Circularity in Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive. Comparison of a Manufacturer’s Danish and Norwegian Operations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

first of all the manuscript is well written and fits well with the journal focus.

The level of english is sufficient, however small corrections will be proposed in recommendations section below.

Regarding the scientific point of view, the manuscript aims to present a mismatch between the ambitions in the WEEE directive and a company’s approach related to circularity in the end-of-life phase.

Comments and recommendations:

• Introduction to the topic and current publications in the area deserve more explanation, e.g. a mention graph for the most relevant key-words could visualize the current state in the field better;
• Research questions and well stated, however please try to highlight single one reflecting presented research the most;
• Please revise english grammar, e.g.:
  • Page 4, Research methodology, "...some of the questions was open",
• Please remove the Figure 3 from the manuscript as it is not a key information on it;
• Try to avoid the calling Danish, Norwegian and use more accurate presentation, e.g. the danish respondents, etc. (see page 7, Paragraph below Figure 3);
• 45 referenced publications within the manuscript, 27/45 dated more than 5 year from publication (including four directive/legislative refs.).

Regards, reviewer.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Sustainability Review – WEEE

This paper is really interesting and I can see myself recommending it on the reading list for my students who try to apply reverse logistics initiatives. However, the disadvantages that go along with just 6 interviews cannot be overlooked and is a major downfall for your paper.

 

Introduction - Please use a source for the first sentence of the introduction. It is misleading to readers to suggest you came up with linear models of take-make-consume-dispose yourself.

Between pages 1 and 2, it is not clear what the process is for WEEE or who finances it – you have briefly attempted to cover this but not done so well. Please try again.

Are you research questions not VERY context dependent as your sample is so small? Does this make them suitable? If so, you need to justify this.

Methodology – how big was the manufacturing company? You go from saying one case to multiple (I think you refer to different subsidiaries of one company?) Please be clear and consistent. E.g first line of 3. And first line of 3.1 are contradictory.

If you went back and forth between interviewees this would make your research more interesting – I would go into more detail here to add some weight to your design.

Table 1 is confusing. Where do the 10 issues come from? Is it the literature? What are the remarks? Some are questions and some are answers/findings?

How did you analyse the data? This is not explained in the methodology or the findings.

Your recommendations are interesting but very global and far reaching – this is a tiny sample? If you are going to generalise like this you need much better justification.

Limitations and future directions – please expand. Also, is the study limited to two organisations or did they have the same parent? That has implications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and suggestions are presented in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf