Major revision invitation for 'Embracing causal complexity: A theorizing process based on Aristotle’s conceptualization of causes and causalities'
Dear author(s), 
Thank you for submitting your paper "Embracing causal complexity: A theorizing process based on Aristotle’s conceptualization of causes and causalities" to PCI Org Studies. I have sent your paper out for review to three recognized experts in the field whose detailed and thorough reports are now available (see below). These reviews offer a variety of suggestions that I believe will be helpful in revising your paper. Given the efforts invested in providing extensive and constructive advice, it is already clear that the reviewers see potential in your work. Reviewer 1, in particular, explicitly writes that they believe "this manuscript is timely and addresses the important issue of managing complexity", that it "presents thought-provoking ideas" and "offers new and pertinent perspectives." However, the reviewers also emphasize that there is still a lot of work ahead before your paper can be recommended. For example, Reviewer 2 confesses that they are not yet "convinced [...] that your thesis is sustainable". Reviewer 3, similarly, commends your efforts but notes that there are as yet "major issues that prevent [you] from reaching [your] intentions." Having read all the reviews carefully, I have to agree with the reviewers: There is a lot of work ahead! But it might be worthwhile to invest the time needed for it.
In my opinion, the problems identified by the reviewers are basically solvable. I am therefore pleased to invite you to revise and resubmit your paper (major revision). I request that you address the feedback of the reviewers point by point in a separate letter in case of a resubmission of your revised paper, explaining whether and how you have dealt with their critical comments. In the following, I will highlight individual points from the reviews that seem to me to be of particular importance with regard to your revision of the paper. Thus, I will not address every argument of the reviewers, which does not mean that the critical comments of the reviewers not mentioned or highlighted by me are insignificant.
Response. Thank you for your support for our paper. We are extremely grateful to have the opportunity to revise and resubmit the paper. Your original comments are reproduced in italics and our responses follow each comment.
Unclear problematization; lack of clarity regarding the authors' unique contribution
All three reviewers highlight a lack of clarity in the present paper regarding your problematization of the existing literature and your proposed remedy. R1 notes that "The problematization doesn't make it possible to grasp the need to move away from the Newtonian paradigm" and "The relevance of Aristotelian causality to Organizational Studies remains unclear." R2 similarly asks you to explain more clearly "why it is worth the effort for you to go hand in hand with Aristotle," highlighting that this effort would need to be motivated by a genuine shortcoming in existing approaches. In the same vein, R3 suggests that there are a number of relevant existing approaches that are not considered in your problematization: "it is not accurate that 'there is only one tool to operationalize causal complexity' [...] There are indeed other ways of capturing causality in complex settings (e.g., systems thinking, process theory, case studies), which depart from different assumptions about their purposes. A proper contextualization of your arguments is thus needed."
Response. Thank you for raising this important issue, which is central to the key message we want to highlight in this paper. In order to better motivate our paper and our research question, we have followed the suggestion of Reviewer 1 and the need to better understand causes and causalities and thus to ground them ontologically. This approach allowed us to explain why it makes sense to rely on Aristotle and to highlight why Aristotle is relevant for this. In this revised version, we have also completely rewritten and shortened our introduction and the way we motivate our research question. 
Both I and R1 found the following statement striking as a potential clear statement of the value of your paper: “This is interesting for organization studies in revealing how a cause can also sow the seeds of its own perdition" (p. 18). Yet here, as elsewhere in the paper, I am not quite sure whether you are simply applying Aristotle’s conceptualizations to the organizational context or if you are making claims of your own. I understand it may not be appropriate to quote the relevant Aristotelian texts directly when your claims are attributable to him, since so much depends on subsequent scholarship and interpretation. So perhaps I would suggest a structural solution, with your own extensions, if proposed, presented in a clearly delineated section following the straightforward application of the Aristotelian framework. 
Response. We thank you for your suggestion, which led us to restructure the manuscript and to introduce a new section that presents and describes the Aristotle’s conceptualization of causes and causalities. We then develop our analytical framework based on his conceptualization and apply it to organization studies. This separates and delineates, as you righltly suggested, what is directly attributable to him and our use of his ontological position and structure of thought. 
Regardless, to address the paper's currently unclear problematization, it seems necessary to get clear on what the/your Aristotelian approach offers beyond what is offered by established frameworks, and why what is offered is important. R1 suggests, for instance, that you might "start from elements of your conclusion on our ontological assumptions." You might also consider using a core empirical example to illustrate what the Aristotelian perspective reveals regarding organizational problems that is not revealed by competitor approaches (e.g., Newtonian, variance, configurational theory, etc.)
Response. Thank you for your comment. In this revised version, we have followed your suggestion and started with the importance of ontology, as suggested by Reviewer 1, to motivate our research question but also to provide some contributions. 
Regarding the use of a core empirical example, in previous versions, we have tried to apply our analytical framework to a specific case. However, this option had numerous limitations such as the choice of the case which can be subject to some criticism, and the need to provide details to contextualize it and capture details. We have realized that it was too difficult to present too many philosophical concepts in one paper. It was far too complicated (see also our response to Reviewer 3). So, we preferred to rather develop different illustrations and examples rather than to rely on one specific case study. The idea was also to help readers relate to some well-known and seminal examples. In addition, this illustrates how our analytical framework can be applied to any organization or organizational phenomenon, thus underlining its generalizability. 
Furthermore, reviewers 1 and 3 both note that there is a need to better engage with relevant literature in organization studies to ground your problematization. R3 notes, for instance, that while "you contextualize your contribution in relation to the 'dominant Newtownian paradigm'" they do not believe this to be dominant in the field of organization studies. R1, similarly, sees overlap between your argument and prominent approaches in org studies, such as Actor Network Theory, and suggests that engaging with such literatures "would enable scholars to fully appreciate the originality of your approach."
Response. We thank you for this suggestion. What we would like to do in this paper is to propose a reading grid, a different pair of glasses, that allows scholars to examine organizations from a different perspective, different from the Newtonian one. In doing so, we have attempted to contribute to the causal complexity literature in general and in the configurational literature in particular, as developed in our discussion section.
Regarding the use of the adjective dominant, and as developed below in our response to Reviewer 3, what we wanted to express  is the fact that the way causes and causalities are conceptualized mainly refers, directly or indirectly, to the Newtonian paradigm Only a few perspectives such as the causal complexity directly challenge this paradigm and offer an alternative to consider causes and causalities in a different way. Nevertheless, in this revised version, we have removed the adjective ‘dominant’ to avoid confusion.
While we do understand the fundamental importance to directly and precisely engage with the existing literature, we believe it poses a major difficulty when relying on and building on philosophy, and more specifically on “ancient” philosophy. This difficulty lies in avoiding the trap of being ahistorical (cf. Tsoukas or Cummings). It is tricky to take modern concepts and try to apply them to the work of non-modern philosophers or to compare them with “non-modern” concepts. We tried to avoid this trap, by focusing on Aristotle’s structure of thought, on his ontological framework, rather than on specific and punctual aspects of his work. We have also tried not to bring back in or to try to fit modern concepts, but rather to emphasize how some aspects supported by an Aristotelian structure of thought can resonate with existing concepts or theories. Thus, with respect to the overlap with other theoretical perspectives such as ANT, we have in this revised version briefly stated a possible link and connection. However, we could not elaborate further as this would lead to lengthy developments. Perhaps, as suggested by Reviewer 2, this would be more appropriate for a book. 
Insufficient and insufficiently careful illustration
Lacking empirical illustration is another core problem for the paper at present. R1 notes that the incorporation of "concrete and specific examples throughout your explanation [...] is common practice in philosophy" and would be welcome here to aid the reader in grasping the complex concepts at play. They further highlight that your "illustrations of the subprime crisis and the pandemic make it easy to follow your argument and therefore to engage with your project" and recommends that you deploy such illustration more systematically throughout the paper. R3 further emphasizes that, where your proposed contribution is a "methodological framework, tool, or protocol," a "practical application of this framework" would be useful to strengthen your argument.
Response. As suggested, we have provided more examples to better illustrate our different arguments and the different steps of our analytical framework. In addition, in this revised version, we use the term of analytical framework rather than that of methodological tool. Indeed, what we propose is not an operational methodological tool per se, but an instrument or means, to use Aristotelian terms, for studying organizations. It serves as a reading grid for examining and analyzing organizations and organizational phenomena.
This connects to a structural issue in the present version of the paper where, for instance, your definitions and explanations of Aristotelian concepts tend to jump immediately to illustrations in the organizational context, making it difficult to understand what is part of the Aristotelian framework and what is your application of it. In particular, I believe more needs to be said to justify the organizational attribution of the four per se causes as suggested in Step 1 - “structure (material cause), norms (formal cause), agents (efficient cause), and environment (final cause)”. Do you mean for these organizational translations to be exhaustive? Or are there potentially other types of e.g., formal causes in the organizational context not mentioned in your paper?
Response. We have answered this question in two steps.
First, we have structured our paper with a specific section devoted to Aristotle, which explains his conceptualization of causes and causalities in more detail and provides more explicit examples. This also allows us to clearly separate what is directly attributable to his work from our own analytical framework. 
Second, we have restructured our discussion to better explain that the analytical framework is to be seen as a tool, a reading grid, for examining organizations and organizational phenomena at different levels of analysis. Aristotle provides a certain structure of thought, a way of thinking, analyzing, and grasping a given phenomenon by allowing it to be examined through different causes and causalities, which are ontological and epistemological categories. As such, we do not pretend to be exhaustive (and we cannot be exhaustive) in mentioning what the different causes could correspond to. For example, we say that norms can be considered as formal causal, because we are taking a particular level of analysis, examining an organization at a macro level of analysis. But if we take another level of analysis, there are other and different formal/material/efficient/final, secondary, accidental, etc. causes.  
Insufficient conceptual clarity
All three reviewers also commented on problems with the conceptual clarity of your paper. In some instances, this may simply be an issue of presentation where, for instance, concepts are not defined adequately or early enough in the paper. I myself found the definitions of quiddity and entelechy were introduced too late in the manuscript, and R3 notes missing definitions for other specific terms necessary to understand your argument ("e.g. per se / secondary causes, convergent/divergent, etc."). R3 also notes some definitions offered are less precise than they should be. 
Response. In this revised version, we have taken care to provide clear definitions of the different concepts used. Per se is a synonym of principal or fundamental, as we mention. The term ‘secondary cause’ refers to the vocabulary used by Aristotle. We have also provided examples and a table to illustrate these key concepts. Regarding divergent and convergent, it refers to the way causes related to each other when they exert a partial causality. If you take Zara and Delacour (2023), the metaphor of the two horses pulling a cart, illustrates how they can diverge or converge. 
With regard to quiddity and entelechy, we have defined them since their first use in the manuscript.
In other instances, the paper's lacking conceptual clarity may signal something more fundamentally amiss with the framework and argument proposed. R2, for instance, draws attention to your paper's currently insufficient engagement with the "attributive ambiguity of the term 'cause'". Similarly, I have the impression that the conception of causality you detail defines causes in relation to a certain perspective regarding intention (particularly regarding ideas of 'alignment' and 'misalignment') but this is not currently made explicit in your account. This issue is made apparent, I believe, in the example given on page 17 where the “divergent accident can also have the opposite effect” - to my mind, "opposite effect" here only makes sense if we consider the accidental cause as involving a particular intended direction of effect, which backfires. This suggests, for instance, that the “accident” is in fact an (attempted) efficient cause of another project. Evaluating the framework proposed here would require being explicit about this perspectival commitment, and its pursuant advantages and disadvantages in relation to other frameworks. 
Response. We thank Reviewer 2 for mentioning Stein and the issue of attributive ambiguity of the term cause. This is a complicated issue in philosophy, and we stuck to only mentioning the non-ambiguity of causes so as not to overburden our paper. 
You also highlight another difficult philosophical issue, that of intention. This would also require longer and more substantial and controversial developments in the present paper. After a long discussion among ourselves, we have decided not to delve into this direction in the present paper, despite the clear interest in doing so. Indeed, many interpreters of Aristotle, and especially modern ones, have tried to address this issue, as has Barnes. However, Aristotle is not so clear on this point, and our personal reading is that there is no intention per se, except for efficient causes.
I wish you success in revising your paper and, if you choose to resubmit, I very much look forward to reading the revised version! 
Very best regards, 
Genevieve Shanahan
by Genevieve Shanahan, 26 Feb 2024
Response. We would like to sincerely thank you for your numerous and constructive comments, which help us considerably to strengthen our manuscript. We also hope that you will find the new version of the paper much improved and of interest for publication in PCI Organization Studies.
The authors

Response to the comments of Reviewer 1
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review this intriguing manuscript. As I do not specialize in philosophy, my feedback will focus on general observations and comments.

I believe this manuscript is timely and addresses the important issue of managing complexity. In today's context of climate crisis, reconsideration of the modernist perception of phenomena, your manuscript presents thought-provoking ideas. Your work offers new and pertinent perspectives.
Response. We sincerely thank you for your interest in our manuscript and for all of your constructive comments. We address them point by point below and hope this will meet your expectations.
However, when you begin your discussion section with the sentence: "The purpose of this paper was to introduce a methodological approach that allows for the operationalization of causal causality through concrete application," it appears that the intricacy of your proposal may hinder obtaining an operational methodological tool.
My central argument for this review will focus on the need to explain your approach better and, above all, to make it more accessible/more operational, as proposed in your discussion.
Response. We thank you for this main comment, which has led us to position our paper and its purpose more clearly. What we want to achieve in this paper is to propose and develop an analytical framework that can help organizational scholars capture and operationalize causal complexity. As such, what we propose is not an operational methodological tool per se, but an instrument or means, to use Aristotelian terms, for studying organizations. It serves as a grid for reading and analyzing organizations and organizational phenomena.
By grounding causes and causalities ontologically and allowing their operationalization at any level of analysis, it allows us to study any organization or social phenomenon. As such, it is useful for operationalizing causal complexity and expanding our understanding of causal complexity. We have made these points clearer since the beginning of the paper. 
To facilitate the revision of the manuscript for improved clarity, I will narrow down the concerns to two main elements:
1. Problematization and scope:
Your problematization is unclear. The relevance of Aristotelian causality to Organizational Studies remains unclear. While you assert the transposition of this framework into org studies, it is essential to elucidate its contribution to organizational analyses and expound your perspective on the matter. It is imperative to articulate what Aristotelian causality unveils that would otherwise remain unseen. One way would be to start from elements of your conclusion on our ontological assumptions. Also, and I will return to this below, the text is abstruse at times, an entry hook to allow the readership to be challenged and hooked seems judicious to me with such a theoretical essay.
Response. We are deeply grateful for this suggestion, which has led us to completely rewrite and shorten our introduction and the way we motivate our research question. We now better explain why we refer to Aristotle, since his conceptualization of causes and causalities provides an ontological understanding of these two central concepts and allows us to circumvent the current limitations and difficulties in clearly defining them.
We have also taken care to be as clear as possible and to provide a revised version that is easier to read for someone who is not familiar with Aristotle and his conceptualization of causes and causalities. 
Additionally, to reposition and clarify the underlying issue at hand, concerted efforts towards establishing clear definitions are crucial. As highlighted on pages 4 and 7, you discuss a problem related to definitions. However, there is no explanation provided for readers to grasp the idea. In other words, we can turn your own denunciation against your study.
Response. As suggested, we have provided clear definitions of the key concepts used in this paper. For instance, we have now more clearly defined what the different causes and causalities are and provided more examples to clearly illustrate them. We have also explained better why without a clear definition of causes and causalities it is difficult to use the causal complexity perspective. 
Finally, it presents an engaging idea, but I am concerned about its apparent oversight of certain types of dominations. It seems that the model focuses primarily on external factors and may not fully consider the effects of domination. How would your proposal account for these aspects? For instance, in the scenarios involving CEOs and consultants, I'm curious to know how gender bias from either party could influence the underlying causes and their consequences?
Response. This is a very difficult and interesting question to ask, since Aristotle did not address the issue of domination or gender bias. Since we have tried to stay as close to Aristotle as possible, even in developing our analytical framework and applying it to organizations, we have not raised this issue in this paper. To address this specific issue would have required us lengthy developments and explanations, that would have made the paper more complex. 
What we can say here, is that the analytical framework does not focus only on external factors. Material and formal causes are seen as internal factors, as we mention in the paper. Formal causes are norms and values, but could also reveal biases, since formal causes are used for thinking and are present in all processes of understanding for Aristotle. Thus, we could infer that certain specific/secondary or accidental formal causes may influence judgments, intellectual acts and even the will of actors. 
2) Clarity:
You tackle complex concepts, making it difficult to follow at times. This weakens the strength of your argument. One suggestion is to incorporate concrete and specific examples throughout your explanation, which is common practice in philosophy. While you do make some attempts (such as referencing bureaucracy and CEOs), they are limited in number and sporadic. Perhaps integrating a central example that allows for exploration of all elements would improve the overall coherence of your argument. One way of perhaps embodying what one would like to find more accessible is to take as model your remarkable paragraph on page 17. Your illustrations of the subprime crisis and the pandemic make it easy to follow your argument and therefore to engage with your project.
Response. We thank you for this suggestion, which led us to introduce more examples and concrete applications, as well as seminal work in organization studies, to better illustrate our analytical framework. We hope that this will help the reader to better understand how to use and apply our analytical framework as to operationalize causal complexity.
In summary, the paper presents thought-provoking perspectives. However, there is a need to revise the problematization, consider alternative theoretical approaches (like addressing multiple intertwined dominations or ANT and its actants), and incorporate more concrete examples to strengthen your argument.
Sincerely,
Celine Berrier-Lucas
Response. We thank you for your constructive feedback and have revised our manuscript as suggested, to better position it, to provide an ontological perspective, and to better illustrate our argument by providing more examples. We hope that this revised version meets your expectations.
MINOR COMMENTS ON WRITING:
ABSTRACT
This whole part is a bit long-winded and hard to read, especially the start.
Response. As suggested, we have completely rewritten our abstract to be clearer and more concise.
INTRODUCTION
I find that the introduction lacks clarity and drive. It's not clear where you're going. The problematization doesn't make it possible to grasp the need to move away from the Newtonian paradigm.
Response. As explained above, we have also rewritten and shorten our introduction to better problematize and motivate our research question. 
ARISTOTLE’S THEORIZING PROCESS
 p.13-14 “This concretely means that they are not sufficient to produce an effect, but they can nonetheless affect the per se causes and are thus necessary to explain a specific end result.": unclear to me
Response. We have removed this sentence in this revised version.
p.14 “In addition, to account for two types of causality, Aristotle considers that the interrelations between causes are not static, as each cause can be influenced by another and can be modified or transformed, thus providing a dynamic view of these interrelations. These two aspects are highly valuable to operationalize causal complexity.”: for me this is a perfect example of where and why we need illustrations to help get rid of unclearness 
Response. In this revised version, we have provided an example to illustrate this point.
p.15 I really appreciate the use of illustrations. However, I don't find Figure 1 very clear, and your example with the CEO, although indispensable, doesn't really shed any light on your argument nor your schema.
Response. As suggested, we have provided a new version of the figure 1 which presents, from a theoretical point of view, a synthesis of the different causes and causalities as defined by Aristotle. 
We have also added more examples in the Aristotle’s section with the example of Phidias. We explained how Phidias, the sculptor, can be seen as an efficient cause and his assistants as secondary efficient causes. A parallel can be drawn with the CEO (efficient cause) and the top and middle management (secondary efficient causes). 
p.16 Figure 2 gives a similar impression. Perhaps one way of exploring this issue would be to note - as you did in a generic way - a concrete illustration. In italics, tell the part of the story that captures the interaction.
Response. Thank you for your suggestion. In parallel to the Figure 1, we have tried to develop a new version of the Figure 2 to make it more readable. We have tried to modify the figures, but adding text and/or different illustrations made them more complex. So, we have chosen to develop figures developed that are still theoretical, with the illustrations detailed in the text. Indeed, we would like to provide a more conceptual analytical grid that can be applied to any organization or organizational phenomena, not fixed to a specific illustration. 
p.18 “This is interesting for organization studies in revealing how a cause can also sow the seeds of its own perdition.” For me, this is where the very heart of your research lies. It's by pulling on this thread that you can engage a wide readership who will be willing to follow your argument.
Response. We thank you for this suggestion which led us to develop this argument further, especially in the discussion section. 
P20 “In other words, if they are misaligned, they function less well, and if they are aligned, they function better” I'm not sure I fully understand. It seems obvious. What did you mean by that?
Response. Thank you for your suggestion. We hope that the reference to a specific organization reference will make this part clearer.   
P20 “The same […]” unclear, I would really appreciate a didactic illustration.
Response. In this revised version, we have provided a didactic illustration to make our argument clearer.
P21 “Here, we also need to pay attention to instruments […]” You stress the importance of instruments. It would be interesting if you were to engage with other literatures defending the same point of view as you, for example Actor Network Theory. That would enable scholars to fully appreciate the originality of your approach. In what way would it give a more in-depth understanding?
Response. This would indeed be a very interesting topic to develop. However, after much discussion between us, we have decided not to do so in the present paper, as it would have required lengthy developments on the role of non-humans compared to that of accidents, secondary causes, etc. with new literature to introduce, and would have lengthened our paper too much according to the traditional word count. 
DISCUSSION
This section is a bit to tool long, and some sentences are out of the scope. I would work further on this part of the MS by being more succinct and straight to the point.
Response. We thank you for this suggestion. In this revised version, we have rewritten and shortened this section to articulate it around two main contributions: First, the way in which the analytical framework we develop allows for an ontologica grounding of causes and causality, and second, the way in which it allows for a concrete operationalization of causal complexity.
CONCLUSION
I regret not having a conclusion section, as it often offers valuable insights. I suggest considering adding this to your manuscript.
Response. As suggested, we have now included a conclusion in this revised version.
We thank you again for your positive and constructive feedback on our manuscript.
The authors

Response to the comments of Reviewer 2
I spent a lot of time thinking about what I could say to help you in the development of this paper. To be honest, I was inclined to reject it at first glance, but in an effort to live up to Aristotle, I did some reading, trying to put 'phronesis' in practice, so I decided to write down some observations that I think might help the authors move forward in their research.
Response. We thank you for your honesty and for giving us the opportunity to resubmit our paper to further develop our ideas and to allow us to better demonstrate the interest of Aristotle and his conceptualization of causes and causalities for organization studies in general and causal complexity in particular. 
The way I see it, this research is not just an idea for an article, but something more far-reaching that involves systematic readings of Aristotle's work in order to arrive at a critical and in-depth understanding of his philosophy, even if the most immediate goal is to apply or propose a model of complex causality that is useful in the field of business strategy. Thus, the operational purpose of the paper is problematic because it takes a lot of breath to get to the point of applying the ideas of an ancient Greek philosopher in the corporate world. I see a book here.
Response. We thank you for this comment and understand your point of view. Indeed, Aristotle’s metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and political philosophy are very interesting and, in our opinion, could be applied and of interest to organization studies. As you rightly mention, this would require a book. However, we believe that by focusing on his conceptualization of causes and causalities, we can make a contribution to the causal complexity perspective, since these two concepts are central, and many scholars emphasize the need to better understand them and apply them to causal complexity. 
Obviously, this approach is limited and does not express Aristotle’s thoughts holistically, but at least, we believe we can raise interest, bring in a different perspective, and point to the richness of his ideas and their potential applications. We see it as a first step, an invitation and a suggestion for scholars to dig further to and to show how the ideas developed by an ancient Greek philosopher can still be interesting and useful for understanding the contemporary world.
1. I suggest you develop a more detailed discussion of what you need when you say "system of causality" and "causal complexity", and why it is worth the effort for you to go hand in hand with Aristotle. I miss the point here, because it seems to me that you are not dismissing the configurational debate when you argue that it would be good to have another option. But if you don't have a robust critique, if you can't point out any error or failure, why should I choose to join hands with you?
Response. Based on your suggestion, we have rewritten this revised version by better explaining why we should go hand in hand with Aristotle, by emphasizing the importance of ontology and the fact that it provides us with such an understanding of causes and causalities. This ontological grounding allows us to define these two concepts, which is still missing in the causal complexity perspective. 
In parallel, we have rewritten our discussion to further discuss the advantages of our analytical framework based on Aristotle’s conceptualization of causes and causalities to enrich causal complexity. In particular, we explain how his conceptualization allows us to complete and to refine the configurational perspective in order to better define what is a cause, to address its diversity and to go deeper into the different types of configurations based on the two types of causalities. 
(2) Having decided to plunge into Aristotelian philosophy... your argument must confront an attributive ambiguity of the term "cause": that is, the four causes bear their common name by virtue of one or more definitions? (see https://sites.unimi.it/zucchi/NuoviFile/Stein11.pdf). You have skipped the discussion of the different predicates of a single noun. But the question of "what is" should be answered in the first place by the procedure of searching for its essence, i.e., by taking away each predicate and seeing what remains. What kind of substance is a "cause"? Is the idea of a compound substance conceivable? In other words, the main question would be why this particular substance is the (only) one that cannot be conceived without the four components. In summary, one point that would be an improvement for your paper is the discussion of "interrelation versus unity" in the system of "causality". 
Response. Thank you for suggesting this paper. You ask a very tricky philosophical question that would require us to dig very deep into Aristotle’s system and structure of thought. While these questions are philosophically important and underscore a certain strand of philosophy, we cannot address them in this paper. Perhaps in a book. What we can answer here, in our responses, is that the unity of the substance of Aristotle is given by this specific reciprocal and total causality. This is not the case with Descartes for example, where the unity of the substance requires a third term. 
(3) I think you need to make a point about the necessary "translation" of Aristotle's ideas to the contemporary world. The utilitarian way in which you propose the immediate application of the philosophical categories of Greek philosophy is not consequential. How we can translate and maintain the conceptual strength of Aristotelian ideas is not clear, and the reference you mention in your paper - Zara & Delacour, 2023 - is not very helpful in making this point clear, since they propose an immediate and operational use of the four causes and other Aristotelian categories, even though the former don't fit the present world like that!
Response. We thank you for your comment. The idea of using and applying the four per se causes developed by Aristotle to explain and illuminate phenomena in organization studies is not new as the different references included in the articles show it. However, only one paper goes further and introduces not only the four per se causes but also the secondary causes, accidents and instruments. In this article, we follow this line of reasoning and not limit the use of the four per se causes, but refer to all the causes identified by Aristotle. 
If we understand your comment correctly, the question is how to translate Aristotle’s ideas into the present word without denaturalizing his ideas. The main problem here, as we see it, is not to become ahistorical and interpret our world or try to fit new concepts into Aristotle’s thoughts. Many scholars have already drawn on Aristotle, as we point out in our paper, building on different aspects of his structure of thought and conceptualization without being ahistorical (see, for example, Tsoukas). What we do is first explain what Aristotle says (and for this, we have added a new section in this revised version). We build on Aristotle, but we rely on his framework, his structure of thought, we apply his concepts mutatis mutandis trying to avoid the ahistorical trap. Philosophically, we believe that Aristotle, as well as other philosophers such as Hegel for example, have proposed a coherent and integrated philosophical system, a scaffolding, a structure of thought, which in fact guides the way we think and can also be used as a way to present word issues. 
(4) In Step 3, you don't do what you're supposed to do. You are not supposed to rely on your own "findings" to justify the interrelations. You are only discussing the categories you have created yourself, so the interrelationship argument becomes spurious, because the interrelationships between entities such as "structure" and "technology", "norms, values, etc." and "process" do not necessarily coincide with the interrelationship of Aristotelian causes, your are offering your own suppositions as evidence when you argue, for example, "Indeed, the existing structure (material cause) influences the technology (secondary material cause) used in an organization, just as the existing norms, values, and beliefs (formal cause) influence the process (secondary formal cause), and the CEO (efficient cause) influences top/middle management (secondary efficient cause)..." (p. 15). In short, Aristotle is needless to justify and understand what you are saying.
Response. In our paper, we try to develop an analytical framework based on the Aristotle’s conceptualization of causes and causalities. To do so, we adopt the same structure of thought. First, we provide theoretical explanations to define and explain the different types of causes and causalities, and then we try to illustrate this argument by providing a concrete application of this framework. We do this by using traditional and generic examples that are easy for the reader to understand. What is important is not to consider example by example, but the whole framework and its different analytical steps as it can provide some nuances to understand organizational phenomena while having a great generalizability. 
As far as I can go, I think it would be much more productive (instead of staying in the book of Physics) to go to the analysis of the city-state in the book of Politics, where Aristotle discusses the formation of the community in relation to the four causes. I quote the passage where I found this clue, which I think will be very useful for your project (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/):
"One can also explain the existence of the city-state in terms of the four causes. It is a kind of community (koinônia), that is, a collection of parts having some functions and interests in common (Pol. II.1.1261a18, III.1.1275b20). Hence, it is made up of parts, which Aristotle describes in various ways in different contexts: as households, or economic classes (e.g., the rich and the poor), or demes (i.e., local political units). But ultimately, the city-state is composed of individual citizens (see III.1.1274a38–41), who, along with natural resources, are the “material” or “equipment” out of which the city-state is fashioned (see VII.14.1325b38–41) (the passage goes further)."
Response. You are right, we could have used Aristotle’s Politics. But that would have required a longer development and would have made our paper more complicated and more philosophical. For Aristotle, the city is indeed a good example to show causes, but also to introduce the idea of the whole and the parts, their relations, and so on (Pol, I, 2, 1253 a20). But this would entail a discussion of agents vs. structure and how Aristotle understands this issue. This would have introduced other concepts and theories that would have made our paper too long. 
Finally, and to talk frankly, I am not convinced (as should be clear from the previous points I have made) that your thesis is sustainable, and I wish you the best of luck in your efforts. 
Thank you for the opportunity to read your paper and share some thoughts.
Response. We thank you again for your insightful comments and your ideas. In this revised version, we have really tried which has been largely rewritten to better present and develop our arguments and to show the interest of Aristotle’s conceptualization of causes and causalities for understanding causal complexity and contemporary organizational phenomena. We sincerely hope that this revised version will better meet our expectations.
The authors
Response to the comments of Reviewer 3
Thank you for submitting your manuscript for open review. The paper introduces a theorizing process based on Aristotle's theories of causes and causality and claims to propose a methodological tool that elucidates the interrelationships between different causes, which is applicable to organizational analysis. The author(s) have identified an emerging and under-theorized domain and mobilized a difficult and theoretically dense topic, for which I commend their efforts. However, I will describe next three major issues that prevent them from reaching their intentions. I tried to illustrate the points with quotations from the text to make my feedback as concrete as possible.
Response. We thank you for your support of our paper and what we are trying to accomplish. We also appreciate your constructive feedback. We respond point by point below.
1) Narrow contextualization and problematization of the contribution.
The manuscript begins with a strong assumption to motivate its problematization: causality as complex has many advantages, but we lack the methodological tools to do it. Even if this were true, it would be interesting to highlight what you proposing or contributing with respect to the "only methodological tool currently available" (i.e., Furnari et al., 2021). In any case, I think your problematization assumes a functional view of complex thinking. In fact, it is not accurate that “there is only one tool to operationalize causal complexity” (p.23). There are indeed other ways of capturing causality in complex settings (e.g., systems thinking, process theory, case studies), which depart from different assumptions about their purposes. A proper contextualization of your arguments is thus needed.
Response. We thank you for your comment, which prompted us to rewrite our introduction and better motivate our research question. In this revised version, we have taken care to use the term analytical framework rather than methodological tool in order to be more precise about the proposition developed. 
In fact, you contextualize your contribution in relation to the “Newtownian paradigm," as if this were the mainstream to be opposed. However, if you're claiming a contribution to organizational studies, I don't think this could be called mainstream in the field. 
Response. Thank you for your comment. What we want to advance in this paper, and what has been recognized in the current literature, is the fact that the way causes and causalities are understood is mainly related to the Newtonian paradigm, regardless of the theoretical strands used. This is why we have used the adjective dominant in the previous version, in comparison of the causal complexity paradigm which is less developed. In this revised version, however, we avoid this term and refer only to the Newtonian paradigm.  
In addition, building your own argument requires a deeper engagement with the literature you cite. It is especially important that you appropriate the readings and don't misinterpret the author's intention, e.g., "Aristotle's conceptualization of causality has only been recently introduced in organization studies" (p.8) is the opposite of what Zara & Delacour (2023) claim, and the statement "While these causes have not been introduced in organization studies yet" (p.11) is puzzling because they are actually discussed in this same article you cited several times.
Response. We thank you for this comment. In this revised version, we have taken care to read it carefully to avoid this kind of misunderstanding and have changed the following sentences accordingly. According to our own reading of their article, we understood them to be the first to introduce the Aristotle’s conceptualization of causality into the organization literature, as described in our paper.
2)  Concepts not clearly and accurately explained
Since many readers may not be familiar with the mobilized concepts, it is important to provide their definitions in the first mention and explain them well later. You do that with concepts with which OS scholars should already be fairly familiar with - e.g. ontology or theorization - but you miss it in specific terms of your theory - e.g. per se / secondary causes, convergent/divergent, etc. This makes some parts of the text very confusing for anyone not familiar with the theory - e.g., see the last paragraph of page 13. Moreover, when presenting definitions, it is also important to be precise, e.g., the organizational structure (p.10) is not only how “units are organized horizontally or vertically”, but also involves roles, responsibilities, relationships, and decision-making processes more generally. 
Response. Based on your suggestion, we have completely restructured our paper. In this revised version, we have first introduced and defined what causal complexity is as well as Aristotle’s conceptualization of causes and causality. In doing so, we provide a better view, understanding, and definition of these concepts. Per se is a synonym of principal or fundamental, as we mention. The term ‘secondary cause’ refers to the vocabulary used by Aristotle. We have also provided examples and a table to illustrate these key concepts. Regarding divergent and convergent, it refers to the way causes related to each other when they exert a partial causality. If you take Zara and Delacour (2023), the metaphor of the two horses pulling a cart, illustrates how they can diverge or converge. Based on these definitions, we have then developed our analytical framework in a second section. 
Regarding the organizational structure, we limit its understanding to its formal structure, not to its organization.
3) The promised contribution is not delivered.
The introduction states the objective as "enrich our existing toolkit to concretely apply causal complexity. We do so by developing a methodological tool based on Aristotle’s conceptualization of causes and causalities" (p.3), but I'm afraid you have only explained the Aristotle’s main concepts with examples relating them to organizational definitions.  As mentioned above, a methodological framework, tool, or protocol could have been a valuable contribution, and this is what we expect when reading the paper.
Response. We thank you for this suggestion which has led us to not to move away from the notion of a methodological tool to that of an analytical framework. What we are trying to do is to propose a reading grid, a different pair of glasses, that allows scholars to examine organizations from a different perspective. We believe that this analytical framework allows for the concrete application of causal complexity and, as such, expands our understanding.   
To strengthen your argument, a practical application of this framework would have been helpful. Sometimes, there is an expectation that this will be done, but it is not developed. For instance, the statement “The first concrete application of Aristotle’s total and reciprocal causality” (p13) is actually followed by an abstract example. Therefore, I don’t agree that you presented it “concretely operationalizing causal complexity” (p.25), and many of your claims - e.g., “[it] provides a framework that allows for an in-depth analysis of any object under consideration” - simply have not been demonstrated. 
Response. We understand and agree with your comment. It would have been very interesting to take a very precise example, or a specific empirical case study and apply an Aristotelian analytical framework. However, after trying this option in our first attempt to write this paper, we have realized that it was much too complicated, too difficult to follow because of all the philosophical concepts. We lacked a foundation on which to build. That is what we are trying to do here. To explain, suggest, and propose an analytical framework that could be then be applied not so broadly to an organization, but to a specific aspect or to a specific organizational phenomenon. 
Finally, if I may make a stylistic suggestion, I found that your statements often refer to general arguments and overcite other references, e.g., "other scholars have focused more on how causal complexity differs conceptually from the dominant paradigm (Cohen, 1994; Furnari et al., 2020; Goldstein, 2000; Goldstein, 1999; Misangyi et al., 2017; Morçöl, 2001)." or "the existing literature has advanced causal complexity in different ways and from different perspectives". Such statements lack relevance and specificity. Perhaps it would help to select what is relevant and be more specific about who says what and how it contributes to the argument.
Response. Thank you for your comment, we do understand and agree with your point. However, in this paper, we try to emphasize the interest of the causal complexity perspective and its many advantages, as the main references used underline. It is not our intention to focus on one particular aspect of this very interesting perspective. Therefore, we refer to main references and general aspects. Beyond showing that this perspective is very rich and promising, we limit our study to a specific question about the definition and operationalization of causes and causalities in order to better ground causal complexity. In this revised version, we have tried nevertheless to be more as precise as possible.
We thank you again for your constructive feedback, which has led us to rewrite substantial parts of our paper. We sincerely hope that this revised version meets your expectations.
The authors