Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have written a very interesting paper on value innovation and their contribution is significant both in terms of conducting a systematic literature review and with respect to introducing new insights in the field.

In my eyes, the first part of their original contribution is recapped in Figure 7, while the second part is recapped in Figure 9. The authors have convinced me about the former but not for the latter! In Figure 9 the authors suggest that it is possible that value innovation can directly lead to improved performance, competitive advantage, and sustainable growth, without the mediation of customer satisfaction or customer loyalty (or any other construct). How is this possible? In addition, in Figure 9 customer satisfaction is not connected with customer loyalty, while I would expect that customer satisfaction would enhance customer loyalty. Moreover, the 3 points in the right ellipse (sales growth, profitability, market share) are indicators of performance and sustainable growth (under conditions). However, they cannot be regarded as ingredients or types of competitive advantage. Maybe my major doubt has to do with the fact that the authors focus on a rather isolated view of companies, i.e. they have not addressed the integrative role of value chains and/or supply chains in value innovation. Their approach seems to be focused on customers.

Finally, there are some minor typos that they should correct (e.g. Frond-End, profability).

Author Response

Authors’ Response to the Journal Editor and Reviewers

 The authors are really very grateful to the Journal Editor efforts in essentially discussing the manuscript reviews with the reviewers and identifying the further significant points for enhancements. The authors would also like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable remarks and careful feedback which helped them to significantly enhance this work and its presentation. The productive and valuable remarks enabled us to update several parts of the manuscript as shown by the responses to each comment below. Besides, all the updated parts in the manuscript were highlighted in yellow color in order to be easily tracked by the editor and reviewers.

Authors’ Response to Reviewer #1:

The authors have written a very interesting paper on value innovation and their contribution is significant both in terms of conducting a systematic literature review and with respect to introducing new insights in the field.

1. In my eyes, the first part of their original contribution is recapped in Figure 7, while the second part is recapped in Figure 9. The authors have convinced me about the former but not for the latter! In Figure 9 the authors suggest that it is possible that value innovation can directly lead to improved performance, competitive advantage, and sustainable growth, without the mediation of customer satisfaction or customer loyalty (or any other construct). How is this possible?

Many thanks for the positive feedback. We do agree with the reviewer that we have missed the mediation role of customer satisfaction and loyalty in our previous submission. In the revised version of the manuscript, the mediation of customer satisfaction and loyalty has been highlighted. Pg. 18-19, and Pg. 21.

 

 

2. In addition, in Figure 9 customer satisfaction is not connected with customer loyalty, while I would expect that customer satisfaction would enhance customer loyalty.

Thank you to highlight this, we do agree that customer satisfaction do positively influence customer loyalty, therefore, customer satisfaction has been connected to customer loyalty in the revised version of the manuscript. Please refer to Figure 9 Pg. 19.

3. Moreover, the 3 points in the right ellipse (sales growth, profitability, market share) are indicators of performance and sustainable growth (under conditions). However, they cannot be regarded as ingredients or types of competitive advantage. Maybe my major doubt has to do with the fact that the authors focus on a rather isolated view of companies, i.e., they have not addressed the integrative role of value chains and/or supply chains in value innovation. Their approach seems to be focused on customers.

Thank you for raising this point. Indeed, we focused on customers. Besides, the value chain and supply chain may be categorized under assets/ resources and business uniqueness from companies view in the model. this may be developed as detailed dimension by innovator according to business and industry nature as was highlighted in Pg. 19.

4. Finally, there are some minor typos that they should correct (e.g. Frond-End, profability).

Thank you for highlighting this. The typo errors have been corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting, it makes a comprehensive and systematic review on value Innovation, Performance, Competitive Advantage, and Sustainable Growth in significant articles and studies on these topics, published in the last decades.  

The paper has unquestionable merits, is very detailed, well organized, and uses a solid scientific and logical tool.

Given the nature and objectives of the Journal and of the Special Issue, we consider that additional explanations and arguments linking the objectives and results of this research to the topic of SI (Business Performance and Sustainable Innovation Strategies) would greatly improve the value of the manuscript and the chances of publication.

Another concern (subjective perhaps) is related to the fluency of the arguments. Focused on systematization and coverage of terms and linkages in the analysed studies, the article is quite difficult to read, it lacks a certain attractiveness of the development and gradual exposition of ideas and own findings. However, we could attribute this feature to the nature of the this study – a review paper.

Formal aspects

- the title of the Figure 2. … it's not very suggestive, the graph doesn't seem to show a growth, probably the terms evolution could be more suitable.

- similar at Figure 8: title Research Focus of Value Innovation Outcomes must be matched with the inner title No of Article %, or, the later one should be removed

- Different fonts and text formatting.  

- 4.2.1 Value Innovation Frond-End   … Front-End

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article and good luck!

Author Response

Authors’ Response to the Journal Editor and Reviewers

 The authors are really very grateful to the Journal Editor efforts in essentially discussing the manuscript reviews with the reviewers and identifying the further significant points for enhancements. The authors would also like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable remarks and careful feedback which helped them to significantly enhance this work and its presentation. The productive and valuable remarks enabled us to update several parts of the manuscript as shown by the responses to each comment below. Besides, all the updated parts in the manuscript were highlighted in yellow color in order to be easily tracked by the editor and reviewers.

 

Authors’ Response to Reviewer #2:

The paper is interesting, it makes a comprehensive and systematic review on value Innovation, Performance, Competitive Advantage, and Sustainable Growth in significant articles and studies on these topics, published in the last decades.  The paper has unquestionable merits, is very detailed, well organized, and uses a solid scientific and logical tool.

Thank you for the positive feedback.

1. Given the nature and objectives of the Journal and of the Special Issue, we consider that additional explanations and arguments linking the objectives and results of this research to the topic of SI (Business Performance and Sustainable Innovation Strategies) would greatly improve the value of the manuscript and the chances of publication.

Thank you for highlighting this point. We do agree with the reviewer and some explanations and arguments regarding the topic of SI have been addressed in the revised version of the manuscript. Please refer to the highlighted paragraphs in Pg. 2.

2. Another concern (subjective perhaps) is related to the fluency of the arguments. Focused on systematization and coverage of terms and linkages in the analysed studies, the article is quite difficult to read, it lacks a certain attractiveness of the development and gradual exposition of ideas and own findings. However, we could attribute this feature to the nature of this study – a review paper.

We agree with the reviewer concerning this comment, which is due to the nature of the study. We have reviewed the manuscript thoroughly to ensure that the flaw of arguments is consistent throughout the entire manuscript.

Formal aspects

3. the title of the Figure 2. … it's not very suggestive, the graph doesn't seem to show a growth, probably the terms evolution could be more suitable. similar at Figure 8: title Research Focus of Value Innovation Outcomes must be matched with the inner title No of Article %, or, the later one should be removed

Thanks for the suggestion. The title for Figure 2 has been edited. Pg. 8.

4. Different fonts and text formatting.  

The paper format has been updated based on the sustainability instructions for authors.

5. - 4.2.1 Value Innovation Frond-End   … Front-End

Thank you for highlighting this. The typo errors have been corrected through all the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf