B Impact Assessment as a Driving Force for Sustainable Development: A Case Study in the Pulp and Paper Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Congratulations on your work. In my opinion, it is a well-structured and scientifically grounded , so I have only a handful of minor comments.

• The abstract is correct.
• Row 32: It is not true that BIA stands out for its holistic approach. On the contrary, all CSR-related frameworks, such as the triple bottom line, CSR itself, CSR2.0, etc., propose a holistic approach. It is another question, however, that businesses select the most appropriate measures for themselves, so this holistic approach cannot be realised.
• Row 42: Prioritising performance in a particular aspect is very typical in corporate sustainability. In my research, for example, environmental performance was overrepresented, since small and medium-sized enterprises could receive state and EU grants for environmental projects (solar panels, building insulation, etc.). It reflects the issue I mentioned above, namely, the lack of a holistic approach in business practices. Scholars propose frameworks like Integrated Bottom Line instead of TBL, but financial and business motivators are much stronger. Therefore, I suggest adding a sentence on the controversies in this aspect.
• Row 38: "which informs our RQs" - I do not understand what do you think.
• I do not understand the core concept of RQ2.
• Row 138: If creating shared value is mentioned, 2-3 references of Porter&Kramer should be added to explain the idea.
• Row 148: Similarly, if TBL is mentioned, Elkington should be referenced.
• Table3: Most actions/outcomes are typical corporate indicators, but provides no real information on the state of the business. So I have some comments:
  • Governance and variables: Using certificates and standards, having missions and nice goals are OK in this topic.
  • Workers:
    • Financial security: Both actions and outcomes are typical corporate buzzwords. I would use indicators like (1) the ratio of the highest and lowest wage; (2) share of minimum wage workers in the total working staff, etc.
    • Health, Wellness, and Safety: How strict are they? Is it a plain checklist or a thorough health assessment? A context should be added to the Spanish public health system. For example, in Austria, the social security system (incl. health) is free and of good quality. In the US, however, paying for private health insurance is a vital issue for workers.
    • Career development: Are there team leaders, mid-managers, even top-managers grown-up in the company? If yes, what is their share in the management team?
  • Community:
    • It was also important for Meta, for example, until the second inauguration of D.J. Trump. Thus, is it just a paper or a core concept? Further context should be added about Spain, since DEI is not equally important even in the EU countries (see Sweden, Germany, Hungary, etc.)
    • Economic impact: What is the share of local suppliers?
  • Environment: I would have a comment, but later you highlight that 832.4kWp is sufficient for replacing 80% of the total electricity usage.

Author Response

Comment 1. Congratulations on your work. In my opinion, it is a well-structured and scientifically grounded, so I have only a handful of minor comments.

Response 1. We thank the reviewer for this positive and encouraging evaluation. We are pleased to know that the manuscript is perceived as well-structured and scientifically sound. Your kind remarks are highly appreciated and have further motivated us to refine the text based on your helpful suggestions.

Comment 2. The abstract is correct.

Response 2. Thank you for confirming the adequacy of the abstract. We are glad to hear that it effectively communicates the scope and contribution of the study.

Comment 3. Row 32: It is not true that BIA stands out for its holistic approach. On the contrary, all CSR-related frameworks, such as the triple bottom line, CSR itself, CSR2.0, etc., propose a holistic approach. It is another question, however, that businesses select the most appropriate measures for themselves, so this holistic approach cannot be realised.

Response 3. Thank you for your comment. We have removed this particular sentence. Our intention was not to claim that the B Impact Assessment is the only holistic framework, but rather to highlight how the BIA operationalises this holistic perspective in a particularly structured and actionable way.

Comment 4. Row 42: Prioritising performance in a particular aspect is very typical in corporate sustainability. In my research, for example, environmental performance was overrepresented, since small and medium-sized enterprises could receive state and EU grants for environmental projects (solar panels, building insulation, etc.). It reflects the issue I mentioned above, namely, the lack of a holistic approach in business practices. Scholars propose frameworks like Integrated Bottom Line instead of TBL, but financial and business motivators are much stronger. Therefore, I suggest adding a sentence on the controversies in this aspect.

Response 4. Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that, in practice, companies often prioritise particular dimensions of sustainability —such as environmental performance— especially when these are linked to financial incentives, like public or EU grants. This selective engagement illustrates the challenge of implementing a truly holistic approach in corporate sustainability. We acknowledge that scholars have proposed alternative frameworks, such as the Integrated Bottom Line, to better address this gap. In response to your suggestion, we have added a sentence in the discussion section to reflect this ongoing controversy and the influence of business motivators on sustainability practices.

We have completed the sentence in that paragraph.

“This prioritization often reflects broader structural incentives: for instance, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) may overemphasize environmental initiatives due to the availability of state or EU grants for projects such as solar panels or energy-efficient retrofitting (Del Río González, 2006; European Commission, 2020). As several scholars argue, this reveals the persistence of a fragmented approach in corporate sustainability, where financial and business motivators tend to outweigh a truly integrated vision. Consequently, some have proposed frameworks like the Integrated Bottom Line to move beyond the limitations of the traditional Triple Bottom Line (Norman & MacDonald, 2004; Slaper & Hall, 2011).”

Comment 5. Row 38: "which informs our RQs" - I do not understand what do you think.

Response 5. Thank you for pointing this out. We realize that our wording was unclear. Our intention was to express that the previous discussion logically leads to the formulation of our research questions. We have therefore replaced “informs our RQs” with “leads to our RQs” to improve clarity.

Comment 6. I do not understand the core concept of RQ2.

Response 6. Thank you for this observation. We agree that the original wording of RQ2 was not sufficiently clear. We have reformulated the research question to make its focus explicit:

“RQ2: Among the different impact areas assessed by the BIA (e.g., governance, workers, community, environment, customers), which ones exhibit the greatest improvements in companies' sustainability performance?”

This revised version clarifies that the question refers specifically to identifying the BIA-assessed areas where companies achieve the most significant sustainability improvements.

Comment 7. Row 138: If creating shared value is mentioned, 2-3 references of Porter&Kramer should be added to explain the idea.

Response 7. We agree with your suggestion and will add the references by Porter and Kramer to better support the concept of creating shared value in the manuscript. The references to be included are:

• Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating Shared Value: How to Reinvent Capitalism—and Unleash a Wave of Innovation and Growth. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.
• Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
• Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2019). Creating Shared Value. In D. Grayson, C. Coulter, & M. Lee (Eds.), Corporate Responsibility Coalitions: The Past, Present, and Future of Alliances for Sustainable Capitalism.

Thank you very much for your valuable recommendation, which will undoubtedly enhance the theoretical framework of the article.

Comment 8. Row 148: Similarly, if TBL is mentioned, Elkington should be referenced.

Response 8. Thank you for your comment. We would like to clarify that Elkington’s work is already cited in the manuscript when introducing the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) concept, specifically as reference (27) at line 103.

Comment 9. Table3: Most actions/outcomes are typical corporate indicators, but provides no real information on the state of the business. So I have some comments:

• Governance and variables: Using certificates and standards, having missions and nice goals are OK in this topic.
• Workers:
• Financial security: Both actions and outcomes are typical corporate buzzwords. I would use indicators like (1) the ratio of the highest and lowest wage; (2) share of minimum wage workers in the total working staff, etc.
• Health, Wellness, and Safety: How strict are they? Is it a plain checklist or a thorough health assessment? A context should be added to the Spanish public health system. For example, in Austria, the social security system (incl. health) is free and of good quality. In the US, however, paying for private health insurance is a vital issue for workers.
• Career development: Are there team leaders, mid-managers, even top-managers grown-up in the company? If yes, what is their share in the management team?
• Community:
• It was also important for Meta, for example, until the second inauguration of D.J. Trump. Thus, is it just a paper or a core concept? Further context should be added about Spain, since DEI is not equally important even in the EU countries (see Sweden, Germany, Hungary, etc.)
• Economic impact: What is the share of local suppliers?
• Environment: I would have a comment, but later you highlight that 832.4kWp is sufficient for replacing 80% of the total electricity usage.

Response 9. Thank you for this detailed and highly constructive feedback. We fully understand your concern regarding the need for measurable, verifiable indicators rather than relying solely on narrative corporate discourse.

In response, we have thoroughly revised Table 3 to include specific and evidence-based outcome indicators that reflect the actual state of the business in each of the BIA dimensions (Governance, Workers, Community, Environment, Customers). These indicators are drawn from internal records (e.g., payroll data, occupational health documentation, supplier declarations), as well as certified third-party sources (e.g., ISO 14001, FSC, PEFC, B Corp, Great Place to Work). Below, we address your sub-points individually:

• Governance and variables: Table 3 now reflects not only certifications (B Corp, ISO 14001) but also the implementation of a formal Code of Ethics and risk prevention protocols, demonstrating structured ethical governance practices beyond symbolic compliance.
• Financial security (Workers): The table includes the ratio between the highest and lowest salaries (below 5:1), full coverage under the Spanish social security system, and the existence of health and pension contributions for all staff. While specific data on minimum wage workers is not disclosed due to privacy constraints, the wage structure is aligned with national standards and industry benchmarks.
• Health, Wellness, and Safety: The revised table highlights that employee health is supported by routine occupational health evaluations, conducted through mutual insurance schemes in accordance with Spanish law. These go beyond checklist approaches and include risk-based assessments. We have also added a brief clarification about the context of the Spanish universal healthcare system in the manuscript to address your comparative point.
• Career development: We now specify that 40% of the current management team has been promoted internally, reflecting LC Paper’s commitment to long-term talent development and internal mobility.
• Community: We clarify that community engagement is operationalized through local economic partnerships and civic collaboration. Over 60% of suppliers are local, reinforcing regional economic impact. Additionally, following your suggestion, we now contextualize the company’s inclusion efforts by noting that LC Paper adheres to anti-discrimination policies aligned with Spanish equality legislation, where DEI principles are embedded in organizational and labour practices.
• Economic impact: As noted above, the share of local suppliers exceeds 60%, as confirmed by internal procurement records.
• Environment: As you observed, we indicate in the manuscript that LC Paper's photovoltaic installation of 832.4 kWp currently offsets approximately 80% of its electricity consumption. This is complemented by other environmental initiatives including sludge valorisation, water reuse systems, and certified sourcing of raw materials (FSC, PEFC).

In addition to updating Table 3, we have also revised the accompanying discussion in the manuscript to reflect these indicators and provide greater analytical depth. We believe this strengthens the evidence base and directly responds to your request for more rigorous treatment of business performance across sustainability dimensions.

Should you or the editorial team require supporting documentation, we would be pleased to provide it.

***

We are grateful to the reviewer for the encouraging feedback and the precise, detail-oriented comments. Your observations—particularly around methodological rigor, indicator specificity, and terminological clarity—have been extremely helpful in refining our analysis and narrative. The enhancements made in response to your insights have significantly improved the robustness and transparency of the manuscript. Thank you once again for your valuable contribution to this work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposed case study is interesting in itself, and it is worth investigating, considering that Benefit Corporations are more common in the US than in the EU. The proposed rejection of the paper is based on the problematic generalizability of the results. The paper could place greater emphasis on demonstrating its value, beyond the case study itself, by highlighting the broader significance of this case study and its theoretical contributions that would advance existing knowledge. 

Therefore, we recommend major revisions, such as:

• At the conceptual level, no specific theoretical lens is considered.
• contextualizing better the case study and its significance
• extending the case study depth also including country-specific elements
• comparing the case study with other relevant research 
• pinpointing the theoretical value of the investigation
• even at practical level, the value of the case study is not enough discussed - what new aspects does the case study reveal - are they relevant only for country-level? or for industry? what processes and mechanism are revealed by the case study? 

I hope these comments are helpful for a future valorization of this case study, which is interesting and encompassing in itself. 

Author Response

Comment 1. The proposed case study is interesting in itself, and it is worth investigating, considering that Benefit Corporations are more common in the US than in the EU. The proposed rejection of the paper is based on the problematic generalizability of the results. The paper could place greater emphasis on demonstrating its value, beyond the case study itself, by highlighting the broader significance of this case study and its theoretical contributions that would advance existing knowledge.

Response 1. We are grateful for this observation, which we took as a guiding principle in our revision process. In response, we have substantially expanded the discussion of the case study’s broader implications, particularly by situating it within the European industrial context and by comparing it with prior international research on B Corp certification and institutional sustainability frameworks. Furthermore, we have clarified the study’s theoretical contribution by framing the B Impact Assessment not only as a measurement tool but as a mechanism for institutional transformation in legacy manufacturing settings. We hope these enhancements align with your suggestions and contribute to demonstrating the value of this case beyond its immediate context.

Comment 2. At the conceptual level, no specific theoretical lens is considered.

Response 2. Thank you for your observation. We have indeed considered the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) as the theoretical lens in our study. This is mentioned in line 103, although we acknowledge it might not be sufficiently clear. Our focus is on companies evaluating their performance not only financially, but also socially and environmentally. The TBL framework is widely used in sustainability research as it provides a comprehensive conceptual structure for integrated sustainability measurement and reporting. It serves as a normative framework for sustainability performance metrics and reporting tools. One of the key authors supporting this lens is Elkington (1997), whose work is cited accordingly.

Comment 3. contextualizing better the case study and its significance

extending the case study depth also including country-specific elements

Response 3. We agree with your suggestions and have expanded the contextualization of the case study to better highlight its significance. Specifically, we have introduced data on the Spanish industry before presenting the existing data on the paper sector. We also updated the data and corrected the references, as the previous ones were inaccurate.

In fact, we took advantage of your comments to improve this section. Paragraph 1 of section 3 has been completely rewritten and expanded into three paragraphs, including two new references (INE, 2025; ASPAPEL, 2025).

Comment 4. comparing the case study with other relevant research 

Response 4. Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have addressed your comment by incorporating a new paragraph in the discussion section (just before Section 6, Conclusions) that explicitly compares our findings with those from other relevant studies. Specifically, we now highlight how our case aligns with previous research on the implementation of B Corp certification and the B Impact Assessment (BIA), while also emphasizing the novelty of our contribution in an industrial context within an advanced European economy.

To support this comparison, we draw on academic literature that has explored the effects of B Corp certification on organizational change (e.g., Stubbs, 2017; Gehman et al., 2019; Wilburn & Wilburn, 2014), as well as studies that investigate renewable energy adoption in Spain (Gallego-Castillo et al., 2020). These additions help to situate LC Paper’s experience within the broader scholarly conversation on sustainability certification, thus reinforcing the external validity and theoretical relevance of our analysis.

Comment 5. pinpointing the theoretical value of the investigation

Response 5. We appreciate your suggestion regarding the need to clarify the theoretical contribution of our study. In response, we have added a dedicated paragraph at the end of the discussion section, just before the conclusions, to highlight the theoretical implications of our findings.

We outline in this addition how the BIA functions not only as a measurement tool but also as a mechanism for institutional transformation within legacy industrial firms. Drawing on relevant academic literature (e.g., Haigh & Hoffman, 2012; Stubbs, 2017; Battilana et al., 2009; Bocken et al., 2014; Gehman et al., 2019), we position our case study within ongoing theoretical debates on sustainability integration. This helps to advance scholarly understanding of how sustainability logics are embedded across multiple organizational levels—strategy, governance, operations—particularly in mature industrial contexts within non-core EU countries.

These enhancements strengthen the theoretical grounding of the paper and clarify its contribution to the academic discourse on sustainable business transformation.

Comment 6. even at practical level, the value of the case study is not enough discussed - what new aspects does the case study reveal - are they relevant only for country-level? or for industry? what processes and mechanism are revealed by the case study? 

 Response 6. We appreciate your thoughtful observations regarding the practical value of the case study. In response, we have significantly expanded the discussion section to explicitly address the practical mechanisms, organizational processes, and broader relevance of our findings.

Specifically, we now articulate how the case of LC Paper reveals key organizational mechanisms—such as the structured use of BIA, reliance on third-party certifications (e.g., ISO 14001, FSC, B Corp), participatory internal governance, digitized monitoring systems, and renewable energy deployment—as tangible drivers of sustainability transformation. We added these mechanisms at the end of RQ2’s analysis (Section 5), emphasizing how sustainability is operationalized at scale within an industrial setting.

Furthermore, we have elaborated on the novelty and relevance of the case by comparing it with existing studies on B Corp certification and sustainability adoption. We highlight that LC Paper provides rare empirical insights from a legacy manufacturing firm in an advanced economy, thus extending the literature beyond early adopters or service firms. We included this comparison just before the conclusion section (lines 640–667), accompanied by academic references to support the theoretical contextualization.

Finally, we clarify that while the case operates within a Spanish context—where social and institutional factors such as universal healthcare and strong labour protection exist—many of the mechanisms and learnings are highly relevant across industrial firms globally. The discussion now explicitly distinguishes between country-level constraints and sector-level transferability, thereby reinforcing the study’s practical value for broader audiences.

We hope these additions fully address your comment and strengthen the contribution of our work.

Comment 7. I hope these comments are helpful for a future valorization of this case study, which is interesting and encompassing in itself. 

Response 7. We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive feedback. Your observations have been key in helping us reassess and reinforce the conceptual depth, contextualization, and practical significance of our case study. While we acknowledge the concerns raised regarding generalizability, we hope the substantial revisions—particularly in terms of comparative analysis and theoretical framing—contribute to demonstrating the broader relevance of our findings. We truly value your insights and trust they have played a critical role in improving the quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses a novel topic using a unique approach, namely a single case study. The choice of case study is justified due to the limited adoption of BIA in the pulp and paper sector. Having said that, I would like to offer several comments that I hope will help improve the quality of the manuscript.

Research Questions and Findings
The first research question is less suitable for a qualitative inquiry. The way it is currently phrased invites a binary (yes/no) response, which is not ideal for exploratory case-based research. I suggest reframing the question with “how” or “why” to better align with the qualitative nature of the study. For instance:
"How can the BIA support the case study firm towards comprehensive sustainability in all areas beyond its traditional focus on economic considerations, including social and environmental dimensions?"

Regarding the answer to the first research question, the authors have provided a well-supported discussion using interview quotes, documents, and relevant theory. In the Discussion section (pages 10–11), the paper presents findings from LC Paper that illustrate how BIA has helped the company balance the triple bottom line of sustainability. Concrete examples are provided, such as the installation of photovoltaic systems, inclusive social policies, and enhanced market reputation.

The second research question is answered clearly by identifying three major areas impacted: environmental practices, employee engagement, and corporate governance. However, the identification of “most affected areas” remains largely narrative and subjective, relying primarily on internal perspectives. It would be valuable to incorporate external perspectives to validate or contrast the internal claims.

The authors mention two external stakeholders in line 272. Data from these stakeholders could be leveraged to enrich the response to RQ2, providing a multiperspective view and strengthening the triangulation of findings.
If primary data from external sources is not available, the authors could supplement the analysis with secondary data from external sources—such as government agencies, NGOs, or other stakeholders—using publicly available media reports (print, online, video, etc.).

Methodology
In general, the methodological approach is appropriate. However, the theoretical foundation could be strengthened, as the study currently relies heavily on a single reference (Gioia, 2021). The issue of generalizability is briefly acknowledged (lines 508–509), where the authors mention that the study “provides detailed insights but lacks the statistical generalizability.” I suggest explicitly stating that case studies aim for analytical generalization, not statistical generalization (Yin, 2018):

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.

A strong complementary citation can also be included from Siggelkow (2007):

“A single case can be a very powerful example.” (Siggelkow, 2007, p. 20)

Siggelkow further justifies single case selection by stating:

“If the organization one studies is a Phineas Gage, it is much easier to defend the research site. The specialness pays off, however, if it permits particular insights that allow one to draw inferences about more normal firms. Otherwise, the interest of the findings is much more limited.” (p. 21)

Conclusion
For the first research question in particular, the study lacks a benchmark with a non-B Corp company or with firms that adopt alternative approaches to sustainability. This weakens the argument that BIA is more effective than other frameworks.

It is also important to note that a single case study may result in findings that are exclusive and potentially not transferable to other contexts. This limitation could be explicitly addressed in the discussion of research limitations.

Minor Issues
Clarity and Flow: Some sections (e.g., paragraph 2 and 5) contain complex sentence structures. Simplifying these would help enhance clarity and readability.

Final Remarks
You have addressed a timely and relevant topic using an interesting and appropriate methodological approach. I believe the feedback above will help significantly improve your manuscript. Good luck with your revision!

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please work with native English copy editors

Author Response

Comment 1. The study addresses a novel topic using a unique approach, namely a single case study. The choice of case study is justified due to the limited adoption of BIA in the pulp and paper sector. Having said that, I would like to offer several comments that I hope will help improve the quality of the manuscript.

Response 1. We sincerely thank the reviewer for this encouraging opening remark. We appreciate your recognition of both the novelty of the topic and the methodological relevance of using a single case study in a sector where the adoption of BIA remains limited. Your thoughtful feedback has been instrumental in further refining the manuscript, and we welcome the opportunity to respond to your specific suggestions in detail below.

Research Questions and Findings

Comment 2. The first research question is less suitable for a qualitative inquiry. The way it is currently phrased invites a binary (yes/no) response, which is not ideal for exploratory case-based research. I suggest reframing the question with “how” or “why” to better align with the qualitative nature of the study. For instance: "How can the BIA support the case study firm towards comprehensive sustainability in all areas beyond its traditional focus on economic considerations, including social and environmental dimensions?"

Response 2. Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We agree that reframing the first research question to better suit a qualitative, exploratory approach is important. Accordingly, we have revised the question to:

"How can the BIA support the case study firm towards comprehensive sustainability in all areas beyond its traditional focus on economic considerations, including social and environmental dimensions?"

We have made this change at lines 48 and 358 in the manuscript.

Comment 3. Regarding the answer to the first research question, the authors have provided a well-supported discussion using interview quotes, documents, and relevant theory. In the Discussion section (pages 10–11), the paper presents findings from LC Paper that illustrate how BIA has helped the company balance the triple bottom line of sustainability. Concrete examples are provided, such as the installation of photovoltaic systems, inclusive social policies, and enhanced market reputation.

Response 3. Thank you very much for your positive feedback regarding our response to the first research question. We appreciate your recognition of the use of interview quotes, documentary evidence, and relevant theory to support our discussion. We are glad that the examples provided—such as the installation of photovoltaic systems, inclusive social policies, and enhanced market reputation—effectively illustrate how the BIA has helped the company balance the triple bottom line of sustainability.

Comment 4. The second research question is answered clearly by identifying three major areas impacted: environmental practices, employee engagement, and corporate governance. However, the identification of “most affected areas” remains largely narrative and subjective, relying primarily on internal perspectives. It would be valuable to incorporate external perspectives to validate or contrast the internal claims. The authors mention two external stakeholders in line 272. Data from these stakeholders could be leveraged to enrich the response to RQ2, providing a multiperspective view and strengthening the triangulation of findings.

Response 4. We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. In response, we implemented two targeted revisions to ensure that the perspectives of external stakeholders are explicitly integrated into our analysis of RQ2:

• In Section 4.1 (Data Collection), we clarified the methodological role of the two external interviewees—a customer-shareholder and the managing director of B Lab Spain—by adding the following sentence at the end of the relevant paragraph:

“Data from these stakeholders was leveraged to enrich the response to RQ2, providing a multi-perspective view and strengthening the triangulation of findings.”

We made this change to ensure that their contribution is acknowledged and methodologically grounded within the triangulation strategy.

• In the final paragraph of the Findings section (Section 5), we incorporated a new passage that reflects the concrete insights offered by these stakeholders. This addition highlights how both interviewees validated the internal claims regarding the impact of BIA, particularly in relation to environmental transformation, organizational culture, and stakeholder legitimacy. The sentence reads:

“These internally reported changes were further reinforced by external stakeholder perspectives. The representative of B Lab Spain, for instance, described LC Paper as a paradigm case within the industrial sector, highlighting its long-standing commitment to environmental transformation and cultural change. Likewise, a customer-shareholder emphasized the company’s evolution from being locally perceived as a polluting actor to becoming a benchmark for sustainability. These viewpoints contribute to validating the internal claims and strengthen the credibility of the areas identified as most affected—environment, workforce, and governance.”

Comment 5. If primary data from external sources is not available, the authors could supplement the analysis with secondary data from external sources—such as government agencies, NGOs, or other stakeholders—using publicly available media reports (print, online, video, etc.).

Response 5. We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have strengthened the triangulation of our data sources by explicitly incorporating publicly available secondary data into the analysis. In addition to the interviews with internal and external stakeholders, we have now included a range of independent sources, such as:

• Industry-level benchmarks from the ASPAPEL 2023 Statistical Report (Ref. [95])
• LC Paper’s official B Corp and EU Ecolabel certifications, publicly available via the company’s website and the B Lab Global platform (Refs. [96], [97])
• Independent media articles from El Economista and El Món Economia, which report on the firm’s investments in renewable energy and other sustainability initiatives (Refs. [98], [99])

We now explicitly reference these materials in Section 4.1 – Data Collection, immediately following the discussion on stakeholder interviews. They provide contextual validation of the firm’s reported performance in environmental management, governance, and workforce-related policies, thereby enhancing the methodological robustness of the study and mitigating potential internal bias.

We believe this revision fully addresses your concern and clarifies the broader empirical foundation on which our findings are based.

Methodology

Comment 6. In general, the methodological approach is appropriate. However, the theoretical foundation could be strengthened, as the study currently relies heavily on a single reference (Gioia, 2021). The issue of generalizability is briefly acknowledged (lines 508–509), where the authors mention that the study “provides detailed insights but lacks the statistical generalizability.” I suggest explicitly stating that case studies aim for analytical generalization, not statistical generalization (Yin, 2018): Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.

A strong complementary citation can also be included from Siggelkow (2007): “A single case can be a very powerful example.” (Siggelkow, 2007, p. 20). Siggelkow further justifies single case selection by stating: “If the organization one studies is a Phineas Gage, it is much easier to defend the research site. The specialness pays off, however, if it permits particular insights that allow one to draw inferences about more normal firms. Otherwise, the interest of the findings is much more limited.” (p. 21)

Response 6. Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We agree that it is important to explicitly clarify the type of generalization pursued in our study. In response, we have added a statement emphasizing that this research aims for analytical, rather than statistical, generalization, following Yin (2018). We have also incorporated Siggelkow’s (2007) reflections on the value and persuasiveness of single cases, as you recommended.

Additionally, to further strengthen the methodological foundation of our study, we have complemented these additions with other seminal references: Eisenhardt (1989) on theory building from case research, Stake (1995) on the interpretive depth of case studies, Flyvbjerg (2006) on the value of context-rich qualitative inquiry, and Patton (2015) on the use of triangulation to ensure rigor. We believe these additions reinforce the robustness of our single-case design and its relevance for generating meaningful, theory-informed insights.

Conclusion

Comment 7. For the first research question in particular, the study lacks a benchmark with a non-B Corp company or with firms that adopt alternative approaches to sustainability. This weakens the argument that BIA is more effective than other frameworks. It is also important to note that a single case study may result in findings that are exclusive and potentially not transferable to other contexts. This limitation could be explicitly addressed in the discussion of research limitations.

Response 7. We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments regarding the limitations inherent to a single case study design and the absence of a comparative benchmark. As noted in the manuscript, the single-case nature of this study provides an in-depth, context-rich understanding but may limit the transferability of findings to other industries or regions. We explicitly address this limitation by distinguishing between analytical generalization, which aims to develop insights and theoretical propositions (Yin, 2018), and statistical generalization. Furthermore, our study focuses on assessing the effectiveness of the BIA framework within LC Paper’s specific context, rather than claiming superiority over other sustainability frameworks. We highlight that LC Paper’s prior certifications (EcoVadis Gold, Ecolabel) and experience demonstrate how BIA complements existing tools to advance sustainability. We have incorporated this discussion in the limitations and conclusions sections and recognize the importance of future research involving comparative, multi-case, and longitudinal designs to further evaluate the broader applicability and relative effectiveness of the BIA.

Minor Issues

Comment 8. Clarity and Flow: Some sections (e.g., paragraph 2 and 5) contain complex sentence structures. Simplifying these would help enhance clarity and readability.

Response 8. We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the complexity of some sentence structures. To address this issue, we have contracted the Rapid English Editing service provided by the journal to ensure clarity, readability, and overall language quality throughout the manuscript.

Final Remarks

Comment 9. You have addressed a timely and relevant topic using an interesting and appropriate methodological approach. I believe the feedback above will help significantly improve your manuscript. Good luck with your revision!

Response 9. We thank the reviewer for the encouraging feedback and constructive suggestions, which have been instrumental in improving the manuscript.

***

Regarding your remark on the quality of the English language, we fully acknowledge the importance of clear and accurate communication. In response, we have engaged MDPI Author Services to professionally edit the manuscript. We trust that this will address your concern and ensure the manuscript meets the journal’s language standards.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper considered all key suggestions. I believe that the additional data and discussions contribute to extending the value of the findings across the topic investigated, with a higher significance compared to the specific case study considered. 

Nevertheless, we suggest a few more improvements and additional clarifications/discussion:

• Although the abstract is relatively well and clearly designed, the academic styling should be more closely observed. Also, it tends to be descriptive, not discussing the originality of the paper and its main contributions.
• especially discussions associated with the case study have been enhanced. We also recommend strengthening the focus of the theoretical background. Besides the TBL theory, other approaches could be considered and discussed to improve the theoretical value of the case study. For instance, stakeholder theories might be relevant, the institutional framework, or even the corporate sustainability framework. All this might highlight both BIA's strengths and weaknesses. 
• Conclusions might also address more the theoretical value of the study. 

 

Author Response

Note: All changes discussed below have been clearly incorporated into the revised manuscript and are highlighted in yellow to facilitate traceability and ensure full transparency for the editorial team and reviewers.

Comment 1. The paper considered all key suggestions. I believe that the additional data and discussions contribute to extending the value of the findings across the topic investigated, with a higher significance compared to the specific case study considered.

Response 1. We sincerely thank the reviewer for this encouraging and thoughtful assessment. We are pleased to know that the revised manuscript is seen as having extended the relevance of its findings beyond the immediate case study. One of our primary objectives during the revision process was precisely to enhance the theoretical framing and practical generalizability of the study, by integrating additional data, reinforcing the conceptual discussion, and contextualizing the insights within broader academic and industry debates. We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of these efforts, which motivates us to continue developing high-impact research at the intersection of sustainability, certification frameworks, and industrial transformation.

Comment 2. Although the abstract is relatively well and clearly designed, the academic styling should be more closely observed. Also, it tends to be descriptive, not discussing the originality of the paper and its main contributions.

Response 2. We thank the reviewer for this constructive observation. In response, we have substantially revised the abstract to align more closely with the journal’s editorial standards and academic expectations. The new version now follows a concise and objective structure in line with the Background–Methods–Results–Conclusion format, as required by the journal, while maintaining a single-paragraph format of no more than 200 words.

Importantly, we have also addressed the concern regarding originality and contributions. The revised abstract explicitly highlights the novelty of the study—namely, the application of the B Impact Assessment (BIA) framework in the pulp and paper sector through the case of LC Paper, the first B-Corp certified tissue manufacturer globally. Furthermore, we have emphasized the main theoretical and practical contributions of the research, including the integration of stakeholder and institutional theory, and the identification of transferable mechanisms for implementing BIA in legacy industrial contexts.

We hope that this revised version responds effectively to the reviewer’s helpful comment and reflects the improved rigor, originality, and academic relevance of the manuscript following the first round of revisions.

Comment 3. especially discussions associated with the case study have been enhanced.

Response 3. We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the enhanced discussion of the case study. We are pleased that the revised version submitted after the first round has successfully strengthened the analytical depth and contextual relevance of the LC Paper case, particularly through the integration of stakeholder perspectives and sector-specific insights. No further changes were made in this section during the current revision.

Comment 4. We also recommend strengthening the focus of the theoretical background. Besides the TBL theory, other approaches could be considered and discussed to improve the theoretical value of the case study. For instance, stakeholder theories might be relevant, the institutional framework, or even the corporate sustainability framework. All this might highlight both BIA's strengths and weaknesses.

Response 4. We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful recommendation regarding the theoretical positioning of the study. We fully agree that stakeholder theory, institutional theory, and corporate sustainability frameworks offer valuable conceptual foundations that could enrich the analysis of certification frameworks such as the BIA. While we retained the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) as the central framework for coherence with the study’s original design, we have revised the theoretical background to briefly acknowledge these complementary perspectives and their relevance to future research. In particular, we highlight how stakeholder theory could shed light on relational dynamics, institutional theory could clarify the legitimizing function of certifications, and corporate sustainability frameworks might offer a broader view of long-term strategic integration. Furthermore, we have incorporated these suggestions into the revised “Future Research” section, where we encourage subsequent studies to explore these theoretical lenses more comprehensively—especially in comparative or multi-case settings. We believe this approach maintains conceptual consistency while demonstrating openness to theoretical expansion, in line with the reviewer’s valuable insight.

Comment 5. Conclusions might also address more the theoretical value of the study.

Response 5. We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. In response, we have revised the conclusion section to more explicitly articulate the theoretical contributions of the study. Specifically, we have added a paragraph that emphasizes how the empirical findings contribute to the academic understanding of sustainability certifications such as the B Impact Assessment (BIA) as vehicles for operationalizing the Triple Bottom Line in industrial contexts. Additionally, we acknowledge the relevance of complementary theoretical perspectives—namely stakeholder and institutional theory—as conceptual lenses that could enhance the interpretation of BIA’s function as both a performance management tool and a mechanism of institutional alignment. These adjustments were made to strengthen the theoretical positioning of the study while maintaining coherence with its original design and empirical scope. We hope this addition addresses the reviewer’s suggestion and enhances the scholarly value of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well done.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor check is necessary

Author Response

Comment 1. Well done.

Response 1. We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation and encouraging comment. We appreciate the recognition of our efforts and are pleased that the revised manuscript meets the expectations of clarity, rigor, and relevance.

Comment 2. Comments on the Quality of English Language: Minor check is necessary

Response 2. We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the quality of the English language. In response, we have already submitted the manuscript to MDPI Author Services for professional language editing (Service ID: english-98357). The final revised version will incorporate all necessary improvements to ensure clarity, accuracy, and alignment with the journal’s linguistic standards.