Factors Affecting the Implementation of Green Supply Chain in Companies in Indonesia: A Qualitative Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript, titled “Identify the Factors Affecting the Implementation of Green Supply Chain in Logistics Companies in Indonesia: A Qualitative Study,” explores the factors influencing the adoption of GSCM in Indonesian logistics companies. To this end, the authors conducted structured interviews with 14 participants and carried out a qualitative analysis. While the topic is relevant and carries significance in understanding the GSCM landscape in Indonesia, the analysis remains somewhat superficial, which is a missed opportunity.

For instance, the three main research questions—(1) How is GSCM implemented in companies in Indonesia? (2) What are the challenges and barriers to the implementation of GSCM in companies today? and (3) What are the key factors influencing the implementation of GSCM, and how has it been applied in companies thus far?—are quite broad. Consequently, the findings tend to fall within expected ranges, offering limited novelty or deeper insight for readers. This gives the impression of a preliminary or exploratory study that precedes the identification of more focused research problems typically found in qualitative research.

In addition, in qualitative research, in-depth analysis is essential—especially when it comes to identifying and elaborating on interesting themes that emerge from interviews. Despite adopting a qualitative approach, this study offers limited insight. The responses from the 14 participants are presented in a rather monotonous manner, and in some instances, the authors rely on basic quantitative summaries (e.g., percentages) to supplement the discussion. As a result, the rich potential of qualitative data is underutilized, and the interpretation remains shallow.

For future work, I encourage the authors to build upon the interesting points identified in this study by narrowing the scope and conducting more intensive, in-depth research. Doing so could provide more original insights and make a stronger contribution to the academic discourse on GSCM.

Author Response

Reviewer 01

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

01. The manuscript, titled “Identify the Factors Affecting the Implementation of Green Supply Chain in Logistics Companies in Indonesia: A Qualitative Study,” explores the factors influencing the adoption of GSCM in Indonesian logistics companies. To this end, the authors conducted structured interviews with 14 participants and carried out a qualitative analysis. While the topic is relevant and carries significance in understanding the GSCM landscape in Indonesia, the analysis remains somewhat superficial, which is a missed opportunity.

For instance, the three main research questions—(1) How is GSCM implemented in companies in Indonesia? (2) What are the challenges and barriers to the implementation of GSCM in companies today? and (3) What are the key factors influencing the implementation of GSCM, and how has it been applied in companies thus far?—are quite broad. Consequently, the findings tend to fall within expected ranges, offering limited novelty or deeper insight for readers. This gives the impression of a preliminary or exploratory study that precedes the identification of more focused research problems typically found in qualitative research.

Comment:  We have revise the Research questions to be less broad.

The research questions guiding this study are refined to promote deeper insight and thematic focus:

1. How do senior logistics managers conceptualize and apply GSCM within Indonesian supply chain operations?
2. What are the most critical internal and external barriers hindering GSCM implementation at the operational level?
3. What organizational motivations and contextual factors most significantly drive or constrain GSCM initiatives in the logistics sector?

02. In addition, in qualitative research, in-depth analysis is essential—especially when it comes to identifying and elaborating on interesting themes that emerge from interviews. Despite adopting a qualitative approach, this study offers limited insight. The responses from the 14 participants are presented in a rather monotonous manner, and in some instances, the authors rely on basic quantitative summaries (e.g., percentages) to supplement the discussion. As a result, the rich potential of qualitative data is underutilized, and the interpretation remains shallow.

Comment:

We have added some quote box and also the elaboration of the finding.

Page 7: (4.2)

A more granular thematic analysis was conducted to move beyond frequency-based summaries and uncover deeper insights into how Indonesian logistics companies approach GSCM. Three key themes emerged: (1) Interpretive Confusion between GSCM and SSC, (2) Compliance-Driven Implementation versus Value-Driven Strategy, and (3) Resource Constraints and Infrastructure Readiness. These themes are elaborated below with representative quotes.

Page 10:

Yet, it is still found the conceptual confusion on the concept of Green Supply Chain and Sustainable Supply Chain.“Green supply chain is about short-term environmental practices, but I see sustainable supply chains as broader—more strategic, covering social and economic too.” -  Respondent 7.

Page 10

Most of respondent stated that they implement GCMS.  However, there is one respondent could not answer directly and needed further explanation. It is also found the lack of familiarity. “Actually, I wasn’t sure what green supply chain meant until you explained it. We do reduce emissions though, like route optimization.”- Respondent 14. This quote reflects a common theme among several participants: while companies may engage in environmentally friendly practices, such as emission reduction and route optimization, they often do so without explicitly recognizing or labeling these actions as part of Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM). This indicates a disconnect between practice and conceptual awareness. Such findings suggest that GSCM implementation in Indonesia is frequently implicit rather than strategic, driven more by operational efficiency than by a conscious sustainability agenda. It also highlights the need for capacity-building and awareness-raising efforts to ensure that managers can link everyday operational improvements to broader sustainability frameworks, thereby enabling more coherent and intentional GSCM integration.

Page 14

“Electric forklifts and solar panels are expensive. We want to adopt these but there’s no return unless it’s mandated.” -Respondent 3. “The government says it wants greener logistics, but the policy is vague. No real enforcement yet.”- Respondent 5. These two responses reveal an intertwined set of barriers that reflect both internal financial limitations and external systemic ambiguity. Respondent 3 highlights the reluctance to invest in green infrastructure due to high upfront costs and the absence of direct financial return, which is a common challenge among companies in emerging economies. The statement that such investments would only occur if "mandated" underscores a passive approach to sustainability—one that depends heavily on top-down enforcement rather than intrinsic motivation.

This sentiment is further reinforced by Respondent 5, who points to the lack of clarity and enforcement in existing government policies. While there is rhetorical support for greener logistics at the policy level, the absence of concrete regulations or incentives creates uncertainty and weakens the business case for sustainable investment. When policies are vague or non-binding, companies face a higher perceived risk in allocating resources toward long-term sustainability efforts. The synthesis of these views suggests that effective GSCM adoption requires not just internal readiness, but also a robust external regulatory ecosystem that provides both clear direction and tangible incentives to guide and support corporate action.

Page 15

“Going green boosts our reputation. Some clients even choose us because of our eco certifications.”-Respondent 13. “Our sustainability report is only because we’re listed. Otherwise, I doubt we’d spend the time.”-Respondent 6. These two perspectives reveal a spectrum of motivations behind GSCM adoption—ranging from strategic brand positioning to minimal compliance. Respondent 13 emphasizes the market-driven incentives of sustainability, where going green enhances corporate reputation and strengthens relationships with environmentally conscious clients. This reflects an opportunity-oriented view of GSCM, where sustainability becomes a competitive advantage tied to differentiation and stakeholder trust.

In contrast, Respondent 6 represents a more compliance-driven approach, where sustainability practices—such as reporting—are executed only to meet regulatory obligations (e.g., IPO requirements). This view suggests that in the absence of legal pressure, sustainability may be deprioritized, especially if it is seen as resource-intensive or misaligned with core business goals.

The juxtaposition of these quotes illustrates that external regulatory mandates and market-based pressures are both influential—but their effectiveness varies depending on how companies perceive the cost-benefit equation. While some firms embrace GSCM as a long-term strategy, others approach it as a checkbox activity. This disparity highlights the need for more robust engagement strategies, such as customer-driven expectations, industry benchmarking, and Page government incentives, to shift sustainability from an obligation to a value proposition.

 

Page 16-18

Table 2 presents a diverse range of initiatives that reflect how Indonesian companies are integrating Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) practices into their operations. While the actions vary by industry and company scale, several recurring themes emerge—highlighting both strategic and operational dimensions of sustainability.

 

1. Energy Transition and Alternative Fuels

A prominent theme across multiple respondents is the shift from conventional energy sources to more sustainable alternatives. For example, Respondents 2, 6, and 10 mention switching from diesel to electricity or using biomass such as rice husks. Respondent 8 highlights the adoption of B35 biofuel (a 35% palm oil mix) in maritime logistics. These efforts demonstrate a growing interest in reducing the carbon footprint of logistics activities, particularly in transportation and warehousing—two high-emission areas in the supply chain.

 

2. Emission Reduction and Pollution Control

Several companies report efforts to actively reduce emissions. Respondents 7 and 10 mention monitoring air, noise, and water pollution, while others implement vehicle age restrictions and transition to hybrid or electric transport fleets (Respondents 4, 11). These efforts illustrate a tangible commitment to mitigating the environmental impact of logistics operations. Moreover, practices such as route optimization (Respondents 5, 8, and 9) are commonly applied to minimize fuel use, which supports both cost efficiency and environmental goals.

 

3. Infrastructure and Technological Innovation

Some companies have gone further by integrating sustainability into their infrastructure and process design. For instance, Respondent 3 reports using solar panels, robotics in warehouses, and engines that comply with international emission standards. Respondent 6 refers to building a modern rice milling plant that runs on rice husk fuel. These examples show that innovation in infrastructure and process automation can serve dual purposes: environmental protection and operational enhancement.

 

4. Waste Reduction and Resource Efficiency

Waste management emerges as another key area of implementation. Respondent 5 reports banning open burning and enforcing batch stock waste controls, while Respondent 14 describes redistributing rejected but usable products to communities—an example of both waste reduction and social responsibility. Similarly, Respondents 9 and 13 discuss reducing packaging weight and choosing local suppliers to minimize material and transportation waste, aligning with circular economy principles.

 

5. Ethical Sourcing and Supplier Evaluation

Ethical procurement also plays a role in GSCM adoption. Respondent 13 indicates that their company filters suppliers based on material origin and environmental compliance, emphasizing the importance of supplier proximity and ecological values. This reflects a broader supply chain perspective, where GSCM extends beyond internal operations to include upstream sourcing behavior.

 

6. Technology-Driven Monitoring and Reporting

Several respondents highlight the use of tracking systems and digital tools to monitor sustainability metrics. For example, Respondents 1 and 12 use GPS and transport management systems to monitor emissions and optimize logistics flows. These practices show how technology can support real-time decision-making in sustainability initiatives.

The practices described in Table 2 range from basic compliance efforts to strategic sustainability transformations. While some companies adopt GSCM out of regulatory or reputational necessity, others pursue innovation and efficiency gains as part of a broader corporate vision. Importantly, the data suggests that while the intent to “go green” exists, the depth and integration of GSCM efforts vary widely depending on organizational capacity, market pressures, and regulatory expectations. This diversity underscores the importance of context-specific strategies and policy support in accelerating green supply chain adoption in Indonesia.

 

 

 

03. For future work, I encourage the authors to build upon the interesting points identified in this study by narrowing the scope and conducting more intensive, in-depth research. Doing so could provide more original insights and make a stronger contribution to the academic discourse on GSCM.

Comment: Has been revised

Future research should investigate the effectiveness of policy interventions, industry collaborations, and stakeholder pressures in promoting sustainable supply chain practices in Indonesia. A mixed-method approach—incorporating sector-specific case studies, ethnographic inquiry, and longitudinal tracking—can provide deeper insights into how GSCM evolves over time within organizational and industry contexts. By examining the interplay between regulatory frameworks, market forces (such as consumer demand), and internal decision-making processes, researchers can better understand how organizational culture and external ecosystems jointly shape sustainability strategies. Such an approach would not only illuminate barriers and enablers but also uncover replicable success models and context-specific solutions for advancing GSCM implementation in developing economies.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research is very well proposed regarding the aspects of objectives and research questions, classifying the research as qualitative and using the Nvivo software for data analysis.
However, the authors do not declare how they conducted the data in NVIVO, so I recommend that in item 3.5 an explanation be added of how to configure the data (input) in the software, to ensure repeatability and reproducibility of the research.

Author Response

Reviewer 02

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

01. The research is very well proposed regarding the aspects of objectives and research questions, classifying the research as qualitative and using the Nvivo software for data analysis.
However, the authors do not declare how they conducted the data in NVIVO, so I recommend that in item 3.5 an explanation be added of how to configure the data (input) in the software, to ensure repeatability and reproducibility of the research.

 

Comment: has been revised

Page 6 (3.5)

To ensure richer interpretation of qualitative data, thematic coding was conducted using NVivo to identify recurring patterns and divergent views across participants. Specifically, the interview transcripts were imported into NVivo, and each transcript was treated as a separate case. Initial coding was conducted by BL using open coding to identify key themes and concepts emerging from the data. These initial codes were then refined and organized into a hierarchical codebook. Coding reliability was enhanced through peer review of emergent themes, where DT independently coded a subset of the transcripts and compared their coding for consistency. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved to ensure inter-coder reliability. The finalized codebook was then applied to all transcripts, and illustrative quotes were selected to deepen the understanding of nuanced perspectives related to GSCM adoption and resistance. Data processing in this research uses a descriptive type and NVivo software.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper and present my comments to the Authors.

In my opinion, the paper requires significant changes, and perhaps should even be rejected by the Journal's editorial office.

My main critical comment is the selection and size of the research group. The Authors indicated that they selected a group of 14 respondents from companies in Indonesia for the study, who work in the supply chain department at a minimum managerial position. There is no description of the respondents, apart from their seniority and position. There is no information about the companies in which they work, e.g. company size, industry. In my opinion, the presented results of the Authors' own research are of little importance for science, they cannot be generalized or concluded in any way.

In the paper, the Authors did not formulate research objectives or research hypotheses, they limited themselves only to research questions. In my opinion, the purpose of the paper and/or the hypothesis should be indicated.

The results are presented in a "raw" way, without systematizing, accumulating similar answers (e.g. Tables 1 and 2). In my opinion, there is no need to present the data presented in Figures 1, 2 and 5 on a graph.

The Authors do not comment on the results, they do not try to answer what may affect such results. There is only a general description of the results in the paper. In the case of Figures 3 and 4, there is no indication of the range of the presented indicators.

The Authors refer the obtained results of their own research to all companies in Indonesia, writing: lines 258-260: “Based on Figure 5, it can be seen that 57% of companies (8 companies) in Indonesia do not create sustainability reports, while 43% of companies (6 companies) in Indonesia have already created sustainability reports.” and lines 349-350: “The study also highlights the prevalence of sustainability reporting in Indonesia. Only 43% of companies create sustainability reports, while the majority (57%) do not.”

 

Detailed comments:

- the questions given in the paper (I understand that they are from the survey questionnaire) and their numbering (RQ01, RQ02, RQ03) are unnecessary;

- lines 80-84 – the views of Liu and Ebrahimi are consistent with the views of Sanders and Wood, not the other way around (the publication of Sanders and Wood was published earlier (2014) than Liu and Ebrahimi (2024));

- the technical side of the work requires corrections, e.g. lines 54, 63 – double dots; line 115 – double semicolon; bibliography – e.g. items 11, 17. Please check the technical requirements of the Journal and do corrections.

In my opinion, the article requires significant changes, especially the changes should concern the research sample and research results. After the changes, the paper should be subjected to review again.

Author Response

Reviewer 03

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper and present my comments to the Authors.

In my opinion, the paper requires significant changes, and perhaps should even be rejected by the Journal's editorial office.

01.My main critical comment is the selection and size of the research group. The Authors indicated that they selected a group of 14 respondents from companies in Indonesia for the study, who work in the supply chain department at a minimum managerial position. There is no description of the respondents, apart from their seniority and position. There is no information about the companies in which they work, e.g. company size, industry. In my opinion, the presented results of the Authors' own research are of little importance for science, they cannot be generalized or concluded in any way.

Comment: has been revised

Page 7 (4.1)

The respondents in the study demonstrate a range of experience in the supply chain field, with a significant majority of 86% (12 respondents) having over 10 years of experience. Additionally, 7% (1 respondent) possess 3-5 years of experience, while another 7% (1 respondent) have less than 3 years in the industry. This indicates that the majority of respondents have substantial experience. In terms of job positions, 43% (6 respondents) hold titles as CEO/Owner, 29% (4 respondents) are Directors, 14% (2 respondents) serve as Managers, and 7% (1 respondent) are categorized as Senior Managers/General Managers, with another 7% (1 respondent) occupying other roles such as Board Representatives. This suggests that most respondents are in high-level positions. The gender distribution reveals that 3 respondents are female, while the remainder are male. Finally, regarding the types of companies represented, 72% (10 respondents) work in Logistics & Distribution sectors, 21% (3 respondents) are involved in FMCG (Fast Moving Consumer Goods) companies, and 7% (1 respondent) are from other types of companies. This highlights that the majority of respondents are employed in the logistics and distribution industry.

 

In the paper, the Authors did not formulate research objectives or research hypotheses, they limited themselves only to research questions. In my opinion, the purpose of the paper and/or the hypothesis should be indicated.

Comment: has been revised

Page 3

 

The primary objective of this qualitative study is to explore the perceptions and practices of supply chain professionals in Indonesia regarding GSCM. The research questions guiding this study are refined to promote deeper insight and thematic focus:

1. How do senior logistics managers conceptualize and apply GSCM within Indonesian supply chain operations?
2. What are the most critical internal and external barriers hindering GSCM implementation at the operational level?
3. What organizational motivations and contextual factors most significantly drive or constrain GSCM initiatives in the logistics sector?

Additionally, this study proposes the following working hypotheses to guide the exploration of findings: Big company and company which expose to international collaboration are more likely to engage with GSCM compared to those with small size and domestic focus.

02. The results are presented in a "raw" way, without systematizing, accumulating similar answers (e.g. Tables 1 and 2). In my opinion, there is no need to present the data presented in Figures 1, 2 and 5 on a graph.

Comment: has been deleted

03. The Authors do not comment on the results, they do not try to answer what may affect such results. There is only a general description of the results in the paper. In the case of Figures 3 and 4, there is no indication of the range of the presented indicators.

Comment: has been revised

Overall result has been revised to not only report the data.

04. The Authors refer the obtained results of their own research to all companies in Indonesia, writing: lines 258-260: “Based on Figure 5, it can be seen that 57% of companies (8 companies) in Indonesia do not create sustainability reports, while 43% of companies (6 companies) in Indonesia have already created sustainability reports.” and lines 349-350: “The study also highlights the prevalence of sustainability reporting in Indonesia. Only 43% of companies create sustainability reports, while the majority (57%) do not.”

Detailed comments:has been revised

Overall result has been revised to not only report the data.

05. the questions given in the paper (I understand that they are from the survey questionnaire) and their numbering (RQ01, RQ02, RQ03) are unnecessary;

Comment: Has been deleted

6. lines 80-84 – the views of Liu and Ebrahimi are consistent with the views of Sanders and Wood, not the other way around (the publication of Sanders and Wood was published earlier (2014) than Liu and Ebrahimi (2024));

Comment: has been revised

Battistella et al. (2020) state that sustainability is the way companies conduct their business while considering environmental and social issues. In their book, Nada R. Sanders & John D. Wood (2014) also articulate the concept of sustainability as the ability to meet the needs of the current generation without compromising the needs of future generations a view which further supported by H. Y. Liu & Ebrahimi (2024).

 

7. the technical side of the work requires corrections, e.g. lines 54, 63 – double dots; line 115 – double semicolon; bibliography – e.g. items 11, 17. Please check the technical requirements of the Journal and do corrections.

Comment: has been revised

8. In my opinion, the article requires significant changes, especially the changes should concern the research sample and research results. After the changes, the paper should be subjected to review again.

Comment: explanation on sample has been added and overall result has been revised

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In response to the review, the authors responded to my comments. However, I still have doubts about the possibility of relating the research results to all companies in Indonesia.

The paper presents one research hypothesis, not hypotheses.

The Authors did not refer to this hypothesis in the conclusions.

In the conclusions, the Authors do not refer to the specific objectives.

The conclusions constitute one paragraph of the paper. It is worth expanding this part, e.g. by listing the main conclusions from the research.

After the changes, subchapter 4.1 is only table 1.

The editorial page of the paper still requires improvement. The list of literature requires improvement in accordance with the Journal's requirements.

Author Response

1. Comments and Suggestions for Authors

   1. In response to the review, the authors responded to my comments. However, I still have doubts about the possibility of relating the research results to all companies in Indonesia. 

   Response:

   Thank you for your comment. We acknowledge the limitations regarding the generalizability of our findings. As this is a qualitative study based on interviews with 14 senior professionals, our goal was to explore in-depth insights rather than statistical representation. To address your concern, we have added a paragraph in the discussion section highlighting the limitations of our sample and suggesting directions for future research to enhance generalizability. We hope this clarification addresses your doubts.

   Page 15

   While the study offers in-depth insights into the factors influencing GSCM implementation in Indonesian logistics companies, it is important to note its limitations. Given that this is a qualitative study based on structured interviews with 14 senior management professionals selected through purposive sampling, the findings are context-specific and may not be generalizable to all logistics companies across Indonesia. The perspectives captured in this study reflect a particular subset of industry actors, which may not encompass the full diversity of company sizes, regions, or operational models present in the Indonesian logistics sector. Future research employing larger-scale quantitative surveys or mixed-method approaches is recommended to validate and extend these findings across a broader population.

    

   2. The paper presents one research hypothesis, not hypotheses. 

   Response: Has been revised

   Page 2:
   Additionally, this study proposes the following working hypothesis to guide the exploration of findings: Big company and company which expose to international collaboration are more likely to engage with GSCM compared to those with small size and domestic focus.

    

   3.1. The Authors did not refer to this hypothesis in the conclusions. 

   3.2. In the conclusions, the Authors do not refer to the specific objectives. 

   3.3. The conclusions constitute one paragraph of the paper. It is worth expanding this part, e.g. by listing the main conclusions from the research. 

   Response to 3.1-3.3:

   We have revised the conclusion to explicitly refer to the working hypothesis proposed in the study—that larger and internationally engaged companies are more likely to adopt GSCM compared to smaller, domestically focused firms. The updated conclusion now reflects the alignment between the findings and the hypothesis. We have revised the conclusion to explicitly refer to the specific objectives of the study and expanded it to clearly present the main findings derived from the research. The updated conclusion also highlights the validation of the working hypothesis and outlines directions for future research.

   Page 16

   This study underscores the growing significance of Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) in Indonesia while drawing attention to persistent barriers that impede its adoption. The research was guided by the objective of exploring the current level of GSCM implementation among logistics companies, identifying the influencing factors, and uncovering challenges specific to the Indonesian context.

   Based on in-depth qualitative insights, we conclude the following:

   • Respondents generally view green supply chain practices as environmentally focused efforts like recycling to reduce environmental impact, aligning with theoretical definitions, but some express conceptual confusion—seeing green supply chains as short-term initiatives within the broader, more strategic and long-term framework of sustainable supply chains. GSCM adoption remains limited, with an average perceived implementation score of 4.36 out of 10.
   • Key barriers include financial constraints, lack of regulatory enforcement, limited technical knowledge, and insufficient customer pressure.
   • Company size and exposure to international collaboration significantly influence GSCM engagement. This supports our working hypothesis that larger and internationally exposed firms are more proactive in adopting sustainable practices. Smaller or domestically focused companies often lag due to restricted access to resources, strategic frameworks, or external incentives.

   These findings reinforce the need for comprehensive policy interventions, including financial incentives and stronger regulatory frameworks, to promote broader GSCM adoption. Industry-level collaboration, knowledge sharing, and capacity building will also be vital.

   Future research could adopt a quantitative approach to validate these insights across broader samples and investigate the role of sectoral differences in GSCM uptake. Encouragingly, the growing awareness of sustainability presents an opportunity to align Indonesian logistics with global green standards—if systemic barriers are effectively addressed

   4. After the changes, subchapter 4.1 is only table 1. 

   Response: the explanation on demographic has been added.

   Page 5:

   The respondents in this study predominantly possess extensive experience in the supply chain field, with 86% (12 out of 14) having over 10 years of experience. Only a small portion of participants reported shorter tenures, with 7% (1 respondent) having 3–5 years and another 7% (1 respondent) having less than 3 years of experience. This indicates a highly experienced respondent pool, which adds depth and credibility to the findings. In terms of job positions, a majority occupy senior-level roles: 43% are CEOs or owners, 29% are directors, and 7% are senior managers or general managers. Additionally, 14% serve as managers, and 7% hold other strategic roles, such as board commissioners. This leadership-heavy profile suggests that the insights gathered reflect strategic-level perspectives. Gender distribution is skewed, with 79% male and only 21% female respondents, highlighting a gender imbalance that may mirror industry norms. Industry-wise, the majority (71%) of respondents are from the logistics and distribution sector, followed by 21% from FMCG companies and 7% from logistics associations. Lastly, company size is notably large, with 79% of respondents working in organizations with more than 500 employees, suggesting the data primarily represents large-scale operations.

    

   5. The editorial page of the paper still requires improvement. The list of literature requires improvement in accordance with the Journal's requirements.

   Response:

   Editorial page: Has been revised

   Referencing style: has been changed to APA

   Page1:

   Citation: Dwidienawati, D; Indrajaya, B.L, Zanten, E. V. Factors Affecting the Implementation of Green Supply Chain in Companies in Indonesia: A Qualitative Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, x.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors have responded to my comments in detail. I have no further comments on the paper.

Author Response

Reviewer Comment
The author should try to follow the comments of the third reviewer. He suggests a more quantitative approach because the study, in the current form, seems to be preliminary.

Response:
Thank you for your. While we recognize the value of a quantitative approach, we believe a qualitative design is more suitable for this phase of the research for the following reasons:

1. Exploratory Purpose: The study aims to explore perceptions, motivations, and barriers related to GSCM implementation in Indonesia—an under-researched context. A qualitative approach is suitable for uncovering rich, contextually grounded insights that are not yet sufficiently captured in existing literature.
2. Limited Conceptual Clarity: Our findings reveal conceptual confusion among practitioners between green supply chain and sustainable supply chain practices. Such subtle distinctions are more effectively surfaced through open-ended qualitative inquiry.
3. Strategic-Level Data: Interviewing senior-level managers enabled us to explore institutional and strategic factors that influence GSCM, providing depth that a survey-based approach might not elicit.
4. Foundation for Quantitative Work: We agree that a quantitative follow-up study is important. In fact, one of our stated future research directions includes using the current findings to develop a structured survey instrument for broader validation.

We have revised the manuscript accordingly to clarify and strengthen our justification for the chosen methodology in the “Methodology” and “Limitations and Future Research” sections.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx