Employee Readiness for GHRM and Its Individual Antecedents: Instrumental and Change-Based Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

·         The abstract is too long. Also, the software used for data analysis and to which industry the sampled respondents belong to are not stated

·         The contribution of the study is not well explained. What was the lack in the past research?

·         The study appears to be straightforward, and it is challenging to discern the unique and challenging issues that the paper seeks to address. Additionally, the study lacks interesting results that could enrich our current understanding in this area.

·         Introduction section requires some improvement. To arrange this section in more meaningful way, please follow below sequence strictly: background of the study, rationale / motivation of the study, research gap / tension, theoretical link among the main concepts, usefulness of the study, and implications of the study.

·         Literature review section is not critical and looks like a summary of each article independently instead of synthesis.

·         Methodology section: the justification for using convenience sampling should be stated.

·         Methodology section should also describe the name of statistical methodology. Which software was used for analyzing the data? Please state and justify why / how this technique is suitable in your research?

·         Common method bias is not addressed in the paper.

·         The findings presented in the manuscript seem to be straightforward and non-critical, failing to offer any ground breaking discoveries or novel perspectives

·         In general, it is not possible to understand the reason for the research's originality. Why is the research original and what is the research adding to the whole theoretical scenario? It is necessary to focus much more on the discussion of the results, even highlighting clearly if this research is bringing something new in the theoretical scenario or if the applied methodology is giving more information with respect to the other research. Looking at the paragraph of discussion and conclusions, it is possible to read that the paper discovered what other authors presented some years ago. It could be useful to explain why this phenomenon is verified and which are the limits in their verification.

·         Theoretical and practical implications should be separated in the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language requires minor editing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In terms of form, the article is well documented, well-structured and pleasant to read. The 7 parts make for easy reading and give the work a very dynamic feel. It is based on a wide range of recent scientific literature. The subject seems very interesting, as it tackles the theme of Green Human Resource Management (GHRM), focusing specifically on measuring employee readiness to implement this concept in business practice.

Here are some potential criticisms of this article:

-       Firstly, it would have been interesting to address Corporate Social Responsibility, the notion of employer branding and bottom-up management in the theoretical framework, and to make the links with green HRM and change management.

-       In addition, the use of an inductive approach and the subjective nature of respondents' assessments raise questions about the robustness of the study's conclusions. It might be useful to specify in the discussion the need for further analysis to establish clear causal links between the variables studied.

-       With regard to methodology, unless I'm mistaken, we have no information on convenience sampling. Also, the authors give no guarantee of confidentiality. What were the guarantees? The sample of participants seems heterogeneous. Were socio-demographic and socio-organizational variables controlled for? Could they influence the results, particularly in terms of readiness for change? Or the other variables studied in the article?

-       The authors indicate that cronbach's alphas are significant at .70 and above. What about cronbach alphas above .90? McIver and Carmines (1981) point out that a score that is too high (over .90, for example) demonstrates a certain redundancy in the items and may suggest that the scale items in question measure a very (too) restricted aspect of the concept studied (Vallerand, 1989).

-       The scope of the study is limited to a single country and a specific socio-cultural context. It seems essential to make this clear in the discussion, and to open up a reflection on the limits of research on a single sector and a single culture (external validity).

-       A more in-depth explanation of the variance in employees' preparation for GHRM could strengthen the credibility of the study's conclusions. Indeed, organizational and individual factors could influence this preparation, enabling a better understanding and interpretation.

-       The authors could propose further lines of research based on the limitations identified in the study. What research questions remain to be explored? What methodologies could be used to deepen our understanding of employee readiness for GHRM?

-       The practical implications of the study's findings for human resources practitioners and organizational managers are not sufficiently addressed. How could the results be used to improve human resources management practices and promote sustainable development in companies? How can changes in practice be sustained? How can we facilitate unlearning? How can we anticipate resistance to change?

The manuscript as a whole demonstrates a captivating and innovative piece of research. The reflection undertaken is likely to be of interest to both the research community and HR managers and administrators. In considering these criticisms, it is important to acknowledge the article's contributions while highlighting areas where improvements could be made in a second version. These criticisms therefore aim to provide perspectives for improving the study's rigor and relevance to the field of GHRM research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The problem of Green Human Resource Management is an actual topic and the authors focus on the GHRM in the context of employee readiness. However, there are several inconsistencies and shortcomings that the authors must take into account:

-The research gap should be clarified by the authors to support the originality and significance of the study.

- The labelling of the part "assessment respondents' readiness for GHRM practices" is confusing as when we are talking about green practises implemented in HR processes, we can measure the degree of their implementation in the organization. It is not clear how was the readiness for GHRM practices measured. What is the target state of the employee readiness for GHRM practices? What type of model was used for assessment? It makes sense to examine the alignment between the organization's green goals, values reflected in HR practices and personal environmental norms, etc. but the assessment of "respondents' readiness for GHRM practices" that is indicated in the paper is not clear.

- The ADKAR model is a change management model and it is not clear from the paper how was the readiness for GHRM according to the ADKAR Model measured. 

- the respondents are employees of various organizations and these organizations have different approaches in terms of GHRM (own goals, strategies and practices in the field of GHRM) therefore it is not clear why the research model was designed to measure employee readiness.

There are many existing approaches and models put together in this study and many hypotheses were tested, but the dependent variables are questionable in terms of analysing employee readiness (especially those mentioned above).

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article identifies and evaluates the formation of employees' readiness for implementing Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) concepts through instrumental and change-based approaches. It has theoretical significance and value and can provide useful insights for business development. However, I still have the following suggestions, and I recommend acceptance only after the authors address them. 

(1) The introduction needs to clearly outline the novelty and contribution of the study, which is currently lacking in the current version and may not sufficiently engage the readers.

(2) While the literature review is comprehensive, we suggest incorporating some industry-specific employment analyses to enhance its illustrative nature. For example, references like Zhan et al.'s "The optimal capacity decision of the catering merchant in omnichannel - service, production, and delivery capacity" provide insights into employment in the catering industry. Additionally, Yang et al.'s "Interregional migration of construction workers in China: roles of employment opportunities and environmental amenities" explores employment in the construction industry. These references could better highlight employment dynamics in specific industries.I suggest quoting these.

(3) The application of the synthetic measures approach on lines 645-646 is not clearly explained, leading to confusion. Please provide a clearer explanation of why and how this approach was adopted, as well as the results obtained from its application.

(4) It would be beneficial to include tables in Section 6.1 to illustrate the differences between your research and existing studies.

(5) Section 6.2 could benefit from using practical case studies to demonstrate the significance of the research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English expression is more clear.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has revised the comments I made, and I propose to accept this version.