Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I believe the manuscript has been significantly improved with these inclusions and now warrants publication in Agriculture.

Author Response

We appreciate the opportunity to revise our original research manuscript "Aligning strategic objectives with research and development activities in a soft commodity sector: a technological plan for Colombian cocoa producers.” We thank for the valuable comments. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I really appreciate the effort you put into solving all the previous queries from reviewers and I think the overall clarity of the work improved. However, I still think that some significant issues should be solved in the methodology section. More exactly, I think three aspects should be clarified.

First, on page 8 line 23, you write that certain keywords were selected. However, you should clarify on the basis of what criteria you selected them to assure that no significant keywords were missed.

Second, starting from line 258, page 9, you write the following: 

"The level of compliance of cocoa farmers with the ideal practice/scenario was defined on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 is the maximum level"

However, you should specify if this evaluation was made subjectively by the authors and, if yes, how many of them participated in this analysis and if some triangulation/reliability technique was applied to reconcile different scores. Moreover, if this is the case, this subjectivity should be explicited also as a limitation of the study. 

Third, you should clarify some improper term usage. From the supplementary material you added, I see that you used an exploratory/descriptive survey. So, you should not talk about having conducted interviews rather than an exploratory or descriptive survey. Moreover, if the subsample was randomly selected (line 297, page 10) and no specific criteria were applied, this represents a severe issue since you cannot assure that your sample wasn't a convenience sample and that it was really representative. 

Finally, I also suggest you to proofread the paper for improving some sentences' clarity and solve some formatting issues (e.g., line 42, page 1, or line 207, page 7).

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear reviewer

We thank for the valuable comments. The response about the observations are mentioned below.

-First, on page 8 line 223, you write that certain keywords were selected. However, you should clarify on the basis of what criteria you selected them to assure that no significant keywords were missed.

We have made it explicit (lines 224 and 226). Moreover, notice that we have referenced some reviews that support the previous selection of keywords.

-Second, starting from line 258, page 9, you write the following:

"The level of compliance of cocoa farmers with the ideal practice/scenario was defined on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 is the maximum level"

However, you should specify if this evaluation was made subjectively by the authors and, if yes, how many of them participated in this analysis and if some triangulation/reliability technique was applied to reconcile different scores. Moreover, if this is the case, this subjectivity should be explicited also as a limitation of the study.

The evaluation was a systematic exercise that responded to an analysis of quantitative aspects. In this sense, it is favorable to delve into the method used for determining the value of the compliance score (between 1 to 5) for each producer. The information provided by each cocoa producer from surveys on the variables of the technological and capacities lines analyzed was compared with the information reported as ideal for each variable of the technology lines: “Table 3. Ideal practices/scenarios considered in the technological and quality strategic line and Table 4. Ideal practices/scenarios in the strategic line of capacities of the cocoa-chocolate chain and market”. In these tables, the variables have a specific number of aspects that make it up: for example, the variable "Fermentation" is made up of 6 main conditioning aspects of compliance. Thus, if the results reported in the producer survey answer that the producer meets 5 aspects of the 6 reported in the fermentation variable, so, as the difference between the reality of the producers and the ideal compliance level was 1, then the gap was qualified as low.

In this sense, the explanation of the methodology to calculate the level of compliance was extended (lines 261 – 263).

-Third, you should clarify some improper term usage. From the supplementary material you added, I see that you used an exploratory/descriptive survey. So, you should not talk about having conducted interviews rather than an exploratory or descriptive survey.

The terminology in all the document and the supplementary material was modified. Instead of interviews, the term survey has been used.

-Moreover, if the subsample was randomly selected (line 297, page 10) and no specific criteria were applied, this represents a severe issue since you cannot assure that your sample wasn't a convenience sample and that it was really representative.

Criteria to select the subsample was included (lines 304-307).

-Finally, I also suggest you to proofread the paper for improving some sentences' clarity and solve some formatting issues (e.g., line 42, page 1, or line 207, page 7).

The entire document has been reviewed in detail and the formatting errors have been solved.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you very much for the kind submission of the response offered by the authors, regarding the revision of the manuscript, agriculture-785460, entitled "Aligning strategic objectives with research and development activities
in a soft commodity sector: a technological plan for Colombian cocoa producers".

I find that the new version provided by the authors, and the explanations offered in the reference letter are complete and sufficiently significant changes have been made to improve the manuscript, so that I consider it can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We thank for the valuable comments. The response about the observations are mentioned below.

-First, on page 8 line 223, you write that certain keywords were selected. However, you should clarify on the basis of what criteria you selected them to assure that no significant keywords were missed.

We have made it explicit (lines 224 and 226). Moreover, notice that we have referenced some reviews that support the previous selection of keywords.

-Second, starting from line 258, page 9, you write the following:

"The level of compliance of cocoa farmers with the ideal practice/scenario was defined on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 is the maximum level"

However, you should specify if this evaluation was made subjectively by the authors and, if yes, how many of them participated in this analysis and if some triangulation/reliability technique was applied to reconcile different scores. Moreover, if this is the case, this subjectivity should be explicited also as a limitation of the study.

The evaluation was a systematic exercise that responded to an analysis of quantitative aspects. In this sense, it is favorable to delve into the method used for determining the value of the compliance score (between 1 to 5) for each producer. The information provided by each cocoa producer from surveys on the variables of the technological and capacities lines analyzed was compared with the information reported as ideal for each variable of the technology lines: “Table 3. Ideal practices/scenarios considered in the technological and quality strategic line and Table 4. Ideal practices/scenarios in the strategic line of capacities of the cocoa-chocolate chain and market”. In these tables, the variables have a specific number of aspects that make it up: for example, the variable "Fermentation" is made up of 6 main conditioning aspects of compliance. Thus, if the results reported in the producer survey answer that the producer meets 5 aspects of the 6 reported in the fermentation variable, so, as the difference between the reality of the producers and the ideal compliance level was 1, then the gap was qualified as low.

In this sense, the explanation of the methodology to calculate the level of compliance was extended (lines 261 – 263).

-Third, you should clarify some improper term usage. From the supplementary material you added, I see that you used an exploratory/descriptive survey. So, you should not talk about having conducted interviews rather than an exploratory or descriptive survey.

The terminology in all the document and the supplementary material was modified. Instead of interviews, the term survey has been used.

-Moreover, if the subsample was randomly selected (line 297, page 10) and no specific criteria were applied, this represents a severe issue since you cannot assure that your sample wasn't a convenience sample and that it was really representative.

Criteria to select the subsample was included (lines 304-307).

-Finally, I also suggest you to proofread the paper for improving some sentences' clarity and solve some formatting issues (e.g., line 42, page 1, or line 207, page 7).

The entire document has been reviewed in detail and the formatting errors have been solved.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

at this step, I think all the necessary improvements have been made. Well done!

All the best,
the Reviewer

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well written and the analysis is well done. However, I do have some concerns that must be addressed if the paper is to move forward. It is based on a very "supply-side" view of the Colombian cocoa industry and as such, appears incomplete.

The analysis in the paper needs to be related to the demand and competition side (see especially the USAID technical report from Purdue University - Abbott et al., 2017). The authors need to link their analysis and recommendations to the status of other competitors in the global cocoa industry (Cote d'Ivoire, Ecuador, etc.). For instance, in these other countries, the major market transactions occur between growers and large foreign multinational enterprises (MNEs). In contrast in Colombia, the largest cocoa buyers are large domestic firms. These different organizational realities will have a strong effect on the success or failure of any implemented policies. The paper needs to incorporate the other cash crop industries in Colombia into the analysis. These crops, notably coffee and even extra-legal cocaine enterprises (based on the cultivation of coca) compete for many of same resources in terms of land, human capital and institutional support (see especially Mudambi and Paul, J Int Mgmt, 2003) The authors have only one tangential reference to work from Purdue University. The Abbott et al (2017) USAID technical report is a much more comprehensive study of the same industry and country context analyzed in the current paper. In my reading of the paper, I could not find much novelty over and above this report. The authors need to read and incorporate this report and clearly specify the value added of their work. One way forward will be for the authors to link their detailed value chain analysis to value creation. In particular they need to incorporate the role of innovation and marketing knowledge in creating value. See Mudambi, J Econ Geog., (2008) for an analysis relating generic knowledge types to value within a global value chain framework. For a nice example that applies such analysis to a related industry, see McDermott, Corredoira & Kruse, AMJ, 2009 for an analysis of public-private institutions in the upgrading of the wine sector in Argentina. The authors will also find Gereffi’s work (e.g., Gereffi & Fernandez-Stark, CGGC, Duke University, 2011) on upgrading in low technology global value chains to be useful in producing more novel paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Excellent paper overall; topic is of interest and significance, data is thorough, and methods/results are very descriptive. The only editorial suggestions I have pertains to the following section 3. "Results and discussion". The first sub-heading appears to be mis-numbered - 2.3 Market demands and opportunities (p. 7) should be 3.1.

To improve the results section for the reader, I recommend including additional graphical descriptions/figure (i.e., schematic diagrams) throughout the section 3.2 sub-headings. Addition of schematics or other illustration will more fully explain the following:

• Identification of resources and constraints discussed in the structure of the value chain - illustrate the main factors (this will help the reader later to understand Tables 4 and 5.
• Include graphic illustrating the methods of traditional or farmer recommended process for design and management of the fermentation and drying methods and systems used on farms (p.10). This will help the non-agronomist understand implications of phytosanitary issues associated with weaknesses in the value chain and need for intervention.
• Include defining language and/or figure illustrating the cocoa "testa" - this is not clear to the non-agronomist
• Include an illustration of finding from cluster analysis that created postharvest practice "types" (p.11) - the language is described in the narrative, but difficult to visualize. This will help the reader track with you in the description of the value chain and various processes.
• Same graphic can be utilized as an introduction to summary findings in Table 3 (p.13) and Table 4 (p. 14) - for the reader unfamiliar with cocoa process, use of graphics will help facilitate understanding of the process steps and issues associated with gap analysis that is descriptively illustrated in the narrative.
• In the narrative in paragraph 2 (p. 16) begins, "As can be seen in Figure 4...), but the delineation between Figures 4 and 5 on p. 17 is not easy to see. Is the left column illustration indicative of Figure 4 and the right column indicating Figure 5? Figure 4 and Figure 5 headings need some form of separation to be clear
• Additionally for Figures 4 and 5, the region is not easy to see, this can be improved with increased font size on the region (in the key).
• Additional description of methodology used for the cluster analysis could improve the readers understanding of what you are emphasizing in these figures (e.g., is there a rank order, or by geographic location only, or random?). It is not clear why they are different figures (4. and 5) as they appear to be illustrating the same information. Maybe this differentiation is in the narrative, but it could be made more clear in the figures.
• On p. 18, the first paragraph could use some additional clarification about "the specific gaps (i.e., the main gaps found in our analysis (postharvest processing and quality scopes)"; clarify/reiterate what those gaps are for the reader. A figure or schematic could be helpful here as paragraph seems very short and difficult as a transition from "processing and quality scopes" into the next paragraph, "postharvest dimension". Elaborate on the transition between the first paragraph and second paragraph on p. 18.
• The "postharvest dimension", paragraph 2, p. 18 could benefit from an illustration/figure (similar to excellent example, Figure 6, p. 20).

The manuscript is very well written; however, it is complex in describing the process and the gaps within the value chain. Use of illustrations will help the reader process descriptions and differentiate when gaps are being discussed.

If authors do not agree with this editorial comment and feel that the additional clarification is not needed for their intended audience, this may be a legitimate claim. As an agricultural economist with significant training in agricultural operations, I believe some additional illustrative figures will additionally improve an already excellent paper.

Author Response

Please see our replies in italicized font, below, and the attached file.

Replies to Reviewer 2

Excellent paper overall; topic is of interest and significance, data is thorough, and methods/results are very descriptive. The only editorial suggestions I have pertains to the following section 3. "Results and discussion". 

-The first sub-heading appears to be mis-numbered - 2.3 Market demands and opportunities (p. 7) should be 3.1. 

The sub-heading 2.3 Market demands and opportunities (p. 11) was changed by 3.1.

To improve the results section for the reader, I recommend including additional graphical descriptions/figure (i.e., schematic diagrams) throughout the section 3.2 sub-headings. Addition of schematics or other illustration will more fully explain the following:

-Identification of resources and constraints discussed in the structure of the value chain - illustrate the main factors (this will help the reader later to understand Tables 4 and 5.

-Include graphic illustrating the methods of traditional or farmer recommended process for design and management of the fermentation and drying methods and systems used on farms (p.10). This will help the non-agronomist understand implications of phytosanitary issues associated with weaknesses in the value chain and need for intervention.

For both observations, Figure S2 (Supplementary material) was included to illustrate the section 3.2 sub-headings. They showed resources and constraints in the two lines studied: 1) technological and quality line and 2) strategic line of chain capacities and market. Moreover, Figure 8 (page 16) was added to illustrate about the fermentation and drying methods used on farms.

-Include defining language and/or figure illustrating the cocoa "testa" - this is not clear to the nonagronomist

It was including defining language about cocoa testa to be clearer to the reader. Page 14: “the testa (seed coat enclosing the cocoa seed)”.

• Include an illustration of finding from cluster analysis that created postharvest practice "types" (p.11) - the language is described in the narrative, but difficult to visualize. This will help the reader track with you in the description of the value chain and various processes.

Figure 8 was included (page 16). It explains the variables used in the cluster analysis in more detail. 

• Same graphic can be utilized as an introduction to summary findings in Table 3 (p.13) and Table 4 (p. 14) - for the reader unfamiliar with cocoa process, use of graphics will help facilitate understanding of the process steps and issues associated with gap analysis that is descriptively illustrated in the narrative.

First, Figure S1(supplementary material) was utilized to introduce the reader to the lines of study that were used to identify the gaps. Second, in the section 2.2.3. Gap analysis, Figure 6 (page 10) was elaborated to facilitate understanding of the process steps and issues associated with gap analysis. 

• In the narrative in paragraph 2 (p. 16) begins, "As can be seen in Figure 4...), but the delineation between Figures 4 and 5 on p. 17 is not easy to see. Is the left column illustration indicative of Figure 4 and the right column indicating Figure 5? Figure 4 and Figure 5 headings need some form of separation to be clear

Now, Figures 4 and 5 are Figures 9 and 10 respectively. Figures 9 (page 21) and 10 (page 22) were delineated and a title was placed in each figure to differentiate them easier. 

Additionally for Figures 4 and 5, the region is not easy to see, this can be improved with increased font size on the region (in the key).

The font size for Figures 9 and 10 was modified to have more readable region names. 

• Additional description of methodology used for the cluster analysis could improve the readers understanding of what you are emphasizing in these figures (e.g., is there a rank order, or by geographic location only, or random?). It is not clear why they are different figures (4. and 5) as they appear to be illustrating the same information. Maybe this differentiation is in the narrative, but it could be made more clear in the figures.

Titles were placed to show the aim of each figure. The figure 9 represents gaps of technological and quality line and the Figure 10 represents gaps of capacities and market line. Regions are in alphabetical order. 

• On p. 18, the first paragraph could use some additional clarification about "the specific gaps (i.e., the main gaps found in our analysis (postharvest processing and quality scopes)"; clarify/reiterate what those gaps are for the reader.

Emphasis was placed on the gaps found for both lines (page 20).

• A figure or schematic could be helpful here as paragraph seems very short and difficult as a transition from "processing and quality scopes" into the next paragraph, "postharvest dimension". Elaborate on the transition between the first paragraph and second paragraph on p. 18. The "postharvest dimension", paragraph 2, p. 18 could benefit from an illustration/figure (similar to excellent example, Figure 6, p. 20).

Figure S3 (supplementary material) was created to explain in more detail the proposals related to postharvest dimension.

The manuscript is very well written; however, it is complex in describing the process and the gaps within the value chain. Use of illustrations will help the reader process descriptions and differentiate when gaps are being discussed.

For this purpose, Figure S1(supplementary material) and Figure 6 (page 10) were included.

If authors do not agree with this editorial comment and feel that the additional clarification is not needed for their intended audience, this may be a legitimate claim. As an agricultural economist with significant training in agricultural operations, I believe some additional illustrative figures will additionally improve an already excellent paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I like the main ideas around this interesting article. However, some problems should be solved.

First, the overall clarity of the work could be improved. The work's objective, the main literature used, and its results could be better presented in the Introduction section.

Second, I suggest moving the Research context at the beginning of the methodology section, strengthening the reasons that justify why the Colombian scenario has been chosen for investigation.

Third, in the methodology section adding a Table for presenting interviews' coding would help the reader understanding your work and give it more soundness and reliability. At the same time, I miss references when you talk about the benchmarking process and the selection of related variables. Finally, it's not clear to me if you conducted a survey and for measuring what or just interviews and how you can exclude that the subsample of 220 farmers is not a convenience sample. 

Fourth, the conclusion section suffers from several different problems. It completely ignores the comparison of research results with previous studies; this may be also a problem that regards the position of the paper in the literature, which is partially unclear to me now. Implications for theory are absent and implications for practice are limited. Limitations and future research proposals are absent. 

Minor comments: you should revise the format style of the paper and the correctness of English. Moreover, some minor aspects should be corrected. Some examples are provided below.

I'm wondering if in this sentence (at the end of Page 2) you are talking about perceived quality: "Marketing channels, associativity, technical assistance, infrastructure, etc. strongly influence the quality of the product [7]."

On page 8, when you state that "For example, Mars, Hersheys, and Ferrero have committed to using 100% certified cocoa by 2021." you should provide a reference.

On page 9, a broken sentence is present: "Postharvest practices that generate physical and biochemical transformation of cocoa seeds to beans".

Good luck with this promising work!

Author Response

Replies to Reviewer 3

Please see our replies in italics, below the original comments) and the attached file.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

First, the overall clarity of the work could be improved. 

The work's objective, the main literature used, and its results could be better presented in the Introduction section.

We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments. We have re-written the introduction to integrate several suggestions from the reviewers, including a more explicit formulation of our objectives and the body of literature(s) they contribute towards. We have made explicit the emphasis on the need to upgrade the local cacao value chain for competitiveness in the global value chain; we link our analysis to value creation literature, which emphasizes the need for innovation and marketing knowledge (please see our fully rewritten introductory section). In order to re-orient this section and the following, we have reviewed a large number of articles and have referenced them throughout. We have made it explicit that we do not aim to thoroughly describe and analyze the whole value chain, but rather the vulnerabilities of the producer segment which should be a key link for linear upgrading of the sector. 

Second, I suggest moving the Research context at the beginning of the methodology section, strengthening the reasons that justify why the Colombian scenario has been chosen for investigation.

We have added a whole section to the paper in order to contextualize our work (under the label of

“Colombian Cacao Sector: Stakeholders and Organizational Context), particularly elaborating on the Colombian cacao sector’s unique characteristics and potential, as the reasons for which it was chosen. We have also added a figure that compares the organizational structure for the  Colombian cacao sector and its main competitors for premium markets and explained the major differences , as well as analyzed some of the governance issues that distinguish the Colombian case from its major competitors (See Figures 1-3). We believe the newly added sections, perspectives and suggested literature  have significantly strengthened our work and thanks the reviewer for these suggestions.

Third, in the methodology section adding a Table for presenting interviews' coding would help the reader understanding your work and give it more soundness and reliability.

Format interviews are presented as supplementary material.

At the same time, I miss references when you talk about the benchmarking process and the selection of related variables. 

References were added. Please see page 9, second paragraph and below Figure 5 

Finally, it's not clear to me if you conducted a survey and for measuring what or just interviews and how you can exclude that the subsample of 220 farmers is not a convenience sample. 

Starting on page 11, the explanation of interviews and focus groups was extended. In addition, we make explicit that the sample of 220 farmers was randomly selected based on the lists of the National Cacao Federation.

Fourth, the conclusion section suffers from several different problems. It completely ignores the comparison of research results with previous studies; this may be also a problem that regards the position of the paper in the literature, which is partially unclear to me now. Implications for theory are absent and implications for practice are limited. Limitations and future research proposals are absent. 

The conclusions were modified (page 27). The comparison of research results with previous studies, implications for practice, and limitations and future research proposals were added. 

Minor comments: you should revise the format style of the paper and the correctness of English. Moreover, some minor aspects should be corrected. Some examples are provided below.

-I'm wondering if in this sentence (at the end of Page 2) you are talking about perceived quality: "Marketing channels, associativity, technical assistance, infrastructure, etc. strongly influence the quality of the product [7]."

The wording of the sentence was modified. Please see page 3, first paragraph. 

-On page 8, when you state that "For example, Mars, Hersheys, and Ferrero have committed to using 100% certified cocoa by 2021." you should provide a reference.

A reference was provided. Please see page 13, first paragraph.  

On page 9, a broken sentence is present: "Postharvest practices that generate physical and biochemical transformation of cocoa seeds to beans".

This broken sentence was eliminated.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTS FROM AND REPLIES TO OTHER REVIEWERS

Replies to Reviewer 1

The paper is well written and the analysis is well done. However, I do have some concerns that must be addressed if the paper is to move forward. It is based on a very "supply-side" view of the Colombian cocoa industry and as such, appears incomplete.

The analysis in the paper needs to be related to the demand and competition side (see especially the USAID technical report from Purdue University - Abbott et al., 2017). The authors need to link their analysis and recommendations to the status of other competitors in the global cocoa industry (Cote d'Ivoire, Ecuador, etc.). For instance, in these other countries, the major market transactions occur between growers and large foreign multinational enterprises (MNEs). In contrast in

Colombia, the largest cocoa buyers are large domestic firms. These different organizational realities will have a strong effect on the success or failure of any implemented policies. 

We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments. We have added a whole section to the paper in order to contextualize our work (under the label of “Colombian Cacao Sector: Stakeholders and Organizational Context), particularly elaborating on demand and competition aspects in the global value chain. We have also added a figure that compares the organizational structure for the  Colombian cacao sector and its main competitors for premium markets and explained the major differences , as well as analyzed some of the governance issues that distinguish the Colombian case from its major competitors (See Figures 1-3). We have also re-writen the introduction to integrate several suggestions from the reviewers, including the emphasis on the need to upgrade and add value for competitiveness in the global value chain (see the reviewer’s last point and our answer below) as well as more explicitly explaining our focus on the producer segment of the value chain. We believe the newly added sections, perspectives and suggested literature  have significantly stregthened our work. In addition, we added a paragraph to section 3.4.2 to formulate recommendations specifically related to the Colombian sector’s particular organizational reality (Page 25).

The paper needs to incorporate the other cash crop industries in Colombia into the analysis. These crops, notably coffee and even extra-legal cocaine enterprises (based on the cultivation of coca) compete for many of same resources in terms of land, human capital and institutional support (see especially Mudambi and Paul, J Int Mgmt, 2003)

Notice that, as mentioned above, we have re-focused the introduction and make it now explicit that we do not aim to analyze the whole value chain, but rather, we focus on specific aspects of the producer segment. As such, we believe that a full comparison with other crop industries is out of the scope of our paper. However, we believe these points to be important and have edited our conclusions to emphasize the relevance of considering the limitations pointed out by the reviewer. In addition, we have included a brief comparison with the coffee sector to this section (last two paragraphs on P.27).

The authors have only one tangential reference to work from Purdue University. The Abbott et al (2017) USAID technical report is a much more comprehensive study of the same industry and country context analyzed in the current paper. In my reading of the paper, I could not find much novelty over and above this report. The authors need to read and incorporate this report and clearly specify the value added of their work. One way forward will be for the authors to link their detailed value chain analysis to value creation. In particular they need to incorporate the role of innovation and marketing knowledge in creating value. See Mudambi, J Econ Geog., (2008) for an analysis relating generic knowledge types to value within a global value chain framework. For a nice example that applies such analysis to a related industry, see McDermott, Corredoira & Kruse, AMJ, 2009 for an analysis of public-private institutions in the upgrading of the wine sector in Argentina.

The authors will also find Gereffi’s work (e.g., Gereffi & Fernandez-Stark, CGGC, Duke University, 2011) on upgrading in low technology global value chains to be useful in producing more novel paper. We have thoroughly edited the paper to reflect the differences between our work and Abott et al’s. We have made it explicit that we do not aim to thoroughly describe and analyze the whole value chain, but rather the vulnerabilities of the producer segment which should be a key link for linear upgrading of the sector. As such, we have taken to heart the reviewer’s comment to link our analysis to value creation, innovation and marketing knowledge (please see our fully rewritten introductory section). In order to re-orient the paper we have reviewed all of the articles suggested by the reviewer (and others linked to them in the literature) and have referenced them throughout. We have also added a large number of references to Abbott et al’s work throughout the paper.  

Replies to Reviewer 2

Excellent paper overall; topic is of interest and significance, data is thorough, and methods/results are very descriptive. The only editorial suggestions I have pertains to the following section 3. "Results and discussion". 

-The first sub-heading appears to be mis-numbered - 2.3 Market demands and opportunities (p. 7) should be 3.1. 

The sub-heading 2.3 Market demands and opportunities (p. 11) was changed by 3.1.

To improve the results section for the reader, I recommend including additional graphical descriptions/figure (i.e., schematic diagrams) throughout the section 3.2 sub-headings. Addition of schematics or other illustration will more fully explain the following:

-Identification of resources and constraints discussed in the structure of the value chain - illustrate the main factors (this will help the reader later to understand Tables 4 and 5.

-Include graphic illustrating the methods of traditional or farmer recommended process for design and management of the fermentation and drying methods and systems used on farms (p.10). This will help the non-agronomist understand implications of phytosanitary issues associated with weaknesses in the value chain and need for intervention.

For both observations, Figure S2 (Supplementary material) was included to illustrate the section 3.2 sub-headings. They showed resources and constraints in the two lines studied: 1) technological and quality line and 2) strategic line of chain capacities and market. Moreover, Figure 8 (page 16) was added to illustrate about the fermentation and drying methods used on farms.

-Include defining language and/or figure illustrating the cocoa "testa" - this is not clear to the nonagronomist

It was including defining language about cocoa testa to be clearer to the reader. Page 14: “the testa (seed coat enclosing the cocoa seed)”.

• Include an illustration of finding from cluster analysis that created postharvest practice "types" (p.11) - the language is described in the narrative, but difficult to visualize. This will help the reader track with you in the description of the value chain and various processes.

Figure 8 was included (page 16). It explains the variables used in the cluster analysis in more detail. 

• Same graphic can be utilized as an introduction to summary findings in Table 3 (p.13) and Table 4 (p. 14) - for the reader unfamiliar with cocoa process, use of graphics will help facilitate understanding of the process steps and issues associated with gap analysis that is descriptively illustrated in the narrative.

First, Figure S1(supplementary material) was utilized to introduce the reader to the lines of study that were used to identify the gaps. Second, in the section 2.2.3. Gap analysis, Figure 6 (page 10) was elaborated to facilitate understanding of the process steps and issues associated with gap analysis. 

• In the narrative in paragraph 2 (p. 16) begins, "As can be seen in Figure 4...), but the delineation between Figures 4 and 5 on p. 17 is not easy to see. Is the left column illustration indicative of Figure 4 and the right column indicating Figure 5? Figure 4 and Figure 5 headings need some form of separation to be clear

Now, Figures 4 and 5 are Figures 9 and 10 respectively. Figures 9 (page 21) and 10 (page 22) were delineated and a title was placed in each figure to differentiate them easier. 

Additionally for Figures 4 and 5, the region is not easy to see, this can be improved with increased font size on the region (in the key).

The font size for Figures 9 and 10 was modified to have more readable region names. 

• Additional description of methodology used for the cluster analysis could improve the readers understanding of what you are emphasizing in these figures (e.g., is there a rank order, or by geographic location only, or random?). It is not clear why they are different figures (4. and 5) as they appear to be illustrating the same information. Maybe this differentiation is in the narrative, but it could be made more clear in the figures.

Titles were placed to show the aim of each figure. The figure 9 represents gaps of technological and quality line and the Figure 10 represents gaps of capacities and market line. Regions are in alphabetical order. 

• On p. 18, the first paragraph could use some additional clarification about "the specific gaps (i.e., the main gaps found in our analysis (postharvest processing and quality scopes)"; clarify/reiterate what those gaps are for the reader.

Emphasis was placed on the gaps found for both lines (page 20).

• A figure or schematic could be helpful here as paragraph seems very short and difficult as a transition from "processing and quality scopes" into the next paragraph, "postharvest dimension". Elaborate on the transition between the first paragraph and second paragraph on p. 18. The "postharvest dimension", paragraph 2, p. 18 could benefit from an illustration/figure (similar to excellent example, Figure 6, p. 20).

Figure S3 (supplementary material) was created to explain in more detail the proposals related to postharvest dimension.

The manuscript is very well written; however, it is complex in describing the process and the gaps within the value chain. Use of illustrations will help the reader process descriptions and differentiate when gaps are being discussed.

For this purpose, Figure S1(supplementary material) and Figure 6 (page 10) were included.

If authors do not agree with this editorial comment and feel that the additional clarification is not needed for their intended audience, this may be a legitimate claim. As an agricultural economist with significant training in agricultural operations, I believe some additional illustrative figures will additionally improve an already excellent paper.

Replies to Reviewer 4

I consider that the title is relevant in terms of what has been proposed with the objective and content of the article.

Abstract fits the content of the article, is syntactic and relevant.

I consider the presentation of the material adequate and clear. The article has a well-defined line of argument, and it gains in complexity as it advances in its explanatory component of purposes and results.

The language used is professional and adjusted to the academic public in the subject area in which it focuses.

The methodology is well applied and relevant to the objectives proposed by the authors.

The subject is topical, and its approach corresponds to the usual techniques.

• Comprehensively review of the text could be necessary, in order to use third person expressions We thank the reviewer for his/her kind comments. The text has been fully revised and third person expressions have been added.
• It is recommended to expand the explanation of interviews and focus groups.

Starting on page 11, the explanation of interviews and focus groups was extended.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

I consider that the title is relevant in terms of what has been proposed with the objective and content of the article.
Abstract fits the content of the article, is syntactic and relevant.
I consider the presentation of the material adequate and clear. The article has a well-defined line of argument, and it gains in complexity as it advances in its explanatory component of purposes and results.
The language used is professional and adjusted to the academic public in the subject area in which it focuses.
The methodology is well applied and relevant to the objectives proposed by the authors.
The subject is topical, and its approach corresponds to the usual techniques.

- Comprehensively review of the text could be necessary, in order to use third person expressions.
- It is recommended to expand the explanation of interviews and focus groups.

Author Response

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
We have added replies to your comments in italics, below specific points.
Other changes to the manuscript are due to the comments of other reviewers.
We add those comments and replies below, for your perusal.

Replies to Reviewer 4

I consider that the title is relevant in terms of what has been proposed with the objective and content of the article.

Abstract fits the content of the article, is syntactic and relevant.

I consider the presentation of the material adequate and clear. The article has a well-defined line of argument, and it gains in complexity as it advances in its explanatory component of purposes and results.

The language used is professional and adjusted to the academic public in the subject area in which it focuses.

The methodology is well applied and relevant to the objectives proposed by the authors.

The subject is topical, and its approach corresponds to the usual techniques.

• Comprehensively review of the text could be necessary, in order to use third person expressions

We thank the reviewer for his/her kind comments. The text has been fully revised and third person expressions have been added.

• It is recommended to expand the explanation of interviews and focus groups.

Starting on page 11, the explanation of interviews and focus groups was extended.

---------------------------------------------

OTHER REVIEWERS' COMMENTS/REPLIES

Replies to Reviewer 1

The paper is well written and the analysis is well done. However, I do have some concerns that must be addressed if the paper is to move forward. It is based on a very "supply-side" view of the Colombian cocoa industry and as such, appears incomplete.

The analysis in the paper needs to be related to the demand and competition side (see especially the USAID technical report from Purdue University - Abbott et al., 2017). The authors need to link their analysis and recommendations to the status of other competitors in the global cocoa industry (Cote d'Ivoire, Ecuador, etc.). For instance, in these other countries, the major market transactions occur between growers and large foreign multinational enterprises (MNEs). In contrast in

Colombia, the largest cocoa buyers are large domestic firms. These different organizational realities will have a strong effect on the success or failure of any implemented policies. 

We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments. We have added a whole section to the paper in order to contextualize our work (under the label of “Colombian Cacao Sector: Stakeholders and Organizational Context), particularly elaborating on demand and competition aspects in the global value chain. We have also added a figure that compares the organizational structure for the  Colombian cacao sector and its main competitors for premium markets and explained the major differences , as well as analyzed some of the governance issues that distinguish the Colombian case from its major competitors (See Figures 1-3). We have also re-writen the introduction to integrate several suggestions from the reviewers, including the emphasis on the need to upgrade and add value for competitiveness in the global value chain (see the reviewer’s last point and our answer below) as well as more explicitly explaining our focus on the producer segment of the value chain. We believe the newly added sections, perspectives and suggested literature  have significantly stregthened our work. In addition, we added a paragraph to section 3.4.2 to formulate recommendations specifically related to the Colombian sector’s particular organizational reality (Page 25).

The paper needs to incorporate the other cash crop industries in Colombia into the analysis. These crops, notably coffee and even extra-legal cocaine enterprises (based on the cultivation of coca) compete for many of same resources in terms of land, human capital and institutional support (see especially Mudambi and Paul, J Int Mgmt, 2003)

Notice that, as mentioned above, we have re-focused the introduction and make it now explicit that we do not aim to analyze the whole value chain, but rather, we focus on specific aspects of the producer segment. As such, we believe that a full comparison with other crop industries is out of the scope of our paper. However, we believe these points to be important and have edited our conclusions to emphasize the relevance of considering the limitations pointed out by the reviewer. In addition, we have included a brief comparison with the coffee sector to this section (last two paragraphs on P.27).

The authors have only one tangential reference to work from Purdue University. The Abbott et al (2017) USAID technical report is a much more comprehensive study of the same industry and country context analyzed in the current paper. In my reading of the paper, I could not find much novelty over and above this report. The authors need to read and incorporate this report and clearly specify the value added of their work. One way forward will be for the authors to link their detailed value chain analysis to value creation. In particular they need to incorporate the role of innovation and marketing knowledge in creating value. See Mudambi, J Econ Geog., (2008) for an analysis relating generic knowledge types to value within a global value chain framework. For a nice example that applies such analysis to a related industry, see McDermott, Corredoira & Kruse, AMJ, 2009 for an analysis of public-private institutions in the upgrading of the wine sector in Argentina.

The authors will also find Gereffi’s work (e.g., Gereffi & Fernandez-Stark, CGGC, Duke University, 2011) on upgrading in low technology global value chains to be useful in producing more novel paper. We have thoroughly edited the paper to reflect the differences between our work and Abott et al’s. We have made it explicit that we do not aim to thoroughly describe and analyze the whole value chain, but rather the vulnerabilities of the producer segment which should be a key link for linear upgrading of the sector. As such, we have taken to heart the reviewer’s comment to link our analysis to value creation, innovation and marketing knowledge (please see our fully rewritten introductory section). In order to re-orient the paper we have reviewed all of the articles suggested by the reviewer (and others linked to them in the literature) and have referenced them throughout. We have also added a large number of references to Abbott et al’s work throughout the paper.  

Replies to Reviewer 2

Excellent paper overall; topic is of interest and significance, data is thorough, and methods/results are very descriptive. The only editorial suggestions I have pertains to the following section 3. "Results and discussion". 

-The first sub-heading appears to be mis-numbered - 2.3 Market demands and opportunities (p. 7) should be 3.1. 

The sub-heading 2.3 Market demands and opportunities (p. 11) was changed by 3.1.

To improve the results section for the reader, I recommend including additional graphical descriptions/figure (i.e., schematic diagrams) throughout the section 3.2 sub-headings. Addition of schematics or other illustration will more fully explain the following:

-Identification of resources and constraints discussed in the structure of the value chain - illustrate the main factors (this will help the reader later to understand Tables 4 and 5.

-Include graphic illustrating the methods of traditional or farmer recommended process for design and management of the fermentation and drying methods and systems used on farms (p.10). This will help the non-agronomist understand implications of phytosanitary issues associated with weaknesses in the value chain and need for intervention.

For both observations, Figure S2 (Supplementary material) was included to illustrate the section 3.2 sub-headings. They showed resources and constraints in the two lines studied: 1) technological and quality line and 2) strategic line of chain capacities and market. Moreover, Figure 8 (page 16) was added to illustrate about the fermentation and drying methods used on farms.

-Include defining language and/or figure illustrating the cocoa "testa" - this is not clear to the nonagronomist

It was including defining language about cocoa testa to be clearer to the reader. Page 14: “the testa (seed coat enclosing the cocoa seed)”.

• Include an illustration of finding from cluster analysis that created postharvest practice "types" (p.11) - the language is described in the narrative, but difficult to visualize. This will help the reader track with you in the description of the value chain and various processes.

Figure 8 was included (page 16). It explains the variables used in the cluster analysis in more detail. 

• Same graphic can be utilized as an introduction to summary findings in Table 3 (p.13) and Table 4 (p. 14) - for the reader unfamiliar with cocoa process, use of graphics will help facilitate understanding of the process steps and issues associated with gap analysis that is descriptively illustrated in the narrative.

First, Figure S1(supplementary material) was utilized to introduce the reader to the lines of study that were used to identify the gaps. Second, in the section 2.2.3. Gap analysis, Figure 6 (page 10) was elaborated to facilitate understanding of the process steps and issues associated with gap analysis. 

• In the narrative in paragraph 2 (p. 16) begins, "As can be seen in Figure 4...), but the delineation between Figures 4 and 5 on p. 17 is not easy to see. Is the left column illustration indicative of Figure 4 and the right column indicating Figure 5? Figure 4 and Figure 5 headings need some form of separation to be clear

Now, Figures 4 and 5 are Figures 9 and 10 respectively. Figures 9 (page 21) and 10 (page 22) were delineated and a title was placed in each figure to differentiate them easier. 

Additionally for Figures 4 and 5, the region is not easy to see, this can be improved with increased font size on the region (in the key).

The font size for Figures 9 and 10 was modified to have more readable region names. 

• Additional description of methodology used for the cluster analysis could improve the readers understanding of what you are emphasizing in these figures (e.g., is there a rank order, or by geographic location only, or random?). It is not clear why they are different figures (4. and 5) as they appear to be illustrating the same information. Maybe this differentiation is in the narrative, but it could be made more clear in the figures.

Titles were placed to show the aim of each figure. The figure 9 represents gaps of technological and quality line and the Figure 10 represents gaps of capacities and market line. Regions are in alphabetical order. 

• On p. 18, the first paragraph could use some additional clarification about "the specific gaps (i.e., the main gaps found in our analysis (postharvest processing and quality scopes)"; clarify/reiterate what those gaps are for the reader.

Emphasis was placed on the gaps found for both lines (page 20).

• A figure or schematic could be helpful here as paragraph seems very short and difficult as a transition from "processing and quality scopes" into the next paragraph, "postharvest dimension". Elaborate on the transition between the first paragraph and second paragraph on p. 18. The "postharvest dimension", paragraph 2, p. 18 could benefit from an illustration/figure (similar to excellent example, Figure 6, p. 20).

Figure S3 (supplementary material) was created to explain in more detail the proposals related to postharvest dimension.

The manuscript is very well written; however, it is complex in describing the process and the gaps within the value chain. Use of illustrations will help the reader process descriptions and differentiate when gaps are being discussed.

For this purpose, Figure S1(supplementary material) and Figure 6 (page 10) were included.

If authors do not agree with this editorial comment and feel that the additional clarification is not needed for their intended audience, this may be a legitimate claim. As an agricultural economist with significant training in agricultural operations, I believe some additional illustrative figures will additionally improve an already excellent paper.

Replies to Reviewer 3

First, the overall clarity of the work could be improved. 

The work's objective, the main literature used, and its results could be better presented in the Introduction section.

We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments. We have re-writen the introduction to integrate several suggestions from the reviewers, including a more eplicit formulation of our objectives and the body of literature(s) they contribute towards. We have made explicit the emphasis on the need to upgrade the local cacao value chain for competitiveness in the global value chain; we link our analysis to value creation literature, which emphasizes the need for innovation and marketing knowledge (please see our fully rewritten introductory section). In order to re-orient this section and the following, we have reviewed a large number of articles and have referenced them throughout. We have made it explicit that we do not aim to thoroughly describe and analyze the whole value chain, but rather the vulnerabilities of the producer segment which should be a key link for linear upgrading of the sector. 

Second, I suggest moving the Research context at the beginning of the methodology section, strengthening the reasons that justify why the Colombian scenario has been chosen for investigation.

We have added a whole section to the paper in order to contextualize our work (under the label of

“Colombian Cacao Sector: Stakeholders and Organizational Context), particularly elaborating on the Colombian cacao sector’s unique characteristics and potential, as the reasons for which it was chosen. We have also added a figure that compares the organizational structure for the  Colombian cacao sector and its main competitors for premium markets and explained the major differences , as well as analyzed some of the governance issues that distinguish the Colombian case from its major competitors (See Figures 1-3). We believe the newly added sections, perspectives and suggested literature  have significantly stregthened our work and thanks the reviewer for these suggestions.

Third, in the methodology section adding a Table for presenting interviews' coding would help the reader understanding your work and give it more soundness and reliability.

Format interviews are presented as supplementary material.

At the same time, I miss references when you talk about the benchmarking process and the selection of related variables. 

References were added. Please see page 9, second paragraph and below Figure 5 

Finally, it's not clear to me if you conducted a survey and for measuring what or just interviews and how you can exclude that the subsample of 220 farmers (table de acuerdo nivel de tecnificacion – estratificada- aleatoria )  is not a convenience sample. 

Starting on page 11, the explanation of interviews and focus groups was extended. In addition, we make explicit that the sample of 220 farmers was randomly selected based on the lists of the National Cacao Federation.

Fourth, the conclusion section suffers from several different problems. It completely ignores the comparison of research results with previous studies; this may be also a problem that regards the position of the paper in the literature, which is partially unclear to me now. Implications for theory are absent and implications for practice are limited. Limitations and future research proposals are absent. 

The conclusions were modified (page 27). The comparison of research results with previous studies, implications for practice, and limitations and future research proposals were added. 

Minor comments: you should revise the format style of the paper and the correctness of English. Moreover, some minor aspects should be corrected. Some examples are provided below.

-I'm wondering if in this sentence (at the end of Page 2) you are talking about perceived quality: "Marketing channels, associativity, technical assistance, infrastructure, etc. strongly influence the quality of the product [7]."

The wording of the sentence was modified. Please see page 3, first paragraph. 

-On page 8, when you state that "For example, Mars, Hersheys, and Ferrero have committed to using 100% certified cocoa by 2021." you should provide a reference.

A reference was provided. Please see page 13, first paragraph.  

On page 9, a broken sentence is present: "Postharvest practices that generate physical and biochemical transformation of cocoa seeds to beans".

This broken sentence was eliminated.