CEO Power and Green Innovation: Evidence from China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors should highlight the study originality in the abstract.
Similarly, the authors should explain in detail the study contributions in relation to the existing studies in the introduction section.
The authors should explain why they focus on China for conducting this study and why not other contexts.
They can provide a background section to provide the reader with information about the contextual setting they address. This can be presented after the introduction section.
While discussing the study contributions, the authors have to distinguish their work from similar publications such as:
Quan, X., Ke, Y., Qian, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2021). CEO foreign experience and green innovation: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-23.
Liu, L., Zhu, G., & Yu, F. (2024). How does CEO tenure affect enterprises’ green innovation? Evidence from Chinese listed firms from 2007 to 2021. Journal of Cleaner Production, 454, 142092.
Yan, Q., Yan, J., Zhang, D., Bi, S., Tian, Y., Mubeen, R., & Abbas, J. (2024). Does CEO power affect manufacturing firms’ green innovation and organizational performance? A mediational approach. Sustainability, 16(14), 6015.
The paper is not well-structured. It can benefit from professional proofreading.
Following the presentation of results and analysis, they should separately include discussion section to discuss the findings relative to the literature.
Then, conclusion section is needed. Information in pages 13 and 14 can be included in this section in addition to other information usually included in conclusion section.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageGood.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to review this paper, which I find topical and interesting. However, I have some comments that need to be addressed:
- Introduction: The motivation for the research in the introduction should be sharpened, focusing on the relevance and importance of the research phenomena, rather than solely on relevant literature.
- Literature Review and Hypotheses Development: Please strengthen your hypotheses by a) drawing on theory; b) referencing empirical literature; c) incorporating insights from the research setting/context; and d) formulating your hypotheses. This approach should be applied to each hypothesis. Currently, the development of your hypotheses does not follow this structure, and it is necessary to do so by referencing both seminal and recent studies.
- Research Design: Clearly identify, classify, and explain your dependent, independent, and control variables. Please also detail your sample selection process clearly (consider inserting a table to outline the steps - how many were missing, how many had data, how many were selected and why). Furthermore, clarify how the variables are operationalized in a standard manner. Explain your sample selection in a tabular format, detailing each step from the total population to the final sample selection. Ensure all equations, figures, and tables are labeled consecutively and make tables self-contained by clearly identifying dependent, independent, and control variables within them.
- Robustness or Additional Analyses: Please show how your findings hold up against alternative estimations (e.g., propensity score matching, Heckman selection models, and entropy balancing scheme, among others) and address selection bias issues.
- Typos: There are several typos, spelling errors, and grammatical mistakes throughout the paper. A careful review should help eliminate them. Consider seeking the assistance of a professional proofreader if necessary.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic is relevant, although the contribution is incremental to the literature on CEO power and green innovation. Below are some points for consideration:
-
The originality of the study needs to be better discussed. Recent works on similar themes cannot be ignored, such as Yan, Q., Yan, J., Zhang, D., Bi, S., Tian, Y., Mubeen, R., & Abbas, J. (2024). Does CEO Power Affect Manufacturing Firms’ Green Innovation and Organizational Performance? A Mediational Approach. Sustainability, 16(14), 6015. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146015.
-
In the introduction, there is extensive discussion on CEO power and high-risk decision-making, but the relationship with green innovation and the moderating factors could be better explored. Specifically, there should be a more detailed explanation of why this is a relevant and original gap in the green innovation literature.
-
In the hypothesis development section (Section 2), the discussion on Hypothesis 1 lacks a reference to the market impact of green product innovation. Product innovation directly affects customer perception, which represents an additional risk factor considered by the CEO.
-
The time frame (2010–2022) should be explained in the methodology section.
-
"Green patents were categorized into three types." What are they?
-
A clearer explanation is needed regarding which IPC codes were used to define green patent applications.
-
More details on data collection are necessary, particularly regarding CEO characteristics and the databases used for media coverage and government regulation. Was a survey conducted with CEOs? Is this information publicly available? How were the news articles linked to the companies?
-
Clarify how PITI reports were defined for each company. If a company operates in multiple cities, how was this handled? The reproducibility of the study is compromised without further details.
-
The technology level comparison appears abruptly in the text. It should have been introduced and justified in the introduction or literature review. Additionally, the classification method for companies is not explained. The same applies to the comparison between large firms and SMEs.
Minor Issues
-
Correct "China’s" in the abstract.
-
Insert citations in the first paragraph.
-
Spell out CSR (corporate social responsibility) instead of using only the acronym.
-
In line 137, remove the extra space in "they excel 137 in terms of efficiency ,". A thorough review of the text is necessary.
-
The formatting of Table 9 and the heading of Section 5 needs to be revised.
Decision:
There are numerous uncertainties regarding the data collection process, as well as the discussion of the research gap and its significance. For these reasons, I recommend a major revision of the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors offer a nuanced perspective on the ways managers’ power can shape different facets of green innovation, providing valuable insights for both practitioners and policymakers.
Can you please explain in the introductive part of the article why do you assume top managements power drives risk aversion in green product innovation but risk acceptance in green process innovation, and if considered appropriate please explain how can the reader distinguish these two types of innovation in your empirical analysis?
Can you please explain how your research design distinguishes between resource constraints and risk tolerance in explaining why top management power doesn’t meaningfully drive green product innovation in SMEs but does in larger firms?
Please add a conclusion section that clearly reiterates your key findings and discusses the broader implications for both scholars and practitioners while also briefly acknowledges data limitation as you presented them in section 5.4 , and proposes future research directions.
Please check if all major references are incuded
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no further comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe points presented have all been resolved and the article is ready for publication.
I would change the title to "4.44 The Propensity Score Matching (PSM) method was employed to conduct a robustness test". Wouldn't something like (Robustness test with Propensity Score Matching (PSM)) be better?
You included citations in the conclusions, which is not a common practice. The ideal is to focus on the new contributions of the work and the perspectives for continuing the research.
