Please read this carefully and fix the comments
Reviewer(s)’ Comments to Author:
Referee: 1
Recommendation: Reject
Comments:
This paper attempts to investigate the intersection of organizational behavior,
supply chain practices, economic outcomes, financial excellence, and CSR for
corporate identity improvement. However, the items measured in each scale, such
as organizational behavior, supply chain practices, corporate identity
improvement, are not clearly specified or thoroughly articulated based on
previous literature in this paper. The findings do not clearly explain the
interplay and relationships among these variables within a coherent conceptual
model.
Additional Questions:
1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information
adequate to justify publication?: The items measured in each scale, such as
organizational behavior, supply chain practices, economic outcomes, financial
excellence, and corporate social responsibility for corporate identity
improvement, are not clearly specified in this paper. Furthermore, the basis of
the research methodology, namely the survey instrument, is not thoroughly
articulated. Due to the lack of scale clarity, it is difficult to justify the
findings of this research.
2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate
understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate
range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: The
authors only highlight how CSR is related to each variable, such as corporate
image, financial performance, and supply chain practices. However, they do not
specify any interplay or interconnection among these different variables in the
literature review. For example, the potential moderating or mediating effects
among the variables could be addressed based on previous research in order to
understand the complexity of the interconnections.
3. Methodology: Is the paper’s argument built on an appropriate base of
theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent
intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the
methods employed appropriate?: The authors explained that data were collected
through a mix of surveys and publicly available corporate annual reports, but
they did not clearly describe how the survey was constructed or the quality of
the information in the corporate annual reports. The authors described a
content analysis approach that utilized codes such as “0,”
“3,” and “5” to assess the activity intensity, employing
these techniques to thoroughly code the dataset. However, the authors did not
clearly explain, based on which existing literature, how they determined these
specific codes.
4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?
Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the
paper?: Due to the lack of clear research methodology, ambiguity in scale
measurement, and insufficient justification of the coding process, it is
difficult to comment on the findings of this research.
5. Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper
identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society?
Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the
research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to
influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)?
What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting
quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and
conclusions of the paper?: This paper attempts to investigate the intersection
of organizational behavior, supply chain practices, economic outcomes,
financial excellence, and CSR for corporate identity improvement. However, the
findings do not clearly articulate the interplay and relationships among these
variables within a coherent conceptual model.
6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case,
measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge
of the journal’s readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of
expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms,
etc.: The key challenge in this research is the lack of a clear theoretical
framework. The hypothesis is not built on a thorough literature review, and the
authors do not propose any hypotheses related to the interconnections among the
variables. This lack of alignment with the research purpose is an issue.
Referee: 2
Recommendation: Major Revision
Comments:
This research question is significant to social needs, and the samples are
unique. The following suggestions will increase the contribution of the
article. First, the article must be restructured using an academic format,
especially in presenting figures and tables. I think it’s best to refer to the
approach taken by other academic papers in disclosing information. Second,
describing the research methods should explain the data processing procedures
more clearly. Using cross-year analysis and cross-nation analysis for variables
could enhance the contribution of research findings. Third, it is suggested
that only one or two theories, such as the Resource-Based Theory or the
Stakeholder Theory, be used. Finally, it is recommended that the article be
submitted for English editing to improve readability and fluency.
Additional Questions:
1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information
adequate to justify publication?: This study integrates three theories to
analyze the relationships between CSR, corporate image, financial performance,
supply chain practices, and organizational behavior (OB). The sample of 120
companies comes from Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia, using PLS and
SEM analysis tools, and all hypotheses are confirmed. The research’s most
distinctive contribution is collecting samples from three countries. However,
it is a pity that the research did not do the cross-national comparisons. And
the study would be more valuable if it conducted multi-relationship validation
during variables.
2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate
understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate
range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: The study
is based on Stakeholder Theory, Brand Equity Theory, and Resource-Based Theory.
However, we need to see the foundation literature in the research. The research
uses six variables: Corporate Social Responsibility, Organizational Behavior,
Corporate Image, Financial Performance, Supply Chain Practices, and Economic
Results. One or two theories can cover those variables. And make the arguments
more straightforward.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 5(2), 171-180.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal
of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Barney, J.B., Ketchen, D.J., & Wright, M. (2011). The Future of
Resource-Based Theory: Revitalization or Decline? Journal of Management, 37(5),
1299-1315.
Harrison, J.S., Bosse, D.A., & Phillips, R.A. (2010). Managing for
Stakeholders, Stakeholder Utility Functions, and Competitive Advantage.
Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58-74.
Freeman, R.E., Wicks, A.C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder Theory and
“The Corporate Objective Revisited.” Organization Science, 15(3),
364-369.
Clarkson, M.E. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating
Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117.
3. Methodology: Is the paper’s argument built on an appropriate base of
theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent
intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the
methods employed appropriate?: The research method is appropriate. However,
the study needs to clarify the sample selection and measurement of
variables. The data from corporate annual reports and the researcher coding
data into variable scores (1-5). Please introduce the data convent process and
method. Additionally, on page 10, it needs to be clarified whether the study
sample consists of 102 responses or 120 companies.
Moreover, the study uses multi-year data, with each variable having time lag
effects. The study conducts same-year analyses only. It is challenging to
present the causal relationships between variables.
4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?
Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the
paper?: The paper has invested significantly in analysis and has tested the
hypotheses. I think the conclusion should echo the arguments cited in the
literature review. Many studies focus on CSR and financial performance, but
more control variables are used to understand causal relationships.
5. Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper
identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society?
Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the
research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to
influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)?
What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting
quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and
conclusions of the paper?: The study needs to analyze their relationship in
detail, for example, the effects of specific CSR aspects. Moreover, the
relationships among variables may not be linear only. Clear identification of
various relationships would be more helpful for practitioners.
6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case,
measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge
of the journal’s readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of
expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms,
etc.: The expression of the study should be more structured, clear, and
readable. Please use the academic formats. It is uncommon for scholarly
articles to include tables in the introduction. Research hypotheses should be
clearly explained after the literature review. The research has too many
tables, so reporting important statistical information will be fine.
Note these are the comments from Reviewer i need someone who can fix these all with no issue left at the end