Sustainable Operations Strategy in the Age of Climate Change: Integrating Green Lean Practices into Operational Excellence

Reviewer Comment

Revision Response

#Comment 1: The introduction could benefit from a clearer articulation of the specific theoretical constructs used to develop the model and how they address the identified gaps.

The Introduction and the beginning of Section 4 have been revised to clarify the conceptual foundations of the GLOE framework, particularly the integration of lean thinking, sustainability science, and resilience theory. Additional explanation was added to show how GLOE repositions lean narratives to address contemporary sustainability challenges.

#Comment 2: In section 3, the author clearly elaborates how transformational leadership, a culture of continuous improvement, and alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) lay the foundation for the success of Green Lean Operational Excellence (GLOE). The arguments are persuasive and logically sound, providing a valuable perspective for understanding the integration of green lean in organizations. It is suggested that the author further discuss how these strategic prerequisites can be specifically implemented in different industry contexts.

At the end of Section 3.1, a paragraph has been added to discuss sector-specific contexts for GLOE preconditions. This includes a comparison across manufacturing, energy, and service sectors, addressing the reviewer’s request for more industry-oriented discussion.

#Comment 3: The paper effectively positions GLOE within broader sustainability debates and provides a strong foundation for future research. However, the authors might consider providing more concrete examples or case studies to illustrate how the framework can be applied in practice.

In Section 4.2, concrete examples have been added, highlighting how companies such as Unilever, Toyota, and Pertamina Geothermal Energy (PGE) integrate lean and green practices. These examples demonstrate real-world applications of the GLOE framework.

#Comment 4: While the article proposes strategic antecedents and process mechanisms, it lacks detailed guidance on how to implement these mechanisms within organizations.

At the end of Section 4.6, a GLOE Implementation Roadmap Table has been inserted, outlining step-by-step guidance from strategic initiation to sustainability evaluation. This provides the detailed implementation guidance requested by the reviewer.

Reviewer Comment

Author Response

1. The abstract contains outdated claims. Lean is not only about cost reduction but also improves quality.

Revised in the Abstract section: clarified that Lean contributes not only to cost efficiency but also enhances quality, flexibility, and responsiveness, citing Womack & Jones and more recent literature.

2. Lean failed during COVID-19 due to zero inventory.

Addressed in Introduction: acknowledged the limitations of traditional Lean under global shocks like COVID-19 and positioned GLOE as a response to enhance resilience.

3. The paper discredits case studies, despite being purely theoretical.

Revised in Section 2.2: softened the language and acknowledged the value of case studies while stating that conceptual models offer complementary insights.

4. Stakeholder demands for sustainability are not new; contribution seems outdated.

Clarified in Section 2.3 and 4.1: emphasized the novelty of GLOE in integrating Lean, Green, and SDG alignment into a unified strategic-operational framework—something not yet fully addressed in prior literature.

5. Claim that application is fragmented lacks evidence.

Strengthened Section 2.4: added references and data from recent meta-analyses to justify the fragmentation and inconsistencies in Green Lean implementation across contexts.

6. Critique of Lean based on only two references is insufficient.

Expanded Section 2.2: included broader literature discussing both the strengths and limitations of Lean in sustainability contexts to avoid cherry-picking.

7. Statement that green initiatives lack operational structure is an opinion.

Revised Section 2.5: specified that the gap lies in the misalignment between strategic intentions and operational translation, supported by new references.

8. Undermining empirical studies showing green benefits.

Adjusted tone in Section 2.5: acknowledged empirical contributions and positioned GLOE as a complementary model to guide future integrated practices.

9. Table 1 lacks references.

Updated Table 1: added footnotes and citations for each conceptual element to ensure traceability and academic rigor.

10. Section 3.1 is too generic.

Revised Section 3.1: clarified how the strategic preconditions are specific to GLOE, with examples tailored to different sectors (e.g., manufacturing vs. services).

11. The model lacks a complete roadmap.

Addressed in Section 4.6: added a visual roadmap (Table 2) outlining key steps, enablers, and expected outcomes for GLOE implementation.

12. Propositions P1–P5 are introduced abruptly.

Revised Section 4.1: inserted a transitional paragraph to explain the logical development of the propositions and how they relate to the model.

13. Section 4.2 is repetitive and self-praising.

Edited Section 4.2: streamlined content, reduced repetition, and emphasized objective contributions rather than promotional tone.

14. OM is already interdisciplinary—claim of GLOE as a bridge is questionable.

Adjusted Section 4.3: acknowledged that OM integrates sustainability but argued that GLOE uniquely maps and synthesizes multiple strands into one framework.

15. Managerial implications are too general.

Revised Section 4.6: added industry-specific examples and suggestions for application in manufacturing, energy, and service sectors.

16. The literature review lacks clarity on sources, methods, and number of papers.

Rewritten Section 2.1: detailed the systematic literature review method, including databases, keywords, inclusion criteria, and PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1) to support the transparency of the review process.

Reviewer Comment

Author Response

Comment 1: The paper may benefit from providing more specific examples or case studies to illustrate how the GLOE framework is actually implemented in different organizational settings. In addition, further elaboration on the potential challenges and limitations of integrating sustainability into the core value creation system could strengthen the discussion.

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response, we have incorporated elaborative narratives and simulated applications across Sections 4.2, 4.4, and 4.6, as well as Sections 5.1 through 5.4. These additions illustrate potential organizational scenarios where the GLOE framework can be implemented, including common integration obstacles such as siloed structures, cultural inertia, and misaligned KPIs. We also elaborated on challenges such as cross-functional coordination and resistance to non-traditional metrics. While maintaining the conceptual nature of the paper, these enhancements improve its practical depth and applicability.

Comment 2: There are some issues with the inconsistent use of nouns in the article, and some sentence structures need to be adjusted. It is recommended that the author review the article again.

We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback regarding linguistic consistency. A full editorial pass was conducted throughout the manuscript to improve noun usage, grammar, and sentence clarity. Special attention was given to the abstract, theoretical framing (Section 2), and framework explanation (Section 4), ensuring consistent terminology and improved readability. These revisions enhance flow without altering the core content.

Reviewer Comment

Author Response

All comments are adequately addressed.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thorough review and positive feedback. We are pleased that all previous comments have been addressed to your satisfaction. No further revisions were necessary based on this round.