How Environmental Turbulence Shapes the Path from Resilience to Sustainability: Useful Insights Gathered from Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article offers a timely and relevant contribution to the discussion on resilience and sustainability among SMEs in turbulent environments. The integration of the Resource-Based View and Dynamic Capabilities Theory is well executed and contributes conceptually to the existing body of knowledge.

That said, I offer the following constructive feedback to strengthen the manuscript further:

1. Clarity and Conciseness: While the article is rich in theoretical grounding, several sections—particularly in the Introduction and Discussion—could benefit from improved conciseness. Some arguments are repeated or overly explained (e.g., lines 53–75), which may distract the reader from the core message.

2. Theoretical Rigor vs. Practical Application: Although the theoretical base is strong, the article could benefit from clearer articulation of practical implications earlier in the text, especially in the Abstract and Conclusion. Currently, the practical relevance becomes apparent only in later sections.

3. Language and Style: The English is generally acceptable but includes many long and complex sentence structures that could be simplified for clarity. For instance, some methodological explanations are unnecessarily wordy. A professional language edit is recommended.

4. Figures and Tables: The conceptual framework is useful but could be more visually refined to enhance readability. Table captions and labels (e.g., Table 4) could be improved for clarity (e.g., full explanation of abbreviations).

5. Novelty and Contribution: While the study confirms several established relationships, the unique contribution of the moderating role of environmental turbulence should be emphasized earlier and more explicitly in the Abstract and Introduction.

6. Limitations: The article provides a brief limitations section but could expand more explicitly on how the results may not be generalizable beyond Turkish SMEs and cross-sectional data.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is written in generally comprehensible English. However, the clarity of expression could be improved through minor language editing. Several sections contain overly complex or lengthy sentences, particularly in the Introduction and Discussion parts. A light professional language review is recommended to enhance fluency and precision, especially regarding terminology and paragraph structure.

Author Response

In light of the reviewers’ valuable feedback, the manuscript has been carefully revised to improve its overall clarity, coherence, and alignment with the study’s objectives. We appreciate the insightful comments provided, which have significantly contributed to strengthening the quality and focus of the paper. The specific changes made in response to the reviewers’ suggestions are outlined below.

 

Abstract:

• “This study offers a novel contribution by examining...”
• Explanation: In response to the reviewers' request, the moderating role of environmental turbulence—recognized as the most original aspect of the study—was articulated earlier and more explicitly. This revision ensures that the unique contribution of the paper is immediately visible in the opening sentences.
• “this relationship is significantly weakened under high levels of market and technological turbulence”
• Explanation: The key empirical finding (i.e., the negative moderation effect) was presented more clearly and strikingly. This revision not only highlights that environmental turbulence was examined, but also explicitly communicates its detrimental impact on the relationship.
• “These results advance resource-based and dynamic capabilities theory by highlighting the contingent nature of resilience in unstable contexts.”
• Explanation: In line with the reviewers’ emphasis on the theoretical contribution, the revised statement more clearly demonstrates how the study advances the literature by addressing the contextual nature of resilience.
• “the study provides practical guidance” followed by two subsequent sentences:
• Explanation: In response to the critique regarding insufficient emphasis on practical implications, the key points from Section 6.2 were extracted and incorporated into the abstract.
  Stated implications: (1) The importance of investing in resilience capacity, (2) the need to adapt strategies according to environmental changes, and (3) the value of forming strategic collaborations.
• “Targeted approaches to managing different forms of turbulence and forming resilience-oriented collaborations...”
• Explanation: To make the practical recommendations more concrete and actionable, the revised text includes application-oriented suggestions such as adopting differentiated strategies for distinct types of turbulence and promoting resilience-focused partnerships.

Introduction:

 

1. Clarification of Research Gap and Contextualization of Resilience
   The revised version places greater emphasis on the role of environmental turbulence, particularly market and technological turbulence, in shaping the effectiveness of organizational resilience. This adjustment addresses the reviewer’s concern about the need for clearer articulation of the study’s contextual background and conceptual framework.
2. Refinement of Research Questions
   To improve focus and coherence, two specific research questions were explicitly stated in the revised Introduction. This provides a clearer roadmap for the reader and strengthens the logical flow from the research gap to the study’s objectives.
3. Stronger Link to Theoretical Frameworks
   While the original version referenced the resource-based view (RBV), the revised version now also highlights the relevance of dynamic capabilities theory. This extension underscores resilience not only as a static resource but also as a dynamic capability, which was incorporated to better align the theoretical framing with the research questions.
4. Elaboration of Contribution to Literature
   A new paragraph has been added (highlighted in bold in the tracked version) to explicitly state the study’s dual contributions:

Extending RBV and dynamic capabilities theory by positioning resilience as a core capability.

Exploring the moderating role of market and technological turbulence, which enhances the originality and theoretical depth of the study.

1. Enhanced Practical Relevance
   The concluding paragraph of the Introduction was refined to emphasize the practical implications of the study. In response to the reviewer’s request for earlier articulation of applied value, the revised section discusses how the findings can inform policy design and SME strategy development in turbulent environments.

These changes were made with the intent to preserve the integrity and structure of the original introduction while ensuring stronger alignment with the expectations of the reviewers and the scope of the journal.

 

Conclusion:

In response to the reviewers’ constructive feedback, the Conclusion section has been revised and extended. Specifically, Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 have been incorporated into the Conclusion to enhance the overall coherence and to consolidate the key implications of the study. As suggested, the practical relevance of the research has also been articulated more clearly and explicitly in both the Abstract and the Conclusion sections, in order to strengthen the connection between the theoretical foundation and its real-world applicability.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of "How Environmental Turbulence Shapes the Path from Resilience to Sustainability: Useful Insights Gathered from Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)"

This research examines how marketing and technological turbulence influence the connection between an organization's resilience capacity and its sustainability performance. Using data from 423 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the study finds that a firm's resilience capacity positively impacts its sustainability outcomes. However, the presence of environmental turbulence—both market and technological—weakens this positive relationship.

1. I think the paper adds to the literature and is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Congratulation for your effort. Please, the following commentts are some suggestions to improve your good paper.

1.- Figures: please, include source (own elaboration?)

2.- School of thought: your theories and literature review can be improve into the controversy between schools: interventionists/degrowthers (pro state control of technology and markets, and equilibrium design, i.e. new & post-Keynesians, socialists) vs. liberals/developers (pro social change and entrepreneurship, and dynamic efficiency, i.e.g Austrian Economics, Neoinstitutional Economics). Please, see https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00753-1

3.- Cognitive analysis and other second round effects for your consideration, please see https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031125

Good job and best regards. 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback. The sentence "All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS." was added to the methodology section to indicate that the figures are original works.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “How Environmental Turbulence Shapes the Path from Resilience to Sustainability: Useful Insights Gathered from Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)” explores the moderating role of marketing turbulence and technological turbulence on the relationship between organizational 15 resilience capacity and sustainability performance.  The topic is relevant to the field of Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability. This study addresses two key questions: (1) How does Organizational Resilience Capacity impact Sustainability Performance? (2) How does Environmental Turbulence (Technological and Market Turbulence) impact the relationship between Organizational Resilience Capacity and Sustainability Performance?

As an advantage the theoretical part is highly structured, including research design, questions, hypotheses and methods which are clearly stated.

1. I would suggest to split 5. Methodology section on Methodology and Results sections. Also, some diagrams will add value to Results section.
2. Conclusion section can be extended. I would recommend to move 6.1, 6.2, 6,3 to Conclusion section.

In my opion the article can be accepted after these minor revisions.

Author Response

Conclusion:

In response to the reviewers’ constructive feedback, the Conclusion section has been revised and extended. Specifically, Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 have been incorporated into the Conclusion to enhance the overall coherence and to consolidate the key implications of the study. As suggested, the practical relevance of the research has also been articulated more clearly and explicitly in both the Abstract and the Conclusion sections, in order to strengthen the connection between the theoretical foundation and its real-world applicability.

 

Methodology and Findings:

 

In the Methodology section, we observed a strong causal and organic link between the employed methods and the obtained results. Therefore, we considered that introducing a separate Results section might disrupt the logical flow and hinder the reader’s ability to follow the argument effectively. For this reason, we preferred to present the results within the same structural framework, in order to maintain coherence and clarity throughout the manuscript.

 

Figures – citiation and other revisions:

 

1. Sources that were edited in the references are highlighted in color.
2. The phrase "As shown in Table 3"in line 446 has been removed.
3. "(Table 3)"in line 448 has been removed.
4. "Table 3. Factor Analysis"between lines 449-452 has been deleted.
5. In line 449, "Table 4"has been changed to "Table 3."
6. In line 459, the table number has been updated to 3.
7. In line 461, "Table 5"has been changed to "Table 4."
8. In line 473, the table number has been updated to 4.
9. In line 477, "Table 6 and 7"has been changed to "Table 5 and 6."
10. In line 479, "Table 6"has been changed to "Table 5."
11. In line 485, the table number has been updated to 5.
12. In line 486, "Table 7"has been changed to "Table 6."
13. In line 492, the table number has been updated to 6.
14. Appendix A: Survey questions have been removed.
15. The similarity rate has been reduced to 19%. The similarity report will be shared upon request.
16. References were formatted according to APA style.
17. The labels of Table 4 have been revised.
18. The sentence "All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS." was added to the methodology section to indicate that the figures are original works.

Finally, all revisions have been highlighted in yellow for ease of reference.