Institutional Investor Horizon and Corporate Green Innovation: Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines the impact of institutional investor perspectives on corporate green innovation and analyzes the underlying mechanisms. Findings indicate that longer investment horizons significantly promote corporate green innovation. The research holds considerable value with a well-structured empirical process. Improvements are recommended in the following areas:

1. Introduction. While the paper cites literature on the relationship between institutional investors and corporate green innovation, the theoretical logical connection remains unclear. The introduction should provide a detailed explanation of the research background and value.
2. Literature Review Section. It is recommended to categorize and synthesize the literature along two main threads: one focusing on corporate green innovation and the other on institutional investors.
3.  Empirical Section. Regarding the definition of environmental regulation: Given the diverse regulatory tools employed by governments, how did the study define and select proxy variables? Detailed clarification is needed. Additionally, the data processing methodology should be thoroughly explained.
4.  Data in Table 2. It is recommended to maintain consistent decimal places.
5. The paper lacks heterogeneity analysis, such as examining differences based on firm ownership structure or size. Consider adding this if feasible; if not, provide an explanation.
6.  Conclusions section. The discussion on the meaning of “government” lacks depth. Enhance this section with additional content. Good luck.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to Authors

The manuscript investigates whether and how institutional investors’ investment horizon affects corporate green innovation, using a large panel of Chinese A-share listed companies. The research question is clearly articulated and the empirical design is consistent with prior literature. The paper employs a rich dataset and applies panel regression with extensive controls, supplemented by robustness checks and moderating analyses on environmental policy. The topic is timely and relevant to sustainability finance and green innovation debates.

At the same time, I see several aspects where the manuscript could be strengthened before publication:

1. Positioning and narrative focus.
   While the literature review is detailed, it is sometimes descriptive rather than argumentative. The gap — specifically that investment horizon has been overlooked compared to other investor attributes — should be more explicitly and succinctly linked to the hypotheses.

2. Interpretation and causal language.
   The entire empirical strategy is correlational. Several statements in the Discussion and Conclusion sections read as causal claims. These should be reframed more cautiously or supported with additional quasi-causal checks.

3. Mechanism narrative tightening.
   The moderation analysis is valuable, yet the discussion repeats rather than extracts conceptual insight. The policy-relevant interpretation (substitution vs. complementarity mechanism) would benefit from sharper, more concise articulation.

4. Over-long presentation.
   Several sections (especially robustness) could be condensed without loss of substance. Current length may reduce readability.

5. English and style.
   The English is generally understandable, but could benefit from professional language polishing to reduce redundancy and improve clarity.

Overall assessment: The study is relevant and empirically solid, but the manuscript would benefit from revision primarily in exposition, interpretive discipline, and tightening of the contribution narrative. With these improvements, it has the potential to meet the standards of the journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed manuscript analyzes the determinants of green innovations. Particular attention is paid to how the institutional investor horizon shapes green innovation, also considering the channels through which the main determinant influences the selected dependent variable. The research questions are clearly formulated, and the debates undertaken by the authors answer these questions.

The research topic is current, and the research results may be of interest to both researchers, corporate managers and policymakers.

The analysis is limited to a single country, which is a weakness of the study. However, the methodology is well explained and could be replicated in other countries.

The abstract meets editorial requirements.

The introduction places the study in a broader context and highlights why it is important.

The literature review section assesses the current state of the research field and cites current and relevant publications (including divergent results).

The methodology is well explained.

The results are described with sufficient accuracy. Robustness tests support the preliminary results.

The final section presents the study's conclusions, implications, and limitations.

The manuscript needs minor revisions. For more details, see the comments below.

1. The first hypothesis refers to the variation in the "performance of enterprises in environmental innovation" (under the impact of turnover rate of institutional investors). Considering that the whole work has as reference a single dependent variable (green innovation), it would be good if this hypothesis were also circumscribed to the same variable.
2. To ensure greater clarity for readers, the sentences on rows 464-465 should be expanded to clearly state that the results of the first test are presented in Table 3 and the results of the robustness test are presented in Table 6. This recommendation can be considered for other similar situations.
3. The study should also have a discussion section. The authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in the light of previous studies and working hypotheses.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx