Innovation Dynamics and Ethical Considerations of Agentic Artificial Intelligence in the Transition to a Net-Zero Carbon Economy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper innovated by discussing the use of agentic AI in climate change mitigation. The paper presents a theoretical discussion and employs a robust structural equation modeling approach, examining mediation and moderation using Hayes' PROCESS method. The paper provides practical guidance for the adoption of agentic AI in the process of climate change mediation.

Below I recommend a few suggestions to improve the paper.

1. The paper indicates that the data were collected through a structured questionnaire using validated scales and indicators. Provide additional information as to how this sample can be considered representative. Are we missing something?
2. Provide the questionnaire employed in the analysis. There are open-ended questions. Provide the full questionnaire in English as supplementary material. 
3. The paper states that "Our use of CFA demonstrates strength, as items were adapted from previous studies on responsible innovation, dynamic capabilities, and climate outcomes, and we did not require EFA to determine the scale's properties (reliability and validity)." You mention "adapted". Would that mean that you have changed the wording? Explain which study you employ to develop each item in your questionnaire and how you changed the wording. 

Overall the paper is very intriguing and provides a relevant contribution.

Author Response

Thanks for pointing out significant points, which are duly addressed, and we hope the manuscript is now developed. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article aims to understand how the characteristics of agentic artificial intelligence — autonomous systems capable of decision-making and learning from experience — drive the innovation dynamics of climate change mitigation. Particular attention is given to critical ethical considerations amid the transition toward a net-zero carbon economy. At present, the following problems still exist in the abstract, literature review, interpretation of results and other aspects of the paper, which are suggested to be revised:

Comment 1: In the abstract part, the specific type or dimension of "ethical governance mechanism" can be defined, rather than mentioned in general, to enhance the definition of research variables and make the "dual role of ethics" in the conclusion more targeted.

Comment 2: In the abstract part, we can briefly mention the research methods, so that readers can grasp the research design faster. At the same time, highlight the main contributions, especially the specific impact on theory and practice, and avoid being too general.

Comment 3: In the Introduction part, it is necessary to strengthen the clear definition of Agentic AI and its difference from traditional AI to avoid conceptual confusion. The "Research Gap" section can be further structured, to clarify how each research gap is filled by this study.

Comment 4: In the Introduction part, the repetition of the "Research Gap" part is simplified, and the logical relationship between the gaps is clarified, which can enhance the sense of paragraph hierarchy.

Comment 5: In the Literature Review section, in the section of "Environmental application of agent artificial intelligence", the specific limited data of the application of Agentic AI in the climate field in the existing research are supplemented, instead of only describing the "lack of research" qualitatively, to strengthen the empirical support of literature criticism.

Comment 6: In the Literature Review section, "economic transformation of net zero economy" section, it supplements the difference analysis of the demand of different industries in the transformation, avoids the single perspective of the industry, and lays a theoretical foundation for the subsequent cross-industry empirical research.

Comment 7: In the Methods section, the specific distribution cycle of structured questionnaire and the pretest results of questionnaire reliability and validity are clarified to improve the rigor of data collection process.

Comment 8: In the Methods section, we can supplement the specific exclusion criteria of sample screening in each stage of "multi-stage sampling" to avoid the ambiguity of sampling process, thus enhancing the persuasiveness of sample representation.

Comment 9: In the Analysis part, in the structural equation model analysis, we can supplement the specific numerical value and significance of the model path coefficient, rather than relying only on the subsequent hypothesis test results, so that the direct correlation after model fitting is more intuitive.

Comment 10: In the Analysis part, the specific grouping basis and preliminary analysis conclusion of "Multi-group Analysis" are supplemented, to provide a more detailed analysis basis for the subsequent discussion of "the regulatory role of environmental situation".

Comment 11: In the Implications part, the management enlightenment part supplements the differentiated strategy suggestions of enterprises of different scales in "building dynamic capabilities related to Agentic AI", to avoid too general enlightenment and improve the pertinence of practical guidance.

Comment 12: In the Conclusion part, the repetitive expression of "research contribution" can be simplified, and the "boundary conditions" of the research conclusion can be supplemented to avoid excessive generalization of the conclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None.

Author Response

Thank you for helping us significantly develop the manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• It seems interest paper. But the shoul be clear, precise, and appropriate for its logical structure, First of all, Titleis too lengthy. “Harnessing Agentic Artificial Intelligence for Climate Change Mitigation: Innovation Dynamics and Ethical Considerations in the Transition to a Net-Zero Carbon Economy” -> Innovation Dynamics and Ethical Considerations of Agentic Artificial Intelligence in the Transition to a Net-Zero Carbon Economy” Likewise, many parts need to be fixed by “Professional English Proofreading Services”. In line 3, “Climate action” -> Climate risks (Climate is not person or something to act, and thus it should not be “action”).
• In the Abstract, the major misson of the paper is to anlyze the role of AI for the climate risks. But the authors just “conclude” that “ethical concerns exert a dual role as a moderator”- That’s terrible! Everybody can say the role of AI with pros and cons without reading the article. What we want to is the implications of negative impact, and its solution. We do not want ambiguous dual role, but clear direction for the remedy! Without these unique implications and suggesyioons, the paper is nothing but a good trial!
• Abstract should show the unqiue contribution of the paper. Usually, it is based on numerical findings of the empirical results. Show the number and direct meaning precisely and appropriately.
• In Key words, what’s the differecne between “Net zero economy” and “Carbon neutrality” -> Do not put every gadgets, but the most clear interpretation of the paper in Key words.
• In lines 129-130, the authors expect “we demonstrate that ethical considerations should both enable and limit how organisations use autonomous systems”-> That’s terrible, because they just showed the complexity of the ethical issues in innovatioon. So what? What we need is not just ambiguous conclusion, but clear “action” or direction from the paper. The authors should suggest how to enhance the enable benefits, and how to mitigate the limiting side-effect.
• Line 158, What does it mean “Narrow Application”? Isn’t if focusing on application?
• In the regression,there are too little numbers of variables to get the statistical reliability. In this case, a few variable should get the statistical siginificance. Npnetheless, in Table 4, Ethical consideratioon coefficient just got 0.298 in 90 percent confidence. It is marginallty accepted! Then, the focus should be on reason of this marginal accpetance, rather than its positive role. The authors shoud explain more for this statiostically marginal acceptance of the role of ethcal issues on the model!
• This paper has a good “introduction” chapter with its clear research questions. In lines 99-101, “Fundamental question: Are all these aspects of climate innovation equally influential in translating agentic AI capacity into effective net-zero transition performance?” In lines 114-116, “This complexity raises an additional research question: further, how do ethical perspectives influence the relationships between agentic AI capabilities, various forms of climate innovation, and net-zero transition performance?” -> I could not see clear answer for these two questions in abstract and/or discussion/conclusioon, elsewhwere. We cannot say everything is OK! Instead, we should say “speed” is the most important. or “scope” should be more emphasized. Explain all the answers clearly, precsily and appropriately with filed-oriented examples (cases).

Author Response

Thanks for your guidance. We have improved the manuscript significantly. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read the article "Harnessing Agentic Artificial Intelligence for Climate Change Mitigation: Innovation Dynamics and Ethical Considerations in the Transition to a Net-Zero Carbon Economy". The problem that the authors focus on includes two important topics for the modern world at once – climate and artificial intelligence. The study is original in posing research questions, the authors try to answer the following questions: do speed, scale, impact as aspects of climate innovation equally affect the transformation of AI capabilities into net-zero transition performance, as well as how do ethical perspectives influence the relationships between agentic AI capabilities, climate innovation, and net-zero transition performance? The authors describe in great detail the research gaps that this study is trying to bridge. They formulate six hypotheses and use quantitative methods, namely, they analyze data from interviews with leaders of various organizations using AI to make decisions on climate issues in order to test the hypotheses. The theoretical model described in the article looks interesting and comprehensive. Of course, the Implications section is also an advantage of this article, it describes in sufficient detail the Managerial Implications and Theoretical Contributions. However, despite its importance and originality, the article contains a number of shortcomings that should be eliminated before publication.

1. The most important of them is that the relationship between the stated research questions and the proposed hypotheses is not clear enough. For example, hypotheses 1 and 2 are formulated as general positive mediation effects ("Innovation Dynamics" and "Dynamic capabilities"). They don't answer the question: are they equally influential? There is no direct answer to the fundamental question in the hypotheses. Additional research question: "...how do ethical perspectives influence the relationships..." Is a question about moderation (the conditions under which relationships strengthen or weaken). This is explicitly stated in the annotation: "ethical concerns assume a dual role as a moderator." However, Hypothesis 3 suggests ethical considerations as a mediator ("positively mediate"). This is a completely different concept! A mediator is a mechanism through which a cause acts to influence the outcome. A moderator is a factor that changes the strength of the connection between cause and result. In hypotheses 4a, 4b, and 4c, an Environmental context appears, although an additional research question deals with ethical perspectives. All this is puzzling and requires more internal coordination in the article.
2. I have some terminological confusion. "Dynamic capabilities" in theory is the basis of the proposed model. But in H2 they are presented as a mediator on a par with "Innovation Dynamics". This raises questions: are these different structures or are "Innovation Dynamics" a manifestation of "Dynamic capabilities"? In addition, "Climate Mitigation Outcomes" in hypotheses turns into "net-zero transition performance" in annotations and questions. Are these synonyms? Uniform terminology is desirable.
3. The article seems excessively long. It contains a very detailed theoretical overview and a very detailed description of the research gap. Since a detailed review of theories is not the purpose of the article, maybe the authors will be able to combine the sections of Research Gap and Literature Review, which make up almost half the length of the text. This could lead to a reduction in the length of the text.
4. I would like to receive detailed information about the questionnaire (for example, how many questions are included, how many of them are open) or a link to the questionnaire text. This could confirm the reproducibility of the results.
5. The Discussion section does not provide information on how the results obtained relate to the studies on the basis of which the hypotheses of the study were formed. In general, literature from the Research Gap and Literature Review sections is not mentioned in the Discussion section. Maybe the authors should expand this section.

Author Response

Thanks for helping us improve the manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version is satisfactory.

Author Response

We are thankful to you for your feedback. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- The paper is much enhanced with "partial" reflection on the revied paper. Frankly speaking, all the reviewers do not want the excuse by the authors, but just follow the direction as asked. But the authord did not take this much. I am sorry for tooooooo much excuse.

• The authos said the paper took the "Profesional English Proofreading servide". But I cannot agree with this, because in the conclusion (it's only for example, there are toooooooo many English errors), "Basically, here the authors emphasised three aspects: theoretical (DACI model), empirical (asymmetric moderation effects), and practical (capability sequencing strategies)" -> It is not completed version of the sentence. It should be rewritten such as --- three aspects of theoretical perspective with enhanced modelling of DACI, empirical perspective with anymmetric moderation effects, and practical perspective on the implications.
• Most of all, the paper does not fit into the journal style and form. Put the chapter numbering and make more "completed sentence" rather than simple "itemized incomplete sentence".

Author Response

We have reworked your points of concern, and we do hope this revised manuscript will satisfy your requirements. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have performed commendably and successfully addressed numerous deficiencies present in the prior iteration of the manuscript. Despite this, I maintain the opinion that the article is excessively verbose. It appears to encompass two distinct studies: one focused on theoretical aspects and the other on the model. However, should the editorial board deem the length of the article to be acceptable within the context of its content, publication may proceed.

Author Response

We have tried our best to decrease the verbose feeling about the manuscript. Now the word count is also decreased significantly. We have made every effort to meet the journal's requirements.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The revised paper reflexts well the comments by the reviewer, and thus can be aaceptable for publication.
• However, the basic structure of the article should NOT be itemizatin of the words, but full sentence. So, please make full sentence for itemized simple integration of the words in many parts. Fit to the journal form/style.

Author Response

We have tried our best to address all and made it suitable for publication. We have sincerely improved our English. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf