Circular Economy Development in the Shipping Sector in Finland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Introduction section. The introduction is rather general and it is recommended to add some literature on why this study was done, what were the objectives of this study? What are the conclusions of this study?

2. From the whole article, only the practical operation is introduced, but it lacks the depth of theoretical analysis, it is suggested to add some theoretical analysis to show why it can reduce the cost and what kind of benefits it brings?

3. The article is too simple for the introduction of circular economy, need to add relevant analysis and comparison.

 4. The innovation of the article is not obviously highlighted, it is suggested to increase the relevant content. Innovation is very important to a thesis.

5. Insufficient research. It is better to fill in the research insufficiency in the last part of this paper to facilitate the development of future research directions.

 

Author Response

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for the author

 

Reviewer 1

Comment 1:  Introduction section. The introduction is rather general and it is recommended to add some literature on why this study was done, what were the objectives of this study? What are the conclusions of this study?

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have revised the introduction section and the updated text is in the manuscript. I have changed and modified the text accordingly to highlight e.g. the relevance and context of the study. I have added objectives in the introduction section and some rationale (see end of 1.3.1). The conclusions are in the associated section and the abstract.

Comment 2: From the whole article, only the practical operation is introduced, but it lacks the depth of theoretical analysis, it is suggested to add some theoretical analysis to show why it can reduce the cost and what kind of benefits it brings?

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. I have revised the whole manuscript. In addition, This is a practical operations oriented study focusing on real-life company materials that reflect their practical, management and strategic operations. The idea of CE and the 10Rs is firstly to advance sustainability and circularity (in line with the overall policy and literature context) and, for example, cost aspects are only one part eventhough costs are very relevant for companies.

Comment 3: The article is too simple for the introduction of circular economy, need to add relevant analysis and comparison.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore,  have revised the whole manuscript. I now accommodates more theory, analysis and comparison.

Comment 4: The innovation of the article is not obviously highlighted, it is suggested to increase the relevant content. Innovation is very important to a thesis.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. I have revised the whole manuscript and it now contains e.g. more innovative elements and relevant content.

Comment 5: Insufficient research. It is better to fill in the research insufficiency in the last part of this paper to facilitate the development of future research directions.

Thank you for pointing this out. I do agree with this comment. Thus I have revised the whole manuscript.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this article has good research value. However, the article has the following shortcomings:

1.The title of the article does not reflect the core content of the research well, and the first part does not reveal the scientific problem explored in the article. It is suggested to point out the scientific problem studied in this article at the end of the first part.

2. It is recommended that the author present the research methods in the form of a block diagram for the second part
3. 3. There is too much material accumulation in the third part of the article, and there is no corresponding logic. It is suggested that the author discusses the development of circular economy in the shipping sector in Finland in a hierarchical manner

4.The statements from R0 to R10 have been piling up, and their circular economy correlation is not clear enough.

5. 5. The article discusses through case studies, but lacks a framework to outline the author's research logic.
6. 6. It is suggested to add a section on policy implications to the article

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no

Author Response

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for the author

 

Reviewer 2

 

The topic of this article has good research value. However, the article has the following shortcomings:

1.The title of the article does not reflect the core content of the research well, and the first part does not reveal the scientific problem explored in the article. It is suggested to point out the scientific problem studied in this article at the end of the first part.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have revised the whole manuscript and now the title is more appropriate and the scientific problem and context of the study are more highlighted. I have also added objectives in the introduction section and some rationale (see end of 1.3.1).

1. It is recommended that the author present the research methods in the form of a block diagram for the second part
2. 3. There is too much material accumulation in the third part of the article, and there is no corresponding logic. It is suggested that the author discusses the development of circular economy in the shipping sector in Finland in a hierarchical manner

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have revised the whole manuscript and these concerns have been duly addressed.

4.The statements from R0 to R10 have been piling up, and their circular economy correlation is not clear enough.

1. 5. The article discusses through case studies, but lacks a framework to outline the author's research logic.
2. 6. It is suggested to add a section on policy implications to the article

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have revised the whole manuscript. There is more emphasis on logic/broader CE framework and some policy linkages. As this is a study on private sector companies I did not include a policy implications section this time but I added some conclusions about this. The links to CE of all analysis sections are as clear as this method/approach allows.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article addresses a current and relevant topic related to the integration and application of circular economy principles in the Finnish maritime sector. The approach chosen is interesting, as it offers a detailed and novel insight into how Finnish maritime companies are adopting circular economy principles.

I must say I enjoyed the article and enjoyed reviewing it. Overall, the article is well written, well organized, and well presented. However, the manuscript presents certain aspects that could be improved, especially in terms of methodological clarity, theoretical foundation and specific contribution to the state of the art.

Below I comment on some aspects that, in my opinion, could be improved.

It is advisable to clearly define the specific scope of the study from the introduction, highlighting what makes this analysis unique compared to previous studies. In addition, the introduction should clearly state a central research question or a specific, precisely defined objective.

The state of the art should clearly present how this study compares to previous studies conducted in the maritime sector.

Methodology. It is important to clarify more explicitly the specific criteria used to select the documents analyzed: time period covered, type of documents excluded, etc. The methodology should explain in more detail how the thematic analysis was conducted, including specific criteria for coding and categorizing the 10Rs principles. It would also be good to explain whether there is any criterion for partnering companies "two by two".

Results
It would be helpful to complement the qualitative results with summary tables or graphs that would help the reader quickly visualize the differences and similarities between companies. The truth is that tables 1 to 5 are very dense.

It would be very interesting to include a critical assessment of the depth and actual impact of the identified actions to better understand their relevance in terms of real sustainability.

Regarding the discussion, you should go much deeper into interpreting your own results in direct comparison with similar studies in other contexts or countries. This would reinforce the originality of your contribution.

Author Response

Please

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for the author

 

Reviewer 3

This article addresses a current and relevant topic related to the integration and application of circular economy principles in the Finnish maritime sector. The approach chosen is interesting, as it offers a detailed and novel insight into how Finnish maritime companies are adopting circular economy principles.

I must say I enjoyed the article and enjoyed reviewing it. Overall, the article is well written, well organized, and well presented. However, the manuscript presents certain aspects that could be improved, especially in terms of methodological clarity, theoretical foundation and specific contribution to the state of the art.

Thank you for your kind and supportive comments.

Below I comment on some aspects that, in my opinion, could be improved.

It is advisable to clearly define the specific scope of the study from the introduction, highlighting what makes this analysis unique compared to previous studies. In addition, the introduction should clearly state a central research question or a specific, precisely defined objective.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have revised the whole manuscript including the introduction section. I have added objectives in the introduction section and some rationale (see end of 1.3.1).

The state of the art should clearly present how this study compares to previous studies conducted in the maritime sector.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have revised the introduction and discussion sections.

Methodology. It is important to clarify more explicitly the specific criteria used to select the documents analyzed: time period covered, type of documents excluded, etc. The methodology should explain in more detail how the thematic analysis was conducted, including specific criteria for coding and categorizing the 10Rs principles. It would also be good to explain whether there is any criterion for partnering companies "two by two".

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Thus, I have revised the whole manuscript. The method section and results section are now fully revised. There is also Figure 1. (method section) to illustrate research logic. References show the types of documents. The chosen approach support the chosen presentation and use of references (online materials) and it does not favour separation of materials as they are scarce and related. The criteria for “coding” and categorization followed the chosen research approach (10Rs, CE principles and CE business models).

Results
It would be helpful to complement the qualitative results with summary tables or graphs that would help the reader quickly visualize the differences and similarities between companies. The truth is that tables 1 to 5 are very dense.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have revised the whole manuscript including the results section.

It would be very interesting to include a critical assessment of the depth and actual impact of the identified actions to better understand their relevance in terms of real sustainability.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have revised the whole manuscript encompassing the discussion section which addresses some of these aspects. In this manuscript I do not discuss the links between CE and sustainability in depth. However, sustainability is addressed in the introduction, results and discussion sections.

Regarding the discussion, you should go much deeper into interpreting your own results in direct comparison with similar studies in other contexts or countries. This would reinforce the originality of your contribution.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have revised the whole manuscript including the discussion section.

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

‘R6 and R7’ – check for no or extra spaces. ‘its regenerative by design’ - it is regenerative by design. ‘It is noteworthy that ways to achieve the CE goals and the UN SDGs are often linked in many ways [2]’, ‘The current linear economy conflicts with many environmental, social and economic challenges [13]. There is a lot of focus on the concept of CE in the context of efforts to achieve a more sustainable society [14,15]’, ‘the world is not on the right path regarding meeting the UN SDGs [19]’, ‘Previous research has identified and synthesized the 10R framework for CE [33-35,14]’ – develop. ‘The overall transformation towards sustainable resource use needs to promote sustainable production and consumption and discontinue practices that are most resource-intensive and create most environmental impacts [18]. In addition, CE strategies such as eco-design, reuse, repair, remanufacturing, recycling and refurbishment could help to achieve resource efficiency. These strategies maintain the value of materials and products and reduce the need for virgin material extraction and waste disposal [18]’ – make sure you do not mention the same source two or more times in a row. There are several such instances. ‘The European Green Deal, The Green Deal Industrial Plan, The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation and especially the new circular economy action plan all promote a transition to a CE including, for example, sustainable and circular products and net-zero technologies [24-27]’ – clarify the specific contribution of each source. ‘Similar qualitative research approach and method has been applied in previous studies [37-39] as well as in multiple studies on CE that applied thematic analysis methodology [40]’, ‘multiple previous studies have applied similar qualitative research approaches to study various aspects of CE [42-52,15,8,7,6,4,3]’ – clarify the upsides of your methodology in comparison with the specified ones. Make sure you include as many comparisons with other research as possible (in a Discussion section), include results for all the cited sources, and develop on limitations and further research. Too many of the cited sources are not from peer reviewed journals (about 40% of the reference list). I suggest that you critically analyze or debate upon some of the most important claims put forward by other authors, instead of simply displaying them.

Author Response

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for the author

 

Reviewer 4

‘R6 and R7’ – check for no or extra spaces. ‘its regenerative by design’ - it is regenerative by design. ‘It is noteworthy that ways to achieve the CE goals and the UN SDGs are often linked in many ways [2]’, ‘The current linear economy conflicts with many environmental, social and economic challenges [13]. There is a lot of focus on the concept of CE in the context of efforts to achieve a more sustainable society [14,15]’, ‘the world is not on the right path regarding meeting the UN SDGs [19]’, ‘Previous research has identified and synthesized the 10R framework for CE [33-35,14]’ – develop. ‘The overall transformation towards sustainable resource use needs to promote sustainable production and consumption and discontinue practices that are most resource-intensive and create most environmental impacts [18]. In addition, CE strategies such as eco-design, reuse, repair, remanufacturing, recycling and refurbishment could help to achieve resource efficiency. These strategies maintain the value of materials and products and reduce the need for virgin material extraction and waste disposal [18]’ – make sure you do not mention the same source two or more times in a row. There are several such instances.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have revised the whole manuscript. I have tried to avoid use of same reference multiple times. However, in some occasions it was needed due to lack of relevant references (e.g. in introduction and discussion sections).

 ‘The European Green Deal, The Green Deal Industrial Plan, The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation and especially the new circular economy action plan all promote a transition to a CE including, for example, sustainable and circular products and net-zero technologies [24-27]’ – clarify the specific contribution of each source.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have revised the whole manuscript including these references.

‘Similar qualitative research approach and method has been applied in previous studies [37-39] as well as in multiple studies on CE that applied thematic analysis methodology [40]’, ‘multiple previous studies have applied similar qualitative research approaches to study various aspects of CE [42-52,15,8,7,6,4,3]’ – clarify the upsides of your methodology in comparison with the specified ones. Make sure you include as many comparisons with other research as possible (in a Discussion section), include results for all the cited sources, and develop on limitations and further research.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have revised the whole manuscript. In addition, I have revised the references and all are cited for method or results. Limitations and further research are also added to the conclusions section.

Too many of the cited sources are not from peer reviewed journals (about 40% of the reference list). I suggest that you critically analyze or debate upon some of the most important claims put forward by other authors, instead of simply displaying them.

Thank you for pointing this out. I partly agree with this comment. I have revised the whole manuscript but the chosen qualitative approach necessitates the use of online materials and the journal requires certain referencing and style. Thus many of the references are the qualitative materials. All references that are other authors or organizations are cited based on most important findings, challenges, claims, questions, future outlooks ect.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the author's careful editing. The article has made significant improvements compared to before. It is suggested that the table in the results section be presented in the form of a graph.

Author Response

Comment 1.

Thank you for the author's careful editing. The article has made significant improvements compared to before. It is suggested that the table in the results section be presented in the form of a graph.

 

Response 1.

There are 33 tables in the results section and the chosen approach is appropriate for this qualitative study and somewhat similar table-based approach has been used in my previous and other similar studies. Graph is typically used in quantitative and mathematically oriented studies/presentations. In addition, the focus here is on content and not on variation/comparison of variables. I do believe that this way of presentation is appropriate for this study. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Publishable.

Author Response

Comment 1. 

Publishable.

Response 1.

Thank you for this constructive and positive feedback.