Poultry Eco-Controls: Performance and Accounting

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the oportunity to review this paper. Attached you can find my comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper with the title: Poultry Eco-Controls: Performance and Accounting”. It is a very interesting paper. I suggest some improvements to be made.

Response to comment 1: The authors would like to thank Reviewer 1 for his/her careful review and constructive comments. We implemented significant improvements based on these recommendations.

Comment 2: Introduction: In the introduction is will be better to introduce a clear research question or hypothesis would improve the structure and clarity of the paper.

Response to comment 2: In the Introduction, we introduced a clear research problem. This paper focuses on the lack of validated indicators and eco-controls to measure and promote sustainability in the poultry chain in Goiás.

Comment 3: Materials and methods: How were eco-controls constructed (were they derived from surveys or observed? )

Response to comment 3:  The eco-controls were prepared based on data collected through a closed questionnaire and documents. They are derived from systematic surveys and observations, with statistical validation through Principal Component Analysis and regressions.

Comment 4: Conclusions: How can public institutions support EMA adoption? What role can regional environmental agencies play in providing standardized EMA reporting templates and training programs?

Response to comment 4: In conclusion, we added possible ways how public institutions could support EMA adoption, e.g.,

• Offer tax and financial incentives for companies that adopt environmental management accounting (EMA);
• Include EMA as a requirement in environmental certification and licensing programs;
• Promote public notices and calls for proposals aimed at environmental innovation in agribusiness.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important topic related to environmental performance and sustainability in the poultry production chain. The integration of Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) with empirical data collected from agro-industrial companies and farms in Goiás provides a valuable contribution to the literature on sustainable agribusiness practices. However, I suggest the following improvements to enhance the clarity and impact of the manuscript:

1. Language and Expression: While the scientific content is solid, the English language requires revision to improve clarity and flow. Some sentences are overly complex or repetitive, and minor grammatical issues may hinder understanding for an international audience. A professional language editing service is recommended.

2. Methods Description: The methodology section is generally appropriate but would benefit from more detailed descriptions of the econometric model variables and the rationale behind selecting specific indicators. Clarifying these aspects would improve replicability and transparency.

3. Results Presentation: The results are rich but at times overly descriptive. Consider summarizing the key findings more concisely and integrating figures or tables that enhance readability.

4. Conclusions and Implications: The conclusions are supported by the data but could be more focused. Would be better to highlight the main policy and managerial implications of your findings in a more explicit way.

5. References: The manuscript demonstrates good engagement with the literature. However, ensure that the citations are balanced and do not over-rely on the authors' own previous publications.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript would benefit from a thorough language revision. While the scientific content is clear, the English usage throughout includes grammatical inaccuracies, awkward phrasing, and overly complex sentence structures that may hinder reader comprehension. It is recommended to engage a professional English editing service to enhance clarity, coherence, and overall readability.

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript addresses an important topic related to environmental performance and sustainability in the poultry production chain. The integration of Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) with empirical data collected from agro-industrial companies and farms in Goiás provides a valuable contribution to the literature on sustainable agribusiness practices. However, I suggest the following improvements to enhance the clarity and impact of the manuscript:

Response to comment 1: The authors would like to thank Reviewer 2 for his/her careful review and constructive comments. We implemented significant improvements based on these recommendations.

Comment 2: 1. Language and Expression: While the scientific content is solid, the English language requires revision to improve clarity and flow. Some sentences are overly complex or repetitive, and minor grammatical issues may hinder understanding for an international audience. A professional language editing service is recommended.

Response to comment 2: 1) The manuscript has been revised against grammar mistakes, considering the reviewer’s comments and the use of AI tools like Grammarly Premium and Microsoft Copilot. Several grammar improvements were made in this fully revised version of the manuscript.

Comment 3: 2. Methods Description: The methodology section is generally appropriate but would benefit from more detailed descriptions of the econometric model variables and the rationale behind selecting specific indicators. Clarifying these aspects would improve replicability and transparency.

Response to comment 3: 2) In Materials and Methods, particularly section 2.4 (Data Analysis), we added further details. The variables were grouped via PCA into three factors: Production capacity and size; Sustainability and environmental management practices; Energy efficiency and alternative sources. The logic of the choice is based on the normative and empirical relevance of these measures in assessing the environmental impact and its relationship with municipal GDP per capita.

Comment 4: 3. Results Presentation: The results are rich but at times overly descriptive. Consider summarizing the key findings more concisely and integrating figures or tables that enhance readability.

Response to comment 4: 3) Results: We added a summary of the main results in the text. The model revealed that only the factor' sustainability and environmental management" has a positive and statistically significant relationship with GDP per capita (coefficient 0.033; p < 0.05 – Table 8). Productive capacity and energy efficiency were not significant. Tables 4–7 show the extracted factors and proposed eco-controls. Table 7, for example, details the indicators applied to forest, waste and water management.

Comment 5: 4. Conclusions and Implications: The conclusions are supported by the data but could be more focused. Would be better to highlight the main policy and managerial implications of your findings in a more explicit way.

Response to comment 5: 4) Conclusions: The main message is: The adoption of EMA and eco-controls as strategies that generate competitive advantage, attract investment and expand access to sustainable markets. Practical recommendations include subsidies for renewable energy and incentives for the collection and collective disposal of waste for small farms. We believe those messages are already in the text.

Comment 6: 5. References: The manuscript demonstrates good engagement with the literature. However, ensure that the citations are balanced and do not over-rely on the authors' own previous publications.

Response to comment 6: 5) References: We thank Reviewer 2 for this kind of feedback. Since the authors have had a strong scientific involvement in this topic, we believe that keeping us out would create gaps, and we wanted to avoid this.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find some of my observations.

Keywords: ’’Principal Component Analysis’’ is a very general term; I recommend reviewing the keywords

For:

Lines: 37-38: This study aims to validate environmental performance indicators and eco-controls in the poultry production chain, highlighting their importance for competitiveness and sustainable growth.

Line 54: This study aims to validate key indicators and eco-controls to enhance sustainability in poultry production [15, 16]

Lines 96-97: The econometric analysis validates the relationship between environmental performance indicators and municipal economic growth.

For these claims, I suggest carefully evaluating the term ''validation'' of the study. Is it accurate or is it an evaluation? Citations for this claim are also provided.

Line 77: I suggest presenting information in the form ''Gunarathne and Lee (2021) highlighted...'' The same for the lines 67 [22], 81 [7], 85 [25].

Author Response

Comment 1: Please find some of my observations.

Response to comment 1: The authors would like to thank Reviewer 3 for his/her careful review and constructive comments. We implemented significant improvements based on the recommendations received from all the reviewers.

Comment 2: 

Keywords: ’’Principal Component Analysis’’ is a very general term; I recommend reviewing the keywords

For:

Lines: 37-38: This study aims to validate environmental performance indicators and eco-controls in the poultry production chain, highlighting their importance for competitiveness and sustainable growth.

Line 54: This study aims to validate key indicators and eco-controls to enhance sustainability in poultry production [15, 16]

Lines 96-97: The econometric analysis validates the relationship between environmental performance indicators and municipal economic growth.

For these claims, I suggest carefully evaluating the term ''validation'' of the study. Is it accurate or is it an evaluation? Citations for this claim are also provided.

Response to comment 2: Regarding the use of “validation” in this study. The paper represents a validation effort, confirming that the model we proposed is effective. Therefore, we believe that the validation within the paper is adequate; however, future studies may rely on this model as is, since it has been proven to be reliable.  Regarding the keywords, the authors thank Reviewer 3 for this suggestion. After a careful analysis, the authors decided to keep the current keywords, because they best represent the content of the paper.

Comment 3: Line 77: I suggest presenting information in the form ''Gunarathne and Lee (2021) highlighted...'' The same for the lines 67 [22], 81 [7], 85 [25].

Response to comment 3: Regarding changes in the presentation of information, the authors checked and, considering the journal’s standard formatting, we decided to retain the current form.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The selected topic of this dissertation is closely related to the current hot issues of sustainable agricultural development, and systematically assesses the environmental management accounting (EMA) practices in the poultry production chain through a mixed research approach, and empirically analyzes the relationship between sustainable practices and economic performance. The study design is rigorous, the sample is representative, the data analysis method is applicable, and the conclusions are informative for both policy makers and business managers. However, there are the following areas for improvement:
First, although the paper validates the role of EMA in the poultry chain, the comparison with existing literature (e.g., [17] and [66]) is insufficient and fails to clearly illustrate its unique contribution. For example, the positive correlation between sustainable practices and GDP growth has been supported by more studies, but this paper does not discuss in depth its specificity in the poultry chain (e.g., resource constraints on small farms). It is recommended that an analysis of differentiation from similar studies be added to the discussion section.
Second, the study focuses only on the state of Goiás, Brazil, and the generalizability of the conclusions is questionable. Although the authors mention this limitation, no specific cross-regional validation options (e.g., comparison with poultry industry data from other states or countries) are proposed. In addition, pretest details of the questionnaire (e.g., reliability indicators) are not adequately described, which may affect the reliability of the results.
Third, the “energy efficiency” variable in the regression model did not pass the significance test (p>0.05), but the authors did not explore the possible reasons (e.g., data measurement errors, technological bottlenecks in the industry, or lack of policies). Additional interviews or case studies are recommended to explain this counterintuitive result.
Fourth, the policy recommendations presented in the conclusion section are rather general (e.g., “promote sustainable practices”) and do not propose specific measures in conjunction with the empirical results. For example, it could be suggested that the government subsidize photovoltaic equipment on farms to improve energy efficiency, or develop incentives for centralized waste disposal for small farms.
Fifth, some grammatical errors (e.g., “production raised” should be “rose”) and formatting inconsistencies (e.g., mixing italics/italics in reference abbreviations) need to be corrected. In addition, the charts (e.g., Tables 3-8) could be further simplified by highlighting the core indicators to improve readability.

Author Response

Comment 1: The selected topic of this dissertation is closely related to the current hot issues of sustainable agricultural development, and systematically assesses the environmental management accounting (EMA) practices in the poultry production chain through a mixed research approach, and empirically analyzes the relationship between sustainable practices and economic performance. The study design is rigorous, the sample is representative, the data analysis method is applicable, and the conclusions are informative for both policy makers and business managers. However, there are the following areas for improvement:

Response to comment 1: The authors would like to thank Reviewer 4 for his/her careful review and constructive comments. We implemented significant improvements based on these recommendations.

Comment 2: First, although the paper validates the role of EMA in the poultry chain, the comparison with existing literature (e.g., [17] and [66]) is insufficient and fails to clearly illustrate its unique contribution. For example, the positive correlation between sustainable practices and GDP growth has been supported by more studies, but this paper does not discuss in depth its specificity in the poultry chain (e.g., resource constraints on small farms). It is recommended that an analysis of differentiation from similar studies be added to the discussion section.

Response to comment 2: 1) The main contribution of this paper is to validate and apply a set of environmental indicators and eco-controls, integrated with Environmental Management Accounting (EMA), in the poultry production chain of Goiás, demonstrating, through econometric analysis, that sustainable practices adopted by companies have a positive and significant correlation with the municipal GDP per capita. Although several studies point to the relationship between sustainability and economic performance — such as those by Burritt et al. (2019), Henri et al. (2017), and Wang et al. (2019) — this study innovates by operationalizing these relationships with detailed and empirically validated primary data in a specific production chain, with great regional representation. Unlike previous, more generic studies or with a restricted sectoral focus, this article delivers a replicable environmental assessment model, supported by 28 indicators and 13 eco-controls, with a technical basis (ISO 14001, NBC T 15) and statistical validation. Furthermore, it integrates these dimensions into the management of public policies and regional competitiveness, promoting a rare interface between environmental accounting, sustainability and local economic development. Therefore, by focusing specifically on the poultry chain and considering the most up-to-date and relevant research in the international literature, the study occupies a cutting-edge position in the application of EMA in the Brazilian agro-industrial sector, offering concrete paths for replicating the methodology in other production chains and regions.

Comment 3: Second, the study focuses only on the state of Goiás, Brazil, and the generalizability of the conclusions is questionable. Although the authors mention this limitation, no specific cross-regional validation options (e.g., comparison with poultry industry data from other states or countries) are proposed. In addition, pretest details of the questionnaire (e.g., reliability indicators) are not adequately described, which may affect the reliability of the results.

Response to comment 3: 2) The application of this study represents the state of the art in the validation of environmental indicators and eco-controls in the agro-industrial sector for three main reasons:

1. Robust and unprecedented methodological integration:

The study adopts a mixed method approach (qualitative and quantitative) with statistical validation through Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and multiple regression, providing rigor to the selection of indicators and eco-controls. This allows us to identify, on a solid empirical basis, which sustainable practices are positively correlated with economic performance (municipal GDP per capita), which is rare in the literature applied to the agro-industry.

2. Comprehensive sectoral and sample scope:

The research analyzed 13 agro-industries, 230 properties and 816 chicken sheds, covering all stages of the production chain, which gives representativeness and depth to the data. This level of operational detail, combined with the systematization of 28 indicators and 13 eco-controls, demonstrates a replicable and advanced model for measuring environmental sustainability.

3. Innovative contribution to environmental management accounting (EMA):

The study applies the principles of EMA (Environmental Management Accounting) based on recognized standards (ISO 14001, NBC T 15), and proposes its use not only as an accounting instrument, but as a strategic tool for public policies, environmental planning and improving business competitiveness — a concrete application of the most recent debates in the international literature on corporate sustainability.

This paper goes beyond the simple analysis of environmental performance. It technically validates an applicable, auditable and economically relevant model, connecting environmental practices to economic results at the municipal level. Therefore, it represents a state-of-the-art reference in studies on EMA and eco-controls in the context of animal production and sustainability in Brazilian agribusiness.

Comment 4: Third, the “energy efficiency” variable in the regression model did not pass the significance test (p>0.05), but the authors did not explore the possible reasons (e.g., data measurement errors, technological bottlenecks in the industry, or lack of policies). Additional interviews or case studies are recommended to explain this counterintuitive result.

Response to comment 4: 3) The lack of statistical significance of the “energy efficiency” variable in the econometric model can be justified by different factors observed in the study:

• Limitations in the availability and uniformity of energy consumption data in integrated properties, which compromises the accuracy of measuring this variable in the sample analyzed;
• High heterogeneity in the energy sources used (such as diesel, public grid electricity, solar energy and biomass), which generates dispersion in the data and dilutes the impact of the variable in the statistical model;
• Still early stage of investments in renewable energy, such as the photovoltaic systems mentioned in the study, whose economic effects are not yet fully captured in municipal performance indicators, such as GDP per capita;
• Absence of standardized practices for monitoring and controlling energy efficiency in production units, making it difficult to consolidate a reliable and comparable indicator across the different property profiles.

These factors suggest that, despite the strategic importance of energy efficiency for sustainability, operational and informational gaps still limit its measurement and direct correlation with economic performance in the analyzed sector.

Comment 5: Fourth, the policy recommendations presented in the conclusion section are rather general (e.g., “promote sustainable practices”) and do not propose specific measures in conjunction with the empirical results. For example, it could be suggested that the government subsidize photovoltaic equipment on farms to improve energy efficiency, or develop incentives for centralized waste disposal for small farms.

Response to comment 5: 4) More specific measures applicable to the reality of the poultry sector. Based on the results of the study and the practices observed, the following actions are suggested:

1. Subsidies for the generation of photovoltaic solar energy on integrated properties, considering that only some of them adopted alternative sources, despite the high energy consumption shown in the study (Table 7);
2. Creation of state programs for the collection, treatment and centralized disposal of organic waste (e.g., chicken litter), especially aimed at small properties that do not have their own infrastructure;
3. Credit lines aimed at the adoption of eco-efficiency technologies, such as biodigesters for effluent treatment and water reuse systems, aligned with the practices described in the article (e.g., use of septic tanks and water reuse on farms); 4. Free ongoing technical training in Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) for producers and agribusinesses, promoting the use of indicators and eco-controls as strategic management tools, as demonstrated in the research;
4. Fiscal and accounting recognition of environmental assets, such as energy forests and permanent preservation areas (APP), encouraging producers to record and value these assets in their balance sheets, in accordance with the recommendations of the study on EMA;
5. Integration of EMA and eco-controls as criteria in public development policies, such as access to quality seals, environmental certifications or sustainable public procurement.

Comment 6: Fifth, some grammatical errors (e.g., “production raised” should be “rose”) and formatting inconsistencies (e.g., mixing italics/italics in reference abbreviations) need to be corrected. In addition, the charts (e.g., Tables 3-8) could be further simplified by highlighting the core indicators to improve readability.

Response to comment 6: 5) The manuscript has been revised to correct grammatical mistakes, considering the reviewer’s comments and utilizing AI tools such as Grammarly Premium and Microsoft Copilot. Several grammar improvements were made. References were revised, and journals were abbreviated whenever possible according to the specific standard abbreviation used for each journal. Regarding Tables 3 to 8, indicators were already highlighted in bold where possible.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript waited until it was revised to improve considerably, but there is still room for improvement. There is a bit of a disconnect between the policy recommendations in the manuscript and the research findings. I recommend acceptance of the manuscript with minor revisions.

Author Response

Comment 1:

The manuscript waited until it was revised to improve considerably, but there is still room for improvement. There is a bit of a disconnect between the policy recommendations in the manuscript and the research findings. I recommend acceptance of the manuscript with minor revisions.

Response to comment 1: 

The authors thank the Reviewers and the Editor for their comments and recommendations.

The public policy recommendations for the research results are directly linked to the empirical findings. The study demonstrated that only sustainability and environmental management practices have a positive impact on the GDP per capita of municipalities. Therefore, it is recommended to: Encourage the adoption of Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) on integrated farms; promote the use of rainwater and reuse of effluents; Implement Payment for Environmental Services (PES) for conservation and reforestation; offer tax incentives for renewable energy sources, such as photovoltaics and biogas; create regional technical training programs on eco-controls; integrate the study's environmental indicators into licensing and certification criteria.

These policy recommendations were included in the manuscript as revisions to those of the previous version. We believe they are linked to our results.

Thank you.