Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability in a Hospitality Family Business

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A literature review was conducted correctly. The authors describe how the Action Research works, the reference literature for the application of methods is given, but they do not state how they specifically used hem in a specific situation (application parameters). The empirical study is based on a Scottish FB in the hospitality sector, specifically on the case of a15-bedroom house hotel. One single case used for empirical research does not allow the generalization of conclusions, except that it is a confirmatory case for the application of Action Research. There is not enough information on the basis of which another researcher could repeat the research in the same conditions, or check the results. In conclusion, the paper has scientific depth in the field of literature analysis and definition of empirical research, but not regarding its implementation.

The bibliography is relevant. Citing the literature is correct, as are other marks in the paper. A formal remark refers to the capitalization of a title, for example 2.2 has no capitalized word in the title, and 2.2 and 2.3 have. The name of Figure 1 is on page 7, and the image on page 6 ...

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Thank you for the literature feedback that was conducted correctly and for the other comments, really constructive.  We really appreciated that, and we reviewed it as follows:

Please also see the attachment.

In terms of a single case and generalization of conclusions, the authors acknowledged and provided AR characteristics different from other research methodologies (refer to section 1 – lines 61 – 76;  section 3 lines 242 – 248 and subsection 3.1, lines 263 - 265; section 4 Results – subsection 4.1 - lines 450 - 457; section 5 Discussion lines 609 – 614, and 651 - 654, and section 6 Conclusion – lines 707 - 709). The capitalization of 2.1 was updated, and Figure 1 fixed as requested. These changes are highlighted to identify the revised manuscript. 

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors:

Congrats for this proposal. I think it addresses an interesting topic for the current literature. However, I have several concerns that should be addressed in next revisions. Specifically, I am going to describe my main concerns:

1.- Motivation:

After carefully reading your paper, the gap that this article aims to fill (as well as the theoretical and practical implications) is not adequately addressed. In this way, it is necessary, after carrying out a general contextualization of the topic, to go -little by little- through it until delimiting the gap to fill and then explicitly define the aim(s) to cover in this study.

Also, there are many unanswered questions that should be addressed within the introduction. For instance, why can family businesses have a special interest in this context? What is the impact of CSR practices and sustainability within family businesses? How can this impact on the characteristics/particularities of family businesses? What is the relevance of being based on the "prism of organizational learning"?

In addition to this, it is necessary to state from the beginning the main (theoretical/practical) contributions that this article intends to make to the literature.

2.- Theoretical weakness:

Your theoretical section is quite generalist and poor, with a first sub-section focused on “organizational learning” issues and a second one focused on CSR and sustainability issues (I will not go into the specific contextualization of your paper at this point. I will comment on it below).

Beyond considering too weak your theoretical section, I think the interest within this section should focus on justifying (theoretically and empirically) the relevance that CSR and sustainability practices have within family businesses due to their particularities and specificities. Not enough attention is paid to this point.

A complete restructuring of this section should be carried out, thinking about which is(are) the theoretical framework(s) that would have room to be applied and, after that, linking their explanations to the prior evidence in order to robustly support the study.

3.- Robustness of your methodology / results:

It is very useful to merge primary and secondary data sources. Congrats. In any case, I think that your methodological approach only provides a very preliminary overview of the issues raised in the article. I am aware that you cannot do much more at this point, but it is a weakness of your paper and, as referee, I have to state it.

Also, I consider that too much attention has been paid, within your section 3, to theoretical issues related to the "Action Research" model (for instance, see pages 6-8) when, in my opinion, it would have been more useful to delve into the (real) process undertaken in practice, in order to justify the reliability of your data.

In relation to the above, there are no measures to verify the validity and reliability of your data, which makes it difficult to extrapolate the results as well as the strength of the conclusions obtained.

4.- Contextualization of your paper:

The last sub-section of section 2 is devoted to the contextualization of your paper. However, it is again too generalist.

In this sense, I think that a double contextualization is really necessary: (a) on the one hand, at a country level, indicating the relevance and interest that Scotland may have, in addition to the particularities that family businesses may display within this context; and (b) on the other hand, the relevance and interest of the "hospitality sector" should be highlighted. This matter is completely necessary.

5.- Generalizability of the proposal:

Finally, my last concern lies in the generalization of your results as well as those implications that can be derived from your study. Beyond the issue associated with the methodological approach (as I mentioned in my third concern), I also think the practical and theoretical implications stated in your discussion have remained on very superficial lines when, due to innate methodological weaknesses, you should have put more effort into this.

I hope my comments can be useful to improve your work!

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Thank you so much for the in-depth feedback and finding this a relevant topic for the current literature.  We carefully reviewed the concerns as follows:

Please also see the attachment.

Motivation and Theoretical weakness: FBs and CSR:

The literature gap and aims of this study have been re-written for clarity, and an updated version can be found in lines 61 - 76. The questions regarding motivation were considered, and an explanation is now available in section 2.1, lines 83 - 98. In terms of theoretical and practical contributions, we have now furthered developed this in section 3 lines 242 – 248 and section 4, subsection 4.1, lines 450 – 459, and section 6, lines 707 – 709 and 754 – 756. Finally, the literature was revisited, and the CSR and sustainability practices in FBs were updated (refer to lines 83 - 98).

Robustness of your methodology/results:

Thank you so for the positive feedback on primary and secondary data sources. Regarding the AR process, we have updated the sections and changed the structure slightly, adding some more information; please refer to section 3, lines 242 - 248, subsection 3.1 (the structure was changed), and lines 263 – 270 and 301 - 302.  Also, Section 4, lines 450 – 459.

Contextualization and generalization of your paper

Thank you for highlighting those. Sections 1, lines 61 – 76, and section 2 were changed, and added lines 83 - 98. Section 3, the structure was altered and amended (lines 259 – 270 and 442 – 446) as requested.

These changes are highlighted to identify the revised manuscript.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is well written with both proper English and style. The study is original through its unique context (CSR/sustainability concepts investigation within the context of specific hospitality family business) and seems quite significant in both contributing to theory, especially with regard to CSR concept in hospitality family business, and practice, through evaluation of current activities and proposing its optimization. Action research approach that is a selected methodology for analysis is  appropriate and well justified for this type of participatory and specific case oriented research concerns. Thanks to well defined and specific objectives, its clear logic and well sequenced structure the paper is scientifically sound and significant. Its visual side has some concerns related to the limited readability of some of the figures (small font sizes and too many text) but this is the consequence of the holistic approach while presenting the specific aspects of the research. The paper also represents interest to readers, especially from the perspective of family business in hospitality sector and its perception of CSR and sustainability issues.

Perhaps the only drawback of the paper, is lack of some additional comments on generalization of the observations made and conclusions drawn for family hospitality businesses with regard to introducing CSR/sustainability practices that reach outside Scotland and Paisley. The scope of research is very narrow but it refers to is very large and naturally diversified. Therefore, some more effort should be made to generalize the conclusions or to classify them according to their local or global character.

Another issue of discussion is the need to develop small business social responsibility (SBSR) framework. According to the opinions of different stakeholders cited in the paper, a conclusion of adopting does not hold, and perhaps either stronger justification is needed here or just relaxing this conclusion.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Thank you for the positive feedback on the writing style of the paper, its originality in approaching CSR within the FB hospitality sector, and the significant aspects that this paper can contribute to the theory and knowledge. Thank you for the comment about well-defined and specific objectives were clear, logical, and well structured.

Thanks for noting the generalization and SBSR framework aspects. Changes have been made on section 1 Introduction lines 61 – 76, section 2, lines 83 – 98, and section 6 Conclusion, lines 707 – 709 and 754 - 756.

These changes are highlighted to identify the revised manuscript. 

Please also see the attachment.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

SBs are not mentioned until page 2

Connection to organizational learning is not clear.

SMEs play a role in the economic growth of Scotland.  What percentage is hospitality?

What is the problem here?  What is CSR in the hospitality industry? Can it be adapted by small family businesses? What is the connection of action planning to CSR.  CSR needs to be defined here .  The term is Corporate Social Responsibility--how are family owned businesses corporate in the sense of the responsibility for creating, developing, measuring socially responsible initiatives? There are no examples.  It would not be surprising that there is no research on CSR and family owned businesses, but this paper does not add to that in terms of explaining the CSR model/initiatives that family owned businesses can use, especially since a the beginning of the paper there are comments about family members being in charge.  Are they familiar with CSR?

If family businesses' stakeholders are local community members, what does this mean for CSR?

How do guests communicate that they are committed to  "social and ethical responsibilities"?

The purpose of the paper is not clear.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

Please also see the attachment.

Thank you for your feedback and the questions posed. It was useful to review the paper and amended it. Following the feedback changes have been made in the following sections: section 1 Introduction (lines 61 - 76); section 2 (lines 83 - 98); section 3 (lines 242 – 248; 259; 270; 301 – 302; 442 - 446), section 3.1 (changed structure); section 4 (lines 450 - 457), section 5 Discussion, lines 609 – 614 and 651 – 654 and subsection 5.2 Reflection in Learning; and section 6 Conclusion (lines 707 - 709 and 754 - 756).

These changes are highlighted to identify the revised manuscript. 

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

As previously written in the first review, a literature analysis and review of relevant theories on AR, the nature of the family business, the semantics of CSR, the sustainability and sustainable development of the Scottish family business hospitality sector represents a significant scientific contribution of the paper. I emphasize this opinion again. In this regard, I agree with all the practical contributions declared by the authors in the Conclusions.
I also agree with the statement that “on a theoretical level, this study adds a significant gap in the literature on CSRand the practices in a family business.” The second theoretical contribution is also acceptable.
It is obvious that "a single case AR is an iterative process involving researchers and practitioners acting together on a particular cycle of activities" (Point 1 –Application parameters) as well as that "AR does not produce law-like generalizations from involvement in a single situation ".
However, in the paper I do not find a sufficient basis for the statement of theoretical contribution number two, according to which "this paper contributes in reviewing policies and regulations in the Scottish government and hospitality sector and evidencing the lack of CSR focus, information, and consistency on them [Table 1]. " The paper does not show how this review was conducted. It was stated that there were focus groups, but not with enough data on their composition, method of work and final results (Point 1 - Application parameters - a single case). As the authors state in their response, “AR does not produce law-like generalizations from involvement in a single situation” so it is not clear to what extent the experience of one case “contributes in reviewing policies and regulations in the Scottish government”, clear if the meaning here the term "reviewing policies and regulations" does not deviate from the usual.
The authors themselves state that "the regulations, guidelines, and strategicframeworks (Table 1) were used to shape the conversation to understand the semantics used by policy makers in terms of how these could help the FB participants to be informed and supported to implement them into their business activities "(refer to lines 474 –477).
The descriptions related to the work of the focus group (refer to lines 482 –486) testify that "it was discussed with the staff of the FB whether this strategic framework could be achieved, whether it is relevant to their context, how this information has been transmitted, and what kind of support this FB has received from STA to fulfill the objectives stated in this framework ... "
All of the above suggests that it has previously been the case that the AR cyclical process has used reviewing policies and regulations in the context of AL, taking action and reflecting upon the results, which is a scientific contribution. However, there is insufficient evidence that "this paper contributes to reviewing policies and regulations in the Scottish government and hospitality sector ...".
In conclusion, I suggest that the authors argue theoretical contribution number two, or do not cite it.

Author Response

Hi

Thank you for your feedback, and please see the authors' response attached. 

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors:

Thanks for this new version. Some improvements have been incorporated in this new version. In any case, despite your efforts to address my main comments and suggestions, I think that these have only been superficially resolved, and some others have not been directly addressed.

I will not re-state all the issues from my prior review report.

Only, I want to remark three issues:

1.- Introduction:

I think the description of your aim has improved a lot. However, no improvements have been made regarding paper’s contextualization and gap. Moreover, the main contributions of your paper should be established, explicitly indicating the value it brings to the current literature.

2.- Theory section:

Your theoretical section is still quite generalist and certainly inaccurate. In my prior review report, I recommended “a complete restructuring of this section should be carried out, thinking about which are the theoretical frameworks that would have room to be applied and, after that, linking their explanations to the prior evidence in order to robustly support the study”. However, this issue has not been addressed.

3.- Conclusion and discussion:

In my last review report, I stated that “beyond the issue associated with the methodological approach (as I mentioned in my third point), I think the practical and theoretical implications stated in your discussion have remained on very superficial lines when, due to innate methodological weaknesses, you should have put more effort into this”. This issue has been addressed very superficially when, in fact, I recommended that special attention should be paid to it. It is important that it is clear which way an article contributes to the literature in order to be publishable.

Author Response

Hi 

Thank you for your feedback, and please see the authors' response attached.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

You must identify the three elements of the triple bottom line--people, planet profit--in the first sentence.  You cannot assume your readers will know them.

What does "production life and land" mean? line 34

The added material meets the requirements for defining and developing your concepts, but you absolutely must correct all the grammatical and spelling errors,, and the phrases that have no meaning, before this can be published.

addressed 60 threefold: firstly, the literature in CSR and sustainability semantic and concept does not 61involve the nature of SMEs and FBs; secondly, the CSR and sustainability concept and 62practice have been neglected in SMEs and FBs literature; and finally, the gap in the 63literature exists of action learning to SMEs and FBs.

should not be detrimental to those in the future generations neither financially, 84socio-culturally, nor environmentally

what the researcher thing is a valuable intervention

 

 

 

Author Response

Hi

Thank you for your feedback, and please see the authors' response attached.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf