PONE-D-24-00721The effect of government’s environmental attention on corporate charitable donations based on the credible commitments mechanism: evidence from China’s heavily polluting enterprisesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cao,

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.

After a thorough review of the manuscript titled "The effect of government’s environmental attention on corporate charitable donations based on the credible commitments mechanism: evidence from China’s heavily polluting enterprises," and considering the insightful comments and suggestions for improvement from the reviewers, we have reached a decision regarding its publication. The manuscript presents a novel exploration of how governmental focus on environmental issues influences corporate charitable behavior, using a rigorous methodological approach and presenting findings that could significantly contribute to the literature in corporate social responsibility and environmental economics.

Reviewer 1's Comments:

The innovation of this paper should be more prominently highlighted in the abstract.

A summary of existing research gaps after the literature review would enhance the manuscript, emphasizing this paper's innovative contributions.

A framework diagram in the second section would aid in understanding the paper's structure and arguments.

The paper should delve deeper into the managerial insights/policy implications, comparing its theoretical contributions and application values with existing literature, especially in the conclusion.

Reflect more scientific problems, research status, research methods, and innovations in both structure and content.

A crucial discussion on the differences between this study and others should be included to highlight its academic value and relevance, suggesting specific literature for reference.

A thorough check on the English quality is recommended.

The structure needs significant adjustment, with a suggestion for the author to engage more with relevant literature in journals.

Adherence to the correct journal's guidelines (INTRODUCTION→METHOD→RESULTS→DISCUSSION→CONCLUSION) is necessary for consideration for publication.

Reviewer 2's Comments:

The manuscript needs a more systematic analysis of corporate donation behaviour motives and government influence.

A clarification on the focus on corporate donations over environmental investment is required, presenting a theoretical basis and contributions.

Support for the theoretical analysis appears weak, emphasizing the need for a stronger linkage to existing classical theories.

Formula (1) lacks an introduction to relevant variables, with issues in variable relationships noted.

Some control variables are nominal, posing challenges.

The analysis of theory and mechanism lacks persuasiveness, presenting a significant challenge to the manuscript's impact.

Decision:

Considering the above points, the manuscript requires substantial revisions before it can be considered for publication. The innovative aspects and potential contributions of your study to the field are clear, but the reviewers' comments highlight several areas where improvements are necessary to fully realize the manuscript's value. These include a clearer articulation of the study's innovation in the abstract and after the literature review, improvements in the discussion of managerial insights and policy implications, and more rigorous engagement with the journal's structural guidelines.

In addition, both reviewers emphasize the need for a more robust theoretical grounding and methodological clarity, particularly concerning the chosen focus on corporate donations and the presentation and analysis of data. Addressing these points thoroughly will not only strengthen the manuscript's contributions but also ensure its alignment with the journal's standards and expectations.

Recommendation:

We invite you to revise your manuscript, taking into account all the feedback provided. Please provide a detailed response to each point raised by the reviewers, outlining the changes made to the manuscript accordingly. We believe that addressing these concerns will significantly enhance the manuscript's clarity, depth, and impact, making a valuable contribution to the field.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 08 2024 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,

Maria Alina Caratas, Ph.D

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. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

[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: No

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: No

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: (1) The innovation of this paper needs to be highlighted in the abstract.

(2) The author should summarize the existing research gaps and highlight the innovation of this paper after completing the literature review.

(3) In the second section, Please provide a framework diagram of this paper

(4) What are the managerial insights/policy implications of this study? Compared with 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.

(5) Whether in terms of structure or content, this article should reflect more scientific problems, research status, research methods and innovation

(6) The article lacks an important discussion link, in which the author should focus on describing the differences between the article study and other scholars' studies, thus highlighting the relevance and academic value of the article, the following literature should be helpful for your research: (1)Reduction pathways identification of Agricultural Water Pollution in Hubei Province, China. (2) A differential game of water pollution management in the trans-jurisdictional river basin. (3) Coordination of the Industrial-Ecological Economy in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China.

(7) Please do a thorough check on the English quality of this paper

(8) The structure of the article needs to be greatly adjusted, and it is recommended that the author read more relevant papers in journals

(9) The article was not written following the correct journal's guidelines to be considered for publication. INTORDCUTION→MRTHOD→RESULTS→DISSCUSION→CONCLUSION

Reviewer #2: This manuscript examines the impact of environmental inspections on corporate donation behavior. The empirical evidence of this study is relatively standardized, but the flaw lies in its theoretical rationality.

Some specific suggestions are as follows:

Firstly, the effort made in the literature for this manuscript is insufficient. This requires a systematic analysis of the motives behind corporate donation behavior and the influence of government factors. Furthermore, there is no updated literature for this manuscript.

Secondly, why is the research focused on corporate donations rather than corporate environmental investment. This manuscript needs to present its theoretical basis and contributions from this perspective.

Thirdly, theoretical analysis lacks support. This is mainly the author's viewpoint, rather than an extension of existing classical theories. In addition, this suggestion provides a framework diagram of the relationship between classical theories, theoretical extensions, and research hypotheses.

Fourthly, formula (1) does not introduce the relevant variables. In addition, there is a complete multiple contribution between dummy variables and fixed effects, and some dummy variables are not needed.

Fifthly, some variables in the control variables are nominal variables. This may present challenges.

Sixth, the mechanism lacks persuasiveness.

The biggest challenge of this manuscript lies in the analysis of theory and mechanism.

**********

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: No

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.

Effect of government’s environmental attention on corporate philanthropy based on the institutional theory: Evidence from China’s heavily polluting companies

PONE-D-24-00721R1

Dear Dr. Cao,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Wei Liu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I think this submission can be accepted.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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 #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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 #2: Yes

**********

5. 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 #2: Yes

**********

6. 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 #2: The author handled or responded to my comment and I have no additional suggestions.

The empirical analysis of this manuscript is reliable, no academic immorality has been found, and I think it can be published.

**********

7. 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 #2: No

**********