The ESG Menu: Integrating Sustainable Practices in the Portuguese Agri-Food Sector
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for giving me the opportunity to review the ESG menu: "Integrating Sustainable Practices in the Agri-Food Sector." It was a pleasure reading the paper, although there are some suggested reworking that might help make the paper more readable:
· The abstract should include brief practical implications
· Extended Abstract Presentation. The stated objective in the abstract of the paper will be later presented and extended in the Introduction. Moreover, at the beginning of the introduction, which is between the presentation of the research's background and the outline response of the research's objective, the keywords of the main objective need to be presented, followed by a brief of the author's ideas in approaching to the target of the research.
Context of research: explained the current research context of what the most important papers in this research area are, and which will be relevant or contributing to explaining the keywords out of at least one objective.
· A consistent English language proofing needs to be performed.
Section 2: Literature review
Theory narrates in very few words some very interesting thoughts; yet, it would be very good to see them supported in the more extensive literature review, not presented in a small paragraph.
Sections 2.2 and 2.3 have many short paragraphs, which would better help the reader if combined with similar paragraphs that refer to each other and make it easier to read.
Section 3 Methodology
The methodological description is acceptable, although it does not contain the details that would render the study replicable. For instance, the reasons for the number of participants and how they were selected remain hazy. In this study, any possible biases in qualitative research and their obviation need a more solid discussion.
Section 4: Results
The results are detailed, though with a lot of subcategorization to the level that affects the level of clarity and power that the results should hold. Besides, the interconnection between the categories, another thematic issue, and the general research question is largely vague. In general, generalized statements rather than citing concrete data points or exact words of the participants often weaken the persuasive power of the conclusion.
Section 5 This is not unusual, but yet again lacks the necessary critical reading of the findings and the consequence of the same. Lastly, implications from both the findings to knowledge gained in the process might challenge, add, or contradict, existing knowledge. The results could also be elaborated to consider broader socio-economic and policy implications.
Section 6: Conclusion
The conclusions summarily restate the findings without really giving any kind of actionable insight or recommendation. What this paper would need, in that sense, is a stronger call on what, in practice, the different stakeholders in the agri-food sector would do as a result of these findings in their efforts at improving their practices towards sustainability.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate your detailed and constructive suggestions. It was an honor to receive your feedback, and we deeply value your opinion. We have implemented the suggested changes, which proved to be a highly enriching exercise. Your guidance significantly enhanced our work, and we are grateful for the opportunity to improve our article based on your valuable insights.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe main question addressed by the research concerns the incorporation of sustainable development within the Portuguese agrifood sector amid global environmental and resource challenges.
The article contains an in-depth analysis of how ESG is treated by SMEs as opposed to large enterprises. However, the analysis is only qualitative.
The proposed research approach contains elements of a new perspective on the examined issue.
Nevertheless, the article can still be improved to some extent. The results are presented in such a way that the reader has the impression that these are statistically tested phenomena. Therefore, the research limitations resulting from the use of qualitative methods should be clearly emphasized. The presented relationships and attitudes undoubtedly occur among the entities studied, but it is difficult to say how dominant they are and whether something more common has been overlooked.
I also suggest adding in the title: "Evidence from Portugal".
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate your detailed and constructive suggestions. It was an honor to receive your feedback, and we deeply value your opinion. We have implemented the suggested changes, which proved to be a highly enriching exercise. Your guidance significantly enhanced our work, and we are grateful for the opportunity to improve our article based on your valuable insights.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is written on a relevant topic. The tasks are appropriate, and the methods are chosen to effectively address the topic, accomplish the tasks, and achieve the goal. The author's objective is to identify opportunities for integrating sustainable development into the Portuguese agri-food sector against the backdrop of global environmental and resource challenges.
In the article, it is noted that large corporations adopt a proactive approach to sustainable development, while small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face significant obstacles, including resource limitations and external pressures, leading to a more reactive stance. The authors conducted in-depth interviews with managers and experts to study the implementation of sustainable business models in the agri-food sector, focusing on specific challenges encountered by SMEs. The survey results indicate differences in the maturity of sustainable practices among companies, emphasizing the need to integrate these practices into organizational culture and operational strategies. The research findings provide valuable information for enhancing organizational resilience in the agri-food sector.
However, the article requires revisions:
1. The authors mention, "Analysis was conducted from interviewees from three different contexts: agri-food managers from small and medium-sized enterprises (7), agri-food managers from large corporations (4), and academic and market experts from the agri-food sector (6), culminating in 17 in-depth interviews" (266-280). However, it is unclear why this specific number of interviews was conducted. Perhaps it should have been more or less? This needs to be clarified more explicitly. Additionally, it is worth explaining why there was such a distribution between sectors (7:4:6) and not another.
2. Table 6. Contributions of Practices for Agri-Food Companies from Chapter 6. Conclusions should be moved to the main Chapter 5. In the conclusions, only references to the results presented in the table should be made.
The manuscript is clear, relevant to the field, and presented in a well-structured manner.
The citations are pertinent, and the conclusions align with the evidence and arguments provided.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate your detailed and constructive suggestions. It was an honor to receive your feedback, and we deeply value your opinion. We have implemented the suggested changes, which proved to be a highly enriching exercise. Your guidance significantly enhanced our work, and we are grateful for the opportunity to improve our article based on your valuable insights.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
