Trade Unions in Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: What Shapes Their Participation?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The qualitative study of multi-stakeholder participation of Costa Rican pineapple industry explores the trade union role in the decision making process. The study is interesting especially on the working on human rights angle. Moreover, the study has very influential impacts on the sustainable development goal. The study has some limitations on the methodology and contribution part. I have given below some suggestions based on my understanding after reading the paper.

1. The study majorly focused on multi-stakeholder initiatives but it didn’t mention about stakeholder theory.  Therefore, authors should consider stakeholders and legitimacy point of view why and how trade union embraces between different stakeholder and society.

2.   Rationality of the paper should correctly address with the research question.

3. The paper is based on Costa Rica but in the line #67-68 you mentioned field research of Belgium 2015-2017, you should explain the reason. Moreover, Costa Rica 2015-2016 but Belgium 2015-2017, this is inappropriate and one kind of sample biases. Please clear the issue.

4. The paper missed the political economy because the rule of trade union depends on political stability, rule of law and freedom of expression. Many countries in the world trade union are inactive of these reasons even they have enough initiatives and resources. The given framework will be inactive if there is no political fairness and cooperation.

5. You should address and include some interview explanation (what they have said and you have recorded) in the findings. That will provide authors the real understanding of the multi-stakeholder participation.

6. Table B2 and B3 clearly posits the limited participation, awareness and initiatives of MSIs. Therefore, you should recommend some initiative how to overcome the existing problem and more effective of the trade unions.  

7.  Contribution of the paper is my major concerned. Therefore, you should include academic as well as managerial implication of the paper.

Minor corrections:

1. Revise the section heading and include methodology chapter considering sample size, collection.

2.   #Line 281, check the number

3.   Not clear of the sentence line#315

References:

Masud, M.A.K; Nurunnabi, M; & Bae, S. (2018). The Effects of Corporate Governance on Environmental Sustainability Reporting: Empirical Evidence from South Asian Countries, Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility 2018, 3(3), 1-26

Claire Methven O'Brien Sumithra Dhanarajan. (2016). The corporate responsibility to respect human rights: a status review, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 29 Iss 4 pp. 542 - 567

I believe the above references and discussion will improve the paper broadly. 

Author Response

Please find our response to Reviewer 1's feedback in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a nice contribution towards assessing trade union participation in MSIs and explaining factors that enable and constrain their participation. 

Before publication, though, the authors should need to clarify the following:

1. In the abstract the objective of the research must be mentioned (as you did in the text- line 48).

2. Line  45 : “demonstrated that certain procedures and mechanisms of MSIs”. Give examples of such procedures and mechanisms.

3.  Do you consider that the rise of multi‐stakeholderism can be seen an example of a deliberative governance process? Argue.

4. A methodology section must be included. Lines 60-80 belong to Methodology and you have to give more details (e.g. selection criteria of interviewed people, explain how you developed the "extensive field research").

5. From a practical perspective, which is the contribution of this paper?  (e.g., please thing to the ways of informing decision making).

6.Lines 54-55 “we aim to contribute to a deeper understanding of the participatory processes of MSIs and how MSIs can improve their impact”. More details should be given on MSIs contribution towards improving participatory processes impact.

Author Response

Please find our response to Reviewer 2's feedback in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic presented in this work is extrement interesting. However several challenges are required

1. Abstract should be more concise. I suggest to answer the following aspects: - general context - novelty of the work - methodology used - main results 

2. Introduction presents interesting information, but its style is poor. In fact, the literature review is weak and need to be further detailed. I would suggest to add here the information presented in section 2 and 3. Please see Instruction for authors

3. The methodology used must be linked to the existing literature trying to answer the following questions: what is its potential? its limit?

4. Results are weakly linked to the methodology. Please define the relationship.

5. Conclusions. To be readapted after paper review.

Author Response

Please find our response to Reviewer 3's feedback in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper looks better than previous version. It is now publishable in the journal. Check the structure of the sections specifically, literature reviews and theoretical development. Recheck the references. Try to increase the incremental contribution of the diverse stakeholders perspective.    

 Best wishes!                

Author Response

Please find our answer to Reviewer 1's feedback in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

thanks for having improved the manuscript. I suggest to accept the paper. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive feedback that improved our article and to approve the changes we made.

Kind regards