Developing a Strategic Methodology for Circular Economy Roadmapping: A Theoretical Framework
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an excellent paper and much needed considering both the latest and developments in litearture and standards. As authors underlined this study represents a significant theoretical advancement in the literature on circular economy addressing the notable lack of a standardised methodological framework for roadmapping. It is very well written, clear and uses well-chosen tools from management science. It might be worth considering adding the impact of the proposed solutions on society, including various social groups taking into account equity and justice. The question is whether this should be in roadmap or in another document. It is also important that the document would be consulted with the public society.
Author Response
Reviewer One’s Comments
This is an excellent paper and much needed considering both the latest and developments in literature and standards. As authors underlined, this study represents a significant theoretical advancement in the literature on circular economy addressing the notable lack of a standardised methodological framework for roadmapping. It is very well written, clear, and uses well-chosen tools from management science. It might be worth considering adding the impact of the proposed solutions on society, including various social groups, taking into account equity and justice. The question is whether this should be in the roadmap or in another document. It is also important that the document would be consulted with the public society.
Response to Reviewer One’s Comments:
Thank you for your positive feedback and valuable suggestions. We appreciate your recognition of the theoretical advancements and the clarity of our work. We have considered your comments and made the following addition to the discussion section of the manuscript:
“ Another critical dimension of the framework is its potential to promote societal equity and justice. The framework incorporates practical measures to ensure that the contributions to and benefits of a CE are distributed fairly among all social groups, including in-formal sectors and households. It mandates public consultations and continuous stakeholder engagement, ensuring that diverse community voices, including those often overlooked, are considered. It aims to facilitate an inclusive and just transition to a CE by encompassing all voices within the ecosystem of collaborators and stakeholders.”
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper delves into the crucial topic of Circular Economy (CE) strategies and provides an enlightening framework for creating a roadmap to understanding and designing these strategies. The authors rightly point out that there needs to be more consistent CE strategies to ensure the transition towards their implementation. The authors dissect various strategies and offer interesting policy implications to stakeholders. The paper is worth publication in Sustainability but requires some revisions before publication.
- The authors should provide a graph to present the different steps of the business models. This addition would help the readers to understand the context of implementing CE strategies.
- CE is associated with environmental sustainability and sustainable development (lines 38-39). The authors have to add a brief discussion on sustainable development to engage the readers. Moreover, it is highly recommended to include references to the following two papers: 'Broad strokes towards a grand theory in the analysis of sustainable development: a return to the classical political economy', New Political Economy, 27(5), pp. 866-878, and 'History, Knowledge, and Sustainable Economic Development: The Contribution of John Stuart Mill’s Grand Stage Theory', Sustainability, 13 (3).
- How does digitalisation is associated with CE? Important initiatives such as the Digital Product Passport as Enabler for the CE should be presented.
- What is the role of ESG in CE practices? The relationship between them represents a transformative shift towards sustainable development.
- The paper needs thorough proofreading to correct typos and grammatical errors.
- Section 5.4 should become shorter as it is too informative and descriptive.
- What are the research limitations of the paper?
Author Response
Reviewer's Comments:
The paper delves into the crucial topic of Circular Economy (CE) strategies and provides an enlightening framework for creating a roadmap to understanding and designing these strategies. The authors rightly point out that there needs to be more consistent CE strategies to ensure the transition towards their implementation. The authors dissect various strategies and offer interesting policy implications to stakeholders. The paper is worth publication in Sustainability but requires some revisions before publication.
Response to Reviewer's Comments:
Thank you for your valuable suggestion.
Comment 1:
The authors should provide a graph to present the different steps of the business models. This addition would help the readers to understand the context of implementing CE strategies.
Response to Comment 1:
While we acknowledge the significance of business models in CE, our manuscript aims to establish a high-level strategic framework for CE long-range planning, addressing systemic challenges and providing strategic guidance across national, regional, and sectoral levels. References to business models in our manuscript illustrate their integration within broader framework components, such as Systems Thinking, which fosters innovative and adaptable business models by identifying leverage points for systemic shifts, and ISO 59000, which highlights circular business models as crucial for sustainable practices.
Including a detailed graph of business model steps would detract from our high-level strategic objectives and shift the focus to granular operational details, beyond the scope of this study. Our framework offers adaptable guidelines for policymakers and stakeholders, ensuring flexibility across various contexts. Specific business models can be developed as a subsequent step, guided by the strategic insights provided. Maintaining this high-level perspective ensures the broad applicability and utility of our framework across different governance levels and sectors.
Comment 2:
CE is associated with environmental sustainability and sustainable development (lines 38-39). The authors have to add a brief discussion on sustainable development to engage the readers. Moreover, it is highly recommended to include references to the following two papers: 'Broad strokes towards a grand theory in the analysis of sustainable development: a return to the classical political economy', New Political Economy, 27(5), pp. 866-878, and 'History, Knowledge, and Sustainable Economic Development: The Contribution of John Stuart Mill’s Grand Stage Theory', Sustainability, 13 (3).
Response to Comment 2:
Thank you for the feedback and for suggesting the inclusion of a discussion on sustainable development. We have added a brief discussion to contextualise CE within the broader framework of sustainable development, integrating the recommended references to enhance the manuscript's depth. The additional text has been incorporated into section 2.1 "CE Roadmapping Concepts and Evolution" of the Literature Review.
Comment 3:
How does digitalisation is associated with CE? Important initiatives such as the Digital Product Passport as Enabler for the CE should be presented.
Response to Comment 3:
Thank you for the feedback. We have integrated a discussion on digitalisation within the the KPIs and Metrics section, highlighting the role of digital technologies in enhancing CE practices and their operational efficiencies. The text now reflects how technologies like IoT, Big Data Analytics, and Artificial Intelligence are essential in supporting end-of-life strategies and optimising resource use, citing relevant studies to substantiate these points.
Comment 4:
What is the role of ESG in CE practices? The relationship between them represents a transformative shift towards sustainable development.
Response to Comment 4:
The following addition has been made to the discussion section of the manuscript to address the reviewer's comment on the role of ESG in CE practices and their transformative shift towards sustainable development:
“ Another critical dimension of the framework is its potential to promote societal equity and justice. The framework incorporates practical measures to ensure that the contributions to and benefits of a CE are distributed fairly among all social groups, including in-formal sectors and households. It mandates public consultations and continuous stakeholder engagement, ensuring that diverse community voices, including those often overlooked, are considered. It aims to facilitate an inclusive and just transition to a CE by encompassing all voices within the ecosystem of collaborators and stakeholders.”
Comment 5:
The paper needs thorough proofreading to correct typos and grammatical errors.
Response to Comment 5:
Thank you for your observation. The manuscript has now undergone thorough proofreading to correct any typos and grammatical errors.
Comment 6:
Section 5.4 should become shorter as it is too informative and descriptive.
Response to Comment 6:
Thank you for your valuable feedback. Upon careful consideration, we believe that Section 5.4 aligns with the detailed and structured approach used in the preceding sections. The comprehensive overview of standards (ISO 59000 series and ISO 37000) is essential for illustrating their critical role within the CE roadmapping framework. This level of detail is consistent with the manuscript's goal of providing a robust and adaptable framework, ensuring that these standards are systematically integrated into the strategic planning process. We hope this explanation clarifies the necessity of the detail provided in this section.
Comment 7:
What are the research limitations of the paper?
Response to Comment 7:
We have now included a dedicated section titled "Research Limitations" in the manuscript, addressing these concerns and providing a comprehensive overview of the study's inherent limitations.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think the paper is well designed and the findings are well presented.
The article provides a carefully designed methodology, the framework incorporates strategic management, systems thinking, sustainability science, and other disciplines, providing a structured approach to navigating the complexities of long-term planning for CE, as stated in the paper.
I believe the authors achieved the purposes initially addressed in the paper.
However, the conclusion part is somewhat limited. The section 5 is very important in this paper, but the paper just listed out what the authors think important. I hope the authors provide additional paragraph(s) to provide cohesive understanding of what they found in addition to the discussion section (6).
Best,
Author Response
Reviewer Three’s Comments:
I think the paper is well designed and the findings are well presented.
The article provides a carefully designed methodology, the framework incorporates strategic management, systems thinking, sustainability science, and other disciplines, providing a structured approach to navigating the complexities of long-term planning for CE, as stated in the paper.
I believe the authors achieved the purposes initially addressed in the paper.
Response to Reviewer Three’s Comments:
Thank you for your positive feedback and recognition of our work's design and findings
Comment 1:
However, the conclusion part is somewhat limited.
Response to Comment 1:
The conclusion has been modified to reflect the reviewer's comments.
Comment 2:
The section 5 is very important in this paper, but the paper just listed out what the authors think important. I hope the authors provide additional paragraph(s) to provide cohesive understanding of what they found in addition to the discussion section (6).
Response to Comment 2:
The manuscript has been updated to address the reviewer's comment regarding section 5. An additional paragraph has been added to section 5 to provide a cohesive understanding of the foundational pillars and their integration within the framework.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study developed a strategic methodology for circular economy roadmap. This study is of significant reference value for the formulation of the circular economy roadmap. The study has the following shortcomings that need to be addressed.
1. The referencing format is inconsistent. Some parts use the format of surname + year, while others directly indicate numbers.
2. The literature review lists many studies, each detailing methods and results extensively. However, the citations of these studies appear too random to me. It is suggested to primarily focus on presenting key conclusive information in the text, while specific references can be summarized in a list format.
3. The information presented in Figure 2 and Table 2 is redundant. It is recommended to remove Figure 2 or improve its presentation.
4. Much of the information in the discussion section is redundant with earlier sections. Additionally, the theoretical contributions and research significance should be thoroughly explained in the introduction. It is suggested to contrast the methods and findings of this study with previous research in the discussion to highlight its contributions.
5. The first paragraph of the conclusion is essentially a repetition of the abstract. The conclusion should provide a more detailed account of what this study has accomplished and what valuable findings have been obtained.
Author Response
Reviewer Four’s Comments:
This study developed a strategic methodology for circular economy roadmap. This study is of significant reference value for the formulation of the circular economy roadmap. The study has the following shortcomings that need to be addressed
Response to Reviewer Four’s Comments:
Thank you for your positive feedback and recognition of our work's design and findings
Comment 1:
The referencing format is inconsistent. Some parts use the format of surname + year, while others directly indicate numbers.
Response to Comment 1:
The manuscript has now been thoroughly reviewed, and all references have been updated to ensure a consistent format throughout. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Comment 2:
The literature review lists many studies, each detailing methods and results extensively. However, the citations of these studies appear too random to me. It is suggested to primarily focus on presenting key conclusive information in the text, while specific references can be summarized in a list format.
Response to Comment 2:
The authors have carefully considered the reviewer's comment regarding the perceived randomness of the citations in the literature review section. In response, the literature review has been restructured to provide a more coherent synthesis of the key conclusive information from diverse disciplines relevant to CE roadmapping. The revised section now integrates multidisciplinary insights into cohesive paragraphs, ensuring a logical flow of ideas and highlighting the essential components of CE long-range planning. Specific references are summarised in an enhanced table format, which details their roles and dependencies within the roadmapping phases.
The amended section can be found in the revised manuscript under "2.2 Integrating Multidisciplinary Insights for CE Long-Range Planning" and Table 1, which provides a structured overview of the key constituents of CE roadmapping.
Comment 3:
The information presented in Figure 2 and Table 2 is redundant. It is recommended to remove Figure 2 or improve its presentation.
Response to Comment 3
Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your comment, we have taken steps to enhance the clarity and utility of both Figure 2 and Table 2.
While Figure 2 offers a high-level summary of the CE roadmapping framework, Table 2 provides a detailed breakdown of the phases, layers, and processes involved. This table now complements the figure by offering specific definitions and actions required at each stage of the framework, thus ensuring no redundancy and enhancing the reader's understanding.
Comment 4:
Much of the information in the discussion section is redundant with earlier sections. Additionally, the theoretical contributions and research significance should be thoroughly explained in the introduction. It is suggested to contrast the methods and findings of this study with previous research in the discussion to highlight its contributions.
Response to Comment 4:
To address the reviewer's comments, the discussion section has been significantly revised to focus on the real-world interpretation and application of the proposed framework. Redundant content has been removed, and the section now provides a compelling interpretation of the framework's practical benefits and contributions. The theoretical contributions and research significance have been thoroughly explained, highlighting the groundbreaking nature of integrating disciplines and theories that previously existed in isolation.
Comment 5:
The first paragraph of the conclusion is essentially a repetition of the abstract. The conclusion should provide a more detailed account of what this study has accomplished and what valuable findings have been obtained.
Response to Comment 5:
The conclusion has been modified to reflect the reviewer's comments.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors addressed my previous comments and improved their manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have improved paper. It can consider for publication.
