Institutional Pressures on Sustainability and Green Performance: The Mediating Role of Digital Business Model Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Green innovation (sustainability) and digital innovation, which are recognized as separate topics, are well grouped into one category called ‘Business Model Innovation – Digital Business Model Innovation’. Additionally, this topic is applied to China, and the motivation for choosing China is clearly described in the introduction. The introduction provides sufficient persuasive evidence that DBMI is important for China, which is facing issues of economic growth as well as environmental protection, to achieve sustainable results through green and digital innovation.

In establishing theoretical structures and hypotheses, discussions continue systematically without any logical leaps. The analysis model is clearly presented through the pictures, and it is believed that an appropriate methodology was selected to verify it. The theoretical contributions and practical implications of the results are discussed, making it very clear why the study is important and in what aspects the contribution was made. When judged comprehensively, it is judged that the current submission status is sufficient for publication. However, in the belief that it would be better structured if the theoretical framework of Chapter 2 were supplemented, I propose the following.

 

1. The theoretical background mainly describes the regulatory and normative pressures facing companies and digital innovation. I think it is a construct that mainly focuses on the antecedents and parameters that affect the outcome. And in establishing hypotheses, we specifically discuss relationships between variables. The explanation of the theoretical framework in Chapter 2 needs to be slightly supplemented. I fully understand the author's intention to place a lot of weight on independent variables or parameters rather than outcome variables, but nevertheless, there is a need to discuss green performance with equal importance. I would appreciate it if you could supplement the explanation of the greenstone performance.  

2. Looking at Table 1, which summarizes correlation, reliability, validity, etc., it appears that the correlation coefficient of the same variable is not 1. It seems that the researcher needs to check whether there are any problems with the compiled numbers.

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study is interesting and shows novelty. 

As a suggestion, please review the title of session 3. I'd also extend session 4 (the second session 4 - please review all session numbers) to present the data and discussion in a more profound form. 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, 

This article is interesting. I think you can change the title of the article, it is not accurate. In this title to add green performance.

The title of the 3 third chapter is incorrect. Please rename.

Please section the chapter number 5.

Prepare the Conclusion chapter separately.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting a very relevant paper. Here are my comments_

1. In the Abstract, please refer firstly to the research problem, then the research gap. Please elaborate on the last sentence on usability. 

2. After line 39, please specify/summarize the research gap. The statement "highlighting the need to enrich the literature in this field" is too broad. 

3. The title of section 3 should start with a capital block letter. 

4. In line 268, a statement, "set concrete 2020 targets for air, forest, marine, and land protection". Since we are in 2023, please add a sentence about whether these goals were achieved. 

5. I recommend splitting section 5 into two sections: 5. Discussion and 6. Conclusion, whereas 5.1. and 5.2 may remain in 5, and 5.3 should be moved to 6. Before Limitations and further research, a summarized outcome should be presented.

I wish you the best of luck in the publishing process.

Best regards,

Reviewer

None. 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Paper is good need revisions as follows.

Could authors  elaborate more on the theoretical underpinnings that guided the development of your hypotheses, especially regarding the mediating role of DBMI?

Have authors considered exploring any moderating variables that might influence the relationship between institutional pressures and green performance through DBMI?

Dear authors please provide further details on the criteria used to select the 396 firms from the China Stock Exchange?

How have you addressed potential issues of multicollinearity in your structural equation model?

Can you delve deeper into the practical implications of your findings for managers aiming to enhance green performance through DBMI?

Would it be possible to provide real-world examples or case studies to illustrate the application of your findings?

need revisions 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

Good work done in R1.

satisfactory