Business School Professors’ Perception of Ethics in Education in Europe
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Interesting idea but still in a developing form, please find below some recommendations.
Provide in the introduction and also in the methodological part scientific arguments for the selected countries: Italy, Ireland, Spain and Sweden, why are relevant?
There is a missed link between the title, that refers to "ethic education and sustainability" and
2.1 that refers to "business ethics education is Sustainable education for future leaders with an ethical conscience". Please clarify it.
Moreover, explain the relationship between ethics and sustainability, between ethic education ( ethics in education) and ethics education ( as a discipline).
Also, there is an inconsistency between the research questions: RQ1: What is professor’ perception of business ethics education in Business School? RQ2. What do you think could be done to implement business ethics and educate future entrepreneur about sustainability in business school? and
3.3."The interview guide addressed the following topics: the knowledge and perception about ethics in business schools, its role in educating future sustainable entrepreneurs."
and p 11 r 445 : RQ2: What do you think could be done for the implementation of business ethics education?
At 3.1. Research Design mentioned previous studies that used a similar research design and explain its advantages and disadvantages.
The codes and sub-codes from Table 1 are without any explanations in the text.
There is a connection between RQ and codes?
As a final recommendation, the paper needs to be rewritten in a more clear manner
grammar errors:
pag 2 r 47 "collective interest interest " the word interest is repeated.
pag 2 r 50-51 explain the relation between ethics and morality
pag 2 r 73 several our research questions.
pag 7 r 264: With my respondents' permission ?
pag 9 r 328 IRL (01): “Business ethic business ?
Author Response
NOTE: In this file, we are reproducing verbatim the comments of the reviewers, each followed by the action we have taken towards each recommendation. In the main file, we have highlighted the changes made in yellow, with the exception of the changes undertaken in order to improve the English of the manuscript, as requested by both reviewers. We have done so in order not to detract attention from the content changes that have been implemented. Reviewer 1. Comments and Suggestions for Authors 1.1. Interesting idea but still in a developing form, please find below some recommendations. Thanks for your evaluation of our manuscript. We are glad you find it interesting and grateful that you have provided guidance as to how to develop it to present it in a completed form. 1.2. Provide in the introduction and also in the methodological part scientific arguments for the selected countries: Italy, Ireland, Spain and Sweden, why are relevant? Done. In the Introduction (p. 2-3, lines 76-84) we present the rationale for carrying out a comparative study. In the Methods section (p. 7-8, lines 284-307) we explain the specific choices of countries based on Hofstede’s (1980, 1997) cultural dimensions. 1.3. There is a missed link between the title, that refers to "ethic education and sustainability" and 2.1 that refers to "business ethics education is Sustainable education for future leaders with an ethical conscience". Please clarify it. We think that something got lost in the translation to English of our original document, which was in Spanish. In all cases we refer to the incorporation of ethics in university education in business schools. We have correspondingly changed the title for “ethic education” and corrected the expressions throughout the manuscript. 1.4. Moreover, explain the relationship between ethics and sustainability, between ethic education (ethics in education) and ethics education (as a discipline). This problem was in the same lines as your previous point. Our paper’s main focus is about ethic education. We have re-written the first part of Section 2 (& 2.1.) in order to clarify these distinctions and relate them to sustainability. See pages 3 and 4, lines 94- 135. 1.5.Also, there is an inconsistency between the research questions: RQ1: What is professor’ perception of business ethics education in Business School? RQ2. What do you think could be done to implement business ethics and educate future entrepreneur about sustainability in business school? and 3.3."The interview guide addressed the following topics: the knowledge and perception about ethics in business schools, its role in educating future sustainable entrepreneurs." and p 11 r 445 : RQ2: What do you think could be done for the implementation of business ethics education? Thanks for pointing out this inconsistency. Our original study was longer and then, in order to make it fit into paper format, we did not carefully cut out the same sections. We have now corrected this and the research questions (page 6, lines 232-233) match section 3.3 about what was asked in the interviews (page 10, lines 340-343) and also the structure of the Results section, which has been articulated and titled under the two same questions. 1.6. At 3.1. Research Design mentioned previous studies that used a similar research design and explain its advantages and disadvantages. We further justified the utilization of our methodology with relevant references and pointed out the main advantages and disadvantages and how we have dealt with them (page 7, lines 252-266). 1.7. The codes and sub-codes from Table 1 are without any explanations in the text. Table 1 is now Table 2 (p. 11 lines 383-394), and we have made coincide its codes and subcodes with the titles of the subsections of the results section. The material was already there, but it was not sufficiently specified. 1.8. There is a connection between RQ and codes? As mentioned above, we have now connected the research questions with the main two codes, and the subcodes (which were derived from the analysis of the data) with the titles of the subsections of the results section. 1.9. As a final recommendation, the paper needs to be rewritten in a more clear manner The text has been fully revised for the standards of English, continuity and clarity. Please note that the changes made in order to improve the English of the manuscript have not been highlighted in yellow in order not to detract attention from the content changes that have been implemented. 1.10. grammar errors: pag 2 r 47 "collective interest interest " the word interest is repeated. Done. It is now in line 47. pag 2 r 50-51 explain the relation between ethics and morality Done. It is now in lines 48-56. pag 2 r 73 several our research questions. Done. It is now in line 86. pag 7 r 264: With my respondents' permission ? Done. It is now in line 349. pag 9 r 328 IRL (01): “Business ethic business ? Done. It is now in line 416.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This work focuses on a very interesting topic. The objectives are correctly defined. The methodology is well-designed and is consistent with the objectives of the study. The interpretation and discussion of results is clear, objective and consistent. The conclusions summarize well the results obtained and are consistent with the work presented.
The aspect that needs to be improved more significantly is the issue of writing. English should be substantially improved.
In addition, several inaccuracies are detected and should be carefully reviewed and corrected:
Line 12 – correct “structured, interviews”
Lines 25 and 26 - delete paragraph as the two sentences relate
Line 47 – correct “collective interest interest”
Line 80 - A small introduction should be included before 2.1.
Line 117 – correct “institutions,, , it is important”
Line 121 – correct “higher education [17,18] However”
Line 128 – correct “students [20]. of not sufficiently”
Line 128 – correct “practice [21]and Failure to instruct”
Line 160 – correct “not only in in both their”
Line 183 – correct “students [29,30] Whereas those”
Line 233 – the reference Creswell (2007) is missing in the final list, in addition it is not in the format in use
Line 235 – the references Jassim and Whitford (2014) and Kazley et al. (2015) are missing in the final list, in addition it is not in the format in use
Lines 245-249 - It is suggested to organize this information in a table that includes, besides the average, also the minimum, the maximum and the standard deviation, in order to better characterize the sample
Line 252 – the reference Guillemin and Gillam, 2004 is missing in the final list, in addition it is not in the format in use
Line 272 – the reference Marshall and Rossman (1999) is missing in the final list, in addition it is not in the format in use
Line 281 – correct “action [37]The”
Line 298 - Table 1 should be referenced before. Attention to formatting this table
Line 305 – correct “4.1. Research Questions1”
Line 328 – correct “Business ethic business”
Line 363 – “Teach business ethic mean teach Integrity and Honesty” - italicize as the remaining subtitles
Line 424 – correct “students” (SW9) .It”
Line 488 – correct “as possible” (SW 2).. It is important”
Line 490 – correct “at the university. .”
Line 569 – the reference Naturva rdsverket, 2002 is missing in the final list, in addition it is not in the format in use
Line 588 – correct “all universities and universities. disciplines. This”
Lines 609-619 - The recommendations presented are more questions for future research than recommendations. It is suggested that the subheading
Author Response
NOTE:
In this file, we are reproducing verbatim the comments of the reviewers, each followed by the action we have taken towards each recommendation. In the main file, we have highlighted the changes made in yellow, with the exception of the changes undertaken in order to improve the English of the manuscript, as requested by both reviewers. We have done so in order not to detract attention from the content changes that have been implemented.
Reviewer 2. Comments and Suggestions for Authors
2.1. This work focuses on a very interesting topic. The objectives are correctly defined. The methodology is well-designed and is consistent with the objectives of the study. The interpretation and discussion of results is clear, objective and consistent. The conclusions summarize well the results obtained and are consistent with the work presented.
Thanks for your positive evaluation of our manuscript. We are glad you find it interesting and that you have pointed out the details to be fixed.
2.2. The aspect that needs to be improved more significantly is the issue of writing. English should be substantially improved.
The text has been fully revised for the standards of English. Please note that the changes made in order to improve the English of the manuscript have not been highlighted in yellow in order not to detract attention from the content changes that have been implemented.
2.3. In addition, several inaccuracies are detected and should be carefully reviewed and corrected:
Line 12 – correct “structured, interviews”
Done
Lines 25 and 26 - delete paragraph as the two sentences relate
Done, now lines 24-25
Line 47 – correct “collective interest interest”
Done. It is now in line 47.
Line 80 - A small introduction should be included before 2.1.
Done. It is now in lines 94-98
Line 117 – correct “institutions,, , it is important”
Done. It is now in line 164.
Line 121 – correct “higher education [17,18] However”
Done. It is now in line 168.
Line 128 – correct “students [20]. of not sufficiently”
Done. It is now in line 175.
Line 128 – correct “practice [21]and Failure to instruct”
Done. It is now in line 175.
Line 160 – correct “not only in in both their”
Done. It is now in line 206.
Line 183 – correct “students [29,30] Whereas those”
Done. It is now in line 260.
Line 233 – the reference Creswell (2007) is missing in the final list, in addition it is not in the format in use.
Done. It is now in p. 8. line 316.
Line 235 – the references Jassim and Whitford (2014) and Kazley et al. (2015) are missing in the final list, in addition it is not in the format in use
Done. It is now in p. 8, lines 318.
Lines 245-249 - It is suggested to organize this information in a table that includes, besides the average, also the minimum, the maximum and the standard deviation, in order to better characterize the sample.
Done. It is now in p. 9 in line 336.
Line 252 – the reference Guillemin and Gillam, 2004 is missing in the final list, in addition it is not in the format in use
Done. It is now in p. 9, line 334.
Line 272 – the reference Marshall and Rossman (1999) is missing in the final list, in addition it is not in the format in use.
Done. It is now in p. 10, line 359.
Line 281 – correct “action [37]The”
Done. It is now in p. 10, line 365.
Line 298 - Table 1 should be referenced before. Attention to formatting this table. Done, both the placing and the formatting. This is now Table 2 and appears in p. 11, line 384-392.
Line 305 – correct “4.1. Research Questions1”
Done. It is now in line 394.
Line 328 – correct “Business ethic business”
Done. It is now in line 416.
Line 363 – “Teach business ethic mean teach Integrity and Honesty” - italicize as the remaining subtitles.
Done. It is now in line 452.
Line 424 – correct “students” (SW9) .It”
Done. It is now in line 512.
Line 488 – correct “as possible” (SW 2).. It is important”
Done. It is now in line 576.
Line 490 – correct “at the university. .”
Done. It is now in line 578.
Line 569 – the reference Naturva rdsverket, 2002 is missing in the final list, in addition it is not in the format in use
Done. It is now in p. 17, line 655.
Line 588 – correct “all universities and universities. disciplines. This”
Done. It is now in line 675.
Lines 609-619 - The recommendations presented are more questions for future research than recommendations. It is suggested that the subheading
Done. We have re-written this section. It is now in lines 697-712.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This version of the paper is improved, but still, some adjustments needed to be done.
Concerning the message and terminology used, you should clarify your topic and be consequent during the whole paper. Here below are just some examples:
a) ethic education (see the title) and ethics in business education ( see the abstract), ethical educational ( see the abstract)
b) ethical education and sustainability ( title) ethics and sustainable education ( abstract), sustainable education ( keywords)
c) sustainability ( titlu) and separate subsection) and sustainable education
Concerning the selection of the four European countries:
a) the question remains, why exactly these four countries, why not others.
b) you should connect Hofstede indicators with your results.
As a final recommendation, the paper needs to be rewritten in a more clear manner.
Author Response
NOTE:
In this file, we are reproducing verbatim the comments of the reviewer, each followed by the action we have taken towards each recommendation. In the main file, we have highlighted the changes made in green, with the exception of the changes undertaken in order to rewrite the manuscript in a clearer manner, as requested by the reviewer. We have done so in order not to detract attention from the content changes that have been implemented.
Moreover, we left the changes of the first revision highlighted in yellow.
Reviewer 1. Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1.1. This version of the paper is improved, but still, some adjustments needed to be done.
Thank you. We are glad you find this version better than de previous one. We addressed your comments in order to improve the paper.
1.2. Concerning the message and the terminology used, you should clarify your topic and be consequent during the whole paper. Here below are just some examples:
Thank you for your comment. After a meticulous review of the whole paper, we carried a number of changes (highlighted in green in the file) on the terminology used in order to be consistent during the whole paper.
a) ethic education (see the title) and ethics in business education (see the abstract), ethical educational (see the abstract).
Thank you for raising this point. Taking account the confusion that it can generate, we decided to slightly modify the title. “Business school professors’ perception of ethics in education in Europe”.
As indicated by the title, the study focuses on the perception of business school professors. Thus, we consider that it is repetitive to include again the word “business” before “education”. However, if you consider that it is more understandable to include it, we are willing to modify the title in the following way: “Business school professors’ perception of ethics in business education in Europe”.
Moreover, in the abstract the term ethical education has been replaced by ethics in education.
b) ethical education and sustainability (title) ethics and sustainable education (abstract), sustainable education (keywords)
Thank you for bringing this inconsistency to our attention. As explained, we changed the title and modified the abstract in order to make clear that the paper is focused on ethics in business education. Furthermore, we erase the term “sustainability” from the title because, as explained in the Results section, it arises from the data as one of the dimensions of the concept of ethics in business education.
c) sustainability (titlu) and separate subsection) and sustainable education
Thank you for this comment. We think that something got lost in the translation to English of our original document, which was in Spanish. The title has been modified. Moreover, along the paper, the term “sustainable education” has been replaced by “sustainability education”, according to the literature.
1.3. Concerning the selection of the four European countries:
a) the question remains, why exactly these four countries, why not others.
A more detailed explanation about the reason for select these four countries is incorporated in the Methodology section. (Page 8: line 304-313)
b) you should connect Hofstede indicators with your results.
Done. Both in the Results section (Page 12: line 412-415; Page 13: line 488-498; Page 14: line 511-516; Page 16: line 421-425) and the Discussion and Conclusions section (Page 18: line 676-687), we connect our results with the dimensions presented by Hofstede.
1.4. As a final recommendation, the paper needs to be rewritten in a more clear manner.
The whole paper is meticulously reviewed and rewritten in a clearer manner.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
There is a progress, but the paper is still unclear.
Inconsistency between title and abstract where appear also the professors's "role in achieving ethical awareness in these schools" keywords like: sustainability education and the text.
At pg. 2 there is an explanation concerning the relation between ethics and moral, so following this definition, why then is use "ethic and moral education" not only ethic education to be consistent with the title ?
Table 2 should be condensed having the follows columns: 1 profile elements, and the a column for each country.
at 3.2 Sample insert Hofstede values for each country in a table : first column the H dimensions and the one column for each country with the values.
In the discussion part the authors need to explain between their results in relation with H dimensions and especially the similarities and dissimilarities between the 4 country analysed.
Author Response
NOTE:
In this file, we are reproducing verbatim the comments of the reviewer, each followed by the action we have taken towards each recommendation. In the main file, we have highlighted the changes made in blue.
Moreover, we left the changes of the first revision highlighted in yellow and the changes of the second revision highlighted in green.
Reviewer 1 - Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1.1.There is a progress, but the paper is still unclear.
Thank you. We hope that after addressing your comments, the paper will be clearer.
1.2. Inconsistency between title and abstract where appear also the professors's "role in achieving ethical awareness in these schools" keywords like: sustainability education and the text.
Thank you for your comment. The objective of the study is to explore and understand what ethics in education means for business schools’ professors. For this reason, the title of the paper focus on ethics in education. However, as explained in the paper, the data analysis suggests that sustainability is one of the dimensions of the concept of ethics in education thus, we considered important to include it in both the abstract (change highlighted in blue) and the key words.
1.3. At pg. 2 there is an explanation concerning the relation between ethics and moral, so following this definition, why then is use "ethic and moral education" not only ethic education to be consistent with the title ?
Thank you for your comment. We changed it (page 2 – line 56) in order to avoid misunderstandings. The objective of the study is to explore and understand what ethics in education means for business schools’ professors. In this sense, morality appears in data analysis as a dimension of the ethics in education concept. For this reason, we considered important to briefly talk about morality issues in the literature review.
1.4. Table 2 should be condensed having the follows columns: 1 profile elements, and the a column for each country.
Done. We condensed the information of Table 2 as requested. (Page 9 – Line 349-350)
1.5. at 3.2 Sample insert Hofstede values for each country in a table : first column the H dimensions and the one column for each country with the values.
Done. We include a new table (Table 1) as requested. (Page 8 – Line 305-307)
1.6. In the discussion part the authors need to explain between their results in relation with H dimensions and especially the similarities and dissimilarities between the 4 country analysed.
Thank you for your comment. Regarding the explanation relating our results and Hofstede’s dimensions, we included it in the results section (as requested in the second revision) throughout the explanation of similarities and differences.
As you can see in the discussion section (highlighted in blue) the similarities and differences between the four countries related with Hofstede’s dimensions are now included (Page 17- Line 683-691; Page 18 – 692-705; Page 18 – Line 712-714)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
