Evaluating the Impact of Remote Work on Employee Health and Sustainable Lifestyles in the IT Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

The research aims to evaluate the impact of remote work on employee health and sustainable lifestyles within the IT sector. The core questions appear to be related to the relationships between remote work, perceived stress, health, and various lifestyle factors, with an emphasis on the role of demographics such as age and gender.

2. What parts do you consider original or relevant to the field? What specific gap in the field does the paper address?

The topic of remote work and its impact on employee well-being is highly relevant and a key issue in the post-pandemic era. The paper's focus on the IT sector and its attempt to analyze complex mediating relationships are potentially valuable.

However, the manuscript fails to clearly define a specific theoretical or empirical gap. While the authors state the general problem, they do not provide a strong theoretical argument for what is missing in the current literature and how their study fills that void.

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

Given the lack of a clear theoretical foundation and a chaotic presentation of results, it is very difficult to identify what the paper adds to the subject area. The key findings are not presented in a way that allows for a clear comparison with existing literature. The manuscript, in its current form, does not demonstrate a new contribution.

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology?

• Theoretical Justification: The proposed relationships between variables (e.g., remote work and perceived stress) are not sufficiently justified. The authors must provide a robust theoretical framework, citing existing theories and studies to support their hypotheses, including the direction of the relationships.

• Demographic Variables: The inclusion of demographic variables such as age and gender in the model is not theoretically grounded. The authors must justify why these variables are relevant and how they are expected to impact the proposed relationships.

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Were all the main questions posed addressed? By which specific experiments?

The conclusions, while present, are not consistent with the evidence because the results are presented in a disorganized and fragmented manner, with an excessive use of enumerations. This makes it challenging to verify if the evidence supports the claims. It is unclear which specific analyses correspond to which questions or hypotheses, making the entire flow illogical and difficult to follow.

6. Are the references appropriate?

While the references appear to be relevant to the topic, their theoretical integration is poor. They are not used to build a coherent argument or to justify the proposed model.

7. Any additional comments on the tables and figures and the quality of the data.

The presentation of the results, including tables and figures, is chaotic and confusing. The information is fragmented, making it very difficult for the reader to understand the findings. I cannot comment on the data quality without more clarification, but the presentation of the results is in urgent need of a complete overhaul.

In its current state, due to the critical issues with its theoretical foundation, structure, and presentation of results, I cannot recommend this manuscript for publication. The paper requires a complete and extensive restructuring to meet the standards of an international scientific journal as Sustainability.

Author Response

We are pleased to resubmit our manuscript, “Evaluating the Impact of Remote Work on Employee Health and Sustainable Lifestyles in the IT Sector,” for consideration as an Article in Sustainability. We are grateful for the constructive feedback from the reviewers and have revised the manuscript substantially in response.

We provide a point-by-point “Response to Reviewers” and both clean and tracked-changes versions of the manuscript. Below, we highlight the main revisions and where they can be verified in the text:

1. Sharper theory–hypotheses integration. We strengthened the theoretical framing (JD-R, SDT, SET) and added brief transition sentences that link mechanisms to hypotheses (Sections 1.3–1.4).
2. Reframed research gap. We define a focused gap around inherent tensions among health, productivity, and sustainability (e.g., commuting benefits vs. rebound effects), moving beyond treating these domains in isolation (Section 1.4: Research Gap, Objectives, and Hypotheses).
3. Methodological transparency. We clarify sampling and weighting and explicitly discuss the limits. We report the reliability of the Productivity_Score (α = 0.612), justify retention on content-validity grounds, and show robustness to a single-item proxy and HC3 robust SEs (Section 2.3; Sampling/Weighting section; Limitations).
4. Clearer results structure. Results now proceed from full-sample estimates to quartiles (using ANOVA), followed by gender and age subanalyses. Tables are renumbered/retitled for consistency (e.g., Table 6 = direct effects; Table 9 = quartiles/ANOVA), and we include a compact forest plot to summarize direct effects (Sections 3.2–3.3, 3.7–3.8).
5. Mediation clarified. We report that H2 (mediation) is generally unsupported for the overall sample and most age groups, interpret this via SDT (direct mechanisms through autonomy/flexibility), and outline a dual-pathway moderated-mediation agenda for future work (Sections 4.1, 4.5).
6. Limitations and measurement notes. We explicitly acknowledge snowball self-selection, the scope of sustainability measures (including potential rebound effects), and subgroup power considerations (Section 4.4, 4.4.2, and Appendix A with full-scale items).

We believe these revisions address the reviewers’ concerns and improve the manuscript’s clarity, theoretical coherence, and contribution to the literature on remote work.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Ranka Popovac · Dragan Vukmirović · Tijana Čomić · Zoran G. Pavlović

[Corresponding author: Name, affiliation, address, email, ORCID]

Response to Reviewer 1

We thank Reviewer 1 for the thoughtful and detailed comments. Below, we respond point by point and indicate where each issue has been addressed in the revised manuscript.

Points 1 & 2 – Absence of a clear theoretical/empirical gap.
We substantially revised Section 1.4 (“Research Gap, Objectives, and Hypotheses”) to articulate a precise gap: relationships between health, productivity, and sustainability are often in tension rather than merely studied in isolation. For instance, health/ecological gains from reduced commuting can be offset by rebound effects (e.g., higher household energy use). Our study explicitly targets this multi-dimensional tension with integrated hypotheses and outcomes (Section 1.4).

Points 3 & 5 – Fragmented/chaotic presentation of Results and Discussion.
We restructured the empirical narrative to improve flow and eliminate redundancy: full-sample estimates first (Section 3.2), followed by quartiles (Section 3.3), gender (Section 3.7), and age (Section 3.8). The Discussion now opens with a concise “Synthesis of Key Findings” that ties the results to hypotheses and situates them in prior literature (Section 4.1). Where informative, we added ANOVA (omnibus) tests alongside quartile means and retained only non-overlapping tables (Tables 6 & 9; Section 3.3).

Point 4 – Insufficient theoretical grounding for hypotheses and demographics.
We integrated hypotheses with JD-R, SDT, and SET throughout Sections 1.3–1.4, and we now pre-specify gender and age as moderators based on these frameworks (Methods, Section 2.x). We justify demographic moderation theoretically (differential access to resources/needs) and report subgroup results transparently (Sections 3.7–3.8).

Point 6 – Weak integration of references.
Citations in the Introduction and Theory were reorganized to build a cumulative argument: from context → mechanisms (JD-R/SDT/SET) → concrete hypotheses (Sections 1.1–1.4). Each claim is now supported by targeted references rather than general listings.

Point 7 – Tables/Figures.
We harmonized numbering, titles, and cross-references across Results. Each table/figure has a distinct function and is cited in order of appearance (e.g., Table 6 = direct effects; Table 9 = quartiles/ANOVA). This streamlines interpretation and addresses the prior inconsistencies (Sections 3.2–3.3).

We appreciate the reviewer’s guidance; we believe these changes improve clarity, theoretical coherence, and empirical transparency.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

The introduction is a very rigorous and descriptive piece, considering all the essential elements that place the reader in the paper context. To ensure a stronger logical flow, allowing the reader to see how the identified research gap is addressed by the formulated objectives and hypotheses, it is recommended to combine sections 1.4 and 1.5. This could create a single section titled "1.4. Research Gap and Hypotheses". Thus, it would better show the transition between identifying the problem and the authors' proposed solution through their study.

Additionally, to strengthen the link between the theoretical arguments and the formulated hypotheses, it is suggested that a short transitional sentence be added at the end of each sub-section (1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3), explaining how the respective theory contributed to the formulation of the hypotheses.

Theoretical background

It is desirable that, despite the authors' thorough explanation of the mentioned theories in an attempt to outline the theoretical framework, they also provide a brief general theoretical context. They could try separating the theoretical aspects from the introduction and creating a new section for the theoretical background.

Methodology

The methodology section is detailed and well-argued. To improve it, it is recommended that the authors, regarding the Productivity_Score scale which they acknowledged that it has a Cronbach's α coefficient below the conventional threshold, provide a brief argument explaining the reason behind this situation or which items were not sufficiently consistent and correlated for the scale.

Results

The results section is detailed, transparent, and rigorously constructed, with the authors also focusing on supplementary analyses and the verification of statistical hypotheses. However, there is a discrepancy in the numbering and titles of the tables, which could create confusion. Table 5 is titled " Predicted Directions of the Direct Effects of Remote Work Intensity" and Table 6 is " Empirical Results of Direct Effects", although the text refers to them in the opposite order. It is recommended that the numbering and titles of the tables be checked and corrected. Regarding Table 16, it is titled "Mediation Analysis Results (H2)," but its content refers to the direct effects (H1a-H1d) for each age group, therefore, being recommended to give it a more fitting title.

Discussions

Although the general conclusion about the consistency of results across genders is correct, it is recommended that the authors further explore the small differences observed. Women reported a slightly stronger positive effect on health and sustainability. A more detailed discussion of these nuances would add scientific value, showing that the benefits of remote work can vary slightly even within similar general trends. Moreover, it is recommended that the authors provide a brief explanation of the possible causes of the stress-related discrepancy, noting that the results contradict some previous studies.

The section "4.5 Directions for Future Research" is very valuable. The authors, not limiting themselves to suggesting future research, are concerned with proposing a solid theoretical framework in this regard and formulating specific hypotheses that can be tested. However, the authors mention "4.5 Detailed Analysis of Moderation and Mediation by Demographic Groups, Including the Role of AI", but its description also includes other variables such as job role, firm size, culture, and even artificial intelligence, which can be confusing for the reader, as the title does not fully cover the content. It is recommended that titles be more precise and reflect completely the content.

At the same time, the discussion points for future research "Detailed Analysis of Moderation and Mediation by Demographic Groups, Including the Role of AI" and "Application of Advanced Analytical Tools, Including Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)" are quite connected. To streamline the text and reduce the risk of referring to similar ideas, it is recommended to combine the two points.

References

Given the complexity of the approach and the scope of the paper, a more extensive and in-depth base of theoretical references is recommended, considering the rather limited references. Supplementing the references to create a general introductory theoretical framework, even if the foundational theories have been described, as well as including examples of references associated with the types of analyses performed, would significantly improve the article.

Appendices

It is recommended to include an appendix with the items of the scales used in the analysis to increase the study's transparency. Additionally, other researchers could use parts of these scales in their own analysis.

Author Response

We are pleased to resubmit our manuscript, “Evaluating the Impact of Remote Work on Employee Health and Sustainable Lifestyles in the IT Sector,” for consideration as an Article in Sustainability. We are grateful for the constructive feedback from the reviewers and have revised the manuscript substantially in response.

We provide a point-by-point “Response to Reviewers” and both clean and tracked-changes versions of the manuscript. Below, we highlight the main revisions and where they can be verified in the text:

1. Sharper theory–hypotheses integration. We strengthened the theoretical framing (JD-R, SDT, SET) and added brief transition sentences that link mechanisms to hypotheses (Sections 1.3–1.4).
2. Reframed research gap. We define a focused gap around inherent tensions among health, productivity, and sustainability (e.g., commuting benefits vs. rebound effects), moving beyond treating these domains in isolation (Section 1.4: Research Gap, Objectives, and Hypotheses).
3. Methodological transparency. We clarify sampling and weighting and explicitly discuss the limits. We report the reliability of the Productivity_Score (α = 0.612), justify retention on content-validity grounds, and show robustness to a single-item proxy and HC3 robust SEs (Section 2.3; Sampling/Weighting section; Limitations).
4. Clearer results structure. Results now proceed from full-sample estimates to quartiles (using ANOVA), followed by gender and age subanalyses. Tables are renumbered/retitled for consistency (e.g., Table 6 = direct effects; Table 9 = quartiles/ANOVA), and we include a compact forest plot to summarize direct effects (Sections 3.2–3.3, 3.7–3.8).
5. Mediation clarified. We report that H2 (mediation) is generally unsupported for the overall sample and most age groups, interpret this via SDT (direct mechanisms through autonomy/flexibility), and outline a dual-pathway moderated-mediation agenda for future work (Sections 4.1, 4.5).
6. Limitations and measurement notes. We explicitly acknowledge snowball self-selection, the scope of sustainability measures (including potential rebound effects), and subgroup power considerations (Section 4.4, 4.4.2, and Appendix A with full-scale items).

We believe these revisions address the reviewers’ concerns and improve the manuscript’s clarity, theoretical coherence, and contribution to the literature on remote work.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Ranka Popovac · Dragan Vukmirović · Tijana Čomić · Zoran G. Pavlović

We thank Reviewer 2 for the constructive suggestions. Below, we describe how each point has been addressed and where the changes appear in the revised manuscript.

Point 1 — Merge Sections 1.4 and 1.5; add transitions.
Implemented. Former Sections 1.4–1.5 are merged into Section 1.4: Research Gap, Objectives, and Hypotheses. One-sentence bridges were added at the ends of Sections 1.3.1–1.3.3 to link the theoretical mechanisms to our hypotheses.

Point 2 — Reliability of Productivity_Score.
Addressed in Section 2.3: we report Cronbach’s α = 0.612, justify retention on content-validity grounds, and show robustness to (i) a single-item proxy and (ii) HC3 robust standard errors; inferences are unchanged.

Point 3 — Table numbering and titles.
Corrected throughout; cross-references updated. For example, the mediation table is now clearly titled “Mediation Analysis Results (H2)”.

Point 4 — Small gender differences.
A new Section 3.7 (Analysis by Participant Gender) reports disaggregated estimates (AMEs with 95% CIs) and a brief narrative: women show slightly larger positive effects on health and sustainability, while overall trends remain consistent across genders.

Point 5 — Explanation for stress discrepancy.
In Section 4.1, we note that benefits from reduced commuting may be offset by technostress and reduced relatedness in remote contexts, which can yield higher stress for some cohorts.

Point 6 — Consolidate future-research points.
Implemented as Section 4.5: Directions for Future Research, proposing a dual-pathway moderated-mediation agenda and noting the role of generative AI for deeper analyses.

Point 7 — Include scale items in an appendix.
Appendix A now provides the complete item lists, response options/scoring, and reliabilities for the key constructs, enhancing transparency and reproducibility.

We believe these revisions fully address Reviewer 2’s comments and improve the manuscript’s clarity and methodological transparency.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores the impact of remote work on employee health and sustainability, a timely and socially significant topic. The research question is valuable, and the study offers useful insights. However, several issues need to be addressed, as outlined below:

1. Sampling Method and Bias:
   While the use of "snowball sampling" combined with quota stratification provides a broad sample, it does not eliminate the potential for self-selection bias. This introduces potential biases in the sample, especially when interpreting global results. The authors should discuss the representativeness of the sample for the broader IT workforce.

2. Operationalization of Variables:
   The use of the "number of days working from home" as a proxy variable confounds structural behaviors (such as reduced commuting) with voluntary pro-environmental behaviors (e.g., energy conservation). The study does not capture key "rebound effects," such as increased household energy consumption (as noted in literature [22,23]), which leads to a partial assessment of environmental benefits. This should be addressed to provide a more comprehensive view.

3. Low Reliability of Productivity Score:
   The reliability of the productivity score is notably low, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.612 (below the conventional threshold of 0.7), indicating poor internal consistency. This raises concerns about the validity of the findings, especially since the significant result for productivity (β = 7.830) could be overstated due to measurement error. The authors should either remove low-correlated items or provide justification for retaining them (as discussed on page 9).

4. Insufficient Mediation Testing:
   After the rejection of the mediation hypothesis (H2), the paper fails to explore alternative theoretical paths, such as "autonomy" from Self-Determination Theory (SDT) or "work engagement" from the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, which could act as mediators. The observed phenomenon of increased stress among younger employees is not sufficiently contextualized using career stage theories (e.g., the adaptation phase for newcomers). This area could benefit from deeper theoretical exploration.

5. Redundant Presentation of Results:
   The presentation of results is somewhat redundant. For example, Table 9 (descriptive statistics by quartiles) and Table 10 (ANOVA) present overlapping information and could be merged for conciseness. The authors should better balance the proportion of space dedicated to each section, eliminating unnecessary repetition.

6. Lack of In-Depth Discussion and Literature Comparison:
   The discussion section lacks sufficient depth, particularly in terms of comparing the current findings with past research. A more robust comparison with existing literature on the topic would strengthen the discussion and provide a clearer contextualization of the results.

      Overall, the study provides valuable insights into the topic, and the research methodology is generally sound. However, addressing the aforementioned issues would enhance the rigor and depth of the paper.

Author Response

We are pleased to resubmit our manuscript, “Evaluating the Impact of Remote Work on Employee Health and Sustainable Lifestyles in the IT Sector,” for consideration as an Article in Sustainability. We are grateful for the constructive feedback from the reviewers and have revised the manuscript substantially in response.

We provide a point-by-point “Response to Reviewers” and both clean and tracked-changes versions of the manuscript. Below, we highlight the main revisions and where they can be verified in the text:

1. Sharper theory–hypotheses integration. We strengthened the theoretical framing (JD-R, SDT, SET) and added brief transition sentences that link mechanisms to hypotheses (Sections 1.3–1.4).
2. Reframed research gap. We define a focused gap around inherent tensions among health, productivity, and sustainability (e.g., commuting benefits vs. rebound effects), moving beyond treating these domains in isolation (Section 1.4: Research Gap, Objectives, and Hypotheses).
3. Methodological transparency. We clarify sampling and weighting and explicitly discuss the limits. We report the reliability of the Productivity_Score (α = 0.612), justify retention on content-validity grounds, and show robustness to a single-item proxy and HC3 robust SEs (Section 2.3; Sampling/Weighting section; Limitations).
4. Clearer results structure. Results now proceed from full-sample estimates to quartiles (using ANOVA), followed by gender and age subanalyses. Tables are renumbered/retitled for consistency (e.g., Table 6 = direct effects; Table 9 = quartiles/ANOVA), and we include a compact forest plot to summarize direct effects (Sections 3.2–3.3, 3.7–3.8).
5. Mediation clarified. We report that H2 (mediation) is generally unsupported for the overall sample and most age groups, interpret this via SDT (direct mechanisms through autonomy/flexibility), and outline a dual-pathway moderated-mediation agenda for future work (Sections 4.1, 4.5).
6. Limitations and measurement notes. We explicitly acknowledge snowball self-selection, the scope of sustainability measures (including potential rebound effects), and subgroup power considerations (Section 4.4, 4.4.2, and Appendix A with full-scale items).

We believe these revisions address the reviewers’ concerns and improve the manuscript’s clarity, theoretical coherence, and contribution to the literature on remote work.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Ranka Popovac · Dragan Vukmirović · Tijana Čomić · Zoran G. Pavlović

Response to Reviewer 3

We thank Reviewer 3 for the insightful comments that helped us strengthen the manuscript. Below, we respond point by point and indicate where changes appear in the revised paper.

Point 1 — Sampling method and potential bias.
We now explicitly discuss the self-selection risks associated with snowball sampling and the related limits to generalizability. We also clarify the role of quota stratification and post-stratification weights. See Section 4.4 (Limitations of the Study); sampling procedures summarized in Section 2.x (Sampling and Weighting).

Point 2 — Operationalization of sustainability (and rebound effects).
We clarify that our sustainability proxy primarily reflects structural/behavioral work-practice changes and may not capture household-level rebound effects (e.g., increased home energy use). This is noted in Section 2.3 (Measures) and reiterated in Section 4.4.2 (Limitations: Sustainability Measure and Rebound Effects). We suggest broader, validated scales (and metered energy indicators) for future studies.

Point 3 — Reliability of the Productivity_Score.
We report Cronbach’s α = 0.612 and justify retention on content-validity grounds, complemented by robustness checks (single-item proxy; HC3 robust SEs) that leave inferences unchanged. See Section 2.3 (Measures).

Point 4 — Mediation analysis (H2) and alternative pathways.
We clarify that mediation (H2) is not supported for the overall sample and most age groups. In Section 4.1 (Discussion) we interpret this in light of SDT (direct mechanisms via autonomy/flexibility). In Section 4.5 (Directions for Future Research) we propose a Dual-Pathway Moderated-Mediation agenda with perceived autonomy and social isolation/relatedness as candidate mediators.

Point 5 — Redundant presentation of results.
We streamlined the Results to reduce repetition. A single forest plot (Figure 2) summarizes direct effects, while quartile (Section 3.3), gender (Section 3.7) and age (Section 3.8) analyses are presented concisely, with full details moved to appendices where appropriate.

Point 6 — Depth of discussion and positioning in literature.
We expanded Sections 4.1–4.3 to compare our findings with recent reviews and sectoral studies, including areas of divergence (e.g., stress), and to situate our contribution within the evolving digital-work context.

We believe these revisions address Reviewer 3’s concerns and improve the manuscript’s clarity, transparency, and theoretical integration.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised manuscript. I appreciate the effort you have put into addressing the previous comments, and the paper's content has clearly been strengthened as a result. However, a few key structural and organizational issues remain that I believe must be resolved before publication to improve the manuscript's overall flow and clarity.

The most critical issue is the lack of a clear distinction between the introduction and the literature review.

The research gap and study objectives, which are foundational elements for any paper, currently appear on page 7, well after the literature has been discussed.

To enhance the paper's structural integrity, I recommend that you clearly differentiate the introduction from the literature review.

The introduction should succinctly present the topic, the research gap, and the study's objectives. Following this, the literature review should provide a comprehensive overview of existing theory and findings. This also applies to Section 1.3, "Deepening of theoretical foundations," which is confusing in its current placement. It seems to function as a literature review sub-section and should be integrated accordingly.

Furthermore, the hypotheses should be moved from the objectives section and placed directly within the literature review sub-chapters where their theoretical justification is presented. This would significantly improve the logical progression of your theoretical framework.

Finally, both the results and discussion sections lack a cohesive narrative. The findings are presented as isolated sentences or bullet points, which diminishes the depth of your analysis. I strongly recommend that you consolidate these points into coherent paragraphs. This will allow you to build a more fluid and compelling argument, providing a deeper discussion and interpretation of your results for the reader.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We would like to express our gratitude for your thorough and constructive comments. They have greatly contributed to the improvement of our paper. Please find below how we addressed your suggestions:

1. Structure of the Introduction: We separated the introduction and literature review more clearly. The research gap and objectives are now presented earlier (Section 1.2), while the theoretical foundations are elaborated in a dedicated literature review (Section 1.3). Hypotheses have been moved into the relevant theoretical sub-sections, where their justification is presented.
2. Narrative style in the Discussion: We restructured Section 4.1 by consolidating fragmented points into coherent paragraphs. The results are now presented as an integrated narrative, not as bullet-point style summaries.
3. Clarity and flow: Throughout the manuscript, transitions between sections have been smoothed, especially between Results and Discussion, to improve readability and logical flow.

We appreciate your valuable feedback and believe these revisions have strengthened both the structure and the clarity of the manuscript.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Regarding the theoretical background of the paper, compared to the previous version, only 5 papers have been added. Please continue to consider this recommendation. Also, in the discussion section, it is expected that the own results will be compared with the results of other similar research and with existing theoretical approaches. Therefore, in this part of the paper, it is necessary to use relevant references.

The research hypotheses should not only be formulated, but there should be an argument for them that is based on existing theoretical approaches, the results of similar previous studies and the authors' own arguments.

As I stated in the previous version, methodological decisions should be supported by referring to relevant works in this regard. Also, please specify whether the scales used are developed by the authors, whether they were taken from other works or whether they were adapted. In the last 2 cases, please use the appropriate references.

A considerable part of the text of the paper is written schematically, with very short sentences, many of them structured as bullet points. It is recommended that the text be restructured so that sentences form phrases, and phrases form paragraphs that follow a common idea.

For all figures and tables, please specify the source below them.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We thank you very much for your detailed and helpful comments, which guided several major improvements in the manuscript. Here is how we addressed your suggestions:

1. Comparison with similar studies: In Section 4.1 (Discussion), we now explicitly compare our results with recent empirical studies. For example, we link stress outcomes to prior findings by Allen et al. (2015), Oakman et al. (2020), Wang et al. (2021), and Molino et al. (2020), while productivity results are contrasted with Bloom et al. (2015), Choudhury et al. (2020), and Yang et al. (2022). Sustainability results are discussed in the context of Hook et al. (2020), Balsmeier & Woerter (2019), and Sorrell (2022).
2. Origin of scales: In Section 2.3 (Instruments and Measures), we clarified that the authors did not participate in designing the questionnaire. Instead, we relied on secondary survey data and constructed scales post-hoc (stress, productivity, sustainability). This is now explicitly stated, with references added to methodological literature on self-rated health, Likert scaling, and sustainability measurement.
3. Methodological transparency: In Section 2.4 (Statistical Analysis), we added references to justify our statistical choices: Wooldridge (2016) for OLS regression, Preacher & Hayes (2008) for bootstrapping, Long & Ervin (2000) for HC3 robust errors, and Aiken & West (1991) for moderation analysis.
4. Tables and figures: All tables and figures now include explicit sources (e.g., Source: Authors’ calculation based on survey data).

We believe these revisions fully address your concerns and significantly improve the rigor and contribution of our study.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been sufficiently improved.