Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to Author:

General overviews:

1. There are no visible correlations between the research questions and the hypothesis. However, there are many hypotheses to test, and most of them related to KPI's, that are not described effectively described in the paper.
2. There is a strong focus on the KPI's due to the hypothesis. This is a strong point of the research, and for the forthcoming paper, it is a must-track to follow.
3. Although it is enough for the research, the sample does not contemplate other types of B2B companies (under 10M euros), especially in the H2a and H2b hypotheses. Therefore, it would be enough if the hypothesis were different, not to measure the companies' size, but to identify variables that companies in this spectrum have to contribute to the research questions and hypotheses.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for the suggestions. They were essential for us to improve our study. We made the suggested changes according to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper analyzes how implementing a Digitization and Paperless Office Program (DPOP) affects a firm’s sustainability reputation, paper consumption, internal processes, human resources management and profitability. Quantitative methods based on survey data of Portuguese firms covering five economic sectors are used to this purpose. As main results, it is obtained that DPOP affects positively a firm’s profitability and environmental and sustainability reputation. Previous literature on this topic, besides being outdated, follows a case study approach and only analyzes one economic sector. By contrast, this work considers five economic sectors and uses more suitable empirical methods.

In view of the sustainability challenge that production systems and consumption patterns are currently facing, the relation between environmentally friendly business operations and firm profitability is nowadays a topic of great importance. The results of this paper show that corporate profitability and environmental preservation are not mutually exclusive objectives. On the contrary, they can go hand-in-hand. This seems to me a valuable contribution. Moreover, the paper is properly structured and well-written.

My comments are listed below.

• In the abstract, the authors should clarify the type of quantitative methods used in the analysis. Also, the abstract seems to me quite lengthy. It must be shortened. Is it really necessary to inform here about the number of questionnaires submitted and received?
• On lines 55-56, and hereafter, only the acronym DPOP should be used, as it was already introduced on line 46.
• On line 134, I do not see a reason for capitalizing “Economic”.
• On line 190, the comma after “Greenwood [36] and Chao [8]” must be removed.
• The rebound effect associated with the process of dematerialization is certainly a crucial issue, as expounded on lines 270-279. Negative environmental effects of higher energy consumption due to dematerialization could offset the positive effects of paper use reduction. Authors should elaborate more on this question.
• On line 337, the authors suddenly set the first hypothesis. Before H1, the authors could write a couple of sentences to inform the reader that, based on previous considerations, hypotheses will be established.
• In Figure 3 (page 9), in the top left box, it says “Sector of economic”. Something is missing here.
• When scoring item “The process of dematerialization contributed to cost reduction”, I wonder if respondents were fully aware of the possibility of greater energy consumption as a result of dematerialization. Ideally, they should be, since otherwise answers would be biased. The authors must clarify this question.
• On lines 629-632, it is argued that the paper “…adds new justifications for the increment of paper production worldwide, caused by the appearance of new efficient technologies that lead to greater paper and energy consumption (Jevons Paradox).” The authors must clearly justify this claim based on their results.
• On line 656, item 5) must be in a new paragraph.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for the suggestions. They were essential for us to improve our study. We made the suggested changes according to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read your paper. I read it with great interest. Your paper taps into an emerging topic, dematerialization, and hence, participates into important discussion. As such the paper reads well, is well-written and the flow of text is nice.

I have carefully reviewed the paper intitled " How are today’s companies reacting to the digitization and paperless processes? An insight on B2B firms". I enjoyed the reading that brings several insights, very practical but also relevant for the state-of-the-art on digitization and B2B services. Nevertheless, I think the authors should work more to improve the narrative of the paper. I provide here several comments that I hope the authors find useful to improve their paper

1. The introduction is nicely written -although for me it seems that the authors forget to follow more solid structures. From my view the introduction is too generic to present and motivate the importance of the research topic that is being addressed.

I suggest the following structure: Motivation (from the perspective of the firm, and theory), 2. Gap (what has been studied, what has not been studied, and where is the gap), 3. Theoretical contribution (how the paper fills in the gap). To support this, please consult great writing guidelines provided by AMJ:

Grant, A. M., & Pollock, T. G. (2011). From the editors. Publishing in AMJ - Part 3: Setting the hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 873-879.

Furthermore, here are some helpful references to better frame the concepts presented in this section:

Rabetino, R., Ogundipe, S. J., & Kohtamäki, M. (2018). Solution sales process blueprinting. International Journal of Business Environment, 10(2), 132-159.

Kohtamäki, M., & Rajala, R. (2016). Theory and practice of value co-creation in B2B systems. Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 4-13

Bustinza, O. F., Gomes, E., Vendrell‐Herrero, F., & Baines, T. (2019). Product–service innovation and performance: the role of collaborative partnerships and R&D intensity. R&D Management, 49(1), 33-45.

2. Regarding the theory section, I would also search and use literature on digital servitization, as that literature comes very close to your topic.

There are recent papers at IMM, where Vendrell-Herrero et al. (2017) and Tronvoll et al. (2020) address this concept. Their research is very near to yours, so you should include it in your literature review section and, more important, in your discussions to highlight the complementary of both studies

Vendrell-Herrero, F., Bustinza, O. F., Parry, G., & Georgantzis, N. (2017). Servitization, digitization and supply chain interdependency. Industrial Marketing Management, 60, 69-81.

Tronvoll, B., Sklyar, A., Sörhammar, D., & Kowalkowski, C. (2020). Transformational shifts through digital servitization. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 293-305.

Moreover, an historical perspective of servitization/deservitization could help to support your arguments. Additionally, Visintin’s paper on photocopier industry is as well a strong base for your theoretical section:

Gomes, E., Lehman, D. W., Vendrell-Herrero, F., & Bustinza, O. F. (2021). A history-based framework of servitization and deservitization. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. In Press

3. Research process

Methods are appropriate executed. Nevertheless, Common Method Bias are not considered, please see the aforementioned paper from Bustinza et al. (2019) on how to deal with this issue.

Hypothesis are broadly speaking supported not confirmed. Please change the verb.

4. Discussion and conclusions

Discussion could introduce more studies supporting or contrasting the findings of the current study, particularly the ones advised above could help.

Conclusions should begin from the general to the particular. This section needs further development. Conclusions bring closure, not on what the abstract announced, but on what the introduction and discussion opened.

I trust my comments will help you to develop this research. I also hope you will appreciate my constructive spirit in reviewing your work. Best wishes with your research program.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for the suggestions. They were essential for us to improve our study. We made the suggested changes according to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Major Comments to Authors:

A disconnection between the research questions and the hypotheses still is a significant weak point. This is the most resonant discrepancy in the text since the theoretical framework does not delve into the academic community's related KPIs, previous literature, or analysis. For example, in a section of the text, the following paragraph is mentioned:

"Sustainability and Environmental issues- several authors highlight the need for orientation for sustainability and point out the importance of the elaboration of sustainability key indicators connecting the perception of dematerialization and the environment-related valuation of products and services; others stressed more specific motivations, like Chowdhury [58] argue that current printing and photocopying activities are not environmentally sustainable."

KPIs are a strong point, both in the methodology and the results and hypotheses; however, the article in its first part refers to extensive phenomena that the research does not cover in its entirety. An example of this is the perception of a positive image, which should be investigated more by KPIs associated with the market than by company information. In addition, it is not clear if all companies measure the market and not just company indicators.

The conclusions section mentions: "This paper aims to discuss the antecedents and consequences of dematerialization through DPOP". However, this is not reflected in the questions, the hypotheses, and above all, in the article's title. It is different to identify the antecedents, evaluate the consequences of dematerialization through DPOP, and measure companies' reaction to the digitization and paperless processes.

 

In conclusion, the article can be reoriented to the inclusion of metrics proposed in the field research and how they measure dematerialization processes through DPOP.

2. Minor Comments to Authors:

It is recommended to design figure 2, since it is not presented adequately, which makes it difficult to read. In addition, it is recommended to check punctuation and writing, as there are several grammatical errors in the document.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Attached are comments on the proposed suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper can be accepted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much.

We made some changes as suggested by other reviewers and the editor.