Ecological Innovations Supporting Sustainable Development: The Case of the Polish Tire Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your contribution. In general, the topic of this manuscript is more than actual. Sustainability, tire, production, environment, all these keywords are very hot topic and it is necessary and very valuable to discuss them and introduce them to the broad audience.

On the other hand, the manuscript presents just very general information such as increase / decrease of tire production in Poland, material composition in tire, etc. Well, the authors defined several factors / parameters which influence motivations of tire producers and recyclers to employed (or rather don’t employ) in a broader scale eco-innovative materials. Honestly, the obtained results (the biggest impact of finance) were expected.

From my personal perspective of rubber expert, I don’t see any significant benefit for our community. And this benefit I don’t see even from economical viewpoint. Thus, the main contribution of this manuscript is rather educative for general public than for scientists. This is also fine and very suitable, but not for this kind of journal.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1’s Comments

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the Reviewer for the thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments. We are grateful for the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our work. The suggestions and observations provided have been invaluable in enhancing the quality, clarity, and scientific merit of the manuscript.

We have carefully considered all comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each comment, explaining how and where the corresponding changes have been implemented in the revised version. All modifications have been marked in color in the revised text.

 

 

Reviewer 1's comment:

Dear authors,

Thank you for your contribution. In general, the topic of this manuscript is more than actual. Sustainability, tire, production, environment, all these keywords are very hot topic and it is necessary and very valuable to discuss them and introduce them to the broad audience.

On the other hand, the manuscript presents just very general information such as increase / decrease of tire production in Poland, material composition in tire, etc. Well, the authors defined several factors / parameters which influence motivations of tire producers and recyclers to employed (or rather don’t employ) in a broader scale eco-innovative materials. Honestly, the obtained results (the biggest impact of finance) were expected.

From my personal perspective of rubber expert, I don’t see any significant benefit for our community. And this benefit I don’t see even from economical viewpoint. Thus, the main contribution of this manuscript is rather educative for general public than for scientists. This is also fine and very suitable, but not for this kind of journal.

Author’s response:

The novelty of this publication lies in its comprehensive analysis of the factors influencing the development of eco-innovation in the tire sector — a field that, despite its growing importance in the sustainable transformation of industry, remains relatively underexplored in the academic literature. The study examines both external determinants (such as regulations, competition, technological progress, and consumer pressure) and internal ones (including managerial awareness, environmental strategies, and voluntary commitments), as well as their mutual interactions. See lines 124–130 of the revised Introduction.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Unfortunately, I cannot recommend this paper. There is no strict analysis given in the paper. There is no graphical representation of the results. It is hard to understand the paper. From my point of view it is written without novelty and presented in a poor way.

There are following remarks can be made additionally:

1. Section 3.1. It is strange to presented the data from a review.
2. Table 2, Fig. 5. Some quantitative values should be presented.
3. Fig. 7. Error bars should be presented. The use of only 5 experts is a low value to give some conclusions.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2’s Comments

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the Reviewer for the thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments. We are grateful for the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our work. The suggestions and observations provided have been invaluable in enhancing the quality, clarity, and scientific merit of the manuscript.

We have carefully considered all comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each comment, explaining how and where the corresponding changes have been implemented in the revised version. All modifications have been marked in color in the revised text.

 

 

Reviewer 2's comment:

Unfortunately, I cannot recommend this paper. There is no strict analysis given in the paper. There is no graphical representation of the results. It is hard to understand the paper. From my point of view it is written without novelty and presented in a poor way.

Author’s response:

The novelty of this publication lies in its comprehensive analysis of the factors influencing the development of eco-innovation in the tire sector — a field that, despite its growing role in the sustainable transformation of industry, remains relatively underexplored in the academic literature. The study considers both external determinants (such as regulations, competition, technological progress, and consumer pressure) and internal ones (including managerial awareness, environmental strategies, and voluntary commitments), as well as their mutual interactions. See lines 124–130 of the revised Introduction and the updated version of Section 4: Discussion. A revised version of the Conclusions section has been added to the updated manuscript.

 

Reviewer 2's comment:

There are following remarks can be made additionally:

1. Section 3.1. It is strange to presented the data from a review.

Author’s response:

The change was made in accordance with the reviewer’s suggestion. See lines 305–307 of the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer 2's comment:

2. Table 2, Fig. Some quantitative values should be presented.???

Author’s response:

In Table 2 and Figure 5, typical qualitative data are presented.

 

Reviewer 2's comment:

3. 7. Error bars should be presented. The use of only 5 experts is a low value to give some conclusions.

Author’s response:

According to the literature, the use of five experts is sufficient to draw certain conclusions (see below):

1. a) Using the Delphi Method. The first step in applying the Delphi method is recruiting a team of experts in the relevant field, referred to as panelists. It has been suggested that seven is the minimum number of panelists required for effective use of a Delphi study; however, in practice, anywhere from four to several thousand have been used (Linstone, H. (1975). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley).
2. b) Depending on the action and the level of grant requested, the assessment of applications may be carried out by a minimum of one expert, who can be either internal or external to the National Agency. Experts may also be appointed from another EU Member State or a third country associated with the Erasmus+ Programme, other than that of the National Agency. (ERASMUS+ 2025. Guide for Experts on Quality Assessment for Actions Managed by National Agencies. Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission. Brussels: European Union, 2025, version 1, 10 February.)
3. c) Many reported factors can influence the optimal number of experts to recruit, such as the availability of experts with relevant expertise (Leal J, Wordsworth S, Legood R, Blair E. Eliciting expert opinion for economic models: an applied example. Value Health 2007;10:195–203), time and budget constraints, and the mode of administration of the structured expert elicitation (SEE) process. Smaller samples are recommended for face-to-face modes of administration. The SHELF and classical methods are optimally conducted with between five and ten experts, as there are diminishing returns in accuracy improvements with larger expert groups (Sperber D, Mortimer D, Lorgelly P, Berlowitz D. An expert on every street corner? Methods for eliciting distributions in geographically dispersed opinion pools. Value Health 2013;16:434–7; Grigore B, Peters J, Hyde C, Stein K. A comparison of two methods for expert elicitation in health technology assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol 2016;16:85; Bolger F, Rowe G. The aggregation of expert judgment: do good things come to those who weight? Risk Anal 2015;35:5–11).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I can not see any innovation in this research. Conducting surveys and analyzing literature are old methods of research.

1. The abstract should show the variables taken in this study and the key numerical results.
2. The innovation of this research is not clear. Please highlight it in the last paragraph of the introduction section.
3. Section 2 (Materials and Methods) should be named something else as the current one is not appropriate.
4. What is the source of data shown in figure 1?
5. Figures can not be mentioned in brackets (  ) before they have been mentioned at least once beforehand.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3’s Comments

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the Reviewer for the thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments. We are grateful for the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our work. The suggestions and observations provided have been invaluable in enhancing the quality, clarity, and scientific merit of the manuscript.

We have carefully considered all comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each comment, explaining how and where the corresponding changes have been implemented in the revised version. All modifications have been marked in color in the revised text.

 

 

Reviewer 3's comment:

I can not see any innovation in this research.

Author’s response:

The novelty of this publication lies in its comprehensive analysis of the factors influencing the development of eco-innovation in the tire sector—a field that, despite its growing role in the sustainable transformation of industry, remains relatively underexplored in academic literature. The study considers both external determinants (such as regulations, competition, technological progress, and consumer pressure) and internal ones (including managerial awareness, environmental strategies, and voluntary commitments), as well as their interactions. See lines 124–130 of the revised Introduction. A new version of the Conclusions section was included in the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer 3's comment:

Conducting surveys and analyzing literature are old methods of research.

Author’s response:

Conducting surveys was supported by newly added references—37. Manzano, A. (2022). Conducting focus groups in realist evaluation. Evaluation, 28(4), 406–425, and 38. Joshi, A.; Saket, K.; Chandel, S.; Dinesh Kumar Pal, D. (2015). Likert Scale: Explored and Explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396–403 (see references in the revised manuscript). Of the 58 cited references, 56 are from after 2010, and 48 are dated 2018 or later.

 

Reviewer 3's comment:

1. The abstract should show the variables taken in this study and the key numerical results.

Author’s response:

The Abstract has been revised. Please refer to the updated version in the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer 3's comment:

2. The innovation of this research is not clear. Please highlight it in the last paragraph of the introduction section.

Author’s response:

The novelty of this publication lies in its comprehensive analysis of the factors influencing the development of eco-innovation in the tire sector — a field that, despite its growing role in the sustainable transformation of industry, remains relatively underexplored in academic literature. The study considers both external determinants (such as regulations, competition, technological progress, and consumer pressure) and internal ones (including managerial awareness, environmental strategies, and voluntary commitments), as well as their interactions. See lines 124–130 of the revised Introduction and the new version of point 4, Discussion.

A new version of the Conclusions was added to the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer 3's comment:

3. Section 2 (Materials and Methods) should be named something else as the current one is not appropriate.

Author’s response:

It was changed to "2. Methods." See the new version of the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 3's comment:

4. What is the source of data shown in figure 1?

Author’s response:

It has been added. See lines 139–164 of the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer 3's comment:

5. Figures can not be mentioned in brackets (  ) before they have been mentioned at least once beforehand.

Author’s response:

It has been changed. See the numbering of all figures and tables in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities faced by the Polish tire industry in adopting sustainable practices. Several aspects of the manuscript could be improved to strengthen its overall contribution to the field.

1. The authors mention combining quantitative and qualitative analysis, the methodological details are insufficient. It would be helpful to:

The must clarify the type of qualitative approach used (e.g., content analysis, case study analysis, etc.).

2. Explain the criteria for selecting the economic and environmental indicators analyzed in the study.
3. The paper focuses mainly on the successes and potential of ecological innovations, but challenges and barriers to implementation are not adequately addressed. For example:

What are the obstacles faced by smaller firms or recyclers in adopting eco-innovations?

How do regulatory gaps or financial constraints affect the pace of innovation?

4. Certain parts of the paper, especially in the section discussing the circular economy, feel more descriptive rather than analytical. For example, while the paper lists several initiatives, it would benefit from a more critical analysis of these initiatives' impacts and limitations.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4’s Comments

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the Reviewer for the thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments. We are grateful for the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our work. The suggestions and observations provided have been invaluable in enhancing the quality, clarity, and scientific merit of the manuscript.

We have carefully considered all comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each comment, explaining how and where the corresponding changes have been implemented in the revised version. All modifications have been marked in color in the revised text.

 

 

Reviewer 4's comment:

The paper provides valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities faced by the Polish tire industry in adopting sustainable practices.

Author’s response:

Thank you for your remarks. A new version of the Conclusions section was included in the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer 4's comment:

Several aspects of the manuscript could be improved to strengthen its overall contribution to the field.

1. The authors mention combining quantitative and qualitative analysis, the methodological details are insufficient. It would be helpful to:

The must clarify the type of qualitative approach used (e.g., content analysis, case study analysis, etc.).

Author’s response:

Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the need for greater methodological clarity concerning the qualitative analysis. In response, we have expanded Section 2.2 ("Data Collection Methods") to clarify that both content analysis and thematic analysis were employed. Specifically, environmental reports and literature were subjected to content analysis using predefined categories related to eco-innovation strategies. Additionally, we conducted an inductive thematic analysis of open-ended survey responses and expert interviews following Braun and Clarke’s framework. This methodological clarification enhances the transparency and rigor of the study’s qualitative component. The revised text can be found in Section 2.2 of the revised manuscript (see lines 262–276).

 

Reviewer 4's comment:

2. Explain the criteria for selecting the economic and environmental indicators analyzed in the study.

Author’s response:

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. The selection of economic and environmental indicators in our study was based on four main criteria:

• Relevance to the tire sector and eco-innovation context: Indicators directly related to tire production, recycling, and circular economy (e.g., recovery rate, recycling rate, eco-material share, cost-efficiency) were prioritized.
• Data availability: Only indicators with accessible and verifiable data (e.g., environmental reports, Eurostat, ETRMA databases) were included.
• Consistency with recognized frameworks: We aligned with standards such as GRI, ISO 14001, the EU Circular Economy Action Plan, and ETRMA guidelines.
• Established use in prior research: Indicators commonly used in studies on sustainable manufacturing and eco-innovation were selected.

Based on these criteria, the final indicators include:

• Economic: cost of implementation, production efficiency, ROI, market share evolution.
• Environmental: recycling rate, recovery rate, use of sustainable materials, and emission reduction potential.

We will revise the methodology section accordingly. See lines 262–302.

 

Reviewer 4's comment:

3. The paper focuses mainly on the successes and potential of ecological innovations, but challenges and barriers to implementation are not adequately addressed. For example: What are the obstacles faced by smaller firms or recyclers in adopting eco-innovations?

Author’s response:

It has been added. See lines 462–470 of the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer 4's comment:

How do regulatory gaps or financial constraints affect the pace of innovation?

Author’s response:

In the Discussion section, we highlighted that while financial support is the primary factor stimulating the development of eco-innovations in the tire sector, there is a clear lack of systemic incentives and adequate support, which hinders the full realization of these innovations' potential. Compared to existing studies, our findings confirm commonly known barriers to implementing ecological innovations but additionally emphasize the specificity of the tire industry, where issues related to tire design for recycling and effective waste management remain insufficiently addressed. Moreover, our analysis shows that despite the implementation of advanced technologies and eco-friendly materials, practical limitations arising from legal regulations, insufficient financial incentives, and the complexity of recycling processes prevent the sector from achieving its full environmental potential. In this context, the study offers a new perspective on the complexity of tire lifecycle management and highlights the need to integrate a systemic approach combining technological innovations, legal frameworks, and economic support mechanisms.

 

Reviewer 4's comment:

4. Certain parts of the paper, especially in the section discussing the circular economy, feel more descriptive rather than analytical. For example, while the paper lists several initiatives, it would benefit from a more critical analysis of these initiatives' impacts and limitations.

Author’s response:

It was generally changed according to your suggestion. The novelty of this publication lies in its comprehensive analysis of the factors influencing the development of eco-innovation in the tire sector—a field that, despite its growing role in the sustainable transformation of industry, remains relatively underexplored in academic literature. The study considers both external determinants (such as regulations, competition, technological progress, and consumer pressure) and internal ones (including managerial awareness, environmental strategies, and voluntary commitments), as well as their mutual interactions. See lines 122–128 of the revised Introduction and the new version of point 4, Discussion.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is to identify the most significant elements driving eco-innovation in the tire sector. It focuses on determining the eco-innovation activities in enterprises resulting from external (exogenous) and internal (endogenous) factors, such as legal and political conditions, supply and demand forces, which stimulate the generation of new ideas and solutions, and support the creation of inventions aimed at reducing negative environmental impacts. The research topic was both interesting and informative, and it is suggested that it be refined in the following ways.

1. It is necessary to provide a title that describes the Polish tire market prior to the section 2.1. Data Collection Methods.
2. The study comprised 9 companies operating in tire recycling (about 95% market share), 4 companies producing tires (100% market share), and 2 recovery enterprises. All persons participating in this study were workers or representatives of the management staff in the company. The number of participants in the survey is also of interest.
3. The text contains references to pro-ecological innovations, and the topic is interesting in terms of observing how it differs and relates to Ecological Innovations.
4. This study yielded a number of findings; however, the following question remains: were these findings interesting? It would appear that this is not reflected in the abstract. This intriguing discovery prompts further investigation into the extent to which it differs from extant research. A comparative and contrastive analysis of the discussion is imperative.
5. It is recommended that the article be read with intermittent periods of condensation, with the exception of the Data Collection Methods and Results sections, which have been written in a more concise manner. The primary concern is the establishment of a coherent logical framework.
6. In order to identify the most significant factors driving eco-innovation in the tire industry, it would be beneficial to conduct a quantitative investigation into the relationship between these factors and eco-innovation.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 5’s Comments

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the Reviewer for the thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments. We are grateful for the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our work. The suggestions and observations provided have been invaluable in enhancing the quality, clarity, and scientific merit of the manuscript.

We have carefully considered all comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each comment, explaining how and where the corresponding changes have been implemented in the revised version. All modifications have been marked in color in the revised text.

 

Reviewer 5's comment:

The work is to identify the most significant elements driving eco-innovation in the tire sector. It focuses on determining the eco-innovation activities in enterprises resulting from external (exogenous) and internal (endogenous) factors, such as legal and political conditions, supply and demand forces, which stimulate the generation of new ideas and solutions, and support the creation of inventions aimed at reducing negative environmental impacts. The research topic was both interesting and informative, and it is suggested that it be refined in the following ways.

Author’s response:

Thank you for your comments. A new version of the Conclusions section was included in the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer 5's comment:

1. It is necessary to provide a title that describes the Polish tire market prior to the section.

Author’s response:

It has been revised. See the new Section 2.1: Characterization of the Polish Tire Market in the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer 5's comment:

2. The study comprised 9 companies operating in tire recycling (about 95% market share), 4 companies producing tires (100% market share), and 2 recovery enterprises. All persons participating in this study were workers or representatives of the management staff in the company. The number of participants in the survey is also of interest.

Author’s response:

It has been added. See lines 254–261 of the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer 5's comment:

3. The text contains references to pro-ecological innovations, and the topic is interesting in terms of observing how it differs and relates to Ecological Innovations.

Author’s response:

It was changed according to your suggestions. The term “pro-ecological” was removed from the text.

 

Reviewer 5's comment:

4. This study yielded a number of findings; however, the following question remains: were these findings interesting? It would appear that this is not reflected in the abstract. This intriguing discovery prompts further investigation into the extent to which it differs from extant research. A comparative and contrastive analysis of the discussion is imperative.

Author’s response:

Thank you for the valuable comment regarding the need to emphasize the uniqueness and significance of the results, which is essential for a clearer understanding of the study’s scientific contribution. The revised manuscript includes an expanded analysis in the Discussion section, clearly indicating how our findings complement and differ from existing research—particularly in relation to the specific characteristics of the tire sector and the challenges in implementing eco-innovations.

In the Discussion section, we highlighted that while financial support is a primary factor driving the development of eco-innovations in the tire sector, a clear lack of systemic incentives and adequate institutional support continues to hinder the full realization of their potential. Compared to existing studies, our findings confirm well-known barriers to the implementation of ecological innovations, but also emphasize industry-specific issues—such as the limited progress in tire design for recyclability and insufficiently addressed challenges in waste management.

Furthermore, our analysis demonstrates that despite the adoption of advanced technologies and eco-friendly materials, practical limitations arising from legal regulations, a lack of financial incentives, and the complexity of recycling processes continue to prevent the sector from achieving its full environmental potential. In this context, our study offers a new perspective on the complexity of tire lifecycle management and underscores the need for an integrated, systemic approach that combines technological innovation, regulatory support, and economic mechanisms.

 

Reviewer 5's comment:

5. It is recommended that the article be read with intermittent periods of condensation, with the exception of the Data Collection Methods and Results sections, which have been written in a more concise manner. The primary concern is the establishment of a coherent logical framework.

Author’s response:

The revised manuscript has been presented more concisely to establish a coherent and logical framework. The new text has been refined and condensed to emphasize the uniqueness and significance of the results, which are essential for a clearer understanding of the study’s scientific contribution. In this context, the study offers a new perspective on the complexity of tire lifecycle management and highlights the need for an integrated, systemic approach that combines technological and ecological innovations, legal frameworks, and economic support mechanisms.

 

Reviewer 5's comment:

6. In order to identify the most significant factors driving eco-innovation in the tire industry, it would be beneficial to conduct a quantitative investigation into the relationship between these factors and eco-innovation.

Author’s response:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. Conducting a quantitative investigation to examine the relationship between key factors and eco-innovation in the tire industry would indeed offer deeper insights and strengthen the evidence base. Given the scope and resources available for the current study, we focused on qualitative and mixed-methods approaches, including expert opinions and survey data analysis. However, we acknowledge the importance of quantitative modeling and intend to incorporate such analyses in future research to more precisely identify and measure the impact of these drivers.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

thank you very much for your corrections as well as modifications. I acknowledge them.

My viewpoint is purely from rubber science and therefore, I have been rather too critical to your manuscript. I don’t know how deep is knowledge in rubber science and I don’t want to be too educative. However, to replace natural rubber for synthetic ones, increasing role of silica etc. these are already known phenomena and they bring another issue to be solved.

Generally, recycling and reusing all rubber products (thus not only tires) is very challenging issue, where many physical and chemical aspects limit and or at least hinder such efforts. These facts are missing in your manuscript acc. to me and I have been reading your manuscript again and again very carefully. Therefore, I see your manuscript with rather minor merit to scientific community.

On the other hand, it is topic, which has to be widespread and highlighted and if even such kind of publication contribute positively, go ahead.

If an editor decide to accept it you should correct the table don’t to be separated into the two pages, modify reference format to [44-46] instead of [44, 45, 46].

Author Response

Thank you. The  reply is in attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper was significantly rewritten and can be accepted.

Author Response

Thank you. The reply is aldso in attached document.

 

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your positive evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments that allowed us to improve the work. We are pleased that our revisions have met with your approval and that you see the possibility of accepting the article for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Can be accepted

Author Response

 

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your positive evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments that allowed us to improve the work. We are pleased that our revisions have met with your approval and that you see the possibility of accepting the article for publication.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made concentrated revisions to the abstract, introduction, discussion and conclusion sections of the initial manuscript, enriching the content. Please carefully review the entire text before considering for publication.

Author Response

 

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your feedback and for acknowledging the revisions made to the abstract, introduction, discussion, and conclusion sections of our manuscript. We are glad that the enrichment of the content has been noticed.

We have carefully reviewed the entire text and made the necessary corrections to ensure consistency and clarity throughout the manuscript. We hope that these changes meet your expectations and contribute to a positive evaluation of our work.

Once again, thank you for your valuable suggestions and time.

Round 3

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript requires further refinement, including comprehensive textual review and the implementation of logical enhancements.

Author Response

We add revision in read colour. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf