Green Behavior: Factors Influencing Behavioral Intention and Actual Environmental Behavior of Employees in the Financial Service Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. What is the innovation of this manuscript? Not clear.
2. What is the scientific question this manuscript intends to address? Not clear.
3. What is the theoretical contribution of this manuscript? Not clear.
4. Although four research hypotheses are given in the Design section, they lack logical and theoretical basis.
5. Although a Summary of subject variables is given in the Subjects section, a reporting sampling strategy is lacking. Also, many key pieces of information are lacking. when? where? Minimum sample size?
6. Although the items are given in Section 1 of Apendix, they lack theoretical basis. In addition, the authors did not conduct rigorous reliability and validity tests on the questionnaire.
7. This study involved multiple factors, but did not consider the variance inflation factor.
8. All the sections and tables are out of order and are not numbered sequentially.
Overall, this manuscript is too cluttered and disorganized, and lacks rigorous theoretical and methodological support. Therefore, I have to suggest that the author transfer to another journal.

Author Response

All changes and additions have been tracked and marked with the according editing function of Microsoft Word.

Importance of the research problem not well seen (Reviewer 2):

We added a brief explanation of the practical importance and research gap in the introduction section

Innovation of manuscript not clear (Reviewer 1):

We added an explanation about the innovative aspect in the introduction section

Satisfactory explanation of research problem technically, socially, economically, ethically (Reviewer 2)

We added a new section on the theoretical background of the theories and models we used in our study

Hints to relevant studies and theoretical backgound (Reviewer 2)

The literature has been considered and integrated into the description of the theoretical framework

Scientific question addressed  (Reviewer 1):

Together with an explanation of the scientific framework  we explained the scientific question

Hypotheses not founded in theoretical framework (Reviewer 1):

We added four hypotheses directly derived from the theoretical framework. The introduction section as well as the result section has been reordered, accordingly.

Sample size, sampling strategy and minimum sample size is lacking (Reviewer 1):

We explained the sample and the recruiting strategy as well the date of the study in more detail. We added calculations for sample size and marginal error

Theoretical basis of survey / items is missing (Reviewer 1):

We added sources from which the survey and items have been taken as well as Cronbach’s Alpha in this and the prior studies as reliability scores

Effect sizes for main effects are missing (Reviewer 2):

We added effect sizes (Eta²) to all significant main effects and interactions found in MANOVAs.

Collinearity not checked and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) not calculated for multiple regressions (Reviewer 1):

We added VIF and an evaluation of the collinearity to all regression analyses.

Tables out of order and not numbered chronologically (Reviewer 1)

We renumbered all tables (e.g. 7a, 7b to 7 and 8) and reformatted tables, which did not fit on the paper size.

Conclusions should address limitations in more detail (Reviewer 2):

We considered limitations in more detail in the discussion section.

As requested, the manuscript has been reviewed by a professional translation services (internal service office of the consulting firm zeb).

Reviewer 2 Report

The RESEARCH PROBLEM and it IMPORTANCE is not seen well in this draft of the paper. please refer to article like  How agriculture contributes to reviving the endangered ecosystem of Lake Urmia? The case of agricultural systems in northwestern Iran. Journal of environmental management. /The determinants of cucumber farmers' pesticide use behavior in central Iran: Implications for the pesticide use management. Journal of cleaner production/  The contribution of diverse motivations for adhering to soil conservation initiatives and the role of conservation agriculture features in decision-making. Agricultural Systems.

The authors should give an satisfactory explanation of RESEARCH PROBLEM, especially, its IMPORTANCE, shortly, if study are not carried out about the RP, what challenges emerge and what disadvantages so.  This is importance according the central core of the study which is BEHAVIOR CHANGE. The above-mentioned articles can help the authors to explain the research problem socially, technically, economically, and ethically.

Results,

Of importance statistics, please report their effect size.

Conclusion

What constraints there were in this research?

Good Luck

Author Response

All changes and additions have been tracked and marked with the according editing function of Microsoft Word.

Importance of the research problem not well seen (Reviewer 2):

We added a brief explanation of the practical importance and research gap in the introduction section

Innovation of manuscript not clear (Reviewer 1):

We added an explanation about the innovative aspect in the introduction section

Satisfactory explanation of research problem technically, socially, economically, ethically (Reviewer 2)

We added a new section on the theoretical background of the theories and models we used in our study

Hints to relevant studies and theoretical backgound (Reviewer 2)

The literature has been considered and integrated into the description of the theoretical framework

Scientific question addressed  (Reviewer 1):

Together with an explanation of the scientific framework  we explained the scientific question

Hypotheses not founded in theoretical framework (Reviewer 1):

We added four hypotheses directly derived from the theoretical framework. The introduction section as well as the result section has been reordered, accordingly.

Sample size, sampling strategy and minimum sample size is lacking (Reviewer 1):

We explained the sample and the recruiting strategy as well the date of the study in more detail. We added calculations for sample size and marginal error

Theoretical basis of survey / items is missing (Reviewer 1):

We added sources from which the survey and items have been taken as well as Cronbach’s Alpha in this and the prior studies as reliability scores

Effect sizes for main effects are missing (Reviewer 2):

We added effect sizes (Eta²) to all significant main effects and interactions found in MANOVAs.

Collinearity not checked and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) not calculated for multiple regressions (Reviewer 1):

We added VIF and an evaluation of the collinearity to all regression analyses.

Tables out of order and not numbered chronologically (Reviewer 1)

We renumbered all tables (e.g. 7a, 7b to 7 and 8) and reformatted tables, which did not fit on the paper size.

Conclusions should address limitations in more detail (Reviewer 2):

We considered limitations in more detail in the discussion section.

As requested, the manuscript has been reviewed by a professional translation services (internal service office of the consulting firm zeb).

Reviewer 3 Report

The questionnaire research is very interesting and described in great detail.

Author Response

All changes and additions have been tracked and marked with the according editing function of Microsoft Word.

Importance of the research problem not well seen (Reviewer 2):

We added a brief explanation of the practical importance and research gap in the introduction section

Innovation of manuscript not clear (Reviewer 1):

We added an explanation about the innovative aspect in the introduction section

Satisfactory explanation of research problem technically, socially, economically, ethically (Reviewer 2)

We added a new section on the theoretical background of the theories and models we used in our study

Hints to relevant studies and theoretical backgound (Reviewer 2)

The literature has been considered and integrated into the description of the theoretical framework

Scientific question addressed  (Reviewer 1):

Together with an explanation of the scientific framework  we explained the scientific question

Hypotheses not founded in theoretical framework (Reviewer 1):

We added four hypotheses directly derived from the theoretical framework. The introduction section as well as the result section has been reordered, accordingly.

Sample size, sampling strategy and minimum sample size is lacking (Reviewer 1):

We explained the sample and the recruiting strategy as well the date of the study in more detail. We added calculations for sample size and marginal error

Theoretical basis of survey / items is missing (Reviewer 1):

We added sources from which the survey and items have been taken as well as Cronbach’s Alpha in this and the prior studies as reliability scores

Effect sizes for main effects are missing (Reviewer 2):

We added effect sizes (Eta²) to all significant main effects and interactions found in MANOVAs.

Collinearity not checked and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) not calculated for multiple regressions (Reviewer 1):

We added VIF and an evaluation of the collinearity to all regression analyses.

Tables out of order and not numbered chronologically (Reviewer 1)

We renumbered all tables (e.g. 7a, 7b to 7 and 8) and reformatted tables, which did not fit on the paper size.

Conclusions should address limitations in more detail (Reviewer 2):

We considered limitations in more detail in the discussion section.

As requested, the manuscript has been reviewed by a professional translation services (internal service office of the consulting firm zeb).

Reviewer 4 Report

Greetings!

1- Abstract should include purpose of study, data collection method, main findings and recommendations. The abstract does not include recommendations and purpose of study. The authors must provide purpose of study and the recommendations in the abstract.

2- In lines 260-279, the subject, how can you be sure that 470 participants as a sample size is statistically representative of the study population. This must be shown statistically.

3- In line 402, don't use "we used"; use the researchers used ........ amend all the other similar.

4- the manuscript needs proofreading.

5- You should compare the results of each of your hypothesis with the results of the similar studies used as references in this study.

6- References need to rewrite according to harvard format or any other similar reputed format.

Best regards,

Author Response

Reviewer 4

We would like to thank all 5 anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and recommendations. In order to avoid confusion when displaying the changes of two revisions, we have accepted all changes which have been made, so far. We highlighted the latest changes in yellow in order to clearly indicate what modifications have been made.

In what follows, we respond individually to the requests of each reviewer.

1 - Abstract should include purpose of study, data collection method, main findings and recommendations. The abstract does not include recommendations and purpose of study. The authors must provide purpose of study and the recommendations in the abstract.

• We added text concerning purpose and recommendation and adapted the abstract to fit in the limit of 200 words.

 2- In lines 260-279, the subject, how can you be sure that 470 participants as a sample size is statistically representative of the study population. This must be shown statistically.

• We calculated minimum sample size (alpha = 5% ´, beta=10%) and marginal error of the actual sample size and stated it in the Subjects section

3- In line 402, don't use "we used"; use the researchers used ........ amend all the other similar.

• All mentions of “we” have been erased and replaced by more neutral phrases such as researchers, authors or passive voice.

4- the manuscript needs proofreading.

• A professional translation bureau did the proofreading.

5- You should compare the results of each of your hypothesis with the results of the similar studies used as references in this study.

• We compared the results concerning the different hypotheses to findings from other studies and added text explanations, accordingly.

6- References need to rewrite according to harvard format or any other similar reputed format.

• The format of the references has been adapted to “Chicago Stye”.

Reviewer 5 Report

I thank the authors for this article, they have done good effort however, I bring to their kind attention the following points:

1.      The style of writing and citations (..),[..] is not according to MDPI style.

2.      The article needs proofreading for example, check the beginning of the line 59 and other places throughout the article.

3.      This sentence might have different meaning “One individual factor influencing environment-protecting behavior lies in well-being: being well-off and otherwise concern- free enables individuals to have an increasing interest in environmental protection”. It can be also understood as those people who are rich with money take care more of the environment” which is not true. As most of the investments spoiling the environments are conducted by well-off people.

4.      Please refer to this article “Evaluating the relevance of green banking practices on Saudi Banks’ green image: The mediating effect of employees’ green behaviour” as it discusses the issue of green behaviour in the banking sector.

5.      The authors are advised to make the introduction section complete and separate one, meaning, the aspects of green behaviour should be included in the introduction section not as a separate section. The introduction section should carry the No.1 and followed by other sections.

6.      The authors are advised to include the context of the study and the statement of the problem of the study in the introduction section to allow the readers to understand clearly the purpose of the research, questions. It would be much better if the authors show the organization of the article at the end of the introduction section.

7.      In line No. 135 stating “Extrinsic incentives have the power to defeat the employees’ motivation to improve their own green image”, can you give some examples of these incentives?

8.      I would recommend the section two to be named as theoretical framework and hypotheses development and carry No.2. This is a very well explained section, it has combined many models necessary for the supporting the study.

9.      In line No. 285, Please revise this sentence” Cronbach’s Alpha between 0.78 and 0.91 (78)(79) and Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.83 for the survey used in this study”. What do you mean exactly? Which one is the standard and which one is the used?

10.   Please mention the sources for the measures you used in the study in material sections.

11.   There is a duplicate sentences in the lines 2.4 and 2.2, please remove it or combine the sections and I think figure No.1 is extra, you may include in the appendix.

12.   In the analysis section, I feel it could be arranged in a better way, for example, the authors might give a separate title for the analysis of the demographic information followed by another section for the hypotheses analysis.

13.   I believe the authors has included many things in the article particularly related to the analysis section which I consider them as extra work that however should be appreciated. However, I think it will be much better if the researchers develop a separate table to show the different relationships with their results (B, P, SD, and M) and result of testing the hypothesis.

14.   It will be highly appreciated if the authors differentiate between the implications of the study and the discussion part.

15.   As the researchers used online questionnaire, this means they have used purposive sampling which might create imitation of having bias in the research thus this should be acknowledged in the limitation section. Authors should also examine the VIF or CMB to show no collinearity in the study.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 5

We would like to thank all 5 anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and recommendations. In order to avoid confusion when displaying the changes of two revisions, we have accepted all changes which have been made, so far. We highlighted the latest changes in yellow in order to clearly indicate what modifications have been made.

In what follows, we respond individually to the requests of each reviewer. We are particularly grateful for the extensive and detailed review Reviewer 5 has provided: Thank you very much, indeed! 

1. The style of writing and citations (..),[..] is not according to MDPI style.
    --> We adapted style and writing according to the MDPI styleguide.

2. The article needs proofreading for example, check the beginning of the line 59 and other places throughout the article.
   --> The article had been proofread by a professional translation office.
3. This sentence might have different meaning “One individual factor influencing environment-protecting behavior lies in well-being: being well-off and otherwise concern- free enables individuals to have an increasing interest in environmental protection”. It can be also understood as those people who are rich with money take care more of the environment” which is not true. As most of the investments spoiling the environments are conducted by well-off people.
   -->  We fully agree and clarified this point.
4. Please refer to this article “Evaluating the relevance of green banking practices on Saudi Banks’ green image: The mediating effect of employees’ green behaviour” as it discusses the issue of green behaviour in the banking sector.
   -->  We have read the article and included in the Introduction and Discussion section as well as the reference list. Thank you very much for the valuable recommendation.
5. The authors are advised to make the introduction section complete and separate one, meaning, the aspects of green behaviour should be included in the introduction section not as a separate section. The introduction section should carry the No.1 and followed by other sections.
   -->  We have re-arranged and re-numbered the paper, accordingly (see also topic 7).
6. The authors are advised to include the context of the study and the statement of the problem of the study in the introduction section to allow the readers to understand clearly the purpose of the research, questions. It would be much better if the authors show the organization of the article at the end of the introduction section.
   --> We have adapted and re-arranged the Introduction section and have also added a statement about the purpose in the Abstract
   
   
7. In line No. 135 stating “Extrinsic incentives have the power to defeat the employees’ motivation to improve theirown green image”, can you give some examples of these incentives?
   -->  We added two examples from the cited literature.
8. I would recommend the section two to be named as theoretical framework and hypotheses development and carry No.2. This is a very well explained section, it has combined many models necessary for the supporting the study.
   --> We have re-arranged and re-numbered the paper, accordingly (see also topic 5).
9. In line No. 285, Please revise this sentence” Cronbach’s Alpha between 0.78 and 0.91 (78)(79) and Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.83 for the survey used in this study”. What do you mean exactly? Which one is the standard and which one is the used?
   --> We have clarified this point: Prior surveys: Cronbach Alpha 0.78 and 0.91, respectively – this tudy: Cronback Aplha = 0.83
10. Please mention the sources for the measures you used in the study in material sections.
    -->The sources have been mentioned and have been made publicly available.
11. There is a duplicate sentences in the lines 2.4 and 2.2, please remove it or combine the sections and I think figure No.1 is extra, you may include in the appendix.
    --> We removed the double mention of June and July 2021, but we adhere to figure 1 (the chatbot), because other reviewers insisted to have the figure included in the text.
12. In the analysis section, I feel it could be arranged in a better way, for example, the authors might give a separate title for the analysis of the demographic information followed by another section for the hypotheses analysis.
    --> We re-ordered the Results section pulling together all aspects related to demographics and hypotheses testing the renumbered the sections and tables accordingly.
13. I believe the authors has included many things in the article particularly related to the analysis section which I consider them as extra work that however should be appreciated. However, I think it will be much better if the researchers develop a separate table to show the different relationships with their results (B, P, SD, and M) and result of testing the hypothesis.
    --> There have been different and contradictory opinion among the 5 reviewers of this paper. Some feel that the paper is “too descriptive” in nature. Built on your recommendation in the prior topic (12), we have decided to transfer the analyses of the “Number inputs” concerning monetary and time compensation to a new appendix (appendix 2)
14. It will be highly appreciated if the authors differentiate between the implications of the study and the discussion part.
    --> We have now clearly distinguished between (academic) discussion and practical implications re-ordering the Discussion section.
15. As the researchers used online questionnaire, this means they have used purposive sampling which might create imitation of having bias in the research thus this should be acknowledged in the limitation section. Authors should also examine the VIF or CMB to show no collinearity in the study.
    --> We added this aspect to the Limitation Section. VIF with relatively low levels (< 2.5) are reported for all multifactorial analyses (tables 8 and 18)

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the authors have revised this manuscript, it still lacks academic value.

e.g,

The innovation of this manuscript remains unclear. The literature review portion of this manuscript remains uncritical. Furthermore, I suspect that this manuscript is overdrinking.

The questionnaire still lacks theoretical basis.

The academic logic of this manuscript is still not clear enough.

In conclusion, this manuscript cannot be accepted.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

We would like to thank all 5 anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and recommendations. In order to avoid confusion when displaying the changes of two revisions, we have accepted all changes which have been made, so far. We highlighted the latest changes in yellow in order to clearly indicate what modifications have been made.

In what follows, we respond individually to the requests of each reviewer.

The innovation of this manuscript remains unclear. The literature review portion of this manuscript remains uncritical. Furthermore, I suspect that this manuscript is overdrinking.

--> We tried to clarify the purpose of the study in the Abstract and in the Introduction section. We have also tried to clarify contributions to the literature and practical implications in the Discussion section.

The questionnaire still lacks theoretical basis.

--> We extended the explanation of the theoretical framework, re-arranged the Introduction section accordingly and clearly referenced the prior version of the survey used in this study.

The academic logic of this manuscript is still not clear enough.

--> With the help of five reviewers’ comments we hope to make the academic logic guiding our study much clearer and have the paper arranged according to that logic.

Reviewer 5 Report

Satisfied