Integrating Climate Change Risks and Sustainability Goals into Saudi Arabia’s Financial Regulation: Pathways to Green Finance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper achieves its purpose of providing a comprehensive exploration of the integration of climate change risks and sustainability goals into Saudi Arabia's financial regulation framework, with a focus on green finance. The paper is very well constructed and clearly structured. The following are some observations and suggestions for minor improvements.

1. In Section 3.2, the sample of "experts" should be described in more detail. The size of the sample, the industries/roles they hold, the selection procedure, the process of administering the interview, the key questions asked - these are some of the clarifications that should be made.

2. There are some issues that need to be addressed in terms of numbering and structuring the various subsections. Specifically, the Results and discussion section cannot be one paragraph long. I assume that the aim was to include all of section 5 and its subsections within the Results section. Similarly, the Discussion section should probably serve as an umbrella for subsections 7-9. Finally, a less problematic issue is that sections 10-12 are typically included within a broader Conclusion section, so the current structure seems unfamiliar and unexpected to readers. Perhaps some adjustments in this respect could be considered.

3. As a final remark, I would suggest that the author needs to present the main limitations of this research endeavor. One clear issue to be noted is that the terms "fossil fuel" or "oil" are not present in the manuscript - one would expect that some of the challenges of the topic studied here must be connected to the interests and the outlook of the emblematic fossil fuel sector of Saudi Arabia's economy.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor spelling errors exist within the text, but the overall level of English is good.

Author Response

Detailed Description of Expert Sample (Section 3.2): I have revised Section 3.2 to include a more comprehensive description of the expert sample. This revision now details the selection criteria, industries, roles of the participants, the interview process, and the key questions that guided my semi-structured interviews. This enhancement ensures a clearer understanding of the methodology and the basis of my findings.
Numbering and Structuring of Sections: Following your observations on the structure of the paper, I have made some changes to the layout and numbering of the sections. I expanded the "Results and Discussion" section to encompass detailed discussions under each identified theme rather than compressing significant findings into a single paragraph. Additionally, I have restructured the paper to ensure that the "Discussion" section appropriately encapsulates the relevant subsections. I have consolidated the concluding remarks into a unified "Conclusion" section to align with conventional academic expectations.
Presentation of Research Limitations: Towards the end of the discussion, I added a comprehensive "Limitations of the Study" section. This new section addresses the absence of specific talks on the fossil fuel sector, acknowledging its significant impact on Saudi Arabia’s economy and the field of green finance. Furthermore, I discussed other limitations that might affect the generalizability and applicability of my findings, setting the stage for future research directions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

   Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.  After carefully reading the manuscript, I would have to conclude this is not a paper at the peer-reviewed journal quality.  The paper is descriptive in nature.  It lacks the essential rigor in research design, data collection, and analysis and discussion.   The contribution to the literature is very limited.   

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This paper doesn't meet the basic expectation for a peer-reviewed journal article.  

Author Response

Enhancing Research Rigor: I have revised the research design section to clarify the methodology and ensure it meets the standards of rigour expected for a peer-reviewed journal. This includes a more detailed description of the data collection methods, the sample selection process, and the analytical techniques employed. I have also strengthened the theoretical grounding of my study to better align with the research objectives.
Improving Data Collection and Analysis: I have added a more robust analytical framework to address your concerns about the paper's descriptive nature. This involves using thematic analysis to explore the interview data deeply, allowing for a richer interpretation of the findings. I have also added detailed examples from the data to demonstrate how the study was conducted and to provide clear evidence supporting my conclusions.
Expanding the Discussion and Analysis: I have significantly expanded the discussion and analysis sections to offer more critical insights and a thorough evaluation of the results in the context of existing literature. This includes drawing more explicit connections between my findings and the broader implications for the field of green finance, thereby enhancing the paper’s contribution to the literature.
Contributing to the Literature: I have more clearly articulated my research's contribution to the existing body of knowledge. This highlights how my findings provide new insights into integrating climate change risks and sustainability goals within financial regulatory frameworks, particularly in Saudi Arabia. I have discussed how my research fills existing gaps and offers implications for theory and practice.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The publication is interesting and prepared quite carefully, I have a few serious comments:

- I don't really understand the description of the research methodology - how the study was conducted - please describe it in more detail

- why is the literature review described twice?

- I have the impression that the publication is presented very generally, it lacks detailed analysis, appropriate conclusions and justification for the research topic undertaken.

- the results and discussion chapter is very short and there is nothing specific in it

- the publication should be structured differently, discussions are included several times, I think it should be collected in one place

- JEL classification code is not required in Sustainability

Author Response

Research Methodology Clarification: I have expanded the description of the research methodology to provide a more detailed explanation of how the study was conducted. This includes a more precise outline of the qualitative methods used, such as semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis, and a more comprehensive description of the participant selection process, data collection, and analysis techniques.
Literature Review Duplication: I discussed the concern about the duplication of the literature review. The review elements were initially integrated into the introduction and methodology sections to contextualise the study's frameworks and methodological choices. I have now streamlined this content, combining and refining it into a cohesive section that directly leads to the research questions and methodology, eliminating redundancy.
Detailed Analysis and Justification: I have enriched the analysis throughout the publication, adding specific examples, quotes from interviews, and detailed discussions linking our findings to existing literature. This enhancement addresses the need for more depth and strengthens the justification for the research topic, highlighting its relevance and contribution to green finance.
Results and Discussion Enhancement: To follow up on your observation about the brevity and lack of specificity in the results and discussion section, I have added more detailed findings, comprehensive analysis, and direct responses to our research questions. This revision ensures that the section substantively contributes to the scholarly discourse on green finance in Saudi Arabia.
Restructuring the Discussion: I noted your suggestion to consolidate the discussion sections. The revised manuscript now has a unified discussion section that synthesises the insights from the results in a coherent narrative, aligning closely with the study's objectives and the literature reviewed.
JEL Classification Code: I appreciate your note on the JEL classification code. As suggested, I have removed this classification from our manuscript since it does not align with the requirements for the Sustainability journal.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

    I appreciate the effort made in the revision. However, the profound issues remain unaddressed. I reinstate that this paper is not one at the peer-reviewed journal quality.  This study lacks the essential rigor in its research design, data collection, and method.  It is descriptive in nature.  The novelty is limited.  The findings lack insights and contributions to the literature and theoretical advancement are adequate.  

  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language is required.  Some professional proof reading is recommended.  

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive feedback on my manuscript. I appreciate your continued engagement and recognise the importance of addressing the concerns raised about the rigour of the research design, data collection methods, and overall contribution to sustainable finance. Below, I outline how I have addressed these concerns to enhance the quality and scholarly contribution of the paper.

1. Enhanced Research Rigor and Methodological Detail:
   In response to the need for a more rigorous research design, I have refined the qualitative methodology by incorporating a more structured data collection and analysis approach. This includes a detailed description of the semi-structured interview process, participant selection, and thematic analysis, ensuring transparency and replicability of the research process. This methodological rigour enhances the reliability and validity of the findings, addressing the gap in rigorous qualitative research in the context of Saudi Arabia's financial regulation and green finance.
2. Systematic Data Collection:
   The revised manuscript meticulously details the data collection process, including specific questions asked during interviews, the rationale for participant selection, and the procedures for ensuring data integrity. This comprehensive approach addresses previous concerns about the study's descriptive nature, providing a robust foundation for the insights and conclusions drawn.
3. Theoretical and Practical Contributions:
   The study’s findings contribute theoretically and practically to understanding green finance integration within Saudi Arabia’s financial regulatory framework. By exploring the implications of the Public Investment Fund’s Green Finance Framework and related initiatives, the research offers novel insights into how emerging markets, particularly those heavily reliant on fossil fuels, can transition towards sustainable financial systems. The theoretical contribution is further solidified through a critical discussion of the role of green finance in achieving Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 and its alignment with global sustainability goals. Thus, the paper fills a significant gap in the literature on sustainable finance in the Middle Eastern context.
4. Novelty and Contribution to Literature:
   The research's novelty lies in its focused examination of Saudi Arabia's unique economic and regulatory environment. It provides a case study on integrating sustainability into financial regulatory mechanisms that the existing literature needs to cover more extensively. The paper enriches scholarly discussions by linking practical regulatory changes with theoretical frameworks in green finance. It offers a model that can be adapted or examined in regions with similar economic structures.
5. Enhanced Discussion and Theoretical Advancement:
   The discussion section has been expanded to include a deeper data analysis, illustrating how the findings contribute to existing theories and discussing the implications for policymakers and practitioners in sustainable finance. Applying new and existing green finance and sustainability theories demonstrates theoretical advancements. This shows how the Saudi approach can offer insights into the challenges and opportunities for other nations transitioning towards sustainable economies.

I hope these enhancements address the profound issues previously highlighted and meet the standards of a peer-reviewed journal. The revisions aim to provide a comprehensive, theoretically rich, and methodologically rigorous examination of a critical topic in sustainable finance, thereby significantly contributing to academic discourse and practical implementation in this field.
Thank you for considering the revised manuscript. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

The article has been thoroughly modified, I accept publication in this form

Author Response

thank you 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the great efforts the authors made to improve the overall quality of this paper.  I have no further comments. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 None