Environmental Impact of Different Business Models: An LCA Study of Fresh Tomato Production in Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• I thank the Editor and the Authors for the opportunity to revise the paper entitled “Life Cycle Assessment Approach of Tomato Industries Production for Different Production in Italy: Comparison between Conventional and Precision Farming” submitted to Sustainability.
• Overall, I have some minor concerns that I hope the authors may address: Indeed, I thought this was an interesting and innovative paper that ought to be published in the journal subject to some revisions.
• As for the title and the abstract: The title is clumsy, and I would drop the reference to “for Different Production” and make it appeal to a wider readership needs a rethink; The abstract is poor. Please provide readers some relevant both theoretical and managerial implications.
• As for the introduction section, I would see more statistics or more recent literature underlying the relevance of your investigation. For instance, some sentences should be correctly supported by references (i.e., as for “Brands and labels represent a good form of communication for companies 55 towards stakeholders regarding their commitment to the environmental field and beyond.)”. For instance, please describe the difference between brands and labels, and how both of them may  represent a good form of communication (as you state), with supporting literature. Finally, in the reminder – and in the whole paper – use the term “paper” or “research” instead of document.

• The literature is good but could do with a bit of an update and a review of recent papers in this journal where appropriate, especially in light of the connection between business model in theory and the case study you are presenting. Also try to enforce the literature reference for tomato industry business model. Please check below some suggested literature to cite:

Tell, J., Hoveskog, M., Ulvenblad, P., Ulvenblad, P. O., Barth, H., & Ståhl, J. (2016). Business model innovation in the agri-food sector: A literature review. British Food Journal.

Sestino, A., Rossi, M. V., Giraldi, L., & Faggioni, F. (2023). Innovative food and sustainable consumption behaviour: the role of communication focus and consumer-related characteristics in lab-grown meat (LGM) consumption. British Food Journal.

I suggest to cite and provide some examples when you introduce some concept. For instance, at line 137 “Expensive, IT-based machinery is being used, so the efficient use of equipment is 123 crucial, otherwise, the delta between the costs of the old technology and the new 124 technology may not be covered by the new revenues and cause budget deficits. Often, the 125 benefits of innovation occur in the long run, thus leading to the exit of many companies 126 from the sector that cannot afford the high short-term costs (both in terms of monetary 127 and intellectual capital) [36,38]”, please briefly describe current opportunities related to both IT and new technologies (e.g., as for IoT technologies in agriculture) to confer consistency. Please, use the following suggestions:

Pallavi, B., Othman, B., Trivedi, G., Manan, N., Pawar, R. S., & Singh, D. P. (2022, April). The Application of the Internet of Things (IoT) to establish a technologically advanced Industry 4.0 for long-term growth and development. In 2022 2nd International Conference on Advance Computing and Innovative Technologies in Engineering (ICACITE) (pp. 1927-1932). IEEE.

Boye, J. I., & Arcand, Y. (2013). Current trends in green technologies in food production and processing. Food Engineering Reviews, 5, 1-17.

 

• Please just provide a deeper comment on the difference in the three business models in your case study. We have graphs but not so much comments on it!
• The Figure 2 is very powerful, but please try to increase the font size in the central part because it may be difficult to be read. Furthermore, the final part of the figure is cut off (specifically the edge of the rectangle)
• The conclusions given seem to be poor in comparison to the main body of the paper. There needs to be greater value added with respect to implications for business model in tomato industries as per the assessment of LCA for the environmental impact of different production. I would like to suggest to rename the Discussion section, in “Discussion and Implications”. Moreover, please divide the paragraph into “Theoretical discussions and implications”, and “Managerial discussions and implicatons”.
• In the theoretical discussion, I would like to see how you contribute to the extant theory: Follow this question: what are the theoretical advances we are proposing? In doing so, please cite the references you cited in the th. Background.
• In the managerial discussion, I would like to see more implications for marketers and managers, from a business perspective, and maybe some (little) implications for polycimakers in addressing the issue you investigated.
• Please finally check for accidental typos and mistake; Moreover, I think that the whole should be read by a professional proof-reader.

Please, see above.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer Thank You for your work. We really appreciate it. Attached You will find the Word file which provides a point-by-point response to your comments.

Thank You very much.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article addresses an interesting and topical issue. Although the research is primarily concerned with tomato cultivation, the conclusions presented by the authors have much broader relevance for agriculture in general.

 

The introductory section (paragraphs 1–3) outlines the overall contact of the research undertaken in the article. The research problem is clearly outlined. The presentation of the method used (paragraph 4) is convincing, concise and logical. The results obtained and conclusions (paragraph 5–7) are well described and illustrated with numerous illustrations. The conclusions are confronted with the existing literature on the subject, they are interesting and important, they give a synthetic insight into the issue addressed, and they encourage further research.

 

 

Minor substantive comments

 

• Line 153. Please add your views on why this particular region was chosen. Does it have any specific features? Has this narrowing down not adversely affected the value of the proposals received?
• Lines 399–450. It may be worthwhile to tie conclusions more closely to the research presented in an article. Usually, in the conclusions, we refer primarily to our own research, rather than to that already existing in the literature. Although, it is worth comparing the former with the latter.

Minor comments on the form, style and aesthetics of the presentation

• Lines 69–80. In my opinion, this paragraph could be significantly improved in terms of language (for example: „aim” vs „aimed”, „sample of companies”, „this document is structured”, „add conclusion and future development”).
• Lines 96–101. In my opinion, this paragraph could be significantly improved in terms of language (for example: „organizations” or „agrarian firms”, „innovations” and „new technologies” sound like synonyms).
• Line 130. It may be worth mentioning that China is a leader in this respect.
• Lines 161 & 194. The level of attention involved… Perhaps it is worth specifying what kind of attention you are referring to? (attention to environmental aspects?)
• Line 151. To be able to efficiently compare… It appears that the sentence in question is syntactically wrong. It seems to be missing a verb.
• Line 205. 4.2. „System Boundaries”. It is worth specifying in this title exactly which system you are referring to.
• Line 211. „4.3. System Boundaries”. Same title as before. Must be different, or remove may be remote it.
• Line 253. Figure 2. Please use a larger font in the centre of the diagram (e.g. transplantation, applying hoses, weeding etc.).
• Line 300. Figure 4. Usually the names of illustrations are given below, not above them. It is worth giving the units of measurement on the vertical axis on the illustration itself. The same also applies to previous schemes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer we deeply appreciate your effort to review this piece. Thank You very much. Hope this will contribute to improving the quality of the paper.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This article conducted a comparative life cycle assessment of different agricultural technologies to produce one kilogram of processed tomatoes for each production technology, including conventional production, integrated production and intensive farming production, respectively. The life cycle assessment provided extensive information on raw material use, energy consumption and environmental impacts, and analyzed the different impact categories according to the ReCiPe midpoint and endpoint methodology. Overall, this article is relatively well-prepared and has the promise of contributing to the agri-food production. This article may be considered for publication after addressing the comments below.

1.     Figure 2, The quality of the figure is lacking. Please revise it in terms of font, border and clarity.

2.     The authors' discussion and analysis of the current study are of a relatively macroscopic scope. To add depth to the study, it is recommended that the authors add appropriate discussion in the context of some important specific studies (e.g., Nat. Commun., 2022, 13, 3616; Green Energy Environ., 2023, DOI: 10.1016/j.gee.2023.01.001).

 

3.     The authors performed many evaluations of LCA and compared them under different conditions. However, in-depth analysis is relatively lacking. The authors should conduct more in-depth analyses to analyze the causes and effects behind the phenomena.

Can be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer thank you so much for your efforts. Following your pieces of advice we hope to have better improved the paper.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Title: I would advise the authors to shorten the title.

Line 16: “maximize the trade-off between sustainable and mass production”. Please rewrite. To maximize the trade off means that the productivity increases as the sustainability decreases. Is that really what the authors want to state?

Line 37: In the cited reference [5] I find no information in regard to “50% reduction of waste”

Line 46: The reference which is cited for LCA on food is a paper of the use of LCA in the building sector. Please choose a reference that makes sense!

Line 55: the PEF methodology of the EC is a important point the authors should mention here

Line 69 ff. The introduction should lead to the research question. This is only partially the case here. Please improve. In addition, please check if the cited references are suitable and appropriate.

Line 76: The focus of the study is not really clear. LCA or Business model? And if the results of the analysis of the business model are only shown in the supplementary, then perhaps the author should be thinking about excluding this part.

Line 78: The CO₂ footprint is part of the environmental performance. Therefore, it does not really make sense to compare these two points.

Line 2013: Better use the average output and input data of several years (or a least the authors should discuss the limitations associated with the use of data from only 2 years)

Line 214: The Recipe methodology also contains the impact category GWP. So, it makes no sense to describe or calculate them separately. However, the authors should describe why the use Recipe, and what the endpoint as well as midpoint factors describe. In total, the description of the methodologies used is insufficient.

Line 271: Even if the authors normalize the results, it is still not really possible to compare the results of different impact categories. Please rephrase

Figure 4: This kind of graph does not allow for a meaningful comparison of the three systems under study.

Figure 5: Please explain why you show from all impact categories only the CO₂ Footprint in detail (which is additionally already shown in Figure 4).

Figure 5: Why are the pesticides emissions higher in the scenario with precision agriculture (which normally should reduce the input of pesticides)?

Line 349: The discussion chapter is currently not sufficient. The authors should discuss the results in more detail here.

Line 387: “Again, the most important differential is represented by LAA3, which deviates strongly from the performance of LAA1 and LAA3.” à How can LAAA3 differ from LAAA3?

Line 399. Large parts of the conclusion would fit better in the discussion section or in the introduction. Please shorten and rewrite.

Please re-check the quality of the english language used.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer Thank You very much for your efforts and pieces of advice that we are convinced could improve the quality of our paper. 

Warm regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for further improving this interesting publication I recommend to accept it in the present form.