Navigating Sustainable Value Creation Through Digital Leadership Under Institutional Pressures: The Moderating Role of Environmental Turbulence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Dear authors,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read your manuscript. I find it very well-written based on an adequate and well-presented literature review, using appropriate methodology. The analysis and discussion are well-developed and the conclusions have their merits for theory and practice.

I wish you success with your future research endeavors!

Below are some comments that you might like to consider.

 

1)      One comment to the study that I believe need a solid response (argumentation) in the text:

·         Table 3 (and comments to it) – some authors, such as Hair et. al (for ex in: Hair, Joseph F., G. Tomas M. Hult, Christian M. Ringle, Marko Sarstedt, Nicholas P. Danks, and Soumya Ray. 2021. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook. Classroom Companion: Business. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7) have the following recommendation for Cronbach’s alpha: “Maximum of 0.95 to avoid indicator redundancy, which would compromise content validity; Recommended 0.80 to 0.90”. Can you argument the much higher values for some of the constructs you report

 

2)      Minor editorial comments that in my view could improve the readability and presentation of the study:

·         The authors refer to “institutional pressures (i.e., regulatory, normative, and mimetic pressures)” (Abstract, lines 15-16), and then in Section 1 to “A theoretical lens is used to base it on the three pillars of institutions: regulative, normative, and mimetic pressures” (lines 47-48), while in subsection 2.1. the literature review defines “three dimensions (i.e., regulatory, normative, and cognitive pressures)” (line 140). It is unclear how the “mimetic pressure” relates to the literature review discussion. Moreover, “mimetic” appears only in the above-mentioned instances (mimicking is referred to again in subsection 3.1 without explaining though if this is a new term the authors introduce. And if so, why is it needed, how does it differ, what definition you propose, etc. It does not appear in the formulation of H1). For consistency purposes, I would suggest either elaborating on this concept, including proposing its definition (mimetic pressure) and using it throughout the text later or considering a change of the term in the Abstract and Section 1.

·         The statement “The recent crisis caused by climate change and the increasing urgency of responding to it suggest that firms can..” (lines 173-174) suggests a specific crisis event. If that is the case, please elaborate on which particular crisis event is meant. Otherwise, climate change can be rather viewed as a growing threat manifested by various (and increasing in scope, frequency etc.) events such as floods, drоught, extreme temperatures, to name a few?

·         Consider checking all in-text references to align with the same citing style (for ex. line 175: “Brundtland Report (1987)”)

·         Use of abbreviations – TBL abbreviation and the corresponding phrase are introduced on line 34; no need to have them both again on lines 191-192.

·         Figure 1 – I would suggest placing “H1” and “H2” next to the lines they refer to (not as a title of the upper box). Also, consider moving Figure 1 to the end of Section 3, after the elaboration of the hypotheses, as the research model is a synthesis of the hypotheses developed.

·         „Hypothesis 2. Environmental turbulence moderates the impact of digital leadership on institutional pressures“ -  isn’t it meant to be “….the impact of institutional pressures on digital leadership” (as depicted in Figure 1)?

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor language editing needed, such as the use of “single/plural” for verbs, “a/the” articles, etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see comments attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See attached.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Accept as is

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

/