Assessing the Anti-Corruption Disclosure Practices in the UK FTSE 100 Extractive Firms
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the first draft of the paper. It contributes to the litterature.
I would like to highlight some things.
1- The introduction is too long. Perhaps, the first two paragraphs on page 3 could be moved to the LR.
2. Make sure the foot notes fit here.
3. Methods section: Why data until 2019. What about 2020-21, and 22. Outliers can be treated statistically.
4. Can this be more elaborated: The ‘recording unit’ for measuring the quantity of ACD was defined as the number of words.. How?
5. How do figures 3 and 4 add value in the middle of the text?
6. Good way of showing the results of RQ1 and 2 seperately, but it would be good to combine both in the discussion part and compare with other papers or studies in the litterature.
Author Response
Response letter to Sustainability – 2224499 Revised Version 08/03/2023
Journal Title: Sustainability MDPI
Manuscript Number: Sustainability - 2224499
Manuscript Title: Assessing the anti-corruption disclosure practices in the UK FTSE 100 extractive firms
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments and Suggestions:
Reviewer’s Comment- Thank you for the first draft of the paper. It contributes to the literature.
Authors’ Response- Thank you so much for your positive comment.
Reviewer’s Comment- I would like to highlight some things.
1- The introduction is too long. Perhaps, the first two paragraphs on page 3 could be moved to the LR.
Authors’ Response- Thank you for your comment. In this revised version, we moved the first two paragraphs on p. 3 to the literature review section.
- Make sure the footnotes fit here.
Authors’ Response- Noted and done, thank you.
- Methods section: Why data until 2019. What about 2020-21, and 22. Outliers can be treated statistically.
Authors’ Response- As we started to collect the research data in the Mid of 2020, our final research sample was selected based on:
- all extractive firms listed in the FTSE100 index- London Stock Exchange, and
- the availability of published corporate annual reports to conduct the content analysis.
So, our final research sample represented 10 companies with a total of 148 annual reports covering the period from 2003 to 2019.
- Can this be more elaborated: The ‘recording unit’ for measuring the quantity of ACD was defined as the number of words? How?
Authors’ Response- Thank you for your comment. Due to the relatively low level of disclosure compared to environmental reporting, words were taken to be the most likely meaningful differentiator in terms of volume of content. When there are few sentences, being short or long may make a significant difference; proportions of the page are also dependent on font size, margins ,and other factors.
- How do figures 3 and 4 add value in the middle of the text?
Authors’ Response- Thank you for your value note. In this revised version we changed the place of these figures to be after their texts, not in the middle. We are very keen to visualize our manuscript to enhance the readability of our research by using visual tools as appropriate to increase the quality of our writing and make it attractive to our potential readers, etc.
- Good way of showing the results of RQ1 and 2 separately, but it would be good to combine both in the discussion part and compare with other papers or studies in the literature.
Authors’ Response- Noted and done, thank you. The discussion and conclusion have been rewritten and your feedback has been taken into account.
- English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
Authors’ Response- Thank you for your comment. In this revised version, we spellchecked, corrected such typos and grammar mistakes. This revised version has also benefited from a professional proofreading and editing service.
We would like to thank you very much for your positive comments and suggestion that have helped us to improve the paper.
Kind Regards,
The Authors
08/03/2023
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper addresses a current topic regarding the way in which anti-corruption activities are tracked and analyzed in large companies such as the FTSE 100 extractives.
The introduction of a specific law on bribery also generated a series of indicators for monitoring its effects.
The two research questions are intended to determine complex approaches, specific to the problem under discussion.
I note, from this perspective, the analyzed sample that includes extractive companies listed in the UK FTSE 100.
The sample is adequate considering the existing corruption potential in their area.
The research methodology is also appropriate to the specifics of the analyzed problem. It is also based on relevant works from the literature and specialized studies.
The specificity of the analyzed problem makes the effort required to understand the research to be considerable.
However, the authors manage to communicate relevant conclusions that can be taken into account in future studies.
In this context, I recommend the publication of the work in this form.
Author Response
Response letter to Sustainability – 2224499 Revised Version 08/03/2023
Journal Title: Sustainability MDPI
Manuscript Number: Sustainability - 2224499
Manuscript Title: Assessing the anti-corruption disclosure practices in the UK FTSE 100 extractive firms
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments and Suggestions:
Reviewer’s Comment- The paper addresses a current topic regarding the way in which anti-corruption activities are tracked and analysed in large companies such as the FTSE 100 extractives.
Authors’ Response- Thank you.
Reviewer’s Comment- The introduction of a specific law on bribery also generated a series of indicators for monitoring its effects.
Authors’ Response- Thank you.
Reviewer’s Comment- The two research questions are intended to determine complex approaches, specific to the problem under discussion.
Authors’ Response- Thank you.
Reviewer’s Comment- I note, from this perspective, the analyzed sample that includes extractive companies listed in the UK FTSE 100. The sample is adequate considering the existing corruption potential in their area.
Authors’ Response- Thank you for your positive comments.
Reviewer’s Comment- The research methodology is also appropriate to the specifics of the analyzed problem. It is also based on relevant works from the literature and specialized studies.
Authors’ Response- We appreciate your positive feedback on our research methodology.
Reviewer’s Comment- The specificity of the analyzed problem makes the effort required to understand the research to be considerable. However, the authors manage to communicate relevant conclusions that can be taken into account in future studies.
Authors’ Response- Thank you.
Reviewer’s Comment- In this context, I recommend the publication of the work in this form.
Authors’ Response- Thank you so much.
Reviewer’s Comment- English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
Authors’ Response- Thank you for your comment. In this revised version, we spellchecked, corrected such typos and grammar mistakes. This revised version has also benefited from a professional proofreading and editing service.
We would like to thank you very much for your positive comments and feedback.
Kind Regards,
The Authors
08/03/2023
Author Response File: Author Response.DOC
