Drivers of Environmental Sustainability, Economic Growth, and Inequality: A Study of Economic Complexity, FDI, and Human Development Role in BRICS+ Nations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study as a whole is novel and innovative, but there are the following questions that need to be answered and added:
(1) Although the authors conducted unit root and cointegration tests, it is not clear how the cross-sectional dependence was handled (e.g., the specific model or correction method used). Additional methodological details are recommended;
(2) In Model 3, the effect of ECI on CO₂ has opposite signs in FMOLS and DOLS (negative in FMOLS and positive in DOLS), and the reason for this difference needs to be clearly explained, e.g., the effect of model dynamics or sample characteristics.
(3) The titles of some charts are not detailed enough (e.g., ‘Table 4. Johansen Fisher Panel Co-integration Test’), and it is suggested that the specific hypotheses or key conclusions of the test should be added.
(4) The study was mainly based on correlation analysis. It is recommended that the limitations of causality be clearly stated in the conclusion, and future studies are called upon to adopt more rigorous causal inference methods (e.g., DID or IV).

(5) English grammar needs to be checked for changes.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English grammar needs to be checked for changes

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. We have thoroughly revised the entire manuscript to improve the clarity, coherence, and grammatical accuracy of the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript conducts research on the impact of factors such as economic complexity, foreign direct investment, and human development index on environmental sustainability, economic growth, and inequality, which has important practical significance and theoretical value. The research method is relatively rigorous, and by constructing multiple models and using various econometric techniques for analysis, some meaningful conclusions have been drawn. However, there are also some shortcomings in the manuscript that need further improvement.

• The abstract is too lengthy and fails to clearly distinguish the research background, methods, results, and significance. It is recommended to make revisions.
• There is an issue with the temperature unit format on line 41, it is recommended to make modifications.
• There are issues with the chemical formula of carbon dioxide in multiple parts of the article, and it is recommended to make revisions.
• The formulas in the methodology section should be centered and numbered to the right.
• There is an issue with the text formatting in line 660, it is recommended to make corrections.
• The overall language expression is relatively smooth, and the technical terms are used accurately. However, some sentences are quite complex and could be simplified appropriately to improve the readability of the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We have thoroughly revised the entire manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is good. I consider several conclusions, such as the following, to be among the most important of its research. 

FDI can boost economic activity, although it may come at the cost of worsening inequality and environmental harm. CO2 emission is negatively associated with income inequality. FDI and HDI tend to increase inequality.

HDI contribute to GDP. Health, education and high living standards contribute to lower the CO2 emissions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

With respect to the english improvement. Throughout the article there are several typos due to a single missing space. Examples are the errors in the following 2 lines:
Line 36. “ofglobal” instead of “of global”.
Line 408. “residuals. On” instead of “residuals. On”
There is also a typo in the line:
Line 437- “respectivelyp” instead of “¿?”
I suggest that one of the authors make a detailed review of the entire article to correct these errors.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We have thoroughly revised the entire manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study presents an ambitious and timely investigation into the relationships between CO2 emissions, income inequality, economic complexity, foreign direct investment, human development, and economic growth in BRICS+ nations. The inclusion of diverse variables and the attempt to explore their interconnections is commendable. However, there are several concerns and areas for improvement that need to be addressed before the paper can be considered suitable for publication. Below are my detailed comments:

1. Clarity and Coherence of the Introduction

• The introduction section lacks a clear and logical flow. The author jumps directly into discussing the relationships between variables without adequately setting the stage with a strong background or context. This makes it difficult for readers to understand the motivation behind the study. I recommend restructuring the introduction to first provide a comprehensive background, followed by a gradual introduction of the variables and their interconnections.
• The coherence between sentences and paragraphs needs improvement. For instance, lines 42-46 lack logical connectivity, making the writing appear disjointed. Similarly, lines 48-65 require reorganization to ensure a smoother transition between ideas. The use of transitional phrases like "however" or "furthermore" should be strategically placed to enhance readability.
• The repeated use of words like "further" and "however" (e.g., lines 49, 61, 67, 129) creates redundancy. The author should vary their language to maintain reader engagement.

2. Justification for BRICS+ Nations

• The rationale for selecting BRICS+ nations as the focus of the study is not sufficiently explained. The current placement of this justification (line 172) disrupts the flow of the introduction. I suggest moving this explanation to line 149, where it would better fit into the narrative and provide readers with a clearer understanding of the study's scope and relevance.

3. Technical and Typographical Issues

• There are several typographical errors that need correction (e.g., lines 394, 586, 593, 660). These errors detract from the professionalism of the manuscript and should be carefully addressed.
• The placement of titles, tables, and section explanations is inconsistent. For example, lines 441, 477, 522, 613, 653, and 679 show improper spacing or separation between titles and their corresponding content. This should be standardized according to the journal's template.
• The use of spaces in tables is inconsistent and should be aligned with the journal's formatting guidelines.

4. Graphical Presentation

• Figures 1, 2, and 3 lack professional quality. The graphics should be redrawn to ensure clarity, precision, and visual appeal. Proper labeling, scaling, and formatting are essential to convey the intended information effectively.

5. Repetition in Section 5

• The first paragraph of Section 5 contains redundant explanations about the research purpose, model, analysis, and technical calculations (lines 717-726). This repetition is unnecessary and should be streamlined to avoid redundancy and improve conciseness.

6. Concerns with DOLS Analysis

• The Dynamic Ordinary Least Squares (DOLS) analysis presented in Tables 6, 8, and 10 raises significant concerns. The small sample size (n) for time series analysis per country undermines the robustness and validity of the regression results. The author appears to have overlooked the methodological requirements for conducting such analyses. I strongly recommend removing the DOLS analysis from these tables and reconsidering the analytical approach to ensure methodological rigor.

7. Source Attribution

• The author should ensure proper attribution of sources for all statements and claims. For example, lines 69-70 and 87-88 lack clear references, which could lead to issues of credibility and academic integrity. All sources must be appropriately cited.

8. General Recommendations

• The manuscript requires a thorough revision to improve its overall coherence, readability, and academic rigor. The author should pay close attention to the logical flow of ideas, grammatical accuracy, and adherence to the journal's formatting guidelines.
• The discussion of results should be more critical and insightful, linking findings to existing literature and highlighting the study's contributions.

While the study addresses an important and complex topic, significant revisions are necessary to enhance its quality and suitability for publication. Addressing the above concerns will strengthen the manuscript and ensure it meets the standards of academic rigor and clarity expected by the journal's readership.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors should seek professional English proofreading for the manuscript. The current draft contains grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, repetitive language, and typographical mistakes (e.g., lines 394, 586, 593, 660). These issues hinder readability and professionalism. A proofreader can improve clarity, coherence, and flow, ensuring the manuscript meets the journal's standards.

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback. We have undertaken a thorough revision of the manuscript to enhance its overall coherence, readability, and academic rigor. Particular attention has been given to improving the logical flow of ideas, grammatical accuracy, and adherence to the journal's formatting guidelines.

Additionally, we have strengthened the discussion of results by providing a more critical and insightful analysis, linking our findings to existing literature, and highlighting the study’s contributions. These improvements ensure a more comprehensive and impactful discussion.

To further enhance clarity and professionalism, we have sought professional English proofreading to address grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, repetitive language, and typographical mistakes (e.g., lines 394, 586, 593, 660). This revision has significantly improved the manuscript’s readability and adherence to the journal’s standards.

We appreciate your valuable suggestions, which have greatly contributed to refining the quality and suitability of our study for publication.

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback and constructive suggestions, which have helped us improve the quality and clarity of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this work, important insights were provided for the sustainable development policies of BRICS⁺countries by analyzing the dynamic relationship between the Economic Complexity Index (ECI), Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), Human Development Index (HDI), economic growth, income inequality, and CO ₂ emissions.I recommend to update the paper with minor revision before it can be accepted. The following points are addressed.

• Please indicate the units of the horizontal axis in Figures 1 to 3.
• Please explain how FDI affects inequality through technology spillovers or regulatory differences.
• Please explain the data processing method for missing years.

Author Response

Response to reviewer

 

In this work, important insights were provided for the sustainable development policies of BRICS⁺ countries by analysing the dynamic relationship between the Economic Complexity Index (ECI), Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), Human Development Index (HDI), economic growth, income inequality, and CO ₂ emissions. I recommend updating the paper with minor revision before it can be accepted. The following points are addressed.

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have been invaluable in refining our work. We have carefully addressed all the suggested points and made the necessary revisions as recommended.

 

Comment 1

Please indicate the units of the horizontal axis in Figures 1 to 3.

Response to reviewer

Thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised Figures 1 to 3 and clearly labeled the horizontal axis with the appropriate units to improve clarity and understanding.

 

 Comment 2

Please explain how FDI affects inequality through technology spillovers or regulatory differences.

Thank you for your insightful comment. We have successfully incorporated a detailed explanation in the revised manuscript on how FDI affects inequality through technology spillovers and regulatory differences. This addition enhances the depth of our analysis and aligns well with the study’s objectives.

We have added at page no 17.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) through multinational corporations (MNCs) can increase income inequality despite facilitating technology transfer and skill development [100]. Since MNCs typically offer higher wages, they primarily benefit skilled workers, widening the wage gap between skilled and unskilled labor. Additionally, MNCs may cluster in urban or more developed regions, leading to uneven economic development and regional disparities. As a result, while FDI boosts overall productivity and innovation, it can also exacerbate inequality by disproportionately benefiting certain workers and regions over others.

Comment 3

Please explain the data processing method for missing years.

Thank you for your comment. In response to your query regarding the data processing method for missing years in our panel dataset, we employed interpolation to address this issue. Specifically, we used linear interpolation, which estimates missing values based on known data points from adjacent years. This method was chosen because it preserves the overall trend in the data, minimizes bias, and improves the accuracy of the analysis. By filling in the missing years through interpolation, we were able to construct a more complete and coherent dataset, thereby enabling a more robust and reliable panel analysis. We believe this approach strengthens the validity of our findings. We added at Econometric Methods sub-section.