Can Environmental Regulation Drive the Environmental Technology Diffusion and Enhance Firms’ Environmental Performance in Developing Countries? Case of Olive Oil Industry in Morocco

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer’s comments on manuscript sustainability 1979096

 Focus of the submitted manuscript is in determining the role of environmental regulation on the environmental performance of olive mills in developing countries with Morocco as a case study. This topic is of relevance for Sustainability journal.

The manuscript is rich in content; its objectives are well stated and supported by rich literature survey. It includes an extensive discussion and its conclusions are relevant. So, from this point of view there are no objections against its publishing in Sustainability journal. However, there are few issues related to the style of the paper. Generally, several passages are too long, should be rationalized and the text ought to be better structured. Language polishing should be performed too and a careful proofreading is a must to remove typos. A few other issues are included in the list below.

As a result, I recommend a minor revision before manuscript acceptance. The authors should focus on how to make the paper more interesting and “digestible” for potential audience.

List of issues:

Abstract is too long and contains some too long sentences (line 27-32 as an example). Please rewrite.

Introduction: Please state the study’s objective in a separate paragraph. Furthermore, rewrite the too long sentences here as well as in the rest of the manuscript. Correct the typos. References 12 to 14 deserve broader discussion to support the manuscript objectives.

Part 2.2: There is disorder in references´ numbering.

Part 2.2. could be rationalized; currently it resembles a chapter from a review paper rather than from an article. The whole chapter 2 is quite detailed: while I appreciate the excellent support to study objectives it provides, it could be more focused and shorter.

Parts 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 contain a lot of text. Try to think of how to make the manuscript more interesting by structuring the text better (at least).

Results, Discussion and Conclusions are appropriate.

References:

References 60 and 61 are identical.

There are some French residues in References (see f.e. “consulté le 7 avril 2021” in reference 59).

Revise the bibliographic details of reference 46.

Author Response

Please see the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper entitled as "Can environmental regulation drive the environmental technology diffusion and enhance firms’ environmental performance in developing countries? Case of olive oil industry in Morocco" is an interesting and important paper. However, it's contributions are not well shown, highlighted, or there is space to do so. In addition, there are issues that need to be attended in this paper.

My decision is major revision since the paper can be considered for publish if corrected and it has good potential. 

Authors should carefully attend the paper in terms of the following critiques.

1. The abstract is nice however I suggest an update. The conclusions should present greater details especially in the last part. Example from abstact: "Our results showed 24

that the environmental regulation is one main determinant of the adoption of environmental tech- 25

nology by olive oil producers, but cannot be considered influencing the improvement of environmental performance in the developmental context of this particular country"

Are these effects positive or negative? With which magnitudes? 

Policy suggestions can be more specific. As of it is in text, this part can be made more concentrated and giving details since as it is, it is not clear. 

"In the light of our findings, we recommend policy makers strengthen regulatory measures (CAC instruments and economic instruments) and adopt more informational instruments." These can be specific. Further, results do not fully comply with this suggestion with given many insignificant regulation coefficients. 

2. In the intro section, before the first introductory sentence in the first paragraph, I suggest adding an expalanation to build bridges between environmental technology and sustainability. A general sentence or couple of them would be nice. 

3. Line 65 is interesting but I think it is not enough to increase the attention of the reader. You should convince the reader that Morocco presents an important example that should be investigated and explain why. The reason of stating this is, the paper is restricted to Morocco. The importance of selecting Morocco should be explained more. I am just suggesting couple of sentences with general explanations since I see that the following parahraphs give great detail on Morocco's oil industry and environ. policies. My suggestion is to polish what you already had to bring out the contribution of the paper more.

4. The sections are not correctly explained. At line 101, "Part 2 presents a literature review", but heading 2 is 2. Theoretical Framework . Check headings and structure carefully. After revising the heading, since I see that you want to give literature in subheadings, I suggest an overall explanation that states this and presents the approach here.

5. The literature section. A) does not give enough information all the time on the papers referenced. Which method is used? Which model is used? Which type of dataset? What is the main finding? (this latter exists). What policy suggestions derived? (Some should exist).

B) In literature, can you make longer paragraphs instead of 4 or 3 line paragraphs? Collect related ones.

C) In literature, I also suggest adding following studies and similar studies after investigation to literature section as frameworks that further extent analysis to asymmetric, nonlinear, threshold effects between the production - environmental sustainability nexus.

The nonlinear relationship of environmental degradation and income for the 1870-2011 period in selected developed countries: the dynamic panel-STAR approach

Markov-switching vector autoregressive neural networks and sensitivity analysis of environment, economic growth and petrol prices

Asymmetry in the environmental pollution, economic development and petrol price relationship: MRS-VAR and nonlinear causality analyses

7. Econometric analysis stages should have numberings or words such as

Step 1: ....

Step 2:....

It is not so in the beginning of Econometric analysis section. Also, dots are missing at the end of sentence at it's finish. It is noted that:

"Analyse the determinants (including regulation) of (ET) adoption

Analyse the determinants (including regulation) of environmental performance among firms that have adopted (ET)"

This part is not clear. 

Then, in text authors repeated steps in more detail. Same sentences are not needed. Steps should be given at the very beginning. Converge these. 

8. In the empirical section, again, avoid 2-3 line paragpraphs.

9. In Table 2, some parameters are not alligned. 

10. The model used is a probit model as it was stated. The equations are not correct. They do not present probit models in correct form. Revise them. Also, I did not understand what equation 2 represents with < .Probit model is a conditional probability model as Pr(Y=1 I X) = Cum.Dist.Func.(Model)

Also, theoretically, probit models are not written with residuals. The equations presented are shown like linear probability models. Not probit. 

11. "The outcomes of our econometric model (model (2))" should be "The estimation results for Model 2"

12. "This result support evidence" should be plural. (supports)

13. In some places Model (1) is in capital, in some others, it is not. Make all "Model".

14. Lİne 466: "skewing" should be "biasing". But why? give a short explanation / justification of method here again. 

15. At line 468, "Table 2. presents the parameter estimations considered and their statistical significance and the robustness indicators of the two econometric model (1) and (2)." should be taken to the first paraghraph since it is already said there (line 450). Combine these.

16. Figure 2 should have a note underneath to explain the colors in model. 

17. Discussion section. Avoid 3 line long paragraphs. Combine. 

18. Environmental regulation, age, size were insignificant at top group. Then, they are significant at the model group in the bottom when Env. Tech. is used as dependent. Discussion should discuss this and its importance with a policy perspective with giving details from the estimation results instead of general conclusions in the discussion section. I note that such comments are present to some extent but they require to be worked on.

19. Limnitations section in the conclusion should be shortened. Further, the first limitation authors stated here could be removed if my suggestion to discuss the importance of analyzing these three provinces are well explained and emphasized. Instead, availability of data can be stated here. Also suggestion to future studies section could be shortened. As of it is, a paraghraph long limitations section is not correct for an article.

20. Third paragraph of conclusion (policy suggestions) should be revised for grammar. 

21. References section does not have correct format. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

As I stated above, the paper is an interesting and important paper however it had many issues to attend and to be corrected. One major concern had been the selection of Morocco as a laboratory to investigate. In addition, I had concerns regarding the empirical section and not to mention, the need to revise parts of paper to underline and bring out the contributions of the paper.

In this final version that is uploaded to the system including the necessary revisions, I note that the authors had gone over the critiques carefully and made all the necessary changes to the paper.

I am happy to see this version of the paper. It is my decision to accept the paper at this stage.

Congrats.

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank the authors for addressing my comments.