Understanding the Connection between Sustainable Human Resource Management and the Hotel Business Outcomes: Evidence from the Green-Certified Hotels of Egypt

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• The author did not provide answer to the reviewers comments (e.g., in the form of Table of Correction).
• Previous comment: No discussion on the underlying theory and kindly relate it with all variables in your study. You should introduce Section 2.1 Underlying Theory.
• H19. The ES moderates the influence of SHRM practices and the hotel business outcomes - State the direction for this hypothesis, e.g., "Perceived social support moderates the positive relationship between social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention. When the perceived social support is high, the relationship between social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention will be strong"
• No discussion on probability or non-probability sampling (refer previous comment).
• Sampling technique must be selected based on the unit of analysis. Your study is at the individual level. However, the current selection is not correct.
• Kindly refer to previous comment: sampling frame, unit of analysis, sample size determination. 
• no justification on the selection of the respondents (refer previous comment). It means why  all the hotel managers with an HR association (e.g., primary hotel managers, associate hotel managers, HR managers, room's division managers, front office managers, operation managers, executive chefs, sales directors, restaurant, managers, food and beverages managers, sales and marketing managers, front office assistants, and other department head positions) is selected? 
•  To me, your study is non-probability sampling and it has no sampling frame since this is at the individual level unit of analysis. Do not talking about hotel as your unit of analysis (organizational level). 
• Oral and printed consent documents were then gathered - need to explain further what it means.
• Ringle et al. (2005), Hair et al. (2020), Franke and Sarstedt (2019), PLS Predict - Shmueli et al. (2019) is not discussed in your analysis. Kindly refer to previous comment.
• Conclusion, discussion and implications is very weak since this section need a lengthy explanation - Refer to previous comments. It must be supported by literature on your argument.
• Referring to previous comments on: No argument for moderating variable, No justification on the need to introduce moderator? No justification on the selection of ES, No discussion on the gap in academic literature from top tier journal on the relationship between independent and dependent variables? What is the findings? Is it provide consistent or inconsistency results? - Kindly introduce 1 specific section on "Gap of the Previous Studies" to justify the novelty of your research. 
• You are testing moderating variable, but no interaction graph is discussed. 
• Kindly cite this paper in your manuscript: 10.1108/BIJ-12-2018-0384 - Sustainable business models: a literature review.

Author Response

Dear respected editors and journal reviewers,

Thank you so much for allowing us to revise our manuscript (Sustainability, 1698908). We have carefully responded to the reviewers' comments and their advice. We have used Word Track-Changes mode to highlight the changes in the current manuscript version for your easy checkup. Honestly, this study has greatly profited from your detailed and constructive inputs.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards

The authors

1^st May 2022

REVIEWER 1Comments and Suggestions

The author did not provide answer to the reviewers comments (e.g., in the form of Table of Correction).

Response from the Authors

Thank you so much for your time and support to revise again our work. We hope that version to be in line with your valuable suggestions. We get back again to your previous comments and substantially corrected (added or amended) our mistakes as you recommended. So thank you again!

• Previous comment: No discussion on the underlying theory and kindly relate it with all variables in your study. You should introduce Section 2.1 Underlying Theory.

Response from the Authors

Thank you so much for this comment. We added the first sub-title in the literature section as you recommended (Please see P.3; Line 96-105).

• The ES moderates the influence of SHRM practices and the hotel business outcomes - State the direction for this hypothesis, e.g., "Perceived social support moderates the positive relationship between social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention. When the perceived social support is high, the relationship between social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial intention will be strong"

Response from the Authors

Highly appreciated. We sorted this hypothesis as you suggested. (P.8; Line 379-384)

Following an excerpt from the current manuscript version.

‘’Overlooking the previous justifications, we could argue that when the ES is high, the relationship between SHRM practices and the hotel business outcomes will be strong.

H19. The ES moderates the influence of SHRM practices and the hotel business outcomes. As the ES gets stronger, a positive impact of SHRM practices on hotel business outcomes is significant. ‘’  

• No discussion on probability or non-probability sampling (refer previous comment).

Sampling technique must be selected based on the unit of analysis. Your study is at the individual level. However, the current selection is not correct.

Response from the Authors

Thank you so much for bringing the sampling issue into our attention again. We resorted to select the hotel managers who are working in the 2 cites of GSH in Egypt based on the convenience sample technique.

Please kindly see section  3.1. Population, sample and data collection ( P.9)

Following an excerpt from the current manuscript version.

‘’Due to the hotel's accessibility to the research team, we considered a non-probability convenience sample of hotel managers working in Hurghada (n=10) and El-Gouna (n=16) GSH. They were both honoured by the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism as socially and environmentally responsible cities. Therefore, the hotel sample involved 26 green hotels based in El- Gouna and Hurghada cities, and all agreed to participate in this study.

To achieve the research objectives, the target study subject was all the hotel managers working in Hurghada and El-Gouna GSH with an HR association (e.g., primary hotel managers, associate hotel managers, HR managers, room's division managers, front office managers, operation managers, executive chefs, sales directors, restaurant managers, food and beverages managers, sales and marketing managers, front office assistants, and other department head positions). A managerial perspective is an appropriate way to check if the hotel poses interest in the application of SHRM or not [14].’’  

• Kindly refer to previous comment: sampling frame, unit of analysis, sample size determination. no justification on the selection of the respondents (refer previous comment). It means why  all the hotel managers with an HR association (e.g., primary hotel managers, associate hotel managers, HR managers, room's division managers, front office managers, operation managers, executive chefs, sales directors, restaurant, managers, food and beverages managers, sales and marketing managers, front office assistants, and other department head positions) is selected? 

Response from the Authors

Thanks for you comment. Our sample unit of analysis is any hotel manager in the GSH especially who are involved with the HR hotel tradition cycle of (Recruitment, performance appraisal, training and so on. The selection of managers not employees or guests as recommended by Yusoff et.al (2020)

‘’A managerial perspective is an appropriate way to check if the hotel poses interest in the application of SHRM or not [14].’’  

14- Yusoff, Y.M.; Nejati, M.; Kee, D.M.H.; Amran, A. Linking Green Human Resource Management Practices to Environmental Performance in Hotel Industry. Global Business Review 2020, 21, 663–680, doi:10.1177/0972150918779294.

Regarding the sample size determination: following two parts in our manuscript talking about that:

Based on the indicators of GPowerWin 3.1.9.7 software (e.g. effect size, power, number of DVs), a sample size of 247 is more than sufficient to use the PLS-SEM [54].

PLS-SEM can be employed for a small sample size, as it generates better results because of having higher statistical power [61]. Coinciding with the Kline rule, four to five cases for each item are adequate for multivariate analysis [63]. The current study survey contains 59 indicators measuring two primary constructs (44 observed items for the latent SHRM factor and 15 items for hotel business outcomes indicators); hence, n= 247 can be considered an appropriate sample size for SEM analysis. Therefore, our usage of PLS-SEM is based on various reasons, including a smaller sample size and the use of latent indicators [61,64]

• To me, your study is non-probability sampling and it has no sampling frame since this is at the individual level unit of analysis. Do not talking about hotel as your unit of analysis (organizational level). 

Response from the Authors

Thank you so much. Sure, our sample is non-probability convenience sample. However, we offered the reader some information about the population of the GSH in Egypt and then in the two major cities.

• Oral and printed consent documents were then gathered - need to explain further what it means

Response from the Authors

Thanks. It means the informed consent (Verbal or written) was obtained from the hotel managers. We amended it now. (P.10; line 448).

• Ringle et al. (2005), Hair et al. (2020), Franke and Sarstedt (2019), PLS Predict - Shmueli et al. (2019) is not discussed in your analysis. Kindly refer to previous comment.

Response from the Authors

Highly appreciated, we referred to all of these references.

• Conclusion, discussion and implications is very weak since this section need a lengthy explanation - Refer to previous comments. It must be supported by literature on your argument.

Response from the Authors

Thanks. We do our best to make our research contributions make sense in line with the previous literature. We do hope this round meets your expectations. We added some important resources to inforce our argument (please see PP. 17-19).

• Referring to previous comments on: No argument for moderating variable, No justification on the need to introduce moderator? No justification on the selection of ES, No discussion on the gap in academic literature from top tier journal on the relationship between independent and dependent variables? What is the findings? Is it provide consistent or inconsistency results? - Kindly introduce 1 specific section on "Gap of the Previous Studies" to justify the novelty of your research. 

Response from the Authors

our research problem and objectives. So far there is no similar study included the ES to understand the nexus between SHRM and hotel business outcomes. Therefore, we think this will contribute to the previous research especially in Egypt GSH context.

According to the research gap , we referred to it in two different section. First, in the Introduction part such as following:

The research gap emerged from this study in knowing how and which SHRM practices could affect work-related outcomes, and whether these practices result in desirable hotel business outcomes. Therefore, this paper unravelled how and when SHRM practices influence the hotel business outcomes: Operational Performance (OP); Competitive advantage (C); Corporate Performance (CP), using the moderation mechanism of Environmental Strategy (ES).  

Second, it was appeared in the theoretical implication section such as follows:

Since it has been argued that additional research is required on both the SHRM context and the hospitality business-related outcomes[14,18], this study offers some contextual contributions. The Existing research on the SHRM practices –hotel managers' behaviours association has failed to scrutinize the mechanisms of knowing how amply and when SHRM practices affect specific hotel business outcomes (e.g. CP, C, and OP). Therefore, the current study has contributed to the HRM literature by unfolding the impact of ES orientation on the nexus between SHRM and hotel business outcomes. This research used the SET to interpret how SHRM could predict hotel business outcomes rather than the employee outcomes. A reexamination of the nexus between the SHRM and GSH outcomes was performed for the first time through this study through the ES moderator. Therefore, a gap in hotel literature was filled by explaining the nexus between SHRM and the organizational developments in the Egyptian GSH context. This research revealed that ES mostly moderated the connection between SHRM and hotel business outcomes variables. The usage of PLS-SEM guided us to know when and how SHRM could affects some hotel business outcomes.

• You are testing moderating variable, but no interaction graph is discussed. 

Response from the Authors

This comment is well noted. Actually we were depended on the Chin Rule through variance in path parameters among subgroups, standard error (SE), the critical ratio (CR), and the significance level (P value) [69].

69. Chin, W.W.; Marcolin, B.L.; Newsted, P.R. A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic-Mail Emotion/Adoption Study. Information systems research 2003, 14, 189–217.

As well as, we discussed the moderation effect of ES based on your kind suggestion to be easy for the reader in a graph rather than in the table (6) of Chin Rule parameters.

• Kindly cite this paper in your manuscript: 10.1108/BIJ-12-2018-0384 - Sustainable business models: a literature review.

Response from the Authors

Highly appreciated, we referred to this important source of knowledge and took it a base to extend our research argument. So thank you so much for this valuable reference

 Following an excerpt from our paper :

Following the call of [3] , initiating sustainable business models into the service sector is issential to ensure the optimum resources reservation and help the management to best benefit from these efforts. This study extended their [3] work, by suggesting the SHRM

adoption in hotels. SHRM application here in this study could be adopted by service organizations. Our SEM findings are in line with the SET theory to further explore the employee-hotel relatiationship. A win-win approach indicates that the proper SHRM application ensures positive business outcomes [17].  

3. Comin, L.C.; Aguiar, C.C.; Sehnem, S.; Yusliza, M.-Y.; Cazella, C.F.; Julkovski, D.J. Sustainable Business Models: A Literature Review. Benchmarking: An International Journal 2019.
4. Meira, J.V. de S.; Hancer, M. Using the Social Exchange Theory to Explore the Employee-Organization Relationship in the Hospitality Industry. IJCHM 2021, 33, 670–692, doi:10.1108/IJCHM-06-2020-0538.

Thanks again!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

All the revisions I suggested were made by the authors.

Author Response

Dear respected editors and journal reviewers,

Thank you so much for allowing us to revise our manuscript (Sustainability, 1698908). We have carefully responded to the reviewers' comments and their advice. We have used Word Track-Changes mode to highlight the changes in the current manuscript version for your easy checkup. Honestly, this study has greatly profited from your detailed and constructive inputs.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards

The authors

1^st May 2022

REVIEWER 2 Comments and Suggestions

All the revisions I suggested were made by the authors.

Response from the Authors

Highly appreciated. Many thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the authors’ hard work on completing the 1^st round of revision. The authors clearly and properly responded my comments. Please find the following follow-up commentary.

1. I appreciate that the authors presented the theory underpinning the study framework. Please provide more details in the theory and how the theory is connected to the framework and theoretical implications.
2. There are typos in Table 3. (e.g., The end of each items should be marked by a period; items in environmental strategy, The hotel Applies~ The hotel Provides~).

Author Response

Dear respected editors and journal reviewers,

Thank you so much for allowing us to revise our manuscript (Sustainability, 1698908). We have carefully responded to the reviewers' comments and their advice. We have used Word Track-Changes mode to highlight the changes in the current manuscript version for your easy checkup. Honestly, this study has greatly profited from your detailed and constructive inputs.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards

The authors

1^st May 2022

REVIEWER 3 Comments and Suggestions

I appreciate the authors’ hard work on completing the 1^st round of revision. The authors clearly and properly responded my comments. Please find the following follow-up commentary.

Response from the Authors

Thank you so much for your support.

1. I appreciate that the authors presented the theory underpinning the study framework. Please provide more details in the theory and how the theory is connected to the framework and theoretical implications.

Response from the Authors

Thanks. We sorted this issue by adding the first sub-title in the literature section as you recommended (Please see P.3; Line 96-105).

 Furthermore. We reported How the SET is connected with our framework in different areas throughout the whole paper.

2·There are typos in Table 3. (e.g., The end of each items should be marked by a period; items in environmental strategy, The hotel Applies~ The hotel Provides~).

Response from the Authors

Thank you so much. We sorted out these typos and amended the tables as well ( Please see Pp12-14). So thank you so much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

It is a well written study from the beginning to the end. As the literature analysis, the methodology, and the result were also compiled with high quality. Only one suggestion: please re-edit Table 2.

Author Response

Dear respected editors and journal reviewers,

Thank you so much for allowing us to revise our manuscript (Sustainability, 1698908). We have carefully responded to the reviewers' comments and their advice. We have used Word Track-Changes mode to highlight the changes in the current manuscript version for your easy checkup. Honestly, this study has greatly profited from your detailed and constructive inputs.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards

The authors

1^st May 2022

REVIEWER 4 Comments and Suggestions

It is a well written study from the beginning to the end. As the literature analysis, the methodology, and the result were also compiled with high quality. Only one suggestion: please re-edit Table 2.

Response from the Authors

Highly appreciated and thanks for your kind input. We edited Table 2 as you recommended (Please see P.12). Thanks again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• No justification on the need for the study that relate with the issues to be solved in the context of your study (i.e., hotel in Egypt). What happen with the current hotel performance? How about competitiveness? Is it the same with all 1, 2,3, 4 and 5 starts hotel in Egypt?
• No discussion on the gap in academic literature from top tier journal on the relationship between independent and dependent variables? What is the findings? Is it provide consistent or inconsistency results?
• No justification on the need to introduce moderator? No justification on the selection of ES.
• Add 1 paragraph before Literature Review section on paper structure. 
• Who is using the classification of hotel image by 3 dimension of what you are applied currently in your research? How about sustainable HRM dimensions?
• No discussion on the underlying theory and kindly relate it with all variables in your study.
• Revise your hypothesis to represent tail: A has a positive effect on B. 
• No argument for moderating variable. 
• No detail discussion on methodology: research philosophy, probability or non probability sampling, sampling technique, sampling frame, unit of analysis, sample size determination, no justification on the selection of the respondents.
• No detail discussion on data collection process. 
• The structure model?
• Analysis is not detailed when you not discuss Ringle et al. (2005), Hair et al. (2020), Franke and Sarstedt (2019), PLS Predict - Shmueli et al. (2019), 
• Conclusion, discussion and implications is very weak since this section need a lengthy explanation. 
• Flaws in data collection as the author collect the data at the individual unit of analysis. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This study analyzes the association between Sustainable Human Resource Management (SHRM) practices used by hotels and three relevant indicators for their image: operational performance, competitiveness, and corporate performance. This study also analyzes the mediating effect of environmental strategy on the association between SHRM practices and hotel image.

The following can be identified as strengths:

- The article is well structured

- The text is easily understandable

- The methodology used is based on recent scientific studies.

The main weakness is identified as follows: the criteria used to define the sample. The study focused on hotels with green star certification, located in Egypt, which totals seventy-six units. From this universe, the authors did not choose the region with the largest representation of hotels in this category, but two regions that together represent only 34% of the universe. No test was performed to show that the non-responding hotels have identical characteristics to the responding ones. However, this limitation is recognized by the authors when they state that the results obtained are not generalizable.

As minor suggestions for improvement, the following are suggested:

- Better explain the apparent incongruence of values, regarding the composition of the sample, described in the first paragraph of point 3.1: 76 hotels of the analyzed category, at the national level; in the El-Gouna region 24% of these hotels are located, but in this region 16 hotels were studied; in the Hurghada region 10% of these hotels are located, but in this region 10 hotels were studied.

- In point 2.2 there is a missing sub-point that frames all the paragraphs described before sub-point 2.2.1

Reviewer 3 Report

The author(s) attempted to identify the relationship between SHRM practices and hotel image. Although the topic is interesting, and there are several good things that I have seen, the study seems to fail on several issues which should be addressed for publication. Please see my comments below, and I hope the authors find it helpful to improve the paper.

1. The authors delineate the importance of environmental aspects in SHRM throughout the paper, which makes the audience confused as SHRM aims to provide a sustainable workplace, not environmental sustainability conserving natural resources.  
2. Page 2. The study based on close-ended questions, like this paper, cannot answer “how.” So please revisit and revise them accordingly.
3. While each variable and its relationships are explained, I cannot see the theory overarching the proposed model, limiting this study's theoretical contribution. In addition, the authors should provide a rationale for why and how six independent variables were chosen.
4. Please provide a methodological background that guides the methods as the authors named chapter 3 as methodology.
5. The data analysis process is relatively straightforward and well explained, except for the justification of PLS selection. Please provide more details on why PLS is chosen over other estimation methods.
6. The data was collected during Covid-19. Were there any social distances or restrictions in Egypt? How did the authors meet subjects during Covid-19?
7. The sample size is too small compared to the number of questions. Please justify why 247 sample is enough for this study.
8. Page 9. Does environmental strategy measure six variables or six items?
9. In table 1, Why do male respondents heavily dominate the data?
10. In table 1, the education section is confusing. What are the differences among the four categories?
11. In Table 5, H.1., the asterisk (*) is missed in beta.
12. Limited theoretical implications have been provided as the authors didn’t present the theory that undergirds the study. Please focus more on delineating what a unique contribution is to broaden the scope of our knowledge.