The Role of the Accounting and Control Professional in Monitoring and Controlling Sustainable Value
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper wants to use qualitative analysis to explore “What could be the role of Accounting & Control Professionals regarding diagnostic control systems, focusing on sustainable value creation?” The necessity of this problem can be found in some literatures, such as Line36-45, but the previous research on this research problem by other scholars is lacking. And, the text is long and the writing structure makes it difficult for readers to read. Authors are advised to change the structure of the thesis to five sections. The following are my suggestions for modifying this paper, please refer to it.
1. Introduction: It is suggested to simplify the text according to this logic "Research context (research question and importance of the research question) - Motivation (discussion of the research question by previous scholars) – Purpose (add research objectives)- Method (explain why it is appropriate to solve the research question)". In addition, Please reconfirm the importance of table 1, it is not recommended to put this table in the first chapter.
2. Literature review: The section must clearly state the theory used.
3. Methodology: This section needs to strengthen the description of the research process and explain how the encoding process determines the bias and how this paper avoids this bias. The research process can be expressed in conjunction with the research objectives.
4. Results: 4-1 is to explain the source of the data and the reliability of the data；4-2 could be the original third chapter, but this part needs to be streamlined. The process should be the same as the research process in Chapter 3; 4-3 is to write discussion and management implications.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations: Please be concise, the research background is not copied from Section 1.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I’m glad to have the opportunity to read this paper. I consider that the paper fits with the journal’s aim, but any research can be improved so I have some minor suggestions:
Abstract: is well
Introduction: is well maybe you can add the novelty of the paper and comparing it to other research in the field
Research Method is well
Findings I miss the personal opinions and the like to the existing literature
Discussion after figure 5 a short description is welcomed, and pleas highlight your personal opinion.
Conclusions and directions for the future I suggest eliminating the references from this part and structure it us following:
Theoretical implications
Managerial implications
Practical implications
Limits
Future research
References, please review the reference formatting.
Additional references:
Bakieva, I. A. (2022). Need and Organizational Aspects of Human Audit in Modern Enterprises and Organizations. Texas Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 7, 365-368.
George-Silviu, C., & Melinda-Timea, F. (2015). New audit reporting challenges: auditing the going concern basis of accounting. Procedia Economics and Finance, 32, 216-224.
Ishaque, M., Attah‐Boakye, R., & Yusuf, F. (2022). Behavioural Framework for Managing Conflicts of Interest in Professional Accounting Firms. British Journal of Management, 33(2), 1071-1086.
Good luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The research topic is of great international interest. The role of controllers (or accounting professionals') in the implementation of sustainability objectives and SDGs is now a topic for heated debate among scholars. However, the authors failed to make a clear contribution to the scholars.
Please consider these suggestions for revision:
A literature review is missing. There are now various papers on the topic internationally, for example:
Crutzen, Nathalie, and Christian Herzig. "A review of the empirical research in management control, strategy and sustainability." Accounting and control for sustainability (2013).
Ball, Amanda, and Markus J. Milne. "Sustainability and management control." (2004).
Gond, Jean-Pascal, et al. "Configuring management control systems: Theorizing the integration of strategy and sustainability." Management Accounting Research 23.3 (2012): 205-223.
Kerr, J., Rouse, P., & de Villiers, C. (2015). Sustainability reporting integrated into management control systems. Pacific Accounting Review.
Crutzen, Nathalie, Dimitar Zvezdov, and Stefan Schaltegger. "Sustainability and management control. Exploring and theorizing control patterns in large European firms." Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017): 1291-1301.
Authors must introduce a review of the litterature and must carefully address the research gap and question.
In addition, the authors use Simon's framework (diagnostic), in the discussion they rightly use others Simon's levers (interactive, ...). In my opinion, the use of the diagnostic lever alone is not convincing. The levers of control are deemed to form an integral part of employee socialization and support the development of an organization’s culture, the system of shared beliefs, values, norms, and mores of organizational members which are deemed to be a primary determinant of the direction of employee behavior. Belief and boundary control are necessary to understand the spread of the culture of sustainability within companies. The authors have highlighted the mindset as limits, this is an element that concerns belief control. The framework used needs to be revised. Moreover, the discussion must be set up to explain the results based on the framework (at the moment the discussion uses elements that are not mentioned in the framework).
The coding process must be explained considering the elements of the framework. The authors claim to have adopted an exploratory approach; this may be adequate when there is no literacy about the topic.
On a methodological level, the authors must make it clear what they mean by ACP. This also has consequences on the choice of participants in the focus groups. Controllers may have a different role than accountants.
Good luck.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The content of this article has been revised to make it easier to read, but there are two more parts that need to be revised for readability.
1. Please redraw all figures and tables, and please reconsider the necessity for Table 1.
2. The title of Chapter 4 suggests simply writing "empirical results". Then, please note that Chapter 4 is currently too large and I suggest simplifying it a bit.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please find below our adjustments based on your comments in review round two.
- We have deleted Table 1 and replaced it by a sentence, representing the main conclusion of this table. This sentence can be found in Line 93-96. We have also redesigned all other tables, using representative papers in the journal as example. To increase the readability of our paper, we have removed the figures with a lot of text to the appendix. This involves figure 4, 5, and 6. We also simplified figure 2, which now refers and connects to the sub sections of the findings. This also improves the clarity of our findings section. We also aligned the references to the updated figures, tables, and appendices.
- We realize that our findings section is long. However this is inherent to our methodology based on qualitative research, in which quotes are provided by an in-depth analysis. We have however reduced and simplified this section as much as possible, as is made visible via track changes in the findings section. A further reduction will be very difficult without losing the context and meaning of our findings.
We kindly thank you again to help us further improve our paper and we look forward to the review’s outcome of our adjustments.
Sincerely yours,
also on behalf of dr. Koos Wagensveld and prof. dr. Jan Jonker,
Egbert Willekes Msc.
Corresponding author
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised version has improved a lot compared to the first. In my opinion there is one aspect that needs to be clarified better in the paper. The choice of using diagnostic control only needs to be clarified. The authors state that "We have however chosen the diagnostic control system of Simons because of the possibility to connect in our discussion section to other control levers like belief systems". The choice must be based on literature, not on convenience over discussion.
Good luck.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please find below our adjustments based on your comments in review round two.
We have clarified the use of Simons’ diagnostic control. Our motivation to choose for the diagnostic control system is now based on the literature instead of on convenience for the discussion section. Our motivation can be found in Line 142-147.
We kindly thank you again to help us further improve our paper and we look forward to the review’s outcome of our adjustments.
Sincerely yours,
also on behalf of dr. Koos Wagensveld and prof. dr. Jan Jonker,
Egbert Willekes Msc.
Corresponding author
