The paper takes on an ambitious and philosophically rich attempt to explore the intersection of sustainability, entrepreneurship, and ethical considerations through a selective systematic review. The attempt to synthesise co-creative entrepreneurship with Foucault’s conceptualisations of ethical power and human relationships is intellectually stimulating and adds depth to the sustainability discourse in business and entrepreneurship.
However, I found the paper difficult to follow and, at times, overly philosophical. I outline my concerns along with suggestions below:
1. The manuscript begins with an example from Persian music, which the authors continue to reference up until page 2. While this example may be illustrative, it could be significantly shortened and more clearly linked to the main argument or purpose of the paper. As it stands, the connection feels loose and detracts from the clarity of the paper’s core contributions.
I strongly recommend that the authors clearly articulate the research question upfront in the introduction, grounded in the identified rationale and gap in the literature. Additionally, the structure of the paper needs refinement to support reader comprehension. A clearer structure—including an overview section, outlining the literature review approach taken by the authors, a dedicated methodology section, followed by a findings section and discussion—would greatly improve the manuscript’s clarity and scholarly rigour.
2. Theoretical Engagement and Foucault
The link with Foucault’s conceptualisation of power, as introduced in the section “Leveraging Collective Power for Sustainability: The Early Foucault and Power” on page 15 appears somewhat disconnected and sudden in the absence of in the absence of a clear transitional narrative or contextual grounding that ties it to the preceding discussion. To strengthen the paper, the authors should provide a clearer explanation of how Foucault’s framework informs the interpretation of the findings and ensure that this is consistently referenced throughout the analysis.
3. Table 1 and the Systematic Review:
Table 1, in its current form, appears somewhat limited. While it lists the findings, it does not demonstrate the analytical depth expected in a systematic review. Generally, systematic reviews aim to do more than summarise—they synthesise and critically engage with the literature. As a systematic review, the paper would benefit from presenting:
o Trends in publications (e.g., temporal patterns, disciplinary focus)
o Geographic distribution of studies
o Thematic clusters or emerging research streams
o Methodological overview (qualitative, quantitative, conceptual, etc.)
Expanding or restructuring the table and aligning it with these common expectations would improve clarity and strengthen the paper’s contribution to both theory and practice.

1. The theoretical contributions, particularly those outlined at the end of the introduction, could be further expanded and clarified. While the authors note that the paper provides a philosophical grounding for sustainable entrepreneurship, it would be beneficial to articulate more explicitly what new theoretical insights this study offers. Specifically:
   • What does the co-creative entrepreneurial approach offer that existing sustainability frameworks or stakeholder-based models do not? A clearer articulation of this contribution would help position the paper more strongly within the entrepreneurship literature.
   • While the engagement with Foucault is novel, the link between his conceptualisations of ethical power and the empirical or conceptual findings needs to be made more transparent. At times, the philosophical framing feels somewhat disconnected from the review findings and could benefit from clearer integration.

Finally, the methodology of the 'selective systematic review' could be more robustly explained to enhance credibility. The term itself suggests a curated approach — clarification on selection criteria, analytical methods, and scope would improve transparency and scholarly rigour.

Overall, the paper addresses an important and timely issue and has the potential to make a valuable contribution. However, refining the structure, clarifying the theoretical framing, and deepening the analytical synthesis would enhance its scholarly impact.