Untangling the Impact of Green Finance on the Enterprise Green Performance: A Meta-Analytic Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Major comments.

Line 29. How can enterprise green performance be a stakeholder? Explain how reference [1] relates to this.

Lines 67-68. Justify more clearly why a meta-analysis is useful here, e.g. many disparate studies of small sample sizes.

Lines 72-76. It is not clear how these lofty ambitions are achieved in this paper. Please elaborate. See also comments below about lines 433-437.

Section 2. Have the authors searched for any other paper that carries out meta-analysis?

Line 137. Does the regulator make firms pay a fee? How is this fee determined? See also line 408.

Line 158-159. This is contradictory. The studies have “reported no relation”, but at the same time there is a “non-linear relationship”.

Section 2.4.1. Firm profitability is not correctly understood. There are more measures than just ROE and ROA. The definitions and interpretations of ROE and ROA are not correctly stated. Reference [44] is very weak: how is bank profitability, specifically in one country, the UAE, relevant to this? Please refer to a text in corporate finance.

Section 2.4.2. Explain more clearly how you distinguish between “environment-friendly enterprises” and “non-environment-friendly enterprises” in the studies that are part of this meta-analysis.

Lines 252 and 255. What is a “hypothetical research model” and how does differ from a “hypothesised model”?

Line 279. Explain why, when searches are carried out, keywords appearing in the complete text are avoided. Is it possible that some key studies have been missed? For example, the adjective “sustainable” is not included.

Table 1. Why is there a dominance of studies from China? How does this bias the research results, especially in relation to H6?

Table 1. Explain why there are so many apparent repetitions in the rows of Table 1. The table needs to be more informative and one or more columns are required to distinguish the rows.

Section 4.1. An incorrect definition of publication bias is given. 

Line 356. This is a very strange way of explaining the result in relation to the confidence interval. Please rewrite this in a statistically proficient way.

Lines 394-398. Please elaborate and explain this conclusion. 

Line 410. Why do these entities collude, and how does this affect the flow of funds?

Lines 414-415. It does not follow that higher profit means higher production. It can also mean greater efficiency or lower input costs. This is poorly explained.

Lines 433-437. This policy recommendation does not follow from the results that are obtained. How does transparency feature in the meta-analysis?

Line 462. Which “other moderators” do you have in mind? 

Minor comments:

Line 36. Poorly constructed sentence.

Line 48. Provide a reference for the British government document.

Lines 50-51. Provide a reference for the German document.

Lines 239-244. Repetition from earlier. Please delete.

Lines 291-293. What about the remaining 3 studies out of the 30? Are they more general, not focused?

Figure 2. It is excellent that a funnel plot is provided but the quality of the graphics is poor.

Section 4.2. Define all notation and variables both in the text and in the tables, and provide a standard reference for the heterogeneity test.

Line 357. Provide a reference for Cohen’s scale.

Tables 2-4. It’s not difficult to guess what GF and GP mean, but these should be stated explicitly.

Several cases of mixed citation style, which means that papers cited cannot be found easily in the list of references. Occasionally the Harvard author-year system is used. Please follow the journal style consistently.

The standard of English must be improved considerably. There are many statements that are unclear and ambiguous.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Major comments.

Line 29. How can enterprise green performance be a stakeholder? Explain how reference [1] relates to this.

 Response: First of all, we are thankful to you for your valuable comments and quality time that will enhance our manuscript quality.

In response to this comment, we have removed the irrelevant reference and statement from our manuscript as it is not well suited to the context as you mentioned.

Lines 67-68. Justify more clearly why a meta-analysis is useful here, e.g. many disparate studies of small sample sizes.

Response: The required justification has been added to the manuscript.

 Lines 72-76. It is not clear how these lofty ambitions are achieved in this paper. Please elaborate. See also comments below about lines 433-437.

 Response: We have removed the irrelevant sentences from the manuscript.

Section 2. Have the authors searched for any other paper that carries out meta-analysis?

Response: The article crawling was based on several keywords mentioned in the manuscript. We have incorporated all available studies from the recognized sources.

Line 137. Does the regulator make firms pay a fee? How is this fee determined? See also line 408.

 Response: The fee as mentioned above, is described in the neoclassical theory of Walley and Whitehead. There might be some specific criteria for determining such fees, which probably varies from country to country. Because our study did not aim to determine such a fee; therefore, we did not mention the methods to determine such a fee.

Line 158-159. This is contradictory. The studies have “reported no relation”, but at the same time there is a “non-linear relationship”.

 Response: Apologies for such a mistake. We have revised the as “In addition, the studies found a non-linear relationship between these two variables”.

Section 2.4.1. Firm profitability is not correctly understood. There are more measures than just ROE and ROA. The definitions and interpretations of ROE and ROA are not correctly stated. Reference [44] is very weak: how is bank profitability, specifically in one country, the UAE, relevant to this? Please refer to a text in corporate finance.

 Response: We have revised the definitions along with relevant sources. We have removed the irrelevant resource from the manuscript.

Section 2.4.2. Explain more clearly how you distinguish between “environment-friendly enterprises” and “non-environment-friendly enterprises” in the studies that are part of this meta-analysis.

 Response: In context to Environment-friendly enterprises, we mean those enterprises designed or operating in a way that does not harm the environment, such as renewable energy enterprises. In contrast, non-environment-friendly enterprises mean the enterprises causing the Environmental issues (i.e., manufacturing enterprises).

Lines 252 and 255. What is a “hypothetical research model” and how does differ from a “hypothesized model”?

 Response: The caption of Figure 1 has been revised as “Proposed research model”.

Line 279. Explain why, when searches are carried out, keywords appearing in the complete text are avoided. Is it possible that some key studies have been missed? For example, the adjective “sustainable” is not included.

 Response: For the crawling of research articles, we strict on the papers related to green finance and green performance. The crawling of research articles can be extended by including more keywords as you mentioned; however, it may cause relevancy issues. We have tried our level best to include all the key studies precisely relevant to this study's objectives. Moreover, the appearance of keywords in the manuscript is required to justify the Study Selection Process as we have experienced the demand from several reviewers.

Table 1. Why is there a dominance of studies from China? How does this bias the research results, especially in relation to H6?

 Response: Consistent with the studied keyword, we found several studies; however, after the cleansing of articles, studies from China contain dominance.

Table 1. Explain why there are so many apparent repetitions in the rows of Table 1. The table needs to be more informative and one or more columns are required to distinguish the rows.

 Response: The apparent repetitions in Table 1 has been removed.

Section 4.1. An incorrect definition of publication bias is given. 

 Response: Publication bias can be defined in several ways. However, considering your valuable suggestion, we have replaced the existing definition of publication bias as “Publication bias refers to a kind of bias that occurs when the results of experiments or research influence the decision to publish.” In addition, we also provide the definition by Stephanie Glen as “publication bias is when studies with positive findings are more likely to be published — and they tend to be published faster — than studies with negative findings”.

Line 356. This is a very strange way of explaining the result in relation to the confidence interval. Please rewrite this in a statistically proficient way.

 Response: We have revised the above-said results as suggested.

Lines 394-398. Please elaborate and explain this conclusion. 

  Response: We have further explained this conclusion for reader clarity.

Line 410. Why do these entities collude, and how does this affect the flow of funds?

 Response: In order to restrain the development of polluting enterprises, promote their positive transformation, and realize green development, Banks and other financial institutions use financial means to control the credit approval process strictly. Banks and other financial institutions also have some green ideas in the credit process, but the enthusiasm for policy implementation is still in its early stages. Just like macro-control governmental policies, Banks and other financial institutions must take green credit as the starting point, actively adjust the credit structure, effectively guard against environmental and social risks, better serve the real economy, and promote the transformation of economic development pattern and economic restructuring. Therefore, these entities collude and have an effect on the flow of funds.

Lines 414-415. It does not follow that higher profit means higher production. It can also mean greater efficiency or lower input costs. This is poorly explained.

 Response: Yes, you are right, profitability is not the only reason for higher production, but it is one of the most important reasons for higher production. We have explained particularly in context to the relationship with profitability. Therefore, we can say that increase in the profitability of the firm will leads to the expansion of production units.

Lines 433-437. This policy recommendation does not follow from the results that are obtained. How does transparency feature in the meta-analysis?

 Response: We have removed the irrelevant sentences from the conclusion.

Line 462. Which “other moderators” do you have in mind? 

 Response: We have mentioned other moderators, such as firm size, liquidity, leverage, etc.

Minor comments:

Line 36. Poorly constructed sentence.

 Response: The sentence has been revised as suggested.

Line 48. Provide a reference for the British government document.

Response: The missing reference has been added in the revised manuscript.

Lines 50-51. Provide a reference for the German document.

 Response: The missing reference has been added in the revised manuscript.

Lines 239-244. Repetition from earlier. Please delete.

 Response: Deleted as recommended.

Lines 291-293. What about the remaining 3 studies out of the 30? Are they more general, not focused?

 Response: We have revised our calculation and changed in the manuscript as “Among them, 12 out of 30 samples focus on green credit, 7 samples focus on green investment, 5 samples focus on green bond, 4 samples focus on green subsidy, and 2 samples focus on green finance.”

Figure 2. It is excellent that a funnel plot is provided but the quality of the graphics is poor.

Response: We have revised the figure 2 as suggested.

 Section 4.2. Define all notation and variables both in the text and in the tables, and provide a standard reference for the heterogeneity test.

Response: The required changes have been made accordingly. 

Line 357. Provide a reference for Cohen’s scale.

 Response: The required reference has been added.

Tables 2-4. It’s not difficult to guess what GF and GP mean, but these should be stated explicitly.

 Response: Required changes have been made as recommended.

Several cases of mixed citation style, which means that papers cited cannot be found easily in the list of references. Occasionally the Harvard author-year system is used. Please follow the journal style consistently.

 Response: The references are set to the journal required style by means of reference manager software.

The standard of English must be improved considerably. There are many statements that are unclear and ambiguous.

Response: We have improved the language as suggested.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper provides an analysis of the relationship between green finance and enterprise green performance. The meta-analytic approach is used.

Interesting paper with meaningful conclusions. However, in the Table 1 you have summarized 30 samples included in this study. It would be useful to see whether the results of the study substantially differ in case the study is based only on one country/region oriented samples.

Minor spell check required (e.g., line 35).

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

The paper provides an analysis of the relationship between green finance and enterprise green performance. The meta-analytic approach is used.

Interesting paper with meaningful conclusions. However, in the Table 1 you have summarized 30 samples included in this study. It would be useful to see whether the results of the study substantially differ in case the study is based only on one country/region oriented samples.

Minor spell check required (e.g., line 35).

Response:

Thank you very much for your appreciation. We have investigated the results of these prior studies in a meta-analysis, which belong to various regions. Some of the outcomes are similar; however, some of the outcomes differ from these selected studies. Our results are based on the aggregate of all selected studies for this meta-analysis. The geographical comparison needs to do an empirical investigation, on which we are working simultaneously.

Moreover, we have double-checked the spelling mistakes in our manuscript.