Green credit policy and corporate excess cash holdings

Jinhui Ning; Guiping Wang; Fengshan Xiong; Shi Yin

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294079

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 11, 2023
2 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Ercan Özen, Editor PONE-D-23-29519Green Credit Policy and Corporate Excess Cash HoldingsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yin, 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 Nov 16 2023 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, Ercan Özen, PhD 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 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This research received funding from the Hebei Provincial Department of Education University Humanities and Social Sciences Research Project "Research on Evaluation of Green Governance Effect of Environmental Pollution Liability Insurance for Listed Companies under the 'Double Carbon' Goal" (BJS2022003). At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex. 4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Please arrange the paper according to reviewer comments. [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 Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: No ****** 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 Reviewer #2: 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: 1. Add discussion after results and conclusion. 2. implications and future scope of research are missing 3. discussions and limitations are missing 4. Sources below tables are not given 5. data availability statement is missing Reviewer #2: 0 Abstract Mention study period, novelty, and policy implications 1. Introduction Latest literature review is required to identify research gap. Only two studies of 2021 are quoted. Include latest studies of 2022 and 2023. Write the problem statement clearly. 2. Theoretical analysis and hypothesis formulation To support the argument, include latest studies of 2022 and 2023. Why other factors are not taken into account that can reduce the excess cash holdings of enterprises. Proper justification is required 3. Research Design this paper conducts 1% quantile tail reduction process for all continuous variables. Give reference. Mention the total number of sample firms Virtual variable? Use the word dummy variable. In control variables, for age variable, usually Natural logarithm of the number of years plus 1 is taken? You are taking it without adding one. Give justification/ reference. Operating activities per share… numerator should be divided into Number of shares, while in this paper it is divided into equity. Give justification/ reference. For +β1×Posti,t×Treati,t, further explanation is required. 4. Empirical Results and Analysis The median value of log (age) is 2.77, if we take the anti-log, it shows 589 years. Is suggest that half of the observation age is greater than 589 years, while half of the observation age is less than 589 years. How it is possible? Author has made a good job by applying different models; however, discussion of results is weak. I is recommended that these analysis should be discussed comparatively and link it with prior studies and theories. 5. Research Conclusions and Implications (1) Green credit policy are significantly negatively correlatedwiththe363 excess cash holdings of heavily polluting enterprises…. Rewrite the sentence, as this study is evaluating the impact, remove correlation word. Include limitation and future research recommendations. ****** 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 Reviewer #2: Yes: Prof. Dr. Muhammad Khalid Sohail ******** [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.0294079.r001
Revision 1
16 Oct 2023 Author Response Dear Editors and Reviewers, Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. These opinions help to improve academic rigor of our article. Based on your suggestion and request, we have made corrected modifications on the revised manuscript. We hope that our work can be improved again. Furthermore, we would like to show the details as follows: Reviewer #1: 1. Add discussion after results and conclusion. Response: we have appropriately added the discussion of producing such results in the context of the research. Specifically, first, the discussion in section 4.2 Basic regression results and analysis is modified, as detailed on page6,line 222-226; Second, the discussion in section 4.4.1Test of action mechanism is modified, as detailed on page14,line 343-347; Third, the discussion in section 4.4.2Cross-section inspection is modified, as detailed on page15,line 364-372; and page16 line 385-394; Last, the discussion on the results of the 4.5Economic consequence test is revised, as detailed on page17,line 407-417. 2. implications and future scope of research are missing Response: At the end of the article, we have increased the limitations of the article and the possibility of future research, see pages 19, line 456-464. 3. discussions and limitations are missing Response: At the end of the article, we have increased the limitations of the article and the possibility of future research, see pages 19, line 456-464. 4. Sources below tables are not given Response: We have added sources of information under the table，Mainly calculated by the author using stata. 5. data availability statement is missing Response: We have increased data availability statement Reviewer #2: 0 Abstract Mention study period, novelty, and policy implications Response: We have increased the sample study period,novelty, and policy implications. The specific modification is on page 1, line 6-10,and line 16-21. 1. Introduction Latest literature review is required to identify research gap. Only two studies of 2021 are quoted. Include latest studies of 2022 and 2023. Write the problem statement clearly. Response: In the introduction, we reviewed the latest literature related to 2022 and 2023, as detailed on page 2, line 67-68 and line 79-80. 2. Theoretical analysis and hypothesis formulation To support the argument, include latest studies of 2022 and 2023. Why other factors are not taken into account that can reduce the excess cash holdings of enterprises. Proper justification is required Response: Although there are many factors affecting cash holdings, we only focus on agency costs in this paper. According to previous literature analysis, green credit policies have stronger constraints on the financing of heavily polluting enterprises. According to the free cash flow hypothesis, the less available cash held by the management, the lower the agency costs, thus inhibiting the excess cash holdings of the management. The discussion of other factors can be continued in the future. 3. Research Design (1)this paper conducts 1% quantile tail reduction process for all continuous variables. Give reference. Response: We have added references. The specific modification is on page 3, line 149-151. (2)Mention the total number of sample firms Response: The total number of sample companies is 2340 . In the article we have added related descriptions. The specific modification is on page 3, line 148-149. (3)Virtual variable? Use the word dummy variable. Response: We have replaced Virtual with dummy, We made a change on page 4 ,line 166 &173 and page 8, line 258. (4)In control variables, for age variable, usually Natural logarithm of the number of years plus 1 is taken? You are taking it without adding one. Give justification/ reference. Response: We rechecked the data processing process and found that we did obtain the logarithm after+1 when conducting empirical research. However, due to our carelessness, we wrote the logarithm directly during the text writing process. Thank you very much to the reviewer. We made a change on page 4 ,line 192, Table 1. (5)Operating activities per share… numerator should be divided into Number of shares, while in this paper it is divided into equity. Give justification/ reference. Response: We rechecked the processing process of the original data, and indeed used the number of shares, rather than the equity, although the value of the equity and the number of shares are mostly the same in China's Shanghai and Shenzhen A-shares, and the number of shares was written as capital stock due to a clerical error. so we revised the definition of this variable and changed its denominator to the number of shares. Thank you very much for your careful review. The specific modification is on page 4, line 192,Table 1. (6)For +β1×Posti,t×Treati,t, further explanation is required. Response: We explain post and treat in detail on page 4, line 173-184. 4. Empirical Results and Analysis (1)The median value of log (age) is 2.77, if we take the anti-log, it shows 589 years. Is suggest that half of the observation age is greater than 589 years, while half of the observation age is less than 589 years. How it is possible? Response: The natural logarithm of age is used instead of the logarithm base 10, and the base number is the natural number e, e to the power of 2.7, which is about 14.87, which is basically consistent with the existing literature. (2)Author has made a good job by applying different models; however, discussion of results is weak. I is recommended that these analysis should be discussed comparatively and link it with prior studies and theories. Response: In the latest revised version, we have carried out appropriate discussion and analysis in accordance with the suggestions of reviewers, combining theories in each part. Specifically, first, the discussion in section 4.2 Basic regression results and analysis is modified, as detailed on page6,line 222-226; Second, the discussion in section 4.4.1Test of action mechanism is modified, as detailed on page14,line 343-347; Third, the discussion in section 4.4.2Cross-section inspection is modified, as detailed on page15,line 364-372; and page16 line 385-394; Last, the discussion on the results of the 4.5Economic consequence test is revised, as detailed on page17,line 407-417. 5. Research Conclusions and Implications (1) Green credit policy are significantly negatively correlated with the excess cash holdings of heavily polluting enterprises…. Rewrite the sentence, as this study is evaluating the impact, remove correlation word. Include limitation and future research recommendations. Response: We have rephrased the sentence, rephrasing it as “Green credit policy significantly reduces the level of the excess cash holdings of enterprises. ” At the end of the article, we have increased the limitations of the article and the possibility of future research, see pages 19, line 456-464. Thank you very much for your attention and time. Look forward to hearing from you. Best regards. Jinhui Ning E-mail: ningjinhui1120@163.com Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: RL10.16.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294079.r002
25 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Ercan Özen, Editor Green Credit Policy and Corporate Excess Cash Holdings PONE-D-23-29519R1 Dear Dr. Shi Yin 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, Ercan Özen, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294079.r003
Formally Accepted
31 Oct 2023 Acceptance Letter - Ercan Özen, Editor PONE-D-23-29519R1 Green Credit Policy and Corporate Excess Cash Holdings Dear Dr. Yin: 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 Dr. Ercan Özen Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294079.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 .