Comprehensive Approach to Relevant and Reliable Reporting in Europe: A Dream Impossible?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is a very well documented and argued piece
Author Response
Thank you of the positive feedback.
Spelling errors and typos corrected.
Reviewer 2 Report
In the current form the paper appears to be an extended literature review without a practical contribution to the literature. The author revise the concept of sustainability, financial reporting, CSR and illustrate GRI, Integrated Reporting and financial reporting but it is not clear what is the aim of the paper. The second half of the paper is completely devoted to the copy of the accounting directive. The first half is a description of different frameworks for non-financial reporting, but what is the value added by the paper to the literature?
Moreover, the paper is too long and full of repetitions.
I suggest authors to use part of the paper as theoretical paper and to focus on one aspect (corporate governance?) to develop critical reflections. Alternatively, the authors can develop a case study or a survey to support their study which in the present form is merely descriptive.
Author Response
I thank the reviewer of the insightful comments.
I have sharpened the method and methodology parts in abstract and section 2, created a separate Literature review section and added clear conclusions. Repetitions have been deleted and pure citations minimised.
Otherwise I feel that the reviewer has not assessed the paper on its own premises but rather wished for a different type of paper, while for me it has been important to give a comprehensive contribution to the Sustainability special issue on reform proposals, which does not allow for only following up one aspect in the discussion.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear
I am glad to found your invitation to review this interesting paper.
It is written very innovative way, using academic standards.
I suggest the following improvements:
Add study aim and methodology in the abstract
Suggest to reconsider the paper structure to present Literature review in separate part
Paper needs Conclusion section as separate part
In my opinion Appendix is not necessary.
Author Response
I thank the reviewer of insightful comments.
The abstract has been revised according to the reviewer's advice.
Literature review presented in separate part.
Conclusion section added as separate part.
Appendix shall be deleted based on consultation with the editors.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the work made on the paper. The paper has been improved and is worthy of publication
