Artificial Intelligence for Sustainable Consumption: Assessing Its Role in Emission Reduction and Resource Optimisation in Bahrain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- It is necessary to tackle the discussion section by taking it further than a descriptive affirmation of the hypotheses and make it more critical in interpretation of the findings. It involves a subtle discussion of the R 2s, the translation gap between the general AI usage and sustainability-related application and a better statement of the theoretical contribution of the study.
- The limitations section should be extended with the explicit explanation of the cross-sectional nature (without the possibility to draw a cause-effect conclusion), the use of self-reports, and the absence of objective measures of performance. Such limitations are then to be directly correlated to certain, practical recommendations to future research.
- Table 1 (Demographics): The Other category of Education Level is extremely large (32.2%). Where possible, explain in a footnote what this category consists of since this influences the interpretation of the educational background of the sample.
- Tables 4-6 (Regression): Make sure that the names of the dependent variables are the same (e.g., in Table 4, it is "Sustainable Consumption" whereas in the table title, it is Sustainability Consumption).
- I recommend citing articles : 1- Khlie, K., Pugalenthi, A., & Jebbor, I. (2025). Sustainable Supply Chains in the Industry X. 0 Era: Overcoming Integration Challenges in the UAE. Administrative Sciences, 15(11), 417. , 2-- Jebbor, I., Benmamoun, Z. & Hachimi, H. Leveraging Digital Twins and Metaverse Technologies for Sustainable Circular Operations: a Comprehensive Literature Review. Circ.Econ.Sust. (2025). and 3--- Jebbor, I., Hachimi, H., & Benmamoun, Z. (2025, February). Artificial Intelligence in Predicting Automotive Supply Chain Disruptions: A Literature Review. In International Conference on intelligent systems and digital applications (pp. 11-21). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
- Absence of Objective Metrics: The research quantifies perceptions and self-reported behaviors, it does not tie AI use to any measurable results such as less kWhs used or tons of CO 2 saved.
- Clause that the results are limited to the sector of energy in Bahrain and might not be directly applicable to other sectors and even other countries.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The author's responses to the reviewer comments are enclosed in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe subject of the paper is interesting and may be of interest to specialists in the field who seek to reduce polluting emissions from the energy sector and balance the use of resources.
The paper presents statistical data based on 230 questionnaires.
In order to make a more important contribution, it should be supplemented with new information:
The paper does not present any mathematical model, the authors should add consistency to the paper by presenting mathematical relationships.
The paper is too theoretical and general, the answers to the questionnaires should be more detailed. For example, "I actively try to reduce my personal and workplace carbon emissions." However, it is also important to know the ways to reduce carbon emissions. Therefore, the answers must be presented, detailed and analyzed more.
To what extent can the study conducted in Bahrain be extended to larger areas.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The author's responses to the reviewer comments are enclosed in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article systematically explores the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in promoting sustainable consumption, reducing carbon emissions, and optimizing resource utilization within Bahrain’s energy sector. However, there remain several areas for substantial improvement:
-
The study establishes correlations between AI usage and sustainability outcomes through a cross-sectional survey, but it fails to construct any causal identification framework.
-
The definition of “AI usage” is ambiguous—it encompasses both general work automation and environmental monitoring systems—without clarifying the conceptual dimensions of AI application.
-
The research participants are individual employees in the energy sector, yet the analysis focuses on organizational-level outcomes such as resource optimization, leading to a mismatch in levels of analysis.
-
The author assumes that AI has positive effects on three sustainability outcomes but does not discuss the structural relationships among these outcomes.
-
The questionnaire design reports only Cronbach’s α without testing construct validity (convergent and discriminant validity). If the variables are highly correlated, multicollinearity and spurious regression may occur.
-
The paper should explicitly acknowledge the contextual dependence of its findings and the limits of external generalizability.
-
The article lacks conceptual figures and model visualizations to illustrate the relationships among key variables.
-
The results section merely reports means and regression coefficients, without offering an in-depth discussion of the theoretical implications and practical gaps.
-
Although the data analysis is detailed, the study fails to build a sufficient explanatory chain linking statistical findings back to the theoretical framework.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The author's responses to the reviewer comments are enclosed in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Author can add the current trend of data center which require tremendous electrical energy. Furthermore, recent progress on nuclear energy for data center would be nicer. These can deal in introduction section.
- It would be nicer to add figure of Energy Sector in Bahrain as pie chart.
- It would be nicer to add content related to SDG for Bahrain. Some figure related to it can be added.
- Author can add the content of human health effect due to emission on section 2.5. Furthermore, the content related to global warming can be deal with emission on section 2.5.
- I could see U.K style word. Author should use only one style between U.K style and USA style.
- Author should deal with what energy sector is dominant for AI.
- Section 2.7 deals with only positive face for AI to energy. However, there must be negative effect. Please control the balance between positive and negative effects.
- I think flow chart can be added to manuscript to increase reader's understanding.
- Author used performance metrics such as R2. The mathematical equation should be added.
- Conclusion section can be little bit more compressed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The author's responses to the reviewer comments are enclosed in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI recommend accepting this paper in its current form.
Thank you for your review
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your positive review and evaluation.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper content is improved for the revised version. New information has been added to increase the quality and clarity of the paper. The author responded to all my observations. I think the paper can be published in this form, if the following are corrected:
- Where acronyms are mentioned for the first time, they should contain the full name. For example, NREAP and NEEAP is first written in lines 115-119, and the full name is written in lines 201-203.
- The writing in the figures should be as in the text of the article.
- Replace the WHO acronym (line 290) with the full name, possibly mentioning that you are referring to a report from 2023.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find author's reply letter in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has been improved, and I believe it is acceptable for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your positive review and evaluation.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Authors can refer the introduction of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2025.116152 and, add the content for GHG emission to 2.5 section to enrich the content.
- The content of conclusion section should be minimized.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find author's reply letter in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
