Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall I enjoyed the article, I have some suggestions to finalize the article for publication.

Please remove from keywords "Sustainability", If you really need it, then put "sustainable development".

Figures 1, 2, 3 should be redrawn, strictly showing the links and connections between the objects.

In the introduction, I would expect the classic structure - the purpose of the work, the research questions, the proposed hypotheses.

In terms of content, the work is well designed. But I miss a more detailed description of the organizational performance, especially the Variables and scenarios, difference between Mode 1, Mode 2, Mode 3.

Conclusions should not include information that is not in the main text of the article and should not include references to other authors - I agree that the Literature Review should be reworked and supplemented.

 

I recommend adding some of the latest sources in 2020, 2021, 2022.

I really hope that the article will be useful in Taiwan and interesting in other parts of the world.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article results provide an advancement of the current knowledge in the study area. The article is well organized, relevant and interesting. All conclusions justified and supported by the results. The article fits the journal scope and should be published as is. The complete review can be found in the attached files.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks to the reviewer's suggestion. The conclusion section of this study would echo and explain the research objectives, gaps, and research questions mentioned in introduction, and the conclusion section would also be revised to address the reviewer's comments and include a description of the study limitations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for very interesting article. Please find some remarks below.

1. The title of the article is not very precise. It emphasizes ‘Sustainable Business Model’, but ‘Business Model Innovation’ is equally important. Moreover, the ‘Circular Economy Perspective’ (see first paragraph of introduction) suggests that environmental dimension of SBM will be considered, but the article also refers to the social dimension of (unique) SBM. The keyword ‘Sustainability’ is too broad considering the journal title is the same.

2. The article consists of four studies. I think that studies 2 and 3 are quite independent of the overall article and reduce the consistency of the article. Additionally, the gaps identified by Foss and Saebi are located in study 1 and 4 (three of them are mentioned in the conclusions). The article can be divided into more than one article in order to have sufficient volume to explain the logic of the presented models. Studies 2 and 3 consist only of outcomes without any justification, for instance why ‘Result-oriented PSS-Pay per use’ is learning not financial perspective of BSC. This item is emphasized in the literature as a business strategy aimed at generating high profit and stable the income.

3. The study covers only one country, so conclusions are limited. The pharmaceutical industry is an example of very innovative sector, so the BMI in it needs to be clarified.

4. All items from Table 1 should be numbered in the following chapters (especially Figures from 1 to 5). It would be easier to follow next studies. There are some differences in the names of items, i.e. ‘lean’ or ‘learn’, ‘use oriented PSS’ or ‘user oriented PSS’, ‘nature’ or ‘natural’ there is no ‘green energy’ within the items, but only ‘green chemistry’.

5. Hipothesis 6 compared to hipotheses 5 or 7, doesn’t sound well. In Figure 6 there is ‘energy efficiency’ but then it is ‘energy effectiveness’. It is not the same. Table 4 lacks ‘Create value from waste’

6. Reference should be made to the Likert scale which, according to Authors, consists of 6 levels.

7. Own research from 2017 is not new. There is a risk of using the Authors’ previous articles (like ‘Business Model Innovation in Pharmaceutical industry: Service Orientation Perspective’ or ‘A reconceptualization of manufacturers’ sustainable product-service business models: Triple bottom line perspective’) without mentioning them.

Author Response

Please see the attachment, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf