Digital Inability and Social Sustainability in the Face of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: A Proposal of New Non-Financial Indicators
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The approach is original and the chosen topic particularly timely for discussion at this time. Although it would have been possible to expand the references further, I see that you have taken into account the main methodological frameworks and current regulation. You leave open several debates which you yourself propose and which could have been interesting to develop. I hope you will do so in future publications. At the methodological level, perhaps you could have expanded the survey in Asia. The development of the article is consistent with your proposal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article discusses a very interesting and topical issue. Much of my thinking and possible comments are explained in the limitations subsection. However, from the perspective of the article's assumptions, I have a certain dissatisfaction. I do not understand how the "Map of business impacts of digital transformation programs on the workforce" was created. Why did the authors choose just such criteria business fields: "business development", "customers", "operations", "people", and "environment"? These are very aggregate criteria that are difficult to answer (indicate impact) using a Likert scale. I would therefore ask you to expand on the literature research and indicate why these business field criteria were chosen. Furthermore, Table 1 is a bit misleading and shows e.g. relations between rows. In my opinion, the main row "business parameters" can be swapped with the columns.
The proposed hypotheses are very complex and I am not sure that all of them have been confirmed. I propose to refine the hypotheses.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Interesting thematic article that is framed in the sustainable development goals of the 2030 agenda.
I believe that some aspects should be reviewed
Theoretical framework
The section on hypotheses can be integrated without making so many sections, specifying that they are used to support the objectives to be determined.
Section objectives and conclusions, it should be a mistake to eliminate conclusions.
Method
The table1 is presented and not cited in the text.
The analysis of the interviews should be specified.
Results
Name in the text table 4 and 5 indicating what is presented. With regard to the results in section 3.2, I think it would be easier to read by presenting a table and highlighting the most relevant results in the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I consider the article suitable for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for your contributions and for the time you have taken to analyse this research which has certainly made this article better.
Yours Faithfully
