replies. Thank you Sir/Madam.
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Point 1: Abstract: Already at this stage, you should comment on the main distinction between male and female decision-makers (see below).
Response 1: Abstract has been improved. (Kindly refer to line 12).
Point 2: Introduction: The chapter is a thorough pilotage to the theme of the paper, but omits the question of why women differ from men in the context of the paper. Are women more concerned about future generations, or are they more scrupulous in the duty of disclosure? Concentrating on the latter aspect, are they less fraudulent than men? (As a matter of fact, one-third of top leaders, mainly men, in Finnish and Swedish listed companies have criminal backgrounds.) If so, the research question enlarges to a more general one. I'd like to see at least some extra flavor in the results of this paper compared to previous literature.
Response 2: “Unexpectedly, the survey revealed that women were more concerned about global warming than men [7].”; “Women's empowerment and climate resilience have been prioritized by the Sus-tainable Development Goals since 2015 in order to achieve gender equality and a climate solution, but they have garnered little public attention [9]”; “Higher percentages of women on company boards are positively correlated with the reporting of carbon emissions statistics [10]”; “Incorporating different gender perspectives into comprehensive and long-lasting policies and programs for disaster, environmental and climate risk reduction is a major goal in the fight against climate change in order to achieve a sustainable future for the entire globe and an approach that considers gender is a climate answer for a more sustainable future [10]”; “Notably in the energy sector, the percentage of women holding board seats and senior management positions are stubbornly low [13]”; “The low-carbon transition will bring about unprecedented and turbulent changes, and it is obvious that businesses that encourage more gender-inclusive career paths for women in top management would be better able to manage these changes [14].”; “Women must, therefore, actively participate in the energy sector [13].” These are the justification why and how they reflect research questions and research objectives. This is also implying that women's inclusion in the energy industry is literally low or even none even for certain giant companies and energy leaders companies we investigated in our study. Therefore, this is very important to employ this study due to the fact that it is aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
Point 3: Literature Review and Hypotheses Development: This a rather meticulous section, but ends with well-organized hypotheses. A minor flaw is that there is only one subchapter 2.1 - I suggest that you use three subchapters so that 2.1 starts right below heading 2, then 2.1 turns to 2.2, and 2.3 presents the hypotheses. As mentioned above, you could also embellish the story somewhat.
Response 3: The subchapters have been revised. Kindly refer to Chapter 2 the Literature Review and Hypotheses Development, all the subchapters have been improved as per recommendation. (Kindly refer to the line starting from number 174).
Point 4: Research Design and Methodology: A list of the Top 100 Global Energy Leaders should be given in the appendix (and first pointed to already in the Introduction). Delete headings 3.2.1 - 3.2.3, and write 3.3 Estimation Method and Models (including a short description of the regression method). At least in my version, the models (1)-(5) appear quite untidy, please try to present them more elegantly.
Response 4: A list of Top 100 Global Energy Leaders has been pointed out in the Introduction part and inserted as Appendix 1 (Kindly refer to page 17 line number 1070). The heading had been deleted and the 3.3 “Estimation Method and Models” has also been updated with the insertion of a short description of the regression method applied. Model specifications have been tidied up more neatly. (Kindly refer to lines 444 – 563).
Point 5: Analysis and Findings Result: Write the heading as Analysis and Results, and please use more space in 4.2 which should be the core section of the paper. I suppose that, in the final version, Table 5 is placed here, but you should also open its message more wordily (reminding the reader about the meaning of the acronyms). Discuss carefully your results in comparison with those in the previous literature and highlight any new insights that this paper adds to them.
Response 5: The heading had been amended. Table 5 had been placed in the 4.2 subsections. Table 5 also has been rectified to become wordy on the parts of the acronym. (Kindly refer to line 608).
Point 6: Conclusion and Recommendation: The subchapter headings are unnecessary, and since the chapter is supposed to be based on your own work, the references are unnecessary, too. In the end, you should assess possible caveats of the study and present some ideas for future studies.
Response 6: Subchapters were removed. The references are only for the necessary citations needed. The significance of this study had been mentioned in the conclusion chapter. Possible caveats of the study and ideas for future studies are also discussed. (Kindly refer to line 642).
Point 7: References: Impressive list, but make sure that all are relevant to the paper.
Response 7: The reference list has been checked. Thank you so much sir/madam.
Point 8: Comments on the Quality of English Language. The quality of English is good (after sharp proofreading), but there is some need for cleaning up inordinate repetition in the introduction and literature review sections.
Response 8: Thank you so much sir/madam. The inordinate repetition for the introduction and literature review parts have been cleaned.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The study "The Effect of Women’s Leadership on Carbon Disclosure by the Top 100 Global Energy Leaders" investigated the extent of carbon disclosure and women leaderships and 584 empirically examines whether women’s leadership such as women board member who 585 are industry experts, act as advisors, and represent community leaders influence the 586 carbon disclosure of top 100 Global Energy Leaders. The study did a deep analysis and recommendations. It brings paramount input in the board of knowledge. Minor English corrections by native or English editing software could be helpful. The scientific soundness is very okay and the paper should be accepted with minor corrections.
Minor English corrections by native or English editing software could be helpful. The scientific soundness is very okay and the paper should be accepted with minor corrections.
Author Response
Kindly refer to the responses replied to below and the file had been attached together in this responses replies. Thank you Sir/Madam.
Response to Reviewer 5 Comments
Point 1: The study did a deep analysis and recommendations. It brings paramount input to the board of knowledge. Minor English corrections by native or English editing software could be helpful. The scientific soundness is very okay and the paper should be accepted with minor corrections.
Response 1: Thank you so much for your comment. We really appreciate your reviews and they encourage us to produce more research ideas and paradigms in our related research interests to contribute to the body of knowledge and also practical and theoretical contributions. We also sent the manuscript to an expert who is a native English speaker for thorough proofreading. Thank you so much for your courage and support.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been significantly enhanced after adapting to review comments. The paper has input in research area for sure. I recommend to publish this manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, thank you for making the changes. The article has raised the scientific level according to the requirements of the journal.
