Sustainable Strategy to Sustainable Business: An Empirical Analysis on Energy-Efficient Light Bulb

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Please consider my comments and recommendations below:

1. The abstract shall be written according to Authors’ Guidelines of the journal.
2. Make clear in the paper the differences and similarities of ‘energy-saving/sustainable/etc.’ light bulbs and ‘traditional’ ones.
3. Check English
4. Literature review – sections 2.1 to 2.6. shall focus only on the product analysed in the paper. Please remove general information and make more connections to the light bulb.
5. Section 3 shall be re-structured. It starts very abruptly. Please start with the aim, importance, and objectives of the research. Sub-section 3.2. ‘Hypothesis development’ is part of ‘methodology’ so it shall be included in 3.3. data collection is part of ‘Methodology’ too, so please rephrases the titles. Make ‘Methodology’ clearer and coherent.
6. Re-phrase text at lines 193-212 to avoid similarity with other resources.
7. Lines 218-219 – are customers more concerned with the environment or with costs? This should be responded in the Literature review.
8. If your sample was 500 respondents, did you remove any responses from the statistical processing due to missing information or other reason?
9. Do referencing within the article according to Authors’ Guidelines of the journal.
10. The figures shall be made according to Authors’ Guidelines.
11. The ‘Discussion’ section is very poor in information. Please underline more insights of the study for stakeholders of the energy markets.

Yours faithfully,

Author Response

Reviewer 1 (Round 1)

Dear Respected Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your suggestions to improve the article (Sustainability-1419060). I have addressed the issues accordingly. Still if you find something I missed kindly inform me.

Thank you and best regards

Muslima Zahan

Dear Authors,

Please consider my comments and recommendations below:

1. The abstract shall be written according to Authors’ Guidelines of the journal.

The abstract has been written according in one paragraph.

1. Make clear in the paper the differences and similarities of ‘energy-saving/sustainable/etc.’ light bulbs and ‘traditional’ ones.

Includes the differences using experts’ opinion

1. Check English

Checked thoroughly

1. Literature review – sections 2.1 to 2.6. shall focus only on the product analysed in the paper. Please remove general information and make more connections to the light bulb.

Some issues have been changed and kept to support the development of the variables of the model. Vigorous literature on light bulb is presented along.

1. Section 3 shall be re-structured. It starts very abruptly. Please start with the aim, importance, and objectives of the research. Sub-section 3.2. ‘Hypothesis development’ is part of ‘methodology’ so it shall be included in 3.3. data collection is part of ‘Methodology’ too, so please rephrases the titles. Make ‘Methodology’ clearer and coherent.

Restructured and organized accordingly. Hypotheses and data collection are there in the methodology part as suggested. It is made clearer and coherent as possible.

1. Re-phrase text at lines 193-212 to avoid similarity with other resources.

Addresed according.

1. Lines 218-219 – are customers more concerned with the environment or with costs? This should be responded in the Literature review.

Addressed accordingly

1. If your sample was 500 respondents,(clarified) did you remove any responses from the statistical processing due to missing information or other reason?

Sample size clarified.

1. Do referencing within the article according to Authors’ Guidelines of the journal.

Done accordingly

1. The figures shall be made according to Authors’ Guidelines.

Done accordingly

1. The ‘Discussion’ section is very poor in information. Please underline more insights of the study for stakeholders of the energy markets.

More explanation is provided to enrich this section

Yours faithfully,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

he astract should not have sub points or sub headings, it should be written in a single paragraph, clearly highlighting the ideas. It is recommended between 3 and 55 keywords no more The appointment format is not correct, check the template In the introduction, the objective is not addressed clearly, there are no research questions, the writing is very general The theoretical framework seems more like a list of concepts than the discussion of theories and their contrast. The methodology speaks of Two-layer multiple regression, but no formula or explanation is presented The regression equation is put into results, The presentation of the tables is not adequate, the internal horizontal lines should not be there There is no substantiated discussion of the results the conclusions are very brief 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time and effort to suggest to modify this article. I changed and revised significantly. Now, please check and let me know if anything I have missed.

Best regards,

Reviewer 2 (Round 1)

The abstract should not have sub points or sub headings, it should be written in a single paragraph, clearly highlighting the ideas.

*The abstract has been written in one single paragraph in highlighting the main idea.

 It is recommended between 3 and 55 keywords no more The appointment format is not correct, check the template In the introduction, the objective is not addressed clearly

Key words modified. Introductory format has been changed. Objectives addressed as well.

 there are no research questions

*given

 the writing is very general The theoretical framework seems more like a list of concepts than the discussion of theories and their contrast

*Significant changes are made to present the concrete ideas.  Strategy and profitability theories are contrasted. 

The methodology speaks of Two-layer multiple regression, but no formula or explanation is presented 

*Explanation is now given though vigorous theoretical explanation is avoided presuming that the multiple regression is very much well to the theorists. More focus given to variables and model construct.

The regression equation is put into results

 *Now replaced to methodology part

 The presentation of the tables is not adequate, the internal horizontal lines should not be there

*Presentation is given. Also the table style has been changed.

 There is no substantiated discussion of the results the conclusions are very brief

*Additional information are presented to enrich this section.

Reviewer 3 Report

It is not common to start the subchapter Research desing with the research questions (they fit more likely to chapter Introduction).

The process of data collection is well described, only the information of representative nature of the sample is not clear.

The used methods are appropriate, but must be mentioned: very simple is the discussion of the statistical outputs. Deeper discussion of the results, higher feedback to the literature, comparition of the own outcomes to other results on business sustainability, successful strategies (the are such in the list of references!) will increase the scientific value of the paper.

Though the topic is interesting, less information will go to readers on how the business environment look like in the region of the sample, what kinf of similarities and differences can be found comparing other developing regions or simple what the 'business' can learn from good practicies of developed business environment.  

Should be checked very carefully the list of refrences: often the first name is written, not the last name! (480, 434, 401, etc.)

Conclusion: this chapter should be extended.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your suggestions to enrich the content of this article. I have checked and changed significantly. Kindly inform me if any others changes I need to address.

Best regards,

Reviewer 3 (Round 1)

It is not common to start the subchapter Research desing with the research questions (they fit more likely to chapter Introduction).

*Single paragraph Abstract is presented in the script.

The process of data collection is well described, only the information of representative nature of the sample is not clear.

*Thank you for this comment. Sample size and its representation are now clarified

The used methods are appropriate, but must be mentioned: very simple is the discussion of the statistical outputs. Deeper discussion of the results, higher feedback to the literature, comparition of the own outcomes to other results on business sustainability, successful strategies (the are such in the list of references!) will increase the scientific value of the paper.

*Thank you for this comment. Methods are mentioned. The discussion is organized and elaborated when seems necessary. I thought this method is well known to experts, rather focus more on the model development through variable construct. Higher feedback from the literature is given and deeper discussion is there to implement sustainable strategy to make the light bulb business sustainable.

Though the topic is interesting, less information will go to readers on how the business environment look like in the region of the sample, what kinf of similarities and differences can be found comparing other developing regions or simple what the 'business' can learn from good practicies of developed business environment.  

*The issue on future prospects locally addressed, not only locally but also for developing countries as well as for the industrialized countries those manufacture and conduct global business in the light bulb industry.This is really an important point what to learn and how to make positive impact to global business; not being harmful to the environment.

Should be checked very carefully the list of refrences: often the first name is written, not the last name! (480, 434, 401, etc.)

*Checked, changed and added more on references.

Conclusion: this chapter should be extended.

*Extended and focused accordingly.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

Your manuscript is visibly improved. Please also address the following suggestions:

1. Explain COP26 in the abstract
2. Reduce the number of keywords as demanded in Author's Guidelines
3. References are alphabetical, but the Author's Guidelines present other rules that you shall follow.
4. Put bullets at lines 41-42, 62-64, and elsewhere you have enumerations. Actually, you did not use the journal's template and this made reading and review very difficult.
5. Please state in the Abstract that the study is for Bangladesh.
6. Line 55 - what country/regions does this 25% refer to?
7. Line 279, what does 'quantitative in nature' mean? Please present clearly the type of research and the need for the surveys and interviews. They are ambiguously presented.

Yours faithfully,

Author Response

Dear Esteemed Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your valuable comments. I have modified accordingly. Please let me know if there are any further changes required:

 

1. Explain COP26 in the abstract
   1. Done
2. Reduce the number of keywords as demanded in Author's Guidelines
   1. Done
3. References are alphabetical, but the Author's Guidelines present other rules that you shall follow.
   1. Changed accordingly
4. Put bullets at lines 41-42, 62-64, and elsewhere you have enumerations. Actually, you did not use the journal's template and this made reading and review very difficult.
   1. Bullet points are given. My apologies not to use the template.
5. Please state in the Abstract that the study is for Bangladesh.
   1. Mentioned
6. Line 55 - what country/regions does this 25% refer to?
   1. This is a general phenomenon; not for any country.
7. Line 279, what does 'quantitative in nature' mean? Please present clearly the type of research and the need for the surveys and interviews. They are ambiguously presented.
   1. Explained

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

The suggested changes have been made and the document is accepted. 

Author Response

Thank you so much for your comments.

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Next time higher focus should go on concluding remarks.!

Author Response

Thank you so much for your comments!

Regards