Robust Optimization Model for Sustainable Supply Chain Design Integrating LCA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the authors novel piece, it shows how, even for one approach of sustainability, robustnesses methods are applicable.

I understand that it is a numerical analysis, perhaps the piece will strengthen if you were to add to pieces of information, one being the source of the initial values and why the choice of a gel production facility. Include a brief description of the industry and the environmental impacts, that will allow the reder to understand more clearly why the choice of this example is important.  How your model could inform other industries?

Two, discuss in more detail the sustainability aspects of your article, besides a couple of parragraphs at the beginning and at the end, I think you should be more explicit in the topic. 

As far as the methodological approach, I have no further comments.

I found that using to many acronims is not necessary. Perhaps a proof reader will help in such process.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The motivations of the study are not well explained in the Introduction.

2. Section 2 is too brief and doesn't include comprehensive literature on recent works.  Authors can include recent and relevant works in sustainable supply chains and designs of the same and can be included preferably in a table format.  The following works can also help the authors.

·         (2019). Green and sustainable closed-loop supply chain network design under uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner Production, 227, 1195-1209.

·         (2023). Performance predictions for sustainability governance of firms: implications to select Indian firms. Benchmarking: An International Journal, https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-06-2022-0342

·         (2023). Grey Markov Models for Predicting the Social Sustainability Performances of Firms. Social Indicators Research, 168, 297–351.

·         (2019). Green supply chain network design: A review focused on policy adoption and emission quantification. International Journal of Production Economics, 208, 305-318.

·         (2020). An integrated location-routing-inventory model for sustainable design of a perishable products supply chain network. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260, 120842.

3. The use of LCA for deterministic and robust formulation is not detailed well in the paper.  Authors are suggested to revise the same. 

4. The descriptions of the product in Section 5 are too brief and is difficult to understand the case details.

5. A discussion of the results is missing in the paper.

 

6. Include implications of the study in the conclusions. 

 

 

NIL

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for your trust and the opportunity to view the article The topic is very topical. Research aimed at determining the future preferences of research directions seems to be very important here. The article is interestingly presented. Needs clarification in several places. I have a few minor comments:

1. The article is quite complicated, very theoretical, there is no practical application of the research done,

2. In the discussion of the results, there are no sources referring to the literature

3. In my opinion, in the conclusion, the authors should summarize the results of their research and refer to the problems raised 4. The literature cited in the article is insufficient - quite outdated

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors are encouraged to consider the following comments.

Technical issues, presentation, and structure

• Introduction: restructure the second and third paragraphs (i.e., from lines 40 - 52) in the following way: i) the need to consider other factors, especially sustainability, ii) the concept of sustainability, iii) sustainability in the supply chain, iv) methods and tools (e.g., LCA)

• Literature review, line 71. Please reexamine the term "trade-off." To me, both "expected cost" and "variability" are negative consequences. I see no obvious conflict or "tradeoff" between them. What Mulvey et al. were doing was not merely striking a balance between the two but rather conducting both factors in the design of objectives and constraints.

• The literature review should be expanded. After identifying the gap (lack of LCA in SSC), please add more discussion on previous studies that relate to the main methods used in this study, such as LCA. Additionally, the definition of deterministic and robust models (and optimization if applicable) should also be introduced when discussing mathematical modeling approaches.

• Figure 1: please add a number index (from 1 to 4) to each stage block (yellow ones)

• Figure 2: the stage "transport customers" is a bit confusing. Consider renaming it or merging it to the "Customer delivery."

• Section 4: Lines 248, 265, 338, 339, etc.: change the term "formulation" to "model." Please also adjust the terminology in the associated description. To be clear, a model is something you deliver, and formulation refers to the process of establishing the model.

• Please reexamine the term "solution robustness." You have described something different from robustness, which is supposed to address uncertainties and variations.

• Section 5. The part on "model characterization" should be moved to Section 3.2 (right before Section 4). In other words, it is necessary to provide the context for the mathematical modeling first.

• Conclusion: move the interpretations of results to the end of Section 4. Instead, focus on the intellectual contribution and macro implications.

 

Academic writing and formatting

• Introduction: Move the first sentence in the last paragraph to the end of the second-last paragraph. In other words, discuss the objective, methodology, and implications in one paragraph, and only outline the paper structure in the last paragraph.

• Numbers in tables: please present all results in integers (except for the percentages). There is no need to use two decimal places for large numerical outputs.

While the study seems well-founded, there are instances where the language appears unclear, hindering the effective communication of central concepts. It would be beneficial if the authors focused on improving the logical flow and phraseology.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

1. Keywords overlap each other. Each keyword should represent a distinct area. Please consider combining "Sustainable supply chain" and "Sustainable supply chain design". Maybe add new ones such as “dynamic network design”

 

2. I recommend briefly explaining the current knowledge gap in the abstract section (not only the objectives). What is the difference between the present submitted paper and the previous works? What is the knowledge gap and what is needed for this paper?

3. Please explain why the final disposal of the product and a closed-loop SC are not considered in line 165.

*** I think most of the parts that need to be revised are modified based on the previous comments from other reviewers. Great job.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf