Niches Seeking Legitimacy: Notes about Social Innovation and Forms of Social Enterprise in the Italian Renewable Energy Communities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 6)

Even though the authors identified and corrected issues, serious issues exist, such as limiting the article's citations. Most of the claims were not supported by enough literature. 

So, I recommend it for rejection. 

ok, minor revisions are required. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your reply. However, I find it difficult to understand how an article of 5,747 words with 62 references can be considered insufficient in terms of literature. It would at least have been useful to know where the paper was lacking in citations. Furthermore, it is not clear why an article that you say has improved should be recommended for rejection.

Based on your brief response, as well as the other positive responses to the revised version of the article, I am unable to respond to your comment with a new version of the article.

Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)

review: 

Niches seeking legitimacy: notes about social innovation and forms of social enterprise in the Italian renewable energy communities- 

aims, this paper delves into the social inno-vations related to community energy projects on the one hand, and – through a focus on Italy – at the legal forms required to create a REC in the light of the constantly changing regulatory frame-work ,where new actors, such as the Third Sector, can play a leading role as intermediary actor to develop the social implementation of REC initiatives. 

This paper provides a descriptive analysis of the implementation of renewable  energy communities between the social innovation. 

Introfuction:

good explanation:  line 62-63

 "the concept of ‘community’ is also fundamental to identify the social re- 61 lations characterized by a participatory governance aimed at delivering benefits to the member, hence putting in motion principles of distributive justice within the energy system .

- explamation: 145-149 - good 

Social acceptance is key to understanding the social innovations of RECs, as it refers to the effectiveness of the benefit system guaranteed to potential members of a REC and is therefore the cornerstone of the legitimacy of RECs to accelerate low-carbon transitions based on the principles of decentralization and localization.

excellent TAB 1 : congratulation 

3rd SECTOR  - 374 - good explanation 

good note:  line 357 : "On this basis, further reflections lead back to the intermediary functions played by  ‘Community Energy builders’, discussing whether Third Sector entities can be identified  as CEBs 

 - CONCLUSIONS - author understands this topic. 

- very well structured article 

- 

flaws: 

CEBs - you explaned 3 x - why .(249, 262, 479) I think 1x is enough. 

GSE 2x ... 

- please translate:  Fratello Sole Energie Solidali  line 370 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for your positive response. 

Concerning the repeated definition of "Community energy builders", I invite to look at the following amendments.

As suggested, the description provided on Line 249 remains as it is.

Line 262
Revised version:

"The intermediary actions taken by the ‘Community Energy Builders’ (CEBs) simultaneously look at the territorial, societal, technological, and cultural aspects behind low-carbon energy transition, to be promoted through the development of RECs."

Line 479
The sentence has been corrected in order to make it more concise, as follows:

"In addition, the paper points out the importance of the intermediary functions in disseminating the innovations that RECs bring to the energy system, and such intermediary roles are put into action by the ‘Community Energy Builders’ (CEBs) (50)."

Ultimately, I provided a translation of "Fratello Sole Energie Solidali", as follows:

"[...]and energy service companies specifically framed for the Third Sector [such as Fratello Sole Energie Solidali (translated in ‘Brother Sun, Solidarity Energies’)]."

Please see the attached file for the full revised version of the manuscript.
Sentences marked in red refer to the new amendments (related both the new parts and proof-read sentences).

Thank you.

Warmest regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

I think that the author (s) have worked a loto to improve this manuscript.

well done

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for appreciating the new revised version of the article, and to consider it for publication.

Warmest regards

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Reviewer’s comments on sustainability-2914422

In this article, the author provided a descriptive analysis of the implementation of renewable energy communities, which could be divided into three aspects: The social innovation that community energy can bring to the energy system; The special environment in which community energy centers are located; The legal form in Italy. However, the manuscript in current form could not be published due to but not limited to the following comments,

1. The format of cited references was not uniform, such as 11 (line 104), 12 (line 108), 13 (line 111), etc.

2. Half of the cited references were published more than 5 years ago, while the newest literatures should be cited.

3. The manuscript had a single form of expression, only a table, and lacked figures.

4. The full text only contained objective expositions and conclusions, while it was lack of personal summaries and prospects for the future.

5. The author did not describe in detail the social practices done in the work, and this part should be added to support the author’s point of view. (lines 325-331)

Moderate editing of English language required. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for your kind response. Please consider that written english has been revised.
According to the comments, I reply to the points you raised as follows.

