Can Membership in Intergovernmental Organizations Effectively Reduce CO₂ Emissions?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, please find below some suggestions and comments for your consideration. Thank you, and best regards.

 

1. Abstract and Introduction:
• The abstract provides a clear summary of the study. In the introduction, the transition from general global warming concerns to the focus on IGOs could be more fluid. Consider linking the role of IGOs to CO₂ emissions earlier in the introduction to strengthen the narrative.
2. Literature Review:
• The literature review is comprehensive but could benefit from a more critical comparison of the findings from past studies. Highlighting gaps in prior research more explicitly would better justify the study's contributions.
• Citations should use DOIs wherever possible to enhance traceability and credibility. This should reflect in the reference list. Using a reference manager may be helpful, and will make referencing seamless.
3. Methodology:
• The methodology section is appropriate.
4. Results and Discussion:
• The results section is well-structured. In the discussion, link the findings more explicitly to practical policy recommendations. How can countries prioritize IGOs based on their impact on CO₂ reductions?
5. Language and Style:
• The manuscript is generally well-written but contains minor grammatical errors. A thorough proofreading would help ensure clarity and polish.
• Simplify technical jargon where possible to make the content more accessible to a broader audience, including policymakers.
6. Conclusion:
• The conclusion reiterates the key findings well but could be strengthened by integrating a more forward-looking perspective. Discuss how the findings align with international environmental agreements like the Paris Agreement.
7. References:
• Ensure that all references are complete and use the correct formatting style. Some citations lack DOIs, which should be included for consistency.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This manuscript will benefit from proofreading.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable review comments on the study: “Can Membership in IGOs Effectively Reduce CO2 Emissions?”. Your comments are very important and constructive for us to improve the quality of the study. Based on your comments, we have made extensive and in-depth revisions. Please see the attachment.
Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction section should clarify:

- the research gap.

- the motivation to do the research

- research contributions.

The literautre section should be more crtitical and hypotheses should be part of and derived from the literautre. 

The paper's findings are not adequately discussed

Research conclusion is missing several important elements such as implications, limitaions and contributions. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Can be improved

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable review comments on the study: “Can Membership in IGOs Effectively Reduce CO2 Emissions?”. Your comments are very important and constructive for us to improve the quality of the study. Based on your comments, we have made extensive and in-depth revisions. Please see the attachment.
Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please refer to the attached file for my comments and suggestions. I urge the authors to incorporate all these points in detail.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable review comments on the study: “Can Membership in IGOs Effectively Reduce CO2 Emissions?”. Your comments are very important and constructive for us to improve the quality of the study. Based on your comments, we have made extensive and in-depth revisions. Please see the attachment.
Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Environmental protection is undoubtedly a crucial element of societies and the economies of various countries.

The paper contains several shortcomings that need to be addressed before the article can be published:

1) According to the literature review, “Most IGOs are established for economic purposes, and safety, health, and environment are also important goals (Ertrk [1])” (line No 104). Subsequently, the literature review focuses on studies about Environmental NGOs/INGOs, while in this article, the Authors examine IGOs in general (intergovernmental organizations, without the "Environmental" prefix). It would be more logical to delve into specific organizations ("Environmental") rather than identifying a general relationship. Such a broad approach might result in spurious correlations, as these relationships could be coincidental rather than causal. Thus, based on the literature review, the Authors should have conducted an analysis of the relationship between Environmental NGOs/IGOs/INGOs and CO2 emissions.

 

2) In line No133, the Authors write: “Fraser and Temocin [11] sampled 1741 cities in Japan and examined the role of environmental NGOs in urban emissions from 2005 to 2017”. However, Japan has 1741 municipalities, not cities. Fraser and Temocin [11] specifically refer to municipalities in their study.

[Fraser, T.; Temocin, P. Grassroots vs. greenhouse: the role of environmental organizations in reducing carbon emissions. Climatic Change. 2021, 169, 1-22.]

It is crucial to use accurate terminology to avoid misleading readers.

 

3) Regarding the time series analysis, the Authors should have tested for multicollinearity among the independent variables before proceeding with the analysis. While fixed effects account for unobserved heterogeneity (time-invariant factors in the panel), they do not address the linear relationships among the independent variables. If independent variables are highly correlated, multicollinearity issues remain. Multicollinearity can inflate the standard errors of coefficient estimates, making it harder to determine the statistical significance of individual predictors, which may lead to potentially misleading conclusions.

 

4) This study demonstrates a significant mismatch between the literature review and the research design. Typically, researchers propose future research directions and discuss limitations after presenting their research design and results. However, in this case, the problem emerges at the stage of the literature review, which focused on Environmental NGOs/IGOs.

The Authors deliberately shifted their focus to NGOs/IGOs in general. This is evident in their statement in lines No 435–437: “In future research, it is necessary to quantitatively measure the weight of IGOs and observe in more detail the impact of adding DIFFERENT TYPES of IGOs on carbon dioxide emissions.” This suggestion emphasizes the need to study various types of IGOs in future research. However, it contradicts the theme of the literature review, which was exclusively focused on the Environmental type.

Thus, in this study, the Authors should have selected Environmental type IGOs for analysis to ensure consistency between the literature review and the primary focus of the research.

 

Conclusion

The Authors should pursue one of two approaches to improve the study:

1) Focus on Environmental IGOs and conduct additional research specifically using the Environmental IGOs variable;

or

2) Provide robust evidence (without misleading the reader) in the literature that any type of IGOs influences CO2 emissions. Consequently, a detailed literature review should be conducted to support this broader approach.

 

Best regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable review comments on the study: “Can Membership in IGOs Effectively Reduce CO2 Emissions?”. Your comments are very important and constructive for us to improve the quality of the study. Based on your comments, we have made extensive and in-depth revisions. Please see the attachment.
Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for allowing me to review the manuscript titled “Can Membership in IGOs Effectively Reduce CO2 Emissions?”.

This study investigates whether membership IGOs can effectively reduce carbon dioxide emissions, using global panel data from 168 countries spanning the years 1960 to 2014. However, I believe the study does not make a significant contribution to the existing literature on the topic. Additionally, the data covers a period that does not include the most recent decade, which may limit its relevance to current research questions and global environmental trends.

The discussion section lacks depth and fails to adequately engage with or build upon existing literature in the field. Furthermore, the conclusion does not follow a clear, standard structure, making it less effective in summarizing the key findings and implications of the study.

Moreover, the manuscript does not address the limitations of the study or suggest directions for future research, which are important for contextualizing the findings. Finally, the paper could benefit from additional references to better support the analysis and claims made throughout.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English could be improved

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable review comments on the study: “Can Membership in IGOs Effectively Reduce CO2 Emissions?”. Your comments are very important and constructive for us to improve the quality of the study. Based on your comments, we have made extensive and in-depth revisions. Please see the attachment.
Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks a lot for your valuable review. Wish you have a good day and Happy New Year.

 

Besr regards

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for addressing my comments in the previous round. In fact, all my concerns have been successfully addressed and I have no further reservations.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks a lot for your valuable review. Wish you have a good day and Happy New Year.

 

Besr regards

Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

Thank you for the correction of the article. All comments have been addressed; however, the Authors could find more evidence in the literature on its relationship with CO2 emissions.

 

Notes that still need to be corrected:

1) Rename please “Table 2. Correlation and Multicollinearity Test” to “Table 2. Correlation analysis”

 

2) The Authors did not mention about high correlation between two relationships: Correlation between (Degree and lnIGO) = 0.787; Degree and Closeness (0.814). It makes high VIF values. However, since the variables Degree and lnIGO, as well as Degree and Closeness, do not appear together in the models, there is no multicollinearity issue in practice.

Add this text to the article after the correlation matrix (near the line 253):

In Table 2, we can see that the correlations between independent variables and control variables are not high, with correlation coefficients of less than 0.5., except for two relationships. The correlation between Degree and lnIGO is 0.787 (p < 0.01), and the correlation between Degree and Closeness is 0.814 (p < 0.01). These high correlations result in high VIF values, indicating a potential multicollinearity problem. However, since the variables Degree and lnIGO, as well as Degree and Closeness, do not appear together in the models, there is no multicollinearity issue in practice.

 

3) Line 350: “…and column (64). The …” to “…and column (6). The…”

Line 467: “ …reductions-an … ” to “ … reductions – an … ”

 

 

Best Regards,

 

Reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable review comments on the study: “Can Membership in  Intergovernmental Organizations Effectively Reduce CO2 Emissions?”. Your comments are very important and constructive for us to improve the quality of the study. Based on your comments, we have made revisions and highlighted in yellow part in the manuscript. Please see the attachment for detailed response.
Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for the revised version of the article.

The authors tried to improve the value of the paper. Unfortunately, it is still not convincing.

First of all, the first hypothesis does not need research. The outcome is obvious: countries joining IGOs have a negative relationship with CO2 emissions, as IGOs provide member countries with guidelines, policies, and resources to obtain the technology required to protect the environment. Spilker (2016) empirically proved this using panel data analysis of 114 countries from 1970 to 2000.

The following contributions are not acceptable. This study reproduced with additional years of data and samples. The data is still 15 years outdated.

“First, existing researches mostly focus on case analysis and factual studies, discussing 156 and analyzing through logical inference, lacking quantitative empirical testing. In our 157 study, we use the fixed effect model to do empirical tests and contain a series of robustness 158 tests and endogenous tests to ensure the credibility of the results. 159 Secondly, the research time series of some empirical tests are relatively short and 160 concentrated in specific international organizations or regions, lacking global and greater 161 universality. Therefore, we use a larger global panel data which includes 54 years and 168 162 countries to find a more general principle. 163 Thirdly, most literature focuses on studying the impact of environmental interna- 164 tional organizations on carbon dioxide emissions, and there is relatively few research on 165 the membership in IGOs and relationship of countries in all IGOs on carbon dioxide re- 166 duction. Therefore, we use more credible quantitative tools and data discussed above to 167 test the following hypothesis…..”

 

I suggest, this paper has no contribution to the literature, methods, and policy making.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

need improvement

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your kind revision. The study uses global panel data of 168 countries from 1960 to 2014. Athough data is 10 years outdated, this is the longest open dataset we can use, which is 24 years longer than Spilker (2016).  Even the outcome is obvious, we still need data and pratice evidence to prove the result which may be make sense in logic.

Best regards

Round 3

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lack of contribution to literature, and policy making

Very limited references

Out dated data has being used for the analysis. Therefore, the findings are not reliable.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA

Author Response

Thanks for your kind review. We are sorry that the study can not convince you.