Global Challenges as Opportunity to Transform Business for Good
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall the article provides clear steps that leaders can take to embrace the framework provided by the authors. This article provides a balance between theory and application.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback on the paper. Especially valuable was the suggestion of one of the reviewers to develop the section on conclusion, limitations, and future research directions. This section has been reworked and expanded from 173 words to 1,032 words. The three authors collaborated on this major effort to assess and communicate the work’s limitations and future research directions for both scholars and practitioners.
The citation style has been changed to conform to the journal’s guidelines. All references now appear in sequential numerical order from [1] to [last] and are no longer shown in superscript. Page numbers have been added where page-specific content was referenced. Missing references, such as was the case for the “5 Most Important Questions” and Figure 1 on page 3, have been added.
Similarity text to existing public sources has been re-written where possible. In some instances, the similarity is due to cited passages that appear in quotation marks with due attribution in the corresponding reference note. These were left unchanged. In a few other instances, the text is the same as the author(s) previous works due to the need for a precise definition of a construct or idea. Such is the case for the meaning of Sustainable Value (page 5) where the authors used language identical to a previous publicly available work. In all such cases, the source is identified in the corresponding reference note.
References have been updated and formatted according to the journal’s guidelines. Location information was added for book publishers. Please note that in the case of Stanford University Press, the publisher moved from Stanford CA to Redwood City CA in 2011-2012. Referenced books from this publisher released before 2011 have the Stanford CA location. Referenced books released after this date show the Redwood City CA address.
Author information has been added to include institutional affiliation details. The author information has also been reformatted to conform to the journal style template.
A new section on Author Contributions has been added before the Funding section.
With these revisions, the authors sought to fully address each of the Reviewer comments. The paper is much improved as a result. We are grateful for this opportunity to strengthen our work.
Reviewer 2 Report
The theoretical contributions from this work are both compelling and interesting.This paper has a good start to research around a literature review and the relevant aspects of the topic was mentioned clearly. The text is presented and arranged clearly and concisely. Please emphasize better in the conclusions the limitations of the study. Also, in order to expand this research, it is necessary to present additional research directions.The conclusions must be improved, clearly indicating the main conclusion, and relating it to the literature supporting the paper ("according to (...), or" unlike (...) ").
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback on the paper. Especially valuable was the suggestion to develop the section on conclusion, limitations, and future research directions. This section has been reworked and expanded from 173 words to 1,032 words. The three authors collaborated on this major effort to assess and communicate the work’s limitations and future research directions for both scholars and practitioners.
The citation style has been changed to conform to the journal’s guidelines. All references now appear in sequential numerical order from [1] to [last] and are no longer shown in superscript. Page numbers have been added where page-specific content was referenced. Missing references, such as was the case for the “5 Most Important Questions” and Figure 1 on page 3, have been added.
Similarity text to existing public sources has been re-written where possible. In some instances, the similarity is due to cited passages that appear in quotation marks with due attribution in the corresponding reference note. These were left unchanged. In a few other instances, the text is the same as the author(s) previous works due to the need for a precise definition of a construct or idea. Such is the case for the meaning of Sustainable Value (page 5) where the authors used language identical to a previous publicly available work. In all such cases, the source is identified in the corresponding reference note.
References have been updated and formatted according to the journal’s guidelines. Location information was added for book publishers. Please note that in the case of Stanford University Press, the publisher moved from Stanford CA to Redwood City CA in 2011-2012. Referenced books from this publisher released before 2011 have the Stanford CA location. Referenced books released after this date show the Redwood City CA address.
Author information has been added to include institutional affiliation details. The author information has also been reformatted to conform to the journal style template.
A new section on Author Contributions has been added before the Funding section.
With these revisions, the authors sought to fully address each of the Reviewer comments. The paper is much improved as a result. We are grateful for this opportunity to strengthen our work.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
The paper is a very interesting lecture. However, it ends too suddenly. When I finished page 13, I was expected to see some implications, limitations, and directions to be followed in the future.
Some specific issues are listed below. Most of them are not referring to the content of the paper, however it is expected to be paid attention to those kinds of things too.
First of all, I suggest the authors adapt the citation style to that recommended by the guide for authors
Line 42-46: a reference should be provided for “5 Most Important Questions”. The same for figure 1.
Line 49-56: It is not clear what is the meaning of the numbers between brackets.
Line 64-69: please check the text formatting
Line 114-116, 126-127, 130-132, ... so on: when a text is quoted (as shown in quotation marks) the page of the paper it comes from should be also specified.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback on the paper. Especially valuable was the suggestion to develop the section on conclusion, limitations, and future research directions. This section has been reworked and expanded from 173 words to 1,032 words. The three authors collaborated on this major effort to assess and communicate the work’s limitations and future research directions for both scholars and practitioners.
The citation style has been changed to conform to the journal’s guidelines. All references now appear in sequential numerical order from [1] to [last] and are no longer shown in superscript. Page numbers have been added where page-specific content was referenced. Missing references, such the case you pointed out for the “5 Most Important Questions” and Figure 1 on page 3, have been added.
Similarity text to existing public sources has been re-written where possible. In some instances, the similarity is due to cited passages that appear in quotation marks with due attribution in the corresponding reference note. These were left unchanged. In a few other instances, the text is the same as the author(s) previous works due to the need for a precise definition of a construct or idea. Such is the case for the meaning of Sustainable Value (page 5) where the authors used language identical to a previous publicly available work. In all such cases, the source is identified in the corresponding reference note.
References have been updated and formatted according to the journal’s guidelines. Location information was added for book publishers. Please note that in the case of Stanford University Press, the publisher moved from Stanford CA to Redwood City CA in 2011-2012. Referenced books from this publisher released before 2011 have the Stanford CA location. Referenced books released after this date show the Redwood City CA address.
Author information has been added to include institutional affiliation details. The author information has also been reformatted to conform to the journal style template.
A new section on Author Contributions has been added before the Funding section.
With these revisions, the authors sought to fully address each of the Reviewer comments. The paper is much improved as a result. We are grateful for this opportunity to strengthen our work.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for the changes made to the manuscript, especially to the conclusions section.
I suggest you to further check the MDPI Reference List and Citations Style Guide (https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references).
Best regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
Author response to reviewer comments in Round 2 (20 September 2020):
The following changes were made.
- The citation style and formatting were changed to conform to the journal’s guidelines. We used the guidelines found at https://mdpi-res.com/data/mdpi_references_guide_v5.pdf. The changes were made manually, to the best of our ability, as the Zotero plug-in was not able to work on this document.
- Line 557 had a spelling correction. The word “that” was changed to “than” in the sentence, “Shell was better prepared than…”
- The formula text at the very end of the paper concerning Open Access is missing. Please provide the correct text. It appears after the last reference.
We completed a final proofread and believe that all the information is accurate as shown. Thank you for your help with finalizing our paper.
Sincerely,
Chris Laszlo, David Cooperrider, and Ron Fry
