What Is the Customer Value of the Circular Economy? Cross-Industry Exploration of Diverse Values Perceived by Consumers and Business Customers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Many thanks to the author(s) for this manuscript.

The research article tackles the lack of understanding about the customer value of Circular Economy offerings and the lack of customer centricity in existing academic literature, a gap that is topical within the research field.

And the articles does it well: it is clearly outlines and justifies this gap, the research methods are suitable to the aim of the study, and the conclusions are clearly presented and logically derived from the findings and address the gaps. Additionally, the topic is suited to the special issue of the journal.

There are a few points of improvement that can improve the readability of the article:

• The difference between the terms “customer” and “consumer” should be clarified: since there is some ambiguity in the usage of this term in academic literature, a sentence or two on how this is treated in this article would help prevent any potential confusion around this,
• The introduction would benefit from having a few short sentences about the theoretical and practical contributions of the paper,
• In chapter 2.2., the authors mention that "we apply Rintamäki et al.’s (2007) value dimension approach comprising economic, functional, emotional, and symbolic values: it should be elaborated on why this approach was chosen for this article, over other approaches from other research.
• Additionally, in chapter 2.2. it is stated that “Hwang and Griffiths (2017) found some interrelations between hedonic value (close to emotional value) and symbolic value” – but it is not made clear what impact or value this interrelation has on this research article.
• Table 2 outlines the values that are perceived by the different customer types. However, data from both Consumers & Business Customers are displayed in the same table, while it is clear that some of these values are shared amongst both types, and some are uniquely attributed to only one. Being able to visually see which ones are unique for Consumers or Business Customers and which are shared would allow an easier overview of the data reported in the table. However, this is a minor improvement.

No additional comments on the remaining sections.

I hope that these comments for improvements will help further improve the quality of the paper!

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

Many thanks to the author(s) for this manuscript.

The research article tackles the lack of understanding about the customer value of Circular Economy offerings and the lack of customer centricity in existing academic literature, a gap that is topical within the research field.

• Thank you for this encouraging comment and your support for our work and study that aims to contribute the rare customer value perspective on the Circular Economy. It is great to hear that you agree with the gap and contribution potential of our paper, therefore.

And the article does it well: it is clearly outlines and justifies this gap, the research methods are suitable to the aim of the study, and the conclusions are clearly presented and logically derived from the findings and address the gaps. Additionally, the topic is suited to the special issue of the journal.

• We are pleased to hear that these positive comments, thank you. We have been conducting the data analysis and writing the article carefully to capture the contribution potential and to get the work published. We were pleased to see that there was this special issue, as the customer perspective is so rare in the CE studies and we hope that this SI will now improve the researchers’ understanding on what the CE is or could be for customers, i.e. how it is valuated and experienced.

There are a few points of improvement that can improve the readability of the article:

The difference between the terms “customer” and “consumer” should be clarified: since there is some ambiguity in the usage of this term in academic literature, a sentence or two on how this is treated in this article would help prevent any potential confusion around this.

• Yes, good point. We tried to use the terms (particularly “customer” vs. more specific “consumer customer” or “business customer”) in a consistent way but we definitely agree with you that we could be even more explicitly clear what is the meaning of the concept and the variations. We understand that the clear explicit use of key concepts and their definitions is important for shared understanding and reading. So, thank you for pointing this out: in the revised version, we aimed to be more exact and explicit with these concepts from early beginning: therefore, we have now added the following clarification and we hope that this helps understanding the two different customer types, consumer-customers and business-customers, in our paper and study:

“In this paper, “consumer (customer)” is used to refer a person/an individual who purchases or aims to purchase products, or services primarily for personal, family, and household needs, whereas “business customer” refers to more organizational behavior, where the customer is a company (or other type of organization) that makes decisions for the organizational needs and purposes (see e.g. Kotler & Keller, 2020).”

The introduction would benefit from having a few short sentences about the theoretical and practical contributions of the paper

• Yes, we agree: actually, based on your comment, we noticed that the intended contribution was missing from introduction, even though it would help arguing the value of the paper. Thank you for remarking it. We have now added these to introduction.

“The study aims to contribute by putting the customer in the focus and exploring and mapping the customer values, as perceived by the customers themselves. By developing a conceptual model of diverse CE customer value dimension and related items, the study complements and expands the extant, CE supplier/provider biased research on CE business (e.g. Urbinati et al., 2017; Antikainen et al., 2018; Ranta et al., 2018; Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2019; Ranta et al., 2020). The developed model aims also to generate practical contributions: the identified customer value dimensions and elements can then be exploited by companies who can become more aware of the customer perspective and can then develop and design their CE solutions and communicate their potential benefits for customers in a more informed manner.”

In chapter 2.2., the authors mention that "we apply Rintamäki et al.’s (2007) value dimension approach comprising economic, functional, emotional, and symbolic values: it should be elaborated on why this approach was chosen for this article, over other approaches from other research.

• Thank you for this valuable comment. Based on your remark, we realized that we can argue and articulate more clearly, why we have chosen and applied Rintamäki et al. (2007), even though there are also other relevant studies that discuss diversity of customer value “aspects, dimensions, and approaches”. We see now that we could add some of them into the paper to showcase some important studies more, which partly approach customer value differently but which, however, tend to have yet some consensus on the building blocks on customer value.
• Hence, your comment pushed us, firstly, to add two references and explain their approach very shortly and secondly, to explain in more detail, why we have chosen customer value classification by Rintamäki et al. (2007).The added studies, to show that there are also some other studies and approaches, are
  • Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. & Gross, B.L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), pp. 159-70.
  • Smith, J. & Colgate, M. (2007). Customer Value Creation: A Practical Framework. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 15(1), pp. 7-23.
• Both of these relevant articles discuss and compare diverse approaches and also suggest or conclude some building blocks of customer value, and based on your comment, we decided to add them into the text. Rintamäki et al. (2007) is aligned with these both, but as its contribution, it concludes the main “archetypical” dimensions ranging from economic to emotions and therefore provides a feasible framework that allows exploring several distinct value dimensions of CE solutions and guides searching very different aspects that may create value for customer (from savings to emotions). We have added now some, very brief discussion on the rationale of choosing and applying categorization by Rintamäki et al. (2007) and acknowledge these other, valuable studies in the revised version as well.

Additionally, in chapter 2.2. it is stated that “Hwang and Griffiths (2017) found some interrelations between hedonic value (close to emotional value) and symbolic value” – but it is not made clear what impact or value this interrelation has on this research article.

• Thanks for this sharp remark: we found that our articulation was unfinished here: This reference by Hwang and Griffiths (2017) (and also some other customer value papers, e.g. Rintamäki et al. 2007) made us more sensitive to notice that value dimensions interact. This is interesting aspect, as then we could expect that customer value(s) can even accumulate, if several customer value dimensions support each other through interaction. In this study, we could not examine this in focused way. Therefore, we strengthened this original idea, encouraged by your comment, and put this aspect, as clarified and more explicit, also to future research section.
• In 2.2. : “In a study on the second-hand fashion market, Hwang and Griffiths (2017) found some interrelations between hedonic value (close to emotional value) and symbolic value, which indicates that the value dimensions may interact and support each other.”
• In future research section 5.2.: “Our results indicate that one value element (e.g. improved process from “functional” dimension) can increase value perceived on another value dimension (e.g. relief from “emotional” dimension) which is aligned with findings of Hwang and Griffiths (2017) and Rintamäki et al. (2007): therefore it would be valuable to examine in more focused way the dynamics, interaction and accumulation between value dimensions.”

Table 2 outlines the values that are perceived by the different customer types. However, data from both Consumers & Business Customers are displayed in the same table, while it is clear that some of these values are shared amongst both types, and some are uniquely attributed to only one. Being able to visually see which ones are unique for Consumers or Business Customers and which are shared would allow an easier overview of the data reported in the table. However, this is a minor improvement.

• This comment pushed us to revise the table more: the idea of the table was to synthesize the general patterns on customer value dimensions and items. while Figures 2 & 3 highlight consumer and business customer specific dimensions weighted by their importance by that type of customer. Most of the value items identified were actually rather similar between consumers and business customers (such as emotional relief on resource efficiency and saved resources; or well-functioning, sustainable daily or work practices) but they were manifested differently in both customer types - therefore it was important to word them so, that the item can capture both customer types. You have it right, that some items are biased more consumers and some business customers, but most of the value items actually concern both types. Therefore, some table sections are now reworded with words that fit for both customer types.
• The title of Table 2 is reformulated accordingly.

No additional comments on the remaining sections.

I hope that these comments for improvements will help further improve the quality of the paper!

• Thank you again for your valuable comments! We hope that we have been able to correct and improve the earlier flaws based on your comments and hope that the revised version will run better and correspond to your expectations.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper explores the perceived value of Circular Economy (CE) to customers by leaning on Rintamäki’s model of value propositions. The application of Rintamäki’s model is suitable and applied diligently.

The paper was a very well-written paper that managed to offer an enjoyable and informative read that I believe will be of value to the readership.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

This paper explores the perceived value of Circular Economy (CE) to customers by leaning on Rintamäki’s model of value propositions. The application of Rintamäki’s model is suitable and applied diligently.

The paper was a very well-written paper that managed to offer an enjoyable and informative read that I believe will be of value to the readership.

• We are pleased to hear that these positive comments, thank you. We have been conducting the data analysis and writing the article carefully to capture the contribution potential and to get the work published.
• We were pleased to see that there was this special issue, as the customer perspective is so rare in the CE studies and we hope that this SI will now improve the researchers’ understanding on what the CE is or could be for customers, i.e. how it is valuated and experienced.