Risk Analysis under a Circular Economy Context Using a Systems Thinking Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

thanks a lot for giving me the possibility to review the paper named "Risk Analysis under Circular Economy Context Using Systems   Thinking Approach". 
I find it very interesting. The topic is important and the the methodology interesting. At this regard I suggest to improve your paper : 

a) literature : the system thinking is a consolidated methodology from Forrester. In this regard, there are many more papers in risk management are with System Thinking. Among these,  I suggest improving your literature with: 10.15866/iremos.v10i1.11133. About  risk management process : 10.3390/app10030903 . I find these papers, but be feel to include others. 

b) formatting : check Table 1 

c) about limitations : I think that it is important to get all data  and functions to study and develop a simulation model, don't you? I think you have to put into evidence the possibility to create and simulate a model with different scenarios.

d) The paper lacks of a simulation model. It can be classified as a preliminary study. Please put into evidence (what about using "preliminary" also in the title? I'm only doing consideration) 

The paper in general is quite good. Do these changes to get acceptance.

Happy new year!

Author Response

Reviewer 1

10. literature: the system thinking is a consolidated methodology from Forrester. In this regard, there are many more papers in risk management are to System Thinking. Among these,  I suggest improving your literature with: 15866/iremos.v10i1.11133. About  risk management process: 10.3390/app10030903. I find these papers but be feel to include others. 

• The literature review section is modified and rewritten furthermore, ( lines 264-265) for the 10.15866/iremos.v10i1.11133.
• Lines ( 243-246 ) for 10.3390/app10030903

1. formatting: check Table 1

• Table 1 is checked and modified.  

1. about limitations : I think that it is important to get all data  and functions to study and develop a simulation model, don't you? I think you have to put into evidence the possibility to create and simulate a model with different scenarios.

• Please note this paper aims to explain the methodology to build a CLD and the future paper will develop a simulation model with several scenarios.

1. The paper lacks of a simulation model. It can be classified as a preliminary study. Please put into evidence (what about using "preliminary" also in the title? I'm only doing consideration) 

• The title of the paper shows that this paper is about the system thinking principle ( CLD is part of that) not about developing a full SD  simulation model

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “ Risk Analysis under Circular Economy Context Using Systems Thinking Approach” has an attractive and up-to-date topic and I thank the authors for the time and effort they have put into preparing it. However, what I saw in the paper was not focused on the systems thinking approach, and the main finding was not a causal-loop diagram. I am not sure if this is the weakness of the presentation in this article or the weakness of the analysis. In any case, I believe that the manuscript requires extensive revisions to reach the standards for publication.

Please find my other comments below.

1.     The abstract is too long with many redundant pieces of information. Please revisit this section and shorten it by keeping key elements including the introductory part, research gap and research question, aims and objectives, main findings, and implications.

2.     In line 114 it is stated “CE or the sharing economy focuses on its strong social roots which involve partnerships and collaboration in building projects”. This is not correct.  CE and the sharing economy are not the same; CE is much broader than sharing economy and you can consider sharing economy as a part of CE.

3.     A section should be considered in the introduction to better highlight why systems thinking is required and appropriate for this research.

4.     A section should also be added to the literature review to mention examples of areas in which the systems thinking approach and more specifically, CLDs have been applied. For instance, authors can refer to the articles “Sustainability and the sharing economy: modeling the interconnections“ regarding sustainability challenges of sharing economy, and “Sharing economy risks: Opportunities or Threats for insurance companies? A Case study on the Iranian insurance industry” regarding the risks and challenges of sharing economy for the insurance industry.

5.     In line 320 it is mentioned, “In this paper, a system thinking approach is developed to evaluate…”. In fact, a systems thinking approach is adopted/used in this research, it is not developed.

6.     Again in line 320, the same sentence “In this paper, a system thinking approach is developed to evaluate the impacts of several sustainability risks on the performance of power plants”. This claim is not supported by the findings and results of the study.

7.     The CLD presented in figure 3 needs to be improved in terms of visualization. Several arrows are intersecting each other, which requires better organization.

8.     It is strange for me to see that out of 14 pages of the manuscript, only less than 2 pages are related to model development; and there is no result presentation and discussion. Besides, it is put under the methodology section. Reading the abstract of the manuscript I expected to see a detailed CLD with a thorough analysis and discussion. But all these are lacking. The weight of the methodology and literature review is considerably higher than the results in this article.

9.     Furthermore, in the abstract, it was written “The developed model was tested and validated to assess the CE risks relevant to the environmental perspective in power plants in the Middle East”. However, I saw no testing and validation. Where are these reported?

10.  The main positive and negative loops must be highlighted and discussed (if any).

Author Response

Reviewer 2

1. The abstract is too long with many redundant pieces of information. Please revisit this section and shorten it by keeping key elements by keeping key elements including the introductory part, research gap and research question, aims and objectives, main findings, and implications.

• The abstract is restructured and rewritten

2. In line 114 it is stated “CE or the sharing economy focuses on its strong social roots which involve partnerships and collaboration in building projects”. This is not correct.CE and the sharing economy are not the same; CE is much broader than sharing economy and you can consider sharing economy as a part of CE.

• The paragraph is rewritten and modified and a new reference is added about the CE and the sharing economy ( from lines 125-127)

3. A section should be considered in the introduction to better highlight why systems thinking is required and appropriate for this research.

• A new section about system thinking is added (from lines 81-88).

4. A section should also be added to the literature review to mention examples of areas in which the systems thinking approach and more specifically, CLDs have been applied. For instance, authors can refer to the articles “Sustainability and the sharing economy: modeling the interconnections“ regarding sustainability challenges of sharing economy, and “Sharing economy risks: Opportunities or Threats for insurance companies? A Case study on the Iranian insurance industry” regarding the risks and challenges of sharing economy for the insurance industry.

• (Line 72-74) CLD definition is added from the article (Sustainability and the sharing economy: modeling the interconnections).
• Line (74-75) The PESTLE analysis and the CLD are adopted for the insurance industry to address the effects of sharing economy activities.

5. In line 320 it is mentioned, “In this paper, a system thinking approach is developed to evaluate…”. In fact, a systems thinking approach is adopted/used in this research, it is not developed.

• The sentence is changed as shown in line 327.

6. Again in line 320, the same sentence “In this paper, a system thinking approach is developed to evaluate the impacts of several sustainability risks on the performance of power plants”. This claim is not supported by the findings and results of the study.

• The sentence in line 329-330 is written to explain the correct meaning.

7. The CLD presented in figure 3 needs to be improved in terms of visualization. Several arrows are intersecting each other, which requires better organization.

• The figure is improved.

8. It is strange for me to see that out of 14 pages of the manuscript, only less than 2 pages are related to model development; and there is no result presentation and discussion. Besides, it is put under the methodology section. Reading the abstract of the manuscript I expected to see a detailed CLD with a thorough analysis and discussion. But all these are lacking. The weight of the methodology and literature review is considerably higher than the results in this article.

• Please, note that the idea of the paper is about the methodology thus, section 3.1-3.3 explain part of the results ( how the taxonomy of risks are identified, categorized and how the CLD is developed)

9. Furthermore, in the abstract, it was written “The developed model was tested and validated to assess the CE risks relevant to the environmental perspective in power plants in the Middle East”. However, I saw no testing and validation. Where are these reported?

• In the data collection section (3.2) (line 356-412), how the data is collected, and how the model is verified and validated are explained in detail

10. The main positive and negative loops must be highlighted and discussed (if any).

• Lines (483-498) explain the negative (balancing loops) and positive (reinforcing loops )

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors:

1. Conceptual framework can be improved.

2. Conclusion can be improved.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

1. Conceptual framework can be improved.

The developed framework id improved.

2. Conclusion can be improved.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The overall theme of the manuscript is highly relevant and is the need of the hour. The article highlights the context of circular economy and sustainable development, in view of the energy sector. The article has a clearly stated methodology and the results are discussed extensively. I have a few suggestions to further improve the manuscript.

1. The use of work "Model" in the title and everywhere in the manuscript. Model looks like mathematical model, which becomes misleading. Can we use the term "relations" in place of model or some other relevant term can be used here,/

2. In the Introduction section, the article lacks continuity and needs to rework.

3. Methodology section should be rewritten in the Past Tense.

4. The article can also cite some other relevant papers like " Bamboo as a source of value added products: paving way to global circular economy", Kaur et al.,  Bioresource,  17 (3), 2022

In view of above suggestions, article can be modified and resubmitted for further processing

Author Response

Reviewer 4

1. The use of work "Model" in the title and everywhere in the manuscript. Model looks like mathematical model, which becomes misleading. Can we use the term "relations" in place of model or some other relevant term can be used here,/

• The developed model is replaced by a more suitable term ( the adopted tool).

2. In the Introduction section, the article lacks continuity and needs to rework.

• The introduction section was written.

3. Methodology section should be rewritten in the Past Tense.
4. The article can also cite some other relevant papers like " Bamboo as a source of value added products: paving way to global circular economy", Kaur et al.,  Bioresource,  17 (3), 2022

• Line 149-150 is added about this article

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All I requested was done. I suggest to accept it

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revisions conducted. I still believe that the quality of Figure 3 should be improved. Other than that, the quality of the manuscript has improved and I can recommend it for publication.