Business Process Improvement for Sustainable Technologies Investments in Construction: A Configurational Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very interesting approach, aiming to develop a configurational theory of environmentally sustainable investments in construction sector. Having in mind that there is an increasing need for investments in numerous sustainable technologies in construction industry and that such industry is known as a resource-dependent sector with increasing influence on energy consumption and huge environmental impact, the significance of the presented analysis should be highlighted. Presented research set the new innovative approach, creating a contribution by evaluating configurations and setting a new theory. The past mentioned studies, as authors have stated, had taken a regression approach of the study of factors influencing the financial outcomes. The Authors also included key managerial implications and policies which I find additional contribution to the presented research.

In abstract I would like to see the main findings of the study; therefore, the readers would be more interested in the paper.

The motivation of conducted analysis is quite strong, clear and well presented. The Introduction part is well structured, but it should be extended with similar studies conducted in recent years, the scientific ones. The comparison of existing methodologies should be more clearly presented, and justification of presented methodology should be provided. As it seems its according to authors that presented methodology has wide range of application, it should be stated the reasons and justification of applied methodology. The novelty and scientific contribution should be highlighted.

I would like that authors emphasize the strengths and weaknesses of applied approach, that need to be mentioned. It is not obligatory but would contribute the overall significance of presented analysis.

The results and discussion parts are well structured, clear and properly addressed. The findings are clearly noted, together with comparison discussing the results of other similar analysis. The justification of the proposed analysis, explaining the suitability for this study, should be extended.

The future work is well defined and clear. It is of great importance to have such study ongoing.

I have enjoyed reading your paper.

Author Response

Sustainability-1686007

Response letter

 

Dear the Editor and Reviewer 1,

 

Thank you very much for your time and effort in reviewing our paper. It is pleasure to have your comments, which will help improve our paper. We have worked carefully in addressing these comments and we will explain how we have done that in the following pages.

 

We present the response to Reviewer 1 first, and then append the response to Reviewer 2 afterward.

 

We are looking forward to hearing from you soon.

 

Best regards,

 

The Authors

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 1:

Very interesting approach, aiming to develop a configurational theory of environmentally sustainable investments in construction sector. Having in mind that there is an increasing need for investments in numerous sustainable technologies in construction industry and that such industry is known as a resource-dependent sector with increasing influence on energy consumption and huge environmental impact, the significance of the presented analysis should be highlighted. Presented research set the new innovative approach, creating a contribution by evaluating configurations and setting a new theory. The past mentioned studies, as authors have stated, had taken a regression approach of the study of factors influencing the financial outcomes. The Authors also included key managerial implications and policies which I find additional contribution to the presented research.

Response:

Thank you very much for your positive comments.

 

In abstract I would like to see the main findings of the study; therefore, the readers would be more interested in the paper.

Response:

Thank you. We have added two main findings of the study to the abstract section as follows.

Specifically, one configuration, focusing on incremental innovations, consistently pro-duces positive firm performance. Two configurations that lead to the absence of performance are associated with radical innovations in firms that struggle to manage their working capital.

 

The motivation of conducted analysis is quite strong, clear and well presented. The Introduction part is well structured, but it should be extended with similar studies conducted in recent years, the scientific ones.

Response:

We have extended the introduction section by adding some recent literature as follows.

This may be expected to be more complex, take longer, or require a greater uncertainty in investment amounts [5].

 

Meanwhile, not all firms are equally able to make investments in advancing their environmental sustainability technologies [9], [10]. For instance, firms that are more highly leveraged or have a reduced current ratio (reflecting higher short-term liabilities compared to assets) may be in a position where taking on more substantial risk is less welcome [11].

 

The comparison of existing methodologies should be more clearly presented, and justification of presented methodology should be provided. As it seems its according to authors that presented methodology has wide range of application, it should be stated the reasons and justification of applied methodology. The novelty and scientific contribution should be highlighted.

Response:

Thank you for the kind comments. At the start of the methods section, we have included a clearer justification for this novel methodological approach with a comparison (of why QCA instead of cross-sectional regression), by saying:

The combination is methodologically novel and is justified as the ESA generates a performance outcome (the abnormal returns or stock market reaction) that is then subsequently used in the analysis. While many other analyses follow the ESA with a cross-sectional analysis, our use of the QCA approach is justified as it allows us to identify and evaluate combinations with equifinality in terms of generating the stock market reaction; that is, we are not tied to or connected to generating linear combinations as when using a cross-sectional regression following ESA. This reflects how a range of combinations may result in high or low performance; QCA can analyze the equifinality of combinations in a way that a cross-sectional regression cannot. As past studies, using regression, have often had conflicting results, it may be because of the different possible combinations that may drive performance. ESA followed by QCA allows us to investigate these combinations that lead to higher performance, or which avoid risks. Because of this, it is a superior choice to address the research question which focuses on the configuration and interplay of factors influencing the stock market reaction, rather than a method such as cross-sectional regression that would provide an analysis of how the value of each factor contributes to the stock market reaction.

 

In the conclusion, we have discussed the novelty and contribution more clearly, by saying:

The novel approach of using the stock market reaction from ESA as a basis for performance in the QCA shows the strengths and benefits of combining these methods as it allows the evaluation of causal combinations and interplay of factors influencing performance that cannot be identified using cross-sectional analysis.

And also note that:

The analysis can show multiple combinations of factors relating to a weak or strong performance that cannot be identified using a cross-sectional regression, highlighting the value of this novel methodological approach.

 

I would like that authors emphasize the strengths and weaknesses of applied approach, that need to be mentioned. It is not obligatory but would contribute the overall significance of presented analysis.

Response:

Thank you, we have included the additional notes in the conclusion (reproduced above) that highlight the significance of the study that is due to using QCA to analyze the combinations of factors.

In addition, we added the following statement to the limitations:

The QCA approach is also limited relative to the cross-sectional analysis approach as we cannot explain how the performance may change in response to the change in one of the input variables; we can only comment on the combinations of factors relating to higher performance but not connect the sensitivity of the performance level to the change in the input variable. Future research may explore the combinations identified here with qualitative or regression-based approaches to provide additional analytical insight into the strength and sensitivity of the relationships.

 

The results and discussion parts are well structured, clear and properly addressed. The findings are clearly noted, together with comparison discussing the results of other similar analysis. The justification of the proposed analysis, explaining the suitability for this study, should be extended.

Response:

As we noted earlier, we have expanded the discussion at the start of the Methods section to provide a more comprehensive discussion of why we have undertaken this analysis and why it is suitable for the research questions explored in this research, as opposed to other methods (such as using cross-sectional regression). Therefore, we note at the start of the methods section that:

ESA followed by QCA allows us to investigate these combinations that lead to higher performance, or which avoid risks. Because of this, it is a superior choice to address the research question which focuses on the configuration of elements and factors that support firms to benefit from environmentally sustainable investments?

 

The future work is well defined and clear. It is of great importance to have such study ongoing.

I have enjoyed reading your paper.

Response:

We thank you very much for your supportive comments.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2

The paper is interesting and tackles the link between investments (or improvements in business processes) and business performance. It is easy to read and the authors explain their research properly. I would advise them to include investments in the title and to improve the discussion part of the paper by including more recent references. 

Response:

We thank you for your comment.

We have added investments in the title as follows.

Business process improvement for sustainable technologies investments in construction: A configurational approach

We have added more recent references as follows.

Consequently, construction firms should assess their management capabilities and ability to manage working capital effectively prior to committing to radical innovations in business processes [40].

 

The need for low growth prospects suggests the greater risks of radical innovations would be compounded, and the firm is more suited to select the incremental innovations in this configuration for the positive outcomes [41].

 

The results and specific configurations suggest that investors carefully assess the capabilities of firms [42].

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting and tackles the link between investments (or improvements in business processes) and business performance. It is easy to read and the authors explain their research properly. I would advise them to include investments in the title and to improve the discussion part of the paper by including more recent references. 

Author Response

Sustainability-1686007

Response letter

 

Dear the Editor and Reviewer 2,

 

Thank you very much for your time and effort in reviewing our paper. It is pleasure to have your comments, which will help improve our paper. We have worked carefully in addressing these comments and we will explain how we have done that in the following pages.

 

We present the response to Reviewer 2 first, and then append the response to Reviewer 1 afterward.

 

We are looking forward to hearing from you soon.

 

Best regards,

 

The Authors

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2

The paper is interesting and tackles the link between investments (or improvements in business processes) and business performance. It is easy to read and the authors explain their research properly. I would advise them to include investments in the title and to improve the discussion part of the paper by including more recent references. 

Response:

We thank you for your comment.

We have added investments in the title as follows.

Business process improvement for sustainable technologies investments in construction: A configurational approach

We have added more recent references as follows.

Consequently, construction firms should assess their management capabilities and ability to manage working capital effectively prior to committing to radical innovations in business processes [40].

 

The need for low growth prospects suggests the greater risks of radical innovations would be compounded, and the firm is more suited to select the incremental innovations in this configuration for the positive outcomes [41].

 

The results and specific configurations suggest that investors carefully assess the capabilities of firms [42].

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 1:

Very interesting approach, aiming to develop a configurational theory of environmentally sustainable investments in construction sector. Having in mind that there is an increasing need for investments in numerous sustainable technologies in construction industry and that such industry is known as a resource-dependent sector with increasing influence on energy consumption and huge environmental impact, the significance of the presented analysis should be highlighted. Presented research set the new innovative approach, creating a contribution by evaluating configurations and setting a new theory. The past mentioned studies, as authors have stated, had taken a regression approach of the study of factors influencing the financial outcomes. The Authors also included key managerial implications and policies which I find additional contribution to the presented research.

Response:

Thank you very much for your positive comments.

 

In abstract I would like to see the main findings of the study; therefore, the readers would be more interested in the paper.

Response:

Thank you. We have added two main findings of the study to the abstract section as follows.

Specifically, one configuration, focusing on incremental innovations, consistently pro-duces positive firm performance. Two configurations that lead to the absence of performance are associated with radical innovations in firms that struggle to manage their working capital.

 

The motivation of conducted analysis is quite strong, clear and well presented. The Introduction part is well structured, but it should be extended with similar studies conducted in recent years, the scientific ones.

Response:

We have extended the introduction section by adding some recent literature as follows.

This may be expected to be more complex, take longer, or require a greater uncertainty in investment amounts [5].

 

Meanwhile, not all firms are equally able to make investments in advancing their environmental sustainability technologies [9], [10]. For instance, firms that are more highly leveraged or have a reduced current ratio (reflecting higher short-term liabilities compared to assets) may be in a position where taking on more substantial risk is less welcome [11].

 

The comparison of existing methodologies should be more clearly presented, and justification of presented methodology should be provided. As it seems its according to authors that presented methodology has wide range of application, it should be stated the reasons and justification of applied methodology. The novelty and scientific contribution should be highlighted.

Response:

Thank you for the kind comments. At the start of the methods section, we have included a clearer justification for this novel methodological approach with a comparison (of why QCA instead of cross-sectional regression), by saying:

The combination is methodologically novel and is justified as the ESA generates a performance outcome (the abnormal returns or stock market reaction) that is then subsequently used in the analysis. While many other analyses follow the ESA with a cross-sectional analysis, our use of the QCA approach is justified as it allows us to identify and evaluate combinations with equifinality in terms of generating the stock market reaction; that is, we are not tied to or connected to generating linear combinations as when using a cross-sectional regression following ESA. This reflects how a range of combinations may result in high or low performance; QCA can analyze the equifinality of combinations in a way that a cross-sectional regression cannot. As past studies, using regression, have often had conflicting results, it may be because of the different possible combinations that may drive performance. ESA followed by QCA allows us to investigate these combinations that lead to higher performance, or which avoid risks. Because of this, it is a superior choice to address the research question which focuses on the configuration and interplay of factors influencing the stock market reaction, rather than a method such as cross-sectional regression that would provide an analysis of how the value of each factor contributes to the stock market reaction.

 

In the conclusion, we have discussed the novelty and contribution more clearly, by saying:

The novel approach of using the stock market reaction from ESA as a basis for performance in the QCA shows the strengths and benefits of combining these methods as it allows the evaluation of causal combinations and interplay of factors influencing performance that cannot be identified using cross-sectional analysis.

And also note that:

The analysis can show multiple combinations of factors relating to a weak or strong performance that cannot be identified using a cross-sectional regression, highlighting the value of this novel methodological approach.

 

I would like that authors emphasize the strengths and weaknesses of applied approach, that need to be mentioned. It is not obligatory but would contribute the overall significance of presented analysis.

Response:

Thank you, we have included the additional notes in the conclusion (reproduced above) that highlight the significance of the study that is due to using QCA to analyze the combinations of factors.

In addition, we added the following statement to the limitations:

The QCA approach is also limited relative to the cross-sectional analysis approach as we cannot explain how the performance may change in response to the change in one of the input variables; we can only comment on the combinations of factors relating to higher performance but not connect the sensitivity of the performance level to the change in the input variable. Future research may explore the combinations identified here with qualitative or regression-based approaches to provide additional analytical insight into the strength and sensitivity of the relationships.

 

The results and discussion parts are well structured, clear and properly addressed. The findings are clearly noted, together with comparison discussing the results of other similar analysis. The justification of the proposed analysis, explaining the suitability for this study, should be extended.

Response:

As we noted earlier, we have expanded the discussion at the start of the Methods section to provide a more comprehensive discussion of why we have undertaken this analysis and why it is suitable for the research questions explored in this research, as opposed to other methods (such as using cross-sectional regression). Therefore, we note at the start of the methods section that:

ESA followed by QCA allows us to investigate these combinations that lead to higher performance, or which avoid risks. Because of this, it is a superior choice to address the research question which focuses on the configuration of elements and factors that support firms to benefit from environmentally sustainable investments?

 

The future work is well defined and clear. It is of great importance to have such study ongoing.

I have enjoyed reading your paper.

Response:

We thank you very much for your supportive comments.