Sustainable Tourism Strategies: Examining Green Service Innovation as a Mediator Between the Marketing Mix and Business Performance in Bali’s Tour and Travel SMEs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-conceived and timely study that offers relevant insights into sustainable tourism and green service innovation among SMEs. While the research design and analysis are sound, the manuscript would benefit from minor revisions to improve the clarity of interpretation, strengthen practical implications, and refine language. With these adjustments, the paper has strong potential for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript demonstrates a generally good command of academic English; however, a number of grammatical issues and repetitive constructions reduce its overall clarity and readability. To enhance the professional presentation of the work, I recommend a round of light editing by a native English speaker or professional proofreader. This will improve sentence structure, grammar, and flow, particularly in the discussion and implications sections.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We sincerely appreciate your insightful suggestions, which have significantly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript. In this revised version, we have carefully addressed all the points raised and summarized the changes as follows:

Further explanation for non-significant results (H1, H2, H4):
We have added a detailed discussion to explain the non-significant results of H1, H2, and H4 by integrating both contextual (e.g., resource constraints, market saturation, lack of sustainability alignment) and theoretical perspectives (e.g., limitations of traditional 4P marketing models in service-based SMEs). This discussion is presented in the Discussion section, pages 18.

Expanded practical implications for SMEs:
The Practical Implications section has been expanded with concrete and specific recommendations for SMEs, including the adoption of eco-certification schemes (e.g., Green Globe, EarthCheck), the use of digital tools for waste reduction and marketing, and partnerships with eco-conscious service providers. These revisions can be found on pages 20.

Clarification of SEM and CFA diagrams:
We have revised the manuscript to provide clearer explanations and interpretations of the CFA and SEM results directly in the text. The description now explicitly connects the model fit indices and path relationships to the research hypotheses. I have highlighted the improvements to my writing.

Language improvement:
To improve clarity and eliminate repetition, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript with the assistance of MDPI’s English Editing Service. This included improvements in grammar, sentence structure, and clarity of expression throughout the text.

Mention of potential moderating factors for future research:
We have added a brief discussion at the end of the Conclusion and Future Research Directions section, suggesting potential moderating variables—such as environmental leadership, consumer environmental awareness, or government policy support—that could be explored in future studies.

We hope that these revisions meet your expectations and enhance the quality and rigour of the manuscript. Thank you once again for your valuable comments and for supporting the improvement of our work.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth
On behalf of all co-authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have found the study presented in the paper interesting and relevant. It will add to the literature on sustainable tourism, conscious marketing, and green service innovation.
The abstract is informative and reflects the core value of the research. The keywords are in line with the terms used in the research. 
The Introduction section correctly puts the research topic in context. Still, I recommend some improvements. Firstly, there is a need to finish the sentence on lines 100-107. Secondly, better not to repeat «…one of the key objectives of this study is to investigate the mediating effect of green service innovation on the relationship between the marketing mix and business performance within the tour and travel industry. This study investigates the mediating role of green service innovation in the relationship between the marketing mix and business performance among small and medium-sized tour and travel enterprises (SMEs) in Bali Island» (lines 110-115). Thirdly, better to remove the unnecessary phrase ”…particularly in the tourism sector in Kenya” (lines 77-78). It looks very strange in the Introduction section of the paper related to Bali. Moreover, the findings of (Ndegwa et al., 2020) are far from being specific to Kenia only: “a robust marketing mix can enhance performance by adapting to competitive pressures, thereby affirming the importance of strategic marketing in achieving business success” (lines 78-80). Maybe to add to (Ndegwa et al., 2020) at least one more reference that supports the same statement with an example from another country. At the end of the Introduction section, better to add information about the structure of the paper that will help the reader to orient in the main text.
The Literature Review section divided into three subsections (Marketing Mix; Green Service Innovation; Business Performance) gives enough space for structuring the existing literature. The references are correct, relevant, and up to date. What is a bit strange: the authors argue that the 4Ps of the marketing mix (developed for manufacturing industries) “provide a comprehensive framework for businesses to strategize and implement effective marketing initiatives” (lines 179 -180) in tourism. From the reviewer’s point of view, they should at least mention the Booms and Bitner′s 7P framework (7P service marketing theory). Moreover, since many researchers consider 7Ps preferable for the service sector, and some even count the traditional marketing mix (4P) as inadequate in services (Kushwaha & Agrawal, 2015), there is a need to put forward arguments as to why the 4P is preferable and compensable in the case discussed in the manuscript. 
The measurement methods, data sources and processing are correctly detailed. The proposed approach is relevant. The authors use SPSS for preliminary analysis and AMOS for SEM employed to test the model's fit and hypotheses. 
The Discussion and Conclusion section discusses the theoretical and practical implications, and provides paths for future research. One mistake to eliminate: the name of subsection 6.2 is not correct! (line 715).
The English language is clear enough.

Overall, I recommend this paper for publication, after revisions proposed above.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your constructive and detailed feedback. I truly appreciate the time and effort you have taken to review our manuscript. In response to your comments, I have carefully revised the manuscript and addressed all the suggestions provided. Below is a summary of the improvements made:

Sentence completion (Lines 100–107):
The incomplete sentence has been revised and restructured to ensure clarity and coherence.

Repetition (Lines 110–115):
The redundant statements regarding the objective of the study have been consolidated to avoid repetition and improve the narrative flow.

Reference to Kenya (Lines 77–78):
The phrase “particularly in the tourism sector in Kenya” has been removed, as suggested. Additionally, the reference to Ndegwa et al. (2020) has been retained with modified context, and an additional supporting reference from another country (Potjanajaruwit, 2023) has been added to strengthen the generalisability of the argument.

Structure of the paper (End of Introduction):
A paragraph outlining the structure of the paper has been added at the end of the Introduction section to help orient the reader.

4P vs 7P debate in Literature Review (Lines 179–180):
A discussion has been added acknowledging the 7P framework (Booms and Bitner), along with a justification for the use of the 4P model in this study. The explanation refers to the practical realities of SMEs in Bali’s tourism sector and is supported by relevant literature (e.g., Kushwaha & Agrawal, 2015).

Incorrect subsection title (Line 715):
The title of subsection 6.2 has been corrected to reflect the appropriate content of the section.

We have made these revisions with the goal of improving the clarity, rigour, and relevance of the manuscript. Once again, thank you for your valuable suggestions which have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality of our paper.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth
On behalf of all co-authors