The Product–Service System Supply Chain Capabilities and Their Impact on Sustainability Performance: A Dynamic Capabilities Approach

No

Comments

Actions by the authors

1

The authors presented the results of the research. Unequivocally and undeniably, the studies are of scientific novelty and are of interest to science, but the manner of presentation of the authors makes it challenging to understand. The text is not structured as it should be for an article.

Revised. The authors appreciate the advice by the reviewer.

We have addressed this now with significantly changes in the abstract and introduction section. We deleted the literature review in the appendix A and B. The introduction is more concise and is clear regarding the development of the proposed model and to answer the research questions. Thank you for your suggestions.

2

There is no explanation of the relevance of the research, and the purpose and objectives of the study are not formulated.

Revised. The purpose and objectives of the study has been formulated and is located in the last paragraph in the Introduction section page 1. In order to demonstrate the relevance of the research, three contributions of this research have been added in the last paragraph of the introduction section, as follows:

Much of the PSS literature has considered an integrated perspective involving manufacturer SC capabilities, but with most focus on developing the downstream SC capabilities. Therefore, an integrated perspective involving SSCM will provide a broader perspective of the relationship between PSS SC capabilities and sustainability performance. This paper contributes to the body of knowledge on this topic by addressing a gap in the literature as only a limited number of previous studies have examined sustainability performance within the PSS context. A further contribution is in providing empirical evidence that focuses on testing for a positive relationship between the PSS SC capabilities and sustainability performance. Finally, this research contributes through extending the use of dynamic capabilities theory by applying it to the PSS and SSCM areas. This study shows empirically how dynamic capabilities fit well to the specific application of investigating the relationship between PSS SC capabilities and sustainability performance. Thank you for your suggestions.

Further, to add the relevance of the research, we add one sentence in abstract:

The findings also guide managers and decision-makers in the implementation of PSS SC capabilities required to enhance sustainability performance.

Also, to add the relevance of the research, we add the implications to practices in section 5.3 page 14.

3

There is a brief mention of the research methodology. From the preceding, it is clear that a survey was done and its statistical processing was carried out. But this is not clearly described. Such a presentation does not allow tracing all the stages of the study and casts doubt on the correctness of the conclusions.

Revised. The authors appreciate the advice by the reviewer.

The original methodology was condensed due to word limits. This has now been expanded to include all the steps from instrument development (5 stages in details), preliminary data analysis and non-response bias (section 3.1 page 8 and 3.2 page 9), then EFA and CFA were employed as validity test. CFA using AMOS v.26 was utilised to evaluate the convergent, discriminant and factorial validity. The next step is assessment of construct reliability and common method bias assessment. Finally, assessment of structural model and result of the hypotheses is conducted (section 4.1 – 4.4 page 10-13). Those is it was being written in the manuscript. As you suggested to make presentation clearer and allow tracing all stages, then I moved the construct and scale items table from appendix to the main text (Table 3) in page 18, which are the outcome from stage 1 and 2 of survey development, factor loading from CFA and construct reliability. 

Hopefully, this revision makes all stages in this study clearer. Thanks for your suggestions.

4

There are appendixes in the article, but there is no reference to them in the main part of the article. The authors should still work on the article and correct its shortcomings. The presentation should be made more concise and to the point. I recommend significantly reducing the sections with descriptions and focusing on highlighting and explaining the quantitative indicators that are determined as a result of the statistical processing of the survey.

Revised. Thank you for seeing that the appendixes do not much contribute to the main part of the article so that I deleted the appendixes. The significant revision has been made in introduction section, focusing and highlighting to the point only to the quantitative indicators used in the proposed model. 

No

Comments

Actions by the authors

1

Section 3 explains that this paper uses questionnaire to collect data for quantitative analysis. It is suggested to supplement specific questionnaire contents.

Revised. The authors appreciate the advice by the reviewer.

We have addressed this now with adding questionnaire contents in the Appendix A. Thank you. 

2

When there are more detailed subtitles under each title, it is recommended to give a brief overview of the content of such section, to make the structure of the paper clearer.

Revised. The authors appreciate the comments by the reviewer. We have addressed this now with adding a brief overview for each subsection. The added overview has been added to section 2 page 3, section 3 page 8, section 4 page 10 and section 5 page 15.

3

When using the methodology of a reference, please note the addition of a citation. For example, “the results from Harman’s single-factor test" in P11, etc. Also note the uniform citation format of references, e.g., “which is good (Chin 1998)” in P12.

Revised. We have addressed this now with adding a citation to Harman’s single-factor test in section 4.3 p. 13. Also the citation format (Chin, 1998) in page. 14.

4

Please pay attention to the readability of mathematical symbols in the article, such as “(R^2=0.64, p<0.001)” in P12, etc. It is recommended to use a professional formula editor to write them.

Revised. We have addressed the readability of all mathematical symbols in this article with using professional formula editor.

5

Please note the format of subtitles, such as “2.3.1”, “2.3.2”, ..., “5.1...” etc. Also, the conclusion section should be Section 6.

Revised. We have addressed all format subtitles fits to the journal template and conclusion has been changed to section 6.

6

The first letter of each keyword should be capitalized.

Revised. We have changed to each keyword capitalized.

7

Please further polish the language of the article and sort out the logic of the words used. For example, the discussion section in chapter 5 shows that innovative service delivery, sustainable product-service capability, …, re-conceptualisation all have a positive effect, while the "whereas" in the abstract may be ambiguous.

Thank you for your comments. We were being inconsistent so that we made changes in the conclusion section 6 page 19:

The findings confirmed that innovative service delivery and sustainable product –service capability positively affect sustainability performance, whereas partner development, reflexive control and re-conceptualisation positively affect sustainable product–service capability. Further, collaboration and knowledge assessment do not directly affect sustainability performance.

8

Uncertainties exist when making the decision. The authors can consider to include the following recent publications, Ji, Y.; Li, H.; Zhang, H. Risk-averse two-stage stochastic minimum cost consensus models with asymmetric adjustment cost. Group Decis. Negot. 2022, 31, 261–291. Shaojian Qu, Jinpeng Wei, Qiuhan Wang, Yuanming Li, Xiaowan Jin, Loubna Chaib. Robust minimum cost consensus models with various individual preference scenarios under unit adjustment cost uncertainty, Information Fusion, 2022, Doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2022.09.002.

The authors appreciate the comments by the reviewer. We have considered to include the recent publications, and cited two articles in section 2.3.1 page 4. Thank you for your suggestion.

9

The recent publication in supply chain management should be included: Qu Shaojian，Shu Lingli，Yao Jingyuan. Optimal pricing and service level in supply chain considering misreport behavior and fairness concern [J]. Computers & Industrial Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108759; Shaojian Qu, Lei Xu, Sachin Kumar Mangla, Felix T.S. Chan, Jianli Zhu, Sobhan Arisian. Matchmaking in Reward-Based Crowdfunding Platforms: A Hybrid Machine Learning Approach International Journal of Production Research, 2022, 10.1080/00207543.2022.2121870.

The authors appreciate the comments by the reviewer. We have considered to include the recent publications in supply chain management, and cited two articles in section 2.3.7 page 7 Thank you for your suggestion.