Can the Circular Economy Unlock Sustainable Business Growth? Insights from Qualitative Research with Specialists in Romania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Since the development of the circular economy in China at the beginning of this century, remarkable achievements have been made in different aspects. However, the authors have seldom touched on it in the literature review, which on the one hand reflects the authors' insufficient grasp of the circular economy, and on the other hand does not reflect whether the authors' research belongs to the cutting-edge position. Please add relevant literature and discuss whether the authors' research is at the cutting edge.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please, see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is a period missing on line 86, after regards.

The discussion of the research gap was increased, including justifications for research in Romania.

I would need to fix the formatting of objectives O3 and O4.

Correct "offered the first interviews to the researcher on the ground" lines 390-391.

The writing in English is still unnatural, even when it is read by an expert. For example, in "Although there are opinions that in qualitative research saturation is no longer important and, also, that the adequacy of sampling is not something relevant in qualitative studies", there is a need to rewrite.

I still suggest that the authors better structure the results section, perhaps dividing it into subsections following the research objectives.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing in English is still unnatural, even when it is read by an expert. Please review the changed parts in this version.

Author Response

PLease, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Please find some comments.

1. The authors would like to pay more attention to why only 5 circular economy models were selected (lines 939-940)?

2. The paper is too theoretical and requires statistical clarification on the development of the circular economy in Romania.

3. The results and discussion need to elaborate on previous research so that they explain the position of the research as a body of knowledge.

4. Producing 4 important Objectives, it is hoped that this study will be able to provide answers to gaps in the literature. For this reason, the authors need to hone in on these findings.

5. Recommendations need to be provided to both researchers and the government regarding this topic.

 

Minor comments

1. English should be polished.

2. Table 1 line 414 should have a title above the table (technical error).

3. Line 950 is a technical error and should be revised in "Figure 2. The overall image of the study"

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is based on the theory of circular economy, analyzes the relationship between decision makers, business representatives, NGO representatives and consumers, conducts qualitative interviews with different experts from Romanian companies, and has some research implications as the integration of the circular economy model into companies requires significant financial investments. However, throughout the text, the following recommendations are made:

1、Please give the necessity and significance of carrying out this research work.

2、The "Literature Review" is simple, unfocused, and lacks a literature review.

3、The study is based on a questionnaire, so it is necessary to give reasons for each question in the questionnaire.

4, the article gives some "Hypothesis" assumptions, also need to give "Hypothesis" reasons.

5. In the discussion, it should be the results of the author's research, not the conclusions of others.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is good.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Topic & research question: a variety of papers has been published on the link between circular economy and sustainable development. Therefore, the authors should further narrow down the scope of the paper. For instsance, the objectives and hypotheses under section 3 on methods focus all on practitioners' views. Circular economy principles or business models could also be preferred to in this analysis comprared to the broader concept of circular economy.

Title: is not very informative of the content and context (e.g. country focus). Could, for instance, mention that the analysis was conducted in the Romanian context, among specialists.

Introduction: Does not contain any reference to existing literature. The Authors should clearly set the need for their research by presenting a background of the issue they would like to analyse in their article. The research has to be contextualized in literature to later show how the paper further expands it.

Literature review: certain paragraphs do not seem to be connected among each other and need to be revised. For instance, the first one discusses the evolution of alternative technologies, while the immediately subsequent one jumps directly into the topic of linear economy, without presentign a logical connection between the two. Overall, the literature analysis needs to be further enriched, both in terms of the variety of articles and discussion of theoretical frameworks (e.g., definitions of sustainable development and circular economy) to set the scene for the reader. Also more recent citations could improve the overall quality of the article (as of now, many articles from 2017-2019).

Materials and methods: the information provided under this section does not allow the reader to appraise the validity of the methodology used. To improve this aspects, the Authors could digress a bit more on the advantages (according to the extant literature) of the adopted methodologies, but also on characterizing the interviews themselves (e.g., number and type of participants).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor proofreading might be useful

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Correct “to gain insightful” to “insight”

English needs improvement. There are long sentences that make it difficult to read fluidly.

The introduction does not contain any citations. Contextualization is not referenced. Justifications for the research is not enough. It is necessary to discuss the gap in the literature that is intended to be filled.

Fix “reuse or reuse” on line 136.

The method is not about marketing research. Just calling “interviews” is enough.

The procedure adopted needs to be detailed. It is unclear how the research instrument (questions asked in the interview) was developed based on the literature.

The objectives shown in section 3 should have been presented in section 1. Based on the research objective, the most suitable method is chosen.

Insert space in “The authors organizedthe objectives”.

The results section is not well organized. Perhaps due to a study design problem, the interview questions are very broad, asking about general aspects of the circular economy, marketing, and customer engagement. The issue of sustainability objectives (which in theory is the objective of the work) is not well addressed.

The presentation of the results is also not adequate. There are long excerpts of text, with some direct quotes from experts’ statements. But without any structuring and organization that facilitates reading, understanding, and the relationship with the objectives of the work.

The authors could have analyzed the interviewees' responses with a content analysis tool or bibliometrics (qualitative data analysis). This would make the presentation more organized and less subjective.

Figure 1 should summarize the main results in a structured way.

 

Decision: The article presents several weaknesses, mainly about the relevance and originality of the proposal, the method based on interviews with few experts, using an instrument without an adequate theoretical basis and relationship with the main objective, and poorly organized results with low contribution. Therefore, it is recommended that authors work on these points for future submission.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English needs improvement. There are long sentences that make it difficult to read fluidly. Some sections are quite confusing and need revision.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

This paper entitled "Is the Circular Economy the Key to Sustainable Business Development? Qualitative Research – Based Insights" is in line with modern trends, but with all its advantages, please note a number of comments:

 

1. It is necessary to revise the abstract because it does not interfere with the purpose of the article, the methods used and the specific results obtained.

2. The literature review is large and may require highlighting the specific results of the author’s analysis on the specified topic, which will simplify reading.

3. In the methodology, the authors indicate the main objective and Hypothesis, but they do not indicate why and what method was chosen in the study, only briefly that “qualitative data analysis techniques” were used.

4. Based on the results of the main question (49-51) addressed to experts in the interview, the “Introduction” section reveals the key directions of implementation and orientation of the surveyed enterprises. It is desirable to fully disclose all the tasks of the main research question and formulate the perception of businesses regarding the principles of the circular economy for sustainable development.

5. In the "Literature Review" section, the authors provide a comprehensive overview of research results related to the development of the circular economy and its place within the principles of sustainability. The main purpose of writing the article, as indicated by the authors above, is to analyze the attitudes of enterprises towards the circular economy (49-51). Towards the end of the section, as a result of the literature review conducted by the authors, opportunities for enterprises in the development of the circular economy are identified (203-207).

Therefore, in the "Literature Review" section, based on the authors' literature review, it is advisable to specify the relevance of further research in promoting the development of enterprises based on the principles of the circular economy, which served as the motivation for writing this article.

6. In order to enhance the value of this research for further scholarly discussions on the defined topic, it would be desirable to specify the geographical region in Romania where the research was conducted and provide a rationale for the chosen location.

7. Proofreading by a proofreader is required, since the phrases “the purpose of the work” or “This scientific approach is structured in six sections” require revision.

8. The title needs reworking. The title is hanging nowhere. Since the paper is not really representing the whole world, the title should be rethought.

9. Most of the countries pledged to be low-carbon and resource-efficient economy in 2050, the key issue for sustainability. This context should be discussed, since not everyone pledged, and the not every country will do it by the year 2050 (China, 2060). This is the pace where social aspect (the third dimension of sustainability after environmental and economic) could be explored. Now the transition to a carbon free economy is in the hands mainly of governments and companies. But soon it will be a matter of everyone, also our homes.

10. The subject is interesting, but discussion should be deepened. More specific data for European Countries regarding dealing with sustainability especially on the field of Circular Economy should be added.

11. Conclusions are general and require an indication of the specific results obtained and prospects.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required