1. Corrections to the format of cited references have been applied throughout the paper, to make the format uniform by using with these brackets: [ ]

2. It is a bit difficult for me to address this point: if half of the references cited are from more than five years ago (i.e. just before 2019), the other half is supported by references from 2020 onwards. I know that some recent papers are not mentioned, but I think that the paper is also supported by recent literature, and that 63 references are enough for a paper of about 6000 words.

3. By addressing two comments from two reviewers, including yours on missing figures, I added a figure, which describes the three phases of social innovations in community energy provided by Hewitt et al [Ref. 13].
Therefore, I invite you to see Figure 1 below, hoping it might meet your request. 

4. I addressed this lack of personal summaries and prospects by adding some new parts to the concluding remarks. I invite you to see the revised and enlarged version of the conclusion.

5. Due to the lack of space, it is quite difficult for me to deepen this point. 

Please see the attached file for the full revised version of the manuscript.
Sentences marked in red refer to the new amendments.

Warmest regards.

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

The paper refers to the interesting topic of renewable energy communities (RECs) and their role as a driver of social innovations. Author conducted in-depth literature review, presented crucial findings and thoughts upon discussed topic, analyzed and uncovered some barriers that slow down the production of social innovations by RECs. I’d like to suggest some minor improvements before publication in Sustainability journal:

1. The sentence at lines 9-11 should be revised as the meaning of it for now is not clear.

2. I would like to suggest removing the information regarding paper structure from the abstract (lines 20-24) and put it in the end of introduction section. It is better to replace it in the abstract with the couple of sentences about the used research methods and brief description of obtained results.

3. It is better to structure the sentences in the lines 29-32 in other way and remove the part with the contribution to the special issue as usually it highlights in Cover Letter or at least in the end of Introduction part.

4. Put all references through the text in square bracket. i.e. [11], [12], etc. In some parts of the manuscript the references are put in parenthesis ().

5. Please, replace the link at lines 297-298 with the reference.

6. This suggestion is very optional, but the phases of social innovations developed by Hewitt are very interesting concept that might be shown in the graphical way in this paper. It is just an advice, but, to my point of view, it would improve the paper and make its topic and results more “understandable” for the readers.

7. Please, check the paper formatting, in particular, reference style.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The proof reading is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for your kind response. Written English has been revised.
Please see the responses to your comments, reported below.

Point 1
The sentence has been revised as follows:
"Renewable energy communities (RECs) are increasingly seen as key innovations for the development of decentralized energy systems that leverage on renewable energy co-production, sharing, and consumption."

Point 2
I slightly reframed the sentence to make it more discursive, because I think the abstract benefits from these lines. However, I agree that the presentation of the paper structure is not appropriate for an abstract. Therefore, I invite to check the new version of the sentence, revised as follows:

"The paper navigates through the literature on community energy in the light of the social innovation they can bring to the energy system, discusses the niche condition of RECs and addresses the Italian case with particular reference to the role of the third sector in disseminating REC innovations."

Point 3
The sentence has been revised as follows:
"The paper reflects on the implementation of Renewable Energy Communities (hereafter, RECs), taking the Italian case an ‘operational’ example to discuss about social innovations in community energy"

Point 5
I replaced the link in the text with an endnote, as follows:
¹ See the new Decree on Renewable Energy Communities introduced by the Italian Minister of the Environment and the Energy Security: https://www.mase.gov.it/sites/default/files/Decreto%20CER.pdf.

Point 6
Thanks for this suggestion. A figure illustrating the sequence of the three social innovation phases identified by Hewitt et al has been added. Please see Figure 1.

Points 4 and 7
Reference format has been corrected throughout the paper, adopting the following brackets: [ ]

Please see the attached file for the full revised version of the manuscript.
Sentences marked in red refer to the new amendments.

Warmest regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 6)

The authors didn't address the issues adequately, so I recommend it for rejection. 

English is good; minor editing is required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Your previous revision was summarized in this brief sentence:
"Even though the authors identified and corrected issues, serious issues exist, such as limiting the article's citations. Most of the claims were not supported by enough literature."

The paper has 63 references. I still cannot understand why the paper has a limited article citation, and I still have difficulties in considering this single sentence as a peer-review.

Best. 

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.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a most impressive paper, the product of exemplary team work. It is an exciting text which provoking this reader to think of contexts in which the integrated Living Lab approach could be applied to small and medium sized businesses, not least in areas remote from major urban centres. 

My only slight query is whilst the paper is written in a way fully accessible to experts in the field, the reader is occasionally confronted by a learned name like 'Miscanthus' (line 144, i.e. 'grass'), which was followed by 'straw' and flax' when referring to biogenic residues.  Again 'Jeans dust' (lines 329, 451) was a puzzle to this reader who was not aware of a particular problem with denim cotton clothing, unless this emerges from the disposal of such clothing.

The basic message conveyed by this excellent project could well be communicated more widely in due course in a less technical form so as to benefit other contexts.   

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

I am afraid to notify that this review does not corresponds to the contents of my submission. I do not know whether this is due to an editorial bug or due to other reasons, but since there is no link with my paper on renewable energy communities in Italy, I am unable to reply to your comments.

Warmest regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper «Social Innovation, Niche Development, and Forms of Enterprise in Renewable Energy Communities: Notes from Italy» aims to contribute to the debate on renewable energy communities (RECs) through a theoretical discussion and some insight from the case of Italy. In short, using the literature that focuses on RECs as drivers of social innovations on the one hand and research on “niche” initiatives and their specificities (e.g., citizens engagement, the new role of the end-users, etc.) on the other hand, the paper tries to report “how” and “if” RECs can define new forms of social enterprises, even in their heterogeneity of legal forms. Despite the intention being attractive, the paper presents some relevant critical points.

First, in paragraphs 2 and 3, the argument sometimes appears nonlinear or convincing. For example, the role of intermediaries is discussed in the “niche” paragraph. However, even in some of the work the author/s mentioned (e.g., Hargreaves), it is also a category used in social innovation literature. For instance, the category can be applied as a bridge concept to connect social innovation and niche-level aspects (see also, for example, Paula Kivimaa, Wouter Boon, Sampsa Hyysalo, Laurens Klerkx (2019), Towards a typology of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: A systematic review and a research agenda, Research Policy, 48, 4, pp. 1062-1075). This point seems not developed adequately by the author/s.

Second, sometimes arguments and topics are quickly reported, and in this way, they do not help define a scheme for the main paper topic. The case of “social acceptance” in paragraph 2 is an example. This concept is mentioned quickly without any problematisation. Even if the author/s report/s an interesting reference (Lagendijk et al., 2021), he does not inquire the category in the paragraph on “social innovation”. Moreover, the link between social innovation and social acceptance is unfolded. Instead, the author/s seem/s to link social acceptance just to “interests”, and this point is entirely questioned in the literature.

Third, in the paragraph on insights from the case of Italy, the author/s do/does not adequately mention his/her/their database of data sources, and very few references to work about Italy are reported. Particularly here, the author/s propose/s evocative suggestions and inadequate sources or references to support them. Moreover, if readers know the case of Italy, they can agree or disagree with what is reported in this paragraph. However, if readers need to learn about the Italian case, this part of the paper proposes just personal impressions with no precise data or references; evaluating what the author reports can be difficult. On this, even the author/s him/her/themselves declare/s that the point (I quote): «[needs] further elucidations and empirical counterparts to be validated».
For this reason, the author/s should completely rewrite the submitted paper to present an adequate, more solid work, and it leads us to reject this work.

No comment on the quality of English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The abstract needs rewriting. This should include this article's purpose, methodology, and contribution to the knowledge.

The purpose of the article and methodology are missing or need elaboration.

The article is more descriptive than analytical. There is a greater need for analysis needed to improve the paper.

The legal framework, one of the article's important aspects, needs more discussion. 

Sentence structures need to be revised.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This article briefly explores the experience of RECs in Italy, delving into two aspects: the identification of legal forms introducing "entrepreneurial approaches" in RECs, and the role of the Third Sector in the implementation of RECs, referring to the intermediary functions they can perform.

For the objectives that the authors set, the article is easily readable, and its purpose is clear. I suggest a few improvements that can enhance the work.

1)In the abstract, rather than starting with the acronym "REC," spell out the full term (Renewable Energy Communities).

2)I would try to explain from the introduction how this theme, related to the Italian experience, has international relevance. Especially in the part where the author identifies legal forms suitable for REC implementation, could you clarify how this research produces theoretical and practical implications useful for a non-Italian reader? Since the first and second parts are essentially a review of the literature on RECs, social innovation, and the niche position of RECs. My main suggestion concerns section three because it represents the propositional part of this article.

3)Although the author clarifies that the purpose of this work is "the collection of some reflections to be considered simply as notes gathered from various research exchanges over the past two years, and they do not represent the result of a systematic and rigorous empirical activity," although it is  a preliminary study, I expect some theoretical deepening that can then be developed in a more mature analytical work. It is not enough to read about operational difficulties or operational advantages that the Third Sector, especially cooperatives and associations, can present as forms for development and, I believe, stabilization of RECs.

It would be useful to report the most relevant functions recognized to the Third Sector (especially cooperatives) that place it in the service of communities. Theoretically, themes such as prosperity, resilience, and local development can intertwine with the REC theme, just as social innovation does (with a more immediate effect). I expect a section that explains how REC can fit into this broader literature. It is a theoretical work, so delving in this direction can better highlight the added value and the more concrete contribution to the literature that a study can offer.

I point out some useful works in this direction.1)Viterna, J., Clough, E., & Clarke, K. (2015). Reclaiming the “Third Sector” from “Civil Society” A New Agenda for Development Studies. Sociology of Development, 1(1), 173-207., 2) Costa, M., Delbono, F., & Linguiti, F. (2021). Cooperative Movement and Prosperity across Italian Regions, Dickinson, H., Allen, K., Alcock, P., Macmillan, R., & Glasby, J. (2012). The role of the third sector in delivering social care, Costa, M., & Delbono, F. (2023). Regional resilience and the role of cooperative firms. Social Enterprise Journal, 19(5), 435-458. Tortia, E., & Troisi, R. (2021). The resilience and adaptative strategies of Italian cooperatives during the COVID-19 pandemic. Форсайт(foresight and sit governance), 15(4 (eng), 78-88.

Similarly, there are theoretical barriers that demonstrate how the Third Sector is not the sole instrument for the well-being of the community. (e.g. Enjolras, B., Salamon, L. M., Sivesind, K. H., Zimmer, A., Zimmer, A., & Pahl, B. (2018). Barriers to third sector development. The Third Sector as a Renewable Resource for Europe: Concepts, Impacts, Challenges and Opportunities, 125-160)

A preliminary work should -at least-  briefly indicate a theoretical direction.

Good luck with revisions

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear author: 

congratulation to your interesting AND ORIGINAL paper.  

Content: 

"The paper is organized in three parts, two characterized by a navigation into the literature on community energy and social innovation, and on RECs as niches, and a third section delving into the Italian ase and the debate on the role of the Third Sector."

Very vell structured article, 

systematic article

excellent analysis in context from reliable sources  for example  lines 53-70 

The author understands this topic and everything is written at a high level.

conclusion: 

"The paper suggests that RECs can produce social innovations, but some tensions and  barriers are to be considered, even to avoid enthusiastic approaches towards their imple mentation. In addition, the paper points out the importance of the intermediary functions  in disseminating the innovations that RECs bring to the energy system, and such intermediary roles are put into action by specific actors, identified with the ‘Community Energy  Builders’ (CEBs) according to a threefold identification of business and organizational  models for RECs (44) After some updates, the involvement of Third Sector amongst the  stakeholders able to create a REC, place these actors amongst the plethora of CEBs, although some caveats about their action are identified. Third Sector may juxtapose those  social enterprise approaches that, since late 1980s, reframed the governance of welfare, to  the field of renewable energy and community energy projects. These notes, however, deserves further elucidations and empirical counterparts to be validated."

FLAWS: 

please check: 

line: 32 "can be include" /please contact native speaker/ 

line 109: As a result – "the author maintain"  

Accept after minor revision

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 6 Report

The idea of the paper is very limited. Using RECs for social innovation and niche development is good, but its wide area is to be described clearly.  

The Introduction part is good. 

Chapter 2 is good, but the authors didn't include the limitations and processes in this chapter.

Chapters 3 and 4 are also good, but the Italian governmental policies combined with RECs can be elaborated. How RECs can work as a medium is not clear. 

The discussion part is good, but it should also include the major limitations and resources in this part. This part should be updated. 

good. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx