Determinant Factors of Corporate Governance on Company Performance: Mediating Role of Capital Structure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

After reviewing this article, I think it is potential for publication but the authors should revise as comments below:

- In the introduction, the authors should make clear the research gap, I see some previous studies have the same topic, and the author should review them and emphasize your contribution. The motivation of the study is clear, but authors must review the literature more and show point out what previous research has not covered.

- the literature review is very weak. First, the author must review the theories to support the hypothesis development. Second, The author should update the recent studies. I find many previous studies relating to this topic but not to be reviewed in section. So, I suggest that the authors review and cite the previous studies as follows: Jiang et al. (2020); Nguyen (2022); Dang and Nguyen (2021); Nguyen and Dang (2022); Bhuiyan et al. (2020); Nguyen (2022b); … (see reference)

- Section 3 is a poor presentation. In this section, the author must have some sub-section including research data, models, estimation method… to explain clearly the methodology. Especially, only sobel test is not enough. I strongly suggest that the author use some further regression methods.

-  The author must add a correlation matrix table

- The authors need to add VIF values for the variables

-  In section 4, the authors must analyze the research results more deeply. I found that the authors did a rough analysis of the results, mostly reading the results from the results tables. The authors must be able to interpret the economic significance of the results in relation to the research context.

- The authors should show the limitation of this research in the conclusion.

References

Bhuiyan, M. B. U., Cheema, M. A., & Man, Y. (2020). Risk committee, corporate risk-taking and firm value. Managerial Finance, 47(3), 285-309. 

Dang, V. C., & Nguyen, Q. K. (2021). Internal corporate governance and stock price crash risk: evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 1-18. doi:10.1080/20430795.2021.2006128

Jiang, H., Zhang, J., & Sun, C. (2020). How does capital buffer affect bank risk-taking? New evidence from China using quantile regression. China Economic Review, 60, 101300. 

Nguyen, Q. K. (2022b). Determinants of bank risk governance structure: A cross-country analysis. Research in International Business and Finance, 60, 101575. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2021.101575

Nguyen, Q. K., & Dang, V. C. (2022). Does the country’s institutional quality enhance the role of risk governance in preventing bank risk? Applied Economics Letters, 1-Nguyen, Q. K. (2022). The impact of risk governance structure on bank risk management effectiveness: evidence from ASEAN countries. Heliyon, e11192.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and your cooperation to review my article. I have revised as you mention. I really appreciate your help

Regrads

Ria

 

Review-1 

 

I strongly appreciate the contribution, improvement, and interest have been made by reviewers and editors to improve the quality of our manuscript. Below there is a response of each comment and suggestion from reviewers 

 

After reviewing this article, I think it is potential for publication but the authors should revise as comments below: 

Reaction: I thank reviewer for reading my paper and find how it has potential for publication. In this respect, the suggested comments have been taken into consideration 

 

- In the introduction, the authors should make clear the research gap, I see some previous studies have the same topic, and the author should review them and emphasize your contribution. The motivation of the study is clear, but authors must review the literature more and show point out what previous research has not covered. 

Reaction: I have added and revised in introduction and literature also hyphotesis based on updated previous research 

 

- the literature review is very weak. First, the author must review the theories to support the hypothesis development. Second, The author should update the recent studies. I find many previous studies relating to this topic but not to be reviewed in section. So, I suggest that the authors review and cite the previous studies as follows: Jiang et al. (2020); Nguyen (2022); Dang and Nguyen (2021); Nguyen and Dang (2022); Bhuiyan et al. (2020); Nguyen (2022b); … (see reference) 

Reaction: I thank you for the useful literature, Some of them have been cited in the revised manuscript and I have revised it and also added 2 theories that used in this research such as agency theory and stewardship theory based on previous research. I also have update the studies based on previous research 

- Section 3 is a poor presentation. In this section, the author must have some sub-section including research data, models, estimation method… to explain clearly the methodology. Especially, only sobel test is not enough. I strongly suggest that the author use some further regression methods. 

-  The author must add a correlation matrix table 

- The authors need to add VIF values for the variables 

Reaction: I have added some sub-section  for methodology. In this study I also added explanations why I choose SMartPLS in sub section data analysis method based on previous research. I also added VIF value in Table 1 of descriptive statistics 

 

-  In section 4, the authors must analyze the research results more deeply. I found that the authors did a rough analysis of the results, mostly reading the results from the results tables. The authors must be able to interpret the economic significance of the results in relation to the research context. 

Reaction: I have analyze the research results more deeply by comparing with previous research and my opinion based on theories and previous research 

- The authors should show the limitation of this research in the conclusion  

Reaction: I have added some limitation of this research in the conclusion in second paragraph 

Thank you very much for your cooperation. I hope these revisions have been used to improve the quality of the paper, we think the journal can publish our revised manuscript 

 

Best Regards 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

After reviewing the paper, the comments are as follows:

- the capital structure in relationship with company performance should be presented in more detail, with a focus on an essential component of "optimal" capital structure, depending on the sector of activity, debt, the company strategy, and various other factors;

- why ROA and no other financial indicator for measuring financial performance has been chosen, for eg. EVA (Economic Value Added);

- to detail the measurement scale for the Corporate Governance components;

- to detail the sample, and how it was selected.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and your cooperation to review my article. 

Review-2 

I strongly appreciate the contribution, improvement, and interest have been made by reviewers and editors to improve the quality of our manuscript. Below there is a response of each comment and suggestion from reviewers 

 

After reviewing the paper, the comments are as follows: 

- the capital structure in relationship with company performance should be presented in more detail, with a focus on an essential component of "optimal" capital structure, depending on the sector of activity, debt, the company strategy, and various other factors; 

Reaction: I have added it in literature and hypothesis 

- why ROA and no other financial indicator for measuring financial performance has been chosen, for eg. EVA (Economic Value Added); 

Reaction: I have added explain about it in Measurement and Collection of Data 

- to detail the measurement scale for the Corporate Governance components; 

Reaction: I have made in Measurement and Collection of Data 

- to detail the sample, and how it was selected. 

Reaction: I have made in added explain about it in Measurement and Collection of Data in second paragraph 

 

Thank you very much for your cooperation. I hope these revisions have been used to improve the quality of the paper, we think the journal can publish our revised manuscript 

I really appreciate your help

 

Best Regards,

Ria

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has a good structure, the research questions are well defined. The theme is relevant but not orignal. I suggest that the author/s include additional studies in the literature review and develop the conclusions more extensively

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and your cooperation to review my article. 

Review-3 

 

I strongly appreciate the contribution, improvement, and interest have been made by reviewers and editors to improve the quality of our manuscript. Below there is a response of each comment and suggestion from reviewers 

 

The paper has a good structure; the research questions are well defined. The theme is relevant but not original. I suggest that the author/s include additional studies in the literature review and develop the conclusions more extensively 

Reaction: I thank reviewer for read and stated that my paper have good structure and research question are well defined.. For additional study I have added in literature and I have revised the conclusion more extensively. 

Thank you very much for your cooperation. I hope these revisions have been used to improve the quality of the paper, we think the journal can publish our revised manuscript 

 

Best Regards 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

I hope you find the comments and suggestions useful.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and your cooperation to review my article. I have revised as you mention and I really appreciate your help.

Please see the attachment.

Regards

Ria

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I noticed that this version has improved. However, there are some points the authors need to revise as follows:

- The hypothesis development part is still unsatisfactory, the arguments are not coherent. For example, the author says: "another study [31] came to the weak conclusion that board independence had no effect on capital structure but was associated with the performance" but hypothesized that "Board independence has a positively significant relationship with Capital Structure" so why?. To propose a hypothesis, the author must show the theory for that relationship and also provide empirical evidence from previous studies. The author must improve the hypothesis development in all sections 2.1-2.10 in this way.

- In the literature review section, the authors are still not fully updated, so I suggest that the authors review and cite relevant recent studies such as Nguyen (2022), Bhuiyan et al. (2020); Dang and Nguyen (2021), Nguyen (2020), Dang and Nguyen (2022), … please preference.

-      I still see some grammatical errors, please check the whole paper again carefully.

 

References

Bhuiyan, M. B. U., Cheema, M. A., & Man, Y. (2020). Risk committee, corporate risk-taking and firm value. Managerial Finance, 47(3), 285-309. 

Dang, V. C., & Nguyen, Q. K. (2021). Internal corporate governance and stock price crash risk: evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 1-18. doi:10.1080/20430795.2021.2006128

Dang, V. C., & Nguyen, Q. K. (2022). Audit committee characteristics and tax avoidance: Evidence from an emerging economy. Cogent Economics & Finance, 10(1), 2023263. 

Nguyen, Q. K. (2020). Ownership structure and bank risk-taking in ASEAN countries: A quantile regression approach. Cogent Economics & Finance, 8(1), 1809789. 

Nguyen, Q. K. (2022). The impact of risk governance structure on bank risk management effectiveness: evidence from ASEAN countries. Heliyon, e11192. 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your cooperation. I hope these revisions have been used to improve the quality of the paper, we think the journal can publish our revised manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for considering the comments and adding them to the paper!

Author Response

Thank you very much for your cooperation. I hope these revisions have been used to improve the quality of the paper, we think the journal can publish our revised manuscript

Comment：Thank you for considering the comments and adding them to the paper!

Reaction: Thank you very much for your support and your cooperation. I really appreciate it

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors, 

Overall, and despite significant progress, the main issue with the article remains: the paper requires careful English review, and thus a major revision is required.

Kind regards,

Author Response

Thank you very much for your cooperation. I hope these revisions have been used to improve the quality of the paper, we think the journal can publish our revised manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

- The authors need to revisit my request last time regarding hypothesis development. This version doesn't seem to have any major improvements. For example, developing the H9 hypothesis does not have any corrections and no explanation for this.

- Suggested citations and expand literature review are also incomplete.

Authors need to fully revise the above content before being considered for publication (please see my comment in the previous version).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your support.

I really appreciate it and I need your cooperation and support for me

 

Regards

Ria

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Author,

Thank you for your effort. 

Although you mention that "I have used proofreading service to check this.", the article is still seriously flawed in terms of English writing. I also draw attention to the specification of the equations, which should be reviewed. In this regard, please note the comment in my first review.

King regards,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your support.

I really appreciate it and I need your cooperation and support for me

 

Regards

Ria

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf