Transforming Agriculture for a Sustainable Future: Economic, Ethical, and Environmental Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors!

1. The analytical review of the literature should be strengthened to include a more systematic analysis of foreign approaches, especially in the context of measuring corporate social responsibility and political-ethical factors in the agribusiness sector.
2. The objectives of the study should be specified and a logical connection should be built between the theoretical assumptions, hypotheses and methods.
3. Complete the description of the sample and data collection method, provide respondent characteristics (e.g., proportion of small and large businesses, territorial representation).
4. Deepen the interpretation of results, emphasize cause-and-effect relationships, avoid repeating statistical results without analytical reflection.
5. Develop the Discussion section with a focus on the interpretation of borderline or ambiguous findings. Reflect the influence of the cultural-national context (Romania) on the generalizability of the findings.

The topic of ethical attitudes in the agrarian sector is investigated in the Romanian context, which gives the work a certain originality. However, the theoretical contribution to the literature remains limited - the novelty of the methodology or theoretical model is not clearly demonstrated.

6. Clarify what exactly is the originality - the approach, the sample, the model structure? Ideally, the results should be compared with similar studies in other EU countries.

Comments on the Quality of English Language The language of the article should be clear, precise, and free of grammatical errors. The author should thoroughly proofread the article to eliminate any language issues.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in green.
2. Questions for General Evaluation		Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?		Can be improved	All of these sections have been improved. Please check the comments below.
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?		Can be improved
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?		Must be improved
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?		Can be improved
Is the article adequately referenced?		Yes
Are the conclusions supported by the results?		Yes
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: The analytical review of the literature should be strengthened to include a more systematic analysis of foreign approaches, especially in the context of measuring corporate social responsibility and political-ethical factors in the agribusiness sector.
Response 1: Thank you for this valuable comment. We fully agree with the reviewer’s observation regarding the need to strengthen the analytical review of the literature with a more systematic analysis of foreign approaches, particularly in the context of measuring corporate social responsibility (CSR) and political-ethical factors in the agribusiness sector. To address this, we have substantially revised the literature review section to incorporate a broader and more systematic analysis of international approaches. “[Ethics research in the agricultural sector identifies morally relevant issues by applying the concepts of justice, sustainability and responsibility. In recent years, there has been a growing international emphasis on systematically measuring and enhancing social responsibility (SR) within the agribusiness sector. Diverse approaches have emerged, shaped by cultural, regulatory, and socio-political contexts. For instance, in Europe, the Farm to Fork Strategy and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) provide a robust framework for promoting sustainable and ethical practices, including metrics for reducing pesticide use, conserving biodiversity, and improving animal welfare [18]. In countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark, platforms like the Sustainable Agri-culture Initiative (SAI) and the Danish Ethical Trade Initiative (DECP) provide comprehensive guidelines for SR implementation and assessment [19], [20]. Conversely, in India, SR frameworks are still evolving, often influenced by challenges such as land rights disputes, social inequalities, and limited regulatory oversight [21]. Additionally, the B Corp certification process, as demonstrated in the Italian context, plays a pivotal role in supporting transparent and comprehensive CSR disclosure, integrating environmental and social impact into corporate accountability [22]. These international approaches underscore the importance of adopting a multidimensional and context-sensitive perspective when evaluating social responsibility (SR) in agribusiness, integrating ethical, political, and environmental considerations into both practice and assessment. Social responsibility refers to the notion that companies should answer to both their stakeholders and other interested people, including suppliers, friendly merchants, and—above all—customers and the communities in which they operate. The SR highlights the need for businesses to not only adhere to the law but also take the initiative to fulfill their own social obligations [23].]”
Comments 2: The objectives of the study should be specified, and a logical connection should be built between the theoretical assumptions, hypotheses and methods.
Response 2: Thank you for this valuable comment. We fully agree with the reviewer’s observation regarding the need to specify the objectives of the study and to ensure a logical connection between the theoretical assumptions, hypotheses, and methods. To address this, we have revised the Introduction section to explicitly state the study's objectives and to clarify the logical flow from the theoretical framework to the hypotheses and methodological approach. “[To address these challenges, the present study aims to examines the intricate in-terrelations between ethical attitudes at political, social, organizational, and sectoral levels within the Romanian agricultural sector. Specifically, it seeks to investigate how ethical governance and sustainable management practices influence social responsi-bility (SR) in agribusiness. To achieve this goal, the research focuses on three key objec-tives: (1) to analyze the relationship between ethical attitudes in the agricultural sector and those at political and social levels; (2) to explore the association between organiza-tional-level ethics and broader political, social, and sectoral ethical attitudes; and (3) to assess the impact of ethical attitudes on the adoption of CSR practices within agricul-tural organizations.]”
Comments 3.     Complete the description of the sample and data collection method, provide respondent characteristics (e.g., proportion of small and large businesses, territorial representation).
Response 3: To address this, we have significantly expanded the Materials and Methods section to include a comprehensive description of the sample and the data collection approach. Specifically, we have added details on the sampling strategy, response rate, and respondent distribution across company sizes (small, medium, large enterprises) and geographic regions. This information clarifies the composition and representativeness of the sample and strengthens the credibility of our findings. “[The data were collected through a structured questionnaire randomly distributed to 450 companies in Romania, active in the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sectors. The survey was conducted between March and April 2024, achieving a response rate of 61%, resulting in 275 validated questionnaires. The sample includes businesses of various sizes: 47.3% of respondents work in small enterprises with fewer than 50 employees, 34.2% in medium-sized enterprises with 51–100 employees, and 13.8% in companies with 101–250 employees. Additionally, 11 respondents (4.7%) represent large enterprises with over 251 employees. Regarding territorial representation, the sample covers a broad geographic distribution across Romania. Companies are head-quartered in counties including Alba (8), Arad (5), Argeș (4), Bacău (8), Bihor (4), Bistrița-Năsăud (2), Botoșani (4), Brăila (8), Brașov (6), Buzău (6), Călărași (20), Caraș-Severin (1), Cluj (2), Constanța (13), Covasna (2), Dâmbovița (5), Dolj (14), Galați (9), Giurgiu (5), Hunedoara (4), Ialomița (13), Iași (14), Ilfov (6), Maramureș (1), Mehedinți (3), Mureș (4), Neamț (5), Olt (10), Prahova (10), Sălaj (3), Satu Mare (8), Si-biu (2), Suceava (1), Teleorman (16), Timiș (14), Tulcea (8), Vâlcea (1), Vaslui (12), and Vrancea (14). This comprehensive sample structure ensures representativeness both in terms of business size and territorial distribution, supporting the robustness of the study’s findings regarding ethical attitudes and CSR practices in Romania’s agricultural sector.]”
Comments 4.     Deepen the interpretation of results, emphasize cause-and-effect relationships, avoid repeating statistical results without analytical reflection.
Response 4: Thank you for this valuable comment. We fully agree with the reviewer’s suggestion to deepen the interpretation of results, emphasize cause-and-effect relationships, and avoid simply restating statistical results without analytical reflection. In response, we have revised the Results section to provide a more thorough analysis of the results, highlighting the underlying mechanisms that may explain the observed relationships.
	Comments 5.     Develop the Discussion section with a focus on the interpretation of borderline or ambiguous findings. Reflect the influence of the cultural-national context (Romania) on the generalizability of the findings.
	Response 5: Thank you for this insightful comment. We fully agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. In response, we have substantially revised the Discussion section to provide a more nuanced interpretation of results, particularly regarding the borderline findings identified through the SEM analysis. “[One notable borderline finding emerged from the SEM analysis, where the path coefficient between sectoral ethical attitudes (EAAS) and social responsibility (SR) was not statistically significant (β=0.09, p>0.05). This suggests that the influence of sectoral ethics on CSR practices may be mediated or confounded by strong organizational ethical attitudes (EAO), as evidenced by the robust positive relationship between EAO and SR (β=0.88, p<0.001). This result highlights a potential collinearity between sectoral and organizational ethics, where respondents may not clearly differentiate between the ethical practices of their individual organizations and those prevalent in the broader sector. It also suggests that, in the Romanian context, companies’ CSR practices are more directly shaped by internal organizational norms and values than by sec-tor-wide ethical expectations. The Romanian agricultural sector faces additional challenges related to transparency, public trust, and regulatory compliance, making ethical considerations even more critical.  The regression analysis applied to the second hypothesis confirms the significant impact of ethical attitudes at the sectoral level on organizational ethics. Consumer studies of upcycled food products and ethical certification of tropical products show an increased demand for responsible and sustainable agricultural practices [46], in Romania, the adoption of such practices can be hindered by limited awareness, re-source constraints, and varying levels of management commitment. This suggests that fostering ethical climates within organizations requires not only compliance but also proactive engagement with stakeholders, tailored to the specific socio-cultural environment. These data reflect that organizational ethics are becoming a decisive factor in consumer choice, leading organizations to adopt practices that promote transparency and responsibility towards the environment and community. A similar study how re-alized an econometric model shows that European agricultural policies are an essential building block for achieving sustainability objectives, aiming to reduce negative environmental impacts, maintain the economic competitiveness of the agricultural sector, and promote balanced rural development [47]. Kadic-Maglajlic et al., (2019) found that business ethical climate and salesperson moral equity are positively associated with salesperson customer orientation. Furthermore, industrial and organizational ethical norms have a more robust joint effect on customer orientation than either ethical climate alone [48]. By integrating technological, socioeconomic, and environmental factors into a cohesive policy framework, governments can boost productivity while ensuring economic viability and environmental sustainability [49].]”

 

Comments 6. Clarify what exactly is the originality - the approach, the sample, the model structure? Ideally, the results should be compared with similar studies in other EU countries.

Response 6: Thanks for the comment. I have improved the article by adding the following paragraph

From a theoretical perspective, this study contributes to the literature by integrating ethical, political, and social dimensions into the analysis of agribusiness practices, with a focus on an emerging economy context. Although the methodology employed—a structured questionnaire and quantitative analysis—may not represent a radical in-novation, it provides empirical evidence from Romania, a context often underrepresented in SR research. Future studies should consider mixed-method approaches, incorporating qualitative data to capture the depth of ethical attitudes and the socio-cultural dynamics influencing them.

Furthermore, the study's emphasis on the interconnectedness of ethical attitudes across multiple societal levels—from political and social to organizational and sec-toral—represents an original theoretical contribution. This multilevel perspective acknowledges that in Romania, ethical practices are not merely driven by internal corporate values but are also influenced by broader cultural norms, regional disparities, and evolving regulatory landscapes. By situating the analysis within the unique socio-economic and historical context of Romania, this study adds a critical dimension to the broader understanding of how CSR and ethical governance manifest differently across EU member states.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article concerns an important issue, which is the assessment of the impact of ethical attitudes at the political, social and organizational level on behavior in agriculture. Emphasising the role of ethics in generating socially responsible behaviour in the agricultural sector, in my opinion, is quite rarely the subject of scientific research. All the more reason why the completed research seems valuable. The research was direct, which should also be appreciated. The survey covered 275 farms in Romania. On the basis of the literature review, three research hypotheses were formulated, which were then positively verified. The original test method was used and the results obtained were sufficiently and clearly described. Interesting conclusions were also formulated.

In my opinion, however, the study requires several corrections or additions:

1. In the introduction, the authors have described quite broadly the issues related to ethical aspects in agriculture and sustainable development and food security in general. On the other hand, in the theoretical chapter (literature review?) they described only quite broadly corporate social responsibility. In my opinion, the introduction should only contain a general statement of the problem. A theoretical chapter based on literature sources should present both all the ethical aspects discussed and social responsibility (e.g. two subchapters). Such a review should result in a research gap that the authors decided to fill by conducting this research. There is no research gap in the study.
2. In the descriptions of individual hypotheses, I miss a few abbreviations to individual concepts/expressions; Providing them will allow the reader to move more efficiently in the further part of the article.
3. It would be good to add a few recommendations of an application nature to the final conclusions.

 

Author Response

Comments 1.     In the introduction, the authors have described quite broadly the issues related to ethical aspects in agriculture and sustainable development and food security in general. On the other hand, in the theoretical chapter (literature review?) they described only quite broadly corporate social responsibility. In my opinion, the introduction should only contain a general statement of the problem. A theoretical chapter based on literature sources should present both all the ethical aspects discussed and social responsibility (e.g. two subchapters). Such a review should result in a research gap that the authors decided to fill by conducting this research. There is no research gap in the study.

 

Response 1: Thank you for the suggestions made, we appreciate the valuable comments so we have improved the introduction with the following changes:

The agricultural sector plays a central role in ensuring global food security, yet it faces significant ethical, environmental, and economic challenges that require urgent attention

Although there is an urgent need to increase food production to meet global demand, this must be balanced with the imperative to mitigate the environmental and social impacts of intensive agricultural practices

In Romania, recent climate trends—such as a 1.5°C temperature increase over the past 50 years and frequent droughts—pose significant challenges for agricultural sustainability, which in turn raises complex ethical considerations for producers and policymakers [6]

Ethical challenges in agriculture arise not only from external environmental conditions but also from internal factors, such as organizational culture, leadership styles, and individual moral reasoning [10].

Despite having multiple meanings, sustainable agriculture is often associated with positive outcomes [12].

Ethics research in the agricultural sector identifies morally relevant issues by applying the concepts of justice, sustainability and responsibility. In recent years, there has been a growing international emphasis on systematically measuring and enhancing social responsibility (SR) within the agribusiness sector. Diverse approaches have emerged, shaped by cultural, regulatory, and socio-political contexts. For instance, in Europe, the Farm to Fork Strategy and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) provide a robust framework for promoting sustainable and ethical practices, including metrics for reducing pesticide use, conserving biodiversity, and improving animal welfare [18]. In countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark, platforms like the Sustainable Agri-culture Initiative (SAI) and the Danish Ethical Trade Initiative (DECP) provide comprehensive guidelines for SR implementation and assessment [19], [20]. Conversely, in India, SR frameworks are still evolving, often influenced by challenges such as land rights disputes, social inequalities, and limited regulatory oversight [21]. Additionally, the B Corp certification process, as demonstrated in the Italian context, plays a pivotal role in supporting transparent and comprehensive CSR disclosure, integrating environmental and social impact into corporate accountability [22]. These international approaches underscore the importance of adopting a multidimensional and context-sensitive perspective when evaluating social responsibility (SR) in agribusiness, integrating ethical, political, and environmental considerations into both practice and assessment.

Social responsibility refers to the notion that companies should answer both their stakeholders and other interested people, including suppliers, friendly merchants, and—above all—customers and the communities in which they operate. The SR highlights the need for businesses not only to adhere to the law but also to take the initiative to fulfil their social obligations [23].

 

 

Comments 2. In the descriptions of individual hypotheses, I miss a few abbreviations to individual concepts/expressions; Providing them will allow the reader to move more efficiently in the further part of the article..

 

Response 2: Thank you for this constructive comment. Based on this suggestion and the observations of the other reviewers, we have already modified the methodology section and included a clearer example of the abbreviations.

political (EAP), social (EAS), agricultural sector (EAAS), and organizational (EAO) ethical attitudes to social responsibility (SR).

 

Comments 3.     It would be good to add a few recommendations of an application nature to the final conclusions.

 

 

Response 3: Thank you for this insightful comment. We have revised the Conclusion to:

The findings of this study confirm that in the Romanian agricultural sector, organizational ethics and social responsibility are closely interlinked, with robust internal ethical frameworks enhancing SR practices.

This research demonstrates, from an empirical perspective, that organizational ethics are a key driver of socially responsible behavior in the Romanian agribusiness context. The validated SEM model illustrates how external influences (political and social ethics) and internal factors (sectoral and organizational ethics) converge to shape CSR practices. Notably, the path from sectoral ethics to social responsibility was not statistically significant, suggesting a potential collinearity with organizational ethics, and highlighting the need for future refinement of the model.

The limitations of this study include potential sectoral heterogeneity within the sample (as it includes agriculture, forestry, and fishing enterprises) and the reliance on self-reported data from a questionnaire, which may introduce response bias. The model, while statistically robust, may also be influenced by unmeasured confounding variables and lacks confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and measurement invariance testing, which future research should address.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research, drawing on data obtained from a structured questionnaire distributed among 275 agricultural enterprises operating in Romania, attempts to empirically explore the extent to which ethical attitudes—articulated across political, social, sector-specific, and organisational dimensions—can be said to influence the corporate social responsibilty behaviours of firms within the agricultural sector. Employing a combination of statistical tools, including correlational techniques, regression modelling, and what the authors refer to as structural equation modelling (SEM), the study tests three hypotheses in a relatively coherent empirical framework. The modelling approach is methodically implemented and the dataset, at least on surface, appears sufficiently transparent, which altogether lends the work a moderate level of theoretical relevance. That being said, however, several issues stand out quite noticeably: the literature review lacks depth and fails to engage with key disciplinary debates; the theoretical framework underpinning the study is weakly articulated; the explanatory ambition of the research design seems rather constrained; and, not least, the core concepts—especially those related to ethical constructs—are insufficiently defined and remain somewhat blurry throughout the paper.

1. Abstract (Lines 12–26)

• Line 13–14: The expression used to describe what the authors refers to as “ethical attitudes at political and social levels” lacks a sort of concrete clarity, particularly because it is not being explained precisely in terms of operational variables or how such things is actually measured.

• Line 15: There appears a kind of abrupt logical leap which would have benefit from smoother transition, since “ethical behavior” is suddenly associated with “corporate social responsibilty” without being bridged properly by intermediate reasoning.

• Lines 18–20: The way in which phrases like “ethical goverrnance,” “stakehoulder engagement,” and “sustainble practices” is listed seems more like rhetoric than scientific operationalisation, and these not strongly connected.

• Lines 21–23: The statement regarding the importance of “balancing economic performance and social and enviromental responsibilty” has been commonly used in prior literature and is lacking in originality or novelty within the present context.

2. Introduction (Lines 28–86)

• Line 31: The description “agricultural sector, which is the backbone of food production” does not really contribute new knowlege and seems somewhat redundunt with previous sentence.

• Lines 36–38: There is a contradiction or inconsistency here because although the text says we need to increase food, it simultaniously worry about intensive farming consequences without reconciling those opposite concerns clearly.

• Lines 42–45: When claiming that climate change crisis rapidly intensify in Romania and affect agricultural ethics, the authors did not giving any numbers or empiric evidence, making this a weak point.

• Lines 56–66: Inside this paragraph the authors mixed theoretical conceptions with definitions and literature review, but didn’t making a good structure to help reader understanding easily.

• Lines 67–69: Saying that ethical issues “are not from enviromental conditions but from inside urges” is very subjectif and not supported from data or any citation.

• Lines 70–86: Though many references being cited, the organisation of them like list and not built into a cohesive framework, so the theoretical base is being scattered.

3. Social Responsibility of Companies in the Agricultural Sector (Lines 87–158)

• Line 93: The sentence that irrigation uses “almost 40% of the planet’s surface” seems doubtfull, especially with no cite to support such extrem number.

• Line 96: Saying agriculture is “second most greenhouse emitter” not saying which year, which region, or source—it very problematic.

• Lines 106–107: “Ethical balance between economic developement and social promotion” is abstract and vague and doesn't show any metrics.

• Lines 114–116: The claim that most companies act less ethical than what they claim should be have supported with examples or data, but there’s none.

• Lines 127–134: The authors jump from workers’ identity to company profit without showing evidence or steps in logic; it just stated like magic.

• Lines 147–157: This part are full of many items like check list, but the way they being connected not follow a clear logic—too many topics in one place.

4. Materials & Methods (Lines 159–212)

• Line 177: Agriculture, foresty and fishery all are included in one sample but the authors never separated or compared them, so the data is being mixed and maybe misleading.

• Lines 180–186: They saying “three sections of questionnaire,” but don’t showing real items or questions so we can't knowing how things being measured exactly.

• Lines 189–190: It says random sampling was done, but no mention of how or what frame they used, or how to ensure representivity—this make sampling weak.

• Lines 204–212: SEM is introduced, but no figure or path assumption provided before result section—reader would be confuse what model look like at start.

5. Results (Lines 213–330)

• Line 226: The numbers like “ranged 1.89 to 4.78” is appear meaningless without context, unit, or what it means compared to average.

• Lines 241–244: Cronbach’s Alpha is reported for internal reliability, but not checking validity like CFA or AVE, which could make index not trustworthy.

• Lines 248–259: Too many words used to tell same thing: that distribution is slightly skewed—it could have been briefer.

• Lines 268–275: Very high correlation in table, such as 0.93 or 0.94, but no check for colinearity done, which is risky if you do regression.

• Lines 280–284: When R-squared equal 0.843, which is very high, but there is no word on whether the model is overfitted or has redundant predictors.

• Lines 304–307: One of the key coefficient (EAO) is not significant (p = 0.119), yet authors still using it like it is, without noting the insignificancy.

• Lines 343–345: In SEM the EAAS to SR path is not significant, but they not report error, CI, or modification index—this is incomplete.

6. Discussion (Lines 367–412)

• Lines 370–373: Many general sentences are saying “ethics is important,” but didn’t connect with the actual results of analysis.

• Lines 374–377: Bringing in nanotech and gene transfer here seem a bit off-topic, not consistent with survey-based research done in the paper.

• Lines 391–394: A study about sales ethics is inserted here, but the topic is not about agriculture and not explained why relevant.

• Lines 403–407: Some constructs (attitudes, norms, control) appears in discussion but never seen in methods or questionnaire, so reader become confused.

• Lines 408–412: Mostly repeating conclusion again here, but no deeper meaning, and no match to SEM or regression values.

7. Conclusion (Lines 413–454)

• Lines 417–418: “Strong ethics and CSR initiatives” already said in abstract and before, again being repeated with no new point.

• Lines 424–428: The sentence talk about internal and external ethics combining, but didn’t explain with data or model path—just words.

• Lines 436–441: A very long list of policies is given, but it is not tied to any specific result or coefficient from earlier.

• Lines 449–454: The part about “limitations” is too general, like from a template; it didn’t mention sample limits, design error, or model misfit.

Author Response

Comments 1. Abstract (Lines 12–26)

• Line 13–14: The expression used to describe what the authors refers to as “ethical attitudes at political and social levels” lacks a sort of concrete clarity, particularly because it is not being explained precisely in terms of operational variables or how such things is actually measured.
• Line 15: There appears a kind of abrupt logical leap which would have benefit from smoother transition, since “ethical behavior” is suddenly associated with “corporate social responsibilty” without being bridged properly by intermediate reasoning.
• Lines 18–20: The way in which phrases like “ethical goverrnance,” “stakehoulder engagement,” and “sustainble practices” is listed seems more like rhetoric than scientific operationalisation, and these not strongly connected.
• Lines 21–23: The statement regarding the importance of “balancing economic performance and social and environmental responsability” has been commonly used in prior literature and is lacking in originality or novelty within the present context.

 

Response 1: Thank you for the comments. We have modified the abstract:

The agricultural sector stands at the intersection of economic, ethical, and environmental concerns, presenting complex challenges for sustainable development. This study investigates how ethical attitudes, conceptualized at political (e.g., perceptions of transparency, anti-corruption, and policy fairness) and social levels (e.g., community engagement, labor standards, and social equity), influence ethical behavior within Romanian agricultural organizations. Additionally, it explores the impact of sector-specific and organizational ethics on the adoption of social responsibility (SR) practices. Using a quantitative research approach, the study employs a structured questionnaire covering four key dimensions: political and social ethics, corporate responsibility, environmental sustainability, and ethical management in agriculture. The findings suggest that Romanian agricultural companies can improve their long-term competitiveness by incorporating ethical governance, sustainable business practices, and stakeholder engagement into their strategic frameworks. These findings suggest that Romanian agricultural companies can enhance their long-term competitiveness by embedding ethical governance, sustainable business models, and active stakeholder engagement into their strategic frameworks. This research contributes to the theoretical discourse by demonstrating how contextual ethical attitudes influence SR, providing a nuanced understanding of the interplay between economic performance, social equity, and environmental responsibility in an emerging economy.

 

Comments 2. Introduction (Lines 28–86)

• Line 31: The description “agricultural sector, which is the backbone of food production” does not really contribute new knowledge and seems somewhat redundant with previous sentence.
• Lines 36–38: There is a contradiction or inconsistency here because although the text says we need to increase food, it simultaneously worry about intensive farming consequences without reconciling those opposite concerns clearly.
• Lines 42–45: When claiming that climate change crisis rapidly intensify in Romania and affect agricultural ethics, the authors did not giving any numbers or empiric evidence, making this a weak point.
• Lines 56–66: Inside this paragraph the authors mixed theoretical conceptions with definitions and literature review, but didn’t making a good structure to help reader understanding easily.
• Lines 67–69: Saying that ethical issues “are not from environmental conditions but from inside urges” is very subjectif and not supported from data or any citation.
• Lines 70–86: Though many references being cited, the organisation of them like list and not built into a cohesive framework, so the theoretical base is being scattered.

 

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestions made, we appreciate the valuable comments so we have improved the introduction with the following changes:

The agricultural sector plays a central role in ensuring global food security, yet it faces significant ethical, environmental, and economic challenges that require urgent attention

Although there is an urgent need to increase food production to meet global demand, this must be balanced with the imperative to mitigate the environmental and social impacts of intensive agricultural practices

In Romania, recent climate trends—such as a 1.5°C temperature increase over the past 50 years and frequent droughts—pose significant challenges for agricultural sustainability, which in turn raises complex ethical considerations for producers and policymakers [6]

Ethical challenges in agriculture arise not only from external environmental conditions but also from internal factors, such as organizational culture, leadership styles, and individual moral reasoning [10].

Despite having multiple meanings, sustainable agriculture is often associated with positive outcomes [12].

Ethics research in the agricultural sector identifies morally relevant issues by applying the concepts of justice, sustainability and responsibility. In recent years, there has been a growing international emphasis on systematically measuring and enhancing social responsibility (SR) within the agribusiness sector. Diverse approaches have emerged, shaped by cultural, regulatory, and socio-political contexts. For instance, in Europe, the Farm to Fork Strategy and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) provide a robust framework for promoting sustainable and ethical practices, including metrics for reducing pesticide use, conserving biodiversity, and improving animal welfare [18]. In countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark, platforms like the Sustainable Agri-culture Initiative (SAI) and the Danish Ethical Trade Initiative (DECP) provide comprehensive guidelines for SR implementation and assessment [19], [20]. Conversely, in India, SR frameworks are still evolving, often influenced by challenges such as land rights disputes, social inequalities, and limited regulatory oversight [21]. Additionally, the B Corp certification process, as demonstrated in the Italian context, plays a pivotal role in supporting transparent and comprehensive CSR disclosure, integrating environmental and social impact into corporate accountability [22]. These international approaches underscore the importance of adopting a multidimensional and context-sensitive perspective when evaluating social responsibility (SR) in agribusiness, integrating ethical, political, and environmental considerations into both practice and assessment.

Social responsibility refers to the notion that companies should answer both their stakeholders and other interested people, including suppliers, friendly merchants, and—above all—customers and the communities in which they operate. The SR highlights the need for businesses not only to adhere to the law but also to take the initiative to fulfil their social obligations [23].

 

Comments 3. Social Responsibility of Companies in the Agricultural Sector (Lines 87–158)

• Line 93: The sentence that irrigation uses “almost 40% of the planet’s surface” seems doubtfull, especially with no cite to support such extrem number.
• Line 96: Saying agriculture is “second most greenhouse emitter” not saying which year, which region, or source—it very problematic.
• Lines 106–107: “Ethical balance between economic developement and social promotion” is abstract and vague and doesn't show any metrics.
• Lines 114–116: The claim that most companies act less ethical than what they claim should be have supported with examples or data, but there’s none.
• Lines 127–134: The authors jump from workers’ identity to company profit without showing evidence or steps in logic; it just stated like magic.
• Lines 147–157: This part are full of many items like check list, but the way they being connected not follow a clear logic—too many topics in one place.

 

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestions. We have removed redundant and unclear information so that we can respect your comments.

 

Comments 4. Materials & Methods (Lines 159–212)

• Line 177: Agriculture, foresty and fishery all are included in one sample but the authors never separated or compared them, so the data is being mixed and maybe misleading.
• Lines 180–186: They saying “three sections of questionnaire,” but don’t showing real items or questions so we can't knowing how things being measured exactly.
• Lines 189–190: It says random sampling was done, but no mention of how or what frame they used, or how to ensure representivity—this make sampling weak.
• Lines 204–212: SEM is introduced, but no figure or path assumption provided before result section—reader would be confuse what model look like at start.

 

Response 4: Thank you for this constructive comment. We fully agree with the reviewer’s observations regarding the need to clarify and enhance the description of the sample composition, questionnaire structure, data collection approach, and the introduction of the SEM model.

I have modified by entering the following informations:

Figure 1 illustrates the model structure, including paths from political (EAP), social (EAS), agricultural sector (EAAS), and organizational (EAO) ethical attitudes to social responsibility (SR).

By querying the database available on www.coduricaen.ro, companies with production activities in the agricultural sector in Romania were randomly selected. Simple random sampling represents a random selection of elements for a sample. This sampling technique is implemented where the target population is considerably large. The questionnaire was sent to a number of 450 companies in Romania, with a main CAEN Code in the field of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, so as to cover all the counties of the country. The survey was conducted between March and April 2024, achieving a response rate of 61%, resulting in 275 validated questionnaires. The sample includes businesses of various sizes: 47.3% of respondents work in small enterprises with fewer than 50 employees, 34.2% in medium-sized enterprises with 51–100 employees, and 13.8% in companies with 101–250 employees. Additionally, 11 respondents (4.7%) represent large enterprises with over 251 employees. Regarding territorial representation, the sample covers a broad geographic distribution across Romania. Companies are headquartered in counties including Alba (8), Arad (5), Argeș (4), Bacău (8), Bihor (4), Bistrița-Năsăud (2), Botoșani (4), Brăila (8), Brașov (6), Buzău (6), Călărași (20), Caraș-Severin (1), Cluj (2), Constanța (13), Covasna (2), Dâmbovița (5), Dolj (14), Galați (9), Giurgiu (5), Hunedoara (4), Ialomița (13), Iași (14), Ilfov (6), Maramureș (1), Mehedinți (3), Mureș (4), Neamț (5), Olt (10), Prahova (10), Sălaj (3), Satu Mare (8), Si-biu (2), Suceava (1), Teleorman (16), Timiș (14), Tulcea (8), Vâlcea (1), Vaslui (12), and Vrancea (14). This comprehensive sample structure ensures representativeness both in terms of business size and territorial distribution, supporting the robustness of the study’s findings regarding ethical attitudes and SR practices in Romania’s agricultural sector.

However, the present analysis treats these sectors as a combined sample and does not provide disaggregated analyses by sector; this limitation has been explicitly acknowledged, and future research is recommended to explore sector-specific differences.

 

Comments 5. Results (Lines 213–330)

• Line 226: The numbers like “ranged 1.89 to 4.78” is appear meaningless without context, unit, or what it means compared to average.
• Lines 241–244: Cronbach’s Alpha is reported for internal reliability, but not checking validity like CFA or AVE, which could make index not trustworthy.
• Lines 248–259: Too many words used to tell same thing: that distribution is slightly skewed—it could have been briefer.
• Lines 268–275: Very high correlation in the table, such as 0.93 or 0.94, but no check for colinearity is done, which is risky if you do regression.
• Lines 280–284: When R-squared equal 0.843, which is very high, but there is no word on whether the model is overfitted or has redundant predictors.
• Lines 304–307: One of the key coefficient (EAO) is not significant (p = 0.119), yet authors still using it like it is, without noting the insignificancy.
• Lines 343–345: In SEM the EAAS to SR path is not significant, but they not report error, CI, or modification index—this is incomplete.

 

Response 5: Thank you for these detailed observations. We appreciate the reviewer’s focus on the clarity and robustness of the Results section.

• Regarding the range of values (Line 226): We agree that contextualization is essential. While the ranges (e.g., 1.89 to 4.78) represent the minimum and maximum scores on a standardized Likert scale (1–5) used in the questionnaire, we aimed to provide a descriptive overview of the variability of responses. The specific meaning of these ranges, relative to the average scores and practical interpretation, has been clarified in the revised text.
• Regarding Cronbach’s Alpha (Lines 241–244): We acknowledge the comment regarding the lack of additional validity tests such as CFA or AVE. However, given the exploratory nature of this study and the limitations in available data and resources, we focused on internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha) as a widely accepted preliminary indicator of reliability. We recognize that future research should incorporate more advanced validity assessments to strengthen the robustness of index construction.
• Regarding the key coefficient (EAO) is not significant (p = 0.119), we introduced in text Although the coefficient for EAO was not statistically significant (p=0.119), this path was retained in the model to maintain consistency with the theoretical framework and hypothesized relationships; however, its contribution to the prediction of social responsibility should be interpreted with caution.
• Also for SEM model we introduced Despite this statistical insignificance, the EAAS to SR path was retained in the model to maintain theoretical coherence and reflect the hypothesized relationships; however, this finding should be interpreted cautiously and considered a potential area for refinement in future studies.

 

Comments 6. Discussion (Lines 367–412)

• Lines 370–373: Many general sentences are saying “ethics is important,” but didn’t connect with the actual results of analysis.
• Lines 374–377: Bringing in nanotech and gene transfer here seem a bit off-topic, not consistent with survey-based research done in the paper.
• Lines 391–394: A study about sales ethics is inserted here, but the topic is not about agriculture and not explained why relevant.
• Lines 403–407: Some constructs (attitudes, norms, control) appears in discussion but never seen in methods or questionnaire, so reader become confused.
• Lines 408–412: Mostly repeating conclusion again here, but no deeper meaning, and no match to SEM or regression values.

 

Response 6: Thank you for this insightful comment. We fully agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. In response, we have substantially revised the Discussion.

“[One notable borderline finding emerged from the SEM analysis, where the path coefficient between sectoral ethical attitudes (EAAS) and social responsibility (SR) was not statistically significant (β=0.09, p>0.05). This suggests that the influence of sectoral ethics on CSR practices may be mediated or confounded by strong organizational ethical attitudes (EAO), as evidenced by the robust positive relationship between EAO and SR (β=0.88, p<0.001). This result highlights a potential collinearity between sectoral and organizational ethics, where respondents may not clearly differentiate between the ethical practices of their individual organizations and those prevalent in the broader sector. It also suggests that, in the Romanian context, companies’ CSR practices are more directly shaped by internal organizational norms and values than by sector-wide ethical expectations. The Romanian agricultural sector faces additional challenges related to transparency, public trust, and regulatory compliance, making ethical considerations even more critical.  The regression analysis applied to the second hypothesis confirms the significant impact of ethical attitudes at the sectoral level on organizational ethics. Consumer studies of upcycled food products and ethical certification of tropical products show an increased demand for responsible and sustainable agricultural practices [46], in Romania, the adoption of such practices can be hindered by limited awareness, resource constraints, and varying levels of management commitment. This suggests that fostering ethical climates within organizations requires not only compliance but also proactive engagement with stakeholders, tailored to the specific socio-cultural environment. These data reflect that organizational ethics are becoming a decisive factor in consumer choice, leading organizations to adopt practices that promote transparency and responsibility towards the environment and community. A similar study how realized an econometric model shows that European agricultural policies are an essential building block for achieving sustainability objectives, aiming to reduce negative environmental impacts, maintain the economic competitiveness of the agricultural sector, and promote balanced rural development [47]. Kadic-Maglajlic et al., (2019) found that business ethical climate and salesperson moral equity are positively associated with salesperson customer orientation. Furthermore, industrial and organizational ethical norms have a more robust joint effect on customer orientation than either ethical climate alone [48]. By integrating technological, socioeconomic, and environmental factors into a cohesive policy framework, governments can boost productivity while ensuring economic viability and environmental sustainability [49].]”

 

Comments 7. Conclusion (Lines 413–454)

• Lines 417–418: “Strong ethics and CSR initiatives” already said in abstract and before, again being repeated with no new point.
• Lines 424–428: The sentence talk about internal and external ethics combining, but didn’t explain with data or model path—just words.
• Lines 436–441: A very long list of policies is given, but it is not tied to any specific result or coefficient from earlier.
• Lines 449–454: The part about “limitations” is too general, like from a template; it didn’t mention sample limits, design error, or model misfit.

 

Response 7: Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that the original Conclusion section repeated points from the Abstract and earlier sections without adding sufficient interpretative depth or specificity. In response, we have revised the Conclusion to:

The findings of this study confirm that in the Romanian agricultural sector, organizational ethics and social responsibility are closely interlinked, with robust internal ethical frameworks enhancing SR practices.

This research demonstrates, from an empirical perspective, that organizational ethics are a key driver of socially responsible behavior in the Romanian agribusiness context. The validated SEM model illustrates how external influences (political and social ethics) and internal factors (sectoral and organizational ethics) converge to shape CSR practices. Notably, the path from sectoral ethics to social responsibility was not statistically significant, suggesting a potential collinearity with organizational ethics, and highlighting the need for future refinement of the model.

The limitations of this study include potential sectoral heterogeneity within the sample (as it includes agriculture, forestry, and fishing enterprises) and the reliance on self-reported data from a questionnaire, which may introduce response bias. The model, while statistically robust, may also be influenced by unmeasured confounding variables and lacks confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and measurement invariance testing, which future research should address.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

Please carefully revise the manuscript in accordance with the suggestions provided above:

 

-In the Introduction, you state that agriculture operates at the intersection of social, ecological, and economic systems, leading to unique ethical challenges. You also claim that these issues are particularly urgent in Romania due to the rapid worsening of the climate crisis, to which agriculture significantly contributes. However, these assertions regarding Romania are presented without any supporting references. On what basis do you claim that agriculture significantly contributes to the climate crisis in Romania? Statements of this nature require proper citation from relevant and credible sources. In contrast, you correctly note that interest in climate-resilient food systems has increased due to the growing impacts of climate change on food production and the well-being of vulnerable groups—a point supported by a cited review article based on extensive literature published in English. This is a good example of evidence-based writing that should be applied consistently throughout the manuscript.

- In Chapter 2, "Social Responsibility of Companies in the Agricultural Sector," you mention that globally, agriculture contributes up to 22% of greenhouse gas emissions through livestock activities. You have cited a source for the global level, but do you have specific data for Romania? There are also other published opinions suggesting that such estimates (and they are only estimates) are not always evidence-based. It would strengthen your argument if you could provide more concrete data or discuss the limitations of these estimates in the context of Romania.

-Lines 147-158: Please remove these lines as they are generalisations. Instead, replace them with a clear statement of the objectives of the study and the hypotheses.

In the Materials and Methods section:

-You introduce the hypotheses at the very beginning. However, hypotheses are not part of this section and should be relocated to an appropriate place in the Introduction.

-Section 3.1 "Research Design": As currently written, this section is unnecessary because the text is brief and does not adequately describe the research design. Once you remove the hypotheses, modify the introductory part of this section so that it properly introduces the reader to your Materials and Methods.

-In Section 3.2 "Data Collection", you mention that a structured questionnaire was used. However, you did not clarify the type of questions – whether they were open-ended or closed-ended. From your explanation, it is unclear what kind of questions were posed to the respondents. Please ensure that this section is elaborated carefully, and include the questionnaire in the form that was distributed to the respondents in the Supplementary Material. Additionally, you state that the questionnaire was randomly distributed to 450 companies in Romania active in the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors. Please specify how many such companies exist in Romania. At the end of this section, you mention: "The sample consisted of managers and executives from agricultural organizations, 187 policymakers, and other stakeholders with direct knowledge of the sector." Immediately following this, you state: "The respondents were selected using a random sampling method." It is not clear how you ensured a random sample. Furthermore, it is unclear whether only managers and executives from organizations completed the survey. Where do the policymakers and other stakeholders with direct knowledge of the sector come from? It seems that the questionnaire was sent to other types of addresses as well.

-In Chapter 4, "Results", you analyse the responses of the participants using the Likert scale, and the statistical analysis is presented in tables. Please revise the text to highlight the key findings. The detailed data shown in the tables does not need to be described in full within the text.

-To improve the clarity of the results and enhance the overall presentation, graphical representations would be beneficial. I recommend using a state-of-the-art analysis, such as PLS-SEM (Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling), which allows for the evaluation of complex models with multiple constructs, indicator variables, and structural questions.

-In Table 2, column 2, "No. of items," there is an inconsistency in the number of samples. In the text preceding the table, you mention that you aggregated the results of individual items within the sub-sections of the questionnaire. Is this the number of questions? It is necessary to include the questionnaire itself so that it is clear whether the responses can be quantified in the manner you have presented.

 

-In Figure 1a (Q-Q Plot graph), you show 17 data points for "Ethical attitudes at the political level," which visualises the linear distribution of data for the variability of ethical attitudes at the political level. Does this mean that only 17 out of 275 respondents provided an answer? This is an exceptionally low response rate for subsequent analysis and conclusions. The same concern applies to Figures 1b, 1c, and 1d.

 

-In Table 3, you present the results of Pearson’s correlation. It is essential that you include the scale with the correlation values in the Methods section, along with the source or author from whom you are using this scale.

- At the end of the Results section, you highlight the relevance of your analysis, which stems from its complexity. However, without adequate input data, there is no evidence to support such a claim. In order for the study to have the significant methodological and empirical contribution you mention, it is essential to carefully revise the work to ensure this is genuinely the case.

-For the validity of the Discussion, a thorough reconstruction of the preceding sections is necessary. The Discussion should be expanded by comparing your specific results with relevant literature that could provide insights into conditions characteristic of Romania. In the Discussion, you address climate change. For this to be valid, it is essential that you engage with this topic earlier in the Methods and Results sections and then further elaborate on it in the Discussion. You have correctly addressed these issues in the Introduction, and it would be logical to continue this flow through the subsequent sections, specifically in the context of Romania.

-In the Conclusion, aside from your suggestions for future research, everything preceding them should be directly aligned with your results, from which the conclusions should be drawn. Please avoid general statements made in some sections and instead focus on specific conclusions that directly stem from your research findings.

 

-The literature you have cited is recent; however, most of the sources relate to countries such as Indonesia, Mexico, etc. Given that you have stated that the results are of a local nature, it would be beneficial to include literature from Romania and neighbouring countries that are culturally and ecologically similar.

Kind regards

 

 

Author Response

Comments 1. In the Introduction, you state that agriculture operates at the intersection of social, ecological, and economic systems, leading to unique ethical challenges. You also claim that these issues are particularly urgent in Romania due to the rapid worsening of the climate crisis, to which agriculture significantly contributes. However, these assertions regarding Romania are presented without any supporting references. On what basis do you claim that agriculture significantly contributes to the climate crisis in Romania? Statements of this nature require proper citation from relevant and credible sources. In contrast, you correctly note that interest in climate-resilient food systems has increased due to the growing impacts of climate change on food production and the well-being of vulnerable groups—a point supported by a cited review article based on extensive literature published in English. This is a good example of evidence-based writing that should be applied consistently throughout the manuscript.

 

Response 1: Thank you for the comments. We have modified the introduction:

The agricultural sector plays a central role in ensuring global food security, yet it faces significant ethical, environmental, and economic challenges that require urgent attention [1].

Ethical challenges in agriculture arise not only from external environmental conditions but also from internal factors, such as organizational culture, leadership styles, and in-dividual moral reasoning [10].

Ethics research in the agricultural sector identifies morally relevant issues by applying the concepts of justice, sustainability and responsibility. In recent years, there has been a growing international emphasis on systematically measuring and enhancing social responsibility (SR) within the agribusiness sector. Diverse approaches have emerged, shaped by cultural, regulatory, and socio-political contexts. For instance, in Europe, the Farm to Fork Strategy and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) provide a robust framework for promoting sustainable and ethical practices, including metrics for reducing pesticide use, conserving biodiversity, and improving animal welfare [18]. In countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark, platforms like the Sustainable Agri-culture Initiative (SAI) and the Danish Ethical Trade Initiative (DECP) provide com-prehensive guidelines for SR implementation and assessment [19], [20]. Conversely, in India, SR frameworks are still evolving, often influenced by challenges such as land rights disputes, social inequalities, and limited regulatory oversight [21]. Additionally, the B Corp certification process, as demonstrated in the Italian context, plays a pivotal role in supporting transparent and comprehensive CSR disclosure, integrating environmental and social impact into corporate accountability [22]. These international approaches underscore the importance of adopting a multidimensional and con-text-sensitive perspective when evaluating social responsibility (SR) in agribusiness, integrating ethical, political, and environmental considerations into both practice and assessment.

Social responsibility refers to the notion that companies should answer both their stakeholders and other interested people, including suppliers, friendly merchants, and—above all—customers and the communities in which they operate. The SR high-lights the need for businesses not only to adhere to the law but also to take the initiative to fulfil their social obligations [23].

To address these challenges, the present study aims to examine the intricate inter-relations between ethical attitudes at political, social, organizational, and sectoral levels within the Romanian agricultural sector. Specifically, it aims to investigate how ethical governance and sustainable management practices impact social responsibility (SR) in the agribusiness sector. To achieve this goal, the research focuses on three key objectives: (1) to analyze the relationship between ethical attitudes in the agricultural sector and those at political and social levels; (2) to explore the association between organizational-level ethics and broader political, social, and sectoral ethical attitudes; and (3) to assess the impact of ethical attitudes on the adoption of CSR practices with-in agricultural organizations.

 

Comments 2. In Chapter 2, "Social Responsibility of Companies in the Agricultural Sector," you mention that globally, agriculture contributes up to 22% of greenhouse gas emissions through livestock activities. You have cited a source for the global level, but do you have specific data for Romania? There are also other published opinions suggesting that such estimates (and they are only estimates) are not always evidence-based. It would strengthen your argument if you could provide more concrete data or discuss the limitations of these estimates in the context of Romania.

-Lines 147-158: Please remove these lines as they are generalisations. Instead, replace them with a clear statement of the objectives of the study and the hypotheses.

 

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestions. We have removed redundant and unclear information so that we can respect your comments.

Agricultural production involves the use of land and water, as well as pesticides, fertilizers, livestock and energy. Globally, irrigated agricultural activities use almost 40% of the planet's surface and 70% of water [25]. Agriculture contributes up to 22% of GHG emissions globally through livestock activities, land use change, various inputs and processing steps of food systems [26].

 

Comments 3. In the Materials and Methods section:

-You introduce the hypotheses at the very beginning. However, hypotheses are not part of this section and should be relocated to an appropriate place in the Introduction.

-Section 3.1 "Research Design": As currently written, this section is unnecessary because the text is brief and does not adequately describe the research design. Once you remove the hypotheses, modify the introductory part of this section so that it properly introduces the reader to your Materials and Methods.

-In Section 3.2 "Data Collection", you mention that a structured questionnaire was used. However, you did not clarify the type of questions – whether they were open-ended or closed-ended. From your explanation, it is unclear what kind of questions were posed to the respondents. Please ensure that this section is elaborated carefully, and include the questionnaire in the form that was distributed to the respondents in the Supplementary Material. Additionally, you state that the questionnaire was randomly distributed to 450 companies in Romania active in the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors. Please specify how many such companies exist in Romania. At the end of this section, you mention: "The sample consisted of managers and executives from agricultural organizations, 187 policymakers, and other stakeholders with direct knowledge of the sector." Immediately following this, you state: "The respondents were selected using a random sampling method." It is not clear how you ensured a random sample. Furthermore, it is unclear whether only managers and executives from organizations completed the survey. Where do the policymakers and other stakeholders with direct knowledge of the sector come from? It seems that the questionnaire was sent to other types of addresses as well.

.

 

Response 3: Thank you for these thoughtful and constructive comments. We fully agree with the need to improve the clarity and coherence of the Materials and Methods section and have taken the following steps to address your points.

We could not move the hypotheses to the introduction because the other two reviewers agreed with this form of section, however we mentioned the objectives and hypotheses in the introduction.

Regarding the type of questions in the questionnaire: The questionnaire used in this study consisted entirely of closed-ended questions, designed with Likert-scale items ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). We have clarified this aspect in the revised Section 3.2.

Regarding the sampling method and composition of respondents: We recognize the need for clarification.

By querying the database available on www.coduricaen.ro, companies with pro-duction activities in the agricultural sector in Romania were randomly selected. Simple random sampling represents a random selection of elements for a sample. This sam-pling technique is implemented where the target population is considerably large. The questionnaire was sent to a number of 450 companies in Romania, with a main CAEN Code in the field of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, so as to cover all the counties of the country. The survey was conducted between March and April 2024, achieving a response rate of 61%, resulting in 275 validated questionnaires. The sample includes businesses of various sizes: 47.3% of respondents work in small enterprises with fewer than 50 employees, 34.2% in medium-sized enterprises with 51–100 employees, and 13.8% in companies with 101–250 employees. Additionally, 11 respondents (4.7%) represent large enterprises with over 251 employees. Regarding territorial representa-tion, the sample covers a broad geographic distribution across Romania. Companies are headquartered in counties including Alba (8), Arad (5), Argeș (4), Bacău (8), Bihor (4), Bistrița-Năsăud (2), Botoșani (4), Brăila (8), Brașov (6), Buzău (6), Călărași (20), Caraș-Severin (1), Cluj (2), Constanța (13), Covasna (2), Dâmbovița (5), Dolj (14), Galați (9), Giurgiu (5), Hunedoara (4), Ialomița (13), Iași (14), Ilfov (6), Maramureș (1), Mehedinți (3), Mureș (4), Neamț (5), Olt (10), Prahova (10), Sălaj (3), Satu Mare (8), Si-biu (2), Suceava (1), Teleorman (16), Timiș (14), Tulcea (8), Vâlcea (1), Vaslui (12), and Vrancea (14). This comprehensive sample structure ensures representativeness both in terms of business size and territorial distribution, supporting the robustness of the study’s findings regarding ethical attitudes and SR practices in Romania’s agricultural sector.

 

Comments 4. In Chapter 4, "Results", you analyse the responses of the participants using the Likert scale, and the statistical analysis is presented in tables. Please revise the text to highlight the key findings. The detailed data shown in the tables does not need to be described in full within the text.

-To improve the clarity of the results and enhance the overall presentation, graphical representations would be beneficial. I recommend using a state-of-the-art analysis, such as PLS-SEM (Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling), which allows for the evaluation of complex models with multiple constructs, indicator variables, and structural questions.

-In Table 2, column 2, "No. of items," there is an inconsistency in the number of samples. In the text preceding the table, you mention that you aggregated the results of individual items within the sub-sections of the questionnaire. Is this the number of questions? It is necessary to include the questionnaire itself so that it is clear whether the responses can be quantified in the manner you have presented.

 

-In Figure 1a (Q-Q Plot graph), you show 17 data points for "Ethical attitudes at the political level," which visualises the linear distribution of data for the variability of ethical attitudes at the political level. Does this mean that only 17 out of 275 respondents provided an answer? This is an exceptionally low response rate for subsequent analysis and conclusions. The same concern applies to Figures 1b, 1c, and 1d.

 

-In Table 3, you present the results of Pearson’s correlation. It is essential that you include the scale with the correlation values in the Methods section, along with the source or author from whom you are using this scale.

- At the end of the Results section, you highlight the relevance of your analysis, which stems from its complexity. However, without adequate input data, there is no evidence to support such a claim. In order for the study to have the significant methodological and empirical contribution you mention, it is essential to carefully revise the work to ensure this is genuinely the case.

 

Response 4: Thank you for these insightful and constructive comments. We greatly appreciate the emphasis on improving the clarity and rigor of the Results section, and we have carefully considered each of your points:

We appreciate the recommendation to use graphical representations and advanced analysis techniques like PLS-SEM. However, due to time constraints and resource limitations, we were unable to implement PLS-SEM in this iteration of the study. Moreover, the current research team does not possess expertise in this method, and involving an external specialist at this stage was not feasible. That said, we recognize the value of PLS-SEM for future research and will certainly consider incorporating it into subsequent analyses to deepen the understanding of complex relationships.

Regarding Table 2 – Number of items: The values in the “No. of items” column in Table 2 refer to the number of closed-ended questions used to construct the index variables within each section of the questionnaire.

The 17 data points in the Q-Q plots represent aggregated mean scores rather than individual responses; each point corresponds to the average response per item across all respondents (N=275). This approach was used to simplify the visualization of distributions, given the large volume of raw data.

.

 

Comments 5. For the validity of the Discussion, a thorough reconstruction of the preceding sections is necessary. The Discussion should be expanded by comparing your specific results with relevant literature that could provide insights into conditions characteristic of Romania. In the Discussion, you address climate change. For this to be valid, it is essential that you engage with this topic earlier in the Methods and Results sections and then further elaborate on it in the Discussion. You have correctly addressed these issues in the Introduction, and it would be logical to continue this flow through the subsequent sections, specifically in the context of Romania.

 

Response 5: Thank you for this insightful comment. We fully agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. In response, we have substantially revised the Discussion.

“[One notable borderline finding emerged from the SEM analysis, where the path coefficient between sectoral ethical attitudes (EAAS) and social responsibility (SR) was not statistically significant (β=0.09, p>0.05). This suggests that the influence of sectoral ethics on CSR practices may be mediated or confounded by strong organizational ethical attitudes (EAO), as evidenced by the robust positive relationship between EAO and SR (β=0.88, p<0.001). This result highlights a potential collinearity between sectoral and organizational ethics, where respondents may not clearly differentiate between the ethical practices of their individual organizations and those prevalent in the broader sector. It also suggests that, in the Romanian context, companies’ CSR practices are more directly shaped by internal organizational norms and values than by sector-wide ethical expectations. The Romanian agricultural sector faces additional challenges related to transparency, public trust, and regulatory compliance, making ethical considerations even more critical.  The regression analysis applied to the second hypothesis confirms the significant impact of ethical attitudes at the sectoral level on organizational ethics. Consumer studies of upcycled food products and ethical certification of tropical products show an increased demand for responsible and sustainable agricultural practices [46], in Romania, the adoption of such practices can be hindered by limited awareness, resource constraints, and varying levels of management commitment. This suggests that fostering ethical climates within organizations requires not only compliance but also proactive engagement with stakeholders, tailored to the specific socio-cultural environment. These data reflect that organizational ethics are becoming a decisive factor in consumer choice, leading organizations to adopt practices that promote transparency and responsibility towards the environment and community. A similar study how realized an econometric model shows that European agricultural policies are an essential building block for achieving sustainability objectives, aiming to reduce negative environmental impacts, maintain the economic competitiveness of the agricultural sector, and promote balanced rural development [47]. Kadic-Maglajlic et al., (2019) found that business ethical climate and salesperson moral equity are positively associated with salesperson customer orientation. Furthermore, industrial and organizational ethical norms have a more robust joint effect on customer orientation than either ethical climate alone [48]. By integrating technological, socioeconomic, and environmental factors into a cohesive policy framework, governments can boost productivity while ensuring economic viability and environmental sustainability [49].]”

 

•  

 

Comments 6. In the Conclusion, aside from your suggestions for future research, everything preceding them should be directly aligned with your results, from which the conclusions should be drawn. Please avoid general statements made in some sections and instead focus on specific conclusions that directly stem from your research findings.

 

Response 6: Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that the original Conclusion section repeated points from the Abstract and earlier sections without adding sufficient interpretative depth or specificity. In response, we have revised the Conclusion to:

The findings of this study confirm that in the Romanian agricultural sector, organizational ethics and social responsibility are closely interlinked, with robust internal ethical frameworks enhancing SR practices.

This research demonstrates, from an empirical perspective, that organizational ethics are a key driver of socially responsible behavior in the Romanian agribusiness context. The validated SEM model illustrates how external influences (political and social ethics) and internal factors (sectoral and organizational ethics) converge to shape CSR practices. Notably, the path from sectoral ethics to social responsibility was not statistically significant, suggesting a potential collinearity with organizational ethics, and highlighting the need for future refinement of the model.

The limitations of this study include potential sectoral heterogeneity within the sample (as it includes agriculture, forestry, and fishing enterprises) and the reliance on self-reported data from a questionnaire, which may introduce response bias. The model, while statistically robust, may also be influenced by unmeasured confounding variables and lacks confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and measurement invariance testing, which future research should address.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors!

You have taken my comments into account. The article can be published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback !

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors' respect for my review comments. They have carefully revised the paper according to the suggestions, and the quality of the paper has been significantly improved. I recommend that the paper be accepted and published immediately.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback !

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I would like to inform you that you have followed the suggestions I previously provided.
However, I could not locate the questionnaire used to conduct your survey. I believe it is important that it be included in the supplementary material.

I would also recommend adding references from neighbouring countries and those with cultural and ecological conditions comparable to those in Romania.

Kind regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and for acknowledging the revisions made based on your previous suggestions.

In response to your current comments:

1. Survey Questionnaire – We have included the full version of the questionnaire used in our study as supplementary material, as suggested. This addition aims to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of our research.
2. References from Neighbouring and Culturally/Ecologically Similar Countries – We appreciate your recommendation regarding the inclusion of literature from neighbouring countries or those with comparable cultural and ecological conditions to Romania. Accordingly, we have expanded our literature review to incorporate relevant studies from countries such as Bulgaria and Hungary. These additions strengthen the contextual relevance and comparative dimension of our analysis.

Similar concerns are echoed in neighbouring Bulgaria, where the integration of community-supported agriculture (CSA) and organic production has been recognized as a strategy for enhancing sustainable rural development. Terziev and Arabska (2016) emphasize the role of corporate social responsibility in small-scale farming models, highlighting that community motivation, transparency, and feedback mechanisms are essential for ethical agricultural development. Their proposed model for CSA groups aligns with the multilevel ethical framework considered in the present study, reinforcing the importance of localized, culturally adaptive approaches in fostering sustainability and public trust [53]. In Hungary, Győri et al.(2021) conclude that agribusinesses are increasingly adopting CSR strategies aimed at climate adaptation and mitigation, reinforcing our argument that ethical organizational attitudes are essential for sustainable practices [54].  A comparative study conducted in Romania and Hungary shows that the process of forming an organizational culture in which social responsibility occupies a priority place is still in its early stages. At this stage, employees are aware of the importance of elements such as organizational identity, shared values, strategic directions and the relationship with the community. However, transforming these awarenesses into concrete attitudes and internalizing values ​​takes time [55]. Only through this process can social responsibility become an essential component of organizational culture.

We hope these revisions address your concerns adequately and improve the overall quality and clarity of the manuscript. Thank you once again for your constructive feedback and support.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx