How Sustainable Leadership Can Leverage Sustainable Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulation for your research article. The presented research examines the role of sustainable leadership in achieving sustainable development, is a comprehensive manner, in many ways (the scientific discourse is consistent but limited to the created database of papers from SCOPUS). In my opinion, there are some areas where the manuscript could be improved (or some of the below mentioned aspects should be included in a dedicated chapter "Limits of the research"):

• As can be observed, the research exclusively depends on Scopus for source selection, which may limit the inclusion of relevant studies from other databases and perspectives. This limit should be recognized by authors!
• From the methodological perspective, the selection of articles is confined to publications up to March 2025. This timeframe restriction might exclude recent and potentially groundbreaking studies on the subject and that are present in WoS database. In addition, while the systematic bibliometric literature review and PRISMA 2020 framework provide a structured approach, relying solely on these methods could result in overlooking qualitative insights or case studies that fall outside their parameters. Some comments should be provided on this aspect!
• The focus on peer-reviewed academic sources might neglect valuable insights from industry reports, government publications, or non-peer-reviewed yet credible sources (representative reports or studies from international organizations or from consulting companies). I believe, that potential bias in publication sources can be considered for addition interpretation of the research results.
• The paper mentions strategies and frameworks for sustainable leadership but could provide more specific examples or case studies to ground its theoretical insights in practical applications. See the above observations ... related to the comparison of the scientific literature with grey literature findings! 
• There could be more emphasis on defining clear sustainability metrics or indicators (KPIs??) that leaders can use to measure the success of their initiatives. This could be the real added-value of this research!
• While the paper cites contributions from various countries (see Table 3), it doesn't deeply explore how sustainable leadership approaches may differ based on regional or cultural contexts.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback.

Below we present our feedback regarding each comment.

1. “As can be observed, the research exclusively depends on Scopus for source selection, which may limit the inclusion of relevant studies from other databases and perspectives. This limit should be recognized by authors!” : This information was included as a limitation.
2. “From the methodological perspective, the selection of articles is confined to publications up to March 2025. This timeframe restriction might exclude recent and potentially groundbreaking studies on the subject and that are present in WoS database. In addition, while the systematic bibliometric literature review and PRISMA 2020 framework provide a structured approach, relying solely on these methods could result in overlooking qualitative insights or case studies that fall outside their parameters. Some comments should be provided on this aspect!”. This information was included as a limitation.
3. “The focus on peer-reviewed academic sources might neglect valuable insights from industry reports, government publications, or non-peer-reviewed yet credible sources (representative reports or studies from international organizations or from consulting companies). I believe, that potential bias in publication sources can be considered for addition interpretation of the research results”. This information was included as a limitation.
4. “There could be more emphasis on defining clear sustainability metrics or indicators (KPIs??) that leaders can use to measure the success of their initiatives. This could be the real added-value of this research!”. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion regarding the inclusion of specific sustainability metrics or key performance indicators (KPIs) that leaders could use to assess the success of their initiatives. We fully agree that the operationalisation of sustainable leadership through clearly defined KPIs would add significant practical value to the field.

However, we respectfully note that the primary objective of this article is to provide a conceptual and bibliometric synthesis of the current academic landscape at the intersection of sustainable leadership and sustainable development. As such, the scope of the present work is focused on mapping existing theoretical perspectives and empirical contributions, rather than prescribing evaluation frameworks or developing metric-based models.

That said, we recognise the relevance and importance of this proposal, and we have taken the liberty to acknowledge it explicitly in the conclusion as a promising avenue for future research (see p. 20). We are currently considering the development of a follow-up study dedicated to the identification and validation of sustainability KPIs linked to leadership practices, building on the foundations laid by the present review.

We are grateful for this thought-provoking suggestion, which has helped to clarify both the contribution and the future potential of our research.

 

5. “While the paper cites contributions from various countries (see Table 3), it doesn't deeply explore how sustainable leadership approaches may differ based on regional or cultural contexts”. We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the limited exploration of regional or cultural variations in sustainable leadership approaches. We acknowledge that cultural and institutional contexts can significantly shape how sustainability values are interpreted, prioritised, and operationalised by leaders in different regions.

While the main aim of this study was to provide a broad bibliometric and conceptual overview of the field, we agree that the inclusion of a more explicit reflection on regional diversity adds depth to the discussion. In response, we have added a brief paragraph to the discussion section (see p. 6) highlighting that sustainable leadership is not a culturally neutral concept. Drawing from Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and the comparative distribution of research outputs (Table 3), we suggest that national values — such as long-term orientation, collectivism vs. individualism, or uncertainty avoidance — may influence how sustainable leadership is framed and enacted across contexts.

Although a systematic cross-cultural analysis falls outside the scope of this review, we recognise its value and have included it as a recommended direction for future research. We thank the reviewer for drawing attention to this important dimension of the topic.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article has the potential of being a very significant contribution to knowledge. Are Rosario and Dias the only ones who have carried out a LRSB? Is there another LRSB method? you need to explain why this method and not another....

Furthermore, what is the limitation of your study?

Finally, you do not seem to have considered the factor gender. Are women considered more or less sustainable leaders? 

The authors need to reconsider what is their contribution to knowledge and is the paper as it stands meeting that requirement?

Finally, your referencing (sometimes you citing and sometimes putting a number) is consistent. Please follow the instructions to authors. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. “This article has the potential of being a very significant contribution to knowledge. Are Rosario and Dias the only ones who have carried out a LRSB? Is there another LRSB method? you need to explain why this method and not another....”. We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s constructive question regarding the paper’s contribution to knowledge. In its revised form, the manuscript seeks to clarify and reinforce its original scholarly contribution. This paper offers a novel synthesis by applying the systematic bibliometric literature review (LRSB) method — an emerging approach formalised by Rosário and Dias (2024) — to systematically examine the intellectual structure of the literature connecting sustainable leadership and sustainable development.

While numerous studies have explored these two domains independently or qualitatively linked them conceptually, our study advances the field by offering a structured, data-driven analysis of how sustainable leadership is currently theorised and operationalised within the context of sustainability imperatives. To our knowledge, no prior review has provided such a methodologically rigorous bibliometric mapping of this intersection, particularly by integrating PRISMA 2020 guidelines with the LRSB method.

 

2. “Furthermore, what is the limitation of your study?”. This information was added to the conclusions.
3. “Finally, you do not seem to have considered the factor gender. Are women considered more or less sustainable leaders?”.This information was included as a limitation.
4. “The authors need to reconsider what is their contribution to knowledge and is the paper as it stands meeting that requirement?”. Our contribution lies in:

• Identifying thematic clusters and knowledge gaps that have not been systematically surfaced in prior reviews;
• Demonstrating the growing prominence of sustainable leadership in academic discourse through quantitative bibliometric indicators;
• Proposing a conceptual framework for future research directions that bridge practice and theory across leadership, ESG governance, and sustainability-driven innovation.

5. “Finally, your referencing (sometimes you citing and sometimes putting a number) is consistent. Please follow the instructions to authors”.We will be delighted to verify any further alteration needed in this article excerpt at its final version.

 

Regarding the PDF comments:

• UN SDG reference: included.
• Information provided to clarify the research question.
• Rewritten sentences.
• The publication timeline justification: The literature review was conducted up to March 2025 in order to capture the most recente academic contributions available at the time of data collection. This decision was motivated by the accelerated pace at which sustainability-related research is being published, particularly in the fields of leadership and sustainable development. By extending the search beyond the conventional cut-off of December 2024, we ensured that the review reflects the most current insights and emerging trends, thereby enhancing its relevance and timeliness.
• Figure 3 (map) and colors: grey mean that there was no research associated to these countries.
• Unclear sentences were adjusted.
• Points 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.1.3. were adjusted in order to include the TBL framework connection.
• A paragraph was added to link the sustainble developement to sustainable leadership.