ESG performance and green innovation in commercial banks: Evidence from China

Qiliang Wang; Yingchun Zhang; Yang Li; Peihao Wang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0308513

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 27, 2024
25 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Marcelo Dionisio, Editor PONE-D-24-21394ESG performance and green innovation in commercial banksPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhang, 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. Based on reviewer's comments I kindly ask you to proceed with minor revision to answer his demands to improve your manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 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, Marcelo Dionisio 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. 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. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "The author(s) received no specific funding for this work." 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. 4. We are unable to open your Supporting Information file Data Set.dta and Supplementary Material.do. Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload. 5. 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. 6. 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. 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: 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: You must discuss the main statistical findings in your study (hypotheses testing result). You need to provide the following points for each hypotheses testing result: a) Result of the study, b) Logical explanation of why the result is positive/ negative/ significant/ insignificant, particularly in your study only, and c) Previous studies supporting your main findings Reviewer #2: The manuscript appears to be technically sound. The authors conducted an empirical study of 36 Chinese commercial banks over a 12-year period to examine the relationship between ESG performance and green innovation. The data and methodology seem appropriate to support their conclusions about ESG promoting green innovation and the mediating factors involved. The study appears to make a novel contribution by examining ESG performance and green innovation in Chinese commercial banks, including mediating factors. The research question is relevant and timely given the focus on sustainability in the banking sector. ****** 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: Bayan Mohamad Alshaib ******** [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: Manuscript.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308513.r001
Revision 1
1 Jul 2024 Author Response Response report First of all, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the esteemed editors and the two reviewers for their suggestions and support for this manuscript. These suggestions have further deepened our understanding of this research topic and made the level of the manuscript clearer. We have carefully studied these suggestions and revised the manuscript in the hope that our manuscript will live up to your expectations of us. The revision of the manuscript and the responses to the editors and reviewers are summarized below. Summary of the revision: Introduction: We have removed the descriptive text on the origins of ESG and streamlined the "Article Section Settings" section. Theory and hypotheses: We re-uploaded the research framework diagram (Fig 1) following the editorial formatting requirements. Data and methodology: We changed the section names, added a data source column to the variable definition table (Table 1), and added numbers to the formulas. Empirical results and discussions: We have combined the original three chapters on benchmark regression, robustness testing and further research into a single chapter. At the same time, the empirical results of benchmark regression, moderating effect and mediating effect are discussed, and the order of reporting the robustness test is adjusted. Response to reviewers: Reviewer #1: Introduction: It is too long. Reply: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion, we re-examined the introduction section carefully, and we found that it was indeed too detailed in the elaboration of ESG data development lineage, therefore, we reorganized the introduction section and deleted the narrative of ESG development lineage, while the literature review section was not deleted in view of the completeness of the literature.After completing the above modifications, the latest introduction logic of this paper is as follows: 1 paragraph introducing the theme, 4 paragraphs of literature review, 1 paragraph of marginal contribution and 1 paragraph of research chapter setting. Research chapter setting: The steps should be summarized without details Reply: Thank you very much for your suggestions and guidance on the chapter setting of this paper. According to your suggestions, we have made the following adjustments and modifications: (1) we have streamlined the text of the chapter settings, eliminated specific details, and retained only the core purpose; (2) we have made some adjustments to the chapters of this paper by deleting the chapter on Robustness testing and further analysis, and combining them into the chapter on Empirical results and discussions, which has made the empirical part of this paper reporting more streamlined. Data and methodology: (1)The author should insert a column of source of data; (2) Give number for each equation Reply: We are very grateful to the reviewers for their guidance and suggestions on the variable definition section, for which we have made the following adjustments: (1) added the column of variable source in Table 1 to make the variable definition table clearer; (2) added numbering to the formulas of the article; and (3) re-edited the contents and formatting of the full-text tables, formulas, and pictures to try to make the textual presentation clearer and reduce the difficulty for readers to read. Empirical results and discussions: (1) You must discuss the main statistical findings in your study (hypotheses testing result). You need to provide the following points for each hypotheses testing result: a) Result of the study, b) Logical explanation of why the result is positive/ negative/ significant/ insignificant, particularly in your study only, and c) Previous studies supporting your main findings; (2) Robustness test should be in the end. Reply: We are very grateful to the reviewers for their comments and suggestions for changes in the empirical analysis section, and indeed we were lacking in the discussion of the empirical results. In this regard, we have made the following revisions: (1) We have discussed the empirical results for the benchmark regression (H1), moderated effects regression (H2), and mediated effects regression (H3, H4). Part of the theoretical analysis and previous research is added to make the empirical analysis more closely related to the theoretical analysis. (2) The order of reporting the robustness test is adjusted, and the robustness test is reported after the mechanism test, which makes the article clearer. The original changes to the empirical discussion section are as follows: H1: This suggests that independent rating agencies construct ESG ratings of commercial banks' social responsibility, which can properly alleviate the problem of internal and external information barriers, and can indeed promote the efficiency of commercial banks' green innovation by improving the information environment. Our empirical findings agree with previous research and theoretical hypothesis one (Ji et al., 2023; Mukhtar et al., 2023). H2: This suggests that management compensation can indeed be an effective measure to effectively promote ESG performance as a catalyst for green innovation when commercial bank management may be subject to principal-agent risk. This is consistent with the research hypothesis two of this paper and previous studies, for example, Zhao et al., (2023) investigated the causal relationship between executive compensation incentives and firm innovation and found that the stronger the compensation incentives, the more efficient the firm's innovation, which is corroborated by the study of Mazouz and Zhao (2019). H3: This finding suggests that commercial banks with good ESG performance do optimize loan quality and reduce NPL ratios, which in turn simultaneously increases the volume of loans invested in the green sector, which is consistent with hypothesis three of this study and the findings of previous studies. For example, Liu et al. (2023) find that banks' good ESG performance improves their loan quality and thus reduces NPL ratios, while Pan et al. (2021) and Liu et al. (2023) verify that social distrust, as represented by NPL ratios, inhibits firms' green innovations, and the findings of this paper's empirical study are in line with those of previous studies. H4: This finding suggests that commercial banks' ESG enhances market competitiveness, creates a competitive advantage for banks' green innovations, and promotes green innovation outputs, which is consistent with hypothesis four of this paper's research and previous studies. Tai et al.,(2024) found that ESG performance is positively correlated with industry concentration when market demand is convex, and ESG enhances firms' market competitiveness, while as early as 1995, Archibugi et al. (1995) found a positive correlation between industry concentration and innovation, and Flath (2011) further corroborated this finding. The empirical findings of this paper are also consistent with the above previous research results. Reviewer #2: The manuscript appears to be technically sound. The authors conducted an empirical study of 36 Chinese commercial banks over a 12-year period to examine the relationship between ESG performance and green innovation. The data and methodology seem appropriate to support their conclusions about ESG promoting green innovation and the mediating factors involved. The study appears to make a novel contribution by examining ESG performance and green innovation in Chinese commercial banks, including mediating factors. The research question is relevant and timely given the focus on sustainability in the banking sector. Reply: We are very grateful to the reviewers for recognizing this study, and we will make further efforts and perseverance in our future research! Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308513.r002
23 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Marcelo Dionisio, Editor ESG performance and green innovation in commercial banks: Evidence from China PONE-D-24-21394R1 Dear Dr. Zhang, 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, Marcelo Dionisio 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 ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 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: The authors have worked on it and updated upon on my request. specially, Empirical results and discussions they have worked on it clearly. ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308513.r003
Formally Accepted
2 Aug 2024 Acceptance Letter - Marcelo Dionisio, Editor PONE-D-24-21394R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhang, 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 Professor Marcelo Dionisio Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308513.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 .