The Impact of Human Resource Management on Financial Performance: A Systematic Review in Cooperative Enterprises
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSome input for the author :
1) There are indications that good HRM practices contribute positively to the financial performance of cooperative companies, which shows the importance of investing in human resources. Please explain in more depth.
2) The support of several of the theories identified provides different perspectives on understanding how HRM practices can affect financial performance as well as how organizations can optimize their human resources.
3) There is a systematic review showing that although there is research on HRM, there are still shortcomings in studies that specifically examine the impact of HRM practice in the context of cooperatives, which can be clarified and supported by grand theories.
4) It is necessary to add some grand theories about resource-based view (RBV), human capital theory, social exchange theory, contingency theory, and stakeholder theory.
5) The data used in the systematic review come from credible sources, increasing the reliability of the research results.
6) There is a significant positive correlation between good HR practices and improved financial performance, demonstrating the importance of investing in human resource management.
7) This systematic review successfully consolidates previous findings and provides a deeper understanding of the impact of HRM practices in the context of cooperative companies.
8) The findings of this study are most relevant to the context of cooperative companies, and the application of the results to other organizations should be done with caution.
9) There is a significant positive relationship between effective HRM practices and improved financial performance, demonstrating the importance of HRM strategies in achieving organizational success.
10) This review makes a meaningful contribution to the existing literature by presenting a synthesis of relevant findings and comparing them with previous research.
11) The study has limitations, including potential bias and a focus on cooperative companies, which could limit the generalization of the findings to a broader context.
12) The findings and interpretations presented offer practical insights that HRM practitioners can apply to improve the financial performance of organizations.
13) Has this research been endorsed by the ethics council at an institution?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The purpose of the study is clear as it aims to explore the relationship between Human Resource Management (HRM) practices and financial performance, which is a related topic in the fields of management and organizational studies. This relevance is underlined by the increasing recognition of the role of HR in improving organizational effectiveness and financial outcomes, especially in cooperative companies. It is necessary to add some major theories that support this study including: Source-Based View (RBV), Human Capital Theory, Social Exchange Theory, Contingency Theory and Stakeholder Theory.
Author Response
Answers to Reviewer 1 of the study
The Impact of Human Resource Management on Financial Performance: A Systematic Review in Cooperative Enterprises
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your insightful comments, suggestions, and recommendations on our manuscript. We genuinely appreciate the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our work.
We are committed to refining and improving our research based on your valuable feedback. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. Should you have any further comments or additional recommendations in the future, please do not hesitate to share them. We are more than willing to make any necessary adjustments to enhance the quality of our manuscript.
Once again, thank you for your constructive feedback. We look forward to your continued guidance.
Best regards,
Reviewer 1
1) There are indications that good HRM practices contribute positively to the financial performance of cooperative companies, which shows the importance of investing in human resources. Please explain in more depth.
Thank you for your suggestion to explain the HRM indicators in more detail, which we have done in the Introduction and Discussion section.
2) The support of several of the theories identified provides different perspectives on understanding how HRM practices can affect financial performance as well as how organizations can optimize their human resources.
We express our appreciation for the comments on the theories. We believe that the theory presented in the paper is adequate to support the results of our analyses.
3) There is a systematic review showing that although there is research on HRM, there are still shortcomings in studies that specifically examine the impact of HRM practice in the context of cooperatives, which can be clarified and supported by grand theories.
We appreciate the reviewer's observation regarding the need for further research on HRM practices specifically within cooperative enterprises. While there is existing research on HRM, our systematic review highlights gaps in studies that focus on the impact of HRM in cooperatives, which operate under unique governance structures and principles. Our review underlines the importance of future research grounded in these theoretical perspectives to provide deeper insights and fill the current knowledge gaps in this field.
4) It is necessary to add some grand theories about the resource-based view (RBV), human capital theory, social exchange theory, contingency theory, and stakeholder theory.
We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to incorporate grand theories such as the Resource-Based View (RBV), Human Capital Theory, Social Exchange Theory, Contingency Theory, and Stakeholder Theory. This recommendation has been accepted, and we have added discussions on these theoretical frameworks to pages 2-3 of the manuscript. These theories are now used to provide a stronger conceptual foundation for understanding the link between HRM practices and financial performance in cooperative enterprises. This enhancement enriches the analysis and provides deeper insights into the mechanisms driving these relationships.
5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) and 12)
Thank you for the reviewer's appreciative comments.
11) The study has limitations, including potential bias and a focus on cooperative companies, which could limit the generalization of the findings to a broader context.
We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable feedback. The concern regarding the study's limitations, including potential bias and the focus on cooperative companies, has been accepted and incorporated into the manuscript. We have acknowledged these limitations and discussed how they may affect the generalizability of the findings, while also suggesting directions for future research to address these issues. Thank you for helping us improve the clarity and scope of our work.
13) Has this research been endorsed by the ethics council at an institution?
As this study is a systematic literature review, it does not involve primary data collection from human subjects or require the handling of sensitive personal information. Therefore, it did not necessitate formal ethical approval from an institutional ethics council. However, we strictly adhered to ethical guidelines in conducting our research, ensuring all sources were properly cited, and no confidential data was used. Should there be any concerns regarding ethics, we are willing to address them or provide further clarification.
Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language:
We would like to inform the reviewers and the editorial team that the manuscript has undergone a thorough language revision by a native English speaker. The revised version reflects these improvements, ensuring clarity, grammar, and overall language quality.
Adjustments have been made to the best of our knowledge and we hope to meet the reviewer's expectations.
Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript title: The Impact of Human Resource Management on the Financial Performance: A Systematic Review in Cooperative Enterprise
Manuscript ID: jrfm-3175669 Date of review 27082024
Introduction
· The authors have not written a compelling reason for this systematic review in the introduction section.
· What are the fundamental reasons for this paper?
· The authors can mention the RQs and their importance in the introduction section.
· Writing these steps (on page 3 and given below) in general form lacks depth. These are general and not specific.
· What is “methodical” here?
“The four steps in our PRISMA flow diagram serve as its foundation.
1. Identification: During this stage, investigators pinpoint the research question and look for pertinent literature. There should be distinct inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the search procedure should be methodical and thorough.
2. Screening: Based on their applicability to the research question and the inclusion and exclusion criteria, researchers evaluate the studies they found in the first phase in this stage. In this stage, the studies' titles and abstracts are usually screened, and those that satisfy the inclusion criteria are then subjected to a full-text review.
3. Eligibility: Studies that have made it past the screening stage are evaluated for eligibility at this stage by researchers. The quality of the studies and their applicability to the research question are also assessed as part of this assessment.
4. Inclusion: Studies that meet the eligibility criteria are included in the systematic review. Data extracted and analyzed, and the findings are synthesized and reported.”
Result section
· What are the reasons for searching “Scopus” and “Google Scholar” only?
· In Table 2, “Questionnaire collected from 401 small businesses”, is it data collected from 401 small businesses or entrepreneurs?
· In table 2, Meier et al., 2021 and methodology not mentioned in the paper. It is wrong and I will give below the method section of “Meier, O., Naccache, P. & Schier, G. Exploring the Curvature of the Relationship Between HRM–CSR and Corporate Financial Performance. J Bus Ethics 170, 857–873 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04332-3” paper.
“Methodology
Sample and Data Collection
Our sample included European companies evaluated by the European rating agency VIGEO that were publicly listed throughout the period from 2008 to 2011. It included 591 companies and 1405 firm-year observations. The firms in our sample belonged to 36 different industry sectors (VIGEO classification) and were registered in 17 different European countries. On average, the companies were evaluated by VIGEO every 2–3 years. Tables 1, and 2 show the companies and observations split by industry sector and country. The data were approximately evenly divided by year. The industry sector breakdown had an overrepresentation of financial companies, particularly banks (8.8% of the sample). The division by country was representative of the economic weight of each country in Europe, except for the United Kingdom, which represented 25.7% of the sample companies.”
· Impression: The authors are not serious about the availability of the method section in this paper. The JBE article is a good one.
· On page 10, “For instance, (Anwar & Abdullah, 2021; Chandra Voo et al., 2018; Martini et al., 2017) were able to prove that companies with inventive payment processes like profit-sharing, and gainsharing programs have better financial results than companies who were using the traditional form of compensation.”
· Is this inventive or incentive?
Discussion:
“Member ownership model”: The cooperative model is based on the “member ownership model” and how this paper is useful for the member ownership model. This paper needs to discuss how the previous research builds the “Member ownership model”. I found that all the discussions in the paper were very general.
· The forward and backward snowballing has to be incorporated. Kindly refer:
“Wohlin, C. (2014). Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies
and a replication in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 18th
International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering
- EASE'14 (pp. 1–10). ACM press. https://doi.org/10.1145/
2601248.2601268”
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
The English Language used is moderate.
Author Response
Answers to Reviewer 2 of the study
The Impact of Human Resource Management on Financial Performance: A Systematic Review in Cooperative Enterprises
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your insightful comments, suggestions, and recommendations on our manuscript. We genuinely appreciate the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our work.
We are committed to refining and improving our research based on your valuable feedback. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. Should you have any further comments or additional recommendations in the future, please do not hesitate to share them. We are more than willing to make any necessary adjustments to enhance the quality of our manuscript.
Once again, thank you for your constructive feedback. We look forward to your continued guidance.
Best regards,
Reviewer 2
The authors have not written a compelling reason for this systematic review in the introduction section.
Thank you for your feedback. We have accepted your suggestion and have revised the introduction to include a compelling reason for the systematic review. A new paragraph has been added to clearly articulate the rationale, including the existing gaps in the literature, the unique focus on cooperative enterprises, and the importance of understanding the impact of HRM practices on financial performance. This addition aims to strengthen the justification for conducting the review.
What are the fundamental reasons for this paper?
The fundamental reason for the paper "The Impact of Human Resource Management on Financial Performance: A Systematic Review in Cooperative Enterprises" is to examine the influence of human resource management (HRM) on financial performance in cooperative enterprises. The study aims to understand how modern HRM practices, such as hiring, training, performance management, and employee engagement, contribute to improved financial outcomes, including profitability, productivity, and retention, in cooperative businesses.
By conducting a systematic review using the PRISMA approach, the paper seeks to fill the gap in existing literature by providing evidence of the positive relationship between HRM practices and financial performance. The review emphasizes the importance of strategic HRM in cooperative enterprises, highlighting how effective HRM can drive organizational success by enhancing employee involvement, fostering innovative cultures, and boosting operational efficiency. The paper aims to provide insights that can help cooperatives strengthen their HRM practices to improve their financial and overall business performance.
The authors can mention the RQs and their importance in the introduction section.
Thank you for your suggestion to include research questions (RQs) in the introduction. We appreciate your input and would like to provide our perspective on this matter.
In systematic reviews, especially those conducted using the PRISMA approach, the primary focus is often on synthesizing and analyzing existing evidence comprehensively and methodically. Our goal was to map the relationship between HRM practices and financial performance in cooperative enterprises based on existing literature, rather than testing specific hypotheses or answering narrowly defined research questions. Moreover, the PRISMA framework itself emphasizes transparency and rigor in the identification, screening, and inclusion of studies rather than the necessity of predefined RQs.
We believe that specifying detailed RQs might overly constrain the scope of the review and limit the breadth of insights we aim to gather. By not binding the review to RQs, we allow for a broader exploration of the varied and complex relationships found in the literature, which may not fit neatly into predefined questions. This approach enhances the review's flexibility and capacity to identify emerging themes, patterns, and gaps that a narrower focus might overlook.
We hope this explanation clarifies our reasoning and the methodological choices made for this review. However, we are open to revisiting this approach if further guidance is needed.
What are the reasons for searching “Scopus” and “Google Scholar” only?
Thank you for your question. The decision to search "Scopus" and "Google Scholar" was made based on their comprehensive coverage of peer-reviewed articles, wide accessibility, and relevance to the research topic.
Scopus is one of the largest abstract and citation databases, offering extensive access to high-quality literature across various fields, including business, management, and social sciences, which are relevant to HRM and financial performance studies.
Google Scholar was included for its broad scope and ability to capture diverse sources, ensuring that we did not miss relevant research published outside traditional academic journals.
These databases together provide a balanced and thorough representation of the existing literature, suitable for the systematic review’s objectives.
In Table 2, “Questionnaire collected from 401 small businesses”, is it data collected from 401 small businesses or entrepreneurs?
Thanks for the warning about the correction! Table 2 was clarified and corrected according to the original literature
In table 2, Meier et al., 2021 and methodology not mentioned in the paper.
Thanks for the warning about the correction! We corrected it.
Page 10
inventive or incentive? Thank you; We have corrected the word. It is an incentive.
I found that all the discussions in the paper were very general.
In response to the reviewer’s feedback, we would like to emphasize that we aimed to provide specific insights throughout the paper, particularly regarding the role of HRM in cooperative enterprises. The discussion incorporates various HRM practices, supported by empirical studies, and explores how they directly impact financial performance. The use of theoretical frameworks, such as the Resource-Based View and Human Capital Theory, ties the findings to well-established models, which we believe adds depth to the analysis. However, we are open to refining these sections further if more specificity is deemed necessary and welcome further guidance to improve clarity and focus.
This paper needs to discuss how the previous research builds the “Member ownership model”
Thank you for your feedback. We acknowledge the importance of the "member ownership model" in cooperative enterprises. However, our systematic review specifically focuses on the impact of HRM practices on financial performance, rather than exploring the development of the "member ownership model" itself. Including a detailed discussion of the model's evolution would shift the scope away from our main objectives. We intend to provide actionable insights into HRM strategies that enhance financial outcomes, which are directly relevant to practitioners and researchers in cooperative management.
The forward and backward snowballing has to be incorporated
We sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback and constructive comments, which have greatly improved the quality of our manuscript. In response to the suggestion to incorporate forward and backward snowballing, we have now added this in the Methods section of the study.
Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language:
We would like to inform the reviewers and the editorial team that the manuscript has undergone a thorough language revision by a native English speaker. The revised version reflects these improvements, ensuring clarity, grammar, and overall language quality.
Thank you for your all feedback, and we hope this addresses your concerns.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCongratulations to the authors. You have cleared all the review points.
