How Do Green Human Resource Management Practices Encourage Employees to Engage in Green Behavior? Perceptions of University Students as Prospective Employees
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The subject matter of the article is interesting and fits well with the current research trends.
The selection of literature is generally correct, and the articles - in terms of style - are written in a way that does not raise any major comments.
Unfortunately, the article has several important shortcomings that should be corrected before its publication:
1. The title is inconsistent with the content of the article. The reference to employees present in the title is not reflected in the content of the article that presents the research on the group of students. It is necessary to modify the title.
2. The criteria for selecting the research group are not clearly defined. How were 400 people selected for the study? Why is the sample so large? Was the selection deliberate or random? E.t.c
3. The aim of the research is justified, but the way of its implementation seems to be incorrect. Too small group of people was examined, in only one subject, to be able to draw any conclusions - significant from the scientific point of view - on this basis. It is necessary to conduct additional research on a significantly expanded research group. Only in this way the obtained results will be reliable from a scientific point of view. In its current form, the presented results could only be accepted in the context of the pilot study report.
4. An interesting element that could have resulted from the conducted research are potential differences in the perception of the analyzed problems depending on the age of the respondents. Perhaps this would indicate the evolution of the views of the respondents depending on the advancement of the education process. This is such a suggestion for the future.
5. Does the method used, which consists in explaining the researched issues to the respondents before the questionnaire, significantly affect the credibility of the results? Did the respondents have enough time to analyze the acquired knowledge and - as a result - did their answers result from their actual attitudes?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1
We are grateful for the helpful feedback from the reviewers that has helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have carefully responded to all the points and have modified the manuscript accordingly.
The review reply report is attached.
Sincerely,
On behalf of the authors,
Ozlem Ercantan
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The author(s) present an interesting yet significant research study dedicated to investigating “How Do Green Human Resource Management Practices Encourage Employees to Engage in Green Behavior?”. I think you bring up some important issues that will spark considerable debate, both in terms of what you have found and in terms of the policy implications. My comments are mainly aimed at tightening up the logic and clarity of what you have communicated and tested. I summarize comments below:
In the introduction part, author in the last paragraph with the literature gap is quite confusing for the readers. Although authrsos start the fisrt paragraph of introduction is well enthusim. But the remaining introduction, it seems illogical. Introduction, determines if those interested enough to read it, will also read —or not read— the rest of your published article. Ergo, you must also craft your introduction, so that it motivates its potential readers to keep on reading your research, while at once it manages their expectations. I suggest you one thing; you must craft your introduction in such a way that motivates your potential readers to keep on reading your research, while at once it manages their expectations. In its current form, the introduction will raise many a potential reader’s eyebrow, dissuading its potential readers from reading any further.
Heading “Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development” is not intresting . SO, author need to include here more literature review for the hypotheses related development to catch the attention of the reader.
Theoratical underpinning is also needed. Need more reasoning.
In methods: Sample calculation – no description of the sampling frame and sample calculations. According to Sekaran & Bougie [70] for a population of 27000, a sample size of 342 is sufficient for data analysis. How????
The study offers not enough managerial implications. What are the implications for managers in an international context? Additionally, I do not see any sound directions for future researchers and limitations.
Many references are too old. The author(s) need to update the references, omit the redundant references.
Overall based on my reading of the manuscript, the contribution of the paper both empirical and in terms of theory advancement is not clear in the current form. Given these concerns, I will be recommended for a major revision of your manuscript for further consideration for publication in the “Sustainability” journal.
Best of luck!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2
We are grateful for the helpful feedback from the reviewers that has helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have carefully responded to all the points and have modified the manuscript accordingly.
Sincerely,
On behalf of the authors,
Ozlem Ercantan
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for considering most of my comments. Highlighting in the text the limitations resulting from including only one university in the research and drawing attention to the need to conduct further research is valuable (the problem is not the size of the sample, but rather the placement of all respondents in one place, which may be a significant limitation for the scope of the answers obtained - further research seems to be necessary to be able to fully justify the assertions and conclusions).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer-1
We are grateful for the helpful feedback from the reviewers that have helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have carefully responded to all the points and have modified the manuscript accordingly.
Sincerely,
On behalf of the authors,
Ozlem Ercantan
Reviewer-1
COMMENT. Highlighting in the text the limitations resulting from including only one university in the research and drawing attention to the need to conduct further research is valuable (the problem is not the size of the sample, but rather the placement of all respondents in one place, which may be a significant limitation for the scope of the answers obtained - further research seems to be necessary to be able to fully justify the assertions and conclusions).
RESPONSE: An additional point has been added to the limitations and directions for further research section in order to address the issue raised by the reviewer. The authors believe that the reviewer’s comment has been addressed.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author, thank you for your revision. In the revised version, the introduction, literature review, and discussion sections are fine but the results section is not still clear. For example, the authors again present the same argument. Like, “According to the sample size table prepared by Sekaran & Bougie [71] for a population of 27000, a sample size of 378 is sufficient for data analysis”. How??? In this revision, the authors create another confusion. For example, they argued that “The present study is quantitative and a convenience sampling method was implemented” and meanwhile they also argued that “Respondent students were approached randomly by the researchers and were asked if they were willing to participate in the study”. Is there any difference between convenient and random sampling? If, yes? Then, I think authors create confusion for the general audience. Specially they first argued that the convenience sampling method was implemented then they were selected respondents randomly.
Many thanks.
Author Response
Dear Reviwer-2
We are grateful for the helpful feedback from the reviewers that have helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have carefully responded to all the points and have modified the manuscript accordingly.
Sincerely,
On behalf of the authors,
Ozlem Ercantan
Reviewer 2.
COMMENT. In the revised version, the introduction, literature review, and discussion sections are fine but the results section is not still clear. For example, the authors again present the same argument. Like, “According to the sample size table prepared by Sekaran & Bougie [71] for a population of 27000, a sample size of 378 is sufficient for data analysis”. How??? In this revision, the authors create another confusion. For example, they argued that “The present study is quantitative and a convenience sampling method was implemented” and meanwhile they also argued that “Respondent students were approached randomly by the researchers and were asked if they were willing to participate in the study”. Is there any difference between convenient and random sampling? If, yes? Then, I think authors create confusion for the general audience. Specially they first argued that the convenience sampling method was implemented then they were selected respondents randomly.
RESPONSE: The statement referring to Sekaran and Bougie has been removed from the methodology section because of the confusion that it has created. Because the authors have used a convenience sampling method, a statement has been added in order to justify the choice of sample size.
