Review Reports

No

Reviewer Comment (Original)

Revision (Action Taken)

1. Abstract

The abstract is very clear and well-structured to effectively delineate the objectives of the study and its theoretical underpinnings. However, it is still relatively general and does not provide specific details about what the conceptual propositions are or what specific theoretical contributions it makes. Perhaps a brief summary of multi-level (micro–meso–macro) nature, indication of its central mediating construct (employee well-being), and specification of how original it is compared with previous Sustainable HRM or GHRM frameworks would be useful. Besides, the authors should acknowledge that this article is conceptual to match reader expectations appropriately.

The abstract was revised by adding a final paragraph explicitly summarizing: (1) the multi-level nature of the framework (micro–meso–macro), (2) the central mediating construct of employee well-being, (3) its originality compared with prior Sustainable HRM and GHRM frameworks, and (4) a clear statement acknowledging that this paper is a conceptual study.

2. Introduction (Research Gap and Contributions)

The research paper is well introduced into the ongoing debate on sustainability and human resource management by relating it to the Sustainable Development Goals and ESG, but the research gap has not been discussed very precisely. Ideally, the gap should have stated that there is (a) no integrative theoretical model linking ethics, digitalization, and sustainability within HRM, and (b) micro–meso–macro integration missing in previous studies. The contribution should have ended with a clear sentence like “This study makes three key contributions …,” rather than just another contextual discussion. Additionally, the theoretical rationale and justifications for selecting these three dimensions require clearer justification early within the research introduction.

The final paragraph of the Introduction was rewritten to explicitly mention two key research gaps: (a) the absence of an integrative theoretical model connecting ethics, digitalization, and sustainability within HRM, and (b) the missing micro–meso–macro integration in prior studies. A clear contribution statement was added: “This study makes three key contributions…” followed by justification for selecting Green HRM, Ethical Leadership, and Digital Resilience as focal constructs.

3. Theoretical Foundation (Connection and Table/Chart)

The theoretical foundation presents a good, detailed explanation of the used theories (RBV, SET and institutional theory), but the authors could better connect each theory to its particular constructs. Since the content is mostly descriptive, adding a table or chart that shows how theories, constructs, and proposed effects tie together would help make things clearer. Additionally, however, the discussion on “agenda debates” is valuable, it is somewhat lengthy, the authors should condense this content through direct focus. The theoretical justification should be more directly link how these debates conceptualize the research framework.

Section 2 was thoroughly restructured for coherence and theoretical precision. The agenda debates (now in Section 2.1) were condensed and refocused to highlight their relevance to Sustainable HRM’s conceptual foundations. Section 2.2 (Core Theoretical Lenses for Sustainable HRM) was enhanced with explicit theoretical–construct linkages, connecting each theory—Resource-Based View (RBV), Social Exchange Theory (SET), and Institutional Theory—to the corresponding Sustainable HRM dimensions (Green HRM, Ethical Leadership, and Digital Resilience). To improve readability and synthesis, Table 1 (“Theoretical Mapping Matrix: Linking Theories, Constructs, and Effects”) was inserted immediately after the theoretical explanation, summarizing relationships among theories, key constructs, analytical levels (micro–meso–macro), and proposed causal effects. This visual addition clarifies how the three theories jointly support the conceptual framework, directly addressing the reviewer’s suggestion.

4. Methodology / Conceptual Development Details

The authors used Jaakkola’s (2020) conceptual framework development guidelines, which increases its rigor. However, there is no selection criteria for literature that has been included and not been found—nor the search strategy (e.g., databases, timeframe, inclusion/exclusion criteria) is missing. Authors MUST include such details to strengthen their methods credibility. The authors should clarify how conceptual boundaries were refined across iterations, perhaps with examples of how overlapping concepts (e.g., CSR vs. Green HRM) were resolved.

Section 3.1 (Rationale for a Conceptual Article) was expanded to include methodological transparency regarding the literature selection process. The revision specifies the databases used (Scopus and Web of Science), the timeframe (2015–2024), and the inclusion/exclusion criteria applied during the synthesis. Additional clarification was provided on how conceptual boundaries were refined iteratively, with examples demonstrating how overlapping concepts (e.g., CSR vs. Green HRM) were differentiated to ensure construct clarity. The paragraph also reinforces the use of Jaakkola’s (2020) five-stage conceptual framework development procedure (literature synthesis, construct definition, framework integration, proposition formulation, and research agenda design) to ensure methodological rigor and credibility.

5. Key Constructs (Overlap and Theoretical Anchoring)

The constructs are well defined, though some of them have a conceptual overlap, such as, ethical leadership and responsible leadership are treated interchangeably, however they are different, without a clear distinction. In the same vein, “digital resilience” is a novel concept but needs stronger theoretical anchoring—how it differs from “digital HR transformation” or “HR analytics maturity” is not sufficiently elaborated. Moreover, this section could be improved by illustrating empirical examples to support conceptual validity and by making the repetitive trade-off discussions shorter.

Section 4 was thoroughly revised to eliminate conceptual overlap and strengthen theoretical connections. The distinction between ethical leadership and responsible leadership was explicitly defined as limited to HR-specific decision-making behaviors, excluding broader corporate ethics. The construct of digital resilience was theoretically anchored to organizational adaptability and ethical technology governance, clarifying its boundary from digital HR transformation and HR analytics maturity. To enhance conceptual validity, empirical examples were added—for instance, Unilever and IBM’s use of algorithmic-audit protocols and AI-ethics committees to ensure fairness and accountability in HR analytics. Trade-off discussions were condensed and streamlined across sub-sections to maintain focus and coherence.

6. Conceptual Framework (Directionality and Simplification)

The multi-level framework is a strength of the paper because it provides structure and visualization, but the directionality of relationships among constructs is not always explicit (e.g., how Green HRM and digital resilience jointly affect employee well-being). The feedback loop concept is interesting but needs to be justified by theoretical reasoning (e.g., circular causality in institutional theory). Figure 3 is visually complex—simplifying it to emphasize causal flows (micro → meso → macro) would enhance readability.

Figure 3 was completely redrawn for clarity and simplification. The revised version now emphasizes the causal directionality from micro → meso → macro levels, showing how Green HRM, Ethical Leadership, and Digital Resilience jointly influence Employee Well-being and subsequently drive macro-level sustainability outcomes (ESG and SDGs). A feedback loop from the macro to meso level was added and theoretically justified using Institutional Theory’s circular causality, explaining how external ESG and SDG pressures reshape HR systems and ethics. Corresponding text was added to the final paragraph of Section 5.3, reinforcing the hierarchical flow and theoretical justification. Figure notes were also rewritten to ensure easier interpretation and alignment with the revised conceptual narrative.

7. Propositions and Research Agenda (Theoretical Anchors and Clarity)

Although the research propositions (P1–P6) are considered logically grounded, they are not consistently developed. Some are straightforward (P1–P3); others suddenly introduce complex interactions or boundary conditions (particularly P5–P6) without sufficient theoretical elaboration. Similarly, each proposition should be explicitly referenced which theoretical base (RBV, SET, or Institutional Theory) it draws from. Additionally, authors should avoid mixing mediation and moderation proposition in the same statement. While the research agenda is quite comprehensive, it would gain even more substance through methodological suggestions towards future empirical testing — e.g., scale measurements and possible indicators for such constructs as “digital resilience” or “employee well-being.”

 Table 2 was redesigned to include an explicit column identifying the theoretical foundation of each proposition (RBV, SET, or Institutional Theory), ensuring consistent anchoring throughout P1–P6. Propositions P5 and P6 were rewritten to clearly separate moderation and boundary-condition effects, eliminating conceptual mixing between mediation and moderation. The accompanying text in Section 6.2 was expanded to highlight how each proposition logically emerges from the multi-level framework (Figure 2) and links directly to its respective theory. Finally, the Future Research Agenda paragraph was refined to include illustrative empirical indicators and measurement examples—such as algorithmic transparency and system adaptability for Digital Resilience, and multidimensional scales of health, DEI, and work–life balance for Employee Well-being—to guide subsequent quantitative validation across organizational contexts. This revision ensures theoretical consistency, conceptual clarity, and methodological applicability of the propositions.

8. Implications and Conclusion (Actionable and Limitations)

The research implications are detailed and somewhat redundantly with what has already been discussed earlier. The authors should write the implications more concise and focused on actionable activities to answer the “So what” question. For instance, how HR leaders can use the model, how policymakers can institutionalize HR into ESG standards, and finally, how scholars can empirically operationalize the HRM. The conclusion could better emphasize the study’s limitations (e.g., lack of empirical validation, contextual generalizability) and a more targeted call for mixed-method or cross-country validation studies.

