On Carbon Tax Effectiveness in Inducing a Clean Technology Transition: An Evaluation Based on Optimal Strategic Capacity Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, a mixed integer linear programming model based on a strategic capacity production planning under carbon taxes  is developed . However, I have the following concerns:

1) In Literature Review, the more literature related to the government carbon tax  should be reviewed. For example:

Gugler K.,  Haxhimusa A., Liebensteiner M., Carbon pricing and emissions: Causal effects of Britain's carbon tax, Energy Economics,2023,121, 106655.

Wang C.,  Wang W.,  Huang R.,  Supply chain enterprise operations and government carbon tax decisions considering carbon emissions，Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 152:271-280.

It is suggested that author(s) introduce the papers related to the government carbon tax into the literature review, and identify the differences between the previous papers and current paper. Thus, the authors have to differentiate further and rethink about their work's innovations.

2) The explanation of the effectiveness and applicability of the model proposed in this article is further needed. 

3)       This paper mainly provided the empirical results from the using data. There are not enough policy implications in it. Merely all the results are obtained from the calculation of the data. But authors should provide practical insights to the  companies and government agencies according to the background of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract should briefly include research gaps, novelties, contributions, and main results,

Proofreading is needed.

The introduction section is poorly written. Some more recent more relevant papers are not studied in the field of "carbon emission schemes". Since you are going to evaluate the carbon tax policy, you should consider all the papers that are in the same way, for instance in the field of "supply chain network design", "energy-aware manufacturing", etc. (2019-2023). The authors are suggested to provide more evidence from the literature about the importance of the problem and reinforce the novelties and contributions by clearly highlighting them in addition to the research questions.

The literature review should be revised thoroughly. What are the differences between carbon emission policies? Why do the authors select this or that policy? Which decision-making processes are good for which of them? decentralized or centralized, why? What is the evidence from the literature? The authors are suggested to provide good literature about the concept not far from it. Providing Table 1 is a good idea. However, it should be heavily extended raw-wise and column-wise focusing on the contributions of the manuscript and some more recent more relevant papers using the keywords that are mentioned in the comment.

The paper should be reorganized to be standard. using many sections and subsections makes a potential reader miss the text. Section 3 should be somewhere rewritten. It is very hard to follow.

Results are provided in a bulky way.

Policy making and discussion should be added.

 

 

Some minor issues are seen.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article clearly presents a model to evaluate carbon tax effectiveness to induce cleaner energy transition for individual firm. The article scholarly contribute to the sustainability literature. Can be Accepted

The quality of english language is good and comprehensible

Author Response

The article clearly presents a model to evaluate carbon tax effectiveness to induce cleaner energy transition for individual firm. The article scholarly contribute to the sustainability literature. Can be Accepted.

Thank you for your kind comments.  In addition, we have improved the grammar and wording of the article.

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think all my comments have been addressed. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Although the authors claim they tried to cover the issues, Almost all the issues are still remaining. So, I could not suggest further consideration for this research due to the doubtful contribution and not satisfying the minimum standards of the research works.

Minor revise is needed.