Analysis of Green Credit and the Ecological Welfare Performance Based on Empirical Models and ARIMA(2,3,2): Taking China as an Example
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The idea of analyzing the relationship between green credit and ecological welfare performance is interesting. Authors have use ARIMA and difference GMM to test their hypothesis.
The introduction is interesting but lacks to show the contribution of past studies and the authors needs to highlight the gap and their contribution to body of knowledge.
The result section needs more detail explanation, author needs to report VIF and endogeneity test, though GMM is used to avoid endogeneity issues however, authors needs to report AR2 (p-value), Hansen test (p-value) to confirm that their results are valid.
The discussion needs to extend and should be linked with past studies, the manuscript lacks to add on latest studies please cite latest work.
The conclusion seems to be appropriate.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is interesting, the topic of the paper is new and challenging, promising interesting openings, useful both for theory and practice.
The paper has merits, it is well organized, using a solid scientific and logical tool. Methodology and approaches are interesting, systematic and comprehensive.
I would have some considerations and suggestions for improving the quality of the article.
The authors make some references to education, to HDI, but subsequent references on this topic are unclear and inconsistent.
The paper does not have a suitable literature review section, the few paragraphs in the Introduction are insufficiently developed (in our opinion, this is the main weakness of the manuscript). The very small number of cited contributions (13) is in dissonance with the ambitious objectives of the paper and the complexity of the analysis.
The titles of some tables and figures are not very explanatory, mentioning, rather, the technique or the general result, but not the context/content.
Formal issues - the number of figures in the text is incomplete (see page 10), full stops in the middle of the sentence, titles that start with lowercase letters, etc.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this article and good luck
Author Response
Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
China as a case study should be added in the manuscript title for accuracy. The yuan sums should be also provided in USD for the non-Chinese readership. ‘Citibank, ABN-AMRO bank, etc.; - to use etc., you need to mention at least 3 examples. ‘financing Projects for financial’, ‘Green credit is a credit policy,’ ‘education, because of nine-year compulsory education, a traditional method for assessing education’, etc. – avoid close word repetitions. Also, why initial capitalization for projects? ‘first proposed to assess’ – rephrase, unclear. ‘Others found that the green credit policy’ – ‘others’, but you mention only one source. ‘obtained the results that the green credit policy can effectively restrain the outputs’ – poorly constructed. ‘some researchers mentioned that, green credit improves commercial banks’ financial performance’ – you mention only one source. ‘In addition, only a few people who are currently studying EWP in China.’ – incomplete, unclear. ‘There are some research’ – ‘There is some research’. Research questions and hypotheses must be constructed based on specific supporting sources, preferably as recent as possible. ‘we divide them into two categories, namely, social welfare and ecological resource consumption act on the way green credit affects EWP, to explore their interactions’ – poorly constructed. Subsections should start with the first letter capitalized. ‘is formally launched in 2007’ – was. You claim: ‘it has been difficult to obtain the green credit balance data in China 2007’, but then you add ‘we select the loan balance of energy-saving and environmental-friendly projects from 2004-2017 as the standard for measuring green credit’. ‘Since the latest version is only updated to 2017, we will no longer collect data above from 2018 and beyond.’ – but some estimates are needed. ‘Figure ?? compares’ – you mean Figure 4, right? ‘Control the issuance volume of green credit’, ‘Focus on the main contradictions in the development of green credit,’ ‘promote the transformation of enterprises by green credit’ – these are urges, rephrase them as sentences. The reference list is extremely short, contains errors, and does not reflect the current picture of the topic.
The relationship between environmentally responsible behavior and sustainability policy adoption as regards green credit and the ecological welfare performance has not been covered, and thus I suggest integrating such recent sources:
Lăzăroiu, G., Ionescu, L., Andronie, M., and Dijmărescu, I. (2020). “Sustainability Management and Performance in the Urban Corporate Economy: A Systematic Literature Review,” Sustainability 12(18): 7705. doi: 10.3390/su12187705.
Obadă, D.-R., and Dabija, D.-C. (2022). “‘In Flow’! Why Do Users Share Fake News about Environmentally Friendly Brands on Social Media?,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(8): 4861. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19084861.
Lăzăroiu, G., Ionescu, L., Uță, C., Hurloiu, I., Andronie, M., and Dijmărescu, I. (2020). “Environmentally Responsible Behavior and Sustainability Policy Adoption in Green Public Procurement,” Sustainability 12(5): 2110. doi: 10.3390/su12052110.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
In the new revised version of the article, the authors systematically and creatively addressed all the suggestions and proposals made. As a result, we can endorse the publication of the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
This revised version can be published.
