Green Supply Chain Management Practices of Firms with Competitive Strategic Alliances—A Study of the Automobile Industry
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is an interesting piece of work to read and would provide an important contribution to a less explored area in the international research agenda. The manuscript is well reasoned and contains rich information about the topic. However, I have some concerns that I will be mentioned in the following part.
a) The paper digs in a well-established area of research.
b) Please indicate the location of this study in the abstract
c) Introduction: seems to be long and contains some unnecessary repeated sentences that are already explained earlier.
d) Literature review: covers a wide range of studies and seems to be updated with recent papers, although I think, the author/s needs to divide it into sections to make it easier for the reader to follow the main ideas of the review. Please cite following papers:
- Tukamuhabwa, B., Mutebi, H. and Isabirye, D. (2021), "Supplier performance in the public healthcare: internal social capital, logistics capabilities and supply chain risk management capabilities as antecedents in a developing economy", Journal of Business and Socio-economic Development, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBSED-04-2021-0046
- Tukamuhabwa, B., Mutebi, H. and Kyomuhendo, R. (2021), "Competitive advantage in SMEs: effect of supply chain management practices, logistics capabilities and logistics integration in a developing country", Journal of Business and Socio-economic Development, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBSED-04-2021-0051
All the best
Author Response
The authors of the manuscript are thankful to the reviewer for his constructive comments on the manuscript which have improved the quality of our work. The responses of the authors to the comments are detailed below.
Comment No. 1 Extensive editing of English language and style required
Response: This revised manuscript has been proofread and corrected by the English language experts. Several grammatical and language style corrections have been made. We hope this revised version will be satisfactory in English.
Comment No. 2 Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
Response: The authors have gone over all of the citations and references one by one to ensure that they are relevant to the content of the manuscript. To improve the quality of the Paper, some of the less relevant references have been removed and more relevant references have been added.
Comment No. 3 For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?
Response: In response to the nice suggestion the Results section (See section “4. Results”) of the manuscript has been thoroughly revised to make the presentation and interpretation of the results more clear and understandable.
Comment No. 4 Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?
Response: The conclusion section of the manuscript has been reviewed and revised as per the important suggestion to make it in line with the results of this study as well as previous literature. (See section 7. Conclusion).
Comment No. 5 Please indicate the location of this study in the abstract
Response: We apologies for the oversight. The location of the study has been mentioned in the abstract of the revised manuscript.
Comment No. 6 Introduction: seems to be long and contains some unnecessary repeated sentences that are already explained earlier
Response: As per the nice suggestion the Introduction section has been revised to make it to the point and shorter. Some of the repetitive and extra explanatory sentences have been also removed.
Comment No. 7 Literature review: covers a wide range of studies and seems to be updated with recent papers, although I think, the author/s needs to divide it into sections to make it easier for the reader to follow the main ideas of the review
Response: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for his important comment. In response to the comment the literature review section is divided into subsections to make it easier for the readers to understand. (See the subsections of section 2 “Literature view”. Section 2.1 and 2.2 are further divided into third level sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, respectively).
Comment No. 8 Please cite following papers:
Tukamuhabwa, B., Mutebi, H. and Isabirye, D. (2021), "Supplier performance in the public healthcare: internal social capital, logistics capabilities and supply chain risk management capabilities as antecedents in a developing economy", Journal of Business and Socio-economic Development, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBSED-04-2021-0046
Tukamuhabwa, B., Mutebi, H. and Kyomuhendo, R. (2021), "Competitive advantage in SMEs: effect of supply chain management practices, logistics capabilities and logistics integration in a developing country", Journal of Business and Socio-economic Development, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBSED-04-2021-0051
Response: The authors have cited the above mentioned references in the revised manuscript. (See References no. 68 and 80).
Reviewer 2 Report
In the reviewer opinion the paper suffer from the point of view of the discussion of results.
Totally absent are the discussion of results. I can't evaluate the overall merit of the paper.
Best regards
Author Response
The authors of the manuscript are thankful to the reviewer for constructive comments on the manuscript which have improved the quality of our work. The responses of the authors to the comments are detailed below.
Comment No. 1 Extensive editing of English language and style required
Response: This revised manuscript has been proofread and corrected by the English language experts. Several grammatical and language style corrections have been made. We hope this revised version will be satisfactory in English.
Comment No. 2 Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?
Response: The content of the manuscript namely “Introduction, literature review, results, discussion, managerial implication and conclusion” sections have been updated with more relevant references and arguments form previous literature to comprehend and contextualize the theoretical rational and findings of the study. Please see the above mentioned sections in the revised manuscript.
Comment No. 3 Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
Response: The authors have gone over all of the citations and references one by one to ensure that they are relevant to the content of the manuscript. To improve the quality of the Paper, some of the less relevant references have been removed and more relevant references have been added.
Comment No. 4 Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?
Response: As per the reviewer important comment the research questions (see section 1.3.Research Questions), and research hypotheses (see section 1.4 Research Hypotheses) have been clearly stated. Furthermore, the research design (see section 3. Methodology) of the manuscript has been revised as per the suggestion.
Comment No. 5 Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?
Response: The authors of the manuscript are thankful for the important suggestion. The discussion section has been revised accordingly. The authors have discussed (see section 5. Discussion) the main findings one by one in the light of the present study objective/questions/hypotheses, as well as previous literature to make it more coherent, balanced and compelling.
Comment No. 6 For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?
Response: In response to the nice suggestion the Results section (See section “4. Results”) of the manuscript has been thoroughly revised to make the presentation and interpretation of the results more clear and understandable.
Comment No. 7 Is the article adequately referenced?
Response: The authors have gone over all of the citations and references one by one to ensure that they are relevant to the content of the manuscript. To improve the quality of the Paper, some of the less relevant references have been removed and more relevant references have been added.
Comment No. 8 Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?
Response: The conclusion section of the manuscript has been reviewed and revised as per the important suggestion to make it in line with the results of this study as well as previous literature. (See section 7. Conclusion).
Comment No. 9 In the reviewer opinion the paper suffer from the point of view of the discussion of results. Totally absent are the discussions of results. I can't evaluate the overall merit of the paper.
Response: The authors of the manuscript are thankful for the important suggestion. The authors have revised the results, discussion, implication and conclusion sections of the manuscript. In particular, the authors have discussed (see section 5. Discussion) the main results one by one as well as their implications in the in the light of the present study objective/questions/hypotheses, previous literature as per the important suggestion.
Reviewer 3 Report
I have some comments.
(1) The topics discussed in this manuscript are worth to investigate.
(2) In section 1 and section 2, the authors took a lot of paragraphs to explain or talk about the concepts of SCM and GSCM. However, the contribution of those paragraphs is limited. I suggest the space related the concepts of SCM and GSCM could be reduced.
(3) In the manuscript, the authors proposed a five-factors model to evaluate the effectiveness of competitive strategic alliance for the performance of the automobile industries. But the reasons for these factors are not clear.
(4) The explanations of the SEM results are too little. The insights of managerial should be discussed more.
In sum, the contributions of the current version are limited and I suggest a revision.
Author Response
The authors of the manuscript are thankful to the reviewer for constructive comments on the manuscript which have improved the quality of our work. The responses of the authors to the comments are detailed below.
Comment No. 1 Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?
Response: The content of the manuscript namely “Introduction, literature review, results, discussion, managerial implication and conclusion” sections have been updated with more relevant references and arguments form previous literature to comprehend and contextualize the theoretical rational and findings of the study. Please see the above mentioned sections in the revised manuscript.
Comment No. 2 Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
Response: The authors have gone over all of the citations and references one by one to ensure that they are relevant to the content of the manuscript. To improve the quality of the Paper, some of the less relevant references have been removed and more relevant references have been added.
Comment No. 3 Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?
As per the reviewer important comment the research questions (see section 1.3.Research Questions), and research hypotheses (see section 1.4 Research Hypotheses) have been clearly stated. Furthermore, the research design (see section 3. Methodology) of the manuscript has been revised as per the suggestion.
Comment No. 4 Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?
Response: The authors of the manuscript are thankful for the important suggestion. The discussion section has been revised accordingly. The authors have discussed (see section 5. Discussion) the main findings one by one in the light of the present study objective/questions/hypotheses, as well as previous literature to make it more coherent, balanced and compelling.
Comment No. 5 For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?
Response: In response to the nice suggestion the Results section (See section “4. Results”) of the manuscript has been thoroughly revised to make the presentation and interpretation of the results more clear and understandable.
Comment No. 6 Is the article adequately referenced?
Response: The authors have gone over all of the citations and references one by one to ensure that they are relevant to the content of the manuscript. To improve the quality of the Paper, some of the less relevant references have been removed and more relevant references have been added.
Comment No. 7 Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?
Response: The conclusion section of the manuscript has been reviewed and revised as per the important suggestion to make it in line with the results of this study as well as previous literature. (See section 7. Conclusion).
Comment No. 8 In section 1 and section 2, the authors took a lot of paragraphs to explain or talk about the concepts of SCM and GSCM. However, the contribution of those paragraphs is limited. I suggest the space related the concepts of SCM and GSCM could be reduced.
Response: As per the nice suggestion, the authors have revised section 1 and section 2 of the manuscript by summarizing/removing extra explanatory sentences/paragraphs in particular those related to the concepts of SCM and GSCM.
Comment No. 9 In the manuscript, the authors proposed a five-factors model to evaluate the effectiveness of competitive strategic alliance for the performance of the automobile industries. But the reasons for these factors are not clear.
Response: In the last paragraph of section 1 “Introduction” of the revised manuscript the authors provided rationale/reasons for the five factors model to evaluate the effectiveness of competitive strategic alliance for the performance of the automobile industries.
Comment No. 10 The explanations of the SEM results are too little. The insights of managerial should be discussed more.
Response: The authors are thankful for the important comment. Accordingly, the Results section (see section 4 Results) of the manuscript has been revised by providing detail explanation and interpretation of the SEM results. Furthermore the managerial implications of the findings of the study are also discussed in detail in the revised manuscript (see section 6 Managerial Implications).
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
This version fully addressed my concerns.
Author Response
Respected reviewer,
thank you so much for valuable comments. We tried our best to improve the English language and style and checked the spellings as you directed. Thank you so much once again for acceptance.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
