Strategic Human Resources Management for Creating Shared Value in Social Business Organizations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the article is quite relevant and significant in the development of research on problems in the field of science. Scientific insights are revealed, the level of research of the scientific problem is presented, based on the opinions of other authors and their research, the theoretical justification of the problem under consideration is presented. The research methodology, the theoretical and methodological combination of justification is sufficiently described, much attention is paid to the empirical part of the research and its interpretations. Of course, the study contributes to the improvement of knowledge in the analyzed area, showing the pursuit of social and business goals, creating a common value in social business organizations. The authors also indicate the limitations of the study. Solutions, proposals, insights are presented that are significant enough to justify the research problem. Discussions and conclusions are sufficient, proposals and generalizations are significant enough from the point of view of the development of the scientific field, because the analyzed topic has prospects for further research in the future.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for valuable comments. We have gone through the manuscripts and made necessary corrections as suggested.

Reviewer 2 Report

Article covering a very interesting topic. Moreover, HRM in SEs may be a much more interesting topic than SE. 

The authors used an interesting approach to present the topic. Moreover, they try to connect theories and research with an accurate literature review.

The main suggestions are: don't explain that deeply what each of the SEs is doing. The topic is on it. Focus on the subject and the clarity of the presentation of HRM in SE.

Also, all tables should need to be rechecked. The content in the tables is challenging to follow. All seems like one big table; the columns' content is merged with what should be corrected.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the valuable comments. As suggested, we have rewritten all the tables and rephrased several comments to keep the respondents anonymous.

In HR strategy table we have kept the sentences short and used bullets to increase readability.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

I am pleased to have the opportunity to review this research paper. This study attempted to explore a Strategic Human Resources Management for Creating Shared Value in Social Business Organizations. Although the topic of this research study is interesting and fits within the journal scope, I think authors should apply the comments indicated below to increase the quality of research justification, contributions and findings. The manuscript know lacks in scientific style and structure.

First of all, paper research gap. Please improve this part in introduction section. Introduction is very general and lacked alignment to the research findings, no discussion was provided to derive the implication from. Theoretical and pragmatics implication are vague and need to be better aligned with this paper theoretical underpinnings and proposed process. Furthermore, there is insufficient support and weak arguments in support of the objective that is proposed as well as the model developed. In the final part of the introduction the objectives proposed, originality and gap that would be better covered. Also how the author will perform the methodology.

 

the topic of this research study is interesting and fits within the journal scope, I think authors should apply the comments indicated to increase the quality of research justification, contributions and findings

What is the originality of this research?  Paper research gap and originality should be better presented at the end of introduction section

Please consider this structure for manuscript final part.

-Discussion

-Conclusion

-Managerial Implication

-Practical/Social Implications

-Discussion needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular, and help us see the relevance of what authors have proposed. Authors should create an independent “Discussion” section. Author need to contextualize the findings in the literature, and need to be explicit about the added value of your study towards that literature. Also other studies should be cited to increase the theoretical background of each of the method used. Findings should be contextualized in the literature and should be explicit about the added value of the study towards the literature. Limitations and future research

Questions to be answered:

What practical/professional and academic consequences will this study have for the future of scientific literature (theoretical contributions)?

Why is this study necessary? should make clear arguments to explain what is the originality and value of the proposed model. This should be stated in the final paragraphs of introduction and conclusion sections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations, your work is now much better. Before being published, I ask that you add more literature that supports the gap, the need for your study. And that you also better develop the part of your study's contribution to the existing literature.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

We have improved our literature to support the research gap and also developed a conceptual framework at the end of literature review to better guide and provide ease with clarity to the readers.