Analysis of Corporate Governance, Organisational Resilience and Sustainable Practices Developed by Brazilian Companies during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Exploratory Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to thank you for all the time and effort spent in reviewing our manuscript, as well as for your words of encouragement.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your article. I want to congratulate you on the consistency and logical reasoning, as this rarely happens. Moreover, the English language is at a very high level - and you don't use difficult words, which makes it accessible.

You made one huge mistake.

The aim of the article cannot be analysis, analysis is a research method serving something. Unfortunately, this proves a huge methodological error, which completely discredits the article. However, everything else is very good, so I take it as a mistake. Therefore, I suggest replacing the word analysis with presentation (for the future, in the case of in-depth analyzes, the appropriate words are: verification, confirmation or identification of dependencies).

As a CSR researcher in Europe, I will be relating my comments to the situation that I know. I will present some sources to help illustrate my point of view.

I miss the characteristics of the Brazilian market and the number of CSR initiatives before and after the pandemic. In Poland, this can be found in the article:

https://journals.ur.edu.pl/nsawg/article/download/4329/3695

In addition, comparing natural disasters with the COVID-19 pandemic may relate to aspects of the shock - unexpected and huge range of impact, natural disasters do not paralyze the whole world and do not affect the operations of companies to such a great extent. In Poland, local activities often resulted from the fact that companies could not function normally (see):

https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/14/4/181/pdf

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1331677X.2021.1932547

I miss entering into details and showing the specifics of what these activities were and which of them were the most popular. In Europe, it was sewing masks or donating money to fight the pandemic.

https://cibgp.com/article_11970_919d3bb3c65ad001b81c7ca5b88320cb.pdf

My suggestions are aimed at improving the quality of the article, which I consider appropriate in its current format anyway. Therefore, I suggest minor revision.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, we would like to thank you for all the time and effort spent in reviewing our work.

Please find attached a document describing how we have carefully addressed each of your comments/suggestions. We found that a clear and organized way to explain the revisions was to copy each one exactly as written by the reviewer (in black) and respond to them in sequence (in blue). The changes made in the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function as recommended by the editor and are highlighted in the manuscript file.

Thank you once more.

Should you have any questions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Generally, it is a fairly well written paper. The topic is interesting, the literature review is thorough, the materials are well presented. I have several questions:

1.       The contribution of the paper to the literature is limited, at least from what I read from the paper so far. The paper emphasizes on the period of Covid-19 pandemic, and the authors admitted that the practices will not be repeated by the companies in the same manner. Therefore, it looks like there is no generalization for the results of the paper.

2.       On page 5, the paper says: “in the first step, bibliographic research was performed…”. I am not sure if the authors could tell the readers where the research was conducted. Just on the internet?

3.       The paper uses companies listed in Ibovespa. Where did the author collect the sustainability reports? Is there a reason why the authors choose this data set? Are there other companies not listed on the stock exchange but still publish sustainability reports so the authors could include them in the sample?

4.       On page 6, the authors say: “it should be noted that it is used by several companies in the sample”. But in the same paragraph, the authors state: “presented by 82.61%”. 82.61% of the sample is about 56 companies, not several.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, we would like to thank you for all the time and effort spent in reviewing our work.

Please find attached a document describing how we have carefully addressed each of your comments/suggestions. We found that a clear and organized way to explain the revisions was to copy each one exactly as written by the reviewer (in black) and respond to them in sequence (in blue). The changes made in the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function as recommended by the editor and are highlighted in the manuscript file.

Thank you once more.

Should you have any questions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The article was prepared with care. The course of the proceedings was described sufficiently clearly. I appreciate the timeliness and 'freshness' of the cited publications (as much as 75 per cent are from 2018 and newer). On the other hand, I notice as many as 7 items of self-citation (14.5 per cent of the bibliography). I leave it to the judgment of the editors whether these are acceptable. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, we would like to thank you for all the time and effort spent in reviewing our work.

Please find attached a document describing how we have carefully addressed each of your comments/suggestions. We found that a clear and organized way to explain the revisions was to copy each one exactly as written by the reviewer (in black) and respond to them in sequence (in blue). The changes made in the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function as recommended by the editor and are highlighted in the manuscript file.

Thank you once more.

Should you have any questions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, thank you for the opportunity to review the text again. I am very pleased that you took advantage of my tips. The remark from the previous review has been fully satisfactorily taken into account.

Please remember in future not to write that the analysis is the aim, as some reviewers may reject the entire article on that basis alone. It would be a pity if it happened to a great paper like this one.

Congratulations on your publication and I will be delighted to follow your research.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is improved after the revisions.

Reviewer 4 Report

I agree to confirm the paper in present form.