Management, Cooperatives and Sustainability: A New Methodological Proposal for a Holistic Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract

1. The abstract needs a complete reformulation. The current version has to be corrected. Please provide a meaningful abstract - follow the same pattern as recommended for the highlights: 1) Background: place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: describe briefly the main methods applied. 3) Results: summarize the article's main findings; 4) Conclusion: indicate the main conclusions or interpretations.

Introduction section

2. The Introduction does not indicate why the study is important. What is the purpose of the study? What are the research problems or research hypotheses? Why were cooperatives selected as the research object?

Materials and methods section

3. The article does not include a section for Materials and Methods – this is a significant shortcoming.

Theoretical background section

4. I recommend adding a section with the given name and including (current) sections 2-4 as subsections.

Results and Discussion section

5. I recommend adding a section with the given name and including (current) sections 5-6 as subsections.
6. In the Introduction it is announced a proposal in terms of tools of economic analysis. It is not clear where these tools are located within the article. Are the mentioned tools contained in lines 457-475? What is the connection between mentioned tools and diagrams 2 and 3? What are the aims of these diagrams? There is no broader description and explanations regarding the presented diagrams (no justification for the given sequence of dependent aspects).
7. In line 318 a fragment of the text is missing (description starts from point 3).
8. In line 320 "The ten variables ..." is written, but the ten variables are not distinguished.
9. What are the limitations of the research work performed?

Conclusion

10. The conclusion does not adequately summarize the proposed metrics. In the conclusion please do explain the significance of the research. There is no reference to the purpose/research problems of the article. While this study presents a specific problem area, nevertheless, the improvement to the state of the art has to be clearly shown and demonstrated by the results and stressed in the conclusion.

Technical remarks

11. There are many unexplained acronyms in the work, e.g. in lines 305, 319, 339, 475, etc.
12. Change the line spacing in lines 51-66.
13. The title The new globalization has been added in italics on line 44. Therefore, it is worth adding the title in italics The climate change in line 74.
14. Line 287 uses the acronym CFM, which is most likely derived from Spanish words. I recommend that you delete the acronym and replace it with EW-MFA in line 293.
15. In the article the word "cooperatives" is spelled in two different ways (the second - "co-operatives"), I recommend that you use one way of writing a given word.
16. Write the title of diagram number 1 without bold.
17. Delete the period in front of the parenthesis in line 287.
18. Remove the line numbering from diagram number 3.
19. Diagram 2: line 492 – lack of comma; line 502 – unnecessary quotation mark (?)

Author Response

First of all, we greatly appreciate the comments and suggestions for this work, which we have incorporated as far as possible. We think that the text that is now being sent has gained a lot of depth and explanation. Thank you for the effort of the referees. We have done the following:

1. Define more precisely the purpose of the work, taking into account that the contribution is not strictly empirical. In fact, the empirical work is what researchers are developing at this time from microeconomic analysis. But we think it is relevant to expose the theoretical and methodological principles that will govern field research. The referees pointed out that it was important to write this down. We think we have done it.

2. Better order the methods adopted, in particular the PESTEL tool. The aspects that we have described lead us to seek the concretion of the business analysis. In this sense, we think that cooperatives constitute an organizational model that has positive factors in different fields: social aspect; complicity of leaders and workers; agreed objectives in many cases; concern for adapting to very competitive markets, but under ethical precepts that, in general, are social; concern about environmental externalities; transparent accountability. For these reasons, it has been considered appropriate to focus the analysis on this business typology, in contrast to other organization models. The referees also demanded that the choice of cooperatives be justified, and we believe that we have resolved it.

3. We have made more precise comments to link the proposed Outlines with the methodology and narrative of the work. Indeed, as the referees suggested, there were missing interrelationships that, we believe, we have been able to resolve.

4. We have made an additional effort in the Conclusions, which had also been commented on by the referees. Here we expose the following, in two specific points: the limitations of the investigation; and the results of this research. Obviously, there are limitations to achieve the purpose presented in the Introduction of this work. We list the ones we consider most important:
5. a) The lack of statistical regularity to obtain the necessary indicators, which have been pointed out in the investigation. This affects both the macroeconomic and microeconomic spheres. There is no tradition of descriptive statistics that addresses environmental problems. At this point, the researcher must literally dive into different databases to obtain those that meet the essential requirements. The most important of them is homogeneity, that is, the ability to make contrasts with other countries –in the macro sphere– and companies –in the micro sphere–.
6. b) The applicability of mathematical models to the panel of data obtained: econometric methods of causality, development of regressions with comparisons between indicators, etc.
7. c) In the microeconomic context, access to business data. There are many reluctance on the part of managers and managers of companies to provide figures and magnitudes of their daily operations. This is an important entry barrier that the researcher must overcome with other resources (consultations, for example, of information of a commercial nature deposited in commercial registries, where companies must communicate specific results). However, and despite the difficulties mentioned, the research has obtained results that we believe are important:

• The justification of cooperatives as economic analysis laboratories, in which indicators that have already been verified in regional economies are adopted, and that must be adapted to the microeconomic sphere.
• The setting of these indicators that affect determining aspects in the operation of companies. Not only the income statement, but also the waste they generate, the specific parameters of the circular economy they develop, the energy intensity they consume, the emissions they cause, are crucial elements that, increasingly, are going to be incorporated, with great force, in the analysis of the economy.
• The linking of the two previous points with a broader context: that of the new globalization and climate change, with specific challenges that have been detailed and commented on in the previous pages.

5. Most of the formal corrections have been made, described by the referees in specific lines of the draft. Again, we reiterate our sincere thanks to the commenters. We hope that the new version responds to what has been suggested to us.

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, the layout of the paper is correct. The weakest point of the paper is its final part, which requires radical substantive corrections. In the paper the following should be corrected: (1) currently, the introduction does not precisely define the research gap based on a literature query conducted on the basis of internationally recognized and prestigious databases such as Scopus or Web of Science Core Collection. The introduction lacks a clearly stated purpose, i.e., the paper aims at... Many of the issues described in the introduction should be moved to the central part of the publication (for example 1-6 points); (2) in terms of the literature review, the text of the paper lacks a clearly defined key that would allow for a correct literature search. What keywords were chosen to make the right choice of literature? Was the selection made on the basis of abstracts or an analysis of the content of entire papers? These questions should be answered in the text of the publication; (3) in general, the results of theoretical considerations do not raise serious objections. Figures do not seem to be difficult to interpret. It is a pity that the authors did not use the quantitative approach in the paper, which can be considered its main weakness. In the central part of the paper, the reader should be indicated what are the differences and similarities between the results of the authors' calculations and the existing research results, i.e., those published so far in the scientific literature. In particular, it is necessary to answer the question asked in the paper what the implications of the results for researchers are?; (4) the discussion (conclusions) is a very weak part of the paper. The final part of the last part of the paper (conclusions) should contain basic conclusions drawn from the considerations presented earlier. In particular, the conclusions should thoroughly and clearly answer the question about the contribution of the research results presented in the paper to science. Next, it is necessary to underline what the implications of the presented results for the practice are, and what are the limitations for the conducted research. In addition, it should be determined whether the results are unique in a certain context and what further research possibilities are available in this field in the future. The final part of the paper appears to be too brief; (5) the paper should be proofread by a certified English translator. 

Author Response

First of all, we greatly appreciate the comments and suggestions for this work, which we have incorporated as far as possible. We think that the text that is now being sent has gained a lot of depth and explanation. Thank you for the effort of the referees. We have done the following:

1. Define more precisely the purpose of the work, taking into account that the contribution is not strictly empirical. In fact, the empirical work is what researchers are developing at this time from microeconomic analysis. But we think it is relevant to expose the theoretical and methodological principles that will govern field research. The referees pointed out that it was important to write this down. We think we have done it.

2. Better order the methods adopted, in particular the PESTEL tool. The aspects that we have described lead us to seek the concretion of the business analysis. In this sense, we think that cooperatives constitute an organizational model that has positive factors in different fields: social aspect; complicity of leaders and workers; agreed objectives in many cases; concern for adapting to very competitive markets, but under ethical precepts that, in general, are social; concern about environmental externalities; transparent accountability. For these reasons, it has been considered appropriate to focus the analysis on this business typology, in contrast to other organization models. The referees also demanded that the choice of cooperatives be justified, and we believe that we have resolved it.

3. We have made more precise comments to link the proposed Outlines with the methodology and narrative of the work. Indeed, as the referees suggested, there were missing interrelationships that, we believe, we have been able to resolve.

4. We have made an additional effort in the Conclusions, which had also been commented on by the referees. Here we expose the following, in two specific points: the limitations of the investigation; and the results of this research. Obviously, there are limitations to achieve the purpose presented in the Introduction of this work. We list the ones we consider most important:
5. a) The lack of statistical regularity to obtain the necessary indicators, which have been pointed out in the investigation. This affects both the macroeconomic and microeconomic spheres. There is no tradition of descriptive statistics that addresses environmental problems. At this point, the researcher must literally dive into different databases to obtain those that meet the essential requirements. The most important of them is homogeneity, that is, the ability to make contrasts with other countries –in the macro sphere– and companies –in the micro sphere–.
6. b) The applicability of mathematical models to the panel of data obtained: econometric methods of causality, development of regressions with comparisons between indicators, etc.
7. c) In the microeconomic context, access to business data. There are many reluctance on the part of managers and managers of companies to provide figures and magnitudes of their daily operations. This is an important entry barrier that the researcher must overcome with other resources (consultations, for example, of information of a commercial nature deposited in commercial registries, where companies must communicate specific results). However, and despite the difficulties mentioned, the research has obtained results that we believe are important:

• The justification of cooperatives as economic analysis laboratories, in which indicators that have already been verified in regional economies are adopted, and that must be adapted to the microeconomic sphere.
• The setting of these indicators that affect determining aspects in the operation of companies. Not only the income statement, but also the waste they generate, the specific parameters of the circular economy they develop, the energy intensity they consume, the emissions they cause, are crucial elements that, increasingly, are going to be incorporated, with great force, in the analysis of the economy.
• The linking of the two previous points with a broader context: that of the new globalization and climate change, with specific challenges that have been detailed and commented on in the previous pages.

5. Most of the formal corrections have been made, described by the referees in specific lines of the draft. Again, we reiterate our sincere thanks to the commenters. We hope that the new version responds to what has been suggested to us.

Reviewer 3 Report

In my review I will refer to methodological and technical aspects of the article.

Methodological aspects:

One the biggest disadvantage of the article is a lack of any formal approach proposed by the authors of the article. The article contains only opinions of the authors derived on the basis of conclusions of other scientists or reports of international institutions. I can not find any research methodology/formal approach  proposed for the purpose of any scientific discussion about the issues analyzed in the article. In consequence conclusions drawn by the authors are either in the form of obvious statements or unproved opinions. In any case putting the conclusions in the final section of the article should be assessed as debatable.  

Technical aspects:

• Line 19: “…excessive weight of the weight of…” does not sound good.
• line 58: ”fourthly” is not necessary because there is no firstly, secondly, and so on.
• Line 75: “The literature and international organisations agree…”. There is no reference proving that this is true.
• Line 183: “A study of contemporary business practice shows…”- it is not clear which study shows it.
• Lines 200-204: these statements are obvious.
• Lines 234-235: referring to thermodynamics is not necessary, especially when discussing economic issues.
• Line 299: “According to Eurostat…” – there is no reference to such statement.
• Line 310: “Some very recent specific proposals…” - there is no reference to such statement.
• Line 336: it is not clear which econometric analysis the authors are referring to.
• Line 337: the sentence “they measure on…” does not sound good.
• Line 512: “The United Nations states…” – There is no reference to this statement.

Author Response

First of all, we greatly appreciate the comments and suggestions for this work, which we have incorporated as far as possible. We think that the text that is now being sent has gained a lot of depth and explanation. Thank you for the effort of the referees. We have done the following:

1. Define more precisely the purpose of the work, taking into account that the contribution is not strictly empirical. In fact, the empirical work is what researchers are developing at this time from microeconomic analysis. But we think it is relevant to expose the theoretical and methodological principles that will govern field research. The referees pointed out that it was important to write this down. We think we have done it.

2. Better order the methods adopted, in particular the PESTEL tool. The aspects that we have described lead us to seek the concretion of the business analysis. In this sense, we think that cooperatives constitute an organizational model that has positive factors in different fields: social aspect; complicity of leaders and workers; agreed objectives in many cases; concern for adapting to very competitive markets, but under ethical precepts that, in general, are social; concern about environmental externalities; transparent accountability. For these reasons, it has been considered appropriate to focus the analysis on this business typology, in contrast to other organization models. The referees also demanded that the choice of cooperatives be justified, and we believe that we have resolved it.

3. We have made more precise comments to link the proposed Outlines with the methodology and narrative of the work. Indeed, as the referees suggested, there were missing interrelationships that, we believe, we have been able to resolve.

4. We have made an additional effort in the Conclusions, which had also been commented on by the referees. Here we expose the following, in two specific points: the limitations of the investigation; and the results of this research. Obviously, there are limitations to achieve the purpose presented in the Introduction of this work. We list the ones we consider most important:
5. a) The lack of statistical regularity to obtain the necessary indicators, which have been pointed out in the investigation. This affects both the macroeconomic and microeconomic spheres. There is no tradition of descriptive statistics that addresses environmental problems. At this point, the researcher must literally dive into different databases to obtain those that meet the essential requirements. The most important of them is homogeneity, that is, the ability to make contrasts with other countries –in the macro sphere– and companies –in the micro sphere–.
6. b) The applicability of mathematical models to the panel of data obtained: econometric methods of causality, development of regressions with comparisons between indicators, etc.
7. c) In the microeconomic context, access to business data. There are many reluctance on the part of managers and managers of companies to provide figures and magnitudes of their daily operations. This is an important entry barrier that the researcher must overcome with other resources (consultations, for example, of information of a commercial nature deposited in commercial registries, where companies must communicate specific results). However, and despite the difficulties mentioned, the research has obtained results that we believe are important:

• The justification of cooperatives as economic analysis laboratories, in which indicators that have already been verified in regional economies are adopted, and that must be adapted to the microeconomic sphere.
• The setting of these indicators that affect determining aspects in the operation of companies. Not only the income statement, but also the waste they generate, the specific parameters of the circular economy they develop, the energy intensity they consume, the emissions they cause, are crucial elements that, increasingly, are going to be incorporated, with great force, in the analysis of the economy.
• The linking of the two previous points with a broader context: that of the new globalization and climate change, with specific challenges that have been detailed and commented on in the previous pages.

5. Most of the formal corrections have been made, described by the referees in specific lines of the draft. Again, we reiterate our sincere thanks to the commenters. We hope that the new version responds to what has been suggested to us.

Reviewer 4 Report

Доброго времени суток, ДОРОГИЕ! Пожалуйста! добавить анализ, представить модель, три чертежа, это мало для первого гартиле

Author Response

First of all, we greatly appreciate the comments and suggestions for this work, which we have incorporated as far as possible. We think that the text that is now being sent has gained a lot of depth and explanation. Thank you for the effort of the referees. We have done the following:

1. Define more precisely the purpose of the work, taking into account that the contribution is not strictly empirical. In fact, the empirical work is what researchers are developing at this time from microeconomic analysis. But we think it is relevant to expose the theoretical and methodological principles that will govern field research. The referees pointed out that it was important to write this down. We think we have done it.

2. Better order the methods adopted, in particular the PESTEL tool. The aspects that we have described lead us to seek the concretion of the business analysis. In this sense, we think that cooperatives constitute an organizational model that has positive factors in different fields: social aspect; complicity of leaders and workers; agreed objectives in many cases; concern for adapting to very competitive markets, but under ethical precepts that, in general, are social; concern about environmental externalities; transparent accountability. For these reasons, it has been considered appropriate to focus the analysis on this business typology, in contrast to other organization models. The referees also demanded that the choice of cooperatives be justified, and we believe that we have resolved it.

3. We have made more precise comments to link the proposed Outlines with the methodology and narrative of the work. Indeed, as the referees suggested, there were missing interrelationships that, we believe, we have been able to resolve.

4. We have made an additional effort in the Conclusions, which had also been commented on by the referees. Here we expose the following, in two specific points: the limitations of the investigation; and the results of this research. Obviously, there are limitations to achieve the purpose presented in the Introduction of this work. We list the ones we consider most important:
5. a) The lack of statistical regularity to obtain the necessary indicators, which have been pointed out in the investigation. This affects both the macroeconomic and microeconomic spheres. There is no tradition of descriptive statistics that addresses environmental problems. At this point, the researcher must literally dive into different databases to obtain those that meet the essential requirements. The most important of them is homogeneity, that is, the ability to make contrasts with other countries –in the macro sphere– and companies –in the micro sphere–.
6. b) The applicability of mathematical models to the panel of data obtained: econometric methods of causality, development of regressions with comparisons between indicators, etc.
7. c) In the microeconomic context, access to business data. There are many reluctance on the part of managers and managers of companies to provide figures and magnitudes of their daily operations. This is an important entry barrier that the researcher must overcome with other resources (consultations, for example, of information of a commercial nature deposited in commercial registries, where companies must communicate specific results). However, and despite the difficulties mentioned, the research has obtained results that we believe are important:

• The justification of cooperatives as economic analysis laboratories, in which indicators that have already been verified in regional economies are adopted, and that must be adapted to the microeconomic sphere.
• The setting of these indicators that affect determining aspects in the operation of companies. Not only the income statement, but also the waste they generate, the specific parameters of the circular economy they develop, the energy intensity they consume, the emissions they cause, are crucial elements that, increasingly, are going to be incorporated, with great force, in the analysis of the economy.
• The linking of the two previous points with a broader context: that of the new globalization and climate change, with specific challenges that have been detailed and commented on in the previous pages.

5. Most of the formal corrections have been made, described by the referees in specific lines of the draft. Again, we reiterate our sincere thanks to the commenters. We hope that the new version responds to what has been suggested to us.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the changes introduced by the authors in the article, but I believe that the work still has low added value and still requires significant improvement. Much of my comments were not taken into account. Next time, please mark the changes with yellow.

Abstract

1.     Abstract has not been corrected. The abstract still needs a complete reformulation. The current version has to be corrected. Please provide a meaningful abstract - follow the same pattern as recommended for the highlights: 1) Background: place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: describe briefly the main methods applied. 3) Results: summarize the article's main findings; 4) Conclusion: indicate the main conclusions or interpretations.

Introduction section

2.     I still don’t understand why were cooperatives selected as the research object? (Please point the lines which consist the answer to this question in your reply).

Materials and methods section

3.     The article does not include a section for Materials and Methods – this is a significant shortcoming. The methodology presented in lines 30-52 is not actually a work methodology. The methodology should indicate what steps were taken and what research methods / tools were used at each stage of the work. The methodology of the work should provide such a detailed description that other researchers could easily repeat the research made by the authors of the work. At the moment, the article still lacks a clear description of the research methodology of the work.

Theoretical background section

4.     I recommend adding a section with the given name and including (current) sections 2-4 as subsections.

Results and Discussion section

5.     I recommend adding a section with the given name and including (current) sections 5-6 as subsections.

6.     Still I don’t understand clearly what is the connection between mentioned tools and diagrams 2 and 3? There is no broader description and explanations regarding the presented diagrams (no justification for the given sequence of dependent aspects). Adding half a sentence to the description of each diagram does not make it easier to understand their validity.

7.     In line 318 a fragment of the text is missing (description starts from point 3).

8.     In line 320 "The ten variables ..." is written, but the ten variables are not distinguished.

Technical remarks

9.     There are many unexplained acronyms in the work, e.g. in lines 305, 319, 339, 475, etc.

10.  Change the line spacing in lines 51-66.

11.  Line 287 uses the acronym CFM, which is most likely derived from Spanish words. I recommend that you delete the acronym and replace it with EW-MFA in line 293.

12.  In the article the word "cooperatives" is spelled in two different ways (the second - "co-operatives"), I recommend that you use one way of writing a given word.

13.  Write the title of diagram number 1 without bold.

14.  Delete the period in front of the parenthesis in line 287.

15.  Remove the line numbering from diagram number 2 (numbers 525-527).

16.  Diagram 2: line 492 – lack of comma; line 502 – unnecessary quotation mark (?)

17.  Line 170 à “In this diagram1” should be “In the diagram 1”.

18.  Lines 170-173 à change the font size.

19.  Line 499 à two dots in the end of the sentence.

Author Response

First of all, we greatly appreciate the comments and suggestions for this work, which we have incorporated as far as possible. We think that the text that is now being sent has gained a lot of depth and explanation. Thank you for the effort of the referees. In this second round ee have done the following:

We have incorporated much of the reviewer's guidance.

We have modified the abstract and the structure of the article. Also in the conclusions we have tried to better argue the reason for the article and the role of cooperatives.

We have also improved formal aspects, especially in some concepts.

We want to emphasize the idea that it is a theoretical proposal. There is no empirical work. Surely we will use this criticism to look at testing the proposal in future works.

We firmly believe that the economy is going through a difficult time, in which scientific proposals must also be oriented towards theoretical reflection. This work is a humble but worked proposal.

Reviewer 3 Report

I am inclined to conditionally accept the paper for publication, however, the paper is still too theoretical. There is insufficient empirical context of the article that could be the basis for formulating conclusions about the theory. 

Author Response

First of all, we greatly appreciate the comments and suggestions for this work, which we have incorporated as far as possible. We think that the text that is now being sent has gained a lot of depth and explanation. Thank you for the effort of the referees. In this second round ee have done the following:

We have incorporated much of the reviewer's guidance.

We have modified the abstract and the structure of the article. Also in the conclusions we have tried to better argue the reason for the article and the role of cooperatives.

We have also improved formal aspects, especially in some concepts.

We want to emphasize the idea that it is a theoretical proposal. There is no empirical work. Surely we will use this criticism to look at testing the proposal in future works.

We firmly believe that the economy is going through a difficult time, in which scientific proposals must also be oriented towards theoretical reflection. This work is a humble but worked proposal.

Reviewer 4 Report

Good Day! recommended

Author Response

First of all, we greatly appreciate the comments and suggestions for this work, which we have incorporated as far as possible. We think that the text that is now being sent has gained a lot of depth and explanation. Thank you for the effort of the referees. In this second round ee have done the following:

We have incorporated much of the reviewer's guidance.

We have modified the abstract and the structure of the article. Also in the conclusions we have tried to better argue the reason for the article and the role of cooperatives.

We have also improved formal aspects, especially in some concepts.

We want to emphasize the idea that it is a theoretical proposal. There is no empirical work. Surely we will use this criticism to look at testing the proposal in future works.

We firmly believe that the economy is going through a difficult time, in which scientific proposals must also be oriented towards theoretical reflection. This work is a humble but worked proposal.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Technical remarks

11.     In line 348 a fragment of the text is missing (description starts from point 3).

22.    In line 350 "The ten variables ..." is written, but the ten variables are not distinguished.

3.     Change the line spacing in lines 51-66.

4.     Remove the line numbering from diagram number 2 (numbers 525-527).

5.     Diagram 2: line 492 – lack of comma; line 502 – unnecessary quotation mark (?)

Author Response

Dear referee,

Thank you very much for considerations in order to improve our work. We have incorporated the indications that you made. We hope it is satisfactory.

Sincerely