The Opportunity Cost Between the Circular Economy and Economic Growth: Clustering the Approaches of European Union Member States

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Assessment: The manuscript presents a well-structured analysis of the relationship between circular economy principles and economic growth within the EU. The research is relevant and contributes to the ongoing academic discussion on sustainability policies. However, the manuscript has areas that require improvement before it is suitable for publication.

Major Revision Required: The manuscript presents valuable insights, but substantial revisions are needed to improve clarity, methodological rigor, and overall readability. Specific areas for improvement include:

• Refining the Introduction for conciseness and clarity: The section is too large, something can be moved to the Theoretical part. Also, the novelty of the study should be clearly articulated in relation to existing literature.

• Providing better justification for Methodology choices: Expand on the rationale for indicator selection and imputation methods. 

• Streamlining Result discussions and using more visual elements: There is repetition in explaining Pearson correlation findings. Moreover, formulas should be moved to the Methodology sections. In general, there is an overlap between these 2 sections, which should be addressed.

• Once these revisions are implemented, the manuscript will significantly improve in quality and impact.

Author Response

1. Rework the introduction for clarity and conciseness

We have restructured the introduction to be more concise, moving some of the theoretical content to the section "Theoretical Framework”. We have also reformulated the explanation of the novelty of the study, emphasizing its distinct contribution. The added text is marked in red.

 

2. Justification of the methodology and clarification of the selection of indicators

We have extended the explanations on the selection of sustainability indicators and the justification for the use of principal component analysis (PCA) and K-means clustering. We have added references that support the choice of these methods. The text is highlighted in green, because we continued the initial justification with the requests received.

3. Reduction of repetitions in the analysis of Pearson correlations and improvement of results

We have removed repetitions from the discussion of the results and moved the relevant formulas to the methodological section. In addition, we have added additional explanations to improve the interpretation of the data. The highlighting is done in red. Unfortunately, we have not yet structured a clear operational model for a chart, as the structure follows a staged progression

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have several suggestions for enhancing its scholarly contribution:

Abstract: The abstract would benefit from greater precision in presenting quantitative findings. Consider including key correlation coefficients and significance levels. Additionally, the methodological description could be more specific about the statistical approaches employed.

Introduction: While the theoretical foundation is sound, the research objectives could be more explicitly delineated. I recommend adding a clear paragraph outlining the paper's structure and methodological approach. The literature review would be strengthened by incorporating recent work on circular economy metrics and implementation frameworks. Consider incorporating recent literature on circular economy metrics, implementation frameworks and regional analyses from 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143874, 10.3390/su17020666, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132652, 10.1016/j.scs.2023.104547, 10.1016/j.scs.2022.104381, 10.5772/intechopen.112878, 10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105469, and 10.1016/b978-0-443-23989-2.00006-9 to strengthen the theoretical foundation, methodology justification, and discussion of findings throughout the paper.

Methodology: The statistical methodology requires clearer organization through dedicated subsections. A methodological framework diagram would enhance reader comprehension. The variable selection criteria should be more thoroughly justified, with explicit connections to theoretical frameworks.

Results: The presentation of findings would benefit from more systematic organization through additional subheadings. Tables and figures require more explicit integration with the text through clear references and interpretation. Consider adding confidence intervals and effect sizes where appropriate.

Discussion: I recommend restructuring this section to more directly address each research question in sequence. The addition of a limitations subsection would strengthen the scholarly rigor. The policy implications could be more thoroughly developed with specific, evidence-based recommendations.

Conclusions: The key contributions should be more explicitly articulated. Consider expanding the future research directions and providing more concrete policy recommendations based on your findings.

Author Response

1. Enhancing the abstract by adding quantitative values

We have updated the abstract to include correlation coefficients and levels of statistical significance, providing a more accurate picture of our findings. The text is marked in red.

2. Extension of the literature analysis with recent studies.

We have added the relevant references suggested in the text to strengthen the theoretical framework of the study and to further highlight the differences between countries.

3. Creating a clearer structure for the methodology

We introduced an explanatory diagram to visualize the methodological model and clarified the connection between the variables used and the research hypotheses. The text is highlighted in red.

4. Improving the organization of results

We have added additional subheadings to clearly highlight the main findings. It has also revised the way tables and figures are integrated into the text, providing more explicit interpretations. Texts are highlighted in green.

5. Developing the discussion on public policy implications

We expanded the analysis of the implications for public policy, providing recommendations based on the results of the study. We highlighted the potential impact of environmental taxes on the circular economy. The text is highlighted by the red color.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend that the motivation of the study be explained in more detail before the purpose of the study in the introduction section.

The introduction section was very long, and I got lost in the transitions while reading. My suggestion to the authors is to discuss the theoretical framework of the study under the title "Research Hypothesis" after the introduction section and give the hypotheses.

Giving the motivation, purpose, and literature contribution of the study in the introduction section will make the study clearer and more precise. Because the literature contribution of the study should definitely be expanded and given clearly.

There are occasional spelling errors in the study; it needs to be reviewed from beginning to end. For example, "policy influence" instead of "police influence."

I recommend looking at the source for the third hypothesis. There are important insights. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2024.121797

Finally, the introduction section should be concluded with an outline including the remaining sections of the study.

The second section is well written. In fact, this section can be classified under two subsections (data and methods).

In the conclusion section, the explanation about Pearson correlation can be moved to the appendix because the correlation matrix is ​​given in the appendix. 3.1 can start directly from the second paragraph.

The policy recommendations given in the conclusion section can be expanded further.

It is also important to mention the limitations of the study and future studies at the end of the conclusion section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

review is required. 

Author Response

1. Clearer explanation of the motivation for the study in the introduction

We have restructured the introduction to better clarify the motivation for the research and its importance in the context of the circular economy and economic growth. The text is marked in red.

2. Rephrasing the introduction for better organization

We have clearly separated the theory section from the introductory one and added a paragraph explaining the structure of the paper. Text highlighted in green.

3. Correction of typographical and grammatical errors

We have carefully proofread the manuscript, including replacing writing or forced translation errors.

4. Moving explanation of Pearson's correlation to appendix

To maintain the clarity of the main text, we have moved the detailed discussion of Pearson correlations to an appendix. The change is made in red.

5. Clearer explanation of study limitations and future directions in research

We have added a detailed section about methodological limitations and recommendations for future studies. The text has been reworded and supplemented. This revised text is highlighted in both red and green..

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript was improved, can be published