A Perspective on Management Myopia: The Impact of Digital Transformation on Carbon Emission Intensity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please refer to the attached file with comments. I urge the authors to consider each of them in detail when revising their work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has a problem with the structure. The title says: "A Perspective on Management Myopia...". However, section 3 (Research objective, Methodology and Data) has absolutely nothing on management myopia. Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 respond only to the model in section 3. Myopia appears in section 4.4, and introduces a new model with variable description etc. It looks like two papers have been pasted together but were not meant to be part of the same article. The second part of the paper (which is disconnected from the first) -- that is, the myopia part -- is less clear and the contribution is not strong. It uses a linguistic method which is totally different from the data collection in the first part of the paper. The myopia part is not convincing as a "mechanism" for carbon reduction and the data collection (sampling) appears to be disconnected from the initial set of data (described in section 3).

Therefore, I recommend the authors to remove the entire section 4.4 and the respective hypothesis from section 2.2 and make a clean paper with the model described in section 3 and the first part of the results in section 4.1-3.

However, I have to say that the sample described in section 3 is already old and not relevant for today's political and ecological situation. This is a major limitation of the research, the fact that the sample stops in 2015 and does not address recent challenges. In this respect, the research is obsolete.

The quality of language is acceptable, but there are some phrases that end abruptly, probably a copy-paste or automatic translation problem.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors identify an important question to examine for the paper. I have several comments and suggestions for it: First, digital technologies provide a plausible tool, not an incentive, for firms to reduce carbon emissions. The premise of this study is that the firm should have the incentive for reducing carbon emissions in the first place. Then, to fulfil such an incentive, the firms utilize digital technologies. It is important for the authors to articulate how the utilization of digital technologies facilitate the reduction of carbon emission. In sum, the authors need to re-work the theoretical underpinning of the research and develop the main hypotheses better. Second, as mentioned, digital technologies serve merely a tool for firms to achieve the objective of lowering carbon emissions, so it is not sensible to use managerial myopia as the mediators in the analysis. Rather, I would expect to put the managerial myopia as moderators for the heterogeneity tests. Third, I advise the authors to control more determinant variables for carbon emission intensity, and then analyze the impact threshold for potential confounding variables to see whether the baseline results are reasonably amenable to correlated-omitted-variables bias (see He et al., 2020 for the ITCV analysis). 

Reference:

He, G., Ren, H.M. & Taffler, R. (2021). Do corporate insiders trade on future stock price crash risk? Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 56(4): 1561-1591.

The exposition of the paper needs improvements. Ideas could have been expressed in a more coherent and cohesive manner.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has clearly improved, but the authors have still left methodological aspects in the results. The lexicon from 4.4.2.1 Testing the Innovation Myopia Mechanism should move to 3.2.4. Mechanism Variables.

Also, the authors should include a summary table of the hypotheses (brief explanation) and their validation status, in the Conclusions, for improved readability. 

Extra variables used in the Robustness tests should also be described in the Variables table (Table 1) which should be called Variables description, not Valuables description. The authors should not introduce new elements in the Results which are not described in the Methodology!

In section 3.2.1. Enterprise Carbon Emission Intensity, it is not clear how the data source was used to calculate the dependent variable. More specific details (like fields used from the respective database) should be included.

Good luck with the revision!

There are elements which should be carefully proofread like Table 1 "Valuables description", instead of "variables".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have mitigated my concerns in their revision. Overall, well done! They may opt to polish the paper even better. I wish the paper have a high impact after its publication. 

The authors may opt to polish the paper even better. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your positive feedback and for acknowledging our efforts in addressing your concerns. Your encouragement means a lot to us. In response to your suggestion, we have carefully reviewed the text, ensuring clarity, coherence, and smooth transitions between sections.

Once again, thanks for your support and guidance throughout the review process. 

Best regards,

 

Yu Ma

Pan Tao