Environmentally-Specific Empowered Leadership and Employee Green Creativity: The Role of Green Crafting and Environmental Culture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a highly relevant and timely topic, integrating environmentally-specific empowered leadership, green crafting,  and environmental culture into a moderated mediation model grounded in self-determination theory. The study attempts to contribute to the literature by explaining how and under what conditions EEL can foster employee green creativity in the manufacturing sector. The focus on EEL and green creativity is highly aligned with sustainability and leadership research priorities.

Congratulations on choosing the topic and conducting the research and at the same time I suggest you refine your work
My comments are as follows:

1. The introduction summarizes EEL, GC, and EGC but does not critically engage with contrasting findings or unresolved debates in the literature.
2. Limited coverage of recent research: While some foundational works are cited (e.g., Zhang & Bartol, 2010; Lee et al., 2018), there is little engagement with recent studies on green leadership or creativity published in 2022–2024
3. The two stated theoretical gaps (Lines 47–60) are relevant but too broad. For instance, the claim that employee proactivity in green innovation is “underexplored” could be supported with more evidence from systematic reviews or meta-analyses

 

So, please expand the literature review to incorporate the latest research and provide a sharper theoretical contrast with existing models (e.g., green transformational leadership, servant leadership). Clearly state what is novel about EEL in this context compared to related constructs / aspects.

1. Although G*Power calculations are described, there is a mismatch between the required sample size (445) and the actual final sample (229). This reduction should be explicitly addressed in terms of statistical implications and potential bias. So that the reader has clarity
2. The industry context is underdeveloped for me. Only 23.6% of respondents are in manufacturing (Line 253), which raises concerns about the claim that the study is on the “Chinese manufacturing industry.”
3. The rationale for including demographic controls is noted but there is no justification (I didn't find) for excluding potential organizational-level controls (e.g., firm size, intensity of environmental policy).
4. The discussion largely reiterates results without deeply engaging with theoretical implications or exploring alternative explanations. And....the boundary conditions of EEL’s impact—beyond EC—are not explored, leaving future research directions underdeveloped.

 

So, I recomend to deepen the discussion by linking findings to broader debates in leadership and sustainability. Provide concrete managerial implications and identify multiple avenues for future research.

Minor extras:

• Pleas, consider including a conceptual diagram early in the paper to illustrate the hypothesized relationships.
• Line 426 - should be capital letter - "practical"

Author Response

1. The introduction summarizes EEL, GC, and EGC but does not critically engage with contrasting findings or unresolved debates in the literature.
2. Limited coverage of recent research: While some foundational works are cited (e.g., Zhang & Bartol, 2010; Lee et al., 2018), there is little engagement with recent studies on green leadership or creativity published in 2022–2024
3. The two stated theoretical gaps (Lines 47–60) are relevant but too broad. For instance, the claim that employee proactivity in green innovation is “underexplored” could be supported with more evidence from systematic reviews or meta-analyses   

 

So, please expand the literature review to incorporate the latest research and provide a sharper theoretical contrast with existing models (e.g., green transformational leadership, servant leadership). Clearly state what is novel about EEL in this context compared to related constructs / aspects.

Response：We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's comprehensive feedback on our introduction section. We agree that our literature review needs significant enhancement, particularly regarding critical engagement with contrasting findings, incorporation of recent research (2022-2024), and sharper theoretical distinctions between EEL and related leadership constructs. We also acknowledge the need to better contextualize our theoretical framework, refine our research questions, and more clearly articulate the novelty and significance of our research gaps. We have thoroughly revised our introduction to address these valuable suggestions. Please refer to the introduction section. 

1. Although G*Power calculations are described, there is a mismatch between the required sample size (445) and the actual final sample (229). This reduction should be explicitly addressed in terms of statistical implications and potential bias. So that the reader has clarity.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's insightful observation regarding the discrepancy between the required sample size calculated by G*Power (445) and our final valid sample (229). This is a crucial point that indeed warrants more explicit explanation in our manuscript. We have carefully considered the statistical implications and potential bias resulting from this reduction, and have revised our manuscript accordingly. Additionally, we discussed the impact of sample attrition in the limitations section. Please refer to the sample and program sections in the paper.

2.The industry context is underdeveloped for me. Only 23.6% of respondents are in manufacturing (Line 253), which raises concerns about the claim that the study is on the “Chinese manufacturing industry.”

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's insightful observation regarding the industry context of our study. The reviewer correctly points out that only 23.6% of our respondents are from the manufacturing sector, which raises legitimate concerns about our characterization of the study as focused on the "Chinese manufacturing industry." This is a valuable comment that has prompted us to reconsider and clarify the industry context of our research. We have revised our manuscript to more accurately reflect the multi-industry nature of our sample while maintaining the theoretical and practical significance of our research. Please refer to the sample and program sections in the paper.

3.The rationale for including demographic controls is noted but there is no justification (I didn't find) for excluding potential organizational-level controls (e.g., firm size, intensity of environmental policy).

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's insightful observation regarding the absence of organizational-level control variables in our study. The reviewer correctly points out that while we justified the inclusion of demographic controls, we did not provide a rationale for excluding potentially important organizational-level controls such as firm size and intensity of environmental policy. This is an excellent point that has helped us improve our manuscript's methodological rigor. We acknowledge that organizational-level factors such as firm size and environmental policy intensity could also influence the relationships in our model. While our primary focus was on individual-level processes, organizational context certainly shapes environmental behaviors and attitudes. Due to constraints in our data collection process across multiple organizations and time points, we were not able to systematically collect reliable organizational-level data for all participants. This limitation is addressed in our discussion of research limitations and future research directions. Please refer to the Limitations section of the paper.

4. The discussion largely reiterates results without deeply engaging with theoretical implications or exploring alternative explanations. And....the boundary conditions of EEL’s impact—beyond EC—are not explored, leaving future research directions underdeveloped.

Response: We appreciate the reviewers' comments and have incorporated the suggested revisions. Please refer to the Discussion and Limitations sections of the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript explores the impact of environmentally-specific empowered leadership (EEL) on employee green creativity (EGC), mediated by green crafting (GC) and moderated by environmental culture (EC). The study is grounded in Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and employs a robust methodological approach, including multi-wave data collection and hierarchical regression analysis. The topic is timely and relevant to sustainability research, offering valuable insights for organizational practices. However, several areas require clarification and improvement.

2. Strengths

Theoretical Contribution: The study integrates EEL with SDT, providing a novel perspective on how leadership fosters green innovation.

Methodological Rigor: The use of multi-wave data collection mitigates common method bias, and the statistical analyses are appropriate.

Practical Implications: The findings offer actionable strategies for organizations to promote green creativity through leadership and cultural alignment.

3. Major Concerns and Recommendations

3.1 Clarity and Structure

Abstract: The abstract is comprehensive but could be more concise. Focus on key findings and implications.

Introduction: The introduction is well-written but could better highlight the research gap. Emphasize why EEL is uniquely suited to address green creativity compared to other leadership styles.

3.2 Theoretical Framework

SDT Application: While SDT is well-applied, the manuscript could better explain how EEL satisfies the three basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness) in the context of green behaviors.

Green Crafting: The concept of GC is innovative but needs clearer differentiation from general job crafting. Provide more examples of how GC manifests in environmental contexts.

3.3 Methodology

Sample Size: The final sample size (229) is adequate, but the attrition rate (from 450 to 229) should be discussed as a potential limitation.

Measurement Scales: The AVE values for some constructs (e.g., EC = 0.40) are below the recommended threshold of 0.5. Justify this with references (e.g., Hair et al., 2017) and discuss potential implications.

Control Variables: The rationale for including gender, age, etc., as controls is unclear. Explain how these variables might confound the results.

3.4 Results and Discussion

Hypothesis Testing: The results support all hypotheses, but the effect sizes (e.g., β = 0.644 for H1) are strong. Discuss whether these align with prior literature or if they suggest unique contextual factors (e.g., Chinese manufacturing).

Moderated Mediation: The interaction plot (Figure 2) is helpful but could be improved with clearer labels and a more detailed interpretation of the slopes.

3.5 Practical implications

The practical recommendations are insightful but somewhat generic. Provide specific examples of how organizations can implement EEL and GC initiatives (e.g., training modules, reward systems).

3.6 Limitations and Future Research

The limitations are well-acknowledged, but future research directions could be expanded. For example:

How might cultural differences (e.g., individualism vs. collectivism) influence the EEL-EGC relationship?

Could team-level GC and EGC be explored as emergent properties?

4. Minor Concerns

Language and Style: The manuscript is well-written but has minor grammatical errors (e.g., "EELs satisfy employees’ need for autonomy by encouraging them to participate in environmental decision-making and providing autonomy to solve environmental problems" – repetitive use of "autonomy").

Figures and Tables:

Figure 2 (theoretical model) is clear but could be more visually appealing.

Table 3 (regression results) should include standardized coefficients (β) for easier interpretation.

5. Overall Recommendation

The manuscript makes a significant contribution to the literature on green leadership and employee creativity. With revisions to address the above concerns, it will be suitable for publication.

Additional Notes:

Ensure all citations are formatted consistently (e.g., "Ryan & Deci, 2017" vs. "Ryan and Deci, 2017").

The supplementary materials section should be completed if applicable.

This review is intended to help the authors enhance the clarity, rigor, and impact of their work. I look forward to seeing the revised manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is well-written but has minor grammatical errors (e.g., "EELs satisfy employees’ need for autonomy by encouraging them to participate in environmental decision-making and providing autonomy to solve environmental problems" – repetitive use of "autonomy").

Author Response

3.Major Concerns and Recommendations  3.1 Clarity and Structure Abstract: The abstract is comprehensive but could be more concise. Focus on key findings and implications.

Introduction: The introduction is well-written but could better highlight the research gap. Emphasize why EEL is uniquely suited to address green creativity compared to other leadership styles.

Response: Clarity and Structure Abstract - We appreciate the reviewers' comments and have made revisions to the relevant sections.

Introduction - We sincerely appreciate the valuable feedback provided by the reviewers, which has been crucial to us. We have incorporated these suggestions into our revisions.

 

3.2 Theoretical Framework SDT Application: While SDT is well-applied, the manuscript could better explain how EEL satisfies the three basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness) in the context of green behaviors. Green Crafting: The concept of GC is innovative but needs clearer differentiation from general job crafting. Provide more examples of how GC manifests in environmental contexts.

Response ：Theoretical Framework SDT Application - We have incorporated the reviewers' comments into the revised manuscript. Please find the updated version attached.

Green Crafting - We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's insightful comment regarding the need to more clearly differentiate Green Crafting (GC) from general job crafting and to provide more concrete examples of how GC manifests in environmental contexts. This feedback has been invaluable in helping us refine and strengthen our conceptualization of GC in the manuscript. We have addressed these concerns as detailed below.

3.3 Methodology Sample Size: The final sample size (229) is adequate, but the attrition rate (from 450 to 229) should be discussed as a potential limitation. Measurement Scales: The AVE values for some constructs (e.g., EC = 0.40) are below the recommended threshold of 0.5. Justify this with references (e.g., Hair et al., 2017) and discuss potential implications. Control Variables: The rationale for including gender, age, etc., as controls is unclear. Explain how these variables might confound the results.

Response：Methodology Sample Size - Thank you for the reviewers' comments. The reviewer correctly notes that while our final sample size (229) is adequate, the attrition rate (from 450 to 229) warrants discussion as a potential limitation. We agree with this assessment and have added a detailed discussion of this limitation to our manuscript.

Measurement Scales - Thank you for the reviewers' comments. Regarding the AVE values below the conventional threshold of 0.5 for some constructs, we appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to provide more robust justification. While we did cite Hair et al. (2017), we have now expanded our explanation and provided additional references to strengthen our methodological approach.

 Control Variables - Thank you for the reviewers' comments. The reviewer correctly points out that our rationale for including demographic controls (gender, age, etc.) was unclear. We have expanded our explanation to better justify the inclusion of these variables and to explain how they might confound the relationships in our model if not controlled for.

3.4 Results and Discussion Hypothesis Testing: The results support all hypotheses, but the effect sizes (e.g., β = 0.644 for H1) are strong. Discuss whether these align with prior literature or if they suggest unique contextual factors (e.g., Chinese manufacturing). Moderated Mediation: The interaction plot (Figure 2) is helpful but could be improved with clearer labels and a more detailed interpretation of the slopes.

Response：Results and Discussion Hypothesis Testing - We greatly appreciate the reviewer's insightful observation regarding the strong effect sizes in our results, particularly the relationship between environmentally-specific empowered leadership (EEL) and green crafting (GC) (β = 0.644). The reviewer has raised an important point that warrants further discussion about whether these effect sizes align with prior literature or suggest unique contextual factors related to the Chinese manufacturing setting. We have addressed this concern thoroughly by adding a detailed discussion in our manuscript.

  Moderated Mediation - We greatly appreciate the reviewer's constructive suggestions regarding the interaction diagram (Figure 2). The reviewer noted that the figure could be improved with clearer labels and a more detailed explanation of the slopes. We have carefully addressed this feedback by adding annotations below the figure and incorporating an explanation within the manuscript.

3.5 Practical implications The practical recommendations are insightful but somewhat generic. Provide specific examples of how organizations can implement EEL and GC initiatives (e.g., training modules, reward systems).

Response：We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's constructive feedback regarding our practical implications. The reviewer noted that while our recommendations were insightful, they were somewhat generic, and suggested that we provide specific examples of how organizations can implement EEL and GC initiatives, such as training modules and reward systems. We agree that more specific and actionable examples would significantly enhance the practical value of our research. We have thoroughly revised the practical implications section to address this concern by adding concrete implementation strategies, specific examples, and industry practices. Please refer to the section on practical significance in the paper.

3.6 Limitations and Future Research The limitations are well-acknowledged, but future research directions could be expanded. For example: How might cultural differences (e.g., individualism vs. collectivism) influence the EEL-EGC relationship? Could team-level GC and EGC be explored as emergent properties? 

Response：We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's insightful comments regarding our limitations and future research directions, the depth of theoretical discussion, and the selection of control variables. These comments have prompted us to substantially enhance our manuscript in these areas. Please refer to the section on limitations and future research directions in the paper.

Minor Concerns  Language and Style: The manuscript is well-written but has minor grammatical errors (e.g., "EELs satisfy employees’ need for autonomy by encouraging them to participate in environmental decision-making and providing autonomy to solve environmental problems" – repetitive use of "autonomy"). Figures and Tables: Figure 2 (theoretical model) is clear but could be more visually appealing. Table 3 (regression results) should include standardized coefficients (β) for easier interpretation. 5. Overall Recommendation  The manuscript makes a significant contribution to the literature on green leadership and employee creativity. With revisions to address the above concerns, it will be suitable for publication. Additional Notes: Ensure all citations are formatted consistently (e.g., "Ryan & Deci, 2017" vs. "Ryan and Deci, 2017"). The supplementary materials section should be completed if applicable.

Response：We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments have helped us identify areas for improvement that will enhance the clarity, presentation, and overall quality of our work. Below, we address each point raised by the reviewer and outline the corresponding changes we have made.

Language and Style - We thank the reviewer for noting that our manuscript is well-written overall while also pointing out the issue with repetitive language. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript to identify and correct instances of repetitive wording and grammatical errors.

Figures and Tables - We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have redesigned the theoretical model to enhance its visual appeal while maintaining clarity. The standardized coefficients are highlighted in red in Table 3.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for proposing your research to the Sustainability. I appreciate your effort in developing new knowledge in “Environmentally specific empowered leadership and Employee Green Creativity: The Mediating Role of Green Crafting and Moderating Role of Environmental Culture”. After a careful reading, I can see that the research idea is original, and the article has potential. However, I also recognize several opportunities for improvement. I will justify my evaluation in the following paragraphs, while I suggest some improvements you can make during the revision process.

Title – Although I appreciate how you have tried to include all the keywords of the article in the title, I cannot help but notice how long and difficult it is to remember. I invite you to shorten it, where possible.

Abstract – The first line of the Purpose mentioned “Environmentally-specific empowered leaderships (EEL), but in brackets it mentioned “EELs” in line (63, 87, 93, 101, 105), so is the emphasis here on Environmentally-specific empowered leadership or Environmentally-specific empowered leaderships? Please justify.

In the purpose paragraph, you need to clearly state the purpose of the paper while you are actually focusing on the gap. It is not clear why investigating such a local context would be beneficial, as well as the introductions of moderators is not properly explained. Overall, simplify these lines and focus on the purpose/aim of the study.

Keywords: Add “AMOS” Then, a keyword about your theoretical framework is missing.

Introduction – In this section, I appreciate the positioning of the study.
A detailed literature presentation that leads to emphasizing the gap is lacking. Review this section to discuss previous studies on EEL and EGC, up to how and why the lack of focus in the identified local context represents a gap. In addition, the relevance of the gap must also be much more evident. Once it has been identified and presented, explain why it is important to close this gap (relevance of the gap).
Consequently, the scope of the article must also be revised to be more straightforward and understandable.
I appreciate the presentation of the research questions, but they are too specific and sound like hypotheses. I urge you to come up with one or two research questions at most, and more clearly.
Furthermore, a hint of the theoretical framework of the research is missing. This needs to be properly contextualized in the introduction.
Finally, introduce a final chapter to summarize the theoretical and literary contribution of your research.

Theoretical foundations and research hypotheses – This section needs major revisions. Firstly, there is a lack of a literature review sub-section before moving on to the research hypotheses. Secondly, while offering an overview of the theoretical framework, this should be better contextualized in the hypotheses. Is self-determination Theory sufficient to explain each of your hypotheses? If not, you may consider including other theoretical milestones alongside the previous one.

In research hypotheses, you have typically utilized the literature well but need to improve the theoretical support. Hypotheses H1 (EEL and GC), H2 (EEL and EGC)????, H3 (GC between EEL and EGC), H4 (EC moderate EEL and GC), H5 (integrative model) should be developed one by one, specifically giving space to each argument. In general, I urge you not to use acronyms in the hypotheses because it compromises the usability of the article. Then the theoretical figure should include Hypotheses number and control variables (Line 214).

Correct Figure number (2) (Line 215)

Methodology –Firstly, add the measurement instrument items?.
Secondly, set up a subsection dedicated to data analysis and give reasons why you chose this method.

Results - In the results section, add figures outputs from AMOS.

Discussion (377), The authors should add the reasons why each hypothesis is valid or not.

 (line . Please revised all abbreviations in the manuscript (EELs, GJC, EEGC)???

Author Response

Title – Although I appreciate how you have tried to include all the keywords of the article in the title, I cannot help but notice how long and difficult it is to remember. I invite you to shorten it, where possible.

 

Response：Title -  We appreciate the reviewer's comments and have revised the title accordingly.

Abstract – The first line of the Purpose mentioned “Environmentally-specific empowered leaderships (EEL), but in brackets it mentioned “EELs” in line (63, 87, 93, 101, 105), so is the emphasis here on Environmentally-specific empowered leadership or Environmentally-specific empowered leaderships? Please justify.

Response：We appreciate the reviewer's comments and have revised the abstract accordingly.

 

In the purpose paragraph, you need to clearly state the purpose of the paper while you are actually focusing on the gap. It is not clear why investigating such a local context would be beneficial, as well as the introductions of moderators is not properly explained. Overall, simplify these lines and focus on the purpose/aim of the study.

Response：We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's insightful feedback regarding our purpose paragraph. We agree that the original text focused excessively on research gaps while lacking a clear, direct statement of the study's purpose and proper explanation of the research framework. Following the reviewer's suggestion, we have thoroughly revised this paragraph to clearly articulate the study's purpose, explain the significance of our multi-industry research context, and provide a more balanced introduction of all key variables, including the moderator. The revised paragraph is more focused and streamlined to emphasize the study's aims.

 

Keywords: Add “AMOS” Then, a keyword about your theoretical framework is missing.

Response：Thank you for the reviewers' comments. We have added the keyword section and highlighted it in red.

 

Introduction – In this section, I appreciate the positioning of the study.

A detailed literature presentation that leads to emphasizing the gap is lacking. Review this section to discuss previous studies on EEL and EGC, up to how and why the lack of focus in the identified local context represents a gap. In addition, the relevance of the gap must also be much more evident. Once it has been identified and presented, explain why it is important to close this gap (relevance of the gap).

Consequently, the scope of the article must also be revised to be more straightforward and understandable.

I appreciate the presentation of the research questions, but they are too specific and sound like hypotheses. I urge you to come up with one or two research questions at most, and more clearly.

Furthermore, a hint of the theoretical framework of the research is missing. This needs to be properly contextualized in the introduction.

Finally, introduce a final chapter to summarize the theoretical and literary contribution of your research.

Response：We have incorporated the reviewers' comments into the revised manuscript. Please refer to the introduction section.

Theoretical foundations and research hypotheses – This section needs major revisions. Firstly, there is a lack of a literature review sub-section before moving on to the research hypotheses. Secondly, while offering an overview of the theoretical framework, this should be better contextualized in the hypotheses. Is self-determination Theory sufficient to explain each of your hypotheses? If not, you may consider including other theoretical milestones alongside the previous one.

 

Response：Thank you for the reviewer's comment.We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments on theoretical foundations and hypotheses. In our revisions, we maintain the core idea of theoretical integration to enhance depth, but given word limits and narrative flow, we relied on the literature review of the core variables already presented in the Introduction and integrated the theoretical expansion with hypothesis development. To ensure readability and coherence, we added a systematic articulation of the key theories and clearly grounded the moderator in situational strength theory to explain boundary conditions of the relationships, thereby achieving an integrated theoretical-hypotheses argument.

In research hypotheses, you have typically utilized the literature well but need to improve the theoretical support. Hypotheses H1 (EEL and GC), H2 (EEL and EGC)????, H3 (GC between EEL and EGC), H4 (EC moderate EEL and GC), H5 (integrative model) should be developed one by one, specifically giving space to each argument. In general, I urge you not to use acronyms in the hypotheses because it compromises the usability of the article. Then the theoretical figure should include Hypotheses number and control variables (Line 214).

Response：Thank you for the reviewers' comments. We have made modifications to this. For details, please refer to the section on hypotheses and theoretical model figure.

 

Correct Figure number (2) (Line 215)

Response：Thank you for the reviewers' comments. We have made modifications to this.

 

Methodology –Firstly, add the measurement instrument items?.

Secondly, set up a subsection dedicated to data analysis and give reasons why you chose this method.

Response：Thank you for the reviewers' comments. We have made modifications to this. Please refer to the attached table and the data analysis strategy section

Results - In the results section, add figures outputs from AMOS.

Response：Thank you for the reviewers' comments. We have made modifications to this. The output result of AMOS is shown in Table 1.

Discussion (377), The authors should add the reasons why each hypothesis is valid or not.

 

 (line . Please revised all abbreviations in the manuscript (EELs, GJC, EEGC)???

Response：thank you for the valuable comment on abbreviation consistency. We have implemented uniform abbreviation usage throughout the manuscript: every first occurrence of an abbreviation now includes the full term with the abbreviation in parentheses, and subsequent mentions consistently use the abbreviation. Figures, tables, and related captions have also been updated accordingly. These changes improve readability and align with international publication standards.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript and the authors' detailed response. I have carefully examined the authors' point-by-point responses to my initial review and their corresponding revisions to the manuscript.

I am pleased to report that the authors have been exceptionally thorough and responsive in addressing all the comments and suggestions raised in the previous review round. They have made substantial improvements to the manuscript, significantly enhancing its clarity, theoretical depth, methodological rigor, and practical value.

Although, there are some major improvements needed as;

1. Please use the full form of the construct in the hypothesis.
2. In line 335, the author mention “combined reliability (CR) and mean variance draw (AVE).” While this needs to be “AVE is Average variance extract; CR is composite reliability.”
3. In line 557, the author might need to do the correction by removing the heading “Second,Limitations of reduced sample size: D.”
4. I strongly recommend to please check the language for minor grammatical errors, spacing as well as capital letters e.g., “line 520; practical significance” throughout the manuscript.

However, the revisions demonstrate a strong commitment to improving the quality of the work. But the manuscript in its current form needs minor revisions regarding the above comments.

Good luck!

Author Response

Please use the full form of the construct in the hypothesis.

Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for your suggestion regarding the use of full forms for constructs in the hypotheses. We have modified the manuscript as per your request to ensure that all constructs are presented in their full form followed by their abbreviations upon first mention, thereby enhancing clarity in the expression of hypotheses.

In line 335, the author mention “combined reliability (CR) and mean variance draw (AVE).” While this needs to be “AVE is Average variance extract; CR is composite reliability.”

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comments and have made revisions accordingly. Please refer to lines 345 and 346 of the manuscript.

In line 557, the author might need to do the correction by removing the heading “Second,Limitations of reduced sample size: D.”

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comments and have incorporated the suggested revisions. Please refer to line 599 of the manuscript.

I strongly recommend to please check the language for minor grammatical errors, spacing as well as capital letters e.g., “line 520; practical significance” throughout the manuscript.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comments and have incorporated the suggested revisions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for their diligent work in revising the manuscript. The revisions have been largely successful. 

Author Response

I thank the authors for their diligent work in revising the manuscript. The revisions have been largely successful.

Response: Thank you for recognizing the author team.