Leadership towards Sustainability: A Review of Sustainable, Sustainability, and Environmental Leadership

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the work on this study and the opportunity to review your manuscript. Overall, this manuscript comprehensively reviews the three terms related to sustainability and worth. However, I have several significant concerns-I have outlined my notes below and hope they are helpful.

1)    Abstract. The abstract is vague and needs improvement. For example, the authors talk about “the purpose of this paper is…” but also talk about “this paper seeks to make a significant contribution,” But, I wonder how the authors collect the data through a comprehensive review and find out what the contributions are in this study. Also, the authors talk about similarities and differences; I wonder what they are. Finally, the author again states, “The main goal of this paper is…” Therefore, the abstract needs to thoroughly revise and improve.

2)    Introduction. The introduction needs improvement.  I wonder what the review questions are and how the authors approve this is the first comprehensive review. Also, what is your purpose for the study?

3)    Determining the concepts of leadership and sustainability. The author comprehensively reviews the terms, including leadership and sustainability. But, I wonder why the authors did not mention environmental leadership and what is the relationship among the words the authors address. Therefore, it needs improvement.

4)    Sustainable, sustainability, and environmental leadership. I wonder how the authors created this framework, as Figure 1 shown. As for sustainable leadership, the authors summarized the five keys. But, I wonder what framework guides you to find the five keys. As for sustainable leadership and environmental leadership, the authors present the findings. But, I wonder how the authors synthesize the key findings. Also, the authors discuss the study using a comparative, but I wonder how the authors present the results. Therefore, this part needs improvement.

5)    Discussion and limitation and future research and conclusion. It is acceptable, but the discussion parts still need improvement.

6)    References. I suggest the authors add more recent data from 2021 to 2023.

7)    Overall, I suggest that the authors use what type of literature framework guides their study and what data have been used to synthesize the significant vital findings. The current manuscript is fragile and needs improvement.

Author Response

Thank you Reviewer 1 for your comments and suggestions. Please see the attached word document -: Response to Reviewer 1 10th July 2023.

Kind regards, 

Jane

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author(s),

The research presents relevant content for the literature and fills a gap on the subject. The study is comprehensive, relevant, and broad in establishing a debate across perspectives while summarizing the discussion appropriately. In addition, it comprises several suitable and recommended references for the field of research.

A single review comment for authors concerns the presentation of citations. At times they are presented alphabetically by author's last name, such as on page 1 for "Crews, 2010; Ferdig, 2007; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006, Metcalf & Benn, 2013". At other times, this alphabetical order is not respected, as on page 2 for "Albertini, 2013; Runhaar, Tigchelaar, & Vermeulen, 2006; Lourenco, Callen, Branco & Curto, 2014". I recommend only defining a criterion for the paper.

Best regards.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Please see the attached word document: Response to the Reviewer 2 10th July 2023.

Kind regards,

Jane Boeske

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for providing this manuscript on "leadership towards sustainability: a review of sustainable, sustainability and environmental leadership". I acknowledge the importance of the study. However the following points are worthy of consideration to improve the manuscript’s comprehensibility.

1. While this research covers an interesting and up-to-date topic, it appears that the papers published in 2023 are not included in this research. As such, more in-depth and up-to-date studies are needed to support the manuscript. Below are a few examples of articles that might be useful:

https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-03-2021-0151

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010894

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021360

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010894

2.    Authors are kindly requested to avoid using the capture for Figure 1, as it is illegible. I suggest including the original figure for clarity.

3.  A number of sentences need to be rephrased because they are copied from other works without giving any credit to the original source. For instance:

· Lines 157-159  "[…] organization’s ability to meet existing business and stakeholder needs while maintaining and enhancing the natural and human resources needed for the future".  

·  Lines 380-381, "Leaders need to be able to influence team members, network with key stakeholders, act as a mentor or coach and build effective teams".

·   547-552, " take a broader view of stakeholders arguing that ‘all interest groups, parties, actors, claimants and institutions’, who are internal or external are affected by the organization’s actions. Examples include investors, board of directors, managers, employees, customers, suppliers, competitors, the community and society at large, unions and governments and it is the responsibility of top management to ensure that these stakeholders are as satisfied as possible".

· 353-355, " draw attention to external leadership activities that are responsible for dealing with environmental issues such as: learning, lobbying and forming alliances with the aim of solving shared environmental problems ".

Note that 5% of similarity was detected from https://doi.org/10.3390/su14041978. Please reduce the similarity index. If it concerns one of your previous publications, please avoid self-plagiarism, by rewording plagiarized parts.

4.   Please modify the "Data availability statement" according to your study, for instance: "Data Availability Statement: Not applicable".

I hope my feedback will help you to develop your research.

All the best.

Some minor English editing is needed to correct the various grammatical errors present in the manuscript.  

Author Response

Thank you for your ideas, recommendations and suggestions. Please see attached the word document: Response to the Reviewer 3 10th July 2023.

Kind regards,

Jane Boeske

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

I started my review with a general analysis the article in the context of elements such as: a structure of the article, abstract, literature review, methodology, the results of the research, discussion, conclusions, limitations and future directions of the research.

Even this is a conceptual article with a review of the literature, I found all these elements in this paper. The Author undertake really very actual and important problem of Leadership towards Sustainability. The content of the article is coherent with the topic.

In Abstract the Author wrote: “The purpose of this paper is to review and compare which sustainable, sustainability and environmental leadership approaches are predictive of improved organizational performance with a view to understanding leadership towards sustainability”. And at the end of Abstract the Author wrote: “ The main goal of this paper is to identify a range of leadership behaviors and practices that are required to improve the performance of sustainability in organizations”.

Please formulate one purpose/goal of the article/this paper in Abstract (and also in Introduction).

The Author uses the phrases “we integrate” “ or “our findings” in Introduction which is wrong because there’s only one Author of this article not many Authors. In the scientific article it should be used the different  style of writing  like “in the article are integrated the three leadership approaches and highlight areas of similarity and difference” and “that combines findings on leadership practices” (without “our findings”).

This’s a conceptual article but even in this kind of articles must be described the research problem. What is the research problem? The research problem should be formulated in Introduction. Why the Author wrote in Introduction “we describe”? There’s only one Author of this article (it should be written like this “first, the Author describe and provide or “first in the article is described …”). Please change this.

The another note concerns the figures (the sources should be listed under each figure; e.g. Source: own elaboration or it must be the description of the source - the article or the book). In the section Discussion the Author wrote” Our aim was to resolve…” - why our? There’s only one Author of this article.

The Author in this article present really good knowledge within the analyzed topic in a consistent and logical manner.  The cited references are relevant to the topic of the article but in such important topic, the Author should use more latest sources (e.g. from 2018-2023).

In the section Conclusions, the Author should present more conclusions resulting from the conducted research (theoretical analyses).

Notes to be included in fixes (adjustments):

*Abstract:

The Author should describe one aim/purpose of this article.

*Introduction:

It would be good if the aim/purpose of the article was also presented in the Introduction.

It is necessary to formulate also a research problem.

*Please change the style of writing - not “us”, “our”.

*Literature review:

It is necessary to include and use more the most current publications from 2018-2023.

*Figures

Sources should always be described under the figures, e.g. own study based on ??? or own elaboration or….article/book. This should be supplemented.

*Conclusions

The Author should prepare more Conclusions at the end of the article as the result of the theoretical analyses.

English needs to be checked and refined.

Author Response

Thank you for your ideas, suggestions and recommendations. Please see the attached word document called -: Response to the Reviewer 4 10th July 2023.

Kind regards,

Jane Boeske

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your hard work on the revised one, which has considerably improved. However, the revised manuscript still needs further improvement. It may need research questions, which could help you to present the results in a much clear way. All the best.

It might need further proofreading, such as word choice etc. Thank you. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for your helpful comments and ideas with regards to improving my paper. I really appreciate your time and effort in this process. Please see the attached word document that outlines my responses. 

Kind regards, Jane Boeske

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have done a very good job in addressing the reviewers' outstanding issues. This version has improved significantly, which only requires some minor revisions as follows:

· Authors are requested to avoid using the capture for Figure 1, as it is illegible. I suggest including the original figure for clarity.

All the best,

 Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you very much for your very helpful comments and suggestions for improving my paper. I really appreciated your time and effort with this process.

Please find the attached word document that outlines my response.

Kind regards, Jane Boeske

Author Response File: Author Response.docx