Application of a Generic Model for the Transition to a Product Classified as a Product-Service System: Bike Sharing Case

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Improve the title. It is confusing while reading 

2. Abstract mentions this work aims to propose generic model for the transition to PSS and apply bike sharing business proposal. This is not what the title reflects. Further, line no 10, all of sudden moves to systematic literature review. This is another conflict with the proposed article scope. The scope is life cycle analysis of a bike. Then line no 11 includes SPSS too, and then line no 12, LCA analysis too. Line no 14 provides another concept

3. Introduction is discussing more on sustainability and circular economy principles rather than the actual topic. Few literature covered. As there is no literature section, this part needs to be detailed

4. Methodology is not aligned with the abstract and vice versa. Now the authors are using mixed approach with both quantitative and qualitative

5. Figure 1 does not make sense at this stage as no clear points are provided on the systematic literature review process. Keyword system and selection method is weak

6. section 2.2 mentions the model but where is the model? it isnt discussed earlier

7. Section 2.3, mentions case study but not discussed. No details of the case study. Just similar approach to the sequence of bibliographic data

8. Table 3 provides justification. Not sure that why it is here? as this is a kind of literature outcome. A ReSolve structure is provided but this framework is not discussed before or clarified for usage

9. Further, to the confusing part is all of sudden LCA steps. Authors are mixing up several items together

10. Results and discussion again started with systematic literature review. But unfortunately, there is no difference than before. No clarity from where figure 4 model was developed

11. Table 4 has coding plus characteristics and adopted from Kohlbeck et al. Then what is novelty from the authors?

13. Section 3.2.1 again descriptive analysis here? It is part of methods usually

14. Factorial analysis and some graphs. This is the first time, bike impact is mentioned in figure 5. 

15. Author needs to seriously work on the scope of this study. It has potential but many concepts and approaches are mixed up. Similarly, authors wants to present every single item including models, cases, and mixed methods but this is making the study confusing. The focus on the bike analysis just started from table 8 onwards. But this is not a systematic literature review study. Authors need to be very clear about what they want to do out of this research in a logical flow.

Author Response

Firstly, the authors would like to thank for the recommendations, which certainly contributed to the improvement of the quality of the manuscript, as well as to the evolution of the authors as researchers.

All comments were considered in order to make all the proposed changes and submit the new version on the platform of the Sustainability Journal.

The changes have been highlighted in yellow in the manuscript.

Sincerely, thank you!

 

Comments:

1. Improve the title. It is confusing while reading 

Thank you! Title changed, to make it more aligned with the paper's goal.

 

2. Abstract mentions this work aims to propose generic model for the transition to PSS and apply bike sharing business proposal. This is not what the title reflects. Further, line no 10, all of sudden moves to systematic literature review. This is another conflict with the proposed article scope. The scope is life cycle analysis of a bike. Then line no 11 includes SPSS too, and then line no 12, LCA analysis too. Line no 14 provides another concept

Thanks for the contribution!

The title and the paper's goal were changed, in order to make them more aligned with the work' objective: apply a generic model for the transition to a product classified as a Product-Service System in the bike-sharing case.

In addition, the entire abstract was rewritten, in order to facilitate the understanding of the research methods, and make it easier to read.

 

3. Introduction is discussing more on sustainability and circular economy principles rather than the actual topic. Few literature covered. As there is no literature section, this part needs to be detailed.

Thank you!

Information has been included in the Introduction section, adding more focused data about the application of this research. For example, the following paragraph was added:

" According to Macedo et al. (2020) the production of Aluminum, from the extraction of bauxite to the transformation of Alumina into Aluminum, emits several pollutant gases, such as CO2 and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), besides the extraction of bauxite ore requires the complete removal of vegetation above the soil, and this process releases a highly caustic red lava (pH above 13) [20]. Due to these impacts, the activities related to the aluminum's production have been directed to peripheral or emerging nations, where countries like Brazil have changed from exporting bauxite ore to processing it and supplying primary aluminum [21]. However, public health policies concentrate mainly on corrective measures against the impacts caused by this and other processes, where preventive measures need to be taken aiming at a socio-environmental balance [20]."

 

In the introduction, the ReSOLVE framework was also discussed in depth, to facilitate the understanding of the model developed and cited later in the methodology and results and discussion sections.

“In this context, several approaches, frameworks, methods, and tools emerge to en-able the transitional process for proposals aligned with the Circular Economy. Among them, the ReSOLVE framework, which consists of Regenerate, Share, Optimize, Cycle, Virtualize, and Exchange to support circularity, allowing organizations to establish a holistic perspective of opportunities and identify potential opportunities in the face of the Circular Economy [3].”

“[…] The study by Chiarot et al. (2022) highlights the contributions of a PSS proposal, and emphasizes its relationship with the Circular Economy, as well as with the ReSOLVE framework, highlighting that they mutually contribute with advances in the face of sustainable development [7].”

 

4. Methodology is not aligned with the abstract and vice versa. Now the authors are using mixed approach with both quantitative and qualitative

Thanks for the contribution! The methodology section has been aligned with the abstract.

 

5. Figure 1 does not make sense at this stage as no clear points are provided on the systematic literature review process. Keyword system and selection method is weak.

Thank you!

Figure 1 was better explained, and a brief text was added after the figure (added below), in order to facilitate the reader's understanding of the relation of the figure to the subsections presented after Figure 1.

Text added:

“Each step of this research will be presented in the following sections, as follows:

Section 2.1 presents the results of stages 1 and 2 of Figure 1.

Section 2.2 presents the results of step 3 in Figure 1.

Section 2.3 presents the results of steps 4 and 5 of Figure 1.

Section 2.4 presents the results of step 6 in Figure 1.”

 

In addition, it was clarified how the systematic literature review step occurred (section 2.1. was rewritten).

 

6. section 2.2 mentions the model but where is the model? it isnt discussed earlier

Thank you for the important contribution!

The model was presented in section 2.1.

 

7. Section 2.3, mentions case study but not discussed. No details of the case study. Just similar approach to the sequence of bibliographic data

Thank you!

Thanks!

In section 2.3 the discussion of the case study was expanded, providing more detail through the inclusion of the following paragraph:

“Although bike-sharing systems replace high carbon emission transportation modes, and decrease the emission of greenhouse gases (GEE) under the atmosphere, for a product to be properly classified as PSS, it needs to meet the characteristics presented in Table 2, so as to be previously aligned with sustainable development, from its con-ception to its final destination. Thus, PSS bicycles should seek for more sustainable ways of production, use and disposal of materials, and also maintain the alignment be-tween the environmental, social and economic spheres.”

 

8. Table 3 provides justification. Not sure that why it is here? as this is a kind of literature outcome. A ReSolve structure is provided but this framework is not discussed before or clarified for usage

Thank you!

Table 3 has been relocated to the results section, and the ReSOLVE framework was previously presented in the introduction section.

 

9. Further, to the confusing part is all of sudden LCA steps. Authors are mixing up several items together

Thank you!

The methodology sections have been restructured, including the LCA section, in order to better introduce the methodological procedures and to make it clearer for the reader.

 

10. Results and discussion again started with systematic literature review. But unfortunately, there is no difference than before. No clarity from where figure 4 model was developed

The methodology and results and discussion sections were restructured, so that the systematic review and the development of the model were presented in the methodology section, since they were previously published by Kohlbeck et al. Thus, the results section focuses on the validation of the model and its application to the bike-sharing case.

 

11. Table 4 has coding plus characteristics and adopted from Kohlbeck et al. Then what is novelty from the authors?

As the initial steps of the research have been previously published (Kohlbeck et al. (2021)), Table 4 has been presented in the methodology section, and is now called Table 2.

Thus, the systematic review (previously published) is no longer the focus of the paper, where this study now focuses on the application of the model in the bike-sharing case study.

 

13. Section 3.2.1 again descriptive analysis here? It is part of methods usually

Thank you!

Section 3.2.1 presents the results of the statistical analysis, the descriptive part. This division of sections was clarified beforehand.

“The following sections present the results from the statistical analysis, where section 3.1.1 shows the described analysis, while section 3.1.2 presents the results of the factor analysis.”

 

14. Factorial analysis and some graphs. This is the first time, bike impact is mentioned in figure 5. 

Thank you!

The factorial analysis section has been rewritten in order to make it clearer to read

In addition, the results section has been restructured, focusing more on statistical analysis and application in the bike-sharing case.

 

15. Author needs to seriously work on the scope of this study. It has potential but many concepts and approaches are mixed up. Similarly, authors wants to present every single item including models, cases, and mixed methods but this is making the study confusing. The focus on the bike analysis just started from table 8 onwards. But this is not a systematic literature review study. Authors need to be very clear about what they want to do out of this research in a logical flow.

All authors thank you for your comments, which have contributed significantly to the paper’s improvement.

The scope of the work has been changed, to take the focus off the systematic literature review (now presented as methodological procedures), in order to concentrate on the model validation statistically and on the application in the bike-sharing case.

Thus, the title and the paper’s goal were changed, shifting the focus to the application of the model in the case study.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Review on the manuscript entitled

“Transition to a Product-Service System: An investigation based on the Life Cycle Analysis of a bike”

 

Dear Editor of Sustainability

 

Thank you very much for this opportunity to revise the manuscript “Transition to a Product-Service System: An investigation based on the Life Cycle Analysis of a bike.” I am happy to review this manuscript. The manuscript is generally written in an encouraging proposal to avoid aluminum for bike manufacturing and replace it with a less environmentally impact material (bamboo fiber composite). The manuscript is interesting and significantly contributes to the scholarships. Some fundamental flaws shall be revised before published:

(1) Instead of seeking the standardized laboratory or field experimental tests, this study measures the impact of the bike’s production on the environment and human health using the experts’ judgment, 

(2) This study does not conduct nor cite the medical or physiological experimental results to justify their claim on the carcinogenic and toxic aluminum,

(3) This study stated the mineral scarcity and dismissed the eternality of the non-biodegradable mineral if the recycling process had been thoroughly conducted. Recent environmental awareness also develops more environmentally friendly and efficient processes for products manufacturing using minerals as raw materials.

(4) Biomaterials (including wood and bamboo) are renewable materials if the source (forests) is managed sustainably. Unfortunately, forest degradation is also a serious problem impacting the environment. Please consider that humans should wisely use each material following its best properties. Every material has its advantages and disadvantages.

(5) Factorial analysis seems unclear because the author dismissed the interaction between variables. The detailed comments are below:

 

Best regards,

Reviewer.

 

1.      Line 10, 17, 36, 82, Figure 1, etc: “bike sharing”. Please consider to add hyphen: “bike-sharing”.

2.      Line 17: “the case study bike sharing” Please consider to add preposition “of” and hyphen -: the case study of bike-sharing”

3.      Line 19: “Thus, this 19 study proposes the substitution of Aluminum by a polymeric biocomposite: a blend between 20 polypropylene and bamboo fiber.” Please consider to rephrase “Thus, this study proposes substituting Aluminum with a polymeric biocomposite: a blend between polypropylene and bamboo fiber.”

4.      Line 22: “Keywords:…” Please consider to sort the keyword ascendingly based on the first alphabet.

5.      Line 26-28: Please consider to rephrase and change the tense: The intensification of industrial activities and the development paradigm based on linear economics led to the depletion of natural resources, waste generation, and CO₂ emissions, among others [1–3].

6.      Line 29: Please consider changing the wordy “the transition” to “transitioning”

7.      Line 31: “…, since are composed of products,… ” Please consider to remove the comma and add a subject “… since they are composed of products,…”

8.      Line 39: “ … per year ..” Please change the wordy “per year” to become “yearly”.

9.      Line 41: Please consider to replace the wordy “it is necessary that the product is designed” to become “the product must be designed”

10.  Line 41-44: Please consider this phrase: Thus, PSS bikes should be developed with lower environmental impact materials, which feature ease of disassembly, repair, and recycling [15].

11.  Line 47: The first sentence seems missing the subject. Please state the cited author’s name [18] as the subject.

12.  Line 54: Please replace “…, as well as …” with “… and …” for clarity, and change to the positive tone. Another gap is the need for more data on biocomposites, raising the need to deepen the bibliography regarding this research topic and to perform mechanical tests to analyze its application feasibility [22].

13.  Line 63: The pronoun “it” seems disagree with the noun “products”. Please replace “it” with “them”.

14.  Line 69-70: “What is the strategic organizational alignment required to promote …?” Please rephrase for clarity: “What strategic organizational alignment is required to promote ...?

15.  Line 90: “According to [25]” Please add the author’s name before [25]

16.  Line 91. “Moreover, [26] point out…” Please add the author’s name before [26]

17.  Line 94-96: Please consider these rephrases: The Scopus and Web of Science databases were used for selecting scientific papers, considered the most comprehensive in the literature [30]. The combinations of keywords presented in Table 1 were used to compose the sample of works to be analyzed.

18.  Line 100-101: Please consider this rephrase: To this end, a product's characteristics that make up a PSS  business model were identified and structured through a generic model.

19.  Line 104-110: Please consider these rephrases for clarity: According to [32], this framework organizes Circular Economy guidelines in six dimensions: regenerate, share, optimize, loop, virtualize, and exchange. Thus, a product’s characteristics that make up a PSS proposal were coded and classified according to the ReSOLVE framework. In this way, the features were presented: Re1-Re7 represent the regenerate dimension guidelines; S1-S6, of the share dimension; O1-O6 correspond to the optimize features; L1-L7, loop; V1-V6, virtualize and; E1-E6, exchange [14].

20.  Line 116: “…the ability of each feature to make the…” Please replace it with “…each feature's ability to…”

21.  Line 112-118: Please consider these rephrases for clarity: Experts in Product-Service Systems (survey strategy), which were selected through the ORCID platform (Open Researcher and Contributor ID), evaluated the characteristics of a PSS product to validate the generic model. Through a questionnaire developed using the Google Forms tool, the interviewees analyzed the degree of agreement regarding each feature's ability to transition from a traditional product to a PSS product. For this, a Likert scale with five gradations was used, in which 1 (one) represents strongly disagree and 5 (five), strongly agree [33].

22.  Line 121-125: Please consider this rephrase for clarity: Descriptive (calculation of mean and standard deviation) and factorial (calculation of variance) analyses were performed for this study. Through these analyses, it was possible to identify a product's characteristics that make up a PSS strategy that best represents the dimensions of the ReSOLVE framework.

23.  Line 127-128: The sentence is hard-to-follow: Please consider this rephrase: The bibliographic and statistical data were validated in sequence through a case study. For this, the second stage of the literature review was carried out, where the most toxic component of bike-sharing was identified to promote the transition of this component (traditional product) to a PSS product, where there is greater engagement with the environmental scope of the triple bottom line. For this, the combination of keywords (Table 2) was used, highlighting that 23 articles were analyzed.

24.  Line 137: “[38] highlight”, Please add the author’s name before [38]

25.  Line 140: “to quantity” shall be replaced with “to quantifying”.

26.  Line 141: ”the products life cycle” please consider to replace it with: ”the product’s life cycle”

27.  Line 143: “Since [41] point out” Please add the author’s name before [41]

28.  Line 145: “the proposal of this research” Please replace it with “this research’s proposal”

29.  Line 147: “.. to perform the measurement of..” seems unconcise, please replace it with “… to measure …”

30.  Line 147-151: Please consider these rephrase: As highlighted in Table 3, it is necessary to use data management software to measure environmental and human health impacts caused by a bike. Because of this, this research used SimaPro® (version 9.0), which systematically analyzes the product's life cycle, following the recommendations of the ISO 14040 series [52].

31.  Line 156: “quantitative step” seems missing an article “the quantitative step”

32.  Line 159-160: “iv) results interpretation” shall be replace with “iv) interpretation results”

33.  Line 165-170: Please consider this rephrase: The ReCiPe impact assessment method [56] was used to analyze the midpoint and endpoint of a bike. Adopting an approach based on these two aspects is essential since they are complementary [57]. The midpoint assesses the product's environmental effects, analyzing ecotoxicity, climate change, and acidification [56]. On the other hand, the endpoint presents the characterization of these impacts [58], evaluating aspects such as damage to human health and ecosystem quality [56].

34.  Line 171-172: “which enabled the establishment of” seems wordy. Please replace it with “which established”

35.  Line 173: “According to [59],” Please add the author’s name before [59].
Line 181: “speciastas” is unknown. Please explain it. Is it specialist?

36.  Line 194: “have the potential to” seems too wordy. Please consider to replace it with “can”

37.  Line 197, 203: “by [14],..” [14] performed …” Please add the author’s name before [14].

38.  Line 222-226: The sentence is hard-to-read. Please consider to split it.

39.  Line 229-230: Please consider this rephrase to avoid the wordy sentence: The interviewees stressed this variable's importance as a way to reduce the disposal and pollution caused by the product.

40.  Line 237-239: Although the result of this dimension is the least valued, the model generally presents high averages and low standard deviation values, contributing to the validation of the analyzed phenomenon.

41.  Line 241: “last”. The word “final” may be better than “last” in this sentence.

42.  Line 245: “in term of” seems wordy. Please replace it with “regarding”

43.  Line 248: “the results of the factor analysis” seems wordy. Please replace it with “the factorial analysis‘ results ”

44.  Line 250-251: Table 6 only list the main factor effects and dismiss the interactions between factors. Why the author dismiss interaction between factors? Please explain the reason for the reader.

45.  Line 252-253: Please consider this rephrase for clarity: The variables that contribute most to the dimensions' significance were identified through the analysis of variance.

46.  Line 257-258: Please consider this rephrase for clarity: These variables, which have the most significant impact on each dimension's significance based on the sample analyzed, are suggested to receive the most prioritization.

47.  Line 261-263: Please consider this rephrase: Although bicycles represent a means of transportation aligned with sustainable development, to transition to a PSS proposal, the product must be planned to balance the environmental, social and economic spheres [14].

48.    Line 267-268: Please consider this rephrase: In this phase, high energy consumption and different materials usage (such as Aluminum, steel, and rubber [21]) cause an environmental burden.

49.  Line 268-271: “Moreover, the Simapro® software highlights that the main impacts are the carcinogenic toxicity of the production process of a bicycle and the contribution to the scarcity of mineral resources.” This statement overconfidently judges carcinogenic toxicity and mineral resource scarcity. Standardized medical or physiological research results shall justify the carcinogenic toxicity, and Simapro® software cannot prove it. The recycling process can oppose the scarcity of mineral resources, enabling the mineral’s eternal service-life-time. Please remember that every material has its advantages and disadvantages. Human wisdom is responsible for using them at the right time-place to optimize their usefulness for the whole civilization during eternal life.   

50.  Line 276-281: This long sentence is hard-to-read. Please consider to split them.

51.  Line 300-301. Figure 6 is too small and unclear. The letter cannot be read.

52.  Line 302-308: All statements in this paragraph are misleading because no experimental evidences are given. The expert judgements are not reliable to measure the stated parameters (impacts to human health and the environment, terrestrial acidification, impacts of ozone emissions on human health and terrestrial ecosystems; thus, standardized experimental study must prove them.

53.  Line 311. “Therefore, it is essential to avoid the Aluminum frame, and replace it with another material aligned with sustainable development.” This statement is jump to conclusion without enough evidence. Many material efficiency strategies to reduce the aluminum environmental impact have been developed recently. The suggestion to avoid aluminum is too radical and unwise. Please change with the milder recommendation.  

54.  Line 316: “The study by [66] points out that among the main negative externalities of Aluminum, climate change stands out, since it is responsible for 67.3% of the impacts related to this category, as presented in Fig. 7”. The experimental study is needed to calculate the each factor’s impact to the climate change. Please list all factors (e.g., industrialization, transportation, forest fire, forest harvesting, agriculture, marine fisher, population growth, etc) and their contribution percentage. Once again, expert judgements without experimental results are not reliable in this case study.

55.  Line 320, 334, : “the study of [66]” “According to [69]”,, “Please state the author’s name before [66], [69]

 

56.  Line 362. Table 10 seems very subjective based on the interview results without experimental evidences. Please reconsider Re1, Re2, Re3, Re7, S1, O3, L4, L5, E4, E6. Are bamboo fiber really better in those cases than aluminum? They are debatable and need trustworthy experimental results. Please consider that the forest degradation (include bamboo forest) also the main issue in the environment impacts and climate change.    

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Firstly, the authors would like to thank for the recommendations, which certainly contributed to the improvement of the quality of the manuscript, as well as to the evolution of the authors as researchers.

All comments were considered in order to make all the proposed changes and submit the new version on the platform of the Sustainability Journal.

The changes have been highlighted in yellow in the manuscript.

Sincerely, thank you!

 

Reviewer 2 – Comments:

(1) Instead of seeking the standardized laboratory or field experimental tests, this study measures the impact of the bike’s production on the environment and human health using the experts’ judgment.

Thank you!

Yes, this study is theoretical and preliminary, based on the application of the model (validated by experts) and Life Cycle Analysis. To corroborate with the data obtained, the literature, through case studies, was added for corroboration. In addition, it is pointed out that future studies need to focus on broadening the scope of this work, adopting a more practical perspective in order to prove the impacts of Aluminum and to analyze the biocomposite alternative.

 

(2) This study does not conduct nor cite the medical or physiological experimental results to justify their claim on the carcinogenic and toxic aluminum.

Thanks for the contribution!

This information has been added to the manuscript.

 

(3) This study stated the mineral scarcity and dismissed the eternality of the non-biodegradable mineral if the recycling process had been thoroughly conducted. Recent environmental awareness also develops more environmentally friendly and efficient processes for products manufacturing using minerals as raw materials.

(4) Biomaterials (including wood and bamboo) are renewable materials if the source (forests) is managed sustainably. Unfortunately, forest degradation is also a serious problem impacting the environment. Please consider that humans should wisely use each material following its best properties. Every material has its advantages and disadvantages.

Thank you!

Response to comments 3 and 4:

This point was discussed in the article, which highlights the need to analyze the benefits and harms of Aluminum substitution, under several scopes.

“Thus, despite the fact that studies regarding the reduction of environmental impacts are being published, this is a non-renewable resource, and the substitution by more sustainable and renewable alternatives becomes a plausible alternative. However, future studies are necessary to prove the viability of the change under the environmental, social and economic aspects; besides ensuring the required mechanical properties.”

 

(5) Factorial analysis seems unclear because the author dismissed the interaction between variables.

Thank you!

The factorial analysis section has been rewritten in order to make it clearer to read.

------------------------

1. Line 10, 17, 36, 82, Figure 1, etc: “bike sharing”. Please consider to add hyphen: “bike-sharing”.

Thank you! Hyphen added.

 

2. Line 17: “the case study bike sharing” Please consider to add preposition “of” and hyphen -: the case study of bike-sharing”

Thank you! Hyphen and the preposition “of” added.

 

3. Line 19: “Thus, this 19 study proposes the substitution of Aluminum by a polymeric biocomposite: a blend between 20 polypropylene and bamboo fiber.” Please consider to rephrase “Thus, this study proposes substituting Aluminum with a polymeric biocomposite: a blend between polypropylene and bamboo fiber.”

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

4. Line 22: “Keywords:…” Please consider to sort the keyword ascendingly based on the first alphabet.

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

5. Line 26-28: Please consider to rephrase and change the tense: The intensification of industrial activities and the development paradigm based on linear economics led to the depletion of natural resources, waste generation, and CO₂emissions, among others [1–3].

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

6. Line 29: Please consider changing the wordy “the transition” to “transitioning”

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

7. Line 31: “…, since are composed of products,… ” Please consider to remove the comma and add a subject “… since they are composed of products,…”

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

8. Line 39: “ … per year ..” Please change the wordy “per year” to become “yearly”.

Thank you! Changed for “yearly”.

 

9. Line 41: Please consider to replace the wordy “it is necessary that the product is designed” to become “the product must be designed”

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

10. Line 41-44: Please consider this phrase: Thus, PSS bikes should be developed with lower environmental impact materials, which feature ease of disassembly, repair, and recycling [15].

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

11. Line 47: The first sentence seems missing the subject. Please state the cited author’s name [18] as the subject.

Thank you! Added the author's name.

 

12. Line 54: Please replace “…, as well as …” with “… and …” for clarity, and change to the positive tone. Another gap is the need for more data on biocomposites, raising the need to deepen the bibliography regarding this research topic and to perform mechanical tests to analyze its application feasibility [22].

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

13. Line 63: The pronoun “it” seems disagree with the noun “products”. Please replace “it” with “them”.

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

14. Line 69-70: “What is the strategic organizational alignment required to promote …?” Please rephrase for clarity: “What strategic organizational alignment is required to promote ...?

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

15. Line 90: “According to [25]” Please add the author’s name before [25]

Thank you! Added the author's name.

 

16. Line 91. “Moreover, [26] point out…” Please add the author’s name before [26]

Thank you! Added the author's name.

 

17. Line 94-96: Please consider these rephrases: The Scopus and Web of Science databases were used for selecting scientific papers, considered the most comprehensive in the literature [30]. The combinations of keywords presented in Table 1 were used to compose the sample of works to be analyzed.

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

18. Line 100-101: Please consider this rephrase: To this end, a product's characteristics that make up a PSS  business model were identified and structured through a generic model.

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

19. Line 104-110: Please consider these rephrases for clarity: According to [32], this framework organizes Circular Economy guidelines in six dimensions: regenerate, share, optimize, loop, virtualize, and exchange. Thus, a product’s characteristics that make up a PSS proposal were coded and classified according to the ReSOLVE framework. In this way, the features were presented: Re1-Re7 represent the regenerate dimension guidelines; S1-S6, of the share dimension; O1-O6 correspond to the optimize features; L1-L7, loop; V1-V6, virtualize and; E1-E6, exchange [14].

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

20. Line 116: “…the ability of each feature to make the…” Please replace it with “…each feature's ability to…”

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

21. Line 112-118: Please consider these rephrases for clarity: Experts in Product-Service Systems (survey strategy), which were selected through the ORCID platform (Open Researcher and Contributor ID), evaluated the characteristics of a PSS product to validate the generic model. Through a questionnaire developed using the Google Forms tool, the interviewees analyzed the degree of agreement regarding each feature's ability to transition from a traditional product to a PSS product. For this, a Likert scale with five gradations was used, in which 1 (one) represents strongly disagree and 5 (five), strongly agree [33].

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

22. Line 121-125: Please consider this rephrase for clarity: Descriptive (calculation of mean and standard deviation) and factorial (calculation of variance) analyses were performed for this study. Through these analyses, it was possible to identify a product's characteristics that make up a PSS strategy that best represents the dimensions of the ReSOLVE framework.

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

23. Line 127-128: The sentence is hard-to-follow: Please consider this rephrase: The bibliographic and statistical data were validated in sequence through a case study. For this, the second stage of the literature review was carried out, where the most toxic component of bike-sharing was identified to promote the transition of this component (traditional product) to a PSS product, where there is greater engagement with the environmental scope of the triple bottom line. For this, the combination of keywords (Table 2) was used, highlighting that 23 articles were analyzed.

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

24. Line 137: “[38] highlight”, Please add the author’s name before [38]

Thank you! Added the author's name.

 

25. Line 140: “to quantity” shall be replaced with “to quantifying”.

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

26. Line 141: ”the products life cycle” please consider to replace it with: ”the product’s life cycle”

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

27. Line 143: “Since [41] point out” Please add the author’s name before [41]

Thank you! Added the author's name.

 

28. Line 145: “the proposal of this research” Please replace it with “this research’s proposal”

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

29. Line 147: “.. to perform the measurement of..” seems unconcise, please replace it with “… to measure …”

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

30. Line 147-151: Please consider these rephrase: As highlighted in Table 3, it is necessary to use data management software to measure environmental and human health impacts caused by a bike. Because of this, this research used SimaPro® (version 9.0), which systematically analyzes the product's life cycle, following the recommendations of the ISO 14040 series [52].

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

31. Line 156: “quantitative step” seems missing an article “the quantitative step”

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

32. Line 159-160: “iv) results interpretation” shall be replace with “iv) interpretation results”

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

33. Line 165-170: Please consider this rephrase: The ReCiPe impact assessment method [56] was used to analyze the midpoint and endpoint of a bike. Adopting an approach based on these two aspects is essential since they are complementary [57]. The midpoint assesses the product's environmental effects, analyzing ecotoxicity, climate change, and acidification [56]. On the other hand, the endpoint presents the characterization of these impacts [58], evaluating aspects such as damage to human health and ecosystem quality [56].

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

34. Line 171-172: “which enabled the establishment of” seems wordy. Please replace it with “which established”

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

35. Line 173: “According to [59],” Please add the author’s name before [59].
    Thank you! Added the author's name.

 

36. Line 181: “speciastas” is unknown. Please explain it. Is it specialist?

Thank you! Yes, it is "experts". Sorry for the typo. Changed.

 

37. Line 194: “have the potential to” seems too wordy. Please consider to replace it with “can”

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

38. Line 197, 203: “by [14],..” [14] performed …” Please add the author’s name before [14].

Thank you! Added the author's name.

 

39. Line 222-226: The sentence is hard-to-read. Please consider to split it.

Thank you! The sentence was rewritten.

 

40. Line 229-230: Please consider this rephrase to avoid the wordy sentence: The interviewees stressed this variable's importance as a way to reduce the disposal and pollution caused by the product.

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

41. Line 237-239: Although the result of this dimension is the least valued, the model generally presents high averages and low standard deviation values, contributing to the validation of the analyzed phenomenon.

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

42. Line 241: “last”. The word “final” may be better than “last” in this sentence.

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

43. Line 245: “in term of” seems wordy. Please replace it with “regarding”

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

44. Line 248: “the results of the factor analysis” seems wordy. Please replace it with “the factorial analysis‘ results ”

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

45. Line 250-251: Table 6 only list the main factor effects and dismiss the interactions between factors. Why the author dismiss interaction between factors? Please explain the reason for the reader.

Thanks for the contribution!

This study focused on descriptive and factor statistical analyses, but future studies may highlight the interrelationship between the variables in the model. This suggestion has been added in the conclusions section.

“Future studies can also extend the statistical analysis by performing the interrelation-ship between the variables of the model”

 

46. Line 252-253: Please consider this rephrase for clarity: The variables that contribute most to the dimensions' significance were identified through the analysis of variance.

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

47. Line 257-258: Please consider this rephrase for clarity: These variables, which have the most significant impact on each dimension's significance based on the sample analyzed, are suggested to receive the most prioritization.

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

48. Line 261-263: Please consider this rephrase: Although bicycles represent a means of transportation aligned with sustainable development, to transition to a PSS proposal, the product must be planned to balance the environmental, social and economic spheres [14].

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

49. Line 267-268: Please consider this rephrase: In this phase, high energy consumption and different materials usage (such as Aluminum, steel, and rubber [21]) cause an environmental burden.

Thank you! Changed as proposed.

 

50. Line 268-271: “Moreover, the Simapro® software highlights that the main impacts are the carcinogenic toxicity of the production process of a bicycle and the contribution to the scarcity of mineral resources.” This statement overconfidently judges carcinogenic toxicity and mineral resource scarcity. Standardized medical or physiological research results shall justify the carcinogenic toxicity, and Simapro® software cannot prove it. The recycling process can oppose the scarcity of mineral resources, enabling the mineral’s eternal service-life-time. Please remember that every material has its advantages and disadvantages. Human wisdom is responsible for using them at the right time-place to optimize their usefulness for the whole civilization during eternal life.   

A bibliographic reference was added to corroborate with Simapro's data, proving the software's data.

“Henriques et al. (2013) point out that the main materials that make up a bike, such as Aluminum, contribute to the context of resource scarcity, in addition to contributing to the emission of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), potentiating harmful effects on health, such as the incidence of skin cancer, sunburn and genetic changes in humans, animals and vegetation [22].”

 

51. Line 276-281: This long sentence is hard-to-read. Please consider to split them.

Thanks for the contribution. A period was added to separate two sentences.

 

52. Line 300-301. Figure 6 is too small and unclear. The letter cannot be read.

Thank you!

Improved picture quality, making it easier to read.

 

53. Line 302-308: All statements in this paragraph are misleading because no experimental evidences are given. The expert judgements are not reliable to measure the stated parameters (impacts to human health and the environment, terrestrial acidification, impacts of ozone emissions on human health and terrestrial ecosystems; thus, standardized experimental study must prove them.

It was clarified in the article that the data are theoretical and generic. And to corroborate this data, the work of Matos et al. (2020) was referenced, since it presents empirical data from a case study, which contributes to the validation of the information obtained in the software.

“The results obtained are theoretical and generic, but the work of Matos et al. (2020) corroborates the software data, highlighting the impact of the aluminum pro-duction process through a case study carried out in Pará-Brazil. The authors highlight the contribution of Aluminum to the alteration of the physical and chemical properties of the soil, since the removal of the upper layers of soil for the extraction of bauxite (the raw material base of Alumina, and subsequent Aluminum) exposes the lower lay-ers to the loss of nutrients and erosion. There is also the high water consumption dur-ing this process (data in Figure 6 corroborates this assertion), used in the bauxite ex-traction process, its processing and other steps until Aluminum is obtained.”

 

54. Line 311. “Therefore, it is essential to avoid the Aluminum frame, and replace it with another material aligned with sustainable development.” This statement is jump to conclusion without enough evidence. Many material efficiency strategies to reduce the aluminum environmental impact have been developed recently. The suggestion to avoid aluminum is too radical and unwise. Please change with the milder recommendation.

Thanks for the contribution!

This point was highlighted in the conclusion of the work, pointing out that future studies are needed to prove the feasibility of substituting Aluminum, comparing the positive and negative points of this process.

“Thus, despite the fact that studies regarding the reduction of environmental impacts are being published, this is a non-renewable resource, and the substitution by more sustainable and renewable alternatives becomes a plausible alternative. However, future studies are necessary to prove the viability of the change under the environmental, social and economic aspects; besides ensuring the required mechanical properties.”

 

 

55. Line 316: “The study by [66] points out that among the main negative externalities of Aluminum, climate change stands out, since it is responsible for 67.3% of the impacts related to this category, as presented in Fig. 7”. The experimental study is needed to calculate the each factor’s impact to the climate change. Please list all factors (e.g., industrialization, transportation, forest fire, forest harvesting, agriculture, marine fisher, population growth, etc) and their contribution percentage. Once again, expert judgements without experimental results are not reliable in this case study.

Thank you!

It was made clear in the article that the software data is theoretical. Because of this, bibliographical references that have conducted case studies have been added to corroborate the data. Furthermore, as suggestions for future studies, it is suggested that this expansion in the practical scope.

 

56. Line 320, 334, : “the study of [66]” “According to [69]”,, “Please state the author’s name before [66], [69]

Thank you! Added the author's name.

 

57. Line 362. Table 10 seems very subjective based on the interview results without experimental evidences. Please reconsider Re1, Re2, Re3, Re7, S1, O3, L4, L5, E4, E6. Are bamboo fiber really better in those cases than aluminum? They are debatable and need trustworthy experimental results. Please consider that the forest degradation (include bamboo forest) also the main issue in the environment impacts and climate change.

Thank you for the contribution!

The variables have been reconsidered as suggested.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The title of article has been changed to generic model for the transition. So the abstract is now aligned with it. Keywords are updated. Introduction is updated now. 

Methodological procedures have been added that is fine now

Authors have improved the results and figures

Applying the model in the case study. This section needs improvement. Need further details on the case study. How and what was the case study point? when we say case study, it means that it is implemented as in real environment. Author should present the details of the case study here. Then how these were implemented. The table is fine but details are required. The explanation of this part needs to be detailed ans what was the outcome after implementation, that is minimally discussed. 

What is in this study for managers and industries? these implications need to be provided

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer!

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper, as well as all the comments, which helped improve the work.

Regarding the topic "Applying the model in the case study.", the authors thank you for the comment, and the changes were made as proposed, expanding the discussions regarding the application of the model.
The following paragraphs have been added:

"Thus, Table 10 presents a comparative analysis, based on bibliographic data, between using Aluminum and developing a biocomposite with bamboo fiber. Among the advantages of substitution, it can be highlighted that bamboo is a renewable resource, of rapid growth, helps prevent soil erosion, absorbs carbon dioxide (CO₂) and releases oxygen into the atmosphere, contributing to the minimization of the greenhouse effect, a factor considered critical in the Life Cycle Analysis of Aluminum, being one of the main negative externalities caused by this element.

Thus, managers and industries can benefit from this substitution given the benefits mentioned above, in addition to being an alternative aimed at sustainability, which has been arousing business interest given the pressure in the face of environmental commitments such as Agenda 2030. Thus, proposals with sustainable alignment gain greater visibility in the market, enabling companies to perform the green marketing of the proposal.

Scherer, Bom and Barbieri (2020) reinforce, highlighting that bamboo reconciles the benefits of being a sustainable alternative, with low cost, abundance in nature and low weight, an essential characteristic for a bike frame [61]. Thus, this step contributes to propose an alternative to the main impacts of the production of a bicycle, pointed out by the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA). In this way, the next steps of this research will focus on mechanical tests of the polypropylene and bamboo fiber biocomposite, to perform a comparative study with the Aluminum, in order to validate in a practical way the contributions pointed out in Table 10."

 

The changes have been highlighted in yellow in the manuscript.

Sincerely, thank you!

Regards, authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

Review (ROUND 2) on the manuscript entitled

“Application of a generic model for the transition to a product classified as a Product-Service System: Case bike-sharing”

 

Dear Editor of Sustainability

 

Thank you very much for this opportunity to revise the manuscript “Application of a generic model for the transition to a product classified as a Product-Service System: Case bike-sharing.” I am very glad that the authors have accommodated most of our suggestions. I have no more fundamental objection to the manuscripts; thus, I support the publication of the manuscripts.

 

Best Regards

 

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer!

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper, as well as all the comments, which helped improve the work.

Thanks and regards!