Moderating Effect of Business Environmental Dynamism in the Innovativeness—Company Performance Relationship of Congolese Manufacturing Companies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well-written, but as it is reads very superficial and of limited scope. A paper is an international scientific journal should have an audience beyond the Congolese manufacturing sector, as it is indicated in the introduction. The literature survey should be improved significantly and be more focused. I suggest that "Hypotheses development" becomes separate, stand alone section. The three hypotheses must be developed using more focused and up to day literature. I found many references out of the specific context of the research reported in the paper.
The concept of "environmental dynamism" as defined reads problematic. I think you imply "business-friendly environment". A principal component of environmental dynamism is competition, new entries, etc, which it seems you are not considering as important.
Another point which needs to be clarified is that you considered "perception of environmental dynamism" as you do not take into account objective macro-economic data, but just the answers of the questionnaire responders/industry stakeholders. The same holds for innovativeness and performance.
These brink us to the main drawback of the paper, which is that the variables used to measure the constructs are not presented. How do you measure innovativeness, dynamism and performance?
Finally, the Discussion and Conclusions are rather confusing and should become clearer.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review Report
The article is interesting, but it has a serious flaw concerning the moderating variable.
Please look after the English. Also look at the APA-norms for referencing in the text.
Specific comments
Line 3. Please write abbreviations the first time in full. In this case DRC.
Line 42. The authors write ‘ These companies face a strong wave of imports of the same locally manufactured products, thus compromising the competitiveness of Congolese products’. Imports from where?
Line 48. What are MSMEs?
Line 55. Here, and at other places, the authors mention ‘strategic orientation’. As this seems to be an important construct in the text, please give a definition.
Line 205. In hypothesis 3, Environmental dynamism is positioned as a moderating variable that has influence on the relationship between the independent variable innovativeness and the dependent variable company performance. This only makes sense when from other research it becomes clear that conducting research on the relationship between the independent variable innovativeness and the dependent variable company performance, with using a moderating variable, leads to contradictory results. This has to be elaborated more in the article. Maybe clues for this can be found in the articles that are mentioned in the text:
Tajeddini, K., & Mueller, S. (2018). Moderating effect of environmental dynamism on the relationship between a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation and financial performance. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 9, 1-13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2018-0283
Tajeddini, K., Martin, E., & Ali, A. (2020). Enhancing hospitality business performance: The role of entrepreneurial orientation and networking ties in a dynamic environment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 90(102605), 1-15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102605
Line 212. Actually in line with my former remark concerning the moderating variable, I think it would be good to add the survey as an appendix, as I can see then what questions where actually asked to the respondents. Also to get more insight in this research, and especially how this moderating variable was operationalized and measured.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review Report: Moderating effect of business environmental dynamism in innovativeness-firm performance relationship of Congolese manufacturing companies
1. Summary
The paper does not follow common scientific practice.
1) The objective/aim of the paper and methodology of the paper should be rethought
2) The literature review should be done in such a way to back up research questions/hypotheses indicating research gap and previous studies
3) Authors should justify the contribution of their research, what is new?, so what? The background theory/theories should be chosen and adequately included in the text.
I hope that my comments help the Authors to improve their study for other submissions.
2. Main Comments and Suggestions
I consider that the idea of the paper is interesting and worth doing research. However, in current version of the paper the contribution to the body of knowledge is weak in my view. This paper is country-specific and is based on Congolese companies. So, what is unique in Congolese setting? What we can learn on Congolese example which is universal in nature and which is relevant for other countries? Under what assumptions? The Authors want to publish in international journal not locally, so they should take this perspective into account. However, in introduction you write: “This contribution provides information and insight to stakeholders in the Congolese manufacturing industry, including policy makers and managers of these firms, to improve the performance of manufacturing MSMEs by improving the environment in which these firms operate.” It seems that you address your paper not to international reader but local. I think that Authors must rethink the objective of the research.
Moreover, in current version the paper’s aim is not clear to me and it should be formulated straightforward. In current version you write: (p1, l.40-41): “Thus, there is a need to study how the dynamism of the business environment affects the links between innovative capability and firm performance in developing countries. Indeed, this study explicitly examines this relationship among manufacturing firms operating in the north-eastern part of the DRC.” In scientific papers the aim should be precisely formulated. Further, you relay on Davis et al. (2010) writing: “there has been little research on how strategic orientation would influence the performance of firms competing in a competitive and changing economic environment. Now 13 years have passed. Do you think that non has responded to their call for this time? Have you checked that? Have you checked previous research analysing relations that you want to examine? Literature review lacks this analyse.
The literature review should be aimed at identifying research gap and research questions and it should be the basis for developing research hypotheses/questions. In this paper there is no link between literature review and the gap in the literature. The background theory/theories should be chosen and presented in the light of research questions.
I encourage you to follow this paper, being an overview and guidelines of literature review H. Snyder “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296319304564
The methodology is not clearly explained. What data you have collected in questionnaire? The target group of companies of the survey is not well explained. In this kind of research, the target group to which the survey is addressed is very important issue. So why this group of companies? Have you handed or sent questionnaire to companies? It would be good that in limitations you address this issue or explain it in the text the choice of respondents group.
Moreover, in methodology part you should present econometrics models you want to estimate, variables indicating how they are measured and sourced, with reference to previous studies. Additionally, you may present statistical test you do.
I could not find information about the time frame. The authors should consider adding survey questionnaire as an appendix.
In general, while presenting methodological issues of the research do it in such a way that other researchers may replicate it. Currently I do not know how you want to do what you want to do.
The abstract is incomplete. The authors need to present more clearly what is the idea and the research purpose, what data and tools they use, what’s new in results, what contribution they indicate. The introduction is incomplete. Please add results, contributions and reminder of the paper.
The results are not presented clearly. After presenting the results, the authors should bring arguments for the relevance of the results obtained by comparing them with similar recent studies in the field. Are the results consistent/inconsistent with results of other research?
On page 6, line 271 you write: “The interaction term INN * ED has a negative but weakly significant effect (β = -.151; p=.068)) on company performance, thus supporting Hypothesis 3”, but if p-value is above 0.05 the result is commonly interpreted as not significant and H3 should be rejected. Is that right? I think that Authors should also reconsider the discussion section.
Last, the authors do not discuss their contribution of the study to the body of knowledge. It is essential to include the contribution to the literature. How well does the work advance our knowledge of the subject? What is a unique feature of this study? Does this study differ from previous studies? It is also important to make useful implications for the practice. What should we do with your research? Do you have any suggestions to improve the current regulation or practice? Moreover, the conclusions should link back to the objectives and the outcomes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have responded to my initial comments about the scope of the paper confined to Congo. However, didn't find their response to my other comments adequate and sufficient for the paper to be publishable.
They insist that the deal with environmental dynamism without taking into account competition etc. They have to consult important basic papers dealing with environmental dynamism for its definition. For instance, McArthur & Nystrom, JBR 1991, or Li & Liu JBR 2012. You can not talk about environmental dynamism not taking into account industry/sector dynamics. Otherwise you are dealing simply with business environment.
The hypotheses and the results they arrive at are pretty obvious. What is new about these results apart that they hold for the case of Congo. How these results were obtained? How the items of the research instrument (questionnaire) are connected to the constructs used in your model? We don't have any clue!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The researchers addressed my comments in a very good way!
Author Response
Thank you for comments.
Kind regards
Reviewer 3 Report
I am glad that the Authors took into consideration my suggestions as the current version of the manuscript has been significantly improved in my view.
I wish the Authors all the best.
Author Response
Thank you for comments.
Kind regards.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Marginally acceptable as a contribution to the Congolese business environment and economy only.
