Green Lifestyle: A Tie between Green Human Resource Management Practices and Green Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I feel pleasant to review this interesting manuscript titled as “Green lifestyle: impact of green HRM practices on green organizational citizenship behavior with the moderating effect of green innovation and green shared vision.” The overall quality of this manuscript is good. Authors have done good work in this research field. There is less work has been done on green organizational citizenship behavior. I have some minor suggestion for authors. I hope my suggestions will help authors to revise their manuscript.
1. I suggest authors to modify their topic and no need to include the abbreviation in the research tile.
2. I suggest author to use full name of green organizational citizenship behavior, expect Green OCB.
3. I suggest adding an appendix at the end of this manuscript.
4. There are some type mistakes to understand the abbreviation of green HRM, somewhere authors have mentioned GHRMP, I suggest authors to use form name of the variables or make it similar to GHRMP in the whole manuscript.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
I feel pleasant to review this interesting manuscript titled as “Green lifestyle: impact of green HRM practices on green organizational citizenship behavior with the moderating effect of green innovation and green shared vision.” The overall quality of this manuscript is good. Authors have done good work in this research field. There is less work has been done on green organizational citizenship behavior. I have some minor suggestion for authors. I hope my suggestions will help authors to revise their manuscript.
1. I suggest authors to modify their topic and no need to include the abbreviation in the research tile.
Author Response: Thank you for your valuable review. We have modified the research topic in the revised manuscript and highlighted with turquoise color.
2. I suggest author to use full name of green organizational citizenship behavior, expect Green OCB.
Author Response: Thank you for your feedback. In the revised manuscript, we have used the full name of green organizational citizenship behavior.
3. I suggest adding an appendix at the end of this manuscript.
Author Response: Thank you for your response. The appendix has been added in the revised manuscript and highlighted with turquoise color.
4. There are some typo mistakes to understand the abbreviation of green HRM, somewhere authors have mentioned GHRMP, I suggest authors to use form name of the variables or make it similar to GHRMP in the whole manuscript.
Author Response: Thank you for your suggestion. All the typo mistakes are removed in the revised manuscript. Manuscript has been proofread by the native English speaker. All the abbreviations are clearly incorporated in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you very much for sending your manuscript to me to review. Your research topic is interesting and your work is good.
Please look at my comments below to improve the quality of your article.
1. The article title is too long and with an abbreviation (HRM). The authors can make it shorter without the abbreviation.
2. There are no phenomena regarding green life style, green innovation, and green shared value in the introduction section. The authors can explain the relevance and significance of the three variables based on good references.
3. The research aims and goal written in the introduction section overlap quite a bit. The authors can set the firm research objectives. The last four sentences in the introduction section are terrible. The authors can make them easier to read.
4. There are no research gaps regarding the five studied variables which are described to construct robust hypotheses in sections 2.3.1 to 2.3.6. The authors can shed light on recent development and debate by researchers on the relationship between HRM practices and OCB, HRM practices and life style, life style and OCB, HRM practices and innovation, life style and shared value.
5. The number of respondents is not explained in section 3.1. Is it 437?
6. There is no explanation what percentage of variance value of CMB test results in section 3.4. The last sentence could be confusing (less or >). You can reason that CMB test is still being debate to employ.
7. The content of the Decision column in Table 5 are written five yes and one no. Five accepted and one rejected could make up for it for the better.
8. The authors can discuss the results of their study with the results of the research on the relationship between HRM practices, lifestyle, innovation, shared value, and OCB.
Good luck!
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Dear authors,
Thank you very much for sending your manuscript to me to review. Your research topic is interesting and your work is good.
Please look at my comments below to improve the quality of your article.
1. The article title is too long and with an abbreviation (HRM). The authors can make it shorter without the abbreviation.
Author Response: Thank you for your valuable response. In the revised manuscript the abbreviation has been removed from the title. We try to make it short but reviewer 1 also suggests removing abbreviation from the title. So, we removed and make it clearer.
2. There are no phenomena regarding green life style, green innovation, and green shared value in the introduction section. The authors can explain the relevance and significance of the three variables based on good references.
Author Response: Thank you for your feedback. In the introduction section the phenomena regarding green life style, green innovation and green shared value has been explained with suitable citations. The revised manuscript has been highlighted with yellow color.
3. The research aims and goal written in the introduction section overlap quite a bit. The authors can set the firm research objectives. The last four sentences in the introduction section are terrible. The authors can make them easier to read.
Author Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript the research objectives are discussed at the last paragraph of introduction section and highlighted with yellow color.
4. There are no research gaps regarding the five studied variables which are described to construct robust hypotheses in sections 2.3.1 to 2.3.6. The authors can shed light on recent development and debate by researchers on the relationship between HRM practices and OCB, HRM practices and life style, life style and OCB, HRM practices and innovation, life style and shared value.
Author Response: Thank you for your valuable response. The hypothesis sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.6 has been revised as per suggestion received. We have discussed the recent literature review regarding the green HRM practices, green organizational citizenship behavior, green lifestyle and green innovation. Although prior researchers examined the relationship between HRM practices and organizational citizenship behavior without using green HRM practices and green organizational citizenship behavior. Therefore, to fill this research gap, this study attempts to investigate this relationship and discuss the importance of these indicators in the field of human resource management.
5. The number of respondents is not explained in section 3.1. Is it 437?
Author Response: Thank you for your response. The number of respondents are explained in the section 3.1. It is 347 not 437.
6. There is no explanation what percentage of variance value of CMB test results in section 3.4. The last sentence could be confusing (less or >). You can reason that CMB test is still being debate to employ.
Author Response: The explanation regarding common method bias has been revised and highlighted with yellow color.
7. The content of the Decision column in Table 5 are written five yes and one no. Five accepted and one rejected could make up for it for the better.
Author Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. The Table 5 decision column has been revised as suggestion received and highlighted with yellow color.
8. The authors can discuss the results of their study with the results of the research on the relationship between HRM practices, lifestyle, innovation, shared value, and OCB.
Author Response: Thank you for your response. All the results are clearly discussed with prior researcher’s findings on green HRM practices, green lifestyle, green innovation and green organizational citizenship behavior. This part is highlighted with yellow color in the discussion section.
Good luck!
Reviewer 3 Report
- The text is poorly written and requires a native proofreading in English as well as in the style, prior to proceed reviewing
- Title too long, pleae try your best to reduce it without loosing content
- the abstract must inform the main implications
line 28: please avoid pamphleteer language. Remain at scientific realm, avoid slip to a engaged text
line 32-33: please hire a native proofreading
line 34-35: your English style requires care. It is mandatory to hire a native proofreading. Your text is difficult to read for an international audience
line 36-37: quite obvious and naive
line 42 word "aggressively": avoid adjectives, mainly those easily falsifiable
line 48-49: in industry 4.0 it is no longer true
Line 68-69 "In contrast, green innovation and green shared
69 values are the interactive effects.": this statement requires a reference
line 90-96: those statements must be posed and formally derived as hypos
line 113: entirely reorganize titles and subtitles, avoiding third level indentation
line 116: (Ashraful et al., 2021): please be consistent
line 120-121: avoid literal quotes, prefer paraphrasing
line 155-156: quite obvious and naive
table 1: I believe there is an issue here. Table 1 ensure that any manifested variable loads in the right construct, but does not ensure that loads ONLY in the right construct. I suggest inserting here Table 3 with the entire set of loads. Therefore, it would be easy to understand if there are or not cross-loads before evaluating discriminant validity.
Table 2 "constructs": I believe these are indicators or manifested variables, not constructs, please double check
Section 4.3: the structural test is incomplete, please insert also f2 and q2 tests. As your R2 are weak, these tests are necessary. I believe your model is not too strong as a predictor model. Please see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.04.007 .
Author Response
Reviewer 3
The text is poorly written and requires a native proofreading in English as well as in the style, prior to proceed reviewing
Title too long, pleae try your best to reduce it without loosing content
The abstract must inform the main implications
Line 28: please avoid pamphleteer language. Remain at scientific realm, avoid slip to a engaged text
Line 32-33: please hire a native proofreading
Line 34-35: your English style requires care. It is mandatory to hire a native proofreading. Your text is difficult to read for an international audience
Line 36-37: quite obvious and naive
Line 42 word "aggressively": avoid adjectives, mainly those easily falsifiable
Line 48-49: in industry 4.0 it is no longer true
Line 68-69 "In contrast, green innovation and green shared
69 values are the interactive effects.": this statement requires a reference
Line 90-96: those statements must be posed and formally derived as hypos
Line 113: entirely reorganize titles and subtitles, avoiding third level indentation
Line 116: (Ashraful et al., 2021): please be consistent
Line 120-121: avoid literal quotes, prefer paraphrasing
Line 155-156: quite obvious and naïve
Author Response: Thank you for your valuable response. All the grammatical mistakes have been removed from the manuscript. This manuscript is proofread and edited by the professional native speaker.
Table 1: I believe there is an issue here. Table 1 ensures that any manifested variable loads in the right construct, but does not ensure that loads ONLY in the right construct. I suggest inserting here Table 3 with the entire set of loads. Therefore, it would be easy to understand if there are or not cross-loads before evaluating discriminant validity.
Author Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In Table 1, we only reported the values of factor loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, average variance extracted and VIF. For better understanding we shifted Table 3 into the place of Table 2 and bold the cross-load values.
Table 2 "constructs": I believe these are indicators or manifested variables, not constructs, please double check
Author Response: Thank you for your valuable response. The constructs heading are replaced with indicators.
Section 4.3: the structural test is incomplete; please insert also f2 and q2 tests. As your R2 are weak, these tests are necessary. I believe your model is not too strong as a predictor model. Please see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.04.007.
Author Response: Thank for your feedback. In the revised manuscript, we have reported the values of F2 and Q2 in the structural model.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Many thanks for approving my review. I see significant efforts in the revised manuscript. Now, my points are:
1. In the introduction section, the last four lines that accompanied by numbering 1 to 4 to explain the research aims, are not important to write as they have been stated as hypotheses.
2. The title of Table 5 "Hypotheses relationship" is vague. The authors can just write "Hypotheses."
Author Response
Reviewer 2 Comments
Many thanks for approving my review. I see significant efforts in the revised manuscript. Now, my points are:
1. In the introduction section, the last four lines that accompanied by numbering 1 to 4 to explain the research aims are not important to write as they have been stated as hypotheses.
Author Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have removed the research aims at the end of this introduction section.
2. The title of Table 5 "Hypotheses relationship" is vague. The authors can just write "Hypotheses."
Author Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have removed the hypotheses relationship and only write hypotheses.
Reviewer 3 Report
Ok
Author Response
Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable feedback.
