A Human Dignity Perspective on Sustainable Human Resource Management: From Utilitarian to Dignified Approaches

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The introduction commences by addressing global challenges such as climate change ， social inequalities , and unemployment, thereby establishing a broad narrative context. Whilst this demonstrates the research's practical relevance, the transition to specific human resource management issues appears abrupt. The author ought to focus more precisely on sustainable HRM practices, addressing the core challenges of HRM directly rather than dwelling at the level of social organisations.

2. The introduction of the dignity concept appears somewhat abrupt, lacking preparatory groundwork. Why dignity specifically? Why not care, wellbeing, or other concepts? The author must demonstrate dignity's unique explanatory power. In what respects does it better address the core of sustainability issues than existing HRM concepts? It is recommended to briefly review the shortcomings of existing research before introducing the dignity concept, thereby highlighting the incremental contribution of the dignity perspective.

3. The review of existing sustainable HRM literature is overly simplistic, potentially overlooking more complex and diverse discussions within the field. The authors should provide a more detailed mapping of the literature's development.

4. The current theoretical development section reads more as a listing of macro-level visions than an analytical framework directly applicable to guiding HRM theory construction. The underlying transformative logic requires explicit articulation; otherwise, the macro and micro levels risk becoming disconnected.

5. The section on sustainable HRM practices appears detached from practical realities. Descriptions of the six modules， recruitment, training, performance, rewards, involvement, and exit，frequently employ prescriptive language such as ‘should be dignity-centred’ and ‘must involve democratic consultation.’ While these assertions align with the dignity paradigm's value orientation, the article fails to explain why these dimensions are inevitable or under what conditions they might materialise.

6. Further consideration is recommended regarding whether the current conceptualisation of dignity in this paper provides a construct definition or measurement direction for subsequent research validation, and whether it can be decomposed into observable indicator sets.

7. Recommendations for managers appear overly simplistic and superficial, failing to address how specific research designs should be structured when investigating sustainable HRM through the dignity paradigm. Targeted suggestions based on research findings are lacking.

8. Certain expressions are overly colloquial, with sentences being verbose and structurally complex, impairing readability. Revision is recommended. Reference 69 is blank.

Author Response

1. The introduction commences by addressing global challenges such as climate change ， social inequalities , and unemployment, thereby establishing a broad narrative context. Whilst this demonstrates the research's practical relevance, the transition to specific human resource management issues appears abrupt. The author ought to focus more precisely on sustainable HRM practices, addressing the core challenges of HRM directly rather than dwelling at the level of social organisations.

 

Response: Thanks! We have added a section, moving from the wider societal context to specific HRM practices. See page 2.

 

2. The introduction of the dignity concept appears somewhat abrupt, lacking preparatory groundwork. Why dignity specifically? Why not care, wellbeing, or other concepts? The author must demonstrate dignity's unique explanatory power. In what respects does it better address the core of sustainability issues than existing HRM concepts? It is recommended to briefly review the shortcomings of existing research before introducing the dignity concept, thereby highlighting the incremental contribution of the dignity perspective.

 

Response: Thank you. We have done accordingly, and explained the shortcomings of previous research, and why dignity has a unique contribution to make to the understanding of sustainable HRM. See page 2, where we explain this.

 

3. The review of existing sustainable HRM literature is overly simplistic, potentially overlooking more complex and diverse discussions within the field. The authors should provide a more detailed mapping of the literature's development.

 

Response: We have now provided a stronger review of the literature on Sustainable HRM, and explained how we build on this literature in our current approach. On page 3, we discuss the concept of Sustainable HRM in more depth.

 

4. The current theoretical development section reads more as a listing of macro-level visions than an analytical framework directly applicable to guiding HRM theory construction. The underlying transformative logic requires explicit articulation; otherwise, the macro and micro levels risk becoming disconnected.

 

Response: We have strengthened the transformative logic of the paper. See page 4, where we explain this in more detail. We explain that a dignity paradigm informs both a macro-level and a micro-level framework for better understanding of how Sustainable HRM unfolds.

 

5. The section on sustainable HRM practices appears detached from practical realities. Descriptions of the six modules， recruitment, training, performance, rewards, involvement, and exit，frequently employ prescriptive language such as ‘should be dignity-centred’ and ‘must involve democratic consultation.’ While these assertions align with the dignity paradigm's value orientation, the article fails to explain why these dimensions are inevitable or under what conditions they might materialise.

 

Response: We have strengthened this section and explained how a dignity paradigm informs better and more practical understandings of sustainable HRM practices. On pages 9-10, we explain in greater detail how the discussions on dignified HRM (or HDD) unfolds following a dignity lens.

 

6. Further consideration is recommended regarding whether the current conceptualisation of dignity in this paper provides a construct definition or measurement direction for subsequent research validation, and whether it can be decomposed into observable indicator sets.

 

Response: We have now added more information on how dignity can be conceptualized and operationalized in empirical research, such that validation efforts can ascertain the value of dignity in sustainable HRM research and practice. See page 17.

 

7. Recommendations for managers appear overly simplistic and superficial, failing to address how specific research designs should be structured when investigating sustainable HRM through the dignity paradigm. Targeted suggestions based on research findings are lacking.

 

Response: We have strengthened the managerial implications, and our Table 2 offers many insights into how Sustainable HRM practices could be designed, and how they offer solutions to the problems of unsustainable HRM. We also discuss this on p18.

 

8. Certain expressions are overly colloquial, with sentences being verbose and structurally complex, impairing readability. Revision is recommended. Reference 69 is blank.

 

Response: We have checked the entire text and adapted where needed. Note that reference 69 does not exist.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript aims to reconceptualize Sustainable HRM through a human dignity perspective. The authors argue that mainstream HRM and even Sustainable HRM frameworks remain largely embedded in an economic-utilitarian paradigm, where employees are primarily treated as instrumental resources for organizational performance. The paper proposes a dignity-based paradigm and introduces the concept of Human Dignity Development  as a theoretical bridge between workplace dignity and Sustainable HRM.

The topic is relevant and timely. Discussions about sustainability, employee well-being, and ethical management have gained increasing importance in HRM and organizational studies. The manuscript also provides an interesting normative perspective by linking dignity theory, capabilities theory, and sustainability discourse.

However, despite its conceptual ambition, the manuscript in its current form has several important limitations that reduce its theoretical contribution and clarity. In particular, the theoretical contribution is not sufficiently articulated, the conceptual framework remains underdeveloped, and the paper often moves toward normative arguments without sufficiently grounding them in a clear theoretical structure.

 

1. The manuscript argues that Sustainable HRM is still embedded in an economic-utilitarian logic and proposes a dignity paradigm as an alternative framework. While this critique is interesting, the paper does not clearly explain how its contribution differs from existing Sustainable HRM literature.

Previous studies have already explored topics such as:

• stakeholder-oriented HRM
• decent work
• human sustainability
• capability-based approaches
• socially responsible HRM

Therefore, the authors need to clearly specify:

• What theoretical gap exists in the current Sustainable HRM literature?
• How exactly does the dignity paradigm extend or transform existing frameworks?
• What new insights does the concept of Human Dignity Development (HDD) bring?

Without clearly positioning the paper relative to the existing literature, the theoretical contribution remains ambiguous.

 

2. The manuscript introduces Human Dignity Development as a core concept, but the construct remains underdeveloped.

Specifically, the paper does not clearly address:

• What exactly HDD represents as a theoretical construct
• How HDD differs from existing constructs such as human development, employee well-being, or capability development
• What the dimensions of HDD are
• How HDD operates within HRM systems

Currently, HDD appears more as a philosophical idea rather than a clearly defined theoretical construct.

The authors should therefore provide:

• A clear conceptual definition
• Theoretical boundaries of the construct
• A more systematic explanation of how HDD operates within Sustainable HRM.

 

3. The manuscript includes a conceptual figure comparing economic-utilitarian HRM with Human Dignity Development. However, this figure functions mainly as a philosophical contrast rather than a clear theoretical model.

Conceptual papers typically present a structured model that clarifies:

• key constructs
• relationships between constructs
• theoretical mechanisms

The current paper would benefit from a clearer conceptual model showing:

• how dignity-based HR practices influence employees
• how dignity translates into organizational or societal outcomes
• the mechanisms connecting dignity with sustainability outcomes.

A more structured conceptual framework would significantly improve the clarity of the manuscript.

 

4. A large part of the manuscript presents normative recommendations about how organizations should operate under a dignity paradigm.

For example, the paper suggests:

• democratic hiring processes
• upper limits on executive salaries
• employment security
• participatory governance structures

While these ideas are interesting, they often resemble normative political or ethical arguments rather than theory-driven academic analysis.

To strengthen the scholarly contribution, the authors should translate these arguments into theoretical propositions or conceptual mechanisms.

For example:

• How dignity-based HR practices influence employee outcomes
• How dignity contributes to sustainable organizational performance
• Under what conditions dignity-oriented HRM may be effective.

This would transform the discussion from normative reflection into a stronger conceptual theory.

 

5. The paper does not clearly specify its methodological approach

The manuscript appears to be a conceptual theory-building paper, but this is not explicitly stated.

Conceptual papers typically clarify their methodological orientation, such as:

• conceptual theory development
• integrative literature review
• normative theory development.

The authors should clarify the methodological approach used to develop the dignity framework and explain how the literature was selected and integrated.

Author Response

This manuscript aims to reconceptualize Sustainable HRM through a human dignity perspective. The authors argue that mainstream HRM and even Sustainable HRM frameworks remain largely embedded in an economic-utilitarian paradigm, where employees are primarily treated as instrumental resources for organizational performance. The paper proposes a dignity-based paradigm and introduces the concept of Human Dignity Development  as a theoretical bridge between workplace dignity and Sustainable HRM.

The topic is relevant and timely. Discussions about sustainability, employee well-being, and ethical management have gained increasing importance in HRM and organizational studies. The manuscript also provides an interesting normative perspective by linking dignity theory, capabilities theory, and sustainability discourse.

 

Response: Thanks for kind feedback and support!

 

However, despite its conceptual ambition, the manuscript in its current form has several important limitations that reduce its theoretical contribution and clarity. In particular, the theoretical contribution is not sufficiently articulated, the conceptual framework remains underdeveloped, and the paper often moves toward normative arguments without sufficiently grounding them in a clear theoretical structure.

 

1. The manuscript argues that Sustainable HRM is still embedded in an economic-utilitarian logic and proposes a dignity paradigm as an alternative framework. While this critique is interesting, the paper does not clearly explain how its contribution differs from existing Sustainable HRM literature.

Previous studies have already explored topics such as:

• stakeholder-oriented HRM
• decent work
• human sustainability
• capability-based approaches
• socially responsible HRM

Therefore, the authors need to clearly specify:

• What theoretical gap exists in the current Sustainable HRM literature?
• How exactly does the dignity paradigm extend or transform existing frameworks?
• What new insights does the concept of Human Dignity Development (HDD) bring?

Without clearly positioning the paper relative to the existing literature, the theoretical contribution remains ambiguous.

 

Response: Thanks! We have made the following changes to our manuscript, and changed key sections where we argue for the relevance of our approach in comparison to previous research. We explain how dignity adds to the ones mentioned above, and what new insights HDD offers to the field. See page 2, where we explain the value of a dignity lens in comparison to other lenses. We explain that the concept of dignity, more than others such as stakeholder approaches or socially responsible HRM, addresses the core limitations of contemporary Sustainable HRM literature and research.

On pages 4-5, we explain the added value of HDD vis-à-vis HRM, and how it adds to the existing literature.

 

1. The manuscript introduces Human Dignity Development as a core concept, but the construct remains underdeveloped.

Specifically, the paper does not clearly address:

• What exactly HDD represents as a theoretical construct
• How HDD differs from existing constructs such as human development, employee well-being, or capability development
• What the dimensions of HDD are
• How HDD operates within HRM systems

Currently, HDD appears more as a philosophical idea rather than a clearly defined theoretical construct.

The authors should therefore provide:

• A clear conceptual definition
• Theoretical boundaries of the construct
• A more systematic explanation of how HDD operates within Sustainable HRM.

 

Response: Thanks! We have included more information on HDD, and how it can be conceptualized. We agree that HDD is at the moment more of a philosophical idea than a variable that could be measured with quantitative research, but we also argue that this is an important step in rethinking HRM and how it functions in organizations. Nonetheless, we explain more about HDD and how it functions in organizations. We explain this on page 5.

 

1. The manuscript includes a conceptual figure comparing economic-utilitarian HRM with Human Dignity Development. However, this figure functions mainly as a philosophical contrast rather than a clear theoretical model.

Conceptual papers typically present a structured model that clarifies:

• key constructs
• relationships between constructs
• theoretical mechanisms

The current paper would benefit from a clearer conceptual model showing:

• how dignity-based HR practices influence employees
• how dignity translates into organizational or societal outcomes
• the mechanisms connecting dignity with sustainability outcomes.

A more structured conceptual framework would significantly improve the clarity of the manuscript.

 

Response: Thanks. The figure indeed functions primarily as an overview of how HDD functions. We were not intending with the figure to provide a conceptual model with relationships between variables. We present Tables 1 and 2 to do so.

 

1. A large part of the manuscript presents normative recommendations about how organizations should operate under a dignity paradigm.

For example, the paper suggests:

• democratic hiring processes
• upper limits on executive salaries
• employment security
• participatory governance structures

While these ideas are interesting, they often resemble normative political or ethical arguments rather than theory-driven academic analysis.

To strengthen the scholarly contribution, the authors should translate these arguments into theoretical propositions or conceptual mechanisms.

For example:

• How dignity-based HR practices influence employee outcomes
• How dignity contributes to sustainable organizational performance
• Under what conditions dignity-oriented HRM may be effective.

This would transform the discussion from normative reflection into a stronger conceptual theory.

 

Response: The comment below seems to suggest that there is a distinction between political arguments and theory-driven academic analysis, and that our paper would include too many of the former. However, whenever the term ‘should’ is used in the manuscript, it is linked to the implications of a dignity paradigm. Hence, the paper first introduces the rationale for a dignity paradigm, in which it is argued why it is of relevance. Consequently, the paper argues that a dignity paradigm assumes various HRM practices to be altered. Hence, our reasoning follows the implications of a dignity paradigm, and accordingly, how such activities would change under a dignity paradigm. It is also important to mention that normative-ethical elements are present in every theory on HRM, and that the notion of instrumentality and economic use of human beings for organizational goals also constitute normative takes on how people are treated in the organization.

 

1. The paper does not clearly specify its methodological approach

The manuscript appears to be a conceptual theory-building paper, but this is not explicitly stated.

Conceptual papers typically clarify their methodological orientation, such as:

• conceptual theory development
• integrative literature review
• normative theory development.

The authors should clarify the methodological approach used to develop the dignity framework and explain how the literature was selected and integrated.

 

Response: Yes, the paper is a conceptual theory-building paper, and we have now made this explicit in the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines sustainable human resource management (HRM) issues from the perspective of human dignity, which holds considerable research value. This paper explores how the dignity perspective conceptualizes sustainable HRM to protect employees and other stakeholders both within and outside the organization.

The authors conceptualize a paradigm based on human dignity, providing an ontological perspective for the design of workplaces and HRM. By proposing a more diversified approach in this field of study, this paper discusses the impact of the dignity paradigm on HRM theory, research, and practice.

The authors suggest starting from the perspective of human dignity to study sustainable HRM. The main contribution of this paper lies in proposing a re-examination agenda, focusing on the new dignity paradigm in the academic field of sustainable HRM.

Although this manuscript is relatively well-developed, there are still some areas for improvement: （1）This manuscript could utilize more detailed graphics to express the development process of the theory of human resource management and development. The existing Figure 1 is overly simplistic.

（2）The content in Tables 1 and 2 could be appropriately referenced.

（3）This article primarily focuses on theoretical analysis, and it is recommended to incorporate case studies or empirical analysis to broaden the scope of this study.

（4）Literature 69 is missing (line 900).

（5）It is suggested that the author add some content to fully highlight the research highlights and contributions of this article.

Author Response

This study examines sustainable human resource management (HRM) issues from the perspective of human dignity, which holds considerable research value. This paper explores how the dignity perspective conceptualizes sustainable HRM to protect employees and other stakeholders both within and outside the organization.

The authors conceptualize a paradigm based on human dignity, providing an ontological perspective for the design of workplaces and HRM. By proposing a more diversified approach in this field of study, this paper discusses the impact of the dignity paradigm on HRM theory, research, and practice.

The authors suggest starting from the perspective of human dignity to study sustainable HRM. The main contribution of this paper lies in proposing a re-examination agenda, focusing on the new dignity paradigm in the academic field of sustainable HRM.

 

Response: Thanks for this positive feedback!

 

Although this manuscript is relatively well-developed, there are still some areas for improvement: （1）This manuscript could utilize more detailed graphics to express the development process of the theory of human resource management and development. The existing Figure 1 is overly simplistic.

 

Response: Thanks. The figure was meant purely as an illustration of the paradigm. The tables are used to express the more nuanced and elaborate arguments of a dignity paradigm.

 

（2）The content in Tables 1 and 2 could be appropriately referenced.

 

Response: We have now provided more references for the content of Tables 1 and 2.

 

（3）This article primarily focuses on theoretical analysis, and it is recommended to incorporate case studies or empirical analysis to broaden the scope of this study.

 

Response: Thanks for this suggestion, but that was not the aim of the paper.

 

（4）Literature 69 is missing (line 900).

 

Response: This is a page number, not a reference.

 

（5）It is suggested that the author add some content to fully highlight the research highlights and contributions of this article.

 

Response: We have added a stronger explanation of the contributions of the paper. See page 21 where we explain our contributions.

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores Sustainable Human Resource Management (HRM) from a human dignity perspective, proposing a shift from traditional utilitarian and individualistic approaches toward a dignity-based paradigm. The study aims to provide a new ontological lens for understanding how workplaces and HRM practices can better protect workers and stakeholders while contributing to sustainability. While the topic is interesting and potentially valuable for advancing sustainable HRM theory, the manuscript currently requires significant improvements in clarity, structure, and theoretical development.

1. Several statements in the manuscript lack sufficient scholarly support. For example, the claim that “Training and development are central to the dignified organization” is presented without appropriate references or empirical/theoretical justification.
2. For the abstract, it should address the following points: Purpose--What research problem did you study and why is it important? The aim of this research should be clearly stated in the Abstract. Methodology -What methods did you use? Findings- What were your main results? And what conclusions can you draw from your results? Research Implication- What is the key contribution? Originality/novelty and value- What is the novelty of this research?

3. The citation format should be revised for consistency with the journal’s referencing guidelines.

Author Response

This paper explores Sustainable Human Resource Management (HRM) from a human dignity perspective, proposing a shift from traditional utilitarian and individualistic approaches toward a dignity-based paradigm. The study aims to provide a new ontological lens for understanding how workplaces and HRM practices can better protect workers and stakeholders while contributing to sustainability. While the topic is interesting and potentially valuable for advancing sustainable HRM theory, the manuscript currently requires significant improvements in clarity, structure, and theoretical development.

 

Response: Thanks for these positive words!

1. Several statements in the manuscript lack sufficient scholarly support. For example, the claim that “Training and development are central to the dignified organization” is presented without appropriate references or empirical/theoretical justification.

 

Response: We have provided more references for our statements, and explained how and why they are theoretically relevant.

2. 
   For the abstract, it should address the following points: Purpose--What research problem did you study and why is it important? The aim of this research should be clearly stated in the Abstract. Methodology -What methods did you use? Findings- What were your main results? And what conclusions can you draw from your results? Research Implication- What is the key contribution? Originality/novelty and value- What is the novelty of this research?

 

Response: We have included these in the abstract.

 

3. The citation format should be revised for consistency with the journal’s referencing guidelines.

 

Response: We have updated the reference list.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made significant improvements in theoretical integration and structural clarity, demonstrating a serious response to the comments from the first-round review. However, the manuscript still contains several key issues, particularly regarding the uniqueness of its theoretical contribution, the feasibility of its empirical approach.
1. The theoretical contribution remains vague, and the logical connection between the “dignity paradigm” and “sustainable development” remains weak. The paper fails to clearly explain how dignity can drive “sustainability.” Currently, the discussion is largely descriptive rather than an explanation of causal mechanisms.
2. The paper proposes multiple dimensions of HRM practices but lacks an operationalized research design. It is recommended that the “Conclusion” section briefly outline how future empirical research will examine the relationship between these practices and dignity.
3. The language remains verbose and repetitive; it is recommended that the text be streamlined to enhance theoretical density.

Author Response

The author has made significant improvements in theoretical integration and structural clarity, demonstrating a serious response to the comments from the first-round review. However, the manuscript still contains several key issues, particularly regarding the uniqueness of its theoretical contribution, the feasibility of its empirical approach.

 

Response: Thank you!

 

1. The theoretical contribution remains vague, and the logical connection between the “dignity paradigm” and “sustainable development” remains weak. The paper fails to clearly explain how dignity can drive “sustainability.” Currently, the discussion is largely descriptive rather than an explanation of causal mechanisms.

 

Response: Thanks! We now explain more clearly on pages 2-3 how dignity contributes to greater sustainability, and we explain the contribution of our work. The central premise of the paper is that a dignity lens enhances a more sustainable approach to HRM, and throughout the paper, we discuss how this can be achieved practically with a dignity paradigm.

 

2. The paper proposes multiple dimensions of HRM practices but lacks an operationalized research design. It is recommended that the “Conclusion” section briefly outline how future empirical research will examine the relationship between these practices and dignity.
   
   

Response: We have now added a section in the Conclusion describing how future research can investigate this. See page 17 where we added this section.

 

3. The language remains verbose and repetitive; it is recommended that the text be streamlined to enhance theoretical density.

 

Response: Thanks, and we have streamlined the text, and reduced the overall word count.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made substantial and constructive revisions in response to the reviewer comments, which I fully acknowledge. In particular, the manuscript has significantly improved its theoretical positioning within the Sustainable HRM literature. By systematically comparing the dignity perspective with stakeholder-oriented HRM, socially responsible HRM, and capability-based approaches, the authors effectively clarify the existing theoretical gap and enhance the overall contribution of the study.

Furthermore, the authors have provided a more detailed elaboration of the core concept of Human Dignity Development, improving its conceptual clarity and theoretical grounding. Although HDD remains primarily a normative and conceptual construct at this stage, this is acceptable given the nature of conceptual theory-building research, especially in emerging areas that aim to challenge dominant paradigms.

I also agree with the authors’ response regarding the role of normative reasoning in HRM theory. A dignity-based approach to HRM inherently involves normative implications, and the manuscript now more effectively integrates these normative propositions with the underlying theoretical logic of the dignity paradigm, thereby strengthening the coherence of the overall argument.

In addition, the authors have clarified the methodological positioning of the study as a conceptual theory-building paper. This clarification improves methodological transparency and aligns the manuscript more closely with the expectations for conceptual research.

Overall, the manuscript has been significantly improved in terms of theoretical clarity, coherence, and contribution. Although there remains room for further refinement—particularly in articulating underlying mechanisms or formalizing propositions—the current version meets the standard for publication.

Author Response

Thanks for all the positive comments on our revised manuscript! From the comments, there are no further changes needed to be made. Thank you!