Sustainable Transition Pathways for Steel Manufacturing: Low-Carbon Steelmaking Technologies in Enterprises

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review comments are uploaded 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very thorough, detailed and up-to-date article. It holds great value as a comprehensive compendium of knowledge on the decarbonization of the steel industry. Its weaknesses do not stem from a lack of substantive content but rather from an excess of material, a lack of critical selection, and at times a somewhat mechanical structure. With minor adjustments it could serve as a model for an interdisciplinary approach to industrial transformation.

Novelty of this article lies in its comprehensive and practical approach to the technological transition of the steel industry toward climate neutrality. Unlike many other publications that focus on a single technology or remain theoretical, this paper bridges engineering knowledge with real-world industrial practice and climate policy.

The article opens with a solid and well-written abstract that clearly presents the research aim, scope of analysis, and main conclusions. However, the language is at times overloaded -it occasionally reads more like a government policy summary than a scientific text. There’s also a lack of a clearly stated research question or hypothesis.

Introduction is strong in terms of content. The authors effectively outline the global context, referencing specific initiatives (ULCOS, HYBRIT, COURSE50, etc.) and showing the evolution of low-emission technologies. The breadth of the overview and the up-to-date data are commendable. However, the structure of this section feels a bit too expansive -it could be more concise. Some sentences are too long and dense with names and figures, which affects clarity. There’s also a lack of deeper engagement with academic literature -the authors cite many projects but refer to few peer-reviewed studies.

The section on the BF-BOF process and its decarbonization serves well as a review of available and tested technologies. Case studies from China, Japan, the USA and Europe are especially valuable- presenting specific data, emission reduction indicators, and operational parameters. This is a strong aspect of the paper. What’s weaker is the lack of critical analysis of the limitations. Readers are given figures like “+15% efficiency,” but little insight into what doesn’t work, where cost barriers lie, or how cost-effectiveness compares. The term “demonstration stage” appears often, but the authors don’t explain what that means in practice.

The part on scrap use and increasing its share in BOF/EAF processes is relevant and empirically well documented. It’s a plus that the authors compare different technological approaches and show how public policies (e.g., carbon taxes) influence profitability. It’s also good that they don’t idealize scrap-based solutions-mentioning impurity issues and the need for separation. Still, this section suffers from some repetitiveness- examples follow a similar pattern but without a summary to reveal deeper trends.

The section on process innovations (O2-CO2-CaO, bottom blowing in converters, etc.) is one of the paper’s strongest. It stands out for originality- detailed descriptions of BOF upgrades are rare. Nonetheless, like in previous parts there’s a lack of critical assessment of the risks involved.

The “end-of-pipe” technologies section including CCUS and CO₂ recovery, presents an impressive range of data and real-world implementations. There’s considerable informational value- few papers compare PSA and chemical absorption so systematically. However, there are still omissions. The authors present cost and efficiency data, but not in side-by-side tables  -you have to dig through the text. Moreover, although pilot projects are mentioned, there’s no discussion of why they haven’t scaled up yet.

The EAF section and its low-emission variants are comprehensive and show a variety of approaches. The authors don’t just list technologies- they also explain how different regions adapt them based on their energy and resource conditions. This section is coherent, convincing, and free of major flaws.

Conclusion and final remarks are adequate. However, there’s a lack of a strong closing message. It would help to more clearly state: what now? Which technologies should be supported immediately? What are the greatest risks?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Prof. [Editor/Editorial Office] of the journal Sustainability,

Manuscript ID: sustainability-3656289

Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript titled "Sustainable Transition Pathways for Steel Manufacturing: Low-Carbon Steelmaking Technologies in Enterprises"

After a careful review of the authors’ modifications and responses, I find that they have adequately addressed all the comments and concerns raised. The manuscript is now well-prepared and suitable for publication.

Best regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your corrections. I think the text in this version is suitable for publication