The UK and German Low-Carbon Industry Transitions from a Sectoral Innovation and System Failures Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

the multi-level pthe multi-level perspective (MLP) [56,57]erspective (MLP) [56,5

This paper provides an insightful viewpoint in terms of industry transition by comparing two countries. However, the following points need to be clarified.

1. The title is not clear while the contribution of this study is not presented well. As for “industry transitions”, could we replace with “low-carbon industry transition” or “decarbonisation transition”? In addition, as for “failures perspective”, does the author mean a “system “failure perspective? “System failure” is the right keyword of literature. We suggest the author could change the title.
2. Line 74-75 states “our aim is to review -----from a low-carbon transition perspective----”, what these concepts are different? Such as decarbonisation, a low-carbon transition. The paper should use these concepts consistently.
3. Reference 16-23 are literature related to the system of innovation or sectoral innovation system. Could paper update the references? A lot of empirical studies has been explored from a system of innovation perspective since 2005
4. Reference “24” is the not the correct form.
5. Line 2110-213:The paper used Malerba, F. (Ed.). (2004) as a framework. However, there is not sufficient discussion related to Maleraba and their operational definition of variables in the framework.
6. Figure 5: It is very difficult to locate the content of explanation for readers. Could the authors make it clear in the context due to the fact that there is a major framework of this study?
7. Figure 5 integrates the SYS and system failure. Is this new contribution or just based on the integration of previous literature?
8. The paper is required to compare the difference of SIS between UK and German in terms of Sectors just before “6. Comparative analysis of system failures”. We expect to see the difference or similarity during the transition of sectors by tables, such as the comparison of different sectors-the iron and steel industry between UK and German. What can be learned from two countries? Or we suggest the author could change the sub-title of “6. Comparative analysis of system failures”. It seems to us that the author has integrated the discussion based on SIS and system failure.
9. Table 1 is not clearly presented and explained. We suggest the author should refer or cross-reference “Table 1” in the context
10. The multi-level perspective (MLP) [56,57] has been well explored in the literature. But the paper still suggests future studies in Line 824. More explanation needs to make it clear for future studies. We are quite concerned with the suggestions and implication paragraphs (Line 824-840). There are so many references. But we expect a suggestion from the author.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

You find my comments below. I suggest a minor revision:

1) Pg 3: Why the authors focus especially on iron and steel, cement and chemicals?

 

2)Please insert a paragraph of literature review as background and move the part of background in the introduction. I suggest to resume the part of the background.

 

3) Pg 4:Please comment better the Figure 1, 2, 3 and 4 in terms of policy implications.

 

4) Methodology: This part is too much long and contain too many details. I suggest to resume lines 170-209 and the lines 225-288.

 

5)Pg 11:Please comment better Figure 5.

 

6) Please comment better how the outputs are translated into policy implications.

 

7) Paragraph 4.3-5.3: please insert  the effects of subprime crises (2007-2008)

 

8) Please comment better  Figure 7.

 

9) A linguistic review is strongly suggested.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx