Creating Legitimacy in the ISO/CEN Standard for Sustainable and Traceable Cocoa: An Exploratory Case Study Integrating Normative and Empirical Legitimacy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very good paper that explores the relevant topic of normative and empirical legitimacy for ISO standards. My only suggestion regards the methodology: I think that the authors could provide more details on how the thematic analysis of the primary and secondary data was performed
Author Response
We wish to thank the reviewer for the thorough job. It is much appreciated.
We appreciate the opportunity to be able to elaborate on the point mentioned by the reviewer.
We have in the answer to the mentioned point introduced a nuanced description of how we have done the thematic analysis in respect to coding.
Concerning the secondary data, we have elaborated on this in the paper and explained how we in case of conflicting data assessed the validity and reliability of the data on a case-by-case approach and incorporated the findings from secondary sources, which had the highest quality.
We hope this addresses the points raised by the reviewer.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
After reading the first version of your manuscript, I am still not fully persuaded that the article goes into detail enough to provide an added value to Sustainability readership.
This time, I will try to give my comments in a more clear version:
The title of the article should emphasize the new point of the article through the method or approach. This is consistent with this type of study.
The author needs to clarify the new contribution of the research in the introduction. The practical contribution from this research is in my opinion quite important. It is necessary to clearly state the new and motivating points of the article
The literature review should be placed after the missing section. The literature review is very generic. It contributes very little to what has been done in other studies.
Does the author use a method based on grounded theory?
What criteria will the literature review be based on, according to the author? Are you doing any threading research? The essay should provide categories for the chosen journal area, the year, and the underlying theory.
The author needs to use NVIVO software to analyze the collected qualitative data and provide the code in the form of a table according to each process.
Kind regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We wish to thank the reviewer for the thorough job. It is much appreciated.
We appreciate the opportunity to be able to elaborate on the points mentioned by the reviewer.
Below we provide a short answer detailing how we have addressed the points mentioned. We hope this is sufficient and thanks for the help to make a better and clearer paper.
The title of the article should emphasize the new point of the article through the method or approach. This is consistent with this type of study.
Thank you for pointing this out and we have now adjusted the title to illustrate the novelty concerning normative and empirical legitimacy.
The author needs to clarify the new contribution of the research in the introduction. The practical contribution from this research is in my opinion quite important. It is necessary to clearly state the new and motivating points of the article
We have clarified both the research contribution and how the research contributes to practice including how both standard setting organisations and critical stakeholders can use the findings; especially outlining the value for the critical stakeholders has allowed us to draw new and critical implications; implication also new for the Sustainability audience in general.
The literature review should be placed after the missing section. The literature review is very generic. It contributes very little to what has been done in other studies.
We realize based on the comments that section 2 could be read as development of the framework only. We have not specified that it contains both a review and a framework development part. We have preferred to keep the literature review small since the paper is already long. The other reviewer seems to appreciate the clear focus.
Does the author use a method based on grounded theory?
In the paper we illustrate how we use an abductive approach as opposed to grounded theory.
What criteria will the literature review be based on, according to the author? Are you doing any threading research? The essay should provide categories for the chosen journal area, the year, and the underlying theory.
The background review was based on a scoping review following the criteria for a scoping review; according to the review literature scoping reviews are most suitable to new fields like ours.
The author needs to use NVIVO software to analyze the collected qualitative data and provide the code in the form of a table according to each process.
We have used NVIVO for the analysis and now illustrated the codes.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Congratulations on the job.
The article has significantly improved compared to the previous version.
The studied sector is important for the study area. The sector is also important in the area of sustainability.
The author needs to show the tree of codes when using NVIVO into a tabular form through each processing step when there is a change in the codes in the following steps.
Kind regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
Thank you for the constructive feedback. We have now included the three of codes as requested.
