Green Core Competencies, Green Process Innovation, and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Sustainability Consciousness, a Mixed Method Study on Golf Hotels

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Recently, there have been global discussions on carbon neutrality. Many hypotheses and interpretations have been proposed, and a well-structured research model has been established to promote sustainable innovation and guide efforts from a business and industry perspective. However, there are some logical and validity issues that need to be addressed.

 

1.   Introduction: The study's introduction is excessively long and contains information that is not directly relevant to the topic. The lack of paragraph breaks makes it difficult to distinguish between the research background, research necessity, research differentiation, and research purpose. It is unclear from which perspective prior research on Green Core Competencies and Green Process Innovation for golf resorts has been conducted. Additionally, the background of setting Sustainability Consciousness is not clearly explained.

 

2.   I am not sure why [Table 1 summarizes some of the related studies conducted in the literature on a similar axis] is in the introduction, rather than the theoretical background. To investigate the flow of relevant preceding research in the introduction, you should not include the details of each preceding study, but rather specify them in the context of the direction and phenomenon related to the research topic.

 

3.   [2.1. Theoretical Framework] Divide paragraphs according to context, just like the introduction. There is a lack of consideration for the readers throughout the study. Although this study is a green innovation for golf hotels, there is no mention of "hotel" or "golf" in the theoretical background. Content sufficiently related to the theoretical background should be mentioned in consideration of the characteristics of golf hotels, the specificity of management/operation, and the market-oriented direction.

 

4.   The TF-IDF methodology should be able to identify the connectivity, medium, and centrality of keywords in a holistic manner. The author overlooks this point and merely suggests [Figure 6. Annotated Corpus Map]. However, this figure does not effectively convey the network relationship between keywords. Additionally, there is a lack of explanation regarding the visualization. It is unclear what the blue points in the image represent and how they constitute an area.

 

 

5.     The section from "6. Implications" to "8. Conclusion and Discussion" could benefit from improved organization and conciseness. To enhance readability and clarity, it would be advisable to integrate the main points and implications from both sections into a single, cohesive segment. This would allow readers to grasp the key findings and their significance more efficiently.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No big problem.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We would like to thank you very much for your interest in our research and for all your constructive comments. Thanks to your comments, we had the chance to see the deficiencies of our article and we have revised it as much as possible in line with your comments. We believe that the study will contribute to the literature and its readers in this form.

We have expressed the changes we have made in line with your suggestions as follows:

Yellow : Revised and abbreviated

Blue: New additions to the study

Red (crossed out): Deleted chapters

"Please see the attachment."

Best Regards!

Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is belongs to a review paper and the topic title of this paper is so interesting for readers. The cited references are also suitable and complete. However, the page numbers are too long and authors should shorten page number. This paper has a good writing and a reference value . Therefore, I recommend that this paper can be accepted for publication in Sustainability after minor revision. 

This article is to determine the effects of green core competencies, green process innovation and firm performance variables on each other and to examine the moderating role of sustainability consciousness on these effects. Why did authors select a survey and a semi-structured interview as data collection methods? Does it have other methods? The AMOS was preferred to test the hypothetical model and Hayes Process macro was preferred to determine the moderating effect. The data of interview forms were analyzed with the Bag of Word model. What reason did you test and analyze using the hypothetical model and Hayes Process macro,  Bag of Word model? The authors pointed out that green core competencies positively affect green process innovation and green process innovation positively affects firm performance. How did you define the "positively affect"? Please explain it clearly. This paper belongs to a review paper and the topic title of this paper is so interesting for readers. The cited references are also suitable and complete. However, the page numbers are too long and authors should shorten page numbers. All data were expressed via Tables because too Tables were found in this paper. I think that Figures are better than Tables. I recommend that this paper can be accepted for publication in Sustainability after minor revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We would like to thank you very much for your interest in our research and for all your constructive comments. Thanks to your comments, we had the chance to see the deficiencies of our article and we have revised it as much as possible in line with your comments. We believe that the study will contribute to the literature and its readers in this form.

We have expressed the changes we have made in line with your suggestions as follows:

Yellow : Revised and abbreviated

Blue: New additions to the study

Red (crossed out): Deleted chapters

"Please see the attachment."

Best Regards!

Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has a high potential to be accepted due to an interesting area of research and exploration but it requires substantial additional work and imporovments directed to improvements of paper structure, presentation, consistency. The major revision should include a more clear presentation of the aim and objectives and/or the research questions. Hypothesis are defined based on critical analysing the literature. The literature review section should be better structured and explaining the identified gaps leading at hypothesis defintion.  The research model based on hypothesis testing is incomplete and should include the situation of rejection of hypothesis. The title of the paper is too long and repetitive. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The use of Academic English should be improved

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We would like to thank you very much for your interest in our research and for all your constructive comments. Thanks to your comments, we had the chance to see the deficiencies of our article and we have revised it as much as possible in line with your comments. We believe that the study will contribute to the literature and its readers in this form.

We have expressed the changes we have made in line with your suggestions as follows:

Yellow : Revised and abbreviated

Blue: New additions to the study

Red (crossed out): Deleted chapters

 "Please see the attachment."

Best Regards!

Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Explain the use and process of research methodology in detail, stating your research purpose in the introduction.

 

2. The paragraphs in the theoretical background are too fragmented. There is a need for consolidation in context.

 

3. The images is still a bit blurry, and both sides are cut off. Take care of the editing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
I would like to express my gratitude for your positive comments and assessment of our topic. Your comments and suggestions have been invaluable in helping us to further improve our paper. All changes have been highlighted in yellow (revised). All of the figures you mentioned have been reorganized more clearly. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx