Derived Environmental Impacts of Organic Fairtrade Cocoa (Peru) Compared to Its Conventional Equivalent (Ivory Coast) through Life-Cycle Assessment in the Basque Country
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The paper would benefit from a clearer and more concise abstract that summarizes the main findings and contributions of the study.
2. The introduction could be strengthened by providing more context on the importance of studying the environmental impacts of cocoa production, and by clearly stating the research questions and objectives of the study.
3. The methodology section could be more detailed, particularly in explaining the life-cycle assessment methodology used and the assumptions and limitations of the study.
4. The results section could be presented more clearly, with more emphasis on the key findings and their implications.
5. The discussion section could be expanded to provide more context on the broader implications of the study and to situate the findings within the broader literature on sustainable agriculture and environmental impact assessment.
6. The language used throughout the paper could be simplified and made more accessible to a wider audience, particularly in the introduction and discussion sections.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language used throughout the paper could be simplified and made more accessible to a wider audience, particularly in the introduction and discussion sections.
Author Response
Please find the attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this manuscript (sustainability-2749021) entitled ‘Derived environmental impacts of organic Fairtrade cocoa (Peru) compared to its conventional equivalent (Ivory Coast) through Life-Cycle Assessment in the Basque Country’ submitted to Sustainability, Ortzi Akizu-Gardoki and Blanca del Carmen López del Amo Peña have analyzed differences between the global environmental impacts of Fairtrade certified and organically produced cocoa (from Peru), in the form of a 150 gram chocolate bar processed and distributed in the Basque Country (Europe); and the respective average conventional product (from Ivory Coast). This research is interesting and complete, and suitable for publication on sustainability. Here, I listed some minor concerned to be addressed to improve the quality of this manuscript.
1. In the revision, cocoa species and planting regions analyzed in this study should be described.
2. For the Tables 1-9 and Figure 2, significance in difference should be analyzed.
3. Detailed standards for OA&FT and CA analyzed in this study should be introduced in the revised manuscript
4. Authors should consider to divide the section 4. Results and Discussion into two sections. In addition, I cannot find the Section 2 in the manuscript. These mistakes should be corrected in the revision.
Author Response
Please find the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCertainly, here are some review comments on the assessment of derived environmental impacts of organic Fairtrade cocoa from Peru compared to its conventional equivalent from Ivory Coast through Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) in the Basque Country:
Introduction and Objectives:
The introduction should provide more context on the significance of comparing organic Fairtrade cocoa from Peru and conventional cocoa from Ivory Coast specifically in the Basque Country. Explain the rationale behind choosing these regions and the relevance of the study in addressing global sustainability concerns in cocoa production.
Clearly state the objectives and hypotheses of the study to guide readers through the research focus and expected outcomes.
Methodology and Data Collection:
Detailed information on the methodology used for the Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) is crucial. Explain the system boundaries, functional units, data sources, and assumptions made during the LCA.
Ensure transparency in data collection methods, especially when comparing two geographically distinct regions. Justify any variations in data collection techniques and their potential impact on the results.
Environmental Impact Assessment:
Provide a comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts associated with organic Fairtrade cocoa from Peru and conventional cocoa from Ivory Coast. Highlight differences in areas such as carbon footprint, water use, land use, and biodiversity.
Consider a more in-depth discussion on the social and economic impacts of organic Fairtrade cocoa versus conventional cocoa, beyond environmental considerations, if relevant data is available.
Results and Discussion:
Present the results in a clear and concise manner, utilizing graphs or tables to aid in the visualization of the environmental impact comparisons between the two cocoa production methods.
In the discussion section, critically analyze the findings in the context of sustainability, addressing the strengths and limitations of the study. Compare the results with existing literature and discuss the implications for policymakers, cocoa producers, and consumers.
Sensitivity Analysis and Uncertainty Assessment:
Include a sensitivity analysis to identify key parameters that significantly influence the outcomes of the LCA. Discuss how variations in these parameters may affect the results.
Conduct an uncertainty assessment to quantify the reliability and robustness of the findings. Address any limitations or uncertainties in the data or methodologies used and propose ways to mitigate them.
Conclusion and Recommendations:
Summarize the key findings without introducing new information. Restate the significance of the study's results and their implications for sustainable cocoa production and consumption.
Provide clear recommendations for stakeholders, policymakers, and industry players based on the study's outcomes. Highlight potential areas for improvement and future research directions.
Language and Structure:
Ensure the manuscript's language is clear, concise, and free of grammatical errors. Structure the paper logically, with smooth transitions between sections.
By addressing these comments, the study on comparing the environmental impacts of organic Fairtrade cocoa from Peru and conventional cocoa from Ivory Coast through Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) can be strengthened, providing valuable insights into sustainable cocoa production practices.
Author Response
Please find the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript provides a comprehensive research to the study of derived environmental impacts of organic Fairtrade cocoa (Peru) compared to its conventional equivalent (Ivory Coast) through Life-Cycle Assessment in the Basque Country. However, in the course of the review, some more were found, as listed below:
1. The authors propose that the most widely used tool for quantitative analyses of impacts arising from the production and distribution of highly manufactured products is the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and that the rest of the tools should be listed with pros and cons.
2. The authors should present the rationale for the selection of the Ecoinvent v3.9.1 database.
3. The authors mention in line 379 that copper oxide has made a significant contribution to the use of copper as a fungicide, so are the authors aware of the other literature about copper. (e.g. Green Energy Environ., DOI: 10.1016/j.gee.2022.01.005)
4. The abstract section should be appropriately shortened to highlight the focus of this manuscript. Otherwise, it will be difficult to attract readers.
5. The language of the manuscript needs to be polished. In addition, the aesthetics of the tables could be improved.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageOverall, the language is okay, but needs further embellishment. There are still sentences that make it difficult to understand.
Author Response
Please find the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA brief summary. The study aims to assess the ecological impact of producing and distributing 1 kg of OA&FT Chocolate (Norandino cooperative brand, Peru-sourced cocoa) manufactured at Ethiquable factory based in France and sold at Medicusmundi store. The paper aims to contrast these impacts with those of standard products found in the Basque market, to estimate the potential decrease in GWP and TE that purchasers of chocolate and cocoa products in the Basque Country could achieve by transitioning from CA chocolate to OA&FT chocolate.
General concept comments
The references cited are primarily modern publications (within the past 5 years) and pertinent.
The study is methodologically sound and the experimental design is suitable for testing the hypothesis.
The results are replicable, according to the methods section.
The manuscript's methodology involves gathering data from various sources to perform its analysis. To compute the complete LCA, the study considers bibliographic data, production data of Ethiquable and Norandino companies for cocoa, and information from the Ecoinvent v3.9.1. database. This thorough approach in data collection guarantees the accuracy and robustness of the manuscript's evaluation.
The paper's main contributions entail comparing the life cycle assessment (LCA) of Ethiquable's 72% cocoa chocolate, produced under Organic Agriculture and Fairtrade conditions, with that of a hypothesized chocolate produced in California. Additionally, the paper discusses prior research on the environmental impacts of cocoa and chocolate consumption worldwide. The study analyzed five impact categories, including Global Warming Potential (GWP), Terrestrial Ecotoxicity (TE), Environmental Footprint (EF) (Land Use), Water Footprint (WF), and EF, in the proposed scenarios' cradle-to-gate process. It has been observed that the impact load is predominantly concentrated in the Upstream phase, specifically during the cultivation of ingredients, except for GWP which is distributed more evenly. Whilst the possibility of producing chocolate nearer to the intended market could have positive effects, it is evident that uncontrolled long-distance transport always results in pollution. However, the research shows that this is not a considerable factor. The results unequivocally demonstrate significant alterations in the use or non-use of dangerous substances present in fertilisers and pesticides, accounting for 80% of all categories portrayed in both scenarios. This is not only regulated by OA, but FT also has a comprehensive list of restrictions.
Ethical and data availability statements are appropriate.
Specific comments
1. The article structure requires improvement. The introduction is excessively long, spanning almost nine pages and featuring five tables. Additionally, the section numbering is flawed, with section 2 being absent.
2. Ten of the 82 citations by co-author O. Akizu-Gardoki are deemed unnecessary and may be redundant. Co-authors can be duplicated in the design of source 35.
3. In regard to visual material, there are table rows that lack data, and figure 2 is not referenced.
4. Additionally, the limitations of the model should be discussed in the manuscript.
Overall, the document makes a significant contribution to comprehending the interactions between nations and their practices in global trade within the current market. Addressing the specific comments mentioned above would improve the clarity and completeness of the paper.
With respect and wishes for scientific success,
Reviewer
Author Response
Please find the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIntroduction section:
The paragraph starting on line 47 introduces the background quite clearly, but you could consider adding more information about the current status and significance of sustainability in the global confectionery industry, especially chocolate manufacturing. This would provide a more solid foundation for why the study focuses on organic and Fair Trade chocolate.
Literature review:
The review of other studies' data between lines 177 and 226 could use a more meticulous analysis to compare and contrast the results from other studies with the scope of this research, as well as possible reasons for these differences.
Methods:
The detailed text on LCA methodology provided from lines 258 to 344 mentions the software and database used, but could more specifically describe how particular data and assumptions were selected. It would be a good complement to provide one or two examples illustrating how real-world data is transformed into the model.
Results and discussion:
In the results section between lines 433 and 509, it could benefit from clearer charts or graphic representations for each analysis indicator. The discussion section, which begins after line 534, could include an in-depth discussion on the strategic implications related to the main findings and how to connect these results to the broader context of global chocolate production.
Conclusions:
The conclusions section beginning at line 624 provides a clear overview but could include a discussion of the research limitations and suggestions for future research directions to complement the existing a priori analysis and overview of the results.
References format:
The references beginning from line 694 should ensure conformity with the chosen citation style. The current format looks a bit inconsistent and needs checking for any missing publication information or page numbers, and ensure consistent formatting for each entry.
Additionally, to enhance the overall readability of the report, consider the following improvements:
Maintain consistency: Ensure all sections of the report are consistently formatted and styled, such as using the same method of data representation in the report of research findings.
Proofreading: There may be minor spelling or grammatical errors in the text, and thorough proofreading can help eliminate these issues.
Clarity: Some paragraphs may be overly lengthy or contain complex jargon, and simplifying these can improve understanding.
Author Response
Please find the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCan be accept in this form.
Author Response
Please find the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form
