Green Bonds and Green Banking Loans: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

“Green Bonds and Green Banking Loans” is a systematic review examining 128 articles on green bonds/banking up to 2024. The review is detailed, with the authors making excellent use of tables and figures. The appendix is also particularly useful. Between these, the authors provide sufficient detail for the study to be repeated.

The authors mention the focus on Europe, North America and Asia. While not strictly necessary, a figure illustrating authorship by country or region would be useful.

Because Sustainability uses the Vancouver citation system, it is important to also state the author name when beginning a sentence with a citation. For example, section 3.3.2 begins with “[7] compares….”. This should say “Flammer [7] compares…”  The same issue exists at the start of 3.3.3. In paragraph three of the section, one citation ([77]) is in the middle of a word.

The paper also only has a short discussion that could more appropriately be labeled as a conclusion. The results section is comprehensive, largely integrating what is often labeled as the discussion. However, the short discussion without a conclusion deviates from the standard template and distracts from the flow of the paper.  The results section also is not the appropriate place for the discussion of limitations. This would be better moved to the end of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The peer-reviewed article, "Green bonds and green banking loans: A Systematic Literature Review," is a valuable literature study in which the authors conducted a systematic review of the role of green bonds and green bank loans as financing instruments for sustainable projects in the context of growing environmental challenges. A systematic literature review was conducted of peer-reviewed scientific studies from databases such as Web of Science and Scopus, spanning the years 2008 to 2024, and utilizing the VOS Viewer tool to identify clusters. The bibliography contains 144 references, of which only 27 are older than the last five years. This demonstrates the authors' thorough and up-to-date research, albeit from a theoretical perspective only. The manuscript's organization is good, including relevant sections: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion.
Unfortunately, a Conclusion and Limitations section is missing. In section 4, "Discussion," the authors present more general conclusions, future studies, and implications rather than a discussion of the results. I propose adding a section devoted to conclusions and strengthening section 4 with a discussion of the obtained results. The four stated objectives of the work were achieved, although a weakness is the lack of an empirical part of the research. From an editorial perspective, the manuscript is well-prepared; no glaring omissions were noted. Both the research sample and the literature research were conducted correctly. The research methodology raises no serious concerns. The article's weakness is its purely theoretical approach, without supporting the content with empirical research. However, the authors' contribution to systematizing the researched issues and their effort in reviewing such numerous publications on the subject should be appreciated. In summary, the topic discussed is very current and scientifically inspiring, and the content fits the journal's thematic scope. The manuscript identifies a research gap and four main objectives, which have been validated. The study contributes to the understanding of green debt markets by proposing a theoretical framework and offering policy and institutional recommendations. Based on the current literature, recommendations are presented for policymakers and practitioners, highlighting the manuscript's practical value. After making the minor changes indicated above, I recommend publishing the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your efforts. Kindly find below a few comments to enhance the manuscript quality:

1. Abstract: The abstract should include four main points: study aim, methodology, key findings, and recommendations. However, the abstract does not clearly state the study aim and does not include details about the methodology (databases used, selection criteria, and time frame), such as the approach.  Even the findings and recommendations are not clear. Authors can rewrite the abstract to ensure the availability of the mentioned aspects.
2. Literature review should be added.
3. Introduction: The research gap and problem statement are not clearly defined. Also, authors should include how this study will contribute in literature. Also, authors should highlight clearly the study objectives in this section.  
4. Methodology: The methods section does not meet the standards of a systematic review. For example, the PRISMA framework is not properly explained. Authors should provide details about the database coverage. Also, authors should highlight how the studies used in this research were screened and assessed. 
5. Results: It is noticed that the results focused mainly on descriptive. The study should focus on both descriptive and analytical aspects. It presents the prior studies without classifications such as identifying prior studies themes, patterns, and their finding related to each other. For example, authors can do some comparisons or even trend analysis among the previous studies.
6. Discussion: this section lacks critical interpretation. For example. This section does not mention why the findings are different from the previous studies. authors should provide more interpretations to support the discussion section to show clearly how this study contributes to literature. 
7. Conclusion: Authors should add a clear practical recommendation for stakeholders.

All the best,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am attaching my review report in pdf file format.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for addressing all the comments.

All the best,