Understanding Business Requirements for Increasing the Uptake of Recycled Plastic: A Value Chain Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of the paper is very current, interesting and fits the aims and scope of the Journal. The paper is very well structured and written. Main goals are very well presented. The background is solid, although minor supplements need to be added. The methodology is not particularly innovative, but it is acceptable for this kind of research. The results are clearly presented and conclusions drawn. I suggest the minor revision of the paper according to the following comments:

1. The Abstract is well structured and written. However, the authors should point out the main scientific contribution of their paper in the Abstract.

2. The authors should explicitly point out the main research gaps identified through the literature review that this paper is trying to cover.

3. The Theoretical background (literature review) should be supplemented with the overview of the methodologies for the value chain analysis (in general and recycling sector). For further reading the authors should, for example, see the paper: “Faße, A., Grote, U., & Winter, E. (2009). Value chain analysis methodologies in the context of environment and trade research (No. 429). Diskussionsbeitrag”, but also some other papers from the field.

4. The authors should consider providing a graphical representation of their methodology (some sort of a diagram depicting the framework of the methodology). It would make the methodology much clearer.

5. The authors should point out more clearly the theoretical and practical (managerial) implications of the paper (results presented within it) in the Discussion section.

6. There are certain technical errors in the paper:

- It is uncommon to have the subheadings immediately after the main heading without any text in between (e.g. there is no text between the heading of section 4 and the sub-heading 4.1). There should be at least few sentences describing what is to come.

- Table 1 is not formatted according to the provided template.

- The references in the reference list are not formatted according to the provided template (Instructions for authors), e.g. the journal names should be abbreviated.

- The word “society” (line 41) has some strange characters in the middle of it.

Author Response

Thank you for your extensive feedback and tips. We have incorporated most of your suggestions. However, we decided not to include a graphical representation of the methodology, as we think it would take away the attention of the other images.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Line 37: Please reword the sentence, so that it does not start with a numeral. 

2. Line 42: society

3. Lines 125-126: focused

4. Line 207: Please use "people" instead of "persons"

5. Lines 213, 226, 232:  Try to use independent clauses instead of subordinate clauses.

6. Line 260: The first row of the Table is not readable. Also, please add the word "factors" after "Systemic". 

7. Line 343: What does "this" refer to? Please elaborate.

8. Line 359: "misperception of the quality of recycled plastics"

9. Line 377: altogether

10. Line 402: "prices of virgin materials"

11. Line 420: "as well as free and accessible to"

12. Line 524: A useful addition to this section would be a comprehensive discussion about plastics and recycled plastics prices in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic and oil prices. 

13. Line 559: "lack of knowledge of and skills related to designing products fit for recycling"

Author Response

Thank you for your tips and feedback. We have incorporated most of your suggestions.

6.

We think the first row of the table is readable? Table layout has been changed.

12.

We have decided not to include point 12. We think this would be an interesting study, but will also require a more extensive study to other factors specifically influencing the prices of virgin and recycled plastic.