Small Rural Enterprises and Innovative Business Models: A Case Study of the Turin Area

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The main questions and comments for the article:
1.    Creating studies using the methods: “a Desk analysis, Living Lab methodology, Brainstorming and Business Model Canvas (BMC)” is of course correct. However, these methods are widely known, easy to use and to interpret.
2.    I have a big reservation whether the group of 16 people (... 16 people decided to participate in the Modelling) is representative of the study.
It must be taken into account that the recommendation relates to the area of Turin. Moreover, the authors write that the workshop participants they represent sectors of agriculture, farming, rural tourism, and food services. It should be clearly stated:  which the enterprises represent (small / medium-sized), which the legal form, the functions of the respondents, etc.
Due to the above, I am not convinced that the article is suitable for publication in a prestigious journal such as Sustainability.

Detailed comments
- Abstract: “The abstract should be … 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations”. 

Points 3 and 4 should be corrected. The description of the results and conclusions too trivial, do not comply with the requirements of the MDPI publishing house.

- Conclusions:  I have doubts whether the methods used in the study as well as a small research sample make it possible to build such unambiguous final conclusions.
Line 392-399 basically repeats the considerations from the previous parts of the article.

- Literature studies conducted in the article insufficiently.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Small rural enterprises and innovative business models: the 
case study of the Turin area 

===============================================
General observations: The research paper attempts to provide an innovative methodology for innovative business models using Brainstorming, Business Model Canvas tool, data were examined with SWOT and cross-case analysis.

(a) In many countries, many start-up programs including technology transfer are going on. However, a small percentage is only materialized. How this approach will be helpful to provide sustainability?

(b) Authors need to provide some data and clear methodology pertaining to brainstorming, Business Model Canvas tool, SWOT, and cross-case analysis.

(c)Table 1. shows the framework of the proposed decision-making process. discusses methodology steps and outcome which looks too brief.

(d) Table 2. Debated themes, aims, and innovative business ideas description after delineation with the BMC tool and derives the innovative business idea but the idea materialized look very ordinary which can be accomplished using brainstorming as well. How it is different from using discussed tools is not clear.

(e) How the innovative business ideas generated become sustainable is not clear.

(f)" In such respect, the design of a methodology ...........with the emerging needs." innovative process with emerging needs has many barriers and influence of local and global factors. How Turin's case is indifferent to these factors?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The aims of the article have been achieved.

Literature needs to be improved. I propose to refine the studies of literature related to the issues of small rural enterprises and innovative business models.

The preparation of the text should be improved - e.g. lines: 296, 313, 335, ... - there are dots before the text in paragraphs.