The Trajectories of Institutionalisation of the Social and Solidarity Economy in France and Korea: When Social Innovation Renews Public Action and Contributes to the Objectives of Sustainable Development
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
The present study is interesting and addresses a theme that is increasingly present in everyday life. There is a certain consensus that the future of societies depends a lot on deepening the principles of the Social and Solidarity Economy and I see this article as a contribution by the authors to that effect. The article presents several merits and some aspects to improve.
Points to improve:
The abstract is not correctly presented. This part of the article is a very brief presentation of the background and objectives of the study, methods used, main results and conclusions. Authors must follow this structure. Please see the journal's guidelines.
Although the differences between the countries under study can be perceived, with regard to the subject under study, it was not clear why these were the countries chosen by the authors.
In the introduction the authors present 5 starting questions. The discussion of the results / conclusions must be aligned in order to present the answers to these questions.
The methodology should be more specified. Was the content analysis carried out? In what way, what is the timing of this study? The authors identify the reference studies that, in both countries, served as a basis for this purpose, but they must detail the way in which the information was worked, so that the same study can be replicated in the future.
A more in-depth exercise on the practical implications of this study would strengthen its relevance and interest. So I suggest some more efforts in this direction.
I also suggest that the authors add to the article some clues for future investigations, as well as the limitations of the present study.
Good luck.
Author Response
Thank you for your review and insights that will undoubtedly help us to improve our manuscript.
Here is our point-by-point response to your comments that we have tried to address as carefully as possible.
The abstract is not correctly presented. This part of the article is a very brief presentation of the background and objectives of the study, methods used, main results and conclusions. Authors must follow this structure. Please see the journal's guidelines.
We have changed our summary following the journal’s guidelines.
Although the differences between the countries under study can be perceived, with regard to the subject under study, it was not clear why these were the countries chosen by the authors.
We have introduced a few more precisions and removed the paragraph about the 2 contexts in the methodological section on p 5 in order to improve clarity about our choice.
In the introduction the authors present 5 starting questions. The discussion of the results / conclusions must be aligned in order to present the answers to these questions.
We have reformulated the 5 questions in 3 questions on p 2 and restructured the discussion part in 3 points. We hope to have gained coherence in this way.
The methodology should be more specified. Was the content analysis carried out? In what way, what is the timing of this study? The authors identify the reference studies that, in both countries, served as a basis for this purpose, but they must detail the way in which the information was worked, so that the same study can be replicated in the future.
We have brought precisions about our methodology on p 5.
A more in-depth exercise on the practical implications of this study would strengthen its relevance and interest. So I suggest some more efforts in this direction.
I also suggest that the authors add to the article some clues for future investigations, as well as the limitations of the present study.
We have developed the practical implications in the conclusion by restructuring the conclusion into 2 points, 1- the results and 2-implications in terms of theories of practice. We have as well introduced research issues and we have mentioned at the end of 6.1, one of the major limits that we perceive regarding our analysis.
We hope these revisions will meet your expectations. Again thank you for your commitment.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is based on important topics and has original results, so it is recommended for publication.
Author Response
We are committed to do a language copy-editing after we receive thecomments on the revised file.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have done a great job in writing up an interesting and timely manuscript. I enjoyed reading t and I believe it provides some interesting points for research and practice. However, there are some points which you might want to address in a revision.
First, I would suggest you shorten some paragraphs in the introduction and try to make smaller paragraphs in order to improve readability.
Second, I believe it is important to expand a bit more on how digital transformation can help achieve this target. A lot of work has been done on how digital technoloogies can be used to attain different targets related to SDGs. I think you should try to incorporate such literature such as the following:
Kristoffersen, E., Mikalef, P., Blomsma, F., & Li, J. (2021). The effects of business analytics capability on circular economy implementation, resource orchestration capability, and firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 239, 108205.
Feroz, A. K., Zo, H., & Chiravuri, A. (2021). Digital transformation and environmental sustainability: A review and research agenda. Sustainability, 13(3), 1530.
George, G., & Schillebeeckx, S. J. (2022). Digital transformation, sustainability, and purpose in the multinational enterprise. Journal of World Business, 57(3), 101326.
Kristoffersen, E., Mikalef, P., Blomsma, F., & Li, J. (2021). Towards a business analytics capability for the circular economy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 171, 120957.
Also try to expand a bit more the research implications and highlight some interesting areas that future studies could follow.
Author Response
Thank you for your review and insights that will undoubtedly help us to improve our manuscript. Here is our point-by-point response to your comments that we have tried to address as carefully as possible.
First, I would suggest you shorten some paragraphs in the introduction and try to make smaller paragraphs in order to improve readability.
We have moved two paragraphs from the introduction to the methodology section on p 5 and strengthened the methodology section to respond to this remark and also reinforce the methodological presentation. We have also shortened some paragraphs throughout the text to make the text more readable
Second, I believe it is important to expand a bit more on how digital transformation can help achieve this target. A lot of work has been done on how digital technologies can be used to attain different targets related to SDGs. I think you should try to incorporate such literature such as the following:
Thank you for this very stimulating remark, we have introduced this issue on p 12 and added 2 suggested references.
Also try to expand a bit more the research implications and highlight some interesting areas that future studies could follow.
We have developed the research implications in the conclusion by restructuring the conclusion into 2 points, 1- the results and 2-implications in terms of theories of practice and research issues
We hope this will meet your expectations. Again thank you for your commitment.
Reviewer 4 Report
The rational implementation of social solidarity economy is conducive to the better realization of SDGs. Based on France and South Korea, this paper makes a multi-dimensional qualitative analysis of the process of institutionalization of the SSE according to the accumulated data on these two environments. The following questions need to be addressed properly.
- On page 5, The description of material source is not clear enough. In addition, the specific year cannot be known from “the last twenty years”. Please state it more clear and specific.
- For South Korea, SSE is a new concept, and it is difficult to produce quantitative data about it. However, the concept of SSE has long been put forward and implemented in France, and different organizations measure indicators have been established. Can we make a quantitative analysis of France.
- According to your cross-sectional analysis in Korea and France, not enough to indicate the contribution of SSE remains “largely invisible”. Is there more evidence to demonstrate?
- On page 12, The expression of the abbreviation of “SSEOs” in the manuscript is inappropriate, due to the lack of full name or description when first proposed.
Author Response
Thank you for your review and insights that will undoubtedly help us to improve our manuscript. Here is our point-by-point response to your comments that we have tried to address as carefully as possible.
- On page 5, The description of material source is not clear enough. In addition, the specific year cannot be known from “the last twenty years”. Please state it more clear and specific.
We have tried to precise our methodology on p. 4-5
- For South Korea, SSE is a new concept, and it is difficult to produce quantitative data about it. However, the concept of SSE has long been put forward and implemented in France, and different organizations measure indicators have been established. Can we make a quantitative analysis of France.
We have indicated the main statistical results for France on p 8
- According to your cross-sectional analysis in Korea and France, not enough to indicate the contribution of SSE remains “largely invisible”. Is there more evidence to demonstrate?
We have introduced a sentence in that sense on p 11
- On page 12, The expression of the abbreviation of “SSEOs” in the manuscript is inappropriate, due to the lack of full name or description when first proposed.
Thanks for your vigilance; it is corrected on p 12
We hope this will meet your expectations. Again thank you for your commitment.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
congratulations for the work presented. Good luck for future work.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have revised the paper properly according to suggestions and opinions listed.
