Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Sustainability and Innovation in Hospitality Management: Green Practices in Northeastern Hungary

Sustainability 2025, 17(13), 6185; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17136185

by Tamás Misik^1,*

and Zoltán Nagy²

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2:

Silviu Beciu

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Reviewer 4:

Brian Weir

Sustainability 2025, 17(13), 6185; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17136185

Submission received: 18 May 2025 / Revised: 28 June 2025 / Accepted: 30 June 2025 / Published: 5 July 2025

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Heritage Preservation and Tourism Development)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper aims to investigate the integration of sustainability and innovation in hospitality management, focusing on good practices among restaurants in Northeastern Hungary. Through a combination of literature review, surveys, and case studies—particularly of the Sulyom and Iszkor restaurants—the study highlights how local sourcing, seasonal menus, and food waste reduction strategies are being implemented. The literature used in the article is appropriate for the subject discussed. A key strength of the paper lies in its practical insights drawn from real-world examples, demonstrating that eco-conscious operations can drive both environmental and economic benefits in the hospitality sector.

There are however many weaknesses that prevent publication of the paper in this form:

There are not clearly defined research questions
The research sample is not clear; there is not information how they have been selected and the reason why; as well how they have been involved in the research
The research questionnaire must be added to the paper; for now, it is only a short version of it; as well there is no information how the questionnaire was developed and tested
No explanation is given as to why qualitative and quantitative approaches were used in the research, what their purpose was
Case studies are cited, but there is no protocol presented on how the case study was conducted, the results obtained and analysed.
The key demographic data of the research sample are not provided
Some claims like “competitive advantage” etc. have no support in the research results
Discussion section must be completely rewritten as it is now it only provides some data about other research without presenting evidences how research results relate to other research and what is their added value – new practical / theoretical knowledge

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English must be improved as there are many statements that are not clear and grammar mistakes. Only few examples related to abstract:

"This study examines with questionnaire the role of sustainability and innovation in the hospitality."
- Correction: "examines, with a questionnaire," or "examines the role of sustainability and innovation in hospitality using a questionnaire."
"using of seasonal menus"
- Correction: "using seasonal menus"
"The most popular food waste decreasing strategies are munch, nose-to-tail and other food utilization options in total 65.0%."
- Correction: "The most popular food waste reduction strategies are Munch, nose-to-tail, and other food utilization options, totaling 65.0%."

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 track changes in the re-submitted files. We hope that we have been able to respond to all comments.

There are not clearly defined research questions

Thank you for your comment! We agree with this statement. Therefore, we have evaluated four different scientific objectives for the manuscript in lines 50-53. In the discussion and conclusion section, these have been addressed point by point in the same way, in lines 369-374.

The research sample is not clear; there is not information how they have been selected and the reason why; as well how they have been involved in the research

Thank you four pointing this out! A number of additions and modifications have been made to the material and methods chapter as suggested. In addition, we have made a number of substantive additions to the chapter in lines 112-142.

The research questionnaire must be added to the paper; for now, it is only a short version of it; as well there is no information how the questionnaire was developed and tested

Thank you for your comment! A number of additions and modifications have been made to the material and methods chapter as suggested. In addition, we have made a number of substantive additions to the chapter in lines 121-128 and in lines 140-143.

No explanation is given as to why qualitative and quantitative approaches were used in the research, what their purpose was

Thank you for your useful comments! A number of additions and modifications have been made to the material and methods chapter as suggested. In addition, we have made a number of substantive additions to the chapter. The qualitative analysis of the interviews and case studies was carried out using thematic coding, which allowed for the identification of key sustainability practices and the systematisation of challenges in lines 112-142.

Case studies are cited, but there is no protocol presented on how the case study was conducted, the results obtained and analysed.

A number of additions and modifications have been made to the material and methods chapter as suggested. Figure 2. shows the GreenTEA questionnaire for the national best practices of green restaurants in Hungary as case studies with pre-selected questions. We have selected two restaurants in our region that have built up a strong reputation in last years, and are among the top 100 restaurants in the Dining Guide national list and well known that they use green practices during the operation.

The key demographic data of the research sample are not provided.

Thank you for pointing this out! This type of research does not require precise demographic data. However, we have provided an exact breakdown of the 100 questionnaires by county and by type of hospitality industries, based on the suggestions in lines 138-139.

Some claims like “competitive advantage” etc. have no support in the research results

We think so that many results and data supported this statement, that the green and sustainable practices in the hospitality management gives a competitive advantage to restaurants. For example, food waste reduction methods, purchasing from local producers or using seasonal menus send a clear positive message for consumers in lines 187-211.

Discussion section must be completely rewritten as it is now it only provides some data about other research without presenting evidences how research results relate to other research and what is their added value – new practical / theoretical knowledge

Thank you for pointing this out! We agree with this statement. We evaluated the discussion section and all the scientific research paper we have cited is accompanied by the relevant results of our own research in lines 265-336.

English quality comments: English must be improved as there are many statements that are not clear and grammar mistakes

Thank you for your point! It was corrected in the whole manuscript and we made any other minor modification and spelling correction in the text body.

"This study examines with questionnaire the role of sustainability and innovation in the hospitality."

Thank you for your advice! We corrected in line 12 of abstract and in lines 44-45 of introduction section.

"using of seasonal menus"

Thank you for your advice! We corrected in line 16 of abstract and in line 189 of results section.

"The most popular food waste decreasing strategies are munch, nose-to-tail and other food utilization options in total 65.0%."

Thank you for your advice! We corrected in line 16 of abstract and in line 193 of results section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper requires significant revision before it can be considered for publication:

First and foremost, the academic tone of the manuscript is rather poor. The language often sounds basic and informal, which affect the credibility of the authors research. The authors should make efforts in order to revise the most part of the paper, to meet high academic writing standards, that provide clarity, precision, and proper style approach.
The introduction should be more concise, shorter than now.
The paper lacks a strong defined research question. It presents several aims instead of focusing on a key question.
Related with originality I must mention that the paper is rather descriptive, based strong on the regional study case, but with little theoretical innovation.
Focusing only at the level of a single small region from a EU country, makes the contribution rather practical and local than academic.
The graphic for this paper is rather poor and need to be improved

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper need to reviewed by professional services/ native English speakers.

Author Response

First and foremost, the academic tone of the manuscript is rather poor. The language often sounds basic and informal, which affect the credibility of the authors research. The authors should make efforts in order to revise the most part of the paper, to meet high academic writing standards, that provide clarity, precision, and proper style approach.

Thank you for pointing this out! We accepted your helping comment! Therefore, we have made a number of corrections and changes both grammatically and scientifically through the full text of the manuscript.

The introduction should be more concise, shorter than now.

Thank you for your advice! We agree with this statement! Therefore, we modified the introduction section, developed one new section in the text, below the introduction with the name of "Literature review" in lines 55-110. In the introduction, we will rather lay the theoretical foundations, briefly describe the international project (GreenTEA) that partly contributed to the results of this article, and give our main scientific objectives.

The paper lacks a strong defined research question. It presents several aims instead of focusing on a key question.

Thank you for pointing this out! We accepted your observation! Therefore, we have embedded in the manuscript four different scientific goals in lines 50-53, along which we discuss our results and discussion.

Related with originality I must mention that the paper is rather descriptive, based strong on the regional study case, but with little theoretical innovation

Thank you for your comment! Our investigations with questionnaires covered three counties and two specific restaurants in Hungary. The territorial coverage is indeed regional and local in scale, but this is not unusual when looking at the international literature of hospitality management. We have tried to reduce the descriptive effect by presenting the daily used green practices of the two sample restaurants and the practical advice in the discussion and conclusions section in lines 349-368.

Focusing only at the level of a single small region from a EU country, makes the contribution rather practical and local than academic.

Thank you for pointing this out! We think so that all new results from hospitaliy management and innovations contributes to better and greener practices in restaurants, thus reducing their ecological footprint. These results can also be relevant to academic life and the hospitality industry. We believe that the results of a scientific study from a smaller EU country could be of particular value and can be filling a gap, as in our country, among others, green restaurants and their practices are still under-researched.

The graphic for this paper is rather poor and need to be improved

Thank you for your advice! We agree with this statement! Therefore, we made many corrections in the graphic materials of the paper. We've improved the quality of the images, fine-tuned contrast and sharpness, and used another figure style.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is an interesting article, and the research methods are unique. Enclosed are areas for consideration on the following observations:

Manuscript Title: Recommend Green rather than Good Practices since the former is mostly discussed. Recommend Sustainability and Innovation in Hospitality Management, Good (consider Green) practices in the Northeastern Hungary.
Keywords: Suggest instead of nose-to-tail, consider “waste management” and “green restaurants.”
Section 1. Introduction: A bit too lengthy. Suggest for the first and last paragraphs in one separate section under Introduction and add research motivation. A separate section on Literature review mainly covering 2^nd and 3^rd
Section 2. Materials and Methods: Line 103, please be more detailed on the timeline used to conduct literature review, survey then case studies and interviews. Please explain why mixed methods would be helpful to offer insights into your research aims and research objectives. Just confirming for Line 107 would it be more apt to state Online survey. Please check for end of line 111 – 113 should be parked under line 114: Case studies and interviews. Explain what and why “case studies” are applied and how the survey involved 100 hospitality operators or should be categorized under “Online survey.”
Lines 120-123, how to ensure qualified respondents since it was mentioned that sample of respondents is not necessarily representative of the entire hospitality industry. Please advise any sampling framework, pre-testing and pilot testing were performed before the field testing to mitigate sample errors/bias/spurious relationships.
Section 3. Results: Based on the pie chart: There are only 93 out 100 responses in Figure 4. Explain the attrition rate. Please advise at line 187 mentioned about “consumers” rather “managers and staff” at line 107 which stated the survey respondents. Consider rephrasing this phrase “Consumers are increasingly looking for sustainable restaurants” as it is based on the perceptions of managers and staff.
Section 4. Conclusion: Lines 247-249: It was raised for the first time of 300 restaurant into groups according to the level of employee training in sustainable practices, food waste management, and contrast the differences in the degree of sustainability-oriented service innovation and brand equity. Explain why this is required for such grouping exercise. Similarly, refer to lines 266-268: The authors using a sample of 1200 adult respondents, including 600 Poles and 600 Lithuanian consumers to identify and analyze consumer choices and evaluate among 267 others the sustainability practices in restaurants in Warsaw and Kaunas. This could be raised in having a large sample size and control variables to mitigate the sample bias and errors. It is not clear under point 2 how this investigation with 1200 adult respondents were conducted. Lines 266 to 280: suggest to park under Section 3. Results. The paragraph on comparing USA and other case studies (see lines 281 to 301) is a bit too lengthy. Although good to compare the results (recommend comparison with extant literature), but the focus should be on this study. Avoid the term “case studies” as may be appear that is referring to the case stud(ies) of this study.
A good range of literature ranging from 2004 to 2024. It would be deeply appreciative to include 2025 literature too.

I hope this information is helpful. Thank you for the opportunity to review this article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Mostly good and in order.

Author Response

1. Recommend Green rather than Good Practices since the former is mostly discussed. Recommend Sustainability and Innovation in Hospitality Management, Good (consider Green) practices in the Northeastern Hungary.

Thank you for your point. We agree with this comment, so it's made in the title of manuscript. We have made any other modification and changed the "good" to "green" in the lines 13, 47-48 of the text.

2. Suggest instead of nose-to-tail, consider “waste management” and “green restaurants.

Thank you for pointing this out! We agree this statement! There, we have changed some original keywords for your recommended keywords in lines 25-26.

3. Introduction: A bit too lengthy. Suggest for the first and last paragraphs in one separate section under Introduction and add research motivation. A separate section on Literature review mainly covering 2^nd and 3^rd

Thank you for your point. We have amended it following the comment. Therefore, we modified the introduction section, developed one new section in the text, below the introduction with the name of "Literature review" in lines 55-110. In the introduction, we will rather lay the theoretical foundations, briefly describe the international project (GreenTEA) that partly contributed to the results of this article, and give our main scientific objectives.

4. Materials and Methods: Line 103, please be more detailed on the timeline used to conduct literature review, survey then case studies and interviews. Please explain why mixed methods would be helpful to offer insights into your research aims and research objectives. Just confirming for Line 107 would it be more apt to state Online survey. Please check for end of line 111 – 113 should be parked under line 114: Case studies and interviews. Explain what and why “case studies” are applied and how the survey involved 100 hospitality operators or should be categorized under “Online survey.”

Thank you for pointing this out! A number of additions and modifications have been made to the material and methods chapter as suggested. In addition, we have made a number of substantive additions to the chapter in lines 112-142.

5. Lines 120-123, how to ensure qualified respondents since it was mentioned that sample of respondents is not necessarily representative of the entire hospitality industry. Please advise any sampling framework, pre-testing and pilot testing were performed before the field testing to mitigate sample errors/bias/spurious relationships.

Thank you for pointing this out! We agree with this comment. Therefore, a number of additions have been made to the material and methodology chapter on the questionnaire methodology in lines 112-142.

