Creative Industries and the Circular Economy: A Reality Check Across Global Policy, Practice, and Research

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article titled 'Creative Industries and the Circular Economy: A Reality Check Across Global Policy, Practice, and Research' addresses an important and timely theme. A significant part of the debate on CE is dealing with traditional industrial sectors, agriculture, and waste management, not much attention was given to creative industries.

Ambitious and detailed methodological design is on of the key strengths of the article. The authors bring together: a review of recent academic literature, a survey of national strategies, an analysis of grey literature using NLP methods, and an exploratory survey among practitioners. The breadth of sources enables them to triangulate perspectives and to capture both macro-level frameworks and micro-level practices.

The paper also provides valuable empirical insights. It highlights that creative industries are largely absent from national CE strategies, with only a few exceptions. It also demonstrates the dominance of design, architecture, and fashion in the academic and grey literature, while sectors such as advertising, gaming, and createch remain under-researched. The survey results, although limited, underline the fragmented and uneven engagement of practitioners with CE, as well as their limited preparedness for future regulation and standards. Particularly interesting is the discussion of digitalisation and the “world behind the screen,” drawing attention to the often-hidden energy and e-waste implications of data-intensive creative production.

At the same time, there are some areas where the manuscript would benefit from significant revision. The first concerns focus and conciseness. The article is 41 pages long and while tables and statistics are very detailed, the narrative risks being lost in the volume of information.

Second, the survey evidence is weak in terms of sample size and representativeness. With only 80 responses, of which 41 were fully complete and 80% were UK-based, the survey cannot support broad generalisations. The authors do acknowledge these limitations, but the conclusions drawn from the survey could be more cautious and framed more explicitly as exploratory.

Third, while the descriptive analysis is thorough, the conceptual argument could be developed further. The most original contribution of the paper lies in its claim that the creative industries matter not only because of their material practices but also because of their cultural power to shape values, narratives, and consumer norms. Yet this argument is underdeveloped in the current version. Similarly, the discussion of digitalisation and AI is promising but remains at a relatively general level; given the speed of technological change, an additional explanation of its implications for CE would be valuable.

Finally, the policy dimension could be strengthened. The review of 73 national CE strategies is impressive, but the discussion tends to stop at identifying the absence of creative industries. The paper would end more powerfully if it articulated clearer recommendations for policymakers, industry associations, and educators. What specific measures would bring the creative industries into CE frameworks? Could we benefit from specific policies, standardization or other measures?

I add a few very concrete suggestions:

1. The article highlights fragmentation in how the creative industries engage with the CE but fails to offer an analytical framework to understand different types of engagement. The article could benefit by referencing an article providing an overview of different stages of maturity of CE networks.

One possibility is: Fric, Urška; Levnajić, Zoran; Modic, Dolores; Rončević, Borut. Industrial symbiosis networks supporting circularity : understanding complexity, cyclicality and resilience. Environmental technology & innovation. Feb. 2025, vol. 37, [article no.] 104026, DOI: 10.1016/j.eti.2025.104026. However, the authors may use other article serving the same function.

2. The article argues that the creative industries are important also by shaping narratives and values. We suggest referencing the article that could reinforce the argument that social and institutional dynamics are as central to CE as material flows and provide a concrete methodological example of how decision-support tools can be used to evaluate readiness for circularity and strengthen the policy implications of the article, showing that there are ways to systematically assess creative sub-sectors’ potential to engage with CE. 

One possibility is: Boshkoska, Biljana Mileva; Rončević, Borut; Džajić Uršič, Erika. Modeling and evaluation of the possibilities of forming a regional industrial symbiosis networks. Social sciences. 2018, vol. 7, iss. 1. DOI: 10.3390/socsci7010013. However, the authors may use other article serving the same function.

3. The article acknowledges conceptual issues in CE, but fails to situate creative industries within the wider debates over definitions and paradigms. I recommend referencing a work that will help the authors to place their work in the broader taxonomy of CE concepts.

One possible article is: Džajić Uršič, Erika; Fric, Urška; Rončević, Borut. The Circular Economy: recent debates and research trends. Journal of infrastructure, policy and development. 2024, vol. 8, no. 3, DOI: 10.24294/jipd.v8i3.2855. The article emphasizes the cultural and symbolic role of creative industries in shaping CE narratives. Džajić Uršič et al. explicitly argue to embed CE into socio-cultural settings alongside natural and technical ones, making it compatible with and reinforcing the reviewed article's claim that the creative industries matter for shaping narratives as well. However, the authors may use other article serving the same function.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their careful and constructive reading of the manuscript and for recognising the strengths of the multi-strand research design and relevance of the topic. We also appreciate the reviewer’s comments regarding the manuscript’s breadth and conceptual positioning. We address each comment below.

Comment 1:
The manuscript is ambitious in scope and contains a large volume of detailed material. The narrative could be clearer and more concise to avoid losing the main argument.

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this observation. We have substantially revised the manuscript for clarity and focus. This includes restructuring parts of the Results and Discussion sections to streamline the narrative, removing descriptive detail that did not directly serve the central research questions, and strengthening signposting between subsections. The revised version places greater emphasis on the main analytical findings and their implications for the sector’s circular transition. Many of the tables that disrupt the flow are moved to the Appendices.

Comment 2:
The survey data is limited and should be framed more explicitly as exploratory, avoiding strong generalisations.

Response:
We agree and have addressed this point more explicitly. In the revised manuscript, the survey is consistently described as exploratory and indicative, and we clarify that the findings are used primarily for pattern identification and triangulation across evidence strands. We also emphasise that sub-sector comparisons should not be interpreted as statistically representative. This clarification appears in the Methods section (Online Survey subsection) and is reiterated in the Discussion. Where we make generalisations, we have ensured that we only do that in triangulation with the other strands.

Comment 3:
The argument that the creative industries matter because of their cultural power to shape values and narratives is promising but underdeveloped. Also, that the discussion of the implications of digitalisation and AI could be expanded.

Response:
We thank the reviewer for highlighting the point about the cultural power of the sector. We have clarified the scope of the paper in relation to this theme. While the cultural influence of the creative industries in shaping public narratives is acknowledged in the Introduction and Conclusion, the primary contribution of this paper is to analyse the internal sector dynamics of circularity: policy positioning, operational practices, infrastructure conditions, and sub-sectoral variation. Therefore, rather than extending the paper into broader societal transitions or cultural theory, we have made the boundaries of the contribution more explicit, ensuring that references to cultural influence are present but contextualised. This strengthens conceptual clarity and aligns the argument with the paper’s empirical evidence base and intended contribution to CE scholarship.

Regarding digitalisation and AI, we have made multiple edits in the Discussion to move the discourse beyond generics, including a specific sub-section on the impact of generative AI as the most disruptive landscape/regime force.

Comment 4:
The policy implications could be made more explicit.

Response:
We agree and have expanded the policy recommendations in the Conclusion. The revised text identifies (a) the need for differentiated policy mechanisms across sub-sectors, (b) the importance of supporting intermediary organisations and sector networks, and (c) the need for earlier engagement of the sector in standardisation and regulatory design processes. In drafting these improved recommendations, we have also made the linkage to industrial symbiosis as a policy area that has seen some success in other sectors.

Comment 5:
Specific references were suggested to strengthen conceptual framing.

Response:
We thank the reviewer for these helpful suggestions, particularly since they made us more aware of benefits of referring to industrial symbiosis. We reviewed each of the recommended references and have incorporated all three where they substantively reinforced existing arguments in the Introduction and Discussion sections, particularly in relation to network maturity (and the link to industrial symbiosis), social and cultural dynamics and narratives, more specific policy recommendations, and the implication for the creative industries of ongoing ambiguity in definitions. In doing so, we ensured that the conceptual framing remains aligned with the paper’s empirical and analytical orientation i.e., change within and across the sector, rather than contribution to broader societal transformation through narrative techniques.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study adopts a comprehensive research method to clarify the key issues of creative industries in the transformation of circular economy, providing valuable information for fields such as circular economy and sustainable development.

However, in order to better publish in the journal Sustainability, we believe that this manuscript should undergo significant revisions. The detailed comments are as follows:

1. One of the core data sources of the article is the online practitioner survey, but its sample size is relatively small (N=80), and up to 80% of the respondents are from the UK, lacking statistical power and universality. It is suggested that the author should emphasize more strongly in the "Limitations" section the direct impact of this sample bias on the research conclusions, and clarify that comparative analysis based on sub industries is only "exploratory" and "indicative", rather than decisive.
2. The article repeatedly points out that many niche innovations (such as modular theater sets and virtual production) face "scale challenges", but mainly attributes their fundamental reasons to "lack of policy support" and "funding". It is suggested that the author combine the characteristics of creative industry project systems, short-term contracts, and high dependence on freelancers to analyze how these structures are not conducive to circular practices that require long-term collaboration and infrastructure investment.
3. In the conclusion, the article suggests that policy makers should consider the creative industry as a whole. However, there are significant differences in resource base, business models, regulatory pressures, and circular practices among different sub industries. It is suggested that the author should further refine the policy recommendations in the conclusion and not adopt a one size fits all approach.

Please note that the above revisions are intended to address the main comments and improve the overall quality of the manuscript.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their constructive and insightful comments. We appreciate the recognition of the value of the research design, and we address each point below.

Comment 1:
The practitioner survey sample is small and heavily UK-weighted.

Response:
We agree and have addressed this point more explicitly. In the revised manuscript, the survey is consistently described as exploratory and indicative, and we clarify that the findings are used primarily for pattern identification and triangulation across evidence strands. We also emphasise that sub-sector comparisons should not be interpreted as statistically representative. This clarification appears in the Methods section (Online Survey subsection) and is reiterated in the Discussion. Where we make generalisations, we have ensured that we only do that in triangulation with the other strands.

Comment 2:
The analysis of scaling challenges should include structural project-based characteristics.

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this important point. We have expanded our discussion of how project-based work systems, freelancer dependence, and short production cycles act as structural barriers to circular infrastructure and long-term collaboration. This clarification appears in the Discussion.

Comment 3:
Policy recommendations should not imply a single approach.

Response:
We agree and have revised the Conclusion to present differentiated and layered recommendations at organisational, sectoral, and policy levels, and to distinguish between material-intensive, digital-intensive, and hybrid sub-sectors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a critical examination of the creative industries' role within the circular economy framework. Through triangulated analysis of academic literature, national policy strategies, and interviews with creative professionals, the study offers valuable insights and identifies promising research directions. While the manuscript is well-structured and its findings are substantively significant, three aspects warrant further development before publication:

First, the abstract should be revised to more prominently feature the key research conclusions.

Second, additional literature should be incorporated concerning industries characterized by high digital resource intensity, with particular attention to the role of data value in sustainable development. Relevant reference:

DOI: 10.1016/j.frl.2025.106847.

Third, greater emphasis should be placed on methodological approaches in existing research, especially emerging data science methods. Reference:

doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2024002.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comments and recognition of the contribution of the manuscript. We address each point below.

Comment 1:
The abstract should more prominently feature the key research conclusions.

Response:
We agree and have revised the Abstract to more clearly present the main findings and their implications.

Comment 2:
Additional literature on digital resource intensity and data intensity is suggested.

Response:
Noting your important point about other data intensive sectors, we have included the following papers that consider multiple industries (energy, retail, :

Rahaman, M.M.; Gonee Manik, M.M.T.; Noman, I.R.; Islam, M.R.; Aziz, M.M.; Bhuiyan, M.M.R.; Das, K. Data Analytics for Sustainable Business: Practical Insights for Measuring and Growing Impact. ICRRD Journal 2024, 5, 110–125, doi:10.53272/icrrd.v5i4.2

Munodawafa, R.; Johl, S. Big Data Analytics Capabilities and Eco-Innovation: A Study of Energy Companies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4254, doi:10.3390/su11154254

We reviewed the suggested work by Li et al. and suggest that the paper “The role of data in transformations to sustainability: a critical research agenda” by De Albuquerque et al. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.06.009) is more aligned with our arguments about data value in sustainability, and this is included in the Discussion.  

Also, we have selectively incorporated relevant insights into the Discussion, where they strengthen the analysis of digital and data-intensive creative workflows.

Comment 3:
Methodological discussion of data science approaches should be strengthened.

Response:
We have created a new sub-section on Data Driven Innovation in the Discussion, and added additional context acknowledging the importance of emerging data science approaches to sustainability. We have supported the text with two papers:

Rahaman, M.M.; Gonee Manik, M.M.T.; Noman, I.R.; Islam, M.R.; Aziz, M.M.; Bhuiyan, M.M.R.; Das, K. Data Analytics for Sustainable Business: Practical Insights for Measuring and Growing Impact. ICRRD Journal 2024, 5, 110–125, doi:10.53272/icrrd.v5i4.2

Munodawafa, R.; Johl, S. Big Data Analytics Capabilities and Eco-Innovation: A Study of Energy Companies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4254, doi:10.3390/su11154254

Your helpful suggestion of the Theodoru & Theodoru reference has been incorporated in this new sub-section to reinforce a point about strategic alignment.

Comment on Language:
The reviewer suggests improving the English.

Response:
The manuscript has been substantially revised. We reviewed the text for clarity and consistency and remain confident that the language is clear and precise. We note that two other reviewers stated that the English is of good quality.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study focuses on the application status and policy representation of the Circular Economy (CE) in the creative industries. It adopts a triangulation method, integrating evidence from academic literature (2018–2024), national policy strategies, grey literature, and an exploratory online survey of creative professionals to explore the drivers, cognitive level, and preparedness of the creative industries in their transition to a circular economy. The following changes are recommended to enhance the manuscript:

1. The abstract should further synthesize the study’s principal conclusions and underscore the generalizable patterns revealed by the manuscript.
2. It is recommended to systematically review the limitations of existing studies and enhance the introduction by adding a discussion on the significance of this research, highlighting the study's contributions from multiple perspectives. Reduce the excessive listing of basic knowledge.
3. The presentation of the empirical results is poorly structured and excessively verbose, failing to highlight the core findings.
4. The discussion is overly formulaic; it should focus on the research question linking the circular economy and creative industries, incorporate additional literature, and provide scientific justification for the results.
5. Please check the numbering and formatting of tables and figures, as the current numbering does not match the in-text references—for example, in Section 3.3.
6. Please check the formatting of the references again as the format does not appear to be consistent.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback and address each point below.

Comment 1:
The abstract should synthesise conclusions more clearly.

Response:
We agree and have revised the Abstract accordingly.

Comment 2:
The introduction should more clearly articulate the significance of the research.

Response:
We have made many changes to the Introduction to reduce contextual description, and to highlight the research problem and unique contribution more directly. At the start of the Introduction, we have also added a short summary of key CE papers and their relationship to the creative industries. Since our paper is contributing original research rather than providing a comprehensive review of existing literature, we believe this is sufficient.

Comment 3:
The empirical results section is overly verbose.

Response:
We have reorganised and edited the Results section to remove some areas of duplication, improve narrative flow, and clearly foreground key findings. Many of the tables have been moved to the Appendices to avoid breaking up the text excessively.

Comment 4:
The discussion should be more closely connected to the research question, and less formulaic.

Response:
We have completely revised the Discussion section to ensure clearer linkage to the three research questions and to strengthen the interpretive framing through the lens of the Multi-Layer Perspective. These revisions are supported by additional literature added throughout the Discussion.

Comment 5:
Numbering and formatting of tables and figures require correction.

Response:
We have reviewed and corrected all table and figure numbering and cross-references.

Comment 6:
Reference formatting consistency is needed.

Response:
We have reviewed and corrected the reference list to ensure consistency with the journal style. Please note that for the titles of journal articles, we have followed the source journal’s capitalisation and so you will see some variations as a result.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully read the author's reply letter and the revised manuscript. I believe the author has fully addressed some of the key issues I raised. Therefore, I suggest accepting the manuscript for publication.