Archetypical CBMs in Construction and a Translation to Industrialized Manufacture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article provides an overview of archetypical circular economy business model in construction companies. It is based on a literature review and systematic coding exercise using Canvas business model concept. Although the theme is not new, the article approach is interesting as it focuses on a specific field. The article starts with an adequate introduction, but it forgets to focus on its originality – Why is this article different from others in the field? At the methodology section it is presented the filtering criteria of the systematic literature review (SLR). As I think systematic reviews are adequate to investigate the state-of-the-art of a certain field, I do also think it process and limitations should be better explained – the research limitations are somewhat forgetting. This kind of research should also take a special attention to the theoretical and practical contributions, which should be better identified at the conclusions section.

Author Response

REVIEWER COMMENT I: This article provides an overview of archetypical circular economy business model in construction companies. It is based on a literature review and systematic coding exercise using Canvas business model concept. Although the theme is not new, the article approach is interesting as it focuses on a specific field. The article starts with an adequate introduction, but it forgets to focus on its originality – Why is this article different from others in the field?

AUTHORS’ REPLY: Many thanks for pointing this out, the introduction has been revised by emphasizing the emerging nature of the topic in an established sub-industry, and the value of the article to provide a (to date) non-existent basis for development of that sub-industry.

REVIEWER COMMENT II: At the methodology section it is presented the filtering criteria of the systematic literature review (SLR). As I think systematic reviews are adequate to investigate the state-of-the-art of a certain field, I do also think it process and limitations should be better explained – the research limitations are somewhat forgetting.

AUTHORS’ REPLY: Many thanks for this comment. An explanation of the limitations of this method and the process has been added and put into perspective with the result and value of the article. It is not about quantity of publications in this article, given the number of papers in the specific field is limited, but the comprehensiveness of the body of literature, which is guaranteed by the systematic approach.

REVIEWER COMMENT III: This kind of research should also take a special attention to the theoretical and practical contributions, which should be better identified at the conclusions section.

AUTHORS’ REPLY: The two-step approach, translating theoretic findings (step 1) into more practical implications (step 2) is now literally named in the conclusion, as this is indeed an essential characteristic of this research.

Reviewer 2 Report

As a literature review paper the review is not enough deep. Authors should use more international papers and include them both to analysis and to the text.

The Authors should describe also limitation of the paper and practical implication of the analysis.

Author Response

REVIEWER COMMENT I: As a literature review paper the review is not enough deep. Authors should use more international papers and include them both to analysis and to the text.

AUTHORS’ REPLY: Many thanks for your comment. In this article, it is not about quantity of publications, given the number of papers in the specific field is limited. The comprehensiveness of the body of literature for the review is guaranteed by the systematic approach. This was further clarified in the article.

REVIEWER COMMENT I: The Authors should describe also limitation of the paper and practical implication of the analysis.

AUTHORS’ REPLY: Many thanks for pointing this out. An explanation of the limitations was added in the article to complement and strengthen the method description.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the authors answered to the posed questions.

Congratulations for your work.