Incentive mechanism of multiple green innovation behaviors of equipment manufacturing enterprises: A managers, green coordination groups and employees perspective

Baohong Li; Shi Yin; Baosheng Zhang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0300533

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 16, 2023
7 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Chaohai Shen, Editor PONE-D-23-18734Incentive mechanism of multiple green innovation behaviors of equipment manufacturing enterprises: A managers, green coordination groups and employees perspectivePLOS 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 Dec 22 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, Chaohai Shen 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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 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 the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This research was funded by Philosophy and Social Science Research Planning Project of Heilongjiang Province (20JYB030)." Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 6. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: "We declare that we have no conflicts of interest." Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state ""The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 7. 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. [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: Partly Reviewer #3: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: N/A ****** 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: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: No Reviewer #3: No ******** 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: Overall, the manuscript is well-structured, and the language, presentation and the topic are of good quality. However, some concerns need to be addressed regarding the added value of the analysis behind the results. How are general managers, green coordination groups (GCG), and employees selected? the authors spend more time understanding the underlying connotation of objective, rational economic and theory, so it's ok for me. following the studies appearing in the Introduction and literature, there is no recent study (2023).it is important to discuss previous findings and cite related studies The research gap and novelty are as superficial as they were. Resorting to additional literature for developing the gap or defining the novelty indicates the inability of the authors to create a debate in the literature The environmental benefits are not clear. Please can you discuss this point in the result section Reviewer #2: The authors analyze the incentive mechanism of green innovation behaviors in equipment manufacturing enterprises based on a double principal-agent model involving general managers, green coordination groups, and employees. The manuscript establishes a theoretical model and conducts numerical analysis. The topic is interesting and meaningful. However, the rigor and innovation of the study are not fully demonstrated. Substantial revisions to the current draft are needed to enhance its academic rigor and practical implications. Specific recommendations are as follows: 1 Literature Reviews (1)At the end of the literature review, one paragraph should be added to point out the differences between this study and the existing literature and the possible innovations and contributions of this study. This is very crucial for eliciting the significance of the research. (2) In Section 2.3, when reviewing the double principal-agent theory, 1-2 sentences should be added to introduce the core ideas of the theory and its application advantages, so that readers can better understand its significance in the research on green innovation incentives. 2 Methodology (1) The author puts forward six model hypotheses in Section 3.2, but no theoretical basis is given for some hypotheses. For example, the definition of η in lines 244-246 does not explain the connotation of organizational green atmosphere and its impact on employees' green behavior; The setting of the effort cost function in line 263 also lacks explanation. References are suggested to further enrich the theoretical basis of the hypotheses. 3 Discussion (1) In line 405-407 of the paper, the author presets the parameter values in the model, but the parameter setting is somewhat subjective. In order to verify the robustness and applicability of the model and the main conclusions, it is suggested that the authors conduct comprehensive and meticulous sensitivity tests on the key parameters by using multidimensional parameter sensitivity analysis. For example, three-dimensional coordinate graphics are used to visually present the influence surface and range of different parameters on the model result function. 4 Conclusions (1)The paragraph from line 548-552 mentions that green organizational atmosphere can improve employees' green innovation behavior, but does not discuss specific improvement approaches. It is suggested to add specific recommendations here on how companies can create an organizational green atmosphere through improving green systems, conducting green training, setting green goals, etc. (2)The concluding part from line 553-557 is too generic without providing actionable management recommendations. It is suggested to add specific recommendations here on how companies can set up reasonable green innovation incentive mechanisms based on different employee characteristics, along with green training, atmosphere building and other measures, thereby effectively motivating employees' green innovation behavior. 5 Limitations and Future Studies (1) The author discusses the limitations in lines 594-605, but it stays more in the direction of continuing research without in-depth analysis of the constraints of the conclusions and suggestions of this paper. It is suggested that the authors supplement the scope and premise of application of the research conclusions. Reviewer #3: Directions for the improvements in the paper: 1. The authors try to study the incentive mechanism of green innovation behaviors in equipment manufacturing enterprises from a multi-agent perspective. However, this work does not direct at equipment manufacturing enterprises in fact, and the content of this paper is weakly correlated with equipment manufacturing enterprises. In other words, this work is also suitable for other types of enterprises. 2. The authors should optimize their introduction in multi-dimensions, such as research background, research gap and contributions, just to name a few. 3. I think the authors should work on their literature review. Existing literature review is crude, and cannot present the theoretical innovations and significance of this paper. For example, many categorical statements in Section 2 (e.g., the headline of Section 2.1) need to be more accurate, targeted and pertinent. The authors need to review state of the art on related studies to establish this study's gap clearly. Else, your study looks fictitious. 4. “However, less research has focused on the green innovation behaviors of general managers, middle managers, and employees at three levels in the same incentive framework during the implementation of green strategies in enterprises.” How is the evidence to support this statement? As it stands, it is hard to believe when you have not provided at least a literature relating to it. There exist several similar problems in Section 2. 5. Since the incentive methods vary from the categories of organization members, the authors should present precise definitions about managers, green coordination groups and employees before establishing models in Section 3. 6. Figure 1 shows the double principal-agent model in the implementation of enterprise the double carbon target, but the parameters listed in Table 1 cannot the double carbon target. 7. According to Figure 1, different participants involving in the implementation of enterprise the double carbon target together form a system. Why not study the incentive mechanism of green innovation behaviors through a mathematical model? The authors study incentive mechanism through four problems. 8. In Section 5, the authors set the parameters as �1 � 1, m1 � 0.8 , 407 �1 � 0.5 , �12 � 3 , �2 � 0.9 , m2 � 0.3 , �2 � 0.4 , �22 � 4 and � � 0.8. How were these values chosen based on analysis of the questionnaire results? Why not select other parameter values? 9. The headline and the concrete content of Section 5 are somewhat mismatched. 10. There exist some grammatical problems, typing errors and citing errors in this paper. ******* 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: Yes: Kamel si Mohammed Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-18734--comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300533.r001
Revision 1
21 Dec 2023 Author Response Response Letter Dear Editors and Reviewers, Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Incentive mechanism of multiple green innovation behaviors of equipment manufacturing enterprises: A managers, green coordination groups and employees perspective ". Those comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully, and have made some corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the"Revised manuscript". The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: List of Responses Those comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully, and have made some corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the"Revised manuscript". The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to Reviewer #1: Reviewer #1: Overall, the manuscript is well-structured, and the language, presentation and the topic are of good quality. However, some concerns need to be addressed regarding the added value of the analysis behind the results. Answer:Thank you for suggesting this, we have reworked your last comments and suggestions. Comment 1: How are general managers, green coordination groups (GCG), and employees selected? Answer 1: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. I’m sorry we didn’t make it clear. As for your suggestions, we have clarified and supplemented the aim of the research in our paper. (See Revised manuscript, Line numbers: 244-283). Comment 2: the authors spend more time understanding the underlying connotation of objective, rational economic and theory, so it's ok for me.following the studies appearing in the Introduction and literature, there is no recent study (2023).it is important to discuss previous findings and cite related studies. Answer 2: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. This is a very important question. As for your suggestions, we have included relevant literature from 2023 and have rewritten the introduction and literature review sections in the paper. (See Revised manuscript, Line numbers:53-1041;20-161;163-220). Comment 3: The research gap and novelty are as superficial as they were. Resorting to additional literature for developing the gap or defining the novelty indicates the inability of the authors to create a debate in the literature. Answer 3: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. We have rewritten the problem statement section.(See Revised manuscript, Line numbers:91-104 ). Comment 4: The environmental benefits are not clear. Please can you discuss this point in the result section. Answer 4: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. We have discussed the results of existing studies and given corresponding implications. (See Revised manuscript, Line numbers: 635-648). Responds to Reviewer #2: The authors analyze the incentive mechanism of green innovation behaviors in equipment manufacturing enterprises based on a double principal-agent model involving general managers, green coordination groups, and employees. The manuscript establishes a theoretical model and conducts numerical analysis. The topic is interesting and meaningful. However, the rigor and innovation of the study are not fully demonstrated. Substantial revisions to the current draft are needed to enhance its academic rigor and practical implications. Answer:Thank you for suggesting this, we have reworked your last comments and suggestions. Comment 1: Literature Reviews At the end of the literature review, one paragraph should be added to point out the differences between this study and the existing literature and the possible innovations and contributions of this study. This is very crucial for eliciting the significance of the research. Answer 1: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. This is a very important question. As for your suggestions, we have supplemented the content about the differences between this study and the existing literature and the possible innovations and contributions of this study . (See Revised manuscript, Line numbers: 196-220). Comment 2: In Section 2.3, when reviewing the double principal-agent theory, 1-2 sentences should be added to introduce the core ideas of the theory and its application advantages, so that readers can better understand its significance in the research on green innovation incentives. Answer 2: Thank you very much for pointing out these problems. As for your suggestions, we have added to introduce the core ideas of the theory and its application advantages, so that readers can better understand its significance in the research on green incentives. (See Revised manuscript, Line numbers:163-166). Comment 3: Methodology The author puts forward six model hypotheses in Section 3.2, but no theoretical basis is given for some hypotheses. For example, the definition of η in lines 244-246 does not explain the connotation of organizational green atmosphere and its impact on employees' green behavior; The setting of the effort cost function in line 263 also lacks explanation. References are suggested to further enrich the theoretical basis of the hypotheses. Answer 3: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. We have revised relevant content. . (See Revised manuscript, Line numbers: 151-156;311-313). Comment 4: Discussion In line 405-407 of the paper, the author presets the parameter values in the model, but the parameter setting is somewhat subjective. In order to verify the robustness and applicability of the model and the main conclusions, it is suggested that the authors conduct comprehensive and meticulous sensitivity tests on the key parameters by using multidimensional parameter sensitivity analysis. For example, three-dimensional coordinate graphics are used to visually present the influence surface and range of different parameters on the model result function. Answer 4: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. I’m sorry we didn’t make it clear. We have enriched the theoretical basis related to the research contents and objectives. (See Revised manuscript, Line numbers: 466-474). Comment 5: Conclusions The paragraph from line 548-552 mentions that green organizational atmosphere can improve employees' green innovation behavior, but does not discuss specific improvement approaches. It is suggested to add specific recommendations here on how companies can create an organizational green atmosphere through improving green systems, conducting green training, setting green goals, etc. Answer 5: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. We have included additional information on the specific improvement approaches.(See Revised manuscript, Line numbers: 616-629). Comment 6: The concluding part from line 553-557 is too generic without providing actionable management recommendations. It is suggested to add specific recommendations here on how companies can set up reasonable green innovation incentive mechanisms based on different employee characteristics, along with green training, atmosphere building and other measures, thereby effectively motivating employees' green innovation behavior. Answer 6: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. We have included additional information on motivating employees' green innovation behavior.The specific instructions are as follows. (See Revised manuscript, Line numbers:635-648). Comment 7: Limitations and Future Studies The author discusses the limitations in lines 594-605, but it stays more in the direction of continuing research without in-depth analysis of the constraints of the conclusions and suggestions of this paper. It is suggested that the authors supplement the scope and premise of application of the research conclusions. Answer 7: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. We have included additional information on the scope and premise of application of the research conclusions. The specific instructions are as follows. (See Revised manuscript, Line numbers: 682-688). Responds to Reviewer #3: Directions for the improvements in the paper: Answer:Thank you for suggesting this, we have reworked your last comments and suggestions. Comment 1: 1. The authors try to study the incentive mechanism of green innovation behaviors in equipment manufacturing enterprises from a multi-agent perspective. However, this work does not direct at equipment manufacturing enterprises in fact, and the content of this paper is weakly correlated with equipment manufacturing enterprises. In other words, this work is also suitable for other types of enterprises. Answer 1: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. This is a very important question. Due to the weak correlation between the content of this paper and equipment manufacturing enterprises, we have chosen to remove the word "equipment" from the manuscript. Comment 2: The authors should optimize their introduction in multi-dimensions, such as research background, research gap and contributions, just to name a few. Answer 2: we have supplemented the content about the differences between this study and the existing literature and the possible innovations and contributions of this study . (See Revised manuscript, Line numbers: 196-220). Comment 3: I think the authors should work on their literature review. Existing literature review is crude, and cannot present the theoretical innovations and significance of this paper. For example, many categorical statements in Section 2 (e.g., the headline of Section 2.1) need to be more accurate, targeted and pertinent. The authors need to review state of the art on related studies to establish this study's gap clearly. Else, your study looks fictitious. Answer 3: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. This is a very important question. As for your suggestions, we have included relevant literature from 2023 and have rewritten the introduction and literature review sections in the paper. (See Revised manuscript, Line numbers:53-1041;20-161;163-220). Comment 4: “However, less research has focused on the green innovation behaviors of general managers, middle managers, and employees at three levels in the same incentive framework during the implementation of green strategies in enterprises.” How is the evidence to support this statement? As it stands, it is hard to believe when you have not provided at least a literature relating to it. There exist several similar problems in Section 2. Answer 4: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. I’m sorry we didn’t make it clear. we have included relevant literature from 2023 and have rewritten the introduction and literature review sections in the paper. (See Revised manuscript, Line numbers:53-1041;20-161;163-220). Comment 5: Since the incentive methods vary from the categories of organization members, the authors should present precise definitions about managers, green coordination groups and employees before establishing models in Section 3. Answer 5: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. I’m sorry we didn’t make it clear. As for your suggestions, we have clarified and supplemented definitions about managers ,green coordination groups and employees in our paper. (See Revised manuscript, Line numbers: 244-283). Comment 6: Figure 1 shows the double principal-agent model in the implementation of enterprise the double carbon target, but the parameters listed in Table 1 cannot the double carbon target. Answer 6: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. Upon conducting a thorough analysis of the article as recommended by the experts, it was determined that revising the goal of achieving a two-carbon target to a green strategy implementation target was necessary.(See Revised manuscript, Line numbers:295). Comment 7: According to Figure 1, different participants involving in the implementation of enterprise the double carbon target together form a system. Why not study the incentive mechanism of green innovation behaviors through a mathematical model? The authors study incentive mechanism through four problems. Answer 7: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. The Double Agency Theory primarily examines the complex relationships that arise when there are two or more principals and agents involved. Within this theoretical framework, the main variables include: Agent's Objectives and Preferences: Agents have their own objectives and preferences, which may not entirely align with those of the principals. Risk Preferences and Risk Sharing: The attitudes of principals and agents towards risk can vary, and how risk is shared within contracts is a crucial consideration. Incentive Mechanisms: The degree and precision of incentives significantly impact the effectiveness of motivation on the incentivized parties. Effort Level: The effort exerted by the agents is another important variable. These variables interact within the Double Agency Theory, collectively influencing the relationship between principals and agents, as well as the final decision-making outcomes. Comment 8: 8. In Section 5, the authors set the parameters as �1 � 1, m1 � 0.8 , 407 �1 � 0.5 , �12 � 3 , �2 � 0.9 , m2 � 0.3 , �2 � 0.4 , �22 � 4 and � � 0.8. How were these values chosen based on analysis of the questionnaire results? Why not select other parameter values? Answer 8: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem.We have some information about how to select parameter values. Revised portion are marked in red in the “Revised manuscript” (See Revised manuscript, Line numbers: 466-474). Comment 9: The headline and the concrete content of Section 5 are somewhat mismatched. Answer 9: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. We have revised the section heading to “Conclusion of analysis” . Revised portion are marked in red in the “Revised manuscript” (See Revised manuscript, Line numbers: 464). Comment 10: There exist some grammatical problems, typing errors and citing errors in this paper. Answer 10: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. We have further checked carefully and modified these problems in the revised paper by asking for help. All the authors and my friend who is studying in Britain have checked and edited the English language of this paper. If there are some problems about English language in the paper, I would like to continue to amend these questions. I prayed for you to give me a chance. Thank you very much for your help. Revised portion are marked in red in the “Revised manuscript” (See Revised manuscript, Line numbers: Full text). We appreciate for Editors and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that these corrections will meet with approval. Looking forward to hearing from you. Best regards. Shi Yin E-mail: shyshi0314@163.com Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: reply letter 12.14(1).docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300533.r002
12 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Muddassar Sarfraz, Editor PONE-D-23-18734R1Incentive mechanism of multiple green innovation behaviors of equipment manufacturing enterprises: A managers, green coordination groups and employees perspectivePLOS 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 Mar 28 2024 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, Muddassar Sarfraz, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: (No Response) 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: N/A ****** 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: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed the previously proposed problems. However, there is still one point to be improved, that is, the literature support needs to be strengthened. To solve this problem, the authors can cite the following works: 1. Using blockchain or not? A focal firm's blockchain strategy in the context of carbon emission reduction technology innovation 2. Exploring the influencing factors of carbon neutralization in Chinese manufacturing enterprises 3.Government regulatory policies for digital transformation in small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises: an evolutionary game analysis 4. The influence of the altruistic preferences of e-commerce platforms on the carbon emission reduction of manufacturers 5. The choice of green manufacturing modes under carbon tax and carbon quota ****** 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 #3: 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.0300533.r003
Revision 2
15 Feb 2024 Author Response Response Letter Dear Editors and Reviewers, Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Incentive mechanism of multiple green innovation behaviors of equipment manufacturing enterprises: A managers, green coordination groups and employees perspective ". Those comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully, and have made some corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the"Revised manuscript". The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: List of Responses Those comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully, and have made some corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the "Revised manuscript". The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to Reviewer #1: Thank you for the reviewers' recognition of the paper. Responds to Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed the previously proposed problems. However, there is still one point to be improved, that is, the literature support needs to be strengthened. To solve this problem, the authors can cite the following works: 1. Using blockchain or not? A focal firm's blockchain strategy in the context of carbon emission reduction technology innovation 2.Exploring the influencing factors of carbon neutralization in Chinese manufacturing enterprises 3.Government regulatory policies for digital transformation in small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises: an evolutionary game analysis 4.The influence of the altruistic preferences of e-commerce platforms on the carbon emission reduction of manufacturers 5.The choice of green manufacturing modes under carbon tax and carbon quota Answer: Thank you for suggesting this, we have reworked your last comments and suggestions. we have included relevant literature and have rewritten the introduction and literature review sections in the paper. (See Revised manuscript, Line numbers: 110-137). We appreciate for Editors and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that these corrections will meet with approval. Looking forward to hearing from you. Best regards. Shi Yin E-mail: shyshi0314@163.com Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: reply letter 213.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300533.r004
29 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Muddassar Sarfraz, Editor Incentive mechanism of multiple green innovation behaviors of equipment manufacturing enterprises: A managers, green coordination groups and employees perspective PONE-D-23-18734R2 Dear Dr. 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, Muddassar Sarfraz, PhD 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 #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: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: N/A ****** 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: No 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: No 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: Thank you for giving me this opportunity to review the paper entitled"Incentive mechanism of multiple green innovation behaviors of equipment manufacturing enterprises: A managers, green coordination groups and employees perspective". The vision is fine to me Reviewer #3: This paper seeks to elucidate the roles of general managers, green coordination groups (GCG), and employees in actualizing green behaviors. Furthermore, it advocates for a double incentive model to be employed in the implementing of green strategies within manufacturing enterprises. The revised manuscript is suitable for publication. ****** 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 #3: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300533.r005
Formally Accepted
11 Mar 2024 Acceptance Letter - Muddassar Sarfraz, Editor PONE-D-23-18734R2 PLOS ONE 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 being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Muddassar Sarfraz Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300533.r006

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 .