Can Carbon Neutrality Commitment Contribute to the Sustainable Development of China’s New Energy Companies?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Abstract must be improved and possible scenarios and results should be included.
2. English must be copy-edited carefully.
3. "Climate change has been a worldwide worry." There are several sentences like this in the introduction. delete trivial general information and only mention academically well-known facts if you want to discuss about facts in the introduction and other parts.
4. Provide references for used equations.
5. Complete the abbreviations list and add missed ones.
6. Literature review must be updated and more publications from the "Sustainability" journal may be cited.
Author Response
Please see the attchment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have examined the impact of the carbon neutrality commitment on the value of new energy companies. I think this paper is an interesting topic, and it is well organized. But it needs a major revision before being accepted.
1. The abstract is too long, and it does not clearly show the findings.
2. The introduction is not very clear and lacks logic. The introduction section does not clearly give the main contributions of this paper, and the differences from the other literature.
3. In the Literature Review section, the authors should focus mainly on the related topic of this study, such as the carbon neutrality commitment, and government regulations. Besides, authors should summarize literature and find out the knowledge gaps, instead of listing literature. You can refer to the recent papers: Yuan et al 2022 The race to zero emissions: Can renewable energy be the path to carbon neutrality?; Zhang et al., 2022 Is government regulation a push for corporate environmental performance? Evidence from China
4. In the empirical application section, the authors should give some discussion and analysis, rather than a brief report of the results.
5. In figure 2, I suggest adding the line time of policy 2020 Q3; in figure 3. Does the y line represent the p-value? I suggest only giving the p values or coeff or t values.
6. In the robustness test, the models without controls do not need to be reported.
7. Authors need to check the full text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. In the introduction, you need to connect the state of the art to your paper goals. Please follow the literature review by a clear and concise state-of-the-art analysis. This should clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to your paper goals. Please reason both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals. 2. Better discuss industrial aspects of your research results in details. 3. Conclusions must go deeper, it would be more interesting if the authors focus more on the significance of their findings regarding the importance of the interrelationship between the obtained results and the journal scope in the sector context, and the barriers to do it, what would be the consequences, in the real world, in changing the observed situation, what would be the ways, in the real world, to change/improve the observed situation. 5. Numerous minor mistakes in English writing have been found. Please polish the manuscript to avoid errors. 6. The work is well written and provides good results, which are properly presented in the graphs, but their discussion can be deepened. 7. The Abstract should be improved. 8. From readers perspective, authors are suggested to incorporate detailed mathematical modelling of proposed framework. 9. After inclusion of more detailed modeling and validation, authors are suggested to improve the conclusion of the paper based on findings and after impacts.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
\Accept.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for the careful revision. I agree with this revision.
Reviewer 3 Report
Can be accepted in the current format.
