Environmental Regulation and Green Technology Innovation under the Carbon Neutrality Goal: Dual Regulation of Human Capital and Industrial Structure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have major and minor comments on the following comments: several items that should be cleared up for publication. 

1. Abstract 

   • Please be more specific about your research purpose and justify the theoretical gap. The authors are only presenting the concept. It needs to raise the theoretical trigger for a background explanation of why your findings came out. 

2. Introduction  

   • Please write your academic/practical/political motivation in the introduction. In your manuscript now, you should incorporate your policy background in section 2 as an introduction. 

   • It seems that there is a lack of theoretical explanation. It is because the gap identification is not explained clearly and is limited in the current form. Also, there is very little evidence to support the authors' arguments on the gap justification. Could you please clarify the theoretical gaps that have not been discovered in the existing theories? Authors are encouraged to rewrite the introduction in the following order.  

   • For example, what theoretical background do IPRD and LCPE come from, what aspects of recent studies have mainly verified this relationship, and why the theoretical gap claimed by the authors is essential seems to be in order. 

     • Briefly describe and illustrate the current issue., 

     • Why is such a study with proposed research gaps critical?  

     • How this research gap relates to the current issue?  

     • Why is such an underexplored piece of work important to be tested in your study?  

     • Were any similar studies conducted in the past?  

     • What is the study's uniqueness compared with past empirical studies?  

     • What are your research objectives?  

     • What are the contributions of the studies?  

     • There is a lack of theoretical explanation of the psychological background. It is because the gap identification is not explained clearly and is limited in the current form. Also, there is very little evidence to support the authors' arguments on the gap justification. Could you please clarify the theoretical gaps that have not been discovered in the existing theories of psychology?  

   • Please review the following papers and provide updates for contributions on sustainability. 

     • Environmental regulation, green technology innovation, and industrial structure upgrading: The road to the green transformation of Chinese cities. Energy Economics, 98, 105247. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988321001523?casa_token=QYQULfEBMTAAAAAA:9ROdgz-syi0EuO9PMg2PIvuajuMBbf1NKREcNDhR6IWgrekupvlxThaF2RHo8eb88VYtIJJEJrg;

     • How do intellectual property rights and government support drive a firm's green innovation? The mediating role of open innovation, Journal of Cleaner Production, 317, 128422. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652621026342;

     • Structural relationships a firm's green strategies for environmental performance: The roles of green supply chain management and green marketing innovation, Journal of Cleaner Production, 356, 131877. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652622014871?via%3Dihub 

3. Literature review and hypothesis development 

   • Similar to the comments on the introduction, I recommend adding a section on the theoretical lens. 

     • It is recognized that the current manuscript focuses only on the relationship between variables within the research framework proposed by the authors to present a hypothesis. 

   • It is recommended that the marginal contribution located at the end of the literature review be moved to the end of the introduction. 

   • There is a lack of references to hypotheses, and I can't find the meaning of "to a certain extent" in Hypothesis 1. Is it about an inverted U or S model, or a threshold? 

   • What does 'ameliorate' mean in Hypothesis 2? Does it mean the moderating effect we commonly know? If this is correct, Hypothesis 2 requires separate logic for cases higher and lower than the threshold. 

   •  Hypothesis 3 also faces this problem inherent in Hypothesis 2. 

   • Please present the model of this study as a figure to make it easier to understand. 

4. Methodology 

   • Please document an appropriate extraction method for sample justification, generalization, and analytical technique. 

     • For example, creating a research context section in the method might explain the importance of research in more detail. 

   • Mediating effect is used? Not modering? 

     • I still think that it is necessary to suggest accurate usage for the mediating effect used in this study. 

   • Visibility drops due to low DPI of tables. 

   • Is it desirable to put the thresholds simultaneously in Tanle 6? 

   • Section 5.4 doesn't make sense at all. Other than adding a new ih variable, I don't know why this is a mediating effect. 

   • Table 8 is the same table as Table 7. Please write in the Notes or model description so that we can see what has changed in the table. 

   • Please consider System GMM as a robustness test because local variables have to accept the effect of the previous year as it is. 

5. Conclusion 

   • This is difficult to represent as a theoretical contribution, sentences from various literature without a theoretical lens.  

     • The theoretical contribution should be made clear of what has been extended in the existing literature. It is considered that the current theoretical implications are sufficient to make meaningful linkages of existing studies. It would be better if authors could fine-tune each implication more with articles in qualified journals.  

6. Minors 

   • Overall, the style does not match the format required by this journal. 

   • The paper needs proofreading. I had no problem at all in reading this manuscript. However, I hope the authors will increase their appeal with native expressions that can improve readability according to the quality of our journal. 

   • Overall, the innovativeness of the theoretical challenge and filling of this study was insufficient, and a number of methodological omissions were found. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has a compelling topic and presents an interesting overview of the impact of environmental regulation on green technological innovation and the role of human capital and industrial structure in this process for China. The study was conducted with attention and care building around 3 hypotheses which are analysed in the findings part through a series of solid statistical methods. However, some improvements are necessary: more literature should be added when building each hypothesis. The number of total sources should be more than 50. Also, the tables within section 5 deserve a more thorough explanation from an economical point of view. Also, in the conclusions' section, a statement about the limitations of the study should be made.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the present study that deals with an interesting and relevant topic. However, despite the potential relevance of its contributions, I believe that it presents some issues that need to be tackled. In the following, you can find some suggestions and comments that could be useful in improving the contributions of the study.

In the abstract, this sentence is not complete: “Then, analyzing the impact of environmental regulation on green technological innovation and the role of human capital and industrial structure in this process through theoretical mechanisms.”

In the introduction, the contributions of the study should be identified and elaborated.

 On page 3, it is stated: “and environmental regulation and corporate green technology innovation show a "U" or inverted "U" shaped trajectory in the time and intensity dimensions.” Is it U shaped or inverted U-shaped relationship? Why is there a non-linear effect of environmental regulation on green innovation (either U shaped or inverted U-shaped relationship)?

On page 4, it is stated: “Xin Jin et al. (2022) believed that Corporate R&D investment partially mediates the relationship between the current year's environmental legislation and corporate green technology innovation, and government R&D subsidies positively moderate the relationship between the current year's investment amount and corporate green technology innovation.” What are theoretical reasons that suggest that  R&D investment would partially mediate the relationship between the current year's environmental legislation and corporate green technology innovation? What are theoretical reasons that suggest that government R&D subsidies would positively moderate the relationship between the current year's investment amount and corporate green technology innovation?

If the contributions of the study are marginal (as noted on page 4), then the study should not be published in a good journal. The contributions should be more significant, so I suggest that you delete the word “marginal”.

The way Hypothesis 1 is formulated, it suggests that environmental regulation has a non-linear effect on  green innovation. Is this correct? What does it mean “to a certain extent”? Does it have a non-linear or a linear effect?

On page 7, variable green is the explained variable and variable em is the explanatory variable, please correct this is the text below Equation 1.

What are the three industries in Equation 12?

On page 10, variable gdp is defined as GDP per capita of each city. However, in Table 1, this variable has values between 0 and 1. How can GDP per capita be between 0 and 1?

Similarly, on page 10, variable tec is defined as the amount of science and technology expenditure. However, in Table 1, this variable has values between 0 and 1. How can the amount of science and technology expenditure be between 0 and 1?

Similarly, on page 10, variable inv is defined as the amount of actual foreign direct investment. However, in Table 1, this variable has values between 0 and 1. How can the amount of actual foreign direct investment be between 0 and 1?

Which estimator is used to estimate the results in Table 4? Is it a panel Fixed Effects, or a panel Random Effects estimator, or some other estimator?

Which estimator is used to estimate the results in Table 6? Is it a panel Fixed Effects, or a panel Random Effects estimator, or some other estimator?

Which estimator is used to estimate the results in Table 7? Is it a panel Fixed Effects, or a panel Random Effects estimator, or some other estimator?

Are standard errors in Tables 4 and 6 robust to heteroskedasticity?

The statistical condition for a mediating effect is that when the mediating variable is included in a model, the statistical correlation between the independent and dependent variables is higher than when the mediating variable is not included in the model (Aguinis et al., 2017; Hayes, 2013). This condition is not met in Table 7.

 

Aguinis, H., J. R. Edwards, and K.J. Bradley (2017). Improving Our Understanding of Moderation and Mediation in Strategic Management Research. Organizational Research Methods 20(4), 665-685.

 

Hayes A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am glad that many corrections have been made.

Did you consider the papers I recommended?

The concept of mediation is explained in figures, so it is easier to understand the model.

Too large a difference in R2 in Table 4 is a concern.

Consider the Sobel test in mediation validation. BK only serves to aid sequential understanding.

I recommended you to communicate with the existing literature about your theoretical contributions. Did you? I haven't found any evidence.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

On page 7, variable green is the explained variable and variable em is the explanatory variable, please correct this is the text below Equation 1.

Hypothesis 3 states that there is both “a positive moderating role” and “there is a mediating effect”. Mediation and moderation are two different effects. Empirical results in the study try to show a mediating effect, not a moderation effect. A moderation effect is tested by including an interaction term.

My previous comment was: “The statistical condition for a mediating effect is that when the mediating variable is included in a model, the statistical correlation between the independent and dependent variables is higher than when the mediating variable is not included in the model (Aguinis et al., 2017; Hayes, 2013). This condition is not met in Table 7.” The author responded: “According to the relevant literature, existing studies on mediating effect models are often divided into three regressions, and our empirical results show that the coefficients are all significant. Therefore, in line with expectations, there is a mediating effect.” Please provide reference for the “relevant literature” and how a mediating effect is confirmed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised manuscript of this study is considered to have met the following criteria for review: novelty, relevance to existing literature, English proficiency, contribution to sustainability, and methodological adequacy. Finally, I hope the authors will make an effort to refine the sentences to make the meaning clearer. Good luck!

Author Response

Dear reviewer：

Thank you for your guidance and suggestions on our article entitled "Environmental regulation and green technology innovation under carbon neutrality goal: Dual regulation of human capital and industrial structure" (Manuscript-ID: sustainability-2124282). Your comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising, improving the quality of our manuscript. According to your nice suggestions, we have made corrections to our previous draft, the comments raised by the reviewers are responded as follows:

Point : The revised manuscript of this study is considered to have met the following criteria for review: novelty, relevance to existing literature, English proficiency, contribution to sustainability, and methodological adequacy. Finally, I hope the authors will make an effort to refine the sentences to make the meaning clearer. Good luck!

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. In this manuscript, we touched up the language throughout the article based on your suggestions, to make the sentences much clearer and easier to understand.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have taken my comments into account and provided a satisfactory response to my concerns.

Author Response

Dear reviewer：

Thank you for your guidance and suggestions on our article entitled "Environmental regulation and green technology innovation under carbon neutrality goal: Dual regulation of human capital and industrial structure" (Manuscript-ID: sustainability-2124282). Your comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising, improving the quality of our manuscript.

Point: The authors have taken my comments into account and provided a satisfactory response to my concerns.

Response: Thanks again for your reply. In this manuscript, we embellished the language throughout the article to make the sentences clearer and easier to understand.