Corporate Decision on Digital Transformation: The Impact of Non-Market Factors
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReferee report on "Corporate decision on digital transformation: the impact of non-market factors"
The paper in front of us is timely as it addresses an important and relevant issue. It provides a detailed description of the state of the art in the literature and is easy to follow. Overall, I’m sympathetic regarding the paper, although I have a number of suggestions that may improve the paper’s exposition. My comments are below.
1. Let me start from the abstract. In the second sentence you state the following: “The study was important because there has been minimal strategic management research on non-market factors of digital transformation.” Here I’d like to stress that in academic literature one never evaluates his/ her study in such a way. Others should decide whether your study important or not. I would suggest re-writing this sentence in a more neutral way as: “The aim of the study is to contribute to strategic management research on non-market factors of digital transformation.”
1a. It brings me to my second comment that the paper must benefit from professional proofreading. Thus, for example, if I understand it correctly, in the second sentence of the Introduction it should be maximizes, rather than maximize. The second sentences of the second and third paragraphs on page 2 also should be corrected. Further, there are many other cases that should be corrected.
2. Page 2: Second sentence from above where you speak about prior literature. Provide a few references to this prior literature.
More important:
3. The section on Research Methodology and Design is not clear enough. Here (p. 7) you mention “respondents “, but their detailed description is presented only in the Results Section on p. 10.
In brief, your Sub-Section 4.1 “description of the population and sample” should be moved from the “Results” section to the Research methodology and design.
Now my comments on Methodology and Design:
4. Control variables:
(a) Although you control for the regions, as detailed in Table 1, still your regional groups are somewhat heterogeneous with respect to a business-friendly environment and economic development in general. Here I would suggest adding the regional GDP that can be easily obtained from the Chinese CSB to partly control for possible economic differences across the regions.
(b) Coming to the major focus of the study – the firms – I would suggest also controlling for the exporting firms versus the firms that serve only the local market, as it has been widely accepted that exporting firms are generally more efficient than the firms that sell their products in the local market only.
(c) Also it could be interesting to control for the CEO/ entrepreneurs’ membership in the communist party. However, I’m afraid that it is not easy to obtain such information. So, this comment is only “suggestive” if you could find an easy way to obtain such info. Also do you have any clue are there many people at such positions who are not the members in the party?
5. Discussion Section. In the first sentence in this Section you write “This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript …”. The Discussion is an absolute must for any paper, as here you systematically present and stress the findings of your study.
6. Also, to better connect the paper to the general economic context, to the end of the first paragraph on page 17, where you speak about the interactions between the firms and the government, I would suggest adding the following:
“Furthermore, from a more general macroeconomic perspective, digital transformation may further increase the demand for human capital, which has been shown to play a key role in modern economic growth (Azarnert, 2016, 2023).”
6a. In your description of the state of the art in the literature in the Introduction, you can also address Tudose et al. 2023 that can also be relevant for your study from the general macroeconomic perspective.
References
Tudose, M.B.; Georgescu, A.; Avasilcai, S. (2023) Global Analysis Regarding the Impact of Digital Transformation on Macroeconomic Outcomes. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4583.
Azarnert, L.V. (2023) Population Sorting and Human Capital Accumulation. Oxford Economic Papers 75, 780–801.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is a pleasure to greet the authors of the article titled: Corporate Decision on Digital Transformation: The Impact of Non-market Factors. I have read and reviewed the article proposed for the Journal Sustainability. It is an interesting topic, which provides contributions on the importance of studying the relationship between non-market factors (political networks, perceived corruption, economic conservatism, cultural conservatism, social conservatism, and meritocracy of top managers) and digital transformation in companies in the country of China. Without a doubt, this is a hot topic worth studying and exploring in the present era of industry 4.0.
I consider that the article has a state of major revisions, and to be published it must raise and respond to the following observations. Below, I communicate my impressions and recommendations to further increase the quality of the document submitted for peer review:
1.- The manuscript uses the word co-opetition. Please check if the correct word to write is co-opetition or coopetition. Review in the keywords section and throughout the article, use only one form (not both) throughout the document.
2.- It is necessary in the introduction of the article to provide a context of what industry 4.0 means, which is linked to digital transformation. It is recommended in the introduction chapter, specifically in the first paragraph where the concept of industry 4.0 is mentioned, to explain in greater detail what it is, what technologies it considers (AI, IoT, digital twins, big data, among others) and the implication of the industry 4.0 in different market areas and industry sectors, such as, for example: (i) mining, (ii) agriculture, (iii) education, among others. To do this, I recommend adding citations and references from researchers from different parts of the world, and not just considering China. Consider the following articles:
• Zhironkina, O.; Zhironkin, S. Technological and Intellectual Transition to Mining 4.0: A Review. Energies 2023, 16, 1427.
• Xu, C.; Chen, X.; Dai, W. Effects of Digital Transformation on Environmental Governance of Mining Enterprises: Evidence from China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16474.
3.- The article uses many abbreviations. Therefore, it is necessary to generate a subchapter called a list of abbreviations with a table, a subchapter that must be located after the subchapter called conflicts of interest and before the references chapter. Consider the following example:
Abbreviations
|
ICTs |
Information and Communication Technologies |
|
CAPEX |
Capital Costs |
|
OPEX |
Operational Costs |
|
masl |
Meters above sea level |
4.- Chapter 3 is called Research Methodology and Design, I recommend modifying the title and writing only Research Methodology.
5.- Please move the number of the equations used in the article to the right so that they stand out more (in the present version of the article they are not adequately distinguished).
6.- The alpha, beta and epsilon parameters presented in each of the equations must be described in the methodology chapter.
7.- Chapter 4 is called Result, modify the word to Results.
8.- By definition in a research, the sub-chapter describing the population and sample is presented at the end of the methodology chapter. I recommend moving the sub-chapter describing the population and sample to the end of the methodology chapter.
9.- In the results chapter the texts before and after the tables are very close together or attached to the tables, please leave more spaces between texts before and after the tables.
10.- In the results chapter, avoid cutting the tables if possible, in order to avoid the information being presented on two different pages.
11.- Figures 2, 3, and 4 are not cited in the text of the results chapter, please cite appropriately. Furthermore, after presenting these figures, for each of them present a description of the results obtained.
12.- In the chapter called discussion, please add an additional subchapter explaining how these theoretical results relate to practice, linking with some sectors of the industry such as: mining, agriculture, education, among others.
13.- The article does not present a chapter of conclusions. The authors must add a conclusion chapter where they communicate the main findings of their research and also point out recommendations.
14.- The following sections must be added with the respective information of each of the authors after the conclusions chapter, in accordance with what is indicated by MDPI in the format of the articles:
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.C. and J.A.; formal analysis, L.C.; investigation, L.C.; resources, J.A.; writing—original draft preparation, L.C.; writing—review and editing, L.C. and J.A.; visualization, L.C.; supervision, J.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The research is funded by the Research Department of the XX University, China.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
15.- A review of the English in the article by a native english person is suggested.
Regards,
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
A review of the English in the article by a native english person is suggested.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript explores the relationship between political networks and the adoption of digital transformation strategies in diverse enterprises in China. The study focuses on non-market factors, particularly political influences, and aims to contribute to the limited research on this aspect of digital transformation in strategic management. The research employs a multiple regression approach with 214 firms in China, utilizing variables such as political network relationships, digital transformation strategies, perceived corruption, economic conservatism, cultural conservatism, social conservatism, and meritocracy of top managers.
One notable strength of the manuscript is its attempt to delve into the often-neglected area of non-market factors influencing digital transformation decisions. The study's focus on China adds value by providing insights into a context where political and economic dynamics play a crucial role in business operations. Additionally, the use of multiple regression analysis and factor analysis enhances the methodological rigor, allowing for a nuanced examination of the relationships between variables.
However, a significant drawback is the absence of a theoretical foundation or a comprehensive review of the existing literature on sustainability, a term prominently featured in the target journal's title. Given the journal's focus on sustainability, the manuscript should better integrate theoretical frameworks and prior research related to sustainability in the context of digital transformation. This gap limits the manuscript's alignment with the journal's scope and may affect its relevance to the intended audience.
The manuscript's practical significance is highlighted by its findings that firms with stronger political network relationships are more likely to undergo digital transformation. The moderation effects of perceived corruption, economic conservatism, cultural conservatism, social conservatism, and meritocracy of top managers contribute to a nuanced understanding of the factors influencing digital transformation outcomes. However, the practical implications could be strengthened by providing actionable recommendations for businesses based on the study's findings.
Furthermore, the convenience sampling method used raises concerns about the generalizability of the results. A more robust and representative sampling approach would enhance the external validity of the study. Additionally, the manuscript should address potential confounding variables that might affect the observed relationships, providing a more thorough analysis of the research design.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsConsidering that a lot has already been corrected in the current version of the article, I consider it possible to accept it in its present form.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI'm fully saticefied.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageStill some minor editing
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors:
I have revised your responses to my observations and i can comment that are considered my observations by you in the new version of the article. Good job and good luck.
Regards,
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is adequate, only minor details to improve
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsUnfortunately, it appears that the authors have not adequately addressed the concerns raised, particularly regarding the absence of sustainability considerations. Given the persistent misalignment with the scope of a sustainability journal and the crucial need for a substantive integration of sustainability principles, I strongly recommend that the authors and editors consider submitting this manuscript to a different journal more suited to its current focus.
The title, "Corporate Decision on Digital Transformation: The Impact of Non-market Factors," suggests a focus on non-market factors rather than sustainability. While the topic may be valuable in a different context, it does not align with the core themes of a sustainability journal.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor
