Leading Sustainability in the Age of Eco-Anxiety: The Role of Employee Well-Being in Driving Environmental Performance Among Green Companies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper ‘Leading Sustainability in the Age of Echo-anxiety: The Role of Employee Well-being in Driving Environmental Performance among Green Companies’ addresses an interesting topic. The authors chose to analyse and assess the impact of sustainable leadership (SL) on environmental performance (EP) in relation to the mediating role of employee well-being (EW) and the moderating role of eco-anxiety in green companies in a selected research area. The study referred to the assumptions of three thematic theories and was conducted on the basis of a questionnaire survey. At the in-depth research stage, structural equation modelling (SEM) was applied using the SmartPLS4 programme. The adopted research concept and the technology used enabled substantive conclusions to be drawn.
In the summary of the study, the authors presented its purpose and scope, as well as the methodology adopted and the main findings. I have no comments on the summary section.

In the introduction, the authors discussed the background of the study. They presented the issue of employees' mental well-being in light of the current challenges and conditions affecting companies. They pointed to the aspect of sustainable leadership as a determinant of employee well-being in light of eco-anxiety and the need to improve environmental efficiency. Against this background, the research challenges were presented in the context of the topic under consideration.
The next part of the study was devoted to a literature review, which provided the basis for establishing three research hypotheses. 
The introduction and literature review are well done, with reference to numerous and current sources. In my opinion, the introductory sections need to be supplemented with a discussion of sustainable human resource management and an emphasis on its importance in sustainable leadership, focused on shaping sustainable relationships and employee well-being. There is current literature available on this subject – it is worth studying, for example, https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410913. Apart from that, I have no comments on the introductory section and literature review.

The next section of the paper was devoted to discussing the materials and methodology. Here, five sections were identified, in which the input data for the study and the measurement methodology were presented in sufficient detail. I have no comments on this part of the paper.
The presentation of the results was prepared with scientific rigour. The results were presented and discussed in a thorough and clear manner. The presentation of the results was supported by visualisation. The interpretations of the results are at an appropriate level. I have no comments on this part.
Part of the discussion focused on discussing the findings with reference to alternative literature. The above was done correctly, but it is worth emphasising more strongly the significance of the authors' findings, which confirm the importance of the findings. 
The discussion section includes a section on implications, which has been properly developed.
In the summary, it is worth referring more strongly to the purpose of the study and emphasising the contribution of the paper to theory and practice. 
The literature is very well chosen, but its scope needs to be supplemented as indicated.
In summary, this is a very interesting and original study. However, some additions should be made to increase the cognitive value of the study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,
Please find attached the Answer to the comments.

Best Regards,
Niloofar Solati Dehkordi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Report
Manuscript ID: sustainability-3972471
Title: Leading Sustainability in the Age of Eco-anxiety: The Role of
Employee Well-being in Driving Environmental Performance among
Green Companies
(1) Overall Evaluation
The manuscript addresses a timely and significant topic that links
sustainable leadership, employee well-being, and eco-anxiety within the
context of environmental performance. It offers valuable insights into
the psychological aspects of sustainability leadership, contributing to
both organizational studies and environmental management literature.
The study is based on sound theoretical foundations—the Job
Demands–Resources (JD–R) model, Sustainable Leadership Theory, and
Upper Echelons Theory—and applies a robust statistical approach
(SmartPLS 4 with SEM). The research design and findings are coherent,
and the paper’s implications are relevant to corporate sustainability
practices. However, to meet publication standards, the manuscript
needs improvement in several areas, particularly clarity, theoretical
focus, and practical depth. Specific revisions are detailed below.
(2) Summary of the Manuscript and Key Contributions
The paper investigates how sustainable leadership affects
environmental performance in green companies, emphasizing the
mediating role of employee well-being and the moderating role of eco-
anxiety. Data were collected from 289 employees across five
environmentally oriented companies in Turkey. Results indicate that
sustainable leadership positively influences environmental performance
directly and indirectly through employee well-being. However, high eco-
anxiety weakens this relationship, suggesting that psychological strain
can hinder leadership effectiveness. The authors argue that promoting employee psychological health and reducing eco-anxiety are essential
for improving sustainability outcomes. This work contributes to
advancing understanding of how leadership and mental health jointly
drive environmental success.
(3) Major Comments
• Clarify the Research Gap and Novelty – The theoretical contribution
should be better articulated. Explain clearly how this study advances
existing research on leadership and sustainability beyond previous
models.
• Improve Theoretical Integration – Strengthen the connection between
the JD–R model, Sustainable Leadership, and eco-anxiety. Discuss how
eco-anxiety fits conceptually as a moderator within the JD–R
framework.
• Methodological Limitations – The study is cross-sectional and
geographically limited to Turkey. Discuss how these factors affect
external validity and suggest future longitudinal or cross-national
research.
• Moderation Analysis Interpretation – Provide a deeper explanation of
how eco-anxiety moderates the leadership–well-being link. Include
psychological or organizational reasoning to justify this relationship.
• Literature Review Revision – The review section is long and repetitive.
It should be condensed to focus more sharply on the theoretical
rationale and research gap.
• Language and Clarity – Revise the manuscript for linguistic accuracy
and conciseness. Some sections require better flow and professional
academic tone.
• Practical Implications – Expand the managerial recommendations.
Offer specific examples of how organizations can reduce eco-anxiety
and enhance well-being through leadership practices.

   (4) Minor Comments
• The limitations section should be expanded to include issues such as
potential response bias and cultural context effects.
• The conclusion section would benefit from presenting the key findings
as concise bullet points.
• Consider reducing the number of references, retaining only the most
relevant and high-impact studies.
• Ensure all tables, figures, and statistical outputs are properly labeled
and referenced in the text.
• Conduct a professional language edit to improve clarity, grammar, and
style consistency.
(5) Strengths
• Innovative integration of eco-anxiety into the sustainable leadership
model.
• Use of established theoretical frameworks (JD–R, TMT, Sustainable
Leadership).
• Robust quantitative analysis with adequate reliability and validity
checks.
• Clear alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),
particularly SDG 3 (Well-being) and SDG 13 (Climate Action).
(6) Weaknesses
• Limited sample size and geographic scope (five companies in Turkey).
• Cross-sectional design limits causal inference.
• Overly long literature review and insufficient discussion of limitations.
• Language and structure require refinement for academic readability.

   (7) Recommendation
Recommendation: Major Revision.
The manuscript is promising and original, but it requires a more refined
theoretical discussion, stronger practical implications, and improved
clarity in presentation. Addressing the major and minor comments will
significantly enhance its scientific quality and contribution to the field of
sustainability leadership research.

Author Response

Dear Review 2, 

Please attached find the answer to the comments.

Best Regards,

Niloofar

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Why only 5 green companies? Were they the only ones that responded? Are there only 5 green companies in Turkey? Please add the explanation

Line 475- you mean 4.2

Was it a difference between how male and female respond? Do they feel eco-anxiety differently? And how differently people with different education feel eco-anxiety? Please add!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3, 

Please find attached the answer to the comments.

Best Regards,

Niloofar Solati Dehkordi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the article. 

Author Response

Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors provided fairly convincing answers, resulting in a noticeable improvement to the manuscript, despite their insistence on retaining the increasing number of references and not revising or reducing their number.

Author Response

Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

Echo or eco? The title is with echo and in your article appears eco.

Shouldn't demographic distribution be a part of results? You have them after the questionnaire was given and I consider them results. Please move them.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviwer,

Please find attached the response file to your comment.

Best Regards,

Niloofar Solati Dehkordi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your modifications. 

Is it relevant to add a map to the regions where green companies are in Turkey? And in that map to make clear where your the companies that you used are (just numbers, not names).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find attached the answer to your insightful comment.

Best Regards,

Niloofar Solati Dehkordi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf