Rethinking Sustainable Operations: A Multi-Level Integration of Circularity, Localization, and Digital Resilience in Manufacturing Systems

No

Reviewer Comment

Revision Response

1

The study needs to have a section on Research methodology. This can provide a systematic approach to the development of this conceptual paper. This paper can assist in this regard: Jaakkola, E. Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS Rev. 2020, 10, 18–26.

A new subsection titled 2.6. Research Design of the Conceptual Paper has been added to the manuscript. This section explicitly outlines the conceptual methodology used to develop the ISOS framework. It follows Jaakkola’s (2020) design logic for conceptual articles—combining theory synthesis, model construction, and proposition development. The addition ensures methodological transparency, theoretical clarity, and aligns with best practices in conceptual research.

2

Sections 3 and 4 read well, but their link is not clear. Authors need to show why section 4 is necessary and at the level to complement section 3. They currently read as stand-alone even though they are not.

A bridging paragraph has been added at the end of Section 3.4, which explains that the conceptual structure of the ISOS model serves as the foundation for deeper articulation. It introduces the purpose of Section 4 as an effort to operationalize the theoretical architecture into specific design logics and interdependencies. Additionally, a transitional paragraph has also been added at the beginning of Section 4.1, stating that the chapter builds directly upon the ISOS framework developed in Section 3. These additions clarify that Section 4 is a direct and necessary continuation of the conceptual groundwork laid in Section 3.

3

Consolidate better sections 5 to 7: At this stage, section 5. Conclusion and Future Directions, Future Research Agenda, and 7. Conclusion. This creates confusion.

Sections 5, 6, and 7 have been fully restructured to improve clarity and narrative flow. Section 5 has been retitled “Conceptual Contributions” and is now dedicated to synthesizing the theoretical, managerial, and policy implications of the ISOS model. A new bridging paragraph has been added at the end of Section 5.4, which explicitly connects the model’s conceptual boundaries with the research propositions and methodological paths in Section 6. Section 6 is now titled “Research Agenda and Implications”, and focuses on empirical propositions, methodological strategies, and stakeholder-level exploration. Section 7 functions as a concise yet reflective Conclusion, with no repetition from earlier sections. These changes eliminate structural redundancy, enhance reader orientation, and fulfill the reviewer’s request for tighter integration across the final chapters.

4

Section 6.1 is titled Hypotheses for Empirical Validation. This section goes on to discuss propositions, creating misalignment, which needs to be fixed.

The title of Section 6.1 has been revised from “Hypotheses for Empirical Validation”to “Propositions for Empirical Validation” to ensure alignment with the conceptual nature of the article. The content has also been revised to use the term propositionsconsistently throughout. Each proposition is now clearly labeled (e.g., P1, P2, etc.), and Table 7 outlines their theoretical logic along with suggested empirical designs. These revisions ensure conceptual consistency and resolve the misalignment noted by the reviewer.

5

Improve the linkage and make it deliberate between the outcomes of the conceptual model, proposition, and research agenda, so it is clear to the reader.

This issue has been addressed as part of the restructuring described in earlier revisions. Specifically, a bridging paragraph at the end of Section 5.4 explicitly connects the outcomes and limitations of the conceptual model to the propositions developed in Section 6. The propositions themselves (Table 7) directly reflect the ISOS model’s strategic components and guide future research. As such, the narrative linkages are now clearly articulated and aligned across the sections.

6

No major issues with English, only suggestion, remove bullets where you can, the article has a sizeable amount of bullet points, which is not ideal. Also, a lot of numbers 1, 2, 3, in different sections, which in a way align again with bullets.

Bullet points and numbered lists have been significantly minimized throughout the manuscript. Wherever feasible, previously bulleted content has been rewritten in paragraph form to enhance academic tone, continuity, and narrative depth. This includes sections in the Introduction, Theoretical Foundations, Model Explanation, and Implications. The removal of excess bullets ensures improved readability and aligns with scholarly conventions expected by top-tier journals. Numbering has been retained only where conceptually necessary, such as in structuring formal propositions or section hierarchies, and has been stylistically integrated to avoid the impression of informal listing.

No

Reviewer Comment

Author Response

1

The introduction is promising but the paper moves too quickly to general answers without sufficient justification.

We revised Section 1.4 and the transition to Section 2.1 to slow down the narrative flow and provide more nuanced justifications. Additional theoretical anchors and empirical tensions were added to balance normative claims with critical discussion.

2

The paper mentions several debates but fails to engage them (e.g., global vs. local, trade-offs).

We expanded Section 3.2 to include a dedicated subsection on tensions and trade-offs in localization, drawing on recent debates in global value chain literature. We also introduced a balanced analysis of circularity in Section 3.3, including socio-technical constraints and rebound effects.

3

The justification for localization is underdeveloped. Downsides are acknowledged too late.

Section 3.2 now includes both theoretical and empirical critiques of localization, discussed earlier and more systematically. We clarify that localization is not a universal solution, but part of a strategic trade-off space.

4

Circularity is presented too optimistically without enough critical assessment.

We reworked the opening paragraph of Section 3.3 to temper normative claims. New citations highlight systemic challenges of implementing circular models at scale, including unintended effects like supply bottlenecks and material trade-offs.

5

Figure 1 is unclear – clarify whether “regional supply chains” also restrict demand, or only supply.

We revised the caption and narrative around Figure 1 (Section 2.3) to clarify that ISOS refers to regional supply configurations, not restricted demand markets. Demand may remain global while sourcing becomes localized.

6

Clarify the role of digitalization—are authors saying sustainability requires digitalization?

In Section 3.4 and Figure 1 description, we clarified that digitalization in ISOS refers to enhanced adaptive capacity and transparency. We emphasize it is an enabler of sustainability, not a prerequisite. A new paragraph distinguishes digital tools from capabilities.

7

The argument for pandemic risk and localization lacks logic. Local supply is not immune.

We revised the pandemic risk narrative in Section 3.2 and added a footnote to address this critique directly: local systems are not immune but may recover faster due to proximity, trust, and coordination advantages.

8

Figure 2 is too generic and lacks theoretical contribution.

Figure 2 was replaced with a revised version that now maps the dynamics across levels and integrates interdependencies among ISOS pillars. We enhanced explanatory depth and provided concrete examples in the text (Section 5.2).

9

The framework would benefit from a developmental approach, not just normative advocacy.

We added developmental pathways in Section 6.2 and Table Z (Section 6.4), outlining how organizations may incrementally adopt ISOS components based on maturity levels, institutional readiness, and contextual constraints. This grounds the framework in real-world progression.

No

Reviewer Comment

Author Response

1

Further distinguish between “digital transformation” and “digital resilience” through a more systematic comparison in the literature.

We revised Section 4.3 to explicitly differentiate between digital transformation as a broader organizational change process and digital resilience as the capability to adapt operations using real-time, predictive, and adaptive technologies. The distinction is supported with updated conceptual anchors and clarified language to avoid overlap.

2

Include a comparison with similar models in the literature.

In Section 5.1, we added a comparative narrative that contrasts ISOS with other established frameworks such as lean-green integration, Industry 4.0 for sustainability, and resilience-based OM models. This highlights the novel multi-dimensional synthesis of ISOS and its systemic integration across levels.

3

Introduce research questions or hypotheses to strengthen the research design.

Section 6.2 was revised to include three structured research questions aligned with each ISOS pillar (circularity, localisation, digital resilience). This helps guide future empirical investigation and model refinement.

4

Use the same descriptive model from paragraph 6.2 in paragraph 6.1.

We revised Section 6.1 to mirror the structured exposition format used in Section 6.2, ensuring consistency in how the empirical propositions and their theoretical basis are presented across the chapter.

5

Indicate the sectors in which the ISOS model could be applied.

In the newly added Section 6.4 (Suggested Empirical Designs), we identified relevant sectors—such as textiles, automotive, and agritech—as potential empirical contexts for applying ISOS. This addition includes rationale and methodological suggestions.

No

Reviewer Comment

Author Response

1

Clarify the Novelty and Contribution: The ISOS framework integrates circularity, localization, and digital resilience, but its novelty is not always clear compared to existing models.

We have strengthened the novelty positioning of the ISOS framework in Section 2.4 and 5.1, by providing a direct comparison with prior integrative models such as lean-green frameworks, Industry 4.0-based sustainability approaches, and resilience-centered OM models. A clear articulation of what differentiates ISOS—namely, its multi-level convergence, inter-scalar design, and stakeholder-inclusive dynamics—is now included.

2

Deepen Practical Implications and Guidance: The framework remains abstract. Add illustrative cases or implementation steps.

Section 5.3 has been expanded with a more detailed discussion of managerial and policy implications, including implementation challenges, examples of change management strategies, and cross-silo integration tools. We also introduced stakeholder co-design and participatory governance as applied mechanisms for operationalization.

3

Address Limitations and Boundary Conditions More Critically: Elaborate on risks, constraints, and possible negative consequences.

Section 5.4 has been critically revised to elaborate on key risks such as increased e-waste from digitalization, localization inefficiencies, and challenges in resource-constrained settings. We now outline several failure modes and provide boundary conditions for ISOS adoption under different regulatory and institutional environments.

4

Enhance Conceptual Clarity and Consistency: Some key concepts need sharper, consistent definitions.

We have streamlined and clarified key definitions (circularity, localization, digital adaptation) in Section 2.2 and introduced a dedicated summary table (Table X) to ensure terminological consistency. Definitions have also been aligned across the framework narrative.

5

The “Sustainable Operational Core (SOC)” remains abstract: Provide concrete examples.

In Section 4.4, we added illustrative scenarios showing how the SOC operates in circular textile production and regionalized food logistics. These examples concretize SOC as a strategic zone of overlap among the three ISOS pillars.

6

Strengthen Visual and Structural Aids: Ensure figures and tables are clear and referenced in the text.

We reviewed and refined all existing figure captions for clarity, and ensured that they are referenced at appropriate points in the narrative. Although no new figures were added, we included a new summary table (Table Z in Section 6.4) that maps key empirical pathways and constructs. All visuals and tables are now contextually integrated with the surrounding text.

7

Expand on Empirical Research Agenda: Suggest research questions and methods.

We added a new sub-section, 6.4 Suggested Empirical Designs, outlining specific research methods (e.g., longitudinal case studies, sectoral comparisons), sample contexts (textile, automotive, agritech), and proposed research questions. A summary Table Z was also included and cited before placement.

8

Tighten Writing and Reduce Redundancy: Avoid repetition.

Repetitive phrasing in Sections 3.2 and 4.1–4.2 has been edited and streamlined. Sub-headings and bullet points were added to improve narrative flow and enhance readability.

9

Reference and Citation Consistency: Ensure citations are accurate and updated.

All references to figures and sections were cross-checked and updated. We also integrated two new empirical studies—Jiang et al. (2023) and Turskis & Šniokienė (2024)—into the paragraph closing Section 4.3, now cited together as [139], [140]. These references validate the empirical synergy between blockchain, IoT, and circular economy initiatives, and are listed as:
• Jiang P., Zhang L., You F. (2023). Blockchain technology applications in waste management: Overview, challenges and opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 421, 138466.
• Turskis Z., Šniokienė V. (2024). IoT-Driven Transformation of Circular Economy Efficiency: An Overview. Mathematical and Computational Applications, 29(4), 49.

10

Consider Stakeholder Perspectives and Implementation Challenges: Explore external actor involvement.

Stakeholder perspectives were added in both Section 5.3 and Section 6.3, including mentions of supplier-regulator-community co-implementation, stakeholder mapping for ISOS, and participatory scenario-building. The final paragraph in 6.3 explicitly addresses stakeholder inclusion in future ISOS deployment strategies.

Reviewer Comment

Author Response

Location of Revision

The manuscript has been significantly improved and now provides a more compelling case for the proposed sustainable operations management framework. Illustrative examples (p. 28) remain superficial and somewhat disappointing, and this regard, I would have preferred more.

We appreciate this constructive suggestion. Section 4.5 has been revised to elaborate further on the three sectoral illustrations (automotive, food systems, and textiles). Each example now emphasizes ISOS adaptation, contextual challenges, and sector-specific trade-offs.

Section 4.5

What the authors are trying to say is clearer and worthy of reflection, but I remain concerned that potential weaknesses of the framework are hidden by the many overly-inflated conceptual discussions throughout the manuscript. It remains a very long manuscript.

We acknowledge this valuable feedback. Section 5.4 has been substantially revised to clearly articulate the conceptual limitations and boundary conditions of the ISOS model. These include abstraction constraints, sectoral variability, and trade-off complexities.

Section 5.4

There are a few mentions of nature-positive and regenerative operations systems throughout the paper. To convince readers that this is not just wishful labelling, more illustrative examples are needed.

Thank you for this observation. We clarified key concepts such as “nature-positive” in Table 1 (Section 1.2) and reinforced their relevance with concrete examples, especially in the revised illustrations in Section 4.5 (e.g., regenerative food systems and circular automotive practices).

Table 1 (Section 1.2) and Section 4.5

The revised section (lines 1283 onwards) advocating to break the trade-off mentality means that this paper fits within the "win-win" school of thought (https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.674). I am happy to recommend the publication of this paper as a paper supporting the "win-win" view, but I invite the authors to reflect on the fact that by bringing three ideas together (circularity, sustainability, and digitalisation), they genuinely believe that Skinner's trade-off theory and its improved version with Schmenner and Swink's theory of performance frontier are null and void.

We appreciate this critical reflection. In response, we have added a clarifying paragraph in Section 5.4 acknowledging Skinner’s and Schmenner & Swink’s seminal contributions. While ISOS supports a win-win reframing in multi-scalar systems, we clarify that it does not nullify trade-off theory but suggests reinterpreting it under dynamic complexity.

Section 5.4.

Reviewer Comment

Author Response

Location of Revision

In this second phase of the review process, the authors conducted a thorough revision process that significantly increased the scientific soundness of the manuscript in all sections. Therefore, the manuscript is eligible for publication.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation and encouraging remarks. We appreciate your recognition of the improved scientific rigor across all sections and are grateful for your support in recommending the manuscript for publication.

Not applicable

Reviewer Comment

Author Response

Location of Revision

Define Core Concepts: Introduce brief definitions or a summary table early in the manuscript to clarify essential terms (e.g., circularity, localization, digital adaptation) and minimize potential conceptual confusion.

Thank you for this constructive suggestion. In response, we have added a concise clarification paragraph and Table 1 – Core Concepts in Section 1.2 to define and differentiate key terms (circularity, localization, digital adaptation, and sustainability). This aims to facilitate conceptual clarity for readers at the outset.

Section 1.2, Table 1

Provide Concrete Industry Examples: Incorporate specific, real-world operational examples or case studies to demonstrate how the ISOS model is applied in practice across various sectors.

We appreciate this important recommendation. In Section 4.5, we have now embedded brief sectoral illustrations (e.g., automotive, textiles, food processing) to demonstrate how each ISOS pillar manifests differently across industries, thereby enhancing practical understanding.

Section 4.5

Discuss Trade-offs and Integration Challenges: Touch on practical tensions (e.g., the costs associated with localization and the environmental impact of digitalization) and recommend potential strategies for addressing these trade-offs in operational contexts.

This has been addressed thoroughly in the revised Section 5.4 – Limitations and Boundary Conditions, where we elaborate on tensions such as standardization vs. localization, digital waste risks, and payback misalignment in circular practices. We also propose adaptive strategies, such as sequencing, scenario modeling, and stakeholder alignment mechanisms.

Section 5.4

Emphasize Practical Application: Include actionable indicators or metrics for each pillar, offering a way for practitioners or researchers to measure implementation progress.

We have added a new subsection 5.5 – Practical Indicators of ISOS, accompanied by Table 5, presenting potential operational metrics for each ISOS pillar. This serves as an early step toward the operationalization of the model for practitioners and researchers.

Section 5.5, Table 5

Elaborate on Policy and Stakeholder Engagement: Briefly outline how different stakeholders (e.g., policymakers, the community, suppliers) can impact or benefit from the ISOS model.

Thank you for highlighting this. We have added a new paragraph in Section 5.6 discussing the roles and influence of key stakeholders—including public agencies, communities, and supply chain partners—in enabling and benefiting from the ISOS framework, especially in terms of capacity building and institutional alignment.

Section 5.6