Could Unsustainable Electronics Support Sustainability?
, Grégoire Le Brun 2, Thibault Delhaye 2, Georgiana Sandu 2, Antoine Paris 2, David Bol 2 and Jean-Pierre Raskin 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 72-79: Reference is missing
Line 76: direct impact? Not only direct. I would suggest “potential impact”
Line 202-210: direct impact/indirect impact is here confusing. LCA practices understand the direct and indirect impact in a different way. In my opinion, You should describe this impact as foreground and hidden effects
Conclusions should be improved. There are too few specific recommendations.
Author Response
We thank Reviewer 1 for his/her overall positive feed-back and the useful recommendations. We have modified the manuscript in accordance to these remarks.
Line 72-79: Reference is missing
We have added several references in this paragraph and in the whole manuscript
Line 76: direct impact? Not only direct. I would suggest “potential impact”
On that subject, we based our discussion on the LES (Lifecycle, Enabling, Structural) model proposed by Hilty et al. [https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2662]. In that framework, LCA only deals with direct (lifecycle) impacts. Therefore, we have kept the word "direct" while clarifying the definitions at the beginning of the manuscript (see next answer)
Line 202-210: direct impact/indirect impact is here confusing. LCA practices understand the direct and indirect impact in a different way. In my opinion, You should describe this impact as foreground and hidden effects
We acknowledge that the distinction between direct and indirect impacts was not clear enough in the first version of the manuscript. We have therefore clarified the difference in lines 44, 47 and 51.
Conclusions should be improved. There are too few specific recommendations.
We have modified the conclusion in depth to include more specific recommendations.
Reviewer 2 Report
Improve Bibliographical references and examples, i.e. PSS.
Author Response
We have strengthen the bibliographical and we have modified in depth our conclusion to includes concrete recommendations, sustained by examples (5G, CSR, triple layer buisness canevas, PSS (already discussed in the main text), etc.)
Reviewer 3 Report
As a short reflection paper, the manuscript looks good, although I cannot agree with all the theses of the authors. Which, however, is quite natural, because the paper just calls on readers to a discussion on a really urgent problem, in which everything is not so simple. However, it is very important for authors, reflecting on the role of ICT, to determine what is meant by sustainability? What conditional indicators determine sustainability? And further, in the opinion, rely on this stated position. Consider, for example, lifecycle management. In my opinion, technologies such as digital twins, predictive analytics or robotic diagnostic tools make asset lifecycle management more predictable, which in turn reduces the cost and increases the reliability of equipment operation. There are also environmental benefits. However, given the high cost of advanced technologies, the cost of the initial stages of asset ownership increases dramatically. As a result, from the economic point of view, we have multidirectional, contradictory results. But how do they affect sustainability? And do they affect sustainability in principle?
Author Response
We thank Reviewer 3 for his/her overall positive feed-back and the interesting recommendations.
However, it is very important for authors, reflecting on the role of ICT, to determine what is meant by sustainability? What conditional indicators determine sustainability?
We briefly define what is meant by sustainability in the abstract : "[...] which shall really contribute to the well-being of everyone, everywhere, without compromising future generations. We conclude that digital technologies cannot support long term sustainability if their only purpose remains the optimization of the current system." Nevertheless, we acknowledge that no clear definition of this complex concept is given in the main text. To avoid overloading the paper, we have added a citation [https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/11/3436] discussing the concept of sustainability at the first place we use the word "sustainabilty" outside the abstract, a citation or a title. If needed, we can also develop our view in a footnote.
And further, in the opinion, rely on this stated position. Consider, for example, lifecycle management. In my opinion, technologies such as digital twins, predictive analytics or robotic diagnostic tools make asset lifecycle management more predictable, which in turn reduces the cost and increases the reliability of equipment operation. There are also environmental benefits. However, given the high cost of advanced technologies, the cost of the initial stages of asset ownership increases dramatically. As a result, from the economic point of view, we have multidirectional, contradictory results. But how do they affect sustainability? And do they affect sustainability in principle?
In this opinion paper, we chose (we hope for the best) not to focus to much on specific technologies for two reasons at least (i) it would require a quantitative analysis well beyond the scope of an opinion paper (ii) we want to define a framework for sustainable innovation as wide as possible. Our aim is to convince researchers and industry stakeholders elaborating such technologies to consider the recommendations exposed in the take-home message of the manuscript and, ideally, to establish who will benefit from the technology and who will be impaired by it (now or in the future).
Concerning the economical discussion initiated by Reviewer 3, we do not consider ourselves qualified to tackle it in the manuscript. It would require further discussions with economists (which is not always easy given the large number of schools of thought in the discipline). Beside the lack of time we disposed to deliver a revised manuscript, we are also afraid to overload the main text that is already quite dense.
Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that we have modified in depth the conclusion and we have strengthen the bibliography.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper can be published
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks to the authors for the work done, in my opinion the manuscript has become better, "stronger" and can be published. I wish you success in your further research.
