Dear Authors

The topic is current, and the researchers' approach is consistent, with well-referenced arguments. However, there are several changes to be made:

• The Introduction is very robust and difficult to understand. I didn't explicitly note the problem issue in the introduction. I suggest focusing on the main issues and contextualizing them.

• The methodology section is confusing. I suggest rewriting the methodology section.

• Reference No. 21; 22; 43; 47; 49; 54; 75; 76, not cited in the text.

• Renumber references. There are empty references. Example: no. 34; 55; 57; 64. I suggest renumbering the references.

• Tables are formatted differently in terms of font and size. I suggest standardizing.

• Citations in the text do not correspond to the standard adopted by the journal. I suggest adjusting.

• The way of citing the Tables in the text is incoherent. See Table 1, 2, 3 for example(Table 1; Table(2); Table(3); Table(4); Table(5)...) what is the default? Adjust this item.

• This section is numbered incorrectly: “1.2.2. Neutral effects of CSR on Business Performance:”.

• This incorrectly numbered section: “1.2.2. Mixed effects of CSR on Business Performance:” and the same numbering as in the previous section.

• Insert after section 3.2.3 we have this section “1.2. The Econometric methodology”.

• The “Result” section is wrongly numbered: “1. Results”.

• The work has serious formatting problems: section 4.1 appears at least four times.

• Robustness tests and Conclusion are numbered the same.

I congratulate the authors for their research and wish them success in this review work.

Best Regards,

reviewer

Dear Authors/Editors

After analyzing the review presented by the authors, we evidenced major improvements in the text. I believe that with the changes made, the paper is ready for publication. Therefore, my opinion is for acceptance.