Value-Based Governance as a Performance Element in Social and Solidarity Economy Organizations: A French Sustainable Post-Modern Proposal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A review of

Value-based Governance as a performance element in Social and Solidarity Economy organizations: A French sustainable post-modern proposal.

This paper was an ambitious undertaking. Although authored by one person, it reads as though multiple authors with very diverse orientations and writing styles prepared it. The author attempted to provide insight on a developing notion in organizational philosophy and structure, namely Social Solidarity and Economy oriented organizations. He further committed to providing a French perspective on the issues involved.

The development of the paper was hampered by the infancy of the field. The author portrays SSE as a fully developed theory. However, the reality of its underdevelopment was evident in the paper’s repeated failures to support the strong endorsements of SSE and the numerous normative recommendations with references to a well-developed conceptual base and supporting evidence of the value of SSE in practice.

As I reviewed this paper, my notes for the author often pertained to the repeated absence of conceptual and theoretical development and the almost complete lack of evidence and examples supporting his claims.

The paper might be strengthened if the author undertook an extensive redesign that incorporated the following ideas:

• SSE does not have an accepted definition, but you need to share your perspectives and defend those perspectives with solid referencing and verified evidence.
• As portrayed in the paper, SSE benefits every organization. Such a perspective demands supporting evidence. Providing such evidence and the associated conceptualization or theory would be such an exhaustive undertaking that it would be beyond the scope of any article. Therefore, a narrowly scoped paper would seem to be advisable. For example, Section 3, titled “Post-modern management in SSE: a French perspective,” seems promising as the basis for an article, particularly if a uniquely French perspective exists and could be added. Other options for narrowing your scope include separating formulation and implementation issues, distinguishing between the board and entry-level issues, and proposing differences between SSE adoption by profit versus non-profit organizations.
• Greatly reduce the number of normative, absolute, and personal opinion statements in the paper.
• Supplement your bibliography with numerous references to empirical studies directly on SSE organizations.
• Strengthen your use of the theory-building terminology. For example, you wrote that “The present article constitutes a theoretical proposition – being the authors’ (sic ??) point of view – and not a demonstration rooted in any objective field data.” Of course, this statement is not a theoretical proposition. It will also be disappointing for readers who believe that theory building depends on a merger of conceptual and empirical results.
• Ensure that every section contains useful new information, including the Conclusion.
• Review the entire paper to improve uniformity in the writing style and reduce its length. This process should include the need for definitions, adherence to an outline, best word choice, and the elimination of unnecessary (e.g., gratuitous) language and wordiness.
• The paper needs to specify an audience and exhibit a point of view. Is it written for politicians, executives, managers, academics? In business or non-profits? In a free market or command economy? Is your expertise based on experience, published research findings, or guesswork?

I hope that my observations are useful. Good luck as you continue your work in this interesting area of sustainability.

Author Response

Dear Colleague,

First, I would like to wish you a happy new year. 

Then I would like to thank you for your great work and your clear and smart advices. Thanks to you, I improved my paper and I hope the modifications I made following your notes will satisfy you. 

"As I reviewed this paper, my notes for the author often pertained to the repeated absence of conceptual and theoretical development and the almost complete lack of evidence and examples supporting his claims."

=> Thank you for the advice. I added in the paper some examples. I hope it would help in the comprehension of the development.

" SSE does not have an accepted definition, but you need to share your perspectives and defend those perspectives with solid referencing and verified evidence."

=> yes I agree. I added a definition of SSE and a reference in the literature review.

"Greatly reduce the number of normative, absolute, and personal opinion statements in the paper. Supplement your bibliography with numerous references to empirical studies directly on SSE organizations"

=> Thank you for your good advices. I tried to reduce this opinion statements and to supplement the bibliography with a few references to empirical studies. But as I said in introduction, it is more an essay than an empirical demonstration. Nevertheless I agree with you.

"Strengthen your use of the theory-building terminology. For example, you wrote that “The present article constitutes a theoretical proposition – being the authors’ (sic ??) point of view – and not a demonstration rooted in any objective field data.” Of course, this statement is not a theoretical proposition. It will also be disappointing for readers who believe that theory building depends on a merger of conceptual and empirical results."

=> Again you are right and I tried to do it with some additions.

"Review the entire paper to improve uniformity in the writing style and reduce its length. This process should include the need for definitions, adherence to an outline, best word choice, and the elimination of unnecessary (e.g., gratuitous) language and wordiness."

=> It was very difficult to review the entire paper. But I tried to follow your indications. I added definitions, examples and I clarified some points. I am very sorry if sometime my words lead to the impression of wordiness. It is maybe due to the fact that english is not my native language.

"The paper needs to specify an audience and exhibit a point of view. Is it written for politicians, executives, managers, academics? In business or non-profits? In a free market or command economy? Is your expertise based on experience, published research findings, or guesswork?"

=> You are totally right and I added this point in the introduction. Thank you.

"I hope that my observations are useful. Good luck as you continue your work in this interesting area of sustainability."

=> Yes, thank you very much. I really appreciate your work and it helps me to improve my reflexion, my work and my paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is tilted “Value-based Governance as a performance element in Social and Solidarity Economy organizations: A French sustainable 3 post- modern proposal”.

 

Abstract

The contents of the abstract are apt, concise and meaningful. In view of the importance of governance and managerial practices as game changers in the society, the paper suggests “Value-based Governance as a performance element in Social and Solidarity Economy organizations in France. For a 12-page brilliant article, the abstract is too short. There was no discussion on method and approach, and how the pieces of information gathered were analysed and contextualised to arrive at the conclusion that Value-based Governance could plausibly serve as a performance element in Social and Solidarity Economy organizations in France.

 

Structure of the paper: The structure of the paper is good.

Introduction: The introduction is very interesting. The authors explicate brilliant and unambiguously the meaning and dimensions of social and solidarity economy (SSE) including the importance in a world of changing paradigm.

Methods: The paper was silent on the adopted method. But as a reviewer, I infer that considering the conceptual nature of the paper, a qualitative research method was used relying on the critical discourse analysis (CDA) or I guess critical literature review (CLR). THE AUTHORS SHOULD PROVIDE CLARITY ON THE METHOD. ALSO, FOR ACADEMIC RIGOUR, THE MODE OF PAPER SELECTION FOR REVIEW SHOULD BE CLEARLY DISCUSED.

 

Discussion: The discussion section is well written and good. THIS IS COMMENDABLE. AS I SAID EARLIER, THE SENTENCES ARE WELL ARTICLATED AND SYTHESISED.

 

Final remark: Having read with keen interest the articles sent to me, which spanned 12 pages and 548 lines, I wish to state that a lot of effort, quality time, and academic rigour have been invested into writing the manuscript. Based on the scope of the research and the rich contents, I recommend minor corrections, after which the paper should be accepted.

Author Response

Dear Colleague,

First, I would like to wish you a happy new year. 

Then I would like to thank you for your great work and your clear and smart advices. Thanks to you, I improved my paper and I hope the modifications I made following your notes will satisfy you. 

Abstract : The contents of the abstract are apt, concise and meaningful. In view of the importance of governance and managerial practices as game changers in the society, the paper suggests “Value-based Governance as a performance element in Social and Solidarity Economy organizations in France. For a 12-page brilliant article, the abstract is too short. There was no discussion on method and approach, and how the pieces of information gathered were analysed and contextualised to arrive at the conclusion that Value-based Governance could plausibly serve as a performance element in Social and Solidarity Economy organizations in France.

=> You are right and I developed the abstract of the paper especially with and explication of the method approach.

Methods: The paper was silent on the adopted method. But as a reviewer, I infer that considering the conceptual nature of the paper, a qualitative research method was used relying on the critical discourse analysis (CDA) or I guess critical literature review (CLR). THE AUTHORS SHOULD PROVIDE CLARITY ON THE METHOD. ALSO, FOR ACADEMIC RIGOUR, THE MODE OF PAPER SELECTION FOR REVIEW SHOULD BE CLEARLY DISCUSED.

=> Again you are right and I clarified this point in the introduction.

Reviewer 3 Report

I very much enjoyed reading and reviewing this conceptual paper which presents some compelling and novel ideas, concepts and arguments.

While the paper has much to offer in the way of promising potential, I feel that it needs to do a much better job of articulating and unpacking the meaning, importance and relevance various concepts. See below a number of examples:

Line 20: What is meant by "a CSR perspective"? The CSR concept has a deep history and remains contested.  Some authors argue that it is not longer relevant and is being superceded by sustainability and/or sustainable development. CSR is also arguably not compatible with the values of SSE organisations. Also CSR should be spelled out in full as Corporate Social Responsibility in the first instance and then the author should spend some time unpacking and explaining his interpretation of the CSR concept with reference to relevant literature.

Lines 40-42: There is brief mention of linkages between CSR, sustainability and the SDGs but this is not pursued elsewhere in the paper. This is a missed opportunity.

Line 56: You mention "a sustainable perspective" but do not explian what this means precisely.

Line 60: "The authors of this paper..." The paper appears to have only one author. Why "authors"?

Line 62: You introduce the idea of "seminal SSE and CSR values" but I found it hard to identify what these values are based on the following text. I suggest naming some of these values in the first instance. I appreciate that you cumulatively may be articulating these as the paper unfolds but I think it would be helpful to introduce or make clear some of these values upfront.

Lines 69-70: You introduce two new concepts here: sustainable governance and responsible team management but you do not explain what they mean.

Later in Line 74 you offer a different formulation "responsible and sustainable governance" and again do nto make clear what you mean by this term.

Later in LInes 79-80 you begin to explain some aspects of sustainable governance but this would have been betetr stated earlier and added to.

Line 94: "SSE’s characteristic values close to the CSR’s values" What are the CSR's values? Or CSR values? 

Line 97: "the basic values underpinning companies" What are these basic values?

Lines 99-100: "the well-being of everyone, professionals and politicians alike" Why the focus on professionals and politicians? They surely do not constitute everyone.

Lined 104: "The new and different sociological figure" It is unclear who or what this sociological figure is.

Lines 136-137: "the direct connections that it establishes with topics such as sustainable development and CSR" What are these direct connections? It would be helpful to specify some examples here.

Lines 155-162: This is a very useful paragraph that begins to articulate the meaning and practice of sustainable governance in the SSE context.

Lines 165-166: "sustainable postmodern governance". How is this different from sustainable governance? 

3.1. From measurement to regulation: I very much liked this section of the paper and its emphasis on the importance of quality human relationships at work. But in Lines 198-199 I would suggest that it is more about creating "the conditions that will enable colleagues to move".

Line 244: Don't you mean Socially Responsible HRM? Human resource responsible management sounds awkward and I have never heard of this formulation used before in academic or practitioner contexts. The text that follows begins to unpack this idea of (socially) repsonsible HRM.

Lined 287: "Postmodern management": I suggest that you cross reference this  with responsible and sustainable postmodern management on line 235. What's the difference between these concepts?

Line 291: "harmonious service relationships". Unlcear what this means but Lines 293-295 appear to begin to explain this. Perhaps make this more explicit.

Lines 302-303: "determinant factors in SSE companies’ responsible and sustainable governance, like trust, democracy, a balance of power and reputation". These factors are also values. I suggest that you introduce these earlier in the paper when you first mention values.

Lines 317-318: Here you offer a helpful summary of key SSE principles and values. Again some of these specific examples could be alluded to earlier in the paper.

Lines 346-347: Would be good to restate here what constitutes a responsible version of good governance.

Lined 350: "strong elements of meaning affecting all of its (i.e. stakeholders)". Is there not a word missing after its and before the bracket?

Line 385: "seminal SSE responsible and sustainable values". It would be helpful to remind the reader here what these are with some specific examples.

Author Response

Review N°3 

Dear Colleague,

First, I would like to wish you a happy new year. 

Then I would like to thank you for your great work and your clear and smart advices. Thanks to you, I improved my paper and I hope the modifications I made following your notes will satisfy you. 

Line 20 : you are  totally right and I added a definition of the concept of CSR that I take into consideration with a reference to relevant literature. 

Lines 40-42 : Right. I developed this link at this moment of the paper.

Line 56 : Ok, I specified what this means.

Line 60 : You are right. I corrected.

Line 62 : You are right again and I agree with you. I indicated what are these seminal values.

Lines 69-70 : Ok, I explained the meaning of these terms.

Line 74 : Yes I clarified this point.

Lines 79-80 : I agree. I took this point into consideration and I changed the aspects of sustainable governance.

Line 94: I think that thanks to you and with the additions I did, this point is now clearest.

Line 97: You are right, I specified the 3 core values

Lines 99-100: Yes you are right. But they are the two main stakeholders. I clarified this point.

Lined 104: Thank you. I hope I clarified this point by adding some words explaining who is this new figure.

Lines 136-137: Yes, you are right. I gave some short examples in the modified text. 

Lines 165-166: I removed the world "postmodern", it was employed too early. It will be defined later in the text.

Lines 198-199:  You are right. I changed my mind and I replaced the word "convince" with the word "enable".

Line 244: Again you are absolutely right. I changed the sentence.

Line 287: Yes, it is necessary to keep the same concepts. I corrected. 

Line 291: I tried to make this point clearest.

Lines 302-303: Yes it's true. I did it. Thank you.

Lines 317-318: Yes you are right, again I did it earlier.

Lines 346-347: I clarified this point

Lined 350: Thank you for your vigilance. I corrected.

Line 385: Right. I did it.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author attempted to deal with my criticisms as though they were narrowly scoped and easily corrected. They were neither. Specifically, they could not be satisfied by adding single citations, as he repeatedly tried to do. For example, he claimed to have represented a French point of view. In the revision, he did add new citations, but he did not explain the French perspectives nor highlight the difference between the French perspective and those of other countries. I discussed several other examples in my earlier review.

Unfortunately, despite the author's edits, I believe that the paper fails to make a sufficient contribution to knowledge for me to support it for publication.

Author Response

I'm very sorry I that I couldn't satisfy you. I tried. But I can assure you that I never considered your criticisms as though they were narrowly scoped and easily corrected. I am really grateful for your work and for your review. I'm going to modify my paper in order to integrate your new comments. 

But, I don't really know how to do this in global way. This paper is an essay. A point of view and not a scientific demonstration with an empirical study. However, I'm going to try again to improve it thanks to you. Especially as far as french perspective is concerned.

I hope it will be OK.

Best regards,

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

You made important concessions in this essay about its nature and limitations. I believe your paper now has a place in the broader conceptual discussion about the priority of forces that should influence the establishment of values in French organizations.