PONE-D-24-34856Can ICT investment promote green development? New insights from highly polluting listed enterprises in ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Both reviewers appreciate the relevance and structure of the paper but have identified several areas requiring significant improvements before it can be considered for publication. Based on their feedback, I recommend the following:

<ul><li> 

The connection between ICT investment and green development, particularly in the context of highly polluting industries, needs further theoretical and empirical articulation. Reviewers noted a need for clearer explanations regarding hypotheses and endogeneity concerns.<li> 

The integration of network effect theory into the analysis requires more depth. Additionally, addressing competing or complementary theories will strengthen the paper's contribution to the literature.<li> 

Please address these points and the detailed comments from both reviewers in your revised manuscript

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 15 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,

Muhammad Ramzan, PhD

Guest 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 your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

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. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

3. We are unable to open your Supporting Information file [data and command.zip]. Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload.

4. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript. Both reviewers appreciate the relevance and structure of the paper but have identified several major areas requiring significant improvements before it can be considered for publication. Based on their feedback, I recommend the following:

1. The connection between ICT investment and green development, particularly in the context of highly polluting industries, needs further theoretical and empirical articulation. Reviewers noted a need for clearer explanations regarding hypotheses and endogeneity concerns.

2. The integration of network effect theory into the analysis requires more depth. Additionally, addressing competing or complementary theories will strengthen the paper's contribution to the literature.

Please address these points and the detailed comments from both reviewers in your revised manuscript.

[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: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper offers a well-structured analysis of the influence of ICT investment on green development in high-pollution industries, with a particular focus on green technological innovation. The use of a dynamic panel threshold model and heterogeneity analysis adds significant depth and rigor to the research. However, the theoretical framework, motivation, and policy implications require further refinement to unlock the full potential of the study. I have several major suggestions, and I believe that incorporating these improvements will substantially enhance the overall quality and impact of the paper.

1. The background could provide more specific industry-level challenges related to green development in high-pollution sectors. More emphasis on the environmental and regulatory pressures these industries face would strengthen the case for the study.

The problem statement lacks clarity in terms of how ICT investment specifically addresses these environmental challenges compared to other corporate investments. Further exploration of why ICT investment is uniquely impactful would make the problem more compelling.

2. The contributions section could be more clearly articulated. While the paper mentions filling a gap, it does not sufficiently specify how its findings advance theoretical understanding or provide unique empirical evidence.

The practical contributions to managers or policymakers are underdeveloped, limiting the broader relevance of the findings.

3. The theoretical framework is underdeveloped. While network effect theory is mentioned, it is not thoroughly integrated throughout the analysis. The paper could do more to show how the theory connects ICT investment to firm-level green outcomes.

There is limited discussion of competing or complementary theories that might also explain the relationship between ICT and green innovation, such as innovation diffusion theory or resource-based theory.

4. The theoretical framework is underdeveloped. While network effect theory is mentioned, it is not thoroughly integrated throughout the analysis. The paper could do more to show how the theory connects ICT investment to firm-level green outcomes. There is limited discussion of competing or complementary theories that might also explain the relationship between ICT and green innovation, such as innovation diffusion theory or resource-based theory.

5. There is limited explanation of why certain high-pollution industries were selected or how they differ in terms of ICT adoption and green development potential.

The methodological section does not sufficiently discuss potential biases or limitations in the data, such as the use of proxies for ICT investment or green development.

6. There is limited explanation of why certain high-pollution industries were selected or how they differ in terms of ICT adoption and green development potential. The methodological section does not sufficiently discuss potential biases or limitations in the data, such as the use of proxies for ICT investment or green development.

7. The paper presents a well-structured analysis of how ICT investment influences green development in high-pollution industries, focusing on the role of green technological innovation. The dynamic panel threshold model and heterogeneity analysis add depth to the research. However, the theoretical framework, motivation, and policy implications need further development to fully realize the potential of the study.

Reviewer #2: Can ICT investment promote green development? New insights from

highly polluting listed enterprises in China

The paper raises an important issue and is well written. However, to merit publication in PLOSE ONE, it needs significant improvements in certain aspects. Detailed comments follow:

Major Comments:

1. Line 227: How the authors relate the "threshold effect in networks" with their hypothesized " threshold effect in ICT" needs more articulation or clarification.

2. Line 265: Hypothesis 2 needs paraphrasing. E.g., " Production efficiency is one mechanism through which ICT investment impacts on green development of enterprises in highly polluting industries". The same for hypothesis 3; the phrase "mechanism role" should be improved.

3. Line 308: What the source of this potential endogeneity is, and how testing only the influence of the independent variable avoids this endogeneity needs clarification.

4. Line 311: Can the authors find a statistical/econometric means to establish this influence rather than depending merely on common sense?

5. Line 314: What is ICT shows no significant effect on MNV in model (2). Have the authors checked this before they use MNV as a control variable in Model (3), or they think it does not matter?

6. Line 317: The authors need a reference to substantiate this claim.

7. L 370: This acronym comes all of a sudden. The full phrase should be introduced for the first time, with the acronym in the brackets.

8. L377: The claim "The greater LnPgdp, the stronger the environmental awareness and green consumption ability of local citizens" needs to be supported by a reference.

9. L 381: In the sentence "During most of the sample period, the efficiency of resource

development and utilization in most provinces in China has been high, so Rse is good for green

development of local enterprises" how the first phrase of this sentence leads to the second (so...) is not clear. I mean does the first phrase automatically lead the conclusion that "Rse is good for green development"?

10. L 398: Why +1? Are there enterprises with 0 employees?

11. L 398: The sentence "Large-size enterprises have stronger environmental awareness" needs a reference.

12. L 475: It would be better not to mix models with the results section. All models and their explanation may better be dealt with in section 4, and dedicate section 5 to results and discussion. Moreover, these two sections are very lengthy; they need to be shortened significantly. That way, the paper will be easier to follow.

13. L 502: The authors write "... the carbon emission intensity of an enterprise is difficult to affect the topographic condition of the city where it is located." In relation to the validity of an IV, this sentence should read the other way around, i.e., "the topographic condition of the city is difficult to affect the carbon emission intensity of an enterprise". Moreover, the authors need to elaborate on why they think so.

14. L 506: The authors write "the carbon emission intensity of enterprises cannot directly affect the change of the ratio of ICT assets to total assets of enterprises." The cause and effect relationship should be reversed. The validity of the IV should also be better motivated. Just writing "...cannot directly affect..." is not enough to convince readers that your IV is valid.

15. L 562: Have the authors conducted a statistical test to show that the two values (0.0432 and 0.0504) are significantly different?

16. L 573: The same comment as above.

Minor Comments:

1. Line 93: The phrase "cooperation between enterprises and other enterprises" is ambiguous.

2. Line 112 and elsewhere: The word "literatures" should be replaced with the singular "literature".

3. Line 364: This acronym comes all of a sudden. The full phrase should be introduced for the first time, with the acronym in the brackets.

**********

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.

Can ICT investment promote green development? New insights from highly polluting listed enterprises in China

PONE-D-24-34856R1

Dear Dr. Li,

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,

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Yes

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: Yes

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: The authors have addressed all important comments in revised version of Can ICT investment promote green development? New insights from highly polluting listed enterprises in China

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

**********