Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper on CSR interal and external communication is interesting, original, focusing on German case, and with the use of the up to date literature.

I have one question on how you could say someting on the inteconnection between internal and external communication, and write a paragraph about it. Is external communication driving the internal one or the other way around? 

Related to it would be to identify the current themes on the one hand, and the differences or oppostions on the other hand. 

 

Another point has to do with methodology. I would like to see more on the limits of the approach and what you did to respond the previous problems.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Not much to say, just some excessive use of adjectives at some point, line 124-125- just questions of style and clarity.

Maybe a final reading. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors need to add more rigor to the research results using statistical methods and other forms of data analysis. The paper, in its present form, simply reports the results of the interviews and develops conclusions for the most part. References must be improved to include (not mine) the following and clearly elaborate how their approach and results contribute incrementally to those already published.

Journal of Organization &Environment

Organizational Learning for Environmental Sustainability: Internalizing Lifecycle Management

Guia Bianchi https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2597-7144guia.bianchi@santannapisa.it, Francesco Testa https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4494-8146 and Fabio Iraldo Volume 35, Issue 1, Journal of Organization&Environment https://doi.org/10.1177/10860266219987 44

IntIInternal and External Aspects of Sustainability Communication. An investigation of CSR reporting and media coverage in different industries 2020-21

• JanuJanuary 2024

• January 2024

• In book: D. Verčič, A. Tkalac Verčič & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public Relations and Sustainability. Proceedings of the 30th International Public Relations Research Symposium BledCom (pp.233-247)
• Publisher: University of Ljubljana

Authors: Holger Sievert

• Macromedia University, Cologne, Germany

    Florian Meissner

• Hochschule Macromedia

    Esther Hetzel  

Tensions in Aspirational CSR Communication—A Longitudinal Investigation of CSR Reporting

by  Lisa Koep     College of Business, Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin 2, Ireland Sustainability 2017, 9(12), 2202; https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122202   Kataria, Aarti & Kataria, Aakanksha & Garg, Ruchi. (2013). Effective Internal Communication: A Way Towards Sustainability. International Journal of Business Insights and Transformation. 6.   Internal and external communication for sustainable development  Case study on the municipality of Gnosjö  Master thesis, Jonkoping University, Sweden,  Media and Communication Studies Supervisor:  Karin Wenström Sustainable communication Spring 2020 Examiner: Leon Barkho  Franziska Hoffstaedter               

Other comments:

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

The main question is the concept related to internal and external communications in companies

 

2. What parts do you consider original or relevant for the field? What specific gap in the field does the paper address?

The results of the interviews with participants is original and relevant for the field. The gap it tries to address is the lack of communication within organizations to foster sustainability.

 

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

It adds very little as a lot of work has been done in this field. Especially since the paper compiles the results of interviews with various participants, the research lacks sufficient rigor.

 

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

The authors need to add more rigor to the research results using statistical methods and other forms of data analysis. The paper, in its present form, simply reports the results of the interviews and develops conclusions for the most part. References must be improved to include (not mine) the following and clearly elaborate how their approach and results contribute incrementally to those already published. I had listed the references in my previous report review. The controls are to use a rigorous method such as statistics and data analytics to improve the contributions in research.

 

5. Please describe how the conclusions are or are not consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. Please also indicate if all main questions posed were addressed and by which specific experiments.

The conclusions are minimally consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, which in the first place is weak at best. The main questions were addressed minimally, and the specific experiment used was the interview tools with participants.

 

6. Are the references appropriate?

No, they are not. Please refer to the list of references I had requested the authors to include.

 

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures and quality of the data.

The figures and tables were adequate. However, the quality of the data presented can be significantly improved through rigorous data analytical methods.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor proof reading required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on contributing to close this research gap by investigating ways of internal and external sustainability communication in companies. Applying a semi-structured interview study, the initial situation in selected German companies is investigated, in addition to addresses, channels, structure, and content of communication. Further, effects and requests for improvement in sustainability communication are identified. Although the paper is enjoyable to read, I have several suggestions, which are outlined below.

1. Please write the literature review separately from the introduction. Moreover, in the literature review section, the detailed statements are too scattered. It only introduces what each study has done separately, without summarizing the main conclusions of existing literatures. Thus, it is difficult to point out the research gaps, indicating that it is meaningful to choose these literatures to review.

2. The paper does not elaborate the research method enough. The current version of the study has too few methodological papers, casting doubt on the validity of the findings.

3. The composition of the paper is too random and very confusing.

4. There are too few papers in the past three years in the reference literature. Please add some papers from the last three years.

5. The level of English about this manuscript does not meet the journal’s desired standard. Therefore, language should be greatly improved. There are too many grammatical mistakes and typos. Please carefully revise and improve it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The level of English about this manuscript does not meet the journal’s desired standard. Therefore, language should be greatly improved. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paper can now be published

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend accepting this paper in the present form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend accepting this paper in the present form.