Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

see attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valued inputs. Very helpful and much appreciated. Enclosed a PDF document with 2 synoptic tables that I added to the manuscript.

• The first is a conceptual model that I added to chapter 2 (literature study).
• The second is an "observed empirical model" that I added to chapter 6 (conclusion).

Indeed, a synoptic table makes the manuscript more effective.

Sincerely,

Stephan Blaha

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article "(T)walk your talk! On the (non-)formative influence of corporate social responsibility communication on supply chain sustainability measures" is a significant contribution to our understanding of how CSR is communicated and implemented. The research asks an interesting question, has taken an innovative approach and provides insightful, provocative questions.

I have two comments, both of which would fall within authorial discretion. 

1) The title is very awkward with the (brackets) hyphens and exclamation marks. It is off-putting rather than inviting. The authors may wish to reconsider it. 

2) The English usage is a bit bumpy. For example, the occasional failure to use the article 'the', awkward use of plurals or adverbs, as well as the use of the German 's' in Weisenberger ought to be corrected.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valued inputs. Very helpful and much appreciated. I processed most of your inputs and changed the German 's'.  I modified the title and made it less "busy". Indeed, I have the habit of using a lot of adverbs so I skipped many of them in the manuscript. Thanks for pointing this out to me.

Sincerely

Stephan Blaha

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is interesting and generally,  there are some revisions that are suggested below:

• Would you please describe what economic performance indicators are caused Corporate Social Responsibility to contradict? and why?
• Can you state in brief the main differences between your interview study and document research?
• You may try to add nearly several year`s study references, for example, the years 2020 and 2021.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your valued inputs. Very helpful and much appreciated. About your feedback:

• In chapter 4, line 570 to 592 (results) I specified and described the conflicting economic indicators which I substantiated with quotes from interviewees. This addition indeed gives more clarification about the conflicts.
• In chapter 4, section document research I highlighted in lines 757-765 the difference between the interview- and document study. Also a valuable input as both have a different scope which is also the main difference.

Thanks again for your feedback

Sincerely

Stephan Blaha