Green HRM Practices and Knowledge Sharing Improve Environmental Performance by Raising Employee Commitment to the Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript discusses the findings of an empirical study in Universities related to environmental practices with a human-resource management framework. Some interesting implications for both academics and practitioners are presented. I believe that - after a thorough revision - this research is worth publishing in Sustainability journal. My recommendations for improvement follow.

The authors draw on the Ability-Motivation-Opportunity (AMO) theory to capture the concepts and meanings used in their study. However, this theory is broadly used in HRM literature when addressing high-performance work systems. This should be mentioned in the manuscript in relation with the developed relationships, particularly because the authors claim an enhancement of performance based on human resource management practices.

The following research work could be included:

Molina-Azorin, José F., Maria D. López-Gamero, Juan José Tarí, Jorge Pereira-Moliner, and Eva M. Pertusa-Ortega. 2021. Environmental Management, Human Resource Management and Green Human Resource Management: A Literature Review. Administrative Sciences 11: 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11020048

In subsection 4.3 the authors state that “The hypotheses were tested using Haye's process model 7 in SPSS”. This should be explained. In other words, the authors need to be more specific, since Hays process macro SPSS Model 7 tests moderated mediation.

Also, in subsection 3.1 (lines 300-302) the authors use a SmartPLS criterion for the data collection. However, SmartPLS is a structural equation modeling software that is not used in this study. Why do the authors use this criterion? The authors are kindly asked to justify their argumentation.

Also in the same paragraph (lines 296-298), the authors stress that “UI-Green Metric ranked universities were chosen because those concerned about the environment [86] have well-organized HR systems [117] and are governed by government regulations [118].” The text is at some degree understandable, yet it should be revised to increase comprehension.

In subsection 3.2 (lines 317-318) the authors state that “Green Knowledge Sharing. [120]'s GKS scale, a five-item measure (α=), was adapted. This adapted scale was modified by [121].”

However, the respective references do not relate this way. More specifically, in lines 842-845 the references numbered 120 and 121 are:

120. Chennamaneni, A. Determinants of Knowledge Sharing Behaviors: Development and Testing an Integrated Theoretical Model. Univ Texas Arlingt 2006, 1–132.

121. Rubel, M.R.B.; Kee, D.M.H.; Rimi, N.N. The Influence of Green HRM Practices on Green Service Behaviors: The Mediating Effect of Green Knowledge Sharing. Empl Relations 2020, 43, 996–1015, doi:10.1108/ER-04-2020-0163.

After taking a look at the above references it is noticed that Rubel et al. (2020) referenced Wong (2013) for their scale while Wong referenced Lin (2007). Although relevant, Chennamaneni's work is not referenced by neither Rubel et al. (2020), Wong (2013) nor Lin (2007).

Wong, S.K.S. (2013), “Environmental requirements, knowledge sharing and green innovation: empirical evidence from the electronics industry in China”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 321-338.

Lin HF. 2007. Knowledge sharing andfirm innovation capability: an empirical study.International Journal of Manpower28(3/4): 315–332.

Furthermore, it is suggested that Ref. No. 120 of Chennamaneni (2006) be replaced or complemented by the following Ref.:

Anitha Chennamaneni, James T.C. Teng & M.K. Raja (2012) A unified model of knowledge sharing behaviours: theoretical development and empirical test, Behaviour & Information Technology, 31:11, 1097-1115, DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2011.624637

Some editing remarks follow:

In line 65: “… due to an EP…”: remove the “an”

In line 68: the text “such as ISO-14001 certification”  should be rephrased (reviewer’s suggestion: replace by: "e.g. according to the ISO 14001 standard")

In lines 79-80: The phrase “is very lacking” should be revised (probably to “is limited”).

In lines 88-89: There is the text: “Employees’ environmental commitment is affected by Green HRM to accomplish the aim of EP.” Is this an authors' claim or a literature finding? This should be clarified and justified accordingly.

In lines 101-104: The text “The research has a significant space about how GKS influences the relationship between Green HRM and EEC, which leads to EP. This research is also the prime goal, providing great insights into environmental knowledge.” needs revision.

In line 186: “challenging challenges” should be corrected.

In line 220 “These” should be explained.

In Table 4 – model 2:

EEC à EP

0.64**]

The bracket should be removed.

Figure 1 should be mentioned somewhere in the text.

In subsection 4.3.3 (lines 391-392): some symbols should be corrected.

In the Discussion section (line 417): “to keep an EP alive” What does this mean?

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Relevant revisions are also highlighted in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

First of all, I want to express my interest in such a relevant topic. I appreciate the effort made to cover this broad topic and provide an effective overview. since the targeted organizations - that is universities - are not so common to be discussed in the literature, I think it could improve the quality and the understanding of the paper if the authors could include more specific detailed study about GHRM in universities.

Based on the number of hypotheses tested in this research, it could be helpful if the authors provide before the methodological section an overall synthetic discussion about the model tested, to help readers to have an integrated comprehension of the factors and variables considered.

Considering the measurements section, I suggest providing a synthetic explanation of why those specific scales were chosen.

Finally, since the newness of the topic and its increasing recognition, I think that the discussion section could be improved and expanded.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Relevant revisions are also highlighted in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf