Impact of Green Credit Financing and Carbon Emission Limits on the Supply Chain Based on POF

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Presented topic concerning carbon emission combined with green credit policy and purchase order financing can be valuable. Aditional point in the article; Discussion should be introduced. Not all letters in different equations are explained in the article. To make article more clear, it should be presented the list of letters utilized in the equations with description what they represent.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting, it deals with an important topic of the impact of green credit financing, and it is my pleasure to review it.

The paper has merits, is very detailed, well organized, and uses a solid scientific and logical tool. Methodology and approaches are interesting, systematic and comprehensive.

Considering our area of expertise, we cannot offer criticism or observations of the techniques, methods and deductions made, but only to appreciate the clarity of the objectives and methods, as well as the precise, reasoned expression of the results.

However, I would have some considerations and suggestions for improving the quality of the article.

We appreciate the direct style of communication, but an Abstract that suddenly starts explaining the objective of the research could be perceived as inflexible and insufficient.

A short sentence defining the context and the importance of the studied problem, why it would be interesting for readers, and then followed by the purpose of the research is recommended.

Unclear sentences:

• Row 13

”Suppliers are divided into green and suppliers to investigate how different credit policies affect different suppliers”.

• Row 35

”Additionally, their financing objects can be manufacturers, financial institutions, etc.”   Manufacturers or financial institution cannot be ”financing object” perhaps ”financing sources” or similar.

• Row 43

”… manufacturers cannot use their limited fixed assets as collateral to borrow sufficient cash for suppliers to produce.”    

? Manufacturers … cash for suppliers ,.. to produce ??? what is the phases’ sequence of the cycle described here?

 ? ….to produce. (full stop). .... something is missing 

• Rows 90-92

After devising a partial credit guarantee (PCG) in some countries, the guarantor can be a third party other than internal members in the supply chain, while the preference is associated with the market risk and guaranteed interest rate [21].

In conclusion, we recommend that the sophistication and complexity of mathematical analysis to be continued and reflected by an increased attention in defining basic economic terminology and ideas. Thus, the paper would gain a lot in practical value, convincing lenders, policy-makers and green activists of the usefulness of the proposed results and models.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article and good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper shows me good shape to publish at Sustainability. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Major comments:

The study entitled “Impacts of the green financing and carbon emission limits on the supply chain based on POF” focused on the financing scheme for small and medium-sized suppliers, POF benefits manufacturers and suppliers through the delivery probability. The supply chain models for green suppliers is claimed to be inferred. The techniques discussed are quite complicated and conclusion drawn is vague. The results shown in this study are lack of innovation and novelty. The novelty and extent of the effectiveness of this work is not clear. One of the major flaws is that the experimental design is rather complex, making the manuscript lack of strong evidence to support their novelty and innovation. The language used in the study needs some improvement, as there are some punctuation and grammatical mistakes throughout the manuscript. Many terms are abbreviated without giving complete form. It is advised to use the complete name of that term when used firstly. Sentences need more clarity and better construction. This manuscript needs revisions before could be considered for publication in the journal. Therefore, the authors are advised to address the following comments carefully.  

Specific comments:

1. Line 78:-Differentiate between suppliers financing and bank financing. On what basis suppliers financing is better than bank financing?
2. Line 85:- “As banks trade-credit made…..under bank credit” why this contradiction with that of line 78? Explain?
3. Discussion: -Please add some more information in the discussion section. Explain the mathematical relations with sufficient background information? Also, elaborate on how these relations are helpful in the calculation?
4. Line 133: - Elaborate the term “Green” supply? Why the word “Green” is used again and again? Explain.
5. Line 116:- What is the difference between upstream and down streams?
6. Line 127-128: - What are those constraints? How to efface them? Also, explain the carbon emission?
7. Line 155:- Briefly explain the difference between green and non-green suppliers?
8. Line 157-158: - Elaborate “orders are complete and banks….”? Also justify (1-e_i)/(1-e_j)?
9. Line 191: - Articulate those green credit policies? How they can be helpful to the customers?
10. Line 204: - Explain formula (4). When the terms go to the other side of equations, it seems there remains zero. Explain?
11. Line 223:- Do those constraints affect the green and non-green sides equally?
12. Line 240: - How the banks can check the emission rates? Where those expenditures are being compensated?
13. Line 253: - Please elaborate where can a Lagrange multiplier be introduced? Are those constraints are holonomic or non-holonomic? Explain?
14. Section 3.1: - is it possible to use the presented model for heavy industries? What will be emission limits for them? their impacts on environments if do so?
15. Line 381: - How can the interest of suppliers be increased? How to make surety of suppliers’ safety and security from being a defaulter? What measures would authors suggest?
16. Line 425: Can government impose some extra taxation on non-green suppliers to compensate the carbon emission?
17. The conclusion is extensive and talks about some points not required here. It is suggested to concise the conclusion illustrating results and some future applications of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have addressed most of the comments; they have also tried to make changes according to the reviewers’ suggestions. After revisions, the quality of the manuscript has been adequately enhanced. Therefore, the manuscript could be considered for the publication in the Journal. However, there are still some editing/ syntax errors present in the manuscript which need to be corrected, hence the publishing team is advised to read the manuscript carefully before publishing.