A Social Innovation Model for Sustainable Development: A Case Study of a Malaysian Entrepreneur Cooperative (KOKULAC)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topics that the manuscript presents are interesting for the readers of this journal. The concepts of social innovation, entrepreneur cooperation, and SDG2030 are key in the last decade to study processes in social science. But the manuscript in its current form cannot be accepted for publication.

There are many errors with quotes and references along the text. Also, there is not a clear methodological section and an analysis section that can help the readers to understand the type of research that the authors have conducted.

For this reason, I suggest improving the manuscript by introducing these sections.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

The topics that the manuscript presents are interesting for the readers of this journal. The concepts of social innovation, entrepreneur cooperation, and SDG2030 are key in the last decade to study processes in social science. But the manuscript in its current form cannot be accepted for publication.

There are many errors with quotes and references along the text. Also, there is not a clear methodological section and an analysis section that can help the readers to understand the type of research that the authors have conducted.

For this reason, I suggest improving the manuscript by introducing these sections.

 

Response:

 

Dear Prof

Thank you for the feedback and suggestions. We have corrected the quoates and references according to the journal requirements.

 

In addition, we have improved the methodology section by explaining how the analysis was conducted. The changes are in the following sub-sections:

3.1 Description of KOKULAC

3.2 Data Analysis Elaboration on Data Categorization.

 

In section 3.2, we elaborated on the data procedures and how the coding were generated.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper has been well written. Yet, few things are still required to be improved.

In section 2.1, there are only three references in a big section. Authors are suggested to properly cite related sources here such as,

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-04-2021-0162

https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3415

Moreover, in Table. 1, authors did not mention any study related to the impact of social innovation in the context of sustainable development. Recently, a study has been conducted about the impact of social innovation on sustainable performance in developing countries. Authors are recommended to mention, which seems to be highly related in the current study.

Sustainable leadership in higher education institutions: social innovation as a mechanism

In this research, there is absence of section related to the implications such as theoretical and practical implications. It is encouraged to write implication of their study here.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

This paper has been well written. Yet, few things are still required to be improved.

Comment #1

In section 2.1, there are only three references in a big section. Authors are suggested to properly cite related sources here such as,

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-04-2021-0162

https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3415

Response:

Thank you for the comments and recommendations. We have revised section 2.1 and added more discussion and references. We have also added the recommended source. Refer to line 143, 164, 167, 171

 

Comment #2

Moreover, in Table. 1, authors did not mention any study related to the impact of social innovation in the context of sustainable development. Recently, a study has been conducted about the impact of social innovation on sustainable performance in developing countries. Authors are recommended to mention, which seems to be highly related in the current study.

Sustainable leadership in higher education institutions: social innovation as a mechanism

Response:

Table 1 describes social innovation studies in Malaysia. However, we agree there should be discussion on social innovation and sustainable development. The discussion is included in the Introductory section as the research background, and also in the review of social innovation in Malaysia. We have also included the suggested source of Sustainable leadership in higher education institutions: social innovation as a mechanism, in our discussion about social innovation (in section 2.1).

 

 

 

Comment #3

In this research, there is absence of section related to the implications such as theoretical and practical implications. It is encouraged to write implication of their study here.

 

Response:

We have added a discussion on practical and theoretical implications. The discussions are in Section 4.3 and 4.4.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I would strongly recommend the authors to reshuffle the introduction section. First of all, the authors need to find the gap they found regarding the actual state of the art. Then, they have to explicitly define their research questions to finally present the research objectives. As is, the introduction seems to lose track of the common thread they want to present.

The second part that leaves me with a bitter taste is the methods section and the way the authors deal with the presentation of the results. First, I would recommend the authors to deepen the presentation of the case study they are dealing with. After presenting the case study, the authors can claim that data categorization emerges as a result of the analysis of the case study. As it is, the authors present first the categorization and the, in a very shallow way, they present the case study.

In Table 2 the authors present several characteristics that (apparently) emerge from the analysis of the case study. However, I was unable to arrive a those characteristics. I would recommend the authors to address those characteristics when describing the case under analysis.

The indicators presented in Table 3 are just copied and pasted from Table 1. Then, What's new? The authors have to give more depth to the analysis.

I would recommend the authors the following articles:

Grilo, R., Moreira, A.C. (2022) The social as the heart of social innovation and social entrepreneurship: An emerging area or an old crossroads? International Journal of Innovation Studies, 6(2), 53–66. It will help defining the social value the case they are analysis provides.

Baptista, N., Pereira, J., Moreira, A.C., Matos, N.D. (2019) Exploring the meaning of social innovation: A categorisation scheme based on the level of policy intervention, profit orientation and geographical scale. Innovation: Organization and Management, 21(3), 379–397. It provides as interesting perspective on policy issues regarding social innovation.

Novikova, M. (2022) Social innovation impacts and their assessment: An exploratory study of a social innovation initiative from a Portuguese rural region. Social Sciences, 11(3), 122.

Those three articles can provide the authors some perspective to frame the introduction and the discussion and conclusions of the article.

Finally, the abstrac needs to be adapted and turn ist more appealing. As is, it is too much centered on the case under analysis.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Comment #1

I would strongly recommend the authors to reshuffle the introduction section. First of all, the authors need to find the gap they found regarding the actual state of the art. Then, they have to explicitly define their research questions to finally present the research objectives. As is, the introduction seems to lose track of the common thread they want to present.

 

Response:

Dear Prof

Thank you for the feedback and suggestions. We have revised the introduction section (1. Introduction) by stating the limitations of past studies in social innovation and sustainable development, and also the gaps in Malaysian context.

 

Comment #2

The second part that leaves me with a bitter taste is the methods section and the way the authors deal with the presentation of the results. First, I would recommend the authors to deepen the presentation of the case study they are dealing with. After presenting the case study, the authors can claim that data categorization emerges as a result of the analysis of the case study. As it is, the authors present first the categorization and the, in a very shallow way, they present the case study.

 

Response:

The related sections have been rearranged, in which KOKULAC as the case was presented first, followed by data categorisation, analysis and findings. This follows similar approach by Kripa, Luci, Gorica and Kordha (2021), He and Luo (2020) and Lombardi and Costantino (2020).

In addition, we have improved the methodology section by explaining how the analysis was conducted. The changes are in the following sub-sections:

3.1 Description of KOKULAC

3.2 Data Analysis Elaboration on Data Categorization.

In section 3.2, we elaborated on the data procedures and how the coding were generated.

 

Comment #3

In Table 2 the authors present several characteristics that (apparently) emerge from the analysis of the case study. However, I was unable to arrive a those characteristics. I would recommend the authors to address those characteristics when describing the case under analysis.

 

Response:

Explanation on how the characteristics emerged has been added in sub-section 3.2 Data analysis elaboration on Data Categorization, pp 10.

 

Comment #4

The indicators presented in Table 3 are just copied and pasted from Table 1. Then, What's new? The authors have to give more depth to the analysis.

 

Response:

We found placing Table 3 was a mistake, and a repetition. We have discarded the table, and provided the explanation as a discussion in subsection 3.2, pp.10.

 

Comment #5

I would recommend the authors the following articles:

Grilo, R., Moreira, A.C. (2022) The social as the heart of social innovation and social entrepreneurship: An emerging area or an old crossroads? International Journal of Innovation Studies, 6(2), 53–66. It will help defining the social value the case they are analysis provides.

 

Baptista, N., Pereira, J., Moreira, A.C., Matos, N.D. (2019) Exploring the meaning of social innovation: A categorisation scheme based on the level of policy intervention, profit orientation and geographical scale. Innovation: Organization and Management, 21(3), 379–397. It provides as interesting perspective on policy issues regarding social innovation.

 

Novikova, M. (2022) Social innovation impacts and their assessment: An exploratory study of a social innovation initiative from a Portuguese rural region. Social Sciences, 11(3), 122.

 

Those three articles can provide the authors some perspective to frame the introduction and the discussion and conclusions of the article.

 

Response:

Thank you for recommending the sources. We have included them in the introduction and discussion. Grilo and Moreira subsection 4.2, pp 16, line 472; Baptisa et al, (subsection 2.1, pp 4, line 175, subsection 4.3, pp 17, line 482) and Novikova (Section 1, pp 2, line 53).

 

 

Comment #6

Finally, the abstrac needs to be adapted and turn ist more appealing. As is, it is too much centered on the case under analysis.

 

Response:

Thank you for the feedback. We have revised the abstract by reducing the case analysis.  

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in present form

Reviewer 3 Report

Many thanks for the opportunity to review the new version of the article.

I just have to congratulate you on changing the content of the article.