Digital Technology and Green Development in Manufacturing: Evidence from China and 20 Other Asian Countries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract is correct and describes the content of work and research well.

Key words are good.

The introduction is long, but authors should add literature review with reference to recent similar research.

Figure 1. The gtfp1 of the manufacturing industry and the gtfp2 of the whole industry from 2009 to 2019, but what has happened with last 4 years? Where is the information for that period? Figure 2., same situation.

Authors should add value at least for the period 2000-2022.

Figure 3 and Figure 4 are very good and useful.

The conclusion is short and needs to be expanded.

References are enough and modern.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Dear Editors and reviewers,

 

Thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions made on our manuscript sustainability-2456424

We have studied your comments carefully and tried our best to improve the manuscript for further consideration.

Thank you for your arduous work and instructive advice.

Sincerely yours,

Lin Zhu

 

We provided a summary of itemized responses to each individual reviewers’ comments:

 

Responses to comments by Reviewer 1:

Point 1: The introduction is long, but authors should add literature review with reference to recent similar research.

Response: Thank you for taking the time to review my article and offering your feedback. After carefully reviewing your feedback, I plan to revise my introduction to include a literature review that discusses the existing research on my topic.I have included recent and relevant references to highlight the significance of my study and how it contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

We have made some adjustments to the introduction section and added relevant references to discuss the research topic in more detail. Based on existing studies, there is a difference of opinion on the impact of the digital economy on green development. Some scholars believe that the digital economy can promote green development. “The digital economy acts as a catalyst in promoting sustainable development across various industries (Meng,and Zhao, 2022), and it is a key enabler for the improvement of manufacturing GTFP (Hao,Wang, Wuand Hao, 2023). Digital transformation has the potential to significantly enhance the GTFP of organizations, particularly those in the manufacturing, non-high-tech, and non-polluting sectors (Wang et al., 2023).” However, there are also differing views on this matter. “As the digital economy continues to grow, its dependence on big data applications is becomingincreasingly apparent. However, this growth has given rise to a considerable demand for energy and power in global data centers, thereby contributing to approximately 2% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. The issue of e-waste, which remains challenging to recycle, is also a growing concern, as up to 50 million tons are anticipated to be generated globally each year. In their study on the influence of the digital economy on GTFP in Belt and Road nations, Wang and Ren (2023) discovered that increased growth in this sector was associated with a notable decline in GTFP. The negative impacts were more pronounced in middle- and high-income countries.” Thank you again for your valuable comments on our paper. Your recommendation has made our introduction more comprehensive, as well as provided more importance to the research topic itself.

 

Point 2: Figure 1. The gtfp1 of the manufacturing industry and the gtfp2 of the whole industry from 2009 to 2019, but what has happened with last 4 years? Where is the information for that period? Figure 2., same situation.

Response: Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. We would like to apologize for the confusion caused by the missing information in Figures 1 and 2 over the past four years. We have updated the figures with the latest available data, covering the years 2000-2022. And we have provided detailed descriptions based on the image information regarding the events that occurred during the specified period. This additional work gives us a clearer view of the development of China's digital economy and GTFP over the past two decades.

 

Point 3: The conclusion is short and needs to be expanded.

Response: Thank you for your comment on the conclusion of our paper. We have taken your feedback into consideration and made significant revisions to the conclusion. First, we have organized all of our research findings through empirical comparative analysis which can be seen in detail in Section 5.1 of the paper. Additionally, we have provided targeted recommendations based on the shortcomings in China's manufacturing industry and the green transformation process of Asian countries along the Belt and Road Initiative, as outlined in Section 5.2.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. There is no explanation of how tables and figures are elaborated so that it becomes a conclusion there needs to be an explanation of how the technicality of generating data. it may also be appropriate to include the appropriate source citations

2. This paper was not well prepared and did not read the GFA journal

 

3.  The equations written are not discussed, what are the processes and procedures

4.  There should be an explanation of key variables that have been explained and included in the conceptual framework so that it is clear what relationship between the variables will be tested for

 

5. Need more empirical studies comparing and contrasting with the results, especially, from established and updated journal articles

 

6. At this stage of the results and discussion are no longer discussing the theory, but rather the emphasis of discussion with the stages of processing data with methods and showing the results

 

7. "gap in the impact of the digital economy on the green development of the manufacturing industry and provides valuable insights for policymakers,". not clear what the gap dan what the policy insight 

8. please make it a concise and clear statement, hard to understand what is the novelty of this article 

need native english proofread

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Dear Editors and reviewers,

 

Thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions made on our manuscript sustainability-2456424

We have studied your comments carefully and tried our best to improve the manuscript for further consideration.

Thank you for your arduous work and instructive advice.

Sincerely yours,

Lin Zhu

 

We provided a summary of itemized responses to each individual reviewers’ comments:

 

Responses to comments by Reviewer 2:

Pint 1:There is no explanation of how tables and figures are elaborated so that it becomes a conclusion there needs to be an explanation of how the technicality of generating data. it may also be appropriate to include the appropriate source citations.

Response: Thanks a lot for pointing this out. suggestions regarding the explanation of how tables and figures are elaborated and how technicality of generating data can be included in our conclusions. We acknowledge that providing appropriate source citations is also critical in increasing the credibility of our study. We have added relevant details in the manuscript, explaining in depth the methods used to create the tables and figures, including the software used.Initially, we have included appropriate references to clarify the sources and justification for our data, which we hope will provide a better understanding of our results. We have referred to the methods based on SBM model and ML index from the previous studies (Chung, 1997; Chen, Lan, Gao & Sun, 2018; Li & Chen, 2021) and used Maxdea software to measure the GTFP. Additionally, prior studies (Zhang & Qiao, 2022; Zhao & Zhang, 2023) were reviewed to construct the measurement index of GTFP specifically within the Chinese manufacturing industry. Drawing from existing research on the topic (Zhao, Liu, Sun & Tao, 2020; Fan, Yang & Li, 2022), a measure of industry-wide GTFP in China was established. Finally, the measurement index of GTFP for 20 different countries across the Asian Belt and Road was constructed with reference to (Huang, Han & Ge, 2017; Wang & Ren, 2023). Second, We refer to the previous practice (Zhao, Zhang & Liang, 2020) of using the composite index of digital economy development to represent the core explanatory variables of Models (1) and (2). Based the Stata 17, the entropy weight method is then applied to calculate the composite score.. Utilizing the same methodology, we drawing from the scholarly contributions of Jiao (2020) to establish a comprehensive set of seven indicators and through the entropy methodology to gauge the degree of digital economy in Asian countries spanning the Belt and Road region. Last, the obtained measurement results are subjected to a visualization and analysis process, which culminates in the generation of Figures 1-4. This step enhances the comprehensibility and intuitiveness of our research findings.

 

Point 2: This paper was not well prepared and did not read the GFA journal

Response: We appreciate the careful review and guidance provided by the reviewer for our paper. After carefully reading the GFA guidelines, we have made appropriate revisions to our paper and submitted it to the English editing department of Sustainability for language editing services to ensure our manuscript meets the highest academic standards. We value the reviewer's feedback and will continue to strive for further improvements in our work. Thank you again for your guidance and support.

 

Point 3: The equations written are not discussed, what are the processes and procedures

Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We apologize for the oversight in not providing a detailed explanation of equations (1) - (6) in the initial manuscript. In response to your comments, we have added a comprehensive explanation of the processes and procedures involved in these equations. We hope that our revisions have adequately addressed your concerns and improved the clarity of our study. Thank you again for your valuable input.

Point 4: There should be an explanation of key variables that have been explained and included in the conceptual framework so that it is clear what relationship between the variables will be tested for

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have taken your suggestion into consideration and included a detailed explanation of the key variables in our conceptual framework to clarify the relationship between the variables being tested. In the revised manuscript, we provide detailed elucidation regarding the interdependence of independent and dependent variables. Specifically, we focus on examining the impact of the level of development of the digital economy (core explanatory variable) and GTFP (explanatory variable) on sustainable raw development. The existing literature presents polarizing arguments that warrant further exploration - positive theories suggest a positive association between GTFP and digital transformation (as evidenced by Meng & Zhao, 2022, Hao, Wang, Wu & Hao, 2023, and Wang et al.), while negativism proposes a negative relationship between digital economy development and environmental protection (as posited by Wang & Ren, 2023). Additionally, existing research on the subject (Li, Han, Ding & Shi, 2020; Liu, Yang, Li & Zhong, 2022; Tian & Feng, 2022) suggests that all control variables in our paper could also impact the explanatory variables under investigation. Besides, Human capital not only enhances the ability of the local region to develop high-quality resources, but it also increases the environmental awareness of the local people, thus impacting the level of green development in the local region(Jin, Gao & Pan, 2023). And trade import and export is also one of the influencing factors of green development (Yu, Yamaguchi, Kittner, 2022; Lu et al.,2023).

 

Point 5: Need more empirical studies comparing and contrasting with the results, especially, from established and updated journal articles

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We include comparisons with previous authors in all of our empirical finding. Additionally, in section 4.2 of the article, in order to explore the green effects of the digital economy in more detail, we conducted regressions on the core explanatory variable (de) lagged by two periods for three sets of models, and found that the green effects of the digital economy have lagged effects, which is consistent with previous research (Wei & Hou, 2022). Specifically, the coefficient of the influence of de in Models (1) and (2) increased significantly. In Model (3), the coefficient of the influence of de changed from negative to positive, which is a point worth noting. In the Belt and Road countries in Asia, the digital economy exhibits a U-shaped relationship with the green effect, with suppression followed by promotion. Thanks again for the suggestion to discover new innovations!  

 

Point 6: At this stage of the results and discussion are no longer discussing the theory, but rather the emphasis of discussion with the stages of processing data with methods and showing the results

Response: Thank you for your comments. We agree with your standpoint. Thank you for your comment. We agree with your views. We have made adjustments to the manuscript. We have already used theoretical research as the research foundation and focused on the selection and measurement of various variables, the construction of all models, and empirical analysis.

 

Point 7: "gap in the impact of the digital economy on the green development of the manufacturing industry and provides valuable insights for policymakers,". not clear what the gap dan what the policy insight.

Response: In Chapter 4.1, we conducted a detailed analysis of the empirical results shown in Table 9. The focus was on comparing the regression results of the various variables included in models (1) and (2) of the entire industry and Chinese manufacturing, pointing out the shortcomings in the green development process of manufacturing and analyzing possible reasons. Finally, targeted recommendations were proposed in the policy suggestion section of Chapter 5.2 to address these issues.

Point 8: Please make it a concise and clear statement, hard to understand what is the novelty of this article

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised our manuscript to provide a more concise and clear statement of the novelty of our work. At the end of Chapter One, we have listed all possible innovative points in this paper. In brief, (1) the paper focuses on exploring the relationship between digital economy and green development; (2) with the help of three comparative models on China's manufacturing industry, entire industry, and 20 Asian countries along the Belt and Road Initiative, the paper have analyzed the heterogeneity of green value release of digital economy in different industries and countries; (3) the paper have examined its hysteresis effect through delaying the core explanatory variable, digital economy, by two periods in the comparative model; and (4) two threshold variables, human capital and trade competitiveness, are introduced to study the non-linear relationship between digital economy and green development.

Reviewer 3 Report

The impact of the digital economy on sustainable productivity is not obvious. Probably digitization is associated with changes in the structure of the economy towards modern, sustainable models of management. However, digitization can also foster environmentally unfavorable production. Research on the impact of the digital economy on green development in manufacturing is therefore justified from the point of view of environmental and climate protection.

I appreciate the choice of the research topic, but I am critical of the way the research results are presented. Although the appropriate methods of statistical modeling have been chosen, I have reservations about the following:

- the subject of the research was presented imprecisely: The authors use the term GTFP, which they call green total factor productivity (20), and then gross total factor productivity (102), green or gross?

- variables of the GTFP model combine general variables related to productivity (capital, labour, energy) with environmental factors (table 1,2).

In my opinion, the authors should precisely define the subject of research - if it is the relationship between the digital economy and productivity in the "Belt and Road" countries, then they should write it clearly: at the moment, environmental issues are included in the article in an unjustified way. Green economy is a fashionable topic, but if the article only touches on these issues, it is better to focus on what the authors actually researched.

 

The presented doubts are all the more justified as the conclusions (point 5) are modest and general. They could have been formulated without such extensive research and statistical tools. What scientific and practical conclusions do the authors formulate for the countries of the Belt and Road?

In my opinion, the authors should organize, shorten and clearly present the results of their research - in accordance with their subject, without trying to place the product in the fashionable trend of green economy publications.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Dear Editors and reviewers,

 

Thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions made on our manuscript sustainability-2456424

We have studied your comments carefully and tried our best to improve the manuscript for further consideration.

Thank you for your arduous work and instructive advice.

Sincerely yours,

Lin Zhu

 

We provided a summary of itemized responses to each individual reviewers’ comments:

 

Responses to comments by Reviewer 3:

Point 1: The subject of the research was presented imprecisely: The authors use the term GTFP, which they call green total factor productivity (20), and then gross total factor productivity (102), green or gross?

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We apologize for any confusion caused by the imprecise use of terminology in our research. To clarify, we should have consistently used the term "green total factor productivity" throughout the paper instead of "gross total factor productivity" towards the end. We have make sure to correct this oversight in the revised version of our manuscript.

 

Point 2: Variables of the GTFP model combine general variables related to productivity (capital, labour, energy) with environmental factors (table 1,2). In my opinion, the authors should precisely define the subject of research - if it is the relationship between the digital economy and productivity in the "Belt and Road" countries, then they should write it clearly: at the moment, environmental issues are included in the article in an unjustified way. Green economy is a fashionable topic, but if the article only touches on these issues, it is better to focus on what the authors actually researched.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our article. According to your suggestion, we have included research on environmental issues in Belt and Road countries in the paper: “As evident from the environmental assessment of nations situated along the Belt and Road, the economic progress of a substantial number of countries has a negative impact on the surrounding environment. This is manifested in environmental degradation (Khan, A., Chenggang, Y., Bano, S. et al., 2020), a rise in carbon emissions (Lu et al., 2020), inequitable energy consumption (Hafeez M et al. 2019) and related issues. Moreover, the global remote sensing of ecological environment conducted by China's Ministry of Science and Technology, and National Remote Sensing Center, indicates that some countries within the "Belt and Road" exhibit low forest coverages and fragile ecological environments, juxtaposed with an elevated degree of human-linked activities.” Additionally, The empirical study conducted in this research zeroes in on a plethora of issues faced by the countries associated with the Belt and Road initiative that serve as hindrances to achieving long-term and superior-quality green development. Besides, the policy siection 5.2 of this study presents valuable recommendations that can help ensure sustainable development of the Belt and Road countres. Once again, thank you for your insightful comments and for helping us improve our work.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

all comment has been revised, well done

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript and for providing critical and constructive comments. Your input greatly improved the quality of our work, and we have taken your suggestions into consideration for the revision process.

 

We are delighted to hear that our revisions have satisfactorily addressed all your concerns. Without your valuable feedback, we would not have been able to improve our manuscript significantly. We are deeply grateful for your support and guidance throughout the review process.

 

The revision process was both challenging and rewarding, and we have gained many new insights that will help us in our future research endeavors. Your comments have helped us to strengthen our work, and we are confident that the revised manuscript is significantly improved.

 

Once again, thank you for your contribution to our manuscript. We wish you the best in all of your endeavors.

 

Best regards,

 

Lin Zhu

Reviewer 3 Report

Since in the first review I drew attention to the ambiguous development of the GTFP abbreviation, please do so (as I understand, GTFP means "Green Total Factor Productivity"?). So green, not global? In the current version, the authors use only the abbreviation.

In addition, in many places spaces are missing - already in the introduction there is "usinga" instead of "using a".

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions made on our manuscript sustainability-2456424

We have studied your comments carefully and tried our best to improve the manuscript for further consideration.

Thank you for your arduous work and instructive advice.

 

Sincerely yours,

Lin Zhu

 

Responses to comments by Reviewer 3:

Point 1: Since in the first review I drew attention to the ambiguous development of the GTFP abbreviation, please do so (as I understand, GTFP means "Green Total Factor Productivity"?). So green, not global? In the current version, the authors use only the abbreviation.

Response: Thank you for your comment and for raising the issue with the GTFP abbreviation. We apologize for any confusion that may have arisen and would like to clarify that our focus in this paper is to explore green topics related to the digital economy. Therefore, GTFP stands for Green Total Factor Productivity. We have addressed this concern throughout the manuscript by labeling the first reference to GTFP and declaring in the introductory section 2.2 on GTFP that all references to GTFP in our article refer to Green Total Factor Productivity (225). We hope that these changes have addressed your concerns and improved the clarity of our research.

 

Point 2: In addition, in many places spaces are missing - already in the introduction there is "usinga" instead of "using a".

Response: Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your feedback and suggestions for improvement. Regarding the issue of missing spaces, we apologize for any typographical errors that may have occurred. We have carefully revised the text and made sure that all necessary spaces are added. We also appreciate your attention to the detail. we hope that our revised manuscript will meet your expectations.