Review Reports - Corporate Social Responsibility as a Sustainable Business Practice: A Study among Generation Z Customers of Indian Luxury Hotels

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for this interesting study, titled "Corporate Social Responsibility as a Sustainable Business Prac- 2 tice: A Study among Generation Z Customers of Indian Luxury 3 Hotels".

I think it has good potential, but some minor issues should still be improved.

You started your paper drawn under stakeholder theory, but I read little evidence in both your hypotheses and in your discussions and implications. My bigger suggestion is to integrate this crucial theory in your study, especially if your state is your theoretical background, i.e. the fundamental to draw your research.

Discussion should be enhanced and I think a bigger linkage with the literature is necessary.

Endly, there are some typos (e.g., page 2, line 69 "lirature"), please check it carefully.

Thank you for this interesting reading and good luck with your revision!

I thank also the Editor to have chosen me as a Reviewer.

Author Response

Reviewer: 1

Comments: I think it has good potential, but some minor issues should still be improved.

Author Response: I thank you for commending my efforts and for finding this study to be interesting and of some value. I also thank you for your time, effort and insight in offering constructive feedback, which has helped me improve this manuscript. In response to your remaining concerns, I have tried to address your points, as below.

Comment 1: You started your paper drawn under stakeholder theory, but I read little evidence in both your hypotheses and in your discussions and implications. My bigger suggestion is to integrate this crucial theory in your study, especially if your state is your theoretical background, i.e. the fundamental to draw your research.

Author Response: Thank you for your comment. I have now thoroughly revised the manuscript to incorporate your suggestion of integrating stakeholder theory and its key assumptions in its hypotheses, discussion, and implications sections respectively.

Comment 2: Discussion should be enhanced and I think a bigger linkage with the literature is necessary.

Author Response: Thank you for your comment. I have reworked the discussion section to create a stronger linkage with the literature. I have also elaborated the key theoretical and practical implications arising from this study. Please see the revised manuscript on Pages 8-9.

Comment 3: Endly, there are some typos (e.g., page 2, line 69 "lirature"), please check it carefully.

Author Response: I apologize for the typing errors in the manuscript. Respecting your comment, I have got the paper proofread to check for any grammatical and typographical errors.

Comment 4: Thank you for this interesting reading and good luck with your revision! I thank also the Editor to have chosen me as a Reviewer.

Author Response: I again thank you for your time, effort and insight in offering constructive feedback, which has helped me improve the manuscript. I am confident that based on your guidance, the manuscript has improved substantially. I hope the revisions satisfy your remaining concerns and look forward to your assessment of the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

The author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

The article titled Corporate Social Responsibility as a Sustainable Business Practice: A Study among Generation Z Customers of Indian Luxury Hotels raises an exciting and vital topic. Nevertheless, the work itself needs to be refined.

First, I suggest organizing some thoughts and adhering to the article's structure as envisioned by the publisher. The literature review section is presented extremely laconically. There needs to be a clear indication of the momentousness of the research conducted, the importance of science, and an indication of the research gap. In addition, the text contains numerous grammatical errors and typos - for example, on p. 2 - litrature, instead of literature.

The work needs a lot of fine-tuning. Likewise, the conclusions, research limitations, and the detail and scope of the statistical research conducted. It would be advisable to raise the level of scientific quality, publishing in such a recognized and valuable publication.

My comments will increase the scientific value of the work undertaken.

with best regards

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Comments: The article titled Corporate Social Responsibility as a Sustainable Business Practice: A Study among Generation Z Customers of Indian Luxury Hotels raises an exciting and vital topic. Nevertheless, the work itself needs to be refined.

Author Response: I am happy to know that you have found the chosen topic to be exciting and vital. I thank you for reviewing this paper and giving valuable suggestions, which has helped me further develop this manuscript. Correspondingly, I have tried to incorporate all of your suggestions as below:

Comment 1: First, I suggest organizing some thoughts and adhering to the article's structure as envisioned by the publisher. The literature review section is presented extremely laconically. There needs to be a clear indication of the momentousness of the research conducted, the importance of science, and an indication of the research gap.

Author Response: Thank you for your comment. Respecting your valuable comment, I have now thoroughly revised the manuscript to incorporate your valued suggestions in different sections of the manuscript. Please check the revised content highlighted in different color throughout the manuscript.

Comment 2: In addition, the text contains numerous grammatical errors and typos - for example, on p. 2 - litrature, instead of literature.

Author Response: I apologize for the typing errors in our manuscript. Respecting your comment, I have got our paper proofread to check for any grammatical and typographical errors.

Comment 3: My comments will increase the scientific value of the work undertaken.

Author Response: I again thank you identifying some genuine weaknesses in my manuscript and for the providing some constructive comments that have been truly valuable in reshaping and restructuring this paper inside out. I have tried my best to incorporate all of your suggestions in the revised manuscript. I hope the revised manuscript meets your expectations, and look forward to receiving your decision in due course.

Sincerely,

The author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

It’s a pleasure to review the submission entitled “Corporate Social Responsibility as a Sustainable Business Practice: A Study among Generation Z Customers of Indian Luxury 3 Hotels.”

I applaud the author for choosing an interesting and trendy topic. After a careful review of the submission. I have some suggestions for this article as an minor revision.

1) Author should improve discussion section with comparison another studies.

2) What’s the data cleaning procedure, how invalid responses were identified? More explaining this Sample and data collection” section.

4) Author should check the Sustainability Author Guidelines for citation ctyle and references.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

It’s a pleasure to review the submission entitled “Corporate Social Responsibility as a Sustainable Business Practice: A Study among Generation Z Customers of Indian Luxury Hotels.” I applaud the author for choosing an interesting and trendy topic. After a careful review of the submission. I have some suggestions for this article as a minor revision.

Author Response: I am delighted to know that you found the manuscript to be interesting and the topic trendy to contribute to the subject. I thank you for reviewing my paper and giving valuable suggestions, which has helped me further develop this manuscript. Correspondingly, I have tried to incorporate all of your suggestions as below:

Comment 1: Author should improve discussion section with comparison another studies.

Comment 2: What’s the data cleaning procedure, how invalid responses were identified? More explaining this Sample and data collection” section.

Author Response: Respecting your comment, I have now added more details to the sample and data collection section. To articulate, the revised manuscript on Page 6 now reads as below:

“A total of 500 questionnaires were circulated among the customers of 10 luxury hotels (50 each). Out of the 500, only 338 Gen Z customers returned the completed survey. Of the 338, 302 responses (167 males and 135 females) were considered for data analysis, and the remaining responses were excluded either due to missing values in the questionnaire or due to responses which were not filled in with care and the respondents had tick marked multiple or all options on a rating scale of 1 to 7.”

Comment 3: Author should check the Sustainability Author Guidelines for citation style and references.

Author Response: Thank you for your comment. As suggested, I have now followed the journal’s citation and referencing style throughout the whole manuscript.

I again thank you for the providing some constructive comments that have been truly valuable in reshaping this paper inside out. I am confident that you will find the revised version making a significant impact.

Sincerely,

The author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

thank you for your review. Your literature background could be more developed

in my opinion, you should justify the research gap in a clearer, more lucid manner and indicate the contribution to science

besides, thank you for taking into account the other comments

Author Response

Comment 1: Dear Author, Thank you for your review. Your literature background could be more developed. In my opinion, you should justify the research gap in a clearer, more lucid manner and indicate the contribution to science.

Besides, thank you for taking into account the other comments.

Author Response: I really thank you for reviewing this paper and giving valuable suggestions, which has helped me further develop this manuscript. Respecting your suggestion, I have now more clearly discussed the research gaps that this study addresses. To articulate, the revised manuscript now reads (on Page 2) as below:

“Despite the staggering practitioner interest towards sustainable environment-friendly initiatives, a proportionately lesser scholarly attention has been paid towards travellers’ pursuit for hotels that have an active involvement in community and environmental initiatives [8]. Prior studies have examined the relationships between customers’ attitudes and their behavioural intentions to stay in environmental active hotels, but such studies have generated inconsistent findings. For instance, some studies revealed that customers have a positive attitude towards hotels that adopt green initiatives [9, 10], while other studies have empirically proven that customers prefer enjoyment over paying to green hotels during their vacations/holidays [11]. For such reasons, studies have consistently suggested to dig deeper for a detailed under-standing of customers’ attitude and behavior towards green hotels [12, 13].”

It further reads as below:

“Besides, surveys and conceptual models highlight the need to empirically validate models that particularly examine Gen Z customers’ green consumption behavior [17, 18].”

Similarly, it highlights as below:

“Similarly, extant research on the domain has remained limited to relating customers’ perceptions of organizational CSR activities with constructs such as customer loyalty, repeat purchase behavior and specific green outcomes [23, 24], thereby limiting our understanding of CSR and green image with some strategically imperative constructs such as willingness to pay a higher price. Furthermore, prior studies have examined such relationships in general category of hotels, and have excluded luxury hotels, who implement strong who might also be implementing green management programs, thereby restricting the generalizability of the findings of such studies [25].”

Respecting your suggestion, I have also strengthened the contributions made by this study. For example, the revised manuscript (on Pages 2) now reads as:

“Furthermore, the behavior of Asian Gen Z customers has remained somewhat of an enigma due to an extraordinary focus on consumers from the western world [33]. By showcasing the positive response of Indian Gen Z towards CSR, we help universalize the impact of CSR to emerging market contexts. Also, some researchers have alleged that CSR may not be important to Asian consumers, however, our results contradict such findings [34]; hence, contributes to the body of knowledge.”

It further reads on Page 3 as below:

“Given that prior attempts to predict consumer behavior towards environmentally friendly products and services largely varied across demographic variables [35, 36, 37]. Therefore, by incorporating gender as a moderating variable to the proposed model, this study further strengthens the claims of prior studies in this direction and generalizes those to an age group which represents and present and future target market for businesses. Moreover, In India, hotels have been accused of harming the environment and wasting resources, hence, CSR interventions aimed at recycling, conserving and protecting the environment can help the firm differentiate among its competitors [24].”

I once again thank you for your time, effort and insight in offering constructive feedback, which has helped me improve the manuscript. I am confident that based on your guidance, the manuscript has improved substantially. I hope the revisions satisfy your remaining concerns and look forward to your decision of the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

The author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx