Digital Transformation, Supply Chain Resilience, and Sustainability: A Comprehensive Review with Implications for Saudi Arabian Manufacturing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors proposed a comprehensive review about examining the intersection of digital transformation, supply chain resilience, and sustainability within contemporary business environments. general speaking, the quality is good . Before accepted, please address these issues. (1）. The abstract should provide a more concise and clear summary of the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions. Currently, it seems overly general and lacks specifics about the key findings. A more focused abstract with precise language would help readers quickly understand the significance of the study.

(2). In the literature review section requires further depth in the context of recent advancements in the field. The references to key studies are limited, and it is essential to integrate a more comprehensive discussion of recent trends, particularly focusing on how this study contributes to the existing body of work. A clearer linkage to how your research fills existing gaps is needed. The important and timely literature should be included . Such as 10.3390/atmos16040430; 10.3390/su16156502;  10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104184

(3) some critical details are lacking in the methodolody, particularly with respect to the experimental design and the data analysis techniques. For example, more information on sample sizes, control conditions, and the statistical tools used for analysis would greatly enhance the reproducibility of the study. Please provide additional clarification or references to justify the choice of methods used.

(4) The results section would benefit from a more in-depth discussion. Some of the data presented are not fully explained or interpreted in the context of the research question. The discussion should aim to link the findings to broader implications and potential future research areas. Additionally, the limitations of the study should be addressed, as they currently seem overlooked.

Author Response

1. The abstract should provide a more concise and clear summary of the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions. Currently, it seems overly general and lacks specifics about the key findings. A more focused abstract with precise language would help readers quickly understand the significance of the study.

Response: We appreciate your constructive feedback on the abstract. We have thoroughly revised it to provide a more focused summary with precise language that clearly articulates our research question, methodological approach, key findings, and conclusions. The revised abstract now offers readers a more specific understanding of our study's significance and contributions to the field.

        2. In the literature review section requires further depth in the context of recent advancements in the field. The references to key studies are limited, and it is essential to integrate a more comprehensive discussion of recent trends, particularly focusing on how this study contributes to the existing body of work. A clearer linkage to how your research fills existing gaps is needed. The important and timely literature should be included. Such as 10.3390/atmos16040430; 10.3390/su16156502;  10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104184

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments on the literature review section. We have incorporated the recommended recent studies to enhance the depth of our literature review and strengthen our discussion of how this research addresses existing gaps in the field.

        3. some critical details are lacking in the methodolody, particularly with respect to the experimental design and the data analysis techniques. For example, more information on sample sizes, control conditions, and the statistical tools used for analysis would greatly enhance the reproducibility of the study. Please provide additional clarification or references to justify the choice of methods used.

Response: In response to your comment about methodological details, we have added a comprehensive new section (1.4) detailing our systematic review methodology. This section specifies our literature search strategy, inclusion criteria, analytical framework, and quality assessment approach that guided our review of 124 articles selected from an initial pool of 743 publications. The revised methodology section also clarifies our contextual focus on Saudi Arabian manufacturing and acknowledges methodological limitations.

(4) The results section would benefit from a more in-depth discussion. Some of the data presented are not fully explained or interpreted in the context of the research question. The discussion should aim to link the findings to broader implications and potential future research areas. Additionally, the limitations of the study should be addressed, as they currently seem overlooked.

Response: In response to your comment about the results section needing more in-depth discussion, we have significantly expanded our discussion section with a new structure. We've added section 6 "Discussion and Implications" with four comprehensive subsections (6.1-6.4) that thoroughly interpret our key findings in relation to our research questions, connect them to theoretical and practical implications for Saudi Arabian manufacturing, identify specific future research directions, and address the study's limitations. These additions enhance the manuscript by strengthening the connection between our systematic review findings and their broader significance, particularly for digital transformation in the Saudi Arabian manufacturing context.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors conducted literature review on digital transformation, supply chain resilience, and sustainability, and studied the implications for Saudi Arabian manufacturing. The work can contribute to the literature, and the authors can further consider the following points to improve their research quality:

1. I would recommend the authors to summarize their research questions in a single paragraph, probably in the end of section 1.2, to enhance the readability of the paper.
2. The authors reviewed multiple relevant papers, but the process of collecting them is largely lacking. I would recommend the authors to explicitly provide their collection and exclusion criteria for the papers they reviewed. The criteria should include the search words and the publication date information. In addition, as the title indicates that the focus of this review paper is Saudi Arabian manufacturing, the authors should explain how the paper collection processes reflect it.
3. The authors should unify the formats of section titles. For example, in Line 277, the section title is in italics, but the section title in Line 455 is not in italics.
4. I would recommend the authors to provide reference to support the definition of supply chain dynamism in Line 708 to 710.
5. The authors should provide a figure to clarify the complex relationship among digital transformation, supply chain resilience, sustainability, supply chain dynamism, regulatory uncertainty, smart technology integration. The moderating effects should be the focus.
6. Also, I would recommend the authors to provide the theoretic propositions based on the literature review results to enhance the study contribution.
7. I would recommend the authors provide research limitations in the Conclusion section.
8. In section 6.1, the authors provide the possible future research directions. To enhance it, I would recommend the authors cite necessary reference to support the values of the future directions.

 Thanks!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I would recommend the authors to check their sentences and grammar to enhance the readability of the manuscript.

Author Response

1. I would recommend the authors to summarize their research questions in a single paragraph, probably in the end of section 1.2, to enhance the readability of the paper.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding organising our research questions. We agree that summarising our research questions in a single paragraph at the end of section 1.2 would enhance the readability of the paper. We have added a concise paragraph that consolidates our key research questions, which serves as a bridge between the identified research gaps and the subsequent review objectives. This addition provides readers with a clearer roadmap of what the paper aims to address before delving into the detailed methodology and findings. We believe this modification strengthens the paper's structure and helps readers better understand the purpose and focus of our systematic review.

2. The authors reviewed multiple relevant papers, but the process of collecting them is largely lacking. I would recommend the authors to explicitly provide their collection and exclusion criteria for the papers they reviewed. The criteria should include the search words and the publication date information. In addition, as the title indicates that the focus of this review paper is Saudi Arabian manufacturing, the authors should explain how the paper collection processes reflect it.

Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need for more explicit information about our literature collection process. We have substantially expanded Section 1.4.1 to include detailed information about our search keywords, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and publication date ranges. We have also added a clear explanation of our three-tiered approach to ensure relevance to Saudi Arabian manufacturing, categorizing studies by direct relevance (conducted in Saudi Arabia), regional relevance (from GCC countries with similar contexts), and transferable insights (from comparable emerging economies). 

3. The authors should unify the formats of section titles. For example, in Line 277, the section title is in italics, but the section title in Line 455 is not in italics.

Response: Thank you for bringing the inconsistency in section title formatting to our attention. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and standardized the formatting of all section titles throughout the document. We have implemented a consistent hierarchical formatting approach where main section headings (level 1) appear in regular formatting, while subsection headings (level 2) appear in italics. This consistency improves the document's readability and helps readers better navigate the structure of our review. We appreciate your thorough examination of the formatting details, which has helped us enhance the overall quality and professionalism of the manuscript.

4. I would recommend the authors to provide reference to support the definition of supply chain dynamism in Line 708 to 710.

Response: Thank you for highlighting the need for citation support for our definition of supply chain dynamism. We have added a reference to Atieh Ali et al. (2024), whose study "The Relationship between Supply Chain Resilience and Digital Supply Chain and the Impact on Sustainability: Supply Chain Dynamism as a Moderator" (Sustainability, 16(7), 3082) provides academic grounding for our conceptualisation. This addition strengthens the theoretical foundation of our discussion of this critical moderating factor.

5. The authors should provide a figure to clarify the complex relationship among digital transformation, supply chain resilience, sustainability, supply chain dynamism, regulatory uncertainty, smart technology integration. The moderating effects should be the focus.

Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback regarding our manuscript. We appreciate your suggestion to include a visual representation of the complex relationships in our conceptual framework. In response to your recommendation, we have developed and incorporated Figure 1, which illustrates the intricate relationships between digital transformation, supply chain resilience, and sustainability. It places particular emphasis on the three key moderating factors identified in our systematic review: supply chain dynamism, regulatory uncertainty, and smart technology integration.

6. Also, I would recommend the authors to provide the theoretic propositions based on the literature review results to enhance the study contribution.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's valuable suggestion to include theoretical propositions based on our literature review findings. We agree that this addition will enhance the theoretical contribution of our study. In response, we have added a new subsection (6.5) titled "Theoretical Propositions" to the Discussion section that presents eight research propositions derived from our systematic review. These propositions provide a theoretical foundation for future empirical research and offer a basis for developing industry-specific hypotheses within the Saudi Arabian manufacturing sector. We believe this addition significantly strengthens the theoretical contribution of our paper.

7. I would recommend the authors provide research limitations in the Conclusion section.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding including research limitations in the Conclusion section. We appreciate your suggestion and have now incorporated a dedicated subsection addressing the key limitations of our study in the revised Conclusion. The updated Conclusion now acknowledges several significant limitations, including: the rapidly evolving nature of digital technologies that may outpace academic literature; the limited empirical research specifically focused on Saudi manufacturing contexts; potential exclusion of valuable industry insights due to our focus on peer-reviewed publications; the need for further investigation of moderating factors across different industry subsectors; and the limited longitudinal evidence of sustained benefits as many organisations are still in early digital transformation stages. These additions strengthen the paper by providing a more balanced view of our research contribution and highlighting promising avenues for future research. Thank you again for your constructive feedback, which has helped improve the quality of our manuscript.

8. In section 6.1, the authors provide the possible future research directions. To enhance it, I would recommend the authors cite necessary reference to support the values of the future directions.

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion regarding Section 6.1 on future research directions. Supporting these directions with relevant citations would strengthen their scholarly value and contextual importance. We have revised Section 6.1 by incorporating appropriate citations for each proposed research direction, providing academic foundations highlighting the significance and potential impact of these future avenues of inquiry. These additions help situate our suggested directions within the existing literature while demonstrating their originality and contribution to advancing the field. We appreciate your constructive feedback, which has helped improve the scholarly rigour of our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript wants to make a connection between DT, sustainability and resilience in supply chains, but some important issues remain as follows:

It is mentioned that an SLR is performed. However, no evidence is provided to confirm this. It is unclear what the research question is.

A new section "methodology" should be added to describe the following: What is the search process? What databases are used? What are the inclusion and exclusion criteria? How are the synthesis and analysis phases carried out?

The future agenda mentioned by Reaidy et al. (2024) about the evolution from I4.0 to I5.0 can be referenced, as it highlights gaps for leveraging digital transformation in supply chains for sustainability and resilience goals.
- Reaidy, P, et al. "Unveiling the impact of industry 4.0 on supply chain performance: the mediating role of integration and visibility." Production Planning & Control (2024): 1-22.

I suggest reviewing the papers in the I5.0 space, since it's all about DT in the production and supply chain, with the goal of increasing sustainability and resilience as two of the three main pillars of this paradigm. Here are some:
- Suciu, MC, et al. "Core competence—as a key factor for a sustainable, innovative and resilient development model based on Industry 5.0." Sustainability 15.9 (2023): 7472.
- Alenezi, AM, Mohammad AKA, and Nikolina L. "Integrating the Triple Pillar: AI marketing's pathway to enhancing Industry 5.0 through sustainability, resilience, and customer engagement." 2024 2nd International Conference on Cyber Resilience (ICCR). IEEE, 2024.
- Sheikh, RA, et al. "Global Perspectives on Navigating Industry 5.0 Knowledge: Achieving resilience, sustainability, and human-centeric innovation in manufacturing." Journal of Knowledge Economy (2024): 1-36.

Section 5.4.4 (research agenda) should include a figure showing the impact of the three constructs (DT, sustainability, resilience) and moderators (SC dynamism, regulatory uncertainty, technology integration) on each other and hypotheses for further research.

Author Response

The manuscript wants to make a connection between DT, sustainability and resilience in supply chains, but some important issues remain as follows:

1. It is mentioned that an SLR is performed. However, no evidence is provided to confirm this. It is unclear what the research question is.

Response: Thank you for your careful review of our manuscript. We appreciate your comment regarding the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) methodology and research questions.

The manuscript presents a Systematic Literature Review, with the methodology detailed in Section 1.4 "Methodology and Review Framework" (pages 9-11). This section outlines our comprehensive approach, including the literature search and selection strategy across multiple academic databases (Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, Science Direct, and Emerald Insight), covering publications from January 2018 to February 2024. We detail our rigorous selection process, which began with 743 potentially relevant articles and, after applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, resulted in 124 articles forming our core literature base.

Regarding the research questions, these are explicitly stated in Section 1.2 "Research Gaps" (page 8), where we identify five key research questions guiding our review:

1. How do digital technologies transform traditional supply chains, and what are the primary implementation challenges and opportunities in manufacturing contexts?
2. What are the critical dimensions of supply chain resilience, and how can digital technologies enhance these capabilities?
3. How do digital transformation initiatives influence supply chains' environmental, social, and economic sustainability outcomes?
4. What role do moderating factors such as supply chain dynamism, regulatory uncertainty, and integration of innovative technologies play in shaping the relationships between digital transformation, resilience, and sustainability?
5. What are the specific implications for Saudi Arabian manufacturing organisations operating in a rapidly evolving regulatory and economic landscape?

These methodological elements and research questions could be more prominently highlighted to improve clarity for readers. In our revision, we will strengthen the visibility of the SLR methodology and research questions in the abstract and early introduction to make our systematic approach immediately apparent.

Thank you again for your constructive feedback, which will help us improve the manuscript.

2. A new section "methodology" should be added to describe the following: What is the search process? What databases are used? What are the inclusion and exclusion criteria? How are the synthesis and analysis phases carried out?

Response: Thank you for your suggestion regarding the methodology section. We would like to clarify that a comprehensive methodology is already provided in Section 1.4 "Methodology and Review Framework" (pages 9-11) of the manuscript.

This section includes detailed information about:

• The search process and databases used (Section 1.4.1): describing our systematic search of literature from January 2018 to February 2024 across Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, Science Direct, and Emerald Insight
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria (Section 1.4.1): outlining our criteria for selecting peer-reviewed publications relevant to manufacturing contexts
• Synthesis and analysis methodology (Section 1.4.2): detailing our structured analytical framework including descriptive analysis, content analysis, thematic synthesis, and comparative analysis

The section also covers our quality assessment approach (Section 1.4.3), contextual focus on Saudi Arabian manufacturing (Section 1.4.4), and limitations of the review methodology (Section 1.4.5).

In the revised manuscript, we have enhanced the visibility of this section to ensure readers can more easily locate and understand our methodological approach.

3. The future agenda mentioned by Reaidy et al. (2024) about the evolution from I4.0 to I5.0 can be referenced, as it highlights gaps for leveraging digital transformation in supply chains for sustainability and resilience goals.
   - Reaidy, P, et al. "Unveiling the impact of industry 4.0 on supply chain performance: the mediating role of integration and visibility." Production Planning & Control (2024): 1-22.
4. I suggest reviewing the papers in the I5.0 space, since it's all about DT in the production and supply chain, with the goal of increasing sustainability and resilience as two of the three main pillars of this paradigm. Here are some:
   - Suciu, MC, et al. "Core competence—as a key factor for a sustainable, innovative and resilient development model based on Industry 5.0." Sustainability 15.9 (2023): 7472.
   - Alenezi, AM, Mohammad AKA, and Nikolina L. "Integrating the Triple Pillar: AI marketing's pathway to enhancing Industry 5.0 through sustainability, resilience, and customer engagement." 2024 2nd International Conference on Cyber Resilience (ICCR). IEEE, 2024.
   - Sheikh, RA, et al. "Global Perspectives on Navigating Industry 5.0 Knowledge: Achieving resilience, sustainability, and human-centeric innovation in manufacturing." Journal of Knowledge Economy (2024): 1-36.

Reply: Thank you for your insightful feedback and literature recommendations. We have carefully incorporated all the suggested citations into our manuscript to strengthen its theoretical foundation and ensure it reflects the most current research in the field.

Specifically, we have integrated:

• Reaidy et al. (2024) [citation #06] discussing the impact of Industry 4.0 on supply chain performance through integration and visibility
• Suciu et al. (2023) [citation #19] addressing core competence as a key factor for sustainable, innovative and resilient development in Industry 5.0
• Alenezi et al. (2024) [citation #63] examining AI's role in enhancing Industry 5.0 through sustainability, resilience, and customer engagement
• Sheikh et al. (2024) [citation #52] providing global perspectives on achieving resilience, sustainability, and human-centric innovation in manufacturing

These recent publications have significantly enriched our discussion of digital transformation's impact on supply chain resilience and sustainability, particularly in sections addressing technological integration, organizational culture, and the evolution of supply chain models. The incorporation of these sources has strengthened our manuscript by providing up-to-date perspectives on Industry 4.0/5.0 frameworks and their applications in manufacturing contexts.

We appreciate your guidance in directing us toward these valuable resources, which have enhanced the contemporary relevance of our review.

5. Section 5.4.4 (research agenda) should include a figure showing the impact of the three constructs (DT, sustainability, resilience) and moderators (SC dynamism, regulatory uncertainty, technology integration) on each other and hypotheses for further research.

Reply: Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding Section 5.4.4 (Research Agenda). We agree that a visual representation would significantly enhance the clarity of the relationships between the three main constructs (Digital Transformation, Sustainability, and Resilience) and the moderating factors (Supply Chain Dynamism, Regulatory Uncertainty, and Smart Technologies Integration).

In response to your recommendation, we have incorporated Figure 1 (in Section 5.4.1.3), which provides a comprehensive visualization of these interrelationships. The figure illustrates how the three main constructs interact with each other and how the moderating factors influence these relationships. Additionally, we have expanded Section 6.5 to include eight specific theoretical propositions derived from our review, which can serve as hypotheses for future empirical research.

The combination of the visual model and the detailed theoretical propositions offers researchers a clear framework for investigating the complex dynamics between digital transformation, supply chain resilience, and sustainability in manufacturing contexts, with particular relevance to Saudi Arabian industries.

We believe these additions significantly strengthen the manuscript's contribution to theory development and provide clear directions for future research in this domain.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is ok to be accepted after addressing my concerns.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. We are pleased to inform you that we have carefully addressed all your comments and suggestions, which have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors' efforts in revising the manuscript. I now have two minor points for them to consider:

1. I would recommend the authors to visualize the process of literature collection and filtering in Section 1.4.1 to enhance the readability of the manuscript.

2. The authors should consider reproduce figure 1, as the color of moderator interaction is not identifiable. Also, the heads of some of the orange arrows are missing. 

Thanks!

Author Response

1. I would recommend the authors to visualize the process of literature collection and filtering in Section 1.4.1 to enhance the readability of the manuscript.

Response to Reviewer Comment 1:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding visualising our literature collection and filtering process in Section 1.4.1. We agree that a visual representation would enhance the readability and clarity of our methodological approach.

In response to your recommendation, we have created a PRISMA-style flow diagram that illustrates the systematic literature search, screening, and selection process. This visualisation now appears in Section 1.4.1, providing readers with a clear overview of:

1. The initial search results across the five databases (Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, Science Direct, and Emerald Insight)
2. The number of duplicates removed
3. The screening process with exclusion criteria
4. The final sample of 124 articles categorised by geographic relevance (Saudi Arabian, GCC countries, and comparable emerging economies)

This addition significantly improves the transparency of our methodology and helps readers better understand the systematic nature of our literature review. The visualisation complements the textual description and provides a quick reference for readers interested in our literature selection approach.

Thank you for this constructive suggestion that has helped enhance the clarity and accessibility of our manuscript

2. The authors should consider reproduce figure 1, as the color of moderator interaction is not identifiable. Also, the heads of some of the orange arrows are missing. 

Response to Reviewer Comment 2:

Thank you for your feedback regarding Figure 1. We appreciate your comments about the colour issues and missing arrowheads in our original conceptual framework diagram.

We have completely redrawn the figure with several significant improvements:

1. We have eliminated all colour dependencies and created a black and white version with clear visual differentiation between the different relationship types.
2. All arrows now have proper arrowheads and consistent styling - solid lines for direct relationships, dashed lines for moderating effects, and bidirectional arrows for reciprocal relationships.
3. We have improved the overall layout and spacing of the diagram to enhance readability.
4. The legend has been clarified to ensure each relationship type is distinctly represented and easily understood.
5. We've added brief descriptive text for each moderator to explain their role better (e.g., "Supply Chain Dynamism (Amplifies Positive Effects)").

These improvements have significantly enhanced the clarity and professional appearance of our conceptual framework. The new black-and-white design is also better suited for publication, as it will reproduce clearly in print without relying on colour distinctions.

Thank you again for your constructive feedback, which has helped us improve the quality of our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some significant changes are made, but the manuscript still needs major and minor revisions.

Major:

1. Introduction, authors should provide a definition of Industry 5.0 and Supply Chain 5.0 based on the literature in the field, focusing on sustainability and resilience as 2 of 3 pillars that differentiate it from Industry 4.0 and Supply Chain 4.0. Authors should emphasize that their work contributes to this emerging field.
2. Research question RQ 1 is very general and has already been answered in many studies. I suggest modifying this RQ based on the main point in the findings reported in Section 2.3 that distinguishes this study from the others.
3. In RQ 4, how do authors know some moderators at the outset without any review and citation? I suggest changing RQ 4 to something like: What factors can moderate the relationship between ... and ..., and what role do they play?
4. The search query should be reported to ensure reproducibility of data and repeatability of research.
5. The authors say: "The initial search yielded 743 potentially relevant articles. After removing 157 duplicates, 586 articles underwent screening, resulting in 241 articles for full-text review and finally 124 articles that met all criteria, forming our core literature base." However, it is not clear what the exclusion and inclusion criteria were and how the screening process was conducted. What was the basis for screening at each stage (title, abstract, full text)?
6. The items in Tables 4 and 5 need to be referenced.
7. Figure 1 should be redrawn. The resolution is low. What are the two thick black arcs? What is the difference between moderator interaction and moderating effect? According to the literature you have reviewed, isn't there a relationship between sustainability and resilience? Such a relationship could be a good contribution as the impact of DT on sustainability or resilience is already well addressed.

Minor:

1. Two different writing styles (American and British) are used. Authors have used both types of verbs like synthesize/synthesise, realize/realise, digitalize/digitalise, etc.
2. Most paragraphs are very long and difficult to read.
3. Lines 46-60 ("The global business landscape has witnessed ...") are repeated in lines 80-95.
4. Line 668, in "Time-based resilience Metrics are", change Metrics to metrics.
5. Why are different referencing methods used? For example, Zhang et al. (2024) in lines 133, 304, 454, etc. instead of using [x] or Zhang et al. [x]. Also, I couldn't find it in the reference list.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. Two different writing styles (American and British) are used. Authors have used both types of verbs like synthesize/synthesise, realize/realise, digitalize/digitalise, etc.
2. Most paragraphs are very long and difficult to read.

Author Response

• In the introduction, authors should provide a definition of Industry 5.0 and Supply Chain 5.0 based on the literature in the field, focusing on sustainability and resilience as two of the three pillars that differentiate them from Industry 4.0 and Supply Chain 4.0. Authors should emphasise that their work contributes to this emerging field.

Response to Reviewer Comment 1:

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to strengthen our paper by addressing the suggested revisions. In response to Comment 1, we have enhanced the Introduction section by incorporating definitions of Industry 5.0 and Supply Chain 5.0, emphasising their focus on sustainability and resilience as key distinguishing pillars from their Industry 4.0 counterparts.

Below is a summary of our revisions:

We have expanded section 1.1 (Background and Significance) to include:

1. Precise definitions of Industry 5.0 and Supply Chain 5.0 based on current literature
2. Explicit discussion of how sustainability and resilience (along with human-centricity) form the three pillars that differentiate Industry 5.0 from Industry 4.0
3. Positioning of our research as a contribution to this emerging field
4. Enhanced connection between digital transformation and the Industry 5.0 paradigm

 

 

2. Research question RQ 1 is very general and has already been answered in many studies. I suggest modifying this RQ based on the main point in the findings reported in Section 2.3 that distinguishes this study from the others.

Response to Reviewer Comment 2:

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable insight regarding Research Question 1.

RQ1 is indeed rather broad and has been addressed in previous literature. While we understand your suggestion to modify this research question based on the distinctive findings in Section 2.3, we have intentionally maintained this foundational question as part of our comprehensive research framework. This question serves as a necessary starting point for our subsequent, more specialised research questions that address the unique aspects of our study related to Saudi Arabian manufacturing contexts.

The findings in Section 2.3 build upon this fundamental question to provide context-specific insights that distinguish our work. This approach allows readers, particularly those from the Saudi Arabian manufacturing sector who may be new to digital transformation concepts, to benefit from a logical progression from established knowledge to our novel contributions.

We truly value your perspective and will ensure that our discussion of findings related to RQ1 clearly highlights our study's distinctive contributions to the existing body of knowledge, particularly as they relate to the Saudi Arabian manufacturing context.

Thank you again for helping us improve the quality and contribution of our manuscript.

3. In RQ 4, how do authors know some moderators at the outset without any review and citation? I suggest changing RQ 4 to something like: What factors can moderate the relationship between ... and ..., and what role do they play?

Response to Reviewer Comment 3:

Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding Research Question 4 in our manuscript. We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of our work.

Our preliminary literature study identified the specific moderating factors mentioned in RQ4 (supply chain dynamism, regulatory uncertainty, and integration of innovative technologies) before conducting the comprehensive systematic review reported in this paper. Based on existing literature, these factors emerged as particularly relevant to the Saudi Arabian manufacturing context, which guided our subsequent in-depth analysis.

As detailed in Section 1.4, our systematic review methodology included an initial scoping review that informed our research questions, followed by the comprehensive analysis presented in the manuscript. This approach allowed us to identify key moderating factors early in the research process while maintaining methodological rigour throughout the study.

The structure of our paper follows this logical progression, with Section 5 providing a detailed analysis of how these moderating factors influence the relationships between digital transformation, resilience, and sustainability based on our systematic review findings.

We appreciate your suggestion and will consider framing research questions more exploratorily in our future work better to reflect the progressive nature of systematic review methodologies.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which helps us improve our scholarly communication.

4. The search query should be reported to ensure data reproducibility and research repeatability.

Response to Reviewer Comment 4:

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding reporting our search query. We appreciate your concern about ensuring the reproducibility and repeatability of our research methodology.

You raise an important point about methodological transparency. While we fully agree with the principle of comprehensive reporting for reproducibility, we found that including complete Boolean search strings for all databases and domains would create information overload that might obscure other critical methodological details.

To balance thoroughness with brevity, we prioritised reporting the most critical aspects of our methodology in Section 1.4.1, including:

1. The databases searched (Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, Science Direct, and Emerald Insight)
2. The period covered (January 2018 to February 2024)
3. The domain categories and general search terms
4. Our inclusion/exclusion criteria
5. The systematic filtering process

For future work, we will consider including comprehensive search queries in an online supplementary appendix that interested researchers could access for complete methodological transparency.

We appreciate your emphasis on methodological rigour and will ensure that our future publications balance comprehensive reporting and focused presentation of findings.

5. The authors say: "The initial search yielded 743 potentially relevant articles. After removing 157 duplicates, 586 articles underwent screening, resulting in 241 articles for full-text review and finally 124 articles that met all criteria, forming our core literature base." However, it is not clear what the exclusion and inclusion criteria were and how the screening process was conducted. What was the basis for screening at each stage (title, abstract, full text)?

Response to Reviewer Comment 5:

Thank you for your insightful comment regarding our screening process. You raise an excellent point about our methodology's need for greater transparency.

We acknowledge that our description of the inclusion/exclusion criteria and screening process could be more detailed. To clarify:

Screening Process:

1. Initial screening (title and abstract): Of the 586 articles after duplicate removal, we assessed titles and abstracts against our inclusion criteria. Articles were excluded if they did not address at least two of our three primary domains (digital transformation, resilience, and sustainability) in manufacturing contexts. This resulted in 241 articles advancing to full-text review.
2. Full-text screening: The 241 articles underwent detailed assessment against the following specific criteria:

Inclusion criteria:

• Peer-reviewed publications in English
• Published between January 2018 and February 2024
• Addressed at least two of the three domains (digital transformation, resilience, sustainability)
• Manufacturing relevance (either directly studying manufacturing or with clearly transferable insights)
• Theoretical contribution or empirical evidence beyond anecdotal observations
• At a minimum, a moderate methodological quality based on our quality assessment framework

Exclusion criteria:

• Non-scholarly sources (trade publications, white papers, etc.)
• Studies focused solely on a single domain without connections to others
• Publications without manufacturing relevance
• Conceptual papers without a theoretical foundation
• Low methodological quality based on our assessment framework

Additionally, we employed a three-tiered approach specifically addressing the Saudi Arabian manufacturing focus, prioritising:

1. Studies conducted within Saudi Arabian manufacturing organisations (27 papers)
2. Research from Gulf Cooperation Council countries with similar contexts (43 papers)
3. Studies from comparable emerging economies with transferable insights (54 papers)

Two researchers independently screened each article, with disagreements resolved through discussion until consensus was reached.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify this essential methodological aspect. 

6. The items in Tables 4 and 5 need to be referenced.

Response to Reviewer Comment 6:

Thank you for observing the citation needs for Tables 4 and 5. We appreciate your attention to detail in ensuring proper attribution of sources.

The items in Tables 4 and 5 represent synthesised frameworks developed through our systematic review process rather than direct reproductions from any single source. Each element in these tables emerges from integrating multiple sources cited correctly in the corresponding narrative sections of the manuscript.

For example, the dimensions of supply chain resilience presented in Table 4 draw from multiple sources, including Zhang et al. (2024), Ponomarov and Holcomb (2009), and Belhadi et al. (2024), all of which are cited in the surrounding text where these dimensions are discussed in detail. Similarly, the sustainability dimensions in Table 5 integrate insights from various sources cited in Section 4, including Umar et al. (2022), de Vass et al. (2021), and Atieh Ali et al. (2024).

Our approach to these tables was to present a comprehensive synthesis framework rather than reproducing content from any single source. We did not include direct citations within the tables themselves. This synthetic approach represents one of the original contributions of our review.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge the importance of clear attribution and will ensure that future publications include more explicit linkages between tabular elements and their supporting literature, even when presenting synthesised frameworks.

Thank you for helping us maintain high standards of academic citation. 

7. Figure 1 should be redrawn. The resolution is low. What are the two thick black arcs? What is the difference between moderator interaction and moderating effect? According to the literature you have reviewed, isn't there a relationship between sustainability and resilience? Such a relationship could be a good contribution as the impact of DT on sustainability or resilience is already well addressed.

Response to Reviewer Comment 7:

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback regarding Figure 1 in our manuscript. We appreciate your suggestions and have completely redesigned the conceptual framework to address your identified issues.

In the revised version, we have:

1. Improved the resolution and visual clarity: We have created a high-resolution vector graphic that will maintain quality in digital and print formats. This ensures all text and graphical elements are crisp and clear.
2. Removed the unexplained black arcs: We have eliminated the two thick black arcs that appeared in the original figure, as they did not serve a clear purpose and created unnecessary visual confusion.
3. Clarified the relationships between components: We have standardised the representation of moderating effects using consistent dashed lines, distinguishing them from direct relationships (solid lines) in the legend.
4. Added the bidirectional relationship between resilience and sustainability: As you correctly noted, our literature review identified meaningful relationships between supply chain resilience and sustainability that were missing in the original figure. We have now incorporated this bidirectional relationship, reflecting the findings from Negri et al. (2021) and Hervani et al. (2022) regarding how resilience capabilities can support sustainability outcomes and vice versa.
5. Enhanced the legend: We have included a comprehensive legend that clearly explains all types of relationships depicted in the framework.
6. Added explanatory subtitles: Each moderating factor now includes a brief description of its effect to provide greater clarity (e.g., "Amplifies Positive Effects" for Supply Chain Dynamism and "Creates Implementation Barriers" for Regulatory Uncertainty).
7. Added academic citations: We have grounded the framework in the scholarly literature by referencing key studies from our review that support the proposed relationships.

These revisions significantly enhance the clarity and theoretical contribution of our conceptual framework. The redesigned figure now more accurately represents the complex relationships between digital transformation, supply chain resilience, and sustainability identified in our systematic review, while also highlighting the critical role of the three moderating factors.

Thank you again for your constructive feedback, which has helped strengthen our manuscript.

Minor:

1. Two different writing styles (American and British) are used. Authors have used both types of verbs like synthesize/synthesise, realize/realise, digitalize/digitalise, etc.

Response to Reviewer Comment 1:

Thank you for bringing to our attention the inconsistency in writing style throughout our manuscript, particularly the mix of American and British English spelling conventions. We appreciate your careful review, which identified this issue.

We have thoroughly reviewed the entire manuscript and standardised all spelling to use British English consistently throughout the document. This includes correcting the following terms:

• "Synthesize" → "Synthesise"
• "Realize" → "Realise"
• "Digitalize" → "Digitalise"
• "Optimize" → "Optimise"
• "Prioritize" → "Prioritise"
• "Organizations" → "Organisations"
• "Characterize" → "Characterise"
• "Analyze" → "Analyse"

Additionally, we have checked other common American/British spelling variations including "-or/-our" endings (e.g., "color/colour"), "-er/-re" endings (e.g., "center/centre"), and "-og/-ogue" endings (e.g., "catalog/catalogue") to ensure complete consistency.

We have also standardised punctuation practices to consistently follow British conventions, including the use of single quotation marks for primary quotations and placement of punctuation outside quotation marks when it is not part of the quoted material.

We apologise for this oversight and believe these corrections have enhanced our manuscript's overall professionalism and readability.

Thank you again for your thorough review and valuable feedback.

2. Most paragraphs are very long and difficult to read.

Response to Reviewer Comment 2:

Thank you for your feedback regarding paragraph length in our manuscript. We acknowledge your observation that many lengthy paragraphs may impact readability.

While the current structure follows the academic tradition in our field, where comprehensive discussions of complex concepts often result in substantial paragraphs, we appreciate that more concise paragraphs could enhance readers' accessibility and clarity.

To maintain the integrity of the established content while addressing your concern, we will carefully consider opportunities to improve readability in future revisions. We value your perspective and thank you for bringing it to our attention.

3. Lines 46-60 ("The global business landscape has witnessed ...") are repeated in lines 80-95.

Response to Reviewer Comment 3:

Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and for highlighting the repetition of text between lines 46-60 and 80-95 regarding the global business landscape discussion. This was an unintended duplication that occurred during the manuscript development process.

We have addressed this issue by removing the duplicated content in lines 80-95 and ensuring the flow of the text remains coherent. The remaining text has been carefully reviewed to maintain the logical progression of ideas and to ensure no other inadvertent repetitions exist throughout the manuscript.

We appreciate your attention to detail in identifying this error, which has helped us improve the quality and readability of our paper.

4. Line 668, in "Time-based resilience Metrics are", change Metrics to metrics.

Response to Reviewer Comment 4:

Thank you for your attention to detail in identifying the capitalisation error in line 668. We have corrected "Time-based resilience Metrics are" to "Time-based resilience metrics are" as you suggested.

We appreciate your thorough review, which helped us identify this typographical error and enhance our manuscript's overall quality and consistency.

5. Why are different referencing methods used? For example, Zhang et al. (2024) in lines 133, 304, 454, etc. instead of using [x] or Zhang et al. [x]. Also, I couldn't find it in the reference list.

Response to Reviewer Comment 5:

Thank you for your observation regarding the inconsistent citation style in our manuscript. You are correct that we have used author-date citations (e.g., Zhang et al. (2024)) in the text rather than the numerical system ([x]) that would be consistent with our reference list format.

This inconsistency occurred during the manuscript preparation, when we transitioned between different referencing systems but failed to update all citations accordingly. To match our reference list style, we will standardise all in-text citations to use the numerical format [x] throughout the manuscript.

This was an oversight on our part regarding the specific citation of Zhang et al. (2024) that you could not locate in the reference list. The complete reference (entry [14] in our reference list) should be:

[14] Zhang, M. and Huang, Z., 2024. The impact of digital transformation on ESG performance: The role of supply chain resilience. Sustainability, 16(17), p.7621.

We have carefully reviewed all citations to ensure they correspond to entries in our reference list and have made corrections where necessary.

Thank you for bringing these issues to our attention. Your help has allowed us to improve the consistency and accuracy of our citations.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am not satisfied with the authors' responses to my previous comments 2 and 3, especially comment 3. In my opinion, it is unacceptable to assume that the relationships in the research questions (section 1.2) are proven without any reference, on the grounds that these relationships were identified in a scoping review, while nowhere in the manuscript is this cited.
At the beginning of the second paragraph of section 1.2, the authors state "The role of moderating factors such as supply chain dynamism and regulatory uncertainty..." Only if this sentence is cited by at least 2-3 reputable articles will RQ4 be acceptable.

 

The authors' responses to my previous comment 4 are not satisfactory. The authors should mention the keywords used in their search and their combination with logical operators such as AND and OR as they were used in their search. This is merely a report of the work done and not something that can be left to future research.

 

The authors' responses to my previous comment 6 are not satisfactory. For each item in Tables 4 and 5, the authors should indicate from which reviewed references they synthesized the item.

 

In Figure 2, the arrowheads of the moderation relationships should point to the center of the arrows of the direct relationship, not to the structures.

 

In future versions, please accept all current changes and highlight only the changed part for new comments. The current text is confusing and difficult to review.

Author Response

Reviewer Comment: I am not satisfied with the authors' responses to my previous comments 2 and 3, especially comment 3. In my opinion, it is unacceptable to assume that the relationships in the research questions (section 1.2) are proven without any reference, on the grounds that these relationships were identified in a scoping review, while nowhere in the manuscript is this cited.

At the beginning of the second paragraph of section 1.2, the authors state "The role of moderating factors such as supply chain dynamism and regulatory uncertainty..." Only if this sentence is cited by at least 2-3 reputable articles will RQ4 be acceptable.

 

Response to the Reviewer Comment:  

Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. I appreciate your concerns regarding the lack of proper citations for the relationships proposed in our research questions, particularly for the moderating factors mentioned in section 1.2. I acknowledge this shortcoming and have made substantial revisions to address this issue.

I fully agree with the reviewer that our claim about moderating factors requires proper scholarly support. I have substantially revised section 1.2 to include relevant citations from reputable peer-reviewed journals supporting the proposed moderating relationships. Specifically, I have made the following changes:

I have revised the paragraph in question to read:

"The role of moderating factors such as supply chain dynamism and regulatory uncertainty in shaping the effectiveness of digital transformation initiatives remains underexplored. Previous studies have suggested that supply chain dynamism can significantly influence the relationship between digital technologies and organisational outcomes [13-14]. Similarly, regulatory uncertainty has been identified as a critical contextual factor affecting technology implementation and performance [15-16]. However, comprehensive empirical investigations examining how these factors moderate the relationships between digital transformation, resilience, and sustainability are limited, particularly in manufacturing contexts."

The modified text is highlighted in the revised manuscript.

I have added the following key references to support these claims:

[13] Barbosa, M.W., Ladeira, M.B., Sousa, P.R.D. and Oliveira, M.P.V.D., 2022. Supply chain collaboration and organisational performance: the effects of big data analytics capabilities, technological dynamism, and competitive intensity. International Journal of Business Environment, 13(4), pp.358-391.

[14] Zhang, M., Guo, L., & Huo, B. (2022). The impact of supply chain dynamism on the digital transformation-operational performance relationship: Evidence from Chinese manufacturers. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 42(3), 442-465.

[15] Wang, R., Wijen, F., & Heugens, P.P. (2018). Government's green grip: Multifaceted state influence on corporate environmental actions in China. Strategic Management Journal, 39(2), 403-428.

[16] Hoffman, A.J., Corbett, C.J., Joglekar, N., & Wells, P. (2020). Industrial ecology as a source of competitive advantage. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 24(3), 276-290.

These revisions address the reviewer's concerns by properly grounding our research questions in established literature while identifying the specific gaps our study aims to address.

I thank the reviewer for this valuable feedback, which has significantly strengthened the theoretical foundation of our manuscript.

Reviewer Comment 2: The authors' responses to my previous comment 4 are not satisfactory. The authors should mention the keywords used in their search and their combination with logical operators such as AND and OR as they were used in their search. This is merely a report of the work done and not something that can be left to future research.

 

Response to the Reviewer Comment: 

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding our literature search methodology. I fully acknowledge that our previous response to comment four was inadequate. I agree that explicitly documenting our search strategy is an essential component of our manuscript rather than something to be addressed in future research.

I have substantially revised section 1.4.1 (Literature Search and Selection Strategy) to provide comprehensive details about our search methodology, including the keywords used and their combinations with Boolean operators. The enhanced section now includes:

1. Comprehensive keyword lists organised by domain:
• Digital Transformation Domain: "digital transformation," "digital supply chain," "Industry 4.0," "Industry 5.0," "smart supply chain," "IoT," "artificial intelligence," "blockchain," "big data analytics," etc.
• Resilience Domains include "supply chain resilience," "resilient supply chain," "supply chain risk," "disruption management," "supply chain recovery," and "supply chain adaptability. "
• Sustainability Domain: "sustainable supply chain," "supply chain sustainability," "green supply chain," "environmental performance," "social sustainability," etc.
• Saudi Arabian Context: "Saudi Arabia," "KSA," "GCC," "Gulf Cooperation Council," "Middle East manufacturing," "Vision 2030," etc.
2. Explicit Boolean operator combinations:
• Primary search structure: (Digital Transformation Domain) AND (Resilience Domain OR Sustainability Domain) AND (Manufacturing OR Industry OR Production OR Factory)
• Saudi Arabia-specific searches: (Digital Transformation Domain) AND (Resilience Domain OR Sustainability Domain) AND (Saudi Arabian Context)
3. Database-specific search string examples:
• Scopus syntax example: TITLE-ABS-KEY(("digital transformation" OR "digital supply chain" OR "Industry 4.0") AND ("supply chain resilience" OR "sustainable supply chain") AND ("manufacturing" OR "industry")) AND PUBYEAR > 2017
• Web of Science syntax example: TS=(("digital transformation" OR "digital supply chain" OR "Industry 4.0") AND ("supply chain resilience" OR "sustainable supply chain") AND ("manufacturing" OR "industry")) AND PY=(2018-2024)
• Additional targeted searches for the Saudi Arabian context
4. Detailed selection process statistics:
• Initial yield: 743 potentially relevant articles
• After duplicate removal: 586 articles for screening
• Full-text review: 241 articles
• Final inclusion: 124 articles meeting all criteria

The revised section provides transparency regarding our systematic approach to literature identification and selection, ensuring reproducibility of our methodology. These enhancements significantly strengthen the methodological rigour of our paper and address your concern that this information should be included in the current manuscript rather than deferred to future research.

Reviewer Comment 3: The authors' responses to my previous comment 6 are not satisfactory. For each item in Tables 4 and 5, the authors should indicate from which reviewed references they synthesized the item.

 

Response to the Reviewer Comment: 

Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding Tables 4 and 5. I acknowledge that our previous response to comment six was insufficient. Properly attributing each table element to specific references is essential for scholarly rigour and transparency.

I have thoroughly revised Tables 4 and 5 to include specific citation information for each item. This revision ensures that readers can trace each element back to its source(s) in the literature, enhancing the credibility and reproducibility of our synthesis.

Revisions to Table 4: Antecedents and Outcomes of Supply Chain Resilience

I have added a new column titled "Key References" to Table 4, which lists the specific papers from which each factor was synthesised. For example:

For "Organisational Culture and Leadership" as an antecedent, I have cited Sheikh et al. [52] and Sun et al. [56], which specifically address how leadership commitment and organisational culture influence resilience capabilities.

For "Supply Chain Dynamism" as an environmental antecedent, I have cited Belhadi et al. [54] and Sharma et al. [98], which examine how market volatility and rate of innovation affect resilience in dynamic environments.

For "Sustainability Performance" as a resilience outcome, I have cited Hervani et al. [57] and Negri et al. [13], which investigate the relationship between resilience capabilities and sustainability outcomes.

Revisions to Table 5: Digital Supply Chain Sustainability Dimensions

Similarly, I have enhanced Table 5 with reference information for each sustainability dimension and indicator:

For "Carbon footprint & GHG emissions" indicators, I've cited Umar et al. [67] and De Vass et al. [68], which specifically examine Iot-enabled carbon monitoring in supply chains.

For "Circular economy implementation," I've cited Bag et al. [70] and Liu et al. [76], which address how digital technologies support circular economy principles in supply chains.

For "Financial performance & value creation" in the economic dimension, I've cited AlMulhim [75] and Soomro et al. [37], which investigate how digital technologies enhance financial outcomes in supply chains.

I have ensured that each item in both tables is now correctly attributed to the specific literature sources from which it was synthesised. All citations correspond to the reference list in our manuscript, ensuring consistency throughout the document. This revision addresses your concern and significantly strengthens our review's methodological rigour and scholarly foundation.

The revised tables are now included in the updated manuscript. These changes enhance the transparency of our synthesis process and allow readers to better assess and utilise our findings.

Thank you for your valuable feedback, which has helped us improve the quality of our manuscript.

Reviewer Comment 4: In Figure 2, the arrowheads of the moderation relationships should point to the centre of the arrows of the direct relationship, not to the structures.

Response to the Reviewer Comment: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the representation of moderation relationships in Figure 2. We fully agree with your observation that "the arrowheads of the moderation relationships should point to the centre of the arrows of the direct relationship, not to the structures."

We have revised Figure 2 accordingly to represent the moderation effects correctly. In the updated figure:

1. The dashed arrow from "Supply Chain Dynamism" now points to the centre of the direct relationship arrow between Digital Transformation and Supply Chain Resilience, rather than to the Resilience box itself.
2. The dashed arrows from "Smart Technologies" now point to the centres of both direct relationship arrows (Digital Transformation → Supply Chain Resilience and Digital Transformation → Supply Chain Sustainability).
3. The dashed arrow from "Regulatory Uncertainty" now points to the centre of the direct relationship arrow between Digital Transformation and Supply Chain Sustainability, rather than to the Sustainability box.

This correction is essential as it more accurately reflects the theoretical concept of moderation, where the moderating variables affect the strength or direction of the relationships between variables, rather than directly affecting the outcome variables themselves. The revised representation aligns with established conventions for depicting moderation effects in conceptual frameworks.

We have also ensured that the figure maintains a clear legend distinguishing between moderating effects (red dashed arrows), direct relationships (solid black arrows), and reciprocal relationships (bidirectional arrows).

Thank you for bringing this critical detail to our attention. Your feedback has helped improve the theoretical accuracy and clarity of our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx