Determinants of Global Banks’ Climate Information Disclosure with the Moderating Effect of Shareholder Litigation Risk
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study fills a significant research gap in the field of banks' response to climate change. I am pasting a paragraph from the paper below:
It signifies chapter 2 and 3 and so on.
Articles do not have such kind of segregation as chapters. It seems this is part of a Thesis and has been pasted as such. Please check this.
Chapter 2 will review the theoretical background and prior research on banks' climate disclosures. In Chapter 3, hypotheses will be developed regarding the institutional and governance factors that promote voluntary TCFD disclosures in banks. Chapter 4 will design the research methodology, while Chapter 5 will present the research findings. Finally, Chapter 6 will provide a conclusion, wrapping up this paper.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageCan be improved.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is well written and has contribution to the literature. But it can benefit from further development through considering these points:
- The paper needs professional proofreading and editing to enhance its English language and readability.
- The study findings (in section 5) need further discussion concerning the literature.
- The study contributions in the conclusion section (section 6) can better be presented relative to the previous studies in the literature.
Comments on the Quality of English Language- The paper needs professional proofreading and editing to enhance its English language and readability.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere are syntactical errors in the text of the article that need to be corrected.
In Table 1, in the last column ("Source"), the sources used to form the variables should be more correctly described. In particular, such as Osiris and Yale University and all others. Since it is not clear how, for example, Yale University acted as a source for the formation of EPI. It is necessary to add references to all sources except those for which the authors collected the information manually.
We recommend providing the formula for calculating the independent variable (TCFD), as the order of its determination is not entirely clear from the text of the article.
In the table row 1 "Measurement" should include formulas for calculating all independent variables, not just their names, particularly regarding the use of indices. The measurement order of all dummy variables also needs a more correct and uniform description.
A description of all its elements (coefficients (alpha, betas), errors (e)) is not added to the given empirical model.
Perhaps the name of table 2 should be changed to "Descriptive statistics". Obtained in Table. 2 values require a more in-depth analysis, and not just a statement of the obtained values, which the authors did in section 5.1.
The presence of a high correlation coefficient between ROA and LEV (-0.71) indicates the expediency of excluding one of these factors from the model. However, in the text of the article, the authors completely ignored this problem. Therefore, it is necessary to justify why the variables were left or exclude one of them.
The conclusions must be supported by the obtained empirical results because they look unconvincing in their current form. Also, the conclusions should generally summarize which of the hypotheses were confirmed and which were refuted.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments have been partially addressed.
Another revision is required.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageN/A
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
