The Employment Trilemma in the European Union: Linking Academia, Industry, and Sustainability Through Dynamic Panel Evidence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for allowing me to review the article "The Employment Trilemma in the European Union: Connecting Academia, Industry, and Sustainable Development with Dynamic Panel Evidence." We appreciate the authors' efforts to explore the complex relationship between academic innovation, industrial transformation, and sustainable employment in the EU-27.

However, after careful review, we regret to inform you that your manuscript is not suitable for publication in a scientific journal. Our decision is based primarily on two key points:

1- Conceptual confusion and lack of clear conceptual delineation: The manuscript attempts to link several broad and distinct concepts—academic innovation, industrial transformation, and sustainability—to employment outcomes within the framework of an “employment trilemma.” While interdisciplinary research is encouraged, the article struggles to clearly define and consistently operationalize these concepts throughout the analysis. For example, “academic innovation” and “industrial transformation” are presented as drivers, but their specific mechanisms and boundaries within the proposed trilemma are not sufficiently defined or consistently applied. The concept of "sustainability" is particularly broad, and although the article mentions "sustainable employment outcomes" and "sustainability indicators," the precise theoretical foundations and interactions of these various elements within a unified framework are not sufficiently established. This leads to a lack of conceptual clarity that makes it difficult to track the theoretical contribution and practical implications of the "trilemma" framework.

2- The model's operationalization of the variables representing the core concepts is a significant concern: or "academic innovation," the proxy used is "tertiary-education growth (A ED_ATTAINMENT %)". While tertiary education is a component of human capital, it does not fully capture the multifaceted nature of academic innovation, which often involves research output, collaboration with industry, patenting, and knowledge transfer beyond just an increase in attainment levels. Similarly, "industrial transformation" is primarily proxied by "business enterprise R&D intensity (A BERD % GDPpercapita)". While R&D is crucial for industrial change, it represents only one aspect of transformation. Digitalization, changes in production processes, new business models, and green transitions are all elements of industrial transformation that are not adequately captured by a single R&D intensity metric.

Regarding "sustainability," the proxies include "energy productivity (€/kg oil-eq.)" and "total greenhouse-gas emissions (In GHG)". While these are relevant environmental metrics, they do not encompass the full scope of sustainability, especially the social and economic dimensions relevant to "sustainable employment outcomes." The model's findings, such as the neutral effect of energy productivity on employment and the positive association of GHG emissions with employment, highlight this limitation, suggesting that the proxies might not fully reflect the intended complex relationship with employment sustainability.

The use of macro-level indicators, as acknowledged by the authors, inherently "may hide heterogeneity at the firm or sector level regarding the academia-industry-sustainability nexus". This limitation is particularly critical when the chosen proxies do not comprehensively represent the complex and multidimensional variables they are intended to capture. The model, therefore, does not present sufficiently significant or representative proxies to accurately reflect the intricate variables being studied, thereby undermining the robustness and interpretability of the findings in relation to the stated research question.

For these reasons, we believe the manuscript requires a more rigorous theoretical framework  and a more comprehensive and nuanced selection of proxies for the key variables, and potentially a revised methodological approach to fully capture the complexities of academic innovation, industrial transformation, and sustainability in relation to employment.

Good Luck 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your detailed and constructive review of our manuscript, “The Employment Trilemma in the European Union: Connecting Academia, Industry, and Sustainable Development with Dynamic Panel Evidence.”

We greatly appreciate your insightful comments, which have helped us critically reflect on the conceptual and methodological foundations of our work. We have carefully considered all the points you raised and revised the manuscript accordingly.

In particular, we have significantly clarified the theoretical framework and refined the conceptual delineation of the three core dimensions—academic innovation, industrial transformation, and sustainability—as they relate to the employment trilemma. We have also addressed your concerns regarding the selection and operationalisation of key variables. While we acknowledge the limitations of the proxies used, we have explained in the manuscript why the expansion of variables is not feasible within the constraints of available macro-level data. These limitations are now explicitly discussed in a newly developed section that outlines the boundaries and scope of our analysis.

We believe these changes have strengthened the coherence, transparency, and academic contribution of our work. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study explores the relationship between academic innovation, industrial transformation, and sustainable employment in the EU27 countries, proposes the concept of "employment trilemma", and empirically analyzes it using a dynamic panel data model (2005–2023). The research questions are of practical significance, the methods are rigorous, and the results have certain reference value for policy formulation. However, there is still room for improvement in the theoretical framework, variable selection, data interpretation, and policy recommendations.

1. The "employment trilemma" needs to be further defined: the "tension between competitiveness, innovation and social inclusion" is briefly mentioned, but the theoretical source is not clear. It is suggested that the relevant literature should be supplemented to enhance the theoretical depth of the concept.
2. The existing reviews are scattered, and it is suggested to sort out the logic of "academic innovation-industrial transformation-employment sustainability", and more clearly point out how this study fills the gaps.
3. Some specific issues, including the fact that "tertiary enrolment" alone may not be sufficient to capture the quality of human capital; Does BERD (Corporate R&D Intensity) cover public R&D or non-technological innovation? It was suggested that its limitations be discussed; Energy productivity and greenhouse gas emissions alone can be too big, so consider industry-level data.
4. The positive correlation between carbon emissions and employment needs to be interpreted with caution: this result may reflect that some countries in the EU are still dependent on traditional industries, but a distinction needs to be made between short-term and long-term effects. It is recommended to discuss it in conjunction with a case study. Negative effects of education-R&D interactions: The authors attribute "automation reduces labor requirements", but more evidence is needed.
5. How to design the "innovation-education" linkage policy? How can you design a transition for a carbon-intensive industry?
6. Figure 1 (marginal effect plot) has a wide confidence interval and needs to indicate whether it is due to insufficient samples; Results can be supplemented by country or time period to enhance persuasiveness.
   

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive review of our manuscript, “The Employment Trilemma in the European Union: Connecting Academia, Industry, and Sustainable Development with Dynamic Panel Evidence.”

We sincerely appreciate your positive evaluation of the paper’s relevance, methodological rigor, and policy value. We have carefully considered your detailed suggestions and have revised the manuscript to address the key areas you identified.

Specifically, we have:

• Clarified the theoretical underpinnings of the “employment trilemma,” by strengthening the literature review and explicitly citing relevant theoretical sources to support the concept.
• Improved the structure and coherence of the literature review to better explain the logical flow connecting academic innovation, industrial transformation, and sustainable employment, while also highlighting the research gaps this study addresses.
• Expanded the discussion on variable selection and acknowledged the limitations of the proxies used. Although we rely on macro-level indicators, we have included a new section that transparently addresses these constraints, including the lack of disaggregated or industry-level data across the EU-27 over time.
• Added interpretation and nuance to the positive correlation between GHG emissions and employment, including a more careful reflection on possible short- vs. long-term dynamics, and linked this result to industrial path dependency in some EU states.
• Elaborated on potential policy pathways, especially regarding the innovation-education linkage and carbon-intensive industry transitions, acknowledging the complexity of such strategies and offering examples based on recent EU policy frameworks.

We have also addressed your comments about Figure 1 by explaining the wide confidence intervals and clarifying their causes (e.g., sample variation and model dynamics). Where possible, we included robustness checks to improve the persuasiveness of the results.

We are grateful for your valuable feedback, which has significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript. The authors cover an important topic- interrelation among Academia, Industry, and sustainability and explore the relationship between the factors of academic innovation systems, industrial transformation, and long-term employment sustainability.  The authors use data from EUROSTAT for the EU-27, employ a dynamic panel dataset (2005-2023), and conduct System SMM estimations.

However, there are several minor moments the authors might wish to consider.

The Section Methods might include the research design to have a clear vision of the presented research process and protocol. The explanation of how a set of criteria for the research was developed and what academic sources justify the combination of the criteria. Youth in the research is considered 25-34, justification for choosing the minimum-max age would strengthen the basis for the research.

Several sections of the manuscript present findings, results, limitations, implications, and future research directions. Maintaining the usual structure of the manuscript, where results, conclusions, recommendations, limitations, implications, and future research are presented in dedicated sections, would help readers follow the research story.

These comments do not question the importance of the research. The comments rather suggest paths to enhance the clarity for readers and thus the potential impact for further explorations.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript, “The Employment Trilemma in the European Union: Connecting Academia, Industry, and Sustainable Development with Dynamic Panel Evidence.”

We are grateful for your positive assessment of the study’s relevance and for your insightful suggestions aimed at improving the clarity and structure of the manuscript. In response to your comments, we have implemented the following revisions:

• Research Design: We have expanded the Methods section to include a concise overview of the research design. This now provides a clearer picture of the research process, protocol, and analytical flow. We also explained how the selection of criteria was informed by existing literature, referencing key academic sources that support the operationalization of the core dimensions (academic innovation, industrial transformation, and employment sustainability).
• Age Category Justification: We have included a justification for the selection of the 25–34 age cohort when analyzing youth employment, noting that this definition aligns with Eurostat’s classification of “young adults” in the labor market, particularly those completing higher education and entering long-term employment.
• Structure and Readability: We have revised the structure of the manuscript to ensure that all sections are presented in clearly delineated sections. This improves the logical flow and makes the manuscript easier to navigate for readers.

We appreciate your helpful suggestions, which have enhanced the clarity and coherence of our work. Thank you once again for your time and contribution to improving the quality of our paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work gained clarity after this revision

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been revised as necessary and is recommended for acceptance in its current state.