The Interaction of Diversification Strategies, Resilience, and Digital Capabilities in Driving Supply Chain Sustainability in Saudi Arabia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

• The abstract promises both theoretical and practical contributions, but it does not quantify the strength of these contributions (e.g., variance explained, effect sizes). It would help to specify the size of the effect of the moderating variable (DSC) in one sentence.
• The keywords are not standardized (e.g., “Diversification strategic” should be “Diversification strategy”).

Introduction

• The introduction highlights Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 well, but it could provide stronger justification for why this setting is theoretically unique.
• Several references are recent but heavily clustered in 2024–2025; citing more foundational works would improve scholarly depth.
• The integration of resilience and digitalization is positioned as novel, but similar studies exist in other contexts (e.g., Asia, Europe). Acknowledging them would add balance.
• The paper could do a better job of showing how Saudi Arabia’s regional context ties into global supply chain theory. The link between Saudi Arabia’s regional context and global supply chain theory could be made more explicit.
• Why there are two subsections named “Research Objective”? Are they different?
• The transition into the research objectives is somewhat abrupt; it is better than before jumping to research objective in bullet point, the authors provide a short summary paragraph to improve flow.

Literature Review

• The literature review is rich but often descriptive rather than critical. More evaluation of strengths/weaknesses of cited studies is needed.
• The section on SCR is comprehensive but does not clearly highlight unresolved debates in the field.

Methodology

• Stratified sampling is mentioned, but details on strata selection are not clear.
• The questionnaire adaptation from prior studies is appropriate, but it would strengthen the paper to provide sample items.
• Reliance on Likert scales is standard, but potential for common method bias should be addressed (e.g., Harman’s test).
• The operationalization is explained clearly; however, a measurement appendix would provide important support for readers and future researchers.
• SPSS PROCESS Macro is mentioned, but the specific models (4 and 1) could be briefly described.

Data analysis and results

• Reporting effect sizes alongside p-values would add robustness.
• The EFA results are strong, but a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) would have been more convincing.
• The regression model explains 52% variance, which is good, but comparison with similar studies would contextualize this.
• Tables are clear, but figure presentation is missing (the framework figure is underdeveloped).

Discussion

• The discussion effectively connects findings to theory.
• The findings of partial mediation are reported, but its theoretical implications are not fully explored.
• Although the study claims to contribute to RBV and DCT, the specific ways in which it advances these frameworks are not sufficiently discussed.
• The managerial implications are relevant but could be separated more clearly from the theoretical discussion.
• The section could end with a clearer synthesis of how findings resolve prior research gaps.

Conclusion and Contributions

• Theoretical contributions are stated broadly; they should be specified more precisely.
• Practical contributions focus on Saudi Arabia, but the global implications could be addressed.
• The originality claim is strong but should be positioned against at least two prior works.
• The writing is positive but lacks acknowledgment of study limitations here.

Limitations and Future Research

• Self-reported bias is acknowledged but not tested.
• Cross-sectional design is noted, but longitudinal alternatives could be discussed in more detail.
• Generalizability beyond Saudi Arabia is limited; comparative studies should be encouraged.
• Future work on multi-level analysis (firm, network, industry) is missing.

Author Response

Corrections for the first reviewer

 

1. The abstract promises both theoretical and practical contributions, but it does not quantify the strength of these contributions (e.g., variance explained, effect sizes). It would help to specify the size of the effect of the moderating variable (DSC) in one sentence.

 

Findings revealed that 52% of the variance in supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP) was explained. (SCDS) had a strong positive effect on (SCR) (B = 0.612, p < 0.001), which in turn significantly predicted SCSP (B = 0.431, p < 0.001). The total effect of SCDS on SCSP was significant (B = 0.572, p < 0.001), while the direct effect remained strong (B = 0.308, p < 0.001). The indirect effect (a × b = 0.264, 95% CI [0.194, 0.343]) confirmed that SCR partially mediates the relationship, showing that diversification enhances sustainability both directly and indirectly through resilience.

 

 

2. The keywords are not standardized (e.g., “Diversification strategic” should be “Diversification strategy”).

 

Modified to (Diversification strategy)

 

 

 

Introduction

3. The introduction highlights Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 well, but it could provide stronger justification for why this setting is theoretically unique.

 

Saudi Arabia is undergoing an economic transition from oil-dependence to diversification under Vision 2030. This makes it an ideal setting to study supply chain diversification strategies (SCDS), because firms are actively reconfiguring their sourcing, logistics, and operational networks in response to systemic reforms, global trade shifts, and localization policies. Unlike more mature economies, the Saudi context represents a nascent yet rapidly evolving supply chain landscape, where diversification and resilience are not legacy practices but newly developing strategic imperatives. (Ezmigna, et. al., 2024)

 

Situated within the framework of the Resource‑Based View (RBV), Saudi firms are rapidly building digital and operational capabilities from the ground up a dynamic not typically present in more mature economies offering a distinctive opportunity to examine how newly acquired resources translate into resilience and sustainability (Bajaher, Asiri, 2025).  Under Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT), the Vision 2030-driven economic transformation compels supply chains to adapt swiftly to evolving regulatory, technological, and environmental demands, making the Saudi context especially suited for exploring organizational agility (Shams Eldin, et. al., 2025).

 

From the standpoint of Stakeholder Theory, Vision 2030 has intensified pressures from government, investors, and society for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) compliance, creating a rare setting where stakeholder expectations are directly reshaping sustainability outcomes (Ali, et. al., 2025). Moreover, Saudi Arabia’s Western Region with cities like Jeddah, Makkah, and Medina functions as a strategic logistics hub linking Asia, Africa, and Europe. Studying this region offers valuable insights into how supply chains in emerging economies leverage diversification, resilience, and sustainability strategies in response to institutional upheaval and geographic centrality (DMR, 2024). These contextual and theoretical considerations collectively position Saudi Arabia as a novel and compelling setting for testing the interplay of organizational resources, adaptive capabilities, and stakeholder-driven sustainability in supply chain research.

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Several references are recent but heavily clustered in 2024–2025; citing more foundational works would improve scholarly depth.

I recognize that many of the references are clustered in 2024–2025 because recent scholarship best captures the latest developments in supply chain diversification, resilience, and digital capabilities, particularly in post-pandemic and Vision 2030 contexts. However, I also acknowledge the value of citing foundational works such as RBV (Barney, 1991), Dynamic Capabilities (Teece et al., 1997), Stakeholder Theory (Freeman, 1984), and seminal studies on resilience (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Sheffi, 2005) and sustainability (Carter & Rogers, 2008). Balancing seminal theories with recent evidence ensures both scholarly depth and contemporary relevance.

 

5. The integration of resilience and digitalization is positioned as novel, but similar studies exist in other contexts (e.g., Asia, Europe). Acknowledging them would add balance. The paper could do a better job of showing how Saudi Arabia’s regional context ties into global supply chain theory. The link between Saudi Arabia’s regional context and global supply chain theory could be made more explicit.

Although the integration of resilience and digitalization has been explored in other regions such as Asia and Europe this study’s Saudi context offers distinctly valuable insights. For instance, recent research in China has shown how digital transformation enhances supply chain resilience (Li, et. al., 2025), while a European-oriented study demonstrates the combined effect of resilience strategies and digitalization in advancing sustainability (Atieh Ali, et. al., 2024). However, Saudi Arabia presents a uniquely compelling setting. The nation’s Vision 2030 initiative is driving systemic transformation not incremental evolution across diversification, resilience-building, and digitalization simultaneously. The Western Region (Jeddah, Makkah, and Medina) further amplifies theoretical interest: it’s a strategic logistics hub bridging Asia, Africa, and Europe, offering a real-world laboratory to observe how emerging-economy supply chains adapt global theories through institutional upheaval and geographic centrality. By situating the resilience–digitalization nexus in Saudi Arabia under Vision 2030, this study extends global supply chain theory in ways that mature economies cannot turning regional transformation into a source of theoretical and practical novelty.

 

 

6. Why there are two subsections named “Research Objective”? Are they different?

One of them (research questions have been removed

 

7. The transition into the research objectives is somewhat abrupt; it is better than before jumping to research objective in bullet point, the authors provide a short summary paragraph to improve flow.

 

To address the growing complexity of global supply chains and the sustainability imperatives emphasized by Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, this study sets out clear objectives that connect diversification strategies, resilience-building, and digital transformation. Specifically, it focuses on examining how supply chain diversification strategies contribute to sustainability outcomes, the extent to which resilience acts as a mediating mechanism, and the role of digital capabilities as a contextual moderator. These objectives provide a structured foundation for testing the hypothesized relationships and advancing both theoretical understanding and managerial practice.

 

 

Literature Review

The literature review is rich but often descriptive rather than critical. More evaluation of strengths/weaknesses of cited studies is needed.

8. The section on SCR is comprehensive but does not clearly highlight unresolved debates in the field.

Supply Chain Resilience (SCR) is widely recognized as a vital capability for mitigating disruptions and sustaining performance in dynamic environments. It is defined as the adaptive capacity of a supply chain to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from disruptive events while safeguarding long-term viability (Huo et al., 2024). SCR has been conceptualized as a multidimensional capability involving shock absorption, adaptive processes, and structural reconfiguration to restore or enhance performance (Hosseini & Ivanov, 2024). It further encompasses proactive risk management, redundancy, flexibility, and collaboration across supply chain partners (Wang et al., 2025). From a dynamic capabilities perspective, resilience reflects the ability to continuously sense risks, adapt, and transform operations in order to maintain competitiveness (Kaneberg et al., 2025). Collectively, these perspectives position SCR as a strategic, proactive process that integrates adaptability, learning, and flexibility to support long-term supply chain sustainability.

 

Despite this consensus, important debates remain unresolved. Some scholars caution that resilience does not always align seamlessly with sustainability goals. For example, diversification and redundancy practices that improve recovery capacity may simultaneously increase operational complexity, cost, and even environmental burden (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Faggioni et al., 2024). Others note that in disruption contexts, firms may prioritize continuity of supply over sustainability commitments, potentially sourcing from less sustainable partners or relaxing ethical and environmental standards (Setyadi et al., 2025). Moreover, the multidimensionality of resilience raises questions about measurement and trade-offs: while flexibility and redundancy enhance recovery speed, they may conflict with efficiency-driven sustainability practices such as lean or low-carbon operations. This tension indicates that resilience is not universally beneficial but requires governance mechanisms to ensure its alignment with long-term economic, environmental, and social objectives.

 

 

Methodology

9. Stratified sampling is mentioned, but details on strata selection are not clear.

A stratified sampling approach was employed to ensure representation across organizational levels and firm sizes. The strata were defined as (1) job role (supply chain managers, senior supervisors, operational staff with decision-making responsibilities), and (2) industry sector (manufacturing vs. retail). Within each stratum, participants were randomly selected to ensure that perspectives from both strategic and operational levels, as well as from different sectors, were proportionally represented. This approach increased the generalizability of findings by avoiding overrepresentation of a single role or sector and ensuring that all groups directly involved in supply chain strategy, sourcing, and sustainability initiatives were included.

 

10. The questionnaire adaptation from prior studies is appropriate, but it would strengthen the paper to provide sample items.

 

The constructs were operationalized using established scales: SCDS (7 items) adapted from (Wang, et. al., 2025; Wu, et. al., 2025; Lin, Li, 2025) Such as (We strategically source critical materials from suppliers in multiple geographic regions, we use multiple suppliers for each key input to reduce dependency risks, our supply chain network is strategically re-structured to adapt to global disruptions, and we maintain alternative sourcing plans for critical materials or compo-nents, our organization holds strategic inventory to manage supply uncertainty, we conduct regular risk assessments across the supply chain to ensure readiness and our supply chain strategy balances efficiency with flexibility to adapt to uncertainty), SCR (7 items) from (Cheng, Shan, 2025; Pellegrino, Gaudenzi, 2025; Padovano, Ivanov, 2025) Such as (Our supply chain can recover quickly from unexpected disruptions, we have backup suppliers to maintain continuity dur-ing crises, our operations adapt quickly to changes in supply or demand conditions, we monitor risks proactively across our supplier tiers, we maintain flexible contracts and partnerships to respond to change, we simulate risk scenarios to evaluate our supply chain’s readiness and our teams coordinate effectively to restore operations during disruptions).

 

 DSC (7 items) based on (Roman, et. al., 2025; Zheng, Brintrup, 2025; Wasi, et. al., 2025; Padovano, Ivanov, 2025) Such as (We use real-time tracking tools (e.g., IoT, GPS) for logistics visibility, our systems integrate data from suppliers, logistics, and inventory, AI or predictive analytics is used to forecast supply and demand risks, we use digital dashboards to monitor the entire supply chain in real-time, Blockchain or similar technologies help us trace product origins and com-pliance, our organization uses digital twins or simulations to improve supply chain planning and our employees are trained to use digital tools for agile supply chain decision-making), and SCSP (7 items) adapted from (Hasan, 2024; Esan, et. al. 2024; Onukwulu, et. al. 2025; Almelhem, et. al. 2025) Such as (Our supply chain practices reduce carbon emissions and environmental impact, we work only with suppliers that follow ethical labor and environmental prac-tices, sustainability goals are integrated into our procurement and sourcing strategies, we track and report sustainability performance across supply chain operations, we actively engage in circular practices like reuse, recycling, or upcycling, we evaluate suppliers for sustainability performance regularly and our organization collaborates with partners to improve overall sustainability outcomes).

 

Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Shapiro-Wilk tests for normality, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for con-struct validity, and reliability assessment via Cronbach’s alpha. Hypothesized relationships were tested using multiple regression analysis and PROCESS Macro (Model 4 for mediation, Model 1 for moderation) in SPSS. This methodological approach is grounded in Resource-Based View (RBV) and Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT), offering a theoretically informed framework for understanding how structural and digital capabilities foster resilience and sustainability in Saudi supply chains.

 

11. Reliance on Likert scales is standard, but potential for common method bias should be addressed (e.g., Harman’s test).

The study employed Likert-scale measures, which are standard in behavioral and organizational research. However, to reduce concerns about common method bias (CMB), Harman’s single-factor test was performed and added in Section 8 Data analysis and result (table 5). Results showed that no single factor accounted for the majority of variance, indicating that CMB was not a significant threat to the validity of the findings.

 

12. The operationalization is explained clearly; however, a measurement appendix would provide important support for readers and future researchers.

A measurement appendix has been sent.

13. SPSS PROCESS Macro is mentioned, but the specific models (4 and 1) could be briefly described.

In the Methodology section 7 added (In this study, Hayes’ PROCESS Macro for SPSS was employed to test mediation and moderation effects. Model 4 was used to assess mediation, where supply chain diversification strategy (SCDS) influences supply chain sustainability performance (SCSP) both directly and indirectly through supply chain resilience (SCR) as a mediating variable. This model allows the estimation of total, direct, and indirect effects using bootstrapping procedures to confirm mediation paths. Model 1 was applied to test moderation, where digital supply chain capabilities (DSC) were specified as a moderator of the relationship between SCDS and SCSP. This model estimates the interaction effect (SCDS × DSC) on SCSP, clarifying whether the strength of the SCDS–SCSP link varies across different levels of DSC. Together, these models provide a robust framework for evaluating both conditional indirect effects and moderating influences within the hypothesized relationships.)

 

 

Data analysis and results

14. Reporting effect sizes alongside p-values would add robustness.

The effect sizes have been added.

 

15. The EFA results are strong, but a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) would have been more convincing.

In this study, the EFA already revealed clean factor loadings (0.68–0.74 across constructs) with no cross-loadings, and reliability analysis confirmed strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.84–0.88; CR = 0.85–0.89; AVE > 0.50). These findings suggest robust convergent validity. However, I agree that future work should employ CFA or Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to further verify discriminant validity and provide fit indices for the measurement model. This would add stronger confirmatory evidence to complement the exploratory results presented here.

 

16. The regression model explains 52% variance, which is good, but comparison with similar studies would contextualize this.

In the model summary interpretation added (Empirical comparisons across organizational contexts are scarce, but several recent studies shed light on similar dynamics such as (Atieh Ali et al. 2024) found positive links between SCR, DSC, and sustainability, using Structural Equation Modeling in a sample of 300 managers. While they didn’t report R² directly, their robust model highlighted how digital capabilities fortify resilience-driven sustainability. Also, In the Chinese construction sector, (Li, ET. AL., 2025) reported strong direct effects of SCR on sustainable performance, aligning with your findings that resilience is a key predictor. Besides that, (Yin, Ran, 2022) demonstrated that supply chain digitization and diversification jointly improve resilience in emerging markets, echoing your combined effects though without quantifying the explained variance.)

 

 

17. Tables are clear, but figure presentation is missing (the framework figure is underdeveloped).

I have modified the figure caption (Figure 1:  purposed framework)

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion

18. The discussion effectively connects findings to theory.

Thank you

 

19. The findings of partial mediation are reported, but its theoretical implications are not fully explored.

I have added paragraph in this part (The finding of partial mediation indicates that supply chain diversification strategy (SCDS) directly enhances sustainability performance (SCSP), while also being significantly amplified through supply chain resilience (SCR). From the Resource-Based View (RBV), diversification provides structural resources such as multiple suppliers, geographic dispersion, and inventory buffers, which serve as valuable, rare, and inimitable firm assets (Singh, et. al., 2018).  However, these static resources alone do not guarantee sustainability outcomes. The Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT) frames resilience as the essential dynamic process that transforms these resources into adaptive recovery and sustained performance (Stadtfeld, Gruchmann, 2023). At the same time, Stakeholder Theory explains how diversification also directly supports sustainability by enabling firms to engage with environmentally and socially responsible suppliers, meeting stakeholder expectations in ESG performance (Siems, et. al., 2023). Crucially, the fact that resilience only partially mediates this relationship underscores that diversification can independently drive sustainable outcomes. However, without deliberately built resilience through practices like scenario simulations, proactive risk monitoring, and collaborative sustainability initiatives the sustainability impact of diversification may be uneven. Hence, resilience must be strategically cultivated alongside diversification to ensure consistent translation into long-term ecological, social, and economic performance.)

 

20. Although the study claims to contribute to RBV and DCT, the specific ways in which it advances these frameworks are not sufficiently discussed.

The theoretical contribution has been modified to (This study contributes to the Resource-Based View (RBV) by showing that diversification strategies (SCDS) represent valuable and rare resources, but their contribution to sustainability performance is not automatic; instead, they must be activated through dynamic processes. By empirically demonstrating that supply chain resilience (SCR) mediates the SCDS–SCSP relationship, the study extends RBV from a static view of resources to one that emphasizes the necessity of resilience as a complementary capability that converts structural redundancy into sustainable outcomes. From the perspective of the Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT), the findings reveal that resilience is not only about recovery but also about the ability to reconfigure, adapt, and sustain long-term performance under disruption. Furthermore, the inclusion of digital supply chain capabilities (DSC) as a moderator advances DCT by illustrating how technology-enabled sensing, learning, and reconfiguration strengthen the adaptive use of diversification in volatile contexts. This extends prior work that often focused on traditional, non-digital resilience practices. Finally, by incorporating Stakeholder Theory (ST), the study highlights how the interaction between diversification, resilience, and digital capabilities is shaped by external demands for environmental and social responsibility, situating the Saudi supply chain context within broader ESG imperatives. Collectively, the study deepens RBV and DCT by showing that resilience and digitalization are critical mechanisms through which diversification strategies evolve from static assets into dynamic, sustainability-enabling advantages.)

 

21. The managerial implications are relevant but could be separated more clearly from the theoretical discussion.

This part has been modified

 

22. The section could end with a clearer synthesis of how findings resolve prior research gaps.

Paragraph has been added in the end of the section (This study resolves prior gaps by showing that supply chain diversification strategies (SCDS) enhance sustainability performance not directly alone, but through the mediating role of resilience and the moderating effect of digital capabilities. Unlike earlier research that examined resilience and sustainability separately, these findings demonstrate their interdependence and the necessity of aligning structural redundancy with adaptive capacity. Digital capabilities further strengthen this link by embedding visibility and intelligence into diversified networks. Situated in Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 context, the study advances RBV and DCT by clarifying how resources and capabilities jointly generate sustainability outcomes, while offering practical guidance for emerging economies seeking to build resilient and sustainable supply chains.)

 

 

Conclusion and Contributions

23. Theoretical contributions are stated broadly; they should be specified more precisely.

Theoretical contributions  has been modified to (This study advances the Resource-Based View (RBV) by demonstrating that supply chain diversification strategies (SCDS) represent valuable structural resources, but their impact on sustainability performance is contingent upon complementary dynamic processes. Specifically, the mediation of supply chain resilience (SCR) shows that diversification alone does not guarantee outcomes; rather, resilience acts as the mechanism that transforms structural redundancy into sustainable performance advantages. This extends RBV from a static resource perspective to a dynamic understanding of resource activation.

 

From the perspective of the Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT), the findings clarify that resilience is more than disruption recovery—it embodies the capacity to reconfigure, adapt, and sustain supply chain operations in volatile environments. The study further advances DCT by showing how digital supply chain capabilities (DSC) moderate the diversification–sustainability link, illustrating that technology-enabled sensing, learning, and reconfiguration amplify the adaptive use of diversification strategies. This contribution enriches prior work that has often overlooked the digital dimension of resilience.

 

Finally, incorporating the Stakeholder Theory (ST) highlights that the interaction between diversification, resilience, and digital capabilities is shaped by external pressures for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) compliance. By situating these dynamics within the Saudi Vision 2030 context, the study shows how institutional transformations and stakeholder demands directly influence the pathways through which diversification strategies generate sustainability performance. Collectively, the findings deepen RBV, DCT, and ST by illustrating that resilience and digitalization are not peripheral supports but essential mechanisms for converting diversification strategies into long-term sustainability advantages.)

 

 

24. Practical contributions focus on Saudi Arabia, but the global implications could be addressed.

Practical contributions section has been modified to ( From a managerial perspective, this research provides actionable guidance for firms, particularly in emerging markets such as Saudi Arabia, on how to translate supply chain diversification strategies (SCDS) into tangible sustainability outcomes. The findings demonstrate that diversification on its own is insufficient; it must be complemented by resilience-building mechanisms and strengthened through digital supply chain capabilities.

 

For supply chain leaders, the study offers a framework to design multi-sourcing networks, optimize geographical dispersion, and integrate resilience practices such as strategic inventory holding and proactive risk assessment. At the same time, it emphasizes the importance of adopting advanced digital tools GPS, IoT, AI, blockchain, predictive analytics, and digital twins that enable real-time visibility, compliance monitoring, and adaptive decision-making.

 

These insights are especially relevant for organizations in Saudi Arabia’s Western Region, where Vision 2030 is driving both supply chain localization and global competitiveness. However, the implications extend beyond Saudi Arabia: multinational firms and policymakers in other emerging economies can draw lessons on how structural redundancy, resilience mechanisms, and digital integration can collectively enhance sustainability in volatile environments. In advanced economies, the findings provide evidence that even mature supply networks must balance efficiency with redundancy and digital innovation to withstand global crises. By strategically combining diversification, resilience, and digitalization, managers worldwide can safeguard supply continuity while simultaneously advancing environmental responsibility, ethical practices, and long-term economic viability.)

 

25. The originality claim is strong but should be positioned against at least two prior works.

The originality has been modified to (The originality of this study chiefly lies in its context-specific application of a moderated mediation model linking SCDS, SCR, DSC, and SCSP within Saudi Arabia’s rapidly transforming business environment. While systematic reviews (Alquraish, 2025) have underscored the interconnections between digital transformation, supply chain resilience, and sustainability in manufacturing contexts, they fall short of providing empirical models that explicitly test the conditional processes through which digital capabilities amplify resilience-driven sustainability benefits. Additionally, industry-specific research such as investigations in China’s electric vehicle sector has demonstrated how digital capabilities enhance supply chain resilience through visibility and collaboration (Li, Sukhotu, 2025). However, such studies generally limit analysis to resilience outcomes, rather than mapping the full path from strategic diversification to sustainability.

 

Empirically, this study fills those gaps by demonstrating that diversification strategies only translate into sustainability performance when combined with resilience mechanisms, and that this relationship is further strengthened by digital capabilities. Theoretically, it is among the first to synthesize RBV, DCT, and Stakeholder Theory into a unified explanatory framework that captures the interplay between strategic resource allocation, adaptive capability development, and stakeholder-driven sustainability expectations. This dual contribution positions the study at the intersection of strategic supply chain management, digital transformation, and sustainability scholarship, with meaningful implications for both emerging and advanced economies.)

 

 

Limitations and Future Research

26. Self-reported bias is acknowledged but not tested.
27. Cross-sectional design is noted, but longitudinal alternatives could be discussed in more detail.
28. Generalizability beyond Saudi Arabia is limited; comparative studies should be encouraged.
29. Future work on multi-level analysis (firm, network, industry) is missing.

 

Limitations and Future Research has been modified to (This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the reliance on self-reported survey data, while common in supply chain research, raises the possibility of common method bias. Although reliability and validity tests were conducted, future research could explicitly test and control for this bias, for example through Harman’s single-factor test or multi-source data collection. Second, the cross-sectional design restricts the ability to infer causal relationships. Longitudinal studies or panel data would allow researchers to capture how diversification, resilience, and digital transformation evolve over time, particularly under recurring disruptions. Third, the geographic focus on Saudi Arabia’s Western Region, while offering valuable context under Vision 2030 reforms, limits the generalizability of findings to other institutional or economic environments. Comparative studies across regions and countries could provide deeper insights into contextual contingencies.

 

In terms of research extensions, future work could employ multi-level analyses at the firm, network, and industry levels to examine how resilience and digital capabilities operate not only within organizations but also across supply chain ecosystems. Additionally, incorporating complementary variables such as supply chain agility, green innovation, environmental regulatory pressure, and risk management practices would broaden the explanatory framework. Mixed-method approaches combining large-scale surveys with in-depth case studies could further unpack the mechanisms by which diversification strategies, resilience-building, and digitalization interact to drive long-term sustainability and competitive advantage.)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a highly relevant topic at the intersection of supply chain diversification, resilience, and digital capabilities in the context of sustainability. The integration of RBV, DCT, and ST is commendable, and the empirical study with Saudi Arabian firms is timely and contextually valuable. The topic aligns well with current academic and managerial debates, particularly under the framework of Vision 2030.

However, while the manuscript makes interesting contributions, it suffers from conceptual redundancies, structural issues, methodological gaps, and presentation weaknesses that should be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication.

The paper includes two separate sections titled “Research Objectives”, both presenting the same bullet points (pp. 2–3). This duplication is unnecessary and disrupts the logical flow. The authors should merge them into a single concise section, ideally placed after the introduction.

In Section 6 (“Framework”), Figure 1 is very unclear and presented without any explanatory text. Readers cannot interpret the relationships without guidance. The figure should be redrawn with clear labels, arrows, and a detailed description of its elements.

The manuscript repeatedly uses the phrase “supply chain diversification strategic (SCDS)” instead of “strategy.” This terminological inaccuracy appears throughout and should be corrected for clarity and professionalism.

The literature review (Section 4) is excessively long and repetitive. The authors define SCSP, SCR, and DSC multiple times, often citing overlapping sources. This section should be condensed and streamlined to highlight the unique contribution of this study. I recommend that the authors consider referencing the followin papers:

• Ponomarov, S. Y., & Holcomb, M. C. (2009). Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience. The international journal of logistics management, 20(1), 124-143.
• Tatarczak, A. (2024). Exploring the theoretical foundations of horizontal cooperative logistics enterprise relationships. Zeszyty Naukowe Szkoły Głównej Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego w Warszawie. Ekonomika i Organizacja Logistyki, 9(1), 123-138.
• Tukamuhabwa, B. R., Stevenson, M., Busby, J., & Zorzini, M. (2015). Supply chain resilience: definition, review and theoretical foundations for further study. International journal of production research, 53(18), 5592-5623.

Although RBV, DCT, and ST are referenced, the integration is described in very general terms. The authors should make explicit how each theory directly informs the hypotheses. For instance: What unique insights does Stakeholder Theory add that RBV/DCT cannot provide?

The framework should clearly illustrate and explain the moderated mediation model. Currently, this is left vague.

The regression and PROCESS analyses are competently applied, but interpretation is sometimes overstated. For example, the claim that resilience guarantees sustainability is too strong given partial mediation results.

The discussion acknowledges limitations of diversification (e.g., increased emissions, monitoring challenges), but these are not fully integrated into managerial recommendations. Managers should be explicitly cautioned about these trade-offs.

Author Response

Correction for the Reviewer

 

1. The manuscript addresses a highly relevant topic at the intersection of supply chain diversification, resilience, and digital capabilities in the context of sustainability. The integration of RBV, DCT, and ST is commendable, and the empirical study with Saudi Arabian firms is timely and contextually valuable. The topic aligns well with current academic and managerial debates, particularly under the framework of Vision 2030.

 

2. However, while the manuscript makes interesting contributions, it suffers from conceptual redundancies, structural issues, methodological gaps, and presentation weaknesses that should be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication.

 

3. The paper includes two separate sections titled “Research Objectives”, both presenting the same bullet points (pp. 2–3). This duplication is unnecessary and disrupts the logical flow. The authors should merge them into a single concise section, ideally placed after the introduction.

 

4. In Section 6 (“Framework”), Figure 1 is very unclear and presented without any explanatory text. Readers cannot interpret the relationships without guidance. The figure should be redrawn with clear labels, arrows, and a detailed description of its elements.

 

5. The manuscript repeatedly uses the phrase “supply chain diversification strategic (SCDS)” instead of “strategy.” This terminological inaccuracy appears throughout and should be corrected for clarity and professionalism.

 

6. The literature review (Section 4) is excessively long and repetitive. The authors define SCSP, SCR, and DSC multiple times, often citing overlapping sources. This section should be condensed and streamlined to highlight the unique contribution of this study. I recommend that the authors consider referencing the followin papers:

 

Ponomarov, S. Y., & Holcomb, M. C. (2009). Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience. The international journal of logistics management, 20(1), 124-143.

Tatarczak, A. (2024). Exploring the theoretical foundations of horizontal cooperative logistics enterprise relationships. Zeszyty Naukowe Szkoły Głównej Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego w Warszawie. Ekonomika i Organizacja Logistyki, 9(1), 123-138.

Tukamuhabwa, B. R., Stevenson, M., Busby, J., & Zorzini, M. (2015). Supply chain resilience: definition, review and theoretical foundations for further study. International journal of production research, 53(18), 5592-5623.

 

7. Although RBV, DCT, and ST are referenced, the integration is described in very general terms. The authors should make explicit how each theory directly informs the hypotheses. For instance: What unique insights does Stakeholder Theory add that RBV/DCT cannot provide?

 

8. The framework should clearly illustrate and explain the moderated mediation model. Currently, this is left vague.

 

9. The regression and PROCESS analyses are competently applied, but interpretation is sometimes overstated. For example, the claim that resilience guarantees sustainability is too strong given partial mediation results.

 

10. The discussion acknowledges limitations of diversification (e.g., increased emissions, monitoring challenges), but these are not fully integrated into managerial recommendations. Managers should be explicitly cautioned about these trade-offs.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing all my concerns.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept the paper after the corrections have been made.