Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article provides a review of over 70 academic sources on the use of Activity-Based Costing (ABC) to reduce environmental impact. The authors analyze literature from 1998 to 2023, utilizing Excel and the Bibliometrix for data processing. The strengths of the paper lie in its identification of key research directions and advantages of ABC in industries such as sustainable construction, metallurgy, transportation, and manufacturing. The article highlights how ABC helps reduce environmental damage and identifies emerging research trends, including the use of new technologies to manage costs and minimize environmental impacts in production processes. However, the article remains purely theoretical, lacking practical application of the findings. It would be valuable to provide examples of successful ABC implementation for reducing environmental costs, and to outline specific pathways for applying these results in real-world scenarios.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article provides a review of over 70 academic sources on the use of Activity-Based Costing (ABC) to reduce environmental impact. The authors analyze literature from 1998 to 2023, utilizing Excel and the Bibliometrix for data processing. The strengths of the paper lie in its identification of key research directions and advantages of ABC in industries such as sustainable construction, metallurgy, transportation, and manufacturing. The article highlights how ABC helps reduce environmental damage and identifies emerging research trends, including the use of new technologies to manage costs and minimize environmental impacts in production processes. However, the article remains purely theoretical, lacking practical application of the findings. It would be valuable to provide examples of successful ABC implementation for reducing environmental costs, and to outline specific pathways for applying these results in real-world scenarios.

Response

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added 3 new paragraphs in the “Conclusions and Future Directions” [page 14, lines 340-368].

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is well structured and presented. The topic is also relevant to the journal. Below are some comments for a minor revision.

(1) At the end of Section 1, the authors wrote that "this study aims to" ... "offer guidance for future investigations into this critical intersection of cost management and environmental stewardship". However, no "guidance" is actually offered later in the paper. The authors should revise this statement or add the guidance into the paper.

(2) Sub-section 2.3 currently contains too much literature review which should be removed to the Introduction section. The authors should add the details of methods that are used to generate the Results section.

(3) Sub-section 3.6 presents the keywords from past publications, but doesn't address the present and future research agenda. The authors should either revise the heading of this sub-section or modify its contents to ensure they align properly.

(4) The heading of Section 4 indicates future directions, but its content doesn't address this topic. The limitations of this study are distinct from future directions. The authors should either revise the heading of this section or modify its contents to ensure they align properly.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This paper is well structured and presented. The topic is also relevant to the journal. Below are some comments for a minor revision.   (1) At the end of Section 1, the authors wrote that "this study aims to" ... "offer guidance for future investigations into this critical intersection of cost management and environmental stewardship". However, no "guidance" is actually offered later in the paper. The authors should revise this statement or add the guidance into the paper.

Response (1): Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added 3 new paragraphs in the “Conclusions and Future Directions” [pages 14-15, lines 377-400].   (2) Sub-section 2.3 currently contains too much literature review which should be removed to the Introduction section. The authors should add the details of methods that are used to generate the Results section.   Response (2): Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Excessive references have been removed; however, minimal ones have been maintained, in order to substantiate the main ideas of the methodology [page 3, lines 124-157].   (3) Sub-section 3.6 presents the keywords from past publications, but doesn't address the present and future research agenda. The authors should either revise the heading of this sub-section or modify its contents to ensure they align properly.   Response (3): Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have adjusted the heading [page 11, line 282].   (4) The heading of Section 4 indicates future directions, but its content doesn't address this topic. The limitations of this study are distinct from future directions. The authors should either revise the heading of this section or modify its contents to ensure they align properly.   Response (4): Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added 3 new paragraphs in the “Conclusions and Future Directions” [pages 14-15, lines 377-400].

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting exploratory research, with 58 articles studied over a time horizon of 26 years, which gives an average of 2 per year, this may indicate a certain weakness in the thesis to be demonstrated, its conclusions could be deepened further. search in other databases.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This is an interesting exploratory research, with 58 articles studied over a time horizon of 26 years, which gives an average of 2 per year, this may indicate a certain weakness in the thesis to be demonstrated, its conclusions could be deepened further. search in other databases.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Although we agree with your comment, prior to the selection of the database, searches were carried out in Scopus. However, the results were not substantially superior, in addition to the fact that many articles were already indexed in Web of Science. In this sense, considering the relevance of your comment, the article nevertheless points out that the database used is the one with the greatest impact worldwide, which supports the fact that it constitutes a valid guide on which to understand the state of the art on ABC and environmental impact [page 3, lines 111-112].

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The changes made to the article were appropriate, I consider the work ready to be published