A Need for Standardized Approaches to Manage Sustainability Strategically
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study focuses on the lack of approaches and methods to measure environmental and social performance. The study investigated how 7 companies apply digitalization to strategically meet sustainability measures.
However, the main purpose of this article is not clear. Although, “... the study aims to gather stakeholders’ perspectives on managing sustainability in a strategic manner…” (line 61), what exactly do the authors investigate? What is the main research question here? Is digitalization for sustainability, sustainable digitalization (please see https://www.unep.org/topics/digital-transformations/sustainable-digitalization)? What does the research community can gain from this investigation? When the interviews took place, was there a specific reference on what was meant by digital technologies? What kind of digital technologies were used by the companies? Τhe article mentions “… digital platforms and technologies …” (e.g. lines, 15, or 524, 535), but this is vague.
Where are these companies that the interviews were performed, located in? Were spatial implications of digitalization considered?
Section 2, Literature, could be divided in sub-sections based on the specific theme presented.
Line 270 is not clear, please rephrase.
Line 283, please specify the country that this law applies for.
Line 339, please use the capital “I” for “it”.
Author Response
Q 1“... the study aims to gather stakeholders’ perspectives on managing sustainability in a strategic manner…” (line 61), what exactly do the authors investigate?
Answer: Thank you for the observation. Now stated in the introduction, is that the purpose of this study is to explore the challenges and opportunities associated with measuring and assessing sustainability impacts and investigate digitalization's role in addressing these challenges. We try to be clear on the purpose, as well in the abstract. There we emphasise that we carry out this study by gathering the different stakeholders' perspectives on how they strategically managing sustainability.
Q 2 What is the main research question here? Is digitalization for sustainability, sustainable digitalization
Answer: The study is an exploratory one, where we want to answer empirically how companies from different industries utilize digitalization to standardize previously unsystematic and unreliable sustainability measures! This we highlight towards the end of the Introduction.
Q 3 What does the research community can gain from this investigation?
Answer: This study contributes to the existing literature by highlighting the need for standardized approaches and digital platforms for measuring and assessing sustainability impacts. The findings emphasize the importance of integrating sustainability into corporate strategy and the role of digitalization in enabling companies to strategically focus on the most important societal goals. The study also underscores the need for clear definitional parameters and accurate measurement of sustainability performance.
Q 4 When the interviews took place, was there a specific reference on what was meant by digital technologies?
Answer: This is a good question. We have added a sentence to explain this (in Method). At the start of each interview, this was discussed with the interviewee. Digital technology was supposed to be understood and applied in an interview in a broad manner. That should include a wide range of devices and systems, including software and applications. As well enabling of a variety of functions for processing data collection and complex data analysis.
Q 5 What kind of digital technologies were used by the companies?
Answer: The companies apply primarily software solutions. Surprisingly, many of them are homemade, where still there seems to be a lack of standardized solutions that might fit an industry requirement. The trends are although in that direction, where this has become a very big business (software solutions within sustainability).
Q 6 The article mentions “… digital platforms and technologies …” (e.g. lines, 15, or 524, 535), but this is vague.
Answer: What we mean by this, is now explained early in the Introduction. Interviewees use this terminology. Behind it is a though of a digital platform that is a technology-based framework enabling the development and deployment of a wide range of digital services, applications, and resources. This has now been explained more clearly.
Q 7 Where are these companies that the interviews were performed, located in?
Answer: They are in Iceland and this has now been clarified in the text.
Q 8 Were spatial implications of digitalization considered?
Answer: No, this was not carried out. The researchers have now discussed among themselves this thought. It makes an interesting next step research. It could be applied to the same group of interviewees. Thanks for pointing this out to us.
Q 9 Section 2, Literature, could be divided in sub-sections based on the specific theme presented.
Answer: This has now been attended to and the literature review divided into three sections.
Q 10 Line 270 is not clear, please rephrase.
Answer: This has been attended to in the text
Q 11 Line 283, please specify the country that this law applies for.
Answer: This has been attended to in the text
Q 12 Line 339, please use the capital “I” for “it”.
Answer: This has now been corrected.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article has an impact on the study of opportunities with the measurement and evaluation of the impacts of sustainability and investigates the role of digitalization in addressing these challenges. His work found important data on measuring and evaluating sustainability impacts poses significant challenges due to the lack of standardized approaches and the diversity of evaluation methods. Emphasizing measurement and evaluation of sustainability impacts poses significant challenges due to the lack of standardized approaches and the diversity of evaluation methods. His work has potential as it ventures into digitalization to drive significant changes and promote sustainability in the economic, environmental, and social spheres. However, the work has some observations and they must be attended.
1.-It is necessary to add a paragraph in the introduction section that describes the contribution of this article.
2.-It is necessary to add in the introduction section a paragraph that describes how this article is sectioned.
3.-Table 1 and 2 must go in an annex section.
4.- You should avoid writing in the first person “We have had to program”. Review all text.
5.- What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
6. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe article has an impact on the study of opportunities with the measurement and evaluation of the impacts of sustainability and investigates the role of digitalization in addressing these challenges. His work found important data on measuring and evaluating sustainability impacts poses significant challenges due to the lack of standardized approaches and the diversity of evaluation methods. Emphasizing measurement and evaluation of sustainability impacts poses significant challenges due to the lack of standardized approaches and the diversity of evaluation methods. His work has potential as it ventures into digitalization to drive significant changes and promote sustainability in the economic, environmental, and social spheres. However, the work has some observations and they must be attended.
1.-It is necessary to add a paragraph in the introduction section that describes the contribution of this article.
2.-It is necessary to add in the introduction section a paragraph that describes how this article is sectioned.
3.-Table 1 and 2 must go in an annex section.
4.- You should avoid writing in the first person “We have had to program”. Review all text.
5.- What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
6. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?
Author Response
Q 1 It is necessary to add a paragraph in the introduction section that describes the contribution of this article.
Answer: Thank you for the suggestion. The Introduction has somewhat been rewritten. The contribution should be found in various places throughout the text. The introduction states at one place: This study contributes to the existing literature by highlighting the need for standardized approaches and digital platforms for measuring and assessing sustainability impacts. The findings emphasize the importance of integrating sustainability into corporate strategy and the role of digitalization in enabling companies to strategically focus on the most important societal goals. The study also underscores the need for clear definitional parameters and accurate measurement of sustainability performance. Overall, this research highlights the potential of digitalization in driving meaningful change and promoting sustainability in economic, environmental, and social domains.
Q 2It is necessary to add in the introduction section a paragraph that describes how this article is sectioned.
Answer: Now the introduction states: This article provides a theoretical overview, followed by an explanation of the research methodology, a presentation of the results, and discussion of the findings.
Q3 Table 1 and 2 must go in an annex section
Answer: We have now installed the tables into the appendix. We refer to the tables in the main text.
Q 4 You should avoid writing in the first person “We have had to program”. Review all text.
Answer: Thanks for the comment. Now, it should be clear that the “we” is referred by the respondents and we have now intended the quotes in order to clarify further the respondents response.
Q 5 What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered? Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?
Answer: Thanks for the consideration. In the overall review of the paper, we have tried to tighten the research. Meaning the connection between what we aim for, our research objective and the findings, and discussion.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview: sustainability-2899966
24 Feb. 2024
Dear Authors,
Dear Svala and Throstur Olaf (if I may),
As your reviewer, I ask you to greatly improve your manuscript. Your topic is topical, and your research is scientific, although this is only an interview with seven people. My big remarks concern the theoretical part of the work, and the small ones are for your research.
Note 1. Subject/title of the manuscript: Your title is too general, such a title could be for the book and not for the manuscript (paper). You need to write more details on the subject. Look at your research, at the research objective and add the second part of the title or change it completely.
Note 2: Keywords: You must relate the words to the scope of your research, I would add stakeholders.
Note 3: Introduction: this section is almost OK, but you must aim of your research (sentence: The study aims to. . . . ) start with a new sentence (line). In addition, I would break this objective down into specific objectives according to Topi in Table 2. For each topic from the table one goal. Apply numbering of objectives, e. g. main objective of research R, specific objectives by theme numbers R1, R2. . . . Specific objectives can also be in the form of questions, then RQ1, RQ2. . . (Research Question RQ)
Note 4. Topic of the section: Literature: wrong. You need to specify it. For this section I have the most comments because you have to do SLR (see: papers about bibliometric analysis e. g. paper about sustainable development in Industry 4.0 according to bibliometric analysis). Divide the literature review into topics (subsections) according to topics in table 2. For each area, formulate hypotheses: H1 for Topic/theme 1 from table 2, H2 for topic 2 from table 2 until H5 for theme 5. Hypotheses will make it easier for you to perform a correct and “complete” review of the literature.
Note 5. Methods. In this section, add a drawing showing the survey areas (Themes from Table 2) with the layout of the questions addressed to the respondents for each survey area (theme) or table.
Note 6: Results. This section is too good because it is consistent with the scope of your research given in Table 2. In the same way, do the literature section according to the same subsections.
Note 7. Discussion, now it's ok but when you add literature you have to expand it too
Note 8. No summary.
Please remember that I am kind to you. I hope you can manage, I know it's just the two of you, but a literature review can be done in such a small team.
Best wishes
Reviewer
Author Response
Q 1 Subject/title of the manuscript: Your title is too general, such a title could be for the book and not for the manuscript (paper). You need to write more details on the subject. Look at your research, at the research objective and add the second part of the title or change it completely.
Answer: The title now is: A need for standardized approaches to manage sustainability strategically
Q 2 Keywords: You must relate the words to the scope of your research, I would add stakeholders.
Answer: Thank you for the good observation. We have now added “stakeholders” as one of the keywords. That makes good sense.
Q 3 Introduction: this section is almost OK, but you must aim of your research (sentence: The study aims to. . . . ) start with a new sentence (line). In addition, I would break this objective down into specific objectives according to Topi in Table 2. For each topic from the table one goal. Apply numbering of objectives, e. g. main objective of research R, specific objectives by theme numbers R1, R2. . . . Specific objectives can also be in the form of questions, then RQ1, RQ2. . . (Research Question RQ)
Answer: We have tried to make it more explicit what the aim of the study is. Hence, we have spelled that out using that language (… The study aims to …”.). We have as well fleshed out the challenges and development the study addresses. The research is qualitative in nature, and focuses on exploring, understanding, and interpreting interviewees’ meaning and significance of their experiences. Hence, throughout the interviews, there is considerable amount of "how" and "why" communication. The reader should now have a clear picture of this through reading the Introduction, and the Method.
Q 4 Topic of the section: Literature: wrong. You need to specify it. For this section I have the most comments because you have to do SLR (see: papers about bibliometric analysis e. g. paper about sustainable development in Industry 4.0 according to bibliometric analysis). Divide the literature review into topics (subsections) according to topics in table 2. For each area, formulate hypotheses: H1 for Topic/theme 1 from table 2, H2 for topic 2 from table 2 until H5 for theme 5. Hypotheses will make it easier for you to perform a correct and “complete” review of the literature.
Answer: As exploratory research does not typically focus on hypothesis testing, our study is primarily aimed at generating rich qualitative or descriptive data. By using a combination of qualitative methods such as interviews we aim to explore the various dimensions, challenges, and opportunities associated with measuring and assessing sustainability impacts in a digitalized context
Q 5 Methods. In this section, add a drawing showing the survey areas (Themes from Table 2) with the layout of the questions addressed to the respondents for each survey area (theme) or table.
Answer: There were five themes applied in an interview guide. From these themes the content on each interview rests, and the Findings section presents. The title of Table 2 has been updated in order to capture better that meaning (how these themes were applied). Thanks for the observation.
Q 6 Results. This section is too good because it is consistent with the scope of your research given in Table 2. In the same way, do the literature section according to the same subsections.
Answer: Thanks for paying notice. We have now divided the introduction to three sections. Is should now read in a structured way.
Q 7 Discussion, now it's ok but when you add literature you have to expand it too
Answer: Thank you for pointing this out. We have gone carefully through the Discussion section, and were we found possible and made good sense, we extended the discussion around the literature (tied in with the findings). This has now been considerable expanded.
Q 8 No summary.
Answer: This is a good point. We have now written, and added a new section (#6), which we call Concluding Remarks. There we highlight what we believe is the main contribution of the research. We tied it to the literature, and what we call future directions.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed all comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no more observations
the article can be accepted
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI have no more observations
the article can be accepted
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
in my opinion, your paper after reviews is good.
Best wishes
Rewiever
