Influence of Supply Chain Ambidexterity on Supply Chain Sustainability: The Mediating Role of Green Product Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript offers valuable information in the related field; however, it contains several flaws. The manuscript requires major revisions before it can be considered for publication in this journal. Please revise the manuscript according to the comments provided in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: While integrating DCT is appreciated, the authors could more clearly define what makes their work novel. Green innovation and supply chain agility have been researched previously by many works. What contribution of new insight does this piece add, especially for Jordanian industries?

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have added a new paragraph to the end of the introduction section that clearly articulates the theoretical, practical, and methodological contributions of our study. Specifically, we emphasize how this research extends Dynamic Capabilities Theory by conceptualizing supply chain adaptability and agility as distinct enablers of green product innovation and sustainability. We also clarify the study’s novel contextual contribution by focusing on Jordanian manufacturing firms which is an underrepresented setting in the existing literature and highlight the methodological strength of using PLS-SEM with a large and relevant sample. This addition aims to directly address the novelty and relevance of our work in both academic and practical terms.

 

Comment 2: As the study is in Jordanian manufacturing companies, there is minimal sector-specific analysis. It would be a greater contribution to the paper if the authors had explained which sectors the respondents came from (for example, textile, food processing, chemicals), since green innovation challenges can be very different depending on the sector.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have included Figure 2 in the revised manuscript, which presents the distribution of responses by industrial sector, clearly identifying the main sectors represented in the sample namely food and supply, chemicals, plastic products, and printing and paper. These sectors collectively account for the majority of the responses and are highly relevant to the study of green innovation due to their intensive resource use and environmental impact. We also reflected this in the managerial implications section.

 

Comment 3: The authors do discuss the application of a non-probability sampling method, but its effects on the generalizability of the study could be explained further under limitations. Comparative studies by region or sector are suggested.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised the limitations section to acknowledge that the use of non-probability sampling may affect the generalizability of the findings. We also now suggest future research should apply probability-based sampling and include regional or sectoral comparisons to enhance broader applicability.

 

Comment 4: For supporting the discussion and to demonstrate how the findings can relate to or differ from previous research, the authors might include a summary table that contrasts their findings with those of other studies. This will further emphasize the study's contribution.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable comment.  In response, we have added a summary table (Table 7) to the discussion section that presents a comparison of our findings by hypothesis with those of relevant prior studies. This table highlights where our results align with or diverge from existing research, thereby clarifying the study's theoretical and empirical contributions.

 

Comment 5: While findings are well supported, the discussion might be enriched with a more extensive exploration of theoretical implications, particularly regarding the different ways agility and adaptability work in advancing GPI and sustainability.

Response 5: Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, we have added a paragraph to the discussion section that elaborates on the theoretical implications of our findings. Specifically, we differentiate the roles of agility and adaptability as distinct dynamic capabilities within the DCT framework, highlighting their unique pathways in advancing GPI and sustainability.

 

Comment 6: A clearer demarcation of short-term responsiveness (agility) from long-term strategic adjustment (adaptability) would help readers.

Response 6: Thank you for the insightful comment. In response, we have added a paragraph to the discussion section that clearly distinguishes agility as short-term responsiveness and adaptability as long-term strategic adjustment. We also included a practical example from the Jordanian food processing industry to illustrate how these capabilities function differently in advancing sustainability and green innovation.

 

Comment 7: The manuscript can not be considered for publication in its current form.

Response 7: We appreciate the reviewer’s critical evaluation and constructive feedback. We have carefully addressed all comments and implemented the suggested modifications to enhance the clarity, depth, and scholarly contribution of the manuscript. We hope that with these revisions, the paper now meets the standards required for publication and is considered suitable for acceptance.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have one question on the use of literature or reported data to construct validity and hypotheses/ modelling used in the present study.

 I do not understand how, what and why the data are extracted from which reported database? I could not see it clearly. 

The connection of the secondary data to conduct this green product innovation is vague and I could be clearly see it.

How many papers and what keywords used to generate the literature review to get this green product innovation? How are you sure your findings are green product innovation?

Author Response

Comment 1: I have one question on the use of literature or reported data to construct validity and hypotheses/ modelling used in the present study.

Comment 2: I do not understand how, what and why the data are extracted from which reported database? I could not see it clearly. 

Comment 3: The connection of the secondary data to conduct this green product innovation is vague and I could be clearly see it.

Comment 4: How many papers and what keywords used to generate the literature review to get this green product innovation? How are you sure your findings are green product innovation?

Response 1+2+3+4: We thank the reviewer for raising these important points. To clarify:

• This study is based on primary data, not secondary data or a reported database. Data were collected directly from 346 supply chain professionals in Jordanian manufacturing firms using a structured questionnaire.
• The constructs and hypotheses were developed based on a thorough review of the literature, as can be seen from the references in the literature review section. We provided the most relevant studies in Table 1. The items used to measure green product innovation (GPI) were adapted from validated scales used in prior peer-reviewed studies, particularly Chan et al. [19] and Kara and Edinsel [21], ensuring construct validity.
• For the literature review, we used academic databases Scopus, Web of Science, MDPI, Emerald, and ScienceDirect. Keywords included “green product innovation,” “supply chain agility,” “supply chain adaptability,” “sustainability,” and “dynamic capabilities.” More than 35 peer-reviewed articles were reviewed, with a focus on studies published in the last 5–7 years in high-impact journals relevant to supply chain management and sustainability.
• To ensure our findings represent green product innovation, the measurement items specifically captured practices such as eco-friendly product design, recyclable packaging, use of non-toxic materials, and recycling initiatives. These items were validated using PLS-SEM, demonstrating high factor loadings and reliability (see Table 4), confirming that the construct reflects GPI accurately within the scope of our study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Evaluation:

Relevance and Originality: Very strong topic choice, highly relevant for contemporary supply chain management (SCM), sustainability, and innovation research. The specific focus on Jordanian manufacturing firms provides regional novelty.

Theoretical Framework: Good integration of Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT) to explain relationships between supply chain adaptability/agility and sustainability.

Methodology: Solid quantitative design using PLS-SEM, with a sufficient sample size (346 respondents), good instrument development (validated scales), and rigorous statistical testing.

Results Clarity: The model’s outputs (hypotheses testing, mediation analysis) are clearly reported with supporting statistics.

Discussion and Implications: Detailed and well-articulated managerial and theoretical implications.

 

Areas for Improvement:

Conceptual Framework Development: The distinction between adaptability and agility could be emphasized more clearly earlier in the paper. Sometimes, readers unfamiliar with SCM terms might confuse them. A separate paragraph clearly contrasting "long-term structural changes" (adaptability) vs. "short-term operational responsiveness" (agility) could improve clarity.

Summary:

This paper is strong, well-grounded theoretically, empirically robust, and would be a good candidate for publication after minor revisions.

Author Response

Comment 1: Overall Evaluation:

• Relevance and Originality: Very strong topic choice, highly relevant for contemporary supply chain management (SCM), sustainability, and innovation research. The specific focus on Jordanian manufacturing firms provides regional novelty.
• Theoretical Framework: Good integration of Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT) to explain relationships between supply chain adaptability/agility and sustainability.
• Methodology: Solid quantitative design using PLS-SEM, with a sufficient sample size (346 respondents), good instrument development (validated scales), and rigorous statistical testing.
• Results Clarity: The model’s outputs (hypotheses testing, mediation analysis) are clearly reported with supporting statistics.
• Discussion and Implications: Detailed and well-articulated managerial and theoretical implications.

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and encouraging overall evaluation of our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of the study’s relevance, originality, and strong theoretical grounding in DCT. Your positive assessment of our methodological rigor, clarity in results reporting, and the practical and theoretical value of our discussion is greatly appreciated. Your feedback affirms the contributions of our work and motivates us to continue advancing research at the intersection of sustainability and supply chain innovation in developing contexts.

Areas for Improvement:

Comment 2: Conceptual Framework Development: The distinction between adaptability and agility could be emphasized more clearly earlier in the paper. Sometimes, readers unfamiliar with SCM terms might confuse them. A separate paragraph clearly contrasting "long-term structural changes" (adaptability) vs. "short-term operational responsiveness" (agility) could improve clarity.

Response 2: Thank you for this insightful suggestion. In response, we have added a dedicated paragraph to the conceptual framework section (Section 2.2) to clearly differentiate between supply chain adaptability and agility. The revised text explains adaptability as a long-term, strategic capability focused on structural reconfiguration, and agility as a short-term, operational capability enabling rapid responsiveness. This clarification enhances the conceptual precision of our framework and supports a clearer understanding for readers less familiar with supply chain management terminology.

Comment 3: This paper is strong, well-grounded theoretically, empirically robust, and would be a good candidate for publication after minor revisions.

Response 3: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive, thoughtful and encouraging evaluation of our manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In your chapter 2.1 Green Innovation, Supply Chain Ambidexterity, and Sustainability you list work that proves ambidexterity improves sustainability and increases the success of GPI, as a starting point for your work. However, these researches are done on manufacturing companies that actually produce green products and not supply chains.

Page 3 line 143

References on 12 and 28 are misleading because you talk about digitalization of supply chain which is out of the focus of your paper. Also, the last sentence says: „Zhang et al. [29] expanded this conversation by looking at how green  supplier integration improves environmental performance through innovation“. Innovation of what? Product? Supply chain Operations ? it has to be more clear.

Page 4-155

GPI is recognized as a significant factor in sustainability, its function as an intermediary between supply chain ambidexterity and supply chain sustainability has received  minimal empirical scrutiny. Of course Green products increase sustainability, but the supply chain is merely distributing these green products, so there is a question are your hypotheses even posed right?

Page 5 176

You even define:” SSCM denotes the coordination of material, information, and financial flows among  supply chain partners”, so where from does innovation come? Are manufacturing sites in your supply chains? If yes, then it has to be clearly stated, because they are the only ones able to create innovations. Supply chains can innovate only by new administrative innovations, or as you call it innovative business models. Also, all the references in the last paragraph (starting from line 213) are researched on companies not supply chains.

 Page 7

Finally, in chapter 2.2.3 Impact of GPI on Supply Chain Sustainability; we find out that the manufacturing is responsible for GPI. That should be in the introduction, and that your supply chains include manufacturing.

Page 9 Table 2. Constructs and measurement items

Please look for yourself into questions for GPI and sustainable supply chain and you will see that you are assessing a company not the entire supply chain, so we cannot talk about supply chains rather company performance.

Please redo your theoretical part because your results are then misleading.

Author Response

Comment 1: In your chapter 2.1 Green Innovation, Supply Chain Ambidexterity, and Sustainability you list work that proves ambidexterity improves sustainability and increases the success of GPI, as a starting point for your work. However, these researches are done on manufacturing companies that actually produce green products and not supply chains.

Page 3 line 143

• Response 1: Thank you for this important comment. We acknowledge that several of the cited studies in Section 2.1 are focused on manufacturing firms that produce green products rather than examining supply chains as holistic systems. However, our study builds on these works by shifting the unit of analysis from the individual firm level to the supply chain level, specifically exploring how supply chain-level dynamic capabilities (agility and adaptability) drive green product innovation (GPI) across the broader network of partners involved in production, sourcing, and distribution. We have added a paragraph to Section 2.1 to clarify this distinction and highlight how our study contributes by extending the application of ambidexterity from internal firm processes to externally oriented supply chain functions. This strengthens the theoretical foundation for analyzing GPI and sustainability.

Comment 2: References on 12 and 28 are misleading because you talk about digitalization of supply chain which is out of the focus of your paper. Also, the last sentence says: „Zhang et al. [29] expanded this conversation by looking at how green  supplier integration improves environmental performance through innovation“. Innovation of what? Product? Supply chain Operations ? it has to be more clear.

Page 4-155

• Response 2: Thank you for your insightful comment. In response, we have removed reference [12], as it primarily focuses on supply chain digitalization, which falls outside the core scope of our study. However, we have retained reference [28], as it implicitly supports the theoretical link between supply chain ambidexterity and sustainable performance, particularly through its discussion of how ambidextrous capabilities interact with organizational transformation to drive sustainability outcomes. Additionally, we have revised the sentence referring to Zhang et al. [29] to clarify that the innovation discussed pertains specifically to green product and process innovation. The suggested adjustments enhanced the alignment of cited literature with our research focus.

Comment 3: GPI is recognized as a significant factor in sustainability, its function as an intermediary between supply chain ambidexterity and supply chain sustainability has received  minimal empirical scrutiny. Of course Green products increase sustainability, but the supply chain is merely distributing these green products, so there is a question are your hypotheses even posed right?

Page 5 176

• Response 3: Thank you for this thoughtful and important comment. We acknowledge the need to clarify the conceptualization of green product innovation (GPI) in our study. In response, we have revised Section 2.1 and added a dedicated paragraph that explains GPI not only as a product-level outcome, but as a supply chain-enabled process involving supplier collaboration, green sourcing, joint innovation, and reverse logistics. This broader conceptualization is consistent with recent literature and supports the argument that GPI is deeply embedded within supply chain functions. Furthermore, in Section 2.2.4, we expanded the theoretical justification for our mediation hypotheses, explaining how supply chain ambidexterity (adaptability and agility) contributes to sustainability through GPI, which serves as a key integrative mechanism.

Comment 4: You even define:” SSCM denotes the coordination of material, information, and financial flows among  supply chain partners”, so where from does innovation come? Are manufacturing sites in your supply chains? If yes, then it has to be clearly stated, because they are the only ones able to create innovations. Supply chains can innovate only by new administrative innovations, or as you call it innovative business models. Also, all the references in the last paragraph (starting from line 213) are researched on companies not supply chains.

 Page 7

• Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comment and the opportunity to clarify this important conceptual point. In response, we have revised the manuscript to explicitly state that our study focuses on supply chain operations within manufacturing firms, where the innovation activities specifically GPI are embedded in the production context but supported by broader supply chain practices. While innovation is often initiated at the firm level (particularly manufacturing sites), it is increasingly enabled, co-developed, or diffused through collaborative relationships within the supply chain, including supplier coordination, eco-design partnerships, and green sourcing strategies. Accordingly, we have added a clarifying paragraph to Section 2.2.1.

Comment 5: Finally, in chapter 2.2.3 Impact of GPI on Supply Chain Sustainability; we find out that the manufacturing is responsible for GPI. That should be in the introduction, and that your supply chains include manufacturing.

Page 9 Table 2. Constructs and measurement items

• Response 5: Thank you for this helpful observation. We agree that it is important to clearly state upfront that our supply chain analysis is situated within manufacturing firms, where the core responsibility for green product innovation (GPI) resides. In response, we have updated the Introduction section to clarify that the study focuses on supply chain activities embedded within manufacturing companies in Jordan, where innovation is driven by manufacturing capabilities but supported by supply chain-wide coordination.

Comment 6: Please look for yourself into questions for GPI and sustainable supply chain and you will see that you are assessing a company not the entire supply chain, so we cannot talk about supply chains rather company performance.

• Response 6: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We acknowledge that the survey items for GPI and sustainability primarily reflect the perceptions and practices of individual manufacturing firms, rather than capturing the full scope of inter-organizational supply chain dynamics. In response, we have revised the manuscript to more precisely frame the study as an assessment of firm-level supply chain practices within manufacturing firms—specifically, how internal capabilities such as agility and adaptability influence green innovation and sustainable outcomes at the firm level, with implications for supply chain sustainability

Comment 7: Please redo your theoretical part because your results are then misleading.

• Response 7: We appreciate the reviewer’s critical feedback and understand the concern regarding the alignment between the theoretical framework and the empirical focus of the study. In response, we carefully revisited and revised the theoretical foundation in Section 2: Literature Review, specifically in Sub-sections 2.1 and 2.2, to ensure clearer alignment with the unit of analysis and scope of the results. We have clarified that our study investigates firm-level supply chain practices within manufacturing companies, rather than evaluating entire multi-tier supply chains.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction section attempts to establish the importance of sustainability, green innovation, and supply chain ambidexterity in contemporary industrial settings. While the topic is timely and relevant, the section suffers from multiple significant shortcomings that warrant rejection at this stage:

While the manuscript mentions a lack of studies on the mediating role of green product innovation (GPI), it does so vaguely and without evidence. For Example: "its role as a mediator between supply chain ambidexterity and sustainable performance remains insufficiently explored..." (lines 65–66).

the writing style is occasionally awkward, with poorly structured sentences. For Example: "Businesses can improve environmental sustainability and keep their competitive edge by including green innovation in supply chain operations , nevertheless, are the processes by which supply chain flexibility and agility affect GPI and hence sustainability..." (lines 71–73). This sentence is grammatically incorrect and confusing. It appears to conflate multiple ideas without proper transitions, leaving the reader uncertain about the argument.

The transition into DCT is abrupt. There’s insufficient theoretical grounding explaining how DCT underpins the model or research hypotheses. The link between theory and constructs is not well articulated.

The introduction provides an overview of known constructs (e.g., GSCM, agility, flexibility) without proposing a novel perspective. So merely combining known constructs does not qualify as an original contribution unless the interrelationships are explored in a significantly new or under-researched context, which is not clearly argued here.

 

Literature Review

The literature review reads as a disjointed summary of prior work rather than a well-synthesized, critical narrative. It lacks a clear logical progression from broader themes to specific research gaps. For example: Example: Paragraphs jump between different themes—green innovation, agility, digital transformation—without clear transitions or thematic grouping. For instance, lines 100–105 blend ambidexterity theory with GPI outcomes and consumer pressure without clarifying how these are conceptually linked.

The review tends to describe studies without evaluating or comparing them. Simply listing findings (e.g., lines 106–113) does not reflect the depth of analysis expected from a high-quality literature review.

Line 144 states, “supply chain agility mediates in improving digital supply chain capabilities,” yet the mechanism or theory behind this is not discussed.

Line 125: “...greatly adds to competitive advantage” — how was this measured or supported empirically?

Table 1 is intended to summarize past studies, but it lacks consistency and clarity. It includes vague descriptors and inconsistently defined variables. For Example: “SC 4.0 Maturity” and “Company success” are imprecise terms without explanation. Some variables (e.g., "Environmental competitiveness") appear without context or operational definition.

 

There's no explanation of selection criteria for included studies, nor is it clear how this table supports the research gap identified.

In section 2.2.1, the authors cite various sources to assert the importance of adaptability (e.g., [13], [17], [22], [30], [31]), but there is no clear articulation of how these studies collectively build a compelling argument for Hypothesis 1 (H1). The transition from absorptive capacity to network competencies to adaptability lacks logical cohesion.

H2 (Supply chain adaptability → GPI) is introduced after a discussion on absorptive capacity, network competencies, and organizational restructuring, but none of these threads directly link adaptability to GPI through a defined conceptual lens (e.g., dynamic capabilities theory or innovation diffusion theory).

Similarly, in H5, GPI’s impact on sustainability is said to be “supported by substantial evidence,” yet the text does not critically assess causality, conditional factors, or boundary conditions, nor does it cite any specific theoretical models supporting GPI’s mediating role

Reconstruct the hypothesis section using a solid theoretical lens (e.g., Dynamic Capabilities Theory, RBV, or Institutional Theory) to clearly define constructs and justify causal relationships.

 

Methodology

The authors could strengthen the methodology by either (1) justifying why a probability sample was unfeasible in this specific case with logistical or financial constraints, or (2) adding qualitative justification to support expert selection with evidence of respondents' experience levels or firm representativeness.

The assurance of anonymity and data protection is briefly mentioned (lines 368–370), but there is no indication that ethical approval was sought or granted by an institutional review board (IRB) or equivalent ethics committee.

Although the data collection period is specified (June to October 2024), there is no detail on the mode of distribution beyond “internet distribution methods” (line 368). Were surveys sent via email, shared via professional networks, or hosted on a survey platform (e.g., Qualtrics, Google Forms)? Additionally, were any follow-ups or reminders used?

Findings

The descriptive statistics section is underdeveloped and lacks interpretation. While means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis are reported, the manuscript fails to explain their implications.

There is no discussion of:

• The practical significance of these values,
• The impact of skewness and kurtosis on data normality,
• Whether these metrics support assumptions for subsequent SEM analysis.

The construct "Supply Chain Sustainability" uses operational items such as reduced paper usage, compliance, and stakeholder relations, which reflect organizational outcomes, not sustainability as a theoretical construct. These indicators seem arbitrarily selected and lack theoretical grounding or citation support.

While the Fornell–Larcker criterion is applied, the manuscript fails to report cross-loadings or HTMT ratios, which are widely accepted as superior methods for assessing discriminant validity in recent literature.

the hypothesis testing section simply reports t-values and p-values without discussing effect sizes, practical significance, or implications. For instance:

“H1 (t = 0.806, p = 0.420) was rejected…” – but why might this relationship not be significant?

Additionally, the mediation results are presented without explaining the method used (e.g., bootstrapping confidence intervals for indirect effects) or providing visualization (e.g., a path diagram with betas).

Discussion

The manuscript states that H1 was not supported and that this contradicts previous studies ([10,12,13,17,24]), yet it fails to provide an in-depth analysis of why this deviation occurs. Simply acknowledging a contradiction is insufficient; a rigorous discussion should explore potential contextual factors (e.g., regional, industrial, methodological differences) that might explain this divergence. For instance, why might adaptability not influence sustainability in Jordanian manufacturing when it has been confirmed elsewhere? Is it due to regulatory gaps, lack of technological adoption, or cultural barriers?

Throughout the discussion (e.g., lines 443–457), the manuscript repeatedly confirms prior findings without demonstrating critical insight or extending the discourse. This reflects a confirmatory rather than exploratory approach and does not add theoretical novelty.

Although the authors reference the Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT), the discussion does not engage with the theory meaningfully. There is little effort to explain how DCT underpins the observed relationships or to theorize why agility may outperform adaptability in driving sustainability.

The implications section provides generic advice (e.g., "use cleaner production technologies" or "reduce overproduction") that is widely known and lacks grounding in the study’s unique empirical findings.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted file.

Comment 1: The introduction section attempts to establish the importance of sustainability, green innovation, and supply chain ambidexterity in contemporary industrial settings. While the topic is timely and relevant, the section suffers from multiple significant shortcomings that warrant rejection at this stage:

While the manuscript mentions a lack of studies on the mediating role of green product innovation (GPI), it does so vaguely and without evidence. For Example: "its role as a mediator between supply chain ambidexterity and sustainable performance remains insufficiently explored..." (lines 65–66).

• Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, to highlight the need for a more specific and evidence-based justification regarding the research gap we have added a paragraph in the introduction section that explicitly identifies the scarcity of empirical studies examining the mediating role of green product innovation (GPI) between supply chain ambidexterity and sustainability.

Comment 2: the writing style is occasionally awkward, with poorly structured sentences. For Example: "Businesses can improve environmental sustainability and keep their competitive edge by including green innovation in supply chain operations , nevertheless, are the processes by which supply chain flexibility and agility affect GPI and hence sustainability..." (lines 71–73). This sentence is grammatically incorrect and confusing. It appears to conflate multiple ideas without proper transitions, leaving the reader uncertain about the argument.

• Response 2: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the unclear and grammatically incorrect sentence. We fully agree that the original sentence was poorly structured and may have caused confusion. In response, we have revised the sentence to clearly separate the two ideas and improve readability.

Comment 3: The transition into DCT is abrupt. There’s insufficient theoretical grounding explaining how DCT underpins the model or research hypotheses. The link between theory and constructs is not well articulated.

• Response 3: Thank you for this valuable observation. We agree that the original transition into DCT lacked depth. In response, we have added a dedicated paragraph in Section 2.2 that clearly articulates the connection between DCT and the study constructs: supply chain agility, adaptability, GPI, and sustainability.

Comment 4: The introduction provides an overview of known constructs (e.g., GSCM, agility, flexibility) without proposing a novel perspective. So merely combining known constructs does not qualify as an original contribution unless the interrelationships are explored in a significantly new or under-researched context, which is not clearly argued here.

• Response 4: Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have added a new paragraph towards the end of the introduction section that clearly articulates the theoretical, practical, and methodological contributions of our study.

Specifically, we emphasize how this research extends DCT by conceptualizing supply chain adaptability and agility as distinct enablers of green product innovation and sustainability. We also clarify the study’s novel contextual contribution by focusing on Jordanian manufacturing firms which is an underrepresented setting in the existing literature and highlight the methodological strength of using PLS-SEM with a large and relevant sample. This addition aims to directly address the novelty and relevance of our work in both academic and practical terms.

Literature Review

Comment 5: The literature review reads as a disjointed summary of prior work rather than a well-synthesized, critical narrative. It lacks a clear logical progression from broader themes to specific research gaps. For example: Example: Paragraphs jump between different themes—green innovation, agility, digital transformation—without clear transitions or thematic grouping. For instance, lines 100–105 blend ambidexterity theory with GPI outcomes and consumer pressure without clarifying how these are conceptually linked.

The review tends to describe studies without evaluating or comparing them. Simply listing findings (e.g., lines 106–113) does not reflect the depth of analysis expected from a high-quality literature review.

• Response 5: We thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback regarding the structure and coherence of the literature review. In response, we have added a dedicated sub-section titled “2.1 Synthesis of Literature on Ambidexterity, Green Product Innovation, and Supply Chain Sustainability” to improve the logical flow, thematic clarity, and critical evaluation of prior work. This subsection provides a more integrated narrative by comparing and synthesizing key studies, clarifying theoretical connections, and explicitly identifying gaps in the literature. These changes address concerns about abrupt transitions, unsupported statements, and the lack of critical depth, while also strengthening the justification for our research model.

Comment 7: Line 144 states, “supply chain agility mediates in improving digital supply chain capabilities,” yet the mechanism or theory behind this is not discussed.

• Response 7: Thank you for highlighting this important point. We agree that the original statement lacked theoretical grounding and may have caused confusion, especially since digital transformation is not the primary focus of this study. In response, we have revised the text to clarify the role of agility within the scope of our model and removed any ambiguous or unrelated references to digital capabilities.

Comment 8: Line 125: “...greatly adds to competitive advantage” — how was this measured or supported empirically?

• Response 8: Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have revised the relevant sentence and added a paragraph to Section 2.1 that provides empirical evidence from prior studies showing how green supply chain management (GSCM) and ambidexterity contribute to competitive advantage. This addition ensures the claim is well-supported and aligns with the broader theoretical framework.

 

Comment 9: Table 1 is intended to summarize past studies, but it lacks consistency and clarity. It includes vague descriptors and inconsistently defined variables. For Example: “SC 4.0 Maturity” and “Company success” are imprecise terms without explanation. Some variables (e.g., "Environmental competitiveness") appear without context or operational definition.

There's no explanation of selection criteria for included studies, nor is it clear how this table supports the research gap identified.

• Response 9: Thank you for this helpful and detailed comment. In response, we have revised Table 1 to ensure greater consistency and clarity. Specifically, we have (1) explained vague terms such as “SC 4.0 Maturity” and “Company success” (2) ensured all variables are clearly defined and matched to standard terminology used in the reviewed studies, and (3) added a brief explanatory paragraph after the table to clarify the selection criteria, indicating that studies were chosen based on their focus on supply chain ambidexterity, green product innovation (GPI), and sustainability. We also revised the text in Section 2.1 to clearly explain how Table 1 supports the identification of the research gap namely, the lack of studies examining GPI as a mediating construct between supply chain capabilities and sustainability in the context of manufacturing firms.

Comment 10: In section 2.2.1, the authors cite various sources to assert the importance of adaptability (e.g., [13], [17], [22], [30], [31]), but there is no clear articulation of how these studies collectively build a compelling argument for Hypothesis 1 (H1). The transition from absorptive capacity to network competencies to adaptability lacks logical cohesion.

• Response 10: Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have revised this section to better integrate the cited literature into a cohesive theoretical progression. Specifically, we clarified how absorptive capacity enables firms to recognize and apply external knowledge, which is then leveraged through network competencies to drive long-term strategic adjustments which are the key characteristics of supply chain adaptability. We also strengthened the theoretical link between adaptability and sustainability, ensuring that the logic behind Hypothesis 1 (H1) is clearly established.

Comment 11: H2 (Supply chain adaptability → GPI) is introduced after a discussion on absorptive capacity, network competencies, and organizational restructuring, but none of these threads directly link adaptability to GPI through a defined conceptual lens (e.g., dynamic capabilities theory or innovation diffusion theory).

• Response 11: Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have revised Section 2.2.1 to strengthen the theoretical foundation for Hypothesis 2 (H2) by explicitly framing the relationship between supply chain adaptability and GPI through the lens of DCT. We now clarify how adaptability as a dynamic capability enables firms to reconfigure resources and external relationships to support eco-innovation under changing environmental and market pressures.

Comment 12: Similarly, in H5, GPI’s impact on sustainability is said to be “supported by substantial evidence,” yet the text does not critically assess causality, conditional factors, or boundary conditions, nor does it cite any specific theoretical models supporting GPI’s mediating role

• Response 12: Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, we have revised Section 2.2.3 and Section 2.2.4 to better articulate the theoretical underpinnings of GPI’s influence on sustainability. We now clarify that DCT supports GPI as a capability-deployment mechanism, and we also acknowledge contingent factorsthat condition the strength of the GPI–sustainability relationship.

Comment 13: Reconstruct the hypothesis section using a solid theoretical lens (e.g., Dynamic Capabilities Theory, RBV, or Institutional Theory) to clearly define constructs and justify causal relationships.

• Response 13: Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, (in addition to H2), we have revised Section 2.2.1 to explicitly frame the relationship between supply chain adaptability and sustainability performance using DCT. We now clarify how adaptability enables firms to anticipate and proactively respond to external sustainability pressures by reconfiguring supply chain strategies and operations thus contributing to long-term sustainable performance as in H1. We have now revised Section 2.2.2 to explicitly anchor Hypothesis 3 (H3) in DCT. We clarify that supply chain agility, as a dynamic capability, enables firms to quickly reconfigure operational processes, mobilize cross-functional knowledge, and respond to environmental pressures creating favorable conditions for green product innovation. We have revised Section 2.2.2 to clarify how supply chain agility, as a dynamic capability under DCT, enables organizations to enhance their sustainability performance. We elaborate on the mechanisms through which agility supports rapid operational adaptation, regulatory compliance, and customer-driven environmental responsiveness thereby providing a clearer rationale for Hypothesis 4 (H4). We have revised Section 2.2.3 to explain how GPI contributes to supply chain sustainability by embedding environmental considerations into product design and production processes. Anchored in DCT, we clarify that GPI is a capability deployment mechanism that helps translate innovation investments into measurable environmental and operational performance improvements reinforcing the logic of H5. Finally, we have revised Section 2.2.4 to explicitly position GPI as a mediating capability within the framework of DCT. We explain how GPI operationalizes the impact of adaptability and agility by converting dynamic capacities into sustainable outcomes, thereby justifying Hypotheses 6a and 6b.

 

Methodology

Comment 14: The authors could strengthen the methodology by either (1) justifying why a probability sample was unfeasible in this specific case with logistical or financial constraints, or (2) adding qualitative justification to support expert selection with evidence of respondents' experience levels or firm representativeness.

• Response 14: Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, we have revised the methodology section to explain why a probability sampling approach was not feasible in our study due to logistical and contextual constraints specific to the Jordanian manufacturing sector. We also provide a qualitative justification for our use of judgmental (expert) sampling, including the rationale for selecting respondents with relevant expertise and decision-making authority in supply chain management.

Comment 15: The assurance of anonymity and data protection is briefly mentioned (lines 368–370), but there is no indication that ethical approval was sought or granted by an institutional review board (IRB) or equivalent ethics committee.

• Response 15: Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, we have added a clarification to the Methodology section under a new “Ethical Considerations” subsection. As the study was conducted in a context where no institutional ethics board exists for approving social science research, formal IRB approval could not be obtained. However, we ensured compliance with ethical research standards by obtaining informed consent from all participants, protecting their anonymity, and ensuring data confidentiality. No minors were involved in the study. This limitation and ethical adherence have now been explicitly stated in the manuscript.

Comment 16: Although the data collection period is specified (June to October 2024), there is no detail on the mode of distribution beyond “internet distribution methods” (line 368). Were surveys sent via email, shared via professional networks, or hosted on a survey platform (e.g., Qualtrics, Google Forms)? Additionally, were any follow-ups or reminders used?

• Response 16: Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, we have expanded the Data Collection subsection of the Methodology section to provide a clearer description of the survey distribution process.

Findings

Comment 17: The descriptive statistics section is underdeveloped and lacks interpretation. While means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis are reported, the manuscript fails to explain their implications.

There is no discussion of:

1. The practical significance of these values,
2. The impact of skewness and kurtosis on data normality,
3. Whether these metrics support assumptions for subsequent SEM analysis.

 

• Response 17: Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, we have revised the Descriptive Statistics section to provide interpretation of the reported values. We now explain the practical relevance of the mean scores, assess the skewness and kurtosis values in relation to data normality, and justify their adequacy for Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) using PLS-SEM.

Comment 18: The construct "Supply Chain Sustainability" uses operational items such as reduced paper usage, compliance, and stakeholder relations, which reflect organizational outcomes, not sustainability as a theoretical construct. These indicators seem arbitrarily selected and lack theoretical grounding or citation support.

• Response 18: Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, we have revised the measurement constructs section to clarify the theoretical foundation of the supply chain sustainability construct. The selected indicators were not arbitrarily chosen but were adapted from prior validated studies that conceptualize sustainability as a multidimensional construct encompassing financial, environmental, social, and compliance-related outcomes.

Comment 19: While the Fornell–Larcker criterion is applied, the manuscript fails to report cross-loadings or HTMT ratios, which are widely accepted as superior methods for assessing discriminant validity in recent literature.

• Response 19: Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, we have updated the Measurement Model Assessment section to include the Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations, which is recognized in recent literature as a more robust method for assessing discriminant validity than the traditional Fornell–Larcker criterion.

Comment 20: the hypothesis testing section simply reports t-values and p-values without discussing effect sizes, practical significance, or implications. For instance:

“H1 (t = 0.806, p = 0.420) was rejected…” – but why might this relationship not be significant?

• Response 20: Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, we have expanded the Hypotheses Testing section to include effect sizes (f²) and provided a discussion of the practical significance and implications for each hypothesis. These additions offer a more nuanced interpretation of the results, highlighting both the statistical and managerial relevance of the findings. Moreover, the explanation of these results were improved and expanded in the discussion section

 

Comment 21: Additionally, the mediation results are presented without explaining the method used (e.g., bootstrapping confidence intervals for indirect effects) or providing visualization (e.g., a path diagram with betas).

• Response 21: Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, we have updated the Mediation Analysis section to explicitly state that we used bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples to assess the significance of indirect effects and provide bias-corrected confidence intervals. Additionally, we have included a structural model path diagram displaying standardized path coefficients (β) to visually represent the relationships among the constructs.

Discussion

Comment 22: The manuscript states that H1 was not supported and that this contradicts previous studies ([10,12,13,17,24]), yet it fails to provide an in-depth analysis of why this deviation occurs. Simply acknowledging a contradiction is insufficient; a rigorous discussion should explore potential contextual factors (e.g., regional, industrial, methodological differences) that might explain this divergence. For instance, why might adaptability not influence sustainability in Jordanian manufacturing when it has been confirmed elsewhere? Is it due to regulatory gaps, lack of technological adoption, or cultural barriers?

Comment 23: Throughout the discussion (e.g., lines 443–457), the manuscript repeatedly confirms prior findings without demonstrating critical insight or extending the discourse. This reflects a confirmatory rather than exploratory approach and does not add theoretical novelty.

Comment 24: Although the authors reference the Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT), the discussion does not engage with the theory meaningfully. There is little effort to explain how DCT underpins the observed relationships or to theorize why agility may outperform adaptability in driving sustainability.

 

• Response 22+23+24: Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, we have revised the discussion section to provide a deeper explanation for the non-significant finding of H1, highlighting contextual factors such as weak regulatory enforcement, limited technological infrastructure, and institutional gaps in Jordanian manufacturing that may hinder the impact of adaptability on sustainability.

We also moved beyond a confirmatory tone by offering critical insights into why agility outperformed adaptability and how these capabilities function differently.

Additionally, we strengthened our engagement DCT by explaining how agility and adaptability operate as dynamic capabilities and how GPI serves as a mechanism through which these capabilities translate into sustainability outcomes.

Comment 24: The implications section provides generic advice (e.g., "use cleaner production technologies" or "reduce overproduction") that is widely known and lacks grounding in the study’s unique empirical findings.

• Response 24: Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, we have thoroughly revised the Managerial Implications section to ensure it is directly grounded in our empirical results and reflects the specific context of Jordanian manufacturing. Rather than offering generic recommendations, the revised section provides sector-specific insights and practical strategies derived from the observed roles of adaptability, agility, and green product innovation. We also highlight how these capabilities should be strategically leveraged in different industries (e.g., chemicals, plastics, food, and printing) and explain how GPI can act as a mechanism for translating operational capabilities into sustainability outcomes.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, The manuscript has been significantly improved after addressing the suggested issues. The revised manuscript is now  seems to be ready for publication in its current form.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. This has led to a significantly improved version of the manuscript.

Comment 1: Dear Authors, the manuscript has been significantly improved after addressing the suggested issues. The revised manuscript is now  seems to be ready for publication in its current form.

• Response 1: Thank you very much for your positive and encouraging feedback. We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful comments and the time you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We are pleased to know that the revisions have met your expectations and that the manuscript is now considered ready for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made the changes, at least they tried. Added additional explanation. Now it is better, but the paper is still in mismatch between what they measure and what they say they will measure

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We have made our best to address your constructive comments as thoroughly as possible. We appreciate your effort that this has led to a significantly improved version of the manuscript.

Comment 1: The authors made the changes, at least they tried. Added additional explanation. Now it is better, but the paper is still in mismatch between what they measure and what they say they will measure

• Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your observation regarding the mismatch between what we claim to measure and what is actually assessed. As acknowledged in our previous responses and reflected in the revised manuscript, we have now positioned our study as an investigation of firm-level supply chain practices within manufacturing firms, rather than entire supply chains. We have bring into line the theoretical framing, constructs, and hypotheses accordingly.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have significantly improved the Introduction section in this second revision. The narrative now presents a clear and compelling rationale for the study, linking supply chain ambidexterity, green product innovation (GPI), and sustainable performance through a well-articulated theoretical lens. The argument builds logically, drawing on Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT), and addresses a meaningful research gap. The contextual focus on Jordanian manufacturing firms is relevant and timely, contributing to both theory and practice in emerging economies. However, I suggest the following minor revisions to improve clarity, conciseness, and readability:

Introduction

Lines 68–70: The sentence "GPI is the creation of eco-friendly products by means of sustainable materials..." is redundant and repetitive ("sustainable materials" and "energy-efficient manufacturing techniques" are mentioned twice). Consider simplifying to:

"GPI involves creating eco-friendly products using sustainable materials, energy-efficient manufacturing processes, and environmentally conscious design."

Lines 112–126: While the paragraph summarizes the contributions well, it is quite dense. Consider breaking it into two paragraphs—one focusing on theoretical contributions (112–118) and the second on practical and methodological contributions (119–126).

Literature Review

this section has been improved.

 

methodology

This section has been revised as suggested

 

Discussion

The revised "Discussion" section demonstrates a significant improvement in conceptual clarity, theoretical grounding, and contextual justification. The author provides a well-articulated explanation of the differential impacts of adaptability and agility on green product innovation (GPI) and supply chain sustainability, aligning the findings effectively with the Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT). The discussion critically engages with prior literature and contextual constraints, particularly in developing economies such as Jordan, offering meaningful theoretical and practical insights.

Line 833: "mechanisms—such as GPI—or embedded within supportive..." could be rephrased as “mechanisms, such as GPI, or embedded within a supportive…”

Ensure consistent use of terms such as "green product innovation (GPI)" and "supply chain sustainability" throughout the discussion. In a few instances, terms are shortened prematurely (e.g., “sustainability” instead of “supply chain sustainability”) which could cause confusion for readers unfamiliar with the study’s framework.

While the discussion is rich in theoretical insights, adding 1–2 sentences about what the findings imply for managers or policymakers in developing countries would further enhance the applied value of the work.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. This has led to a significantly improved version of the manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding minor corrections highlighted in the file.

General comment: The authors have significantly improved the Introduction section in this second revision. The narrative now presents a clear and compelling rationale for the study, linking supply chain ambidexterity, green product innovation (GPI), and sustainable performance through a well-articulated theoretical lens. The argument builds logically, drawing on Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT), and addresses a meaningful research gap. The contextual focus on Jordanian manufacturing firms is relevant and timely, contributing to both theory and practice in emerging economies. However, I suggest the following minor revisions to improve clarity, conciseness, and readability:

• General response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the encouraging feedback and for recognizing the improvements made to the Introduction section. We are pleased that the revised narrative now presents a clearer and more compelling rationale for our study, with a coherent link among supply chain ambidexterity, green product innovation, and sustainable performance under the Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT) framework. We also appreciate the acknowledgment of the study’s contextual relevance to Jordanian manufacturing firms and its contribution to both theoretical development and practical implications in emerging economies.

 

Introduction

Comment 1: Lines 68–70: The sentence "GPI is the creation of eco-friendly products by means of sustainable materials..." is redundant and repetitive ("sustainable materials" and "energy-efficient manufacturing techniques" are mentioned twice). Consider simplifying to: "GPI involves creating eco-friendly products using sustainable materials, energy-efficient manufacturing processes, and environmentally conscious design."

• Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comment. As recommended, this change has been put into the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 2: Lines 112–126: While the paragraph summarizes the contributions well, it is quite dense. Consider breaking it into two paragraphs—one focusing on theoretical contributions (112–118) and the second on practical and methodological contributions (119–126).

• Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have revised the paragraph on lines 112–126 by dividing it into two distinct paragraphs: the first highlights the theoretical contributions (lines 112–118), and the second focuses on the practical and methodological contributions (lines 119–126). This adjustment enhances readability and ensures a clearer presentation of our study’s contributions.

Literature Review

Comment 3: this section has been improved.

• Response 3: Thank you for acknowledging the improvements to the Literature Review. We are pleased that it is now better.

 

Methodology

Comment 4: This section has been revised as suggested.

• Response 4: Thank you for acknowledging the revisions made to the Methodology section. We are glad that the changes align with your suggestions and expectations.

 

Discussion

The revised "Discussion" section demonstrates a significant improvement in conceptual clarity, theoretical grounding, and contextual justification. The author provides a well-articulated explanation of the differential impacts of adaptability and agility on green product innovation (GPI) and supply chain sustainability, aligning the findings effectively with the Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT). The discussion critically engages with prior literature and contextual constraints, particularly in developing economies such as Jordan, offering meaningful theoretical and practical insights.

Comment 5: Line 833: "mechanisms—such as GPI—or embedded within supportive..." could be rephrased as “mechanisms, such as GPI, or embedded within a supportive…”

• Response 5: Thank you for your comment. Done as suggested.

 

Comment 6: Ensure consistent use of terms such as "green product innovation (GPI)" and "supply chain sustainability" throughout the discussion. In a few instances, terms are shortened prematurely (e.g., “sustainability” instead of “supply chain sustainability”) which could cause confusion for readers unfamiliar with the study’s framework.

• Response 6: Thank you for this valuable observation. We have reviewed the Discussion section carefully and ensured consistent use of key terms such as “green product innovation (GPI)” and “supply chain sustainability” throughout.

 

Comment 7: While the discussion is rich in theoretical insights, adding 1–2 sentences about what the findings imply for managers or policymakers in developing countries would further enhance the applied value of the work.

• Response 7: Thank you for your valuable comment. The sentences were added as suggested.