Environmental vs. Social Responsibility in the Firm. Evidence from Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper addresses a very important issue of environmental and social responsibility and I hope that my observations will help improve the quality of this study.

I recommend the first section to be divided into two sections:

(1)   Introduction, where the authors should clarify the importance of the topic, state the objective of the paper, mention the contribution and the added value this paper brings to the existing literature and describe the structure of the paper.

(2)   Literature Review, a separate section and it should be more developed as it offers the theoretical framework to underpin the empirical work. Also, please formulate the research hypotheses in a correct way and bring arguments to support them.

In the Discussion section, the authors should also bring arguments for the relevance of the results obtained by correlating them with similar recent studies in the field.

Author Response

Replies to the external reviewers:

Environmental- vs Social-Responsibility in the Firm. Evidence from Italy

We are really grateful to the three external reviewers for reading our paper accurately and making very useful suggestions to improve it. We tried to follow those suggestions as specified below.

Reviewer 1

R1.1 I recommend the first section to be divided into two sections:

(1) Introduction, where the authors should clarify the importance of the topic, state the objective of the paper, mention the contribution and the added value this paper brings to the existing literature and describe the structure of the paper.

(2) Literature Review, a separate section and it should be more developed as it offers the theoretical framework to underpin the empirical work. Also, please formulate the research hypotheses in a correct way and bring arguments to support them.

A1.1 We have restructured the paper following these suggestions. In particular, we shrank the introduction by: 1) removing from it the bulk of the literature survey and 2) focusing on the importance of the topic, better specifying the objective of the paper, synthesizing the main contribution we provide on the extant literature, and providing at the end a brief description of the structure of the paper. Consequently, the literature review is entirely contained in section 2. Specifically, we drew all the possible links between the relevant literature and our empirical analysis. Moreover, we spelled out our testable hypotheses concisely but grounding them in the literature.

R1.2 In the Discussion section, the authors should also bring arguments for the relevance of the results obtained by correlating them with similar recent studies in the field.

A1.2 In discussing the relevance of our results, we strengthened their links with the corporate sustainability discourse. Furthermore, following suggestion R2.7 by Reviewer 2, we inserted a graph in the Discussion section to synthesize the main results of our empirical analysis showing the readers that what was previously found through more sophisticated econometric analyses can to some extent be visible already through a graphic representation of the raw data.

Reviewer 2

R2.1 There are several aspects that generate confusion in understanding the paper and the objectives of the research. The Authors sometimes cite "green Investments" and sometimes "eco innovations" an "green innovations": it would be better to mention just one term, it they are synonyms, or specify the differences.

A2.1 Wherever appropriate, we removed all the other terms and use only Green investments.

R2.2 In the abstract and in the text, the acronym CSR is quoted from the beginning, but its meaning is not specified (Corporate Social Responsibility). Furthermore, it would be better to cite its definition (perhaps the one provided by the European Commission, 2001).

A2.2 We made sure to define CSR according to WBCSD (1999; 2000) and along the main components drawn from Dahlsrud (2008).

R2.3 The background of the research and the references are elaborated unclearly; the state of the art of the studied phenomenon does not appear linear and fluid. It is advisable to reword it because it seems that the Authors have processed this part in a confused way.

A2.3 By following Reviewer’s R1.1 suggestion, we introduced a specific section 2 on the literature review. References have been reorganized in a more meaningful and hopefully more logic way. This should make our presentation less confused.

R2.4 In the methodology, specify the acronym CATI (Computer assisted Telephonic Interviewing). Unfortunately, the Authors give too often concepts for granted!!!

A2.4 We explained the meaning of CATI.

R2.5 Furthermore, no information is provided about interviewed sample: stratification by geographical distribution, size of the company, type of the product/service offered, turnover, etc.

A2.5 We now describe the main features of the interviewed sample, specifically underlying its representativeness of the universe and other statistical features of sampling.

R2.6 What are the green Investments considered? and the green rules? and the green competitiveness? There is no trace of the questionnaire submitted to the interviewees.

A2.6 We reported in a specific Table in the Appendix the key questions from the survey questionnaire and linked them explicitly to the definition of the three variables in our analysis underlined by Reviewer 2.

R2.7 The results, although interesting, are not easy to interpret. Perhaps, it would have been more useful to insert a final graph or table with the main strengths and weaknesses on the degree of application of the environmental and social dimensions of the sustainability in Italian companies.

A2.7 We followed this suggestion. We introduced a graph in the Discussion section to synthesize the main results of our empirical analysis showing the readers that what was previously found through more sophisticated econometric analyses can to some extent be visible already through a graphic representation of the raw data.

R2.8 Finally, since the abstract the Authors refer to the Encyclical of Pope Francis’ "Laudato sì" and his concept of "integral ecology". But, where is the social and inclusive aspect analyzed in the adopted method? Certainly, the variables considered cannot be considered sufficient to evaluate this important dimension. It's necessary to review the social and the inclusive aspect of the Encyclical, otherwise it's advisable to eliminate the reference to Pope Francis!!!! "integral ecology----which clearly understands the human and social dimensions (137) Pope Francis, 2015).

A2.8 We followed this suggestion in part. Specifically, we removed all the other references to Pope Francis’ Encyclical letter but left a final reference in the Conclusions where we now report a passage of the Laudato si’ explicitly stating the necessary nexus between the social dimension and the environmental dimension: “We are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental. Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature.” ([106], p. 104).

Reviewer 3

R3.1 It is a good paper, which should only update its bibliography.

A3.1 We followed entirely the suggestions provided by the third reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The research analyzes an interesting phenomenon linked to the application of the aspects of sustainable development in italian companies.

Several weakness are highlighted that do not allow a clear reading of the paper , understanding of the method and interpretation of the results.

There are several aspects that generate confusion in understanding the paper and the objectives of the research. The Authors sometimes cite "green Investments" and sometimes "eco innovations" an "green innovations": it would be better to mention just one term, it they are synonyms, or specify the differences.

In the abstract and in the text, the acronym CSR is quoted from the beginning, but its meaning is not specified (Corporate Social Responsability). Furthermore, it would be better to cite its definition ( perhaps the one provided by the European Commission, 2001).

The background of the research and the references are elaborated unclearly; the state of the art of the studied phenomenon does not appear linear and fluid. It is advisable to reword it because it seems that the Authors have processed this part in a confused way.

In the methodology, specify the acronym CATI (Computer assisted Telephonic Interviewing). Unfortunately, the Authors give too often concepts for granted!!!

Furthermore, no information is provided about interviewed sample: stratification by geographical distribution, size of the company, type of the prduct/service offered, turnover, etc.

What are the green Investments considered? and the green rules? and the green competitiveness?

There is no trace of the questionnaire submitted to the interviewees.

The results, although interesting, are not easy to interpret. Perhaps, it would have been more used to insert a final graph or table with the main strengths and weaknesses on the degree of application of the environmental and social dimensions of the sustainability in italian companies.

Finally, since the abstracts the Authors refer to the Encyclical of Pope Francis "Laudato sì" and his concept of "integral ecology". But, where is the social and inclusive aspect analyzed in the adopted method? Certainly, the variables considered cannot be considered sufficient to evaluate this important dimension. It's necessary to review the social and the inclusive aspect othe Encyclical, otherwise it's advisable to eliminate the reference to Pope Francis!!!!

"integral ecology----which clearly understands the human and social dimensions (137) Pope Francis, 2015)

The references are sufficiently structured, updated and adeguated for the research proposed.

Author Response

Replies to the external reviewers:

Environmental- vs Social-Responsibility in the Firm. Evidence from Italy

We are really grateful to the three external reviewers for reading our paper accurately and making very useful suggestions to improve it. We tried to follow those suggestions as specified below.

Reviewer 1

R1.1 I recommend the first section to be divided into two sections:

(1) Introduction, where the authors should clarify the importance of the topic, state the objective of the paper, mention the contribution and the added value this paper brings to the existing literature and describe the structure of the paper.

(2) Literature Review, a separate section and it should be more developed as it offers the theoretical framework to underpin the empirical work. Also, please formulate the research hypotheses in a correct way and bring arguments to support them.

A1.1 We have restructured the paper following these suggestions. In particular, we shrank the introduction by: 1) removing from it the bulk of the literature survey and 2) focusing on the importance of the topic, better specifying the objective of the paper, synthesizing the main contribution we provide on the extant literature, and providing at the end a brief description of the structure of the paper. Consequently, the literature review is entirely contained in section 2. Specifically, we drew all the possible links between the relevant literature and our empirical analysis. Moreover, we spelled out our testable hypotheses concisely but grounding them in the literature.

R1.2 In the Discussion section, the authors should also bring arguments for the relevance of the results obtained by correlating them with similar recent studies in the field.

A1.2 In discussing the relevance of our results, we strengthened their links with the corporate sustainability discourse. Furthermore, following suggestion R2.7 by Reviewer 2, we inserted a graph in the Discussion section to synthesize the main results of our empirical analysis showing the readers that what was previously found through more sophisticated econometric analyses can to some extent be visible already through a graphic representation of the raw data.

Reviewer 2

R2.1 There are several aspects that generate confusion in understanding the paper and the objectives of the research. The Authors sometimes cite "green Investments" and sometimes "eco innovations" an "green innovations": it would be better to mention just one term, it they are synonyms, or specify the differences.

A2.1 Wherever appropriate, we removed all the other terms and use only Green investments.

R2.2 In the abstract and in the text, the acronym CSR is quoted from the beginning, but its meaning is not specified (Corporate Social Responsibility). Furthermore, it would be better to cite its definition (perhaps the one provided by the European Commission, 2001).

A2.2 We made sure to define CSR according to WBCSD (1999; 2000) and along the main components drawn from Dahlsrud (2008).

R2.3 The background of the research and the references are elaborated unclearly; the state of the art of the studied phenomenon does not appear linear and fluid. It is advisable to reword it because it seems that the Authors have processed this part in a confused way.

A2.3 By following Reviewer’s R1.1 suggestion, we introduced a specific section 2 on the literature review. References have been reorganized in a more meaningful and hopefully more logic way. This should make our presentation less confused.

R2.4 In the methodology, specify the acronym CATI (Computer assisted Telephonic Interviewing). Unfortunately, the Authors give too often concepts for granted!!!

A2.4 We explained the meaning of CATI.

R2.5 Furthermore, no information is provided about interviewed sample: stratification by geographical distribution, size of the company, type of the product/service offered, turnover, etc.

A2.5 We now describe the main features of the interviewed sample, specifically underlying its representativeness of the universe and other statistical features of sampling.

R2.6 What are the green Investments considered? and the green rules? and the green competitiveness? There is no trace of the questionnaire submitted to the interviewees.

A2.6 We reported in a specific Table in the Appendix the key questions from the survey questionnaire and linked them explicitly to the definition of the three variables in our analysis underlined by Reviewer 2.

R2.7 The results, although interesting, are not easy to interpret. Perhaps, it would have been more useful to insert a final graph or table with the main strengths and weaknesses on the degree of application of the environmental and social dimensions of the sustainability in Italian companies.

A2.7 We followed this suggestion. We introduced a graph in the Discussion section to synthesize the main results of our empirical analysis showing the readers that what was previously found through more sophisticated econometric analyses can to some extent be visible already through a graphic representation of the raw data.

R2.8 Finally, since the abstract the Authors refer to the Encyclical of Pope Francis’ "Laudato sì" and his concept of "integral ecology". But, where is the social and inclusive aspect analyzed in the adopted method? Certainly, the variables considered cannot be considered sufficient to evaluate this important dimension. It's necessary to review the social and the inclusive aspect of the Encyclical, otherwise it's advisable to eliminate the reference to Pope Francis!!!! "integral ecology----which clearly understands the human and social dimensions (137) Pope Francis, 2015).

A2.8 We followed this suggestion in part. Specifically, we removed all the other references to Pope Francis’ Encyclical letter but left a final reference in the Conclusions where we now report a passage of the Laudato si’ explicitly stating the necessary nexus between the social dimension and the environmental dimension: “We are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental. Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature.” ([106], p. 104).

Reviewer 3

R3.1 It is a good paper, which should only update its bibliography.

A3.1 We followed entirely the suggestions provided by the third reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

It is a good paper, which should only update its bibliography. This reference, Triguero, A .; Moreno-Mondéjar L .; Davia, M.A. Drivers of Different Types of Eco-innovation in European 519 SMEs. Ecological Economics 2013, 92, 25-33, can be replaced by this other Segarra-Oña, M.V.; Peiró-Signes, A., Mondéjar-Jiménez, J. and Vargas-Vargas M. (2014): Service vs. manufacturing: how to address more effectively eco-innovation public policies by disentangling the different characteristics of industries. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 27 (2), pp. 134-151. You can also include these references: Mondéjar-Jiménez, J., Vargas-Vargas, M., Segarra-Oña, M.V. and Peiró-Signes A. (2013): Categorizing variables affecting the proactive environmental orientation of firms. International Journal of Environmental Research, 7 (2), pp. 495-500. Autores Segarra Oña, M.V., Peiró Signes, A., Mondéjar Jiménez, J. (2013):  JIdentifying variables affecting the proactive environmental orientation of firms: An empirical study. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 22 (3), pp. 873-880.

Author Response

Replies to the external reviewers:

Environmental- vs Social-Responsibility in the Firm. Evidence from Italy

We are really grateful to the three external reviewers for reading our paper accurately and making very useful suggestions to improve it. We tried to follow those suggestions as specified below.

Reviewer 1

R1.1 I recommend the first section to be divided into two sections:

(1) Introduction, where the authors should clarify the importance of the topic, state the objective of the paper, mention the contribution and the added value this paper brings to the existing literature and describe the structure of the paper.

(2) Literature Review, a separate section and it should be more developed as it offers the theoretical framework to underpin the empirical work. Also, please formulate the research hypotheses in a correct way and bring arguments to support them.

A1.1 We have restructured the paper following these suggestions. In particular, we shrank the introduction by: 1) removing from it the bulk of the literature survey and 2) focusing on the importance of the topic, better specifying the objective of the paper, synthesizing the main contribution we provide on the extant literature, and providing at the end a brief description of the structure of the paper. Consequently, the literature review is entirely contained in section 2. Specifically, we drew all the possible links between the relevant literature and our empirical analysis. Moreover, we spelled out our testable hypotheses concisely but grounding them in the literature.

R1.2 In the Discussion section, the authors should also bring arguments for the relevance of the results obtained by correlating them with similar recent studies in the field.

A1.2 In discussing the relevance of our results, we strengthened their links with the corporate sustainability discourse. Furthermore, following suggestion R2.7 by Reviewer 2, we inserted a graph in the Discussion section to synthesize the main results of our empirical analysis showing the readers that what was previously found through more sophisticated econometric analyses can to some extent be visible already through a graphic representation of the raw data.

Reviewer 2

R2.1 There are several aspects that generate confusion in understanding the paper and the objectives of the research. The Authors sometimes cite "green Investments" and sometimes "eco innovations" an "green innovations": it would be better to mention just one term, it they are synonyms, or specify the differences.

A2.1 Wherever appropriate, we removed all the other terms and use only Green investments.

R2.2 In the abstract and in the text, the acronym CSR is quoted from the beginning, but its meaning is not specified (Corporate Social Responsibility). Furthermore, it would be better to cite its definition (perhaps the one provided by the European Commission, 2001).

A2.2 We made sure to define CSR according to WBCSD (1999; 2000) and along the main components drawn from Dahlsrud (2008).

R2.3 The background of the research and the references are elaborated unclearly; the state of the art of the studied phenomenon does not appear linear and fluid. It is advisable to reword it because it seems that the Authors have processed this part in a confused way.

A2.3 By following Reviewer’s R1.1 suggestion, we introduced a specific section 2 on the literature review. References have been reorganized in a more meaningful and hopefully more logic way. This should make our presentation less confused.

R2.4 In the methodology, specify the acronym CATI (Computer assisted Telephonic Interviewing). Unfortunately, the Authors give too often concepts for granted!!!

A2.4 We explained the meaning of CATI.

R2.5 Furthermore, no information is provided about interviewed sample: stratification by geographical distribution, size of the company, type of the product/service offered, turnover, etc.

A2.5 We now describe the main features of the interviewed sample, specifically underlying its representativeness of the universe and other statistical features of sampling.

R2.6 What are the green Investments considered? and the green rules? and the green competitiveness? There is no trace of the questionnaire submitted to the interviewees.

A2.6 We reported in a specific Table in the Appendix the key questions from the survey questionnaire and linked them explicitly to the definition of the three variables in our analysis underlined by Reviewer 2.

R2.7 The results, although interesting, are not easy to interpret. Perhaps, it would have been more useful to insert a final graph or table with the main strengths and weaknesses on the degree of application of the environmental and social dimensions of the sustainability in Italian companies.

A2.7 We followed this suggestion. We introduced a graph in the Discussion section to synthesize the main results of our empirical analysis showing the readers that what was previously found through more sophisticated econometric analyses can to some extent be visible already through a graphic representation of the raw data.

R2.8 Finally, since the abstract the Authors refer to the Encyclical of Pope Francis’ "Laudato sì" and his concept of "integral ecology". But, where is the social and inclusive aspect analyzed in the adopted method? Certainly, the variables considered cannot be considered sufficient to evaluate this important dimension. It's necessary to review the social and the inclusive aspect of the Encyclical, otherwise it's advisable to eliminate the reference to Pope Francis!!!! "integral ecology----which clearly understands the human and social dimensions (137) Pope Francis, 2015).

A2.8 We followed this suggestion in part. Specifically, we removed all the other references to Pope Francis’ Encyclical letter but left a final reference in the Conclusions where we now report a passage of the Laudato si’ explicitly stating the necessary nexus between the social dimension and the environmental dimension: “We are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental. Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature.” ([106], p. 104).

Reviewer 3

R3.1 It is a good paper, which should only update its bibliography.

A3.1 We followed entirely the suggestions provided by the third reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been greatly improved. Congratulations to the authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors integrated the paper according to the indications suggested by the undersigned. In this version, the search can be published, also for the useful suggestions collected by the other reviewers.