The EMAS Registration of the Livenza Furniture District in the Province of Pordenone (Italy)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
By collecting data and information from more than 100 firms and 11 municipalities in Italy, this manuscript has tried to clarify that the Ecological Footprint (EF) was greater than the Carrying Capacity (CC). This conclusion is quite unique and has academic novelty.
However the structure of this manuscript is too complicated to understand the soundness of this study. For instance, the research question is unclear and I cannot understand what kind of issue would the author(s) like to make clear. Also, the explanation of method is too short to understand the soundness of this research. In addition, the description of the result is too loose and I cannot understand the reason why this manuscript shows such kind of many tables.
In other words, I will judge this manuscript must be revised from the structure level.
In conclusion, this manuscript should be rejected at this stage.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your kind revision, and for the useful indications in highlighting the pitfalls of our paper.
The research question was to examine the case study of a furniture industrial district by employing a methodology that not only can put in light the fact that the industrial production exceeds the available natural resources, but also provides information about possible interventions in order to assure a better sustainability of the district activities. Furthermore, the proposed methodology could be employed to implement an effective environmental management system also by industrial districts different from that taken into account in the present research.
The Paragraph 2 Methods has been improved by adding the explanations relative to how the questionnaires and interviews were structured. Furthermore, the information relative both to how the Territorial Environmental Analysis was carried out in 2005 and to how it was updated in 2015 were added.
The tables present in the paper were drawn up partly to explain in details the methodological approach adopted, since it is not so widespread in the field of EMAS procedures, and partly to present the results of the proposed methodology applied to the case study taken into account.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1) In paragraph 2: describe in more detail the methodological phases and how the questionnaires and interviews used to collect information have been structured (add the questionnaire link if present online). Furthermore, there is no mention of how the Territorial Environmental Analysis (TEA) was conducted;
2) Paragraph 3 line 93: have local units been excluded from the analysis? If you explain the motivation;
3) Paragraph 3 line 111: explain the reasons for the reduction in the number of active firms and employees from 2005 to 2015;
4) Paragraph 4.1 lines 129 to 147: the steps followed to carry out the TEA should be included in the methodological part;
5) Paragraph 4.1 line 177: specify the environmental indicators connected to the phases of the furniture chain process;
6) Paragraph 4.2 line 198: provide further details on the territorial environmental analysis carried out and the tools used for this purpose;
7) Paragraphs 4.2.1.3 and 4.2.1.4 are sub-paragraphs of paragraph 4.2.1.2;
8) Paragraph 5: describe the technical and economic feasibility of the environmental improvement solutions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your kind revision, and for the useful indications in highlighting the pitfalls of our paper.
We addressed all your suggestions, and in particular:
Neither the questionnaires prepared for the enterprises nor those prepared for the municipalities are available on-line, but Paragraph 2 Methods has been improved by adding the explanations relative to how the questionnaires and interviews were structured. Furthermore, the information relative to how the TEA was carried out in 2005 have been added by moving the previous text from Paragraph 4.1 lines 129-147 to Paragraph 2. Finally, the explanation relative to how the TEA was updated in 2015 has been added.
Paragraph 3 line 93: All active companies of the territory were taken into account; only inactive companies, that is, companies that had stopped production, were excluded from the analysis.
Paragraph 3 line 112: an explanation has been added relative to reduction in the number of both active firms and employees from 2005 to 2015.
See the answer to request no. 1.
The list of the environmental indicators connected with the phases of the furniture chain process has been added at line 178.
A detailed description of how the TEA was carried out has been added at line 196.
The structure and numbering of the Paragraphs have been modified according to the suggestions of the Reviewer.
Comment has been added in Paragraph 5 at line 422 to describe the technical and economic feasibility of the environmental improvement solutions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks to the author(s) for a well-researched manuscript. The paper has potential if a revision can address a few major and minor suggestions.
The major suggestions relate to the literature reveiw, methodology and justification. The paper needs a stronger argument throughout and why the study is important. In the introduction section, the author(s) should provide a lot stronger argument.
It is necessary to conduct a literature review on EMAS registration. Also, a table should be created. The table should include the previous studies focused on EMAS (author, year, antecedents, consequences, summary of findings.). Literature review section should be newly created as a separate section. (Right before Methods section.)
A lot detailed information/explanation should be added into “Methods” section.
Conclusion: The discussion is a little disappointing and could be written in a much stronger way. Also, there are very little managerial implications, and more specific, poignant recommendations should be provided to the practitioners/managers. This information would give the paper a much better finish.
There is no answer to the "so what" question
There is nothing here to inspire future research or implications for practice
The results are clear, but nothing new. The findings do not provide useful guidelines for scholars/practitioners.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your kind revision, and for the useful indications in highlighting the pitfalls of our paper.
We addressed all your suggestions, and in particular:
The Introduction has been improved by adding an explanation relative to the motivations and importance of the paper A literature review has been carried out on EMAS registration by Italian districts. The results have been presented in the new Paragraph 2 and a table has been drawn up The Paragraph Methods has been improved by adding more detailed information Also the Paragraph Conclusions has been improved by adding a comment relative to the novelties of the methodology proposed and its possible application to other industrial districts, both by academic researchers and by enterprise managers We have not understood what the Reviewer means with the “so what” question.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript is well revised.
Also, enough explanation is added to the “introduction”, “literature review”, “method” “results” and “conclusions”. I can judge the revised manuscript is worth to accept as an Italian case study.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
