Sustainable Supplier Evaluation: From Current Criteria to Reconstruction Based on ESG Requirements

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work described in this paper is about the increasing global focus on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards. This study dissected ESG reporting guidelines across stock exchanges and explored ESG annual reports and supplier codes of conduct from listed firms. This research offers a robust theoretical foundation and practical guidance for enhancing supplier sustainability evaluations. This paper employs textual analysis, delving into official documents of international organizations, regulatory body requirements, public reports of listed companies, and academic literature to comprehensively understand the current supplier evaluation criteria and related ESG transformation regulatory requirements.

 

Some remarks regarding the content of paper:

- The abstract should be more extensive and to contain the results of the research as well.

- It is not enough overview of existing approaches and relevant references in state of the art, there are only several after 2020 year.

- It is better give formulas (1) and (2) before Table 2, because it contains explanations for them.

- Figures 1 and 2 are difficult for consideration due to the small size of the inscriptions on it.

- I recommend to put Table 5. Sustainable supplier evaluation criteria based on ESG requirements also in Appendix.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Authors should carefully examine and correct syntactic errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thanks!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an interesting subject, the authors revisit and restructure the sustainable supplier evaluation criteria to identify and analyze shortcomings in the existing evaluation system and propose new evaluation criteria based on ESG requirements. However, the article needs improvement, especially, clarification and scientific references of the method.

 

Abstract: Clarify the method, and the scientific gap and follow the style of structured abstracts (Background; Methods; Results; Conclusions) according to the Sustainability template available at https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions

Introduction: paragraph starting in line 50: please, describe (briefly) the method and the Regulation Requirements and Corporate Practices.

Literature review: Please cite some papers that have used text analysis to conduct analyses similar to this one, to justify the applicability of the method.

Methods and data: please, write an introductory paragraph describing the method, the steps, and scientific references to justify the use.

Paragraph starting in Line 169: please, clarify how the 17 listed companies in 6 different countries and the 42 Corporate Practices were selected.

Line 184: “conding”, please review.

3.4 Data analysis: please clarify and justify the “Relative Word Frequency Ratio (R)”. Is there anything similar in the academic literature?

The topic starting at line 274 was not Introduced. It´s confusing and difficult to understand. Please, rewrite the topic.

Line 304: Please, justify why “System 2 also highlights the need for companies to develop a deeper understanding of ESG-related sustainable affairs”

In line 444 the authors state that “a new criteria system is shown in Table 5”. Table 5 contains 79 primary indicators (24 in the E dimension, 28 in the S dimension, and 27 in the G dimension).

Lines 448 – 457: The reconstructed criteria feature 17 main indicators (5 in the E dimension, 6 in the S dimension, and 6 in the G dimension). What are the 17 reconstructed criteria main indicators? This reviewer didn´t understand Table 5, the 17 reconstructed criteria. I was lost as I read the whole topic 4. Please clarify and rewrite the whole topic in a more didactic way.

Conclusion: Answer the research question posed in the Introduction.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thanks!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.Sample Selection Transparency: The authors should offer more details on the sample selection process and the criteria applied to choose companies in the study. Providing this information would enhance the readers' understanding of the sample's representativeness and the potential generalizability of the research findings.

 

2. Thorough Discussion of Limitations: A more in-depth discussion of the potential limitations and challenges associated with the proposed reconstruction of evaluation criteria is essential. This would enable readers to grasp the trade-offs and difficulties involved in implementing the new criteria, adding nuance to the findings.

 

3.Practical Implications for Enterprises: Offering additional information on the practical implications of the reconstructed evaluation criteria for enterprises would be beneficial. Including specific examples of how the new criteria could be applied in practice, along with the potential benefits and challenges, would enrich the research.

 

4. Consideration of COVID-19 Impact: Considering the current context, a more detailed discussion on the potential implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on sustainable supply chain management and ESG integration is warranted. This discussion should encompass the challenges and opportunities presented by the pandemic and how these factors may influence the proposed reconstruction of evaluation criteria.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thanks!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors modified the article, but did not do so in a way that would revise a “Major Review”. Some modifications were superficial and, in some cases, comments were not solved, and modifications are still necessary.

 

Comments not solved

Comment not solved: Paragraph starting in Line 169: please, clarify how the 17 listed companies in 6 different countries and the 42 Corporate Practices were selected.

Please, quantify the number of companies according to the country, and Corporate Practices according to the companies and country (without identifying the company´s name).

 

Comment not solved: In line 444 the authors state that “a new criteria system is shown in Table 5”. Table 5 contains 79 primary indicators (24 in the E dimension, 28 in the S dimension, and 27 in the G dimension).

Lines 448 – 457: The reconstructed criteria feature 17 main indicators (5 in the E dimension, 6 in the S dimension, and 6 in the G dimension). What are the 17 reconstructed criteria' main indicators? This reviewer didn´t understand Table 5, the 17 reconstructed criteria. I was lost as I read the whole topic 4. Please clarify and rewrite the whole topic in a more didactic way.

Please clarify and rewrite the paragraph starting on line 481 (v2). The construction of Table 5 remains very difficult to understand. Suggestion: Start by describing the first column, then the second column, and finally the third column, so that the reader can understand the construction of the indicators.

Also, make it clear in the Table 5 heading that Table 5 refers to the reconstructed criteria.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thanks!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Further research is required to determine the relative importance and weight of each indicator

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thanks!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made the requested modifications.