The Effects of Board Capital on Green Innovation to Improve Green Total Factor Productivity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I want to express my gratitude to the authors for their outstanding research and exceptional presentation of the results. The article meets all the requirements for publication in top-rated journals. It is exceptionally well-written, with a clear logical flow and a comprehensive description of the methodology. The formulation of research questions always facilitates the perception of research and its logic. The conclusions are logical and grounded in the conducted research. The authors did an excellent job of presenting the limitations to the study and the way forward for further research.
Nevertheless, I would like to suggest several ways to improve the manuscript:
Point 1: Literature review is sufficient; however, there is a lack of recent research on this topic (2022-2023), for example, concerning social responsibility, it can used https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136317; human capital maybe this one will be useful https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134701
Point 2: it seems to me that the title is too long
Point 3: it is better when the tables go by the text and not at the end
English language is fine.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I want to express my gratitude to the authors for their outstanding research and exceptional presentation of the results. The article meets all the requirements for publication in top-rated journals. It is exceptionally well-written, with a clear logical flow and a comprehensive description of the methodology. The formulation of research questions always facilitates the perception of research and its logic. The conclusions are logical and grounded in the conducted research. The authors did an excellent job of presenting the limitations to the study and the way forward for further research.
Response: Dear reviewer thank you very much for your time and for such appreciated comments.
Nevertheless, I would like to suggest several ways to improve the manuscript:
Point 1: Literature review is sufficient; however, there is a lack of recent research on this topic (2022-2023), for example, concerning social responsibility, it can used https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136317; human capital maybe this one will be useful https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134701
Response: Dear reviewer we have cited above mentioned studies in the literature review section.
Point 2: it seems to me that the title is too long
Response: Dear reviewer by following your suggestion, we have updated the title of the article.
Point 3: it is better when the tables go by the text and not at the end.
Response: We have cited tables inside the text.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English language is fine.
At the end, we must thank you again for your valuable comments to our article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the first paragraph in lines 11-12, the authors write: "Especially in developing economies such as China."
I am aware of the official statute of China's economy, but China is currently the second economy in the world. The classification by organizations such as the World Bank and the United Nations gives the world's second-largest economy special trade treatment and low-interest loans.
China's economy is the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide with 27 percent of global emissions. It also accounts for one-third of greenhouse gas emissions. Achieving global climate goals without a transformation in China is therefore impossible. According to the 2015 Paris Agreement, China should achieve net climate neutrality by 2060. There is still a long way to go to achieve this, but the share of renewable energy is growing in China year by year. Currently, coal accounts for more than 60 percent of power generation, and wind and solar for 12 percent, even though installed capacity is more than double. Hydroelectric plants provided 16 percent of energy last year, nuclear plants 5 percent, and gas 6 percent. Achieving the country's climate neutrality, however, will not be possible solely by replacing coal with renewable energy sources. China is heavily dependent on imported oil, and its share of domestic consumption exceeded 70 percent last year. It is particularly important to point out these facts and discuss them critically, in the context of writing about sustainable development. Comneting research: More context is needed, more discussion is needed, and the title needs to be changed, because the survey was conducted only in China, there is no data on the total population, so it is impossible to say whether the 300 companies that participated in the survey are enough.
Slight correction requried, language is understadable
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In the first paragraph in lines 11-12, the authors write: "Especially in developing economies such as China."
I am aware of the official statute of China's economy, but China is currently the second economy in the world. The classification by organizations such as the World Bank and the United Nations gives the world's second-largest economy special trade treatment and low-interest loans.
China's economy is the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide with 27 percent of global emissions. It also accounts for one-third of greenhouse gas emissions. Achieving global climate goals without a transformation in China is therefore impossible. According to the 2015 Paris Agreement, China should achieve net climate neutrality by 2060. There is still a long way to go to achieve this, but the share of renewable energy is growing in China year by year. Currently, coal accounts for more than 60 percent of power generation, and wind and solar for 12 percent, even though installed capacity is more than double. Hydroelectric plants provided 16 percent of energy last year, nuclear plants 5 percent, and gas 6 percent. Achieving the country's climate neutrality, however, will not be possible solely by replacing coal with renewable energy sources. China is heavily dependent on imported oil, and its share of domestic consumption exceeded 70 percent last year.
It is particularly important to point out these facts and discuss them critically, in the context of writing about sustainable development.
Response: Dear reviewer thank you very much for your time and valuable comments. Your comments really helped to further enhance the quality of the article. By following your suggestions, we have critically discussed the above mentioned issues in the introduction section.
Commenting research: More context is needed, more discussion is needed, and the title needs to be changed, because the survey was conducted only in China, there is no data on the total population, so it is impossible to say whether the 300 companies that participated in the survey are enough.
Response: Dear reviewer we have added detailed context and discussed it more briefly. Moreover, we have updated our article title by following your guidelines.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Slight correction required, language is understandable
Response: We have proofread our whole article again.
At the end, we must thank you again for valuable comments which really improved the quality of our article.
Thank You and Stay Blessed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The article " The Forces Behind Green Innovation That Stimulate Green Total Factor Productivity: An Perspective in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals" covers the topic of sustainable practices and green innovation in China’s manufacturing companies.
Strengths of this study:
- the topic of the paper is very important in the context of green total factor productivity,
- the paper is well structured,
- the applied methods are adequate for the purpose of the research.
My recommendations and suggestions:
- the authors could shorten and reformulate the title of the article to better reflect its content,
- the purpose of the research as well as the temporal and space scope of the research and used research methods should be specified in the abstract,
- the research questions which are formulated in Abstract and Introduction should be more sufficiently consistent with the research hypotheses,
- in my opinion the authors should characterize the research sample in more detail,
- it would be good to expand part 3.3. Empirical models.
In my opinion this paper qualifies to be published in Sustainability after introducing the suggested corrections.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,
The article " The Forces Behind Green Innovation That Stimulate Green Total Factor Productivity: An Perspective in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals" covers the topic of sustainable practices and green innovation in China’s manufacturing companies.
Strengths of this study:
- the topic of the paper is very important in the context of green total factor productivity,
- the paper is well structured,
- the applied methods are adequate for the purpose of the research.
Response: Dear reviewer we are highly thankful for your encouraging comments and for your time to evaluate our paper.
My recommendations and suggestions:
- the authors could shorten and reformulate the title of the article to better reflect its content,
Response: Dear reviewer we have updated the title of the paper by following your suggestions.
- the purpose of the research as well as the temporal and space scope of the research and used research methods should be specified in the abstract,
- the research questions which are formulated in Abstract and Introduction should be more sufficiently consistent with the research hypotheses.
Response: Dear reviewer we have updated the abstract according to your guidelines.
- in my opinion the authors should characterize the research sample in more detail,
Response: Dear reviewer we have added more details about research sample. Thank you.
- it would be good to expand part 3.3. Empirical models.
Response: Dear reviewer we have updated the empirical models according to your guidelines.
In my opinion this paper qualifies to be published in Sustainability after introducing the suggested corrections.
At the end, we must say thank you again. Your valuable suggestions really helped us to further improve the quality of the paper. Thank you and stay blessed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
The topic seems interesting with useful outcomes but the abstract does not reflect the model, and hypotheses.
I am not familiar with this data analysis method but it seems the hypothesis development style and the way it wants to present the variables' role are not common in the academic publications.
It is suggested to reflect methodology and data analysis from the beginning in abstract and etc. Also the role of each variable must be illustrated clearly not with synonyms.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,
The topic seems interesting with useful outcomes but the abstract does not reflect the model, and hypotheses.
Response: Dear reviewer thank you very much for your time and valuable suggestions which really helped us to improve the article. We have update the abstract of the article.
I am not familiar with this data analysis method but it seems the hypothesis development style and the way it wants to present the variables' role are not common in the academic publications.
Response: Dear reviewer thank you and this analysis method is quite imperative for empirical studies particularly studies using panel data. Moreover, we have updated the proper variables role to formulate the study hypothesis on the basis of previous findings which is also aligned with prior studies.
It is suggested to reflect methodology and data analysis from the beginning in abstract and etc. Also the role of each variable must be illustrated clearly not with synonyms.
Response: Dear reviewer by following your suggestion, we have explained more in detail about the methodology in the abstract section and methodology section as well. Furthermore, we have clearly described variables and removed synonyms.
At the end, we must thank you again for valuable comments which really improved the quality of our article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear authors,
After carefully reading you paper, i have the following remarks:
- first please correct the title "A perspective" and not "an perspective"
-the abstract needs to be revised, please make it shorter and reformulate some sentences such as "Thus, what are the forces behind green innovation leading to green total factor productivity? is a major discussion point", don't put a question in the abstract. besides, the sample, the study period and the methodology has to be stated in the abstract ( before findings).
- in the introduction, it is suggested to replace RQ1...RQ4 by sentences .
- the conceptual framework in figure 1 should be placed below the section "2. Development of the Hypothesis and Theoretical Discussion".
- it is also suggested to include this recent paper to further justify your theoretical framework: - Gupta S, Ghardallou. W, Pandey D K, Sahu G P (2022). Artificial intelligence adoption in the insurance industry: Evidence using the technology–organization–environment framework. Research in International Business and Finance, Volume 63, 101757.
- the authors wrote that "Therefore, the analysis of this study firstly employs 285 both the fixed effect model and the random effect model in response to this evaluation". whether using a fixed effect or a random effect model relies on the Hausman test. thereby, the authors need to refer to the result of this test in order to choose the specification.
- What is the need of estimating 4 different equations? this is confusing and not clear. the authors need to clarify this point.
- the "4.1. Additional investigation" subsection, should be placed as a seperate section after the section results and discussion.
- There is no need to divide the conclusion into 5.1 and 5.2. please merge them under the conclusion section.
Moderate editing of English language is needed
Author Response
Dear authors,
After carefully reading your paper, I have the following remarks:
- first please correct the title "A perspective" and not "an perspective"
Response: Dear reviewer first of all we are highly thankful for your time and valuable suggestions on the article. Your suggestions really helped us to further improve the quality of the article. By following your guidance, we have updated the title.
-the abstract needs to be revised, please make it shorter and reformulate some sentences such as "Thus, what are the forces behind green innovation leading to green total factor productivity? is a major discussion point", don't put a question in the abstract. besides, the sample, the study period and the methodology has to be stated in the abstract (before findings).
Response: Dear reviewer thank you for suggestions and we have updated abstract by following you.
- in the introduction, it is suggested to replace RQ1...RQ4 by sentences.
Response: Dear reviewer we have updated the sentence of RQ1 and RQ4.
- the conceptual framework in figure 1 should be placed below the section "2. Development of the Hypothesis and Theoretical Discussion".
Response: Dear reviewer we have moved the figure 1 conceptual framework under the section 2.
- it is also suggested to include this recent paper to further justify your theoretical framework: - Gupta S, Ghardallou. W, Pandey D K, Sahu G P (2022). Artificial intelligence adoption in the insurance industry: Evidence using the technology–organization–environment framework. Research in International Business and Finance, Volume 63, 101757.
Response: Dear reviewer we have cited the above mentioned study in the theoretical discussion section to further strengthen role of top management.
- the authors wrote that "Therefore, the analysis of this study firstly employs 285 both the fixed effect model and the random effect model in response to this evaluation". whether using a fixed effect or a random effect model relies on the Hausman test. thereby, the authors need to refer to the result of this test in order to choose the specification.
Response: Dear reviewer thank you for highlighting. We have added the Hausman test results in the finding section as well as in the result tables. The significance level of the Hausman test allow to use the method of fixed effect model than random effect model.
- What is the need of estimating 4 different equations? this is confusing and not clear. the authors need to clarify this point.
Response: Dear reviewer thank you for comment. Normally in empirical studies we need to develop equations according to research model. These equations reflect the analysis process of previous developed hypothesis in the paper. For your concern, we have mentioned some published studies which have used the multiple equations according to the study context.
Yousaf, U. B., Ullah, I., Jiang, J., & Wang, M. (2022). The role of board capital in driving green innovation: Evidence from China. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 35, 100714.
Javeed, S. A., Latief, R., Cai, X., San Ong, T., Qian, S., & Haq, A. U. (2022). What is the role of the board sustainable committee for corporate social responsibility? The moderating effect of gender diversity and ownership concentration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 379, 134710.
Guo, Y., Fan, L., & Yuan, X. (2022). Market Competition, Financialization, and Green Innovation: Evidence From China’s Manufacturing Industries. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 185.
Sun, H., Zhu, L., Wang, A., Wang, S., & Ma, H. (2022). Analysis of Regional Social Capital, Enterprise Green Innovation and Green Total Factor Productivity—Based on Chinese A-Share Listed Companies from 2011 to 2019. Sustainability, 15(1), 34.
- the "4.1. Additional investigation" subsection, should be placed as a seperate section after the section results and discussion.
Response: Dear reviewer, we have placed addition investigation as a separate section by following your suggestion.
- There is no need to divide the conclusion into 5.1 and 5.2. please merge them under the conclusion section.
Response: we have updated the conclusion section and merged the implications and limitation together.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate editing of English language is needed
We have proofread our article and further improved the English of the paper.
At the end, we must thank you again and we hope this revision version of paper would satisfy you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
