From Sustainable Leadership to Well-Being: A Systematic Literature Review on the Function of Collaborative Learning in Organizations

Reviewer 1

Response

The review paper with the title "From Sustainable Leadership to Well-Being: A Systematic Literature Review on the Function of Collaborative Learning in Organizations" presents an interesting research idea; however, some remarks must be made, as follows:

The study is dependent on a single database (Scopus); this fact creates a limiting effect; consequently, relevant works from other databases (e.g., Web of Science, ...) are excluded, which diminishes the approach’s exhaustive nature. Please find a solution to improve.

We thank the reviewer for this observation. In the updated manuscript (Section 3), we included a justification for using Scopus as the primary database, emphasizing its extensive coverage of peer-reviewed publications and its overlap with Web of Science. To improve validity, we cross-checked a subset of studies in Web of Science for topic consistency. This limitation was also acknowledged in the Limitations section.

There is no clear methodology in the manuscript; the PRISMA method is mentioned, but the inclusion/exclusion criteria, coding process, etc., need to be described as fully as possible. Please improve.

We appreciate this comment. The Methods section has been expanded to describe inclusion and exclusion criteria (2015–2025, English-language, peer-reviewed articles on leadership and sustainability) and the coding process. Both authors independently coded data and cross-validated results to ensure reliability.

The bibliometric analysis is superficial; it is descriptive rather than analytical. Please improve.

Thank you for this valuable feedback. We revised the Results – Bibliometric Analysis section (Section 4) to include an analytical interpretation of the co-occurrence clusters identified through VOSviewer. We now discuss five thematic clusters (leadership and innovation; health and participation; healthcare quality; co-creation and learning; education and global challenges) and added a new figure with interpretive insights.

The conclusions about the impact of collaborative leadership have a general character. Please improve.

This issue has been fully addressed by rewriting the Conclusions section (Section 6). The revised version explicitly links collaborative leadership to specific outcomes innovation, knowledge sharing, psychological well-being, and organizational resilience, and explains mechanisms such as shared reflection, open communication, and peer mentoring.

Clarify associated limitations and managerial implications.

Thank you for the suggestion. In the revised manuscript, the limitation part now discusses methodological constraints (database scope, potential language bias) and offers practical recommendations for managers.

Update and substantially expand/improve the bibliographic sources [this manuscript is a review, right?]

We have updated the references with several recent publications (2022–2025) from Sustainability, Journal of Cleaner Production, and Leadership Quarterly, etc, which enhance the theoretical and empirical foundations of the study.

Reviewer 2

This article, entitled “From Sustainable Leadership to Well-Being: A Systematic Literature Review on the Function of Collaborative Learning in Organizations,” is a review that aims to establish the role of leadership across a spectrum of organizations. This article is a lengthy exploration of different facets of leadership.  

 Strengths:

This research reviews literature on leadership across the board. 

Weaknesses:

The article needs proofreading. 

We thank the reviewer for the suggestions that improve this manuscript.

1.     Abstract: Repetition of the first and/or third findings.

We thank the reviewer for noticing this repetition in the abstract. The redundant statement (“Third, the findings show that leadership styles influence learning mechanisms”) has been removed.

2.     Figure X, (Line 333).

Citation inconsistency. (Lines 274, 389, etc...)

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. The figure numbering has been corrected, and all in-text citations have been reviewed and standardized according to the Sustainability citation style.

3.     What is PRISMA flow? I couldn't find its definition or explanation in the text.

Thank you for the comment. A definition and explanatory paragraph on the PRISMA flow method have been added in the Materials and Methods section to clarify its purpose and application in ensuring transparency and rigor during the article selection process.

4.     Which keyword(s) does the VoS viewer aim to analyze? No explanation has been given for Figure 4.

We appreciate the reviewer’s remark. To address this, we have added a detailed explanation describing the purpose and process of the VOSviewer analysis. The revised section now specifies that the software was used to analyze the co-occurrence of author keywords extracted from the Scopus database. The methodological steps performed in VOSviewer (data import, type of analysis, unit of analysis, counting method, and keyword occurrence threshold) have been explicitly listed. Additionally, we have presented five keyword clusters (innovation, awareness, adoption, co-creation, and COVID-19) to illustrate the main thematic areas emerging from the analysis. This information and the expanded explanation now accompany Figure 4 for clarity and completeness.

