Designing a Sustainability Assessment Framework for Peruvian Manufacturing Small and Medium Enterprises Applying the Stakeholder Theory Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Authors should contextualize Discussions to show the improvement from previous related research and the current Manuscript
2. The Research Problem should be made sharper.
3. The Ambivalence in Literature is not clear. It should be discussed to provide a context fro current Manuscript
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageRequires some editing. Sentences should be shortened.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI congratulate the authors for a comprehensive, interesting and detailed research topic, which which creates the framework for consolidating new ideas and research.
The clear, well-balanced structure, which goes through the essential elements of creating and developing a specific structure for sustainability assessment of small and medium-sized enterprises, provides an interesting and necessary approach to the topic.
Elements that would improve the article are a comparative analysis with other countries (Central and South America or worldwide) whose SMEs have applied such structures and a detailed presentation, if possible, of concrete results of the implementation of such a structure.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageA careful check of the text in order to increase clarity and improve wording.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The manuscript is interesting and proposes the "Designing a Sustainability Assessment Framework for Peruvian Manufacturing Small and Medium Enterprises Applying the Stakeholder Theory Approach" is orderly and concise. However, there are some problems to resolve:
1. The article bases its methodology on two elements. On the one hand, a questionnaire to three companies in the manufacturing sector of the talk (in itself, a number that is not representative of the manufacturing SMEs in Peru). The second methodological element is a secondary bibliographic compilation. However, 85 bibliographical references are used, and the big problem here is that almost 80% of these references are very ancient. That is to say, practically no recent bibliography is cited, which could provide current data to improve the appreciation of what is being contributed.
2. In the design of the interview questionnaire carried out with the three plastic companies, a single question refers to sustainability (Sustainability Reporting). Appendix A contains questions 8, 14, and 18 with some reference to sustainability, which is insufficient, if the objective was to ask about sustainability in these companies.
3. Two articles are used (Figge et al., 2002 & Hansen and Schaltegger, 2016), to address the problem of “The sustainability balanced scorecard". Here I leave some more recent articles that address the topic and that could be useful for reinforcing the work:
a) Hristov, I., Chirico, A., & Appolloni, A. (2019). Sustainability value creation, survival, and growth of the company: A critical perspective in the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (SBSC). Sustainability, 11(7), 2119.
b) Benková, E., Gallo, P., Balogová, B., & Nemec, J. (2020). Factors affecting the use of balanced scorecard in measuring company performance. Sustainability, 12(3), 1178.
These references should not necessarily be used in the manuscript. They are to illustrate that there have been more recent references than those used by the authors, not only in this case but in the entire study carried out.
The sustainability and Stakeholder Theory Approach is OK.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think the paper addresses an interesting, current and very pertinent topic. So I am of the opinion that it should be published. However, it will still have to undergo some changes and corrections.
The main research question that justifies the interest and contribution of the study must be presented in the abstract and introduction.
I suggest the following change in the structure of the paper: 1. introduction; 2. theoretical background; 3. literature review; 4. Methodology; 5. Framework proposal; 6. Contributions and conclusions.
The research questions should arise from the literature review, at the end of each of the sub-points.
After presenting the model, case studies must be presented that translate into applications and that allow validating the application of the proposed framework.
The discussion should be in point 5.
In the final part, practical and theoretical contributions must be presented. Finnaly, I suggest reviewing the ordering of references.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter the explanations provided by the authors, I think that the changes provided are sufficient to be considered for publication. However, the authors must clarify the explanations formulated to me in the text, since they serve to enrich the understanding of the research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
