Conceptualizing Sustainable Business Models Aligning with Corporate Responsibility
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease read my comments and suggestions in the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please kindly review the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The paper is vast in its scope including the literature and the geography. However, there are some flaws in the paper which need correcting.
2. The main conclusion of the paper appears to be that Sustainable Business Models in China are evolving. This is fine. However, Figure 6 is titled “evolving” but the box in the centre of the figure states “revolving”. Whilst this is a simple typo, this leads me to conclude that the entire paper needs proof reading and correcting before any further reviews and publication.
3. The Literature Review focuses on SBM. However, Table 2 includes reference to various disease, mortality, genetic related papers which I do not consider relevant, and which should be deleted from the paper – with an explanation as to why.
4. The authors state “Schüz presents a model of sustainable corporate responsibility that reflects all the many aspects of "triple corporate responsibility" for the first time [23].” I disagree with this assertion as John Donaldson claims to have coined “Triple Bottom Line” for the first time in 1994 and there are certainly references that predate Schüz.
5. The authors should clarify the research methodology, including data sources, analytical strategies, and validation techniques.
6. The authors should improve the connection between the literature review and the research questions. Clearly state the research questions and hypotheses.
7. The authors should include a section that critically compares the proposed SBM with existing models, highlighting distinct advantages or potential limitations.
8. The authors should strengthen the concluding section with clear implications for practitioners and suggestions for future research – making sure to discuss potential implications in different industrial contexts or geographic locations.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSee above
Author Response
Please kindly review the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have included an argument for including medical papers in their literature review in relation to SBMs (lines 72-82). This would be valid if the paper was a review about the application of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which include health and well being, etc. However, for the purposes of this paper I do not agree that including reference to James et al, Roth et al in Table 2 is valid based on the keywords identified including cardiac arrest, dementia, etc. These references should be deleted from the paper as they do not add to the specific arguments presented on SBMs.
Author Response
We value the reviewer's perceptive feedback very much. The citation to James et al. and Roth et al. in Table 2 has been removed. As a result, we update the citation reference number in the Reference section as well as the entire article. Once again, I appreciate your time and patience in reading my paper.
