The Link between Sustainable Innovation and Industrial Performance: The Case of the United States

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very good paper. It provides an empirical analysis of the link between sustainable innovation and industry performance in the US. The findings are interesting and could provide food for thought in view of future policy changes. I recommend the publication.

Author Response

Attached is the response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an intriguing article that attempts to elucidate the link between sustainable innovation and industry performance in the United States.

The title of the manuscript needs improvement as it appears generic and uninformative. The article's purpose, approach, and the authors' contributions are not clearly stated.

The introduction effectively outlines the study's objectives, emphasizing both theoretical and empirical contributions. Mentioning the number of industries and companies covered adds a quantitative dimension to the research. However, terms like "sustainable innovation" and "industrial performance" are used without explicit definitions. Providing clear definitions or explanations would ensure a shared understanding among readers.

Some sentences could be more concise without sacrificing clarity. For instance, in the paragraph discussing SDGs, consider condensing information about the shared framework for U.S. priorities.

Figures 1 to 3 do not provide relevant information and appear decorative; they are stock images from the iStock website. I recommend either elaborating on figures using infographics to explain technical concepts or permanently deleting them.

In the materials and methods section, lines 230 to 239 fail to introduce the methodological approach. The authors should provide a detailed description of the research procedure. As a statistically supported study, the authors should estimate a significant sample, explaining how they selected the 94 industries and their corresponding 7300 companies.

All tables should be presented in an appropriate format to enhance interpretation. For example, models 1 and 2, 3 and 4 are not well presented or easily understandable in their current form.

It is unclear why the authors specifically employ a linear model, such as the one presented in line 368. Additionally, there are no interactions between variables that require a second-order model in the form of a scalar field. The authors should introduce the variable "yit" in the model, as this was not explained in the text.

Regarding the correlation analysis in Model 1, the income tax rate is directly correlated to industrial productivity. The authors suggest in line 471 that this implies environmental regulatory bodies can use tax policies to curb environmental costs. However, in line 609, the authors claim that "our study demonstrates how environmental sustainability could be enhanced by introducing pollution control tax policies by regulators." There seems to be insufficient data or support from previous studies for this claim. Please clarify.

In line 614, the authors state that this study "further provides enough knowledge to policymakers on how to encourage firms on sustainable innovation practices." However, the manuscript lacks coverage of the steps to implement sustainable innovation practices. I encourage you to elaborate on how to encourage firms in this regard using the outcomes from the current study.

Lastly, I recommend including a conclusion section in the revised version of the manuscript.

Author Response

Attached is the response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Title:

Sustainable innovation and industrial performance: The case of the United States

I am pleased to see the revised version. The authors have done a very good job to improve the quality. It is a good and Well-written study and shows a new perspective on the topic under consideration. The topic of this research study has a practical significance to the scientific knowledge. The authors have investigated a good research area. I will accept this article after some changes. Modify according to these suggestions.

Before accepting this study for publication, I suggest changes to improve the quality. I need the strong literature support to reach merit for publication. I suggest the authors to cite these studies to improve the quality. See the below-recommended studies to improve your abstract quality. I suggest studies below to improve the quality. I will accept this paper after these changes. 

Abstract

The abstract quality is not high standard to meet the merit of scientific writing that needs a high standard of writing to publish in outstanding journals like SUSTAINABILITY. Please revise the whole article and remove English grammar problems. I suggest the authors take English editing services from some agencies to improve the quality of this study.

Introduction section

I suggest that authors to read the suggested studies add the latest citations to the introduction, literature and method sections to enhance the quality of the study. 

Mahmood, S., Ali, H., Ali Raza, M., Ali, G., Aman, J., . . . Nurunnabi, M. (2019). The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices and Environmental Factors through a Moderating Role of Social Media Marketing on Sustainable Performance of Business Firms. Sustainability, 11(12), 3434.

Literature section:

Add literature section. You cannot delete this section. Read the suggested studies and cite these papers in the literature to enhance the quality of your work.

Shah, S. H., Fahlevi, M., Rahman, E. Z., Akram, M., Jamshed, K., Aljuaid, M. (2023). Impact of Green Servant Leadership in Pakistani Small and Medium Enterprises: Bridging Pro-Environmental Behaviour through Environmental Passion and Climate for Green Creativity. Sustainability, 15(20).

Shuja, K. H. (2022). Criminal Recidivism in Pakistan: A Grounded Theory of Social & Environmental Causes and Psychological Consequences. Nature-Nurture Journal of Psychology, 2(2), 41-53. doi:10.53107/nnjp.v2i2.6

Materials and Methods

This section is very weak. Please follow the suggested studies and improve your paper. The authors need to improve this section. I am recommending some good studies. Read the methods of these studies, improve your paper, and cite these studies in this section. Suggested useful articles citations:

Rehman, S., Aldereai, O., Al-Sulaiti, K. I., & Shah, S. A. R. (2023). Tourism management in financial crisis and industry 4.0 effects: Managers traits for technology adoption in reshaping, and reinventing human management systems. Human Systems Management, 42(5), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3233/hsm-230067

Discussion section:

Improve this discussion. Argue on the results and cite more studies to support the discussion.  The authors should include a comprehensive literature review section that delves into an in-depth discussion of existing research. They should also identify any literature gaps, which are areas where there is a lack of information or insufficient data. These gaps represent opportunities for further research, considering factors such as sample size, location, research methods, and variables or conditions. The authors should aim to explore these unexplored, under-explored, or outdated aspects to contribute to the field.

- The method section could benefit from further improvement. It is important to provide a clear justification for the methodology approach used, explaining why it was chosen and how it is appropriate for the research question at hand. Additionally, it would be helpful to reference prior studies that have successfully used this methodology approach to strengthen the argument for its use in this particular study.

- The data section requires improvement. The authors must address several key questions to provide a better understanding of their approach. Specifically, why were these variables selected for the model? What does the existing literature say about these variables? Additionally, it's important to provide information on previous authors who have used these variables. Without this information, readers may find it difficult to comprehend the approach and results presented in the study fully. Cite these studies to enhance the quality.

Meng, Q., Yan, Z., Shankar, A., & Subramanian, M. (2023). Human–Computer Interaction and Digital Literacy Promote Educational Learning in Pre-school Children: Mediating Role of Psychological Resilience for Kids’ Mental Well-Being and School Readiness. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2248432

Implications

Explain this section effectively.  It needs a better presentation related to the study topic.

Limitations

Discuss the study’s limitations with a separate heading and discuss it briefly.

Policy recommendations

Policy recommendations are not sufficient at this stage of the manuscript. The authors must add a separate section for policy recommendations in the conclusion section. Also, add some exciting limitations regarding political factors for future studies.

Conclusion

The conclusion section needs improvement and the authors need to expand it as it will improve the quality of this study. The English level needs some improvement to reach a satisfactory level, specifically the grammar. It should sufficiently meet quality to reach scientific merit for publication. I recommend that the authors describe the study's scientific contribution to the existing body of knowledge in the discussion section. How does this study’s implications provide useful information for the scientific readership? I endorse this manuscript for publication after minor corrections, as suggested.

* Comments on the Quality of English Language: It can be improved.

Author Response

Find attached the response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Hello authors, This paper needs an overhaul. It is very hard to understand what you tried to present given so many unclear expressions and grammatical errors throughout the paper. It is hard to see the contribution to the literature.

This paper needs an overhaul. It is very hard to understand what you tried to present given so many unclear expressions and grammatical errors throughout the paper. 

Author Response

Attached is the response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

First of all, I don't really get the point of sustainable innovation in this paper. Having R&D expenses is the only construct you have in this paper, and you just describes and had title of "sustainable" for the paper. There are many other papers already examining the relationship between R&D and firm performance, just like you have in this paper. 

Even there are many other ways to measure the sustainability of the companies, including patent citation etc. 

So, I don't see incremental contribution from this paper over previous papers. 

Minor issues: the figures you include in this paper is not really associated with your main argument, especially the R&D expenses. 

Thus, I would suggest that the paper be rejected.

Best,

Author Response

Attached is the response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

This new version addressed all my concerns about the manuscript. Thanks for considering my suggestions.

Best regards

Author Response

Find attached the response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

You updated some tables and figures. But, like you said, you focus on the geographical matters. I don't see it in your tests and you don't address that matters even in the abstract. You just respond to my comments and make excuse with geographical matters (I guess...).

Best of Luck!

Author Response

Find attached the response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 5 Report

I think the authors responded well to my comments. 

But, I don't still understand why you added the term "geographical" in this article. I used the function of "CTRL F" and found the term only twice in the introduction and the conclusion. I think this is not necessary. Please remove it. I would accept it after you remove it. 

You may mislead the audience. 

Best,

Author Response

Reviewer 5 comment.

I think the authors responded well to my comments. But, I don't still understand why you added the term "geographical" in this article. I used the function of "CTRL F" and found the term only twice in the introduction and the conclusion. I think this is not necessary. Please remove it. I would accept it after you remove it.

You may mislead the audience. 

Response

Thank you for your comment. The term “geographical” has been removed accordingly.

Regards,