You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles

Review Reports

Soc. Sci.2025, 14(12), 685;https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14120685 
(registering DOI)
by
  • Ignazio Terrana1,*,
  • Mirella de Falco2 and
  • Mauro Sarrica1,2,3

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review for: Investigating Depoliticisation in the EU’s Environmental Policy. Insights from Debates on the Just Transition Mechanism.

Manuscript ID: socsci-3905910

 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read and review this manuscript. This study is timely, interesting and well- presented both in theory and empirical analysis. I also appreciate the depth of the empirical analysis.

The study explores the impact of the just transition mechanism on depoliticising the EU’s ecological transition. The findings reveal more emphasis needed on transformative visions challenging growth-oriented or technocratic paradigms.

 

Here are some suggestions that the authors could consider incorporating in their study.

 

  • I strongly recommend the author (s) to consider a more precise and shorter title to increase visibility of their paper. Specifically, I think it is important to consider the impact of the parliamentary debates per se as these are under examination.
  • I would be interested in seeing a discussion on the choice of the EU as the focus of this study. The reason is that the EU is a particular institution with EU MPs elected by the people. Yet, the role of the commission is significant. Could depoliticization be an attempt to bridge (or not) the two bodies?
  • This is also related to the fact the focus of the study is on parliamentary debates. How are these influenced by the Commission or national politics? In the end who is responsible for the depoliticization?
  • I believe this will also help the authors to set the contribution of this study to previous scholarship e.g., EU’s institutional framework and effectiveness. More work is needed here.
  • In terms of the findings and possible generalisations, would it be possible to apply these in other institutions? I suggest engaging with generalisations in the conclusions section of the paper.
  • I am puzzled by the critical discussion on EGD. Why presenting only the one side, particularly when there are mixed results about the programme’s progression? Some areas have been improved, others are lagging. The authors want to highlight patterns adopted by the Commission that may not always be democratic affecting the EGD. I would find this section more convincing if it was more inclusive in terms of scholarship and findings.
  • I find very useful the example provided on depoliticising economic governance (early page 3). Consider similar examples referring to EGD.
  • What the authors present on the 4th section of the paper, is the expectation (hypothesis) of the study. This part should be incorporated in the 5th section whilst further elaborating the causal mechanism of this expectation. Currently the 5th section only descriptively presents the JTM without presenting the relationship it implies in this study.
  • I also suggest adding a few sentences on the rational of these categories. How did the authors choose these categories?
  • Although the analysis relies on descriptive information, I think there are some interesting patterns, and wonder how these can impact policy and the progress of the green deal or environmental policy in general? I suggest the authors to offer a more to the point discussion. Currently the discussion does not rely much on the findings per se. It gives a general overview of structural problems within the institution.
  • Minor comment: There are several typos, and extra or no spaces between words throughout the manuscript.

 

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer very warmly for the thoughtful and constructive comments, which have been extremely valuable in improving the clarity, focus, and overall coherence of our manuscript. We have carefully revised the paper to address each of the points raised and provide below an explanation of how we have incorporated these suggestions. Please find attached the revised document, where all the modifications are highlighted in red. 

Comment 1: 

  • I strongly recommend the author (s) to consider a more precise and shorter title to increase visibility of their paper. Specifically, I think it is important to consider the impact of the parliamentary debates per se as these are under examination.


We agree that the original title was rather long and descriptive. It has therefore been shortened and made more precise in order to better reflect the main analytical focus of the paper. The new title, “Depoliticizing the Just Transition? A Discursive Analysis of EP Debates on the JTM”, clearly indicates the object of study, the empirical case, and the conceptual lens adopted.

Comment 2:

  • I would be interested in seeing a discussion on the choice of the EU as the focus of this study. The reason is that the EU is a particular institution with EU MPs elected by the people. Yet, the role of the commission is significant. Could depoliticization be an attempt to bridge (or not) the two bodies?

In the revised introduction, we now offer a clearer rationale for choosing the European Union as our case study. We explain that the EU represents a distinctive institutional configuration that combines both representative and executive logics. This duality provides a fertile ground for exploring how depoliticization can operate as a mediating mechanism between the European Parliament, directly elected by citizens, and the European Commission, which functions as an expert-driven executive body.

Comment 3: 

  • This is also related to the fact the focus of the study is on parliamentary debates. How are these influenced by the Commission or national politics? In the end who is responsible for the depoliticization?


We have also clarified our focus on parliamentary debates. The revision highlights that these debates do not occur in isolation but are influenced by both the Commission’s agenda-setting role and the national or sectoral interests represented by Members of the European Parliament. Rather than attributing responsibility for depoliticization to a single institution, we now describe it as a relational and embedded process shaped by multiple institutional actors.

Comment 4: 

  • I believe this will also help the authors to set the contribution of this study to previous scholarship e.g., EU’s institutional framework and effectiveness. More work is needed here.



The revised discussion situates the paper more explicitly within existing scholarship on EU governance and depoliticization. We underline how the analysis contributes to ongoing debates about the balance between technocratic authority and democratic accountability, offering a discursive perspective that connects institutional structures with the framing of political debates.

Comment 5:

  • In terms of the findings and possible generalisations, would it be possible to apply these in other institutions? I suggest engaging with generalisations in the conclusions section of the paper.


Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we now briefly reflect in the conclusions on the broader relevance of our findings. While we refrain from making general claims, we indicate that the analytical insights of the paper may have relevance for other supranational or multi-level institutions, and that this could be explored in future comparative research.
The section on the European Green Deal has also been revised to provide a more balanced account. We have included additional references acknowledging both the positive developments and the ongoing challenges of the EGD, offering a more nuanced and comprehensive discussion that recognises the coexistence of progress and contestation.

Comment 6:

  • I am puzzled by the critical discussion on EGD. Why presenting only the one side, particularly when there are mixed results about the programme’s progression? Some areas have been improved, others are lagging. The authors want to highlight patterns adopted by the Commission that may not always be democratic affecting the EGD. I would find this section more convincing if it was more inclusive in terms of scholarship and findings.
  • I find very useful the example provided on depoliticising economic governance (early page 3). Consider similar examples referring to EGD.


To strengthen the empirical grounding of our arguments, we have introduced additional examples related to key EGD instruments such as the Taxonomy Regulation, the ETS and CBAM mechanisms, and the Governance Regulation. These examples help illustrate how different policy tools reflect distinct forms of depoliticization in practice.

Comment 7:

  • What the authors present on the 4th section of the paper, is the expectation (hypothesis) of the study. This part should be incorporated in the 5th section whilst further elaborating the causal mechanism of this expectation. Currently the 5th section only descriptively presents the JTM without presenting the relationship it implies in this study.


In response to the suggestion regarding the structure of the theoretical sections, we have modified Section 4 and Section 5 to ensure a smoother narrative. The analytical expectations are now integrated within the section on the Just Transition Mechanism, where we also clarify the conceptual relationship that links the theoretical framework with the empirical analysis.

Comment 8:

  • I also suggest adding a few sentences on the rational of these categories. How did the authors choose these categories?


The methods section now includes a more detailed explanation of the analytical categories used in the coding process, outlining how they were derived from both existing literature and inductive observations. To enhance transparency, we have added a concise table summarizing each category and providing illustrative examples from the data.

Comment 9:

  • Although the analysis relies on descriptive information, I think there are some interesting patterns, and wonder how these can impact policy and the progress of the green deal or environmental policy in general? I suggest the authors to offer a more to the point discussion. Currently the discussion does not rely much on the findings per se. It gives a general overview of structural problems within the institution.


We appreciate the reviewer’s observation about the discussion. While we maintain an interpretive approach, the revised discussion now refers more directly to key empirical patterns that inform our interpretation. We describe the connections between findings and broader implications in a more careful and nuanced way, reflecting the qualitative nature of the research.

The conclusions have been expanded to better articulate the study’s contribution to debates on EU governance and environmental policymaking. We also include a short reflection on the potential policy relevance of our analysis, especially in relation to the design and implementation of the Just Transition Mechanism.

Comment 10:

  • Minor comment: There are several typos, and extra or no spaces between words throughout the manuscript.


The entire manuscript has also been carefully proofread to correct typographical errors, harmonize spacing, and ensure consistent use of capitalization and terminology.

We are sincerely grateful for the reviewer’s insightful engagement with our work. The comments have helped us to refine the argument, improve the overall structure, and clarify the contribution of the paper. We hope that the revised version now fully addresses the reviewer’s suggestions and that the improvements are evident throughout the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article makes the case that EU policy debates on environmental policy are largely depoliticized, taking Ecological Modernization as granted while sidelining or obfuscating alternative ecological paradigms (the authors mention primarily degrowth and post-growth). As a case study, the authors focus on the parliamentary debates on the Just Transition Mechanism between January 2020 and June 2021.

Although the results of the study are somewhat expected, as the domination of EM in European institution is widely discussed and denounced in the critical literature, it provides an interesting case confirming this domination in the particular case of the JTM debates.

One of the most surprising or intringing results, which would have deserved more discussion and maybe further analysis of the data, consists in the quasi-absence of science in legitimizing policy orientation. The authors suggests that the "legal-institutional and market logics eclipse appeals to scientific expertise," but could it also be the case that the scientific grounding of the policies being discussed is taken for granted, or stated in a more nuanced manner, that escaped the search by terms performed on the database. Such a striking result would deserve more attention. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We agree that the limited presence of explicit references to science in our data is a particularly intriguing finding that deserves closer reflection. In the revised version, we have expanded the discussion to acknowledge that the apparent absence of scientific legitimation may partly reflect an implicit assumption of the scientific consensus underpinning the European Green Deal and the Just Transition Mechanism. We now note that appeals to expertise might be embedded in the institutional language of the debates rather than articulated through explicit references to “science” or “experts.” This point has been added to the discussion as an alternative interpretation of our findings and as a potential direction for future research.

Please find attached the revised document, where all the modifications are highlighted in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have significanlty imprved their paper and I appreciate their effort in taking into consideration the feedback provided. I am satisfied with the current state of the paper. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your attention throughout the review process