A Bird’s Eye View: Uncovering the Impact of Stakeholder Pressure on Sustainable Development Goal Disclosure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Literature review can be improved with more recent studies.

Implications can be improved with detailed cases.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Attached, we send a letter with the changes made to our article.

Warm regards,
The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Main question addressed by the research: This study examines the impact of secondary stakeholder pressures on Sustainable Development Goals disclosure.

Originality and relevance of the topic including  research gap addressed: The topic is original,relevant and researchable.

What the topic  adds to the subject area compared with other published material: Findings offer  different perspectives contrary to  majority of previous studies with results  showing  that the pressure exerted by society, governments, unions, and the media is crucial for companies in environmentally sensitive sectors.

Specific improvements for the  authors to consider:

The authors should improve on the theoretical background and hypothesis development by ;

Ø  Add Gobal Compact to Key words

Ø  Line 58- Specify the studies and the factors to replace  ”Some factors”

Ø  Delete the from 79 -82 ( the summary of the article sections) because it is not necessary.

Ø  Include a conceptual framework guiding the study’.( Line 84)

Ø  Briefly explain the stakeholder theory and justify why it was used.(Line -85)

Methodology:

Ø  Specify the population size and  Include the search criteria( inclusion and exclusion criteria which led to the choice of 1831 companies)

Ø  Include a column showing percentage( Table on Line 214)

Ø  Variables- line 233 - Provide validity and reliability test results

Ø  Table 2: (Line 240) - Include a column for measurements.Also Seperate the variables with rows for clarity

Ø  Lines 251-253 - Justify the motivations of choosing the indicated databases and not others

Results and analysis:

Ø  Table 4 - Pairwise correlation matrix (Line -314) - (11) is missing on the upper row

Ø  Provide a summarized explanation for results from: Table 5 - Panel data regression results, Table 6 - Robustness test results: Replacing the dependent variable & Table 7 - Robustness test results: Excluding US companies from the sample

Discussion:

-For each hypothesis, include 2 more supporting studies from previous research.

Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented

and do they address the main question posed?

The conclusions are consistent and relevant but too brief.The authors can polish this with furher explanations.

Language and Grammar: Good.

References:

-Good and upto date

-Authors to add more references from corrections suggested.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Attached, we send a letter with the changes made to our article.

Warm regards,
The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I found this article I received for review very interesting. Based on stakeholder theory, the article examined the impact of pressure from secondary stakeholders on the disclosure of sustainability goals (SDG).
I suggest Authors work on the abstract so that what is in the article is highlighted (in the current version it is hardly legible) and the citation of sources - is essential. I draw attention to the language of the article - it is not scientific enough. It is worth noting that in the discussion the authors refer to the theses presented earlier, and in the conclusion they indicate the next stages of research.

Good luck

Reviewer

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I draw attention to the language of the article - it is not scientific enough.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Attached, we send a letter with the changes made to our article.

Warm regards,
The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed article is worth publishing (after removing the following conclusion item 1), as it is an important and interesting contribution to the current debate on SDG disclosure by companies. The article achieves the research objective and verifies four research hypotheses. Its research objective was to investigate the pressure from secondary stakeholders to disclose SDGs.

The reviewed article stimulates thought and further research, and it does not provide solutions to the researched research problems. The authors realize this, pointing out that the conclusions of their research should not be generalized. As a reviewer, I believe that a scientific article does not always have to lead to giving ready-made prescriptions.

The selection of the research sample is clear and substantively justified. The analysis included 1831 companies from four sectors in the nine economies with the highest carbon emissions. The selection of such highly diverse nine economies may raise questions about the method, the analysis of the study and the four hypotheses formulated. Panel analysis of data is always controversial in the scientific community. However, this analysis may provide a legitimate rationale for further research.

I believe that the study of companies from such highly diversified economies gives practical significance to the reviewed article. The authors managed to balance its practical significance with statistical significance. This balancing of the two significances is also crucial for a positive review of this article. As a reviewer, I believe that it is necessary to correct only the conclusion (below item 1.). It is required in the final version of the article:

1.The conclusion that "managers must develop strategies to achieve the interests of their secondary stakeholders both at home and abroad" (line 77-78, p. 2) is not proven in the reviewed article. Which of the variables in Table 2 (line 240, p. 6) indicates consideration of the pressures of secondary stakeholders (government, society, unions, and media) from abroad on companies in the economies under review. The market capitalization variable (MKTCAP) and the GLOBAL-COM variable may have an ostensible relationship to this pressure. A great deal can seemingly be proven from these variables. China is a global player. The economies of the U.S., Germany and the EU and beyond are so heavily dependent on the output of China's economy. Do any of these four foreign secondary stakeholders influence the disclosure of SDGs by Chinese companies? Does the Russian economy and Russian companies in the four sectors studied succumb to pressure from any of these four foreign secondary stakeholders, despite the many economic and financial restrictions imposed on Russia? Then why should Russian companies from these sectors succumb to pressure from these four foreign stakeholders to disclose SDG information?

Future research can distinguish only private companies in these four sectors without the direct and indirect participation and influence of states and governments. Some pressure can be sought only on such private companies.

The authors may benefit from the remaining comments (below point 2. to 5.):

2.The disconfirmation of hypothesis one (H1) for the US was to be expected. In the study area in the US, lobbying is directly more important than the quality of regulation. This is the specificity of influencing regulation in the US. Lobbying influences the quality of regulation using freedom of the press. So, in future research, it is worth considering what the freedom of the press in each country is due to and who benefits from it in the private and public sectors and SDG disclosure.

3.The conclusions of the analysis of financial ratios confirm the results of other studies. It is noteworthy that the results of companies' financial ratios despite such diverse nine economies confirm previous studies. In this context, this is a very important conclusion for the 1831 companies in the nine diversified economies with the highest carbon emissions. I propose to emphasize this conclusion more strongly, because it is based on the analysis of "hard" financial data. This is one group of variables.

4.It is worth distinguishing the second group of variables: qualitative variables, which are operationalized by organizations, foundations and international institutions. These variables and their scales are built according to the values and standards of the US and the Western world, so they show a positive impact on the disclosure of the SDGs in these countries. So the second group of variables that influence disclosure are values and standards, including work culture, business culture. Basically, they are the ones that differentiate the disclosure of SDGs in companies.

5.In the group of operationalized qualitative variables, it is worth highlighting the conclusion "in countries with a higher HDI, companies have less disclosure of the SDGs." (lines 339-340, p. 9). After all, one would formally expect the following conclusion in countries with a higher HDI, companies have more disclosure of the SDGs. I find this conclusion most surprising, important and thought-provoking. One may think that the results of correlating HDI with the other operationalized qualitative variables are apparent. In fact, the values and standards of the Western world do not necessarily affect the HDI in Eastern and Southern countries. Higher HDI in the countries analysed requires less SDG disclosure.

The results of the survey can contribute to further debate on the determinants of SDG disclosure by companies.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Attached, we send a letter with the changes made to our article.

Warm regards,
The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf