How Does Green Supply Chain Management Promote the Success of Crowdfunding Projects? Empirical Research Based on the QCA Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The manuscript has been significantly improved based on reviewers' comments. I have no further comments. I suggest a acceptence decision.Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments！
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Paper: How does green supply chains promote the success of crowdfunding projects? Empirical research based on QCA method
I see that some improvements have been made, but some of my comments have not been addressed properly:
1. Reference for Kickstarter (now in Lines 78-83) has not been given.
2. Even though you provide more citations of existing literature, some important statements of your research gaps are still not backed-up by literature (now in Lines 113-120, 174-180, 197-206, 221-229).
3. There is still no justification provided for the period of crowdfunding from April 2015 to May 2016 (Lines 380-381).
4. Even though you provide some citations in the Results and Discussion Section, this section still has not been explained with respect to the current literature. Do the results support or do not support the current literature that you explained in Section 3?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The article focuses on the determinants of project success are a hot issue in the study of crowdfunding projects. The article deals with an important topic and also contains recommendations for further research in the given area.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments！
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Dear authors,
I can see that my comments have been addressed. But I think you need to put the justification for the period of data that you've written in the cover letter, in the article.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comment, I have made changes in the manuscript.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for inviting me to review this interesting paper. I have several comments and suggestions:
- The logic of introduction is unclear. The 2nd paragraph mainly argue that the implementation of a green supply chain can affect economic performance. However, in the end of this paragraph, the authors suddenly turn to crowdfunding projects and investment behavior. The readers need to know why this paper selects crowdfunding projects as the research context and the background of this field.
- The 4th paragraph reviewed prior literature on the determinants of project success. However, I have not seen why green supply chain plays a critical role in crowdfunding projects. So, the main contribution of combining the green supply chain and crowdfunding project characteristics is not convincing. Few studies working on it may be because most scholars do not consider it as an important determinant. On the other hand, the determinants of project success discussed here should be controlled in the regressions.
- Add the reference about why the green supply chain can be divided into four parts: green design, green material, green production and green marketing.
- Configuration model. Crowdfunding project have many important characteristics. Why does this paper only select funding goals and delivery time? This is arbitrary.
- 1. Data collection. Why this study focuses on technical crowdfunding is not convincing. Green supply chain management can also be applied to Household Appliances, Health and Design projects. Ignoring other field projects may have result bias.
- The reviewer has some concerns about table 2. For example, is cold chain transportation a type of green transportation? Does the project with description word “safety” belong to green procurement projects?
- 4 QCA method. Why the authors use QCA method rather than regression models? Some variables should be controlled as the authors suggested in the introduction (e.g., the quality of projects, a detailed text description, Friends and families, the number of early investors and early capital, the number of friends of fundraisers).
- 3. Robustness test. I appreciate the authors have done several robust checks. When the consistency threshold is 0.81, two new paths appear. This seems the prior results are not robust.
- It lacks the practical implications on green supply chains and crowdfunding. The author should also provide theoretical contributions of this study.
In sum, I like this paper and appreciate the author’s efforts. I suggest a major revision to this paper. Good luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The following are my comments:
11. Citation in Line 29 is not numbered
22. Provide references for the sentences in Lines 62-66,83-84.
33. The research gaps should be stated based on the literature review. Provide references for the research gaps stated in Lines 86-87, 88-90, 144-149, 166-175, 190-198.
44. Why is it important to study the combined effect of the green supply chain and crowdfunding project characteristics on crowdfunding success? What is the motivation behind this study
55. Is there any justification for the period of crowdfunding from April 2015 to May 2016? Perhaps the characteristics of the analyzed crowdfunding projects can also be given?
66. Explanation of the robustness test should be given in the methodology part.
77. Add a column in Table 5 for the models’ names.
88. Results should be explained with respect to the current literature. Do the results support or do not support the current literature?
99. The crowdfunding projects are from different industries/sectors. The implementation of the green supply chain in different industries/sectors may also be different. How is this issue considered in your study?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer’s Report on
How do green supply chains promote the success of crowdfunding projects? Empirical research based on QCA method
(Manuscript Number: sustainability-1724142)
This study proposes a QCA method combining multiple configurations of the green supply chain, delivery time and funding goals of crowdfunding projects to provide paths for project success. This is an interesting topic and is a relevant contribution to the practice. But I recommend this study to be reconsidered after providing a detailed response according to the following comments.
1. This study needs to clarify the contribution to body of knowledge. A rigorous comparison with the past related works is required.
2. Some recently relevant papers regarding the green supply chain issues should be included in this study.
3. Conclusion section is weak. It is recommended for authors to go in deep in “real” managerial implications that can be extracted from the results they obtain. Therefore, a stronger effort in reporting such recommendations is requested.
4. Limitations should be incorporated in this study.
5. Also, the English language should be checked again by a professional English-proof reader throughout this paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Again, the research motivation is not strong enough. Specifically, the authors stated that the impact of green supply chain on crowdfunding projects has not been explored, so the focus of this paper is proposed. However, “unexplored” does not mean “important”. The authors should provide more details about why this gap is worth to fill.
2. As this paper focuses on delivery time and performance of crowdfunding projects in Kickstarter. Please cite the following recent related papers. The references are helpful for the authors to argue why focus on delivery time and technical crowdfunding.
Wang Y, Wang B, Yan Y, et al. The Clearer Timelines, the Better? Evidence From Kickstarter[J]. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2021.
Mollick E. The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study[J]. Journal of business venturing, 2014, 29(1): 1-16.
Wang Y, Wang B, Yan Y. Does network externality affect your project? Evidences from reward-based technology crowdfunding[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2022, 180: 121667.
3. QCA method, i.e., two-element Boolean algebra has limitations. For example, control variables are not included, e.g., as the authors claimed in the introduction, the quality of projects, a detailed text description, Friends and families, etc. Please describe the limitations of this method in discussion. Please refer to the following recent related papers.
Clarke K A. Logical constraints: The limitations of QCA in social science research[J]. Political Analysis, 2020, 28(4): 552-568.
Thanks. Good luck for this project.
Author Response
Thank you very much for providing me with a few articles, I have read them carefully and quoted these articles. Your first suggestion, my idea is as follows.
At present, people begin to consume green products. Enterprises implement green supply chain management to the whole product life cycle, and timely adjust the standards of the green products. However, when implementing green supply chain management to promote green products, due to the green properties of its products, the price is often higher than that of other products. The lack of funds is often an obstacle to the implementation of green supply chain management, and crowdfunding provides a new idea for enterprises to raise funds. Therefore, this study explores the investment decisions of investors when green supply chain management is involved in crowdfunding projects.
In addition, the limitations of two-element Boolean algebra have also been explained in the conclusions.
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer’s Report on
How does green supply chains promote the success of crowdfunding projects? Empirical research based on QCA method
(Manuscript Number: sustainability-1724142 v2)
In my opinion, the authors have made an effort in responding my comments. However, the authors did not fully respond to some of my comments. I recommend this study to be reconsidered after providing a detailed response according to the following comments I made earlier.
1. The main differences between this work and others should be discussed and presented. That is how it is different from work already done and how it makes an addition to body of knowledge. A rigorous comparison with the past related works is required.
2. There are some grammatical and writing style errors in this study, such as “How does green supply chains promote the success of crowdfunding projects?” (line 2), “Although studies have shown that environmental or sustainable development orientation has an impact on funding outcomes [21], But few people have explored how investors' investment behaviors will react when green supply chains are incorporated into crowdfunding projects?” (lines 85-88), and so on. Please make sure the new revised draft is completely revised by a professional English-proof reader.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your advices. For the first suggestion, I have added it in the conclusions. The grammatical errors in the thesis have also been corrected under the guidance of the tutor.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer’s Report on
How do green supply chains promote the success of crowdfunding projects? Empirical research based on the QCA method
(Manuscript Number: sustainability-1724142 v3)
In my opinion, the authors have made an effort in responding my comments. Therefore, I suggest that this paper is ready for being published in Sustainability.
