Human Capital to Implement Corporate Sustainability Business Strategies for Common Good

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a clear and well-structured empirical contribution that builds upon an established theoretical framework, and it is evident that it has already undergone a prior round of peer review, as reflected in the solid articulation of its hypotheses, refined methodological clarity, and precise referencing throughout. Only a very minor point needs attention: the authors might consider streamlining or slightly clarifying the distinction between "strategic choice theory" and the "resource-based view" in the discussion section, particularly in their application to sustainable HRM, as the narrative at times overlaps in a way that could benefit from sharper conceptual separation without changing the substance. This is an extremely minor suggestion and does not detract from the overall quality or clarity of the manuscript.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1 comment
Comment 1 - The manuscript presents a clear and well-structured empirical contribution that builds upon an established theoretical framework, and it is evident that it has already undergone a prior round of peer review, as reflected in the solid articulation of its hypotheses, refined methodological clarity, and precise referencing throughout. Only a very minor point needs attention: the authors might consider streamlining or slightly clarifying the distinction between "strategic choice theory" and the "resource-based view" in the discussion section, particularly in their application to sustainable HRM, as the narrative at times overlaps in a way that could benefit from sharper conceptual separation without changing the substance. This is an extremely minor suggestion and does not detract from the overall quality or clarity of the manuscript.
Response: Based on your comment I have now revised a part of the discussion section (see line 694 – 698).

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the concerns I raised may not have been fully addressed by the author, I nonetheless recognize the value of the work presented in this study. I sincerely appreciate the considerable effort that went into its development. Congratulations to the author on completing this meaningful contribution.

Author Response

Comment 1 – None
Response: No response provided.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my issues. Only one minor comment for this revision. There are too many abbreviations in Abstract. Examples are HRM and HPSWPs. Overall, I am satisfied with this revision.

Author Response

Reviewer 3 comment
Comment 1 – The authors have addressed my issues. Only one minor comment for this revision. There are too many abbreviations in Abstract. Examples are HRM and HPSWPs. Overall, I am satisfied with this revision.
Response: I have now removed the universally accepted HRM abbreviation and the established HPSWPs abbreviation in the abstract based on your comment

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the scientific research article is compelling, it requires several modifications to enhance the clarity and articulation of its ideas. To help the authors refine their manuscript, I have provided more detailed recommendations in the attached PDF. These suggestions aim to improve the accuracy in expressing core concepts and ensure that the arguments are communicated more effectively to the audience. This guidance is designed to streamline the narrative and improve the overall coherence of the document, thus bolstering its potential for publication.

 

1 - The authors should consider choosing a title that is both concise and engaging, crafted to immediately capture the reader's attention and spark their curiosity. A compelling title can significantly enhance the appeal of the content, drawing readers into the narrative for a rewarding and enriching experience.

 

2 - The abstract should more clearly and extensively highlight the practical applications and significant implications of the research. It should illustrate how the results can be applied in real-world settings and the potential consequences for the relevant field of study. This approach will better demonstrate the real-world impact and relevance of the findings.

 

3 - Acronyms are generally avoided in the abstract to ensure clarity and accessibility for all readers, including those who may not be familiar with specific abbreviated terms used within the field.

 

4 - The authors should restrict their keywords to no more than five or six terms. This limitation sharpens the focus of the work and ensures the keywords are closely aligned with the document's central themes. A concise set of well-chosen keywords enhances the precision of indexing in academic search engines, making it easier for other researchers interested in similar topics to discover the study.

 

5 - Acronyms are generally not used among the keywords to ensure that the terms are accessible and easily searchable by all researchers, regardless of their familiarity with specific jargon.

 

6 - The introduction effectively sets the stage for exploring the integration of ESG strategies within corporate frameworks aligned with UN SDGs. However, it could benefit from a sharper focus on delineating specific research gaps it intends to address, thereby strengthening the linkage between the broad concepts discussed and the study’s objectives. Additionally, emphasizing the unique contributions of this study in the context of existing literature would clarify its significance and potential impact on the field of corporate sustainability. This adjustment would not only refine the study's scope but also enhance its relevance and applicability in practical settings.

 

7 - at the beginning of the introduction, from row 33 to row 41, where authors state "[...] Organisational sustainability values form the DNA of businesses to shape environmental, social and governance (ESG) business strategies, and the required human capital with sustainability characteristics, for implementing those business strategies to achieve United Nations (UN) sustainability development goals (SDGs). In the UN 2030 Agenda for sustainable development context, corporate ESG sustainability is about the strategies and practices that companies use to address the global challenges of sustainability and to advance sustainability development for better profit, people, and planet [...]", to better contextualize these important concepts in the recent literature scenario, the authors should cite the following recent work dealing exactly with the mentioned issues:

-Falegnami, A., Romano, E. and Tomassi, A., 2024. The emergence of the GreenSCENT competence framework: a constructivist approach: the GreenSCENT theory. In The European Green Deal in Education (pp. 204-216). Routledge.

 

 

8 - The theoretical background and hypotheses section thoroughly outlines corporate sustainability and ESG goals, yet it could be streamlined for clarity and focus. The extensive literature review should more directly tie into the study's hypotheses, emphasizing the gaps it seeks to address. Simplifying the presentation of theories and enhancing the linkage between these and the empirical investigations proposed would make the arguments more compelling and focused. This would clarify the study's contributions to the field and strengthen the justification for its relevance and necessity.

 

9 - I recommend that the authors make the caption for Figure 1 more descriptive. The image contains a wealth of information that the current caption does not fully capture. Providing a more detailed explanation will help readers understand the significance and the details of the image more clearly, enhancing the overall impact and clarity of the figure.

 

10 - The Materials and Methods section is well-detailed, yet it could be improved by more clearly justifying the choice of senior managers as survey respondents and discussing potential biases this selection might introduce. Additionally, while the use of established scales is thoroughly documented, expanding on the validity and reliability tests beyond Cronbach's alpha would strengthen the robustness of the results. A brief discussion on additional strategies to mitigate common method bias, apart from separating survey stages, would also enhance the methodological rigor of the study.

 

11 - The Results section is comprehensive, detailing the statistical analyses and outcomes effectively. However, the presentation of results could be condensed to enhance clarity and readability. Specifically, the explanation of multicollinearity checks and common method bias could be more concise, directly linking these analyses to their implications for the study's validity without extensive procedural descriptions. Also, while the detailed reporting of CFA and regression analyses is thorough, it risks overwhelming the reader with excessive statistical detail. Simplifying these descriptions and focusing on the key findings would help maintain the reader's engagement and ensure the section is accessible to those not familiar with advanced statistical techniques. Moreover, the numerous references to specific statistical tests and models could be streamlined by summarizing only the most critical points that directly support the study's hypotheses, ensuring the section remains focused and impactful.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aligns with IFRS sustainability disclosure requirements and ESG-SDGs integration trends, which adds value to sustainable HRM literature.

The research design is well-organized, which has adquate use of control variables. In addition, this study integrates Strategic Choice Theory, Resource-based view, and sustainable HRM perspectives. I only have several minor issues as follows:

(1) The research result is confined to Australian corporates, wich may not be suitable for SMEs in other regions (or nations). It is suggested to highlight this limitation in Conclusion.

(2) This study proposed a new 5-item scale, but it lacks confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate its structure.

(3) This manuscript is lengthy. Several sections are overly repetitive; examples are the reinstated concepts like ESG or SDGs. 

(4) Abstract is too long and detailed. 

(5) In Discussion, implication for practice is limited. 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigates the formation of ESG-related business strategies and emphasizes the pivotal role of a holistic sustainability orientation in shaping these strategies. It argues that when organizations adopt a comprehensive approach to sustainability, encompassing environmental, social, and governance dimensions, this orientation not only influences strategic direction but also fosters the development of sustainable human resource management practices for the strategic direction. Specifically, the study posits that High-Performance Sustainable Work Practices (HPSWP) mediate the relationship between holistic sustainability orientation and ESG-driven strategic initiatives. By highlighting the intersection of ESG imperatives and HRM systems, the study offers a meaningful contribution to the literature on sustainable organizational practices. However, the current empirical analysis falls short of adequately supporting the proposed theoretical claims. The methodology and data presentation require substantial refinement to enhance the study’s credibility and impact. A revised research design, with improved operationalization of key constructs and a more robust analytical framework, would significantly strengthen the study’s contribution and increase its scholarly and practical relevance.

First, the measurement of key variables warrants careful reconsideration. While I acknowledge and appreciate the considerable effort involved in collecting data, especially from top management team (TMT) members, which is notoriously challenging, the current approach raises concerns about the alignment between the conceptual level of the constructs and their operationalization. Specifically, although the variables are theorized at the organizational level, their measurement relies heavily on individual-level perceptions, which may not adequately capture firm-level attributes. This disconnect is particularly evident in the case of the holistic sustainability orientation variable. Its operational definition lacks clarity, and the scale used appears to reflect subjective judgments rather than objectively aggregated organizational practices or orientations. The authors are encouraged to demonstrate the extent to which the selected respondents reliably represent their respective organizations, perhaps by providing information on their roles, tenure, or involvement in sustainability-related decisions. Without establishing the representativeness and reliability of these respondents, the validity of the findings remains uncertain.

Second, the imprecision in variable measurement appears to contribute to inconsistencies in the regression results. For instance, the coefficients of holistic sustainability orientation with respect to corporate sustainability (CS) business strategies display conflicting signs across the ESG dimensions, positive for environmental and governance strategies, but unexpectedly negative for social strategies. While it is reasonable to acknowledge that the three ESG dimensions may respond differently to organizational orientations due to their distinct operational and normative characteristics, these divergent results seem difficult to reconcile with the study’s overarching theoretical logic. This inconsistency raises questions about the conceptual clarity and empirical validity of the holistic sustainability orientation construct. It suggests that the observed misalignment may stem from limitations in how the variables are measured and possibly from broader issues in the research design, particularly in the data collection procedures. If individual respondents’ interpretations of sustainability priorities differ widely or if the construct lacks a clearly bounded definition, it may result in unreliable or unstable empirical relationships.

To address these issues, the authors may need to refine the operationalization of core constructs and consider alternative data collection strategies that can better capture firm-level orientations and actions. Ensuring conceptual coherence between the hypothesized relationships and the measurement tools is essential to produce robust and interpretable findings.

Overall, I believe the study would benefit from a substantial redesign to ensure that its central arguments are examined in a methodologically sound and conceptually coherent manner. The current disconnect between theoretical framing, variable measurement, and empirical analysis undermines the validity of the conclusions drawn. A more rigorous alignment between the level of theory, the operationalization of constructs, and the research design, particularly in terms of sampling strategy and data collection, would significantly enhance the study’s contribution and credibility.

I hope these comments are constructive and helpful in guiding the further development of this promising work.