Study on the Impact of Common Institutional Ownership on Corporate Green Transformation in the Context of “Dual Carbon”: Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The writing of the abstract is not very standard, such as what main research methods are adopted for the problem, what main research conclusions are obtained, and what meaningful conclusions are drawn accordingly. Need to be further condensed

2. Based on the research hypothesis of this paper, it is suggested that the author should draw the corresponding theoretical framework

3. In the empirical part of the fourth and fifth sections, the interpretation of the corresponding empirical results is relatively simple. It is suggested that all the empirical results in this part should be explained in more detail, and even the corresponding similar research results should be quoted for comparative or supporting explanation, so as to enhance the persuasiveness of the empirical results

4. It is suggested to summarize the results of empirical research according to the hypothesis relationship, and reflect whether the relationship of each hypothesis is supported

5. The conclusions and suggestions of the sixth section are too simple. It is suggested that this part should be refined on the one hand, and analyze the analysis with the research topic and empirical results on the other hand.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Research gap is not clear in the introduction

The first hypothesis is not based on a well developed theoretical framework

 Subsections are not necessary in the conclusion  it is suggested to delete the subtitles 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Study on the Impact of Common Institutional Ownership on Corporate Green Transformation in the Context of "Dual Carbon": Evidence from China

Thank you for inviting me to review this worthwhile study. While the topic is relevant for the journal audience. I consider the manuscript needs a lot of improvement before consideration for publication. Overall, it is an interesting idea but I have some concerns on this paper.

Comments and Suggestions

·         The abstract is very brief but not clear enough to discuss the research gap the author intended to fill. Please address research gaps.

·         Add research question in introduction section.

·         Please write down research contribution after research objectives.

·         Write down theory(s) with separate headings in the literature.

·         Literature review sections lack theoretical support. Please cited the following studies to strengthening the theoretical foundation of the study.

1.      Chen, D., Hu, H., & Chang, C. P. (2023). Green finance, environment regulation, and industrial green transformation for corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management.

2.      Tian, C., Li, X., Xiao, L., & Zhu, B. (2022). Exploring the impact of green credit policy on green transformation of heavy polluting industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 335, 130257.

3.      Yu, D., & Latif, B. (2023). Enabling financial development: linking innovation and CO2 emissions through equity and credit financing. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-17.

4.      Wang, J., & Cao, H. (2022). Improving competitive strategic decisions of Chinese coal companies toward green transformation: A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model. Resources Policy, 75, 102483.

5.      Lu, Y., Gao, Y., Zhang, Y., & Wang, J. (2022). Can the green finance policy force the green transformation of high-polluting enterprises? A quasi-natural experiment based on “Green Credit Guidelines”. Energy Economics, 114, 106265.

·         Please provide the reason to collected data from Shanghai and Shenzhen, espeicially in the period from 2010-2021

·         Please add the role of theory in discussion section in line with your results.

·         In Practical Implications, the authors do not describe the implications for regulators in detail.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for taking into account all the recommendation 

 

English is good