How to Choose Recycling Mode between Monopoly and Competition by Considering Blockchain Technology?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well-written and well-organized. The contribution of the research is presented properly and supported with appropriate references. Also, the equations are clearly described in the body of the text and the Appendices.

There are some items that improves the quality of the paper as follows:

Structure

1. In line 80, the phrase “two scenarios are construct” should be replaced with “two scenarios are constructed”

2. There are some long sentences in the manuscript. Please revise the manuscript to address this issue.

3. It is highly recommended to avoid using “etc” in the manuscript. Please replace it with other word choices or remove it.

 

Content

Please revise the Abstract to describe the findings, conclusions, and future research directions.

 

Figures and Tables:

1. Please revise Figures 5, 6, and 7 to make them readable and understandable in the grey-scale printing. One way can be using patterns in addition to colors in the Figures.

2. Please revise the font size in the figures to make them more readable.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is reader-friendly, but as mentioned before, there are some long sentences in the manuscript that need revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I really appreciated your paper. However, I will request a major review to have the opportunity to discuss with you some aspects I think important.

The article places a lot of emphasis on quantitative aspects and leaves something to be desired in relation to the qualitative interpretations that can be extracted from the results.

Some dependent variables are not conceptually well defined; there are only quotations, but I think that the most important constructs need to be well defined, not only with an abstract equation. For example: What is the concept of Environmental Impact (E) or Social Welfare (SW)? The authors just use quotations to refer to equations… I want to see some conceptual discussion to justify equations like in line 525. Real world examples are welcome with the presentation of the main equations. The authors presented some good examples in the Conclusion (line 625); I would like to see more of this.

One important concept is the Consumer’s Utility function (line 203). Is Transparency the only involved variable related with Blockchain? Reductions and simplifications should be discussed.

Another case is the independent variable a without any discussion. If a =0, I suppose the competitive intensity is zero and the market operates as monopoly. But it is not clear and the extreme conditions a =0 and a =1 should be presented.

 

In my opinion, the weak point of the work is that Blockchain appears almost solely as a mathematical variable, with the only functional aspect addressed being the transparency utility. However, the literature points to several aspects in which Blockchain can impact CLSC. If Blockchain in  this research is just a variable, which is quantified in terms of its cost and just one utility, what is the actual difference with the work of Hong et al 2017, which instead of blockchain, uses a licensing fee? Without a more in-depth discussion of the concepts involved, the work seems more like a purely mathematical reinterpretation of the works of Hong et al 2017 and Ranjbar et al 2020.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines the impact of blockchain technology (BT) on the choice of recycling mode (monopolistic vs. competitive) in a closed-loop supply chain (CLSC). The authors develop a game-theoretic model to analyse the decisions of a manufacturer, a retailer, and a third-party recycler (TPR) under different scenarios. The study finds that BT adoption can increase recycling rates and demand for remanufactured products, and that the optimal recycling mode depends on the competitive intensity between the retailer and TPR. The authors also investigate the environmental and social impacts of BT adoption and recycling mode selection.

The paper addresses a relevant and timely topic, as the adoption of blockchain technology and the choice of recycling mode are important considerations for firms in CLSCs. The authors' use of a game-theoretic model is appropriate, and the findings provide valuable insights for both academics and practitioners.

However, there are several areas where the paper could be improved.

Major Concerns:

1. Some of the model assumptions may be unrealistic. For example, the assumption that consumers are willing to pay the same price for new and remanufactured products may not hold in practice. Additionally, the assumption that the BT usage cost is constant may not be accurate, as the cost of BT is likely to vary depending on the scale and complexity of the implementation. Clarify the assumptions regarding consumer behavior and transparency impacts. The current explanations on pages 6-7 (e.g., "consumers are willingness to pay θ and δθ for new and remanufactured products") could benefit from more precise definitions and justifications based on empirical evidence or prior research. Please provide justification or add this to the study limitation.
2. The paper could provide a more in-depth discussion of the environmental impact of BT adoption and recycling mode selection. The authors mention that BT adoption can increase the recycling rate, but they do not quantify the environmental benefits of this increase. Additionally, the authors could discuss the potential negative environmental impacts of BT, such as the energy consumption required to maintain the blockchain.
3. The paper could also provide a more comprehensive discussion of the social impact of BT adoption and recycling mode selection. The authors mention that BT adoption can increase consumer trust, but they do not discuss other potential social benefits, such as the creation of jobs in the recycling industry. Additionally, the authors could discuss the potential negative social impacts of BT, such as the displacement of workers in the manufacturing industry.

4.      The authors should expand their literature review to include more recent and relevant studies on the topic. For example, the authors could include the following studies: Moussa et al., 2022. Global modern slavery and sustainable development goals: Does institutional environment quality matter? Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(5), 2230-2244 and Moussa and Elmarzouky, M., 2023. Does Capital Expenditure Matter for ESG Disclosure? A UK Perspective. Journal of Risk and Financial Management.

 

5.      Expand the explanation of the game theory models used. The derivation of equilibrium results (e.g., in Tables 2-5) is presented well but would benefit from more intuitive explanations or visual aids (e.g., flow diagrams) to enhance comprehension for readers unfamiliar with complex mathematical models.

 

Minor Concerns:

1. The paper could benefit from clearer and more concise writing. Some sentences are overly long and complex, making it difficult to follow the authors' arguments. For example, the sentence "The results show that BT adoption could increase the recycling rate and demand for remanufactured products" could be simplified to "BT adoption increases the recycling rate and demand for remanufactured products."
2. The authors use a number of acronyms throughout the paper, such as CLSC, BT, and TPR. While these acronyms are defined in the text, their overuse can make the paper difficult to read. The authors should consider using the full terms more often, especially in the introduction and conclusion.
3. If possible, the paper would benefit from a more detailed analysis of how blockchain costs influence firm decisions across various competitive intensities. Currently, the analysis on pages 11-14 provides valuable insights but lacks depth in discussing the strategic implications for different types of firms (e.g., small vs. large manufacturers).

4.      Ensure consistent use of terminology throughout the paper. For instance, the terms "competitive recycling mode" and "monopolistic recycling mode" should be used uniformly.

5.      Ensure that all figures and tables are referenced in the text in a logical order. For example, Figure 1 is mentioned but not sufficiently integrated into the discussion in Section 3 (pages 7-9).

6.      The conclusion section (page 30) should succinctly restate the practical implications of the findings. Emphasize how managers can use these insights to optimize recycling strategies and BT implementation.

7.      Ensure that all citations are correctly formatted and complete. Some references in the current draft appear to lack full details, such as publication years or page numbers. Page 2, line 36: Consider adding a real-world example of a company successfully using BT in recycling to illustrate the practical relevance.

8.      Page 10, line 290: Provide more context on why BT costs impact retail prices differently under various competitive scenarios.

9.      Page 14, line 395: Expand on how firms can "control BT usage costs" with practical examples or strategies.

 

I recommend that the authors revise the paper to address the concerns outlined above. With a stronger theoretical foundation, a more in-depth discussion of the environmental and social impacts of BT adoption and recycling mode selection, and clearer and more concise writing, this paper has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the literature on CLSCs and BT.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Proofreading is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I really appreciated your detailed responses to my questions and the given solutions to my suggestions. I think the paper was improved with much more contributions to practitioners, beyond the maths to scholars. Congratulations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed my comments and I recommend acceptance.