Exploring the Interaction Effects of Board Meetings on Information Disclosure and Financial Performance in Public Listed Companies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find attached the Review Report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your comment. We have incorporated your inputs in the attached revised version of the paper for your consideration. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of this paper is interesting enough to receive research attention.

However, the manuscript needs some improvements and clarifications:

1. The presentation of hypothesis 2 is unclear from my point of view. My concern is about the use of the word “moderates”. How does it relate to quantitative values? Since “moderation” discards extreme values, it seems that the term “moderates” should be related to an interval. An alternative approach could be testing whether board meetings increase or reduce the relationship between environmental and social disclosure. Then, the outcome of the regression could continue being interpreted in terms of moderation after evolving from the regression’s quantitative output to their qualitative discussion.

 

2. The paper makes clear that the empirical analysis contradicts hypothesis 1. But, how should we interpret the results for hypothesis 2? Do the results contradict or validate it? Likely, the problem here is again with the term “moderates”.

 

3. All variables in the regressions should be clearly defined. This reviewer has been unable to find the explicit meanings of X and η.

 

4. Lines 167-174 introduce three references on papers that relate board meetings with financial performance. To compare them with the results of the paper under review, it is necessary that the performance measures are homogeneous. In particular, Han’s paper measures financial performance as return on assets, net sales, and firm equity (equity value?). Thus, there is no homogeneity between Han’s approach to financial performance and the approach of the authors, which is Tobin’s Q (a much better indicator). The difference between Han’s results and the results from Chou, Vafeas, and the paper is probably due to the different performance measures. The authors could stress this point.

 

5. Lines 276-277 in the discussion state that “this study establishes a positive correlation between information disclosure and effective board side and firm success”. This statement seems contradictory with the rejection of hypothesis 1 and with lines 271-272.

 

6. Line 283 introduces the term “portfolio firms”. It should be defined (are they investment funds, hedge funds?).

 

7. The literature review and quotations of the consequences of frequent meetings should be unified in the same section, preferably in the literature review. Their different and contradictory results should be compared. The reviewed papers show positive and negative effects of frequent meetings, and, for this reason, they need a precise comparison.

 

8. Lines 103-105 must be attentively rethought. The conclusion the authors draw on being external directors unnecessary and even harmful is no universal. It cannot be held that independent directors are systematically ignorant as it stems from the statement “independent director lacks the ability to comprehend business operations”. Besides, the paper is not about the professional competence of independent directors and advisers.

 

9. The meaning of “frequent board meetings” must be defined. How many meetings constitute “frequent meetings”?

 

10. On the frequency of meetings, perhaps the authors could distinguish between the regular meetings planned by the scheduled corporate calendar and the extraordinary meetings that could be added in a crisis.

 

 

11. The statement on corporate reluctance to sustainability (lines 74-76) is limited to the setting of the Kasbun et al. analysis (Malaysia). Thus, it should no be presented as generic evidence. Other evidence, most of them related to multinational corporations, are of opposite sing.

 

12. The acronym BOD in line 127 probably means “board”. Please, revise it.

 

13. In lines 157-158, the authors consider that sustainability reporting includes economic, social and environmental aspects. However, corporate sustainability reports centre on environmental and social performance because the economic performance has been presented in the corporate financial report.

 

14. Line 161 states that “surprisingly the has been…”. Why surprisingly? The UN Principles of Responsible Investment have contributed to conveying the importance of making corporations sustainable.

The future research program stated at the end on the conclusions is very interesting.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your comment. We have incorporated your inputs in the attached revised version of the paper. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version of the submission entitled “Exploring the Interaction Effects of Board Meetings on Information Disclosure and Financial Performance in Public Listed Companies” (Manuscript ID: economies-1356536) improved in a proper manner. The author(s) considered most of the suggested changes and recommendations formulated throughout prior review round. The quality of the paper enhanced noticeably. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have satisfactorily answered my questions.

Additional comments on the new version:

1. The article structure could be added at the end of the introduction.

 

2. Lines 226-227 need a writing improvement, specifically in “in the current study this study…”.

 

3. Lines 385-386: the sentence “this study employed…” would be clearer by using present tense because it refers to the author’s current study.

Author Response

The authors have satisfactorily answered my questions.

Additional comments on the new version:

1. The article structure could be added at the end of the introduction.

 

This section has been improved accordingly.

2. Lines 226-227 need a writing improvement, specifically in “in the current study this study…”.

 

The sentences have been improved accordingly.

3. Lines 385-386: the sentence “this study employed…” would be clearer by using present tense because it refers to the author’s current study.

 

The sentences have been improved accordingly.

Thank you for the constructive comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf