Social and Environmental Responsibility Manager on the Example of Companies from Poland and Germany

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a nice comparative study focusing on the role of managers in creating and implementing strategies related to social and environmental responsibility in business. It helps to improve the understanding of the role of managers in CSR practice.

 There are several points need to be clarified before publishing:

(1)  The research question needs to be clearly defined.

(2)  The manuscript lacks of theoretical development. What kind of theory used to support your arguments?

(3)  The structure of the abstract need to be revised. The major conclusions and foundings should be included in the abstract.

(4)  Regard to the results section, it is important to provide some empirical analysis based on the questionnaire data, while not fully based on difference analysis.

(5)  The structure of the conclusion section needs to be restructured. It is important to make several key findings as subtitle to improved readability.

(6)  There is repeated text in the manuscript, e.g., lines 661-685.

Considering the forementioned shortcomings, the manuscript requires a major revision.

Author Response

Manuscript Sustainability-2569882

Responses for Reviewers

 

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our appreciation for the reviews. Thank you very much for suggestions, which were clear and very accurate. We made the necessary corrections. We have incorporated all the suggestions because we agreed with them, and thank you especially for such good suggestions to improve our article.

We would like to refer to the detailed reviewer’s suggestions below:

It is a nice comparative study focusing on the role of managers in creating and implementing strategies related to social and environmental responsibility in business. It helps to improve the understanding of the role of managers in CSR practice.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the positive reception of the article.

There are several points need to be clarified before publishing:

(1)  The research question needs to be clearly defined.

(2)  The manuscript lacks of theoretical development. What kind of theory used to support your arguments?

Authors’ response: The research question and methodology has been clarified and more precisely described. The analysis was extended based on new sources, including those indicated by other reviewers. Relevant paragraphs have been added for a clearer presentation of quantitative data together with an analysis of their implications. We have also reviewed the suggested bibliographic items and added them in the appropriate places, as well as other current references on the topic in question among scientific journals.

The analysis of national and international literature was conducted, aiding in understanding the global perspective of CSR. Next is an examination of CSR reports from Poland and Germany, offering insights into the approaches and standards in both countries. Lastly, there are studies based on a survey carried out in both Poland and Germany, which provide an opportunity to comprehend the perspectives and actions of managers.

The theoretical background has been added:

1. Baumgartner, R.J.; Rauter, R. Strategic perspectives of corporate sustainability management to develop a sustainable organization. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.146.
2. Baldissera, A. Sustainability reporting in banks: History of studies and a conceptual framework for thinking about the future by learning from the past. In Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 1–21.
3. Jenkins, H.; Yakovleva, N. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Mining Industry: Exploring Trends in Social and Environmental Disclosure. Clean. Prod. 2021, 14, 27–41.
4. Raj, A.; Kuznetsov, A.; Arun, T.; Kuznetsova, O. How different are corporate social responsibility motives in a developing country? Insights from a study of Indian agribusiness firms. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2019, 61, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22016.
5. Hamadamin, H.H.; Atan, T. The Impact of Strategic Human Resource Management Practices on Competitive Advantage Sustainability: The Mediation of Human Capital Development and Employee Commitment. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5782. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205782.
6. Allen, M.W.; Craig, C.A. Rethinking corporate social responsibility in the age of climate change: A communication perspective. J. Corp. Soc. Responsib. 2016, 1, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-016-0002-8.

(3)  The structure of the abstract need to be revised. The major conclusions and foundings should be included in the abstract.

Authors’ response: We made the necessary corrections.

(4)  Regard to the results section, it is important to provide some empirical analysis based on the questionnaire data, while not fully based on difference analysis.

(5)  The structure of the conclusion section needs to be restructured. It is important to make several key findings as subtitle to improved readability.

(6)  There is repeated text in the manuscript, e.g., lines 661-685.

Authors’ response: We made the necessary corrections and the main points have been summarized in 'key points'.

We have made the appropriate corrections with the indications, the comparative analysis with related scientific works was extended. The conclusions section has been improved in terms of content and the whole work in terms of style. We have incorporated all the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Thanks again for the clear review and suggestions for corrections to improve our article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

You look at the importance of managers for CSR, an obviously relevant issue. Moreover, you collect original data from a questionnaire survey with a significant number of answers. However, I think your paper deserves a few improvements before suitability for publication.

i. The writing style is atypical. For example, in the introduction, it sounds more like a review of another paper than the introduction to the paper at hand; in the Methods section, you quote the paper at hand and ignore details on the survey and the methods for statistical analysis of the results.

ii. Your statistical analysis is based on descriptive frequencies. It is fine for an introduction, but less useful for supporting generalizable conclusions. I suggest some hypothesis testing.

 

Author Response

Manuscript Sustainability-2569882

Responses for Reviewers

 

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our appreciation for the reviews. Thank you very much for suggestions, which were clear and very accurate. We made the necessary corrections. We have incorporated all the suggestions because we agreed with them, and thank you especially for such good suggestions to improve our article.

We would like to refer to the detailed reviewer’s suggestions below:

You look at the importance of managers for CSR, an obviously relevant issue. Moreover, you collect original data from a questionnaire survey with a significant number of answers.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the positive reception of the article.

However, I think your paper deserves a few improvements before suitability for publication.

1. The writing style is atypical. For example, in the introduction, it sounds more like a review of another paper than the introduction to the paper at hand; in the Methods section, you quote the paper at hand and ignore details on the survey and the methods for statistical analysis of the results.
2. Your statistical analysis is based on descriptive frequencies. It is fine for an introduction, but less useful for supporting generalizable conclusions. I suggest some hypothesis testing.

Authors’ response: The methodology has been clarified and more precisely described. The analysis was extended based on new sources, including those indicated by other reviewers. Relevant paragraphs have been added for a clearer presentation of quantitative data together with an analysis of their implications. We have also reviewed the suggested bibliographic items and added them in the appropriate places, as well as other current references on the topic in question among scientific journals and supplemented the missing elements in the article. The theoretical background has been added:

1. Baumgartner, R.J.; Rauter, R. Strategic perspectives of corporate sustainability management to develop a sustainable organization. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.146.
2. Baldissera, A. Sustainability reporting in banks: History of studies and a conceptual framework for thinking about the future by learning from the past. In Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 1–21.
3. Jenkins, H.; Yakovleva, N. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Mining Industry: Exploring Trends in Social and Environmental Disclosure. Clean. Prod. 2021, 14, 27–41.
4. Raj, A.; Kuznetsov, A.; Arun, T.; Kuznetsova, O. How different are corporate social responsibility motives in a developing country? Insights from a study of Indian agribusiness firms. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2019, 61, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22016.
5. Hamadamin, H.H.; Atan, T. The Impact of Strategic Human Resource Management Practices on Competitive Advantage Sustainability: The Mediation of Human Capital Development and Employee Commitment. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5782. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205782.
6. Allen, M.W.; Craig, C.A. Rethinking corporate social responsibility in the age of climate change: A communication perspective. J. Corp. Soc. Responsib. 2016, 1, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-016-0002-8.

We made the necessary corrections and the main points have been summarized in 'key points'. We have made the appropriate corrections with the indications, the comparative analysis with related scientific works was extended. The conclusions section has been improved in terms of content and the whole work in terms of style. We have incorporated all the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Thanks again for the clear review and suggestions for corrections to improve our article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is important and timely plus very well written and providing pragmatic advice although this should be elaborated in a Conclusion.

Authors need to better link sustainability with the notion and practice of ethical business practices. Also, as CSR has been around for a long period - need to state at outset how this paper and research is innovative for both theory and practice. Need to delineate what is meant by 'manager' cv sustainability officer, leader. Methodological approach good but needed to flesh out more details - how companies were selected, nature of the companies in the research and does this make a difference to key arguments? Good comparisons of the two countries and examples of activities and benefits and different approaches. Need to flesh out more what participants understand by CSR and CSR education and improved communication. Needed more re the influence of national culture and company culture and politics etc ....  only briefly mentioned in lines 580, 594-5, and 645 - a really important point including for future research. Indeed in conclusion need to spell out summary of recommendations for managers to improve practice as evident in your research data but also importantly recommendations for future research. Very good up to date literature used.

Author Response

Manuscript Sustainability-2569882

Responses for Reviewers

 

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our appreciation for the reviews. Thank you very much for suggestions, which were clear and very accurate. We made the necessary corrections. We have incorporated all the suggestions because we agreed with them, and thank you especially for such good suggestions to improve our article.

We would like to refer to the detailed reviewer’s suggestions below:

This paper is important and timely plus very well written and providing pragmatic advice although this should be elaborated in a Conclusion.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the positive reception of the article.

Authors need to better link sustainability with the notion and practice of ethical business practices. Also, as CSR has been around for a long period - need to state at outset how this paper and research is innovative for both theory and practice. Need to delineate what is meant by 'manager' cv sustainability officer, leader. Methodological approach good but needed to flesh out more details - how companies were selected, nature of the companies in the research and does this make a difference to key arguments? Good comparisons of the two countries and examples of activities and benefits and different approaches. Need to flesh out more what participants understand by CSR and CSR education and improved communication. Needed more re the influence of national culture and company culture and politics etc ....  only briefly mentioned in lines 580, 594-5, and 645 - a really important point including for future research. Indeed in conclusion need to spell out summary of recommendations for managers to improve practice as evident in your research data but also importantly recommendations for future research. Very good up to date literature used.

Authors’ response: The methodology has been clarified and more precisely described. The analysis was extended based on new sources, including those indicated by other reviewers. Relevant paragraphs have been added for a clearer presentation of quantitative data together with an analysis of their implications. We have also reviewed the suggested bibliographic items and added them in the appropriate places, as well as other current references on the topic in question among scientific journals and supplemented the missing elements in the article. The theoretical background has been added:

1. Baumgartner, R.J.; Rauter, R. Strategic perspectives of corporate sustainability management to develop a sustainable organization. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.146.
2. Baldissera, A. Sustainability reporting in banks: History of studies and a conceptual framework for thinking about the future by learning from the past. In Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 1–21.
3. Jenkins, H.; Yakovleva, N. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Mining Industry: Exploring Trends in Social and Environmental Disclosure. Clean. Prod. 2021, 14, 27–41.
4. Raj, A.; Kuznetsov, A.; Arun, T.; Kuznetsova, O. How different are corporate social responsibility motives in a developing country? Insights from a study of Indian agribusiness firms. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2019, 61, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22016.
5. Hamadamin, H.H.; Atan, T. The Impact of Strategic Human Resource Management Practices on Competitive Advantage Sustainability: The Mediation of Human Capital Development and Employee Commitment. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5782. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205782.
6. Allen, M.W.; Craig, C.A. Rethinking corporate social responsibility in the age of climate change: A communication perspective. J. Corp. Soc. Responsib. 2016, 1, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-016-0002-8.

We made the necessary corrections and the main points have been summarized in 'key points'. We have made the appropriate corrections with the indications, the comparative analysis with related scientific works was extended. The conclusions section has been improved in terms of content and the whole work in terms of style. We have incorporated all the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Thanks again for the clear review and suggestions for corrections to improve our article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors, 

From the beginning of the Abstract, 'The role of managers in small and medium-sized enterprises in Poland and Germany in 20 creating responsible business was analyzed'... is not a suitable sentence to start and should be rewritten.  This must be applied to whole the abstract too. Then please rewrite the abstract by considering the logical consequences. 

in the Introduction, as a reader, I feel the authors were in a hurry to finish the paragraph and just add the citation: In recent years, the roles of managers in the process of shaping a sustainable and socially responsible business have significantly increased. They make strategic decisions 35 that have a direct impact on the social and environmental aspects of the company's operations. In the context of this evolution, the article provides relevant and insightful research 37 on the subject [1-5].

It is better to go to the more details and concerns of articles 1 to 5. 

 

The introduction looks like the literature review as there is not any section for the literature review (Included in the materials and methods section). Then if you want to keep the format you need to enrich the introduction both in the format and content. 

 

Source "Own study", is not an appropriate way to refer to something, then it is better to mention the undertaken documents or methods. 

 

The conclusion is very long and it is better to break it into several sections like the conclusion, managerial and theoretical implications, limitations, and future research. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The main problem is not about the English level, as the whole manuscript is weak in presenting the idea and the procedures in a professional academic writing way. In addition, yes it needs to improve the quality 

Author Response

Manuscript Sustainability-2569882

Responses for Reviewers

 

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our appreciation for the reviews. Thank you very much for suggestions, which were clear and very accurate. We made the necessary corrections. We have incorporated all the suggestions because we agreed with them, and thank you especially for such good suggestions to improve our article.

We would like to refer to the detailed reviewer’s suggestions below:

This paper is important and timely plus very well written and providing pragmatic advice although this should be elaborated in a Conclusion.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the positive reception of the article.

From the beginning of the Abstract, 'The role of managers in small and medium-sized enterprises in Poland and Germany in 20 creating responsible business was analyzed'... is not a suitable sentence to start and should be rewritten.  This must be applied to whole the abstract too. Then please rewrite the abstract by considering the logical consequences. In the Introduction, as a reader, I feel the authors were in a hurry to finish the paragraph and just add the citation: In recent years, the roles of managers in the process of shaping a sustainable and socially responsible business have significantly increased. They make strategic decisions that have a direct impact on the social and environmental aspects of the company's operations. In the context of this evolution, the article provides relevant and insightful research on the subject [1-5]. It is better to go to the more details and concerns of articles 1 to 5. The introduction looks like the literature review as there is not any section for the literature review (Included in the materials and methods section). Then if you want to keep the format you need to enrich the introduction both in the format and content. Source "Own study", is not an appropriate way to refer to something, then it is better to mention the undertaken documents or methods. The conclusion is very long and it is better to break it into several sections like the conclusion, managerial and theoretical implications, limitations, and future research. 

Authors’ response: The methodology has been clarified and more precisely described. The analysis was extended based on new sources, including those indicated by other reviewers. Relevant paragraphs have been added for a clearer presentation of quantitative data together with an analysis of their implications. We have also reviewed the suggested bibliographic items and added them in the appropriate places, as well as other current references on the topic in question among scientific journals and supplemented the missing elements in the article. The theoretical background has been added:

1. Baumgartner, R.J.; Rauter, R. Strategic perspectives of corporate sustainability management to develop a sustainable organization. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.146.
2. Baldissera, A. Sustainability reporting in banks: History of studies and a conceptual framework for thinking about the future by learning from the past. In Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 1–21.
3. Jenkins, H.; Yakovleva, N. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Mining Industry: Exploring Trends in Social and Environmental Disclosure. Clean. Prod. 2021, 14, 27–41.
4. Raj, A.; Kuznetsov, A.; Arun, T.; Kuznetsova, O. How different are corporate social responsibility motives in a developing country? Insights from a study of Indian agribusiness firms. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2019, 61, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22016.
5. Hamadamin, H.H.; Atan, T. The Impact of Strategic Human Resource Management Practices on Competitive Advantage Sustainability: The Mediation of Human Capital Development and Employee Commitment. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5782. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205782.
6. Allen, M.W.; Craig, C.A. Rethinking corporate social responsibility in the age of climate change: A communication perspective. J. Corp. Soc. Responsib. 2016, 1, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-016-0002-8.

We made the necessary corrections and the main points have been summarized in 'key points'. We have made the appropriate corrections with the indications, the comparative analysis with related scientific works was extended. The conclusions section has been improved in terms of content and the whole work in terms of style. We have incorporated all the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Thanks again for the clear review and suggestions for corrections to improve our article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks to answer the most of my concerns.

Minor suggestions:

1. the abstract can be shortened;

2. the conclusion section can be improve readability by using sub-headings. 

Author Response

Thank you for the positive reception of the article. We want to express our appreciation for the reviews. Thank you very much for your suggestions, which were clear and very accurate. We made the necessary corrections. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors, 

Thanks for considering the comments and enriching the manuscript. 

Author Response

Thank you for the positive reception of the article. We want to express our appreciation for the reviews. Thank you very much for your suggestions, which were clear and very accurate. We made the necessary corrections.