The Implications section was fully restructured into three concise and actionable subsections—(1) Theoretical Implications, (2) Practical Implications, and (3) Policy Implications—to remove redundancy and provide direct answers to the “So what” question. Each subsection now clearly addresses the target audience: scholars (theory-building through Sustainable HRM integration and boundary-spanning logic), HR leaders (guidelines for embedding green, ethical, and digital practices into recruitment, training, and appraisal systems), and policymakers (institutionalizing HRM within ESG and SDG frameworks).

The Conclusion was rewritten entirely to emphasize limitations and future directions. It now explicitly acknowledges the absence of empirical validation and potential contextual constraints, and provides a targeted research roadmap calling for mixed-method, cross-sector, and cross-country validation. It also proposes developing standardized HRM–SDG indicators to guide future measurement. These revisions ensure the closing sections are concise, actionable, and theoretically aligned with the conceptual model.

9. References (Completeness and MDPI Style)

The research references are recent and relevant but inconsistently formatted and inadequately detailed list (e.g., missing pages, errors in DOI formatting). Some citations like [18], [19], and [20] have appeared without corresponding entries in the reference list. This should be checked. Authors should follow the MDPI’s “Sustainability” referencing style.

All references were cross-checked and reformatted using Mendeley MDPI Sustainability citation style. Missing entries ([18], [19], [20]) were restored and verified to match their in-text citations. Page ranges, volume(issue), and DOIs were completed and standardized. Journal titles were italicized, volumes bolded, and author initials aligned with MDPI reference format. The final list was validated against MDPI’s Sustainability author guidelines to ensure complete compliance.

No

Reviewer Comment (Original)

Revision (Action Taken)

1. Abstract

The issue of creating a conceptual framework for sustainable human resource management (sustainable HRM) by integrating green HRM practices, ethical and responsible leadership, and digital sustainability in human resource management systems is considered. The proposed topic is relevant.

The abstract was retained but expanded with 2–3 additional sentences at the end to clarify how the framework was developed, following Jaakkola’s (2020) conceptual article methodology. The five systematic stages—literature synthesis, construct definition, framework integration, proposition formulation, and research agenda—were explicitly described.

2. Purpose and Objectives

To improve the quality of the article, please describe the purpose and objectives of the research more clearly.

The Introduction section was revised by adding a closing paragraph that explicitly outlines the purpose and objectives of the study (to construct an integrative conceptual framework for Sustainable HRM). The research question was also included: “How can Sustainable HRM integrate green, ethical, and digital dimensions to advance the SDGs?” The final sentence of the paragraph introduces the overall paper structure (Sections 2–8).

3. Criteria for Effectiveness

Please indicate what criteria for the effectiveness of ensuring sustainable development of resource management processes were used in the study.

The criteria for effectiveness are implicitly reflected in the constructs and propositions presented in Table 2 and Figure 3, which illustrate the interrelations among key constructs (Green HRM, Ethical Leadership, Digital Resilience, Employee Well-being, and Sustainability Outcomes). Sustainability performance is operationalized through SDG dimensions (8, 12, and 13) and indicators such as ESG-linked HR metrics, carbon footprint reduction, and employee DEI index.

4. Future Empirical Testing

Please clarify how future empirical testing will be conducted in different sectors and contexts (lines 788–790).

This request has been addressed in the Conclusion (third and fourth paragraphs), where future research directions are elaborated. It specifies that empirical testing may be conducted in manufacturing, hospitality, and education sectors using SEM-PLS or CB-SEM, as well as through cross-country comparisons (developed vs. emerging economies).

5. Figure Axis Check

Please check the correctness of the vertical axis of Figure 4.

Figure 4 (Research Agenda Matrix for Sustainable HRM) has been revised: the vertical axis label now reads “Levels of Analysis (Micro–Meso–Macro)”, replacing the earlier ambiguous version. A source note was also added beneath the figure: “Source: Authors’ elaboration based on conceptual synthesis of Sustainable HRM literature.”

No

Reviewer Comment (Original)

Revision (Action Taken)

1. Research Question(s)

Formulate the research question(s).

The Introduction section has been revised to include an explicit research question: “How can Sustainable HRM integrate green, ethical, and digital dimensions to advance the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?” This question appears in the final paragraph of the Introduction, ensuring conceptual clarity and alignment with the paper’s objectives.

2. Source under Figures and Tables

Mention the source below each figure and table.

Source notes have been added below all figures (1–4) and tables (1–2), formatted in accordance with MDPI Sustainability guidelines. Example: “Source: Authors’ elaboration based on conceptual synthesis of Sustainable HRM literature.”

3. Paper Structure in the Introduction

Add at the end of the Introduction section an explanation of how the paper is structured (the main parts of it).

The closing paragraph of the Introduction now includes a clear statement describing the structure of the article: “The paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 elaborates the theoretical foundation; Section 3 outlines the conceptual development approach; Section 4–6 present the constructs, framework, and propositions; Section 7 discusses implications; and Section 8 concludes with future research directions.”

4. Reference Formatting

Follow the journal’s recommendations regarding the formatting of bibliographic sources in the reference list.

The reference list has been fully reformatted according to MDPI Sustainability citation style using Mendeley (MDPI output style). Each entry includes full author names, publication year, italicized journal titles, volume(issue), page range, and active DOI links. Example format: Author, A.B.; Author, C.D. (Year). Title of the article. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), page–page. https://doi.org/xxxx

No

Reviewer Comment (Original)

Revision (Action Taken)

1. Abstract

While the abstract reports the study's aim of developing a conceptual framework of Sustainable Human Resource Management (Sustainable HRM) by integrating three critical dimensions, it does not show how this framework was developed, what exactly was done to conduct this research, or how it was executed.

The abstract was expanded with 2–3 additional sentences at the end explaining how the conceptual framework was developed, following Jaakkola (2020). The five-step process—literature synthesis, construct definition, framework integration, proposition formulation, and research agenda—was clearly stated to demonstrate methodological rigor.

2. Research Gap, Purpose, and Structure

The research gap and research problem are not yet clear. Also, there are no clear research questions and no study organization.

The Introduction was substantially revised to include: (1) a clear research gap emphasizing the fragmentation among Green HRM, Ethical Leadership, and Digital Resilience studies; (2) the research question: “How can Sustainable HRM integrate green, ethical, and digital dimensions to advance the SDGs?”; (3) explicit objectives (to construct an integrative conceptual framework for Sustainable HRM); and (4) a closing sentence outlining the structure of the paper (Sections 2–8).

3. Claim or Novelty Statement

I advise authors not to use the term “no comprehensive framework has been developed…” Better say that minimal literature has discussed this concept or this issue.

The original absolute claim was replaced with a more cautious phrasing: “While limited research has attempted to connect these dimensions systematically…” This revision aligns with academic precision and humility recommended by the reviewer.

4. Theoretical Foundation

Authors can focus on and emphasize one theory instead of distracting the readers with many theories.

The Resource-Based View (RBV) is now clearly stated as the central theoretical foundation in Section 2.2, while Social Exchange Theory (SET) and Institutional Theory are presented as complementary perspectives. The opening paragraph of Section 2.2 was rewritten to clarify this theoretical hierarchy and strengthen coherence.

5. Methodology / Conceptual Development Approach

The authors need to focus more on the research methodology section, clearly explain the meaning of the conceptual theory, and explain the steps to help readers understand how conceptual methodology differs from empirical research.

Section 3.1 now begins with a clarifying paragraph distinguishing conceptual from empirical methodologies, explaining that the current paper adopts a conceptual synthesis approach rather than data-driven analysis. The framework development steps were elaborated following Jaakkola (2020), ensuring transparency in conceptual logic.

6. Structure and Length of Sections

So many small sections exist; can you combine some and reduce their quantity?

Several subsections were consolidated to improve flow and readability. Section 2 (Theoretical Foundation) was reorganized into three cohesive parts, while Section 4 (Constructs and Dimensions) now integrates related topics (Green HRM, Ethical Leadership, Digital Resilience) into a unified discussion with smoother transitions.

7. Conclusion and Future Agenda

Can you provide a more comprehensive conclusion that includes all key aspects? Future research agenda should come after the conclusion.

The Conclusion section was rewritten to include: (1) theoretical, practical, and policy contributions; (2) framework limitations and contextual boundaries; and (3) directions for future research. The Future Research Agenda (previously Section 6.2) was moved to the end of the Conclusion, ensuring proper sequencing and logical closure.

8. Figure and Table Formatting

(no direct comment, but aligns with general cross-review request)

All figures and tables now include complete source notes in MDPI format. Example: “Source: Authors’ elaboration based on conceptual synthesis of Sustainable HRM literature.” Figure 4 was corrected to feature the vertical axis label “Levels of Analysis (Micro–Meso–Macro)” for clarity.

No

Reviewer Comment (Original Text)

Revision Action / Response

1. Introduction (Lines 80–89)

“Unfortunately, the authors reply in general without any supported references for their justifications, specifically for the introduction lines 80 to 89.”

The section in the Introduction (lines 80–89) was rewritten to include recent and specific references (Apostu & Gigauri, 2023; Mamun et al., 2024; Montalvo-Falcón et al., 2023) that justify the theoretical linkage between HRM and sustainability. These studies demonstrate how HRM functions as a strategic enabler of SDGs through people-centered sustainability practices, inclusion, and ethical governance. The argument is now evidence-based and aligned with recent empirical findings (2023–2024) rather than general statements.

2. Mediating Role of Employee Well-being

“The justifications of choosing employee well-being as a mediator were not justified, why the authors chose it in the link between HRM and SDG.”

A new explanatory paragraph was added in Section 4.2 (Employee Well-being and Social Sustainability). It justifies the selection of employee well-being as the central mediating construct, grounded in Social Exchange Theory (SET) and Sustainability Science. The paragraph clarifies that employee well-being acts as the key psychological and social mechanism translating HRM practices into sustainable performance aligned with SDG 3 and SDG 8. Supporting literature such as Bhoir & Sinha (2024); M. Li et al. (2024); Chomać-Pierzecka et al. (2024) was incorporated.

3. Contribution Style

“The contributions should be written in academic style, try to avoid the pronouns.”

The contribution paragraph in the Introduction was rewritten in a formal academic tone. All first-person pronouns (“we,” “our”) were removed and replaced with impersonal academic phrasing such as “this article,” “the present study,” and “the framework contributes to…”. This ensures full consistency with academic conventions and MDPI Sustainability writing style.

4. Theoretical Foundations (Interaction After Table 1)

“Table 1 is useful; I recommend authors to add a paragraph followed the table explaining how these three theories interact together rather than their existence.”

A new integrative paragraph was inserted immediately after Table 1 (Theoretical Mapping Matrix) in Section 2.2. It explains how RBV, SET, and Institutional Theory interact dynamically: RBV provides internal resource logic, SET explains relational reciprocity, and Institutional Theory introduces external legitimacy pressures. This addition clarifies the synergistic and hierarchical relationship among the three theories instead of treating them as separate.

5. Methodology (Number of Studies, Bias Control)

“This section has improved through listing the inclusion criteria and databases but the authors did not state the number of studies reviewed. The authors also did not describe how they controlled for duplicates and biases.”

The Conceptual Methodology section (3.1) was expanded to specify that 86 articles were reviewed from Scopus and Web of Science (2015–2024). Duplicate removal was handled using Mendeley Reference Manager, and bias was minimized through dual screening and cross-validation of inclusion criteria. These details improve methodological transparency and replicability.

6. Methodology (Iterative Refinement Example)

“The authors claim iterative refinement, but no concrete example is given (e.g., how CSR vs. GHRM overlap was resolved).”

A concrete example of the iterative refinement process was added to Section 3.1, explaining how conceptual overlap between CSR and Green HRM was resolved. CSR is defined as a broad organizational responsibility, while Green HRM is narrowed to HR-based environmental practices. This illustrates the refinement logic as recommended by Jaakkola (2020) and strengthens conceptual precision.

7. Conceptual Framework (Feedback Loop Justification)

“The feedback loop is interesting in concept but weak in theory—how does ESG legitimacy create recursive HRM improvements?”

The final paragraph of Section 5.3 (Visual Framework) was expanded to explain that ESG legitimacy exerts normative and coercive pressures(per Institutional Theory) that promote continuous adaptation and refinement of HRM systems. This addition theoretically grounds the feedback mechanism using DiMaggio & Powell (1983) and Meyer & Rowan (2020), clarifying how external legitimacy reinforces recursive improvement within Sustainable HRM.

8. Propositions (Simplification of P5–P6)

“Some propositions (P5, P6) remain complex and combine several mechanisms (interaction and conditional effect). It might be better to separate them into simpler, single-directional relationships.”

Only P5 and P6 in Table 3 (Conceptual Propositions) were revised, while P1–P4 remain unchanged. 
– P5 simplified to describe the moderating role of Ethical Leadershipbetween Digital Resilience and Institutional Legitimacy. 
– P6 simplified to describe the mediating role of Employee Well-beingbetween Sustainable HRM Practices and Sustainability Outcomes, removing boundary conditions. Both are now single-directional, theoretically clear, and empirically testable.