Sustaining Infrastructure Firm Performance Through Strategic Orientation: Competitive Advantage in Dynamic Environments

1

Dear authors,

in the article "Sustaining Infrastructure Firm Performance Through Strategic 2 Orientation: Competitive Advantage in Dynamic Environments" you investigate an higly interesting topic, how key factors incluence the success of companies with regard to sustainability.

Author Response and Action:

We are grateful for your positive feedback on the relevance and significance of our research. Your acknowledgment of the study's topical relevance reinforces our commitment to advancing understanding in this domain.

2

The research method is described clearly and in detail, the results are presented in a comprehensive way; the performed statistical analysis is adequate and meaningful. Overall, this is a very well written article that may make a solid contribution for the further research you suggested.

Author Response and Action:

We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for their positive and encouraging feedback on the clarity of the research method, the comprehensiveness of the results, and the adequacy of the statistical analysis.

3

Yet, there are some minor points, that could be considered for further improvement:

1) In the article, you use abbreviations to such a high degree, that the text is hard to understand. This is especially due to the fact, that many different abbrevations are introduced at once and the full term is never repeated.

Author Response and Action:

Thank you for pointing out the issue regarding the overuse of abbreviations and the lack of repeated full terms, which may affect the readability of the text. We have revised the manuscript by reducing the frequency of abbreviations and ensuring that full terms are repeated periodically, especially when they are first introduced in each section. This adjustment aims to improve clarity and readability while maintaining the flow of the discussion. We hope this revision meets the reviewer's expectations and enhances the accessibility of the manuscript for readers.

4

2) In line 465 ff. you point out, that most of the found values fulfill the set boundary. An amending discussion about the meaning of those NOT keeping this treshold would be helpful.

Author Response and Action:

We thank Reviewer 1 for their constructive feedback regarding the discussion on discriminant validity Fornell-Larcker (FL) criterion and the suggestion to address values that do not meet or closely approach the threshold. Upon reflection, we recognize that the dimensions within each variable, while informative, are not the primary focus of our research. Therefore, we have simplified the discussion by removing the dimensions and focusing solely on the constructs relevant to our study's objectives.

We revised the discriminant validity Fornell-Larcker (FL) criterion section to remove the dimensions of each variable and focused exclusively on the main constructs (e.g., DE, FCA, SO, SFP).

5

3) In line 534 ff. you provide some statistics about the company owners, especially sex and educational level. From these data you conclude, that they are well educated. The phrasing of theses sentences is a little unfortunate, as it seems that male gender as such is an indicator of a high qualification.

Author Response and Action:

We appreciate Reviewer 1's observation regarding the phrasing of the text in line 534 and onward. We acknowledge the need to revise the sentence to avoid any unintended implication that male gender alone is an indicator of high qualification.

The sentence has been revised to avoid ambiguity and ensure clarity. The updated text now reads:

"Analysis of respondent characteristics indicates that 89.66% of firm owners are male. Furthermore, a significant portion of the respondents are well-educated, with 54.43% holding at least a bachelor’s degree and 24.26% attaining a master’s degree. This highlights a leadership base with strong educational qualifications, which likely fosters informed decision-making and strategic agility. Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) thrives in environments where leadership embraces innovation and calculated risk-taking, attributes often associated with higher educational attainment [99]."

6

Thank you very much in advance for considering these aspects and including some final improvements!

Author Response and Action:

We would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to Reviewer 1 for their constructive feedback and encouraging remarks. Your comments have been invaluable in guiding us to refine and improve the manuscript further.

1

Thank you for the opportunity to read this article. The article primarily investigates the relationship between corporate strategic orientation and sustainable business performance. As stated by the author, this study provides a more detailed answer to the relationship between the two than existing literature, addressing a research gap that the article aims to fill. This holds certain research significance and originality.

Author Response and Action:

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Reviewer 3 for their thoughtful comments and positive evaluation of our article. We appreciate your recognition of the research significance and originality of our work.

2

However, in the conclusion and discussion sections, the article merely describes and explains the findings, referencing some literature that supports the conclusions of this study. It does not provide an in-depth analysis of how the research findings differ from or supplement existing literature, or in which areas it contributes to the existing body of knowledge. This is an area that the author should focus on revising.

Author Response and Action:

Thank you for your valuable comment. We acknowledge the importance of providing an in-depth analysis that highlights how the research findings differ from or complement existing literature, as well as identifying specific contributions to the body of knowledge. In response to this, we have revised the Discussion section to include a detailed comparison between our findings and previous studies.

3

Methodologically, the author follows the general approach of structural equation modeling, which is relatively complete and standardized.

Author Response and Action:

We would like to thank Reviewer 3 for their comments on the methodological approach of our study. We appreciate the acknowledgment of the completeness and standardization of our structural equation modeling (SEM) approach

4

In terms of references, they are linked to the research questions of the article, but the author needs to pay attention to some minor formatting errors in the in-text citations (e.g., line 152).

Author Response and Action:

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We recognize the importance of maintaining accuracy and consistency in formatting references to ensure the manuscript adheres to scholarly standards. We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript to identify and correct any formatting issues in the in-text citations, including the specific instance on line 152. The in-text citation on line 152 has been corrected

5

The tables and figures within the text are clear and comprehensive, effectively reflecting the work done. However, I suggest that the author present the construction of each indicator in a tabular format, as this would be more reader-friendly.

Author Response and Action:

We appreciate the reviewer's valuable suggestion to improve the clarity and readability of the presented data. In response to this feedback, we have restructured Table 2 to present the construction of each indicator in a more detailed tabular format. Specifically, we have Explicitly listed each indicator under its corresponding construct to ensure that readers can easily identify the composition of each variable. Provided a clearer tabular representation of factor loadings (FL), Cronbach’s Alpha (CA), Composite Reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE), which enhances the accessibility and interpretability of the measurement model.

These adjustments ensure that Table 2 is more reader-friendly while maintaining the scientific rigor and comprehensiveness of our research findings. We believe this revision significantly improves the presentation of our results and aligns with the reviewer's insightful feedback.

6

Additionally, the author needs to carefully check the abbreviations throughout the article, as some abbreviations are not introduced at their first occurrence. There are also instances where certain terms are abbreviated multiple times within the text, rather than directly using the abbreviation after its first introduction (e.g., lines 112, 160).

Author Response and Action:

Thank you for highlighting the issues with abbreviations. We have reviewed the manuscript to ensure all abbreviations are introduced upon first occurrence and consistently used throughout the text. Instances where terms were unnecessarily abbreviated multiple times have been revised for clarity, using the full term or the abbreviation appropriately. These adjustments improve the readability and coherence of the article.

7

Finally, I congratulate the authors on completing their research.

Author Response and Action:

We are grateful for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work and for your insightful suggestions, which have significantly improved the quality and clarity of our manuscript. Thank you once again for your support and congratulations.

1

The paper “Sustaining Infrastructure Firm Performance Through Strategic Orientation: Competitive Advantage in Dynamic Environments” provides an interesting analysis of how strategic orientation affects sustainable firm performance through competitive advantage. The paper is presented in an engaging manner and provides several insights regarding the methods that prompted the findings. Please find below some recommendations to improve the readability and impact of the text.

Author Response and Action:

We sincerely thank Reviewer 3 for their positive evaluation of our paper, particularly for recognizing its engaging presentation and the valuable insights it provides. We appreciate your thoughtful recommendations to improve the manuscript's readability and impact.

2

In the abstract, please provide details on the specific timeframe during which the surveys were distributed and data collection was conducted. Similar clarifications are needed for the sampling description in subsection 3.1. 

Author Response and Action:

We thank Reviewer 3 for their valuable comments on providing additional details about the timeframe of the surveys in the abstract and further clarifications in the sampling description within subsection 3.1.

Action Taken:

We have revised the abstract to include the specific timeframe of data collection. The updated sentence now reads:

"Using data collected from 474 private companies affiliated with the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry between September to December 2024, and analyzed via Structural Equation Modeling with SmartPLS4, the findings demonstrate that Strategic Orientation significantly enhances Firm Competitive Advantage, which partially mediates its impact on Sustainable Firm Performance."

The following revisions were made to subsection 3.1:

We have specified the exact timeframe for data collection.

"The survey was conducted over a four-month period, from September to December 2024, targeting private companies from various sectors affiliated with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Indonesia (KADIN)."

These revisions align with Reviewer 3's request for additional details and improve the clarity of both the abstract and the sampling methodology section. Thabk you for highlighting this important aspect, which has enhanced the transparency and rigor of our manuscript.

3

The introduction gathers several previous examples of relevant studies. The authors should better highlight what differentiates this particular study from previous research.

Author Response and Action:

Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response, we have revised the introduction to better emphasize what differentiates this study from previous research. The additional content, highlighted in blue for clarity, elaborates on the unique contextual focus of this research, particularly its application to private firms in Indonesia’s infrastructure sector within the framework of "Indonesia Emas 2045." It also underscores how this study integrates strategic orientation, firm competitive advantage, and sustainable firm performance in a dynamic environment, addressing gaps in the existing literature. We hope this revision satisfactorily addresses the reviewer’s suggestion.

4

Although the acronyms (SO, EO, MO, FCA, etc.) are explained upon their first use, I recommend reiterating their full forms and significance, especially in section headings, subheadings, and table captions. This will help readers clearly understand terms like “the relationship between SO and FCA,” which might otherwise be confusing or difficult to follow.

Author Response and Action:

Thank you for the suggestion regarding the reiteration of acronyms. We have revised the manuscript by reintroducing the full forms of key acronyms (e.g., SO: Strategic Orientation, EO: Entrepreneurial Orientation, MO: Market Orientation, FCA: Firm Competitive Advantage) in section headings, subheadings, and table captions where relevant. This ensures that terms such as “the relationship between SO and FCA” are clear and easily understood by readers, enhancing the overall readability and comprehension of the manuscript. We appreciate this valuable feedback, which has helped improve the clarity of the article.

5

Provide a clearer justification for selecting the SmartPLS software and how it is particularly suited to the study’s analytical needs.

Author Response and Action:

Thank you for highlighting the need to elaborate on the rationale for selecting SmartPLS software. We chose SmartPLS due to its strengths in handling complex models and small to medium sample sizes, as well as its ability to assess both reflective and formative measurement models.

6

Lines 86–87 indicate that market orientation (MO) is a component of strategic orientation (SO). Why, then, were these variables analyzed separately? The results in Tables 3 and 4 also point to potential multicollinearity between these variables. Please clarify the rationale for including both MO and SO in the analysis, along with how these variables are interpreted. Similarly, additional clarification is needed for the relationships between SFP and ECP, AFP and ENP, and SO and OL.

Author Response and Action:

Thank you for raising this important point. Upon reviewing our research focus, we realize that the inclusion of dimensions such as MO, OL, and other subcomponents of SO has introduced complexity that is not central to the objectives of our study. Our primary aim is to analyze the overarching constructs (e.g., SO, SFP, FCA) rather than the individual dimensions within these variables. Including dimensions like MO and OL as separate constructs may have led to potential multicollinearity and misalignment with the scope of the study.

To address this, we have decided to remove the dimensions of each variable from the analysis, as they are not the primary focus of our research. This adjustment ensures that our analysis is streamlined and aligns with our central research questions. Additionally, by focusing solely on the main constructs, we eliminate concerns regarding potential multicollinearity and provide a clearer interpretation of the relationships among the variables.

Action Taken:

We have revised the manuscript to exclude the dimensions (e.g., MO, OL, ECP, ENP, AFP) from the analysis. The focus is now solely on the main constructs (e.g., SO, SFP, FCA, DE).

Tables 3 and 4 have been updated to reflect the removal of dimensions, ensuring consistency throughout the manuscript. The revised tables now present only the core constructs, which simplifies the results and eliminates potential multicollinearity issues.

7

The authors should restate the meaning of the used variables just under Tables 2-3, to help the reader better follow the research flow.

Author Response and Action:

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to enhance the clarity and readability of our research by restating the meaning of the variables used in the study. We have provided a concise explanation of each variable, including Strategic Orientation (SO), Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO), Market Orientation (MO), Organizational Learning (OL), Firm Competitive Advantage (FCA), Dynamic Environment (DE), and Sustainable Firm Performance (SFP).

This explanation clarifies the role of each construct within the research framework, ensuring that readers can easily interpret the results presented in Table 2.

Clarification of Constructs Below Table 3, to further support the research flow, we have explicitly described how the Fornell-Larcker criterion results confirm the discriminant validity of each construct. We have restated the conceptual distinction between DE, FCA, SO, and SFP, emphasizing their theoretical relevance and empirical differentiation.

These modifications align with the reviewer's request, ensuring that the meaning of the variables is clearly stated and directly accessible to readers within the results section. We believe these adjustments significantly improve the comprehensibility of our findings. Thank you for your insightful recommendation, which has contributed to the overall quality of our manuscript.

8

The text under Figure 2 simply states the results between variables. Brief economic meanings for these results should be offered. The same recommendation stands for tables 2 and 3.

Author Response and Action:

Thank you for the suggestion regarding the need to provide brief economic meanings for the results presented in Figure 2, as well as in Tables 2 and 3. We have revised the manuscript by adding concise economic interpretations under Figure 2 and in the sections discussing Tables 2 and 3, which are now highlighted in blue for clarity. These revisions include explanations of how the strong factor loadings, reliability, and validity results reflect the economic significance of Strategic Orientation (SO), Firm Competitive Advantage (FCA), and Sustainable Firm Performance (SFP), particularly for private firms under KADIN. The added interpretations emphasize the ability of these firms to adapt to external market dynamics and align their strategies with Indonesia’s infrastructure development goals and the vision of Indonesia Emas 2045.

9

In the conclusions section, the full title of variables should be offered.

Author Response and Action:

We thank Reviewer 3 for their valuable suggestion regarding the full titles of variables in the Conclusions section. We appreciate your feedback, as it enhances the clarity and readability of the manuscript. We agree that including the full titles of variables in the Conclusions section will make the manuscript more reader-friendly, especially for audiences who may not be familiar with the abbreviations. Thank you for pointing this out. The Conclusions section has been revised to include the full titles of the variables alongside their abbreviations upon their first mention.

10

Inserting the full survey as an appendix to this study would significantly improve its impact and research interest.

Author Response and Action:

We appreciate the reviewer's valuable suggestion to improve the clarity and readability of the presented data. In response to this feedback, we have restructured Table 2 to present the construction of each indicator in a more detailed tabular format. Specifically, we have Explicitly listed each indicator under its corresponding construct to ensure that readers can easily identify the composition of each variable. Provided a clearer tabular representation of factor loadings (FL), Cronbach’s Alpha (CA), Composite Reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE), which enhances the accessibility and interpretability of the measurement model. These adjustments ensure that Table 2 is more reader-friendly while maintaining the scientific rigor and comprehensiveness of our research findings. We believe this revision significantly improves the presentation of our results and aligns with the reviewer's insightful feedback