Toward a Resilient and Sustainable Supply Chain: Operational Responses to Global Disruptions in the Post-COVID-19 Era

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed this manuscript entitled "Toward a Resilient and Sustainable Supply Chain: Operational Responses to Global Disruptions in the Post-COVID Era". The work is insufficient and the manuscript is not well structured. I regret suggesting reject the submission at this stage.

1) The present version of the paper lacks a good methodology, which basically is not well explained.

2) The discussion is quite poor, with respect to the lack of methodology presented.

3) Abstract has to address briefly and describe aim, object, procedure, important findings/understanding of novelty accordingly.

4) Section 6: Please separate this section into two sections, i.e. a section with title like "Challenges and Perspectives" and a section with title like "Conclusions".  “Challenges and Perspectives” should be expanded to systematically outline the authors' detailed views on the key challenges, existing research gaps and future research directions etc. This section brings critical benefits to the readership.

5) Please put enough emphasis on the points of novelty of the proposed study in your Conclusions.

Author Response

No	Reviewer Comment	Revision Response
1	The present version of the paper lacks a good methodology, which basically is not well explained.	This manuscript is a conceptual paper, not an empirical study. The conceptual positioning has been clarified in Section 1.3 (Research Gap and Conceptual Purpose), which states that the paper offers a conceptual framework grounded in literature synthesis and theoretical perspectives (systems theory, triple bottom line, and sustainability science). It aims to integrate resilience and sustainability logics into post-COVID operational strategies.
2	The discussion is quite poor, with respect to the lack of methodology presented.	Section 5 (Toward an Integrated Operational Model) has been revised and significantly expanded. The discussion now synthesizes key themes from Sections 3 and 4 and articulates their interrelation. A new Figure 2 has been added to visually illustrate the conceptual integration of resilience, sustainability, and efficiency.
3	Abstract has to address briefly and describe aim, object, procedure, important findings/understanding of novelty accordingly.	The abstract has been revised to clearly state the study's aim, object of inquiry, conceptual approach, major insights, and novelty. Both the opening and concluding lines of the abstract were rewritten to better reflect the paper’s contribution as a conceptual framework.
4	Section 6: Please separate this section into two sections, i.e. a section with title like "Challenges and Perspectives" and a section with title like "Conclusions". “Challenges and Perspectives” should be expanded to systematically outline the authors' detailed views on the key challenges, existing research gaps and future research directions etc. This section brings critical benefits to the readership.	Section 6 has been split into two distinct parts: 6.1 Challenges and Perspectives and 6.2 Conclusions, as suggested. Section 6.1 has been substantially expanded to include a systematic outline of future challenges, potential research trajectories (e.g., empirical testing of dual resilience–sustainability strategies), and identified research gaps in current literature.
5	Please put enough emphasis on the points of novelty of the proposed study in your Conclusions.	The Conclusions section has been revised to emphasize the novelty of the paper, including the conceptual integration of sustainability, resilience, and operational efficiency, and the use of a visual synthesis model (Figure 2) as a theoretical tool for future empirical exploration.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work presents a high scientific value and integrates several topics of interest. However, the way in which the different areas of science are interrelated is not clear in the text of the work. It is suggested that Figure 1 not be included in the introduction. The section on sustainability in supply chain management (SCM) should be reviewed; it should be more integrated and its relationship with the circular economy in the supply chain should be demonstrated. This is due to the sections mentioned later. It is suggested that other authors who are experts on the subject be included, for example:
• Chiaraluce, G., Bentivoglio, D., Finco, A. Circular Economy for a Sustainable Agri-Food Supply Chain: A Review for Current Trends and Future Pathways
• Genovese, A., Acquaye, A.A., Figueroa, A., Koh, S.C.L. (
Sustainable supply chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: Evidence and some applications)
• Govindan, K., Hasanagic, M. A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards a circular economy: a supply chain perspective

It is suggested that the source of Figure 2 be included.
In the case of risk, the contributions of Dmitry Ivanov, a leading specialist in this field in the supply chain, are not mentioned.
It is suggested that a methodological section be included showing the research path and how the elements of the proposed model are defined, for example, the methods and techniques used.

Author Response

No	Reviewer Comment	Revision Response
1	The work presents a high scientific value and integrates several topics of interest. However, the way in which the different areas of science are interrelated is not clear in the text of the work.	The theoretical integration has been clarified in Section 1.3 (Research Gap and Conceptual Purpose) and further elaborated in Section 5, where we connect systems theory, sustainability science, and operational resilience within a unified conceptual framework. Cross-disciplinary interrelations are now explicitly articulated, supported by a new visual synthesis in Figure 2.
2	It is suggested that Figure 1 not be included in the introduction.	Figure 1 has been moved from the Introduction to the beginning of Section 3, where the concept of agile manufacturing is first discussed. This relocation aligns the figure with the thematic content it supports.
3	The section on sustainability in supply chain management (SCM) should be reviewed; it should be more integrated and its relationship with the circular economy in the supply chain should be demonstrated.	Section 3.4 have been revised to better integrate sustainability and circular economy dimensions within SCM. The connection between circular principles and sustainable operations has been clarified using recent literature. Three new references were added: Chiaraluce et al. (2021), Genovese et al. (2017), and Govindan & Hasanagic (2015).
4	It is suggested that other authors who are experts on the subject be included, for example: Chiaraluce et al., Genovese et al., Govindan et al.	These expert sources have been reviewed and explicitly integrated into Section 3. Their contributions were cited to strengthen the discussion on circular economy within supply chains.
5	It is suggested that the source of Figure 2 be included.	The source of Figure 2 has been added in the figure caption: "Developed by authors based on synthesis of Sections 3 and 4." This clarifies that the visual is an original contribution.
6	In the case of risk, the contributions of Dmitry Ivanov, a leading specialist in this field in the supply chain, are not mentioned.	Ivanov’s work has now been cited in Section 3.1 to frame digital-agile manufacturing under ripple effect and VUCA disruptions. His theoretical insights on supply chain risk propagation are explicitly connected to our discussion on agility and digital integration.
7	It is suggested that a methodological section be included showing the research path and how the elements of the proposed model are defined, for example, the methods and techniques used.	While this is a conceptual paper, we have added a brief Conceptual Methodology Note at the end of Section 1.3, explaining the research logic, theory synthesis process, and design steps used to develop the proposed framework. Appendix A and B have also been added to support term definitions and model construction components.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a comprehensive conceptual framework integrating resilience and sustainability in supply chain management (SCM) post-COVID-19. The proposed typologies and the mapping to UN SDGs are particularly useful contributions to both scholarship and practice. The study is timely, given the increasing focus on resilient and sustainable operations in a volatile global landscape. However, the manuscript’s core weakness is its lack of empirical grounding, which limits its applicability. While the conceptual model is innovative, it risks remaining an academic exercise without validation. Strengthening methodological rigor, clarifying definitions, and addressing real-world constraints would significantly improve the paper.

 

Abstract: it currently exceeds the journal’s 200-word limit (see https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions). Please, avoid dashes (-) in the abstract.

The introduction describes disruptions (e.g., supply chain fragility) qualitatively but lacks statistical evidence (e.g., economic losses, frequency of climate-related disruptions). Please, add quantitative references about it.

The research gap (Section 1.3) is brief and could better contrast prior literature (e.g., "Most studies focus on resilience or sustainability, but few integrate both"). State a clear research question(s). Please, Cite specific papers that treat resilience/sustainability separately.

No Systematic Review Methodology: The literature synthesis lacks a structured approach (e.g., PRISMA), raising concerns about selection bias. No Comparative Analysis: The typology (Section 3) lists strategies but does not compare their effectiveness.

No discussion of the selection criteria for the literature reviewed or the conceptual boundaries of the proposed model.

Lack of Methodological Transparency: The manuscript is presented as a conceptual paper, but it does not explain how the conceptual framework was developed (e.g., via literature synthesis, thematic coding, or theory-building methodology).

While systems thinking and triple bottom line (TBL) are mentioned, foundational theories (e.g., Dynamic Capabilities Theory, Institutional Theory) are not leveraged to explain why resilience and sustainability must be combined.

There's limited discussion on tensions between resilience and sustainability (e.g., redundancy vs. lean efficiency, digital dependence vs. equity/access).

The framework is not supported by real-world examples, illustrative cases, or even hypothetical scenarios to show its practical application. While this is acceptable in a conceptual paper, some form of anchoring in practice would improve clarity and relevance.

 

Some sentences are unnecessarily passive (e.g., "This critical transition is illustrated in Figure 1..." why not "Figure 1 illustrates this critical transition..."?).

The term is overused COVID-19; vary phrasing.

Ambiguity in Key Terms: "Resilience" and "sustainability" are sometimes conflated rather than clearly differentiated. Terms like "agile manufacturing" and "green-lean operations" lack precise definitions or measurable indicators. Suggestion: Provide clear definitions in a table or appendix.

Excessive use of dashes (—). This reviewer detected 108 marks of this type throughout the text.

Figure 3 (conceptual model) is static without dynamic feedback loops.

Section 3 and parts of Section 5 include overlapping content. Consider tightening the prose to maintain reader engagement and improve flow.

Correct the typo in line 541 ("Perspectiver").

Consider toning down some normative language (e.g., replacing “must” with “should” or “could”) to maintain academic neutrality.

Author Response

No	Reviewer Comment	Revision Response
1	Abstract: it currently exceeds the journal’s 200-word limit... Avoid dashes (-).	The abstract has been revised to 194 words, meeting the journal's requirement. Dashes (–) were removed and replaced with commas or semicolons as appropriate to maintain a formal academic tone.
2	The introduction... lacks statistical evidence (e.g., economic losses, climate-related disruptions).	Quantitative data and references have been added in Section 1.1. Examples include statistics on global trade contraction, freight rate surges, and climate-induced economic losses, with references to Reuters (2025), Baertlein (2024), iccwbo (2024), and World Bank (2025).
3	The research gap (Section 1.3) is brief... State clear research question(s). Cite specific papers.	Section 1.3 has been expanded to compare resilience and sustainability literature more explicitly. A research question is now stated at the end of the section. Citations to prior works treating the constructs separately have been added.
4	No Systematic Review Methodology... No Comparative Analysis.	A methodological note has been inserted at the end of Section 1.3 to explain that the paper uses narrative conceptual synthesis rather than a formal SLR. Section 3 now includes a comparative note highlighting differences among strategic responses.
5	No discussion of selection criteria or conceptual boundaries.	The boundaries and scope of the framework have been clarified in Section 1.3 and Appendix B, specifying inclusion logic and theoretical anchoring.
6	Lack of Methodological Transparency.	The methodology behind framework construction is now explicitly described in Section 1.3, referencing literature synthesis, integrative theory-building, and systems mapping techniques.
7	Foundational theories (Dynamic Capabilities, Institutional Theory) not leveraged.	Elements of Dynamic Capabilities Theory and Institutional Theory have been incorporated in Section 2 and used to explain why organizations pursue resilience and sustainability in response to external shocks.
8	Limited discussion on tensions between resilience and sustainability.	Section 4.3 now contains a full paragraph discussing tensions, such as redundancy vs. lean efficiency and digital resilience vs. equity, supported by recent studies.
9	No real-world or hypothetical examples to show framework application.	A hypothetical scenario simulating the application of the framework has been added in Section 6.2, demonstrating decision-making under climate and geopolitical stressors.
10	Use of passive voice and overuse of COVID-19.	Passive voice has been edited throughout for clarity and active tone. Redundant use of “COVID-19” was reduced by using synonyms such as "pandemic" and "recent global crisis."
11	Ambiguity in Key Terms... Provide definitions.	Definitions of key terms such as resilience, sustainability, agile manufacturing, and green-lean operations have been provided in Appendix A.
12	Excessive use of dashes (—).	All dashes have been reviewed and significantly reduced to align with academic writing conventions.
13	Figure 3 (conceptual model) is static...	Feedback loops and dynamic elements have been added to Figure 3 to better represent system interdependencies. Caption and text were updated accordingly.
14	Overlap between Section 3 and 5.	Sections 3 and 5 have been streamlined to reduce duplication. Redundant sentences were merged, and transitions were improved.
15	Typo in line 541: "Perspectiver".	The typo has been corrected to "Perspective".
16	Tone down normative language.	Normative expressions such as “must” have been replaced with more neutral terms like “should” or “could” across the manuscript to maintain academic objectivity.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the revised manuscript and response to the reviewers, the authors have addressed all problems and the reviewers' concerns. This manuscript can be accepted without revision.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 Comment:
After reviewing the revised manuscript and response to the reviewers, the authors have addressed all problems and the reviewers' concerns. This manuscript can be accepted without revision.

Response:
We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the kind and supportive assessment of our revised manuscript. We truly appreciate the acknowledgment that all prior concerns have been adequately addressed. No further revisions have been made in response to this comment, as per the recommendation.

Thank you again for your valuable time and constructive feedback throughout the review process.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have accepted the recommendations made

Author Response

Reviewer 2 Comment:
The authors have accepted the recommendations made.

Response:
We appreciate Reviewer 2’s confirmation that our revisions and responses have appropriately addressed the earlier recommendations. We are grateful for your constructive input, which has significantly improved the clarity and rigor of our manuscript.

Thank you for your kind and supportive evaluation.

Warm regards,
The Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments not solved:

Introduction: State a clear research question(s).

Excessive use of dashes (—). Including the Abstract.

Author Response

Reviewer 3 Comment:
1. Introduction: State a clear research question(s).
2. Excessive use of dashes (—). Including the Abstract.

Response:
We thank Reviewer 3 for the continued constructive feedback.

1. Regarding the research question:
   We have now explicitly added a clear research question at the end of the Introduction section (Section 1.3) to strengthen the focus and direction of the conceptual paper. The revised sentence reads:

“Based on the identified gap, this paper seeks to answer the following research question: How can resilience and sustainability be jointly operationalized through post-COVID supply chain strategies in response to global disruptions?”
We hope this addition addresses the concern regarding clarity of purpose.

2. Regarding the excessive use of dashes (—):
   We have systematically revised the entire manuscript, including the abstract, to eliminate excessive or unnecessary em-dashes. Where appropriate, dashes have been replaced with commas, semicolons, or restructured phrasing to improve readability and maintain academic tone.

We appreciate your helpful suggestions and believe that these final revisions enhance both clarity and presentation of the manuscript.

Best regards,
The Authors