Palm Oil Business Partnership Sustainability through the Role of Social Capital and Local Wisdom: Evidence from Palm Oil Plantations in Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

 

1. The abstract lacks clarity in some sentences. For example, "Trust, social networks and participation negatively affect the sustainability of these partnerships" is somewhat confusing. It would be beneficial to elaborate on how these factors negatively impact sustainability. The term "local wisdom" could be defined more precisely to avoid ambiguity.

2. The methodology section of the abstract is briefly mentioned but could benefit from more detail. For instance, specifying the number of interviews conducted and the criteria for participant selection would add depth.

 

Methodology

 

3. The description of the sampling method is clear, but more details on the selection criteria and process for purposive sampling are needed. What specific criteria were used to select the 320 respondents?

 

4. The inclusion of respondents from various groups (e.g., NGOs, companies, academics) is a strength, but their specific roles and the rationale for their inclusion should be elaborated upon.

 

Results Discussion

 

5. Regarding the differences in profit-sharing patterns. The implications of these differences on farmer-company relationships and sustainability should be more explicitly stated.

 

6. For the investment cost. The discussion on investment costs and the associated financial burden on landowners is critical. However, it would be helpful to include more specific examples or case studies to illustrate these points.

 

7. Focus on the most relevant literature and ensure it supports the primary findings without overshadowing them.

 

Conclusion

 

8. The Conclusions read like someone who would rather be back in the lab, rather than someone who wants readers understand how their investigation may have added to the knowledge base in the field. Please present the conclusions in bullet points with clear take home message.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Address minor grammatical issues and ensure consistent use of terminology.

Author Response

Comments 1: The abstract lacks clarity in some sentences. For example, "Trust, social networks and participation negatively affect the sustainability of these partnerships" is somewhat confusing. It would be beneficial to elaborate on how these factors negatively impact sustainability. The term "local wisdom" could be defined more precisely to avoid ambiguity. 

Respond 1

It has been revised and added to the abstract:

Trust, social networks, and participation negatively affected the sustainability of these partnerships, whilst local wisdom and social solidarity positively influenced institutional strengthening. Company inconsistency and lack of openness can lead to a trust crisis that can threaten the sustainable operations of palm oil companies, while building good cooperative commitment and maintaining collaboration play key roles in enhancing community welfare and increasing company profits...…etc

Line 30-35

Comments 2
The methodology section of the abstract is briefly mentioned but could benefit from more detail. For instance, specifying the number of interviews conducted and the criteria for participant selection would add depth.

Respond 2: 

It has been revised and added to the methodology section:

Data were collected through in-depth interviews, field observations, and focus group discussions (FGDs), totaling 320 respondents, and analyzed descriptively and qualitatively. The selection of informants for the in-depth interviews was determined by considering their involvement in and understanding of the partnership between farmers and companies in oil palm plantations; field observations were carried out to determine the field conditions of these plantations, while FGDs were held to obtain stakeholder information regarding problems and solutions in implementing farmer and company partnerships with the aim of having a positive impact on economic, social, and environmental welfare.

Line 20-28  

Comments 3: 

Methodology : The description of the sampling method is clear, but more details on the selection criteria and process for purposive sampling are needed. What specific criteria were used to select the 320 respondents?

Respond 3:

It has been revised and added to the methodology section:

The criteria for selecting respondent farmer partners was a minimum partnership duration of 5 years. The focus group discussion (FGD) activities and in-depth interviews involved competent stakeholders connected to the decision-making process regarding the plantations or palm oil industry in the Konawe Utara Regency, encompassing social, economic, and environmental aspects, who ranged from village heads who were also partner farmers to representatives from palm oil companies or the Regional Government, academics, NGOs, and members of the Regional House of Representatives (DPRD).

line 180-187

Comment 4:

The inclusion of respondents from various groups (e.g., NGOs, companies, academics) is a strength, but their specific roles and the rationale for their inclusion should be elaborated upon.

Respond 4: 

It has been revised and added to the methodology section:

The specific roles of the respondents and rationale for their inclusion are elaborated upon below:

1. Palm oil plantation companies play a vital role in supporting agricultural development through various initiatives. Firstly, they provide essential agricultural inputs and technological support. Kansiime et al. (2021) highlight that the provision of high-quality seeds, fertilizers, and pest control methods by these companies significantly boosts crop yields and farmer incomes. Additionally, these companies invest in infrastructure that benefits both their operations and local communities, with a direct impact on economic development by facilitating the production process, reducing transaction costs, improving competition, and creating employment opportunities (Besime et al. (2021)). Furthermore, palm oil companies facilitate farmer access to larger markets. Ismail et al. (2024) note that, by integrating farmers into their supply chains, these companies help ensure that their products reach broader and more profitable markets, increasing their income and economic stability.
2. Academia plays a crucial role in driving agricultural innovation and policy analysis within the palm oil industry. Research conducted by Sarip et al. (2020) highlights the development of new technology in the form of a hydraulically operated palm oil loader system, showcasing how higher education institutions contribute to technological advancements in agriculture. Furthermore, the involvement of academia is evident in the research by Nain et al. (2022), which delves into the use of artificial intelligence frameworks for palm oil prediction, demonstrating how cutting-edge technologies are being integrated into the industry. This not only revolutionizes processes within the palm oil sector but also underscores the role of academia in driving technological advancements that enhance productivity and decision-making.,,,,,,,etc 

Line  187-236

Comment 5:

Regarding the differences in profit-sharing patterns. The implications of these differences on farmer-company relationships and sustainability should be more explicitly stated.

Respond 5: 

It has been revised and added to the Results Discussion

Regarding differences in profit-sharing models, two main models can be applied: profit-sharing based on land area or productivity. The former tends to be simpler to implement but can lead to unfairness for farmers who work harder or have more fertile and productive land. Meanwhile, the latter encourages farmers to improve their efficiency and productivity, as they will receive rewards more in line with their efforts and work results. However, this model requires more complex measurement and reporting systems as well as training and support for farmers to enhance their land management capacities…….etc

Line 334-378

Comment 6:  For the investment cost. The discussion on investment costs and the associated financial burden on landowners is critical. However, it would be helpful to include more specific examples or case studies to illustrate these points.

Respond 6: 

It has been revised and added to the Results Discussion: 

Based on case examples from the field, the investment cost is estimated to be IDR 25 million per hectare so far. Partner farmers strongly desire for the value of their land to be considered part of the investment value and need to know the operational costs per hectare. Currently, partner farmers are not fully aware of the exact investment and operational costs and only receive 40% of the net profit from CPO sales, an amount determined unilaterally by the company. According to field data, the operational costs range from IDR 7 to 10 million per hectare, but it is unclear how much of these costs are borne by the partner farmers. Independent farmers in Konawe Regency can earn an income of IDR 6-7 million per hectare per year, whereas partner farmers only receive around IDR 300,000 per hectare per year under the current 60:40% profit-sharing system based on land area. Therefore, partner farmers are seeking a change to a 60:40% profit-sharing system based on the productivity of palm oil per hectare, a change crucial to ensuring that the partnership with the company remains sustainable and fair for both parties

Line 321-333.

Comment 7:  Focus on the most relevant literature and ensure it supports the primary findings without overshadowing them.

Respond 7: Thank you for your input. We have incorporated some relevant literature reviews.

Comment 8: 

The Conclusions read like someone who would rather be back in the lab, rather than someone who wants readers understand how their investigation may have added to the knowledge base in the field. Please present the conclusions in bullet points with clear take home message

Respond 8: 

The document has been revised and structured into points that address the research questions. Thank you for your suggestions and feedback.

Note: 

English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible:

Respond: We have edited this article using an English language editing service available at this link: (https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english).

Thank you for your comments. We hope that this journal becomes more perfect and can be published, providing benefits for the advancement of knowledge in the future.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Sustainable partnerships play a significant role in the development of companies. They allow you to benefit from such interaction. The association of actors is a sought-after area of research and has a wide research base. At the same time, the types and features of the development of partnership interaction are a promising area for study.

 The material of this article is presented in good scientific language and is easily understandable. There are several recommendations that could improve the quality of the article.

1. As part of the literature review, it is recommended to consider several forms of interaction that arise as a result of the formation of partnerships. Depending on the goals and reasons for the partnership, different types of forms may appear. In world practice, clusters are distinguished (Clusters can be characterized by joint technological and innovative development of participants in interaction for commercial purposes and joint increase in competitiveness), industrial symbioses or ecotechnoparks (These are types of interaction when waste or excess energy of one market entity becomes raw materials for another. Relations between market participants are based on reducing the environmental impact, production costs and consumption of natural resources. In this paper, such forms of partnership are not considered, although they have an extensive research base. There are more than several thousand articles on this topic in the MDPI database.

2) Table 4 shows the results of the expert assessment, however, a small number of respondents noted the indicators "Access to information on market prices" and "Family participation in savings and credit cooperatives". Why were there few ratings collected here? Are there enough estimates to draw conclusions on these indicators? Explanations are required.

3) In table 4, among the social indicators, there is no indicator reflecting the legal inviolability or holding the subject accountable. Perhaps this could be an indicator of "The number of lost court cases on the defendant's account." Please consider the need to include this indicator in the assessment.

4) From the point of view of the design of the material, you need to check: tabular signatures (punctuation marks are not observed everywhere), text alignment. In Figure 1, the title and the drawing itself are placed on different sheets.

 5) The conclusions formulated by the authors characterize a low level of partnership interaction, but the question arises: is it possible, based on the results of the study, to give recommendations to the evaluated actors on the development of partnership interaction? I believe that this would help to increase the importance of the research conducted by the authors.

In general, the article can be recommended for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English editing required

Author Response

Comments 1:

As part of the literature review, it is recommended to consider several forms of interaction that arise as a result of the formation of partnerships. Depending on the goals and reasons for the partnership, different types of forms may appear. In world practice, clusters are distinguished (Clusters can be characterized by joint technological and innovative development of participants in interaction for commercial purposes and joint increase in competitiveness), industrial symbioses or ecotechnoparks (These are types of interaction when waste or excess energy of one market entity becomes raw materials for another. Relations between market participants are based on reducing the environmental impact, production costs and consumption of natural resources. In this paper, such forms of partnership are not considered, although they have an extensive research base. There are more than several thousand articles on this topic in the MDPI database.

Respond 01: The literature review has been referenced from well-reputed journals, especially comparisons with previous research findings up to 2024.

Comment 2.
Table 4 shows the results of the expert assessment, however, a small number of respondents noted the indicators "Access to information on market prices" and "Family participation in savings and credit cooperatives". Why were there few ratings collected here? Are there enough estimates to draw conclusions on these indicators? Explanations are required

Respond 2: It has been revised and added to the Results Discussion

Table 4 presents the respondents’ assessment of social networks and stakeholder participation in the sustainability of the partnership model for palm oil plantation businesses. The indicators are derived from the interview and FGD findings with various stakeholders, processed into sub-themes and then becoming statement items in the survey, such as respondents' assessments of social networks and participation in the palm oil plantation business partnership.

Line 504-509

Comment 3:

In table 4, among the social indicators, there is no indicator reflecting the legal inviolability or holding the subject accountable. Perhaps this could be an indicator of "The number of lost court cases on the defendant's account." Please consider the need to include this indicator in the assessment.

Respond 3:

I apologize, but we cannot follow up on the proposed indicators in this assessment because we have not encountered any issues related to the number of court cases lost in the defendant's account. So far, if there are conflicts or cases, they are resolved through persuasion and Alternative Dispute Resolution involving the village government before being submitted to the legal authorities. We apologize profusely.

Comment 4: 

From the point of view of the design of the material, you need to check: tabular signatures (punctuation marks are not observed everywhere), text alignment. In Figure 1, the title and the drawing itself are placed on different sheets.

Respond 4: Already revised. Thank you for your feedback. 

Comment 5: 

The conclusions formulated by the authors characterize a low level of partnership interaction, but the question arises: is it possible, based on the results of the study, to give recommendations to the evaluated actors on the development of partnership interaction? I believe that this would help to increase the importance of the research conducted by the authors.

Respond 5:

The research results can certainly provide recommendations to the evaluated parties regarding the development of partnership interactions. This has already been outlined in the implications of the research results and directions for future research.

Line 947-1040

Comment : In general, the article can be recommended for publication

Respond : Thank you.

Note:  

We have edited this article using an English language editing service available at this link: (https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Methods - should be mentioned in the Abstract.

Introduction - missing research gap. Should be added in the text.

Also missing research problem. Should be added in the text.

Research questions or hypothesis- are missing. Should be added in the text.

Local wisdom - need to be defined what is that - f.e. line 58.

Chapter 3 and chapter 3.1- there is no text here in this chapters.

Chapter 3 starts with 3.3.1.

Conclusion - missing answers about f.e. research questions (RQ). Since there are no RQ in the Introduction chapter also here are missing comments.

Missing practical implications. Should be added in the text/Conclusions.

Missing theoretical implications. Should be added in the text/Conclusions.

Missing future research opportunities. Should be added in the text/Conclusions.

A lack of resources from 2024. Should be added.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Comments 1:  Methods - should be mentioned in the Abstract.

Respond 1:  Detailed information on research methods has been provided in the abstract:

Data were collected through in-depth interviews, field observations, and focus group discussions (FGDs), totaling 320 respondents, and analyzed descriptively and qualitatively. The selection of informants for the in-depth interviews was determined by considering their involvement in and understanding of the partnership between farmers and companies in oil palm plantations; field observations were carried out to determine the field conditions of these plantations, while FGDs were held to obtain stakeholder information regarding problems and solutions in implementing farmer and company partnerships with the aim of having a positive impact on economic, social, and environmental welfare.

Line 20-28

Comments 2: Introduction - missing research gap. Should be added in the text.

Respond 2 : An explanation regarding research gaps has been added to the text:

North Konawe Regency, a central company with three palm oil plantations in one-roof and core-plasma partnerships with landowning farmers: PT Sultra Prima Lestari (PT.SPL), which includes Andowia, Asera, Langgikima, and Oheo, totaling 5,950 ha of planting area; PT Damai Jaya Lestari (PT.DJL), which includes Landawe, Wiwirano, and Langgikima, totaling 6,989 ha; and PT Perkebunan Nusantara XIV (Persero or PT.PN-14), which includes Wiwirano and Landawe, totaling 4,455 ha.

As highlighted by Vermeulen and Cotula (2010), fair and mutually beneficial partnerships in the agribusiness industry, providing clear and significant benefits to farmers, increasing their income and overall well-being, are crucial to improving farmer welfare. This, however, has not been the case for the partnerships mentioned above…. ..etc

Line 88-11

Comment 3:  Also missing research problem. Should be added in the text.

Respond 3: The problem statement has been added:

Based on the phenomenon of the partnership relationships between farmers and companies discussed above, it is very important to obtain information to analyze and understand the social capital characteristics of the landowning farmers who are business partners with palm oil plantations in North Konawe, including how social networks, trust, and social norms influence said partnerships. In addition, it is essential to evaluate how social capital and local wisdom contribute to landowning farmers’ institutional management capabilities in their business partnerships with palm oil plantations, which includes analyzing the role of traditional values and local practices in strengthening or weakening these partnerships.

Line 138-146

Comments  4: Research questions or hypothesis- are missing. Should be added in the text.

Respond:  4:

Research questions or hypotheses have been added to the text:

Thus, the research questions in this study are:

(1) What are the social capital characteristics of landowning farmers who are business partners of palm oil plantations in North Konawe?

(2) What is social capital’s role in managing the business partnerships between landowning farmers and palm oil plantations in North Konawe?

(3) What is local wisdom’s role in managing the business partnerships between landowning farmers and palm oil plantations in North Konawe?

The hypotheses in this study are:

This study’s hypotheses are the following: (1) landowning farmers’ social capital characteristics include strong social networks, high levels of trust among farmers, and social norms that support collaboration and cooperation; (2) social capital plays a crucial role in enhancing the effectiveness of managing business partnerships between landowning farmers and palm oil plantations through improved trust and better communication; and (3) local wisdom contributes to managing business partnerships by providing traditional values and local practices that strengthen solidarity and cooperation among farmers and between farmers and companies.

Line 159-166

Comments 5 :Local wisdom - need to be defined what is that - f.e. line 58.

Respond 5 :  Define of Local Wisdom Has been added

Chambers (1983) explains that local wisdom is the knowledge and skills possessed by local communities, acquired through direct experience with their environment. This wisdom is often more adaptive and relevant to the local context compared to outsider, imported knowledge. According to Geertz (1983), local knowledge is a system of knowledge maintained by local communities that distinguishes them from other communities, the result of a long process of adaptation to their surrounding environment and culture….etc

Line  71-79

Comments 6: Chapter 3 and chapter 3.1- there is no text here in this chapters and

Respond 6: The order of chapters and sub-chapters has been corrected: Line 243..…etc

Comments 7: Chapter 3 starts with 3.3.1

Respond 7:  The order of chapters 3 and sub-chapters has been corrected: Line 243..…etc

Comments 8: Conclusion - missing answers about f.e. research questions (RQ). Since there are no RQ in the Introduction chapter also here are missing comments.

Respond 7:  Conclusions have been revised according to research questions, 

research questions on line 152-158

Comment 8 : Missing practical implications. Should be added in the text/Conclusions. 

Respond 8 :  It has been added Practical Implications:

Social Capital of Landowning Farmers: To improve the social capital of landowning farmers in North Konawe, it is essential to build trust between farmers and palm oil companies through transparent communication and consistent, fair practices. Strengthening social networks among farmers can be achieved by implementing cooperative societies or regular community meetings, which will enhance their collective influence and support. Additionally, increasing farmer participation in sustainable management can be promoted through training programs and inclusive policies, ensuring that their voices are heard in decision-making processes. Leveraging local wisdom and social solidarity offers significant opportunities to enhance business partnership sustainability. Integrating traditional practices and cultural insights into partnership strategies can foster mutual understanding and respect. Community initiatives that emphasize collective well-being and mutual support can further promote social solidarity. By addressing these areas, the challenges of low trust, weak social networks, and limited participation can be overcome, leading to more effective and sustainable partnerships between landowning farmers and palm oil plantations in North Konawe…… etc

Line 964-1008

Comments 9 : Missing theoretical implications. Should be added in the text/Conclusions.

Respond 9: It has been added to Line 993-1021

Theoretical implications:

This research makes an important contribution to our understanding of social capital and cultural sustainability in the context of business partnerships between landowning farmers and palm oil companies in North Konawe. The low levels of trust and weak social networks between farmers and companies support the theories of Coleman (1988) and Putnam (1993) on the importance of trust and social networks in social capital. Additionally, the limited participation of farmers reinforces Arnstein (1969)’s theory of participation, which states that genuine participation leads to empowerment and better decision-making. The importance of local wisdom in this study also supports Throsby (2019)’s theory of cultural sustainability, which emphasizes the value of integrating traditional knowledge into contemporary management systems. Finally, the need to strengthen local institutional structures aligns with North (1990)’s view that strong institutions are key to effective economic performance. Thus, the findings of this research not only reinforce existing theories but also provide empirical evidence that can be used for further development in the study of social capital, participation, cultural sustainability, and institutional theory.

Line 1010-1025

Comment 10 : Missing future research opportunities. Should be added in the text/Conclusions.

Respond:  It has been added

Future Research Opportunities:

Several future research opportunities can be explored to enhance the partnership between farmers and palm oil companies. Future research can focus on developing strategies to increase trust, using information technology to strengthen social networks, and model farmer involvement in sustainable management. Additionally, it is important to study how strengthening institutional structures at the village and sub-district levels can influence social capital and business partnership effectiveness, as well as how local wisdom can be integrated into business practices to enhance sustainability. Further research can also evaluate the social and economic impacts of strengthening social capital in farming communities, conduct comparative studies between regions to understand the factors of partnership success, and assess the effectiveness of government programs and policies in enhancing social capital and partnership sustainability. By exploring these opportunities, significant contributions could be made to improving the success and sustainability of partnerships between farmers and palm oil companies in the future.

Line 1027-1080

Comment 11: A lack of resources from 2024. Should be added.

Respond : It has been added in several places in the article

Such as Line 198, 220, 249-369, 719-726, 753

Note:

We have edited this article using an English language editing service available at this link: (https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

PALM OIL BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH THE ROLE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL AND LOCAL WISDOM: EVIDENCE FROM PALM OIL PLANTATIONS IN INDONESIA

REVIEW

My comment are bold.

 

1)      “This research was conducted in a palm oil plantation area by involving landowner farmers, palm oil companies, and other stakeholders such as the local government, NGOs, and academics.” P.1

 

Why there is not workers among the stakeholders?

2)       “Data were collected through in-depth interviews, field observations, and focus group discussions (FGDs), totaling 320 respondents, and analyzed descriptively and qualitatively. The selection of informants for the in-depth interviews was determined by considering their involvement in and understanding of the partnership between farmers and companies in oil palm plantations”

 

There is need some clarifications:

a)      How many are there focus group participant? How many are focus group discussion (session) are conducted?

b)      How did you know about selected in-depth interviewers who “involvement in and understanding of the partnership between farmers and companies in oil palm plantations” p.1, before field study.

 

3)       “Trust, social networks, and participation negatively affected the sustainability of these partnerships….” P.1

 

The factors, that mentioned in this sentence are positive facts but authors say those have negative effects. I understand they mean absence /or weakness of these factor have negative effect. Re writing may be more good.

 

4)      “The respondents were selected via purposive sampling, only considering farmers who owned land for palm oil manufacturing, selecting 320 respondents to evaluate the business partnerships in the area.”p.4

 

What is its mean “purposive sampling”?

 

5)      There is an explanation about production amount differences between companies in the table 2 like “The differences in these production figures may be attributed to the soil fertility and natural factors in the locations of these plantations (Paterson and Lima, 2018), their cultivation treatments (Merten et al., 2016), and socio-political factors (Gatto and Zerboni, 2015; Santika et al., 2019).”

 

I think so these factors cannot explain the differences, there must be another factors. Because two company operate in same region (Wiwirano), It indicates the production differences cannot be attribute to natural factors and socio-political factors. If there is a productivity differences because of “cultivation treatments “what is this? Why the other company not apply the same methods?

 

 

 

 

 

A Suggestion

6)      Agro-food supply chain and value chain: In the text there are many information about actors like such as “sedentary farmers, agriculturalists, forest product gatherers, and laborers” or “Company and Farmer/Landowner”. And there is some information about agreement terms (in p.7) but presentation of the data make it not simple and easily understandable to those. My suggestion is that:

 

a)       Supply chain: If authors can present schematically similar to the schema in P.26

a.       the actors and their characteristics (including local government and state)

b.       their functions

c.       Production flow from agricultural input to final product, (including all primary production and processing) flow,

the information can be more understandable.

 

b)      Value chain: If authors can present schematically and numerically

a.       Who own which?

b.       Who do what?

c.       Who get how much from final (total) products’ value?

the information can be more understandable.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1:

   “This research was conducted in a palm oil plantation area by involving landowner farmers, palm oil companies, and other stakeholders such as the local government, NGOs, and academics.” P.1

 Why there is not workers among the stakeholders?

Response 1:

Thanks for the suggestion that makes us more careful in writing, Apologies, I need to clarify that by "community landowners" in Table 1, I am referring to landowners who also work as palm oil farmers.

In Table 1, it is clearly shown that in the interviews and FGDs, community landowners who are also working as palm oil farmers, landowners who have done their work, as well as respondents from palm oil companies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and local governments, including company executives, NGO representatives, academics, and government officials, were involved.

Line  177

Comments 2:

“Data were collected through in-depth interviews, field observations, and focus group discussions (FGDs), totaling 320 respondents, and analyzed descriptively and qualitatively. The selection of informants for the in-depth interviews was determined by considering their involvement in and understanding of the partnership between farmers and companies in oil palm plantations”

 There is need some clarifications:

1. a)      How many are there focus group participant? How many are focus group discussion (session) are conducted?

b)      How did you know about selected in-depth interviewers who “involvement in and understanding of the partnership between farmers and companies in oil palm plantations” p.1, before field study.

Response 2:

1. a) The focus group discussion involved 27 participants in a single/one session (Table 1)
2. b) Before conducting the field study, we implemented a series of steps to ensure that the selected in-depth interviewees were truly “engaged and knowledgeable about the partnership between farmers and companies in palm oil plantations.” The steps we took included:

1. We conducted preliminary research through existing literature, reports, and professional networks to identify individuals who had demonstrated deep involvement and understanding of partnerships in palm oil plantations. We prioritized those with practical experience and contributions to discussions or projects related to such partnerships.
2. We gathered references and recommendations from academics, practitioners, and reputable organizations in the field of agribusiness and palm oil plantations. These recommendations helped ensure that we selected interviewees with the necessary credibility and understanding.
3. Additionally, before finalizing the in-depth interviewees, we conducted initial interviews to assess their level of knowledge and involvement. In these interviews, we explored their experiences related to the partnership between farmers and companies and tested their understanding of the existing dynamics and challenges.
4. We also conducted background verification to ensure that the information provided by the prospective interviewees was accurate and met our criteria. This included checking their publications, projects, and contributions in the field of partnerships in palm oil plantations.

Comments 3:

 “Trust, social networks, and participation negatively affected the sustainability of these partnerships….” P.1

The factors, that mentioned in this sentence are positive facts but authors say those have negative effects. I understand they mean absence /or weakness of these factor have negative effect. Re writing may be better.

Response 3:

Well, I will write again, and what we mean is Trust, social networks, and participation are still weak and need to be improved to strengthen the sustainability of these partnerships, while local wisdom and social solidarity show very strong conditions towards institutional strengthening.

Revision on line 30-33

Comments 4:

“The respondents were selected via purposive sampling, only considering farmers who owned land for palm oil manufacturing, selecting 320 respondents to evaluate the business partnerships in the area.”p.4

 What is its mean “purposive sampling”?

Response 4:

Purposive sampling, also known as judgmental or selective sampling, is a method where the researcher uses their judgment to select participants who are most likely to provide relevant and rich data for the study. This method is often used when the researcher needs to focus on a specific subset of the population that has particular characteristics relevant to the research question.

In our study on business partnerships in palm oil plantations, purposive sampling was used to select respondents. Here’s its application:

1. Criteria-Based Selection: Farmers who owned palm oil land were selected. This criterion ensures that the participants are directly involved in the palm oil industry and can provide relevant insights into business partnerships.

Sample Size: A total of 320 respondents were selected. This sample size was likely determined based on the need to gather sufficient data while focusing on those who meet the selection criteria.

Comments 5:

There is an explanation about production amount differences between companies in the table 2 like “The differences in these production figures may be attributed to the soil fertility and natural factors in the locations of these plantations (Paterson and Lima, 2018), their cultivation treatments (Merten et al., 2016), and socio-political factors (Gatto and Zerboni, 2015; Santika et al., 2019).”

 

I think so these factors cannot explain the differences, there must be another factors. Because two company operate in same region (Wiwirano), It indicates the production differences cannot be attribute to natural factors and socio-political factors. If there is a productivity differences because of “cultivation treatments “what is this? Why the other company not apply the same methods?

Response 5:

Thank you for your attention and comments. We greatly appreciate your perspective on the factors influencing the production differences between companies in Table 2.

Other factors also influence the differences in production in our study area, such as company management and the characteristics of farmers, including their knowledge and experience. The operations of PT Perkebunan Nusantara XIV began in 1994. From the time they first established themselves in the region, the choice of location for the oil palm plantation was very strategic, especially compared to the other two companies that started in 2006. The topography of the land in the PTPN area is relatively less hilly and flat, with no swampy areas, which also affects plant production. Although the same cultivation practices have been applied, such as the use of fertilizers and pest control, the results differ. Additionally, because the farmers have been around for a long time and possess considerable knowledge and experience, the management of the oil palm plantations is more advanced compared to the farmers working for DJL and SPL companies.

Revision on line 250-263

Comments 6:

Agro-food supply chain and value chain: In the text there are many information about actors like such as “sedentary farmers, agriculturalists, forest product gatherers, and laborers” or “Company and Farmer/Landowner”. And there is some information about agreement terms (in p.7) but presentation of the data make it not simple and easily understandable to those. My suggestion is that:

a)       Supply chain: If authors can present schematically similar to the schema in P.26

1. the actors and their characteristics (including local government and state)
2. their functions
3. Production flow from agricultural input to final product, (including all primary production and processing) flow, the information can be more understandable.

 

b)      Value chain: If authors can present schematically and numerically

1. Who own which?
2. Who do what?
3. Who get how much from final (total) products’ value? the information can be more understandable.

Response 6:

Description related to Supply Chain and Value Chain Company as follows:

1. For PTPN 14 Company, actors in the production chain are farmers and farmer groups, PTPN 14 Company, and Palm Oil Industry Companies. Roles of the Actors are: a) Farmers/Landowners are responsible for planting palm oil seedlings provided by the company, maintaining the plants, and harvesting fresh fruit bunches (FFB). They must also report the harvest results and the condition of the plants regularly to the company and manage the land sustainably; b) Farmer Groups act as intermediaries between farmers and the company. They facilitate communication, resolve conflicts, and socialize partnership programs to farmers; c) PTPN 14 Company provides palm oil seedlings, fertilizers, and agricultural equipment and offers technical training to farmers. They are also responsible for collecting the FFB, supporting farmers with financial assistance and infrastructure, and conducting regular monitoring and evaluation of agricultural performance d) Palm Oil Industry Companies process TBS into crude palm oil (CPO) and other derivative products and manage the marketing and distribution of the final products. The industry companies are also responsible for product innovation, quality improvement, and research and development (R&D).  The PTPN 14 Oil Palm Plantation Supply Chain as follows:

       Farmers (Plasma and Core Plantation) ------> PTPN 14 ------> Palm Oil Processing Plant

In the value chain, PTPN 14 Company has plasma farmers and core plantations. Farmers/Landowners play a crucial role in the process, responsible for planting the palm oil seedlings provided by the company, maintaining the plants, and harvesting the fresh fruit bunches (FFB/TBS). The company includes palm oil seedlings, fertilizers, and agricultural equipment and offers technical training to farmers. The palm oil processing industry processes CPO into various derivative products and ensures the marketing of the products. The PTPN 14 Oil Palm Plantation Value Chain as follows:

Suppliers ------> FFB/TBS Production ------> CPO Production ------> CPO Marketing

1. For DJL and SPL Companies, actors in the production chain are farmers, SPL company, and DJL company. Roles of the Actors: a) Farmers/Landowners are responsible for planting palm oil seedlings provided by the company, maintaining the plants and harvesting fresh fruit bunches (FFB/TBS). They must also report the harvest results and the condition of the plants regularly to the company and manage the land sustainably; b) DJL and SPL Companies provide palm oil seedlings, fertilizers, and agricultural equipment and offer technical training to farmers. They are also responsible for collecting the FFB, supporting farmers with financial assistance and infrastructure, and conducting regular monitoring and evaluation of agricultural performance; c) Additionally, DJL and SPL Companies process FFB into crude palm oil (CPO) and other derivative products and manage the marketing and distribution of the final products. The DJL and SPL Oil Palm Plantation Supply Chain as follows:

Farmers ------> DJL/SPL ------> DJL/SPL Palm Oil Processing Plant.

While the Value Chain operates, DJL and SPL Companies partner with farmers/landowners, who are responsible for planting palm oil seedlings provided by the company, maintaining the plants, and harvesting fresh fruit bunches (FFB). This partnership is a key aspect of the process, as the companies provide palm oil seedlings, fertilizers, and agricultural equipment and offer technical training to farmers. The DJL and SPL Palm Oil Processing Plant processes FFB/TBS into CPO and various derivative products, ensuring the marketing of the products. The The DJL and SPL Oil Palm Plantation Value Chain:

Suppliers ----> TBS Production ------> CPO Production ------> CPO Marketing.

The requested explanation has been entered on Line 290-342

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors should check  typos and minor spelling errors. Tables 1-4, 7 and Figure 1 should be better linked with the text. Introduction should include a better literature review.

Validation and update in references is needed. Conclusions should present future research opportunities for stakeholders.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Authors should check  typos and minor spelling errors.  

Author Response

Comments:

Authors should check typos and minor spelling errors. Tables 1-4, 7 and Figure 1 should be better linked with the text. Introduction should include a better literature review. Validation and update in references is needed. Conclusions should present future research opportunities for stakeholders.

Response:

• We appreciate the thorough review and have carefully examined the manuscript to identify any typographical and spelling errors. We have made the necessary corrections.
• Linking Tables and Figures with Text: We have clarified and ensured that Tables 1-4, 7, and Figure 1 are better integrated with the text. The relevant sections now contain clear references to these tables and figures, and their significance has been discussed.
• Introduction and Literature Review: The introduction has been revised to include a new and more comprehensive literature review, and we have highlighted the new references in yellow.
• Validation and Updating of References: We have validated and updated the references, ensuring they are current and relevant. Recent studies have been included to reflect the latest developments in the field.
• Conclusions and Future Research Opportunities: The conclusion section has been expanded to outline future research opportunities for stakeholders. We have highlighted areas where further research could be beneficial and how stakeholders can engage with these opportunities.

Future Research Opportunities:

Several future research opportunities can be explored to enhance the partnership between farmers and palm oil companies. Future research can focus on: a) developing strategies to increase trust, using information technology to strengthen social networks, and model farmer involvement in sustainable management; b) With the shift to digital and artificial intelligence, such as smart farming, oil palm companies can market these technologies to their stakeholders, enhancing profitability and environmental sustainability.  As a result, future study may focus on the utilization of social capital to foster collaboration across stakeholders such as business technologists and farmers. Additionally, it is important to study how strengthening institutional structures at the village and sub-district levels can influence social capital and business partnership effectiveness, as well as how local wisdom can be integrated into business practices to enhance sustainability; c) Further research can also evaluate the social and economic impacts of strengthening social capital in farming communities, conduct comparative studies between regions to understand the factors of partnership success, and assess the effectiveness of government programs and policies in enhancing social capital and partnership sustainability. By exploring these opportunities, significant contributions could be made to improving the success and sustainability of partnerships between farmers and palm oil companies in the future

This has been added in lines 1089-1105.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have satisfactorily addressed all the comments. However, I have observed that many of the references are over five years old, and some are from authors based in the authors' own countries. This narrow focus could limit the research's broader applicability. I recommend including more recent and internationally diverse references to enhance the study's relevance and global perspective.

Author Response

Comments:

The authors have satisfactorily addressed all the comments. However, I have observed that many of the references are over five years old, and some are from authors based in the authors' own countries. This narrow focus could limit the research's broader applicability. I recommend including more recent and internationally diverse references to enhance the study's relevance and global perspective.

Response 1:

Thank you for your constructive comments and feedback. We greatly appreciate the attention and time you have taken to provide such valuable input. Addition of Recent References:

We agree that more recent references can offer more relevant and contextual insights into our research. Therefore, we have included references from the last five years, covering various perspectives and recent findings related to the topic we discuss. However, we retained some references older than five years, as these are foundational theories that underpin our study, such as Putnam (1994), Geertz (1983), and Grossmann (2017).

The list of references that were replaced with more recent ones with similar context and issues is as follows:

• Saswattecha et al. (2015)
• Silalertruksa et al. (2017)
• Silalertruksa et al. (2017)
• Kotowska et al. (2015)
• Koh and Wilcove (2008);
• Comte et al. (2012);
•  Ganser et al. (2017)
• Jundiani (2018)
• Eaton and Shepherd (2001)
• J. McCarthy and Zen (2010)
• Merten et al. (2016)
• Gatto and Zerboni (2015);
• Santika et al. (2019)
• Olavarria-Gambi (2009)
• Williams et al. (2015)
• Balwin and Ford (1988)
• Doktorova (2018)
• drianto et al. (2019),
• Santika et al. (2019),
• Syahza (2019)
• Awan et al. (2018)
• Kelly et al. (2017)
• Astuti and McGregor (2017)
• Brandi et al. (2015)
• Carlson et al. (2018)
• Guliyev et al. (2019)
• Syahza and Asmit (2019)
• Himanshu et al. (2019)
• Cambers (1983)
• Grossmann (2017)
• Vermeulen and Cotula (2010)
• Mann (2019)
• Schoneveld et al. (2019)
• Yue (2019)

• Hrytsaienko et al., 2019; King et al., 2019; Hatu et al. (2019), Scherp et al. (2009)
• Carchiolo et al. (2007)
• Cramton and Doyle (2017) discuss
• Martin et al., 2015;
• Syahza, 2019)
• Hidayat et al. (2018)

 

New references in the narrative are marked in yellow

Once again, we thank you for your valuable suggestions and feedback. We are confident that the additions and changes made will strengthen the quality and relevance of our research.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Up to Editor decision.

Author Response

Comments: Up to Editor decision

Response; Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have improved paper as required.