Challenges of Implementing Sustainability Benchmarks in Wine Cooperative

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work of dr. Marques et al. presents the challenges of implementing sustainability benchmarks in wine cooperative by analysing 15 winegrowers from a cooperative winery in the Douro region, Portugal. This was done  by means of a survey drawn up in accordance with the sustainability indicators considered relevant by the main references focusing on the National Sustainability Certification Benchmark for the Wine 20 Sector (RNCSV) in Portugal. The manuscript is clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner.

The survey design appropriate to test the hypothesis although the study revealed some weaknesses, which prevented the authors from obtaining enough data to analyse the quantities of herbicides, fungicides and insecticides used, and how some crop operations were carried out, whether by hand or mechanically. Another challenge was the lack of work systematization, which resulted in an inability to collect comprehensive records. 

However the Portuguese farmers have shown a high level of awareness of the correct application of agricultural practices that prioritise the maintenance of natural resources, in particular the maintenance of cover crops and water management. 

The figures are appropriate, showing properly the data and being easy to interpret and understand, but before publishing their resolution should be increased for a better visualisation.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the positive and constructive comments.
To assist the review process, the most substantial revisions to the manuscript have been highlighted in blue. Minor edits - such as corrections to wording, grammar, or formatting - are not marked, allowing the focus to remain on the most significant content changes.

Q1: Weakness in data collection on pesticide quantities and mode of crop operations (manual vs mechanized)

A: This point is well taken and has been explicitly addressed in the revised manuscript. In the Discussion section, we now clarify that the lack of formal record-keeping among many producers posed a limitation to collecting detailed information on pesticide use and mechanization of crop operations. This limitation has also been acknowledged in the Conclusions section. As a result, we have already improved the survey tool for future use to allow for more consistent data collection and plan to include these dimensions in future studies.

Q2: Lack of work systematization preventing comprehensive records

A: We agree with the reviewer. This issue is now further discussed in the manuscript as a structural challenge particularly common among family-run farms, which represent the majority of the sample. Their informal organizational practices have hindered the systematic documentation of field activities, a topic which is now more clearly linked to their underperformance in sustainability assessments.

Q3: Positive note on farmers' awareness of sustainable practices

A: We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of this point. The manuscript now further emphasizes this awareness in both the Results and Discussion sections, particularly in relation to inter-row vegetation cover and reduced herbicide use, which reflect environmentally conscious practices.

Q4: Figure resolution

A: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The resolution of all figures has been enhanced to ensure better clarity and visual quality for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

After reviewing the manuscript, my recommendations are:

The abstract is generally appropriate for a scientific publication, but it may be improved in several areas, including clarity and organisation.

 The introduction provides sufficient information for non-specialist readers to comprehend the study's significance, particularly in terms regarding sustainability and the wine business. However, with a tighter organisation, better transitions, and simpler language, it may be far more successful and accessible to a wider scientific audience.

Materials and Methods

The methods employed in this study are generally suitable and in line with its declared objectives; but, in order to improve the study's scientific rigour and credibility, a number of significant factors and constraints should be recognised or addressed in more detail.

Small Sample Size: 16 Respondents (10% of Members); the small sample size restricts generalisation, statistical power, and the capacity to run inferential statistical tests.
This hybrid approach, which involved answering the survey by email but in person, may induce bias, particularly if the interviewer's presence affected the respondents' answers.

Although the indicators are benchmark-based, nothing is said about how they were evaluated, weighted, or if each indication is equally important.

The results are not contextualised by comparative analysis (e.g., other areas, non-cooperative growers).

Retrospective data for the 2022–2023 wine years was gathered in 2024. Details may not be precisely recalled by respondents.

Statistical analysis

Regressions, correlation coefficients, hypothesis testing, and multivariate analysis are not mentioned. These would give better insight into which variables substantially affect sustainability results.
Just 10% of participants were polled. This might restrict statistical power, depending on the size of the population.

Self-reported information may be skewed; neither triangulation nor field observation provide any indication of validity.

It is crucial for the sort of study that the statistical section indicates whether the variables are continuous, ordinal, or categorical.

Results

Although the results are given in a suitable style and are described rather effectively, their efficacy is diminished by a number of clarity and structural problems.

Clarity is constrained by a number of grammatical errors and unusual wording (for example, "Tried to ensure…" should be "We tried to ensure…").

Although descriptive statistics, such as medians and ranges, are given, there are no descriptions of visual summaries of variability, such as boxplots or standard deviations in figures.
Though they are true, statements like "this may be due to outliers" or "the data may be influenced by reduced number of observations" should preferably be backed up by certain statistical indicators (e.g., sample size, outlier detection, interquartile range).

Although inferential statistics, such as correlations or tests of significance, may not be required for a descriptive research, their absence restricts the depth of analysis.

Discussions

Certain assertions are made without sufficient citation or critical analysis of the literature. For instance:
The statement "Family-run farms underperform due to informal structures" (lines 404–408) could be accurate, however it might be strengthened with a reference or theoretical framework that addresses informal economies or the difficulties faced by SMEs in the agricultural sector.
Without survey-based attitudinal data or certification incentive literature, the notion that Integrated Production certification is financially driven (lines 413–414) is tenable but conjectural.

The sole mitigation in lines 451–454 is a recommendation for more clarification; however it raises questions regarding claimed fungicide/insecticide use. Practices that are most likely to be underreported should be examined as a restriction and described using examples drawn from the research on the reliability of self-reporting in agricultural surveys.

Although the paper admits that its sample size is limited to 3.3% (lines 397–398, 465–468), it nevertheless draws strong conclusions (such as "family-run farms underperform") that would need further evidence to support. To support exploratory findings, a quick mention of sampling theory or qualitative validation techniques may be helpful.

Citing sustainability studies that are relevant to winemaking in Mediterranean or Iberian contexts might greatly enhance the discussion of environmental impacts (such as cover crops, pesticide usage, and greenhouse gas emissions). The literature on these subjects is extensive.

Conclusions

Although the supporting evidence is ambiguous, this is a compelling claim. The definition of "conventional" and the methodology used to arrive at this number are not explained in detail. It could not be statistically accurate if it is based on a tiny sample (3.3% of the population).

 References

The literature reviewed in this study is extensive and fairly balanced, including essential areas of viticulture sustainability such as environmental impact assessment, cooperative structures, certification, and developing agricultural methods.

See comments on text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language can be improved for more clarity of some sentences.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the positive and constructive comments.
To assist the review process, the most substantial revisions to the manuscript have been highlighted in blue. Minor edits - such as corrections to wording, grammar, or formatting - are not marked, allowing the focus to remain on the most significant content changes.

Q1: Weakness in data collection on pesticide quantities and mode of crop operations (manual vs mechanized)

A: This point is well taken and has been explicitly addressed in the revised manuscript. In the Discussion section, we now clarify that the lack of formal record-keeping among many producers posed a limitation to collecting detailed information on pesticide use and the mechanization of crop operations. This limitation has also been acknowledged in the Conclusions section. As a result, we have improved the survey tool for future use to allow for more consistent data collection and plan to include these dimensions in subsequent research.

Q2: Improve figure resolution for better visualization

A: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The resolution of all figures has been improved in the revised manuscript to ensure better clarity and visual presentation of the data.

Q3: Limited sample size and statistical generalization

A: We agree with the reviewer that the small sample size limits statistical generalizability. This limitation is now explicitly addressed in the revised Discussion section. However, the sample includes winegrowers responsible for approximately 21% of the total grape volume delivered to the winery, encompassing a diverse range of vineyard sizes and operational profiles. As noted in the manuscript, this heterogeneity supports robust intra-sample comparisons and provides a valid foundation for exploratory analysis. These aspects are now clarified to emphasize the representativeness and exploratory nature of the study.

 

 

Q4: Potential bias from hybrid survey approach and self-reported data

A: This is an important point and has been addressed in the revised Discussion section. We acknowledge that self-reported data may introduce bias and that the presence of an interviewer may have influenced some responses. Although some responses were informally verified via field visits and cooperative records, we did not conduct systematic triangulation or observational validation. This limitation is now clearly noted, and future studies are planned to include triangulation methods to enhance data reliability.

Q5: Clarification on indicator weighting and evaluation criteria

A: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this omission. A clarifying paragraph has been added to the Materials and Methods section explaining that all indicators were treated with equal weight in this exploratory phase. The intention was to collect baseline data across all areas of the RNCSSV framework, without applying differentiated weights or scoring. Future research may introduce weighting mechanisms based on expert consultation or empirical validation.

Q6: Lack of comparative analysis and contextualisation with literature

A: We appreciate this constructive comment. In the revised Discussion section, we now highlight the need for future comparative studies, both with non-cooperative growers and with producers in other wine regions, nationally and internationally. We also added references to studies in Mediterranean viticulture contexts where applicable, particularly regarding cover crops, pesticide use, and water management practices. This strengthens the contextualization of our findings.

Q7: Limitations due to retrospective data collection

A: We agree that retrospective data collection may introduce recall bias. This limitation is now acknowledged in the Discussion section. While the delay between the 2022–2023 campaign and the 2024 survey was relatively short, we recognize that some detailed operational records were not available or fully recalled, and this has been noted accordingly.

Q8: Lack of inferential statistical analysis and variable classification

A: This point is well taken. In the revised Results section, we now clearly indicate which variables were treated as continuous, ordinal, or categorical, and describe the corresponding statistical treatment applied (i.e., descriptive statistics only). We also explain that inferential statistical methods—such as regression or hypothesis testing—were intentionally avoided due to the small sample size and exploratory nature of the study. Future work with larger datasets will include multivariate and inferential techniques to enhance analytical depth.

Q9: Need for stronger justification and citations for claims

A: We appreciate this observation. In the revised manuscript, these claims have been reframed in more cautious and exploratory terms. For example, the statement regarding underperformance of family-run farms is now presented as a trend observed within the dataset and not a generalized conclusion. We also added references to relevant literature addressing informal organizational structures in agriculture and motivations for certification adoption, to provide additional support.

Q10: Clarification on the term “conventional” and its statistical basis

A: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the Conclusions section to clarify the use of the term “conventional,” specifying that it refers to viticultural practices that do not follow organic or biodynamic guidelines and are not certified under alternative schemes. We also explain that figures based on a small sample size should be interpreted as indicative and exploratory, rather than statistically representative of the entire population.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors should increase the percentage of answered questionaries or conduct personal interviews to approve the number of cooperative members involved in this study.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Spelling, phrases, and abbreviations should checked. 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the positive and constructive comments.
To assist the review process, the most substantial revisions to the manuscript have been highlighted in blue. Minor edits - such as corrections to wording, grammar, or formatting - are not marked, allowing the focus to remain on the most significant content changes.

Q1: Row 60 – “phytopharmaceuticals”, I guess the authors mean synthetic chemicals in plant protection.

A: We agree with the reviewer. To improve clarity, we added a clarification in the Introduction where the term first appears. It now reads: “…restrictions on the use of phytopharmaceuticals (i.e., synthetic plant protection chemicals such as herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides).”

Q2: Row 103 – “SDGs”, if an abbreviation first appears in the text it is better to write out the whole name (Sustainable Development Goals).

A: Thank you for pointing this out. The term has been revised at its first occurrence to read: “Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).”

Q3: Row 118 – What it means RNSSV?

A: We thank the reviewer for noting this issue. It appears this was a typographical error. The correct acronym is RNCSSV (Referencial Nacional de Certificação de Sustentabilidade do Setor Vitivinícola). All occurrences have been reviewed to ensure consistency throughout the manuscript.

Q4: Materials and Methods – Authors do not mention how many growers of the cooperative were involved. Was it representative?

A: This important point is now explicitly addressed in the “Materials and Methods” section. The text reads: “Although the sample includes only 16 winegrowers (approximately 3.3% of the cooperative's membership), they account for around 21% of the total grape volume delivered to the winery. The sample was selected to reflect the operational diversity of the membership—encompassing family-run, micro, and small enterprises—thus ensuring internal representativeness despite the limited size.”

Q5: Rows 127–132 – This section should be moved to the end of the introduction and merged with its last section.

A: This suggestion has been implemented. The paragraph describing the objective and approach of the study (previously at the start of the Materials and Methods section) was relocated and integrated into the final section of the Introduction to improve logical flow and structure.

Q6: Row 159 – Soil management missing from the processes; unclear what kind of phytopharmaceuticals are outputs.

A: As mentioned earlier, we have clarified this in the revised manuscript. The updated text now reads: “…inputs (e.g., fuel, fertilizers), processes (e.g., soil management, tillage, pesticide application), and outputs (e.g., emissions, crop yield, residues from phytopharmaceuticals).” This revision explicitly addresses the reviewer’s concerns.

Q7: Results – 16 respondents out of 486 winegrowers are not representative; results are just the opinion of the authors.

A: We acknowledge the limitations associated with the sample size. The Discussion section now explicitly addresses this concern: “Despite the internal coherence of the dataset, its relatively small size and localized scope (n = 16; 3.3% of the members) limit the statistical generalizability of the findings. Nevertheless, this methodological constraint is mitigated by the strong internal consistency of responses and the diversity represented within the sample. The 16 winegrowers surveyed account for approximately 21% of the total grape volume delivered to the winery, encompassing a wide range of vineyard sizes and operational profiles.” We also clarified that the study adopts a descriptive and exploratory analytical approach, avoiding overinterpretation and aiming to establish a basis for future research with larger and more representative samples.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigates the capacity of winegrowers from a Douro wine cooperative to meet sustainability benchmark requirements, particularly the RNCSV standard. Through a survey-based methodology, the authors assess viticultural practices and readiness for certification. While the topic is timely and relevant, the study needs significant improvements in clarity, methodological depth, and scientific rigor.

1. The novelty of the study is not clearly stated. Although the topic is of current interest, the specific contribution of this research to the existing literature is not evident. Explicitly state the originality and innovative aspects of the study at the end of the Introduction. Clarify how this work advances previous research.

2. The visual elements (Figures 1–10) suffer from low resolution, inconsistent formatting, and in some cases lack clarity in legends or labels. Some figures are difficult to interpret, and overlapping elements reduce readability.

3. Details about sampling criteria, questionnaire validation, and response rate should be better specified to assess the robustness of the survey.

4. The Discussion section remains mostly descriptive and lacks a deep analytical comparison with existing literature. The findings are not thoroughly contextualized within the broader field of sustainable viticulture. Expand the discussion by comparing the survey outcomes with relevant international studies on sustainability indicators in wine cooperatives (e.g., Merli et al. 2018; Trigo et al. 2023). Discuss the implications of differences or similarities.

5. The Conclusions section needs to be completely revised. It currently reiterates general findings without identifying the key results or reflecting critically on the limitations of the study.

6. The literature review could be significantly strengthened by incorporating recent and relevant studies that address similar sustainability certification challenges. Include the following references to improve the framing of the state of the art: 10.3390/SU12156279, 10.3389/fpls.2022.949537

7. Use consistent abbreviations for benchmarks (e.g., RNCSV), grape varieties, and statistical terms.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language must be improved

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the positive and constructive comments.
To assist the review process, the most substantial revisions to the manuscript have been highlighted in blue. Minor edits - such as corrections to wording, grammar, or formatting - are not marked, allowing the focus to remain on the most significant content changes.

Q1: The novelty of the study is not clearly stated. Although the topic is of current interest, the specific contribution of this research to the existing literature is not evident.

A: We agree with the reviewer. A new paragraph was added at the end of the Introduction to explicitly state the originality of the work. The study’s novelty lies in applying the RNCSSV benchmark in a cooperative winery context—a setting where small-scale producers are often underrepresented in sustainability assessments. This approach fills a gap in empirical research on the readiness of cooperative members for sustainability certification in Portugal.

 Q2: The visual elements (Figures 1–10) suffer from low resolution, inconsistent formatting, and in some cases lack clarity in legends or labels.

A: Thank you for the observation. All figures have been revised to ensure high resolution, consistent formatting, and clarity in legends and axis labels. Overlapping or unclear elements were adjusted to improve interpretability and visual quality.

 Q3: Details about sampling criteria, questionnaire validation, and response rate should be better specified.

A: This information has been clarified in the “Materials and Methods” section. The sample represents 3.3% of cooperative members but accounts for 21% of grape volume. The survey was distributed to members selected for their diversity in vineyard size and organizational structure. The questionnaire was developed using validated sustainability indicators (RNCSSV, OIV, CSW) and pre-tested internally to ensure clarity and consistency.

Q4: The Discussion section remains mostly descriptive and lacks a deep analytical comparison with existing literature.

A: We appreciate this important suggestion. The Discussion was expanded and now includes comparisons with recent international studies, such as Merli et al. (2018) and Trigo et al. (2023), as recommended. These comparisons contextualize our findings, highlighting consistencies and divergences, particularly in the adoption of sustainability practices and structural limitations of family-run enterprises.

 Q5: The Conclusions section needs to be completely revised.

A: The Conclusions were rewritten to emphasize the main findings of the study, identify key limitations (e.g., small sample size, self-reported data), and suggest future directions. It now includes a reflection on the performance gap between family-based and more structured enterprises and emphasizes the need for simple tools and training to support the sustainability transition in cooperatives.

 Q6: The literature review could be significantly strengthened by incorporating recent and relevant studies. Include: 10.3390/SU12156279, 10.3389/fpls.2022.949537.

A: These references were included in the revised manuscript to strengthen the theoretical framing and align the work with recent contributions to sustainable viticulture. They are cited in both the Introduction and Discussion sections.

Q7: Use consistent abbreviations for benchmarks (e.g., RNCSV), grape varieties, and statistical terms.

A: We carefully reviewed the manuscript to ensure consistent use of all abbreviations, acronyms, and technical terms, including RNCSV/RNCSSV, grape varieties, and measurement units such as kg/ha and L/ton.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for implementing my suggestions into the paper. The authors made an effort to correct the paper and improve its scientific value. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be considered for publication