Companies Could Benefit When They Focus on Employee Wellbeing and the Environment: A Systematic Review of Sustainable Human Resource Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The first, and main problem is not clear purpose of the article and, in connection with, it's title. In different parts of the manuscript different problems are exposed. The key category seems to be "wellbeing" and the best will be to limit the considerations to this concept only. "Environment" as a scientific category is described in very limited manner. It's difficut to understand what kind of connections are analysed: "sustainable practices and employee health", "sustainable practices and environment/pollution"?, "sustainable practices and employee satisfaction", what is mentioned in "Findings" etc. Moreover, the conclusion presented as "Originality": " Literature reveals the positive effect of sustainable and wellbeing practices
that engages employees to achieve a higher productivity" is not justified. The structure of the article is ordered in an unsatisfactory way, which reduces the level of its transparency and disturbs the logic of the arguments. The presented considerations concern the content known and well described in the literature. The chapter number five is incomprehensible. The content of chapter six also has no logical connection with the content of the article. The presented article is an attempt to systematically review the literature and should be considered only as such. The research category to which it actually refers remains a significant problem.

Author Response

We change the abstract and eliminate the word “productivity” due we want to focus the theme on sustainable practices and wellbeing. We change the introduction to explain the relation of SDGs with the sustainable practices and wellbeing and to create the first connection.

We change the chapter 5 and 6 to create a connection about the findings on the literature review.

We change the title.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The theme of the manuscript is very interesting, and seeks to highlight the existence of connections already made in the existing bibliography between environmental sustainability and social sustainability, and looking for direct implications of human resource management in companies in the well-being of employees, exploring direct and indirect effects of corporate practices on social sustainability, but also on the environment.

The theme is very interesting, however, it seems to us that the objectives turn out to be too vast to be presented in a coherent, logical and easily assimilated way for readers, who look in this text for clues to interconnect under the corporate and responsibility perspective corporate social sustainability and environmental sustainability.

Figure 4 is very interesting, and works as a theoretical model of analysis built from a theoretical problem that was based on the bibliographic references found in a specific index, SCOPUS. We believe that the results obtained using the indicated Boolean operators were scarce.

However, I would like the text to be clearer in the way sentences and paragraphs follow each other, which require a rereading and writing more in accordance with the English language. Literal translations of text sometimes do not work very well, and the use of commas can make the reading more complex than recommended for an easy assimilation of contents. Very long paragraphs don't work well.

The succession of SDGs presented, sometimes just by their number, makes reading confusing, although it is clear that an attempt is made to relate SDGs, which is very much in vogue in studies that refer to sustainability.

Starting with the title, words like «affect» should be avoided, and some contradictions end up being found, for example in the terminology «negative wellbeing». Well-being is positive, not negative. The idea is understood, but it should be conveyed more coherently.

Phrases like “Wellbeing in Sustainable HRM” can be confusing.

The revision of the manuscript must be carried out by a translator who is fluent in native English. A thorough revision of the manuscript must be carried out, in order to enhance results of the research.

The bibliography used can be expanded (there are only 21 bibliographical references), and it is strongly recommended to use references that are five years old or less.

Urkund analysis on plegiarism states 9% of similarity.

 

Author Response

We change the introduction and the findings to create a logical sequence, identifying all SDGS with their names and explaining their role in the paper.

We also change the word affect by influence, and in the paper, we describe how it could be a positive or negative influence bases on the sustainable practices.

We change the confusing paragraphs, and we send the paper to native editor.  

We change the title.

 

Also, we add all the references of the Appendix and created new references for the findings.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is on an interesting topic. However, I have some comments:

Avoid using keywords that are also found in the title of the paper.

There is no paragraph specifying the contribution of the authors.

The abstract should have a maximum of 200 words. It does not really describe the originality of the paper.

A “Summary of Findings'' would strengthen the paper as it would give a snapshot of what has been presented.

The paper should be better documented bibliographically.

Overall, it's not clear to me the benefit of this article. The authors should convince the readers of this journal, that their contribution is so important to the field.

Author Response

We change the keywords and abstract to the limit words of 200, we created an introduction for the findings and change the conclusion about the originality.

We change the title.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations on the improvements made on the manuscript. Much of the fragilities identified in previous review were now overcome by a more mature text and reference support.

Reviewer 3 Report

I am pleased with the revision.