CSR and Sustainable Growth in China’s Technology Firms between 2010 and 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The article “CSR and Sustainable Growth in China’s Technology Firms between 2016-2021” is a fruitful contribution to the literature. It adds to the knowledge in relation to the topic it addresses. The methodology is appropriate for the purposes of the study. The style in which the paper is written is certainly clear and concise. The argument is coherent. The aim of the following remarks is to challenge the author(s) to reflect more on the core and the yield of the article. Please note that I am offering suggestions that I believe could help improve the paper. The author(s) should not feel compelled to adopt my suggestions but should offer some kind of response to my comments. Please note that I do not feel qualified to judge the English language and style.

1. Structure: The structure of your paper can be improved. One way of doing it is: (i) Introduction; (ii) Background; (iii) Theoretical literature review/ Theoretical framework; (iv) Empirical literature review and hypotheses development; (v) Research design; (vi) Empirical results and discussion; and (vii) Summary and conclusion. Note that this is only one possible structure.

2. Background: I think the paper could be strengthened by the addition of a background section in which issues relating to the topic in the Chinese context could be better expounded. The authors offer some sentences on the Chinese context in the introduction but, not knowing as much as I would like of such context (and believing many of the non-Chinese readers also possess little knowledge on it) I would like to see some further explanation of specific features in China that renders it interesting to situate the study on. I would also like to see some more information on the topics of CSR in China and dysfunctional competition.

3. Theoretical literature review/ Theoretical framework: I would like to see the theoretical framework further developed and explained in an autonomous section.

4. Empirical literature review and hypotheses: The author(s) could present the empirical literature and then present the hypotheses or develop the hypotheses after or within the theoretical section.

[Alternatively, section 2 could be subdivided in a slightly different manner. I would suggest:

2. Literature review and hypotheses development

2.1. Theoretical literature review

2.2. Empirical literature review and hypotheses development.]

5. Empirical results: For each hypothesis: first, state what the findings are; second, indicate whether the relevant hypothesis is supported or not; third, compare and contrast the findings with those of prior theoretical and empirical studies; fourth, highlight any implications of your study.

6. Conclusion: In case the authors accept the suggestion of discussing the results in the previous section (see 5.), I would suggest that the authors could use the concluding section to offer a short summary and focus on the discussion on the implications for theorizing about the topic and on limitation and further research (the material is already there).

 

Minor aspect:

In p. 2:

“… Waldman etc., as “actions on the part of the firm that appear to advance, or acquiesce in the promotion of some social good, beyond the immediate interests of the firm and its shareholders and beyond that which is required by law”[22].”

Please use Waldman et al. and provide the page(s) number(s). Please replace etc. with et al. in similar situations (pp. 1, 2, 4).

 

 

Otherwise, I wish the author(s) well with this research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comment 1: The theory foundation between CSR and sustainable growth should be justified. More evidence should be provided.

Comment 2: The nagnitude of data is small. More data is needed.  

Comment 3: Whether the data is open access?

Comment 4: The robustness test is need.

Comment 5: The endogeneity probelm should be solved. 

Comment 6: The langage should be improved.  

Comment 7: What’s policy insight of this study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I am glad to read your manuscript because it is interesting and shows Chineese context which is quite different than American or European contexts. You used resorce dependence theory as a theoretical framework for your reseaerch which also is not so popular and gives appropriate context to sustainable growth research. However, I would recommend some changes in the manuscript. First of all, you should not call CSR towards employees, customers etc. dimensions. Dimensions, according to Carrol, are economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic CSR, so I would go into examining the effect of CSR actions aimed at four chosen groups instead of dimensions. Secondly, in theoretical justification of Hypothesis 1 you give some general theoretical relations but in the part devoted to relations with government, you go strictly to firms located in China. If I were you, I would give general statements first, and then i would add - in case of China the relationships with government... I also have some doubts about overall CSR in your supplementary analysis. You wrote "overall" but in fact you took into consideration only four analysed groups of stakeholders which are not all groups in general (i.e. you omitted local society). Maybe it is worth to explain it better.

Good luck with your further research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear editor,

The authors have addressed my all concern. Thanks.