Strategic Sustainability Risk Management in Product Development Companies: Key Aspects and Conceptual Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments
The aim of the article and research goals have not been precisely defined.
The research methodology has not been specified, and the description of the results is rather chaotic.
The purposefulness of the selection of experts participating in the study should be justified.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper provides an interesting insight over a very important sustainability related topic.
However, I do have a few suggestions with the aim to improve the overall quality of the article.
To begin with, I must notice that the keywords from lines 27-28 are not entirely found in the content of the paper. The correspondence between the selected keywords and content is very important. For instance, there is not even one reference in the body of the paper for any of the keywords “Sustainable Product Development” and “Corporate Sustainability” that were both previously listed.
Then, the whole research is based on several conducted interviews with only 6 industrial experts and 2 academic experts. In this regard, I believe that further details and explanations would be of help if will be included in the paper. What exactly makes them being experts and qualifies them in order for this research to be relevant? Who were they? Why this rather small sample of experts was considered representative? As seen in Table 1, from the 6 industrial experts, 4 companies were in the field of consultancy, therefore in the field of services, not involved directly in production or product development. Hence, the connection with the title of the paper that deals with sustainability risk management in PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES, can be seen as unclear at a first glance. Thus, in order to meet the required scientific level of the article, further clarification is needed also in this regard.
The reader remains with the feeling that the paper ends somehow exactly in the point where things were becoming more interesting (line 578 – Future Developments). Therefore, the relevance of the conducted study should be further detailed and pointed out in the Conclusions section, where things are presented a little too general, by underlining better the potential practical implications of the findings from a more pragmatic approach.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
First of all let me state that I read the paper reviewed with a great pleasure. I’d like to congratulate the Author (s) as the topic raised in the said paper is really important nowadays. And probably it will be much more important in the future.
When reviewing scientific papers for publication, I usually start with a general overview in terms of a structure, abstract, literature review, methodology, findings of the research, discussion, conclusions, as well as limitations of the study. I also pay attention to a language level, especially if the paper is written in English, and English is not the native language.
The reviewed paper entitled “Strategic Sustainability Risk Management in Product Development Companies: Key Aspects and Conceptual Approach” is generally structured in a proper way. There are, however no sections ‘limitations of the study’, and ’future directions of the research”. These sections should be added too, given this is a research paper. I also suggest splitting the Results and Discussion section. The article will be much clearer and easier for the reader to read.
The literature review is quite good and is strongly founded in the existing literature of the topic. Generally I claim that Author (s) provide solid theoretical foundations for the analysis using appropriate references. I would, however, recommend to add some references devoted to the latest literature associated with the topic in question (including Web of Science and SCOPUS papers - first and second quartiles).
One should emphasize that the whole paper is very coherent and particular sub-parts fit together.
Additionally, one can see a smooth movement from one point to the another (end of deliberations in one sub-chapter creates also a beginning of a discussion in the next one).
Discussion is presented with together on the results. In my opinion, this is a weakness of this article. As I suggested earlier, these two sections should be clearly separated. In the discussion section, you must compare the results of your research with the results of other authors.
Formulated conclusions prove fulfilment of the stated objective, and provide a good summary evaluation of author’s findings.
Generally my opinion is positive. Though I have some minor remarks which may improve the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Strategic Sustainability Risk Management in Product Development Companies: Key Aspects and Conceptual Approach
Please consider the following comments.
The article has the following content.
1. Introduction
2. Background
2.1. Transition Design
2.2. Strategic Sustainable Development
2.3. Sustainability Risk Management in Product Development Companies
3. Methods
3.1. Methodological limitations
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Key Aspects for Strategic Sustainability Risk Management
Sustainability Risk Scope
Sustainability Risk Context and Criteria
Sustainability Risk Identification
Sustainability Risk Analysis and Evaluation
Sustainability Risk Treatment
Communication and Consultation
4.2 Conceptual Approach for Strategic Risk Management within the Sustainability Transition
Future Developments
5. Conclusions
Line 27
Sustainable Product Development -
Please define the term. This term is not used anywhere in the text.
Line 28
ESG
Please use here not abbreviated, but the full name of the term.
Line 285
The article outlines Key Aspects for Strategic Sustainability Risk Management (subsection 4.1) .
They are quoted in accordance with ISO31000-2018 (separate subsections of section 6):
Communication and consultation,
Defining the scope,
External and internal context,
Defining risk criteria,
Risk identification,
Risk analysis,
Risk evaluation,
Risk treatment.
However, two subsections are not included in the Key Aspects:
Monitoring and review,
Recording and reporting.
Please, supplement the rationale for this in the article.
Line 326
(...)"both academic and industry experts consider risk management as “a useful language and a
useful tool to make them [companies] think about risks that are not immediately observable or visible in their
business context, but that are relevant or will be relevant essentially to their bottom line” (academic expert)."
Please clarify "both academic and industry experts" or " academic expert."
Lines 71,188,606
Hypotheses proposed in an earlier study were tested and developed in this study.
Is that correct?
Please formulate those hypotheses here, even if they are already published in another article.
Typo
Line 417
5 Why,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Strategic Sustainability Risk Management in Product Development Companies: Key Aspects and Conceptual Approach
The paper investigates the key aspects for successful sustainability risk management in a product development company context. It also explores how to analyze from a risk management perspective the implications of macro-level societal change on micro-level product development company objectives. As a result of the research, a conceptual approach for strategic risk management considering transition to sustainability was developed.
The contribution to the literatures of the paper is clearly presented and relevant.
Also, literature review is clearly pictured and the role of the current research is adequately emphasized.
From a methodological point of view a qualitative research approach was applied, based on eight semi-structured interviews that were conducted with 230 academic and industrial experts. At first, I had some reservations about the small sample and methodology but the authors transparently pointed to the limitations of the study and explained convincingly their choice for the current methodology.
The results are interesting, based on the applied methodology and have practical implications.
Overall, the paper is well written and interesting. It also sheds light to relevant insights related to strategic sustainability risk Management in product development.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The text of the article has been largely corrected and supplemented.Reviewer 2 Report
Most of the issues have been addressed and the paper has been overall improved. Other than minor spelling and text editing errors, the current article should now be fit for publishing.
