Collaborative Governance for Social Change and Environmental Sustainability: A Case Study of Campania Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of the paper is, according to the abstract, to investigate the role of leadership and collaborative governance in bringing social change when addressing the issue of waste management in an Italian region. This aim, however, does not harmonize well with the presented RQ or the format of the findings. Unfortunately, this makes for confusing reading. The RQ is: How can collaborative governance and transformational leadership improve waste management practices to achieve sustainable social and environmental outcomes? Based on the RQ, I expected the contributions to be suggestions for such improvement based on the interviews. However, the findings are instead presented in terms of five thematic narratives formulated as obstacles and/or opportunities for leadership and governance in relation to waste management in the specific region. Hence, the role of leadership and collaborative governance, as stated in the initial aim is not addressed either.

While I believe the structure, analysis, and writing need much more work, I think the strengths of this study are the researchers’ seemingly good knowledge about the region and the relatively large interview data. The underlying aim of the study is interesting.

General concept comments

As indicated above, this study/paper unfortunately comes through as convoluted, and the indicated aim is not clear. In fact, several different aims can be found in the abstract and introduction of the article, see comments for specific line numbers below. The paper needs to be tightened up and much more to the point.

Several theoretical frameworks are mentioned/introduced; collaborative governance, network agency, transformational leadership, and the public value framework, but they are brought up in an unstructured way, not properly introduced in terms of what aspects they include, and they are not sufficiently related to each other. Effective leadership is also brought up but not defined. Also, it is not clear how the theoretical background has been applied to the study. Did they inform the interview questions (what were the interview questions)? Or the analysis of the interview data?

Given the initial stated aim of investigating the role of leadership and collaborative governance in bringing social change, the chosen research approach of conducting interviews with multiple stakeholders is relevant. However, the methods section has a large limitation as it does not provide information about an interview protocol. I also miss a detailed description of how the data analysis was performed which makes the study irreproducible.

11 out of 55 references are from within the last 5 years. The references are mainly around the expected topics of governance or leadership frameworks, waste management, and research methods.

The text does not run smoothly. Be sure to structure the report so that information (e.g. study context, conceptual/theoretical frameworks, methods) appears where it should be according to common academic writing. Also, do not repeat what has already been said as that might confuse the reader.

Specific comments/guiding questions by line:

11: why not mention all the frameworks at once? The public value framework is brought up in line #19 and it is not clear how it relates to the other mentioned frameworks/theories.

12: What does ‘…to explore different dynamics of the research’ refer to?

14: ‘The findings of this study…’ Better to place it at the end of the abstract if relevant.

16: What does ‘forms’ mean? This term is not used in the body of the paper. Try to be consistent in wording.

22: The title and the beginning of the abstract introduce a case study of a region, however, here the term ‘states’ is used, why?

23-25: Why this information?

25-28: Here it seems like the paper is going to provide a literature review of unsustainable practices in states.

36: Yet another concept introduced: the cooperative approach of government. Why?

47 + 51: At first sight, these seem like different aims (even though related) and slightly different from the aim initially introduced. Avoid repetition and try to be consistent in wording.

54-57: Belongs to the method’s section

59-60: Belongs to discussion/conclusions

Section 1.1/line 65: ‘The study’s context’ (or similar heading) is enough. The significance of the study should be discussed at the end of the paper. Why are ‘sustainability metrics’ brought up here? Overall, this section could have been written much more clearly. Avoid repetition of what has already been said. Move text regarding theoretical frameworks to section 2 instead.

86: Repetition

91: Yet another way of expressing the aim. Not needed here.

93-97: About collaborative governance. Move to section 2.

100: SOP – what does the abbreviation mean?

115: Research objectives. I am hesitant to write these out and don’t think this section is needed. They don’t seem relevant to the specific study.

156: Table 1 Is not referred to in the running text. The table lists key components of collaborative governance, but these are not explained further.

171: The framework as such is not discussed.

211: Consider distinguishing between the concepts of collaboration and cooperation.

223: Here it says that the study is about how effective leadership and collaborative governance improve the waste management of the region. However – is this what the findings give?

225-229: Background/Study’s context.

241: Here you say that sampling was conducted purposefully but you don’t give any evidence to how.

245: What does this mean? Why was it mentioned here?

253: What do Web 2.0 capabilities mean?

260: Table 2 is not referred to in the text.

262: Insufficient information of how the thematic narrative analysis was performed.

342: Effective leadership. Concepts and theoretical frameworks are presented throughout the paper in an unclear way.

372: I am left wondering how the study emphasizes collaborative governance in addressing waste management issues in the region of focus.

385: Collaborative governance instead of management?

392: Consider if it should say ‘Governments can improve the efficiency of…’ or ‘..effectiveness of…’.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Ok, but can be improved. Some sentences are too long and convoluted. However, it is mostly the lack of structure of the paper that makes for a confusing read.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

 

Dear Reviewer

 

We are really grateful to your insightful comments to our paper. Thanks for considering our work an interesting and worthy of publication in such a prestigious journal as Journal of Administrative Sciences. We acknowledged that your comments were quite helpful in better shaping the overall structure of our study. 

Thanks a lot for your comments!

 Following are the responses to your comments:

 

Comment 1:

The aim of the paper is, according to the abstract, to investigate the role of leadership and collaborative governance in bringing social change when addressing the issue of waste management in an Italian region. This aim, however, does not harmonize well with the presented RQ or the format of the findings. Unfortunately, this makes for confusing reading. The RQ is: How can collaborative governance and transformational leadership improve waste management practices to achieve sustainable social and environmental outcomes? Based on the RQ, I expected the contributions to be suggestions for such improvement based on the interviews. However, the findings are instead presented in terms of five thematic narratives formulated as obstacles and/or opportunities for leadership and governance in relation to waste management in the specific region. Hence, the role of leadership and collaborative governance, as stated in the initial aim is not addressed either.

While I believe the structure, analysis, and writing need much more work, I think the strengths of this study are the researchers’ seemingly good knowledge about the region and the relatively large interview data. The underlying aim of the study is interesting.

Response:  Dear reviewer, we appreciate your valuable feedback. We have incorporated your comments by harmonizing and revising the text, restructuring sections for clarity, and providing additional detailed information. We have also removed repetitions and unnecessary information where needed. This has helped align the research question with the findings and better address the role of leadership and collaborative governance in improving waste management practices. Thank you for your insights.

 

General concept comments

As indicated above, this study/paper unfortunately comes through as convoluted, and the indicated aim is not clear. In fact, several different aims can be found in the abstract and introduction of the article, see comments for specific line numbers below. The paper needs to be tightened up and much more to the point.

Several theoretical frameworks are mentioned/introduced; collaborative governance, network agency, transformational leadership, and the public value framework, but they are brought up in an unstructured way, not properly introduced in terms of what aspects they include, and they are not sufficiently related to each other. Effective leadership is also brought up but not defined. Also, it is not clear how the theoretical background has been applied to the study. Did they inform the interview questions (what were the interview questions)? Or the analysis of the interview data?

Given the initial stated aim of investigating the role of leadership and collaborative governance in bringing social change, the chosen research approach of conducting interviews with multiple stakeholders is relevant. However, the methods section has a large limitation as it does not provide information about an interview protocol. I also miss a detailed description of how the data analysis was performed which makes the study irreproducible.

11 out of 55 references are from within the last 5 years. The references are mainly around the expected topics of governance or leadership frameworks, waste management, and research methods.

The text does not run smoothly. Be sure to structure the report so that information (e.g. study context, conceptual/theoretical frameworks, methods) appears where it should be according to common academic writing. Also, do not repeat what has already been said as that might confuse the reader.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable feedback. I have revised and restructured the text to clarify the aim and ensure coherence. The theoretical frameworks are now properly introduced and related to each other, with clear definitions and applications to the study. I have included detailed information about the interview protocol and data analysis to enhance reproducibility. Additionally, new data addressing the research questions, key findings, and policy recommendations have been provided, along with updated references.

 

Specific comments/guiding questions by line:

11: why not mention all the frameworks at once? The public value framework is brought up in line #19 and it is not clear how it relates to the other mentioned frameworks/theories.

Response: Dear reviewer, The public value framework is brought up later in the document to emphasize its role in evaluating the outcomes of the other frameworks. While collaborative governance and network governance focus on the processes and relationships among stakeholders, and transformational leadership ensures motivation and direction, the public value framework scrutinizes whether these efforts result in perceptible social and environmental outcomes.

 

12: What does ‘…to explore different dynamics of the research’ refer to?

Response: Dear reviewer, The phrase ‘…to explore different dynamics of the research’ refers to the process of investigating various aspects, factors, and interactions within the research study. The goal is to gain a comprehensive understanding of the research topic by considering multiple perspectives and dimensions. This involves examining the roles and contributions of different stakeholders, understanding the complexities of the issues being studied (such as environmental governance, social change, and waste management), and analyzing the relationships and influences among these elements.

 

14: ‘The findings of this study…’ Better to place it at the end of the abstract if relevant.

Response: Dear reviewer, Thanks for valuable suggestion, we restructured the article.

16: What does ‘forms’ mean? This term is not used in the body of the paper. Try to be consistent in wording.

Response: Dear reviewer, Thanks for valuable suggestion.

22: The title and the beginning of the abstract introduce a case study of a region, however, here the term ‘states’ is used, why?

Response: Dear reviewer, the term "states" in the abstract likely refers to the broader context of countries or regions facing similar environmental issues, not just the specific region being studied. It is used to indicate that the findings and insights from the case study of the Campania region in Italy can be applicable to other states or regions around the world that are dealing with comparable challenges in waste management and environmental sustainability. This broader application underscores the relevance and potential impact of the research beyond the specific case study.

23-25: Why this information?

Response:  To convey the significance of research to readers.

25-28: Here it seems like the paper is going to provide a literature review of unsustainable practices in states.

Response: Thank you dear reviewer for this observation, we understand so we removed these lines.

36: Yet another concept introduced: the cooperative approach of government. Why?

Response: Dear reviewer, the cooperative approach of government is introduced to emphasize the importance of involving multiple stakeholders in decision-making processes. This approach is crucial for achieving sustainability in environmental management, as it promotes trust, collaboration, and the integration of diverse perspectives and resources to address complex social and environmental challenges effectively.

 

47 + 51: At first sight, these seem like different aims (even though related) and slightly different from the aim initially introduced. Avoid repetition and try to be consistent in wording.

Response: Dear reviewer thanks for this valuable suggestion. We slightly restructured.

54-57: Belongs to the method’s section

Response: Thanks for your observation, we provided extra and detail information regarding methodology section.

59-60: Belongs to discussion/conclusions

Section 1.1/line 65: ‘The study’s context’ (or similar heading) is enough. The significance of the study should be discussed at the end of the paper. Why are ‘sustainability metrics’ brought up here? Overall, this section could have been written much more clearly. Avoid repetition of what has already been said. Move text regarding theoretical frameworks to section 2 instead.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We revised the section with the suggested changes.

86: Repetition

Response: Removed repetition.

91: Yet another way of expressing the aim. Not needed here.

Response:  Removed

93-97: About collaborative governance. Move to section 2.

Response: Done it so thanks for this valuable suggestion.

100: SOP – what does the abbreviation mean?

Response: SOP stands for Standard Operating Procedure. It is a set of step-by-step instructions compiled by an organization to help workers carry out routine operations. SOPs aim to achieve efficiency, quality output, and uniformity of performance while reducing miscommunication and failure to comply with industry regulations.

 

115: Research objectives. I am hesitant to write these out and don’t think this section is needed. They don’t seem relevant to the specific study.

Response: We have revised the section, so thanks for valuable suggestion.

156: Table 1 Is not referred to in the running text. The table lists key components of collaborative governance, but these are not explained further.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have now elaborated on the key components of collaborative governance listed in Table 1 within the running text. These components, including starting conditions, institutional design, collaborative process, outcomes, and system context, are explained in detail to provide a comprehensive understanding of their significance in the collaborative governance framework.

171: The framework as such is not discussed.

Response:  Dear reviewer, we have discussed and elaborated.

211: Consider distinguishing between the concepts of collaboration and cooperation.

Response:  Dear reviewer thanks for valuable suggestion. Collaboration is a more intensive and integrated form of working together, while cooperation involves a more independent and less interactive approach to achieving common goals.

223: Here it says that the study is about how effective leadership and collaborative governance improve the waste management of the region. However – is this what the findings give?

Response: While the study aims to explore the potential of effective leadership and collaborative governance in improving waste management, the findings highlight the significant challenges and complexities involved. The research points to areas where interventions are needed to overcome these obstacles and achieve the desired improvements in waste management.

225-229: Background/Study’s context.

Response: Dear reviewer we have provided and explained the background/study’s context in detail.

241: Here you say that sampling was conducted purposefully but you don’t give any evidence to how.

Response: Thanks for observation, The purposeful sampling was conducted by selecting stakeholders with direct experience or involvement in waste management issues in Campania, including community leaders, local government representatives, waste management professionals, and environmental organization representatives, ensuring their relevance and accessibility.

245: What does this mean? Why was it mentioned here?

Response: Dear reviewer, this refers to the use of snowball sampling to include additional relevant interviewees, mentioned to highlight the comprehensive approach taken to ensure a diverse and representative sample of stakeholders.

253: What do Web 2.0 capabilities mean?

Response: This model refers to a model that promotes active participation and cooperation between three key sectors—public (government), private (businesses), and citizen groups—using online platforms and tools that leverage Web 2.0 technologies. Web 2.0 technologies support user-generated content, social interaction, and real-time communication, which are most useful for facilitating collaboration and transparency in governance.

260: Table 2 is not referred to in the text.

Response: Thanks for this valuable suggestion but other reviewer wants it so we added.

262: Insufficient information of how the thematic narrative analysis was performed.

Response: Thanks for this key observation; we have explained and provided extra information thematic narrative analysis.

342: Effective leadership. Concepts and theoretical frameworks are presented throughout the paper in an unclear way.

Response:  We clearly explained and elaborated and restructured it now.

372: I am left wondering how the study emphasizes collaborative governance in addressing waste management issues in the region of focus.

Response: Dear reviewer, we have added new information and revised the older.

385: Collaborative governance instead of management?

Response: Collaborative governance is preferred over traditional management in the context of waste management in Campania because it addresses the complexity of the issues, promotes stakeholder engagement, builds trust, shares responsibility, fosters innovation, and provides adaptive and flexible solutions. This approach is essential for achieving sustainable and effective waste management outcomes in the region.

392: Consider if it should say ‘Governments can improve the efficiency of…’ or ‘..effectiveness of…’.

 Response: The choice between "efficiency" and "effectiveness" depends on the specific goals and context of the statement. If the emphasis is on optimizing processes and resource use, "efficiency" is the right choice. If the emphasis is on achieving better outcomes and meeting objectives, "effectiveness" is the right choice. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Ok, but can be improved. Some sentences are too long and convoluted. However, it is mostly the lack of structure of the paper that makes for a confusing read.

Response: Dear reviewer, we restructured the article, removed unnecessary repetitions and proof reading of the text has also been done, so thanks for suggestion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "Collaborative Governance for Social Change and Environmental Sustainability: A Case Study of Campania Region" investigates the role of leadership and collaborative governance in driving social change in waste management in the Campania region, Italy. Using a qualitative case study approach, it explores how governance frameworks, stakeholder engagement, and leadership effectiveness impact sustainability efforts in an area long affected by environmental degradation. The study contributes to public administration and environmental governance literature by applying theoretical frameworks such as collaborative governance, network agency, transformational leadership, and public value frameworks. 

 

Contribution

The paper addresses a highly relevant issue, as the intersection of governance, leadership, and environmental sustainability is critical in regions plagued by systemic challenges such as organized crime, weak institutional capacities, and public distrust. Campania’s waste management crisis, often linked to the infiltration of the Camorra, makes the case study particularly insightful. The authors highlight how governance failures, civic engagement, and leadership shape policy effectiveness in addressing environmental concerns. 

By applying a multi-framework approach, the study offers a comprehensive lens to analyse governance issues. The five interconnected leadership challenges identified (i.e. leadership effectiveness, civic engagement, media mobilisation, public skepticism, and stakeholder diversification) provide a structured understanding of barriers to reform. The research contributes to academic debates and offers practical insights for policymakers seeking to enhance participatory governance models. 

 

Main strengths of the paper

Multi-theoretical approach. Integrating collaborative governance, transformational leadership, and network agency creates a robust conceptual foundation for analysing governance dynamics. This multidimensional perspective allows the authors to contextualise social change within broader institutional structures.

Empirical analysis. The use of 65 in-depth interviews with politicians, public managers, civil society representatives, and citizens enhances the study’s credibility and richness. The purposeful and snowball sampling method ensures that multiple perspectives on governance and leadership challenges are incorporated. 

Public value framework. The application of public value theory is a novel addition, as it evaluates how governance practices contribute to/undermine public interest. This approach strengthens the study’s policy relevance by linking governance effectiveness with social outcomes.

 

Areas for improvement

Abstract. The abstract provides a clear summary of the study, but it could benefit from greater clarity on the specific research gap being addressed. Consider explicitly stating how this study advances previous research in collaborative governance and waste management (and circular economy, maybe?).

Introduction. The introduction effectively highlights the issue of waste mismanagement in Campania. However, the research question is somewhat broad. Consider refining the research question to make it more precise and directly linked to the study's objectives; consider the possibility of elaborating three hierarchically structured research questions related to study objectives. Research objectives are also very broad. It could be helpful to reorganise them following prioritisation criteria. Provide a brief overview of the key findings in the introduction to set expectations for the reader.

Literature review and theoretical framework. The literature review references relevant theories (e.g., collaborative governance, transformational leadership, network agency), but a more explicit synthesis of how these frameworks interconnect would enhance coherence; in fact, the discussion could benefit from a more precise articulation of how each framework complements the others. A more explicit mapping of the theoretical linkages would strengthen conceptual coherence. A graphic representation of the model would also help. Furthermore, the authors could expand on the gaps in the existing literature and explicitly state how this study contributes to closing them.

The public value framework is mentioned and can add relevant value to the whole project. Still, it would be helpful to illustrate how it differs from or complements the other theories applied in the study.

Methodology. The methodology section is well-structured, but a justification for choosing a single-case study should be included. Why was this approach preferred over a comparative study? Authors should also:

• clarify how thematic analysis was conducted. How were themes identified and validated? Were multiple coders involved to ensure reliability?
• Provide more details on the interview protocol, including sample questions or a discussion guide to enhance transparency, replicability, and interview duration.

Given the study’s policy-oriented goals, integrating quantitative data (e.g., public trust surveys, environmental indicators, or governance performance metrics) could bolster its empirical validity. The qualitative findings would be more compelling if supplemented by statistical evidence of governance trends.

Findings. The section provides valuable insights into leadership and governance issues in Campania, but a stronger link between findings and theoretical frameworks would add clarity. Consider restructuring the findings to emphasise the most critical themes. For example, on page 9, when you quote an environmental activist, “Even the best intentions can falter in this place” (CSL 2), emphasising the deep-rooted governance barriers. You could add a comment like this: “This aligns with collaborative governance theory, which suggests that leadership requires both trust-building mechanisms and institutional safeguards to function effectively (Ansell & Gash, 2008). The study highlights that weak institutional enforcement exacerbates governance failures, requiring a multi-stakeholder governance model to counteract criminal influence.” Furthermore, some subsections are lengthy and could be more concise for readability.

Discussion. The discussion could benefit from comparative insights. How do these findings align with or contradict similar studies in governance and waste management? This could include a comparative analysis with other Italian or European regions facing similar governance challenges (i.e. Sicily in Italy) could enhance the study’s generalizability. How do governance strategies in Campania compare to those in Lombardy, Catalonia, or the Ruhr region? Such a comparison could provide valuable insights into best practices or alternative governance models. This also implies the link with circular economy policies that can be conceived as a complementary/alternative to more traditional approach to waste management.

Conclusions. This section is well-developed but could offer more concrete recommendations for policymakers. A table summarising key findings and corresponding policy recommendations would improve readability. The authors could also address potential barriers to implementing the proposed solutions. While the study identifies governance challenges and stakeholder dynamics, it stops short of providing strong causal explanations for governance failures. A more detailed discussion on why some interventions succeed while others fail would be beneficial. Similarly, concrete policy recommendations (i.e. specific governance reforms or leadership development strategies) could add to the paper’s practical impact. 

Authors should consider discussing future research directions or practical next steps. A concise statement on the broader implications of collaborative governance for other environmental or social issues would strengthen the closing argument.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the written English in the article is generally clear and comprehensible, but several areas need improvement for better readability, coherence, and academic precision.

A thorough language revision is recommended to refine grammar, structure, and clarity; if possible, consider a native English proofreader.

Below some more specific suggestions:

• Some sentences here and there are excessively complex, making comprehension difficult.
• Some sections repeat ideas unnecessarily, which affects conciseness.
• Some phrases are vague or imprecise and could be more direct. For example, the phrase on page 1 (abstract) "Several obstacles in the way of achieving social change in Campania concerning waste management and environmental sustainability are identified.” Could be more effectively rephrased as: “This study identifies key obstacles to achieving social change in Campania’s waste management and environmental sustainability.”
• There is some logical leaps in the flow of ideas between sections.
• Some sentences sound informal or conversational. For example, on page 10, “Hope for a miracle is one of the key challenges identified.”

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

 

We are really grateful to your insightful comments to our paper. Thanks for considering our work an interesting and worthy of publication in such a prestigious journal as Journal of Administrative Sciences. We acknowledged that your comments were quite helpful in better shaping the overall structure of our study. 

Thanks a lot for your comments!

 Following are the responses to your comments:

 

The article "Collaborative Governance for Social Change and Environmental Sustainability: A Case Study of Campania Region" investigates the role of leadership and collaborative governance in driving social change in waste management in the Campania region, Italy. Using a qualitative case study approach, it explores how governance frameworks, stakeholder engagement, and leadership effectiveness impact sustainability efforts in an area long affected by environmental degradation. The study contributes to public administration and environmental governance literature by applying theoretical frameworks such as collaborative governance, network agency, transformational leadership, and public value frameworks. 

 

Contribution

The paper addresses a highly relevant issue, as the intersection of governance, leadership, and environmental sustainability is critical in regions plagued by systemic challenges such as organized crime, weak institutional capacities, and public distrust. Campania’s waste management crisis, often linked to the infiltration of the Camorra, makes the case study particularly insightful. The authors highlight how governance failures, civic engagement, and leadership shape policy effectiveness in addressing environmental concerns. 

By applying a multi-framework approach, the study offers a comprehensive lens to analyse governance issues. The five interconnected leadership challenges identified (i.e. leadership effectiveness, civic engagement, media mobilisation, public skepticism, and stakeholder diversification) provide a structured understanding of barriers to reform. The research contributes to academic debates and offers practical insights for policymakers seeking to enhance participatory governance models. 

 

Main strengths of the paper

Multi-theoretical approach. Integrating collaborative governance, transformational leadership, and network agency creates a robust conceptual foundation for analysing governance dynamics. This multidimensional perspective allows the authors to contextualise social change within broader institutional structures.

Empirical analysis. The use of 65 in-depth interviews with politicians, public managers, civil society representatives, and citizens enhances the study’s credibility and richness. The purposeful and snowball sampling method ensures that multiple perspectives on governance and leadership challenges are incorporated. 

Public value framework. The application of public value theory is a novel addition, as it evaluates how governance practices contribute to/undermine public interest. This approach strengthens the study’s policy relevance by linking governance effectiveness with social outcomes.

 

Areas for improvement

Abstract. The abstract provides a clear summary of the study, but it could benefit from greater clarity on the specific research gap being addressed. Consider explicitly stating how this study advances previous research in collaborative governance and waste management (and circular economy, maybe?).

Response: Dear reviewer thanks for the valuable observation, we have emphasized and elaborated the point. The revised abstract effectively clarifies the research gap and emphasizes the study's contributions to the fields of collaborative governance, waste management, and the circular economy. By explicitly stating these elements, the abstract provides a clear understanding of the study's significance and its potential impact on addressing environmental and governance challenges. This approach enhances the abstract's clarity and relevance, making it more informative and engaging for readers.

Introduction. The introduction effectively highlights the issue of waste mismanagement in Campania. However, the research question is somewhat broad. Consider refining the research question to make it more precise and directly linked to the study's objectives; consider the possibility of elaborating three hierarchically structured research questions related to study objectives. Research objectives are also very broad. It could be helpful to reorganise them following prioritisation criteria. Provide a brief overview of the key findings in the introduction to set expectations for the reader.

Response: Dear reviewer, the RQs are revised and the objectives are reorganized and explained.

Literature review and theoretical framework. The literature review references relevant theories (e.g., collaborative governance, transformational leadership, network agency), but a more explicit synthesis of how these frameworks interconnect would enhance coherence; in fact, the discussion could benefit from a more precise articulation of how each framework complements the others. A more explicit mapping of the theoretical linkages would strengthen conceptual coherence. A graphic representation of the model would also help. Furthermore, the authors could expand on the gaps in the existing literature and explicitly state how this study contributes to closing them.

The public value framework is mentioned and can add relevant value to the whole project. Still, it would be helpful to illustrate how it differs from or complements the other theories applied in the study.

Response: While collaborative governance, transformational leadership, and network governance provide the structural, relational, and motivational aspects of governance, the public value framework adds an evaluative dimension. It ensures that the efforts and strategies employed by leaders and stakeholders translate into tangible benefits for society, particularly in the context of waste management governance. Together, these frameworks create a comprehensive system of governance that is participatory, well-defined, leadership-informed, and beneficial to the community.

Methodology. The methodology section is well-structured, but a justification for choosing a single-case study should be included. Why was this approach preferred over a comparative study? Authors should also:

• clarify how thematic analysis was conducted. How were themes identified and validated? Were multiple coders involved to ensure reliability?
• Provide more details on the interview protocol, including sample questions or a discussion guide to enhance transparency, replicability, and interview duration.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We chosed a single-case study approach to allow for an in-depth examination of the unique governance dynamics specific to the Campania region, which may have been diluted in a comparative study. Thematic analysis was conducted using Braun and Clarke's procedure, involving multiple coders to ensure reliability through intercoder reliability tests. We included more details on the interview protocol, sample questions, and interview duration to enhance transparency and replicability. Detailed explaination are added in the article.

 

Given the study’s policy-oriented goals, integrating quantitative data (e.g., public trust surveys, environmental indicators, or governance performance metrics) could bolster its empirical validity. The qualitative findings would be more compelling if supplemented by statistical evidence of governance trends.

Response: Once again thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your suggestion to integrate quantitative data to enhance the empirical validity of our study. In response to your recommendation, we have incorporated several quantitative studies and a government plan to supplement our qualitative findings.

Findings. The section provides valuable insights into leadership and governance issues in Campania, but a stronger link between findings and theoretical frameworks would add clarity. Consider restructuring the findings to emphasise the most critical themes. For example, on page 9, when you quote an environmental activist, “Even the best intentions can falter in this place” (CSL 2), emphasising the deep-rooted governance barriers. You could add a comment like this: “This aligns with collaborative governance theory, which suggests that leadership requires both trust-building mechanisms and institutional safeguards to function effectively (Ansell & Gash, 2008). The study highlights that weak institutional enforcement exacerbates governance failures, requiring a multi-stakeholder governance model to counteract criminal influence.” Furthermore, some subsections are lengthy and could be more concise for readability.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. I have revised the findings to create a stronger link between the theoretical frameworks and the study's insights.  Additionally, I have restructured the findings to emphasize the most critical themes and made some subsections more concise for improved readability. This restructuring ensures that the key points are clear and directly connected to the theoretical frameworks, enhancing the overall coherence and impact of the study.

 

Discussion. The discussion could benefit from comparative insights. How do these findings align with or contradict similar studies in governance and waste management? This could include a comparative analysis with other Italian or European regions facing similar governance challenges (i.e. Sicily in Italy) could enhance the study’s generalizability. How do governance strategies in Campania compare to those in Lombardy, Catalonia, or the Ruhr region? Such a comparison could provide valuable insights into best practices or alternative governance models. This also implies the link with circular economy policies that can be conceived as a complementary/alternative to more traditional approach to waste management.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have now included a comparative analysis in the discussion section to enhance the study's generalizability. This comparison examines governance strategies in Campania alongside those in other Italian and European regions facing similar challenges, such as Sicily, Lombardy, Catalonia, and the Ruhr region. This comparative analysis provides valuable insights into effective governance strategies and underscores the importance of collaborative governance, transformational leadership, and community engagement in achieving sustainable waste management outcomes.

Conclusions. This section is well-developed but could offer more concrete recommendations for policymakers. A table summarising key findings and corresponding policy recommendations would improve readability. The authors could also address potential barriers to implementing the proposed solutions. While the study identifies governance challenges and stakeholder dynamics, it stops short of providing strong causal explanations for governance failures. A more detailed discussion on why some interventions succeed while others fail would be beneficial. Similarly, concrete policy recommendations (i.e. specific governance reforms or leadership development strategies) could add to the paper’s practical impact. 

Authors should consider discussing future research directions or practical next steps. A concise statement on the broader implications of collaborative governance for other environmental or social issues would strengthen the closing argument.

Response: Dear reviewer, we have updated the section by summarizing key findings and policy recommendations, addressing potential barriers, and providing stronger causal explanations for governance failures. Additionally, we have discussed future research directions and the broader implications of collaborative governance for other environmental and social issues.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the written English in the article is generally clear and comprehensible, but several areas need improvement for better readability, coherence, and academic precision.

A thorough language revision is recommended to refine grammar, structure, and clarity; if possible, consider a native English proofreader.

Below some more specific suggestions:

• Some sentences here and there are excessively complex, making comprehension difficult.
• Some sections repeat ideas unnecessarily, which affects conciseness.
• Some phrases are vague or imprecise and could be more direct. For example, the phrase on page 1 (abstract) "Several obstacles in the way of achieving social change in Campania concerning waste management and environmental sustainability are identified.” Could be more effectively rephrased as: “This study identifies key obstacles to achieving social change in Campania’s waste management and environmental sustainability.”
• There is some logical leaps in the flow of ideas between sections.
• Some sentences sound informal or conversational. For example, on page 10, “Hope for a miracle is one of the key challenges identified.”

Response: We have restructured the article to improve readability and coherence, removed unnecessary repetitions, and conducted thorough proofreading to enhance grammar and clarity. We believe these revisions address the concerns raised and improve the overall quality of the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The paper, in its current form, requires refinement to enhance its contribution to the field. Please concepts as "Poor administration” in waste management could be better specified for clarity. Provide more detail on governance issues – it is recommended to clarify exactly which loopholes in local governance affect waste management.

Introduction- the introduction is informative but could be more cohesive. The exclusive focus on the Campania region needs stronger justification; the authors should elaborate on why it serves as an ideal case study. Clarifying and highlighting the unique insights gained from focusing solely on the Campania region would help solidify the rationale for the chosen scope.

This research explores collaborative governance as a means to drive social change. "In the case of the Campania region, it can help promote trust among public authorities and governance bodies, leading to improved waste management outcomes".

The background section overlaps several ideas without clear transitions. Concepts such as “collaborative governance” and regional challenges should be cohesively linked to establish a logical flow. Additionally, the literature review lacks clarity regarding how this study contributes to existing research. While the authors mention that no similar studies have been conducted, it would be beneficial to explicitly outline how this research adds value—for example, by providing insights into regional policy effectiveness, prioritisation, or strategic evolution.

The concept of collaborative governance, which refers to the process in which multiple stakeholders (public, government agencies, companies, and civil society organizations) are involved in governance, should be introduced earlier in the text.

1.2. The research objectives should be more closely connected and better elaborated.

2. The objectives are well-aligned with the study’s themes but could be refined to enhance clarity, specificity, and methodological rigor (Lines 115–118). The objective of analysing network governance theory is well-framed, but its sub-objectives would benefit from specifying the types of interactions to be examined (e.g., policy coordination, financial collaboration, or public-private partnerships). Similarly, when assessing goal alignment (Line 119), it should be clarified whether the focus is on formal agreements, policy coherence, or shared values among actors.

The objective of exploring the environmental justice movement's impact on governance is relevant but should better integrate with the overarching themes of collaborative governance and transformational leadership. The examination of political-criminal networks (Line 123) is particularly important for Campania but would benefit from specifying whether the research will focus on legal frameworks, law enforcement strategies, or public resistance movements. Additionally, the role of cohesive networks and narratives (Line 125) should be explicitly linked to how these contribute to effective governance, rather than treated as a standalone issue.

In Lines 132–137, the obstacles identified—such as leadership inefficiencies and organised crime—are critical, but they should be more explicitly connected to the feasibility of implementing collaborative governance. Furthermore, while exploring untapped civic potential (Line 136) is a strong research angle, specifying which forms of civic engagement (e.g., citizen assemblies, social movements, or digital activism) will be analysed would enhance clarity. The role of the media in mobilisation (Line 137) is also an interesting sub-topic; it would be useful to indicate whether the focus is on investigative journalism, social media influence, or traditional news outlets.

3. Methodology
This section would benefit from a more thorough overview of the documents underlying the analysis. Adding specific examples or summaries of regional variations would enrich the analysis and improve the transparency of the study’s methodology.

5-6. Conclusion
The conclusion effectively captures the main findings, and the division into a distinct discussion and conclusion is appreciated. However, the conclusion should concisely summarise the key findings, link them to the research questions, and briefly mention policy implications and future research directions. Removing repetitive points would sharpen the conclusion and provide a clearer, more structured ending that highlights the main contributions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

 

We are really grateful to your insightful comments to our paper. Thanks for considering our work an interesting and worthy of publication in such a prestigious journal as Journal of Administrative Sciences. We acknowledged that your comments were quite helpful in better shaping the overall structure of our study. 

Thanks a lot for your comments!

 Following are the responses to your comments:

 

The paper, in its current form, requires refinement to enhance its contribution to the field. Please concepts as "Poor administration” in waste management could be better specified for clarity. Provide more detail on governance issues – it is recommended to clarify exactly which loopholes in local governance affect waste management.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your feedback. We have restructured the paper to specify "poor administration" by detailing specific governance issues such as inadequate policy enforcement, weak regulatory oversight, misallocation of public funds, lack of transparency, and ineffective coordination between local authorities and private waste management firms. Unnecessary repetitions have been removed for clarity and conciseness.

 

Introduction- the introduction is informative but could be more cohesive. The exclusive focus on the Campania region needs stronger justification; the authors should elaborate on why it serves as an ideal case study. Clarifying and highlighting the unique insights gained from focusing solely on the Campania region would help solidify the rationale for the chosen scope.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. In the introduction, we have discussed the severity of the waste management crisis in the Campania region to justify its selection as an ideal case study. The region has been plagued by significant environmental and health issues due to inadequate waste management practices, government inaction, and the influence of organized crime. These factors have led to severe soil, water, and air contamination, resulting in increased cancer mortality rates and respiratory diseases among residents. By focusing on Campania, we aim to uncover unique insights into the interplay between leadership, governance, and environmental sustainability in a low-social-capital environment, which can be applied to other regions facing similar challenges.

This research explores collaborative governance as a means to drive social change. "In the case of the Campania region, it can help promote trust among public authorities and governance bodies, leading to improved waste management outcomes".

The background section overlaps several ideas without clear transitions. Concepts such as “collaborative governance” and regional challenges should be cohesively linked to establish a logical flow. Additionally, the literature review lacks clarity regarding how this study contributes to existing research. While the authors mention that no similar studies have been conducted, it would be beneficial to explicitly outline how this research adds value—for example, by providing insights into regional policy effectiveness, prioritisation, or strategic evolution.

The concept of collaborative governance, which refers to the process in which multiple stakeholders (public, government agencies, companies, and civil society organizations) are involved in governance, should be introduced earlier in the text.

Response: Dear reviewer, we have restructured the background section to ensure a logical flow, clearly linking the concepts of collaborative governance and regional challenges. The concept of collaborative governance is now introduced earlier in the text. Additionally, we have clarified the literature review to explicitly outline how this study contributes to existing research by providing insights into regional policy effectiveness, prioritization, and strategic evolution.

 

1.2. The research objectives should be more closely connected and better elaborated.

1. The objectives are well-aligned with the study’s themes but could be refined to enhance clarity, specificity, and methodological rigor (Lines 115–118). The objective of analysing network governance theory is well-framed, but its sub-objectives would benefit from specifying the types of interactions to be examined (e.g., policy coordination, financial collaboration, or public-private partnerships). Similarly, when assessing goal alignment (Line 119), it should be clarified whether the focus is on formal agreements, policy coherence, or shared values among actors.

Done

The objective of exploring the environmental justice movement's impact on governance is relevant but should better integrate with the overarching themes of collaborative governance and transformational leadership. The examination of political-criminal networks (Line 123) is particularly important for Campania but would benefit from specifying whether the research will focus on legal frameworks, law enforcement strategies, or public resistance movements. This is not the main domain of the researchAdditionally, the role of cohesive networks and narratives (Line 125) should be explicitly linked to how these contribute to effective governance, rather than treated as a standalone issue.

In Lines 132–137, the obstacles identified—such as leadership inefficiencies and organised crime—are critical, but they should be more explicitly connected to the feasibility of implementing collaborative governance. Furthermore, while exploring untapped civic potential (Line 136) is a strong research angle, specifying which forms of civic engagement (e.g., citizen assemblies, social movements, or digital activism) will be analysed would enhance clarity. The role of the media in mobilisation (Line 137) is also an interesting sub-topic; it would be useful to indicate whether the focus is on investigative journalism, social media influence, or traditional news outlets.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's insightful comments. We have refined the research objectives to enhance clarity, specificity, and methodological rigor. The objectives now specify the types of interactions to be examined in network governance, clarify the focus on goal alignment, and better integrate the environmental justice movement's impact with collaborative governance and transformational leadership. Additionally, we have explicitly linked cohesive networks and narratives to effective governance and detailed the forms of civic engagement and media roles to be analyzed.

 

3.Methodology
This section would benefit from a more thorough overview of the documents underlying the analysis. Adding specific examples or summaries of regional variations would enrich the analysis and improve the transparency of the study’s methodology.

Response: Dear reviewer thanks for this valuable suggestion. We have thoroughly discussed the documents underlying our analysis and included detailed examples and summaries of regional variations to enhance the transparency and depth of our study's methodology.

5-6.Conclusion
The conclusion effectively captures the main findings, and the division into a distinct discussion and conclusion is appreciated. However, the conclusion should concisely summarise the key findings, link them to the research questions, and briefly mention policy implications and future research directions. Removing repetitive points would sharpen the conclusion and provide a clearer, more structured ending that highlights the main contributions.

Response: Dear reviewer, we have revised the conclusion to concisely summarize the key findings, directly linking them to the research questions. The revised section now briefly mentions the policy implications and future research directions, eliminating repetitive points for a clearer and more structured ending. This improved conclusion effectively highlights the main contributions of the study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your work in addressing previous comments. I recognize the work put into this study and hope that you will be able to reach the next level of clarity in the text so that the seemingly interesting data collection becomes clear. From my point of view, however, there is still a lot of work to be done to get there.

Introduction: After reading the introduction, I am still confused by all the concepts presented as a theoretical framework. I am also unsure if the results I should expect are obstacles and opportunities for achieving effective and sustainable waste management strategies or how collaborative governance can enhance stakeholder trust, improve policy enforcement, etc. The research inquiry suggests the latter. As previously mentioned, I think the research objectives presented confuse the reader of the paper. My impression is that the research questions and objectives presented could form the basis of a full dissertation. Hence, presented as the foundation for only one paper takes too big a stance to be clear and understandable to the reader.

Theoretical framework: Line 284-286 says 'In the context of this study, this theoretical framework will encourage innovative waste management solutions in the Campania region by utilizing the capabilities and assets of stakeholders.' Is this what was done in the study? Did you try out the different concepts in practice? Through interviews? Unfortunately, I don't follow.

Methods: I am still not clear on how the theoretical background has been applied to the study. How did they inform the interview questions and the analysis of the data? 

From the abstract: This study advances existing research by addressing the gap in understanding how collaborative governance and transformational leadership can be integrated to tackle waste management and environmental sustainability challenges.

Interview questions provided:

1. What are the main issues related to waste management in Campania?'
2. How do you view the responsibility of local leaders in solving the issue of waste management?'
3. What are the determinants of public trust in waste management policy?'

In addition to addressing the gap between research inquiry and what was done for data collection, I think the methods section would benefit from a better structure, at least be divided into data collection and data analysis. It should be crystal clear how your methods support the research inquiry.

Results/Discussions/Conclusions: I am sure there are interesting findings in the data of this study. Reading the themes presented one by one they make sense. Unfortunately, I have had a hard time overviewing these sections due to the massive amount of information and unclear red thread in terms of research inquiry, objectives, and methods used.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We are really grateful to your insightful comments to our paper. Thanks for considering our work an interesting and worthy of publication in such a prestigious journal as Journal of Administrative Sciences. We acknowledged that your comments were quite helpful in better shaping the overall structure of our study. 

Thanks a lot for your comments!

 Following are the responses to your comments:

 

Comment 1:

Thank you for your work in addressing previous comments. I recognize the work put into this study and hope that you will be able to reach the next level of clarity in the text so that the seemingly interesting data collection becomes clear. From my point of view, however, there is still a lot of work to be done to get there.

Introduction: After reading the introduction, I am still confused by all the concepts presented as a theoretical framework. I am also unsure if the results I should expect are obstacles and opportunities for achieving effective and sustainable waste management strategies or how collaborative governance can enhance stakeholder trust, improve policy enforcement, etc. The research inquiry suggests the latter. As previously mentioned, I think the research objectives presented confuse the reader of the paper. My impression is that the research questions and objectives presented could form the basis of a full dissertation. Hence, presented as the foundation for only one paper takes too big a stance to be clear and understandable to the reader.

Response:

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and for recognizing the effort put into this study. Your comments are invaluable in helping refine the clarity and focus of the paper. Below is a response to address the concerns raised:

 

Introduction: We acknowledge that the introduction may have presented an overwhelming number of concepts within the theoretical framework, which could lead to confusion. To address this, we streamlined the introduction by clearly defining the primary focus of the study and emphasizing the most relevant theoretical frameworks. Specifically, we prioritized the frameworks of collaborative governance and transformational leadership, as these are central to understanding how stakeholder trust can be enhanced and policy enforcement improved in the context of waste management in Campania. Other frameworks, such as network agency and public value, referenced briefly and integrated into the discussion where relevant, rather than being presented as equally central.

We clarified the results by explicitly stating that the study aims to identify both obstacles and opportunities for achieving effective and sustainable waste management strategies. Additionally, we will highlight how collaborative governance can serve as a mechanism to enhance stakeholder trust, improve policy enforcement, and foster community engagement. This will ensure that the research inquiry aligns with the reader's expectations.

Research Objectives: We understand your concern that the research objectives may appear overly ambitious for a single paper. To address this, we refined and narrow the scope of the objectives to focus on the most critical aspects of the study. Specifically, the revised objectives center on:

1. Investigating how collaborative governance can enhance stakeholder trust and improve policy enforcement in waste management.
2. Exploring the role of transformational leadership in mobilizing stakeholders and fostering community engagement.
3. Identifying key obstacles and opportunities for achieving sustainable waste management strategies in Campania.

By narrowing the scope, we aim to make the paper more focused and manageable while ensuring that the objectives are clear and aligned with the research inquiry.

To further enhance clarity, we revised the introduction to provide a concise overview of the study's context, objectives, and expected contributions. This will help the reader understand the purpose and scope of the paper without being overwhelmed by theoretical concepts or broad objectives.

Comment 2:

Theoretical framework: Line 284-286 says 'In the context of this study, this theoretical framework will encourage innovative waste management solutions in the Campania region by utilizing the capabilities and assets of stakeholders.' Is this what was done in the study? Did you try out the different concepts in practice? Through interviews? Unfortunately, I don't follow.

Response:

Thank you for your insightful comment. I understand the confusion, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this point.

The statement in lines 284-286—"In the context of this study, this theoretical framework will encourage innovative waste management solutions in the Campania region by utilizing the capabilities and assets of stakeholders"—was intended to describe the potential application of the theoretical framework rather than the direct implementation of these concepts in practice during the study. Let me elaborate further:

The study did not directly implement or "try out" the theoretical frameworks in practice. Instead, the research used qualitative methods, including semi-structured interviews with 65 stakeholders (e.g., public leaders, waste management organizations, citizens, and civic society leaders), to explore how the principles of collaborative governance, transformational leadership, and network agency could be applied to address waste management challenges in the Campania region. The frameworks were used as analytical lenses to interpret the data collected from interviews and literature, rather than as tools for direct intervention.

The statement in question will be revised to better reflect the study's approach. A more accurate phrasing would be:

"In the context of this study, this theoretical framework was used to analyze how innovative waste management solutions could be encouraged in the Campania region by leveraging the capabilities and assets of stakeholders."

This revised statement emphasizes that the study focused on analyzing and understanding the potential of these frameworks, rather than directly applying them in practice.

Through the interviews, the study explored:

1. Collaborative Governance: How stakeholders (e.g., public leaders, waste management organizations, citizens) interact, align their goals, and build trust to address waste management challenges.
2. Transformational Leadership: The role of leaders in inspiring collective action, fostering community engagement, and addressing public mistrust.
3. Network Agency: The interconnectedness of stakeholders and how their capabilities and assets could be mobilized to create innovative solutions.

The findings were then interpreted through these theoretical lenses to identify obstacles (e.g., mistrust, corruption, lack of coordination) and opportunities (e.g., untapped civic potential, media mobilization, diversified stakeholder engagement) for improving waste management in the region.

Thank you for pointing out this ambiguity. We will ensure that the revised text provides a clearer understanding of the study's approach and the role of the theoretical frameworks.

Comment 3:

Methods: I am still not clear on how the theoretical background has been applied to the study. How did they inform the interview questions and the analysis of the data? 

From the abstract: This study advances existing research by addressing the gap in understanding how collaborative governance and transformational leadership can be integrated to tackle waste management and environmental sustainability challenges.

Interview questions provided:

1. What are the main issues related to waste management in Campania?'
   2. How do you view the responsibility of local leaders in solving the issue of waste management?'
   3. What are the determinants of public trust in waste management policy?'

In addition to addressing the gap between research inquiry and what was done for data collection, I think the methods section would benefit from a better structure, at least be divided into data collection and data analysis. It should be crystal clear how your methods support the research inquiry.

Response:

Thank you for your detailed feedback. Your comments highlight an important need for clarity in how the theoretical background informed the study's design, particularly the interview questions and data analysis. Below, I address your concerns and outline how we will revise the methods section to ensure it is clear and well-structured.

The theoretical frameworks of collaborative governance, transformational leadership, and network agency were central to shaping both the interview questions and the data analysis. Here’s how the theoretical background was applied:

1. Informing the Interview Questions:
• The collaborative governance framework (Ansell & Gash, 2008) emphasizes the importance of stakeholder trust, shared goals, and inclusive decision-making. This informed questions like:
• "What are the determinants of public trust in waste management policy?" (to explore trust-building mechanisms).
• "What are the main issues related to waste management in Campania?" (to identify barriers to collaboration and shared goals).
• The transformational leadership framework (Bass & Riggio, 2006) highlights the role of leaders in inspiring collective action and fostering community engagement. This informed questions like:
• "How do you view the responsibility of local leaders in solving the issue of waste management?" (to assess leadership effectiveness and its impact on stakeholder mobilization).
• The network agency framework (Provan & Kenis, 2008) focuses on the interconnectedness of stakeholders and their capacity to work together. This informed follow-up questions during interviews, such as:
• "How can different stakeholders (e.g., citizens, waste management organizations, local authorities) collaborate to address waste management issues?"
2. Informing Data Analysis:
• The collaborative governance framework guided the identification of themes related to stakeholder trust, shared goals, and institutional design.
• The transformational leadership framework was used to analyze how leadership practices (e.g., vision-setting, trust-building) influence stakeholder engagement and collective action.
• The network agency framework helped identify patterns of stakeholder interaction, resource mobilization, and the alignment (or misalignment) of goals.

By using these frameworks as analytical lenses, the study was able to interpret the data in a way that directly addresses the research inquiry.

 

The methods section has been restructured to explicitly describe how the theoretical frameworks informed the study design, including the development of interview questions and the thematic narrative analysis. The section is now divided into two subsections: Data Collection and Data Analysis.

Revisions:

1. Data Collection:
• The process of developing interview questions based on the theoretical frameworks is described.
• The rationale for the selection of interviewees and the sampling strategy is provided.
• A table summarizing the interview questions and their alignment with the research objectives has been added.
2. Data Analysis:
• The thematic narrative analysis process, including coding and theme development, is explained.
• Steps taken to ensure the validity and reliability of the analysis (e.g., peer debriefing, member checks) are mentioned.

 In the methods section, included a clear structure and explicitly linked the theoretical frameworks to the interview questions and data analysis, we aim to address the gap between the research inquiry and the data collection process. This ensured that the methods section is transparent, well-organized, and directly supports the research inquiry.

Comment 4:

Results/Discussions/Conclusions: I am sure there are interesting findings in the data of this study. Reading the themes presented one by one they make sense. Unfortunately, I have had a hard time overviewing these sections due to the massive amount of information and unclear red thread in terms of research inquiry, objectives, and methods used.

Response:

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback.

The issue you’ve raised about the lack of a clear "red thread" stems from the disconnect between the research inquiry, objectives, and the way the findings are presented. To address this,

1. Revisited the Research Inquiry and Objectives:
• At the beginning of the results section, we restated the research inquiry and objectives in a concise manner. This will serve as a guide for the reader to understand how the findings relate to the study's purpose.
2. Summarized Key Findings:
• At the begining of the results section, we will include a brief summary of the key findings, highlighting how they collectively address the research inquiry. This will help the reader maintain an overview of the study's contributions.

Streamlined the Discussion Section

The discussion section has been revised to focus on interpreting the findings in light of the theoretical frameworks and research objectives. To achieve this:

1. Structured the Discussion Around the Theoretical Frameworks:
• The discussion emphasize on the theoretical frameworks:
• Collaborative Governance: How the findings reflect the importance of trust, shared goals, and stakeholder collaboration.
• Transformational Leadership: How leadership practices influence stakeholder engagement and collective action.
• Network Agency: How stakeholder interactions and resource mobilization can drive innovative solutions.
• This structure provided a clear framework for interpreting the findings and linking them to the study's theoretical foundation.
2. Highlighted potential Implications:
• We explicitly discussed the potential implications of the findings for waste management in Campania, such as:
• The need for leadership training programs to rebuild public trust.
• The importance of creating platforms for civic engagement.
• Strategies for mitigating the influence of organized crime on waste management.
3. Addressed Limitations and Future Research:
• We acknowledged the study's limitations (e.g., reliance on qualitative data, focus on a single region) and suggest areas for future research, such as testing the proposed solutions in practice or exploring similar issues in other regions.

 

The Conclusion Section

The conclusion has been revised to provide a concise summary of the study's contributions and implications. Specifically,

1. Summarized the Key Contributions:
• Restated the main findings and how they address the research inquiry.
• Highlighted the study's contributions to the understanding of collaborative governance and transformational leadership in waste management.
2. Emphasized  Recommendations:
• Focus on actionable recommendations for policymakers, public leaders, and waste management organizations based on the findings.
3. End with a Forward-Looking Statement:
• Concluded with a statement about the potential for collaborative governance and transformational leadership to drive sustainable solutions in waste management, not only in Campania but in similar contexts globally.

Improving Readability and Reducing Information Overload

To address the "massive amount of information" in these sections,

1. Condensed the Text:
• Focused on the most critical findings and their implications, removing redundant or less relevant details.
2. Improved Transitions:
• Used clear transitions between sections and themes to guide the reader through the narrative.

By aligning the results, discussion, and conclusion sections with the research inquiry, objectives, and methods, we aim to create a clear and cohesive narrative. These revisions will ensure that the study’s findings are presented in a way that is both accessible and impactful for the reader.

Thank you for your valuable feedback.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I think this version is greatly improved, I found it much easier to read and consider the content. I still think the article would benefit from being further trimmed and made even clearer to convey the common thread from problem formulation, research question, method, results, and conclusion. At the same time, it is not my specific area of ​​research and I leave this to the editor to assess further.

I have one consideration and a possible proposal regarding the research inquiry, but at the same time, I leave it open to the possibility that I may have misunderstood.

You write: '...how effective leadership and collaborative governance improve the waste management of the Campania region in Italy'

Would it be clearer to say: 'How can aspects of effective leadership...help improve...' OR 'How can a lens of effective leadership...support improvment of...'

 

There are repetitions in a few places, for example (but not limited to): lines 29, 124, 303, 403.

I didn't go for details, but here is one: Lines 55-56: Why brackets? Is it a citation? If so, there's a need for a reference...

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. I appreciate your recognition of the improvements made to the article and your suggestions for further refinement. Below, I address your comments and outline the changes made in response.

Thanks a lot for your valuable comments!

 

1. Clarity of Research Inquiry

You suggested revising the research inquiry for clarity, specifically the phrase:

Proposed Revision:

• "How can aspects of effective leadership...help improve..."
• "How can a lens of effective leadership...support improvement of..."

Response:
I agree that the proposed revisions provide greater clarity and precision. The revised research inquiry now reads:

RQ: How can aspects of effective leadership and collaborative governance support the improvement of waste management in the Campania region of Italy?

This revision emphasizes the exploratory nature of the study and aligns better with the research objectives.

 

2. Repetitions

You noted repetitions in several places, including lines 29, 124, 303, and 403.

Response:
The identified repetitions of yours and also other have been reviewed and addressed. Below are the specific changes:

• Line: Removed redundant phrasing about the replicability of findings.
  Original: The findings of this research are replicable and can be applied to other regions facing similar environmental and governance challenges.
  Revised: The findings can be applied to other regions facing similar governance challenges.

 

• Line in the Introduction:
  The phrase "collaborative governance and effective leadership" is repeated. I streamlined this by rephrasing to avoid redundancy.
  Changed: Combine the sentences to read:
  This article investigates the role of collaborative governance and effective leadership in driving social change, particularly in addressing waste management challenges in the Campania region.

 

• Line in the Theoretical Framework:
  The concept of "collaborative governance" is reiterated multiple times. I condensed the explanation to avoid redundancy.
  Changed:
  Collaborative governance emphasizes the participation of multiple stakeholders, including government, civil society, and the private sector, in decision-making processes to address shared challenges (Ansell & Gash, 2008).

 

• Streamlined the discussion on stakeholder involvement.
  Original: "All residents of the region have the responsibility of disposing and recycling garbage and the region which is essential for improvement in waste management."
  Revised: All residents share the responsibility of proper waste disposal and recycling, which is essential for improving waste management.

 

• Line : Condensed the explanation of the theoretical framework.
  Original: The collaborative governance framework highlights the importance of diversified stakeholders for successful collaboration.
  Revised: The collaborative governance framework emphasizes the need for diverse stakeholders in successful collaboration.

 

• Line in the Findings:
  The phrase "trust in leadership" is repeated. I rephrased to maintain focus.
  Changed:
  Citizens' trust in leadership is critical for inclusive governance and effective waste management. However, bureaucratic inefficiencies and corruption have eroded this trust.

 

• Line: Simplified the description of participant selection.
  Original: Participants were selected on the basis of their knowledge, position, and potential to provide valuable information on the governance and waste management problems in the region.
  Revised: Participants were chosen for their expertise and relevance to waste management issues in the region.

 

• Line in the Discussions: Removed the redundant explanations

Original text: This study uses the theoretical framework of collaborative governance to investigate the intricacies of the waste management issue prevalent in the Campania region. This framework signifies the involvement of multiple stakeholders in bringing social change. Effective leadership is also highlighted as they are essential for building trust among the public and to include the public into consideration. Therefore, the role of transformational leaders is imminent for the success of waste management solutions in the region. Stakeholders are mobilized by transformational leaders towards a common sustainability vision. Effective leaders create an environment conducive to innovation (Agbor, 2008) and adaptability facilitating collaborative efforts to address waste management challenges. The study does point out a major obstacle to cooperation, though: widespread public mistrust of local government, which has been made worse by past corruption and poor administration. The motives of the administration were viewed with suspicion by many interviewees. Since trust is necessary to establish true partnerships (Lewis, 2007; Argandona, 1999), this lack of confidence makes collaborative governance initiatives more difficult. To improve the collaborative process and make sure that all stakeholders feel appreciated, leaders must place a high priority on accountability and openness to rebuild trust in public institutions.
Changed:
This study applies the collaborative governance framework to examine waste management challenges in Campania, emphasizing the need for multi-stakeholder involvement and effective leadership. Transformational leaders play a critical role in mobilizing stakeholders and fostering a shared vision for sustainability. However, widespread public mistrust, fueled by past corruption and poor administration, remains a significant barrier. Rebuilding trust through accountability and transparency is essential for successful collaborative governance.

 

 

3. Brackets in Lines 55-56

You asked about the use of brackets in lines 55-56 and whether it is a citation. So this is not citation and I removed the brackets, thanks for identification of the error.

Removed bracket from the line: In the case of the Campania region, it can help promote trust among public authorities and governance bodies, leading to improved waste management outcomes.

Other changes

Upon review, the brackets appear to reference a source but lack proper citation. To address this:

Original Text:
"...a holistic comprehension of the way individuals’ actions contribute towards the sustainability transformation process is essential ( , 2024)."

...a holistic comprehension of the way individuals’ actions contribute towards the sustainability transformation process is essential (Beyers, 2024).

Line:

Original Text:
To achieve a sustainable social change concerning waste management in the Campania region, Italy, effective public leadership is crucial as it is responsible for building trust and collaboration among diverse stakeholders and their involvement (Emerson et al., 2012; Moore et al., 2023; Crosby & Bruson, 2018; Emerson, 2015, Carroll, & Brown, 2020).

Response:
This is citations, but the formatting was inconsistent. The references have been reviewed and corrected for clarity. The revised text now reads:
To achieve sustainable social change in waste management in the Campania region, effective public leadership is crucial for building trust and fostering collaboration among diverse stakeholders (Emerson et al., 2012; Moore et al., 2023; Crosby & Bruson, 2018; Emerson et al., 2015; Carroll & Brown, 2020).

 

 

4. Further Trimming and Streamlining

You suggested that the article could benefit from additional trimming to enhance clarity and maintain a common thread throughout.

Response:
The article has been further streamlined to ensure a clear flow from problem formulation to conclusion. Below are the key changes:

• Abstract: Condensed the background information to focus on the research problem and objectives.
  Original: "This article aims to investigate the role of leadership and collaborative governance in bringing social change concerning waste management in the Campania region. The single-case study of a multi-site, qualitative approach is used in this study.
• Revised: "This study investigates how leadership and collaborative governance can drive social change in waste management in Campania, using a qualitative, multi-site case study approach."
• Methodology: Simplified the description of data collection and analysis.
  Original: "This study employed a qualitative approach, using semi-structured interviews to gather data from 65 stakeholders in the Campania region. Participants included public leaders, waste management organizations, citizens, civic society leaders, and regional politicians."
  Revised: "A qualitative approach was used, with semi-structured interviews conducted with 65 stakeholders, including public leaders, waste management organizations, and citizens."
• Findings and Discussion: Removed redundant explanations.

I hope these changes address your concerns and improve the overall clarity and coherence of the article. Thank you for your valuable feedback, which has been instrumental in refining the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf