Drivers in the Eco-Innovation Road to the Circular Economy: Organiational Capabilities and Exploitative Strategies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The main content of research presented in the paper is a framework of eco-innovation that provides substantial insights to practitioners and facilitates the spread of eco-innovative practices.
The topic is not unique, but it is worthy of research.
The main proposal is to explore eco-innovation dynamics within the circular economy, especially with regard to trends and dynamics in policy formulation and strategy development processes.
The conclusions deduced based on the research methods are that innovation activities of the companies are based on the new and upcoming tendencies and trends in the market, it is possible to generate a strong pull towards eco-innovation environment which is highly depends on the political approach and infrastructure.
The conclusions are tenable. The progress that has been made compared to current research results has to do with the focus on eco-innovation dynamics within the circular economy, such as drivers and barriers.
The abstract is informative. It reflects the body of the paper.
The introduction provides sufficient background information for readers in the immediate field to understand the problem.
The text is well arranged and the logic is clear. There are virtually no grammatical errors in the article. The related concepts are introduced clearly. The readability is sufficient.
The approaches used in the study are not new. However, the novelty lies in its application to a specific situation.
The theoretical analysis is sufficient for the purposes of the article.
All figures and tables are clear enough to summarize the results for presentation to the readers. However, Figures 3 and 4 are too blurry. All figures and tables are well referenced to in the text.
The reference section is informative. Reference 63 is not referenced in the text of the article. The formatting of the References section could be improved to make the formatting more homogeneous and in accordance with the journal's rules.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper should be improved. The results should be further discussed. The manuscript should be checked for English.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is a reasonable effort, it provides valuable insights into the concepts of Eco-innovation and Circular Economy. Although the proposed work is interesting but requires more effort to highlight the motivation of the study. Likewise, the practical research GAP is explained well, however, the theoretical gap is not justified in a scientific way. Therefore, the authors are advised to revise and modify the introduction section with proper justification and arguments from the literature. In this regard, the authors are recommended to add theoretical gaps and contributions from the recent studies.
-> Abstract must include the aim of the study, theoretical foundation, methodology, result, and findings, as well as contributions of the study.
-> How your study conceptually is different than the following studies?
1. Vence, X., & Pereira, Á. (2019). Eco-innovation and Circular Business Models as drivers for a circular economy. Contaduría y administración, 64(SPE1), 0-0.
2. Salvador, R., Barros, M. V., Freire, F., Halog, A., Piekarski, C. M., & Antonio, C. (2021). Circular economy strategies on business modelling: Identifying the greatest influences. Journal of Cleaner Production, 299, 126918.
-> Most of the literature in the manuscript is outdated. Please update the literature with more recent studies.
-> Hypotheses development is weak. There is a need for extensive readings from the authors while developing the hypotheses and writing the literature.
-> Author/s should also cite the prominent scholars (gurus) of the studied variables.
-> Present and document the quality of the methodology in a better way. To ensure the quality of the overall research process, the study must have rigor.
> Discussion is very weak. When it comes to discussing findings and contributions, we conform or differ from the work of previous scholars in addition to highlighting the unique contribution of our own work or how our work is different from the prior studies. Please justify your findings with the updated literature and with the theory, in addition to your personal reasonings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Review Report
Drivers in the Eco-innovation Road to the Circular Economy: Organizational capabilities and the exploitative strategies
This research contributes to the empirical literature on the drivers of eco-innovation within the context of an organizational capability and the exploitative strategies toward the circular economy. However, this research has the following drawbacks that need to be addressed carefully with logical and theoretical justification despite its novelty. The following corrections must be made to improve the quality of this research.
Introduction
Overall Well written, but Please discuss your problem statement and justify it. Please state the key objectives of the research study and how they can be answered as you mentioned in the analysis section, e.g., “This section details the findings in order to achieve the research objectives. On page 9, line no. 276
Systematic Literature Review
This paper very briefly discussed the review protocol in Figure 3. Please provide the original text in the figure, not picture of the figure. Have you used the Systematic literature review protocol? If yes, please summarize the major findings in table form and also show the distribution of journals and details of the 60 studies you listed.
Methods
The Multi-criteria assessment SAW method is used alongside Systematic literature. Please justify and state with clarity. Authors mentioned that “Furthermore, semi-structured interviews and literature reviews to determine and identify drivers for eco-innovation adoption through information systems, annual reports, and official publications have been conducted.” How many interviews did you conduct? Did you employ the concept of saturation? Please provide your interview protocol in the appendix section. In another passage of the method authors mentioned, “Second, together with this task, a questionnaire was presented to experts specialized in eco-innovation from significant research groups” How many questionnaires have you distributed to explain the criteria and justify. There is a lack of clarity in the methods part. It is not clear. Please clarify and justify.
Data Analysis
The data analysis looks fine. But need alignment with the literature; please improve the quality of
Figure 4. Conceptual framework for the drivers in eco-innovation road to circular economy.
Discussion and findings
Part 5 should be titled “Discussion and Findings” Theoretical and empirical discussion must be done comparing your result with previous studies. I can’t see any single citation from previous work. In the discussion, we compare our results with others to justify. Then discuss practical aspects in detail.
Conclusion
Looks fine
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors please read the comments carefully and incorporate them accordingly.
Review Report
Drivers in the Eco-innovation Road to the Circular Economy: Organizational capabilities and the exploitative strategies
The following corrections must be made to improve the quality of this research.
Introduction
Please state the key objectives of the research study and how they can be answered as you mentioned in the analysis section, e.g., “This section details the findings in order to achieve the research objectives. On page 9, line no. 276 ( Not Addressed as recommended in the first review )
Systematic Literature Review
Have you used the Systematic literature review protocol? If yes, please summarize the major findings in table form and also show the distribution of journals and details of studies used for literature review (n~60). ( Not Addressed as recommended in the first review )
Methods
The Multi-criteria assessment SAW method is used alongside Systematic literature. Please justify and state with clarity. Authors mentioned that “Furthermore, semi-structured interviews and literature reviews to determine and identify drivers for eco-innovation adoption through information systems, annual reports, and official publications have been conducted.” How many interviews did you conduct? Did you employ the concept of saturation? Please provide your interview protocol in the appendix section. In another passage of the method authors mentioned, “Second, together with this task, a questionnaire was presented to experts specialized in eco-innovation from significant research groups” How many questionnaires have you distributed to explain the criteria and justify? There is a lack of clarity in the methods part. It is not clear. Please clarify and justify.
( Not Addressed as recommended in the first review )
Data Analysis
Please improve the quality of Figure 4. on page 14 Conceptual framework for the drivers in eco-innovation road to circular economy. ( Not Addressed as recommended in the first review)
Discussion and findings
You have just changed the title and added a few lines. please elaborate more on the discussion part. If you reviewed 60 studies using a systematic literature review protocol.
Author Response
Thank you very much. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
overall Good job is done by the authors ignoring a few minor parts in the introduction. But still, a few suggestions must be addressed. Figure 4 on page 14 is still not clear. Please redraw; kindly use Visio for redrawing if you can't work with Microsoft Word. The discussion is also yet to be extended, adding both theoretical and practical implications in section 5 on page 15.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
