Supply Chain Leadership in a Developing Economy for Sustainable Innovation and Competitiveness: The Case of Johannesburg Stock Exchange-Listed Companies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

dear authors,

please find my comments in order to improve the overall quality of the paper:

1. figure 6 is irrelevant, please delete it

2. introduction needs to be rewritten, in order what we know, what we do not know, what is the gap that needs to be filled, what is the main research question and hypothesis

3. conclusions part is missing discussion, practical implications, future research explanation

4. paragraph 2.4 needs to be rewritten, it has too many subparagraphs which are slightly processed, and it has very poor readability currently

5. How did we get to research sample, described in 3.1, how many were initially contacted?

6. please delete 3.5 subchapter, it is irrelevant

7. figures 1-5 need to be rescaled, each figure has its own format and it needs to be standardized and aligned

8. Why did the authors mention h1, h2 and h3 in 4.2, and after that define h0 and ha1, it is very strange and it needs to be reformulated, starting from introduction and all the way to the end of the paper.

9. Findings for each hypothesis needs to be improved significantly, current presentation is very poor and it is below standard for MDPI Journal.

Please write detailed cover letter and improve the paper. Good luck!

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted paper presents an interesting approach of supply chain leadership focused on sustainable innovation and competitiveness, considering the context of 46 JSE-listed companies. The study considers interesting information, but in my opinion, there are some issues that need to be addressed and improved.

1. Introduction: It would be very useful to add in the "Introduction" section the research question, the objectives and hypotheses of the research. Elaborate on the contribution that this paper brings to literature and insert a paragraph to briefly describe the flow of the paper.

2. I recommend to extend your literature review with more academically relevant studies on competitiveness and innovation, since these are also main topic of the paper. Please consider a few keywords that might be helpful: “The reorganisation decision test: A risk analysis model to increase competitiveness”, “Digital Transformations Imprint Financial Challenges: Accounting Assessment of Crypto Assets and Building Resilience in Emerging Innovative Businesses”, “Green innovation and firm performance: Evidence from listed companies in China”.

3.          Please present in your methodology section Descriptive Statistics, Correlation matrix with all tests and indicators: Standard deviation, significance, Skewness and Kurtosis interpretation etc. According to Figures 1-5, it seems that you have analyzed a wide range of indicators but no description of such indicators can be found in the current form of the paper. Please elaborate on this.

Section 4 mentions factor analysis, Mann-Whitney and Kruskal Wallis tests, but control variables, correlation tests or test statistics are missing. Also, cluster group comparisons are mentioned, but no detail on the methods, tests or results are provided. The reader has no possibility to completely assess the results and to follow the methodology procedures. Please revise.  

4. Figure 6, conceptual framework for SCL (is it SCL of SCM?) presents in an engaging way the conceptual framework of the study and represents a strength of the paper. I suggest to reposition this figure at the beginning of your methodology section and elaborate more on the description of methodological steps you performed to substantiate your findings. Such visual representation enhances the clarity of the paper’s flow.

5. I recommend to carefully check or to please consider editing of English language. There are a few passages that need to be checked and rephrased.

Overall, I believe that your submitted paper has important potential, but you need to consider improving the above issues.

Author Response

Please the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors address an interesting and up-to-date topic by discussing relationship  between SCL and  sustainable innovation and competitiveness. The article is generally academically well-crafted and written with logical argumentation, interplay between qualitative and quantitative approaches and use of relevant references. Overall the structure of the article is good and more informative. 

one suggestion is as follow,

In literature Review,  the leadership is disscussed and innovation is dissucussed, however, the relationship between leadership(SCL) and innovation(sustainability) is not disscussed.Therefore, it is necessary to supplement this point in order for readers to better understand the innovation of this article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The title of the article indicates that the content concerns the importance of leadership practices in the supply chain in creating and managing sustainable innovation and competitiveness.

Such terms as „sustainability”, „sustainability in innovation”, and most important: „sustainable innovation” (features of such aspect of innovation) should be clearly defined.

The essence of „supply chain leadership” should be presented on the basis of the essence of supply chain management to show what features distinguish leadership in supply chain, what is the difference between supply chain management and supply chain leadership, what features charactrerize leaders in supply chain.

In research methodology, it is important to indicate how the features of leadership in the supply chain were selected for research. Moreover, these features were not clearly presented in Chapter 2 of the article.

Other suggestions:

Row: 199 – lack of clear description – what does „vast competition” mean? Second doubt: why is it mentioned in this part of the content?

Row 235 – when presenting how the sample of firms was selected, there is no need to inform what was the rate of responses.

Rows 253-254 – there is no information about the nature of the statements used in the questionnaire and how the Likert scale was adjusted to measure opinions.

Figure 3: how were the features in the figure selected? On what basis was it concluded that all of them should be examined from the point of view of their impact on the development of sustainable innovation ideas? In addition, these are factors influencing SCM. It is not known what their relationship is to SCL

Rows 322-323: how are dependent and independent variables indicated? Which are dependent and which are independent in the study?

Hipotheses 1-3: premises (justification) for formulation of hypotheses not indicated. Moreover, the presented hypotheses do not clearly concern the study of the relationship between supply chain leadership, sustainable innovations and competitiveness

Figure 6: there is a doubt if supply chain leadership really a consequence of gaining a competitive advantage in the chain?

Row458-459: is SCL actually supposed to be created and reported in the company? After all, SCL becomes visible at the scale of a selected part or the entire supply chain.

Chapter 4: the presented relationship of SCL with sustainable innovation and competitiveness raises doubts. They result primarily from the previously indicated lack of precise descriptions/definitions of the concepts mentioned at the beginning of the review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

“Supply Chain Leadership in a Developing Economy for Sustainable Innovation and Competitiveness: The Case of JSE-Listed Companies” 

Referencing format need attention throughout the manuscript. 

In this paper, the authors propose to, explore the impact of environmental leadership on green culture, environmental management, strategic CSR and environmental behaviour, in order to help the high-tech industry change its views on the world and daily behaviours through environmental leadership, knowledge transmission, attitude cultivation, and action formation. Nevertheless, I believe that this version of the paper does require sufficient improvement to achieve the level of quality needed for publication in Sustainability Journal. The following reasons justify my decision: 

1. The abstract provides some relevant insights drawing on some of the methodology, the key findings, and the contribution although they could be better articulated, but no attempt made to explicitly define the purpose/aim of the study. 

2. Introduction section should have been better developed clearly sating the aim(s), objectives and the central research question(s) providing clarity and direction to the study. An introduction will usually have three primary functions: (1) discussing the research area by referring to the relevant and up-to-date literature; (2) demonstrating an area where more information could or should be added to the literature; and (3) outlining the current study in terms of research objective, main findings and/or structure. 

3. The literature review section demonstrates good understanding of three leadership style theories (Transformational; Transactional; and Laissez-Fare Leadership) it would have benefited from conceptual discussion emphasising the correlation between leadership styles selected for the purpose of the study and the concepts of the SCM and SCL using wider range of sources to support your arguments put forward. In section 2.4 authors could build a strong discussion if reference made to open and closed innovation which could be logically linked to the sustainability innovation. 

4. The methodology (section 3) lacks underpinning throughout. It could be more exhaustive and improve some points regarding the phases. In my opinion this needs careful consideration ensuring that the method used is suitable for the study enabling authors to achieve the overall aim(s) and meet objectives.  Sate the source of the info for table 1, 2, 3 and figures 1-6. 

5. Findings and discussion section provides some relevant insights, but there is a significant scope for improvement and clarity. In section 4.2 authors for the first time have presented a set of hypotheses which in theory they emerge from the critical evaluation of the lit review and need to be presented in the introduction section setting a clear scene for the reader. Hence this required a careful attention facilitating logical flow and clear direction of the study.  Hypothesis could be better articulated and well aligned with the topic “Supply Chain Leadership in a Developing Economy for Sustainable Innovation and Competitiveness”.  In section 4.3 authors have presented Ho1 and Ha1 are these different from the H1 defined in section 4.2 (line 327-329)? If so, why? How these hypotheses emerged? Authors MUST ensure that the data presented are accurate and reliable.                                                         

The discussion lacks also underpinning and it could be developed based on the four parts (1) a statement about the completed research regarding the research question or problem.  (2) mention of any problems or limitations related to the study design, methodology, analysis, or assumptions. (3) a comparison with similar studies which has been satisfactory achieved but as stated above up-to-date literature is required engaging with the current knowledge in the field. (4) Since discussion and conclusion sections have been merged there is no clear line. The discussion in section 4 would have benefited from the reference to sources used in the LR section. 

 Conclusion section could have referend back to the aim and objectives making a clear statement if the aim achieved and the objectives met. The section also contains the outline implications of the findings, recommends future research in the field, and limitations. Although, the lack of a clear aim and limited attempt to outline the objectives have been already highlighted in paragraph 1 and 2. 

6. Highly suggest the authors to highlight the study contributions (how this work adds to what we already know) as well as managerial implications (lessons for managers and practitioners).

I hope these recommendations are useful to improve the paper for future. I encourage the authors to follow this line of research.

Best wishes

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

ok

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for your efforts in improving your paper. I consider my recommendations to have been addressed.

Good luck with your future research!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

All suggestions are implemented. No further doubts or suggestions.

Author Response

Pease see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

“Supply Chain Leadership in a Developing Economy for Sustainable Innovation and Competitiveness: The Case of JSE-Listed Companies” Resubmission Comments: 27th December 2023

Abstract needs attention: Add a sentence that explicitly define the purpose of the study. Refer to line 93 &94 stating that “The primary purpose of this study was to identify the SCL strategic actions to be undertaken by companies in a developing economy about sustainable innovation and competitiveness.”

Literature reviewed: Most of the comments made at the 1st stage of the review process have been addressed although no attempt made to briefly discuss innovation approaches (open and closed innovation) explaining the way in which innovation has is created among the companies selected.

The methodology (section 3.1-3.5) lack underpinning throughout. Not a single ref used to support your arguments throughout and justifying the methodological choice. 

Results: The results lack sufficient depth to tell a story of differences between industries (see table 1) and explain why those differences might have occurred. There is another issue since reference has been made to interviews instead of the questionnaire – data gather through questionnaire have not been presented nor discussed. 

In section 3.2 you stated that questionnaire has been used to gather the data but in section 4.1.1 between line 319-321 you state that “The following question was asked during the interview: Please indicate the extent to which the following factors are important in SCL for sustainable innovation and competitiveness to your company.” Authors also refer to interviews between line 333-335. If interviews also used authors MUST explicitly explain the data collection techniques employed in this study.  

Section 4.2 requires more comprehensive elaboration. The points presented lack specificity and are not substantiated by the study's findings. The hypotheses stated are not explicitly tested or confirmed within the research:

Hypothesis 1: The subjective opinions on Supply Chain Leadership (SCL) in a developing economy are anticipated to emphasize sustainable innovation and competitiveness as essential endeavours for 101 JSE-listed companies.

Hypothesis 2: Training and development initiatives are expected to facilitate the effective implementation of Supply Chain Leadership (SCL) to foster sustainable innovation and competitiveness within JSE-listed companies.

There's a need for further analysis and empirical evidence to validate these hypotheses and their implications within the context of the study's findings.

Section 5 needs attention. Some of the previous comments are addressed but there is a scope for further improvement using references to support your arguments put forward. Authors need to draw upon the key findings discussion them in relation to the literature observed in the Lit Review section. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 5 Report

All the comments provided by the reviewer have been thoroughly addressed and incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript. Each point of concern or suggestion has been carefully considered and implemented to enhance the overall quality and clarity of the document. The necessary revisions and improvements have been made to ensure that the manuscript meets the standards and expectations set forth by the reviewer. 

Author Response

Comment: All the comments provided by the reviewer have been thoroughly addressed and incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript. Each point of concern or suggestion has been carefully considered and implemented to enhance the overall quality of the document. The necessary revisions and improvements have been made to ensure that the manuscript meets the standards and expectations set forth by the reviewer.

Response: Thank you very much for taking time to review this manuscript twice. I truly appreciate your effort and contribution for this exercise in making sure that the manuscript finally meets the standards and expectations set forth by the MDPI Publishers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx