Circular Business Processes in the State-of-the-Practice: A Survey Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for the possibility to review to paper and thereby get a glimpse of circular business models. The topic is really current and important.

I would start with the title of the article which is not exactly appropriate. You talk in the article more about some linear processes like waste collection, and the circular economy is not just that. I recommend adapting the title accordingly.

Still, in my opinion the article has a quite limited view on circular processes and circular supply chain operations system, approaching a few aspects. I would recommend you to broaden the literature review (2.1) and also make the positioning of the paper clearer already at the introduction. I don't understand why the 10Rs that exist in the literature apart from the study of literature were not taken into account, I recommend the introduction of this aspect as well.

Also the research design is quite fuzzy. Related to Level 2 Processes based on the SCOR model, it is green but not circular. I don't notice a major change in the linear approach that is planning, producing, consuming and throwing (you added the return at the end of the process ... Plan Source Make Deliver Return).

I would also recommend reviewing the process itself and adding the circular change to Figure 2. Feature diagram of a circular supply chain operations system. As it is now it is green rather than circular!

I want to conclude that in the current form you either change the name of the article or you will redo the whole structure of the research to be in the topic with the title of the article, because the approach is green and not circular in your model.

Pleas also make the positioning of the paper clearer already at the final remarks (6).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you fr reviewing our manuscript and for your very positive remark.

Many of the comments about our manuscript are probably because of the title. You have therefore adjusted the title following your's and other reviewers' recommendations. The current title is:  "Circular business processes in the state-of-the-practice: a survey study"

As the title suggested, the study is a survey study on the state of the practice. We have therefore refrained from broadening the literature review. An extensive and systematic review of the literature is in deed imporatnt and that is, in fact, a subject we dealt with in our next manuscript and which we will submit to a journal soon. 

The research focussed on the Level 2 processes of the SCOR model for obvious reasons. Level 1 processes are very high-level and Level 3 processes are too detailed and managers will not understand them. We are confident that practitioners will have no difficulty on why we focussed on. level 2 processes. The remaining comments are addressed in the extensive review we made and also by the change of the title which made the scope of the study clear. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Circular business processes in the state-of-the-practice

 

We conducted an online survey of 60 companies engaged in 14 different types of economic activities and studied the SCOR level-2 business processes adopted in practice. Besides the 22 level 2 business processes documented in SCOR, we identified six additional level 2 circular business processes that were commonly recognized by the respondents. The results clearly show that the current SCOR model does not fully represent circular business processes in the state-of-the-practice. We therefore recommend further in-depth research in this field.

 

1. This is an interesting piece of “Circular business processes” work. Please underscore the scientific value added/contributions of your paper in your abstract and introduction and address your debate shortly in the abstract.
2. The literature has to discuss more on recent development . I would suggest the author to discuss these references in your context and references. For instance, Mohamad Alnajem, Mohamed M. Mostafa & Ahmed R ElMelegy (2021) Mapping the first decade of circular economy research: a bibliometric network analysis, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 38:1, 29-50, DOI: 1080/21681015.2020.1838632; and Ming-Lang Tseng, Thi Phuong Thuy Tran, Hien Minh Ha, Tat-Dat Bui & Ming K. Lim(2021) Sustainable industrial and operation engineering trends and challenges Toward Industry 4.0: a data driven analysis, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 38:8, 581-598, DOI: 10.1080/21681015.2021.1950227
3. The references need to update to 2021. Don’t overkill the references, maximum 3 references. This is recent publication on circular supply chain management enablers “Tseng, ML., Tran, TPT., Fujii, M., Lim, MK, Timarat, Y (2021). Modeling circular supply chain management enablers under Uncertainties. International Journal of Logistic Research and Applications. The debates are unclear in this study .
4. Your conclusions' section needs to underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Basically, you should enhance your findings, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your contributions/shortages and future study in this session.

The literature review should be discussed more. The developed model is quite well described, and appears quite impressive. The findings and results of the case study are also very impressive. The results are clearly analyzed and well argued. The discussion and conclusions are clear and persuasive.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for your very positive remark.

Many of the comments about our manuscript are probably because of the title. We have therefore adjusted the title following your's and other reviewers' recommendations. The current title is:  "Circular business processes in the state-of-the-practice: a survey study"

As the title suggested, the study is a survey study on the state of the practice. We have therefore refrained from broadening the literature review. An extensive and systematic review of the literature is indeed important and that is, in fact, a subject we dealt with in our next manuscript and which we will submit to a journal soon. 

We have addressed your comments and have prepared a new version of the manuscript. 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

• This is an interested article; however, this article is hard to read and confuses the readers. I would suggest the author to apply these chapters to organize this paper. Chapter 1 Introduction (please clear stated your objectives); Chapter 2 Literature Review; Chapter 3 Method (Case or Industrial Background, Proposed steps and so on); Chapter 4 Results; Chapter 5 Discussions; Chapter 6 Concluding Remarks; and References (40-50 References).
• There are many articles refer this concept. For instance, Nancy M. P. Bocken, Ingrid de Pauw, Conny Bakker & Bram van der Grinten(2016) Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 33:5, 308-320, DOI: 1080/21681015.2016.1172124; and Mohamad Alnajem, Mohamed M. Mostafa & Ahmed R ElMelegy (2021) Mapping the first decade of circular economy research: a bibliometric network analysis, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 38:1, 29-50, DOI: 10.1080/21681015.2020.1838632
• This article states the concept of your article. For instance, Ming-Lang Tseng, Thi Phuong Thuy Tran, Hien Minh Ha, Tat-Dat Bui & Ming K. Lim(2021) Sustainable industrial and operation engineering trends and challenges Toward Industry 4.0: a data driven analysis, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 38:8, 581-598, DOI: 1080/21681015.2021.1950227

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for your very positive remark.

In order to address your comments in relation to the lacking references, which we do not think are appropriate for this article, we have adjusted the title. Following your's and other reviewers' recommendations, the current title is: "Circular business processes in the state-of-the-practice: a survey study"

As the title suggested, the study is a survey study on the state of the practice. We have therefore refrained from broadening the literature review. An extensive and systematic review of the literature is indeed important and that is, in fact, a subject we dealt with in our next manuscript and which we will submit to a journal soon.

We have addressed your comments and have prepared a new version of the manuscript.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

accepted

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thanks for your paper. It is an interesting paper with another view on circularity. 

Still, in my opinion the article has a quite limited view on supply chain business processes, approaching all domains (pharmacy and medical sector for example). I would recommend you to broaden the literature review (2) and also make the positioning of the paper clearer already at the introduction.

Methods: Please explain more in detail. For example... How did you decide which research was comparable and which was not?   Which criteria did you use? 

Pleas also make the positioning of the paper clearer already at the final remarks.

I recognise your findings, but it is not clear how you came to these conclusions about the shortages and trends. Please give more evidence here.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I want to thank the authors for their contribution to the system design and analysis field with regards to sustainability. Overall, the study is highly relevant as the SCOR model, ubiquitous and fundamental to academics and practitioners alike, merits scrutiny concerning how sustainability is integrated into operations and supply chain management.

I liked how the authors systematically examined the integration of reverse logistics production processes into the SCOR model. However, there are major theoretical and methodological gaps

The journal seeks articles that make significant contributions to areas of sustainability and sustainable development across international and cross-disciplinary scholarly communities. In this regard, the relevancy of the review pertains to the application of SCOR within the circular economy theory framework is highly suitable for Sustainability. However, I think the major issues raised below and attached copy of paper with my comments, and the minor grammatical and syntax issues means that this paper requires a major rewrite to meet the standards of this journal and our scientific community.

 

I would urge the authors to continue refining this paper as it has great potential and could make a valuable contribution in bridging the transition from traditional business practices and models to a sustainable paradigm for business.

 

 

Abstract

Overall, this is a weak abstract that undermines the potential of the study. Try to make it punchier, bearing in mind that you are writing to a community of peers. For example, the contribution of tradition business logic to unsustainable production and consumption practices could be more succinct freeing up 84 words for greater insight into your methodology, findings and contribution. Also, be more specific and technical about what type of processes you are referring to, as the literature differentiates between different types of process models, i.e. production, logistics, inter-organisational and business (McLoughlin, Lewis, Lascelles & Nudurupati, 2021).

 

Introduction

It would be helpful a clearer articulation of the author’s voice, i.e. your claim and logical argument. My understanding is that the focus of the study is an examination of the conceptual relationship between SCOR, sustainable supply chain management, and system design and analysis using the theoretical principles and features of CE theory. Please, set out your claims within about the following:

• Why the SCOR model is relevant and suitable to be developed into a sustainable process model to enhance system decisions and analysis

 

• Why the current scope of the SCOR model is insufficient
• How it could be relevant using the principles of CE theory

Literature review

A deeper insight into CE is required. Theory provides us (social scientists) concepts and principles about how they relate together. By developing theory, such as CE, we introduce new concepts, such as process models, to broaden our understanding of the theory, e.g. its scope and limits. My concern here is that the authors voice is missing. The review of CE is limited theoretically and does not provide the reader insight into how the theory, it’s scope and limits, and how it may be developed. You discuss product management but no other principles of CE, such as how it systematically addresses sustainability issues using principles of systems thinking, the value circle, and waste management, etc.

Furthermore, the SCOR model focuses on processes that facilitate the flow of resources, with a historical background in ops management, production and logistics. Other process models take a more relational approach within inter-organisational business systems, e.g. Lambert and Cooper 2000, Peck, 2005, Van Looy et al. 2011, McLoughlin et al., 2021). Also, your discourse is too descriptive. Given your specific focus on the 6R framework, coonceptually you are only focusing on a very limited aspect of CE theory and miss many other intrinsic elements and the principles upon which these are based. Also, you handle each of the 6R processes independently and demonstrate no systemic thinking. This issue is also a conceptual omission in the findings and discussion.

May I suggest that if you delve deeper into the logic of the model you will be albe to explore its scope and limitations regards sustainability impact and leave the reader with clearer, more creative insights in into the model and how it may be developed using CE theory. As its stand, the literature review is missing a conceptual and theoretical conclusion as to the gap and novelty of the study in reconmceptualising the SCOR model using CE theory.

Finally, there is no substantiation on ‘state of the art practice’ nor relevancy for the SI on systems decisions and analytics.

Methodology

More specific details are required that substantiates the research design by linking the research objectives and proposition(s) to the empirical elements (i.e. data collection methods and analysis). My greatest concern is the lack of real-world context. As such, key methodogical constructs are either discussed abstractly or gerearlly and require grounding and critique.

Findings

My major concern is that the lack of depth in your review leads to systematic weaknesses and gaps in your findings. Core principles (systems thinking, modularity, resilience through diversity, materiality, waste as food,) nor CE practices (waste management, resource (materials and energy) management, dematerialisation, residuals) of CE are not picked up.

Figure 2 presents a major contribution for this paper. However, the theoretical gaps (principles and practices) discussed above are evident in the system, such the handling of materiality, residuals and waste in the ‘make’ stage. It strikes me that the model specifically scrutinises how the SCOR model (which is conceptually forward flowing and linear) adapt to reverse logistics production processes (i.e. 6R model which is fundamentally designed upon a varying logic of CE, such as systems thinking and reverse flow). If you refine the conceptual focus of the study to this pertinent question then you will have a more robust contribution.

Figure 3. please provide a clearer distinction between industry and sector within the context of value chains and theoretical generalisation as there are varying interpretations of the concepts. For example,  an industry refers to the type of industrial activity, such as mining, farming, manufacturing, retail, logistics, etc that adds value through its industrial (operational) process. An industrial system can be conceptualised as a value chains as each industry adds value along the chain, which is the context for this special issue. Whereas, sector can refer to area of economic activity. In Figure 3 you have confused the two technical terms industry and sector and provide no context for the type of industrial system the companies are situated within nor how this system contributes to unsustainable and sustainable activities or the regulations therein. Also, illustrates the issue raised in the methodology. Are you generalising to population or theory? Please, discuss how economic activities may inform limitations and biases in findings. How can you validate the findings concerning Figures 4 – 8 when the sustainability issues and regulations for the industrial systems for varying areas of economic activity (sectors) differ? This may help account for ‘cannot interpret’ in Figure 12.

Conclusion

Greater focus on the theoretical and contribution is required, alongside recommendations for future studies.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, as a circular economy supply chain enthusiast, I was very glad to review your paper. However, there is still some work to do, especially concerning the embedding of your paper in the circular supply chain literature, some structuring and methodological issues. Therefore I propose a major revision for this paper.

Important comments

• The literature review on CE (whole 2.2) is mostly redundant as it is not directly related with the topic and too generic. This section should be about the circular supply chain literature already published [1-8]. Instead, the chapters 4.1 and 4.2 should be in the literature (or methods) section, because the result section should be only about the results of the survey. For the literature review, the authors could start with the description of circular supply chains, then the SCOR and after that 4.1 and 4.2 in chapter 2.
• Especially the paper of Vegter et al. 2020, though cited, could be used much better as a blueprint for the study, since they are also working with the SCOR model from a theoretical perspective. It could directly be connected to the chapter 4.1 and 4.2

 

Abstract

• Introductory sentences are too long, sounds more like part of the introduction
• Describe what kind of survey (sample type and size)

Introduction

• Introduction should not be a repetition/copy of abstract
• Why single out food waste in the introduction?
• First paragraph of introduction is generic, not specific to topic, shorten to two- three sentences
• Circular economy not directly related with the goal of feeding population..
• Incose 2015 not referenced correctly
• A lot of reference to EMF why not use others like Masi et al 2017 or Lahane 2020 or Farooque et al 2019? It seems most recent literature on circular supply chain management is missing. It should be better included in the introduction and literature review.
• Make research gap more obvious, currently there is too much content on CE in general and not enough on the specific question
• The research questions in 3.1 belong in the introduction
• Provide structure of article at the end of introduction

Literature review

• Line 152, write “enable process” otherwise the sentence is not clear

Method

• What is the source of figure 1? If from Kelley and Clark, this should be mentioned
• Was the survey changed over time? If yes, then the results cannot really be compared, the survey should have been tested first and then be kept the same (as was mentioned in 204-205), but lines 190-191 are confusing.
• How was it ensured that the companies had enough understanding of the questions, as they seem quite technical?
• Were there any minimum criteria for you to consider companies relevant? And why were you focusing mostly on the Netherlands?
• It should also be clarified what the connection is between the feature diagram in Figure 2 and the survey structure, if any. In case there is a direct connection the chapter 4.1 and 4.2 should be moved to the methodology

Results

• Figure 3, rank categories according to number of respondents
• The pie charts in 4.3.3 could be replaced by a table, because the number of variables is very low

Discussion

• Chapter 5.1 is superfluous, no separate subchapter is necessary
• Discussion needs to be closer linked to circular supply chain literature [1–8]

Appendix A and B still in template form, Appendix 8 missing (should probably be called appendix A and B instead), so it was not possible to judge on the quality of the survey questions.

Additional literature on circular supply chain management to include throughout paper:

1. Vegter, D.; van Hillegersberg, J.; Olthaar, M. Supply Chains in Circular Business Models: Processes and Performance Objectives. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 162, 105046, doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105046.
2. Lahane, S.; Kant, R.; Shankar, R. Circular Supply Chain Management: A State-of-Art Review and Future Opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120859, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120859.
3. Farooque, M.; Zhang, A.; Thürer, M.; Qu, T.; Huisingh, D. Circular Supply Chain Management: A Definition and Structured Literature Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 882–900, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.303.
4. Masi, D.; Day, S.; Godsell, J. Supply Chain Configurations in the Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1602, doi:10.3390/su9091602.
5. Sehnem, S.; Vazquez-Brust, D.; Pereira, S.C.F.; Campos, L.M.S. Circular Economy: Benefits, Impacts and Overlapping. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019, 24, 784–804, doi:10.1108/SCM-06-2018-0213.
6. Genovese, A.; Acquaye, A.A.; Figueroa, A.; Koh, S.C.L. Sustainable Supply Chain Management and the Transition towards a Circular Economy: Evidence and Some Applications. Omega 2017, 66, 344–357.
7. Koh, S.C.L.; Gunasekaran, A.; Morris, J.; Obayi, R.; Ebrahimi, S.M. Conceptualizing a Circular Framework of Supply Chain Resource Sustainability. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2017, 37, 1520–1540, doi:10.1108/IJOPM-02-2016-0078.
8. Calzolari, T.; Genovese, A.; Brint, A. The Adoption of Circular Economy Practices in Supply Chains – An Assessment of European Multi-National Enterprises. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 127616, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127616.

Reviewer 4 Report

Supply chains are key in making this transition by implementing circular business processes. The SCOR (Supply Chain Operations Reference) model is used for studying and evaluating business practices, yet it is unclear whether all circular principles are included in its standard defined business processes. This study identifies the circular 14 business processes in supply chains in the state-of-the-practice, such that companies can study and 15 evaluate them well through the use of a reference model 1. This is an interesting piece of “Circular business processes in the state-of-the-practice” work. Please underscore the scientific value added/contributions of your paper in your abstract and introduction and address your debate shortly in the abstract. 2. The performance literature review is extensive and covers the relevant material with a considerable degree of insight. The paper is very well structured. The material is well presented I would suggest the author to discuss these references in your context and references. (1) Ming-Lang Tseng, Thi Phuong Thuy Tran, Hien Minh Ha, Tat-Dat Bui & Ming K. Lim (2021) Sustainable industrial and operation engineering trends and challenges Toward Industry 4.0: a data driven analysis, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/21681015.2021.1950227; (2) Mohamad Alnajem, Mohamed M. Mostafa & Ahmed R ElMelegy (2021) Mapping the first decade of circular economy research: a bibliometric network analysis, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 38:1, 29-50, DOI: 10.1080/21681015.2020.1838632; (3) Tseng, M.-L., Chen, C.-C., Wu, K.-J. and Tan, R. (2020), "Eco-efficient sustainable service supply chain management hierarchical model based on qualitative information and quantitative data", Management of Environmental Quality, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 961-984. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-08-2019-0179 3. Please underscore the scientific value added/contributions of your paper in your abstract and introduction and address your debate shortly in the abstract. 4. What are the relationships among CE and SCOR ? I think those references could give you to enhance this study 5. What has been studied Introduction should be clearly stated research questions and targets first. Then answer several questions: Why is the topic important (or why do you study on it)? What are research questions?? What are your contributions? 6. The literature review should be discussed more. The developed model is quite well described, and appears quite impressive. The findings and results of the case study are also very impressive. The results are clearly analyzed and well argued. The discussion and conclusions are clear and persuasive.