Does Industrial Robot Adoption Reduce Pollution Emission? Evidence from China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents an interesting and potentially valuable research topic. However, it requires substantial refinement before it can be considered a rigorous academic contribution. Below are several major suggestions based on my personal evaluation, which I hope will help the authors improve their manuscript.
1) Robot adoption is indeed a critical indicator of smart manufacturing and a key enabling technology for Industry 4.0. However, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is another distinct technological pillar. The authors appear to conflate these two concepts, which undermines the theoretical foundation of the study. It is essential to clearly differentiate between industrial robotization and AI, as they serve different roles in the context of technological transformation.
2) The current literature review is overly concise and lacks the depth necessary to support the research framework. It is recommended that the authors restructure and expand this section to include (but not be limited to) the following aspects: Existing studies that focus on similar research topics; Relevant literature that applies comparable methodologies; Identified theoretical and practical research gaps; Alternative perspectives or critical voices on the topic under investigation.
3) The manuscript relies on a series of mathematical formulas to derive theoretical hypotheses. However, these derivations lack adequate scientific explanation and may confuse readers rather than clarify the conceptual model. It is advisable to develop hypotheses based on a structured literature review rather than relying solely on equilibrium analysis and abstract economic formulations. The current approach lacks the necessary scientific rigor and logical coherence expected in academic research.
4) The results section should present clear findings that correspond directly to the proposed hypotheses. These findings should form the basis for a coherent discussion that engages with existing literature and demonstrates the study’s contributions to the field. A well-developed discussion section is essential to validate the theoretical implications and practical relevance of the study.
In addition to the above major concerns, several specific issues also warrant the authors' attention:
1> It is inappropriate to list "listed companies" as the first keyword, given that the paper primarily investigates the impact of robot adoption on environmental outcomes.
2> The term "dual carbon objective" is a direct translation from Chinese and may be better expressed in English as "carbon peaking and carbon neutrality goals."
3> The authors should clearly distinguish among the concepts of robot adoption, artificial intelligence, and smart manufacturing, highlighting their interconnections and differences.
4> It would be helpful to provide concrete example cases for the three proposed pathways of robot adoption.
5> The time panel used in the analysis is too broad to address the research questions effectively. The authors are encouraged to consider a more focused empirical design, such as case studies or narrowed datasets, to improve methodological precision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors-
Introduction
This chapter is well structured and no further modifications are needed.
-
Literature Review
It would be interesting to present works from the last 2–3 years that demonstrate the integration of artificial intelligence to reduce pollution in industrial apps.
You should also include a few studies outlining methods to lower the energy consumption of industrial robots across different application types (e.g., mobile robots, welding robots, cutting robots, etc.).
-
Theoretical Framework
A simple diagram linking “robot adoption → productivity, technology, environmental investment → emissions” would facilitate the reader’s understanding.
-
Results
Scatter plots or time-trend graphs (emissions vs. robot stock) would be useful to allow readers to immediately visualize the effects.
-
Conclusions
Future directions: add 2–3 precise ideas for further research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsUsing theoretical modeling, this paper integrates production decisions, pollution emissions, and environmental regulations to construct a micro-level analytical framework incorporating technology choice and emission reduction investment. The results indicate that industrial robots have significantly reduced the pollution emission intensity of enterprises through technological advancements and energy-saving and emission reduction effects, and relevant policy recommendations have been provided. The main shortcomings in the paper are show as follows:
(1) The literature review section is not comprehensive and in-depth enough.
(2) The analyzed data comes from information published by the company, annual reports, patents, etc., but these data may have issues such as insufficient information or excessive promotion. The author should clearly provide data processing methods in the paper.
(3) Why are state-owned enterprises and heavily polluting industries more effective in reducing emissions after adopting industrial robots? Have policy pressures and scale advantages been excluded?
(4) The policy recommendations lack specificity and operability.
(5) There are some irregularities in the format.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised manuscript demonstrates a notable improvement in overall quality, with the academic contributions now more clearly articulated compared to the previous version. In my view, the paper would benefit further from enhancements in the Discussion section.
Specifically, it is recommended that the authors more explicitly distinguish their own research findings from existing literature. By clearly delineating how this study advances beyond prior work, the authors can better underscore the novelty and significance of their contribution. Additionally, a more comprehensive reflection on the limitations of existing studies—and how this research addresses or circumvents those gaps—would enhance the paper’s value, particularly in providing guidance for future investigations.
Moreover, the Discussion section should be expanded to more fully cover the following key dimensions:Theoretical and academic contributions; Managerial or practical implications;Identified limitations of the current study; Directions for future research
These elements are essential to both situating the work within the broader research context and providing insights for scholars and practitioners alike.
Finally, it is crucial for the authors to re-examine the derivation of key equations and the formulation of research hypotheses, ensuring that they are logically consistent, theoretically sound, and methodologically rigorous. Any flaw in these foundational elements could seriously compromise the credibility and scientific integrity of the entire paper. Therefore, the authors are strongly advised to verify these aspects with great care and precision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment，thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your professional suggestions on my article, which has greatly improved the quality of my article.
