Carbon Emission Reduction Effects of Government Talent Attraction Policies: Evidence from Fujian Province, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors
Your manuscript, "Carbon Emission Reduction Effects of Government Talent Attraction Policies: Evidence from Fujian Province, China,” has valuable ideas. Still, I prefer to provide some recommendations that are not mandatory to be applied, but they help to provide better quality for your manuscript. These are as follows:
1.    Plz remove abbreviations in the abstract.
2.    Explain more about the methodology and outcome of the research in the abstract.
3.    In general, the manuscript suffers from unsuitable paragraphing. Each standard paragraph has to have a maximum of 8- 10 lines, depending on the text and context. Then rectify this issue in the entire manuscript.
4.    You must provide information about the research gap and novelty of the research in the introduction; please give this information in this section.
5.    If the study's investigation duration is 2008-2021, you must explain why the information is not updated and why you selected this duration.
6.    The manuscript has some “sections.” Please revise the introduction to include “sections.”
7.    Section 2 has two subsections, the first very short and about literature. Please provide a table for tabulating the literature based on year, authors, and main themes as far as practicable.
8.    Hypotheses are okay, but you have to paraphrase them and express the ideas of both better.
9.    You have to add some info to explain how and from where you retrieved formulas 1, 2, and 3. Also, after all formulas, the details of the formulas have to be explained very well. All elements in the formula have to be introduced after the formula. Please double-check this issue in the manuscript.
10.    You must provide a separate section entitled “discussion” and interpret the findings in tables. You can also relocate the recommendations from the last section to the mentioned section.
11.    Why is page 13 empty?
12.    The conclusion must include some recommendations for scientists and academia in the field for similar research and also discuss the limitations of your study alongside outcomes. However, I cannot clearly find these issues.
Thanks for your attention. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your careful reading of our manuscript and your valuable comments and suggestions, which have significantly helped us improve the quality and clarity of the paper. Below, we provide point-by-point responses to each of your comments. All corresponding revisions have been marked in blue in the manuscript for your convenience.

Comments 1: Plz remove abbreviations in the abstract.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the abstract to remove all abbreviations, including “DID.” The revised abstract now maintains clarity and completeness without abbreviations.

Comments 2: Explain more about the methodology and outcome of the research in the abstract.

Response 2: We have revised the abstract to provide a more detailed explanation of the research methodology and key findings. The modifications have been highlighted in blue within the text for clarity.

Comments 3: In general, the manuscript suffers from unsuitable paragraphing. Each standard paragraph has to have a maximum of 8–10 lines, depending on the text and context. Then rectify this issue in the entire manuscript.

Response 3: Thank you for the suggestion. We have reviewed the entire manuscript and revised paragraphs that exceeded the suggested length.

Comments 4: You must provide information about the research gap and novelty of the research in the introduction; please give this information in this section.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised the introduction to explicitly elaborate on the research gap and the novelty of our study. Specifically, we highlight that previous studies have primarily focused on firm-level or provincial-level talent policies, with limited attention paid to county-level government-led initiatives and their environmental impacts. Our study contributes to filling this gap by evaluating the carbon emission reduction effects of talent attraction policies at the county level using a quasi-natural experiment in Fujian Province. The relevant revisions have been made in the introduction and are highlighted in blue for clarity.

Comments 5: If the study’s investigation duration is 2008–2021, you must explain why the information is not updated and why you selected this duration.

Response 5: The study covers the period from 2007 to 2021 for two main reasons. First, since the talent attraction policy was introduced in 2012, starting from 2007 ensures a sufficient pre-policy period to satisfy the parallel trend assumption required for DID analysis. Second, 2021 is the most recent year for which comprehensive and reliable data are available on key variables, including carbon emissions, green patent filings, and socioeconomic indicators. Data beyond 2021 were either incomplete or unavailable when this research was conducted. This explanation has been added to Section 3.3 and marked in blue.

Comments 6: The manuscript has some “sections.” Please revise the introduction to include “sections.”

Response 6: We have revised the introduction to include clearly defined sub-sections. This revision has been incorporated into the manuscript and marked in blue in the introduction section.

Comments 7: Section 2 has two subsections, the first very short and about literature. Please provide a table for tabulating the literature based on year, authors, and main themes as far as practicable.

Response 7: We have added a comprehensive literature review table (Table 1) in Section 2. The table lists key studies by year, authors, research content, and main findings, to visually summarize the development of relevant literature.

Comments 8: Hypotheses are okay, but you have to paraphrase them and express the ideas of both better.

Response 8: The hypotheses have been paraphrased to improve clarity and academic tone. We ensured that both hypotheses clearly state the expected relationship and causal mechanism: Hypothesis 1 relates to the direct effect of talent on carbon emissions, and Hypothesis 2 to the mediating role of green technological innovation. The modifications have been highlighted in blue within the text for clarity.

Comments 9: You have to add some info to explain how and from where you retrieved formulas 1, 2, and 3. Also, after all formulas, the details of the formulas have to be explained very well. All elements in the formula have to be introduced after the formula. Please double-check this issue in the manuscript.

Response 9: We have added explanations before and after each formula (Equations 1, 2, and 3), including the source of the model (Angrist and Pischke, 2009) and definition of each term. The modifications have been highlighted in blue within the text for clarity.

Comments 10: You must provide a separate section entitled “discussion” and interpret the findings in tables. You can also relocate the recommendations from the last section to the mentioned section.

Response 10: We have added a dedicated Section 5 titled “Discussion.” It synthesizes the empirical findings, interprets key results, analyzes mechanisms and heterogeneity, and incorporates previously placed recommendations. The modifications have been highlighted in blue within the text for clarity.

Comments 11: Why is page 13 empty?

Response 11: We apologize for this oversight. The blank page resulted from formatting issues during conversion. It has now been removed, and the page layout has been corrected to ensure continuity.

Comments 12: The conclusion must include some recommendations for scientists and academia in the field for similar research and also discuss the limitations of your study alongside outcomes. However, I cannot clearly find these issues.

Response 12: We have revised the conclusion to include specific academic recommendations—such as encouraging research on long-term and cross-regional effects of talent policies—and discussed limitations, including data constraints, unobservable confounders, and generalizability issues. The modifications have been highlighted in blue within the text for clarity.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to authors

This study investigates the impact of a government talent recruitment policy in Fujian Province, China, on reducing carbon emissions. Using data from 134 counties between 2007 and 2021 and a difference-in-differences (DID) model, the authors find that hiring highly educated officials leads to lower emissions by promoting green innovation. The effect is stronger in urban, economically developed, and non-resource-based areas, especially where public awareness of green practices is high. The study suggests that talent policies can support China’s carbon reduction goals when tailored to local needs. However, this paper should be ready to publish in the journal of “Sustainability” after addressing the following questions.

1. Please check the grammatical errors carefully.
2. How were “three-high” talents specifically defined and identified in the dataset?
3. Were there any spillover effects observed in neighboring counties not covered by the policy?
4. How was green innovation capacity quantitatively measured in the model?
5. Could other concurrent policies have influenced the observed carbon emission reductions?
6. What measures were taken to ensure the accuracy and consistency of county-level emissions data?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your careful reading of our manuscript and your valuable comments and suggestions, which have significantly helped us improve the quality and clarity of the paper. Below, we provide point-by-point responses to each of your comments. All corresponding revisions have been marked in blue in the manuscript for your convenience.

Comments 1: Please check the grammatical errors carefully.

Response 1: Thank you for your careful review. We have thoroughly proofread the entire manuscript and corrected all identified grammatical and typographical errors to ensure clarity, accuracy, and academic rigor.

Comments 2: How were “three-high” talents specifically defined and identified in the dataset?

Response 2: In our study, “three-high” talents are defined as individuals who are highly educated, highly skilled, and highly specialized. Specifically, this refers to Ph.D. and master’s graduates from top-tier universities (e.g., Tsinghua University, Peking University, Renmin University of China) who were directly appointed to county-level leadership positions in Fujian Province under the 2012 talent recruitment policy. The list of counties and the appointed officials were compiled using official sources, including the career guidance centers and employment websites of the relevant universities.

Comments 3: Were there any spillover effects observed in neighboring counties not covered by the policy?

Response 3: To assess potential spillover effects, we included 50 counties from neighboring provinces (Guangdong, Jiangxi, and Zhejiang) that were not covered by the talent policy as part of the control group. Our Difference-in-Differences (DID) framework, combined with robustness checks, indicates that there were no statistically significant spillover effects on carbon emissions in these adjacent counties. This suggests that the observed carbon reduction effects were largely localized to the policy-implementing regions.

Comments 4: How was green innovation capacity quantitatively measured in the model?

Response 4: Following Shao et al. (2022), green technological innovation in this study is measured by the number of green patents per capita at the county level. Green patent data are obtained from the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) patent database. To ensure consistency with international and national standards, we classify green patents using the International Patent Classification (IPC) Green Inventory. A detailed explanation of the data source and screening criteria for green patents has been added to Section 4.4 and is highlighted in blue.

Comments 5: Could other concurrent policies have influenced the observed carbon emission reductions?

Response 5: We acknowledge that other environmental or development policies could have influenced carbon emissions during the study period. To account for this, we included dummy variables for major concurrent policies, including the “Low-Carbon City Pilot” launched in 2010 and the “Ecological Protection Compensation Pilot” carried out from 2018 to 2020. Our regression results remained robust and statistically significant after controlling for these policy shocks, indicating that the observed carbon emission reductions are mainly driven by the government talent attraction policy.

Comments 6: What measures were taken to ensure the accuracy and consistency of county-level emissions data?

Response 6: County-level carbon emissions data were sourced from the EDGAR (Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research), which provides globally consistent and spatially explicit emissions estimates. Carbon intensity was calculated as the ratio of total CO₂ emissions to real GDP for each county. To ensure accuracy and consistency, we adjusted all monetary variables to constant 2007 prices, applied two-way winsorization at the 1% level to minimize the impact of outliers, and cross-checked emissions data against provincial statistics and yearbooks. Missing data were supplemented using the CSMAR and EPS databases, and interpolated as needed to maintain data integrity.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Dear authors.

I have read the revised manuscript and I could feel many improvements and thanks for paying attention. However 2 point are remained that after resolving these issues the manuscript will be ready to be sent for the next step. The first one is you have to merge together last 3 paragraphs of the introduction which illustrate the following chapters and prepare only one paragraph which maintain the meaning in that one. And the second issue is you have to provide 2 more paragraph in the end of  conclusion which the first one explain the limitation of your research study and the second one has to provide some reccomendations for the future studies in the same filed.

Good luck

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and for recognizing the improvements made in the revised manuscript. We appreciate your continued support and constructive feedback. Please find our detailed responses to your remaining concerns below:

Comments1: Merging the last three paragraphs of the Introduction

Response1: We have revised the Introduction section by merging the last three paragraphs that previously outlined the structure of the paper. The new, single paragraph now presents a concise and coherent summary of the subsequent sections, while preserving the original meaning and logical flow, as per your suggestion.

Comments2: Adding two additional paragraphs at the end of the Conclusion

Response2: In response to your recommendation, we have added two new paragraphs at the end of the Conclusion section. The first paragraph discusses the limitations of our study, such as potential omitted variables, limited generalizability beyond the studied region, and the use of patent data as a proxy for green innovation. The second paragraph outlines recommendations for future research, including exploring long-term effects, applying refined identification strategies, and conducting comparative studies across different regions and institutional contexts.

We hope these revisions address your concerns and bring the manuscript closer to publication standards. Thank you again for your thoughtful and helpful review.