Discussing Food Waste Online: Current Trends in the Food Processing Industry and Future Directions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for resubmitting your manuscript and for addressing my previous comments. While I appreciate the efforts you have made to improve the paper, after a thorough review of your revisions, I still find that the manuscript falls short of the academic rigor required for publication in a high-impact journal. Below, I will outline the specific areas that remain problematic.

1. Academic Contribution:

In my initial review, I raised concerns regarding the academic contribution of the manuscript, noting that it seemed more suited to a commercial context. Despite your efforts to expand the research questions and analysis, and to link the methods to theories, the paper continues to lack a significant academic contribution. The inclusion of a scatter plot and comparisons to prior research are basic elements of academic practice but do not elevate the manuscript to the level of theoretical novelty or originality required. Without a more robust examination of the impact of food waste communication on consumer behaviour—a point I raised in my initial comments—the manuscript's conclusions remain speculative. Deferring this critical aspect to future research significantly weakens the current paper’s value.

2. Definition of "Moderately Effective":

You have not fully addressed my request for clarification on the definition of "moderately effective," mentioned in lines 352–353 of the original manuscript. While you have revised parts of the introduction, the term remains vague, and there is still insufficient explanation of how effectiveness was measured or defined. This lack of clarity compromises the validity of the findings, particularly given the reliance on previous research (reference 17) without introducing substantial new data.

3. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review:

Although you have expanded the introduction and linked the methodology to existing theories, the literature review remains underdeveloped. The engagement with current academic discourse is minimal, and the theoretical grounding is not sufficiently robust. The revisions give the impression that the theoretical elements were retrofitted to support the findings rather than informing the research design from the outset. This approach undermines the manuscript’s ability to make a significant academic contribution, particularly in a field as well-researched as food waste communication and consumer behaviour.

4. Commercial vs Academic Focus:

Despite your revisions, the manuscript still leans heavily towards a commercial rather than academic focus. While your recommendations for improving food waste communication are practical, they are operational in nature and do not provide the theoretical or empirical advancement required for a high-ranking academic journal. The primary contribution of the study seems to be geared towards providing actionable insights for companies rather than engaging with the theoretical debates necessary for an academic audience.

5. Use of Methodology:

While I acknowledge the more detailed methodological explanation in the revision, the approach still does not meet the standards expected for a high-impact journal. The sample size of 105 websites, for instance, lacks a clear justification for why this number is sufficiently representative to support your conclusions. Additionally, while content analysis is an appropriate method, the paper does not engage with its limitations or challenges, which would be expected in a paper of this calibre.

6. Comparison with Existing Literature:

In response to my initial comments, you have compared your results with existing research. However, this comparison is superficial and does not engage critically with how your findings contribute to or challenge the existing body of literature. A more thorough discussion is needed to demonstrate how this study adds to or deviates from previous research.

Kind regards,

Author Response

See Appendix.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors provided a thorough analysis of communication on food waste in processing companies. The article is very well elaborated, including the literature review, methodological part, presentation, and discussion of the results, as well as practical implications and limitations of the study. 

However, the paper could be made more useful and clear to the readers by providing a table or a coherent diagram summarising the valuable results obtained during the study. 

 

Author Response

See Appendix.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Please modify the following:

Line 34, 35, 73, 235, 241, 386, 674, 698, 707, 736, 774- do not write percent, just add %, please check throughout the paper

Line 660, 693- 2 subscript, please check throughout the paper

Add more references that are not self citations regarding the same type of analysis, even if they are from different countries in Europe.

Line 228- If only 43,8% of the companies has information what about the others? In which sector were they? Why do you think they do not have this important part? Please add a specific part

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See Appendix.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well-composed, findings are in harmony with the research questions, aims, and objectives. Justifications coupled with practical implementations commendable for adoption by governments and all stakeholders in the food industry are well articulated. The manuscript can be considered for publication in its present form without any further significant revision.

However, these two observations should be considered and revised accordingly by authors before the final publication of the paper;

 

Figure 1: correct “downstream suppler chain” to “downstream supply chain” or “downstream supplier chain”. Authors should kindly use the appropriate word of "supplier" or "supply" in place of the "suppler"

 

Line 693: kindly correct the "CO2" to CO₂

Author Response

See Appendix.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for addressing my comments and submitting the revised version of your manuscript. While I appreciate your efforts to improve the paper, after carefully reviewing the revisions, I must conclude that the manuscript still falls short of the academic rigour required for publication in a high-impact journal. Below, I provide detailed feedback on the key points raised in my previous review and the extent to which these have been addressed:

1. Academic Contribution
   You have made some attempts to enhance the academic focus of the manuscript by linking it to the German National Strategy for Food Waste Reduction and expanding the scope beyond consumer behaviour to include stakeholder communication. However, the revisions remain largely descriptive and lack theoretical novelty. The assertion that corporate communication on food waste is under-researched is not sufficiently substantiated by the literature review. Consequently, the academic contribution remains unclear, and the conclusions are speculative rather than offering new insights into the field.

2. Definition of "Moderately Effective"
   While you have clarified the origins of this term (Page 22, r. 776), the explanation remains insufficient. There is still a lack of a robust framework for evaluating "effectiveness," which weakens the credibility and validity of your findings. Without a clearer conceptualisation and measurement approach, the term remains ambiguous.

3. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review
   Although the introduction and discussion have been expanded, the theoretical foundation of the manuscript remains underdeveloped. The literature review does not engage comprehensively with recent or relevant academic discourse, giving the impression that theoretical elements were retrofitted to support findings. This undermines the manuscript’s ability to position itself as a significant academic contribution in a field as well-researched as food waste communication and consumer behaviour.

4. Commercial vs Academic Focus
   Despite efforts to align the findings with policy objectives, the manuscript continues to lean heavily towards practical and operational recommendations. While these recommendations may be useful for practitioners, they lack the theoretical depth and critical engagement with academic debates necessary for publication in a high-impact journal. This operational focus overshadows the potential academic contribution.

5. Use of Methodology
   You have included a rationale for the sample size (Page 33, r. 1208-1216) and addressed some limitations of content analysis (Page 33, r. 1217-1227). However, the justification for the sample size remains insufficiently robust, and the discussion of the challenges associated with content analysis lacks depth. A more detailed explanation of why this sample is representative, coupled with a critical evaluation of methodological constraints, would be expected in a journal of this calibre.

6. Comparison with Existing Literature
   The expanded discussion (Page 27, r. 940-1110) includes a broader comparison of your results with existing literature and the National Strategy. However, this comparison is still largely descriptive and fails to engage critically with how your findings contribute to or challenge the existing body of knowledge. A more nuanced analysis is required to demonstrate how your study advances the academic discourse on food waste communication.

Kind regards

Author Response

See appendix

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The manuscript demonstrates improvements, particularly in structure and clarity, but continues to fall short in several areas essential for publication in a high-impact journal like Sustainability. The theoretical contribution lacks depth, the methodological rationale is insufficient, and the discussion does not fully integrate findings within a broader academic context.

Kind regards, 

Author Response

see appendix

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read the revised version of the manuscript entitled "Empty Talk or Commitment to our Future: Online Food Waste Communication of the Food Processing Industry."

The paper provides new insight into food waste with particular focus communication on sustainability issues,

However, need improvements:

The GAP is not clearly adressed. Highlight the GAP in Introduction, the content presented in 1st page, is sparse.

The introduction of the paper is poorly developed and discussions are not presented in paper.

The literature have many discussions about Food waste in last years, and They are not presented.  The authors need to return to literature.

About Method

- Provide more details about how you analysed the Archival data.

- How the string was defined? The author utilized thesaurus or specialists consults? 

- How were the constructs created?

- What techniques were used to ensure the replicability and reliability of the contente analysis.

- Was there only one researcher to code, or did cross-coding occur?

- Any informations to improve the quality of your method can be found in

KRIPPENDORFF, K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 3^a ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 2004. v. 79

HUTCHISON, A. J.; JOHNSTON, L. H.; BRECKON, J. D. Using QSR-NVivo to facilitate the development of a grounded theory project: An account of a worked example. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, v. 13, n. 4, p. 283–302, out. 2010. Disponível em: <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13645570902996301>. Acesso em: 20 abr. 2015.

 

-the paper is so descriptive in results and discussions, the authors need to improve the critical analysis, they just present results of relatories of content analysis.

- A review is necessary. The lack of findings impact in the originality of the work. Especially Contribution to Theory and practices, the contribution need so much attention. There is limited and weak discussion of the implications.

I can't see relevant practical and theoretical implications in this paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The paper examines the websites of food process companies in the basis of information provided on food waste. The topic is relevant to the journal and novel. I congratulate the author/s for identifying the interesting research gap and investigating the themes about food waste information while communicating with consumers. Although the topic, food waste, has been investigated widely in the relevant literature, this study extends our knowledge by classifying information on the websites of companies. The research gap and research questions were identified by the authors and seems significant. This helps companies to reorganize their websites and communication channels to attract consumers.

The paper focuses content analysis of more than one hundred company websites. This is satisfactory number of data for content analysis. Methodology has been presented clearly. However, it would be great why only first 10 pages of Google’s results were considered? Why not 20? Also please provide more details of sample. For example, are there any other company list that might be chosen or not? How many duplications and non-food companies were detected? How did you ensure that these companies are non-food? etc.

I recommend to provide references of facts and news about food waste that were provided on websites. Which sources have been mostly referenced? Are there any inconsistencies among facts and news in different websites? What are the possible reasons? How about updated files? Did you compare the initial and current versions of the documents? Did you detect any improvement in these files? Do businesses update or keep up to date with the information on their websites?

I would recommend discussing your results with previous findings in more detail. Similarly, it would be great to provide more specific suggestions for companies to enhance their websites in order to raise awareness and increase attractiveness. Also, the theoretical contribution of the paper should be improved.

 Tables and figures are adequate and informative.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to read and comment on your research. The topic itself is interesting and has potential. The research, as described, has been conducted in a very professional way. The methodology is appropriate and the used themes are supporting the aim of the study.

The problem I see is the aim of the study: "These findings should help companies to improve their food waste communication." This commercial value is clear. The academic value and the contribution to the field though is not clear.

In its current state the manuscript does not provide any contribution to the academic field. The research's only focus is whether and how companies communicate about food waste. Unfortunately, there is no correlation analysis between the food waste communication and consumer impact (What impact does the food waste communication have on consumer purchase decisions).

In line 352-353 the authors mention "companies rated ... as moderately effective". Here the authors should provide more information. How is "moderately effective" being defined? It would be helpful to get more information on the research that the authors did before.

From what I can read, it looks like that the authors' previous research (reference 17) provides the answers we are looking for in this manuscript.

While ref. 17 article of the authors provide a clear contribution to the academic field, the presented study lacks this contribution.

The presented information could nicely be presented in a commercial article for the food processing industry or in a blog.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is ok. Some minor grammar mistakes.