Sustainability Beyond Profits: Assessing the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Strategic Business Performance in Hospitality Small and Medium Enterprises

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

First, please provide clearer information about your population and the sample presented. In the abstract, there are 129 SMEs and 631 people, further on I found 482 valid responses whereas in section 3.1 there were 631 managers from 163 hotels and in Eq(1), N=731. The data are not coherent. 

Moreover, I did not understand the number of items in Appendix A for the 3 variables: in the text, it is written that ”orientation” is a 10 item-scale (see section 3.2.1.) and ”committment”, a 9-item scale. Table 1 shows ”orientation” has 6. and so it is in the Appendix 1, too. To add, in Appendix A there are no items for ”participation”.

You should also check numbering: 1) Appendix is 1 or A?; b) there are c and c' in the caption of Table 5? Actually, the manuscript is not in the publisher's format.

I look forward to reading the improved form of your manuscript.

Yours faithfully,

Author Response

Comments to the Author

            1) First, please provide clearer information about your population and the sample presented. In the abstract, there are 129 SMEs and 631 people, further on I found 482 valid responses whereas in section 3.1 there were 631 managers from 163 hotels and in Eq(1), N=731. The data are not coherent.

Authors response: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback, we appreciate your observation and have addressed the discrepancies you highlighted. The abstract has been updated to reflect the correct figures as per section 3.1, where we detail that our study involved 631 managers from 163 hotels, resulting in 482 valid responses. Additionally, we have revised Equation 1 to accurately represent the sample size, ensuring coherence across the manuscript. We apologize for the previous typographical errors and any confusion they may have caused.

            2) Moreover, I did not understand the number of items in Appendix A for the 3 variables: in the text, it is written that ”orientation” is a 10 item-scale (see section 3.2.1.) and ”committment”, a 9-item scale. Table 1 shows ”orientation” has 6. and so it is in the Appendix 1, too. To add, in Appendix A there are no items for ”participation”.

You should also check numbering: 1) Appendix is 1 or A?; b) there are c and c' in the caption of Table 5? Actually, the manuscript is not in the publisher's format.

Authors response: In response, we have addressed the ambiguity in Section 3.2.1-line 506, clarifying the content and revising it in line with the esteemed reviewer's suggestions. Additionally, we have included the previously missing portion regarding CSR participation in the questionnaire to ensure comprehensive coverage. Furthermore, Appendix 1 has been replaced with Appendix A in the manuscript for better consistency. Lastly, we have corrected the typographical error in the heading of Table 5. Thank you once again for your valuable comments and guidance, which have significantly improved the quality of our work. We are truly grateful for your thoughtful review and support.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the study.

The structure of study is well defined and organized. The methodology is suitable for the study. Sample size may not be large enough , however can be measured (minimum sample size requirement).

Before using the abbreviations, the author needed to define them, such as (CSR) line 15 in the abstract.

The author also used SEM for the analysis, therefore that needs to be indicated rather than saying “various other methods” (lines 18-19)

The author needs to decide whether to use “HSME” or “Hospitality SME”

In the abstract 632 respondents should be corrected to 482 (valid ones)

The font size of the hypotheses has to be adjusted

It would be great if we could see the effect sizes and total effects of the indirect relationships

The literature review should be supported with more and newer references.

Conclusion is missing

CSR (orientation, commitment, and participation) and its relationship with Business performance is not an original enough study. The hospitality industry makes the paper a little bit more interesting but may be not enough.

Author Response

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author

Thank you for the study.

Authors response: We sincerely appreciate the time you took to review our study. Your feedback is invaluable, and we are grateful for your thoughtful consideration and encouragement.

            1) The structure of study is well defined and organized. The methodology is suitable for the study. Sample size may not be large enough, however can be measured (minimum sample size requirement).

Authors response: We appreciate your note on the sample size. While it may not be large, we have ensured that it meets the minimum requirements for meaningful analysis. Your insights are greatly valued and will help us further enhance the quality of our research. Thank you once again for your encouraging and constructive comments.

2) Before using the abbreviations, the author needed to define them, such as (CSR) line 15 in the abstract.

Authors response: We have revised our study abstract in line with your valuable feedback. In the revised version we have provided the CSR full form. For details, please check on page 1, line number 15.

3) The author also used SEM for the analysis, therefore that needs to be indicated rather than saying “various other methods” (lines 18-19)

Authors response: We have revised the text to specifically mention the use other analytical techniques employed. The revised sentence now reads: "The analysis was conducted using structural equation modeling (SEM), regression analysis, and bootstrapping techniques to comprehensively evaluate both direct and indirect effects." This adjustment ensures clarity and accurately reflects the methods utilized in the study.

4) The author needs to decide whether to use “HSME” or “Hospitality SME”. In the abstract 632 respondents should be corrected to 482 (valid ones). The font size of the hypotheses has to be adjusted

Authors response: We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful feedback. In response, we have updated the term "HSMEs" to "hospitality SMEs" throughout the manuscript. Additionally, we have revised the abstract and updated Section 3.1 to reflect the changes related to the valid responses. We are grateful for your guidance in enhancing the clarity and accuracy of our work.

5) The literature review should be supported with more and newer references.

 Authors response: In response to respected reviewer suggestion, we have updated the highlight section with supported latest studies and the inclusion of citations are highlighted on pages 4, 5, 6 and 9.  

            6) Conclusion is missing.

Authors response: We have revised the manuscript and added a new Section 5, titled "Conclusion." This section now includes three subsections: Managerial Implications, Theoretical Implications, and Limitations and Future Prospects of the Study.

6) It would be great if we could see the effect sizes and total effects of the indirect relationships.

Authors response: The interpretation of the effect size, total effect, and the indirect effect has been clearly highlighted on page 14-15. The analysis reveals that a significant portion of CSR Orientation's influence on SBP is mediated through CSR Participation. The indirect effect, calculated as 0.2102, and the total effect, which sums the direct and indirect effects to 0.313, show that approximately 67% of CSR Orientation’s impact on SBP is indirect. The statistical significance of this mediation is confirmed through both bootstrap results, emphasizing the crucial role of CSR Participation in the relationship between CSR Orientation and SBP.

7) CSR (orientation, commitment, and participation) and its relationship with Business performance is not an original enough study. The hospitality industry makes the paper a little bit more interesting but may be not enough.

Authors response: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the originality of our study. We acknowledge that the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and business performance has been explored in various contexts. Which is mentioned on page 2, line numbers 92-95. However, our research contributes to the existing literature by specifically focusing on the hospitality industry, a sector that has unique characteristics and challenges related to CSR implementation, which is also mentioned on page 2, line number 91, page 3-line numbers 110-112 and page 3, line numbers 151-153. We believe that this context adds a significant layer of complexity and relevance to our study. The hospitality industry is particularly affected by CSR due to its direct interactions with diverse stakeholders, including customers, employees, and local communities. Our examination of CSR orientation, commitment, and participation within this specific sector highlights unique dynamics and provides fresh insights into how these elements influence business performance.

Additionally, we integrate a robust theoretical framework that draws on stakeholder theory and the resource-based view, enhancing our study's academic contribution. By investigating the nuances of CSR in the hospitality context, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of how CSR practices can be strategically aligned with business performance, thus offering unique implications for both theory and practice. We appreciate your perspective and hope this explanation clarifies the distinctive aspects of our research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article ‘Sustainability Beyond Profits: Assessing the Impact of CSR on Strategic Business Performance in Hospitality SMEs' addresses an interesting research topic. The authors focused their attention on the impact of CSR engagement and participation on strategic business performance (SBP) of hospitality SME actors, taking into account the potential mediating function of CSR engagement. For the purpose of the study, the authors used a cross-sectional dataset from entities (SMEs) operating in the hospitality industry. Findings were analysed using regression, bootstrapping and other methods to develop substantive research conclusions. 

The executive summary signals the background of the research, its purpose and scope. It indicates the methodological concept adopted and the effect of the study. In addition, the abstract explains the gap in response to which the paper was written. Abstract fully correct - no remarks.

The introduction presents the background of the research, indicating in general terms the objectives of development based on CSR, as related to the tourism industry. The challenges of tourism entrepreneurship in this respect were pointed out, with particular reference to the expectations of stakeholders. By pointing to customer expectations, it is worth developing more strongly the theme of customer preferences in the choice of tourism products, in order to demonstrate improvement towards CSR against this background. In this respect, it is worth studying https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51038-0_52, among others. In this respect, the introduction should be refined. The end of the introduction indicates the scope of the authors' findings. 

An elaboration of the introductory content is an overview of related work, presented by thematic strands. I believe that this scope should be strengthened to the extent indicated as a supplement to the introduction (preferences of tourism consumers and their expectations). Furthermore, I believe that the literature review should not be the place for the presentation of the research hypotheses adopted and their network of relationships (Figure 1). The hypotheses and the network of relationships should be included in the introduction, or in the Methodology section.  In this respect, the literature review section should be improved.

The next section presents the methodology. It presents the data and discusses the research methods with reference to the literature. At the end of this section, it is worth presenting the research steps correlated with the methodology adopted at the various stages. To the extent indicated, the methodology section is worth improving.

The point of the results was developed correctly. It is worth considering visualising the main findings to facilitate data analysis. In addition, the text under Table 6 should be completed - line 613

Discussion point correct, although it would be worth highlighting the authors' findings more strongly against existing studies of a similar nature to demonstrate the novelty of the findings. 

The paper lacks a separate summary point, which should be completed. The point should refer to the purpose of the paper and the noted gap to indicate the value of the paper (contribution to theory and practice). To this extent, the paper should be supplemented.

In summary, this is an original article. Before publication, however, appropriate corrections and improvements should be made according to the comments indicated in the review. Among other things, the introduction should be refined. The structure of the paper should be improved under the criterion of layout and content of the ‘literature review’ and ‘methodology’ sections, and the conclusion should be completed.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer: 3

Comments to the Author

The article ‘Sustainability Beyond Profits: Assessing the Impact of CSR on Strategic Business Performance in Hospitality SMEs' addresses an interesting research topic. The authors focused their attention on the impact of CSR engagement and participation on strategic business performance (SBP) of hospitality SME actors, taking into account the potential mediating function of CSR engagement. For the purpose of the study, the authors used a cross-sectional dataset from entities (SMEs) operating in the hospitality industry. Findings were analysed using regression, bootstrapping and other methods to develop substantive research conclusions. 

Authors response: We would like to express our sincere appreciation for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. In response to the comments you provided, we have addressed each point with precision and care to fulfill your concerns. We believe that these revisions not only enhance the clarity and rigor of our arguments but also improve the overall quality of the manuscript. Thank you once again for your insightful feedback, which has been instrumental in refining our study.

            1) The executive summary signals the background of the research, its purpose and scope. It indicates the methodological concept adopted and the effect of the study. In addition, the abstract explains the gap in response to which the paper was written. Abstract fully correct - no remarks.

            Authors response: We appreciate your acknowledgment and thorough review.

            2) Before using the abbreviations, the author needed to define them, such as (CSR) line 15 in the abstract.

Authors response: We have updated the abstract to include the full form of CSR.

            3) The introduction presents the background of the research, indicating in general terms the objectives of development based on CSR, as related to the tourism industry. The challenges of tourism entrepreneurship in this respect were pointed out, with particular reference to the expectations of stakeholders. By pointing to customer expectations, it is worth developing more strongly the theme of customer preferences in the choice of tourism products, in order to demonstrate improvement towards CSR against this background. In this respect, it is worth studying https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51038-0_52, among others. In this respect, the introduction should be refined. The end of the introduction indicates the scope of the authors' findings. 

Authors response: In response to this, we have made substantial revisions to our introduction section to clarify customer preferences. We have emphasized the evolving nature of consumer expectations, highlighting the increasing demand for transparency, ethical behavior, and active engagement in CSR from businesses (which can see on line 57-74). Moreover, the suggested reading cited carefully in introduction section line 59 and 68.  The revised section outlines how these preferences have shifted towards favoring companies that integrate sustainability and social responsibility into their core operations, particularly within the hospitality industry. We detail how modern customers are not only looking for quality service but also seek alignment between their values and the practices of the businesses they support. This alignment is crucial for hospitality SMEs aiming to cultivate customer loyalty and competitive advantage in a market where ethical consumption is gaining prominence. By focusing on these aspects, we aim to provide a clearer understanding of how customer expectations influence CSR strategies and drive business practices in the hospitality sector.Additionally, we incorporated relevant citations to support these insights and demonstrate the importance of meeting customer expectations as a pathway to achieving sustainable growth. These revisions will help to contextualize our study within the broader discourse on CSR and customer engagement, ultimately strengthening our argument and providing a comprehensive view of the interplay between customer preferences and business strategies.

Thank you for the constructive feedback, which has helped us improve the robustness of our hypothesis development and theoretical rationale.

            4) An elaboration of the introductory content is an overview of related work, presented by thematic strands. I believe that this scope should be strengthened to the extent indicated as a supplement to the introduction (preferences of tourism consumers and their expectations). Furthermore, I believe that the literature review should not be the place for the presentation of the research hypotheses adopted and their network of relationships (Figure 1). The hypotheses and the network of relationships should be included in the introduction, or in the Methodology section.  In this respect, the literature review section should be improved.

Authors response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have integrated it into the introduction (page 2, lines 57-74), and we have provided a detailed explanation in the response above. Additionally, we appreciate your feedback regarding Figure 1. We have moved this figure to the methodology section, which we believe enhances its relevance and clarity.

            5) The next section presents the methodology. It presents the data and discusses the research methods with reference to the literature. At the end of this section, it is worth presenting the research steps correlated with the methodology adopted at the various stages. To the extent indicated, the methodology section is worth improving.

Authors response: We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback on our manuscript. In response to your comments, we have revised the methodology section to include a detailed description of the methodological steps. The updated information can be found in Section 3.3 on page 12, lines 562-569. Thank you for helping us enhance the clarity and rigor of our work.

            6) The point of the results was developed correctly. It is worth considering visualising the main findings to facilitate data analysis. In addition, the text under Table 6 should be completed - line 613.

Authors response: In response to the reviewers' comments, we have added a new Section 4.1, labeled " Results Summary and Discussion," which presents the main findings Summary.

Additionally, we have highlighted and revised the text above the Table 6 to improve clarity and alignment with the study's findings., which can track on 631-633. Thank you for your valuable feedback.

            7) Discussion point correct, although it would be worth highlighting the authors' findings more strongly against existing studies of a similar nature to demonstrate the novelty of the findings. 

The paper lacks a separate summary point, which should be completed. The point should refer to the purpose of the paper and the noted gap to indicate the value of the paper (contribution to theory and practice). To this extent, the paper should be supplemented.

Authors response: In response to your suggestions, we have incorporated a new Section 4.1, which provides a detailed summary of the study's results. This section can now be tracked on lines 636 to 686. We believe these revisions enhance the clarity and impact of our study, and we are grateful for your guidance in this process. Thank you once again for your constructive comments, which have helped us improve the quality of our manuscript.

8) In summary, this is an original article. Before publication, however, appropriate corrections and improvements should be made according to the comments indicated in the review. Among other things, the introduction should be refined. The structure of the paper should be improved under the criterion of layout and content of the ‘literature review’ and ‘methodology’ sections, and the conclusion should be completed.

Authors response: Thank you for the constructive feedback. We have carefully considered and addressed each suggestion provided by the respected reviewer. The introduction, literature review, methodology, and conclusion sections have been refined and improved as recommended. We appreciate the valuable insights and believe the revisions have strengthened the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the improved manuscript. I identified though a huge error in determining the sample size, actually Yamane's calculation at line 487 is incorrect, it should be n=6116/[1+6115*(0.05*0.05)] = 375 managers. You should also check with references if this formula is used for populations larger than 400-500 participants.  

Yours faithfully,

Author Response

Comments to the Author

1) Thank you for the improved manuscript. I identified though a huge error in determining the sample size, actually Yamane's calculation at line 487 is incorrect, it should be n=6116/[1+6115*(0.05*0.05)] = 375 managers. You should also check with references if this formula is used for populations larger than 400-500 participants. 

Authors response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion, which has ultimately enhanced our manuscript's credibility and significance. By following your recommendation, we have reviewed and corrected the measurement, as shown on line 487 of Manuscript. This revision ensures greater accuracy and reliability, closely aligning with the standards advised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the quick revision, it is appreciated. 

Author Response

Comments to the Author

Thank you for the quick revision, it is appreciated. 

Authors response: Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. Your recommendations have been extremely helpful, and we appreciate your positive assessment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the article. 

Author Response

The authors have improved the article. 

Authors response: We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful review and encouraging comments. Your insights have greatly enriched our work. Thank you again!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf