Symphony or Solo: Does Convergence Exist in Environmental Taxation among EU Countries?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to review this interesting paper! It is convincing from a methodological standpoint and well documented in the literature. However, there are some concerns that should be addressed.
Introduction
“Since environmental taxation are mainly applied to energy-related industries, energy taxes accounted for more than three quarters (77.2%) of all revenues in the fiscal year 2020. This percentage is far higher than the percentages allotted to taxes on transportation (19.1%), pollution, and resources (3.7%).” – to which region does this data refer to? EU? What is their source? Is there no newer data?
Sectiunea 5. Data
“The sample period spans from 1995 to 2020, coinciding with a period of continuous improvement in public environmental awareness”. Why was this time horizon chosen?
“Accordingly, the government has successively introduced many environmental-related policies and regulations.” It is unclear which government?
Subsection 6.1
“T Data pertaining to environmental taxation are shown in able 4a” -a careful proofread is required
How do the authors explain that in the group of convergent countries (for both the environmental tax and the energy tax) there are both developed EU countries and less developed ones? The analysis of the results in sections 6.1 and 6.2 focuses only on the divergent countries, but it should also mention the convergent ones (as is done in 6.3, where there is no divergence). In addition, in 6.2, in the case of Croatia, an explanation of this type is used “This disparity can be attributed to variations in the excise tax framework between less-developed EU nations and their more advanced counterparts. Generally, less developed countries exhibit a more substantial reliance on non-renewable resources when compared to developed countries (Mujacevic, 2023).” And yet for other less-developed countries, there isn’t divergence, even in this context?
Section 7 The conclusions of the paper should also contain its limits and future research directions.
Good luck with the revision!
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageA careful proofreading is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI congratulate the authors for the research carried out. However, I have a few observations:
- the research hypotheses are not defined in the paper.
- I did not identify which model validation tests were done to verify the robustness of the model
- the methodology should be explained more clearly, with the stages achieved
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReferee Report
Referee Report on: "Symphony or Solo: Whether Convergence Exists in Environmental Taxation among EU Countries "
Manuscript: sustainability-3156303
This manuscript addresses a significant issue in environmental economics, particularly the convergence of environmental taxation among EU countries. The research is both timely and relevant, offering the potential to contribute valuable insights to the ongoing discourse on sustainable development and climate change mitigation strategies.
The paper is well-organized and clearly articulated, with a solid econometric approach. However, there are areas where the manuscript could be further strengthened to enhance its contribution and relevance to a broader audience in finance and economics.
A key recommendation for improvement is to broaden the paper's appeal by incorporating a discussion on the role of peer effects in the convergence process. Peer effects, where the behavior of individuals or entities is influenced by the actions of their peers, could serve as a potential underlying mechanism shaping the observed outcomes in your analysis (Mugerman, Sade, & Shayo, 2014). Exploring this dimension would enrich your findings and make them more applicable to a wider audience, including researchers in economics and finance. Including this discussion, possibly in the conclusion, would add a valuable perspective on the significance of your research.
The paper could also benefit from a more detailed discussion of the increasing interconnectedness of financial markets and the challenges that arise from stronger market connections and cross-border effects. This context is particularly relevant given the globalization of the world economy and the technological advancements that have made markets more interlinked. The resulting challenges, such as increased vulnerability and systemic risk (Bouzzine & Lueg, 2020), are important considerations that could be integrated into your analysis to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research topic.
In terms of presentation, the tables in the manuscript need to be more clearly organized. There are some formatting issues, and it is crucial that each table is accompanied by self-explanatory captions. The tables should be understandable on their own, without requiring readers to refer back to the text. Addressing these issues will improve the clarity and usability of your data presentation.
Another area that requires attention is the language and expression used throughout the manuscript. Several sentences are lengthy and could be simplified for clarity. Additionally, some terminology and phrasing could be more precise to ensure that the intended meaning is clear. For example, the term "symphonic trends" used in the abstract might be confusing to readers unfamiliar with the metaphor, and a more straightforward description could be beneficial. I also noticed some inconsistencies in the use of tenses, particularly when describing past research and current findings. Ensuring consistency in tense usage will improve the readability of the manuscript.
In conclusion, the manuscript addresses an important and timely topic, but it would benefit from revisions to enhance its broader appeal. I hope these comments and suggestions will be helpful in improving the manuscript.
References:
· Bouzzine, Y. D., & Lueg, R. (2020). The contagion effect of environmental violations: The case of Dieselgate in Germany. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8), 3187-3202.
· Mugerman, Y., Sade, O., & Shayo, M. (2014). Long term savings decisions: Financial reform, peer effects, and ethnicity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 106, 106-332.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSeveral sentences are lengthy and could be simplified for clarity. Additionally, some terminology and phrasing could be more precise to ensure that the intended meaning is clear. For example, the term "symphonic trends" used in the abstract might be confusing to readers unfamiliar with the metaphor, and a more straightforward description could be beneficial. I also noticed some inconsistencies in the use of tenses, particularly when describing past research and current findings. Ensuring consistency in tense usage will improve the readability of the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear author,
congratulations for the work done.
Best regards,
Author Response
Thank you so much for your comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReferee Report sustainability- 3156303
Referee Report on "Symphony or Solo: Whether Convergence Exists in Environmental Taxation among EU Countries"
The improvements in the paper are evident, thanks to the additional information and explanations provided by the authors. I appreciate their efforts in addressing my recommendations. I believe the paper could benefit from another quick round of polishing to further refine the clarity and presentation of the arguments.
Best of luck with the continued development of your work.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor polishing of the English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
