You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Brahim Bergougui1,2,* and
  • Ousama Ben-Salha3,*

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Aleksandar Šobot

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the manuscript entitled “The Impact of Environmental Governance on Energy Transitions: Evidence from a Global Perspective”. The manuscript is does not have a new theoretical gap and lack of limited knowledge.  However, I would to give author/s a chance to address the comments clearly

 

  1. The contributions of this study is not new theoretical framework. There are many studies have discussed this before, for example:

Environmental governance and cleaner energy transition: Evaluating the role of environment friendly technologies

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102669

Strategy towards sustainable energy transition: The effect of environmental governance, economic complexity and geopolitics

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2024.101330

 

  1. Explain in detail the theoretical contributions  
  2. I suggest to add mediator or moderator variables to strength the study due to the limited and basic model
  3. Author/s used good techniques to measure the variables, however scientific research needs not just a methodological findings!
  4. Author/s mentioned “As one recent survey notes, research on how environmental rules shape the energy mix is still sparse, leaving unanswered whether tougher green regulations truly facilitate the shift to clean power.”, cite it please
  5. It is very basic to understand that, policies is the main key which can affect reduce/increase the cleaner energy.
  6. The sample size is 29 countries, author/s did not discuss the governance code of the environmental governance!
  7. Justify why did you choose just environmental pillar? 
  8. Hypothesis are missing!
  9. Please draw the framework
  10. Adding FDI to the model is not well explained
  11. On table 2, the SD for FDI is quit high
  12. The observations is 435 for 29 countries! Justify why is too small?
  13. I suggest to combine the discussion with conclusion because both are too long
  14. the plagiarism report indicated 37% which is too high 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewers’ Comments

Manuscript Number: Sustainability 3872338

The Impact of Environmental Governance on Energy Transitions: Evidence from a Global Perspective

We would like to thank the Editor-in-Chief of the journal for giving us the opportunity to revise and improve our paper according to the valuable comments of the anonymous reviewers. Please find below our point-by-point response to all comments. Part or all of these responses are reflected in the revised manuscript. We hope that this revision will earn the satisfaction of the Editor and reviewer.

 

 

 

Reviewer 1

I have reviewed the manuscript entitled “The Impact of Environmental Governance on Energy Transitions: Evidence from a Global Perspective”. The manuscript is does not have a new theoretical gap and lack of limited knowledge. However, I would to give author/s a chance to address the comments clearly

  1. The contributions of this study is not new theoretical framework. There are many studies have discussed this before, for example:

Environmental governance and cleaner energy transition: Evaluating the role of environment friendly technologies, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102669

Strategy towards sustainable energy transition: The effect of environmental governance, economic complexity and geopolitics, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2024.101330

Response: Thank you for your comment. We acknowledge that the study does not propose a new theoretical framework. However, the contribution of the study lies not in theoretical insights but in extending and applying existing theoretical insights. While previous studies have examined the relationship between environmental governance and the energy transition, our study adds value by addressing potential endogeneity concerns and by exploring specific mediating mechanisms, namely, technological innovation and government regulation, factors that are often acknowledged but less frequently analyzed empirically. Rather than revisiting whether environmental regulation influences energy transition, this study provides new empirical insights into the pathways and mechanisms through which such influence occurs.

  1. Explain in detail the theoretical contributions.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We acknowledge that the study does not propose a new theoretical framework. However, the contribution of the study lies not in theoretical insights but in extending and applying existing theoretical insights with new empirical evidence.

  1. I suggest to add mediator or moderator variables to strength the study due to the limited and basic model.

Response: We sincerely thank the esteemed reviewer for this valuable and insightful comment. In response, we have introduced two mediator variables, government regulation and technological innovation, to examine the channels through which environmental governance may influence the energy transition.

  1. Author/s used good techniques to measure the variables, however scientific research needs not just a methodological findings!

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment. While we have placed strong emphasis on methodological rigor, particularly the endogeneity issue, to ensure the robustness of our findings, we agree that scientific research must go beyond methodological contributions. Accordingly, we have enriched the manuscript by developing the contributions of the research, incorporating a channel analysis, and enhancing the discussion and interpretation of our results.

  1. Author/s mentioned “As one recent survey notes, research on how environmental rules shape the energy mix is still sparse, leaving unanswered whether tougher green regulations truly facilitate the shift to clean power.”, cite it please

Response: Done.

 

  1. It is very basic to understand that, policies is the main key which can affect reduce/increase the cleaner energy.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. While we agree with the reviewer that policy plays a central role in promoting or hindering clean energy adoption, this relationship is not always universally acknowledged. Most environmental governance measures, including the environmental policy stringency index used in this study, are de jure indices that measure the policy adopted by governments to protect the environment. However, the effectiveness of this policy in protecting the environment is not evident. The effectiveness of policy depends on various contextual factors such as institutional capacity, market readiness, and technological innovation. Therefore, it is important to examine how and under what conditions policy interventions influence cleaner energy outcomes.

  1. The sample size is 29 countries, author/s did not discuss the governance code of the environmental governance!

Response: Thank you for your valuable observation. We acknowledge that the manuscript does not provide an in-depth discussion of the specific governance codes or institutional frameworks related to environmental governance in the 29 countries included in the analysis. A comprehensive, country-by-country analysis of governance structures was beyond the scope of this study, as such an undertaking would require a significantly more extensive and detailed investigation. In response to your comment, we have revised the manuscript to include visual representations illustrating the evolution of the Environmental Policy Stringency Index over time for the 29 countries. These figures are included in Appendix B.

  1. Justify why did you choose just environmental pillar?

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's insightful comment. We would like to clarify that our research focuses on the effects of environmental governance, as measured by the environmental policy stringency index, rather than studying governance in its broader sense. Environmental policy stringency measures the strictness and enforcement intensity of environmental regulations, giving us a more targeted way to examine how regulatory frameworks impact environmental outcomes.

  1. Hypothesis are missing!

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have added the hypotheses in the revised manuscript to clearly outline the research expectations regarding the impacts of environmental governance (H1), FDI, international trade, and GDP (H2a,b,c), and the mediating role of government regulation and technological innovation (H3a,b).

  1. Please draw the framework

Response: We added Figure 1 — a conceptual diagram showing H1: Environmental governance → Energy transition; mediating channels H3a (Government regulation) and H3b (Technological innovation); additional drivers H2a–H2c (FDI, Trade, GDP); The figure is included in the revised manuscript.

  1. Adding FDI to the model is not well explained

Response: We have added a new subsection titled “Additional Drivers of Energy Transition,” where we briefly explain the rationale for including each of the three control variables (FDI, international trade, and economic growth) along with their expected effects on energy transition and the corresponding hypotheses.

  1. On table 2, the SD for FDI is quit high.

Response: The high standard deviation for FDI (13.2870) compared to its mean (3.6982) shows a wide variation in FDI inflows across the sample. This variation indicates significant differences in FDI inflows among the economies, with some attracting large amounts while others receive smaller amounts. Such dispersion is typical in FDI data because of differences in economic size and investment policies. We explained these results in Section 4.

  1. The observations is 435 for 29 countries! Justify why is too small?

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The sample contains 29 countries observed for 15 years each, which gives 29 × 15 = 435 observations in total. The temporal length (T = 15) is determined by data availability: our main variable is only available from 2010 onward in the OECD Stat database, which sets the starting year for all countries in the study. Although the sample comprises 435 observations, it is adequate for the scope and objectives of this study. This panel data structure allows for both cross-sectional and time variation.

  1. I suggest to combine the discussion with conclusion because both are too long

Response: Thank you — we have combined the Discussion and Conclusion into a single, concise section (now Section 5).

  1. The plagiarism report indicated 37% which is too high.

Response: Thank you for your comment regarding the plagiarism report. We would like to clarify that the actual similarity index is below 20% when excluding the reference list. The initially reported 37% has been inflated due to the inclusion of the reference section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The manuscript examines whether stricter environmental policies and stronger governance frameworks can accelerate the transition to renewable energy. The topic is highly relevant and original, addressing a clear gap in the literature, as most existing studies focus on economic, technological, or institutional drivers of transition but rarely assess the direct impact of environmental policy stringency. The paper’s contribution lies in linking the OECD Environmental Policy Stringency index to renewable energy shares across 29 countries between 2010 and 2024, applying robust econometric methods including IV-GMM, 2SLS, GLS, and fixed effects. This approach provides valuable empirical evidence for both academic debates and policy design. Although the methodological framework is advanced, further clarification and refinement are necessary. The rationale for selecting instrumental variables should be detailed. Additionally, the economic mechanisms by which environmental governance influences energy transition require more precise explanation and empirical validation. Incorporating lagged effects would strengthen the analysis, as policy impacts often emerge over time. Expanding control variables to energy prices, urbanisation, and innovation indicators would also enhance robustness. The unexpected adverse effect of foreign direct investment warrants deeper examination, particularly regarding the distinction between FDI in energy-intensive and clean sectors. The analysis of trade openness should also be more thoroughly contextualised. The conclusions align with the evidence but are occasionally too general and do not fully capture the nuanced empirical results. The reference list is relevant and comprehensive; however, including studies from 2022 to 2024 would better situate the paper within current debates. While tables are informative, they are sometimes excessively detailed. Figures should be enhanced in both resolution and clarity. Introducing a conceptual framework that visually links environmental governance, green investment, innovation, and the dynamics of energy transition would improve readability and accessibility. Overall, this article makes a significant and timely contribution to sustainability research, but it requires substantial revision to address methodological limitations, provide more precise explanations of causal mechanisms, and streamline the presentation of results. With these improvements, the manuscript has strong potential to advance the literature on environmental governance and energy transition and to offer practical insights for policymakers.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers’ Comments

Manuscript Number: Sustainability 3872338

The Impact of Environmental Governance on Energy Transitions: Evidence from a Global Perspective

We would like to thank the Editor-in-Chief of the journal for giving us the opportunity to revise and improve our paper according to the valuable comments of the anonymous reviewers. Please find below our point-by-point response to all comments. Part or all of these responses are reflected in the revised manuscript. We hope that this revision will earn the satisfaction of the Editor and reviewer.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2

  1. The manuscript examines whether stricter environmental policies and stronger governance frameworks can accelerate the transition to renewable energy. The topic is highly relevant and original, addressing a clear gap in the literature, as most existing studies focus on economic, technological, or institutional drivers of transition but rarely assess the direct impact of environmental policy stringency.

Response: We thank the esteemed reviewer for supporting our work and hope the revised manuscript will earn their satisfaction.

  1. The paper’s contribution lies in linking the OECD Environmental Policy Stringency index to renewable energy shares across 29 countries between 2010 and 2024, applying robust econometric methods including IV-GMM, 2SLS, GLS, and fixed effects. This approach provides valuable empirical evidence for both academic debates and policy design.

Response: We thank the esteemed reviewer for supporting our work and hope the revised manuscript will earn their satisfaction.

  1. Although the methodological framework is advanced, further clarification and refinement are necessary. The rationale for selecting instrumental variables should be detailed.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We acknowledge the importance of providing a clear rationale for the selection of instrumental variables. Our methodological approach is mainly based on the Instrumental Variables Two-Step Generalized Method of Moments (IV 2-Step GMM) and Instrumental Variables-Two-Stage Least Squares (IV-2SLS), which allow addressing potential endogeneity. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified that our instrument set includes both internal instruments, such as lagged values of the endogenous regressors (lagged EPS), and external instruments, selected based on theoretical relevance and empirical studies (corruption control, high-tech exports, and rule of law). These external instruments are chosen to be correlated with the endogenous regressors while remaining exogenous to the error term. We have reported the diagnostic tests, including Kleibergen-Paap χ2, Cragg-Donald F-statistic, Hansen J test statistic, and endogeneity test. Diagnostic tests confirm that the instruments used are relevant and valid, the model is properly identified, and the absence of weak instruments.

  1. Additionally, the economic mechanisms by which environmental governance influences energy transition require more precise explanation and empirical validation.

Response: Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that a more precise articulation of the economic mechanisms linking environmental governance to the energy transition is essential. In response, we expanded the theoretical background section to discuss the key theories that reinforce the relationship between environmental governance and the energy transition, along with the associated mechanisms. Additionally, we have introduced a new subsection that elaborates on two primary economic mechanisms, government regulation and technological innovation, through which environmental governance can influence the energy transition. These mechanisms are also examined empirically using a two-stage econometric framework.

  1. Incorporating lagged effects would strengthen the analysis, as policy impacts often emerge over time.

Response: Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We have incorporated lagged effects into the analysis, as shown in Table 5, Column 5. The results are consistent with our baseline findings across IV 2-Step GMM, IV-2SLS, Feasible GLS, and Driscoll-Kraay estimations, confirming the robustness of the policy impacts over time.

  1. Expanding control variables to energy prices, urbanization, and innovation indicators would also enhance robustness.

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. We agree that including variables such as energy prices, urbanization, and innovation can enrich the analysis by accounting for broader factors influencing the energy transition. However, the current model already incorporates three key control variables, in addition to environmental governance, resulting in a total of four explanatory variables. While we recognize the importance of incorporating more control variables, expanding the set further may introduce several challenges. In addition to the risk of multicollinearity, which can distort coefficient estimates and reduce statistical significance, adding more variables in a relatively small cross-country sample can lead to overfitting, reduce degrees of freedom, and compromise the reliability of parameter estimates. For these reasons, we have chosen to retain a parsimonious model to preserve estimation robustness and clarity. Nonetheless, we acknowledge this limitation in the revised manuscript and suggest that future research could explore extended control variables.

  1. The unexpected adverse effect of foreign direct investment warrants deeper examination, particularly regarding the distinction between FDI in energy-intensive and clean sectors.

Response: We thank the reviewer for attracting our attention to this issue. Indeed, FDI can play a dual role in the energy transition, either accelerating or hindering its progress. As discussed in the literature review section, these investments may accelerate clean energy deployment and technological innovation by transferring green and environmentally friendly technologies to host countries. It also provides essential financial resources that can support the energy transition, particularly in developing economies. However, FDI inflows may also be directed toward carbon-intensive sectors such as oil, gas, and coal, where foreign investors generally prioritize short-term benefits over long-term sustainability. By doing so, these investments can reinforce existing fossil fuel–based energy infrastructures by expanding extraction, refining, and distribution capacities, thereby increasing the demand for fossil-fuel energy sources in host countries and deteriorating environmental indicators. The discussion of the results has accordingly been developed.

  1. The analysis of trade openness should also be more thoroughly contextualised.

Response: We have added a new subsection titled “Additional drivers of energy transition,” where we briefly explain the rationale for including each of the three control variables (FDI, international trade, and economic growth), along with their expected effects on energy transition and the corresponding hypotheses.

  1. The conclusions align with the evidence but are occasionally too general and do not fully capture the nuanced empirical results.

Response: Thank you for this insightful feedback. We agree that while our conclusions were grounded in the empirical evidence, they needed greater specificity to reflect the nuanced results. We have therefore revised the Main Conclusions and Discussion of Findings section to highlight the range of elasticity coefficients (e.g., 0.34–0.96 for environmental governance and 1.19–1.59 for GDP per capita), the conditional and mixed effects of trade openness (positive in Feasible GLS but insignificant elsewhere), and the small, adverse, specification-dependent effects of FDI. We also incorporated the mediating roles of government regulation and technological innovation, and added explicit discussion of income-related equity implications and the need for targeted international policies. These revisions ensure the conclusions capture the subtleties of our empirical results without overgeneralization.

  1. The reference list is relevant and comprehensive; however, including studies from 2022 to 2024 would better situate the paper within current debates.

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have reviewed recent literature and updated the reference list to include relevant studies published between 2022 and 2025.

  1. While tables are informative, they are sometimes excessively detailed.

Response: Thank you for your helpful feedback. To improve clarity and readability, we have reduced the detail of the notes below the tables. This helps focus attention on the key results while maintaining the essential information necessary for interpretation.

  1. Figures should be enhanced in both resolution and clarity.

Response: Done. We improved the quality of the figures as much as possible.

  1. Introducing a conceptual framework that visually links environmental governance, green investment, innovation, and the dynamics of energy transition would improve readability and accessibility.

Response: We added Figure 1 — a conceptual diagram showing H1: Environmental governance → Energy transition; mediating channels H3a (Government regulation) and H3b (Technological innovation); additional drivers H2a–H2c (FDI, Trade, GDP); The figure is included in the revised manuscript.

  1. Overall, this article makes a significant and timely contribution to sustainability research, but it requires substantial revision to address methodological limitations, provide more precise explanations of causal mechanisms, and streamline the presentation of results. With these improvements, the manuscript has strong potential to advance the literature on environmental governance and energy transition and to offer practical insights for policymakers.

Response: We thank the esteemed reviewer for all comments and suggestions, which improved the quality of the manuscript. We hope the revised manuscript will earn their satisfaction.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Author/s addressed all comments appropriately and I wish a success for them  

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The authors have addressed all comments. The paper demonstrates high quality and is recommended for publication.