Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The author needs to clearly indicate in the introduction the main gaps in the current research

2. The author combines ANP-QFD with sustainable development vector for the first time and applies it systematically in the cosmetics industry. Although the theoretical contribution is reflected in the text, the author's expression is not precise enough

3.The research design steps are clear, but there is a lack of justification for why the ANP-QFD model was chosen.

4.The author needs to provide theoretical support for the weights of α=0.70 and β=0.30, and can cite relevant literature on multi-objective decision-making or sustainable product development to demonstrate the rationality of this ratio selection

5.The author needs to add a section on "Management Insights" in the conclusion, pointing out how companies can use this model to optimize their product development process

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Recommendation and Comments

Manuscript title: Integrating Sustainability into Cosmetic Product Development: An ANP–QFD Framework for Balancing Technical Excellence and Environmental Performance

Journal: Sustainability

1. General Evaluation

This manuscript addresses a relevant and contemporary issue: the integration of sustainability criteria into the early stages of cosmetic product development through a hybrid ANP–QFD framework. The paper demonstrates solid methodological knowledge, a commendable effort in structuring the analytical model, and an ambition to bridge technical design parameters with sustainability-driven product attributes. These strengths align well with the aims of Sustainability and contribute to expanding the application of MCDM tools beyond traditional manufacturing or construction sectors.

Nevertheless, while the conceptual design of the model is well thought out, the paper remains somewhat insular and schematic, with limited connection to empirical practice or the wider methodological landscape. The current version would benefit from a more transparent explanation of the data basis, a clearer articulation of its novelty and validation, and a more interpretive discussion that situates results in context. Overall, the study has good potential but needs refinement to reach publication quality.

2. Major Issues

A1. Empirical foundation and traceability of input data

The credibility of the ANP–QFD framework depends on the robustness of the underlying judgments and relationships. However, the manuscript does not make sufficiently clear how these were derived.

The consumer survey and expert evaluations are mentioned but never quantified—no sample size, composition, or aggregation procedure is indicated. The authors should at least clarify:

• the number of experts involved in pairwise comparisons,
• how consistency was verified, and
• whether consumers’ perceptions were used directly in weighting or only to inform the CR–DR relations.

Without this minimum transparency, it is difficult to assess the objectivity or reproducibility of the findings.

A2. Clarity of methodological innovation

The combination of ANP and QFD is well known in sustainable design research. What this paper adds is less explicit. The authors could improve positioning by stating precisely what is new in their framework—for example, the introduction of a dual weighting system that separates technical and sustainability layers, or the statistical check of orthogonality between them.

Currently, the contribution risks being perceived as a procedural replication. Clarifying the unique methodological or conceptual step would make the paper more recognizable and valuable to readers.

A3. Validation of outcomes

The paper claims that the proposed model “aligns with industry priorities” by 75–80%, yet this statement lacks evidence. Validation is a cornerstone for decision-support systems; without at least minimal benchmarking, the results remain theoretical.

A short comparison—showing how the highest-ranked design requirements correspond to those used in market-leading firms—would substantiate the claim. Even a qualitative triangulation using public sustainability reports from major cosmetic brands could provide credibility without demanding extensive new analysis.

A4. Weighting structure and sensitivity

The weighting factors (α = 0.70 for technical criteria and β = 0.30 for sustainability) are justified qualitatively but remain largely subjective. The manuscript already includes a preliminary sensitivity discussion (Section 4.3.5), indicating that results remain stable for α ∈ [0.65; 0.75]. However, this qualitative statement would benefit from a quantitative robustness indicator, such as Spearman’s ρ or Kendall’s τ rank correlations across several α/β scenarios.

Including a concise table or figure illustrating rank stability (e.g., α = 0.60, 0.70, 0.80) would demonstrate that outcomes are not overly sensitive to small parameter variations and would enhance methodological credibility without requiring major additional analysis.

A5. Depth of interpretation

The manuscript presents extensive numerical results (Tables 10–11) but provides limited discussion of their underlying meaning. The interpretation could be deepened by explaining why certain design requirements (DRs) rise or fall in priority when sustainability is integrated. For example, if packaging-related DRs gain importance, is this due to higher consumer awareness, regulatory pressure, or material efficiency improvements?

Adding two or three short paragraphs that connect the numerical shifts in Table 11 with specific CR–DR relationships or E-vector values would transform the analysis from a descriptive exercise into actionable insight for R&D teams. Such interpretive commentary would significantly increase the paper’s value for both academic and industrial readers.

A6. Structure and communication

The manuscript’s extensive technical sections occasionally overshadow its conceptual story. Several intermediate matrices could be moved to the Supplementary Material, keeping in the main text only representative examples and aggregated results. Visual elements—bar charts or radar plots comparing technical vs. sustainability weights—would make the findings much more accessible and reduce reader fatigue.

A7. Literature update and contextual reinforcement

The literature review provides a reasonable background but does not sufficiently engage with recent, methodologically comparable studies. To strengthen the theoretical grounding and better position the current framework within the evolution of hybrid MCDM models, the authors should consider adding the following works, as complementary—not substitutive—references:

• Yin, D.; Ming, X.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, X. A Fuzzy ANP-QFD Methodology for Determining Stakeholders in Product-Service Systems Development from Ecosystem Perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12(8), 3329. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083329

→ Pertinent for illustrating a rigorous fuzzy ANP–QFD integration within a product design ecosystem, supporting the methodological foundation of the present work.

 Sánchez-Garrido, A. J., Navarro, I. J., García, J., & Yepes, V. (2022). An adaptive ANP & ELECTRE IS-based MCDM model using quantitative variables. Mathematics, 10(12), 2009. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10122009

 → Highly relevant as it proposes a hybrid ANP–ELECTRE structure with adaptive weighting, directly comparable to the dual weighting philosophy adopted here.

 Rahardjo, B.; Wang, F.-K.; Lo, S.-C.; Chou, J.-H.

• A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model Combining DANP with VIKOR for Sustainable Supplier Selection in the Electronics Industry. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4588. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054588

 → Relevant as it exemplifies a recent hybrid ANP-based MCDM framework for sustainability-oriented decision problems, methodologically comparable to the approach adopted here.

 Rocca, R.; Acerbi, F.; Fumagalli, L.; Taisch, M.

• Development of an LCA-Based Tool to Assess the Environmental Sustainability Level of Cosmetic Products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2023, 28, 1261–1285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02219-0

→ Highly pertinent as it directly addresses environmental sustainability assessment in the cosmetics sector, providing empirical grounding for the environmental dimension of the proposed framework.

A short discussion of how these recent advances compare with the current framework would significantly enhance its academic maturity and originality.

3. Minor Issues

• Language and style: The manuscript reads well but could be shortened by removing repetitive phrases. Some technical expressions (“coefficient of orthogonality,” “integration of dual weighting”) would benefit from brief definitions on first use.
• Figures and tables: Improve clarity of the “House of Quality” diagram and ensure all symbols used in tables are explained in captions.
• Abstract: Include a concise summary of the main findings (e.g., the top three DRs after integration). This helps convey the tangible outcome of the model.
• Terminology: Maintain consistency for all abbreviations (CR, DR, ANP, QFD). Some are used interchangeably (e.g., DR-T and DR-S).
• References: Check formatting against Sustainability guidelines; several entries lack DOIs or correct capitalization.
• Conclusions: The final section could be reframed to highlight what the integrated weighting achieves and its implications for sustainable product design, followed by a frank note on limitations and next steps.

4. Final Recommendation and Evaluation

The manuscript presents an interesting methodological synthesis and a clearly relevant application domain. Its strengths lie in the well-structured ANP–QFD approach and the ambition to quantify sustainability alongside technical excellence. The empirical basis, validation, and interpretative depth still require clarification to meet the standards of Sustainability, yet these revisions are achievable without redesigning the study.

Given the overall methodological soundness and the strong alignment with the journal’s aims, I am confident that a focused major revision could elevate this manuscript to publication quality. With enhanced transparency, quantitative validation, and a more interpretive discussion of results, the paper could make a meaningful and durable contribution to the field of sustainability-oriented product development.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

1. The global market size cited (USD 380.2 billion in 2019) is outdated; more recent 2023–2024 data should be used to reflect current market dynamics.
2. Statements like “120 billion packaging units” are impactful but lack specific citations or peer-reviewed sources, reducing credibility.
3. Statements like “120 billion packaging units” are impactful but lack specific citations or peer-reviewed sources, reducing credibility.

 Literature Review

1. The review summarizes QFD and ANP benefits but does not critically assess their limitations in practice, especially in sustainability applications.
2. Recent advances (2021–2024) in AI-assisted eco-design, life cycle assessment (LCA)-integrated QFD, or circular economy in cosmetics are not discussed, making the review less current.
3. Most references are from Europe, USA, or Japan. There is no discussion of sustainability trends or regulatory frameworks in emerging markets (e.g., Southeast Asia, Latin America).

Methodology (ANP-QFD Model)

1. The weights α = 0.7 (technical) and β = 0.3 (sustainability) are justified by sensitivity analysis but not grounded in stakeholder surveys, expert panels, or consumer data.
2. Although CR < 0.1 is claimed, the actual pairwise comparison matrices and consistency indices are not shown, limiting reproducibility.
3. The model assumes crisp judgments, ignoring the inherent uncertainty in human preferences, especially in sustainability evaluations.

Case Study

1. The consumer survey lacks detail on sample size, demographics, and sampling method, raising concerns about representativeness.
2. Design Requirements (DRs) are selected based on literature alone, with no expert interviews or industry validation mentioned.
3. The case focuses heavily on EU regulations (e.g., REACH), but does not discuss how the model would adapt to other regulatory environments (e.g., FDA in the US, CFDA in China).

Results & Discussion

1. The integrated model is not compared against standard QFD or ANP models, making it hard to assess incremental value.
2. The claim of alignment with L’Oréal, Unilever, and P&G is not supported by product-level or project-level evidence, only general R&D budget allocations.
3. Issues like data availability, cross-functional collaboration, or cost implications of implementing the model are not addressed.

Conclusion

1. The conclusion repeats much of the abstract and discussion, without offering new insights or reflective takeaways.
2. Suggestions like “dynamic weighting” or “multi-stakeholder frameworks” are not tied to emerging technologies (e.g., AI, blockchain) or regulatory trends (e.g., EU Green Deal 2025–2030).
3. The conclusion fails to restate key limitations (e.g., static weights, regional scope), which is standard practice for transparency and research integrity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is interesting and shows how to present a comprehensive and well-structured methodological framework combining ANP and QFD to integrate sustainability considerations into cosmetic product design. This paper demonstrates solid technical rigor, detailed quantitative modeling, and a thoughtful linkage between consumer requirements, technical design parameters, and sustainability metrics. However, this paper also displays several weaknesses and inconsistencies. 

1. Although informative, the introduction lacks a distinct articulation of the research gap and specific research questions.
2. A significant portion of the literature cited includes non-peer-reviewed sources (e.g., company reports, McKinsey briefs, industry blogs). This undermines the academic credibility of the review and the justification for methodological choices.
3. The rationale for combining ANP and QFD is not compelling. The authors do not critically evaluate alternative MCDM methods (e.g., TOPSIS, DEMATEL, PROMETHEE) or justify why ANP-QFD is superior in this context.
4. Inadequate Treatment of UncertaintyThe model assumes deterministic inputs and ignores uncertainty in expert judgments, consumer preferences, or environmental data. No sensitivity analysis is conducted on pairwise comparisons or weight assignments.
5. The consumer survey methodology is described superficially. No information is provided on sample size, sampling frame, question design, or validation of constructs.
6. The framework assumes universal applicability, but cosmetic preferences, regulatory regimes, and sustainability priorities vary significantly across markets.
7. The authors do not engage with potential criticisms, limitations, or ethical concerns of quantifying sustainability in consumer goods.
   In brief, I suggest that this manuscript reconsider after major revisions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper needs to better justify the necessity of the highly complex "S-shaped R-powered L-G Fuzzy" numbers. The current rationale against simpler, well-established fuzzy sets (like Pythagorean or Intuitionistic) is not sufficiently developed for this specific problem.

 

The validation of such a complex model relies on a very small panel of only three experts.This small sample size limits the generalizability and statistical reliability of the case study's findings and the derived weights.

 

The finding that the ranking "remains completely stable" even when swapping the most and least important criteria is highly unusual. This suggests the model may be insensitive to weight changes, which should be investigated as a potential flaw rather than presented as robustness.

 

The contribution claims in the introduction are vague. The literature review should be updated to include more recent studies, such as: A Multi-Criteria Approach for Assessing the Sustainability of Small-Scale Cooking and Sanitation Technologies, A Decision-Making Model for Prioritizing Low-Carbon Policies in Climate Change Mitigation, The Use of Adaptive Artificial Intelligence (AI) Learning Models in Decision Support Systems for Smart Regions.

 

The comparative analysis shows different rankings from L-G F-TOPSIS but concludes your method is superior by default. A deeper discussion is needed on why the compromise solution from VIKOR is more appropriate for this specific problem than the TOPSIS result.

 

The rationale for using an S-shaped function to transform crisp weights in Step 5 is unclear.The SWARA method is already designed to derive fuzzy weights directly from expert linguistic judgments, making this step seem redundant.

 

The paper should briefly describe the protocol used by the three experts to provide such specific L-G fuzzy numbers for 60 individual assessments.

 

The proposed model's acronym, "SRL-G F-SWARA," is extremely unwieldy and significantly hinders the paper's readability. The authors should consider simplifying the name to improve the communication and potential adoption of their novel method.

 

The introduction section is overly long and merges a detailed literature review with the problem statement. Separating the comprehensive literature review into its own dedicated section would improve the paper's structure and narrative flow.

 

The abstract claims existing methods "fail to capture... uncertainties", which is a generic statement in most MCDM papers. The paper must more clearly articulate the specific shortcomings of other fuzzy methods that only this new complex framework can solve.

 

The quality of the manuscript can be enhanced by citing and discussing the following  studies:  Integrating Geospatial Technologies and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Sustainable and Resilient Urban Planning,  Technological Innovation in Digital Brand Management: Leveraging Artificial Intelligence and Immersive Experiences,  Strategies towards Evaluation beyond Scientific Impact Pathways not only for Agricultural Research

 

The managerial implications are very general. The paper should provide more concrete, actionable insights for e-commerce managers based on the final ranking and the specific criteria weights.

 

The choice for the $v$ parameter in the L-G Fuzzy VIKOR method (Step 11,) is not justified.While a sensitivity analysis is performed later, the reason for selecting the initial value should be briefly explained in the methodology.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the effort made in this review and the clarity with which each of the comments has been addressed. The manuscript has improved markedly, particularly regarding data traceability, the explicit articulation of the methodological contribution, the sensitivity analysis, and external validation through benchmarking. The expanded discussion and the reorganization of the content also contribute to a more rigorous and fluid reading experience.

After carefully reviewing the responses and the revised manuscript, I consider that virtually all of my observations have been satisfactorily addressed. Only a minor clarification remains to complete methodological transparency:

• In Section 3.2, I would appreciate it if the number of experts involved in the AHP pairwise comparisons were explicitly stated, along with a brief description of their profiles (academic/industrial background, area of expertise).
  This information, even if concise, is important to ensure the reproducibility of the process and to reinforce the credibility of the model.

With this minor clarification, the manuscript can be considered suitable for publication.

I once again thank the authors for the effort invested in this revision and congratulate them on the substantial improvement of the work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised paper has met the publication requirements

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made a commendable and sincere effort to address the raised concerns within the constraints of the manuscript format. The revised version demonstrates clearer methodological articulation, improved theoretical grounding, and strengthened connections between sustainability metrics and cosmetic product development practices. I acknowledge that some issues have not been fully resolved, particularly regarding the explicit articulation of research questions, the justification of method selection, and aspects of empirical transparency. However, the authors have significantly enhanced the manuscript’s structure, clarity, and analytical depth. The revisions meaningfully improve the scholarly rigor and bring the paper to a level that is acceptable for publication. I recommend it accepted in present form for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx