Measuring the Level of Circularity in a Ho.Re.Ca. Organization According to UNI/TS 11820:2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides a timely and practically relevant contribution by applying the UNI/TS 11820:2024 framework to measure circularity within a Ho.Re.Ca. micro-enterprise context. The study addresses an important gap in the literature concerning the operationalization and empirical assessment of circular economy practices in the foodservice sector, where standardized and replicable measurement approaches remain limited. By implementing the updated UNI/TS 11820:2024 methodology in a real-world restaurant case study (BeyondFood S.r.l.), the paper offers useful empirical evidence regarding the applicability, strengths, and limitations of the framework within the Italian Ho.Re.Ca. industry. The manuscript is generally well-structured, methodologically coherent, and supported by an extensive review of recent literature. The integration of quantitative, qualitative, and semi-quantitative indicators across six circularity domains provides a comprehensive organizational assessment and generates valuable managerial and policy insights. The discussion is detailed and demonstrates a good understanding of both circular economy theory and sector-specific sustainability challenges. Overall, the manuscript represents a meaningful contribution to the literature on circular economy measurement and sustainability management in hospitality systems. Nevertheless, several minor revisions could further improve the clarity, methodological rigor, and broader impact of the study:

• While the manuscript clearly explains the operational application of UNI/TS 11820:2024, the theoretical positioning of the study could be strengthened further. In particular, the paper would benefit from a more explicit conceptual discussion regarding how this framework contributes to existing circular economy measurement literature and how it differs from alternative circularity assessment tools used in agri-food and hospitality contexts. Clarifying the novelty and comparative advantages of UNI/TS 11820:2024 would reinforce the academic contribution.
• The case study methodology is appropriate for an exploratory application of the framework; however, the manuscript should more explicitly discuss the limitations associated with relying on a single micro-enterprise. Although BeyondFood S.r.l. is presented as representative of small Ho.Re.Ca. organizations, the generalizability of the findings remains inherently limited. A more critical reflection on external validity and contextual specificity would strengthen the methodological discussion.
• The data collection procedure is described in detail and appears rigorous; nevertheless, additional clarification regarding the interview protocol and indicator verification process would improve transparency. For example, the authors could specify the number of interviews conducted, their duration, and whether standardized questionnaires or coding procedures were employed during qualitative assessments.
• The manuscript successfully reports the overall circularity score and category-level performances; however, the interpretation of the numerical results could be further contextualized. In particular, it would be useful to explain whether a score of 31.88% should be interpreted as relatively low, moderate, or promising compared with existing applications of UNI/TS 11820 or related circularity frameworks in previous studies.
• The discussion section is comprehensive and supported by recent literature; however, some parts become overly descriptive. The manuscript could benefit from a more analytical comparison between the findings of this case study and previous empirical studies applying circular economy indicators in agri-food or hospitality sectors. This would help better position the contribution within the broader literature.
• The section discussing the limitations of UNI/TS 11820:2024 is particularly interesting, especially regarding the underrepresentation of internal good practices specific to the Ho.Re.Ca. sector. The authors may consider elaborating further on which sector-specific indicators could be incorporated in future revisions of the framework and how these additions could improve measurement sensitivity.
• The policy implications are relevant and well aligned with the study objectives. However, the recommendations could be made more actionable by linking them more directly to specific empirical findings. For instance, suggestions regarding fiscal incentives, employee mobility, or resource traceability systems could be explicitly connected to the lowest-performing indicator categories identified in the results.
• The manuscript occasionally contains minor grammatical inconsistencies, typographical issues, and formatting problems that should be carefully revised during proofreading. Examples include repetitive phrasing, inconsistent capitalization (e.g., “italian HoReCa sector”), and some syntax issues in the discussion section. A thorough language revision would improve readability and overall presentation quality.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. The comments were highly valuable and helped us improve the clarity, rigor, and academic positioning of the paper. Below, we respond to each point individually.

Comment 1: While the manuscript clearly explains the operational application of UNI/TS 11820:2024, the theoretical positioning of the study could be strengthened further. In particular, the paper would benefit from a more explicit conceptual discussion regarding how this framework contributes to existing circular economy measurement literature and how it differs from alternative circularity assessment tools used in agri-food and hospitality contexts. Clarifying the novelty and comparative advantages of UNI/TS 11820:2024 would reinforce the academic contribution.

Response: We fully agree with this observation. In the revised manuscript, we have added a dedicated passage at the end of the Introduction that explicitly addresses the theoretical and methodological contribution of the study. Specifically, we discuss how UNI/TS 11820:2024 differs from alternative circularity assessment frameworks proposed in the agri-food and hospitality literature (e.g., Rodríguez-Antón & Alonso-Almeida, 2019; Poponi et al., 2022; Poponi et al., 2023; Saayman et al., 2025; Silvestri et al., 2025), highlighting its comparative advantages in terms of replicability and cross-sector comparability. We also clarify that the present application extends the empirical base of the standard — previously tested in manufacturing and waste management contexts — to the foodservice domain, thereby broadening its scope and informing future methodological refinements.

Comment 2: The case study methodology is appropriate for an exploratory application of the framework; however, the manuscript should more explicitly discuss the limitations associated with relying on a single micro-enterprise. Although BeyondFood S.r.l. is presented as representative of small Ho.Re.Ca. organizations, the generalizability of the findings remains inherently limited. A more critical reflection on external validity and contextual specificity would strengthen the methodological discussion.

Response: We agree with this comment. In the revised manuscript, we have added an explicit reflection on the limitations of the single-case design in the final paragraph of the Conclusions section. We acknowledge that the results are specific to BeyondFood S.r.l. and reflect the particular characteristics of a sustainability-oriented micro-enterprise in the Sicilian HoReCa market. We also suggest that future research should address this limitation by applying the UNI/TS 11820:2024 framework to a broader and more heterogeneous sample of HoReCa organisations, including different firm sizes, geographic contexts, and levels of circular economy maturity, with the aim of building robust sectoral benchmarks.

Comment 3: The data collection procedure is described in detail and appears rigorous; nevertheless, additional clarification regarding the interview protocol and indicator verification process would improve transparency. For example, the authors could specify the number of interviews conducted, their duration, and whether standardized questionnaires or coding procedures were employed during qualitative assessments.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the Data Collection section (Section 2.2) to provide greater transparency regarding the interview protocol. We now specify that a total of five semi-structured interviews were conducted, each lasting approximately 60–90 minutes, with the company's chief executive officer, the head of operations, and selected kitchen and service staff. We also clarify that the interview guide was organised according to the six indicator domains of UNI/TS 11820:2024, and that qualitative and semi-quantitative responses were coded using predefined scoring criteria as specified in the standard (0 = not implemented; 0.5 = partially implemented; 1 = fully implemented), with each coded response subsequently verified against available documentary evidence.

Comment 4: The manuscript successfully reports the overall circularity score and category-level performances; however, the interpretation of the numerical results could be further contextualized. In particular, it would be useful to explain whether a score of 31.88% should be interpreted as relatively low, moderate, or promising compared with existing applications of UNI/TS 11820 or related circularity frameworks in previous studies.

Response: We fully agree with this remark. In the revised manuscript, we have added a contextualising passage immediately after the presentation of the overall circularity score in the Results section. Drawing on the only available prior applications of UNI/TS 11820 in other sectors, which report scores broadly in the range of 20–45% for organisations at an early or intermediate stage of circular transition (Amicarelli et al., 2023; Costanzo et al., 2025; Matarazzo et al., 2024), we now interpret the score of 31.88% as indicative of a moderate level of circularity, consistent with an organisation that has deliberately adopted sustainability practices but has not yet fully systematised its circular economy approach. We also clarify that this result should be read as a meaningful baseline from which targeted improvements can be planned and monitored over time, rather than as a failure to meet a normative threshold.

Comment 5: The discussion section is comprehensive and supported by recent literature; however, some parts become overly descriptive. The manuscript could benefit from a more analytical comparison between the findings of this case study and previous empirical studies applying circular economy indicators in agri-food or hospitality sectors. This would help better position the contribution within the broader literature.

Response: We agree with this observation. In the revised manuscript, the methodological discussion has been strengthened by making more explicit the connection between our findings and those reported in prior empirical studies applying UNI/TS 11820 in other sectors (Amicarelli et al., 2023; Matarazzo et al., 2024; Costanzo et al., 2025). We highlight consistencies in terms of the challenges related to material tracking and data management maturity, while also pointing out what is specific to the HoReCa context. This allows our contribution to be more clearly positioned within the broader literature on circular economy measurement at the micro-organisational level.

Comment 6: The section discussing the limitations of UNI/TS 11820:2024 is particularly interesting, especially regarding the underrepresentation of internal good practices specific to the Ho.Re.Ca. sector. The authors may consider elaborating further on which sector-specific indicators could be incorporated in future revisions of the framework and how these additions could improve measurement sensitivity.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the discussion on this point by proposing concrete examples of sector-specific indicators that could be incorporated in future revisions of UNI/TS 11820:2024 for the HoReCa context. Specifically, we suggest the inclusion of indicators capturing food waste valorisation rates, the share of locally sourced ingredients, and the adoption of plant-based or low-impact menu compositions — dimensions that are central to the environmental performance of foodservice operations but are currently absent from the standard's measurement scope. We argue that such additions would improve the sensitivity of the framework to sector-specific circular practices and strengthen its relevance for the HoReCa industry.

Comment 7: The policy implications are relevant and well aligned with the study objectives. However, the recommendations could be made more actionable by linking them more directly to specific empirical findings. For instance, suggestions regarding fiscal incentives, employee mobility, or resource traceability systems could be explicitly connected to the lowest-performing indicator categories identified in the results.

Response: We agree with this comment and thank the reviewer for the specific examples provided. We note that the policy recommendations in the manuscript were already partially connected to the empirical findings, particularly through the discussion of the lowest-performing categories (material resources and components at 15.40%, and logistics at 33.00%). However, we acknowledge that the linkage could be made more explicit. In reviewing the manuscript, we confirm that the existing text already references fiscal incentives for resource efficiency investments in connection with the material traceability gap, incentives for sustainable employee commuting in relation to the logistics score, and the promotion of resource tracking systems linked to the low performance on inbound material indicators. These connections are now rendered more direct and visible in the revised version of the policy discussion.

Comment 8: The manuscript occasionally contains minor grammatical inconsistencies, typographical issues, and formatting problems that should be carefully revised during proofreading. Examples include repetitive phrasing, inconsistent capitalization (e.g., "italian HoReCa sector"), and some syntax issues in the discussion section. A thorough language revision would improve readability and overall presentation quality.

Response: We thank the reviewer for drawing attention to these issues. The manuscript has been carefully proofread in the revised version. All instances of inconsistent capitalisation (including "Italian HoReCa sector"), repetitive phrasing, and syntax irregularities in the discussion section have been corrected. We have also reviewed the formatting throughout the document to ensure consistency and readability.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses a timely and relevant topic, and the application of UNI/TS 11820:2024 in the HoReCa sector gives the study clear practical value. The conceptual background is generally well aligned with the objectives of the study, and the literature review provides an adequate foundation for the research. The methodological approach, including the case-based design and data collection procedure, also appears appropriate for addressing the research objectives. Overall, the study is well organized, and the results provide several useful insights for both practice and policy.

That said, a few aspects could be strengthened before publication.

First, the introduction is well developed in terms of background and research motivation, and the research gap is presented in a logical way. What seems less clear is the academic purpose of the study. At the moment, the focus appears to lean more toward managerial and policy relevance. Since this study applies a newly revised measurement framework in a sector-specific setting, it would be helpful for the authors to explain more clearly what this research adds from a theoretical or methodological perspective.

A similar point applies to the Discussion and Conclusion sections. The interpretation of the results is meaningful, but the academic contribution is not always fully visible. In particular, the manuscript could better explain how these findings connect with or extend previous work on circularity measurement.

I also believe the paper would benefit from a short discussion of its limitations. Given that the analysis is based on a single case, it would be appropriate to acknowledge the limits of generalization and briefly suggest possible directions for future studies, such as comparative studies or research involving a broader sample.

Overall, these are not major concerns, and they do not affect the value of the study itself. With some revision in these areas, the manuscript would be suitable for publication. I therefore recommend minor revision.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive and constructive assessment of our manuscript, and for the recommendation of minor revision. The comments were well-targeted and allowed us to strengthen the academic positioning and completeness of the paper. Below, we respond to each point individually.

Comment 1: The introduction is well developed in terms of background and research motivation, and the research gap is presented in a logical way. What seems less clear is the academic purpose of the study. At the moment, the focus appears to lean more toward managerial and policy relevance. Since this study applies a newly revised measurement framework in a sector-specific setting, it would be helpful for the authors to explain more clearly what this research adds from a theoretical or methodological perspective.

Response: We fully agree with this observation and thank the reviewer for identifying this gap clearly. In the revised manuscript, we have added a dedicated passage at the end of the Introduction that explicitly articulates the theoretical and methodological contribution of the study. We clarify that, beyond its practical relevance, the study contributes to the growing body of literature on circular economy measurement by providing empirical evidence on the applicability, strengths, and limitations of UNI/TS 11820:2024 in a sector-specific context. We also explain how UNI/TS 11820:2024 differs from and compares to alternative circularity assessment frameworks proposed in the agri-food and hospitality literature, and how the present application extends the empirical base of the standard to a previously untested sector, thereby informing future methodological refinements.

Comment 2: A similar point applies to the Discussion and Conclusion sections. The interpretation of the results is meaningful, but the academic contribution is not always fully visible. In particular, the manuscript could better explain how these findings connect with or extend previous work on circularity measurement.

Response: We agree with this point. In the revised manuscript, we have strengthened the academic framing of both the Discussion and Conclusions sections. In the Discussion, we now make more explicit the connection between our findings and those of prior empirical studies applying UNI/TS 11820 in other sectors (Amicarelli et al., 2023; Matarazzo et al., 2024; Costanzo et al., 2025), highlighting consistencies regarding the challenges of material tracking and data management maturity, while also pointing out what is specific to the HoReCa context. In the Conclusions, we have added a passage that explicitly frames the contribution of the study in terms of extending the empirical base of the standard to the foodservice domain, surfacing opportunities for future refinement of the framework, and proposing concrete sector-specific indicators for future revisions of UNI/TS 11820:2024.

Comment 3: I also believe the paper would benefit from a short discussion of its limitations. Given that the analysis is based on a single case, it would be appropriate to acknowledge the limits of generalization and briefly suggest possible directions for future studies, such as comparative studies or research involving a broader sample.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion, which we fully accept. In the revised manuscript, we have added an explicit discussion of the study's limitations in the final paragraph of the Conclusions section. We acknowledge that the single-case design carries inherent limitations with respect to external validity and the generalisability of findings, and that the results are specific to BeyondFood S.r.l. and its particular organisational and territorial context. We then suggest concrete directions for future research, including the application of UNI/TS 11820:2024 to broader and more heterogeneous samples of HoReCa organisations across different firm sizes and geographic contexts, as well as comparative multi-case studies aimed at constructing robust sectoral benchmarks for the Italian and European foodservice industry.