Integrating Sustainability into Risk Management through Analytical Network Process
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors, Congratulations for the good work. My suggestions for your article are
1. to change the title of section 2, you can use only the word Methodology or Materials and Methods according to the journal instructions.
2. add more references in Discussion, there are similar studies with yours? if yes add and compared these with your article
3. lines 429-430 i think that this lines should be added in Discussion section
Author Response
Please see the attached file named "Letter to the Reviewer 1"
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReviewer’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Journal: Sustainability, MDPI
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2894428
Type: Article
Title: Integrating sustainability into Risk management through ANP
Authors: Eliana Judith Yazo-Cabuya, Asier Ibeas and Jorge Aurelio Herrera-Cuartas
The authors of the manuscript Manuscript ID: sustainability-2894428 ranked organizational sub-risks with a focus on sustainability, and presented an integrated approach, starting with the characterization of five risk typologies based on global reports and then prioritizing risks and sub-risks using the analytical network process (ANP) method to improve decision-making and reduce misrepresentation in the qualitative evaluation criteria. The sustainability sub-risks with the highest level of prioritization for each risk typology were (1) Massive data fraud or theft incident (technological risk), (2) Deficit in economic growth (economic risk), (3) Water depletion (environmental risk), (4) Lack of ethics in the conduct of business (geopolitical risk) and (5) Chemical safety (social risk). The authors also developed a cosine similarity analysis to compare the results obtained with the results of a risk prioritization performed with the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method.
This manuscript was written clearly, and the authors have described the main limitations of this study. I will recommend it for publication in Sustainability, MDPI, and minor essential revisions should be completed.
Minor revisions
(1) Title: please capitalize the first letter of each word.
(2) The Conclusion section is redundant, please shorten it and present the major conclusions of this manuscript.
(3) Figure 3: the words within the figure are too small, please enlarge in size.
(4) Tables 5 - 14: please add table headers.
(5) Please check the References section, and format each of the references according to the guidance of the journal for authors, e.g., Lines 508, 513, 515, 517, 522, 530, 538 ... etc.
Author Response
Please see the attached file named "Letter to the Reviewer 2".
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper exemplifies a robust methodology that adeptly employs both qualitative and quantitative approaches to effectively delineate and prioritize organizational risks with a specific emphasis on sustainability. The amalgamation of expert opinions, utilization of well-regarded global reports, and the application of the ANP model collectively enhance the paper's credibility and relevance within the field. The meticulous presentation of results, complemented by insightful figures and tables, serves to augment the overall clarity of the findings.
In summary, the research paper stands out for its well-organized structure, methodological rigor, and the provision of valuable insights into characterizing and prioritizing organizational risks with a sustainability focus. The integration of expert opinions and the utilization of the ANP model significantly fortify the paper's contribution to the realms of risk management and sustainability. Moving into the "Discussion and Conclusion" section, the paper offers a thorough analysis of the acquired results and derives meaningful conclusions through the application of the Analytic Network Process (ANP) method for prioritizing sustainability risks.
Implementing the following suggested enhancements will not only contribute to a clearer and more impactful presentation of the research but also elevate the overall quality and influence of the study.
Suggestions for Improvement:
1. Clarity on Research Contribution: While the introduction outlines the significance of the research, a more explicit statement regarding the specific contribution of the paper to existing literature could enhance clarity.
2. Clarity in Presentation: Some sentences are quite lengthy and may benefit from being broken down into shorter, clearer statements. This will enhance readability and understanding.
3. Explicit Connection to Research Objectives: It would be beneficial to explicitly connect the presented results and conclusions back to the initial research objectives. This ensures that the paper maintains a clear focus on addressing the research questions.
4. Highlighting Practical Implications: While the paper discusses the prioritized sub-risks, emphasizing the practical implications and potential actionable steps for organizations based on these prioritizations could enhance the applied significance of the study.
5. Additional Context on Models: A brief overview or reminder of the key characteristics of both ANP and AHP models might be helpful for readers who are not familiar with these methodologies.
6. Consideration of Model Limitations: Elaborating on the limitations of the ANP model specifically, beyond the general limitations discussed, would provide a more nuanced understanding of potential constraints.
Strengths
1. The introduction effectively establishes the context by discussing the evolution of risk management practices and the growing significance of ESG issues. This provides a clear background for the research.
2. The paper aligns the discussion with global initiatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and emphasizes the need for organizations to address sustainability challenges in their risk management strategies.
3. The paper incorporates relevant citations to support key points, indicating a solid foundation in existing literature and contributing to the credibility of the research.
4. The introduction recognizes the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to risk management and highlights the collaboration between risk management professionals and other experts, reinforcing the holistic nature of the study.
5. The introduction successfully introduces the use of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods, specifically the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Analytical Network Process (ANP), to prioritize organizational sub-risks with a focus on sustainability.
6. The "Results" section of the research paper provides an in-depth analysis of the implementation of the methodology described in Section 2.
7. Characterization of Organizational Risk with a Focus on Sustainability (Section 3.1): The use of well-established global reports from organizations like WBCSD, COSO, and the World Economic Forum to characterize organizational risks is commendable. It adds credibility to the research by leveraging recognized sources in the ESG field.
8. The identification and analysis of five typologies of organizational risks (Geopolitical, Economic, Social, Technological, and Environmental) provide a comprehensive framework for understanding challenges faced by organizations in pursuing sustainable practices.
9. The graphical representation in Figure 2 is effective in summarizing the correlation of organizational risks with a focus on sustainability.
10. Segmentation of Organizational Risks (Section 3.1 continued): Figure 3 and the subsequent segmentation of organizational risks based on the detailed analysis contribute to a richer understanding of the proposed characterization. The inclusion of specific details in Appendixes A1 through A5 is appreciated, enhancing the transparency and replicability of the study.
11. Group of Experts (Section 3.2): The inclusion of a diverse group of experts from various industries, such as oil and gas, services, auditing, consulting, finance, and manufacturing, adds strength to the study by incorporating different perspectives and experiences in organizational risk specialization.
12. The use of the 1AK tool for surveying and consolidating expert opinions is a practical approach, and the detailed breakdown of the group of experts in Table 1 is beneficial for readers to understand the expertise involved.
13. Application of the Analytic Network Process (ANP) Model (Sections 3.3 and 3.4): The application of the ANP method to analyze potential relationships and make group decisions is appropriate for addressing the complexity of sustainability sub-risks.
14. The stepwise explanation of the ANP method, from the analysis of the influence network to the calculation of priorities, demonstrates a thorough and well-structured approach.
15. The presentation of weighted supermatrices for each risk typology (geopolitical, economic, social, technological, and environmental) in Tables 5 to 9 provides transparency in the calculations.
16. Calculation of Limit Supermatrix (Section 3.4 continued): The presentation of the limit supermatrices in Tables 10 to 14 effectively communicates the results of the ANP model, showcasing the influence that different elements of the system have on the decision process.
17. The paper effectively presents the sub-risk prioritizations for each sustainability risk in Table 15, which helps in understanding the distribution of priorities across geopolitical, economic, social, technological, and environmental dimensions.
18. Comparison with AHP Method:The comparison between the ANP method used in the current research and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method conducted by Yazo-Cabuya et al. (2024) adds value to the paper. The cosine similarity analysis provides a quantitative approach to assessing the agreement between the two methodologies.
19. Cosine Similarity Analysis: The explanation and application of cosine similarity analysis are clear and provide a meaningful way to measure the consistency between ANP and AHP in risk prioritization.
20. Insightful Visual Representation: The inclusion of Figure 4, a heat map illustrating the cosine similarity analysis results, is a commendable visual representation that enhances the clarity of the findings.
21. Robustness of Models: The acknowledgment of potential limitations and biases in the methodologies used, and the cautious interpretation of results, demonstrates a sound and responsible approach to the study.
22. Recommendations and Future Directions: The identification of the main limitation regarding the dynamics of the organizational environment is followed by practical recommendations for continuous monitoring and assurance controls, which adds a practical dimension to the conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attached file named "Letter to the Reviewer 3".
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
