Regulation of Sustainability Reporting Requirements—Digitalisation Path

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study focuses on a relevant topic for the development of sustainability reporting studies in the European area. However, some changes should be made. 

First, introduction requires a better presentation. Authors should not rush into the study presentation but give a proper contextualization: why are we interested in CSRD? Which new questions emerge with reference to the previous NFRD? 

Also, introduction should include more literature: as it is, it's too descriptive. 

Next authors state that Scopus and ScienceDirect were used. Which keywords were used? How were selected? Again, as per the introductive section, more scientific grounding is required. 

Moving to results, Figure 2 is not very readable. Please enhance its presentation and discussion. 

Furthermore, since this study will be a basis for next research, I believe authors should enahnce future directions section and provide more policy implications. 

Finally, I believe the AI was used for proofreading the manuscript. If so, please disclose its usage. Also, references list must be fixed for formal consistency. In addition, while I understand that some sections are composed of cited text, I also suggest to reduce the percentage of plagiarism in the other sections.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and your positive assessment and recommendations. We aim to improve the quality of our research, and your suggestions provide valuable advice. Please find below the answers to your questions and suggestions:

I. Feedback: First, introduction requires a better presentation. Authors should not rush into the study presentation but give a proper contextualization: why are we interested in CSRD? Which new questions emerge with reference to the previous NFRD? 

Comment from the authors: Thank you for pointing this out. We have embedded in Section 1.1. of the introduction part of the manuscript the essential comparative differences between the legislative framework, like expanding the number of reporting entities in the EU from 11,600 to 50,000 or introducing robust and detailed European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) for reporting subject to the third party assurance under CSRD in comparison to the absence of specific standards and requirement for verification within NFRD framework (lines 29-33, 35-38, 42-46, 50-55, 61-62).

II. Feedback: Also, introduction should include more literature: as it is, it's too descriptive. 

Comment from the authors: We appreciate the suggestion to include more literature references in the introduction part. We have added a reference to one of the recent studies outlining the relations between NFRD and CSRD by Michalak et al. (2023), line 44. Additionally, we referenced the official final study, “PROPOSALS FOR A RELEVANT AND DYNAMIC EU SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING STANDARD SETTING,” presented by EFRAG, the EU officially delegated organisation for creating and implementing new sustainability reporting standards’ framework. This official report elaborates on crucial changes that should be introduced by CSRD in comparison to NFRD based on their market analysis (line 38). In section 1.1. the descriptive part mainly arises when we reference the crucial pieces of content within the CSRD and ESRS regulation acts. Where possible, we made it clearer as a direct reference to the legislative acts; see lines 30, 52, 54, 55, and 110. Other added references – lines 90, 110.

III. Feedback: Next authors state that Scopus and ScienceDirect were used. Which keywords were used? How were selected? Again, as per the introductive section, more scientific grounding is required. 

Comment from the authors: Thank you for noting this. In reference to the feedback, we have provided a larger scientific grounding for reasoning the necessity of bibliometric analyses with the keywords “Sustainability” and Digitalization” in the introduction Section 1.2 (lines 93-96). Further, we added more details regarding the bibliometric analyses to the Introduction section 1.2. (lines 97-105). It may be worth mentioning that the profound bibliometric analysis details considering the relevant questions of the Reviewer are addressed later in Section 2.2., lines 187-199.

IV. Feedback: Moving to results, Figure 2 is not very readable. Please enhance its presentation and discussion. 

Comment from the authors: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the feedback and have made the following amendments in Section 2.3 of the manuscript. First, for transparency reasons, we have incorporated a description of the visual analysis methods applied by the VOSviewer software with reference to the bibliometric analysis (lines 296-300). Secondly, in Figure 2, we have accordingly highlighted the cluster with the appearance of the bridging big data concept by putting it in a red circle to emphasise the information readability in the visualisation map of the bibliometric network of the “sustainability” and “digitalisation” keywords produced by the VOSviewer software. It is also referenced during further discussion, line 333. Importantly, we have noticed that in the text of the manuscript, green and red clusters were mixed up. Therefore, necessary corrections were made (lines 323, 325, 330, and 331). Lastly, we have added a more explicit discussion about the content analyses of Figure 2 (lines 311-322, 335-339).

V. Feedback: Furthermore, since this study will be a basis for next research, I believe authors should enhance future directions section and provide more policy implications. 

Comment from the authors: Thank you, we agree. As suggested, we have added policy implications to Section 4.2, lines 555-563. We have also accordingly developed Section 4.3. by adding additional theoretical potential future study: “contribution to the further development of the theoretical framework of big data analytics capability, and assessing big data analytics capability impact on business sustainability performance in large organisations under CSRD” (lines 576-578); and empirical future research direction: “when the first DSRs are published, they could be explored in future studies by scholars’ analyses on the level of different sectors and industries for the purpose of bench-learning.” (lines 575-581).

VI. Feedback: Finally, I believe the AI was used for proofreading the manuscript. If so, please disclose its usage. Also, references list must be fixed for formal consistency. In addition, while I understand that some sections are composed of cited text, I also suggest to reduce the percentage of plagiarism in the other sections.

Comment from the authors: Thank you for noting this. We have added the following disclaimer at the end of the manuscript “For correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar-checking purposes, the authors used the widely accepted basic proofreading Grammarly tool. During the process, we reviewed the proofreading validation suggestions provided by the Grammarly tool and edited those as needed. The authors take full responsibility for the manuscript content.” Lines 807-809.

We believe the references list is fixed for formal consistency.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 This paper uses bibliometric methods to provide the latest conceptual definitions for sustainability, digitalization, and Digital Sustainability Reporting (DSR) and analyze their impact on organizations through bibliometric analysis of Sustainability, Digitalization, Digitainability, and iXBRL Format, as well as an exploration of the background of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). The authors have conducted a comprehensive analysis and summary of relevant literature between 2018 and 2024, making certain theoretical contributions to the study of digital frameworks and guiding enterprises to achieve DSR. However, there are still some parts that need to be modified in terms of research topics and logical continuity.

1.    The authors' answer to research question 3 "How does DSR affect organizational systems?" in section 4.1 is "DSR can only be achieved by modifying or enhancing existing digital organizational systems." Although this answer is not incorrect, the existing expression of RQ3 requires a clearer logical process and a more appropriate way of expressing the problem. This answer for RQ3 is related to the content about iXBRL in section 3.2, but there is a gap in the logical progression. The authors argue that the use of iXBRL format to achieve the unity of sustainability and digitization is an important precursor to DSR, and therefore will have an impact on organizations. When answering RQ3 in section 4.1, this aspect should be taken as the main entry point. That is to say, it is best to reflect in the expression that the important prerequisite for implementing DSR is compliance with the iXBRL format requirements, and section 3.2 reflects that implementing the above requirements will promote the organization to further achieve sustainability and digitization, making the results clearer.

2.    In section 3.1, the authors analyzed the regulatory framework of CSRD and provided a definition of DSR. However, it is necessary to emphasize the relationship between DSR and digitainability through appropriate analysis after providing the definition. Otherwise, it will be difficult to directly link the authors' proposed definition to the concluding remarks on RQ2 in section 4.1.

3.    In the bibliometric section on iXBRL, appropriate supplementary content can be added, such as a summary table of iXBRL research topics or the main keyword cluster of the research topic, to make the literature review in section 3.2 more comprehensive.

Author Response

We appreciate you taking the time to review and provide feedback on our manuscript. We aim to improve the quality of our research, and your suggestions provide valuable guidance. Below are the answers to your comments and suggestions:

I. Feedback:  The authors' answer to research question 3 "How does DSR affect organizational systems?" in section 4.1 is "DSR can only be achieved by modifying or enhancing existing digital organizational systems." Although this answer is not incorrect, the existing expression of RQ3 requires a clearer logical process and a more appropriate way of expressing the problem. This answer for RQ3 is related to the content about iXBRL in section 3.2, but there is a gap in the logical progression. The authors argue that the use of iXBRL format to achieve the unity of sustainability and digitization is an important precursor to DSR, and therefore will have an impact on organizations. When answering RQ3 in section 4.1, this aspect should be taken as the main entry point. That is to say, it is best to reflect in the expression that the important prerequisite for implementing DSR is compliance with the iXBRL format requirements, and section 3.2 reflects that implementing the above requirements will promote the organization to achieve sustainability and digitization further, making the results clearer.

Comment from the authors: Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, to highlight the essential role of the iXBRL format in building a digitainability framework in the organisation for qualitative DSR, we have added additional reflective thoughts in section 3.2 (lines 497-498 and 514-520). We have modified the concluding discussions in section 4.1 according to the suggestions for the RQ3 “How does DSR impacts organisational systems” (lines 540-546).

II. Feedback: In section 3.1, the authors analyzed the regulatory framework of CSRD and provided a definition of DSR. However, it is necessary to emphasize the relationship between DSR and digitainability through appropriate analysis after providing the definition. Otherwise, it will be difficult to directly link the authors' proposed definition to the concluding remarks on RQ2 in section 4.1.

Comment from the authors: We agree with this comment. Therefore, to ensure the proper link between the DSR definition and the concluding remarks on RQ2 in section 4.1., we have emphasized the relationship between DSR and digitainability through the concluding analysis in section 3.1. Please see lines 409-420.

III. Feedback: In the bibliometric section on iXBRL, appropriate supplementary content can be added, such as a summary table of iXBRL research topics or the main keyword cluster of the research topic, to make the literature review in section 3.2 more comprehensive.

Comment from the authors: Thank you for pointing this out. According to the suggestions, we have added two Figures in Section 3.2. for an enhanced visual representation of the literature review in the XBRL field. Figure 4 (p. 12) demonstrates the XBRL studies belong to the main subject areas. We have included additional analyses of Figure 4 in lines 433-435. Figure 5 (p. 13) visually represents the main keywords networks and clusters in relation to XBRL, and its extended format iXBRL. A thorough analysis of Figure 5 was added to the manuscript's text within lines 446-485.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciated how authors effectively considered my comment for improving the new version of this manuscript. I don't have further suggestions to address and I believe the manuscript is ready for publication. 

Good luck!