Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I am honoured and  privileged to review your manuscript, which I have enjoyed reading. While I commend your overall effort; I'm sure you leverage on my feedback in enhancing the quality of this interesting manuscript.

Important to note, the abstract was not presented in accordance with Sustainabilitys conventions.  The first thing researchers do before submitting their manuscript for potential publication is to study the journal’s guiding format in general. It is noticeable that the authors did not follow the Sustainability guideline for abstract.

Hypothesis: According to your article, PDM is considered at two different levels: operational (related to task issues) and organizational (related to strategic issues). Therefore, the authors' first hypothesis is general. For example: Hypothesis 1a (H1a). PSS relates positively to direct employee participation.

And the next two hypotheses are sub-hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1b (H1b). PSS relates positively to organizational direct employee participation. Hypothesis 1c (H1c). PSS relates positively to operational direct employee participation.

My suggestion is to mark the general hypothesis H1 and the sub-hypotheses H1a and H1b.

Figure1: Resarch Model should be improved. The figure is too small. The authors should also include in the research model all the relationships and hypotheses mentioned above in the article. Therefore, the research model should be redefined.

Semple selection needs additional explanation. Cultural values are taken from Hofstede’s national culture database - what year? The year is in the Abstract but not in the sample selection section.  

Section 3.2.1. Dependent variable - the font size is larger than elsewhere. 

In the data presentation, the author(s) have put a lot of effort into the number of tables (and sometimes variables) in the presentation and analysis of the result, however, the section is also difficult to follow at times. My suggestion is to include the hypotheses in the section 3. Discussion and conclusion and clearly note which hypotheses are confirmed and which are rejected.

Review language. Some tearms are not consistent. For example operative level (in Abstract) and operational level in the text....

Good luck!

Author Response

Thank you so much for your review. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors presented an interesting study analyzing the impact of cultural value and sustainability on decision making at various management levels. The manuscript is interesting and well-written, includes a good overview of the literature. The aim of the paper is clear, the title informative and relevant. The structure of the article is desirable for presentation in the introduction.

 

I have some suggestions for improving the paper.

1. As a reader, I would be interested acquiring the scheme of the research methodology. I would suggest authors to supplement Section 2.1 with a scheme showing the levels of decision making and the factors influencing each level. The authors considered these factors in the section «Introduction», but poorly systematized them.

2. It is not clear why the authors chose 7 macro-variables as aspects of sustainability and culture as analyzed variables (clauses 2.4.1-2.4.7): Power Distance, Individualism (Collectivism), Masculinity (Femininity), Time Orientation, Uncertainty Avoidance , Indulgence, Sustainability. Authors should clearly justify the choice of these particular variables.

3. There are no explanations for Figure 1 «Research Model». I recommend that the authors provide a more detailed description of the model under study, presented on the basis of the analysis of sections 2.4.1-2.4.7. Readers should clearly understand the choice of elements and their connections in the model.

4. What results the methodology used brings. In the «Conclusion» section, only general statements have been made. I propose to present a detailed description of the results obtained. In the title of the article, the authors ask the question «Do national values of culture and sustainability influence direct employee PDM levels and scope?» In conclusion, it is necessary to provide an answer: what values and the strength of their influence depending on the level of decision-making (micro, meso and macro).

5. A few notes on the manuscript design:

- Error on the link (Line 63). Needs to be corrected to reference 16.

- Incorrect figure designation (line 579). It is necessary to correct «Figure 2» instead of «Graphic 1».

- Table 2 (Line 605) is difficult to understand. Must be formatted according to log requirements.

- The style of Table 2 does not correspond to the style of Table 3. There are no zeros in Table 2.

- In Table 2 (Column 1), after «Step 1» put a « : » sign.

- There is no decryption LTO acronym in the article.

 

I hope that my suggestions will help make your paper more acceptable,

Best regards

Author Response

Thank you so much for your detailed review. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper's composition is coherent; the structure is logical and meets the goal of the paper. The title "Do national values of culture and sustainability influence direct employee PDM levels and scope? The search for a European answer" puts well the paper's objective; it is clear and expresses the issue being assessed very well. The abstract is formulated adequately along with the true picture of the paper. All the tools and methods the author uses are reasonable and well described and adequately fit the problem being assessed to give the reliable results. Conclusions are related to the results presented before reflecting the assessed issue at a professional level. All the tables are complete and understandable. Authors use enough calculations, formulas and tables featuring a great deal of data being processed hence adding a higher added value to the paper. Especially setting and proving the hypothesis is appreciated. However minor revision would suffice to get the manuscript published in the journal. It is recommended that the authors make a relatively minor revision, and the specific amendments to the text are as follows:

• The Conclusion section is recommended to be set aside from the Discussion section just briefly summarizing the research outcomes, as well as reflecting the assessed issue along with the way how the research results could be implemented in the practice bringing up any benefits and added value. It is not appropriate to use citations and new ideas in Conclusions.
• In Introduction part I recommend mentioning the way how the research results could be implemented in the practice bringing up any benefits and added value by expressing the research novelty. In introduction to underline the added value, novelty, purpose and ways of application of the research results along with the brief methods and data sources being used would be appreciated.
• The term North Macedonia is currently preferable.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your review. 

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is well structured, well documented, the ideas are presented in a logical and coherent order. The approached topic is very interesting considering the companies' preoccupations for promoting the principles of sustainable development. Employees in countries that have constant concerns for promoting sustainable development are more involved in the activities carried out at the company level. New concepts such as sustainable human resources management have emerged and they reveals not only the need for employees involvement for the development of sustainable companies but also the positive effects of promoting sustainable development, namely the intensification of innovation at the microeconomic level. The selection of countries and variables is well motivated. The article has the potential to be published, requiring some minor adjustments

• In my opinion, the abstract should not contain references.
• the authors must consider the reformulation of this hypothesis, I consider that it is wrongly formulated ”The public sector tends to promote operational PDM more than public sector”
• The authors should insert a separate section of conclusions.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your time and review.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Tha paper is wide and articulated as evidence of a considerable research and investigation. The topic also appears relevant in the context of political economy studies. The work shows methodological rigor, knowledge of literature and an appreciable acuity of analysis. The presented models are original and innovative and it constitutes a very interesting field for the development of new knowledge.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your review and your time on this. We acknowledge your comments and your feedback, because they are so valuable to know how this paper could be received by future readers. Your positive comments motivate us to follow researching about this field.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been revised according to my suggestions. The authors considered suggestions and made the appropriate changes in the article. Good luck!

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been revised. The authors considered suggestions and made the appropriate changes in the article. This improved the quality of the article and its understanding. The manuscript can be published in the Sustainability.

Best regards