Long-Lived Sustainable Products through Digital Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript ID sustainability – 1958059

Title: «Long-lived sustainable products through digital innovation».

 

Overall, the topic of this paper is relevant, and the manuscript was not bad organized and written. Undoubtedly, the presented manuscript is relevant from a scientific and practical point of view. This study opens up defined prospects in this field of knowledge. Manuscript entitled "Long-lived sustainable products through digital innovation" of interest to a highly ranked journal like "Sustainability".

 

But this work includes a not quite adequate and too compressed structure:

1. Introduction (p. 1 – 2);

2. Background and context (p. 2 – 4);

3. Methodology (p. 5);

4. Results and discussions (p. 5 – 8);

5. Conclusions and recommendations (p. 8 – 9).

 

Also I hope that next suggestions can help to improve the manuscript:

1) Please make clearer the authors’ contribution.

2) Attentive text proofreading is needed (punctuation, links, chapter numbering).

3) For correcting the manuscript, I suggest you to follow the link:

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions#suppmaterials

Author Response

Comment #1. Overall, the topic of this paper is relevant, and the manuscript was not bad organized and written. Undoubtedly, the presented manuscript is relevant from a scientific and practical point of view. This study opens up defined prospects in this field of knowledge. Manuscript entitled "Long-lived sustainable products through digital innovation" of interest to a highly ranked journal like "Sustainability".

Response #1. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to improve the manuscript! We are happy to receive your positive feedback.

 

Comment #2. But this work includes a not quite adequate and too compressed structure:

1. Introduction (p. 1 – 2);
2. Background and context (p. 2 – 4);
3. Methodology (p. 5);
4. Results and discussions (p. 5 – 8);
5. Conclusions and recommendations (p. 8 – 9).

Response #2. Thank you for your comment and suggestion on how to improve this paper. We expanded the paper in all sections by adding more information

• on why we need to study the analysed question in the 1. Introduction;
• on traceability and methods for making marking in the 2. Background and context
• on type of methodology of our research in the 3. Methodology
• on real case example of our research creating new subsection in the 4. Results and discussion
• on the contribution of the study in the 5. Conclusion section.

By providing this, we broaden our reference list more than double.

Comment #3. Also I hope that next suggestions can help to improve the manuscript:

1) Please make clearer the authors’ contribution.

2) Attentive text proofreading is needed (punctuation, links, chapter numbering).

3) For correcting the manuscript, I suggest you to follow the link:

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions#suppmaterials

Response #3. Thank you very much for your feedback. We specified the author’s contribution: “Conceptualization, Author 1 and Author 3; Formal analysis, Author 1 and Author 2; Investigation, Author 2; Methodology, Author 1 and Author 2; Project administration, Author 3; Writing – original draft, Author 1 and Author 2; Writing – review & editing, Author 2 and Author 3”.

To eliminate grammatical and spelling errors, our manuscript has been proofread by an English language editing service. The language revision was made in accordance with the Journal’s style. We believe that the new version of the manuscript is free from grammatical errors.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents the merge of digital information with a product to provide credibility to consumers about relevant sustainability aspects to support the purchasing decision. The information system is required to verify claims and promises about individual product’s circularity, durability, and sustainability. The discussion is very extensive and it dominantly consists of theoretical discussions and lack of implementation on  practical implementation.

To enhance the paper the following comments and suggestions may be considered for revising the paper.

1.    The discussion is very extensive and it dominantly consists of theoretical description and lack of implementation on  practical implementation. If real case may not be easily found, the dummy data for representing the real system may be used,

2.      The Abstract should successively consist of problem statement, proposed solution, method, results and contribution(s) of the research

3.      The introduction presents a very extensive idea and the flow of discussion seems to be difficult to be followed. The end of this section has to presents the proposed idea from the study and the brief description about the result(s)

4.      The conclusion should no longer describe theory or present long discussion regarding the substances that do not summarize the results. Inclusion of reference in this section is discouraged,

5.      This paper includes long appendices that may not be entirely referred in the text. The Authors are encouraged to only present the necessary appendices,

6.      The expression “be-tween” in last paragraph of page 3 needs to be revised, some figures may need to be nicely located in the document,

7.      The number of reference seems to be limited and it is suggested to be increased.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment #1. The paper presents the merge of digital information with a product to provide credibility to consumers about relevant sustainability aspects to support the purchasing decision. The information system is required to verify claims and promises about individual product’s circularity, durability, and sustainability. The discussion is very extensive and it dominantly consists of theoretical discussions and lack of implementation on practical implementation.

1. The discussion is very extensive and it dominantly consists of theoretical description and lack of implementation on practical implementation. If real case may not be easily found, the dummy data for representing the real system may be used,

Response #1. Thank you very much for your comment. We created new subsection in the 4. Results and discussion on 4.3. The real case example of our research and described step by step how six participating companies were proposed to test the product risks canvases of the Certified to LAST information system (pages 12-13).

Comment #2. 2. The Abstract should successively consist of problem statement, proposed solution, method, results and contribution(s) of the research

Response #2. Thank you for your comment. We revised the Abstract according to your proposed structure (page 1).

Comment #3. 3. The introduction presents a very extensive idea and the flow of discussion seems to be difficult to be followed. The end of this section has to presents the proposed idea from the study and the brief description about the result(s)

Response #3. Thank you for your valuable suggestion on how to improve the Introduction section. We have revised the entire text in Introduction (pages 1-3) by more specifying on why we need to study the analysed question, improving the flow of text, and adjusting the structure according to your comment (i.e., the proposed idea from the study and the brief description about the result(s)).

Comment #4. 4. The conclusion should no longer describe theory or present long discussion regarding the substances that do not summarize the results. Inclusion of reference in this section is discouraged.

Response #4. Thank you for the comment. We shortened the conclusion section, excluded some references, and better specified the contribution of the study (pages 13-14).

Comment #5. 5. This paper includes long appendices that may not be entirely referred in the text. The Authors are encouraged to only present the necessary appendices.

Response #5. Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have one Table in Annex, which, indeed, is quite long. However, we would like to show the main ISO standards that we used for the information system design. We believe such information can help us to demonstrate the validity and credibility of our created platform. It can also help other researchers to find relevant standards for creation of their information system design.

Comment #6. 6. The expression “be-tween” in last paragraph of page 3 needs to be revised, some figures may need to be nicely located in the document.

Response #6. Thank you for your comment. The formation of the expression “be-tween” as well as the format of figures have been done by MDPI file publishing format. We have changed the word wrap and the figures placing. We will also take into account your comment under the stage of finalising the paper for the publication since we believe there can also be some other automatic MDPI formatting.

Comment #7. 7. The number of reference seems to be limited and it is suggested to be increased.

Response #7. Thank you for your comment. We broaden our reference list (pages 14-16) more than double by expanding our study and adding information

- on why we need to study the analysed question in the 1. Introduction;

- on traceability and methods for making marking in the 2. Background and context

- on type of methodology of our research in the 3. Methodology

- on real case example of our research creating new subsection in the 4. Results and discussion

- on the contribution of the study in the 5. Conclusion section.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

It was a pleasure to read your paper on how to use digital tools to provide credibility about the sustainability aspects of products and services. The topic is relevant for the journal Sustainability, especially for its managerial and policy implications.

However, it is necessary to improve the structure of the paper, the theoretical background and the methodology. Certain aspects of the research are unclear. Therefore below I list a set of indications/doubts that could be clarified in the revised version of the manuscript.

Methodology: the article is based on qualitative and quantitative data (as presented in the abstract). Then, further, in the article (starting already in the introduction), it appears that this data is part of a project which is still running. It is best to clarify the methodology and context starting from the abstract.

Moreover, I am wondering if the methodology used can't be included in the area of action research, especially if the authors (of at least one of them) are part of the project. Examples of references to consider this methodological approach: O’Brien, Rory. "An overview of the methodological approach of action research." (1998); Johnson, Andrew P. A short guide to action research. Allyn and Bacon, 2008; Ollila, Susanne, and Anna Yström. "Action research for innovation management: three benefits, three challenges, and three spaces." R&d Management 50.3 (2020): 396-411.

The theoretical background seems to be missing. I invite the Author to increase the references included in the background and context. Paragraph 2.1. considers the notion of traceability but starts already speaking about Sweden, which is the context of analysis. It would be useful to include some key definitions of traceability and then consider the context explaining how these definitions fit into the current practices of Sweden. Moreover, the linkage with digital tools should be emphasized with further references, also discussing some specific digital tools. For instance, blockchain is becoming relevant in the area of traceability. Furthermore, it would be interesting to contribute to the debate of the target journal also considering further references on the topic published in Sustainability. 

Results. Once the theoretical background and methodology are clarified results can be adjusted accordingly, increasing the discussion by recalling selected references. 

Grammar: level of language is high. Some expressions may be improved (e.g. the project has been started to the project has started or started).

I hope these indications can help you improve your paper. 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Comment #1. Dear Authors, 

It was a pleasure to read your paper on how to use digital tools to provide credibility about the sustainability aspects of products and services. The topic is relevant for the journal Sustainability, especially for its managerial and policy implications.

However, it is necessary to improve the structure of the paper, the theoretical background and the methodology. Certain aspects of the research are unclear. Therefore below I list a set of indications/doubts that could be clarified in the revised version of the manuscript.

Response #1. Thank you very much for the high appraisal of the work! We are happy to receive your positive feedback and suggestions on how to improve the paper.

Comment #2. Methodology: the article is based on qualitative and quantitative data (as presented in the abstract). Then, further, in the article (starting already in the introduction), it appears that this data is part of a project which is still running. It is best to clarify the methodology and context starting from the abstract.

Moreover, I am wondering if the methodology used can't be included in the area of action research, especially if the authors (of at least one of them) are part of the project. Examples of references to consider this methodological approach: O’Brien, Rory. "An overview of the methodological approach of action research." (1998); Johnson, Andrew P. A short guide to action research. Allyn and Bacon, 2008; Ollila, Susanne, and Anna Yström. "Action research for innovation management: three benefits, three challenges, and three spaces." R&d Management 50.3 (2020): 396-411.

Response #2. Thank you very much for this suggestion that improves the scientific level of our research! Indeed, we provided action research, and we highlighted this feature in methodology part of the article (pages 7-8).

Comment #3. The theoretical background seems to be missing. I invite the Author to increase the references included in the background and context. Paragraph 2.1. considers the notion of traceability but starts already speaking about Sweden, which is the context of analysis. It would be useful to include some key definitions of traceability and then consider the context explaining how these definitions fit into the current practices of Sweden. Moreover, the linkage with digital tools should be emphasized with further references, also discussing some specific digital tools. For instance, blockchain is becoming relevant in the area of traceability. Furthermore, it would be interesting to contribute to the debate of the target journal also considering further references on the topic published in Sustainability. 

Response #3. Thank you very much for the useful comment. We found it very interesting and useful for the formulation of theoretical contribution of the manuscript. We expanded the 2. Background and context (pages 3-7) by structuring the section and adding more information on traceability, methods for making marking and reasons on creating the concept of a certified market competition platform. We decided to omit the emphasis on Sweden since we believe our results are valid and important on a global scale. We also broaden our reference list (pages 14-16) more than double by expanding our study.

Comment #4. Results. Once the theoretical background and methodology are clarified results can be adjusted accordingly, increasing the discussion by recalling selected references. 

Response #4. Thank you very much for the useful comment. We expanded the paper in all sections by adding more information

• on why we need to study the analysed question in the 1. Introduction;
• on traceability and methods for making marking in the 2. Background and context
• on type of methodology of our research in the 3. Methodology
• on real case example of our research creating new subsection in the 4. Results and discussion
• on the contribution of the study in the 5. Conclusion section.

In the Results section we created new subsection on 4.3. The real case example of our research and described step by step how six participating companies were proposed to test the product risks canvases of the Certified to LAST information system (pages 12-13).

Comment #5. Grammar: level of language is high. Some expressions may be improved (e.g. the project has been started to the project has started or started).

Response #5. Thank you for your feedback. To eliminate grammatical and spelling errors, our manuscript has been proofread by an English language editing service. The language revision was made in accordance with the Journal’s style. We believe that the new version of the manuscript is free from grammatical errors.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors have made important revisions based on the reviewer's comments and suggestions. Some small revisions may be necessary on languages and mistypes. The font size in reference number 33, 34, and 35 must be adjusted to be the same as the others. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your feedback and suggestions on how to improve our manuscript! To eliminate grammatical and spelling errors, our manuscript has been proofread by an English language editing service. The language revision was made in accordance with the Journal’s style. We believe that the new version of the manuscript is free from grammatical errors. We also adjusted the font size in reference number 33, 34, and 35. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The Authors have significantly improved their manuscript. Therefore I accept the paper in the current state. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for the high appraisal of the work as well as for useful comments and suggestions on how to improve the manuscript!