CSR Remanufacturing Supply Chains under WTP Differentiation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks to the author(s) for a well-researched manuscript. The paper has potential if a revision can address a few major and minor suggestions.
The major suggestions relate to the methodology and justification. The paper needs a stronger argument throughout and why the study is important. In the introduction section, the author(s) should provide a lot stronger argument.
Literature review section is too lengthy and hard to understand. IT is necessary to provide sub-headings for the better readability.
One more thing, the framing of the work needs a broader conceptual motivation. For instance, the literature review was scattered and mostly offered a list of precedents in the literature to justify the choices of materials/variables. Instead, in your introduction, focus on building a conceptual framework and make it clear to the reader what theoretical points are at stake in your research.
Conclusion: The discussion is a little disappointing and could be written in a much stronger way. Also, there are very little managerial implications, and more specific, poignant recommendations should be provided to the practitioners. This information would give the paper a much better finish.
There is no answer to the "so what" question
There is nothing here to inspire future research or implications for practice
The results are clear, but nothing new. The findings do not provide useful guidelines for scholars/practitioners.
Author Response
We have invited the professional expert to proofread and edit the whole article and made all the references consistent in their formats.
Point 1: Thanks to the author(s) for a well-researched manuscript. The paper has potential if a revision can address a few major and minor suggestions. The major suggestions relate to the methodology and justification. The paper needs a stronger argument throughout and why the study is important. In the introduction section, the author(s) should provide a lot stronger argument. The literature review section is too lengthy and hard to understand. IT is necessary to provide sub-headings for the better readability.
Response 1: We admit that the content presented in the results of this paper is limited. Through full-text review and analyses, we have added relevant enlightenment and implications to the final conclusion of this paper. We have revised and added sub-headings to the literature review section in response to the reviewer’s comments on the lengthy and confusing literature review. Also, we have modified the references by adding the relevant literature (please see the changes in the text). For instance, in the section of literature review on ‘Remanufacturing supply chain with recycling approaches’, we have added that “Huang Min, Song Min, et al., (2013) explored the optimal strategies of a remanufacturing supply chain with the dual recycling channel in which the manufacturer sells products via the retailer in the forward supply chain, while the retailer and the third party competitively collect used products in the reverse supply chain. Through a comparative analysis, the results can serve as a reference for choosing the recycling model to collect used products.”
Point 2: One more thing, the framing of the work needs a broader conceptual motivation. For instance, the literature review was scattered and mostly offered a list of precedents in the literature to justify the choices of materials/variables. Instead, in your introduction, focus on building a conceptual framework and make it clear to the reader what theoretical points are at stake in your research.
Response 2: We have revised the focus and research objectives of the article to make them rigorous. Also, we have added subtitles to the literature review, with a clearer structure, and we have revised the content (please see the changes in the text). As an illustration, “Modak et al., (2018) analyzed the effects of recycling and product quality level on pricing decision in a two-echelon remanufacturing supply chain, where demand is sensitive with prices and quality levels of the product, with consideration of three possible collection activities of used products for recycling, viz, retailer led collection, manufacturer led collection, and third party led collection. They found that the third party's involvement in the used product collection activity is always disadvantageous.”
Point 3: Conclusion: The discussion is a little disappointing and could be written in a much stronger way. Also, there are very little managerial implications, and more specific, poignant recommendations should be provided to the practitioners. This information would give the paper a much better finish.
Response 3: We have added the enlightenment to the conclusion of the article and the plan for the future study. By way of example, “the results of this paper give us some enlightenment. The manufacturer’s efforts to collect used products are inversely proportional to the manufacturer's corporate social responsibility intensity. That is to say, in the case of consumers' different willingness to pay for new and remanufacturing products, some industries, such as electronic enterprises (smart phones) and the manufacturer who collects used products may need to consider whether they desire to participate under the corporate social responsibility. It is very essential to recycle the used products within a certain threshold value of WTP differences and consider the profit impact of the retailer.”
Point 4: There is no answer to the "so what" question. There is nothing here to inspire future research or implications for practice. The results are clear, but nothing new. The findings do not provide useful guidelines for scholars/practitioners.
Response 4: We have revised the third part of the conclusion of this article (please see the changes in the text) based on your comments. For example, “the results of this study suggest that within the threshold value of WTP differences, manufacturers can collect properly. With the increase in the CSR investment, the profits of the manufacturer and the retailer are profoundly affected. Generally speaking, in the decentralized model, the profits of manufacturers are lower than those in the centralized one, and the profits of the retailer decline with the rise in the CSR investment in the decentralized model. Admittedly, this is just the case. According to Proposition 3, the profits of manufacturers and retailers increase with a rise in the manufacturer' investment in the CSR, which is not a simple increase or decrease. It depends on the profit function to analyze the solution of CSR parameters, and the situation is very complex. This paper gives a simple model analysis in remanufacturing supply chain management by considering the WTP differentiation, though it has a lot of inspirations. There are still many breakthroughs in solving this kind of problem. Next, we will study whether retailers and manufacturers undertake CSR activities together, and whether this situation can improve the recovery of the used products, because many previous studies show that the retailer recycling used products remanufacturing supply chain performance is the most impressive. Furthermore, we will study how the retailer recycles used products, and how manufacturers and retailers bear corporate social responsibility together in the future.”
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article deals with an interesting, current and original topic.
The introduction adequately indicates the objectives of the work, and the gap that this research intends to cover.
The literature review is adequate and includes essential references in this area and recent works.
The model presented is consistent with the research objectives.
The results obtained are consistent.
I believe that the conclusions are scarce and do not show all the contribution of the work. I suggest the authors increase the explanations in this section to show the good work done.
Author Response
We have invited the professional expert to proofread and edit the whole article and made all the references consistent in their formats.
Point: The article deals with an interesting, current and original topic. The introduction adequately indicates the objectives of the work, and the gap that this research intends to cover. The literature review is adequate and includes essential references in this area and recent works. The model presented is consistent with the research objectives. The results obtained are consistent.
I believe that the conclusions are scarce and do not show all the contribution of the work. I suggest the authors increase the explanations in this section to show the good work done.
Response:
We have revised the introduction, the literature review and the conclusion based on your valuable comments. Also, we have added the relevant enlightenment and the future research orientation. Please see all the changes in the text. For example, in the conclusion of the article, we have revised the results of this paper as follows. “The manufacturer’s efforts to collect used products are inversely proportional to the manufacturer's corporate social responsibility intensity. That is to say, in the case of consumers' different willingness to pay for new and remanufacturing products, some industries, such as electronic enterprises (smart phones) and the manufacturer who collects used products may need to consider whether they desire to participate under the corporate social responsibility. It is very essential to recycle the used products within a certain threshold value of WTP differences and consider the profit impact of the retailer. The results of this study suggest that within the threshold value of WTP differences, manufacturers can collect properly. With the increase in the CSR investment, the profits of the manufacturer and the retailer are profoundly affected. Generally speaking, in the decentralized model, the profits of manufacturers are lower than those in the centralized one, and the profits of the retailer decline with the rise in the CSR investment in the decentralized model. Admittedly, this is just the case. According to Proposition 3, the profits of manufacturers and retailers increase with a rise in the manufacturer' investment in the CSR, which is not a simple increase or decrease. It depends on the profit function to analyze the solution of CSR parameters, and the situation is very complex. This paper gives a simple model analysis in remanufacturing supply chain management by considering the WTP differentiation, though it has a lot of inspirations. There are still many breakthroughs in solving this kind of problem. Next, we will study whether retailers and manufacturers undertake CSR activities together, and whether this situation can improve the recovery of the used products, because many previous studies show that the retailer recycling used products remanufacturing supply chain performance is the most impressive. Furthermore, we will study how the retailer recycles used products, and how manufacturers and retailers bear corporate social responsibility together in the future.”
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