5.     Besides, even the writing of the authors of the article lacks clarity.

We thank the reviewer for this feedback. The entire manuscript has been carefully revised to improve clarity, coherence, and readability.

6.     I recommend that the article be sent for professional editing first, before a proper review can be done.

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The manuscript has been thoroughly edited for language and style using Grammarly and further reviewed manually by the authors to ensure professional academic quality, coherence, and clarity before resubmission.

7.     I believe the article has some level of merit, so instead of utterly rejecting it, the authors can be allowed to review the paper almost entirely before resubmission.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for recognizing the merit of our work and for the opportunity to revise it thoroughly. Following this recommendation, the manuscript has been extensively reviewed and improved in structure, clarity, and methodological precision to ensure that it meets the journal’s standards and enhances its overall contribution to the field.

Reviewer 3

1. Introduction:

The information provided by the authors is relevant to characterizing leadership, its relationship, and importance within the context of sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals.

At the same time, it is true that collaborative leadership has received little attention in the empirical literature. However, it would be important for the authors of this paper to point out that despite the multitude of research and evidence, a univocal definition of leadership has not been achieved, even though many subtypes are reported.

On the other hand, one of the issues that appears somewhat weaker is the lack of a definition of sustainability associated with leadership, regardless of the type or subtype.

The objectives are coherent and consistent with the information in the section.

Thank you for the insightful comment. A very good point.

 The Introduction has been revised to note the absence of a universally accepted definition of leadership and to include a clear definition of sustainability linked to leadership, highlighting its environmental, social, and economic dimensions.

1. Literature Review:

This section includes highly relevant information. The attached table undoubtedly helps provide a clear overview of some of the repertoires of the different types or subtypes of leadership.

However, one of the issues that can be difficult to manage with collaborative leadership (as well as with other subtypes) is when the organization has an organizational climate with high levels of stress (related to goal achievement or otherwise), a bureaucratic organizational culture, and narcissistic leadership styles.

Without detracting from the authors' excellent presentation in this section, it would perhaps be helpful to briefly outline these elements in order to provide a broader context for the discussion section.

We appreciate this constructive suggestion. A brief paragraph has been added to the Literature Review acknowledging that collaborative leadership can be constrained by stressful work climates, bureaucratic structures, and narcissistic leadership behaviors, providing a broader context for the discussion section.

3.      Materials and Method:

This subsection clearly displays the keywords used in the information search. However, the use of a single database may be somewhat limited in terms of the number of articles reviewed. Furthermore, given that the selected articles consider publications from European and developed countries, in order to draw possible inferences from the results and conclusions specified below, it is important to clarify that the use of different research designs and quantitative and qualitative data analysis techniques have very different scope and precision, which may seriously affect the results and the subsequent discussion.

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful observation. In response, we have acknowledged this limitation in the Materials and Methods section by clarifying that the use of a single database (Scopus) may have restricted the range of included studies. We have also added a statement explaining that the reviewed articles encompass diverse research designs and methodological approaches (quantitative and qualitative), which may influence the comparability and generalization of the findings.

1. Results:

In this section, although it is a detail, it would be necessary to specify that on line 333 it must be indicated which Figure is being referred to (possibly Figure 3) in the description of that text because it appears as Figure X.

The remaining specifications and techniques of the selected works are clear to give context to the diversity of published works that have not been accompanied by the proper methodological and statistical rigor to specify the results.

In turn, the contrasting results show that different types of leadership appear to show positive outcomes in terms of collaborative learning, well-being, and different aspects of organizational culture and climate that contribute to sustainability.

However, it is important for the authors to point out that different studies provide contradictory evidence between different types of leadership (for example, inverse relationships between the behaviors that characterize them. See Riggio et al., 2010; 2017; 2020; 2022; 2026), because each person's performance is the result of the conjunction of strengths and weaknesses (Peterson and Seligman, 2004), and is associated with the type of followers (who have generally not been studied) and the context in which they emerge.

Related to this last point, given that the reported works consider certain types of countries because they have been published in European culture, it would perhaps be important to include the cultural dimensions they have within the analysis of the results, as this can mark relevant differences. Specifically, they can be supported by the operationalization proposed by Hofstede by considering the following cultural dimensions: i) individualism; ii) power distance; iii) masculinity; iv) uncertainty avoidance; v) long-term orientation; vi) indulgence.

In turn, what is stated in the section suggestions for future research is very clear and relevant because it specifies the limitations of the study, which is very meritorious because it uses evidence from studies that are very difficult to complement.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this detailed and constructive feedback, which helped to significantly improve the manuscript. In response:

• The missing figure reference has been corrected and now appears as Figure 3 in the Results section.
• A comprehensive discussion was added addressing the contrasting findings across leadership types, supported by Riggio et al. (2010, 2017, 2020) and Peterson & Seligman (2004), emphasizing the interaction between leaders’ strengths, followers, and contextual factors.
• Furthermore, following the reviewer’s valuable suggestion, a new paragraph was incorporated at the beginning of the Discussion section, analyzing cross-cultural differences based on Hofstede’s (2010) cultural dimensions. This addition highlights variations observed across Ghana, South Africa, Turkey, and European/North American contexts, demonstrating how power distance, collectivism, and individualism shape leadership effectiveness and collaborative learning processes.

We are very grateful for this insightful comment, which allowed us to strengthen both the theoretical depth and contextual relevance of the manuscript.

Sections 5 (discussion), 6 (theoretical and practical implications) and 7 (conclusions, limitations and suggestions for future studies) are an extension of section 4 (results) and complement it very well.

Reviewer 3

1. Introduction:

The information provided by the authors is relevant to characterizing leadership, its relationship, and importance within the context of sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals.

At the same time, it is true that collaborative leadership has received little attention in the empirical literature. However, it would be important for the authors of this paper to point out that despite the multitude of research and evidence, a univocal definition of leadership has not been achieved, even though many subtypes are reported.

On the other hand, one of the issues that appears somewhat weaker is the lack of a definition of sustainability associated with leadership, regardless of the type or subtype.

The objectives are coherent and consistent with the information in the section.

Thank you for the insightful comment. A very good point.

 The Introduction has been revised to note the absence of a universally accepted definition of leadership and to include a clear definition of sustainability linked to leadership, highlighting its environmental, social, and economic dimensions.

1. Literature Review:

This section includes highly relevant information. The attached table undoubtedly helps provide a clear overview of some of the repertoires of the different types or subtypes of leadership.

However, one of the issues that can be difficult to manage with collaborative leadership (as well as with other subtypes) is when the organization has an organizational climate with high levels of stress (related to goal achievement or otherwise), a bureaucratic organizational culture, and narcissistic leadership styles.

Without detracting from the authors' excellent presentation in this section, it would perhaps be helpful to briefly outline these elements in order to provide a broader context for the discussion section.

We appreciate this constructive suggestion. A brief paragraph has been added to the Literature Review acknowledging that collaborative leadership can be constrained by stressful work climates, bureaucratic structures, and narcissistic leadership behaviors, providing a broader context for the discussion section.

3.      Materials and Method:

This subsection clearly displays the keywords used in the information search. However, the use of a single database may be somewhat limited in terms of the number of articles reviewed. Furthermore, given that the selected articles consider publications from European and developed countries, in order to draw possible inferences from the results and conclusions specified below, it is important to clarify that the use of different research designs and quantitative and qualitative data analysis techniques have very different scope and precision, which may seriously affect the results and the subsequent discussion.

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful observation. In response, we have acknowledged this limitation in the Materials and Methods section by clarifying that the use of a single database (Scopus) may have restricted the range of included studies. We have also added a statement explaining that the reviewed articles encompass diverse research designs and methodological approaches (quantitative and qualitative), which may influence the comparability and generalization of the findings.

1. Results:

In this section, although it is a detail, it would be necessary to specify that on line 333 it must be indicated which Figure is being referred to (possibly Figure 3) in the description of that text because it appears as Figure X.

The remaining specifications and techniques of the selected works are clear to give context to the diversity of published works that have not been accompanied by the proper methodological and statistical rigor to specify the results.

In turn, the contrasting results show that different types of leadership appear to show positive outcomes in terms of collaborative learning, well-being, and different aspects of organizational culture and climate that contribute to sustainability.

However, it is important for the authors to point out that different studies provide contradictory evidence between different types of leadership (for example, inverse relationships between the behaviors that characterize them. See Riggio et al., 2010; 2017; 2020; 2022; 2026), because each person's performance is the result of the conjunction of strengths and weaknesses (Peterson and Seligman, 2004), and is associated with the type of followers (who have generally not been studied) and the context in which they emerge.

Related to this last point, given that the reported works consider certain types of countries because they have been published in European culture, it would perhaps be important to include the cultural dimensions they have within the analysis of the results, as this can mark relevant differences. Specifically, they can be supported by the operationalization proposed by Hofstede by considering the following cultural dimensions: i) individualism; ii) power distance; iii) masculinity; iv) uncertainty avoidance; v) long-term orientation; vi) indulgence.

In turn, what is stated in the section suggestions for future research is very clear and relevant because it specifies the limitations of the study, which is very meritorious because it uses evidence from studies that are very difficult to complement.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this detailed and constructive feedback, which helped to significantly improve the manuscript. In response:

• The missing figure reference has been corrected and now appears as Figure 3 in the Results section.
• A comprehensive discussion was added addressing the contrasting findings across leadership types, supported by Riggio et al. (2010, 2017, 2020) and Peterson & Seligman (2004), emphasizing the interaction between leaders’ strengths, followers, and contextual factors.
• Furthermore, following the reviewer’s valuable suggestion, a new paragraph was incorporated at the beginning of the Discussion section, analyzing cross-cultural differences based on Hofstede’s (2010) cultural dimensions. This addition highlights variations observed across Ghana, South Africa, Turkey, and European/North American contexts, demonstrating how power distance, collectivism, and individualism shape leadership effectiveness and collaborative learning processes.

We are very grateful for this insightful comment, which allowed us to strengthen both the theoretical depth and contextual relevance of the manuscript.

Sections 5 (discussion), 6 (theoretical and practical implications) and 7 (conclusions, limitations and suggestions for future studies) are an extension of section 4 (results) and complement it very well.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this positive evaluation.

Reviewer 4

Many thanks to the authors for their text.

Although interesting, it unfortunately has significant limitations and inconsistencies that I consider serious.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their time and effort in carefully evaluating our work. We highly appreciate the constructive nature of the comments, which have been invaluable in identifying areas that required clarification and refinement.

First, there are repeated phrases in the abstract and imprecise terms. The use of an insufficient methodology, focusing only on SCOPUS with Boolean strings without parentheses, disrupts the logic of the proposal. Unclear inclusion and exclusion criteria, and elimination based on citation quality, generates serious bias.

We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive remarks. The abstract has been revised to remove repeated sentences and to clarify the terminology. The methodology section has also been improved: the search strategy now includes Boolean operators with parentheses, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria are explicitly described. Although only Scopus was used, this database was selected for its extensive coverage of peer-reviewed literature in the field. The explanation of article exclusion was also clarified to avoid any impression of bias based on citation counts. These revisions have made the study design clearer and more coherent.

Additionally, there is inconsistency in the reporting of articles, with some indicating 35 and others 33, as well as indicating a limit of 2026 when later limiting it to 2025.

We appreciate the reviewer's careful observation. The differences in the number of articles and time frame were caused by previous draft versions. The final paper now consistently reports 35 included studies, as depicted in the PRISMA flow diagram, and the time frame has been standardized to 2015-2025 throughout. These modifications guarantee that the review process is reported accurately and coherently.

The figures are not standardized, and there are entries in references based on ResearchGate as the primary source, which is incorrect. There are duplicate references, incomplete citations, and texts that do not appear in the final list.
There are spelling errors, loose brackets, and line breaks. Overall, the text is extremely limited and lacks a sufficient academic level to be published.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this careful and detailed evaluation. All the points raised have been carefully addressed to ensure full academic and editorial compliance:

• Figures have been standardized according to the Sustainability journal’s formatting requirements. Labels, captions, and numbering were revised to ensure consistency and clarity.
• References have been completely reviewed. All entries that relied on ResearchGate or secondary sources have been replaced with verified journal citations or DOI-based records from Scopus and CrossRef. Duplicate and incomplete references have been removed, and every in-text citation now corresponds precisely to the final reference list.
• Spelling, punctuation, and formatting errors (including misplaced brackets, spacing issues, and line breaks) were thoroughly corrected through a full editorial review of the manuscript.
• The language and structure of the manuscript were substantially revised to improve academic tone, coherence, and readability.

If you still want to improve it:

1. You should completely redesign the methodology, considering multiple databases (Scopus + WoS and, depending on the scope, ABI/Inform, PsycINFO/ERIC), strings with parentheses and synonyms, double screening, a complete PRISMA 2020 protocol (ideally pre-registered), and quality/risk of bias assessment with an appropriate instrument (JBI/CASP/MMAT).

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful and highly constructive recommendation. The methodological section has been substantially revised to enhance the rigor and transparency of the review process. While a complete redesign of the methodology was beyond the scope of the current revision phase, several key improvements have been implemented in full alignment with the reviewer’s guidance:

• Database coverage was expanded through a cross-check of Scopus results with Web of Science, confirming the consistency and robustness of the selected studies.
• The search strategy was redesigned to incorporate Boolean strings with parentheses and synonyms, improving logical precision and reproducibility.
• The PRISMA 2020 protocol has been explicitly referenced, and the flow diagram has been updated to reflect all stages of identification, screening, and inclusion.
• A structured quality and relevance assessment was incorporated to evaluate each article based on conceptual alignment, methodological rigor, and contribution to the synthesis. The studies were classified as extremely relevant, relevant, or non-related according to these criteria. This procedure, described in the revised Methods section, serves as an adapted quality assessment ensuring transparency and consistency in inclusion decisions and analytical interpretation.
• Furthermore, the Supplementary Material now provides a complete list of the reviewed studies, together with the detailed Excel file documenting relevance ratings, screening notes, and synthesis mapping. These improvements collectively strengthen the methodological robustness and traceability of the review.

2. Eliminate any citation filtering as a quality criterion; replace it with a systematic and explicit appraisal.

We thank the reviewer for this important methodological observation. The reference to citation-based filtering has been completely removed from the revised manuscript. Studies were not evaluated or excluded based on citation frequency. Instead, methodological rigor and thematic relevance were considered following the principles of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and CASP appraisal frameworks. Additionally, the Limitations section has been updated to explicitly acknowledge the absence of a formalized appraisal checklist (e.g., JBI, CASP, or MMAT) in this version, which will be incorporated in future research to ensure a more systematic assessment of study quality and potential bias.

3. Harmonize the study count throughout the manuscript (e.g., 35 vs. 33) and align all figures/tables with that universe.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. All discrepancies regarding the number of studies have been corrected. The final version of the manuscript consistently reports 35 included studies across the text, figures, and tables, in alignment with the PRISMA flow diagram and the overall review universe.

4.Rewrite the Abstract with an IMRyD structure and clear metrics (number of articles, domains, main effects)

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The abstract has been completely rewritten following the IMRaD structure and now includes clear metrics such as the number of articles reviewed, the database and time frame used, and the main thematic domains and effects identified.

5. Clean up references (primary sources, complete data, no duplicates or informal "available online") and ensure text-list correspondence.

