Distributing Enterprise Value to Stakeholders in the Range of Sustainable Development on the Basis of the Energy Industry in Poland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the paper is interesting and up-to-date, but the paper itself has many flaws.
First it has not implicitly formulate goal. The goal should be formulated in the introduction and linked with research gap. What is the research gap? Why the research is important?
Authors should describe betters how particular values were calculated.
Authors choose to analysis some companies. Why there were those companies? What was the motive and concept to choose them?
The discussion of the paper is not a real discussion. There are here results without links to literature. In this part Authors should wrote how they research are with competition to others researchers. What are the similarities and differences. They should compare the results with theoretical models from literature, etc.
What are the limitation of the study? Please specify them.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanking you for your cordial and kind comments, we would like to respond to each of them, hoping that our explanation will meet your expectations. Please see the attachment where you find our response to your critical suggestions and comments. Kind regards AuthorsAuthor Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments on “Distributing Enterprise Value to Stakeholders in the range of Sustainable Development on the Basis of the Energy Industry in Poland”
Dear Authors,
The paper must be significantly improved. Please consider the following remarks:
Major comments:
(1) The novelty of the paper ought to be indicated in the context. The background also should be extended with broader literature studies exposing the theoretical and practical need of the research. Please compare your approach to another from references. Line 120-121 Please add what is new in these references and how they differ from your manuscript
(2) In abstract part please add some numbers (main results).
(3) In present form the article is rather like well-prepared expertise's report (or project).
(4) The authors should extend the description of the individual flows in order to confirm the additive formula to the FCFSt (in the current version, only in the case of FCFE it is shown how these flows are calculated).
(5) Figure 1. Please add equations for FCF VA, …, FCFSt
Minor comments (answers are not necessary):
Please explain all nomenclature and abbreviations in one place.
Please expand your keyword list
Line 152 Please explain
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanking you for your cordial and kind comments, we would like to respond to each of them, hoping that our explanation will meet your expectations. Please see the attachment where you find our response to your critical suggestions and comments. Kind regards AuthorsAuthor Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Please find attached my kind Comments and Suggestions for your work.
Good luck!
Kind regards,
The Reviewer
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanking you for your cordial and kind comments, we would like to respond to each of them, hoping that our explanation will meet your expectations. Please see the attachment where you find our response to your critical suggestions and comments. Kind regards AuthorsAuthor Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors implemented all my remarks.
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept
Dear Authors,
Thank You for improving the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your notes and revised manuscript!
I wish you good luck!
Kind regards,
The Reviewer
