Sustainability Performance Reporting

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study aims to provide a comparative analysis of sustainability reporting and ESG reporting. Following the analysis of the paper,  please address the following comments and recommendations:

Abstract

C1. Please clearly state the objective of your study and add some contributions/findings of your research.

Introduction

C2.  The text covers many important aspects of sustainability reporting and environmental performance. However, the paragraph could benefit from a clearer structure, such as distinct sections for different topics (e.g., the importance of sustainability reporting, existing research, and the objectives of the current paper). This would enhance the overall readability of the manuscript.

C3. The objective of the manuscript is to analyze the evolution of sustainability reporting and ESG reporting. Still, the introduction does not adequately highlight this article's novelty or specific contribution compared to the existing literature. What new insights or unique perspectives does this study offer, particularly in the context of the numerous existing studies on sustainability reporting?

Methodology

C4. Lines 83-84: “The literature review was conducted through a systematic approach”. Did you mean that you performed a systematic literature review? If yes, please provide more detail on the specific systematic approach used. Did you follow a particular framework or protocol (e.g., PRISMA)?

C5. The text mentions using certain databases and keywords, but it would be helpful to elaborate on the search strategy. Were there any inclusion or exclusion criteria? How were the keywords combined?

C6. The literature review focuses on the last 20 years, a reasonable period to assess trends in sustainability reporting. However, explaining why this specific time frame was chosen might be useful. For example, were there significant regulatory or conceptual shifts in sustainability reporting that began 20 years ago?

C7.The review mentions several broad topics, such as sustainability reporting legislation and performance, but it’s unclear how comprehensive it is within each area. It would be helpful to specify whether the review included academic and grey literature and how the scope of each topic was determined.

Results and discussion

Author Response

Question: The study aims to provide a comparative analysis of sustainability reporting and ESG reporting. Following the analysis of the paper,  please address the following comments and recommendations:

Answer: Dear reviewer, Thank you very much for your recommendations, they were very constructive. All your recommendations have been implemented in the paper and marked with red color. The point by point response is below.

Abstract

Question: C1. Please clearly state the objective of your study and add some contributions/findings of your research.

Answer: The objective of our research and the contribution of our study are clearly presented in the abstract of the paper. Additions are marked in red color.

Introduction

Question: C2.  The text covers many important aspects of sustainability reporting and environmental performance. However, the paragraph could benefit from a clearer structure, such as distinct sections for different topics (e.g., the importance of sustainability reporting, existing research, and the objectives of the current paper). This would enhance the overall readability of the manuscript.

Answer: The introductory chapter has been restructured, so that its structure is as recommended by you: importance of sustainability reporting, existing research, and the objectives of the current paper. This also necessitated the reorganization of the references. Thanks a lot for your recommendations so this chapter is much more logical and clear.

Question: C3. The objective of the manuscript is to analyze the evolution of sustainability reporting and ESG reporting. Still, the introduction does not adequately highlight this article's novelty or specific contribution compared to the existing literature. What new insights or unique perspectives does this study offer, particularly in the context of the numerous existing studies on sustainability reporting?

Answer: By restructuring the introductory part we have improved the analysis of this topic, we have also specified the novelty of our work: By analyzing the various reporting methodologies, the aim is to identify the most effective practices and ways to present sustainability performance. By benchmarking the methodologies, it can be verified whether the report allows for an accurate assessment of the organization's progress towards its sustainability goals and whether clear indicators are established to measure performance.

Methodology

Question: C4. Lines 83-84: “The literature review was conducted through a systematic approach”. Did you mean that you performed a systematic literature review? If yes, please provide more detail on the specific systematic approach used. Did you follow a particular framework or protocol (e.g., PRISMA)?

Answer: Our research was carried out on the basis of a literature review using key words for an evaluation of sustainability literature. We have corrected this sentence.

Question: C5. The text mentions using certain databases and keywords, but it would be helpful to elaborate on the search strategy. Were there any inclusion or exclusion criteria? How were the keywords combined?

Answer: We have further explained the research methodology and included the following text: Relevant keywords that relate directly to sustainability reporting were included in the research and terms that are general and not directly related to the topic, such as "regional sustainable development" (in a vague context, if not related to reporting), opinion articles, unauthorized blog-type sources or other niche words not associated with reporting methodologies, were excluded. The use of logical operators such as "and", "or", "not" helped to include and exclude terms: for example, "sustainability and reporting" to avoid irrelevant domains. These criteria were set to clearly define the search framework and filter out unnecessary or non-compliant sources.

Question: C6. The literature review focuses on the last 20 years, a reasonable period to assess trends in sustainability reporting. However, explaining why this specific time frame was chosen might be useful. For example, were there significant regulatory or conceptual shifts in sustainability reporting that began 20 years ago?

Answer: Yes, thank you for the recommendation, we mentioned it in the paper: period when most of the legislation and regulations in the field of sustainability reporting are emerging

Question: C7.The review mentions several broad topics, such as sustainability reporting legislation and performance, but it’s unclear how comprehensive it is within each area. It would be helpful to specify whether the review included academic and grey literature and how the scope of each topic was determined.

Answer: We have further explained the research methodology and included the following text: Relevant keywords that relate directly to sustainability reporting were included in the research and terms that are general and not directly related to the topic, such as "regional sustainable development" (in a vague context, if not related to reporting), opinion articles, unauthorized blog-type sources or other niche words not associated with reporting methodologies, were excluded. The use of logical operators such as "and", "or", "not" helped to include and exclude terms: for example, "sustainability and reporting" to avoid irrelevant domains. These criteria were set to clearly define the search framework and filter out unnecessary or non-compliant sources.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Dear authors: it is an honor for me to read your article on "Sustainability Performance Reporting". I would like to present a few observations that might improve the understanding of the readers of the Sustainability Journal.   1. Introduction; It would be appropriate if the authors also mentioned other ISO standards that are relevant and thus supplemented their subchapter 1, e.g. ISO 14016:2020 Environmental management — Guidelines on the assurance of environmental reports.   It is also advisable that they correctly cite the standards in their References.   3b. Discussion and Conclusions. It would be possible for the authors to supplement their view of the entire issue. The point is that reporting is voluntary in most cases. If it is required by national or transnational institutions, then it often becomes an administrative act that has a bureaucratic character and misses its purpose: reporting for reporting.   According to the authors, how could this trend be prevented? And what kind of complex report-processing concept would you recommend using?   It is advisable to unify the type of bullet points used according to the MDPI Sustainability template.     I wish you much success in your scientific work.   Yours sincerely   Your reviewer        

 

 

Author Response

Question: Dear authors: it is an honor for me to read your article on "Sustainability Performance Reporting". I would like to present a few observations that might improve the understanding of the readers of the Sustainability Journal.   

Answer: Dear reviewer, Thank you very much for your recommendations, they were very constructive. All your recommendations have been implemented in the paper and marked with red color. The point by point response is below.

 

Question:1. Introduction; It would be appropriate if the authors also mentioned other ISO standards that are relevant and thus supplemented their subchapter 1, e.g. ISO 14016:2020 Environmental management — Guidelines on the assurance of environmental reports.   It is also advisable that they correctly cite the standards in their References.   

 

Answer: Correction has been realized both in the paper and in the references.

Question: 3b. Discussion and Conclusions. It would be possible for the authors to supplement their view of the entire issue. The point is that reporting is voluntary in most cases. If it is required by national or transnational institutions, then it often becomes an administrative act that has a bureaucratic character and misses its purpose: reporting for reporting. According to the authors, how could this trend be prevented? And what kind of complex report-processing concept would you recommend using?   

Answer: Thanks very much for the recommendation. The bureaucratization analysis was introduced, thus: Sustainability reporting methodology and regulated standardization will be decisive. If the sustainability report becomes mandatory, it risks becoming bureaucratic. If too much emphasis is placed on standardization and data uniformity, there is a risk that reporting becomes a simple exercise in filling in forms and tables. If regulations are very complex and rigid, companies may have to invest significant resources in just formally meeting the requirements. In a bureaucratic environment, companies may emphasize minimum compliance. If companies and authorities see sustainability reporting as an opportunity to encourage positive change, the risk of bureaucratization is reduced. A flexible approach that allows adaptation to the specific context of each company and focuses on real impact can prevent the report from becoming a formal document without substantive content. Bureaucratization can be avoided if there is flexibility, a focus on results and genuine commitment from companies and authorities.

Question: It is advisable to unify the type of bullet points used according to the MDPI Sustainability template.     

 Answer: We made this correction.

Question: I wish you much success in your scientific work.   Yours sincerely   Your reviewer        

 Answer: Thanks so much for the recommendations and encouragement. All the best to you too.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors:

Thank you for considering my comments. Have many great days with your further research.

Yours sincerely

Your reviewer