Sustainable Supply Chain Management in the Oil and Gas Industry in Developing Countries as a Part of the Quadruple Helix Concept: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors should write more on Quadruple Helix Concept. As it is the title you should elaborate more in the Introduction section and your methodology section.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, thank you for your review and the efforts you put on it. We found your remarks and recommendations very valuable and we are so grateful for that. 

As per your recommendations,We have updated: In fact, in the introduction part, we've mentionned the absence of the QHC in SSCM publications as a key tool (Carayannis EG, Barth TD, Campbell DF. (2012)).

Also, we have extended our analaysis on the section 2.5. Regarding the adoption of this tool for our paper by referencing (Hasche N, Höglund L, Linton G. 2019 ; Cai Y, Etzkowitz H. 2020) and justifying the reason of our choice.

Regarding the Methodology section, we'd like to mention that a combination of the set of words used with QHC didn't show any relevant result that's another reason why as an essential and innovative tool, we judged it necessary for implementation in the field of SSCM.

Thank you once more for your availability.

Best Regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General opinion: The submitted abstract on "Sustainable Supply Chain Management" (SSCM) in the context of the oil and gas industry in Developing Countries (DC) is a commendable effort that addresses a significant gap in the current research landscape. The authors successfully draw attention to the artistic vagueness surrounding the distinctions between SSCM and Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM), highlighting an area that requires further clarification within the scholarly discourse. The focus on the oil and gas industry in Developing Countries adds an important dimension to the discussion, given the industry's economic significance and environmental impact. The proposed systematic literature review (SLR) covering the period from 2005 to 2023 is a robust approach, aiming to provide a comprehensive understanding of SSCM practices in this specific geographical area. The conceptual framework introduced by the authors, incorporating the triple bottom line of SSCM into the oil and gas industry, is a valuable contribution. The data collection and applied methodologies seem to be valid and robust. However, while the work presents intriguing findings, there is room for improvement in terms of clarity and depth. This review will discuss the strengths of the manuscript, highlighting its potential significance, and offer constructive suggestions to enhance the overall quality and impact of the work. Therefore, I suggest accepting this paper following major revisions done by the authors.

Major comments:

·       While this study has clearly shown that the main conceptual units are linked, it should also show how the theoretical framework behind the chosen approach works. As can be seen in Figure 1, it is not enough to introduce the field of the present investigation, but it is also important to translate the verbal expression of the author's approach to the topic or theme in the form of diagrams and schemes that could facilitate the reader's understanding and perception in the short time available.

·       The introduction and description of the concept of the quadruple helix is in need of revision as it is very brief and lacks relevance and connection to the main research problem and the design of the current study.

·       The researchers argue that they stopped searching the Scopus database in March 2023. They also need to argue and explain why they stopped exactly on that date.

·       Certain information provided by the authors on the specifics of the general bibliographic analysis based on VosViewer, described in the section on bibliographic results, should be moved to the section describing the methodology.

·       the section " SSCM in oil and Gas industry in Developing Countries" should be further improved with some applicable country examples. In other words, non-sustainable aspects should also be emphasized. Refer to Niftiyev (2020) on dutch disease symtoms and effects for the specific practices in case studies of small oil and gas rich countries. Full references are provided below. Refer also to the fundamental contribution in Resources Policy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103258

·       While the discussion provides insightful observations, incorporating more specific data or citations to support certain claims would strengthen the arguments. For instance, when discussing the low interest in DC, providing statistics or examples from existing literature could substantiate the statement. Additionally, citations to support claims about the challenges faced by developing countries would add credibility to the discussion.

·       In the discussion section, the suggestion that authors could collaborate more in the field to increase publications is intriguing, but it would benefit from further elaboration. How exactly could collaboration be encouraged? Are there existing successful examples in related fields that could serve as models?

·       The authors commend the simultaneous integration of various concepts and the use of analytical tools but do not critically examine the novelty of their approach. Those should be corrected in the conclusions section. A more detailed evaluation could explore whether the combination of Sustainable, Supply Chain Management, OG industry, and DC indeed leads to a genuinely novel approach in empirical research.

Minor comments:

·       The abbreviations OG and DC are not explained in the Abstract.

·       Keywords need to be revised. Using abbreviations in the keywords section diminish the study’s visibility among the scientific bases. I suggest to have shorter, yet thorough list.

·       L208: the sentence is not finished and clear.

·       L214: what is “pic”?

References

Niftiyev, I. (2020). Dutch disease symptoms in Azerbaijan Economy. Journal of Economic Cooperation & Development, 41(3), 33-67.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, thank you for your review and the efforts you put on it. We found your remarks and recommendations very valuable and we are so grateful for that. 

You are right The figure 1 alone should not represent the huge area of reseach of the Sustainable Supply Chain Management. That's a mistake from our side and we will correct it. Instead, it represents the interconnection between the main concepts which subtend our reserch .

As per your recommendations,We have updated: In fact, in the introduction part, we've mentionned the absence of the QHC in SSCM publications as a key tool (Carayannis EG, Barth TD, Campbell DF. (2012)).

Also, we have extended our analaysis on the section 2.5. Regarding the adoption of this tool for our paper by referencing (Hasche N, Höglund L, Linton G. 2019 ; Cai Y, Etzkowitz H. 2020) and justifying the reason of our choice.

Regarding the Methodology section, we'd like to mention that a combination of the set of words used with QHC didn't show any relevant result that's another reason why as an essential and innovative tool, we judged it necessary for implementation in the field of SSCM.

For the date mentionned in the first manuscript, this represents the date we conducted this study and submit the first draft. However we've update the data and the actual latest date is January 2024. You will find it the last version of the manuscript. Thank you once more.

Regarding the  general bibliographic analysis based on VosViewer, we thought about making them separated as you recommend but but doing that, it was so confusing and the probability to repeat the same information was so high. That;s why in our opinion, it sounded better to link the analysis to the results in order to facilitate the understanding of this part of the study. But still your remark will definitely help us for futur studies when it comes to use both bibliography analysis and Prisma. 

Regarding the evidences, we'd like to thank you for this opportunity you gave us as well as the reference provided which allowed us to describe the non sustable situation in some Developing countries.

Concerning the insightful observations, we've added new references as well as some data to be more truthful and reliable

Regarding the collaboration between authors, it can by multiplying conferences and seminars in universities located in Developing Countries, or by increasing the number of scholarships granted to researchers from Developing Countries in the field of Sustainable Supply Chain Management in Oil and Gas Industry, we would have had a significant number of publications.

As per your recommendations, we've tried to provide with a more critical evaluation of our approach which of course is very challenging and we have also highligthed what could be the limitation of such an approach. Thank you very much.

Thank you for once more your availability

 

Best Regards

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors conducted a systematic literature review on sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) in the oil and gas industry in developing countries, utilizing the quadruple helix concept. The paper makes a useful contribution in distinguishing between SSCM and green supply chain management, analyzing SSCM practices, pressures and barriers specifically for the oil and gas sector in developing countries. However, the study has some limitations.

1. The review focuses narrowly on developing countries as a whole, without consideration of differences between specific regions/countries. Issues facing African nations may differ considerably from South America for example. Analysis by geographical region could be insightful.

2. While a systematic search was conducted, details of the search strategy are not provided. Listing the full search string would increase reproducibility.

3. Though 38 papers were reviewed, critical appraisal of study quality was not described. Assessing aspects like methodology rigor would assist analyzing the strength of evidence.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, thank you for your review and the efforts you put on it. We found your remarks and recommendations very valuable and we are so grateful for that. 

Regarding your remarks on the possible segmentation of the geographical area of our study namely (DC from Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe and South-Eastof Asia), we based ouselves on the fact that all the DC have almost the same characteristics, economic index and face the same challenges as per the classification criteria set by the Bretton Woods Institutions. Therefore, we concluded that what can be applied in one of them could be used widely. Of course, some diferences might occur since every country is different but still, a huge majority of these results can be applied. However, we will think about it for a better understanding in our futur research.

Regarding the methodology, we've decided to sum up our method into the Figure 3: PRISMA diagram of the SLR based on Literature review. This process clearly demonstrates step by step,  how we conducted our research based on the selected key words mentionned in the previous paragraphs. 

According to the 2020 PRISMA diagram, you can see that one of the main exclusion criteria was the non relevance of a publication. You are rigth, because we omitted to highlight what we meant by relevant, in fact we have only selected papers with reliable and replicable methodology. That's why we focused more on papers published in high ranking journals as well. 

Thank you once more for your availability.

Best Regards