Inclusive Digital Innovation in South Africa: Perspectives from Disadvantaged and Marginalized Communities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper reports on an interstuing study. The scale of the study is commendable and the basic methodology appears appropriate. However the analysis is somewhat superficial and there are some other issues.

1. Author explained that H1 statements as following: Please explain what does this passage have to do with h1? Also, Is there a hypothetical relationship between NeS and CE? If so，what is the relationship?

“The National E-Strategy (NeS) Framework [36] draws from the National Develop- 170 ment Plan 2030 and the South African Constitution with a mandate to create an all-inclusive information society with the right ICT skills required for effective participation in the knowledge economy. The study by Uphoff [44] on ways to empower rural farmers through ICTs in 50 different developing nations suggests the need for 'hybridization' of ICT strategies to achieve the best results. Hands-on training is envisaged to instil psycho logical empowerment through first-hand user experiences, bolstering soft skills and ca pacity to use ICT for solving daily problems and sustaining livelihoods of disadvantaged communities [23] as hypothesised: H1: National e-Strategy (NeS) initiatives influence citizen empowerment (CE).”

2. Additionally, there is no way to support your hypothesis in this paragraph. More evidence is needed to support your hypothesis. If you think there is a hypothetical relationship between NCPF-N and PP，PS，PT，PR, please explain what kind of hypothetical relationship it is.

“The NCPF [36] provides a framework for a safe, secure, robust and trustworthy cyber  environment that mitigates and counteracts cybercrimes and cyberwarfare, building citizens’ awareness, education, trust and confidence on d-commerce through effective policy  implementation. For instance, van Niekerk [45] notes that out of the 54 reported cyber incidents in South Africa between 2003 and 2017, data exposure (41%) and financial breach  (22%) exerted the highest threats and impact on financial transactions for both organizations and customers. The NCPF provides a fundamental theoretical grounding for under standing privacy, security, trust and risk matters affecting disadvantaged citizens’ intentions and decisions to adopt and use d-commerce as postulated:

H2: NCPF-NeS initiatives influence perceived privacy (PP) on d-commerce.

H3: NCPF-NeS initiatives influence perceived security (PS) on d-commerce.

H4: NCPF-NeS initiatives influence perceived trust (PT) on d-commerce.

H5: NCPF-NeS initiatives influence perceived risk (PR) on d-commerce.”

3. Related to H6-H14, If these are hypotheses, please indicate whether there is a positive or negative effect relationship between them。More literature and evidence are needed to support each hypothesis. In general, the hypothesis section of this study is not very clear and does not indicate what kind of influence relationship it is, as well as the lack of strong literature evidence in the derived hypothesis.

4. In Research model section, the research model lacks a theoretical basis. What is your overarching theory? In addition, please state more correctly CE and OB.

5. Two hypotheses, h2 and h5, did not pass and need to be clearly explained why they did not pass. Please state the reasons why they did not pass in the context of this study.

Author Response

The paper reports on an interesting study. The scale of the study is commendable and the basic methodology appears appropriate. However, the analysis is somewhat superficial and there are some other issues.

1. Author explained that H1 statements as following: Please explain what does this passage have to do with h1? Also, Is there a hypothetical relationship between NeS and CE? If so what is the relationship?

RESPONSE: The paragraph was changed and the content aligned to two ways in which ICT-enabled developments are enacted, i.e. top-down approach (i.e. in which government, NGOs, private organizations come up with policies) targeted at driving development by providing leadership, financial resources, technical and training assistance. Thus, the National e-Strategy plays a pivotal role in outlining these aspects; which in-turn are implemented to empower people in disadvantaged societies with the right skills, financial assistance, access to ICTs etc. Thus, inclusive digital innovations for disadvantaged societies are never haphazardly implemented; policy documents provide a roadmap. Hence, the hypothesised relationship. This approach was adopted by this study. Whilst, community-driven development constitutes the second approach in which the development agenda is initiated by members of the disadvantaged society. However, in most cases, most disadvantaged dwellers are not well-informed about the latest ICT developments required for digital inclusion – thus, this approach is not ideal for this study.

“The National E-Strategy (NeS) Framework [36] draws from the National Develop- 170 ment Plan 2030 and the South African Constitution with a mandate to create an all-inclusive information society with the right ICT skills required for effective participation in the knowledge economy. The study by Uphoff [44] on ways to empower rural farmers through ICTs in 50 different developing nations suggests the need for 'hybridization' of ICT strategies to achieve the best results. Hands-on training is envisaged to instil psycho logical empowerment through first-hand user experiences, bolstering soft skills and ca pacity to use ICT for solving daily problems and sustaining livelihoods of disadvantaged communities [23] as hypothesised: H1: National e-Strategy (NeS) initiatives influence citizen empowerment (CE).”

2. Additionally, there is no way to support your hypothesis in this paragraph. More evidence is needed to support your hypothesis. If you think there is a hypothetical relationship between NCPF-N and PP，PS，PT，PR, please explain what kind of hypothetical relationship it is.

“The NCPF [36] provides a framework for a safe, secure, robust and trustworthy cyber environment that mitigates and counteracts cybercrimes and cyberwarfare, building citizens’ awareness, education, trust and confidence on d-commerce through effective policy implementation. For instance, van Niekerk [45] notes that out of the 54 reported cyber incidents in South Africa between 2003 and 2017, data exposure (41%) and financial breach  (22%) exerted the highest threats and impact on financial transactions for both organizations and customers. The NCPF provides a fundamental theoretical grounding for under standing privacy, security, trust and risk matters affecting disadvantaged citizens’ intentions and decisions to adopt and use d-commerce as postulated:

H2: NCPF-NeS initiatives influence perceived privacy (PP) on d-commerce.

H3: NCPF-NeS initiatives influence perceived security (PS) on d-commerce.

H4: NCPF-NeS initiatives influence perceived trust (PT) on d-commerce.

H5: NCPF-NeS initiatives influence perceived risk (PR) on d-commerce.”

RESPONSE: In line with your suggestions, the above paragraph was rephrased and additional references were provided to justify the relationships as asked. Moreover, all the hypotheses were rephrased to incorporated the suggested changes of “significance/positively/negatively influencing another variable” i.e.

The NCPF-NeS [42] provides a framework for a safe, secure, robust, and trustworthy cyber environment that mitigates and counteracts cybercrimes and cyberwarfare, building citizens' awareness, education, trust, and confidence in d-commerce through effective policy implementation. Abdullah et al. [39] hypothesized that there is a gap between convention (i.e., e-strategy) and the practice of d-commerce. As such, the relevant government entities and online service providers must develop a 'customer-centric' e-strategy that addresses stakeholders' needs and promotes widespread acceptance and adoption. According to Gorundutse and Hilman [43], a strategy has a significant influence on business performance. Various studies identify three dimensions for measuring a strategy; customer perspective [39], internal processes [44], and competitive strategy [44]. This study focuses on the relationship between e-strategy and customer perspective, paying attention to how privacy, security, trust, and risk matter affecting the acceptance and adoption of d-commerce by disadvantaged citizens as postulated:

H2: NCPF-NeS initiatives significantly influence citizens ’perceptions of privacy (PP) on d-commerce.

H3: NCPF-NeS initiatives significantly influence citizens ’perceptions of security (PS) on d-commerce.

H4: NCPF-NeS initiatives significantly influence citizens ’perceptions of trust (PT) on d-commerce.

H5: NCPF-NeS initiatives significantly influence citizens ’perceptions of risk (PR) on d-commerce.

3. Related to H6-H14, If these are hypotheses, please indicate whether there is a positive or negative effect relationship between them。More literature and evidence are needed to support each hypothesis. In general, the hypothesis section of this study is not very clear and does not indicate what kind of influence relationship it is, as well as the lack of strong literature evidence in the derived hypothesis.

RESPONSE: Whilst I concur to some extent with the reviewer; it should be stated clearly that there is no “golden-rule”, even in literature that hypotheses should be stated as suggested. If the hypothesis is clear, and depending on which criteria you are going to use to evaluate your defined hypotheses, a positive or negative effect relationship is not a single way for evaluation. For instance, in the case of this study, hypotheses are evaluated according to Hair et al., [2018); i.e. “Hypotheses of this study were tested using Hair’s et al. [70] rule of thumb, which states that the parameter coefficient (standardized loading weight) of the hypothesised relationship is statistically significant (p < 0.05) when its t-test value is greater than 1.96.” Thus, the raised aspect of having a relationship as either “positively” or “negatively” to related will be evaluated and analysed at the findings (i.e. Table 7) and discussion level. However, for the sack of conformity with the raised issue, all hypotheses were adjusted. Similarly, if we refer to some of the hypotheses declared in the published articles in ‘Sustainability’ i.e. “Dahri, N.A.; Vighio, M.S.; Bather, J.D.; Arain, A.A. Factors Influencing the Acceptance of Mobile Collaborative Learning for the Continuous Professional Development of Teachers. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13222. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313222” my raised points still stand. Not every relationship can be either “positively” or “negatively” declared.

4. In Research model section, the research model lacks a theoretical basis. What is your overarching theory? In addition, please state more correctly CE and OB.

RESPONSE: The reason why the detailed Section “3. Theoretical grounding and hypotheses development” was provided and discussed in detail was to provide a rounded theoretical grounding for the study, leading to the development of the “B2C d-commerce conceptual framework” for the study. This statement i.e. “the research model lacks a theoretical basis” leaves me wondering as to why this study had to identify and analysed relevant theories above the Research Model Section? Furthermore, it is clearly stated in the first sentence of Section 3 that, “The multidiscipline-nature of d-commerce and the interplay of governmental and non-governmental organizations, regulatory institutions, consumer pressure-groups and civil society makes it difficult and insufficient for this study to be underpinned by a single model.” Therefore, in response, all the outlined theories are “your overarching theories” as they provide some essential construct variables required to build the proposed “conceptual framework” for this study.

5. Two hypotheses, h2 and h5, did not pass and need to be clearly explained why they did not pass. Please state the reasons why they did not pass in the context of this study.

RESPONSE: Possible justification and clarification added: The findings also suggest that the NCPF-NeS plays no significant role in building citizens' confidence in the privacy and risky perceptions regarding d-commerce technologies. The data for this study could not support hypotheses 1 and 2, thus, calling for further investigation. This finding is unexpected and deviates from findings of prior studies [82,83], which established the two constructs as significant. A possible explanation of this finding could be that most transactions performed (i.e., telephonic ordering of goods and food items followed by the ATM card tap-payment option with the courier person) eliminated most risks associated with cyber hacking and theft. Similarly, privacy concerns to the possible loss of confidential banking details and personal information are less significant if the customer is not performing any transaction. This is in line with the findings of previous studies [84, 85]. Perceived privacy and perceived risk were significant predictors of d-commerce use intention, which reaffirms the results of previous studies [75, 86]. This finding implies that when the government enforces privacy issues stipulated in the national cybersecurity policy and through the judiciary system, citizens are motivated to adopt d-commerce technologies. Similarly, negative risk perceptions lead to low adoption, as established in previous studies [87,88]. This might explain why the adoption and use of d-commerce technologies among disadvantaged and marginalized people are treated with skepticism in South Africa.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author, 

Thank you for the opportunity to review such an interesting paper, which covers a topic of great interest for scholars on one side and for practitioners on the other side. Regarding the paper, I have some suggestions for a brief paper revision, as follows: 

• row 9 - recommend that after the digital commerce you mention also (d-commerce);
• row 44 - the word heist = robbery? 
• row 52 - isn't it the word "participate", rather than participation
• row 66 - recommend starting with: "According to the ....", also between "(UNCTAD)" B2C you are missing an "and"
• row 94 - use the word "adopt"
• row 94 - 97 - phrase starting with "Recently....." is not clear, you should consider rephrasing it
• row 99 - you mention "soaring interest", I recommend adding more references here to prove soaring interest
• in section 3.3 you mention Ajzen's TPB theory and in 3.4 you cover the Citizen empowerment theory in both sections you also underline the adoption of the technology. I believe that you could also mention some aspects regarding Davis's Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) that could bring some further light in the process of understanding of technological adoption. 
• With line 344 you end the 5.1. section. It could be interesting to also mention in this section id the questions in sections B and C were placed in a specific order or not, or if your questionnaire is using the "funnel method" from general questions to particular ones. 
• Sections 5.2 and 6.2 have the same name. Is it intentional or is it a mistake? If it is mistake, I recommend you change the title of section 6.2 because there is no connection between name and content. 

As a conclusion, your paper is an interesting one, it covers some important topics design to understand consumer usage and behaviour in the context of digital commerce. I also recommend you check the spelling in your paper, in my opinion you still have some small issues here and there. 

Author Response

HOW I RESPONDED TO THE ISSUES RAISED (SECTION-BY-SECTION):

• row 9 - recommend that after the digital commerce you mention also (d-commerce); - d-commerce was added.
• row 44 - the word heist = robbery? - the word heist was replaced with robbery to avoid confusion.
• row 52 - isn't it the word "participate", rather than participation - its rather the opposite, participation was replaced by "participate".
• row 66 - recommend starting with: "According to the ....", also between "(UNCTAD)" B2C you are missing an "and" - sentence was rephrased and started with "According to the" ... and the word "and" was added as suggested.
• row 94 - use the word "adopt"
• row 94 - 97 - phrase starting with "Recently....." is not clear, you should consider rephrasing it - REPHRASED
• row 99 - you mention "soaring interest", I recommend adding more references here to prove soaring interest – ADDED REF [24] SPEAKS TO THIS ASPECT!
• in section 3.3 you mention Ajzen's TPB theory and in 3.4 you cover the Citizen empowerment theory in both sections you also underline the adoption of the technology. I believe that you could also mention some aspects regarding Davis's Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) that could bring some further light in the process of understanding of technological adoption. RESPONSE: Theory of planned behaviour (TPB) was replaced with the Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2) in Section 3.3. This is a flexible and universal theory suitable for evaluating user acceptance of e-commerce.
• With line 344 you end the 5.1. section. It could be interesting to also mention in this section id the questions in sections B and C were placed in a specific order or not, or if your questionnaire is using the "funnel method" from general questions to particular ones. - ADDED: A "funnel method" from general questions to particular ones was used. This statement was added as per suggestion.
• Sections 5.2 and 6.2 have the same name. Is it intentional or is it a mistake? If it is mistake, I recommend you change the title of section 6.2 because there is no connection between name and content.  THIS WAS A MISTAKE – RECTIFIED AND PROPER TITLES ADDED! i.e. Section 6.1 was removed, and then Section 6.2 became Section 6.1 and renamed to “Data cleaning and normality test.”

• As a conclusion, your paper is an interesting one, it covers some important topics design to understand consumer usage and behaviour in the context of digital commerce. I also recommend you check the spelling in your paper, in my opinion you still have some small issues here and there. RESPONSE: Paper was submitted for grammar editing as suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Many thanks for the opportunity to review this manuscript. This manuscript is presenting empirical research on the important topic of B2C dcommerce adoption in disadvantaged and marginalised communities.

I read the paper with interest.  The study method is well fitting and there are interesting findings,  a narrower focus and sharper conceptual and theoretical elaboration of the empirical findings. An analytical framework developed specifically for this purpose seems to be useful. But I  still have some conerns about the paper.

1.As for topics like digital commerce adoption are not currently most of people concern. So I think maybe the author need to emphasize the importance of inclusive digital innovation, especially for societies in South Africa.  And thus, the impact of those adoption of dcommerce will bring to the whole society.

2. The theories used in the paper related to empowerment is somewhat limited. Some of the papers in IS journals have invested different types of digital empowerment.  I strongly recommend the author(s) to refer those literatures. Below is the representative one.

Carmen Leong et al. THE EMERGENCE OF SELF-ORGANIZING E-COMMERCE
ECOSYSTEMS IN REMOTE VILLAGES OF CHINA: A TALE OF DIGITAL EMPOWERMENT FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MIS Quarterly, 2016

3. For the discussion and research result,  while raise managerial suggestion, best practices or other recommendable policies maybe further enhanced.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO THE RAISED ISSUES:

1.As for topics like digital commerce adoption are not currently most of people concern. So, I think maybe the author need to emphasize the importance of inclusive digital innovation, especially for societies in South Africa.  And thus, the impact of those adoption of d-commerce will bring to the whole society. RESPONSE: The topic was changed as suggested from “Empowerment, adoption and propensity to recommend B2C d-commerce in disadvantaged and marginalised communities in South Africa” to “ Inclusive digital innovation in South Africa: Perspectives from disadvantaged and marginalized communities

”

2. The theories used in the paper related to empowerment is somewhat limited. Some of the papers in IS journals have invested different types of digital empowerment.  I strongly recommend the author(s) to refer those literatures. Below is the representative one.

Carmen Leong et al. THE EMERGENCE OF SELF-ORGANIZING E-COMMERCE
ECOSYSTEMS IN REMOTE VILLAGES OF CHINA: A TALE OF DIGITAL EMPOWERMENT FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MIS Quarterly, 2016.

RESPOSE: This is a valuable article and some aspects from it were infused under the already defined theories, i.e. in Section 3.1, second paragraph leading to the definition of Hypothesis (H1). This was done for a purpose, i.e. by incorporating a new stand-alone theory section, it calls for the establishment of a new hypothesis. Given that the model and hypotheses were already proposed and data collected and analysed, adding a new theory was not possible. Otherwise the whole process of data collection and analysis had to be re-done; or else be forced to end up having cooked up results and lies. Thus, only some pertinent aspects like the top-down and community-driven approach to ICT-enabled development were incorporated into the current study. Likewise, the recommended article was properly referenced.

3. For the discussion and research result,  while raise managerial suggestion, best practices or other recommendable policies maybe further enhanced. RESPONSE: This aspect was added under subsection “8.2. Implications for ICT for development”: > ‘Moreover, this ensures socio-economic sustainability of marginalized people. Thus, all these efforts go a long way towards embracing best inclusive digital innovation practices. Similarly, digital inclusive and responsive policies maybe further enhanced.’

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I reread the manuscript of this round and I believe the authors have done a good job in revising their manuscript in response to reviewers’ comments, and thus I won’t change my recommendation. I would recommend acceptance for this paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author, 

Thank you for your hard work and the changes that you have done in order to improve your paper. I think the paper is good now.