Coordinated Distribution or Client Introduce? Analysis of Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction in Canadian Logistics Enterprises
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study mainly discusses the most effective cooperation mode for Canadian logistics enterprises to achieve energy saving and emission reduction under various environments. Since the existing research does not analyze how to save energy and reduce emissions from the perspective of cooperation, nor does it reflect the dynamic process of logistics enterprise distribution, this topic is original in this field. the differential game model of individual distribution, coordinated distribution and paid introduction of customers for each logistics enterprise is constructed, and the applicable conditions of various distribution cooperation channels are compared. While most of the existing studies use optimization, empirical data analysis and other methods. The proposed method could save energy, reduce emissions and improve the distribution efficiency of traditional logistics in Canada. This paper provides insights to the study of energy conservation and emission reduction of enterprises under different sizes. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and address the main question posed. References of the paper are appropriate. As a whole, the paper is well written. However, to further improve the quality of the paper, there are still some problems to be addressed.
(1) The three hypotheses of this paper should be explained more clearly.
(2) The motivation of the paper could be further highlighted in the introduction.
(3) The literature review in the introduction should be focused and clearly organized. For example, "The work related to this paper mainly includes three aspects".
(4) To further verify the effectiveness of the proposed method, it is necessary to compare it with the existing studies.
(5) The flowchart of Figure 1 could be simplified.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Many thanks for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Coordinated distribution or client introduce? Analysis of energy conservation and emission reduction in Canadian logistics enterprises” (Manuscript ID: 2073435). The comments and suggestions are very helpful for improving our paper. We have made revision based on the comments and suggestions. Please find our response as follows, and we have made revision which marked in blue in the paper. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.
Point 1：
The three hypotheses of this paper should be explained more clearly.
Response 1:
Thank you very much for your suggestion. In the revised version, these three assumptions are described and explained in more detail. For example, the first hypothesis example is described, as detailed in lines 94-98. For the second hypothesis, the revised version describes in detail what specific links distribution includes and why distribution is selected as the research object. Please refer to lines 101-105 for details. For the third hypothesis, the revised version explains in detail why the game between two logistics firms is dynamic, see lines 113-117 for details.
Point 2：
The motivation of the paper could be further highlighted in the introduction.
Response 2:
Thank you very much for your suggestion. In the revised version, the motivation for writing the article is elaborated, as detailed in lines 35-43
Point 3：
The literature review in the introduction should be focused and clearly organized. For example, "The work related to this paper mainly includes three aspects".
Response 3:
Thank you very much for your suggestion. In the revised version, the literature review in the introduction is combed to make it clearer.
Point 4：
To further verify the effectiveness of the proposed method, it is necessary to compare it with the existing studies.
Response 4:
Thank you very much for your suggestion. In the revised version, other existing studies are compared to illustrate the validity of this study. For details, see lines 318-322.
Point 5：
The flowchart of Figure 1 could be simplified.
Response 5:
Thank you very much for your suggestion. In the modified version, Figure 1 has been redrawn to make it look cleaner and simpler.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting and original article. Coordinated distribution and client introduce are the Authors' wishes, but despite questionable control of these hypotheses, I believe the article should be published. The authors present a new perspective on the problem. The analysis is interesting and the conclusions are clear.
An article titled “Coordinated distribution or client introduce? Analysis of energy conservation and emission reduction in Canadian logistics enterprises” is very interesting and original, especially through the use of a differential game from the perspective of collaborative distribution.
Establishing cooperation between small enterprises (H1 line 82-87) and large logistics enterprises raises my doubts because the authors do not present publications (research examples) that would confirm such the assumption. Sooner a large enterprise 1 will buy a small enterprise 2. The assumption that enterprises will or should trust each other is too exaggerated (line 111 - The Model of introduce customers).
In the era of the Covid'19 pandemic and the economic crisis in the world, every company wants to survive the crisis (which is logical) and only under the conditions of coercion necessary to survive will it hand over customers or think about cooperation or ecology. I have no comments for H2 and H3.
The authors' study is interesting provided that the economic market is stable. Canada is a large country where transporting goods over long distances is a problem. The problem described by the authors (line 101): improving efficiency, saving energy and reducing emissions is correct and logical. The study is conducted correctly according to the model described in Figure 1.
The conclusions are consistent with the presented evidence and arguments and refer to the topic of the article. The conclusions are accurate assuming that (line 301-302) companies want to cooperate and do not compete with each other for the market. Despite my remarks, the study is interesting.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Many thanks for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Coordinated distribution or client introduce? Analysis of energy conservation and emission reduction in Canadian logistics enterprises” (Manuscript ID: 2073435). The comments and suggestions are very helpful for improving our paper. We have made revision based on the comments and suggestions. Please find our response as follows, and we have made revision which marked in blue in the paper. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.
Point ：
This is an interesting and original article. Coordinated distribution and client introduce are the Authors' wishes, but despite questionable control of these hypotheses, I believe the article should be published. The authors present a new perspective on the problem. The analysis is interesting and the conclusions are clear.
An article titled “Coordinated distribution or client introduce? Analysis of energy conservation and emission reduction in Canadian logistics enterprises” is very interesting and original, especially through the use of a differential game from the perspective of collaborative distribution.
Establishing cooperation between small enterprises (H1 line 82-87) and large logistics enterprises raises my doubts because the authors do not present publications (research examples) that would confirm such the assumption. Sooner a large enterprise 1 will buy a small enterprise 2. The assumption that enterprises will or should trust each other is too exaggerated (line 111 - The Model of introduce customers).
In the era of the Covid'19 pandemic and the economic crisis in the world, every company wants to survive the crisis (which is logical) and only under the conditions of coercion necessary to survive will it hand over customers or think about cooperation or ecology. I have no comments for H2 and H3.
The authors' study is interesting provided that the economic market is stable. Canada is a large country where transporting goods over long distances is a problem. The problem described by the authors (line 101): improving efficiency, saving energy and reducing emissions is correct and logical. The study is conducted correctly according to the model described in Figure 1.
The conclusions are consistent with the presented evidence and arguments and refer to the topic of the article. The conclusions are accurate assuming that (line 301-302) companies want to cooperate and do not compete with each other for the market. Despite my remarks, the study is interesting.
Response :
Thank you very much for your suggestion. In the revised version, these three assumptions are described and explained in more detail. For example, this article presents a practical case for hypothesis 1, as detailed in lines 94-98. For the second hypothesis, the revised version describes in detail what specific links distribution includes and why distribution is selected as the research object. Please refer to lines 101-105 for details. For the third hypothesis, the revised version explains in detail why the game between two logistics firms is dynamic, see lines 113-117 for details.
Reviewer 3 Report
1. It's highly recommended to avoid old references, particularly before 2017.
2. Define clearly the contribution of this paper in "Conclsuion".
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Many thanks for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Coordinated distribution or client introduce? Analysis of energy conservation and emission reduction in Canadian logistics enterprises” (Manuscript ID: 2073435). The comments and suggestions are very helpful for improving our paper. We have made revision based on the comments and suggestions. Please find our response as follows, and we have made revision which marked in blue in the paper. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.
Point 1：
It's highly recommended to avoid old references, particularly before 2017.
Response 1:
Thank you very much for your suggestion. In the revised version, all the old references have been replaced with new references and some of the content of the article has been changed. For example, references 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27.
Point 2：
Define clearly the contribution of this paper in "Conclsuion".
Response 2:
Thank you very much for your suggestion. In the revised version, this paper will clearly define the contribution made in the "conclusion". For details, see lines 341-344.
