The Impact of Population Aging on Green Innovation: An Empirical Analysis Based on Inter-Provincial Data in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The choice of topics is timely, relevant and important. The issue of green innovation, even indirectly promoting it, is useful for the global sustainability.

Regarding the methodology of the study, it can be said that it was chosen with scientific thoroughness. Both the model and the source of the data meet expectations. Your choice was thoroughly supported by literature references, which is commendable.

The presentation of results are adequate and clear. The paper meets the expected formal and content requirements. The conclusions and findings are based on the results of the research.  

The reviewer's only sense of lack is in the area of international examples. The authors do not present other countries from a similar perspective. It would be interesting from the entirety of the study if the Chinese results could be placed in the context of other countries.

Author Response

Reviewer #1: 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The choice of topics is timely, relevant and important. The issue of green innovation, even indirectly promoting it, is useful for the global sustainability.

Regarding the methodology of the study, it can be said that it was chosen with scientific thoroughness. Both the model and the source of the data meet expectations. Your choice was thoroughly supported by literature references, which is commendable.

The presentation of results are adequate and clear. The paper meets the expected formal and content requirements. The conclusions and findings are based on the results of the research.  

Reply: Thank you very much for your outstanding comments. Your comments have given us the impetus to carry out further follow-up research.

The reviewer's only sense of lack is in the area of international examples. The authors do not present other countries from a similar perspective. It would be interesting from the entirety of the study if the Chinese results could be placed in the context of other countries.

Reply: Thank you very much for your outstanding comments. Since our main focus is on China, we have not studied other countries very deeply. Although we do not delve into examples from other countries in this paper, your valuable suggestions are important to further expand our research area. Thank you again for your comments and suggestions.

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your attention to our manuscript. We look forward to your positive response.

 

Kind regards

Authors of sustainability-2186849

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well written paper, with some robust argumentation and interesting findings.

Nevertheless, I have two major concerns:

1.       Given the journal’s scope, the authors should place the whole discussion under the notion of sustainable development. Thus, a short discussion of the term should be provided in the introduction. In this vein, the following two papers should be included. (a) Manolis Manioudis & Giorgos Meramveliotakis (2022) “Broad strokes towards a grand theory in the analysis of sustainable development: a return to the classical political economy”, New Political Economy, 27(5), pp. 866-878, and (b) Tomislav, K. (2018) “The concept of sustainable development: From its beginning to the contemporary issues”, Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business, 21(1), 67-94.

2.       Authors present their findings, however with no systematic endeavor to offer a sufficient interpretation. In other words, authors should provide some robust interpretations for their findings accompanying with the existed relevant bibliography.

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

This is a well written paper, with some robust argumentation and interesting findings.

Nevertheless, I have two major concerns:

1. Given the journal’s scope, the authors should place the whole discussion under the notion of sustainable development. Thus, a short discussion of the term should be provided in the introduction. In this vein, the following two papers should be included. (a) Manolis Manioudis & Giorgos Meramveliotakis (2022) “Broad strokes towards a grand theory in the analysis of sustainable development: a return to the classical political economy”, New Political Economy, 27(5), pp. 866-878, and (b) Tomislav, K. (2018) “The concept of sustainable development: From its beginning to the contemporary issues”, Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business, 21(1), 67-94.
2. Authors present their findings, however with no systematic endeavor to offer a sufficient interpretation. In other words, authors should provide some robust interpretations for their findings accompanying with the existed relevant bibliography.

Reply: Thank you very much for your outstanding comments. Your suggestions are important for improving the rigor and depth of our paper. In accordance with your comments, we have made the corresponding changes in the revised version, the details of which are as follows:

1. Given the journal’s scope, the authors should place the whole discussion under the notion of sustainable development. Thus, a short discussion of the term should be provided in the introduction. In this vein, the following two papers should be included. (a) Manolis Manioudis & Giorgos Meramveliotakis (2022) “Broad strokes towards a grand theory in the analysis of sustainable development: a return to the classical political economy”, New Political Economy, 27(5), pp. 866-878, and (b) Tomislav, K. (2018) “The concept of sustainable development: From its beginning to the contemporary issues”, Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business, 21(1), 67-94.

Answer to the reviewer: Thank you very much for your constructive suggestions to improve our research. Following your valuable comments, we have carefully read and reflected on the two papers you provided. Your suggestions are very important for us to deepen the role of green innovation in sustainable development. Therefore, we have included a discussion paragraph in the "Introduction". The details are as follows:

In the last decades, human development has led to increasingly serious environmental problems and instability in political, economic and social development. These problems continue despite the fact that the concept of sustainable development has been proposed for 30 years (Klarin, 2018). Scholars such as Sachs (2015) realized that the right combination of economy and technology allows humanity to envision a world with sustainable economic growth (Manioudis and Meramveliotakis, 2022). Classical economic growth theories do not include the role of technology and innovation in development in their model analysis, and endogenous growth theories treat R&D investment and human capital as key to economic development (Romer, 1986; Todaro and Smith, 2003). However, a limitation of economic theory's understanding of innovation is that it does not take into account the ecological aspects of innovation, without which it is difficult to consider sustainability (Shiva, 2010; Sachs, 2010). Thus, the concept of green innovation, which combines "innovation" and "green", has become the focus of scholarly attention.

Added references:

Tomislav, K. (2018).The concept of sustainable development: From its beginning to the contemporary issues. Zagreb. Int. Rev. Econ. 21(1), 67-94.

Sachs, J. (2015). The AGE of sustainable development. New York: Columbia University Press.

Manioudis, M., Meramveliotakis, G. (2022) . Broad strokes towards a grand theory in the analysis of sustainable development: a return to the classical political economy. New. Polit. Econ. 27(5), 866-878

Romer, P. (1986). Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth. J. Polit. Econ. 94(5), 1002-1037.

Todaro, M.P., Smith, S.C. (2003). Economic Development (8th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education limited.

Shiva, V. (2010). Resources. In W. Sachs (Ed.), The Development Dictionary: A guide to knowledge as power (2nd ed.) (pp. 228-242). London, New York: Zed Books.

Sachs, W. (2010). Environment. In W. Sachs (Ed.), The Development Dictionary: A guide to knowledge as power (2nd ed.) (pp. 24-37). London, New York: Zed Books.

2. Authors present their findings, however with no systematic endeavor to offer a sufficient interpretation. In other words, authors should provide some robust interpretations for their findings accompanying with the existed relevant bibliography.

Answer to the reviewer: Thank you very much for your constructive suggestions to improve our research. Your advice is important for the promotion of our paper. Inspired by your valuable comments, Inspired by your valuable comments, we have further explored the important findings in the context of the literature. Specific details are as follows.

• On page 10, lines 425 to 433 of the revised version, the following explanation has been added:

The empirical finding also indicates that this negative effect of population aging decreases with the increase of the threshold, suggesting that as the population aging deepens, the more it will motivate the country to pay attention to adopt green innovation thus continuously weakening the negative effects of population aging, thus continuously weakening the negative effects of population aging. Thus, the finding supports the view of Xie et al. (2020) that the effect of population aging on green innovation is the result of two opposing forces acting together, and that China is currently in the late stage of population aging, where the technological innovation effect of population aging highlights the negative characteristics. 

• On page 12, lines 519to 530 of the revised version, the following arguments are provided for the relevant findings:

This finding supports the view that population aging is detrimental to human capital formation and innovation ( Ashworth, 2006; Behaghel And Greenan, 2010). 

Because, green finance can help solve problems such as inadequate financing in the green innovation process (Pan et al., 2018).

Fifth, ......, which may be mainly due to the insufficient development of green innovation market in China at present (Song and Han, 2022).

The market for green innovation in China faces problems such as low returns to innovation in the private sector (Stucki et al., 2018).

New references:

Pan XF, Zhang J, Li CY, Quan R, Li B. (2018). Exploring dynamic impact of foreign direct investment on China’s CO2 emissions using Markov-switching vector error correction model. Comput Econ. 52(4), 1139–51.

Song, W., Han, X. (2022). The bilateral effects of foreign direct investment on green innovation efficiency: Evidence from 30 Chinese provinces. Energy. 261, 125332.

Stucki T, Woerter M, Arvanitis S, Peneder M, Rammer C. How different policy instruments affect green product innovation: a differentiated perspective.(2018). Energy. Pol.114, 245–61.

It is important to further explain to you that some of the findings are not directly based on the literature or theory due to the paucity of literature on the direct correlation between population aging and green innovation. However, we did our best to make the study findings more informed or persuasive. Thank you again for your valuable comments.

 

 

Thank you for your attention to our manuscript. We look forward to your positive response.

Kind regards

Authors of sustainability-2186849

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The problem investigated by the authors is understandable, its relevance for China is beyond doubt. The article contains an original statement of the scientific problem and good practical results. Before publishing the article, I would like to draw the attention of the authors to a number of aspects that need to be improved.

1. Authors lose out on style when they rely on incredibly long paragraphs of text. Such vast paragraphs prevent the reader from focusing on the theses and / or positions that the authors are trying to convey. For example, in a literature section, the paragraph in lines 115 - 192 can be divided into 4-5 fragments, each of which analyzes a separate group of scientific studies. Here it would be appropriate to apply schematization in order to show the analyzed literary background in a more systematic way.

The same continuous text makes sections 4.3 and 4.4 very difficult to read. Please work on your writing style within the manuscript.

2. Section 2 should preferably be renamed "Review of the Literature" or "Theoretical Background".

3. In section 3.2, the authors claim to have collected data from 30 provinces in China. Brief information on these regions should be given here. This is essential for readers in terms of understanding the objects they are dealing with. Please try to demonstrate at least the main indicators that are important for the subject of the article and characterize the state of these provinces (for example, population, gross regional product, main sectors of the economy).

4. In conclusion, in the part where the authors formulate recommendations and policy implications, it is important to emphasize the role of energy companies as integral participants in the creation and promotion of green innovations.

5. I have a feeling that the authors used a not entirely relevant template. I see 2021 in the footer of the page. Maybe the authors have already published articles in the Journal before and used the old template? Please check this point.

Author Response

Reviewer #3: 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The problem investigated by the authors is understandable, its relevance for China is beyond doubt. The article contains an original statement of the scientific problem and good practical results. Before publishing the article, I would like to draw the attention of the authors to a number of aspects that need to be improved.

1. Authors lose out on style when they rely on incredibly long paragraphs of text. Such vast paragraphs prevent the reader from focusing on the theses and / or positions that the authors are trying to convey. For example, in a literature section, the paragraph in lines 115 - 192 can be divided into 4-5 fragments, each of which analyzes a separate group of scientific studies. Here it would be appropriate to apply schematization in order to show the analyzed literary background in a more systematic way.

The same continuous text makes sections 4.3 and 4.4 very difficult to read. Please work on your writing style within the manuscript.

2. Section 2 should preferably be renamed "Review of the Literature" or "Theoretical Background".
3. In section 3.2, the authors claim to have collected data from 30 provinces in China. Brief information on these regions should be given here. This is essential for readers in terms of understanding the objects they are dealing with. Please try to demonstrate at least the main indicators that are important for the subject of the article and characterize the state of these provinces (for example, population, gross regional product, main sectors of the economy).
4. In conclusion, in the part where the authors formulate recommendations and policy implications, it is important to emphasize the role of energy companies as integral participants in the creation and promotion of green innovations.
5. I have a feeling that the authors used a not entirely relevant template. I see 2021 in the footer of the page. Maybe the authors have already published articles in the Journal before and used the old template? Please check this point.

Reply: Thank you very much for your outstanding comments. Your suggestions are important for improving the rigor and depth of our paper. We have done a lot of hard work to improve the rigor and depth of the paper and to do our best to refine the data. In accordance with your comments, we have made the corresponding changes in the revised version, the details of which are as follows:

1. Authors lose out on style when they rely on incredibly long paragraphs of text. Such vast paragraphs prevent the reader from focusing on the theses and / or positions that the authors are trying to convey. For example, in a literature section, the paragraph in lines 115 - 192 can be divided into 4-5 fragments, each of which analyzes a separate group of scientific studies. Here it would be appropriate to apply schematization in order to show the analyzed literary background in a more systematic way.

The same continuous text makes sections 4.3 and 4.4 very difficult to read. Please work on your writing style within the manuscript. 

Answer to the reviewer: Thank you very much for your constructive suggestions to improve our research. Based on your valuable comments, we have split the long paragraphs accordingly to make it easier to understand. Also, inspired by your valuable comments, we have taken a graphical approach to the presentation of the data by adding Figures 1 and 2. Thank you very much for your suggestions on the writing style of this paper, which will be very helpful for our subsequent research.

2. Section 2 should preferably be renamed "Review of the Literature" or "Theoretical Background".

Answer to the reviewer: Thank you very much for your constructive suggestions to improve our research. We agree with you and have changed the title from "Literature" to "Review of the Literature" .

3. In section 3.2, the authors claim to have collected data from 30 provinces in China. Brief information on these regions should be given here. This is essential for readers in terms of understanding the objects they are dealing with. Please try to demonstrate at least the main indicators that are important for the subject of the article and characterize the state of these provinces (for example, population, gross regional product, main sectors of the economy).

Answer to the reviewer: Thank you very much for your constructive suggestions to improve our research. Your advice is important for the promotion of our paper. Inspired by your valuable comments, we have added Figures 1 and 2 to more visually represent the provinces selected for this paper and the important indicator in this paper. The specific details are as follows:

• In order to more visually show the provinces and regions covered by the research sample in this paper, we added Figure 1.

2) We show the changes in the degree of population aging by province, as shown in Figure 2.       

Figure 2 reveals the degree of population aging in each province. There are significant differences in the degree of population aging among provinces, and most of the provinces have a tendency to deepen the degree of population aging.

It is important to explain to you that the indicators are described in Table 1 of this paper, and thus we have chosen to present the indicator of population aging that is most important to this paper. Thank you very much for your suggestion, which is very necessary for our future research.

4. In conclusion, in the part where the authors formulate recommendations and policy implications, it is important to emphasize the role of energy companies as integral participants in the creation and promotion of green innovations.

Answer to the reviewer: Thank you very much for your constructive suggestions to improve our research. Your advice is important for the promotion of our paper. Inspired by your valuable comments, we have further enriched the empirical findings, mainly on the further refinement of the empirical findings on the inadequacy of China's green innovation market (Specifically on page 12, lines 529 to 530 in the revised version), based on which the policy recommendations are refined to include the role of energy companies (Specifically on page 13, lines 576 to 578 in the revised version). 

5. I have a feeling that the authors used a not entirely relevant template. I see 2021 in the footer of the page. Maybe the authors have already published articles in the Journal before and used the old template? Please check this point.

Answer to the reviewer: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We will upload the paper according to the latest version.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your attention to our manuscript. We look forward to your positive response.

 

Kind regards

Authors of sustainability-2186849

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I accept the authors' reply and support the publication of the current version of the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Happy to see the authors accommodate all of my comments. I strongly propose publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks to the authors for the work done. All my recommendations are taken into account, in my opinion, the article now looks more confident. Good luck with your further research.