Modeling Work Practices under Socio-Technical Systems for Sustainable Manufacturing Performance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an important and potentially interesting topic and the paper is generally well-written. The authors have clearly done a lot of work and their research design is set out clearly. The discussion that follows is coherent and seeks to address the hypotheses the authors have set out, leading to some tentative conclusions. My main problem with this paper lies in the review of literature in the introductory section. The authors talk about ‘the Sociotechnical Approach’ as if there were one, agreed frame of analysis with this name. They have included a number of confusing references to substantiate this term but these are no consistent. It appears that what they have in mind is something resembling the Toyota Manufacturing System, but they have included a reference talking about sociomateriality. None of this discussion provides a sufficient, epistemological underpinning for the research method or analysis proposed. The authors refer to a systems approach, but their approach is not systemic. They talk about ‘the Sociotechnical Approach’ as comprising a set number of sub-systems and five work practices (Line 162). What is the origin of these statements? The authors don’t appear to have carried out any systemic analysis to arrive at them, nor have they given a clear source to published work. The method set out in the next section is clear, coherent and logical. However, it is not systemic and it would be better if the authors did not suggest that it is.  

I would suggest that the authors remove the general discussion relating to a sociotechnical approach and instead clarify what they mean. It would be better to refer to Lean manufacturing or, more specifically the Toyota System and give references for this. Since the empirical work involves breaking down manufacturing into work practices and other smaller elements, it would be better not to suggest a systemic approach. If these changes are made, then the hypotheses stand on their own merit and the empirical work has a more solid, epistemological underpinning.

The diagram at Line 197 is not adequately labelled. What is its source? Did the authors devise it themselves? If not, the source needs to be set out.

There are some other problematical statements:

Line 175 ‘… industrial systems are designed to be more supportive to society …’

Line 185 ‘Recent shifts in the industry …’ – which industry is this?

Line 187 ‘Manufacturers are activity looking for strategies to enhance sustainable manufacturing’. Evidence?

Line 389 suggests that senior management support confirms working practices – is this contentious?

These statements need to be clarified.

While the paper is generally well-written, it would benefit from proof-reading. In particular:

Line 106 – ‘believe’ should possibly be ‘belief’.

Line 109 – There is an incomplete sentence here beginning ‘Although…. And … However, ….’ The meaning is unclear and therefore H1 is not supported.

Line 157 – ‘weather’ should be ‘whether’.

Author Response

The manuscript has been revised accordingly. 

Point 1: 

This is an important and potentially interesting topic and the paper is generally well-written. The authors have clearly done a lot of work and their research design is set out clearly. The discussion that follows is coherent and seeks to address the hypotheses the authors have set out, leading to some tentative conclusions. My main problem with this paper lies in the review of literature in the introductory section. The authors talk about ‘the Sociotechnical Approach’ as if there were one, agreed frame of analysis with this name. They have included a number of confusing references to substantiate this term but these are no consistent. It appears that what they have in mind is something resembling the Toyota Manufacturing System, but they have included a reference talking about sociomateriality. None of this discussion provides a sufficient, epistemological underpinning for the research method or analysis proposed. The authors refer to a systems approach, but their approach is not systemic. They talk about ‘the Sociotechnical Approach’ as comprising a set number of sub-systems and five work practices (Line 162). What is the origin of these statements? The authors don’t appear to have carried out any systemic analysis to arrive at them, nor have they given a clear source to published work. The method set out in the next section is clear, coherent and logical. However, it is not systemic and it would be better if the authors did not suggest that it is.  

I would suggest that the authors remove the general discussion relating to a sociotechnical approach and instead clarify what they mean. It would be better to refer to Lean manufacturing or, more specifically the Toyota System and give references for this. Since the empirical work involves breaking down manufacturing into work practices and other smaller elements, it would be better not to suggest a systemic approach. If these changes are made, then the hypotheses stand on their own merit and the empirical work has a more solid, epistemological underpinning.

Authors Response: 

The literature review section has been updated. The socio-technical systems approach claim has been removed also hypothesis development has been revised.

Point 2: 

he diagram at Line 197 is not adequately labelled. What is its source? Did the authors devise it themselves? If not, the source needs to be set out.

Authors Response: 

Figure 1 has been labelled accordingly. it is basically authors derivation.

Point 3: 

There are some other problematical statements:

Line 175 ‘… industrial systems are designed to be more supportive to society …’

Revised to "      Over the years, manufacturing processes are improved to be more supportive of society and promote optimization of resources to produce socially acceptable products that also reduce environmental degradation (38). "

Line 185 ‘Recent shifts in the industry …’ – which industry is this?

      Revised to "Recent shifts in the manufacturing processes somehow have rejected the concept of focusing only on the environment and defined the three pillars model the sustainability i.e. Economy, Society and Environment (20)"

Line 106 – ‘believe’ should possibly be ‘belief’.

Line 109 – There is an incomplete sentence here beginning ‘Although…. And … However, ….’ The meaning is unclear and therefore H1 is not supported.

Line 157 – ‘weather’ should be ‘whether’.

4. Grammatical errors have been removed. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors used questionnaires and structural equation modeling to investigate the mediating effect of social, environmental and technical subsystems on the relationship between management support and sustainable manufacturing performance.

In general, the topic of this paper is interesting and the paper has a high potential for the broader community. The subject could be relevant and appropriate for Sustainability.

Here follow some points that need further attention:

In my opinion, the literature review should be updated. These papers should also be analyzed:

1.      Flavia Fechete and Anisor Nedelcu, Performance Management Assessment Model for Sustainable Development, Sustainability 2019, 11(10), 2779; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102779.

2.      Hossam A. Kishawy, Hussien Hegab and Elsadig Saad, Design for Sustainable Manufacturing: Approach, Implementation, and Assessment, Sustainability 2018, 10(10), 3604; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103604

3.      Sasha Shahbazi, Martin Kurdve, Mats Zackrisson, Christina Jönsson and Anna Runa Kristinsdottir, Comparison of Four Environmental Assessment Tools in Swedish Manufacturing: A Case Study, Sustainability 2019, 11(7), 2173; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072173.

 

The paper is rich in tables and figures but vague in discussion. Authors need to work more on the contribution to the literature. What is needed is an integrative discussion with references to prior studies and their findings.

Author Response

In general, the topic of this paper is interesting and the paper has a high potential for the broader community. The subject could be relevant and appropriate for Sustainability.

Here follow some points that need further attention:

In my opinion, the literature review should be updated. These papers should also be analyzed:

      Flavia Fechete and Anisor Nedelcu, Performance Management Assessment Model for Sustainable Development, Sustainability 2019, 11(10), 2779; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102779.

Cited at line 71-72

2.      Hossam A. Kishawy, Hussien Hegab and Elsadig Saad, Design for Sustainable Manufacturing: Approach, Implementation, and Assessment, Sustainability 2018, 10(10), 3604; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103604

Cited at line 180-182

3.      Sasha Shahbazi, Martin Kurdve, Mats Zackrisson, Christina Jönsson and Anna Runa Kristinsdottir, Comparison of Four Environmental Assessment Tools in Swedish Manufacturing: A Case Study, Sustainability 2019, 11(7), 2173; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072173.

Cited at line 96-99

The paper is rich in tables and figures but vague in the discussion. Authors need to work more on the contribution to the literature. What is needed is an integrative discussion with references to prior studies and their findings.

the literature review section has been revised and provided in highlighted text. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf