The Impact of Eco-Innovation Adoption on Business Performance—A Study of the Hospitality Sector in Brazil
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper has been written on a highly relevant topic, in an interesting field of research. The authors contribute to scientific knowledge on the topic. However, the research requires major revisions.
- Sentences and paragraphs require thorough restructuring and corrections and overall paper readability requires improvement, especially in the introduction (e.g., line 35: "a major advance in the reduction in environmental risks")
- The presentation of the research with respect to previous theoretical background and empirical research on the topic is severely lacking. Throughout the paper, almost no state of the art on the effect of green (or eco-) innovations on business performance is provided. This makes assessing the relevance of the research extremely difficult. There are almost no references in the introduction and the literature review is not structured well. "
- Introduction: the service-profit chain framework is mentioned yet not further introduced in the presented research.
- Methods: This research does not address PA/APA/DEOP/COMP/DESEMP. It addresses the manager/owner/other's perception of these factors. This difference is not highlighted, and the implications remain undiscussed.
-The presented environmental pressures are in fact societal, competitive and regulatory pressures. This requires a thorough reframing of the presented research.
-The effect of the pandemic, and the associated economic hardship, on e.g. adoption of environmental practices is not addressed. One could expect that this had a significant influence (think of saving on the energy bill because of an ongoing recession, rather than for environmental reasons).
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to read your work.
Overall, the topic of this paper is interesting. However, I have some comments and suggestions as follows.
1. The abstract is lengthy. The authors may consider revising this part to highlight the most critical findings of this study.
2. From the paper title, I believe that this paper's primary focus is “eco-innovation adoption”. But the text does not have enough description to define the concept “eco-innovation”. Moreover, in the rest of the paper, the authors do not use “eco-innovation” but replace it with “environmental practices”. I doubt these two concepts are entirely the same to be used interchangeably. Therefore, the authors should have more explanation about the two concepts.
3. The introduction part is unclear, particularly from line 52 to line 66. The authors should revise this part to emphasize the significance of this topic.
4. The literature review part should be restructured. First, some basic concepts, such as eco-innovation, operating performance, firm competitiveness, and corporate performance, should be presented before the arguments of the hypotheses. Moreover, the arguments of hypotheses are written unclearly and lack proper linking to the hospitality sector.
5. In part 4, the authors should explain how the measurement scales were developed. Are they adapted from previous studies? If yes, then there should be citations of the sources.
6. Part 5.2 is too lengthy. The authors may consider combining some tables to make it smooth and easy to follow. I think some figures from 2 to 6 can be moved to the Appendix.
7. The authors should check the abbreviations of variables in this study. I found the inconsistency in using the variables. Please check all tables to correct the variable name.
8. In part 5, the authors have not discussed the results properly. The results of this study should be compared and contrasted with other studies to highlight the new contributions of this study.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper investigates how eco-innovation adoptions are associated with business performance in the hospitality sector in Brazil. The authors used survey data to show that adoption of environmental practices is positively associated with operational performance and business competitiveness. Overall, the evidence presented in the paper is new, and the paper has potential to contribute to the literature.
However, significant improvements must be made to make the paper publishable. The main problem is that the evidence from the paper is insufficient to support the causality relationships proposed by the authors. The authors should not claim that eco-innovation adoption “increases operational performance”, “increases competitiveness”, or “improves company performance”. These claims suggest that eco-innovation adoption is the driving force in business performance, whereas in the data analytical part, endogeneity problems are pervasive. Omitted problems and reverse causality issues significantly undermine the quality of the paper: eco-innovation may well-capture the impact of unobservable factors on business performance; it is higher business performance that leads to eco-innovation, not the reserve. For this survey data with limited variables, I would strongly suggest the authors drop the causality claims and simply present and discuss the survey results. The survey itself presents new information to the audience; this is interesting enough. Do not oversell your findings.
In addition, for the survey data, the authors should conduct sample representative tests or comparison tests to alleviate the concerns on sample selection bias. In other words, companies participating in the survey should be of similar characteristics as a broader population and are not self-selected.
A minor suggestion is that, if a hypothesis is not supported by empirical evidence, do not list it. Please make the paper concise.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
Since the draft sent to me has been revised based on the previous reviewer's suggestion and you have followed the recommendation, I only have minor concern in the Conclusion part.
1. The conclusion is only one paragraph explicitly explaining if the objective of the research is achieved, specifying what the uniqueness of the study is, and clearly describing the future research direction.
2. Out of those, please remove the rest of the paragraphs from the Conclusion to Discussion part.
Author Response
Their suggestions have profoundly enriched our article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to read the revised version of this paper.
I think the authors have improved the paper significantly.
All my previous comments have been addressed.
Author Response
Their suggestions have profoundly enriched our article.
We are truly grateful for all the learning resulting from their observations, which will help us a lot in future research.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors made a few updates in the current submission and included more relevant papers in the literature review. However, my prior concerns are not addressed adequately. I cannot endorse the publication of this paper.
Author Response
Thanks for all the suggestions, and we are frustrated that we were unable to meet your expectations. We reinforce that the sample selection bias was a major limitation of the study, and unfortunately, we would not have been able to have another population of respondents. For us, this was a great lesson for future research.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have made significant improvements in the current submission. My prior concerns are addressed properly. This is a high quality paper. I do not have further suggestions.
