Identifying and Categorizing Sustainable Supply Chain Practices Based on Triple Bottom Line Dimensions: Evaluation of Practice Implementation in the Cement Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I consider an interesting article. It is not usual to have articles about information directly from employees from factories. In this sense I think the article should be published after a major revision.

General comments:

1 - The English should be improved.

Specific comments:

1 - The title should be revised because this article is not a Framework to Assess the Implementation of Sustainable Supply Chain Practices. It is a data base and it does not give a implantation guideline for a SSCM.

2 - Abstract and Introduction should be improved. The abstracts start to talk about CO2 emissions indicating that the article will be focused in environmental problems as global warming potential and in fact the article gives the same weight to environmental practices than to economic or social practices. In my opinion these two sections should be more in accordance to results section.

3 - Abstract: The meaning of Sustainable Supply Chain Management should be presented in Abstract.

4 - Introduction: “Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the thermal and chemical combustion processes used to make cement …”. It would be more correct if the authors mention clinker instead of cement.

5 - Literature review should be completely revised. It makes no sense to have a LR with so many subsections. It makes it so difficult to read and it seems that the concepts were poorly worked with just one or two references per subsection. I my opinion the article would be improved if this section was divided in three as “Environmental concerns, Social concerns and Economic concerns” as in Table 1 and forward in results analysis.

6 - Results: Which means the “Rank”? Please insert this information on the text.

7 - Results: “Cumulative values were classified into three categories: low (1-2.33), moderate (2.34-3.67), and high (3.68-5).” Why these intervals were chosen? They are quite specific. This must be described in the text.

8 - Results: Standard deviation should have the same decimal cases than mean.

9 - Results, economic : “the company uses sustainable energy”. What is sustainable energy and why it is in the economic sector?

10 - Results: According to the authors, environmental practices are classified as “medium” implementation, social practices as “High” and economics as “Medium”. I do not know if it is representative about the reality.

11 - Results: in the conclusions is written: “the economic dimension having the second highest average (3.37), and the economic dimension having the lowest average (3.26)”. Environmental is the lowest and not economical.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors (Reviewer 1)

First of all, I would like to thank you for giving us fruitful feedback, which helps in improving the paper. Thus, we did our best to work on these comments. We used the editing service of the journal. Please, find our response as follows:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

1 - The English should be improved.

Thank you for your comment. Done.

 Specific comments:

1 - The title should be revised because this article is not a Framework to Assess the Implementation of Sustainable Supply Chain Practices. It is a data base and it does not give a implantation guideline for a SSCM.

Thank you for your comment. We modified the title as follows “Identifying and Categorizing Sustainable Supply Chain Practices Based on Triple-Bottom-Line Dimensions: Evaluation of Practices Implementation in the Cement Industry”

2 - Abstract and Introduction should be improved. The abstracts start to talk about CO2 emissions indicating that the article will be focused in environmental problems as global warming potential and in fact the article gives the same weight to environmental practices than to economic or social practices. In my opinion these two sections should be more in accordance to results section.

Thank you for your comment. These two sections were improved.

3 - Abstract: The meaning of Sustainable Supply Chain Management should be presented in Abstract.

Thank you for your comment. Done.

4 - Introduction: “Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the thermal and chemical combustion processes used to make cement …”. It would be more correct if the authors mention clinker instead of cement.

Thank you for your comment. The word was corrected to clinker.

5 - Literature review should be completely revised. It makes no sense to have a LR with so many subsections. It makes it so difficult to read and it seems that the concepts were poorly worked with just one or two references per subsection. I my opinion the article would be improved if this section was divided in three as “Environmental concerns, Social concerns and Economic concerns” as in Table 1 and forward in results analysis.

Thank you for your comment. We agree with you. The authors adhere to your recommendation and created three sections as you suggested.

6 - Results: Which means the “Rank”? Please insert this information on the text.

Thank you for your comment. The rank was defined as the rank determined by the average score of the responses.

7 - Results: “Cumulative values were classified into three categories: low (1-2.33), moderate (2.34-3.67), and high (3.68-5).” Why these intervals were chosen? They are quite specific. This must be described in the text.

Thank you for your comment. An explanation paragraph was added under section 4.1, and one reference was added using the same three categories as in his study.

8 - Results: Standard deviation should have the same decimal cases than mean.

Thank you for your comment. Done as suggested.

9 - Results, economic : “the company uses sustainable energy”. What is sustainable energy and why it is in the economic sector?

Thank you for your comment. It was meant here the use of sustainable energy to reduce energy consumption costs, therefore all related sentences were modified accordingly.  

10 - Results: According to the authors, environmental practices are classified as “medium” implementation, social practices as “High” and economics as “Medium”. I do not know if it is representative about the reality.

Thank you for your comment. Cement manufacturers in Jordan are large corporations with a global reputation, and the majority of these manufacturers are foreign companies. As a result, they are concerned about social issues, and as they pollute the environment, they strive to improve their image in society and care for their employees.

11 - Results: in the conclusions is written: “the economic dimension having the second highest average (3.37), and the economic dimension having the lowest average (3.26)”. Environmental is the lowest and not economical.

Thank you for your comment. This is correct, and the sentence has been amended accordingly. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The basic idea behind this work is good. For publications, authors need to follow the MDPI template and guidelines strictly. Some other suggestions were:

1. The Abstract can be written more effectively with small sentences in a few words. 

2. In keywords, maintain text style. (Capitalize "E")

3. Referencing style must be as per Sustainability Journal.

4. Check for subscript and superscript throughout the manuscript.

5. What SDGs are targeted by the authors, discuss in detail.

6. Last paragraph of the Introduction section must be written properly.

7. Mention Table 1 details properly, more recent studies can be added.

8. Section 2.4 can be written effectively as most parts were already mentioned in detail above. Re-writing similar can be eliminated. 

9. Sample size is quite less.

10. Discussion section can be improved and the points must be discussed in detail and comparison and proper interpretation must be provided. 

11. Conclusion section 5.1 can be part of the discussion section. A glimpse of the theory's practical contribution to the study can be presented at the start.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors (Reviewer 2)

First of all, I would like to thank you for giving us fruitful feedback, which helps in improving the paper. Thus, we did our best to work on these comments. We used the editing service of the journal. Please, find our response as follows:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The basic idea behind this work is good. For publications, authors need to follow the MDPI template and guidelines strictly. Some other suggestions were:

1. The Abstract can be written more effectively with small sentences in a few words.

 Thank you for your comment. The abstract has been revised.

2. In keywords, maintain text style. (Capitalize "E")

Thank you for your comment. Done, we used the editing service provided by the journal in order to have all things in the correct format.

3. Referencing style must be as per Sustainability Journal.

Thank you for your comment. We used the editing service provided by the journal.

4. Check for subscript and superscript throughout the manuscript.

Thank you for your comment. Done

5. What SDGs are targeted by the authors, discuss in detail.

Thank you for your comment. Section 2.4 has been added.

6. Last paragraph of the Introduction section must be written properly.

Thank you for your comment. The paragraph has been revised.

7. Mention Table 1 details properly, more recent studies can be added.

Thank you. The table has been updated and supported with recent studies. The following studies have been added:

1. Branca, A.; Fornai, B.; Colla, V.; Pistelli, M.I.; Faraci, E.L.; Cirilli, F.; Schröder, A.J. Skills Demand in Energy Intensive Industries Targeting Industrial Symbiosis and Energy Efficiency. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15615. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315615.
2. Campos, ; Pimentel, C.; Lopes, J. Determinant factors for the strategic management of the supply chain of the Angolan cement industry. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2022, 15, 566–586. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.3410.
3. Juma, ; Kilani, S. Adoption enablers of big data analytics in supply chain management practices: The moderating role of innovation culture. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag. 2022, 10, 711–720. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2022.5.004.
4. Meshram, B.; Kumar, S. Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of geopolymer cement manufacturing with Portland cement in Indian context. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 19, 4791–4802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-021-03336-9.
5. Pitak, ; Denafas, G.; Baltušnikas, A.; Praspaliauskas, M.; Lukošiūtė; S. Proposal for Implementation of Extraction Mechanism of Raw Materials during Landfill Mining and Its Application in Alternative Fuel Production. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4538.
6. Potnuru, K.G.; Sahoo, C.K.; Parle, K.C. HRD practices, employee competencies and organizational effective-ness: Role of organizational learning culture. J. Asia Bus. Stud. 2021, 15, 401–419.
7. Rahman, M.; Rahman, M.S.; Chowdhury, S.R.; Elhaj, A.; Razzak, S.A.; Abu Shoaib, S.; Islam, M.K.; Islam, M.M.; Rushd, S.; Rahman, S.M. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Industrial Processes and Product Use Sector of Saudi Arabia—An Emerging Challenge. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7388.
8. Tu, ; Dai, W.; Fang, Y.; Xiao, X. Environmental Regulation, Technological Innovation and Industrial Environmental Efficiency: An Empirical Study Based on Chinese Cement Industry. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11326.

8. Section 2.4 can be written effectively as most parts were already mentioned in detail above. Re-writing similar can be eliminated. 

Thank you for your comment. Repeated parts was removed from the section.

9. Sample size is quite less.

Thank you for your comment. The sample consisted of participants who are managers in various positions in Jordanian cement manufacturing companies and/or Jordanian industry experts. It was not an easy task to reach a high number of participants as the authors wanted a specialized people in the field of sustainability and cement industry. Moreover, it was mentioned as a limitation for the study so future studies can employ a larger sample.

10. Discussion section can be improved and the points must be discussed in detail and comparison and proper interpretation must be provided. 

Thank you for your comment. The discussion section has been discussed in details.

11. Conclusion section 5.1 can be part of the discussion section. A glimpse of the theory's practical contribution to the study can be presented at the start.

Thank you for your comment. The discussion and conclusion sections were merged and improved. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The article has been updated as per the recommendation/suggestions. Only one point is to be noted the last section of the manuscript will be the conclusion section. Previously, it was suggested to merge only section 5.1 (of the old version) (part of the conclusion at that time) to the discussion section. Merging a complete conclusion with discussion is not standard in journal publications. 300-500 words in a single or couple of paragraphs describing the summary of the complete study as a conclusion will be highly appreciated.