Preventing Moral Crisis and Promoting Sustainable Development in Enterprises: A Study of Managers’ Moral Decision-Making
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is overall well written. The idea presented seems sound and valuable.
My main concern is in fact whether this is a sustainability paper. I think it could be but it concerns me that the authors don't seem to use the term 'sustainability' in the same way as the journal. The term 'sustainability' could be used in an internalistic or an externalistic way. That is, it could return to how the behaviour of an organisation/enterprise/etc. affects its own ability to continue to exist (internalist definition) or to how it affects the ability of the whole context (environment/society) in which it operates to continue to exist (externalist definition). My impression from reading, contributing articles, reviewing and editing a special issue from the journal is that its focus is on the second (externalist) sense of the term, while it seems that this paper has its focus on the former sense.
The authors do not define their use of the term but they do provide some examples. They point out that "Immoral behavior can result in severe repercussions such as fines, 35 lawsuits, loss of trust, and a tarnished reputation" but they do not mention that the very reason the behaviour is moral is that it harms others.
The authors mention that the Cambridge Analytica scandal "undermined the level of trust users placed in Facebook, resulting in a notable decline in user retention. Consequently, regulatory bodies imposed a substantial financial penalty ..." but they do not mention the enormous damage it made by affecting the result of the election in a way that in turn might have led to a less sustainable society.
The authors also mention that after having manipulated emission data, the "Volkswagen Group was fined billions of dollars and lost significant market share". However, strictly speaking, the activities of Cambridge Analytica and VW were not immoral because they were punished. They were punished because their activities were immoral. The effects on sustainability for society and the environment would probably have continued and created more harm if they had not been called out and fined. The fines were thus not the primary unsustainable outcome. The effects on the surrounding society and environment were.
In short, the paper is clearly relevant in relation to sustainability in the sense it is normally used in this journal and could be presented this way but the authors instead choose to focus only on the internalistic sense of 'sustainablitiy' which is unfortunate but could, I imagine, easily be fixed.
Some more detailed comments:
P.1: "Meanwhile, managers' moral decision-making undertaken by man-29 agers ..." - Repetition: "managers ... managers".
P.3: You describe the concepts of 'moral climate' and 'ethical climate' as constructs. Why? Later, when you compare how other authors use the terms with your way of using the terms, you seem to see your way of using the terms as being more correct. How can there be more or less correct ways of using the terms if they are mere constructs?
P.3: You have some undefined terminology here:
What do you mean by "A more robust ethical climate"?
What does "positive ethical culture" mean?
What does "favorable moral climate" mean?
P.5: You claim that "Given the subjectivity inherent in moral decision-making, a crucial area of focus in research on this topic pertains to the interplay between intention and behavior."
This raises three questions: 1. Is it correct that there is some subjectivity inherent in moral decision-making? 2. How did you reach that conclusion (which is a bit surprising considering that almost all moral systems explicitly strive to get away from subjectivity in decision-making and that one might even claim that the whole point of moral thinking is to avoid that the decisionmakers only see their decision from their own subjective perspective), and 3. How does the second part of your sentence follow from the first part?
P.7, Table 1: In the Gender column I suppose you want to use the singular and not the plural since you describe individual participants.
P.9, Table 2: Can you explain more precisely the difference between the "Moral attitudes" and "Subjective norms" categories?
P.10, Table 2: You write: "My organization actively encourages employees to uphold moral principles in the workplace through supervision, guidance, and other means." Do you mean it that way or do you mean 'My organization uses supervision, guidance, and other means to actively encourage employees to uphold moral principles in the workplace.'?
P.10: You mention the distribution of participants from different professions in your study. Do you know what the distribution of these professions is in the society, and thus if the distribution in your study is representative of the society?
P.14: "Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) theory" and below: "TPB theory". In both cases, there is repetition of the word 'theory'.
The English is good. Only some minor issues.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presents an in-depth analysis of the role morality plays in managerial decision-making, employing the theoretical framework of the Theory of Planned Behavior.
While I found the introductory segment, literature review, and materials and methods sections to be satisfactorily detailed, I suggest a few areas that could benefit from revisions.
Specifically, the section on data collection could be more concise, particularly the explanation offered between lines 395 and 413. A more succinct description would maintain reader engagement while preserving essential information.
In the Analysis and Results section, the subsection 5.3 on Validity could be improved by addressing not only convergent validity but also discriminant validity. This would provide a more comprehensive view of the study's robustness.
Moreover, subsection 5.4.3 on mediation analysis could be elaborated upon. For instance, it would be beneficial to specify whether the confirmed mediation was full or partial, offering clearer insights into the nature and extent of the relationships investigated.
However, the final two sections - Discussion and Limitations - are meticulously crafted and do not require any modifications. They communicate the essential arguments effectively and acknowledge the research's constraints appropriately.
In its current form, the article exhibits high-quality research, and with the incorporation of the above suggestions, it is positioned well for acceptance in this journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Journal Name – Sustainability 4/06/2023
Manuscript Title: Preventing Moral Crisis and Promoting Sustainable Development in Enterprises: A Study of Managers' Moral Decision Making
1. Introduction
Ø In the introduction section, a few important findings can be given to induce the readers.
Ø In the introduction section, provide the details on the contribution or research gaps identified. This is very important.
Ø This research is about employees’ moral behavior. Highlights more on Individual deviance from moral behavior. The organization examples given can be limited and employees’ moral behavior can be in detail.
Ø The references in the introduction section about an individual’s moral behavior and moral decision marking are not much. All the citations are pertaining to firms and not to individuals.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
Hypotheses grounding require some more arguments. Elaborate.
3.1 Conceptual Framework
The dotted line in the Hypothetical framework must be explained as a footnote of the figure. The author(s) cannot give dotted just like that confuses the readers.
3.3 Scales Used in the Study
How the scales are measured? Using a 5 or 7-point Likert scale. I am not able to locate in the manuscript.
5.4.2 Direct Effect Analysis
Line 454-456 is “The P values of the standardized path coefficients of the remaining paths all reached a significant level (P<0.05), so the null hypothesis was accepted.”
What I understand is that when the p-values are < than 0.05, then the alternative hypothesis is supported. I request the authors to look into it.
General Discussion
- The study discusses partial or complete mediation and its implication in the discussion section.
- The error covariance between e27-e29 (refer to SEM Model) is a link between two different constructs. I am afraid whether we can connect the error variance of 2 different constructs. I will be happy if there is any quality reference that supports the error variance connection.
- In Table 6 and other places, it is not CFL and it is CFI (Confirmatory fit index). Hope you can change.
- There is one missing fit index (bad) and it is SRMR, report that as well.
- Have a section for theoretical contribution.
- Why specifically the manager’s moral decision-making – explain.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
An extremely valuable article addressing new aspects of managerial decision-making.
Layout of the article correct, without unnecessary threads and content.
Reads with understanding and pleasure.
I recommend adding some more recent articles from 2023
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Journal Name – Sustainability (Revision 2) 11/07/2023
Manuscript Title: Preventing Moral Crisis and Promoting Sustainable Development in Enterprises: A Study of Managers' Moral Decision Making
Dear Authors,
The manuscript has improved substantially; thank you, however, I need some changes and it is mentioned below:
ü The contribution part the authors need to build more in the introduction. I find that the visibility of the contribution looks less in the paper.
ü In Line 468-469: “In order to improve the model fit, additional connections were established between e16 and e17, e21 and e22, e24 and e25, e27 and e29, and e28 and e29 based on the 469 requirements of the MI modification index”
The error covariance between e27-e29 and 28-29 (refer to SEM Model) is a link between two different constructs. We cannot connect the error variance of 2 different constructs. I will be happy if you can provide some quality reference that supports the error variance connection.
ü Remove Figure 2 as there is already the model shown.
4. Data collection
ü Replace “validity rate” with “response rate” on line 420.
ü In Table 1, column 2 replace “man” and “woman” with “male” & “female”
Hypotheses section:
Line 220-21: “Hypothesis 5b (H5b). Moral self-efficacy acts as a mediator in the relationship between moral climate and moral intention.” When the direct hypotheses are significant, there is no need for mediation hypotheses, you can just report the mediation results. You can remove (H5b)
6. Discussion section
ü Line 505-06: “In addition, this research seeks to advance the theoretical framework of the Theory of Planned Behavior.”
Nowhere it is mentioned about the advancement. Further in lines 506-507 “The empirical findings indicate that, congruent with previous investigations, TPB is efficacious theoretical model for explicating the process of managers' moral decision-making”
ü Line no: 510-511: “Additionally, it was found that moral self-efficacy mediates the relationship between moral climate and moral self-efficacy.” There is a serious typo error and this sounds bad on the manuscript.
ü Line no: 514-515: However, the relationship between moral attitudes and moral climate is not as closely related as previously assumed.
ü This could be a problem of theory building as the attitude of an individual may not influence a firm’s outcome variable i.e., moral climate in a firm. Possibly, future research needs to think of a mediator between “moral attitude and moral climate” and reading the items of “moral climate” and one can understand as an organizational variable.
ü The error covariance between e27-e29 (refer to SEM Model) is a link between two different constructs. I am afraid whether we can connect the error variance of 2 different constructs. I will be happy if there is any quality reference that supports the error variance connection.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Dear Authors,
Do the English proof reading from an expert.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
