Sustainable Innovation Management Model (MGI) for Agro-Industrial Citrus Chain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The data presented in the article have not been properly organized. The manner of presentation is chaotic and, although the article addresses an important issue, the way it is presented does not meet the standards of the Journal and should be revised. Tables (e.g., 6, 7, 9 – lines 366, 383, 430, and most others) are poorly formatted within the article. The phrasing in the tables is inconsistent and lacks uniform alignment (e.g., not centered). Figure 3 (line 510) has been inserted incorrectly — it is not editable, the image appears stretched, and it is very difficult to read. The data presented in Figure 4 (line 598) are also poorly presented. The suggested "own elaboration" should be a graphic representation of the results. The same applies to Figure 5 (line 607). Table 13 (line 670) does not look professional, and I would recommend that these results be described directly in the text, with reference to the source data (including URLs cited within the main text). Additionally, a significant number of DOI numbers for cited articles are missing or inconsistently presented. Providing DOI numbers is one of the Journal's formal requirements, as it facilitates access to sources and enhances the readability of the paper. While the review-style approach of the article is acceptable for this Journal and the literature review is extensive, the presentation of the authors’ own analyses requires substantial revision and improvement. After addressing these issues, I would recommend the article for publication, provided that the other reviewers also offer favorable evaluations and that their comments are adequately addressed.

Author Response

Comment 1: The data presented in the article have not been organized properly. The presentation is chaotic, and although the article addresses an important topic, it does not meet the Journal's standards and should be revised.

A/: The data were organized, and the presentation of the article was revised to meet the Journal's standards.

Comment 2: The tables (e.g., 6, 7, 9 – lines 366, 383, 430, and most others) are poorly formatted. The wording in the tables is inconsistent and lacks consistent alignment (e.g., they are not centered). Figure 3 (line 510) has been inserted incorrectly: it is not editable, the image appears stretched, and it is very difficult to read. The data presented in Figure 4 (line 598) is also poorly presented. The suggested "own elaboration" should be a graphical representation of the results. The same applies to Figure 5 (line 607). Table 13 (line 670) does not present a professional appearance, so I recommend that these results be described directly in the text, with reference to the source data (including URLs cited in the main text).

A/: The requested adjustments have been made. Tables 6, 7, and 9, lines 366, 383, and 430, were centered and aligned uniformly. Figure 3 (line 510) was centered and modified for better readability and comprehension (in an editable format). Meanwhile, Figures 4 and 5 were also modified.

In particular, Figure 3 is attached, intervened and in editable format.                                                                  

Table 13 was eliminated and its analysis was incorporated directly into the text, following the suggestion of Reviewer 1, as follows:

After corroborating the findings of various Open Innovation platforms, where solvers and seekers can collaborate to address challenges, a selection of platforms hosting challenges and/or innovation projects related to the agroindustrial sector is presented [58].

In total, six (6) platforms were analyzed; which present challenges, cases, and projects related to food or agroindustry. For example, Wazoku (https://www.wazokucrowd.com/)addresses challenges in vegetable oils, legumes for diversity, agricultural intensification, and sustainability, as well as Optimal Crops Identification for Agrophotovoltaic Applications and Satellite-Based Remote Sensing for Smallholder Farms. The Ninesigma platform (https://www.ninesigma.com/) is contributing to biodegradable fertilizers, maize, and salt in food products. Ruta N focuses on livestock, tanning, and vegetable oils. The yet2 platform (https://www.yet2.com/services/open-innovation-portals/) has conducted projects on new protein suppliers, as well as topics related to cellular aquaculture for isolating live fish cells, cultivating them, and subsequently assembling them into fresh and frozen seafood products. The Itonics platform (https://www.itonics-innovation.com/open- innovation) features initiatives on intelligent trend exploration in the food industry.

Finally, the Ennomotive platform (https://www.ennomotive.com/) has challenges related to sustainable energy in cacao drying. However, no projects, challenges, or cases specifically related to citrus were found on these platforms. Regarding the I’mnovation platform (https://www.imnovation-hub.com/es/), it presents challenges in sectors such as energy, construction, water, digital transformation, science and technology, and society.

In the food sector, it featured a challenge on an inflatable aeroponic garden for lettuce in the desert. Among the 44 challenges reported on the platform, none are specifically related to the citrus agro-industrial chain.

 

Comment 3: Furthermore, a significant number of DOI numbers for the cited articles are missing or inconsistently presented. Providing DOI numbers is a formal requirement of the journal, as it facilitates access to sources and improves the article's readability.

A/: Each reference was reviewed, and the consistency of the DOIs was verified. In particular, the following references were corrected and/or their DOIs were added:

[6]. de Morais, J. P. G., Campana, M., Del Valle, T. A., Moreira, T. G., da Silva, E. D. R., do Prado, R. F. & de Oliveira, R. E. Inclusion of babassu bran produced in milk production in Amazonia. Tropical Animal. Health and Production., 2021. 53 (6), 527. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(00)75030-2

[23]. Kastelli, I., Tsakanikas, A., & Caloghirou, Y. Technology transfer as a mechanism for dynamic transformation in the food sector. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(4), 882-900. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9530-3

[24]. Adekunle, A.; Lyew, D.; Orsat, V.; Raghavan, V. Helping Agribusinessses-Small Millets Value Chain- To  Grow in India. Agriculture. 2018. 8, 44. 827 https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8030044

[32]. Cillo, V.; Rialti, R.; Bertoldi, B.; Ciampi, F. Knowledge management and opena innovation in agrifood crowdfunding. Br. Food J. , 2019. 121 , 242–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07-2018-0472

[33]. Johnston, A. Open innovation and the formation of university–industry links in the food manufacturing and technology sector: Evidence from the UK. European Journal of Innovation Management. 2021, 24(1), 89-107. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-06-2019-0163

[37]. Franco Castro, A., Zartha Sossa, J. W., Solleiro, J. L., Montes, J. M., Vargas Martínez, E. E., Palacio Piedrahita, J. C., & Hoyos Concha, J. L. Proposal of innovation management model for a final consumer sales company. Revista Lasallista de Investigacion. 2018, 15(1), 75-89. https://doi.org/10.22507/rli.v15n1a8

[56]. Meza-Sepulveda, D. C., Quintero-Saavedra, J. I., Zartha-Sossa, J. W., & Hernández-Zarta, R. Estudio de prospectiva del sector cacao al año 2032 como base de programas de capacitación universitaria en el sector agroindustrial. Aplicación del método Delphi. Información tecnológica,. 2020, 31(3), 219-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07642020000300219

[57]. Zartha Sossa, J. W., Palacio Piedrahita, J. C., Orozco Mendoza, G. L., Hincapié Llanos, C. A., Ríos Mesa, A. F., & Álvarez López, C. Prospective of Agroindustrial Engineering in Ibero-America to 2035: Application of the scenario methodology and the Delphi method. Ciencia y Tecnología Agropecuaria. 2023, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.21930/rcta.vol24_num1_art:2743

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: In the abstract, the primary objective of the research is only superficially mentioned. Please clearly state the specific objective. The abstract focuses on background information rather than describing the methodology and key findings. Please consider rewriting the abstract.

A/: The Abstract is revised, taking into account the suggestions of reviewer 2

Abstract: This document aims to propose a Sustainable Innovation Management Model (hereinafter MGI), as well as to establish and take advantage of open innovation opportunities in the citrus agro-industrial chain in the department of Quindío, Colombia. The research is descriptive-exploratory, with a deductive method and a mixed approach, where various information collection instruments are combined, including surveys, expert consultations, through rounds and application of the Delphi method; relevance and congruence indices, as well as a literature review of the last ten years, particularly in the Google Scholar and Scopus databases. 97 documents directly related to innovation management in the citrus sector were reviewed, along with 58 indirect references. Through three questionnaires, 120 variables were identified, categorized into input (53), transformation (36) and output (31) stages. The findings, supported by previous sectoral analyses and prospective studies conducted for six regional agro-industrial chains, identified three potential MGI models, one of which was selected for further implementation. The study concludes that there are several challenges within the citrus value chain, including weak leadership, limited market competitiveness, outdated organizational structures, slow adoption of advanced technologies, and insufficient investment. The proposed MGI focused on sustainable innovation and offers a generic, interactive model that presents a dynamic and adaptable solution for boosting competitiveness and value creation in the sector under study. The chain studied requires not only the participation of different stakeholders but also the application of artificial intelligence to close gaps and enable the generation of sustainable innovation.

 

Comment 2: The introduction addresses several topics, such as agricultural production, sustainability, innovation, and agro-industrial chains, but the central research problem is not clearly stated. This section lacks a concise problem statement that explains the specific challenges facing the citrus chain and why a new model is needed. The introduction should include the objectives, research questions, or hypotheses. What does the MGI model seek to improve? Efficiency, sustainability, or profitability?

A/: A paragraph was added at the end of the Introduction, in the following terms:

This research, based on previous sectoral analyses and prospective studies conducted for six (6) regional agro-industrial chains, raises the need to determine a MGI that responds to the continuous improvement needs of the citrus sector in the region under study. Hence, the central objective is to propose a sustainable MGI, as well as to establish and leverage open innovation opportunities in the citrus agro-industrial chain in the department of Quindío, Colombia. The proposed MGI seeks to close gaps and allows not only for new processes and procedures with sustainable innovation, but also to improve the current conditions of the different actors involved in this agro-industrial chain in terms of operational efficiency and profitability.

 

Comment 3: Terms such as "sustainability," "innovation management," and "agroindustrialization" are used several times in the manuscript, but are not clearly defined in the context of this particular study. Please provide working definitions to clarify how they are understood.

A/: The suggestion is accepted and new paragraphs are proposed with definitions of the requested concepts (see in theoretical framework)

 

The "agribusiness" is a term that suggests the integration of agriculture with industry, derived from the term agribusiness that emerged during the First World War in North America and Europe. It was translated as agroindustry in Latin America [12]. There are different definitions of agribusiness, several of which have been merged with definitions of the word "agribusiness," which has led to a lack of clear distinction between the two terms in recent years. For their part, [13], who were pioneers in addressing this concept, summarize the concept of "agribusiness as the sum of all operations involved in the manufacturing and distribution of agricultural production; operations of production in the field, storage, processing, and distribution of agricultural commodities and manufactures made with them. An agribusiness, understood as an agro-business complex that involves the provision of inputs and the production, processing and distribution of agricultural and agro-industrial products as part of a chain in which all the agents involved in it influence each other [14]

 

Sustainable innovation has multiple definitions, especially in studies on the development of new products, processes, services, and technologies. According to [15], sustainable innovation is a process that integrates environmental, social, and financial considerations into business systems, from idea generation to research and development (R&D) and commercialization. Sustainable innovation seeks to go beyond mere attention to current consumer needs and proposes radically different solutions that foster a balanced relationship between society, the environment, and the economy [16]. Other studies affirm that sustainable innovation is characterized by continuous improvement or renewal, seeking better economic performance, lower environmental impact, and positive social outcomes [17-18].

 

References added

 [12]. Merchán, D., Maldonado, E., Palacios, I., & Herrera, D. Análisis del desarrollo de la agroindustria  en   el Ecuador. Revista de Estrategias del Desarrollo Empresarial. 2017, 3(10), 19-24.

[13]. Davis, J.H and Goldberg, R.A. (1957). A concept of agribusiness. Harvard University Press. Boston.

[14]. Rodríguez, N., Linares, A., Hernández, M. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of scientific contributions in agribusiness. Scientia Agropecuaria. 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.17268/sci.agropecu.2021.048

[15]. Clark, T., & Charter, M. Sustainable innovation: Key conclusions from sustainable innovation conferences2003–2006 organised by the centre for sustainable design. 2007.

[16]. Escamilla-Fajardo, P., Núñez-Pomar, J. M., Ratten, V., & Crespo, J. Entrepreneurship and innovation in soccer: Web of science bibliometric analysis. Sustainability. 2020, 12(11),  https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114499

[17]. Bos‐Brouwers, H. E. J. Corporate sustainability and innovation in SMEs: Evidence of themes and activities in practice. Business strategy and the environment. 2010, 19(7), 417-435.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.652

[18]. Pichlak, M., & Szromek, A. R. Eco-innovation, sustainability and business model innovation by open innovation dynamics. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2021, 7(2), 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7020149

 

Comment 4: The article proposes a new model, but lacks a brief description of existing models or frameworks. Justify the need for the MGI model (this relates to the point mentioned above: why the model is needed).

A/: The recommendation is accepted, and a new paragraph is drafted in the Results section, specifically in section 4.4.3.

 

Innovation management can be realized through functions such as inventorying, evaluating, monitoring, assimilating, enriching, managing projects, and protecting (technological rights and intellectual property). Furthermore, the approach to analyzing innovation management maturity is related to activities such as technological surveillance, technological foresight, creativity techniques, internal and external analysis, and innovation process models (for R&D&I activities) and innovation management models (for R&D&I management activities), as proposed by Aenor's UNE 166002 Standard for R&D&I management certifications [45]. This generated the opportunity and decision to include, within the project registered with the Ministry of Science, the co-development of an MGI for each of the six (6) agro-industrial chains. selected, including the citrus sector. Additionally, the Ministry of Sciences established the requirement that it be for highly innovative companies. Before obtaining this certification, companies must demonstrate that they have an organizational structure for innovation. This structure refers to an R&D&I model.

 

Reference added

[45]. Aenor. Norma UNE 166002-2021.  Available online https://www.une.org/encuentra-tu-norma/busca-tu-norma/norma?c=N0065421 ((accessed on April 24)

 

Comment 5: The following chapter describes the IGM model and its components, but include a conceptual diagram or clear visual representation of the model. Clarify the function of the model. Is it intended to assist businesses or guide policy development? Or something else?

A/:  The recommendation is accepted, and the following paragraph is attached to the corresponding section.

 

This model, proposed and co-developed with the chain's actors, will be able to fulfill various functions, including understanding the key variables for new R&D&I projects and initiatives; identifying information and knowledge flows between input and output transformation variables; serving as input for each company for future R&D&I management certifications, with a view to complying with the Colombian Technical Standard NTC-5801, UNE, or ISO; and providing decision-makers in the agro-industrial sector and regional innovation systems with elements to define and align public policies conducive to the development of the chain, specifically in the case of citrus fruits [46-47].

 

Reference added

[46]. Ocotlán, BPM y Solleiro, RJL. La gestión de la innovación en empresas farmacéuticas mexicanas. 2013.

[47]. Escorsa i Castells, P., & Valls Pasola, J. Tecnología e innovación en la empresa. 2003

 

Comment 6: Clearly identify and justify the research design and data collection methods. The document mentions the participation of experts, producers, and commercial agents, but it's not clear to me how the participants were selected (what the sampling method was). How many participants were involved and what type of data was collected? How exactly was the data analyzed?

A/: The stakeholders were selected from the Quindío Chamber of Commerce databases, where invitations were intentionally sent by mail to stakeholders in the citrus chain who had previously expressed their intention to participate in the framework project, which included the study of six (6) agro-industrial chains for the General Royalties System.

It is important to clarify that Quindío is a department with 12 municipalities and a total population of 568,000 inhabitants, focused on tourism and agro-industry, where more than 90% of the companies are SMEs. Therefore, the number of participants in the surveys for the co-development of the proposed MGI was limited. For example, the stakeholder workshops held in the Chamber of Commerce auditoriums were attended by between 10 and 15 stakeholders per sector or agro-industrial chain, including the sector analyzed. These stakeholders were the ones who ultimately participated in the co-development of the proposed MGI.

We have added the following paragraph to the results:

The three surveys used relevance and congruence index techniques, mode, modal frequency, and consensus percentages to determine whether a question, variable, or model was a priority or whether it remained under discussion or was a priority. Seven people participated in the first survey, including chain actors and R&D&I management experts, to validate theoretical aspects, variables, relevance, and consistency indices. Meanwhile, nine and three experts participated in the second and third surveys, respectively.

Comment 7: In Figure 1, why are there bullet points in the cells? There is no list.

A/. The vignettes at the beginning of each phase were removed (Figure 1)

Comment 8: Several tables (e.g., Table 1, Table 2, etc.) are not referenced consistently in the body of the text. There should be introductory sentences for each visual element (e.g., as you can see…), and I miss the explanations that follow; that is, the content of the tables should be described or interpreted, for example, to support the argument. It is often unclear where the data in the tables come from. Are they taken from interviews or from the literature?

A/: The recommendation was adopted, and introductory sentences were added to each of the tables.

Comment 9: The discussion should compare the findings with existing literature in more detail. Without this, it is difficult to assess the novelty or practical value of the model.

A/: Two paragraphs were added to the Discussion and specifically at the end of the Discussion

There are numerous MGIs, which represent elements and variables that characterize them. For example, the work of [67] , which corresponds to a fifth (5th) generation model and represents an open innovation model. Or, the model of [68], who developed feedback loops. The reference models also include the work of [69-71], who proposed not only ideas and methodologies, but also the alignment of the market with technology, as well as proposing solutions through invention and/or adaptation of technologies. In the same sense as the previous ones, it is pertinent to mention the work of [72] on challenge-driven innovation policies.

 

The proposed MGI-3 or MGi features innovative aspects such as alignment with monitoring and prospective studies; specific elements or aspects of sustainability and sustainable development in agriculture; as well as variables in technological capabilities; and, in particular, specific mention of the importance of aligning with open innovation challenges.

 

Reference added

[67]. Rothwell,  R.  (Towards  the  fifth-generation  innovation  process. International  Marketing  Review, 1994  11(1), 7-31. doi:10.1108/02651339410057491

[68]. Kline,  S.,  &  Rosenberg,  N.  (An  overview  of  innovation,  the  positive  sum  strategy:  harnessing technology for economic growth . Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 1986.

[69]. Marquis, D.G. The anatomy of succeful innovations. National Sciencie Foundation, Technical Peport. 1969, Vol. 69. Núm. 1, pp. 28-37

[70]. Kumar, V. 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. John Wiley & Sons. 2012.

[71]. Roberts, E. B., & Frohman, A. L. Strategies for improving research utilization. Technology Review. 1978, 80(5), 32-39.

[72] Mazzucato, M., Kattel, R., & Ryan-Collins, J. Las políticas de innovación impulsadas por retos: hacia nuevas herramientas de política. Cuadernos del Cendes, 2021, 38(107), 25-52.

Comment 10: In the conclusions section, analyze the actual findings of the research process. Review the research questions or objectives and include the limitations of your research.

A/: A conclusion with distinguishing elements was added, and the limitations of the study were also included.

Our MGI, compared to other MGIs, has innovative aspects such as alignment with monitoring and prospective studies; specific elements or aspects of sustainability and sustainable development in agriculture; as well as variables in technological capabilities, and, in particular, the specific mention of the importance of aligning with open innovation stakeholders.

 

Finally, given the dynamic nature of organizational structure models, the proposed MGI, while containing prioritized and related variables in inputs, transformation, and outputs, is appropriate and aligned with the current situation of the citrus chain in the region of origin of the research. For new uses, scaling, and processes, new variables, prioritizations, and structures appropriate for the regions must be taken into account.

 

Comment 11: There appears to be a formatting error on page 13, line 388.

A/: By editing the tables and figures, as suggested by another reviewer, this error is no longer recorded.

Comment 12: On page 16, line 460, the spelling of "Source: Prepared by the authors" should be consistent (it is written with capital letters O and E here).

A/: The recommendation was accepted.

Comment 13: The quality of Figure 3 needs to be improved. Figure 2 is difficult to read because part of the text is cut off; please reformat it.

A/: Both figures were intervened in order to achieve a better understanding of them. In particular, Figure 3 is attached, intervened and in editable format.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached, in Word.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx