PONE-D-23-43453How does digital transformation impact corporate ESG performance？ Evidence from China's state-owned manufacturing enterprisesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wu,

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 09 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,

Pengyu Chen

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 include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[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: Partly

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: No

Reviewer #2: 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

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: The reviewer believes that the topic “How does digital transformation impact corporate ESG performance？ Evidence from China's state-owned manufacturing enterprises” is worthy of investigation. However, the following needs to be addressed. There are minor and major issues that should be corrected. I believe the paper could be further strengthened by added information about.

Please reorganize the manuscript at the journal request. Please change the reference format.

The language of this manuscript is very bad and needs help from native speakers.

The title of the manuscript should fully demonstrate the content of this study and the relevant subjects.

Abstracts should include the purpose and findings of the study.

Introduction . This a very vague statement. These sentences do not provide any information on how the concept could be conceptualized?

This section should explain the study's context and research objective. Furthermore, the research gap needs to be narrowed after analyzing the previous studies. The research method is not adequately explained in the first section.

-Introduction, what authors wanted to convey. Here author must build research gap following the previous studies.-The manuscript does not answer the following concerns: Why is it timeliness to explore such a study? What makes this study different from the previously published studies? Are there any similarly findings in line with the previously published studies? Are the findings different from prior academic studies that were conducted elsewhere, if any? For example, information innovation and innovation network, what it requires, what are the new technologies, some recent issue highlights the importance. See the following: Enhancing digital innovation for the sustainable transformation of manufacturing industry: a pressure-state-response system framework to perceptions of digital green innovation and its performance for green and intelligent manufacturing.

Developing a Conceptual Partner Selection Framework: Digital Green Innovation Management of Prefabricated Construction Enterprises for Sustainable Urban Development.

An adoption-implementation framework of digital green knowledge to improve the performance of digital green innovation practices for industry 5.0;

-Methodology: Model.. I suggest authors here build your main heading on Research and data methodology. Clearly explain the model building process, and what previous studies have used similar models (model testing approach).

There is no flow in the text. It partly depends on the lack of proofreading but also on the fact that many statements and claims are made without being followed up by a clear and logical discussion. It is especially problematic in the Introduction that brings up a number of findings from different areas without linking them together.

Please make sure your conclusions' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results. Highlight the novelty of your study.

In addition to summarizing the actions taken and results, please strengthen the explanation of their significance. It is recommended to use quantitative reasoning comparing with appropriate benchmarks, especially those stemming from previous work. See the following:Developing a Conceptual Partner Matching Framework for Digital Green Innovation of Agricultural High-End Equipment Manufacturing System Toward Agriculture 5.0: A Novel Niche Field Model Combined With Fuzzy VIKOR

More importantly, the choice of the variables should be explained in light of the theory and the prior literature on the topic. The arguments are simply relationships and causes very close to the replication of many studies dealing with the same thing.

The authors should emphasize the important role of digital technology in industrial structure upgrading in future research. Some recent issue highlights the importance: The Interaction Mechanism and Dynamic Evolution of Digital Green Innovation in the Integrated Green Building Supply Chain.

Please consider this structure for manuscript final part.

-Discussion

-Conclusion

-Managerial Implication

-Practical/Social Implications

-Discussion needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular, and help us see the relevance of what authors have proposed. Authors should create an independent “Discussion” section. Author need to contextualize the findings in the literature, and need to be explicit about the added value of your study towards that literature. Also other studies should be cited to increase the theoretical background of each of the method used. Findings should be contextualized in the literature and should be explicit about the added value of the study towards the literature (New Energy-Driven Construction Industry: Digital Green Innovation Investment Project Selection of Photovoltaic Building Materials Enterprises Using an Integrated Fuzzy Decision Approach). Limitations and future research.

As any emprical study that use different approaches I would like to ask to introduce in the Conclusion section at least a paragraph containing the study limitations. I noticed some things in the paper but a synthesis of statements related to how the study is useful (or partially useful, since are required certain further analysis) and helps potential interested readers does not really exist. Maybe in addition to the last section of Conclusion it is beneficial to introduce a section called: Discussion.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript title: How does digital transformation impact corporate ESG performance？ Evidence from China's state-owned manufacturing enterprises

Manuscript ID:PONE-D-23-43453

Summary of the paper: This paper studies the relationship between digital transformation and ESG performance. Using a sample of Chinese listed firms, the authors document that digital transformation is an important factor in promoting the improvement of ESG performance of state-owned enterprises. The authors further investigate the mechanism of digital transformation from the perspectives of dynamic capabilities and institutional environment. These findings can provide empirical evidence for improving ESG performance and promoting corporate sustainability. The paper concentrates on an important issue about ESG performance in the context of emerging economics or developing countries. In addition, the moderating effects of institutional environment influence ESG practices of enterprises in the long-run. The authors highlight different interactive governance mechanisms for digital transformation and how they influence the ESG practices of Chinese listed firms. This paper examines an interesting question and obtains supporting evidence. However, there are a few comments and concerns on the current draft. I suggest to the authors only minor revisions:

1. Relationship to the literature and contribution:The discussion of contributions lacks reference support. A more nuanced discussion of extant research and their outcomes would be necessary to contextualize the contribution of the paper. For example, in line 94-106: The authors state that ”explores the mechanism of digital transformation from the perspectives of institutional environment and dynamic capability....."Are these mechanism analysis concepts widely used by related literature? The description lacks literature support,which might confuse the first contribution with the second.The paper would benefit greatly if the authors could point out more clearly in the introduction section that how exactly this paper provides novel insights into the literature. 

2. Research hypothesis :Line 145-148:The authors state that “The performance of corporate social responsibility mainly emphasizes that enterprises should strengthen the governance of the relationship between multiple stakeholders....."This may seem applicable to all enterprises(including SOE and non-SOE). The authors should emphasize that this situation is unique to state-owned enterprises and update the whole paragraph.

3.Line 165-186:The authors hypothesize that: “The corporate governance performance of an enterprise includes two dimensions: the internal governance and the external governance performance....”in Section 1.1 . However, moderating role of Formal institutions and Informal institutions are highlighted again in Section 1.3. It will mislead readers to confuse on the real mechanism of digital transformation. In addition, H2 and H3 are proven by moderating effects,which is different from dynamic capabilities mechanism.

4.Theoretical framework:It is recommended to reshape the theoretical framework and add a diagram or figure to help readers quickly understand the whole story and core research variables.

5.Robustness Tests:The robustness test should display the related table on page21.It is very clear that the authors emphasize Digital Transformation have positive effect on Corporate E,S and G in section2. The paper would benefit greatly if the authors could show the different impacts of digital transformation on three aspects of ESG.

6.Other comments: 

The formula in line 428 and 433 is not labeled.

The hypothesis order is incorrect.

There are some grammar mistakes. The author should conduct grammar checks and proofreading

There is a wealth of literature on digital transformation and ESG. The authors should cite English literature rather than Chinese.

**********

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: 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: plosone.docx

How does digital transformation affect the ESG performance of Chinese manufacturing state-owned enterprises? --Based on the mediating mechanism of dynamic capabilities and the moderating mechanism of the institutional environment

PONE-D-23-43453R1

Dear Dr. Wu,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Pengyu Chen

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: 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 #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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: I am satisfied with the revisions carried out based on earlier feedback. The paper is in need of a final language check, preferably by an experienced or professional proofreader, to improve the clarity of expression and impact of your ideas. Once this is resolved, your paper will be ready for acceptance.

Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed the comments raised in a previous round of review and I feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication. If time permits，please confirm whether the formula in the full text is displayed correctly.

**********

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

**********