Review Reports

The subject of this paper is quite interesting, but there is still considerable scope for improvement.

Comments 1: Deepen the Theoretical Mechanism

While the concepts of "cognitive" and "structural" imprints are well-introduced, the paper could more explicitly link these abstract imprints to specific, observable organizational behaviors. For instance, how does risk aversion manifest in the R&D budget allocation process? How does structural inertia specifically slow down the approval of green projects? A valuable addition would be to formally test the proposed mediating mechanisms (e.g., risk tolerance, R&D expenditure, bureaucratic intensity) to move from theoretical argument to empirically tested pathways.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your comments. We sincerely appreciate your rigorous and valuable feedback. Your suggestions have prompted us to thoroughly revisit the relevant literature and the mechanism testing process. By reviewing the literature and reanalyzing the data, we have added Section 4.5 Mechanism Test, to the manuscript. We believe that the empirical analyses have been strengthened and that the theoretical contribution of the paper has been further enhanced. Specifically, the added Section 4.5 Mechanism Test is presented as follows:

“4.5. Mechanism test

As discussed above, restructured family firms exhibit lower green innovation due to their cognitive and structural imprints. The cognitive imprint is characterized by managers’ limited tolerance for risk, whereas the structural imprint reflects a higher degree of bureaucratic intensity. To verify that these mechanisms account for the ob-served differences in green innovation, we use risk-taking capacity (SOL) as a proxy for cognitive imprinting and employee scale (ES) as a proxy for structural imprinting.

SOL is measured as the ratio of operating earnings before interest and taxes to the average balance of total liabilities, which captures the firm’s financial buffer for ab-sorbing potential risks [63]. ES is measured as the natural logarithm of the number of employees plus one, reflecting the organizational inertia typically associated with a more bureaucratic structure [64].

As reported in columns (1)–(2) of Table 8, restructured family firms demonstrate significantly higher SOL and larger ES compared with entrepreneurial family firms. These findings provide evidence that the cognitive and structural imprints embedded in restructured family firms constrain their green innovation.

Table 8. Mechanism test: cognitive and structural imprints.

Notes：*, **, and *** denote statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively.”

Comments 2: Refine Variable Measurement and Analysis

Green Innovation (GI): Relying solely on green invention patent applications captures only one dimension of green innovation. It would strengthen the paper to include a measure for green utility model patents to capture incremental green innovations, or to discuss this as a limitation.

Second-Generation Involvement (SGEN): The binary measure is a good start, but the depth of involvement likely matters. As a future research direction or a robustness check, consider discussing or testing measures that capture the extent of involvement (e.g., shareholding percentage, number of years in management, or positional power).

Control Variables: Please clarify the calculation for Leverage (LEV). The definition in Table 1 ("total assets to total liabilities") is the inverse of the standard definition (usually total liabilities/total assets). Please ensure consistency with standard financial practice.

Response 2: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive comments, which have encouraged us to pay closer attention to the details of the manuscript. We have revised the corresponding sections in response to the feedback. Specifically, our responses address the following three aspects:

(1) Response to comments on Green Innovation (GI). Our second robustness check replaces the original green-innovation measure with the natural logarithm of the sum of granted green invention patents and green utility model patents. Upon reviewing the manuscript data, we identified a typographical error in the second sentence on page 10. This has now been corrected to: “Second, to ensure our results are not sensitive to the specific metric of innovation output, we replace our measure of green innovation with the natural logarithm of the sum of the number of granted green invention patents and green utility model patents (GPG).”

In addition, we have added the following discussion in the limitations section: “Although we replaced the measures of green innovation in the robustness checks, we did not separately examine differences between the two categories of green innovation within restructured family firms. Future research could investigate both substantive and symbolic green innovation to explore how restructuring imprinting differentially shapes these activities.”

(2) Response to comments on Second-Generation Involvement (SGEN):

We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable suggestions regarding the measurement of second-generation involvement, which prompted us to revisit the literature and reflect carefully. We confirm that the binary variable design is a deliberate choice, based on theoretical alignment. One of the core focuses of this study is whether second-generation involvement influences the expression of restructuring imprinting, rather than the degree to which involvement affects it. The former triggers a qualitative change, while the latter reflects only a quantitative change. For example, studies such as Fu et al. (2025), Wang & Sun (2024), and Xu et al. (2015) demonstrate that binary measurement of second-generation involvement better captures threshold effects in related research.

Therefore, our choice does not disregard the value of measuring the degree of involvement, but rather reflects a careful consideration of research focus and theoretical fit. We believe that the binary variable is the optimal measure for addressing whether second-generation involvement affects the expression of restructuring imprinting. We kindly ask for your understanding of this measurement approach. At the same time, we view this study as only the starting point for research on green innovation in restructured family firms.

Finally, we have added the following content to the section 5.4. Limitations and Future Research Directions: “This study identifies a threshold effect of second-generation involvement on the imprinting of restructured family firms. Building on this, future research could incorporate more fine-grained measures of second-generation involvement (e.g., shareholding percentage, years in management, or positional power) to test how varying levels of involvement influence the imprinting effect.”

(3) Response to comments on Leverage (LEV): We sincerely thank the reviewer for this comment. We have corrected the typographical error. The original text, “The ratio of total assets to total liabilities,” has been revised to “The ratio of total liabilities to total assets.”

Comments 3: Address Limitations More Forcefully

The limitation regarding the sample's focus on listed firms is critical. Listed firms are generally larger and more transparent. The imprinting effect might operate differently in smaller, private family firms. This should be highlighted as a key boundary condition for the generalizability of the findings.

Acknowledge that the data period starts after many SOEs were restructured. While the imprinting logic suggests persistence, the study cannot directly observe the imprinting process during the sensitive period itself

Response 3: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the insightful and valuable comments. They have prompted us to reconsider and reorganize the presentation of the study limitations in our manuscript. In light of this feedback and building upon previous suggestions, we have substantially revised the " Limitations and Future Research Directions ".

Specifically, we have removed the original content:

“This study has several limitations that suggest promising avenues for future research. First, due to data constraints, the study's temporal scope (2007–2022) begins after some SOEs completed privatization. Consequently, our data do not fully capture the entire SOE restructuring process. Future research could employ longitudinal case studies to examine the evolution of green innovation behaviors across different time periods. Second, the sample comprises only Chinese listed family firms, limiting generalizability to private firms or other contexts like India, which also underwent SOE re-structuring. Future studies could incorporate data from private firms or other emerging economies to test the broader applicability of these findings.”

We replaced it with the following content：

“One limitation concerns the research sample. This study focuses on listed firms. Although the large-sample analysis confirms the presence of restructuring imprinting, it cannot precisely capture the rich heterogeneity embedded within the variables. We suspect that the imprinting effect may operate through different mechanisms in smaller private family firms. Future research could collect primary data through surveys to examine this possibility. In addition, the sample period spans 2007–2022, which is later than most state-owned enterprise restructurings. While imprinting theory emphasizes persistence, we are unable to directly observe the imprint formation process during the sensitive restructuring period. Future studies may conduct retrospective research—drawing on in-depth interviews, archival materials, and oral histories—to more thoroughly analyze the imprinting effect in restructured family firms.

Another limitation concerns measurement. Although we replaced the measures of green innovation in the robustness checks, we did not separately examine differences between the two categories of green innovation within restructured family firms. Future research could investigate both substantive and strategic green innovation to explore how restructuring imprinting differentially shapes these activities. This study identifies a threshold effect of second-generation involvement on the imprinting of restructured family firms. Building on this, future research could incorporate more fine-grained measures of second-generation involvement (e.g., shareholding percentage, years in management, or positional power) to test how varying levels of involvement influence the imprinting effect.”

Comments 4: Sharpen the Practical Implications and Policy Recommendations

The recommendations for managers are helpful but could be more specific. For example, what specific "green innovation training" should restructured firms implement? How can boards actively "counterbalance cognitive constraints"?

The policy recommendations could be better integrated with existing Chinese policies, such as the "Dual Carbon" goals . Suggesting how policymakers can design differentiated green subsidy programs or green credit policies for these two types of family firms would add significant impact.

Response 4: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback, which has prompted us to reconsider and reorganize the presentation of the practical implications section. We have consulted policy documents and relevant literature, and have substantially revised this section accordingly.

Specifically, we have removed the original content:

” Second, family firm managers should cultivate introspective awareness of how past experiences and imprints influence current decisions, maintaining this consciousness throughout strategic processes. For example, boards could appoint independent directors with green innovation expertise to oversee green projects, counter-balancing potential cognitive constraints in leadership. Additionally, managers should conduct periodic reviews of strategic decisions and implementation challenges, making timely adjustments based on internal and external changes.

Third, policies should recognize imprinting differences between family firm types and provide differentiated institutional support. Specifically, tailored incentive struc-tures should be designed for restructured versus entrepreneurial family firms. For re-structured firms, green innovation training can enhance environmental responsibility awareness. For entrepreneurial firms, access to green financing can reinforce positive imprints and strengthen green innovation capabilities.”

We replaced it with the following：

“Second, managers in family firms should recognize their own limitations and actively mitigate the constraints imposed by cognitive imprinting. For example, boards may appoint independent directors for green innovation—professionals with expertise in green technologies who hold decisive authority in evaluating green projects. Firms may also establish a Green Innovation Committee under the board. Beyond formulating and overseeing the firm’s green innovation strategy, this committee should facilitate regular exchanges between management teams and benchmark green-innovation firms. In addition, the board should dynamically adjust green-innovation decisions based on policy interpretations, projected returns, and industry conditions.

Third, the government should align with the “dual-carbon goals” and develop differentiated policy support systems for both types of family firms. For restructured family firms, the government may create “green transition seed funds” or provide guarantees for their applications for green-transition loans. At the same time, government agencies may organize experts to offer free training on green innovation, helping these firms overcome constraints in both financing and technology. For entrepreneurial family firms, the government may introduce “green market expansion subsidies” to encourage them to develop markets through green products or services. Moreover, the government could provide “green talent recruitment subsidies” to support firms in attracting skilled personnel who can contribute to their green-development capabilities.”

Comments 5: Enhance Clarity and Consistency

There is an inconsistency in the abbreviation for the second-generation involvement variable. Table 1 and the models use SGEN, but Figure 2 and its description use SCEN. This must be corrected throughout the manuscript for consistency.

The labels and captions for Figures 1 and 2 should be more descriptive. For example, Figure 1 could be labeled: "The Moderating Effect of Founder Control on the RST-GI Relationship."

Response 5: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's thoughtful comments, which once again demonstrate their meticulous attention to the details of our manuscript. In accordance with the suggestions, we have carefully revised the formatting throughout the paper to ensure terminological consistency. Additionally, we have updated the titles of Figure 1 and Figure 2. Specifically, the original title of Figure 1, "Moderating effect of founder control (FC)," has been revised to “The Moderating Effect of Founder Control on the RST-GI Relationship”. Similarly, the original title of Figure 2, “Moderating effect of second-generation involvement (SGEN)”，has been changed to “The Moderating Effect of Second-Generation Involvement on the RST-GI Relationship”.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is written clearly and shows a good use of academic English. There are few grammar mistakes, and they don’t affect understanding. However, the writing could be improved with careful copyediting to make it smoother, more concise, and more polished.

Some sentences are overly long and complex, which can reduce readability.*Example (Page 2, lines 42-45):* "However, others argue that family involvement can inhibit green innovation [9], citing impediments such as female CEOs [10], clan culture [11], family business identity [12], and financialization [13]."

Suggestion: "However, other studies argue that family involvement inhibits green innovation [9], pointing to factors such as female CEOs [10], clan culture [11], strong family business identity [12], and financialization [13] as impediments."

Word Choice and Repetition: The word "imprint" is used very frequently. Consider using synonyms like "legacy," "enduring influence," or "historical burden" where appropriate to improve the flow. Phrases like "in order to" can often be replaced with the simpler "to."

Prepositions and Articles: There are minor but consistent errors with prepositions and definite articles. Examples:"…influence on strategic decisions" (correct) vs. "...influence to strategic decisions" (incorrect, check the manuscript for consistency)."…the natural logarithm of the number of…" (ensure the definite article is used consistently)

Figure and Table Language: Standardize the formatting of titles and notes. For instance, table titles should be in bold, and variable names in tables should be consistent with the text (e.g., SGEN, not SCEN).

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback. We fully agree that attention to detail is as crucial as theoretical rigor. In accordance with the suggestions, we have carefully revised the formatting throughout the manuscript.

First, we have shortened several long sentences to improve readability and clarity. Second, we have replaced the term "imprint" with more appropriate alternatives such as "legacy," "enduring influence," or "historical burden" where contextually fitting. We have also revised "in order to" to "to" for conciseness. Third, we have corrected errors in preposition and article usage. Fourth, we have reviewed and standardized the formatting of all figure and table titles and notes. Table titles are now bolded, and variable names have been made consistent throughout.

Additionally, we have refined inappropriate or unclear expressions across the text to enhance overall fluency and precision.

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable comments, which have prompted us to reorganize and refine the introduction section. In response, we have completely rewritten the first paragraph of the introduction to incorporate controversial findings related to family involvement. The specific revisions are as follows:

The original text: “Green innovation enables firms to achieve sustainable development by balancing economic, environmental, and social objectives [1]. For family firms, green innovation is crucial for securing sustainable competitive advantages and facilitating intergenera-tional succession [2]. Research on green innovation in family firms has expanded sub-stantially in recent years. Some scholars argue that family firms exhibit a higher level of green innovation [3,4] and identify several facilitating factors, such as government green subsidies [5], founder clan culture imprints [6], internal resources and external environments [7], and stakeholder pressure [8]. However, others argue that family in-volvement can inhibit green innovation [9], citing impediments such as female CEOs [10], clan culture [11], family business identity [12], and financialization [13]. These conflicting findings largely originate from overlooking the inherent heterogeneity among family firms, especially the formative impact of their founding origins on long-term sustainability orientations.”

We replaced it with the following content: “Green innovation is regarded as a strategic choice that enables firms to pursue economic, environmental, and social benefits simultaneously [1]. Because green inno-vation is vital for family firms seeking sustainable competitive advantages and inter-generational succession [2], scholarly interest in this topic has grown steadily. Howev-er, the literature remains divided on whether family involvement facilitates green in-novation. One stream argues that green innovation requires external capital and spe-cialized talent; therefore, to safeguard socioemotional wealth rooted in family control, family involvement may hinder the pursuit of green innovation [2,3,4]. Another stream contends that green innovation helps preserve family reputation, maintain positive stakeholder relationships, and support intergenerational continuity; thus, family involvement can promote corporate green innovation [5,6,7].”

Comments 2: More emphasis could be placed on the heterogeneity of family firms and how their historical origins influence strategic decisions, which is a critical gap addressed in the paper.

Response 2: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their insightful and valuable comments, which have prompted us to thoroughly reconsider and reorganize the writing of both the introduction and literature review sections. Specifically, we have removed the original second paragraph of the introduction: “Imprinting theory [14] provides a powerful theoretical lens for understanding how a firm's origin influences its green innovation, thereby helping to reconcile the aforementioned research inconsistencies. The theory posits that imprints formed during a sensitive founding period persist through organizational routines, structures, and beliefs, exerting a lasting influence on strategic decisions [15,16]. However, existing literature has paid limited attention to how historical origins shape a firm's long-term sustainability orientation. The concept of restructuring imprinting, in particular, re-mains understudied. Restructuring imprinting refers to the enduring influence of a family firm's origin—specifically, whether it was established through SOE restructuring—on its subsequent strategic decisions.”

We replaced it with the following content: “Such contradictory views stem from overlooking the internal heterogeneity within the family firms. Although existing studies have examined green innovation through various dimensions of family firm heterogeneity—such as family ownership involve-ment [4,8,9], family generational involvement [10,11], and ownership structure [12,13]—these sources of heterogeneity are largely based on current firm characteris-tics, with limited attention to historically rooted differences. A review of research on historical influences shows that scholars have investigated how factors such as CEOs’ experiences of sent-down movement [14], childhood family decline [15], or childhood famine experience [16] shape CSR-related decisions. Yet few studies explore historical imprinting at the organizational level, such as a firm’s historical origin.

Imprinting theory [17] offers a valuable lens for understanding the relationship between a firm’s historical origin and its green innovation behavior, while also helping reconcile the above debates. The theory posits that imprints formed during sensitive periods persist through routines, structures, and beliefs, exerting long term influence on strategic choices [18,19]. Historical origin reflects the broader historical context of a family firm and has recently attracted growing interest among scholars [4,20,21]. However, the link between historical origin and family firms’ green innovation be-havior remains theoretically underdeveloped. Moreover, most existing studies on fam-ily firm green innovation rely on socioemotional wealth theory, institutional theory, or the resource-based view, with few drawing on imprinting theory [22]. This gap limits the theoretical explanatory power of current research on family-firm green innovation.”

Furthermore, we have revised the subsection titles within Chapter 2. Specifically, we have removed the original heading of Section 2.1, "Background and theoretical framework," and introduced two new subsections: 2.1 "Green Innovation in Family Firms" and 2.2 "Background and Imprinting Perspective." The numbering of all subsequent subsections in Chapter 2 has been updated accordingly. In addition, we have also revised Section 2.1, " Green Innovation in Family Firms," by incorporating the following content:

“Given the strategic importance of green innovation and the central role of family firms in national economies, scholars have increasingly examined green innovation within the family firm context. Early studies tended to treat family firms as a homoge-neous group, comparing their green innovation behaviors with those of non-family firms and identifying the underlying mechanisms [2]. As the field evolved, attention gradually shifted toward the heterogeneity of green innovation among family firms and its determinants [4]. Existing research primarily investigates these determinants at the family and firm levels. Key family-level factors include family ownership [7,8], family managerial control [4], and intergenerational succession [10,11]. Key firm-level factors include firm characteristics and geographic conditions [33], stakeholder pres-sures [34], and state ownership [12].

These factors shape not only the resources and capabilities available for green in-novation but also the firm’s risk preferences and strategic priorities, resulting in dif-ferentiated green-innovation strategies across family firms. Despite these valuable in-sights, our understanding of how family firm origins—a critical dimension of hetero-geneity—shape green innovation behaviors remain limited. Historical origin reflects a family firm’s broader historical context and has only recently begun to draw scholarly attention [20,21,35]. Given that ownership nature strongly influences green innovation and that historical lineage is essential for understanding family-firm behavior [20], we argue that examining how family firm origin affects green innovation strategies is both necessary and theoretically meaningful.”

Comments 3: The theoretical framework is strong, but the development of hypotheses could be made clearer, particularly the role of founder control and second-generation involvement.

Response 3: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback, which has helped us further refine the logical development of our research hypotheses. We have comprehensively reworked the explanatory mechanisms concerning founder control and second-generation involvement. The specific revisions are as follows:

We have removed the original content pertaining to hypothesis development:

“2.2.2. The moderating role of founder control

Founder control exists when a firm's founder serves as either the CEO or the chairman. In restructured family firms, these founders often held executive positions in the original SOE prior to its restructuring. As carriers of the restructuring imprint, their managerial mindset and behavior are profoundly shaped by their experiences managing SOEs under a planned economy, which subsequently reinforces this imprint within the firm. We contend that founder control amplifies both the cognitive and structural imprints in restructured family firms, thereby intensifying the inhibitory effects on green innovation.

First, founders' profound involvement in strategic decision-making fosters strong emotional attachment, increasing their inclination to preserve existing institutions and cultural norms [47]. In these firms, founders act as "opportunity inheritors" rather than "opportunity creators," leading to stronger organizational identification [48] with the cognitive imprints from the restructuring era [14]. Since these firms inherit a risk-averse SOE culture, founder control can intensify this organizational risk aversion. This reinforcement of the cognitive imprint further reduces their propensity for green innovation.

Second, founders' decision-making authority may exacerbate the structural imprint in restructured family firms, resulting in more rigid governance processes. Unlike entrepreneurial family firm founders, restructured firm founders assumed ownership not through market competition but through political capital or administrative appointments. As key participants in SOE privatization, they tend to preserve pre-existing institutional frameworks after restructuring [49], thereby strengthening the imprinting effect. Founders' substantial authority and centralized decision-making can suppress initiatives that challenge established paths [50]. This increases bureaucratic layers and prolongs decision cycles, hindering the organizational agility needed for green innovation and reducing implementation capacity. Therefore, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2: Founder control strengthens the negative relationship between restruc-tured family firms and green innovation.

2.2.3. The moderating role of second-generation involvement

Second-generation involvement, defined as the participation of family successors in executive roles and daily management, is critical for family firm continuity [51]. Integrating the next generation into management often triggers significant shifts in decision-making logic and governance structures [52]. This study proposes that second-generation involvement introduces new cognitive perspectives and resources, thereby weakening the restructuring imprint and mitigating its inhibitory effect on green innovation.

First, the next generation's distinct upbringing and educational background fundamentally differentiate them from the founders, attenuating the risk-averse cognitive imprint. Unlike the founders, the second generation lacks direct experience in the SOE privatization process and has no shared work history with former SOE employees. Consequently, they are less bound by implicit employee contracts and prioritize maximizing family interests. This outlook makes them more likely to perceive green innovation as a strategic opportunity to build future competitive advantages [53]. Moreover, second-generation involvement fosters a long-term orientation [54], subsequently enhancing the firm's risk tolerance [55]. Since green innovation strengthens corporate sustainability and facilitates intergenerational succession [23], second-generation involvement effectively counteracts the low willingness of these firms to pursue it.

Second, second-generation involvement introduces new management knowledge and optimizes organizational structures in restructured family firms, thereby facilitating resource reallocation and organizational transformation [56]. Most successors possess higher education, frequently with international exposure, which enhances their acceptance of strategic risk-taking [57,58]. Unlike founders, these educated successors typically possess global perspectives and innovative mindsets, promoting the streamlining of hierarchical decision-making processes inherited from SOEs. Through management participation, successors introduce new managerial concepts and practices, driving organizational routine renewal [52] and creating a more favorable environment for green innovation [59]. Furthermore, family successors challenge traditional resource allocation patterns [60], freeing resources tied to legacy relationships and redundant assets for redirection toward promising green initiatives. This study therefore proposes that resource restructuring driven by second-generation involvement mitigates path-dependent constraints on green innovation in these firms. There-fore, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3: Second-generation involvement weakens the negative relationship be-tween restructured family firms and green innovation.”

We have rewritten the hypothesis development process for the two moderating effects as follows:

“2.2.2. The moderating role of founder control

Founder control refers to situations in which the founder serves as the firm’s CEO or board chair. In restructured family firms, founders are typically former senior executives of state-owned enterprises and can be viewed as the direct carriers of restructuring imprinting. Their managerial philosophies and behavioral patterns are profoundly shaped by their experience in state-owned enterprises during the planned-economy era. Accordingly, we propose that founder control amplifies the imprinting effect in restructured family firms, thereby strengthening the negative influence of restructuring experience on green-innovation strategies.

First, founder control reinforces cognitive imprinting within restructured family firms. Unlike “opportunity creators,” founders of restructured family firms are “opportunity inheritors.” As former SOE executives, founder-CEOs (or chairs) are deeply involved in strategic decisions and thus tend to preserve existing systems and organizational cultures [47]. They also exhibit strong emotional attachment and organizational identification with the firm [48]. Moreover, restructured family firms often inherit the task of accommodating former SOE employees, who are accustomed to routines characterized by rule compliance and risk aversion. Because founder-CEOs have long worked with such groups, they find it difficult to promote high-risk strategic initiatives. As a result, restructured family firms under founder control are more likely to retain the risk-averse and path-dependent tendencies of their SOE predecessors [17]. This strengthens cognitive imprinting and further suppresses their willingness to pursue green innovation.

Second, founder control reinforces structural imprinting in restructured family firms. Many founders of these firms were selected to take over restructured enterprises because of their strong political capital. As participants and decision-makers in SOE privatization, they are more inclined to preserve existing governance structures and institutional norms [49]. Unlike founders of entrepreneurial family firms, founders of restructured family firms excel at fulfilling assigned production tasks but lack experience in competitive markets. Additionally, as former SOE executives, they often possess substantial authority. Their centralized decision-making style may suppress voices advocating for deviation from established paths [50]. These factors increase the complexity and duration of decision-making processes, making it difficult for the firm to respond quickly to the demands of green-innovation strategies. Consequently, structural imprinting is further reinforced, weakening the green-innovation capabilities of restructured family firms. Therefore, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2: Founder control strengthens the negative relationship between restructured family firms and green innovation.

2.2.3. The moderating role of second-generation involvement

Second-generation involvement refers to situations in which next-generation family members serve as top managers and participate in day-to-day decision-making. It is also a prerequisite for the long-term continuity of family firms [51]. Such involvement typically reflects the family’s succession intentions and long-term orientation, which may alter the firm’s decision-making logic and governance structure [52]. Accordingly, we propose that second-generation involvement weakens the imprinting effect in restructured family firms, thereby mitigating the negative influence of re-structuring experience on green-innovation strategies.

First, second-generation involvement reduces cognitive imprinting in restructured family firms. Next generation members neither participated in the privatization of former SOEs nor share work experience with former SOE employees. Consequently, they pay limited attention to implicit contracts with employees—such as expectations of long-term job security or seniority-based promotion. Moreover, second-generation involvement signals a long-term orientation [53], which increases the firm’s tolerance for risk [54]. Although green innovation is inherently risky and uncertain, successful green innovation enhances a firm’s sustainability and supports intergenerational succession [28]. Most next-generation family members have received higher education, often with international exposure, which increases their openness to risk-taking [55,56]. As a result, they are more likely to view green innovation as a new business opportunity and a means of building future competitive advantage [7]. Thus, second-generation involvement partly attenuates cognitive imprinting and strengthens the green-innovation intentions of restructured family firms.

Second, second-generation involvement reduces structural imprinting in restructured family firms. Unlike founder-CEOs, highly educated next-generation members often introduce new managerial knowledge and promote organizational restructuring. Because they lack work experience in former SOEs, they are more inclined to break from the hierarchical decision-making processes inherited from the SOE system [52]. A more flexible organizational structure enables faster responses to the demands of green-innovation strategies. Moreover, updates to organizational routines and structures involve reallocating resources [57], which creates a more supportive environment for green innovation [58]. In other words, second-generation involvement may challenge entrenched resource allocation patterns [59]. This weakens structural imprinting and enhances the firm’s capability to pursue green innovation. As structural imprinting diminishes, family firms can redirect resources previously tied to maintaining traditional relationships or redundant assets toward more forward-looking green-innovation strategies. Therefore, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3: Second-generation involvement weakens the negative relationship between restructured family firms and green innovation.”

Comments 4: The methodology section, while generally sound, could be improved by providing more details on the data collection process and the reasoning behind the choice of structural equation modeling (SEM) and regression analysis. This would help the reader better understand the robustness of the findings.

Response 4: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their insightful and valuable comments, which have prompted us to reconsider and reorganize the presentation of the research methodology section. In response, we have revised Subsections 3.1 and 3.3 of the original manuscript as detailed below. We believe these modifications will help readers better understand the robustness of our findings:

(1) We have removed “The sample consists of 4,403 firm-year observations for Chinese A-share listed companies from 2007 to 2022, obtained from CSMAR and WIND databases. We exclude firms in the financial industry, those labeled PT/ST, delisted companies, IPO firms, and cases with incomplete data. The definitions and measurements of variables are provided in Table 1.”

We replaced it with the following content：

“This study examines Chinese A-share listed family firms from 2007 to 2022. We applied the following screening criteria to the initial sample: (1) excluding financial firms to avoid sample bias and heteroscedasticity; (2) excluding firms designated as ST, PT, delisted, or undergoing IPO; and (3) excluding firms with missing data on core variables. The final sample consists of 4,403 firm-year observations. Data for this study were obtained from the following sources: green-innovation data from the CNRDS database, and executive information, financial data, and firm characteristics from the CSMAR and WIND databases. CNRDS, CSMAR, and WIND are authoritative and widely used data platforms for Chinese listed firms, particularly in strategic management research. Definitions of variables and corresponding measurement criteria are detailed in Table 1.”

(2) We have added the following content to Section 3.3: “To select an appropriate econometric model to analyze the panel data, we conducted the Hausman test. The result (p < 0.05) implies that it is appropriate to use the fixed-effect model instead of the random-effect model [61]. Hence, the following 3 fixed-effect panel regression models are applied to test the hypotheses.”

Comments 5: The results and discussion sections are insightful, but they would benefit from a more structured approach, including separate discussions on direct, indirect, and moderated effects. More concrete examples could also be provided to illustrate the moderating role of second-generation involvement.

Response 5: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this highly valuable comment. To enhance the insightfulness of the conclusions, we have restructured Section 5.1 ("Main Findings") in a more organized manner. The specific revisions are as follows：

We have removed “This study examines how restructuring imprinting influences green innovation strategies in family firms. Family firms are classified into two types based on their ori-gins: entrepreneurial family firms (directly founded by families) and restructured fam-ily firms (originating from SOE privatization). We find a marked divergence in green innovation, with restructured family firms significantly underperforming their entre-preneurial counterparts. SOE privatization creates enduring risk-averse cognitive and path-dependent structural imprints, leading to diminished green innovation willing-ness and capability in restructured family firms compared to entrepreneurial counter-parts. Furthermore, founder control exacerbates the restructuring imprint, thereby strengthening the negative association between restructured family firms and green innovation. Conversely, second-generation involvement mitigates the restructuring imprint, thus weakening this negative association.”

We replaced it with the following content：

“Drawing on imprinting theory, this study demonstrates how restructuring imprinting shapes the green-innovation strategies of family firms and examines when this influence is strengthened or weakened at the managerial level. Based on whether a firm was directly founded by the family, family firms can be classified as entrepreneurial family firms or restructured family firms. Formal analyses within the imprinting-theory framework show that, relative to entrepreneurial family firms, restructured family firms exhibit lower levels of green innovation. This finding remains robust across multiple verification tests. Mechanism analyses further support our argument: restructuring often leaves risk-averse cognitive imprints and path-dependent structural imprints, which weaken both the willingness and capability of restructured family firms to engage in green innovation.

We also find that founder control amplifies the imprinting effect. Founders tend to perpetuate the risk aversion and path dependence inherited from the restructured enterprise. Consequently, restructured family firms under founder control show lower levels of green innovation than those without founder control. Finally, we find that second-generation involvement attenuates the imprinting effect by altering the firm’s decision-making logic. Accordingly, restructured family firms with second-generation involvement display higher levels of green innovation than those without such involvement. For example, Wahaha Group—a representative restructured family firm—witnessed a shift in strategic logic after second-generation leader Zong Fuli assumed an executive role. She broke the firm’s path dependence and reframed green innovation from a “compliance cost” to an “innovation engine,” thereby accelerating Wahaha’s green transition.”

Comments 6: The conclusion successfully summarizes the findings but could be more concise, focusing on the key takeaways and practical implications, while also suggesting future research directions. The keywords are appropriate but could be expanded to include more specific terms related to family governance and sustainability orientation.

Response 6: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this highly valuable comment. In response, we have undertaken a comprehensive revision of the conclusion section, along with substantial modifications to the "Practical Implications" and "Limitations and Future Research Directions" subsections within Chapter 5. The specific changes are as follows:

(1) We have removed the original "Conclusion" subsection: “Restructuring imprinting, a unique phenomenon emerging from economic trans-formation, remains underexplored in family firm research, especially concerning green innovation strategies. Previous research lacks systematic investigation into how re-structuring imprints in family firms are amplified or attenuated. This study's theoretical framework posits that restructuring experiences create risk-averse cognitive and path-dependent structural imprints, whose persistent influence reduces green innovation willingness and capacity in restructured versus entrepreneurial family firms. The findings demonstrate that founder control reinforces restructuring imprints while second-generation involvement mitigates them, with these variations driving corresponding differences in green innovation performance. Analysis of Chinese A-share listed family firms (2007-2022) provides empirical support for all proposed hypotheses. This research clarifies how restructuring imprinting counteracts family ownership benefits, examines imprint evolution in transitional economies, and establishes re-structuring experiences as a key source of family firm heterogeneity.”

We replaced it with the following content：

“Several scholars have examined green innovation in family firms and reported divergent findings. As an extension and valuable complement to this literature, the present study employs imprinting theory to investigate how restructuring experience shapes family firms’ green-innovation strategies. The results show that restructuring imprinting leads restructured family firms to exhibit lower levels of green innovation than entrepreneurial family firms. We further find that founder control strengthens this imprinting effect, whereas second-generation involvement weakens it. This study demonstrates that restructuring experience constitutes an important source of heterogeneity among family firms, suggesting that future research may further explore additional consequences of this historical origin. Our findings enhance the understanding of the role of restructuring experience in family firms’ green transitions and offer practical guidance on mitigating the negative effects of restructuring imprinting.”

(2) We have deleted the latter two points originally listed under "Practical Implications." “Second, family firm managers should cultivate introspective awareness of how past experiences and imprints influence current decisions, maintaining this con-sciousness throughout strategic processes. For example, boards could appoint inde-pendent directors with green innovation expertise to oversee green projects, counter-balancing potential cognitive constraints in leadership. Additionally, managers should conduct periodic reviews of strategic decisions and implementation challenges, mak-ing timely adjustments based on internal and external changes.

Third, policies should recognize imprinting differences between family firm types and provide differentiated institutional support. Specifically, tailored incentive struc-tures should be designed for restructured versus entrepreneurial family firms. For re-structured firms, green innovation training can enhance environmental responsibility awareness. For entrepreneurial firms, access to green financing can reinforce positive imprints and strengthen green innovation capabilities.”

We replaced it with the following content:

“Second, managers in family firms should recognize their own limitations and actively mitigate the constraints imposed by cognitive imprinting. For example, boards may appoint independent directors for green innovation—professionals with expertise in green technologies who hold decisive authority in evaluating green projects. Firms may also establish a Green Innovation Committee under the board. Beyond formulating and overseeing the firm’s green innovation strategy, this committee should facilitate regular exchanges between management teams and benchmark green-innovation firms. In addition, the board should dynamically adjust green-innovation decisions based on policy interpretations, projected returns, and industry conditions.

Third, the government should align with the “dual-carbon goals” and develop differentiated policy support systems for both types of family firms. For restructured family firms, the government may create “green transition seed funds” or provide guarantees for their applications for green-transition loans. At the same time, government agencies may organize experts to offer free training on green innovation, helping these firms overcome constraints in both financing and technology. For entrepreneurial family firms, the government may introduce “green market expansion subsidies” to encourage them to develop markets through green products or services. Moreover, the government could provide “green talent recruitment subsidies” to support firms in attracting skilled personnel who can contribute to their green-development capabilities.”

(3) We have removed the original "Limitations and Future Research" subsection.：

“This study has several limitations that suggest promising avenues for future research. First, due to data constraints, the study's temporal scope (2007–2022) begins after some SOEs completed privatization. Consequently, our data do not fully capture the entire SOE restructuring process. Future research could employ longitudinal case studies to examine the evolution of green innovation behaviors across different time periods. Second, the sample comprises only Chinese listed family firms, limiting generalizability to private firms or other contexts like India, which also underwent SOE re-structuring. Future studies could incorporate data from private firms or other emerging economies to test the broader applicability of these findings.”

We replaced it with the following content：

“One limitation concerns the research sample. This study focuses on listed firms. Although the large-sample analysis confirms the presence of restructuring imprinting, it cannot precisely capture the rich heterogeneity embedded within the variables. We suspect that the imprinting effect may operate through different mechanisms in smaller private family firms. Future research could collect primary data through surveys to examine this possibility. In addition, the sample period spans 2007–2022, which is later than most state-owned enterprise restructurings. While imprinting theory emphasizes persistence, we are unable to directly observe the imprint formation process during the sensitive restructuring period. Future studies may conduct retrospective research—drawing on in-depth interviews, archival materials, and oral histories—to more thoroughly analyze the imprinting effect in restructured family firms.

Another limitation concerns measurement. Although we replaced the measures of green innovation in the robustness checks, we did not separately examine differences between the two categories of green innovation within restructured family firms. Future research could investigate both substantive and strategic green innovation to explore how restructuring imprinting differentially shapes these activities. This study identifies a threshold effect of second-generation involvement on the imprinting of restructured family firms. Building on this, future research could incorporate more fine-grained measures of second-generation involvement (e.g., shareholding percentage, years in management, or positional power) to test how varying levels of involvement influence the imprinting effect.”

(4) Additionally, we have revised the selection of keywords for the paper. The original keywords—"restructuring imprinting; green innovation; family firms; founder control; second-generation engagement"—have been updated to : ” restructuring imprinting; green innovation; family firms; family governance; sustainability orientation.”

Comments 7: The conclusion successfully summarizes the findings but could be more concise, focusing on the key takeaways and practical implications, while also suggesting future research directions. The keywords are appropriate but could be expanded to include more specific terms related to family governance and sustainability orientation.

Response 7: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this highly valuable comment. We truly appreciate their meticulous attention to the details of our manuscript. In response, we have carefully revised numerous detailed aspects throughout the paper. Given the extensive yet minor nature of many adjustments, they are not exhaustively listed here. However, substantial revisions to the Research Methods and Discussion sections are provided in our responses to Comments #4 and #5.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need Improvement.

Response: We have thoroughly checked and standardized the formatting across the entire manuscript and refined inappropriate or unclear expressions to improve overall clarity and precision.

Once again, we are deeply grateful for the reviewer's constructive comments, which have greatly helped enhance the quality of our work.

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below, with the corresponding revisions and corrections highlighted in red font in the resubmitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes

We have revised and improved the relevant content in the manuscript, and have also elaborated on this in detail in the point-by-point responses.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Can be improved

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Is the article adequately referenced?

Can be improved

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Can be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The issues I raised earlier have been mostly resolved. There are still two minor points.

Comments 1: The sample selection bias has not been sufficiently discussed

Response 1: Thank you very much for your comments. We sincerely appreciate your rigorous and valuable feedback. Your suggestions have prompted us to thoroughly revisit the empirical testing process. By reviewing the literature and reanalyzing the data, we further conduct the PSM test shown in Section 4.3 to supplement the manuscript. We believe that the empirical analyses have been strengthened and that the theoretical contribution of the paper has been further enhanced. Specifically, the added content is presented as follows:

“Second, firms are not randomly classified as restructured or entrepreneurial family businesses. As a result, the two types may systematically differ in size, age, and asset structure, factors that can also affect green innovation. Consequently, observed differences in green innovation may partly reflect these underlying characteristics rather than the causal effect of firm type.

To address potential sample selection bias, we employ propensity score matching (PSM) using firm size, age, and leverage ratio to create comparable groups. In this procedure, restructured family firms serve as the treatment group, and entrepreneurial family firms serve as the control group. This setup allows a more credible estimation of the net effect of firm type on green innovation. We apply one-to-one nearest-neighbor matching with a caliper of 0.05 to identify comparable matches. To maximize the retained sample while maintaining sufficient matching quality, we retain all matched observations with weights ≥1, resulting in a sample with improved covariate balance [60]. The matched sample consists of 687 restructured family firms and 732 entrepreneurial counterparts. Covariate balance tests before and after matching show that standardized mean differences for all matching variables are substantially reduced. Most differences fall below the conventional 10% threshold, indicating that the matching procedure is effective [61]. Regression results based on the matched sample are consistent with previous estimates (Table 6), indicating that our findings are robust to potential sample selection bias.”

Table 6. PSM-matched sample regression results.

Notes：*, **, and *** denote statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively.

Comments 2: The language and expression could be further refined. Some sentences are rather lengthy, and the logic appears somewhat repetitive (such as in the introduction and theoretical sections).

Response 2: Thank you for your constructive comment on the language expression and logical structure of the manuscript. We fully agree with your observation that some sentences are overly lengthy and there is slight repetition in the introduction and theoretical sections—these issues may indeed affect the readability and conciseness of the paper. We have carefully revised the relevant parts based on your suggestion, and the specific modifications are as follows: