Implementation of General Sustainability Objectives as Tools to Improve the Environmental Performance of Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I read carefully the paper entitled "Implementation of general sustainability objectives as tools to improve the environmental performance of industry".

 

The topic of the research is very important.

We have discovered many scientifically valuable elements.

However, I have some suggestions to make.

 

I suggest writing the Introduction separately (one page), followed by Literature Review (two pages). It is not recommended that a short introduction be based on 33 bibliographic resources for this paper.

Negligence in writing the article: ex. lines 92-93  ”...environmental and social issues [34] 92 (WCED, 1987).”;  line 420...

Writing the bibliographic list does not follow the rules of the journal. Some works on this list do not have all the required landmarks for accurate identification.

 

The bibliography should be extended with some papers published in prestigious WoS indexed journals (2020-2021).

 

I recommend the following to the authors to better identify the elements of their own scientific contribution.

In particular, to specify which is the part through which the paper brings superior elements in relation to other researchers.

 

Some writing negligence appears in the text, but the authors can discover them themselves (to be remedied).

Eventually, the text of the paper should be reviewed by a teacher of English (Native).

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I really thank you for giving me the possibility to review the paper named "Implementation of general sustainability objectives as tools to 
improve the environmental performance of industry". I find it very interesting and very important. I find the research paper crucial to develop a sustainable industry. 
I really like it, I only suggest to use simulation to predict the trend and to "measure". Reading, I found this paper very interesting (the research field is safety, but it's not important, I think the organization and the the type of methodological approach is interesting),  https://doi.org/10.3390/app10030903 . These authors use a lot this methodological approach ( I have checked other studies of them, but you are free to look at them ) even if for future research. SD, as I understand, can be very useful in the management. If it is useful in management it can help for monitoring key performance. Don't you? Consider this, please.

For the rest, I congratulate for research field. 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Excellent work!

I have just a little tip for the authors regarding Lines 113-116, that is to use nouns instead of verbs that sound in the imperative (Descritpion, Integration, etc.)

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Negligence still occurs: [46-55,56,57-67] - line 150; It should: [46-57,67].

[26,27,28,29,38,39,40,41,42] should read as follows: [26-29,38-42].

Etc., etc.

References are not written according to the rules of the journal. 

There are other small negligences. The authors can discover them if they reread the manuscript carefully. 

Author Response

Please see the file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf