Rethinking Green Supply Chain Management Practices Impact on Company Performance: A Close-Up Insight

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is relevant - sustainable supply chain management however all study lacks scientific approach. "A total of 154 copies of the questionnaire were obtained by email from supply chain officers at various Dangote Group of companies in Nigeria and analyzed using  various statistical analyses such as correlation, multiple regression, and SEM" Why 154? Is it enough?What kind of hypothesis it allows to test by applying SEM approach?  In my opinion this is not scientific paper as does not provide sampling and hypothesis testing clearly. The input of this paper is also unclear. I am rejecting this paper as it is too weak to be published in Sustainability journal.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the efforts of the reviewer on our paper. The manuscript has been revised based on your comments. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

While the researched topic is a relevant and topical theme, I have reservations and concerns about several fundamental issues. Below are the flaws of the paper.

1. The main idea for the GCSM framework should be discussed in more detail and justified more convincingly. Otherwise, it seems somewhat random which variables are added. It needs more and better theorizing about the selection of variables and their relationships. The author should discuss the dimensions separately to enhance the clarity of their presentation and proposition.
2. Hypotheses development is weak and not discussed at all. Rather descriptive now under a single section. This is a fundamental and essential stage in research to justify the development of each relationship.
3. How did the researcher decide on the sample size? 500 seems to be a big number for a case study considering the data were collected from a single company.  
4. Why purposive sampling was used when you collect from a single source where the population shares the same perception etc on the subject under investigation.
5. Justify why a significant percentage (about 70%) of the questionnaire was omitted. Any screening questions prior to distributing the questionnaire?
6. Why both OLS and PLS were used in a single study? The researcher could have carried out the analysis using the PLS approach only.

Author Response

The authors are very grateful to the reviewer for all the efforts and time used to improve the quality of our paper. We have improved the manuscript based on your invaluable comments.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper entitled " Rethinking Green Supply Chain Management Practices Impact

on Company Performance: A Close-up Insight” investigates the relationships between GSCM practices and performance metrics using a close-up study approach that is more reasonable and clear. Generally, the research objectives are clear, appropriate charts present the measurement results, and data support the conclusions. Here are some specific suggestions:

1. In the literature review, there are only brief explanations what the other authors did. Please criticize the existing studies. After literature review, discussion to enhance clarifying the paper's position and relative contribution to literature in related areas is unconvincing and missing. Following paper should be taken into consideration.

2. In Abstract, problem statement is missing. Research problems needs to be stated clearly. In addition, the significance of this study needs to be highlighted in Abstract.

3. In the discussions part, write more and justify with previous findings. Underpinning the theories as justification with your findings in the discussion part is really important.

4. Conclusions also must be improved. The conclusions must present the purpose of the research, the methodology used, the main results obtained and future research directions. 

5. The Introduction needs to be restructured, so it does not read so much like a background. The authors should provide a pithy context paragraph and then explain the problem their research addresses, the significance, and the unique nature of their approach, i.e., new contribution to the scholarship.

 6. What does GSCM refer to? When an acronym appears for the first time, it is recommended to write the full name.

 7. #Line 429 :It is pointed out that "most previous studies" but there is only one reference. Please strengthen the corresponding literature support.

8.The language should be polished entirely by a native English speaker.

 

Author Response

The authors express our profound gratitude to the reviewer for the time and efforts used in reading our paper. The manuscript has been improved based on your comments.  A file is attached to indicate how the comments were addressed. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did good job and revised their paper based on my comments. The answers to my comments are provided and I agree with them.  The paper can be published in current form.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has improved and is ready for acceptance.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is good enough to be accepted