Intra-industry peer effect in corporate environmental information disclosure: Evidence from China

Kewei Hu; Yugui Hao; Dan Yu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274787

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 30, 2022
14 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - Ning Du, Editor PONE-D-22-15667Intra-industry peer effect in corporate environmental information disclosure: Evidence from ChinaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. hu, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. H1b, and 1c test the Intra-industry peer effect for state-owned holding companies and non-state-owned holding companies respectively. The authors should provide more background information about 1) the general environmental disclosure requirement in China, and 2) these two groups. We understand these two groups differ in many different ways. However, the authors should discuss how they differ specifically in corporate environmental information disclosure requirements, and why it is important to understand these differences. To test H1a and H1b, you use , = + ,−1 + Σ + , (1) The peer effect refers to such a phenomenon: individuals will form a circle of peer groups, in which the performance of an individual will be affected by the performance of its peer group (see page 10). You also indicate that “Companies in the same environment as their competitors tend to pay attention to and imitate the decisions of other companies consciously”. The peer effect is much broader than the learning and imitation effect. If your paper’s focus is on the peer effect as a learning or imitation effect, it is not clear that model 1 captures the learning effect. tests that effect. β in the model measures the influence of cohort effects (see page 15). Companies within an industry or between the independent enterprises of an industry are likely to follow the same government regulations and operating standards, and thus, it is not surprising to see a significant coefficient that explains the intra-industry peer effect but doesn’t mean they are learning from each other. In summary, I suggest you clearly define the peer effect and make sure not to confuse the readers with the peer effect and the learning/imitation effect. H2a tests the social learning mechanism and predicts an association between information disadvantage and the learning effect using EDI, = + 1,−1 + 2, + 3,−1 × , + Σ + , (2) You find a significant coefficient of age×market, and suggest that the older corporations with information advantages in the market are less affected by the peer effect. Older companies with longer listing years are likely to be companies who have done a better job of environmental compliance and thus require less disclosure. Please discuss further the association between age and peer effect. H3 focuses on the environmental protection pressure mechanism. The regression coefficient of press × market is 3.909 and significant, and indicates that corporations facing greater environmental protection pressure are more inclined to imitate the peer enterprises' EID. Could you explain why the pressure variable by itself is negative (-33.413*) and highly significant? Please thoroughly edit your manuscript for consistency in writing, such as spacing, capitalization, and fonts. Please add pagination as well. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 28 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ning Du Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. PLOS ONE does not copy edit accepted manuscripts (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication#loc-5). To that effect, please ensure that your submission is free of typos and grammatical errors. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The article entitled “Intra-industry peer effect in corporate environmental information disclosure: Evidence from China” is written very well and according to the scope of the journal. However, it requires a major revision before final publication. 1. The abstract must be started with the main objectives of the study. 2. A main policy must have to provide at the end of the abstract. 3. In the first paragraph of the introduction the given sentence “A large number of studies have shown that the largest source of environmental pollution comes from corporate production and operation activities” must have to revise and update with the given studies as “The studies showed that industrial and agricultural sectors are the main sources of environmental pollution and climate change [1-4]” [1] Understanding farmers’ intention and willingness to install renewable energy technology: A solution to reduce the environmental emissions of agriculture. Applied Energy. Volume 309, 118459 [2] Extreme weather events risk to crop-production and the adaptation of innovative management strategies to mitigate the risk: A retrospective survey of rural Punjab, Pakistan. Technovation. Volume 117 [3] Application of an artificial neural network to optimise energy inputs: An energy-and cost-saving strategy for commercial poultry farms. Energy. Volume 244, 123169 [4] Impact of industrial 4.0 on environment along with correlation between economic growth and carbon emissions 4. Moreover, the given sentence “Thus corporations should expand the scope of entrusted responsibilities and assume the responsibility for environmental management and protection” has to be updated with the given studies as “Understanding of the adoption measures are necessary to mitigate climate change and excessive use of fossil fuel [5,6]”. [5] Solar energy technology adoption and diffusion by micro, small, and medium enterprises: sustainable energy for climate change mitigation [6] Understanding cognitive and socio-psychological factors determining farmers’ intentions to use improved grassland: Implications of land use policy for sustainable pasture production. Land Use Policy, 102, 105250 5. I recommend adding research questions at the end of section 1. 6. For equation 1, have you checked the normality of the error term (ε). You must have to determine the normality of the error term. Or alternatively, you may write an assumption in the revised article as “The error term is assumed to be normality distributed with zero mean value and constant variance [7]” [7] The public policy of agricultural land allotment to agrarians and its impact on crop productivity in Punjab province of Pakistan. Land Use Policy. Volume 90, 104324. 7. The heading of section 4 should write as “Results and discussion” 8. In table 3, you must have to write expansions of Std. Dev., Min and Max 9. The results must have to be compared with previous studies. 10. Equations 4, and 5 should be part of the methodology section. 11. The heading of section 6 should write as “Conclusion and policy implications” 12. Please don’t number the study findings in the section of the conclusion. In the conclusion, I recommend writing the main findings of the study without numbering. 13. Please write limitations of the study and recommendations for future studies at the end of section 6. Reviewer #2: The paper is indeed interesting, it empirically analyzed the impact of companies in the same industry on corporate environmental EID decisions and tested the formation mechanism and influence path of the industrial homogeneity effect. I think this paper can be accepted for publication provided that it will be scientifically edited to follow the comments. (1) The Introduction part should start from the phenomena and problems in practice and lead to the research problem. (2) The literature review should reflect the value of this research, the innovation of this paper and the contribution made by previous studies have not been clearly expressed. (3) Compared with the available literature, what are the theoretical contributions and application values of this study? It is suggested to enhance the corresponding discussions in the conclusion part. (4) This article has obtained some interesting findings through the models, but these findings need to be further verified from theory or actual conditions. Also, further highlight the contribution of this article. (5) Discussion section is missing. (6) English presentation requires more refinement. (7) The following literature should be helpful for your research：1）Decoupling economic growth from water consumption in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China. 2）Coordination of the Industrial-Ecological Economy in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China. 3) The influence of carbon emission disclosure on enterprise value under ownership heterogeneity: evidence from the heavily polluting corporations. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Ehsan Elahi Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274787.r001
Revision 1
13 Aug 2022 Author Response Response letter for “PONE-D-22-15667”: Intra-industry peer effect in corporate environmental information disclosure: Evidence from China I would like to thank the academic editors and reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on the article, which provided me with meaningful ideas for revising the article. I will respond point by point to the questions you raised. Note that in the file labeled “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”, the green highlights represent adjustments I made based on suggestions from academic editors and reviewers, and the yellow highlights represent changes to grammar, expression, and punctuation. Academic Editor Q1: The authors should provide more background information about 1) the general environmental disclosure requirement in China and 2) these two groups. We understand these two groups differ in many different ways. However, the authors should discuss how they differ specifically in corporate environmental information disclosure requirements, and why it is important to understand these differences. A1: The revisions you proposed are reasonable and can provide a complete theoretical basis for my hypotheses 1b and 1c. I have made sufficient additions to the original text based on the directions you offered (see page 3). Q2: I suggest you clearly define the peer effect and make sure not to confuse the readers with the peer effect and the learning/imitation effect. A2: I agree with you that the peer effect is not the same as imitation and learning, but imitation and learning are only one of the reasons for the peer effect. I found a more appropriate definition for the peer effect in my article by reading the literature（see page2 and page3）. Q3: You find a significant coefficient of age×market, and suggest that the older corporations with information advantages in the market are less affected by the peer effect. Older companies with longer listing years are likely to be companies that have done a better job of environmental compliance and thus require less disclosure. Please discuss further the association between age and peer effect. A3: In fact, there is now no research evidence that older companies are doing better in environmental compliance. Further, the relationship between environmental compliance and environmental information disclosure, although much discussed at the theoretical level, has not produced a definitive conclusion（Blacconiere and Patten,1994; Rockness,1985; Patten,2002; Dawkins and Fraas,2011; Clarkson, Overell and Chapple,2011）. The relationship between age and peer effects was proposed based on previous studies (Peng,2020). The reasons why younger listed companies are more susceptible to peer effects than older listed companies are as follows. Corporations that have entered the capital market earlier have made more environmental disclosures. These older companies have accumulated more experience in EID and are often considered to have mature disclosure content and paradigms that meet the expectations of investors and regulators. Conversely, young companies in the capital markets make fewer compliance disclosures, have immature models, are still in the discovery stage, and are expected to be more susceptible to peer effects. Part of the above reasons I have already added in the article to show why listing years can be a proxy variable for information advantage (see page6). Q4: H3 focuses on the environmental protection pressure mechanism. The regression coefficient of press × market is 3.909 and significant and indicates that corporations facing greater environmental protection pressure are more inclined to imitate the peer enterprises' EID. Could you explain why the pressure variable by itself is negative (-33.413*) and highly significant? A4: Because of the addition of the interaction term MARKETi,t-1×PRESSi,t in Model 3, the coefficients of both MARKETi,t-1 and PRESSi,t are significantly affected, becoming incomparable and changing the economic meaning. This is why the coefficient of Press (-33.413) in the results shows a serious discrepancy with the facts. In order to accurately estimate the coefficients of MARKETi,t-1 and PRESSi,t, the variables MARKETi,t-1 and PRESSi,t are centered with reference to the study of Balli and Sørensen. This also makes the coefficients of PRESSi,t (5.878*) comparable and in line with expectations. This change is explained in my article (see page8) and the regression results table is updated (see page10). I did not perform the above centrality process before because I used to focus only on the interaction term in the regressions for the moderating variable test. I apologize for the misunderstanding due to my oversight. Q5: Please thoroughly edit your manuscript for consistency in writing, such as spacing, capitalization, and fonts. Please add pagination as well. A5: I have carefully checked the above issues and have corrected them in the yellow highlighted areas of the article. Also, I have added page numbers to the article. Reviewer #1 Q1: The abstract must be started with the main objectives of the study. A1: Based on your comments, I have added the main objectives of the article at the beginning of the abstract (see page1). Q2: The main policy must have to provide at the end of the abstract. A2: Thank you for your suggestion, I have added the policy implementation at the end of the abstract (see page1). Q3: In the first paragraph of the introduction the given sentence “A large number of studies have shown that the largest source of environmental pollution comes from corporate production and operation activities” must have to revise and update with the given studies as “The studies showed that industrial and agricultural sectors are the main sources of environmental pollution and climate change [1-4] A3: The revision you provided is reasonable. I have revised it and added the literature you provided to my references (see page1 and reference list). Q4: Moreover, the given sentence “Thus corporations should expand the scope of entrusted responsibilities and assume the responsibility for environmental management and protection” has to be updated with the given studies as “Understanding of the adoption measures are necessary to mitigate climate change and excessive use of fossil fuel [5,6]”. A4: The research you provided is valuable and I have introduced its conclusion into the article, but I also kept the original sentences at the same time for logical coherence (see page1 and reference list). Q5: I recommend adding research questions at the end of section 1. A5：Based on your suggestion, I have added research questions at the end of section 1 (see page2). Q6: For equation 1, have you checked the normality of the error term (ε)? You must have to determine the normality of the error term. Or alternatively, you may write an assumption in the revised article as “The error term is assumed to be normality distributed with zero mean value and constant variance [7]” A6: Thank you for your careful check, I have added the relevant assumptions by referring to the literature you provided (see page7 and reference list). Q7: The heading of section 4 should write as “Results and discussion” A7: I made the changes to this section title (see page8). Q8: In table 3, you must have to write expansions of Std. Dev., Min and Max A8: I have modified the table3 expression. Q9: The results must have been compared with previous studies. A9: This is a very important suggestion, and I add a comparison with previous studies in the article (see page9&page10). Q10: Equations 4, and 5 should be part of the methodology section. A10: Referring to the format of other studies, it may be difficult to put model 4 and model 5 into section3 for explanation in order to keep the logic of the article and the independence of further studies. But the methods used in further studies I have made additional elaborations and put them before model 4 and model 5 (see page12&page14), and I hope you will agree with my revision. Q11: The heading of section 6 should write as “Conclusion and policy implications” A11: I made the changes to this section title (see page15). Q12: Please don’t number the study findings in the section of the conclusion. In the conclusion, I recommend writing the main findings of the study without numbering. A12: As you suggested, I have streamlined the conclusion and removed the numbering (see page15). Q13: Please write limitations of the study and recommendations for future studies at the end of section 6. Q13: In the revised version, I have added limitations of this paper and suggestions for future research. Reviewer #2 Q1: The Introduction part should start from the phenomena and problems in practice and lead to the research problem. A1: Based on your advice, I reorganized the writing logic of the introduction section (see page1 and page2). The logic after the change is as follows. The importance of improving corporate environmental information disclosure - What factors have been found in existing studies to influence the level of corporate environmental information disclosure - The mutual influence of corporate environmental information disclosure has not been studied in depth - How to use the interaction between companies to improve the level of environmental information disclosure - Present the issues of concern in this paper. Q2: The literature review should reflect the value of this research, the innovation of this paper and the contribution made by previous studies have not been clearly expressed. A2: In the revised version, I refine the contributions and shortcomings of existing research, describe the value of this study to the theoretical system, and illustrate the importance of the research questions in this paper (see page2). Q3&Q4：Compared with the available literature, what are the theoretical contributions and application values of this study? It is suggested to enhance the corresponding discussions in the conclusion part. This article has obtained some interesting findings through the models, but these findings need to be further verified from theory or actual conditions. Also, it further, highlights the contribution of this article. A3&A4：Based on your two valuable suggestions, I have made content changes in the conclusion section of the article, including highlighting the theoretical contributions of the paper and discussing the implications of this research for policy enactment (see page15). Q5: The discussion section is missing. A5：Under the guidance of two reviewers, the title of section4 was changed to “Results and Discussion” (see page8). At the same time, I strengthened the interpretation and discussion of the results and the comparative analysis with existing studies in this section. I hope these changes will meet your expectations. Q6: English presentation requires more refinement. A6: In the yellow highlighted section of the revised text, I fixed grammar and formatting errors and refined the English expressions. Q7: The following literature should be helpful for your research：1）Decoupling economic growth from water consumption in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China. 2）Coordination of the Industrial-Ecological Economy in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China. 3) The influence of carbon emission disclosure on enterprise value under ownership heterogeneity: evidence from the heavily polluting corporations. A7: The literature you provided is very valuable and I have cited them all in my article (see page1). Thank you for your suggestions and guidance. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx* https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274787.r002
6 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Ning Du, Editor Intra-industry peer effect in corporate environmental information disclosure: Evidence from China PONE-D-22-15667R1 Dear Dr. Hao, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Ning Du Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274787.r003
Formally Accepted
14 Sep 2022 Acceptance Letter - Ning Du, Editor PONE-D-22-15667R1 Intra-industry peer effect in corporate environmental information disclosure: Evidence from China Dear Dr. Hao: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Ning Du Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274787.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .