The Polarization Effect and Mechanism of China’s Green Finance Policy on Green Technology Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewed article intends to provide valuable insights into the polarization effect and mechanism of China's Green Finance Policy on Green Technology Innovation. The study's use of a quasi-natural experiment approach and the difference-in-differences method enhances the rigor of the analysis.

 However, several areas require attention for further improvement.

 1.      Lack of Citation Sources:

One noticeable issue in the article is the significant lack of citation sources. For instance, in several instances, specific information is referenced without proper citations. For example, the reference to the COP 28 report in R35-50 lacks a corresponding entry in the bibliography.

R88-124 only 3 sources,

R 245-250 source? Etc.

This lack of citation sources undermines the transparency and credibility of the study. It is essential to provide proper references to support the claims and facilitate the verification of information by readers.

 2.      Explanation of the Quasi Natural Experiment Method:

The article mentions the use of a "quasi natural experiment" method but fails to provide a concrete explanation of this research approach. It is essential to clarify why this method was chosen and how it addresses the issues of confounding variables and selection bias. Given that the Difference-in-Differences (DiD) method is a well-known quasi-experimental design, it would be beneficial to elaborate on how it was employed in this study and how it relates to the quasi-natural experiment approach mentioned.

 3.      Missing Information on Sample Characteristics: The article states that the study focuses on a sample of Chinese industrial listed enterprises (R301, R354). However, several important details regarding the sample are missing. For example, the number of enterprises analyzed is mentioned briefly as 1751 in R371 but lacks a clear explanation or justification for this specific sample size. Furthermore, essential information regarding the industrial field, enterprise size, and other relevant characteristics that could impact pollution capacity is not provided. Including these details would enhance the reader's understanding of the sample selection process and its implications for the study's findings.

 4.      Difficulty in Understanding Table 1: Table 1 is mentioned but lacks clarity, making it difficult for readers to understand its content and purpose. It is essential to provide clear explanations, labels, and headings in the table to ensure its comprehensibility. This would help readers better interpret the data and make informed conclusions.

 5.      Difficulty in Understanding the Statistical Model. To improve the clarity of the statistical model, the authors should consider the following points: 

a.       Describe the data sources used for the analysis, including their reliability and representativeness. Explain the methodology employed in estimating the model, including any econometric techniques or approaches used to address potential endogeneity or other statistical issues.

b.      Present the results in an accessible manner,

c.       Acknowledge and discuss any limitations or potential biases in the statistical model, such as omitted variable bias, sample selection bias, or measurement error.

Finally, the article should make efforts to enhance the clarity and comprehensibility of its findings by providing clearer explanations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this paper. This paper should bring improvements in all of the sections. At below I am describing in details:

• Abstract should be reviewed. The keywords are similar to the keywords in the title of the research. Motive of keywords is to facilitate the researchers and searchers to find your research over the internet. Use keywords that are not a part of title.
• Page 3/21 starting paragraph of the research shows research questions without showing its subheading. If necessary, make subheading under the title of "Research Questions".

• In the next paragraph, comparison of the study has been given. Place it in a suitable place, as It has no place in the introduction section of the study.

• In the literature review section; second paragraph shows review related to GFP on technological innovation. It is necessary to place a subheading as "GFP and Technological innovation".

• The second group of the literature review is based on GFP influence mechanism. It must be separated under the subheading, to make sense of the research questions.

• Third group also related to the GFP? Why there is a summary in the literature review?

• In Methodology, the research design didn't show, in which region of china this study was conducted. To mark as east and north make no sense.
• Also, give names to the "Pilot Cities".
• Data analysis section is okay. Make sense to the data with regression results.
• In the conclusion, Policy implications must be separated and if necessary, discussion of the results should be discussed as well.

• This paper cited 51 studies. There is no citation in methodology, analysis section and conclusion. It is necessary to compare the results as did in the intro section, in the conclusion or discussion with previous related studies and try to find out the uniqueness of this study.

Also please revise full paper for the grammatical mistakes and errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper's topic and conducted research are very important and justified to be presented in a high-quality Journal. The subject is very important for the literature. The research is presented clearly and consistently, but some issues need to be addressed carefully. My decision is a major revision with some amendments. Please see my comments and suggestions below.

Comment 1. Abstracts should be more concise.

Comment 2. Also, the authors should describe the work done to give readers some basic understandings of previous literature before presenting research gaps in the Introduction. The paper can be a good example to help you improve your paper (Does Proactive Green Technology Innovation Improve Financial Performance? Evidence from Listed Companies with Semiconductor Concepts Stock in China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4600. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084600).

Comment 3. The biggest flaw of this study: missing theoretical analysis and hypotheses development.

Comment 4. The variables are measured by drawing on previous literature. Moreover, to better clarify the Measure carry out I suggest elaborating a table representing the variables design.

Comment 5. In the section Empirical Results, the authors seem to "only report the results". I suggest that authors use several representative studies (2 or 3) in this area to interpret and enrich the results.

Comment 6. The article should be added the limitations and future research.

Comment 7. The language of this manuscript is bad and needs help from native speakers.

 Good luck for your work!

The language of this manuscript is bad and needs help from native speakers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This article analysis a very important topic that is the role of green finance police (GFP) on green technology innovation (GTI) of firms. For that purpose, authors estimate several regressions with some interactions terms that captures different enterprises’ behavior, namely innovation behavior and allocation optimization behavior. In addition, other regressions included the interaction term for environmental policy instruments, specifically subsidy and regulatory policies. The authors find that this association exists for green enterprises while for polluting enterprises it is need to combine with environment and R&D subsidy.

The structure of the article is correctly chosen and it exhibits a logical concern. The literature reviewed is adequate to support the hypothesis and results are well documented. However, I present some comments

i. For a better understanding of this study, it would be useful to formalize hypotheses, which would be tested with the methodology presented.

ii. There is no comments of descriptive statistics documented on table 1. In my opinion, it would be important to have an interpretation of, for example, mean value of 1,2 on GTI and the negative mean value of Innovation Behavior (IB).

iii. Some spaces are missing in line 139, 145, 147, 156, 162, 165 and 169.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no more comments

Reviewer 2 Report

With the required changes in the manuscript I do accept it and highly recommend it for the publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the authors' effort to improve the paper. After a carefully reviewing your revised manuscript, I am highly satisfied with the changes that you have made and I have no more comments to offer. I can recommend the publication of this research. I wish you well in taking your research forward.