Review Reports - Industrial Performance: An Evolution Incorporating Ethics in the Context of Industry 4.0

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks to the autors for providing me the opportunity of reading and commenting their work. The topic is very interesting while quite overlooked in the literature.

This version of the paper is too descriptive. To worth the publication there is a need t oclarif the importance and the contribution of the paper from extant literature. The abstract need to explain the readers the importance of this aspect.

A theoretical hypothesis needs to be formulated, exploring the importance of ethical procedures in Industry 4.0. Then the reader needs to be enlightned about the application of th e framework. Can it be applied to all sectors?

The descriptive section is too long and does not tie te alternative frameworks presented. This part grasps too much importance of the paper and is not central to the main debate.

The images also lack originality and the main source should be mentioned. I believe that most of the images could be removed or adapted with orginal contribution to be on the paper.

I think that the Table 1 is not a table, it is a graph/figure. No solid reference is made to the connection between the elements.

The initical formulations are not connected to the tetrahedron.

The application to a case study needs to be further contextualized. Is it specific or can it be generalized? How? Why?

Finally, there is a need to detail the paper implications - what are the theoretical and the practical implications of including the ethical perspective in Industry 4.0.

Can the authors design some policy recommendations? What does the paper highlight in this field?

Finally there is a need to re-read the work and shorten the sentences to make the content more fluid and easy to read. The paper is too dense at the moment.

Best of luck with your research.

Author Response

Reviewer: 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1:

Many thanks to the authors for providing me the opportunity of reading and commenting their work. The topic is very interesting while quite overlooked in the literature.

Response 1:

Many thanks for the encouragement.

Point 2:

This version of the paper is too descriptive. To worth the publication there is a need to clarify the importance and the contribution of the paper from extant literature. The abstract need to explain the readers the importance of this aspect.

Response 2:

The abstract has been totally rewritten as well as the majority of the introduction, and a figure has been added to highlight both the hypothesis and contribution of the paper. Moreover, a new Section 3 has been devoted to emphasising the relevance of using ethics rather than other approaches.

Point 3:

A theoretical hypothesis needs to be formulated, exploring the importance of ethical procedures in Industry 4.0. Then the reader needs to be enlightened about the application of th e framework. Can it be applied to all sectors?

Response 3:

Indeed, the theoretical hypothesis is the following: The (efficiency, effectiveness, relevance) performance triangle needs to be associated with an ethical dimension that allows for the risks and uncertainties relating to Industry 4.0 to be considered in order to guarantee long-term performance.

The methodology for using the tetrahedron has been moved and put after the introduction of the tetrahedron in subsection 4.2.

The application of the framework is discussed in the new Section 6 which is devoted to the discussion of the proposal, its application and prospects.

Point 4:

The descriptive section is too long and does not tie te alternative frameworks presented. This part grasps too much importance of the paper and is not central to the main debate.

Response 4:

The majority of the text of Section 2 has also been rewritten with a new logic. Three parts are proposed. The first part is very short and concerns the general definition of the performance and the key concepts that are attached to it. The second part briefly describes the trajectory of performance in order to better understand the current performance model. Finally, the third part of the section is devoted to the discussion of the limits of this model, essentially seen through the (efficiency, effectiveness, relevance) triangle.

Point 5:

The images also lack originality and the main source should be mentioned. I believe that most of the images could be removed or adapted with original contribution to be on the paper.

Response 5:

The old figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 as well as the old Table 1 have been removed.

Point 6:

I think that the Table 1 is not a table, it is a graph/figure. No solid reference is made to the connection between the elements.

Response 6:

As mentioned before, Table 1 has been removed.

Point 7:

The initial formulations are not connected to the tetrahedron.

Response 7:

In our view, as the hypothesis has been put forward, the connection between it and the tetrahedron is established.

Point 8:

The application to a case study needs to be further contextualized. Is it specific or can it be generalized? How? Why?

Response 8:

Section 5.1, which describes the context of the case study, as well as the new Section 5.3, which analyses this first application of the tetrahedron-based methodology, have been enriched in the sense of contextualisation.

The specificity/genericity of the application of the tetrahedron-based methodology is discussed in the new Section 6 (Discussion). Moreover, as the tetrahedron-based methodology previously associated with the case study can be generalised, it has been moved and put in Section 4 (Towards the performance tetrahedron).

Point 9:

Finally, there is a need to detail the paper implications - what are the theoretical and the practical implications of including the ethical perspective in Industry 4.0.

Response 9:

A paragraph handling both these implications has been added at the end of the paper, in the new Section 6 (Discussion).

Point 10:

Can the authors design some policy recommendations? What does the paper highlight in this field?

Response 10:

The recommendations point has also been proposed in the new Section 6 (Discussion).

Point 11:

Finally there is a need to re-read the work and shorten the sentences to make the content more fluid and easy to read. The paper is too dense at the moment.

Response 11:

The paper has been rewritten and reviewed (by a professional proof reader) in this sense.

Point 12:

Best of luck with your research.

Response 12:

Many thanks once again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

this topic is very interesting.

My recommendation:

Discussion: focus also on comparing your results to findings of other studies.

I hope my comment will be useful for your future work.

Author Response

Reviewer: 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1:

this topic is very interesting.

Response 1:

Many thanks.

Point 2:

My recommendation: Discussion: focus also on comparing your results to findings of other studies.

Response 2

As the results concern the use of ethics, a section has been introduced for positioning ethics with regards to the CSR and GDPR frameworks. Moreover, a paragraph has been added regarding this use of ethics in Section 3, as well as references. And the general ethics framework choice has also been reconsidered in the new Section 6 (Discussion).

Point 3:

I hope my comment will be useful for your future work.

Response 3:

For sure!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Industrial performance: an evolution incorporating ethics in the context of Industry 4.0

This paper deals with industrial performance purpose and the enrichment of its (efficiency, effectiveness, relevance) triangle with a view to integrating ethics. From the beginning of industrialisation, performance is identified to financial benefits and the focus of its management is on short-time results that are related to its direct drivers (cost, quality, delivery) and handled throughout its triangle. But the context evolutions and the current Industry 4.0 in particular, are showing that such an approach may have serious consequences for sustainability, regarding both human-being and performance. ethics is introduced and positioned regarding the similar approaches.

This is known knowledge “A proposal integrating, in a tetrahedron, the ethics to the performance triangle is described and illustrated throughout a case study related to an aeronautical supplier, regarding the consequences of the implementation of a MES (Manufacturing Execution System) in terms of product traceability and operator autonomy”. Please underscore the scientific value added/contributions of your paper in your abstract and introduction and address your debate shortly in the abstract.
Figiure 1 and the history of Industry 4are the known knowledge, please remove them. Those figures are not clear. Please submit a readable version.
What has been studied Introduction should be clearly stated research questions and targets first. Then answer several questions: Why is the topic important (or why do you study on it)? What are research questions?? What are your contributions? “Dealing with the evolution of the industrial performance model, this article is placed in the context of Industry 4.0. Its aim is to show to what extend ethics could be considered as a possible and natural new element to be integrated into the traditional triangle” Hard to judge your contributions or objectives.
The contribution is not well-positioned as compared to the existing literature. First, the scope of the literature review is not clear. Second, the contribution as compared to the existing literature is not well stated.

Author Response

Reviewer 4:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1:

Response 1:

---

Point 2:

This is known knowledge “A proposal integrating, in a tetrahedron, the ethics to the performance triangle is described and illustrated throughout a case study related to an aeronautical supplier, regarding the consequences of the implementation of a MES (Manufacturing Execution System) in terms of product traceability and operator autonomy”. Please underscore the scientific value added/contributions of your paper in your abstract and introduction and address your debate shortly in the abstract.

Response 2:

As previously mentioned (Reviewer 1, point 2), the abstract has been totally rewritten, as well as the majority of the introduction, and a figure has been added to highlight both the hypothesis and contribution of the paper. Moreover, a new Section 3 has been devoted to emphasising the relevance of using ethics rather than other approaches.

Point 3:

Figure 1 and the history of Industry 4are the known knowledge, please remove them. Those figures are not clear. Please submit a readable version.

Response 3:

Indeed, figures have been removed and as also previously mentioned (Reviewer 1, Point 4), the majority of the text of Section 2 has also been rewritten with a new logic. Three parts are proposed. The first part of the section concerns the general definition of the performance and the key concepts that are attached to it. The second part of the section briefly describes the trajectory of performance in order to better understand the current performance model. Finally, the third part of the section is devoted to the discussion of the limits of this model, essentially seen throughout the (efficiency, effectiveness, relevance) triangle.

Point 4:

What has been studied Introduction should be clearly stated research questions and targets first. Then answer several questions: Why is the topic important (or why do you study on it)? What are research questions?? What are your contributions? “Dealing with the evolution of the industrial performance model, this article is placed in the context of Industry 4.0. Its aim is to show to what extend ethics could be considered as a possible and natural new element to be integrated into the traditional triangle” Hard to judge your contributions or objectives.

Response 4:

Thanks for helping us to restructure the ideas. The introduction has been rewritten in this sense as well as a figure added.

Point 5:

The contribution is not well-positioned as compared to the existing literature. First, the scope of the literature review is not clear. Second, the contribution as compared to the existing literature is not well stated.

Response 5:

The scope of the literature concerns the frameworks that could deal with uncertainties and risks that are handled by Industry 4.0 as presented in the introduction and in Section 2 (Performance issues). Section 2.3 has been developed and Section 3 has been added in this sense as well as references. Three frameworks have been retained: the CSR framework, the RGPD framework and the ethics frameworks. This aspect has also been considered in the new Section 6 (Discussion). This point is somewhat related to point 2 of reviewer 3.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thans to the authors for providing an improved version of the document.

In my opinion this new version is far more solid than the former.

I feel that se Conclusions section needs an improvement. In this vein, I suggest that the authors should explore:

a) theoretical and empirical implications of the ethical approach to I4.0

b) as a further avenue of research there sohuld be a link to innovation paradigms, I suggest a recent work connecting to Open Innovation: Costa, J.; Matias, J.C.O. Open Innovation 4.0 as an Enhancer of Sustainable Innovation Ecosystems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8112. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198112

c) consolidate the importance of an ethical approach to I4.0 as well as how policy makers must deal with these aspects.

Best of luck with your reaseach!

Author Response

Reviewer: 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1:

Many thanks to the authors for providing an improved version of the document.

In my opinion this new version is far more solid than the former.

Response 1:

Many thanks.

Point 2:

I feel that se Conclusions section needs an improvement. In this vein, I suggest that the authors should explore:

a) theoretical and empirical implications of the ethical approach to I4.0

Response 2:

Section 6 (Discussion) has been restructured and enriched in accordance with what has been done in the suggest paper. Three subsections have been used for this restructuration:

1 Theoretical and empirical implications of the ethical approach into the Industry 4.0 performance model.
2 Limitations and future research.
3 Policy recommendations.

Point 3:

b) as a further avenue of research there should be a link to innovation paradigms, I suggest a recent work connecting to Open Innovation: Costa, J.; Matias, J.C.O. Open Innovation 4.0 as an Enhancer of Sustainable Innovation Ecosystems. Sustainability2020, 12, 8112. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198112

Response 3:

Indeed, the open innovation paradigm has been mentioned in Section 2.2 (From a historical to a modern vision of performance) and also as a further avenue of research in Section 6.2 (Limitations and future research) and also in Section 7 (Conclusion).

Point 4:

c) consolidate the importance of an ethical approach to I4.0 as well as how policy makers must deal with these aspects.

Response 4:

Indeed. The importance of the ethical approach to Industry 4.0 has been highlighted in respectively Section 1 (Introduction), Section 3.2.2 (Ethics in Industry), Section 6.1 (Theoretical and empirical implications of the ethical approach into the Industry 4.0 performance model) and Section 7 (Conclusion).

Point 5:

Best of luck with your research!

Response 5:

Many thanks.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you for your effort.

I recommend adding these references connected to solved issue to enrich literature review:

Novak, A., Bennett, D., and Kliestik, T. (2021). Product Decision-Making Information Systems, Real-Time Sensor Networks, and Artificial Intelligence-driven Big Data Analytics in Sustainable Industry 4.0, Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 16(2), 62–72.

Riley, C., Vrbka, J., and Rowland, Z. (2021). Internet of Things-enabled Sustainability, Big Data-driven Decision-Making Processes, and Digitized Mass Production in Industry 4.0-based Manufacturing Systems. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics. 9(1), 42–52.

Good luck in your future work.

Author Response

Reviewer: 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1:

thank you for your effort.

Response 1:

Many thanks.

Point 2:

I recommend adding these references connected to solved issue to enrich literature review:

Response 2

Thank you for your suggestion, these references have been added in Section 2.2 (From a historical to a modern vision of performance), in the paragraph that concerns Industry 4.0.

Point 3:

Good luck in your future work.

Response 3:

Many thanks.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Industrial performance: an evolution incorporating ethics in the context of Industry 4.0

The contribution of ethics to performance is discussed in the Industry 4.0 in which, digitalisation, intelligent systems and data profusion of data, offers situations in which the traditional performance model finds its limits, the latter being linked both to the assigned objectives and to the way in which the means are used to achieve them. An analysis of the performance evolution and management is presented, and the performance triangle is gradually introduced and its limits are shown. Therefore, ethics is introduced and positioned regarding the similar approaches.

I would suggest you to discuss on how the gaps among “an evolution incorporating ethics in the context of Industry 4.0”. The gap must be clear discussed. This Ethics is one of the avenues to reconsider this triangle and handle risks and uncertainties. Ethics is a concept that has been studied for centuries by philosophers and it is not the objective of the authors to discuss all the facets of such a complex concept.
The paper is improved a lot. However, I would suggest you to discuss these articles in your context. Mohamad Alnajem, Mohamed M. Mostafa & Ahmed R ElMelegy (2021) Mapping the first decade of circular economy research: a bibliometric network analysis, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 38:1, 29-50, DOI: 1080/21681015.2020.1838632; and Ming-Lang Tseng, Thi Phuong Thuy Tran, Hien Minh Ha, Tat-Dat Bui & Ming K. Lim(2021) Sustainable industrial and operation engineering trends and challenges Toward Industry 4.0: a data driven analysis, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/21681015.2021.1950227
How is the “Industrial performance” related to ethics and industry 4.0 ? How is the ethics and industry 4.0 make the “Industrial performance ?
Th ethics is important to all the industry and Figure 2 presented the 3 elements are also common knowledge of industrial performance. I don’t I would suggest you to present something is from your analysis and this study.

Author Response

Reviewer 4:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1:

Industrial performance: an evolution incorporating ethics in the context of Industry 4.0

Response 1:

---

Point 2:

I would suggest you to discuss on how the gaps among “an evolution incorporating ethics in the context of Industry 4.0”. The gap must be clear discussed. This Ethics is one of the avenues to reconsider this triangle and handle risks and uncertainties. Ethics is a concept that has been studied for centuries by philosophers and it is not the objective of the authors to discuss all the facets of such a complex concept.

Response 2:

This paragraph (in Section 1(Introduction)) has been enriched in the sense of this relevant remark.

Point 3:

The paper is improved a lot. However, I would suggest you to discuss these articles in your context. Mohamad Alnajem, Mohamed M. Mostafa & Ahmed R ElMelegy (2021) Mapping the first decade of circular economy research: a bibliometric network analysis, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 38:1, 29-50, DOI: 1080/21681015.2020.1838632; and Ming-Lang Tseng, Thi Phuong Thuy Tran, Hien Minh Ha, Tat-Dat Bui & Ming K. Lim(2021) Sustainable industrial and operation engineering trends and challenges Toward Industry 4.0: a data driven analysis, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/21681015.2021.1950227

Response 3:

Thank you for your encouragement and suggestions. These references have been added and discussed in Section 3 (Towards the consideration of ethics in performance), regarding respectively the CSR framework point for Alnajem et al. and the CPS’s for Tseng et al.

Point 4:

How is the “Industrial performance” related to ethics and industry 4.0 ? How is the ethics and industry 4.0 make the “Industrial performance ?

Response 4:

These points are now discussed at the end of Section 3.2.2 (Ethics in Industry), in coherence with the previous Point 2, and the Point 4 of Reviewer 1.

Point 5:

The ethics is important to all the industry and Figure 2 presented the 3 elements are also common knowledge of industrial performance. I don’t I would suggest you to present something is from your analysis and this study.

Response 5:

Indeed, the triangle is a basic knowledge on industrial performance. Figure 2 has been replaced by a figure that enriches the triangle by the main points of our analysis.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks for taking into consideration the suggestions provided.

I would just consider a few language/style adjustments to improve the fluence of the paper as well as the English standards.

The last section could have some adjustments to clarify the policy recommendations as well as the "warnings" to entrepreneurs and practitioners.

Thanks again for allowing me contribute to your research.

Author Response

Reviewer: 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1:

Many thanks for taking into consideration the suggestions provided.

Response 1:

Many thanks for all the suggestions that clearly and significantly improved the paper.

Point 2:

I would just consider a few language/style adjustments to improve the fluence of the paper as well as the English standards.

Response 2:

The paper has been read, as for each submission, by a native English-speaking colleague, in order to make it more fluent.

Point 3:

The last section could have some adjustments to clarify the policy recommendations as well as the "warnings" to entrepreneurs and practitioners.

Response 3:

We have done our best for improving this last section, by specifying some recommendations and adding some warnings (namely the lines 737 to 756).

Point 4:

Thanks again for allowing me contribute to your research.

Response 4:

Many thanks for allowing us to deepen our research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accepted

Author Response

Many thanks!