Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this work. This interesting paper looks at the importance of green finance on renewable energy technology innovation in China. The authors explore the drivers of renewable energy technology innovation from a financial perspective: alleviating financing constraints and accelerating the green transformation of industrial structures.

With considerable interest, I read your analysis and model, which use data from 30 provinces and regions of China from 2013 to 2022 and different data sources, technological and economic-financial, regional, and national, to identify the causal effect of green finance on renewable energy technology innovation. Overall, this paper has the potential to be very interesting.

The content is described and contextualized about previous and empirical research on the topic. The gap of this study has been identified and the research questions are justified. However, some issues that require attention are described below.

The theoretical section needs improvement. In my opinion, the theoretical framework has not been clearly described in this paper. I suggest carrying out a revision in the literature of the innovation theory and theory of sustainable development cited in this paper.

The content is described and contextualized concerning previous and empirical research on the topic in China, however, there is a lack of references to studies on the topic of financial resources and financing constraints in environmental innovation (Nepal, Liu, Wang and Dong (2024), in other geographical areas (Ghisetti, Mancinelli, Mazzanti, and Zoli (2017) Climate Policy), as well as the field of renewable energies.

The method applied is suitable for the research objective, and it is described in detail. The results are clearly presented. However, the analysis would benefit from a more sectoral perspective. I suggest to authors explain the risk of investing in renewable energy or the local network factors in the Chinese VC Industry that could influence the obtained results.

The description of variables is exhaustive but I suggest: 1) A more detailed review of the literature on the selection of variables used in the paper; 2) It is recommended to collect and define all variables in a Table.

A discussion of how the case of China as a case study may impact the results would be of interest. Additionally to what extent these results could be extrapolated to other geographic areas In this sense, it is also worth noting the importance of green finance as a driver of regional economic development to reduce the GAP for sustainable technological development.

In the conclusions, a clear description of the contribution obtained in the field of sustainability would be necessary.

Based on my previous comments I think that this paper cannot be published in its current form. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to review your work. I wish you the best of luck in your continued research endeavors.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines the impact of green finance on renewable energy technology innovation. The research results and conclusions have certain reference significance for the development of green finance in China. Although the value of this study is recognized, I have some important suggestions for the author to consider:

 

1. The literature review of green finance and renewable energy technology innovation is insufficient. It does not summarize the research gaps, which is not enough to highlight the innovation of this paper. The literature review part directly analyzes the three paths of green finance affecting renewable energy technology innovation, but does not sort out the existing related literature. It is suggested that the literature review and theoretical analysis can be divided into two portions, first summarizing the existing literature, and then theoretical analysis from multiple perspectives to develop research hypotheses.

2. Analysis before research hypotheses is weak and not enough theoretically analytical.

3. The variables should be supported with references and should be further explained.

4. There are numerous studies on similar topics, and the marginal contribution of the paper to the existing literature should be clearly articulated.

5. “2.2. Green Hinance and Renewable Energy Technology Innovation” section has word spelling errors, “Hinance” should be rewritten as “Finance”. Also, I recommend that the author check the paper for other spelling errors.

6. The citation format of references is problematic, for example, “Therefore, drawing on the research of Zhang Gupeng and Chen Xiangdong [36]”. This error must be corrected by referring to the journal formatting requirements.

 

7. The robustness tests in this paper need to be refined. First, according to the content description, the second robustness test should be replacing the explained variable rather than replacing the explanatory variable. Second, the robustness test to address endogeneity should be added. Finally, I would like to ask the authors to explain why the results of the robustness tests are not presented in the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper, which addresses the important issue of the Impact of Green Finance on Renewable Energy Technology Innovation. The topic of the paper is important and there are no significant weaknesses.

In the introduction and literature review I suggest some more resent bibliographic references. Research design and results are good structured. In conclusion there are no limitations of the research.

Finally, the writing is understandable, but some mistakes can be corrected of an English speaker/editor.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Τhe writing is understandable, but some mistakes can be corrected of an English speaker/editor.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken due account of the comments made in the previous revision. The theoretical section has been clearly described, and the content is contextualized with references to previous studies on the topic of financial resources and financing constraints in environmental innovation, as well as in other geographical areas and the field of renewable energies.

The analysis includes a more sectoral perspective and discusses how the case of China, as a case study, may impact the results and other geographic areas. The authors have emphasized the importance of green finance as a driver of regional economic development to reduce the GAP for sustainable technological development.

The description of variables is exhaustive, and all variables are defined in a table. However there is a minor issue: the format of the Table 1 could be improved.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to review your work. I wish you the best of luck in your continued research endeavors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf