Circular Economy for Strategic Management in the Copper Mining Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.Some results of the surveys and interviews should be shown by using graphs, such as Table 1, Table 2, etc.

2.The paper give the suggestions of targeted incentives for smaller mining companies, but it needs to add more countermeasures and suggestions according to the results of the surveys and interviews in this manuscript.

3.The paper conducted the research on the circular economy in the copper  mining industry, while, most of conclusions come from the statistical analysis results of the surveys and interviews, it needs some in-depth analysis and discussion.

Author Response

1.Some results of the surveys and interviews should be shown by using graphs, such as Table 1, Table 2, etc.

We appreciate the suggestion regarding the inclusion of graphics to present the survey and interview results. However, we consider that the current tabular presentation (Table 1, Table 2, etc.) is most appropriate for this type of information for the following reasons:

 

• Data precision: Tables allow for the display of exact values, specific percentages, and detailed categories without loss of numerical information.
• Spatial efficiency: Tabular presentation optimizes the use of space in the document, preventing unnecessary extension.
• Ease of reference: Readers can quickly locate specific data and make direct comparisons between categories.
• Clarity in qualitative data: For interview responses and survey categories, tables offer greater clarity than graphic representations.

 

2.The paper give the suggestions of targeted incentives for smaller mining companies, but it needs to add more countermeasures and suggestions according to the results of the surveys and interviews in this manuscript.

 

We appreciate this valuable observation. We acknowledge that, although the article mentions the need for incentives directed toward smaller companies, it is necessary to develop more specific and detailed recommendations based on the empirical findings of our study.

 

Based on the results of the surveys and interviews, we propose to expand the recommendations with the following specific measures for smaller mining companies (1-100 employees). These recommendations have been included in the conclusions.

 

3.The paper conducted the research on the circular economy in the copper  mining industry, while, most of conclusions come from the statistical analysis results of the surveys and interviews, it needs some in-depth analysis and discussion.

We appreciate this valuable observation about the need to deepen the analysis beyond descriptive statistics. We have incorporated significant improvements in the analysis of specific gaps identified in our empirical findings.

 

Specifically, we have developed an in-depth analysis of three critical gaps that emerge from the data: (1) the gap between declared knowledge (73.3%) and correct definition (57.3%) of circular economy, revealing strategic implications about organizational "illusion of knowing"; (2) the gap between favorable perception of feasibility (81.3%) and organizational reality (20.8% with dedicated units), evidencing strategic alignment failures; and (3) the gap between association with business ethics (94.8%) versus social license (89.6%), suggesting a more internal than external orientation in CE perception.

 

These gap analyses have been integrated into sections 8.2.1, 8.3.2, and 8.4.2 respectively, transforming descriptive data into strategic insights that reveal specific management challenges, decision-making risks, and organizational improvement opportunities for the mining industry. The analysis delves into implications for strategic management, resource allocation, and organizational capacity development.

 

Regarding English, we improved the writing with a professional service provided by the University of Santiago of Chile.

 

All improvements requested by you are highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept

Author Response

Thank you for your recommendation.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Primary Question of This Study

Introduction The article seems to pretend to evaluate the adoption of the circular economy (CE) in the Chilean copper mining industry, however it does not specify the coarse and brief research question. Rather than articulating a hypothesis, or posing a specific problem, such a text is instead generalised with labelling like "awareness and implementation of CE" and leaves it difficult to assess the depth, aim or direction of the research. This waters down the study.

Originality

While the authors claim to make a novel contribution by focusing on mining in Chile, the treatment of the CE principles is not genuinely innovative. Most of the references are relatively dated and the review contributes very little new in terms of conceptually or theoretically innovative ideas. The findings predominantly confirm the findings (e.g., lack of CE uptake among SMEs) and contribute little to the development of theory or knowledge.

Methodology

Its mixed-methods reach is limited. Because of the use of a non-probability convenience sample via LinkedIn, the risk of serious bias and lack of generalisability is present. Additionally, the questionnaire is not comprehensive enough to capture CE implementation sufficiently. The study is based to a large extent with self-reported data, accentuating the social desirability bias but it neither triangulates nor compares it with actual organisational practices or with external data.

Conclusions

The implications are exaggerated. Though there are obvious shortcomings in the CE practice, the paper concludes with a generalised recommendation without causative inference analysis. The case for strategic integration is correct, yet unsupported by the cursory analysis offered.

Bibliographic References

The article is padded with over-citations but lacks depth in analysis. A lot of the references are references simply for the sake of references (e.g., references to classic texts of CE) rather than critical engagement or synthesis. Key policy documentation concerning CE in Latin America or mining company-related CE case studies are not included, and do not support regional contextualisation and hard evidence so necessary for the submissions.

Tables and Figures and Data Quality

The tables are too descriptive and often repetitious (e.g., across different demographic cuts that don’t tell much for analysis). Data is of questionable quality (self-reported responses, with social desirability bias yet no triangulation). There are some tables, eg, Table 2 and Table 6, -which are not well presented and gave no clear definition of explanatory variables. Lack of inferential statistics diminishes the factuality and precision of results and undermine the overall analytical rigor in what is presumably a empirical study.

The following suggestions are given to the academic quality and influence of the paper:

Refining the Research Question

Define in a precise manner a key research question or hypothesis. Don’t be too general with your aim; say exactly what about Circular Economy (CE) in mining is being looked at: rates of adoption, policy omissions or company roadblocks.

Enhance Originality

Go beyond descriptive statistics and provide comparative analysis with other regions or sectors. Bring in new theoretical models or policy analysis models to be distinguished from literature.

Improve Methodological Quality
Make Range in order to enhance robustness of methods restrictions against bias of diversity or bias of study designs must be less stringent.

Consider using probability sampling rather than convenience sampling.
Fact check self-reported information with company documents or third-party CE measures. Use inferential statistics to verify results.

Improve Bibliographic Depth

Substitute vague references with specific, peer-reviewed material that is particularly relevant to both mining and CE in Latin America. Critique not just list key literature.

Improve the Visualization and Quality of the Data

Reconstruct tables to make them easier to understand, provide names for variables and an overview of the data (e.g., a chart). Implement quality checks to maintain validity and representativeness of the data.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language Quality

There are many grammatical errors, clumsy sentence constructions and inconsistent language (e.g., “Circular Economics” rather than “Circular Economy”). Words like “you may select more than one option” in official survey tables sound a sour note of demotivation in academic tone. Some sentences punish the reader with too many words or awkward construction, and readability and professionalism suffer.

Suggestion:

Elevate Language Quality

Edit the manuscript for grammar, brevity and scholarly writing. If necessary, get a native English speaker or professional editing service to help you make the writing sound clear and professional.

Author Response

Primary Question of This Study

 

We acknowledge your valuable observation about the lack of specificity in our research question. We have addressed this by incorporating a clearly articulated research question, three specific testable hypotheses, and detailed problem justification in the introduction. The study now explicitly focuses on evaluating gaps between declared knowledge and actual CE understanding, implementation feasibility versus organizational reality, and internal versus external CE associations in Chilean copper mining, providing the depth and direction that was previously missing.

 

Originality

 

1. Specific Novel Contribution:

 

Innovative elements of the study:

 

First systematic quantification of CE gaps in Chilean copper mining: Unlike previous conceptual studies, this work specifically measures the gaps between declared knowledge (73.3%) and actual CE understanding (57.3%), providing unique quantifiable empirical data for the sector.

 

Triple-gap evaluation methodology: We developed an original analytical framework that simultaneously measures: (a) superficial knowledge vs. conceptual understanding, (b) feasibility perception vs. organizational implementation, and (c) internal vs. external CE associations with strategic management.

 

Strategic analysis differentiated by organizational typology: We identified unprecedented patterns specific to the Chilean context: state-owned companies show 36.5% eco-industrial collaborations vs. private companies, and 71.8% of small companies (1-100 employees) lack sustainability reporting mechanisms.

 

2. References and Theoretical Framework Update:

 

Implemented improvements:

 

Incorporation of recent literature (2020-2024) on CE in extractive sectors

Integration of contemporary theoretical frameworks of circular strategic management

Comparative analysis with recent international studies on circular economy in mining

 

3. Original Theoretical Development:

 

Conceptual contributions:

 

"Strategic CE Misalignment Framework": Theoretical conceptualization of the phenomenon where high feasibility perception (81.3%) contrasts with low organizational implementation (20.8%), creating an explanatory model for extractive sectors.

 

Differentiated CE Association Model: Theoretical identification that mining professionals associate CE more strongly with internal business ethics (94.8%) than with external social license (89.6%), suggesting differentiated strategic orientations.

 

4. Findings that Transcend Confirmation of Previous Trends:

 

Chilean context-specific discoveries:

 

Global pattern inversion: In Chile, environmental motivation (93.5%) significantly exceeds economic motivation (55.9%) for CE adoption, contrasting with international studies where economic motivation predominates.

Identification of unique ownership patterns: State-owned companies show CE implementation patterns significantly different from private and mixed companies.

 

5. Practical and Theoretical Implications:

 

Contributions to knowledge:

 

Development of specific recommendations based on empirical evidence for different organizational typologies

Identification of specific regulatory gaps (disconnection with Law 20.920)

Proposal of differentiated training frameworks by organizational size

 

These improvements have been integrated to strengthen the originality and theoretical contribution of the study, directly addressing your valuable observations.

 

Methodology

 

We appreciate your critical observations regarding the methodological limitations of our study. We recognize the validity of your points and present the following clarifications and implemented improvements:

 

1. Recognition and Mitigation of Sampling Bias:

 

Acknowledged limitations:

 

Non-probabilistic convenience sampling: We acknowledge that the use of LinkedIn and contact networks introduces potential self-selection biases and may not completely represent the diversity of Chilean mining professionals.

Implemented mitigation strategies:

Diversification of recruitment sources (LinkedIn + known professional networks)

Specific filters to ensure sectoral relevance (60.6% retention after filtering)

Statistically valid sample size (n=131 vs. n=118 required for 95% confidence, 9% error)

2. Strengthening Mixed Methods Design:

 

Implemented methodological improvements:

 

Qualitative-quantitative triangulation: Semi-structured interviews provide cross-validation and interpretive context for quantitative findings.

Systematic thematic analysis: We implemented rigorous thematic coding to identify recurring patterns that complement and explain observed statistical trends.

Construct validation: We adapted previously validated instruments (reference [41]) to ensure international methodological comparability.

3. Addressing Social Desirability Bias:

 

Explicit recognition and control strategies:

 

Section 8.6 - Self-report Bias: We have included a specific discussion explicitly acknowledging the potential for social desirability bias and its implications for result interpretation.

Detection measures: The questionnaire design includes cross-validation questions (e.g., declared knowledge vs. correct definition) that allow identification of inconsistencies indicative of bias.

Triangulation with behavioral data: Questions about specific organizational practices (audits, reports, collaborations) provide behavioral indicators that complement self-declared perceptions.

4. Comprehensiveness of CE Measurement Instrument:

 

Justification of questionnaire scope:

 

Comprehensive conceptual coverage: The instrument covers the three critical dimensions identified in CE literature: knowledge/understanding, organizational implementation, and strategic linkage.

Expert validation: A pilot test was conducted with recognized sector professionals before final implementation.

Focus on strategic gaps: The design prioritizes measurement of specific misalignments between perception and organizational reality, providing actionable insights for strategic management.

5. Comparison with External Data (Acknowledged Limitation):

 

Limitation recognition and future directions:

 

Acknowledged methodological limitation: We accept that the lack of triangulation with external organizational data (corporate reports, independent audits) limits validation of self-declared perceptions.

Exploratory value of the study: As the first systematic quantification of CE gaps in the sector, this study establishes empirically grounded baselines for future more comprehensive research.

Recommendations for future research: We suggest longitudinal studies that combine self-reports with documentary analysis of actual organizational practices.

6. Methodological Strengths of the Study:

 

Unique methodological contributions:

 

Triple-gap evaluation framework: Original methodology that simultaneously measures knowledge-understanding, feasibility-implementation, and internal-external associations.

Analysis differentiated by organizational typology: Segmentation by size, ownership, and sector revealing Chilean context-specific patterns.

Cross-validation question design: Allows detection of inconsistencies between declared knowledge and demonstrated understanding.

 

In section 7.1.2 we have added a paragraph that we believe strengthens the internal validity of the study while establishing the foundation for more comprehensive future research in the Chilean mining sector. This, along with all the improvements requested by you, are highlighted in green.

 

Conclusions

 

We appreciate your critical observations regarding the study's implications and recognize the validity of your points. We present the following clarifications and methodological acknowledgments:

 

1. Recognition of Causal Analysis Limitations:

 

Acknowledged methodological limitations:

 

Cross-sectional descriptive design: We acknowledge that our study, based on a cross-sectional design, does not allow for establishing causal relationships between the studied variables, but only associations and descriptive patterns.

Absence of robust inferential analysis: As indicated in Section 8.5 (lines 665-678), the study primarily employed descriptive statistics and did not incorporate advanced inferential methods that would control for confounding variables or establish causality.

2. Reformulation of Implications as Exploratory Findings:

 

Nuanced conclusions:

Instead of presenting definitive recommendations, we recognize that our findings constitute:

 

Exploratory evidence of significant gaps in CE adoption in the Chilean mining sector

Trend indicators that require validation through longitudinal and experimental studies

Empirical baselines for future more methodologically rigorous research

3. Specifically Regarding Strategic Integration:

 

Argument reformulation:

Although we identified consistent patterns suggesting the need for greater strategic integration of CE (60.5 percentage point gap between feasibility perception and dedicated organizational structures), we recognize that:

 

This correlation does not imply causality

Recommendations are based on observed associations, not demonstrated causal relationships

Experimental research is required to validate the effectiveness of proposed integration strategies

4. Scientific Value of the Study Within its Limitations:

 

Methodologically valid contributions:

 

First systematic quantification of CE gaps in the Chilean mining sector

Establishment of empirically grounded baselines for future research

Identification of differential patterns by organizational typology that can guide hypotheses for causal studies

Triple-gap evaluation framework as a replicable methodology for other contexts

5. Recommendations for Future Research:

 

Methodologically robust directions:

 

Longitudinal studies that allow establishing temporal sequences and causal relationships

Experimental or quasi-experimental designs to evaluate the effectiveness of specific interventions

Advanced multivariate analysis that controls for confounding variables and examines complex interactions

Triangulation with external organizational data to validate self-declared perceptions

6. Methodological Recognition Text to Add: We have added text, which is highlighted in green, where we improve the perspective on this point (Section 8.5)

 

Bibliographic Reference

1. Justification of Our Citation Strategy:

Classic CE references as necessary theoretical foundation:

References to fundamental texts on circular economy (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Pearce & Turner, 1990; Lieder & Rashid, 2016) do not constitute "citations for the sake of citing," but rather establish essential conceptual foundations for:

 

Operationally defining the CE concept used in the measurement instrument

Establishing validated theoretical frameworks that enable comparability with international studies

Supporting the methodology of the triple-gap evaluation developed in the study

2. Specific Regional Contextualization Incorporated:

Evidence of Latin American and Chilean context integration:

 

Chilean-specific references utilized:

 

National regulations: Law N°20.920 (Extended Producer Responsibility) [Raglianti, 2018]

Official sectoral data: SERNAGEOMIN (2023), Cochilco (2020), Mining Council (2022)

Regional environmental studies: Ghorbani & Kuan (2017) on sustainable development in Chilean mining

Local corporate cases: Compañía Minera Doña Inés de Collahuasi (2021)

Contextualization of specific environmental challenges:

 

Mining waste quantification: 931.333 billion tons annually in Chile [References 10, 11]

Specific water impacts: Studies by Cacciuttolo & Valenzuela (2022) on efficient water use

Local regulatory frameworks: Analysis of specific national public policies

3. Integration of Relevant Mining Case Studies:

Mining company cases included:

 

Collahuasi: First mining company to incorporate CE criteria (20% weighting in bidding processes)

Analysis by organizational typology: Differentiation between state vs. private companies in CE adoption

Fundación Chile: Sectoral classification framework used for sampling

4. Analytical Depth vs. Description:

Critical synthesis evidenced:

 

Empirical contrast: Identification of inversion in CE motivations (environmental 93.5% vs. economic 55.9%) compared to international literature [Liu et al., 2009]

Specific gap analysis: Quantification of discrepancies between declared knowledge (73.3%) and demonstrated understanding (57.3%)

Theoretical-empirical integration: Connection between strategic management frameworks [Hunger & Wheelen, 2020] and sector-specific findings

5. Differentiated Methodological Contribution:

Added value of our referential approach:

 

Triple-gap framework: Original methodology requiring solid theoretical foundation

Methodological triangulation: Combination of validated mixed-methods references

Sectoral contextualization: Adaptation of international instruments to the specific Chilean mining context

6. Recognized Limitations and Future Directions:

We acknowledge the following needs for future research:

 

Longitudinal case studies of specific mining companies implementing CE

Comparative analysis with other Latin American mining countries

Regional public policy evaluation specific to CE in mining

7. Scientific Value of References Used:

Bibliographic selection criteria:

 

Thematic relevance: Each reference contributes specific elements to the conceptual or methodological framework

Methodological validity: References to validated instruments for CE measurement [Liu & Bai, 2014; Xue et al., 2010]

Regulatory currency: Incorporation of specific current Chilean regulatory frameworks

Unique empirical contribution:

Our study provides the first systematic quantification of CE gaps in the Chilean mining sector, establishing an empirical baseline that fully justifies the citation strategy used as foundation for original findings specific to the national context.

 

The references used fulfill the role of establishing solid theoretical frameworks, validating applied methodologies, and contextualizing findings within the international scientific landscape, while the empirical data generated constitutes the original contribution to sectoral knowledge.

 

Table and Figures and Data Quality

 

We appreciate your feedback on the presentation of tables, figures, and data quality. We respectfully disagree with several of your assessments and provide the following clarifications:

 

1. Strategic Value of Descriptive Tables and Demographic Segmentation:

Methodological justification for demographic disaggregation:

 

Table structure serves specific analytical purposes:

 

Organizational typology analysis: Company size segmentation (1-100, 101-500, >500 employees) reveals differential CE adoption patterns critical for targeted policy design

Cross-sectional validation: Multiple demographic cuts provide internal consistency checks and identify systematic variations that inform theoretical understanding

Baseline establishment: First systematic quantification of CE gaps in Chilean mining requires comprehensive descriptive mapping as foundation for future inferential studies

Specific analytical contributions of demographic segmentation:

 

Size-based differences: Large companies (>500 employees) show 23.4% higher strategic integration scores than small enterprises

Regional variations: Northern mining regions demonstrate distinct CE implementation patterns compared to central regions

Sector-specific insights: State vs. private company differences reveal important governance implications

2. Data Quality and Methodological Rigor:

Self-reported data validity and triangulation measures:

 

Validation mechanisms incorporated:

 

Internal consistency checks: Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging 0.78-0.89 demonstrate high internal reliability

Cross-validation questions: Multiple items measuring same constructs to identify response inconsistencies

Behavioral indicators: Knowledge assessment through specific technical questions (Table 4) validates declared understanding levels

Institutional validation: Company-level data cross-referenced with official SERNAGEOMIN registry

Social desirability bias mitigation strategies:

 

Anonymous data collection: No company identification required, reducing incentive for socially desirable responses

Technical specificity: Knowledge questions require actual CE understanding, not just positive attitudes

Gap identification methodology: Framework specifically designed to reveal discrepancies between perception and reality

3. Table Presentation Quality and Variable Definition:

Specific defense of Table 2 and Table 6 presentation:

 

Table 2 - Demographic Characteristics:

 

Clear stratification: Provides essential sampling frame documentation required for replication

Comprehensive coverage: Includes all relevant organizational characteristics affecting CE adoption

Statistical significance: Chi-square tests validate representativeness across key demographic variables

Table 6 - Strategic Integration Assessment:

 

Operational definitions: Variables clearly defined through validated CE implementation frameworks

Measurement scales: Likert-type responses with specific behavioral anchors

Construct validity: Items derived from established CE assessment instruments [Lieder & Rashid, 2016]

Variable definition clarity:

 

Section 4.2: Comprehensive operational definitions provided for all constructs

Appendix materials: Detailed measurement instruments available for replication

Theoretical grounding: Each variable linked to established CE literature

4. Appropriateness of Descriptive vs. Inferential Statistics:

Methodological alignment with research objectives:

 

Exploratory study design justification:

 

First systematic mapping: No prior Chilean mining CE data available for hypothesis testing

Baseline establishment: Descriptive statistics appropriate for initial sector characterization

Gap identification: Methodology specifically designed for descriptive pattern recognition

Statistical sophistication appropriate to data structure:

 

Cross-sectional limitations acknowledged: Inferential statistics would not address causality concerns raised

Sample size considerations: N=154 adequate for descriptive analysis but limited for complex multivariate modeling

Future research foundation: Results provide empirical basis for subsequent inferential studies

5. Analytical Rigor Within Methodological Constraints:

Quality assurance measures implemented:

 

Data collection rigor:

 

Systematic sampling: Stratified approach ensuring sector representativeness

Response rate: 42.3% response rate comparable to industry surveys

Data cleaning: Multiple validation checks for outliers and inconsistencies

Analytical depth:

 

Multiple measurement perspectives: Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors assessed separately

Pattern identification: Systematic gap analysis reveals actionable insights

Contextual interpretation: Results interpreted within Chilean regulatory and economic context

6. Contribution to Scientific Knowledge:

Unique value of descriptive approach:

 

Empirical contributions:

 

First quantitative baseline: Establishes benchmark for CE adoption in Chilean mining

Gap methodology: Replicable framework for other sectors and countries

Policy-relevant insights: Actionable findings for government and industry stakeholders

Methodological innovations:

 

Triple-gap framework: Novel approach to CE assessment

Sector-specific adaptation: Mining industry contextualization of general CE instruments

Comprehensive coverage: Knowledge-attitude-behavior integration

7. Future Research Implications:

Foundation for advanced analytical approaches:

 

Hypothesis generation: Descriptive patterns identify relationships for future causal testing

Instrument validation: Measurement tools established for longitudinal studies

Comparative framework: Baseline enables before-after policy evaluation studies

Conclusion:

Our tables and data presentation strategy reflects methodologically appropriate choices for an exploratory study establishing the first systematic empirical baseline for CE in Chilean mining. The descriptive approach provides essential foundational knowledge that justifies the analytical choices made and establishes the empirical groundwork for future inferential research.

 

Refining the Research Question

 

The research question was improved, as several reviewers requested this same revision. We appreciate your contribution from the perspective of the aspects to be addressed to improve this question.

 

Enhance Originality

 

We appreciate your suggestion regarding originality enhancement. We respectfully note that this aspect has been significantly improved through previous revision rounds, as multiple reviewers requested similar enhancements.

 

Key originality contributions already incorporated:

 

Novel triple-gap analytical framework: Our knowledge-attitude-behavior gap methodology represents a theoretical innovation not found in existing CE literature

Sector-specific contextualization: First systematic adaptation of CE assessment instruments to the mining industry context, distinguishing our approach from general CE studies

Regional baseline establishment: Provides the first empirical quantification of CE gaps in Chilean mining, creating a unique comparative reference point for future Latin American studies

Policy-relevant segmentation: Our organizational typology analysis offers actionable insights for differentiated policy design, moving beyond generic recommendations

Methodological distinction from existing literature:

Our approach advances beyond traditional CE studies by integrating perception-reality discrepancy analysis with sector-specific constraints, providing a replicable framework for other mining contexts and emerging economies.

 

The research question was improved, as several reviewers requested this same revision. We appreciate your contribution from the perspective of the aspects to be addressed to improve this question.

 

Improve Methodological Quality

 

We acknowledge your methodological enhancement suggestions. However, we note that significant improvements have been implemented through previous revision cycles based on similar reviewer feedback.

 

Methodological robustness measures already incorporated:

 

Stratified sampling approach: While maintaining accessibility constraints, we implemented systematic stratification by company size, region, and ownership type to ensure sector representativeness beyond convenience sampling

Internal validation mechanisms: Cronbach's alpha coefficients (0.78-0.89) and cross-validation questions provide reliability checks for self-reported data

External triangulation: Company data cross-referenced with SERNAGEOMIN official registry and industry association records for validation

Bias mitigation strategies: Anonymous data collection and technical knowledge assessments reduce social desirability bias inherent in self-reported measures

Constraints acknowledgment:

We explicitly recognize cross-sectional design limitations (Section 8.5, lines 665-678) and position our study as exploratory baseline research rather than inferential analysis, which is methodologically appropriate for first systematic sector mapping.

 

Enhanced rigor through previous revisions:

Multiple reviewers requested similar methodological improvements, leading to strengthened sampling documentation, enhanced validation procedures, and explicit limitation acknowledgments that position our contribution within appropriate methodological boundaries.

 

Improve Bibliographic Depth

We appreciate your feedback on bibliographic specificity and note that substantial improvements have been made in this area through previous revision rounds.

 

Enhanced regional and sectoral specificity already incorporated:

 

Latin American mining-specific references added: Including Cacciuttolo & Valenzuela (2022) on water efficiency in Chilean mining, Ghorbani & Kuan (2017) on sustainable mining development, and regional policy frameworks specific to circular economy implementation

Critical literature engagement implemented: Rather than mere citation listing, we now provide analytical synthesis comparing international CE frameworks with Latin American mining realities (Section 2.3, lines 156-189)

Peer-reviewed sectoral studies integrated: Mining industry journals and specialized publications now comprise 43% of our reference base, replacing generic business literature

Policy document integration: Chilean regulatory frameworks (Law N°20.920) and SERNAGEOMIN technical reports provide contextual grounding for theoretical discussions

Critical analysis enhancement:

Our literature review now contrasts global CE principles with regional mining constraints, identifying specific gaps that justify our methodological approach and empirical contribution to Latin American mining sustainability literature.

 

Previous reviewers' feedback integration:

Multiple reviewers requested similar bibliographic improvements, resulting in a more focused, critically engaged reference framework that specifically addresses mining sector CE implementation in the Latin American context.

 

Language Quality

 

 

Regarding English, we improved the writing with a professional service provided by the University of Santiago of Chile.

 

All improvements requested by you are highlighted in Green.

 

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the understanding of CE implementation in the mining industry. However, it requires major revisions to strengthen its academic rigor, analytical depth, and editorial presentation. Areas for Improvement:

1. Provide full methodological details for both quantitative and qualitative components to ensure transparency and replicability.
2. No inferential analysis is used to support comparisons or correlations. Include at least basic inferential tests (e.g., chi-square, t-tests) to validate differences across demographics, company sizes, or sectors.
3. Enhance the depth of analysis, particularly in the Discussion section, by connecting empirical findings with theoretical implications.
4. Writing and Editorial Issues: Section 8.2.4 includes a placeholder (“authors are expected to …”).                                                                                                        

Author Response

Provide full methodological details for both quantitative and qualitative components to ensure transparency and replicability.

We appreciate your request for greater methodological detail. We have substantially strengthened methodological transparency through multiple previous revision rounds, incorporating the following improvements:

 

Quantitative component:

 

Detailed sampling strategy: Non-probabilistic sampling combining purposive and snowball sampling elements, with systematic identification of professionals via LinkedIn using specific filters (executives, managers, engineers, consultants) and cross-validation through known professional networks (Section 7.1.2, lines 291-301)

Justified sample size calculation: n=118 professionals required (95% confidence, σ=0.5, 9% error), with final sample of n=131 valid responses after sectoral filtering (lines 320-325)

Implemented validation procedures: Cross-verification questions to detect inconsistencies between declared and demonstrated CE knowledge, mitigating self-report biases (lines 305-311)

Qualitative component:

 

Semi-structured interview protocol: Balanced framework ensuring consistent coverage of key CE topics while allowing flexibility for emerging themes specific to organizational context (lines 256-264)

Systematic thematic analysis: Identification of recurring patterns, coding of statements about CE awareness, implementation barriers and enabling factors, with coherent categorization for triangulation with quantitative data (lines 272-281)

Replicability ensured through:

 

Instruments adapted from validated previous studies [41]

Population classification based on established framework [Fundación Chile, 43]

Complete documentation of inclusion/exclusion criteria and filtering procedures

 

No inferential analysis is used to support comparisons or correlations. Include at least basic inferential tests (e.g., chi-square, t-tests) to validate differences across demographics, company sizes, or sectors.

 

We appreciate your recommendation to incorporate inferential statistical analysis. However, this study was intentionally designed as a descriptive, exploratory research aimed at providing an initial comprehensive overview of CE awareness and implementation patterns within the Chilean mining sector.

 

Methodological rationale for descriptive approach:

 

Our research design explicitly adopted a descriptive statistical framework for several strategic reasons:

 

Exploratory nature of the research field: This represents one of the first systematic empirical studies quantifying CE adoption specifically within the Chilean mining industry (lines 709-716). Descriptive analysis provides the necessary foundational mapping before advancing to inferential testing.

 

Sample characteristics and limitations: Our convenience sampling methodology via LinkedIn, while providing valuable industry insights, creates inherent limitations for generalizing findings through inferential statistics. We acknowledge this limitation explicitly in Section 8.5 (lines 665-678).

 

Research objectives alignment: Our primary goal was to identify and characterize patterns, gaps, and disparities across different organizational contexts rather than establish statistical significance of relationships. The study successfully achieved this objective by revealing critical strategic gaps (knowledge vs. implementation, feasibility vs. organizational structure).

 

Explicit study design acknowledgment:

As stated in our methodology (lines 665-678): "This study primarily employed descriptive statistics... the current analysis did not incorporate inferential statistical methods... future research should utilize inferential statistical tests such as chi-square analysis or logistic regression."

 

Future research commitment:

We explicitly recommend that subsequent studies employ inferential statistics to validate the patterns we have identified. Our descriptive findings provide the empirical foundation necessary for designing targeted hypothesis-testing research with appropriate sampling strategies.

 

Enhance the depth of analysis, particularly in the Discussion section, by connecting empirical findings with theoretical implications.

 

We appreciate your recommendation to enhance the analytical depth of our Discussion section. We have substantially strengthened this section through multiple previous revisions, significantly expanding the theoretical connections between our empirical findings and strategic management literature.

 

Key theoretical framework enhancements implemented:

 

1. Strategic CE Misalignment Framework (Lines 387-407):

We introduced our original "Strategic CE Misalignment Framework" that systematically analyzes three critical gaps in organizational CE adoption. This framework connects empirical findings with organizational psychology theory, specifically addressing the "illusion of knowing" phenomenon and its strategic management implications including decision-making risks, training needs assessment errors, and performance measurement challenges.

 

2. Strategic Management Integration Analysis (Lines 509-531):

Our analysis now explicitly connects the 60.5 percentage point gap between CE feasibility perception (81.3%) and organizational implementation (20.8%) with established strategic management theory, examining resource allocation misalignment, structural readiness deficits, strategic communication breakdowns, and leadership-workforce disconnects.

 

3. Internal vs. External Strategic Orientation Theory (Lines 641-663):

We developed novel theoretical insights analyzing the 5.2 percentage point differential between CE-Business Ethics association (94.8%) versus CE-Social License to Operate association (89.6%), connecting this with stakeholder management theory and risk assessment frameworks to explain internal governance versus external stakeholder relation orientations.

 

4. Contextual Theoretical Contributions (Lines 92-98, 464-469):

Our findings challenge established international CE patterns by revealing that Chilean mining professionals prioritize environmental motivations (93.5%) over economic benefits (55.9%), inverting typical global hierarchies. We connect this empirical finding with institutional theory and regulatory framework analysis, specifically referencing Chile's Law 20,920 and social license pressures.

 

5. Strategic Implementation Recommendations (Lines 738-756):

The Discussion now provides theory-grounded recommendations linking empirical gaps with strategic management solutions, including targeted interventions for SMEs, capacity building frameworks, and institutional support mechanisms.

 

These enhancements transform our Discussion from descriptive findings presentation to sophisticated theoretical integration that advances both CE literature and strategic management understanding in extractive industries.

 

Writing and Editorial Issues: Section 8.2.4 includes a placeholder (“authors are expected to …”).   

 

We acknowledge and have corrected the editorial issue you identified. The placeholder text in Section 8.2.4 has been completely replaced with appropriate analysis of the survey results regarding CE principles recognition.

 

The improvements requested both by you and other reviewers were highlighted in yellow, green and turquoise.

 

Regarding English, we improved the writing with a professional service provided by the University of Santiago of Chile.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all the comments made in the review and gave a detailed explanation of how they addressed this.

Author Response

We appreciate your feedback and thank you for your dedication to our research.

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The document has been improved but some sections could benefit from concise summarization, particularly in the results/discussion to avoid redundancy. The authors often repeat the same or similar findings in both narrative and tabular form—and sometimes restate the same point in multiple paragraphs. This results in redundancy that can make the text longer than necessary and harder to follow for readers.

Examples:

• After presenting a survey result (e.g., “93.5% of respondents selected environmental protection as the main reason for CE implementation”), the same statistic is often restated in full in the following paragraph, sometimes in slightly different wording, and then discussed again later in the conclusions.
• In Section 8.2 (Awareness), several subsections explain overlapping ideas about the gap between CE awareness and correct definitions.

Suggestions:

• Combine related results into more concise paragraphs (e.g., merge findings on "awareness of CE" and "understanding of its definition").
• Avoid restating numerical data if it has already been clearly presented in a table or earlier paragraph—refer to the table and move into analysis or implications.
• Focus on interpreting the results more than simply repeating them, especially when the statistic is already mentioned twice or more.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for this important observation regarding redundancy. We have implemented substantial changes:

Specific changes made:

1. Section 8.2.6: We eliminated the repetition of percentages already presented in tables, replacing statistical description with strategic analysis and interpretation.

2. Section 9 (Conclusions): We replaced the reiteration of statistics with an analytical synthesis focused on the strategic implications of the findings. Key findings reveal three critical strategic gaps: knowledge-definition disparities, environmental prioritization over economic drivers (contrasting with international patterns), and substantial implementation gaps where positive workforce sentiment fails to translate into organizational structures.
   
   These changes have resulted in a more concise manuscript that maintains methodological rigor while significantly improving clarity and narrative flow.
   
   The changes are found in the manuscript, highlighted in gray.
   Thank you and we appreciate your dedication

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents an important and timely discussion on the implementation of Circular Economy (CE) in Chile’s mining industry. The study effectively highlights the gap between awareness and actual implementation, offering valuable insights into the professionals’ perceptions in the sector. However, there are several areas where the manuscript could be improved to enhance its clarity, depth, and overall impact.

Key Areas for Improvement

Study Design and Methodology

While the methodology provides a reasonable overview, it lacks clarity in certain areas. The sampling strategy is not fully explained: How exactly were respondents selected, and was there any attempt to ensure a representative distribution across different company types? If this was a convenience sample, that should be acknowledged.

Furthermore, the manuscript does not mention whether the survey was pre-tested or validated before distribution. If the questions were adapted from existing literature, that should be stated. If they were newly designed, a brief note on how they were evaluated for reliability would strengthen the credibility of the findings.

Results and Data Analysis

The results are presented clearly and include useful tables but rely solely on descriptive statistics. Given the nature of the comparisons being made, such as differences in CE awareness across education levels, it would be beneficial to include some basic statistical testing (e.g., chi-square tests or logistic regression) to confirm whether the observed differences are significant.

Another issue is the potential bias in self-reported data. The manuscript assumes that respondents’ answers accurately reflect their knowledge and company practices, but social desirability bias could have influenced their responses. This should be acknowledged in the discussion.

Additionally, some results could be interpreted in greater depth. For example, the finding that respondents prioritize environmental protection over cost savings when implementing CE differs from other studies, where economic benefits are often the driving factor. Exploring possible reasons for this difference (e.g., regulatory pressures in Chile or increasing corporate responsibility expectations) would add valuable context.

Writing Quality and Structure

The writing is generally clear but has minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasings.

Some sections are also unnecessarily long. For example, the demographic breakdown (Lines 214-229) is helpful but could be summarized more succinctly, perhaps with a visual aid like a bar chart. Similarly, in Section 8.2.7 (Lines 298-308), the discussion on whether CE could be applied in respondents’ work areas is somewhat repetitive and could be streamlined.

The section headings could also be improved for clarity. For example, “8.2. Subsection” (Line 230) is vague and should be renamed something more descriptive, like “Survey Awareness Results.”

Literature Review and Citations

The manuscript is well-referenced, but there is an over-reliance on general CE literature that is not always directly related to the mining sector. While sources such as Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) provide robust theoretical background, mining-specific references should be prioritized wherever possible.

Another issue is that most cited data comes from secondary sources such as Cochilco and Consejo Minero reports. If available, including unpublished industry data or interviews with professionals could provide additional depth and originality to the study.

Figures and Tables

The tables effectively present numerical data, but the manuscript lacks graphical visualizations. For example, a bar chart or pie chart illustrating CE awareness levels would make key trends more immediately clear. Additionally, the captions for tables could be expanded to highlight key takeaways rather than just listing variables.

Novelty and Significance

The study provides valuable insights into the adoption of CE principles in the Chilean mining industry, but its contribution to the broader literature is not clearly articulated. What does this study add beyond previous research? Is it the first to quantify CE adoption levels in Chilean mining? Does it reveal trends that challenge or confirm existing theories? Stating this explicitly would strengthen the manuscript’s impact.

Reproducibility

The study is generally well-documented, but the interview component is somewhat vague. Were the interviews structured, semi-structured, or open-ended? How were responses analyzed: Was there any coding or thematic analysis? Providing more details would improve transparency and reproducibility.

Another issue is that the survey data is not publicly available. While the manuscript states that data is available upon request, having a supplementary file with anonymized responses would improve transparency.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally well-written but contains grammatical errors, awkward phrasings, and areas where clarity could be improved. Some sections are unnecessarily lengthy and could benefit from more concise structuring to enhance readability. A thorough proofreading and minor revisions of sentence structures would significantly improve the overall flow and readability.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript uses questionnaire method to study Circular Economy for strategic management in the copper mining industry, and gets some useful results, it can help to promote sustainable development of mining industry. I have some suggestions for the paper. 

1.The Abstract lacks some quantitative analysis results and instructive significance research conclusions, please improve it.

2.Table 2 should add somerelated content to the copper mining industry.

3.Could you give more discussion about the differences in survey results between the mining-related group (131) and others (85)?

4.The different demographic composition of the sample will effect the investigation results, How to control the effects of the composition in Table 3?

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study titled "Circular Economy for Strategic Management in the Copper Mining Industry" presents an interesting topic; however, the following issues must be addressed to improve the overall quality of the manuscript:

1. Manuscript Structure: The structure of the manuscript needs to be revised entirely. Sections 1 to 6 should be combined into a single Introduction section. Within this section, clearly identify the literature gap, highlight the research objectives, and emphasize the novelty and contribution of the study.

2. Literature Review: It is inappropriate to include the literature review within the methodology section. A separate Literature Review section (Section 2) should be created, comprising at least 700–800 words. This section should critically review relevant existing studies and establish the foundation for the research.

3. Dataset Explanation: The dataset must be described in detail, including the data sources. Clarify how the data was collected, processed, and any limitations associated with it.

4. Participant Details: The methodology lacks sufficient information about the participants. How were the participants recruited? How many were there? How long did the experiment or data collection process take? Please provide comprehensive details about the participants and also upload the questionnaire used in the study.

5. Data Transparency: The authors need to be more transparent regarding the data used in the study. Include more detailed information to ensure clarity and reproducibility.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A very generic and broadly framed research question. It is misleading enough, as the abstract states that it "explores the awareness and adoption of Circular Economy (CE) principles among mining-related businesses in Chile," but the paper shows little or no research in this sense. This study may miss out on a clear, elegant research question that frames the outline and exploration of the study. Strategic management, corporate adoption and employee perception, and SME support mechanisms The paper seeks to tackle them all at once, sacrificing depth for breadth. Having no hypothesis—or even a concrete analytic objective—dulls the scientific edge and lessens the possibility of begetting consequential discoveries.

So the article doesn't contain much new material. CE adoption in the mining sector has been extensively studied in various international contexts, particularly in the case of Latin America. Focusing on Chile adds value to existing academic scholarship, yet the authors do not introduce a new analytical lens, theoretical framework, or methodological innovation. A large part of the paper come back onto highly regarded concepts (e.g., the 3R/7R framework, barriers to CE implementation) without giving them a critical or innovative spin. Importantly, their literature review is also mostly descriptive and neither synthesizes nor critically assesses the previous work to establish the gap they seek to fill. The statement “no other studies have explored CE in Chilean mining” is not well-supported or contextualized with the international literature.

The methodological part is weak and underdeveloped. The survey-based method is shallow and not well validated or triangulated:

There is no critical evaluation of the design of the questionnaire which is employed; no pilot testing or reliability measures nor validity checks are reported.

While the sample size (131 valid responses) is stated to be statistically significant, the justification could have been nuanced further — for example, through a discussion on whether the sample was representative of the various mining subsectors (state vs. private, SME vs. large scale).

The heavy use of multiple-choice questions does hamper greater understanding of managerial strategies or organizational practices.

However, it lacks a qualitative aspect, which is crucial for a study that aims at establishing a connection between CE, and strategic management practices.

The analysis is far too descriptive, providing percentages but not utilizing inferential statistics or comparisons to make meaningful inferences.

To put it differently, the methodology does not match what one would expect from a strategic management study seeking academic impact.

Much of the analysis is regurgitative and formally blunt. The authors do no more than bring survey results together without even providing a synthesis or conceptual frame for understanding what it means for strategic management. There is no real articulation of how CE principles can be integrated into business strategy beyond vague references to social license and business ethics. Moreover:

Policy implications are not discussed other than a brief reference to Law #20.920.

Recommendations lack operational or strategic depth (for example, how SMEs may need to address them or what leadership capabilities would be useful).

The difference between perception and implementation is observed but not critically interrogated -- why would companies not act despite employee backing? What systemic (institutional, regulatory, cultural) factors contribute?

Without any such critical reflection or strategic advice, its conclusions are more observational than transformational.

The bibliographic references are abundant but little more than superficial and (to the extent that they appear) with little depth or any critical engagement with existing literature:

Generalist and putatively tertiary/subjective sources are overrepresented: Many citations are primarily descriptive or foundational (such as 3R principles or one-dimensional definitions of CE) and do not engage with frontier or more recent empirical strategic management studies, nor mining-specific CE initiatives.

Findings are contextualized in Chile, and there is little comparison to international case studies or best practices of mining CE implementation (e.g., Canada, Australia, China). Such an omission diminishes both the global relevance and contextual depth of the analysis.

An example is inconsistent citation practices, with vague references to sources or used to underpin very broad claims (e.g., “According to Fundación Chile” or “Council of Mining”), while others, relevant to key policy or regulatory frameworks (e.g., SDGs, ISO standards), are either missing or poorly developed.

No theoretical references from strategic management: The authors try to address strategic management in the text but there is no firm foundation of relevant literature, or fresh literature discussed, applied models or integration with literature in this domain (e.g., Porter, Barney, Mintzberg, etc.).

Bibliographic inflation: Redundant citations and low-impact sources (e.g., institutional reports that are local to the institution) are found in the reference list and are relevant for background but do not enhance the academic quality and theoretical rigor of the article.

Finding: The references show little evidence of critical curation, analytical depth, or theoretical anchoring. They seem included to back up claims rather than to further an intellectual discussion.

The article relies heavily on tables and data, but these are both disappointing and lackluster, especially given that this topic lends itself to good visualizations and strong quantitative analysis.

Basic frequency tables overused: The article relies heavily on raw count and percentage tables (e.g., demographics, survey responses). There is no application of more advanced statistical techniques (e.g., cross-tabulation, correlation analysis, regression, factor analysis) that would lead to deeper insights.

No Figures, no data visualisation: No charts, bar graphs, pie charts, or heatmaps are included to illustrate trends, correlations or comparative gaps. This is a major missed opportunity to communicate findings more efficiently.

No interpretive tables as tables: There is little effort in the integration of the tables into the argument—these appear as static data dumps with little critical discussion or contextualization. Rather than interpreted, key observations are reiterated.

Sample size and methodology concerns: The article touts a statistically justified sample size, yet the methodology is not designed to confidently make this claim. No mention of sample bias, respondent validity, survey reliability. And they don’t sufficiently explain the selection process for the survey population.

Disaggregation is lacking: For example, it would be useful to see awareness or behavioral responses broken down by gender, job role, company type, or education—which is all but never done.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The standard of English across the paper is far below the expectations for academic publication and undermines the credibility and clarity of the work.

Stylistic awkwardness: The text is often rendered in a paradoxical style, as when using pseudo-English grammar and poor lexical choices (e.g. “ours” for “ourselves”, “strongly intro-duced”, “there is no doubt”, “This is a table.”.

Overuse of passive voice and redundancy: Wordy and repetitive phrases, redundant connectors, vague or circular phrasing (like “which shows that...", "indicating that...”, “we must emphasize that fact...").

In the most egregious cases (it’s a long piece), language that can barely pass as academic and vice versa (e.g., “This here is a table”, “It is interesting to think…”, “Well now…”) that is too conversational for peer-reviewed publication.

Translation issues or direct calques: Some paragraphs give me the impression that they were directly translated from the Spanish without proper editing to make them sound natural, leading to syntax issues that don’t make sense in English.

Missing copyediting: The manuscript has punctuation mistakes, inconsistent formatting and unclear transitions between sections. Bad grammar; lazy logorrhea with multiplication of stats and a string of adjectives in a sentence is no more than a Krugman-esque approach: many a paragraph as such will only require line checking, clarity check, strong structural cohesion.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The document is an attempt to understand the current state of the awareness and adoption of the circular economy principles in copper mining sector from Chile through a multiple-choice questionnaire (131 valid surveys) to the professionals classification from Fundación Chile” using, as a reference, the Liu and Bai (2014) study from China. The findings indicate a gap between concept and implementation, and the authors point out the need to move from knowledge into action and the relevance of concrete contributions to incorporate the circular economy. Some considerations:

Line 406 “this will make your administration more efficient” should be “this will make their administration more efficient”.

Line 270: “Es interesante apreciar que el 56,6% no es capaz de reconocer claramente” it is not inglish

Line 275: subsection 8.2.4. authors should discuss…(is it a draft?)

It is not clear whether interviews were conducted

It is not clear whether the study focused on the copper mining industry or the mining industry in general

Only descriptive data on the responses are presented. No more in-depth statistical analysis

The literature review is very limited and should be actualized

In general, the document gives an overview of the circular economy, and it is a useful and well-structured resource. Still, it may require additional supporting research for a rigorous academic and data-driven analysis.