Importance of Top Management Commitment to Organizational Citizenship Behaviour towards the Environment, Green Training and Environmental Performance in Pakistani Industries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Suggestions for the authors 

1. Please edit the text. Use initials in a consistent manner. There are a few typos, capital letters, and incorrect sentences in what is in general a well written paper. 

2. There is a fine line between detecting correlation and causality. The authors detect correlation. The conclusions should be predicated on this caveat.

3. Please mention why the link between OCB-E and EP itself is not tested. The whole issue could have been conceptual I de as green HMR affecting EP directly and indirectly though GT.

Author Response

Please  see  in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is devoted to the actual scientific topic of the transition to green technologies and the role of TOP management in solving ecosystem problems.

The authors reviewed existing publications in the field of green technology implementation, sustainable development and the behaviour of top managers of large companies in the framework of ensuring the results of the application of green technologies.

The authors use a modern research approach with the formation of a system of three hypotheses and a set of questions for research. The authors define a framework model and describe the proposed hypotheses.

Within the framework of the formed hypotheses, the constructive elements of the model are identified - Environmental performance (EP), Top management commitment (TMC), Green training (GT) and Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Environment (OCB-E).

Within the framework of the proposed methodology, the authors determined the system of variables and the means of their measurement.

Based on the proposed methodology, the authors analysed the collected data within the Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi based on two algorithms PLS algorithm (L) & PLS bootstrapping (R). The processing and interpretation of the data were performed correctly.

Proposals for improvement of the article.

1. The authors end the article with a section 8 discussion. Within the framework of this section, it is necessary to highlight the findings and results obtained.

2. It is necessary to add a conclusion in which to summarise the results of the studies performed.

3. The paper needs to be clear formated and edited

 

Author Response

Please  see  in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for providing the opportunity to review this paper. Based on 222 usable surveys, this study analysis the relationship between top management commitment, green training, and organizational citizenship behavior towards environment. I have some comments for you to improve it.

 

1.     You lost a key concept in the title: “green training”. How to understand “think green & go green” in your title?

2.     On the top of page 2, “Environmental Management Systems glob-ally as indicated by studies by [5], [6] and [7]”. Please pay attention to the citation. Is it necessary to complete the authors’ information here, or just use [5], [6] and [7] instead?

3.     The introduction is not clear enough. You introduced a lot about the background about Green HRM. That’s OK. But I want to get your research questions clearly from the research gap in this section. Therefore, I suggest to raise the research questions and clarify the contribution briefly in Introduction. It’s not necessary to clarify problem separately (i.e. 3. Problem Statement).

4.     The structure is a little messy. Please follow the classic structure of empirical research. It should be introduction, theoretical development and hypotheses, methods, results, and discussion.

5.     Please redraw figure 1 (research framework). You can move TMC to the left.

6.     Please do not paste the figures directly from Smart PLS 3.0. We usually draw the conceptual model by ourselves.

7.     No significant difference between results and discussion. We expect the contributions, limitation, and future research directions in discussion.

 

Thanks again and good luck.

Author Response

Please  see  in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

 

 

 

1) The abstract is not informative. Contributions, policy implications, and limitations of the research should be added.

 

2) The background of the study lacks key information and data to prepare the reader for the problem statement. Although the main objective of the study is to investigate the relationship between green training, top management commitment, organizational citizenship Behaviour, and environmental performance; there is no critical discussion on how these key variables are linked. 

 

3) The problem statement is not concise, not clear, and not straightforward. Authors have claimed that: "However, there was an obliviousness regarding waste management as most of the organizations’ don’t certainly cogitate into muggy issues such as environmental preservation and waste management. In spite of a strong theoretical footing, the empirical studies in this area are relatively limited. However, the authors failed to identify these limited studies and critically discuss their findings and limitations. 

 

4) It is not clear how this study differs from previous empirical studies. What makes this study important? 

 

5) The authors also claimed in the abstract that this study adds to the existing literature on Green HRM practices based on AMO theory, however, I couldn't find any discussion or review on the stated theory. How does the AMO theory explain the relationship between the selected variables? What choosing the AMO theory? Is there any other theory that can explain the study's conceptual/theoretical framework? How the study hypotheses are developed based on the AMO theory? 

 

6) The measurements of the variables are not clear. The authors mainly stated the number of items that measure the selected variables without critically discussing the measurement items and how they were adopted and adapted from the previous studies. This would question the novelty and originality of the research 

 

7) How both employees and managers are combined and analysed in one single study? Managers' and employees' levels of awareness and information about their organisations' green practices are different. I suggest these two respondents should be segregated. 

 

8) how the sample size of 222 key informants is calculated? How the respondents are randomly selected? Have authors obtained all the list of managers and employees in the five selected industries and randomly chosen 222 from this list? I doubt the sampling method is random sampling. Please elaborate. 

 

9) Why only five industries are selected? What about the other industries? They do not use green HRM? Explain

 

10) In figure 2, and figure 3 some items were loaded less than 0.70. These items should be ommited.

 

11) What is the difference between figure 2 and figure 3? This is confusing

 

12) This study applied bootstrapping with 1000 resampling iterations, however, the recommended sample should be at least 5000.

 

13) Results are not critically discussed, are not compared with previous empirical studies, and are not linked to the proposed theory. 

 

14) The contribution of the study is not discussed.

 

15) Policy implications are not discussed

 

16) Limitations of the research and recommendations for future researchers are not discussed

 

17) Literature review and up-to-date citations should be added. Out of 63 studies reviewed, only 17 were up-to-date (2018 onwards) 

 

 

Author Response

Please  see  in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

No more other comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

I am satisfied with the revision. Thank you