Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer comments on Manuscript ID sustainability-2321286

The manuscript entitled “Research on Digital Transformation and Green Technology Innovation - Evidence from China’s Listed Manufacturing Enterprises”, which you submitted to Sustainability, has been reviewed. The paper needs to improve elements as pointed out below.

1.      In the line 61, ‘However’ is normally used when the following content is contrast to the previous one. Since the elements listed from the line 53 to 60 are still applicable even in the digital era, please consider connecting these two paragraphs with such as ‘Moreover’, ‘Additionally’ so forth.

2.      At the end of the introduction, please provide the overall structure of the paper including brief introduction for each section, a major procedure of the research.

3.      In section 2.3, the term ‘green dynamic capability’ itself must be defined by more concrete literature or theories. Focus more on green dynamic capability than dynamic capability.  

4.      It will be helpful the research model is presented by graphical image especially since the paper contains multiple variables in different levels. Please add research model figure containing variables and hypotheses probably in the hypothesis development part.

5.      Regarding operationalizing the core explanatory variables: digital transformation, several text mining techniques were used. Is the process proven method in measuring variables? Please provide generally accepted methodology from the reliable literature.

6.      How the reliability and validity of the variables ensured? Isn’t the factor analysis required for the adequacy of the research model? Please explain how the analysis factors are reliable and valid.

7.      In the empirical model construction section, how the econometric model generally accepted in the academic research? Explain why the authors chose to adopt this model rather than proven statistical analysis programs such as SPSS, AMOS, SmartPLS.

8.      Consider reconstruct 7. Conclusions and 8. Limitation and Future Direction. Emphasize values and insights gained by the analysis results from this study in addition to the results of the analysis. The conclusions must provide a brief description of critical tasks performed, outcomes and contributions of the research thoroughly. The Content in limitation part seems making this research unreliable (imperfect and incomplete as described). The future research avenue should contain the reason and expected contribution from the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract is very heavy in information. I suggest to diet it down. One way this can (and should) be done is by removing any repeating information (e.g., sample description). Nice to see very specific results listed and described in an approachable manner. 

Introduction nicely leads the reader into the topic. I suggest that the aim of the study be more exposed. As is, it is hidden in lines 79-81.

Literature review is extensive and sources are used in a proper way (i.e., a reader can understand what each source brings to the discussion). I would suggest that the literature review section (number 2) have its own short (one, two sentences) introduction that would link its three subsections into one flow for the reader to understand it (the flow behind it). 

Hypothesis derivation is ok, but it needs solid work when it comes to clarity. For example, in H1 do the authors mean "... enhances ..."? Also, why is there "are", when there is only one hypothesis? Between H3 and H4 authors mention assumptions that they will follow, take under consideration, but instead of those assumption we get H4. Why is that? Given the importance of this part of the study it needs to be fixed, so that the reader has no doubt about any of its elements.

I am not sure about the digital transformation variable. It is based on the number of words related to the topic. What it does not do is take into account the context that these words were written. I understand that for this size of a sample some liberties had to be taken, but this should be listed as a limitation of the study. Author should also explain (using theory or literature) why they selected these and not other control variables. Without this, the study suffers from a selection (subjectivism) bias. 

It is not explained by authors use FE and not RE (e.g., with the Hausman test). It is strange that the baseline regression model (with controls) has such a low R-sq. Authors go into robustness checks, but they have not established  proposed instruments to be good instruments. Have the authors check for correlation between instruments and explanatory variables, and the error term. What about such tests as the Sargan-Hansent test? Authors provide some statistics, but how do they compare to critical values? Some of these issues are correct for later on in the discussion part, but same level of clarity should be seen with every model. Event if it is just a stepping stone to the final model. Also, next to control variables all the reader gest is "YES" without results showing if and which of these were statistically significant. It is strange that with such controls R-sq. is still so low.  

Overall, this is a good study with some ares that need improvement. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript of the authors from China is concerned with "Research on Digital Transformation and Green Technology Innovation - Evidence from China’s Listed Manufacturing Enterprises”.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this useful and actual research study.

The manuscript presents collected data at the enterprise level and constructs an econometric model for empirical testing. The study concludes that digital transformation can promote enterprise green technological innovation by positively influencing green dynamic capabilities, with the discovery of the impact mechanism of digital transformation affecting green technological innovation in manufacturing industries and practical insights for manufacturing enterprises to achieve sustainable development.

This submitted article could be with the aim and scope of the MDPI journal Sustainability; Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability

• Abstract & introduction: These two parts are focused on the paper's main aim and the new contributions of authors to the state of the art. The abstract with keywords very effectively summarizes the manuscript. The authors' key objective is to present a link between green development and the digital economy and provide clarity by analyzing examples of business practices in developing countries.

• Materials & methods: The authors used a total of 20,283 data sets from 2049 listed manufacturing firms from China from 2007 to 2020 as the study sample. The mechanism of digital transformation's impact on firms' green technological innovation capability was empirically examined and the mediating role of firms' dynamic capabilities is verified. It is clear how the data were obtained. This section gives readers enough information so that they can use the study for other areas. 

• Results & discussion: The data are well-controlled and robust and results are well-presented with relevant and current tables and references. The authors used of totally 94 sources. 

Results section were obtained and the methods used to analyze the data are progressive and scientific sound. The paper adopts the instrumental variables approach and conducts a series of robustness tests with four interesting findings. With some adaptation, this described methodology could be used more generally.

The authors are familiar with their research limitations and have the right future direction for their studies.

 

I have only formal comments for improving the manuscript before publishing:

- insert a space before the reference number in the text

- in tables and equations, align numbers, not the center

- use the same font (table 1)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your effort to improve the quality of the paper. I am glad to see the paper now is far better than before.

One last thing to improve. Regarding Point 4, the authors have added research model figure. A research model must contain all hypotheses for the study probably something look like this. 

Please redraw the model and place it at the end of the hypothesis development section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf