Innovation in Services and Environmental Practices: An Analysis of Sustainable Competitive Advantage in the Hospitality Sector in Brazil

REVIEWER 1

Comments 1: Introduction Insufficient & Guidelines

a)     Text Left In Lines 105–110 on page 3 reproduce the journal’s editorial instructions rather than discuss the study’s rationale and significance. This suggests overreliance on AI‑generated boilerplate instead of a concise, author‑crafted narrative.

Response 1a: We appreciate the comments made by the Reviewer. The quoted lines have been deleted. We would like to point out that this was an error when transferring the text of the article to the MDPI template. We would like to state that AI-generated was not used at any stage of the research or in the preparation of the article.

b)     Please rewrite the introduction to (a) succinctly situate the study within broader hospitality and sustainability research, (b) clearly articulate the study’s purpose and research gap, and (c) preview key contributions and conclusions in a way accessible to non‑specialists.

Response 1b: We revised the introduction to situate the study, demonstrate the research gap, and the study's contributions to theory and management decisions. To support the justification, we included studies by Mahran et al. (2025), Su et al. (2025), and Liasidou and Pipyros (2025).

Comments 2: Literature Review Lacks Theoretical Integration

a)     Section 2.3 (Environmental Practices) enumerates five theories (TRA, TPB, RBV, Value Theory, DOI) but fails to explain how each theory underpins specific hypotheses or constructs.

For each theory cited you should :

-       Briefly describe its core tenets.

-       Explain how it informs one or more of your hypotheses (e.g., “TPB explains consumers’ green choice intentions, thus supporting H2…”).

-       Consider restructuring this section to group theories by their relevance to Service Innovation vs. Environmental Practices, thereby clarifying conceptual links.

b)     The link between Environmental Sustainability Practices and Innovation should be enriched by some recent studeis in hotel context such as: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2025.104301

Response 2a: We revised Section 2.3 to explain a little more about the definition of the TRA, TPB and RBV theories and how they contribute to the explanation of hypothesis H2. Based on the Reviewer's comments, we considered it appropriate to remove the Value Theory and Diffusion of Innovations Theory (DOI), as they have little explanatory power of the phenomenon studied in hypothesis H2. We included in the section the studies by Sanjay et al. (2025), Medjedel et al. (2025), Wiśniewska et al. (2025) and Sun et al. (2025).

Response 2b: We revised the manuscript on Environmental Sustainability Practices and Innovation and included new citations, among them Herzallah et al. (2025) (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2025.104301), Xiao et al. (2025), Taheri et al. (2025), Sanjay et al. (2025), Sun et al. (2025).

Comments 3: Figure 1 (Theoretical Model) Unclear

In Figure 1, constructs are depicted but the dependent variable (Sustainable Competitive Advantage) is not clearly distinguished—readers cannot immediately see which arrows represent causal paths and which factor is the outcome.

a)     Update the diagram to label each construct explicitly as “Independent,” “Mediator,” or “Dependent.”

b)     Use arrowheads and a legend to clarify causal directions.

c)     If Environmental Practices partly mediate the effect of Service Innovation on Advantage, reflect this in the path diagram.

Response 3: We have reworked Figure 1 and Figure 3. In Figure 1 (Theoretical model analyzed in the study) we have included information on the Dependent Variable and Independent Variable, as well as H3 (Correlation). We tested the paths, but did not identify the moderating effect with significant results, considering that it is better to maintain the proposed model. We believe that with your contribution the interpretation of the proposed model has become clearer.

Comments 4: Sampling Methodology Ambiguity

In Section 3 (Method), the text first states convenience sampling, then mentions snowball sampling (line 393). It is unclear which method was used, or if both were applied.

d)    Clearly specify one primary sampling technique.

e)     If both were used sequentially, describe: “We initially recruited respondents via convenience sampling, then employed snowball sampling by asking participants to refer peers.”

f)      Justify the choice in terms of target population and study objectives..

Response 4: We make it clearer in the text that convenience data collection was initially used, by sending questionnaires to the researchers' contacts, and to expand the sample, in order to meet the research objectives, the Snowball technique was used. We also included the Snowball technique in the research limitations, considering the potential for homogeneity among respondents.

Comments 5: Redundant Figure 2 & Overly Detailed Statistical Flowchart

Figure 2 (statistical analysis model) adds little value; its procedural flow duplicates what is described in the text (SEM steps).

Response 5: Figure 2 has been reformulated and presents the SEM steps and the parameters for analyzing the results of the Multivariate Data Analysis calculations. We consider this figure essential to specify the analysis steps and to allow other researchers to replicate our study.

Comments 6: Redundancy in Results (Lines 439–443)

Redundant Figure 2 & Overly Detailed Statistical Flowchart

Response 6: We deleted the paragraph that contained redundant information. Figure 2 has been reformulated and presents the SEM steps and the parameters for analyzing the results of the Multivariate Data Analysis calculations

Comments 7: Missing In‑Text Citation for “Ali et al.”

Missing In Text Citation for “Ali et al.”

Response 7: We checked the citation and adjusted it as found in the Journal.

Comments 8: Introduction Insufficient & Guidelines

Text Left In Lines 105–110 on page 3 reproduce the journal’s editorial instructions rather than discuss the study’s rationale and significance. This suggests overreliance on AI‑generated boilerplate instead of a concise, author‑crafted narrative.

Response 8: The paragraph was deleted. We emphasize that this was an error when transferring the text of the article to the MDPI template. We declare that AI-generated was not used at any stage of the research or in the preparation of the article.

Comments 9: Grammar & Typos

a)     Issue: Several typos throughout (e.g., “authers” → “authors,” “coincise” → “concise,” “snowpalling” → “snowballing,” “convienience” → “convenience”).

b)     I do suggest performing a thorough proofread or professional language edit to correct these errors.

Response 9: The text has been thoroughly reviewed to eliminate grammatical errors and other mistakes. The English language has been reviewed by an expert in the language.

Comments 10: Factor Loading Concern

In the Convergent Validity section, the Service Innovation loading of 0.614 is flagged but not discussed further.

Response 10: We revised the text and included a brief explanation of the result, as this is not a situation that restricts or invalidates the search results; however, it suggests that either item refinement or adding new variables may be necessary to measure the construct better.

Comments 11: Enhance Discussion of Fit Indices

RMSEA of 0.120 exceeds recommended limits but is only briefly noted.

Response 11: The results of the model fit indices (RMSEA, IFI, TLI, CFI, NFI, GFI, AGFI) were close to, but did not reach, the recommended parameters. These results do not invalidate the research, but suggest that new research may involve other constructs and new observable variables, as those used in the research reflect a theoretical model that still needs improvements in future research.

Overall Recommendation: Substantive revision is required to improve theoretical grounding, methodological transparency, and clarity of presentation. Addressing the points above will make the manuscript stronger, more coherent, and more engaging to a multidisciplinary readership.

Response: We greatly appreciate the notes and suggestions for improving the quality of the publication. We made adjustments and added information to the theoretical support and methodology.

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit the paper. We want to express our sincere gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for helping us to improve the paper.

The manuscript was revised according to the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers. We have substantially revised the whole paper to address the issues raised by the reviewers. We hope that the revised paper will be suitable for publication in Tourism and Hospitality. However, please do not hesitate to let us know if further modifications are needed.

Thank you very much for your consideration of our paper. We are looking forward to hearing from you.

Reviewer 2

Dear Authors!

Thank you for the opportunity to read your paper! I really like the research idea !

There are some formatting issues which have to be corrected:

1. There is no need to indicate the same affiliation several times, if the authors are from the same institution.

Answer: We appreciate your suggestions to improve the quality of our paper. We made the corrections, but we kept the authors' email information.

2. The abstract should contain information about the time frame – when did you collect the responds?

Answer: The data collection period information was included in the abstract.

3. Citations are not according to the template. In the last paragraph of the chapter you use the correct format, then switch back to the wrong one from chapter “Literature Review”.

Answer: We followed the guidelines for authors and consulted three articles published in the journal. Therefore, we used the format found for citations in the consulted works.

4. I think “Ministry of Tourism” should be named in its original, native form or add the name of the country after, to make it clear – also the link isn’t working, since there is an unnecessary space in the name of the link (at “References”).

Answer: We used the citation as Brazil (2024a). The link has been adjusted and verified.

5. Figure 1 – you should add the “H1”, “H2” & “H3” to the arrows.

Answer: Figure 1 has been redesigned and the hypothesis information has been added.

6. There are 2 chapters, with no. “3”.

Answer: The numbering has been adjusted.

7. The titles of Figures and Tables aren’t accordingly.

Answer: We adjusted the titles of the Figures and Tables. We followed the guidelines for authors and consulted three articles published in the journal.

8. “Figure 2” is not readable – authors should re-edit it manually.

Answer: Figure 2 has been edited and inserted into the text with improved quality, so that the information is readable.

9. In case of “own data” the source is not necessary to indicate. Or you should rename as “Own processing based on collected data” or something like that. “Research data (2024)” sounds odd.

Answer: We adjusted the sources for the Figures and Tables. We followed the guidelines for authors and consulted three articles published in the journal.

10. References should be numbered and in order of mentioning (at “References”).

Answer: We followed the guidelines for authors and consulted three articles published in the journal. Therefore, we used alphabetical order for References. All citations and References were reviewed and adjusted.

Content issues:

1. You start the “Results” part writing about the questionnaire, data collection, organization and methods used. This part (few paragraphs of the “Results” chapter) should be added to the “Methodology” chapter.

Answer: The information was supplemented in section 3. Method. The paragraph that repeated information from section 3.Method was removed from section 4. Results.

2. There should be an updated version of the research model (Figure 1), highlighting which connections proved to be real.

Answer: Figure 3 presents the results of significant relationships and correlations.

3. The “Discussion” part is totally missing. It is the most important part of the study, and according to the template it is mandatory chapter. Please highlight the results and

compare them with previous research. Highlight the similarities and the differences.

Answer: Section 5. Discussions was created to discuss the main findings of the research in relation to other studies.

4. It is really great that you write about “Implications”, “Limitations” and “Future

directions” at the end of the paper. However, I think you should add some “sub-chapters” to highlight these important parts.

Answer: We included the subheading 6.1. Limitations and Future Directions to highlight the limitations and suggestions for future studies based on our research findings.

5. The number of cited literature from 2024 (and maybe 2025 too) should be higher.

Answer: The literature review has been expanded, with 14 citations of publications from 2024 and 2025.

6. You mention “By embracing innovative strategies, hotel companies can differentiate themselves in the market and reinforce their long-term competitive advantage”. You should add a citation there. For e.g, 10.12776/QIP.V25I2.1549 mention the importance of strategies to make a service providing company successful.

Answer: Thank you for pointing out this important research. We have included it in the theoretical framework of our study.

Comments 1:

The abstract contains redundancies and phrasing that needs rewriting (e.g., “through a quantitative and descriptive approach, made possible through a survey”). Simplify and focus on results and contributions.

Response 1: We appreciate the comments made by the Reviewer. The Abstract text was revised, making it more objective and removing redundant information.

Comments 2:

The constructs "Service Innovation" and "Environmental Practices" show high inter-correlations (0.626 and 0.700 with SCA) and potential overlap, weakening discriminant validity (Table 01, p. 11). Consider revising construct definitions or measurement items to reduce conceptual redundancy.

Response 2: We evaluated the observable variables of the constructs and the statistical calculations. We consider that the observable variables that make up each construct have a distinct theoretical basis and express different concepts between constructs. However, there is a similar behavior of the respondents, but multicollinearity cannot be considered, therefore we consider it necessary to highlight this situation in the text that analyzes the results of discriminant validity.

Comments 3:

The integrated SEM model demonstrates poor fit indices (e.g., RMSEA = 0.120, RMR = 0.243, GFI = 0.841, AGFI = 0.777; Table 5, p. 15). These values exceed acceptable thresholds, suggesting the model should be re-specified or simplified.

Response 3: Several hypothesis tests and combinations between the constructs were performed, however, for this sample this was the model that best presented the intensity of the relationships between constructs, and the observable variables were maintained based on the literature. The results of the model fit indices (RMSEA, IFI, TLI, CFI, NFI, GFI, AGFI) were close to, but did not reach, the recommended parameters. These results do not invalidate the research, but suggest that new research may involve other constructs and new observable variables, as those used in the research reflect a theoretical model that still needs improvements in future research.

Comments 4:

The use of non-probabilistic snowball sampling limits generalizability. This should be better acknowledged in the limitations section, with recommendations for future studies to use more representative sampling techniques.

Response 4: We make it clearer in the text that convenience data collection was initially used, by sending questionnaires to the researchers' contacts, and to expand the sample, in order to meet the research objectives, the Snowball technique was used. We also included the Snowball technique in the research limitations, considering the potential for homogeneity among respondents. In this sense, we suggest that probabilistic samples can be used in future research.

Comments 5:

The literature section is lengthy and overburdened with citations, at times reiterating similar theoretical points (e.g., repeated emphasis on Schumpeter, Porter, and Barney). Consolidate overlapping arguments for better coherence and readability.

Response 5: We reviewed the theoretical framework and excluded repetitive concepts to make the text more concise.

Comments 6:

While the framework is useful, its novelty is limited. Emphasize how this study extends existing models of sustainability and innovation beyond prior work (e.g., De Guimarães et al., 2016; Severo et al., 2020).

Response 6: This study applies concepts that have already been researched in different contexts and industries. The originality lies in its application to hotels, which is still a sector that needs to be better studied and can benefit from the results of this research.

Comments 7:

Provide clearer, actionable recommendations for hotel managers. Currently, the practical applications are too general (e.g., “invest in innovation and sustainability”)..

Response 7: In the Conclusion, we suggest some actions and practices that are directly applied to hotels, thus improving the performance of the enterprise.

Comments 8:

The SIN construct's average loading (0.614) is below the ideal 0.7 threshold, suggesting some items may not reflect the latent variable well. Revise or refine these items based on theoretical grounding.

Response 8: We appreciate this and all your contributions. We revised the text and included a brief explanation of the result, as this is not a situation that restricts or invalidates the search results; however, it suggests that either item refinement or adding new variables may be necessary to measure the construct better

3. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Response: The text has been thoroughly reviewed to eliminate grammatical errors and other mistakes. The English language has been reviewed by an expert in the language.