Modeling a Reverse Logistics Supply Chain for End-of-Life Vehicle Recycling Risk Management: A Fuzzy Risk Analysis Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review your article. The article overall makes sense and makes a contribution to research on ELV disposal. However, a few suggestions can be made to further improve it. Essentially, this has to do with the literature used, and the positioning of the article. I noticed that very little recent literature has been used (younger than 5 years). This creates a substantial risk that recent developments are not considered. The literature used is somewhat outdated, and deepening the literature review could help better position the article in the recent literature. I suggest doing a new literature search and for example consider the recent publication in Sustainability by Yu et al. (2022) to update the article. One of the things I noticed, was for example the fact that no specific information is provided regarding EV (Electric Vehicles), as the data all seem to refer to fuel-based vehicles. This should, of course, be mentioned and analyzed as a limitation to the findings (and a suggestion for further research).
Furthermore, an important issue is the fact that the companies active in the reverse logistics and processing of ELV are often not related to the OEM, and therefore do not share the Brand (and associated risks related to the lack of corporate responsibility). A recommendation based on this observation could be that a stronger link to the OEMs could strengthen corporate social responsibility.
Very little information is provided regarding the sample of experts the authors have used: please provide detailed information about the population you have sampled from, the sampling strategy, the composition of the sample and to what that extent the sample is representative. This has substantial consequences for the (geographical and other limitations to the) validity of the study. Please provide demographics.
Finally, the study would benefit form having a native speaker edit the text.
I wish the authors good luck in further improving the study.
Yu, Z., Khan, S. A. R., Zia-ul-haq, H. M., Tanveer, M., Sajid, M. J., & Ahmed, S. (2022). A Bibliometric Analysis of End-of-Life Vehicles Related Research: Exploring a Path to Environmental Sustainability. Sustainability, 14(14), 8484.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised copy of our manuscript titled “Modeling a Reverse Logistics Supply Chain for End- of-Life Vehicle Recycling Risks Management: A Novel Fuzzy Risk Analysis tool” to MDPI Journal on Sustainability, Special Issue: “Logistics and Supply Chain Management Challenges and Opportunities in the COVID-19 World – Smart, Agile and Sustainable Trends, Methods and Practices”.
Thank you very much for your detailed review and insightful comments. We have no doubts that they have considerably contributed to the quality of the paper. If you would be so kind, please check the detailed replies to your comments below. We have made all changes in red in a paper, to ensure that the changes are easily visible.
Sincerely yours,
Authors
Comment 1.
Thank you for the opportunity to review your article. The article overall makes sense and makes a contribution to research on ELV disposal. However, a few suggestions can be made to further improve it. Essentially, this has to do with the literature used, and the positioning of the article. I noticed that very little recent literature has been used (younger than 5 years). This creates a substantial risk that recent developments are not considered. The literature used is somewhat outdated, and deepening the literature review could help better position the article in the recent literature. I suggest doing a new literature search and for example consider the recent publication in Sustainability by Yu et al. (2022) to update the article.
Reply to comment 1.:
Thank you for kind advise with the literature.
Thank you for this valuable comment and recommendation of the review paper by Yu et al. (2022) (see reference no 8). We have reviewed our literature section and added more literature from recent studies and references as recommended (introduction section, line 34-55; section 2, line 128-139). As a consequence, a few new references [5-13, 26-28, 97-102] have been addedto the manuscript. We hope that these changes will make our research more valuable.
Comment 2.
One of the things I noticed, was for example the fact that no specific information is provided regarding EV (Electric Vehicles), as the data all seem to refer to fuel-based vehicles. This should, of course, be mentioned and analyzed as a limitation to the findings (and a suggestion for further research).
Reply to comment 2.:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. In most developing countries, including Poland, Kenya, etc., there are not many electric vehicles and as a consequence , there is a lack of legal solutions as well as technology for the recycling of electric vehicles. This creates a research gap but also an industrial need for these solutions. We have added this as a research limitation and a suggestion for further research in section 5 (conclusion), line 408-415.
Comment 3.
Furthermore, an important issue is the fact that the companies active in the reverse logistics and processing of ELV are often not related to the OEM, and therefore do not share the Brand (and associated risks related to the lack of corporate responsibility). A recommendation based on this observation could be that a stronger link to the OEMs could strengthen corporate social responsibility.
Reply to comment 3.:
Comment 4.
Very little information is provided regarding the sample of experts the authors have used: please provide detailed information about the population you have sampled from, the sampling strategy, the composition of the sample and to what that extent the sample is representative. This has substantial consequences for the (geographical and other limitations to the) validity of the study. Please provide demographics.
Reply to comment 4.:
Thank you for pointing this out. The demographics and sample representation of the experts in this current study have been explained in the section 3.2 (line 267-286). We have included information about the selection of experts, countries represented and composition of the sample. However, we would like to point out that the experts were selected based on their experiences with the ELV recycling but also developing country of origin was also a factor.
Comment 5.
Finally, the study would benefit from having a native speaker edit the text.
Reply to comment 5.:
Thank you for your suggestion. Owing to your recommendation, the text has been edited, and all spelling and grammar errors pointed out by the reviewers have been corrected.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, the aim of the paper is very interesting, especially considering the rating of the different risk categories.
Based on this consideration, I suggest to better explain the functions of the tool are and how it can be operated; moreover, the sample (received questionaries) investigated is very small, so it is not very relevant.
Furthermore, line 283 mentions "developing and emerging countries"; why? Do the managers belong to these countries? in my opinion, it is not clear which kind of companies managers derived from??
Finally, in order to test the model I suggest to extend the research with an empirical analysis.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
We would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised copy of our manuscript titled “Modeling a Reverse Logistics Supply Chain for End- of-Life Vehicle Recycling Risks Management: A Novel Fuzzy Risk Analysis tool” to MDPI Journal on Sustainability, Special Issue: “Logistics and Supply Chain Management Challenges and Opportunities in the COVID-19 World – Smart, Agile and Sustainable Trends, Methods and Practices”.
Thank you very much for your detailed review and insightful comments. We have no doubts that they have considerably contributed to the quality of the paper. If you would be so kind, please check the detailed replies to your comments below. We have made all changes in red in the paper, to ensure that the changes are easily visible.
Sincerely yours,
Authors
Comment 1.
Dear authors, the aim of the paper is very interesting, especially considering the rating of the different risk categories. Based on this consideration, I suggest to better explain the functions of the tool are and how it can be operated
Reply to comment 1.:
Thank you for your comment.
We appreciate a lot, your commendations for the paper. The major aim of the risk analysis tool used was to estimate the degree of risk preference to efficiently manage ELV supply chain and it proposes a risk assessment procedure using fuzzy knowledge representation theory to support risk analysis. The objective of the risk analysis tool is not only to rank the identified key risks, in terms of their preference to occur in a reverse supply chain of ELV products (see the abstract, line 22-27 and introduction, line57-62).
Comment 2.
Moreover, the sample (received questionaries’) investigated is very small, so it is not very relevant.
Reply to comment 2.:
Thank you for pointing this out. The demographics and sample representation of the experts in this current study have been explained in section 3.2 (line 267-286). We have included information about experts’ selection, countries represented and composition of the sample. However, we would like to point out that the experts were selected based on their experiences with the ELV recycling but also developing country of origin was also a factor. In our opinion the sample was sufficient as we assumed at the beginning of the research that we need at least 10 responses to achieve satisfying results.
Comment 3.
Furthermore, line 283 mentions "developing and emerging countries"; why? Do the managers belong to these countries? in my opinion, it is not clear which kind of companies managers derived from??
Reply to comment 3.:
Thank you for pointing this out. Authors of the paper have an experience with end-of-life vehicle recycling in developing countries like Poland or Kenya. There are some differences in ELVs recycling, particulary the legal requirements. However, the problems, challenges and risk factors related to ELV recycling are similar. As a consequence, the mentioned method and presented model can be used by both developed and developing countries since risks identified are general risks that are common are needs to be considered by both.
Comment 4.
Finally, in order to test the model I suggest to extend the research with an empirical analysis.
Reply to comment 4.:
Thank you for your recommendation on extending the research with an empirical case study. This has been recommended by the authors as a further step of this research, in order to validate the findings of the study (see Section 5, line 433-441).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors.
Thank you for your review of the article. The article raises an interesting topic. Below are some suggestions:
-> It would be useful to clearly indicate the aim of the article in the abstract. You wrote "This paper seeks to describe several activities of a closed-loop supply chain for the collection and recycling of ELVs and identify the related potential risks involved. This study further investigated the potential risks for managing efficient recycling of ELVs by modelling and viewing the ELV recycling system as a reverse logistics supply chain." So, is the main aim to describe SC operations (modelling) and within that, the risks, or is the focus placed on managing risks in the area of end-of-life vehicle recycling? What is overarching in your study? It's worth sorting this out.
-> The introduction lacks a clearly indicated purpose of the article.
-> In the introduction, it is worth pointing out, based on the literature review and previous research in this area, what the research gap is due to. Has this problem never been studied by anyone? If it has been, what is so new about your study? It is worth highlighting this clearly.
-> It is worth deepening the literature review in the area of reverse logistics SC and Vehicles Recycling.
-> It is also worth rethinking the title. Is the greater focus on Reverse Logistics Supply Chain modelling, Risk Management end of life vehicle recycling?
-> The last paragraph in the introduction is worth referring to the structure of the article.
-> In the presentation of the results, the notations should be improved. There are different fonts and sizes, and sometimes there is an overlap in the data presented, which makes the graphs unreadable.
After improvements, the article is worth publishing.
Good luck!
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
We would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised copy of our manuscript titled “Modeling a Reverse Logistics Supply Chain for End- of-Life Vehicle Recycling Risks Management: A Novel Fuzzy Risk Analysis tool” to MDPI Journal on Sustainability, Special Issue: “Logistics and Supply Chain Management Challenges and Opportunities in the COVID-19 World – Smart, Agile and Sustainable Trends, Methods and Practices”.
Thank you very much for your detailed review and insightful comments. We have no doubts that they have considerably contributed to the quality of the paper. If you would be so kind, please check the detailed replies to your comments below. We have made all changes in red in the paper, to ensure that the changes are easily visible.
Sincerely yours,
Authors
Comment 1.
It would be useful to clearly indicate the aim of the article in the abstract. You wrote "This paper seeks to describe several activities of a closed-loop supply chain for the collection and recycling of ELVs and identify the related potential risks involved. This study further investigated the potential risks for managing efficient recycling of ELVs by modelling and viewing the ELV recycling system as a reverse logistics supply chain." So, is the main aim to describe SC operations (modelling) and within that, the risks, or is the focus placed on managing risks in the area of end-of-life vehicle recycling? What is overarching in your study? It's worth sorting this out.
Reply to comment 1.:
Thank you for your valuable comment. The aim of the presented study is to describe SC operations (modelling), to identify occurring risks, to rank them, and check which ones have more likelihood of occurrence. Moreover, we would like to include risk management with an empirical example in the next work on this topic. As a consequence, we have included this as a future research direction what is described in line 439-458. In addition, the aim of the article has been included in the abstract, as given in lines 22-27.
Comment 2.
The introduction lacks a clearly indicated purpose of the article.
Reply to comment 2.:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have added information about the aim of the study in the abstract (line 22-27) and in the Introduction section (line 58-60). In addition, we have defined some research questions within the Introduction section (line 34-62) for better understanding of the research aim.
Comment 3.
In the introduction, it is worth pointing out, based on the literature review and previous research in this area, what the research gap is due to. Has this problem never been studied by anyone? If it has been, what is so new about your study? It is worth highlighting this clearly.
Reply to comment 3.:
Thank you for your comment. Based on our own experience in ELVs recycling we have made an initial literature review in order to identify research gap in case of modelling the reverse logistics supply chain with regard to risk management of ELV recycling, what was presented in Section 2, line 160-176. It may be confusing for the reader as it was not included in the Introduction, but it was highlighted in the methodology. In Table 1, we showed the novelty of our research. It is possible to find research on modeling reverse logistics or reverse supply chain with risk management as a research subject, but existing works on ELVs are not accurate, because there has not been identified work considering risk management in ELV recycling.
Comment 4.
It is worth deepening the literature review in the area of reverse logistics SC and Vehicles Recycling.
Reply to comment 4.:
Thank you for this comment. We have reviewed our literature section and added more literature from recent studies and references as recommended (introduction, line 34-55; section 2, line 131-142). As a consequence, there are now some new references [5-13, 26-28, 97-102] that have been addedto the manuscript. We hope that these changes will make our research more valuable.
Comment 5.
It is also worth rethinking the title. Is the greater focus on Reverse Logistics Supply Chain modelling, Risk Management end of life vehicle recycling?
Reply to comment 5.:
Thank you for your suggestion. The title of the paper was prepared to focus on the management of end-of-life vehicle recycling risks, considering the fact that there is a whole supply chain for ELV recycling, including various stakeholders. We wanted to the key word/ issues to facilitate discovery during the search process by other researchers. Therefore, there would have a higher chance to discover our paper to be discovered when they researchers search information on risk management and modelling reverse logistics for ELVs. As a consequence, we would like to maintain the title.
Comment 6.
The last paragraph in the introduction is worth referring to the structure of the article.
Reply to comment 6.:
Thank you for your suggestion. Owing to Your recommendation, we have added in the last paragraph of the introduction, highlighting the structure of the paper (line 111-117).
Comment 7.
In the presentation of the results, the notations should be improved. There are different fonts and sizes, and sometimes there is an overlap in the data presented, which makes the graphs unreadable.
Reply to comment 7.:
Thank you for your suggestion. This has been improved for clarity as the font type was unified and figures were improved (Figure 2, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6). We hope that the quality of these elements of the manuscript is better.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Review v.2
Thank you for having me review the second version of the article. I commend the authors with a substantial effort they made to improve the article. Nonetheless, a few issues remain. I have listed them below, with suggestions as to how to further improve the article.
Claim of developing a new tool
The authors claim (e.g., in the abstract) to develop an analytical tool, but the tool is not presented as such (it is only claimed (p. 5, below) that a previously developed tool is adapted). Neither is explained how nor why the developed tool is different and better than existing tools. Only the outcome of the analysis (a ranked list of factors) is presented (see also p. 10). I suggest the authors either de-emphasize the development of the new tool, or present the tool explicitly in the article, as an outcome of the work, and explain how and why it is better than existing tools (and which existing tools). Proof is needed for these claims.
Methodology
It is mentioned that 25 experts are involved in the assessments of the risk. Nonetheless, only 9 + 2 are identified in terms of their country of origin. This is a very meager description. Please add more information, and about all participants in the study. What qualifies them to execute this part of the study? In the results section it is claimed that this approach is better than a probabilistic approach, but there is no justification for this claim, especially not when the reader can not verify that indisputable experts have been used.
Limitations
Please provide some suggestions for further research, e.g., based on the identification of the limitations.
Language:
the language appears sometimes rather unacademic, as a result of the use of colloquial expressions, e.g., 'huge', 'massive' etc. Please replace by the more academic sounding 'considerable'.
Strong claims without proper explanations.
In some places in the article, rather strong statements are made (e.g., that the used subjective methodology is better than a probabilistic assessment of the risks (p. 12). Please explain why, and in which way, the fuzzy set method better than a probabilistic assessment?). Please add some justifications (or references).
I hope these observations help the authors further improve the article. I wish them good luck.
Author Response
We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised copy of our manuscript titled “Modeling a Reverse Logistics Supply Chain for End- of-Life Vehicle Recycling Risks Management: A Fuzzy Risk Analysis Approach” to MDPI Journal on Sustainability, Special Issue: “Logistics and Supply Chain Management Challenges and Opportunities in the COVID-19 World – Smart, Agile and Sustainable Trends, Methods and Practices”.
Thank you very much for your detailed review and insightful comments. We have no doubts that they have considerably contributed to the quality of the paper. If you would be so kind, please check the detailed replies to your comments below. In the latest version of the paper we have included all changes from review 1 (red font) as well as we have used an option to track changes, to ensure that the changes are easily visible, in particular to make visible all language changes. Moreover, the text highlighted in yellow indicates some of the responses to the reviewer's concerns.
Sincerely yours,
Authors
Comment 1.
Claim of developing a new tool
The authors claim (e.g., in the abstract) to develop an analytical tool, but the tool is not presented as such (it is only claimed (p. 5, below) that a previously developed tool is adapted). Neither is explained how nor why the developed tool is different and better than existing tools. Only the outcome of the analysis (a ranked list of factors) is presented (see also p. 10). I suggest the authors either de-emphasize the development of the new tool, or present the tool explicitly in the article, as an outcome of the work, and explain how and why it is better than existing tools (and which existing tools). Proof is needed for these claims.
Reply to comment 1.:
Thank you for this valuable comment. Considering this comment we would like to clarify that
a modified analysis tool from the previously developed tool was used in the ELV recycling risk analysis, which was then fed with data from survey and run to generate the ranking of factors/graphs and mapping of factors as results (see Section 3.4, lines: 307-311).
It was pointed out that although many performance measures and supply network risk tools appropriate for traditional supply chains have been developed, they are inadequate for use in the reverse supply chain (reference [41]). Moreover, there was not identified in the literature risk analysis in the reverse supply chain dedicated for handling ELVs, what justifies research on this topic as a research gap identified (Section 3.1, lines: 209-217).
As a consequence, authors of the paper have revised the title to reflect that fuzzy analysis approach has been used and the specified tool has been already developed by authors to analyze current study data from the conducted survey based on fuzzy set theory.
Comment 2.
Methodology
It is mentioned that 25 experts are involved in the assessments of the risk. Nonetheless, only 9 + 2 are identified in terms of their country of origin. This is a very meager description. Please add more information, and about all participants in the study. What qualifies them to execute this part of the study?
In the results section it is claimed that this approach is better than a probabilistic approach, but there is no justification for this claim, especially not when the reader can not verify that indisputable experts have been used.
Reply to comment 2.:
Thank you for this valuable comment. In the research experts were qualified based on the high experience in the ELVs’ research and recycling. This was verified by authors of the paper considering previous works of respondents involved in this research. It was expected that respondent has at least 10 years of experience proofed by works on this topic. Considering this 25 potential experts were selected however only 11 participated in this research as they showed
willingness to participate in the survey (not all qualified experts could be reached for response). As a consequence, there was analyzed the demographics of the 11 respondents. This was included in manuscript - lines number: 265-267.
Fuzzy approach has been found to be a better approach compared to probabilistic approach when dealing with research/study that evaluates individual intuitive assessments (subjective assessment) as justified by other authors like Kou and Lu [25] as explained in line 142-150 and reference 92-93 on lines 286-287
Comment 3.
Limitations
Please provide some suggestions for further research, e.g., based on the identification of the limitations.
Reply to comment 3.:
Comment 4.
Language:
the language appears sometimes rather un-academic, as a result of the use of colloquial expressions, e.g., 'huge', 'massive' etc. Please replace by the more academic sounding 'considerable'.
Reply to comment 4.:
Thank you for this valuable comment. We have cleared the text to avoid unacademic expressions. Moreover, the manuscript was proofread by the native English speaker so spelling and grammar errors have been corrected. We hope that this version of the paper presents high level of English.
Comment 5.
Strong claims without proper explanations.
In some places in the article, rather strong statements are made (e.g., that the used subjective methodology is better than a probabilistic assessment of the risks (p. 12). Please explain why, and in which way, the fuzzy set method better than a probabilistic assessment?). Please add some justifications (or references). I hope these observations help the authors further improve the article. I wish them good luck.
Reply to comment 5.:
Thank you for pointing this out. This is an important point to note. The proposed risk assessment methodology has been perceived as more practical and reliable than traditional statistical methods since it utilizes the experts’ risk perceptions in a subjective way rather than an objective way. However, there are risk tools appropriate for traditional supply chains but these existing measures and tools are inadequate for use in the reverse supply chain (please see reference [41]). Risk analysis in the reverse supply chain for handling ELVs has yet to be measured, and there has been no adequate previous research on their management, which justifies research on this topic as a research gap identified (Section 3.1, lines: 209-214). One of the most significant challenges of the reverse supply chain is the uncertainty associated with product returns, which makes forecasting and planning returned products challenging (Section 3.1, lines: 215-217). This lack of sufficient quantitative data on ELVs risks requires a specific approach (mentioned in Section 5, lines 407-411). Moreover, it was pointed out by Kou and Lu, that personal knowledge, experience, and intuitive judgment, provide a better risk assessment than the probabilistic approach (reference [25], Section 2, lines: 144-146). In addition, it was noticed that in the literature there have been identified research, in which fuzzy linguistic scales were used to carry out subjective assessments in various fuzzy-based decision-making problems (references: [92, 93], Section 3, lines: 286-287).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
