Multi-Stakeholder Impact Environmental Indexes: The Case of NeXt
, Luca Raffaele 4 and Lorenzo Semplici 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors did the required work. The paper has been improved. Although I disagree with their reasoning that statements in the scientific papers can come from intuition,
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Main Comment
This article deals with the design of proper environmental and social indicators is one of the most critical challenges when monitoring and implementing corporate and government policy measures toward ecological transition and sustainable development. In paper is outlining and discussing characteristics of a new vintage of “living” multi-stakeholder community-based indicators based on the principles of self-evaluation, dialogue and simplification with a specific focus on the Next index. It is explaining the main differences between them and the opposite extreme of static expert-based indicators, how they integrate firm-level scores with compliance with macro multidimensional wellbeing indicators (such as UN Sustainable Development Goals) and how they complement with ongoing regulatory standards currently under development. It is discussing caveats, policy implications and impact in terms of subjective wellbeing.
The paper is well structured and informative, with updated references, but authors are encouraged to go to another phase of manuscript review to address the following issues.
The manuscript should be revised to address errors in several places. Several examples from the text follow (p - page):
(p.10) In conclusion, in addition to the above, I would expect an expression of opinion and perspective of the authors on the issue of the paper. Finally, the authors of the article should pay more attention to the overall writing and clarity of their article, which should support the demonstration of their findings.
(p.11) References must be prepared in accordance with the journal template, I recommend preparing the references with a bibliography software package, such as EndNote, ReferenceManager or Zotero to avoid typing mistakes and duplicated references.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, the paper is very interesting, however I suggest some changes before publication:
- check the whole paper, follow the authors guide and also the appendix is chaotic.
- section 1 needs to be improved in terms of literature. I suggest to follow these works that provide relevant information:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052682
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-021-00277-7
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-021-00288-4
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052675
- section 2 Literature review
- Section 3 Which model proposed in the literature did you apply?
- The discussion section is really very well constructed
Author Response
Please see the attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
