A Framework for Sustainability Reporting of Renewable Energy Companies in Greece

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please consider the following comments

Abstract

The purpose of the study should be written at the beginning and not at the end of the Abstract

 

Introduction

Implications of the results should be presented (shortly) in the Introduction.

 

Results

Table 2 is an extensive table (about twelve pages). Authors should present the most important results

 

Conclusions

As the citation of Barbu is crucial for the findings, it should be mentioned in Section 1 and/or Section 2

Author Response

Dear editor,

We would like to thank you for accepting our manuscript article and giving us the opportunity to send you a revised version of the manuscript article, based on the reviewers' comments. We would like also to thank the reviewers for their suggestions and corrections, which were very helpful.

We believe that it has been prepared according to your requirements and it has also been thoroughly checked and revised where necessary.

On behalf of research team,

 

Best regards

 

Dr Stavros Valsamidis

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presented by Stavros Valsamidis et al. collected and evaluated the data on whether and to what extent the renewable energy companies within Greece operating in Greece prepare CSR reports in line with global and inter-national standards. It was found that the size of a company and regulations in which it operates affect the degree of convergence with international compliance standards. This is of great value to contributing to the healthy development of renewable energy in Greece. My detailed comments are as follows:

1) Some minor errors: line 159: Superscript and subscript.

2) line 36, Introduction: Pay attention to the numbering order of references.

3) Materials and Methods: How is the accessibility, accuracy, and authenticity of data defined? Objective data or supervisor's data? Internal data or third-party data?

4) Although there are many well-known ESG rating agencies evaluating and scoring the company's ESG performance, there are differences in the evaluation and scoring systems of different agencies, and there is a lack of unified standards. The same company may obtain different levels of ESG ratings in different evaluation systems. Why use GRI? Are there any comparisons between other CASS-CSR4.0, ISO26000, etc.?

5）Table 2 and Table 4: The two tables contain too much, which hinders the continuity of reading. Can they be considered in the supplementary materials and the discussion part based on the tables in the main text?

6）Table 2 and table 4 mainly showed the data from 2018 to 2019? Is there any updated data? Is there any improvement in the data of the same company for different years?

7) The content discussed in the two tables is a bit limited, and further analysis based the two tables are recommended.

Pay attention to writing format.

Author Response

Dear editor,

 

We would like to thank you for accepting our manuscript article and giving us the opportunity to send you a revised version of the manuscript article, based on the reviewers' comments. We would like also to thank the reviewers for their suggestions and corrections, which were very helpful.

We believe that it has been prepared according to your requirements and it has also been thoroughly checked and revised where necessary.

On behalf of research team,

 

Best regards

 

Dr Stavros Valsamidis

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer’s report:

 

Title: A framework for sustainability reporting of renewable energy companies in Greece.

 

In this work, authors reported on how and whether renewable energy sources (RES) companies, operating in Greece, compose non-financial reports through the preparation of statements/ reports of non-financial information which is part of the management report of the Board of Directors. The manuscript is well written which may useful for researchers and the policy makers who work in the field.

 

1. Many labels/ information in Fig. 6 are fuzzy, it should be improved.

2. Fig.6 is the graph in relation to the wind energy? The caption of Fig.6 should be revised for more clear information.

3. The purpose of the current study is to collect and evaluate data on whether and to what extent the renewable energy companies within Greece disclose non-financial information. What is the study's most important finding, according to the authors' analysis?

4.  What are your recommendations for companies who do not disclose non-financial information? Give some insight regarding the benefits of implementing what you're suggesting.

5. In consideration of your findings, what recommendations do you have for policymakers on how to support the development of renewable energy?

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English is fine

Author Response

Dear editor,

 

We would like to thank you for accepting our manuscript article and giving us the opportunity to send you a revised version of the manuscript article, based on the reviewers' comments. We would like also to thank the reviewers for their suggestions and corrections, which were very helpful.

We believe that it has been prepared according to your requirements and it has also been thoroughly checked and revised where necessary.

On behalf of research team,

 

Best regards

 

Dr Stavros Valsamidis

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript "A framework for sustainability reporting of renewable energy 2 companies in Greece" deals with the issues about renewable energy. The manuscript looks fine, scientific contribution of the manuscript in the field of energy and sustainability is up to the mark, presented idea is novel and it deserves publication after the following minor modifications:

1. Overall language quality is fine, but however it needs some minor refinements and rechecks.

2. The authors should avoid the use of abbreviations in the keywords.

3. It looks there are some references that are not properly used/cited in the body of the manuscript. Either such references should be deleted or be properly used.

4. Renewable energy is not properly addressed in the introduction section. This issue should be fixed.

5. Fig 6 is not clear, it should be redrawn.

6. Conclusion section should be furnished with multidirectional future scope of studies.

7. All references should be written on the same pattern.

Minor refinement is required.

Author Response

Dear editor,

 

We would like to thank you for accepting our manuscript article and giving us the opportunity to send you a revised version of the manuscript article, based on the reviewers' comments. We would like also to thank the reviewers for their suggestions and corrections, which were very helpful.

We believe that it has been prepared according to your requirements and it has also been thoroughly checked and revised where necessary.

On behalf of research team,

 

Best regards

 

Dr Stavros Valsamidis

Author Response File: Author Response.docx