The Impacts of Geopolitical Risks on the Energy Sector: Micro-Level Operative Analysis in the European Union

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a very interesting topic and a well structured paper with a clear research question. However, the biggest weakness of the paper relies upon the literature review and the theory of geopolitical risk. There are many studies on this issue that have been neglected. The literature is not presented as it should be, there is not a comparative table showing the different approaches and conclusions on this issue as well as  the different variables authors use, and also there is not any critical approach on the existing findings which will make more clear the authors' contribution with their current research. Also, the author(s) approach geopolitical risk only from a quantitative point of view and there is not any reference on the concept of energy security and geopolitical risk, which is very crucial. When we analyze something which is measurable, before we measure it we have to first define it and explain its theoretical implications. This paper neglects that part and remains only on energy productivity and efficiency, however energy security is vital for all sectors. An extended literature review and theoretical framework on what is geopolitical risk and its correlation with energy and energy security in particular would make the difference, because any impact of geopolitical risk on energy would have serious repercussions on energy security as well and this is something that cannot be ignored. In the overall it is a very good paper which contributes to the literature.

Consider the following:

Flouros, F., Pistikou, V., & Plakandaras, V. (2022). Geopolitical risk as a determinant of renewable energy investments. Energies, 15(4), 1498.

Balitskiy, S.; Bilan, Y.; Strielkowski, W. Energy security and economic growth in the European Union. J. Secur. Sustain. Issues 2014, 4, 123–130.

Scholten, D. The geopolitics of renewables—An introduction and expectations. In The Geopolitics of Renewables; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 1–33. 

Caldara, D.; Iacoviello, M. Measuring Geopolitical Risk. International Finance Discussion Papers, DC, USA. 2018. Available online: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/ifdp/files/ifdp1222.pdf

Pascual, C. The new Geopolitics of Energy. Center on Global Energy Policy. September 2015. Available online: https://legacy-assets.eenews.net/open_files/assets/2015/09/15/document_cw_01.pdf 

Zhao, W.; Zhong, R.; Sohail, S.; Majeed, M.T.; Ullah, S. Geopolitical risks, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions in BRICS: An asymmetric analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 39668–39679.

Antonakakis, N.; Gupta, R.; Kollias, C.; Papadamou, S. Geopolitical risks and the oil-stock nexus over 1899–2016. Financ. Res. Lett. 2017, 23, 165–173.

Sweidan, O.D. The geopolitical risk effect on the US renewable energy deployment. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 126189.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We would like to thank you for acknowledging the merit of our paper. Thanks again for the constructive comments that help improve the paper significantly. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions, and made further improvements to the manuscript. Response to each individual comment/suggestion is contained in the table attached. In line with each of your comments/suggestions, there are some specific revisions to the text as highlighted in Red within the revised manuscript. Many thanks. authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The impacts of geopolitical risks on the energy sector: Microlevel operative analysis in the EU

Referee’s comments

This paper deploys an empirical model to predict the energy sector and possible risk factors incorporating Eurostat data on twenty-seven states from 2011 to 2020 to study the relationship between different energy variables, such as energy supply, energy consumption, energy intensity, energy productivity and energy efficiency. My observations are as follows;

A lot of unsubstantiated claims are made in the introduction. Author needs to provide references for these claims.

·       The abstract needs to be rewritten in a manner that clearly conveys the objective, the empirical procedure and the findings.

·       The study is poorly motivated in the introduction. Author needs to provide a robust background building up to the importance of this study.

·       The introduction needs to be significantly overhauled.

·       The introduction should end with an explanation of how the rest of the study is structured.

·       The introduction should present the key contributions of the study.

·       The methodology and data section is very difficult to follow. Nature and sources of data should be better explained, econometric model should be clearly specified and the estimation technique should be clearly discussed.

·       Equations should be properly numbered.

·       Equations should be written with a proper equation tool.

·       What is EP?

·       Study limitations should be included.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We would like to thank you for acknowledging the merit of our paper. Thanks again for the constructive comments that help improve the paper significantly. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions, and made further improvements to the manuscript. Response to each individual comment/suggestion is contained in the table attached. In line with each of your comments/suggestions, there are some specific revisions to the text as highlighted in Red within the revised manuscript. Many thanks. authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has significantly improved the manuscript. I however still have the following reservations:

·        The data description and methodology do not clearly indicate the kind of analysis being conducted. Is it a cross-sectional analysis? If so, for what period? Is it a time-series analysis? If so, over what period? The equation would also need to be rewritten to reflect this. Is it a panel analysis? If so, over what period? Again, the equations would need to be rewritten to reflect this. 

·        The literature still needs to be significantly updated. I suggest that the author consider these papers along with several others still missing.

Ø  https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.energy.2022.124824Get

Ø  https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s11356-021-12653-y

Ø   https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/en15103510

Ø  https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1002/jtr.2389

Ø  https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X19876092

Ø  https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1002/pa.2387

·        There are still typographical errors in the manuscript.

·        I still have doubts about the model specified, for instance, energy intensity and energy efficiency both measure the same thing, just in opposite directions. Is it necessary to include both in the same equation?

·        I also notice the absence of control variables in the regression. Author needs to clearly justify the choice of these regression models.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We would like to thank you for your constructive comments that help us in improving the paper. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions, and made further improvements to the manuscript. 

In line with each of your comments/suggestions, there are some specific revisions to the text as highlighted in Blue within the revised manuscript.

Thanks, 

Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I am satisfied with the manuscript in its current form. I congratulate the author(s).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer and Academic Editor´s,

We thank you for your time and efforts in helping us complete the revision of this paper, adding value to the final version.

All suggestions and comments were followed, believing that they will help us to have more quality of the paper.

We are very grateful for your considerations. 

According to your last recommendation, we are sending the changes in blue color.

Thank you, 

Authors.

Authors response to academic editor's comments

Title: The impacts of geopolitical risks on the energy sector: Micro-level operative analysis in the European Union

Journal: Economies

Dear academic editor´s

We carefully consider your comments to extend value in the study. Change to the text are highlighted in blue color.

Author Response File: