The Interplay of Corporate Social Responsibility, Innovation Capability, Organizational Learning, and Sustainable Value Creation: Does Stakeholder Engagement Matter?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has the potential to be published in the journal. The critical aspect I consider is identifying the gap better and highlighting the article's contribution. It is also important to justify the proposed moderating effects theoretically.

Apart from these key aspects, I would like to highlight:

- The contribution of the paper should be clarified in the current version. The gap in the literature is not specified in the introduction. This aspect is essential to convey the value of the paper.

 

The hypotheses must be aligned with the theory support with the literature support. Need rework.

 

How was the survey developed, and what was the language of the survey?

What was the data collection method?

Which media was used for data collection? Who were the target audience? How are respondents recognized?

There are various techniques under non-probabilistic sampling. Which technique have you applied?

Explain the sampling method along with its justification.

 

HTMT ratio is important for determining discriminant validity. It should be added to the results.

 

The discussion can be improved. It is unclear which results contribute to which theoretical stream and how you position your study's results. Further, how does this study contribute effectively compared to previous studies?

 

Theoretical and managerial contributions can be fine-tuned.

 

How can the different stakeholders find the study's findings useful? How can they take advantage of the study findings?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your valuable time and effort in validating my manuscript “The Interplay of Corporate Social Responsibility, Innovation Capability, Organizational Learning, and Sustainable Value Creation: Does Stakeholder Engagement Matter?” and I am grateful for the valuable suggestions provided in revising the paper. The changes are marked in red color in the manuscript.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

The paper has the potential to be published in the journal. The critical aspect I consider is identifying the gap better and highlighting the article's contribution. It is also important to justify the proposed moderating effects theoretically.

Apart from these key aspects, I would like to highlight:

• The contribution of the paper should be clarified in the current version. The gap in the literature is not specified in the introduction. This aspect is essential to convey the value of the paper.

Reply: We have revised the introduction to better specify the gap in the literature and clarified the contribution of the paper to emphasize its value.

• The hypotheses must be aligned with the theory support with the literature support. Need rework.

Reply: The hypotheses have been reworked to ensure they are aligned with theoretical frameworks and supported by relevant literature.

• How was the survey developed, and what was the language of the survey?

Reply: We are really grateful for the insightful comment from the reviewer. We have revised and added how the survey was developed to reflect the review’s comment. The changes are highlighted in yellow texts on page 19 and 20 of the revised manuscript

• What was the data collection method?

Reply: The data collection method was also provided in the methodology. First sentence under method:

Data for this study was gathered via a questionnaire survey, aligning with the quantitative research methodology.

• Which media was used for data collection? Who were the target audience? How are respondents recognized?

Sub comment: Which media was used for data collection?

Reply: This has already been provided under methods:

Twelve members of the research team administered the survey through in-person visits and electronically

Sub comment: Who were the target audience?

Reply: This has already been provided under methods:

The survey respondents were managers of manufacturing firms in Turkey, such as textile and building materials manufacturing, food processing and manufacturing, medicine manufacturing, paper and printing manufacturing, petrochemical industry, and other manufacturing sectors.

Sub comment: How are respondents recognized?

Reply: This has already been provided under methods:

The participants were identified through the manufacturing firms listed in the Turkish Trade Gazette.

• There are various techniques under non-probabilistic sampling. Which technique have you applied?

Reply: We have revised and added the specific sampling method.

Non-probabilistic sampling (i.e., purposive sampling) method for data collection was adopted.

• Explain the sampling method along with its justification

Reply: Similar studies within this area of research have adopted this particular sampling method (Abuzawida et al., 2023; Moroni et al., 2022).

• HTMT ratio is important for determining discriminant validity. It should be added to the results.

Reply: Our study used co-variance (CFA) in AMOS (Not variance based E.G., PLS) to assess the reliability and the validity of the measurement model. Further, we adopted the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criteria, specifically comparing the square root of all AVEs to nearby correlations. They were all greater than the surrounding correlations. This same approach used in this study has also been used by the following studies:

• Al Tera, A., Alzubi, A., & Iyiola, K. (2024). Supply chain digitalization and performance: A moderated mediation of supply chain visibility and supply chain survivability. Heliyon.
• Iyiola, K., & Rjoub, H. (2020). Using conflict management in improving owners and contractors relationship quality in the construction industry: the mediation role of trust. Sage Open, 10(1), 2158244019898834.
• Jung, H. S., & Yoon, H. H. (2018). Improving frontline service employees' innovative behavior using conflict management in the hospitality industry: The mediating role of engagement. Tourism Management, 69, 498-507.
• The discussion can be improved. It is unclear which results contribute to which theoretical stream and how you position your study's results. Further, how does this study contribute effectively compared to previous studies?

Reply: The discussion has been expanded to clarify which results contribute to which theoretical stream and how the study’s findings are positioned compared to previous studies.

• Theoretical and managerial contributions can be fine-tuned.

Reply: The theoretical and managerial contributions have been fine-tuned to highlight their significance in the updated manuscript.

• How can the different stakeholders find the study's findings useful? How can they take advantage of the study findings?

Reply: We have included explanations in the practical implications

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• Moderate editing of the English language is required.

Reply: Moderate editing of the English language has been performed to improve clarity and readability.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Daer authors,

Thank you for your efforts. Kindly find few comments which enhance your manuscript:

1- Check "2.2. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)". Where is 2.1.?

2- I recommend to write the full words for all hypotheses, along with their denoting letters, to enhance clarity and readability.

3- Although the statistical analysis of the results is adequate, the commentary and discussion on these findings are lacking depth. Authors are encouraged to provide more analysis and discussion to contextualize their results effectively. Furthermore, bolstering the findings with references to relevant previous studies would enhance the strength of the conclusions.

4- The section "5. Discussion" is empty. This section is very important to clarify how the results support the objectives of the manuscript.

All the best,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is okay. Minor editing could enhance the manuscript. 

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your valuable time and effort in validating my manuscript “The Interplay of Corporate Social Responsibility, Innovation Capability, Organizational Learning, and Sustainable Value Creation: Does Stakeholder Engagement Matter?” and I am grateful for the valuable suggestions provided in revising the paper. The changes are marked in red color in the manuscript.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1-Check "2.2. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)". Where is 2.1.?

Reply: We have corrected the section numbering to include Section 2.1 as suggested in the updated manuscript.

2- I recommend writing the full words for all hypotheses, along with their denoting letters, to enhance clarity and readability.

Reply: The full words for all hypotheses, along with their denoting letters, have been included to enhance clarity and readability in the updated manuscript.

3- Although the statistical analysis of the results is adequate, the commentary and discussion on these findings are lacking depth. Authors are encouraged to provide more analysis and discussion to contextualize their results effectively. Furthermore, bolstering the findings with references to relevant previous studies would enhance the strength of the conclusions.

Reply: Discussion section has been improved based on the recommendations.

4- The section "5. Discussion" is empty. This section is very important to clarify how the results support the objectives of the manuscript.

Reply: The discussion section has been adequately filled with analysis and discussion to address the objectives of the study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language:

English is okay. Minor editing could enhance the manuscript. 

Reply: Minor editing has been done to enhance the manuscript's clarity and readability in the updated manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript seems improved. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of the English language is required