Recognizing the Key Drivers and Industry Implications of Sustainable Packaging Design: A Mixed-Method Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a straightforward study of the view on sustainability in the Italian packaging /packed product supply chain. The study consists of a well-balanced qualitative and quantitative part, both executed and reported appropriately. Results aren't very surprising, but nonetheless warrant publication. 

Some reflections:

• "However, to our knowledge, a structured framework involving the supply chain of packaging sustainability remains still unanswered" Here I can think of several references that are missing:
  • Hellström, D., & Olsson, A. (2017). Managing Packaging Design for Sustainable Development: A Compass for Strategic Directions. John Wiley & Sons. (and possibly other work by the lead author)
  • de Koeijer, B., Gelhard, C., & ten Klooster, R. (2019). Sustainability priorities across the strategic and operational level in packaging development. Packaging technology and science, 32(12), 618-629. (and possibly other work by the lead author)
  •  Pålsson, H., & Sandberg, E. (2020). Paradoxes in supply chains: a conceptual framework for packed products. The International Journal of Logistics Management
• the consortium is first mentioned in RQ3, which is a bit strange to the reader who will have no idea what that means

textual details:

• Fredrik Wikström name is misspelled in references (there is no C)
• a framework cannot be (un)answered (line 46)
• line 99 (for example): you use producers and users. I think you mean packaging suppliers and brand companies with those. but users can also be read as consumers. So a clarification might be sensible. 
• line 120: defensible should be defendable (I think?)

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

first of all the authors would like to thank you for the tooughtful, comments, which were duly taken into account.

Please find below the updates to the paper, according to your suggestions:

1. missing references updated;
2. Dfinition of the Consortium in RQ3 provided;
3. Textual details amendes.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article complies with the scientific norms both in terms of theoretical implications and methodological implications of conducting research, but I would suggest the detailed inclusion of research hypotheses (in a short paragraph), to indicate by validation or invalidation hypotheses (established on the basis of secondary data analyzed: literature, previous research) the phenomenon studied has changed over time.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

first of all the authors would like to thank you for the toughtful, comments, which were duly taken into account.

Please find below the updates to the paper, according to your suggestions:

RQ4 - the only applicable - has been split in two hypotheses, the confirmation/disconfirmation of which has been presented in the discussion and conclusion section.

Reviewer 3 Report

An interesting research used both qualitative and quantitative methods.

• Is there any similar study that explored the similar research questions based on other geographic scopes? If so I would like to suggest authors to discuss them (e.g., comparisons between markets).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

first of all the authors would like to thank you for the toughtful, comments, which were duly taken into account.

Please find below the updates to the paper, according to your suggestions:

We carried out a further literature search, but did not find any comparable paper with a different geographic scope, aimed at tracking possible market differences.