A Qualitative Investigation of European Grain Legume Supply Markets through the Lens of Agroecology in Four Companies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is a very interesting manuscript framing the four legume processing companies in Europe on Gleissman’s five level food system change approach. There is quite a big chunk of information in Material and Methods, Results and Discussion sections, which are repeated several times. The paper is based on five quite “general” questions: i) Company background and legume type; ii) The company’s current position within the legume value chain; iii) Technology adaptation; iv) Future markets and business strategies, and v) Obstacles and possibilities for increasing market shares. The information gathered, presented and the analyses done is insufficient for a scientific research paper based on qualitative data as it lacked various information to assess the four companies comprehensively. However, this could be a very relevant and good scientific paper if the authors address/incorporate:
- - Additional questions and analyses relating to the barriers and enablers in terms of social, environmental, political, economic and technical aspects to become a relevant scientific paper
- - Analyses of the responses and provide quotations and nuances between them on common questions in relation to my first bullet.
- - Additional respondents/other key persons and their views and opinions are included; otherwise the current information is quite shallow. Triangulation of information from different sources is necessary to make qualitative data scientifically strong and robust.
- - The current results section is a general description of the companies (most of it can be in the introduction or background). Analysis part of the interview information is lacking.
- - Describe and evaluate how the different company managers and dialogue with additional staffs responded to different questions: How many staffs, which staffs, what was the purpose, what did the authors get out of it?
- - It seems from lines 115-120, that there were very few general questions, and no probing was done. Including all keywords/questions will be important. What were the questions/issues that needed probing?
- - Complete and specific description and analyses of the Danish firm before jumping to a conclusion in terms of sustainability as the legume for human consumption part seems quite small in the firm’s business. With the current information, it reads like a “green washing”.
- - A thorough language check is necessary.
Please see my specific comments in the attached pdf document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please find the comments within the MS file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is interesting. The authors processed a lot of information and did a lot of work on obtaining data from enterprises. However, this article has more of a practical aspect. I would like more information about the scientific novelty, as well as the contribution of the authors to the development of scientific theory. It is recommended that the authors clarify in the conclusions how the research results can be useful for other companies from other countries. Limitations must also be indicated in the conclusion.
Author Response
Please see the attachments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Some of the important information which I would like to be included in the manuscript to make the findings more credible and analytical (and less descriptive) seems to be impossible due to GDPR and previous agreements with the interviewees. Nevertheless, the revised version has addressed other relevant key information for understanding the possibilities and challenges of four legume processors in Europe.
