Micro-Level CSR as a New Organizational Value for Social Sustainability Formation: A Study of Healthcare Sector in GCC Region
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author,
Thank you very much for sending your paper to the journal; however, the following issues should be fully addressed in the next version:
1-What is the motivation for the study? In other words, why do you concentrate in the healthcare sector?
2-Still it is unclear what is the research problem(s). So you need to clarify what is the research problem
3-It is recommended to improve by most recent studies' theoretical issues and literature sections.
4-At the end of Table 1, you mentioned the participants' profession; the question is, what are the others? You need to mention who they are clearly.
5-It is recommended to conduct robustness tests to validate the main findings of the study
6- Please attach the questionnaire in the next version
7-The recommendation of the studyshould always aligns with the number of the hypotheses; whereas you postulated 4 hypotheses, your recommendations are about 6.
8-It is also recommended to conduct proofreading on the aper.
Author Response
I am really thankful to the anonymous reviewer for the valuable comments. These comments will definitely improve the worth of this paper and these will be kept in view in future work as well.
Dear author,
Thank you very much for sending your paper to the journal; however, the following issues should be fully addressed in the next version:
1-What is the motivation for the study? In other words, why do you concentrate in the healthcare sector?
Response: Thanks for the comments. It is explained and incorporated on page 2. Highlighted with track change enabled. A paragraph has also been added in the literature review section to elaborate it further, page 4 highlighted with track changes enabled
2-Still it is unclear what is the research problem (s). So you need to clarify what is the research problem
Response: research problem is explained at the end of the introduction section on page 2. Highlighted track changes enabled.
3-It is recommended to improve by most recent studies' theoretical issues and literature sections.
Response: it is improved with the latest literature. Changes are highlighted with track change enabled
4-At the end of Table 1, you mentioned the participants' profession; the question is, what are the others? You need to mention who they are clearly.
Response: Corrected. They are paramedics
5-It is recommended to conduct robustness tests to validate the main findings of the study
Response: Thanks for the above comment, regarding the robustness of our estimation strategy, we followed the major assumptions, for example, the validity and reliability were assured for all variables, and similarly the standardized factor loading was also significant. Moreover, the discriminant validity, and HTMT ratios were all significant. In like vein the multicollinearity issue was non-evident. Lastly, we tested the hypothesized relationships simultaneously by developing a structural model (presented in the original manuscript). The previous researchers also supported these steps to validate the main effect in a structural model (Ullah, AlDhaen et al. 2021, Ullah, Álvarez-Otero et al. 2021, Ullah, Sulaiman et al. 2021). Hopefully, our revised efforts will satisfy the reviewer.
6- Please attach the questionnaire in the next version
Response: Questionnaire attached
7-The recommendation of the study should always align with the number of the hypotheses; whereas you postulated 4 hypotheses, your recommendations are about 6.
Response: Recommendation No. 1, which was generic in nature, is removed. The following four recommendations directly correspond to the hypotheses. However, the last recommendation is about the importance of micro-level CSR which is relatively new in the given context, so the recommendation seems to be relevant.
8-It is also recommended to conduct proofreading on the paper.
Response: proofreading is done. However, thorough proofreading and English language editing will be done once the paper is sent to the production department.
Note. The revised manuscript is attached
Thanks once again to the worthy reviewer
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article contains significant and interesting material… with some news. However there are some changes that you should take into consideration:
1. The introduction needs to be restructured. It is not clear: i) what are the main gaps in the literature, ii) what is the purpose of this study iii) and how this study contributes to filling the identified gaps. In addition, a last paragraph should be added with a summary of the article's structure.
2. In the introduction the authors state that: “The study has been restricted to the hospitals in Bahrain due to resource constraints and I am optimistic that the findings can be generalized to other GCC countries.” This sentence should be eliminated as it does not add value to the study. Authors should be careful not to write in the first person.
3. There is no reason to have section 2.1.1 since there is no section 2.1.2. The text of section 2.1.1 should be in section 2.1. Furthermore, this point needs to be further developed.
4. Sections 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 shall be merged into section 2.2.
5. In the literature review, hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 need to be further supported by the literature.
6. The conceptual model must have the hypotheses identified.
7. The methodology needs to be further developed and detailed, namely: I) What is the methodology used in the study (qualitative or quantitative)? II) The choice of this methodology must be based on authors. III) when was the questionnaire applied? IV) How was the questionnaire constituted? V) What scales are used? VI) How was the questionnaire applied? VII) What are the criteria for choosing the respondents and the hospital? VIII) Which or how many hospitals participated in the study? IX) What software is used to process the data?
8. I believe that it would be an asset for the study to put the structural equation model with the results in the results section.
9. The implications need to be explored further. How does this study contribute to the existing literature and to society/hospitals/governors?
10. In section 6. I would like to see the main limitations of the study highlighted.
11. English needs to be proofread by a native.
This concludes my feedback. I hope it might be helpful.
Author Response
I am really grateful to the anonymous reviewer for his valuable comments. The comments will, indeed, add value for readers. These comments will help researchers in producing quality papers in future.
The article contains significant and interesting material… with some news. However, there are some changes that you should take into consideration:
- The introduction needs to be restructured. It is not clear: i) what are the main gaps in the literature, ii) what is the purpose of this study iii) and how this study contributes to filling the identified gaps. In addition, a last paragraph should be added with a summary of the article's structure.
Response: a paragraph is added to the literature section identifying the research gap, page 4. The contribution of the study has been elaborated in the implications section, page 13. A paragraph was added to the introduction section with the summary of the article’s structure, p 3.
- In the introduction, the authors state that: “The study has been restricted to the hospitals in Bahrain due to resource constraints and I am optimistic that the findings can be generalized to other GCC countries.” This sentence should be eliminated as it does not add value to the study. Authors should be careful not to write in the first person.
Response: The sentence is removed. Use of first-person replaced
- There is no reason to have section 2.1.1 since there is no section 2.1.2. The text of section 2.1.1 should be in section 2.1. Furthermore, this point needs to be further developed.
Response: Section 2.1.1 corrected.
- Sections 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 shall be merged into section 2.2.
Response: these sections were merged into section 2.2
- In the literature review, hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 need to be further supported by the literature.
Response: further latest literature added to support the above-stated hypotheses.
- The conceptual model must have the hypotheses identified.
Response: H1-H4 added to the conceptual model. It is labelled that which arrow shows which variable.
- The methodology needs to be further developed and detailed, namely: I) What is the methodology used in the study (qualitative or quantitative)? II) The choice of this methodology must be based on authors. III) when was the questionnaire applied? IV) How was the questionnaire constituted? V) What scales are used? VI) How was the questionnaire applied? VII) What are the criteria for choosing the respondents and the hospital? VIII) Which or how many hospitals participated in the study? IX) What software is used to process the data?
Response: The above-mentioned information were inserted in the methodology section. Highlighted with track change enabled.
- I believe that it would be an asset for the study to put the structural equation model with the results in the results section.
Response: structural equation model added to the manuscript
- The implications need to be explored further. How does this study contribute to the existing literature and to society/hospitals/governors?
Response: Implication section is rewritten. Page 12, 13
- In section 6. I would like to see the main limitations of the study highlighted.
Response: a new section 6.3 added expressing limitations and future research
- English needs to be proofread by a native.
Response: Proofreading by a native English speaker will be carried out once the paper will be transmitted to the production department.
This concludes my feedback. I hope it might be helpful.
note. the revised transcript is attached
Thanks again to the worthy reviewer
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript takes up the interesting and relatively new issue of micro-CSR. Conducting research in the healthcare sector is a good idea. The decision to choose this sector as a research area is well presented.
The article itself, on the other hand, still needs a lot of work. My concerns and suggestions:
· 1. In my opinion the literature review is a bit chaotic. It is not easy to follow. A research gap has not been demonstrated. The focus was on providing definitions of related concepts. However even the definitions are not presented clearly.
· 2. I have trouble finding the main purpose and idea of the research.
· 3. In the Abstract in line 14 it should be “ in developing countries however it is scant in developed countries” instead of “in developing countries however it is scant in developing countries”.
· 4. The title of the manuscript does not indicate that the research focuses on developing countries.
· 5. The layout of the questionnaire is not presented. It is not clear what respondents were asked about. What questions were asked in relation to Environmental CSR area, Ethical CSR area, etc.?
· 6. Why does the author use 'social sustainability' and not 'social CSR' when he uses the terms 'environmental CSR', 'ethical CSR', 'philanthropic CSR', 'economic CSR'?
Author Response
I am really grateful to the anonymous reviewer for his valuable comments. The comments will, indeed, add value for readers. These comments will help researchers in producing quality papers in future.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript takes up the interesting and relatively new issue of micro-CSR. Conducting research in the healthcare sector is a good idea. The decision to choose this sector as a research area is well presented.
The article itself, on the other hand, still needs a lot of work. My concerns and suggestions:
- 1. In my opinion the literature review is a bit chaotic. It is not easy to follow. A research gap has not been demonstrated. The focus was on providing definitions of related concepts. However even the definitions are not presented clearly.
Response: the literature review was reorganized by adding new and latest literature. The research gap is identified in the second last paragraph of the literature section. Definitions of variables have been improved. Changes are highlighted through track change enabled
- 2. I have trouble finding the main purpose and idea of the research.
Response: it is elaborated by adding a paragraph at the end of the introduction section.
- 3. In the Abstract in line 14 it should be “in developing countries however it is scant in developed countries” instead of “in developing countries however it is scant in developing countries”.
Response: Corrected
- 4. The title of the manuscript does not indicate that the research focuses on developing countries.
Response: the region included in the title
- The layout of the questionnaire is not presented. It is not clear what respondents were asked about. What questions were asked in relation to Environmental CSR area, Ethical CSR area, etc.?
Response: list of items (Questionnaire) is attached in the annexure
- 6. Why does the author use 'social sustainability' and not 'social CSR' when he uses the terms 'environmental CSR', 'ethical CSR', 'philanthropic CSR', and 'economic CSR'?
Response: there are four dimensions of CSR including environmental, ethical, philanthropic and economic. Since these belong to CSR, so CSR is added to each dimension. On the other hand, Social sustainability is one of the dimensions of Sustainability. That is why it is labelled as social sustainability instead of social CSR
Note. The revised manuscript is attached
I once again thank the worthy reviewer for the valuable comments
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author,
Thank you very much for sending the revised manuscript; however, still, several issues left unsolved as follows:
1- The abstract section should cover the paper's purpose, method-findings, and originality. So it is recommended to revise this part in the same order.
2- The theoretical issues are still far from to well support the model.
3-According to your claim, the statistical sample was about 600 participants, however, in your paper, you considered 516. From my viewpoint, this leads to a significant weakness in the paper.
4-The Recommendations are not fully obtained from the results and need a major revision.
Author Response
I am highly grateful to the worthy reviewer for his/her time and valuable comments. I hope these efforts will satisfy you.
1- The abstract section should cover the paper's purpose, method findings, and originality. So it is recommended to revise this part in the same order.
Response: Abstract is rewritten accordingly
2. The theoretical issues are still far from to well support the model.
Response: theoretical part is rewritten. Page 5 last paragraph
3-According to your claim, the statistical sample was about 600 participants, however, in your paper, you considered 516. From my viewpoint, this leads to a significant weakness in the paper.
Response: Yes it was a technical mistake. The actual sample was 516 because 516 questionnaires were distributed. It is corrected
4-The Recommendations are not fully obtained from the results and need a major revision.
Response: Recommendations were rewritten. Page 13 highlighted with track change enabled.
Hope this effort will satisfy the worthy reviewer.
Reviewer 2 Report
Congratulations to the authors for the improvements to the article they have been able to achieve through the review process.
Author Response
Comment: Congratulations to the authors for the improvements to the article they have been able to achieve through the review process.
Response: Thanks for all the comments and concluding remarks. It is really a great achievement for me.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article has been greatly improved. The abstract is still worth working on. Give it a more organized form. Put in the abstract the purpose of the research and the methodology.
Author Response
I am highly grateful to the worthy reviewer for the time and valuable comment.
comment: The article has been greatly improved. The abstract is still worth working on. Give it a more organized form. Put in the abstract the purpose of the research and the methodology.
Response: Abstract is rewritten accordingly
Thank you once again
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you very much for revising your paper according to the comments and from my viewpoint the paper is accepted in the current format.
Author Response
Comment: Thank you very much for revising your paper according to the comments and from my viewpoint the paper is accepted in the current format.
Response: Thanks for endorsing acceptance of the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been significantly improved. I recommend it be published in the present form.
Author Response
Comment: The manuscript has been significantly improved. I recommend it be published in the present form.
Response: I am grateful for recommending the paper for publication.
