Creating a Sustainability Toolkit for Restaurants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aims to develop a sustainability toolkit to promote sustainable operational practices in the restaurant industry. The research is based on focus group interviews with restaurant operators who have and have not adopted sustainability practices within the motivation, opportunity and ability (MOA) model. The article provides important findings on sustainability practices in the tourism and hospitality sector.

- The study does not state explicit hypotheses to reveal the differences between restaurants that adopt and do not adopt sustainability practices. It is recommended that the hypotheses should be more clearly stated and the variables on which they are tested should be clarified. However, the study systematically addressed the key variables (motivation, opportunity, ability) in the context of the MOA framework.

- The paper collected data through focus group interviews and used qualitative analysis methods. However, improvements are needed in the following areas:
- Sample size should be explained in more detail. More information on the selection and diversity of participants should be provided.
- Although the thematic analysis approach used is explained, it is not clear how the data coding process was carried out and what software or systematic methods were used.
- In order to ensure objectivity in the analysis phase, details such as whether coding was done by more than one researcher should be provided.

- The findings section provides comprehensive information on how restaurateurs conceptualize sustainability, their motivations, opportunities and capabilities. However, the following shortcomings stand out:
- While the statistical validity of the findings is not specified due to the nature of qualitative methods, it should be clarified whether generalizations can be made in terms of case studies or sample size.
- Supporting the examples shared by the participants with clearer tables or quotations may facilitate understanding of the findings.
- The implications of the findings should be more strongly linked to the literature.

- While the paper provides recommendations for sustainable restaurant practices, there are some gaps in supporting the conclusions with data:
- The study should discuss in more detail how the findings align or differ from previous research in the literature. It is recommended that a discussion on this topic should be created and discussed under this heading.
- It should be made clearer how the results can be applied to the wider tourism and hospitality sector and what direction they provide for future research.
- Limitations of the study should be discussed and any limitations in terms of sampling, methodology or generalizability should be emphasized.

Author Response

Please see file attached

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, you should not begin to the abstract by saying "This article presents ....". You should first introduce the topic, give general to specific background to emphasize the importance of the topic. Next, please indicate your purpose, methodology, findings in brief, theoretical contributions in brief, and practical implications in brief. 

Besides, you cannot use citation in the abstract. The abstract should be rewritten. 

In the Introduction, after presenting the important background, what is your motivation to conduct such study? Here, indicate here the gap in the literature. And next, the purpose in a detailed way, your methodology by answering why this methodology is selected, results and contributions should be explained. 

Literature Review is ok. However, a Table summarizing such strong review would be great for the audience. Please here indicate the topic, methodology, results, and contribution in the summary table. 

Indeed, the manuscript has full of old papers, I observed 1979 in the text. Please add more recent existing literature to the overall manuscript. 

3. Methods  part is too short. You might consider changing the titles. You can join Methods and Findings. For example, you can create a new Methodology Application and Findings section. 

Moreover, after just giving such too long findings, it would be better to present a visual framework to summarize your findings. Please visually represent your findings. 

In the conclusion, you can present more about your theoretical contributions, practical and managerial implications, limitation of the study, and the detailed further research ideas at the end. The current version is more like repeating the Results section. 

As you propose, you are "Creating a sustainability tool-kit for restaurants". We should understand that toolkit easily. 

 

Author Response

Please see file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract:

·         The abstract should not contain any in-text citation, and it should be removed from the abstract section.

 

Introduction:

 

·         The author(s) demonstrated an inadequate understanding of the relevant literature.

·         Many in-text citations are more than 10 years old. Please revise it.

·         Author(s) should mention the objective of the research questions that are trying to fulfill by this research and also describe the expected contribution of this research.

·         The transition from the introduction to the methodology section requires some kind of strong leading statement or paragraph that will help to tie it all together.

 

Methodology:

 

·         Please provide justification for why the focus group has been selected for this study.

·         Please provide the list of semi-structured interview questions that have been asked during the interview sessions in Appendix for more clarity of the questions.

·         The study adopted Braun and Clarke's (2006) thematic analysis - Please add more details on how you followed the six stages of thematic analysis.

·         Please provide more explanation how the data has been triangulated.

·         Any ethics clearance has been obtained before the field work? Please provide the justification.

·         Has any pilot test been conducted for validity of the questions? Please provide the justification.

  Results:

·         I found the results section of the paper is weak and without adequate depth. The result section should be presented in a more clear and consistent way.

 

Discussion:

 

·         Discussion section should support the literature for the results. The themes can be articulated with the previous literature (means the results should be tied up with your supporting literature) for better discussion of the results. Please revise it.

 

Limitations and recommendations for future research:

 

·         The conclusion section is weak in general.

·         What would be the implication for the existing literature (theoretical) and practical aspect? Please revise it.

·         The limitation of this paper is very limited and weak in general, and needs more clarification in this aspect.

Final Comments to the Author(s):

 

·         It is recommended that author(s) thoroughly review the manuscript for potential grammatical errors and refine the manuscript for more fluid, precise, and polished to submit the revised copy. To achieve this goal, I strongly recommend that the author(s) should employ a professional proofreader. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• It is recommended that author(s) thoroughly review the manuscript for potential grammatical errors and refine the manuscript for more fluid, precise, and polished to submit the revised copy. To achieve this goal, I strongly recommend that author(s) should employee a professional proofreader.

Author Response

Please see file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank you for your careful consideration of the comments and suggestions I provided in my initial review of your manuscript entitled "Creating a sustainability tool-kit for restaurants".

I have reviewed the revised version along with your detailed responses, and I am pleased to see that you have thoughtfully addressed each point raised. The improvements you have made, particularly in clarifying the methodology, expanding the discussion, and enhancing the connection between your findings and the existing literature, have considerably strengthened the quality of your work.

Your efforts to reflect the nuances of qualitative research and to present a more transparent account of your research process are much appreciated. I believe that the revised manuscript now offers valuable insights and makes a meaningful contribution to the literature.

Author Response

Comment 1

"I would like to thank you for your careful consideration of the comments and suggestions I provided in my initial review of your manuscript entitled "Creating a sustainability tool-kit for restaurants".

Response - thank you the time to provide the initial comments and for reviewing the changes

Comment 2 -

"I have reviewed the revised version along with your detailed responses, and I am pleased to see that you have thoughtfully addressed each point raised. The improvements you have made, particularly in clarifying the methodology, expanding the discussion, and enhancing the connection between your findings and the existing literature, have considerably strengthened the quality of your work"

Response - Again thank your input and we are pleased that the changes and improvment made meet your approval. 

 

Comment 3

"Your efforts to reflect the nuances of qualitative research and to present a more transparent account of your research process are much appreciated. I believe that the revised manuscript now offers valuable insights and makes a meaningful contribution to the literature."

Response - we are pleased to hear that the revisions made support a valuable insight and contribution. We thank you for the time and efforts to review our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The required revisions are all fulfilled. 

Author Response

Comment one

The required revisions are all fulfilled. 

Response to comment one - thank you for the time taken to review our revisions and we are pleased to hear that we have fullfilled your valuable suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, I am surprised that you have not answered the methodology questions clearly. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Overall Comment 

"Dear Authors, I am surprised that you have not answered the methodology questions clearly"

Responses - thank you for taking time to review our revised manuscript and we are sorry if our edits did not fully answer your questions and suggestions - we have reviewed each of the suggestions you kindly provided in your review and hopefully have more fully answered these - see below.

Comment one

"Please provide the list of semi-structured interview questions that have been asked 
during the interview sessions in Appendix for more clarity of the questions."

Response to comment one

In our revised version we included the following

 "The questions asked centred around Motivation to engage in environmental sustainability (Personal, Profit, The right thing to do, Pressure and encouragement from others, Customers, Market position), Opportunities (Supply and procurement, Menu and seasonality, Food waste and food service, Power and energy), Ability (Knowledge, Support networks, Barriers, Auditing and measurement) and consideration of practical options that would have supported the participants in the past and now (Network support, Awards, Check sheet, Handbook)." 

We have now included the as an appendices A. 

We hope that more fully answers your concern with regard to the focus group questions.

Comment two

The study adopted Braun and Clarke's (2006) thematic analysis - Please add more 
details on how you followed the six stages of thematic analysis

Response to comment two

The revised manuscript has significantly  added to what was originally included (see below and in yellow on the revised manuscript.

“The data for this research comprised transcripts from the two focus groups involving knowledgeable participants in decision-making roles. A thematic analysis was conducted to identify, explore, and report patterns, guided by the Motivation–Opportunity–Ability (MOA) framework, to understand the transition towards more environmentally sustainable restaurant operations. Thematic analysis provides a rigorous method for organising and analysing qualitative data and is widely used in research employing qualitative methodologies (Braun & Clarke, 2006). 

 

The analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase thematic analysis framework. First to facilitate familiarisation with the data transcripts from both focus group were read by the two researchers who had conducted the focus group sessions. Initial codes were then generated independently by the two researchers. Subsequently, the two researchers collaboratively reviewed the initial codes and developed the major themes (see Table 3) and final codes. These themes were then reviewed against the key question areas identified in the literature as it relates to both MOA and the issues of sustainability in restaurants. Following this, the themes were defined and named to support the write-up process. As is typical in thematic analysis, this was a recursive process (Byrne, 2022). “

We hope that more fully answers your concern with regard to explaining how Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase thematic analysis framework was used. 

Comment three

Please provide more explanation how the data has been triangulated. 

Response to comment three

A new paragraph has been added which we hope explains the triangulation process - this was not a multi data research project - but through the research team a form of triangulation could be achieved.

 

To enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of the analysis, triangulation of coding in the form of independent review was employed. Two researchers, who had not been involved in the focus group stage of data collection, independently reviewed the transcripts and assessed the alignment of the generated codes and themes to confirm their veracity.  This step served as a verification of the findings presented.  

We hope this provides support in understanding the triangulation process we undertook.

Comment four

Any ethics clearance has been obtained before the field work? Please provide the 
justification

Response to comment four

We have more fully detailed the ethics procedure that was followed for this research, detailing the committee and how research was not started till approval was recieved. Please see revised text below and in yellow on the manuscript.

 

The research was conducted under the auspices of and approval from the University of Brighton ethics requirements This ethical review is an independent process carried out by appointed University of Brighton academics who assess the research according to a range of ethical criteria, including—among others—inclusion and exclusion criteria, potential biases, recruitment methods, and data protection. Recruitment commenced only after approval was granted by the University Ethics Committee and was conducted, in full adherence to the ethical requirements stipulated by the committee. 

We hope this fulfils the ethical approval requirements.

 

Comment five

Any pilot test has been conducted for validity of the questions? Please provide the justification.

Response to comment five

Rather than an  pilot test as would have been used for survey and possible multiple interviews we used a process of expert verification – which we have explained in the revised as seen the text below and highlighted in yellow on the revised manuscript.

“Rather than a pilot test to review the appropriateness of the questions, more commonly used in interview research, the questions were discussed and reviewed with the practitioner research partners who has extensive knowledge and understanding of the sector and its operation. “

Again we hope this more fully answer the question with regard to a pilot.

 

Overall

 

Thank you for your input and insight, we hope the additions we have made more fully answers your questions and believe this makes our paper stronger.