Integrated Lean-Green Practices and Supply Chain Sustainability for Manufacturing SMEs: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- The abstract needs correction. At the end of the abstract, it is necessary to provide information about the results obtained from the review of the articles.
- The introduction is very long and contains repetitive material
- Lines 128 to 131 of the introduction are unintelligible
- Is the theoretical background part as part of the introduction? If so, it has a lot of additional content. And as a separate section, it has not been seen in conventional essay writing methods. Please shorten it and move it to a part of the introduction.
- The research method is very detailed.
- The diagrams and especially the writings in them are not clear.
- The writing style of lines 557 to 578 should be corrected. be transferred in the form of sentences within the text.
- Driver for LeanGreen Implementation as Criteria has been raised what does it mean?
- The conclusion section needs correction.
Author Response
Point 1: The abstract needs correction. At the end of the abstract, it is necessary to provide information about the results obtained from the review of the articles.
Response 1: We agree with the reviewer’s comment. We have revised the abstract of our manuscript accordingly.
Point 2: The introduction is very long and contains repetitive material
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. The introduction section has been revised and re-systematized, and we have also added or briefly described the structure of the paper at the end of the introduction.
Point 3: Lines 128 to 131 of the introduction are unintelligible
Response 3: We agree that the paper needs to develop stronger context. We have revised section 1 by adding substantial description of the needs of this study and the main aims of our manuscript.
Point 4: Is the theoretical background part as part of the introduction? If so, it has a lot of additional content. And as a separate section, it has not been seen in conventional essay writing methods. Please shorten it and move it to a part of the introduction.
Response 4: Thank you very much for these suggestions. We've removed the theoretical background section and moved a few sentences to the introduction.
Point 5: The research method is very detailed.
Response 5: Thank you for your comment and compliment.
Point 6: The diagrams and especially the writings in them are not clear.
Response 6: Thank you for your comment. We've enlarged the text font in Figures 5, 6, and 8.
Point 7: The writing style of lines 557 to 578 should be corrected. be transferred in the form of sentences within the text.
Response 7: We have corrected and transferred it to the form of sentences in the text.
Point 8: Driver for LeanGreen Implementation as Criteria has been raised what does it mean?
Response 8: Several selected articles addressed the distinct drivers of lean-green implementation. To our knowledge, most of the previous studies were limited to particular country or industry which cannot be generalized due to relatively small sample sizes and the nature of the organizations studied or data from cross-sectional surveys of single respondents. However, it would be good to extend this, especially for SMEs.
Point 9: The conclusion section needs correction.
Response 9: We have revised and added the results of our review and a limitation of this paper in the conclusion section.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper presents a topic of interest for researchers and practitioners. However, several improvements are needed.
1. The specialized literature must be systematized.
2. The introduction should be supplemented with other relevant research conducted in this field. In this way the research will show what is the gap it fills and what are the elements of originality. The introduction section must present the structure of the paper and what this paper proposes. The introduction could be systematized to make it easier to follow.
5. The discussion section should be consolidated and present the main results. Comparisons should be made with other studies (numerous in this field).
6. To emphasize the need for this study.
7. The stages of the methodology must be presented in detail.
8. To highlight the gaps filled by the present study.
9. The conclusions section should be completed with a review of the study.
10. Some journals analyzed are not of reference and other journals can be selected.
11. Research stream and opportunities in future research - must be systematized and updated
The English language should be verified.
Author Response
Point 1: The specialized literature must be systematized.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. The introduction section has been revised and re-systematized, and we have also added substantial description which emphasizes the need for this study and highlights the gap filled.
Point 2: The introduction should be supplemented with other relevant research conducted in this field. In this way the research will show what is the gap it fills and what are the elements of originality. The introduction section must present the structure of the paper and what this paper proposes. The introduction could be systematized to make it easier to follow.
Response 2: Thank you for this constructive comment. The introduction section has been revised and re-systematized, and we have also added or briefly described the structure of the paper at the end of the introduction section.
Point 3: The discussion section should be consolidated and present the main results. Comparisons should be made with other studies (numerous in this field).
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We've revised by adding a few lines in section 3.2 which can consolidate the discussion of challenges and development in future studies, and we have also presented the main results.
Point 4: To emphasize the need for this study.
Response 4: We have revised and added the need for this study to the initial sentences of the abstract and a few line in the introduction (section 1).
Point 5: The stages of the methodology must be presented in detail.
Response 5: We have presented the stages of the methodology in detail by addressing how the SLR is conducted, clearly defining keywords and criteria or differentiators, how the screening and screening process works, how the quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis are carried out, and also how future research directions can be generated.
Point 6: To highlight the gaps filled by the present study.
Response 6: We have revised and highlighted the gap of this study in the introduction (section 1).
To the best our knowledge, only a few empirical studies have comprehensively investigated the impact of lean and green practices on supply chain sustainability performance and involved all three aspects of the 3BL. In particular, empirical research focusing on lean and green practices in manufacturing SMEs is also limited. An extensive literature review conducted by Siegel et al. [6] identify a number of challenges for SMEs and their implications for Lean-Green and sustainability. The study points out some reasons why most SMEs have yet integrated Lean, much less Green-Lean and sustainability. A robust and workable model for SMEs is not currently available. This study purposes to find gaps in the lean-green research area that requires development in future studies, especially for manufacturing SMEs. Hence, this article aims to answer two research questions in order to provide a more comprehensive understanding on Lean-Green practices for SMEs, namely:
RQ1: What are the current trends in lean and green practices and their link with the different aspects of sustainability?
RQ2: What are the main paths for further research in developing the integrated lean-green practices and supply chain sustainability for SMEs?
Point 7: The conclusions section should be completed with a review of the study.
Response 7: We have revised and added the results of our review and a limitation of this paper in the conclusion section (section 4).
Point 8: Some journals analyzed are not of reference and other journals can be selected.
Response 8: We have checked the reference list and also revised and regenerated it.
Point 9: Research stream and opportunities in future research - must be systematized and updated
Response 9: Thank you for your constructive comment. We've revised by adding a few lines in section 3.2 which can consolidate the discussion of challenges and development in future studies.
Point 10: The English language should be verified.
Response 10: Thank you very much for this suggestion. We have revised our manuscript. We have used a proofreading service to check the language.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This study systematically reviews published literature on the integration of lean and green practices and their impact on organizational performance. The aim is to identify synergies between these practices and highlight research gaps that require further development. The review involved selecting relevant articles from various databases, resulting in a total of 157 peer-reviewed journal articles. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used to analyze the selected articles. A bibliometric analysis was conducted to observe research trends from 1996 to 2022. The review found a lack of empirical studies focusing on the impact of lean and green practices on the sustainability performance of SMEs' supply chains. The review acknowledges limitations in the article selection process and researcher subjectivity. Unlike previous studies, this review considers the context of supply chain and sustainability in relation to organizational performance for SMEs. The article provides practical insights for managers and practitioners and proposes a future research agenda on integrated green-lean practices and supply chain sustainability for SMEs.
I appreciate the authors efforts in the work put into this extensive research of Integrated Lean-Green Practices and Supply Chain Sustainability for Manufacturing SMEs: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda. The information is easy to navigate, and the graphic structure of the paper allows readers to analyze the concepts approached, providing an interesting insight of the topic. The paper is well written according to academic standards, using proper language and scientific style. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and they address the questions posed.
Although, to enhance the quality of the study, it would be wise to pay attention to one issue. It is good practice to explain abbreviations when first using them, even if they are widely known such as SME, PDCA.
Author Response
Point 1: This study systematically reviews published literature on the integration of lean and green practices and their impact on organizational performance. The aim is to identify synergies between these practices and highlight research gaps that require further development. The review involved selecting relevant articles from various databases, resulting in a total of 157 peer-reviewed journal articles. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used to analyze the selected articles. A bibliometric analysis was conducted to observe research trends from 1996 to 2022. The review found a lack of empirical studies focusing on the impact of lean and green practices on the sustainability performance of SMEs' supply chains. The review acknowledges limitations in the article selection process and researcher subjectivity. Unlike previous studies, this review considers the context of supply chain and sustainability in relation to organizational performance for SMEs. The article provides practical insights for managers and practitioners and proposes a future research agenda on integrated green-lean practices and supply chain sustainability for SMEs.
I appreciate the authors efforts in the work put into this extensive research of Integrated Lean-Green Practices and Supply Chain Sustainability for Manufacturing SMEs: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda. The information is easy to navigate, and the graphic structure of the paper allows readers to analyze the concepts approached, providing an interesting insight of the topic. The paper is well written according to academic standards, using proper language and scientific style. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and they address the questions posed.
Although, to enhance the quality of the study, it would be wise to pay attention to one issue. It is good practice to explain abbreviations when first using them, even if they are widely known such as SME, PDCA.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We've added an abbreviation explanation the first time we use it (e.g., see page 1, page 2, page 10, etc.).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In this paper, the authors reviewed the published literature on Lean and Green, aiming to identify how these two practices synergize or integrate in influencing organizational performance. The authors effort is extensive and this paper could be of help to researchers in this field. I recommend the publication of this paper. Still I have some comments which are listed in the following.
1. The font of the text in some figures, e.g., figures 5, 6 and 8, are too small to be clearly seen. I suggest the authors to enlarge them.
2. It would be better if the authors add more discussion on the challenges and future directions of this field.
Author Response
In this paper, the authors reviewed the published literature on Lean and Green, aiming to identify how these two practices synergize or integrate in influencing organizational performance. The authors effort is extensive and this paper could be of help to researchers in this field. I recommend the publication of this paper. Still I have some comments which are listed in the following.
Point 1: The font of the text in some figures, e.g., figures 5, 6 and 8, are too small to be clearly seen. I suggest the authors to enlarge them.
Response 1: Thank you very much for these suggestions. We've enlarged the text font in Figures 5, 6, and 8.
Point 2: It would be better if the authors add more discussion on the challenges and future directions of this field.
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. We've revised by adding a few lines in section 3.2 which can consolidate the discussion of challenges and development in future studies.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Notes related to the previous version of the article have been corrected. And this version is somewhat acceptable
Reviewer 2 Report
I accept this version of the paper.
