External Ecosystem Resources and SME Sustainable Environmental Performance: Evidence from Ghana

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this work. The topic seems current and pertinent.

The paper's structure is clear and concise, and it is supported by meaningful results.

However, I believe, addressing a few key points could really enhance its impact -

1. The Introduction should clearly define the research gap and introduce the research questions.
2. In the Literature Review, lines 76-99, the recent references are missing (no references from 2024 or 2025). The same needs to be addressed for Section 2.2 as well.
3. It will be good to mention the sampling technique used for the study as well, under the Methodology section.
4. The methodology is well-grounded and reflects the rigour.
5. In the discussion section (5.1), I strongly believe that more recent references should be used.
6. The same applies to Theoretical implications.

Overall, the paper shows great potential but needs theoretical improvements, particularly by adding recent references, before it can be published.

Author Response

see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the Introduction and Abstract, you could state more explicitly what the novelty is, e.g. whether the key contribution is the relative primacy of ecosystem structural levers over softer levers and why that matters for SME sustainability and SDGs.
2. In the Abstract, the phrasing about positivist, deductive, and objective is not necessary. Rather add essentials, such as sample, sectors, analytic approach, main effects, and practical implication.
3. Several hypotheses should be rewritten in a consistent, testable form.
4. In Model fit and R² interpretation, there are broken sentences. Also, please ensure that your claims match reported statistics. Over-claiming “robustness” without clear qualifiers should be omitted.
5. Please provide a clearer, theory-based explanation for why culture and human capital are non-significant in this context. Also, you should distinguish no direct effect from irrelevance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some continents are underrepresented in the mainstream of published research. Works that originate from or study these contexts should always be valued and supported. The greatest interest lies in the academic community, which is thus enriched.

This work is about a study in Ghana and therefore has that additional interest.

The study is competently conducted and supported by a (minority) set of current references, which is complemented by an interesting set of references to older works.

However, the work raises some questions that may warrant further reflection. Here are the ones that seem most pertinent for now:

1. The paper begins by referring (lines 30 et seq.), that SMEs account for 70% of employment in industry, citing two studies that refer to this. The second study (Mugano...) on page 214 indisputably refers to another figure (85%). This is the first few lines of the study with a factual error (you don't get two chances to make a good first impression...).
2. Papers are form and content, and both aspects must be treated with rigor. In this regard, the work has frequent shortcomings. For example, in figure one, there are different fonts for the same type of content; in some cases, the topics are capitalized, in others they are not...
3. The paper is based on six hypotheses. It would have been interesting to relate the hypotheses to the three theoretical models on which the paper is based.
4. Hypothesis 5 refers to human capital. Of the company? Of the country? Of the labor market where the company operates?
5. Hypothesis 5 refers to institutional support. From whom?
6. The study uses sustainable environmental performance as a dependent variable, but the concept is not clearly defined. It should be. And how was it measured? Lines 201 and 202 seem to want to discuss the subject, but the references indicated are not included in the final list. We are talking about the dependent variable, which, regardless of the references, should be adequately presented.
7. It is not clear in the paper what the actual content of the questionnaire was. How many questions were there? It is assumed that it included questions on socio-professional characteristics, but this is only an assumption; we do not know for sure.
8. How the questionnaire was actually distributed and collected, or how many people were invited to participate.
9. It is not clear in the paper how the questionnaire was actually distributed and collected, or how many people were invited to participate.
10. In addition to the point mentioned, which is relevant because it concerns the dependent variable, the rest of section 3.1 Measurement and scale development seems underdeveloped.
11. The discussion in point 4 seems appropriate.
12. The results presented in chapter 5 are highly debatable. Not distinguishing between a Beta of 0.014 (culture) and a beta of 0.723 (policy) is inexplicable.

 

The above points limit the analysis that can be made of the conclusions and implications.

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a topic that is clearly aligned with the scope of Businesses, particularly in relation to governance mechanisms and environmental performance in emerging economies. The research question is relevant and potentially contributes to the ongoing debate on corporate sustainability practices. However, several aspects require substantial clarification and strengthening before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

1. Introduction and Theoretical Framing

The introduction outlines the general relevance of environmental governance; however, the theoretical positioning remains somewhat descriptive rather than analytical. The manuscript would benefit from:

• A more precise articulation of the research gap. The current text suggests relevance but does not clearly demonstrate what remains unresolved in prior literature.

• Stronger theoretical anchoring. The theoretical framework should move beyond general references and clearly explain how the selected governance mechanisms are expected to influence environmental performance.

• A clearer formulation of hypotheses grounded explicitly in theory rather than inferred from empirical trends.

At present, the hypotheses appear logically plausible but insufficiently justified from a conceptual standpoint.

2. Research Design and Methodology

While the empirical strategy is generally appropriate for the research question, the methodological section requires greater transparency and rigor:

• The sample selection process should be described in greater detail (inclusion/exclusion criteria, sectoral distribution, time coverage).

• Variable operationalization needs clearer justification, particularly regarding proxies used for environmental performance and governance quality.

• The manuscript should explicitly address potential endogeneity concerns and explain how they are mitigated (if at all).

• Robustness checks should be described more systematically and interpreted more critically rather than merely reported.

Without these clarifications, the scientific soundness of the findings remains difficult to fully assess.

3. Results Presentation

The results section presents the regression outputs clearly in tabular form; however:

• Interpretation remains somewhat mechanical. Greater analytical depth is needed.

• The practical meaning of coefficients should be discussed more explicitly.

• Where results contradict expectations or prior studies, this should be acknowledged and explained rather than briefly noted.

Additionally, some tables would benefit from clearer labeling and improved structure to enhance readability.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

The conclusions broadly reflect the empirical findings, but the discussion would benefit from:

• Stronger integration with the theoretical framework.

• Clearer articulation of academic contributions.

• More cautious language when interpreting associations as implications. Some statements currently appear overly deterministic given the observational nature of the data.

• A more developed limitations section, including methodological and contextual constraints.

• More concrete policy and managerial implications derived directly from the empirical evidence.

5. Language and Style

The manuscript would benefit from professional language editing. Certain sections contain long sentences, grammatical inconsistencies, and occasional imprecise terminology that reduce clarity.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript would benefit from careful linguistic revision to enhance clarity, precision, and academic tone. While the overall meaning is generally understandable, several issues affect readability and professional presentation.

First, there are recurring grammatical inconsistencies, including subject–verb agreement errors, inconsistent use of articles, and occasional incorrect verb tenses. These do not obscure the argument entirely but interrupt the flow of reading and reduce the manuscript’s perceived rigor.

Second, sentence structure is often overly long and syntactically dense. In several sections—particularly in the introduction and discussion—sentences combine multiple ideas without sufficient logical connectors. This reduces clarity and makes some arguments difficult to follow. Breaking longer sentences into more concise statements would improve coherence and strengthen argumentative precision.

Third, certain technical terms are used inconsistently throughout the manuscript. Key concepts related to governance and environmental performance should be defined clearly and then used consistently to avoid ambiguity. In some cases, terminology appears interchangeable when conceptual distinctions may be important.

Additionally, transitions between paragraphs and sections could be improved. Some sections move abruptly from one idea to another without adequate framing, which weakens the overall narrative structure of the paper.

Finally, the tone occasionally becomes assertive or deterministic in a way that exceeds what the empirical evidence supports. Moderating the language—particularly in the interpretation of results—would improve academic neutrality and strengthen the manuscript’s credibility.

A thorough professional language edit by a native English speaker or academic editing service is strongly recommended prior to resubmission.

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript shows improvement compared with the previous version. The authors have made efforts to clarify the structure of the manuscript, improve the presentation of the empirical model, and provide additional details regarding the measurement and analysis procedures. The overall organization of the paper has become clearer, and the results are now presented in a more systematic manner.

The topic of the study remains relevant to the scope of Businesses, particularly in relation to sustainability practices among SMEs in emerging economies. The empirical dataset and analytical approach provide useful insights into the role of ecosystem factors such as policy, financing, markets, and institutional support in shaping sustainable environmental performance.

However, several aspects could still benefit from minor refinement before publication.

First, the theoretical framing could be more explicitly connected to the hypotheses. While the manuscript refers to the Resource-Based View, Resource Dependency Theory, and Stakeholder Theory, the links between these theoretical perspectives and the specific proposed relationships could be articulated more clearly.

Second, the discussion section occasionally adopts language that may appear overly deterministic given the cross-sectional survey design. The interpretation of the findings would benefit from slightly more cautious wording that emphasizes empirical associations rather than causal relationships.

Third, some sections of the manuscript—particularly in the introduction and discussion—would benefit from further editing to improve clarity and conciseness.

Overall, the manuscript has improved and addresses an important topic. Subject to these relatively minor refinements, it can be considered suitable for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript would benefit from an additional round of linguistic editing to further improve clarity, precision, and readability. While the overall meaning of the text is generally understandable, several sentences remain unnecessarily long or syntactically dense, particularly in the introduction and discussion sections. Breaking longer sentences into shorter and more direct statements would improve readability and strengthen the presentation of the arguments.

In addition, minor grammatical issues are still present throughout the manuscript, including occasional inconsistencies in article usage, verb tense, and sentence structure. These issues do not prevent comprehension but slightly reduce the overall fluency of the text.

Some terminology could also be used more consistently across sections. Ensuring that key concepts related to entrepreneurial ecosystems and sustainable environmental performance are defined clearly and applied consistently would enhance conceptual clarity.

Author Response

See attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf