Telework for a Sustainable Future: Systematic Review of Its Contribution to Global Corporate Sustainability (2020–2024)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors and Editor,

I would like to congratulate the research team for their effort and dedication. The topic addressed is highly relevant and of great value, especially in the context of post-pandemic labor transformations. Approaching telework from the perspective of corporate sustainability is a timely, meaningful, and necessary approach. I encourage and commend you for undertaking such an important investigation!

Below, I outline the strengths of the article, followed by areas for improvement:

STRENGTHS

Methodological Rigor: The use of the PRISMA protocol for the systematic review enhances the study’s validity. The selection of relevant databases (Scopus, Science Direct, and Taylor & Francis) and the clear inclusion/exclusion criteria contribute to the transparency and replicability of the process.

Multidimensional Analysis: The article effectively addresses the three key dimensions of sustainability (environmental, social, and economic), going beyond a technical approach to incorporate factors such as well-being, equity, and organizational transformation.

Valuable Bibliometric Contribution: The keyword co-occurrence analysis, thematic maps, and regional distribution provide a clear view of research trends and help contextualize findings within the global landscape.

Applied Relevance: The study moves beyond theoretical reflection and offers clear practical implications for policymakers, business leaders, and sustainability and human resources professionals.

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Methodology: Please include references to support your inclusion and exclusion criteria—preferably methodological sources. While the use of PRISMA is appropriate, the flowchart should not appear in the Results section but rather in the Methodology section. Specifically, it should be placed in 2.4. Study Selection Process.

This section is missing key details. First, did you manually screen each record by title and abstract? How was this process conducted? Please describe it in detail. Did you use filters such as study type? Clarify this process as well. It seems the searches were generic; for the next version, please use advanced search targeting title, abstract, keywords, or topic.

Another very important point: you must explain how inter-rater reliability was ensured—please include the KAPPA index used among reviewers. Although this cannot be added retroactively for this submission, in future reviews you should consider including only Open Access publications, or those available in university repositories or state libraries.

Moreover, since Figures 2, 3, and 4 were created using additional software tools, this must be described in the Methodology. You need a specific subsection explaining that, in addition to PRISMA, you used two other tools—identify them, describe them, and specify their purpose.

Another issue: the subsection 2.7. Methodological Limitations should not appear in the methodology section but in the discussion. There, you should elaborate on geographic limitations and scientific disparities among nations.

Results: The results section omits key PRISMA-recommended elements. Although the methodological process appears solid, the results lack a comprehensive summary table presenting relevant data for each study. Remember, you are conducting a systematic review, but your results resemble bibliometric analysis. Consult PRISMA and add a table summarizing essential details: authors, publication dates, cultural context, study type, studied variables, objectives, main findings, measurement tools, limitations, and conclusions. This will result in one or more large tables—splitting them into two or three is acceptable.

Discussion: While not inadequate, the discussion is somewhat lacking in references and critical analysis. I suggest reducing the overly descriptive theoretical framework and instead conducting a critical discussion of results from the reviewed studies. The discussion should not just summarize but compare your meta-sample studies with others from different time periods, including longitudinal and theoretical research. Limitations must also appear in this section.

Conclusions: These are overly long, making it difficult to identify the main ideas; the current structure resembles a discussion section. The conclusion should be a concise, one-paragraph synthesis.

Theoretical Framework: This section is too long and descriptive. A theoretical framework in a scholarly article should be concise and focused on the most recent, relevant knowledge. Although the current version resembles a teaching manual (which is well-structured), the information should be synthesized and prioritized. Ideally, this section should be reduced to around 700 words, allowing more space for the creation of new knowledge in the method, results, and discussion.

Final Comment: The authors have made a significant effort, and the paper shows great dedication. However, there are resolvable issues in the methodological design, and it is essential to conduct a correct analysis of the results following PRISMA. Currently, the article resembles a bibliometric study more than a systematic review. The discussion will improve considerably once you perform a detailed analysis of each study and compare them. The same applies to the conclusion—it is too long and should be shortened to a single paragraph. Once all revisions are completed, please ensure the article is coherent throughout, as it currently feels somewhat fragmented, likely due to contributions from multiple authors. This is understandable, but a final consistency review is crucial.

Author Response

METHODOLOGICAL AND STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS

Fully strengthened methodology: Specific methodological references (Moher et al., 2015; Page et al., 2021) were added to support inclusion and exclusion criteria. The PRISMA diagram was correctly relocated to section 2.4 "Study Selection Process". Specific details of the process were added with two independent reviewers (EVRF and GLCI) applying structured consensus protocols. Section 2.5 "Bibliometric Analysis" was created describing the Bibliometrix software in R and four complementary analytical approaches.

Improved results and structure: The table of 50 studies now includes all the elements recommended by PRISMA with full details of each investigation. The approach is maintained as a systematic review with supplementary bibliometric analysis according to established guidelines.

Discussion and optimized conclusions: Critical analysis was implemented with pre-pandemia versus post-pandemia comparisons, including longitudinal studies and temporal evolution. Limitations were appropriately integrated in section 4.5. Conclusions were reduced to concise synthesis maintaining key elements according to recommendations.

Concise theoretical framework: Significantly reduced by maintaining 700 exact words with integrated analytical application, focusing on recent and relevant knowledge according to specifications.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Content Evaluation
1) Relevance and Importance of the Topic
This study is one of the first systematic reviews examining the impact of telework on corporate sustainability between 2020 and 2024, thereby demonstrating high academic relevance and timeliness.
By analyzing the environmental, social, and economic dimensions of sustainability in an integrated manner, especially in the context of the global transformation triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, the study holds significant scholarly value.

2) Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Grounding
The study’s strength lies in its multi-dimensional approach utilizing various theoretical frameworks such as the Socio-technical Transition Theory, Sustainable Value Creation Theory, and Theory of Just Transition.
However, the discussion of how each theory is concretely applied and distinguished remains relatively underdeveloped, with most frameworks used at the level of conceptual definition rather than analytical deployment.

3) Content Analysis and Logical Flow
In the environmental dimension, the classification into first-, second-, and third-order effects (e.g., commuting reduction, increased residential energy use) is a notable attempt at in-depth analysis.
In the social dimension, the paper effectively highlights inclusivity, isolation, and digital inequality across regions and classes. However, the lack of statistical or empirical validation weakens the persuasiveness of these arguments.
The economic analysis is conducted at micro, meso, and macro levels, providing a multidimensional view, but the discussion of empirical examples remains relatively limited.

4) Contributions and Limitations
The study makes a meaningful contribution by clearly identifying existing literature gaps such as disciplinary fragmentation, geographic concentration, and the lack of long-term impact assessment.
However, the policy recommendations offered in the latter part of the paper are often abstract and general, lacking specificity or technical-operational suggestions for real-world implementation.

2. Methodological Evaluation
1) Systematic Review Design
The study adheres to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, and the selection of Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Taylor & Francis as databases is appropriate.
The use of Boolean operators and structured search terms (telework, sustainability, corporate scope), along with clearly stated inclusion and exclusion criteria, demonstrates methodological rigor.

2) Data Collection and Analytical Procedures
The paper presents a clear screening process—from 567 initial records → removal of duplicates → title/abstract screening → full-text review of 198 studies → final inclusion of 50 studies—accompanied by a PRISMA flowchart.
While the authors combine narrative synthesis and bibliometric analysis using Bibliometrix in R, the integration of these two analytical methods could be strengthened.

3) Validity and Limitations
Although 54% of the studies included are quantitative, the paper does not adequately compare or integrate findings from qualitative (26%) and mixed-methods (14%) studies.
While the authors acknowledge the geographic bias (towards developed nations), they do not propose any methodological strategy (e.g., regional weighting) to address this limitation.
Furthermore, there is no mention of any quality appraisal tools to assess the methodological robustness of the selected studies, raising concerns about how rigorously the included literature was vetted.

3. Overall Evaluation and Recommendation
This paper offers an important foundation for understanding the relationship between telework and corporate sustainability in the post-pandemic context and has clear academic value.
However, improvements are recommended in the concrete application of theoretical frameworks, clarification of inter-study comparison schemes, and inclusion of regional case variations for future research.

Author Response

ANALYTICAL DEPTH OBSERVATIONS

Analytically applied theoretical framework: The observation about frameworks used "at the level of conceptual definition rather than analytical development" was fully resolved. The Sustainable Value Creation Theory now finds specific empirical validation through its three stages with evidence from Caulfield and Charly (Ireland), Cerqueira et al. (France), and Chuang et al. (Taiwan). Sociotechnical Transition Theory is validated through interactions documented by Waizenegger et al. and Cuerdo-Vilches et al. Each theoretical framework is clearly distinguished with specific empirical examples.

Statistical and empirical validation strengthened: The criticism of "lack of statistical or empirical validation" in social and economic dimensions was addressed by specific examples: Gaspar et al. with Portuguese ecosystem requirements, Oakman et al. with Australian optimization, Cuerdo-Vilches et al. with 65% of Spanish inadequate spaces, Kazekami with Japanese mechanisms, Abrardi et al. with 12-18% improvements in Italian SMEs, and Delventhal and Parkhomenko with 15% US urban-rural economic redistribution.

Full methodological integration: Section 3.3 "Methodological Integration and Triangulation of Findings" was created that adequately integrates findings from quantitative (54%), qualitative (26%) and mixed methods (14%) studies. Methodological triangulation demonstrates that the potential for telework sustainability emerges from complex interactions that require multiple analytical lenses.

Transparent methodological limitations: The absence of formal quality assessment tools (CASP, JBI, Newcastle-Ottawa) was explicitly acknowledged in section 4.5, documenting quality assurance through systematic exclusion of 75 studies for insufficient rigor. Specific strategies for geographic bias are proposed through regional weighting and geographic sensitivity analysis.

Specific recommendations implemented: Criticism of "abstract and general" recommendations was resolved by specific interventions in section 4.6: minimum three-day telework thresholds for emissions >37%, residential energy efficiency standards, investment in digital infrastructure in underserved regions validated by Spanish and European evidence, tax incentives for SMEs based on Italian productivity, and rural development funds informed by spatial redistribution.

Strengthened bibliometric integration: Methodological triangulation was added to validate key findings: bibliometric centrality of "work-life balance" corresponds to presence in 70% of high quality post-2022 studies, geographic concentration intensifies under quality criteria (68% vs. 55%), thematic evolution towards "sustainability" shows an increase of 75% post-2022.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find the research carried out very interesting. Clear in its intentions. However, a table is missing with the list of selected articles, divided by year, by nation and according to the purposes that the Authors have set themselves and with the evaluation of the quality for each article: clearly this will have to foresee a remodulation of the results and discussions.

Author Response

METHODOLOGICAL TRANSPARENCY OBSERVATIONS

Completely reorganized table: The comment about "missing a table with the list of selected articles, broken down by year, by country and according to objectives" was completely resolved. The new expanded table includes the 50 studies with comprehensive characterization: column "Obj*" mapping each study against the three research objectives (Impact: 23 studies, Moderation: 17 studies, Methodology: 10 studies), column "Rob" with assessment of methodological robustness (High: 12 studies, Medium: 25 studies, Acceptable: 13 studies), detailed temporal distribution (2020: 24%, 2021: 20%, 2022: 12%, 2023: 8%, 2024: 36%), and full geographic distribution (Europe: 38%, US/Canada: 30%, Asia-Pacific: 18%, Latin America: 10%, Global: 4%).

Methodologically appropriate quality assessment: Instead of applying assessment tools retroactively (methodologically inappropriate), categorization was implemented based on criteria systematically applied during screening: high robustness for longitudinal studies with sophisticated modeling, medium robustness for robust cross-sectional studies with transparent methodology, and acceptable robustness for well-founded conceptual studies. This approach maintains scientific integrity while providing the requested transparency.

Characterization preserving valuable information: The expanded table keeps all the original columns (Variables Studied, Objectives, Main Findings, Measurement Tools, Limitations, Conclusions) while adding the requested dimensions, avoiding unnecessary "remodulation" of results and discussion.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for incorporating the suggested revisions. The manuscript shows clear improvement, and most of the changes have been addressed appropriately. However, the section on practical applications still lacks the level of specificity and concreteness expected in this part of the discussion.

While the theoretical implications are well articulated, the practical implications remain somewhat general. To enhance the value and applicability of this section, we encourage the authors to include more detailed and concrete examples of how the findings can be implemented in real-world settings. This might involve suggesting specific actions, policies, or interventions that practitioners could adopt based on the results of the study. Clarifying who would benefit from these findings and how they could be operationalized would also strengthen this section.

We look forward to a revised version that incorporates these additions, thereby ensuring the implications are both meaningful and actionable.

Author Response

Dear Sustainability Editors and Reviewers,

We sincerely appreciate the constructive comments that have improved the scientific quality of our manuscript. We have addressed each observation using exclusively the content and analysis already present in our paper. Our specific responses are presented below:

RESPONSE TO MAIN OBSERVATIONS

1. THEORETICAL FRAGMENTATION

We appreciate this observation on the need for greater conceptual integration.

Actions implemented:

• We reorganize the existing section 1.2 "Theoretical Integration and Empirical Convergence" to show how the theories are empirically validated through the studies already analyzed.
• We systematically connect each theoretical framework to the specific evidence already documented in our 50 studies.
• We develop syntheses showing convergence between the theories through the empirical findings already identified.
• We structure the theoretical narrative in an integrated rather than fragmented fashion

Location: Section 1.2, pages 4-5

2. METHODOLOGICAL TRANSPARENCY

We recognize the importance of greater methodological detail.

Actions implemented:

• We expand the description of the process already implemented by the two independent reviewers (EVRF and GLCI) mentioned in the manuscript.
• We detail the quality criteria already applied that resulted in the exclusion of 148 studies.
• We specify the consensus process already carried out among the reviewers.
• We document the exclusion categories already established: methodological rigor (75), temporal misalignment (33), thematic relevance (40)

Location: Section 2.4, expanded with more detail of the process already executed.

3. SUPERFICIAL BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS

We appreciate the comment on the need for further interpretation.

Actions implemented:

• We develop a critical interpretation of the bibliometric figures already presented (Figures 2-5).
• We analyze the implications of the geographical patterns already identified in the manuscript.
• We interpret the thematic evolution already documented in the thematic map.
• We connect the bibliometric findings with the results of the systematic review already conducted.

Location: After the existing bibliometric figures, section 3.2.

4. GEOGRAPHICAL BIAS

We acknowledge this limitation already identified in our manuscript.

Actions implemented:

• We expand the existing discussion on geographic concentration (Europe 38%, North America 30% already reported).
• We develop more detailed analyses of how this already documented distribution affects the interpretation
• We implement explicit contextualization in the interpretation of findings based on the geographic evidence already analyzed.
• We strengthen the interpretive strategies already mentioned in the constraints

Location: Section 4.5, expanded with further analysis of the data already presented.

5. CAUSALITY AND REBOUND EFFECTS

We appreciate the comment on the need for further analysis.

Actions implemented:

• We systematized the analysis of rebound effects already identified in studies such as [13,45] mentioned in the manuscript.
• We develop further analysis of the already documented interrelationships between dimensions of sustainability
• We will go more deeply into the causal mechanisms already identified in the studies analyzed.
• We systematically connect the already presented findings on contextual moderators

Location: New subsection in Discussion based on evidence already analyzed.

6. OVERLY DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS

We transform the presentation of already documented findings into a more analytical synthesis.

Actions implemented:

• We reorganized the findings already presented by identifying emerging patterns
• We summarize the contradictions that are already evident in the 50 studies analyzed.
• We developed a critical analysis of the trends already identified in the corpus.
• We structure the results to show unresolved debates already evident in the literature.

Location: Results Section, analytically reorganized

7. LINGUISTIC QUALITY

We implemented a systematic review of the existing text.

Actions implemented:

• We simplify complex syntactic structures that are already present in the system
• We eliminated redundancies identified in the current text.
• Improved connectors and transitions between already developed ideas
• We unify technical terminology already in use
• We correct specific problematic constructions that are already present

Application: The entire manuscript, maintaining content but improving expression.

PRESERVED ASPECTS

Methodological Strengths

We maintain the methods already applied (PRISMA, bibliometric analysis with Bibliometrix, structured narrative synthesis) that the reviewer recognizes as appropriate.

Empirical Evidence

We preserved all the already documented findings from the 50 studies analyzed, reorganizing them for analytical clarity.

Analytical Rigor

We maintain the rigor of the selection process already implemented and the quality of the studies already included.

RECOGNIZED LIMITATIONS

We maintain scientific honesty by acknowledging the limitations already identified in the original manuscript, particularly:

• Geographic concentration already documented
• Need for greater contextual diversity as mentioned above
• Time constraints already established (2020-2024)
• Language restriction already specified (English and Spanish)

The revisions implemented exclusively use the content already present in our manuscript, reorganizing and analyzing it more deeply to address the observations raised. No data, references, or analyses not contained in the original work have been added.

We appreciate the opportunity to improve the presentation and analysis of our work.

Emma Verónica Ramos Farroñán (Corresponding Author)
On behalf of all authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Telework for a Sustainable Future: Systematic Review of its Contribution to Global Corporate Sustainability (2020-2024)

<General Evaluation>
This manuscript attempts a timely and relevant systematic review on the contribution of telework to global corporate sustainability, focusing on literature from 2020 to 2024. The authors comprehensively address environmental, social, and economic dimensions, applying PRISMA guidelines and combining narrative synthesis with bibliometric analysis.

While the topic is significant and the systematic approach is commendable, several substantial issues weaken the paper’s scientific rigor, theoretical integration, and contribution to the field. Below, I detail both the strengths and critical weaknesses that need to be addressed for the manuscript to meet high academic standards.

<Strengths>
Timeliness and Relevance: The focus on post-COVID telework aligns with evolving corporate sustainability strategies and policy priorities.

Systematic Review Design: The adoption of PRISMA guidelines adds procedural rigor to the review process, which enhances transparency.

Multi-dimensional Approach: The inclusion of environmental, social, and economic dimensions reflects the multi-faceted nature of corporate sustainability.

Use of Bibliometric Analysis: The combination of bibliometric tools (e.g., Bibliometrix) adds quantitative support to the narrative synthesis and identifies research trends.

<Major Concerns>
Theoretical Fragmentation:
While multiple theories (Sustainable Value Creation Theory, Socio-technical Transition Theory, Organizational Climate Change Theory, etc.) are presented, the manuscript lacks deep theoretical integration. The result is a fragmented theoretical section that enumerates frameworks without critically synthesizing them.
The narrative reads as a compilation of theories rather than a coherent analytical lens guiding the review.

Methodological Transparency:
Despite following PRISMA, the selection criteria, screening process, and coding procedures are insufficiently detailed. For example, there is limited description of inter-reviewer reliability or how disagreements were resolved.
Quality assessment criteria for the 50 included studies are not adequately discussed or quantified.

Bibliometric Analysis Limitations:
While bibliometric analysis is performed, its contribution remains largely descriptive and adds limited analytical depth.
The bibliometric sections (Figures 2-5) lack critical interpretation. The discussion remains superficial, failing to contextualize bibliometric results in relation to sustainability scholarship.

Literature Sample Bias:
The sample is heavily skewed toward studies from developed economies (Europe, North America), while underrepresenting developing contexts. This limits the generalizability of conclusions and contradicts the paper’s stated goal of assessing "global corporate sustainability."
The authors mention this bias but fail to suggest substantive strategies for addressing it.

Insufficient Discussion on Causality and Rebound Effects:
While the review acknowledges rebound effects and trade-offs (e.g., increased residential energy use, social inequality), the analysis remains shallow.
The complex interrelations among sustainability pillars are not deeply unpacked, and causal mechanisms remain speculative.

Overly Descriptive Results Section:
The results section presents a listing of findings across studies rather than critically synthesizing emerging patterns, contradictions, or unresolved debates.
There is insufficient meta-level interpretation that would distinguish this review from a cataloguing exercise.

English Language Quality:
Numerous instances of awkward phrasing, redundancy, and non-native structures weaken the clarity and professionalism of the writing.
Substantial language editing is required to meet publication standards in an international peer-reviewed journal.

Minor Issues:
The title may overpromise by suggesting a "global" analysis that the sample does not fully support.
Tables and figures require more informative captions and better visual clarity.
The keywords list could be more focused and aligned with bibliometric results.

The paper addresses an important topic and applies several appropriate methods. However, its present form suffers from theoretical fragmentation, insufficient critical synthesis, methodological opacity, limited generalizability, and language issues. A substantial revision addressing these core weaknesses is essential before it can be considered for publication.

Specific Recommendations for Authors:
Develop an integrated theoretical framework to anchor the review.
Provide more detailed and transparent explanation of the systematic review protocol.
Deepen the bibliometric analysis beyond descriptive mapping.
Address sample representativeness and global generalization limitations more thoroughly.
Strengthen the analysis of causal pathways, trade-offs, and rebound effects.
Conduct full English language editing by a professional academic editor.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your acknowledgement of the improvements implemented and your constructive observation on the need for more specificity in practical applications. We have directly addressed this limitation using the evidence already present in our analysis.

RESPONSE TO: "PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS LACKING SPECIFICITY".

Action Implemented: Developed new subsection 4.6 "Implications for Professional Practice: Evidence-Based Implementation Strategies" that transforms general implications into specific, operationalizable interventions.

Location: Section 4.6, pages 19-21, at end of discussion

RESPONSE TO: "INCLUDE DETAILED EXAMPLES OF IMPLEMENTATION".

Specific examples provided:

• Organizational managers: Home space evaluations, 3-day/week minimum thresholds, ergonomic equipment programs, etc.
• Public policies: Energy tax incentives, rural digital infrastructure development, etc.
• Sustainability professionals: Home energy audits, longitudinal integrated metrics
• HR management: differentiated psychometric evaluations, isolation detection protocols, etc.

All based on specific evidence from our 50 studies analyzed.

RESPONSE TO: "CLARIFY WHO BENEFITS AND HOW TO IMPLEMENT".

Identified beneficiaries:

• Professional service sectors with higher education workers [32,41,49].
• Organizations with robust technology infrastructure [35].
• Urban contexts with efficient public transportation [1,2].

Implementation methodology:

• Phase 1 (6 months): Assessment of organizational and domestic conditions
• Phase 2 (12 months): Pilot implementation with monitoring metrics
• Phase 3 (24 months): Scale-up based on empirical results

Evidence-based timeline of post-pandemic persistence [27,46].

ANSWER TO: "TO ENSURE VIABILITY AND SIGNIFICANCE".

Significance ensured by:

• Each recommendation is linked to specific empirical evidence.
• Quantitative thresholds extracted from robust findings (3 days/week [44], 65% spatial mismatch [19], 15-25% energy increases [13,45]).

Contextualized feasibility through:

• Recognition of limitations for informal workers [22,37].
• Identification of infrastructure units
• Specification of applicability contexts versus limitations

RESPONSE STRENGTHS

The new section exclusively uses evidence already present in our 50 studies, providing the practical specificity requested while maintaining scientific rigor. It transforms general implications into operationalizable interventions with clearly identified actors and realistic timelines.

We appreciate the opportunity to strengthen the practical usefulness of our work. The new section responds directly to these issues while maintaining consistency with the empirical evidence analyzed.

Emma Verónica Ramos Farroñán (Corresponding Author)
On behalf of all authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors fulfilled my requests. The table inserted is clear and reflects what I wanted.

Author Response

Estimado editor,  gracias.