How Inclusive Is Inclusive? A Critical Analysis of an Agribusiness Initiative in Kenya
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First of all, I would like to thank the authors for the opportunity to share this work. I hope that the contributions made can be used for its improvement and subsequent publication.
Abstract
I believe that the main results obtained with the current research should be briefly included. With this contribution, the sense of reading for the review would be more structured.
Introduction
The term agribusiness is used to refer to the totality of economic activities derived from or linked to farm products. Both the production of these products and their subsequent processing, transportation and distribution. Agriculture - and all its economic, social and demographic derivatives - is a sector whose activity has an impact on practically all the SDGs. Given the dimension of the approach, I think it would be appropriate to "narrow down" the term in relation to the objectives of the work. I believe that graphs and tables should be provided in this section to help describe the object of study of the research.
I think the transition from the Introduction section to the Literature Review section should be further developed. In lines 76-78, the authors specify the research object "to enable a high level of inclusion of future inclusive business initiatives, this study seeks to better understand possible reasons for the exclusion of small-scale farmers from inclusive business initiatives". This specific aspect should have more relevance in the bibliography and in the introduction.
Literature review
The structure is correct but I find it poor for a specialized academic article.The contributions made are very basic and do not go into depth. The contributions made are very basic and do not go into depth. It seems to be a description of a mere supply-demand process with different bargaining powers. I believe that the authors should devote more effort to reviewing specific literature on the aspects they raise, providing studies of a numerical nature (in economic terms). They assert realities that are poorly developed at the scientific level. Statements such as "farmers may wait and see how an initiative develops before committing, but observing the success of social peers may quickly increase their willingness to join" (lines 174-176) are obvious. I recommend that the authors go into more depth on concepts such as agricultural cooperatives, supply chains, market shares, etc. As indicated above, I believe that numerical contributions would be welcome.
Materials and Methods
I think it is important to explain whether the specific case chosen (lines 179-185) can be extrapolated or is a specific case. In any sample it is important that we explain the reason for the choice and its applications of use.
I think that the methodological contribution is scarce. There is a lack of a methodology based on robust statistical elements to be able to make appropriate estimates. The authors only refer to "EXCEL" in the methodological development of their work. This part is crucial and will be taken into account in subsequent reviews. In the same way, the relation of sub-categories chosen (lines 290 and 291) and the importance of this choice within the methodological criteria must be explained.
Results and conclusions
As indicated in the previous point, there is a lack of a robust methodological basis to support the results obtained. I am of the opinion that the results should not focus on the percentage of participation of the chosen target (lines 294-297). Table 1, for example, states "Company's selection criteria and their relevance to the Ecocert Organic Farming Standard and Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Agriculture Standard principles and criteria". In an academic article, apart from this contribution, it is necessary to study the results that would be obtained, for example, by companies that meet these criteria. In other words, the authors should focus less on describing and more on analyzing and providing conclusions. I believe the same is true of the following tables. They provide a descriptive study from which, in my opinion, no valuable conclusions are drawn.
In short, I congratulate the authors for their effort and work, and I urge them to improve the research part required in an academic article. I look forward to reading the authors' contributions. Much success in the process
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear editors,
many thanks for sharing an interesting manuscript with me. My observation and comments can be found below:
- The title is nice and informative, however, I am wondering if the usage of similar words (3x "inclusive") in the title is helping. In my opinion, it has certain confusing potential.
- In the abstract, there should be, in my opinion, said more around the findings. I would propose avoiding too complicated statements (like "a structural equity problem", line 18) as this will not be understandable to a wider public. I would recommend using a layman style writing here that would attract more readers.
- It is surprising that just two keywords listed are used in the abstract.
- The topic of the paper is excellent and fully in line with the scope of the journal.
- Introduction is also nicely written. I would propose to say a bit more about Kenya already here. The only mention about Kenya is at the end of the Introduction. A short paragraph about the context of the study would help the reader to understand what to expect.
- I particularly like a scheme (Figure 1) in section 2, a lit review is very nicely developed and seems to cover the vast majority of relevant studies.
- Please check if the usage of dots and commas in numbers (like on line 226) is in line with the guide.
- I think that more can be said about the methodology. Could you please develop the Methods an independent subsection of section 3. Even a graphical scheme depicting what has been done and how would be beneficial to have here.
- Please divide 1.1 into independent subsections (Case selection, Data Collection, and Analysis)
- The results are reasonable.
- In the conclusion, please highlight more limitations of your study and say a bit more about practical recommendation resulting from the findings.
I recommend a major revision.
Kind regards,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
You need to improve your analysis. All the most important sections results, discussions and conclusions are comments based on subjective interpretation of one criteria. We recommend to use a method of multi criteria analysis to have an understanding of the context of ESG (environmental, social and governance). Maybe you need to have a complete assessment of ESG applied model in the region and to show the ways to be improved. The ESG is a long term continuous process can be assess for one moment of time to decide is or not is inclusive.
Please allocate more attention on English writing and section numbering.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
having reviewed the new paper, I am sorry to reiterate the comments made in the first review. I have the impression that the work presented by the authors is practically identical to the one that was presented at the time (if I am not mistaken, only lines 568-584 and 484-490 have been incorporated, in addition to modifying the "Abstract".) It was a work that, in my opinion, required major revisions.
I consider that the improvements made have the same basic problem as the rest of the work, since they focus on (in my opinión again) too basic aspects without going into the depth required for an academic research work. I still think that the methodological contribution is scarce and that, as a result, the results presented are not sufficiently solid for a publication. There is still a lack of a methodology based on statistical elements to be able to make adequate estimates. I have the impression that the work is too descriptive, which means that the conclusions are similar to a "declaration of intentions".
I regret the result and encourage the authors, under the consideration of the editor, to continue working on the article.
Author Response
Dear academic editor,
In fact, we have considered the recommendations of this reviewer and gave our answers and reasoning for not implementing several recommendations in the previous review round.
We find recommendations, such as “going into more depth by reviewing specific literature on the aspects we raise” as too unspecific for being able to implement meaningful revisions accordingly.
Furthermore, we would like to again highlight the extensive amount of literature, which we purposefully reviewed to conceptualize the demand and supply process presuming contractual arrangements as well as the various underlying determinants leading to be (not) willing to enter associated partnerships in this process.
We believe that going into more depth on concepts, such as agricultural cooperatives, supply chains, market shares would not add any additional value to this article, as they would not facilitate to study the object of this study. The conceptual framework (figure 1) (summarizing section 2), which we carefully developed based on our literature review, specifically illustrates determinants of contractual arrangements of inclusive agribusiness. As such, the specific literature reviewed serves to study the problem of small-scale farmer exclusion.
Please consider our cover letter, in which we explain in detail our position and reasoning for not implementing the remaining recommendations.
Kind regards,
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear editors,
I had a chance to read the new version of the manuscript over again. I am very happy to share that from my perspective, the manuscript can be accepted for publication as all the reservation raised, were solved.
Let me congratulate the authors for a nice new paper.
Kind regards,
Author Response
Dear academic editor,
We thank the reviewer for his evaluation and are pleased about the recommendation for publication.
Kind regards,
Celina Schelle
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors make just minor changes. the discussion and conclusions are not supported by the research. The comments are just suppositions with no research findings to be sustained.
You need to measure from no organic small farm inclusive to 10 or to total 33 farm potentially how it is altered by company decision you need to have a replicable analysis not just subjective decision based on value of a percentage. Your analysis it is not relevant because you have not relation analysed between company criterion based on farm location, surface and standards.
The sustainability need to be also discussed not just about social inclusivness, also to environmental and economic impacts (like control pollution, greenhouse gaze emissions based on standards applied).
The aim of current journal is to assess the multi-objective (economic-environmental-social) using multidisciplinary approaches to increase performance on objectives.
You have just a subjective approach of social objective and no relation between criterions applied on environmental and economic benefits.
Use a matrix with all the criterions and use a score for each criterion, for each cases and maybe you will obtain results to support your analysis. I recommend you to use a multicriterial analysis. To have a replicable approach and methodological, scientific understanding.
