Overcoming Risk Aversion Regarding Energy Efficiency Practices through Mimetic Pressure and Financial Slack: Findings from the Moroccan Manufacturing Sector
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled, ‘Overcoming risk aversion regarding energy efficiency practices through mimetic pressure and financial slack: Findings from the Moroccan manufacturing sector’ proposes the model which provides mimetic pressure and financial slack as drivers to reduce the intensity of risk aversion regarding energy efficiency practices within companies. The authors further claim that the model was empirically examined using survey data gathered from 193 manufacturing companies located in four Moroccan regions. The carried-out study is interesting; however, following comments can further help authors to improve their work.
1. There is a need for the comparison of this work with that of already reported.
2. A Comparison table can help to improve the manuscript.
3. I will strongly recommend presenting their results (or at least some of their results) as graphs.
4. Recent most literature should be added.
5. There are some grammatical mistakes, which should be corrected.
6. This article looks like a report; however, more discussions are required on each results.
7. The introduction looks too short and needs more comprehensive discussion.
8. The abstract needs more quantitative results/findings.
Author Response
Point 1: There is a need for the comparison of this work with that of already reported.
Response 1: This point has been addressed. Thanks to your remark, we added a table comparing our results to other studies’ results. You can see more details in the revised manuscript.
Point 2:. A Comparison table can help to improve the manuscript
Response 2: We added a comparison table of our results to prior results from the literature.
Point 3:. I will strongly recommend presenting their results (or at least some of their results) as graphs
Response 3: This point has been addressed. You can find more details about that in the revised version of the manuscript.
Point 4:. Recent most literature should be added
Response 4: This point has been addressed in different parts of the manuscript. We added more recent references in many sections, including discussion and policy implications, More details are to be found in the revised literature.
Point 5:. There are some grammatical mistakes, which should be corrected
Response 5: After including the necessary modifications to our manuscript, we did read the manuscript multiple times and we corrected the few grammatical errors that we could found.
Point 6:. This article looks like a report; however, more discussions are required on each result
Response 6: This point has been addressed. For EACH expected result, we compared our result to our expectation, then to the prior literature, and we included references to support each comparison to the existing literature.
Point 7: The introduction looks too short and needs more comprehensive discussion
Response 7: Thank to your remark, we added more information to the introduction: We defined the key concepts, and we analyzed the gap that our research is filling.
Point 8: The abstract needs more quantitative results/findings
Response 8: We thank you for this remark. We have read several articles using the SMARTPLS software, we found out that when this software is used to analyze data, authors present their results in the abstract section the same way we did. However, to make the abstract more informative, we added in the new version of the manuscript at the end of the abstract, the main policy implication and what the study adds to the existing literature.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Sustainability-2016772
Title: Overcoming risk aversion regarding energy efficiency practices through mimetic pressure and financial slack: Findings from the Moroccan manufacturing sector
This manuscript authors constructed a model providing mimetic pressure and financial slack as drivers to reduce the intensity of risk aversion regarding energy efficiency practices within companies, and data gathered from 193 manufacturing companies located in four Moroccan regions were used to test the model. The major shortcoming of this manuscript is the study design was uncomplete and the content originality, discussion and application was week. I recommend to major revise and the following suggestion can be for referring to improve:
1. The abstract need to rewrite to become informative. Please try to highlight on what authors have new added in this study and what can be used in practice.
2. The issue of energy efficiency practices is an old topic, there are many literatures have been studied. For easy to read and understand, the pros and cons of the current literature about energy efficiency practices and use a Table to summary and compare it to show the pros and cons of those studies and point out why it need to conduct this research, even authors have been mentioned that “To our knowledge, no empirical research has examined the effect of risk aversion on energy efficiency practices within the Moroccan manufacturing sector”.
3. Measurement development was so poor, large of content didn’t find, such as constructs operational definition, indicators. Based on what kind of literature to develop questionnaire or used previous researchers’ measurement?
4. Data collection, authors seem didn’t understand the threat of common method bias and how to manage it.
5. Data collection, there are two kinds of collection, printed and online questionnaires, so authors should conduct a consistent test, then can put it together to analysis.
6. Sample profile (Table 1, 2), not only show the numbers were, authors should explain it, what mean? Is it appropriate?
7. In page 6, authors mentioned that “Indicators with values below 0.7 were removed when this resulted in higher composite reliability and AVE values (Hair et al., 2014). we eliminated four indicators from the analysis (EEP6, EEP7, EEP8 and RA1). Authors should have better reason, otherwise, the ingredient and definition (mean) of construct energy efficiency practices will be change to other mean.
8. Some acronym, such as, HTMT ratio, SRMR need full name in the first time be used.
9. Discussion, even the results were as expectation, authors also need to explain what it means?
10. Unexpected result, authors explained that “One possible explanation for our results, is that even if a high level of financial slack makes companies less averse to risk, that could lead them to invest in their production activity rather than investing in energy efficiency.” It also need base on your questionnaire or literature.
11. Policy implications, authors suggested that “the government could publicize in the media companies that gained from the adoption of energy efficiency practices.” This also need base on your questionnaire or literature.
12. Results discussion and policy applications were so week, need to be added and enhanced.
Author Response
Point 1: The abstract need to rewrite to become informative. Please try to highlight on what authors have new added in this study and what can be used in practice.
Response 1: This point has been addressed. In the revised version of our manuscript, you can find how policymakers could benefit from our study to enhance energy efficiency within manufacturing companies in Morocco. Moreover, the included why this study is an extension of the existing literature regarding the effect of financial slack on companies’ risk aversion. You can find more details in the revised version of our manuscript.
Point 2: The issue of energy efficiency practices is an old topic, there are many literatures have been studied. For easy to read and understand, the pros and cons of the current literature about energy efficiency practices and use a Table to summary and compare it to show the pros and cons of those studies and point out why it need to conduct this research, even authors have been mentioned that “To our knowledge, no empirical research has examined the effect of risk aversion on energy efficiency practices within the Moroccan manufacturing sector
Response 2: We added a table comparing our results to the results of prior studies that you can find in the revised manuscript.
Point 3: Measurement development was so poor, large of content didn’t find, such as constructs operational definition, indicators. Based on what kind of literature to develop questionnaire or used previous researchers’ measurement?
Response 3: Measurements of constructs were developed and refined based on previous researchers’ measurement. The references regarding these previous researchers’ measurement are mentioned in the new version of the manuscript.
Point 4: Data collection, authors seem didn’t understand the threat of common method bias and how to manage it.
Response 4: We are informed regarding common method bias in the context of PLS-SEM. We were aware of the implicit social desirability associated with answering questions in the questionnaire. For this reason, we tried to keep questions as neutral as possible, we avoided wordings that could be perceived as offending to companies. Besides, we did the pretest phase and modified certain questions. Moreover, the questionnaire includes “a questionnaire introduction” that specifies information such as (the aim of the study, the identity of the respondents will stay anonymous, etc.). All that is done to make respondents feel safe about providing answers reflecting their reality.
Point 5: Data collection, there are two kinds of collection, printed and online questionnaires, so authors should conduct a consistent test, then can put it together to analysis.
Response 5: We do not know how we are supposed to do that at this stage. Please excuse our shortcomings in information.
Point 6: Sample profile (Table 1, 2), not only show the numbers were, authors should explain it, what mean? Is it appropriate?
Response 6: This point has been addressed. We explain in the revised version of the manuscript all the numbers in table a and 2, we also explained why they are relevant.
Point 7: In page 6, authors mentioned that “Indicators with values below 0.7 were removed when this resulted in higher composite reliability and AVE values (Hair et al., 2014). we eliminated four indicators from the analysis (EEP6, EEP7, EEP8 and RA1). Authors should have better reason, otherwise, the ingredient and definition (mean) of construct energy efficiency practices will be change to other mean.
Response 7: We completely agree with you that removing three indicators modifies the latent variable energy efficiency practices. However, we sacrificed EEP6, 7 and 8, for higher composite reliability and AVE values. In this regard, we compared the results in the two scenarios, we found that the better option was to remove EEP6, 7 and 8.
Point 8: Some acronym, such as, HTMT ratio, SRMR need full name in the first time be used
Response 8: Point 8 has been addressed in the revised version of the manuscript.
Point 9: Discussion, even the results were as expectation, authors also need to explain what it means?
Response 9: This point has been addressed. All the section “discussion” has been modified. We explained each expected results and we added references to support each saying. More details are to be found in the revised version of the manuscript.
Point 10: Unexpected result, authors explained that “One possible explanation for our results, is that even if a high level of financial slack makes companies less averse to risk, that could lead them to invest in their production activity rather than investing in energy efficiency.” It also need base on your questionnaire or literature
Response 10: This point has been addressed. We included references (prior literature) to support this saying in the revised manuscript.
Point 11: Policy implications, authors suggested that “the government could publicize in the media companies that gained from the adoption of energy efficiency practices.” This also need base on your questionnaire or literature
Response 11: This point has been addressed. We included references from the existing references to support policy implications. Also, we enhanced the section “policy implications”. You can find more details about that in the revised version of the manuscript.
Point 12: Results discussion and policy applications were so week, need to be added and enhanced
Response 12: This point has been addressed. Thank to your remark, the section “policy implications” is enhanced. We added more implications, and more references to support each one.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript, entitled "Overcoming risk aversion regarding energy efficiency practices through mimetic pressure and financial slack: Findings from the Moroccan Manufacturing Sector," analyses a research model that suggests financial slack and mimetic pressure as factors to lower risk aversion in relation to energy efficiency practices in the Moroccan Manufacturing Sector. Four manufacturing companies in Morocco's regions provided written and electronic questionnaires that were used to gather the data.
- The authors presented a strong model to analyze mimetic pressure and financial slack as drivers to reduce the intensity of risk aversion regarding energy efficiency practices within companies.
- If possible, authors should attach a questionnaire as an annexure to enhance the understanding of the gathered data.
- The authors need to explain the significance of the low value of R2 for risk aversion in Table 6.
- In the manuscript, the authors used a survey data-based approach to validate a hypothetical approach, which can't be used for policy implications without supporting case studies. The author should include a case study supporting the research model.
· The authors say that "one possible explanation for our results, is that even if a high level of financial slack makes companies less averse to risk, that could lead them to invest in their production activities rather than investing in energy efficiency." Why did the authors reach this conclusion? What is the basis for the conclusion?
Author Response
Point 1: If possible, authors should attach a questionnaire as an annexure to enhance the understanding of the gathered data
Response 1: The part of the questionnaire related to this study has been attached as an annexure. You can see more details in the revised version of our manuscript.
Point 2: The authors need to explain the significance of the low value of R2 for risk aversion in Table 6.
Response 2: This point has been addressed. In the revised version of the questionnaire, we explained that R square value for risk aversion which is 34.4 percent is acceptable since this endogenous latent variable is explained only by two exogenous latent variables. We also added references to support our saying.
Point 3: In the manuscript, the authors used a survey data-based approach to validate a hypothetical approach, which can't be used for policy implications without supporting case studies. The author should include a case study supporting the research model
Response 3: We based the policy implications on prior literature. More details are to be found in the revised manuscript which include more references regarding each implication.
Point 4: The authors say that "one possible explanation for our results, is that even if a high level of financial slack makes companies less averse to risk, that could lead them to invest in their production activities rather than investing in energy efficiency." Why did the authors reach this conclusion? What is the basis for the conclusion?
Response 4: This point has been addressed. The basis of this conclusion is prior literature, the reference has been added. Furthermore, we added several references in all the section named policy implications in order to support the policy implications. We thank you for this remark which allowed as to modify this section.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper proposes "Overcoming risk aversion regarding energy efficiency practices through mimetic pressure and financial slack: Findings from the Moroccan manufacturing sector". My observations are listed below.
1. Please specify types of energy (electrical, petroleum, natural gas, coal) in the abstract section.
2. I suggest to add some numerical results in the abstract section. The terms "positive", "negative", "dampen" should be quantified to better understand the contributions of this work.
3. Is it an empirical research? please explain.
4. The authors claims to develop a model of risk aversion. However, the gap in the existing models have not been analyzed.
5. Please provide details of structural equation modelling (SEM), we employed the Partial least square (PLS) in context of your research.
6. Please explain the table 1 and 2. Also, add the online questionnaire that was used in this research.
7. The efficiency data is missing.
8. Fig. 1 need more explanations. What are H1 to H7?
9. The graphical results are most welcomed.
Overall, the paper has not been properly format. The research gaps are not clearly defined. It is difficult to follow the paper.
Author Response
Point 1: Please specify types of energy (electrical, petroleum, natural gas, coal) in the abstract section.
Response 1: This point has been addressed. It is the electrical energy. Thank to your remark, we added this information in the abstract of the revised version of the manuscript.
Point 2: I suggest to add some numerical results in the abstract section. The terms "positive", "negative", "dampen" should be quantified to better understand the contributions of this work
Response 2: We thank you for this remark. We have read several articles using the SMART-PLS software, we found out that when this software is used to analyze data, authors present their results in the abstract section the same way we did. However, to make the abstract more informative, we added in the new version of the manuscript at the end of the abstract, the main policy implication and what the study adds to the existing literature.
Point 3: Is it an empirical research? please explain
Response 3: It is an empirical study, since we collected data from 193 manufacturing companies in Morocco, that we analyzed using the software SMARTPLS, in order to test our research model and our research hypotheses.
Point 4: The authors claims to develop a model of risk aversion. However, the gap in the existing models have not been analyzed.
Response 4: We thank you for this remark. We explained in the revised manuscript how our research fills a gap in the existing literature. You can find more details about this point in the revised manuscript (the end of the introduction).
Point 5: Please provide details of structural equation modelling (SEM), we employed the Partial least square (PLS) in context of your research.
Response 5: This point has been addressed. We give more details explaining the use of PLS in our research.
Point 6: Please explain the table 1 and 2. Also, add the online questionnaire that was used in this research.
Response 6: An explanation of the table 1 and 2 has been included in the manuscript. We explained all numbers, and why they are relevant to the research.
Point 7: The efficiency data is missing.
Response 7: We added a part of the questionnaire related to the current study that we added as an “Appendix A”.
Point 8: Fig. 1 need more explanations. What are H1 to H7?
Response 8: In the manuscript already submitted, each hypothesis is introduced after introducing the concept related to it (right below the Fig. 1). For the more clarity, and thank to your remark, we have regrouped in the new version of the manuscript, the seven hypotheses right after the definition of the key concepts of the study (before materials and methods).
Point 9: The graphical results are most welcomed
Response 9: This point has been addressed in the revised version of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The comments have been incorporated, it should be accepted.
Author Response
We thank you for your time, your collaboration, and your effort to make our manuscript better. We appreciate it.
Reviewer 2 Report
There is a miss text in Figure 4, H7 (not supported). Please correct it.
Author Response
Point 1: There is a miss text in Figure 4, H7 (not supported). Please correct it..
Response 1: We believe you mean figure 2. It is mentioned in figure 2, that H7 (Beta=0.0085**, with **p < 0.05), which means that H7 is not supported. However, it is always better to make the results understandable for a larger community. Therefore, we added for each hypothesis in figure 2 (supported in green, namely H1 to H6) or (non-supported in red, namely H7), to make it easier to understand. You can find that in the newest version of the manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
The following comments have not been addressed.
Point 7: The efficiency data is missing.
Point 9: The graphical results are most welcomed. Still, there are no graphical results in the revised version.
Also, the authors need to format the paper as the energies specific format. There are no section numbers!
Author Response
Point 7: The efficiency data is missing.
Response 7: If you mean by “the efficiency data” the part of the questionnaire related to the concepts of the article (energy efficiency practices, risk aversion, financial slack and mimetic pressure), it has already been added to the manuscript (Appendix A, Table A1: Measurement items of latent variables).
Point 9: The graphical results are most welcomed. Still, there are no graphical results in the revised version.
Response 9: Your comment has already been taken into consideration. “Figure 2: Results of PLS analysis”, right before the discussion section. However, to make the graphical results even clearer, in each hypothesis on the graphic, we added the mention (supported, namely H1 to H6) and (not supported, namely H7).
Also, the authors need to format the paper as the energies specific format. There are no section numbers!
Response: The section numbers is included in the newest version of the manuscript. Thank you for your remark.
