Towards a Model for Analyzing the Circular Economy in Ecuadorian Companies: A Conceptual Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article “Towards a model for analyzing Circular Economy in Ecuadorian companies: a conceptual framework” presents an interesting study, focused on the Circular Economy framework analysis and assessment of the implementation of CE strategies in Ecuadorian companies. The results obtained are of practical interest and contribute to better understanding circular economy practices and their adoption by the companies. Some minor corrections are required:

1. Figures 1,2 - please, increase the size font. Figures 3-6 – the resolution should be improved.
2. Please exclude the empty spaces in the text of the article.
3. Line 307: The reference 7 should be in the square brackets, not superscript
4. Although the section Conclusions is optional – I recommend to prepare a separate section. Among all, please indicate the limitations of the study, the applicability of the results obtained for other countries.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your time and your effort. Please, see the attachment in response to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The aim of this study is to identify the current integration of circular practices at organizational level in Ecuador. For this purpose, a conceptual framework of CE is firstly proposed. Secondly, a set of indicators and tools to measure CE is established based on literature review. Lastly, case studies are used to assess the implementation of CE in Ecuadorian companies.

There are several things to check.

 

1. In this paper, the selected case studies were: Alpina (2019), Difare (2019), Novacero (2019), Almacenes Tia (2019), Ingenio San Carlos (2019), Quiport (2018), Banco Pichicha (2019).

Because the economic situation varies from year to year, I recommend you to match the year of the case study. It is desirable to analyze the Quiport (2019) case. Among the selected case studies, Quiport (2018) alone presents the situation in 2018, so it is better to exclude it.

 

2. It is necessary to provide the reader with basic information such as the situation of Ecuador companies and the history and work of each company in more detail. Most of the papers consist of figures, and only simple interpretations of diagrams are presented. It is necessary to provide a detailed explanation and the general matters of the 7 companies that are the subject of the case study.

 

3. Today, most of the companies in Ecuador as well as in the world are paying great attention to CSR activities and CE implementations. Authors need to explain the differences between CE implementations and CSR activities in the introduction part.

 

4. Although it is a case analysis paper, Apendix accounts for too much of the paper. I wish you could shorten Apendix B and C to be more concise.

 

5. In the discussion section, please mention the limitations of the paper and research topics that can be conducted in connection with this paper in the future.

 

I hope that the author's comments will help constructive development of the paper.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your time and your effort. Please, see the attachment in response to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article offers a detailed perspective regarding CE indicators presented in the literature review. The authors might have a look at this classification, too: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/circular-economy/indicators.

I consider that article methodology could be adapted in accordance with Prisma rules (https://guelphhumber.libguides.com/c.php?g=213266&p=1406923#:~:text=What%20is%20PRISMA%3F,a%204%2Dphase%20flow%20diagram.) In this phase the article do not have a real methodology.

Table 1 is very confusing in the paper without reference to the Annex (B,C).

Figures 3,4,5,6 need more explanation and have to be integrated into an appropriate location within the text.

Table A1 might be eliminated. Is too long and does not offer a "spot perspective"

I appreciate the shortcomings discussed in Discussions and Conclusions regarding implementing CE in Ecuador. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your time and your effort. Please, see the attachment in response to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The points pointed out by the reviewer have been appropriately improved. The authors faithfully revised the original to improve the quality of the paper. You did a really good job.