Corporate Social Responsibility, Carbon Information Disclosure, and Enterprise Value: A Study of Listed Companies in China’s Highly Polluting Industries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR), carbon information disclosure (CDI), and enterprise value (EV) among listed companies in China's highly polluting industries. The authors construct a CDI quality evaluation system and use content analysis to measure CDI quality. They find that both CSR and CDI positively impact EV, and CDI positively moderates the relationship between CSR and EV. The authors conclude by offering suggestions for both government and enterprise perspectives.

The paper addresses a timely and relevant topic, as the relationship between CSR, CDI, and EV is of increasing interest to academics, practitioners, and policymakers. The authors' attempt to quantify CDI quality is a notable contribution.

However, the paper suffers from several methodological and conceptual issues that need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication.

Major Concerns:

1. The theoretical foundation for the hypotheses is not well-developed. The authors mention stakeholder theory, resource dependence theory, and voluntary disclosure theory, but these are not thoroughly integrated or used to build a strong theoretical argument. A more robust theoretical framework would strengthen the paper's contribution.
2. While the authors' attempt to quantify CDI quality is commendable, the construction of the CDI index and the content analysis methodology need further elaboration. The specific criteria for assigning scores to each indicator and the reliability of the content analysis process should be explained in more detail.
3. The authors do not address potential endogeneity issues that may arise due to the simultaneous relationship between CSR, CDI, and EV. For example, firms with higher EV may be more likely to invest in CSR activities and disclose carbon information. Addressing endogeneity concerns would strengthen the validity of the findings.
4. The sample is restricted to listed companies in China's highly polluting industries. While this is a relevant context, the generalizability of the findings to other industries and countries may be limited. The authors should discuss the potential limitations of their sample and the implications for the generalizability of their findings.
• The authors should expand their literature review to include more recent and relevant studies on the topic.

Minor Concerns:

1. The paper could benefit from clearer and more concise writing. Some sentences are overly long and complex, making it difficult to follow the authors' arguments.
2. There are some inconsistencies in formatting and referencing throughout the paper. The authors should carefully review the manuscript to ensure consistency.

Recommendation:

I recommend that the authors revise the paper to address the major and minor concerns outlined above. With a stronger theoretical framework, a more detailed explanation of the CDI measurement methodology, and addressing endogeneity concerns, this paper has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the literature on CSR, CDI, and EV.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please proofread the manuscript.

Author Response

Major Concerns:

Comment 1:The theoretical foundation for the hypotheses is not well-developed.The authors mention stakeholder theory,resource dependence theory,and voluntary disclosure theory,but these are not thoroughly integrated or used to build a strong theoretical argument.A more robust theoretical framework would strengthen the paper's contribution.

Response 1:Thank you for pointing this out.We agree with this comment.We have supplemented it in 2 of the paper.

Comment 2:While the authors' attempt to quantify CDI quality is commendable,the construction of the CDI index and the content analysis methodology need further elaboration.The specific criteria for assigning scores to each indicator and the reliability of the content analysis process should be explained in more detail.

Response 2:Thank you for pointing this out.We agree with this comment.We have supplemented it in Table1 of the paper.

Comment 3:The authors do not address potential endogeneity issues that may arise due to the simultaneous relationship between CSR, CDI, and EV.For example, firms with higher EV may be more likely to invest in CSR activities and disclose carbon information.Addressing endogeneity concerns would strengthen the validity of the findings.

Response 3:Thank you for pointing this out.We agree with this comment.We have supplemented it in 4.6 of the paper.

Comment 4:The sample is restricted to listed companies in China's highly polluting industries. While this is a relevant context, the generalizability of the findings to other industries and countries may be limited.The authors should discuss the potential limitations of their sample and the implications for the generalizability of their findings.

Response 4:Thank you for pointing this out.We agree with this comment.We have supplemented it in 5.3 of the paper.

Comment 5:The authors should expand their literature review to include more recent and relevant studies on the topic.

Response 5:Thank you for pointing this out.We agree with this comment.We have supplemented it in 1 of the paper.

Minor Concerns:

Comment 1:The paper could benefit from clearer and more concise writing.Some sentences are overly long and complex, making it difficult to follow the authors' arguments.

Response 1:Agree.For individual long sentences,we have modified them to concise short sentences.

Comment 2:There are some inconsistencies in formatting and referencing throughout the paper. The authors should carefully review the manuscript to ensure consistency.

Response 2:Agree.We have carefully reviewed and improved the format and references again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a relevant topic. The objectives are appropriate, and the methods have been selected to effectively explore the subject, fulfill the tasks, and achieve the goals. The author aims to investigate the relationship between the level of social responsibility, carbon emission disclosure, and the value of the enterprise, and to conduct an empirical analysis. The article states that social responsibility has a significant positive impact on the value of the enterprise. These conclusions are considered substantial and justified. It is also determined that carbon disclosure has a significant positive impact on the value of the enterprise and plays a significant positive regulatory role in the relationship between social responsibility and the value of the enterprise. A noteworthy contribution is that the article offers relevant recommendations from the perspectives of both enterprises and the government.

However, the article requires some revisions:

1. The authors have explained the sampling mechanism in detail: "companies from Shanghai and Shenzhen, listed on the A-share market, in industries that heavily pollute the environment, from 2018 to 2022, were selected as the research objects." However, it is not mentioned why the period 2018-2022 was chosen. It would be beneficial to further specify the research period.
2. The authors' conclusion that "Carbon disclosure can reduce information risk for investors, lower the level of information asymmetry, alleviate concerns of investors and creditors about national carbon emission policies hindering enterprise development, reduce the cost of financing enterprises, thus obtaining more investments at lower costs and increasing the value of enterprises" is quite debatable, particularly regarding the reduction of financing costs for enterprises. I suggest removing this position.
3. The manuscript is clear, relevant to the field, and well-structured. The citations are pertinent. The conclusions are consistent with the provided evidence and arguments.

Author Response

Comment 1:The authors have explained the sampling mechanism in detail:"companies from Shanghai and Shenzhen,listed on the A-share market,in industries that heavily pollute the environment,from 2018 to 2022,were selected as the research objects."However,it is not mentioned why the period 2018-2022 was chosen.It would be beneficial to further specify the research period.

Response 1:We agree with this comment.We have added an explanation regarding the selection of research cycles in 3.1 of the paper.

Comment 2:The authors' conclusion that "Carbon disclosure can reduce information risk for investors, lower the level of information asymmetry,alleviate concerns of investors and creditors about national carbon emission policies hindering enterprise development,reduce the cost of financing enterprises, thus obtaining more investments at lower costs and increasing the value of enterprises" is quite debatable,particularly regarding the reduction of financing costs for enterprises.I suggest removing this position.

Response 2:We agree with this comment.We have removed the conclusion regarding "the reduction of financing costs for enterprises ".

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf