Understanding Innovation and Sustainability in Digital Organizations: A Mixed-Method Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report

Understanding innovation and sustainability in digital organizations: A mixed-method approach

Sabrina Schork , Dilan Özdemir-Kaluk  and Cudi Zerey

 

This article review discussed three gaps through a systematic literature review (SLR), incorporating both quantitative and qualitative analysis. This is done through a broad bibliometric analysis of all articles   between 2010 and 2023 in the Scopus database that contain the three core terms digital, innovation, and sustainability or sustainable (N=3,099) and an in-depth qualitative analysis of 20 articles categorized as at least VHB -JOURQUAL-C-ranked. Using an inductive-deductive approach, the authors identify clear, distinct, and contradictory definitions, diverse constructs per DIS-concept, and multiple positive DIS-effects in organizations. The authors provide overviews of existing DIS-definitions and use a model to differentiate between the environmental, organizational and solution levels. They also provide a visual overview of the direct and mediated positive effects of DIS in organizations underlining the importance of digital transformation for the promotion of innovation and sustainability in organizations.

1.       In the Abstract: Interest in digital transformation (D) has surged in recent years, with organizations increasingly focusing on it to foster innovation (I) and promote sustainability (S).. "" there are two endpoint at the statement"" Due to the significant increase in studies since 2019, the overview of the delimitation of the definitions.

2.       Replace AIS to DIS (Digital, Innovation, and Sustainable OR Sustainability) in the abstract at the first time.

3.       In lines 56 and 58  […] Both ‘environmental  innovation’ and ‘eco-innovation’ can be listed as innovations in which the focus is on ecological sustainability. […] ‘eco-innovation’ [can be defined] as ‘innovation that improves   environmental performance’. In contrast to these three terms (green innovation, environ. What is the concept in the two […] at the beginning of these two statements.

4.        The paper suffers from language problems. The paper should be proofread by a native speaker or a proofreading agent.

5.       Review the formatting and punctuations overall the paper.

6.       The article has typographical problems, such as Figures 7 to 9 are not clear.

7.       The reference list does not cover the relevant literature adequately. There are too few references, please add.

For the above reasons, I recommend the Major for this manuscript.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1.       The paper suffers from language problems. The paper should be proofread by a native speaker or a proofreading agent.

Author Response

Reviewer	Comments	Status	Changes
1.1	In the Abstract: Interest in digital transformation (D) has surged in recent years, with organizations increasingly focusing on it to foster innovation (I) and promote sustainability (S).. "" there are two endpoint at the statement"" Due to the significant increase in studies since 2019, the overview of the delimitation of the definitions.	Accepted	The superfluous end point has been removed.   (page 1)
1.2	Replace AIS to DIS (Digital, Innovation, and Sustainable OR Sustainability) in the abstract at the first time.	Accepted	We could not find AIS in our manuscript.
1.3	In lines 56 and 58  […] Both ‘environmental  innovation’ and ‘eco-innovation’ can be listed as innovations in which the focus is on ecological sustainability. […] ‘eco-innovation’ [can be defined] as ‘innovation that improves   environmental performance’. In contrast to these three terms (green innovation, environ. What is the concept in the two […] at the beginning of these two statements.	Accepted	Both ‘environmental innovation’ and ‘eco-innovation’ can be listed as innovations in which the focus is on ecological sustainability […] that improve environmental performance’.    (page 2)
1.4	The paper suffers from language problems. The paper should be proofread by a native speaker or a proofreading agent.	Accepted	We involved the MDPI professional English editing services (see certificate).
1.5	Review the formatting and punctuations overall the paper.	Accepted	We involved the MDPI professional English editing services (see certificate).
1.6	The article has typographical problems, such as Figures 7 to 9 are not clear.	Accepted	Figures were simplified and the explanations specified for a layperson.   (page 17, 18)
1.7	The reference list does not cover the relevant literature adequately. There are too few references, please add.	Accepted	We have included a list of all the entries analyzed that were selected in filter 3 (title fit). We have made the exclusion process transparent with a new figure 3.   (page 4, 24)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work, of reasonable complexity, reveals a lot of rigor, seriousness and reflexivity regarding its limitations. It has many potentialities, from a scientific and empirical point of view (for organizations). 

The only item that, in my reading, deserves to be reviewed refers to the option for VHB-Journal applied in filter 4.

I understand that this is an acceptable option, but it should be defended/legitimized by the authors, in a few lines. It is legitimate to ask: why not opt ​​for ISI Journal Citation Reports or ISI Web o Knowledge?

Author Response

Reviewer	Comments	Status	Changes
2.1	The only item that, in my reading, deserves to be reviewed refers to the option for VHB-Journal applied in filter 4.   I understand that this is an acceptable option, but it should be defended/legitimized by the authors, in a few lines. It is legitimate to ask: why not opt ​​for ISI Journal Citation Reports or ISI Web o Knowledge?	Accepted	The VHB Rating is a rating of business journals based on the opinions of members of the German Association of University Professors of Business Administration (VHB). It is divided into 18 subject-specific sub-ratings. The VHB is the leading academic association for business studies in German-speaking countries. As we are based here, we decided to use this ranking.   (page 2)

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article examines the intersection of digital transformation (D), innovation (I), and sustainability (S) through a systematic literature review (SLR). Using a mixed-method approach, the authors address gaps in definitions, operationalization, and the positive effects of DIS on organizations.

The strengths of this article lie in its holistic approach and structured methodology. The use of both bibliometric and inductive-deductive qualitative analyses enhances the depth and reliability of the findings. Notably, the three-level DIS model (environmental, organizational, and solution levels) and the visualization of positive DIS effects offer practical tools for understanding the integration of these concepts. However, the overreliance on SLR introduces biases, such as dependence on predefined keywords, potentially excluding relevant studies.

The study highlights the central role of digital transformation, with most positive effects originating from digital constructs. This suggests that digitalization is a primary enabler for innovation and sustainability. However, the results section occasionally presents findings in overly general terms, often as single-sentence paragraphs, limiting their interpretability and practical application.

In my opinion, the artice require some improvements:

1. Provide greater depth in the Results section by expanding single-sentence findings into richer analyses supported by examples or case studies.
2. Elaborate on why digital constructs are so influential and explore their mechanisms of impact.
3. Address the geographical variability of DIS effects, as results may differ across countries or industries.
4. The authors emphasize the importance of a systematic literature review (SLR) as an analytical approach that integrates both qualitative and quantitative methods (check line 78, which term is correct).

Overall, while the article advances theoretical and practical understanding of DIS concepts, its impact could be enhanced by addressing these areas and providing clearer, actionable insights.

Author Response

Reviewer	Comments	Status	Changes
3.1	Provide greater depth in the Results section by expanding single-sentence findings into richer analyses supported by examples or case studies.	Accepted	We added a section on overlaps and contradictions.   (page 13)   As well, we added a section “implications for organizations” in the discussion.   (page 20)
3.2	Elaborate on why digital constructs are so influential and explore their mechanisms of impact.	Accepted	See our comprehensive elaboration on page 20, below Figure 6.   (page 20)
3.3	Address the geographical variability of DIS effects, as results may differ across countries or industries.	Accepted	We added the geographical variability in limitations.   (page 20)
3.4	The authors emphasize the importance of a systematic literature review (SLR) as an analytical approach that integrates both qualitative and quantitative methods (check line 78, which term is correct).	Accepted	The correct term is systematic literature review (SLR).   (page 2)

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study provides a comprehensive and scientifically rigorous analysis of the intersection between digital transformation (DT), innovation (I), and sustainability (S). It effectively addresses important gaps in the literature and offers valuable insights for both academia and practice. The methodology is sound, and the findings are relevant and well-supported by the data.

However, there are a few areas that could be improved to enhance clarity, accessibility, and practical applicability, including:

• Clarifying and providing examples for the overlapping and contradictory definitions of DIS concepts.
• Expanding the qualitative analysis to include a broader set of studies.
• Providing more concrete, actionable recommendations for organizations looking to apply the findings.
• Simplifying models and visualizations for easier comprehension.

Once these minor revisions are made, the paper would be in a strong position for publication, as it presents a valuable contribution to the field.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer	Comments	Status	Changes
4.1	Clarifying and providing examples for the overlapping and contradictory definitions of DIS concepts.	Accepted	We added a section on overlaps and contradictions.   (page 13)
4.2	Expanding the qualitative analysis to include a broader set of studies.	Accepted	In our paper, we worked with 3,099 posts, of which 112 achieved the title ‘Fit’. Since these formed the basis for an inductive-deductive analysis and were therefore examined in more detail, we have included these sources in the bibliography. The 3,099 posts can be viewed in Excel, see: https://zenodo.org/records/13907820.   (page 4, 24)
4.3	Providing more concrete, actionable recommendations for organizations looking to apply the findings.	Accepted	We included implications for organizations:   It is recommended that organizations use the three-stage DIS Model (see Figure 5) as a strategic tool to analyze and improve their management and leadership practices.   While the potential benefits of combining digitalization, innovation, and sustainability are promising, organizations should carefully assess these advantages individually. Different national markets may produce varying results, so a cautious, case-by-case approach can help avoid broad generalizations and ensure that strategies suit each unique setting well.   Key steps include:  Applying advanced analytics to gain insights and improve decision-making  Encouraging leadership that values adaptability and innovation  Integrating environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles to achieve both sustainability and a competitive edge  Developing a clear roadmap that applies DIS concepts for continuous improvement  Strengthening an organization’s capacity for sustainable innovation by tailoring approaches at the environmental, organizational, and solution levels    By following these recommendations, organizations can more effectively harness the power of digitalization, innovation, and sustainability to thrive in a constantly changing world.   (page 20)
4.4	Simplifying models and visualizations for easier comprehension.	Accepted	Visualization 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 were adapted and simplified.   (page 4, 8, 9, 17)

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This paper introduces a careful reflection on the development of digital innovation with particular attention to the topic of sustainability. In the introduction the main concepts are clearly exposed with adequate use of the sector literature. The topic is not completely novel, but the research methods are scientifically correct, contributing to a good understanding of the complex mechanisms underlying the formation of Digital Transformation, Innovation and Sustainability.
Here my review comments:

1. Introduction: the paper provides a good explanation of the main concepts and how the authors selected the materials in the general corpus of data (Scopus Database).

2. Materials and Methods: The research questions are clearly stated and the process of material selection is correct, but the theoretical and practical significance of the study, as well as its unique contributions compared to existing research, could be further clarified.

3. Results: We note the repetitions of some categorical labels that should be motivated or grouped for example: social performance, sustainable performance, sustainable digital innovation.

4. Discussion: if it is true that the study denotes the positive influence of the integration of the three elements studied in organizations, it should also be reiterated that the number of articles examined allows us to support this thesis. Other elements must also be specified which do not favour the development of organizations and which are not only due to the poor integration of the three elements considered.

5. Limitations: the authors propose some obvious limitations of the present study. Some critical findings that have not been explored in depth should be mentioned in order to allow future exploration of the topic.

6. Future directions: This section summarizes the main findings but lacks a clear statement of the study's significance and innovative aspects. Emphasize the theoretical and practical contributions of the paper.

Finally, there are some typos that are reported in the attached file

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer	Comments	Status	Changes
5.1	Materials and Methods: The research questions are clearly stated, and the process of material selection is correct, but the theoretical and practical significance of the study, as well as its unique contributions compared to existing research, could be further clarified	Accepted	See explanations added on page 5-6 (cases), 13 (definitions overlaps and contradictions), 20 (explanation Figure 6), 20 (implications for organizations).
5.2	Results: We note the repetitions of some categorical labels that should be motivated or grouped for example: social performance, sustainable performance, sustainable digital innovation.	Not accepted	Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and suggestion regarding clustering the DIS constructs. Our contribution is specifically designed to highlight the diverse definitions, operationalizations, and positive effects of these constructs without diminishing their complexity or richness. We believe that grouping them into clusters could inadvertently oversimplify their diversity and nuances. Instead, we have chosen to emphasize the intersections and contradictions between the constructs, which we feel provides a more comprehensive and balanced understanding. This approach is elaborated in the discussion sections on pages 6ff and 13ff, where these nuances are addressed in detail. We hope this explanation clarifies our perspective and demonstrates why we believe this approach adds greater value to the discourse.
5.3	Discussion: if it is true that the study denotes the positive influence of the integration of the three elements studied in organizations, it should also be reiterated that the number of articles examined allows us to support this thesis. Other elements must also be specified which do not favour the development of organizations and which are not only due to the poor integration of the three elements considered.	Accepted	See limitations section.   (page 20-21)
5.4	Limitations: the authors propose some obvious limitations of the present study. Some critical findings that have not been explored in depth should be mentioned in order to allow future exploration of the topic.	Accepted	See limitations section.   (page 20-21)
5.5	Future directions: This section summarizes the main findings but lacks a clear statement of the study's significance and innovative aspects. Emphasize the theoretical and practical contributions of the paper.	Accepted	We have added several sections: The unique contribution is adapted in conclusion section. In section future directions we modified the theoretical and practical contributions of the paper.   (page 21)
5.6	Finally, there are some typos that are reported in the attached file	Accepted	We involved the MDPI professional English editing services.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made all the recommended comments, so the paper is ready for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which have led to an improvement of our paper