Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper attempts to study the impacts of digital transformation on firms in the heavy pollution industry's greenwashing practices. There are a few major issues the authors must address before the paper can be reviewed again.

1. The most important measure is the greenwashing (GW) value. However, it is not clearly defined. The definition below line 263 lacks the definition for the subscripts. 

2. The other main measure is the independent variable digital transformation (DT). I cannot understand clearly, from hypotheses 1, 2, and 3, how the measure can affect a firm's greenwashing practice. By definition, digital transformation will reduce a firm's carbon footprint, therefore improving the firm's G part of the ESG measure. Which of the ESG measures would be affected? 

3. The paper focuses only on the heavy-polluting industry. Why? Shouldn't DT affect ESG measure of all firms? A better approach would be to include a dummy for the heavy pollution industry and use data from all the firms.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

Please revise the title and remove the signs on “Correcting” or “Concealing” ? The impact of digital transformation on greenwashing behavior of heavily polluting enterprises. The title format is abnormal in scientific research title

It should be as below

Correcting or Concealing? The impact of digital transformation on greenwashing behavior of heavily polluting enterprises

The research abstract is adequate

Please revise the reference format to match the Sustainability standard

This argument need more evidence "Therefore, grounded in the theory of digital empowerment, this study selects heavily polluting A-share listed companies from 2013 to 2021 as the research sample to empirically examine the impact and underlying mechanisms of digital transformation on corporate greenwashing behavior" how did you identify that these enterprises are heavily polluting?

 

The format of the hypotheses is abnormal in the scientific research approach

H1: Under other unchanged conditions, digital transformation can reduce the greenwashing behavior of heavily polluting enterprises.

 

Please revise and remove the beginning phrase to be

H1: Digital transformation can reduce the greenwashing behavior of heavily polluting enterprises.

 

The methodology and result section are adequate

Please strengthens your implication section

Add a separate conclusion section

Report on the limitation and further study opportunities

The paper need to be proofread by an expert

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper need to be proofread by an expert

Author Response

Please see the attachment, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper investigates how digital transformation impacts the greenwashing behavior of heavily polluting enterprises in China, using data from 2013 to 2021. It finds that digital transformation significantly curbs greenwashing by enhancing green technological innovation and investor attention, with the effect being more pronounced in private and highly competitive enterprises in central regions.

The English usage is generally appropriate but would benefit from tightening and greater precision in certain sections. There are occasional redundancies and overly long sentences that could obscure the clarity of the argument.

Introduction

- The introduction lacks specificity in defining "greenwashing" and its implications in the broader sustainability framework.

- Key terms like "digital transformation" and "green technological innovation" are introduced without sufficient context for unfamiliar readers.

- Integrate a discussion on how digital transformation fits into the existing regulatory landscape.

- Expand on the objectives and anticipated practical contributions of the research.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

- The section heavily relies on Chinese sources and practices, which may limit its global applicability.

- The hypotheses are stated but lack nuanced argumentation or counterarguments.

- References to previous studies sometimes feel scattered rather than systematically reviewed. It is advisable to include a systematic review procedure like PRISMA.

Data and Methodology

- The methodology is comprehensive but lacks clarity in explaining the choice of specific variables, such as ESG scores.

- The econometric model lacks a detailed explanation of its assumptions and limitations.

- Address potential biases due to the diversity of industries classified as "heavily polluting."

Analysis of Empirical Results

- The analysis focuses on statistical significance but provides limited discussion on practical significance.

- The section lacks visual aids, such as graphs or figures, to support the results.

Mechanism Analysis

- The reliance on investor attention as a mediator could be better substantiated.

- Address potential confounding factors, such as industry-specific trends or macroeconomic conditions

Conclusion

- The conclusion reiterates findings without offering a critical synthesis.

- The limitations of the study and avenues for future research are not adequately addressed.

- Offer detailed, actionable recommendations for stakeholders.

Author Response

Please see the attachment, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

can accept in present form