Integrating ESG Framework with Social Sustainability Metrics: A Dual SEM-PLS Formative–Reflective Model Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for inviting me to review this manuscript titled "Integrating ESG Framework with Social Sustainability Metrics: A Dual SEM-PLS Formative-Reflective Model Perspective". This study examines the relationship between ESG practices and a firm's social sustainability outcomes, focusing on employee well-being, diversity and inclusion, community engagement, and training and development. The research topic is quite interesting and practical, and it is an important issue in our daily life. Hence, it worthies more research attentions on it. However, several significant concerns should be paid attention to, and the authors need to carefully revise and improve the manuscript. Here are the details of the comments.

(1) Abstract: The abstract somewhat mainly focused on what they did and found, while did not present the background, the research gaps. Please improve it according to the common structure, such as one sentence for background, one or two sentences about the study, one sentence about the findings, and one sentence about the implications. By the way, some keywords are overlapped, please replace some of them. Also, please revise the font in the abstract.

(2) Introduction: In the introduction section, the research questions are clear, but the authors did not clearly present the background of this study and why this study is important and necessary. As well, the authors can add one paragraph to introduce the following part.

(3) Literature Review: First, the literature review discussed the relationship between ESG and social sustainability. However, it lacks a thorough synthesis, especially about the hypotheses proposed. The author should discuss more recent studies to strengthen the theoretical support. Some papers may be helpful: 10.3390/su17030963; 10.3390/su16229626. By the way, figure 1 can be improved; Second, the hypotheses are well-articulated and align with the research question. However, some hypotheses lack sufficient theoretical support.

(4) Research Methodology: The sampling method needs more detail, and the sampling size and response rate should be discussed.

(5) Data Analysis and Interpretation: First, the interpretation of results lacks depth. The author should provide a more nuanced discussion of the findings, including potential causes of any discrepancies and the implications. Second, the tables (1-6) should be three lines table, and figures 2-3 should be improved. Third, the measurement model's fit should be further evaluated. The author should explore potential reasons for these mismatches and consider refining the measurement indicators for better accuracy. Fourth, the mediation effect should be more rigorously discussed, such as by Sobel tests or bootstrap resampling.

(6) Discussion Section: The discussion section lacks depth and critical analysis of the findings. The author should engage more deeply with the results, discussing their implications, practice, and policy. This section should also address potential limitations of the study and suggest directions for future research.

(7) Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the main findings but does not highlight its contributions and limitations. Additionally, the conclusion should articulate the implications.

(8) Common comments: It is suggested the authors to use the format of sustainability, and use the MDPI editing service, since there are plenty of grammar issues and typing mistakes.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language in this study can be polished or edited by professional organizations. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Greetings of the day!

I hope you are doing well.

Thank you for your thoughtful review and valuable feedback on the manuscript. I, truly appreciate your insights, which have helped me refine and strengthen my work.

I have carefully considered all your comments and made the necessary revisions to enhance the clarity, theoretical foundation, and overall quality of the manuscript. Specifically, I have:

• Revised the abstract to follow a structured format, incorporating key elements such as background, research gap, study summary, key findings, and implications. We have also refined the keywords for clarity and consistency.
• Improved the introduction by clearly presenting the study’s background, emphasizing its importance, and adding a paragraph to outline the structure of the paper for better readability.
• Enhanced the literature review by synthesizing the relationship between ESG and social sustainability, integrating recent studies (including suggested references), and refining Figure 1 for improved clarity.
• Provided a detailed explanation of the sampling method, including selection criteria, sample size, and response rate, to ensure transparency.
• Added a new table and improved Figures 2-3 as recommended. We have also evaluated the measurement model’s fit in Annexure VII and expanded Table 6 to provide an in-depth discussion of the mediation effect.
• Revised the discussion section to offer a more comprehensive analysis and ensure all study implications—social, practical, and managerial—are addressed.
• Improved the conclusion to better highlight the study’s contributions, limitations, and implications.

I appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript, and we look forward to any further feedback you may have. Please let me know if there are any specific areas that require additional refinement.

Thank you once again for your invaluable input. The details are enclosed below. I would be thankful if you could accept my revision and allow publication.

Best regards.

 

Commemt1: Thanks for inviting me to review this manuscript titled "Integrating ESG Framework with Social Sustainability Metrics: A Dual SEM-PLS Formative-Reflective Model Perspective". This study examines the relationship between ESG practices and a firm's social sustainability outcomes, focusing on employee well-being, diversity and inclusion, community engagement, and training and development. The research topic is quite interesting and practical, and it is an important issue in our daily life. Hence, it worthies more research attentions on it. However, several significant concerns should be paid attention to, and the authors need to carefully revise and improve the manuscript. Here are the details of the comments.

Response 1: Thank you for your thoughtful review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of the importance and practicality of the research topic. We have carefully considered your comments and have made the necessary revisions to enhance the clarity, theoretical foundation, and overall quality of the manuscript. We look forward to your further insights and appreciate your time and effort in reviewing the work.

Comment 2: Abstract: The abstract somewhat mainly focused on what they did and found, while did not present the background, the research gaps. Please improve it according to the common structure, such as one sentence for background, one or two sentences about the study, one sentence about the findings, and one sentence about the implications. By the way, some keywords are overlapped, please replace some of them. Also, please revise the font in the abstract.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable feedback on the abstract. We have revised it to follow a structured format, incorporating a background statement, highlighting the research gap, summarizing the study, presenting the key findings, and outlining the implications. Additionally, we have refined the keywords to avoid redundancy and ensured consistency in the font. We appreciate your insightful suggestions, which have helped improve the clarity and presentation of in abstract.

Comment 3:  Introduction: In the introduction section, the research questions are clear, but the authors did not clearly present the background of this study and why this study is important and necessary. As well, the authors can add one paragraph to introduce the following part.

Response 3: 

Thank you for your constructive feedback on the introduction. We have revised this section to clearly present the background of the study and emphasize its importance and necessity. Additionally, we have included a paragraph to introduce the structure of the subsequent sections, ensuring better readability and logical flow. We appreciate your valuable suggestions, which have strengthened the clarity and coherence of the introduction.

Comment 4:

Literature Review: First, the literature review discussed the relationship between ESG and social sustainability. However, it lacks a thorough synthesis, especially about the hypotheses proposed. The author should discuss more recent studies to strengthen the theoretical support. Some papers may be helpful: 10.3390/su17030963; 10.3390/su16229626. By the way, figure 1 can be improved; Second, the hypotheses are well-articulated and align with the research question. However, some hypotheses lack sufficient theoretical support.

Response 4: 

Thank you for your insightful feedback on the literature review. We have enhanced this section by incorporating a more thorough synthesis of the relationship between ESG and social sustainability, particularly in relation to the hypotheses proposed. Additionally, we have integrated recent studies, including the suggested references, to strengthen the theoretical foundation. Furthermore, Figure 1 has been improved for better clarity and representation. We have also ensured that all hypotheses are well-supported with relevant theoretical perspectives. We appreciate your valuable comments, which have helped refine and strengthen this section.

Comment 5:  Research Methodology: The sampling method needs more detail, and the sampling size and response rate should be discussed

Response 5: 

Thank you for your feedback on the research methodology section. We have already provided a detailed explanation of the sampling method in the relevant sections, outlining the selection process, criteria, and justification. Additionally, we have expanded the discussion on the sample size and response rate to ensure clarity and transparency. We appreciate your suggestion and have made the necessary enhancements. If there are any specific aspects you would like us to elaborate on further, please let me know, and I  will be happy to address them.

Comment 6: 

Data Analysis and Interpretation: First, the interpretation of results lacks depth. The author should provide a more nuanced discussion of the findings, including potential causes of any discrepancies and the implications. Second, the tables (1-6) should be three lines table, and figures 2-3 should be improved. Third, the measurement model's fit should be further evaluated. The author should explore potential reasons for these mismatches and consider refining the measurement indicators for better accuracy. Fourth, the mediation effect should be more rigorously discussed, such as by Sobel tests or bootstrap resampling.

Response 6: 

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. I have added one more table and improved Figures 2-3 as recommended. Additionally, I have further evaluated the measurement model's fit and included the details in Annexure VII. Table 6 now provides an in-depth discussion of the mediation effect, comparing direct and mediated effects. I have also incorporated bootstrapping details to enhance the rigor of the analysis.

Please let me know if there are any specific aspects that require further refinement—I would be happy to incorporate them.

Comment 7:

Discussion Section: The discussion section lacks depth and critical analysis of the findings. The author should engage more deeply with the results, discussing their implications, practice, and policy. This section should also address potential limitations of the study and suggest directions for future research.

Response 7:

Thank you for your insightful feedback. I have revised the discussion section to provide a more in-depth analysis, addressing each item systematically. Additionally, the study's implications—social, practical, and managerial—are already discussed in detail. Please let me know if there are any specific aspects you would like me to further elaborate on. I would be happy to incorporate any additional suggestions.

Comment 8: 

Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the main findings but does not highlight its contributions and limitations. Additionally, the conclusion should articulate the implications.

Response 8: 

Thank you for your valuable feedback. I have revised the conclusion to better highlight the study's contributions, limitations, and implications. Please let me know if there are any specific areas that require further refinement.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper examines the impact of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors and ethical leadership on key organizational outcomes such as employee well-being, diversity, community engagement, and training. I must admit that I have strong reservations about the study. I find the paper on the verge of rejection, but the editors might consider giving it a chance. 

Main problems:

1. The research questions are very general and not fully aligned with the study. Consider RQ2: How do ESG initiatives contribute to the SDG? (By the way, why is there a coma?). This is a very broad question. Could it really be answered by a questionnaire study conducted in an emerging market? The whole narrative needs significant revision.

2. The methodology and the research question lack novelty. Not much can be done here.

3. The study is very poorly written and structured. This concerns the reading flow, organization, presentation, etc. It often reads like a technical report with no substantive discussion of the findings. Many elements are missing. I see no discussion of the findings in the introduction, no outline of the structure, etc. I suggest the authors take a look at John Cochrane's writing tips, which I personally found very helpful (https://www.johnhcochrane.com/research-all/writing-tips-for-phd-studentsnbsp). 

Minor notes:

1. Authors should put more effort into making the exhibits self-contained.

2. The literature on ESG and CSR issues is vast, and it is difficult to fit it into a small literature review. The authors may also consider referring to some review papers such as Coqueret (2022) or Nyabakora and Mohabir (2024).

References

Coqueret, G. (2022). Perspectives in sustainable equity investing. CRC Press.

Nyabakora, W. I., & Mohabir, S. E. (2024). Corporate social responsibility knowledge base: A bibliometric analysis. Modern Finance, 2(1), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.61351/mf.v2i1.123

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I sincerely appreciate your thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. Your insights have been instrumental in refining and strengthening our research. I have carefully considered your comments and have made the necessary revisions to address your concerns.

Key Revisions Implemented:

1. Refinement of Research Questions:

   • RQ1 now directly focuses on measurable aspects of ESG’s impact on social sustainability, such as employee well-being, diversity, and community engagement.
   • RQ2 has been revised to eliminate unnecessary punctuation and sharpen the focus on measurable contributions to specific SDGs within the study’s geographical and methodological scope.
   • RQ3 has been refined to ensure a clear and targeted exploration of how ESG practices map onto SDGs, rather than a broad and undefined relationship.

   These refinements ensure a structured and methodologically sound investigation of ESG’s role in fostering sustainable business practices and ethical leadership.

2. Enhanced Research Questions Narrative:

   • The revised section now explicitly highlights the empirical gap in quantifying ESG’s impact on social sustainability within organizations, particularly in emerging markets.
   • The study employs a Structural Equation Modeling-Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS) approach to analyze ESG initiatives' influence on workplace inclusivity, employee well-being, and community engagement, contributing to key SDGs.

3. Justification of Methodological Approach:

   • I acknowledge the general concerns regarding the novelty of the methodology and emphasize that the use of a formative-reflective SEM-PLS model enhances the study’s originality.
   • The dual formative-reflective model remains a relatively unexplored approach in the ESG and social sustainability literature, especially within emerging markets.
   • By applying this methodology, the study offers a more comprehensive and nuanced assessment of ESG practices, ethical leadership, and their sustainable organizational outcomes.
   • Given the limited number of studies employing such an approach, this research advances methodological innovation and contributes valuable empirical evidence supporting its effectiveness.

4. Improvements in the Literature Review:

   • Your recommendations have been incorporated to strengthen the theoretical foundation and ensure alignment with the revised research questions and methodology.

I have made every effort to address your comments and believe that these revisions significantly enhance the manuscript's clarity, methodological rigor, and contribution to the field.

Given these substantial improvements, we kindly request your favorable consideration for accepting the revised manuscript for publication. However, if there are any additional aspects that require further refinement, I would be happy to incorporate them.

Once again, thank you for your time, effort, and invaluable feedback. The details are enclosed below, and I request you to accept the revision for publication kindly.

Regards,

Comment1:

The research questions are very general and not fully aligned with the study. Consider RQ2: How do ESG initiatives contribute to the SDG? (By the way, why is there a coma?). This is a very broad question. Could it really be answered by a questionnaire study conducted in an emerging market? The whole narrative needs significant revision.

Response1:

I am thankful to your for your valuable feedback. I have revised the research question as per your advice, now the revised research question
Revision in RQ1: ensures a direct focus on measurable aspects of ESG’s impact on social sustainability, such as employee well-being, diversity, and community engagement.
Revision in RQ2 eliminates unnecessary punctuation and refines the question to focus on measurable contributions to specific SDGs within the study’s geographical and methodological scope.
Revision in RQ3 ensures a clear and targeted exploration of how ESG practices map onto SDGs, rather than a broad and undefined relationship.

Revised Narrative for Research Questions Section:
The study aims to bridge the gap in understanding how ESG practices impact social sustainability metrics within organizations, particularly in emerging markets. While existing research highlights the theoretical link between ESG and sustainability, empirical studies that quantify these relationships in real-world organizational settings remain scarce. This study employs a questionnaire-based approach using Structural Equation Modeling-Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS) to analyze the extent to which ESG initiatives influence workplace inclusivity, employee well-being, and community engagement, thereby contributing to key SDGs.
By refining the research questions, this study provides a structured framework to investigate:
•    The direct impact of ESG on social sustainability outcomes,
•    The degree to which ESG initiatives support specific SDGs,
•    The alignment of corporate ESG strategies with sustainability objectives in emerging markets.
These modifications ensure a focused and methodologically sound examination of ESG’s role in fostering sustainable business practices and ethical leadership in the targeted study area.

Comment2:

The methodology and the research question lack novelty. Not much can be done here

Response 2:

Thank you for your feedback regarding the research questions and methodology. In response to your concern, we have revised the research questions to ensure better alignment with the study’s focus and methodological framework.
Additionally, while we acknowledge the general concerns regarding the novelty of the methodology, we emphasize that the use of the formative-reflective Structural Equation Modeling-Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS) approach in this research enhances its uniqueness. The application of a dual formative-reflective model to examine the impact of ESG initiatives on social sustainability metrics is a relatively limited and underexplored approach in the current literature, particularly within the context of emerging markets. This methodological choice allows for a more comprehensive and nuanced assessment of the interplay between ESG practices, ethical leadership, and sustainable organizational outcomes.
Given the scarcity of studies employing formative-reflective models in this domain, the research contributes to methodological advancements by providing empirical evidence supporting this approach’s effectiveness. We believe this strengthens the study’s originality and provides a valuable framework for future ESG-related research.
We appreciate your insights and hope that these revisions address your concerns.
However, if you have any additional notes to be added, I will try to incorporate them. 

Comment 3:

The literature on ESG and CSR issues is vast, and it is difficult to fit it into a small literature review. The authors may also consider referring to some review papers such as Coqueret (2022) or Nyabakora and Mohabir (2024).

Response 3:
Thank you for your advice. I have incorporated in the literature review. 

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is valuable as it contributes to the literature on sustainability, ethical leadership, and corporate governance and aligns with SDG.

Please clarify why ethical leadership is a mediator rather than a direct influencer - is there any literature to support these assumptions?

General recommendations

The author uses a lot of acronyms, suggesting that the author make a list of the acronyms with their meaning. The figures lack some explanations, suggest that the author briefly explains the figures. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some of the sentences are overly complex and difficult to follow. Suggest the author simplify the sentences.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback and constructive insights. In response to your comments, I have carefully addressed the concerns regarding the relationship between ESG practices and social sustainability outcomes by introducing Ethical Leadership as a mediating variable to provide a more nuanced understanding of this connection.

The decision to position Ethical Leadership as a mediator is justified based on:

Bridging the Gap in Literature – Highlighting the mechanisms ESG influences social sustainability.
Theoretical Rationale – Grounding the study in Stakeholder Theory, emphasizing leadership’s role in governance transparency and ethical decision-making.
Contextual Relevance – Addressing challenges specific to emerging markets where Ethical Leadership plays a crucial role in effective ESG implementation.
Methodological Contribution – Utilizing a formative-reflective SEM-PLS model to empirically evaluate the mediating role of Ethical Leadership, offering a novel analytical perspective.
By integrating Ethical Leadership as a mediator, this study advances the scholarly discourse on ESG and sustainability, presenting a more comprehensive framework with both theoretical and practical significance.

I sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing the manuscript and hope these revisions satisfactorily address your concerns. I kindly request your acceptance of this revised version for publication. The detailed response are enclosed below.

Please let me know if any further refinements are required.

Best regards,

Comment 1:
Please clarify why ethical leadership is a mediator rather than a direct influencer - is there any literature to support these assumptions?

Response 1:

I am thankful to you for your feedback. 
In a study by Pucic, J. Do as I Say (and Do): Ethical Leadership Through the Eyes of Lower Ranks. J Bus Ethics 129, 655–671 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2190-z
However, I  acknowledge that several studies have established a direct relationship between ESG practices and social sustainability outcomes. However, in the present study, we have introduced Ethical Leadership as a mediating variable to provide a more nuanced understanding of this relationship.
The decision to position Ethical Leadership as a mediator rather than considering only a direct relationship is based on the following justifications:
1.    Bridging the Gap in Existing Literature: While prior research has highlighted a direct influence of ESG on sustainability outcomes, fewer studies have explored the mechanisms through which this relationship is realized. Ethical Leadership serves as a critical link that translates ESG principles into tangible social sustainability outcomes.
2.    Theoretical Rationale: The study is grounded in Stakeholder Theory, which emphasizes the role of leadership in balancing various stakeholder interests. Ethical Leadership fosters governance transparency, workplace inclusivity, and responsible decision-making, which are essential components of ESG-driven sustainability. By incorporating Ethical Leadership as a mediator, this research extends existing theoretical frameworks and enhances their applicability.
3.    Contextual Relevance: In emerging markets, where ESG implementation faces challenges such as regulatory limitations and cultural influences, Ethical Leadership plays a pivotal role in ensuring that ESG principles are effectively integrated into organizational practices. Ethical leaders drive social sustainability by reinforcing governance mechanisms, fostering ethical workplace cultures, and aligning corporate objectives with sustainable development goals (SDGs).
4.    Methodological Contribution: The application of a formative-reflective SEM-PLS model allows for a robust evaluation of the mediating role of Ethical Leadership. This approach provides empirical insights into how ESG initiatives influence sustainability outcomes through leadership-driven mechanisms, thereby offering a novel methodological perspective.
By considering Ethical Leadership as a mediator, this study advances scholarly discourse on ESG and sustainability by presenting an alternative pathway that enhances conceptual clarity and practical applicability. I believe this perspective adds novelty and depth to the research, making a meaningful contribution to the field.
I, appreciate the reviewer’s insights and hope this justification clarifies the study’s methodological approach.

Comment 2:

The author uses a lot of acronyms, suggesting that the author make a list of the acronyms with their meaning. The figures lack some explanations, suggesting that the author briefly explains the figures. 
Response 2:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. I have incorporated your suggestions by adding explanations to the figures to enhance clarity and ensure they effectively convey key insights. Additionally, a comprehensive list of acronyms with their meanings has been enclosed in Annexure VII for ease of reference. I appreciate your insightful recommendations, which have helped improve the manuscript’s readability and presentation. I kindly request your acceptance of the revised version for publication. Please let me know if any further refinements are needed.

Comment 3: 

Some of the sentences are overly complex and difficult to follow. Suggest the author simplify the sentences.

Response 3:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. I have reviewed the manuscript and simplified complex sentences to improve readability and clarity. I have made every effort to ensure the content remains precise and well-structured. However, if there are any specific sentences you would like me to modify further, please let me know, and I will be happy to make the necessary adjustments. I appreciate your time and effort in reviewing the manuscript and kindly request your acceptance of the revised version for publication.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

well done, but the references may be better to fit the style of MDPI.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article may be accepted in the present form.