Green Transformational Leadership, GHRM, and Proenvironmental Behavior: An Effectual Drive to Environmental Performances of Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author,
First of all, I am glad to have the opportunity to read the article entitled “Green Transformational Leadership, Green HRM and Pro Environmental Behavior: An effectual drive to Environmental Performance”, that I have read with great interest.
However, I have a main concern about the proposed and tested model.
1- Please mention the data analytics methods in the abstract
2- The research contribution needs more clarification at the end of the introduction section (please elaborate and discuss it in more depth) . you can read the below paper for more details.
Elshaer, I.A.; Abdelrahman, M.A.; Azazz, A.M.S.; Alrawad, M.; Fayyad, S. Environmental Transformational Leadership and Green Innovation in the Hotel Industry: Two Moderated Mediation Analyses. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16800. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416800
3- Please mention the authors names in the measurement section
4- Figure 4 is very vague, please edit it in Amos to be descent and apparent.
5- Table 4.2 need to be revised, its not correlation analysis only
6- According to the factor loadings in figure 4, I think you have issue in the composite reliability and in the average variance extracted values, please report all values of CR and AVE
See for example.
Elshaer, I.A. Dimensionality Analysis of Entrepreneurial Resilience amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparative Models with Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Mathematics 2022, 10, 2298. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10132298
7- In the mediation analysis mention the lower and upper limit
8- Please employ a native English speaker to proofread the manuscript.
Author Response
The file has been attached below. A point-by-point response to your comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
My major concern is about the mediation test. Mediation is a causal process and cannot be tested using cross-sectional data. To test mediation, authors need to collect longitudinal data are retest the mediation hypothesis. If authors can do it, I would be happy to reconsider the manuscript.
Author Response
The file has been attached below. A point-by-point response to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
It is a interesting topic to discuss the mediating role of pro-environmental behavior between green transformational Leadership, green HRM and environmental performance
1 The authors are suggested to redescribe the innovative points of the study. In the introduction, it is suggested that the authors explain more clearly the differences between the current study and previous studies, after all, the impact of Green HRM and Green Transformational Leadership on Pro Environmental Behavior and Environmental Performanc has been widely confirmed.
2 Green HRM and Environmental Performance are organization-level variables, and Green Transformational Leadership and Pro Environmental Behavior are individual-level concepts. The paper's model is more appropriate for a cross-level study.
3 In the measurement section , it is suggested to add operational definitions and item examples for each variable.
4 Are control variables taken into account in the survey and statistical analysis? For example, factors such as respondent gender, age, occupation, etc.?
5 In the statistical section, it is suggested to add a common method bias test and report the overall model fit of the structural equation model.
6 In the Discussion and Conclusion section, the authors need not to go through the literature on the model logical relationships again, but should focus on the differences with existing studies and the value of their findings.
Author Response
The file has been attached below. A point-by-point response to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
It is well structured manuscript. Specifically, the authors make a good effort to report the introduction, theories, and literature review at the first part.
[1] For SEM result, the authors should report the final figure. Table 4.4 and Table 4.5 showed the results; however, it should be shown with visible graph. I can see only the result figure of CFA. However, the major figure should be SEM instead of CFA. If should be, CFA should be optional but SEM should be mandatory to report.
[2] In the case of CFA, please explain why the authors make one CFA for four construct validities. The authors used the covariate connection across four construct validity so far. Please explain why it should be one construct validity check and why it should covariate across four latent factors. It was not explained in the theoretical part. Or, the authors can do four CFAs separately for four construct validities.
[3] For SEM result, there should be another model fitting information. The current results have only model fitting of CFA. However, the model fitting of CFA is different with SEM model fitting. Please show them.
Author Response
The file has been attached below. A point-by-point response to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review the paper.
I somewhat enjoyed reading the article entitled “Green Transformational Leadership, Green HRM and Pro-Environmental Behavior: An effectual drive to Environmental Performance”. I applaud for authors’ efforts. However, I have some serious considerations.
1. The English language needs corrections. There are many grammar and style mistakes. In addition, the text contains many repetitions.
2. I suggest that the title of the paper emphasizes the distinctive features of the study, i.e. small and medium-sized enterprises “Green Transformational Leadership, Green HRM and Pro-Environmental Behavior: An effectual drive to Environmental Performance of SME”.
3. Evaluating the abstract, I think we don’t need to write very precisely the number of questionnaires, especially distributed, but the authors should mention the more investigated environmental performance of the enterprises, just please add more “environmental performance of the firms”.
4. The hypotheses should describe more precisely what environmental performance will be analyzed. I suggest writing „environmental performance of the firms“ in all hypotheses.
5. Places where authors write previous studies (55-56, 65, 70, 88, 340 rows) should be detailed with specific references where it was analyzed – it is not enough to write “previous studies”.
6. The survey was carried out in Lahore, but nowhere in the article, it is said in what country the city is in. I would ask the authors to mention the country both in the abstract and in the article.
7. I didn‘t understand the sentence „The focus of the current study was to improve the environmental performance of SMEs of Lahore.” in 371 rows. How this research can improve firms’ environmental performance? The aim of this research was quite different and authors should not go away from it.
8. I didn‘t find the whole population of SMEs in Lahore, what enterprises are small and medium in Lahore. Is it enough to analyze 370 questionnaires and make reasonable conclusions – is it enough sample size for the research?
9. I suggest authors put the content of the questionnaire in the Annex after all article because it is important to compare the results, for future research, etc.
10. Figures and tables have no reference to resources. Authors should write after „authors‘ collaboration“ or „made by authors“, etc.
11. It is not explained the research methods (reliability analysis, correlation, confirmatory factor analysis, structure equation modelling, mediation analysis) in the methodology section.
12. Usually discussion and conclusion sections contain no references, except when comparing the results with previous research results. I see authors just repeating theoretical things in 13-14 pages in the discussion section. It is not needed to do this. I suggest analyzing the results, especially to emphasize the differences between the situation in SMEs and other companies, in Lahore and other cities, countries, and developed countries. If the same research was made somewhere else in big companies could be obtained different results? In addition, the authors mentioned „other industry, sector“ in 602 row. So the question arises what industry, or sector was analyzed in this research? Why it was not mentioned earlier?
13. After reading the article the question arises can we find somewhere controversial results of other investigations that the green behavior of leaders and employees makes a negative impact on the environmental performance of the firms? Is it a difference between big and small companies? in emerging and developed countries? Why do we need to research the impact of green HRM on firms‘ environmental performance? The answers to these questions couldn‘t be found in the article...
Thank you very much for possibility to read this interesting article!
Author Response
The file has been attached below. A point-by-point response to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
can accept in its current form
Best wishes
Author Response
”Thank you very much.”
Reviewer 2 Report
Best of luck!
Author Response
”Thank you very much.”
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors basically answered my concerns, and the quality of the manuscript has improved significantly.
1 Please check the accuracy of the path coefficients in the model diagram on page 13 of the manuscript. (PEB-EP?).
2 Please note the format of all tables and references.
3 The author is suggested to submit a revised manuscript with track changes.
Author Response
The full file has been sent to you and highlighted the changes that you recommend.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Please, correct the title "3.1 Deign, Sample, and Data collection".
Check using abbreviations, especially HRM. After the first mention of the term with abbreviations, further in the text authors can use only abbreviations. In the abstract, HRM was used without explaining what it is.
Author Response
title 3.1 has been correct and abbreviation of HRM are used.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
