Sustainable Business Model of Modern Enterprises in Conditions of Uncertainty and Turbulence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I am grateful for the possibility to become familiar with this manuscript.

Substance-wise, the draft generally makes very good impression. One of its key points going as a red tape throughout the analysis--the one saying that companies should (and must) create value not only for their shareholders, but also, and, indeed, especially for the stakeholders--end-users, and, at the end, society at large, is crucial.

However, I have a few remarks, especially form-wise, that represent issues in the current draft, and should hence be seriously considered by the authors:

1. The abstract of the article does not correspond to the IMRAD scheme. An abstract should briefly, concisely and clearly summarize basic goals, methods, results and conclusions of the study undertaken in the article. The structure should follow more exactly the IMRAD scheme and highlight major findings. When searching in a database, the abstract is a basis for the reader’s decision to download the paper, read it and – maybe - quote it.

Then, the article MUST be edited.

2. At some points, sentences are difficult to read and understand. I had to read some sentences several times to understand what the authors were talking about.

3. Also, the authors and/or their native English editors should think how to shorten literally every second sentence in the draft. For instance, in the first paragraph of the Introduction, the first and the last phrases make four lines each. Those should be split into (at least!) two shorter phrases. Otherwise, it is quite difficult to read and grasp the essence of the arguments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,         

thank you very much for the higher evaluation of our study and for the comments that gave us the opportunity to improve the quality of our work. Please see the attachment.

kind regards,

Olena Pimenowa

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors conducted a thorough analysis of the existing literature related to business models. In the proceedings, they cited basic approaches to defining the concept. I would submit the use of narrowed business model categories (such as value shop, value cloud, etc.) to the research proceedings for consideration. A general approach for whole clusters of businesses may not be precise enough to reach specific conclusions as a result of the research. Similarly, I would suggest considering a focus in subsequent research on distinguishing between two main categories of businesses - manufacturing and services. For the latter category, as numerous studies have shown, the selection of Porter's classic value chain is not appropriate. What is missing in the article (and especially in the conclusion), in my opinion, is a clear statement regarding the tested hypotheses listed on page 5. I appreciate the precise selection of the bibliography. 40% of the items cited are from the last 5 years (2018 and newer) which speaks well of the authors and their knowledge of the literature focused on the topic. I recommend revising the article in terms of editing (shifted margins as well as spacing in the bibliography). 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,         

thank you very much for the positive assessment of our study and for the comments that gave us the opportunity to improve the quality of our work. Please see the attachment.

Kind regards,

Olena Pimenowa

Author Response File: Author Response.docx