The Comparative Impact of Conventional and Digital Innovations on Driving Corporate Sustainability: The Case of Venture Firms in South Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe abstract might explain what the authors mean by sustainability, as this was not clear until one got into the paper and even in the introduction this was not really defined.
The definition of venture firms also is not explained, and readers need to understand what types of firms are being discussed.
The paper sounds interesting from the abstract, but the authors need to better explain exactly what issues they are examining. There could be some links between the theory discussed the introduction as the two parts seem rather disjoint. The first part talk about innovation, whereas the theory on dynamic capabilities was not really discussed.
The role of TAM also is not clear as the paper looking at what encourages technology innovation, or how technology innovation impacts on sustainability (however defined). It is unclear how TAM relates to firm strategies and the extent that TAM and general innovation adoption are different.
The section on conventional innovation really does not discuss sustainability and there needs to be more integration of the work in this area.
Is digital innovation a separate thing or a way to bring about innovation. The definition suggest it is a tool for innovation, but not a separate type of innovation. “Digital innovation refers to the process of transforming existing products, services, or business models using digital technology.” As many products innovations process require digital tools to assist with them. There is also NO mention of sustainability and digital innovation and in many cases, this has substantial benefits.
The discussion of the hypotheses seems to ve focusing on economic sustainability and not environmental sustainability and thus I would not think it is well targeted at this journal. This would have been clarified if they defined sustainability in the introduction.
They also do not define venture firms as of year and thus are these different to other types of firms and if so, how?
H3 seems to focus on the firms’ products rather than to underlying capabilities. Thus, it seems to suggest that products related to Industry 4.0 are inherently more profitable, whereas might it be whether 4.0 is more integral to the overall capabilities? The way it is stated is that then not technology focused firms will automatically fail.
The model presented in figure 1 seems to suggest that all these factors are independent, whereas the digital model and use of technology could be highly correlated. I am not sure why they suggest the model this way?
Even in the data section they do not clearly defined venture firms, as it sounds as if these are new startups. That is fine, as many start ups fail and thus understanding how to reduce this is important.
I am not sure if Size is the number of people or value or something else?
The measure of sustainability is a single question, and it is unclear what this means? Do they think the firm will last a year 5 years or 10 years. This is a major weakness. Many of the questions are single items and in other cases they are 2 items (which are problematic when calculating Alphas).
I can not see all of table 8 as it is in portrait mode.
In regard to the database, I was surprised that t sample includes companies with an average age of 14.13 years and a std of 8.24 years. Thus, we might need a better explanation of the data set earlier on.
I am unclear as to why you ran model 2 and 3 each with additional constructs. I think I understand why but this needs more explanation.
It does seem that the digital innovation is a Key issue, and conventional technology also is important, with Industry 4.0 related good and conventional capabilities not important? I am surprised that conventional capabilities is negative in model 2?
None of the controls are listed as significant and thus these don’t need discussing. I am thus unclear why this is focused on the discussion?
Might the results on conventional capabilities be suggesting that these are less important? With technology overcoming any limitations in this domain? It could also be that the firms are specialising in specific areas, requiring these less.
The explanation of Industry 4.0 is also unclear as this was more about the goods rather than the firms themselves. Thus, it is the digital skills rather than the product characterises that are important.
I am not sure that the results show these firms manage resources better, as the outcome variable is very vague.
There are NO refences to this journal!
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper entitled “The Comparative Impact of Conventional and Digital Innovations on Driving Corporate Sustainability: The Case of Venture Firms in South Korea” to identify the factors that play an important role in the sustainability of venture firms and in particular, to demonstrate which factor has a more positive effect between conventional innovation and digital innovation, which is recently considered crucial.
The paper is structured according academic standards: introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. Literature review is extended and provides necessary information for the research background. The findings reinforce the critical role of digital innovation in ensuring long-term sustainability.
The data source is the dataset, known as the 2022 New Venture Survey Database; it includes 268 a total of 3,000 Korean ventures. This impressive number provides credibility to the statistical findings, and the use of regression analysis provides clear evidence of the impact of different types of innovation on sustainability.
The research has some limitations. One of them is the concern about homogeneity of companies in the dataset. Those companies may be too diverse in different contexts which may influence the results. Also, it could provide a more detailed discussion on generalizability beyond South Korea.
Overall, the research contributes to corporate sustainability and innovation, particularly in the context of venture firms.
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn general, the study tend to identify the factors that play an important role in the sustainability of venture firms. Posed a general Q1, which factor has a more positive effect between conventional innovation and digital innovation considered crucial?
Line 5-14, kindly nominate the digital innovations which had stronger impact in the abstract. Also, emphasizing the Dynamic capability and technology acceptance.
Line 31-32, Which authors are treating conventional / digital innovations separately?
Line 41, Your research question 1 attracts Yes or No answer. Probably need reframing. Maybe "How does conventional corporate capabilities and technology affect corporate sustainability". Be careful with unanswered research question, for you already have a General Research question which was mentioned in the first paragraph of my comments.
Line 59, Do you mean sensing ability or sensing capability?
Line 92 and Line 97, There seems to be repetitions in these lines. Kindly revise.
Line 272, Instead referring to appendix please mention the Cronbach's alpha value for internal consistency here and detail could be referred to appendix.
Line 275 - 282, Draw more upon the results of the descriptive statistics. Your analysis here seems too sucint needing additional explanations.
Line 354, In order to buttress the contributions of this study you will need to insert a section of DISCUSSION here. This will enable the authors to stress on the findings and triangulating the research questions.
As a whole have you proved that this study has contributed to theory, practice and to discussions surrounding venture firms?
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is much clearer and identifies this is about financial sustainability. I have no issue with this, I am just not sure it fits this journal.
They did try and make some links to environmental sustainability and these are ok, but I would suggest these be removed as these are not focal to the paper and there is no real support for any environmental (i.e., green) focus or changes in the paper.
The references to Sustainability papers really do not fit the focus of this work and given all the non-environmental sustainability focus. I leave it to the editors to see if this fits this journal.,
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAcceptable
