Impact of Green Work–Life Balance and Green Human Resource Management Practices on Corporate Sustainability Performance and Employee Retention: Mediation of Green Innovation and Organisational Culture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract is too long, more than 300 words. This is against the guidelines for authors. The aim of the scientific study, used material and methods should be in the abstract. I also recommend specifying the results of the study in the abstract.

Keywords should be sorted alphabetically.

 

In subsection 1.3, you set 3 research questions very appropriately and clearly. It is also necessary to answer them clearly and with justification. The same also applies to established hypotheses, I recommend making clear the answers to them (confirmation/rejection.)

 

I also appreciate the theoretical review of the literature, which provides a sufficient theoretical basis from current works, primarily from the scientific databases Web of Science and Scopus. However, I also lack a legislative perspective on the issue of HRM and especially the position of the manager in the organization as both an employee and an employer. Authors such as

Peráček T. & Kaššaj M. (2023). The influence of jurisprudence on the formation of relations between the manager and the limited liability company. Legal Tribune. 13 (1), pp. 43-62. doi:10.24818/TBJ/2023/13/1.04

 

Raguel, MM & Odeku, KO. (2023). Critical analysis of the failure of labor law to adequately protect atypical workers and its impact on human rights and fair labor practice. Juridical Tribune - Tribuna Juridica. 13(1), 63-81, doi:10.24818/TBJ/2023/13/1.05

 

Also pay attention to adjusting the methodology. The used scientific research methods, both quantitative and qualitative, must also be described, and partially characterized and justified for the importance of their use for individual parts of the study. However, do not forget the inherent need for such methods as analysis, synthesis, deduction, comparison, induction. It is necessary to state their meaning and use for individual parts of the manuscript. It is impossible to write a scientific article without them.

Author Response

The abstract is too long, more than 300 words. This is against the guidelines for authors. The aim of the scientific study, used material and methods should be in the abstract. I also recommend specifying the results of the study in the abstract.

Authors reply: thank for point out this issue now 209 words for abstract.  

Keywords should be sorted alphabetically.

Authors reply: as instruction key words sequence is changed.  

In subsection 1.3, you set 3 research questions very appropriately and clearly. It is also necessary to answer them clearly and with justification. The same also applies to established hypotheses, I recommend making clear the answers to them (confirmation/rejection.)

Authors reply: thank for point out this issue, in hypothesis section accepted and rejected hypothesis are highlighted.

I also appreciate the theoretical review of the literature, which provides a sufficient theoretical basis from current works, primarily from the scientific databases Web of Science and Scopus. However, I also lack a legislative perspective on the issue of HRM and especially the position of the manager in the organization as both an employee and an employer. Authors such as Peráček T. & Kaššaj M. (2023). The influence of jurisprudence on the formation of relations between the manager and the limited liability company. Legal Tribune. 13 (1), pp. 43-62. doi:10.24818/TBJ/2023/13/1.04

Authors reply: thank for point out this mistake, legislative perspective is added. 

Raguel, MM & Odeku, KO. (2023). Critical analysis of the failure of labor law to adequately protect atypical workers and its impact on human rights and fair labor practice. Juridical Tribune - Tribuna Juridica. 13(1), 63-81, doi:10.24818/TBJ/2023/13/1.05

Authors reply: thank for point out this mistake, legislative perspective is added 

Also pay attention to adjusting the methodology. The used scientific research methods, both quantitative and qualitative, must also be described, and partially characterized and justified for the importance of their use for individual parts of the study. However, do not forget the inherent need for such methods as analysis, synthesis, deduction, comparison, induction. It is necessary to state their meaning and use for individual parts of the manuscript. It is impossible to write a scientific article without them

Answer:  thanks for your time and efforts ,correction is done

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I had the pleasure of reviewing the manuscript titled “Synergizing the green work life balance and Sustainable Performance: Green HRM practices and employee retention with the mediating effects of green innovation and organizational culture” to be considered for publication in "Sustainability." The research seems sound and provides fairly interesting findings, yet it requires some substantial improvements. Specifics are below:

1- The title: The title is very long and does not clearly show the relationships between the study variables.

2.The abstract: The abstract is very long, and the objectives stated in it are not consistent with the relationships examined in the study. Please rephrase.

·       In line 24: The authors mentioned that "Research indicates", or should you say the results indicate

3- The introduction: The introduction needs some amendments.

·       In general, the introduction to the study is very long (about four pages), and it should follow the study model and in the same sequence.

·       In line 47: The sentence “At present, GHRM's efforts to foster employee retention and promote ecological sustainability are not receiving adequate attention,” what evidence is it based on?

·       There has been extensive talk about employee retention, although this is the introduction.

·       On line 57: See writing the reference.

·       Paragraph beginning with line 65: The concept of work-life balance (WLB) was discussed, and the concept of green work-life balance (WLB) was ignored.

·       The sentence in line 69 is incomprehensible. “Work-life balance (WLB) is an alternative term for this (Indu & Sinha, 2022)”, or rather the entire paragraph containing this sentence is unclear.

·       Why was a title allocated to the gap and problem of the study, the aim, and the research questions?

·       The research gap is a page and a half!!!

·       In general, the introduction must be summarized in the context of the study model sequence with a focused explanation of the research gap and objectives. The research questions can be deleted because hypotheses can replace them.

·       The authors stated that the study was taking place in a developing country!!!

 

 

 

 

 

4. Literature Review

·       From my point of view, the authors were not successful in using the two aforementioned theories to justify the relationships to be tested.

·       Title “2.3. Green HRM Practices and Employee Retention”: The focus should be on GRHM and not HRM in general. There are many studies that have studied the relationship directly... Please focus and summarize.

·       Title “2.5. Green Work Life Balance and Employee Retention”: It should focus on Green Work Life Balance... Please focus and summarize.

·       According to the study model, the title “2.6. Green Innovation and Green HRM Practices” should be rewritten as Green HRM Practices and Green Innovation, as well as the hypothesis.

·       When formulating section titles, authors should keep in mind the proposed study model and the direction of the arrows showing the direction of the relationships

·       In general, in the literature review section, the relationships studied exist and are directly proven by recent research. Therefore, it is desired or necessary to completely reformulate the introductory parts for the hypotheses so that they are focused and summarized.

·       The literature review and introduction are 15 pages!!!

4- Methodology: seem to be thorough. Yet, it can be improved by addressing some points:

·       Table 1 would preferably be replaced with a paragraph.

·       Paragraph “A sample size ranging from 201 to 300 is considered satisfactory, while one ranging from 301 to 500 is considered exceptional. A minimum sample size of 500 is considered to be exceptional. The study ascribed significance to the implementation of a sample size that surpassed 520. Only 472 of the 520 surveys that were intended for managers to respond to were received in return. Moreover, their exclusion from the analysis was due to insufficient data obtained from 22 questionnaires. As a result, the information presented in Table 1 is final Derived from 450 questionnaires." It is not understood and why is it under the title “Measures”?.

·       Please reformat the tables in the results section, there is missing data.

·       Please be brief in presenting the results in the tables... Please be focused and concise.

·       Why are the words in Table 4 all capital letters?

·       Explain how the research addressed Common Method Bias.

·       Figure on page 22: It has no title, is complex, and is difficult to read.

 

 

 

5- discussion: requires serious amendments as follow:

·       Despite the number of relationships present in the study, I did not find an in-depth discussion and comparison with previous studies.

·       In addition, I did not find a section dedicated to the theoretical and practical contributions of the study

Author Response

 

Reviewer 2

 

I had the pleasure of reviewing the manuscript titled “Synergizing the green work life balance and Sustainable Performance: Green HRM practices and employee retention with the mediating effects of green innovation and organizational culture” to be considered for publication in "Sustainability." The research seems sound and provides fairly interesting findings, yet it requires some substantial improvements. Specifics are below:

• The title: The title is very long and does not clearly show the relationships between the study variables
• Authoes reply : it is corrected as per instruction and now the title is “ Impact of Green work life balance and Green HRM practices on Sustainable Performance and employee retention  :mediation of green innovation and organizational culture” 

2.The abstract: The abstract is very long, and the objectives stated in it are not consistent with the relationships examined in the study. Please rephrase.

Authors reply: thank for point out this issue now 209 words of abstract.  

 

n line 24: The authors mentioned that "Research indicates", or should you say the results indicate

Authors reply: thanks for your time and efforts correction is done  and highlighted in abstract.

 

3- The introduction: The introduction needs some amendments.

• In general, the introduction to the study is very long (about four pages), and it should follow the study model and in the same sequence.

Answer:  thanks for your time and efforts ,correction is done .we short introduction part how much we can do. Moreover, remaining things are important so we take it as it is.

• In line 47: The sentence “At present, GHRM's efforts to foster employee retention and promote ecological sustainability are not receiving adequate attention,” what evidence is it based on?

Authors reply: thank for point out this issue, evidence is added.

• There has been extensive talk about employee retention, although this is the introduction.

Authors reply: thank for point out this issue discussion about employee retention is reduced now.

• On line 57: See writing the reference.

Authors reply: thank for point out this issue, reference added.

• Paragraph beginning with line 65: The concept of work-life balance (WLB) was discussed, and the concept of green work-life balance (WLB) was ignored.

Authors reply: thank for point out this issue,corrected and highlighted.

• The sentence in line 69 is incomprehensible. “Work-life balance (WLB) is an alternative term for this (Indu & Sinha, 2022)”, or rather the entire paragraph containing this sentence is unclear.

Authors reply: thank for point out this issue , Corrected and Highlighted.

• Why was a title allocated to the gap and problem of the study, the aim, and the research questions?

Authors reply: thank for point out this issue, required correction is done.

• The research gap is a page and a half!!!

Authors reply: thank for point out this issue, the research gap and problem length is reduced. The reason of this lengthy is gap but problem is also attached with gap that’s why.

• In general, the introduction must be summarized in the context of the study model sequence with a focused explanation of the research gap and objectives. The research questions can be deleted because hypotheses can replace them.

Authors reply: thanks for kind suggestion, questions are deleted.

• The authors stated that the study was taking place in a developing country!!!

Authors reply: thanks for point out this mistake,  UK manufacturing sector.

 

4. 4. Literature Review

• From my point of view, the authors were not successful in using the two aforementioned theories to justify the relationships to be tested.

Answer: AMO Theory represent the relationship between Green HRM practices and corporate sustainability performance however, Social exchange Theory represent the relationship between Green HRM practices and employee retention. So, we explain our study using two theories.

• Title “2.3. Green HRM Practices and Employee Retention”: The focus should be on GRHM and not HRM in general. There are many studies that have studied the relationship directly... Please focus and summarize.

Authors reply: thanks for point out this mistake corrected and highlighted.

• Title “2.5. Green Work Life Balance and Employee Retention”: It should focus on Green Work Life Balance... Please focus and summarize.

Authors reply: thanks for point out this mistake Corrected and Highlighted.

• According to the study model, the title “2.6. Green Innovation and Green HRM Practices” should be rewritten as Green HRM Practices and Green Innovation, as well as the hypothesis.

Authors reply: thanks for point out this mistake corrected and highlighted.

• When formulating section titles, authors should keep in mind the proposed study model and the direction of the arrows showing the direction of the relationships

Authors reply: thanks for point out this mistake, we adjust the variable with direction of arrows and highlighted.

• In general, in the literature review section, the relationships studied exist and are directly proven by recent research. Therefore, it is desired or necessary to completely reformulate the introductory parts for the hypotheses so that they are focused and summarized.The literature review and introduction are 15 pages!!!

Authors reply: there are 20 hypotheses, that is why 15 pages are there. We try to add minimum but summarised relationship between the variables.

4- Methodology: seem to be thorough. Yet, it can be improved by addressing some points:

• Table 1 would preferably be replaced with a paragraph.

Authors reply: paragraph is added but if we deleted table 1 the over all look of the paper is not remain appropriate.

• Paragraph “A sample size ranging from 201 to 300 is consiered satisfactory, while one ranging from 301 to 500 is considered exceptional. A minimum sample size of 500 is considered to be exceptional. The study ascribed significance to the implementation of a sample size that surpassed 520. Only 472 of the 520 surveys that were intended for managers to respond to were received in return. Moreover, their exclusion from the analysis was due to insufficient data obtained from 22 questionnaires. As a result, the information presented in Table 1 is final Derived from 450 questionnaires." It is not understood and why is it under the title “Measures”?

Authors reply:  thanks for point out this mistake, the above paragraph deleted

• Please reformat the tables in the results section, there is missing data.

Authors reply:  thanks for point out this mistake, missing data is added.

 

• Please be brief in presenting the results in the tables... Please be focused and concise.

Authors reply:  only brief information is added.

• Why are the words in Table 4 all capital letters?

Authors reply:  Small letter and abbreviation of  information is added.

• Explain how the research addressed Common Method Bias.

Authors reply:Common method bias

Single-source and single-time data may cause common method bias (CMB), which can create aberrant findings. This inquiry examined CMB using the following methods: 1) Multicollinearity. The 'variance inflation factor' (VIF) was first used to assess study construct multicollinearity. VIF values below 3.3 suggest no multicollinearity (Hair et al., 2021). Green HRM (1.62), work-life balance (1.98), sustainable performance (1.76), employee retention (1.02), innovation (1.85), and corporate culture (1.40) have VIF values below 3.3.

 

• Figure on page 22: It has no title, is complex, and is difficult to read.

 Authors reply: figure now clear we have increased the size of figure.

5- discussion: requires serious amendments as follow:

• Despite the number of relationships present in the study, I did not find an in-depth discussion and comparison with previous studies.

Authors reply: the supporting studies having similar results are added and highlighted. If discussion is more added its become mini thesis. More than 17000 words are there in the manuscript.

• In addition, I did not find a section dedicated to the theoretical and practical contributions of the study.

Authors reply: thanks to point out this issue. Theoretical and practice contribution is added.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript analyzed the correlation between sustainability performance and employee retention rates in the manufacturing sector of UK. Research has certain significance for synergizing the green work life balance and sustainable performance. However, there are still several comments for improvement. 

1.Provide full names for abbreviations that first appear, such as HRM, HR, AMO.

2.Section 1.3 raises 5 questions, Sections discussion and conclusion require answers to these 5 questions.

3.Lines 207, 262, 291, 316, etc. have inconsistent formats and should be aligned on both sides rather than dispersed.

4.There is an additional period after the last question mark in line 211.

5.On line 738, provide the name of the figure and provide an explanation.

6.Explanation of the investigation and selection of survey subjects.

7. Lien 841, t-value should b equal to or more than 1.96, not less than 1.96.

8.Table 5 is not displayed in its entirety on page 21.

9.Provide the name of the figure in line 895.

It is recommentd to resubmit the paper to other journal.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

This manuscript analyzed the correlation between sustainability performance and employee retention rates in the manufacturing sector of UK. Research has certain significance for synergizing the green work life balance and sustainable performance. However, there are still several comments for improvement. 

1.Provide full names for abbreviations that first appear, such as HRM, HR, AMO.

Answer: Authors reply:  thanks for point out this mistake, the above abbreviations are added

2. Section 1.3 raises 5 questions, Sections discussion and conclusion require answers to these 5 questions.

Answer: Authors reply:  thanks for point out this mistake answer of the questions are given.

3. Lines 207, 262, 291, 316, etc. have inconsistent formats and should be aligned on both sides rather than dispersed.

Authors reply:  thanks for your time and efforts, alignment of the above lines are now clear.

4. There is an additional period after the last question mark in line 211.

Authors reply:  thanks your time and efforts. As per other reviewer the question are deleted from the introduction section.

5. On line 738, provide the name of the figure and provide an explanation.
6. Authors reply: thanks your time and efforts. Figure 1 name is added.
7. Explanation of the investigation and selection of survey subjects.

Authors reply:  thanks your time and efforts, selection of survey of subject is added

7. Lien 841, t-value should b equal to or more than 1.96, not less than 1.96.

Authors reply:  thanks your time and efforts. Its standers or tum rule about the t value if t value is 1.96 or more than hypothesis accepted lower value represents the insignificant results.

8. Table 5 is not displayed in its entirety on page 21.

Authors reply:  thanks for point out this mistake, table 5 in text citation is added if we increased the size of the table on whole page 21 it looked like awkward

9. Provide the name of the figure in line 895.

Authors reply:  thanks for point out this mistake, name of the figure is added.

It is recommend to resubmit the paper to other journal.

Authors reply :  thanks for your time and efforts all the correction as per instruction has been done. The topic Synergizing the green work life balance and Sustainable Performance: Green HRM practices and  employee retention  with the mediating effects of green innovation and organizational culture. Fall in suitability journal. And especially this manuscript is  prepared to followed the guideline mention by the special  issue editors. We hope this revised version of paper will able to change your decision about the manuscript thank in advance

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

after a thorough review of the revised version of the manuscript, I conclude that you have comprehensively revised your manuscript in accordance with my recommendations. This brought the level of your manuscript to the required scientific level. Based on this finding, I am happy to recommend the publication of the manuscript in the form presented.

Reviewer

Author Response

Thank you and really appreaciated with your comment, we revised the manuscript again for the references to meet all requirement in MDPI for make this research better

 

Regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors make every effort to respond to comments.

Figure 2 is still complicated... and it can be replaced with the figure extracted from the statistical program

Author Response

thank you for your comment,

we are really appreciated, but in statistical program more complicated, we make that for easy read and more simple so we revised to make simple figure and use table for details

thank you

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank the authors for addressing all the comments for improvement. The authors should do a thorough proofreading of the entire manuscript before publication to avoid unnecessary wording and grammatical issues. 

Author Response

Thank you for comment,

 

We already do proofread and revised in second revision for fix the grammatical errors in this manuscript

 

thank you