The Impact of ESG Management Activities on the Organizational Performance of Manufacturing Companies in South Korea: The Moderating Effect of Job Position

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is interesting and I enjoyed reading the paper. There are some amendments that need to be made though. Please provide all answers separately, but also in the text, as they are not made for me but for the readers of the journal. Please make sure they are highlighted or written at a different color, so that they can be easily spotted.

1. Please rewrite the abstract so that:
   1. It is clear what the dependent variables are. Initially two are mentioned but then more are added.
   2. Remove the enumeration first, second, third, etc. Please make concrete and clear sentences that show the effect.
   3. Some sentences look incomplete (a word is missing). Please correct them so that they make sense.
   4. Please make clear what the contribution of the paper is. Is it the expansion to different sectors/ industries? Is it the method? ESG is not limited to HR, Marketing, etc. There is also research in the investment, government, etc. sectors.
2. Why South Korea was chosen? Is it representative of what is happening in the world?
3. There is no separate literature review section. It is somehow embedded in the Introduction and thus it is too short. There are further elements of literature in the Theoretical Background section. But why is it characterized as theoretical?
   1. I recommend setting a separate literature review section and stating the gap covered by the research there (after explaining what has been done).
   2. I recommend stating the research question and approach in a clearer manner in the introduction. For example, is the research aiming at identifying the determinants of organizational trust, commitment, and performance for manufacturing companies?
4. I recommend sticking to the term ESG management activities in the entire text. Hence, in section 2.1 please amend the title to ESG Management Activities and clearly state what such activities are. Please make it as concrete as the other 3 variables of your study presented in sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4.
5. In section 2.4 explain exactly what the mentioned “outcomes an organization achieves” are.
6. Sub-sections 3.2.4, 3.2.5: are you trying to find the transition mechanism from ESG Management Activities to Organizational Performance? Is it correct to infer that ESG Management Activities influence Organizational Trust and Commitment, which in turn affect Organizational Performance? Please elaborate why these relations are studied.
7. Subsection 3.3.4. Organizational Performance: to make sure I understand. Only non-financial performance is measured? If my understanding is correct, then this needs to be amended, as it ignores the main driver of entrepreneurship: profit. Thus, I would even focus on only one variable, which is profit (or perhaps share value increase/ performance) as a proxy of organizational performance. Why do management activities (even ESG) if there is no positive effect on profitability? Please explain and amend.
8. It seems that only 3 companies were surveyed.
   1. How and why were they selected?
   2. What percent of the total sector do they represent in terms of (a) turnover, (b) number of employees, (c) profitability, (d) market share, (e) market value, etc.?
   3. Isn’t there a bias because of this choice?
   4. Why is this sample sufficient for this survey?
9. Sample characteristics: it is also important to know the percentages compared to the total population. For example, is the male-female split in line with this of the entire population or is there an over-representation of male respondents (again for example).
10. Please explain the job position levels. What is an associate? Is he or she still a decorated officer or a simple employee?
11. Why a different pitch is used in some categories? Does it indicate something?
12. What do the letters and numbers next to the construct column show in Table 2?
13. Make sure ALL acronyms are explained even if they are standard.
14. Please explain the particulars of structural equation modeling (SEM) path analysis employed in your research. What were the equations used? Were there any other control variables or did you only proceed with 1-to-1 equations? Please include the specific equations for this particular research and not the generic theoretical ones.
15. What are the values in the parentheses in Figure 2? If these are the t-values, then they do not always agree with the ones mentioned in the text.
16. Table 4 is not in line with Figure 2. There is one more hypothesis that is rejected according to the figure.
17. Please elaborate a bit more on the explanation of the findings for all hypotheses and interdependencies. For example, most firms pursue environmental actions that are not linked to their operational activities. The employees, as well as the broader audience does not “buy it”. They can understand that it is purely for communication purposes and not a true action that returns value or protects the environment, being on the verge of “greenwashing”. The same holds true for the societal impact.
18. I am not sure I understand what Table 6 shows.
19. Make sure all Tables are cited before they are used for the first time. I am not sure I found it.
20. Make sure the titles of the Tables explain exactly what they show for this particular study.
21. Please state the source of the tables. If they are compiled by the authors/ are based on author estimates, please state so, indicating where the data comes from.
22. There are too many repetitions in the Conclusions and Discussion Section. I recommend:
    5. Creating a separate section that is called Policymaking recommendations where you can transfer the contents of subsection 5.1. – but preceding the conclusions section. Please make sure the recommendations are concrete and specific and not generic. For example, awareness is a big issue. Do employees at all levels have access to the information? Does the management communicate often related initiatives? Do they really understand what ESG stands for? Do they have the sufficient financial education/ literacy?
    6. Naming the last section as Conclusions and Future Research. Make it concise and to the point, avoiding unnecessary repetitions.
23. Would you please put the questionnaire of the survey as an appendix?
24. There are some typos, language, syntax and grammatical errors. Please identify and correct.

 

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 1 (Sustainability-3595851)

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is interesting and I enjoyed reading the paper. There are some amendments that need to be made though. Please provide all answers separately, but also in the text, as they are not made for me but for the readers of the journal. Please make sure they are highlighted or written at a different color, so that they can be easily spotted.

1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions. Please find our detailed responses below, along with the corresponding revisions and corrections, which have been highlighted in the resubmitted files using track changes.

 

1. Please rewrite the abstract so that:

1) It is clear what the dependent variables are. Initially two are mentioned but then more are added.

2) Remove the enumeration first, second, third, etc. Please make concrete and clear sentences that show the effect.

3) Some sentences look incomplete (a word is missing). Please correct them so that they make sense.

4) Please make clear what the contribution of the paper is. Is it the expansion to different sectors/ industries? Is it the method? ESG is not limited to HR, Marketing, etc. There is also research in the investment, government, etc. sectors.

Response 1: As per your valuable suggestions, the abstract has been revised to clearly distinguish the independent, mediating, and dependent variables. We have also refined the description of the analysis results, moving away from a listing format to a more integrated narrative. Furthermore, the contributions of this study have been explicitly articulated to highlight its academic and practical relevance within the sustainability context.

 

2. Why South Korea was chosen? Is it representative of what is happening in the world?

Response 2: We have revised the Introduction to reflect the insightful comments received, thereby strengthening the rationale and relevance of the study.

 

3. There is no separate literature review section. It is somehow embedded in the Introduction and thus it is too short. There are further elements of literature in the Theoretical Background section. But why is it characterized as theoretical?

1) I recommend setting a separate literature review section and stating the gap covered by the research there (after explaining what has been done).

2) I recommend stating the research question and approach in a clearer manner in the introduction. For example, is the research aiming at identifying the determinants of organizational trust, commitment, and performance for manufacturing companies?

Response 3: Based on your recommendation and in accordance with article formatting trends observed in Sustainability (2025), we have revised the section title from Theoretical Background to Literature Review.

 

4. I recommend sticking to the term ESG management activities in the entire text. Hence, in section 2.1 please amend the title to ESG Management Activities and clearly state what such activities are. Please make it as concrete as the other 3 variables of your study presented in sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4.

Response 4: We fully agree with the feedback provided. However, given the broad scope of each sub-dimension within ESG activities (Environmental, Social, and Governance), we believe there is significant value in applying these factors in future research. Recent studies have shown a growing tendency to analyze the individual effects of ESG components on various outcome variables, indicating a promising direction for further investigation.

 

5. In section 2.4 explain exactly what the mentioned “outcomes an organization achieves” are.

Response 5: The organizational outcomes referred to in this study encompass non-financial performance indicators such as corporate image, trust in products and services, and increased customer repurchase behavior. In the field of business research, numerous studies have employed non-financial performance as a dependent variable. This is largely due to the inherent difficulty in directly linking ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) activities to financial outcomes such as revenue or profitability. Moreover, acquiring detailed financial data related to ESG initiatives from firms often poses significant practical challenges.

 

6. Sub-sections 3.2.4, 3.2.5: are you trying to find the transition mechanism from ESG Management Activities to Organizational Performance? Is it correct to infer that ESG Management Activities influence Organizational Trust and Commitment, which in turn affect Organizational Performance? Please elaborate why these relations are studied.
7. Subsection 3.3.4. Organizational Performance: to make sure I understand. Only non-financial performance is measured? If my understanding is correct, then this needs to be amended, as it ignores the main driver of entrepreneurship: profit. Thus, I would even focus on only one variable, which is profit (or perhaps share value increase/ performance) as a proxy of organizational performance. Why do management activities (even ESG) if there is no positive effect on profitability? Please explain and amend.

Response 6 and Response 7: Although ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) activities have garnered increasing attention as strategic drivers of corporate performance, establishing a direct and consistent link between ESG initiatives and financial outcomes remains a methodological and practical challenge. As noted by Luo and Bhattacharya (2006), the relationship between socially responsible activities and firm value is often mediated by intangible factors such as customer satisfaction, which are difficult to quantify in financial terms. Similarly, Fatemi et al. (2018) emphasize the complexity of this relationship, particularly due to the moderating role of ESG disclosure practices, which vary widely across firms and industries.

Moreover, Eccles et al. (2014) argue that while sustainability-oriented firms may outperform their peers in the long term, measuring the financial impact of ESG practices requires longitudinal data and access to proprietary performance indicators that are not always publicly available. These limitations are further compounded by the fact that ESG strategies often yield delayed or indirect returns, making it difficult to isolate their specific financial effects. Consequently, many researchers turn to non-financial performance metrics—such as corporate image, customer trust, and stakeholder engagement—as more accessible and meaningful indicators of ESG effectiveness.

Luo & Bhattacharya (2006), Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Value, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70, No. 4, pp. 1–18

DOI: 10.1509/jmkg.70.4.001

Fatemi, Glaum, & Kaiser (2018), ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure, Global Finance Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 45–64

DOI: 10.1016/j.gfj.2017.03.001

Eccles, Ioannou, & Serafeim (2014), The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance, Management Science, Vol. 60, No. 11, pp. 2835–2857

DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984

 

8. It seems that only 3 companies were surveyed.

1) How and why were they selected?

2) What percent of the total sector do they represent in terms of (a) turnover, (b) number of employees, (c) profitability, (d) market share, (e) market value, etc.?

3) Isn’t there a bias because of this choice?

4) Why is this sample sufficient for this survey?

Response 8: We have reflected the insightful comments by supplementing the Introduction with a discussion on the complexities and limitations of measuring the financial impact of ESG activities.

 

9. Sample characteristics: it is also important to know the percentages compared to the total population. For example, is the male-female split in line with this of the entire population or is there an over-representation of male respondents (again for example).

Response 9: The gender distribution of the sample in this study was 64% male and 36% female, which appears to reflect the general gender composition observed among office workers in South Korean manufacturing firms.

 

10. Please explain the job position levels. What is an associate? Is he or she still a decorated officer or a simple employee?

Response 10: In the context of job positions, the term associate refers to staff and does not merely denote a general worker. Accordingly, in Table 1, associate has been revised to staff to reflect this distinction accurately.

 

11. Why a different pitch is used in some categories? Does it indicate something?

Response 11: The authenticity of corporate ESG activities carries significant implications for stakeholder trust, long-term performance, the development of evaluation standards, the role of internal culture and leadership, and increasing public scrutiny.

 

12. What do the letters and numbers next to the construct column show in Table 2?

Response 12: In Table 2, the variable items have been revised from simple numerical labels to clearly display the specific items corresponding to each variable.

 

13. Make sure ALL acronyms are explained even if they are standard.

Response 13: The full names of C.R. (Composite Reliability) and AVE (Average Variance Extracted) have been provided in Table 2 for clarity.

 

14. Please explain the particulars of structural equation modeling (SEM) path analysis employed in your research. What were the equations used? Were there any other control variables or did you only proceed with 1-to-1 equations? Please include the specific equations for this particular research and not the generic theoretical ones.

Response 14: The structural equation modeling (SEM) path analysis in this study was conducted using a confirmatory approach to test the hypothesized relationships among the latent variables. The model included multiple endogenous and exogenous variables, with paths estimated simultaneously rather than through 1-to-1 equations. Control variables were not included in this study, as the research focused on examining the direct and mediating effects among core constructs. Including control variables was deemed unnecessary, given the theoretical model’s emphasis on structural relationships rather than demographic influences.

 

15. What are the values in the parentheses in Figure 2? If these are the t-values, then they do not always agree with the ones mentioned in the text.

Response 15: In accordance with your comments, the rejection of the hypothesis presented in Figure 2 has been revised to align with the corresponding statement in the main text.

 

16. Table 4 is not in line with Figure 2. There is one more hypothesis that is rejected according to the figure.

Response 16: As per your suggestion, the contents of Table 4 have been revised to ensure consistency with those of Figure 2.

 

17. Please elaborate a bit more on the explanation of the findings for all hypotheses and interdependencies. For example, most firms pursue environmental actions that are not linked to their operational activities. The employees, as well as the broader audience does not “buy it”. They can understand that it is purely for communication purposes and not a true action that returns value or protects the environment, being on the verge of “greenwashing”. The same holds true for the societal impact.

Response 17: Thank you for the valuable comment. The discussion has been expanded to more clearly explain the findings for each hypothesis and the observed interdependencies. In particular, we emphasize that when environmental or societal actions are not integrated into core operational activities, stakeholders—including employees and the general public—tend to perceive them as superficial or symbolic, potentially bordering on greenwashing. This lack of authenticity diminishes both credibility and impact. The revised discussion highlights the importance of aligning sustainability initiatives with actual business practices to generate meaningful value and trust.

 

18. I am not sure I understand what Table 6 shows.

Response 18: Based on your comments, Table 6 has been removed and the main text has been revised accordingly.

 

19. Make sure all Tables are cited before they are used for the first time. I am not sure I found it.

Response 19: The revisions have been made as per your suggestions.

 

20. Make sure the titles of the Tables explain exactly what they show for this particular study.
21. Please state the source of the tables. If they are compiled by the authors/ are based on author estimates, please state so, indicating where the data comes from.

Response 20 and Response 21: Thank you for the insightful comment. The titles of all tables have been revised to clearly reflect their specific content within the context of this study. Additionally, sources have been indicated for each table. Where applicable, tables compiled or estimated by the authors are now clearly marked, along with the corresponding data sources.

 

22. There are too many repetitions in the Conclusions and Discussion Section. I recommend:

1) Creating a separate section that is called Policymaking recommendations where you can transfer the contents of subsection 5.1. – but preceding the conclusions section. Please make sure the recommendations are concrete and specific and not generic. For example, awareness is a big issue. Do employees at all levels have access to the information? Does the management communicate often related initiatives? Do they really understand what ESG stands for? Do they have the sufficient financial education/ literacy?

2) Naming the last section as Conclusions and Future Research. Make it concise and to the point, avoiding unnecessary repetitions.

Response 22: As suggested, the repeated content in the Conclusions and Discussion section has been carefully removed to enhance clarity and conciseness.

 

23.Would you please put the questionnaire of the survey as an appendix?

Response 23: In accordance with the recommendation, the survey questionnaire has been presented in the appendix section, placed before the references.

 

24. There are some typos, language, syntax and grammatical errors. Please identify and correct.

Response 4: Taking the reviewers' suggestions into account, we sought assistance from MDPI Author Services to enhance the overall language and presentation of the manuscript.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper uses survey data from three large manufacturing firms to analyze the impact of ESG management activities on corporate performance. I think this paper can be improved in several aspects. I state my detailed comments and suggestions below.

 

Comments and Suggestions:

 

1. The abstract should provide some information regarding the study sample and methodology. This would make the abstract more informative.

 

2. Some more details of the questionnaire should be provided. For example, in Line 327 on Page 8, it is stated that “A total of 12 items were adapted and refined for the study”. However, after reading this sentence, readers are still unclear about what specific questions were actually asked in the questionnaire.

 

3. In Lines 370-371 on Page 9, it is stated that the survey is conducted in three firms “Company L, Company H, and another Company H”. However, no further information about these three firms was provided to readers. At least, a brief introduction of these three firms should be offered.

 

4. The survey is conducted in three firms L, H, and another H. Why were these three companies selected? How representative are they? The paper should at least provide some analysis and explanation.

 

5. In Tables 2 and 3 on Page 10, the font size of “Organizational Commitment” and “Organizational Performance” is abnormally small. This needs to be corrected to the normal font size.

 

6. The information of reference 1 is incomplete. For example, the journal name is not provided.

 

Author Response

 

Reply to Reviewer 2 (Sustainability-3595851)

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper uses survey data from three large manufacturing firms to analyze the impact of ESG management activities on corporate performance. I think this paper can be improved in several aspects. I state my detailed comments and suggestions below.

1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions. Please find our detailed responses below, along with the corresponding revisions and corrections, which have been highlighted in the resubmitted files using track changes.

 

 

Comments and Suggestions:

 

 

1. The abstract should provide some information regarding the study sample and methodology. This would make the abstract more informative.

Response 1: In response to your suggestion, we have included relevant details about the study sample and methodology.

 

2. Some more details of the questionnaire should be provided. For example, in Line 327 on Page 8, it is stated that “A total of 12 items were adapted and refined for the study”. However, after reading this sentence, readers are still unclear about what specific questions were actually asked in the questionnaire.

Response 2: Taking your feedback into account, we have added the survey questionnaire prior to the references section.

 

3. In Lines 370-371 on Page 9, it is stated that the survey is conducted in three firms “Company L, Company H, and another Company H”. However, no further information about these three firms was provided to readers. At least, a brief introduction of these three firms should be offered.

Response 3: In response to your comment, we have incorporated the relevant details into Section 3.4, Data Collection and Research Methods.

 

4. The survey is conducted in three firms L, H, and another H. Why were these three companies selected? How representative are they? The paper should at least provide some analysis and explanation.

Response 4: Taking your feedback into account, we have added the relevant content to the introduction section.

 

5. In Tables 2 and 3 on Page 10, the font size of “Organizational Commitment” and “Organizational Performance” is abnormally small. This needs to be corrected to the normal font size.

Response 5: In accordance with your suggestion, the font sizes in Tables 2 and 3 have been revised to match the formatting standards of the journal.

 

6. The information of reference 1 is incomplete. For example, the journal name is not provided.

Response 6: We have amended Reference 1 in accordance with your valuable suggestions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates the influence of ESG management activities on organizational trust and commitment among employees in large manufacturing enterprises.

 

1. The title should be revised to remove the phrase 'A study on' and incorporate a description of the specific region or country from which the evidence is derived.
2. The abstract must include a detailed account of the data sources utilized and provide a more succinct summary of the study's findings.
3. The introduction should clarify the rationale for selecting large manufacturing enterprises.
4. The paper lacks a discussion on its academic contribution in relation to existing literature on similar studies.
5. In Section 2, the theoretical background should not be presented as a separate section and should be integrated into the main text.
6. The number of research hypotheses is excessive; it is advisable to retain only a select few to sharpen the focus of the argument.
7. The rationale for selecting employees from three large manufacturing corporations—Company L, Company H, and another Company H—needs to be articulated. Additionally, there is a lack of information regarding these corporations, raising concerns about the sample data's completeness and reliability.
8. The font size in Table 3 is inconsistent and requires standardization.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 3 (Sustainability-3595851)

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates the influence of ESG management activities on organizational trust and commitment among employees in large manufacturing enterprises.

1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions. Please find our detailed responses below, along with the corresponding revisions and corrections, which have been highlighted in the resubmitted files using track changes.

 

 

1. The title should be revised to remove the phrase 'A study on' and incorporate a description of the specific region or country from which the evidence is derived.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion — I’ve updated the title accordingly.

 

2. The abstract must include a detailed account of the data sources utilized and provide a more succinct summary of the study's findings.

Response 2: Thank you for your feedback — I have now included a detailed account of the data sources as you suggested.

 

3. The introduction should clarify the rationale for selecting large manufacturing enterprises.

Response 3: In response to your suggestion, I have added the rationale for focusing on large manufacturing enterprises in the introduction.

 

4. The paper lacks a discussion on its academic contribution in relation to existing literature on similar studies.

Response 4: In line with your suggestion, I have outlined its academic contribution in relation to the existing literature under the theoretical implications section.

 

5. In Section 2, the theoretical background should not be presented as a separate section and should be integrated into the main text.

Response 5: In response to your suggestion, I have revised the heading 'In Section 2, the theoretical background' to '2. Literature Review,' in accordance with the formatting style used in a 2025 article published in Sustainability.

 

6. The number of research hypotheses is excessive; it is advisable to retain only a select few to sharpen the focus of the argument.

Response 6: I respectfully disagree with the comment that the number of research hypotheses is excessive. While I do not mean to suggest that having more hypotheses is inherently better, it is worth noting that many high-quality recent studies in the field of business and management—both domestic and international—often include around ten hypotheses. Each hypothesis is designed to provide both theoretical and practical insights.

 

7. The rationale for selecting employees from three large manufacturing corporations—Company L, Company H, and another Company H—needs to be articulated. Additionally, there is a lack of information regarding these corporations, raising concerns about the sample data's completeness and reliability.

Response 7: In response to your suggestion, I have added the relevant information to Section 3.4, titled 'Data Collection and Research Methods’

 

8. The font size in Table 3 is inconsistent and requires standardization.

Response 8: The font size in Table 3 has been revised to comply with the Sustainability journal format.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the paper. I have no further comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been revised.