Development of a Sustainability Index for an Energy Management System in Thailand
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the work done by Authors, however, the manuscript still contains shortcomings to be addressed.
1. In Introduction –please avoid “jumps” in citing the literature (e.g. 1-9, 10-13), instead – provide details on each reference. Sub-sections should be united into a single section Introduction, the size of this section should be reduced.
2. Section Results still contains big-size tables, which is not good for the presentation.
3. In Section Discussion Authors should compare the obtained results with the key literature in the field, outline benefits and application of the results obtained.
4. Figure 3 – use dots instead of commas in diagram.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments. Please see the attachment, that a point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
A manuscript has been significantly improved compared to previous version. Revised manuscript warrants for publication, however, some revisions suggested:
1. Please indicate how many experts have participated in a focus group meeting aimed to select 30 indicators for EnMS SI? How many experts have determined weights of indicators?
2. Please explain limitations of the research in Section 4 or 5.
3. Conclusion should not start with “thus”.
4. Tables (lines) shall be edited.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments. Please see the attachment that a point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors present an interest approach trying to provide an rather ambitious method for identifying the sustainability index for the energy management system. Their proposal, even though the authors have significantly revised their manuscript and correct many points, cannot be considered strong due to the following parameters:
1. They have collected data from 31 companies in Thailand and Thailand is not a
representative country. In EU for example, where the energy efficiency is of extreme importance there are many companies which have already establish their strategy and following the provisions they re-evaluate them continuously. So why so few data on that?
2. The type and the activities of a company is extremely crucial on the development of the energy management system. Especially the energy intense companies or service provide companies cannot be compared using the same criteria, or achieve the same “sustainability” index with the same easiness. How this is considered by the authors?
3. How this proposal can be used from these two categories of companies?
4. If the above point cannot be considered then the method is giving unfair advantage in specific types of companies that can easily develop such schemes and with easy targets, schedule and long term plan.
5. The ISO related to the Energy Management and Environmental Management are
describing means of evaluation of the strategies? So which is the added value of the authors’ proposal against these methods? This is not very clear in their manuscript.
6. Why the authors selected these parameters? Especially for the economic ones
the economic status of a company is extremely crucial but it is not mentioned clearly.
7. Why the authors do not present the type of the activities of the companies
examined? This parameter is of maximum importance on developing their index.
8. The waste management plan is of significant importance both in terms of
energy and environment. So why so little analysis? This part is crucial just to be developed in only one indicator while in all others there are more.
9. What about the eco-design and life cycle approach of their operation, where and how all these parameters are evaluated? These tools are quite helpful and actually are considered in many related to sustainability and energy indexes already developed.
10. What is the actual added value that the authors are trying to demonstrate with their proposal? And how this can be implemented in different types of companies?
11. The authors should enhanced their references with additional published papers where the energy management plans and action are compared. There are many of them. Especially in this part, EU has developed many Best Reference Documents on energy and environmental operation, and the UNIDO has done the same. Issues related to these are not included in the manuscript clearly.
12. The questioner the authors have develop seems to be very general, and it is not clear how this would help on the process. It seems more that the authors wanted a questioner that will support their approach and not to identify actually the sustainability efforts of a company. It is more common to have a questioner to evaluate specific sector with the same challenges and difficulties than to have one for every sector, which cannot represent the actual efforts of a company. A company that makes major changes and have significantly improve the energy efficiency and the environmental performance but is among the major polluting ones how can be prove that is more sustainable than a company that by default from its sector presents very low impact, but the targets that has set are very poor? Their questioner as it is written is not very clear that can represent this.
13. How this method can be successfully implemented and used in other companies?
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Please see attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments. We have revised the method section by adding the calculation method for aggregate indicators to establish the EnMS sustainability index in the paper.
Reviewer 5 Report
The paper presents an interesting research which fits to the scope of the journal. The introduction presents logical background supported by adequate references. The methodological approach is well described and the conclusions might be useful for practice. In my opinion the paper should be published after considering minor comments:
1. In the title I suggest to replace “a” with “the” because you designed specific index.
2. Were there any significant differences between collected answers in AHP method for setting weights? If no than the current version is fine. However, if differences in weights for some indicators are significant than please show the results in box plot. TO be honest, I am not sure if ranking approach was the best solution in this case because it assumes equal differences between locations in ranking, which not necessary might be correct while setting weights for sub-components by specialists.
3. I see the chance in promoting developed index by constructing decision support system based on this index for decision makers. It might highlight the applicability of the solution. I suggest to consider mentioning somewhere in conclusions. See for instance: Decision support systems for a sustainable management of the indoor and built environment [in] Indoor and Built Environment.
4.Based on you experience while constructing the index and obtaining data, do you see any limitations of the proposed solution? If so, than please mention it after results. It would improve the quality of the paper.
5. There are some editing issues in the version that I received, but it does not influence high quality of the paper and I believe it will be corrected later.
I hope that my suggestions would be helpful to improve the paper. After improvements it can constitute valuable contribution to the journal.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments. Please see the attachment that a point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
My 1st recommendation from the previous round of review was to provide details on each reference, when citing the literature. Instead, you changed the citing style from 1 – 9 to 1,2,3…9.
Again – you should avoid “jumps” in citing literature, and discuss in more details each reference details.
As in previous round - section Results still contains big-size tables, which is not good for the presentation. Table 7 in my opinion could be transferred to Appendix, other tables may be revised.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments.
Point 1. We have revised in the Introduction section as considered each reference detail according to your comment.
Point 2. We have revised in the Result section, Table 7. removed to the Appendix and some revised in Table 5 and Table 6.
We have edited the revised manuscript by MDPI, Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors are still working with companies in only one country with very limmitted activity on energy efficiency and management. Even though they admit that the country presents very low number of companies with ISO 50001, they stick to this country and do not collect data from e.g. EU were there are 17000 companies with ISO 50001. There the companies are publishing too many data on the subject, so to my point of view the statistical approach is not well designed unless it is focus only in Thailand.
The authors do not answer the comments inside the text as they should be to explain the readers how and why they make their selection.
As the authors do not consider in their evaluation data from countries with very established ISO 50001 certification how it is possible to claim that their method can be applied the same way as in Thailand also in other countries were there is such a culture for ISO 50001?
Even in the cases of bad economic condition the provisions on applying ISO 50001 exists, and in EU many countries with bad economics are using such technics. By default the energy saving activities reduces the costs, and there are many activities with zero or very low costs which even companies with bad economics can do, resaulting in around 10% energy savings with zero cost. So way the bad economic condition is an obstacle for applying ISO50001 (exept the certification cost)?
The authors responces do answer the critical comments of the reviewer actually.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
After carefully reading the article I consider that my previous comments were addressed so I recommend the article for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments. We have edited the revised manuscript by MDPI, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors should clearly mentioned that their findings and proposal will help the focus country Thailand and like ones as far as it concern ISO 50000.
Furthermore in the title of the manuscript they should include the country as this general title is not representing the manuscript and their answers to my questions.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments. We have revised the title of the manuscript according to your comment,We amended of your comments in the result section and the conclusion section. For the English editing that by MDPI as the certificate, Please see the attachment.
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
The paper presents an interesting topic, which fits to the scope of the journal, however, it contains basic scientific disadvantages.
In my opinion, the paper will not have a lasting impact. The study's implications for society are not clear.
The list of references is very short. I really doubt that it can be assessed as a paper with proper review of scientific background.
The Introduction contains mono-block of the text which makes it really difficult to follow the logical flow of the authors.
The aim of the research should be clearly stated to allow readers to verify in the end if the aim was fulfilled.
The methodology is vague. There is no proper description of methodological steps.
Sustainability index is based only on the weighted arithmetic mean? What about the situation when the result of weighted arithmetic means for two different units are the same but the are different in terms of standard deviation? I would consider if “sustainable” context should include relations of balance between components as not all goods can be substituted by others.
Discussion should compare obtained results with other studies, and highlight what scientific input for the state of art was found or proved in the research.
Descriptions of tables and figures should be edited – it should not be a sentence.
The abstract does not really contain reference to a Discussion nor implications and conclusions.
I doubt if the proper paper type is selected. The authors selected “article”, while the results rely mostly on other studies.
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors present an interest approach trying to provide an rather ambitious method for identifying the sustainability index for the energy management system. Their proposal cannot be considered strong due to the following parameters:
1. They have collected data from 20 companies in Thailand and Thailand is not a representative country. In EU where the energy efficiency is of extreme importance there are many companies which have already establish their strategy and following the provisions they re-evaluate them continuously. So why so few data on that?
2. The type and the activities of a company is extremely crucial on the development of the energy management system. Especially the energy intense companies or service provide companies cannot be compared using the same criteria, or achieve the same “sustainability” index with the same easiness. How this is considered by the authors?
3. How this proposal can be used from these two categories of companies?
4. If the above point cannot be considered then the method is giving unfair advantage in specific types of companies that can easily develop such schemes and with easy targets, schedule and long term plan.
5. The ISO related to the Energy Management and Environmental Management are describing means of evaluation of the strategies? So which is the added value of the authors’ proposal against these methods?
6. Why the authors selected these parameters? Especially for the economic ones the economic status of a company is extremely crucial but it is not mentioned.
7. Why the authors do not present the type of the activities of the companies examined? This parameter is of maximum importance on developing their index.
8. The waste management plan is of significant importance both in terms of energy and environment. So why so little analysis? This part is crucial just to be developed in only one indicator while in all others there are more.
9. What about the eco-design and life cycle approach of their operation, where all these parameters are evaluated? These tools are quite helpful and actually are considered in many related to sustainability and energy indexes already developed.
10. What is the actual added value that the authors are trying to demonstrate with their proposal? And how this can be implemented in different types of companies?
11. The authors should enhanced their references with additional published papers where the energy management plans and action are compared. There are many of them.
Reviewer 4 Report
Topic of the manuscript is interesting and promising, however, in my opinion, manuscript is not accurately written and cannot be published in present form:
1. Due to plenty English grammar and spelling mistakes, some parts are not understandable to the reader, i.e. 76-85 and many other parts.
2. Sustainability measurement indicators (Table 1) are not consistent with Figure 2. Elements of figure 2 are questionable in sense of sustainable development understanding. For instance, “Environmental driver” has no direct links with the environmental sustainability dimension.
3. It is not clear how the system of indicators in Table 1 was developed.
4. Explanations of scientific novelty missing.
5. Sampling of questionnaire survey is not discussed.
6. Formatting of the manuscript is poor, authors did not follow style of the journal for references, captions of figures are written as text, etc.
Reviewer 5 Report
The paper “Development of Sustainability Index for Energy Management System” submitted to the editorial office of Resources present a study aimed on elaboration of the approach for analyzes of the sustainability energy management systems in Thailand. The following issues should be addressed:
1. The Introduction in the current form doesn’t provide a sufficient overview in the field. Please add references when citing the literature.
2. Authors should explain in details the novelty of the research results
3. What is your contribution to the methods described in section 2? Please extend this section.
4. Please rename the figures. Titles should be provided, instead of the phrases “figure illustrates…” The same for Tables. A title should be provided instead of “ Table shows…”
5. Manuscript contain many big-size tables, which reduces the quality of presentataion. It will be better to remnove some of the tables in appendix.
6. In the section Discussion Authors should provide more wide comparison of the results with the key literature, as well as suggestions for future applications.
