Market Diversification and International Competitiveness of South American Coffee: A Comparative Analysis for Export Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The literature review part has to be revised. A discussion-style part is missing there. Authors should bring some polemic discussion among the previous studies, trying to find the literature gap. A simple compilation of other authors' conclusions is not enough.
• criticism related to the HHI approach is correct; hence, it should be described in higher detail. 
• Concerning methodology, only very basic methods were applied.
• HHI and RCA are some methods, but not the whole list. Authors should clarify what the possible approaches are to assess export competitiveness by more (many) authors. Afterwards, they can explain why they decided on HHI and RCA. I suggest the export gap (Zábojník and Borovská, 2021) or the works by Baláž and Hamara. Even the ITC portal provides up to 10 parameters... Also, a price competitiveness approach has to be mentioned in the first part. 
• Some international trade terms have to be clarified or substituted (e.g. the behavior of coffee exporter"s). 
• The authors mentioned a 10-year period for their data. Though it is not clear what is the frequency, time series length, and number of observations are, and basic statistics of the data are. 
• Within HHI and RCA methodology, I strongly recommend mentioning the formula and citing the source of the method (which RCA, which RCA level, interpretation, author...). 
• The "results" part is good, but a simple table is not enough. I suggest combining tables, preparing some comparisons and explanations, and highlighting the differences among the countries. 
• I like the discussion part, though; it has to be longer. I strongly recommend separating the conclusion part. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the detailed and insightful observations. Each of the points raised was carefully considered and addressed as follows:

1. Literature Review Revised: The literature review was restructured to adopt a discussion-based format. We included contrasting viewpoints among recent studies, especially concerning market concentration, competitiveness.
2. HHI and RCA Critique Expanded: The manuscript now provides a more detailed explanation of the HHI and RCA indices.
3. Methodological Alternatives Discussed: In response to the concern about limited methodological scope, we now discuss complementary methods for assessing export competitiveness, such as the export gap model (Zábojník & Borovská, 2021), multidimensional indices, and price competitiveness. These are mentioned in the theoretical framework and methodology sections.
4. Data Description Completed: We have clarified the frequency and coverage of the dataset, including the time series length (2015–2024), the unit of observation (annual values), and basic descriptive statistics for each country’s exports.
5. Tables and Comparative Analysis Improved: We enhanced the presentation of results by merging key indicators into comparison tables (see Table 12) and including narrative explanations of inter-country differences.
6. Discussion Extended; Conclusions Separated: The discussion was extended with deeper interpretation of results and implications. The conclusions now appear in a separate section, clearly summarizing the key findings and strategic recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Export market sustainability strategy is a vital problem. The authors provided an insightful analyze of this issue. The manuscript has a novel theme. The methodology is appropriate. However, the authors still need further revisions.

1. The title “Diversification of Export Markets as a Sustainability Strategy for South American Producers of Roasted Non-Decaffeinated Coffee” is inappropriate. The title should highlight problem awareness.
2. Abstract is poor. Abstract should include: Background, methodology, conclusions, implications. The current backgrounder does not highlight the research problem. The manuscript is an empirical study. The prominence of the problem is necessary.
3. Introduction is boring. The authors present many phenomena but do not have enough data to support them. As a trade study. It is necessary to insert charts in the introduction to highlight the necessary of diversified markets.
4. The literature review is confusing. Authors should review relevant studies around the research implications of the last paragraph in the introduction.
5. “2. Material and Methods” is inappropriate. Social science research is usually not applied to material representations.
6. HHI and RCA are important equations. The calculation process should be written in the manuscript.
7. The manuscript should supplement Sustainability’s recent literature. The authors should highlight this research relative to Sustainability.

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful feedback and valuable recommendations. All the points raised have been carefully addressed to improve clarity, structure, and relevance. Below are the specific actions taken:

1. Title Revision: The title has been revised to better reflect the problem-centered focus of the study. The new title is: "Export Market Dependence and Competitiveness Gaps in South American Coffee: A Sustainability Challenge", which emphasizes both the problem (market dependence) and the sustainability implications.
2. Abstract Restructured: The abstract has been rewritten to clearly include: (a) background, (b) methodology, (c) main results, and (d) managerial and policy implications. The research problem and rationale are now explicitly stated at the beginning.
3. Literature Review Aligned: The literature review was reorganized to connect directly with the research gap and implications identified in the last paragraph of the introduction. Relevant studies from 2022–2024, particularly those addressing competitiveness under climate stress, have been added.
4. Section Title Adjusted: The section previously titled “Material and Methods” has been renamed “Methodology”, aligning it with conventions in social sciences and empirical trade studies.
5. HHI and RCA Formulas Added: The manuscript now includes explicit formulas and definitions for both the HHI and RCA indices
6. Updated with Recent Sustainability Literature: Recent articles published in Sustainability from 2022–2024 have been cited, demonstrating how this study complements current debates on agri-trade resilience and export strategies in the face of global uncertainty.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the paper is an intersection of trade and sustainable development, which has significant application value and falls within the journal's scope topics. The paper employs metrics such as HHI and RCA to measure the international competitiveness of selected South American countries in the roasted coffee sector. It identifies the shortcomings in international among these countries and proposes some scientific solutions. The paper is well-formatted, logically sound, and the conclusions drawn are credible. It is recommended for publication after major revisions.

the following issues that need to be improved:

1. Innovation: The similarity with methods such as [Ref1][Ref2] is relatively high, and the differences need be more clearly distinguished in the introduction section. It is suggested to supplement the comparative analysis with the latest research results.
2. The calculation formulas of the HHI, RCA, and other indices are listed, and the economic interpretations of the specific indices are provided
3. Theoretical framework section introduces the meaning and the real situation of relevant indicators, fails to discover the theoretical logic and theoretical basis of the results analysis of the thesis, it is that the dominant theory should be found, and the issues to be studied should be sorted out from the perspective of theory.
4. Literature duplication issue: Entries 41 and 48 both cite Balogh and Jámbor's (201) cheese trade study, which needs to be checked for redundancy removal.
5.  Methodological expansion deficiency: Although the RCA system is widely used, the discussions on the evolution of dynamic comparative advantage (Kowalski &ini, 2011) and the controversy over index normalization (Yu et al., 2009) are relatively shallow.
6. Data citation standard The World Customs Organization literature (entry 50) is labeled with a year earlier than the citation time, which needs to be verified for its publication status.
7. it is recommended to strengthen the support in three aspects: First, supplement the global value chain perspective (refer to the value trade framework by Deb & Supta, 2018); second, increase the comparative analysis of South-South trade competitiveness; third, integrate the optimization method of HHI index (Brezina et., 2016) with the research on industrial concentration.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive comments, which have been highly valuable for improving the scientific rigor and innovation of our manuscript. In response to the suggestions, the following major revisions have been made:

Formula and Economic Interpretation: The calculation methods for HHI and RCA are now explicitly described

Theoretical Framework Improvement: We have significantly expanded the theoretical framework

Redundant Reference Removed: After review, we removed one of the two references to Balogh and Jámbor (Entries 41 and 48) to eliminate redundancy.

Broader Trade Perspectives Integrated: We strengthened the discussion by:

Discussing the Brezina et al. (2016) HHI optimization and its relevance for refining concentration analysis in our context

 

Changes Made in the Manuscript:

• Introduction: Paragraph 4 (Page 2) – Clarification of methodological innovation
• Material and Methods: Pages 6–7 – Added formulas and interpretations of HHI and RCA
• Theoretical Framework: Pages 5–6 – Introduced dominant theory and structural vulnerability discussion
• References: Removed duplicate citation of Balogh and Jámbor
• Methodology: Pages 6–7 – Expanded explanation on RCA and index normalization debates
• Reference 50: Corrected publication year
• Discussion and Conclusions: Page 15 – Added insights on value chains, South-South competitiveness, and HHI optimization

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manucript deals with a relevant issue: the sustainability of agricultural systems.

The authors argue that export market diversification has a potential impact in the sustainability of coffee  production systems and propose to describe and analyze the level of export market concentration and the degree of international competitiveness among the main South American coffee-producing coun-tries (Brazil, Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador).

The analytical framwork and the method explore the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) to measure market concentration and the Revealed Comparative Advantage Index (RCA and its normalized version) to assess competitiveness by destination, focusing on Brazil, Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador exploring data from 2015 to 2024.

The results are clear and soundly presented and discussed. Detailled Tables with the Destination Markets, the Diversification Index and the Revealed Comparative Advantage of main export Destinations  of unroasted and non-decaffeinated coffee from Brazil, Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador are presented and discussed.

The conclusions are pertinent and supported by the results. The results confirm that coffee market concentration impacts the sustainability and highlight that exporters’ vulnerability make resilience increasing dependent on the ability to diversify destinations and add value along the chain. The managerial and public policy implications are pertinent and supported by the results.

Nevertheless, a minor revision is necessary.  The Peru´s presentation in the text, from page 9 to page 11 is repeated. It must be removed.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Authors’ Response:
We thank the reviewer for the careful reading and positive evaluation of the manuscript’s content and methodological approach. We acknowledge the observation regarding the repetition in the section on Peru (pages 9 to 11). Upon thorough review, we identified the redundant segment and have proceeded to remove the repeated content to ensure clarity and conciseness in the manuscript.

Changes Made in the Manuscript:
The repeated content within the “Peru” subsection, located between page 9 and page 11, was deleted. The revised version now presents a single, coherent analysis of Peru’s export performance without duplication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 The author has revised the manuscript in depth. I recommend acceptance in  present form.