Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
Search
by
  • Martin Wynn 1,*,
  • Peter Jones 1 and
  • Bilgin Metin 2

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. It deals with a current topic on sustainable business practice concerning nanotechnology and CSR. 

The main research question addressed by the text is how large companies that use nanotechnologies publicly address the challenges associated with these technologies through their CSR practices, and how assurance-based frameworks can enhance organizational trustworthiness in this context.

The topic is both relevant and timely. Nanotechnologies are increasingly embedded in commercial activity, and their social, ethical, and governance implications are of growing concern. The focus on corporate responses and CSR practices, rather than on technical or regulatory aspects alone, offers a perspective underexplored in the existing literature, particularly from a business and governance standpoint.

The study clearly addresses a specific and well-defined gap. While prior research has examined the potential benefits and risks of nanotechnologies, the text correctly identifies that little empirical work has explored how individual companies are responding to these challenges in practice, especially through CSR disclosures and trust-building mechanisms.

Compared with existing published material, the study adds value by shifting the focus from abstract discussions of nanotechnology risks to organizational behavior and disclosure practices and proposing an assurance-based framework grounded in recognized international standards, which offers a practical contribution for both researchers and practitioners.

While the inductive qualitative approach is appropriate for an exploratory study, the authors could strengthen the methodology by providing clearer selection criteria for the companies analyzed and justifying why these firms are representative, and by offering more transparency on the analytical process (e.g., coding strategies, thematic analysis).

The conclusions are largely consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. The finding that awareness and explicit treatment of nanotechnology impacts remain limited in CSR policies logically follows from the documented lack of disclosure. The proposed framework is a reasonable extension of the findings, though its practical applicability would benefit from empirical validation.

The conclusions do address the main research question. The study successfully connects observed CSR practices with broader issues of trust and governance and responds directly to the identified research gap.

The references appear appropriate and relevant, particularly the inclusion of established international assurance and standards frameworks. However, the study could be strengthened by incorporating more recent CSR and sustainability reporting literature.

The abstract is informative and gives an insight into the paper's content. It explains the literature gap, methodological approach, and purpose. 

The introduction is equally well-written, explaining the paper's framework, and the research questions are depicted graphically. Research questions could be derived more directly and traceably from the literature review. 

The three-phase research process and methodology are presented in Chapter 2. The first phase needs to be described in more detail, which databases were used, how many articles were found and considered, the time range of the articles, etc., although it is an exploratory study. It would also be appropriate to have a more detailed description of the factors for selecting companies in the second phase.

The results are described in sufficient detail, with precise references to previous literature, making it easier for readers who would like to delve deeper.

In the discussion, the authors justify the meaning of the findings; it might be appropriate to compare the statements with previous research. In the conclusions, they once again summarize the extensive range of themes in reporting on companies' approach to CSR, when using nanotechnology. The assurance-based risk governance framework provides a stable mechanism to go beyond mere compliance towards verifiable trustworthiness. Limitations and further research are provided. 

There are double asterisks in the first paragraph of Chapter 5, without explanation. 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment as uploaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the editor for the opportunity to review this paper, which examines the impact of nanotechnology on industry through three clear research questions and presents an assurance-based risk governance framework that integrates risk management (ISO 31000), trustworthiness standards (ISO/IEC TS 5723), and the assurance task standard (ISAE 3000) to transform corporate social responsibility commitments into verifiable credibility.

 

Introduction: I suggest strengthening the introduction with a sentence or two that clearly define the expected research output in RQ3 (scope of the framework: is it general guidance or an operational/application model?) and how the verifiability, which is the cornerstone of the proposal, will be tested.

 

Research Method: Two points require refinement:

  1. Clarify the criteria for selecting the 11 companies, the rationale for this selection, and the steps to ensure consistency in analyzing their reports (e.g., a clear coding tool/checklist/evaluation criteria), as the results will be strongly influenced by the sample selection and the method of interpreting the reports.
  2. Potential time discrepancy requiring correction: The paper refers to an online search between September and December 2025, while the paper file contains the context “Sustainability 2021,” suggesting an editing/copying error. Please verify and correct the date or explain the intended meaning.

 

Results:

  1. To improve explanatory power, I suggest that the RQ1 results conclude with a concise synthesis summary (two to three lines) demonstrating why these patterns directly lead to the need for an assurance framework in RQ3 (i.e., what is the operational gap between risks/impacts and current governance mechanisms).
  2. RQ3. Can an assurance-based risk governance framework be developed to guide industry in their approach to nanotechnology deployment and exploitation?: To increase applicability, I suggest adding a brief operational component that explains what type of evidence is expected to be collected for each dimension of TS 5723, how it translates into actions within the ISO 31000 cycle, and how it is then formulated into an assurance report according to ISAE 3000 (even if only as a simplified example or high-level template).

 

Discussion: I suggest reorganizing this section into a few clear themes (e.g., engagement/transparency, interdisciplinary integration, adaptability over time), with explicit linking sentences demonstrating how each issue requires an “assurance layer” rather than simply internal risk management.

 

Conclusion: To strengthen the conclusion as a roadmap, I suggest a “Verify/Activate” paragraph that proposes a specific next step: a pilot application of the framework to a single company/sector, engaging stakeholders and evaluating actual assurance outputs. This would be the most rigorous test of the paper’s concept of “verifiable trustworthiness.”

Author Response

Please see upoaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled “Nanotechnology, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Sustainable Business Practice: Towards an Assurance-Based Risk Governance Framework” addresses the relationship between nanotechnology, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and sustainable business practice, and proposes an assurance-based risk governance framework. The topic is timely and relevant, particularly given increasing societal and regulatory concerns surrounding emerging technologies and their governance. The paper is well written, conceptually grounded, and suitable for the scope of Sustainability. Overall, the manuscript makes a useful contribution, though some minor revisions could further strengthen its clarity and impact.

Below, the authors find a list of suggestions per sections.

 

  1. Theoretical background and contextualization:

The manuscript provides a clear and well-structured overview of nanotechnology and its potential risks, as well as the role of CSR and assurance in managing these risks. The discussion is well contextualized within existing literature. However, the authors may consider more explicitly highlighting how their proposed framework extends or differs from prior risk governance or CSR-based governance models, particularly in the concluding sections of the literature review.

 

  1. Research design and methodology:

The inductive qualitative approach based on document analysis of corporate disclosures and international standards is appropriate for the exploratory aims of the study. The methodological choices are clearly explained.

To improve transparency, the authors could briefly clarify the criteria used to select companies and documents, and discuss any potential limitations associated with reliance on publicly available information.

 

  1. Arguments and discussion:

The arguments are coherent, balanced, and logically developed. The discussion effectively links empirical observations to broader debates on trust, accountability, and governance of emerging technologies. The authors may strengthen the discussion by more explicitly acknowledging alternative interpretations and the potential constraints firms face when integrating nanotechnology risks into CSR strategies.

 

  1. Presentation of findings:

As a qualitative and conceptual study, the findings are clearly presented and appropriately synthesized. The linkage between empirical observations and the proposed assurance-based framework is convincing. A brief summary table outlining key themes or governance mechanisms could further enhance readability.

 

  1. Conclusions and implications:

The conclusions are well supported by the analysis and existing literature. The managerial and policy implications are relevant and clearly articulated. The authors are encouraged to slightly expand the limitations section and outline specific avenues for future research, such as empirical testing of the proposed framework.

 

  1. Language and style:

The manuscript is written in clear and professional English and does not require substantive language editing. Only minor stylistic refinements may be needed.

 

Overall Recommendation

Accept after minor revision.

The manuscript is of good quality and suitable for publication following minor revisions that enhance clarity, methodological transparency, and the articulation of contributions and limitations.

Author Response

Please see uploaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for addressing all the main issues and suggestions well. The paper is much clearer now.

I have no further comments.

Best of luck.