Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article studies the impact of information sharing on the decision-making of various main bodies in the supply chain in the context of carbon emission reduction, which is very novel, but the following problems still need to be corrected:

 

1、 In Abstract，“Our findings highlight the importance of information sharing in reducing carbon emissions and the interplay among a low carbon preference, efficiency of carbon emissions reduction, and impact of the competition intensity on retailer’s incentive to share information.”，This part is written somewhat general, because this is the more important conclusion of the article, and it is recommended to briefly summarize the conclusions drawn.

2、 In Introduction，The fonts on lines 31 to 33 need to be unified.

3、 In the model，It is recommended to supplement the supply chain structure diagram and Timeline of the game, and add an explanation of the game sequence after the Timeline of the game to make it easier for readers to read. In the event sequence, (2) is recommended to be combined with (1) to avoid repetition. In addition, there are some repetitions in assumptions and event sequence, so it is recommended to simplify. The assumptions from lines 355 to 358 and lines 490 to 493 can be combined into the assumptions of the model, and the calculation shows the intention of .

4、 In Lemma 1, in the calculation process, in order to make the supply chain have an optimal solution, the Hessian matrix must be negative definite, and  is obtained, which should be given in the calculation, not in Lemma middle. In formulas (17) and (18), ������, ������ lack specific explanations. If the formula is given directly, the reader may not understand it. It is recommended to give an introduction and calculation process. If it is a carbon emission investment, is there a problem?

5、 The whole article draws corresponding conclusions around the relationship between  and , but it is not rigorous. For example, when , it may be that  and  are very small, or both It is very large, but the two satisfy the above relationship, not necessarily "manufacturer's inefficiency in reducing carbon emissions is very high or the consumer's low carbon emissions products preference is too low." It is a relative relationship.

6、 In Proposition 4(b), the retailer is an independent individual, and there is no change in the profit of information sharing or not, so the information sharing is not necessarily the only optimal solution, when the manufacturer pays , each member of the supply chain achieves Pareto improvement, at this time  is the unique equilibrium decision.

7、 Sections 4 and 5 are calculated in a similar way, so in Section 5, the calculation process can be omitted, highlighting the difference—there is a competitive supply chain. In Lemma 2, what do  represent? Please give a detailed explanation for the readers to read.

8、 The formulas in lines 610 and 630 are suggested to be written in separate lines to keep the format consistent. In Proposition 5, it is recommended that manufacturers and retailers be the main subjects to discuss the impact of information changes on their own earnings, which seems more organized. In addition, lines 689 and 695 give some repetitions of the retailer's optimal decision, and it is recommended to merge and simplify.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a well planned and executed research and the presentation is very detailed, although a little unclear.

Some of the literature studied might be too old for the current state of the topic (1996, 1998, 2000, etc.). I recommend completing these sections with more  updated studies.

The Conclusions of the paper are valid in the context of the model presented, but they should also be analyzed from the point of view of feasibility. What would be the costs, and the efforts necessary for information sharing and how will this be practically implemented?

Minor issues:

- lines 31-32 have a different font size

- formulas on lines 520, 610 and 630 should be adjusted to the template (they are too long for one line)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

As the first-round stated, the model setting, analysis, and the results are almost the same as Ha et al. (2017). The only difference is that the authors consider the products’ energy consumption level, which affects the demand, whereas Ha et al. (2017) considered the cost reduction, which affects the cost. This difference does not yield different results. Thus, the contribution of this study is insufficient. In this version, the authors do not respond to my first comment (i.e., low-carbon regulations), which may provide different results. Thus, I must recommend a reject.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please check the language and enhance the conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf