Does charitable giving reduce firms’ willingness to invest in green innovation?

Hongpeng Wang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0278890

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 4, 2022
26 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - Ming Zhang, Editor PONE-D-22-18951Does charitable giving reduce firms' willingness to invest in green innovation? --Based on the Integration Perspective of Signaling Theory and Agency TheoryPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 09 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ming Zhang, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This study explores the impact of charitable giving on firms' willingness and green innovation. I think this paper is interesting but it is not well written. I think it should conduct a major revision before accepted. Some modifications should be conducted as follows: 1. The title can revise to “Does charitable giving reduce firms' willingness to invest in green innovation?”. 2. The abstract section is not well written. Authors should simply give the purpose of this paper, and mainly focus on the main findings of this paper. 3. The introduction section does not clearly give the main contributions of this paper, and the differences with the other literature. 4. Authors should summary literature and find out the knowledge gaps, instead of listing literature. Besides, the authors have cited a large number of papers from Chinese journals, I suggest authors should cite more papers from the famous journals, such as energy economics, JEEM etc. These related papers that you can refer to: (1) Zhang, W.K., Luo, Q., Liu, S.Y. 2022. Is government regulation a push for corporate environmental performance? evidence from China. Economic Analysis and Policy. 74, 105-121. (2) Wen, H., Lee, C.C., Zhou, F. (2022). How does fiscal policy uncertainty affect corporate innovation investment? Evidence from China’s new energy industry. Energy Economics. 105, 105767 (3) Dai, L., Mu, X., Lee, C. C., Liu, W. 2021. The impact of outward foreign direct investment on green innovation: the threshold effect of environmental regulation. Environ Sci. Pollut. Res. 5. The format of some references is not right, and I suggest authors should revise them, such as LUAN Qiang, Yang Yang, YU Xiaoyu, Hu D. I can find more than ten formats from the reference section. 6. In empirical application section, authors should give some discussion and analysis, rather than a brief report of the results. 7. Authors needs to check the full text. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278890.r001
Revision 1
24 Aug 2022 Author Response Dear Dr. Zhang and reviewer： Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments on our manuscript entitled "Does charitable giving reduce firms' willingness to invest in green innovation? --Based on the Integration Perspective of Signaling Theory and Agency Theory" (Manuscript Number：PONE-D-22-18951). Those comments are very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to the future research. We have studied the comments carefully and made corrections which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections are in the manuscript and the responds to the reviewers’ comments are as follows (the replies are highlighted in blue). Replies to the reviewers’ comments: Reviewer : 1. The title can revise to “Does charitable giving reduce firms' willingness to invest in green innovation?”.� Response：We have revised the original title to “Does charitable giving reduce firms' willingness to invest in green innovation?”. 2. The abstract section is not well written. Authors should simply give the purpose of this paper, and mainly focus on the main findings of this paper. � Response：We have added the purpose and main findings of the study in the abstract section. The additional contents are as follows： ···The purpose of this study is to clarify the mechanism of CG and government green subsidies(GS) on green innovation(GI). In this regard, we integrated signaling theory and principal-agent theory to provide a new theoretical perspective for simultaneously focus on the impact of external resource acquisition and internal resource allocation on GI）···Our findings indicate that there is an inverted U-shaped threshold effect of CG on GI. The impact of GS on GI shows a decreasing marginal benefit as the intensity of CG increases··· See L.40-51 of the manuscript（Revised Manuscript with Track Change）for details. 3. The introduction section does not clearly give the main contributions of this paper, and the differences with the other literature. Response：In response to the comment, We have added the main contributions of this study in the introduction section to show the differences with other literature. The additional contents are as follows： ···By doing so, we found the following: (1)CG show an inverted U-shaped threshold effect on GI, i.e., there is a weak correlation interval, a promotion interval and a crowding-out interval for CG on GI, respectively. (2) With the increase of CG, the promotion effect of GS on enterprise innovation investment shows a trend of diminishing marginal benefits, i.e., at different levels of CG, the impact of GS on GI shows "optimal" promotion effect interval, "suboptimal" promotion effect interval, "weak" promotion effect interval, respectively. The contributions of this work are as follows: (1)This study integrated the theoretical perspectives of ST and PAT, which provided a new theoretical perspective for an in-depth study of GI.(2)The results of this study enriched the findings related to the relationship between CG and GI, which provided a specific theoretical basis for further exploring how enterprises can formulate scientific CG strategies under the trend of normalized CG.(3) The findings of this study provided a new paradigm for answering the controversial question of "whether firms invest GS in GI" in the study of the relationship between GS and GI, enriched the research literature in the field of GS, and provides a helpful reference for studying GS from a diversified perspective. The remainder of this work is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly describes the literature that provide the basis for this work, construct a theoretical framework that integrates the perspectives of ST and PAT, and propose research hypothesis; Section 3 introduces the methodology used in the research; Section 4 demonstrates and analyze the results of the research. Robustness test was involved. Section 5 summarizes the main findings of the study and concludes with the managerial implications for further research. See L.137-160 of the manuscript（Revised Manuscript with Track Change）for details. 4.Authors should summary literature and find out the knowledge gaps, instead of listing literature. Besides, the authors have cited a large number of papers from Chinese journals, I suggest authors should cite more papers from the famous journals, such as energy economics, JEEM etc. These related papers that you can refer to: (1) Zhang, W.K., Luo, Q., Liu, S.Y. 2022. Is government regulation a push for corporate environmental performance? evidence from China. Economic Analysis and Policy. 74, 105-121. Zhang W, Luo Q, Liu S. Is government regulation a push for corporate environmental performance? Evidence from China[J]. Economic Analysis and Policy, 2022, 74: 105-121. (2) Wen, H., Lee, C.C., Zhou, F. (2022). How does fiscal policy uncertainty affect corporate innovation investment? Evidence from China’s new energy industry. Energy Economics. 105, 105767 (3) Dai, L., Mu, X., Lee, C. C., Liu, W. 2021. The impact of outward foreign direct investment on green innovation: the threshold effect of environmental regulation. Environ Sci. Pollut. Res. Response：We are very grateful to the reviewers for this comment, which has provided great help to revise this manuscript. Firstly, we have added the knowledge gaps in the introduction section. The additional contents are as follows： ···The synthesis of the above views shows that most of the existing studies explored the relationship between the two from a single theoretical perspective. But in fact, while CG sends positive signals to the outside world to obtain external resource support, it also takes up internal resources and competes with GI for resources. Therefore, there is a complex nonlinear relationship between the two, and it is necessary to explore the relationship based on a more comprehensive theoretical perspective··· Secondly, we updated the other English literature based on the supplementation of the above 3 literature in order to minimize the original Chinese literature used to enhance the persuasive power of the views. See L.606-709 of the manuscript（Revised Manuscript with Track Change）for details. 5. The format of some references is not right, and I suggest authors should revise them, such as LUAN Qiang, Yang Yang, YU Xiaoyu, Hu D. I can find more than ten formats from the reference section. Response：We have changed the format of all references to Plosone style. For example, Dai L, Mu X, Lee CC. et al. The impact of outward foreign direct investment on green innovation: the threshold effect of environmental regulation. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2021; 28: 34868–34884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12930-w. See L.606-709 of the manuscript（Revised Manuscript with Track Change）for details. 6. In empirical application section, authors should give some discussion and analysis, rather than a brief report of the results. Response：We have added the discussion of the empirical results in the empirical application section. The additional contents are as follows： ···By observing the variation of the coefficient between CG and GI it can be found that: The effect of CG on GI is as the saying "too much water drowned the miller" goes, i. e. too much CG will have a negative effect on GI. This result is consistent with the view of scholar Wang [12].CG can send positive signals to the outside world such as being financially sound or socially responsible, thus helping firms to obtain more external resource support [13]. However, if the level of CG input is low, it neither draws external attention to obtain external resource support nor takes up too much of the organization's internal resources, so it does not have a substantial impact on the firm's GI. When the level of CG input is too high, CG will overly occupy the internal resources of the organization to have a negative impact on GI. Therefore, a reasonable level of CG input is what will promote GI, and the management of CG should be emphasized at the strategic level of the organization··· ···By observing the variation of the coefficient between GS and GI it can be found that: There was a positive contribution of GS to GI at different levels of CG input intensity. The result is consistent with scholar Bai's view[9] that GS promotes GI. In addition, the promotion effect of GS on GI is continuously weakened as the intensity of CG input increases, i.e., there is an optimal promotion interval of GS on GI under different CG input levels··· See L.459-470& L.483-488 of the manuscript（Revised Manuscript with Track Change）for details. 7. Authors needs to check the full text. Response：We have rechecked the contents of the manuscript to minimize errors in presentation, spelling, etc. Once again, thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions which would help us both in English and in depth to improve the quality of the paper. Kind regards, Hongpeng WANG E-mail: 348557935@qq.com Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278890.r002
28 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Xingwei Li, Editor Does charitable giving reduce firms' willingness to invest in green innovation? PONE-D-22-18951R1 Dear Dr. Wang, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Xingwei Li, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Thanks for the positive revision from authors. I agree with this manuscript and think it can be accepted now. Reviewer #2: As for the paper's content, its structure is correct; it is easy to read; it contains all the relevant and necessary information for the reader. Therefore, I strongly recommend this article for acceptance for further publication in this reputed Journal without any more changes. Reviewer #3: All suggestions are carefully fixed and I am very glad to recommend to publish this interesting paper. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278890.r003
Formally Accepted
16 Dec 2022 Acceptance Letter - Xingwei Li, Editor PONE-D-22-18951R1 Does charitable giving reduce firms' willingness to invest in green innovation? Dear Dr. Wang: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Dr. Xingwei Li Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278890.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .