Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is interesting and addresses important issues related to decarbonisation. The authors studied 24 organizations implementing a rigorous energy management system implemented by the U.S. Department of Energy as “50001 Ready” is a test of whether participating organizations perceive the energy management system under development as an essential aspect of their decarbonization efforts. Unfortunately, this sample is too small to verify the hypothesis. The hypothesis is verified by means of statistical research and appropriately selected tests. Here, you can only pose a research question, not a hypothesis, because there is no way to verify it.

However, there are methods that allow the verification of hypotheses even when the sample is small, these are non-parametric tests that could be used in this study. This would add value to the article.

Pearson's chi-square test of independence would be especially helpful because the questions are most likely to be descriptive and qualitative. In my opinion, the significant relationships that emerge from the research should be checked. Maybe the size of the organization has an impact on the research results? And such information is available by looking at the data presented in the article. No diagnostic tests were used in the article and the research is only descriptive. I think that the article should be enriched with additional analyzes using statistical methods (especially Pearson's chi-square test)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The content of the introduction section is good, concise, and comprehensive. The coherency among the topics is well done. The methodological design is built on an appropriate theory. The presentation of results is clear. In general, I consider this paper should be published when the following issues are addressed:

1)      Discuss widely the scientific interest of such a study with a small sample.

2)      I suggest that the introduction covers just the literature analysis; therefore, delete the lines about the conclusion.

 

3)      Strengthen the conclusions. The wording in the conclusions section is general and could have been written without the need for the study. The conclusions must be derived from the results and their analysis.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Just now I have no comments,  good job.