The Impact of Supply Chain Digitization on Corporate Green Transformation: A Perspective Based on Carbon Disclosure
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to review the article titled "A Moderated Mediation Model Study on How Supply Chain Digitalization Motivates Corporate Green Transformation in China."
The article elucidates a synergistic mechanism involving digital technologies, information disclosure, and external regulation. The authors' approach is innovative, as they did not confine their analysis to a single factor but instead investigated the interplay of multiple variables in their impact on the greening of Chinese enterprises. Each of the three hypotheses proposed by the authors was thoroughly substantiated, along with the criteria employed for selecting the sample enterprises.
Notably, the authors conducted a stratified analysis by categorizing enterprises into distinct groups to examine the heterogeneity of the sample. This included a differentiation between manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors, state-owned and non-state-owned enterprises, and high-polluting and low-polluting enterprises. The research methodology was meticulously justified in alignment with the study's objectives, and the results were subjected to rigorous reliability testing. The article is well-structured, with a logical flow of information connecting each section seamlessly.
In conclusion, the authors provide clearly articulated recommendations for all stakeholders involved in the digitalization of supply chains. However, there is one observation to be made.
While the authors have effectively grounded their hypotheses in previous literature, they did not conduct a comparative analysis of their findings with those of prior studies. This may be attributed to the limited scope of the literature review, which restricted their ability to contextualize the results within a broader academic framework.
Upon addressing the noted shortcomings through revisions, the article would be suitable for publication.
Author Response
Comments1: While the authors have effectively grounded their hypotheses in previous literature, they did not conduct a comparative analysis of their findings with those of prior studies.
Response1: Thank you for reviewing the manuscript in a timely manner and raising the significant question. We agree with your comments that the hypothesis part should explain the obvious differences and innovations between current and previous research. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found from Page 7 to Page 9 and marked in blue.
Comments2: This may be attributed to the limited scope of the literature review, which restricted their ability to contextualize the results within a broader academic framework.
Response2: Thank you for providing this useful suggestions. We believe that the literature review section should summarize and generalize the viewpoints and results of previous research based on existing foundations. More importantly, it is necessary to compare and analyze existing research to highlight the value and significance of this study. According to your comments, we have revised the literature review and hypothesis. In addition, we also made significant revisions to the title, abstract, introduction, and final results discussion.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article examines the impact of supply chain digitalisation on corporate green transformation, presenting valuable insights. Improvements are recommended in the following areas:
1. The title requires simplification. The intermediary model is not the primary focus of this paper; the title should be streamlined to directly convey the content. It is suggested to amend it to: ‘The Impact of Supply Chain Digitalisation on Corporate Green Transformation: A Perspective Based on Carbon Disclosure’.
2. The abstract is overly lengthy and lacks readability. It currently comprises three sections: background, research methodology, conclusions, and significance. It is recommended to reduce the existing abstract by half its current length. Specific reference may be made to previous publications in the journal.
3. The introduction requires rewriting. It is advisable to incorporate data and analyse real-world challenges. Where feasible, a conceptual framework diagram should be included.
4. The construction of green transition indicators is overly complex with limited source clarification; supply chain digitalisation relies on pilot policy proxies, risking confusion between ‘policy exposure’ and ‘capability levels’; carbon disclosure and investor oversight lack transparency regarding metrics, sources, alternative measures, and processing details. Detailed analysis and explicit explanation are recommended when constructing indicators and specifying data sources. This will enhance the scientific rigour of empirical findings and improve result reproducibility.
5. Terminology and symbols occasionally lack consistency, with some English expressions and chart annotations appearing somewhat cursory. Units, dimensions, and explanatory notes in figures and tables are incomplete. For instance, Table 6 requires additional notes: do the parentheses denote T-statistics or standard deviations, and what do the asterisks signify? The authors are advised to conduct a thorough review to ensure textual quality.
6. The theoretical mechanism or logic linking supply chain digitalisation with carbon information disclosure remains unclear. Authors are advised to incorporate additional analysis or cite authoritative literature to substantiate this relationship.
Overall, this study is well-structured and demonstrates strong reference value. GOOD LUCK
Author Response
Comments1: The title requires simplification. The intermediary model is not the primary focus of this paper; the title should be streamlined to directly convey the content. It is suggested to amend it to: ‘The Impact of Supply Chain Digitalisation on Corporate Green Transformation: A Perspective Based on Carbon Disclosure’.
Response1: Thank you for reviewing the manuscript in a timely manner and pointing out the significant question. We approve that the title should be simplified, and revised the new title: ‘The Impact of Supply Chain Digitization on Corporate Green Transformation: A Perspective Based on Carbon Disclosure’.
Comments2: The abstract is overly lengthy and lacks readability. It currently comprises three sections: background, research methodology, conclusions, and significance. It is recommended to reduce the existing abstract by half its current length. Specific reference may be made to previous publications in the journal.
Response2: Thank you for providing this useful suggestions. We have referred to and studied previous articles published in this journal, and then revised the abstract including background, research methodology, conclusions and significance of this research.
Comments3: The introduction requires rewriting. It is advisable to incorporate data and analyse real-world challenges. Where feasible, a conceptual framework diagram should be included.
Response3: Thank you for giving us the important suggestions. We have revised the introduction part and explained significant data of green supply chain and corporate digital transformation. In addition, the framework diagram has also been added.
Comments4: The construction of green transition indicators is overly complex with limited source clarification; supply chain digitalisation relies on pilot policy proxies, risking confusion between ‘policy exposure’ and ‘capability levels’; carbon disclosure and investor oversight lack transparency regarding metrics, sources, alternative measures, and processing details. Detailed analysis and explicit explanation are recommended when constructing indicators and specifying data sources. This will enhance the scientific rigour of empirical findings and improve result reproducibility.
Response4: Thank you very much for carefully reviewing the manuscript and providing the detailed useful suggestions. The digital supply chain data samples mainly come from the public data of the Chinese Ministry of Commerce and the CNRDS (Chinese Research Data Services) database. The data of carbon disclosure comes from the Csmar database. The data of investor supervision comes from the investor Q&A data from CNRDS database. After listening to your suggestions, we have provided detailed data source explanations for the corresponding indicators of digital supply chain, corporate green transformation, carbon information disclosure, and external investor supervision. Also, we have added corresponding literature citations to the relevant indicators to ensure the scientific application of this empirical research.
Comments5: Terminology and symbols occasionally lack consistency, with some English expressions and chart annotations appearing somewhat cursory. Units, dimensions, and explanatory notes in figures and tables are incomplete. For instance, Table 6 requires additional notes: do the parentheses denote T-statistics or standard deviations, and what do the asterisks signify? The authors are advised to conduct a thorough review to ensure textual quality.
Response5: Thank you for pointing out the details and errors in the manuscript. We have revised the format of the charts one by one, added relevant annotations and marked in blue. Besides, we carefully checked the consistency of Terminology and symbols, the whole format and English Grammar of the entire manuscript.
Comments6: The theoretical mechanism or logic linking supply chain digitalisation with carbon information disclosure remains unclear. Authors are advised to incorporate additional analysis or cite authoritative literature to substantiate this relationship.
Response6: Thank you for providing constructive feedback. This issue may also be the limitation of our research. In the literature review section, we supplemented relevant theoretical explanations, including information processing theory, institutional theory, and stakeholder theory. On this basis, relevant authoritative literature was supplemented one by one to explain the mediating effect of carbon information disclosure in the incentive process of digital supply chain for corporate green transformation.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe main issue analyzed in this article is the impact of supply chain digitization on the green transformation of China's largest enterprises. This is a new topic and has not been addressed in this way by other authors. Studying the interrelationships between these phenomena may be of significant importance for accelerating the transition of the economy to a more ecological track, so the topic is important for both science and practice. In the theoretical part of the considerations, the authors broadly outline the area of ​​occurrence of factors significant for the digitization of the supply chain (the cited publications are current and their number is sufficient). In this context, the question arises whether the authors considered including other measurable parameters as explanatory, mediating, or moderating variables. It is worth clarifying whether any alternatives existed in this regard. As for computational methods, the authors demonstrated great knowledge of the possibilities in this area. In general the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented in the study. But in the section devoted to the discussion of results, authors should clearly describe the extent to which new findings expand, confirm, or contradict previously available knowledge (it is essential to cite publications by other authors in this context). There are also some formal issues (including the excessive length of the abstract and the manner of citing publications by other authors in the text), so authors should adapt the material to the journal's requirements.
Author Response
Comment1: In this context, the question arises whether the authors considered including other measurable parameters as explanatory, mediating, or moderating variables. It is worth clarifying whether any alternatives existed in this regard.
Response1: Thank you for reviewing the manuscript in a timely manner and raising the significant question. We have been considering the incentive effects of other digital technologies on corporate green transformation in future research, such as the impact of block chain on corporate carbon rebound. We also discussed these prospective issues in the limitations section and actively sought scientific solutions.
Comment2: But in the section devoted to the discussion of results, authors should clearly describe the extent to which new findings expand, confirm, or contradict previously available knowledge (it is essential to cite publications by other authors in this context).
Response2: Thank you for providing constructive feedback. This issue may also be the limitation of our research, and we have revised the Literature Review, Discussion and Implication part and added the relevant authoritative literature. On this basis, the revised manuscript needs to summarize and generalize the differences between this study and other previous studies, in order to highlight the innovative points of this research.
Comment3: There are also some formal issues (including the excessive length of the abstract and the manner of citing publications by other authors in the text), so authors should adapt the material to the journal's requirements.
Response3: Thank you for pointing out the details and errors in the manuscript. We have already referred to and studied high-quality papers previously published in this journal. After that, we have modified the abstract, introduction, literature review and the citation format of the references. We also provided detailed explanations on data citation and research indicator selection sources in new manuscript. In addition, we also carefully checked and revised the chart format and English Grammar of the whole manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
