Review Reports - B2B Networking, Renewable Energy, and Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The presented topic is interesting. In the Introduction, the authors presented an introduction to the subject. They also reviewed the literature. This part is the strongest point of the study. There are some doubts. For example, the Author refers to 20 literature items for one statement. Thanks to this, there are a lot of references to literature, but the review is not really in-depth. The authors stated the purpose of the work, which is positive.
The layout of the work is not entirely correct. Discussion section is missing. I understand a discussion as referring to other studies after presenting my research results. The authors referred to other studies in the Literature review section. I propose to move some references to literature to Discussion. In my opinion, doing research without comparing them and referring to other studies means that the obtained results cannot be properly assessed.
There are the biggest shortcomings in section 4 Research findings. First of all, they result from the way of presenting the achieved results. Using one Table is not enough. Additionally, only the structure of the results is given in the table. The author lists the methods he used in his research, such as the statistical tests (both T-test and Chi-Square test). However, the results of these tests and the significance level are missing. The way the results are presented is weak. A description alone is not enough. The conclusions are too descriptive. They should be more focused and concise.

Author Response

[JRFM] Manuscript ID: jrfm-1220088

Author(s)’ Responses to the Recommendations of Reviewer 1

Title: The diffusion of renewable energy technologies in organisations

Retitled to: The B2B Networking, Renewable Energy and Sustainability

Thank you very much for your constructive comments. As with other reviewers, your comments have been very encouraging and helpful in revising the paper. Accommodating all suggestions in their entirety across all reviewers, the paper has now been restructured to incorporate all recommendations.

Please find the subsequent replies below as a result of reproducing your comments. We hope you find that the revision has been responsive to your suggestions.

Comment:

The layout of the work is not entirely correct. Discussion section is missing. I understand a discussion as referring to other studies after presenting my research results. The authors referred to other studies in the Literature review section. I propose to move some references to literature to Discussion. In my opinion, doing research without comparing them and referring to other studies means that the obtained results cannot be properly assessed.

There are the biggest shortcomings in section 4 Research findings. First of all, they result from the way of presenting the achieved results. Using one Table is not enough. Additionally, only the structure of the results is given in the table. The author lists the methods he used in his research, such as the statistical tests (both T-test and Chi-Square test). However, the results of these tests and the significance level are missing. The way the results are presented is weak. A description alone is not enough. The conclusions are too descriptive. They should be more focused and concise.

Responses:

Thank you very much (no action is required).

The manuscript is updated, and the following papers are added to the paper:

Ali, G., Yan, N., Hussain, J., Xu, L., Huang, Y., Xu, S., & Cui, S. (2019). Quantitative assessment of energy conservation and renewable energy awareness among variant urban communities of Xiamen, China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 109, 230-238. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.028

Chang, V., Chen, Y., Zhang, Z., Xu, Q. A., Baudier, P., & Liu, B. S. C. (2021). The market challenge of wind turbine industry-renewable energy in PR China and Germany. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 166, 120631. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120631

Chen, J., Chen, C., & Duan, S. (2019). Cooperative Optimization of Electric Vehicles and Renewable Energy Resources in a Regional Multi-Microgrid System. Applied Sciences, 9(11). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app9112267

Chen, K., Ren, Z., Mu, S., Sun, T. Q., & Mu, R. (2020). Integrating the Delphi survey into scenario planning for China's renewable energy development strategy towards 2030. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 158, 120157. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120157

Dou, Y., Zuo, G., Chang, X., & Chen, Y. (2019). A Study of a Standalone Renewable Energy System of the Chinese Zhongshan Station in Antarctica. Applied Sciences, 9(10). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app9101968

Fadly, D., & Fontes, F. (2019). Geographical proximity and renewable energy diffusion: An empirical approach. Energy Policy, 129, 422-435. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.034

Guo, Z., Wei, W., Wang, M., Li, J., Huang, S., Chen, L., & Mei, M. (2021). Characterizing and Visualizing the Impact of Energy Storage on Renewable Energy Curtailment in Bulk Power Systems. Applied Sciences, 11(3), 1135. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app11031135

Hille, E., Althammer, W., & Diederich, H. (2020). Environmental regulation and innovation in renewable energy technologies: Does the policy instrument matter? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 153, 119921. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119921

Ivanovski, K., Hailemariam, A., & Smyth, R. (2021). The effect of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on economic growth: Non-parametric evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 286, 124956. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124956

Manolis, E. N., Zagas, T. D., Karetsos, G. K., & Poravou, C. A. (2019). Ecological restrictions in forest biomass extraction for a sustainable renewable energy production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 110, 290-297. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.078

Miremadi, I., Saboohi, Y., & Arasti, M. (2019). The influence of public R&D and knowledge spillovers on the development of renewable energy sources: The case of the Nordic countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 450-463. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.04.020

Moncecchi, M., Meneghello, S., & Merlo, M. (2020). A Game Theoretic Approach for Energy Sharing in the Italian Renewable Energy Communities. Applied Sciences, 10(22), 8166. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app10228166

Petrusic, A., & Janjic, A. (2021). Renewable Energy Tracking and Optimization in a Hybrid Electric Vehicle Charging Station. Applied Sciences, 11(1), 245. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app11010245

Ratner, S., Gomonov, K., Revinova, S., & Lazanyuk, I. (2020). Eco-Design of Energy Production Systems: The Problem of Renewable Energy Capacity Recycling. Applied Sciences, 10(12), 4339. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app10124339

Salah, W. A., Abuhelwa, M., & Bashir, M. J. K. (2020). The critical role of sustainable renewable energy technologies in facing shortage of energy supplies in Palestine: Current practice and future potential. Journal of Cleaner Production, 125348. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125348

Shorabeh, S. N., Argany, M., Rabiei, J., Firozjaei, H. K., & Nematollahi, O. (2021). Potential assessment of multi-renewable energy farms establishment using spatial multi-criteria decision analysis: a case study and mapping in Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production, 126318. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126318

Stucki, T. (2019). Which firms benefit from investments in green energy technologies? – The effect of energy costs. Research Policy, 48(3), 546-555. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.09.010

Sweidan, O. D. (2021). The geopolitical risk effect on the US renewable energy deployment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 293, 126189. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126189

Tolliver, C., Keeley, A. R., & Managi, S. (2020). Policy targets behind green bonds for renewable energy: Do climate commitments matter? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 157, 120051. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120051

Wang, Q., & Liu, Y. (2021). India’s renewable energy: New insights from multi-regional input output and structural decomposition analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 283, 124230. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124230

Yano, A., & Cossu, M. (2019). Energy sustainable greenhouse crop cultivation using photovoltaic technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 109, 116-137. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.026

The Discussion section is added to the paper. We also moved some references to literature to Discussion Section. Please see the revised version.

The results of the tests and the significance level are added to the paper.

We did not find similar studies to compare the results, which could be one of the limitations of this study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract of the article seems to be too short (about 150 words - the abstract should be at least 250 words long). It is too synthetic and does not give the reader an overall picture of the content of the article. Currently, the abstract does not encourage to read the entire article. Please consider indicating directly the purpose of the work and the main conclusions. I also don't understand synonyms for words like "portion / share". This way of writing is used in the article - why? In my opinion, two synonyms should not be used in such a way.

Introduction - too short

Literature review - great

Research methodology - The interviews were conducted in 2011? Why is this article written 10 years later?
It is not clear to me what the results of the 2009-2010 surveys are for in the context of the study.

Research findings - interesting description

The authors say that "The findings of the current study highlight the significant impact of the interrelaionship among the... (page 15, first verse)". Has the aforementioned significance been identified on the basis of statistical tests? Can you see the use of more complex statistical methods to study this type of relationship?

Author Response

[JRFM] Manuscript ID: jrfm-1220088

Author(s)’ Responses to the Recommendations of Reviewer 2

Title: The diffusion of renewable energy technologies in organisations

Retitled to: The B2B Networking, Renewable Energy and Sustainability

Please find the subsequent replies below as a result of reproducing your comments. We hope you find that the revision has been responsive to your suggestions.

Comment:

Introduction - too short

Literature review - great

Research methodology - The interviews were conducted in 2011? Why is this article written 10 years later?

It is not clear to me what the results of the 2009-2010 surveys are for in the context of the study.

Research findings - interesting description

The authors say that "The findings of the current study highlight the significant impact of the interrelaionship among the... (page 15, first verse)". Has the aforementioned significance been identified on the basis of statistical tests? Can you see the use of more complex statistical methods to study this type of relationship?

Response:

Thank you very much (no action is required).

We updated the abstract. It is more than 300 words now.

The word ‘portion’ is removed for the entire paper.

The study used addresses of participants from another study done in 2011 but the information regarding this paper was collected in 2018. So, the previous study results (undertaken in 2010 and before) are not discussed in this paper.

The results of the tests and the significance level are added to the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The purpose of this paper is to identify the main channels through which new technologies, related to new renewable energy source, and efficiency measures are implemented in large organizations with several subsidiaries, more or less loosely defined. In the authors’ own words, the focus of the paper is “the interrelationship among parent and subsidiary firms and examines its impact on the diffusion and adoption of sustainable and energy-efficient technologies”

The paper repeats itself a lot and it is unnecessarily long. I strongly recommend summarizing it.

The main channels identified are rather obvious in my view – top-down, bottom-up, and two combinations of the two with some transversality. I also find them purely descriptive, without offering useful insights on how they actually work.

My main concern with the paper is that I do not quite see why this is relevant. May be it is, but the authors must make a strong effort in order to show how the research can help the implementation and successful introduction of new renewable energy technologies.

External barriers may be, and actually are in many instances, very significant hurdles to the implementation of renewable energies – e.g., vested interests of the fossil fuel industries, legal barriers, technological lock-ins, etc. These are not mentioned, let alone discussed anywhere in the paper.

In sum, although I think the topic is relevant, a lot more work must be done before it can be published.

minor points

- the literature review is up to date and sufficient.

- the English is correct.

- the results are based on a rather old survey.

- minor spelling mistakes:

‘highlit’, line 5 paragraph 1, introduction, page 3

‘mangers’, line 3 paragraph first, section 3, pg. 8. I understand it should be ‘managers’

Author Response

[JRFM] Manuscript ID: jrfm-1220088

Author(s)’ Responses to the Recommendations of Reviewer 3

Title: The diffusion of renewable energy technologies in organisations

Retitled to: The B2B Networking, Renewable Energy and Sustainability

Please find the subsequent replies below as a result of reproducing your comments. We hope you find that the revision has been responsive to your suggestions.

Comment:

The purpose of this paper is to identify the main channels through which new technologies, related to new renewable energy source, and efficiency measures are implemented in large organizations with several subsidiaries, more or less loosely defined. In the authors’ own words, the focus of the paper is “the interrelationship among parent and subsidiary firms and examines its impact on the diffusion and adoption of sustainable and energy-efficient technologies”

The paper repeats itself a lot and it is unnecessarily long. I strongly recommend summarizing it.

My main concern with the paper is that I do not quite see why this is relevant. Maybe it is, but the authors must make a strong effort in order to show how the research can help the implementation and successful introduction of new renewable energy technologies.

In sum, although I think the topic is relevant, a lot more work must be done before it can be published.

minor points

- the literature review is up to date and sufficient.

- the English is correct.

- the results are based on a rather old survey.

- minor spelling mistakes:

‘highlit’, line 5 paragraph 1, introduction, page 3

‘mangers’, line 3 paragraph first, section 3, pg. 8. I understand it should be ‘managers’

Response:

Thank you very much (no action is required).

We revised the paper. The total word counts for the whole paper including references, are less than 7,500 words which are less than a standard paper (8,000 to 12,000 words).

The results of the tests and the significance level are added to the paper.

The study suggests that parent organisations enforce the majority (54%) of sustainable and energy-efficient technologies. These findings align with the forced perspective theory and could provide an excellent example for pursuing and advocating sustainable and energy-efficient technologies in practice.

Yes, external barriers may be, and actually are in many instances, very significant hurdles to the implementation of renewable energies – e.g., vested interests of the fossil fuel industries, legal barriers, technological lock-ins which are not discussed in this paper and could be considered for further studies. Thanks, this part was added to the end of the paper.

The manuscript is updated, and the following papers are added to the paper:

Fadly, D., & Fontes, F. (2019). Geographical proximity and renewable energy diffusion: An empirical approach. Energy Policy, 129, 422-435. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.034

Petrusic, A., & Janjic, A. (2021). Renewable Energy Tracking and Optimization in a Hybrid Electric Vehicle Charging Station. Applied Sciences, 11(1), 245. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app11010245

Salah, W. A., Abuhelwa, M., & Bashir, M. J. K. (2020). The key role of sustainable renewable energy technologies in facing shortage of energy supplies in Palestine: Current practice and future potential. Journal of Cleaner Production, 125348. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125348

Sweidan, O. D. (2021). The geopolitical risk effect on the US renewable energy deployment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 293, 126189. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126189

The spelling errors were corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors revised the article and complied with most of the comments. It is a pity that I had to look for everything in the article. The responses to the review itself were in an inappropriate form. Authors should refer to the remarks in detail in their response, so that there is no need to check and search in the text of the article whether the changes have actually been introduced. In the future, I suggest the Authors should apply more solidly to the answers, which simply shows respect for the reviewers. It simply was missing here.

Author Response

Dear Ceci Ren

Thanks for the feedback. Minor changes were required and they are done. Please see the uploaded file.

Best wishes

Davood

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

none

Author Response

Dear Ceci Ren

Thanks for the feedback. Minor changes were required and they are done. Please see the uploaded file.

Best wishes

Davood

Author Response File: Author Response.docx