nature of each challenge category (without providing detailed examples that belong in the main text).

In the abstract, the challenges sentence has been replaced with: "The analysis reveals that while these systems have significant potential to bridge academic learning with professional demands and environmental action, their impact is limited by persistent challenges: lack of definitional consistency and quality-assurance standards across institutions; significant technological barriers to credential portability and verification; and lack of awareness and trust from employers, undermining these credentials' currency in the labor market."

**Rationale Behind Findings**

**Q4.** The abstract notes a growing importance and need for integration of learning recognition/qualifications (e.g. badges, credentials,) but the rationale or evidence supporting this claim is not sufficiently clear. It would be helpful to briefly indicate why this integration is important, for example by highlighting the impact, gap, or opportunity it addresses for learners and professional development on Climate Education.

**Response:**

A concise rationale grounded in the specific demands of the climate and sustainability sectors has been included.

After the sentence about growing importance, we have added: "This integration is critical for validating the interdisciplinary and action-oriented skills demanded by the green economy, often acquired through the non-formal and informal learning pathways characteristic of environmental action and advocacy."

**Focus of Conclusion**

**Q5.** The conclusion, as described in the abstract, could be more sharply focused. Instead of mentioning promising practices summarise recommendations drawn and new directions or areas for further study. The abstract is key for providing stronger closure and a clear takeaway message aligned with the paper's aims.

**Response:**

We agree that the conclusion of the abstract needs a stronger, synthesized message that moves beyond a simple summary of practices.

The original abstract's conclusion has been replaced with a more impactful synthesis of our findings and their implications: "Our review concludes that a significant implementation and research gap exists between open recognition's potential and its application in climate education. Most notably, we find a near-complete absence of recognition frameworks for eco-pedagogical activities, perpetuating focus on technical knowledge over transformative, action-oriented learning. We recommend that future work prioritize creating robust, co-designed assessment models for these critical competencies to bridge the gap between education and meaningful climate action."

**About the paper**

**Q6.** The methodology states that the criteria for the literature review: only publications in peer-reviewed journals. However, the final sample consists of a variety of content types: 69 articles, review papers, book chapters, and reports. This must be revised for consistency.
**Response:**

We acknowledge this inconsistency and have revised the methodology section to accurately reflect our inclusive approach.

In Section 2.2 "Selection criteria and process", we have replaced the bullet point "Published in peer-reviewed journals" with "Published in peer-reviewed journals, academic book chapters, institutional or governmental reports from recognized organizations, or peer-reviewed conference proceedings. This inclusive approach was adopted because much of the innovation in open recognition is driven by practice and documented in 'grey literature' that is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of implementation challenges and opportunities."

**Q7.** Please clarify your literature review approach—e.g., is it a narrative review, scoping review, or another type? While you mention peer-reviewed sources, your final sample includes diverse materials such as book chapters and reports. If the review is not fully systematic, please explain your selection rationale and method clearly.

**Response:**

We have explicitly identified this as a scoping review and explained our approach.

In Section 2.1 "Research design", the first paragraph has been replaced with: "This study is a scoping review designed to map the existing literature on open recognition systems and their application to climate education. We chose this methodology, following the five-stage framework proposed by Arksey & O'Malley (2005) and further refined by Levac et al. (2010), as it is ideal for exploring emerging fields, clarifying key concepts, and identifying research gaps from a diverse body of evidence. Unlike a systematic review, which typically focuses on a narrow question and homogenous study types, a scoping review allows for the inclusion of varied literature, including the 'grey literature' essential for understanding this practice-driven field."

The two references have been added to the references list:

* Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. *International Journal of Social Research Methodology*, 8(1), 19-32.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

* Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. *Implementation Science*, 5(1), 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

**Q8.** Would it be possible to include a table of results indicating journals (for articles), publishers (for book chapters), and funders (for research reports), along with the year and topic/field? Such a table, accompanied by a brief explanation, would be very helpful for readers to familiarize themselves with the literature before engaging with your findings.

**Response:**

A table summarizing the reviewed literature has been included - please see Table 1.
After Section 2.4 "Limitations", we have added a new paragraph indicating that "The distribution of our reviewed literature is summarized in Table 1. The predominance of general education sources (88.6%) compared to climate-specific publications (11.4%) reflects the current state of the field and reinforces our finding that the application of open recognition systems to climate education remains largely unexplored."

In addition, the first paragraph of Section 3 on "Current practices in open recognition systems" has been modified to reference the table: "As shown in Table 1, our analysis of 70 publications revealed extensive development in open recognition systems generally, but limited application to climate education specifically. Only eight publications (11.4%) directly addressed environmental
or climate contexts, while the remainder discussed general educational applications. This
disparity itself constitutes an important finding, suggesting that despite the urgent need for
climate education and the affordances of digital recognition systems, their intersection remains
largely unexplored. We present both the general developments and the limited climate-specific
applications below, as understanding the broader landscape is essential for identifying
opportunities for climate education integration."

Please note that a discrepancy between 69 (originally stated) and 70 (actual references, excluding the two indicated in previous comments, purely methodological) was detected and has been corrected in the "Screening and selection process" subsection.

Considering the paper's focus on climate education, significant findings related to this area
could be made more visible and, if possible, extended to include more details about the
learning outcomes and approaches for effective definition through micro-credentials, digital
badging, or OER completion.

For example:

In this paragraph: "In climate education, open badges offer a promising way to acknowledge interdisciplinary skills essential for environmental action. Rollin (2021) demonstrates their use in higher education to assess transversal skills such as critical thinking and collaboration, key competencies for addressing climate challenges. This aligns with findings by West and Cheng (2023), who show how micro-credentials can support personalized learning pathways, motivating learners to develop sustainability skills through self-directed efforts."

**Q9.** Could you clarify how Rollin (2021) assesses transversal skills like critical thinking and collaboration and criteria used to provide open badges? How do West and Cheng (2023) support personalized learning pathways and their evaluation for recognition? Furthermore, how do Miller and Jorre de St Jorre (2024) exemplify micro-credentials demonstrating specific environmental competencies? Which competencies are emphasized, and what aspects do they highlight regarding standards and the missing contextual information about these credentials?

Response:

We acknowledge that our initial description of these papers lacked specificity. Upon careful
review, we found that while West and Cheng (2023) provide a valuable framework for
personalized learning pathways through micro-credentials, and Miller and Jorre de St Jorre (2024)
offer crucial insights into environmental employer perspectives, neither provides specific
examples of climate education implementation. This reinforces our overall finding that the
intersection of open recognition systems and climate education remains underdeveloped in the
literature.

The current paragraph about climate education has been replaced with the following detailed,
multi-paragraph analysis:

"In examining specific applications relevant to climate education, three studies offer insights, though only Miller and Jorre de St Jorre (2024) directly address environmental contexts. West and Cheng (2023) present a comprehensive framework for how open microcredentials support personalized learning across micro-, meso-, and macro-levels. At the micro-level, they identify four mechanisms through which badges support self-regulated learning: (1) helping learners set
explicit goals through clear badge criteria, (2) establishing prerequisite pathways that scaffold complex learning, (3) connecting learning goals to professional development outcomes, and (4) providing both summative and formative feedback through badge metadata. They emphasize that microcredentials can "break content into small modular units, so learners can create their own learning pathways", with learners able to "hop on and off 'the formal education bus' when needed". While not specific to climate education, their framework suggests how environmental learning could be modularized into stackable credentials addressing different competencies. For example, a learner could earn badges for 'Carbon Footprint Analysis,' 'Stakeholder Communication,' and 'Policy Advocacy,' creating a personalized pathway towards a 'Climate Action Leadership' micro-credential that is both recognizable and meaningful.

The most directly relevant empirical study is from Miller and Jorre de St Jorre (2024), who examined employer perspectives on digital micro-credentials in environmental science through interviews with 22 environmental professionals in Australia. Their work provides clear evidence of strong employer demand for verifiable skills highly relevant to climate action, including:

* Communication and collaboration: the ability to "work collaboratively... [and] maintain a sense of where that sits in terms of the overall effort".

* Technical field skills: including environmental impact assessment, species identification, and data collection

* Systems thinking: the ability to understand "interconnections between social, economic, and environmental systems"

* Adaptability and lifelong learning: Employers emphasized the importance of "the want to keep learning and the ability to keep learning".

Crucially, while employers were enthusiastic, they demanded rigor and clarity, with one stating, "unless we're educated around what that symbol was actually around and the level of effort and rigour... then it doesn't have the obvious impact." This underscores the critical need for industry partnerships and transparent assessment standards for any climate-related credential.

Finally, Rollin (2021), though not focused on climate, offers a practical model for assessing the 'transversal skills' that are central to effective climate action. The study examines the 'Garantie Jeunes' program in France, which uses non-formal learning contexts to develop competencies like teamwork, autonomy, and responsibility in young adults (a full list of skills assessed is provided in the paper's appendix, Table A1). While the paper does not offer detailed assessment rubrics, it highlights a methodology for recognizing skills developed through practical experience and structured reflection. This approach serves as a direct model for recognizing skills gained through community-based climate projects, advocacy, or volunteerism—activities that are rich in learning but often remain un-credentialed."

The challenges section under "Stakeholder awareness and acceptance" has also been modified to include the following information:

"Miller and Jorre de St Jorre's (2024) findings reinforce these challenges in the environmental sector specifically. They found that environmental employers often relied on proxy indicators like work experience and internships because they lacked familiarity with digital credentials. One employer admitted: "trying to get a feel for the person and their skillsets beyond the CV is part of the challenge". This suggests that even in fields directly relevant to climate action, significant education and trust-building are needed before micro-credentials can fulfill their potential."

In addition, in the recommendations under "Employer and stakeholder alignment", we have also included:

"Building on Miller and Jorre de St Jorre's (2024) environmental sector findings, partnerships should:
* Include employers in credential design to ensure relevance to workplace needs

* Provide clear metadata about assessment methods and standards

* Balance comprehensive evidence with reviewability constraints

* Emphasize industry endorsement to build trust

* Create mechanisms for employers to quickly understand credential value without an extensive portfolio review."

**Q10.** There is significant information about Badges, OER, and Microcredential; however, if the findings could focus more on climate education, the discussion and conclusion sections could be substantially enriched.

**Response:**

We appreciate your observation about the imbalance between general and climate-specific content. We acknowledge that climate education applications are underrepresented in our findings. This actually reflects the state of the literature - only 11.4% of sources addressed environmental/climate contexts. Rather than artificially inflate climate connections where they do not exist in the literature, we have chosen to be transparent about this gap and analyze its implications. We believe this approach (acknowledging the limited intersection as a finding itself) provides more value than overstating tenuous connections. The enriched conclusion now frames this gap as both a challenge and an opportunity for advancing climate education through digital recognition systems.

We have modified the beginning of Section 3 "Current practices in open recognition systems" (replacing the current first sentence), as discussed in the response to query 8 above.

The Conclusion has already been substantially revised to address this comment through:

* Explicit acknowledgment of the limited climate focus as a finding

* Analysis of the eco-pedagogy gap

* Framing the limitation as an opportunity for OpenPass4Climate

* Specific recommendations for climate education applications

* A call to action for developing recognition systems for "planetary sustainability"

Throughout Sections 3.1-3.5, we have now:

* Added specific details from Miller & Jorre de St Jorre (2024) on environmental employers

* Created an entire section (3.5) on the eco-pedagogy gap

* Integrated climate-relevant examples where they exist

* Been transparent about where connections are theoretical rather than empirical

**Q11.** The recommendations mention pedagogy, but this is not reflected in the findings. "Ecopedagogical activities", which were a key part of the search, are not discussed in the findings, discussion, nor conclusion.

**Response:**

We acknowledge that climate education applications are underrepresented in our findings, which actually reflects the state of the literature. A new subsection has been added to Section 3 "Current practices in open recognition systems":
"The Ecopedagogy Gap: A Critical Absence in Digital Recognition

Our search for literature combining 'ecopedagogical activities' with open recognition systems yielded zero results, despite ecopedagogy's growing importance in climate education. This absence is particularly striking given the theoretical alignment between eco-pedagogical principles and the affordances of digital credentials.

Eco-pedagogy, rooted in Paulo Freire's critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970), aims to develop "planetary consciousness" and foster social and environmental justice through transformative educational practices (Gadotti, 2008; Kahn, 2010). Its methods include experiential learning, place-based education, systems thinking workshops, and action-oriented climate projects (Hung, 2021; Kopnina, 2020; Misiaszek, 2020). These activities emphasize critical consciousness, praxis (reflection and action), and transformative learning—elements that could be recognized through carefully designed digital credentials.

The complete absence of eco-pedagogical frameworks in the digital recognition literature suggests several profound barriers: a philosophical tension between the standardization required for badges and the contextual, transformative nature of eco-pedagogy (Andreotti, 2006); the inherent difficulty in assessing outcomes like 'critical consciousness' and 'planetary citizenship' (Misiaszek, 2018); the privileging of technical competencies over the critical, values-based learning central to eco-pedagogy in current badging systems (Kopnina, 2020); and a likely disconnect between the educational technology and critical pedagogy communities.

This gap has significant implications. While institutions implement diverse eco-pedagogical activities—from climate action workshops to community-based environmental projects—these transformative learning experiences remain unrecognized in formal credentialing systems. This invisibility may perpetuate the dominance of technical approaches to climate education over critical, action-oriented pedagogies.

The absence of eco-pedagogical approaches in digital recognition systems represents more than a technical gap—it reflects deeper tensions in how we conceptualize and value environmental learning. As Misiaszek (2018) argues, eco-pedagogy is "essentially literacy education for reading and re-reading human acts of environmental violence." Such critical analysis resists easy codification into badge criteria. Yet this challenge also presents an opportunity. Digital recognition systems could evolve beyond competency verification to recognize transformative learning processes through badges that document critical reflection on environmental justice issues, credentials recognizing sustained community environmental action, portfolios capturing the development of "planetary citizenship" (Gadotti, 2008), and recognition for facilitating others' environmental conscientization. The OpenPass4Climate project is uniquely positioned to bridge this gap by developing recognition frameworks that honor both the measurable and transformative aspects of climate education."

In addition, we have added to the recommendations section, under "Pedagogical approaches", the following paragraph:

"Ecopedagogical Integration To bridge the identified gap, badge design for climate education should be guided by eco-pedagogical principles:

* Develop criteria that recognize praxis—the integration of critical reflection and environmental action (Freire, 1970)

* Create pathways validating community-based environmental engagement and collective action, not just individual achievement.

* Design e-portfolios that capture transformative learning journeys, not just static outcomes

* Include peer recognition mechanisms reflecting eco-pedagogy's emphasis on horizontal
learning relationships.

o Integrate place-based learning achievements that connect global climate challenges to local contexts (Sobel, 2004)."

The Conclusion section has been updated accordingly:

"Perhaps most significantly, our review reveals the complete absence of ecopedagogical frameworks in digital credentialing—a gap that represents more than missing literature; it reflects a critical failure to connect recognition systems with the pedagogies most needed to address the climate crisis. Despite ecopedagogy's emphasis on critical consciousness, praxis, and transformative learning, no existing recognition systems incorporate these principles. This absence suggests that current systems may inadvertently perpetuate technocratic approaches to climate education while marginalizing the critical, action-oriented, and justice-focused dimensions essential for meaningful climate action."

As for the references, nine new references have been included:

o Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, 3, 40-51. Available at: https://www.developmenteducationreview.com/issue/issue-3/soft-versus-critical-global-citizenship-education

o Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum. New York, NY, USA. Available at: https://files.libcom.org/files/Paulo%20Freire,%20Myra%20Bergman%20Ramos,%20Donaldo%20Macedo%20Pedagogy%20of%20the%20Oppressed,%2030th%20Anniversary%20Edition%20(2000,%20Bloomsbury%20)

o Gadotti, M. (2008). Education for sustainability: A contribution to the decade of education for sustainable development. International Review of Education, 54(5-6), 623-635. https://doi.org/10.5585/eccos.n54.16138

o Hung, R. (2021). Ecopedagogy and education. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1502

o Kahn, R. (2010). Critical pedagogy, ecoliteracy, and planetary crisis: The ecopedagogy movement. Peter Lang Pub Inc, New York, NY, USA.

o Kopnina, H. (2020). Education for the future? Critical evaluation of education for sustainable development goals. The Journal of Environmental Education, 51(4), 280-291. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2019.1710444

o Misiaszek, G. W. (2018). Educating the global environmental citizen: Understanding ecopedagogy in local and global contexts. Routledge, New York, NY, USA.

o Misiaszek, G. W. (2020). Ecopedagogy: Teaching critical literacies of 'development', 'sustainability', and 'sustainable development'. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(5), 615-632. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1586668

o Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classrooms & communities. The Orion Society, Great Barrington, MA, USA.

Overall, the paper is highly relevant and topical. Adding these layers of specific, concise information would enable readers to better understand how research on the recognition of open learning—including digital badges, micro-credentials, and OER—underscores their potential to transform education and professional development, particularly in climate-related fields.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for these detailed comments, which have helped us identify significant weaknesses in our manuscript. We are confident that these substantial revisions will address your
concerns and transform the manuscript into a stronger, more rigorous, and more impactful
contribution. Thank you once again for your time, your expertise, and your feedback. Sincerely,
Pablo Martín-Ramos and co-authors

**Competing Interests:** No competing interests were disclosed.