The Impact of Executive Green Incentives and Top Management Team Characteristics on Corporate Value in China: The Mediating Role of Environment, Social and Government Performance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The present research work is an excellent example for understanding the role of executives in the implementation of ESG for corporate sustainability. Currently, there is no doubt that business practices must be considered in the light of balances and assessment of economic, social and environmental impacts, under penalty of jeopardizing the value of the organization in terms of the market. The series of hypotheses confirmed with this work are enlightening, where the company and its executives are the main promoters of change through sustainable business practices. Structurally, the article has no flaws, being well organized, written and with an adequate and thorough methodology at the level of a quality scientific article. The analysis and discussion of the results is abundant and with a set of clarifying arguments based on the results of the statistical tests that allow confirming the different research hypotheses. The conclusions of this work represent an important step towards a better understanding of the phenomenon under study. Finally, the bibliography is adequate, extensive and up-to-date.
Author Response
I sincerely appreciate your acknowledgement and invaluable assistance.
Reviewer 2 Report
This a very well-written paper. Thank you to the authors. A few observations are provided after reading the paper:
1) The introduction part is very sound, however, it is requested to discuss the novelty of the research model under research gap for better understanding. Particularly, how this research model is unique in comparison to previous studies? In addition, please write the full form of ESG in the title and in the abstract, then use the short form i.e., ESG.
2) Please explain the reason to employ the"stock code sampling method". The present explanation is not clear.
3) What is the difference between C.R. and CR? Please see Table 2.
4) The authors are requested to add theoretical implications as well along with managerial implications. Presently it was just practical/managerial implications.
Best wishes.
Author Response
I would like to express my gratitude for your insightful questions, which have facilitated a more systematic and coherent structure of this paper.
Reviewer point #1: The introduction part is very sound, however, it is requested to discuss the novelty of the research model under research gap for better understanding. Particularly, how this research model is unique in comparison to previous studies? In addition, please write the full form of ESG in the title and in the abstract, then use the short form i.e., ESG.
Author response #1: （1）This study adds research gaps and research innovations in the penultimate paragraph of the introduction. The details are as follows:
Existing studies primarily focus on validating the relationship between ESG im-plementation and an enterprise's economic value enhancement, while also exploring the impact of top management and their team characteristics on ESG implementation. However, limited research has approached ESG implementation as a tactical adjustment to corporate strategic transformation in order to investigate its influence on both social and economic value prioritization. In contrast, this study emphasizes enterprises' path towards accelerating the transition to green development by enhancing both economic and social value through effective ESG implementation. The study aims to assess the extent to which ESG implementation affects the enhancement of economic and social value during this transition process, while also considering top managements' intellectual contribution as a safeguard for driving enterprise value.
Reviewer point #2: Please explain the reason to employ the"stock code sampling method". The present explanation is not clear.
Author response #2: The incorporation of a random simple sampling technique for selecting ticker symbols has been included in section 3.1 of this study. This study employs a random simple sampling technique to select a representative sample of manufacturing companies from the list of listed companies, based on their stock codes. The selected companies are then geographically located according to the sampled stock codes, and an executive from each company is randomly chosen and invited to participate in the survey.
Reviewer point #3: What is the difference between C.R. and CR? Please see Table 2.
Author response #3: CR means composite reliability. The C.R. value is equivalent to the T-value, and the unstandardized load factor divided by the S.E. value is the C.R. value.
Reviewer point #4: The authors are requested to add theoretical implications as well along with managerial implications. Presently it was just practical/managerial implications.
Author response #4: The theoretical implications of the study and managerial implications of the study are added in the conclusion
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
It's my pleasure to contribute in the evaluation of the current manuscript. The paper discusses an interesting research area. However, the manuscript should be revised as follows:
- The abstract is poor and it should be revised.
- The literature review should be improved. Additional references are needed to be inserted.
- The measurement of variables isn't clear.
- The conclusion should be revised. We should insert a new paragraph at the beginning of this section so that you can summarise the whole paper.
All the best
English language seems to be fine.
Author Response
Here is a brief answer to the question you asked. The exact changes are in the attached document.
Reviewer point #1: The abstract is poor and it should be revised.
Author response #1: I would like to express my gratitude for your insightful questions. The abstract has been rewritten.
Reviewer point #2: The literature review should be improved. Additional references are needed to be inserted.
Author response #2: I appreciate your feedback. I will work on improving the literature review by incorporating additional references to enhance its comprehensiveness and depth. Thank you for pointing out this aspect that needs attention.
Reviewer point #3: The measurement of variables isn't clear.
Author response #3: The measurement of the variables is added at the beginning of the third section titled Methodology and sample description. The specific additions are listed below:
The questionnaire method is employed for data collection in this study, while the stock code simple sampling method is utilized to select the sample. Structural equation modelling (SEM) is employed for model construction, and SPSS and AMOS are used for data analysis and hypothesis testing.
Reviewer point #4: The conclusion should be revised. We should insert a new paragraph at the beginning of this section so that you can summarise the whole paper.
Author response #4: The conclusion section has been rewritten. A summary of the full text has been added to the opening section. The research implication has then been split into theoretical and managerial implications.
Reviewer 4 Report
The peer-reviewed scientific study of up to 24 pages is undoubtedly a very interesting scientific work, the content of which can be beneficial not only for theory but also for practice.
The authors did not fully read the instructions for authors available on the journal's website sufficiently to be able to follow them strictly so that the content structure was respected.
However, I found a small and easily rectifiable shortcoming, which is the absence of applied scientific research methods in the abstract.
The introduction lacks a really clear justification of the importance of the chosen topic as well as the set main goal and secondary goals. In the introduction, I did not even find the establishment of hypotheses or research questions, as the authors unusually placed them in the second chapter, which is acceptable.
I am disturbed by the use of abbreviations such as ESG, COS - is it necessary?
I did not find an explanation of such terms as "sustainable development" what do the authors mean by this term? It is different in China, different in ecologically crazy Europe.
However, what the authors did not address, although they should and could, is the question of the "manager", who is the manager, what are his rights and obligations - please explain. In order to increase the scientific value of the work, I recommend the authors to also process this central question in the same way that Central European authors, such as for example:
1. Peráček T. & Kaššaj M. (2023). The influence of jurisprudence on the formation of relations between the manager and the limited liability company. Juridical Tribune. 13 (1), pp. 43-62. 10.24818/TBJ/2023/13/1.04
2. Jankelova, N., Joniakova, Z., Cajkova, A. & Romanova, A. (2021). Leadership Competencies in communal policy. Politicke vedy. 24 (1), pp.181-204, doi: 10.24040/politickevedy.2021.24.1.181-204
3. CHANKOVA D. & VASILEV. V. (2020). LEADERSHIP AND DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY IN THE CHANGING WORLD: COMPETING OR RECONCILABLE PARADIGMS? Perspectives of Law and Public Administration, 9 (2), pp. 209-2018, available at: https://adjuris.ro/revista/articole/an9nr2/13.%20D.%20Chankova.pdf
4. Popa Tache, C.E. (2022). The EU-China road to the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment. Juridical Tribune, 12(4), pp. 476–494, doi: 10.24818/tbj/2022/12/4.03
The conclusion seems unnecessary in this form. If used, it should have contained specific findings and not just general phrases belonging to the "Theoretical Foundation" section.
Author Response
Here is a brief answer to the question you asked. The exact changes are in the attached document.
Reviewer point #1: I found a small and easily rectifiable shortcoming, which is the absence of applied scientific research methods in the abstract.
Author response #1: I would like to express my gratitude for your insightful questions. The abstract has been rewritten.
Reviewer point #2: I am disturbed by the use of abbreviations such as ESG, and COS - is it necessary?
Author response #2: The paper is written in the full form of ESG in the title and in the abstract, then uses the short form in the main body of the article, except the first time it appears in the text. All other abbreviations that appear in this paper are written in their full form as far as possible.
Reviewer point #3: I did not find an explanation of such terms as "sustainable development" what do the authors mean by this term? It is different in China, different in ecologically crazy Europe.
Author response #3: You raise an important point. "Sustainable development" is indeed a term that can vary in interpretation across different regions and contexts. In our paper, we use "sustainable development" to refer to the concept of balanced and responsible growth that considers economic, social, and environmental aspects. However, I acknowledge that its interpretation can differ between regions like China and Europe due to varying cultural, economic, and ecological factors. I have clarified and provided a more detailed explanation of this term in the introduction of the paper to ensure a clear understanding for all readers. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Reviewer point #4: However, what the authors did not address, although they should and could, is the question of the "manager", who is the manager, what are his rights and obligations - please explain. In order to increase the scientific value of the work, I recommend the authors to also process this central question in the same way that Central European authors.
Author response #4: According to Peráček T. & Kaššaj M. (2023) , the introductory section of the initial introduction of the executive concept elucidates the connotation of the top management and his organizational impact.
Reviewer point #5: The conclusion seems unnecessary in this form. If used, it should have contained specific findings and not just general phrases belonging to the "Theoretical Foundation" section.
Author response #5: Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate your insight regarding the conclusion section. I have taken your suggestion into consideration and made the necessary revisions. Our intention is to provide a concise summary of our findings, but I understand the importance of presenting specific and concrete results rather than repeating general concepts from the "Theoretical Foundation" section. I have rewritten the conclusion to ensure it effectively highlights the specific findings of the study. Your input is valuable in improving the quality of our paper, and we will ensure that the revised conclusion provides more targeted and meaningful insights.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors
Thank you for this great revision.
English language is good
Reviewer 4 Report
In view of the changes made, I recommend the article for publication in the modified version.
