Fostering Green Behavior in the Workplace: The Role of Ethical Climate, Motivation States, and Environmental Knowledge

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Lines 27-28: the authors refer to environmental knowledge as a moderating variable. Then, on line 32, the authors reintroduce the moderating variable, this time referring to environmental awareness. I would like to draw the authors' attention to the fact that these two variables are not synonymous. Therefore, I request that they clarify the moderating variable they are examining both in the abstract and throughout the entire paper. Also, environmental consciousness is not the same as the previous two variables. Therefore, please use a single concept for better clarification and understanding of the theoretical model.

Response 1: Thank you for the valuable observation. We have addressed this by consistently using environmental knowledge as the moderating variable throughout the manuscript, including the abstract and theoretical model. References to environmental awareness and environmental consciousness have been removed or replaced to avoid confusion (see Lines 27, 29, and 32). This ensures conceptual clarity and consistency across the paper.

Comments 2: Regarding the justification of hypothesis H2, it is unclear how the relationship between EC and MOS was established. The authors emphasize the conceptualization of MOS, but do not clearly highlight its relationship with EC, as it exists in the literature. This lack of clarity is due to the fact that the concepts used in the theoretical model (EC, MOS, EGB) have not been clearly explained/conceptualized in the paper. I recommend that the authors clarify both the EC-MOS relationship and the EC-EGB relationship theoretically (to highlight more clearly the works that have been written to date regarding these relationships).

Response 2: Indeed it’s a helpful suggestion. To address this, we have added separate paragraphs clarifying the theoretical foundations of the EC > MOS and EC >EGB relationships. The link between Ethical Climate (EC) and Motivational States (MOS) is now explained using Social Capital Theory, with supporting literature (Lines 223-237). Additionally, we elaborated on the EC-EGB relationship with further theoretical justification (Lines 187-202), ensuring clearer conceptualization and alignment with prior research.

­­

Comments 3: In both sections 2.2 and 2.3, the authors refer to MOS, describing intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (in other words, they repeat the same idea in two different sections). I recommend that they synthesize this information into a standalone chapter before developing the hypotheses to avoid redundancy. The same can be done with EC and EGB (clarify them at the beginning of this chapter (Theoretical Framework). Then, they can introduce a separate hypothesis development section that highlights only the relationship between the hypothesized components.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response, we have eliminated the repetition of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation by synthesizing this information into a standalone section. Additionally, we have provided a comprehensive overview of the key constructs i.e., MOS, EC, and EGB, at the beginning of the theoretical framework (Lines 117-144). This revision improves clarity and flow, followed by a dedicated hypothesis development section that focuses exclusively on the relationships between the hypothesized components.

Comments 4: In section 2.4, the authors do not clearly define the concept of environmental knowledge, continuing to refer to the concept of awareness and constantly mixing the concepts of awareness and knowledge when referring to various previous works.

Response 4: We have addressed the confusion by revising this section to clearly distinguish environmental knowledge (EK) from environmental awareness. Our study focuses specifically on environmental knowledge, and we have now provided a clear definition of this concept (Lines 269-284). Additionally, we have restructured the content to ensure better clarity and consistency throughout the section.

Comments 5: Lines 290-291: the authors state, "There has been no study using SCT to examine how EK moderates the link between organizational climate and green employee empowerment." In this context, I ask them to explain and clarify the reason for using SCT as a theoretical framework. Up to this point, the authors have not referred to SCT as a theoretical framework they intend to use. If they intend to use it, then it is necessary to modify all previous sections accordingly (abstract, introduction, and literature review) and explain the reason for using this SCT. Also, the idea mentioned by the authors, "There has been no study using SCT to examine how EK moderates the link between organizational climate and green employee empowerment," does not reflect the relationships in the model, where EK moderates the relationship between EC and MOS. I ask them to re-evaluate the entire subchapter to clarify and correct the relationship and the cited works (which do not refer to the hypothesized relationship), as well as the rest of the paper, for the proper integration of SCT.

Response 5: Agreed. In response, we have introduced the concept of Social Capital Theory (SCT) at the beginning of this section to provide a clearer theoretical foundation. Additionally, the moderation section has been restructured, and we have refined the wording to improve clarity and alignment with your feedback. We have also ensured that environmental knowledge (EK) is distinctly defined (Lines 269-284) and appropriately differentiated from environmental awareness throughout the section.

Comments 6: Lines 334-335: are these two items belonging to EC? It is necessary to highlight

Response 6: To ensure consistency, we have removed the explicit statements listing sample items and completely rewritten the sub-section. The revised section now presents a clear, sequential explanation of the items that belong to EC, addressing the concern raised for Lines 334-335. For changes see lines 320-334.

Comments 7: Lines 332-347 include a description of the scales used, the items, and the components. The description is different for each of these components (some exemplify items, others do not). I ask the authors to use a uniform explanation for each of these components (either describe the items for each component or do not describe them) to make it easy to understand.

Response 7: We have re-written the entire subsection to ensure a consistent explanation of the scales, items, and components. The improved version now uniformly describes each component, which enhances clarity and ease of understanding. (see lines 320-334)

Comments 8: Lines 360-365: the authors forgot to mention which table they are referring to when explaining some values.

Response 8: Thank you for noting this. In the revised manuscript, we have added the appropriate table numbers in Line 344 and afterwards where required. to clearly indicate which table is being referenced. Additionally, we have refined the interpretations for improved clarity and precision.

Comments 9: Line 377: the authors state, "The table presented above demonstrates that all of the values above the threshold of 0.7." Which table are they referring to? It is mandatory to mention the table number. The same for lines 381-386

Response 9: It is indeed helpful comment. We have improved the interpretation by using table values least frequently. (See lines 351-360)

Comments 10: Figure 2 could also include the beta values with which the items load the components; otherwise, the figure has no value.

Response 10: We have revised Figure 2 to include the beta values (factor loadings) for each item loading onto their respective components (see line 387). This addition enhances the interpretive value of the figure and aligns it more closely with standard reporting practices.

Comments 11: Line 398: the authors mention that they use CFA but do not provide details about the results obtained (figure 2, for example, does not include any values, but only the drawn model).

Reason 11: We have updated Figure 2 that included estimates. Analysis cover, descriptive stats, reliability, validity and direct path analysis, mediation analysis and moderation analysis.

Comments 12: The SEM analysis is incomplete. The authors failed to include important information regarding the SEM results, such as the measurement model analysis, structural model analysis, fit index values for both analyses, R-squared values, etc. I suggest they review and redo this analysis, which is much more complex than the one they presented.

Response 12: We have also included added further tables such as table 3 (reliability), 4 (validity) and 6 (direct path analysis). Goodness of fit is also available in table-7, line 389.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:  The last section in Abstract didn’t reflect the conclusions and associated recommendations for ‎hotel decision-makers.‎

Response 1: Indeed it’s a helpful suggestion. We have added a practical recommendation for hotel managers at the end of the abstract (Lines 27–29) to highlight the study’s managerial relevance and real-world application.

Comments 2: The unit of analysis in this research was stated as front-line managers, while in Table 1 in demographics of ‎the study, indicates the questionnaire was distributed to middle-level managers and ‎top-level managers. This led to inconsistency.‎

Response 2: Thank you for catching this important inconsistency. The correct unit of analysis in our study is hotel managers at the middle and top levels of management. The mention of front-line managers in the abstract was an unintentional wording error. We have corrected this in the revised version to ensure alignment with the demographic details presented in Table 1. (See line 21-22)

­­

Comments 3: Specify whether it is a hotel industry or hospitality sector. I think there is difference between them.

Response 3: We are pleased to receive this valuable input. Our study specifically targets the hotel sector, primarily focusing on businesses offering accommodation services, a subset of the broader hospitality industry. In response to your comment, we have revised the terminology throughout the manuscript to consistently refer to the hotel sector or accommodation sector, as appropriate. For example, see Lines 12-22.

Comments 4: The introduction should be brief, as it is considered an extension of the literature, and ‎should not contain definitions of variables, see line 63.‎

Response 4: Agreed. In response, we have streamlined the introduction by removing irrelevant details and excluding definitions of variables to maintain a focused and concise flow. Two new, concise paragraphs have been added (Lines 94-115) to enhance clarity while aligning the introduction more closely with its intended purpose.

Comments 5: The theory underpin (Social Cognitive Theory) was not used in the discussion.‎

Response 5:  It was briefly discussed in main draft. However, to strengthen the theoretical grounding of our study, we have now explicitly integrated Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) into the discussion section. This addition allows us to better contextualize our findings within the theoretical framework, offering deeper insight into how SCT supports the interpretation of the results and their practical implications.

Comments 6:  There is no hypothesis regarding the relationship between MOS and EGB. It should be ‎presented in a separate section, as the third hypothesis.

Response 6: We appreciate your insightful observation. In response, we have introduced a new hypothesis explicitly addressing the relationship between Motivational States (MOS) and Employee Green Behavior (EGB). This is now presented as Hypothesis 3, accompanied by a supporting theoretical discussion to justify its inclusion (see Line 254).

Comments 7: In the environmental knowledge section (as a moderator), the focus was on ‎environmental awareness rather than environmental knowledge, and there is a difference between the two.‎

Response 7: Recognizing the importance of conceptual clarity, we have restructured the moderation section to accurately reflect environmental knowledge rather than environmental awareness. The revised content now includes a clear definition and justification of environmental knowledge as the moderating variable (see Lines 269-284), ensuring consistency and precision throughout the manuscript.

Comments 8: Researchers‏ ‏ presented the same variable in more than one name, leading to a lack of clarity. For ‎example, they used environmental information, environmental awareness, and ‎environmental knowledge. also ethical work-place culture and ethical Climate .

Response 8: To enhance conceptual clarity, we have carefully revised the manuscript by unifying the terminology. Environmental knowledge is now consistently used as the moderating variable throughout the paper, including the abstract. Similarly, we have standardized the use of ethical climate across all relevant sections. These changes ensure consistency and strengthen the overall coherence of the theoretical model.

Comments 9: In the section on Research design: In line 323, the phrase “The data has been collected ‎from many industries within the hotel business” is mentioned. What does this phrase ‎mean?

Response 9: Thank you for catching this ambiguity. The original phrase was a misstatement. To clarify, we have revised the sentence to accurately reflect our sampling approach: “We collected data from different hotel managers within the accommodation sector in Pakistan.” This correction ensures precision and eliminates potential confusion regarding the scope of data collection. (see Lines 310-311)

Comments 10:  In line 311, the research aim is stated differently from that stated in lines 18 and ‎‎447.‎

Response 10: Agreed. We recognize the discrepancy in how the research aim was stated. To resolve this, we have restructured the relevant sections to ensure consistency across the manuscript. The aim is now clearly and consistently articulated throughout, particularly in Lines 17, 18, and 459, aligning it with the theoretical framework.

Comments 11: In the demographic analysis, is it possible to determine the classification, size, and age of ‎the hotels?‎

Reason 11: We appreciate your suggestion to include more detailed hotel classifications. While we have successfully included hotel size in the demographic analysis (see table 1), we regret that the age of the hotels was not captured during data collection.

Comments 12: The results were not presented in a good manner for this points: Cronbach's alpha can not used as a substitute for composite reliability (CR)‎

It would be preferable to present a table showing the composite reliability (CR) and the ‎discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker) and the convergent validity is estimated by average ‎variance extracted (AVE). See Hair Jr, F., Gabriel, M. L., & Patel, V. K. (2014). AMOS ‎covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM): Guidelines on its application as ‎a marketing research tool. REMark: Revista Brasileira de Marketing, 13(2).‎

In  the figure present the corresponding coefficient.‎

Demonstrate the table for the full results of the hypothesis test: Estimate - S.E. (Standard ‎Error) - C.R. (Critical Ratio) - P-value (Sig.) and explain this results.

Response 12: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your recommendations, we have now included the necessary tables: Composite Reliability (CR), Discriminant Validity (Fornell-Larcker), and Convergent Validity (AVE), as per Hair Jr. et al. (2014). Additionally, we have updated Figure 2 to present the corresponding coefficients. Furthermore, we have added a separate table outlining the full results of the hypothesis testing, including estimates, standard errors (S.E.) and p-values (Sig.), along with a detailed interpretation of the findings. (see table 3, 4 & 6)

Comments 13: In the demographic analysis, is it possible to determine the classification, size, and age of ‎the hotels?‎

Reason 13: We appreciate your observation. Following your recommendation, we have added a dedicated Discussion section, which is now categorized hypothesis-wise to provide a clearer and more structured analysis of the findings. Please refer to Lines 427-457 for the revised section, where each hypothesis is discussed in detail.

Comments 14: The Conclusions should have the following logic - indicate the purpose of the study, briefly demonstrate the obtained result, and indicate what conclusions should be drawn from it. Do not cite sources in the Conclusions.

Reason 14: In line with your recommendations, we have refined the Conclusions section to clearly indicate the purpose of the study, summarize the key results, and outline the conclusions to be drawn, without citing sources. The revised section can be found on pages 15-17.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:  Line 22 - change to "......employing a quantitative research instrument"

Response 1: Thank you for the suggestion. We have updated Line 22 to read: “...employing a quantitative research instrument” as recommended.

Comments 2:  Line 46 - change inquiries to "...inquiry" - as there is only one question posed.

Response 2: We have corrected the word in Line-45 from “inquiries” to “inquiry” to accurately reflect the singular form.

­­

Comments 3: Line 62 - Consider starting a new paragraph here. You are starting a new argument and to ensure that this stands out I suggest you start a new paragraph.

Response 3: We have applied the change and started a new paragraph after Line 62 to better highlight the new argument.

Comments 4: Line 126 - "...important (environmental green behavior, or) EGB,..."

Response 4: We have revised Line 126 to read: “...important (environmental green behavior, or) EGB,...” as recommended. (See at line 129)

Comments 5: Line 175- I suggest that you cancel as follows: (Employee at EGB) and start the sentence as follows: In EGB, an employee is urged ...........

Response 5:  We have revised Line 175 by removing the phrase "(Employee at EGB)” and starting the sentence as follows: “In EGB, an employee is urged…” as recommended. (See at line 174)

Comments 6:   I am concerned, from an ethical perspective, that the anonymity of the organisations under study were not upheld. Is this ethical to name the organisations? Can’t the labeling be, for instance, five-star hotel, four-star hotel, Inn, Air BnB, etc? As much as the study focus and results do not have reputational damage to the organisations, they still deserve to be protected and their names concealed.

Response 6: You’ve raised a very important ethical consideration that we overlooked. We appreciate your insight and have made the necessary adjustments. Instead of using the names of the organizations, we have now presented the organizational size from our data set to maintain anonymity. This revision ensures that the ethical standards are upheld and the identities of the organizations are protected. The table is now in full compliance. (table 1, page 9)

Comments 7: Generally – from figure 2 onwards a typesetter will need to enhance the quality of the figures. The text size is of concern to me. Figure 2 has big legible font, while figure 3 requires effort on the part of the reader to enlarge the page.

Response 7: We agree that figure quality and font size are crucial for clarity, and we have improved the format of the figures accordingly. Additionally, we will ensure that greater attention is given to this aspect during the final formatting process once the paper is accepted.

Comments 8: Figure 3 – there are two figures here, as such the labeling needs to be addressed. Which one of the two figures is Figure 3?

Response 8: Both figures are essentially parts of Figure 3. Following your recommendation, we have labeled them as "direct path" and "indirect path," which makes the content clearer and more elaborative. (visit page 13)

Comments 9: Figure 4 – the axis run over the coordinates, as such how does the reader appreciate the stats being depicted here?

Response 9: Thank you for your feedback on Figure 4. We understand your concern about the axis running over the coordinates, which can make it difficult for the reader to fully appreciate the data. To address this, we have restructured the figure to ensure that the axes are clear and do not obstruct the statistics being depicted. This should enhance readability and allow for easier interpretation of the data. (find it at page 14)

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:  It is seen that definitions are included in this section. However, the section where definitions will be discussed should be the conceptual framework. The authors have written a strong introduction. However, definitions should definitely be included in the following section.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response, we have removed the definitions from the introduction and relocated them to the theoretical framework section, where they are more appropriately discussed within the context of the conceptual model.

Comments 2:  This reference seems too vague. The sentence to which the author refers should be explained.

Response 2: We agree that the sentence and its associated reference lacked clarity and could cause confusion. We have carefully removed the ambiguous sentence to enhance the precision and readability of the text.

­­

Comments 3: The extra space between sentences should be removed.

Response 3: Removed.

Comments 4: This pretentious sentence must be referenced.

Response 4:  Thank you for your feedback. To improve clarity and maintain the flow of the discussion, we have shortened the original paragraph. Additionally, we have added a relevant reference to the revised sentence, in line with your recommendation.

Comments 5: This pretentious sentence must be referenced.

Response 5:  We have addressed the issue by rephrasing the sentence for clarity and supporting it with a credible reference, ensuring it meets academic standards. (see line 250)

Comments 6:  The authors mention common method bias. But did they not use any statistical method to test this?

Response 6: We have now included a statistical test to assess common method bias, along with the appropriate reference and relevant statistical findings to support our approach. (line 303-307)

Comments 7: I advise authors to use the letter ‘n’ in the table.

Response 7: We have updated the table and replaced the word “sample size” with the letter ‘n’ for clarity and standardization. (Table 1, page 5)

Comments 8: Authors are required to provide discriminant validity

Response 8: We have now included the discriminant validity analysis, along with the relevant results, to ensure the robustness of our findings. (table 4, page 11)

Comments 9: The result is quite sufficient and successful

Response 9:  Exicted to see your positive feedback. We are glad that you find the results sufficient and successful, and we appreciate your acknowledgment of our efforts.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: “The title needs adjustment to be clearer. using ‘Moderated Mediation’ phrase it’s unclear”

Response 1: We appreciate your feedback regarding the clarity of the title. In response, we have revised the title to improve its readability and better reflect the study's focus. The updated title is: “Fostering Green Behavior at the Workplace: The Role of Ethical Climate, Motivation States, and Environmental Knowledge” (see lines 2–3). This new phrasing removes ambiguity around the concept of “moderated mediation” and presents the core constructs more directly and accessibly.

Comments 2: “The paper lacks a hypothesis state the relation  between the motivation states to employee green behaviour.”

Response 2: Thank you for highlighting this important gap. To address your concern, we have now developed and included a direct hypothesis linking motivation states to employee green behavior in a separate added Section 2.3 (see line 1076, page 6). Corresponding updates have also been made in the results and discussion sections to reflect the examination and interpretation of this relationship (see lines 2122–2135, page 16). We believe this addition strengthens the theoretical grounding and overall coherence of the study.

­­

Comments 3: “The discussion section requires enrichment with additional previous studies. Currently, it ‎references only three previous studies, which is insufficient to thoroughly ‎contextualize the research findings within the existing body of knowledge. The discussion should be based on literature section and its references”

Response 3: In response to your valuable recommendation, we have expanded the discussion section to include a wider array of relevant studies, especially those cited earlier in the literature review. This enhancement provides a deeper contextualization of our findings within the established research landscape. The revised discussion, now located on lines 2039–2169, pages 15–17, reflects a more robust and literature-grounded interpretation of the results.

Comments 4: “The conclusion section should be more concise. It should provide a summary of the ‎key findings and using subsections it does not appropriate in this section.”

Response 4: We have streamlined the conclusion section to enhance clarity and conciseness, as suggested. The previous subsections “5.1: Theoretical Implications” and “5.2: Practical Implications” have been relocated to the discussion section, now appearing as Sections 4.8.1 and 4.8.2. This restructuring allows the conclusion to focus solely on summarizing the key findings, without extended elaboration or subdivisions. These changes ensure a more focused and appropriately formatted conclusion, fully aligned with your guidance.

Corresponding Author:

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: “Regarding the presentation of the results, it is generally recommended that the reporting follows a specific procedure. For instance, the indices of model fit should typically be presented before the path analysis where the hypotheses are tested.”

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response, we have restructured the results section to enhance clarity and alignment with standard reporting procedures. Specifically, the “Model Fitness Assessment” now precedes the “Direct Path Analysis” section (see lines 1907–1972). Additionally, we have introduced a new subsection titled “4.5: Direct Path Analysis” to ensure a logical and coherent flow of the analysis. The updated structure of the results now progresses as follows: 4.1: Demographic Profile of Respondents, 4.2: Data Normality Assessment, 4.3: Reliability and Validity Analysis, 4.4: Model Fitness Assessment, 4.5: Direct Path Analysis, 4.6: Mediation Analysis, 4.7: Moderation Analysis, 4.8: Discussion of Findings, including 4.8.1: Theoretical Implications and 4.8.2: Practical Implications. We believe these changes improve the readability and methodological rigor of the manuscript.

Comments 2:  I noticed there are two tables both numbered as Table 6, where the hypotheses are tested. It would be beneficial to clarify what type of hypotheses are being tested in each of these tables (e.g., direct effects, mediation, or moderation).

Response 2: Once again thank you for bringing this to our attention. The duplication of table numbers was an oversight—what was previously labeled as “Table 6: Hypothesis Testing” has now been correctly renumbered as “Table 8” (see line 2034, page 15). In line with your recommendation, we have also updated the title to “Table 8: Summary of Direct and Indirect Hypotheses Assessment” to clearly distinguish the nature of the hypotheses tested. This revision not only corrects the numbering error but also improves the interpretability of the table by explicitly indicating the types of effects analyzed. We trust this change enhances the clarity and organization of the results section.

­­