Modelling Sustainability Risk in the Brazilian Cosmetics Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript. This study identifies the most influential sustainability risks in Brazilian cosmetics supply chains and analyzes the inter-related relationships between these sustainability risks. Overall, I find the paper interesting. Although some concepts/approaches (e.g., risk responses) are similar to prior studies, there are also good things about this paper such as well-designed structure, interesting interview sample, robust data analysis, and to name a few. I have only a couple of major/minor concerns for this paper, which I would like to share with the authors.

One of the key concepts of this study is sustainability risk. How the authors define sustainability risk? On page 2, the authors view sustainability risk as conditions or events related to sustainability that may generate harmful stakeholder reactions. However, there seem to be problems in selecting risk sources shown in Table 1. For example, worker strikes, consumer boycotts or lawsuits against firm are “outcomes” of the conditions or events, not sources of sustainability risk (see Kim et al., 2019)? In other words, the authors are viewing sustainability risks as conditions or potentially occurring events but including both sources of conditions/events (e.g., working conditions) and outcomes of these (e.g., worker strike) as sustainability risks in Table 1. This seems not matching well with what the authors are defining sustainability risk. I suggest the authors to define more clearly about what it means sustainability risk in this study. The authors may need to explain why they include outcomes of the conditions/events as sustainability risks.

Related to the above point, this sustainability risk concept has been developed well in supply chain research, in which the authors may want to consider further. For example, Reinerth et al. (2019) provide a conceptual solution design for sustainability risk from a triple-bottom line view. Kim et al. (2019) and Kim and Wagner (2021) provide rigorous evidence on the financial consequences of social and economic/moral sustainability risk, respectively. I suggest the authors to look over these missing sustainability risk studies and use them to improve some aspects (i.e., triple bottom line sustainability risks and financial impact of sustainability risk) of the current manuscript, thereby being engaged with more recent scholarship. This is especially that in this manuscript, the authors simply state the consequences of sustainability risk in a very anecdotal manner.

Finally, I strongly suggest the authors checking any similarity issues using Plagiarism Checker. Some contents seem very similar to what prior studies have already stated. For example, in lines 237-249 on page 6, what the authors talk about and the references used are very similar to Hajmohammad and Vachon (2016). Hence, a thorough check on this kind of similarity issue and paraphrasing should be needed before moving onto the next stage.  

I hope my comments above are useful to improve the manuscript. Best of luck for your very interesting study!

References

Hajmohammad, S., & Vachon, S. (2016). Mitigation, Avoidance, or Acceptance? Managing Supplier Sustainability Risk. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 52(2), 48-65

Kim, S., & Wagner, S. M. (2021). Examining the stock price effect of corruption risk in the supply chain. Decision Sciences, 52(4), 833-865.

Kim, S., Wagner, S. M., & Colicchia, C. (2019). The impact of supplier sustainability risk on shareholder value. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 55(1), 71-87.

Reinerth, D., Busse, C., & Wagner, S. M. (2019). Using country sustainability risk to inform sustainable supply chain management: a design science study. Journal of Business Logistics, 40(3), 241-264.

Author Response

• Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript. This study identifies the most influential sustainability risks in Brazilian cosmetics supply chains and analyzes the inter-related relationships between these sustainability risks. Overall, I find the paper interesting. Although some concepts/approaches (e.g., risk responses) are similar to prior studies, there are also good things about this paper such as well-designed structure, interesting interview sample, robust data analysis, and to name a few. I have only a couple of major/minor concerns for this paper, which I would like to share with the authors.

Answer: We thank you very much for all your comments. They were very helpful in improving the quality of our manuscript and making it easier for the reader to understand.

• One of the key concepts of this study is sustainability risk. How the authors define sustainability risk? On page 2, the authors view sustainability risk as conditions or events related to sustainability that may generate harmful stakeholder reactions. However, there seem to be problems in selecting risk sources shown in Table 1. For example, worker strikes, consumer boycotts or lawsuits against firm are “outcomes” of the conditions or events, not sources of sustainability risk (see Kim et al., 2019)? In other words, the authors are viewing sustainability risks as conditions or potentially occurring events but including both sources of conditions/events (e.g., working conditions) and outcomes of these (e.g., worker strike) as sustainability risks in Table 1. This seems not matching well with what the authors are defining sustainability risk. I suggest the authors to define more clearly about what it means sustainability risk in this study. The authors may need to explain why they include outcomes of the conditions/events as sustainability risks.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. A clarification of concepts was missing in the manuscript. The definition of sustainability risks was included in the paper introduction, on page 2: Sustainability Risks in Supply Chain can materialize through stakeholder reaction when they hold companies responsible for illegitimate supply chain conditions, leading to the loss of reputation (Hofmann et al., 2014; Busse et al., 2016; Reinerth et al., 2019). A negative reputation potentializes financial losses in changing consumer purchase intent and brand boycotts (Bregman et al., 2015). Balancing sustainability and disruption of supply chains require organizational ambidexterity (Bui et al., 2021.

The authors also inserted in the text the reason for adopting some consequences beyond just the causes of the risks, on page 2: “In general, previous studies focus on analysing a single risk factor, such as customer boycotts or employee strikes (Bartley & Child, 2011; Kim et al., 2019). This study covers the sources and causes of sustainability risks for purchasing companies, but the consequences and results that the risks can trigger are also considered necessary. Risks are the harmful effects that can affect a purchasing company based on the news of a supplier's unethical or immoral conduct (Chen & Lee, 2017). Events at suppliers were sometimes associated with the negligent behaviour of the suppliers themselves. Suppliers' events were sometimes associated with their own negligent behaviour”. 

• Related to the above point, this sustainability risk concept has been developed well in supply chain research, in which the authors may want to consider further. For example, Reinerth et al. (2019) provide a conceptual solution design for sustainability risk from a triple-bottom line view. Kim et al. (2019) and Kim and Wagner (2021) provide rigorous evidence on the financial consequences of social and economic/moral sustainability risk, respectively. I suggest the authors to look over these missing sustainability risk studies and use them to improve some aspects (i.e., triple bottom line sustainability risks and financial impact of sustainability risk) of the current manuscript, thereby being engaged with more recent scholarship. This is especially that in this manuscript, the authors simply state the consequences of sustainability risk in a very anecdotal manner.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. The literature was improved and increased with the papers indicated, updating the text, and leaving the content in line with the most recent research. We add the authors suggested by the reviewer. Please see in added text in red in the literature review chapter.

• Finally, I strongly suggest the authors checking any similarity issues using Plagiarism Checker. Some contents seem very similar to what prior studies have already stated. For example, in lines 237-249 on page 6, what the authors talk about and the references used are very similar to Hajmohammad and Vachon (2016). Hence, a thorough check on this kind of similarity issue and paraphrasing should be needed before moving onto the next stage.  

Answer: Thank you for your comment. The plagiarism checker was applied to the entire text, and thus all possible similarities were adjusted.

Reviewer 2 Report

Report on “Modelling Sustainability risk in Brazilian cosmetics supply chains”

The authors identify the influential risks in Brazilian cosmetics supply chains and analyze interconnections between these risks by using Interpretive Structural Modeling and Matrix Impact of Cross Multiplication Applied to Classification Analysis methodologies. They show that organizations in the cosmetics sector consider “Financial risks” as the most influenced among the set of risks, while “Technology and innovation” and “Legislation and responsibility” were identified as the most affect others.

their findings are interesting. I have the following comments for the authors to improve their paper

• We should tell readers the objectives, aims, and motivations of their paper and why academics, practitioners, and policymakers will be interested in their study
• Cite more important and recent related literature.
• tell readers all the hypotheses being studied in their paper and why academics, practitioners, and policymakers will be interested in all the hypotheses being studied in their paper
• tell readers the theories and methodologies used in their paper
• The authors have used several measures, e.g. Financial risks, Labor force risks, etc., and several factors, e.g. linkage factors, dependent factors, etc., applied several estimations/tests in this paper, including Structural Self-Interaction Matrix, Initial Reachability Matrix, Final Reachability Matrix, Level partitioning, etc., and models, e.g. ISM-based model, MICMAC analysis, etc. However, the authors have not defined the measures and factors well and have not explained the estimations/tests/models well with good citations.
• tell readers all the important findings in their paper
• tell readers all the important inferences drawn from the findings in their paper
• tell readers the findings that are useful to academics, practitioners, and policymakers.
• What are the limitations of their paper?
• Suggest some directions on future research to extend their paper.

Author Response

The authors identify the influential risks in Brazilian cosmetics supply chains and analyze interconnections between these risks by using Interpretive Structural Modelling and Matrix Impact of Cross Multiplication Applied to Classification Analysis methodologies. They show that organizations in the cosmetics sector consider “Financial risks” as the most influenced among the set of risks, while “Technology and innovation” and “Legislation and responsibility” were identified as the most affect others.

Their findings are interesting. I have the following comments for the authors to improve their paper

Answer: We thank you very much for your positive comments.

• We should tell readers the objectives, aims, and motivations of their paper and why academics, practitioners, and policymakers will be interested in their study.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. The research objectives and motivations were revised in the abstract and included in the introduction section, on page 4, and the academics interest were present on pages 28/29:

Objectives and aims (on page 4): “This article aim to empirically identify the most influential risks factors in Brazilian cosmetics supply chains, and additionally, analyze the interrelationships between these risks”.

Why academics will be interested (on pages 28/29): “The empirical study findings identify the interrelationships between risks factors. The findings of the empirical study have implications for the development of integrated sustainable supply chain strategies. Empirical research shows that most of the systematic risks related to sustainability emanate from the activities or assets of the company or its supply chain”.

• Cite more important and recent related literature.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. The Introduction and Literature were improved and increased with updated papers.

Kim, S., & Wagner, S. M. Examining the stock price effect of corruption risk in the supply chain. Decision Sciences, 52(4), 833-865. 2021.

Kim, S., Wagner, S. M., & Colicchia, C. The impact of supplier sustainability risk on shareholder value. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 55(1), 71-87. 2019.

Magalhães, V. S., Ferreira, L. M., Silva, C. Using a Methodological Approach to Model Causes of Food Loss and Waste in Fruit and Vegetable Supply Chains. Journal of Cleaner Production 283 (124574), 2021.

Reinerth, D., Busse, C., & Wagner, S. M. Using country sustainability risk to inform sustainable supply chain management: a design science study. Journal of Business Logistics, 40(3), 241-264. 2019.

Tseng, M.L.; Tran, T.P.T.; Ha, M.H.; Bui, T.D.; Lim, M.L. Sustainable industrial and operation engineering trends and challenges Toward Industry 4.0: A data driven analysis. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering. 2021.

Yavari, M.; Ajalli, P. Suppliers’ coalition strategy for green-Resilient supply chain network design, Journal of Industrial and Production Eng., 2021. 38:3, 197-212.

Yusuf, Y. , Menhat, M., Abubakar, T., Ogbuke, N., Agile capabilities as neces- sary conditions for maximising sustainable supply chain performance: an em- pirical investigation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 222, 107501 . 2019.

• tell readers all the hypotheses being studied in their paper and why academics, practitioners, and policymakers will be interested in all the hypotheses being studied in their paper

Answer: Thank you for your comment. This article aims to empirically identify the most influential risks in Brazilian cosmetics supply chains and analyze the interconnections between these risks. To address this issue, a literature survey on sustainability risks was carried out, and discussions were held with various experts so as to maintain a supply chain perspective and achieve a holistic understanding of the problem. Those experts were selected from companies that operate in the sector in Brazil and import, produce, distribute, market and export different cosmetic products to collect feedback at various stages of the supply chain.

• tell readers the theories and methodologies used in their paper

Answer: Thank you for your comment. The theories and methodologies were presented on page 1, page 4, and detailed on page 12:

On page 1: “The methodology combines the Interpretative Structural Modelling (ISM) and Matrix Cross Impact Matrix Multiplication (MICMAC) analysis and is grounded in the opinions of cosmetics industry experts. Firstly, the critical causes and consequences are identified, called factors. Secondly, the ISM model is built, representing the interrelationships between factors and their hierarchy. Thirdly, the MICMAC analysis is performed, unfolding the strength of the relationship among the influencing factors. Fourthly, measures are designed to act and mitigate the factors identified in the previous steps”.

On page 4: “The experts were chosen to assist in selecting relevant risks in cosmetic supply chains and develop a model based on combining two techniques, interpretive structural modelling (ISM) methodology and matrix-based multiplication applied to a classification (MICMAC) analysis. Structured approaches such as ISM and MICMAC help understand mental models, making the relationships between variables (Attri and Grover, 2017; Kwak et al., 2018; Magalhães et al., 2021a). Interpretive Structural Modeling was used in many areas of application (Troche-Escobar et al., 2018; Kumar et al., 2020; Magalhães et al., 2021b).”

On page 12: “Methods/ 3.1 General context: To answer the research aims that guided this study, the steps shown in Figure 1 were followed. A methodological strategy was used according to a positivism philosophy and deductive approach, based on qualitative and quantitative methods (Saunders et al., 2019). Initially, a literature survey was conducted to identify the sustainability risk in the supply chain. Subsequently, expert discussions were used to assess these risks and determine which ones are relevant to the context of the cosmetics supply chain. The same experts were asked to establish the contextual relationships between the selected risks”.

Literature on stakeholder theory (referenced in page 5):

Freeman, R. E. Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman, 1984.

Freeman, R. E.; Moutchnik A. Stakeholder management and CSR: questions and answers. In: Umwelt Wirtschafts Forum, Springer Verlag, 21(1). 2013.

• The authors have used several measures, e. g. Financial risks, Labor force risks, etc., and several factors, e.g. linkage factors, dependent factors, etc., applied several estimations/tests in this paper, including Structural Self-Interaction Matrix, Initial Reachability Matrix, Final Reachability Matrix, Level partitioning, etc., and models, e.g. ISM-based model, MICMAC analysis, etc. However, the authors have not defined the measures and factors well and have not explained the estimations/tests/models well with good citations.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. They are presented from page 12 to page 17, on topic 3: Methods.

This study is not intended to quantify risks (probability and impact) but rather to identify the principal risks and their concerns. The ISM / MICMAC method application presupposes matrices calculation, making it possible to identify which risk factors belong to each zone. The ISM / MICMAC methodology has been used in several areas and published in high-rank journals, such as JCLPR and IJOPM (Kwak et al., 2018). It is concluded that the suggestion to quantify/estimate the risks is an excellent suggestion for future work.

Kwak, D., Rodrigues, V., Mason, R., Pettit, S., Beresford, A. Risk interaction identification in international supply chain logistics: Developing a holistic model. International Journal of Operations & Production Manag. 2018, 38(2): 372–389.

• tell readers all the important findings in their paper

Answer: Thank you for your comment. The paper findings were introduced on page 28: The empirical study findings identify the interrelationships between risks factors. The findings of the empirical study have implications for the development of integrated sustainable supply chain strategies. Empirical research shows that most of the systematic risks related to sustainability emanate from the activities or assets of the company or its supply chain. Contrary to the results found in Giannakis and Papadopoulos (2016), specialists in the research with Brazilian sample suggest that, although it is desirable to internalize these expenses in the company structure, most of the time, this does not happen”.

• tell readers all the important inferences drawn from the findings in their paper

Answer: Thank you for your comment. The inferences of the paper were reinforced on pages 32: “The study contributes to the literature by considering which sustainable supply chain strategies the Brazilian cosmetic industry could adopt, identifying pertinent sustainability-related risks and analyzing their possible estimated effects”.

• tell readers the findings that are useful to academics, practitioners, and policymakers.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. The paper findings were introduced on page 6 and reinforced on pages 33: “The results show that Brazilian’s cosmetic companies fail to take advantage of an opportunity to obtain leadership in cost savings, differentiation and even engage their partners, which can positively influence the SDGs goals”.

• What are the limitations of their paper?

Answer: Thank you for your comment. The limitations of the paper were rewriting, and are presented on page 33 at the conclusion: “Some limitations were found in this research, which should be considered: a) the results reported are related to the consulted specialists; b) the results are only applicable to Brazilian cosmetic companies and cannot be generalized to other companies”.

• Suggest some directions on future research to extend their paper.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. The directions on future research were rewriting and are presented on page 33 at the conclusions: “As a suggestion for future research that expand on this study, the research of other stakeholders in the cosmetic supply chain is also suggested, such as associations, unions and other stakeholders involved in the Brazilian cosmetic supply chain. Applying the methodology developed in this research in other economic sectors is also suggested, allowing the confirmation or not of the hierarchies found, or even to seek ways to capture the imprecision associated with human judgment”.

Reviewer 3 Report

Modelling Sustainability Risk in Brazilian Cosmetics Supply Chains

Abstract

The aim of this article is empirically identifying the most influential risks in Brazilian cosmetics supply chains and, additionally, analyze interconnections between these risks. Brazilian cosmetics supply chain was used as case study due to important relationship between cosmetic companies’ operations and the sustainability practices of supply chains, related to natural products use. Based on literature, added to the support of a group of experts in cosmetics supply chain collaboration, a set of sustainability risks were identified. These risks were analyzed using Interpretive Structural Modeling and Matrix Impact of Cross Multiplication Applied to Classification Analysis methodologies. Results show that organizations in the cosmetics sector consider “Financial risks” as the most influenced among the set of risks, while “Technology and innovation” and “Legislation and responsibility” were identified as the most affect others.

1. To be legible, the whole text must be completely edited with the help of a native English editor to polish your writing to prevent redundancies, grammatical errors and punctuation problems. This is an interesting piece of “Modelling Sustainability Risk in Brazilian Cosmetics Supply Chains” work. Please underscore the scientific value added/contributions of your paper in your abstract and introduction and address your debate shortly in the abstract. In introduction shouls be proper address those contribution in bullet points
2. The performance literature review is extensive and covers the relevant material with a considerable degree of insight. The paper is very well structured. The material is well presented I would suggest the author to discuss these references in your context and references. However, you have to update your reference to recent ones. For instance, 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: 1080/21681015.2021.1950227; Mohammad Yavari & Parinaz Ajalli (2021) Suppliers’ coalition strategy for green-Resilient supply chain network design, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 38:3, 197-212, DOI: 10.1080/21681015.2021.1883134
3. The contribution is not well-positioned as compared to the existing literature. Please underscore the scientific value added/contributions of your paper in your abstract and introduction and address your debate shortly in the abstract.
4. Why do you propose “Modelling Sustainability Risk” as your main theme for Cosmetic SCs? What are those risks? The author has to proper address. This must well address in the literature review
5. The references need to update to 2021. Don’t overkill the references, maximum 3 references. This is recent publication on Sustainable supply chain management “Bui, TD., Tsai, FM., Tseng, ML.*, Tan. R.R., Yu, KDS., Lim, MK. (2021). Sustainable supply chain management towards disruption and organizational ambidexterity: a data driven bibliometric analysis. Sustainable Production and Consumption 26, 373-410”. I think the risks is same as “disruption and organizational ambidexterity”

Author Response

• To be legible, the whole text must be completely edited with the help of a native English editor to polish your writing to prevent redundancies, grammatical errors and punctuation problems. This is an interesting piece of “Modelling Sustainability Risk in Brazilian Cosmetics Supply Chains” work. Please underscore the scientific value added/contributions of your paper in your abstract and introduction and address your debate shortly in the abstract. In introduction shouls be proper address those contribution in bullet points

Answer: Thank you for your constructive comments about this new version and your suggestion. We have revised the paper, trying to simplify the language, and avoiding repeating ideas throughout the paper to reduce its length. Furthermore, the paper was once again revised by an English native speaker

• The performance literature review is extensive and covers the relevant material with a considerable degree of insight. The paper is very well structured. The material is well presented I would suggest the author to discuss these references in your context and references. However, you have to update your reference to recent ones. For instance, 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: 1080/21681015.2021.1950227; Mohammad Yavari & Parinaz Ajalli (2021) Suppliers’ coalition strategy for green-Resilient supply chain network design, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 38:3, 197-212, DOI: 10.1080/21681015.2021.1883134

Answer: Thank you for your comment. The literature increased with the papers indicated, updating the text and leaving the content in line with the most recent bibliographic production.

• The contribution is not well-positioned as compared to the existing literature. Please underscore the scientific value added/contributions of your paper in your abstract and introduction and address your debate shortly in the abstract.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. The contributions are synthesized on page 1, introduced on page 5, and detailed on page 32: “The study contributes to the literature by considering which sustainable supply chain strategies the Brazilian cosmetic industry could adopt, identifying pertinent sustainability-related risks and analyzing their possible estimated effects. These Brazilian cosmetic companies tend to think of sustainability as an additional cost or a “necessary evil”, often demonstrating the idea of a fad. Therefore, these companies lack a broader vision of the world with a perspective of gains from sustainability, whether for brand appreciation or employees' sense of pride. Those companies usually adopt strategies to preserve the business's profitability, and in many cases, they assume insurance or risk-taking as the best path”.

• Why do you propose “Modelling Sustainability Risk” as your main theme for Cosmetic SCs? What are those risks? The author has to proper address. This must well address in the literature review

Answer: Thank you for your comment. This study is not intended to quantify risks (probability and impact) but rather to identify the principal risks and their concerns. The quantification of the causes and consequences of risks is an excellent indication for future work.

• The references need to update to 2021. Don’t overkill the references, maximum 3 references. This is recent publication on Sustainable supply chain management “Bui, TD, Tsai, FM., Tseng, ML.*, Tan. R.R., Yu, KDS., Lim, MK. (2021). Sustainable supply chain management towards disruption and organizational ambidexterity: a data driven bibliometric analysis. Sustainable Production and Consumption 26, 373-410”. I think the risks is same as “disruption and organizational ambidexterity”

Answer: Thank you for your comment. The suggested article was included in our references list, updating the text, and leaving the content in line with the most recent research. We remove references higher than 3 in the sentences.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I find the findings are interesting. I have the following comments for the authors to improve their paper:

• The data section is too brief, the authors should discuss more on the data and the variables being used.
• The methodology section is too brief, the authors should discuss more on the methodology used in their paper. There is no equation in this paper. They should include some equations in the paper and cite some papers for all the equations they are using and justify the use of equations is correct.
• Cite some related papers on Sustainability, risk, and cosmetics

Author Response

Answer: Thank you for your comment. The methodology used in their paper were revised in the 4.2. Structural Self-Interaction Matrix, on page 19-20, explaining in more detail the methodology ISM-MICMAC.

Inserted in this topic, authors already read and presented in the article previously, with works that help to better clarify and justify the applications of the chosen methodology. (Kwak et al., 2018; Kumar et al., 2020; Magalhães et al., 2021a).

• Cite some related papers on Sustainability, risk, and cosmetics

Answer: Thank you for your comment. References have been entered as indicated.

Bom, S.; Ribeiro, H.M.; Marto, J. Sustainability Calculator: A Tool to Assess Sustainability in Cosmetic Products. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1437. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041437

Gao, T.; Erokhin, V.; Arskiy, A. Dynamic Optimization of Fuel and Logistics Costs as a Tool in Pursuing Economic Sustainability of a Farm. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5463. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195463

Jiang, X.; Lu, K.; Xia, B.; Liu, Y.; Cui, C. Identifying Significant Risks and Analyzing Risk Relationship for Construction PPP Projects in China Using Integrated FISM-MICMAC Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195206

Lee, Y.-H.; Chen, S.-L. Effect of Green Attributes Transparency on WTA for Green Cosmetics: Mediating Effects of CSR and Green Brand Concepts. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5258. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195258

Syed, M.W.; Li, J.Z.; Junaid, M.; Ye, X.; Ziaullah, M. An Empirical Examination of Sustainable Supply Chain Risk and Integration Practices: A Performance-Based Evidence from Pakistan. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5334. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195334

Reviewer 3 Report

Accepted 

Author Response

Answer: We thank you very much for all your comments. They were very helpful in improving the quality of our manuscript and making it easier for the reader to understand.