Empowering Communities: The Strategic Role of Community Enterprise Entrepreneurs in Sustainable Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper covers a highly relevant and current topic.

I would like to highlight the relevance of the topic, as well as the different sources of information used to conduct the empirical study, as strengths.

Despite the contributions made in the article, there are some points that could improve its quality.

Given the importance of this concept for the article, it would be important to clarify the concept of ‘community enterprise’ both in the introduction and in the theoretical section. The core purposes of this kind of enterprises should also be described in the paper.

Only after that clarification of “community enterpises” and possible in a different section, the authors should clarify what they mean by “community enterprise entrepreneurs”; the use of other expressions easy to explain the idea could be welcome. For example, I suggest 'entrepreneurs of community enterprises'.

The objective of the paper could be included in the introduction. It would be beneficial to present the research objective more clearly. The use of general and specific research questions could also be useful.

At the end of the introduction, the authors could also provide a brief overview of the paper's sections.

The literature review section would be improved if it included information on one of the key aspects of empirical research: strategy (including, for example dimensions such as vision, resources management, innovation, etc, as mentioned in the empirical work).

Some improvements could be made to the information provided in the methodology section. Firstly, the authors could improve the flow of the sentences.

It would also be beneficial if the authors provided a clearer explanation of how the questionnaires and interview scripts were developed. Additionally, the strategy used for disseminating the in-person and online questionnaires should be clarified.

Regarding the quantitative research findings, I have some concerns despite the high number of responses attained. Firstly, were different questions used to build the different constructs, or were the different 'strategic roles' asked directly to the respondents? If the latter applies, how can you ensure that the responses are not biased?

Despite the descriptive information provided, is it possible to find out more about this? How are these dimensions related to sustainability, as suggested by the title and theoretical framework?

In the qualitative findings, it would also be useful to describe the evidence collected that enabled the aforementioned results to be obtained. A more detailed analysis of the collected information, including the position of the different participants in the study, would significantly improve the quality of the paper.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive comments. We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which has significantly contributed to improving the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript in accordance with all of your suggestions. Please find our responses below:

1. Clarification of “community enterprise” and “community enterprise entrepreneurs”
   We have clarified the concept of “community enterprise” in both the introduction and theoretical sections, including the core purposes of such enterprises. Additionally, we have explained the term “community enterprise entrepreneurs” and included alternative expressions to enhance reader understanding.
2. Clear statement of the research objectives
   The objective of the study has been clearly stated in the introduction. We have also added both general and specific research questions to provide a more focused direction.
3. Brief overview of the paper’s sections
   A summary of the paper’s structure has been added at the end of the introduction to guide readers through the manuscript.
4. Enhancement of the literature review
   The literature review section has been revised to include a discussion of strategy as a key aspect of empirical research, with coverage of strategic dimensions such as vision, resource management, innovation, and others.
5. Improvement of the methodology section
   We have improved the flow and clarity of the sentences in the methodology section. Further, we have provided a more detailed explanation of the development and distribution of the questionnaires and interview scripts, including clarification on the use of in-person and online methods.
6. Clarification of quantitative research findings
   We have addressed your concerns by clarifying that different sets of questions were used to construct each strategic role dimension. This approach helped reduce the potential for bias in respondents' answers.
7. Linkage to sustainability
   We have included an explanation of how each strategic role dimension relates to sustainability, consistent with our conceptual framework and the paper’s title.
8. Clarification in qualitative findings
   Additional descriptions and evidence have been added to support the qualitative results. We also specified the positions of the participants involved to enhance the depth and credibility of our findings.

We hope that these revisions satisfactorily address your concerns. Thank you once again for your invaluable input and for the opportunity to improve our work.

Sincerely,
Sor sirichai Nakudom
Nakhon Si Thammarat Rajabhat University
sor-sirichai_nak@nstru.ac.th

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting this well-organized and relevant manuscript.

The topic is relevant and timely, particularly given the growing emphasis on local, inclusive, and sustainable development. While the concept of community enterprise is not new, this study is original in integrating strategic entrepreneurship perspectives with sustainability frameworks in a developing country context. It addresses a gap in the literature by proposing and empirically validating a five-dimensional model that connects entrepreneurial behaviour directly to sustainable development outcomes at the community level.

Compared to existing literature, this study adds a structured and evidence-based framework that operationalizes the role of community entrepreneurs in strategic terms. While many studies emphasize entrepreneurship as a driver of local development, this manuscript provides a model that can inform practice and policy through its clear articulation of roles and empirically validated dimensions.

The mixed-methods approach is generally strong and well-justified. However, the authors could improve the methodological transparency by more clearly detailing how qualitative themes were derived from interviews (e.g., coding procedure, saturation point).

The findings are clearly presented and well-supported.

The literature review includes some repetition, particularly in sections describing the strategic roles of entrepreneurs and so these could be made more concise. Also, a brief comparison with existing strategic or entrepreneurial models would help highlight its originality. Lastly, consider revising the conclusion to more directly reflect the empirical findings.

The conclusions align well with the evidence presented. Integrating findings from both qualitative and quantitative data strengthens the reliability of the results. The conclusions effectively answer the research question and reflect the thematic structure presented throughout the paper. However, the authors could improve impact by slightly strengthening the policy implications section—linking their findings more explicitly to practical interventions for supporting entrepreneurs.

The references are mostly appropriate and up-to-date. The manuscript engages well with both foundational and recent scholarship.

Tables and figures: Consider simplifying the layout or using design software to enhance visual clarity and appeal.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally understandable, but the quality of English can be improved. Some sentences are overly long or repetitive, and there are occasional grammatical issues that affect clarity. A light professional copy-editing pass is recommended to improve fluency, sentence structure, and overall readability.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and encouraging feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for your recognition of the relevance, originality, and structure of our study. Your suggestions have been highly valuable in helping us improve the clarity, coherence, and rigor of the paper.

We are pleased to inform you that we have thoroughly revised the manuscript in response to all of your comments. Specifically:

1. Methodological transparency
   We have improved the clarity of the methodology section by adding details on how qualitative themes were derived from the interviews, including information on the coding procedure and saturation point.
2. Literature review
   The literature review section has been revised to reduce repetition, especially in the parts describing the strategic roles of entrepreneurs. We have also added a brief comparison with existing strategic and entrepreneurial models to emphasize the originality of our framework.
3. Conclusion section
   The conclusion has been revised to more directly reflect the empirical findings and highlight the practical implications. We also expanded the policy implications section to strengthen the relevance of our results to real-world applications.

We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments, which have contributed greatly to improving the quality of our manuscript.

 

Sincerely,
Sor sirichai Nakudom
Nakhon Si Thammarat Rajabhat University
sor-sirichai_nak@nstru.ac.th

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In general, the author addresses the issues raised during the review process. An effort was made to improve the presentation of the results. This effort is acknowledged, although it is admitted that many of the limitations remain in terms of the significance of the results obtained. Nevertheless, despite the article's limitations, I consider the new version to be a considerable improvement.

Author Response

Comment:
In general, the author addresses the issues raised during the review process. An effort was made to improve the presentation of the results. This effort is acknowledged, although it is admitted that many of the limitations remain in terms of the significance of the results obtained. Nevertheless, despite the article's limitations, I consider the new version to be a considerable improvement.

Response:
Thank you for your kind and constructive comments. We truly appreciate your recognition of the improvements made to the manuscript. We acknowledge the limitations in the significance of the results, as noted, and have added a clearer discussion of these limitations in the revised version of the manuscript