Exploring the Link between Sustainable Development Practices, Institutional Pressures, and Green Innovation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The aim of this study is to examine the influence of external pressures on retailers’ green innovation and exploring the mediating role of sustainable development practices in the link between external pressures and green innovation.
The major issue with the paper is the usage of English and the paper needs to undergo an extensive proof-reading. Overall the paper is very poorly written; For example please see the following incomplete sentence on Page 2.
"Based on the, this study argues that the external pressures are a key driver of sustainable development practises, which in turn influence retailers’ green innovation"
The language of the paper must be more formal. For example, the following sentence on Page 4 is not appropriate for an academic journal;
"So, here are some possible explanations: "
Also see the following on Page 7;
" This method was used because the thing being studied is new..."
- The authors do not sufficiently take into account of the pressures of investors that prefer to allocate funds to sustainable investments. Also, the authors need to take into account of the financial reward of being environmentally conscious, as it is documented in Arslan-Ayaydin and Thewissen (2016) and Lee (2021).
Arslan-Ayaydin, Ö., & Thewissen, J. (2016). The financial reward for environmental performance in the energy sector. Energy & Environment, 27(3–4), 389–413.
Lee, S. (2021). Environmental responsibility, CEO power and financial performance in the energy sector. Review of Managerial Science, 15(8), 2407-2426.
- Which report do the authors refer to in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the Introduction ?
- There are few overlaps between Section 5 (Discussion and Implications) and Section 6 (Conclusions).
Author Response
Manuscript ID sustainability-1996629
Exploring the link between sustainable development practices, institutional pressures, and green innovation
Dear Reviewer, 1,
Thank you very much for the helpful and constructive comments that you provided regarding our manuscript. We are very grateful to have had the opportunity to revise our paper on the basis of these valuable suggestions.
As you will see from the revised manuscript, we have done our utmost to address all the issues raised. These changes are detailed below, starting with the Editor’s comments and then the reviewers’ feedback. In the updated manuscript, all the resulting changes are marked in red for clarity. We have also streamlined and further edited the original content in order to accommodate the reviewers’ suggestions; these changes are also marked in red.
The result is an extensively reworked manuscript which we hope and believes addresses all your suggestions and conforms to the authors’ guidelines and style.
Thank you once more for your constructive feedback. We hope that the revised manuscript meets your expectations.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further queries.
Yours sincerely,
Authors of Manuscript sustainability-1996629
Reviewer 1
Reviewer 1, Comment 1:
The major issue with the paper is the usage of English and the paper needs to undergo an extensive proof-reading. Overall the paper is very poorly written; For example please see the following incomplete sentence on Page 2.
"Based on the, this study argues that the external pressures are a key driver of sustainable development practises, which in turn influence retailers’ green innovation"
The language of the paper must be more formal. For example, the following sentence on Page 4 is not appropriate for an academic journal;
"So, here are some possible explanations: "
Also see the following on Page 7;
" This method was used because the thing being studied is new..."
Our response:
Many thanks for this constructive comment. Following your kind comment, the authors have carefully edited the paper to enhance its readability. To further consider your comment, a professional British Editor has edited the paper and provided careful proof reading for its contents.
Reviewer 1, Comment 2:
The authors do not sufficiently take into account of the pressures of investors that prefer to allocate funds to sustainable investments. Also, the authors need to take into account of the financial reward of being environmentally conscious, as it is documented in Arslan-Ayaydin and Thewissen (2016) and Lee (2021).
Our response:
Many thanks for pointing this out. We would like to indicate that following previous studies on environmental management and sustainable development practices (e.g., Dai et al., 2021; Chu et al., 2018; Zeng et al., 2017), this study proposes that firms engaging in sustainable development practices is mainly driven by governance pressure, customer pressure, and competitive pressure. To further consider comment, we included these two points within the future research direction.
Dai, J., Xie, L. and Chu, Z., 2021. Developing sustainable supply chain management: The interplay of institutional pressures and sustainability capabilities. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28, pp.254-268.
Chu, Z., Xu, J., Lai, F. and Collins, B.J., 2018. Institutional theory and environmental pressures: The moderating effect of market uncertainty on innovation and firm performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 65(3), pp.392-403.
Zeng, H., Chen, X., Xiao, X. and Zhou, Z., 2017. Institutional pressures, sustainable supply chain management, and circular economy capability: Empirical evidence from Chinese eco-industrial park firms. Journal of cleaner production, 155, pp.54-65.
Reviewer 1, Comment 3:
Which report do the authors refer to in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the Introduction ?
Our response:
Many thanks for this constructive observation. In response, we have revised and edited this sentence to provide a much sharper focus and to incorporate the report name. These changes are marked in red throughout paragraph, and read as follows:
The World Commission on Environment and Development through its Brundtland report on sustainable development say that many countries have not met their environmental goals (SDGs).
Reviewer 1, Comment 4:
There are few overlaps between Section 5 (Discussion and Implications) and Section 6 (Conclusions).
Our response:
We are grateful for this very constructive feedback. As a result, we have edited and revised section 5 and 6 to avoid any overlaps between them (Please kindly see revised section 5 & 6).
We wish to thank Reviewer 1 for such useful comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to your review. We have done our best to address all your suggestions in our revised version, and we hope you agree that the paper is now much stronger and better-argued as a result.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you to the colleagues for this work, the paper presents results from research on Saudi Arabian firms and the external factors that determine their choices to be more sustainable. The work is generally good and it only needs a few minor reviews.
In the abstract, I suggest inserting that the study is about Saudi Arabia.
Page 1 intro section “The main cause of pollution has been the overuse of natural resources in industrial development.” This is a very generalist sentence and it is for sure one of the causes but it is the interconnections of many other factors also. I suggest deleting this because, putting it in this way, it is not solid. Otherwise, you have to develop the idea more and support them with references to research works.
Page 2 intro section “Researchers have paid a lot of attention” if they are a lot, you have to present more references.
Page 2 intro section “Saudi Arabia has a terrible ranking” (referred to the GII) please present this and, maybe, compared it to other countries to show why is bad.
Page 2 intro section “Based on the, this study argues” correct the beginning of this sentence.
Generally, methodology and results presentation are fine; I wonder if you can expand further the discussion, it seems you jump directly to the conclusion but you can interrelate more your results with the literature. I suggest a paper that can be included (your choice) in the discussion related to the influence of governments and other external actors on sustainable firms. Ù
Bianchi, M. (2021), “Hybrid Organizations: A Micro-Level Strategy for SDGs Implementation: A Positional Paper”, Sustainability, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 13 No. 16, p. 9415.
Author Response
Manuscript ID sustainability-1996629
Exploring the link between sustainable development practices, institutional pressures, and green innovation
Dear Reviewer, 2,
Thank you very much for the helpful and constructive comments that you and the reviewers provided regarding our manuscript. We are very grateful to have had the opportunity to revise our paper on the basis of these valuable suggestions.
As you will see from the revised manuscript, we have done our utmost to address all the issues raised. These changes are detailed below, starting with the Editor’s comments and then the reviewers’ feedback. In the updated manuscript, all the resulting changes are marked in red for clarity. We have also streamlined and further edited the original content in order to accommodate the reviewers’ suggestions; these changes are also marked in red.
The result is an extensively reworked manuscript which we hope and believes addresses all your suggestions and conforms to the authors’ guidelines and style.
Thank you once more for your constructive feedback. We hope that the revised manuscript meets your expectations.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further queries.
Yours sincerely,
Authors of Manuscript sustainability-1996629
Reviewer 2
Reviewer 2, Comment 1:
In the abstract, I suggest inserting that the study is about Saudi Arabia.
Our response:
Many thanks for this constructive comment. In response, we have included Saudi Arabia in the Abstract, and can be found in red in Abstract as follows:
Executive Summary: Academics, business leaders, and policymakers are paying more and more attention to sustainable development. However, little is known about the influence of external forces on sustainable development practices, which in turn is predictor of green innovation. This paper seeks to explore the role of external pressures a sustainable development practices in driving of green innovation in Saudi Arabia. We utilised quantitative approach through an online survey to collect the required data from manufacturing companies in Saudi Arabia. Structural equation modelling was utilised to analyse the data. The results revealed that institutional pressures (i.e., governance pressure, customer pressures, and competitive pressure) are key drivers of sustainable development practices and green innovation. It also indicated that sustainable development practices (i.e., environmental sustainability, social sustainability, and economic Environmental sustainability) have a significant influence on green innovation. Our findings proposed that green innovation is influenced by external pressures and sustainable development practices.
Reviewer 2, Comment 2:
Page 1 intro section “The main cause of pollution has been the overuse of natural resources in industrial development.” This is a very generalist sentence and it is for sure one of the causes but it is the interconnections of many other factors also. I suggest deleting this because, putting it in this way, it is not solid. Otherwise, you have to develop the idea more and support them with references to research works.
Our response:
Many thanks for pointing this out. As a result, we have deleted this sentence.
Reviewer 2, Comment 3:
Page 2 intro section “Researchers have paid a lot of attention” if they are a lot, you have to present more references.
Our response:
We are grateful for these very constructive and positive feedback. In response, we have added more references.
Reviewer 2, Comment 4:
Page 2 intro section “Saudi Arabia has a terrible ranking” (referred to the GII) please present this and, maybe, compared it to other countries to show why is bad.
Our response:
We are grateful for this very constructive feedback. As a result, we have edited this sentence, and read as follows:
So, the Global Innovation Index (GII) also pointed out the important parts of external pressures that stop innovation. Prior research indicated that green innovation in Saudi Arabia is still in its early stages [5,9].
Reviewer 2, Comment 5:
Page 2 intro section “Based on the, this study argues” correct the beginning of this sentence.
Our response:
Many thanks for this very constructive point, with which we totally agree. In the revised manuscript, we have substantially edited and revised this sentence, and read as follows:
Based on the aforementioned discussion, this study argues that the external pressures are a key driver of sustainable development practises, which in turn influence firms’ green innovation.
Reviewer 2, Comment 6:
Generally, methodology and results presentation are fine; I wonder if you can expand further the discussion, it seems you jump directly to the conclusion but you can interrelate more your results with the literature. I suggest a paper that can be included (your choice) in the discussion related to the influence of governments and other external actors on sustainable firms.
Our response:
Many thanks for this thoughtful and constructive comment. We have responded by making careful revisions to our discussion section (Please kindly see the revised discussion section). To further consider your comment, we included the suggested paper.
We wish to thank Reviewer 1 for such useful comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to your review. We have done our best to address all your suggestions in our revised version, and we hope you agree that the paper is now much stronger and better-argued as a result.
Reviewer 3 Report
This study uses structural equation model to reveal the relationship between sustainable development practices, institutional pressures and green innovation. This is interesting and the author has done a good job.
There are some concerns.
1. How to ensure the representativeness of the data collected by the author? There is no doubt that this is a biased sample.
2.How do you ensure that the questions in the questionnaire are consistent with your concept? Some necessary tests may be needed.
3.The correlation between variables is too large, whether there is endogeneity, or whether variables are just two sides of a problem. For example, sustainable practice and green innovation are very close to each other.
4.This manuscript should put forward its research questions and contributions more clearly.
5.The empirical results are too simple, so the author should enrich the evidence and prove its theoretical logic more convincingly.
Author Response
Manuscript ID sustainability-1996629
Exploring the link between sustainable development practices, institutional pressures, and green innovation
Dear Reviewer, 3,
Thank you very much for the helpful and constructive comments that you provided regarding our manuscript. We are very grateful to have had the opportunity to revise our paper on the basis of these valuable suggestions.
As you will see from the revised manuscript, we have done our utmost to address all the issues raised. These changes are detailed below, starting with the Editor’s comments and then the reviewers’ feedback. In the updated manuscript, all the resulting changes are marked in red for clarity. We have also streamlined and further edited the original content in order to accommodate the reviewers’ suggestions; these changes are also marked in red.
The result is an extensively reworked manuscript which we hope and believes addresses all your suggestions and conforms to the authors’ guidelines and style.
Thank you once more for your constructive feedback. We hope that the revised manuscript meets your expectations.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further queries.
Yours sincerely,
Authors of Manuscript ID sustainability-1996629
Reviewer 3
Reviewer 3, Comment 1:
- How to ensure the representativeness of the data collected by the author? There is no doubt that this is a biased sample.
Our response:
Many thanks for this constructive comment. In response, we have added a paragraph on the sample selection that indicates that the sample was selected in way that well represents the target group and therefore enables the generalizability of the results, and read as follows:
We sampled manufacturing organisations who had received ISO14001 and ISO9001 certification in Saudi Arabia. These firms are more likely to have experience implementing sustainable development practices [9]. We obtained a random original sample of 2007 firms. The survey was conducted online. A total of 1142 completed and useful questionnaires were collected and used for this research with a response rate of 56.7%.
Reviewer 3, Comment 2:
- How do you ensure that the questions in the questionnaire are consistent with your concept? Some necessary tests may be needed.
Our response:
Many thanks for pointing this out. We would like to indicate that reliability and validity tests were conducted to examine the indicators of internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. This particular point is now explicitly addressed in Section 4.1. measurement model (see text in red on p. 13) as follows:
Table 1 shows a summary of the variables' statistics. The item loadings, internal consistency, and discriminant validity of the scales are used to judge their psychometric properties (Tables 2). Fornell and Larcker [87] indicated that item loadings and internal consistencies that are higher than 0.70 are usually acceptable. The scales used in the study mostly follow these guidelines, as shown by the results of the factor analysis (Table 1) and the composite reliability scores. We use the guidelines suggested by Chin [88] to figure out how well the measures can tell people apart: (1) Indicators should load more strongly on their own constructs than on other constructs in the model, and (2) the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) should be larger than the correlations between constructs. The constructs follow these rules, as shown by the results of the factor analysis and the comparison of the inter-construct correlations and AVE (shaded leading diagonal). So, these results show that discriminant validity is supported. Multicollinearity tests were performed because of the relatively high correlations among some of the constructs. All constructs had variance inflation factor (VIF) values less than 2.1, which is within the cut-off level of 3.0 [87].
Reviewer 3, Comment 3:
3.The correlation between variables is too large, whether there is endogeneity, or whether variables are just two sides of a problem. For example, sustainable practice and green innovation are very close to each other.
Our response:
Many thanks for pointing this out. As a result, we have conducted a Multicollinearity test due to the relatively high correlations among some of the constructs, the test indicated that variance inflation factor (VIF) values less than 2.1, which is within the cut-off level of 3.0, and read as follows:
Multicollinearity tests were performed because of the relatively high correlations among some of the constructs. All constructs had variance inflation factor (VIF) values less than 2.1, which is within the cut-off level of 3.0 [87].
Reviewer 3, Comment 4:
- This manuscript should put forward its research questions and contributions more clearly.
Our response:
Many thanks for this constructive observation. In response, we have revised the study contributions substantially to provide a much sharper focus and to incorporate more recent studies. These changes are marked in red throughout section 5. Discussion and implication (pp. 16-18).
Reviewer 3, Comment 5:
5.The empirical results are too simple, so the author should enrich the evidence and prove its theoretical logic more convincingly.
Our response:
We are grateful for these very constructive and positive suggestions. In response, we have carefully revised section 4.2. structural mode (in red, pp. 14-15), expressing more clearly our study results.
We wish to thank Reviewer 3 for such useful comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to your review. We have done our best to address all your suggestions in our revised version, and we hope you agree that the paper is now much stronger and better-argued as a result.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for addressing my comments. However, please continue with the proof-reading of your manuscript as there are still some typographical errors remaining such as; "Achnolwdgments" on Page 12 of 14.
Author Response
Manuscript ID sustainability-1996629
Exploring the link between sustainable development practices, institutional pressures, and green innovation
Dear Reviewer, 1,
Thank you very much for the helpful and constructive comments that you provided regarding our manuscript. We are very grateful to have had the opportunity to revise our paper on the basis of these valuable suggestions.
As you will see from the revised manuscript, we have done our utmost to address all the issues raised. These changes are detailed below.
The result is an extensively reworked manuscript which we hope and believes addresses all your suggestions and conforms to the authors’ guidelines and style.
Thank you once more for your constructive feedback. We hope that the revised manuscript meets your expectations.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further queries.
Yours sincerely,
Authors of Manuscript sustainability-1996629
Reviewer 1
Reviewer 1, Comment 1:
Thank you for addressing my comments. However, please continue with the proof-reading of your manuscript as there are still some typographical errors remaining such as; "Achnolwdgments" on Page 12 of 14.
Our response:
Many thanks for this positive and constructive comment. Following your kind comment, the authors have carefully edited the paper to enhance its readability. To further consider your comment, a professional British Editor has edited the paper and provided careful proof reading for its contents (Please kindly see the revised manuscript).
We wish to thank Reviewer 1 for such useful comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to your review. We have done our best to address all your suggestions in our revised version, and we hope you agree that the paper is now much stronger and better-argued as a result.
