The Role of Absorptive Capacity in Driving Innovation in Valencian Fruit and Vegetable Cooperatives
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAnalysis of Absorptive Capacity as a Driver of Innovation in Cooperatives and Agricultural Enterprises. The case of the Valencian Region in Spain
Review
- The title of article “Analysis of Absorptive Capacity as a Driver of Innovation in Cooperatives and Agricultural Enterprises. The case of the Valencian Region in Spain” but interviewed only “fruit and vegetable cooperatives and companies,”. And the representativeness of the sample is explained by the turnover share. “this is the agrifood sector with the highest turnover in the region. 262 Its turnover represents 57.2% of the total turnover of the agrifood sector in the Valencia 263 Region.”
This sample selection methodology may not be statistically representative of the entire Valencia region. Therefore, the statistical margin of error and confidence interval should also be stated for the entire Valencia region.
- While the study states that both qualitative and quantitative methods were used, no quantitative analyses were included, except for individual responses from some participants. Therefore, no quantitative conclusions, such as the prevalence of certain capacities, were presented.
- Again, the sample selection indicates that the companies and cooperatives interviewed are relatively large-scale, highly integrated with the market, have educated employees, and demonstrate technological advancements and “no major differences are observed between them”.
In this case, the interviews will naturally present similar results, and the probability of encountering different situations will be low.
And, it is natural that these institutions are more innovative than smaller firms and family-farming enterprises. However, such relatively small-scale enterprises are not included in the study.
- One of the important findings of the research is as follows. However, evidence or explanations regarding this finding are not included in the study. “ However, this sector is facing increasing pressures, such as competition from products from third countries and the dominance of large distribution chains. This competition has raised costs without increasing producer incomes.”
Moreover, if there is a relationship between this situation and innovation capacity, it is not included.
- The findings are certainly valuable as long as they are limited to the firms and cooperatives interviewed. However, the failure to present results consistent with statistical criteria and the methodology employed is a significant shortcoming.
Author Response
Comments and Responses:
Comment 1: The title of article “Analysis of Absorptive Capacity as a Driver of Innovation in Cooperatives and Agricultural Enterprises. The case of the Valencian Region in Spain” but interviewed only “fruit and vegetable cooperatives and companies,”. And the representativeness of the sample is explained by the turnover share. “this is the agrifood sector with the highest turnover in the region. 262 Its turnover represents 57.2% of the total turnover of the agrifood sector in the Valencia 263 Region.”
This sample selection methodology may not be statistically representative of the entire Valencia region. Therefore, the statistical margin of error and confidence interval should also be stated for the entire Valencia region.
Response comment 1: Thanks for your comprehensive review. Following your suggestion, we have clarified the scope of the study and expanded the methodological explanation of the sample. The revised manuscript now explicitly states that the research focuses on the horticultural subsector (60 fruit and vegetable cooperatives and agrifood enterprises) which represents 57.2% of the agrifood turnover in the Valencian Region. Therefore, the statistical representativeness applies to this defined subsector rather than to the entire regional agrifood sector.
We have also added the full calculation of the sampling error, including the finite population correction, resulting in a margin of error of ±19.4% at the 90% confidence level. A sampling flow diagram has been incorporated for greater transparency.
In addition, the limitations of the study, has been expanded to acknowledge that the results cannot be generalised beyond the horticultural subsector and that the study remains exploratory due to the small population size and voluntary participation.
Lines in the new manuscript version: 279-285; 302-318; 655-672.
Comment 2: While the study states that both qualitative and quantitative methods were used, no quantitative analyses were included, except for individual responses from some participants. Therefore, no quantitative conclusions, such as the prevalence of certain capacities, were presented.
Response comment 2: Thanks for your valuable comment. We have clarified the role of the quantitative component in the “Materials and Methods” section. As the study is exploratory and the population size of fruit-and-vegetable cooperatives in the Valencian Region is small (N = 60), the quantitative data were used in a descriptive and instrumental way, rather than for inferential purposes. Our aim was not to estimate population-level prevalence, but to identify patterns across the four absorptive capacity dimensions, and to triangulate these patterns with the qualitative evidence obtained through semi-structured interviews (Cochran, 1977; Levy & Lemeshow, 2013; Zahra & George, 2002).
Lines in the new manuscript version: 263-267.
Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have now added a quantitative descriptive table in Results, summarising the number and proportion of cooperatives that exhibit each absorptive capacity characteristic (acquisition, assimilation, transformation, exploitation). This strengthens the transparency of the empirical evidence and clarifies the contribution of the quantitative component.
Lines in the new manuscript version: 577-583; 585.
Comment 3: Again, the sample selection indicates that the companies and cooperatives interviewed are relatively large-scale, highly integrated with the market, have educated employees, and demonstrate technological advancements and “no major differences are observed between them”.
In this case, the interviews will naturally present similar results, and the probability of encountering different situations will be low.
And, it is natural that these institutions are more innovative than smaller firms and family-farming enterprises. However, such relatively small-scale enterprises are not included in the study.
Response comment 3: Thanks to the reviewer for this insightful comment. We fully agree that the characteristics of the organisations analysed (medium to large cooperatives and agrifood enterprises) lead to a relatively homogeneous profile regarding professionalisation, market integration and technological development. This is not a methodological flaw but a deliberate scoping choice inherent to our research question.
Our objective was to examine absorptive capacity in organisations that operate collectively, have formal governance structures, and participate in cooperative or integrated supply chains, rather than in small individual farms. The population frame of this study is therefore not “the whole agricultural sector”, but the set of fruit-and-vegetable cooperatives and companies registered in the regional agrifood association, which explicitly excludes individual family farms.
These organisations are responsible for the majority of regional turnover (57.2%), play a central role in coordinating production and innovation across growers, and constitute the segment where absorptive capacity can be most clearly observed as an organisational capability, as defined by Cohen & Levinthal (1990) and Zahra & George (2002). In contrast, small individual growers often lack the organisational routines, internal structures or knowledge-management mechanisms required for absorptive capacity to be meaningfully measured as a firm-level construct.
Nevertheless, we have added a paragraph to the Matherials & Methods and as limitation in Conclusions section acknowledging this scoping decision and clarifying that future research should extend the analysis to small-scale family farms to provide a more comprehensive view of absorptive capacity across the agricultural ecosystem.
Lines in the new manuscript version: 289-292; 678-682.
Comment 4: One of the important findings of the research is as follows. However, evidence or explanations regarding this finding are not included in the study. “However, this sector is facing increasing pressures, such as competition from products from third countries and the dominance of large distribution chains. This competition has raised costs without increasing producer incomes.” Moreover, if there is a relationship between this situation and innovation capacity, it is not included.
Response comment 4: Thank you very much for this valuable comment. We agree that this statement should be explicitly supported by evidence within the manuscript. This phenomenon is well documented in official EU and Spanish agrifood reports. To address the reviewer’s concern, we have added two brief references in the Introduction to justify this contextual assertion. Specifically, we now highlight cite:
- EC (2024). European Commission. Common Agricultural Policy – Annual Performance Report.
- OSCAE (2022). Socio-economic Report 2021: Spanish Agrifood Cooperativism. Ministerio de Trabajo y Economía Social.
Lines in the new manuscript version: 30 -36.
Furthermore, this interpretation is consistent with the arguments developed in the Discussion section (see lines: 610-630 in the new version).
Comment 5: “If there is a relationship between this situation (market pressure, rising costs, low producer income) and the capacity for innovation, it is not included in the study.”
Response comment 5: Thank you for this important observation. We agree that the link between market pressures and innovation capacity should be explicitly stated. This relationship is indeed relevant to the study and aligns with the theoretical foundations of absorptive capacity.
To address this, we have added a short explanatory paragraph in the Introduction clarifying that increased competitive pressure from large retail chains and third-country imports structurally affects cooperatives’ ability to invest in innovation. These pressures increase the need for external knowledge acquisition but simultaneously limit financial margins, which can constrain assimilation and transformation capabilities. This theoretical link is consistent with absorptive capacity literature, which emphasises that environmental turbulence and resource constraints shape firms’ ability to convert potential absorptive capacity into realised innovation (Zahra & George, 2002).
Lines in the new manuscript version: 37- 45
Comment 6: The findings are certainly valuable as long as they are limited to the firms and cooperatives interviewed. However, the failure to present results consistent with statistical criteria and the methodology employed is a significant shortcoming.
Response comment 6: Thanks to reviewer for this helpful observation. To ensure full coherence between the statistical criteria and the methodology used, we have made the following clarifications and minor adjustments in the manuscript:
- We now explicitly state the population frame (60 cooperatives/companies from the regional association) and clarify that the study does not aim to generalise beyond this organisational segment.
- The role of the quantitative component has been clarified: it was used in a descriptive and supportive manner, consistent with the exploratory nature of the study and the small population size.
- We have added the margin of error calculation (±19.4% at 90% confidence), which explains why inferential statistical conclusions were not appropriate.
- We strengthened the conceptual link between sector pressures and innovation/absorptive capacity and added supporting references (EC, 2024; OSCAE, 2022).
- The Limitations section now explicitly acknowledges the restricted scope of the sample and the limited potential for statistical generalisation.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease refer to the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments and Responses:
Comment 1: Line 23, "absorption capacity"
Our comments: The authors used "absorption capacity" 10 times, and "absorptive capacity" 65 times.
We suggest that "absorption capacity" changes to "absorptive capacity".
This sample selection methodology may not be statistically representative of the entire Valencia region. Therefore, the statistical margin of error and confidence interval should also be stated for the entire Valencia region.
Response comment 1: Thanks for your suggestion. The change was made in all cases.
Comment 2: Line 55, "no studies addressing absorptive capacity in agricultural organisations."
Our comments: Lines 148-150, " In any case, as Maté-Sánchez-Val and Harris (2018) show in the case of the Spanish agrifood sector, proximity 149 is more relevant for the development of absorptive capacity." "no" may revise to "few".
Response comment 2: Thanks for your suggestion. The change was made (LINE: 68 in the new manuscript)
Comment 3: Line 59, "The quantitative statistical analysis enables us to make a confirmatory study."
Our comments: We cannot find any quantitative analysis in this manuscript.
Response comment 3: Thanks for your valuable comment. We have clarified the role of the quantitative component in the “Materials and Methods” section. As the study is exploratory and the population size of fruit-and-vegetable cooperatives in the Valencian Region is small (N = 60), the quantitative data were used in a descriptive and instrumental way, rather than for inferential purposes. Our aim was not to estimate population-level prevalence, but to identify patterns across the four absorptive capacity dimensions, and to triangulate these patterns with the qualitative evidence obtained through semi-structured interviews (Cochran, 1977; Levy & Lemeshow, 2013; Zahra & George, 2002).
LINES in the new manuscript: 263-267.
Comment 4: Line 65, "and conclusions are presented in Section 6."
Our comments: Line 506, "5. Conclusions". The authors concluded their paper in Section 5.
Response comment 4: Sorry by my mistake. The number and title were changed. “6. Discussions and Conclusions” in order to organize better the paper.
Comment 5: Line 297, Table 2, "CA potential, assimilation" and "CA realised, transformation"
Our comments: "CA" is not defined.
Response comment 5: This is my mistake, so sorry. We had added the definition in same text (now Table 4. LINE in the new manuscript: 351-352)
Comment 6: Line 298, "*Source: Own ellaboration."
Our comments: "ellaboration" should be revised to "elaboration".
Response comment 6: Sorry for my mistake. The mistake was corrected. (LINE:352 in the new manuscript)
Comment 7: Line 300, "5. Results"
Our comments: Line 506, "5. Conclusions". "5. Conclusions" should be revised to "6. Conclusions".
Response comment 7: Thanks for your suggestion. The number and title were changed. “6. Discussions and Conclusions” in order to organize better the paper (LINE: 588 in the new manuscript)
Comment 8: Lines 301-303, "Interviews were conducted face-to-face in five cases and by videoconference in ten cases with representatives from nine cooperatives (C) and five companies in the agricultural sector (E)."
Our comments: five + ten =15
Response comment 8: This was my mistake. Number of cases were corrected to 14 (See LINE:293-294 in the new manuscript)
Comment 9: Line 307, Table 3, there are 14 numbers in the first column. "C10" is disappeared.
Response comment 9: The correction was made. They are 14. (Now Table 3, LINE: 299 in the new manuscript)
Comment 10: Line 560, "6. Patents"
Our comments: The authors should remove "6. Patents".
Response comment 10: We remove “6. Patents”
Comment 11: Lines 568-569, "Abbreviations"
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
MDPI Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
DOAJ Directory of open access journals
TLA Three letter acronym
LD Linear dichroism
Our comments: these four abbreviations are not used in your manuscript.
Response comment 11: So, sorry. The abbreviations were changed (See LINE:293 in the new manuscript)
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The topic of this research is very interesting. Specifically, the study examines the absorption of knowledge and its application to technological innovations in agri-food cooperatives. However, there are some weaknesses in the article that should be addressed by the authors in order for it to be re-evaluated for possible publication. Below I provide some comments per section, with the aim of improving the manuscript:
1)Title: The title of the article is too long; it should be shortened. It is also recommended that there be no separation of the two sentences in the title with a full stop.
2)Abstract: In the abstract, it is recommended not to use the first-person plural but to state what has been done in the study and not the researchers. For example: In this study it was analyzed etc.
3) Introduction:
-The introduction section should be expanded.
-In the introduction, interesting facts have been mentioned but there is no use of bibliographic references. It is crucial that these be added in order to substantiate what is stated.
-In the fourth paragraph from the end of this section, you attempt to address the gap in the literature and the contribution of your research to it. It should be clear which studies you are referring to and you should specifically mention them.
4) Theoretical Framework:
In this section, I would suggest improving the writing style as much as possible. It seems to be listing various studies in chronological order and what they show. I would recommend that it seems to be comparing their results with each other.
5) Empirical Framework:
-This specific section could become a subsection of the theoretical framework, so as to adhere to the structure of the article, as suggested by the journal's guidelines.
-More information should be provided about the specific case study and enriched with bibliographic references.
6) Materials and Methods
-In this section, the aim and objectives of the study could be defined.
-It is suggested to create a table showing the stakeholders to whom the questionnaire was distributed and their response rate. This will make the article more readable and understandable.
-Decide whether table 3 should be moved to this specific section and take the form I suggested above.
7) Results
-I would suggest that the first paragraph in the results section be moved to the Materials and Methods section.
-I think that a better presentation of the results should be considered, such as using some graphs. The way the results are presented makes it difficult for the reader to follow the flow.
8) Conclusions
-It is critical to add a discussion section to the manuscript.
-In conclusions, bibliographic references are not usually used. Comparison of your results with the results of other research should be done in the discussion section.
- The conclusions should state the limitations of the study, as well as future directions for research.
Author Response
Comments and Responses:
Comment 1: The topic of this research is very interesting. Specifically, the study examines the absorption of knowledge and its application to technological innovations in agri-food cooperatives. However, there are some weaknesses in the article that should be addressed by the authors in order for it to be re-evaluated for possible publication. Below I provide some comments per section, with the aim of improving the manuscript:
Response comment 1: Thank you very much for your kind consideration regarding our research. Below are the corrections to your comments, point by point.
Comment 2: Title: The title of the article is too long; it should be shortened. It is also recommended that there be no separation of the two sentences in the title with a full stop.
Response comment 2: Thanks for your suggestion. We propose a shorter version of the title:
The Role of Absorptive Capacity in Driving Innovation in Valencian Fruit and Vegetable Cooperatives.
Comment 3: Abstract: In the abstract, it is recommended not to use the first-person plural but to state what has been done in the study and not the researchers. For example: In this study it was analyzed etc.
Response comment 3: Thanks for your suggestion. The changes were made in the paper (not only in the abstract).
Comment 4: Introduction:
- The introduction section should be expanded.
- In the introduction, interesting facts have been mentioned but there is no use of bibliographic references. It is crucial that these be added in order to substantiate what is stated.
- In the fourth paragraph from the end of this section, you attempt to address the gap in the literature and the contribution of your research to it. It should be clear which studies you are referring to and you should specifically mention them.
Response comment 4: Thanks for your valuable analysis.
- The introduction was expanded in order to give more consistency to the proposal
- Some references are added. To address the reviewer’s concern, we have added two brief references in the Introduction to justify this contextual assertion. Specifically, we now highlight cite: (EC, 2024) and (OSCAE, 2022).
Furthermore, we have added a short explanatory paragraph in the Introduction clarifying that increased competitive pressure from large retail chains and third-country imports structurally affects cooperatives’ ability to invest in innovation. These pressures increase the need for external knowledge acquisition but simultaneously limit financial margins, which can constrain assimilation and transformation capabilities. This theoretical link is consistent with absorptive capacity literature, which emphasises that environmental turbulence and resource constraints shape firms’ ability to convert potential absorptive capacity into realised innovation (Zahra & George, 2002).
You can find this changes at LINES: 34, 45 in the new manuscript
c. Some references are added to give supports to the sentences. The paragraph with the references highlighted can be found below:
"There has also been an increase in consumer demand for organic, local, fairer and healthier food from local producers, which is marketed through short sales channels. The highly competitive agrifood environment forces cooperatives to constantly introduce new technologies and innovations in order to maintain their market position (Melià-Martí et al., 2024). There are two ways in which an organisation can introduce new technologies and innovations: by creating new knowledge internally or by acquiring it from outside (López and Oliver, 2023). However, most cooperatives lack the resources to establish an R&D department or generate such knowledge internally. Consequently, they must be able to acquire knowledge from external sources in order to implement modern technologies and innovations (Sama-Berrocal & Corchuelo-Martinez-Arzua, 2023). Thus, knowledge acquisition is one of the key factors for innovative organisations. However, knowledge is not a commodity that can simply be bought. It must be absorbed and internalised by the people within the organisation. This is why it is necessary to analyse organisations' capacity to absorb knowledge and innovate by adopting new technologies, processes, organisational structures and marketing methods. Most research on absorptive capacity has focused on technology companies, with few studies addressing absorptive capacity in agricultural organisations (Micheels & Nolan, 2016; Xie et al., 2018)."
Comment 5: Theoretical Framework: In this section, I would suggest improving the writing style as much as possible. It seems to be listing various studies in chronological order and what they show. I would recommend that it seems to be comparing their results with each other.
Response comment 5: Thanks for your suggestion. Has been reviewed writing style and reviewed references contributions and reinforced in discussions.
Comment 6: Empirical Framework:
6 a. This specific section could become a subsection of the theoretical framework, so as to adhere to the structure of the article, as suggested by the journal's guidelines.
Response comment 6 a: Thanks for your suggestion. The Journal’s guidelines were toke into account and Empirical Framework was integrated in Theoretical Framework.
6 b. More information should be provided about the specific case study and enriched with bibliographic references.
Response comment 6 b: Thanks for your suggestion. The references were reviewed as possible and added information abaut the specific case study.
Comment 7: Materials and Methods
7 a. In this section, the aim and objectives of the study could be defined.
Response comment 7 a: Thanks for your suggestion. The aim and objectives were added.
LINES in the new manuscript: 256-257
7 b. It is suggested to create a table showing the stakeholders to whom the questionnaire was distributed and their response rate. This will make the article more readable and understandable.
Response comment 7 b: Thanks for your suggestion. The clarifying table was added. The added Table 2 can be found in LINE: 287 in teh new manuscript.
7 c. Decide whether table 3 should be moved to this specific section and take the form I suggested above.
Response comment 7 c: Thanks for your suggestion. The table was changed to Material and Method.
The Table 3 can be found in LINE: 299 in the new manuscript
Comment 8: Results
8 a. I would suggest that the first paragraph in the results section be moved to the Materials and Methods section.
Response comment 8 c: Thanks for your suggestion. We moved to the Materials and Methods Section.
LINES in the new manuscript: 293-297
8 b. I think that a better presentation of the results should be considered, such as using some graphs. The way the results are presented makes it difficult for the reader to follow the flow.
Response comment 8 b: Thanks for your suggestion. we have now added a quantitative descriptive table summarising the number and proportion of cooperatives that exhibit each absorptive capacity characteristic (acquisition, assimilation, transformation, exploitation). This strengthens the transparency of the empirical evidence and clarifies the contribution of the quantitative component.
The Table 3 can be found in LINES: 567-586 in the new manuscript
Comment 9: Conclusions
9 a. It is critical to add a discussion section to the manuscript.
Response comment 9 a: Thanks for your suggestion. Has been added discussion in first part of Section 6. Discussions and Conclusions. Here were compared the referenced authors theories with result of our research.
LINES: 589-630 in the new manuscript
9 b. In conclusions, bibliographic references are not usually used. Comparison of your results with the results of other research should be done in the discussion section.
Response comment 9 b: Thanks for your detailed review. We follow your recommendation.
9 c. The conclusions should state the limitations of the study, as well as future directions for research.
Response comment 9 b: Thanks for your detailed review. We follow your recommendation.
LINES: 655-672 and 678-682 in the new manuscript
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the improvements you have made to your work in response to the criticisms. As you pointed out, the work still has some limitations. I believe that, with the editor's final decision, the work can be published in its current form, and I hope you can address these shortcomings in your future research.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have revised their article, based on my comments. The manuscript is currently in publishable form.
