Review Reports - Strategic Discontinuity and Organizational Response: Short-Termism in the European Green Deal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors and Editor,
I had the pleasure of reviewing your manuscript titled "Strategic Discontinuity and Organizational Response: Short-Termism in the European Green Deal." I must commend you on an excellent piece of work. The manuscript is conceptually strong, well-structured, and clearly written. I found no substantive issues, nor even minor revisions, to suggest. Below, I highlight the strengths and contributions of the manuscript.
The manuscript presents a timely and well-structured conceptual analysis of the European Union’s shifting sustainability governance. Its strength lies in the integration of institutional theory with organizational behavior and sensemaking, offering a multi-level perspective on how regulatory volatility influences corporate ESG engagement. The discussion is particularly effective in linking macro-level policy reversals to internal organizational dynamics, including board-level prioritization and employee engagement. While the use of modeled data is clearly acknowledged, the visualizations nonetheless serve to reinforce the central argument with clarity and consistency. Importantly, the paper reframes sustainability as a governance imperative rather than a communications exercise, and the recommendations such as embedding sustainability into statutory frameworks and establishing independent oversight are both ambitious and grounded in institutional logic. The conceptual nature of the study limits empirical generalizability, but its theoretical depth and strategic relevance make it a valuable contribution to the literature on sustainability policy and organizational response. The manuscript is well-positioned to stimulate further empirical inquiry into the long-term effects of policy inconsistency on corporate behavior and stakeholder trust. More importantly, the manuscript is well-written, and I did not identify any grammatical concerns.
I recommend the manuscript for publication in its current form.

Author Response

I thank Reviewer 1 for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the positive evaluation. I very much appreciate the recognition of the manuscript’s conceptual depth, clear structure, and theoretical contribution.

Since no revisions were requested, I have not made substantive changes in response to this review. Nevertheless, I carefully considered the comments, and I ensured that the strengths highlighted — integration of institutional theory with organizational behavior, multi-level analysis, and reframing sustainability as governance — remain clearly articulated throughout the revised manuscript.

Specific confirmation:

The overall structure and conceptual framing (pages 2–6) remain unchanged, apart from minor language refinements for clarity and conciseness.
No new empirical sections or figures were added in response to this review, as the reviewer explicitly recommended publication in the current form.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations regarding your topic and the leitmotif. Yes, you touched the point - the regulatory instability, inconsistency and unpredictability generate a set of negative impacts and effects, including the reduction of the sustainability committment. So, yes, your ideas are very correct and deserved to be developed and published. However, since you address very correctly RECENT developments, you need to refer to RECENT publications. Many authors have published about the greenwashings, sustainability trade-offs, European Commission determination, ineffectiveness and inefficiency of reporting, Byzantine ESG - ESRS rules in 2022-2025, relation to SDGs and (un)realism, etc. So please take advantage of it. I can propose Idiano D´Adamo, Adam Balcerzak, Martin Hála, Todd Nesbitt, Filip Rubáček, Marghareta Sani, Veronika Zavřelová etc. Regarding your institutional approach, there are many recent publications especially by Italian authors. Further, it would be good to address the dynamics EGD (European Green Deal) v CID (Clean Industrial Deal). Finally, please can you explain more how you generated your charts - they are very interesting and illustrative, but I am puzzled how did you get data for such models.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Understandable, but could be improved

Author Response

Comment 2.1: The topic is relevant, but since you address recent developments, you need to refer to recent publications (greenwashing, trade-offs, ESRS rules 2022–2025, SDGs, etc.).
Answer: I have added recent references (2022–2025) throughout the manuscript, including works by D’Adamo et al. (2024) [29], Balcerzak et al. (2023) [30], Galli et al. (2024) [27], Nugraha et al. (2024) [28], and institutional reports from ESMA (2023, 2024) [24,25], Better Finance (2023) [26], and Eurostat (2024) [34]. These are cited in Section 2.2 (pp. 5–6), Section 2.4 (pp. 7–8), Section 3 (pp. 9–10), and Section 6 (p. 19). The updated reference list (pp. 27–29) is fully reformatted in MDPI style.
Comment 2.2: Address the dynamics between the European Green Deal (EGD) and the Clean Industrial Deal (CID).
Answer: I have added a new paragraph in Section 3 (pp. 9–10) that introduces the Clean Industrial Deal (CID), explains its positioning as an industrial-competitiveness complement to decarbonisation, and cites both supportive and critical perspectives [29–33]. This directly addresses the reviewer’s request to show the tension between EGD and CID as institutional signals.
Comment 2.3: Please explain more clearly how you generated your charts, which are illustrative but puzzling without detail.
Answer: I have added a dedicated subsection 2.5 Methodology and Data Basis (pp. 7–8). This explains that all figures are illustrative visualizations based on mock data modeled from secondary sources such as Statista trend reports, regulatory briefings, and industry surveys. Each figure caption (Figures 1–5, pp. 11–17) now includes a standardized data source and method note line clarifying that the figures are conceptual illustrations and not statistical tests.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is a timely conceptual review that analyzes the instability of EU policy in the field of sustainable development. However, the following comments should be noted:

It is important to clearly emphasize the scientific novelty and contribution to the development of institutional theory and corporate behavior.
The work is well structured, but some sections (in particular, Results and Discussion) contain repetitions. It is recommended to make the presentation more concise to improve readability.
The article is positioned as a conceptual review, but the methodology is actually limited to references to institutional theory and critical policy analysis. There is insufficient detail on the criteria used to select literature or policy documents.
In subsection 2.4 Sensemaking and Strategic Interpretation (pp. 3–4), the text repeats the same approach twice – the importance of coordinated institutional signals for shaping organizational strategy. This creates a sense of duplication and overloads the reader. It is recommended to combine these paragraphs or present them in a more compact form.
In the section Results and Interpretation (p. 9), the words “suggests,” “tends to,” “may,” and “likely” are used many times, which weakens the strength of the conclusions. It is clear that the analysis is conceptual and based on secondary sources, but it is worth formulating the statements more clearly, at least in the conclusions, and avoiding excessive uncertainty.
All graphs are based on mock data or secondary estimates. This makes the visualizations more illustrative than analytical. This should be emphasized more clearly in the text, and it should be noted that the conclusions have not been quantitatively verified.
The conclusions are generally logical, but they repeat well-known statements about the importance of regulatory policy stability. They lack original analytical insights or practical recommendations that would distinguish the article from other reviews.
The limitations of the study are formulated too superficially. It would be appropriate to emphasize that the lack of empirical verification significantly reduces the evidential value of the results and that further research must include primary data.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally written in clear academic English; however, several improvements would enhance readability and precision. Some sentences, particularly in the Results and Discussion sections, are overly long and repetitive, which makes the arguments less direct. In addition, frequent use of conditional terms such as “suggests,” “tends to,” “may,” and “likely” weakens the strength of conclusions. It is recommended to simplify sentence structures, reduce redundancy, and use more precise wording to better convey the key contributions of the study.

Author Response

Comment 3.1: It is important to clearly emphasize the scientific novelty and contribution to institutional theory and corporate behavior.
Answer: I strengthened the emphasis on novelty in the Introduction (p. 3) and again in the Conclusions (pp. 24–25). The revised text now explicitly states that the article extends institutional theory by linking EU policy volatility to organizational short-termism, thereby providing an original contribution to understanding how regulatory reversals shape ESG engagement.

Comment 3.2: The Results and Discussion sections contain repetitions; presentation should be more concise.
Answer: I revised Sections 5 and 6 (pp. 16–20) to remove redundant phrasing and consolidate overlapping points. For example, repetitions of “policy instability fosters symbolic compliance” were streamlined so that each point is stated once and then linked to the figures. This improves readability and flow.

Comment 3.3: The methodology is limited; there is insufficient detail on criteria for selecting literature or policy documents.
Answer: I added a dedicated subsection 2.5 Methodology and Data Basis (pp. 7–8). This specifies the selection criteria (recency, relevance, representativeness) used for including literature and policy sources, addressing the reviewer’s request for greater methodological transparency.

Comment 3.4: In subsection 2.4 the text repeats the same approach twice; this should be combined.
Answer: I merged the overlapping content into a single subsection 2.4 Sensemaking and Strategic Interpretation (pp. 6–8). The revised section removes duplicate wording and presents the argument more compactly.

Comment 3.5: The Results and Interpretation section uses many conditional terms (“suggests,” “tends to,” “may,” “likely”), which weaken the conclusions.
Answer: I systematically revised the wording in Sections 5 and 6 (pp. 16–20) and in the Conclusions (pp. 24–25) to replace hedging terms with stronger, more precise language (e.g., “suggests” → “shows,” “tend to” → “reflect,” “likely” → “often/rarely” depending on context). This adjustment makes the findings more assertive and aligned with conceptual review standards.

Comment 3.6: Graphs are illustrative rather than analytical; this should be emphasized.
Answer: I clarified in Section 2.5 (pp. 7–8) that all figures are illustrative visualizations derived from mock data modeled on secondary sources. Each caption for Figures 1–5 (pp. 11–17) now includes a method note explicitly stating that the figures are conceptual and not statistical tests.

Comment 3.7: The conclusions repeat well-known statements; they lack originality and practical recommendations.
Answer: I rewrote the Conclusions (pp. 24–25) to sharpen originality and provide specific recommendations. For policy, I propose statutory non-retrogression safeguards, independent oversight, and phased timetables for CSRD/CSDDD. For firms, I recommend embedding sustainability in board charters, aligning incentives, and using scenario analysis. These additions ensure the Conclusions are distinctive and practice-oriented.

Comment 3.8: Limitations are too superficial; the lack of empirical verification should be emphasized.
Answer: I expanded Section 7 Limitations (pp. 22–23) to stress the conceptual nature of the study, the illustrative (non-empirical) figures, and the absence of primary data. I also specify directions for future empirical work, including multi-sector case studies, surveys, and cross-regional comparisons.

Comment 3.9 (Language): Some sentences are overly long and repetitive; conditional terms weaken clarity.
Answer: I revised long sentences in Sections 5 and 6 (pp. 16–20) to improve readability and precision. I also reduced conditional phrasing, making the key claims more direct.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript explores the impact of policy uncertainty on corporate ESG engagement, holding both theoretical and practical significance. However, the following issues require improvement: 1. The manuscript type is incorrect; it should be a research paper rather than a review. 2. Key data used in the analysis require more detailed sourcing or citation. 3. Given the extensive use of simulated data, a brief explanation of the simulation methodology is necessary. 4. The analytical depth requires further enhancement. The current findings are not sufficiently integrated with empirical data and need strengthening. 5. The chapter structure could be optimized; sections 2.4 and 2.5 have duplicate titles.

Author Response

Comment 4.1: The manuscript type is incorrect; it should be a research paper rather than a review.
Answer: I clarified the manuscript type as a Conceptual Review Article on the title page (p. 2) and in the abstract (p. 2). I also reinforced in Section 2.5 (pp. 7–8) and Section 7 Limitations (pp. 22–23) that the article is conceptual in nature and does not rely on empirical data collection.

Comment 4.2: Key data used in the analysis require more detailed sourcing or citation.
Answer: I revised Section 2.5 (pp. 7–8) to explain the data basis. All figures are explicitly described as illustrative visualizations derived from mock data modeled on secondary sources (Statista trend reports, regulatory briefings, industry surveys). Each figure caption (Figures 1–5, pp. 11–17) now includes a standardized data source and method note line.

Comment 4.3: Given the extensive use of simulated data, a brief explanation of the simulation methodology is necessary.
Answer: I addressed this in Section 2.5 (pp. 7–8) by describing how illustrative estimates were derived (e.g., extrapolating from EU postponement announcements, survey data, and Statista trend indicators). Each figure caption repeats this disclaimer.

Comment 4.4: The analytical depth requires further enhancement. The current findings are not sufficiently integrated with empirical data and need strengthening.
Answer: I enhanced analytical depth in Sections 5 and 6 (pp. 16–20) by linking the conceptual findings directly to organizational theory (Oliver [18], Suchman [21]) and recent policy debates (CID vs. EGD [29–33]). The revised Conclusions (pp. 24–25) also present sharper, actionable implications for both policymakers and firms.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the consideration of my suggestions and your modifications. I find your updated version much better and meeting my expectations and demands.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the manuscript demonstrates that the author has taken the reviewers’ observations seriously. The paper now reads more smoothly and consistently: the literature review is enriched with recent sources, while the application of institutional theory is better justified and directly tied to the discussion of policy shifts surrounding the European Green Deal. The explanation of how the illustrative data were constructed also helps to clarify the argument and addresses earlier uncertainties.

Taken together, these improvements make the manuscript suitable for acceptance in its present form.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors