Public–Private Partnerships for Climate Technology Transfer and Innovation: Lessons from the Climate Technology Centre and Network

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well written, however there seem to be a number of issues that affected its overall quality:

• In the abstract, the context of the research is not clear.
• Some references are incomplete (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 13 etc…) as only the online source is given but no other bibliographical details.
• There is a reference to 17 interviews, but no information is given on what was asked and what answers were given.
• There is an ambiguity about what is a primary and what is secondary research.
• In the paper, there is a jump from the theoretical background in Section 2 to Results in section 3 without clarifying what methods were deployed to undertake research and what data was gathered, be that primary or secondary research.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and effort on enriching our work. According to your comments, I re-organized the old manuscript by clarifying the research methods on the analysis of our empirical TA data, interviews. You can see the details in the following.

 

1. In the abstract, the context of the research is not clear.

 : According to your comments, I re-organized the abstract with the clear research context and methods [see lines 17-23].

 

2. Some references are incomplete (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 13 etc…) as only the online source is given but no other bibliographical details.

 : According to your comments, I put detailed information about those references [see lines 398-461].

 

3. There is a reference to 17 interviews, but no information is given on what was asked and what answers were given.

  : According to your comments, I put detailed in-depth interview information. Thanks to your valuable comments, we can clearly address the shared interest from our interviews. Please find Table 2 [see lines 223-230; 236-237].

 

4. There is an ambiguity about what is a primary and what is secondary research.

  : According to your comments, I revised old manuscript by adding the clear description on primary and secondary research [see lines 57-67].

 

5. In the paper, there is a jump from the theoretical background in Section 2 to Results in section 3 without clarifying what methods were deployed to undertake research and what data was gathered, be that primary or secondary research.

 : According to your comments, I re-organized the old manuscript by clarifying our methods (in-depth interviews with major stakeholders) and data (CTCN TA examples) we employed for primary and secondary research in introduction section [also, see lines 57-67].

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presented for the review concerns  the “Public-Private Partnership Strategy for Climate Technology Transfer Innovation”. The authors presented the topic in relation to the to the activity the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN).  The authors, referring to their previous work, presented  the various roles of the private sector in the processes of development and transfer of climate technologies and they proposed  a new public-private partnership (PPP) strategies for climate technology transfer innovation.  

Overall, I found that the work is interesting. Topic is important, as the authors point out, in the context of the necessity to strengthen a relationship with the private sector to develop and transfer climate technology in global action on climate change. Appropriate strategies can strengthen this role. Schemes and graphics are an additional value of the work.

However, the manuscript needs to be improved. I have few comments and suggestions to authors.

1. The aims of the work are set out in the introduction, but in the following sections it is difficult to distinguish the effects of the present study from the previous ones.
2. It is difficult to find a description of the research method in the work.
3. In Table 1 authors give TA examples implemented by network member from the private sector, which they then discuss in the Results section [6 examples, 2 for each stage]. I have a question – what decided about the choice of TA examples, were there any selection criteria, or was it a random choice.
4. The authors wrote that the strategies were developed on the basis of 17 interviews. Lines 64-67 “the shared interest for partnership between the CTCN and the private sector was evaluated by analysing 17 interviews with current and potential network members, as well as other partners successfully working with the private sector like United States Agency for International Development (USAID)”.                                                                                              Unfortunately, there is relatively little information on this topic in the further part of the work (section Results), only lines 223-230 and Table 2).  It is not clear how many interviews were conducted with the private sector and how many with other institutions [see lines 64-67; 223-230]. The authors only mentioned examples of the three public partners. It would also be worth giving at least keywords regarding the interviews that were carried out. In my opinion, the authors should provide / explain it in the work. This will help to understand the basis on which Table 2 was formulated and the “interest for the partnership between the CTCN and the private sector” was developed.
5. It seems to me that the conclusions are not thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article, especially, lines 359-360 “Furthermore, we evaluated the shared interest for the partnership between the CTCN and the private sector” [see comments above].
6. Abstract: in my opinion, the abstract should be reformulated; - too much general /background information [60%, [lines 9-17],  too little information about the research and its effects.

Finally, I think that the article has a great scientific potential, but it should be corrected. 

Best regards,

Author Response

Thank you for your time and effort on enriching our work. According to your comments, I re-organized the old manuscript by clarifying the research methods on the analysis of our empirical TA data, interviews. You can see the details in the following.

 

1. The aims of the work are set out in the introduction, but in the following sections it is difficult to distinguish the effects of the present study from the previous ones.

 : According to your comments, I revised old manuscript by distinguishing the effects of the present study from the previous one [see lines 101-105]: Whereas our previous staged innovation model simply divided climate technology transfer processes into three stage, however, in the present work, we can identify each role of a targeted player i.e. private sector among various stakeholders at each stage of some of our empirical Technical Assistance data and design partnership strategically for private sector to boost its different role in each stage of climate technology transfer and innovation.

 

2. It is difficult to find a description of the research method in the work.

 

:  According to your comments, I revised old manuscript by describing the research methods: analysis of the CTCN technical assistance data as primary research, and in-depth interviews with major stakeholders as secondary research [see lines 57-67].

 

3. In Table 1 authors give TA examples implemented by network member from the private sector, which they then discuss in the Results section [6 examples, 2 for each stage]. I have a question – what decided about the choice of TA examples, were there any selection criteria, or was it a random choice.

 

: According to your comments, I revised old manuscript by adding the sentence about the choice of TA examples [see lines 105-107].

 

4. The authors wrote that the strategies were developed on the basis of 17 interviews. Lines 64-67 “the shared interest for partnership between the CTCN and the private sector was evaluated by analysing 17 interviews with current and potential network members, as well as other partners successfully working with the private sector like United States Agency for International Development (USAID)”. Unfortunately, there is relatively little information on this topic in the further part of the work (section Results), only lines 223-230 and Table 2).  It is not clear how many interviews were conducted with the private sector and how many with other institutions [see lines 64-67; 223-230]. The authors only mentioned examples of the three public partners. It would also be worth giving at least keywords regarding the interviews that were carried out. In my opinion, the authors should provide / explain it in the work. This will help to understand the basis on which Table 2 was formulated and the “interest for the partnership between the CTCN and the private sector” was developed.

 

: According to your comments, I put detailed interview information as Table. 2 in revised manuscript, by explaining especially which institutions we interviewed, what kinds of questions we asked and what the interviewees answered, in relation to the shared interests between the CTCN and the private sector [see lines 223-230; 236-237].

 

5. It seems to me that the conclusions are not thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article, especially, lines 359-360 “Furthermore, we evaluated the shared interest for the partnership between the CTCN and the private sector” [see comments above].

 

: According to your comments, I re-write the conclusion part by adding thorough support by the results [see lines 374-379].

 

6. Abstract: in my opinion, the abstract should be reformulated; - too much general /background information [60%, [lines 9-17],  too little information about the research and its effects.

: According to your comments, I reformulate the abstract by inserting clear research context and methods [see lines 17-23].

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

First, I would like to thank you for revised manuscript. In my opinion, this version of manuscript can be accepted without any further changes.

Best reards,