The Influence of Green Supply Chain Management Practices on Corporate Sustainability Performance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of this paper is interesting; however, the content is totally different from the title.
As research belonging to the corporate management area, it is not well structured, unclear, and annoying for the readers.
The research gap and research motivation are not clear in the introduction section.
The choice of Saudi Arabia as context is not explained.
The authors stated: “taking into account the significant gaps in the existing literature and broadening the scope of existing literature in the area of small and medium firms in KSA.” This is not a significant research gap.
Furthermore, the introduction should include a few lines briefly presenting the methodology used in your study, the main results, and the theoretical and managerial contributions of the study.
It would be better if the theoretical background is supported with a more recent literature review. More emphasis on the most important research papers in the area would be advantageous to the reader.
There are no developed hypotheses.
No development is mentioned in the literature on how green supply chain management practices can influence corporate sustainability performance. What the authors did is defining concepts.
The authors stated : “The sample comprises manufacturing facilities chosen randomly from a list of 500 known manufacturing businesses that may have used GSCM techniques.” What is the source of this statistical information?
More emphasis on the most important research papers in the research area that need to be relevant for explaining the keywords from the objective would be advantageous to the reader.
Variables measurements should be explained and clearly presented.
Explain more the empirical findings (estimation results). Develop the findings and compare them with previous results found in the literature.
Conclusions can be enhanced if the research limitations and future research directions are highlighted.
Long paragraphs are not a good standard to enhance the readability of the paper.
Extensive English editing is required.
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer
Kindly, see the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Congratulations, you have a good research!
In order to improve your paper and make it sufficient to publish, I have some comments as follows:
1. In general, the topic is significant and original to study.
2. "Corporate Sustainability Performance" should be abbreviated next times like (CSP)
3. How your GSCM and CSP are clearly defined and identified is very important. Thus, the attributes/variables of two main concepts should be also more clearly and specifically stated and presented, e.g., Are they IEM, ED, CC in Green Supply Chain Management Practices? If yes, need to test and explain the findings separately. I cannot see clear attributes of CSP.
4. How your GSCM and CSP are clearly measured and scaled is very important. Thus, a table of all items/statements and their codes/abbreviations with their scales should be presented in the paper. I want to see the questionnaires and coding analysis reports.
5. The Figure 1 is quite simple and basic (old), it should be more explained/defined by attributes/variables/indicators in Triple Bottom of Economic, Social, Environmental (based on your review). If not, you can remove it.
6. The hypothesis should be more clearly and specifically developed and stated, e.g., “Green logistics/supply chain management has impact on economic sustainability performance”. There should be different hypotheses for different relationships of attributes/variables of GSCM and CSP (as I mentioned above).
7. In Table 1, Table 2, Table 3: Socail Performance => Social Performance (spelling mistake)
8. Abbreviations should be in full writing at the first time, e.g., KSA in page 3
9. You should have a discussion part (combining with Results => Results and Discussion; or it can be an independent part). This part is important. You can discuss/explain the different findings with the relationships between various attributes of GSCM and CSP.
Comments for author File: Comments.zip
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer
Kindly, see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Title: The Influence Of Green Supply Chain Management Practices On Corporate Sustainability Performance
Authors: Mohammed Hejazi, Bader Al Batati and Ahmed Bahrmaz
The purpose of this study was to investigate how green practices affect business sustainability performance. The authors state that they use partial least square (PLS) analysis in order to examine the data from 250 sets of completed questionnaires. Authors’ conclusion is that the findings show that green practices significantly impact corporate sustainability performance.
After a careful review of this work, I believe the topic presented in the study is interesting (i.e., investigating the relationship between green practices and corporate sustainability performance). However, in the current form the manuscript has serious limitations (see below) and needs to be partially rewritten and improved before publication.
Section 1: Introduction
§ Please be more specific about the exact research question(s) you are addressing in this study
§ (68-69): taking into account the significant gaps in the existing literature
- What is this statement based on?
- Please give rigorous and sound academic explanation, arguments and references for any statement of the study
§ (73-74): The research creates a complete model that describes how green supply chain strategies affect social, environmental, and economic performance.
- What is exactly a complete model?
- Why do authors believe this would be a complete model? What arguments is this statement based on?
§ (74-75): The results of this study will greatly impact managers' jobs and add to the body of knowledge.
- Why should this be a great impact?
- How? Explain!
Section 2: Literature review
Green supply chain management (GSCM) practices
§ (104-105): We identified three GSCM techniques after conducting a thorough analysis of the literature: internal environmental management (IEM), eco-design (ED), and customer cooperation (CC)
- Please be more specific about references regarding the three GSCM techniques
- What does it mean “conducting a thorough analysis of the literature”?
- Based on what criteria have the three GSCM techniques been identified?
§ The paper lacks a thorough analysis of the definition of the concept “corporate sustainability” – this part should be extended considerably and well improved
Development of the hypothesis
§ This should not be part of the literature review, as it develops the hypothesis to be investigated further in the paper
§ It is not clear what exactly the hypothesis is – authors should be mor precise by defining it exactly
§ The proposed model is not clear and also not consistent
- Why are the three variables Economic Sustainability Performance, Environmental Sustainability Performance and Social Sustainability Performance considered to be dependent variables?
- Why should Green Supply Chain Management be independent? The Supply Chain Management becomes green exactly when Economic Sustainability Performance, Environmental Sustainability Performance and Social Sustainability Performance are realized (!)
- What model do the authors exactly propose? Why should this be a model? Isn’t it something being understood as “common knowledge”?
Section 3: Methodology
§ The authors speak about “hypotheses” (plural) – what is it exactly meant by this? Section 2 Literature review mentions just one hypothesis
§ Please explain how you applied the cluster sampling
§ It is not clear at all how you identified the size of the population – please explain
§ (239-240): The operational and production managers of manufacturing companies with operations in Saudi Arabia
- Several important methodological details are not being addressed
- What kind of companies are the authors analyzing (SMEs, etc)
- In what sectors are the companies operating?
- “operational and production managers” – please give details on the level of management
- how did the authors know who are “the staff members in charge of or accountable for the organization's environmental management system or ISO documentation” (241-242)
- why should 250 questionnaires be representative for the whole population?
- What is exactly the size of the population – it is not even known?!
- Please give details about the content of the survey questionnaire
§ (248-249): The sample comprises manufacturing facilities chosen randomly from a list of 500 known manufacturing businesses that may have used GSCM techniques
- What is the list authors are talking about?
- The fact that the businesses may have used GSCM techniques does not mean that they have really used them – consequently, why should these companies be representative and relevant for the study?
§ Please give precise details about the survey questionnaire (items, scales, etc)
§ Overall, the methodology lacks sound scientific basis
§ This section should be reconsidered entirely
Section 5: Conclusion
§ At this stage the section Conclusion is very short. Please rewrite this section and describe in detail the conclusions of the study
§ This section should be reconsidered entirely
Additionally:
§ IMRAD structure is missing, there is no clear structure of the paper
§ Please proofread the paper and correct language/ grammar/ remaining mistakes, e.g.:
- (135-136): Corporate sustainability, as defined broadly and similarly by Compact (2015) defines Compact as the practice of conducting operations…
§ Please correct redundancies:
- (252-256): Factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and structural equation modeling were used to examine the ob-252 tained data (SEM). Through exploratory factor analysis, the study's constructs' validity and dependability were 253 evaluated (EFA). In order to evaluate construct reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and the over-254 all fit of the measurement model, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was also conducted. To test the pro-255 posed hypotheses, structural equation modeling was used.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer
Kindly, see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors should explain the research questions, then they should give the gaps in the literature, and finally they should explain the novelties and contributions of the study.
Managerial implications of the study should be stated.
Discussions should be given.
Sensitivity analysis should be conducted.
Limitations and future research studies should be provided.
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer
Kindly, see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The paper is interesting, it deals with an important topic of the influence of green supply chain management practices on corporate sustainability performance and it is my pleasure to review it.
I would have some considerations and suggestions for improving the quality of the article.
The abstract is too brief to give us a suggestive picture of the general context, about the topic addressed and the way in which the authors tried/succeeded in approaching it, respectively the novelty of the outcomes. We recommend expanding it to cover all the aspects (as required in the academic practice) regarding the standard content of an Abstract (especially for a paper submitted to a valuable Journal).
The literature review section, although interesting and comprehensive, exaggerates with details and general information, addressing and explaining things already known. There is a sequence of paragraphs/subsections that address in a general way, as an extensive study or a student text-book, aspects such as Descriptions of Corporate Sustainability Performance's Triple Bottom Line, Economic Sustainability Performance, Environmental Sustainability Performance, Social Sustainability Performance etc. We recommend to be condensed into relevant sentences, showing the main contributions in the field, selected on the basis of representativeness, suggestiveness, and, of course, their connection to the research that follows in the next chapters.
Chapter Development of the hypothesis actually resumes topics from the literature (Green Logistics/Supply Chain Management Impact on Sustainable Performance) and leaves little room for issuing and explaining working hypotheses. In fact, except for a very simplistic figure (Figure 2), we do not know what the research hypotheses are. For example, the mention "Figure 2. shows the proposed" model is confusing, and in fact there is nothing about a "proposed model" but only the vague underlining (dependent/independent variables) of links between Green Supply Chain Management and 3 sustainable performances.
Chapter 3. Methodology - row 228-229 ...”To test the given hypotheses…” - what hypotheses?,
The analysis is confusing and insufficiently explained, a series of tables are placed here, but few explanations and interpretations. A series of hypotheses H1, H2 … are also mentioned, but we do not find them as such.
Regarding the “250 sets of completed questionnaires~: What questions/response options were asked/ suggested, what are the primary results?
In conclusion, this section needs to be seriously revised, too.
In the final part, we recommend:
- to insert a paragraph on policy implication and recommendation, considering the important impact of the green on impact corporate sustainability, the relevance of the case studied (Saudi Arabia) for various contexts and levels of development etc.
- some considerations regarding the possibility of replicating the analysis, interpretations and comparability of the results in other countries, etc., - to increase the applicative value of the paper.
- a quick review of the main limitations of the paper and, hence, a proposal of further study topics, as an invitation to academic debate on proposed topics.
Formal
- the paper does not comply with the requested referencing format
- confusing text markings (yellow – row 124)
- the paper needs proofreading (spelling, small letters at the beginning of the sentence/figure’s title etc.).
In this actual form and content, the paper has to be massively revised to approach the standards of publication in a prestigious Journal as Sustainability.
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer
Kindly, see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
The authors used a survey approach and PLS-SEM to check three hypotheses regarding the efficacy of green supply chain practices in achieving higher environmental, social, and economic performances in the manufacturing industries, taking into account the significant gaps in the existing literature and broadening the scope of existing literature in the area of small and medium firms in Saudi Arabia.
At first glance the paper is promising but there several issues to be addressed by the authors.
There are several minor revisions: please check the attached file.
2. Literature review
At the end of model proposal (page 8) please present formally the hypotheses h1 to h3. Also put h1 to h3 in Figure 2.
3. Methodology
- The authors must provide the questionnaire adapted from zhu, Sarkis, & Lai, 2008.
- A concern is about the number of items of the construct GCSM. Although the literature review endorses the items according to Hair so many items for a construct may cause problems, especially regarding the sample size. Please provide a strong explanation or reconsider the model formulation*;
- The authors say they used EFA and then CFA and SEM. It is necessary to explain exactly the role of EFA. Where are the results the EFA?
- Provide the versions of Smartpls and SPSS used.
4. Results
- Assuming the model is ok* the end of this section requires a discussion on these results, not simply presenting the confirmation of the hypotheses. This discussion has to be focused on your statement at the end of section 1 (“The results of this study will greatly impact managers' jobs and add to the body of knowledge.”)
5. Conclusion
- Please provide future research.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer
Kindly, see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made considerable amendments. However, further work still needed:
1- The authors did not provide a clarification for this previous comment: The research gap and research motivation are not clear in the introduction section.
Please clearly explain in what this work is different from the previous work. What is the originality and the value added by this research outcomes.
2- The authors stated that “Companies in Saudi Arabia are reluctant to commit to sustainability issues unless they are legally required to do so.”
Any impact of the Saudi Vision of 2030 on corporate sustainability practices?
3- Please end the Introduction Section by providing a summary of the important parts that the paper will present.
example: “This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 describes…, Section 3 provides…, Section 4…….”.
4- The authors did not provide a clarification for this previous comment: The authors stated : “The sample comprises manufacturing facilities chosen randomly from a list of 500 known manufacturing businesses that may have used GSCM techniques.”
What is the source of this statistical information? From where this statistical data was retrieved?
5- Only the work of Singh et al. (2022) regarding the Kingdom of the Saudi Arabia market is incorporated. Please include more recent research on the sustainability in the Saudi settings. Authors can add the following recent papers:
- “Corporate Sustainability Disclosure and Investment Efficiency: The Saudi Arabian Context”. Sustainability 2022, 14(21), 13984; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113984
- “Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure and Investment Decisions: Evidence from Saudi Indexed Companies”. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022, 15(11), 495; https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15110495
Author Response
Dear respected reviewer
Kindly, see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
-
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer
Thank you for the valuable comments.
The manuscript has been edited by MDPI editing service.
Reviewer 5 Report
In the revised version of the article, the authors systematically addressed our the suggestions. As a result, we can endorse the publication of the paper.
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer
Thank you for the valuable comments.
All the areas under "can be improved" have been considered in the updated version of manuscript.
Reviewer 6 Report
Revised version:
I am glad to see the authors strived for improving their paper. They made almost all revisions I asked.
Please perform a double check in the language and style if the paper is accepted.
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer
Thank you for the valuable comments. The manuscript has been checked for language and style. Also, the ACS format has been used in the updated version of the manuscript.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors made considerable changes and the paper is now suitable for publication.
