Investigating the Potential Adoption of Product-Service Systems in the Luggage Industry to Promote Sustainability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research topic is very pertinent and well conducted. The methodology appropriate and results discussed and clearly presented.
It looks existing some problems with writing font size (lines 205-207; 221-225, others). Please, review!
Page 11 with large blank space!!
Author Response
Thank you for making time to review our manuscript. Please see the attachment for our point-by-point response to your comments.
Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors provide interesting insight into the application of PSS to mobile service. The baggage checkout is well thought out as it can be seen as hibernating stock.
However, the document lacks clarity on many aspects and authors should be careful to distinguish between methodology and results (especially for surveys). For example, the structure of PSS, the future of the baggage through the process and the role of the actors are absent from the figure introducing PSS. How is baggage maintained, collected, etc. ? How is the whole process managed? Indeed, the luggage is filled at home with clothes and will be used throughout the vacation before returning home. This would correspond to a sequential use of PSS. How did you manage the different types of travelers (frequent, occasional, etc.) Also, the information from the survey could be better summarized and used instead of leaving everything to additional information . For example, more space should therefore be given to the presentation and discussion of the results. So far the article is unbalanced with a huge and repetitive introduction and literature review (e.g. copying and pasting of the Tukker figure is not necessary) while the work of the authors is insufficiently explained and used.
Be careful to some typos and long sentences impacting the clarity of your work during your revision
Author Response
Thank you for making time to review our manuscript. Please see the attachment for our point-by-point response to your comments.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- The paper presents the idea of applying a Product-Service System approach to the luggage industry with a potential sustainability impact and that would promote disruption in the industry.
- General comments
The topic is interesting and the article is well written and structured with base in interviews to collect data. In the introduction the negative sustainablility effects of transportation is pointed out but no further data of the topic of study; luggage. It would have been good to have an estimate of the "sustainability impact" of the luggage industruy to know the value of the proposed solution, especially as in the conclusion the last section talks about a field ready for disruption (that then remains without plausible evidence). There is also a soft claim that luggage is not easily classified/disassembled when in waste phase, but with no references or reasoning around it. It would help to make this clearer. - Method and approach is good!
- In results (Ch4) I wonder where the 4 BM's came from and how these was 4 and not 3, 5 or any other number of BM's? The BM's are however well described togehter with the results. I would however question the introduction of the VRP framework in ch5 as this then is used to frame the discussion. How could that VRP not be part of the ch 4 results instead of being in ch 5 discussion?
- Conlusions are fine, besided the last section (row 647-658) where claims of disruption etc suddenly appear without any data to back the potential. As there are no potential estimations on effects of a PSS BM in luggage industry, as there was no original estimate of the field, then it is hard to claim potential for disruption. Do back this upp with data on existing luggage sector, and potential future PSS sector of luggage.
- Specific comments
- There are some font size changes occuring here and there (r53-54, 166-169, 180-184, 205-207 etc.)
- Make sure text in Fig 3 is readable in final print, appears blurry as of now. Fig 2 might also need better readability in the 4 figures as the text is rather small there.
English is good with good structure and flow. Some double spaces and font changes to look for.
Author Response
Thank you for making time to review our manuscript. Please see the attachment for our point-by-point response to your comments.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revisions made by the authors are satisfactory. The text is now clearer and the purpose of limitation of authors' work stated clearly.
