Through the Blurry Looking Glass—SDGs in the GRI Reports
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study, although dealing with an interesting topic, suffers from: poor expository clarity, a poor and approximate review of the literature on the subject under investigation. On top of this, we must add that in the paragraph of the methodology the methods of acquisition of the data and information, necessary to carry out the analysis, are not clearly reported, nor the methods of correlation detection are explicitly expressed. Furthermore, it would be advisable to create a specific paragraph for the discussion of the results and only thereafter, concluding considerations should be made explicit. Finally, the limits of the research should be indicated and not only the limits of the conclusions reached.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
We would like to thank you for your suggestions. We have the following changes:
· the abstract has been changed,
· two structural changes occurred:
o the conclusion sub-section was modified into conclusion and discussion,
o the limitations was placed in a separate sub-section and has been expanded,
· the methodology and analysis was improved,
· two additional references were added to the reviewed literature (they were published since the closure of the earlier version of our manuscript (It would have been helpful though if the reviewer specifically indicated which part (s)he felt incomplete in the literature review)
· we consider the reviews, especially the specific proposals, to be very useful.
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper investigates the relationship between Corporate Sustainability Reporting and Sustainable Development Goals for the 2015-2030 period. It is well written and the topic is very interesting both for scholars and for practitioners. However, there is still room for further improvements.
First of all, in the paragraph “Introduction” is not clear the knowledge gap. In other words, the Authors do not indicate the reasons (aims, purposes, motivations?) of their study and its collocation within the literature panorama.
Secondly, the section “The sustainable development goals” shows the Agenda 2030 (lines 80-95), later the literature about relationship between the goals (lines 96-121) and then the final part of the paragraph has been dedicated to the literature on the environment and ecological issues. I wonder why the Authors follow these logical steps. It’s not clear as in the paragraph “3.1 Methodology” the Authors write “in order to measure the companies’ activity in achieving their objectives from the perspective of sustainable development, synchronization of the related indicators with the existing indicator systems can be a solution” (lines 329-331) and then “In our study, we examined the relationships between different SDGs, performed on basis of the GRI G4 indicators proposed by SDG Compass” (lines 337-338). However, GRIs indicators consist on economic, social and environmental topics and not only on the environmental ones. If the article is based only on environmental issue, the Authors have to declare it in the paragraph “Introduction” when they explain the article aim.
In the paragraph “Methodology” the Authors write “The GRI indicators are defined at the level of SDG targets, and in our analysis, we have assigned them directly to the goal” (lines 352-353) but they do not illustrate how they assigned the indicators to the goals. I believe this is a challenging issue for the readers and the Authors have to explain it clearly.
Moreover, the paragraph “2.2 The role of companies in achieving sustainable development goals” is too long. For example, I wonder if it is necessary the first part of the paragraph (lines 182-194). A reduced version of this paragraph could be better merged together with the paragraph “2.1 The sustainable development goals”. In the revised version of the article, the latter could be titled “2.1 The sustainable development goals and the role of companies”.
Secondary aspects
In the paragraph “2.1 The sustainable development goals”, the Table 1 is not clear. The Author could improve it by a different form and, especially, with a suitable text explication.
It isn’t necessary a subsection about research method in the paragraph “3. The GRI and the sustainable development goals”. I believe it is better only a paragraph named “3. Methodology”.
Finally, the character’s dimension of the lines 74-77 is different.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
We would like to thank you for your suggestions.
We have the following changes:
we corrected the introduction.
the SDG section was improved,
the abstract has been changed,
two structural changes occurred: the conclusion sub-section was modified into conclusion and discussion, the limitations was placed in a separate sub-section and has been expanded,
the methodology and analysis was improved,
two additional references were added to the reviewed literature (they were published since the closure of the earlier version of our manuscript).
We consider the reviews, especially the specific proposals, to be very useful.
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I have appreciated your paper and I want to thank you for the possibility to read it.
I think you can improve your research by better explaining research methods and provinding a more details about how you have build the clusters.
A possible limitation of your research is the focus on indicators without considering how these ones are applyed by firms in their reports. I suggest to indicate this limitation or integrate the research with further information about your methodological choice.
In the section "conclusions", I think you can better explain limitation and future perspective of your research. Furthermore, I suggest to stress the possible theoretical and practical impact of your research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
We would like to thank you for your suggestions. We have the following changes:
· the abstract has been changed,
· two structural changes occurred:
o the conclusion sub-section was modified into conclusion and discussion,
o the limitations was placed in a separate sub-section and has been expanded,
· the methodology and analysis was improved,
· two additional references were added to the reviewed literature they were published since the closure of the earlier version of our manuscript,
· we consider the reviews, especially the specific proposals, to be very useful.
Authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper, following the revisions, has been improved and is suitable for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I have seen your revised version of the paper and appreciated it. You have improved your research and I think it is now suitable for the high quality of the journal
