S + ESG as a New Dimension of Resilience: Security at the Core of Sustainable Business Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is on S+ESG in Ukraine. The research combines theoretical analysis with empirical data, including a nationwide survey of Ukrainian professionals across business, government, and civil society sectors. My main concern is that security is already covered under the S and G aspect of ESG, than how the authors have segretted it. If you see the Global ESG framework, security is always there (interms of cyber security, labor security, human rights) in one way or another. I agree that ESG framework does not list "security" as a standalone pillar, but cybersecurity and information security and also the security of the labor and community are highly embeeded in the ESG framework to ensure firms should satisfy hte stakeholders (internal or external) interest.

The paper overall is good, but it has overlooked some vital studies on the ESG risk which underscore the secuirty aspect as global need.

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2023-0582

The discussion and conclusion sections are very weak, need to strengthen... Discuss how the paper has theoretical contributed, and how the security aspect is overlook in the theoretical arguemtns.... Draw arguments are borader perspective and narrow it down to the study's objective.

 Need proofread as well.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comment 1: The paper is on S+ESG in Ukraine. The research combines theoretical analysis with empirical data, including a nationwide survey of Ukrainian professionals across business, government, and civil society sectors. My main concern is that security is already covered under the S and G aspect of ESG, than how the authors have segretted it. If you see the Global ESG framework, security is always there (interms of cyber security, labor security, human rights) in one way or another. I agree that ESG framework does not list "security" as a standalone pillar, but cybersecurity and information security and also the security of the labor and community are highly embeeded in the ESG framework to ensure firms should satisfy hte stakeholders (internal or external) interest.

Response 1:

We fully acknowledge that various aspects of security are already embedded within the ESG framework, most notably under the “S” (labor safety, community security, human rights) and “G” (cybersecurity, institutional safeguards) pillars. However, our conceptual decision to elevate Security as a distinct dimension (SESG) is not intended to duplicate existing elements, but rather to highlight its systemic, cross-cutting nature in the Ukrainian context. In high-risk environments such as ongoing war and hybrid threats, security is not only an attribute of social or governance factors but a prerequisite for resilience and sustainable development. This explains why we propose treating it as a separate pillar in order to capture its holistic and central role.

To address the reviewer’s concern, we have added clarifying sentences in the Introduction and Discussion sections, explicitly stating that security is traditionally embedded in ESG but that in fragile contexts it requires explicit recognition as a stand-alone dimension. This adjustment ensures that our approach is seen as an adaptation and contextual extension of ESG, rather than a contradiction of the global ESG framework.

Сomment 2: The paper overall is good, but it has overlooked some vital studies on the ESG risk which underscore the secuirty aspect as global need.

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2023-0582

Response 2: Thank you for drawing our attention to the important study by Shah et al. (2025), which establishes a clear link between enterprise risk management (ERM) addressing ESG risks and green growth Glasgow Caledonian University. To strengthen our theoretical foundations, we have now integrated this reference into both our literature review and the Discussion section. Specifically, we cite the study to highlight how integrating ESG risk considerations into ERM systems significantly enhances firms' resilience and sustainability outcomes. This complements our SESG framework by empirically supporting the centrality of proactive risk governance—particularly around security issues—in sustainable development.

We acknowledge that security is indeed embedded within existing ESG dimensions. However, in the Ukrainian context characterized by elevated geopolitical risk and crisis dynamics, security must be conceptualized as a stand-alone pillar to ensure that its multifaceted nature is adequately addressed. Consequently, we have added the following clarifying sentence in the Introduction, added Shah et al. (2025) citation and discussion to reinforce the integration of ERM with ESG risk frameworks.

Comment 3: The discussion and conclusion sections are very weak, need to strengthen... Discuss how the paper has theoretical contributed, and how the security aspect is overlook in the theoretical arguemtns.... Draw arguments are borader perspective and narrow it down to the study's objective.

Response 3: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. Following the suggestion, we have revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections to:

1. We explicitly argue that by isolating security as a stand-alone dimension, our SESG model extends the ESG literature. While prior studies acknowledge cybersecurity, labor safety, or community protection within ESG, these remain fragmented. Our work reframes security as a systemic and cross-cutting construct, thereby enriching ESG theory with a contextual adaptation relevant for fragile and conflict-affected states.
2. We now point out that although global ESG frameworks mention aspects of security, the absence of a coherent conceptualization leaves a gap in both theoretical and applied discussions. Our study directly addresses this omission.
3. We have restructured the Discussion to begin with a wider debate on ESG’s global evolution, then explain the gap regarding security, and finally narrow the argument to Ukraine’s SESG context and the survey results. This logical flow better connects global theory with local application.
4. The Conclusion now follows the recommended sequence: (a) restating the purpose of the study, (b) presenting the core results, (c) outlining theoretical and practical implications, and (d) pointing to future research directions.

Сomment 4: Need proofread as well.

Response 4: Reviewed.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

After reading your interesting paper, I believe the manuscript has potential, particularly as it emphasizes the importance of security issues in business in the face of hybrid threats, war, and climate crises, while also highlighting business-led contributions to national defense. However, the following points should be considered when revising the article:

• While the topic emphasizes a new dimension of resilience, the content does not sufficiently reflect this perspective. The resilience aspect requires stronger and more comprehensive presentation.
• Despite the empirical research conducted, the introduction does not outline any hypotheses or research questions, which makes it difficult to understand the direction of the study.
• In the materials and methods section, the authors refer to a systematic literature review, but the article does not meet the methodological requirements of an SLR. A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is a structured, transparent, and reproducible method of reviewing existing research evidence on a specific topic or research question, often based on PRISMA guidelines.
• Given that online surveys are often prone to self-selection bias, the authors should explain in detail the rules applied for selecting a proper statistical sample. It remains unclear why only 83 respondents were included and why exclusively from business, public administration, education, and civil society. Moreover, when analyzing generational approaches to the issues (Table 4), proportional representation in the sample is missing (e.g., 43.4% of respondents aged 40–49).
• If only 25.3% of respondents declared familiarity with the ESG concept, questions arise regarding the appropriateness of the sample selection.
• The proposed matrix of qualitative and quantitative indicators to assess SESG performance is overly simplified. More detailed examples of security assessment criteria, especially concerning entities forming part of critical infrastructure, are available in the literature and could strengthen the paper.
• The discussion section lacks a critical reflection on the applied methods and does not sufficiently address the limitations of the results.
• Tables 4 and 5 are missing source descriptions.
• The reference section should be expanded to include more international scientific sources.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comment 1: After reading your interesting paper, I believe the manuscript has potential, particularly as it emphasizes the importance of security issues in business in the face of hybrid threats, war, and climate crises, while also highlighting business-led contributions to national defense. However, the following points should be considered when revising the article:

• While the topic emphasizes a new dimension of resilience, the content does not sufficiently reflect this perspective. The resilience aspect requires stronger and more comprehensive presentation.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the need to strengthen the resilience perspective. We fully agree that resilience is central to positioning Security as a distinct pillar of ESG, especially in the Ukrainian context. In the revised version, we have expanded the discussion of resilience by highlighting how firms’ adaptive capacity to withstand hybrid threats, war disruptions, and climate crises directly links security practices with long-term sustainability. To address this, we have added a clarifying sentence in the Discussion section

Comment 2: Despite the empirical research conducted, the introduction does not outline any hypotheses or research questions, which makes it difficult to understand the direction of the study.

Response 2: We appreciate this important observation. To improve the clarity and structure of the study, we have now explicitly formulated research questions and hypotheses in the Introduction. This addition clarifies the direction of our empirical analysis and aligns the paper more closely with international academic standards.

Comment 3: In the materials and methods section, the authors refer to a systematic literature review, but the article does not meet the methodological requirements of an SLR. A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is a structured, transparent, and reproducible method of reviewing existing research evidence on a specific topic or research question, often based on PRISMA guidelines.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for this important clarification. We agree that our initial phrasing may have been misleading. Our review of the literature was comprehensive and structured, but it did not strictly follow the formal methodological requirements of a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) based on PRISMA guidelines. To address this concern, we have (i) adjusted the terminology in the Methods section, referring instead to a “structured literature review,” and (ii) added clarifications about the selection criteria and scope of the reviewed sources. This ensures transparency while aligning with the actual approach we followed.

Comment 4: Given that online surveys are often prone to self-selection bias, the authors should explain in detail the rules applied for selecting a proper statistical sample. It remains unclear why only 83 respondents were included and why exclusively from business, public administration, education, and civil society. Moreover, when analyzing generational approaches to the issues (Table 4), proportional representation in the sample is missing (e.g., 43.4% of respondents aged 40–49).

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for the observation regarding sampling and the interpretation of generational data.

First, we would like to clarify that Table 4 is not based on the online survey results, but rather reflects a synthesized summary of generational approaches to ESG and security-related concerns as presented in the literature. The table was developed through the author’s analysis and comparison of trends discussed in key scholarly sources (e.g., Gursoy & Chi, 2020; Twenge, 2017; HBR, 2021), and is not derived from the empirical dataset of the 83 respondents. We have updated the manuscript to clarify the origin of Table 4 accordingly.

Regarding the survey sample, we acknowledge the limitations inherent to non-probability online surveys, particularly the risk of self-selection bias. However, the study employed purposive sampling to target individuals with direct or indirect experience in ESG-related and security practices. The selection of respondents from business, public administration, education, and civil society was intentional, as these sectors are among the key actors involved in implementing resilience frameworks in the Ukrainian context.

We have now expanded the methodology section to include a more detailed explanation of the sampling rationale and steps taken to minimize bias, including pre-screening, professional relevance checks, and regional/sectoral balance.

 

Comment 5: The proposed matrix of qualitative and quantitative indicators to assess SESG performance is overly simplified. More detailed examples of security assessment criteria, especially concerning entities forming part of critical infrastructure, are available in the literature and could strengthen the paper.

Response 5: We have added an additional table (Table 6), which presents a broader set of indicators for assessing the SESG model with a specific focus on security.

 

Comment 6:  The discussion section lacks a critical reflection on the applied methods and does not sufficiently address the limitations of the results.

Response 6:  Completed.

 

Comment 7: Tables 4 and 5 are missing source descriptions.

Response 7: Done.

 

Comment 8:  The reference section should be expanded to include more international scientific sources.

Response 8: Improved.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The paper proposes incorporating security aspects into the structured assessment of sustainability alongside the existing ESG framework, which the authors term S-ESG. They provide an extensive review of recent literature highlighting the importance of integrating security into ESG assessments and identify multiple sources that emphasize the need for such an extension. In addition, the authors present a quantitative analysis based on an industry survey, the results of which further support the introduction of security considerations.   The study addresses a highly relevant and timely topic. The paper is characterized by clarity, rigor, and a strong overall contribution.   The main question addressed in the paper is the need to create a methodological basis for introducing security as an additional aspect in firms' sustainability assessment, alongside the established ESG framework.   I consider the topic highly relevant, particularly in light of the current global situation where armed conflicts and corresponding government actions strongly affect businesses worldwide and highlight the need for resilience with respect to security-related risks.   The authors contribute by explicitly proposing the inclusion of security into ESG assessments (SESG) and by providing compelling arguments in support of this. They do so through:   - Structuring and analyzing security-related factors discussed in recent literature on sustainability projections, and   - Conducting and analyzing the results of a business survey on this topic.   The methodology combines qualitative and quantitative approaches. The qualitative part reviews and structures arguments from recent literature and reports on the importance of security aspects, while the quantitative part analyzes survey data from businesses. I find the methodology appropriate and see no need for major improvements in this regard.   The conclusions of the paper are consistent with both the arguments and the results. They clearly address the central question of whether security should be included in sustainability assessments and highlight the methodological foundation the paper provides for incorporating security into ESG assessment practices.   The references are appropriate and up to date. The figures and tables are well-structured, clear, and relevant for presenting the results.   I have only minor comments:   - Please ensure that all abbreviations are properly defined (e.g., CSR on page 7 appears without a definition).   - The paper notes that the data is available as part of the publication (lines 128–130). However, only aggregated statistics are presented in figures or text. As a result, the qualitative statements made on page 12 are not reproducible. Please either revise the data availability statement to reflect this limitation or provide information on how the underlying data can be accessed.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

Comment 1:  Please ensure that all abbreviations are properly defined (e.g., CSR on page 7 appears without a definition).  

Response 1: Checked and improved.

 

Comment 2:   The paper notes that the data is available as part of the publication (lines 128–130). However, only aggregated statistics are presented in figures or text. As a result, the qualitative statements made on page 12 are not reproducible. Please either revise the data availability statement to reflect this limitation or provide information on how the underlying data can be accessed.

Response 2:  We thank the reviewer for raising this concern. The empirical analysis in this study was based on a nationwide survey of Ukrainian professionals. For confidentiality and ethical reasons, we cannot disclose the raw individual-level responses (anonymous responses). Therefore, only aggregated data and summary statistics are presented in the paper, which are sufficient for replicating the reported analyses and qualitative conclusions.

The data availability statement in the manuscript reflects this fact: the dataset underlying the findings is available in aggregated form within the article itself. We will ensure that this point is communicated more explicitly in the editorial cover letter and, if required, can provide the aggregated dataset in tabular format as supplementary material.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors has mentioned in the rebuttle that they addressed the reviewers concerns, but I cannot locate it or track where the comments are addressed?

just providing a rebuttle is not enough. 

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback regarding our rebuttal. We would like to assure you that we meticulously addressed each point raised in the reviewer’s comments, carefully working through them step by step. It’s possible that the details of our responses may have been overlooked or dispersed among the replies to all reviewers, which could have caused some confusion. We are more than happy to reiterate and clarify our changes to ensure transparency. Please let us know how we can best assist in highlighting where each concern has been addressed. Please, see in bold answers in the file attached, as well as green colored in the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
Thank you for the revised version of the article. It looks better than the previous one. The current version shows more of the features of a scientific article. However, the following points should be improved:
1) All limitations to your results should be presented in the discussion section.
2) Clearly state in the conclusion section whether or not each research hypothesis is likely to be confirmed.

Author Response

Thank you for your fruitful commments and suggestions. 

Both suggested improvements have been made.

1. In the Discussion section, we explicitly outlined all limitations of the study and the contextual boundaries of our results (highlighted in yellow).

2. In the Conclusion section, we clearly stated whether each of the research hypotheses is supported or not (highlighted in yellow).

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept the paperin present form.