Green Finance and Industrial Low-Carbon Transition: Evidence from a Quasi-Natural Experiment in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper titled “Green finance and industrial low-carbon transition: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China” discusses the effects of the GFPP on industrial carbon intensity. Overall, this paper is relatively well written as it has a very novel research topic and uses an appropriate DID method. However, some of the expressions are not very clear or difficult to understand. And there are some minor errors in the empirical part. Therefore, in my opinion, the following issues should be revised before publication in the journal Sustainability.
(1) Line 54-57: Please indicate here which and how many zones the GFPP is implemented in, and how many zones it is not implemented in. Explaining the policy background clearly in the introduction section is the most basic thing the paper should do.
(2) Line 69: Why can the GFPP be considered a quasi-natural experiment? I don’t see any explanation for this.
(3) Line 133-135: Please use data and literature to show that the effectiveness of China’s climate policy is not good. As the relevant literature cited by the authors elsewhere suggests, a very large number of studies have found a strong carbon reduction effect of China’s carbon trading policy.
(4) Line 325-326: What are these eight types of energy sources? Please be specific in the paper.
(5) The empirical methods and results seem fine to me.
(6) There are some sentences in the paper that are too long and difficult to understand, and I suggest that the author should revise and proofread these sentences.
(7) The paper has several grammatical errors/issues. For example, it should be difference-in-differences rather than difference-in-difference. And the font and size are different in some places. Please revise them.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The relevance of this article needs to be strengthened., to make it more correct, to show the prospects of the study. Clearly describe the methods and results.
In conclusion, it is desirable to conduct a comparison experience with other empirical studies. To show the role of green finance in other countries and how it is implemented there.
These recommendations to the Government do not fully prove the results of the study. They are too general.
in general, the work is good and interesting.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
One of the good article proposals. Thanks to authors/contributors. The last read and check may be done if the authors think it is necessary.
Author Response
Thank you for your useful suggestions and we will continue to work on the basis of this paper.
Reviewer 4 Report
The topic is very challenging and the author has succeeded very well to debate it. However, he should state more clear the purpose of the paper, not only in the abstract, but also in the introductory part.
The literature review part describes very well the theoretical background, by making reference to the findings of other studies. All the cited references are relevant to the research.
The methods that were used are adequately stated and the results are presented in clear manner, the author offering coherent and compelling arguments.
The conclusions are supported by the results presented in the article.
The paper needs proof-reading.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
