Sustainable Circular Economy Strategies: An Analysis of Brazilian Corporate Sustainability Reporting

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please check the use of all abbreviations, which are currently not consistent. (CS, SC, SCE, EC, ECS, SE, etc.)

What is the readily available framework in relation to SCE in the literature? What are the limitations of those identified frameworks that make it necessary to have the BP4SCE? How will this BP4SCE close the gaps?

The suggested BP4SCE Framework is missing validation. The framework should be reviewed by the experts or related stakeholders and validated empirically. The result of this review and validation should be presented for better clarification of the proposed framework.

BP4SCE is the main finding of the paper. Why not change the title to reflect this framework?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the manuscript is interesting. However, it is at a national level. The authors need to discuss the scope of their research at the international level. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article presents a systematic literature review (SLR) on sustainable Circular Economy strategies by analysing corporate sustainability reporting in Brazil. In general, the SLR process is pretty rigorous, and the BP4SCE is compelling to some extent (we'll see whether it attracts significant attention from the scholarly communities after being published). The following comments intend to enable the authors to disseminate their work at the highest possible quality.

TITLE.

• Since BP4SCE is the primary finding of this review, the title should mention the phrase "Business Process for Sustainable Circular Economy (BP4SCE)."

INTRODUCTION.

• The mention of "Brazil" (line 79) is too late yet appears from nowhere. The authors should argue first why they intend to focus on Brazil in this research and not other emerging economies. Otherwise, the focus on Brazil looks arbitrary without any rigorous thought process leading to the decision. Please cite relevant references to support the arguments to discuss and eventually choose Brazil.
• Research questions should be correspondingly made to research objectives, not the other way around. Therefore, please explain the research objectives first before presenting the research questions. Each research question should represent the question for one specific research objective. The authors may refer to this article to build appropriate research questions for this research ⇒ DOI: 10.1177/1350508410372151
• Lines 88-98 are basically the research design: how the authors intend to answer each research question. Therefore, these lines are more appropriate to appear at the beginning of the "Methodology" section.

METHODOLOGY.

• Figure 1. Please relate the figure to explanations on lines 88-98 that would be moved to the beginning of this section. Please include information on which part of the process answers which specific research question. It would clarify whether the methodological process is adequate to answer all research questions.
• Figure 1. Please also add a Legend to explain the meaning between box colours and arrow colours.
• Lines 155-166. Instead of presenting the Boolean string inline, the authors should present the string if it is a mathematical formula. It would help readers to see the entire structure of the string.

SYNTHESIS.

• Line 606. "The BP4SCE Framework" → "Synthesis: The BP4SCE Framework"
• The BP4SCE framework (Figure 3). The authors should explain more about the relationships between the lower and upper boxes of the BP4SCE framework. The authors should clarify, for example, whether "Digitalization" only relates to "Production and Operations" since the former is posited below the latter.

CONCLUSION.

• Before presenting theoretical and practical contributions, the authors should present a summary of the research process (SLR and synthesis). At the beginning of the "Conclusion" section, please add a new subsection to present the summary.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript Sustainable Circular Economy Strategies: An Analysis of Brazilian Corporate Sustainability Reporting submitted to Sustainability presents a contribution to systematization and hierarchy for sustainable circular economy strategies, with extended vision. The methodology was tested for the Brazilian companies. The results obtained integrated with the theory of business process management let authors to propose the Business Process for Sustainable Circular Economy framework. Which has both theoretical and practical interest. The methodology demonstrated is reliable. The Figures are good. However, some recommendations should be addressed.

1. Please exclude abbreviation from Abstract.
2. Authors should provide a list of abbreviations.
3. The current architecture of the manuscript needs improvement. Section Methodology should be renamed as Materials and Methods. Please note, that section Results is mandatory. You should check the structure of the manuscript in accordance with Instruction for Authors. Probably, you could provide your sections after Materials and Methods as sub-sections in Results section.
4. Article should be written in a third person.
5. Though colored highlights in Table 14 are intuitively clear, authors should provide a notation below the Table with explanation. Please correct in caption strategy as strategies, also need SCE before strategies, to make a caption more informative.
6. Tables 15 -23– please add in a caption SCE before strategies
7. Could authors comment on data in Table 18: why Brazilian companies have cancelled LT3 strategy in 2020, since it was adopted in 2016 and in 2018?
8. Line 597: correct a typo (SR5 instead of repeated SR4).
9. Conclusion will be better presented as a single section without sub-sections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved some of the reviewers' comments. Appreciate that! However, it would be good to clarify more on two issues:

What will be the main contribution of the manuscript, if it is not the "Business Process for Sustainable Circular Economy (BP4SCE)? As I personally thought the BP4SCE is the final output after different strategies were assessed in the study. 

The author also argues that the suggested BP4SCE model was developed after the validation of a case and analysed by the authors (as experts), but I strongly believe that the suggested model should be validated empirically and reviewed by unbiased experts. If not, the model will stay as a conceptual model with no reliability. Anyone can come up with their models but no strong justification for them.  A model should be verified and validated to the degree needed for the model's intended purpose or application.

Are there any journals reported on the models without further validation that could be referred to?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

After a thorough check on the revised manuscript, I see that the authors have put effort into improving the quality of their manuscript. Some concerns have been adequately addressed, while the rebuttals are robustly argued. I appreciate all efforts the authors have made to respond to the concerns of the reviewers. I would like to say a piece of good luck with the publication, and for the continuity of research on similar or other relevant topics.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for improving the quality of the content. Now I believe the manuscript is ready for publication. Congrats to the authors.