Organizational Strategies for Energy Sustainability: Systematic Review of the Literature Spanning 2020–2024
, Danny Alonso Lizarzaburu Aguinaga 1, Luis Edgardo Cruz Salinas 1, Gary Christiam Farfán Chilicaus 1, Mabel Ysabel Otiniano León 1, Francisco Segundo Mogollón GarcÃa 1 and Celin Pérez Nájera 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCongratulations to the authors for their work.
The study conducted a systematic review of the literature published between 2020 and 2024 to identify organizational strategies that optimize energy efficiency and reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Academic databases such as Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science were consulted.
The theoretical background on the role energy plays in national development and the urgent need for a transition to renewable energy are correctly described and contextualized. The current status of the energy transition and the challenges it faces in terms of sustainability are described by sector.
It is suggested that the authors summarize the introduction section a little more; although the information is adequate, it could be summarized in a way that is easier for readers to understand.
This article uses a qualitative approach, based on a systematic literature review, to identify, evaluate, and synthesize previous research on organizational strategies related to energy sustainability. This method seeks to provide a comprehensive view of trends, challenges, and opportunities. The limitations of the selected methodology are described, the methods are clearly described.
The results are presented coherently, using figures and tables to better understand the research, and identifying the main research topics based on the journal's visibility and hierarchy. Bibliometric analysis of the reviewed articles indicates that the most cited articles are those that combine technological innovation with organizational sustainability strategies.
If this would affect the results, authors are encouraged to reduce the content of the Results section.
The conclusions are fully supported by the results presented in the article, and if possible, they could be analyzed with similar research referenced in the secondary literature.
Author Response
The study conducted a systematic review of the literature published between 2020 and 2024 to identify organizational strategies that optimize energy efficiency and reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Academic databases such as Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science were consulted.
The introduction was condensed and restructured to make it clearer and more understandable for readers. Its length was reduced, ensuring that relevant information is presented concisely without losing depth in contextualizing the study. Since the changes were applied comprehensively to the entire introductory section, no specific modifications were observed, as the adjustment was comprehensive.
It is suggested that the authors summarize the introduction section a little more; although the information is adequate, it could be summarized in a way that is easier for readers to understand.
The introduction was condensed and restructured to make it clearer and more understandable for readers. Its length was reduced, ensuring that relevant information is presented concisely without losing depth in contextualizing the study.
The conclusions are fully supported by the results presented in the article, and if possible, they could be analyzed with similar research referenced in the secondary literature.
The relevant adjustments were made to the Conclusions section. Each key finding was verified to be directly related to the results obtained in the systematic review, ensuring the coherence and rigor of the argument.
In addition, a comparative analysis with previous studies referenced in the secondary literature was incorporated. In particular, the main results were compared with recent research on energy sustainability strategies, digitalization, and the circular economy in different regions. This allows us to contextualize our results, identify similarities and differences with the existing literature, and demonstrate the study's contribution to the field.
Likewise, updated references to the business strategy literature were introduced to support this distinction and contextualize the article's approach within the field of strategic management, allowing for a better theoretical foundation and ensuring that the study is framed within the discipline's accepted conceptualizations.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The main issue with your article is connected to the concept of ”organisational strategies”. I do not consider that digitalisation, circular economy and technical innovations are ”organisational strategies” (books/research on business strategies are many and you must reference one). At line 21 you name them ”pillars of energy sustainability” whereas at lines 498-499 ”key factors” and at line 565 ”these advances!; moreover, at lines 463-464 you refer to ”organisational strategies with an intensive focus on digitalisation, circular economics and strategic leadership”. I recommend you use appropriately the strategic management terminology and introduce proper referencing.
Moreover, please reduce the introduction to 2-4 clear subsections to provide more structured information.
I look forward to reading your improved paper.
Yours faithfully,
Author Response
The main issue with your article is connected to the concept of ”organisational strategies”. I do not consider that digitalisation, circular economy and technical innovations are ”organisational strategies” (books/research on business strategies are many and you must reference one). At line 21 you name them ”pillars of energy sustainability” whereas at lines 498-499 ”key factors” and at line 565 ”these advances!; moreover, at lines 463-464 you refer to ”organisational strategies with an intensive focus on digitalisation, circular economics and strategic leadership”. I recommend you use appropriately the strategic management terminology and introduce proper referencing.
The section was revised to clarify the concept of organizational strategies in the context of energy sustainability. Terminology was adjusted, and appropriate references to strategic management literature were added, particularly Porter's definition of organizational strategies, to improve accuracy and consistency with the theoretical framework. Furthermore, the pillars of energy sustainability, such as digitalization, the circular economy, and sustainable financing, were properly contextualized as key factors in the transition toward sustainable energy models.
Regarding the use of the concept of "organizational strategies" and the need to clarify its application within the framework of strategic management, the terminology in various sections of the article was reviewed and adjusted to ensure consistency and alignment with the strategic management literature. The distinction between organizational strategies, understood as deliberate action plans adopted by organizations to achieve specific objectives, and key factors or pillars that influence the implementation of these strategies was clarified.
Based on the reviewer's comments, the following corrections and clarifications were made:
1. Digitalization, circular economy, and technological innovation: The approach to these concepts has been modified, establishing that they are not presented as strategies in themselves, but rather as enabling elements within organizational strategies aimed at energy sustainability, providing greater conceptual coherence in the presentation of these elements within the framework of strategic management.
2. Correction of terminological inconsistency: The inconsistency noted in the use of terms such as pillars, key factors, advances, and organizational strategies has been corrected. The terms have been adjusted to ensure their accuracy and consistency with the context of strategic management, ensuring their correct application according to their specific meaning.
The second reviewer's point regarding the implementation of consensus mechanisms among researchers and the use of replicable coding criteria to mitigate the subjectivity inherent in qualitative interpretation has been addressed. Furthermore, it was acknowledged that the use of AI-based automated analysis tools, such as natural language processing algorithms, could enrich data interpretation and improve the robustness of the analysis, which was added as a recommendation for future research.
Likewise, updated references to business strategy literature were introduced that support this distinction and contextualize the article's approach within the field of strategic management, allowing for a better theoretical foundation and ensuring that the study is framed within the accepted conceptualizations in the discipline.
Moreover, please reduce the introduction to 2-4 clear subsections to provide more structured information.
The introduction was synthesized and restructured to make it clearer and more understandable for readers. Its length was reduced, ensuring that relevant information is presented concisely without losing depth in contextualizing the study. Furthermore, the introduction was reorganized into clearly defined subsections, allowing for a more structured presentation of the study's essential elements.
Since the changes were applied comprehensively to the entire introductory section, no specific modifications were noted, as the adjustment was global.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think the article is interesting, has didactic value and can be used as teaching material for students, for example, but it is also an interesting source of information for entrepreneurs. The methods used to select the research sample may be debatable in the era of AI solutions and tools and the trend towards statistical analysis. But with the assumed research objective, they are justified and argued for, and even bold.
Comments:
Figure 1 should be in English
Author Response
Figure 1 should be in English
Figure 1 has been updated and is now in English, as suggested in the reviewer's comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The introduction section is too long and unclear. The introduction section lacks essential systematic components, such as the research problem, research questions, and key findings. Instead, it primarily includes various definitions and cited literature. Alternatively, the authors could integrate some of the reviewed materials into the introduction; however, this approach might blur the distinction between the introduction and the body of research. Therefore, I recommend relocating the reviewed literature to the second section for better clarity and organization. The body of your literature review may need to be divided into subsections, depending on its length. Each theme, time period, or analytical approach might have its own subheading.
- Authors should include one paragraph at the end of the introduction section, which describes in what way the paper is structured.
- The authors did not discuss the success of energy sustainability projects in relation to organizational culture and resistance to change.
- The authors should discuss more about how the use of AI can affect energy efficiency. Numerous studies have been conducted that have examined the potential applications of AI in this area. The authors should consider some of them.
- Little attention is paid to how companies actively apply Institutional Theory and Dynamic Capabilities Theory in practical settings.
Author Response
1. The introduction section is too long and unclear. The introduction section lacks essential systematic components, such as the research problem, research questions, and key findings. Instead, it primarily includes various definitions and cited literature. Alternatively, the authors could integrate some of the reviewed materials into the introduction; however, this approach might blur the distinction between the introduction and the body of research. Therefore, I recommend relocating the reviewed literature to the second section for better clarity and organization. The body of your literature review may need to be divided into subsections, depending on its length. Each theme, time period, or analytical approach might have its own subheading.
The introduction was synthesized and restructured to make it clearer and more understandable for readers. Its length was reduced, ensuring that relevant information is presented concisely without losing depth in the contextualization of the study.
Furthermore, the research problem, research questions, and key conclusions were explicitly incorporated, ensuring that the introduction meets the expected methodological standards. Furthermore, following your recommendation regarding the location of the literature review, part of the revised material was moved to the second section of the article, which contributes to a better differentiation between the introduction and the body of the research.
Since the changes were applied comprehensively to the entire introductory section, no specific modifications were noted, as the adjustment was global.
Regarding the need to explicitly present the research problem, research questions, and key conclusions within the introduction, adjustments were made to section 1.7 "Research Purpose and Knowledge Gaps," which now includes a clear and structured presentation:
1. The research problem, highlighting the challenges organizations face in adopting energy sustainability strategies due to the lack of integrative frameworks and the variability in their implementation across sectors and regions.
2. The research questions, explicitly formulated to guide the study, addressing the identification of effective strategies, the factors that facilitate or hinder their implementation, and the impact of digitalization, the circular economy, and technological innovation on the energy transition.
3. The key conclusions, which have been presented in the introduction to provide a preliminary overview of the study's findings, highlighting the fundamental role of digitalization and innovation in energy sustainability, as well as the regulatory and economic barriers that remain.
2. Authors should include one paragraph at the end of the introduction section, which describes in what way the paper is structured.
The point has been resolved by including a paragraph at the end of the introduction section, which clearly describes the structure of the work.
3. The authors did not discuss the success of energy sustainability projects in relation to organizational culture and resistance to change.
This shortcoming has been addressed by incorporating a clear connection between organizational culture, resistance to change, and the success of energy sustainability projects. The integration of Institutional Theory and Dynamic Capabilities Theory allows us to address how these variables influence the effective implementation of sustainable strategies.
4. The authors should discuss more about how the use of AI can affect energy efficiency. Numerous studies have been conducted that have examined the potential applications of AI in this area. The authors should consider some of them.
The suggestion was addressed by expanding the discussion on how the use of artificial intelligence impacts energy efficiency. It was highlighted that AI algorithms optimize energy consumption by analyzing large volumes of data in real time, identifying consumption patterns, and automatically adjusting energy management systems. Furthermore, mention was made of AI's ability to develop predictive maintenance systems that extend the lifespan of energy systems. References to recent studies showing a reduction of up to 20% in energy consumption in large-scale organizations thanks to the application of AI in smart grids are also included.
In response to the fourth reviewer's comment, we have included documented examples that highlight the tangible benefits of adopting sustainable strategies, such as the implementation of IoT systems and hybrid renewable energy. These examples demonstrate how technology adoption can improve energy efficiency, complementing the discussion on the impact of technology in this area.
5. Little attention is paid to how companies actively apply Institutional Theory and Dynamic Capabilities Theory in practical settings.
The text now clearly and in detail addresses how organizations actively apply Institutional Theory and Dynamic Capabilities Theory in their energy sustainability strategies, highlighting their impact on organizational competitiveness and resilience.
The reviewer's point has been addressed by addressing in greater detail how companies actively apply Institutional Theory and Dynamic Capabilities Theory in their energy sustainability strategies. An explanation of how these theories are used as analytical frameworks has been incorporated, highlighting examples of their application in organizational practice.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper's clarity, methodology, and overall impact have all significantly improved as a result of your modifications.
