Linking Sustainability and Brand Love Through Employees’ Insights on ESG Practices in the Airline Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main research question—how ESG practices impact the brand love through innovation performance from an employee perspective—is applicable, albeit weakly demarcated with respect to extant literature. Although the employee perspective is a professed novelty, the motivation and literature review do not convincingly explain either why the employee dimension matters or how it theoretically differs from established models that are customer – focused. It feels like a mechanical swap out of the word “employees” for the word “customers” in an already well-trodden path of ESG-brand relationships.

Suggestion: Explicitly draw the psychological / behavioral processes by which employees (as opposed to customers) transform ESG & innovation into BL. Base this in theory such as organizational identification or internal branding.

The originality of the paper is not very impressive. The connection from ESG to brand outcomes (loyalty, value, love) through innovation is fairly well established in consumer-focused studies. Mere re-testing of this model with an employee sample, without bringing a new theoretical perspective or any compelling value to warrant that employees’ perceptions should work differently, is at least incremental in nature.

Suggestion: To achieve increased originality, authors might consider some less-studied mediators for employees (e.g., organizational pride, psychological empowerment or perceived external prestige) instead of using the generic mediator "innovation performance."

The methodology has significant flaws:

Sample Representativeness: The sample is very disproportionate (72.8% female) and originates from a single geographical area, Taiwan, which is limited in generalizing findings. The specific nature of the Taiwanese airline industry and its workforce may not be applicable across the world.

Model overfitting of the measurement model: The calculated values of the reported metrics (Cronbach’s α at max. 985, AVE up to. 933) it suspiciously high, often suggesting the presence of redundant items or an excessive fit and not robust measurement. Moreover, the discriminant validity test (Fornell-Larcker) is outdated and lacks the new best practice of reporting Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) correlation ratios.

Interpretation of Moderating Effect It is not clear as to why “innovative organisational climate” underpinned a negative moderating effect (H6) and this result received little attention other than as refinement. The authors offer a post-hoc speculation, yet this unexpected and crucial effect calls for a more comprehensive theoretical account as well as an exploratory analysis for suppression effects or model explanation.

Inconsistent Data Collection Period: The section of methods claims data was gathered from “March 2024 to October 2024,” but subsequently goes on to mention “September ­­–– December 2024.” This inconsistency needs clarification.

Suggestion: (1) Consider the geographic and demographic limitation as a key study impediment. (2) Scrutinise the measurement scales for possible duplication. (3) In order to carry out negative moderation, a comprehensive inspection and debate are necessary. (4) Correct and clarify the period for data collection.

The conclusions are exaggerated and not justified by the findings. They tentatively repeat H1-5 while basically neglecting the two most essential findings: The insignificant role of human capital as a moderator (H7) and the path-breaking but negative moderating effect of innovative organizational climate H6. While the introduction of H7 is fair, the conclusion does not consider the challenge we get thanks to H6.

Recommendation: Rewrite the conclusions to present the nuanced and contradictory findings. They need to articulate that the predicted moderating roles have not been supported, and this contradicts and adds nuance to their proposed conceptual model.

Tables, Figures, and Data Quality

Tables: In Table 1 (Demographics), there is a mistake in the "41~50" age group (57 people, 24.3% – percentage value is incorrect). Table 4 (Path Analysis) is confused, introducing the β for H1 (ESG→IP) as. 362 in the table itself, but fortunately the text says it is. 900. The columns "f²" and VIF appear somewhat misplaced or wrongly reported for some of the paths ( e.g. VIF= 1.000 over all paths are improbable)

Figures: References are made to Figures Figure 1 and Figure 2, but they are not part of the submission making it impossible to judge how clear and accurate their content is.

Quality of the Data: Although a relatively large sample size is an asset, high inter-construct correlations (e. (899 across ESG and Innovation Performance) signal common method bias, which was neither tested nor controlled for.

Suggestion: (1) Fix all the mistakes in Table 1 and Table 4. (2) Make sure all figures are clearly included in the filed manuscript. (3) Statistically control and present analyses of common method bias (e.g., applying Harman’s single factor test or a marker variable approach).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of language is good and can be further improved. It's full of awkward wording, some poor grammar/spelling AND repeating which made it a real PITA to read. such as `it is one of the most important factors for enterprises to have competitive advantage and go on long-sustained development, repetition nature of hypotheses formulation sections.

Suggested: A native English speaker or a professional editing service should eliminate the errors and improve fluency, conciseness as well as academic style.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have devoted to reviewing our work. Your suggestions have helped us refine our research design, strengthen our arguments, and improve the manuscript’s overall quality. Below we provide a detailed response to each of your comments.

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for these thoughtful comments, which have greatly improved the depth, clarity, and rigor of our manuscript.

 

Once again, we express our sincere gratitude for your valuable comments. We believe the revised manuscript is now clearer, more comprehensive, and aligned with the reviewer’s expectations. We hope that the revisions adequately address all concerns and that the paper is now suitable for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Executive Summary

This manuscript explores the relationship between ESG practices, innovation performance, and brand outcomes in the Taiwanese airline industry, focusing on employees' perspectives. Using data from 364 airline employees, the research reveals the following five (5) key findings: Positive Impact of ESG Practices, Moderating Effects, Brand Outcomes, Managerial Implications, and Research Limitations.

ESG principles, coupled with innovation and a supportive organizational climate, play a crucial role in creating brand loyalty, value, and love, eventually delivering

long-term competitive advantage and sustainability in the airline business.

 

• Manuscript’s seven (7) key contributions

1. Focus on Internal Stakeholders: The research shifts the focus of ESG research from financial performance and investor returns to employees' perspectives, addressing a gap in the literature by exploring how ESG practices influence employee-related brand behaviors. ​
2. Integration of Innovation Performance: This study introduces innovation performance as a mediating variable between ESG practices and brand outcomes, empirically demonstrating that ESG practices enhance brand loyalty, brand value, and brand love through improved innovation performance. ​
3. Moderating Role of Organizational Climate: It highlights the positive moderating effect of innovative organizational climate on the relationship between ESG practices and innovation performance, emphasizing the importance of intangible assets like organizational systems, culture, and processes in amplifying ESG's impact. ​
4. Insights on Human Capital: The manuscript finds that human capital does not significantly moderate the ESG-innovation relationship, suggesting that human capital's influence on innovation requires effective integration with ESG systems and resource allocation. ​
5. Practical Implications for Airlines: The findings provide actionable insights for airlines to integrate ESG strategies with internal operations, enhance employee engagement, and foster a culture of innovation to strengthen brand loyalty and love. ​
6. Expansion of ESG Literature: By focusing on long-term employee behavior and brand aspects, the study offers an alternative perspective on the positive impact of ESG practices, countering some literature that suggests short-term negative effects on firm value. ​
7. Framework for Future Research: The proposed research lays the groundwork for exploring ESG practices across different industries, cultural contexts, and additional mediating variables, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of ESG's role in brand building and employee attitudes. ​

​

• Evaluation (Methodology – Analysis - Conclusions)

 

1. Methodology:
• The study surveyed 364 employees (flight and ground crew) from major airlines in Taiwan, using an anonymous online questionnaire to ensure confidentiality and data integrity. ​
• A seven-point Likert scale was employed to measure key dimensions: ESG practices, innovation performance, brand loyalty, brand value, brand love, innovative organizational climate, and human capital. ​
• The questionnaire was adapted from validated scales in prior research, ensuring reliability and validity. ​
2. Analysis:
• Measurement Model: Smart-PLS 4.0 software was used to evaluate the model. ​ Factor loadings, Cronbach’s α, Composite Reliability, and Average Variance Extracted values exceeded recommended thresholds, confirming strong reliability and validity.
• Structural Model: PLS-SEM was applied to test hypotheses. ​ Results showed high explanatory power (R² values ranging from 0.593 to 0.850) and no multicollinearity (VIF values below 5). ​
• Moderation Analysis: Interaction effects of ESG practices with innovative organizational climate and human capital were examined. ​ Innovative organizational climate showed a significant but negative moderating effect, while human capital did not exhibit a significant moderating effect. ​
3. Conclusions:

Key Findings:

1. ESG practices significantly improve innovation performance, which enhances brand loyalty and brand value, ultimately generating brand love.
2. Innovative organizational atmosphere boosts the influence of ESG practices on innovation performance, but excessive attention may suppress this link.
3. People capital does not significantly attenuate the ESG-innovation link, emphasizing the necessity for strategic integration of people capital with ESG systems. ​

Implications:

1. Airlines should integrate ESG practices with internal operations and employee engagement to drive innovation and enhance brand loyalty and love. ​
2. Cultivating an innovative organizational climate and aligning human capital with ESG goals are essential for sustainable development. ​

Limitations:

4. The study is limited to the Taiwanese airline industry, and findings may not be generalizable across industries or regions. ​
5. Future research should explore cross-industry and cross-cultural comparisons, long-term impacts of ESG practices, and additional mediating variables. ​

 

Overall Evaluation:  

The study uses a strong methodology and analysis to offer insightful information about how ESG practices, innovation, and brand outcomes relate to one another from the viewpoint of employees. The conclusions provide useful implications for the airline sector and point out areas for further investigation, all of which are substantiated by empirical data.

 

• Constructive Feedback for the Authors

I am suggesting the following five improvements as constructive feedback for the authors.

 

1. Text Formatting & In-text Citations (References)

Please:

• Ensure consistent use of terminology (e.g., "sustainability performance" vs. "non-financial performance" in line 42).
• Avoid typographic issues (e.g., “3.  .Methods” in line 250)
• Avoid repetition and streamline sentences for clarity and conciseness.
• Ensure proper citation formatting by obeying the journal’s format directives (e.g. Instead of the in-text citation “Camisón & Monfort-Mir, 2012”, please use [number] in line 246). Arrange the References on a first-citation numbering order rather than alphabetically.

 

2. Human Capital Moderation ​

Issue: The study finds that human capital does not significantly moderate the relationship between ESG practices and innovation performance. ​ This result contrasts with existing literature that highlights the importance of human capital in driving innovation and organizational performance.

Suggested Improvement: You should explore the conditions under which human capital might play a more significant role. For instance, examining the impact of specific human capital attributes, such as sustainability-related training, leadership skills, or employee engagement, could provide a more nuanced understanding of its role. Additionally, investigating the interaction between human capital and other organizational factors, such as leadership style or resource allocation, may reveal more complex dynamics.

 

3. Limited Mediating Variables

Limitation: The proposed research focuses solely on innovation performance as a mediating variable between ESG practices and brand outcomes. ​ While this is a significant contribution, other potential mediating factors are not explored. ​

Suggested Improvement: Please investigate additional mediating variables, such as corporate identity, internal communication quality, employee engagement, or organizational trust.​ These factors may provide a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms through which ESG practices influence brand loyalty, value, and love. ​

 

4. Employee Diversity

Issue: The manuscript does not explore how employee diversity (e.g., gender, age, job roles, or seniority) might influence perceptions of ESG practices and their impact on brand outcomes.

Suggested Improvement: My advice is to investigate how demographic factors affect employees’ attitudes toward ESG practices and their subsequent impact on innovation performance and brand loyalty. This would help organizations tailor their ESG strategies to better align with the needs and expectations of diverse employee groups. ​

 

5. Limited Focus on Organizational Design

Limitation: Your research does not address how organizational design and structure might influence the integration of ESG practices and innovation performance.

Suggested Improvement: Please explore the role of organizational design, such as hierarchical structures, decision-making processes, and cross-functional collaboration, in facilitating the effective implementation of ESG practices and fostering innovation.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have devoted to reviewing our work. Your suggestions have helped us refine our research design, strengthen our arguments, and improve the manuscript’s overall quality. Below we provide a detailed response to each of your comments.

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for these thoughtful comments, which have greatly improved the depth, clarity, and rigor of our manuscript.

 

Once again, we express our sincere gratitude for your valuable comments. We believe the revised manuscript is now clearer, more comprehensive, and aligned with the reviewer’s expectations. We hope that the revisions adequately address all concerns and that the paper is now suitable for publication.

Please see the attach file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have devoted to reviewing our work. Your suggestions have helped us refine our research design, strengthen our arguments, and improve the manuscript’s overall quality. Below we provide a detailed response to each of your comments.

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for these thoughtful comments, which have greatly improved the depth, clarity, and rigor of our manuscript.

 

Once again, we express our sincere gratitude for your valuable comments. We believe the revised manuscript is now clearer, more comprehensive, and aligned with the reviewer’s expectations. We hope that the revisions adequately address all concerns and that the paper is now suitable for publication.

Please see the attch file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have very well answered most of the reviewer's comments. They also managed to clearly outline the theoretical framework of their study by greatly improving upon the motivation and literature review sections. In these amendments, they made an explicit separation between the employee level and standard customer focused models, anchoring their view on theories such as organizational identification and internal branding to elucidate the peculiar psychological and behavioral pathways through which employees produce brand-related outcomes when adopting ESG practices.

For the methodological critiques, the authors offered sound explanations and amendments. They justified the unequal gender balance of their sample by pointing to official industry demographics from the Taiwanese Ministry of Transportation, which they claim better represents the true composition of the workforce. For the concern for model overfitting, they revealed that even with high reliability coefficients, in terms of validity, their measurement model fulfilled all important criteria (AVE, VIF and Fornell- Larcker) and was consistent with modern design practices. They also revised the inconsistent data collection time to “September–December 2024” in this manuscript.

Of particular note, was their expanded analysis of the surprising negative moderating influence on H6 by the innovative organizational climate. The authors did not merely speculate about reasons in a post-hoc way, but provided a theoretical account in the Discussion with respect to why that might be, such as diminishing returns, goal conflicts and methodological limitations. In addition, they reworked the conclusion section to offer a more balanced interpretation. This new conclusion now appropriately foregrounds the two most important results, H7 and H6, and tries to make sense of these nuanced findings in relation to their original model.

At a practical level, the authors went to great lengths to rectify mistakes: correcting the demographics in Table 1 and path coefficients in Table 4 letter by letter. They have provided the missing Figures 1 and 2 in their submitted manuscript. Papers were significantly more fluent in language and form, after awkward phrasing and repetitions had been removed so as to increase overall clarity of text.

However, there were two particular methodological recommendations which were not followed up. The authors continued to use the Fornell-Larcker criterion for discriminant validity as best practice, without considering the recently developed Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio, even if their approach is generally recommended. Neither did they control for common method bias, such as via Harman's single factor or a marker variable statistically. Rather, they claimed that the low VIF values and adequate discriminant validity were enough to reduce such fears. Although these are typical rationalizations in PLS-SEM research, we note that they are a partial answer to the reviewer’s direct call.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank the reviewer for these thoughtful comments, which have greatly improved the depth, clarity, and rigor of our manuscript. We hope that the revisions adequately address all concerns and that the paper is now suitable for publication.

Please see the attach files.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for addressing my suggestions.

This revised version has been improved significantly.

Kind regards!

Author Response

I would like to thank the reviewer for the positive feedback, which has helped make this study more complete.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made acceptable modifications.

Author Response

I would like to thank the reviewer for the positive feedback, which has helped make this study more complete.