Competencies and Capabilities for the Management of Sustainable Rural Development Projects in the Value Chain: Perception from Small and Medium-Sized Business Agents in Jauja, Peru

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors wish to present the competencies and capabilities for managing sustainable rural development projects in the value chain of Jauja, Peru.  This is done through the mapping of the perceptions of SMEs’ agents. Their approach is interesting but requires some revisions to be publishable in Sustainability.

1.       Given the journal's scope, the authors should discuss sustainable development. In this sense, a short discussion should be included in the introduction. Therefore, the following two papers should be included. (a) M. Manioudis & G. Meramveliotakis (2022) "Broad strokes towards a grand theory in the analysis of sustainable development: a return to the classical political economy", New Political Economy, 27(5), pp. 866-878, and (b) Tomislav, K. (2018) "The concept of sustainable development: From its beginning to the contemporary issues", Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business, 21(1), 67-94. 

2.       The authors should briefly present the WWP model.

3.       The authors should describe the challenges faced by Peruvian SMEs in adopting sustainable practices.

4.       The SWOT analysis on page 15 and the KCEF matrix need more specific. Specifying the strengths and weaknesses of the guinea pig value chain in Jauja should be more appropriate.

5.       What are the theoretical and policy implications of the study? The authors should add a section to discuss them.

6.       What are the limitations of the study?

Minor

1.       The sentence “The actors in this chain have been showing economic improvements, representativeness and participation, characteristics that make them the key human capital for development” (abstract, lines 19-20) needs revision.

2.       Figure 4 needs corrections. The numbers 0-7 should be deleted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an evaluation of institutional competencies and capacities of the actors in the guinea pig value chain (Line 119). The manuscript presents novel and interesting data, but needs a thorough revision of the writing structure, as detailed below. The proposal section, based on the evaluation, is especially interesting. If properly revised, the manuscript could be very useful for practitioners in applying the models presented. To achieve this, jargon should be significantly reduced.

Specific comments:

Lines 17-21 Do you have evidence of this development, strengthening and improvements? Then this evidence must be presented before jumping to conclusions.

Line 35: IPMA needs to be further explained here.

Line 72: CFS-RAI Principles need to be explained here.

Line 79: WWP model needs to be explained here. Think of a reader that would like to implement a similar model in their country/region. Can you explain how these models and methodologies work?

Line 81: There is an odd transition between these two paragraphs. I fail to see the connection.

Line 83: When someone says the LEADER approach is a Community (with upper case) initiative, they mean the European Community (EU), not the local (rural) community.

Line 86: The LAG acronym is mentioned later but is never operationalized. How do I know if a specific organization can be considered a LAG?

Line 97: This switch to Jauja is too abrupt. The introduction should first focus on the topic of study (management of value chain projects) and then introduce Jauja in Section 2, as the “study site”.

Lines 106-107: Another abrupt switch, this time from Jauja to general theory of project management.

Line 116: Switched again to Jauja. In general, the introduction needs a complete overhaul, as explained in the previous comments from Line 35.

Line 118: Too early to give an assessment that the process is delayed and advancing slowly. First present the evidence for this.

Line 143: Too early in the manuscript to give recommendations (“interrelationships must be improved”).

Line 158: Were interviews done? A detailed methodology needs to be explained before the results stemming from the research. This does not belong in a proper introduction. May I suggest that this section describing the chain be moved to the results section.

Line 136: This needs to be explained earlier, in Line 35.

Line 216 (and later in 442): What is meant by “project work”?

Line 429: The acronyms need to be explained.

Lines 442-447: At times, the manuscript has too much jargon. Take a look at this paragraph as an example of this problem. Imagine that you are a reader encountering these acronyms for the first time when reading this paragraph. Can the manuscript be made more accessible for this reader?

Line 455: Wouldn´t it be clearer is the reference to CFS-RAI principles be removed? At times, it sounds more like a dogma to be believed than a practice that is being evaluated.

Line 467: Where can I find evidence that the WWP model is a powerful tool? I don´t see it.

Table 3: Where does the data for this table come from?

Line 470: Where in Table 3 can I see this “intimate relationship”?

Line 476: How can you tell that the capacities are “developing” if there is no longitudinal data to show this?

Line 479: How can you tell that the influence is “improving”? The evidence presented should guide the interpretation, and not the other way around.

Line 482: Where do you see the “increase”?

Line 484: This is mixing results with theoretical arguments. You have no evidence that the positive impact is due to women´s communication and collaboration skills. This may be true, but you present no evidence.

Line 501: “managing” is a strange word here, as it seems more like a leadership process. Maybe “making efforts to…” would be better.

Lines 596-611: These seem like instructions for authors.

Table 8: Can bullet points be added to the different items in the activity plan?

Line 595: The discussion is missing. How do the results of the present research compare to those of previous studies?

Conclusions: These need to be rewritten completely. Summarize your results based on your data, instead of presenting theoretical arguments. There is no evidence of improvements because the study is not longitudinal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English needs a minor revision

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The authors addressed my previous comments and improved their manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did a fine revision that has brought out the luster of the research done. two very minor observations:

1. Conclusions should not mention tables.

2. “Consequently, it is likely that there is some bias and the real valuation of these competencies and capacities is somewhat lower”. Why? Think of a reader that is initiating in the field of development and help her understand what she may encounter.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

it is better to give the English a final edit.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf