Total Sustainability Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 

 Comments on sustainability-4016491

This paper focuses on adapting the principles of Total Quality Management (TQM), specifically the cost of quality framework, to the domain of sustainability, proposing a ‘Total Sustainability Management’ (TSM) framework and a corresponding cost model. The author considered the challenge of justifying sustainability investments and used a modeling approach to analyze the trade-offs involved. The author’s primary contribution is the insightful analogy drawn between the historical challenge of justifying quality investments and the contemporary difficulty in justifying sustainability initiatives. Developing this analogy into a formal TSM framework and a quantitative cost model provides a valuable and structured approach for moving sustainability decisions from a purely ideological to a more evidence-based domain. However, the paper’s main weakness lies in its purely theoretical and axiomatic approach. While the model offers conceptual clarity, its lack of empirical validation and the significant challenges in operationalizing key variables (such as the sustainability level ‘s’ and the true cost of environmental impact) limit its immediate practical applicability. Overall, this work is commendable and meaningful for its novel perspective, but the current version still requires improvements to strengthen its methodological rigor and practical relevance. Based on my knowledge and understanding, there are some major issues that I am concerned about.

Thank you for your review and acknowledging the contribution made with my quality-sustainability analogy.  My intention was to support the conceptual part of the paper by illustrating it with an axiomatic model. I originally viewed the model as reinforcing rather than weakening the manuscript.  Based on this review, I concluded that the paper attempted to cover too much and therefore removed the modelling content.

1. First, while the introduction effectively establishes the analogy between the challenges of quality management in the 1980s and sustainability management today, it lacks a clearly articulated research question. The aim of the paper is stated on page 2 (lines 71-73), but I suggest the author explicitly formulate one or two precise research questions that the manuscript sets out to answer. Furthermore, I suggest concluding the introduction with a distinct paragraph that summarizes the key innovations and principal findings of the work, which would help to frame the contribution for the reader more clearly.

Given the revised conceptual focus of the paper, the introduction contains only minor adjustments.

 

2. The manuscript would benefit from a more structured literature review section. The current approach weaves literature into the ‘Theory’ section, but it does not sufficiently delineate the current state of research in sustainability management frameworks or sustainability cost modeling. I suggest the author adds a dedicated literature review section that not only discusses the foundational TQM literature but also reviews more recent models of sustainability investment and management to more sharply define the research gap that this paper addresses. While the references include recent papers, a more structured review would better highlight the novelty of the proposed TSM framework and cost model.

While the paper does not focus on a traditional research gap in the narrow sense, it addresses a well-documented managerial challenge and proposes a conceptual adaptation grounded in the TQM literature. The issue is presented in the introduction and expanded in Section 2.4. Section 2 was renamed from “theory” to “Literature review” to clarify where the review is.

However, the new sections 3.3 and 4 now incorporate the additional review content requested by reviewer 1.

 

3. On page 7, the paper introduces the cost of sustainability model. While the author commendably states that the modeling approach is axiomatic and not fitted to real-life data, the justification for the specific mathematical forms chosen could be strengthened. For instance, I suggest the author provides a more detailed rationale for using the specific functional form in Equation 4, including the logistic function and the log barrier term. Explaining why these mathematical constructs are well-suited to represent the behavior of innovation and appraisal costs would enhance the model’s credibility.

This section has been removed.

 

4. Throughout the manuscript, the simulation figures (e.g., Figures 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8) could be significantly improved for clarity and professionalism. I suggest that the author ensure all figures are generated at a high resolution suitable for publication. More importantly, the vertical axes in these plots, such as ‘Cost of impact reduction’ or ‘Total Cost,’ lack units (e.g., $, €, or a generic ‘monetary units’). I suggest adding units to all relevant axes and ensuring that legends, axis labels, and titles are clearly legible and descriptive.

The only remaining figure, Figure 2, has been updated accordingly.

 

5. The ‘Results and Discussion’ section (Section 4, pages 12-16) explores several scenarios, such as the effect of a low cost of impact (Figure 6) and different LCA scopes (Figure 7). To improve readability and help the reader compare these different analytical cases, I suggest the author includes a summary table. This table could clearly present the key assumptions, parameter changes, and the main outcome for each scenario discussed, providing a more intuitive and accessible overview of the model’s behavior under different conditions.

This section has been revised entirely and does not involve a discussion of the mathematical model any longer.

 

6. While the paper analyzes the model’s behavior by comparing several scenarios, a more systematic sensitivity analysis would strengthen the results. The current approach involves changing one parameter at a time for a new figure, but the robustness of the conclusions is not fully explored. I suggest the author considers adding a formal sensitivity analysis, for example, by showing how the optimal sustainability level s* shifts in response to continuous variations in key exogenous parameters like the innovation capability (φ) or the materiality threshold (s_m). This would provide deeper insights into the model’s dynamics.

The mathematical model has been removed from the revised version.

 

7. The conclusion section summarizes the paper well, but the managerial insights could be more concrete and actionable. The paper argues for an evidence-based approach using a cost of sustainability report, which is a valuable point. I suggest the author expands this by providing more specific guidance for managers. For example, what are the first practical steps a manager could take to implement this model? What are the most critical data points to collect, and what are the potential pitfalls in applying this framework in a real-world organizational context?

The practical application of the approach is now addressed in Section 3.2, and the revised Section 4 discusses the associated implementation challenges.

 

8. In Section 4.5, the author appropriately acknowledges the limitations of the research, particularly its axiomatic nature. I suggest expanding this discussion slightly. For instance, the author could discuss the limitations of the TQM-sustainability analogy itself—are there fundamental differences between quality defects and environmental impacts (e.g., timescale, non-linearity, systemic nature) that might limit the framework’s applicability? Furthermore, suggesting specific types of empirical studies that could be designed to validate the model’s propositions would provide a clearer roadmap for future research. 9. The conceptualization of the core variable, the sustainability level s, could be clarified. On page 7, it is defined as a level from 0 to 1, and on page 12 it is described as being ‘instrumentalized as (1-emissions).’ For practical application, this definition may be too simplistic. I suggest the author discusses the challenges of operationalizing s for a real product or process that may have numerous, non-commensurable environmental and social impacts (e.g., carbon emissions, water usage, biodiversity loss, labor practices). A brief discussion on how s might be constructed as a composite index would add practical depth.

The use of different impact categories is now discussed in Section 3.2. The remaining points raised by the reviewer concerned aspects of the mathematical model, which has now been removed, and thus no longer apply to the revised manuscript.

10. The Total Sustainability Management (TSM) framework presented in Figure 1 on page 5 is a central conceptual contribution. The addition of the ‘Societal Debate’ layer is novel and interesting. I suggest the author provides a more thorough justification for the inclusion of this specific element by linking it more explicitly to established theories, such as stakeholder theory or legitimacy theory. This would provide a stronger theoretical foundation for the proposed four-part framework and explain why this addition is both necessary and sufficient to adapt TQM for sustainability.

Section 4.1 has been fully revised to provide a stronger justification for the inclusion of the social-debate layer.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Author solves new approaches to management, resulting from the shortages of traditional approaches review. During the research author used critical view to the problem solving. The determined goal of the paper can be considered as achieved. However, the paper could be more readable and the quality could be improved by following small adjustment, formal as well as tactical ones:

1. Formal adjustments:

• Adjust English version of the paper, mainly several sentences are long and not readable. Also line 135 is not clear
• Extend key words by object of searching
• I recommend to use year of the publication, cited in the text, to enable more easy orientation in the references
• Figure 1 – lca – better LCA
• Page 7, line 281 – “0” – better “zero”
• Page 11, line 375, etc. – please, use italic fond for indices “i”, etc., to be more readable
• Use DOI for references, when applicable

 

2. Tactical comments:

• There is not clear, why author describes in the frame of introduction automotive and shoe production?
• Page 2 – first paragraph – also economic factor is missing
• It is not easy to study the illustrations, since author did not mention the source, I cannot evaluate them
• Page 6, line 207 – it should be mentioned more factors of compensating actions
• Page 9, line 347 – several calculations are mentioned before Results, without mentioning source, there is not obvious if these are calculations of the author?
• Some considerations of the author are not clear, for example, page 15, line 506 – why considering not responsible behavior of the companies?
• In the conclusion there is mentioned contribution of more research – what future research could be done by continuing with this area of research? How can future research remove limitation of the presented research?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author solves new approaches to management, resulting from the shortages of traditional approaches review. During the research author used critical view to the problem solving. The determined goal of the paper can be considered as achieved. However, the paper could be more readable and the quality could be improved by following small adjustment, formal as well as tactical ones. After correction the paper is ready for the publication. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Author solves new approaches to management, resulting from the shortages of traditional approaches review. During the research author used critical view to the problem solving. The determined goal of the paper can be considered as achieved. However, the paper could be more readable and the quality could be improved by following small adjustment, formal as well as tactical ones:

1. Formal adjustments:

• Adjust English version of the paper, mainly several sentences are long and not readable. Also line 135 is not clear
• Extend key words by object of searching
• I recommend to use year of the publication, cited in the text, to enable more easy orientation in the references
• Figure 1 – lca – better LCA
• Page 7, line 281 – “0” – better “zero”
• Page 11, line 375, etc. – please, use italic fond for indices “i”, etc., to be more readable
• Use DOI for references, when applicable

Thank you for your constructive review and for noting that the aims of the paper were achieved. The manuscript has undergone a major revision, and the revised version has been thoroughly checked for readability and alignment with MDPI formatting standards. 

 

 

1. Tactical comments:

• There is not clear, why author describes in the frame of introduction automotive and shoe production?
• Page 2 – first paragraph – also economic factor is missing
• It is not easy to study the illustrations, since author did not mention the source, I cannot evaluate them
• Page 6, line 207 – it should be mentioned more factors of compensating actions
• Page 9, line 347 – several calculations are mentioned before Results, without mentioning source, there is not obvious if these are calculations of the author?
• Some considerations of the author are not clear, for example, page 15, line 506 – why considering not responsible behavior of the companies?
• In the conclusion there is mentioned contribution of more research – what future research could be done by continuing with this area of research? How can future research remove limitation of the presented research?

The examples of automotive and shoe production were used only illustratively. The revised manuscript now clarifies this more explicitly.

All illustrations and calculations in both the original and revised manuscript are original and not drawn from external sources.  The modelling part of the paper has been removed following another reviewer’s comments. The paper is now entirely conceptual.

The discussion of compensating actions has been expanded in the revised manuscript (Section 4.3).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author solves new approaches to management, resulting from the shortages of traditional approaches review. During the research author used critical view to the problem solving. The determined goal of the paper can be considered as achieved. However, the paper could be more readable and the quality could be improved by following small adjustment, formal as well as tactical ones. After correction the paper is ready for the publication. 

The manuscript went through a major revision and the revised version was thoroughly checked for readability and to ensure alignment with MDPI specifications. 

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Rv1_sustainability-4016491

I have read the manuscript entitled "Total Sustainability Management", whose purpose is to propose, first, a management framework called Total Sustainability Management (TSM) through an analogy with the historical development of Total Quality Management (TQM) and, second, to adapt the cost of quality approach towards a cost of sustainability report supported by a regulatory model. The topic is relevant to the Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability section, as it addresses sustainability investment decision-making through a cost management and control logic. However, the manuscript requires conceptual reinforcement and methodological clarification before it can sustain the magnitude of its claims.

In general

1. The TQM-sustainability analogy is suggestive, but it is supported by a somewhat simplified reading of both TQM's history and the field of sustainability. "Ideology" is contrasted with "evidence" without sufficiently acknowledging previous advances in environmental accounting, SROI, full-cost accounting, ESG management, or sustainability management systems that already seek data-based decision-making. I suggest a broader and more nuanced review of this literature.
2. The TSM framework is derived almost by translation from the classical scheme of values, techniques, and tools of Hellsten and Klefsjö, adding "societal debate" as a fourth component. It would be essential to explain more clearly: a) what the true theoretical originality of the TSM is compared to existing sustainability management frameworks, and b) how each proposed component of TSM is operationalized in practice beyond the conceptual analogy.
3. The adaptation of the cost of quality to a price of sustainability report risks reducing sustainability to an economic optimization of costs (including intangibles), with a strong emphasis on financial trade-offs. Deeper consideration is lacking of biophysical limits, irreversibility, social justice, and non-monetizable dimensions, which in some cases are not negotiable through an optimal cost curve.
4. The modelling part is axiomatized openly, and the author himself acknowledges that the parameters are chosen to illustrate the model's properties. This is fine for a conceptual article, but then claims about the model's ability to substitute "ideology" for "evidence" should be moderated. I suggest discussing in more detail the kinds of data, estimates, and assumptions that would be necessary for a cost-of-sustainability report to be truly operational within specific organizations.
5. The managerial contribution could be strengthened if more concrete implementation guidelines were offered: a minimum structure for a cost of sustainability report, steps to integrate financial and non-financial information, examples of indicators, organizational areas where the model is most pertinent, and the limits of applicability.

Specifically

1. Introduction. The historical narrative on TQM is clear and well-written. However, the contrast with the field of sustainability appears somewhat unbalanced, presenting the latter mainly as a field dominated by "ideology". It would be desirable to incorporate works that demonstrate attempts at quantification and control (environmental management accounting, life-cycle costing, social LCA, etc.).
2. Section 2 (TQM and TSM). The TSM framework could be enriched with a more explicit comparison with existing sustainability management or integrated management systems, to situate the proposal within the state of the art rather than merely in analogy with TQM. It would also be useful to clarify how "societal debate" is integrated into corporate governance (e.g., through stakeholders, regulation, reporting, international standards).
3. Sections on cost of quality and cost of sustainability. The explanation of the cost of quality is solid and didactic. On the other hand, when moving on to the cost of sustainability, it would be convenient to discuss the relationship with existing methodologies for economic impact assessment (green CBA, shadow pricing, internalization of externalities). This would help distinguish what TSM provides in a novel way from instruments already used in the sustainability literature.
4. Model and results. Figures and curves are useful as conceptual illustrations, but the reader can perceive them as stylized exercises that confirm the author's premises. I suggest: a) better explaining the assumptions behind the functions used, b) discussing sensitivities and alternative scenarios, and c) reducing the language of "factual response" when no real empirical data is available.
5. Limitations and future research. Section 4.5 correctly recognizes the normative, not empirical, nature of the work. Expand this section by indicating specific routes for case studies, pilot tests in organizations, or parameterization exercises with secondary data. This would help the reader to see the article as a conceptual basis for future research rather than as a ready-made solution for application.
6. Conclusions. The conclusions are consistent with the line of argument. However, some statements, such as the idea of "true sustainability" parallel to "0 defects", could be qualified to avoid interpreting that all sustainability literature is purely ideological. It would be desirable to close with a more balanced tone that recognizes the coexistence of quantitative advances and legitimate policy debates.

In summary, the manuscript proposes an interesting line of reflection by recovering the historical roots of TQM and applying them to sustainability. However, it still requires further anchoring in the contemporary literature on sustainable management, a deeper discussion of the limits of quantification, and clarification of the TSM framework's originality relative to existing frameworks.

 

Fraternally

Reviser

Author Response

Rv1_sustainability-4016491

I have read the manuscript entitled "Total Sustainability Management", whose purpose is to propose, first, a management framework called Total Sustainability Management (TSM) through an analogy with the historical development of Total Quality Management (TQM) and, second, to adapt the cost of quality approach towards a cost of sustainability report supported by a regulatory model. The topic is relevant to the Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability section, as it addresses sustainability investment decision-making through a cost management and control logic. However, the manuscript requires conceptual reinforcement and methodological clarification before it can sustain the magnitude of its claims.

In general

1. The TQM-sustainability analogy is suggestive, but it is supported by a somewhat simplified reading of both TQM's history and the field of sustainability. "Ideology" is contrasted with "evidence" without sufficiently acknowledging previous advances in environmental accounting, SROI, full-cost accounting, ESG management, or sustainability management systems that already seek data-based decision-making. I suggest a broader and more nuanced review of this literature.

It was never the intention of the initial manuscript to suggest that the field of sustainability as a science was compromised by ideology.  All the advances that you mention are now included in the new section 3, precisely to make the point that a cost of sustainability framework could rely on these techniques developed in the field of sustainability.

 

1. The TSM framework is derived almost by translation from the classical scheme of values, techniques, and tools of Hellsten and Klefsjö, adding "societal debate" as a fourth component. It would be essential to explain more clearly: a) what the true theoretical originality of the TSM is compared to existing sustainability management frameworks, and b) how each proposed component of TSM is operationalized in practice beyond the conceptual analogy.

Section 4 was re-written entirely to address this comment by focusing on the difference between quality and sustainability and the importance of the social debate layer is discussed in 4.1. 

The implementation of the TSM framework is discussed in section 3.2.

There is a difference between the current practice of sustainability reporting (that do not include cost) and the proposed COS framework. Section 3.3 shows how existing sustainability economics techniques complement and inform the COS concept.

 

 

1. The adaptation of the cost of quality to a price of sustainability report risks reducing sustainability to an economic optimization of costs (including intangibles), with a strong emphasis on financial trade-offs. Deeper consideration is lacking of biophysical limits, irreversibility, social justice, and non-monetizable dimensions, which in some cases are not negotiable through an optimal cost curve.

As mentioned above, section 4 focuses on the limitations between the quality-sustainability analogy and discusses these issues.

 

1. The modelling part is axiomatized openly, and the author himself acknowledges that the parameters are chosen to illustrate the model's properties. This is fine for a conceptual article, but then claims about the model's ability to substitute "ideology" for "evidence" should be moderated. I suggest discussing in more detail the kinds of data, estimates, and assumptions that would be necessary for a cost-of-sustainability report to be truly operational within specific organizations.

The model was entirely removed following another reviewer’s comment.

 

1. The managerial contribution could be strengthened if more concrete implementation guidelines were offered: a minimum structure for a cost of sustainability report, steps to integrate financial and non-financial information, examples of indicators, organizational areas where the model is most pertinent, and the limits of applicability.

To a large extent, these concerns are discussed in section 4 as well.  As the paper is now fully conceptual, the emphasis has changed from explaining how to implement a mathematical model to strengthening the conceptual argument.

 

Specifically

1. Introduction. The historical narrative on TQM is clear and well-written. However, the contrast with the field of sustainability appears somewhat unbalanced, presenting the latter mainly as a field dominated by "ideology". It would be desirable to incorporate works that demonstrate attempts at quantification and control (environmental management accounting, life-cycle costing, social LCA, etc.).

It was never my intention to suggest that sustainability as a field is dominated by ideology. The revised Section 3 now explicitly acknowledges the substantial scientific and methodological contributions to sustainability assessment.

Ideology is mentioned in relation to how corporate investment are justified, or in fact avoided.  The new section 4.6 clarifies the corporate nature of my concern and presents a new typology.

1. Section 2 (TQM and TSM). The TSM framework could be enriched with a more explicit comparison with existing sustainability management or integrated management systems, to situate the proposal within the state of the art rather than merely in analogy with TQM. It would also be useful to clarify how "societal debate" is integrated into corporate governance (e.g., through stakeholders, regulation, reporting, international standards).

This has been integrated in the new sections 3 and 4.

 

1. Sections on cost of quality and cost of sustainability. The explanation of the cost of quality is solid and didactic. On the other hand, when moving on to the cost of sustainability, it would be convenient to discuss the relationship with existing methodologies for economic impact assessment (green CBA, shadow pricing, internalization of externalities). This would help distinguish what TSM provides in a novel way from instruments already used in the sustainability literature.

This is the purpose of the new section 3.

 

1. Model and results. Figures and curves are useful as conceptual illustrations, but the reader can perceive them as stylized exercises that confirm the author's premises. I suggest: a) better explaining the assumptions behind the functions used, b) discussing sensitivities and alternative scenarios, and c) reducing the language of "factual response" when no real empirical data is available.

This part of the original manuscript has been removed.

 

1. Limitations and future research. Section 4.5 correctly recognizes the normative, not empirical, nature of the work. Expand this section by indicating specific routes for case studies, pilot tests in organizations, or parameterization exercises with secondary data. This would help the reader to see the article as a conceptual basis for future research rather than as a ready-made solution for application.

As the paper is now purely conceptual, the limitations associated with the earlier axiomatic model no longer apply.

1. Conclusions. The conclusions are consistent with the line of argument. However, some statements, such as the idea of "true sustainability" parallel to "0 defects", could be qualified to avoid interpreting that all sustainability literature is purely ideological. It would be desirable to close with a more balanced tone that recognizes the coexistence of quantitative advances and legitimate policy debates.

As noted above, this was not the intention of the original manuscript. The revised manuscript, particularly Figure 3, clarifies this point.

 

In summary, the manuscript proposes an interesting line of reflection by recovering the historical roots of TQM and applying them to sustainability. However, it still requires further anchoring in the contemporary literature on sustainable management, a deeper discussion of the limits of quantification, and clarification of the TSM framework's originality relative to existing frameworks.

 

Fraternally

Reviser

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that the authors adequately addressed my comments. The models, analyses, and results are interesting. I therefore recommend this paper to be publicated. 

Author Response

Comment: I believe that the authors adequately addressed my comments. The models, analyses, and results are interesting. I therefore recommend this paper to be publicated. 

Answer: Thank you for the second review and your encouraging words.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Rv2_sustainability-4016491

I am grateful for the revised manuscript and the detailed response to each of the previously issued comments. The revision incorporates relevant modifications to the argumentative structure and the conceptual foundation of the proposed framework, reflecting a substantive improvement over the first version. However, there are still aspects that need to be strengthened to consolidate the theoretical coherence and contribution of the work fully. I present the concluding remarks below.

1. The expansion of the literature in the new section 3 is an important step forward, as it explicitly recognizes consolidated frameworks in environmental accounting, sustainable management, and impact quantification methodologies. However, there is still a need to integrate this literature more analytically, clearly showing which specific limitations of these approaches the Sustainability Costs framework aims to address and to what extent it represents an advance beyond what exists.
2. The rewriting of section 4 improves the conceptual differentiation between quality and sustainability. Even so, the theoretical originality of the TSM model requires greater precision. It is necessary to specify more explicitly the differentiated contributions of the TSM compared to sustainability management systems in force today, not only in terms of analogy with quality management. This will allow the reader to identify the framework's added value clearly.
3. The incorporation of the social debate component is pertinent and offers a dimension that is not found in traditional frameworks. However, its function within corporate governance is still presented in a general, non-operational manner. It is suggested that this debate be described in greater detail, for example, through mechanisms such as participation, deliberation, or the integration of stakeholder expectations.
4. The elimination of the mathematical model adequately resolves previous concerns about axiomatization and arbitrary parameters. However, the absence of the model underscores the need for more concrete guidance on implementing the SST framework and the COS report. The manuscript indicates that it is now a conceptual work, but a minimum set of practical guidelines is still necessary to make the proposal applicable.
5. The new discussion on limitations and scopes is more balanced and recognizes more clearly the biophysical and ethical limits of monetization. Even so, the COS proposal continues to rest mainly on an optimizing logic. It would be convenient to qualify this perspective by incorporating a more explicit reflection on the coexistence between monetizable and non-monetizable dimensions, as well as on the elements that cannot be negotiated through cost curves.
6. The revised manuscript avoids interpretations that contrast ideology and evidence in a generalized way, which constitutes a substantial improvement. However, in some fragments, the text suggests that data scarcity is the primary obstacle to business sustainability. It would be helpful to incorporate a brief discussion of the multiplicity of factors involved in corporate decision-making, including uncertainty, regulatory frameworks, and institutional values.
7. The conclusion presents a more balanced tone and recognizes previous advances in quantification and sustainable management. To further strengthen the article's closing, it is recommended to synthesize the central contribution of the TSM framework more clearly, specifying its conceptual scope and its possibilities for future development, including routes for empirical studies, pilot tests, or comparative exercises.

In summary, the authors' review has significantly improved the manuscript's conceptual clarity, argumentative coherence, and theoretical positioning. However, some elements remain that require further treatment to consolidate the originality and applicability of the proposed framework. I am confident that the suggested final adjustments will further strengthen the quality and robustness of the work.

Fraternally,

Reviewer

Author Response

Comment:

I am grateful for the revised manuscript and the detailed response to each of the previously issued comments. The revision incorporates relevant modifications to the argumentative structure and the conceptual foundation of the proposed framework, reflecting a substantive improvement over the first version. However, there are still aspects that need to be strengthened to consolidate the theoretical coherence and contribution of the work fully. I present the concluding remarks below.

Answer:

We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and constructive comments, which were instrumental in clarifying the contribution and positioning of the proposed framework.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 1:

The expansion of the literature in the new section 3 is an important step forward, as it explicitly recognizes consolidated frameworks in environmental accounting, sustainable management, and impact quantification methodologies. However, there is still a need to integrate this literature more analytically, clearly showing which specific limitations of these approaches the Sustainability Costs framework aims to address and to what extent it represents an advance beyond what exists.

Answer to comment 1:

We agree with the reviewer and have addressed this point explicitly by adding a new integrative section, Section 4.7 (“Evaluation of the Value and Contribution of the TSM/COS Framework”). This section clarifies that the contribution of TSM/COS does not lie in the invention of novel tools, but in the systematic integration of existing sustainability, accounting, and quality-management constructs into a coherent decision logic. Section 4.7 explains how this integration enables firms to compare heterogeneous sustainability investments under capital rationing—something that existing frameworks typically do not support. The section further illustrates this contribution through a structured investment example in the automotive sector, demonstrating how different sustainability logics (normative, win–win, and TSM) lead to different managerial decisions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 2:

The rewriting of section 4 improves the conceptual differentiation between quality and sustainability. Even so, the theoretical originality of the TSM model requires greater precision. It is necessary to specify more explicitly the differentiated contributions of the TSM compared to sustainability management systems in force today, not only in terms of analogy with quality management. This will allow the reader to identify the framework's added value clearly.

Answer to comment 2:

This comment has been addressed through a combination of Sections 4.6 and 4.7. Section 4.6 introduces a typology of corporate sustainability orientations, explicitly situating TSM relative to alternative logics such as sustainability-first (normative) and win–win approaches. This typology clarifies that TSM is neither a rebranding of CSR nor a purely normative sustainability stance, but a distinct fact-based decision framework operating within profit-constrained organizational contexts.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Comment 3:

The incorporation of the social debate component is pertinent and offers a dimension that is not found in traditional frameworks. However, its function within corporate governance is still presented in a general, non-operational manner. It is suggested that this debate be described in greater detail, for example, through mechanisms such as participation, deliberation, or the integration of stakeholder expectations.

Answer to comment 3:

The new section 4.7 extends the conceptual discussion of the social debate layer in 4.1 through the practical examples being considered.  The examples illustrate the relationship and progression between the TSM position (which is constrained by reporting to shareholders) and the “global sustainability mission”, which explicitly accommodates participative mechanisms such as deliberation, stakeholder engagement, and collective action discussed in the sustainability literature.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 4:

The elimination of the mathematical model adequately resolves previous concerns about axiomatization and arbitrary parameters. However, the absence of the model underscores the need for more concrete guidance on implementing the SST framework and the COS report. The manuscript indicates that it is now a conceptual work, but a minimum set of practical guidelines is still necessary to make the proposal applicable.

Answer to comment 4:

This issue is addressed explicitly in Section 3.2 (“Practical use of the framework”), which now contains a dedicated paragraph clarifying the implementation logic of COS.

Specifically, we explain that COS is intentionally designed to be implemented analogously to historical cost of quality (COQ) reporting within Total Quality Management.  The revised text also clarifies that challenges related to non-financial costs, estimation, and measurement uncertainty were common in early COQ implementation and therefore do not constitute conceptual limitations unique to sustainability.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 5:

The new discussion on limitations and scopes is more balanced and recognizes more clearly the biophysical and ethical limits of monetization. Even so, the COS proposal continues to rest mainly on an optimizing logic. It would be convenient to qualify this perspective by incorporating a more explicit reflection on the coexistence between monetizable and non-monetizable dimensions, as well as on the elements that cannot be negotiated through cost curves.

Answer to comment 5:

This concern has been addressed by qualifying the role of optimization throughout Sections 3.3 (existing content) and 4.7 (new content). The revised manuscript clarifies that COS is proposed as a decision-support framework that allows firms to explore alternative formulations of the cost of impact. Section 4.7 explicitly discusses how COS can incorporate anticipated regulatory tightening, reputational dynamics, and social costs of carbon, while acknowledging that some sustainability dimensions remain non-financial.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 6:

The revised manuscript avoids interpretations that contrast ideology and evidence in a generalized way, which constitutes a substantial improvement. However, in some fragments, the text suggests that data scarcity is the primary obstacle to business sustainability. It would be helpful to incorporate a brief discussion of the multiplicity of factors involved in corporate decision-making, including uncertainty, regulatory frameworks, and institutional values.

Answer to comment 6:

Data scarcity was mentioned in relation to the mathematical model. In the revised manuscript, data scarcity is not presented as the primary obstacle to business sustainability. Instead, it identifies unresolved social debate, competing sustainability logics, responsibility allocation, and capital rationing as the dominant constraints. Data and measurement challenges are discussed only as practical implementation issues, and as such are viewed as commonly occurring (drawing on the historical analogy with early COQ reporting).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 7:

The conclusion presents a more balanced tone and recognizes previous advances in quantification and sustainable management. To further strengthen the article's closing, it is recommended to synthesize the central contribution of the TSM framework more clearly, specifying its conceptual scope and its possibilities for future development, including routes for empirical studies, pilot tests, or comparative exercises.

Answer to comment 7:

The conclusion section has been revised to provide a clearer synthesis of the paper’s central contribution.