Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper seeks to explore the relationship between supply chain concentration / diversification and measures of total factor productivity, as proxies for high quality development. The case study is based on data related to Chinese A-Share listed companies. It concludes that supply chain diversification leads to enhanced high quality development of firms, positing a number of translating mechanisms that link the two. The title and positioning suggests that "digital supply chains" would feature prominently in the analysis. 

Overall, the paper is generally well done. It provides a solid review of the literature and demonstrates a strong understanding of the fundamentals of regression models as a means of exploring correlations in a multi-factor context. The model draws on multiple threads in the literature, which is to be commended. However, the paper comes up a little short in a number of respects.

Firstly, the core argument is actually not about supply chains per se, but about how large firms interact with upstream and downstream supply chain environments. Diversification up-and-downstream may well be beneficial to the large firms studied, but we do not know what impacts large firm strategies had on their supply chain counterparts. In other words, we do not have any insight into the systemic impacts of the phenomena observed and discussed in the paper.

Secondly, sections dealing with digitalisation and information asymmetry are somewhat limited as the data used was in effect derivative 'proxy' data based on word counts. This presupposes that mentions of certain words in corporate publications evidences actual implementation, but there is no evidence of the extent of implementation. Same goes for proxy data for variables like cultural coordination. Additionally, and extending from the first point, there is no consideration on whether large firm initiatives on digitalisation impacted the operating costs situation for smaller firms connected to them. 

Thirdly, along the same theme, large firm supply chain diversification may give rise to heightened risks for smaller firms connected to them, especially as suppliers. Information sharing and exchange benefits, ascribed to supply chain structural diversification, was only viewed from the point of view of the large firms; what have been the implications for the other firms in supply chains? Was the knowledge transfer a process that delivered disproportionate benefits to the larger firms? Were smaller firms compensated for transferred know-how and / or data? Did large firms' ability to mitigate risks through structural diversification result in an outsourcing of risk and precarity to suppliers? If the wider claims of the paper are to be substantiated, namely that supply chain diversification is a system-wide benefit, the implications from a whole-of-chain basis would need to be examined.

Fourth, the exclusion of delisted firms is actually unhelpful. Why were they delisted? If they were included, what are the implications for the modelled results? Failure is as much a critical feature of analysis as success. 

Fifth, talk of production functions is abstract, as is the concept of TFP. We do not have available any concrete measure of productivity changes across the panel of firms. Are there differences between sectors, for example? Are some firms or firms in some sectors more adaptive than others? After all, the underlying presupposition in the paper is that supply chain diversification catalyses innovation and adaption, resulting in high quality development.

Sixth, there should be more information about the panel of firms. How many firms were there? Which sectors did they cover? In what ways did they change over the study period? For example, in employment size, geographical reach, market share, gross and net revenue etc. If we are interested in understanding firm level responses, then I suggest "coming down a level of abstraction" and get "closer to the ground".

Lastly, and perhaps of greatest concern, is that the dependent variable - TFP - is highly problematic. In serious respects, it is a residual (almost like a balancing item), rather than a determinant of growth per se. The paper should expand a lot more on what is understood by TFP, and what the specific data components are that have been collected that go to "measuring" TFP across the panel of firms involved. 

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In general, I would recommend revising the theoretical framework; it is very extensive. It is advisable to delete some paragraphs without losing the main thread and by mentioning bibliographical references.

(Example: in the introduction section, it would be advisable to include more bibliographical references; none are observed until line 55. Why is this? ) )could be included in line 33) 

(The phrase "Supply chain diversification has increasingly emerged as a necessary strategy for enterprises to achieve sustainable development") has no bibliographic reference, it is the opinion of the authors, etc...

Line 45 refers to studies; bibliography is missing. Line 47

Literature review and hypothesis. Review writing, reduce text, and include bibliographic citations.  According to resource dependence theory (bibliographic citation is missing), etc

Section 3 Sample selection. The wording needs to be improved, making it more specific so that it is effective.

Table 1 Not mentioned in the text

I recommend revising the wording of section 4, "Analysis of the results." There are paragraphs that can be compressed and make reading easier.

 

 

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript entitled “The Impact of Supply Chain Structure Diversification on High-Quality Development: A Moderating Perspective of Digital Supply Chains.” The paper explores an important and timely issue and has several strong elements, such as the large dataset and the integration of digital supply chain perspectives. At the same time, a number of areas require clarification and revision. My detailed comments are provided below, structured by section.

Abstract

• Please condense the abstract and avoid overloading it with methodological detail. Focus on purpose, methods, key findings, and contributions.
• Replace vague terms such as “scientific methods” with a more precise description of your econometric approach.

Introduction

• The introduction provides a rich context but is somewhat dense and repetitive. Please streamline the discussion of TFP, innovation, and diversification.
• The research gap should be presented more clearly at the end of the introduction. What does this study add beyond prior research?
• Consider reducing anecdotal examples (e.g., GoerTek case) to keep focus.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

• While comprehensive, the section reads as encyclopedic. Too many theories are invoked simultaneously (RBV, resource dependence, dynamic capability, transaction cost economics, etc.). Consider narrowing focus to the two or three most relevant.
• Hypotheses are well formulated, but the causal logic should be tightened and presented more clearly.
• The subsections are very long; condense the discussion of mechanisms.

Methodology

• The dataset is impressive, but methodological transparency is insufficient. Please provide more detail (in main text or appendix) on TFP measurement and why multiple methods (LP, OP, FE, OLS) are used.
• Endogeneity treatment is mentioned, but the actual strategy (e.g., instruments, robustness checks) is not explained clearly. Please elaborate.
• The operationalization of cultural synergy and digitalization through text analysis requires stronger justification or validation.

Results

• The regression results report negative coefficients for supply chain concentration, which is interpreted as positive diversification. This translation should be clearly explained and consistently maintained.
• Tables contain many repeated specifications. Consider condensing to improve readability.
• The descriptive statistics section could be shortened; currently, it is overly mechanical.

Mechanism and Moderation Analyses

• The mediation results are interesting but raise causality concerns. Consider robustness tests such as lagged variables or IV methods.
• Sobel tests are reported, but bootstrap approaches may provide stronger evidence.
• The measure of digitalization based on keyword frequency should be better justified.

Discussion

• The discussion currently repeats results. Please engage more deeply with existing international literature and highlight the paper’s novel contributions.
• Avoid over-generalizations: results based on Chinese A-share firms may not generalize globally. State this as a limitation.

Conclusion

• The conclusion could be more concise. Summarize key findings, contributions, limitations, and directions for future research more clearly.
• Strengthen practical implications for managers and policymakers.

 

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Large firm behaviours clearly have the potential to impact the operating conditions of suppliers and customers. I remain of the view that the paper does not really address these implications, but having said that, in some respects this is because the paper is actually focused on the effects of firm behaviour vis-a-vis their own "diversification" on the firms' own circumstances. That their "moves" could push risk out to others, and perhaps stymie others (the smaller players) cannot be captured by the approach adopted. This sets up another phase of research, to better understand whether there are systemic trade-offs throughout supply chain ecosystems as large firms make "moves" to enhance their own position, but which may come at the expense of the operating viability or precarity of others. This remains an open question. In this regard, my principal suggestion is that this focus and associated limitation of the paper be acknowledged explicitly. In so far as these are quibbles, they should not stop the paper from reaching a wider audience for critical reflection.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1-The article presents an important improvement, it is very extensive, it would be advisable to delete text (e.g. section 4.4.3, section 4.5.1 etc.) (lines 512 to 518) etc.

2-The presentation of results is very extensive, it should be reviewed, trying to group it, being  clear and concise, avoiding repeating the results. 

This section should be written using past tense verbs. Although the passive or impersonal voice is often used.

3-Improve the writing of conclusions and policy implications

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf