Job Satisfaction as a Factor That Moderates the Relationship Between Internal Social Responsibility and Organizational Commitment: A Structural Equation Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the opportunity to review this article. I kindly request the following improvement.

1. I suggest changing the title to “How Job Satisfaction Shapes the Relationship between Internal Social Responsibility and Organizational Commitment: A Structural Equation Analysis” as the current title is not suitable.
2. While the abstract is comprehensive and discusses many aspects, I still find it lengthy and includes many unnecessary details. Therefore, I recommend rewriting it with a focus on the key points.
3. Please focus more on the introduction section regarding the research gap and the problem of the study. Develop clear research questions and specify the motives for your study.
4. Please provide a separate section for the context of the study or discuss it more clearly in the introduction section.
5. Please conclude your introduction by showing the organisation for your study.
6. Please provide a pictorial representation (a figure for your model) that shows various developed relationships to help readers understand your model.
7. Please try to organise your research in a good way. For example, after completing the introduction section, develop a section called “theory of the study” or theoretical background, and then delve deeply into discussing the model of the study and how it relates to the suggested theory.
8. The article needs proofreading. For example, in “On the concept of Organizational Commitment”, why are you adding the word “on”? This is not correct. Also, there are many places where grammar editing is required.
9. Please try to reduce or minimise the use of direct quotations; this increases the risk of plagiarism and may cause similarity issues with the journal. Paraphrase the content and minimise quotations to the minimum percentage.
10. Indicate that your study was quantitative and that the sample was random in the research methodology, and explain why this sample was chosen.
11. I advise attaching the questionnaire used in the study as an appendix to allow other readers to replicate it.
12. Analysis is good, but it would be better if authors reported whether the hypotheses are accepted or rejected.
13. The author may consolidate various results into a single table instead of generating multiple tables.
14. Please develop two sections and thoroughly discuss the theoretical and practical implications.
15. Please elaborate further on limitations and future research.

All the best

Comments on the Quality of English Language

needed

Author Response

Thanks for the opportunity to review this article. I kindly request the following improvement.

Many thanks to the reviewer for their input. We have made many improvements to the document based on their contributions. Our responses and arguments are written in italics, preceded by bullet points. All changes made to the document were made at the suggestion of the three reviewers. These changes have been highlighted in yellow.

1. I suggest changing the title to “How Job Satisfaction Shapes the Relationship between Internal Social Responsibility and Organizational Commitment: A Structural Equation Analysis” as the current title is not suitable.

• We have modified the title of the article.

2. While the abstract is comprehensive and discusses many aspects, I still find it lengthy and includes many unnecessary details. Therefore, I recommend rewriting it with a focus on the key points.

• We agree with this observation. We have removed details that are not required in an abstract.

 3. Please focus more on the introduction section regarding the research gap and the problem of the study. Develop clear research questions and specify the motives for your study.

• Paragraph 2 describes three gaps in the research on the relationship between RSI and CO. The paper was designed to address these gaps. We appreciate your comment because it made us aware that we were unclear in the text. We have made changes to paragraph 2 to correct this problem.
• We have incorporated the research questions requested by the reviewer (paragraph 3).

4. Please provide a separate section for the context of the study or discuss it more clearly in the introduction section.

• We have included descriptive information about the specific context in which the research was conducted (paragraph 4)

 

5. Please conclude your introduction by showing the organisation for your study.

• We have included a final paragraph indicating how the document is organized

 

6. Please provide a pictorial representation (a figure for your model) that shows various developed relationships to help readers understand your model.

* The pictorial representation requested by the reviewer was incorporated (see Figure 1).

 

7. Please try to organise your research in a good way. For example, after completing the introduction section, develop a section called “theory of the study” or theoretical background, and then delve deeply into discussing the model of the study and how it relates to the suggested theory.

• Our study does not propose a model. The objective of the work is to study the relationship between the variables. The structural equation technique was not used to validate a model. This technique was only used to evaluate whether job satisfaction mediates the relationship between ISR and OC.

 To study the relationship between ISR, OC, and JS, we had two alternatives: using multiple regressions or using structural equations. If we used multiple regressions, we could only work with the indices of the three variables. This always entails a loss of information. On the other hand, if we used structural equations, we could directly use the information from all the indicators. For this reason, we chose to use structural equations, but not with the goal of validating a model.

 This is the reason why section 2 is called "Literature Review" and not "Theory of the Study." Section 2 is intended to analyze the bibliographic background on which the research is based. This section discusses the definitions of the concepts and analyzes previous research that studied the relationships between the three variables considered in our study (ISR, OC, JS).

A discussion was included on the different ways of defining each of the three main concepts in this paper (ISR, OC, and JS). This discussion served to support the definition we chose for each of them. We have modified some subheadings to make this clearer for the reader.

 A review of previous research that examined each of the hypotheses in this paper was also included. Analyzing this research helps support the relevance of evaluating our hypotheses. We have endeavored to base our work on a wide range of previous research.

 * To avoid confusion among readers, we have made it clear in the introduction that this paper does not aim to validate a model (see paragraph 3).

 

8. The article needs proofreading. For example, in “On the concept of Organizational Commitment”, why are you adding the word “on”? This is not correct. Also, there are many places where grammar editing is required.

• We have modified the subheadings. The term "On" has been removed.
• We have revised the grammar.

 

9. Please try to reduce or minimise the use of direct quotations; this increases the risk of plagiarism and may cause similarity issues with the journal. Paraphrase the content and minimise quotations to the minimum percentage.

• We have reduced the number of direct quotes. In some cases, we have replaced direct quotes with paraphrases. In other cases, we have eliminated the quotes.
• We have only retained direct quotes from definitions. We believe that including the authors' exact quotes helps the reader understand the nuances between the different definitions.

 

10. Indicate that your study was quantitative and that the sample was random in the research methodology, and explain why this sample was chosen.

• This information was incorporated into a brief paragraph at the beginning of section 3.
• The first paragraph of section 3.1 states that the sample was random. The first paragraph of section 3.2 states that the sample was selected using Facebook algorithms.
• A modification was made to the first paragraph of section 3.1 to explain why the selected population was chosen.

 

11. I advise attaching the questionnaire used in the study as an appendix to allow other readers to replicate it.

• The questionnaire includes: 1) the indicators used to operationalize the variables and 2) some segmentation questions (gender, age, educational level, etc.). All indicators are included in Table 2. If you find it useful to repeat this information in an appendix, we will do so.

 

12. Analysis is good, but it would be better if authors reported whether the hypotheses are accepted or rejected.

• The text briefly notes that all four hypotheses were accepted. This information can be found in the two paragraphs preceding Table 6.

 13. The author may consolidate various results into a single table instead of generating multiple tables.

*  We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. In response, Tables 5 and 6 have been merged into a single table, which consolidates the results and improves the clarity of the presentation

 

14. Please develop two sections and thoroughly discuss the theoretical and practical implications.

• We have made changes to the conclusions section to differentiate between the two types of implications.

15. Please elaborate further on limitations and future research.

• We have made changes to the conclusions section to address this observation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
Your manuscript titled "Job satisfaction as a factor that moderates the relationship between Internal Social Responsibility and Organizational Commitment: a structural equations analysis" addresses an important gap in the literature. However, there are several important concerns that need to be addressed to improve the overall quality of the manuscript. First, the last two paragraphs in the introduction need to be discarded, except for the objectives of the study. The remainder is already presented in the methodology section and the results. Second, the section "2.3.2 Empirical evidence on the relationship between ISR and OC" needs improvement. Findings in this section are not well elaborated to support the proposed hypothesis. Third, the section titled "3.1 Population and sample" needs to be improved with contextual background of the study. Please inform your readers about the state of CSR in Uruguay. Fourth, I suggest rerunning the SEM analysis, adding the demographic variables to increase the robustness of the analysis, and reporting any differences and the influence of the demographic variables. I appreciate the fact that you conducted the analysis in "4.4 Correlations in segments determined by the degree of job satisfaction." However, you need to explain in detail why you have chosen the 33% and 67% percentiles, and clarify what the high, medium, and low index values related to the percentiles represent. Fifth, you need to consider reframing the structure of the "5. Conclusion." Clearly highlight the discussion, theoretical and managerial implications, and the limitations under separate subtitles. Note that the managerial implications must not be generic; they must be actionable insights that can be implemented within the context of the study.
I also have some minor concerns. These include the reference style. For example, "According to [2], [3] stated that..." needs to be corrected. If the authors are directly referenced, their names must appear, not the reference numbers. I have no further concerns about the other part of the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I do not have major concerns about the quality of the writing. There are only minor issues with some punctuation that the authors can handle well. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for reviewing our document. We also appreciate your comments and observations, as they have helped us make numerous improvements to the document. Our responses and arguments to your comments and observations are written in italics and preceded by bullet points.

All changes made to the document were made at the suggestion of the three reviewers. These changes have been highlighted in yellow.

First, the last two paragraphs in the introduction need to be discarded, except for the objectives of the study. The remainder is already presented in the methodology section and the results.

• We understand the reasons for your observation and share them. In other works, reviewers have asked us to include a brief summary of the methodology and results in the introduction. There are differing opinions on this matter. Some articles published in Sustainability include these topics. For example:

Vázquez-Burguete, J.L.; Licandro, O.; Ortigueira-Sánchez, L.C.; Correa, P. Do Enterprises That Publish Sustainability Reports Have a Better Developed Environmental Responsibility and Are They More Transparent? Sustainability 2024, 16, 5866. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145866

Liao, Y.; Marquez, R.; Cheng, Z.; Li, Y. Can ESG Performance Sustainably Reduce Corporate Financing Constraints Based on Sustainability Value Proposition? Sustainability 2025, 17, 7758. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177758

Based on the above considerations, we prefer to keep these issues in the introduction. But, we are open to doing whatever the journal suggests.

 

Second, the section "2.3.2 Empirical evidence on the relationship between ISR and OC" needs improvement. Findings in this section are not well elaborated to support the proposed hypothesis

• In this section, we have included an extensive list of previous studies that support Hypothesis 1. The basic information for each study is included in Table 1. All of the studies included in Table 1 found a relationship between CSR and OC. Perhaps the reviewer's observation refers to the fact that we have not analyzed the specific content of each of the studies that support the relationship between CSR and OC included in Table 1 (or at least some of these studies).

 

• Our analytical strategy did not consist of focusing on the specifics of each study because there are many. Our strategy consisted of analyzing the complementary elements of these studies that reinforce the validity of the hypothesis. In the paragraphs preceding Table 1, we have conducted a brief comparative analysis of those elements that reinforce the validity of the relationship between CSR and OC: 1) the studies cover different cultures and economies; 2) the relationship between SRI and OC was verified in different company segments, determined by their activity (banking, manufacturing, food, telecommunications, education, etc.), size (large, SMEs, etc.), and type of ownership (private and public); 3) the studies were conducted with different segments and employees (directors, executives, employees, etc.). We also point out that there are comparability issues between these studies because CSR and OC were operationalized and measured with different tools (indicators and scales). We believe this approach is more interesting than analyzing the content of each study.

 

• If these arguments are not sufficient for the reviewer, we are willing to include a brief description of the main studies included in Table 1.

 

Third, the section titled "3.1 Population and sample" needs to be improved with contextual background of the study. Please inform your readers about the state of CSR in Uruguay.

• We appreciate this comment. We have incorporated a paragraph with information on this matter. It is the first paragraph of section 3.1.

 

Fourth, I suggest rerunning the SEM analysis, adding the demographic variables to increase the robustness of the analysis, and reporting any differences and the influence of the demographic variables.

• None of the demographic variables influence the relationship between ISR, OC, and JS. This is why we did not include them in the analysis.

I appreciate the fact that you conducted the analysis in "4.4 Correlations in segments determined by the degree of job satisfaction." However, you need to explain in detail why you have chosen the 33% and 67% percentiles, and clarify what the high, medium, and low index values related to the percentiles represent.

• The choice of these percentiles was arbitrary. Given the small sample size, we decided to use only three segments. Percentiles were chosen so that the three segments would include the same number of cases. Also, the names low satisfaction, medium satisfaction, and high satisfaction were arbitrarily assigned to each satisfaction range: 1) low (if the SJ is less than 2.67; 2) medium (if satisfaction is greater than 2.67 and less than 4.5); and high (if the SJ is greater than 4.5).
• We appreciate this comment because it improves the information provided to readers of the document. We have added this explanation to the text.

 

Fifth, you need to consider reframing the structure of the "5. Conclusion." Clearly highlight the discussion, theoretical and managerial implications, and the limitations under separate subtitles. Note that the managerial implications must not be generic; they must be actionable insights that can be implemented within the context of the study.

• We appreciate this suggestion. We have made the suggested changes.

 

I also have some minor concerns. These include the reference style. For example, "According to [2], [3] stated that..." needs to be corrected. If the authors are directly referenced, their names must appear, not the reference numbers. I have no further concerns about the other part of the manuscript.

• For citations, we have used the guidelines indicated in the Sustainability Standards. This journal does not use APA style. The journal has its own criteria. The instructions for authors state: “In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3].”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript. Several weaknesses require attention to meet the journal’s standards for publication. Below, I outline these concerns and provide recommendations for improvement.

Recommendations for Improvement

1. Limited Contextual Specificity for Uruguay
   The manuscript’s focus on Uruguay is promising, but it lacks a detailed discussion of the country’s unique socio-economic or cultural context that justifies its selection as a study setting. This weakens the study’s relevance to sustainability in specific regional contexts.
   Recommendation: Expand the introduction to include Uruguay-specific factors (e.g., labor market dynamics, CSR adoption trends) that influence ISR, JS, and OC, supported by relevant literature or data.
2. Superficial Theoretical Integration
   While the manuscript builds on reciprocity and social exchange theories, the integration of these theories with ISR, JS, and OC is underdeveloped, with limited discussion of how they inform the proposed moderation model. Key studies on CSR and OC in developing economies are also underexplored.
   Recommendation: Deepen the theoretical framework by explicitly linking reciprocity and social exchange theories to the moderation hypothesis, and incorporate recent literature on CSR in Latin American or Global South contexts to strengthen the study’s foundation.
3. Methodological Ambiguity in Variable Operationalization
   The indicators for ISR, JS, and OC (Table 2) are listed, but the manuscript lacks clarity on how these were developed, validated, or adapted for the Uruguayan context. The sampling process and rationale for selecting 419 employees are also inadequately justified.
   Recommendation: Provide a detailed explanation of the development and validation of measurement instruments, including psychometric properties. Justify the sample size and selection criteria, ensuring alignment with the study’s objectives.
4. Inadequate Discussion of Statistical Robustness
   The manuscript reports discriminant validity (Table 4) and standardized trajectory coefficients, but it does not address robustness checks (e.g., multicollinearity, alternative model specifications) or potential biases in self-reported survey data. This limits the credibility of the findings.
   Recommendation: Include a section on robustness checks, such as tests for multicollinearity or sensitivity analyses, and discuss potential biases in self-reported data, proposing mitigation strategies.
5. Weak Practical and Societal Implications
   The implications for organizations and sustainability are broad and lack specificity, with no clear guidance on how findings can inform HR practices, policy, or societal outcomes like employee well-being. The manuscript also lacks evidence of ISR’s practical impact in the Global South.
   Recommendation: Provide specific, actionable recommendations for organizations (e.g., ISR policies to enhance JS) and policymakers, linking findings to sustainability outcomes like improved workplace equity or employee retention.

6. The study does not explicitly address ethical considerations, such as informed consent or data privacy for the 419 employee respondents in Uruguay. The lack of an informed consent statement, despite the data availability statement, raises concerns about the ethical conduct of the survey-based research. The authors should clarify the ethical protocols followed to ensure participant protection and compliance with research standards.

Decision
Based on the above explanations, I recommend major revisions to the manuscript. 

Sincerely,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for reviewing our document. We also appreciate your comments and observations, as they have helped us make numerous improvements to the document. Our responses and arguments to your comments and observations are written in italics and preceded by bullet points.

All changes made to the document were made at the suggestion of the three reviewers. These changes have been highlighted in yellow.

1. Limited Contextual Specificity for Uruguay

The manuscript’s focus on Uruguay is promising, but it lacks a detailed discussion of the country’s unique socio-economic or cultural context that justifies its selection as a study setting. This weakens the study’s relevance to sustainability in specific regional contexts.
Recommendation: Expand the introduction to include Uruguay-specific factors (e.g., labor market dynamics, CSR adoption trends) that influence ISR, JS, and OC, supported by relevant literature or data.

 

• We appreciate this suggestion. We have incorporated a paragraph with this information into the introduction (See paragraph 4)

 

2. Superficial Theoretical Integration

While the manuscript builds on reciprocity and social exchange theories, the integration of these theories with ISR, JS, and OC is underdeveloped, with limited discussion of how they inform the proposed moderation model. Key studies on CSR and OC in developing economies are also underexplored.
Recommendation: Deepen the theoretical framework by explicitly linking reciprocity and social exchange theories to the moderation hypothesis, and incorporate recent literature on CSR in Latin American or Global South contexts to strengthen the study’s foundation.

 

• We appreciate this comment. In the document, we have described how these theories apply to the relationship between CSR and OC (2.3.1). However, we did not do so for the relationship between the three variables: SRI, OC, and JS. In the new version of the document, we have incorporated these considerations to explain the moderation of JS (See the last paragraph of section 2.4.4)

 

• We would like to clarify that in this work, we do not propose a model for the relationship between these three variables. Our objective is limited to evaluating the existence of relationships between them. We clarified this matter in the introduction (see paragraph 3).

 

• To support the hypotheses, we conducted a broad search of articles. We dedicated considerable time to searching for bibliographical background. We tried to find articles from countries around the world. A significant portion of the research on the relationship between SRI and OC cited in our work was conducted in countries of the Global South (see Table 1). We only found one study conducted in South America (Ecuador). On the other hand, there is very little research on the central theme of this paper (the moderating role of SJ in the relationship between SRI and OC). All the research we found was cited in the document (section 2.4.4). Only a few of them were conducted outside the United States and Europe: Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Taiwan, and Uruguay.

 

3. Methodological Ambiguity in Variable Operationalization

The indicators for ISR, JS, and OC (Table 2) are listed, but the manuscript lacks clarity on how these were developed, validated, or adapted for the Uruguayan context. The sampling process and rationale for selecting 419 employees are also inadequately justified.
Recommendation: Provide a detailed explanation of the development and validation of measurement instruments, including psychometric properties. Justify the sample size and selection criteria, ensuring alignment with the study’s objectives.

 

• 1) The questionnaire was administered outsourced to Facebook. This involved a cost that we had to finance. The sampling procedure was as follows: 1) Facebook was informed of the profiles of the people to be surveyed; 2) Facebook applied its algorithms to send the questionnaire. The sample size was determined by the project's available funds. We were previously informed that the available funds would result in a sample of approximately 400 cases. The final sample was 419. This information was incorporated into the document.

 

• Development and validation of the instruments. The reviewer is correct. This was not well explained in the first version of the document. New information on this was incorporated into the document. In addition, the conclusions reported on the methodological limitations associated with the selection and validation of the instruments.

 

 

4. Inadequate Discussion of Statistical Robustness
   The manuscript reports discriminant validity (Table 4) and standardized trajectory coefficients, but it does not address robustness checks (e.g., multicollinearity, alternative model specifications) or potential biases in self-reported survey data. This limits the credibility of the findings.
   Recommendation: Include a section on robustness checks, such as tests for multicollinearity or sensitivity analyses, and discuss potential biases in self-reported data, proposing mitigation strategies.

 

• We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. Emphasis has been added in the Conclusions section regarding the robustness metrics already reported in the previous sections of the manuscript.

 

5. Weak Practical and Societal Implications

The implications for organizations and sustainability are broad and lack specificity, with no clear guidance on how findings can inform HR practices, policy, or societal outcomes like employee well-being. The manuscript also lacks evidence of ISR’s practical impact in the Global South.
Recommendation: Provide specific, actionable recommendations for organizations (e.g., ISR policies to enhance JS) and policymakers, linking findings to sustainability outcomes like improved workplace equity or employee retention.

 

• We appreciate this suggestion, but we believe the research results only allow us to make generic recommendations. Our data tell us nothing about which SRI policies impact workplace well-being, workplace equity, or employee retention. Our work only finds general relationships between the variables SRI, OC, and JS. What we can do is suggest ideas for future research (see changes in the last paragraph of 5.1).

 

• Our data also do not provide specific evidence on the practical impact of SRI in the Global South. Again, we can suggest ideas for future research (see changes in the last paragraph of 5.1

 

6. The study does not explicitly address ethical considerations, such as informed consent or data privacy for the 419 employee respondents in Uruguay. The lack of an informed consent statement, despite the data availability statement, raises concerns about the ethical conduct of the survey-based research. The authors should clarify the ethical protocols followed to ensure participant protection and compliance with research standards.

• We appreciate this comment. The questionnaire included a section requesting respondents' consent and informing them about the privacy of their responses. We have already provided this information to Sustainability.

 

• In the "Informed Consent Declaration" section we have added the following text: Before administering the questionnaire, respondents were asked for their consent to participate in the research. Furthermore, they were informed that their opinions would be used anonymously.

 

 

 

•  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

satisfied

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
Thank you for addressing all the comments.  Please note the following minor issue to resolve during proofreading:

• In reference "For [76]", "proposed by [23]", the authors' names must be included—regardless of whether you're using APA or numbered citation style. Additionally, the sentence structure in that section is unclear and should be revised for clarity.

Kind regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thanks for implementing the comments. I would suggest an acceptance. 

Best regards,