An Analysis of Sustainability in Real Estate in Job Advertisements and Personal Profiles in Switzerland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Some suggestions that can be given for this manuscript include:

> Add a novelty score at the end of the discussion, after interpreting the data findings.

> The conclusion section contains recommendations and implications, as well as limitations and opportunities for further research

> Style in reference management should be equated with IEEE Style or Vancover Style

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Proofreading is required for the entire manuscript

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valued review. According to your review, but also based on the other reviews, I have been revising the work over the last 10 days. Also due to the feedback to have the document proofread, the document has subsequently developed significantly. In the following, I would like to respond in particular to your comments and suggestions:

• Add a novelty score: I have added a new "Novelty Score" section at the end of the discussion.
• The conclusion section includes recommendations, implications, limitations and opportunities for further research: I have rewritten the main body of the discussion chapter, including implications. I have also added a section on limitations at the end of the discussion. As a result, I have made sure that the final chapter includes recommendations and implications as well as limitations and opportunities for further research.
• The style in reference management: I used the ACS style as recommended by the Journal of Sustainability: Sustainability | Instructions for Authors (mdpi.com). I have revised the references throughout the text and also added about 15 new sources.

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is very challenging and the author has succeeded very well to debate it.  However, he should state more clear the purpose of the paper, not only in the abstract, but also in the introductory part.

The literature review part describes very well the theoretical background, by making reference to the findings of other studies. All the cited references are relevant to the research.

The methods that were used are adequately stated and the results are presented in clear manner, the author offering coherent and compelling arguments. 

The authors could develop more the conclusions, by detailing the implications of their findings on the Swiss companies.

English language is fine. Only minor editing issues are required.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valued review. According to your review, but also based on the other reviews, I have been revising the work over the last 10 days. Also due to the feedback to have the document proofread by the other reviewer, the document has subsequently developed significantly. In the following, I would like to respond in particular to your comments and suggestions:

• State more clear the purpose of the paper: I have added text in the introductory chapter that makes the purpose of the work clearer.
• Develop more the conclusions: Yes, I agree. I have rewritten the main part of the discussion chapter to include/outline the conclusions. I also added a section on limitations at the end of the discussion. As a result, I have made sure that the final chapter includes recommendations and implications as well as limitations and opportunities for further research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the paper titled “An Analysis of Sustainability in real estate in job advertisements and person profile in Switzerland.”

Following are my comments that the author needs to look into

Introduction

The introduction is interesting, and the research question placed in the introduction section is also interesting enough to be looked into. However, I cannot find the answers in the research for the first two research questions.

1-    organizations are calling for sustainability, and if so, what are the cues for sustainability in real estate to successfully manage their contribution to the transformation of the built environment,

2-    the staff currently working in real estate-related fields have the necessary expertise, 56 skills, and competencies that enable sustainability in the real estate industry.

Literature review

Only three out of 21 references provided in the literature review section are from the last five years. New references should be used for a better understanding of the development of the area.

Data analysis

It is recommended to provide a table for the key findings of job postings and person profiles. This will help in the easy comprehension by the reader.

The Table 1 results need review as 0.000e+00 is less than 0.05. hence these values are also significant.

The p-value of the hypothesis test gives a measure of how much evidence is present to reject the null hypothesis. The smaller the p-value, the higher the evidence against the null hypothesis. The p-value is not the indicator of which factor/ dimension is “more significantly represented in the job add.” Separate tests/analyses are required to be run to identify this.

Discussion

The discussion is not consistent with the empirical findings.

Implications

Theoretical and Practical implications, which are the most important sections of this study, are missing.

Limitations

Limitations should be provided as a separate section, not as an integrated part of the discussion of the overall results.

Minor editing of the English language and formatting of the manuscript are required.

0. 4.1. Results of the Descriptive Data: Job Postings and Persons pProfiles (Person Profiles) 

1.  

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valued review. According to your review, but also based on the other reviews, I have been revising the work over the last 10 days. Also due to the feedback to have the document proofread, the document has subsequently developed significantly. In the following, I would like to respond in particular to your comments and suggestions:

• I cannot find the answers in the research for the first two research questions: The answers to the first two research questions can be found in the key findings chapter. The keywords on sustainability used in are now more clearly stated in the same chapter. I have also added content to the above chapters and sections. In addition, I have added content to your comments in the discussion chapter to strengthen the argument on how to better enable and utilise the fit between people profiles and the needs of the organisation in terms of sustainability.
• References from the last five years: I added references written on this topic in the last 5 years (2019-2023). The references strengthen the literature review conducted. But especially in the areas of "real estate" and "personal profiles", the development of this field does not seem to be very well represented in the literature. This gap is now also addressed in the discussion chapter.
• Data Analysis: Since both Section 4.2 and Section 4.3 include a table/figure summarising the results, I feel that it would be more helpful to the reader if a table summarising the results were added at the end of Section 4.1. I have revised the data for Table 3 (formerly Table 1) in Section 4.3. As a result, I have rewritten almost the entire chapter.
• Discussion and Implications: I have revised all three sections in the discussion. The implications are added to the findings in all three sections in the discussion of the chapter.
• Limitations: Please note the newly added "Limitations" section in the "Discussion" chapter. In addition, the "Conclusion" chapter now includes recommendations and implications as well as limitations and opportunities for further research.

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is interesting, but there are still some very serious flaws. I miss the definitions of import constructs.

Specific comments

In line 74 the author writes ‘more than 50 job profiles were analyzed’. Can you tell more about the analyzing process? How and where did you search for job profiles? Keywords for searching? How analyzed (specific method used, like coding)?

In line 99 and further the author writes ‘These preliminary findings from the analyzed job advertisements were discussed in interviews with 30 executives from the private and public real estate industry and presented to 25 executives in an expert workshop in January 2021’. I would like to know more about the methodological choices made. In the first place, on the basis of what criteria, the 30 executives from the private and public real estate industry where chosen for? In the second place, why 30, and not less or more? In the  third place, where can I find the interview protocol? In the fourth place, was it a face-to-face interview with each executive separately, or a focus group interview? In the fifth place, did saturation occur?

Can you also tell more about the methodological choices made in the workshop, to derive data, or information, that comes up to scientific rigor?

In line 136 the author writes ‘In general, to date, there is no comprehensive, generally accepted definition, or model for managing sustainability in real estate’. In the scientific world, this is not only a problem for the construct of real estate, but probably for most of the constructs that have to be defined. Therefore, as an author you have to choose what the definition of your most important constructs are, so I know what you mean with them when reading this article. That is not clear now.

Line 206, the author writes ‘All keywords are researched in German and, if necessary, in English’. But in Switzerland four languages are spoken: German (62.6%),  French (22.9%), Italian (8.2%) and  Romansh 0.5%. So, why not also in at least French and Italian?

In line 283 the author writes ‘or about 10%’. This can be more exactly: 8%.

In line 301 the author writes ‘The results are shown in the following figure.’. This could better be replaced by ‘The results are shown in figure 1’.

In line 309 the author writes ‘(…) as shown in table 3’. This must be Table 1.

In line 309 the author writes ‘The dimensions “Processual”, “Economical” and “Technical” are more significantly represented in the job ads than the dimensions “Ecological”, and “Social” to the organization’. To play a bit for devils’ advocate, how do you know that these dimensions in the job ads deal in the end with sustainability, as is described in the dimensions?

As also limitations and future research are mentioned in the article, I would like to suggest to put these as separate sections at the end of the conclusions section.

In line 494 it says ‘Data Availability Statement: Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found here: [https://www.linkedin.com]’ I could not find it there.

At some points words are used twice (probably typos).

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valued review. According to your review, but also based on the other reviews, I have been revising the work over the last 10 days. Also due to the feedback to have the document proofread, the document has subsequently developed significantly. In the following, I would like to respond in particular to your comments and suggestions:

• Definitions of import constructs: I inserted few of the important constructs in the chapter 2.
• Analyzing process: I now describe the process utilized in the chapter 2.
• Methodological choices made interviewing executives / workshop: Please see the added paragraph regarding the experts and workshop in chapter 2.
• Missing generally accepted definition/model for managing sustainability in real estate: Thank you for your input. I regarded it and inserted respective text at the end of chapter 2.
• Keywords researched in German and English: By default, members see their profile in the language they use on LinkedIn. To use German would have been sufficient. But as many English words are also used in German, English was also added. I added this insight to the paper.
• Rounded numbers: In now the findings chapter I used the exact numbers. The exact numbers can be looked up in the newly added table.
• Replace ‘The results are shown in figure 1’: Done as suggested.
• Table 3 must be Table 1: I inserted two further tables to support the readers’ guide and corrected the table numbers.
• Devils’ advocate, dimensions in the job ads deal with sustainability? Yes, understood – I rephrased.
• Put limitations and future research as separate sections at the end of the conclusions section. Please see new added section “Limitations” in the chapter “Discussion”. Furthermore, now the conclusion section contains recommendations and implications, as well as limitations and opportunities for further research.
• Data Availability Statement: I rephrased the sentences. The data was retrieved from LinkedIn.
• At some points words are used twice (probably typos): I think, I now deleted the redundant words.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for making the maximum improvement, congratulations on the next process.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The author did a good job in adjusting the paper to my feedback!