Eco-Innovation and Firm Performance: Evidence from South America

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,
The topic of the article is very up-to-date, as it concerns the financial and environmental consequences of pro-environmental solutions in various areas of company operations.
Referring to the substantive aspects of the conducted research, one should appreciate both its concept, the assumptions (clearly presented in diagrams), the methods used to analyze the results, the way of presenting the results, and the substantive correctness of the conclusions. In this regard, the article raises virtually no objections.
Unfortunately, the way the content is presented, i.e. the formal side of the test, needs a rethink. The abstract of the text contains all the required information (introduction, purpose, methods and results) and this is the only part of the article that can be described as concise. The other parts of the text more or less seem to have too much narrative.  This applies both to the Introduction chapter, especially the paragraphs on the rationale for taking up the topic, the methodology - whether it is necessary to describe the characteristics of the sample in such detail if the data are included in a table, the discussion of the results - although just in this part of the text a more detailed description seems justified, and especially the chapter on the presentation of conclusions.  The conclusions chapter should contain the basic results of the study and a brief presentation of their implications (cognitive and applied). In the article, it was expanded to nearly two pages, which definitely needs to be corrected, for example, by extracting additional subsections (strengths and weaknesses and future research).
I would not like to impose on the Authors my vision of the formal correction of the text (I believe that they will cope perfectly with this task) I only suggest a critical assessment of the content of the article in terms of possible simplifications and concreteness and conciseness of form.  

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

We would like to thank you for the time spent reviewing our article and your valuable comments that helped improve its quality. We have welcomed your observations. Below, you will find the details of the changes made. These changes are highlighted in green in the document.

Point 1: The topic of the article is very up-to-date, as it concerns the financial and environmental consequences of pro-environmental solutions in various areas of company operations. 

Referring to the substantive aspects of the conducted research, one should appreciate both its concept, the assumptions (clearly presented in diagrams), the methods used to analyze the results, the way of presenting the results, and the substantive correctness of the conclusions. In this regard, the article raises virtually no objections. Unfortunately, the way the content is presented, i.e. the formal side of the test, needs a rethink. The abstract of the text contains all the required information (introduction, purpose, methods and results) and this is the only part of the article that can be described as concise. The other parts of the text more or less seem to have too much narrative.  This applies both to the Introduction chapter, especially the paragraphs on the rationale for taking up the topic, the methodology - whether it is necessary to describe the characteristics of the sample in such detail if the data are included in a table, the discussion of the results - although just in this part of the text a more detailed description seems justified, and especially the chapter on the presentation of conclusions. The conclusions chapter should contain the basic results of the study and a brief presentation of their implications (cognitive and applied). In the article, it was expanded to nearly two pages, which definitely needs to be corrected, for example, by extracting additional subsections (strengths and weaknesses and future research). I would not like to impose on the Authors my vision of the formal correction of the text (I believe that they will cope perfectly with this task) I only suggest a critical assessment of the content of the article in terms of possible simplifications and concreteness and conciseness of form.  

Response 1: Regarding your and the other reviewer´s observations, we restructured the Introduction, Methodology, Discussions and Conclusions sections for a better understanding. These changes are shown as follows:

• In the Introduction section, we eliminated results contents and highlighted the contributions.
• In the Methodology section, extra explanation about Table 1 was eliminated and we add a paragraph in Section 3.3 (lines 216-219) describing the questionnaire structure of six sections.

• In the Discussion section, in Table 6, we listed analyzed studies to better understanding. The study number 1 is Thailand, number 2 is Brazil, number 3 is Ghana and number 4 is Colombia, Ecuador and Perú. Additionally, we add a column in Table 6 to identify common findings between previous research and the current research.

• From the Conclusions section we extracted Limitations, Strengths and Future Research (6.1), and Implications for Theory and Practice (6.2) as subsections. Additionally, we make the Conclusions section more concise as requested.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional changes were made to the text in order to incorporate all of the reviewers’ suggestions. These changes are presented below:

• In the second paragraph (lines 41-42) of the Introduction section, the holistic/comprehensive proposition was rewritten for a better understanding of the idea.
• The underlined text in red present in Figure 1 was corrected.
• Some typos, omissions, unnecessary, wrong or incomplete sentences spotted in the last version of the paper at rows 107, 189-190, 277, 324, 325, 332, 479 were corrected.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting and well-written. The motivation, the planning of the survey and the analysis of data are clear.

However, I think that some minor changes are necessary.

- it is unclear what is intended for holistic/comprehensive when it comes to source [13] and apparently the present study, as opposed to [4-12]

- what is written in rows 63-72 and 86-88 is based on the results and it is inappropriate to be included in the Introduction section. Please eliminate these contents and reformulate this part

- text underlined in red is present in Figure 1, please correct it

- the text present in rows 224-233 is clearly inferable from Table 1 and does not add anything valuable to the paper

- most important: the authors have to make the whole survey available in order to allow the repeatability of the study. It should be clarified how received answers have been used to form the variables that have been subsequently analyzed statistically. This would make the text in rows 245-259 easier to grasp

- I ask the authors to evaluate if the discussions could be enriched with one or more tables aimed to summarize the affinities and differences between this study and past literature; I think this would make the main findings easier to catch

- some typos, omissions, unnecessary, wrong or incomplete sentences were spotted at rows 107, 189-190, 277, 324, 325, 332, 479.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

We would like to thank you for the time spent reviewing our article and your valuable comments that helped improve its quality. We have welcomed your observations. Below, you will find the details of the changes made. These changes are highlighted in green in the document.

General comments: The paper is interesting and well-written. The motivation, the planning of the survey and the analysis of data are clear. However, I think that some minor changes are necessary.

Point 1: I- it is unclear what is intended for holistic/comprehensive when it comes to source [13] and apparently the present study, as opposed to [4-12] 

Response 1: Following your observation, in the second paragraph (lines 41-42) of the Introduction section, the holistic/comprehensive proposition was rewritten for a better understanding of the idea.

 

Point 2: - what is written in rows 63-72 and 86-88 is based on the results and it is inappropriate to be included in the Introduction section. Please eliminate these contents and reformulate this part

Response 2: Regarding your and the other reviewer´s observations, the Introduction section was restructured eliminating results contents.

 

Point 3: text underlined in red is present in Figure 1, please correct it

Response 3: Concerning your observation, Figure 1 was corrected.

 

Point 4: the text present in rows 224-233 is clearly inferable from Table 1 and does not add anything valuable to the paper

Response 4: Following your request, in Section 3.2, extra explanation about Table 1 was eliminated.

 

Point 5: most important: the authors have to make the whole survey available in order to allow the repeatability of the study. It should be clarified how received answers have been used to form the variables that have been subsequently analyzed statistically. This would make the text in rows 245-259 easier to grasp

Response 5: Following your request, we add a paragraph in Section 3.3 (lines 216-219) describing the questionnaire structure of six sections. Items used are listed in Table 1 and Table 2.

 

Point 6: I ask the authors to evaluate if the discussions could be enriched with one or more tables aimed to summarize the affinities and differences between this study and past literature; I think this would make the main findings easier to catch

Response 6: Following your request, we listed analyzed studies to better understanding. The study number 1 is Thailand, number 2 is Brazil, number 3 is Ghana and number 4 is Colombia, Ecuador and Perú. Additionally, we add a column in Table 6 to identify common findings between previous research and the current research.

 

Point 7: some typos, omissions, unnecessary, wrong or incomplete sentences were spotted at rows 107, 189-190, 277, 324, 325, 332, 479.

Response 7: Regarding your observation, typos, omissions, unnecessary, wrong and incomplete sentences were corrected.

Some examples:

Line 95 (107 before).

Line 302 (324 before).

Line 303 (325 before).

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional changes were made to the text in order to incorporate all of the reviewers’ suggestions. These changes are presented below:

• From the Conclusions section we extracted Limitations, Strengths and Future Research (6.1), and Implications for Theory and Practice (6.2) as subsections. Additionally, we make the Conclusions section more concise as requested.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf