Sustainable-Performance Instrument Development and Validation in the Northern Cyprus Banking Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors should enrich the conclusion by indicating the practical implication and the limits of the research.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1;

We would like to thank you for considering our manuscript, we have received invaluable comments, which help us a lot to improve our paper. As suggested, we fixed our paper based on your suggestions. We highlighted edited sentences in the text. In addition, the proofreading of the recent version of the manuscript is done by a professional proofreading company.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors introduce a new instrument called sustainable performance (SP) in the banking sector whose main goal is to improve the sustainable performance of banks. They apply a qualitative approach; thus, from a set of interviews conducted with 11 bank managers (female and male) they based the study on the following questions: 

RQ1: What does the sustainable performance elements mean?

RQ2: Which functions need to be focused to have better sustainable performance than competitors?

RQ3: How the activities are conducted in your organization?

Once the scale questions were formed, the main population was the banking sector employees in Northern Cyprus. 415 data sets were evaluated. According to the results of 415 people EFA, dimensions of SP were factorized into 39 items and six sub-dimensions. Results of all the analyses showed that all 39 items had high validity and reliability.  The measured conceptual dimensions were consistent with the theoretical content. The 39-item questionnaire has been shown to measure SP phenomena as a 5-point Likert Scale. As authors state, the sustainable performance five-point Likert scale was developed in terms of the results obtained from this study. They consider it is a valid and reliable measurement tool that can be used in the banking sector. Authors suggest that the sustainable performance characteristics should be integrated with the stock items in the questionnaire in the future for the formation of scientific judgments, as well as the applications to be made in the banking and finance sector. The topic is interesting and the paper is well structured. However, I recommend the authors to reinforce the discussion and conclusions section by the results obtained from the study. To include a wider explanation with data and details that could help to reinforce the conclusions they include. Conclusions section is a bit messy.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for considering our manuscript, we have received invaluable comments, which help us a lot to improve our paper. As suggested, we fixed our paper based on your suggestions. We highlighted edited sentences in the text. As suggested we answered the three questions in the manuscript. We would like to thanks you for these questions. In the study, the Introduction section is divided into two parts as recommended. In addition, the aim of the study is underlined in the introduction section. As suggested, the limitation of the study is underlined. We also involve suggested references to the literature review section. We also improved the discussion and conclusions section. In addition, the proofreading of the recent version of the manuscript is done by a professional proofreading company.

Reviewer 3 Report

Review: Sustainable Performance Instrument Development and Validation

The article under review shows an instrument that the authors have developed to validate and test the sustainability of institutions in the banking sector, specifically in the case of Northern Cyprus.

The article has been well worked by the authors, however I proceed to point out a number of issues that should be taken into account before publication:
1. The title I think is not quite accurate. They should add the reference to the banking sector at least or even Cyprus, although the latter would not be so necessary.
2. The introduction presents a problem. It is too long an introduction that is not accompanied by a literature review. 
Therefore, here I strongly suggest that the authors separate the introduction into two parts: An introduction proper. On the other hand, a literature review on the state of the art.
In the introductory section, or else in the discussion of results, authors are recommended to take into account an issue they have overlooked.
Currently, the ECB (on which Cyprus depends as it is in the Eurozone) is considering the development of a Digital Euro. This issue is fundamental to cover here (even if collaterally) as it may have impact on sustainability (more efficiency, less costs) but perhaps more energy impact if DLT technologies are used. Some references are suggested on this:

Náñez Alonso, S. L., Echarte Fernández, M. Á., Sanz Bas, D., & Kaczmarek, J. (2020). Reasons Fostering or Discouraging the Implementation of Central Bank-Backed Digital Currency: A Review. Economies, 8(2), 41.

Andolfatto, D. (2021). Assessing the impact of central bank digital currency on private banks. The Economic Journal, 131(634), 525-540.

Kumhof, M., & Noone, C. (2018). Central bank digital currencies-design principles and balance sheet implications.

Gnatenko, I. (2020). Potential implications of the introduction of CBDC for the conduct of monetary policy and the preservation of financial and monetary stability: A case study of the Central Bank of Sweden.

Náñez Alonso, S. L., Jorge-Vazquez, J., & Reier Forradellas, R. F. (2021). Central Banks Digital Currency: Detection of Optimal Countries for the Implementation of a CBDC and the Implication for Payment Industry Open Innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 72.

Discussion: It is too simple. The authors should emphasize more on the limitation of their study, since it only focuses on one country (Cyprus) and one specific area (the north). This aspect should be improved.

Best regards,

Author Response

We would like to thank you for considering our manuscript, we have received invaluable comments, which help us a lot to improve our paper. As suggested, we fixed our paper based on your suggestions. We highlighted edited sentences in the text. As suggested we revised the title of the study. “Sustainable Performance Instrument Development and Validation in the Northern Cyprus Banking Sector” In the study, the Introduction section is divided into two parts as recommended. In addition, the aim of the study is underlined in the introduction section. As suggested, the limitation of the study is underlined. We also involve suggested references to the literature review section. We also improved the discussion section. In addition, the proofreading of the recent version of the manuscript is done by a professional proofreading company.