Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Industrial Processes and Product Use Sector of Saudi Arabia—An Emerging Challenge

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors 

I do feel that the paper contributes to the body of knowledge. The paper is properly structured, grounded in recent published papers although some relevant papers seem to be missing. In addition, the research method adopted is consistent with the aim of the paper. The conclusions seem to be supported by the results presented. The subject matter is presented thoroughly and comprehensively throughout all the paper. The authors were excessively detailed when describing the different steps of the research carried out. However, I believe authors may consider some improvement opportunities. The references that supported the research seem to be appropriate but some recent contributions addressing the sustainable development are not mentioned by the authors. A relevant percentage of the references were published throughout the last 5 years however authors, oddly, solely referenced two papers from the journal where they aim to publish although a great deal may be suitable to be referenced. 

ABSTRACT 
1. The abstract must be rewritten, the authors should follow this sequence, (a) motivation/research problem, Purpose, Method/Design/Approach, Findings(numerical), Implications (Theoretical and practical), Conclusion, and Originality. Please mention the name of selected countries in abstract. 

INTRODUCTION 
2. Irrespective of the fact that the paper covers a topic that is full of merit, my first impression while reading the paper was the lack of motivation for this paper. I feel that authors can do a better job in highlighting the motivation of the paper through building a connection of their research with real world. Providing some data or real time examples supporting the environmental sustainability in Saudi Arabia context. It would highlight the significance of this paper. 

3. Please strengthen INTRODUCTION section, especially use the literature from the cognate discipline to build your arguments. The author(s) missed some most relevant studies. Here are some of the literature from the cognate discipline that will help strengthen the arguments as: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.111

https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030408

https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010258 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129090 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.03.011 

4. You'd better discuss the theoretical gap in the introduction section, and make your study based on solid theoretical foundations. Second, discuss the potential contributions made to the literature before the end. More specifically, how this study is contributing to the existing literature? 

5. Secondly, the introduction of Greenhouse gas emissions in the industrial processes seem more forceful. Authors need to work on transitioning from one paragraph to the other more smoothly. Each paragraph in the introduction seems to be unrelated to the previous paragraph. 
LITERATURE REVIEW 

6. Lot of vague comments are made in this section in introduction and literature review section. Authors need to be more explicit about their comments and should avoid vagueness. 

METHODOLOGY and Data 
7. The author should justify whey they selected this data range. On what criteria the authors collected the data, please explain briefly? 

RESULT 
8. The author should separate the discussion section. The authors should put an effort to compare your result with other studies and clarify how this study is unique and show the contrast for better readability. 
CONCLUSION 
9. Please focus this section on the key findings and provide a brief overview of recommendations to key stakeholders, limitations of research and recommendations for future research. Please ensure that these are discussed in the order listed here. All other text in this section should be moved to the discussion section if not already there. 

   

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

After reading the title and abstract, I cannot find a significant novelty in the paper. I suggest revise the title and the abstract to highlight your main contributions. Why we need your contributions to the field? 

The English writing is weak and must be improved. Some sentences are vague. 

 The last keyword is not standard. 

In the first paragraph of introduction section, you should motivate your study? What are the main needs and benefits from your study? 

To me, the second paragraph of introduction section is more suitable for the materials and methods. 

There is no literature review to compare your contributions with similar works. I highly suggest the relevant papers about green, sustainability, and energy efficiency with regards to the climate changes from well-known authors like Prof. Gheibi, Prof. Tian, Prof. Fathollahi-Fard, Prof. Keshteli and so on. 

The authors must identify the research gaps and how your contributions can fill them. 

I suggest listing your highlights after a discussion for your contributions. 

At the end of introduction section, you should provide a summary for the rest of this paper. What will be happen for other sections? 

Between Section 2 and Section 2.1, write an introduction to show the connection of each sub-section here. 

The captions of bars in Fig. 1, are very unclear with low resolution. 

A similar comment is suggested for Fig. 4. 

There is no clear statement at the end of conclusion section to talk about the future research directions. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The study analyses historic emissions of GHG across sectors in Saudi Arabia and also makes (rather concerning) scenario projections for the future. Method is descriptive. The authors identify formidable challenges for the country of Saudi Arabia in order to cope effectively with issues of climate change mitigation and adaptation.

I like that the paper focuses on process emissions. The distinction between combustion and process emissions is largely ignored in business literature, with a notable exception of the following studies:  Stakeholder pressures and corporate climate change mitigation strategies (2019) Business Strategy and the Environment; Examining distinct carbon cost structures and climate change abatement strategies in CO2 polluting firms. (2017) Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal; Climate change strategies in carbon intensive firms (2016) Journal of cleaner production. The above listed studies resonate very well with your study so please cite these studies in your revision.

I noted also some inconsistency with the generally accepted terminology in the field. In the abstract, you mention »climate change adaption«, while the generally accepted term is »climate change adaptation«. Please correct this also elsewhere in the paper if applicable.

The paper would also benefit from a discussion of key findings appealing to a broader global readership. While I have no doubt that the study can assist policy makers in Saudi Arabia, as the authors claim, please note that this journal has global readership which is to a large extent not interested in national level policies but is interested in global phenomena which climate change mitigation and adaptation certainly are.

 

 

 

   

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In my opinion, the paper has the potential to be accept in its present form. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed all the comments very well. No further comments. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed my comments. 

Reviewer 3 Report

I recommend publication.