Understanding Resilience and Sustainability in Organizations: A Cutting-Edge Framework and the Research Agenda
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPaper: Understanding resilience and sustainability in organizations: cutting-edge framework and research agenda
Important points to be clarified or corrected for approval of the paper:
1.In the second paragraph of the introduction (lines 35 and 36) the authors describe that the study carries out a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature to “analyze and evaluate the relationship between resilience and sustainability in organizations”. However, the work as a whole does not explore the three dimensions of sustainability, focusing primarily on the economic and social. When it comes to sustainability, these three dimensions should be addressed.
2. Still in the introduction (lines 51 to 54), the authors make a contribution by defining “organizational resilience” and “organizational sustainability” more broadly. Organizational resilience may be a new topic, as highlighted in the text, but organizational sustainability is already a mature topic, including derivative topics (Environmental, Social and Governance - ESG, for example). What is the reason for redefining organizational sustainability? This issue needs to be better justified.
3. In lines 72 and 73 you describe the need to develop a complete theoretical framework of organizational resilience that includes global sustainability. How can organizational sustainability contribute to this framework?
4. RQ #1 and RQ #3 deal with “influence” and “impact” on resilience and sustainability in organizations. It's interesting to explain each term better, as impact can be more subjective in nature and can mean an influence or an effect.
5. Tables 2 and 3 show the top 10 authors in the field of knowledge on organizational resilience and sustainability, ranked by citations and co-citations respectively, 1997-July 2024. It would be interesting to include another column highlighting the year of publication of these works, after all, as shown in table 1 Ivanov, D. may have been published longer ago than Jabbarzadeh, A., which in theory would justify the greater number of citations. Table 5 leaves no doubt as to the relevance of the publications.
6. In summary, the discussion needs to be more elaborate and the authors should also justify why, even though previous works practically disregarded the environmental issue, the article still presents the definition of organizational sustainability as a contribution and why ESG was not considered.
Author Response
Pls see the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled: "Understanding resilience & sustainability in organizations: cutting-edge framework & research agenda" is interesting and well prepared. In my opinion, the manuscript is indeed timely and brings a fresh perspective to the issue of sustainability and resilience. For the authors, I provide some suggestions for improvement and recommendations that may contribute to the improvement of the manuscript:
- Abstract I recommend improvements. It is currently quite vague and uninteresting to the reader.
- The main aim of the paper should be emphasized and explicitly stated in the abstract and methodology.
- In my opinion, it is unnecessary to set 5 research questions. I recommend their reduction.
5. Findings, I recommend to consider changing the title of the section to 5. Results or 5. Evaluation of research questions
- 6. Discussion of the findings, I recommend changing to 6. Discussion... The authors need to add additional scientific studies and assemblies that they discuss. Currently lines 413-500 contain ONLY two sources, which is really inappropriate!
- 7. Cutting-edge Knowledge in the Organizational Resilience & Sustainability Knowledge domain I would move to section 5... In my opinion, these are still findings.
- Section 8. Future Research Directions and Section 9. Managerial Implications and Section 10. Conclusions should be merged into Section 7 Conclusions, which would include a brief summary of the findings, implications as well as future research, with the authors reducing lines 608-694 of the paper to about 500 lines. For the above type of manuscript, it is appropriate to briefly summarize the last section.
- Table 8. Articles from the most influential authors in the knowledge domain of resilience and sustainability in organizations - recommend moving to appendices!
Overall, I evaluate the submitted manuscript very positively. I thank the authors for an interesting read and wish them the best of luck in their future research
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are common typos and errors in the processed text.
Author Response
Pls see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to review the paper titled "Understanding Resilience & Sustainability in Organizations: A Cutting-edge Framework & Research Agenda." The topic is highly relevant and timely. However, I have some concerns regarding the manuscript in its current form.
First, the justification and argumentation for the selection of keywords such as "organizational resilience," "corporate resilience," "organizational sustainability," and "corporate sustainability" are unclear. It would be helpful to provide a more robust rationale for these choices, possibly in relation to your research aim or the specific type of organizations being analyzed. Strengthening this framing will enhance the clarity and focus of your review.
I appreciate the identification of five distinct schools of thought related to resilience and sustainability in organizations: Sustainable Business Strategy (the red cluster), Predictive Analytics (the green cluster), Sustainable Supply Chain (the dark blue cluster), Ecological Resilience (the yellow cluster), and Sustainable Leadership (the purple cluster). These perspectives offer valuable insights into the relationship between resilience and sustainability. However, the connection between these findings and your proposed Figure 4. Resilience & Sustainability in Organization (RSiO) Framework requires more explicit argumentation and transparency. It is not clear how these schools of thought informed the development of the RSiO Framework, particularly the inclusion of the five variables and their subvariables.
I hope these comments help improve the manuscript, particularly in terms of meta-communication, transparency, and argumentation. Best of luck with the revisions.
Author Response
Pls see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
