Integration of Sustainability in Risk Management and Operational Excellence through the VIKOR Method Considering Comparisons between Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is well-structured and clear, the topic relevant and the proposal interesting. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the focus as it is now is more on methodology soundness than on details on the analyzed risks and sub-risks. I would suggest to generally providing more details not only about the methodologies and their applications but also to the risks and sub-risks themselves.
First, in the step mentioned in section 3.1., I would specify more how "each risk is examined to understand its relevance in the organizational dynamics". Indeed, a complete vision of the challenges faced by organizations is mentioned as a result from which five risk typologies are characterized: geopolitical, economic, social, technological, and environmental. Nevertheless, how this "complete vision" was collected is not clear. Please specify how the review process was conducted.
Also, even if a mention is provided in references [16] and [17] to provide explanations on sub-risks, a table with the selected aspects would be useful in this paper to better understand the focus of the application.
According to section 3.2., at least an example on how the survey was built and how the pairwise comparison was conducted would be useful to understand how the "1AK" tool was used and how information was collected.
In section 4.5, it is not completely clear which points of the proposed OEMS approach are derived from this study, and which are established frameworks and standards. Please provide more details.
Finally, with respect to the conclusions section, I would avoid to mention here for the first time some specific results. Such results should be anticipated in the results section and this section should be more related to concluding reflections and remarks.
Author Response
Véase el archivo adjunto "Carta al revisor 1"
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors26% of total similarity index has been detected, including all resources.
Abstract - Business risks should be mentioned. Authors write only about risks. We're speaking about business risks.
When 1st time mentioning VIKOR - there should be explanation of the meaning - already in the abstract.Missing.
Research problem- should be clearly presented in the chapter 1. Missing.
Research gap - should be clearly presented in the chapter 1. Missing.
Methodology - no population or sample are mentioned in the text. Missing.
Missing Hypothesis or research questions.
Chapter Methodology - now is more like theory and not about population, sample, data analysis....- this chapter should be about explanation how data was gathered and analyzed,...methods used... etc... missing.
Chapter 3 - there is more like theory... but there should be results and analysis.
Table 1 and on...2,3,4,5 - there should be explanation what is shown on the table and after each table 1,2,3,...5 there should be explanation, comments on the content in the table what it shows f.e. Table 1,2,3,4,5.
The same for Table 6.
Missing text, comment after Table 6.
Discussion - Missing answers about Hypothesis or research questions - because they are also missing at the beginning of the research.
Discussion contains too many tables. These tables (some of them) should go under Results chapter.
Pages 15-18 are more like theory again and not results or discussion.
Poor conclusion since there are no hypothesis or research questions presented before.
Missing research implications, theoretical and practical. Missing.
Author Response
Letter to the reviewer 1 "Letter to the reviewer 2"
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe proposed work is interesting and relevant for sustainability aspects, from the perspective of risk management.
The work is well-developed and well-structured. However, the description of the methodology appears to be confusing. I suggest incorporating a flowchart (Figure) and a concise list of steps to be followed.
The validation aspect, of the proposed approach, needs to be strengthened. It is not clear whether the case study with specialists fulfills this function of validating the proposal.
In addition, that aspect should be revisited in the conclusions section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment "Letter to the reviewer 3"
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsResearch gap is still not mentioned in the text.-Missing.
Research question (RQ) or hypothesis (clear statements) - is still not mentioned in the text.-Missing.
Conclusion - Implications,practical and theoretical are still not mentioned in the text.-Missing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment "Letter to the Reviewer 2".
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
