Executives’ Environmental Awareness and Eco-Innovation: An Attention-Based View

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors for the work already made and thank the opportunity of reading their work and contribute with comments that I believe will contribute for the improvement of the article. Although I find the research topic interesting and I like the main idea of the paper, in what relates to the present version I have some points to which I feel more attention should be paid:

1.- Introduction: At first, the introduction should be re-written as the paper’s objective(s) should be more emphasized. The implications of the findings must be mentioned too.

2.- Theory and hypotheses: This section should be re-structured. Firstly, there is a need for underlying the singularities of eco-innovations as this type of innovations correct market failures, which gives them a social dimension rather than an individual dimension. Furthermore, in line 121, the authors stated that eco-innovation “is a kind of innovation that can significantly reduce environmental impact and bring business value to enterprises”. However, there are some previous studies showing that environmental innovation has a positive effect on corporate value and there are cases where it does not. This fact should be acknowledged and discussed.

Secondly, in line 114, the authors stated that “Executives' attention is influenced by their situation”. In this sense, the literature connecting the managers’ profile with eco-innovative strategies has been overlooked, as a consequence I appreciate the effort made to fulfill this gap. However, there are several circumstances related to managers’ situation (i.e., their position in the company, their decision-making scope, their power and/or influence on corporate strategies, etc.) that should be considered. For example, the role that the CEO of a senior manager can play with regard to eco-innovation is not the same that the role played by a junior manager. Additionally, managers ability may also play a role in this type of decisions. These facts should be acknowledged and discussed.

Therefore, a sub-section should be introduced in order to explain the singularities of eco-innovations and the role of managerial concern and circumstances (i.e., the authors should better explain how the managers’ mindset affects their willingness to eco-innovate and connect the managers’ profile with eco-innovative strategies). In this vein, I found some recent references that could be of help: Aibar-Guzmán and Frías-Aceituno (2021); Arena et al. (2018); García-Sánchez et al. (2020); Harper and Sun (2019); Huang et al. (2021); Liao et al. (2019); Long et al. (2017); Sheikh (2018); and Zhang et al. (2020).

Thirdly, another major aspect that has to be debated is the role played by the public policy towards firm strategic behavior. Management is bounded by extant regulations and that is an aspect which deserves being addressed. In this vein, I found a very recent reference that could be of help: Costa (2021).

In sum, based on the new theoretical framework authors should be able to better justify the research hypotheses relating their arguments with prior studies’ findings.

3.- Research design: The methodological approach of the study should be clarified. In this sense, the authors should provide more information about the questionnaire: how many questions does the questionnaire have in total? How was its validity checked, that is, if the questionnaire was pre-tested and how? When and how was it administered?

Additionally, the analysis techniques used in each case should be explained and all variables should be carefully explained (for example, authors should explain control variables -both their measurement and their meaning- by using citations to help the reader understand what to expect according to prior literature).

4.- Results: The study’s findings should be better explained. Specifically, they should be structured around the research hypotheses, including references to prior studies that have obtained similar/different results.

5.- Discussion: This section should be improved by including a deeper analysis of the findings in which the authors consider how the sample’s characteristics may affect the findings. For example, given that differences among sectors may affect the firms’ propensity to eco-innovate (Cai and Zhou 2014; Alos-Simo et al. 2020), authors should elaborate about how their sample’ structure may influence their findings. Similarly, given that the managers’ position affects their influence on corporate decisions and strategies, it is logical to assume that its effect on eco-innovation may be different (Aibar-Guzmán and Frías-Aceituno, 2021). Additionally, the effect of the Chinese context on the findings should be discussed.

Finally, policy recommendations should be stressed.

6.- Conclusions: The paper does not have a conclusion section. This section should be included to summarize the main findings of the study as well as its contributions to literature. In other words, the paper must end making it clear to the reader about the worth of your work. Which questions are answered? Which questions remain unanswered? What can be learned for the future?

7.- Other issues:

a.- There are some mistakes in the text. For example:

• in lines 136-136 the authors stated “According to the research of Cheng (2012) [26], eco-innovation is divided into eco- organization implementation, eco-process implementation and eco-product implementation. I think that instead of “implementation” authors wanted to said “innovation”.
• In line 125 the authors stated a sentence with “And”. I think that this phrase should be stated with another connector (for example, Furthermore or Additionally).

b.- There are some words in Chinese in the tables (for example, Table 3). Please correct.

c.- Along the document some sentences are very hard to follow, so, I strongly recommend the authors to re-read and correct them as well as making the document go through a professional proof-reading.

In sum, I want to congratulate the authors for what they have done so far, and suggest them to consider these final efforts to make the paper more solid.

All the best,

 

REFERENCES:

Aibar-Guzmán, B., Frías-Aceituno, J.V. (2021). Is It Necessary to Centralize Power in the CEO to Ensure Environmental Innovation?. Administrative Sciences, 11(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11010027

Alos-Simo, L., Verdu-Jover, A.J., Gomez-Gras, J.M. (2020). Does activity sector matter for the relationship between eco-innovation and performance? Implications for cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 263, 121544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121544.

Arena, C., Michelon, G., Trojanowski, G. (2018). Big egos can be green: A study of CEO hubris and environmental innovation. British Journal of Management, 29(2), 316-336. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12250

Cai, W., Zhou, X. (2014). On the drivers of eco-innovation: empirical evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 79, 239–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.035.

Costa, J. (2021). Carrots or Sticks: Which Policies Matter the Most in Sustainable Resource Management? Resources, 10(2), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources10020012

Cheng, C. C., Yang, C. L., Sheu, C. (2014). The link between eco-innovation and business performance: A Taiwanese industry context. Journal of Cleaner Production, 64, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.050

Daily B.F., Huang S.C. (2001). Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource factors in environmental management. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 21(12), 1539–1552. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110410892

García‐Sánchez, I.‐M., Aibar‐Guzmán, B., Aibar‐Guzmán, C., Azevedo, T.‐C. (2020). CEO ability and sustainability disclosures: The mediating effect of corporate social responsibility performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27, 1565-1577. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1905

Harper, J., Sun, L. (2019). CEO power and corporate social responsibility. American Journal of Business, 34(2), 93-115. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJB-10-2018-0058

Huang, M., Li, M., Liao, Z. (2021). Do politically connected CEOs promote Chinese listed industrial firms’ green innovation? The mediating role of external governance environments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278, 123634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123634

Liao, Z., Dong, J., Weng, C., Shen, C. (2019). CEOs' religious beliefs and the environmental innovation of private enterprises: The moderating role of political ties. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(4), 972-980. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1737

Long, X., Chen, Y., Du, J., Oh, K., Han, I., Yan, J. (2017). The effect of environmental innovation behavior on economic and environmental performance of 182 Chinese firms. Journal of cleaner production, 166, 1274-1282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.070

Sheikh, S. (2018). The impact of market competition on the relation between CEO power and firm innovation. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 44, 36-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mulfin.2018.01.003

Zhang, Y., Xing, C., & Wang, Y. (2020). Does green innovation mitigate financing constraints? Evidence from China’s private enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 264, 121698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121698

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks for your review, according to your comments, I have made major revisions. Moreover, all the mistakes in the text have been corrected and this paper has been proofread professionally. If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

Sun Hong

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study provides favorable guidance for enhancing managers' awareness and rationally integrate and utilize enterprise resources.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks for your review and comments. All the mistakes in the text have been corrected and this paper has been proofread professionally. If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

Sun Hong

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read and review this paper. The topic of the paper is relevant. The work is interesting, to highlight different aspects:
- The article is well structured
- The data collected is interesting.
- The problems are clearly stated. 
- The theoretical framework are creative. 
- The methodology is clearly explained.  
- The study conclusions supported are by the analysis. 

My following comments are intended to be constructive and hope they are helpful to the authors as they move forward with this project:

Abstract - authors should changed it giving more concrete and important information to the reader. The abstract have to provide more structured aim, scope, and background.

The part of introduction does not illustrate clearly the initial innovation of the specific study. Please briefly describe in the last paragraph of the INTRODUCTION section, the content of each section of the paper and include brief information on methods (one sentence).

Discussion section must compare obtained results with other authors. 

Conclusions: This section should emphasis the objective and main results presented in this study. The conclusions must concisely summarise the main points of the paper. This part usually includes four compulsory elements: (1) general summary of the article, its results and findings, (2) implications and recommendations for practice, (3) research limitations, (4) suggestions for future research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks for your review, according to your comments, I have made revisions. Moreover, all the mistakes in the text have been corrected and this paper has been proofread professionally. If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

Sun Hong

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This is my second review of this paper. The authors have done a good job in addressing the comments from my previous review and the quality of the manuscript has improved in this second version. The current version shows an adequate overview of literature. I appreciate the methodology employed. The results and conclusions are now clearly presented and the study has very interesting implications.

Nevertheless, I have identified some minor issues which I think need to be addressed before the paper is ready for publication.

1.- Please improve the abstract in order to enhance its clarity and attractiveness for readers. It is very poor and I am disappointed with what appears to be a rushed effort.

2.- Although the quality of communication has improved, there are still some errors in the text (e.g., punctuation marks) which make the manuscript difficult to understand. Therefore, I recommend a final check of the paper.

In short, while the paper has substantially improved, there remains two minor issues that need to be addressed before its publication. I hope that the authors will find this feedback useful. I wish the authors all the best in their research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks for your second review, according to your comments, I have made minor revisions. Moreover, all the errors in the text have been corrected and this paper has been checked again. If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

Sun Hong

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf