Energy-Based Economic Sustainability Protocols
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript does not have the required level for a journal such as Applied Sciences. The level must be improved in order to fit this journal. To a lesser extent, other details are listed below.
- The introduction is too long and it must be shortened. Please, go to the point.
- Section 2 must also be shortened.
- It is not necessary to provide so much details in the nomenclature.
- 73 references are excessive for an article type manuscript.
- Check the format of the references. Some of them does not meet the format. Besides, some of them are not appropriately referenced, for instance [13][14], [16][17], etc.
- Review the English language.
- Check the footnote of page 6 “eg”
Author Response
April 27, 2023
Response to Reviewer 1
To the kind attention of the Editors and Reviewer 1, we report in this response letter the comments
raised and our response in red, making reference to changes in the manuscript, also highlighted in red.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors This manuscript does not have the required level for a journal
such as Applied Sciences. The level must be improved in order to fit this journal. To a lesser extent,
other details are listed below.
- The introduction is too long and it must be shortened. Please, go to the point. Thank you for suggesting
an improvement of this work. We have trimmed the introduction.
- Section 2 must also be shortened. Thank you for suggesting an improvement of this work. We shortened
Section 2 and possibly clarified some passages.
- It is not necessary to provide so much details in the nomenclature. Thank you for the hint. The
nomenclature description has been shortened.
- 73 references are excessive for an article type manuscript. The number of references has been reduced
as a consequence of text shortening. Nevertheless, making reference to other Reviewers’ comments, we
had to add some other references to correctly address those. Please also consider Reviewer nr. 3 report,
that mentioned that the number of references was appropriate even in the first, unrevised version of the
paper.
- Check the format of the references. Some of them does not meet the format. Besides, some of them
are not appropriately referenced, for instance [13][14], [16][17], etc. References previously separated have
been aggregated under the same cite command, for instance please see line 116.
- Review the English language. The English language has been revised in the entire document. If the
reviewer can pinpoint something in particular to improve, that will be appreciated.
- Check the footnote of page 6 “eg” Thank you for pointing this out. Now the footnote has been fixed.
Submission Date 07 March 2023 Date of this review 14 Mar 2023 11:08:13
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1) Please write acronyms in full when first used e.g. CF, ETS, LULUCF or use footnotes as applied for EIO.
2) Is section 2.2 really relevant? Removing it will make the manuscript more focused.
3) The paragraph between lines 345 and 357 in section 3.1.2 also seems irrelevant to the points raised.
4) In 3.2.2, why is noxious emissions and injection are considered social costs? The explanation given is too condensed.
5) In 2.5, it is mentioned that the LCA boundary set in this paper is gate-to-gate. Then, why irradiance is included in equation 15 to estimate the issuance of debt per country as this is in line with a cradle-to-cradle LCA boundary?
6) The authors should use a diagram showing their LCA boundary clearly. In fact, having a conceptual framework diagram would also help readers to appreciate the whole proposal.
7) Section 5 should just be “Discussion” as section 4 already titled as “Results.”
8) Eventually, what is the final energy-based sustainability protocol? This must be summarized in section 5.
9) Appendix C1 between lines 1189 and 1208 is also irrelevant.
10) Going back to the paper title, should it be energy-based economic sustainability protocol instead?
Author Response
April 27, 2023
Response to Reviewer 2
To the kind attention of the Editors and Reviewer 2, we report in this response letter the comments
raised and our response in red, making reference to changes in the manuscript, also highlighted in red.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors 1) Please write acronyms in full when first used e.g. CF, ETS,
LULUCF or use footnotes as applied for EIO. Thank you for pointing out this. Acronyms are now
written in full at first occurrence.
2) Is section 2.2 really relevant? Removing it will make the manuscript more focused. Thank you for
pointing out this. Section 2.2 has been removed.
3) The paragraph between lines 345 and 357 in section 3.1.2 also seems irrelevant to the points raised.
Thank you for pointing out this. The paragraph has been removed.
4) In 3.2.2, why is noxious emissions and injection are considered social costs? The explanation given is
too condensed. Thank you for pointing out this. A new reference has been added to explain why noxious
emissions can be considered negative social costs due to their human health harm.
5) In 2.5, it is mentioned that the LCA boundary set in this paper is gate-to-gate. Then, why irradiance
is included in equation 15 to estimate the issuance of debt per country as this is in line with a cradle-tocradle
LCA boundary?
Perhaps the difference among the protocol boundaries and the macroeconomic boundaries is not evident,
therefore, to avoid confusion among the gate-to-gate data sampling boundary of stakeholders or stakeholders’
activities, with the overall energy balance boundary of the economic system as the aggregation
and relation of each gate-to-gate data sampled, we have introduced the diagram in Figure 1 where such
concept can be promptly visualized.
6) The authors should use a diagram showing their LCA boundary clearly. In fact, having a conceptual
framework diagram would also help readers to appreciate the whole proposal. Thank you for pointing
out this. A diagram has been added as the new Figure 1, including system boundaries, energy and
information flows.
7) Section 5 should just be “Discussion” as section 4 already titled as “Results.” Thank you for pointing
out this. Now the two sections have been merged.
8) Eventually, what is the final energy-based sustainability protocol? This must be summarized in
section 5. Thank you for pointing out this. We have put in evidence the fact that our protocol consists
in a number of equations and boundary conditions in the main text, in particular the combination of
Equations 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 6 and the boundary conditions defined in the new Figure 1.
9) Appendix C1 between lines 1189 and 1208 is also irrelevant. Thank you for pointing out this, the
irrelevant section of appendix C1 has been removed.
10) Going back to the paper title, should it be energy-based economic sustainability protocol instead?
Thank you very much for suggesting us the new title, which is now proposed as the title of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is very interesting and it is clearly written.
1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
The authors propose a sustainability framework for global and scalable payment systems, the theme is actual, and the work contributes to the field of knowledge.
2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field?
I consider the theme original and relevant. I think that it aggregates some theories about the theme.
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material?
I think that gives some new contributions to the area of knowledge.
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology? What further controls should be considered?
In some parts of the work, the explanation should be more concise.
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
and do they address the main question posed?
The conclusions are in line with the proposed.
6. Are the references appropriate?
The references and the number are appropriate.
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.
No additional comment.
Author Response
April 27, 2023
Response to Reviewer 3
To the kind attention of the Editors and Reviewer 3, we report in this response letter the comments
raised and our response in red, making reference to changes in the manuscript, also highlighted in red.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The article is very interesting and it is clearly written.
1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
The authors propose a sustainability framework for global and scalable payment systems, the theme is
actual, and the work contributes to the field of knowledge.
2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?
I consider the theme original and relevant. I think that it aggregates some theories about the theme.
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
I think that gives some new contributions to the area of knowledge.
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further
controls should be considered?
In some parts of the work, the explanation should be more concise.
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the
main question posed?
The conclusions are in line with the proposed.
6. Are the references appropriate?
The references and the number are appropriate.
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.
No additional comment.
We wish to hearth-fully thank the Reviewer for such positive comments. The only change suggested is
about being more concise, which we believe has been achieved in the current version of the paper, as a
consequence of the changes requested by the other Reviewers.
Submission Date 07 March 2023 Date of this review 21 Mar 2023 18:40:29
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript introduces a sustainability framework for global and scalable payment systems inspired by ISO14040 principles.
- The first paragraph in the Introduction section is very concise and challenging to follow. The ideas in this section need to be better explained.
- Likewise, the purpose statement is not clear. For instance, what “to formulate a possible path of inspiration” needs to be explained.
- References such as “…the approaches of Pigou and Coase…” need to be better explained to ensure the self-consistency of the manuscript (Introduction, line 11).
- The sentence involving “…comprehensive methodology inherently the development of sustainable economies….” needs to be corrected (Introduction, last paragraph, lines 3-4 from bottom).
- The use of capital letters (e.g., “Externalities” in the first paragraph, ”Resources” in the first paragraph of Section 1.1) needs to be justified or otherwise corrected.
- The abbreviations (e.g., LCA, EIO) must be defined with the first use.
- Table 1 is placed at the end of section 1.1. However, the only reference to this table is in Section 2.3. The table needs to be better placed to support the flow of ideas.
- Footnote 1 needs to be provided with proper referencing.
- The narrative in Section 1.1 is confusing. The ideas in this section need to be better explained, relating to the aims and scope of the manuscript.
- The statements and conclusions in Section 1.3 (lines 125-135) are provided without any justification or supporting evidence from the literature. Given that this section provides the primary motivation and contribution of the manuscript, these need to be much better elaborated.
- Using italic fonts (e.g., in lines 171-172) needs to be justified or otherwise corrected.
- Footnote 2 would better be replaced by moving the text to the main body of the manuscript.
- It is unclear how the discussion in Section 1 – Section 1.3 leads to the energy impact modelling approximation depicted in Figure 1. Moreover, Figure 1 lacks the details and components of a model or a model approximation other than the relationship between impacts due to energy consumption and effects due to commons depletion, which can also be stated in a sentence.
- There are many parts of the manuscript where the ideas are complicated to follow: For instance, the sentence (lines 156-159)
“Both (i) the lack of an international and holistic impact assessment framework and (ii) the lack in the comprehensiveness of indicators affect the planning of activities until their land-use allocation in production countries (e.g. for biomass, REE or other materials production).” is followed by the sentence starting with “This results in favoured economic practices that benefit activities of stakeholders….”. However, the first sentence does not refer to any “favoured economic practices.”
Similarly, (lines 217-220) the sentence “Thanks to the contribution of numerous scientists, engineers and inventors, all these discoveries translated in tools such as batteries, the radio, calculators, microprocessors, television, internet, and so forth” that does not mention and scenarios or projections is followed by a sentence that starts with “In such a scenario….”.
Likewise, Section 3.1 starts with “From the considerations of commons introduced in paragraph 1.1, we will be evaluating….”. However, there is no earlier sentence, and what “therefore” refers to is unclear.
- What Footnote 3 (“e.g.”) means is not clear. Footnote 5 needs to include a reference/references.
- The derivation of the equations in Section 3 is not clear. Equation 1 is provided without any references. Therefore, it is unclear where this equation is derived from. The remaining equations cite earlier studies in the literature and the earlier equations. However, there is no earlier mention or explanation of the variables used.
- Likewise, it is not clear how Equation 12 in Section 4.1 is derived from.
- Section 5 discusses the results of the application. However, no details or explanations are given about the application.
- Overall, the flow of ideas and the articulation of the manuscript is challenging to follow. The connection and relationship between the sections are complicated to establish. Most opinions and statements are confusing, without proper justification and reference to the literature. With its current format, assessing the manuscript’s contribution is difficult.
Author Response
April 27, 2023
Response to Reviewer 4
To the kind attention of the Editors and Reviewer 4, we report in this response letter the comments
raised and our response in red, making reference to changes in the manuscript, also highlighted in red.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The manuscript introduces a sustainability framework for global
and scalable payment systems inspired by ISO14040 principles.
- The first paragraph in the Introduction section is very concise and challenging to follow. The ideas in
this section need to be better explained. The introduction has been shortened and key passages further
explained, after the corrections introduced by other reviewers also.
- Likewise, the purpose statement is not clear. For instance, what “to formulate a possible path of
inspiration” needs to be explained.
Thank you for pointing out this. Now the sentence looks like this: ”The purpose of this paper is to
highlight the importance of sampling practices embedded into transparent accounting systems, with
bottom-up democratically shared decisional rights, so as to possibly suggest a path to jointly tackle
economic and sustainability accounting issues with a methodology that integrates Life Cycle Assessment
LCA into the mechanics of blockchain databases.
- References such as “…the approaches of Pigou and Coase…” need to be better explained to ensure the
self-consistency of the manuscript (Introduction, line 11).
Thank you for pointing out this. We have inserted a detailed description of Pigouvian and Coasian
approaches: ”While Pigou provided an analytical solution to the internalisation of external costs, Coasian
approach could be resumed as a cap to the social cost allowable, and opportunely allocated to each
stakeholder, that are then able to sell or buy allowances via a secondary market. Both in Pigouvian and
Coasian approach nonetheless the production cost is considered as an economic quantity, of which the
energy cost is just a part.”
- The sentence involving “…comprehensive methodology inherently the development of sustainable economies….”
needs to be corrected (Introduction, last paragraph, lines 3-4 from bottom). Thank you for this suggestion.
We have corrected the sentence:”progressive implementation of sustainable economies...”
- The use of capital letters (e.g., “Externalities” in the first paragraph, ”Resources” in the first paragraph
of Section 1.1) needs to be justified or otherwise corrected.
Thank you for pointing out this. We preferred to put in lowercase.
- The abbreviations (e.g., LCA, EIO) must be defined with the first use. Thank you for pointing out
this. As per Referee 2 request, we have specified acronyms at their first occurrence.
- Table 1 is placed at the end of section 1.1. However, the only reference to this table is in Section 2.3.
The table needs to be better placed to support the flow of ideas.
Thank you for pointing out this. The table has been moved near to section 2.3
- Footnote 1 needs to be provided with proper referencing. Thank you for pointing out this. The footnote
has been referenced properly.
- The narrative in Section 1.1 is confusing. The ideas in this section need to be better explained, relating
to the aims and scope of the manuscript. We have performed an extensive revision and also shortened
quite a lot the paper. We believe now it should read much better.
- The statements and conclusions in Section 1.3 (lines 125-135) are provided without any justification or
supporting evidence from the literature. Given that this section provides the primary motivation and
contribution of the manuscript, these need to be much better elaborated.
To support our statement we refer to a private communication occurred between one of us and the
Minister of the Economic Affairs and Climate Policy (The Netherlands). In this communication, we
were made known about details that now can be found in the main text.
- Using italic fonts (e.g., in lines 171-172) needs to be justified or otherwise corrected.
Thank you for pointing out this. Both the bold and italic have been removed.
- Footnote 2 would better be replaced by moving the text to the main body of the manuscript. The
footnote 2 has been moved to the main body.
- It is unclear how the discussion in Section 1 – Section 1.3 leads to the energy impact modelling
approximation depicted in Figure 1. Moreover, Figure 1 lacks the details and components of a model
or a model approximation other than the relationship between impacts due to energy consumption and
effects due to commons depletion, which can also be stated in a sentence.
Thank you for pointing out this. In the current version of the paper, please see figure 1 reporting the
system boundaries, energy and information flows. This modelling approximation is introduced for the
sake of computing and assessment feasibility, rather than as a direct consequence of section 1-1.3
- There are many parts of the manuscript where the ideas are complicated to follow: For instance, the
sentence (lines 156-159)
“Both (i) the lack of an international and holistic impact assessment framework and (ii) the lack in
the comprehensiveness of indicators affect the planning of activities until their land-use allocation in
production countries (e.g. for biomass, REE or other materials production).” is followed by the sentence
starting with “This results in favoured economic practices that benefit activities of stakeholders….”.
However, the first sentence does not refer to any “favoured economic practices.”
Thank you for pointing out this. The sentence has been rephrased to make it clearer.
Similarly, (lines 217-220) the sentence “Thanks to the contribution of numerous scientists, engineers and
inventors, all these discoveries translated in tools such as batteries, the radio, calculators, microprocessors,
television, internet, and so forth” that does not mention and scenarios or projections is followed by a
sentence that starts with “In such a scenario….”.
Thank you for pointing out this, the sentence has been simply removed from the text.
Likewise, Section 3.1 starts with “From the considerations of commons introduced in paragraph 1.1, we
will be evaluating….”. However, there is no earlier sentence, and what “therefore” refers to is unclear.
Thank you for pointing out this, ”therefore” has been removed as kindly suggested.
- What Footnote 3 (“e.g.”) means is not clear. Footnote 5 needs to include a reference/references.
Thank you for pointing out this, footnote 3 has been fixed and footnote 5 properly referenced.
- The derivation of the equations in Section 3 is not clear. Equation 1 is provided without any references.
Therefore, it is unclear where this equation is derived from. The remaining equations cite earlier studies
in the literature and the earlier equations. However, there is no earlier mention or explanation of the
variables used.
Thank you for pointing out this. Equation 1 is a definition, and the variables thereby contained have
been described in a clearer way.
- Likewise, it is not clear how Equation 12 in Section 4.1 is derived from. Thank you for pointing out this.
Equation 12 comes from equation 2 applied to all stakeholders of the entire tree of transactions, of the
stakeholder currently considered. The third scope summation of the impact represents the internalised
social cost already expressed in equation 7 and specified in the article as internalised into the utility of
the buyer (equation 1).
- Section 5 discusses the results of the application. However, no details or explanations are given about
the application. Thank you for pointing out this. The reviewer can consider figure 1 about System
boundaries, energy and information flows as a potential application. The details and the explanations
can be found in the revised version manuscript.
- Overall, the flow of ideas and the articulation of the manuscript is challenging to follow. The connection
and relationship between the sections are complicated to establish. Most opinions and statements are
confusing, without proper justification and reference to the literature. With its current format, assessing
the manuscript’s contribution is difficult.
We believe that, after addressing all of the comments received from the four Reviewers, the manuscript
has now a much improved readability, and invite Reviewer nr.4 to assess once again its merits.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion, this manuscript does not have the required level for a journal such as Applied Sciences
Author Response
Thank you for your evaluation. In the absence of more specific comments, we performed a proof-reading of the entire document, including the appendices, asking to two mother-tongue individuals. Changes are marked in red. We leave to the Editor any further decision.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
#1 – This comment has been satisfactorily addressed.
#2 – This comment has been satisfactorily addressed.
#3 – This comment has been satisfactorily addressed.
#4 – This comment has been satisfactorily addressed.
#5 – This comment has been satisfactorily addressed.
#6 – Figure 1 is useful as a conceptual framework but a separate LCA boundary diagram is needed to define the protocol further.
#7 – This comment has been satisfactorily addressed.
#8 – This comment has been satisfactorily addressed.
#9 – This comment has been satisfactorily addressed.
#10 – This comment has been satisfactorily addressed.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your time and suggestions. As per point 6, we have added a separate diagram for the LCA boundary, to further define our protocol. You can find it as the new Figure 2.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion, this manuscript does not have the required level for a journal such as Applied Sciences.
Although it was improved, the introduction is still long and the number of references excessive.
Author Response
Thank you for your evaluation. The introduction has been shortened and mostly rewritten. The number of references has been strongly reduced. We leave to the Editor any further decision.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
