The Leading Digital Technology Companies and Their Approach to Sustainable Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have enjoyed reading this paper. It addresses contemporary issues. I have the following suggestions which could improve the flow of thoughts:

1. Introduction is narrow and focuses more on the description of sustainability. It will be more interesting to have an in-dept discussion on the relevance of IR4.0 led technology revolution toward achieving sustainability goals for various economies. 
2.  Please elaborate two stages of your research method. You should elaborate how you have gathered and reviewed the relevant papers for this study. 
3. I would suggest authors expand the theoretical discussion. 
4. Please provide practical implications of your study findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is interesting and generally, it deserves to be published with some revisions that are suggested below:

 

1. Could you make a table to let us know where do you get the concept of the highlighted six problems that are hidden beneath the surface of sustainable development, and formulated a series of digital sustainability pathways, grounded in the innovative and creative deployment of digital technologies since your review of relevant academic publications?
2. Would you please state how to examine the reliability and validity since you adapt an inductive, qualitative approach in your study?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read and review this paper. The topic of the paper is relevant. The work is interesting. My following comments are intended to be constructive and hope they are helpful to the authors as they move forward with this project:

Abstract - authors should changed it giving more concrete and important information to the reader. The innovation of the paper is totally missing. The abstract should be improved and have to provide more structured aim, scope, and background, to state the principal objectives and scope of the investigation and describe the paper's originality and value.

The part of introduction does not illustrate clearly the initial innovation of the specific study. 

The problems are clearly stated, but too general.

Research sample - authors should extend research. 

Discussion section must compare obtained results with other authors - too little literature.

Conclusions: This section should emphasis the objective and main results presented in this study. Moreover, this section should include limitations and future lines of research. The conclusions must concisely summarise the main points of the paper. This part usually includes four compulsory elements: (1) general summary of the article, its results and findings, (2) implications and recommendations for practice, (3) research limitations, (4) suggestions for future research.

References - too little literature

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf