Sustainability as Strategic Differentiator: The Promise and the Problems of Using Chicle vs. Petro-Chemicals in Chewing Gum

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

After reviewing the present work, I believe that it has some merits for publication that go beyond the use of complicated calculation methods or the proposal of new or elegant equations. The proposal focuses on a simple and widely known product that presents a true sustainable alternative that, if addressed, can represent some gain for society in general, not only for frequent consumers of the product, which is aligned with the main objective of the journal. In this way, I think that if the following recommendations are adequately addressed, the work can be published:

 1. I think that in the discussion section of this work comparisons could be made showing how some other products (preferably from the food sector, but not limited to these) that use some petroleum derivative have changed towards more sustainable alternatives, highlighting the strategies undertaken as well as some complications that had to be overcome.

 2. For the work to be more complete, add the following sections:

Practical implications

Study limitations

 3. Only uses 30 references, improve the reviewed literature by adding new references.

4. Some editorial errors were found in the document, for example:

In the second paragraph of page 7 the following was found: Canada, the United States. and Europe have all considered….

In the second paragraph of page 3 the following was found: Perfetti makes many petro0chemical based….

Author Response

1. "Theoretical background and empirical research": More current scientific materials are added with regard to certification, market consolidation, pollution, and chemicals found in chewing gum.
2. "Research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods": See "This is a descriptive study based on the economic history of the chewing gum industry.....This study aims to bringing together available data, assess its relevance, and make projections about possible future developments for chicle-based chewing gum." in Methods and Materials
3. "Arguments and discussion of findings": Findings now expanded to include possibility of industry consolidation, certification and regulatory requirements, and pollution standards as possible strategies for eapansion of chicle-based chewing gum.
4. "Article adequately referenced": A number of additional references have been included on topics including the health benefits of chewing gum, industry parallels in cosmetics an sweeteners, industry consolidation, pollution, and organizational considerations.. An extensive search of the literature shows literally no recent academic study of the chicle industry or chewing gum generally except in the health literature. Recommendations for future study now includes this observation and suggests future studies might follow these lines since interest in organic and natural products is growing.
5. "Are conclusions thoroughly supported?": Projections for future development of the chicle product are expanded to include parallels from stevia and cosmetics, and strategies and expanded to include certification and regulatory requirements and acquisition of chicle-based brands by established producers of petro-chemical based brands. 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

"Comparisons could be made": Other products that can provide some parallels include stevia (food industry) and cosmetics (not food, but similarly regulated). Issues considered include government regulation and industry certification standards. 

"Add the following sections": Both Practical Implications and Study Limitations added.

"Adding new references": New, more current references have been added. 

"Editorial errors": Corrections made.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript titled with " Sustainability as Strategic Differentiator: The Promise and the Problems of Using Chicle vs. Petro-chemicals in Chewing Gum ". The manuscript discuss a good points. Overall, The presented study  illustrates several points important for understanding difficulties that may arise in the transition to a more sustainable economy.The manuscript written well. But it needs a minor revision. The materials and methods should be shortening and also the conclusion should be concentrated in two or three sentences.

Author Response

"The materials and methods should be shortened": This section has been cut approximately in half.

"...conclusion should be concentrated in two or three sentences.": The conclusion is now cut to two sentences.

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The article "Sustainability as Strategic Differentiator: The Promise and the Problems of Using Chicle vs. Petro-chemicals in Chewing Gum" looks like a conference paper rather than a original article. 10 page article is not suitable for journal as a original article.  That is enough shortfall for a journal article.

2. The topic is interesting but no novelty is there. I wish the author to update the paper with statistics, insights, discussions, and open problems for readers. 

3. Authors should prove the novelty of the study. Need to provide the research gap and corresponding contributions of the study.    4. Results should be updated in detail with more statistics and graphical representation.    5. There are no insights, discussions, and open problems for readers.    6. References should be updated.

 

Author Response

Article not long enough: The article now has increased discussion of comparable products and strategies, along with sections such as Study Limitations and Practical Limitations. Literature on the chewing gum industry is very limited, and recent literature is almost exclusively on the health consequences of chewing gum (mostly positive). In this revision I included some of this literature, along with more detail on the chemical composition of chewing gum base. This revision has a number of added references.

1. "No novelty": This revision has several suggestions for the future of the chicle-based chewing gum industry, including acquisition by the companies that currently dominate the chewing gum market, industry certification standards, and mobilization of anti-pollution guidelines which could allow chicle-based gum since it is biodegradable, but disallow petro-chemical based chewing gum since it is not biodegradable. To my knowledge, this is the first time strategic avenues for further development have been presented in the literature. 
2. "Authors need to prove novelty of the study.": An extensive search of the literature shows the chewing gum industry to have had very little academic work ever done, perhaps due to the perceived triviality of the subject--the very quality which makes this an attention-grabbing subject.
3. "Results should be updated in detail with more statistics and graphical representation.": Statistics that exist, such as extent of market, and frequency of consumption, are given. No industry studies of chicle-based chewing gum producers exist, apart from a few popular press items which are cited. This is a relatively new and small industry, and the interesting thing is that a number of producers are developing new products and coming to market. A conventional industry study would be a good contribution, and is called for in the discussion of future studies.  This is basically an economic history study, hence employs a methodology and reporting methods conventional to that approach.
4. There are no insights, discussions, and open problems for readers.: The discussion of future implications has been greatly expanded to include ideas about industry consolidation and expansion of the portfolio on competing companies to include the chicle-based chewing gum alternatives now seem as threatening competitors. Also considered are the examples of stevia and of organic cosmetics, both of which appeal to the same values and a similar consumer base as chicle-base chewing gum.
5. "References should be updated.": More than a dozen references from the 2000s are newly included. In an economic history paper it is conventional to include references that may look dated by scientific or information technology standards, but data collected by anthropologists, historians, and others can retain relevance for a long period, especially when the subject is in a remote geographic area or populated by indigenous communities. The area where one can find recent academic studies on chewing gum is in the health sciences, and a number of these articles are now included.

Many thanks for your very helpful suggestions. This article is much improved as a result of the expansion, especially the inclusion of the possibility of industry consolidation whereby companies could offer both chicle-based and petro-chemical based chewing gum brands.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The work has improved considerably and the observations made in the previous version have been adequately addressed. Therefore, I consider that the work can be published in its current version.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind suggestions in the first round. I am glad you found the revisions appropriate and satisfactory.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have the same comments as before. 

Author Response

Thank you for the kind suggestions.

Please see added references.

Please see new discussion, conclusions, and suggestions for future research.