The Fear of the Known and Unknown in Being the Sustainable Business: Environmental Concern Reflected by Axfood (Sweden)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Below you find my comments about your paper:

1- Introduction is too short, I think that authors should more develop this section.

2- I think that authors should develop more discussion on the significance of this research, the motivation, why using this novel method, and the implication of the results.

3- The literature review needs improvement. The literature cited in this paper is outdated. I think that more recent studies should be discussed.

4- The description of methodology needs more detail, and the structure of the paper needs adjustments.

5- The tables are not well presented.

 

6- The format should be improved, and the language needs improvement also. More attention should be paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as technical language, sentence structure, etc. 

King Regards,

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam, We had incorporated all changes and improvements suggested by you in the revised manuscript.  We extensively revised the whole research paper in light of your points.  We are thankful to you for giving such a constructive review of this study.  We are thankful for your help.

Please find the file attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study addresses an important problem. The showed the essence of the problem. However, in my opinion, they are insufficiently relating the conditions for shaping CSR to examples of its practical implementation in the conditions of a given enterprise. Rather, they present general theses regarding the shaping of CSR in the current economic realities.

Thus, the publication is valuable, but it requires detailing the problems raised.

Reference is missing: How the recommendations indicated in the conclusions are based on the interviews conducted. Where is this relationship. How does this relate to the title of the paper.

The title can be considered appropriate, but needs to be detailed in the text.

The strong point of the article is the way of presenting the problem. Weak, very ambiguously presented method of conducting research. It is difficult to find a clear relationship between the research carried out and the conclusions. This needs a significant addition.

The article needs to be adapted to the editorial guidelines.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam, We had incorporated all changes and improvements suggested by you in the revised manuscript.  We extensively revised the whole research paper in light of your points.  We are thankful to you for giving such a constructive review of this study.  We are thankful for your help.

Reviewer 3 Report

The study deals with a very current topic. The colleagues processed the issue in a very high-quality way. With careful research work, with a really detailed explanation. The authors have also carefully selected the appropriate mdsertan and their summary findings are exemplary for representatives of other states as well.

 

1. The first question that arose in my mind was why the authors undertook to present Axfood. For those who do not know the actors of the wholesale food market covering all the states of Europe, it might be useful to have some thoughts about how the group of companies under investigation differs from the average wholesale chains.
2. I also felt that there was some gap in the definition of the concept of social responsibility.
3. In the introduction, I recommend specifying the specific hypotheses to which the study seeks answers.
4. I recommend clarifying the conclusions of the study (it would be appropriate to also refer to certain wholesale aspects of the food value chain).
5. I congratulate the Authors and recommend that they consider including the above in the study. Of course, it can be interpreted without them, but they would make it easier for readers to understand the study.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam, We had incorporated all changes and improvements suggested by you in the revised manuscript.  We extensively revised the whole research paper in light of your points.  We are thankful to you for giving such a constructive review of this study.  We are thankful for your help.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No comments

Authors well answered the comments and corrected the manuscript according to these comments.