Effects of Eco-Innovation on Economic and Environmental Performance: Evidence from Turkey’s Manufacturing Companies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The Authors developed paper very well. The paper look now is easy to read and understand.
The literature review is very well prepared. The Authors show all the details of the methodology very clear. It is very good idea to present the methodology process (figure 2). Empirical results are also present in a very clear way. The Authors also improved conclusion.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have shown a lot of effort to improve the manuscript and this should be well appreciated. I found the authors have addressed the comments carefully and in detail by adding more materials in the text. As a result, I now recommend the current form can be accepted for publication without further modification.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with the effects of eco-innovation on economic and environmental performance.

 

The paper has a very high potential in the field of eco-innovation. It also captures actual trends from Turkish industrial sectors, supported by a big investigation process (more than 200 answer to the questionnaire).

However first parts of the paper sometimes suffer from a lack of precision. 

See detail comments. Adding such justification and precision would certainly increase the quality of the paper.

Detail comments:

Abstract - ok

1. Introduction - ok

2. litterature review

please define "business methods", "traditional methods" and "innovation practices". As is these terms are too vague in the scope of the paper since the next sections introduce different types of eco-innovations.

Eco-product, eco-process, eco-organizational innovation, eco-marketing summarized as eco-approaches are then introduced. it is unclear where definitions come from.

3. Methdology

The term eco-innovation scale is introduced. To do so several references are mentioned as being contributive (Arundel and Kemp, CIS, Cheng and Shiu...), but the authors only claim these references "were used". Could the authors define more precisely how references contributed to the establishment of the new eco-innovation scale.

The same remark can be done for the environmental performance scale.

In the next section, a questionnaire containing 53 items is introduced. It might really be interesting to give an overview of these 53 items.

In addition, I understand that answers came up from different people (R1D, top management, environmental management). It might also be useful to give high-level statistics regarding people who responded to the questionnaire.

4. Empirical results

figure 2. Can the authors define the nodes e6, e2, e3, e8 and e7?

5. discussion Ok

6. Conclusion ok

7. References OK

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable recommendation. You can find the revisions of our study in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The idea of paper is very interesting and very important especially now.

The authors should more clearly present the idea of research because it is not very clearly described. The authors did not write anything about the questions which they asked respondents in their surveys. It's written in the paper that the surveys were sent to the main 500 of Turkish manufacturing companies. Are any differents between the answers for the question of surveys according to the kind of production?
What kind of eco-innovation was made by the manufacturing companies?

The authors in their literature review according did not analyse any papers from the Sustainability Journal.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable recommendation. You can find the revisions of our study in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Introduction, Literature Review:	Introduction is totally deficient in explaining the rationale to explain the need of this study. The intro part are filled with just basic information about the Eco-innovation and Economic and Environmental Performance but not directly related to the reasons why this study (Effects of Eco-innovation on Economic and Environmental Performance: Evidence from Turkey's Manufacturing Companies) is needed for the Turkey's Manufacturing firms at this point in time.    This paper summaries what the past studies provided in terms of the Eco-innovation, but there are obvious omissions. This section should address how and why the past studies can be associated with the Average Investment Timing Strategy.   In the introduction section, the authors mentioned that they considered eco-innovation as an ‘eco-product’, ‘ecoprocess’, ‘eco-organizational’ and also ‘eco-marketing’ with a holistic perspective but in the methodology section they did not used  eco-marketing’ as an  Eco-innovation factor   Looking at previous articles such as  Pujari’s (2006) and  Fernando, Y., & Wah, W. X. (2017) shows that authors did consider  numerous factors, which have been discussed earlier as the determinants of eco-innovation, include cross-functional coordination, regulation, technology, supplier involvement and market focus, play important roles in implementing eco-innovation. Thus the reviewer think that this study did not a good job in listing related articles and it did not properly integrated for the eco-innovation.
Methodology:	Descriptive statistics would be useful for describing the basic features of data, for example, the summary statistics for the scale variables and measures of the data The paper's argument did not built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts. Also, there is no explanation (references) of using the equation models.  Moreover, the research has not equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed.  The Sample selection do not give clear idea about how authors did collected the data.
Results:	The conclusions adequately does not tie together the other elements of the paper. Some results reported in this paper is not relevant. For example, the analysis in Table 8 is not related to the objective of this study.

 

Bibliography/References:

Poor references

The reviewer has a concern that the authors did not make a careful scan of the data. In Table-2 reports shows the Path Analysis Results for the Research Model. However, the research model and the data outliers are not clear.

Some recommended articles:   Fernando, Y., & Wah, W. X. (2017). The impact of eco-innovation drivers on environmental performance: Empirical results from the green technology sector in Malaysia. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 12, 27-43.   Aboelmaged, M. (2018). Direct and indirect effects of eco-innovation, environmental orientation and supplier collaboration on hotel performance: An empirical study. Journal of cleaner production, 184, 537-549.   Costantini, V., Crespi, F., Marin, G., & Paglialunga, E. (2017). Eco-innovation, sustainable supply chains and environmental performance in European industries. Journal of cleaner production, 155, 141-154.

García-Granero, E. M., Piedra-Muñoz, L., & Galdeano-Gómez, E. (2018). Eco-innovation measurement: A review of firm performance indicators. Journal of cleaner production, 191, 304-317.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable recommendation. You can find the revisions of our study in the attachment.