Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Lucia Vigoroso 1,2,*,
  • Roberto Sorrenti 3 and
  • Federica Caffaro 1
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Mohammad Ali Tareq Reviewer 3: José Manuel Saiz-Alvarez Reviewer 4: Muhammad Fareed

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very nice paper. I was wondering how the paper contributes to previous papers on open innovation and no-profit organizations not clearly outlined in the current version of the paper. For example: 

Dell’Era C., Di Minin A., Ferrigno G., Frattini F., Landoni P., and Verganti R. (2020). “Value capture in open innovation processes with radical circles: a longitudinal analysis of firms' collaborations with Slow Food, Memphis, and Free Software Foundation”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120128.

Abhari, K., & McGuckin, S. (2023). Limiting factors of open innovation organizations: A case of social product development and research agenda. Technovation, 119, 102526.

You may find useful discussing how your paper contributes to these papers.

Thanks for the opportunity to read your research.

Author Response

Leading Open Innovation for Social Sustainable Development: Enablers in a Non-Profit Organization

Ms. Ref. No.: sustainability-2252266

 

Authors’ response to Reviewer 1

COMMENT: This is a very nice paper. I was wondering how the paper contributes to previous papers on open innovation and no-profit organizations not clearly outlined in the current version of the paper. For example: 

Dell’Era C., Di Minin A., Ferrigno G., Frattini F., Landoni P., and Verganti R. (2020). “Value capture in open innovation processes with radical circles: a longitudinal analysis of firms' collaborations with Slow Food, Memphis, and Free Software Foundation”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120128.

Abhari, K., & McGuckin, S. (2023). Limiting factors of open innovation organizations: A case of social product development and research agenda. Technovation, 119, 102526.

You may find useful discussing how your paper contributes to these papers.

Thanks for the opportunity to read your research.

RESPONSE: We thank the Reviewer for the general positive comment on the manuscript. Following the Reviewer’s comments and suggestions, we carefully revised the manuscript to make it suitable for publication. In particular, we carefully considered suggestions provided by the references indicated by the Reviewer, and they gave us the possibility to work on the novel contribution of the study and its theoretical and practical implications. Proper section was added in a dedicated part of the manuscript at page 15, lines 568-603.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper investigated the determinants of OI in an NPO that leads a consortium of companies and the added value provided in terms of social sustainability adopting a mixed-method approach. The Authors considered the role of technological and economic barriers, organizational culture, OI management process, and leadership skills and values to investigate 77 employees and 8 managers of the NPO. The following comments and necessary revisions are advised to make the paper more reader-friendly.

 

Comments:

1.      Abstract needs to be rewritten in

2.      P2L68: Why did you use the term “a consortium”? Is it because you have mentioned ‘Social Network’ in the previous sentence?

3.      P2L65: Until L65, you were discussing about the flow within the organization. Suddenly, in L65 the term ‘the diverse sets of partners…’ is mentioned. It seems the consortium is used and it means it is referring to the information flow with outsiders. Line 65-70 needs to be rewritten to avoid repetitions.

4.      P3L109: ‘Based on the abovementioned state of the art’ – redundant. Delete.

5.      P3L111-115: ‘Through a mixed-method …. sustainable development’ – is it necessary to mention it here? It can be moved under material and method.

6.      The discussion in Section 1.1 is rather confusing. If ELIS is the sample of study, the title of the paper needs to be revised.

7.      As per the discussion in Section 1.1, ELIS provides customer-oriented training programs. If the study sample is ELIS, then the employees of the ELIS are the trainers who were interviewed, not the employee of the NPO implementing the OI activities. Rather, it is the trainers who help facilitating the trainees to initiate OI activities within their own organization. Is it true?

8.      P3L141: ‘In the present research …… in a poorly investigated organizational context’ – please explain why? Or is it a typo?

9.      From Section 2, it seems the focus is on understanding the perception of the ELIS employees on the OI in ELIS. If this is true, does OI concept holds true for a training providing organization? Will it be innovation in service provided? Please go back to comment 7 and rethink.

10.   P4L165: Section 2.1 mentions ‘About a third of ELIS workers are engaged in innovation 165 processes (just over 110 people)’ – it means there are OI initiatives been taken within ELIS, it would be better to mention those initiative in Section 1.1.

11.   From Table 2-6: Although there are a number of instruments presented in respective tables, some of these items are unrelated to OI, e.g., Table 4 shows the items which may look more like the factors hindering the OI initiatives. A number of items in Table 6 are more like a survey on the customer satisfaction instead of OI initiative. May be to avoid the misconception on the OI initiatives for ELIS, authors should add a discussion in section 1.1. That may also help readers understand why this study on ELIS in impactful to others.

12.   The models used for Table 7-9 need to be explicitly mentioned/presented in the text as there is no mapping between the Items and the 3-dimensions (Customer Orientation, Managers’ approach and Achieving Goals) are given properly. Cross tabulation in Table 1, 4 and 6 are not enough.

 

13.   English needs to be proofread before resubmission.

 

Decision: MAJOR RIVISION

 

 

Thank you.

Author Response

Leading Open Innovation for Social Sustainable Development: Enablers in a Non-Profit Organization

Ms. Ref. No.: sustainability-2252266

 

Authors’ response to Reviewer 2

COMMENT: The paper investigated the determinants of OI in an NPO that leads a consortium of companies and the added value provided in terms of social sustainability adopting a mixed-method approach. The Authors considered the role of technological and economic barriers, organizational culture, OI management process, and leadership skills and values to investigate 77 employees and 8 managers of the NPO. The following comments and necessary revisions are advised to make the paper more reader-friendly.

RESPONSE: We thank the Reviewer his/her comments on the manuscript. Each comment provided was carefully considered to make the manuscript suitable for publication.

COMMENT 1: Abstract needs to be rewritten in

RESPONSE: The abstract was partially rewritten based on the revised content of the manuscript (see page 1 lines 12-24).

COMMENT 2. P2L68: Why did you use the term “a consortium”? Is it because you have mentioned ‘Social Network’ in the previous sentence?

RESPONSE: The term “consortium” was used since the NPO considered in the present study is the leader of a consortium of enterprises, universities and other types of organizations, that cooperate to achieve social goals thanks to an open innovation process boosted by the NPO. To avoid any misundertanding, the term ‘social network’ was removed and the ELIS ‘consortium’ was introduced in section 2.1, to describe the placement of the NPO within a collaborative network of different innovation promoters.

COMMENT 3. P2L65: Until L65, you were discussing about the flow within the organization. Suddenly, in L65 the term ‘the diverse sets of partners…’ is mentioned. It seems the consortium is used and it means it is referring to the information flow with outsiders. Line 65-70 needs to be rewritten to avoid repetitions.

RESPONSE: We thank the Reviewer for the comment. In the current version of the manuscript the Introduction section has been largely rewritten and we did our best to clarify how the knowledge flows between the NPO ELIS and the members of its consortium. However, the concept of the free flow of information and knowledge between partners involved in developing Open Innovation is still relevant, since the OI is mainly based on “purposive knowledge flows across organizational boundaries for monetary or non-monetary reasons” (Chesbrough H., Bogers, 2014) and it is strongly connected with the concept of inbound and outbound innovation. The investigated NPO can help firms to expand their absorptive capacity and develop inbound OI to foster social change. This concept has been described through the theoretical background section (see page 2-3 lines 68-131).

COMMENT 4. P3L109: ‘Based on the abovementioned state of the art’ – redundant. Delete.

RESPONSE: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. As requested, the redundant sentence was removed.

COMMENT 5. P3L111-115: ‘Through a mixed-method …. sustainable development’ – is it necessary to mention it here? It can be moved under material and method.

RESPONSE: We thank the Reviewer for the comment. Following it, the mixed-method approach used has been cited in the materials and methods section only (2.2. Research design), to avoid redundant sentences (see page 5 line 194).

COMMENT 6. The discussion in Section 1.1 is rather confusing. If ELIS is the sample of study, the title of the paper needs to be revised.

RESPONSE: Following the Reviewer’s comment, in this revision we clarified that our focus was on the functioning of the NPO ELIS, to understand which processes and variables can support its role as an intermediary and active developer of innovation in a consortium of enterprises. Therefore, the title of the paper was revised, and it now reads “Non-Profit Organizations as facilitators of Sustainable Social Innovation in Firms: An Italian Case Study”

COMMENT 7. As per the discussion in Section 1.1, ELIS provides customer-oriented training programs. If the study sample is ELIS, then the employees of the ELIS are the trainers who were interviewed, not the employee of the NPO implementing the OI activities. Rather, it is the trainers who help facilitating the trainees to initiate OI activities within their own organization. Is it true?

COMMENT 9. From Section 2, it seems the focus is on understanding the perception of the ELIS employees on the OI in ELIS. If this is true, does OI concept holds true for a training providing organization? Will it be innovation in service provided? Please go back to comment 7 and rethink.

RESPONSE: We thank the Reviewer for these comments, which allowed us to avoid possible misunderstanding on the role covered by ELIS employees within the OI process and knowledge flow among the consortium partners. Based on this, and to better explain the involvement of ELIS workers in the OI process, Figure 1 was added (page 5) and the ELIS labs and departments in which our participants were employed was depicted in Figure 2 (page 6). Secondly, these comments allowed us to stress the importance for the NPO of having employees open to working with the OI community and having strong social values. This organizational structure promoted by ELIS ensures innovativeness in the consortium members and inspires external OI partners and maintains the OI productivity.

COMMENT 8. P3L141: ‘In the present research …… in a poorly investigated organizational context’ – please explain why? Or is it a typo?

RESPONSE: To clarify the meaning of the sentence, it was partially rewritten, it now reads “In the present research, a case study method was used to generate a multi-faceted understanding of ELIS [NPO] organizational culture and the enablers and barriers it has to face in its role as IDNPO in the consortium of enterprises” (page 5, lines 187-189)

COMMENT 10. P4L165: Section 2.1 mentions ‘About a third of ELIS workers are engaged in innovation 165 processes (just over 110 people)’ – it means there are OI initiatives been taken within ELIS, it would be better to mention those initiative in Section 1.1.

RESPONSE: Following the Reviewer’s comment, three relevant initiatives promoted by ELIS were mentioned and briefly described in the Context section, highlighting the social values of those projects, born during the Semester Process (page 4 lines 172-182). To better explain this co-creative process involving partner enterprises  and ELIS workers, Figure 1 was added at the end of the case study section (page 5).

COMMENT 11.   From Table 2-6: Although there are a number of instruments presented in respective tables, some of these items are unrelated to OI, e.g., Table 4 shows the items which may look more like the factors hindering the OI initiatives.

A number of items in Table 6 are more like a survey on the customer satisfaction instead of OI initiative. May be to avoid the misconception on the OI initiatives for ELIS, authors should add a discussion in section 1.1. That may also help readers understand why this study on ELIS in impactful to others.   

RESPONSE: Following the Reviewer’s comment, we revised the tables in this version of the manuscript, and the labels of the various factor loadings were correctly reported. In particular, we apologize for the mistakes in Table 4 and we thank the Reviewer for noticing the discrepancy in the factor loading labels. Also, based on this, to facilitate the readership in reading the results, Tables 1-6 were merged into one table only (now Table 1, see pages 8-9 lines 306-208).

With regard to items in Table 6 (now items coded with COB1-COB4, see appendix A, line 660), they were chosen based on the study conducted by Sashkin and Rosenbach (1993) on the Culture and Organizational Behavior to assess ELIS organizational culture.

COMMENT 12. The models used for Table 7-9 need to be explicitly mentioned/presented in the text as there is no mapping between the Items and the 3-dimensions (Customer Orientation, Managers’ approach and Achieving Goals) are given properly. Cross tabulation in Table 1, 4 and 6 are not enough.

RESPONSE: We carefully considered this comment and decided to revise specific parts and tables reported in the results section. In particular, to make the reading of the regression analyses more clear, in the main text only the significant results were transcribed and only R2 and significant p values reported (see page 9 lines 309-317). Then, Tables 7, 8 and 9 were simplified and merged into one table only (now Table 2) adding the required legend in notes (see page 9 lines 318-321).

COMMENT 13. English needs to be proofread before resubmission

RESPONSE: Following the Reviewer’s comment, the revised version of the manuscript was language checked.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Row 220. I suggest the authors be precise in the sum of explained variances (e.g., they have written “total explained variance over 70%,” and it should be: “total explained variance: 77.46%”.

Row 231. Please, specify the Table in “69.31% of the variance” (corresponds to Table 3)

Row 234. 69.62% should be 69.61% (as shown in Table 5)

Row 249. I suggest the authors include a legend in Tables 7, 8, and 9.

Row 357. If possible, I suggest the authors include a Figure to connect all concepts and results analyzed in the section entitled “Skills and values for an effective OI management.”

Row 544. I suggest the authors include the questionnaire used as an Annex.

Author Response

Leading Open Innovation for Social Sustainable Development: Enablers in a Non-Profit Organization

Ms. Ref. No.: sustainability-2252266

 

Authors’ response to Reviewer 3

Row 220. I suggest the authors be precise in the sum of explained variances (e.g., they have written “total explained variance over 70%,” and it should be: “total explained variance: 77.46%”.

Row 231. Please, specify the Table in “69.31% of the variance” (corresponds to Table 3)

Row 234. 69.62% should be 69.61% (as shown in Table 5)

RESPONSE: We thank the Reviewer for noticing these discrepancies. However, following these comments and to avoid possible misunderstanding in reading EFA results, the data was checked, corrected and reported in one table only (see page – line --). In addition, to help the readership, Tables 1-6 were merged into one table only (now table 1) in the revised version of the manuscript (see page 8-9 lines 306-208).

Row 249. I suggest the authors include a legend in Tables 7, 8, and 9.

RESPONSE: We carefully considered this comment and decided to revise this specific part of the results section.  In particular, to make the reading of the regression analyses clearer, in the main text only significant results were transcribed and only R2 and significant p values reported (see page 9 lines 309-317). Then, Tables 7, 8 and 9 were simplified and merged into one table only (now Table 2) adding the required legend in notes (see page 9 lines 318-321).

Row 357. If possible, I suggest the authors include a Figure to connect all concepts and results analyzed in the section entitled “Skills and values for an effective OI management.”

RESPONSE: We thank the Reviewer for the comment which allowed us to show more clearly the results that emerged from the analysis of the qualitative data. Thus, Figure 3 was added at the end of the results section (see page 13 line 488-489)

Row 544. I suggest the authors include the questionnaire used as an Annex.

RESPONSE: Following the Reviewer’s comment, Appendix A (see pages 16-17 lines 653-660) and Appendix B (see page 18 lines 661-662) were added in the revised version of the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is a reasonable effort, It provides valuable insights into the concept of Open Innovation for Social Sustainable Development and in the context of NPOs. However, the authors are recommended to add some justifications:

-> The practical research GAP is well explained, however, the theoretical gap is not explained well scientifically. Therefore, the authors are advised to revise and modify the introduction section with proper justification and arguments from the literature. In this regard, the authors are recommended to add theoretical gaps and contributions from recent studies.

-> No literature review is been given in the article. There is no theoretical backing for the manuscript therefore author/s are advised to add a literature section to the manuscript. For such purpose, authors might want to cite the latest articles mentioned below:

1. de Oliveira, L. S., Echeveste, M. E. S., Cortimiglia, M. N., & Gonçalves, C. G. C. (2017). Analysis of Determinants for open innovation implementation in regional innovation systems. RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação, 14(2), 119-129.

2. Huggins, R., Prokop, D., & Thompson, P. (2020). Universities and open innovation: The determinants of network centrality. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45, 718-757.

3. Costa, J., & Matias, J. C. (2020). Open innovation 4.0 as an enhancer of sustainable innovation ecosystems. Sustainability, 12(19), 8112.

4. Bigliardi, B., & Filippelli, S. (2022). Sustainability and open innovation: Main themes and research trajectories. Sustainability, 14(11), 6763.

5. Jusoh, M. S., Ahmad, S. R., Yusuf, D. H. M., Salleh, S. S. M. M., & Din, M. S. H. (2021, July). Productivity improvement in food manufacturing company: Process innovation using total productive maintenance. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2347, No. 1, p. 020238). AIP Publishing LLC.

6. Kurniawati, A., Sunaryo, I., Wiratmadja, I. I., & Irianto, D. (2022). Sustainability-Oriented Open Innovation: A Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Perspective. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(2), 69.

7. Bigliardi, B., Ferraro, G., Filippelli, S., & Galati, F. (2021). The past, present and future of open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(4), 1130-1161.

8. Fareed, M., Noor, W. S., Isa, M. F., & Salleh, S. S. (2016). Developing human capital for sustainable competitive advantage: the roles of organizational culture and high performance work system. International Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(4).

9. Masucci, M., Brusoni, S., & Cennamo, C. (2020). Removing bottlenecks in business ecosystems: The strategic role of outbound open innovation. Research Policy, 49(1), 103823.

10. Ober, J. (2022). Open innovation in the ICT industry: Substantiation from Poland. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(3), 158.

-> Author/s should also cite the prominent scholars (gurus) of the studied variables.

-> Present and document the quality of the methodology in a better way. To ensure thequality of the overall research process, the study must have rigor.

-> For the qualitative research approach (interview protocols, no. of interviews, and participants chosen) which guidelines were used in the manuscript? Please refer to the following study for the qualitative guidelines and cite it:

1. Fareed M, Ahmad A, Salleh SSMM, Noor WSWM and Isa MFM (2022) What Makes Human Resource Professionals Effective? An Exploratory Lesson From Techno-Based Telco Firms of a Developing Country. Front. Psychol. 13:774165. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.774165

-> Authors need to separate the methodology for both approaches (quantitative and qualitative) and detailed the information related to the methodology. i.e. sampling technique, the population of the study, development of instrument (questionnaire + interview protocol), and why the selected respondents/participants were chosen?

-> Authors are recommended to put the interview protocol in the appendix section.

-> Reporting of tables and discussion are very weak. Needless to say, when it comes to discussing findings and contributions, we conform or differ from the work of previous scholars, in addition, to highlighting the unique contribution of our own work or how our work is different from prior studies.

-> Authors are recommended to add implications section consisting of theoretical and practical implications in addition to the limitation and future research recommendations.

Author Response

Leading Open Innovation for Social Sustainable Development: Enablers in a Non-Profit Organization

Ms. Ref. No.: sustainability-2252266

 

Authors’ response to Reviewer 4

COMMENT: The paper is a reasonable effort, It provides valuable insights into the concept of Open Innovation for Social Sustainable Development and in the context of NPOs. However, the authors are recommended to add some justifications:

RESPONSE: We thank the Reviewer for the general positive comment on the manuscript. Each comment provided was carefully considered to make the manuscript suitable for publication.

-> The practical research GAP is well explained, however, the theoretical gap is not explained well scientifically. Therefore, the authors are advised to revise and modify the introduction section with proper justification and arguments from the literature. In this regard, the authors are recommended to add theoretical gaps and contributions from recent studies.

COMMENT: -> No literature review is been given in the article. There is no theoretical backing for the manuscript therefore author/s are advised to add a literature section to the manuscript. For such purpose, authors might want to cite the latest articles mentioned below:

  1. de Oliveira, L. S., Echeveste, M. E. S., Cortimiglia, M. N., & Gonçalves, C. G. C. (2017). Analysis of Determinants for open innovation implementation in regional innovation systems. RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação, 14(2), 119-129.
  2. Huggins, R., Prokop, D., & Thompson, P. (2020). Universities and open innovation: The determinants of network centrality. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45, 718-757.
  3. Costa, J., & Matias, J. C. (2020). Open innovation 4.0 as an enhancer of sustainable innovation ecosystems. Sustainability, 12(19), 8112.
  4. Bigliardi, B., & Filippelli, S. (2022). Sustainability and open innovation: Main themes and research trajectories. Sustainability, 14(11), 6763.
  5. Jusoh, M. S., Ahmad, S. R., Yusuf, D. H. M., Salleh, S. S. M. M., & Din, M. S. H. (2021, July). Productivity improvement in food manufacturing company: Process innovation using total productive maintenance. In AIP Conference Proceedings(Vol. 2347, No. 1, p. 020238). AIP Publishing LLC.
  6. Kurniawati, A., Sunaryo, I., Wiratmadja, I. I., & Irianto, D. (2022). Sustainability-Oriented Open Innovation: A Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Perspective. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(2), 69.
  7. Bigliardi, B., Ferraro, G., Filippelli, S., & Galati, F. (2021). The past, present and future of open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(4), 1130-1161.
  8. Fareed, M., Noor, W. S., Isa, M. F., & Salleh, S. S. (2016). Developing human capital for sustainable competitive advantage: the roles of organizational culture and high performance work system. International Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(4).
  9. Masucci, M., Brusoni, S., & Cennamo, C. (2020). Removing bottlenecks in business ecosystems: The strategic role of outbound open innovation. Research Policy, 49(1), 103823.
  10. Ober, J. (2022). Open innovation in the ICT industry: Substantiation from Poland. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(3), 158.

COMMENT: -> Author/s should also cite the prominent scholars (gurus) of the studied variables. RESPONSE: Considering this comment by the Reviewer, the Introduction section has been largely rewritten. We thank the Reviewer for the several useful references provided, which gave us the possibility to better explain how our manuscript contributes to filling the gap in the current literature. Thus, in the revised version of the manuscript, section ‘1.1 theoretical background’ was added (page 1-3 lines 28-131) and all the references which could provide substantial contributions to justify the study and frame it theoretically were added.

COMMENT: -> Present and document the quality of the methodology in a better way. To ensure the quality of the overall research process, the study must have rigor.

COMMENT: -> For the qualitative research approach (interview protocols, no. of interviews, and participants chosen) which guidelines were used in the manuscript? Please refer to the following study for the qualitative guidelines and cite it:

  1. Fareed M, Ahmad A, Salleh SSMM, Noor WSWM and Isa MFM (2022) What Makes Human Resource Professionals Effective? An Exploratory Lesson From Techno-Based Telco Firms of a Developing Country. Front. Psychol. 13:774165. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.774165

RESPONSE: We really thank the Reviewer for these comments and the article suggested. These comments gave us the possibility to improve the quality and the rigor of the methods section by adding relevant information regarding the methodology adopted especially with regard to the qualitative approach (see in particular section 2.2.2 page 7 lines 266-281, and section 2.3.2 page 7 lines 295-303).

COMMENT: -> Authors need to separate the methodology for both approaches (quantitative and qualitative) and detailed the information related to the methodology. i.e. sampling technique, the population of the study, development of instrument (questionnaire + interview protocol), and why the selected respondents/participants were chosen?

RESPONSE: We thank the Reviewer for his/her comment. Following it, qualitative approach and quantitative approach were described separately for participants, Instruments and procedure and Data Analysis paragraphs. Detailed information regarding the methodology aspects highlighted by the Reviewer were also added (see section 2, pages 6-8 lines 212-303).

COMMENT: > Authors are recommended to put the interview protocol in the appendix section.

RESPONSE: Following the Reviewer’s comment, Appendix A (see pages 16-17 lines 653-660) and Appendix B (see page 18 lines 661-662) were added in this revised version of the paper.

COMMENT: -> Reporting of tables and discussion are very weak. Needless to say, when it comes to discussing findings and contributions, we conform or differ from the work of previous scholars, in addition, to highlighting the unique contribution of our own work or how our work is different from prior studies.

-> Authors are recommended to add implications section consisting of theoretical and practical implications in addition to the limitation and future research recommendations.

RESPONSE: We carefully considered this comment and following it and with the aim to highlight the strengths of our study, the section ‘Implication’ was added in this revision (see page 15 lines 569-606). The section explains the novel theoretical contributions of the research and its practical implications. Furthermore, limitations and future research have now a dedicated section (see page 15 line 606).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your revision and answer to my queries well.

Please go through the manuscript and correct the grammatical errors.

the texts in the figure on Page 3 seem to the hidden by the box in front.

Kindly redraw that.

 

Best of luck.

Author Response

Leading Open Innovation for Social Sustainable Development: Enablers in a Non-Profit Organization

Ms. Ref. No.: sustainability-2252266

 

Authors’ response to Reviewer 2

COMMENTS: Thank you for your revision and answer to my queries well. Please go through the manuscript and correct the grammatical errors. the texts in the figure on Page 3 seem to the hidden by the box in front. Kindly redraw that. Best of luck.

RESPONSE: We thank the Reviewer his/her comments on the manuscript. We thank the Reviewer in noticing text display errors in the figures. Text in figures was checked and as requested, it was corrected. We revised the whole manuscript and grammatical errors were corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf