The first group of studies has focused on the impact of GFP on technological innovation. Relevant literature has examined this relationship from two perspectives: the impact at a national-regional level and the impact on industries and firms. The vast majority of studies have concluded that GFP increases the efficiency of regional technological innovation, especially in developing countries and underdeveloped regions [27,28,29,30]. Irfan et al. [19] utilized the dataset covering 30 provinces in China from 2010 to 2019 and concluded that financial institutions’ green funds were applied to R&D, which resulted in the promotion of green innovation at the regional level. Lin and Ma [31] proved that efficient financial activities can enhance the quantity and quality of GTI in both developed and underdeveloped cities, and cities with higher levels of human capital are conducive to green innovation activities. Other studies have explored the impact of GFP on innovation in enterprises [32,33,34], particularly those in heavily polluting and high energy-consuming industries [35,36,37]. Zhang et al. [38] stated that China’s Green Credit Policy has enhanced the investment and financing environment for large enterprises with high energy consumption and high pollution levels, referred to as “two-high” enterprises, thereby promoting innovation efficiency in such enterprises. Xu et al. [9] observed that China’s Green Finance Pilot Policy can significantly enhance GTI in industrial enterprises.

The second group of literature has focused on examining the influence mechanism of GFP on technological innovation, with the scope of discussion in the relevant literature divided into two categories: industry-level and firm-level mechanisms. To explore the mechanisms from an industry-level perspective, some of the existing studies have proposed that GFP influences enterprise innovation by affecting the financing environment of the industry [39,40,41]. Li et al. [42] discovered that the introduction of green credit policy led to a tightening of external financing for heavy polluters, which adversely affected the efficiency and quality of green innovation for such enterprises. Su et al. [43] contended that the overall financing environment of the industry will improve when the intensity of green credit exceeds a certain threshold, which can promote green technological innovation in firms. Another part of the research has suggested that GFP primarily influences firm innovation by optimizing the allocation of production and R&D factors within the industry [15,44]. Irfan et al. [19] proposed that green finance can optimize the allocation of private idle capital by aggregating the participation of public and institutional investors in green investments, thereby enhancing the efficiency of green projects and providing adequate financial support for corporate green innovation. For the exploration of the mechanism from the firm’s perspective, most of the relevant papers have contended that GFP affects the innovation performance of enterprises by modifying micro factors, such as the enterprise’s living environment, operating costs, and government–enterprise relations [45,46]. Liu and Xiang [47] documented that China’s Green Finance Reforms have incentivized corporate innovation by reducing the cost of debt, increasing innovation inputs, and attracting foreign investment. Wang et al. [48], however, argued that GFP creates an implicit network of linkages between firms and government. This network internalizes the costs of environmental management activities and ultimately induces firms to improve their environmental performance through GTI.

Based on the summary of the perspectives on the impact and influence mechanisms of GFP on technological innovation (including GTI), the third group of studies has further discussed the means and countermeasures to stimulate the innovation incentive effect of GFP. A part of this literature has focused on the conditions conducive to the positive effect of GFP on technological innovation, i.e., the moderators of the innovation incentives of GFP. These studies have concluded that the appropriate intensity of government regulation [48,49,50], industry concentration [51], and the level of corporate environmental information disclosure [43] can positively moderate the impact of GFP on technological innovation and GTI of enterprises. Another part of the literature has contended that the development and implementation of GFP, especially in developing countries, are not yet well-developed. This implies that GFP needs to be used in conjunction with other environmental policy instruments to maximize its policy effects [14,52]. Although this research path is gaining prominence in academic circles for examining the effects of GFP policies, the number of relevant studies is currently insufficient. Currently, studies on the synergistic effects or coupling effects of environmental policy instruments such as environmental regulation [34], environmental subsidies [53], R&D subsidies [54], carbon trading [55], and public monitoring [56] on GTI are available. Few studies have incorporated GFP into the development of an environmental policy system. Only a few studies have discussed the establishment of a GFP system from the perspective of innovation incentives [57,58]. However, these studies are limited to theoretical analysis and policy recommendations, lacking detailed and quantitative empirical tests.