Corporate Sustainability in the Wake of the COVID-19 Global Pandemic: Does CSR Enhance Corporate Survival during a Market Crisis?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is related to a very interesting and not enough explored topic. However, the originality of the paper is not stated properly. Although it can be assumed what the main contribution of the manuscript is, its originality should be clearly emphasized in the abstract and especially in the introduction section.

The introduction section depicts in a fair way the context of the research and presents the key aspects of the topic needed for understanding the main aim of the research. However, as previously mentioned, it is very important to emphasize the originality of the paper in this part.

In the review of the literature, it is necessary to force the recent sources and to consider CSR issues from different aspects, which can be brought in connection with the research topic. Please see some of the papers published in this journal:

·       Titko, J., Svirina, A., Tambovceva, T., & Skvarciany, V. (2021). Differences in attitude to corporate social responsibility among generations. Sustainability, 13(19), 10944.

·       Melovic, B., Milovic, N., Backovic-Vulic, T., Dudic, B., & Bajzik, P. (2019). Attitudes and Perceptions of Employees toward Corporate Social Responsibility in Western Balkan Countries: Importance and Relevance for Sustainable Development. Sustainability, 11(23), 6763.

The discussion of the results is relatively modest and should be improved. This is one of the key suggestions. The results of this research should be better linked with other research. The discussion section should better emphasize how the obtained results can be used and why they are important.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article concerns an interesting topic which is "Corporate sustainability in the wake of the COVID-19 global pandemic: Does CSR enhance corporate survival during a market crisis?". The topic of the article is very timely and in my opinion fits into the thematic scope of the Sustainability journal.

There are some issues to improve to make the article even better quality.

From an editing point of view:

1. Please change the reference style to the MDPI requirements.

2. Please change the literature formating style to the MDPI requirements.

3. Be consistent in your notation - e.g. you write COVID with capital letters, other times with lowercase.

4. Eliminate stylistic errors, e.g. two dots in line 97.

From the from a substantive point of view:

1. Abstract is too short. Please extend it appropriately by adding, for example, an introductory sentence characterizing the scope of the research.

2. In line 73 you do not indicate the organization of "study", but the organization of the article, which may additionally contain a research plan.

3. In the theoretical part, indicate a broader perspective of understanding CSR in the world, for example by referring to specific business practices and actions taken to improve the level of CSR. Check: The Analysis Of Progress Csr Good Practices Areas In Logistic Companies Based On Reports "Responsible Business In Poland. Good Practices" In 2010-2014. In addition, an important aspect are the topics of respecting diversity, which is directly related to CSR: diversity as an opportunity and challenge of modern organizations in TSL area.

4. You should separate the results from the discussion by introducing a new chapter.

5. In the discussion, compare your results with research carried out by other authors around the world on the same subject.

6. In the discussion or summary, it is also worth introducing an additional reference to the topic of open innovation. In your opinion, could they improve the level of CSR of companies? Maybe that's what COVID-19 is right for you. A perfect example are transport companies that introduced this type of practice during the COVID-19 pandemic, see: Open innovation business model as an opportunity to enhance the development of sustainable shared mobility industry.

7. In summary, indicate the limit of your research.

8. In summary, indicate the authors' further research plans in this area.

Good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This research is interesting, however, the novelty of the research has not been explained. Furthermore, it has not explained the theory used and it is necessary to explain the theory associated with the hypothesis and discussion. for references that are not updated, it is better to use the max reference of the last 10 years. each table please give a title. In the operational definition table of variables, it is necessary to add a column to reference that proxy or source from which there is no information.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made some improvements. However, some improvements are still needed.

Some sources given in the list of references are not cited in the text. Authors should cite all sources from the list in the text.

In the discussion part, the authors did not make the necessary improvements. The discussion of the results is relatively modest and should be improved. This is one of the key suggestions. The authors can combine the results and discussion into one section, but the discussion now given in two paragraphs is very poor. The results of this research should be better linked with other research.

Author Response

Please see attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for the changes you made at work. Unfortunately, there are still elements in it that require further improvement, as you have not taken all my recommendations into account.

1. The theoretical part still lacks a broad perspective of considering the CSR concept with reference to detailed business practices offered by various types of enterprises as part of the implementation of the policy of responsibility. Please refer to the analysis of the report I wrote about previously: "The Analysis Of Progress Csr Good Practices Areas In Logistic Companies Based On Reports" Responsible Business In Poland. Good Practices "In 2010-2014.

2. Previously, I mentioned separating the discussion as a separate part of the article. I see that it has been done, but in the current situation this chapter is too short. The discussion should refer to the comparison of the research results with the research of other authors, showing similarities or differences in the obtained results, and the like.

3.In summing up and referring to open innovations, there is no reference to the article I mentioned previously.

4.There is still no indication of the research limitations and further plans of the authors in the summary.

I advise the authors one more thorough editing of their manuscript, otherwise I will propose that the article be rejected.

 

 

Author Response

Please see attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

the revision has been done well

Author Response

Please see attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept

Author Response

Please refer to attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, thank you for the corrections made. It looks much better. Before publishing, please extend the context of open innovation by referring to the article: From the Classic Business Model to Open Innovation and Data Sharing — The Concept of an Open Car-Sharing Business Model. It fits perfectly into the need to supplement business models with CSR.

Please also review the text for typos and characters, such as ".,".

Thank you!

Author Response

Please refer to attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf