Analysis of the Paths Affecting Corporate Green Innovation in Resource-Based Cities: A Fuzzy-Set QCA Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors present an interesting research on the importance of green innovation for enterprises in resource-based cities in China. In particular, using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), they underline the reletion among spatial agglomeration, digital economy, and institutional environment as key elements to reach the green innovation's goals.

The main subject is well described, the paper's structure is linear, clear, and well organized, the topic is in line with the Journal scope and interesting for readers, scholars, academics, and professionals in general (also for the main stakeholders - municiplaities, national/regional administrations, CEOs of enterprises and so on - in a resorces-based cities could be interested in these themes).

Most relevant observations are: 

1) authors do not define type of enterprises/companies (as underline in section 5.4), the type of resources on which the cities are based, the cities characteristics (localization, urban features - morphology, main urban functions, socio-demographic issues and so on), quantities of samples (are the analyzed case studies sufficient to be scientifically relevant?).
2) What do authors define as "green innovation"? The reduction of CO2 emmissions? The reduction of fossil fuels use? other?

Minor suggestions:

1) as key word, also "resource-based cities" can be added;
2) add references in lines 91-97 for QCA method;
3) section 2.5 can be cut short;
4) considering Figure 1: the dimensions of writings are too big; what type of relation "linkage match" implies? the arrows and the dashed line have different significance: please explain bettere the diagram and if authors do it by them self or if they take it from somewhere else;
5) add references in lines 308 and 310, in section 3.2 and for Herfindahl index in line 365;
6) considering table 1 and section 3.3.2, why authors do not use also the "infrastructural system" (highway, rail roads and so on) as a core element to be analyzed? Please explain;
7) in relation to table 2, please explain better which is the defintion of high and not-high livel of digital maturity and why it is important in the general research framework;
8) in tables 3 and 4, the circle with the cross in bold is not present among the symble used in the table (it is only in the legend): please check;
9) please leave a blank line between the legend of table 3 and the text below;
10) figure 2: the writing is too big, please reduce;
11) please check reference 39 if it is correct as it is written in the reference section.

Author Response

Thanks very much for the reviewer’s suggestions, and we improve and revise them according to the questions you raised. We also spell check English language and style. Please see the attachment.

About the most relevant observations

Point 1: authors do not define type of enterprises/companies (as underline in section 5.4), the type of resources on which the cities are based, the cities characteristics (localization, urban features - morphology, main urban functions, socio-demographic issues and so on), quantities of samples (are the analyzed case studies sufficient to be scientifically relevant?).

Response 1:In section 3.2, we add the basic characteristics of the city, why these companies were selected, and whether the sample size is met, mainly including Resource-based cities are cities whose mining and processing of minerals, forests, and other natural resources are the leading industries. On this basis, according to the geographical location of the parent companies of Shanghai and Shenzhen A-share listed companies in resource-based cities, the final selection of 156 enterprises. At the same time, fsQCA method integrates qualitative research and quantitative research. The ideal conditions for the study of medium samples (15 to 50 cases) are generally between 4 and 7 [53]. The number of conditions for studies with large samples (more than 100 cases) can be more [54]. This study has six antecedent conditions, and the sample number is sufficient. (Lines 368-376 in P8)

At the same time, we will also analyze section 5.6 in detail, and the content is as follows: First, we have chosen cases from different industries in resource-based cities, which may have different conditional environments and economic bases. For example, the heavy metal industry is penalized for damaging the environment, while the chemical material manufacturing industry is less penalized. In the future, we can analyze and compare the differences in corporate green innovation based on the same industry characteristics to refine our conclusions further. (Lines 699-704 in P16)

Point 2: What do authors define as "green innovation"? The reduction of CO2 emmissions? The reduction of fossil fuels use? other?

Response 2:We should clearly define green innovation. We have added descriptions in the introduction, including “This leads enterprises to pay more attention to attaching importance to the law of ecological development and abandon the goal orientation of pursuing short-term profit maximization. Green innovation helps create new products and technologies to reduce environmental risks such as pollution and the negative impacts of resource exploitation [10].” (Lines 44-48 in P2). Moreover, “The long-term development of China’s economy is closely related to its capacity for green innovation because of its limited resources and fragile environment. Moreover, a more important link of green innovation in resource-based cities is to reduce energy consumption. So, to help enterprises increase quality products that meet ecological and environmental protection standards.” in section 2.1. (Lines 124-128 in P3)

About Minor suggestions

1) as key word, also "resource-based cities" can be added;

we add “resource-based cities” to the keyword (Lines 26 in P1).

2) add references in lines 91-97 for QCA method;

We add all the references based on your suggestions including Point 2,5( Lines 108,324,365,374-375,407).

3) section 2.5 can be cut short;

We cut short section 2.5(Lines 274-331).

4) considering Figure 1: the dimensions of writings are too big; what type of relation "linkage match" implies? the arrows and the dashed line have different significance: please explain bettere the diagram and if authors do it by them self or if they take it from somewhere else;

We resize the two figures (Point 4,10) . For Figure 1, the triple conditions of the digital economy, spatial agglomeration, and institutional environment are explored in a grouping perspective to explore how exactly the triple conditions of the digital economy, spatial agglomeration, and institutional environment will affect the green innovation of enterprises through the linkage matching (adaptation/substitution) among each other. The significance of linkage matching lies in the different combinations between different conditions, and there may be adaptation and substitution processes. And the figure is our own making.

5) add references in lines 308 and 310, in section 3.2 and for Herfindahl index in line 365;

Same as point 2.

6) considering table 1 and section 3.3.2, why authors do not use also the "infrastructural system" (highway, rail roads and so on) as a core element to be analyzed? Please explain;

Explain why the infrastructure system is not used as the core antecedent variable. If the infrastructure system does not reflect the digital foundation in the digital economy level condition, this paper chooses digital infrastructure; if the infrastructure system is used as the level condition, perhaps transportation will bring easier communication to different regions. Nevertheless, industrial development breaks through the constraints of geographic space in the context of the digital economy. The digital economy develops fast, radiates widely, and has a deep impact.

7) in relation to table 2, please explain better which is the defintion of high and not-high livel of digital maturity and why it is important in the general research framework;

We looked at Table 2, which is not digital maturity. It should be corporate green innovation. We have already revised it in the text (lines 476 in P10). Table 2 shows the necessity test of sufficient agreement between the six antecedent variables and the outcome variable. If the sufficient agreement of a single condition is high, then the presence of this single condition is sufficient to lead to a result; this is different from the logic of fsQCA.

8) in tables 3 and 4, the circle with the cross in bold is not present among the symble used in the table (it is only in the legend): please check;

In Table 3 configuration 2, we have used the circle with the cross in bold, but no configuration in Table 4 requires using the circle with the cross in bold.

9) please leave a blank line between the legend of table 3 and the text below;

we leave a blank line between the legend of table 3 and the text below (lines 498 in P12).

10) figure 2: the writing is too big, please reduce;

Same as point 4.

11) please check reference 39 if it is correct as it is written in the reference section.

We revise reference 39 (Lines 797).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Congratulations for the paper.

- Corporate green innovation does not depend on a single condition, but on the interaction of spatial agglomeration, digital economy, and institutional environment.

- The topic is relevant in the field and addresses a specific gap in the field. The authors identify and explore six conditions that influence corporate green innovation.

- The authors use a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis approach, focuses on the cumulative effects of antecedent conditions, and contributes to a better understanding of the causal mechanisms of green innovation.

- In the calibration between three methods, the authors chose the third, because it´s the most used in others research. But not explain why it´s more appropriate to the sample.

Is the topic “5. Robustness Analysis” or “4.4 . Robustness Analysis”? 

- The conclusions are with the evidence and arguments presented and the authors address the main question posed.

- The references are appropriate. 73 references in total, recent and some of them of the year 2022.

- Table 1 could have some comments. 

 

Author Response

Thanks very much for the affirmation of the previous article. We improve and revise it according to the questions you raised.

Point 1: In the calibration between three methods, the authors chose the third, because it´s the most used in others research. But not explain why it´s more appropriate to the sample.

Response 1: To explain why the third method is more suitable for the sample according to the three calibration methods, we added an explanatory note in P9. The content of the explanation is: Since the data in this study are not questionnaire data and lack theoretical and practical knowledge to guide the set to select the calibration threshold value, refer to previous studies [48], it is more appropriate for us to use the third method based on the calibration performed on the sample data in this study. (Lines 458-462 in P10)

Point 2: Is the topic “5. Robustness Analysis” or “4.4. Robustness Analysis”? 

Response 2: the robustness analysis section was revised to Chapter 4.4 (Lines 580 in P13).

Point 3: Table 1 could have some comments.  

Response 3: we have added a note below table 1(Lines 467 in P10).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf