A New Perspective on Strategic Choices for the Survival and Development of Energy Enterprises: An Analysis of Market Power, Innovation Strategy, and Sustainable Development of Major Multinational Oil Companies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find below my major concerns.

Abstract:

More specific details about the findings of the empirical analysis could be provided.

The transition between the empirical analysis and proposed strategies could be smoother.

Introduction:

The introduction is lengthy and could be more concise.

A smoother transition from general global issues to the specific focus on the petrochemical industry is needed.

I recommend dedicating a separate section to the literature review to enhance organization and readability.

Simplify complex language without sacrificing depth for better accessibility.

Improve the conclusion of the introduction for better flow into subsequent sections.

Methodology:

Explain the meaning of all symbols used in the expressions.

Clarify why the authors chose the Malmquist Index over the Luenberger Index.

Address why robustness assessments were not conducted.

Distinguish between the sections on research design and methodology.

Incorporate considerations of separability into regression analysis for a more robust analysis.

Conclusions:

Identify any limitations encountered in the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article's main focus is on market power and control. Strangely enough a relationship between market power, technological innovation ( which is not adequately explained) and sustainable development is being established. There are apparently some common features between developed and developing countries but a model which clearly differentiates between developed and developing countries is missing. The Meta Frontier Malmquist method looks quite complicated and fails to demonstrate variables and their relationships as would a regression model.

Brief outlines of theoretical concepts are presented quite superficially at the start of the article. They are mostly focused on firm performance and not on sustainable development in the true sense of it. Environmental performance of oil and gas sector is highly sensitive and this article has failed to address it adequately and properly. 

The article appears as chunks of material put together and lacks proper flow.

Adequate.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, submitting a manuscript like this seems to me relevant for the journal "sustainability", but it requires some improvements and clarifications.

1) You should clearly present the objective of your manuscript, both in the introduction and in the abstract.

2) If you mention the "Spring Silent" it is necessary to cite the book by Rachel Carson (1962).

2.1) For this particular industry it is relevant to mention the 1973 oil crisis, and how this may have influenced the pressure to keep production costs low, over environmental and social factors. 

2.2) As well as the role of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in the world geopolitical scenario and the restrictions it imposes on production. THIS MAY AFFECT YOUR HYPOTHESES OR AT LEAST BE STATED AS A CONSTRAINT.

3) The methods section should be detailed by outlining in more detail the steps you will execute to achieve your results.

4) It is not clear how you operationalize "sustainable development" to be incorporated in the calculation of total factor productivity, technical efficiency and technological progress.

4.1) I understand that the efficiency of scale is not considered because in all cases we are dealing with large companies.

5) More transparency is required in the use of explanatory variables and control variables... 

5.1) Present some characterization of these variables before your table 5 and following tables.

5.2) Make your data available, the review or critical reading of your article cannot be an act of faith.

6) You should add a discussion section, where you contrast your results with other relevant publications.

7) How you cover the Russia-Ukraine and Palestine-Israel conflict. If you do not, do not conclude on this.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper can be published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough review and positive feedback on our paper.

We are delighted to hear that you believe our work is suitable for publication. Your acknowledgment reinforces our confidence in the quality and significance of our research. We will address any minor revisions or suggestions you may have promptly to ensure the paper meets the standards of the journal.

Sincerely,

Chunliang Guo

Reviewer 2 Report

I acknowledge that a revision has been undertaken. Yet, key issues have not been addressed adequately. You are considering two aspects of corporate sustainability: environmental impacts of oil and gas sector and the risk market poses to these companies due to their environmental impacts. Secondly, you are considering innovation and strategy. Its not clear for what? 

How have the variables been measured? Why have you selected 18 companies?

Futher basic theoretical concepts have been introduced, extremely superficially.

The risk of no longer existing? for oil and gas companies is not clear and there is no evidence to back it.

Evidence of data collection is lacking.

some statements are not clear.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, it seems to me that in general you have addressed all the comments in the review. It would be good to emphasize discussion and limitations, but it seems to me that the improvements are sufficient to be accepted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful assessment of our manuscript. We are pleased to hear that you feel we have adequately addressed the comments provided in the review. We will certainly enhance the discussion section and emphasize the limitations of our study as per your suggestion. 

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

Best regards,

Chunliang Guo

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

 am afraid that the degree of revision undertaken is superficial and does not adequately address the feedback provided in the last review.

You provide a detailed explanation as to why environmental considerations ( in depth) are not a focus for the oil and gas sector. You refer to intergenerational equity, yet you fail to address impacts in depth. You fail to address climate risks and environmental impacts in depth. Rather the focus is on the companies' survival. This research would fit better in a business journal which does not have a focus on sustainability as addressed in this journal Sustainability.

Quality of english is adequate