The Asymmetric Role of Financial Commitments to Renewable Energy Projects, Public R&D Expenditure, and Energy Patents in Sustainable Development Pathways

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript examines the asymmetric effects of financial commitments on renewable energy projects and public research and development expenditure. Detailed comments on the author's work are as follows:

1. The article employs a significant amount of "we," which lacks precision in expression.

2. The abstract section merely presents empirical analysis results, lacking a summary overview.

3. RQ4 in the introduction does not align with the main theme of the article.

4. The literature review does not closely relate to the main topic, lacking literature support on the relationship between financial commitments, renewable energy projects, public research and development expenditure, etc.

5. Section 2.1 of the literature review overly emphasizes green finance, whereas the main theme of the article is financial commitments.

6. Section 2.2 of the literature review briefly summarizes empirical studies of three indicators but fails to indicate their strengths and weaknesses or their relevance to this article.

7. The description of the 𝑅&𝐷 indicators in equations 2/3 is unclear, with two different interpretations present.

8. The indicators in equations 4, 5, 6, and 7 are not accompanied by explanations of measurement standards and their economic significance.

9. Equations 8 and 9 contain errors.

10. Regarding the selection of data from 34 countries, the rationale for choosing these specific countries and their representativeness is not explained.

11. The preliminary analysis in section 5.1 provides a one-sided explanation of the data results, lacking a comprehensive analysis of their real-world implications.

12. More recent relevant literatures are suggested to broaden the view of readers. Can environmental tax promote renewable energy consumption? — An empirical study from the typical countries along the Belt and Road; The construction of a comprehensive multidimensional energy index; Environmental protection tax superseded pollution fees, does China effectively abate ecological footprints?.

13. The conclusion in section 5.3.1 involves private and public sectors, yet the data and empirical analysis do not cover this aspect, resulting in insufficient argumentation.

14. The conclusion and policy implications mention that urban pollution growth supports economic growth, but lacks targeted empirical evidence to support this claim.

15. The first policy recommendation is overly verbose and uses inappropriate language; it can be succinctly expressed as "increase grid electricity prices."

16. The second and third policy recommendations are overly brief.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None.

Author Response

This manuscript examines the asymmetric effects of financial commitments on renewable energy projects and public research and development expenditure. Detailed comments on the author's work are as follows:

1. The article employs a significant amount of "we," which lacks precision in expression.

Response: Thank you so much. The revised manuscript has avoided the term “we”, instead the revised manuscript used “this research”, “this study”, etc.

2. The abstract section merely presents empirical analysis results, lacking a summary overview.

Response: Thank you so much. We have revised the whole abstract section based on your comments and present a summary of the findings in the abstract section.

3. RQ4 in the introduction does not align with the main theme of the article.

Response: Thank you so much. We have dropped it from the research questions.

4. The literature review does not closely relate to the main topic, lacking literature support on the relationship between financial commitments, renewable energy projects, public research and development expenditure, etc.

Response: Thank you so much. We have revised the literature review section based on your valuable feedback. There is a lack of available literature on the relationship between financial commitment and the environment. Hence, this study also encompasses closely related indicators of financial obligations towards renewable projects, such as investments in green initiatives like renewable energy and environmental conservation, as well as green finance.

5. Section 2.1 of the literature review overly emphasizes green finance, whereas the main theme of the article is financial commitments.

Response: Thanks a lot for your meticulous feedback. There is a lack of available literature on the relationship between financial commitment and the environment. Hence, this study also encompasses closely related indicators of financial obligations towards renewable projects, such as investments in green initiatives like renewable energy and environmental conservation, as well as green finance

6. Section 2.2 of the literature review briefly summarizes empirical studies of three indicators but fails to indicate their strengths and weaknesses or their relevance to this article.

Response: Thank you so much. We have revised this section based on your feedback. We have incorporated the relevance to this study.

7. The description of the ?&?indicators in equations 2/3 is unclear, with two different interpretations present.

Response: Thank you so much. We apologies for the inconvenience. We have corrected it.

8. The indicators in equations 4, 5, 6, and 7 are not accompanied by explanations of measurement standards and their economic significance.

Response: Thank you so much. We have revised those equation and their explanation has been added in the following text.

9. Equations 8 and 9 contain errors.

Response: Thank you so much. Sorry for the mistakes. We have revised those equations.

10. Regarding the selection of data from 34 countries, the rationale for choosing these specific countries and their representativeness is not explained.

Response: Thank you so much for your valuable feedback. We have inserted the reason for choosing the specific 34 countries. This country has been chosen due to the presence of comprehensive data on the financial obligations of renewable energy projects. The primary aim of this research is to investigate the asymmetric impact of financial commitment; however, due to limited data availability, we were constrained to restrict the selection of countries.

11. The preliminary analysis in section 5.1 provides a one-sided explanation of the data results, lacking a comprehensive analysis of their real-world implications.

Response: Thank you so much. We only represented the data summary in this section to overview the variables under consideration. Table 2 only shows the data pattern for the selected countries over the investigated period.

12. More recent relevant literatures are suggested to broaden the view of readers. Can environmental tax promote renewable energy consumption? — An empirical study from the typical countries along the Belt and Road; The construction of a comprehensive multidimensional energy index; Environmental protection tax superseded pollution fees, does China effectively abate ecological footprints?.

Response: Thank you so much for your highly useful suggested articles. We have incorporated all of them into the revised manuscript.

13. The conclusion in section 5.3.1 involves private and public sectors, yet the data and empirical analysis do not cover this aspect, resulting in insufficient argumentation.

Response: Thank you so much. We have revised this section following your valuable contribution.

14. The conclusion and policy implications mention that urban pollution growth supports economic growth, but lacks targeted empirical evidence to support this claim.

Response: Thanks. From the empirical analysis, we found that urbanization has a positive impact on economic growth (please see Table 7). In the economic growth model, we have considered urbanization as a control variable.

15. The first policy recommendation is overly verbose and uses inappropriate language; it can be succinctly expressed as "increase grid electricity prices."

Response: Thank you so much. We have revised the first policy based on your suggested feedback.

16. The second and third policy recommendations are overly brief.

Response: Thank you. We have revised the second and third policy and made them concise in terms of language.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Line 32, perhaps the2 in CO2 should be as a subscript. CO₂

_{2. Line 67, RD&D  ---> R&D or something new maybe?}

_3. 

If possible please elaborate in a line or two, the asymmetry.

4. Line 99, a line on two on why data stops at 1999; almost 5 years now.

5. Line 105, How does RQ4 fit with your core research narrative?

6. Line 154, GMM, MMQR should be elaborated - Gen. Method of Moments

7. Line 181, pls reconstruct for flow.

8. So your Cobb-Douglas function is in fact a modified CD function with E=Energy.  Are the sum of the 3 exponents alpha, beta , gamma =1? Just for your information set: Orea and Alvarez 2022, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366142665_Alternative_specifications_of_human_capital_in_production_functions/figures?lo=1

One can then rationally state that the proliferation of the Internet/Web and the embedded widespread deployment of automation algorithms (such as demonstrated in Agrrawal, 2009, Managerial Finance, https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03074350910949790/full/html) is also a discrete shift in the production output Y.

9. Line 274, Please capitalize 'preliminary', similar in line 288 'panel'

10. Table 4, line 303: Kindly elaborate on the large p-values for the ADF test.

11. Finally you mention the use of a ARDL lag model. I notice you have t-1 lag as your independent variables in lines 258, but only t from line 239. Your data may be amenable to the use of the Koyck lag and/or the Almon lag. Not sure if you looked into it. 

Heaton and Peng, 2012, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13253-012-0097-7

Overall a nice paper, and the validation of existence of co-integration based relationship between economic growth and green finance is to be acknowledged.

 

Author Response

1. Line 32, perhaps the2 in CO2 should be as a subscript. CO₂

Response: Thank you so much for your valuable feedback. We have corrected it.

2. Line 67, RD&D  ---> R&D or something new maybe?

Response: Thank you so much for your valuable feedback. We have corrected it. It is R&D. Sorry for the mistake.  

3.  

If possible please elaborate in a line or two, the asymmetry.

Response: Thank you so much. We have revised this whole section of the introduction section to comprehend the contribution of this study. Here, we have mentioned that asymmetry as a non-linearity feature of the data series.

4. Line 99, a line on two on why data stops at 1999; almost 5 years now.

Response: Thank you so much for your valuable feedback. We have inserted the reason for choosing the specific 34 countries for a specific time period. This country has been chosen due to the presence of comprehensive data on the financial obligations of renewable energy projects. The primary aim of this research is to investigate the asymmetric impact of financial commitment; however, due to limited data availability, we were constrained to restrict the selection of countries and time frame.

5. Line 105, How does RQ4 fit with your core research narrative?

Response: Thank you so much. We have dropped it since it is barely relevant to core research narrative.

6. Line 154, GMM, MMQR should be elaborated - Gen. Method of Moments

Response: Thank you so much. We have elaborated these terms based on your suggestion.

7. Line 181, pls reconstruct for flow.

Response: Thank you. We have revised this following your comments.

8. So your Cobb-Douglas function is in fact a modified CD function with E=Energy.  Are the sum of the 3 exponents alpha, beta , gamma =1? Just for your information set: Orea and Alvarez 2022, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366142665_Alternative_specifications_of_human_capital_in_production_functions/figures?lo=1

One can then rationally state that the proliferation of the Internet/Web and the embedded widespread deployment of automation algorithms (such as demonstrated in Agrrawal, 2009, Managerial Finance, https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03074350910949790/full/html) is also a discrete shift in the production output Y.

Response: Thank you so much for your helpful suggestion. We have  read it carefully. Yes, you are right and E is the control factor in this modified production function.

9. Line 274, Please capitalize 'preliminary', similar in line 288 'panel'

Response: Thank you so much. We have revised these.

10. Table 4, line 303: Kindly elaborate on the large p-values for the ADF test. 

Response: Thank you so much for your meticulous feedback. We apologize for the previous mistake. We rerun the cointegration test for both models separately and reported the new results in the revised manuscript. 

11. Finally you mention the use of a ARDL lag model. I notice you have t-1 lag as your independent variables in lines 258, but only t from line 239. Your data may be amenable to the use of the Koyck lag and/or the Almon lag. Not sure if you looked into it. 

Heaton and Peng, 2012, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13253-012-0097-7

Response: Thank you so much for your helpful suggestion. We have corrected the equations as the previous equations had some mistakes. However, the assymetric modelling framework used in this stuyd has been written based on the Shin et al. (2014).  

Overall a nice paper, and the validation of existence of co-integration based relationship between economic growth and green finance is to be acknowledged.

Response: Thank you so much for your valuable feedback. We have revised the whole manuscript based on your comments. We believe that our manuscript significantly improve incorporating your valuable feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study titled “The asymmetric role of financial commitments to renewable energy projects and public R&D expenditure in sustainable development pathway examines an endeavor to investigate the impact of financial commitments to renewable energy enterprises, public R&D expenditure, and energy technology innovation on sustainable development for 34 countries over the period 2010-2019. However, substantial revision is required to enhance its quality. My comprehensive remarks are as follows.

·       Manuscript format does not meet the journal's requirements. Revise it

·       The abstract should summarize the study's research aims, methodologies, and findings.  Please revise these concerns

·       Don’t use too many abbreviations in the abstract.

·       In the introduction, clearly mention the importance of the topic, problem statement, objectives, contributions, and innovations. Further, explain the importance and provide an in-depth explanation of public R&D expenditure in the sustainable development pathway.

·        Rewrite the following paragraph:” Despite its tremendous potential, the development of environmentally sound energy technologies via R&D encounters significant challenges primarily attributed to market failures and other factors, such as the predominant influence of the governmental sector and variations in the structure of industries and research capabilities across different countries (Altıntaş & Kassouri, 2020).

·       Add the study route at the end of the introduction section.

·       Follow the following articles to construct your introduction section. The role of governance quality on mobilizing environmental technology and environmental taxations for renewable energy and ecological sustainability in Belt and Road economies: A method of Moment's quantile regression

·       Literature review is comprehensive and relevant.  However, the latest energy literature review is missing. The following article will provide a way how to organize the literature review of your study. The impact of trade, financial development and government integrity on energy efficiency: An analysis from G7-Countries

·       Check the table numbers.

·       What does − +𝑎2𝐼𝑁𝑂𝑉𝑖𝑡show in equation 9 show?

·       Equations 5 and 6 are not in appropriate shape. Write in proper mathematical form

·       There are too many equations in the manuscript; see if you can concise it.

·       Add concise and comprehensive study results and more policy recommendations in the conclusion

·       Rewrite the following paragraph for clarity: “The exacerbation of global warming has been raising several questions about the effectiveness of current sustainability policies and whether there is a need to ponder upon other strategies beyond controlling the well-recognized conventional determinants of environmental pollution. This study has advanced a novel approach to assess the carbon emissions’ mitigating effect of financial commitments to renewable energy projects, public R&D expenditure, and energy technology innovation for 34 countries over the period spanning 2010-2019. The study employed the novel PNARDL approach to disentangle the effects of ascending and descending in the 373 variables above the following two models: environmental sustainability and economic growth using the EKC hypothesis and 374 Solow growth theory.”

·       Avoid grammatical errors throughout the manuscript.

remove plagiarism, its too much

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

The study titled “The asymmetric role of financial commitments to renewable energy projects and public R&D expenditure in sustainable development pathway examines an endeavor to investigate the impact of financial commitments to renewable energy enterprises, public R&D expenditure, and energy technology innovation on sustainable development for 34 countries over the period 2010-2019. However, substantial revision is required to enhance its quality. My comprehensive remarks are as follows.

Response: Thank you for reviewing our study, and thanks for the valuable comments. They greatly helped improve the final revised draft.

• Manuscript format does not meet the journal's requirements. Revise it

Response: Thank you so much for the reminder, the revised manuscript has prepared in the journal template.

• The abstract should summarize the study's research aims, methodologies, and findings.  Please revise these concerns

Response: Many thanks for your suggestion: in the revised manuscript, we have rewritten the abstract taking into consideration the above recommendation. Kindly check the revised version of a manuscript, abstract section

• Don’t use too many abbreviations in the abstract.

Response: again, many thanks for the advice, in the revised manuscript, we avoid using many abbreviations in the abstract. Kindly check the new version of manuscript  

• In the introduction, clearly mention the importance of the topic, problem statement, objectives, contributions, and innovations. Further, explain the importance and provide an in-depth explanation of public R&D expenditure in the sustainable development pathway.

Response: Thank you so much for the valuable advice, in the revised manuscript, we explain in detail importance of the topic, problem statement, objectives. We also outlined the role of R&D expenditure in achieving SDGs. Additionally, at the end of introduction section, we clearly highlighted the potential contributions of the study.

• clearly highlightede following paragraph:” Despite its tremendous potential, the development of environmentally sound energy technologies via R&D encounters significant challenges primarily attributed to market failures and other factors, such as the predominant influence of the governmental sector and variations in the structure of industries and research capabilities across different countries (Altıntaş & Kassouri, 2020).

Response: We thank you so much for your advice. In the revised manuscript, the above paragraph has been rewritten in more understandable manner.

• Add the study route at the end of the introduction section.

Response: we acknowledge your valuable suggestion, in the revised manuscript, we designed the study route highlighting in steps the procedures of the study conduct.

• Follow the following articles to construct your introduction section. The role of governance quality on mobilizing environmental technology and environmental taxations for renewable energy and ecological sustainability in Belt and Road economies: A method of Moment's quantile regression

Response: thanks for the suggestion, following the above article greatly enriched the study final draft.

• Literature review is comprehensive and relevant.  However, the latest energy literature review is missing. The following article will provide a way how to organize the literature review of your study. The impact of trade, financial development and government integrity on energy efficiency: An analysis from G7-Countries

Response: Thank again, for the suggestion, the above article helped us a lot to organize our study literarure section.

• Check the table numbers.

Response: Thank you for reminding us, in the new manuscript, we revised comprehensively all the tables numbers

• What does − +?2??????show in equation 9 show?

Response: Thanks. It shows the postive shock to the innovation variable. The aggregated variable of innovation has been disaggregated into postive and negative shocks to explore their assymetric effects. We mentioned this in the model and methodology section of the revised manuscript.

• Equations 5 and 6 are not in appropriate shape. Write in proper mathematical form

Response: Thanks. We have rewitten those equations uisng a mathematical form.

• There are too many equations in the manuscript; see if you can concise it.

Response: Thanks for the comment. As we have utilized PNARDL for testing two models (economic growth and environmental models) within two theoretical frameworks (EKC and Solow), the specification of them have resulted into many equations. Yet, we have explained them in more details so that readers might not face any difficulty to understand them. It will also help the upcoming research following similar strategy.

• Add concise and comprehensive study results and more policy recommendations in the conclusion

Response: Again, thanks for the recommendation. In the revised manuscript, we have added a more precise policy suggestions based on the study outcomes. Kindly check the final part of the manuscript

• Rewrite the following paragraph for clarity: “The exacerbation of global warming has been raising several questions about the effectiveness of current sustainability policies and whether there is a need to ponder upon other strategies beyond controlling the well-recognized conventional determinants of environmental pollution. This study has advanced a novel approach to assess the carbon emissions’ mitigating effect of financial commitments to renewable energy projects, public R&D expenditure, and energy technology innovation for 34 countries over the period spanning 2010-2019. The study employed the novel PNARDL approach to disentangle the effects of ascending and descending in the 373 variables above the following two models: environmental sustainability and economic growth using the EKC hypothesis and 374 Solow growth theory.”

Response: thank you for the suggestions, in the revised manuscript, we have rewritten the abovementioned paragraph. Kindly see the revised manuscript, last section.

• Avoid grammatical errors throughout the manuscript.

Response: Many thanks for the advice, we gave two more rounds of proofreading to the manuscript. Kindly check the revised manuscript

   remove plagiarism, its too much

Response: thanks so much for the recommendation, we reduce similarity rate for the study, kindly check the revised manuscript

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your time and consideration in reviewing our manuscript, which significantly improved our manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Nice work consolidating the paper.

2. Noticing a couple of large p-values, please make sure that is the case Table 3).

3. Glad to see you have materially incorporated the previous review. The paper is technically more sound and flows better. As you can imagine, such a review takes considerable effort and time, instead of writing a few pre-canned lines (such as control missing) and getting done with it. Your's has been a very technical paper. It may however really improve the visibility of your paper and assist new researchers who read this paper down the road, if you choose to incorporate the very small set of references listed in Round 1 of the review. Thank you.

 

Author Response

Dear respected reviewer, 

Thank you so much for your valuable feedback. We are really grateful for your encouraging feedback. We have incorporated the previously suggested and relevant literature. Besides, we have also made some corrections in Table 3. Thanks for pointing this out. We are apologizing for overlooking it in the first round of revision. 

 

Regards

The Authors 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No more revision required. 

Author Response

Thank you so much for your previous feedback regarding our manuscript, which helped to improve it substantially.