6. Results: Based on the pie chart: There are only 93 out 100 responses in Figure 4. Explain the attrition rate. Please advise at line 187 mentioned about “consumers” rather “managers and staff” at line 107 which stated the survey respondents. Consider rephrasing this phrase “Consumers are increasingly looking for sustainable restaurants” as it is based on the perceptions of managers and staff.

Thank you for your comment! The responses displayed in Figure 4 reflect answers from 93 out of 100 participants. The remaining 7 respondents skipped or left the relevant question unanswered. The second part of the referee's comment adopted and amended that part of the text accordingly.

7. Section 4. Conclusion: Lines 247-249: It was raised for the first time of 300 restaurant into groups according to the level of employee training in sustainable practices, food waste management, and contrast the differences in the degree of sustainability-oriented service innovation and brand equity. Explain why this is required for such grouping exercise

Thank you for your comments. Therefore, we have added a one-sentence supplement explaining the rationale for grouping restaurants in lines 268-269.

Similarly, refer to lines 266-268: The authors using a sample of 1200 adult respondents, including 600 Poles and 600 Lithuanian consumers to identify and analyze consumer choices and evaluate among 267 others the sustainability practices in restaurants in Warsaw and Kaunas. This could be raised in having a large sample size and control variables to mitigate the sample bias and errors. It is not clear under point 2 how this investigation with 1200 adult respondents were conducted.

Thank you for pointing this out! We accepted your comment! Therefore, we have added a one-sentence supplement explaining the used research methodology in lines 297-298.

Lines 266 to 280: suggest to park under Section 3. Results. The paragraph on comparing USA and other case studies (see lines 281 to 301) is a bit too lengthy. Although good to compare the results (recommend comparison with extant literature), but the focus should be on this study. Avoid the term “case studies” as may be appear that is referring to the case stud(ies) of this study.

Thank you for your comment! We agree with this statements! First, we have deleted the term of"case studies" and used another term instead. Second, in the discussion and conlusions section we have changed the order of some of the literature sources used, to make the scientific content more optimal and coherent. In addition, we have added the most relevant findings of our results to similar findings in the international literature to make them comparable. We have deleted a few sentence in this part of the text to be a shorter and more to the point. These changes were made in lines 265-336.

8. A good range of literature ranging from 2004 to 2024. It would be deeply appreciative to include 2025 literature too.

Thank you for your positive comment! It was accepted. We searched for a relevant article from this year and included it in the discussion section in lines 314-319.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your interesting manuscript.

You present some interesting ideas and useful results but I think you need to undertake further work on the literature / theory behind your paper. I think the methodology could be improved (see below) and your analysis could also be strengthened (again, see below). Your sample size is an issue limiting the usefulness of your results (below) and there are significant issues with English usage.

Use of literature / theory

A key issue is that you don't define 'sustainability' - It is a key element of your work, but what do you mean by the term? You could select a suitable definition and use that to anchor your arguments in the manuscript. Also 'green' - can mean many things to different people; what you mean?

You do not develop and systematically use good and rigorous measures of sustainability. These could flow from your definition of 'sustainability' and 'green' and could be informed by any of several manuals or texts. The summary you provide of 'the sustainability management ' (sic) at Line 73 ff has several useful elements but does not include measures appropriate to restaurants such as recycling (either as human food through charities, or animal food, etc.) or energy use (and conservation), water use (and conservation) or even simply better planning and quantity estimation (= better estimating how much food, ingredients, etc., we need for the bookings taken at the restaurant).

Lines 49-50: You could build on adoption of working definitions of 'green' to explain further what 'green practices', and especially 'green capability' are

Line 63: 'sustainable restaurants goal...' (sic) - how do you know? Any documentation on this? 'Green aims include ...' any documentation? How did they pick these means? are these the MOST effective 'green' measures?

Line 92: Add some more explanation at the start of this par, e.g., this study was part of..., or funded by....

Line 174: Sustainability strategy - can you say more about this? What are the elements of these strategies? Do they define 'sustainability"?

Line 187: 'Consumers are increasingly...' - source?

Line 202: '... reduced operating costs...' - an interesting point, can you explain further - through what measures for example?

Line 217: workers travel modes - why include these as part of the 'sustainability' of the restaurants? Is travel mode contributing to the operations of the restaurants?

Line 220 - explain the significance of 'energy perf certificate'? What does it mean they don't have one?

Line 302: your findings here are v general and if intended as policy recommendations would be of limited use to practitioners and little use to academics studying this important area

Use of English / language issues

This may be an issue with the issues raised above, but I'd make several suggestions more generally about English usage in the paper:

Line 13: suggest more academic language instead of 'we present some good practices...'

Line 69: suggest substituting 'in' for 'for'

Line 74: suggest 'sustainable' for 'sustainability'

Line 105: suggest 'minimizing' instead of 'minimize'

Line 124-5: As noted, 'good examples' - of what? how did you choose these two? Why not more to increase the sample size?

Line 170: delete '.' after '2' in 'Figure 2 shows...'

Line 244: Suggest using 'features' rather than 'data'

Lines 247: better English grammar would be useful, e.g., 'Another study [45] divided....'

Line 255: same, perhaps 'Another study [46] observed...'

Line 259: same, perhaps ' Further research [47] suggests...'

Parts of the manuscript read almost as adverts for the subject restaurants (Line 124 ff). Reconsider phrases like ' the famous restaurants' (Line 124) 'provided as good examples' (Line 124-5); long and florid description of the restaurants (Line 141 ff).

Further issues

Line 12: you say 'this study examines with questionnaire...' - is this describing the methodology, because you actually use three methods (Line 102 ff)

Line 32: '... three key thematic areas...': do you mean 'reasons'? This is implied by your Ref 5.

Line 131: slow food 'movement' - can you provide more detail (and a later ref)?

Line 138-9: Fig 1 - perhaps use a larger scale for the LHS location figure - say Europe or at least Hungary size

Methodology

Your sample size is very small for the restaurants - just two. Other studies have used much larger sample sizes - which provides extra authority and confidence for readers in the findings.

You could consider some further statistical analysis on the results to illustrate significance.

The three methods used could be augmented with more detailed investigation of the actual outcomes; qualitative methods such as questionnaires are a v soft means of investigation. What amount (or %, say) of food was saved, was wasted, etc.

Other issues

It would be good to conclude your article with new sections on:

'Areas for further research' to further investigate this issue in your study area; and

'Study limitations' to raise and discuss limitations on the methodology, applicability of results etc. You mention some limitations at Line 120 ff.

References

Some issues with the reference list I noticed are:

Font size - there seems to be two font sizes used in the Ref list, e.g., Ref 17 - small font; Ref 18 - large font. This occurs several times through the list - may be an issue for the Editors?

Ref 33: Page nos?

Ref 34: Journal name?

Ref 42: Berg 2006 - need extra detail; and I wonder if you can find a later ref than this 2006 publication.

Ref 44: Perhaps provide a translation of the publication title into English, and provide a source (e.g., DOI?)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

As noted above, there are significant issues with several aspects of the paper.

I would be happy to re-review an amended version of the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you for pointing this out! We have filled this gap. at the beginning of the introduction, we will immediately clarify the concept / definition of green practices in the hospitality industry, using three relevant sources of literature in lines 29-31.

Thank you for your advice! We understand the comments, but we believe that the evaluation and validation of metrics and values is not the main goal of this study. This would require further investigation and analysis, which may be a priority for future manuscript writing.

Line 13: suggest more academic language instead of 'we present some good practices...'

Thank you for your advice! It was changed in the line 13th and in the introduction main section.

Lines 49-50: You could build on adoption of working definitions of 'green' to explain further what 'green practices', and especially 'green capability' are

Thank you for your advice! We agree with this statement and the first line of the introduction main section we replaced the vomit as requested and we have also used three new literary sources to define the concept of "green practices" in lines 29-31.

Thank you for pointing this out! We made a few correction for the particular lines and used a new referencee for this text in lines 82-87.

Line 69: suggest substituting 'in' for 'for'

Thank you for pointing this out! It has been corrected and checked in the rest of this article in line 88.

Line 74: suggest 'sustainable' for 'sustainability' and Line 105: suggest 'minimizing' instead of 'minimize'

Thank you for your comments! The manuscript was changed according to these points. Sustainability has been replaced by sustainable in other lines in many parts of the manuscript in the lines 92 and 115. Minimizing used in line 119.

Line 92: Add some more explanation at the start of this par, e.g., this study was part of..., or funded by....

Thank you for pointing this out! We accepted your comment! Therefore, we have added an explanation of how this research fits in with the overall study in line 44.

Line 124-5: As noted, 'good examples' - of what? how did you choose these two? Why not more to increase the sample size?

The GreenTea international project was linked to the presentation of two restaurants, where we had to present three green and forward-thinking examples for hospitality management. Two of them were restaurants. The two restaurants were chosen because they are recognised and well-known hospitality units in the region that have sustainable practices which are used in day-to-day operations.

Line 170: delete '.' after '2' in 'Figure 2 shows...' and Line 244: Suggest using 'features' rather than 'data'

Thank you for pointing this out! We agree with these statements! We made the corrections in the text; first, delete the dot after the "figure 2" in line 184; after that, we changed the "data" to "features" in several lines of the manuscript in lines 179, 205, 233, 246, 258 and 262.

Line 174: Sustainability strategy - can you say more about this? What are the elements of these strategies? Do they define 'sustainability"?

Thank you for your comment! It's accepted, therefore we change the "strategy" to "goals" in the first line (187-188) of the results main section. It's more relevant in this context. The strategy presupposes the existence of an actual document, which in this case may not have been available to restaurants

Line 187: 'Consumers are increasingly...' - source?

Thank you for your valid comment! We have clarified the structure of the sentence because another referee has also indicated in line 201.

Line 202: '... reduced operating costs...' - an interesting point, can you explain further - through what measures for example?

Thank you for your comment! It's a good idea...The research methods used in this study did not allow us to explore this in more depth. However, the reduce of food waste alone and the higher energy efficiency buildings will result in significant annual cost savings.

Line 217: workers travel modes - why include these as part of the 'sustainability' of the restaurants? Is travel mode contributing to the operations of the restaurants?

Thank you for pointing this out! If more workers live locally and do not use fossil fuel cars to get to work, they can significantly reduce their carbon footprint, which indirectly contributes to the green restaurant.

Line 220 - explain the significance of 'energy perf certificate'? What does it mean they don't have one?

Thank you for asking! An energy performance certificate in Hungary is a calculation that certifies energy compliance. The energy performance certificate shows the overall energy performance of the building and the value of CO₂ emissions. We have included a sentence to explain. As long as a property is not sold, it is not compulsory.

Lines 247: better English grammar would be useful, e.g., 'Another study [45] divided....', Line 255: same, perhaps 'Another study [46] observed...', Line 259: same, perhaps ' Further research [47] suggests...

Thank you for your advices! In the discussion section we have replaced the text in questionable text passages in lines 265, 277, 281, 286, 295, 306, 320 and 331.

Line 302: your findings here are v general and if intended as policy recommendations would be of limited use to practitioners and little use to academics studying this important area

Thank you for your advice! We understand the comments; we believe that to conclude a manuscript that is essentially comprehensive on the subject, we need to make statements that are easy to understand for the average person or a non-professional reader.

Thank you for your pointing this out! We agree this statement! Therefore, we deleted the above mentioned words, and shortened the description of the two restaurants, avoiding the brochure-like parts and we were sticking to objective and neutral findings in lines 143-178.

Methodology

Your sample size is very small for the restaurants - just two. Other studies have used much larger sample sizes - which provides extra authority and confidence for readers in the findings

Thank you for your notice! The sample of two restaurants was only related to green restaurant practices linked to the GreenTea project. Otherwise, most of this scientific research presented is based on the sample of 100 hospitality participants.

You could consider some further statistical analysis on the results to illustrate significance.

Thank you for pointing this out! We agree with this statement! We evaluated statistical analysis with the dataset in the background when evaluating the responses received. It was detected no significant relationship between the responses to the research questions and the counties or types of hospitality industries.

Thank you for your advice! Unfortunately, there were no methods used to determine, among other things, how much energy restaurants have saved in last years or how much they have reduced food waste. Further analysis is needed to calculate the ecological footprint of operation and maintaining restaurants.

Other issues

It would be good to conclude your article with new sections on: Areas for further research' to further investigate this issue in your study area; and

Thank you for your good advice! We agree with this statement, but we think so that t is not necessary to add new chapters or even subchapters to the manuscript. The current structure makes the manuscript easier to read; a new chapter has been added to reflect the suggestions. Nevertheless, your suggestion is important, and we will include in the "discussion and conlusions" chapter, in the appropriate place, an outlook and future plans that can set the direction for future scientific research in lines 386-391.

'Study limitations' to raise and discuss limitations on the methodology, applicability of results etc. You mention some limitations at Line 120 ff.

Thank you for pointing this out! Credibility includes, it is important to be aware of the limitations of the methods used and presented here and the difficulties that may arise.

References comments

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the statements. Therefore, we made all revisions and corrections in the reference list on the basis of the reviewer's comments.

Ref 33: Page nos?

We have been checked and all citation forms show this page number.

Ref. 42: Berg 2006 - need extra detail; and I wonder if you can find a later ref than this 2006 publication.

We have been checked and all citation forms use only those detail which used in the reference list.

It would be good to conclude your article with new sections on: 'Areas for further research' to further investigate this issue in your study area; and Study limitations' to raise and discuss limitations on the methodology, applicability of results etc. You mention some limitations at Line 120 ff.

Thank you for your advice! We understand the comments, but for the sake of clarity we do not wish to add a further chapter to the conclusions. The methodological limitations are described in the chapter on material and methods and additional limitations and concerns are always discussed where they are most relevant.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

dear,

you made some changes and updates that I appreciate but the language is so poor that some of them I do not understand. Also you are mentioning thematic coding but there is no any sample of the coding table and as well they are not mentioned in the discussion. Also I do not agree that some of your claims are supported by data and results. Fir example as Porter said a competitive advantage means a higher than average profit which is not evident from your data. I could believe that some data are showing a potential for competitive advantage but that does not mean this is also really achieved. Also you are now repeating the research methods applied (see lines 207-222) where it is not need for it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English Language is now even more poor than it was in the old version of the paper. The added text and the old text are not well link to each other and many times is difficult to understand the ideas behind the text.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments! We acknowledge that while thematic coding was mentioned as the method for analyzing the qualitative case study data (Section 3), the manuscript indeed lacked a visual representation (e.g., a coding table) and an explicit discussion of the thematic results. In response to your valuable feedback, we have taken the following actions: Added a thematic coding table in the result section (Table 2.) with short description in lines 269-272, which summarizes the main themes identified from the qualitative interviews with the two restaurants (e.g., "local sourcing", "energy efficiency practices", "food waste management", "guest communication", "challenges"). These additions aim to enhance the transparency and methodological rigor of the qualitative component of the study. The comments and findings related to the thematic coding have been incorporated as requested in the most optimal paragraph of the discussion section in lines 285-293.

We assess your middle statement on competitive advantage. Actual data from the questionnaire could not support this correlation, but it is supported by a big part of international literature and restaurant experience. The owners of two of the restaurants in our research, which also have a green practices, also support this increasingly common and accepted view. We agree with your last statement! Therefore, in the new version of manuscript we are described briefly and only general observations the studied restaurants in the chapter on materials and methods. This way we can avoid repeating information in the results.

Thank you for pointing this out! We accepted your comment. Therefore, we made English language proofreading through the whole manuscript, especially in the Materials and Methods section, between lines 115 and 146..

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your efforts. The paper has now a better approach and the overall aspect has been improved.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Thank you for your positive decision and your feedback!

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your revised manuscript. I note you have revised and re-submitted the manuscript in a short time - well done but i wonder if this may have caused you to overlook some issues - see below.

The revisions clarify some points and partially address some issues I raised in my original review.

However, I would like to draw your attention to the following:

You have amended the manuscript by introducing new text at several points, but it is not clear what you are deleting / substituting, for example Line 3 '...Greenood practices...'. I interpret this as new text 'Green' but what about deleting '...ood'?

This occurs at many further points in the manuscript, e.g., Lines 12 - 13; Lines 14 - 15; Lines 17 - 20; Line 39; Line 100; Line 101; Line 102; Line 105; Line 106; and several others. Some more work is required on these editorial changes to make clear what your new manuscript says.

A more fundamental point is still unclear: the use and meaning of 'sustainability'. I asked for a definition in my first review, and cannot yet see it.

Moreover, the article is really about green practices, so perhaps a more straightforward tile and approach in the article would be to delete 'sustainability' and just use green. For example, the title might then be something like 'Green Practices and Innovation in Hospitality Management in North Eastern Hungary'. This would be more accurate given the literature and research reported in the paper.

If you chose to adopt this approach, simply delete or use a suitable 'green' alternative for 'sustainability'. So Line 12 would then speak of '...examines the role of green practices and innovation in...'. Line 113 would substitute 'green' for 'sustainable', and so on.

Methodology

Make sure you give full details of your methodology; for example Lines 186 and 211 note the survey was distributed... Here would be a good point to say how many were distributed, and how many completed, returned and analysed (noting, Line 223, that 100 hospitality actors 'participated' - what does this mean?).

Figures

Lines 255 - 259: what is the meaning on the N arrows here (covering up text as well)?

Grammar and spelling

Line 3: delete 'the'

Line 32: rather than 'strategy', do you mean 'strategies'?

Line 175: spelling of 'sustainability'

Section 5 Discussion - it would be good to revisit English usage at several points here; e.g., Line 389 - suggest using something like 'another researcher (ref no] observed...'; Line 408: 'a further study [ref no], using a sample of...'; Line 419: 'further researchers focussed on....'; Line 433: 'Another case study...'.

I mentioned in my first review the danger of using language like '... two of the GOOD examples... (here at Line 444) - you need to be careful with words like 'good' in this context; in what way are they 'good'?

References

Numbering seems to have faltered at a couple of points - including Lines 595, 597, 598, 599, 634, 635 and 650.

In light of the above, I believe you have some further work to do on both major (the issues around 'sustainability' and 'green') and minor (spelling, grammar and references) to sort before the paper is ready for publication.

I am happy to review a further draft if you wish to undertake further work and resubmit.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

My comments are set out above - further work required before re-consideration for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment! In the first round, we made the corrections and modifications with a proofreading function. We accepted your advice in the first round and used your recommended terms in the text, in all cases.

A more fundamental point is still unclear: the use and meaning of 'sustainability'. I asked for a definition in my first review, and cannot yet see it.

Thank you for pointing this out! We agree with this statement! Therefore, we added a scientific definition of sustainability for hospitality industry at the first lines 29-32 of the introduction chapter

Thank you for your comment! We have considered and partly implemented your comment. In some cases, we have deleted the term sustainable practice for green practice. We have reviewed the international literature and found that both terms are used in parallel and interchangeably, and even the term “sustainable green practices” is used. We also believe that green practice is sustainable and vice versa, so there is no reason to take a clear position in favour of either.

Thank you for your comment! The previous point can be confirmed. We have considered and partly implemented your comment. In some cases, we have deleted the term sustainable practice for green practice. We have reviewed the international literature and found that both terms are used in parallel and interchangeably, and even the term “sustainable green practices” is used. We also believe that green practice is sustainable and vice versa, so there is no reason to take a clear position in favour of either.

Methodology

Thank you for pointing this out! Therefore, we have provided additional information in line 128 of the manuscript. A total of 100 questionnaires were distributed, all of which were completed and returned. Every response was included in the analysis. The survey was sent to hospitality establishments, and in each case, a representative completed the questionnaire on behalf of the establishment.

Figures

Lines 255 - 259: what is the meaning on the N arrows here (covering up text as well)?

Thank you for pointing this out! In the proofreading version they don’t covering up the text. The N arrows show the north direction on both maps

Grammar and spelling

Line 3: delete 'the'

Thank you for your comment! We agree with this advice. Therefore, we made a correction in the manuscript. We made the same change in lines 20-21,

Line 32: rather than 'strategy', do you mean 'strategies'?

Thank you for pointing this out! We agree with this statement! There, we made the change on the basis of your opinion.

Line 175: spelling of 'sustainability'

Thank you for your comment! In the first round, we made the corrections and modifications with a proofreading function. On the basis of the referees comments and advices, we changed sometimes the „sustainability” to „sustainable”. For example,in line 115, where the correct formula is the „sustainable practices”

Thank you for your comment! In the first round, we made the corrections and modifications with a proofreading function. We accepted your advice in the first round and changed the „good” word to „green”. If you accepted the proofreadings, you can see the new version in the text. We found another sentence on line 329 where it was necessary to change the expression (good example to green example).

References

Numbering seems to have faltered at a couple of points - including Lines 595, 597, 598, 599, 634, 635 and 650.

Thank you for your comment! In the first round, we made the corrections and modifications with a proofreading function. If you accepted the proofreadings, you can see the new version in the text.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

I find your paper much improved however there are still some language weaknesses (e.g. GreenTEA international project IS co-funded by the European Union with Croatian,
Finnish, Portuguese, and Hungarian partners from 2023 to 2026. Partners will each select and analyse 44 and analyse green national restaurant practices in your own country at the destination or small and medium-sized level enterprises (SME) level.) When all grammar mistakes etc. will be properly solved I believe the paper can be accepted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

see my main comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Thank you for your positive decision and your feedback! Thank you for pointing this out! We agree this statement, therefore a many English grammar corrections have been made throughout the article.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your amended manuscript. I can see the chanes you have made have improved the clarity and readability and made your results appear more strongly supported by your research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Improved; some issues remain, such as the first sentence starting 'sustainability is also...'.hank you for the opportunity to reconsider this manuscript. As noted above, the paper is substantially improved.

Author Response

Article Menu

Sustainability and Innovation in Hospitality Management: Green Practices in Northeastern Hungary

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI