Executive’s Environmental Protection Background and Corporate Green Innovation: Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The content of the article is decent, the empirical research is used in a standardized manner, and the research content is innovative. However, the following problems still exist.

1.The Introduction section is well written, but the primary motivation of the paper regarding the current issue needs more clarification.

2.It is suggested that the definition of green innovation should be firstly explained in the introduction (the authors put this part in the review).

3.In the introduction, you should normally briefly touch on final conclusions in the view of highlighting your contribution.=In addition, the theoretical contribution and relevance of the study should be clearly and distinctly stated.

4.The authors chose media attention and board independence as proxy variables for external environmental and internal organizational factors, but did not provide sufficient explanation on the reasons and logic of why these two variables were chosen, and suggested that this section be improved.

5.The authors use the number of green innovation patent applications to characterize green innovation, why do they do so?It would be proper to explain why you chose this methodology rather than another to answer your research questions.

6.The authors report the Industry FE separately in the regression, but do not analyze this part.

7.It is suggested to add the limitations of the study and the future research directions.

8.A substantial part where you discuss results is missing. Here you are supposed to comment results obtained and mainly check whether those are different from what you expected and from what someone else reported.

9. The manuscript needs a proofreading check.The writing could be more coherent. My suggestion would be to have a native speaker proofread the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1- Abstract Highlighted only the findings. Abstract, represent summary of entire research that should include brief on 

- Aim of the study 

-Research methodology 

- number of cases were collected 

- what tool or software was used to analyze collected data 

all above are missing in the current abstract 

2- Second line in the introduction : "committed to achieving peak carbon by 2030"  this is confusing statement, is it peak or lower ? please reintroduce this statement,  do you mean low-carbon energy/emission 

3- Please add relevant support references that can enhance or support the first 15 lines in section:  2.2.2 Moderation Effect of Media Attention (a)- Define Media attention  (b) -was there any previous study that considered media attention as moderator variable ? )

4- where did you bring this definition for "media reputation mechanism refers"  ? is there any support reference ?  or it was developed by your own? 

Second, the media reputation mechanism refers to media attention to change corporate strategic behavior by influencing executives' reputations. 

5- Relevant to hypothesis developments 

Authors are advised to visualized their research model/framework in one simple figure to add more value and attraction to your research. some readers they only can understand the concept fast if it is visualized.  

6- 3.1 Data and Samples 

lack of data samples calculation, how data samples was calculated ?

flow and procedures of data collection, method used for analysis and tools or software used are not stated clearly 

7- Relevant to 3.2. Variables Definition 

Authors have suggested 4 constructs with 3 hypothesis. However, there was no clear referenced operational definition for each construct except. it is advised to add one more column in Table 1 to support each definition with relevant reference 

8- 3.3. Models : Authors did not mentioned any tool/software used for analysis 

9-  Discussion section MISSING : 

I can see clear and rigor analysis, but  absence of clear discussion for each proposed hypothesis! 

Every study that has findings should followed with discussion part(separate section)  for results and findings. That part was missing in this research. Authors should ad discussion section to debate or explain their results  

10- The Conclusions part was mixed up with commendation. I can see the 1st two paragraphs concluding part but the other two paragraphs are recommendations

It is better to breakdown this part to three sections 

5.conclusion 

6. Implication 

7. recommendation  

or make them sub-sections of  Section 5 

11- Research references are insufficient, that is because this research still lack of discussion section and some other relevant ref to support other concepts inside the research. 

Author Response

Thanks for your review, please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Most of the comments are successfully addressed. Authors covered and improved many points. However, there were 27% rate of similarity when the paper gone through Turnitin similarity check. (Not stored in repository). I wish they can manage to reduce that similarity wherever it is applicable. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf