Analysis of Sustainable Business Models: Exploratory Study in Two Brazilian Logistics Companies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have made substantial improvements to the paper. Congratulations. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thanks

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper address how sustainability could be supported within the logistics domain. The authors focus on two Brazilian companies that were merged and explore the effect on the business models in terms of sustainability. The focus of the paper is exciting and relevant to the journal. However, the methodology and data analysis are not described in detail, so its results are not precise. I would suggest the authors revise their manuscript, explain the research methodology in detail, and discuss the results (going a step further than reporting the results). I would like to thank the authors for the opportunity to read this manuscript 

 

I would suggest the authors revise the research question and objective. Currently, they do not seem aligned, and it is not clear what the precise goal of this manuscript is.

I find the used keywords very generic. An explanation of why these keywords lead to these results would increase the quality of the paper.

‘Internal routines were analyzed to identify their stage (initial, repetitive, defined, 440 managed, and optimized), and subprocesses were analyzed in pairs to compare the best 441 stages between the two companies’ à How? Please explain the process of your analysis. Similar statements are thought of throughout the text. You need to describe in detail the used methodology and the data analysis.

The authors indicate that they investigated whether there is a positive association between the merging of companies and sustainability, considering social and environmental. Again, due to the limited description of the data collection and analysis. It is not clear to me how they estimated that correlation? (or Causality?)

Some additional information on the surveys conducted would be nice—also, some participants' demographics would be interesting to have.

Some additional information on the companies would be nice. What is their view/actions regarding sustainability? Is it known the purpose of merging?

‘Using the case study’à What do you mean with it? Maybe a case study protocol? Also, was one case study of two merged companies or two case studies?

Please provide additional explanations on how you measured productivity.

Please discuss the relevance of your results. What do they mean? How do you interpret them?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for the suggestions, we try to answer them all and follow what was changed

1- I would suggest the authors revise the research question and objective. Currently, they do not seem aligned, and it is not clear what the precise goal of this manuscript is.

The research question was rewritten and aligned with the objective that was rewritten as well.

2- I find the used keywords very generic. An explanation of why these keywords lead to these results would increase the quality of the paper.

We removed some keywords that are generic and added some more specific ones such as the merger of two Brazilian logistics companies and Brazilian logistics

3- ‘Internal routines were analyzed to identify their stage (initial, repetitive, defined, 440 managed, and optimized), and subprocesses were analyzed in pairs to compare the best 441 stages between the two companies’ à How? Please explain the process of your analysis. Similar statements are thought of throughout the text. You need to describe in detail the used methodology and the data analysis.

We describe in the methodology how the productivities were calculated based on processes and resources and we also detail in several parts of the article how to analyze

4- The authors indicate that they investigated whether there is a positive association between the merging of companies and sustainability, considering social and environmental. Again, due to the limited description of the data collection and analysis. It is not clear to me how they estimated that correlation? (or Causality?)

In this article, we used qualitative research and data analysis were in accordance with the authors' opinions, basically, we used the sustainable business model canvas to analyze the processes and verify how the results affected sustainability based on the triple profit, family and planet. Therefore, we do not use correlation or causality of quantitative methods.

5- Some additional information on the surveys conducted would be nice—also, some participants' demographics would be interesting to have.

We've updated the methodology with some more information about the companies

6- Some additional information on the companies would be nice. What is their view/actions regarding sustainability? Is it known the purpose of merging?

We've updated the methodology with some more information about the companies

7- ‘Using the case study’à What do you mean with it? Maybe a case study protocol? Also, was one case study of two merged companies or two case studies?

We've updated the methodology with some more information about case study

8- Please provide additional explanations on how you measured productivity.

We describe in the methodology how the productivities were calculated based on processes and resources and we also detail in several parts of the article how to analyze

9- Please discuss the relevance of your results. What do they mean? How do you interpret them?

We improved discussions in the results

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of this article is interesting, but for this paper to be published, you need to improve the following:

1. The Literature review section needs to be significantly improved. In the literature can be identified articles that contribute significantly to the development of sustainable business models in the conditions of transition to industry 4.0 and that also integrate environmental issues. By querying the Web of Science database, but also the MDPI site, you can identify articles that can be cited to improve this section. (Example: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.019, https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313401, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.01.014, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041791, https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-03-2018-0071, https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.13217, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.01.002 and so on).
2. There are many figures taken from various sources. I believe that their number may be reduced, or they may be replaced by figures drawn up by the authors.
3. Figures must not be included in the results section. This section is intended to present the results of the research conducted by the authors.
4. The conclusions section needs to be significantly improved. Present the significant results of the research carried out, the managerial implications resulting from the research, the limits of the research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for the suggestions, we try to answer them all and follow what was changed

1. The Literature review section needs to be significantly improved. In the literature can be identified articles that contribute significantly to the development of sustainable business models in the conditions of transition to industry 4.0 and that also integrate environmental issues. By querying the Web of Science database, but also the MDPI site, you can identify articles that can be cited to improve this section. (Example: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.019, https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313401, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.01.014, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041791, https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-03-2018-0071, https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.13217, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.01.002 and so on).

We improved the Literature review section by adding articles on sustainable business models. Industry 4.0 and environmental issues. We added 7 new references, some suggested by the reviewer

2. There are many figures taken from various sources. I believe that their number may be reduced, or they may be replaced by figures drawn up by the authors.

The figures are necessary to explain the context, we kept the figures from the original authors as we did not make any adaptations or changes to the figure.

3. Figures must not be included in the results section. This section is intended to present the results of the research conducted by the authors.

We removed all figures from the results section

4. The conclusions section needs to be significantly improved. Present the significant results of the research carried out, the managerial implications resulting from the research, the limits of the research.

We complete the conclusion with the suggestions

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors for the revised version of this manuscript.  This revised version is improved but some minor changes need to be made.

There is a large number of figures that do not add to the storyline. 

Please describe the methodology in more detail. The additions are not sufficient. Describing the methods in detail will increase the quality of your results. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your suggestions and recommendations, we try to respond to all your suggestions.

There are a large number of figures that do not contribute to the storyboard.

We've reduced 3 figures and kept only those figures that are associated with a theoretical model or framework. We went from 6 to 3 figures in the article.

Describe the methodology in more detail. Additions are not enough. Describing the methods in detail will increase the quality of your results.

We rewrote the methodology and increased the details of the methods and included the methodological procedure used 

Thank you and regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Given that the authors have improved the article according to the indications proposed in the previous evaluation, I consider that the article can be published. 

Author Response

Given that the authors have improved the article according to the indications proposed in the previous evaluation, I consider that the article can be published. 

Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your suggestions and recommendations.