The Boundary Conditions of Information Sharing and Sustainability: The Mediating Role of Supply Chain Resilience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for inviting me to review the manuscript entitled “Boundary Conditions of Information Sharing and Sustainability: The Mediating Role of Supply Chain Resilience”. This manuscript investigates the relationship between information sharing, supply chain resilience, and sustainability, with a focus on the mediating role of resilience and moderating roles of technological tool usage and entrepreneurial orientation. The study employs a mixed-methods approach with data from Ghanaian industries, providing empirical insights into sustainable supply chain management. While the research addresses an important gap in literature, several areas require refinement to enhance clarity, theoretical depth, and methodological rigor.

(1) The theoretical foundation is underdeveloped, particularly in linking these theories to the moderating roles of technological tools and EO. Hypotheses H2 and H3 lack robust theoretical justification. For example: H2 assumes technology adoption is universally effective but does not address contextual barriers. Hence, please expand the discussion on IPT to explain how technology specifically facilitates information processing and resilience. Also, please cite literature on digital transformation in supply chains, such as 10.3390/su17072930, 10.3390/systems12080278.

(2) The sample selection and data collection process are insufficiently described. Such as, convenience sampling is justified by "geographical challenges," but no details on respondent demographics are provided. Please add a subsection on "Sample Characteristics" in the methodology, reporting descriptive statistics. And justify the sample size using power analysis or compare it to similar studies in the field. Clarify how questionnaire items were adapted from prior research, including reliability tests.

(3) The discussion of non-significant findings (H2, H3) is cursory. The lack of moderation by technological tools is attributed to "employee resistance," but no empirical evidence supports this claim. Please conduct post-hoc analyses to explore why technology/EO failed to moderate the relationships. Discuss theoretical implications as well.

(4) The conclusions are largely descriptive and lack actionable recommendations for managers.

Please develop a framework for integrating information sharing and resilience, emphasizing incremental IT adoption. Propose EO-building initiatives, such as cross-functional innovation teams or risk-taking incentives, to indirectly support sustainability.

(5) The limitations section is too brief and lacks specificity. Please identify context-specific limitations. Suggest comparative studies in regions with higher IT penetration or stronger EO cultures. Propose longitudinal research to track how resilience and sustainability evolve over time with technological investments.

(6) Replace jargon (e.g., "triple bottleneck approach") with "triple bottom line" (environmental, social, economic) for consistency. Ensure tables (e.g., Table 3, 4) are properly labeled and statistical values are consistently reported.

(7) Please Update outdated references (e.g., pre-2010 studies) and improve its quality. Also, please revise the format of your references.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

the English language can be improved.

Author Response

1. The theoretical foundation has been updated with all the necessary inputs. The hypotheses have also been updated with the theoretical justification needed. IPT has been expanded according. 2. Sample selection and data collection process have been updated with justification for choosing convenient sampling. 3. The analysis has been conducted 4. Conclusions updated with actionable recommendations 5. The limitation section has been expanded into details 6. Jargon "triple bottleneck approach” has been replaced with "triple bottom line (7) Outdated references updated

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an investigation into how information sharing influences sustainability and its managerial implications, among other aspects, elaborated in the form of a conceptual model. This model is tested through statistical analysis of responses from professionals across various parts of the production chain of industries in Ghana. Ultimately, the authors discuss whether the hypotheses formulated concerning the model are valid. 

Here are some considerations to be made:

1. In lines 50 to 52, what would be the solutions to reduce the risk related to the global supply chain? It is not clearly stated by the authors. 

 From line 100 onwards, the sub-items contained in materials and methods are not materials and methods, and should be part of the introduction section. Materials and methods begin in line 256 and also encompass item 3. Methodology. 

3. In line 406, the authors should better explain how many people the questionnaires were sent to and how many responded; there were 326 of how many?

4. In lines 569 and 570, it is written “an important factor in influencing whether or not employees are willing to accept new technologies in an existing organizational culture” - the authors probably meant to say “IS in an existing organizational culture”

5. In the discussion of the results, it would be important to classify and analyze the answers given by the senior manager, according to the stage of the supply chain where he/she operates.

6. It is not clear in the text which are the 6 models are used by the authors.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English writing can be improved.

Author Response

1. Lines 50 to 52 have been clarified
2. Line 100 onwards details have been added to the appropriate part as proposed
3. The number of people the questionnaire was sent and the responses that came have been updated
4. Corrections have been made to lines 569 and 570
5. The responses from managers were explained together
6. 6. The 6 models were explained in 3.3 (regression analysis) and table 4

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article emphasizes the important role of supply chain resilience in explaining how to achieve sustainability through information sharing. This topic has certain practical significance and academic value, providing a new perspective for studying sustainability and having a certain degree of innovation. The structure of the paper is clear, the research methods are reasonable, and the conclusions have a certain basis.

However, I believe that the article should be improved in the following areas:

1.The abstract section should clearly outline the research question, content, methods, conclusions, and significance of the article. The article's overview of the above issues is not clear and specific. The author should provide a detailed explanation of the importance, significance, and value of the research.

2. In the introduction section, it is suggested that the author add the latest research articles from the past three years, which will provide readers with the latest insights and background, expand the depth of the literature review, and provide a detailed analysis of key literature related to this study. And the author should add specific descriptions of the innovation and contribution of the research. The article does not clearly indicate the uniqueness and potential academic or practical contributions of this study compared to existing literature.
3. The author should review the content of this section to determine whether it is more suitable for "Materials and Methods", and whether there is a possibility of duplication between Title 2 "Materials and Methods" and Title 3 "Methodology". Consider merging the two parts or better distinguishing them according to the structure and content of the article. And the article needs to add specific and clear descriptions of the research methods.

4.The structure of the second section "Materials and Methods" is unclear and the content is too lengthy. The author should consider whether the content of this section can be merged or deleted.

5. The position of Table 2 was not found in the article. Please check the table title.

6.Why are these industries chosen as the research objects of this article? A clear explanation should be provided to determine whether these industries are persuasive and representative?

7. Regarding the reliability of research data and results, the description in the article is too vague. It is suggested that the author provide more detailed supplements and explanations for this part.
8. The conclusion section of the article should provide corresponding policy implications and more specific policy recommendations to make the article more practical and valuable, in order to better promote sustainable development. We suggest providing specific implementation steps and strategies for each policy proposal. Analyze potential challenges and risks, and propose corresponding measures.
9. We suggest adding a discussion section to compare with previous research and indicate potential limitations and shortcomings of this article. Finally, possible solutions are proposed to address this deficiency, and suggestions for future research are put forward. Identify research gaps through discussion and clarify how this study can fill these gaps. By addressing these issues, the paper can further enhance its theoretical depth and practical guidance, thereby strengthening its academic and practical application value.

Author Response

1. Abstract updated with the comments from the reviewer to include all details.
2. Latest articles included in the introduction section
3. Materials and methods content update. Those needed to be added to the introduction part have been added.
4. Contents that are irrelevant have been deleted
5. Table 2 updated
6. The industrial selection information has been updated
7. More detailed and supplementary details have been given under validity and reliability section

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf