Examining the Effect of Green Logistics and Green Human Resource Management on Sustainable Development Organizations: The Mediating Role of Sustainable Production
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
As said in first round, the manuscript presents valuable information. For this round, authors provided some incomplete answers. I include here the three main concerns from my viewpoint.
“Response 1: the hypothesis of this study…” My concern about hypothesis is that they seem too obvious. I understand several authors have considered these hypotheses; this implies they have already proven their validity. Then, why it is important to still consider the same hypotheses. This is what authors should justify in the manuscript.
“Response 6” Methods are still incomplete; authors should remember that the objective of this section is to allow the interested readers to replicate the presented study. I suggest to include an algorithm, a step by step guide, a flowchat, a diagram or some thing which helps to clearly show how they have performed the study. The structure of the models, the equations and other tools used in the study should also appear in this section.
“Response 10” I’m not completely convinced about the implications presented in the manuscript. I think the information collected for the study (110 enterprises) is few to consider the global implications that the authors claim, but I understand the authors thinking. I still have some comments about this point. It is recommended to indicate what percentage of the whole Indonesian industry sector represents the 110 enterprises; this will help to contextualize the relevance of the findings. Also, I still recommend focusing the discussion on the Indonesian case (where the data came from) and after trying to extrapolate for the global situation.
Author Response
Point 1 (Response 1): the hypothesis of this study…” My concern about hypothesis is that they seem too obvious. I understand several authors have considered these hypotheses; this implies they have already proven their validity. Then, why it is important to still consider the same hypotheses. This is what authors should justify in the manuscript.
Response 1: Thanks for your commentsand suggestions
The conditions and situations of the objects we study are not necessarily the same as those of other research objects. Precisely that we consider it necessary to confirm the object that we are examining.
Point 2 (Response 6): Methods are still incomplete; authors should remember that the objective of this section is to allow the interested readers to replicate the presented study. I suggest to include an algorithm, a step by step guide, a flowchat, a diagram or some thing which helps to clearly show how they have performed the study. The structure of the models, the equations and other tools used in the study should also appear in this section.
Response 2: Thanks for your commentsand suggestions
We have revised and improved the manuscript accordingly in the new version.
We have detailed on pages 8 - 11, how the respondents were selected, the details of the questionnaire, the conceptual framework, and the analytical tools used. We do not detail the PLS application procedure, because that is a general procedure for every applicator.
Point 3 (Response 10): I’m not completely convinced about the implications presented in the manuscript. I think the information collected for the study (110 enterprises) is few to consider the global implications that the authors claim, but I understand the authors thinking. I still have some comments about this point. It is recommended to indicate what percentage of the whole Indonesian industry sector represents the 110 enterprises; this will help to contextualize the relevance of the findings. Also, I still recommend focusing the discussion on the Indonesian case (where the data came from) and after trying to extrapolate for the global situation.
Response 3: Thanks for your commentsand suggestions
We have revised and improved the manuscript accordingly in the new version.
We have explained on page 2. Empirical research results state that only 28.95% of green manufacturing industries and the achievements had a relatively small impact on sustainable and environmentally friendly business practices. In addition, on page 8 (3.1. Samples) it has been explained that the total green industry in Indonesia is 152 companies. The research sample of 110 companies has a representation of 72.36%, based on this number our findings are relevant with global implications.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The study examines the effect of green logistics and green human resource management on the performance of green manufacturing industries.
The purpose of the study is clear.
The paper's structure is well organised.
The introduction section presents interesting information.
The background provides interesting information to understand the state of the art.
The methodological section clearly describes the sample examined and the assumption on which the study is based.
The conclusions and implications section provides interesting information.
Author Response
Point 1: The study examines the effect of green logistics and green human resource management on the performance of green manufacturing industries.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment
Point 2: The purpose of the study is clear.
Response 2: Thanks for your comment
Point 3: The paper's structure is well organised.
Response 3: Thanks for your comment
Point 4: The introduction section presents interesting information.
Response 4: Thanks for your comment
Point 5: The background provides interesting information to understand the state of the art.
Response 5: Thanks for your comment
Point 6: The methodological section clearly describes the sample examined and the assumption on which the study is based.
Response 6: Thanks for your comment
Point 7: The conclusions and implications section provides interesting information.
Response 7: Thanks for your comment
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The usage of "initials" rather than full names for the primary concepts throughout the article makes understanding very difficult. It would be much easier for readers to follow if the full names/words were used.
Readers would have a much better understanding of your intent if you began the article with specific examples of firms to illustrate the concepts that are introduced in the beginning.
English is probably not your primary language, so there are quite a few minor usage errors in the text of the paper. There are also some corrections needed for intext citations. I would recommend finding a well-qualified reviewer to help you correct these errors.
Author Response
Point 1: The usage of "initials" rather than full names for the primary concepts throughout the article makes understanding very difficult. It would be much easier for readers to follow if the full names/words were used.
Response 1: Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
The definition of each variable has been explained in advance. Writing abbreviations is intended so that each statement is not prolonged. We have revised and improved the manuscript accordingly in the new version.
Point 2: Readers would have a much better understanding of your intent if you began the article with specific examples of firms to illustrate the concepts that are introduced in the beginning.
Response 2: Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
The manuscript has been revised improved.
Point 3: English is probably not your primary language, so there are quite a few minor usage errors in the text of the paper. There are also some corrections needed for intext citations. I would recommend finding a well-qualified reviewer to help you correct these errors.
Response 3: Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
The whole manuscript has been revised and improved accordingly.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The authors have complemented the answers of the previous round, and the manuscript has been improved. Eventhough, there are still two minor points to complement.
Regarding Response 1. I understand the objects and conditions are not necessarily the same as for other studies. Then, please indicate in the manuscript how the objects studied in this reasearch could be different from other works.
Regarding Response 3. I understand the study is important in local and global case. Since the data used come from a local situation (Indoneasian case), the discussion shoul be focused in this situation. Then, please, make an effort to focus the discussion in the Indonesian case.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Manuscript ID: Sustainability-2431632
Point 1: I understand the objects and conditions are not necessarily the same as for other studies. Then, please indicate in the manuscript how the objects studied in this reasearch could be different from other works..
Response 1: Thanks for your commentsand suggestions
We have revised and improved the manuscript accordingly in the new version. We have detailed on page 2 and pages 7-8, the object on our studies is different with others. We have explained “This research was conducted on environmentally friendly manufacturing companies in Indonesia that meet three categories of green industry standards including the use of raw materials, reduction of industrial waste, and producing eco products (based on constitution of Indonesia government). The population of this study is a company engaged in the green-based (environ-mentally friendly) manufacturing industry in Indonesia with a total of 152 companies with various industrial fields including the agro industry, transportation equipment industry, telematics industry, machinery industry, and metal industry. These industries have been recorded in the database of the Ministry of Industry with the concept of GL, GHRM, SP, and SDO practices.”
Point 2: I understand the study is important in local and global case. Since the data used come from a local situation (Indoneasian case), the discussion shoul be focused in this situation. Then, please, make an effort to focus the discussion in the Indonesian case.
Response 2: Thanks for your comments and suggestions
We have revised and improved the manuscript accordingly in the new version.
We have detailed on pages 14 - 15, on the result of our sudy we have explained that on each conlcusion about focused in the Indonesian case based on statistic data result and analysis.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript search for elucidate the implication of Green Logistics and Green Human Resource Management on Sustainable Development Organizations in Indonesia. The study considers information provided by industries in the region through quationnaires application, which is very important.
However, there are different aspects in the document which require to be improved. Here are some specific comments:
-The hypotheses seem too obvious. From my view point it is necesary to provide more scientific arguments to propose each hypothesis.
-Sustainable Development does not exist without Sustainable Production, why authors separate them? Please provide better justification for the thinking frame.
-It is suggested to move the information of section 3.2 to Results; then, a deeper analayis could be presented.
-Maybe, the questionnaire should be presented somewhere in the document to understant how the information was used.
-Was the Variable Operation Definition (Table 2) made a priori or a posteriori? If it was a posteriori, then it should be included in Results section.
-The method (section 3.4) should be better explained in order to allow interested readers to replicate it. It is important to show how Outer loading, CAR, CR and AVE are computed.
-How these reference values for AVE, CA, and CR were determined?
-Authors should briefly explain (maybe in methods section) what is the Outer and the Inner model, how they are obtained and what is the information provided by them.
-Authors should explain why the determination coefficient is similar for AP and SDO; that means, which are the reason and what implications exists?
-The six points expressed in Discussion and Conclusion seem too generic.
For example, the authors present the discussion as valid for all industries, but their data corresponds only to a fraction of the industrial sector in Indonesia; then, they should focuss the discussion on the industries considered which have provided the information for the study, and after try to generalize for similar regions.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
Point 1: The hypotheses seem too obvious. From my view point it is necesary to provide more scientific arguments to propose each hypothesis.
Response 1: the hypothesis of this study has been supported by several previous studies and has relevant topics, so that in determining the hypothesis the author has referred to scientific sources that have topics that are aligned and supported by the issues described in the research background.
Point 2: Sustainable Development does not exist without Sustainable Production, why authors separate them? Please provide better justification for the thinking frame.
Response 2: the author does not separate the concept of SDO from SP, but in this study the two concepts are separate variables and not a single entity, the latest research related to SDO and SP as endogenous latent variables has also been used as a reference by the author, including research conducted by Cheng , et al., (2023), Zhang, et al., (2020), Garetti and Taisch, (2012). This study has also included operational variables for each variable, each of SDO and SP has an indicator where SDO has 8 indicators that focus on the three bottom line concept (economic, social, and environmental aspects), while SP itself has 4 indicators that focus on the effectiveness and efficiency of the production process up to product design and production waste recycling to focus on environmentally friendly performance.
Point 3: It is suggested to move the information of section 3.2 to Results; then, a deeper analayis could be presented.
Response 3: the authors agree to move the information in section 3.2 to the results with deeper analysis to support more specific research results.
Point 4: Maybe, the questionnaire should be presented somewhere in the document to understant how the information was used.
Response 4: the author agrees to add a research questionnaire in the document.
Point 5: Was the Variable Operation Definition (Table 2) made a priori or a posteriori? If it was a posteriori, then it should be included in Results section.
Response 5: Operational definitions of the research are made using a priori concepts by collecting several literatures related to the concepts of the four research variables.
Point 6: The method (section 3.4) should be better explained in order to allow interested readers to replicate it. It is important to show how Outer loading, CAR, CR and AVE are computed.
Response 6:
Methods of data analysis and hypothesis testing in this study using Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The measurement tool uses SmartPLS version 4 to perform PLS-SEM analysis. The steps in data analysis to measure the Outer model using PLS-SEM are as follows:
Outer model
The outer model aims to evaluate the relationship between constructs and its indicators. There are two measurement methods, namely validity and reliability tests.
- Validity test
Validity testing was carried out in two stages, namely first through convergent validity testing, namely validity testing based on the loading factor value of each construct and second through discriminant validity testing, namely validity testing based on comparisons shown through the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value.
A valid statement from an indicator if the loading factor value is > 0.70, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value can be said to be fulfilled if the AVE value is > 0.5.
- Reliability Test
Another test to evaluate the outer model is to look at the construct reliability of latent variables as measured by two kinds of measures, namely composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach alpha (CA) from the indicator block that measures constructs. Requirements for constructs are declared reliable if they have CR and CA values above 0.70.
Point 7: How these reference values for AVE, CA, and CR were determined?
Response 7:
It has also been explained in research on the Measurement and Structural Model (section 4.1) that the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value can be said to be satisfactory if the AVE value is > 0.5, while for the Requirements the CR and CA values are > 0.70.
Point 8: Authors should briefly explain (maybe in methods section) what is the Outer and the Inner model, how they are obtained and what is the information provided by them.
Response 8:
- Outer model
The outer model aims to evaluate the relationship between constructs and its indicators. There are two measurement methods, namely validity and reliability tests.
- Validity test
Validity testing was carried out in two stages, namely first through convergent validity testing, namely validity testing based on the loading factor value of each construct and second through discriminant validity testing, namely validity testing based on comparisons shown through the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value.
A valid statement from an indicator if the loading factor value is > 0.70, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value can be said to be fulfilled if the AVE value is > 0.5.
- Reliability Test
Another test to evaluate the outer model is to look at the construct reliability of latent variables as measured by two kinds of measures, namely composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach alpha (CA) from the indicator block that measures constructs. Requirements for constructs are declared reliable if they have CR and CA values above 0.70.
- Inner model
The inner model aims to assess the structural model with PLS, starting with looking at the R² value, Q² value, the Goodness of Fit Index (GoF) and then looking at the significance between the constructs indicated by the path coefficient for testing the research hypothesis.
- R2 value
R2 for each endogenous latent variable as the predictive power of the structural model. Changes in R-squares values can be used to explain the effect of certain exogenous latent variables on endogenous latent variables whether they have a substantive effect. Determining the value of R2 has sequential conditions if a value of 0.25 is declared weak, a value of 0.50 is declared moderate, and a value of 0.75 is declared strong.
- Q2 value
Evaluation of the PLS model is also carried out using Q² predictive relevance or often called predictive sample reuse. If the Q² value > 0 indicates that the model has predictive relevance. the observation value is relevant/good provided that the Q2 value is > 0.
- Goodness of Fit Index (GoF)
Calculation of the value of the Goodness of Fit Index (GoF) is done to find out whether the model can be declared fit/feasible or not with the requirement that the GoF value is large = 0.36.
- Hypothesis testing
Furthermore, the evaluation of the model is carried out by looking at the significance value to determine the effect between variables through the bootstrapping procedure. Structural model testing can be done by paying attention to the value in the Path Coefficient output. To find out whether there is an influence of exogenous variables on endogenous variables, it can be known based on the P-value. To find out the level of significance is measured based on t-statistics. The magnitude of the influence of exogenous variables on endogenous variables can be seen by the value of γ found in the original sample.
Point 9: Authors should explain why the determination coefficient is similar for AP and SDO; that means, which are the reason and what implications exists?
Response 9:
Based on the results of measuring R2 using PLS-SEM which was carried out for the endogenous latent variables, namely SP and SDO, they showed the same R2 value of 0.666. These results mean that:
- The SP variable is influenced by 66% by the GL and GHRM variables, which means that the level of influence is in accordance with the R2 requirement that the model has a moderate/strong enough effect because the value is > 0.5 but <0.75. While the remaining 34% can be influenced by other variables outside the research.
- The SDO variable is also influenced by the GL, GHRM, and SP variables of 66% where the results are included in the moderate/strong enough category with conditions set >0.5 but <0.75. Furthermore, 34% of the other influences are caused by other variables outside the study.
The implication of the R2 value can be interpreted that the implementation of GL and GHRM which are exogenous latent variables in the study applied to 110 (72.36%) environmentally friendly industrial companies in Indonesia have a fairly strong influence on endogenous latent variables, namely SP and SDO. In addition, these results also prove that the structural model of the study has a moderate/strong enough relationship.
Point 10: The six points expressed in Discussion and Conclusion seem too generic.
Response 10:
The six points described in the discussion and conclusions have been supported by several previous studies which can strengthen the arguments from the results of statistical tests in research. The results of these discussions and conclusions can become a reference for implementing the performance of environmentally friendly industrial companies both in general and specifically for companies in Indonesia, to achieve and improve SDO performance. As has been explained in section 7, namely the practical implications that the implications for the practical world generated by this research are able to cover for company managers as well as governments and legislators. These results can be used by the government to accelerate the implementation of green industry criteria standards that have a broad impact on the environment which is currently being initiated in Indonesia through a low carbon development (LCD) policy that aims to maintain economic and social growth through development activities with low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. and minimize the exploitation of natural resources.
Another finding that can be specifically applied is, if you want to increase competitiveness and achieve SDO performance, companies in Indonesia can combine many initiatives such as green logistics and green human resource management practices into implementation in the field and to remain consistent in achieving sustainable development. In addition, this research will be able to develop a model for manufacturing companies that implement green (environmentally friendly) performance to implement GL into supply chain management and improve the implementation of GHRM practices to build employee awareness of environmental care and significantly contribute to achieving SDO which is holistic in nature including economic, social, and environmental aspects.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
