Data Management for Environmentally Sustainable and Profitable Business: Evidence from the Food Retail Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

lack of formulation of ethics as a philosophy of the company's operation

  lack of distinction between formalizing and participatory forms of implementing corporate social responsibility in the text

  illegible drawings No. 2 and Appependix A Figure A1 to A7

the conclusions lack a reference to CSR and there are no proposals for future research that would deepen the current research results

Author Response

Dear Sustainability Editor-in-chief and Reviewers,

We are grateful for the opportunity to revise this manuscript, and we appreciate the direction presented by you and the reviewers. Your insightful comments were critical to a successful revision of this paper. In the revision, we amended the manuscript. As can be found in the revision, the corresponding changes are highlighted in RED track marks. We also employed the services of a professional proofreading service to minimize instances of typographical errors and grammatical mistakes. We hope that you find the revised version satisfactory.

In the attached file, we outline the revisions in a point-to-point manner.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is quite interesting and its outcome will be a significant contribution to the body of knowledge after some changes/revision. Below are some comments to address:

The abstract needs to revised. It should have one sentence per each: purpose, methodology, findings, implications, originality.

The introduction sections needs to started from a broader area/ global context then relate it to your context. Highlight gaps/ problems in your area of research and your proposed solution. Provide the contributions of your study in a precise and focused way in the introduction section and provide paper structure therein. Author(s) should consult: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-022-24842-4 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504509.2022.2134230

Methodology should be precise and should be clearly presented. Its would be better to present it as per the aim of your study.

Results and discussion should be one section. Please present the results and enhance the discussion of your findings therein. strengthen the discussion through latest literature. Discuss the theoretical, methodological and practical implications of your study therein.

Some figures presented in the study should be converted into tables - as the currently looks like tables, e.g., figure 5-figure 6....

Conclusion should be precise and focused to summarize the study.

Some latest references should be part of this study.

I hope the author(s) will take these comments in a positive way. 

Author Response

Dear Sustainability Editor-in-chief and Reviewers,

We are grateful for the opportunity to revise this manuscript, and we appreciate the direction presented by you and the reviewers. Your insightful comments were critical to a successful revision of this paper. In the revision, we amended the manuscript. As can be found in the revision, the corresponding changes are highlighted in RED track marks. We also employed the services of a professional proofreading service to minimize instances of typographical errors and grammatical mistakes. We hope that you find the revised version satisfactory.

In the attached file, we outline the revisions in a point-to-point manner.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good work, but could be better with a small case study BEFORE THE conclusion and discussion.

Or at least improve the conclusion with more detailed insights into the results shown in the analysis section.

Author Response

Dear Sustainability Editor-in-chief and Reviewers,

We are grateful for the opportunity to revise this manuscript, and we appreciate the direction presented by you and the reviewers. Your insightful comments were critical to a successful revision of this paper. In the revision, we amended the manuscript. As can be found in the revision, the corresponding changes are highlighted in RED track marks. We also employed the services of a professional proofreading service to minimize instances of typographical errors and grammatical mistakes. We hope that you find the revised version satisfactory.

In the attached file, we outline the revisions in a point-to-point manner.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

An annotated PDF file is provided for suggestions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Sustainability Editor-in-chief and Reviewers,

We are grateful for the opportunity to revise this manuscript, and we appreciate the direction presented by you and the reviewers. Your insightful comments were critical to a successful revision of this paper. In the revision, we amended the manuscript. As can be found in the revision, the corresponding changes are highlighted in RED track marks. We also employed the services of a professional proofreading service to minimize instances of typographical errors and grammatical mistakes. We hope that you find the revised version satisfactory.

In the attached file, we outline the revisions in a point-to-point manner.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the manuscript based on the suggestions of the reviewers.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors have revised the manuscript based on the suggestions of the reviewers.