Trade-Offs and Synergies of Key Biobased Value Chains and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I would like to thank the editor of the journal for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript.

Based on research conducted as part of the SUSTCERT 4 BiomBASED EU Horizon project, which integrates the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) objectives into four key sustainability dimensions: environmental, circular, social and economic, this paper evaluates the positive, negative or neutral impacts of key biobased value chains on each of the selected SDG objectives from a multidisciplinary perspective. The study demonstrates that technological advances and the upgrading of integrated approaches can further advance sustainable bio-based solutions in industry and positively impact the various SDGs. Overall, the structure of the thesis is well organized, with a clear logical thread, closely aligned with the sustainable development needs of the society, and with clear conclusions, which provide valuable references for the promotion of sustainable socio-economic development. However, there are still deficiencies in the format as well as the content of the thesis, as shown in the following aspects.

Format

1. In the references section of the paper, the cited references should be given a DOI number at the end of the paper, e.g., references 11, 19, and 20.
2. Table 2 in the article has a problem with the layout format, it is recommended to reorganize, such as the table content on page 7 of the article.
3. Punctuation and citation formats are not standardized, such as the lack of punctuation at the end of the first paragraph of the introduction, and the citation number should be placed at the end of the sentence when citing literature on pages 2 and 11.

Content

1. In the methodology section of the article, there are more elaborations on the research ideas and methods, but there is a lack of overall flow charts or schematic diagrams of the technical routes, which makes it difficult for readers to understand the specific methodological structure, and it is suggested that the elaborations be converted into the form of schematic diagrams or flow charts for easy understanding.
2. The article is less about the current status of the research, it is recommended to sort out the relevant references.
3. Most of the articles are about the research methods and ideas proposed by themselves, and there is a lack of comparison with other methods. It is suggested to compare and analyze with other methods, which is helpful to highlight the innovation and feasibility of one's own methods.

To sum up, in view of the fact that the paper has reached the publication level in terms of structure and argumentation methods, there are still the above shortcomings, and it is necessary to further revise the paper before publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We would like to thank you for your constructive comments. We address each of your suggestions in detail below. All the modifications can be seen in the version with the track changes mode activated. 

•    We have added DOI numbers to the references where applicable
•    The layout issue with Table 2 has been corrected
•    We have standardized punctuation and citation formatting throughout the manuscript
•    To improve clarity, we have included a schematic diagram in the methodology section to illustrate the research framework and technical route (Figure 1).
•    We have extended the literature review adding a brief comparative analysis with other existing methodologies in order to highlight the innovation and advantages of our approach.

Thank you again for your thoughtful feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Questions to Authors and Suggestions for Rebuttal:

(1) Why were the specific value chains chosen for analysis, and how do they represent the broader biobased industry?

(2) How were the expert opinions used to assess the synergies and trade-offs of the value chains, and what steps were taken to ensure their objectivity?

(3) Are there any plans to extend the analysis to include additional value chains or alternative technologies?

(4) What specific policy measures do you recommend to support the development of sustainable biobased value chains?

Questions to Authors and Suggestions for Rebuttal:

1. While the paper provides a good overview, consider tightening the language to make the content more succinct. Ensure that the introduction clearly distinguishes the current research from previous work, highlighting the unique contributions of this study.
2. The research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods are well-stated. However, for clarity, you might want to include a brief justification for the chosen methods, explaining why they are the most appropriate for addressing the research questions.
3. The arguments and discussion are coherent and compelling. To enhance balance, consider addressing potential counterarguments or limitations of the study in more detail. This will strengthen the overall narrative and demonstrate a thorough understanding of the topic.
4. The results are clearly presented. To further improve, consider adding visual aids such as charts or graphs if not already present, to help readers quickly grasp the key findings.
5. The conclusions are well-supported by the results and literature. To bolster these conclusions, you might want to integrate more recent scholarship or empirical data, if available, to show how your findings align with or contribute to the latest research trends.
6. The paper is highly original and contributes significantly to the field. To highlight this further, ensure that the abstract and conclusion explicitly state the novel aspects of the research and their implications for future studies or practices.
7. The engagement with sources is excellent. Continue to incorporate a diverse range of relevant and up-to-date references to demonstrate the breadth of your research and to situate your work within the broader academic conversation.
8. The structure and clarity of the paper are high. Nevertheless, a thorough proofreading to correct any minor grammatical errors or awkward phrasings could enhance the readability.
9. The references are appropriate and relevant. Ensure that all citations are formatted consistently and according to the journal's guidelines.
10. This paper is a strong contribution to the field and demonstrates a high level of scholarship. Addressing the above suggestions could further elevate the quality of the work and its impact on readers. Consider these comments as constructive feedback aimed at refining the paper before publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We greatly appreciate your detailed comments and valuable suggestions. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to your feedback. All the modifications can be seen in the version with the track changes mode activated.

•    The introduction now more clearly distinguishes our research from previous work and explicitly states the novel contributions of our study.
•    A new graph has been added to better illustrate the methodology (Figure 1).
•    All citations have been checked for consistency and formatted according to the journal’s guidelines.
•    We have refined the language throughout the manuscript to improve conciseness and clarity.

Thank you for your constructive feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Trade-offs and synergies of key biobased value chains and sustainable development goals (SDGs)" presents a well-structured and comprehensive analysis of the sustainability implications of biobased industrial systems. The study effectively categorizes sustainability impacts into four dimensions—environmental, circularity, social, and economic—while aligning these impacts with 85 relevant SDG targets. The authors provide a methodologically sound approach, using public data sources, life cycle assessments, and expert insights to assess 25 biobased value chains from six key sectors: chemicals, construction, plastics, textiles, woodworking, and pulp & paper.

The results highlight significant synergies between biobased value chains and SDGs, particularly for those utilizing waste-based feedstocks, which show higher environmental and circularity benefits. However, the paper also acknowledges trade-offs, such as potential land-use competition, energy-intensive processing, and regulatory challenges. The discussion is balanced, recognizing both opportunities and challenges in the transition toward a more sustainable bioeconomy.

The manuscript is well-written, logically structured, and contributes valuable insights to the field of sustainable development and circular bioeconomy. The study's findings are relevant for policymakers, industry stakeholders, and researchers working toward integrating sustainability principles into industrial value chains.

Recommendation: I strongly recommend this paper for publication. The research is rigorous, timely, and aligns well with the scope of the journal. Minor refinements in language and structure could further enhance readability, but overall, the manuscript makes a significant contribution to the literature on biobased value chains and sustainability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your positive evaluation of our manuscript and your recommendation for publication. Your comments have been encouraging and motivating.

To further enhance the manuscript, we have made minor refinements in language and structure to improve readability.