Sustainability Initiatives, Knowledge-Intensive Innovators, and Firms’ Performance: An Empirical Examination

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper examines the role of sustainability and firm performance as a major driver of 6 innovation in firms.  The first section needs to cite more literature to support your argument. Research contributions and findings should be placed in the first section so that readers can access the relevant information. TAuthor states that "the most innovative companies were collected from the Forbes Most Innovative 100 125 Companies list 2018 and BCG’s 50 most innovative companies 2019." Why is there this difference between the 2018 and 2019 study samples? Perhaps an appropriate explanation can be given. Standard errors are best given. Robustness tests seem to be ignored.    

Author Response

Please see the attachement 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study is well-researched, but there are some things that need to be fixed before it can be published in the IJFS.

1. The introduction part is not well written. It is suggested that the introduction section be improved by providing proper justification. For instance, the introduction part should be written based on the following sequences: background of the study, the significance of the study, past studies and research gaps, contributions and novelties of the study, and how the rest of the paper is organized.

2. It is recommended to combine Section 2 with the introduction section.

3. The literature review section should be improved.

4. The methods and results sections are fine.

5. What are the theoretical and practical contributions of this manuscript? What are the limitations and recommendations for future studies? The authors did not mention it clearly in the conclusion section. Why? Thus, it is suggested to incorporate them into the conclusion section.

 

6. Finally, the article needs to be proofread by an English professional editor.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

To improve your paper, please consider the following recommendations:

1 - In the introduction the gaps in the literature that the study aims to fill should be clearly identified, based on previous studies.

2 - In the literature review, subsections should be created regarding the topics addressed.

3 - The methodology and method must be theoretically grounded.

4 - The study should include a section promoting the discussion of results; here the authors should compare the results obtained with those of other relevant studies.

5 - Conclusions are poor. It should (1) clearly respond to the purpose of the study, (2) include theoretical and practical implications, (3) limitations, and (4) future lines of research.

6 - An extensive editing of English language and style required

All the best.

Regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no further comments and am satisfied with the revised manuscript.