How Institutional Pressure Affects Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment: The Moderated Mediation Effect of Green Management Practice
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
For some abbreviations in the manuscript, their meaning should be explained and indicated.
The importance and significance of this work should be indicated in the introduction.
Author Response
Thanks for your kind work and your thoughtful comments. According to these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications to improve our original manuscript. Main changes made to the text are in red colour.
Point 1: For some abbreviations in the manuscript, their meaning should be explained and indicated.
Response 1: Thanks for your nice and detail question. In order to describe the variables more clearly, we have explained the full name of the variables when they first appear as Aziz et al. (2021) shown. In addition, we have added explanations of OCBE in the comments under tables.
Aziz, F.; Md Rami, A.; Zaremohzzabieh, Z. Effects of emotions and ethics on pro-environmental behavior of university employees: a model based on the theory of planned behavior. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7062.
Point 2: The importance and significance of this work should be indicated in the introduction.
Response 2: Thanks for your kind feedback. We have reorganized and revised the introduction to show the importance and significance of this work.
More specifically, in the first paragraph, we have revised and supplemented the research background of OCBE. And we added literatures to further explained the importance of this work. In the following three paragraphs, we have added literatures to strengthen the necessity of exploring the relationships between institutional pressure, green emotion, green management practice and OCBE. By combing the existing literature on the antecedents of OCBE, we found that there were few literatures discussing the influence of external conditions, and most of them focusing on leadership types. Green emotion and green management practice may positively enhance OCBE. These strengthen the significance of this work. In the last paragraph, as Tuan (2019) suggested, we preliminarily summarized three possible contributions of this work . Corresponding modifications have been made in our manuscript, please see the section “Introduction”.
Tuan, L. Catalyzing employee OCBE in tour companies: the role of environmentally specific charismatic leadership and organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2019, 43, 682-711.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The paper must attach the survey questionnaire in the appendix for more clarity.
2. The paper should also compare with previous similar studies to draw out its pros and cons or differences and its main contributions. If possible, it is recommended to suggest further research directions of the topic.
Author Response
Thanks for your kind work and your thoughtful comments. According to these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications to improve our original manuscript. Main changes made to the text are in red colour.
Point 1: The paper must attach the survey questionnaire in the appendix for more clarity.
Response 1: Thanks for your kind suggestion to strengthen the paper. Based on your valuable suggestion, we have added the questionnaire. Please see the section of “Appendix 1”.
Point 2: The paper should also compare with previous similar studies to draw out its pros and cons or differences and its main contributions. If possible, it is recommended to suggest further research directions of the topic.
Response 2: Thanks for your thoughtful comments and kind suggestions. We have added literatures to draw out the differences, reorganizing and revising our manuscript to show main contributions of the paper. In addition, we have supplemented the further research directions of OCBE.
In the last paragraph of the introduction, as Tuan (2019) suggested, we preliminarily summarized three possible contributions of this work. In the discussion, we have focused on modifying “Theoretical Implications”, comparing our results with the background literature, and highlighting the value of our manuscript. In the future research directions, we have updated the limitations of the paper. Compared with the previous similar literatures, the more feasible future research directions have been put forward.
Corresponding modifications have been made in our manuscript, please see the sections “Introduction” , “Theoretical Implications” and “Conclusions, Limitations and Future Research Directions”.
Tuan, L. Catalyzing employee OCBE in tour companies: the role of environmentally specific charismatic leadership and organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2019, 43, 682-711.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please update the literature, some are 1983 year.
Please write what is Your contribution in this paper.
What are the main findings?
References are not by requirements.
Please expand the conclusions
Why do You chosen this method, did You compare with others?
Does Your work findings correlate with other scientists? Please compare.
Author Response
Thanks for your kind work and your thoughtful comments. According to these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications to improve our original manuscript. Main changes made to the text are in red colour.
Point 1: Please update the literature, some are 1983 year.
Response 1: Thanks for your positive feedback and kind suggestion. We have updated the older literatures, especially those in 1983 and 1991, and added some new ones in recent years. Corresponding modifications have been made in our manuscript, please see the section “References”.
Point 2: Please write what is Your contribution in this paper.
Response 2: This is a great comment, thanks. We have added a new paragraph in the introduction to present the contributions of this paper.
As Tuan (2019) suggested, we preliminarily summarized three possible contributions. Our first contribution is to assess how institutional pressure contributes to employees’ OCBE. The second contribution is that we may expand the research stream of utilizing emotions with green values as a mediation mechanism behind OCBE. The last contribution is to reveal the moderation effect of green management practice. Corresponding modifications have been made in our manuscript, please see the sections “Introduction” and “Theoretical Implications”.
Tuan, L. Catalyzing employee OCBE in tour companies: the role of environmentally specific charismatic leadership and organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2019, 43, 682-711.
Point 3: What are the main findings?
Response 3: Thank you for the comment. In the discussion, we have focused on modifying “Theoretical Implications” and “Conclusions”, highlighting the value of our manuscript and pointing out the main findings more clearly. Corresponding modifications have been made in our manuscript, please see the sections “Theoretical Implications” and “Conclusions”.
Point 4: References are not by requirements.
Response 4: Thanks for your nice and detail comments. According to the specific requirements of the references of Sustainability, and referring to the related literatures published, we have revised the format of the references in the paper, please see the section “References”.
An, F.; Xi, L.; Yu, J. Relationship between Technology Acceptance and Self-Directed Learning: Mediation Role of Positive Emotions and Technological Self-Efficacy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10390.
Wang, C. Green Technology Innovation, Energy Consumption Structure and Sustainable Improvement of Enterprise Performance. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10168.
Point 5: Please expand the conclusions.
Response 5: Thanks for your specific suggestion and guidance.In the discussion, we have added literatures to enrich “Theoretical Implications” and make our research results more complete. Based on your nice comment, we have further expanded the conclusions and improved the significance and value of the paper. Corresponding modifications have been made in our manuscript, please see the sections “Theoretical Implications” and “Conclusions”.
Point 6: Why do You chosen this method, did You compare with others?
Response 6: Thanks for your critical comments and thoughtful suggestions. The main reason why we chose two groups of subordinates and collected data in three stages is to reduce the impact of common method bias (CMB) on the research results through procedural remedies.
Using some kind of self-report measure as the only type of data gathered has been criticized by many researchers (Brannick et al., 2010). Compared with it, we gathered the data from two groups of subordinates is more appropriate. Podsakoff et al. (2003) pointed out that a potential cause of CMB is “common rater effects”, which refers to “any artifactual covariance between the predictor and criterion variable produced by the fact that the respondent providing the measure of these variables is the same” (p.882), and researchers can collect measures of the predicator and criterion variables from different source (e.g., supervisor-subordinate matched samples; employee-colleague matched samples; parent-child matched sample) to reduce CMB (Du et al., 2015).
The advantage of this kind of procedure is that it makes it impossible for the mind set of participants to bias the observed relationship between variables, so as to reduce the influence of consistency motifs, implicit theories, and any tendencies on the part of the rater to acquiesce or respond in a lenient manner (Podsakoff et al., 2003).In addition, CMB can be produced by the context in which the measures are obtained. For example, the method that measures of different constructs are measured at the same time in the same place can produce CMB (Podsakoff et al., 2003). From this aspect, researchers usually separate the measurement of the predictor and criterion variables in terms of time to reduce biases in the retrieval stage of the response process by eliminating the saliency of contextually provided retrieval cues. (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Craighead et al., 2011). Also, shorter scales can reduce the forms of bias that are produced by participant fatigue and carelessness (Hinkin, 1995).
These are the main reasons why respondents were given separate questionnaires and finish the dada collection in three waves.
Brannick, M. T., Chan, D., Conway, J. M., Lance, C. E. and Spector, P. E. “What is method variance and how can we cope with it? A panel discussion”, Organizational Research Methods, 2010, 13, 407-420.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y. and Podsakoff, N. P. “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88, 879-903.
Du, J., Zhao, G. and Liu, J. “Common method biases in measures”, Psychological Science, 2005, 28, 420-422.
Craighead, C. W., Ketchen, D. J., Dunn, K. S. and Hult, G. T. M. “Addressing common method variance: Guidelines for survey research on information technology, operations, and supply chain management”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2011, 58, 578-588.
Hinkin, T. R. “A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations”, Journal of Management, 1995, 21, 967-988.
The main reason why we chose SPSS macro program PROCESS for data processing is mainly to simplify the analysis processes and make the results more comprehensive.
PROCESS is a freely-available computational tool for SPSS and SAS that covers many of the analytical problems behavioral scientists interested in conducting a mediation, moderation, or conditional process analysis typically confront (Hayes, 2012). It combines many of the functions of popular procedures and tools (such as INDIRECT, SOBEL, MODPROBE, MODMED, RSQUARE, and MBESS) into one simple-to-use procedure, eliminating the need for researchers to familiarize themselves with multiple tools (Hayes et al., 2017). Compared with the traditional data analysis method, it is more appropriate to adopt the PROCESS macro program.
The advantages of PREOCESS are as follows. First, the analysis of mediating effect is completed in one step. It takes three steps to be a mediation in SPSS, while PROCESS only needs one step, which greatly simplifies the analysis steps. It is worth mentioning that although the Process integrates the two steps, the results are presented step by step, which is very convenient to organize into standardized tabular results (Abu-Bader & Jones, 2021). Second, the data processing automation before the moderating effect analysis. PROCESS can automatically complete data centralization and calculate product terms, which is more accurate and efficient (Baltes-Götz, 2017). Third, Bootstrap and Sobel tests of mediating effects can be automatically processed. The mediating effect value, Sobel test value Z and significance level can be obtained directly (Hayes et al., 2017).
These are the main reasons why our research uses PROCESS plug-in instead of other software to analyse data.
Hayes, A, F. PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. 2012.
Hayes, A, F.; Montoya, A, K.; Rockwood, N, J. The analysis of mechanisms and their contingencies: PROCESS versus structural equation modeling. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 2017, 25, 76-81.
Abu-Bader, S.; Jones, T, V. Statistical mediation analysis using the sobel test and hayes SPSS process macro. International Journal of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods 2021.
Baltes-Götz, B. Mediator-und Moderator analyse mit SPSS und PROCESS. Universität Trier Zentrum für Informations, Medien-und Kommunikationstechnologie (ZIMK) 2017.
Point 7: Does Your work findings correlate with other scientists? Please compare.
Response 7: Thanks for your kind suggestion to strengthen the paper. We have added certain similar studies in the paper, highlighting the value of our research by comparing with them.
Wang et al. proved that there is a close relationship between environmental citizenship behavior and institutional pressure. In contrast, we explored other variables between institutional pressure and OCBE on the basis. Our research content is more abundant. Cheng et al. paid attention to the relationship between cognition, emotion and behavior, and found that emotion plays a mediator role. Subject to the cognitive behavior system, green emotion is only regarded as a mediation variable between cognition and behavior. Our research expands the mediation utility range of green emotion. Mohammad et al. evaluated the direct relationship between green human resource management and OCBE. Although it has broken the gap of previous studies, it is still limited to the potential results. Our research broadens the application field of green management practice.
Wang, G.; He, Q.; Yang, D.; Yan, X.; Yu, T. Institutional Pressure, Environmental Citizenship Behavior and Environmental Management Performance: An Empirical Study Based on China's Major Projects. Journal of Systems Management 2018, 27, 118-128.
Chen, S.; Lu, C.; Jiang, G.; Wang, Y. The influence of political promotion of state-owned enterprise executives on corporate mergers and acquisitions: an empirical study based on the theory of corporate growth pressure. Management World 2015, 9, 125-136.
Mohammad, N.; Bibi, Z.; Karim, J. Green human resource management practices and organizational citizenship behavior for environment: The Interactive Effects of Green Passion. International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies 2020, 11, 1-10.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
