Capabilities and Opportunities: Linking Knowledge Management Practices of Textile-Based SMEs on Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Organizational Performance in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors presented very interesting topic on linking knowledge management practices of SMEs on sustainable entrepreneurship and organizational performance in China. Idea is novel and the paper is well written, however important changes need to be done in order to get recommendation for publication.

It is not clear how you validated the questionnaire. You have to explain validation process.

Also, I suggest you put a sample of questionnaire in appendix. Methodology part should be improved by including explanation on conducting the research (period of conducting research, criteria for choosing respondents, duration of one visit, etc).

There isn’t an argument that the sample is representative of the population in some meaningful sense and consequently that conducted techniques can be reasonably applied in this case. Authors can’t provide generalizations based on current research and presented data. Please explain the relevance of the sample compared to the total number of textile-based SMEs in China.

Also, you have to consider changing the title since you focused on textile-based SMEs not on the whole SMEs sector in China. Consequently, you need to focus on textile-based SMEs in introduction and theoretical background part of the paper to provide impact to the current body of knowledge.

English editing could improve the quality of the paper.

Specific comments:

• You may consider impact of Covid-19 on research results (this may be added in Limitations and Discussion), based on period of conducting the research (prior to or after pandemic appeared)
• Line 419: is it two separate sentences (second after …of China) or one?
• Check line 432 and 433: Error! Reference source not 432 found.,
• When you quote an author, please check whether is acceptable to use format like developed by [76] or developed by Author [76]
• Unclear line 648: …the emerging and emerging economies…

Author Response

Question 1:

It is not clear how you validated the questionnaire. You have to explain validation process.

Answer: In this research, we applied the variance-based structural equation model (PLS-SEM) and used Smart-PLS version-3 to calculate the results. Because Smart-PLS is a powerful tool as compared to other statistical tools, i.e., AMOS, to run the complex model including mediation and moderation on reflective and formative constructs at the same time and widely applied in exploratory research. Therefore, we used Smart-PLS to run and test our research model at once. The bootstrapping method has been implemented to test the strength of the mediation effect of these constructs as suggested by (Preacher & Hayes, 2004).

Question 2:

Also, I suggest you put a sample of questionnaire in appendix. Methodology part should be improved by including explanation on conducting the research (period of conducting research, criteria for choosing respondents, duration of one visit, etc).

Answer: Respected Reviewer gratitude for your valuable time and suggestion to improve my manuscript. The questionnaire has been incorporated at last of the revised manuscript. The methodology whole part has been improved properly and highlighted with yellow color.

Question 3:

There isn’t an argument that the sample is representative of the population in some meaningful sense and consequently that conducted techniques can be reasonably applied in this case. Authors can’t provide generalizations based on current research and presented data. Please explain the relevance of the sample compared to the total number of textile-based SMEs in China.

Question 4:

Also, you have to consider changing the title since you focused on textile-based SMEs not on the whole SMEs sector in China. Consequently, you need to focus on textile-based SMEs in introduction and theoretical background part of the paper to provide impact to the current body of knowledge.

Answer: The title of the manuscript has been modified as per the reviewer’s valuable instructions and highlighted in yellow color.

Specific comments:

• You may consider impact of Covid-19 on research results (this may be added in Limitations and Discussion), based on period of conducting the research (prior to or after pandemic appeared)
• Line 419: is it two separate sentences (second after …of China) or one?
• Check line 432 and 433: Error! Reference source not 432 found.,
• When you quote an author, please check whether is acceptable to use format like developed by [76] or developed by Author [76]
• Unclear line 648: …the emerging and emerging economies…

 

Answer: All the changes have been incorporated in the revised version.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The idea of examining the interrelationships between dynamic capabilities and opportunity recognition with knowledge management and sustainable entrepreneurship and organizational performance is complex yet interesting, important, and relevant in today’s VUCA environment. The paper is also well written for most parts, but nonetheless could be improved in a number of areas.

 

In the abstract, it seems to be structured like an Emerald submission. The journal, Sustainability, to which this paper is submitted to uses a single paragraph abstract without an explicit structure. Thus, the authors are encouraged to revisit their abstract and rework it in a single, good flowing paragraph. Referring to recent articles in the journal, Sustainability, would be a good way to address this issue.

 

In the introduction and literature review, it is important to highlight the major contributions of past research contributions on dynamic capabilities, knowledge management, and business sustainability. One efficient and effective way to do this is to present the findings of relevant reviews in this space, such as the ones listed below:

 

Chopra, M., Saini, N., Kumar, S., Varma, A., Mangla, S. K., & Lim, W. M. (2021). Past, present, and future of knowledge management for business sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 328, 129592.

 

Kumar, S., Sureka, R., Lim, W. M., Kumar Mangla, S., & Goyal, N. (2021). What do we know about business strategy and environmental research? Insights from Business Strategy and the Environment. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(8), 3454-3469.

 

Fabrizio, C. M., Kaczam, F., de Moura, G. L., da Silva, L. S. C. V., da Silva, W. V., & da Veiga, C. P. (2021). Competitive advantage and dynamic capability in small and medium-sized enterprises: a systematic literature review and future research directions. Review of Managerial Science, 1-32.

 

Next, it might be best to state author names when mentioning a citation say something. For example, “[37] argued that market interaction and entrepreneurs …”.

 

H1c needs to be relooked at. It should be “Dynamic capability mediates the relationship …” The same goes with H2c, H3b, H4b, and anywhere else in the paper that is affected by this issue (i.e., “Dynamic capability is mediating …”

 

The actual items should be disclosed in Table 2.

 

An explanation on why PLS-SEM was chosen CB-SEM needs to be provided.

 

Some explanation on common method bias (CMB), HTMT, Q2, and f2 should be included as per PLS-SEM.

 

Theoretical and practical implications can be divided into two sub-sections and parked under the discussion section.

 

I hope this feedback will be useful to the authors to improve the quality of their paper.

 

Good luck and all the very best!

Author Response

In the abstract, it seems to be structured like an Emerald submission. The journal, Sustainability, to which this paper is submitted to uses a single paragraph abstract without an explicit structure. Thus, the authors are encouraged to revisit their abstract and rework it in a single, good flowing paragraph. Referring to recent articles in the journal, Sustainability, would be a good way to address this issue.

Answer: Thanks to the reviewer for value suggestion to improve the manuscript according to the journal format. The changes has been incorporated in the revised version.

In the introduction and literature review, it is important to highlight the major contributions of past research contributions on dynamic capabilities, knowledge management, and business sustainability. One efficient and effective way to do this is to present the findings of relevant reviews in this space, such as the ones listed below:

Answer: The valuable suggestion has been considered and incorporated in the revised version with yellow highlighted color.

 

Chopra, M., Saini, N., Kumar, S., Varma, A., Mangla, S. K., & Lim, W. M. (2021). Past, present, and future of knowledge management for business sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 328, 129592.

 

Fabrizio, C. M., Kaczam, F., de Moura, G. L., da Silva, L. S. C. V., da Silva, W. V., & da Veiga, C. P. (2021). Competitive advantage and dynamic capability in small and medium-sized enterprises: a systematic literature review and future research directions. Review of Managerial Science, 1-32.

 Answer: The above mentioned valuable articles has been incorporated in the manuscript.

Next, it might be best to state author names when mentioning a citation say something. For example, “[37] argued that market interaction and entrepreneurs…”

Answer: The valuable changes has been Done.

 

H1c needs to be relooked at. It should be “Dynamic capability mediates the relationship …” The same goes with H2c, H3b, H4b, and anywhere else in the paper that is affected by this issue (i.e., “Dynamic capability is mediating …”

Answer: In H1c Dynamic capability between KSB and SEP, in H2c Innovative capacity and SEP. Meanwhile H3b shows mediation between KSB and organizational performance, H4b Innovative capacity with organizational performance. In all four hypotheses study variables are change as clearly mentioned below and highlighted.    

H1c: Dynamic capability is mediating the relationship between Knowledge sharing behavior and sustainable entrepreneurship performance

H2c: Dynamic capability is mediating the relationship between innovative capacity and sustainable entrepreneurship performance

H3b: Dynamic capability is mediating the relationship between Knowledge sharing behavior and organizational performance

Hypothesis H4b: Dynamic capability is mediating the relationship between innovative capacity and organizational performance

The actual items should be disclosed in Table 2.

Answer: The typo error of incomplete variable item has been rectified with complete variable name.

An explanation on why PLS-SEM was chosen CB-SEM needs to be provided.

Answer: The deep explanation for PLS-SEM, CB-SEM has been provided with theoretical and VIF table in the revised version.

Some explanation on common method bias (CMB), HTMT, Q2, and f2 should be included as per PLS-SEM.

Answer: The explanation for common method bias (CMB), HTMT has been enhanced. Table 6 and Table 7 describes the Q2 and F2 values with interpretation as per the PLS-SEM.

 Theoretical and practical implications can be divided into two sub-sections and parked under the discussion section.

Answer: The valuable suggestion has been incorporated in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dynamic Capabilities and Opportunity Recognition: Linking Knowledge Management Practices of SMEs on Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Organizational Performance in China

 

Comments

 

Dear Author/s,

Many thanks for offering me the privilege to review your paper entitled “Dynamic Capabilities and Opportunity Recognition: Linking Knowledge Management Practices of SMEs on Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Organizational Performance in China”. Despite the originality of topic, I’d recommend some major changes as follows:

 

- Abstract: I’d advice to reinforce and highlight originality, practical, and theoretical implications in it. Authors should better emphasize the research goals as well as the research design, placing more emphasis on the state of the art and on contributions of the paper. Please, be consistent with the acronymous: OP stand for? SEP? Include the entire word in the abstract.

 

- Introduction: I consider this section a bit convoluted and, for that, hard to follow.

Firstly, starting from the beginning, I’d suggest Authors to better explain the focus of the research and to specify the scope of the paper. Secondly, please try to revamp the Introduction structure as follow: (i) define the contest of the analysis; (ii) clearly explain the gap in the literature that the paper wants to fill; (iii) point out the originality of the article (iv) describe the structure of the paper. Thirdly, I’d like to suggest Authors to better outline the scope of the research since from the Introduction section. Fourthly, certain unclear and long fragment sentences have affected the organization of research idea starting from the first paragraph. Please, revamp the whole section.

 

- Theoretical Justifications and Hypotheses Development: In this section, it is recommended that Authors give a detailed discussion on each of the theoretical frameworks used and the relationship deduced from these frameworks to support this study. For this reason, it would be relevant to explore the themes of Dynamic Capabilities and to understand the reason why Authors led to adopt this perspective of analysis.

Please, you can consider these international studies:

• Scuotto, V., Magni, D., Palladino, R., & Nicotra, M. (2022). Triggering disruptive technology absorptive capacity by CIOs. Explorative research on a micro-foundation lens. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 121234.
• Santoro, G., Thrassou, A., Bresciani, S., & Del Giudice, M. (2019). Do knowledge management and dynamic capabilities affect ambidextrous entrepreneurial intensity and firms’ performance?. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.
• Magni, D., Scuotto, V., Pezzi, A., & Del Giudice, M. (2021). Employees’ acceptance of wearable devices: Towards a predictive model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 172, 121022.
• Singh, S. K., & Del Giudice, M. (2019). Big data analytics, dynamic capabilities and firm performance. Management Decision.
• Singh, S. K., Del Giudice, M., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Latan, H., & Sohal, A. S. (2021). Stakeholder pressure, green innovation, and performance in small and medium‐sized enterprises: The role of green dynamic capabilities. Business Strategy and the Environment.
• Del Giudice, M., & Maggioni, V. (2014). Managerial practices and operative directions of knowledge management within inter-firm networks: a global view. Journal of Knowledge Management.

 

- Material and Method and Results: these sections appear well constructed. Well done!

 

- Discussions and Conclusion: Since I deem that the discussion is relevant to confute or support previous research, I’d reinforce this section properly. Yet, starting from the findings, I would suggest Authors to explain better the novelty of results and the main theoretical but also managerial implications of the paper. Alongside, please strengthen the discussion along with the rest of the article.

 

Quality of communication

The quality of communication is good. Nonetheless, a professional proof-reading would certainly increase the overall quality of the paper, thus meeting the international standards for peer-reviewed research.

 

I hope my advice will be useful for a further improvement of your paper.

Best Regards and Good Luck.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

 Abstract: I’d advice to reinforce and highlight originality, practical, and theoretical implications in it. Authors should better emphasize the research goals as well as the research design, placing more emphasis on the state of the art and on contributions of the paper. Please, be consistent with the acronymous: OP stand for? SEP? Include the entire word in the abstract.

Answer: Respected reviewer, thanks for your precious time and valuable suggestions to improve our manuscript. The suggestions have been incorporated in the revised version of the manuscript.

 

- Introduction: I consider this section a bit convoluted and, for that, hard to follow.

Firstly, starting from the beginning, I’d suggest Authors to better explain the focus of the research and to specify the scope of the paper. Secondly, please try to revamp the Introduction structure as follow: (i) define the contest of the analysis; (ii) clearly explain the gap in the literature that the paper wants to fill; (iii) point out the originality of the article (iv) describe the structure of the paper. Thirdly, I’d like to suggest Authors to better outline the scope of the research since from the Introduction section. Fourthly, certain unclear and long fragment sentences have affected the organization of research idea starting from the first paragraph. Please, revamp the whole section.

Answer: Thanks for the valuable suggestions; the whole introduction part has been revised in the revised version of our manuscript and highlighted in yellow color.

 

- Theoretical Justifications and Hypotheses Development: In this section, it is recommended that Authors give a detailed discussion on each of the theoretical frameworks used and the relationship deduced from these frameworks to support this study. For this reason, it would be relevant to explore the themes of Dynamic Capabilities and to understand the reason why Authors led to adopt this perspective of analysis.

Please, you can consider these international studies:

• Scuotto, V., Magni, D., Palladino, R., & Nicotra, M. (2022). Triggering disruptive technology absorptive capacity by CIOs. Explorative research on a micro-foundation lens. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 121234.
• Santoro, G., Thrassou, A., Bresciani, S., & Del Giudice, M. (2019). Do knowledge management and dynamic capabilities affect ambidextrous entrepreneurial intensity and firms’ performance?. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.
• Magni, D., Scuotto, V., Pezzi, A., & Del Giudice, M. (2021). Employees’ acceptance of wearable devices: Towards a predictive model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 172, 121022.
• Singh, S. K., & Del Giudice, M. (2019). Big data analytics, dynamic capabilities and firm performance. Management Decision.
• Singh, S. K., Del Giudice, M., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Latan, H., & Sohal, A. S. (2021). Stakeholder pressure, green innovation, and performance in small and medium‐sized enterprises: The role of green dynamic capabilities. Business Strategy and the Environment.
• Del Giudice, M., & Maggioni, V. (2014). Managerial practices and operative directions of knowledge management within inter-firm networks: a global view. Journal of Knowledge Management.

 

 

Answer: Thanks for the valuable suggestion, all the articles mentioned above were informative and cited in the revised manuscript to enhance its quality.

 - Material and Method and Results: these sections appear well constructed. Well done!         

Answer: Thanks for the compliment.

 - Discussions and Conclusion: Since I deem that the discussion is relevant to confute or support previous research, I’d reinforce this section properly. Yet, starting from the findings, I would suggest Authors to explain better the novelty of results and the main theoretical but also managerial implications of the paper. Alongside, please strengthen the discussion along with the rest of the article.

Answer: Thanks for the suggestion the discussion part has been revised and highlighted in yellow color.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Still I can not find data in the paper when this research was conducted.

Author Response

The cross-sectional approach was used in the study and a total number of 750 questionnaires were distributed in January 2021 among SME entrepreneurs; in return, 650 responses were received and the data collection process was completed in August 2021. The last 480 responses were finalized, and 170 were discarded due to improper and missing information. Although there is no specific list for SMEs, and researcher completed the data collection process in different steps, due to the busy schedule of entrepreneurs. The respondents were approached through emails and physically for different cities’ listed SMEs (Zhenjiang, Changshu, Hebei, Tianjin, and Wuxi).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations

Author Response

Thank you so much for your precious time and valuable suggestions.