The Impact of Social Status on Promoting Sustainable Work Development from the Perspective of Social Sustainable Development: An Empirical Analysis from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I hope this message finds you well. Thank you for submitting your paper and for the opportunity to review the article “The Impact of Social Status on Promoting Sustainable Work Development from the Perspective of Social Sustainable Development: An Empirical Analysis from China”. After a comprehensive review, minor areas for improvement were identified. The interpretations could be interpreted at a higher statistical level.

my only comment was to improve the statistical interpretation of the results, such as: Model summary states R2 = 0.8067, F (8, 432) = 459.1341, p < 0.05. The working atmosphere has an impact on the psychological well-being of employees (SE = 0.1158, LLCI = 0.4079, ULCI = 0.8631, p < 0.05), while the value of the standard deviation is 0.1158 and the value of the coefficient is 0.6355. 

 

Author Response

The reply is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review manuscript entitled “The Impact of Social Status on Promoting Sustainable Work Development from the Perspective of Social Sustainable Development: An Empirical Analysis from China.”

The manuscript presents an investigation of the relationship between social status and sustainable work development in the context of Chinese society, with a specific focus on the mediating role of media use and intergenerational and regional heterogeneity. It is grounded in sociological and psychological theory and makes use of large-scale data from the 2022 China Family Panel Studies (CFPS).

The study addresses an important and relatively underexplored topic, the impact of subjective social status on work sustainability.

The article is methodologically well-written, using regression models, mediation analysis, robustness checks, instrumental variables, and heterogeneity analysis. The statistical treatment of data is appropriate and supports the claims made in the discussion.

However, I have a few comments and remarks that may contribute to enhancing the value of the contribution.

The article is classified as an essay, even though the title indicates that it is an empirical analysis. The discussion of policy implications is written in a style reminiscent of an essay; it would be advisable to structure it better. Some passages in the theoretical part and discussion seem to stray from the topic and appear redundant.

In the Literature Review, there is some over-reliance on Chinese studies, which, while relevant, could be balanced by additional global comparative insights.

What is the purpose of the research questions in lines 74 to 77? They are not evaluated anywhere. Research questions should be used when we are unclear about a research problem and need to orient ourselves. If we want to use hypotheses, we should already be familiar with the issue and be able to express certain assumptions that we will further test.

The model in lines 111 to 120 is not sufficiently explained.

The term sustainability is such an "all-encompassing" concept that it is used in contexts related to work, e.g. "ability to develop sustainably in their respective occupations," "sustainable advancement of their own endeavors." However, it is not explained what "job sustainability," "sustainable development of work," or "sustainable care practices" mean.

The language is generally comprehensible but would benefit from language polishing to improve fluency, grammar, and avoid awkward phrasing. Some sentences are excessively long and would benefit from being split for better readability. There are also typos in the manuscript, spaces are missing after periods, etc.

It is necessary to standardize the form of citing references in the text. Sometimes square brackets are used, other times round brackets.

Conclusions need to be separated from the discussion.

Abbreviations need to be explained when they first appear in the text (e.g., SDG, R&D, etc.).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is generally comprehensible but would benefit from language polishing to improve fluency, grammar, and avoid awkward phrasing. Some sentences are excessively long and would benefit from being split for better readability. There are also typos in the manuscript, spaces are missing after periods, etc.

Author Response

The reply is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study integrates theories from sociology and psychology to build a new analytical framework for sustainable labor development. Which is an urgent task for ensuring sustainable development.

The results of the study show that assessing the impact of social status on sustainable development in the labor sphere in different age groups and regions helps to develop recommendations for targeted development. However, it would be useful to indicate the possibility of applying the results of the study in different regions and countries.

For further research, it would be interesting to consider quantitative indicators of the increase in the effectiveness of sustainable development as a result of the implementation of the proposed recommendations.

Author Response

The reply is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article proposes a highly topical and scientifically relevant theme, analyzing the relationship between social status and work sustainability in the context of the Chinese environment. It is notable for its interdisciplinary approach, combining sociology with organizational psychology, and for its rigorous statistical methodology. However, the article requires substantial revisions before it can be considered for publication.

1. Introduction

The bibliographic sources used in the introduction are largely outdated, dating from 1961–2012. It is recommended that these be replaced or supplemented with works published in the period 2023–2025, from relevant databases (Scopus, WoS), which reflect new trends regarding work sustainability, media usage, and socio-economic status. Additionally, the introduction does not provide a clear presentation of the article's structure, for which reason it is recommended to add a concluding paragraph that succinctly explains the content of each section.

2. Theoretical Framework, Hypotheses, and Conceptual Model

Section 2 should be renamed "Literature Review, Research Hypotheses and Conceptual Model," and after the presentation of the hypotheses, it is necessary to introduce an illustrative conceptual model, in which the relationships H1, H2, H3a, H3b are visibly marked. At the same time, the model must be justified based on recent studies (2020–2025) in the field of work sustainability and organizational psychology. Without this justification, the construction of the model seems insufficiently anchored in the current literature.

3. Supporting Hypothesis H3

For H3 (which involves two sub-hypotheses), the number of sources and their empirical consistency are insufficient. It is necessary to cite specific studies, with details regarding the sample, year, and research context, especially related to intergenerational and regional differences. It is recommended to expand the literature review to justify the hypotheses on a solid basis.

4. Discussions and Interpretation of Results

The discussion section needs to be improved by:

* A systematic approach to each hypothesis, mentioning the values obtained (coefficients, statistical significance);

* Including updated sources to support or contrast the results obtained;

* Clarifying the connection between the results and the theories invoked in the introduction (e.g., Social Comparison Theory, Self-Determination Theory).

5. Conclusions, Implications, and Limitations

The final part needs to be expanded to include:

* Theoretical implications – contribution to the literature and extension of the theories used; * Practical implications – formulated differently for stakeholders (managers, employees, organizations, the business environment);

* Limitations of the study – clearly described (e.g., use of cross-sectional data, subjective assessments, etc.);

* Future directions – proposals for longitudinal, comparative, or qualitative research.

6. References

 The reference list requires a significant update with sources from the last 2–3 years (2023–2025), especially regarding the central themes: work sustainability, job satisfaction, social comparison in the digital age, and media influence.

The article in its current form does not meet the conditions for publication;  revisions are recommended.

Author Response

The reply is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors:

Congratulations on the improved version of this manuscript.

 

I have nothing to add, except a suggestion to strutucture your abstract: background; aim; methos; discussion and conclusions.

Author Response

The reply is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses a relevant and contemporary topic, namely the influence of social status on work sustainability in China. The study benefits from an interdisciplinary design, combining sociology, psychology, and empirical modeling based on the CFPS 2022 dataset. It integrates modern concepts such as media use, intergenerational effects, and social comparison. However, despite clear improvements over previous versions, the manuscript in its current form does not yet meet the methodological, structural, and argumentative standards required for publication in a high-impact journal.

Section-by-Section Evaluation

1. Introduction

✔ Strengths:

• Lines 30–61 introduce the topic with global relevance, referencing the UN's “leave no one behind” principle and linking social status to sustainable work.
• The author integrates recent references (e.g., Camminatiello 2023, Frémeaux 2025), addressing prior concerns regarding outdated literature.

✔ Weaknesses:

• The structure of the article is only briefly and generically presented (lines 101–108) without a breakdown of the paper’s core sections. Readers are not guided clearly on what to expect in each part of the paper.
• Terms like "social embeddedness" (line 42) and "status inequality" (line 46) are introduced but not operationalized with measurable or conceptual precision.

Suggested revision: Add a paragraph at the end of the introduction that explicitly presents the structure of the paper (e.g., "Section 2 presents... Section 3 describes...").

2. Literature Review, Analytical Framework, and Hypotheses (Lines 109–251)

✔ Strengths:

• Title of the section reflects feedback from previous review (line 109).
• A conceptual model (Figure 2) is presented (lines 248–251) and hypotheses H1–H3b are clearly formulated and tied to theoretical frameworks.
• The literature review includes recent and relevant studies (e.g., lines 175–185).

✔ Weaknesses:

1. Lack of empirical grounding in several citations. For instance:
• Line 175–176: Statement about Gen Z accepting a 19% pay cut lacks source details (e.g., sample size, country, data type).
• Line 179–185: Mentions of migrant laborers in UK care work are vague. No methodological description or citation is provided.
2. Hypotheses H3a and H3b (lines 244–247) are stated, but there is no clear methodological description of how heterogeneity was statistically tested (e.g., subgroup analysis, interaction terms). The text does not indicate whether ANOVA, multi-group regression, or other techniques were used.

Suggested revision: Justify each cited empirical claim with methodological details, and add a paragraph explaining the statistical techniques used to test H3a/b.

3. Empirical Results and Discussion

✔ Critical Weaknesses:

• There is no dedicated Discussion section. While empirical results are likely presented after line 252, no section is clearly marked or labeled as “Discussion”.
• The manuscript fails to explicitly link the results with the theoretical hypotheses (H1–H3). There is no systematic explanation such as: "Hypothesis H1 is supported by β = 0.23, p < 0.01".
• No coefficients, confidence intervals, or p-values are presented in the core text to support the interpretation of results, although these are crucial in a quantitative study.
• The discussion is primarily descriptive and lacks theoretical integration. For instance, although COR Theory and SDT are cited (lines 122–137), their role in interpreting the results is never revisited.

Suggested revision:

• Add a labeled “Discussion” section that:
1. Discusses each hypothesis in light of empirical results;
2. Explicitly reports statistical indicators (β, SE, p-values);
3. Links results back to COR, SDT, and SCT theories.

4. Conclusions, Implications, Limitations (Lines likely starting after 107 or near the end of the manuscript)

✔ Strengths:

• Innovative concepts such as “green collar jobs” (line 176) and "ICT anxiety" (lines 148–149) are introduced and connected with social status and career sustainability.

✔ Weaknesses:

1. Practical implications are too general. For example, lines 97–100 discuss targeting policies by region and age, but there is no segmentation by stakeholder (e.g., HR managers, public sector, educational institutions).
2. Limitations are listed only briefly in lines 276–277. There is no discussion of how these limitations affect generalizability, nor is there a clear acknowledgment of potential omitted variable bias.
3. No future research directions are mentioned. A high-quality ISI paper is expected to offer a roadmap for extending the findings.

Suggested revision: Expand this section to include:

• Separate subsections: Theoretical implications, Practical implications, Limitations, and Future directions.
• Proposals for longitudinal data, cross-cultural comparisons, or qualitative follow-ups.

5. References

✔ Strengths:

• The references include several recent and relevant sources (2023–2025) and incorporate a good mix of sociology, psychology, and sustainability literature.

✔ Weaknesses:

• No distinction between empirical studies and conceptual works is made. For instance, the reference that supports Gen Z salary trade-offs (line 175) should clearly indicate whether it is a survey, meta-analysis, or commentary.

Suggested revision: Ensure that references supporting empirical claims are explicitly described as such in the main text.

Technical and Language Observations

• Line 20: “Status is more obviously affected” is grammatically awkward and vague-this needs rephrasing.
• Figure captions are brief and not interpreted in the text (Figure 1 line 161, Figure 2 line 250).
• Tables and data (if present later in the document) are not referenced or discussed in the main text.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx