The Impacts of Quality Management on Green Material Utilization: A Small- and Medium-Sized Chinese Enterprises’ Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores the impact of quality management on the utilization of green materials in Chinese small and medium - sized enterprises (SMEs). 

1.In the case study, only 4 SMEs in the manufacturing industry in Shaoxing City are selected. The small sample size and the limitations in industry and region may affect the universality of the research conclusions. Although 313 valid questionnaires are collected in the questionnaire survey, the distribution of samples in different industries and regions is not described in detail. Research can expand the scope of sample coverage by increasing the number of SMEs from different industries and regions to ensure the representativeness of the samples. At the same time, during the data collection stage, detailed information about the industry characteristics and regional policy environments of the sample enterprises should be recorded to facilitate a more in - depth analysis of the differences in research results under different scenarios.

2.The discussion on the situation where some hypotheses are not supported in the empirical results is not deep enough. For example, when the moderating effect of quality training on the relationship between waste gas reduction and green material utilization is not significant, the explanation only focuses on the characteristics of waste gas and the treatment method, without considering the influence of factors such as enterprise technical level and industry competition pressure on this relationship. In the discussion section, a comprehensive and deep analysis of the unsupported hypotheses should be carried out, taking multiple factors into account to provide more persuasive explanations. Additionally, a comparative analysis with existing research results should be conducted to explore the reasons for the differences and further explore the potential value of the research results.

3.The indicators used to measure quality training and quality standards are relatively general. For example, quality training is only measured from aspects such as enhancing employees' capabilities and awareness, without distinguishing the impacts of different training contents and methods on green material utilization. Quality standards are measured by indicators such as the target product qualification rate, without considering factors such as the strictness and update frequency of quality standards. Research can further refine the measurement indicators of variables, construct a more accurate measurement system, and improve the accuracy of research results.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 1’s Comments

1.In the case study, only 4 SMEs in the manufacturing industry in Shaoxing City are selected. The small sample size and the limitations in industry and region may affect the universality of the research conclusions. Although 313 valid questionnaires are collected in the questionnaire survey, the distribution of samples in different industries and regions is not described in detail. Research can expand the scope of sample coverage by increasing the number of SMEs from different industries and regions to ensure the representativeness of the samples. At the same time, during the data collection stage, detailed information about the industry characteristics and regional policy environments of the sample enterprises should be recorded to facilitate a more in - depth analysis of the differences in research results under different scenarios.

Response: Thanks for your valuable suggestions and comments. For 4 SMEs selection, as previous research has not explored similar topics, our case study was designed as an exploratory effort aimed at identifying key attributes, levels, and appropriate measurements. Therefore, we adopted a theoretical sampling approach rather than random sampling, and selected four representative cases. However, we highly appreciate your valuable suggestion. In future studies, we plan to increase the number of cases to enhance the representativeness of the findings.

In addition, we have added detailed information on the industry and regional characteristics of the sampled firms, which is now presented in Tables 3 and 4 (pages 13-15, in lines 632 and 634). Moreover, we have incorporated your suggestion into the limitation section. In future research, we plan to expand the sample size and conduct a more in-depth analysis of the differences in research findings across different contexts (Section 6).

2. The discussion on the situation where some hypotheses are not supported in the empirical results is not deep enough. For example, when the moderating effect of quality training on the relationship between waste gas reduction and green material utilization is not significant, the explanation only focuses on the characteristics of waste gas and the treatment method, without considering the influence of factors such as enterprise technical level and industry competition pressure on this relationship. In the discussion section, a comprehensive and deep analysis of the unsupported hypotheses should be carried out, taking multiple factors into account to provide more persuasive explanations. Additionally, a comparative analysis with existing research results should be conducted to explore the reasons for the differences and further explore the potential value of the research results.

Response: Thanks for your comments. Following your suggestion, we revised the discussion. In explaining the moderating effect of quality training on the relationship between waste gas reduction and green material utilization is not significant, we have added institutional pressure as an external consideration to ensure a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis of the unsupported hypothesis (please refer to the pages 18 and 20, in lines 718 to 725 and 770 to 797).

3. The indicators used to measure quality training and quality standards are relatively general. For example, quality training is only measured from aspects such as enhancing employees’ capabilities and awareness, without distinguishing the impacts of different training contents and methods on green material utilization. Quality standards are measured by indicators such as the target product qualification rate, without considering factors such as the strictness and update frequency of quality standards. Research can further refine the measurement indicators of variables, construct a more accurate measurement system, and improve the accuracy of research results.

Response: Thanks for your valuable suggestions. We acknowledge that the measurement of quality training and quality standards in this study was primarily based on case study insights, which may limit the generalizability of the indicators. This has been added in the limitations section. In future research, we will further refine these measurement indicators by integrating a broader range of case studies and relevant literature, with the aim of developing a more rigorous and accurate measurement system to improve the reliability and validity of the research results.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article have used a questionnaire to obtain data for the use of quality management and green material in china's enterprises. The topic and results seems interesting to the readers however, there are some issues that might be addressed before publishing this paper.

1- There are several grammatical and typographical errors that make it difficult to understand the exact meaning of the sentences. I suggest that the authors rephrase the sentences and prof-read the paper to address these errors.

2- in Section 3 and 3.1, the authors have explained the research criteria and then jumped to section 3.1.1 to 3.1.6 with naming the various factors. It is better to add a sentence to explain the factors in 3.1. Also, some factors seem to have positive effect on using the green materials and some act as inhibitor to use green materials, it will be better to categorize these or at lease bring them to attention at a sequence. 

3- Tables 5 and 8(which should be 6) need to be organized to be easier to understand. Currently, it is difficult to read the numbers and distinguish the various rows and columns.

4- It seems that the authors mostly used older references throughout the papers. Although there are some newer papers that have been cited. I suggest that the authors make sure that they have cited more recent references as well.

5- There are some acronyms that been used in the paper without defining or have been defined later in the text. The acronyms should be defined when first appear in the text.   Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a lot of grammatical and typographical errors that need to be addressed. Some nouns have been used instead of verbs and vise versa. 

 

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2’s Comments

1. This article have used a questionnaire to obtain data for the use of quality management and green material in China’s enterprises. The topic and results seems interesting to the readers however, there are some issues that might be addressed before publishing this paper.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Please refer to Appendix 1, 2, 3, and 4 (pages 21 to 29; in lines 874 to 928), we have demonstrated how we descriptive our cases, interviewer contents and questionnaire design. These details may provide a comprehensive understanding of our methodology and data collection process. Thank you once again for your time and consideration.

2. There are several grammatical and typographical errors that make it difficult to understand the exact meaning of the sentences. I suggest that the authors rephrase the sentences and prof-read the paper to address these errors.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comments. We have carefully rephrased the relevant sentences and thoroughly proofread the entire manuscript to correct grammatical and typographical errors via MDPI Author Services, and we also have a certification from AUTHOR services. We believe the revised version is now clearer and more readable.

3. In Section 3 and 3.1, the authors have explained the research criteria and then jumped to section 3.1.1 to 3.1.6 with naming the various factors. It is better to add a sentence to explain the factors in 3.1. Also, some factors seem to have positive effect on using the green materials and some act as inhibitor to use green materials, it will be better to categorize these or at lease bring them to attention at a sequence.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comments. We have added an explanation of the factors discussed in Section 3.1 at the end of that section (please refer to page 9, in lines 428 to 433), and have reordered them based on fundamental factors and environmental factors.

4. Tables 5 and 8 (which should be 6) need to be organized to be easier to understand. Currently, it is difficult to read the numbers and distinguish the various rows and columns.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the formatting of Tables to improve readability (please refer to pages 14 to 18). Specifically, we adjusted the layout, spacing, and alignment to make the numerical data clearer and easier to distinguish across rows and columns. We also corrected the table numbering issue accordingly.

5. It seems that the authors mostly used older references throughout the papers. Although there are some newer papers that have been cited. I suggest that the authors make sure that they have cited more recent references as well.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have carefully reviewed the literature and updated the manuscript by incorporating several more recent and relevant references published within the last five years. For example, Aftab et al., 2023; An et al., 2023; Garnerud et al., 2025; or EI Manzani et al., 2024. These additions help to ensure that the paper reflects the latest developments in the field and strengthens the theoretical foundation of our study.

6. There are some acronyms that been used in the paper without defining or have been defined later in the text. The acronyms should be defined when first appear in the text.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and revised it to ensure that all acronyms are clearly defined at their first appearance in the text.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The authors should consider to add the Research Questions (RQ) at the end of the Introduction section. This could help the reader to better understanding of the manuscript objective(s). 
• Then, the RQ sould be answered in the Conclusion section. 
• In section 3.4, line 610, consider adding the population and sample selection method. It is interesting authors got almost 500 responses. Out of how many possible?
• Authors might consider to add the marketing perspective, problably mention Greenwashing cases in China or abroad. 
• Line 824, which limitations?
• Could you compare before/after the "boom" of green materials utilization? In terms of consumer perception?
• How do Chinese consumers perceive this "green products"?
• Finally, highlight the hypothesis demostrated in the Discussion/Results section. Perhaps in the Conclusion. 

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 3’s Comments

1. The authors should consider to add the Research Questions (RQ) at the end of the Introduction section. This could help the reader to better understanding of the manuscript objective(s).

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have added clearly stated research questions at the end of the Introduction section to better highlight the objectives of the study (please refer to pages 2 and 3, in lines 82 to 83 and 93 to 95).

2. Then, the RQ should be answered in the Conclusion section.

Response: Thanks for your comments, we have revised our conclusion part and also clearly answered our research questions (please refer to pages 20-21, in lines 838 to 848).

3. In section 3.4, line 610, consider adding the population and sample selection method. It is interesting authors got almost 500 responses. Out of how many possible?

Response: Thanks for your valuable comments and suggestion regarding our manuscripts. To provide a clearer understanding of our study design, we have included the following details in our revised manuscript. Population size: our study focused on manufacturing enterprises in China. The target population was defined as all registered manufacturing firms in specific regions known for their industrial activities. Sample selection method: we employed a stratified random sampling technique to ensure representation across different industry sectors and firms sized. Furthermore, we also added the number of distributed questionnaires (please refer to page 13, 14, and 15, Table 3 and Table 4).

4. Authors might consider adding the marketing perspective, probably mention Greenwashing cases in China or abroad.

Response: Thanks for your valuable suggestion, and we agree that incorporating a marketing perspective, especially in relation to greenwashing, could offer additional insights into our discussion (please refer to pages 18 and 19, in lines 719 to 725, 770 to 797). In the revised manuscript, we have discussed greenwashing as a potential reason that lead to unsupported hypothesis.

5. Line 824, which limitations?

Response: Thanks for your comments. In conclusion, we have revised and clarified the limitations stated in the conclusion section, and provided a detailed description of how future research could address these limitations and improve upon the current study (please refer to page 21, in lines 851 to 873).

6. Could you compare before/after the “boom” of green materials utilization? In terms of consumer perception?

Response: Thanks for your comments, we have compared before/after the boom of green material utilization from the consumer perception in the discussion section, please refer to pages 18 and 19, in lines 717 to 724 that demonstrates the different roles before/after in green materials utilizations; in lines 747 to 767 that demonstrates consumers’ perceptions in green material utilizations.

7. How do Chinese consumers perceive this “green products”?

Response: Thanks for your comments, we also described how Chinese consumers perceive this “green products”? in the discussion section (please refer to pages 18 and 19, in lines 735 to 748).

8. Finally, highlight the hypothesis demostrated in the Discussion/Results section. Perhaps in the Conclusion.

Response: Thanks for helpful suggestion. We have revised the conclusion section to clearly highlight the key hypotheses that were supported by the empirical results (please refer to page 20-21, in lines 840 to 850).

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors and Editor,
After reading and analyzing the article, I have some observations to make:
A current and very relevant topic everywhere;
Summary: good, the methodology used could be presented better, such as how the participating companies were selected, which may be of interest to readers;
Introduction: Contextualizes the problem, presents gaps in other studies, and outlines their focus and objectives;
Literature review: Has updated references; I found it extensive, could be more direct, immediately triggering the hypotheses;
Research method: well outlined, presented in a clear way divided into topics.
Empirical result: because it is statistical data, it is more objective, I missed the data from the case studies, the data from the interviews, which I think would be very rich for those who are researching the subject;
Discussion and conclusions: I liked the discussions, but I believe that they could be explored further and discussed each hypothesis; I would also like to see more of the qualitative part in this topic; a positive point is that the implications of the study were presented separately and well outlined;
Conclusions: the limitations are presented.
It is interesting that the appendices are presented with additional information about the study.
Kind regards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I believe that English is adequate, although I think I am not qualified to do this analysis in depth.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 4’s Comments

1. After reading and analyzing the article, I have some observations to make:

A current and very relevant topic everywhere.

Summary: good, the methodology used could be presented better, such as how the participating companies were selected, which may be of interest to readers.

Response: Thanks for your insight comments and feedbacks.

2. Introduction: Contextualizes the problem, presents gaps in other studies, and outlines their focus and objectives.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comments.

3. Literature review: Has updated references; I found it extensive, could be more direct, immediately triggering the hypotheses;

Response: Thanks for your comments, we have updated our reference and revised the literature becoming more direct and immediately triggering the hypotheses.

4. Research method: well outlined, presented in a clear way divided into topics;

Response: Thanks for your comments.

5. Empirical result: because it is statistical data, it is more objective, I missed the data from the case studies, the data from the interviews, which I think would be very rich for those who are researching the subject;

Response: Thanks for your comments, we have added an appendix that includes the data from case study (please refer to page 21 to 25).

6. Discussion and conclusions: I liked the discussions, but I believe that they could be explored further and discussed each hypothesis; I would also like to see more of the qualitative part in this topic; a positive point is that the implications of the study were presented separately and well outlined.

Response: Thanks for your comments, the main target of our case study is to identify attributes, levels and measurement, which is used to assisting questionnaire design. But we believe it is a valuable suggestion, and we added it in the limitation, and we will use case study to explain our results for enhancing the interpretability and reliability of the result

7. Conclusions: the limitations are presented.

Response: Thanks for your insight comments.

8. It is interesting that the appendices are presented with additional information about the study.

Response: Thank you once again for your comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript addresses most of the previously raised issues, with other sections also taken into consideration. Given the limited prior research in this area, the use of a small sample size is an acceptable approach. Therefore, I recommend minor revisions. For example, the references do not meet the required standards, and attention should also be given to formatting and sentence structure.

Author Response

Comment: "The revised manuscript addresses most of the previously raised issues, with other sections also taken into consideration. Given the limited prior research in this area, the use of a small sample size is an acceptable approach. Therefore, I recommend minor revisions. For example, the references do not meet the required standards, and attention should also be given to formatting and sentence structure."

Responses: 

Thanks for your valuable suggestions, and we appreciate your feedback. First of all, we have made revisions in accordance with the referencing requirements of Sustainability. Second, we review our articles and edit our formatting based on the requirement of Sustainability and improve our sentence structure; thus, we believe our format is suitable for the Journal. Many thanks. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors have addressed all my previous comments.

There are still some typographical in the text but I believe they can be addressed during the final proofreading. 

Author Response

Comment 1: "The Authors have addressed all my previous comments."

Response: Thanks very much.

Comment 2: "There are still some typographical in the text but I believe they can be addressed during the final proofreading."

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We follow the requirement of sustainability to correct the typographical in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx