European Environment, Social, and Governance Norms and Decent Work: Seeking a Consensus in the Literature

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Due to my overall high assessment, I can be brief in my comments. The article is a very useful description and empirical review of journals on an issue that is not so often discussed in the literature (line 434), as the author states her- or himself. 

The article uses an appropriate systematic methodology of structured journal research. The historical review from line 117 onwards is very useful. The broad and extensive debate on practical measurement is mentioned in line 155. Several times it becomes clear and is repeated that "decent work is a broad and multifaceted concept that encompasses both quantitative and qualitative aspects". This is demonstrated then in the following pages in an informative way for ILO and the EU etc

However, one could and should at least in passing mention also more of the the debate of  the OECD on the issue (it is mentioned on page 9,22 June 20), especially the research an measurement of job quality by researchers of the OECD.

The mentioning of vagueness of decent work (line 256) is a bit in contrast to then mentioning that "the construct entails well-structured and formal norms" (lines 268 f.). Moreover, the author states that core tenets of Decent Work are "robustly regulated in many countries (line 281 f,).  One could clarify more, if and if yes  why then more regulations in this field are necessary and why actors beyond the national level should have really more power to decide on this because this. May be, it would be a good idea to take account of supply chains of companies also at national levels (subsidiarity principle) rather than have decision power at the supra-national level. At least one should explain briefly why there is a need to move with such regulation beyond the nation level. Also one could clarify whether one should expect largely or hardly increased cost as a result of the imposition of new regulatory 'burdens" onto companies. 

In line 311 one should clarify that the term "precarious" may include a (negativ) value-judgement. Not all forms of "flexible work" are clearly bad from the dependent worker's point of view - often they are an improvement compared to the alternative of potentially losing a job as a result of increased labour costs due to more regulations. 

Overall, the likely pro-regulatory bias of the author becomes quite clear in the paper (lines 425-431) - however, one should bear in mind also potentially negative effects of further increases of regulatory burdens onto companies additional to the existing ones. There may well be negative side-effects that should not be entirely neglected and at least briefly mentioned. They could backfire in the future also when, for example, rich countries have an interest to impose larger regulatory costs onto poorer ones by implementing generally higher minimum standards that are easier to fulfill in the richer countries (Issue of 'raising rivals' costs).

Line 377 Accountability ofr Account Ability?

Line 376 Federation of (formatting issue)

Author Response

We are extremely grateful to the reviewers for their kind and constructive comments and the time that they afforded to our article. The reviewers have provided feedback that we feel significantly enhances the article and where appropriate we have adopted the comments and amended the paper. We note, in fact, that all comments have been helpful and consequently adapted into the article.

Namely:

1. OECD, we have added reference to the OECD framework for Measuring and Assessing Job Quality (Cazes, et.al. 2015) and enhanced the future work component by adding a statement that the myriad of regulations, directives, and policies should be mapped to appropriate national and international laws.
2. This would also eliminate some of the “vagueness” in the concept of Decent Work as highlighted by one review, which we have consequently redefined to ‘poorly defined’ and/or ‘obscure’. Notwithstanding the ‘vagueness of the definition’, the core components which make up the construct are possibly well understood, hence future work concerned with mapping of national and international laws may clarify this. Which we have shown as 7 items of “well-structured and formal norms”.
3. Precarious work. The reviewer is correct to highlight that precarious work may be considered positive or negative. We have consequently clarified the elements of precarious work and reiterated the point made by the reviewer that: “Whilst precarious work can be positive and negative it may need to be quantitatively and qualitatively assessed as part of ESG assessment towards Decent Work.”
4. We sense that there is in all likelihood overregulation, from many institutions, including local laws and regulations and future work could seek to redress this by ensuring that materiality and the construct of Decent Work are clearly defined and mapped to national and international laws. In order to eliminate duplicate effort and the associated burdens on companies. We also reiterate in the conclusion that “The lack of comprehensive guidance and literature poses challenges in analyzing material social factors, including all dimensions of Decent Work, both within a firm and its supply chain. “
5. Line 377 Accountability the institute is correctly (although ambiguously identified), the name of which is: “Account Ability”.

   We reiterate our profound thanks to the reviewers and trust that we have captured the essence of their key points in the amended article.

    

   The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author/s.

It was a pleasure to read the paper on decent work in relation to social, environmental and governmental factors. In general the paper enrich the literature on the topic.

There are however some concerns about the paper. First, the number of paper that make up the analysis after the exclusion process (79) in your case, are mentioned in the abstract so the reader can instantly see the number of paper that make up the final analysis.

In systematic reviews there is usually some tables or other information on the journals that the papers are published in, the research methodology (number of quantative paper, qualitative, case studies, policy document etc.), the countries that the papers/reports include and so on.

The historical reporting on the development of decent work is very well done, but I was surprised that there was no reference to the EU Social Charter, accepted by member states  in 1961.

In the conclusion section there should be more direction for further research in the field.

The main concerns with the paper is that it does not adhere to neither traditional nor systematic literature review. Usually, systematic literature review gives information on papers and documents in tables (authors, year of publication, aim of paper, methodology, main findings, even journal). The papers are then analysed in text where main findings are summarised. So as a solution it would be best to change the title to review.

The paper is well written in good English.

Author Response

We are extremely grateful to the reviewers for their kind and constructive comments and the time that they afforded to our article. The reviewers have provided feedback that we feel significantly enhances the article and where appropriate we have adopted the comments and amended the paper. We note, in fact, that all comments have been helpful and consequently adapted into the article.

1. The EU Social Charter of 1961. This is highly appropriate and we have added a comment as it relates to the history in the appropriate table.
2. We sense that there is in all likelihood overregulation, from many institutions, including local laws and regulations and future work could seek to redress this by ensuring that materiality and the construct of Decent Work are clearly defined and mapped to national and international laws. In order to eliminate duplicate effort and the associated burdens on companies. We also reiterate in the conclusion that “The lack of comprehensive guidance and literature poses challenges in analyzing material social factors, including all dimensions of Decent Work, both within a firm and its supply chain. “
3. Systematic literature review - we strove to meet the appropriate guidelines to conduct a full systematic review, however we acknowledge that in part we may not meet all of the criteria set out in Phillips V, Barker E. (2021) Systematic reviews: Structure, form and content. 

   We have therefore amended the title and reference to “systematic” following the suggestions of the reviewer and in accordance with Phillips, et. al. have changed the title and appropriate parts of the paper to state “review, with systematic literature search.”

   We reiterate our profound thanks to the reviewers and trust that we have captured the essence of their key points in the amended article.

    

   The authors