How Does Family Involvement Affect Environmental Innovation? A Socioemotional Wealth Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The methodological descriptions of the manuscript require more refinement. Many statements appear in the discussion section without explanation as to the data on which they are based. Data gathering and data analysis can be reconsidered and discussed more comprehensively. The lead up argument for the study and results section appear to be too loosely constructed. Apart from compiling key studies, a critical approach to the literature is required. It is true that the authors address key concepts, but this is not good enough for a solid, serious research paper. The author should work harder on the approach adopted, establish a clear theoretical background to contextualize the analysis and narrow the scope of the analysis to specific aspects. Several statements made in the paper are not supported by adequate empirical evidence or by making reference to relevant literature. The manuscript does not provide sufficient justification for the described and explicated findings that appear to lack empirical consistency. The manuscript will benefit from further discussion of key concepts and methodological criteria in order to offer a better articulation between theory and data. The conclusion provides a summary of findings rather than a discussion of the meaning of the findings. A more discursive, analytical conclusion is needed, that engages with the theoretical questions in scholarship raised earlier in the paper.
The relationship between environmentally sustainable urban development and sustainable organizational performance is not covered and thus such recent Scopus Q1 sources should be cited:
Cooper, H., Poliak, M., and Konecny, V. (2021). “Computationally Networked Urbanism and Data-driven Planning Technologies in Smart and Environmentally Sustainable Cities,” Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 13(1): 20–30. doi: 10.22381/GHIR13120212.
Adams, D., Novak, A., Kliestik, T., and Potcovaru, A.-M. (2021). “Sensor-based Big Data Applications and Environmentally Sustainable Urban Development in Internet of Things-enabled Smart Cities,” Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 13(1): 108–118. doi: 10.22381/GHIR131202110.
May, A. Y. C., Hao, G. S., and Carter, S. (2021). “Intertwining Corporate Social Responsibility, Employee Green Behavior and Environmental Sustainability: The Mediation Effect of Organizational Trust and Organizational Identity,” Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 16(2): 32–61. doi: 10.22381/emfm16220212.
Nelson, A., and Neguriță, O. (2020). “Big Data-driven Smart Cities: Internet of Things Devices and Environmentally Sustainable Urban Development,” Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 12(2): 37–43. doi:10.22381/GHIR12220205
Suler, P., Palmer, L., and Bilan, S. (2021). “Internet of Things Sensing Networks, Digitized Mass Production, and Sustainable Organizational Performance in Cyber-Physical System-based Smart Factories,” Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 9(2): 42–51. doi: 10.22381/jsme9220214.
Cunningham, E. (2021). “Artificial Intelligence-based Decision-Making Algorithms, Sustainable Organizational Performance, and Automated Production Systems in Big Data-Driven Smart Urban Economy,” Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 9(1): 31–41. doi: 10.22381/jsme9120213.
Crișan-Mitra, C., Stanca, L., Dabija, D.C., 2020. Corporate social performance: an assessment model on an emerging market. Sustainability, 12(10), 4077. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104077
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I find the article entitled How Does Family Involvement Affect Environmental Innovation? A
Socioemotional Wealth Perspective very interesting as it tries to analyse how family involvement affects environmental innovation in companies. This type of study is very necessary since a very high percentage of companies are currently family-owned and environmental protection requires such analyses. However, the article has some flaws that should be corrected:
The introduction is well done but it should be made clear which GAP is to be covered as there are many studies on environment and family business.
The literature review is somewhat outdated, the authors should include the latest research in this field.
Among other articles I suggest reading the following:
Diéguez‐Soto, J., Duréndez, A., García‐Pérez‐de‐Lema, D., & Ruiz‐Palomo, D. (2016). Technological, management, and persistent innovation in small and medium family firms: The influence of professionalism. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 33(4), 332-346.
Duréndez, A., Ruíz-Palomo, D., García-Pérez-de-Lema, D., & Diéguez-Soto, J. (2016). Management control systems and performance in small and medium family firms. European Journal of family business, 6(1), 10-20.
Fredyna, T., Palomo, D. R., & Soto, J. D. (2019). Entrepreneurial orientation and product innovation. The moderating role of family involvement in management. European Journal of Family Business, 9(2), 128-145.
Rojo-Ramírez, A. A., Ramírez-Orellana, A., Burgos-Burgos, J. E., & Ruiz-Palomo, D. (2020). The Moderating Effects of Family Farms Between Innovation, Information Systems, and Training-Learning Over Performance. In Entrepreneurship and Family Business Vitality (pp. 205-231). Springer, Cham.
Ruiz-Palomo, D., Diéguez-Soto, J., Duréndez, A., & Santos, J. A. C. (2019). Family management and firm performance in family SMEs: The mediating roles of management control systems and technological innovation. Sustainability, 11(14), 3805.
Regarding the sample, although it is quite large, the latest data is more than 11 years old, so it would be interesting if you could update the sample. Although I understand that this may not be possible, so I do not consider it an indispensable requirement, as updating the bibliography is.
In the methodology, the authors should explain why they have used that particular method as well as develop a general idea of it. In other words, they should explain the advantages of using this method over others.
The discussion is not well done. In the discussion, the authors should compare the results obtained with those obtained previously. That is, to reflect what the findings identified in the results section mean and how they relate to current knowledge. This has not been done in the article and is essential.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article addresses the interesting problem of examining how family involvement affects firms' environmental innovations. Nevertheless, I would suggest clearly expressing the aim of the study. Moreover, the purpose should be presented in the abstract.
In my opinion, the description of the research method should be developed. Moreover, the use of firm-level data from 1996 to 2010 raises some questions. Can the time factor affect changes in the relationship between family involvement and environmental innovation? Could the availability of more recent data change the results? Doesn't access to firm-level data become one of the limitations for such empirical analyses?
I would also suggest referring to other researchers’ results in the section Discussion. It might be valuable to refer to more articles published in recent years.
The section Conclusions should be developed and more supported by the results presented in the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Congratulations on the revised version of the manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you. We appreciate for all the efforts for your review.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Most references are extremely old. A serious problem with the paper is that the authors do not make it clear where this research stands in the literature. For much of the time, the manuscript relies on general characterisations and assertions, rather than precise statements, linear arguments and solid evidence. The results as they are currently presented appear superficial and more context and discussion of the results is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have done a great job and have incorporated all the recommendations made to improve the article.
Author Response
We appreciate for your valuable comments at the previous round. Those really helped. Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
I don't have any additional comments.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Most of my comments have not been addressed.
