Investigating Barriers to Low-Carbon Policy Implementation among Mining Companies in Ghana
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript deals with characteristics of low-carbon policy in gold-mining companies in Ghana. In my opinion, the manuscript corresponds to the current trend for CO2 emission reduction and, although the study is quite poor in the research field, may be interesting for readers. Major revision is needed.
I highlighted some recommendations, questions and comments for authors according to the manuscript:
Line 48. “Gustafsson et al.” The reference style should be changed.
Line 57. “targed”. Typo.
Line 68. “…of solar PV…”. Undeciphered abbreviation. Please, clarify in the text.
Line 132. Caption contains a description of the Figure, which should be in the text. Please, change.
Line 154-164. It would be better to list this data as a table to clarify the characteristics of the companies.
Line 172. “…two local enumerators.” It is so strange that there are no thanks for the enumerators in the Acknowledgements section.
Line 188-189. “To understand perceptual variation among the respondents in the coastal mainland and island subdistricts…”. It is not clear or bad sentence. You didn't discuss further about such the variation.
Line 190-191. Please, write a formula.
Line 192-194. Where did you get certain scale ranges for the answers? Please, give a reference.
Line 196-197. There is no formula. Please, give a formula.
Line 202. “3.1”. There is only one subsection, so no numbering needed
Line 236. “Huang et al.” The reference style should be changed.
Line 240-242. A strange difference of opinion. This may be due to the various technologies used by companies. Could you write in more detail about gold mining technologies at different companies in Ghana?
Line 264. “barrio”. Typo
Line 273. “contraints”. Typo.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor English editing is needed.
Author Response
Reviewer one: RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS
Please all responses are highlighted in red ink.
Point 1. Line 48. “Gustafsson et al.” The reference style should be changed.
Response 1: Thank you for the suggestion. We have replaced this reference with Gasbaro and Pinkse, 2016.
Point 2. Line 57. “targed”. Typo. Response 2. We have corrected this typo as targeted.
Point 3. Line 68. “…of solar PV…”. Undeciphered abbreviation. Please, clarify in the text. Response 3. This abbreviation has been written fully as solar Photovoltaics.
Point 4. Line 132. Caption contains a description of the Figure, which should be in the text. Please, change. Response 4. Thanks for the suggestion. We have canceled this part The red spot indicates mining companies, yellow, green, brown and blue colors represent mining areas, while ash lines show reginal boundaries.
Point 5. Line 154-164. It would be better to list this data as a table to clarify the characteristics of the companies. Response 5. Thank you. We have created a table according to the comment.
|
Table 1. Characteristic of Gold Mining Companies.
|
|||
|
Company |
Workforce |
Gold production (Annual) |
Revenue (Annual) million |
|
Company A |
4,210 |
127koz |
US$4,427
|
|
Company B |
4,576 |
526.3koz |
US$927.7
|
|
Company Y |
2,000 |
270koz |
US$467.8
|
|
Company Z |
3,343 |
157koz 157koz |
US$139.4
|
Note. [32]
Point 6. Line 172. “…two local enumerators.” It is so strange that there are no thanks for the enumerators in the Acknowledgements section.
Response 6. We incorporated enumerators in the acknowledgment section.
Point 7. Line 188-189. “To understand perceptual variation among the respondents in the coastal mainland and island subdistricts…”. It is not clear or bad sentence. You didn't discuss further about such the variation.
Response 7. The variation here denotes the company’s level of agreement or disagreement on a Likert scale (ranges [1-1.8] = strongly disagree, [1.9-2.6] = disagree, [2.7-3.4] = not sure, [3.5-4.2] = agree, [4.3-5] = strongly agree). Understanding the variation in responses helps us place overall responses, using the mean values (Table 2) on the Likert scale, to determine whether responses imply a major barrier and so forth. Detailed explanation: It allows for a distinctive analysis of the company’s level of agreement or disagreement. This distinctive understanding, reflected in mean values, provides valuable insights into potential barriers and levels of acceptance toward implementing low-carbon policies.
Point 8. Line 190-191. Please, write a formula.
Response 8. Thanks for the suggestion. We computed the equation below.
Step 1: To find the mean value, we modified the frequency mean distribution formula and developed an equation: Where ∑R = sum of responses and TNC = total number of companies. For example, about government policies (Table 2), responses are (agree = 4, disagree = 2, not sure = 3, agree = 4). ∑R = 4+2+3+4=13 and TNC = 4. Therefore, 13/4 = 3.25, and so on. The mean value is 3.25.
Step 2: To estimate the Likert scale range, we first computed the average mean value by:
- Subtracting the lowest value from the highest value (5-1=4)
- Dividing by the total number of responses (4/5=0.8), and
- Add (0.8+1=1.8). Where 1 = lower standard range and 0.8 is the average mean value. Since the Likert scale has a range of 1 to 5, the first range is expressed as (1–1.8), where 1 = lower standard range and 1.8 = upper range
- We added 0.8 to obtain the following upper ranges. [(1.8+0.8=2.6), (2.6+0.8=3.4), (3.4+0.8=4.2), (4.2+0.8=5)]
- The lower ranges are determined as a sequence value of each upper range
[(1.8 ® 1.9), (2.6® 2.7), (3.4 ® 3.5), (4.2 ® 4.3)]
Therefore, the ranges are determined as follows
[1-1.8] = Strongly disagree
[1.9-2.6] = Disagree
[2.7-3.4] = Not sure
[3.5-4.2] = Agree
[4.3-5] = Strongly agree
Point 9. Line 192-194. Where did you get certain scale ranges for the answers? Please, give a reference.
Response 9. Please see the reference. Kuhls, D. A., Campbell, B. T., Thomas, A., Michaels, H., Bulger, E. M., & Stewart, R. M. (2021). Survey of American College of Surgeons members on firearm injury prevention. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 233(3), 369-382.
This study calculated mean values on a 5-point Likert scale. Similarly, we calculated mean values and placed the values on a 5-point Likert scale. However, we went a little further to establish the ranges [(1.8 ® 1.9), (2.6® 2.7), (3.4 ® 3.5), (4.2 ® 4.3)]) it falls (mean values) to determine whether overall the company’s responses reflect (agree, disagree, not sure, strongly disagree or strongly agree).
Point 10. Line 202. “3.1”. There is only one subsection, so no numbering needed.
Response 10. We have deleted the number 3.1
Point 11. Line 236. “Huang et al.” The reference style should be changed.
Response 11. Thank you. We corrected it as Huang, J. (2018), ref. [41]
Point 12. Line 240-242. A strange difference of opinion. This may be due to the various technologies used by companies. Could you write in more detail about gold mining technologies at different companies in Ghana?
Response 12: We explained “This may be due to different technologies used in mining companies, for instance, geophysical surveys in their gold mining companies. Moreover, sophisticated processing techniques like cyanide leaching and carbon-in-leach are employed [we will cite this new reference]. Reference: Tuokuu et al. (2018). Challenges and opportunities of environmental policy implementation: Empirical evidence from Ghana's gold mining sector. Resources Policy, 59, 435-445.
Point 13. Line 264. “barrio”. Typo changed to barrier.
Response 13. We corrected it as barrier.
Point 14. Line 273. “contraints”. Typo changed to constraints.
Response 14. We corrected it as constraints.
Please do not hesitate to let us know if you have any other comments or suggestions.
Kind regards
ADOM and MATSUI
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In the study, the authors analyze the current topic of climate sustainability related to the concept of sustainable development, the aim of which is to fight climate change and decarbonization of the economy, including a low-emission economy related to the implementation of technologies, practices, efficient energy solutions, and pro-ecological technological innovations. After reading the content of the study, I suggest that the authors supplement the content in subsections to improve the study. Below are detailed comments on the article:
1. The abstract should be supplemented with the purpose of the study conducted by the authors. Then you should indicate what the authors did in the study and what they ultimately achieved.
2. The introduction should specify precisely what the research problem is and what is the interpretative framework. In this part of the article, the authors should put forward research hypotheses. Moreover, in this part of the article you should describe your approach, research perspective, and what the results achieved by the authors contribute to science. Additionally, in this part, we answer the question: Why is the research problem important? What did the authors know about this problem before they undertook the research? How has the authors' research expanded knowledge about the low-emission economy in the mining sector?
3. The article should be supplemented with a literature review chapter, which should take into account the theoretical background with a reference to the most important similar works in the field of low-emission economy, policies, and strategies used in this area in enterprises.
4. In Chapter 2. Materials and Method, the authors partially described the method of data collection. They should, however, be supplemented with the characteristics of the respondents, the number of survey questions, distinguishing between open and closed questions, and those measured with a Likert scale.
5. Moreover, the chapter lacks a description of the research method used (to interpret the conclusions).
6. In Chapter 3. Results and Discussion, a thorough interpretation and discussion of the obtained research results should be made. We divide the results according to the data sets (e.g. if we analyzed interviews and surveys, the authors should discuss them separately)
7. I propose to supplement the content of the Discussion with an indication of what the authors' results mean and why the conducted analyses are important, what did the authors find new after conducting the research? what did other researchers know about the applied low-emission policy in the mining sector, and what results from the authors' research? What are the similarities and differences in the results?
8. In Chapter 6. Conclusions, we summarize our research results. We do not write what we did in the article, but what results from the research conducted. In addition, we indicate what further research plans the authors have in terms of analyzing the low-emission economy in the mining sector. and whether the results confirmed the research hypothesis that should have been formulated.
9. The English language requires correction. The text is mainly missing punctuation marks for articles, the, and the plural (‘s), etc.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English language requires correction. The text is mainly missing punctuation marks for articles, the, and the plural (‘s), etc.
Author Response
Reviewer two RESPONSE TO REVIEWER COMMENTS
Please all responses are highlighted in red ink. If there is any misinterpretation or misunderstanding of your comments, we kindly request that you inform us. Thanks for your cooperation in enhancing our paper.
Point 1. The abstract should be supplemented with the purpose of the study conducted by the authors. Then you should indicate what the authors did in the study and what they ultimately achieved.
Response 1. Thank you for the suggestion. We have clarified and incorporated “Ghana’s efforts to implement low-carbon policy were hampered by a number of reasons. Ghana is Africa’s leading gold producer and the world’s seventh largest producer. Mining has contributed significantly to foreign currency acquisition and government revenue. The gold mining sector contributes approximately 95% of Ghana’s total mineral revenue. Considering these situations, the fundamental question is how Ghana’s mining industry can contribute to CO2 emission reductions.” About methodology, we have incorporated “The study adopted 5-point Likert scale statement questions format.
Regarding achievement, our findings reveal perspectives on issues like cost, government policies, and the adoption of low-carbon technologies. The study highlights challenges such as uncertainties in energy supply, the need for trained personnel, and the high cost of adopting low-carbon options. We have revised and specified this in our findings “We found that a major challenge among companies was the expected cost involved in implementing low-carbon emission policy”.
Point 2. The introduction should specify precisely what the research problem is and what is the interpretative framework. In this part of the article, the authors should put forward research hypotheses. Moreover, in this part of the article you should describe your approach, research perspective, and what the results achieved by the authors contribute to science. Additionally, in this part, we answer the question: Why is the research problem important? What did the authors know about this problem before they undertook the research? How has the authors' research expanded knowledge about the low-emission economy in the mining sector?
Response 2. Thank you for the comments.
Research Problem: We highlighted our research significance here.
Ghana is Africa’s leading gold producer and the world’s seventh largest producer [15]. Mining has contributed significantly to its foreign currency acquisition and government revenue. The gold mining sector contributes approximately 95% of Ghana’s total mineral revenue. Large-scale gold mining operations accounted for about 11% of Ghana’s national GHG emissions [14]. Considering these situations, we attempt to investigate the fundamental question which is “how Ghana’s mining industry can contribute to CO2 emission reductions”. We delve to ascertain deeper by understanding the status of their low-carbon practices, their perspectives, and prospects of moving toward more sustainable practices of gold production in the future.
Research objective: Here we have highlighted our research objective.
“This paper, therefore, investigates barriers to low-carbon emission policy implementation among mining companies in Ghana. It focuses on four gold mining companies in particular.
Hypothesis: We have introduced three hypotheses.
Here we proposed three hypotheses: Cost perception hypothesis, policy framework impact hypothesis, and technology adoption readiness. Hypothesis 1: Cost Perception Hypothesis [16]: We propose that there are varying perceptions among Ghana's gold mining companies regarding the costs associated with the implementation of policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions. These perceptions influence attitudes toward the anticipated financial burden and the potential impact it may have on their operations. Hypothesis 2: Policy Framework Impact Hypothesis [11,13,14]: We propose that the effectiveness of the current governmental policy framework for reducing carbon emissions in Ghana influences the willingness of gold mining companies to adopt and implement low-carbon strategies. Hypothesis 3: Technology Adoption Readiness Hypothesis [13]: We propose that the readiness of gold mining companies in Ghana to adopt low-carbon technologies is influenced by factors such as uncertainties in energy supply and the availability of personnel with expertise in innovative low-emission technologies..” These hypotheses provide a structured framework for our investigation into the barriers hindering the implementation of low-carbon emission policies in Ghana's gold mining industry. It aims to foster a distinctive understanding of the diverse perspectives and challenges faced by mining companies, ultimately contributing to the broader efforts in CO2 emission reduction.
Here we appreciate your detailed comments. Please we have provided below a detailed explanation concerning suggestions (points 2).
Approach and Research Perspective:
Detail explanation: We focused on a multifaceted approach to investigate the barriers hindering the implementation of low-carbon emission policies within Ghana's gold mining industry. By examining the historical context, international agreements, and global perspectives on low-carbon goals, the research situates itself within a broader environmental discourse. Our study adopts a quantitative approach, employing a Likert scale questionnaire survey among four large-scale gold mining companies, and utilizes statistical analyses to derive meaningful insights. Our research perspective is framed within the context of global environmental concerns, as evident from the references to international agreements, conferences, and the recognition of the imperative for the mining sector to contribute to low-carbon goals. We acknowledge the heightened awareness among major mining companies regarding the necessity to lower carbon emissions, emphasizing a global shift towards greener operations.
Contribution to Science:
The results achieved significantly contribute to the academic understanding of challenges within the low-emission economy, particularly in the mining sector. The study delves into the specific hurdles faced by Ghana's gold mining companies, offering a nuanced understanding of their perspectives on cost, government policy, and technology adoption readiness among others. The research problem is crucial due to the global imperative to reduce carbon emissions, as emphasized by international organizations and agreements. We recognized the gap in knowledge regarding the specific challenges faced by gold mining companies in Ghana and aimed to address this by shedding light on their unique circumstances. Our research expands knowledge about the low-emission economy in the mining sector by providing detailed insights into Ghana's context, which might apply to other developing countries. By focusing on our specific geographical and industrial setting, the study moves beyond generalities and contributes tailored information essential for formulating effective strategies. The proposed hypotheses add depth to the understanding of the factors influencing the adoption of low-carbon strategies in the mining industry.
Significance of the Research:
Explanation: Before undertaking the research, having reviewed some papers and reports, we were somehow aware of the broader challenges faced by the mining sector in aligning with low-carbon goals. However, the specific nuances within Ghana's gold mining industry were not thoroughly understood. That is how we aim to fill this knowledge gap by investigating the barriers hindering the implementation of low-carbon policies in this specific context.
In summary, the author's research not only addresses a critical problem within the low-emission economy but also contributes valuable, context-specific insights that can inform policies and strategies for sustainable practices in Ghana's gold mining industry.
Point 3. The article should be supplemented with a literature review chapter, which should consider the theoretical background with a reference to the most important similar works in the field of low-emission economy, policies, and strategies used in this area in enterprises.
Response 3. Thanks for the comment. Here we established a background to delineate the global perspective and concerns to reduce carbon emission, previous studies concerning policies and limitations which prompt the need to urge cleaner production in SDGs to achieve a low carbon economy “For decades, international organizations have long anticipated that the mining sector contributes more to realizing low-carbon goals. As early as 1972, recommendation 56 of the Stockholm Action Plan urged nations to create a forum for exchanging information about mining and mineral processing, including the impact of mining on environmental conditions [1]. In 1992, Agenda 21 advocated for more sustainable green mining [1,2,3]. The 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development highlighted the need for strong and effective legal and regulatory frameworks, policies, and practices for the mining industry [3]. The 26th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP26-UNFCCC) urged the mining industry to adopt greener operations [4]. The World Economic Forum similarly emphasized the way the mining industry can benefit from low-carbon infrastructure development [5]. Major mining companies are now well-aware that their operations must lower carbon emissions [4,6]. The World Gold Council estimates that from 1991 to 2006, the average carbon and other GHG emission intensity from global gold mining was 11,500 kg CO2-e/kg [7]. Similarly, investigated carbon and GHG emissions from five large gold producers in 2016 and found that the average emission intensity was 23,300 kg CO2-e per one kilogram of gold product, significantly higher than the global average [8]. Mineral extraction activities significantly intensify climate vulnerability [9]. GHG emissions intensity in Australia’s mining industry increased by 40% from 14,100 kg CO2-e/kg in 1991 to 19,740 kg CO2-e/kg in 2006 [10]. When Ghana ratified the Paris Agreement in September 2016 [11], its carbon and other GHG emissions had been in an increasing trend. According to its fourth Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the UNFCCC, which was submitted in May 2020, the total CO2 and other GHG emissions in 2016 were estimated to be 42.2 million tons of MtCO2e, a 7.1% increase from 2012 [12]. The Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) targeted agriculture, forestry, land, energy, waste, and industry sectors [12], but, for some reasons, it did not include emissions from the mining and mineral sectors [13]. Ghana pledged at the Paris Conference (2015) to reduce CO2 emissions by 15% and increase renewable energy share to 10% through the national energy mix. However, its efforts to implement a low-carbon policy were hampered by a number of reasons. Adenle et al. [16] identified a lack of finance as a key challenge to achieving low-carbon development strategies (LCDs) in developing countries, particularly in Africa. Benefoh and Ackom [13] highlighted similar issues of finance and ineffective institutional capacity. Furthermore, insufficient financial incentives, the firm’s policy framework, and the relationship between the government and corporations affect policy adoption [17]”.
Point 4. In Chapter 2. Materials and Method, the authors partially described the method of data collection. They should, however, be supplemented with the characteristics of the respondents, the number of survey questions, distinguishing between open and closed questions, and those measured with a Likert scale.
Response 4.
We have indicated our questionnaire type as “semi-structured questionnaire.”
We indicated our eight questions here: Our questionnaire survey focused on identifying the companies’ challenges in adopting low-carbon technologies. We listed the following eight possible barriers for the respondents to choose: (1) lack of government policy on low-carbon emissions, (2) information availability on low-carbon mining, (3) cost of low-carbon technology, (4) the availability of long-term payment schemes, (5) availability of low-carbon technology, (6) power generation capacity, (7) low-carbon policy decision making and (8) technical expertise. We assessed the degree of their agreement by defining 1 as strongly disagree and 5 as strongly agree.
Point 5. Moreover, the chapter lacks a description of the research method used (to interpret the conclusions).
Response 5.
Thanks for the comments. Regarding the methodology, we have incorporated detailed information according to your suggestions and 1st reviewers’ comments.
Point 6. In Chapter 3. Results and Discussion, a thorough interpretation and discussion of the obtained research results should be made. We divide the results according to the data sets (e.g. if we analyzed interviews and surveys, the authors should discuss them separately)
Response 6.
Thanks for your comments. Here we discuss our results and make inferences with convergence and divergence opinions from what past studies found.
Point 7. I propose to supplement the content of the Discussion with an indication of what the authors' results mean and why the conducted analyses are important, what did the authors find new after conducting the research? what did other researchers know about the applied low-emission policy in the mining sector, and what results from the authors' research? What are the similarities and differences in the results?
Response 7.
Thanks for your comments. We have made some revisions highlighting what the results mean and implications.
Point 8. In Chapter 6. Conclusions, we summarize our research results. We do not write what we did in the article, but what results from the research conducted. In addition, we indicate what further research plans the authors have in terms of analyzing the low-emission economy in the mining sector. and whether the results confirmed the research hypothesis that should have been formulated.
Response 8. We have made a slight revision according to your comment.
Point 9. The English language requires correction. The text is mainly missing punctuation marks for articles, the, and the plural (‘s), etc.
Response 9. Thanks for your observation. We have made some corrections.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript was significantly improved.
Line 182. Table 2. Duplicates (157koz 157koz) should be avoided. Units of measurement are usually placed only in column headings.
Response 12 and the new reference (Tuokuu et al.) were not introduced into the manuscript. Please, add it.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor English editing is needed
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER ONE COMMENT (2nd Round)
Point 1. Line 182. Table 2. Duplicates (157koz 157koz) should be avoided. Units of measurement are usually placed only in column headings.
Response 1. Thanks, we have deleted the duplicate (157koz). Also, we moved the unit of measurement to head columns, including US$ (Line 182).
Point 2. Response 12 and the new reference (Tuokuu et al.) were not introduced into the manuscript. Please, add it.
Response 2. It was an oversight not to delete from response 12. We did not use it, hence omitted from the manuscript.
Point 3. Minor English editing is needed.
Response 3. Thanks for your observation. Here, in Lines (296-351) we edited some statements. This has caused slight changes compared to previous submissions.
Overall, we appreciate your kind cooperation.
Kind regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
