Corporate Sustainability Assessments in the Information Communication Technology Sector in Malaysia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is written in a clear and transparent language. The paper’s structure is consistent and logical. The reasoning is clear and precise. The abstract, introduction and conclusions reflect the content of the paper. The paper contributes to the academic study on the future of sustainable development and its goals. The methods applied as well as results and data interpretation are correct. The paper includes adequate scientific information which corresponds to the standards of a scientific study in this respect. The correct conclusions were reached as well as relevant recommendations and inspirations for further research were formulated. The authors' awareness of the research limitations was also pointed out which was positively assessed. I recommend the paper for publication.
Author Response
Thank you.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper focuses on sustainability practices in information communication technology sector. In general terms, the paper is good written, although it needs some clarifications
I. Title:
- The title reflects the idea of the research but the title is a little too long.
Maybe: “Corporate Sustainability Assessments in Information Communication Technology sector in Malaysia”?
II. Structure and clarity
The structure of the article is in general correct, but the introduction, the literature review and 2 last parts (Conclusions and Discussion) should be more clarified (please see the details below).
III. Abstract and Introduction
Abstract and Introduction are in some places chaotic, it is difficult to find the main purpose of the research and the methodology, the thesis or hypothesis.
IV. The literature review
- The theoretical background must be strengthened:
- the part 2.2. Theory: Corporate Sustainability Assessments (CSA) is the most important place to present the theoretical and practical premises for your study – it must be presented based on the theory from many perspectives (and also in respect to state of the art/research).
In my opinion it is needed to present it in wider theoretical context. From the paper it`s difficult to understand a current state of previous research in theory in your area, I would suggest to present in a more clearly way two ideas:
== Theoretical* - premises, research gap
== Practical - bibliometric analysis, who has investigated this topic so far
*In the theoretical part:
– it is necessary to say that there is huge heterogeneity and indicate/cite previous research, and especially that the results largely depend on the country of origin of the company and the branche/industry strategy.
I would recommend to conduct a comparative analysis of the previous research in your research area in the different industries both in developed and in developing countries
[1] Banihashemi, S., Hosseini, M. R., Golizadeh, H., & Sankaran, S. (2017). Critical success factors (CSFs) for integration of sustainability into construction project management practices in developing countries. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1103-1119.
[2] Dobers, P., & Halme, M. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and developing countries. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 16(5), 237-249.
[3] Fijałkowska, J., Zyznarska-Dworczak, B., & Garsztka, P. (2017). The relation between the CSR and the accounting information system data in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries–the evidence of the Polish financial institutions. Accounting and Management Information Systems, 16(4), 490-521.
[4] Wieczorek, A. J. (2018). Sustainability transitions in developing countries: Major insights and their implications for research and policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 84, 204-216.
Moreover it would be worth adding the context of alternative approach to the sustainability and management context - e.g. my recommendation:
[1] Chua, W.F. Interpretive sociology and management accounting research—A critical review. Account. Audit. Account. J. 1988, 1, 59–79.
[2] Zyznarska-Dworczak, B. (2018). The development perspectives of sustainable management accounting in central and Eastern European countries. Sustainability, 10(5), 1445.
[3] Cohen, J. R., Holder-Webb, L., Wood, D., & Nath, L. (2010). Retail investors’ perceptions of the decision-usefulness of economic performance, governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures. Behavioral Research in Accounting, Forthcoming.
V. Conclusions and Discussion
- There is no connection between the indicated theory and the identified practice in Digi. Moreover the conclusions are cursory, very general - it may be worth adding some recommendations for both the development of practice and science? The basic question arising from the research (“so what?”) is not answered.
I would suggest to add point 4.4,, which would strengthen the individual conclusions contained in 4.1-4.3. and showed the relationship between them. It may be the place for comparing research results with the state of knowledge (state of the art) - The research results should be confronted against the background of the presented theory, as well as against the background of research results in other regions, to the results done so far in the research area.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers 3,
Thank you very much for your constructive review. Greatly appreciate it. As per attached file, we have addressed the issues that you raised. Now, the paper is much improved. Again, thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I would like to thank the editors who asked me to review this article. It's a well-written article and I recommend it for publication after some minor amendments . The main concern I have is the transfer of the lliterature review outside of the method and materilas section. I suggest the contents be as follows:
a) Introduction
b) literature review or theoretical background
c) methodology
d) results
e) discussion
f) conclusions.
In the methodology or in an appendix it is good to present the interview protocols and to comment on the questions that have been asked.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you for your constructive comments. Greatly appreciate it. We have improved our paper as per your suggestion.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you to the authors for all corrections - now the article sounds more scientific and logical. I accept it for further publishing procedure.
Author Response
Thank you for suggestion. We have updated our paper to reflect the reviewer's recommendation.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
