Investigating the Impact of Blockchain Technology on Social Sustainability and the Mediating Role of Ethics and CSR

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The author has addressed my concerns properly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Final correction File has been attached  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

I am pleased with the changes to my notes.

I am also pleased to note that the article has been significantly improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

final correction file have been attached 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments: Investigating the Impact of Blockchain Technology on Social 2 Sustainability and the Mediating Role of Ethics and CSR

Abstract: The abstract gives a clear idea about the work and findings however, as given in this statement 'The main aim of this study was to investigate the impact of blockchain technology, business ethics, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) on social sustainability, as well as the mediating role of CSR and business ethics' the later part is unclear as to for what the mediating role CSR and BE is being checked. 

Introduction; It is organized effectively with clear background and objectives. However, a little is presented on Social Sustainability for business. It should be made clear about the relevance of social sustainability in the business context. It remains to be explained what additional contribution is being done by this work and the research gap being filled.

Review: This section is nicely built and presents clear ideas about various aspects linking CSR, BE etc with social sustainability. 

Methods: Authors use PSL-SEM method which is apt for the data. However, the Table 1 and 2 lack a clear cut caption with little discussion. Similarly, variables in Table 2 are not clear to be properly understood as to how they have been considered and measured. This is also relevant for the findings as to how these variables were taken (either in the form of an index or just based on some scale). There is also some inconsistency in the font size/style in this section. 

Results: It is not clear what is meant by 3.2.9 version - whether it is a software or a technique (but most likely it has been misreported for a software version). Many of the tables have a poor captioning as they do not explictly make clear about their content. For example see Table 7 which says Direct Results, being so awkward style. Table 9 and others also need revisit. Some of the Tables (like Table 9 could be presented in the form of text as it would need less space while the term is not so important to be given in a separate table). There are few studies referred to validate current findings with them while it remains still unclear as to how these variables were measured. The discussion is too short to be called so. The figure captions too need to be made attractive and self-explanatory. 

The last section on conclusion is mostly repetitive of summary with little to discuss limitations of the work.

Author Response

Dear reviewer all your comments have been address

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

I appreciate the effort and the insights the author(s) provided on this significant topic. However, I have some comments that I believe, once addressed, will enhance the clarity, depth, and overall quality of your manuscript. Here are the major points:

1. The introduction falls short in terms of explicitly conveying the problem statement. A significant enhancement would be the integration of recent statistics regarding the adoption and utilization of Blockchain Technology. This will not only ground the readers in the current state of the field but also emphasize the relevance of your study. Furthermore, the term "Social Sustainability" needs a comprehensive definition within this context. The relationship between emerging technologies like blockchain and their impact on social sustainability remains ambiguous. To increase academic rigor, all claims and statements should be bolstered by recent and relevant citations.

2. The survey items utilized for data collection are missing in the manuscript. It's important to detail these items with their sources. This would enhance the manuscript's transparency and allow for a better assessment of its reliability and validity.

3. The discussion section appears to be lacking in depth and very short. It is crucial to discuss the results of each hypothesis in detail and offer an in-depth discussion of the overall findings. Comparisons should be made with the literature review to highlight agreements or discrepancies with existing knowledge.

4. There is a need to add a new section addressing the implications of the research. Under this new section, the author should introduce subsections that elaborate on the theoretical contributions, and practical, managerial, and social implications. This would provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of the study's broader impact and significance.

5. The conclusion section currently appears superficial. There should be additional subsections that succinctly summarize the research, its major findings, the limitations encountered, and suggestions for future research directions.

Editing of the English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer all your comments have been address

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Thanks to the authors for considering my comments. After looking carefully, the article has significantly improved and can be considered for publication. 

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Accept in present form

Moderate editing of English language required

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

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper. The topic is interesting, but I have few suggestions to the author:

·         The author should add more citations in literature review section. Some parts have lack of citations.

·         The author mentioned in line 245 “The characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1”. But Table 1 does not show the characteristics of respondents. The author should check this.

·         The author should explain which approach was used for testing the mediating effect. On what bases it was decided to accept or reject the hypotheses?

·         Discussion section should be separated from the conclusion.

English language is clear

Reviewer 2 Report

Comment

Investigating the Impact of Blockchain Technology on Social Sustainability and the Mediating Role of Ethics

1.    Reorganizing your Introduction part. If the research theme is the social impact of use of blockchain technology, you can briefly review literature in this line of research. Readers would have a better understanding of the status quo in this area. Then, problematize this stream of research through pointing out the limitations, weaknesses, and gaps in the current literature. Further, articulate the research purpose. Finally, demonstrate how your study add new value to the literature.

2.     Integrating your literature review with research hypotheses. You do not need to have a separate part for the introduction of each of these constructs. While building hypothesized relationships among these constructs, define these constructs and argue how they are positively associated.

3.     Hypotheses building.

For hypothesis 1, it could be better to state in the following way.

H1: Use of blockchain technology is positively related to ethical conduct of business operation.

In several places in page 4, you mention that

(1) blockchain technology has an impact on ethical challenges,

(2)  Numerous prior studies have examined the relationship between ethical concerns and blockchain technology,

(3)  susceptible to ethical challenges stemming 157 from blockchain technology

(4)  ethical values must be taken into consideration by 160 blockchain technology, and

(5)  blockchain applications must conform to ethical regulations.

These sentences seem to suggest blockchain technology can create ethical challenge, ethical issue and ethical concern. This is different from your hypothesis. You now show that blockchain technology is a double-edged sword. Please clarify your idea.

For Hypothesis 2, CSR initiative is different from CSR practices.

For Hypothesis 3, change “the CSR of social sustainability: into “social sustainability”.

4.    Sample. (1) Common method bias is obvious in your study. Data used in the study came from one source with one method in one time. (2) Employees may not be proper informants for variables at the organizational level (e.g., organizational use of blockchain technology, organizational business conduct, organizational CSR, and organizational social sustainability).

5.     The measure section should not just give a reference for a variable. Use more standard style for this section.

6.     Offer a table of descriptive statistics and correlations.

7.     For measure model, please offer a table of comparison of measure models. Compare the four-factor model with alternative three-factor models.

8.     It is a bit surprising that you provide p value for the significance level of indirect effect. Please offer 95% bias-corrected CI for the indirect effect.

9.    Please explain if the model is tested simultaneously.

10.  In your Discussion part, illustrate theoretical contribution and practical implication of your study.

Just fine. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The Impact of Blockchain Technology on Social Sustainability is an important and timely topic for research. However, the current manuscript is facing significant issues and is not yet publishable. As a reviewer, I have provided detailed feedback pointing out numerous areas where the manuscript requires significant improvement, including the introduction, methodology, and discussion sections. In its current form, the manuscript does not meet the standard of publication. The authors should carefully review and address the comments and suggestions provided in order to improve the quality and rigor of their research.

1. The introduction requires further development to provide a comprehensive background on the impact of blockchain technology on social sustainability, as well as a review of existing literature on the topic. The lack of context may make it difficult for readers to understand the study's relevance. Additionally, the introduction is overly long and lacks focus, as the author jumps between discussing blockchain technology and the importance of business ethics and corporate social responsibility without clear connections between the two topics. The author also fails to provide a clear research gap that the study aims to address. Finally, the introduction lacks a clear research question or hypothesis, leaving the reader uncertain about the study's direction.

2. the introduction does not provide a comprehensive background on blockchain technology's impact on social sustainability and the existing literature on this topic. This lack of context may make it difficult for readers to grasp the relevance of the study. the introduction is too long and lacks focus. The author jumps from discussing blockchain technology to the importance of business ethics and corporate social responsibility without clear connections between the two topics. the author fails to provide a clear research gap that the study aims to address. Lastly, the introduction lacks a clear research question or hypothesis, leaving the reader uncertain about the study's direction.
3. The rationale behind the development of the model is not clearly explained in this study. It is important for the authors to provide a detailed explanation of the theoretical basis for their model and how it is relevant to the research questions being addressed. Without this information, it is difficult to understand the motivation behind the model's construction and to assess its validity and suitability for the study. Therefore, I would suggest that the authors provide a clear and comprehensive justification for their model development in order to enhance the quality and rigor of their study.

4. The manuscript lacks crucial methodology elements, including a detailed explanation of the study design, data collection methods, data analysis procedures, sampling techniques, and any statistical analysis used in the study. Additionally, it fails to discuss the rationale for choosing the specific methodology and how it aligns with the research questions and objectives. Furthermore, the manuscript should address any ethical considerations and limitations of the study methodology. Without these essential elements, the study's rigor and reliability may be questioned, and the reader may find it difficult to replicate the study or compare it with other research in the field.

 5. The manuscript lacks information on the measures of the constructs used in the study. It is highly recommended that the authors provide the questionnaires used for data collection to ensure transparency in the scale design. Without this information, it is difficult to evaluate the appropriateness of the scales used. Additionally, sufficient references for each question in the scale should be provided to support the validity and reliability of the measures.

6. The discussion section of this manuscript is inadequate, and the authors should provide a more comprehensive analysis of the results. The authors should discuss the findings of each hypothesis in a separate subsection to ensure clarity and organization. Currently, the discussion lacks depth and fails to provide sufficient insights into the implications of the study's findings. The authors should also relate their results to previous literature and provide a more thorough interpretation of their findings.

7.  The theoretical contribution and practical implications sections are missing in this manuscript. It would be helpful to discuss the study's contribution to the existing literature and provide recommendations for future research.

Overall, the manuscript could benefit from further improvements and revisions to ensure the research is presented clearly and coherently.

The manuscript has some issues and requires further improvement.

Reviewer 4 Report

Despite my overall recommendation to the editor, I still make some constructive comments on your work.

The title has some discrepancy with the paper, namely with what seems to be Figure 1 (it is not numbered... lines 216-226) and Figure 2, forgetting the CSR. In this regard, see also lines 7-9, in the abstract.

The introduction, the literature review, and the development of hypotheses (albeit less so in the latter case) fall far short of expectations. To provide some examples example:

INTRODUCTION

-       1st (7 lines) and 2nd (8 lines) paragraphs, only 1 reference each and both from 2018

-       3rd paragraph (15 lines, 2 references) is confusing, treats several unarticulated themes well, lacks sources and evidence for strong claims and links/articulations/reasons, and lacks framing (e.g. lines 39-40, 40-41). In some cases, statements are made without reference to other sources or the geographic, temporal, etc., context. (ex. lines 46-47)

-       4th paragraph (9 lines, 2 references) presents some arguments that are not very logical or, at least, need better support (evidence/sources).

-       5th paragraph (8 lines, 1 reference), where one would expect to see the structure of the paper, in a way continues in line with what comes from behind, but shocks by introducing the concept of CRM, which does not appear again in the document (lines 60-62).

LITERATURE REVIEW

It is divided into four themes, with 15 lines each, apart from business ethics, which has 22 lines. A total of just 8 references: 2014 (1x), 2017 (2x), 2018 (2x), 2019 (1x), and 2020(2x). There is a lack of sources (in number and relevance), but, above all, there is a lack of questioning and argumentation based on the theoretical/empirical background.

DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES

-       This part of the document suffers from some of the comments made for the introduction and review of the literature. References to previous works, namely empirical ones, framed according to the sub-themes and, when applicable, referring to the geography and time in which they took place. On the other hand, there is a lack of cross-references between the subtopics and in relation to the literature review.

-       Regarding the number of references and years, there are: Blockchain technology and Business ethics (3 ref.: 2017, 2018, 2019); Blockchain technology and CSR (3 refs: 2018, 2018, 2019); Business ethics and social sustainability (3 ref.: 2018, 2019, 2019); CSR and Social sustainability (3 ref.: 2018, 2020, 2020).

-       For example, “numerous prior studies” (line 155) are mentioned, but then examples are not indicated, much less consonant or dissonant results are identified, which there may have been. Previous research is also referred to before hypothesis 1 (lines 162-165), but the source or examples are not presented.

-       A final example concerns CSR and Social sustainability (lines 198-210), in which support is based on only 3 references, on three different realities (Indonesia, China and Korea, respectively 25, 26 and 27), completely disregarding other examples in other geographies, eventually carried out in another time.

For obvious reasons, I will not make comments on the methodology, results and analysis.

By the way and before finishing, two generic comments:

- the English here and there contains some typos, which shows a lack of care (curiously enough it happens in some parts of the text and not in others)

- references do not always respect the rules or are coherent/uniform (lines 386-480).