Sustainable HRM as a Pathway to Sustainability—HRMS Relevance on Affective Commitment through Organizational Trust
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors ,
Thanks you for submitting the manuscript.
The manuscript is interesting and focuses on the issue of trust. In my opinion, it is within the scope of “Sustainability”.
Paper is logically structured and all chapters have corresponding order. Results are clearly presented and the conclusion section is supported by the content.
However, in my opinion, there are some shortcomings that needs to be addressed:
- It is necessary to clearly identify the research gap. In order to justify the analysis, it is necessary to underline the problem, and to indicate how much it has already been covered in the literature and what is the novelty of this study.
- In this manuscript it seems necessary to expand the review of literature. Further analysis will increase the scientific impact of the paper. The development of hypotheses requires a thorough analysis of the presented concepts. It should also be pointed out why we adopt such a hypothesis - by referring to logical and rational grounds in the field of literature.
- In my view, it is important to show the sampling logic.
How were the organizations selected? What was the criterion? Why were these sectors selected? What is a sample frame?
- There are minor editing errors in the work - e.g. line 374 - in brackets instead of the number according to the “Sustanability” convention the author and the year of issue are indicated.
- An analysis of reliability is not sufficient. Cronbach’s Alpha itself is an incomplete measure of scale. A CR and AVe analysis is necessary.
It is best to follow the procedure described by:
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
- Briefly describe the procedure for data analysis - refer to the relevant source.
- A serious objection to this manuscript is the lack of reference to the concept of sustainable development. Despite the title and the abstract, the relationships of the sustainability variables under consideration are not mentioned. The paper should mention how sustainability is related to research topics.
- It is necessary to refer to more recent literature references in the work. Some of the bibliography in the paper is outdated
- Finally, there are no conclusions in the article, and the limitations are described quite to the marginal extent.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewer 1,
I am pleased to resubmit for publication the revised version of the paper.
Thank you for your comments. I have addressed each of one as outlined below and thank you for your detailed revisions.
In attachment i send you the file, if you prefer to read on an attached document.
Thank very much.
Point 1: It is necessary to clearly identify the research gap. In order to justify the analysis, it is necessary to underline the problem, and to indicate how much it has already been covered in the literature and what is the novelty of this study.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment on this. We have highlighted and made a more stronger argument on underlining the problem, enhancing the covering on the more recent literature and increasing the novelty of this study. These changes are on the abstract, line 21-23, in the introduction, 79-84, conceptual review, line 130-135 and 147-154, 166-176,218-220.
Point 2: In this manuscript it seems necessary to expand the review of literature. Further analysis will increase the scientific impact of the paper. The development of hypotheses requires a thorough analysis of the presented concepts. It should also be pointed out why we adopt such a hypothesis - by referring to logical and rational grounds in the field of literature.
Response 2: We ´ve made an effort to enhance recent literature on all concepts, that support our hypothesis. We added several new references that enhance and support the proposed hypothesis, please consult line 57,61,66,67,70,79-84, 93-106,113,118,119,120,125,128,131,132,134,13514-154,165,168-170,172-176, 178,182,186,207,218-220,222, 234-236.
Point 3: In my view, it is important to show the sampling logic.
How were the organizations selected? What was the criterion? Why were these sectors selected? What is a sample frame?
Response 3: Dear reviewer please consult line 298-301 and 306-319.
Point 4. There are minor editing errors in the work - e.g. line 374 - in brackets instead of the number according to the “Sustanability” convention the author and the year of issue are indicated.
Response 4: Thank you very much. It was all corrected.
Point 5. An analysis of reliability is not sufficient. Cronbach’s Alpha itself is an incomplete measure of scale. A CR and AVe analysis is necessary.
It is best to follow the procedure described by:
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Response 5: Thank you very much for you. We added these authors statistic procedures. Please consult line 379-387. We would also like to refer that we did not only conducted a analysis of reliability through Cronbach’s Alpha. If you could be so kind to read from line 379 – 438, the PCA also contributes itself to the obtained result and the reliability, consistency and validity of the measures. Cluster analysis and all the mediation and moderation testes also contributed to the reliability of the measures that showed a good statistical performance. If you could read also 612-642 we have also additional measures to test the construct validity in which we then developed the following procedures and analysis, that you an follow thoroughly on line 439-490. If, nevertheless, after reading this, if you still consider there is the need to additional statistical analysis with some additional time we can also perform them.
Point 6. Briefly describe the procedure for data analysis - refer to the relevant source.
Response 5: Please be so kind to take a look at line 374-523 for data analysis. Does this addresses your question?
Point 7. A serious objection to this manuscript is the lack of reference to the concept of sustainable development. Despite the title and the abstract, the relationships of the sustainability variables under consideration are not mentioned. The paper should mention how sustainability is related to research topics.
Response 5: Thank you very much for your argument. Sustainable development was conceptually developed through a new emergent dimension that is called sustainable HRM, that we consider that is the most relevant dimension of sustainable development that really adds to this paper. We introduced a new section on the conceptual review named sustainable HRM and deeply integrated sustainable HRM throughout our paper. Please be so kind to look at 2-4,20-23,54-5779-84. The new section is on 91-106 and a very relevant focus on conclusion, 939-962.
Point 8. It is necessary to refer to more recent literature references in the work. Some of the bibliography in the paper is outdated
Yes, thank you.We did this review all over the paper. Please take a look at 57,61,66,67,70,79-84, 93-106,113,118,119,120,125,128,131,132,134,13514-154,165,168-170,172-176, 178,182,186,207,218-220,222, 234-236.
Point 9. Finally, there are no conclusions in the article, and the limitations are described quite to the marginal extent.
Conclusions were added. Please read from line 939-962. Limitations were also developed. Please read line 938-946.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of the article is relevant and current.
The abstract is well prepared and has all the information about the research background and results. However, at the end of the abstract the results of the study should be explicit.
The introduction has an exhaustive and sufficient literature review on the study's keywords. However, the literature review is based on scientific production over five years old. It would be interesting if investigators reduced the number of documents cited by others more current.
The following sections follow the rules for writing scientific articles and are well prepared, since the presentation, analysis and discussion of the results. The statistical methods used are adequate considering the formulated hypotheses.
To conclude, it is suggested that the authors improve the abstract and carry out a more current literature review.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
I am pleased to resubmit for publication the revised version of the paper.
Thank you for your comments. Ihave attached a document if you prefer. I have also addressed each of one as outlined below and thank you for your kind and detailed revisions.
Point 1: The abstract is well prepared and has all the information about the research background and results. However, at the end of the abstract the results of the study should be explicit.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment on this. We have modified the abstract. Please be so kind to read line 35-46.
Point 2: The introduction has an exhaustive and sufficient literature review on the study's keywords. However, the literature review is based on scientific production over five years old. It would be interesting if investigators reduced the number of documents cited by others more current.
Response 2: We ´ve eliminated citations, a new section on sustainbale hrm (only with references with last 5 years) and added several recent literature. Please consult line 54-57,61, 66,67,68,79-84, 91-106,113,120,127,131-135,146-153, 161,171-175, 177,180, 206,217, 233.
Point 3: The following sections follow the rules for writing scientific articles and are well prepared, since the presentation, analysis and discussion of the results. The statistical methods used are adequate considering the formulated hypotheses.
Response 3: Thank you.
Point 4. To conclude, it is suggested that the authors improve the abstract and carry out a more current literature review.
Response 4: Thank you very much. It was all corrected as we stated in response 1 and 2.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for including all the suggestions.
Having read the revised manuscript, I believe it meets the criteria for scientific publications.
Congratulations.
