Exploring Circular Economy Practices in School Uniforms: A Study on Parental Perspectives from Australia

Reviewer 1 Comments

Explanation

Expanding the number of participants in the focus group for greater representativeness and depth of qualitative data.

We fully acknowledge this as a limitation of our study and agree that expanding the number of participants in future focus groups would enhance the representativeness and depth of qualitative data. We also recommend that future research broadens the stakeholder pool not only in number but also in diversity specifically including participants from a wider range of schools such as public schools as well as other geographical locations. This would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities surrounding circular school uniform systems across different educational contexts. This point has now been added to Section 5.8 (Limitations and Future Research) of the study.

Describing the process of analyzing the qualitative data in more detail (e.g. thematic

coding);

The qualitative analysis section has been revised to include a detailed description of the thematic coding process, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase framework. (pg.9)

Complementing the parents’ perspective with the voice of other stakeholders, such as

students or teachers.

The current study focused on parental perspectives as the main stakeholder, which offered valuable insight into issues of cost, durability, and transparency in school uniform use. However, we recognise that the absence of student and teacher voices leaves an important gap. As the primary wearers, students can speak directly to comfort, fit, and usability in their daily routines. Teachers, on the other hand, bring a unique lens on school policy, uniform enforcement, and student needs within the classroom. Including these viewpoints would have strengthened the breadth and contextual understanding of our findings. We have now addressed this limitation in Section 5.8 and suggested future research broaden stakeholder representation to include both groups.

There are no references to tables in the reviewed article. The Authors provided 4 figures of which Figures 1-3 are pie charts. The addition of tables would have significantly increased

the clarity of the data presented regarding the decision to purchase used uniforms, trends in

frequency of purchases and the purchase of new uniforms by parents.

The original pie charts (Figures 1–3) have been removed and replaced with three tables that present the same data in a clearer, more accessible format.

Reviewer 2 Comments

Explanation

Participants were from a single private school in Victoria; results may not generalize

to public schools or other regions. Explain.

Yes, this is the limitation of the study and has now been addressed in the section 5.8 of the manuscript.

Focus group (n=6) is small; expanding participation could strengthen qualitative

findings.

Yes, focus groups were exploratory in nature and taken in complement to the survey. Recognising this as the limitation of the study, this has been addressed as a future recommendation as well to have a bigger pool of participants in the focus groups.

Clarify recruitment criteria (e.g., socioeconomic diversity).

The participants were recruited by the school, based on availability, timing, and willingness to volunteer. The selection of focus group participants was managed independently by the school. Due to privacy considerations, socioeconomic information was not disclosed to the research team, and as a result, no socioeconomic data were collected.

Figures (e.g., 1–4) lack descriptive captions or statistical significance (e.g., p-values).

Add error margins/confidence intervals for survey data and label axes.

All figures and tables have been revised to include more descriptive captions that clarify sample size, response categories, and survey context.

Claims like “extending life cycle by 3 months reduces waste by 10%”; (p. 2) need

citation or methodological details (e.g., LCA assumptions).

We have now added a citation to WRAP (2021) and included a brief explanation of the LCA assumptions underpinning the 10% impact estimate.

Include reference-specific studies or models (e.g., Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s

metrics) to support quantitative assertions.

Relevant quantitative assertions have been directly supported by metrics from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017).

Criticisms of polyester’s breathability (p. 9) lack technical analysis (e.g., fiber blends,

fabric treatments). Compare alternatives (e.g., organic cotton, recycled polyester)

with lifecycle data.

We have expanded the discussion on fabric properties to include technical aspects of polyester's breathability, considering factors such as fiber structure and moisture management.

Logistical challenges (e.g., sizing, hygiene) are well-identified but lack cost-benefit

analysis of solutions (e.g., uniform banks vs. take-back programs). Include pilot

program results or case studies (e.g., Worn Up’s furniture initiative).

We have expanded the discussion on logistical barriers to include a comparison between uniform banks and take-back programs, outlining their relative costs, scalability, and benefits.

Stakeholder Theory is underutilized in findings. Parental concerns could be mapped

to stakeholder roles (e.g., manufacturers vs. schools). Link “social stigma”; (p. 11) to

Stakeholder Theory’s & “influence vs. interest” matrix.

We have revised the findings to explicitly apply Stakeholder Theory, mapping parental concerns and student perceptions to relevant stakeholder roles.

Define “replicable framework” (p. 1) with concrete steps (e.g., stakeholder

collaboration models).

The manuscript has been updated to clearly define the replicable framework, outlining its three core components: stakeholder co-design, reverse logistics, and sustainability education. A supporting table (Table 5) has also been added to summarise key actions, outcomes, and stakeholders involved. SeeFindings  section 5.7.

For interdisciplinary readers, simplify jargon (e.g., “cradle-to-cradle”; on p. 5).

The term “Cradle-to-Cradle” has been revised with a simplified definition to enhance clarity for interdisciplinary readers.

Include a table summarizing CE strategies (e.g., repair programs, material

alternatives) with cost/time estimates.

A table has been included.

Confirm IRB approval (p. 13) covers anonymization of focus group data.

 A clarifying statement has been added to the ethics section on page 17 to confirm that anonymization of focus group data was included in the approved research protocol.

Propose longitudinal studies to track behavioural changes post-intervention (e.g., after uniform swaps).

 A recommendation for longitudinal research has been added to the Limitations and Future Research section.

Reviewer 3 Comments

Explanation

I find the chosen topic very interesting and actual, moreover, I consider the discrepancy between the title of the article and the implementation of the survey. While the title of the article mentions the perspectives of Australian parents, in reality the survey is limited to only a selected area, and just one school (a private school in Victoria). Therefore, it is not possible to generalize the findings, which were obtained by survey applied with a limited number of respondents within one selected country/region.

 We appreciate the reviewer's keen observation regarding the discrepancy between the article's title and the scope of the survey. We acknowledge that the data is limited to parents from one private school in Victoria, Australia, and therefore, the findings cannot be generalized to all Australian parents. This limitation will be explicitly stated in the revised manuscript. The title of the paper has been revised.

I have not noticed any explanation what influenced the specific selection of a particular school where the survey was applied.

The selected school was chosen due to its active engagement in sustainability initiatives and its willingness to collaborate on the research. As a well-established private school with an existing uniform policy and interest in exploring circular solutions, it provided an appropriate and supportive environment for piloting the study. This rationale has now been added to the Methodology section.

I was surprised by finding that participants were selected according to the school's internal criteria. Could this fact influence final results of the survey?

The reviewer raises a valid point about the school's internal criteria for participant selection. We wish to emphasize that these criteria were limited to confirming that participants were parents of students in Years 7–10. This was a necessary step to ensure the survey respondents had direct experience with the specific uniform program being investigated, thereby enhancing the relevance of their feedback. Participation was entirely voluntary, and no other selection methods were employed. Access to the parents' database was governed by the school's privacy policies, and the school's assistance in identifying the relevant parent group was essential for ethical and practical reasons. This process is transparently outlined in Section 4.3 (Procedures). We acknowledge the potential limitations on generalizability inherent in any targeted sampling and have discussed this in the manuscript.

I recommend to change word order "For those purchasing new uniforms Figure ...3".

This has been changed to a more descriptive caption for all the figures and tables.

In one paragraph, the authors refer twice to the same figure. Specifically, it is Figure 3.

This has been changed.

The issue of the impact of the production and subsequent disposal of school uniforms focuses on relevant areas, however, they are discussed mainly from the perspective of parents than individual students, who are in the closest contact with the subject of the survey. For greater relevance of the survey results, it would be appropriate to compare the opinions of students and their parents to find options on how to minimize the negative impact of school uniforms on the environment. In my opinion, greater involvement of students could bring more practical solutions.

This limitation has been acknowledged in Section 5.9, where the absence of student voices is noted, and future research is recommended to incorporate student perspectives

1.    Page 2: The author mentions that "Polyester production demands significant water and energy resources while emitting high levels of greenhouse gases... While polyester durability makes it a practical choice for school uniforms, its environmental impact underscores the need to ensure it does not end up in landfills." This is a scientific inaccuracy because it misrepresents material life cycle impacts, a core focus of the study.

Mistake: The statement conflates virgin polyester with recycled polyester (rPET). Virgin polyester (derived from fossil fuels) does have high GHG emissions and water use, but recycled polyester—explicitly mentioned later in the paper (e.g., Table 1: "Use of Recycled Polyester")—has a 40–50% lower carbon footprint (cited in ref. 54: Shen et al., 2010). The article fails to distinguish between the two, leading to an inaccurate generalization about polyester's environmental impact.

The study advocates for circular economy solutions (e.g., recycling uniforms into new polyester products), but this oversight weakens the argument by not clarifying that recycled polyester mitigates many of the cited drawbacks. Specify that virgin polyester is resource-intensive, while recycled polyester aligns with CE goals by reducing emissions and diverting waste. This aligns with ref. 41 (Razzaq et al.) and ref. 54.

Page 2, Polyester has been replaced with virgin polyester, to address the discrepancy and clarify the distinct difference in rPET and Virgin polyester.

2.    Page 2: The author mentions, “Extending the average active use of a garment by just three months can lower its carbon footprint, water use, and waste generation by up to 5–10%."

The 5–10% reduction claim lacks context. The actual impact depends on:

1.    Garment type: Synthetic vs. natural fibers have divergent footprints (e.g., polyester’s footprint is dominated by production, cottons by water use).

2.    Usage phase: Laundering frequency (energy/water) may offset gains from extended use.

The citation (52) is missing from the references, making verification impossible.

Specify the garment type and baseline assumptions (e.g., "For polyester uniforms, based on LCA data from [X] ").

This has been amended in the paper,we  have added One aspect may be of consideration is the actual impact may depend on the garment archetype (synthetic or natural or blended) and can have divergent footprints. This may also be dependent on the use phase of the garment where laundering frequency may offset gains from extended use [57]. 

The citation 52 has been reviewed and is present in the reference list.

3.    Page 10: The author mentioned the statement: “Polyester... is a hydrophobic synthetic fibre, which means it retains heat and repels moisture, reducing breathability compared to natural fibres (53)."

●     Hydrophobicity ≠ Breathability: Polyester’s moisture-wicking properties (due to hydrophobicity) can enhance perceived comfort in activewear by moving sweat away from the skin, even if it lacks natural breathability. The cited source ([53] Zhao et al., 2025) focuses on the LCA of recycled polyester, not fabric physiology.

Clarify that breathability depends on fabric construction (e.g., mesh weaves, blends) and cite textile science literature (e.g., Hes et al., 2008 on moisture management).

This has been added, in the paper with using the reference from Hes, L. (2008) Non-destructive determination of comfort parameters during marketing of functional garments and clothing. Indian journal of fibre and Textile Research, 33, 239-245.