Circular Economy and Job Creation: A Comparative Approach in an Emerging European Context

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper highlights the importance of: "contribution of the circular economy to sustainable economic growth and job creation in one of the CEE member states, in Romania". Especially the relationship between the circular economy and the creation of new jobs, as well as the necessary skills for this purpose. The study clearly reveals that there are no studies that reveal this relationship. This is perfectly understandable due to the dynamics in the triangle companies-state-universities, as there is no general coordination between them to improve these aspects.

There are aspects to improve such as:

1) This statement becomes a value judgment: "The circular economy has a high potential for job creation, estimated at more than 1 million jobs in the former EU27 by 2030". Institutions or authors that support this statement must be found.

2) What is the methodology or criterion to reach the conclusion that 12 interviews are sufficient for saturation? It seems like a number extracted by magic. They should make an effort to clarify the study. This could invalidate the second part of the study, which was based on interviews. In addition, they should have used more objective methodologies to approach studies through interviews (Deplhi, or modified Delphi, for example)

3) If they did not use text analysis software, what was the tool used to obtain the results of the interviews? How did they create the framework for the interview map (figure 4)?

Author Response

For research article “Circular Economy as a Catalyst for Sustainable Growth and Job Creation”

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.    

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: The paper highlights the importance of: "contribution of the circular economy to sustainable economic growth and job creation in one of the CEE member states, in Romania". Especially the relationship between the circular economy and the creation of new jobs, as well as the necessary skills for this purpose. The study clearly reveals that there are no studies that reveal this relationship. This is perfectly understandable due to the dynamics in the triangle companies-state-universities, as there is no general coordination between them to improve these aspects.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out.

 

Comment 2: This statement becomes a value judgment: "The circular economy has a high potential for job creation, estimated at more than 1 million jobs in the former EU27 by 2030". Institutions or authors that support this statement must be found.

Response 2: We updated the text with the source: European Commission. The Possible Implications of the Green Transition for the EU Labour Market. 2022. doi:10.2765/583043.

 

Comment 3: What is the methodology or criterion to reach the conclusion that 12 interviews are sufficient for saturation? It seems like a number extracted by magic. They should make an effort to clarify the study. This could invalidate the second part of the study, which was based on interviews. In addition, they should have used more objective methodologies to approach studies through interviews (Deplhi, or modified Delphi, for example)

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We revised the text and detailed more the methodology.

 

Comment 4: If they did not use text analysis software, what was the tool used to obtain the results of the interviews? How did they create the framework for the interview map (figure 4)?

Response 4: We updated the text and included the following:

The completed interviews were followed by a qualitative content analysis, which consisted of data categorisation of information by coding. We synthesised a series of main drivers (themes), completed by significant challenges for job creation (patterns) in the circular economy in Romania. Since the number of interviews was not very large, the interpretation of the results was conducted by manually coding the responses. In this regard, we used Microsoft Excel to count similar responses and highlight differences.The data obtained was summarized in a map of the interview data

Given that the selected interviewees represent a balanced mix of experts from research, public, and private sectors, and that each interview was conducted in depth, we believe that the sample size is sufficient to capture diverse perspectives and identify recurring themes and challenges in a meaningful way. We selected a series of key subjects related to significant challenges for job creation in the circular economy in Romania. These subjects provided a structured framework for mapping the interviews, allowing us to systematically compare expert insights, highlight key areas of convergence and divergence, and ensure a comprehensive understanding of the factors shaping circular economy employment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See attached.

Author Response

For research article “Circular Economy as a Catalyst for Sustainable Growth and Job Creation”

 

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.    

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comment 1: The title is clear and concise, effectively conveying the main focus of the paper. However, it could be slightly more specific to indicate the regional focus on Eastern European countries, particularly Romania. Consider revising the title to "Circular Economy as a Catalyst for Sustainable Growth and Job Creation in Eastern European Countries: The Case of Romania."

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We modified the title: “Circular Economy and Job Creation: A Comparative Approach in an Emerging European Context"

 

Comment 2: The research problem is vaguely framed. Why focus on Romania? How does its communist legacy uniquely affect CE adoption? More explanations are needed.

Response 2: We updated the text with (text in red):

Considering the lack of studies regarding the circular economy adoption in CEE  countries and the necessity of understanding more about how the transition from the linear economy to the circular one impacts the labour market, the present study investigates the contribution of the circular economy to sustainable economic growth and job creation in one of the CEE member states, namely Romania. Understanding the barriers to adopting circularity in a country that has faced significant socio-economic challenges and political instability in recent years is essential for estimating the success rate of implementing the European Union’s ambitious plan to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 across multiple sectors. This understanding enables experts and authorities to allocate resources more effectively and raise awareness where necessary.  The success of circularity implementation largely depends on citizens' willingness to change their behavior. Therefore, we explored the impact of circularity on sustainable economic growth in a country that adopted a consumerist economic model after 1990, following a communist period marked by widespread shortages. These shortages led the population to develop consumption habits that generate excessive waste which contradict the principles of sustainability. In this regard, we have chosen to focus on Romania, one of the most recent Member States of the EU, because it can be relevant to other similar countries in the EU that are facing many obstacles in the adoption of circularity. Former communist countries are reluctant to change and adopt new concepts. Citizens are often reluctant to embrace new business models and tend to adopt green initiatives at a slower pace. They also view sustainable practices with skepticism, as these often come at a higher cost, making them unwilling to pay more for environmentally friendly goods or services. Another particularity can be seen in the labour market, as the older generations have been used to getting a job and keeping it until they retire. The premise that the circular economy requires a significant shift in the labor market—affecting skills, working models, and job availability—creates a high level of stress among citizens. This is largely because only 35 years have passed since the end of communism, a period still associated with job security. Therefore, the adoption of a circular economy is a process of many changes that may have an impact on more countries than Romania. In this perspective, a detailed overview of the impact of  the circular economy on the labour market is useful for many stakeholders, including academia, decision makers, private companies and even representatives of NGOs.

 

Comment 3: The review could be more critical and analytical, rather than just descriptive. Please provide a more critical analysis of the literature, highlighting conflicting views and debates in the field. This would strengthen the theoretical foundation of the paper.

Response 3: We updated the text and included the following

Currently, economic transformations and their social implications are analyzed through two opposing theoretical perspectives: the de-growth proponents—comprising socialist economic schools and New & Post-Keynesian (NPK) scholars (Lavoie, 2014; Eichner, 2023)—and the proponents of economic development, particularly those aligned with Austrian Economics (AE) (Taylor, 1980; Rothbard, 1995; Boettke & Coyne, 2023). The de-growth school adopts a critical stance toward transformative processes such as digitalization and the green transition, advocating for a normative economic framework that prioritizes stability over change. Conversely, the development-oriented perspective embraces these transitions, viewing them as catalysts for economic growth and societal progress, adhering to a positive economic approach that seeks to elucidate complex social phenomena.

This study advances a synthesized approach that integrates insights from both AE and NPK traditions. While AE favors deregulation and minimal state intervention (Flynn & Hacking, 2019), NPK scholars examine the implications of state involvement, particularly through subsidies for circularity and green development (Dafermos & Nikolaidi, 2019). This review incorporates both mainline AE perspectives on circularity and job creation and core NPK contributions (Ghisellini, Passaro, & Ulgiati, 2021), offering a comparative analysis of their respective views on the principal drivers of the circular economy and labor market transformations. Specifically, it examines how the transition from material-intensive to circular markets and the broader green transition—encompassing green energy, waste management, green employment, and sustainable development—acts as a key factor in economic restructuring.

By adopting a mixed approach, this study provides a nuanced perspective on the ongoing theoretical debate regarding circularity, highlighting the shifting economic landscape and its social ramifications. The prevailing mainstream view, predominantly represented by NPK, tends to oppose unregulated change in favor of centralized economic control (Berr, 2015). NPK scholars identify several deterrents to circular economy adoption, including job insecurity (Harris, 2013) and the great decoupling effect (Lipietz, 2013). Some argue that resistance to change stems from the high costs associated with learning and adaptation, as well as concerns over potential losses within the current economic model (Niskanen & McLaren, 2023). Nevertheless, empirical evidence suggests that, at least within EU Member States, the Green Deal has set in motion an irreversible transformation, necessitating proactive policy measures to integrate green principles into an evolving global economic environment (Eyl-Mazzega & Gherasim, 2024).

From an AE standpoint, economic thought remains rooted in material production, assuming homogeneous and self-renewing production factors (Meacci & Ferlito, 2018), full employment, and the benefits of green and digital transitions (García-Vaquero et al., 2024). Recent scholarship suggests that the circular economy could facilitate a transition toward Wellbeing Economics (WBE) (Milhem et al., 2024). Other perspectives argue that the emergence of talent capitalism (TC) will reshape business culture, employment structures, and labor relations within the green economy (Moreno-Mondejar et al., 2021). This evolving form of capitalism underscores the potential of green technologies and the green transition not as threats to employment but as drivers of job creation and economic renewal (Pigosso et al., 2017).

We also updated the reference list:

Berr, E. (2015). Sustainable development in a post Keynesian perspective: why eco-development is relevant to post Keynesian economics. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 37(3), 459-480.

Boettke, P. J., & Coyne, C. J. (2023). New thinking in Austrian economics. Annual Review of Economics, 15(1), 329-347.

Bongardt, A., & Torres, F. (2022). The European green deal: More than an exit strategy to the pandemic crisis, a building block of a sustainable European economic model. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 60(1), 170-185.

Dafermos, Y., & Nikolaidi, M. (2019). Fiscal policy and ecological sustainability: a post-Keynesian perspective (pp. 277-322). Springer International Publishing.

Eyl-Mazzega, M. A., & Gherasim, D. P. (2024). How Can the Green Deal Adapt to a Brutal World?. IFRI Studies.

Eichner, A. S. (Ed.). (2023). A guide to post-Keynesian economics. Taylor & Francis.

Flynn, A., & Hacking, N. (2019). Setting standards for a circular economy: a challenge too far for neoliberal environmental governance?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 1256-1267.

García-Vaquero, M., Daumann, F., & Sánchez-Bayón, A. (2024). European Green Deal, Energy Transition and Greenflation Paradox under Austrian Economics Analysis. Energies, 17(15), 3783.

Ghisellini, P., Passaro, R., & Ulgiati, S. (2021). Revisiting Keynes in the light of the transition to circular economy. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 1(1), 143-171.            

Harris, J. M. (2013). Green Keynesianism: Beyond standard growth paradigms.

Lavoie, M. (2014). Post-Keynesian economics: new foundations. In Post-Keynesian Economics. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Lipietz, A. (2013). Fears and hopes: The crisis of the liberal-productivist model and its green alternative. Capital & Class, 37(1), 127-141.

Meacci, F., & Ferlito, C. (2018). The classical roots of the Austrian theory of capital and entrepreneurship. The Review of Austrian Economics, 31(3), 315-339.

Milhem, M., Ateeq, A., Al Astal, A., Alzoraiki, M., Ateeq, R. A., Shafie, D. I., & Santhanamery, T. (2024). Advancing Sustainability: Embracing the Circular Economy for Environmental and Economic Resilience. In Business Sustainability with Artificial Intelligence (AI): Challenges and Opportunities: Volume 2 (pp. 57-68). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

Moreno-Mondejar, L., Triguero, Á., & Cuerva, M. C. (2021). Exploring the association between circular economy strategies and green jobs in European companies. Journal of Environmental Management, 297, 113437.

Niskanen, J., & McLaren, D. (2023). The political economy of circular economies: Lessons from future repair scenario deliberations in Sweden. Circular economy and sustainability, 3(3), 1677-1701.

Pigosso, D. C. A., Rodrigues, V. P., & McAloone, T. C. (2017). Embracing Circular Economy: A journey seen through the perspective of sustainability maturity. Progetto Re-Cycle, 2017(4).

Rothbard, M. N. (1995). The present state of Austrian economics. Journal des Economistes et des Etudes humaines, 6(1), 43-90.

Taylor, T. C. (1980). An introduction to Austrian economics. Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Yagi, K. (2013). Austrian and German economic thought: From subjectivism to social evolution. Routledge.

 

Comment 4: Provide more details on the selection criteria for the interview participants, the number of participants, and the specific methods used for data analysis (e.g., thematic analysis).

Response 4: We updated the text and included the following

..[We interviewed experts from various organisations, such as private companies from environmental businesses, governmental actors, research organisations and non-govern- mental activists. There were 20 interviews conducted from April to May 2024. The inclusion criteria for the respondents were the average expertise in years and the field of expertise. We contacted the experts that study or work in the sustainable economy field for at least 10 years. The experts included in the study were selected based on their experience in conducting research in this field and their involvement in at least three studies or the management of at least two long-term projects in the sustainable economy. The interviews were prepared in advance, and each participant was informed about the purpose of the interview and the importance of providing detailed answers where necessary. We paid a special focus on covering a wide range of particularities concerning sustainability-related expertise from social and economic areas, related to the  newest circular economy opportunities on the job market…]

[...The results were interpreted using the qualitative thematic analysis, a method that is used to identify patterns and themes within the data [52, 53]. We employ structured interviews as a data collection method, using questions from a predetermined thematic framework within the area of circular economy. Our method aims to show the interviewers' different perspectives concerning the same theoretical framework, allowing them to investigate multiple facets of the research questions. Thus, qualitative thematic analysis is a valuable tool in navigating the complexities of sustainability and green economy challenges to gain insights and drive impactful change towards a more sustainable future….]

[...The completed interviews were followed by a qualitative content analysis, which consisted of data categorisation of information by coding. We synthesised a series of main drivers (themes), completed by significant challenges for job creation (patterns) in the circular economy in Romania. Given that the selected interviewees represent a balanced mix of experts from research, public, and private sectors, and that each interview was conducted in depth, we believe that the sample size is sufficient to capture diverse perspectives and identify recurring themes and challenges in a meaningful way. We selected a series of key subjects related to significant challenges for job creation in the circular economy in Romania. These subjects provided a structured framework for mapping the interviews, allowing us to systematically compare expert insights, highlight key areas of convergence and divergence, and ensure a comprehensive understanding of the factors shaping circular economy employment.

 

Comment 5: The results section presents the findings from both the bibliometric analysis and the expert interviews. However, the results could be more clearly organized and presented. For example, separate the results of the bibliometric analysis from the results of the interviews. Additionally, provide more specific examples or quotes from the interviews to support the findings.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We separated the the results of the bibliometric analysis from the results of the interviews (4.1. Results of the bibliometric analysis and 4.2. Results of the interview data analysis). To ensure more clarity of the results we added the following:

The results of the research are presented in two main parts. The first part consists of the results of the systematic literature review, whose main objective is to support the interview guide and provide a framework for discussions with experts in the field of sustainable economy. The second part presents the results of interviews conducted with some of the most prominent representatives of the sustainable economy in Romania.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Congratulations for your effort. Please, the following comments are some suggestions to improve your paper:

1.- Keywords: please do not use acronyms (i.e. CEE)

2.- Citations and references: maybe  you can switch from [2,3,4] to [2-4].

3.- Footnotes: maybe they can be included in the main-text (blue color?).

4.- 2. Review of the scientific literature: maybe you request a mention of theoretical & methodological framework, with attention to the schools of thought applied here. For example, interventionists (new & post-Keynesian: in favor of state control and degrowth policies) vs. liberals (Austrian Economics & Neoinstitutional Economics: in favor of social change -digitalization & entrepreneurship- and development policies). Please, see https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00753-1 or https://doi.org/10.26512/lstr.v15i2.44709

5.- Tables: source? own elaboration?

Best regards.

Author Response

For research article “Circular Economy as a Catalyst for Sustainable Growth and Job Creation”

 

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.    

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comment 1: Keywords: please do not use acronyms (i.e. CEE)

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We modified the keywords accordingly. 

 

Comment 2: Citations and references: maybe  you can switch from [2,3,4] to [2-4].

Response 2: The recommendation will be given due consideration.

 

Comment 3: Footnotes: maybe they can be included in the main-text (blue color?).

Response 3: Thank you for your recommendation. Footnotes were included in the text.

 

Comment 4: 2. Review of the scientific literature: maybe you request a mention of theoretical & methodological framework, with attention to the schools of thought applied here. For example, interventionists (new & post-Keynesian: in favor of state control and degrowth policies) vs. liberals (Austrian Economics & Neoinstitutional Economics: in favor of social change -digitalization & entrepreneurship- and development policies). Please, see https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00753-1 or https://doi.org/10.26512/lstr.v15i2.44709

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We added the following

Currently, economic transformations and their social implications are analyzed through two opposing theoretical perspectives: the de-growth proponents—comprising socialist economic schools and New & Post-Keynesian (NPK) scholars (Lavoie, 2014; Eichner, 2023)—and the proponents of economic development, particularly those aligned with Austrian Economics (AE) (Taylor, 1980; Rothbard, 1995; Boettke & Coyne, 2023). The de-growth school adopts a critical stance toward transformative processes such as digitalization and the green transition, advocating for a normative economic framework that prioritizes stability over change. Conversely, the development-oriented perspective embraces these transitions, viewing them as catalysts for economic growth and societal progress, adhering to a positive economic approach that seeks to elucidate complex social phenomena.

This study advances a synthesized approach that integrates insights from both AE and NPK traditions. While AE favors deregulation and minimal state intervention (Flynn & Hacking, 2019), NPK scholars examine the implications of state involvement, particularly through subsidies for circularity and green development (Dafermos & Nikolaidi, 2019). This review incorporates both mainline AE perspectives on circularity and job creation and core NPK contributions (Ghisellini, Passaro, & Ulgiati, 2021), offering a comparative analysis of their respective views on the principal drivers of the circular economy and labor market transformations. Specifically, it examines how the transition from material-intensive to circular markets and the broader green transition—encompassing green energy, waste management, green employment, and sustainable development—acts as a key factor in economic restructuring.

By adopting a mixed approach, this study provides a nuanced perspective on the ongoing theoretical debate regarding circularity, highlighting the shifting economic landscape and its social ramifications. The prevailing mainstream view, predominantly represented by NPK, tends to oppose unregulated change in favor of centralized economic control (Berr, 2015). NPK scholars identify several deterrents to circular economy adoption, including job insecurity (Harris, 2013) and the great decoupling effect (Lipietz, 2013). Some argue that resistance to change stems from the high costs associated with learning and adaptation, as well as concerns over potential losses within the current economic model (Niskanen & McLaren, 2023). Nevertheless, empirical evidence suggests that, at least within EU Member States, the Green Deal has set in motion an irreversible transformation, necessitating proactive policy measures to integrate green principles into an evolving global economic environment (Eyl-Mazzega & Gherasim, 2024).

From an AE standpoint, economic thought remains rooted in material production, assuming homogeneous and self-renewing production factors (Meacci & Ferlito, 2018), full employment, and the benefits of green and digital transitions (García-Vaquero et al., 2024). Recent scholarship suggests that the circular economy could facilitate a transition toward Wellbeing Economics (WBE) (Milhem et al., 2024). Other perspectives argue that the emergence of talent capitalism (TC) will reshape business culture, employment structures, and labor relations within the green economy (Moreno-Mondejar et al., 2021). This evolving form of capitalism underscores the potential of green technologies and the green transition not as threats to employment but as drivers of job creation and economic renewal (Pigosso et al., 2017).

We also updated the reference list:

Berr, E. (2015). Sustainable development in a post Keynesian perspective: why eco-development is relevant to post Keynesian economics. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 37(3), 459-480.

Boettke, P. J., & Coyne, C. J. (2023). New thinking in Austrian economics. Annual Review of Economics, 15(1), 329-347.

Bongardt, A., & Torres, F. (2022). The European green deal: More than an exit strategy to the pandemic crisis, a building block of a sustainable European economic model. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 60(1), 170-185.

Dafermos, Y., & Nikolaidi, M. (2019). Fiscal policy and ecological sustainability: a post-Keynesian perspective (pp. 277-322). Springer International Publishing.

Eyl-Mazzega, M. A., & Gherasim, D. P. (2024). How Can the Green Deal Adapt to a Brutal World?. IFRI Studies.

Eichner, A. S. (Ed.). (2023). A guide to post-Keynesian economics. Taylor & Francis.

Flynn, A., & Hacking, N. (2019). Setting standards for a circular economy: a challenge too far for neoliberal environmental governance?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 1256-1267.

García-Vaquero, M., Daumann, F., & Sánchez-Bayón, A. (2024). European Green Deal, Energy Transition and Greenflation Paradox under Austrian Economics Analysis. Energies, 17(15), 3783.

Ghisellini, P., Passaro, R., & Ulgiati, S. (2021). Revisiting Keynes in the light of the transition to circular economy. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 1(1), 143-171.            

Harris, J. M. (2013). Green Keynesianism: Beyond standard growth paradigms.

Lavoie, M. (2014). Post-Keynesian economics: new foundations. In Post-Keynesian Economics. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Lipietz, A. (2013). Fears and hopes: The crisis of the liberal-productivist model and its green alternative. Capital & Class, 37(1), 127-141.

Meacci, F., & Ferlito, C. (2018). The classical roots of the Austrian theory of capital and entrepreneurship. The Review of Austrian Economics, 31(3), 315-339.

Milhem, M., Ateeq, A., Al Astal, A., Alzoraiki, M., Ateeq, R. A., Shafie, D. I., & Santhanamery, T. (2024). Advancing Sustainability: Embracing the Circular Economy for Environmental and Economic Resilience. In Business Sustainability with Artificial Intelligence (AI): Challenges and Opportunities: Volume 2 (pp. 57-68). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

Moreno-Mondejar, L., Triguero, Á., & Cuerva, M. C. (2021). Exploring the association between circular economy strategies and green jobs in European companies. Journal of Environmental Management, 297, 113437.

Niskanen, J., & McLaren, D. (2023). The political economy of circular economies: Lessons from future repair scenario deliberations in Sweden. Circular economy and sustainability, 3(3), 1677-1701.

Pigosso, D. C. A., Rodrigues, V. P., & McAloone, T. C. (2017). Embracing Circular Economy: A journey seen through the perspective of sustainability maturity. Progetto Re-Cycle, 2017(4).

Rothbard, M. N. (1995). The present state of Austrian economics. Journal des Economistes et des Etudes humaines, 6(1), 43-90.

Taylor, T. C. (1980). An introduction to Austrian economics. Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Yagi, K. (2013). Austrian and German economic thought: From subjectivism to social evolution. Routledge.

 

Comment 5: tables: source? own elaboration?

Response 5: Indeed, the tables have been developed by the authors. We modified accordingly 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

If the sample was already selected at 12, why did they change it to 20 (as it is based on 20 interview Pag 9) ? At what point did they adjust the study with these 20 interviews? It seems more like a change in form rather than substance. Could you please explain this change better?

Author Response

For research article “Circular Economy and Job Creation: A Comparative Approach in an Emerging European Context”

 

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary   Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.     

 

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comment 1: If the sample was already selected at 12, why did they change it to 20 (as it is based on 20 interview Pag 9) ? At what point did they adjust the study with these 20 interviews? It seems more like a change in form rather than substance. Could you please explain this change better?

 

Response 1: We would like to express our gratitude once again for the valuable suggestions that you provided. These were instrumental in enhancing the quality of the present article and it is assured that they will also be given due consideration in our future research. 

We are sorry for the confusion we made. We apologize for the confusion caused. In our attempt to provide a detailed explanation of how we conducted the study and to emphasize the importance of the number of respondents—considering their heterogeneity, specific characteristics regarding their level of education, professional field, and the country where the research was conducted—it is very likely that the information presented in the methodology section may have overlapped. The present study was initiated with the aim of conducting 20 interviews with experts from a variety of organisations and we did not change this aspect. Thus, through the revisions made to the manuscript, we have added details to the methodological section (based on the sources 69-70) to explain that a smaller number of interviews may be sufficient in a study like the one presented in the manuscript (L394-L398) These interviews were conducted during the period spanning from April to May 2024. In deciding on the number of interviews to conduct, we drew on research in this area, which suggests that a range of 12 to 25 interviews is adequate to reach thematic saturation for a homogeneous sample (Guest et al., 2020; Hennink et al., 2022). Our decision to conduct 20 interviews was influenced by this recommended range.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the presented issues have been addressed, I would like to recommend it for publication.

Author Response

For research article “Circular Economy and Job Creation: A Comparative Approach in an Emerging European Context”

 

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary   Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.     

 

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comment 1: All the presented issues have been addressed, I would like to recommend it for publication.

Response 1: We would like to express our gratitude once again for the valuable suggestions that you provided. These were instrumental in enhancing the quality of the present article and it is assured that they will also be given due consideration in our future research.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

They should pay more attention to methodology.