Airport Service Providers in Support of SDGs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paper examines interesting topic  how an airport service provider in [country/anonymized], specializing in ground handling, operations, and passenger services, contributes to the Sustainable Development Goals. In this paper authors focus primarily to employees. The work fit the journal scope. The structure of the paper description should be added to the introduction part. After introduction, part which describes previous research is needed, to point out that topic such this is not sufficiently researched and from where the structure of the questionnaire should follow. Also, it is not clear why managers data is not collected by questionnaire, too, but by interviewing. Anyhow, similar questions in managers and employees should be statistically compared. The questions in the questionnaire should be given in table, together with literature sources from which each question is derived. Time framework for data collection should be also given in text, and if there were waves in data collection comparison between waves is also needed. Complete descriptive statistics should be given, not only average values. Depending on type of data and CVs appropriate test should be used - check please if it is the Pearson Chi-Square.  Beside Cronbach alpha, Spearman Brown test addition would be useful. On the basis of recommendations given above, discussion and conclusions should be tied. Also, there are few recent publications - within the last 5 years that could be added. The authors are asked to provide point-to-point answers to recommendations. The authors are asked to provide point-to-point answers to recommendations.

 

Author Response

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The structure of the paper description should be added to the introduction part.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing out this improvement. We have updated the manuscript by adding at the end of Chapter 1 an overview of the ensuing structure of the paper, to allow for a more fluid reading (page 2, lines 89 and following).

Comments 2: After introduction, part which describes previous research is needed, to point out that topic such this is not sufficiently researched and from where the structure of the questionnaire should follow.

Response 2: To match these expectations, we have expanded on these aspects in Appendix 1 and have added several relevant references to back the structure of the questionnaire. The sources are all included in the appendix and reflected in the list of references at the end of the paper (Appendix 1, as updated in the manuscript).   Comments 3: Also, it is not clear why managers data is not collected by questionnaire, too, but by interviewing. Response 3: The rationale for using the interviews is that we wanted to take advantage of the benefits offered by having several research methods. We employed a mixed-methods approach, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data collection techniques to gather comprehensive insights into the sustainability practices of the company. Also, considering that the number of managers is rather small for qualitative research, it appeared more practical to use the interviews. Another reason for using the interviews was to find out how the opinions of managers differ from those of the employees, as interviews allowed us to gather more in-depth insights.   Comments 4: Anyhow, similar questions in managers and employees should be statistically compared.   Response 4: While we agree with the approach as a matter of principle, we deem that statistically analysing the answers provided by the managers would not reveal any meaningful conclusions, because of the direction we took for the study and especially since the sample size is much too small.     Comments 5: The questions in the questionnaire should be given in table, together with literature sources from which each question is derived. Response 5: We have included in the manuscript Appendix 1, which provides the answers to the aspects raised above.   Comments 6: Time framework for data collection should be also given in text, and if there were waves in data collection comparison between waves is also needed. Response 6: We have updated the text in the manuscript to include at the start of the first paragraph of Chapter 3 the reference to the timeline of the data collection. Kindly note that there were no waves in data collection.   Comments 7: Complete descriptive statistics should be given, not only average values. Response 7: Having undertaken these tests, we concluded that there would be marginal added value from including the other analyses, which would bear no change to the conclusions -- hence the reason why we decided to use only the average in the paper.   Comments 8: Depending on type of data and CVs appropriate test should be used - check please if it is the Pearson Chi-Square. Response 8: Thank you, we double-checked and we deem this test is indeed the appropriate one in our context.   Comments 9: Beside Cronbach alpha, Spearman Brown test addition would be useful. Response 9: Many thanks for the idea. We used Cronbach Alpha, yet considering our questionnaire and that Spearman would be influenced by the number of items, in our specific case we trust that we should only keep Cronbach alpha.     Comments 10: On the basis of recommendations given above, discussion and conclusions should be tied. Response 10: Thank you once again for your time and for all your recommendations, which we found very pertinent. We have addressed all the aspects raised to the best of our capabilities and we trust you will be in agreement with the revised version of the paper and that you will find the updates satisfactory. For clarification and editorial purposes and to bring the paper in line with your recommendations as well as with the recommendations we received from the second reviewer, we have updated the manuscript and have resubmitted it today, 5 August 2024. You will note that we made several enhancements that would tie the text to a better flow considering the changes made. These improvements include, inter alia: streamlined the abstract on page 1; clarified the questionnaire and introduced a section with the structure of the paper on page 2; clarified that our study covers the employees’ awareness of the SDGs together with their perception of the effectiveness of the various measures that the airport service provider has undertaken in this regard and made a reference to Appendix 1, which contains the ESG variables, and that we mapped the questions around each of the three ESG dimensions also on page 2; clarified the selection of the eight SDGs on page 5; refined the results chapter on page 8; refined and clarified the findings from the interviews with the managers on page 9; clarified the methodology used for the data presented on Table 2 at page 10; edited the discussion on page 14 and the conclusions on page 15 to reflect the completeness of the information presented; added Appendix 1 that covers the ESG variables and includes the relevant references. All changes are marked in red in the resubmitted version of the manuscript. Some larger sections are marked all in red not because they are new, but because we edited them to reflect the changes made. We have not changed the structure or the conclusions of the analysis. Instead, we improved them based on your kind recommendations.   Comments 11: Also, there are a few recent publications - within the last 5 years that could be added. Response 11: Thank you, we appreciate your suggestion and have included several recent publications, which are reflected in Annex 1 as well as in the references section.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: N/A

Response 1: N/A

5. Additional clarifications

N/A

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors; Dear Editors

 I carefully read the paper “Airport service providers in support of SDGs”.  The objective of the paper is to examine how an airport service provider contributes to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, highlighting the Social dimension of sustainability. The practical relevance of the SDGs for companies and the role of companies’ human resources in achieving SDGs is increasingly been researched, and this article is one more effort in this area. This is an interesting task and this paper makes a good contribution for the literature in this area.

 The study utilizes qualitative questionnaires with employees and interviews with the management to identify the best practices and discuss the potentialities and limitations of the company strategy in terms of sustainability actions.

 As we said, it is a very interesting paper, with a good delimitation of the object of the study; with a clear structure, and competently written. The methodology is adequate to the problem that is posed and the results are relevant. The discussion of the results illuminates the purpose of the authors, and the conclusions retired from the research are perfectly explained.

So, we face a relevant academic paper, with a relevant thematic (actual and important, because employee engagement plays a crucial role in the successful implementation of Environmental, Social and Governance initiatives) and significant results that constitute good practical indications for the stakeholders involved in this problematic.

We highlight also the god integration in the literature. Bibliographical references are diverse and actual.

Summary: a good investigation, a good paper to be published.

 

Anyway, we make the following comments/ suggestions:

1) As the authors say in pg. 2, the practical relevance of the SDGs for companies and HRM is becoming increasingly clear and linking Human Resources to the SDGs is increasingly common in the business world. And they add that most studies examine management efforts to achieve SDGs, including in the area of human resources, and not the direct relationship between employees and the SDGs.

The previous presentation of the problem creates the expectation that the authors are going to work in the second direction. But, when we see what has been done, it is not clear if this is a new form of analyzing the problem, or if it mostly close to the usual studies that examine management efforts to achieve SDGs, asking the employees what they think about.  Clarify! There is no problem if it is the second alternative, of course. The researcher chooses his own way to attack the investigation, but we think that before presenting the Research questions (pg. 2, lines 82-85) you should CLARIFY this point.

Also, it seems that the discussion that was made (see pg. 11-12) does not “highlight” sufficiently the social dimension. Can you elaborate on this?

 

2) In the end of pg. 4, the authors say that they focused on eight SDGs but they don´t explain the reasons of this choice. For example: The authors did not choose SDG 11 related to cities, but it seems to us that this is not understandable if we think about the importance of airports for developing sustainable cities, creating a good network between regions, and facilitating good life standards for the populations in general and for the airports’ employees in particular. Why not choosing this?

It seems that an explanation of the reasons to choose those eight SDGs is necessary…

 

3) In the page 5, line 216-217, the authors say that we must acknowledge that some measures depend directly on government action. Yet this aspect is not covered in the study. Of course, the authors have the right to make the delimitation of the object of the study, but can they elaborate a little more about this and about the limitations that this option can introduce in such an investigation?

 

4) In the page 9 the authors present a table of employee survey interpretation. This table finalizes with a section of “Perception of Tangible Results in Sustainability”. For a common reader it will be difficult to understand where those values come from. The methodology is clear but, in this point, nothing is explained. It seems necessary to clarify the methods used.

 

5) We said that the bibliography is very good. But there is a problem: the presentation of the references is made in accordance with the sequential numbers that they are introduced in the text. But, for every reference there is an initial number and, in the final of the reference presentation, the authors introduce another number (sometimes the same as the initial, sometimes different). This is very confusing for the reader. Simplify and clarify!

 

6) Only a note about a simple writing-error: Pg7, lines 318, 322, substitute mangers for managers.

 

Congratulations.

Best regards.

 

Author Response

Comments 1: As the authors say in pg. 2, the practical relevance of the SDGs for companies and HRM is becoming increasingly clear and linking Human Resources to the SDGs is increasingly common in the business world. And they add that most studies examine management efforts to achieve SDGs, including in the area of human resources, and not the direct relationship between employees and the SDGs. The previous presentation of the problem creates the expectation that the authors are going to work in the second direction. But, when we see what has been done, it is not clear if this is a new form of analyzing the problem, or if it mostly close to the usual studies that examine management efforts to achieve SDGs, asking the employees what they think about. Clarify! There is no problem if it is the second alternative, of course. The researcher chooses his own way to attack the investigation, but we think that before presenting the Research questions (pg. 2, lines 82-85) you should CLARIFY this point.

Response 1: Thank you for the positive remarks. We have clarified the scope of the study at page 2 lines 81 and following by stressing the fact that our study covers the employees’ awareness of the SDGs together with their perception of the effectiveness of the various measures that the airport service provider has undertaken in this regard. Furthermore, we made a reference to Appendix 1, which contains the ESG variables, and that we mapped the questions around each of the three ESG dimensions. We added a reference to the Annex 1 under the Materials and Methods chapter, too (lines 119-121) and updated the text in the manuscript.

Comments 2: In the end of pg. 4, the authors say that they focused on eight SDGs but they don´t explain the reasons of this choice. For example: The authors did not choose SDG 11 related to cities, but it seems to us that this is not understandable if we think about the importance of airports for developing sustainable cities, creating a good network between regions, and facilitating good life standards for the populations in general and for the airports’ employees in particular. Why not choosing this?

It seems that an explanation of the reasons to choose those eight SDGs is necessary…

Response 2: We completely agree that an explanation of how we decided upon the eight SDGs would be beneficial and provide context to the reader. We incorporated references to a couple of airport annual reports that specifically mention the eight SDGs, while stressing that the business of the airport service provider is yet different from that of the airport operator. Therefore, not all SDGs that apply to the airport operator would apply to the airport service provider. This is also why we decided not to use SDG 11. We completely agree that airports are important gateways to the city that drive direct, indirect, induced, and catalytic economic benefits of high order to the city and between regions thanks to the route network they enable. However, our study is about airport service providers, which are a sub-system of the airport ecosystem of stakeholders. As such, the airport service provider fulfils a function that supports the airport per se, without itself being the main driver of the development. Also, we completely concur with you that a rationale for selecting the eight SDGs would be quite helpful for a better understanding of the line of thought we have adopted in this study, and have provided the additional context on page 5, line 207 and following. The updated manuscript reflects the additional elements for a thorough explanation of the selection we decided for.   Comments 3: In the page 5, line 216-217, the authors say that we must acknowledge that some measures depend directly on government action. Yet this aspect is not covered in the study. Of course, the authors have the right to make the delimitation of the object of the study, but can they elaborate a little more about this and about the limitations that this option can introduce in such an investigation? Response 3: We added more contextual information to address the comment raised, noting as indicated some of the limitations that should be taken into consideration, to offer a rounded perspective regarding governance, the relationships with the country GDP, and what a government action may look like (page 6).   Comments 4: In the page 9 the authors present a table of employee survey interpretation. This table finalizes with a section of “Perception of Tangible Results in Sustainability”. For a common reader it will be difficult to understand where those values come from. The methodology is clear but, in this point, nothing is explained. It seems necessary to clarify the methods used. Response 4: Thank you for pointing out this matter that we completely agree with you that would help the reader better understand the table and the analysis. To evaluate the extent to which employees are aware of the goals proposed by the SDGs (RQ1) and to understand how they perceive the company's efforts toward these goals (RQ2), we used the average scores extracted from the survey responses. The data was processed from the  table containing employees' answers to various relevant questions for the SDGs. We extracted data from the mentioned table, which contained individual employee responses to the survey questions. Each question had a set of answers on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The responses were organized in a tabular format, with each row representing an individual respondent and each column representing a survey question. For each question, all individual responses were summed. This provided the total score for each question across all respondents. The total score for each question was then divided by the number of respondents who answered that question. This step provided the mean (average) score for each survey question. By calculating the average scores of responses to relevant questions, we obtained a clear picture of the level of awareness and perception of employees regarding company’s efforts towards the SDGs. The average scores obtained were used to evaluate the level of awareness and the perception of employees regarding the company's efforts toward sustainability. We have updated the text accordingly in the latest version of the manuscript that we are hereby resubmitting.   Comments 5: We said that the bibliography is very good. But there is a problem: the presentation of the references is made in accordance with the sequential numbers that they are introduced in the text. But, for every reference there is an initial number and, in the final of the reference presentation, the authors introduce another number (sometimes the same as the initial, sometimes different). This is very confusing for the reader. Simplify and clarify! Response 5: Thank you for your comment and the recommendation. We have updated all references and renumbered the relevant ones to streamline the bibliography and to clarify the references.   Comments 6: Only a note about a simple writing error: Pg7, lines 318, 322, substitute mangers for managers. Response 6: Thank you for noticing this typo. We corrected it in two places, under 3.1.1 paragraphs 1 and 2.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: N/A

Response 1: N/A

5. Additional clarifications

Thank you once again for your time and for all your recommendations, which we found very pertinent. We have addressed all the aspects raised to the best of our capabilities and we trust you will be in agreement with the revised version of the paper and that you will find the updates satisfactory. For clarification and editorial purposes and to bring the paper in line with your recommendations as well as with the recommendations we received from the second reviewer, we have updated the manuscript and have resubmitted it today, 5 August 2024. You will note that we made several enhancements that would tie the text to a better flow considering the changes made. These improvements include, inter alia: streamlined the abstract on page 1; clarified the questionnaire and introduced a section with the structure of the paper on page 2; clarified that our study covers the employees’ awareness of the SDGs together with their perception of the effectiveness of the various measures that the airport service provider has undertaken in this regard and made a reference to Appendix 1, which contains the ESG variables, and that we mapped the questions around each of the three ESG dimensions also on page 2; clarified the selection of the eight SDGs on page 5; refined the results chapter on page 8; refined and clarified the findings from the interviews with the managers on page 9; clarified the methodology used for the data presented on Table 2 at page 10; edited the discussion on page 14 and the conclusions on page 15 to reflect the completeness of the information presented; added Appendix 1 that covers the ESG variables and includes the relevant references. All changes are marked in red in the resubmitted version of the manuscript. Some larger sections are marked all in red not because they are new, but because we edited them to reflect the changes made. We have not changed the structure or the conclusions of the analysis. Instead, we improved them based on your kind recommendations.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have provided point-to-point answers to given recommendations. This version of the paper is much better and could be accepted.