Internationalization, Strategic Slack Resources, and Firm Performance: The Case Study of Vietnamese Enterprises
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper requires extensive work. I will describe first my major concerns, and them some little issues to deal with too.
The authors should justify and explain better why Vietnam is the geographical site chosen for the study. Why is this country relevant? What are the similarities -and differences- with other countries.? Are these results applicable to any country?
Literature review in Internationalization degree is rather poor. A starting point for improvement in this field might be some of the articles published in the Journal of International Business Studies, Volume 48, Issue 9, December 2017. The literature cited in your paper mixes different theories, which are opposed in some cases, but yet used to justify your arguments.
The four-stage model requires a better justification. Although initially stating that it is based on evidence, then different theories are used to justify each stage. The theoretical position of the authors has to be more clearly defined. Moreover, the explanations provided for stages 3 and 4 seem to refer to MNCs, which are no longer SMEs. And yet, stage four’s justification still lacks clarity and strength. Please address this concern, either by refining those arguments or justifying that MNCs arguments apply to SMEs in this case.
Are you really “(..) exploring the impact of three types of organizational slack on internationalization performance.”
The explanation of hypothesis 2, 3, and 4 needs to be elaborated more strongly. For instance, when admitting that AHR effect is difficult to predict.
Data sample: Please consider studying if results are significant when only medium enterprises are considered.
Concerning the model, estimators should be chosen according to the research objectives and data characteristics. Please explain why the fixed-effects regression is more appropriate in this case. Please read:
Bell, A., & Jones, K. (2015). Explaining fixed effects: Random effects modeling of time-series cross-sectional and panel data. Political Science Research and Methods, 3(1), 133-153. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2014.7
Bell, A., Fairbrother, M., & Jones, K. (2019). Fixed and random effects models: making an informed choice. Quality and Quantity, 53(2), 1051–1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0802-x
The Hausman test is not always accurate.
Empirical Results and discussion: The mean value and standard deviation of DOI (Table 2) seem to me abnormal. Is the mean of DOI 0.001? How does this low value affect your study?
Again, it seems to me that companies in the third or fourth stages are not SMEs anymore. Can this level of maturity of international integration be achieved by SMEs?
Figure 1: I’m having problems understanding how this figure was obtained, considering the mean value and standard deviation of DOI
Also the measurement and explanation for Slack resources and their impact on performance require further improvement. Please check some articles on measuring slack resources:
Carneiro, J., Bamiatzi, V., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2018). Organizational slack as an enabler of internationalization: The case of large Brazilian firms. International Business Review, 27(5), 1057–1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.03.006
Chen, Y. M., Yang, D. H., & Lin, F. J. (2013). Does technological diversification matter to firm performance? The moderating role of organizational slack. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1970–1975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.020
Daniel, F., Lohrke, F. T., Fornaciari, C. J., & Turner, R. A. (2004). Slack resources and firm performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 565–574.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00439-3
Wiersma, E. (2017). How and when do firms translate slack into better performance? British Accounting Review, 49(5), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2017.05.007
Yang, Y., & Chen, J. (2017). Do slack resources matter in Chinese firms’ collaborative innovation? International Journal of Innovation Studies, 1(4), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2017.12.001
Minor comments:
Lines 27-30: Please provide a more recent reference (It seems that nothing interesting has been said since 2007 in the issue).
Lines 69-70: Apparently, there are three research objectives. However, I only found two in the paragraph.
Lines 86-87: Provide references for the statement.
Line 91 – Explain what IE stands for.
Lines 110-113: Please cite those studies.
Line 120: Please provide an explanation for the number of 110. Table 1 just provide 1 example for each type of findings. If you have found more than 110 papers, please provide a more comprehensive table, including all those studies analyzed.
Lines 130-134: Please cite those authors that recognize those limitations. The ‘born-global‘ stream has attempted to explain this concern.
Line 135: What evidence are you referring to?
Lines 138-39: Why is Vietnam different from other countries?
Line 256: Please provide the conversión value in EUR or USD of VNDs.
Line 299: Show the results of the Hausman test.
Table 2. Explanation line for the asterisks.
Lines 309-312: Delete or rewrite (You are just saying again the same as the paragraph above).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer;
On behalf of the coauthors, I greatly appreciate your valuable comments to improve the paper.
It is very hard to use track change to conduct a major revision. All coauthors and English Editor have participated in the revision process. Therefore, we highlight the yellow color on the main changes.
Once again, a big thank you for all your help making a huge difference.
Best regards,
Dr. Phuong Nguyen
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is an interesting subject area that examines the effect of the degree of internationalization on firm performance and the moderating effects of organisational slacks on the internationalization-firm performance relationship in Vietnam. The outcomes of the study can add to the understanding internationalization of SME emerging economies context. In think the authors have done a good job by providing fresh evidence of the DOI in an emerging country. Nevertheless there are different areas of the manuscript that could be improved as detailed below:
Introduction
· It is quite interesting to note that Vietnam provides the contextual base for this paper. However, it will be appropriate to know more about SMEs, specifically: Is there an increased number of firms internationalizing in Vietnam, and to which country?
Literature review
· In lines 99-100, two main theories of internationalization are proposed which is good. FDI theories are discussed in details. It is not clear where theories of multinational firms are discussed.
Methodology
· Under section 3.1, three figure of firms are provided – 900,000, 1,732,265, and 569,767. It would be improve clarity if there is a clear explanation of how 1,732,265 relates to the other two figure.
· Provide more details on the sampling technique used.
Empirical results and discussion
· In line 317, product diversification is discussed as a moderator, while in line 284, it is discussed as a control variable. It would be good to provide more clarity
· Similarity, in line 379, firm size is discussed as a moderator, while in line 285, it is discussed as a control variable. It would be good to provide more clarity.
· It is not clear if interaction terms discussed in lines 396-444 are mean-centered, which they should be?
Conclusions and implications
· What are other limitations of the study and opportunities for future research?
General comments/questions
· References. There is need to be consistent in referencing. For example in some cases there is “…et al.” (Without a comma, e.g. line 46, 74 and in many other places) while in other cases a comma is added after al “… et al.,”. Delete initials of names in references in text. For example, “W.T. Lin et al., 2011” in line 35 and many other places.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer;
On behalf of the coauthors, I greatly appreciate your valuable comments to improve the paper.
It is very hard to use track change to conduct a major revision. All coauthors and English Editor have participated in the revision process. Therefore, we highlight the yellow color on the main changes.
Once again, a big thank you for all your help making a huge difference.
Best regards,
Dr. Phuong Nguyen
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an interesting paper on a relevant topic.
However, there are some issues which must be addressed before the paper can be published:
1) The introduction does a basically good job at reviewing extant research and highlighting current findings, against which the authors' study is positioned. However, while doing so, the research question should be more clearly articulated. What is your contribution, exactly? From which specific gap does it arise? It is not true that you are contributing only to literature on international integration, but to literature on international business and international economics. Also, you should differentiate two aspects: research on emerging market firms (vs. advanced country firms) and research on MNCs vs. SMEs - there are some peculiarities in internationalisation and its performance, related both to size of the company and its origin. So merely stating that you focus on "SMEs from an emerging market" is not enough.
2) The fact that you focus on organisational slack should be better justified and rooted in theory.
3) Why is Vietnam your empirical focus? This should be better justified.
4) I disagree with your statement that theories of FDI are distinct from theories of MNEs. In fact, MNEs arise out of FDI. So please double-check this statement.
5) Table 1 mixes up DOI measurement and "country" (country of origin??) - this should be separated!
6) Your justification of Hypothesis 1 should be specific to SMEs and to emerging markets, and thus include some context-specific arguments! Currently, the reasoning is at a generic level.
7) The same correction is necessary for the other hypotheses.
8) In line with the comments on the introduction, the final part should be clearer with regard to your contribution, but also your limitations.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer;
On behalf of the coauthors, I greatly appreciate your valuable comments to improve the paper.
It is very hard to use track change to conduct a major revision. All coauthors and English Editor have participated in the revision process. Therefore, we highlight the yellow color on the main changes.
Once again, a big thank you for all your help making a huge difference.
Best regards,
Dr. Phuong Nguyen
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for the effort! Please find below some of the concerns previously expressed and not addressed in your answer in a satisfying manner.
1.- Literature review in Internationalization degree is rather poor. A starting point for improvement in this field might be some of the articles published in the Journal of International Business Studies, Volume 48, Issue 9, December 2017. The literature cited in your paper mixes different theories, which are opposed in some cases, but yet used to justify your arguments. While I appreciate the effort including some of the references suggested, the theoretical arguments remain weak.
2.- The four-stage model requires a better justification. Although initially stating that it is based on evidence, then different theories are used to justify each stage. The theoretical position of the authors has to be more clearly defined. Moreover, the explanations provided for stages 3 and 4 seem to refer to MNCs, which are no longer SMEs. And yet, stage four’s justification still lacks clarity and strength. Please address this concern, either by refining those arguments or justifying that MNCs arguments apply to SMEs in this case. Not properly addressed in the new draft.
3.- The explanation of hypothesis 2, 3, and 4 needs to be elaborated more strongly. For instance, when admitting that AHR effect is difficult to predict. Not properly addressed in the new draft.
4.- Data sample: Please consider studying if results are significant when only medium enterprises are considered. NOT ANSWERED
5.- Empirical Results and discussion: The mean value and standard deviation of DOI (Table 2) seem to me abnormal. Is the mean of DOI 0.001? How does this low value affect your study? NOT ANSWERED
6.- Again, it seems to me that companies in the third or fourth stages are not SMEs anymore. Can this level of maturity of international integration be achieved by SMEs? If the data has not changed, this question remains unanswered
7.- Figure 1: I’m having problems understanding how this figure was obtained, considering the mean value and standard deviation of DOI NOT ANSWERED
8.- Also the measurement and explanation for Slack resources and their impact on performance require further improvement. Please check some articles on measuring slack resources:
Carneiro, J., Bamiatzi, V., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2018). Organizational slack as an enabler of internationalization: The case of large Brazilian firms. International Business Review, 27(5), 1057–1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.03.006
Chen, Y. M., Yang, D. H., & Lin, F. J. (2013). Does technological diversification matter to firm performance? The moderating role of organizational slack. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1970–1975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.020
Daniel, F., Lohrke, F. T., Fornaciari, C. J., & Turner, R. A. (2004). Slack resources and firm performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 565–574.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00439-3
Wiersma, E. (2017). How and when do firms translate slack into better performance? British Accounting Review, 49(5), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2017.05.007
Yang, Y., & Chen, J. (2017). Do slack resources matter in Chinese firms’ collaborative innovation? International Journal of Innovation Studies, 1(4), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2017.12.001
NOT ANSWERED, just broadly citing Daniel et al., without providing better arguments for the measurement and explanation for Slack resources and their impact on performance.
Minor comments:
Lines 27-30: Please provide a more recent reference (It seems that nothing interesting has been said since 2007 in the issue). Lines 26-29 in the new draft.
Lines 86-87: Provide references for the statement. Lines 212-13 in the new draft.
Line 91 – Explain what IE stands for. Lines 216-217 in the new draft.
Lines 110-113: Please cite those studies.(Lines 236-239 in the new draft)
Lines 130-134: Please cite those authors that recognize those limitations. The ‘born-global‘ stream has attempted to explain this concern. (Lines 259-262 in the new draft)
Line 135: What evidence are you referring to? Line 262 in the new draft.
Lines 555-558 in the new draft: same reference cited several times
Author Response
Dear Reviewer;
Many thanks for your time and valuable comments! We have revised our manuscript according to the review reports step by step. Please see the attachment. Thanks again!
Best regards,
Phuong V. Nguyen
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
While there is some progress in the manuscript, the following aspects still require significant attention:
1) The introduction should first highlight the general gaps and research questions and argue why the emerging market context is crucial to this study.
2) The organizational slack is not sufficiently rooted in theory (which approaches are appropriate here) and the underlying concepts are not explained. This should precede the formulation of the related hypotheses.
3) The implications of the study and directions for future research should be more elaborate.
4) The English should be checked carefully (e.g. "organizational slacks").
Good luck with the revisions!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer;
Many thanks for your time and valuable comments! We have revised our manuscript according to the review reports step by step. Please see the attachment. Thanks again!
Best regards,
Phuong V. Nguyen
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for your nice effort answering my demands. I think that this work is now almost ready to be published. Please just update the Limitations and further study section with some of the limitations acknowledged in your response letter.
Congratulations!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer;
I really appreciate your supports and keep all value comments respectfully.
I will operationalize them to write down the new research proposal.
I hope we will meet in persons in the near future to discuss further details and seek potential collaborations.
Best regards,
Phuong Van Nguyen
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors, thank you for improving the paper, which is now at an acceptable level.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer;
I really appreciate your supports and keep all value comments respectfully.
I will operationalize them to write down the new research proposal.
Best regards,
Phuong Van Nguyen
