What Could Entrepreneurial Vision Do for Sustainable Development? Explore the Cross-Level Impact of Organizational Members’ Green Shared Vision on Green Creativity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article focuses on the identification of factors and dependencies shaping the activities of enterprises in accordance with the concept of sustainable development and shaping green creativity in enterprises. The authors presented the results of research and statistical analyzes carried out on an organization’s green strategy vision (GSV) and the relationships between green product psychological ownership(GPPO), proactive green innovation(PGI), reactive green innovation(RGI),and green creativity (GC).

To increase the value of the article, I suggest to take into account the following remarks:

1. At the beginning of the introduction the authors refer to the Montreal Protocol and the Kyoto Agreement. Undoubtedly, these are very important documents that have been adopted internationally in the field of environmental protection, but since their adoption many new documents have been created that now shape international environmental policy. As its example we can mentioned: the Paris Agreement or the UNEP resolution "Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development". Therefore, it would be worth referring to the current documents in the introduction as well.
2. The description of the research sample should be broader. It is not known what the share of individual industries in the research sample was. This is important because issues related to introducing green innovations may be perceived differently by workers in the industrial and service sectors. Was it included in the conducted analyzes?
3. In my opinion, the description of the questionnaire is insufficient and needs to be supplemented. Although the authors have referenced other articles that describe the evaluation of each of the assessed dimensions (GSV, GPPO, PGI, RGI, and GC), not all readers need to have access to the full version of these articles. Therefore, it may not be clear to everyone what was assessed in each dimension.

Finally, three notes on editing the text:

1. Figure 1 should appear completely on one page. In addition, the designation H7 appears twice.
2. Figure 2 should also be completely on one page (now a part of it is on pages 9 and 10).
3. Record of the last literature reference should be corrected

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, the present manuscript proposal may be considered a compelling research paper which is worthy of further consideration by the journal. However, there are some issues which should be properly taken into account with a view to develop the paper.

I will briefly list them below:

1. Methodology: more information should be provided regarding the data collection, for example: 1.1. the period of conducting the survey, 1.2. the procedure of participants selection, 1.3. the socio-demographic profile of the respondents and the common denominator of the studied organizations, etc.
2. Discussion of the findings: should be designed as a separate section where the current results are analyzed in relationship with prior similar developments. This section should not be mingled with the implications.
3. Limitations and future research avenues: the research limitations should be explicitly acknowledged and clear further investigation avenues should be recommended for both scholars and practitioners. 

I wish you a fruitful revision!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The study “ What could entrepreneurial vision do for sustainable development? Explore the cross-level impact of organizational members’ green shared vision on green creativity” presents a very interesting topic.  

 

Comments:

The paper describes previous theoretical and empirical research  and their contribution on the  topic. The authors emphasize the contribution of this research on the  topic. 

Materials and Methods are well presented.  The conclusion is clear.

Figure 1 – the author might rectify the visual aspect .

Many  references used by the author date back almost 10 years. The author might include new references.

 

It was a pleasure to read your article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors applied all the suggestions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx