Review Reports - What Drives or Hinders Sustainability? Lessons from Organizational Practices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors state that their research “…aims to identify successful practices, key factors contributing to failure, and stakeholder awareness related to sustainability.” (see lines 21-22). Moreover, in the Abstract, they mention that “this study examines organizational actions that promote sustainable development, with a focus on two specific Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production)”. ..(see lines 17-19)…or “In this sense, the research aims to analyze the actions that can promote sustainable organizational development through success stories, failure factors, and awareness of the agents involved.” (see lines 65-67).

Even this, the research results don't reflect this aim at all.

The knowledge gap is not identified. There are no research questions.

Moreover, the research methodology has serious shortcomings. Even the researchers mention that they applied “case studies, action research, … direct observation, direct, non-participant observation” (see lines 174-175). (“Another instrument.....This technique”) !?????) , and focus groups (see lines 23-24), there are no data about these research methods, nor a detailed methodology for each method, nor any results.

There is no information available about the research population, sampling method, or sample size. There is no clear indication of who the respondents are, of how, when, or where the authors have collected the data. The research tool (“semi-structured interview guide”?) is not detailed. Although a table with excerpts from the interview is provided, there is insufficient data regarding the coding process.

The authors claim that they used the triangulation of procedures (?!, actually these are data collection methods/techniques, not “procedures.” ) - interviews, observation, and focus groups, but there is no data about each procedure.

Some statements are imprecise – “This research was developed using a qualitative approach with depth to address specific issues, providing a level of reality that cannot be quantified.” (see lines 150-151) or are not justified –“ the recordings were deleted from all electronic...) (was an ethics protocol in this way?).

The references are not cited in the text according to the journal's recommendations.

Author Response

Thank you for the comment. We have reviewed the highlighted sections and refined the writing to make it more consistent with the study’s purpose and the literature used.

Thank you for your consideration. We have revised the text to ensure that the results are aligned with the study’s objective.

Thank you for your comment. A research question has been added.

The study’s method section was rewritten to better describe the data collection instrument and analysis techniques. In addition, we provided more details about the research approach.

Thank you for the comment. The authors have provided more details on the reviewer's comments, additional information has been included, and the semi-structured interview has been added to the method.

In the fact the data was collected based on all those procedures, to understand how the actions performed can promote sustainable organizational development through success stories, failure factors, and awareness of the agents involved

The research was conducted in accordance with protocol 36602920.6.0000.5319 of the ethics committee. This sentence has been rewritten to avoid confusion.

A double check has been carried out.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction to the study lacked a specific research problem, except for a brief digression into the twelfth and fourth Sustainable Development Goals (SDG4, SDG12). The introduction also did not present any clear research questions for the study. Furthermore, the introduction was not supported by quantitative or statistical data from previous studies or publications from research centers or government agencies, such as the extent to which the Sustainable Development Goals were achieved in Brazil or a comparison of data from developing countries regarding the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals with those from developed countries. Such data would have supported the study's problem or added strength to the introduction.

There are two essential points in any introduction to a study: the first is to clarify the importance of the study in terms of its scientific and practical contributions, and to compare the study to previous studies in terms of methodology or scope of focus. The second is to clarify the structure and sections of the research. These two points were ignored by the introduction.

In the theoretical background, there is no justification for adding the Agenda 2030, as this paragraph did not add anything to the study and could have been used in the introduction to the study as a statement and clarification of the research problem.

In the case study approach, there are several elements that must be included in the approach, but which are not sufficiently explained in the study, such as:

Research design (single or multiple case studies)
Case selection (the case being studied is defined, along with its importance and the criteria for selecting it)
Data analysis framework (thematic, cross-case analysis)

In the results, lines 211-214 should be added to the methodology, as they illustrate the main variables observed and studied in the research and should therefore have been explained in the methodology section. Lines 244-283 do not present or provide any results other than an explanation of a note on how to recycle copper wires.

In the discussion, the research did not present any comparisons of the results of the current study with previous studies to determine the extent to which these results are consistent with or different from the results of previous studies, and to state the reasons for the difference and the extent of the significance of the study results.

It is essential to add a conclusions section, a limitations and future studies section.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment. A research question has been added.

The information has been removed.

Thank you for your suggestions. They have been incorporated in the Method section.

Thank you for your comment. The suggestion has been incorporated into the revised version.

Thank you for the comment. References have been added to support the discussion of the findings of the present study.

Thank you for your comment. The suggestion has been incorporated into the revised version.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of sustainable development raised in the article is both very important and topical. The authors focused their research on two of the 17 sustainable development goals: SDG 4 – Quality Education and SDG 12 – Responsible Consumption. The aim of the study was to analyse activities that can promote the sustainable development of organisations by analysing successes, failure factors and the awareness of the entities involved. Qualitative and exploratory research was conducted using various methods, including case studies, action research, interviews, direct observation, and focus groups. The research problem was formulated as follows: What actions can be implemented to promote the sustainable development of organisations by analysing successes, failure factors, and the awareness of the entities involved?

The theoretical part of the article is presented in a clear and coherent manner, based on relevant and up-to-date literature.

The methodological part is generally well formulated and understandable.

Nevertheless, the ‘Results’ section reveals some shortcomings that would be worth addressing:

Given the large number of methods used, this section seems relatively poorly developed and at times unclear. In particular,
Table 3 is difficult to interpret. For example, the statement ‘On the other hand, 90% of respondents believe that the economic dimension is decisive for sustainable development’ (lines 232–233) seems problematic, as the table rather suggests that the economic dimension is considered decisive for economic performance (90%), but not for sustainable development (only 10%).

In the ‘Discussion’ section:

The results presented in Figure 4 are not adequately explained and would require further clarification.
Lines 295–297 state that 44% of respondents gave specific answers, but it is not sufficiently explained where this figure comes from.
Lines 297-298 - the comments just as in Table 3 - (see above).

The numbering of graphic elements, including tables and figures, also appears inconsistent and needs to be corrected.

In summary, the topic addressed in the article is interesting and relevant, but the article requires further development and clarification in several sections.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment.

Thank you for the comment. We have reorganized the text for better understanding and presented the results more clearly.

Thank you for your comment. The suggestion has been incorporated into the revised version.

Thank you for your comment. The suggestion has been incorporated into the revised version. We have revised the writing to make it more consistent with the method and the other sections of the results.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

your paper whilst interesting it needs to be improved.

You need to discuss in more detail the theoretical framework and to find and discuss the relevant literature.

Secondly, you need to identify your research question, and discuss the methodology used. For instance why did you use only subjects from 2 entities? How did you select the entities and the individuals? Why those 2 SDGs ? Are they of relevance to the country in question?

The you need to discuss the results in more detail and link to the theoretical framework.

Your paper has potential but it needs alot more work

Best wishes

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for considering our manuscript. The authors have worked on the revision and addressed the mentioned comments to improve the clarity, quality, and writing of the study.

Thank you for the comment. The authors have added more references and discussion to the study, deepening the connection between the theoretical framework and the discussion of the results.

Thank you for the comment. We have clarified the research question and the justification for the study location. We have also included the rationale for the selected companies and highlighted their importance to Brazil.

Thank you for the comment. The authors have added more references and discussion to the study, deepening the connection between the theoretical framework and the discussion of the results.

Thank you for your comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We notice that the authors have improved the content of the paper. Even this, the research methodology is still underexplained.
There is no information about the research sample (no dedicated section is provided); it is only mentioned that it consists of 10 interviews. They must justify (even in the context of qualitative research) why it is a representative sample. There are no explanations about "using a hybrid format" (line 249). The authors mention that they organized two focus groups; however, the methodology applied for this part of the research (i.e., the steps followed, including validity and data analysis) is not detailed enough, with insufficient evidence. Additionally, there is inadequate/insufficient data regarding the direct non-participant observation method (see line 259).

Author Response

Olá, caro Editor,

Segue o feedback sobre os pontos levantados:

Editor: Notamos que os autores melhoraram o conteúdo do artigo. Mesmo assim, a metodologia da pesquisa ainda está mal explicada.

Autores: Muito obrigado pelo seu feedback. Fizemos ajustes na metodologia do artigo para torná-lo mais fluido.

Nota do editor: Não há informações sobre a amostra da pesquisa (não há uma seção específica dedicada a ela); menciona-se apenas que consiste em 10 entrevistas.

Autores: Fizemos o ajuste sugerido, incluindo uma seção específica sobre o tema, na qual explicamos como chegamos ao número de 10 entrevistas.

Editor: Eles deveriam justificar (mesmo no contexto de pesquisa qualitativa) por que se trata de uma amostra representativa.

Autores: Explicamos por que a amostra é representativa e informamos que a saturação foi atingida nesse número.

Editor: Não há explicações sobre o "uso de um formato híbrido" (linha 249).

Autores: Fizemos os ajustes necessários e fornecemos informações sobre o formato híbrido utilizado para a coleta de dados.

Nota do editor: Os autores mencionam que organizaram dois grupos focais; no entanto, a metodologia aplicada a esta parte da pesquisa (ou seja, as etapas seguidas, incluindo a validação e análise dos dados) não é suficientemente detalhada, apresentando evidências insuficientes.

Autores: Fizemos os ajustes necessários, ampliando o tema e explicando com mais detalhes todos os processos do grupo focal, bem como outros procedimentos.

Editor: Além disso, existem dados inadequados/insuficientes em relação ao método de observação direta não participante (ver linha 259).

Autores: Corrigimos as informações, fornecendo os dados completos.

Gostaríamos de agradecer a sua leitura atenta e as suas sugestões; estamos confiantes de que elas contribuíram muito para a construção e relevância do nosso estudo.

Atenciosamente,
Autores.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

your paper has improved and I think with some minor work it is ready to be published. Please see my file attached.

Best wishes

Maria

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Hello dear Editor Maria,

Thank you immensely for your assistance and careful reading of our article.

We also thank you for sending the file; we have carefully read it and made the suggested adjustments.

Again, thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Authors

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the paper's content by addressing our recommendations. The paper may be considered for publication.