PONE-D-22-31646

The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Financial Performance in LQ45 Manufacturing Companies

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Meiryani,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 24 2023 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,

Simon Grima, PhD

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. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option.

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. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 4.1 to 4.9 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please review your paper according to the comments of the reviewers and send a covering letter explaining how the review was carried out

Reviewer 1

• The title must be complete by adding ‘in Indonesia’ to make it complete

• The abstract must have a conclusion and recommendations of the study

• The last paragraph of your introduction section must end up by giving clues about the organisation of the paper. Revise.

• The literature section must capture empirical literature on CSR Strategies, CSR Disclosures and CSR initiatives and activities

• How the data were extracted from the Annual Reports must be captured for replication purposes. That is the procedure. The Data Description and the measurement of the variables must be reported.

• The result section must report the data for each company that makes up the 13 companies as the study sample. This will be insightful for readership and analysis. Putting all the 13 companies as an entity will not reveal the undertones of the individual company’s

• These references must be deleted from the reference list as they did not appear in the text. Reference numbers 5, 9, 14, 15 and 16.

• Incomplete reference sources, either with page numbers for the journals or the absence of the location of the publisher for books. Reference numbers 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 17, 18, 24 and 25

• The author(s) must do well to improve the quality of English in the paper

Reviewer 2

The Effect of Voluntary Disclosure on Financial Performance: Empirical Study on Manufacturing Companies in Indonesia

Abstract

1. The first line disappointed me; rather, it should be like this…. "The obedience of the manufacturing sector industry to manage natural resources from the environment still needs to be higher.

2. There is a need to improve the style of writing.

3. Without highlighting the purpose of the study, the authors have straight forwarded moved to the research methodology. I am not happy with the English part of this manuscript in the abstract section.

Introduction

1. Background of the study is missing. I cannot see any outline or an overview of the topic

2. What is the source of this? According to the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK), the compliance of the manufacturing sector industry in managing natural resources from the environment is still low. Until 2019, the number of companies that registered themselves to be assessed for compliance was quite low, only reaching 597 companies or 29.15 per cent."

3. I do not understand this” In this research does not expand and is more focused on the research objectives that have been described, the research limitations are…."

4. Conducted on manufacturing industry companies: can you please define why you have selected manufacturing industry?

5. The author said “manufacturing industry companies” is this correct way of writing?

Literature review

1. It could be more satisfactory. Please focus on the research gap .. Strengthen the argument of your study by referring to a larger body of scientific literature, and clearly outline what is missing in the literature and what gap you wish to fill in. Why is the focus only on old theories? Kindly add relevant latest literature since CSR is the talk of the town. It is a part of financial disclosure.

2. What are the selection criteria for this 91 indicator? Please clarify.

Research methodology

1. Please elaborate on how and why purposive sampling.

2. What was the population size here?

3. In the Data Collection Method, who were the respondents

Conclusion

1. I can’t see much difference between discussion and conclusion part. Actually the author has written a small portion of the analysis and discussion part in the conclusion.

Kindly rewrite the entire conclusion section. There is a need for the division of discussion and conclusion into two separate sections, with the conclusion section simply needing to give the most critical information in points so that readers can quickly find what they want from the publication. The discussion section might need to add more subheadings, such as a discussion of the findings, main contributions, policy recommendations, limitations, and future work of this study. The manuscript's logic would substantially increase if the authors were willing to modify it.

References

1. Many mistakes in references like volume nos and page nos etc. are missing, for example: 23-25, 3, 5, 4, 7, 8. there is a need to go through all the references carefully. Please check all the references.

2. In text style of citation is also not properly followed. Mistakes at many places and need to add more citations

[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: Partly

**********

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: No

**********

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: No

**********

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 title must be complete by adding ‘in Indonesia’ to make it complete

•The abstract must have a conclusion and recommendations of the study

•The last paragraph of your introduction section must end up by giving clues about the organisation of the paper. Revise.

•The literature section must capture empirical literature on CSR Strategies, CSR Disclosures and CSR initiatives and activities

•How the data were extracted from the Annual Reports must be captured for replication purposes. That is the procedure. The Data Description and the measurement of the variables must be reported.

•The result section must report the data for each company that makes up the 13 companies as the study sample. This will be insightful for readership and analysis. Putting all the 13 companies as an entity will not reveal the undertones of the individual company’s

•These references must be deleted from the reference list as they did not appear in the text. Reference numbers 5, 9, 14, 15 and 16.

•Incomplete reference sources, either with page numbers for the journals or the absence of the location of the publisher for books. Reference numbers 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 17, 18, 24 and 25

•The author(s) must do well to improve the quality of English in the paper

Reviewer #2: The Effect of Voluntary Disclosure on Financial Performance: Empirical Study on Manufacturing Companies in Indonesia

Abstract

1.The first line disappointed me; rather, it should be like this…. "The obedience of the manufacturing sector industry to manage natural resources from the environment still needs to be higher.

2.There is a need to improve the style of writing.

3.Without highlighting the purpose of the study, the authors have straight forwarded moved to the research methodology. I am not happy with the English part of this manuscript in the abstract section.

Introduction

1.Background of the study is missing. I cannot see any outline or an overview of the topic

2.What is the source of this? According to the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK), the compliance of the manufacturing sector industry in managing natural resources from the environment is still low. Until 2019, the number of companies that registered themselves to be assessed for compliance was quite low, only reaching 597 companies or 29.15 per cent."

3.I do not understand this” In this research does not expand and is more focused on the research objectives that have been described, the research limitations are…."

4.Conducted on manufacturing industry companies: can you please define why you have selected manufacturing industry?

5.The author said “manufacturing industry companies” is this correct way of writing?

Literature review

1.It could be more satisfactory. Please focus on the research gap .. Strengthen the argument of your study by referring to a larger body of scientific literature, and clearly outline what is missing in the literature and what gap you wish to fill in. Why is the focus only on old theories? Kindly add relevant latest literature since CSR is the talk of the town. It is a part of financial disclosure.

2.What are the selection criteria for this 91 indicator? Please clarify.

Research methodology

1.Please elaborate on how and why purposive sampling.

2.What was the population size here?

3.In the Data Collection Method, who were the respondents

Conclusion

1.I can’t see much difference between discussion and conclusion part. Actually the author has written a small portion of the analysis and discussion part in the conclusion.

Kindly rewrite the entire conclusion section. There is a need for the division of discussion and conclusion into two separate sections, with the conclusion section simply needing to give the most critical information in points so that readers can quickly find what they want from the publication. The discussion section might need to add more subheadings, such as a discussion of the findings, main contributions, policy recommendations, limitations, and future work of this study. The manuscript's logic would substantially increase if the authors were willing to modify it.

References

1.Many mistakes in references like volume nos and page nos etc. are missing, for example: 23-25, 3, 5, 4, 7, 8. there is a need to go through all the references carefully. Please check all the references.

2.In text style of citation is also not properly followed. Mistakes at many places and need to add more citations

The manuscript will be accepted only after major revisions

**********

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: Charles Adusei

Reviewer #2: Yes: KIRAN SOOD

**********

[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.

The Effect of Voluntary Disclosure on Financial Performance: Empirical Study on Manufacturing Industry in Indonesia

PONE-D-22-31646R1

Dear Dr. Meiryani,

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,

Simon Grima, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>