The Formation and Evolution of the Resilience of Resource-Based Enterprises Under Continuous Institutional Shocks: An Explanation from the Perspective of Organizational Legitimacy

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

We sincerely thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to carefully review and professionally evaluate the manuscripts we submitted. Your comments and suggestions are of great value. They not only help us further refine the research content but also provide us with new research ideas and directions. We express our deep respect and sincere gratitude for your hard work and professional guidance! Please find detailed responses below.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes

Thank you for your positive comment.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Must be improved

We have supplemented the principle and operational process of the Research Method (QCA).

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Can be improved

We have supplemented the “discussion” and “limitation”of the research.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

We have readjusted the presentation and statement of the research results (4.2 and Table 4).

Is the article adequately referenced?

Can be improved

We have supplemented the literature on the resilience research of global energy and mineral enterprises.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Can be improved

We have added dialogue with existing literature in the discussion section.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The study presents an original theoretical model combining organizational legitimacy with fsQCA analysis across time. This is a novel contribution. However, the incremental novelty compared to existing studies (especially in institutional theory and resilience research) is not sufficiently articulated. The introduction should better position the paper within the international academic debate. Suggestion: add a comparative paragraph referencing existing resilience research (e.g., in energy or mining sectors globally) and explain how your findings extend or contrast with those works.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable opinions and suggestions. We agree with these opinions. We fully recognize the need to add comparisons with existing studies in the introduction, which is very necessary to highlight the incremental novelty of our research. Therefore, in the fourth paragraph of the introduction, we have supplemented four theoretical contributions, which specifically include: “(1) From the perspective of acquiring organizational behavioral legitimacy, this study investigates the sources and formation pathways of organizational resilience. It integrates six key conditional variables related to pragmatic and moral legitimacy to examine how organizational resilience is formed in resource-based enterprises under institutional shocks. This study not only introduces an innovative perspective on organizational resilience but also enriches and expands existing literature on the interplay between legitimacy and organizational resilience. (2) This study employs the multi-period fsQCA approach to investigate the formation and evolution of resilience in resource-based enterprises under the continuous institutional shocks of supply-side structural reforms and the "dual-carbon" goals. It responds to the urgent need for a coherent and systematic research context on organizational resilience and enriches the organizational resilience research context. (3) This study identifies the characteristics of different institutions and explains the evolution of resilience under continuous institutional shocks. It sheds light on the black box of how the institutional environment affects the resilience of resource-based enterprises. Specifically, institutional logic shapes enterprises decision-making and resource allocation, thereby establishing a robust framework of behavioral legitimacy that enhances organizational resilience. (4) This study utilized "new mining rights" as an indicator to measure the resilience of resource-based enterprises. This approach not only enriches the theoretical framework of research on enterprise resilience in resource-dependent contexts but also offers a more scientifically grounded assessment tool for practical applications. Such a tool facilitates resource-based enterprises in effectively coping with institutional shocks and enhancing their capacity for resilience development”. Please refer to the red text in the fourth paragraph of the Introduction in the revised version.

Comments 2: Conceptual Clarity. The theoretical framework (pragmatic vs. moral legitimacy) is solid, but the distinction between various sub-dimensions (e.g., structural vs. procedural legitimacy) could be explained more clearly and earlier. Some terms such as “dispositional legitimacy” are used in non-standard ways and require better clarification with citations. Suggestion: Provide a brief conceptual table or figure summarizing types of legitimacy and their hypothesized effects on resilience.

Response 2: We sincerely appreciate Reviewer 1's insightful comment regarding the ambiguity in the distinctions among the sub-dimensions. We fully agree with the expert's observation. To address this issue, we have reorganized the legal sub-dimensions initially discussed in the section titled "2.2 The Mechanism of Organizational Behavior Legality on the Resilience of Resource-based Enterprises" and their impact on resilience and listed them in the revised version Table 1. Meanwhile, considering the revision suggestions from Reviewer 2, we have added “2.1 Theoretical Foundation” and placed Table 1 at the end of “2.1 Theoretical Foundation”. This revision aims to enhance clarity and describe the differences between sub-dimensions more effectively. For a detailed overview, please refer to “2.1 Theoretical Foundation” and “Table 1” in the revised version.

Comments 3: Methodology (fsQCA). The use of multi-period fsQCA is well justified, and the calibration thresholds are adequately discussed. However, the rationale for variable selection (e.g., using “new mining rights” as a proxy for resilience) needs stronger justification and critical reflection on limitations. Several variables rely on proprietary or self-reported ESG scores. The reliability and potential biases in such data should be acknowledged. Suggestion: Provide a brief limitations section discussing data availability, variable proxies, and potential endogeneity (e.g., legitimacy may be both cause and effect of mining rights allocation).

Response 3: We sincerely appreciate the rigorous efforts of Reviewer 1. First, we agree with the experts’ views regarding variable selection. The primary rationale for selecting "new mining rights" as an indicator of the resilience of resource-based enterprises lies in the fact that the core operations of such enterprises are centered on the extraction of natural resources, which are inherently finite. As enterprises continue their production and operational activities, the availability of exploitable resources gradually diminishes. Consequently, the ability to acquire new mining rights becomes a critical determinant of the long-term sustainability of resource-based enterprises. In the initial manuscript, the experts noted that the justification for selecting "new mining rights" could be further strengthened. After reviewing relevant literature on international energy and mineral enterprises, we have provided additional clarification in the section "3.3.1 Outcome Variables" of the revision. For details, please refer to the red text in the section "3.3.1 Outcome Variables" of the revised version.
Secondly, we have thoroughly considered the limitations concerning variable selection raised by the experts. We acknowledge that certain constraints of the study were not adequately addressed in the original manuscript. Accordingly, we have added critical reflections on data limitations, variable selection, and other methodological considerations in the revision. Please refer to the red text in section "6.3 Limitations and Future Research" of the revised version.

Comments 4: Empirical Results and Interpretation. The fsQCA results are extensive and rich, but the presentation is dense and can overwhelm the reader. The configurations (A1–A3, B1a–B3) are not always clearly contrasted. It is also not clear how generalizable these configurations are beyond the studied firms or China. Sections 2.1–2.4 are occasionally repetitive in describing legitimacy dimensions; the structure could be streamlined. Suggestion: Include a summary table contrasting the key configurations and add a clearer visual of the evolutionary trajectory from Phase 1 to Phase 2.

Response 4: Agree. Thank you for Reviewer 1's comments and suggestions. We apologize for the unclear display of the differences between Configurations A1-A3 and Configurations B1a-B3 in the original manuscript. According to the experts' opinions, we have adjusted and annotated the display of the “Table 3”. Results of configuration pathway analysis for each period" configurations in the original manuscript. Please refer to "Table 4. Results of configuration pathway analysis for each period" in the revised version.

Meanwhile, in order to more clearly present the practical meanings of configuration A1-A3 and configuration B1a-B3 as well as the differences between them, we have also made corresponding adjustments to the statements in Table 4. First, in the first paragraph after Table 4 of the revision, the coverage rates of configuration A1-A3 and configuration B1a-B3 are respectively explained, that is, " under the supply-side structural reforms, 37.6% of the sample enterprises achieved high resilience through the configurations A1-A3";” the ‘dual-carbon’ goals, 44.0% of the sample enterprises achieved high resilience through the configurations B1a-B3”, please refer to the red text in paragraphs 1 after Table 4 in the revised version.

Second, to enhance readers' understanding, in the second paragraph after Table 4 of the revised version, we compared the core conditions of Configurations A1-A3 and Configuration B1a-B3. Please refer to the red text in paragraphs 2 after Table 4 in the revised version.

Comments 5: Discussion and Implications. The discussion is descriptive rather than analytical in places. There is limited discussion of the broader implications for sustainability governance, energy transition, or policy-making. The conclusion is too brief and lacks forward-looking recommendations. Suggestion: Strengthen the discussion by highlighting how the findings inform future policymaking or corporate governance under ESG-driven institutional reforms.

Response 5: Agree. We have carefully considered the comments and suggestions of Reviewer1 and made the following modifications to the issues raised by them. First, we deleted the “6.1 Findings” in the original manuscript. Subsequently, from the perspective of policy attributes, we analyzed the differential guiding and restrictive effects of supply-side structural reforms and the “dual-carbon” goals on China's resource-based enterprises. Please refer to the red text in the first paragraph of “6.1 Discussion and Implication” of the revision. Based on this, drawing on the legitimacy theory, we propose strategies for sustainable governance of resource-based enterprises in the face of intuitional shocks, namely paragraph 2 of “6.1 Discussion and Implication” of the revised version (this is the content of "6.3 Implications" in the manuscript).

Comments 6: Some figures (e.g., Figure 1 and Figure 2) lack clarity and should be redesigned for visual effectiveness. Figures 1 and 2 currently play a purely illustrative and descriptive role, resembling conceptual visuals from standard textbooks. They summarize general pathways and frameworks but do not reflect the specific scientific contribution or novelty of this research. The lack of differentiation between commonly known processes and the authors’ proposed theoretical advancements limits the value of these figures for an academic audience.

Response 6: We agree with Reviewer 1’s comments and suggestions regarding "Figure 1" and "Figure 2" in the original manuscript. As experts have pointed out, Figures 1 and 2 indeed do not reflect the specificity and novelty of our research. We have made modifications to Figures 1 and 2. Please refer to Figures 1 and 2 in the revised version.

Comments 7: Several references are missing details (e.g., author names, page numbers) and should be cross-checked against MDPI formatting requirements - see sources 9, 12, 24, 25, 40, 43, 44, 47.

Response 7: Agree. Thanks very much to Reviewer 1 for his/her meticulous work, which is crucial for us to enhance the rigor of our research. We have supplemented the detailed information of the documents you mentioned. In addition, considering the modifications, we have supplemented some literature and readjusted the citation order of the literature in the revised version.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Language and Style. The manuscript would benefit from a thorough language edit by a native speaker. Several sentences are overly long, and articles (e.g., “the”, “a”) are often misused. 

Response 1: We fully agree with the opinions and suggestions put forward by the experts. To solve this problem, we invited professionals to revise the long sentences in the text. For instance, we changed " Resource-based enterprises achieve a breakthrough in the pathways of high resilience by increasing the subdivision dimension of moral rationality and reducing the limitation of pragmatic legitimacy" in the abstract of the original manuscript to " By increasing the subdivision dimension of moral rationality and mitigating the limitations of pragmatic legitimacy, resource-based enterprises can achieve breakthroughs in their pathways to high resilience" in the abstract of the revised version. Change " As a basic industry of the national economy, the healthy development of resource-based enterprises is of great significance to promote the high-quality development of the economy and safeguard national security" in the first paragraph of the introduction of the original manuscript to " In this context, the healthy development of resources-based enterprises, which are considered as the basic industry of the national economy, is of great significance in promoting high-quality economic growth and ensuring national security" in the first paragraph of the introduction of the revised version. Please refer to the red text in “Abstract, the first paragraph of the Introduction, and the fourth paragraph of Section 3.1” in the revised version.

In addition, we have also revised the articles throughout the text.

5. Additional clarifications

We have revised the content of “2. Mechanism Explanation and model construction”: (1) We have added “2.1 Theoretical Foundation”, so the serial numbers of the titles from 2.2 to 2.4 have been adjusted in the revision. (2) As we added Table 1, the serial numbers of the remaining tables in the entire text were adjusted in the revised version.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to thoroughly and meticulously review our thesis. Your insights and suggestions are not only highly professional but also rich in wisdom and forward-thinking perspectives, which have significantly inspired and contributed to our research. Please find detailed responses below.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes

Thank you for your positive comment.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Can be improved

We have supplemented the principle and operational process of the Research Method (QCA).

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Must be improved

We have supplemented the “discussion” and “limitation”of the research.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

We have readjusted the presentation and statement of the research results (Table 4).

Is the article adequately referenced?

Can be improved

We have supplemented the literature on the resilience research of global energy and mineral enterprises.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Yes

Thank you for your positive comment.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Mechanism Interpretation and Model Construction. This part does not seem to use classic theories as supporting materials. I suggest using one or two theories as the theoretical guidance for the article. It needs to run through the entire text.

Response 1: Agree. Thank you for your valuable comments. Your comments are of great significance for us to improve our research. Our study is based on the legitimacy theory, but it was not explicitly proposed in the original manuscript. The legitimacy theory was first proposed by Meyer and Rowan, as well as Dimaggio and Powell. In 1995, Suchman, based on previous research, further summarized the concept of legitimacy and proposed the framework of legitimacy. The legitimacy theory is one of the most influential social science theories since the 1980s, mainly used to explain the complex interaction between organizations and the social environment.

According to your opinions, in order to present the legitimacy theory we adopted more clearly, we added "2.1 Theoretical Foundation" in the revised version to illustrate our theoretical basis, please refer to the red text in the first paragraph of 2.1 of the revised version.

Comments 2: The manuscript mentions the "dual carbon" goals many times. How is this background reflected in the research design? Carbon reduction and environmental protection may not be the same goal. Low-carbon transformation does not mean clean transformation. Reducing pollution emissions does not mean reducing carbon emissions either.

Response 2: Agree. Thank you very much for Reviewer2's comments. In response to the experts' opinions, we would like to clarify to you that the "dual-carbon" goals refer to "China striving to achieve carbon peaking before 2030 and carbon neutrality before 2060", which is an important strategic decision proposed by the Chinese government at the 75th session of the United Nations General Assembly in September 2020 to address global climate change and promote ecological civilization construction. It is an important policy proposed by China in recent years. In light of your concerns, we have also emphasized the “dual-carbon” goals in the text. Please refer to the red text in first paragraph of the “Introduction” of the revised version.

Comments 3: 3.1 Research Method. This section does not seem to elaborate on the calculation process and basic principles of the QCA method. The current text overly focuses on policy background and data samples. However, the operation process and theory of the QCA method have not been reported. Response 3: Agree. We accept your comments. We are sorry that the research Method (QCA) was not reported in the original manuscript. According to your suggestions, we have made corresponding supplements, please refer to the first paragraph of “3.1 Research Method” in the revised version. The QCA method is suitable for studies with medium samples, which is highly consistent with our research. Therefore, the supplementation of the research method, principle and operation will more effectively demonstrate that it is appropriate for us to use the QCA method.

Comments 4: The manuscript employed the QCA method to analyze the data samples. It seems that it has not verified the robustness of the results.

Response 4: Agree. We fully agree with Reviewer 2's comments that robustness tests will enhance the reliability of research. In accordance with the principles of research standardization and reliability, we conducted a Robustness test in the original manuscript. However, considering the length of the study, we only used one paragraph to explain the robustness of the research results. We sincerely request you to review the revised version “4.3 Robustness”.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1: Thank you for your positive comment regarding the English language in our manuscript.

5. Additional clarifications

We have revised the content of “2. Mechanism Explanation and model construction”: (1) We have added “2.1 Theoretical Foundation”, so the serial numbers of the titles from 2.2 to 2.4 have been adjusted in the revision. (2) As we added Table 1, the serial numbers of the remaining tables in the entire text were adjusted in the revised version.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback and suggestions regarding our article. Your professional insights and precise comments have served as a guiding light, directing us toward meaningful improvements. Each suggestion you provided is highly thought-provoking and not only assists us in refining the details of the paper but also contributes significantly to enhancing the overall quality of our research. Please find detailed responses below.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Can be improved

In the revision, we supplemented the comparison with existing literature (such as the resilience of global energy and mineral enterprises) in the “Introduction”, and added dialogue with existing literature in the “Discussion”.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes

Thank you for your positive comment.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Yes

Thank you for your positive comment.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thank you for your positive comment.

Is the article adequately referenced?

Yes

Thank you for your positive comment.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Can be improved

We have added dialogue with existing literature in the Discussion section.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The introduction effectively presents an overview of existing knowledge and foundational information relevant to the chosen subject, successfully establishing context and underscoring the study's significance. However, clarifying two specific aspects could further enhance its impact. First, it is crucial to address the potential misconception that resilience is solely an externally focused concept related to environmental shifts like market volatility, regulatory adjustments, or economic uncertainties. It is important to note that resilience also includes the capacity to manage internal disturbances, such as changes in leadership, operational failures, or cultural disputes, aspects not explicitly covered in this study. Although this paper highlights environmental turbulence, acknowledging the expansive scope of resilience is vital; therefore, its emphasis is confined to external rather than internal variables. Second, the submission would benefit from the inclusion of additional examples of resource-based enterprises beyond the Chinese mining sector. Incorporating examples from other countries, especially those that have experienced comparable institutional shocks, would reinforce the paper's arguments.

Response 1: Agree. We fully agree with Reviewer 3's comments. As experts have pointed out, both internal and external disturbances may pose a threat to the sustainable development of enterprises. At present, scholars have examined the impact of external shocks such as natural disasters, energy transition, and economic changes on the resilience of energy or mineral enterprises. To further enrich the context of resilience research and considering the depth of the study, we have only focused on the issue of institutional shocks on the resilient development of resource-based enterprises and have not explored other disturbances. We admit that this is a deficiency in our research. We will further examine the resilience of enterprises under the disturbance of diversified scenarios in future studies. For the deficiencies pointed out by the experts, we conducted a critical reflection in the research limitations of the revised version, please refer to the red text in “6.3 Limitation and Future Research” of the revised version.

Comments 2: Discussion: To enhance the study's rigor, it is advisable to address the generalizability of the observations, considering that the data are primarily derived from Chinese mining companies listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange. The analysis would gain strength through the incorporation of relevant studies conducted in other national jurisdictions, facilitating a comparative assessment of their findings. This approach would contextualize the practical applications of the current work, preempting potential criticisms that the observations lack external validity and may not sufficiently accommodate differing realities observed in alternative contexts.

Response 2: Agree with and thank Reviewer 3 for his/her comments. Our research examined the resilient response behaviors of resource-based enterprises in China under institutional shocks and did not include other countries in the study. We admit that this may indeed weaken the external validity of our research. Therefore, we have supplemented the corresponding content in the research limitations of the revision, please refer to the red text in “6.3 Limitation and Future Research” of the revised version. Thanks again for the ideas you provided. We will intensify the exploration of this direction in our future research.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1: Thank you for your positive comment regarding the English language in our manuscript.

5. Additional clarifications

We have revised the content of “2. Mechanism Explanation and model construction”: (1) We have added “2.1 Theoretical Foundation”, so the serial numbers of the titles from 2.2 to 2.4 have been adjusted in the revision. (2) As we added Table 1, the serial numbers of the remaining tables in the entire text were adjusted in the revised version.