Circular Economy Implementation in an Organization: A Case Study of the Taiwan Sugar Corporation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper examines the implementation of circular economy principles at Taiwan Sugar Company.
1.The theoretical depth is lacking. The author mostly describes facts and lacks in-depth refinement and summary.
2. It is recommended to add data to reflect the results of TSC in implementing circular economy.
3.The universality needs to be strengthened. It is recommended to discuss how the case study results of TSC can be applied to other organizations or industries.
Overall, the academic and innovative level of this paper is not sufficient for publication in Sustainability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments
The article needs to review the concept of circular economy from the literature in greater depth. The other concepts or study areas such as industrial ecology, closing resource loops (or closing material loops) and their (contributing) relationships with circular economy needs to be correctly discussed and fully appreciated. The circular economy’s principle(s) still needs to be specified, instead of adopting a general illustration which can be used for the implementation of any approaches.
The section headings need to be accurately expressed. For example, research methodology should not include the literature review. Company background/information is not research background.
The aim needs to be much clear in the introduction section. Does this research aim to develop a framework? If it is, it needs to be specified in the research aim. The research aim should not just focus on the company as it is not a company report. The value of the academic work needs to be reflected by the applicability of the research findings/outputs. The aim is what the research intends to achieve – therefore it needs to specify the outputs of this investigation.
The company information in section 3 needs to be much reduced by only including relevant ones to this study, as this is not a company report.
The research either aims to develop a framework or explores some relationships between factors using a modelling approach. The modelling approach needs to be explained in research methodology section before applying in the analysis section. If a modelling approach is used, measures for variables need to be clearly defined in methodology section and the hypotheses should be developed after reviewing the literature.
It needs more analytical contents instead of descriptive contents in analysis. The paper uses more than three different methodologies, but it is unclear what it aims to explore and generate.
The writing needs to adopt a much more focused approach to create the depth.
Some specific comments (not inclusive):
Needs to use a much better definition for circular economy to reflect the circularity instead of reduction-based approaches.
The first reference in the introduction needs to remove author’s initial. Direct quotations for definitions need to add the page number in the reference part in the main text. Avoid using the style of ‘Sinha (2022) found out…’ and ‘Lewandowski (2016) introduced’; instead, create your own logical flow and use references to back up the contents/statements. Delete some unnecessary adjectives such as ‘deep’ when mentioning the study and leave the reader to judge it.
The definition/explanations of ‘circular economy principles’ need to reflect the circularity of material flows (multiple closed-loop material flows), not just referring to ‘resource efficiency, waste reduction, and sustainable production and consumption patterns.’ The authors need to explore different definitions for circular economy and its principles in order to adopt a good one for the paper. There is no such thing as ‘closing the loop of the linear economy’. The linear economy needs to be transformed into a circular economy through closing material loops. Reduction is very different from creating/developing closed-loop material exchanges in production and consumption industrial systems.
On page 2 line 22, should ‘BS 8001:2017’ is part of the references for closing resource loop? If BS 8001:2017’s definition is used as circular economy principles, the further details on the circular economy principles by BS 8001:2017 should be given before providing justification of this selection.
It is clear that authors understand circular economy concept and its principle(s) well by the contents in the second last paragraph on page 2. A table comparing different specifications of circular economy principles as the authors mentioned could be more effective.
On page 3, the second paragraph needs to appreciate the contribution of industrial ecology and closing resource loop to the development of circular economy, rather than contrasting them to circular economy. Circular economy is based on the principle of industrial ecology through implementing different approaches to closing material loops.
The six principles of circular economy by BS 8001:2017 are general to any framework implementation. They are not principles of circular economy but the dimensions to be considered to promote or implement the circular economy principle(s) which is closing the material loops through reuse, remanufacturing, and recycling with the consideration of design for environment.
Line 145, if the authors are part of the sentence, the surnames should be placed outside of the brackets.
Figure 2 is general, not specific to circular economy implementation. Hence it adds limited value to the paper.
Section 2.1 is actually the literature review, which should not be part of the Research Methodology section.
References should be provided to Figures 1 and 2 titles and also no full stop is needed.
There is no need to have table 1.
Figure 4 is also too general to add value.
Different uses of oyster shells illustrated in Figure 5 cannot represent material flows of the industry.
Table contents need to be much better presented, by not using justified format for table texts.
Table 2 needs to only include much more relevant information for this study.
Page 14, keep font consistent.
The first sentence in section 4 should be deleted as it is repetitive to the previous section.
Table 4 does not add value with so many repetitive contents.
(As different methodologies are used in analysis without the explanation in methodology section, specific comments on the remaining sections will not add value.)
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt is OK overall. Some improvement is needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the introduction section, it is better to clarify and highlight the need for this study and the research gap.
Related to Figure 7, I wonder if there is any justification related to the relationship between proposed constructs.
How did the authors measure economic, environmental and social aspects? The measurement scales are missing and from which study were these adopted or adapted?
The data collection strategy and sampling strategy are also missing.
The authors did not offer any details related to measurement model constructs.
Separate practical and theoretical implications sections are recommended to be added in the revised draft.
The number of references is quite low i.e., 22. It is advised to cite more relevant work here such as
Employees’ eco-friendly innovative behaviors: Examining the role of individual and situational factors
Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment decoded: sustainable leaders, green organizational climate and person-organization fit
Sustainable development through frugal innovation:The role of leadership, entrepreneurial bricolage and knowledge diversity
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageLanguage editing is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll references should be cited in the same way. The beginning of the introduction is cited differently.
A more comprehensive literature review should be performed.
The principles of the British Standards Institution (BSI) should be specified and work with the scientific articles that refer to this standard, in order to identify synergies or differences with the present company.
It is requested to better specify the literature review methodology used, search engines used, keywords, range of years...
It is important to make a broad description of the company, and to specify if the BS standard applies to the whole company or only to the Biotechnology Division.
In the communication channels, it is important to indicate the surveys/elements used and ensure their feasibility, including suppliers. The characterization of the raw material is fundamental.
How many surveys have been conducted from each agent?
Further description of the entire biotechnological process with oysters is recommended, and identify what quantities and types of waste are obtained with each batch (e.g., per ton of raw material, shells). Identify what is done with such waste, and try to establish the connection with the respondents' environmental concerns.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
