Exploring Corporate Sustainability in the Insurance Sector: A Case Study of a Multinational Enterprise Engaging with UN SDGs in Malaysia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Although the researcher's intention is clear, and although I personally do not find the research on the case excessively valid, but since it is a large multinational insurance company, this has a justification - it is still completely unclear with which initial assumptions the researchers started the research. Therefore, the research hypotheses were completely absent. This is a significant initial objection.
The second objection that I would like to draw attention to is the complete absence of presentation of statistical data, nor their more complex analysis.
As far as literature is concerned, all sources older than ten years should be replaced with newer ones, unless they are essential sources, which I have not noticed.
The way the material is presented gives the impression that it is a superficial, insufficiently grounded and guided research, which this material is certainly not.
I ask that these remarks be taken into account, or that they are at least answered rationally and scientifically based, because I will not be able to respond otherwise positively with a review.
Author Response
We appreciate Reviewer 1 comments and have responded to each of their key points. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper “Corporate Sustainability in the Insurance Sector: The Case of Allianz in Malaysia” utilizes a corporate sustainability assessment process framework to analyze how environmental and sustainability related strategies migrate from central to regional levels in MNEs using a case study of Allianz in Malaysia. I find the paper very informative and with high potential of being interesting to the journal’s readership.
#1 I would strongly advise authors to change the title of the paper so that it does not reveal the case company. In the present form, it looks like an advertisement for the given insurance company.
#2 I would like to see the main contributions of the paper as early as in the introduction. A paragraph mentioning key findings and potential contextualization of the findings is more than welcomed (you can consider adding a sentence with contributions in the abstract, as well).
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comments. We have responded to each of their key points. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The manuscript deals with an up-to-date topic. I appreciate the amount of literature used. The authors worked with a remarkable number of references when writing the article.
Regarding the content, methods, and conducted research, I have no comments. However, there are some shortcomings in terms of formal aspects that are worth improving. I recommend:
1. The article contains a large amount of text. I suggest that the authors consider whether it would be appropriate to insert figures or graphs of the research into the text to make the article more clear, readable, and illustrative.
2. The article needs to be edited in terms of formality. For example, in Chapter 4, there are two headings in a row.
Good luck with the paper, Reviewer.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comments. We have responded to each of their two key points. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
You, honestly, did not convince me, and despite all the literary references you gave and all the explanations you gave. I think you did not fulfill my requirements. Qualitative study is not something that I consider scientifically relevant, not in management, that's why it is unverifiable - “l'art pour l'art“, you wasted your time. I'm deeply sorry. In addition, with the supplemented literature, the average of literature calls is over 7 years, which I don't think this kind of material can endure.
