Interrelation between Sustainable Dynamic Capabilities, Corporate Sustainability, and Sustained Competitive Advantage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this work, the study investigates the current business landscape has be-9 come an imminent challenge for both the service and manufacturing sectors. Based on the thematic 10 analysis of the empirical data of the expert interviews of 46 professionals from Australia and Paki-11 stan, a framework has been put forward to achieve sustained competitive advantage. This research 12 has employed a Dynamic Capabilities (DC) theory lens and acts as a foundation of the “Sustainable 13 Dynamic Capabilities” concept for future research. The paper is well written and the results are meaningful. l have several suggestions to improve the readability of the paper:

      1: The proposed solution method is not well defined and the abstract needs                       improvement.

      2: Please add the advantages and motivation in the introduction part.

      3: Improve the section on Purpose and Conceptual Background under the                    influences of

          dynamic capabilities.

      4: Explain the relations between Fig. 2 and 3.

    5: Please demonstrate the similarities and differences between Australia and    Pakistan.

      6: improve the quality of Table 4.

      7:  Illustrate the relation between Figs. 6 and 7

      8:  The conclusions section must be revised.

      9:   The references list should be updated.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Can be improved

Author Response

All revisions are conducted. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have found the study presented in the paper interesting and undoubtedly relevant. The paper adds to the literature by discussing the interrelation between Sustainable Dynamic Capabilities, Corporate Sustainability and Sustained Competitive Advantage. I think this manuscript shows potential to be published but there is a need for major improvement. 

 

• The keywords are in line with the terms used in the research, except the single word “Corporate” that looks strange – I recommend to change to “Corporate sustainability”

• The Introduction section correctly states the main purpose of the study correctly present the research gap, objectives of the study, and research questions. Still, I am missing at least one more paragraph describing the structure of the paper.

• It seems that some headings (i.e. Purpose and Conceptual Background; Methodology: Protocols, and Search Criteria; Findings of Expert Interviews) could be formulated more clear of more close to traditional IMRAD structure headings  

• The separate section Purpose and Conceptual Background is too brief for being a real conceptual background based on a thorough literature review. Maybe it makes sense to combine it with the Introduction section, or to rewrite the section so that it will contain an improved analysis of the broader amount of relevant literature. What is surely, it is better to concentrate all about the purpose of the study in the Introduction section, and to move the lines 99-120 into the Methodology section.

• It is mentioned in the Conclusion section that there were “29 research articles selected for a systematic literature review focused on a developing country” (lines 690-691). First, why not on “developing countries”? All was about one country or it is about English language that needs improvement? Second, a systematic literature review is usually a comprehensive review of scholarly articles – therefore, it is a need for more clear description of the methods for selecting and analyzing sources. What was done in order to create a representative corpus of documents for investigation?  How the sources were assessed to be included/excluded in the analysis? There are lots of examples in contemporary academic literature how the method and sample selection may be described – see, for example, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z 

At the same time, my opinion is that it is not the core idea of the paper. Therefore, it is up to the authors what to choose: to work on a real systematic literature review or simply to remove the statement that they have done it

• Lines 41-44 are better suited for Conclusions section

• In the References, doi/URL missing for many sources, and formatting is not fully correct 

Overall, I recommend major revision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is understandable but needs improvement

Example: “…the research focus in the previous studies has been mainly focused on the developed countries, given the developed countries had witnessed the industrialization ahead of the developing countries …” (lines 22-23)

 

Maybe better to reformulate some too long sentences (to divide them into two short and clearer ones)

Author Response

All revisions are conducted. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The authors very well embedded the assumptions of the work and the results themselves in the theory of sustainable development of enterprises. The opinions are properly supported by references from research conducted so far.

2. However, the text of the article contains repetitions. It relatively raises the same opinions in many areas, including for example: on the need to maintain the competitiveness of Pakistani enterprises in relation to enterprises from neighboring countries in this region.

3. Authors should condense their opinions more. It is true that at the beginning of the article the authors point out that the research conducted is more of a qualitative nature. However, to increase the strength of argumentation of the presented opinions, it would be worth considering analyzing the interview results using numerical tools.

4. It should be positively noted that the authors conducted a thorough and critical analysis of the literature on the subject and included it in the appendix.

Author Response

All revisions are conducted. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer's comments were addressed, the paper can be accepted in present form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It seems almost fine. Maybe some additional (minor) editing.

Example: “…the research focus in the previous studies has been mainly focused  …” (line 26)