A Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Human Resource Management: Integrating Ecological and Inclusive Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this fascinating paper, which addresses a significant gap. It is well structured with clear sections and logical flow. Some sections, i.e., the introduction ( eg line 81) and discussion, are overly verbose and repetitive, and some terms, such as " actionable strategies" in the abstract and " actionable guidelines" line 189 -  give a sense of AI influence. This may not be true, but the paper will be stronger with direct language and less repetition.

Referencing could be more consistent - see line 167, where you have made it clear who is saying what and why you are referencing, and verses 142, where this is unclear. Inconsistency in citations must be fixed.

Removing Jargon and defining terms early would make this paper more readable eg - early explanation if green HRM.

Implications for organizational contexts are well explored, but there is room for further explanation of non-corporate sectors. Contributions to policy making could be expanded.

 

 

Line 202 - not sure what the point is here - critical synthesis - the critical value of synthesis ??

In my view, the most essential issue to address to strengthen this paper is to provide a diagram to show the intersection of the proposed model.  In the same vein - for easier reading, put transition phrases between subsections in eg. to help follow the integration between ecological and inclusive perspectives.

A strong overview of related literature but limited evaluation of existing frameworks - some further commentary on limitations of current theories would further strengthen this paper.

A flow chart of the PRISMA process would be valuable for clarity.

Author Response

Reviewer Comments	Response and Revisions in Specific Subsections
1. English Language Quality: The quality of English is sufficient to understand the research, but some parts are too verbose and repetitive. Terms like "actionable strategies" and "actionable guidelines" appear to be AI-influenced. The language will be stronger with direct usage and reduced repetition.	- Introduction (Section 1): Simplified sentences in line 81 to reduce repetition and improve sentence structure. - Discussion (Section 5.1): Replaced "actionable strategies" and "actionable guidelines" with "practical approaches."
2. Reference Consistency: References are inconsistent, e.g., lines 167 and 142. It’s important to explain who says what and why the reference is relevant.	- Section 2.5 (Literature Gap): Ensured references at lines 142 and 167 are consistent and clearly linked to arguments. - References across the manuscript have been standardized.
3. Jargon and Term Definitions: Jargon like "Green HRM" needs to be explained earlier for better readability.	- Introduction (Section 1.2): Added definitions of technical terms like "Green HRM" early in the manuscript to enhance readability.
4. Contributions to Policy and Non-Corporate Sectors:Implications for non-corporate sectors and contributions to policy need to be expanded.	- Discussion (Section 5.1.2): Expanded analysis of implications for non-corporate sectors, including non-profits and government institutions. - Highlighted data-driven policy recommendations for policymakers.
5. PRISMA Diagram and Intersection Model: A diagram to show the intersection of the proposed model and a PRISMA flow diagram to clarify article selection will be valuable.	- Methodology (Section 3.2): Added the PRISMA flow diagram to clarify the article selection process. - Results and Discussion (Section 4.2): Included a visual diagram demonstrating the integration of ecological and inclusive perspectives in the proposed model.
6. Critical Synthesis and Transitions: Line 202 is unclear in delivering a "critical synthesis." Transitional phrases between subsections are needed to help readers follow the integration of perspectives.	- Section 2.5 (Literature Gap): Clarified the sentence on line 202 to highlight the critical synthesis. - Added transitional phrases between subsections to improve flow and connectivity in discussions.
7. Framework Evaluation: Related literature is strong, but the evaluation of existing frameworks is still limited. Further commentary on the weaknesses of current theories will strengthen the manuscript.	- Discussion (Section 5.1.1): Expanded the evaluation of existing frameworks to identify gaps and opportunities for further theoretical development.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article contributes to synthesize ecological and inclusive dimensions within a single framework to investigate SHRM theory with a new model. It provides a good perspective for further research in SHRM.  

However, it has critical drawbacks:

1.      Research Methodology is weak only by collecting and sorting literature. It lies in:

l  It lacks the quantitative research process of literature;

l  How do the authors identify critical themes and patterns that inform the proposed framework, what is the qualitative research process?

l  How to test the logical coherence and theoretical validity of the model is not described.

2.      It proposes a conceptual model，the model should be made into a structural diagram for readers to understand more quickly in holistic perspective.

3.      There needs a summary of the literature part and the same suggestion for 4.2.

4.      The abstract is lengthy. To make it more concise.

For example, Delete “Design/Methodology/Approach:” “Findings:”; Please integrate “Originality/Value: This research introduces a novel framework integrating ecological and inclusive dimensions into SHRM. It serves as a foundation for future empirical research and provides practitioners with strategies to achieve comprehensive sustainability outcomes.” into the first sentence.

5.      Introduction： delete “including Indonesia” for more coverage of the article.

6.      5.2.2  5.2.3 and 6.1.2，6.2.1 in the conclusion are repetitive，6.1.2， 6.2.1 can be combine into 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. Conclusions should be more focused and concise.

Author Response

Reviewer Comments	Response and Revisions in Specific Subsections
1. Research Methodology: The research methodology only gathers and organizes literature. Criticism includes the lack of quantitative and qualitative research processes and coherence testing of the model.	- Methodology (Section 3.2): Expanded to include explanations of the quantitative literature analysis process, including thematic and pattern analysis through qualitative approaches (page 10).  - Section 2.4: Added explanations on theoretical validity testing and logical coherence of the model (page 4).  - PRISMA diagram included to enhance the transparency of the literature selection process.
2. Structural Diagram: The conceptual model should be presented in a structural diagram for easier understanding by readers.	- Section 4.1: A structural diagram illustrating the integration of ecological and inclusive dimensions within the SHRM framework has been added (page 10).
3. Literature Summary: A summary of the literature section and similar suggestions for Section 4.2 is required.	- Section 2.5 (Literature Gap): A summary has been added at the end of the literature subsection to provide clearer conclusions (page 5).  - Section 4.2: Additional summary added at the end of this section (page 11).
4. Abstract: The abstract is too long and should be more concise.	- Abstract (Section 1): The abstract has been condensed by removing labels like "Design/Methodology/Approach" and "Findings." The "Originality/Value" section has been integrated into the opening sentences of the abstract (page 1).
5. Introduction: Remove "including Indonesia" to broaden the scope of the article.	- Introduction (Section 1): The phrase "including Indonesia" has been removed to provide broader coverage (page 1-2).
6. Repetitive Conclusions: Subsections 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 6.1.2, and 6.2.1 are repetitive. Merge 6.1.2 and 6.2.1 into 5.2.2 and 5.2.3.	- Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3: Subsections 6.1.2 and 6.2.1 have been merged into these sections to avoid repetition.  - Conclusions have been summarized to focus sharply on the main findings (pages 15-20).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript titled “A Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Human Resource Management: Integrating Ecological and Inclusive Perspectives”. The manuscript is well prepared according to the journal scope. I recommend the paper for publishment after incorporating the following suggestions/corrections.

1: Demonstrate the SHRM and SDGs.

2: The introduction part needs an updated literature survey.

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

4: Please write a few sentences about the novelty in the abstract and discuss the modern research of  10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112572 in the literature.

5: Demonstrate the peculiarities of Ecology and Inclusivity in detail.

6: The conclusion section must be written with major outcomes.

7: The references list should be updated and recheck the citations from 65-73.

8: The authors should correct all grammatical mistakes and remove typos.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Can be improve

Author Response

Reviewer Comments	Response and Revisions in Specific Subsections
1. Demonstrate the SHRM and SDGs:	- Section 1.3: Expanded discussion on the connection between SHRM and SDGs, emphasizing how the framework supports global sustainability goals, particularly SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 13 (Climate Action) (pages 3-4).
2. The introduction part needs an updated literature survey:	- Introduction (Section 1): Recent literature from 2022 and 2023 has been added to strengthen the theoretical background, including a notable article from Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112572) that explores innovations in integrating ecological and inclusive dimensions into HRM (page 2).
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?	- Introduction (Section 1): Added an explanation of the article's unique contributions, focusing on the integration of ecological and inclusive dimensions into SHRM, an area less explored in existing literature (page 2, last paragraph).
4. Please write a few sentences about the novelty in the abstract and discuss the modern research of 10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112572 in the literature.	- Abstract (Section 1): Revised to highlight the novelty of the proposed framework.  - Literature Review (Section 2.5): Discussion of the article from Chaos, Solitons & Fractals added to provide context for the integration of ecological and inclusive dimensions (page 4).
5. Demonstrate the peculiarities of Ecology and Inclusivity in detail:	- Section 4.2: Expanded with detailed descriptions of the unique aspects of ecological dimensions (e.g., resource efficiency, waste management) and inclusivity (e.g., gender equity, community engagement), supported by concrete examples (page 11).
6. The conclusion section must be written with major outcomes:	- Conclusion (Section 6): Expanded to include the major outcomes of the study, highlighting practical and academic implications of the proposed framework, with a focus on its contributions to SDG policies and sustainable HRM development (pages 15-120.
7. The references list should be updated and recheck the citations from 65-73:	- References (Section 7): Updated with recent literature, and citations 65-73 have been thoroughly checked for consistency and relevance.
8. The authors should correct all grammatical mistakes and remove typos:	- Entire Manuscript: Grammar and typos corrected throughout to improve coherence and clarity. These corrections include simplifying long sentences and ensuring alignment with academic writing standards.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Analysis and recommendations for improving the article

1. The article addresses a highly relevant and contemporary issue: the integration of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), all connected through the domain of Human Resource Management (HRM). This intersection is critical for both academic discourse and practical applications in organizational management. Furthermore, the linkage between Green HRM and DEI is evident, justifying the need for further exploration in this area.

2. The article references 149 sources from the period 2019–2024, which reflects the growing significance of Green HRM and DEI during this timeframe. However, it lacks specific engagement with the content of these references. While citations are provided, there is an absence of in-depth analysis of the cited articles' contributions.

3. The article tends to be general in its discussions, failing to systematically organize insights from the reviewed literature. For example, a structured presentation, such as tables or diagrams summarizing key findings, would enhance clarity and depth. The authors have superficially addressed a topic with substantial potential for broader exploration.

4. The article does not clearly outline research hypotheses derived from the literature review, nor does it present a well-defined conceptual model in graphical form.

5. The order of paragraphs should be adjusted to better emphasize the research gaps:

• First: Paragraph demonstrating the existence of research gaps:

“Studies on Green HRM and inclusivity have evolved separately, but there is a lack of research that integrates these two dimensions into a holistic framework [1], [7]. Previous research highlights that Green HRM focuses more on managing environmental impacts through energy efficiency and waste reduction [3], [8] while inclusivity tends to emphasize cultural diversity and gender equality [9]. This gap in the literature underscores the need for an integrated approach to address complex sustainability challenges.”

• Second: Paragraph providing arguments for addressing these gaps:

“Traditional HRM practices that fail to consider sustainability often have negative environmental and social impacts. A study by Sustainability [4], [5] reported that the carbon footprint of HRM activities, such as business travel and office energy consumption, accounts for 10–15% of a company's total carbon emissions. Additionally, the lack of gender diversity and workplace inclusivity continues to hinder innovation, particularly in the technology and manufacturing sectors [6]. Thus, organizations must develop HRM practices that are not only environmentally friendly but also promote diversity and social well-being to achieve global sustainability goals.”

6. The phrase:

“A study by Sustainability [4], [5] reported that the carbon footprint of HRM activities…”
needs clarification. Was this study conducted by the journal itself, by specific authors, or by an organization? The source of the findings must be explicitly identified.

7. The introductory reference to Deloitte Insights is overly general and fails to contribute new insights. It would benefit from a more detailed explanation or a case study illustrating its relevance to the topic.

8. The statement:

“Research highlights that organizations adopting SHRM benefit from increased employee engagement, stronger market reputation, and alignment with global sustainability targets, including the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [10], [15].”
requires concrete evidence and explicit references to studies that substantiate these claims.

9. Authors should clarify their understanding of "traditional HRM," particularly as referenced in Section 2.4. Providing a concise definition and linking it to the broader discussion would improve the argument's coherence.

10. In Section 2.5, the authors claim to have conducted a critical literature review and developed a conceptual model. However, neither the critical analysis nor the conceptual model is adequately presented.

11. In Section 3.1, the authors mention conducting a systematic literature review, which appears to conflict with their earlier assertion of performing a critical literature review. These are distinct methodologies, and this discrepancy must be addressed.

12. The article does not specify the final number of publications included in the literature review. This omission hinders the transparency of the methodology.

13. The three components of the model proposed in Section 4 are neither novel nor innovative, as they reflect well-established theories of diversity and ecology. Incorporating mediating or moderating variables, or utilizing serial mediation/moderation, could result in a more original conceptual model.

14. Section 5.1 largely repeats content from Sections 1, 2, and 4. Consolidating these sections would improve the article's structure and reduce redundancy.

15. The content of Section 6 could be integrated into Section 5 to avoid repetition, particularly regarding the practical business relevance of the proposed model.

 

Author Response

Reviewer Comments	Responses and Revisions in Specific Subsections
1. The article addresses relevant issues related to the integration of DEI and CSR in HRM but requires deeper exploration.	Section 1.2: Expanded explanation on the relationship between Green HRM, DEI, and CSR, with examples of practical applications and relevance (page 4).
2. Lack of in-depth analysis of cited references.	Section 2.3: Added in-depth analysis of key literature to highlight the contribution of each reference to the proposed framework (page 3).
3. Discussion is general and disorganized, lacking tables or diagrams.	Sections 3.1 and 4.2: Added diagrams and tables to summarize key findings from the literature and visually explain the conceptual model (pages 7, 11).
4. Research hypotheses are unclear, and the conceptual model is not graphically presented.	Section 3.2: Research hypotheses formulated. Section 4.2: Conceptual model presented in a structural diagram (pages 11-12).
5. Paragraph sequence needs rearranging to emphasize research gaps.	Introduction (Section 1.1): Paragraphs reordered to highlight research gaps first, followed by arguments supporting the need for the proposed framework (pages 1-2).
6. Clarification of sources for findings related to the carbon footprint of HRM.	Section 3.2: Clarified the source of findings, specifying that the data originates from particular studies rather than general journals or organizations (page 8).
7. Deloitte Insights references are too generic.	Section 1.2: Expanded explanation of Deloitte Insights, including a relevant case study example aligned with the topic (page 4).
8. Claims about the benefits of SHRM require concrete evidence.	Section 5.1: Added empirical evidence supporting the benefits of SHRM, with specific references from the literature (page 15).
9. Definition of "traditional HRM" needs clarification.	Section 2.4: Added a concise definition of "traditional HRM," linking it to broader discussions (page 4).
10. Critical analysis and conceptual model are insufficiently presented.	Section 4.1: Expanded critical analysis. Section 4.2: Conceptual model presented clearly in diagram form (page 11).
11. Conflict between systematic literature review and critical literature review.	Section 2.5: Provided explanations distinguishing between the two methodologies and describing the approach used in the study (page 5).
12. The number of reviewed publications is not mentioned.	Section 3.2: Added the final number of reviewed publications (149) in the methodology section (page 8).
13. The conceptual model is not innovative and requires mediation or moderation variables.	Section 4.2: Model updated to include mediating variable (employee engagement) and moderating variable (cultural context) to enhance originality (pages 11-12).
14. Repetition of content in multiple sections (5.1, 1, 2, and 4).	Section 5.1 and related sections: Consolidated overlapping content to reduce redundancy (page 15).
15. Integrate Section 6 into Section 5 to avoid repetition.	Section 6 integrated into Section 5: Improved the article’s flow and reduced redundancy by merging conclusions into the discussion (page 15).

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In Table 1, only 7 literature is included, it is not a summary for the whole research literature. 

 conceptual model is acceptable, however Methodology for this research is weak. 

Author Response

Reviewer 2's Comment 1: "In Table 1, only 7 literature is included, it is not a summary for the whole research literature."

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We acknowledge that the initial version of Table 1 contained a limited selection of references. In this revised manuscript, we have expanded Table 1 to include a total of 22 references, ensuring a broader representation of the research literature. The updated table now comprehensively summarizes key themes, identified gaps, and contributions to the framework across three dimensions of sustainability—economic, social, and environmental.

Specific revisions include:

• Economic Sustainability: References have been expanded to include studies addressing cost reduction, productivity improvement, and the integration of economic goals with Green HRM and inclusivity strategies. (See Table 1, references [61], [70], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85].)
• Social Sustainability: The updated table now incorporates studies focusing on diversity, equity, employee well-being, and dual-focus HRM practices that promote inclusivity and sustainability. (See Table 1, references [51], [70], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90].)
• Environmental Sustainability: References have been enriched with studies examining eco-friendly recruitment, energy efficiency policies, and the intersection of environmental and economic considerations. (See Table 1, references [1], [61], [76], [81], [82], [86], [91], [92].)

These adjustments ensure that Table 1 now provides a robust summary of the relevant literature, addressing the reviewer's concern about its limited scope in the earlier version.

Reviewer 2's Comment 2:
"The conceptual model is acceptable, however, the methodology for this research is weak."

Response 2:
We appreciate your insights regarding the methodology and have addressed this comment by further elaborating on the research methodology section in the revised manuscript. Specifically:

1. Systematic Literature Review (SLR):
• We have expanded the explanation of the PRISMA process used for literature selection, including the identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion of 149 final articles. These steps ensure methodological rigor and transparency. (See Section 3.2, page 8-9.)
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria have been clarified to demonstrate the quality and relevance of the selected literature, with a focus on Q1 and Q2 journals and studies published between 2019 and 2023.
2. Critical Literature Review (CLR):
• In addition to the systematic review, we employed a critical literature review to conduct an in-depth analysis of the selected articles. This dual approach ensures both breadth and depth in the analysis, addressing theoretical gaps and underexplored intersections in SHRM research. (See Section 3.2, page 8-9.)
3. Theoretical Validation of the Conceptual Model:
• We have elaborated on how the proposed conceptual model aligns with established sustainability frameworks, including the Triple Bottom Line and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Logical consistency and theoretical validity have been ensured by mapping the interrelationships between key constructs, such as inclusivity, employee engagement, and operational sustainability. (See Section 3.3, page 9-10.)

These revisions significantly strengthen the methodological foundation of the study, addressing the identified weakness.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article, after incorporating the suggested changes, raises no objections on my part.

Author Response

Comment:
No additional comments were provided in Round 2.

Response:
Thank you for your valuable feedback in Round 1. We would like to confirm that all comments provided in Round 1 have been thoroughly addressed in our first-round revision. Below is a summary of our responses and revisions:

1. Lack of Critical Perspective:
• We expanded the explanation in Section 1.2, highlighting the relationship between Green HRM, DEI, and CSR, along with practical examples and their relevance to the study (page 2-3).
2. In-depth Analysis of References:
• An in-depth analysis of key references has been added in Section 2.3 to emphasize the contribution of each reference to the proposed framework (page 3-4).
3. General and Disorganized Discussion:
• Diagrams and tables were added to Sections 3.1 and 4.2 to summarize the key findings and visually explain the conceptual model, improving the organization and readability (pages 7 and 11).
4. Research Hypotheses and Conceptual Model:
• Research hypotheses were formulated in Section 3.2, and the conceptual model was presented in a structural diagram in Section 4.2 (pages 11–12).
5. Rearrangement of Paragraphs to Highlight Research Gaps:
• The introduction paragraphs in Section 1.1 were reordered to prioritize research gaps before presenting the arguments supporting the proposed framework (pages 1–2).
6. Clarification of Carbon Footprint Sources:
• The sources of findings related to the carbon footprint of HRM were clarified in Section 3.2, specifying that the data originated from specific studies rather than generalized sources (page 8).
7. Generic Deloitte Insights References:
• We expanded the explanation of Deloitte Insights in Section 1.2, including a relevant case study example aligned with the topic (page 1-2).
8. Claims about the Benefits of SHRM:
• Empirical evidence supporting the benefits of SHRM was added in Section 5.1, with specific references cited from the literature (page 15).
9. Definition of Traditional HRM:
• A concise definition of "traditional HRM" was included in Section 2.4, linking it to broader discussions within the manuscript (page 4).
10. Critical Analysis and Conceptual Model Presentation:
• The critical analysis was expanded in Section 4.1, and the conceptual model was presented clearly in diagram form in Section 4.2 (page 11-14).
11. Conflict Between Systematic and Critical Literature Review:
• We clarified the distinction between systematic and critical literature review methodologies in Section 2.5, describing the specific approach used in the study (page 5).
12. Number of Reviewed Publications:
• The final number of reviewed publications (149) was mentioned in Section 3.2 (page 8).
13. Innovative Conceptual Model:
• The conceptual model was enhanced by incorporating a mediating variable (employee engagement) and a moderating variable (cultural context) in Section 4.2 (pages 11–12).
14. Repetition of Content in Multiple Sections:
• Overlapping content was consolidated and revised in Section 5.1 and related sections to reduce redundancy (page 15).
15. Integration of Section 6 into Section 5:
• Section 6 was integrated into Section 5 to improve the article’s flow and eliminate repetition (page 15).

We hope that the revisions completed during Round 1 have fully addressed your concerns. If you have any additional questions or suggestions, we are happy to respond further.