Integrating Local Wisdom and Sustainability Practices in MSME Management: A Study on Competitive Advantage Creation in Indonesia

the writer need to fix these all comments of reviwers One of the strengths of this manuscript lies in its thematic focus. The intersection of indigenous knowledge and sustainability in emerging market contexts is increasingly relevant and underexplored. The manuscript’s attempt to quantify these linkages using a structural equation model and to connect them with the Resource-Based View, Stakeholder Theory, and Dynamic Capabilities Theory is also commendable. However, these contributions are currently obscured by challenges in framing, theoretical articulation, and presentation.
First, we encourage you to revise the introduction and theoretical framing to more clearly state the novelty of your work. While the literature review is rich, it often reads as a compilation of related findings rather than a cohesive setup for your specific research questions and hypotheses. It would strengthen the manuscript to explicitly highlight how your study addresses existing gaps, particularly with respect to empirical research on local wisdom as a resource within MSME management. Readers would benefit from a more targeted articulation of what makes this investigation novel—not only for Indonesia but for broader business and society research.
Second, although the quantitative analysis appears to be robust, the paper suffers from overly descriptive reporting and insufficient interpretation of results in light of the theoretical frameworks. For example, while the finding that local wisdom integration strongly influences innovation capability is important, the implications of this result are underdeveloped. It would help to more clearly explain how these findings extend, challenge, or confirm the core assumptions of RBV or Dynamic Capabilities Theory. Additionally, the non-significant result regarding consumer perception and competitive advantage deserves deeper consideration—what might explain this, and how could this nuance be theoretically illuminating?
Third, the structure of the manuscript could benefit from improved coherence and tighter organization. The literature review and theoretical framework sections would be more effective if integrated rather than separated. Similarly, the hypotheses would benefit from a clearer buildup. The presentation of the conceptual model, which currently appears mid-way through the manuscript, might be more effective if introduced earlier. The clarity of your argument would also be enhanced by editing for conciseness and avoiding repetition across sections. Several concepts—such as the definition and role of local wisdom—are explained multiple times without added analytical value.
In terms of writing style, we encourage a more formal academic tone throughout. While the paper is generally readable, there are moments where colloquial or informal expressions detract from its scholarly authority.
Additionally, certain terms (e.g., “uniqueness,” “authenticity,” or “impact”) should be more precisely defined to ensure analytical clarity. Throughout, more careful attention to transitions and logical flow will improve readability.
We also recommend expanding on the implications of your findings for practitioners and policymakers. Given the journal’s readership, elaborating on how MSME managers or regulators might use your insights to support sustainable growth strategies would enhance the applied value of the study. Relatedly, the conclusion should be revised to go beyond summary, offering a more synthetic discussion of theoretical, empirical, and practical implications, as well as a clearer articulation of next steps for research.
Finally, we note the need for refinement in tables and figures to improve clarity. The conceptual diagram, for example, should be legible and professionally formatted. Tables summarizing hypotheses and results should be placed closer to the relevant discussion in the text and better contextualized.
In summary, we see promising potential in this manuscript, particularly in its empirical contribution and topic relevance. However, it requires substantial revisions to improve its theoretical alignment, analytical depth, structural coherence, and professional polish. We hope you will consider revising the paper accordingly, and we look forward to reviewing a revised version in due course.