The Mediating Role of Employee Perceived Value in the ESG–Sustainability Link: Evidence from Taiwan’s Green Hotel Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

 The Mediating Role of Employee Perceived Value in the ESG Sustainability Link: Evidence from Taiwan's Green Hotel Industry

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. The topic is interesting and informative however, there are some recommendations for improvement. I believe that after extensive review by the authors and potential modifications, this work can be resubmitted and published.

 

ABSTRACT

• The research problem is not clear enough in the abstract please summarize what motivated the author(s) to study this topic
• "Managerial implications and future research directions" are mentioned in the abstract, but no details are provided. The authors should briefly state the managerial relevance
• Important for interpretation, contextual constraints (such as the geographic focus on Taiwan) are not mentioned.
• The Authors should add Taiwan among Keywords

 

INTRODUCTION

• The authors(s) should mention to more previous studies which addressed the topic directly or indirectly.
• Line 77-82 the authors(s) should write the objectives in paragraph not points
• The authors shouldclarify how the mediating role of perceived value builds on stakeholder theory
• The authors mention relevant theories but lacks integration and development
• The introduction fails to analyse ESG implementation challenges such measurementuncertainties, stakeholder disputes, and greenwashing..It ignores opposing opinions and presents ESG as generally favourable.

 

LITERATURE REVIEW:

• The literature review includes relevant and up-to-date references from 2022–2024, reflecting current discourse in hospitality and ESG.
• Perceived value and ESG dimensions are two important concepts that are introduced but not thoroughlyexamined or distinguished, the authors should explain how “perceived value” operates for employees versus customers.

 

• The authors should further explain the positive Impact of ESG Factors on Corporate Sustainability in the Hospitality Sector in general and in Taiwan specifically
• There viewgenerallyassumesthat ESG achievesbettersustainabilityresultswithoutaddressingpotentialinconsistencies
• The authors should discuss more about how Perceived value mediates the relationship between ESG and sustainability and give more examples in the hospitality industry

 

 

 

METHODS

Sampling and Data Collection

 

• The authors should clarify which hotels category have been chosen 3, 4 or 5-star hotels to test the hypotheses and if the hotel category and employees position can impact their perception?
• From my point of view may be the obtained results of the survey will be varied according to the hotel level or the employee’s position or department.
• The authors should mention the timeframe for conducting the questionnaire
• Data is regionally confined (southern Taiwan) needs stronger justification or acknowledgment of limitation.

 

 

Hypothesis Testing

 

The authors didn’t explore the other potential moderators (e.g., hotel rate and employee tenure).

 

 

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

 

• The manuscript’s results reproducible based on the details given in the methods section
• The data interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript
• There is no discussion section. The findings are not well discussed, I recommend that the author(s) should add this section and using more references for further discussion to show how the study agrees or differ from prior research, it is critical to relate the results to the relevant literature

• The findings need further discussion particularly in the context of the hospitality industry and hotels sector in Taiwan

 

CONCLUSION

Theconclusion is consistent with the evidence and proposed hypotheses

 

THE IMPLICATIONS

• The authors should add “Theoretical implications”
• The authors should write implications in paragraphs not points
• Implications are broad however it needs more actionable strategies (e.g.,specific HR or training interventions).

 

LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

• The authors should rewrite this section to clarify the research limitations and discuss further future trends (the section is so weak)
• Future research directions are generic it could be more targeted

 

REFERENCES

• The authors cited updated and relevant references.

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Based on the revision suggestions from the two reviewers, the revised manuscript is attached for your review. Please kindly provide your feedback. Thank you.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic by exploring the mediating role of employee perceived value in the relationship between ESG practices and sustainability performance, specifically within Taiwan’s green hotel industry. The focus on internal stakeholders, particularly employees, adds an important and underexplored dimension to the existing literature, which has often centered on consumers or external outcomes. The use of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and parceling techniques is technically sound, and the statistical analysis is robust and well-presented. However, there are several areas where the manuscript requires substantial improvement before it can be considered for publication.

First, the originality of the contribution is moderate. The mediating role of perceived value is not a new theoretical proposition, and similar ESG–sustainability relationships have been examined in other sectors. While the authors position the study within the hospitality context, the conceptual novelty is limited. To enhance the impact of the work, the manuscript should more clearly articulate what is novel about its theoretical framework or empirical findings beyond contextual specificity.

Second, the literature review, although thorough, is overly dense and at times repetitive. The manuscript includes an extensive list of references, but many are cited without clear synthesis. It would benefit from tighter integration of sources and a more critical discussion of where existing findings diverge or converge, particularly regarding internal stakeholder perspectives. Additionally, the theoretical foundations should be refined to avoid redundancy in the background and hypothesis development sections. Several cited frameworks are revisited multiple times without adding new depth to the argument.

Third, the structure and clarity of the manuscript need improvement. Some sections, especially the introduction and methodology, are verbose and would benefit from more concise language. While the statistical analysis is described in detail, the rationale for using item parceling is over-elaborated and could be simplified. The results section repeats descriptive statistics that could be more efficiently summarized, and the discussion section largely reiterates findings without sufficient critical engagement. The implications are presented in a managerial tone, but lack concrete examples or practical implementation strategies that would enhance their utility.

Furthermore, the manuscript lacks critical reflection on its limitations. The use of convenience sampling, focus on a single region (southern Taiwan), and reliance on self-reported employee data are acknowledged only briefly. These factors significantly limit the generalizability of the findings and should be discussed more openly. The authors should also consider alternative explanations for the relationships observed, especially given the potential for social desirability bias in responses about sustainability and ESG.

The English language throughout the manuscript is functional but uneven. Several sentences are overly complex or awkwardly structured, and word choice could be improved for clarity. A professional language review is recommended to enhance readability and ensure the ideas are conveyed more precisely.

In conclusion, the manuscript has merit and addresses an important topic in the field of hospitality and sustainability management. However, it requires major revisions to improve clarity, tighten the literature synthesis, deepen the discussion, and strengthen the theoretical framing. I encourage the authors to critically engage with their findings, more clearly define their unique contribution, and streamline the manuscript to better align with scholarly standards and reader expectations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally understandable, but the quality of English could be improved to enhance clarity and readability. Several sections contain awkward phrasing, overly long sentences, and redundancies that hinder the flow of the narrative. The writing tends to be overly formal and verbose, particularly in the introduction and methodology sections. Word choice is occasionally imprecise, and sentence structures could be simplified for better comprehension. A professional language edit is strongly recommended to polish the text and ensure that the research is communicated clearly and effectively to an international academic audience.

Author Response

Based on the revision suggestions from the two reviewers, the revised manuscript is attached for your review. Please kindly provide your feedback. Thank you.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for improving the quality of the manuscript. 

Accepted 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. The paper is ready for publication.