Global Challenges and National Responses: Indicators to Evaluate Public Policies for Mining Development in Chile in the Context of the Global Energy Transition

Comments 1: This research is very detailed and covers the formulation of targeted strategic measures for specific industries, such as energy and mining. I think it is highly necessary for this research to be published in the Sustainability journal, which will largely highlight some policy trends in the energy and mining industries in recent years as well as thoughts and suggestions for the future. However, I think that if the authors could add a few graphics to the manuscript to highlight the visualization of the research data, it would greatly enhance the quality of the research.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Maps have been added to facilitate the visualization of mining and protected areas in Chile, along with a diagram in the methodology section to explain the research methodology. Finally, in the results section, a roadmap has been added describing the global and national challenges for moving toward sustainable mining.

Comments 1: The article is very informative and interesting; however, in my opinion, it is quite lengthy and could benefit from improved coherence. I would like to draw your attention to a few technical points:

Rows 45-46: The sentence “In addition, many mining sites are located in geographically complex and environmentally fragile territories, which intensify risks” is incomplete, as it does not specify the types of risks or how these risks manifest.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. The comment is appreciated and the sentence is completed by adding authors related to the topic, which is expressed as follows:

“In addition, many mining sites are located in geographically complex and environmentally fragile areas, which intensifies significant impacts and risks such as biodiversity loss (Murguía et al., 2016; Sonter et al., 2018), water scarcity (Northey et al., 2017), pollution and risk to human health for exposure to particulate matter, heavy metals and other harm-full pollutants (Gopinathan et al., 2023)”

Comments 2: Row 46: I suggest adding a map of mining areas and environmentally protected zones after this paragraph, as it would be very valuable.

Response 2: Thank you very much for the comment. Following your suggestion, a map of mining areas and environmentally protected zones has been added.

Comments 3: Row 82: There is an extra space — please remove it.

Response 3: Thanks for the comment, it has already been corrected in the document.

Comments 4: Row 138: Some technical text from the author guidelines remains — please remove it.

Response 4: Thanks for the comment, it has already been corrected in the document.

Comments 5: Row 335: The “Materials and Methods” chapter should be numbered as 3 — please check the numbering of other sections.

Response 5: Thanks for the comment, it has already been corrected in the document.

Comments 6: Rows 336-351: There is technical text from the author guidelines — please remove it.

Response 6: Thanks for the comment, it has already been corrected in the document.

Comments 7: Rows 377, 392, 407: Please check the numbering, as one number appears twice.

Response 7: Thanks for the comment, it has already been corrected in the document.

Comments 8: Rows 503-509: I suggest moving this paragraph before Table 5.

Response 8: Thanks for the comment; it is welcomed and the paragraph before table 5 is left in.

Comments 9 (peer-review-47450810.v2) : The introduction of the article outlines the thematic scope and clearly presents the current conditions and challenges facing the mining sector, with particular emphasis on the role of the Chilean mining industry. The cited works are upto-date and properly referenced. The article clearly states the research objective, formulates a research hypothesis and research questions, and presents a well-structured outline of the study.

Response 9: Thank you for your positive feedback on the Introduction. No revisions were necessary for this section.

Comments 10 (peer-review-47450810.v2) : Theoretical Approach - The chapter is well-organized, and the argumentation is logical. It includes up-to-date sources and discusses a broad spectrum of the issue. The text highlights the tensions and contradictions between development and environmental protection, and it does not take a one-sided perspective. It would be beneficial to consider adding a

brief introductory passage (2–3 sentences) at the beginning of the chapter to outline the subtopics that will be discussed.

Response 10: Thank you for suggesting a brief roadmap at the start of the chapter. We have added a five-sentence introductory paragraph.

Comments 11 (peer-review-47450810.v2) : Section named as Materials and Methods – I would name it as Methodology. The use of a mixed-methodological strategy with an exploratory approach is justified and appropriate for tackling the issue of mining sustainability in Chile. Please clarify the difference between "levels" and "stages" in this chapter. Phrase “three analytical levels” (rows 355–362) refers to three perspectives or dimensions from which the researchers approach the problem. These points should be presented as bullet points to enhance clarity. While the stages (rows 369–375) refer to the steps that were taken to answer research objectives. In row 436 phrase: “in the second phase” appears, it seems to be the phase of analyzing one of the levels. That is why I think it would be helpful to present relationship between phases, levels and stages in some kind of diagram.

Response 11: Thank you very much for your comment. In this version, the dimensions of the problem approach have been corrected, presenting them with bullet points for greater clarity. To further clarify the methodology, a diagram has also been added to clarify the process developed.

Comments 12 (peer-review-47450810.v2) : Results – I did not find the reference to table 5. This is comprehensive and detailed chapter. In my opinion, it would benefit from being divided into more subsections such as:

3.1 Public Policy Analysis – Three Axes

3.2 Matrix Analysis

3.3 Environmental Observatory UC for Monitoring Environmental Commitments in Mining

3.4 Summary

Response 12: Thank you very much for your comment. The reference to Table 5 has been added to the source of the table itself and as Annex 1, and the chapter has been divided into more subsections as proposed.

Comments 13 (peer-review-47450810.v2) : In Discussion chapter tensions are clearly pointed out and well explained. After reding this chapter my question is: What are the main challenges, Chile faces in making its mining policies more effective and trusted by local communities?

Response 13: Thank you for prompting us to specify the challenges that emerge from our findings. We have added a new paragraph at the end of the section.

Comments 14 (peer-review-47450810.v2) : In the conclusion section, the first three paragraphs serve as a summary of the article, which is an important component of this chapter. However, this should be followed by a concise and direct statement proving that the conducted research confirms the working hypothesis and research questions. Presenting the conclusions as a continuous block of text may be less reader friendly. Therefore, I suggest reconstructing this section in a more concise and accessible format. This could involve organizing the conclusions into thematic subgroups. For example:

     1.The first research question: In what ways can Chile, as a strategic 113 supplier of critical minerals, align its mining policy with the goal of achieving carbon neu-114 trality while adhering to environmental sustainability criteria?

          a. The first argument, statement …

The same structure could be applied to the second research question and the hypothesis. Such a format would improve the clarity and readability of the presented insights.

Response 14: The Conclusion has been re-organised into thematic sub-groups that mirror the two research questions and the working hypothesis, followed by policy implications and future research. Each subsection now states directly whether the respective RQ is satisfied and how the hypothesis is confirmed, thereby improving readability and logical flow. We retained original phrasing wherever possible to preserve authorial voice. In parallel, we applied other reviewer guidance by reducing overall length and eliminating redundancies, so the final section meets both reviewers’ specifications without compromising clarity or detail.

4. Additional clarifications

[Here, mention any other clarifications you would like to provide to the journal editor/reviewer.]

Comments 1: The paper's value lies in the identification of KPIs and the development of a method to track these KPIs for ensuring the country's long-term sustainable mining industry. The topic is appropriate for the journal, is novel, and has importance on the current zeitgeist.

The following comments are to be considered in order to improve the paper and its impact.

Abstract

Comment: The following sentence is a bit verbose: “…and the current stance on the role of the state in mining development.” Please clarify.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. The phrase was like this:

The subsequent section elaborates on the theoretical framework of the research, addressing theories of economic development and sustainability, public policy approaches considered in recent years, as well as the governance of mining development, with emphasis on its capacity to articulate industrial policies, promote environmental sustainability, and foster technological innovation.

Comments 2: Abstract Comment: The abstract could benefit from a stronger conclusion on what this study found/contributed to the current body of knowledge.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. A conclusion about what this study found as a result is added to the summary.

Comments 3: Introduction Comment: Line 69 – The IEA has already been defined so the full name can be replaced with the abbreviation throughout the remainder of the document.

Response 3: Thanks for the comment, it has already been corrected in the document.

Comments 4: Introduction Comment: Line 73 – Two brackets are present before the reference ((IEA, 2024).

Response 4: Thanks for the comment, it has already been corrected in the document.

Comments 5: Introduction Comment: What are the implications of not achieving the carbon neutrality goals set out by the IPCC?

Response 5: Thanks for the comment. Among the implications of not achieving the IPCC's carbon neutrality targets are more intense and frequent climate impacts, damage to ecosystems and biodiversity loss, and risks to human health. These aspects were mentioned in a very general way in the added map (Figure 1) and in the section "Public policy approaches to innovation in mining: visions and tensions."

Comments 6: Theoretical Approach Comment: Good coverage of the current state of policies and stakeholders.

Response 6: Thanks for the comment.

Comments 7: Theoretical Approach Comment: Line 138 - The following sentence can be removed as it is likely still from the template: “The Materials and Methods should be described with sufficient details to allow others 138 to replicate and build on the”

Response 7: Thanks for the comment, it has already been corrected in the document.

Comments 8: Materials and Methods Comment: Expand on point 4: Comparison with international reporting frameworks and government standards. Here especially, focus on other countries that are heavily reliant on mining would be valuable. A complete review of each country would be too comprehensive; however some reference could be made to show alignment with international standards.

Response 8: Thanks for the comment. We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful suggestion to expand the comparison with international reporting frameworks, particularly by referencing standards adopted in other mining-intensive countries. While we agree that this would enrich the discussion, we have chosen to limit the scope of this section in order to maintain the analytical focus and coherence of the paper.

Comments 9: Materials and Methods Comment: Reference is made to an annex (Line 459) but I found no annexes to view or download. Possibly a system error?.

Response 9: Thanks for the comment. The table mentioned in the text is included as Appendix 1.

Comments 10: Results Comment: How can the 20 KPIs identified by the authors be verified? Provide some evidence that these KPIs were identified/interpreted correctly. Maybe through some form of policy expert survey? Or comparison to other countries’ KPIs (if any) or related literature? One can be creative here.

We have added two clarifying sentences:

In Section 2 (Co-creation and Validation), we indicate that Workshop 1 refined the original 25 indicators and produced a validated list of 24 KPI through expert consensus.

In Section 3 (SMART Screening and Prioritization), we outline the SMART assessment, two regional workshops, and an online survey (n = 131) that prioritized the indicators in 10 KPI. Further methodological details will be provided in a separate manuscript, as this article focuses on the alignment between the indicators and public policy commitments.

These updates, supported by Bergamini et al. (2025), document the expert validation and technical screening process while addressing the reviewer’s concerns.

Comments 11: Results Comment: The aim of the study was to “develop an evaluation matrix to systematically assess and analyze the principal environmental challenges faced by the Chilean mining industry in its pursuit of carbon neutrality.” The paper would greatly benefit from a short section that lists these principle challenges, and summarizes the implications/findings of each.

Response 11: We appreciate the suggestion; therefore, a brief section summarizing the main challenges and findings obtained is added at the end of the document (rows 752-810)

Comments 12: Comment: Reference is made in Line 512 to a “roadmap” based on the ten instruments (Table 5). I recommend that this roadmap be visualized for more impact.

Response 12: We appreciate the suggestion to include a visual roadmap. This was developed into a diagram that considers global challenges and national responses according to their legal status.

Comments 13: Conclusion Comment: The Conclusion is currently very long which distracts from the contribution of the paper. Consider simplifying this section with focus on the main findings and identified hurdles towards achieving carbon neutrality.

Response 13: We have condensed the Conclusion to ≈600 words and structured it under clear sub-headings (context, RQ1, RQ2, hypothesis, hurdles & policy implications, future research). This shortening removes repetition and foregrounds the principal findings and the remaining hurdles to carbon-neutral mining. The revised section now offers a succinct, high-impact synthesis that aligns with your request. While implementing these changes, we also took other reviewer advice on explicitly linking each paragraph to the research questions and hypothesis, ensuring both comments were addressed in concert.

Comments 14: Conclusion Comment: It is never stated whether the research questions set out in the Introduction were answered.

Response 14: Thanks for the comment. The following text is added between rows 752 and 780:

Assessment of Research Questions

RQ1: In what ways can Chile align its mining policy with carbon-neutral and sustainability goals?

An analysis of 13 environmental commitments reveals clear regulatory pathways for controlling air emissions, managing water resources, and protecting heritage sites. How-ever, it also highlights significant gaps in clean energy adoption, glacier protection, and citizen participation. To address these gaps, Chile can improve its mining policy by implementing stronger data mandates, promoting cross-agency coordination, and expanding community dialogue. This approach will help Chile align its mining practices with carbon-neutral targets while safeguarding ecosystem integrity. As a result, the first re-search question (RQ1) is addressed, indicating that further strategic refinement is necessary for enhancing Chile's mining policy.

RQ2: Which indicators can effectively assess policy progress?

The UC Environmental Observatory worked with experts from the public, private, and civil sectors to co-create 24 validated indicators. Among these, 10 indicators were prioritized for immediate implementation, in addition to 10 previously developed validated indicators. This results in a total of 20 indicators for the dashboard. These indicators can track 85% of the mapped commitments, demonstrating high coverage, adequacy, and effectiveness, thereby answering RQ2.

Confirmation for the Working Hypothesis

The working hypothesis posited that a specific indicator system enables objective evaluation of Chile's mining policies. The empirical application of the 20 indicator set confirms this premise, validating the integrative potential of the Observatory platform and strengthening accountability mechanisms.

Comments 15: General Comment: The article can be shortened a bit by removing repetitive statements such as:

Strategic positioning in mining (appears 7 times)

Reference to critical minerals (appears 8 times)

Environmental Observatory’s abbreviation is defined 8 times.

Response 15: Thanks for the comment. It's been corrected in those sentences where the meaning and significance don't change much, as well as in the translation already completed.

Comments 16: General Comment: Remove Lines 336 – 350.

Response 16: Thanks for the comment, it has already been corrected in the document.

Comments 17: General Comment: Some of the bullet points in Lines 369 – 375 end with a full stop, others don’t. Keep consistent.

Response 17: Thanks for the comment, it has already been corrected in the document.