A Combined Evaluation Method of Corporate Social Responsibility Based on the Difference and Similarity: A Case Study of Transportation Industry in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the issue of this study is very interesting. Thank you very much for having the possibility to review this interesting paper. To make it a better study, I recommend the authors to revise the following contents.

 

1. This study has a very high practical value. And it was presented well in the introduction. However, the authors do not adequately present the academic value compared to the practical value of this study. In the introduction, the authors should present the academic value of this study and what differentiates it from other previous studies.

2. Overall, there are many sentences in the manuscript that are only the thoughts of the authors without any theoretical basis. This applies not only to the theoretical background, but also to the conclusions and discussions. Authors should provide clear references.

3. In this study, the authors do not adequately review recent prior studies. You need to review the studies of the last 2-3 years. 

4. Compared to the importance of the study, the implications are rather weak. Especially academic implications. Authors should present the implications of their research in detail.

5. What are the limitations of this study? And what could be further considered in future research? I encourage you to include this in your manuscript.

6. (Minor aspects) Many parts of the manuscripts, including references, do not adhere to the style required by the journal. Authors should revise to reflect the journal style.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Many thanks for your time and effort on our work! We have revised them accordingly. Please check attached our responses to your comments. 

Kind regards,

Lidong Fan

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to read your paper, which deals with an interesting topic. Please find below some suggestions to improve the manuscript.

 

Literature review

I guess the literature review could be improved by referring to the most recent studies on the field, even published on Sustainability journal, such as:

·      Luo, J., Bi, M., & Kuang, H. (2021). Design of evaluation scheme for social responsibility of China’s transportation enterprises from the perspective of green supply chain management. Sustainability, 13(6), 3390.

·      Dimitriou, D. (2020). Evaluation of corporate social responsibility performance in air transport enterprise. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 10(2), 262-278.

·      Činčalová, S., & Hedija, V. (2020). Firm characteristics and corporate social responsibility: The case of Czech transportation and storage industry. Sustainability, 12(5), 1992.

Indeed, the references stop at 2019.

Furthermore, a deeper understanding of what Corporate Social Performance means for the literature and what were the main contribution on the topic could improve the literature review section, even referring to the crucial role of social performance evaluation.

 

Results

The most original and insightful section of the study is the methodological one. When the authors present the findings of the applied methodology to the transportation industry in China, the study lose some interest. My suggestion is to better present the findings (even if descriptive) giving them the right relevance, consistently with the whole study.

 

References

Some of the references have not been mentioned in the text. Please check.

 

To conclude: the study is very promising and interesting, primarily for the methodological contribution. With some minor revision could be significantly improved.

 

Thanks to the authors for giving me the possibility to read this manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Many thanks for your time and effort on our work! We have revised them accordingly. Please check attached our responses to your comments. 

Kind regards,

Lidong Fan

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is devoted to building a new method for evaluating Corporate Social Responsibility of China's transportation industry. Specifically, the authors constructed a combined weighting method (CWMDS) based on the combination of difference and similarity. Some parts of the article are well structured. Specifically, the literature review and methodology sections are well-prepared. The authors well-argued the strengths of CWMDS method.

At the same time, the main problem of the article is the lack of analysis and conclusions from conducted research. For example, the authors state that “CSR fulfillment in 9 sub-industries is not satisfactory”. Who will use these conclusions? The results are the average values for sub-industries. Therefore, the companies will not use them as they might perform below or above the average. Moreover, from the article, it is unclear whether China's individual transportation companies are interested and see the benefits of implementing CSR practices.

The government might apply these results. That would mean that the government fully controls the companies. Do the authors think that government should control and regulate the implementation of CSR issues at individual transportation companies?

However, the authors state the contrary “On the one hand, the sluggish economic contribution suggests that the government should decentralize the enterprise's management power, allowing the company to independently make business decisions and further improve the company's own financial benefits.”

 

The overall suggestion is to improve the article's goal and focus and to explain for whom and for what the CWMDS methods results are. Who and why would use these results, and what benefits might they bring to the companies?

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Many thanks for your time and effort on our work! We have revised them accordingly. Please check attached our responses to your comments. 

Kind regards,

Lidong Fan

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Kindly refer to the attached document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Many thanks for your time and effort on our work! We have revised them accordingly. Please check attached our responses to your comments. 

Kind regards,

Lidong Fan

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors considered my comments. Therefore I suggest accepting the article as it is.

Reviewer 4 Report

Well done!