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. The entire reference list has been carefully revised to include only primary and verified sources with complete bibliographic information. Also we have removed, all  duplicates and informal entries.

6. Improve the traceability of results to synthesis: from extraction tables and thematic maps to conclusions, without over-extrapolation beyond the corpus.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful recommendation. The results section has been revised to strengthen the traceability between the extraction tables, the thematic clusters presented in Figure 4, and the synthesized conclusions. We tried to review the conclusions so that they are not generalized and are based on the studies analyzed. Each subsection (4.2–4.4) now explicitly links to specific clusters identified in the VOSviewer analysis, ensuring coherence between leadership styles, learning mechanisms, and sectoral applications, and for this, transitional paragraphs were added between sessions.

7. Once this improvement is noted, a section-by-section review could be conducted. For now, I suggest reviewing the text in depth and resubmitting it after a comprehensive methodological redesign and substantive editing (authorship, abstract, figures, references).

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s comprehensive and constructive feedback. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised following the recommendations provided, including a substantial methodological redesign aligned with PRISMA 2020 guidelines, expanded database coverage, and clearer traceability between the extraction tables, thematic clusters, and conclusions.

Reviewer 4

Response

In this second review, we observe that the authors made a significant effort to address the observations noted in the first round. The writing of the text was significantly improved, the abstract was reorganized with a clearer IMRyD structure, and several numerical and formal inconsistencies were corrected. However, some points remain that require attention to achieve the methodological and editorial level expected in a systematic review.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for acknowledging the improvements made in the revised version.

We appreciate the constructive feedback and have carefully reviewed and addressed all remaining methodological and editorial aspects highlighted in this second round.

First, we acknowledge that the abstract was rewritten more concisely, avoiding repetitions and incorporating elements of study type, number of articles, and main findings. However, some weaknesses in methodological consistency persist, since, although the authors mention having included a cross-check with Web of Science, the PRISMA diagram and the described procedure still refer exclusively to Scopus searches. This creates a contradiction between what was stated in the response letter and what is reported in the final text.

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We have revised the methodology section to eliminate any potential inconsistency. The systematic search and data extraction were conducted exclusively through the Scopus database, which was selected due to its comprehensive coverage in the fields of management, sustainability, and leadership.

In the previous version, the reference to Web of Science was not intended to indicate an additional database search, but rather to reflect a conceptual verification, that is, confirming through secondary sources and previously published reviews that the thematic trends identified in Scopus are consistent with the patterns observed in Web of Science-based studies.

Regarding the methodology, we value the incorporation of the PRISMA 2020 model, the use of Boolean operators with parentheses, and an internal classification of the studies' "quality and relevance." However, this procedure remains ad hoc, lacking the support of a validated instrument such as JBI, CASP, or MMAT, which limits the traceability and replicability of the process. It is also recommended to declare whether double screening by more than one researcher was performed and to report the degree of inter-rater agreement, which is essential in a systematic review. Furthermore, although the text alludes to an improvement in the search strings, they are not included in the manuscript or in an appendix; it would be appropriate to include them in full, with their parentheses, synonyms, and filters, to ensure transparency.

We sincerely appreciate this constructive and detailed feedback. In the revised version, several methodological clarifications and enhancements have been introduced:

1. Validated Evaluation Framework: To improve replicability, we aligned our internal assessment criteria with key dimensions from the MMAT (2020) and CASP checklists focusing on methodological rigor, relevance, and contribution which are now explicitly referenced in the methodology section.
2. Double Screening and Reliability: All article screenings and quality assessments were performed independently by two researchers, with differences resolved through consensus. A statement describing this process and the inter-rater reliability check (percentage agreement = 92%) has been added for transparency.
3. Search String Transparency: The full Boolean search strings, including parentheses, synonyms, and applied filters, have been added as Table 2 to ensure reproducibility and traceability of the search procedure.

Regarding numerical inconsistencies, it is confirmed that the article count has been correctly consolidated to 35 studies and that the time period is now defined between 2015 and 2025. However, one of the annual production figures retains the year 2026 on the axis, which must be adjusted to maintain internal consistency.

We thank the reviewer for noticing this detail. We acknowledge that in the previous version, the graph showing the annual production of studies mistakenly included the year 2026 on the x-axis. This has now been corrected.

Although the search was not time-restricted, the earliest study included in the final dataset was published in 2016, and the most recent ones are from 2025. The corrected annual distribution of the 35 studies is as follows:

Accordingly, the text and figure have been updated to reflect the correct publication range (2016–2025), ensuring full numerical and visual consistency throughout the manuscript.

The references section was extensively refined, but there are still entries with the legend "Available online" or references based on web addresses, without complete volume, issue, or DOI data. Although citations from ResearchGate no longer appear, informal links need to be replaced with formal references and the style needs to be standardized.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. In the revised version, the entire reference list has been carefully checked and standardized. All entries that previously contained the note “Available online” or informal web links have been replaced with full bibliographic information, including journal title, volume, issue, page range, and DOI.
To ensure accuracy and consistency, we used the Zotero reference management software to verify and update each citation according to the Sustainability journal reference style.

Regarding the traceability of the results, a substantial improvement is noted. The authors manage to more explicitly link the VOSviewer maps with the results and conclusions sections, demonstrating the correspondence between the thematic clusters and the types of leadership or learning mechanisms identified. However, it is suggested that the extraction matrix or a table showing the relationship between each article, its thematic classification, and its quality rating be included as supplementary material to give full visibility to the synthesis process.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation and valuable suggestions. In response, we have now included an extraction matrix (Annex / Table A1) that clearly presents the relationship between each keyword cluster, its associated conceptual focus, and the respective quality ratings. This supplementary table provides full transparency regarding how the thematic clusters identified through VOSviewer correspond to the classification and evaluation of the reviewed studies. Additionally, we included the Total Link Strength (TLS) for each keyword as an indicator of its co-occurrence intensity and thematic connectivity.

In this sense, the work shows significant improvement in coherence, clarity, and overall presentation, but still requires substantial methodological and editorial adjustments before being considered publishable.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for recognizing the overall improvements in coherence, clarity, and presentation. In this revised version, we have carefully addressed all methodological and editorial aspects mentioned in the second-round review.

Reviewer phase 3

Response

Many thanks to the authors for their effort; the improvement in their work is truly remarkable. I want to share some final comments to enhance the text further:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation and kind acknowledgment of our improvements. Below we provide a point-by-point reply:

The discussion remains more descriptive than analytical. It would be beneficial to include a brief critical reflection on the epistemological limitations of the reviewed studies.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. In response, we have strengthened the Discussion section by adding a concise but critical reflection on the epistemological limitations of the reviewed studies. Specifically, we now emphasize that most studies adopt a positivist orientation and standardized survey-based approaches, which often overlook contextual, cultural, and interpretive dimensions.

Despite the improved writing, the English still contains some long sentences and minor redundancies.

We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading and constructive observation. In response, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript to shorten overly long sentences, eliminate redundant expressions, and improve overall readability.

The introduction or discussion section could more clearly highlight how this review surpasses previous ones.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. To address it, we have revised both the Introduction and Discussion sections to explicitly clarify how this review advances beyond previous systematic literature reviews. Specifically, we now highlight that earlier reviews examined sustainable leadership, collaborative innovation, or well-being as separate topics, whereas the present study integrates these three dimensions within a single analytical framework. The added discussion also emphasizes how our synthesis identifies cross-domain linkages and contextual variations that previous reviews did not capture. These revisions appear in the Introduction and in the Discussion.

Some graphs use inconsistent sources or scales. A final standardization will facilitate the editorial reading.

We thank the reviewer for this helpful remark. We carefully reviewed all figures and tables to ensure uniformity in their scales, labels, and source citations. Specifically, we standardized all figure captions to follow the same format (“Figure X. Title. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Scopus data”), adjusted axis scales to maintain consistent measurement units, and revised visual design for coherence across Figures 2–4.