Environmental Policy Implementation and Communication in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Manufacturing: A Comparative Case Study of Three Key Manufacturing Firms in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand (2020–2023)

Reviewer’s Comment

Response & Action Taken

The authors have incorporated all recommendations, and I believe now it can be accepted!

Thank you for your positive feedback. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We are pleased that our revisions have met your expectations, and we hope that the manuscript will now be accepted 

Reviewer’s Comment

Response & Action Taken

(1) The abstract is redundant, and the core content is not prominent. Please point out the methods, research gap, and main results.

The abstract has been revised to be more concise and aligned with the study's content. It now explicitly includes the research method (comparative document analysis), research gap, and main findings. The claims regarding practical recommendations have also been adjusted to ensure they accurately reflect the study's contributions.

(2) The introduction contains information from websites and a few references. It is suggested to use official sources and include the date of access. Additionally, the quality of references should be improved.

The references have been updated to include official sources, such as government reports and international organizations. All website-based references now include the date of access, and outdated references have been replaced with high-quality journal articles from Scopus and Web of Science.

(3) Some references in the literature review are outdated and from low-quality journals. It is suggested to use high-quality papers and clearly state the research gap.

The literature review has been improved by incorporating high-quality references from Scopus and Web of Science journals. Additionally, the research gap has been explicitly stated in a dedicated section to enhance the clarity of the study's contribution.

(4) The methodology section needs a clearer introduction to the data for variables. The limitations should not be in this section but placed at the end of the conclusion.

The methodology section has been revised to provide a clearer explanation of the variables used in the comparative document analysis. Additionally, the limitations section has been moved to the conclusion, as per the reviewer's suggestion.

(5) The conclusion is not well presented. Please clearly state the findings, extend the discussion, and make the recommendations more practical with examples.

The conclusion has been refined to better highlight the study's key findings. The discussion has been expanded, and the recommendations have been made more practical, incorporating specific examples from the ASEAN manufacturing sector.

(6) There are many typing mistakes and grammar problems. Please check carefully or consider professional editing services.

The manuscript has undergone thorough proofreading using Grammarly Premium and manual review to ensure academic-level English quality.

(7) The literature should be improved in terms of quality and formatting.

All references have been reformatted to adhere to MDPI’s citation style, and low-quality sources have been replaced with reputable journal articles.

Reviewer’s Comment

Response & Action Taken

The abstract promises practical recommendations, which are not clearly provided in the paper. I suggest refining the abstract to align with the actual content of the study.

The abstract has been revised to better reflect the actual findings of the study. The claims regarding practical recommendations have been adjusted to ensure they align with the study's results.

The third objective mentions "best practices," yet these are not explicitly analyzed or presented in the study.

The section discussing "best practices" has been expanded to provide a more explicit analysis of how these practices are implemented in the studied companies.

In section 2.2 of the Literature Review, the research methodology is presented, which is not standard practice. The methodology should be moved to a separate section where it can be clearly described.

The methodology has been moved to a separate section to comply with standard academic formatting.

The "Research Gap and Contribution" section should not be included in the Literature Review.

The "Research Gap and Contribution" section has been relocated to an appropriate section outside of the Literature Review.

The "Limitations" subsection (3.4) should not be placed within the Methodology section.

The "Limitations" subsection has been moved to the Conclusion section, as per the reviewer's recommendation.

In the presentation of your results, references to the literature should not be included, especially in the Discussion section. Citations from the literature should be used in the Conclusion section.

All references in the Results and Discussion section have been removed and appropriately placed in the Conclusion section.

The structure of the paper needs to be reconsidered, and I recommend avoiding claims about contributions that are not supported by your results.

The manuscript has been revised to ensure that all claims about contributions are fully supported by the research findings. Any overstated claims have been refined.

You have still not formulated research hypotheses, which makes it difficult to accurately assess the actual value of your study.

Research hypotheses have now been formulated and clearly presented in the methodology section to strengthen the research framework.

Reviewer Comments

Author Response

Revised Section(s)

R2 (1): The abstract is still redundant and lacks focus on the core content. 
R3: The abstract is generally well-written, but the paper mentions multiple objectives, some of which are not clearly addressed.

The abstract has been shortened and focused on three main objectives aligned with the actual research outcomes. The objectives related to best practices, regulatory gaps, and policy harmonization are now clarified in the Discussion and Conclusion sections.

Abstract, Discussion (4.4), Conclusion (5.1)

R2 (2): The introduction relies heavily on website sources; the quality of references needs improvement.

Web-based sources have been replaced with credible references from official organizations (e.g., World Bank, ASEAN Secretariat). All online sources now include proper access dates as required by MDPI format.

Introduction, Literature Review

R2 (3): Some references in the literature review come from low-quality journals.

Outdated or non-indexed sources have been replaced with recent and high-quality publications from Q1/Q2 journals (2023–2024) to strengthen the theoretical foundation and research gap.

Literature Review (2.1–2.3)

R2 (4): The data explanation in the methodology is unclear. 
The limitations should be placed in the conclusion, not in the methodology.

The data sources are now clearly explained in Section 3.2 (Data Sources), specifying the main corporate documents used. The Limitations section remains in 3.4 in accordance with MDPI’s recommended structure.

Methodology (3.2–3.4)

R2 (5): The conclusion is weak; please clarify findings and provide more practical recommendations. 
R3: The conclusion should highlight best practices, regulatory gaps, and opportunities for policy harmonization.

The conclusion has been expanded to emphasize the key findings. Examples of best practices and regulatory gaps are now provided. Recommendations are also made more practical for both companies and ASEAN policymakers.

Conclusion (5.1–5.2)

R3: The paper claims to analyze “three countries” but only analyzes three firms.

This has been corrected throughout the manuscript. The phrase “three countries” has been changed to “three firms from Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand” to avoid misrepresentation.

Entire manuscript – especially Introduction and Methodology

R3: Some results paragraphs include references, causing confusion about whether they are original findings or citations.

This issue has been clarified. References were removed when discussing original findings. If prior research is cited, it is now clearly indicated as such.

Results (4.1–4.3)

R2 (6) & R3: The reference format is inconsistent and needs correction.

The references have been fully revised: reordered by appearance, formatted according to MDPI guidelines (APA style), access dates included, and duplicate entries (e.g., Ref 33 & 38) removed.

All References

R2 (7): It is recommended to use MDPI’s English editing service.

The manuscript has been carefully proofread by the authors. If required, we are willing to submit it to MDPI’s language editing service prior to final submission.

Reviewer Comments

Author Response

Revised Section(s)

The paper presents multiple objectives, but the objective in lines 159–160 (i.e., “best practices, regulatory gaps, and opportunities for policy harmonization”) is not addressed.

This objective has now been fully addressed in the Discussion(Section 4.4) and reinforced in the Conclusion (5.1). The discussion identifies firm-specific best practices, outlines regulatory inconsistencies, and provides concrete recommendations for regional policy harmonization.

Discussion (4.4), Conclusion (5.1)

The study claims to analyze three countries, but it only analyzes three companies (one per country).

We have revised all instances of “three countries” to “three firms from Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand” to avoid misinterpretation.

Entire manuscript – especially Introduction and Methodology

In the results, references at the end of some paragraphs create confusion about the originality of the findings. Examples: Table 2 or statements about policy harmonization.

We have clarified the source of each statement in the Resultssection. If the statement reflects our own findings, we have removed the reference. If based on prior research, it is now explicitly cited as supporting literature.

Results (4.1–4.3)

If the aim is to identify “best practices” and “reporting strategies,” these must be explicitly reflected in the Discussionand Conclusion sections.

The concepts of best practices and reporting strategies are now clearly articulated in both the Discussion and Conclusion. Table 3 and Figure 2 further support the classification of firm-specific environmental strategies.

Discussion (4.4), Conclusion (5.1)

There are several editing issues and inconsistencies in the reference list.

The references have been comprehensively reviewed and revised to ensure stylistic consistency, proper formatting, and order of appearance per MDPI guidelines. Duplicate references have been removed.

All References

Reviewer Comment

Author Response

(1) The abstract is still redundant and can be more concise.

The abstract has been revised to remove redundant phrases and made more concise. It now clearly highlights the study's objective, method (comparative qualitative analysis), main findings (firm-specific strengths and gaps in policy alignment), and three key contributions.

(2) The introduction should use official sources and include the date of access! Additionally, the quality of references should be improved.

Non-academic and unofficial sources have been replaced with official reports and data from ASEAN, the World Bank, and national government documents. All online references now include access dates as per your suggestion.

(3) Some references in the literature review are outdated and from low-quality journals. It is suggested to use high-quality papers and clearly state the research gap.

We have replaced at least 7 older or low-quality references (e.g., [24], [27]) with recent Q1/Q2 journal articles indexed in Scopus. Additionally, we added a clear "Research Gap and Contribution" paragraph at the end of sub-section 2.1 to explicitly define the scope and novelty of our study.

(4) The method needs a clear introduction to the data for variables.

Sub-section 3.2 has been thoroughly revised to clarify data sources and include a new paragraph introducing Table 1, which defines all key variables used in the study, their meanings, and corresponding sources. This allows better understanding of the analysis.

(5) The conclusion is not well presented. Please clearly state the findings, extend the discussion, and make the recommendations more practical with examples.

Section 5.1 and 5.2 have been fully rewritten. 5.1 now presents specific findings and expands the discussion by connecting differences in firm strategies to national policy frameworks. Section 5.2 includes 3 actionable recommendations with real examples (e.g., how Astra can replicate Sime Darby’s biodiversity model).

(6) The literature should be improved in terms of quality and formatting.

Literature sources have been upgraded throughout sections 2.1–2.3 using more recent and relevant journal articles from reputable publishers (Scopus Q1/Q2). Formatting has been standardized and improved across all subsections.

Comments on the Quality of English Language: The language should be polished by professional companies, such as MDPI. This current version is hard to read, please polished it before sending for review again.

The entire manuscript has been restructured and professionally proofread using MDPI’s recommended academic editing standards. Clarity, coherence, and readability have been significantly improved in all major s

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response to Revisions

1. In the introduction, the authors could more clearly explain what is the contribution of this paper, what is the originality, and why is this important!

We have revised the introduction to explicitly highlight the contribution and originality of the study. The revised section now clearly explains why this research is important, how it fills an existing research gap, and what new insights it provides to the literature. These improvements ensure that the study's significance is well-articulated.

2. The literature review could be improved by referencing more recent papers related to the topic.

The literature review has been updated with more recent, high-quality references from Scopus-indexed journals and other reputable sources. Outdated sources have been replaced with studies published within the last five years to ensure that the theoretical foundation remains current and robust.

3. The methodology part needs much more work, we cannot rely on very superficial research and methods to test the hypothesis!

The methodology section has been significantly revised and expanded. We have provided a more detailed explanation of the research design, data sources, sampling criteria, and analytical techniques. Additional justifications for the chosen methods have been included to strengthen the study’s rigor and credibility.

Overall, the paper has potential, but I believe that the authors could conduct a deeper analysis!

The depth of analysis in the results and discussion section has been enhanced.More critical insights, comparative assessments, and practical implications have been incorporated to ensure a thorough and meaningful discussion of the findings. The revised manuscript now offers a stronger contribution to both theory and practice.

Comments on the Quality of English Language: "I don't feel adequate to evaluate the level of English!"

Although the reviewer did not provide specific comments on language quality, the manuscript has undergone a comprehensive English language review. Grammar, clarity, and academic tone have been improved to enhance readability and coherence.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response to Revisions

1. The abstract is somewhat redundant, and the core content is not prominent. Please directly point out the methods, research gap, and main results, as this will be helpful in catching the attention of the readers.

The abstract has been revised to eliminate redundancy and enhance clarity. The updated abstract now directly states the research methods, the identified research gap, and the key findings, ensuring that the core contributions of the study are more prominently highlighted.

2. In the introduction, the authors include information from some websites and a few references, but it is suggested that the authors get the information from official websites and point out the date of access. Besides, the reference quality should be improved since most of them are not from high-quality journals.

The introduction has been revised to replace website-based sources with references from official sources. Additionally, all references now include the date of access where applicable. The reference quality has also been improved by replacing low-quality sources with high-impact journal articles.

3. In the literature review, some of the references are out of date and many of them are not from good journals. It is suggested that the authors conduct a better literature review by referring to high-quality papers, such as Wang et al. (2024). Most importantly, the research gap should be directly pointed out, otherwise, the research contribution is limited.

The literature review has been updated with more recent and high-quality journal articles. Outdated references have been removed and replaced with Scopus/WoS-indexed sources, including the suggested study by Wang et al. (2024). Additionally, the research gap is now explicitly outlined, ensuring that the contribution of this study is clearly defined.

4. In the methodology section, please provide a much clearer introduction of the data for variables. The limitations should not be included in this section and should be placed at the end of the conclusion section.

The methodology section has been expanded to provide a more detailed explanation of the data sources and variables used in the study. The limitations section has been moved from the methodology to the conclusion, ensuring better alignment with standard academic structure.

5. In the results and discussion section, all the tables should be three-line tables.

All tables in the results and discussion section have been reformatted into three-line tables, following the suggested structure.

6. In the conclusions and recommendations section, the conclusion is not well presented. Please clearly point out your findings and extend the discussion. Also, the recommendations should be more practical and should be combined with examples.

The conclusion has been revised to clearly summarize the key findings and their implications. The recommendations section has also been refined to make them more actionable, incorporating real-world examples that illustrate their practical applicability.

7. There are some typing mistakes and grammar problems, such as the word in line 486. Please carefully check them.

The entire manuscript has been thoroughly proofread and revised to correct grammatical errors and typos.Special attention has been given to line 486 and other areas with potential mistakes.

8. The literature references should be improved, not only in terms of quality but also in terms of format.

The reference list has been updated to ensure that all sources are from high-quality journals. The formatting of references has also been standardized according to the required citation style, ensuring consistency throughout the paper.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response to Revisions

1. The title suggests an analysis covering 2020–2025, yet the most recent data in the paper are from 2023. This creates a misleading impression regarding the study period. I recommend adjusting the title to reflect the actual timeframe of the data used.

The title has been revised to accurately reflect the study period, ensuring that it does not mislead readers. The updated title now specifies the actual timeframe of the data analyzed (2020–2023).

2. The abstract mentions an analysis of multiple companies, but the study actually includes only one company per country. Additionally, the abstract promises practical recommendations, which are not clearly provided in the paper. I suggest refining the abstract to align with the actual content of the study.

The abstract has been revised to clarify that the study focuses on three companies, one from each country. Additionally, practical recommendations have been explicitly stated in the conclusion to align with what was promised in the abstract.

3. In line 69, the manuscript refers to "companies", but the analysis is based on only three individual firms. Similarly, in line 71, the third objective mentions "best practices", yet these are not explicitly analyzed or presented in the study. If identifying best practices is an objective, a clearer methodology for doing so should be included.

The terminology has been corrected throughout the manuscript, replacing "companies" with "three manufacturing firms" where applicable.Furthermore, the methodology has been refined to explicitly outline the process used to identify best practices.

4. In line 86, the paper refers to "other documents" as part of the research base, but it does not specify what these documents are, what type of information they contain, or how they were analyzed. This section needs clarification to ensure transparency.

The methodology section has been revised to provide a clearer description of the additional documents used in the study, including sustainability reports, environmental regulations, and ASEAN policy documents. The analytical approach to these documents has also been detailed.

5. In lines 92–93, the phrase "findings of this research are expected to serve as a reference for ASEAN policymakers" is rather vague. Research findings should be clearly defined and concrete, rather than focusing on expectations.

This statement has been revised to explicitly define the study’s key findings and their implications for ASEAN policymakers, eliminating vague expectations.

6. Lines 95–97 state that the study supports the achievement of sustainable development goals (SDGs) in ASEAN, but there is no explanation of how it does so. It would be helpful to specify the ways in which the research contributes to the SDGs.

The discussion section now explicitly connects the study’s findings to specific SDGs, such as SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 13 (Climate Action), explaining how the research aligns with these objectives.

7. In section 2.2 of the Literature Review, the research methodology is presented, which is not standard practice. The methodology should be moved to a separate methodology section where it can be clearly described.

The methodology discussion in section 2.2 has been moved to the methodology section, ensuring proper structuring of the manuscript.

8. In line 236, the paper discusses the manufacturing sector in general, yet the analysis is based on only three companies. If the study is meant to generalize findings at the sector level, a larger dataset or a justification for the representativeness of these three companies is needed.

A justification for the selection of these three firms has been added in the methodology section, explaining their industry leadership, sustainability commitments, and relevance to ASEAN's manufacturing landscape.

9. Line 248 refers to a "deep understanding of policy implementation", yet the paper does not provide specific details about the actual policies studied, nor how they are implemented. Without these details, the conclusions regarding policy implementation lack sufficient support.

The study now explicitly details the environmental policies analyzed within each company, along with their implementation strategies, ensuring a stronger empirical basis for the conclusions.

10. In lines 304–305, you mention that frequencies were calculated as part of the content analysis, but it is not clear what role these frequencies play in the analysis. Furthermore, the study lacks clear hypotheses and a well-defined research aim, which would help structure the analysis more effectively.

The role of frequency calculations in content analysis has been clarified in the methodology section. Additionally, a clearer statement of research objectives has been provided in the introduction to enhance the study’s structure and analytical rigor.

11. In lines 423–424, as well as throughout the paper, it is often unclear whether certain information is an original finding or simply derived from existing sources. If the paper primarily summarizes existing reports, it raises the question: What are the new, original contributions of this study? A more explicit discussion of the study’s novel findings is necessary.

The discussion section now clearly distinguishes between original findings and information derived from existing literature. A new subsection highlighting the study’s original contributions has also been added to reinforce its academic value.

12. In lines 523–525, conclusions drawn from only three companies are generalized to the entire policy implementation landscape in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. Without broader empirical support, this generalization is not justified.

The language in the conclusion has been revised to avoid overgeneralization. Instead of claiming broad applicability, the conclusion now focuses on insights specific to the studied companies while acknowledging potential implications for the broader manufacturing sector.