Key Corporate Sustainability Assessment Methods for Coal Companies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper introduces the shortcomings in the sustainability assessment of enterprises in the coal industry in Russia, the traditional assessment methods lack effective assessment of the coal industry, and do not take into account the industrial factors related to the coal industry, so the author demonstrates that each type of coal enterprise needs a separate corporate sustainability assessment method. In the first part of the article, it is presented that there is a lack of a common assessment method for the mining industry in the existing research, so this paper examines the specific characteristics of the coal industry and its significant impact on the ecological, economic and social aspects of the environment in which the company operates. The second part describes the CS assessment methods used in this article. The third part introduces the types and analysis of CS assessment methods, which are divided into: CS assessment methods, circular economy assessment methods, ESG assessment methods, and non-financial reporting standards used in the coal sector. The article cites the examples of China and Vietnam to illustrate how government regulation plays a key role in the sustainable development of the coal industry. Finally, the development trend of Russian coal industry is introduced and this paper is summarized.
1. This paper systematically introduces the method of CS assessment, puts forward the application of traditional CS assessment method in the coal industry and puts forward other factors that need to be considered, and is somewhat abrupt when proposing that the CS assessment method in the mining industry should pay attention to industrial factors and influencing CS factors, and does not explain the source of factors.
2. The research method of the second part is not reflected in the text, and the description in the text cannot form a correspondence.
3. In the third part, the analysis of CS assessment methods, circular economy assessment methods, ESG evaluation methods and non-financial reporting standards used in the coal sector is more comprehensive, which can let readers understand the advantages and disadvantages of the four assessment methods, as well as the shortcomings of these CS assessment methods in the coal industry, which provides an idea for subsequent research.
4. In the third part of the factors for implementing CS policy, there is more analysis of government regulation and too little analysis of other factors, and in the analysis of China and Vietnam, more content is not related to sustainable development of enterprises.
5. The article uses the examples of China and Vietnam to illustrate the huge role played by the government in CS assessment, and the government's relevant measures can quickly promote the implementation and development of CS and accelerate the transformation and upgrading of enterprises.
6. Some of the conclusions in Part IV are taken from the article and lack the author's summary. Conclusions should correspond to the topic, and some conclusions are not summaries of key CS assessment methods.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your useful comments and recommendations to our article!
We are very grateful to obtain such a high recognition of our research!
Response to the review is presented in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of Key Corporate Sustainability Assessment Methods for Coal
Companies
1. Novelty: Is the question original and well-defined? Do the results provide an advancement of the current knowledge? In that the article looks at making sustainability actionable amongst coal companies, I would say it’s very novel.
2. Scope: Does the work fit the journal scope*? Yes
3. Significance: Are the results interpreted appropriately? Are they significant? Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results? Are hypotheses carefully identified as such?I feel readers will find the authors findings of significance as there is little on sustainability at the micro-level.
4. Quality: Is the article written in an appropriate way? Are the data and analyses presented appropriately? Are the highest standards for presentation of the results used?The quality is acceptable.
5. Scientific Soundness: Is the study correctly designed and technically sound? Are the analyses performed with the highest technical standards? Is the data robust enough to draw conclusions? Are the methods, tools, software, and reagents described with sufficient details to allow another researcher to reproduce the results? Is the raw data available and correct (where applicable)?In that the article is part literature review and part case study, these issues don’t really apply. As a literature review and case study, it is acceptable.
6. Interest to the Readers: Are the conclusions interesting for the readership of the journal? Will the paper attract a wide readership, or be of interest only to a limited number of people? (Please see the Aims and Scope of the journal.) I feel readers will be interested.
7. Overall Merit: Is there an overall benefit to publishing this work? Does the work advance the current knowledge? Do the authors address an important long-standing question with smart experiments? Do the authors present a negative result of a valid scientific hypothesis? The overall benefit is the insights on the implementation of sustainable actions and goal in the Russian coal industry. Considering many emerging markets are struggling with the same thing, I feel this is a very timely article.
8. English Level: Is the English language appropriate and understandable? The level of English is acceptable.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your useful comments and recommendations to our article!
We are very grateful to obtain such a high recognition of our research!
Response to the review is presented in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have effectively revised the paper in accordance with the comments I made. I believe that the revised version can meet the journal's publication requirements. It is recommended for acceptance.
Author Response
We are very grateful to obtain such a high recognition of our research!
