Does the Integrated Development of High-End, Intelligent, and Green Manufacturing in China Influence Regional Dual Control of Carbon Emissions?—An Analysis Based on Impact Mechanisms and Spatial Effects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper on the impact of "three modernizations" integrated development in China's manufacturing industry on carbon emission dual control has certain publication potential. The research focuses on the relationship between manufacturing transformation and carbon emission control under the "dual carbon goals," aligning with the global sustainable development trend. It belongs to the interdisciplinary hotspot of environmental economics, industrial economics, and sustainable development. The use of fixed effects models and Spatial Durbin Models (SDM) to analyze spatial spillover effects, combined with nonlinear tests, demonstrates a relatively cutting-edge methodology. Introducing technological innovation and clean energy structure as mediating variables provides in-depth mechanism analysis.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
none
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and suggestions. I greatly appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into reviewing the manuscript. I have carefully addressed all the issues you raised, and corresponding revisions have been made accordingly. The specific modifications are as follows:
Question 1: The paper uses provincial panel data from 2009-2023, with sufficient sample size (30 provinces×15 years = 450 observations). Data sources are authoritative (China Statistical Yearbook, Energy Statistical Yearbook, etc.), but attention should be paid to the potential impact of missing data in Tibet, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan on the generalizability of conclusions.
Answer 1: Dear Reviewer,Thank you for your suggestion. Regarding the potential impact of the missing data from Tibet, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan on the generalizability of the conclusions, we have addressed this in the revised version, specifically in Section 3.3, "Data Sources."To elaborate, the economy of Tibet is primarily based on agriculture and resource extraction, with limited and small-scale manufacturing. There are significant differences in energy consumption and carbon emission levels compared to other provinces. Additionally, due to Tibet’s unique geographical environment and socio-economic development level, its carbon emissions are less correlated with those of other provinces. Excluding data from this region helps ensure the reliability of the research results.The industrial structures of Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan are notably different from those of mainland China, especially as Hong Kong and Macau are highly internationalized service-based economies, with an industrial structure focused on finance, tourism, and high-end services. This results in significant differences in carbon emissions compared to provinces in mainland China, where manufacturing is more dominant. Taiwan has a relatively independent economic system, and its industrial development and energy structure differ from that of mainland China, which is why it has been excluded from the data analysis as well.Excluding data from these regions does not affect the generalizability of the research conclusions. Further details can be found in lines 424-439 of the revised manuscript.
Question 2: The theoretical foundation of "three modernizations" integration needs to be clarified more explicitly, avoiding mere conceptual definitions. For example, how to explain its impact on carbon emissions from perspectives such as technological diffusion and industrial upgrading theories.
Answer 2: Dear Reviewer,Regarding the issue you raised, it has been addressed in the manuscript. In Section 2.2, "Mechanism of Impact of Integrated Development of Manufacturing 'Three Modernization' on Dual Control of Carbon Emissions," we elaborate on the theories of technology diffusion and industrial upgrading, and based on these theories, we introduce the mechanism of action for this study. Further details can be found in lines 167-177 of the revised manuscript.
Question 3: Spatial model: Is the selection of spatial weight matrices (adjacency matrix, economic distance matrix) reasonable? Have robustness tests using nested matrices or geographical distance matrices been considered?
Answer 3: First, thank you for raising this concern. In the original study, a spatial adjacency matrix was used, and an economic distance matrix was employed for robustness checks. In response to your suggestion regarding the use of a geographic location matrix for robustness testing, the revised version of the manuscript includes a robustness check using the geographic location matrix. The research conclusions remain consistent with the previous findings, confirming that the choice of matrix is reasonable. The specific revisions can be found in line 678, Table 8, "Spatial Econometric SDM Model Effect Decomposition."
Question 4: Nonlinear relationship: The "inverted U-shaped" conclusion requires more thorough theoretical explanation. For instance, whether there is a threshold effect in the relationship between technological complexity and carbon emissions.
Answer 4: Regarding your comment on the need for a more detailed theoretical explanation for the "inverted U-shaped" conclusion, we have made corresponding revisions in Section 4.6, "Nonlinear Relationship Test." We have added a threshold effect model and selected technological complexity as the threshold variable. The research concludes that the integrated development of China's manufacturing "Three Modernization" has a threshold effect on the dual control of carbon emissions.
Question 5: Endogeneity issues: Is the instrumental variable (fixed telephone penetration rate) highly correlated with "three modernizations" integration? Does weak instrument problem exist?
Answer 5: First, thank you for your reminder. This study focuses on the impact mechanism of the integrated development of China's manufacturing "high-end, intelligent, and green" on the dual control of carbon emissions, with a particular emphasis on manufacturing production. Therefore, using the penetration rate of fixed-line telephones as an instrumental variable is indeed not very suitable. In the revised version, I have replaced the instrumental variable and selected the proportion of coal in primary energy consumption as the instrumental variable for this study, and the test has passed.
Question 6: Some terminology translations need standardization (e.g., "three modernizations" should be translated as "three modernizations" or "three transformations"). Tables and figures have inconsistent numbering (e.g., Tables 5, 6, 7 have non-consecutive numbering) and need correction.
Answer 6: Thank you for your reminder. It seems that the previous version of the manuscript was indeed somewhat insufficiently prepared, leading to some oversights in certain details. The issues you mentioned regarding the standardization of translation terms and the discontinuity in figure and table numbering have been addressed. Please refer to the uploaded manuscript for the specific revisions.
Once again, thank you for your constructive comments, which have significantly improved the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript ID: Sustainability-3548811
The specific comments are in the attached docx.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and suggestions. I greatly appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into reviewing the manuscript. I have carefully addressed all the issues you raised, and corresponding revisions have been made accordingly. The specific modifications are as follows:
Question 1: Clarity of Hypotheses: While the hypotheses are laid out clearly, their presentation could be more succinct. For instance, the discussion of the mechanisms could be condensed to highlight the core causal pathways more efficiently.
Answer 1: Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your suggestion. In the revised version, I have streamlined the relevant research hypotheses and redrawn the mechanism diagram for the research hypotheses in this study to make it clearer and more effective in highlighting the core causal pathways. The specific revisions can be found in lines 197-215 of the revised manuscript, as well as in Figure 1, "The Mechanism of Impact of the Integrated Development of Manufacturing 'Three Modernization' on Dual Control of Carbon Emissions."
Question 2: Nonlinear Relationship: The paper discusses a nonlinear “inverted U-shape” relationship between the integrated development of the manufacturing transformations and carbon emissions control. While this is an interesting finding, it would be beneficial to further explain the potential reasons behind this phenomenon, and how it might inform policy decisions.
Answer 2: Dear Reviewer, Regarding the issue you raised, corresponding revisions have been made in the revised version. I have added the possible reasons for the nonlinear "inverted U-shaped" relationship between the integrated development of manufacturing "Three Modernization" and carbon emission control. The specific details can be found in lines 718-737 of the revised manuscript. However, regarding the policy recommendations you mentioned, I have placed them within the overall policy recommendations at the end of the paper. Please refer to lines 824-832 of the revised version for the specifics.
Question 3: Model Complexity and Interpretation: The models used in the paper, especially the spatial econometric models, are complex and may require clearer explanations for readers who are not familiar with econometrics. Additional guidance on how to interpret the results of these models in layman’s terms would make the findings more accessible.
Answer 3: Dear Reviewer, Regarding the issue you raised about the complexity of the spatial econometric model, I have made corresponding revisions in the revised version. In Section 3.2.3, "Construction of the Spatial Econometric Model," I first provide an explanation of the spatial econometric model. The details can be found in lines 396-403. Additionally, I have streamlined the analysis in Section 4.5, "Spatial Effect Test," to make it more concise, smooth, and readable, so that it is easier for readers without an econometrics background to understand.
Question 4: Regional and Structural Heterogeneity: The heterogeneity analyses (regional, economic development, and urban types) provide important insights. However, these sections could benefit from a more detailed discussion on the specific policy adaptations needed for different regions or industrial structures. The differences between the eastern and western regions, for example, could be more directly tied to actionable policy changes.
Answer 4: Dear Reviewer, Regarding the issue you raised, the policy recommendation section of this study already includes specific policy adjustments that should be implemented based on different regions or industrial structures. Adding more policy suggestions in the heterogeneity analysis section would result in excessive redundancy and repetition of content. Therefore, I did not make substantial changes in this part, but instead, I have refined the existing policy suggestions. I hope the reviewer can understand this approach.
Question 5: Conclusion and Future Research: The conclusion is somewhat brief compared to the extensive analyses presented. It could be more focused on synthesizing the key findings and emphasizing their practical implications for future research and policymaking.
Answer 5: Dear Reviewer, Regarding your comment about the research conclusions being too brief, I have rewritten the conclusions to more clearly summarize the core findings. I also restructured them into bullet points to enhance organization and readability. Additionally, I have included a discussion on the practical significance of the research for future studies and policy formulation. The specific revisions can be found in lines 741-764 of the revised manuscript.
Question 6: The format of the formulas in the article looks very strange.
Answer 6: Dear Reviewer, Thank you for raising such a detailed issue. Regarding the formula format you mentioned, I have made adjustments to the formatting of all the formulas in the manuscript. Please refer to the uploaded revised manuscript for the specific changes.
Once again, thank you for your constructive comments, which have significantly improved the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper is entirely based on the concepts of “three modernisation” and “dual carbon control” yet these terms are neither defined in the introduction nor in section 2.1.
The meaning of the "three modernization" variable is unclear. Content like line 17: “the integrated development of the "three modernization" in the manufacturing industry” is quite an abstract sentence. I am not sure that the research model addresses integration in any way, as I cannot find any two-way or three-way effect analysis on the results. Maybe integration can be removed, unless data not shown in the paper can be used to point out to differences between investing in a single or all three dimensions of modernisation.
Lines 76-119: this is a very condensed literature review which is too superficial and descriptive. It lacks in critical thinking and synthesis.
The objective of the research is clearly presented in lines 120-131, but the statement of a gap in the literature is not convincing. Why is the approach proposed by the authors needed is never discussed.
Figure 1 looks like a conceptual framework when it comes much later in the paper: the logical flow of the paper should be improved.
Based on figure 1 and hypothesis1, I am assuming that the “three modernisations” are referring to high end, intelligent and greening. It should be stated more explicitly and in a clearer fashion earlier in the paper.
Because the hypotheses mix three independent variables (high end manufacturing, greening, and intelligent), the theory development is not convincing. The fact that that these variables could overlap (e.g. I would expect high end manufacturing to be intelligent) does not help. In the case of investing in green processes, it seems trivial that carbon emissions will decrease (in total and in intensity). Do we really need research to shown that investing in carbon-reducing technologies reduce carbon emissions?
There is no discussion of why energy consumption and level of technological innovation are anchored between the dependent and the independent variables as mediators. For example, I could argue that level of technological innovation will have a direct impact on the development of high-end manufacturing and of intelligent manufacturing. Figure 1 is drawn awkwardly: does it suggest that greening only has an impact on technology as a mediator and that intelligent manufacturing only has an impact on energy consumption as a mediator?
The meaning of energy consumption structure is unclear. If it means the percentage of fossil fuel used, then, again, the hypotheses are trivial and not worth researching. If the authors feel that a high percentage of fossil fuel in energy mixes could cause a reduction of carbon emissions they really need to explain why, so that as a reader, I can understand what they are formulating a hypothesis.
As it is, the presentation of the concepts, the theory development, and the conceptual framework are too messy and rushed for a reader to be fully convinced by the research programme of the authors.
I question whether the number of people employed in manufacturing is a measure of high-end manufacturing. I would use it as a measure of low-end manufacturing, i.e. labour-intensive operations, and I would use capital intensity as a measure of high-end manufacturing.
As it is possible for an organisation to be very advanced in internet technologies in a region when internet use is low, I am not convinced by the use of internet penetration as a variable. It is also odd to use SO2 emissions as a predictor of CO2 emissions.
The model itself is described clearly for the most part. There is no discussion of how the HIG index is derived from the data. Where possible, I would have preferred to see adjusted R-squares figures to be able to assess if over-fitting is an issue. However, the modelling part is written competently for the most part, and the inverted U-shape discussion is interesting. The visualisation of the results could be improved, but this is a minor point.
Overall, this is a potentially interesting paper but the front-end of the paper feels rushed and not written with the same care than the model was constructed. I invite the authors to revise the front-end of the paper so that the reasons for developing the model are clearer and more convincing. Figure 1 should also be updated to better capture the econometrics performed. In the modelling section, a better front-end of the paper would address concerns that we may be looking at spurious correlations.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are many instances where the language used is very awkward:
“on the basis of defining the connotation of the integrated development of the "three modernization"”
What does “defining the connotation” means? Lines 10-15 is a very obscure way of saying something very simple.
“connotation” in line 165: something is lost in translation here. Similarly (l659):”hypothesis 3 is established”. An hypothesis is either rejected or cannot be rejected, it is not “established”.
Line 16: acronym SDM not defined
Line 642: in mainland my country
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and suggestions. I greatly appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into reviewing the manuscript. I have carefully addressed all the issues you raised, and corresponding revisions have been made accordingly. The specific modifications are as follows:
Question 1：The paper is entirely based on the concepts of “three modernisation” and “dual carbon control” yet these terms are neither defined in the introduction nor in section 2.1.
Answer 1：Dear Reviewer, Thank you for raising this issue. It has been addressed in the revised version. In Section 2.1, "Definition of Relevant Concepts," the concepts of the manufacturing "Three Modernization" and the "Dual Control" of carbon emissions have been clearly defined. The specific revisions can be found in lines 115-164 of the revised manuscript.
Question 2：The meaning of the "three modernization" variable is unclear. Content like line 17: “the integrated development of the "three modernization" in the manufacturing industry” is quite an abstract sentence. I am not sure that the research model addresses integration in any way, as I cannot find any two-way or three-way effect analysis on the results. Maybe integration can be removed, unless data not shown in the paper can be used to point out to differences between investing in a single or all three dimensions of modernisation.
Answer 2：Dear Reviewer, Thank you for raising this concern. First, the connotation of the "Three Modernization" has been explained in Section 2.1. Furthermore, I would like to clarify that this study focuses on the impact of the integrated development of "high-end, intelligent, and green" manufacturing on the dual control of carbon emissions. The analysis is based on the level of integration of these three dimensions and its relationship with the level of carbon emission dual control. The empirical evaluation of this integration is conducted using the entropy-weighted TOPSIS method, which has been detailed in the manuscript. Please refer to lines 298-337 for specific content. Therefore, the term "integration" has not been removed.
Question 3：Lines 76-119: this is a very condensed literature review which is too superficial and descriptive. It lacks in critical thinking and synthesis.
Answer 3：Dear Reviewer, Thank you for raising this issue. The preparation for the literature review was indeed somewhat rushed, which affected the quality of the writing. Based on your suggestion, I have revised the introduction section by incorporating more critical thinking and integrative analysis. I have also pointed out the limitations of existing studies and clarified the purpose and significance of this research.
Question 4：The objective of the research is clearly presented in lines 120-131, but the statement of a gap in the literature is not convincing. Why is the approach proposed by the authors needed is never discussed.
Answer 4：Dear Reviewer, Regarding the issue you mentioned, I would like to provide some clarification. This study investigates the impact of the integrated development of the manufacturing "Three Modernization" on the dual control of carbon emissions. However, most existing research focuses on individual dimensions—high-end, intelligent, or green development—lacking a comprehensive perspective. TOPSIS, as a method for calculating a comprehensive score, is a highly appropriate choice. It allows for the integration of these three dimensions into a single composite score, which then serves as the basis for analyzing their impact on the dual control of carbon emissions.
Question 5：Figure 1 looks like a conceptual framework when it comes much later in the paper: the logical flow of the paper should be improved.
Answer 5：Dear Reviewer, Thank you for raising this issue. Upon further reflection on your comment, I believe you made a very valid point. The original Figure 1 appeared more like a conceptual framework rather than a true mechanism diagram as described in the manuscript. Therefore, I have redesigned Figure 1, using more concise language and clearer visual elements to better illustrate the impact mechanism of the integrated development of manufacturing "Three Modernization" on the dual control of carbon emissions.
Question 6：Based on figure 1 and hypothesis1, I am assuming that the “three modernisations” are referring to high end, intelligent and greening. It should be stated more explicitly and in a clearer fashion earlier in the paper.
Answer 6：Dear Reviewer, This issue has already been addressed earlier. The concept of the "Three Modernization" has been redefined. Please refer to Section 2.1, "Definition of Relevant Concepts," for the details.
Question 7：Because the hypotheses mix three independent variables (high end manufacturing, greening, and intelligent), the theory development is not convincing. The fact that that these variables could overlap (e.g. I would expect high end manufacturing to be intelligent) does not help. In the case of investing in green processes, it seems trivial that carbon emissions will decrease (in total and in intensity). Do we really need research to shown that investing in carbon-reducing technologies reduce carbon emissions?
Answer 7：Dear Reviewer, Regarding the issue you raised about variable overlap, I had already taken this into consideration when constructing the indicator system. First, in terms of the indicators for high-end development, as you later suggested, capital intensity is used to measure the high-end development of manufacturing, which does not involve aspects of intelligent manufacturing. Second, when it comes to investment in green processes, the reduction of carbon emissions—whether in total or in intensity—is almost self-evident. In this study, the focus is on how the integrated development of "high-end, intelligent, and green" manufacturing achieves carbon reduction through technological innovation, rather than solely relying on green processes.
Question 8：There is no discussion of why energy consumption and level of technological innovation are anchored between the dependent and the independent variables as mediators. For example, I could argue that level of technological innovation will have a direct impact on the development of high-end manufacturing and of intelligent manufacturing. Figure 1 is drawn awkwardly: does it suggest that greening only has an impact on technology as a mediator and that intelligent manufacturing only has an impact on energy consumption as a mediator?
Answer 8：Dear Reviewer, Regarding the issue you mentioned, corresponding revisions have been made. In Section 2.2.2, "The Indirect Impact of the Integrated Development of Manufacturing 'Three Modernization' on the Dual Control of Carbon Emissions," this has been explained in detail. Please refer to lines 242–275 of the revised manuscript. Additionally, in response to your comment on Figure 1, I have also made the necessary changes and redrawn the figure accordingly.
Question 9：The meaning of energy consumption structure is unclear. If it means the percentage of fossil fuel used, then, again, the hypotheses are trivial and not worth researching. If the authors feel that a high percentage of fossil fuel in energy mixes could cause a reduction of carbon emissions they really need to explain why, so that as a reader, I can understand what they are formulating a hypothesis.
Answer 9：Dear Reviewer, This issue has also been addressed in the manuscript. The definition of the energy consumption structure is provided in Section 3.1.3, "Mechanism Variables," where it is explained as the proportion of clean energy usage.
Question 10：As it is, the presentation of the concepts, the theory development, and the conceptual framework are too messy and rushed for a reader to be fully convinced by the research programme of the authors.
Answer 10：Dear Reviewer, Regarding this issue, I have revised the wording throughout the manuscript to make it clearer and more standardized.
Question 11：I question whether the number of people employed in manufacturing is a measure of high-end manufacturing. I would use it as a measure of low-end manufacturing, i.e. labour-intensive operations, and I would use capital intensity as a measure of high-end manufacturing.
Answer 11：Dear Reviewer, I fully agree with the concern you raised. Therefore, I have replaced the original indicator used to measure the high-end development of the manufacturing industry with capital intensity, as you suggested. The specific revisions can be found in Table 1: Comprehensive Evaluation Indicator System for the Integrated Development of Manufacturing "Three Modernizations."
Question 12：As it is possible for an organisation to be very advanced in internet technologies in a region when internet use is low, I am not convinced by the use of internet penetration as a variable. It is also odd to use SO2 emissions as a predictor of CO2 emissions.
Answer 12：Dear Reviewer, The issue you raised is also very pertinent. In regions with low internet usage rates, it is indeed possible for certain organizations to possess advanced internet technology capabilities. Based on this insight, and considering that this study primarily focuses on the manufacturing industry, I have replaced the original indicator with the proportion of investment in automated equipment by manufacturing enterprises. This adjustment allows for a more accurate measurement of the level of intelligent development in manufacturing. Regarding your concern about the use of SOâ‚‚ emissions as a predictor for COâ‚‚ emissions, which may seem odd—I would like to offer an explanation. My understanding is that green development in manufacturing involves more than just carbon emissions. Additionally, I considered that using COâ‚‚ emissions directly as an indicator of green development might lead to spurious regression in subsequent analyses. I hope you can understand this rationale.
Question 13：The model itself is described clearly for the most part. There is no discussion of how the HIG index is derived from the data. Where possible, I would have preferred to see adjusted R-squares figures to be able to assess if over-fitting is an issue. However, the modelling part is written competently for the most part, and the inverted U-shape discussion is interesting. The visualisation of the results could be improved, but this is a minor point.
Answer 13：Dear Reviewer, First of all, regarding your question about how the HIG index was derived from the data, I must admit this was an oversight on my part. In response, I have provided a detailed explanation of how the HIG index is calculated in Section 3.1.2, "Core Explanatory Variable," and have included a table listing the HIG index for selected years. Secondly, I have replaced all R² values in the manuscript with adjusted R² values. Lastly, with regard to your comment on the visualization of the "inverted U-shaped relationship," please allow me to explain. This study primarily focuses on heterogeneity and mediation effects; hence, the inverted U-shaped relationship is not the main focus of the research. Including a visual representation of this relationship would necessitate adding similar visualizations for all other results in the manuscript, which would make the paper overly lengthy and redundant. Therefore, I have not made changes in this regard and hope you understand my decision. However, to further explore the nonlinear relationship, I have introduced a threshold effect model.
Question 14:Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are many instances where the language used is very awkward:
Answer 14: Dear Reviewer, the language throughout the manuscript has been revised. Please refer to the revised version for the specific changes
Once again, thank you for your constructive comments, which have significantly improved the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsEverything is ok now except the format of Table 8, the third column in the table is hard to read. And in line 43, it is not recommended to use a colon, and I think the first letter after the colon should be lowercase.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your thorough review and valuable comments on our manuscript. Based on your feedback, we have made the corresponding revisions and provide detailed responses to each of the suggestions below:
Question 1: Everything is ok now except the format of Table 8, the third column in the table is hard to read.
Answer 1: Thank you for your feedback. We have re-adjusted the format of Table 8, especially optimizing the third column. We have increased the column width and ensured that the data is clearer and easier to read. We believe these changes will significantly improve the readability of the table.
Question 2: In line 43, it is not recommended to use a colon, and I think the first letter after the colon should be lowercase.
Answer 2: Thank you for your detailed suggestion. We have revised line 43 by removing the colon and changing the first letter after the colon to lowercase, in accordance with language conventions.
Once again, thank you for your constructive comments, which have significantly improved the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
