Corporate Reporting on Food Waste by UK Seafood Companies: Literature Review and an Assessment of Current Practices
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper cover very interesting and up-to-date living issue to read.
The abstract can be improved by including the period covered by previous studies, and the method employed to select and analyse this information.
The introduction and literature are both well presented.
In terms of the sub-heading 2.7 & 2.8 including 2.8.1; 2.8.2 & 2.8.3 can be moved to the discussion section. As I felt they would be more suitable in the discussion section than in the literature review section.
The conclusion is well-written and presented.
More up-to-date references can be introduced to provide a more comprehensive literature review analysis, especially with the last 5 years.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the paper titled, Corporate Reporting on Food Waste by UK Seafood Companies: Literature review and an assessment of current practices authors develop an interesting perspective on an interdisciplinary framework that focuses on legal, regulatory, accounting, and reporting frameworks to address the prevention or reduction of food loss and waste (FLW) among seafood companies in the United Kingdom. This article, conceptual in its nature, supported by data, ends with the proposal and application of three-prong suggestions to tackle FLW in UK seafood companies: the development of technological solutions (sensors); the legal and regulatory reporting template for seafood companies; and the development of accounting standards that require reporting FLW in seafood companies. In my opinion, this article is a conceptual article that summarizes the current research on FWL in the seafood sector and proposes three improvements in the mitigation of FLW. With this article, the author/s include scientific research to develop further understanding and build a concerted global action towards FLW reduction in the seafood sector. I recommend this article for publication in the present form.
Just for consideration: the Conclusion summarizes and submits results, presented in the previous part of the paper. I would suggest, for consideration, to divide the last part of the article, titled „Conclusion,” into two parts: Conclusions and Perspectives/Outlook. It might be more useful.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
My comments and suggestions are in the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I appreciate the significant revisions made to the manuscript following the comments and suggestions provided. Congratulations, I recommend your paper be accepted for publication
