Implementation of Strategic Sustainability Frameworks in the Context of Family Business: A Quantitative Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is closely aligned with the journal’s scope, exploring sustainability in family business strategy. It focuses on applied, policy-relevant research, meeting reader expectations. The research gap is clearly identified: few empirical studies examine strategic sustainability frameworks in Slovak family businesses, highlighting the study’s originality and importance. The framing positions the research effectively in national and international academic discussions.

The manuscript is well-structured and follows academic conventions, ensuring a logical progression from introduction to conclusion. Integration of relevant international literature meaningfully connects the Slovak context with global research trends, enhancing the study’s international significance. Practical and policy implications are clearly stated, providing valuable and actionable insights for policymakers and business owners, especially in the SME sector, to support effective implementation of sustainability strategies.  

The methodological design is sound and appropriate for the stated objectives.

However, I think the theoretical background and discussion sections would benefit from the inclusion of more recent international studies. Expanding these sections would strengthen the conceptual foundation and enhance the manuscript’s contribution.  

For example, in the section where the authors state that “in the context of Slovak family businesses and from the perspective of sustainability strategy, this issue has not yet received sufficient attention. The authors Jarmil et al. (2024) concluded in their research that attention to sustainability issues and its individual processes and procedures is very low in the conditions of family businesses” (page 9), the discussion could be reinforced by incorporating international empirical studies that quantify the adoption rate of sustainability strategies in family businesses across other EU and OECD countries. Such a comparative perspective would clarify whether the observed low level of attention is a Slovakia-specific phenomenon or reflects a broader, cross-national trend.  

I also recommend that the part of the Conclusions section dedicated to Managerial Implications be further elaborated. It should explicitly translate the study’s empirical findings into actionable guidance for owners and managers of family businesses, outlining specific strategic steps for implementing sustainability frameworks.  

Overall, I evaluate the manuscript positively, recognize its added value, and, after incorporating the suggested revisions, recommend it for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

 

 

We are glad to get a response to our article. We appreciate your comments that helped us to improve the manuscript. We trust that all your comments have been addressed accordingly in the revised version of our manuscript. Please, find below our responses to your comments.

 

Reviewer 1

We would like to thank Reviewer 1 for the constructive and inspiring recommendations. The suggested improvements regarding the elaboration of the theoretical background, discussion, and managerial implications have been carefully addressed. The newly added sentences and paragraphs are highlighted in yellow in the manuscript and annotated with the comment “Reviewer 1” for clarity. These revisions were made to explicitly strengthen the conceptual foundation of the paper, provide a broader international perspective, and translate our empirical findings into actionable managerial guidance

 

 

Thank you very much for your time and consideration

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Literature framework:

The scientific objective of the research „to identify the status of implementation and importance of the strategy  and development of Slovak family businesses from the perspective of their sustainability”  is quite unclear for the reader, presented in a confusing manner.  Maybe it will be more convenient to set more than one goal, 1)  to diagnose the status of the implementation of sustainability strategy 2) to diagnose the perception of importance of sustainability strategy among Slovak FB  3) to detect the factors that have an impact on sustainability strategy implementation.

While the review utilizes recent references, it fails to engage with fundamental, seminal theoretical works concerning the uniqueness of family businesses (i.e. socio-emotional wealth literature).I appreciate the presentation of Slovak background – which I think is important to understand the shape and approach of Slovak family business. It can be added that this situation is not unique only for Slovakia but also for the post-soviet block.

For the discussion about family business definition  please check also: Hernández-Linares, R., Sarkar, S., & Cobo, M. J. (2018). Inspecting the Achilles heel: A quantitative analysis of 50 years of family business definitions. Scientometrics, 115(2), 929-951.

The uniqueness of family businesses is clearly presented in the literature review but it does not position the research within a robust theoretical framework, nor does it specify which theory (if any) underpins the analysis. This lack of theoretical anchoring severely undermines the scholarly value of the study.

Methods:

The manuscript only briefly mentions the register used for sampling (? – FinStat), which is not described in sufficient detail to judge its appropriateness. Critically, the actual final sample consists solely of respondents who voluntarily participated, introducing a high risk of non-response bias that is neither addressed nor analyzed. This undermines the credibility and generalizability of the findings. The final sample should be presented in detail in that part of the paper.

Instead of describing the questionnaire I suggest to add it as an  appendix. The construction and validation of the instrument are not addressed, raising doubts about measurement reliability and validity.

The presentation of hypotheses is methodologically weak. Hypotheses are introduced in the methods section (they should be in literature review), lack of deepen theoretical justification, and are inconsistently formulated (unclear abbreviations such as "DPs" are used instead of "FB" or "family business"). The statistical analyses (chi-square and relative frequency test) are overly simplistic, failing to exploit the richness of the collected data.

Hypotheses should not begin with „ It was assumed”. It is hypothesis and we know that we assume sth. Please start hypotheses numeration with H1 (instead of H0).

In my opinion instead of writing hypotheses the paper should be reorganised around research questions – it is exploratory and diagnostic in nature (particularly as this phenomenon was for the first time explored in Slovakian context).

 

Results

The final sample is not random. You have random sampling frame. But your respondents are those who actually DECIDED to take part in a survey. This introduces potential non-response bias, which must be acknowledged and, if possible, analyzed. As a result, generalization of the findings to the entire population is limited. The final sample composition and the issue of non-random response must be addressed.

Discussion:

The manuscript states that "sustainability is a key factor that, if properly implemented, allows family businesses to achieve their strategic goals and strengthen their long-term stability." However, the study does not empirically verify whether these outcomes are achieved. Rather, it examines the perception of the sustainability strategy among Slovak family businesses. Claims regarding strategic goal attainment or enhanced stability should be reframed to reflect the scope of the data collected.

Conlcusions

No practical/managerial implications directly presented. The contribution of the paper is not stated nor reported.

General remarks

Given the exploratory and diagnostic nature of the research within the Slovak context, it may be more appropriate to organize the study around research questions rather than hypotheses. Additionally, addressing methodological concerns related to the randomness of the final sample and considering more advanced analytical methods (logistic regression, fuzzy logic)  will substantially strengthen the robustness and validity of the findings.

 

The manuscript suffers from substantial conceptual and interpretational flaws:

1. Objectives are unclear and not clearly operationalized (rethink what you are actually examining – I think that the perception not the effect of sustainability and development strategy).
2. The hypotheses development should be grounded in theories recognised for family businesses (or rethink to reorganise it for exploratory purposes – using research questions)
3. The final sample is non-random as non-response bias is ignored.
4. The methods and statistical analyses are overly simplistic and do not match the ambitions of the study.
5. Conclusions are not substantiated by empirical evidence.

Given these fundamental weaknesses, I strongly recommend rejection of the manuscript in its current form.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

 

We are glad to get a response to our article. We appreciate your comments that helped us to improve the manuscript. We trust that all your comments have been addressed accordingly in the revised version of our manuscript. Please, find below our responses to your comments.

 

 

 

Literature framework:

We would like to thank Reviewer 2 for this valuable observation. We fully agree that the original scientific objective was presented in a rather broad and potentially confusing manner. To improve clarity and to better reflect the scope of our empirical investigation, we have reformulated the research objective into three distinct sub-goals, as suggested by the reviewer: to diagnose the status of implementation of sustainability strategies in Slovak family businesses, to evaluate the perception of the importance of sustainability strategies among Slovak family businesses, and to identify the key factors influencing the implementation of sustainability strategies. This revised formulation makes the study’s focus more explicit and aligns well with the hypotheses (H₀–H₃) tested in the research.

We agree that the original version of the manuscript did not sufficiently engage with seminal theoretical foundations of family business research, particularly the Socioemotional Wealth (SEW) perspective, nor did it explicitly specify the underlying theoretical framework. In response, we have substantially revised the Literature Review section. We now incorporate SEW as a central theoretical lens, complemented by stakeholder and stewardship theory, to better position our study within a robust conceptual foundation. Additionally, we have expanded the discussion on the definitional ambiguity of family business and included the recommended reference. Furthermore, we clarified that the Slovak situation reflects broader patterns observable across the post-Soviet block, thereby strengthening the international relevance of the paper. All new insertions are highlighted in green in the manuscript and marked with the comment “Reviewer 2.”

 

Methods:

We thank Reviewer 2 for the excellent and constructive recommendations regarding the presentation of hypotheses. In the revised version of the manuscript, the hypotheses have been relocated to the end of the Literature Review and reformulated to include explicit theoretical justifications, with consistent terminology (using “FBs” instead of “DPs”). Each hypothesis is now supported by relevant references to strengthen its conceptual foundation. We would also like to clarify that the hypotheses intentionally begin with the formulation “It was assumed…”, as this reflects the conventional use of the passive voice in scholarly articles, rather than plural first-person phrasing. In addition, we acknowledge the reviewer’s concern about the simplicity of the statistical analyses. While chi-square tests and tests of relative frequency are methodologically appropriate for categorical survey data and for testing associations within contingency tables, they admittedly represent basic techniques. We therefore expanded the Limitations section to explicitly address this issue, noting that more advanced approaches such as logistic regression, multivariate analysis, or structural equation modeling could be applied in future research to better exploit the richness of the dataset. These techniques, however, require either a broader set of variables or a larger sample size than was available in this study.

We fully agree that our study has exploratory and diagnostic elements, particularly given that sustainability strategies in Slovak family businesses are being examined for the first time. However, we deliberately chose to formulate research hypotheses rather than research questions, for the following reasons:

Quantitative design – The study is based on a structured survey with categorical data, which is most appropriately analyzed through hypothesis testing (chi-square and frequency tests). Hypotheses therefore provide a clear framework for statistical inference.

Clarity of expected relationships – Even though the context is novel, existing international research already points to plausible relationships (e.g., between firm size and sustainability adoption, or between perceived importance and actual implementation). Formulating hypotheses allowed us to explicitly test whether these established findings also hold true in the Slovak context.

Comparability with other studies – Hypotheses enable direct comparison with previous international research, where similar propositions have been empirically tested. This strengthens the contribution of our study beyond a purely descriptive or exploratory level.

For these reasons, we stand by the decision to use hypotheses, while at the same time acknowledging the exploratory character of our work in a novel national setting.

 

Results:

We thank the reviewer for this important clarification. We agree that while the initial sampling frame was random, the final sample cannot be considered random, as it only includes those family businesses that voluntarily decided to participate. We have revised the Materials and Methods section to explicitly state this distinction and have expanded the Discussion section to acknowledge the implications of potential self-selection and non-response bias. We emphasize that this limits the generalizability of our findings and therefore results should be interpreted with caution

 

Discussion:

We thank the reviewer for this insightful observation. We agree that our original phrasing in the Discussion could have misleadingly suggested that our study empirically demonstrated strategic goal attainment and long-term stability. To address this, we have carefully revised the relevant passage in the Discussion to clarify that our data capture only the perceptions and reported practices of Slovak family businesses, not direct performance outcomes. In addition, we expanded the Limitations section to explicitly acknowledge that this restricts the scope of our conclusions and that no causal inferences can be made. We also noted that future research should complement perception-based surveys with longitudinal designs and objective performance indicators.

 

Conlcusions:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. We would like to note that a similar observation regarding the lack of explicit managerial implications and contribution of the study was also raised by another reviewer. In response, we have substantially revised the Conclusions section by adding a dedicated subsection on Managerial Implications, where the empirical findings are explicitly translated into actionable recommendations for owners and managers of family businesses. Furthermore, we have clarified the Contribution of the Paper by outlining its theoretical, empirical, and practical value.

 

General remarks:

We thank the reviewer for these general but very important observations. Regarding the suggestion to reorganize the study around research questions rather than hypotheses, we acknowledge that our research has an exploratory and diagnostic character. Nevertheless, we intentionally formulated hypotheses, as this is consistent with the quantitative design of the study and allows for statistical testing and international comparability. This issue was also raised by another reviewer, and we clarified our rationale for using hypotheses in the revised manuscript. We also carefully addressed the concern about the randomness of the final sample. While the sampling frame was randomly constructed, the final sample consisted of voluntary respondents, which we now explicitly acknowledge in the Materials and Methods section and discuss as a source of potential non-response bias in the Limitations section. Finally, we agree with the reviewer that more advanced analytical methods (e.g., logistic regression, fuzzy logic, or multivariate approaches) could provide deeper insights. However, their application would require a different questionnaire design, a larger sample size, or additional variables. We therefore expanded the Limitations section to reflect this point and recommended that future research employ these techniques

Thank you very much for your time and conside

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. line 171: Although a random number generator was used for sample selection, it is not specified how uniform distribution across regions and industries was ensured. How does the sampling distribution differ from the actual distribution?
2. Why did not place the research hypothesis in the theoretical analysis section of the Literature Review? I think it is not appropriate to put it in the Research Methods section.
3. In-depth analysis is insufficient. There is conflict between H2 and H3, that is the factors of not implementing versus be interested in implementing should be discussed more in the discussion section in conjunction with H1.
4. How did you make sure the concise of the answers using Google Questionnaires platform?
5. Table 1 uses “enterprise size,” while line 286 uses “firm sizes.” The terminology should be consistent throughout.
6. The abbreviation “Dps” appears on lines 215, 294, and 312. What does it represent? Is it a typo for “Fbs” (family businesses)?
7. Is there a standardized measurement criterion for the question “whether the respondents' businesses have a specific business development strategy" mentioned in lines 185–187? Is this determined based on the subjective perceptions of respondents?
8. Differences across industries have not been analyzed. (line 280-282)
9. The time span for distributing and retrieving the questionnaires should be noted in lines 269 and 270.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

 

 

 

We are glad to get a response to our article. We appreciate your comments that helped us to improve the manuscript. We trust that all your comments have been addressed accordingly in the revised version of our manuscript. Please, find below our responses to your comments.

 

1. line 171: Although a random number generator was used for sample selection, it is not specified how uniform distribution across regions and industries was ensured. How does the sampling distribution differ from the actual distribution?

We thank Reviewer for this useful remark. The manuscript has been revised to clarify that respondents came from all regions of Slovakia with approximately equal representation, and that no proportional stratification by region or industry was applied at the selection stage. This statement has been added to the Materials and Methods section.

 

1. Why did not place the research hypothesis in the theoretical analysis section of the Literature Review? I think it is not appropriate to put it in the Research Methods section.

We thank for this valuable comment. In the revised manuscript, the research hypotheses have been relocated from the Methods section to the end of the Literature Review, where they are now theoretically justified.

 

1. In-depth analysis is insufficient. There is conflict between H2 and H3, that is the factors of not implementing versus be interested in implementing should be discussed more in the discussion section in conjunction with H1.

We thank for this thoughtful observation. While H2 and H3 may appear conflicting, we see them as complementary rather than contradictory. Together they highlight an important “intention–implementation gap”: most Slovak family businesses have not yet implemented a sustainability strategy (H2), but many express a clear interest in doing so (H3). To clarify this point, we have expanded the Discussion section by explicitly addressing the coexistence of these findings and linking them to H1, which emphasizes the role of firm size in bridging or widening this gap.

 

 

 

1. How did you make sure the concise of the answers using Google Questionnaires platform?

We thank  for this remark. The questionnaire was designed primarily with closed-ended questions and predefined answer options (single choice, multiple choice, Likert-type scales), which ensured conciseness and comparability of responses within the Google Forms platform.

 

1. Table 1 uses “enterprise size,” while line 286 uses “firm sizes.” The terminology should be consistent throughout.

We thank for this useful observation. The manuscript has been revised to ensure consistency of terminology, and all instances have been unified under the term enterpise size.

 

1. The abbreviation “Dps” appears on lines 215, 294, and 312. What does it represent? Is it a typo for “Fbs” (family businesses)?

We thank for noticing this error. Indeed, the abbreviation “DPs” was a typographical mistake. It has been corrected throughout the manuscript to “FBs” (family businesses) for consistency.

 

1. Is there a standardized measurement criterion for the question “whether the respondents' businesses have a specific business development strategy" mentioned in lines 185–187? Is this determined based on the subjective perceptions of respondents?

We thank for this pertinent observation. The item “whether the respondents’ businesses have a specific business development strategy” was not based on an external standardized measurement criterion, but rather on the self-reported perceptions of respondents. This approach was chosen deliberately, as the study is exploratory in nature and aims to capture how family business owners and managers themselves perceive and define their strategic orientation. While this subjective perception may vary across respondents, it provides valuable insights into the current awareness and attitudes of Slovak family businesses toward strategy formulation.

 

1. Differences across industries have not been analyzed. (line 280-282)

We thank for this remark. Our study primarily focused on the overall status and perception of sustainability strategies in Slovak family businesses, without conducting a sector-by-sector comparison. Although the questionnaire included respondents from different industries, the distribution of answers across sectors was not sufficiently balanced to allow for meaningful statistical comparison. For this reason, the analysis was performed at the aggregate level. We agree, however, that differences across industries represent an important avenue for future research, and we have indicated this in the revised manuscript as a possible direction for further investigation.

 

1. The time span for distributing and retrieving the questionnaires should be noted in lines 269 and 270.

We thank for this remark. The time span of the survey is now explicitly stated in the Materials and Methods section.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your revision. The structure is now clearer, the stated goals have been achieved, and the limitations are properly addressed.

A few additional points to consider:

1. Including a table with the regional structure of respondents would make the research more transparent.

2. Adding 2–3 sentences about family businesses’ perception of sustainable initiatives in the literature review section would improve coherence across all sections.

3. It may also be valuable to include some theoretical evidence (a reference) showing how perception can influence real sustainable actions.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We are glad to get a response to our article. We appreciate your comments that helped us to improve the manuscript. We trust that all your comments have been addressed accordingly in the revised version of our manuscript.

In addition to addressing all reviewer comments, we would like to inform you that the order of authors has been slightly adjusted. Specifically, Denis Pinka has been moved before Martin Halász, as he contributed substantially and with priority to the revision and resubmission of the manuscript. This change better reflects the actual distribution of work in the final version of the paper.

Please, find below our responses to your comments.

Reviewer 2

 1.

We sincerely thank you for this excellent comment and constructive suggestion. We fully agree that including the regional structure of respondents would enhance the transparency of the research. However, due to the design of our study, the regional distribution was not the primary variable under investigation. Respondents were selected randomly across all Slovak regions to ensure representativeness, but the final sample reflects only those family businesses that voluntarily participated in the survey. For this reason, the dataset does not allow for a sufficiently precise and balanced regional breakdown to be presented in a tabular form without risking misinterpretation of the results. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the value of this remark and will highlight in the text that the sample included family businesses from all Slovak regions, though without detailed proportional representation. Future research could therefore be designed specifically to capture regional differences in family business sustainability strategies. Such an approach would allow for comparative analyses between regions and provide deeper insights into territorial determinants of strategy implementation. This suggestion has been incorporated into the text as a requirement for future research and is explicitly marked in the Future research section as a note to Reviewer 2.

2.

We sincerely thank you for this valuable and well-formulated suggestion. We fully agree that the inclusion of a short discussion on family businesses’ perception of sustainable initiatives strengthens the coherence of the paper. Accordingly, we have incorporated 3–4 sentences into the Literature review section, emphasizing how family firms perceive sustainability both as an opportunity to preserve legacy and stakeholder relations, but also as a domain influenced by socioemotional wealth and resource constraints. This addition has been clearly marked in the manuscript as a comment responding to Reviewer 2.

3.

We thank you for this valuable comment. The suggested theoretical link between perception and real sustainable actions has been incorporated into the Literature review section and is clearly marked in the text as a note to Reviewer 2.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have solved my concerns and I have no further comment.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your previous comments and constructive suggestions. They have significantly contributed to improving the overall quality and clarity of our manuscript.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.