Research on the Effects of Environmental Regulations on Industrial-Technological Innovation Based on Pressure Transmission

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an interesting study. However, the following issues should be addressed to improve the manuscript:

• Section 1 and 2 should be combined and placed under 'Introduction.'
• In section 3, before introducing the hypotheses, it will be good to add a few lines describing the methodology behind developing those.
• Section 3 and 4 can be merged as 'Theory and Hypotheses'
• Variables should be written in Italics throughout the manuscript.
• Section 5 and 6 should be merged as 'Research design and data collection.'
• Please check the title for 5.2 and 5.3; they are the same. Also, all these variables used in these equations should be defined.
• The authors collected data for a wide range of cities with different populations and investment portfolios. It will be good to mention whether they have considered the effect of diverse population range, investment capabilities etc. in their analysis.
• Tables 1 to 7, not cited in the text. 
• Section 7 should sound better as 'Results and Discussions.'
• For the results and discussion, I found it a bit difficult to follow as datasets are not shown. I understand that it will be difficult to present all the data here. However, the authors might want to consider adding one set of data in the manuscript (the name of the city can be removed to keep the confidentiality). 
• Please revise the manuscript for other formatting and grammatical errors.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Dear reviewer,

We highly appreciate your comments on our revised manuscript entitled ‘Research on the impact of environmental regulation on industrial-technological innovation based on pressure transmission’ (ID:1372573).

We found the comments valuable and particularly helpful for revising and improving our paper.

We have modified this manuscript accordingly. Detailed corrections are itemized below.

Reviewer 1:

It is an interesting study. However, the following issues should be addressed to improve the manuscript:

1. Section 1 and 2 should be combined and placed under 'Introduction.'

Revision:

Thank you very much for your comment. According to your suggestion, we combined sections.

2. In section 3, before introducing the hypotheses, it will be good to add a few lines describing the methodology behind developing those.

Revision:

Thanks for your suggestion. We described the methodology that develop hypotheses before introducing it in section 3.

3. Section 3 and 4 can be merged as 'Theory and Hypotheses.'

Revision:

Thanks for your suggestion. We merged section 3 and 4 as ‘Theory and Hypotheses.’

4. 4. Variables should be written in Italics throughout the manuscript.

Revision:

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We modified variables front to Italics.

5. Section 5 and 6 should be merged as 'Research design and data collection.'

Revision:

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We merged section 5 and 6 as ‘Research design and data collection.’

6. Please check the title for 5.2 and 5.3; they are the same. Also, all these variables used in these equations should be defined.

Revision:

Thank you very much for your comments. According to your suggestions, we modified the title for 5.3 and defined all these variables used in equations.

7. The authors collected data for a wide range of cities with different populations and investment portfolios. It will be good to mention whether they have considered the effect of diverse population range, investment capabilities etc. in their analysis.

Revision:

Thank you very much for your comments and Suggestions. We added some descriptive words in the variable description section.

8. Tables 1 to 7, not cited in the text.

Revision:

Thank you very much for your comment. We now cited Table 1-7 in text.

9. Section 7 should sound better as 'Results and Discussions.'

Revision:

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We modified the title for section 7.

10. For the results and discussion, I found it a bit difficult to follow as datasets are not shown. I understand that it will be difficult to present all the data here. However, the authors might want to consider adding one set of data in the manuscript (the name of the city can be removed to keep the confidentiality).

Revision:

Thank you very much for your comments. According to your suggestions, we added related data in Appendix and removed the name of the city.

11. Please revise the manuscript for other formatting and grammatical errors.

Revision:

Thank you very much for your comments. We checked and revised the manuscript for formatting and grammatical errors.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

I have read the article several times but have not been able to understand the motivations and the results of the paper.  Various assumptions were made without appropriate references. What is the goal of the research?

Why it is important? What are the innovative aspects? How could it be used by other scientists?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We highly appreciate your comments on our revised manuscript entitled ‘Research on the impact of environmental regulation on industrial-technological innovation based on pressure transmission’ (ID:1372573).

We found the comments valuable and particularly helpful for revising and improving our paper.

We have modified this manuscript accordingly. Detailed corrections are itemized below.

Reviewer 2:

1. I have read the article several times but have not been able to understand the motivations and the results of the paper.

Revision:

The authors are incredibly grateful for your comments. Motivations of the article derived from the increasing research over the field of environment regulations in academic circle in recent years. They have studied different kind of environmental regulations and their effects. However, there is even empty space that few researchers to explore. This empty space in this field is the lack of the research of inner link between formal environmental regulations and informal environmental regulations, and the transmission of their influences. On that score, we started research in this direction.

2. Various assumptions were made without appropriate references.

Revision:

Thank you very much for your comment. According to your suggestion, we added some literatures to support hypotheses.

3. What is the goal of the research? Why it is important?

Revision:

Thank you very much for your comment. The goal of research is to verified the existent of pressure transmission between the public-participated environmental regulation and formal environmental regulations which will have different effects according to different pressure of the masses.

The theoretical significance is that the paper study the intermedia effect between public -participated environmental regulations, formal environmental regulations and technological innovations, which is less well trodden. Firstly, hypotheses are proposed through literature analysis, and justified by theoretical reasoning and empirical analysis. After that, the extended research is carried out.

The practical significance is that the paper found that there is an intermedia effect between public-participated environmental regulations, formal environmental regulations and technological innovations, and public pressure has threshold effect in the process of environmental regulations affecting technological innovation. The paper put forward some suggestions to promote industrial-technological innovation based on the empirical analysis.

4. What are the innovative aspects? How could it be used by other scientists?

Revision:

Thank you very much for your comments. The paper put forward that there is an intermedia effect between public-participated environmental regulation, formal environmental regulations and technological innovations. The research found that formal environmental regulations will have different effects according to different pressure of the masses. Furthermore, labor force and capital are all moderating variables in the process that formal environmental regulations influence technological innovation.  These points of view are the innovative aspects of this article.

The article verified these findings above, so that it could be used by other scientists for their research. Other scientists can expend their research on other direction that build on the known of pressure transmission between formal environmental regulations and public-participated environmental regulation. When conducting research in the field of environmental regulations, they will no longer view the two kind of environmental regulations separately, but view from a perspective of relevance. This is helpful to open up research directions and generate new discoveries in this field.

Reviewer 3 Report

I confess to having a difficult time following the argument of your piece at various points. I think this  was due in considerable measure to issues with your presentation in English but at some points too, it was the result of a lack of conceptual clarity.  It may perhaps be most straightforward simply to list some questions for you:

1. You begin by suggesting that the rapid spread of information has led to greater transparency but I wonder if that is so in an era of misinformation and propaganda? Merely having more outlets ensures neither accuracy nor transparency.
2. You indicate that the "main form of public participation in environmental regulation is to participate in environmental protection activities," which as written is a tautology. What activities constitute such engagement and are any more efficacious (not efficient) than others? At one point you indicate these are letters, complaints, etc." Which of these are most effective or is it a matter of simple numbers of each?
3. What are tax standards as public regulatory action by your definition?
4. How is public participation included in public regulation as you understand those efforts?
5. Regulation can increase company costs but how do you distinguish voluntary or informal regulation from formal interventions in terms of the types and degree of costs they impose?
6. Why on page 5 was public pressure, which presumably was advertent, described as inadvertent in its effects via regulation?
7. Overall, you seem to argue that public participation and pressure in rule making result in increased public action and has generally beneficial effects. You conclude that government should make such involvement easier and should also increase the strength of regulation. You also advocate for greater Informatization (I am not sure what that is) and strong economic development. I wonder if all of these would stand irrespective of your specific findings? That is, they appear to be relevant in any case?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We highly appreciate your comments on our revised manuscript entitled ‘Research on the impact of environmental regulation on industrial-technological innovation based on pressure transmission’ (ID:1372573).

We found the comments valuable and particularly helpful for revising and improving our paper.

We have modified this manuscript accordingly. Detailed corrections are itemized below.

Reviewer 3:

I confess to having a difficult time following the argument of your piece at various points. I think this was due in considerable measure to issues with your presentation in English but at some points too, it was the result of a lack of conceptual clarity. It may perhaps be most straightforward simply to list some questions for you:

1. You begin by suggesting that the rapid spread of information has led to greater transparency but I wonder if that is so in an era of misinformation and propaganda? Merely having more outlets ensures neither accuracy nor transparency.

Revision:

Thank you very much for your comments. Although we are in an era of misinformation and propaganda, better than the time when information was relatively closed. People can get more information about the environment. Besides, the influence brought by misinformation and propaganda does not affect the research and opinions of this paper, because the paper measured the intensity of public-participated environmental regulation basing on the public's concern about the environment. misinformation and propaganda will not influence the existent of pressure transmission.

2. You indicate that the "main form of public participation in environmental regulation is to participate in environmental protection activities," which as written is a tautology. What activities constitute such engagement and are any more efficacious (not efficient) than others? At one point you indicate these are letters, complaints, etc." Which of these are most effective or is it a matter of simple numbers of each?

Revision:

Thank you very much for your comments. We modified the contents that were not rigorously described. Public-participated in environmental regulation is not an exact activity. It just is a concept, a concern that public put on environmental problems, an abstraction and sum of supervision power that public exert on the relevant government departments.  

3. What are tax standards as public regulatory action by your definition?

Revision:

Thank you very much for your comments. The tax standards you proposed may come from section ‘Theoretical analysis.’ The tax here derived from a reference to pigouvian tax. Regardless of taxes or subsidies, we ultimately want to verify that environmental regulations will lead to an increase in the cost of enterprises, so that we can theoretically verify the impact of environmental regulations on technological innovations.   

4. How is public participation included in public regulation as you understand those efforts?

Revision:

Thank you very much for your comments. Public participation in reporting environmental problems to government environmental departments through letters and visits, telephone calls and Internet exposure can form a supervisory force for relevant departments in performing their environmental responsibilities and play a supplementary role in the management of industrial enterprises' pollutant discharge.

5. Regulation can increase company costs but how do you distinguish voluntary or informal regulation from formal interventions in terms of the types and degree of costs they impose?

Revision:

Thank you very much for your comments. Distinguishing voluntary or informal regulations from formal interventions is not within the scope of this paper’s study. The paper intended to explore the effects of environmental regulations on technological innovations by explaining that it will increase the cost of production. The contents intend to stat that that environmental regulations, whether formal or informal, increases the cost of production. Based on this, the role of environmental regulation on technological innovations can be further discussed.

6. Why on page 5 was public pressure, which presumably was advertent, described as inadvertent in its effects via regulation?

Revision:

Thank you very much for your comments. The public is spontaneously concerned about environmental issues, resulting the pressure exerted on relevant departments. Then the department take some actions to limit pollution which will force companies to cut production. However, public’s concern about environmental issues is inadvertent in its effects on companies’ output. Of course, in the face of pollution, this effect is much smaller than the direct effects of formal environmental regulations on firms' output. 

7. Overall, you seem to argue that public participation and pressure in rule making result in increased public action and has generally beneficial effects. You conclude that government should make such involvement easier and should also increase the strength of regulation. You also advocate for greater Informatization (I am not sure what that is) and strong economic development. I wonder if all of these would stand irrespective of your specific findings? That is, they appear to be relevant in any case

Revision:

Thank you very much for your comments. The intensity of public-participated environmental regulation has threshold effect on the process of that formal environmental regulations influence technological innovations. Making involvement easier can be adopted when the intensity of public-participated environmental regulation below the standard that can maximum the promotion effect of formal environmental. There is almost a significant positive correlation between informatization, economic development and technological innovation in the whole process. 

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have produced a very interesting and high quality study, but there are a few improvements that I would definitely suggest for consideration. 
The research part of the study is very thoroughly developed. The methodological background and data sources are described, and the research results were obtained using a variety of methods. However, it would also be important to give the reader a better insight into the topic, and therefore a more thorough introduction would be important. It would greatly improve the quality of the article if the authors could provide a more in-depth insight into the formulation of the topic, similar research and literature sources. 
In the article, the authors have formulated six hypotheses. I would suggest summarising them in a table for better clarity (with a summary of their justification or rejection at the end of the paper). 
All in all, I had the pleasure of reading a very well researched and methodologically sound study. I would certainly recommend the authors to consider extending the literature review. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thanks for addressing the concerns. However, I believe the article should be further refined to improve its readability. It is still difficult to follow, mostly due to the lack of coherence and cohesion. Please review with care.

Besides, several formatting issues are still there. A few examples:

1. The first line in the abstract should be rewritten. It is too lengthy and difficult to follow.
2. Line 128 to 131 should be rewritten to connect these with the information in lines 132 to 146, and then placed after line 146. 
3. Line 374: where is Table A1?
4. Line 417: Model 4 is presented in Table 5, not in Table 4!
5. In fact, it will be better if Tables 4 and 5 are combined into one table. A similar representation as Table 10.
6. Line 483: Instead of saying 'another approach,' the approach should be mentioned.

Also, you must explain the underlying assumptions for this study. It can be presented in either section 2 or 3.

Thank you.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

the paper has been significantly improved. The indications of the auditors were followed. All the questions presented were answered very carefully.

In this form the article can be accepted for publication

Author Response

      Thank you very much for your approval. Following the journal formatting guidelines, we revised and improved the paper accordingly.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have reviewed your revision with interest. Here are some reactions to this version. I continue to be concerned that both propaganda and misinformation can influence the quality of information available to the pubic and therefore the character and extent of its knowledge even if/when it engages in advocacy efforts concerning pollution abatement. See your first paragraph and passim. Even in the absence of accurate governmental representation of relevant issues and data, citizens must understand the issues in play and know how to press their claims. See below. I suggest you include a clear description of what you take public advocacy during the regulatory process to be and what its attributes must be to influence public choices. It seems to include for you not only awareness but also knowledge of the specific issues at stake and of means to press them effectively. I also would suggest that you acknowledge somewhere that the government regulators need not only be concerned with efficiency in their decision-making but also with conceptions of equity and effectiveness. These are not merely regulatory opportunity costs but critical components of such efforts.  I am also still unclear by what you take "informatization" to be. It is not a term with which I am familiar.  Here are  three points to highlight the need for a formal rigorous editing of the English in your article throughout, among others that might be noted: Line 53: "imminent" is not the correct word; Lines 91-92: discussion cannot discussion points as stated without being a tautology; line 96: not sure what inhabiting technological innovation means? Finally, line 476 suggests that urban publics are not now so engaged in regulation as to maximize the effects of their involvement. You broadly assert in lines 562 and following that citizens need more ways to engage. Can you provide specific examples and also address the problem of ensuring they are adequately informed to do so? Is this in short a question of informed stakeholder groups or those plus a large swathe of the broader public or both that you believe is necessary?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf