Success Drivers for Implementing Circular Economy: A Case Study from the Building Sector in Colombia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors and Editor,

I am grateful for opportunity to review this interesting and useful paper; it is well written and structured and could be published “as is”. However, I have some comments and (friendly) suggestions.

A mess with figures: figures 1, 2 (rows 253 and 254) and 3 (row 256) are all labelled “TECMO’s Level of CE implementation” but the manuscript comprises only of these (Figure 3).

I suggest adding a compact description of used methodology, chiefly because source [24] is not accessible and not understandable (because in Spanish) for me, also for other readers. Moreover, it seems to be some kind maturity model: if yes, this could be mentioned.

Who are “environmental suppliers” (row 261) – do they supply environment or …?

Figure 4: graphs are too small, thus difficult to read, and why no add (some) trendlines (also Figure 5)?

Have all the ‘insiders’ permitted naming them (perhaps the positions will be enough, why the names)?

Section 4 should be for presentation of results: for one, rows 365-367 is rather discussion (Section 5).

Finally, some layout issues – tables should not just break, preferably on one page (if the authors are not responsible for this, please check this over when approving the corrected / edited version).

Besides, I see some opportunities to increase the conceptual contribution, discussing the results in light of some additional issues – such as: a) specificity of management and governance in SMEs; b) specificity of construction industry what is project-based … I believe that this might bring in some novel moments; but if the authors do not want to enlarge the discussion, these aspects could be pointing out as possibilities for further research.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the useful and constructive comments you provided on our manuscript. Thinking about them, answering them, and improving the text accordingly has greatly helped to improve the text. You find our answers to your comments below formatted in blue. There we also indicated what we have changed in the text. For any change we made in the text, we used “Track Changes”.  Thanks again for the very helpful comments and we hope that you are satisfied with the manuscript.

All the changes related to the comments from Reviewer 1 were included in the manuscript.

• I am grateful for opportunity to review this interesting and useful paper; it is well written and structured and could be published “as is”. However, I have some comments and (friendly) suggestions. 

Thanks for your kind comments. We worked to cover the suggestions.

• A mess with figures: figures 1, 2 (rows 253 and 254) and 3 (row 256) are all labelled “TECMO’s Level of CE implementation” but the manuscript comprises only of these (Figure 3). 

We agree about the potential confusion. Thus, Figure 2 was renamed "Figure 2. Methodology used for CE implementation program in TECMO" to explain better how this graphic represents the CE implementation process' methodology. Then, Figure 3 was renamed as "TECMO’s diagnostic in each of the CE fields of action"

• I suggest adding a compact description of used methodology, chiefly because source [24] is not accessible and not understandable (because in Spanish) for me, also for other readers. Moreover, it seems to be some kind maturity model: if yes, this could be mentioned. 

Considering this comment, the references were changed by the one in the English version, and please find it as the reference [26]. We introduced the following description "(...) which consists of a 4-phase cycle to achieve the SMEs transition to CE: diagnosing to ana-lyze the initial level of implementation of CE, the firm value proposition, resources, and capabilities and stakeholders, then, the opportunity analysis in terms of the CE fields of action. Next, the implementation plan considering the most feasible options and the potential allies, and finally, the evaluation and feedback to measure the results and the way to restart the cycle [24]."

• Who are “environmental suppliers” (row 261) – do they supply environment or …? 

It was changed by "sustainable suppliers and materials." Line 307.

• Figure 4: graphs are too small, thus difficult to read, and why no add (some) trendlines (also Figure 5)? 

Figures 4 and 5 were improved in terms of quality, size, and labels. We like trendlines, but more than three lines may create confusion.

• Have all the ‘insiders’ permitted naming them (perhaps the positions will be enough, why the names)? 

We understand the concern, however, naming them (first and last name) is also an acknowledgment for their work and voluntary commitment to the process and each stage. It is important to clarify that the people authorized to include their names in the article.

• Section 4 should be for presentation of results: for one, rows 365-367 is rather discussion (Section 5). 

Agree, that section was moved to section 5, Line 601.

• Finally, some layout issues – tables should not just break, preferably on one page (if the authors are not responsible for this, please check this over when approving the corrected / edited version). 

The format was modified with paragraph tools.

• Besides, I see some opportunities to increase the conceptual contribution, discussing the results in light of some additional issues – such as: a) specificity of management and governance in SMEs; b) specificity of construction industry what is project-based … I believe that this might bring in some novel moments; but if the authors do not want to enlarge the discussion, these aspects could be pointing out as possibilities for further research. 

We are convinced about the importance of those topics for further research. We closed the conclusions with "Finally, there is abundant room for further progress in determining the specificity of management and governance in SMEs as well as specificity of construction industry what is project-based to make the transition towards CE."

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors!

I am glad that I had the opportunity to read the manuscript. I suggest adding to your keywords - the words: success factors and research. Title proper with a summary. Literature in terms of content and quantity is correct (even above average). In terms of volume, the study was correctly assessed. Funding for research indicates the reliability of their performance. The topicality of the research also deserves a positive attention, which constitutes an innovative approach. Clear and transparent conclusions. Clear and legible tables. Below are some comments that do not significantly affect the value of the article. Authors sometimes misspell literature Allem, 1993) instead of numerically [1] etc. (lines 488 and 490). Figure 6. May be omitted does not add anything new. Even the color scheme does not correspond to the meaning. Blue is associated with water and not with the ecosystem. Line 254, 254 - I do not really understand what it means to list the same names in figure 1 and figure 2. My guess is that it is stuck by accident. I am asking the authors for verification. To sum up, I recommend publishing an article with a request to verify minor suggestions for verification / consideration of possible changes.

I wish you good health!
Greetings!
Reviewer

Author Response

Thank you very much for the useful and constructive comments you provided on our manuscript. Thinking about them, answering them, and improving the text accordingly has greatly helped to improve the text. You find our answers to your comments below formatted in blue. There we also indicated what we have changed in the text. For any change we made in the text, we used “Track Changes”.  Thanks again for the very helpful comments and we hope that you are satisfied with the manuscript.

All the changes related to the comments from the Reviewer 2 were included into the manuscript. In addition, we are indicating the section and page where they are located.

• Dear Authors! I am glad that I had the opportunity to read the manuscript.

 We appreciate your courteous words.

• I suggest adding to your keywords - the words: success factors and research.

 The keywords were added.

• Title proper with a summary. Literature in terms of content and quantity is correct (even above average). In terms of volume, the study was correctly assessed. Funding for research indicates the reliability of their performance. The topicality of the research also deserves a positive attention, which constitutes an innovative approach. Clear and transparent conclusions. Clear and legible tables.

Thanks for your comment. Indeed, it is a priority research for the country and our universities for the care of the "common home."

• Below are some comments that do not significantly affect the value of the article. Authors sometimes misspell literature Allem, 1993) instead of numerically [1] etc. (lines 488 and 490).

We are very sorry for this neglect, a product of habit. All those references were included numerically as [26], [43],[44], and [45]

• Figure 6. May be omitted does not add anything new. Even the color scheme does not correspond to the meaning. Blue is associated with water and not with the ecosystem.

We introduced that " Figure 6 shows how they are configured and their composition." In other words, this figure shows how we see those drivers in our minds.

• Line 254, 254 - I do not really understand what it means to list the same names in figure 1 and figure 2. My guess is that it is stuck by accident. I am asking the authors for verification.

We agree about the potential confusion. Thus, Figure 2 was renamed "Figure 2. Methodology used for CE implementation program in TECMO" to explain better that this graphic represents the methodology used for the CE implementation process. Then, Figure 3 was renamed as "TECMO’s diagnostic in each of the CE fields of action"

• To sum up, I recommend publishing an article with a request to verify minor suggestions for verification / consideration of possible changes. To sum up, I recommend publishing an article with a request to verify minor suggestions for verification / consideration of possible changes. I wish you good health! Greetings!

Thank you for your suggestions, we also wish you health in this challenging year for the world.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper makes an important contribution to the literature on circular economy in developing countries. The paper states clearly the research question and is based on a sound methodological basis. To delineate the topicality of contribution refer to Sadik-Zada & Ferrari (2020) on the validity of pollution haven hypothesis and importance of Columbia's environmental performance in a broader context of Global North-Global South interaction. Show that Colombia has a significant carbon footprint, also because of its oil production. To this end refer to Gatto & Sadik-Zada (2020). This would contribute to the justification of the study. Refer in your paper also to the role of local municipalities and federalism in Latin American context. To this end refer cursorily to Sadik-Zada, Loewenstein & Ferrari (2018).

Author Response

Thank you very much for the useful and constructive comments you provided on our manuscript. Thinking about them, answering them, and improving the text accordingly has greatly helped to improve the text. You find our answers to your comments below formatted in blue. There we also indicated what we have changed in the text. For any change we made in the text, we used “Track Changes”.  Thanks again for the very helpful comments and we hope that you are satisfied with the manuscript.

All the changes related to the comments from the Reviewer 3 were included into the manuscript. In addition, we are indicating the section and page where they are located.

• The paper makes an important contribution to the literature on circular economy in developing countries. The paper states clearly the research question and is based on a sound methodological basis.

Thanks for your comments.

• To delineate the topicality of contribution, refer to Sadik-Zada & Ferrari (2020) on the validity of pollution haven hypothesis and importance of Columbia's environmental performance in a broader context of Global North-Global South interaction.

Thanks for your suggestion It was included in the conclusions’ section, line 696.

• Show that Colombia has a significant carbon footprint, also because of its oil production. To this end refer to Gatto & Sadik-Zada (2020). This would contribute to the justification of the study.

Thanks for your recommendation. It was included in the introduction, line 52.

• Refer in your paper also to the role of local municipalities and federalism in Latin American context. To this end refer cursorily to Sadik-Zada, Loewenstein & Ferrari.

Considering the importance of local municipalities for circular economy, the references [36] and [37] were included to make clearer that idea and highlight its relevance. Thanks.