The Synergistic Effect of the Dual Carbon Reduction Pilot on Corporate Carbon Performance: Empirical Evidence from Listed Manufacturing Companies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is of interest and meets the journal's objective. However, a number of improvements are needed:
- The abstract does not contain important data. The methodology used is not mentioned. It needs to be rewritten.
- The introduction is not enough documentation. An inventory of what has been researched so far should be made.
- The results obtained and presented in tables must be explained. The methodology must be consolidated.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestion, which has made a great contribution to the improvement of our article. Our response is attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents an interesting topic, but needs substantial revision to improve clarity, theoretical rigor, and originality.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestion, which has made a great contribution to the improvement of our article. Our response is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is a pleasure to read your article, which needs to be revised before it can be published
1. Discussion of "carbon performance" indicators: The paper uses "revenue/estimated carbon emissions" to measure carbon performance, which is a common treatment and the author acknowledges its limitations in the conclusion. A little more discussion in the methodology section, explaining the reasons for choosing this metric (e.g., consistency with the literature, availability of data), and a brief mention of other possible measures and their advantages and disadvantages can be used to better manage reviewer expectations.
2. Details of policy background: The policy background of LCCP and CETP is clearly introduced. If space permits, a very brief mention of the criteria or characteristics of the selection of the pilot cities (if public information is available) can help to understand the non-randomness of the policy (although it is dealt with later by methods such as PSM). But this is not necessary.
3. Concise theoretical contribution: the contribution points of the article are clear. In the conclusion part, we can try to use more concise language to summarize the specific promotion of policy synergy theory, environmental regulation theory (especially about the triggering conditions of the "green paradox") or enterprise sustainable development theory.
4. Interpretation of the main effect of interaction terms: In columns (5) and (6) of the baseline regression (Table 4), the coefficients of DID (interaction terms), CETP and LCCP are reported. Direct interpretations of the main effect coefficients of CETP and LCCP need to be cautious when the model includes interaction terms (they represent the effect of another policy variable at 0). Although the article focuses on the coefficient of the interaction term DID (synergistic effect), in interpreting the negative significance of the CETP coefficient, it should be emphasized that this is the result after controlling for the interaction effect, which may reflect the difference in the (marginal) effect attributable to CETP alone in the cities that implement LCCP at the same time, or it is simply the result of the model setting. It is not appropriate to read too much into its absolute significance.
5. Details of the Placebo test: The placebo test was well done. The specific difference between the "unrestricted" and "restricted" placebo tests in Figure 4 and Figure 5 can be clearly stated (for example, whether the range of years randomly drawn or the proportion of groups treated is limited).
6. Further demonstration of IV selection (optional) : Ventilation and River density as IV are reasonable and have passed statistical tests. If reviewers are particularly rigorous, they may ask whether there are unobobserved regional economic/geographical factors that influence both IV and firm carbon performance (although the authors have demonstrated their exogenicity). But this is a pretty standard IV strategy.
7. Please add the following documents to make your article more convincing:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925524000453?via%3Dihub
（Your article finds that green innovation is an important transmission mechanism for policy synergies. Cite this article as evidence that green innovation itself is influenced by multiple factors, although this article focuses on cultural diversity to enrich the background discussion of the drivers of green innovation, or to mention the need to consider other parallel factors when discussing how policy can effectively promote innovation.)
https://polek.vse.cz/artkey/pol-202402-0004_sustainable-growth-through-green-electricity-transition-and-environmental-re gulations-do-risks-associated-with.php
(Literature review - when discussing the complex effects of environmental regulation, especially the "green paradox" or risks in implementation) or (Conclusions and policy recommendations - When discussing the need to consider institutional risks in policy design, such as "greenwashing" or rent-seeking risks, this article is directly related to environmental regulation, green transition and institutional risks. Your article identifies the "green paradox" and mentions challenges in policy implementation. References to this article strengthen the argument that the effects of environmental regulation are affected by institutional circumstances (e.g., corruption/bureaucratic risks) and provide documentation to support your discussion of policy differentiation and the need to overcome obstacles to implementation.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestion, which has made a great contribution to the improvement of our article. Our response is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI accept this version of the paper.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your positive feedback and for agreeing to accept the manuscript. We truly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work, and we are grateful for the constructive suggestions that have helped improve the quality of the paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has undergone some revisions and is more complete, but still has a few shortcomings.
The manuscript has undergone some revisions and is more complete, but still has a few shortcomings.
- Introduction
The section on the objectives of the study could be more specific, identifying the effective scope of policy synergies, whether geographic or enterprise-wide.
- Results and Discussion
Formatting issues, Tables 1, 5, 10 should not span pages.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable suggestions. We have carefully addressed each of your points, making substantial modifications to the content, structure, and formatting where necessary. All changes have been made using Track Changes in the revised manuscript to ensure transparency. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your comments and outline the corresponding revisions.
Comments 1: The section on the objectives of the study could be more specific, identifying the effective scope of policy synergies, whether geographic or enterprise-wide.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. In response to your comment on the Introduction, we have revised the section on the research objectives to make it more specific, particularly by clarifying the effective scope of policy synergies—both at the geographic and enterprise levels. In addition, we took this opportunity to enrich this section with several other relevant points to strengthen the overall framing of introduction.
After modification: Therefore, this study aims to investigate the policy effects of the LCCP and the CETP on corporate carbon performance, and further assess the synergistic effect arising from their joint implementation. Considering the substantial heterogeneity in regional economic conditions across China and the varying costs of green transition among firms, this study also seeks to determine whether the 'green paradox' may emerge under this policy mix. To this end, China is divided into eastern, central, and western regions, and firms are categorized based on whether they are high-tech enterprises or heavily polluting industries. Subgroup regressions are then employed to examine the heterogeneous effects of the DCRP across different geographic regions and firm characteristics.
Comments 2: Formatting issues, Tables 1, 5, 10 should not span pages.
Response 2: Regarding the Results and Discussion section, we addressed the formatting issues by inserting page breaks before Tables 1, 5, and 10, as you suggested, to prevent them from spanning across pages. We also applied the same adjustment to several other tables where page breaks were affecting readability.
We truly appreciate your valuable comments. If there are any further suggestions or improvements you would recommend, we would be very glad to incorporate them. We are committed to enhancing the quality and clarity of the manuscript in every possible way.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is much better now. I suggest accepting this article
Author Response
Thank you very much for your positive feedback and for agreeing to accept the manuscript. We truly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work, and we are grateful for the constructive suggestions that have helped improve the quality of the paper.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCongratulations. All comments have been revised one by one. In my opinion, this paper can be published in the journal.
