Moral Awareness: A Source of Improved Sustainable Performance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

We have received the paper  from our editor on your manuscript, " Moral Awareness: A Source of Improved Sustainable Performance", submitted to sustainability.

Dear authors, to my opinion, your need to improve the following things with the required quality standards and formatting of the journal.

However, I would like to encourage you to reviews the following points and incorporate these in your paper. You need major changes. After that your paper will be acceptable for publication.

 

1. Abstract part of your paper is not clear about your research problem, objectives and significance. Need revision in this part
2. The paper is still not fully developed as according to the literature part of the paper. What does this mean? In other words, the quality of the paper is still not sufficiently high. Too few references are cited for supporting the hypothesis.
3. Hypotheses development is the part of the literature after the literature between the two variables, you should write these after literature.
4. Please explain which theory is supporting your work in the introduction part of your paper.
5. Discussion is too short and does not indicate a significant research contribution.
6. What is the novelty of your work, please mentioned in the introduction part of the paper?
7. You need to clearly explain the research methodology of your paper.
8. You have mentioned only two hypotheses in your paper, but according to the model of the paper the numbers of hypotheses are more than two, concentrate on these two points.
9. What is theoretical and practical contribution of your work, you did not mention in your paper. There is an increasing need to include these two part in your paper.
10. Your work research objectives, problem statement and discussion should be inline.
11. Conclusion part of your research need further clarity.
12. There is some grammatical errors in your paper, need to improve these.

With kind regards,
The reviewers 1

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We would like to thank you for the knowledge that you have imparted to us by giving us feedback on our paper " Moral Awareness: A Source of Improved Sustainable Performance", submitted to sustainability.
All of your comments are much valid and we have tried our best to incorporate all the changes that were recommended to us. Details are provided as under.

Comment

1. Abstract part of your paper is not clear about your research problem, objectives and significance. Need revision in this part

 

Reply to the comment:

This issue is addressed by defining the problem and objectives more clearly. The significance is now also added in the abstract at page 1.

Comment

1. The paper is still not fully developed as according to the literature part of the paper. What does this mean? In other words, the quality of the paper is still not sufficiently high. Too few references are cited for supporting the hypothesis.

 

Reply to the comment:

 

To develop the literature, strong arguments are now presented in the literature and new references added in pages 2 and 3.

Comment

 

1. Hypotheses development is the part of the literature after the literature between the two variables, you should write these after literature.

 

Reply to the comment:

 

A very valid point and hence has been addressed accordingly.

Comment

 

1. Please explain which theory is supporting your work in the introduction part of your paper.

 

Reply to the comment:

 

 

Institutional theory, Strategic human resource management, Ethical decision making models and multidimensional work ethic profile have been used to explain our work. They are now also explained in details on page 1, 5,6, 12.

Comment

1. Discussion is too short and does not indicate a significant research contribution.

Reply to the comment:

 

The above comment is now addressed at page 11 and details are also provided.

Comment

1. What is the novelty of your work, please mentioned in the introduction part of the paper?

 

Reply to the comment:

 

Novelty of our work has been highlighted in the introduction at page 1 and page 4.

Comment

 

1. You need to clearly explain the research methodology of your paper.

 

Reply to the comment:

 

This comment has been addressed and improved on page 6 of the document.

Comment

 

1. You have mentioned only two hypotheses in your paper, but according to the model of the paper the numbers of hypotheses are more than two, concentrate on these two points.

 

Reply to the comment:

 

A very important point and since the study had 4 hypotheses thus they are now mentioned on page 5.

Comment

 

 

1. What is theoretical and practical contribution of your work, you did not mention in your paper. There is an increasing need to include these two part in your paper.

 

Reply to the comment:

Theoretical and practical contributions are added in the introduction and discussion parts of the research paper.

Comment

 

1. Your work research objectives, problem statement and discussion should be inline.

 

Reply to the comment:

 

The objectives, problem statement and discussion are in line now.

Comment

 

1. Conclusion part of your research need further clarity.

 

Reply to the comment:

The authors have now to further add clarity to conclusion by adding relevant lines in the conclusion. 

Comment

 

1. There is some grammatical errors in your paper, need to improve these.

 

Reply to the comment:

To address this issue the authors have done extensive English language editing to remove grammatical mistakes.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I appreciated your paper: the topic is very relevant for the scientific debate and the empirical experiment is interesting.

I suggest you make more clear two points:

1. why did you choose to investigate this firm? Why do you think the results of the experiment on this group of workers are relevant? I think you can improve the section about the criteria adopted to choose the sample
2. how does your paper contribute to existing literature? The section about literature review is meager and the discussion section can also be improved.

In any case, I think your work can be published after these minor amendments. 

Finally, you have to review the citations in the text, because some of these are not formatted as required by the journal guidelines. 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer 2,

We would like to thank you for the knowledge that you have imparted in us by giving us feedback on our paper " Moral Awareness: A Source of Improved Sustainable Performance", submitted to sustainability.
We have tried our best to incorporate all the changes that were recommended to us. Details are provided as under.

Comment

 

1. why did you choose to investigate this firm? Why do you think the results of the experiment on this group of workers are relevant? I think you can improve the section about the criteria adopted to choose the sample.

Reply to the comment:

 

A very valid point and hence further clarification at page  6 has been added.

Comment

1. how does your paper contribute to existing literature? The section about literature review is meager and the discussion section can also be improved.

 

Reply to the comment:

 

The contribution to literature has now been explained with more detail in discussion section. Both the sections have been improved.

 

Comment

3. Finally, you have to review the citations in the text, because some of these are not formatted as required by the journal guidelines. 

Reply to the comment:

 

The references are changed in Mendely software to remove any references error.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

I have received the paper  from our editor on your manuscript, " Moral Awareness: A Source of Improved Sustainable Performance", submitted to sustainability.

Dear author, Most of gap you have incorporated in your paper. I strongly accepted this paper after minor changes.

However, I would like to encourage you to reviews the following points and incorporate these in your paper.

 

1. You need to add study questionnaire before the references heading as Appendix A.
2. Further, for the institutional theory I suggested to you add https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063175 for  references in your paper.
3. There should be a separate heading of theoretical and practical contribution of the study before the conclusion part.

With kind regards,
The reviewers 1

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We would like to thank you for reviewing our paper " Moral Awareness: A Source of Improved Sustainable Performance", submitted to sustainability.  We are extremely thankful for providing us with great knowledge through your feedback. 

Comment

1. You need to add study questionnaire before the references heading as Appendix A.

Reply to the Comment

Questionnaires are attached as separate files with the repose. 

Comment

 

1. Further, for the institutional theory I suggested to you add https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063175 for references in your paper.

Reply to the Comment

Dear Reviewer, I have included the above mentioned reference in the article where institutional theory was acknowledged.

Comment

 

1. There should be a separate heading of theoretical and practical contribution of the study before the conclusion part.

Reply to the Comment

The mentioned comment has been incorporated in the article before the conclusion.