A Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) of the Agricultural Cooperatives from South East Region of Romania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work deals with a pertinent and highly topical issue such as identifying the factors that ensure market success and survival of agri-food cooperatives. Factors such as capital constraints, the traditional absence of a professional management body, the complex relations between members and their involvement in the cooperative have often been addressed by the economic theory of cooperativism. The reviewed paper is of a scientific nature, its structure is clear and it is worth publishing.

However, there are some aspects that should be reviewed. First of all, some of the bibliography should be updated with more recent studies which draw new conclusions. For example, the reference to the special characteristics of cooperatives that make their comparison with commercial companies impossible (lines 135-137) (Nilson, 1996); and the references related to members’ trust in the cooperative (Hakelius, 1996; Fukuyama, 1995).

The choice of the variable "the existence of a central collection space of the harvest" does not seem to be properly justified. Its relevance to cooperative competitiveness will depend on the type of products marketed by the cooperative, which is not specified in the study. References to the relevance of this variable are very general (FAO, 2001; ILO, 1984) and can be applied to all types of cooperatives, but it is not argued to what extent and why it is relevant to the cooperatives under study (Proposition 2).

It would be advisable to delve deeper into the arguments that have led the authors to choose and use the fsQCA methodology, as well as the possible limitations involved in applying it. The reasoning in the introduction (lines 81-83) proves to be insufficient in this sense, and section 3.2 contains only a description of this methodology.

The sample is made up of second-tier cooperatives, which demonstrates the need to analyse the implications of this fact in the conclusions of the paper, whose title and objectives refer to agricultural cooperatives in general. Are the results also valid for first-tier cooperatives? How do they differ from those analysed in the paper? There is a lack of discussion and analysis of the implications of this fact in the conclusions of the work.

On the other hand, the paper does not specify which person (position or function in the cooperative) responded to the telephone interview ("the representatives of the cooperatives were contacted by phone" (lines 239-240)), which could condition and influence the meaning of their answers and, consequently, the results of the study.

Other recommendations:

- What does the question mark at the end of line 47 mean?

- What does PQ in line 76 mean?

- Does Figure 1 (page 3) represent the cited Cook and Burress process (line 103)?

- In line 371, where it says "Table 4", it should read "Table 7". 

Author Response

Authors’ Reply to Referee 1

We are grateful for your knowledgeable comments and are especially indebted to your kind patience and academic rigidity. Revisions and corrections have been made in accordance with your helpful and enlightening suggestions as follows.

Comment 1

First of all, some of the bibliography should be updated with more recent studies which draw new conclusions. For example, the reference to the special characteristics of cooperatives that make their comparison with commercial companies impossible (lines 135-137) (Nilson, 1996); and the references related to members’ trust in the cooperative (Hakelius, 1996; Fukuyama, 1995).

Reply 1

In the author’s view, the mentioned studies are very important and up to date. They have been updated with new studies, but they present the same conclusions.

The issue of mistaking the agricultural cooperatives with companies is defining for the present study. These two types of organization have some common features, but many differences. Considering that we can also find members – legal persons within the sample, we considered necessary for their administrators to understand the defining characteristics of the agricultural cooperatives.

The trust of the members in the power of the cooperatives to offer added value is directly proportional to the value of investment of each and every one.

Moreso, considering that the promotion of agricultural cooperatives establishment in Romania started only in 2004, along with the promulgation of Law no. 566/2004, we are still in the phase of establishing the basis as compared to the states from the North-West of Europe, which continuously, for over 100 years, have developed the principles of agricultural cooperatives in order to ensure a sustainable exploitation of resources.

Although the mentioned works are not recent, they present a series of topical problems faced by the cooperatives in Romania.

Comment 2

The choice of the variable "the existence of a central collection space of the harvest" does not seem to be properly justified. Its relevance to cooperative competitiveness will depend on the type of products marketed by the cooperative, which is not specified in the study. References to the relevance of this variable are very general (FAO, 2001; ILO, 1984) and can be applied to all types of cooperatives, but it is not argued to what extent and why it is relevant to the cooperatives under study (Proposition 2).

Reply 2

The collecting place of the cooperatives is an important element regardless of the type of cooperative studied. The authors consider that the cooperatives offer plus value to the products within the collection place. The operations performed within the collection space are represented by operations which prepare the products for trade. The agricultural cooperatives that sell vegetables, fruit and cereals are found within the chosen sample, so the endowment necessary to the space differs depending on the type of product. A first example would be the perishable products whose preparation for delivery is carried out at an appropriate temperature, under hygienic conditions, choosing only those products that have not been affected by the transfer from the producer to the cooperative. In what concerns the wheat, for example, its humidity must be established because it is a defining characteristic of the sale price, the lots having different humidities must be separated and all conditions must be ensured so that this would not lead to their deterioration.

Comment 3

It would be advisable to delve deeper into the arguments that have led the authors to choose and use the fsQCA methodology, as well as the possible limitations involved in applying it. The reasoning in the introduction (lines 81-83) proves to be insufficient in this sense, and section 3.2 contains only a description of this methodology.

Reply 3

The necessary changes have been made to the article (see lines 265-267).

Comment 4

The sample is made up of second-tier cooperatives, which demonstrates the need to analyze the implications of this fact in the conclusions of the paper, whose title and objectives refer to agricultural cooperatives in general. Are the results also valid for first-tier cooperatives? How do they differ from those analyzed in the paper? There is a lack of discussion and analysis of the implications of this fact in the conclusions of the work.

Reply 4

The necessary changes have been made to the article (see lines 453-464 and 489-495)

Comment 5

On the other hand, the paper does not specify which person (position or function in the cooperative) responded to the telephone interview ("the representatives of the cooperatives were contacted by phone" (lines 239-240)), which could condition and influence the meaning of their answers and, consequently, the results of the study.

Reply 5

The necessary changes have been made to the article (see lines 240-241)

Comment 6

What does the question mark at the end of line 47 mean?

Reply 6

The necessary changes have been made to the article

Comment 7

What does PQ in line 76 mean?

Reply 7

The necessary changes have been made to the article

Comment 8

Does Figure 1 (page 3) represent the cited Cook and Burress process (line 103)?

Reply 8

No. As we mentioned in the article (lines 94-96), Figure 1 represents the 5 factors that must be taken into account by the cooperatives during the set-up phase. At the same time, Figure 1 represents a conceptual model of the paper, graphically highlighting the 5 prepositions. Cook and Burress schematically presented the operation process of the agricultural cooperatives from the set-up phase up to maturity.

Comment 9

In line 371, where it says "Table 4", it should read "Table 7".

Reply 9

The necessary changes have been made to the article

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper introduces an original research topic which is quite interesting for CEO of agricultural cooperatives as well as for policy makers. The author(s) nicely explain their methodology and propositions. They could improve the results of the analysis (explain in more details).

Moreover, in my opinion, the author(s) could expand/enrich their conclusions in order to improve the practical implications of the research. 

Author Response

Authors’ Reply to Referee 2

We are grateful for your knowledgeable comments and are especially indebted to your kind patience and academic rigidity. Revisions and corrections have been made in accordance with your helpful and enlightening suggestions as follows.

Comment 1

The paper introduces an original research topic which is quite interesting for CEO of agricultural cooperatives as well as for policy makers. The author(s) nicely explain their methodology and propositions. They could improve the results of the analysis (explain in more details).

Reply 1

The necessary changes have been made to the article (see lines 453-464)

Comment 2

Moreover, in my opinion, the author(s) could expand/enrich their conclusions in order to improve the practical implications of the research. 

Reply 1

The necessary changes have been made to the article (see lines 489-495)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx