Assessing the Benefit of Adopting ERP Technology and Practicing Green Supply Chain Management toward Operational Performance: An Evidence from Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the authors' efforts to consider my comments. However, there are still some concerns about this manuscript.
The title of this manuscript should be revised to attract the readers of this journal.
The managerial implications of this study can be provided in a separate section from discussion one.
The authors should improve the writing style of this manuscript by avoiding using complex and unclear sentences.
I also recommend that the authors do proofreading carefully before making any decision on this manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your kindness and hard work in reading our paper carefully and advising suggestions to improve the paper's quality. We highly appreciate your very valuable expertise. We have tried to understand your comment and suggestion and revised the paper accordingly. We realize that our work could not satisfy your concern perfectly, but we have done our best and hope you can agree and accept our article for publication.

Please find attached our responses point-by-point concerning your comment and suggestion.

Once again, thank you very much and best regards

Hotlan Siagian

o/b authors 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript analyses the improvement of operation performance through the adoption of enterprise resource planning in the manufacturing industry, with active green purchasing green production and green distribution in East Java, Indonesia. The aim was to know if the enterprises get benefits from the adoption of environmental protections. For that, the data was collected from an online survey, sending to 497 manufacturing companies, during the Covid-25 pandemic and obtained results from 122 companies. The methodology is clearly explained   and theoretically grounded. The results confirmed previews findings and provide insights in the field of supply chain management although the sample is not representative of all industries.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We highly appreciate your kindness in reading our manuscript after revision and resubmission. In addition, we highly appreciate your previous comment and suggestion, allowing us to improve the quality of the paper. After your this final comments, we hope this paper is appropriate for publication.

Once again, Thank you very much and best regards

Hotlan Siagian

o/b authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

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

1- The necessity for doing this research and its contributions are unclear in the abstract section.
2- What are the theoretical and practical implications of this study?
3- As stated in the abstract, the COVID-19 outbreak motivated the authors to conduct this research, but I didn't see any information about this pandemic in the manuscript.
4- The organization of the introduction section should be improved. The main objective of this study and its contributions have not been presented in the introduction section well.
5- The literature review section doesn't reflect the features of this research compared to the previous studies. The authors should highlight the research gap.
6- Hypotheses Development must be considered as a separate section.
7- The authors should provide further explanations regarding the analysis of the results.
8- The research methodology framework is unclear.

Reviewer 2 Report

After reading the manuscript, I have several major concerns.

1. You listed three theories including SDT, TPB, and RBV. The motivation of using these three theories is not clear. These were not directly used in your framework. For example, the important elements, attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC were missed. SDT is not able to explain your hypotheses. For me, your theoretical background is not connected with your hypotheses strongly.
2. The word “affect” was used in some of your hypotheses, while others were “improve.” Affect could mean a positive or negative way. For example, you used “affect” in H5. In the paragraph, you cited “the company can improve its performance through environmentally friendly production from its factories and the entire production chain process”. When you formed the hypotheses, you have to clarify what kind of connection you’d like to investigate. Please review your hypotheses again.
3. Line 271: (Sumner, 2013) should be deleted.
4. Line 351-352: what are the following green distribution factors?
5. Why did you select food and beverage, textile, and pharmacy industry?
6. Is sample size large enough to make the sufficient conclusion?
7. What are the managerial and practical implications? What are your limitations?
8. At the end of your introduction, you wrote “The results of this research are expected to provide new insights for the manufacturing sector on how to improve operational performance with GSCM.” I do not see any “new” insights on how to improve OP with GSCM in your discussion nor conclusions.