Author Response
Dear academic editor,
We already explained our position to the again mentioned aspects of the previous review round. Therefore, we kindly ask to recall our previous answer. We furthermore, explain our position in the cover letter. Kind regards, Celina SchelleThis manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review: How inclusive is Inclusive? A Critical Analysis of an Inclusive Business Initiative in Kenya.
The article analyzes the inclusion generated by an entrepreneurship initiative in Kenya.
The abstract is excessively long. It should focus on an introduction to the object of study, the method used, and the results obtained. It should therefore be reworded in this direction.
The keywords (it is suggested to the authors as advice, not as an obligation) to rethink the keywords. If they introduce new keywords that do not repeat words from the title (when possible) they will achieve more visibility and citations later on.
Introduction: It is well worked by the authors. They clearly present the problem to be studied and its background. However, some important references within this area (agribusiness) are missing. For example:
Lanfranchi, M., & Giannetto, C. (2014). Sustainable development in rural areas: The new model of social farming. Calitatea, 15(S1), 219.
Lanfranchi, M., Giannetto, C., Abbate, T., & Dimitrova, V. (2015). Agriculture and the social farm: expression of the multifunctional model of agriculture as a solution to the economic crisis in rural areas. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 21(4), 711-718.
Scuderi, A., Timpanaro, G., & Cacciola, S. (2014). Development policies for social farming in the EU-2020 strategy. Calitatea, 15(S1), 76.
Line 84. After this line, you should insert the structure of your article, as indicated by the rules of the journal
Figure 1 seems to have been extracted from the internet or from a book. In this case, the source should be cited together with the title and numbering.
Literature review and choice of company. Information and quotes are given on how to select the company (and in Figure 1 reasons for rejection etc.). This seems consistent. But here, I have an initial doubt: Can one generalize for the whole of Kenya from a study of a single firm? This is a big concern. I will elaborate on some issue later, but at this point the justification should be strengthened.
Figure 1 seems to have been extracted from the internet or from a book. In this case, the source should be cited together with the title and numbering.
Literature review and choice of company. Information and quotes are given on how to select the company (and in Figure 1 reasons for rejection etc.). This seems consistent. But here, I have an initial doubt: Can one generalize for the whole of Kenya from a study of a single firm? This is a big concern. I will elaborate on some issue later, but at this point the justification should be strengthened.
In the case of farmers choice, my concern is repeated. While there are reasons given in the literature (e.g. risk reduction) it is not entirely clear to me how valid they are.
All my doubts are dispelled in lines 181-187. A single medium-sized company (30 workers) is selected. This is not at all representative. This study should focus on the analysis of several companies that account for a large percentage of Kenya's total, but not just one company.
The way it is approached is therefore more like a report than a scientific article.
The way the data and tables are presented leaves much to be desired from table 1 onwards.
There is a discussion of results, but the conclusions should be improved. It would be good to divide the section into a discussion of results and conclusions.
Best regards,
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper was a pleasure to read. Other than the material and methods parts I have no complaints. I feel this chapter is quite short and very transparent. The authors should explain and justify their approach. Further it should be better outlined how rigor was assured in the analysis.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article contributes to the debate around the inclusiveness of agribusiness and demonstrates the ambiguous role of sustainability standards for the achievement of inclusion. Its substantive level is high. It opens with a properly conducted analysis of contemporary findings in the literature on the subject and an explanation of the meaning of the research sphere. Subsequently, the authors correctly indicate the gap in the current knowledge and accurately set the goal of the research. After making the appropriate preparations and assumptions, the authors conducted interesting, multi-stage research, and their results were properly processed and used. The final findings suggest that exclusion is more determined by the company than farmer decision making. Specifically, the implementation of organic certification contributes most to small-scale farmer exclusion. This is an important, though not groundbreaking, conclusion. The authors also emphasize that collaboration between companies and actors beyond the value chain is necessary to address barriers to participation that currently prevent inclusive business models from being fully realized. It's hard to disagree, and other studies have already led to such statements. Nevertheless, it is a valuable conclusion that should be supported by the results of further research.
