Evolutionary Game and Numerical Simulation of Enterprises’ Green Technology Innovation: Based on the Credit Sales Financing Service of Supply Chain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper mentioned above is a good effort by the researcher(s); however, the following points need consideration.
1) The author(s) may consider writing the abstract in a systematic way. In current form, the abstract does not follow the standard requirement of an abstract. The author(s) shall rewrite the abstract to make it short by removing the duplications/repetitions. The author(s) should state the objective(s), sample, research methodology, key findings, and policy implications if any. The findings in the abstract need to be written in a more informative way.
2) Motivation and the contribution need to be strengthened. The contribution of this study needs more logical detail. The contribution of this paper is not well explained in the current version of the paper.
3) The authors should take into account the most recent information regarding the focal variable in the literature. To enhance the discussion in the literature, please include recent studies. I suggest that you expand your review by citing the most recent study, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19763-1
4) Please check the manuscript again for errors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Full Title: “Evolutionary game and numerical simulation of enterprises’ green technology innovation: Based on the sell-on-credit financing service of supply chain.”
Journal: Sustainability
Recommendation: Accept in present form
ID: sustainability-2100813
The authors analyze sell-on-credit as a financing method into the research of supply chain enterprises’ green technology innovation. They build an evolutionary game model of upstream and downstream enterprises that explores the factors affecting sell-on-credit to guide enterprises’ green technological innovation and financing through internal incentives and policies. Finally, they provide new ideas for supply chain enterprises’ green technology innovation financing.
Specifically, the authors design an evolutionary game model to analyze the strategy selection of Green Technological Innovation GTI and the supply chain’s sell-on-credit behavior of upstream and downstream enterprises to provide a new financing channel for GTI. They carried out a numerical simulation, using MATLAB R2018a software, to explore the specific impact of variables in the income matrix on sell-on-credit financing services and GTI behavior of upstream and downstream enterprises in the supply chain. They analyzed the evolutionary stability strategy under different conditions and the influence of the value of variables on the behavior of both sides of the game.
The results show that:
- Sell-on-credit can become an effective financing method for green technology innovation of supply chain enterprises.
- The shared benefits of green technology innovation increase the enthusiasm of upstream enterprises to provide sell-on-credit.
- The government’s green subsidies or incentives stimulate the GTI of enterprises enjoying sell-on-credit services.
Based on the conclusions, this paper puts forward the next policy implications:
- Because of selling-on-credit creates profits for supply chain companies, the government should increase subsidies and incentives for supply chain enterprises. On the one hand, the government should provide incentives and subsidies for enterprises that carry out GTI to encourage green transformation and enhance their confidence in GTI. On the other hand, the government also provides incentives and subsidies to enterprises that offer sell-on-credit, increasing the willingness and proportion to provide sell-on-credit.
- It is crucial to improve financing-related laws and regulations to provide legal protection for supply chain collaboration.
The main limitation of the paper, as authors recognize, is that it fails to verify it with empirical data. As they suggest, future research should study the relationship between supply chain sell-on-credit and GTI based on long-term panel data.
My comments and suggestions are as follows:
1.- The proposed methodology is highly original, and technically very robust. The simulations are well designed. The conclusions drawn and their policy implications are sufficiently important to confirm the enormous usefulness of the paper. All that remains for further work is to verify the results obtained with empirical data, using a long-term panel database.
2.- The article can now be published as it stands. My recommendation is to accept it for publication in Sustainability. I would simply recommend that they incorporate a short paragraph at section 6.1.- Conclusions. Although the widespread use of credit sales may lead to an excessive extension of payment periods and, consequently, deteriorate the profitability of companies, however the advantages may outweigh it, among others the reduction of transaction costs, being a financial alternative to the banking system and an additional tool to improve business activities. The simulated results of this paper confirm this for the case of green technological innovation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstracts (1) It is suggested that the author elaborate the research background from both theoretical background and practical background, and condense it into 1-2 sentences. (2) This section lacks the research purpose, and it is suggested that the author supplement it. (3) This section lacks the elaboration of research methods, and the author is suggested to make some additions. (4) This section lacks research significance, and it is suggested that the author make some additions. Keywords The keyword "sell-on-credit" is not mature enough, it is recommended to change.
Introduction(1) This section lacks the explanation of the theoretical background, so it is suggested that the author use a paragraph to explain it in combination with the realistic background. (2) This section lacks the description of the research purpose, and the author is suggested to make some additions. (3) This section lacks the explanation of innovative points, so it is suggested that the author make some additions. (4) This section lacks the elaboration of research methods, and the author is suggested to make some additions. (5) This section lacks the description of the research content, and the author is suggested to make some additions.
(6) This section lacks the key scientific questions addressed in this manuscript, so it is suggested that the author elaborate in the form of questions. (7) Although the authors list the opinions of several researchers, a critical literature review is lacking. In particular, some important documents in the field of enterprises green innovation have been omitted. e.g. Chien, F., Kamran, H. W., Nawaz, M. A., Thach, N. N., Long, P. D., & Baloch, Z. A. (2022). Assessing the prioritization of barriers toward green innovation: small and medium enterprises Nexus. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(2), 1897-1927.Li, X., Dai, J., He, J., Li, J., Huang, Y., Liu, X., & Shen, Q. (2022). Mechanism of Enterprise Green Innovation Behavior Considering Coevolution Theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(16), 10453. Singh, S. K., Del Giudice, M., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Latan, H., & Sohal, A. S. (2022). Stakeholder pressure, green innovation, and performance in small and medium‐sized enterprises: The role of green dynamic capabilities. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(1), 500-514. etc.
Evolutionary Game Model (8) It is suggested that the author use a paragraph to describe the problem before constructing the evolutionary game model. (9) It is suggested that the author supplement the selection basis in the basic hypothesis.
Numerical Simulation(10) The selection of parameters in this section lacks basis, so it is suggested that the author make supplements. (11) It is suggested that the author make a comparative analysis and discussion in this section based on the results of other similar studies.
(12) The definition of the figure in this section is not high, so it is suggested that the author reconsider the way of exporting the figure. To sum up, it is suggested that the authors carefully revise this manuscript according to the above suggestions. I sincerely look forward to receiving the revised version.Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The reviewer appreciates the authors' efforts address the comments.
