Learning from Each Other: UK Global Businesses, SMEs, CSR and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract needs improvement, such as the methodology in the method section and the originality/value at the end of the abstract must be explained clearly

 

In the introduction section there are still many shortcomings, the background of the study on the topic and area is still very minimal, I don't even see the quote at the beginning to explore the background. so it is difficult to become a scientific work that should be.

The problem statement and phenomenon in the introduction section also do not appear to be the author's need to clarify the research gap

 

The literature review is too broad, it is hoped that it will focus on the scope of the research problem

 

The methodology is incomplete and there is very little information about what steps and techniques are used in the qualitative approach

 

The results are expected to be summarized by making figures or tables so that it makes it easier for the reader to observe and read the results of this study. In the results and discussion there needs to be an elaboration of the latest research so that it can explain the research implications and novelty

 

Conclusions don't answer the research problem and I don't think there needs to be any more citations to the conclusions, just focus on answering your research problem

Author Response

We have improved the abstract, including the methodology and made clearer the method section and originality/value.

We have significantly strengthened the introduction to be clearer about the background to the study and the research gap

The literature review is still broad but we have worked on strengthening the focus to clarify the relevancy to the work. 

The methodology has been strengthened, including additional information about the steps and techniques used in the qualitative approach.

We have added a table that summarises the main research findings. The discussion makes clearer elaboration to the latest research. 

The conclusion has been rewritten to better answer the research problem and irrelevant citations removed. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This research is interesting however there are some recommendations and reviews such as:

The novelty and importance of this urgent research has not been clearly shown in the introduction.

Additional tables and figures are needed to make this qualitative research more interesting.

In the introduction, it is best to explain the problem or gap phenomenon first, do not immediately explain the data or interview results: "data generated by 15 telephone interviews with 25 senior managers of UK-based global companies".

Literature review: the literature review explores the changing concept of CSR not yet strongly. It is better to add some literature related to the grand theory so that the concept of CSR is clearer.

The telephone interviews were carried out between February and May 2018. The data from these interviews would be sufficient if they were published in 2023, meaning that it would have been about 5 years after the interview process was conducted. How can you ensure that the results of this study are still relevant and can be generalized for further and international research recommendations?

In conclusion, it is necessary to explain recommendations and suggestions for further research, especially for SMEs.

Author Response

We have significantly strengthened the introduction to emphasise the novelty and importance of this research more clearly and to highlight the research gap. 

A table summarising the main findings has been added.  

The literature review has been amended so that the concept of CSR is clearer.

The 2018 date was a typo. The data was collected in 2019 but the date has been removed. We know from current teaching (and research referred to in the conclusion) that the ideas are still very relevant. 

The conclusion has been amended to explain recommendations and suggestions for further research, especially for SMEs.

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper, authors have explored corporate social responsibility (CSR) and related ethical and sustainable business policies and practices within UK-based global businesses. The topic is so simple, there are a number of studies published on CSR and sustainable business policies and practices.  The authors have used qualitative data in this study by using the interviews method. But, after collecting data, they have not used any qualitative analysis approach to analyze data. There are also many structural flaws in this study. This study does not have significant contributions to the current literature . Based on this criticism, I came to the conclusion to reject it. 

Author Response

We are sorry that you recommended rejecting the paper. We have taken on board the feedback of all reviewers and looked to make substantial changes to the work which we hope you will find improved. This has included better explaining the qualitative approaches used and the issues with the literature review. 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Interesting work, giving confirmation of actual knowledge. I see with interest asking advise for SME's, but the question is: how can this advice be used, since SME are such a different business, even from SMe to SME in the same activity sector. Maybe this can provide ground for future research, this time focusing on SME.

Author Response

We are glad you found the interesting. We have looked to emphasise the findings about how ideas can be applied to SMEs. We agree this is also a potential area for future research. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

the modification already filled the lack and this paper already good enough to publish

Author Response

Thank you. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has been properly revised and deserves to be published, however, it is still an additional revision:

Table 1. Summary of main research findings. We recommend that you add a column for the description of the source/References, namely the author and the year.

Author Response

Thank you. 

With regards to the table: Column 2 relates to our findings from the original data in response to the research questions. It is a summary of the research findings section and doesn't relate directly into published literature. 

Reviewer 3 Report

I have reviewed this manuscript again,  I am still not satisfied with the revision of this manuscript. I persist with my previous conclusion.

Author Response

Thank you for your clarification.