On the Interplay Between Behavior Dynamics, Environmental Impacts, and Fairness in the Digitalized Circular Economy with Associated Business Models and Supply Chain Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors proposed literature review for studies about behavior dynamics, environmental impacts and fairness in the circular economy, business models and supply chain management. Although the work is relevant to the journal scope of the Sustainability, the logic and the contributions may need to improve. Specifically, I have the following concerns and suggest the authors to address the following points:

1. In the abstract and the main text, the authors keep emphasizing the importance of digitalization. However, it can be observed from the title that there is nothing related to the digital system and digitalization. Therefore, I would recommend the authors to reconsider their title to check if digital/digitalization should be included.
2. I would recommend the authors explicitly to list their research questions for this literature review in the first section. They intend to review the research focusing on the interplay among behavior dynamics, environmental impacts, and fairness, but what is this for? Is this for identification of the current barriers for efficient interplay? Is this for finding good practices of the interplay? Or is this for discovery of the mechanisms behind the interplay? Or is this to explain why they interplay with each other? Or simply for finding the methodological tools for investigating this topic? To enhance the readability of the manuscript, I would recommend the authors to use a single paragraph to list their research questions.
3. In Section 2.1, the search words/combinations are missing, as well as the time for paper sampling. So far, the way for sampling paper is not transparent.
4. In Section 2.2, the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the paper sampled are missing.
5. In Section 2.2, the numbers of papers initially sampled, filtered out, and eventually sampled are missing.
6. I would recommend the authors to define the three key terms “behavior dynamics”, “environmental impacts”, and “fairness” at the beginning of Section 3 rather than putting them in the middle of the section, which can enhance the readability of the manuscript.
7. It is not fully convincing to make the circular economy, supply chain management, and business model as three separate parts because they have multiple overlaps both in academic and in practice. Therefore, if the authors tend to build their framework by splitting the three terms, they need to provide rich and strong justification why these areas are independent. Also, when authors define each of the term, the supporting reference is missing, making the scientific rigor lost.
8. So far, the manuscript reads like three segments which describe behavior dynamics, environmental impacts and fairness in circular economy, in supply chain management, and in business model. The manuscript hasn’t integrated them into a holistic framework, but made them as three independent literature reviews. This largely reduces the contribution of the papers, and I would recommend the authors to develop an integrated framework.
9. The figures presented in this manuscript have not clearly indicated in texts, making the readers hard to link the arguments or discussion to the figures. I would recommend the authors to indicate the figures in texts to enhance the readability.
10. The format and the levels of section titles in this manuscript are inconsistent. For example, under section 4.1.1, the authors use “1, 2, 3…” again to indicate different topics. I would recommend them to re-format the title numbers.

Thanks!

Author Response

Reviewer 1

 

Comments 1: In the abstract and the main text, the authors keep emphasizing the importance of digitalization. However, it can be observed from the title that there is nothing related to the digital system and digitalization. Therefore, I would recommend the authors to reconsider their title to check if digital/digitalization should be included.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the emphasis on digitalization in the abstract and main text, while the title does not explicitly reference it. To align the title with the core themes of the paper, we have revised it to include a reference to digitalization.

Revised Title:
"On the Interplay between Behavior Dynamics, Environmental Impacts, Fairness, and Digitalization in the Circular Economy, Business Models and Supply Chain Management"

This modification ensures that the title accurately reflects the paper’s focus on digital transformation as a key element in the discussion. The revised title can be found on Page 1, Title Section.

Comments 2: I would recommend the authors explicitly to list their research questions for this literature review in the first section. They intend to review the research focusing on the interplay among behavior dynamics, environmental impacts, and fairness, but what is this for? Is this for identification of the current barriers for efficient interplay? Is this for finding good practices of the interplay? Or is this for discovery of the mechanisms behind the interplay? Or is this to explain why they interplay with each other? Or simply for finding the methodological tools for investigating this topic? To enhance the readability of the manuscript, I would recommend the authors to use a single paragraph to list their research questions.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We agree that explicitly listing the research questions will improve the clarity and readability of the manuscript. To address this, we have added a dedicated paragraph in the Introduction section (Page 2, last paragraph) that explicitly states our research questions. The inclusion of these questions helps to better define the objectives of our literature review.

Comments 3: In Section 2.1, the search words/combinations are missing, as well as the time for paper sampling. So far, the way for sampling paper is not transparent.

Response 3: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We acknowledge the need for greater transparency in our literature selection process. To address this, we have revised Section 2.1 to explicitly include the search terms, combinations, and the time frame for paper sampling.

Comments 4: In Section 2.2, the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the paper sampled are missing.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that clearly stating the inclusion and exclusion criteria will improve the transparency of our methodology. To address this, we have revised Section 2.1 by explicitly listing these criteria.

Comments 5: In Section 2.2, the numbers of papers initially sampled, filtered out, and eventually sampled are missing.

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. We recognize the importance of providing quantitative details on our paper selection process. To enhance transparency, we have revised Section 2.1  to include the number of papers initially retrieved, filtered out, and ultimately selected for review.

Comments 6: I would recommend the authors to define the three key terms “behavior dynamics”, “environmental impacts”, and “fairness” at the beginning of Section 3 rather than putting them in the middle of the section, which can enhance the readability of the manuscript.

Response 6: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. We agree that defining the three key terms, behavior dynamics, environmental impacts, and fairness, at the beginning of Section 3 will improve the readability and logical flow of the manuscript. To implement this, we have reorganized the section by moving the definitions to the beginning of Section 3, subsection 3.1.

Comments 7: It is not fully convincing to make the circular economy, supply chain management, and business model as three separate parts because they have multiple overlaps both in academic and in practice. Therefore, if the authors tend to build their framework by splitting the three terms, they need to provide rich and strong justification why these areas are independent. Also, when authors define each of the terms, the supporting reference is missing, making the scientific rigor lost.

Response 7: Thank you for this insightful comment. We acknowledge the interconnected nature of the circular economy, supply chain management, and business models and recognize the need to provide a stronger justification for treating them as separate parts. Additionally, we agree that providing references to support the definitions of these concepts will enhance the scientific rigor of the manuscript. To address these concerns, we have made the have added a new paragraph in section 4 (paragraph 4)

Comments 8: So far, the manuscript reads like three segments which describe behavior dynamics, environmental impacts and fairness in circular economy, in supply chain management, and in business model. The manuscript hasn’t integrated them into a holistic framework, but made them as three independent literature reviews. This largely reduces the contribution of the papers, and I would recommend the authors to develop an integrated framework.

Response 8: Thank you for this insightful comment. We acknowledge that the manuscript currently presents behavior dynamics, environmental impacts, and fairness separately within the circular economy, supply chain management, and business models without fully integrating them into a holistic framework. We agree that developing an integrated framework will enhance the manuscript’s contribution and improve its coherence. To address this, we have made a new subsection, 5.6 Developing an Integrated Framework.

Comments 9: The figures presented in this manuscript have not clearly indicated in texts, making the readers hard to link the arguments or discussion to the figures. I would recommend the authors to indicate the figures in texts to enhance the readability.

Response 9: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We recognize that the figures in the manuscript need to be explicitly referenced in the text to improve readability and ensure a clear connection between the arguments and visual representations.

Comments 10: The format and the levels of section titles in this manuscript are inconsistent. For example, under section 4.1.1, the authors use “1, 2, 3…” again to indicate different topics. I would recommend they re-format the title numbers.

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge the inconsistency in the section numbering and formatting and have revised the manuscript to ensure a clear, hierarchical, and consistent structure.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID Sustainability-3485632

Title: On the Interplay between Behavior Dynamics, Environmental Impacts and Fairness in the Circular Economy, Business Models and Supply Chain Management

Summary: This survey examines the interdisciplinary interactions between behavior dynamics, environmental impact, and fairness in the context of digital transformation. It highlights insights and gaps in research related to sustainable strategies and digitalised business models, emphasising the need for collaborative approaches to shape a sustainable and equitable digital future.

The research topic is very interesting and novel, but the manuscript needs many corrections. Please find my suggestions for your careful revision of the paper. Thank you.

1. First of all, I noticed that the authors use a lot of figures, and some figures do not have corresponding content. Please carefully revise the content and ensure that it links to the figures; otherwise, remove the unnecessary figures.

2. In this paragraph, the authors explain many concepts in a way that makes it hard to understand their main point. Please rewrite or clarify the content to make it easier for readers to grasp what they want to convey. “These domains are not isolated; their interactions within digitalized Key Contexts define the success or failure of modern industrial strategies [2]. For example, understanding how digital behavioral incentives can promote circular economy strategies [6,7] or how fairness considerations can transform digitally integrated supply chains into more equitable systems is pivotal.”

3. This section should be included in the research methodology, not in the introduction section “Foundational Concepts and State of the Art, Analysis and Practical Implications, Research Gaps, and Future Directions.”

4. I noticed that the manuscript does not clearly link to its main research question or focus on the study's purpose. Could you please clarify that? 

5. The manuscript structure is weak. I found some paragraphs and sections that are nearly related to the methodology, but the authors use too many sections. Please carefully revise and organise the paragraphs and discussions within the subsections.

6. The manuscript's discussion and future directions are unclear. The discussion section is very important for readers, so please rewrite it for clarity. Additionally, the implications and research directions should be placed after the conclusions section, as this is the academic standard. These elements should always be at the end, not within the discussion. Thank you for your careful attention.

I believe that the authors will pay attention and revise their manuscript well. Good luck! My suggestions aim to refine your paper and enhance it for readers. Thank you!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

fine.

Author Response

Comments 1: First of all, I noticed that the authors use a lot of figures, and some figures do not have corresponding content. Please carefully revise the content and ensure that it links to the figures; otherwise, remove the unnecessary figures.

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable comment. We acknowledge the need to ensure that all figures are directly referenced and relevant to the manuscript's content. To address this, we have undertaken the following revisions: Ensuring figures are clearly referenced in the text, removing unnecessary figures, and refining figure captions for clarity.

Comments 2: In this paragraph, the authors explain many concepts in a way that makes it hard to understand their main point. Please rewrite or clarify the content to make it easier for readers to grasp what they want to convey. “These domains are not isolated; their interactions within digitalized Key Contexts define the success or failure of modern industrial strategies [2]. For example, understanding how digital behavioral incentives can promote circular economy strategies [6,7] or how fairness considerations can transform digitally integrated supply chains into more equitable systems is pivotal.”

Response 2: Thank you for this constructive feedback. We agree that the paragraph could be clarified and rewritten to enhance readability and ensure that the main point is easy to grasp. We have revised Introduction Paragraph 3

Comments 3: This section should be included in the research methodology, not in the introduction section “Foundational Concepts and State of the Art, Analysis and Practical Implications, Research Gaps, and Future Directions.”

Response 3: Thank you for your insightful suggestion. We agree that the section titled “Foundational Concepts and State of the Art, Analysis and Practical Implications, Research Gaps, and Future Directions” would be more appropriately placed as the Research Methodology section rather than the Introduction; changes can be found in section 2.

Comments 4: I noticed that the manuscript does not clearly link to its main research question or focus on the study's purpose. Could you please clarify that?

Response 4: Thank you for your insightful comment. We acknowledge that the manuscript needs a clearer and stronger connection between its research questions and the study’s purpose. To address this, we have added a new paragraph in the introduction section (page 2, last paragraph) 

Comments 5: The manuscript structure is weak. I found some paragraphs and sections that are nearly related to the methodology, but the authors use too many sections. Please carefully revise and organize the paragraphs and discussions within the subsections.

Response 5: Thank you for this critical feedback. We acknowledge that the manuscript structure needs better organization to improve clarity and coherence. To address this, we have revised the structure by consolidating sections, improving logical flow, and reducing unnecessary fragmentation.

Comments 6: The manuscript's discussion and future directions are unclear. The discussion section is very important for readers, so please rewrite it for clarity. Additionally, the implications and research directions should be placed after the conclusions section, as this is the academic standard. These elements should always be at the end, not within the discussion. Thank you for your careful attention.

Response 6: Thank you for this important feedback. We recognize the importance of a well-structured discussion section and the need to separate the implications and future research directions from the discussion to align with academic standards. To address this, we have restructured and rewritten the discussion while relocating the implications and future directions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript repeatedly refers to itself as a 'survey,' yet there is no actual survey or systematic data collection presented. The authors should either conduct a proper survey or redefine their study as a literature review.

The writing exhibits characteristics of AI-generated text, including excessive redundancy, vague statements, and a lack of original analytical depth. The authors must critically engage with the literature rather than merely summarizing general concepts.

The paper does not provide any novel empirical data or structured comparative analysis. To enhance its scholarly value, the authors must include case studies, real-world applications, or at least a clear framework for evaluating the discussed concepts.

The manuscript lacks depth in its discussion. Key concepts such as fairness, environmental impact, and behavior dynamics are broadly outlined but not rigorously analyzed. The paper would benefit from a more critical evaluation of how these factors interact in practice.

Many sections of the manuscript restate the same ideas with slightly different wording. The authors should eliminate repetitive content and focus on providing substantive insights rather than reiterating well-known sustainability principles.

While the manuscript includes a large number of references, many citations appear to be generically placed without substantive integration into the argument. The authors must engage more critically with external sources and demonstrate how prior research supports or challenges their claims.

The conclusions do not offer a clear synthesis of the findings, nor do they provide actionable insights for researchers or practitioners. The authors must refine this section to highlight their key contributions and propose concrete future research directions.

The paper reads as a broad review with little indication of original thought or synthesis. The authors should clearly articulate their unique contribution to the field rather than merely summarizing existing work.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing style is overly complex and at times incoherent, making it difficult to follow the argument. The authors should simplify sentence structures and eliminate unnecessary jargon to improve clarity.

Author Response

Comments 1: The manuscript repeatedly refers to itself as a 'survey,' yet there is no actual survey or systematic data collection presented. The authors should either conduct a proper survey or redefine their study as a literature review.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge that the manuscript repeatedly refers to itself as a survey, which may be misleading since it does not include a systematic data collection process typical of empirical surveys. To address this, we have redefined the study as a literature review to ensure accuracy.

Comments 2: The writing exhibits characteristics of AI-generated text, including excessive redundancy, vague statements, and a lack of original analytical depth. The authors must critically engage with the literature rather than merely summarizing general concepts.

Response 2: Thank you for this valuable feedback. We recognize the importance of ensuring originality, reducing redundancy, and strengthening analytical depth in the manuscript. To address these concerns, we have reduce redundancy, added new parts like 5.6, simplified some parts, and reviewed references and their use.

Comments 3: The paper does not provide any novel empirical data or structured comparative analysis. To enhance its scholarly value, the authors must include case studies, real-world applications, or at least a clear framework for evaluating the discussed concepts.

Response 3: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We acknowledge that the manuscript currently lacks novel empirical data or structured comparative analysis. To enhance its scholarly contribution, we have addressed this concern by introducing a structured framework (Section 5.6) and strengthening real-world applicability in the discussion.

Comments 4: The manuscript lacks depth in its discussion. Key concepts such as fairness, environmental impact, and behavior dynamics are broadly outlined but not rigorously analyzed. The paper would benefit from a more critical evaluation of how these factors interact in practice.

Response 4: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We acknowledge that the manuscript previously broadly outlined fairness, environmental impact, and behavior dynamics but lacked critical depth in their interactions. To enhance the manuscript’s rigor and analytical depth, we have simplified several parts and ideas, reviewed redundancies, and been more specific with the areas of need in these domains.

Comments 5: Many sections of the manuscript restate the same ideas with slightly different wording. The authors should eliminate repetitive content and focus on providing substantive insights rather than reiterating well-known sustainability principles.

Response 5: Thank you for this constructive feedback. We acknowledge that some sections of the manuscript contain repetitive content and restate similar ideas with different wording. To address this issue and improve the manuscript’s clarity and conciseness, we have removed, modified, or merged the concept or ideas with the intent to avoid misunderstandings when reading.

Comments 6: While the manuscript includes a large number of references, many citations appear to be generically placed without substantive integration into the argument. The authors must engage more critically with external sources and demonstrate how prior research supports or challenges their claims.

Response 6: Thank you for this constructive comment. We acknowledge that some citations were generically placed and did not fully engage with the arguments presented. To enhance the scholarly depth of the manuscript, we have strengthened citation integration in key sections.

Comments 7: The conclusions do not offer a clear synthesis of the findings, nor do they provide actionable insights for researchers or practitioners. The authors must refine this section to highlight their key contributions and propose concrete future research directions.

Response 7: Thank you for this valuable comment. We acknowledge that the Conclusion section lacks a strong synthesis of findings and actionable insights for researchers and practitioners. To enhance its clarity and contribution, we have refined the conclusion to synthesize key findings, added a subsection on actionable insights for researchers and practitioners, and strengthened the future research directions section.

Comments 8: The paper reads as a broad review with little indication of original thought or synthesis. The authors should clearly articulate their unique contribution to the field rather than merely summarizing existing work.

Response 8: Thank you for this insightful comment. We acknowledge that the manuscript previously presented a broad review but lacked a clearly articulated unique contribution. To address this concern, we have revised the manuscript to explicitly highlight our novel contributions and demonstrate how our work advances the field.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would thank the authors for their efforts in revising the manuscript. However, my comments are not fully addressed and I have the following concerns for this paper.

1. The authors have now revised the title to the “On the Interplay between Behavior Dynamics, Environmental Impacts, Fairness, and Digitalization in the Circular Economy, Business Models and Supply Chain Management”, making the behavior dynamics, environmental impacts, fairness and digitalization as four parallel terms. This means they need to treat them equally and analyse the relevant literature. However, in the abstract and research questions, they still only largely focused on the first three terms without integrating digitalization in their analysis in parallel. I personally think that this title is not appropriate.
2. Although the authors summarized their research questions, it is hard to find the answers to them in the following texts. They analyse multiple perspectives of the literature, but the manuscript lacks a summative section to organize their analysis to answer the questions. This can reduce their contribution.
3. The search words/combinations are still incomplete. The authors stated in Section 2.1 that “Studies explicitly addressing at least one of the three key domains (behavior dynamics, environmental impact, or fairness) within the contexts of circular economy, business models, or supply chain management.” This is confusing. Taking the term of “environmental impact” as an example, there should be many synonyms that need to be considered in their sampling processes. If “environmental impact” is used as the only search word for sampling the environmental studies in Circular Economy, Business Models and Supply Chain Management, the sampling approach is not convincing.
4. Although the authors defined an integrated framework in section 5.6, it fails to lead the study. I would suggest that the authors can consider to use this framework to position the sampled studies rather than purely explain why these areas should be aligned with each other.
5. The figures presented in this manuscript still have not clearly indicated in texts.
6. The format and the levels of section titles in this manuscript are still not consistent. For example, in Section 5.6, the higher levels of section (e.g. 1, 2, 3…) are used.

Again, I would like to thank the authors for their time and efforts in revising the paper. The comments are just my personal opinions and I hope they can be helpful in improving the paper.

Author Response

Comments 1: The authors have now revised the title to the “On the Interplay between Behavior Dynamics, Environmental Impacts, Fairness, and Digitalization in the Circular Economy, Business Models and Supply Chain Management”, making the behavior dynamics, environmental impacts, fairness and digitalization as four parallel terms. This means they need to treat them equally and analyze the relevant literature. However, in the abstract and research questions, they still only largely focused on the first three terms without integrating digitalization in their analysis in parallel. I personally think that this title is not appropriate.

Response 1: Thank you for your detailed observation. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify and improve the manuscript’s focus and consistency. We fully understand your concern that by listing behavior dynamics, environmental impacts, fairness, and digitalization as parallel terms in the title, the manuscript implies that each should be analyzed equally and systematically, which was not the case in earlier versions. After careful consideration, we agree that the current title suggests an equal treatment of all four dimensions, which may misrepresent the study’s core analytical focus. Therefore, we have revised the title to better reflect the actual emphasis on behavior dynamics, environmental impacts, and fairness.

The new title: On the Interplay between Behavior Dynamics, Environmental Impacts, and Fairness in the Digitalized Circular Economy with associated Business Models and Supply Chain Management

Comments 2: Although the authors summarized their research questions, it is hard to find the answers to them in the following texts. They analyse multiple perspectives of the literature, but the manuscript lacks a summative section to organize their analysis to answer the questions. This can reduce their contribution.

Response 2: Thank you for this thoughtful observation. We agree that while the research questions are stated clearly in the Introduction, their answers are not explicitly synthesized in a way that guides the reader through the findings. To strengthen the clarity and contribution of the manuscript, we have add reference pointers to the research questions (Introduction Section) and  also we add a mapping table with insights in the Conclusion Section.

Comments 3: The search words/combinations are still incomplete. The authors stated in Section 2.1 that “Studies explicitly addressing at least one of the three key domains (behavior dynamics, environmental impact, or fairness) within the contexts of circular economy, business models, or supply chain management.” This is confusing. Taking the term of “environmental impact” as an example, there should be many synonyms that need to be considered in their sampling processes. If “environmental impact” is used as the only search word for sampling the environmental studies in Circular Economy, Business Models and Supply Chain Management, the sampling approach is not convincing.

Response 3: Thank you for this helpful observation. We fully understand the concern that the initial keyword strategy was too limited and may have excluded relevant literature due to a narrow set of search terms. To address this, we have added a new dedicated subsection 2.1.1 to enhance the transparency and rigor of our sampling process.

Comments 4: Although the authors defined an integrated framework in section 5.6, it fails to lead the study. I would suggest that the authors can consider to use this framework to position the sampled studies rather than purely explain why these areas should be aligned with each other.

Response 4: Thank you for this insightful comment. We fully understand the concern that while the integrated framework introduced provides conceptual value, it did not actively guide the analysis of the sampled literature. To address this, we implemented a restructuring and revision, having section new Section 5.1 (previously referred to as 5.6), changes to Section 5.5, and small changes to Section 5.7, 6 and 7.

Comments 5: The figures presented in this manuscript still have not been clearly indicated in the texts.

Response 5: Thank you for your continued feedback. We acknowledge that, in the previous version of the manuscript, many figures were only referenced in brackets (e.g., “(see Figure X)”) without proper contextual explanation. This limited the clarity and impact of the visual elements and made it difficult for readers to understand how figures connect to the surrounding arguments that is why we replace bracket-only references with integrated textual descriptions.

Comments 6:The format and the levels of section titles in this manuscript are still not consistent. For example, in Section 5.6, the higher levels of section (e.g. 1, 2, 3…) are used.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing out this formatting inconsistency. We understand that the use of inconsistent section numbering and heading levels, such as the appearance of “1, 2, 3...” formatting within Section 5.6 (now Section 5.1), can disrupt the readability and professional presentation of the manuscript. We have corrected and standardized section and subsection formatting across the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Their research work can be published

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Improve

Author Response

Comments 1: N/A

Response 1: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. While no specific comments were provided, we have taken the opportunity to further improve the clarity, structure, and language throughout the revised version.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the manuscript presents a thorough review, it still lacks a clear original analytical contribution beyond summarizing existing research. Consider explicitly defining a unique framework or evaluation model to strengthen its contribution.

The paper would benefit significantly from real-world case studies or examples illustrating how the discussed concepts apply in practice. If no empirical data can be added, at least a structured comparative analysis would improve scholarly depth.

Some sections continue to repeat ideas in slightly different wording. Further refinement, especially in the methodology and discussion sections, will improve readability.

The revised version better articulates the study’s value, but it would be beneficial to further emphasize how this work uniquely advances the field. Clarifying its novel theoretical contributions will enhance its impact.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While readability has improved, some sections still exhibit redundancy, vague phrasing, and overuse of broad generalizations. A final round of language editing is recommended to enhance clarity.

Author Response

Comments 1: While the manuscript presents a thorough review, it still lacks a clear original analytical contribution beyond summarizing existing research. Consider explicitly defining a unique framework or evaluation model to strengthen its contribution.

Response 1: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We acknowledge that although the manuscript presents a comprehensive review, it must go further to establish a clear original analytical contribution. To address this, we implemented a restructuring and revision, having section new Section 5.1 (previously referred to as 5.6), changes to Section 5.5, and small changes to Section 5.7, 6 and 7.

Comments 2: The paper would benefit significantly from real-world case studies or examples illustrating how the discussed concepts apply in practice. If no empirical data can be added, at least a structured comparative analysis would improve scholarly depth.

Response 2: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that the practical examples and use cases previously presented across Section 5 could benefit from better consolidation and visibility. To improve clarity and reader comprehension, we made the following changes: updating subsection titles in Section 5.2.3, 5.3.3, and 5.4.3 for clarity and adding a new Subsection 5.6 use case overview and synthesis.

Comments 3: Some sections continue to repeat ideas in slightly different wording. Further refinement, especially in the methodology and discussion sections, will improve readability.

Response 3: Thank you for this helpful observation. We acknowledge that despite earlier revisions, some repetitive phrasing and overlapping ideas remained, particularly in the methodology and discussion sections. To improve clarity and coherence, we have performed an additional round of targeted refinement in these sections.

Comments 4: The revised version better articulates the study’s value, but it would be beneficial to further emphasize how this work uniquely advances the field. Clarifying its novel theoretical contributions will enhance its impact.

Response 4: Thank you for your thoughtful and encouraging feedback. We agree that further emphasizing the unique theoretical contributions of this work is essential to clearly establish its impact and value to the field. In response, we have made several key improvements to the Conclusion section to better articulate how this study contributes original insights to sustainability and digital transformation research.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would thank the authors' effort on revising the manuscript. However, I have the following concerns:

1. The current title is changed to Digitalized Circular Economy with associated Business Models and Supply Chain Management. However, based on the authors' update on their search words in section 2.1.1, it is hard to find any specific term that tightly linked to the digitalisation. The authors should significantly clarify their logic to make their search process consistent with the title and key research questions.

2.The term, “digitalised”，used in the title, leads to another concern. In the section 4.2 to 4.4, the authors discussed the practices how digital technologies can work on circular economy, business model and supply chain management. Then, in this case, what are the digitalised circular economy, digitalised business model, and digitalised supply chain management in essence? Are they just normal circular economy, business model and supply chain management using digital technologies? Or are they something that are newly defined in this paper. Personally speaking, I think this is the key part that the authors should address as it can significantly demonstrate the novelty and contribution of the paper. It may be helpful if the authors to re-ogranise the papers to highlight how literature analysis can match the title.

3. The authors should still adjust their structures and title formats. For example, in Section 5.1, the authors use bold texts rather than lower level titles to indicate the functions of circular economy, business model, and supply chain management. This can reduce the readability of the manuscript.

Thanks!

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We have taken the opportunity to further improve the clarity, structure, and language throughout the revised version.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations on you significantly improved paper! Good luck!

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We have taken the opportunity to further improve the clarity, structure, and language throughout the revised version.