Sustainable Competitive Advantage of Turkish Contractors in Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript. However, several weaknesses undermine its academic rigor and practical utility. I recommend major revisions to address the following concerns, with suggestions for improvement.

Weaknesses and Recommendations for Improvement

1. Limited Empirical Grounding The study relies on a single-case study approach, yet the evidence supporting the identified competitive advantages—such as superior labor management and local partnerships—lacks detailed qualitative or quantitative data. The absence of specific project outcomes or stakeholder perspectives weakens the analysis's credibility. Recommendation: Enrich the case study with concrete data, such as project completion rates, cost efficiencies, or interviews with firm representatives. Including multiple case examples from different Turkish contractors would enhance the findings' robustness.
2. Unclear Methodology for Foresight Analysis The Foresight Analysis outlines future scenarios through 2035, but the process for selecting key uncertainties (e.g., geopolitical shifts, technological adoption) is not well-defined. This lack of methodological transparency raises questions about the scenarios' reliability and relevance. Recommendation: Detail the methodology for scenario development, including the sources of uncertainty identification and any expert consultations. Incorporate trend data or Delphi method inputs to ground the analysis in current industry dynamics.
3. Overemphasis on Strengths Without Addressing Risks The analysis focuses heavily on the strengths of Turkish contractors, such as risk appetite and joint ventures, while neglecting potential vulnerabilities, such as competition from local firms or regulatory changes in Poland. This imbalance limits the comprehensiveness of the competitive assessment. Recommendation: Conduct a balanced analysis by integrating a risk assessment, such as a PESTLE or SWOT framework, to evaluate external threats. This would provide a more holistic view of the competitive landscape.
4. Vague Strategic Recommendations The proposed "no-regrets" strategies, including ESG up-skilling and financial engineering, are broadly stated without clear implementation guidance or consideration of resource constraints. This generality reduces their utility for industry practitioners. Recommendation: Develop specific action plans for each strategy, outlining required investments, timelines, and potential obstacles. A feasibility analysis or illustrative example from the case study could make these recommendations more actionable.
5. Underdeveloped Sustainability Focus Despite the journal’s emphasis on sustainability, the manuscript does not fully integrate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into the competitive advantage framework. The mention of ESG up-skilling is superficial and lacks evidence linking it to long-term success in Poland. Recommendation: Deepen the analysis by incorporating ESG-specific metrics (e.g., energy efficiency, labor standards) and demonstrating their impact on competitiveness. Reference relevant literature or industry standards to strengthen this dimension.
6. Disjointed Policy Implications The insights for policymakers, such as fostering bilateral collaboration, are not sufficiently linked to the study’s findings. The connection between Turkish contractors’ strengths and proposed policy actions remains unclear, diminishing their relevance. Recommendation: Align policy recommendations with the empirical findings, such as leveraging Turkish labor expertise to address Poland’s skilled labor shortage. Propose specific mechanisms, like joint training initiatives, to operationalize these suggestions.

Decision

The manuscript requires significant revisions to meet the journal’s standards. I recommend major revisions.

Sincerely,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript's language contains instances of overly complex phrasing and minor grammatical inconsistencies, particularly in the methodology and discussion sections. These issues can obscure the intended meaning and hinder accessibility for readers, suggesting the need for a professional language revision to align with the journal’s standards and enhance the clarity of the research findings.
One example:

Overly Complex Phrasing

• • Original Text (Hypothetical Example Based on Style): "The burgeoning economic relationship between Türkiye and Poland, marked by a targeted $10 billion trade volume, has catalyzed significant Turkish engagement in the Polish construction sector, necessitating a multifaceted analytical paradigm."
  • Issue: The use of "burgeoning," "catalyzed," and "multifaceted analytical paradigm" creates dense, academic jargon that may confuse readers unfamiliar with such terms.
  • Improved Version: "The growing economic ties between Türkiye and Poland, with a $10 billion trade goal, have driven significant Turkish involvement in the Polish construction sector, requiring a comprehensive analysis."

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article makes an interesting contribution to the research landscape, providing an original perspective on how Turkish companies can gain and maintain a competitive advantage in Poland. However, to strengthen the academic value of the paper, I recommend the following:

Clarification of the research design and research questions – the article mentions the theoretical framework and the foresight method, but it would be useful if the research objectives and hypotheses were explicitly formulated to guide the analysis.

Clearer distinction between analysis and results – currently, the presentation of empirical results overlaps with the theoretical and interpretative part. It is recommended to include tables, figures or schemes that would more clearly highlight the “results” of the analysis.

Strengthening the theoretical framework and bibliography – although Porter and some fundamental references are used, a more consistent integration of recent literature (from the last 5–7 years) on transnational entrepreneurship, entry into Central and Eastern European markets and competitive advantage strategies in a global context would be valuable.

More rigorous support for conclusions – the proposed conclusions are relevant, but sometimes go beyond the data presented. A firmer anchoring in the results obtained and/or in the secondary literature is recommended.

Overall, the study has potential and significant practical value, but would benefit from a more rigorous structuring, a stronger connection to the specialized literature and a clearer presentation of the results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Improving the clarity of language – although the English used is correct, some sentences are too long and complex. A more concise writing would increase the clarity and readability of the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The literature review and findings are comprehensive but, at times, repetitive (these sections could be made more concise to improve readability) and the methodology is clearly described, but the limitations of relying exclusively on secondary data should be emphasized more explicitly, with stronger justification. The theoretical contribution should be articulated more explicitly in the conclusion, underlining what is novel compared to existing studies.

I think that some figures and tables (e.g., Table 2, Table 3) would benefit from clearer synthesis to highlight the most relevant insights!!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is overall good, but several long and complex sentences could be streamlined; a light language edit would enhance clarity

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thanks for implementing the comments. I would suggest an acceptance. 

Best regards,