The Front-Runner Approach—Facilitating Progressive Product Policy by Using Information from EU Product Databases

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The overall merit of the article is good, and the topic is very interesting and important, it has an influential impact on the performance of energy efficiency in general. Nonetheless, more investigation shall be conducted, and extra information has to be revealed within the content of the writing, especially in the introduction, methodology, and discussion. The references that are used by the authors are quite relevant to the topic, but they may be increased for better scientific paper content.

The introduction section demonstrated the significance of the study clearly and presented the problem statement extensively in a good manner. However, it needs to be further extended since it contains short pieces of information and does not involve all aspects of the literature review. It has to deliver sufficient descriptions of key terms and definitions in the context of the topic.

In lines 46 to 48, the authors mentioned ‘The savings achieved about the total EU electricity consumption resulting from 46 these minimum requirements for energy efficiency in 2020 were roughly equivalent to the 47 total European hydro or wind energy production in the same year [5]. They should indicate the quantity the European hydro and wind energy production as well as that of savings. 

The objective and scope of work of the study are not stated, these are essential. Authors are required to be clearly mentioned.

Materials and methods are mentioned in a single, compact, concise, and short paragraph and are required to have a description in more detail. The methodology section is not adequately demonstrated; hence, it should encompass different types of approaches in further detail. The authors also didn’t highlight similar studies in the methods section.

The section on the results shows an adequate amount of data that were extracted from the research conducted, which is described and well presented. On the other hand, the discussion of the article is very briefly expressed and contains few details. At the same time, it can be deeply adjusted to cover all existing arguments and points of view pertaining to the topic of the paper.

In the results section, the authors did not highlight the outcomes of the three cases Japan, South Korea, and China, and the main synergies and differences.  Also, the term 170 Mt CO2eq is not written correctly. It should read Mt CO₂eq. Additionally, there are discrepancies in writing the term throughout.

The limitation of the study is not stated. Hence, it is essential to state the limit of the study.

In the conclusion section, the authors actually represent the results of the research but this can be improved.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language of the paper is very good and easy to comprehend apart from some issues (see the attached file).  Nevertheless, the paper lacks an adequate number of figures and tables, which are necessary for showing data in good order. There is a limited number of figures in the paper (only one figure is created), and there are no tables found. Moreover, texts, which exist in the article's figures to describe elements of it should be larger in size in order to be clearly read. 

In line 36, reducing is repeated twice in the same sentance (poor English vocabulary), see the attached file. The second 'reducing' can be replaced by lessening or mitigating.  Alos, in line 30, Greenhouse gas is repeated in many parts, it can be abbreviated as GHG throughout the text.  

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the uploaded file.

Comment: […] more investigation shall be conducted, and extra information has to be revealed within the content of the writing, especially in the introduction, methodology, and discussion. The references that are used by the authors are quite relevant to the topic, but they may be increased for better scientific paper content.

Response: Text reworked and references added.

Comment: "The introduction section […]  needs to be further extended since it contains short pieces of information and does not involve all aspects of the literature review. It has to deliver sufficient descriptions of key terms and definitions in the context of the topic […]"

Response: More explanatory text related to key terms and definitions (Ecodesign, energy-related product, Front-runner) is added.

Comment: "[…] They should indicate the quantity the European hydro and wind energy production as well as that of savings […]"

Response: Text reworked and numbers quantified.

Comment: […] The objective and scope of work of the study are not stated […] 

Response: Introduction is reworked to direct to the core elements of this study as desribed within the (i) abstract ("[…] The presented approach (i) refers to performance levels of the best products already available on the market, (ii) aggregates information in existing databases, and (iii) works semi-automated. Together, all three attributes have a high potential to facilitate and accelerate the specification of appropriate minimum requirements for products at EU level.  This way, EU policy makers can deliver much better on the core objectives of the Ecodesign legislative framework [...]") and within the (ii) introduction ("[...] This study starts with a description of the type of occurred delays. In addition, existing dynamic front-runner approaches established outside the EU are analyzed and sum-marized. Finally, a front-runner approach tailored to the EU context is proposed, which intends to keep EU product legislation up to date considering product innova-tion and recent market developments [...]")

Comment: […] Authors are required to be clearly mentioned […]

Response: The authors were accidently addad as a text box close to the main text. The box was deleted and the authors listed underneath the title.

Comment: "[…] Materials and methods are mentioned in a single, compact, concise, and short paragraph and are required to have a description in more detail. The methodology section is not adequately demonstrated […]"

Response: More explanatory text related to the method is added.

Comment: "[…] it should encompass different types of approaches in further detail. The authors also didn’t highlight similar studies in the methods section [..]"

Response: In "Materials and Methods" the review of other approaches is stated and described in detail in section 3.2 Existing Approaches including a summary.
We have not found similar studies like this one that could be highlighted.

Comment: "[…] the discussion of the article is very briefly expressed and contains few details […]"

Response: More details are added to the dicussion part as far as possible.

Comment: "[…] the authors did not highlight the outcomes of the three cases Japan, South Korea, and China, and the main synergies and differences […]"

Response: A comparison and desription of the already existing and applied approaches are part of 3.2, such as "Overall, the Top-Runner Programme in Japan has contributed to accelerating energy efficiency improvement for all included electronic products (Japan) or [...] the South Korean Front-Runner Programme is a good example to prove the effectiveness of consumer information as a policy measure motivating energy efficiency (Korea). 

Comment: "[…] CO2eq is not written correctly. It should read Mt CO2eq. Additionally, there are discrepancies in writing the term throughout […]"

Response: corrected. 
Please note: source [Letschert et al.] refers to CO2 emissions, not CO2eq.

Comment: "[…] The limitation of the study is not stated. Hence, it is essential to state the limit of the study […]"

Response: The limitations of the study are descibed in the second last paragraph of the discussion as follows: "[...] The front-runner approach presented in this paper is not a “silver-bullet”. Some challenges with regard to setting ambitious Ecodesign requirements remain, especially aspects such as limited staff capacities or time-consuming internal procedures of the EU Commission. To regulate a new product group for which no data is yet available will still require a preparatory study to be done and to develop information require-ments to create a database that can support a front-runner system [...]" as well as in the section on methods.

Comment: "[…] In the conclusion section, the authors actually represent the results of the research but this can be improved […]"

Response: More explanatory text and description are added to the conclusion.

Comment: "[…] article's figures to describe elements of it should be larger in size in order to be clearly read […]"

Response: Figures were reworked and font-size increased.

Comment: "[…] The second 'reducing' can be replaced by lessening or mitigating […]"

Response: corrected

Comment: "[…] Greenhouse gas is repeated in many parts, it can be abbreviated as GHG throughout the text […]"

Response: corrected. We also shortened the title that repeated "products" too often.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the article is very interesting – and energy efficiency of products is important as authors stated, and „could contribute to save energy and related costs and greenhouse-gas emissions, reduce resource consumption, as well as contribute to further environmental improvements needed in the face of accelerating climate change and the energy crisis”.

Nevertheless, even though that its paper type is communication, – its structure should be similar to an article, as it is described on MDPI website https://www.mdpi.com/about/article_types . For that reason, more data should confirm the discussions and conclusions. Could you please add more results (from your own research or literature which will allow to confirm the discussions and conclusions?

It is good that authors see some problems with implementation of the method, but its discussion should be more detailed (lines 317-321 and 322-326). Could you please expand the discussion refer to some problems with implementation of the method?

Conclusion should consist of both opportunities and threats of the method implementation. Could you please rewrite the conclusion according to opportunities and threats of implementation The Front-Runner Approach?

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the uploaded file.

Comment: "[…] more data should confirm the discussions and conclusions. Could you please add more results (from your own research or literature which will allow to confirm the discussions and conclusions? […]"

Response: More explanatory text and description are added to the conclusion and to the dicussion part as far as possible.  Literature and data for this topic are quite limited. We have not found similar studies that could be highlighted.

Comment: "[…] Could you please expand the discussion refer to some problems with implementation of the method? […]"

Response: Problems with implementation are described within the second paragraph of the Disucssion. Further explanation was added as far as possible. As the front-runner approach has not been established yet, it is hardly possible to foresee more upcoming threats and opportunities. So the discussion and conclusion can only highlight first insights of the presented concept. In addition, also limitations of the study are descibed in the second last paragraph of the discussion as follows: "[...] The front-runner approach presented in this paper is not a “silver-bullet”. Some challenges with regard to setting ambitious Ecodesign requirements remain, especially aspects such as limited staff capacities or time-consuming internal procedures of the EU Commission. To regulate a new product group for which no data is yet available will still require a preparatory study to be done and to develop information require-ments to create a database that can support a front-runner system [...]"

Comment: "[…] Conclusion should consist of both opportunities and threats of the method implementation. Could you please rewrite the conclusion according to opportunities and threats of implementation The Front-Runner Approach? […]

Response: More explanatory text and description are added to the conclusion.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer comments

The authors responded to most of the reviewer’s comments. However, still,  work to be clearly stated to enhance the manuscript, mainly the objective of the study and materials and methods sections as well as a table to be created in the discussion section. 

Other comments:

-  The authors address product policy in the title ‘The Front-Runner Approach – facilitating progressive product policy by information from EU product databases’ but in the introduction lines 51 and 52, the authors deleted the sentence that highlights the 31 regulations governing energy efficiency requirements. I don’t understand why they deleted this. Strange!

 -  Although the authors modified the introduction to highlight the scope of work, still the objective is not clear. Hence, section 2 ‘Objective’ is to be added before Materials and Methods, which will become section 3.  However, they addressed the following section about the Front-runner Approach, but the objective of the paper is missing:

(i) refers to performance levels of the best products already available on the market, (ii) aggregates information in existing databases, and (iii) works semi-automated. Together, all three attributes have a high potential to facilitate and accelerate the specification of appropriate minimum requirements for products at the EU level. This way, EU policymakers can deliver much better on the core objectives of the Ecodesign legislative framework.

2. Objective

The study’s objective is to suggest a tailor-made and dynamic approach to keep the EU product legislation up to date through innovative technology based on the investigation of current regulations and identify the gap. 

-  The method and material section has been slightly improved, but the authors did not show other studies that carried out this approach they referenced it in the results sections (3.1 and 3.2). it is better to briefly address these points in the method.  Also, in lines 93-96, the authors added a new sentence ‘As this paper presents conceptual work that is to be implemented the discussion of opportunities and threats of the EU front-runner approach is limited. They can not be discussed in-depth but outlined beforehand.’ What do you mean the EU front-runner approach is limited? This needs further explanation. 

The authors stated that they did not find similar studies. What about the following articles one is by them which is not even cited.  These were published in 2022 and 2014.

1.      Schuberth, Jens; Eberth, Thomas; Schlegel, Moritz, Rödig, Lisa; Jepsen, Dirk (2022).  A Front-Runner Approach for EU product policy - Impulse for raising untapped energy saving potentials. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362713244_A_Front-Runner_Approach_for_EU_product_policy_-_Impulse_for_raising_untapped_energy_saving_potentials

2.      Murphy, L. The policy instruments of European front-runners: effective for saving energy in existing dwellings? Energy Efficiency 7, 285–301 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-013-9224-8

3.      Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, (2021). EUROPE NEEDS TO INNOVATE TO BECOME A FRONT-RUNNER IN THE GLOBAL GREEN ECONOMY RACE, Policy Brief, EUROPEAN ENERGY POLICY, https://institutdelors.eu/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2021/02/PB_210223_Clean EnergyInnovation_Pellerin-Carlin_EN.pdf

 4.      The policy instruments of European front-runners: effective for saving energy in existing dwellings? https://journals.open.tudelft.nl/abe/article/view/6653/5456

 

Response: A comparison and decription description of the already existing and applied approaches are part of 3.2, such as "Overall, the Top-Runner Programme in Japan has contributed to accelerating energy efficiency improvement for all included electronic products (Japan) or [...] the South Korean Front-Runner Programme is a good example to prove the effectiveness of consumer information as a policy measure motivating energy efficiency (Korea). 

-  What about Sweden, Germany, and the UK? Refer to reference no. 4 (above).

It would also be better to tabulate such a comparison when completed.   

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are many typos and grammar mistakes, such as Ecodesign, potentials, The various, has been, and in adition.

For example: 

§  Ecodeign to read Eco-design;

§  The various should be Various;

§  Has been to read was; and 

§  In line 355, In adition to read In addition.

Author Response

Reviewer comments

• We recovered the sentence bout the Ecodesign regulations in lines 51 and 52; thanks for the note.
• We added the short description of the study's objectives both in the abstract and in the end of the introduction.
• We don't think that it is appropirate to refer other studies using the same methods in the method section. The materials used can already be identified from the citations in chapter 3.
• The added sentence at the end of chapter 2 has been rephrased.
• Similar studies: We added our initial paper as reference in the introduction. The references 2-4 do not meet the topic of our study because they label policies of countries as general frontrunners and not specific product policies.
• Sweden, Germany and UK don’t have front-runner policies for products (Sweden and Germany are even not allowed to have those due to EU legislation) so they can not be compared with the approaches described in our study.
• Allthough a table may be desirable, we deem the scientific character of a paper being independent from the number of tables.

Quality of English language

• "Eco-design": We use the term Ecodesign to particularly describe the EU framework for improving the environmental impact of products. It is part of the more comprehensive term Eco-design.
• The other mistakes have been corrected where applicable.

The file including these revisions is attached to this response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for clarification.

 

Author Response

– We recovered the sentence bout the Ecodesign regulations in lines 51 and 52; thanks for the note. – We added the short description of the study's objectives both in the abstract and in the end of the introduction. – We don't think that it is appropirate to refer other studies using the same methods in the method section. The materials used can already be identified from the citations in chapter 3. – The added sentence at the end of chapter 2 has been rephrased. – Similar studies: We added our initial paper as reference in the introduction. The references 2-4 do not meet the topic of our study because they label policies of countries as general frontrunners and not specific product policies. – Sweden, Germany and UK don’t have front-runner policies for products (Sweden and Germany are even not allowed to have those due to EU legislation) so they can not be compared with the approaches described in our study. – Allthough a table may be desirable, we deem the scientific character of a paper being independent from the number of tables. Quality of English language – "Eco-design": We use the term Ecodesign to particularly describe the EU framework for improving the environmental impact of products. It is part of the more comprehensive term Eco-design. – The other mistakes have been corrected where applicable. – The file including these revisions is attached to this response

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded to the comments, however, they should add a few lines about the results and the study's findings in the abstract. 

Author Response

We added a few lines at the end of the abstract.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx