Window Dressing in Impression Management: Does Negative Media Coverage Drive Corporate Green Production?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for this opportunity to review this interesting article with the title „Window Dressing in Impression Management: Does Negative 2 Media Coverage Drive Corporate Green Production?”

The authors have put a lot of work into the study, and the results are highly relevant to impression management strategies. However, I see several fundamental weaknesses in the current version, which I would like to explain in more detail. I can summarize my suggestions as follows.

1)             Please pay some attention on each citation

-       Page 3- „Prior literature focuses greenwashing more on theoretical discussion, and the empirical evidence is relatively rare”- Citations are needed to prove this.

- Whenever you write about past research, provide multiple sources.

- e.g. “Negative media coverage has been widely researched in corporate governance literature.”- ”- Citations are needed

- Check the phrase "Previous studies ..." in the discussion and add citations.

2)             Please improve the aesthetics of Table 2

3)             Edit the abstract indicating the results of your research

4)     Check the references list e.g. 38.

 

Thank you very much for providing this opportunity to review this paper. Your work is very interesting and valuable for science.

 

 

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your meticulous review of our manuscript and for providing valuable and constructive feedback.  We have made revisions according to your advice and please see attached.
Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is interesting, the Methodology is well done, but in order to publish the article, the authors must make a few improvement measures, such as:

1.      In the Abstract, the authors must develop the research question and in the Discussion section to answer to this question.

2.      Discussion and Conclusions sections must be separated and more material must be added for each section. In Discussion section, after the presentation of results (data obtained from the study, indicators obtained) than the authors must add results from the field and then (new sources from 2022-2023 from high ranked journal and especially with the same methodloogy or model to be reminded), the authors must say if the proposed hypothesis was fulfilled or not. Then, in Conclusion section the authors must add specific material.

3.      For Implications, the authors must also build a separate section and improve it by developing implications for employees, for managers, for policy makers, and for society.

4.      The same thing is proposed for Limits, the authors must make a separate section and improve it by adding new material.

5.      Also, to improve the references (because are not updated) from 2022-2023 references are missing. The authors must add other new 10-15 sources and add them to Discussion section for each hypothesis.

So, in order to be published this article, improvements are required and major improvements are necessary

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your meticulous review of our manuscript and for providing valuable and constructive feedback.  We have made revisions according to your advice and please see attached.
Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

·         The English requires minor editing for readability. Very minor.

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your meticulous review of our manuscript and for providing valuable and constructive feedback.  We have made revisions according to your advice and please see attached.
Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for providing this paper. The topic of this study is extremely interesting and up-to-date. However, there are some aspects that merit attention for enhancing the manuscript.

1. In the abstract, please offer a concise overview of the used methodology. 

2. The literature review section can benefit from more studies that are extensive. I would appreciate it if the authors include additional updated and relevant references. Examples of papers that may be helpful are given below:

https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3177

https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026622110870

3. The literature review section has been meticulously crafted. The insights gleaned from the literature analysis should be incorporated into the subsequent discussion section

4. Figure 1 should be placed at the end of the theoretical background and hypotheses development section.

5. The authors are encouraged to consider separating the discussion and conclusions section into distinct sections.

6. In the conclusion section, please expand upon the practical implications of your study by incorporating additional arguments. This will further enrich the practical significance of the research findings.

All the best

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your meticulous review of our manuscript and for providing valuable and constructive feedback.  We have made revisions according to your advice and please see attached.
Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the requested points for improvement were completed by the authors, thus the article is accepted in the present form to be proposed for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your in-depth response to my comments and suggestions.