The Influence of Circular Economy Initiatives on the EU Environmental Goods and Services Sector
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study aims to analyze the economic impact of the EU Circular Economy Initiative on the Environmental Goods and Services (EGSS) sector. The author used Eurostat data to construct two fixed effects panel regression models to examine the impact of technological innovation and recycling performance, as well as the core indicators of circular economy, on the added value of EGSS. The research topic has certain practical significance, solid methodology, and reasonable hypothesis structure, but there are still some problems.
Comment 1: In the introduction section of the article, the explanation of the research background is not comprehensive enough, and there is no detailed explanation of the specific manifestations and severity of global challenges in the EU, as well as how the circular economy can address these issues in a targeted manner. The description of the drawbacks of traditional linear economic models is vague, and there is a lack of specific data and examples to demonstrate their negative impacts on the environment and economy.
Comment 2: The literature review lacks comprehensive and in-depth summarization and evaluation of existing research, and fails to systematically sort out and analyze the research results and viewpoints of different scholars in the areas of circular economy and economic development, environmental benefits, etc.
Comment 3: In the theoretical hypothesis section of the article, the derivation of multiple hypotheses jumps directly from a macro concept to the dependent variable, and the explanation of the transmission mechanism in between is insufficient. It is suggested to improve the logical chain; Assumption 5 is too general; it is recommended to further split it.
Comment 4: In the research methodology section, it is recommended to further clarify and elaborate on the dependent and independent variables.
Comment 5: For the interpretation and explanation of research results, the explanation and explanation of unexpected results are too simple. It is possible to explore them in depth, propose multiple possible and specific theoretical explanations, and discuss their rationality. In addition, the correlation between the results and hypotheses should be strengthened to enhance the logical coherence of the article.
Comment 6: The article lacks sufficient discussion on the core contradiction, and it is suggested to conduct a deeper analysis of the negative results. The policy recommendations are too general and fail to be specific based on research findings. It is suggested to enhance the feasibility of policy recommendations.
Comment 7: The summary section of the article only restates the results, lacking a comprehensive extraction and higher-level summary of the findings throughout the entire text. Suggest further elaborating on the theoretical contribution of the research. In addition, the structure of the conclusion section is somewhat loose and can be further polished to enhance the fluency of the logic.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNone.
Author Response
We would like to thank Reviewer 1 for the constructive feedback and insightful suggestions, which have helped us improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript.
Comment 1: In the introduction section of the article, the explanation of the research background is not comprehensive enough, and there is no detailed explanation of the specific manifestations and severity of global challenges in the EU, as well as how the circular economy can address these issues in a targeted manner. The description of the drawbacks of traditional linear economic models is vague, and there is a lack of specific data and examples to demonstrate their negative impacts on the environment and economy.
Answer: Thank you for this valuable observation. We have revised the Introduction to include more detailed evidence on the severity of the EU’s sustainability challenges and the drawbacks of the linear economy model. This revision strengthens the contextualization of our research and clarifies the relevance of analyzing the Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS). We highlighted the pivotal role of the Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) in this transition, thereby strengthening the motivation and relevance of our study. (Rows 30 – 96)
Comment 2: The literature review lacks comprehensive and in-depth summarization and evaluation of existing research, and fails to systematically sort out and analyze the research results and viewpoints of different scholars in the areas of circular economy and economic development, environmental benefits, etc.
Answer: In the revised manuscript, we updated the Literature Review. 175 – 188 rows
Comment 3: In the theoretical hypothesis section of the article, the derivation of multiple hypotheses jumps directly from a macro concept to the dependent variable, and the explanation of the transmission mechanism in between is insufficient. It is suggested to improve the logical chain; Assumption 5 is too general; it is recommended to further split it.
Answer: Each hypothesis, is explained and Assumption 5 is already divided into three sub-hypotheses (H5a, H5b, H5c), each addressing material footprint, resource productivity, and circular material use rate separately.
Comment 4: In the research methodology section, it is recommended to further clarify and elaborate on the dependent and independent variables.
Answer: In the revised manuscript, we expanded the Research Methodology section to provide details about the dependent and independent variables. 274 – 282 rows
Comment 5: For the interpretation and explanation of research results, the explanation and explanation of unexpected results are too simple. It is possible to explore them in depth, propose multiple possible and specific theoretical explanations, and discuss their rationality. In addition, the correlation between the results and hypotheses should be strengthened to enhance the logical coherence of the article.
Answer: We have significantly expanded the Discussion section to provide a more nuanced interpretation of the results. 453 - 472
Comment 6: The article lacks sufficient discussion on the core contradiction, and it is suggested to conduct a deeper analysis of the negative results. The policy recommendations are too general and fail to be specific based on research findings. It is suggested to enhance the feasibility of policy recommendations.
Answer: In the revised manuscript, we deepened the discussion of the core contradiction identified in our results, specifically while CE initiatives are designed to promote both environmental and economic benefits, some indicators (recycling and innovation) show negative short-term effects on EGSS value added. 480 – 486 rows
Comment 7: The summary section of the article only restates the results, lacking a comprehensive extraction and higher-level summary of the findings throughout the entire text. Suggest further elaborating on the theoretical contribution of the research. In addition, the structure of the conclusion section is somewhat loose and can be further polished to enhance the fluency of the logic.
Answer: We have revised the Conclusion section to go beyond a restatement of results. 506 – 545 rows
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease address these points:
- Use the full sentence in the abstract (instead of the EGSS).
- Provide references for all the applied methods and similar previous studies in the materials and method section.
- Add more references into discussion including direct comparison with your findings.
- Please do not use references in the conclusions but own words.
- Provide some broader societal recommendations and implications in conclusions.
others:
1. Provide a list of analyzed EU instruments and detailed way of analysis of them
2. Provide a reason why his method was applied and not qualitative research that is more relevant for society and decision-makers?
3. Please address all your hypotheses in results, discussion and conclusion in detail.
4. Why those hypotheses were chosen and not qualitative questions ect?
5. Are all the hypotheses addressed in this study?
6. Explain how this study goes beyond state of the art and why?
7. Results section is not fully evident and it does not sufficiently elaborate each EU instruments or all of them. It is difficult to grasp the essence and contribution of this study at the EU level.
8. "The aim to investigate the influence of CE initiatives 80 on the EU EGSS through panel data regression analysis by employing CE indicators as 81 explanatory variables and examining their impact on EGSS performance"
Please provide a clear method, materials and results for this aim.
9. "providing empirical evidence on the economic significance of CE initiatives, thereby informing policymakers, businesses, and scholars about the tangible out comes of Europe’s circular transition"
Please provide clear method, materials and results about this.
10. Start from intro and move through each section with a clear and coherent idea that is linked to the aims
Author Response
We would like to thank Reviewers for the constructive feedback and insightful suggestions, which have helped us improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript.
Reviewer 2:
- Use the full sentence in the abstract (instead of the EGSS).
Answer: We thank the reviewer for this observation. We have revised the abstract so that the acronym EGSS is introduced in full form at its first occurrence: Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS). This ensures clarity for readers unfamiliar with the abbreviation.
- Provide references for all the applied methods and similar previous studies in the materials and method section.
Answer: In the manuscript, we already have references for the applied methods. Please check Research methodology section.
- Add more references into discussion including direct comparison with your findings.
The Discussion section has been substantially revised to integrate additional references and direct comparisons between our findings and prior studies. 487-505 rows
- Please do not use references in the conclusions but own words.
In the original version, we included references in the Conclusions to highlight that our findings are aligned with those of previous studies. However, we acknowledge that the Discussion section is the appropriate place for such comparisons. Therefore, in the revised manuscript, all references have been removed from the Conclusions, focusing on a synthesis of results, contributions, and implications without external citations. The relevant literature comparisons have been relocated and expanded in the Discussion section.
- Provide some broader societal recommendations and implications in conclusions.
In the revised Conclusions, we added the requested details related with the broader societal implications of our findings. Specifically, we highlight that strengthening circular sectors contributes to job creation, community resilience, reduced dependence on resource imports, environmental co-benefits and the need for educational policies fostering green skills. 556 – 564 rows
Other Reviewers:
- Provide a list of analyzed EU instruments and detailed way of analysis of them
Answer: The article is not about the analysis of EU instruments but about the influence of circular economy initiatives on the EU environmental goods and services sector. Circular economy initiatives are the independent variables used in the regression equations which are clearly explained in the article in the research methodology and results sections. The data for these variables, according to the data from the Eurostat databases, come from the Eurostat databases.
- Provide a reason why his method was applied and not qualitative research that is more relevant for society and decision-makers?
Answer: We chose a quantitative econometric approach instead of qualitative research because our study aimed to analyze the influence of circular economy initiatives on the Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) across all EU Member States over a ten-year period. For this purpose, secondary data from Eurostat were available, ensuring comparability, reliability, and consistency across countries and over time. A qualitative design, while highly relevant for capturing stakeholder perspectives, would not have allowed us to systematically measure the impact of CE indicators on EGSS value added at the EU level with the same degree of robustness, replicability, and generalizability. Moreover, a qualitative study cannot provide the same level of statistical inference regarding causal relationships or temporal dynamics at EU scale. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the complementary value of qualitative methods, which could deepen the understanding of mechanisms behind the econometric associations. We highlighted this in the Limitations and future examination section, suggesting that future studies should combine econometric analysis with case studies or interviews to enhance policy relevance for decision-makers.
- Please address all your hypotheses in results, discussion and conclusion in detail.
Answer: Please be informed that hypothesis were addressed in results, discussions and conclusions section.
- Why those hypotheses were chosen and not qualitative questions ect?
Answer: The hypotheses were derived from both theoretical frameworks and empirical findings in the circular economy literature, which suggest measurable links between innovation, recycling, resource productivity, and economic performance in the Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS). Since our aim was to test these relationships quantitatively across all EU Member States over ten years, hypotheses were formulated in a way that allowed statistical validation with harmonized Eurostat indicators. Qualitative questions, while highly relevant for understanding perceptions and implementation barriers, would not have enabled us to assess causal effects and dynamic changes at EU scale with the same degree of comparability and replicability. Therefore, hypotheses were preferred to provide robust, generalizable evidence on measurable outcomes. At the same time, we acknowledge the complementary value of qualitative research and explicitly note in the Limitations section that future studies should integrate qualitative methods to enrich the interpretation of our quantitative findings and provide more context-specific guidance for decision-makers.
- Are all the hypotheses addressed in this study?
Answer: Yes, all hypotheses formulated in Section 2 (Hypotheses development) are addressed in the study.
- Explain how this study goes beyond state of the art and why?
Answer: Most existing research on the circular economy relies on conceptual discussions, descriptive statistics, or case studies, and focuses on general economic or environmental outcomes. Empirical econometric evidence on the direct economic impact of CE initiatives on the Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) is scarce. Our study goes beyond the state of the art in several ways: novel empirical scope, methodological innovation and new insights. Thus, the study provides both methodological and empirical contributions by filling a gap in quantitative CE–EGSS research and by offering robust, generalizable evidence that can guide EU policymakers and businesses.
- Results section is not fully evident and it does not sufficiently elaborate each EU instruments or all of them. It is difficult to grasp the essence and contribution of this study at the EU level.
Answer: The results section clearly explains through the data presented which are the independent variables (representing circular economy initiatives) that have an influence on the EU environmental goods and services sector. The article does not have EU instruments as its subject and therefore this expression was not initially used within the article. The contribution of the study is highlighted both in the results and in the discussion sections, being highlighted by referring to the literature which results confirm (at the European Union level) some of the previous research and which variables have - as an element of novelty - an influence on the EU goods and services sector.
- "The aim to investigate the influence of CE initiatives 80 on the EU EGSS through panel data regression analysis by employing CE indicators as 81 explanatory variables and examining their impact on EGSS performance" Please provide a clear method, materials and results for this aim.
Answer: We ensured a clearer alignment between the stated aim, the methodology, the materials used, and the results obtained: Aim (Section 1 – Introduction), Materials and Method (Section 3), Results (Section 4). This restructuring ensures that the methodology and results are directly traceable to the stated research aim.
- "providing empirical evidence on the economic significance of CE initiatives, thereby informing policymakers, businesses, and scholars about the tangible out comes of Europe’s circular transition" Please provide clear method, materials and results about this.
Answer: We clarified how the methodology, materials, and results directly support the statement on providing empirical evidence of the economic significance of CE initiatives: Method (Section 3 – Research methodology), Materials (Section 3 – Research methodology) , Results (Section 4 – Results).
- Start from intro and move through each section with a clear and coherent idea that is linked to the aims
Answer: We carefully revised the manuscript to ensure a coherent narrative that consistently links back to the research aims. Introduction: reformulated to clearly state the research gap and aims. Theoretical framework & Hypotheses: each hypothesis connects the theoretical rationale to the general research aim. Methodology: explanation why the econometric model and selected indicators are appropriate to achieve the stated aims. Results: restructured to present findings. Discussion: strengthened with literature comparisons and explanations that highlight how the results advance understanding of the aim. Conclusions: rewritten to explicitly demonstrate how the aim has been achieved, what contributions are made, and what societal and policy implications follow.
