The Influence of Spiritual Behavior in Sustainable Performance: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript explores the relationship between spirituality (operationalized via the ASPIRES scale: religiosity, crisis, prayer, universality) and sustainable behavior (measured with the Instrument of Intention in Sustainability). Data were collected from Colombian business students (N = 213) using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Results suggest a weak but positive correlation between spirituality and sustainable behavior, with some dimensions (e.g., prayer) showing no significant relationship and others (e.g., religiosity) showing mixed or even negative associations. The authors conclude that spirituality influences sustainable behavior but acknowledge limitations such as convenience sampling, self-reported measures, and cultural specificity.
Upon careful reading of the manuscript I found some shortcomings in it that need to be addressed before the decision on the acceptance of this manuscript.
The literature review is broad but lacks a clear theoretical integration. Spirituality is described inconsistently (religiosity, prayer, transcendence, crisis), and the rationale for selecting these dimensions as predictors of sustainability behaviors is not well justified.
The paper cites relevant international works, but it insufficiently contrasts its findings with conflicting evidence (e.g., religiosity sometimes inhibiting sustainability. The discussion should engage more critically with these contradictions.
The use of a convenience sample of Colombian business students (not business leaders as sometimes claimed in the paper) significantly limits generalizability.
The authors should clarify this mismatch and temper claims about organizational leaders.
The authors interpret findings in ways that suggest causality, though they admit no causal inferences can be made.
While CFA results are reported, some fit indices are weak (e.g., RMSEA = 0.11 in one model). This raises questions about the robustness of the factor structure. More transparency in reporting CFA/SEM assumptions and alternative models is needed.
The finding that prayer has no effect while religiosity sometimes has a negative effect is important, yet interpretation remains superficial. Authors should deepen the cultural and theological explanations instead of leaving contradictions unexplored.
Effect sizes are very small (R² = 0.05–0.14). The practical implications should be reconsidered, as current claims may exaggerate significance.
While limitations are acknowledged (self-report, convenience sampling, cultural specificity), the paper should expand on how future studies could overcome these issues (e.g., longitudinal designs, mixed methods, cross-cultural comparisons, use of experimental or quasi-experimental approaches).
The recommendation to study “entrepreneurship, productivity, and teamwork” is too general; more concrete future directions should be outlined.
Author Response
We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments provided. The observations have been highly valuable in improving the clarity, rigor, and overall contribution of our work. In the revised version, we have addressed each of the comments point by point, indicating the specific sections and pages where changes have been made (highlighted in red in the manuscript). Below, we provide detailed responses to each comment and explain the corresponding modifications.
Comments 1: The literature review is broad but lacks a clear theoretical integration. Spirituality is described inconsistently (religiosity, prayer, transcendence, crisis), and the rationale for selecting these dimensions as predictors of sustainability behaviors is not well justified.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Accordingly, we have strengthened the introduction (p. 1) and expanded the literature review on pages 5–6, where the concepts are now clarified and consistently defined (revisions highlighted in red).
----
Comments 2: The paper cites relevant international works, but it insufficiently contrasts its findings with conflicting evidence (e.g., religiosity sometimes inhibiting sustainability). The discussion should engage more critically with these contradictions.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have expanded the discussion to address these contradictions explicitly (section 4.1, p. 15, highlighted in red).
----
Comments 3: The use of a convenience sample of Colombian business students (not business leaders as sometimes claimed in the paper) significantly limits generalizability.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have revised the conclusions (p. 16) to explicitly acknowledge this limitation and temper generalizations (revisions highlighted in red).
----
Comments 4: The authors should clarify this mismatch and temper claims about organizational leaders.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have carefully revised the entire manuscript to remove any inconsistencies and adjusted claims regarding organizational leaders.
----
Comments 5: While CFA results are reported, some fit indices are weak (e.g., RMSEA = 0.11 in one model). This raises questions about the robustness of the factor structure. More transparency in reporting CFA/SEM assumptions and alternative models is needed.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have revised the methodology section to provide greater transparency, clarified the rationale for using DWLS estimation, and included a discussion of alternative models (p. 12, highlighted in red).
----
Comments 6: Effect sizes are very small (R² = 0.05–0.14). The practical implications should be reconsidered, as current claims may exaggerate significance.
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have revised the limitations section (5.1, p. 16, highlighted in red) to reflect the modest effect sizes and to temper the practical implications accordingly.
----
Comments 7: While limitations are acknowledged (self-report, convenience sampling, cultural specificity), the paper should expand on how future studies could overcome these issues (e.g., longitudinal designs, mixed methods, cross-cultural comparisons, use of experimental or quasi-experimental approaches).
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have created a new subsection on limitations (5.1) where we expand on methodological strategies for future research, including longitudinal, mixed-methods, and cross-cultural approaches (revisions highlighted in red).
----
Comments 8: The recommendation to study “entrepreneurship, productivity, and teamwork” is too general; more concrete future directions should be outlined.
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have refined the recommendations in the conclusions (p. 16, highlighted in red) to provide more specific and actionable directions for future research.
Sincerely,
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe idea of study is relevant, the research is meaningful both theoretically and practically, but the quality of the manuscript is not enough high for publication in current form. I wish the authors to revise the manuscript toward these comments:
1) The Introduction should be revised for purpose to help the reader better understand the idea of study. Now it is not easy to understand the purpose and relevance of the study. For example, why the beginning of Introduction is about the relationship between spirituality and management? As I understand, the management is not the main variable of the research? The Introduction lacks coherence. For example, it is unclear whether leadership or sustainable behavior or performance is the subject of the study. Later we can find one more variable "leaders’ intentions to implement corporate sustainability" in he text. When the authors introduce the participants of the research they use different words (organizational leaders, students).
2) I invite the authors to revise language fluency. For example, sentence is without the end in page 3, lines 100-104.
3) H1 is too abstract, too wide (H1 Spirituality positively influences sustainable behavior in Colombia). It is impossible to test this hypothesis in the research which is introduced in the manuscript.
4)It is not understandable how the authors describe the concepts which they use in the study. For example, how they understand spirituality and religiosity - as the same or different constructs.
5) the concept "influences" is too "strong" concept in the cross sectional studies. This word should be deleted from hypothesis.
6) crisis concept should be described more clearly
7) The participants were from 15 till 46 years, but authors did not discuss about possible differences of results in different age groups.
8) As I understand the figure 2 show correlations between subscales but not items?
9) More interpretations, less replication of results should be in the Discussion.
Author Response
We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments provided. The feedback has been invaluable in improving the clarity, rigor, and overall contribution of our work. Below we provide point-by-point responses to each comment, indicating where revisions were made in the manuscript (highlighted in red).
Comments 1: The Introduction should be revised for purpose to help the reader better understand the idea of study. Now it is not easy to understand the purpose and relevance of the study. For example, why the beginning of Introduction is about the relationship between spirituality and management? As I understand, the management is not the main variable of the research? The Introduction lacks coherence. For example, it is unclear whether leadership or sustainable behavior or performance is the subject of the study. Later we can find one more variable "leaders’ intentions to implement corporate sustainability" in the text. When the authors introduce the participants of the research, they use different words (organizational leaders, students).
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We revised the entire introduction considering these observations (p. 1, highlighted in red).
----
Comments 2: I invite the authors to revise language fluency. For example, sentence is without the end in page 3, lines 100-104.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We carefully reviewed the manuscript and corrected all inconsistencies.
----
Comments 3: H1 is too abstract, too wide (H1 Spirituality positively influences sustainable behavior in Colombia). It is impossible to test this hypothesis in the research which is introduced in the manuscript.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We revised Hypothesis 1 (revisions highlighted in red, page 7).
----
Comments 4: It is not understandable how the authors describe the concepts which they use in the study. For example, how they understand spirituality and religiosity - as the same or different constructs.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. On pages 5–6 we strengthened these conceptual distinctions and revised the text accordingly (highlighted in red).
----
Comments 5: The concept "influences" is too "strong" concept in the cross-sectional studies. This word should be deleted from hypothesis.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We adjusted all hypotheses accordingly (pp. 7–8, highlighted in red).
----
Comments 6: Crisis concept should be described more clearly.
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We elaborated on the crisis concept on page 6 (highlighted in red).
----
Comments 7: The participants were from 15 till 46 years, but authors did not discuss possible differences of results in different age groups.
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We performed correlations and found no significant differences by age group. This has been added to the conclusions (p. 16, highlighted in red).
----
Comments 8: As I understand the figure 2 show correlations between subscales but not items?
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We corrected the wording on page 10 (highlighted in red).
----
Comments 9: More interpretations, less replication of results should be in the Discussion.
Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We expanded the discussion with additional interpretations (pp. 14–15, highlighted in red).
Sincerely,
The authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have revised the manuscript very well
