Climate Change and Industry: A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Insights on Mitigation and Adaptation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 I find the manuscript, 'Climate Change and Industry: A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Insights on Mitigation and Adaptation', interesting. The topic addressed is both relevant and timely. Overall, the paper is well structured.

One suggestion for improvement would be to strengthen the analysis by including an overview of the geographical distribution of the case studies discussed in the analysed papers. Such a synthesis could highlight regional patterns (e.g. local leadership or regulatory hurdles) and offer valuable context for interpreting the results.

Author Response

Comment: I find the manuscript, 'Climate Change and Industry: A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Insights on Mitigation and Adaptation', interesting. The topic addressed is both relevant and timely. Overall, the paper is well structured.

One suggestion for improvement would be to strengthen the analysis by including an overview of the geographical distribution of the case studies discussed in the analysed papers. Such a synthesis could highlight regional patterns (e.g. local leadership or regulatory hurdles) and offer valuable context for interpreting the results.

Response

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have strengthened Section 3.4 by incorporating a concise synthesis of the geographical distribution of industry-focused studies. The revised text highlights regional patterns across developed economies, rapidly industrializing countries, and climate-vulnerable regions, providing additional context for interpreting sectoral trends without altering our study's main focus and methodological design.

Text Added to Manuscript (Section 3.4)

From a geographical perspective, the industry-focused literature exhibits clear regional concentration that shapes both thematic emphasis and analytical depth. Studies on industrial sustainability, low-carbon policy, and urban systems are predominantly situated in China and Europe, reflecting strong regulatory frameworks and state-led climate initiatives [1,19,57]. Agricultural adaptation research is particularly prominent in climate-sensitive regions such as China and the United States, where policy support, social capital, and institutional capacity influence resilience outcomes [60,81]. European cities dominate research on nature-based solutions, urban forestry, and infrastructure resilience, highlighting governance-driven approaches to climate adaptation [89,91,90]. Emerging studies on digital technologies and critical infrastructure span multiple regions but remain concentrated in technologically advanced economies, indicating that institutional capacity and data availability strongly condition research visibility [92,93,94,95]. Together, these regional patterns provide important context for interpreting sectoral trends in climate–industry research.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

For Authors.

 

The study is interesting and gives readers a good instrument to develop the climate change and industry topic. 

Overall, the methodology follows every step in the process of analysis. Nevertheless, the results are focused on the literature content, but are not sufficient for the analysis. My first impression is that the results give readers a summary. I would like to observe a better discussion about the perspective for the future of the industry, which is in Table 2, who could be developed more from the information obtained from your analysis. Are studies working on new technology applications? Or, is literature showing the present for mitigation but not the reduction of climate change impact? 

No requested form changes.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2 Comments

The study is interesting and gives readers a good instrument to develop the climate change and industry topic.

Overall, the methodology follows every step in the process of analysis. Nevertheless, the results are focused on the literature content, but are not sufficient for the analysis. My first impression is that the results give readers a summary. I would like to observe a better discussion about the perspective for the future of the industry, which is in Table 2, who could be developed more from the information obtained from your analysis. Are studies working on new technology applications? Or, is literature showing the present for mitigation but not the reduction of climate change impact?

No requested form changes.

Response

Thank you for this insightful comment. We have strengthened the manuscript's analytical depth by explicitly extending the discussion of future industrial trajectories using the Industrial–Climate Research Maturity Typology (Table 2). In particular, we added a new analytical paragraph in Section 4 (Discussion), under RQ4, which interprets recent literature (post-2018) beyond descriptive mitigation commitments. The revised text highlights how emerging studies increasingly examine whether industrial responses lead to measurable reductions in climate risk and emissions intensity, with specific attention to digital and technological applications such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, smart monitoring systems, and data-driven infrastructure.

This addition clarifies that while mitigation remains central, the literature is progressively shifting toward impact-oriented and technologically enabled transformation, thereby directly addressing the reviewer's concern regarding future industrial perspectives and the distinction between mitigation intent and climate impact reduction.

Location in manuscript: Section 4, Discussion, RQ4 (paragraph beginning "Building on the Industrial–Climate Research Maturity Typology presented in Table 2…").

 

Text Added to Manuscript

Building on the Industrial–Climate Research Maturity Typology presented in Table 2, recent studies move beyond documenting mitigation commitments to examine whether industrial responses translate into measurable reductions in climate risk and emissions intensity. Studies published after 2018 demonstrate a growing shift from policy-oriented mitigation frameworks toward applied technological solutions, including artificial intelligence, machine learning, digital monitoring systems, and smart infrastructure. These technologies are positioned not merely as efficiency-enhancing tools but as mechanisms for real-time emissions tracking, predictive risk assessment, and adaptive system reconfiguration. Importantly, the literature suggests that while mitigation policies remain central, their effectiveness increasingly depends on how they are operationalized through technological deployment and integrated governance structures. This distinction highlights an emerging research emphasis on impact-oriented transformation, in which industries are evaluated not only on mitigation intent but also on their capacity to deliver sustained reductions in climate vulnerability and environmental pressure.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: world-4054239
Title: Climate change and industry: a systematic literature review and biblometric insights on migation and adaption

Overall Evaluation:
This manuscript employs a systematic literature review (SLR) methodology, conducting a bibliometric analysis based on 2,458 articles from the Scopus and Web of Science databases to provide a comprehensive overview of research on climate change and the industrial sector over the past three decades. The relevant findings offers practical insights for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers working on climate change and the industrial sector. Although this manuscript is very interesting, some questions have not been well addressed. Therefore, my suggestion is major revision at this stage.

General comments:

1. The selection of resilience theory and sustainability transition theory as analytical view is appropriate, but these theories are not effectively integrated into the analysis in the results section. I found that these theories appear only in the introduction and discussion sections.

2. Line 222-223: "Figure 3 presents bibliometric insights from 2,458 articles published between 1991 and 2025, authored by 10,354 researchers from 582 sources". I recommend that the author clearly specify the data cutoff date, as 2025 is not yet complete, which could affect the reproducibility of the results.

Specific Comments:

1. Some figures or tables (e.g., Figure 4,  Figure 6, and Table 2) are not labeled in the main text.

2. Line 159-167: "The initial search identified 5,893 records... After consolidating datasets and removing duplicates, the final sample consisted of 2,458 publications...". Why was half of the literature excluded? While the PRISMA diagram (Figure 2) is helpful, the description of the screening process is insufficient. 

3. Line 255-257: "Basic themes, including climate resilience, climate change adaptation, and climate adaptation, are highly central but still maturing". I found that "climate change adaptation" and "climate adaptation" seem redundant. Where exactly do the differences lie? I think that authors should provide an explanation.

4. Line 636-638: "This shift mirrors the ideas in Sustainability Transitions Theory, in which industries change under regulatory pressure, innovation niches, and societal demand". The relationship between the five identified thematic clusters and these two theories can be further explained. For instance, each cluster can be briefly aligned with the core concepts of each theory using concise paragraphs.

5. Line 785-788: "First, the study's reliance on Scopus and Web of Science as data sources... may have inadvertently excluded relevant regional, policy-oriented, or non-English publications". I suggest the author should explore how incorporating such literature might alter the identified themes or patterns of evolution.

6. There are some grammatical errors in the paper. A thorough proofreading is recommended.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some grammatical errors in the paper. A thorough proofreading is recommended.

Author Response

Reviewer 3 Comments

Overall Evaluation:

This manuscript employs a systematic literature review (SLR) methodology, conducting a bibliometric analysis based on 2,458 articles from the Scopus and Web of Science databases to provide a comprehensive overview of research on climate change and the industrial sector over the past three decades. The relevant findings offers practical insights for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers working on climate change and the industrial sector. Although this manuscript is very interesting, some questions have not been well addressed. Therefore, my suggestion is major revision at this stage.

General Comment 1

The selection of resilience theory and sustainability transition theory as analytical view is appropriate, but these theories are not effectively integrated into the analysis in the results section. I found that these theories appear only in the introduction and discussion sections.

Response

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. In response, we have strengthened the integration of Resilience Theory and Sustainability Transitions Theory directly within the Results section, rather than limiting theoretical interpretation to the Introduction and Discussion. Specifically, we introduced a concise theoretical synthesis paragraph immediately after Section 3.3 (Thematic Evolution) and before Section 3.4 (Industries in Focus Across the Thematic Evolution). This addition explicitly interprets the temporal progression of themes across the four periods (1991-2025) in relation to adaptive capacity development (Resilience Theory) and regime–niche dynamics and socio-technical transformation (Sustainability Transitions Theory).

In addition, brief theory-aligned interpretive statements were incorporated into the discussion of dominant thematic clusters (Motor and Basic themes) to clarify how these clusters reflect resilience-oriented adaptation, integrated mitigation strategies, and transition dynamics within industrial systems.

Text added in the manuscript

Results section, immediately after Section 3.3 Thematic Evolution

Viewed through a theoretical lens, the temporal evolution of themes reflects a progression consistent with both Resilience Theory and Sustainability Transitions Theory. Early periods emphasize adaptive awareness and coping mechanisms, aligning with resilience-building in the face of uncertainty. Subsequent phases reveal increasing policy coordination, governance mechanisms, and mitigation strategies, indicating the stabilization of dominant industrial regimes. In the most recent period, the convergence of digitalization, innovation, and net-zero pathways reflects a transition toward transformative change, where technological niches begin to scale within established industrial systems. Together, these patterns demonstrate how climate–industry research has evolved from reactive adaptation toward coordinated socio-technical transformation. 

Section 3.2.1.1 Motor Themes (High Density, High Centrality)-final paragraph of Cluster 1

Theoretically, this cluster aligns with Resilience Theory by highlighting how industrial systems integrate adaptation and mitigation to absorb climate shocks while maintaining long-term stability. It also reflects Sustainability Transitions Theory, as the convergence of policy coordination, technological innovation, and decarbonization pathways illustrates coordinated regime-level change toward low-carbon and climate-resilient industrial practices.

Section 3.2.1.4 Basic Themes (Low Density, High Centrality)-final paragraph of Cluster 4

From a theoretical standpoint, this cluster reflects the foundations of Resilience Theory by emphasizing adaptive capacity, robustness, and recovery within industrial systems facing climatic stress. It also connects to Sustainability Transitions Theory at an early stage, where adaptation and resilience function as stabilizing foundations that enable future institutional, technological, and policy-driven transformation.

 

General Comment 2

Line 222-223: "Figure 3 presents bibliometric insights from 2,458 articles published between 1991 and 2025, authored by 10,354 researchers from 582 sources". I recommend that the author clearly specify the data cutoff date, as 2025 is not yet complete, which could affect the reproducibility of the results.

Response

We thank the reviewer for this important observation regarding temporal clarity and reproducibility. We clarify that the bibliometric dataset was finalised on 24 September 2025, which constitutes the explicit cutoff date for all analyses reported in this study. While additional publications appeared in the remaining months of 2025, a post-review verification indicated that these later publications did not introduce substantively new thematic structures beyond those already identified. To preserve analytical consistency and avoid post hoc modification of results, the original dataset and analysis were retained. The manuscript has been revised to explicitly state the data cutoff date and to clarify that 2025 represents a partial publication year rather than a completed annual record.

Text added in the manuscript

Added after the paragraph that reports the final sample size of 2,458 articles in Section 2. Methodology.

This final bibliometric dataset was retrieved and finalized on 24 September 2025, which serves as the explicit cutoff date for this study. Accordingly, publications indexed after this date were excluded from the analysis. Although additional articles appeared in the final quarter of 2025, a verification check indicated that these later publications did not alter the dominant thematic structures identified in the dataset. To maintain methodological consistency and analytical integrity, the study retained the finalized dataset without post hoc expansion. As such, references to the year 2025 in this study reflect a partial publication year up to the stated cutoff date

Added to continue the paragraph, Figure 3 presents bibliometric insights from 2,458 articles… in Section 3. Result and Analysis

published between 1991 and September 2025

Reviewer 3–Specific Comments

Specific Comment 1

Some figures or tables (e.g., Figure 4,  Figure 6, and Table 2) are not labeled in the main text.

Response

Thank you for identifying this oversight. All figures and tables are now explicitly referenced and introduced in the main text to improve clarity and readability.

Text added in the manuscript

The thematic map of the literature on industries and climate change (Figure 4)

The period from 1991 to 2000 marks the initial phase of climate–industry research, marked by a strong focus on adaptation (Figure 6).

To capture this evolution, the Industrial–Climate Research Maturity Typology (Table 2) classifies the field into four sequential phases

Specific Comment 2

2. Line 159-167: "The initial search identified 5,893 records... After consolidating datasets and removing duplicates, the final sample consisted of 2,458 publications..." Why was half of the literature excluded? While the PRISMA diagram (Figure 2) is helpful, the description of the screening process is insufficient.

Response

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need for greater clarity regarding the screening and exclusion process. The reduction from 5,893 records to a final sample of 2,458 publications reflects a structured, multi-stage screening procedure consistent with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Records were excluded due to duplication across databases, document type restrictions, language criteria, and thematic irrelevance to industrial mitigation and adaptation. The manuscript has been revised to provide a clearer narrative explanation of these exclusion stages, complementing the PRISMA flow diagram and improving transparency and reproducibility.

Text added in the manuscript

The initial search yielded 5,893 records from Web of Science and Scopus. To ensure methodological rigor and consistency, database-specific refinements were applied. In Web of Science, records were filtered using Web of Science Categories, including Business, Management, Economics, Environmental Sciences, Energy, and Multidisciplinary Sciences, and further refined by document type (articles and review articles) and language (English). In Scopus, results were limited using Subject Areas, namely Business, Management and Accounting, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, Environmental Science, Energy, and Multidisciplinary fields, and subsequently filtered by source type (journals), document type (articles and reviews), publication stage (final), and language (English). Conference papers, book chapters, editorials, notes, preprints, and other non-peer-reviewed publications were excluded. Subsequently, Titles, abstracts, and author keywords were manually screened to confirm relevance to industrial efforts in climate change mitigation and adaptation. Following dataset consolidation and duplicate removal, the final sample comprised 2,458 publications, which were exported to Microsoft Excel and analyzed using the Bibliometrix R package.

Specific Comment 3

Line 255–257: 'Basic themes, including climate resilience, climate change adaptation, and climate adaptation, are highly central but still maturing'. I found that 'climate change adaptation' and 'climate adaptation' seem redundant. Where exactly do the differences lie? I think that authors should provide an explanation.

Response

We thank the reviewer for this observation. The apparent distinction between "climate change adaptation" and "climate adaptation" reflects differences in terminology usage within the literature rather than conceptual duplication introduced by the authors. In bibliometric co-occurrence analysis, keywords are treated as they appear in author-provided metadata. While closely related, "climate change adaptation" is typically used in policy-oriented and governance-focused studies aligned with international climate frameworks, whereas "climate adaptation" is more commonly adopted in sector-specific, operational, or applied research contexts. The manuscript has been revised to clarify this distinction and to explain that the separation arises from keyword usage patterns rather than from the authors' analytical categorization.

Text added in the manuscript

Section 3.2 Thematic Map

Although closely related, 'climate change adaptation' and 'climate adaptation' appear as distinct themes in the bibliometric mapping due to differences in keyword usage across the literature. 'Climate change adaptation' is predominantly employed in policy-oriented and governance-focused studies, often aligned with international frameworks and long-term climate strategies. In contrast, 'climate adaptation' is more frequently used in sector-specific and applied research that addresses operational responses across industries, infrastructure, and local systems. The separation of these terms, therefore, reflects variations in author terminology captured through keyword co-occurrence analysis, rather than a conceptual distinction imposed by the authors.

Specific Comment 4

Line 636-638: "This shift mirrors the ideas in Sustainability Transitions Theory, in which industries change under regulatory pressure, innovation niches, and societal demand". The relationship between the five identified thematic clusters and these two theories can be further explained. For instance, each cluster can be briefly aligned with the core concepts of each theory using concise paragraphs.

Response

This comment addresses the same concern raised in General Comment 1. As described above, we have incorporated concise theory-aligned interpretations within the Results section by (i) adding a theoretical synthesis following the thematic evolution analysis and (ii) embedding brief interpretive links within the dominant thematic clusters. These additions clarify how the identified clusters correspond to the core concepts of Resilience Theory and Sustainability Transitions Theory without overextending theoretical discussion within the results.

Specific Comment 5

Line 785-788: "This study's reliance on Scopus and Web of Science as data sources…" I suggest the author should explore how incorporating regional, policy-oriented, or non-English literature might alter the identified themes or patterns of evolution.

Response

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that incorporating regional, policy-oriented, or non-English literature could potentially broaden the thematic scope of climate–industry research, particularly by highlighting issues such as climate finance, adaptation funding responsibilities, distributional justice, and context-specific governance challenges that may be underrepresented in globally indexed journals.

In response, we have expanded the Limitations and Future Research section to explicitly acknowledge this potential linguistic and geographic bias and to discuss how the inclusion of such literature could influence thematic emphases. We clarify that the limited representation of these perspectives reflects broader structural patterns in academic publishing rather than an analytical omission in the present study. We also outline how future research could extend the current framework by incorporating regional databases, policy repositories, and multilingual sources. These revisions strengthen the study's transparency and interpretive scope while preserving the methodological consistency and reproducibility of the bibliometric analysis.

Text added in the manuscript

Section 6: Limitations and Future Research

First, the study's reliance on Scopus and Web of Science as primary data sources, while ensuring high-quality and peer-reviewed coverage, may have inadvertently excluded relevant regional, policy-oriented, or non-English publications. This introduces a potential linguistic and geographic bias, which may subtly influence the thematic emphasis observed in this study. In particular, literature outside globally indexed journals may place greater emphasis on issues such as climate finance, distributional justice, adaptation funding responsibilities, and localized governance challenges that are less visible in mainstream academic outlets. Research emerging from developing and climate-vulnerable regions may also prioritize community-led adaptation, informal industrial practices, and context-specific resilience strategies. While these perspectives are essential for a more comprehensive understanding of climate–industry interactions, their limited representation reflects broader structural patterns in academic publishing rather than an analytical omission. Future research could extend the present framework by incorporating regional databases, policy repositories, and multilingual sources to further enrich insights into industrial climate action.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have revised the paper according to my comments. I think it can be accepted.