On Earth as It Is in Heaven: Proxy Measurements to Assess Sustainable Development Goals at the Company Level through CSR Indicators
, Flavio Hourneaux Junior 2, Marcelo Luiz Dias da Silva Gabriel 3 and Luis Enrique Valdez-Juárez 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is interesting and asses a relevant issue. The topic fit the scope of a journal. Although, there are some drawbacks, what must be addressed before publication.
1) The introduction should more clearly indicate the aim of the research and specify the gap in the literature this study is aimed to fulfill.
2) The selection of research methods must be substantiated more thoroughly.
3) The selected research methods should be described broadly.
4) the obtained results should be juxtaposed with the existing literature streams indicating ones this research expands and ones it contradicts. Reasons and explanations of contradicitions should be provided.
Author Response
The manuscript is interesting and asses a relevant issue. The topic fit the scope of a journal. Although, there are some drawbacks, what must be addressed before publication.
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your review and suggestions. We are satisfied with your favourable opinion about the manuscript is interesting, asses a relevant issue and fits with the journal´s scope. We agree with you, so we have encouraged in this second round in order to get finally published.
Now we have tried to answer your suggestions. The changes made in the text are in blue letter. We hope we can address all your remarks in the next version.
REVIEWER (R): The introduction should more clearly indicate the aim of the research and specify the gap in the literature this study is aimed to fulfill.
AUTHOR RESPONSE (AR): Dear reviewer. We have found your indication very appropriate.
First of all, I want to point out that we have slightly changed the structure of the paper. Now we have developed a different introduction and the next section is the theoretical framework. In this introduction we have made a tour of the subjects under study and more clearly expressed the aim of the research and the gap in the literature. At the same time, a last paragraph has been expressed in the introduction of the paper and that previously did not exist. With this new introduction we consider that the work is better presented and meets the demands of any publication.
Later, the second section is devoted to the Background and literature review. In it we have improved the part dedicated to the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), introducing literature on each of the SDGs.
(R): The selection of research methods must be substantiated more thoroughly.
(AR): Dear reviewer. We have added some details in the methods section. More exactly, we have improved the part of CSR x SDGs: content analysis, introducing more information about the CSR measurement scale. Later, regarding the qualitative content analysis, we have added a more explanation. At the same time, with respect to Database used in the study, we have also improved the information.
(R): The selected research methods should be described broadly.
(AR): Dear reviewer. Please see comment above.
(R): The obtained results should be juxtaposed with the existing literature streams indicating ones this research expands and ones it contradicts. Reasons and explanations of contradicitions should be provided.
(AR): Dear reviewer. In accordance with your suggestion, which we consider to be very correct, in the discussion and conclusions section, we have incorporated the link between our results with previous works, showing the agreement or disagreement with such previous results.
Thus, you can see the mention made in relation to the SDGs not considered. We justify the failure to carry out socially responsible practices that lead to the achievement of the SDGs, mainly due to the company's economic priority and we justify the idea based on Porter and Kramer (2006).
At the same time, the partial link that is observed in some SDGs, and that we already expressed that was in line with Bansal and Song (2017), we have related the idea to the stakeholder theory, closely linked to CSR, also observing partial achievement of actions based on Carroll & Shabana (2010) and Freeman et al. (2010).
On the other hand, when we talk about performance, different levels are observed in the CSRxSDG link. This result has also been linked to the theory of stakeholders based on Carroll (1991) and Carroll & Shabana (2010), observing economic and financial priorities, compared to other CSR actions. It is suggested that in order to standardize the application of the SDGs, indicators be established in order to measure the company's performance in a more realistic way (Magrizos et al., 2020; Steinhofel et al., 2019; Castka et al., 2004). Finally, it is shown that the adoption of good CSR practices will help companies to better communicate with their stakeholders (Fernández-Feijoo et al., 2014).
When talking about the characteristics of the company, with special mention to SMEs, we indicate that these companies focus more on operational aspects and not on strategic actions, because on many occasions they do not achieve a correct application of the SDGs, such as it is considered a socially responsible company (Carroll, 1991; Freeman et al., 2010).
Finally, aware of the difficulty of assessing sustainability and performance, we indicate that it is important to adopt norms and standards for SMEs, in such a way that the indicator SDGs and CSR actions can be measured in a concrete and effective way, to link the operational and strategic objectives (Spence, 2016; Steinhofel et al., 2019). We also express the interest that these indicators are aligned with public policies in order to contribute to social, economic and environmental development (Caryannis et al., 2018; Kudlak et al., 2018).
At the same time, and as you can see, we have introduced a new idea as a future line of research, at the end of the conclusions. You can see it below.
We consider that extrapolation is always a complicated matter for social applied sciences. In our case, we have used a non-probabilistic sample, from a specific region (Extremadura, Spain). Nevertheless, considering the characteristics of the companies, with the majority being SMEs, these set of companies are not very much different from the average in the world, also composed of SMEs in its majority. However, the most important aspect here is that we are not evaluating merely the companies’ CSR performance, but their CSR performance in relation to the SDGs, according to a priori defined set of elements. In this aspect, we believe this approach could be generalized outside the Extremadura region, to the entire Spain territory or also to other countries. Moreover, this focus also could be extended to any set of companies, not only SMEs.
Finally, thank you for your guidance and the chance to revise the paper. We really appreciated the developmental nature of your comments and we believe that your suggestions were instrumental in creating a stronger manuscript.
Best regards,
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper explores at what extent companies address the SDGs through their CSR practice. The topic is very interesting and challenging and, even if the academic world has been very prolific about this area, I believe that there is a need for investigation in the arena. The research design is well organized and written, the methodology is adequate and results and conclusions are clearly discussed. The results could be relevant for the scientific community; however, I have some suggestion in order to improve the paper.
1) Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?
The first paragraph, divided into three sub-section, is too general. I suggest to the Authors to better identify the specific context by highlighting the framework the want to apply to their research. Which point of view they want to investigate? The collocation is very important to clearly develop the research. Moreover, I think that this first paragraph should be more linked to the aim (explained within the first sub section) and to the research gap (made explicit in the third sub-section) and it needed a deeper literature review investigation. I would like to read before the research gap and, subsequently, I wondered the aim of the paper.
2) Is the research design appropriate?
The research design is well-structured.
3) Are the methods adequately described?
I suggest to the Authors to better explain the choice to apply the content analysis in the first step of the research. Why they believe that it is the best method do identify commonalities between CSR practice and the SDGs?
About the databased used I did not understand if Authors used the same sample with the old data or if they used the sample but they updated the information? As the sample refers to a research carried out in 2013. The table 3 is not clear as there are some image overlays in creating the pdf file.
4) Are the results clearly presented?
Results are clear and, as I said, challenging.
5) Are the conclusions supported by the results?
Conclusions are adequately supported by results. However, I suggest to the Authors to better explain if they believe that the results can be generalized outside the Extremadura region, to the entire Spain territory or also to other countries? And in case of affirmative answer, why they can be generalized?
Author Response
This paper explores at what extent companies address the SDGs through their CSR practice. The topic is very interesting and challenging and, even if the academic world has been very prolific about this area, I believe that there is a need for investigation in the arena. The research design is well organized and written, the methodology is adequate and results and conclusions are clearly discussed. The results could be relevant for the scientific community; however, I have some suggestion in order to improve the paper.
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your review and suggestions. We are satisfied with your favourable opinion about the topic is very interesting and challenging. We agree with you in the sense that there is a need for investigation in the arena. Also, thank you very much for considering that the research design is well organized and written, the methodology is adequate and results and conclusions are clearly discussed. We hope the results should be relevant for scientific community, so we have encouraged in this second round in order to get finally published.
Now we have tried to answer your suggestions. The changes made in the text are in blue letter. We hope we can address all your remarks in the next version.
REVIEWER (R): Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?
The first paragraph, divided into three sub-section, is too general. I suggest to the Authors to better identify the specific context by highlighting the framework the want to apply to their research. Which point of view they want to investigate? The collocation is very important to clearly develop the research. Moreover, I think that this first paragraph should be more linked to the aim (explained within the first sub section) and to the research gap (made explicit in the third sub-section) and it needed a deeper literature review investigation. I would like to read before the research gap and, subsequently, I wondered the aim of the paper.
AUTHOR RESPONSE (AR): Dear reviewer. We have found your indication very appropriate. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify this point.
First of all, I want to point out that we have slightly changed the structure of the paper. Now we have developed a different introduction and the next section is the theoretical framework. We want to mention that we did not follow the gap-spotting approach to create our research problem. We followed Alvesson and Sandberg approach, presented in their article “Generating Research Questions Through Problematization” (2011). According to this positioning, we have used “Develop(ed) alternative assumptions” for the use of CSR as measures of Sustainability. As we have stated in the article, our perspective follows Bansal and Bansal and Song (2017), to whom CSR and Sustainability are different, but complementary fields of knowledge.
Now, in this introduction we have made a tour of the subjects under study and more clearly expressed the aim of the research and the gap in the literature. At the same time, a last paragraph has been expressed in the introduction of the paper and that previously did not exist. With this new introduction we consider that the work is better presented and meets the demands of any publication.
Later, the second section is devoted to the Background and literature review. In it we have improved the part dedicated to the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), introducing literature on each of the SDGs.
(R): Is the research design appropriate? The research design is well-structured.
(AR): Dear reviewer. Thank you very much for considering the research design is well-structured. It is a very valuable opinion for us. Nevertheless, we have made some improvements and have added some details in the method section. First, we have improved the part of CSR x SDGs: content analysis, introducing more information about the CSR measurement scale. Second, regarding the qualitative content analysis, we have added a more explanation. Third, with respect to Database used in the study, we have also improved the information.
(R): Are the methods adequately described?
I suggest to the Authors to better explain the choice to apply the content analysis in the first step of the research. Why they believe that it is the best method do identify commonalities between CSR practice and the SDGs?
(AR): Dear reviewer. In order to identify the commonalities between CSR practice and the SDGs, we have performed a qualitative content analysis. Qualitative content analysis is one of numerous research methods used to analyze text data (Hsieh & Shannon, 2014). We have used an auxiliary table for crossing and categorizing this data by identifying related terms in both CSR scale and the SDGs definition. This type of procedure is followed by other authors, such as Ciarli and Ràfols (2019) to identify aspects to be further used as analytical categories. We have included details about the procedures in the manuscript.
About the databased used I did not understand if Authors used the same sample with the old data or if they used the sample but they updated the information? As the sample refers to a research carried out in 2013. The table 3 is not clear as there are some image overlays in creating the pdf file.
(AR): Dear reviewer. About the databased used we have to say that authors used the same scale but an updated information of sample results. Moreover, we state that, as in this context, data reuse is a choice to explore more findings from an existing data set by using different approaches and analytic tools. This procedure has been fostered by research agencies worldwide as a positive pathway for science development (Pasquetto et al., 2019; Pasquetto et al., 2017; Curty et al., 2017; Kim & Yoon, 2017). This argument has been introduced in the text, as you can see. Thank you very much for your observation. Moreover, figure 3 has been improved.
(R): Are the results clearly presented? Results are clear and, as I said, challenging.
(AR): Dear reviewer. Thank you very much for considering the results are clearly presented and challenging. We are pleased that you liked them.
(R): Are the conclusions supported by the results?
Conclusions are adequately supported by results. However, I suggest to the Authors to better explain if they believe that the results can be generalized outside the Extremadura region, to the entire Spain territory or also to other countries? And in case of affirmative answer, why they can be generalized?
(AR): Dear reviewer. Thank you very much for your opinion about conclusions are adequately supported by results. However, we have improved the discussion and conclusions, as you can see in the text, linking our results with those of previous works.
Thus, you can see the mention made in relation to the SDGs not considered. We justify the failure to carry out socially responsible practices that lead to the achievement of the SDGs, mainly due to the company's economic priority and we justify the idea based on Porter and Kramer (2006).
At the same time, the partial link that is observed in some SDGs, and that we already expressed that was in line with Bansal and Song (2017), we have related the idea to the stakeholder theory, closely linked to CSR, also observing partial achievement of actions based on Carroll & Shabana (2010) and Freeman et al. (2010).
On the other hand, when we talk about performance, different levels are observed in the CSRxSDG link. This result has also been linked to the theory of stakeholders based on Carroll (1991) and Carroll & Shabana (2010), observing economic and financial priorities, compared to other CSR actions. It is suggested that in order to standardize the application of the SDGs, indicators be established in order to measure the company's performance in a more realistic way (Magrizos et al., 2020; Steinhofel et al., 2019; Castka et al., 2004) . Finally, it is shown that the adoption of good CSR practices will help companies to better communicate with their stakeholders (Fernández-Feijoo et al., 2014).
When talking about the characteristics of the company, with special mention to SMEs, we indicate that these companies focus more on operational aspects and not on strategic actions, because on many occasions they do not achieve a correct application of the SDGs, such as it is considered a socially responsible company (Carroll, 1991; Freeman et al., 2010).
Finally, aware of the difficulty of assessing sustainability and performance, we indicate that it is important to adopt norms and standards for SMEs, in such a way that the indicator SDGs and CSR actions can be measured in a concrete and effective way, to link the operational and strategic objectives (Spence, 2016; Steinhofel et al., 2019). We also express the interest that these indicators are aligned with public policies in order to contribute to social, economic and environmental development (Caryannis et al., 2018; Kudlak et al., 2018).
Moreover, in order to attend your suggestion, we consider that extrapolation is always a complicated matter for social applied sciences. In our case, we have used a non-probabilistic sample, from a specific region (Extremadura, Spain). Nevertheless, considering the characteristics of the companies, with the majority being SMEs, these set of companies are not very much different from the average in the world, also composed of SMEs in its majority. However, the most important aspect here is that we are not evaluating merely the companies’ CSR performance, but their CSR performance in relation to the SDGs, according to a priori defined set of elements. In this aspect, we believe this approach could be generalized outside the Extremadura region, to the entire Spain territory or also to other countries. Moreover, this focus also could be extended to any set of companies, not only SMEs.
Dear reviewer. As you can see, we have introduced this idea as a future line of research, at the end of the conclusions. Thank you very much for your suggestion.
Finally, thank you for your guidance and the chance to revise the paper. We really appreciated the developmental nature of your comments and we believe that your suggestions were instrumental in creating a stronger manuscript.
Best regards,
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors made a good job polishing the paper. Although one could expect more solid substantiation of research methods and a sophisticated sensitivity analysis. In general, I think, despite these minor drawbacks this paper can be published.
