The Influence of Green Credit Policy on Green Innovation and Transformation and Upgradation as a Function of Corporate Diversification: The Case of Kazakhstan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research problem undertaken is valid for the journal. The variables within the model are not clearly identified in the paper. The issue is that regression model outcomes are restricted only to few situations in the real conditions. I recommend to mention about it in your work and spread the references in order to point examples of other methodologies in evaluating the green /innovation effectiveness policy (e.g.: Malik, K.; Jasińska-Biliczak, A. Innovations and Other Processes as Identifiers of Contemporary Trends in the Sustainable Development of SMEs: The Case of Emerging Regional Economies. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1361).
Only minor editing of English language are required.
Author Response
1-Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The research problem undertaken is valid for the journal. The variables within the model are not clearly identified in the paper. The issue is that regression model outcomes are restricted only to few situations in the real conditions. I recommend to mention about it in your work and spread the references in order to point examples of other methodologies in evaluating the green /innovation effectiveness policy (e.g.: Malik, K.; Jasińska-Biliczak, A. Innovations and Other Processes as Identifiers of Contemporary Trends in the Sustainable Development of SMEs: The Case of Emerging Regional Economies. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1361).
Response
Many thanks for your kind suggestion. Done as suggested
2- Comments on the Quality of English Language
Only minor editing of English language are required.
Response
Many thanks for your kind suggestion. Done as suggested
Reviewer 2 Report
To the Author(s).
The topic of the article is important and certainly, the text would bring a lot of valuable research results, if not for the fact that no innovative research relevant to science was conducted. I expected a novel discussion on the use of a financial instrument to solve environmental problems and the impact/influence of the green credit policy in Kazakhstan, based on solid examples, in numbers. I only have the impression that it has been confirmed, what is already in the literature, that GCP has a positive connotation for reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and other industrial pollutants by companies, and production becomes more ecological, the innovations are implemented, etc., etc., and GCP effects easily rather on large companies...and so on, and so on.....
The theoretical part of the article is very extensive. Even too much. It is a good read, the language is basically flawless, the order of sentences is logical, and the structure is correct. However, if the author/authors put forward as many as 6 hypotheses, he/she should explicitly verify them in the section devoted to discussing the results of the analyses. There are only observations/conclusions based on statistical calculations.
In general, in the article, I do not see comparative analyzes as to whether the implemented green credit policy is also effective in green transformation in the case of Kazakh companies, as it was in the case of China, for instance. Detailed, specific assumptions established for Kazakhstan's green credit policy to achieve more sustainable economic development should be also introduced.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors-1
The topic of the article is important and certainly, the text would bring a lot of valuable research results, if not for the fact that no innovative research relevant to science was conducted. I expected a novel discussion on the use of a financial instrument to solve environmental problems and the impact/influence of the green credit policy in Kazakhstan, based on solid examples, in numbers. I only have the impression that it has been confirmed, what is already in the literature, that GCP has a positive connotation for reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and other industrial pollutants by companies, and production becomes more ecological, the innovations are implemented, etc., etc., and GCP effects easily rather on large companies...and so on, and so on.....
Response
Many thanks for your kind suggestion. Done as suggested.
Please see pages. 3, 14-15
Comments and Suggestions for Authors-2
The theoretical part of the article is very extensive. Even too much. It is a good read, the language is basically flawless, the order of sentences is logical, and the structure is correct. However, if the author/authors put forward as many as 6 hypotheses, he/she should explicitly verify them in the section devoted to discussing the results of the analyses. There are only observations/conclusions based on statistical calculations.
Response
Many thanks for your kind suggestion. We have reduced the theoretical part and revised the discussion section a per your kind guidelines.
Please see pages.14-15
Comments and Suggestions for Authors-3
In general, in the article, I do not see comparative analyzes as to whether the implemented green credit policy is also effective in green transformation in the case of Kazakh companies, as it was in the case of China, for instance. Detailed, specific assumptions established for Kazakhstan's green credit policy to achieve more sustainable economic development should be also introduced.
Response
Many thanks for your kind suggestion. We have added this important suggestion as limitation of this study and directed for future research.
Please see page 17.
Reviewer 3 Report
From the overall presentation I would say that interesting research work has been done. The topic is also important for the readers of the journal. This study investigates the heterogeneous effects of the Green Credit Policy (GCP) on firms' green innovation and transformation and upgradation in the case of Kazakhstan enterprises.
However, I have a few more significant challenges with the paper.
I suggest that the authors insert, at the end of the introduction section, a paragraph outlining the layout of the remainder of the manuscript.
There is no theoretical background provided for the model and also no explanation provided for the control variables (Firm Size, Innovation Investment, Operating Cash Flow, Asset-to-Liability Ratio), why these variables are included in the model. The research methods used are appropriate but have limitations, and this should be mentioned. The validation of the models could be presented and justified. Furthermore, the uncertainties of the applied analysis could be discussed.
The original contribution of the research has to be presented by focusing on the research results based on the research questions. The discussion of the results remains quite superficial. The six research hypotheses should be discussed according to the results of the paper. It would be appropriate to specify in more detail how this research differs from the already published paper that deals with a similar topic.
The authors should pay attention to Lines 594-646. Delete, reformulate “6. Patents”, “Supplementary Materials”, “Author Contributions”, “Funding”, “Informed Consent Statement” etc.
Lines 647-664 should be deleted.
All abbreviations should be explained.
The author has to pay attention to references inside the paper as well as the reference list.
Author Response
1-Comments and Suggestions for Authors
From the overall presentation I would say that interesting research work has been done. The topic is also important for the readers of the journal. This study investigates the heterogeneous effects of the Green Credit Policy (GCP) on firms' green innovation and transformation and upgradation in the case of Kazakhstan enterprises. However, I have a few more significant challenges with the paper.
Response
Many thanks for your kind suggestion
2-Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I suggest that the authors insert, at the end of the introduction section, a paragraph outlining the layout of the remainder of the manuscript.
Response
Many thanks for your kind suggestion. Done as suggested.
Please see page 3
3-Comments and Suggestions for Authors
There is no theoretical background provided for the model and also no explanation provided for the control variables (Firm Size, Innovation Investment, Operating Cash Flow, Asset-to-Liability Ratio), why these variables are included in the model. The research methods used are appropriate but have limitations, and this should be mentioned. The validation of the models could be presented and justified. Furthermore, the uncertainties of the applied analysis could be discussed.
Response
Many thanks for your kind suggestion. Done as suggested.
Please see pages 4, 8-9, 11,14
4-Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The original contribution of the research has to be presented by focusing on the research results based on the research questions. The discussion of the results remains quite superficial. The six research hypotheses should be discussed according to the results of the paper. It would be appropriate to specify in more detail how this research differs from the already published paper that deals with a similar topic.
Response
Many thanks for your kind suggestion. Done as suggested
Please see pages 15-17
5-Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors should pay attention to Lines 594-646. Delete, reformulate “6. Patents”, “Supplementary Materials”, “Author Contributions”, “Funding”, “Informed Consent Statement” etc. Lines 647-664 should be deleted.
Response
Many thanks for your kind suggestion. Done as suggested
6-Comments and Suggestions for Authors
All abbreviations should be explained.
Response
Many thanks for your kind suggestion. Done as suggested
7-Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The author has to pay attention to references inside the paper as well as the reference list.
Response
Many thanks for your kind suggestion. Done as suggested
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
You have done the majority of the needed corrections, so I accept the version of the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
In the revised version, the manuscript has been extended and improved.
