Figuring the Transition from Circular Economy to Circular Society in Australia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article does not comply with the paper's formal requirements. The numbering of lines is missing and the references are not numbered. There are many footnotes, which are also not supported. The reference to the interviewees in chapter 4 should be changed. The numbering conflicts with the referencing order.

 
The substance of the article is interesting and its main value is the very wide range of literature. Basically, I miss the comparison of the literature findings with their own findings. In my opinion, there is also more work to be done on the illustration: a summary of the main findings in a table would greatly improve clarity. 

It would also be important to write a discusson chapter, particularly on how the research done in Australia can be applied elsewhere. Whether the research could, or should, be carried out in other countries, etc. 

To sum up: the article is interesting and valuable, but it still needs a lot of work from the author, especially from a formal point of view.

Author Response

Paper now has been formatted to the template but line numbers not included for this revision (apologies for the first draft should have been)

Interviewee names removed but the numbering of interviewees is deliberately random and numbers are used in the body of the text.

Final section compares the findings with prior literature

There is now reference to how this study could or should be applied elsewhere but article is already very long so not an extensive discussion

Articles has been checked for some style and grammar issues

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an excellent study and very worthwhile and readable.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Minor spelling changes made

Reviewer 3 Report

Please include your main findings and the research approach/method in the abstract.

Please explain in detail and with more references what you mean with the waste management and landfill crisis (this is highlighted in the conclusions as well) including explanation why they are the main drivers of CE in Australia eventhough it is about a broad system level transformation away from e.g. linear thinking as indicated by international references.

Please address Figure 1-2 in the text.

Please separate sections 3 and 4 in a way the clearly marks which is about methods (e.g. thematic analysis) and which is about the results (write a results section).

Please provide a discussion section and use more references. Consider e.g. this:

Sina Leipold, Anna Petit-Boix, Anran Luo et al. Lessons, narratives and research directions for a sustainable circular economy, 02 July 2021, PREPRINT (Version 1) Research Square https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-429660/v1

Your argue that there is no CE transition in Australia, but a sustainability transition. Please provide more evidence for this reasoning including references and clearly explain what a sustainability transition means including how it differs from CE transitions.

Do the same for the sustainable Australia concept (mentioned in the conclusions).

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestions

Q. Please explain in detail and with more references what you mean with the waste management and landfill crisis

R. The whole focus of the article is that there isn't such as thing as a meaning for circular economy as a systemic transition - hence four discourses - the waste and landfill crisis was the catalyst in Australia to begin talking about CE (technicist discourse) - many interviewers and media talk about a recycling economy in Australia so far not a circular economy

Circular economy is not a goal in itself (and there are multiple versions)

Although the mainstream circular economy presents itself as sufficiently encompassing to be all that is required for a sustainability transition, the existence of multiple discourses around this idea troubles this idea. In addition, the fact that no circular transition is an end in itself but a means to an end, versions of circularity are paths to sustainability transitions and sustainable development. 

Conclusion section uses more references - referring back to literature and connecting to findings. There is little or no room for more text in this long article to add even more, e.g. another discussion section

Section 4 is now named results

Q Your argue that there is no CE transition in Australia, but a sustainability transition. 

R No I argue there is no such thing as a circular transition - since there are at least four versions and although popular in the media to talk about a circular economy transition - this is only one of several discourses. The Global transition is only 9-10% and it is less in Australia. As I previously mentioned - a circular economy technicist discourse is not an end in itself it is a possible means to sustainable development.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I recommend the acceptance of the article