Sustainability Reporting as a Mixture of CSR and Sustainable Development. A Model for Micro-Enterprises within the Romanian Forestry Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Main Comments and Suggestions

You should clarify the contributions of the paper which are not elaborated well in the current paper. You can talk about the following contributions: What insights can you provide based on your finding? Do they push forward our understanding? What should we do with your research? Do you have any suggestions to improve the current regulation or practice? Adding the above discussion and extend your literature review may help you make more contributions and position your contributions better.
Clarify why Romanian and why forestry. What can we learn from this specific study? Also, relate to the new development in the literature on how CSR affect financial performance like Li, Minor, Wang and Yu. 2019. A Learning Curve of the Market: Chasing Alpha of Socially Responsible Firms. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control forthcoming. You need to discuss those aspects of possible channels to give readers a more comprehensive view and a richer story and/or point out future research direction from these perspectives.

2. Minor Comments and Suggestions

There are many typos and grammatical mistakes throughout the paper, making it hard to read and understand. Try to avoid long sentences and vague words. For example, the first sentence in the abstract: “In the last decades the issue of the behavior geared towards society and the environment 17 of the SMEs has created a new niche for the economic researches as the majority of the studies 18 highlight the fact that, due to the internal features of the environment and the environment in which 19 they manifest themselves, in spite of the fact that the SMEs face some difficulties of applying the 20 valid CSR tools, they are concerned with their role in the society and for the environment and tend 21 to develop business models based on the principles of solid development.” I can’t believe it is one sentence. Use short, precise, and concise sentences and be more straightforward. The paper is too long with too many graphs and charts. Reduce to 15 for all charts and tables and only keep the important ones and combine redundant ones. Additionally, you need to seriously proofread the paper and extend and update your references.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper refers to an interesting and actual topic but there are still work to be done to improve the paper's clarity and contribution. Some suggestions are presented further as they appear during the reading process:    

a) mention the measuring unit for Figure 2. Geographical distribution of the forest fund; Source: The author’s own estimation

b) Section 2.1. A brief overview of the scientific field, first of all, is not quite brief, secondly, the quantitative analyses of the literature include article only till 2017, so is not update) and thirdly it is not needed in this extensive form in the article. 

c) Table 1. The synthesis of the main impact studies on the researched field might be in an annexe.

d) for each of the working hypotheses must be some scientific arguments extracted from the literature analysed

e) d) for each of the indicators must be some scientific arguments extracted from the literature analysed

f) explain in the introduction or after the literature review the paper's research objectives also using some scientific arguments extracted from the literature analysed

g) explain how the sample was established,

h) explain the data collections process 

i) in discussion part just discuss the results of your study in correlation with the literature. The methodological issues must be concentrated in the specific section dedicated to the paper structure.

j) r708-r731 explain what it is

k) the risk flowcharts must be in an annexe

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Improved significantly