Understanding Risk Culture in the Context of a Sustainable Project: A Preliminary Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper topic is in many way´s relevant and interesting. It addresses how company culture is influenced by risk and uncertainty in our times. However, the article comes with some major shortcomings that should be worked on prior to publication:

Firstly, some general comments. When laying out the ontology and epistemology of the article the authors cite some major references that are in Polish. As this article is directed towards readers of other nationalities this reviewer has major difficulties in verifying some of the statements made in the article. They are in Polish and apparently not accessible in English. These references should be replaced by academic work that has been published in English.

Another observation is that the authors state correctly that projects are becoming a major managerial form in modern businesses. It is therefore strange that the term for this phenomenon, "projectification", seems to have bypassed the authors?  Projectification was coined by Cristophe Midler in 1995. Arguably the most interesting and newly work on this is the article by Schoper et al from 2018 but this reference seems to be unknown to the authors. Again, if the authors like to get some exposure of their work outside Poland they must also refer to international work that is current and valid.

Another noteworthy international trend to explain risk and uncertainty within the managerial domain is the VUCA concept. See e.g. Fridgeirsson et al, 2022 and Bennett & Lemoine 2014. I recommend that the authors try to establish stronger contact with what is currently published internationally.

In line 162 is a statement that I have some trouble with: "They do not only have to deliver products according to the initial plan but also contribute to the assumptions of the sustainable development. As a consequence, project managers nowadays do not only have to face the challenge of managing projects in order to fulfill the criteria of: scope, cost and time but first of all to manage projects in a sustainable way". This bold statement is supported by two references. This is, to put it politely, not the case outside Poland at the least. Sustainability is highly used phrase to describe many things but none of the doctrines of project management supports this statement. It occurred to me that the reason such a strange postulate is forwarded in an academic journal is to make it a fit to the publishing criteria of the journal (consequently called Sustainability). Whatever it is, it is not science and must be toned down and brought to reality.

Regarding the interesting topic of the paper there are some concerns. Firstly, risk culture is primarily the consequence of behavior. There is a major difference between a risk culture in a hedge fund or a pension fund to name an example. This is as a matter a fact explained in the article. However, the authors take only two projects within one company and generalize about risk culture based on such a sparse sample. This study therefore is very limited as answer to the article name "Understanding risk culture in sustainable projects". It may say something about the risk culture within this particular company but little else.

This is a study that should really be based on many companies within many industries. It should have a scale and a scope but this study has neither. The parameters and variables of the research model should be providing new knowledge on similarities, differences, correlations, causal/effect, etc. that would enhance our understanding of risk culture and even provide us with a framework.

That is not to say that the findings of the research are of no value but the authors must be aware of how limited their research design are in the context of the research question. All generalizations should be narrowed down and brought into context with these limitations.

All in all, in current form this article should be considered as a pre-study that paves the way for further research, not a journal paper. It lies closer to a case study than an exploratory study, but that is not the main issue per se.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

would like to thank the Reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions. They are allowing us to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have prepared the modified version of the manuscript after precisely studying the suggestions of the Reviewer which we hope increased the quality of this manuscript. In similar, the references have been enriched. Please find enclosed in a separate file, point by point the answers to the  comments.

Kind regards

Joanna Sadkowska

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In general, a good article that offers valuable insights for researchers, project managers, and risk managers alike. Furthermore, the study's limitations are explained and made very clear. It would be beneficial to publish this exploratory study since it adds to the body of knowledge.

 

It is necessary, however, to make some adjustments before publication.

 

To describe the subsequent sessions of the paper, the last paragraph of the first session uses past tense verbs. It would be better to use the infinitive or future tense.

 

The literature review does not provide references for the statements in the first and third paragraphs.

 

A website link appears in parentheses at the end of the third paragraph and should be treated as a reference. You should include the reference number and the website in the list of references, following the journal's style (don't forget to include the date it was accessed).

 

“The increasing role of risk culture in projects should be considered first of all from the perspective of that fact that currently all projects ‘face the requirements of being sustainable’.” . There are no references to back up this assertion. Sustainability requirements are not required for all projects of the world.

Further, the text contradicts itself latter on with “In this point it is worth citing Kivilä et al. [35] who highlight that sus-166 tainability is becoming increasingly important in the delivery of projects”. The statement is accurate, i.e. that sustainability is becoming a more important factor in projects.

 

A few references should be included in the final paragraph of the literature review.

 

I am not certain that table 1 indicates that it should be a third project that has never been described in the text. It is very important that you clarify this point.

 

There are a few typos, e.g. in “it is also worth noting that in thew studied company it I” and “stakeholder, , is”

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

would like to thank the Reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions. They are allowing us to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have prepared the modified version of the manuscript after precisely studying the suggestions of the Reviewer which we hope increased the quality of this manuscript. In similar, the references have been enriched. Please find enclosed in a separate file, point by point the answers to the  comments.

Kind regards

Joanna Sadkowska

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have responded to many of the observations this reviewer presented. 

However, the problem of a very challenging research question answered by a sample of one company still exists. The authors try to gloss over this by claiming that this study is intended is to pave the way for further studies. And that is perhaps the most important point. This paper looks like a pre-study perhaps to identify research variables for more extensive research in this field.

A few observations:

1. What is a "sustainable project"?

2. What is the connection between a "sustainable project" and risk culture?

3. How can such a limited research method (single case) give answers to such a ambitious research questions?

4. Would a more suitable name not be something like: "A pre-study to identify the most important variables of identifying risk culture based on the single case method"? By changing the focus in this way the LR could stand as it is and the article serve as a tactical input for understanding risk culture.

It is actually up to the journal to publish this as an academic paper. On the positive side it concerns interesting topics but the negative side is the research method in context of the research scope.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

would like to thank the Reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions. They are allowing us to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have prepared the modified version of the manuscript after precisely studying the suggestions of the Reviewer which we hope increased the quality of this manuscript. In similar, the references have been enriched. Please find enclosed point by point the answers to the  comments.

Remarks. The authors have responded to many of the observations this reviewer presented. 

However, the problem of a very challenging research question answered by a sample of one company still exists. The authors try to gloss over this by claiming that this study is intended is to pave the way for further studies. And that is perhaps the most important point. This paper looks like a pre-study perhaps to identify research variables for more extensive research in this field.

A few observations:

1. What is a "sustainable project"?
2. What is the connection between a "sustainable project" and risk culture?
3. How can such a limited research method (single case) give answers to such a ambitious research questions?
4. Would a more suitable name not be something like: "A pre-study to identify the most important variables of identifying risk culture based on the single case method"? By changing the focus in this way the LR could stand as it is and the article serve as a tactical input for understanding risk culture.

It is actually up to the journal to publish this as an academic paper. On the positive side it concerns interesting topics but the negative side is the research method in context of the research scope.

Answer.  In response to the above comments of the Reviewer we would like to emphasize the following aspects.

We have again studied the proper literature and do agree with the Reviewer that the title Understanding risk culture in the context of a sustainable project: A preliminary study, would better reflect the content of the paper as well as the intentions of the authors. In consequence the title has been changed  as written above.

 

After studying among others the works by:

• Silvius, G.A.J.; Schipper, R.P.J. Sustainability in project management: A literature review and impact analysis, Social Business 2014).
• Aziz N., Manab N., Does risk culture matter for sustaining the business? Evidence from Malaysian environmentally sensitive listed companies, International Journal of Management and Sustainability 2020, vol. 9, no.2, pp. 91-100.
• Chawlaa V., Chandab A., Angraa S., Chawlac G., The sustainable project management: A review and future possibilities, Journal of Project Management, 2018, vol. 3, pp. 157-170.
• R. M.; Nonino F.; Pompei A. Sustainable Project Management: A Conceptualization-Oriented Review and a Framework Proposal for Future Studies, Sustainability 2019, 11, 2664.

 

we have added the text referring to the relationship between a sustainable project and a risk culture. Among others we have underlined that in previous studies researchers have shown that the connection between design and sustainability is underexamined, but it is evident. We wrote that sustainability, through its three dimensions, defines the criteria for the correct use of resources and for evaluating the results in terms of economic, social and environmental impact. In turn, projects assume temporary efforts that, through the consumption of resources, lead to the achievement of beneficial objectives. The traditional approach to project management based on optimizing the ratio of resources versus time, cost and quality objectives to maximize stakeholder benefits has not considered the broader social and environmental issues that are sustainability challenges. In this context, a sustainable approach has been more and more discussed, as a solution to the problems of the environment and society at large. At the project level, this approach contributes to the effective management of risks in an environment characterized by unprecedented uncertainty.

Silvius and Schipper for example define sustainable project management as planning, monitoring and controlling of project delivery and support processes, with consideration of the environmental, economic and social aspects of the life-cycle of the project’s resources, processes, deliverables, and effects, aimed at realizing benefits for stakeholders, and performed in a transparent, fair and ethical way that included proactive stakeholder participation.

Another work of this type was the one entitled Does risk culture matter for sustaining the business? Evidence form Malaysian environmentally sensitive listed companies.

 

We also wrote that risk culture might be used as one of key indicators for a sustainable organization or a sustainable project. It highly depends on the ability of project managers to provide a consistent risk information to be shared and openly discussed across the organization in order to achieve the proposed objectives.

 

At the end of our answer to the comments of the Reviewer we would like to emphasize that if the Reviewer expects us to introduce any further changes as crucial for the decision to publish the paper in the Sustainability Journal we will incorporate them into the revised manuscript as soon as possible.

 

Yours sincerely,

                                                                                                          Joanna Sadkowska

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors.

You have improved the article considerably conceptually. I hope it will lead to a research model that can be used on further studies on risk culture. I´m still not sure on your approach but I wish you success in the future.