Influence of Ownership Structure on the Debt Level and Efficiency of Electricity Companies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: A better alignment of the summary content with the journal's template requirements is recommended: ” We 
strongly encourage authors to use the following style of structured abstracts, but without headings: (1) Background: 
Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; (2) Methods: briefly 
describe the main methods or treatments applied; (3) Results: summarize the article’s main findings; (4) 
Conclusions: indicate the main conclusions or interpretations”. 

Response 1: Thank you for the recommendation, the abstract has been reformulated and structured according to the journal's model requirements.

Comments 2: In the Introduction:   - It is recommended to further detail the broader context in which the study fits by citing a more consistent corpus 
of key works; - A more extensive presentation of the ideas that explain the theoretical and practical utility of the study is 
recommended; - It is recommended to better align the introduction with the requirements of the journal template by presenting 
the main conclusions concisely (” Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work and highlight the principal 
conclusions.”). 

Response 2: Thank you for your comment. The introduction has been expanded to include the reviewer's suggestions, particularly regarding a broader presentation of the research idea and key findings.

 

Comments 3: In Section 2, "Literature Review," it is recommended that authors initiate a broader dialog with the specialized 
literature, citing several key works that analyze the link between ownership structure, debt level, and the efficiency 
of companies in general. I think it would be useful to explain, for readers who are not familiar with the subject, 
through a more in-depth dialog with the specialized literature, what the connection is between ownership structure, 
debt level, and company efficiency. Presenting multiple viewpoints expressed in the literature would add more 
weight to their findings and allow the authors to verify the extent to which their results align or do not align with 
previous results presented in the scientific literature (even though the authors claim they did not identify other 
studies developed on the energy sector). 

Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestions. The literature review was expanded to include research from Europe, Asia, the United States, and Latin America. These authors' multiple perspectives provide a comprehensive overview of the research topic's context in the literature.

 

Comments 4: In section 3, "Materials and Methods," it is recommended to present the variables used more explicitly by adding 
a table that summarizes the relevant information, which could have the following structure: 
Category 
Variable 
Symbol 
Definition 
Explained variables     
Source 
Explanatory 
variables 
Control variable     
Response 4: Thank you for the recommendation. We have included Table 1 with a summary of the variables and their main characteristics.

Comments 5:  In section 4, "Results and Discussion," it is recommended to more clearly correlate the presented results with the 
answers to the research questions. We suggest that the authors organize section 4 to more clearly show how the 
research questions are answered using the results discussed in this section. 

Response 5: Thank you for your comment. We improved the final presentation of the results by bringing back the research problem presented in the introduction and the results we found for that problem.

 

Comments 6:  In section 5 "Conclusions":  - It is recommended to elaborate on the idea from the introduction that "Utilitarianly, this research is expected to 
assist stakeholders in decision-making." - It is recommended to suggest future research directions.

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. We've included in the conclusion how the research results can help stakeholders make decisions and possible directions for future research.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Here are the comments on the paper "INFLUENCE OF OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE ON THE DEBT LEVEL AND EFFICIENCY OF ELECTRICITY COMPANIES" submitted to Sustainability.  

1. The literature review should be written in the past tense as the work has already been completed, similar to this paper's methods and empirical results.
2. The Introduction to the paper is plodding.  The authors should separate the introduction and the Review of the Literature sections.  Make it easier for the readers to follow the paper.
3. Line 32  define agency conflict. 
4. Lines 33-36  the author(s)  are being a bit too wordy.  LESS IS MORE IN GOOD WRITING.  Eliminate unnecessary words and make your writing as tight and concise as you can.
5. Lines 70-71 explain this in more detail
6. Line 84 what is Reference [11]?
7. Line 85 what is Reference [12]?
8. Section 3 is Materials and Methods.  What are the materials  being used?
9. The review of the literature seems short, the author(s) should delve into more detail. 
10. Line 100-101 take out the following: and the analysis was performed using Stata® software. 
11. In the full paper, including the abstract, restrict the use of terms such as “we”, “our”, “I” and “my” to only those instances where you are expressing your personal opinion.
12. Line 126 Residual should be residual 
13. Be sure to define the acroymn FGLS in the text of the paper.  The acroynm is not defined anywhere in the paper. 
14. The author(s) should clearly discuss why they are using the feasible generalized least squares (FGLS) in this analysis. 
15. In the correlation matrix which of these correlation coefficients are statistically significant? 
16. Each table or figure must include in the notes below the table or figure, the data source(s) in citation format.
17. Lines 184-187  the author(s)  are being a bit too wordy.  LESS IS MORE IN GOOD WRITING.  Eliminate unnecessary words and make your writing as tight and concise as you can.
18. Lines 203-206  the author(s)  are being a bit too wordy.  LESS IS MORE IN GOOD WRITING.  Eliminate unnecessary words and make your writing as tight and concise as you can.
19. Be sure to define the acroynm LM in the text of the paper. 
20. Lines 218-221  the author(s)  are being a bit too wordy.  LESS IS MORE IN GOOD WRITING.  Eliminate unnecessary words and make your writing as tight and concise as you can.
21. Lines 242-246 the author(s)  are being a bit too wordy.  LESS IS MORE IN GOOD WRITING.  Eliminate unnecessary words and make your writing as tight and concise as you can.
22. Lines 250-254  the author(s)  are being a bit too wordy.  LESS IS MORE IN GOOD WRITING.  Eliminate unnecessary words and make your writing as tight and concise as you can.
23. Appendix B this table is not clear.  The author(s) should somehow revise to give the readers a better understanding of the panel regression coefficients. 
24. The author(s) provide many different diagnostic tests.  Do they need to show all of them?  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author(s) should have a colleague or a professional editor edit this paper to improve flow and clarity. 

Author Response

Comments 1: The literature review should be written in the past tense as the work has already been completed, similar to this paper's methods and empirical results.

Response 1: Thanks for the comment. We've revised the survey's verb tense, changing it to the past.

Comments 2:  The Introduction to the paper is plodding.  The authors should separate the introduction and the Review of the Literature sections.  Make it easier for the readers to follow the paper.

Response 2: Thanks for the comment. We've improved the introduction taking the reviewer's suggestions into account.

Comments 3: Line 32  define agency conflict. 

Response 3: Thanks, it's been defined.

Comments 4: Lines 33-36  the author(s)  are being a bit too wordy.  LESS IS MORE IN GOOD WRITING.  Eliminate unnecessary words and make your writing as tight and concise as you can.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. The paragraph has been reworded, and the other reviewers' suggestions have been taken into account in the decision.

Comments 5: Lines 70-71 explain this in more detail

Response 5: It has been adjusted.

Comments 6: Line 84 what is Reference [11]?

Response 6: It has been fixed. Thank.

Comments 7: Line 85 what is Reference [12]?

Response 7: It has been fixed. Thank.

Comments 8: Section 3 is Materials and Methods.  What are the materials  being used?

Response 8: It has been fixed. Thank.

Comments 9: The review of the literature seems short, the author(s) should delve into more detail. 

Response 9: The literature review was expanded and deepened.

Comments 10: Line 100-101 take out the following: and the analysis was performed using Stata® software. 

Response 10: Yes, regressions were run in Stata® software.

Comments 11: In the full paper, including the abstract, restrict the use of terms such as “we”, “our”, “I” and “my” to only those instances where you are expressing your personal opinion.

Response 11: It has been fixed. Thank.

Comments 12: Line 126 Residual should be residual 

Response 12: It has been fixed. Thank.

Comments 13: Be sure to define the acroymn FGLS in the text of the paper.  The acroynm is not defined anywhere in the paper. 

Response 13: It has been fixed. Thank.

Comments 14: The author(s) should clearly discuss why they are using the feasible generalized least squares (FGLS) in this analysis. 

Response 14: The FGLS process was explained and chosen because it "transforms" the model so that errors become homoscedastic and uncorrelated, given that heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation were identified in the tests performed. A mathematical explanation of the process was not provided because it goes beyond the intentions of this work.

Comments 15: In the correlation matrix which of these correlation coefficients are statistically significant? 

Response 15: The correlation matrix was used only as an indicator of the presence of multicollinearity, however, the VIF value is the determining factor for identifying multicollinearity, which was not identified.

Comments 16: Each table or figure must include in the notes below the table or figure, the data source(s) in citation format.

Response 16: All tables presented in the research are derived from the authors' conclusions. According to the journal's standards, when the source is the actual results of the research under analysis, these are not referenced. Source: Research results prepared by the authors.

Comments 17: Lines 184-187  the author(s)  are being a bit too wordy.  LESS IS MORE IN GOOD WRITING.  Eliminate unnecessary words and make your writing as tight and concise as you can.

Response 17: It has been fixed. Thank.

Comments 18: Lines 203-206  the author(s)  are being a bit too wordy.  LESS IS MORE IN GOOD WRITING.  Eliminate unnecessary words and make your writing as tight and concise as you can.

Response 18: It has been fixed. Thank.

Comments 19: Be sure to define the acroynm LM in the text of the paper. 

Response 19: It has been fixed. Thank.

Comments 20: Lines 218-221  the author(s)  are being a bit too wordy.  LESS IS MORE IN GOOD WRITING.  Eliminate unnecessary words and make your writing as tight and concise as you can.

 Response 20: It has been fixed. Thank.

Comments 21: Lines 242-246 the author(s)  are being a bit too wordy.  LESS IS MORE IN GOOD WRITING.  Eliminate unnecessary words and make your writing as tight and concise as you can.

Response 21: It has been fixed. Thank.

Comments 22: Lines 250-254  the author(s)  are being a bit too wordy.  LESS IS MORE IN GOOD WRITING.  Eliminate unnecessary words and make your writing as tight and concise as you can.

Response 22:  It has been fixed. Thank.

Comments 23: Appendix B this table is not clear.  The author(s) should somehow revise to give the readers a better understanding of the panel regression coefficients. 

Response 23: Considering the large number of coefficients generated and information from the panel regression, in addition to the recommendations of the other reviewers, the authors understood that this presentation was the one that best met the reviewers' recommendations.

Comments 24: The author(s) provide many different diagnostic tests.  Do they need to show all of them?  

Response 24: Thank you for your comment. For the results generated to be valid and reliable, all statistical tests performed are necessary. Otherwise, the results could be spurious, as they would not meet the necessary statistical requirements. We sought to minimize the number of tests and avoid mathematical explanations. However, we maintain the presentation of the results to confirm that the research findings are robust and consistent.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments in attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: The literature review can be extended by more contemporary publications. The fact is that the problem “influence of ownership structure on the debt level and efficiency of company” (not necessary of electric sphere) it is widely presented in modern literature.
Tesponse 1: Thank you for your comment. We have expanded and updated the literature review to include research on ownership structures in the United States, Europe, Asia, and Latin America.

 

Comments 2: It should be more economically ground research topic. The importance of it is high for understanding received results (at the general frameworks of research topics. May be “principle-agent” relationships also).
Tesponse 2: Thank you for the recommendation. We've expanded the topic, improving the foundation and providing more detailed information on the context and application of the research findings.

 

Comments 3:(May be most important) to add economic interpretation of received results by statistical tools results. This will allow to obtain a clearer economic understanding of the results.
Tesponse 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We provide further details in the final discussion of the results, and in the conclusion. The findings of this research provide a practical contribution to stakeholders, especially to sector regulators, as the research showed that more concentrated companies tend, on average, to be less efficient. In the long term, efficiency in electricity companies is desirable, as it can help reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Kindly check the attached report. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Comments 1: Lack of Contribution: The paper does not clearly articulate its contribution to the existing literature. Without a well-defined value-added element, it is difficult to justify the study’s significance.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We have improved the text by clearly articulating the contributions of the research to the literature, highlighting its originality in filling a gap in the literature for such an important sector as the electricity sector. We reiterate that in the entire literature review, no study on ownership structure in the electricity sector was found, confirming the relevance of this work. Understanding how ownership structures interact in the electricity sector contributes to the efficiency of electricity companies, which can indirectly help reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Electricity sector regulators will have, for the first time, information on how company structure influences their performance; this is important for the sector's merger control policies.

Comments 2: Introduction Structure: The introduction fails to conclude with an outline of the paper’s structure. This omission affects the logical flow and makes it difficult for the reader to navigate the paper.
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. The introduction has been reorganized to highlight the article's purpose, and the article's structure has also been addressed.

Comments 3: Hypothesis Development: A clear hypothesis development section is missing. Instead of a structured and theoretically grounded progression toward hypotheses, the manuscript provides fragmented statements that do not establish a coherent research framework.
Response 3: Thank you for your comment. We improved the article's structure and expanded the literature review to include studies from Asia, the United States, Europe, and Latin America. We restructured the introduction and detailed the results, including their applications and contributions to the literature and stakeholders. The tests performed were organized sequentially and in a structured manner, as required by the econometric model. Considering the suggestions of the other reviewers, the authors sought to reconcile everyone's suggestions to address all recommendations.

Comments 4: Data Processing: The authors did not report the data processing procedures, including how the dataset was cleaned, validated, or prepared for analysis. This lack of methodological transparency raises questions about the reliability and reproducibility of the findings.
Response 4: Thank you for your comment. Data processing was fully described in the methodology, as set out in the paragraph immediately following the models, currently lines 181-187. We emphasize that the data were analyzed in US dollars, as described in the methodology, to avoid the effects of local currency inflation. The data were Winsorized, a treatment described in the methodology. These were the only preparations made for the analysis, all described in the methodology.

Comments 5: Study Limitations and Future Research: The manuscript does not provide a meaningful discussion of study limitations or directions for future research. This weakens the paper’s scholarly contribution, as it does not acknowledge boundaries or suggest ways to advance the topic.
Response 5: Thank you for your comment. We've included the article's limitations and expanded the directions for future research.

Comments 6: Practical Implications: The paper fails to report clear and actionable practical implications. For a study to be impactful, it should address how practitioners, policymakers, or stakeholders can benefit from the findings.
Response 6: Thank you for your comment. The research's practical implications for stakeholders have been included, especially for public policy regulators, who will be able to better understand how ownership structures behave in the electricity sector with this research. The results indicate that, on average, concentrated companies are less efficient. This provides insights for competition and merger policies in the sector, considering that it is in the interest of many, as the efficiency of electricity companies can help reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Ultimately, the more efficient they are, the better for the sector. These and other implications were included in the research.

Comments 7: Literature Review and References: The manuscript relies on only 27 references, with very few recent articles included. Given that the topic has been widely studied in recent years, the failure to cite critical and up-to-date works significantly undermines the paper’s academic grounding and credibility.
Response 7: Thank you for your comment. We have significantly expanded and deepened the references mentioned in the research, including works from Asia, the United States, Latin America, and Europe, including recent research published in 2025.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. I would recommend that the authors pay more attention to the analysis of recent sources in the field, a condition set by the journal.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: Specific comments
I would recommend that the authors pay more attention to the analysis of recent sources in the field, a condition set by the journal.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. References have been expanded and deepened, and recent sources in the field have been included, such as those from the current year 2025. Studies from various locations, such as Asia, Europe, the United States, and Latin America, have also been included.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After carefully reviewing the manuscript, I recommend Major Revisions before the paper can be considered for publication. The following issues must be addressed:

1. Introduction

At the end of the introduction, the authors must include a clear paragraph that outlines the structure of the paper. This will guide readers through the flow of the manuscript.

2. Literature Review

The current literature review lacks proper organization. The section should be divided into two subheadings:

• Theoretical Background
• Previous Studies and Hypothesis Development

This division will provide clarity, ensure logical progression, and strengthen the foundation of the research.

3. Table 1 – Variables

Table 1 needs to be expanded by adding two additional columns:

• Recent references that have used similar proxies.
• Source of each variable.

This will enhance transparency and provide stronger justification for variable selection.

4. Analysis of Results

The analysis of the results is currently thin and descriptive. The authors must add critical evaluation by comparing findings with recent publications. A deeper discussion on similarities, differences, and potential implications will significantly strengthen the contribution of the study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Comments 1: Introduction

At the end of the introduction, the authors must include a clear paragraph that outlines the structure of the paper. This will guide readers through the flow of the manuscript.

Response 1: Thanks for the comment. The change has been made.

 

Comments 2: Literature Review

The current literature review lacks proper organization. The section should be divided into two subheadings:

• Theoretical Background
• Previous Studies and Hypothesis Development

This division will provide clarity, ensure logical progression, and strengthen the foundation of the research.

Response 2: Thanks for the comment. The section has been divided into two subheadings as requested.

 

Comments 3: Table 1 – Variables

Table 1 needs to be expanded by adding two additional columns:

• Recent references that have used similar proxies.
• Source of each variable.

This will enhance transparency and provide stronger justification for variable selection.

Response 3: Thanks for the comment. The two requested columns have been inserted.

 

Comments 4: Analysis of Results

The analysis of the results is currently thin and descriptive. The authors must add critical evaluation by comparing findings with recent publications. A deeper discussion on similarities, differences, and potential implications will significantly strengthen the contribution of the study.

Response 4: Thanks for the comment. The analysis of the results was expanded and deepened. Comparisons with other studies and potential implications were made.

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current version of the paper shows significant improvement and is much better than the previous submission. It now meets the minimum standards required for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Comments 1: The current version of the paper shows significant improvement and is much better than the previous submission. It now meets the minimum standards required for publication.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We have considered all your recommendations, and we appreciate you taking the time to review the article.