Review Reports
- Jean Garner Stead
Reviewer 1: Sergio Evangelista Silva Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous Reviewer 4: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author, below I cordially present some suggestions for the improvement of the paper. Thank you very much for your attention!
Comment 1: In my opinion, the paper approaches an essential topic in contemporaneity. But some improvements should be made to improve its contribution to literature.
Comment 2: Considering the excerpt ”[]… process for optimising firm performance relative to competitors. Barney's [2] Resource-Based View (RBV) exemplifies ” the author abruptly changes from the competitive advantage paradigm to the RBV. It would be helpful to insert a brief linkage between these two parts, avoiding the abrupt change of subject (from the competitive advantage paradigm to the RBV).
Comment 3: I suggest that the author also read and consider the discussion of Peteraf (1993), which is a seminal text in the RBV theory that explains the economic relation between resource scarcity and superior rents in economies.
Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource‐based view. Strategic management journal, 14(3), 179-191.
Comment 4: In Section 2, the author may differentiate between explanatory (ex., Mechanics and Neoclassical Economics) and normative (Strategic Management/ Ecological Economics) theories. Explanatory theories describe the expected behaviour in some specific domain (e.g. bounded rationality, free market competition in liberal economies, etc.). Normative theories prescribe desirable actions to reach a goal. The main contribution of this article is to present a normative framework that can be useful for assessing the maturity level of firms and other agents in reaching Flourishing Circularity.
Comment 5: The section “Consciousness-Informed Science as Foundation ” presents arguments that are not directly related to the main issue approached in the text (flourishing circularity, RBV, circular economy). For example, terms such as “consciousness arises from quantum processes occurring within microtubules in neurons ” and “Near-death experience research” are not immediately and directly related to the main proposal of the text. Even though any decision can be based on these psychic processes, given the main topic of the text, it is not necessary to approach them in the paper. In addition, this section is out of the main discussion. The author does not construct a clear link between this part and the remainder of the text.
Comment 6: The section “2.4. Toward Flourishing Circularity: Theoretical Integration and Framework Foundation ” would be suppressed in Section 2, whereas in Section 3, the authors will approach the Flourishing Circularity in detail.
Comment 7: It would be helpful to avoid the subdivisions in section 2.3 (2.3.1… 2.3.4) and several sparse concepts. In general, the authors should identify how the theoretical tenets are related to their main proposition in the article and address them in more detail in Section 2.
Comment 8: In Section 3, the authors could improve text fluidity by presenting only sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 instead of the several subdivisions 3.1 (3.1.1.; 3.1.2. …), 3.2 (…), and 3.3 (..).
Comment 9: In Section 5, it is expected that the authors, based on previous constructs, present the measurement framework. In this section, the author has continued developing the theoretical framework. As such, this section should be reformulated to present the framework of flourishing circularity, based on the constructs of the previous sections, in a cohesive and consistent perspective. Newly, in this section, there are so many sub-sections. I suggest that the author eliminate the excessive subdivisions to give more fluidity to the text.
Comment 10: I suggest that the author, in sections 4, 5 and 6, put tables or figures, according to their convenience, to synthesise the results of each section. It will improve the readability of the text.
Comment 11: Considering the aim of the article, “This paper introduces flourishing circularity as a transformative approach to resource assessment that transcends both traditional Resource-Based View (RBV) theory and conventional circular economy concepts. [..] ”. It is first necessary to present in detail the central tenets of these two paradigms (RBV and circular economy). In addition, after presenting the flourishing circularity with its constructs, it is necessary to compare this new proposal with the two previous paradigms to demonstrate how it will contribute to a new managerial perspective for firms
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper makes a meaningful and fresh contribution to sustainability and strategic management research. I especially liked the introduction of the Flourishing Circularity framework it brings together consciousness-informed science, ecological economics, and systems theory in a way that reimagines competitive advantage as something regenerative rather than extractive. That’s a powerful shift.
- The theoretical integration is strong. That said, it would be helpful to clarify how “consciousness-informed science” might be applied in real-world management practice or studied empirically. Right now, it is a bit abstract.
- Section 2.1 (on paradigmatic foundations) is rich, but it could be trimmed just a little. A slightly more focused version would help keep attention on the practical takeaways for strategy.
- The case examples Patagonia, Interface, Unilever are spot-on. A simple comparison table showing the outcomes across these cases might help readers quickly grasp the key insights.
- The “Limitations and Boundary Conditions” section could be stronger. You might want to call out challenges that could come up in more traditional, profit-driven firms when trying to apply this framework.
- Lastly, a few style tweaks would improve flow, especially in the heavier theoretical parts. Shorter sentences and simpler phrasing will go a long way in helping folks from other fields engage with the work.
All in all, it’s a thoughtful, well-structured, and original paper that pushes the field forward. I’d recommend acceptance after minor revisions.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author,
The article contains favorable premises related to the novelty and opportunity of the subject.
In the beginning, it is necessary to introduce the research questions in accordance with the objectives of the article. Then, it is welcome to introduce a visual model that synthesizes the three core principles defining the flourishing circularity framework's but also detailed explanations regarding the links between these principles.
For a quick understanding of the author's way of thinking and his own approach, it is recommended to build a diagram of the framework and generate explanations regarding the way in which the analysis is carried out.
In order to streamline the analysis, I consider it mandatory to shorten or simplify the first two sections of the paper.
In essence, the paper has a profound theoretical character, even with certain speculative developments in some parts, insufficiently articulated and demonstrated (by quoting relevant sources).
The manuscript lacks methodological rigor in an empirical sense; no specific research designs, operationalization or data sources are presented. The approach can be considered useful as long as it is validated by known scientific means.
The proposed measurement frameworks remain theoretical constructs and require empirical testing.
The examples offered as relevant cases (Patagonia, Interface, and Unilever) are descriptive examples rather than systematically analyzed case studies. On the other hand, the issue of the applicability of such a framework for SMEs, or for public entities, is not addressed.
The structure is somewhat atypical, identifying the Conclusions section before aspects that should have been placed before it (for example, the subsection Research Hypotheses for Empirical Validation).
It is advisable that the paper contains empirical validation and development of operational tools. These aspects will contribute to generating added value to the theoretical construct.
The usefulness of the manuscript, but also the major and original contribution of the author to this field, is not very clear.
There is still a long way to go until a material that contains all the necessary elements of a scientific paper is completed. Initially, taking into account all these remarks and comments, I wanted to reject the paper, but precisely because I am somewhat interested in the subject, I would like to see to what extent the author can significantly improve the present manuscript, taking into account all the aspects I mentioned above.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper represents a detailed analysis of the circularity evaluation from the point of sustainable strategic management.
The paper gives a huge attention to considering social and ecological focus from an economic point of view. But what if the community and stakeholders lack knowledge or a general understanding of social and ecological values? In this case, such a community might not know what will be useful for them or not, and they might not fully be aware of the impact of the decision they make. Populists-politicians have gained growing support in many developed countries, offering the people even basically harmful long-term reforms. From the ecological aspect, it might be noted that even based on circular principals, some innovations might not always be useful (if not all the possible impacts are considered) or even harmful if those are totally missed (like making electric vehicles an ideal of pollution reduction without proper analysis of the total ecological impact starting from battery production and reproduction of the used ones). On the other hand, nature has often adapted to the new pollution and climate changes, making self-regulating actions (like bacteria "eating" plastic or new ecosystems in trash accumulations). Or, while the scientists revive once lost species, can we fully be sure it will not harm the now-adapted life of the ecosystem, without those lost species? Therefore, new questions and tasks for science arise permanently, and the concept of the "right decisions and needs" time-to-time is justified. I find it helpful if the author could address these kinds of risks in more detail. Can social and ecological focus make a negative impact on flourishing circularity? Are they included in the limitations of the study?
Recent literature sources contain many reviews, but not the original research.
Due to the main idea of the paper, I would be useful to pay more attention to the Social-ecological systems (SES) theory, pioneered by Elinor Ostrom and colleagues.
The paper would become comprehensive if a deeper explanation of the nature of the term "flourishing circularity" were provided.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents a thoughtful and innovative approach to sustainable strategic management, integrating ecological economics, systems theory, and thermodynamics to propose a flourishing circularity framework. While the framework critiques existing paradigms, further exploration of how it compares to other sustainability models, such as "Doughnut Economics" by Kate Raworth, would strengthen its context. The case studies of companies like Patagonia, Interface, Unilever, and Eastman are valuable for illustrating the real-world applicability, but a more detailed examination of the specific tools and methods these organizations used in their regenerative transitions could make the framework more practical, especially for SMEs. The paper would also benefit from empirical testing, such as pilot studies, to support its effectiveness. Additionally, providing more practical definitions, indicators, and benchmarks for the developmental stages (Transactional, Co-creative, Regenerative) would help organizations track progress. While the focus on cross-sector collaboration and systems-level value creation is commendable, strategies to overcome barriers to collaboration in competitive industries should be addressed. Furthermore, guidance on how to initiate the shift from transactional relationships to regenerative social capital would make the framework more actionable. Simplifying some of the more complex ideas would make the paper more accessible to a broader audience, and expanding the future research section with specific hypotheses or experiments could encourage further engagement. Overall, the paper has strong potential to contribute to both academic literature and practical business practices, and with some refinement, it could become a valuable tool for organizations aiming to embrace sustainability and regeneration.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI've read carefully the remarks and comments made by the authors. Even though issues are treated and explained my concern is related to the exactly contain of each response. The procedure is that when you change/add/modify anything these things have to be underlined somehow: using other color, mentioning/indicating the lines ...... etc. Is not enough to include the section number. It is true that some of the elements are easier to be discovered (for instance, tables and figures). To check again these issues means I have to spend too much time (actually doubling the duration of the review process).
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript offers a solid and thoughtful framework that adds real value to the fields of sustainability and strategic management. That said, there are a few areas where it could be sharpened. The theoretical section is rich, no doubt, but the paper would benefit from a clearer explanation of what exactly sets its contributions apart. Also, the parts about paradigm shifts feel a bit heavy; tightening them up could make the ideas hit harder. The inclusion of case observations is a nice touch, but it’s not entirely clear why those cases were chosen or how they map onto the framework’s developmental stages. A bit more clarity there would really help. On a practical note, tying the framework more directly to day-to-day managerial decisions would boost its real-world usefulness. Lastly, the figures and tables could be cleaner, some simplification and clearer labeling might do the trick. It’d also be great to see a bit more discussion around the limitations of the framework and how it might (or might not) apply in different organizational settings. All in all, this is a promising paper with a strong foundation. With a few targeted tweaks, it could make an even bigger impact.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsUnfortunately, your replies are not addressed to my comments. They seem to be appropriate for another reviewer! I think the replies have been mixed up.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf