Readiness for Innovation of Emerging Grass-Based Businesses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting piece of work, researching an issue that is underresearched.

Overall, the quality and presentation of this manuscript are good.

However, several minor revision needs to be done. 

1. Check on citation style (lines 374 and 408)

2. Seven variables used in this study need to be discussed further. Providing the definition of these variables is not sufficient. A theoretical explanation of the importance of adopting these variables on the innovation adopted by the grass-based businesses should be presented.

3. in line 259, it is stated that the analysis focus on FCE-FDH. please provide an explanation of this analysis in detail, including the meaning/definition of this type of analysis.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for your valuable comments and recommendations, which motivated us to significantly improve the manuscript and its relevance for the journal. Kindly find below our replies to the comments and the amendments done in the article based in your reviews.

• This is an interesting piece of work, researching an issue that is under-researched.
• Overall, the quality and presentation of this manuscript are good.
• However, several minor revisions need to be done. 
• Check on citation style (lines 374 and 408)

Thank you for this correct observation and we apologize for the two citations with inconsistent styles. We have now checked the citations and references thoroughly for correct and consistent style.

• Seven variables used in this study need to be discussed further. Providing the definition of these variables is not sufficient. A theoretical explanation of the importance of adopting these variables on the innovation adopted by the grass-based businesses should be presented.

Thank you for this crucial comment and request. We have now added two new sources, which refer to review publications on innovation processes and factors for innovation. We also made important additions in the text to justify the theoretical relevance of the chosen variables in Lines 176-180:

“The choice of these focus areas is distilled from a variety of different models and approaches of innovation processes[44–46]. Since all models are simplified representations of reality, we do not claim to include all potential factors relevant to innovation. Yet, the choice of these variables is consistent with key elements considered in most innovation studies which managers need to address to be able to upscale their business activities.”

3. In line 259, it is stated that the analysis focus on FCE-FDH. please provide an explanation of this analysis in detail, including the meaning/definition of this type of analysis.

Many thanks for this comment, which make clear the need for a more detailed description of the analysis. We have now put great effort in providing a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the two default ceiling techniques in the Methods section, L 235-242:

“NCA offers two default ceiling lines to choose from. The Ceiling Envelopment - Free Disposal Hull (CE-FDH) ceiling technique is a step function employed when using discrete (with few levels) necessary conditions. The Ceiling Regression-Free Disposal Hull (CR-FDH) ceiling technique is the default ceiling technique for discrete (with many levels) and continuous necessary conditions. In this study, we used nine levels for each condition; hence, we focus our analysis on the step function CE-FDH.”

 

Reviewer 2 Report

 

-    The author/s took up the issue of innovation among companies influencing the circular and sustainable economy based on biotechnology which is fully in accordance with the major topic of the journal.

-  The article closely corresponds to the topic specified in the title. In the article one can see the embedding of the issue in its proper context, by referring to the earlier works from the studied area of expertise.

-   The proportions of particular parts have generally been selected in a correct way. The layout of the paper is correct.

-    Sufficient attention has been paid to the clarity of presentation and logic reasoning. In this article all the issues were discussed in an understandable manner, appropriate to the knowledge of readers.

-     The introduction is properly structured - it introduces the topic and indicates the purpose of the study.

-     The conclusions reflect the results of research and are linked to the rest of the article.

-     The literature used in the article is extensive and properly selected.

-    Furthermore: The selection of the research sample is quite surprising, but it does not negatively affect the assessment of the article. The surveyed enterprises function in various business environments and operate in various socio-economic conditions. A company operating in Hungary cannot be compared to those operating in Western and Northern Europe. Factors determining the development of innovations in these countries are considered at other levels of social awareness. The more so that the innovation index of companies is different in the surveyed countries. Nevertheless, the study is interesting, it allows to identify novelties in the research field. Various business conditions should be considered as a moderating variable - perhaps in subsequent studies.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Many thanks for your valuable comments and recommendations, which motivated us to significantly improve the manuscript and its relevance for the journal. Kindly find below our replies to the comments and the amendments done in the article based in your reviews.

• The author/s took up the issue of innovation among companies influencing the circular and sustainable economy based on biotechnology which is fully in accordance with the major topic of the journal.
• The article closely corresponds to the topic specified in the title. In the article one can see the embedding of the issue in its proper context, by referring to the earlier works from the studied area of expertise.
• The proportions of particular parts have generally been selected in a correct way. The layout of the paper is correct.
• Sufficient attention has been paid to the clarity of presentation and logic reasoning. In this article all the issues were discussed in an understandable manner, appropriate to the knowledge of readers.
• The introduction is properly structured - it introduces the topic and indicates the purpose of the study.
• The conclusions reflect the results of research and are linked to the rest of the article.
• The literature used in the article is extensive and properly selected.

• Furthermore: The selection of the research sample is quite surprising, but it does not negatively affect the assessment of the article. The surveyed enterprises function in various business environments and operate in various socio-economic conditions. A company operating in Hungary cannot be compared to those operating in Western and Northern Europe. Factors determining the development of innovations in these countries are considered at other levels of social awareness. The more so that the innovation index of companies is different in the surveyed countries. Nevertheless, the study is interesting, it allows to identify novelties in the research field. Various business conditions should be considered as a moderating variable - perhaps in subsequent studies.

Thank you for this comment. We acknowledge the importance of considering different socio-economic conditions. Indeed, several studies have emphasized the importance of place-specific elements for processes of innovation and sustainability transitions. Yet, in our sample selection, we aimed at a heterogenous sample across Europe. The present study aimed to identify the relative importance for innovation of a number of factors that can generally be considered as necessary preconditions for innovation, regardless of the social, technological and economic context in which they are implemented. Moreover, from a methodological point of view, it would indeed be interesting to compare the results of this study with the results of a comparable study using cases from a more homogeneous social context. In the present study, however, this is opposed by the fact that there are not sufficient grass-based cases in one single place with same or similar social context within Europe.  

 

We have now added the following text in the section limitations of the study L504-515:

“At the same time, the surveyed enterprises function in various business environments and operate in various socio-economic conditions. Due to the complexity of socio-ecological systems and the interdisciplinary nature of sustainability sciences, no silver bullet exists that balances the benefits of situated knowledge with those of strong generalisation [95,96]. Therefore, subsequent studies should focus on achieving a more holistic understanding of grassland systems and business conditions at the local level to help minimize trade-offs and maximize synergies between business and environmental wellbeing and lead to the attainment of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)[97,98]. “

 

Reviewer 3 Report

1-The presentation and organization of the manuscript is clear and argument-based. The research looks upon the grasslands businesses with the lens of necessary condition analysis (NCA) a relatively new approach to understand the essentiality of the independent factors for a certain outcome to prevail. The research contains interesting and appealing content for both the research and practice.

2- The literature provided is updated however, some more references may be added for the strengthening the methodology/NCA procedure aspects.

2-The results and discussion are majorly focused on the basis of factor effect size however it will be interesting to know the relative interpretations of given scatter-plots independently as well as in comparison to the other contributing factors.  For example the top three factors could be discussed or the relative comparison of the factor with biggest effect size i.e. customer readiness could be made with the least size factor of IPR readiness.

3- The effect size discussion should also elaborate on the differing effect sizes e.g. whether the 0.62 (0.619) is three times the (0.26) effect size, does it mean it that it's 3 times as more important? etc.

4- The methodology does not highlight the sample size requirements for NCA, the authors should make it clear about the choice of 8 cases for present study. What are the reasons for choosing a sample size of 8? Is it sufficient enough? Secondly how could the relative effect size be changed if the sample size is enhanced? These points should be elaborated.

5- The chosen sample ranges from DEMOS to established grassland startups. How many of these were DEMOS and how many were the established ones? Could a different mix of these also alter the magnitudes and importance of independent factors?

6- In my opinion, the authors may consider reviewing the relative importance of these independent variables also from an expert panel to double-check the veracity/accuracy of your results.

7- The references need to be thoroughly checked for consistent format. See for example Line 408 references where the format is missing.

8- The manuscript needs proofing for minor grammatical errors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for your valuable comments and recommendations, which motivated us to significantly improve the manuscript and its relevance for the journal. Kindly find below our replies to the comments and the amendments done in the article based in your reviews.

• The presentation and organization of the manuscript is clear and argument-based. The research looks upon the grasslands businesses with the lens of necessary condition analysis (NCA) a relatively new approach to understand the essentiality of the independent factors for a certain outcome to prevail. The research contains interesting and appealing content for both the research and practice.
• The literature provided is updated however, some more references may be added for the strengthening the methodology/NCA procedure aspects.

Thank you for this comment. We have included more references for strengthening the methodology/NCA procedure aspects in L 214-220. One citation refers to the fundamental issues and methodological implications of NCA (57) and the other points out to the relevance of NCA for policy implications (58):

“Identifying relationships of necessity is of key interest in the social sciences and beyond[56,57]. It can provide actionable knowledge with “very powerful policy implications.[58]” By understanding which variables are critical to what degree for a desired outcome, researchers and practitioners can gain a better understanding of the causal effects when examining a particular outcome [37].”

2-The results and discussion are majorly focused on the basis of factor effect size however it will be interesting to know the relative interpretations of given scatter-plots independently as well as in comparison to the other contributing factors. For example the top three factors could be discussed or the relative comparison of the factor with biggest effect size i.e. customer readiness could be made with the least size factor of IPR readiness.

 

Thank you for this comment. It is relevant to mention that NCA is not influenced by the absence or presence of other factors in the model. In contrast with regression models, in which by adding more factors, more variance is explained, the results of the NCA analysis does not change when a variable is omitted. NCA analyses the single necessary factor, independently of all other causal factors. Even a single necessary condition can be strong predictor for the absence of an outcome. Even though each element is analyzed in isolation, we discuss each focus area results in relation to the extant literature, and acknowledge the complexity and interconnectedness of the key elements analyzed in L 526-528:

“..this is a simplification which does not consider the full complexity of highly interconnected and interdependent innovation processes and their networks of action situations [104,105].”

We make further mention of this in L579-583:  

“…we believe it is essential to address the multidisciplinary nature of innovation processes through collaborations with industry, governments and the public, as a basis for helping to build a comprehensive circular bio-based economy and for transforming the socioeconomic structure of contemporary society into a sustainable one. “

Thanks to your comment we have also improved the description and interpretation of the scatter plots in L 272-284:

 

“Data analysis with NCA is always bivariate, meaning that each necessary condition is analyzed in isolation from the rest of the causal structure. Inspections of all figures (Fig. 1-7) show an empty space in the upper-left corner, indicating that all seven conditions are necessary to some extent for innovation readiness. The ceiling line represents the level of Y that can be reached with a certain level of X, or in other words, the level of X that is necessary for reaching a certain level of Y.”

 

L282-287:

 

“Figure 1 exemplifies the necessity of customers for innovation readiness. By observing the empty space in the upper left corner, we can formulate the hypothesis that to achieve a desired level of IRL 6, a level of at least CRL 6 is required. This means that the benefits of the product must be confirmed through partnerships or first customer testing in order to support the development and design of the product with a market driven business team. “

 

L 291-298:

“Figure 2 exemplifies the necessity of technology for innovation readiness. By observing the empty space in the upper left corner, we can formulate the hypothesis that to achieve a desired level of IRL 4, a level of at least TRL 5 is required. In other words, to support project engineering development and design, the technology must be scaled from the laboratory unto a prototype demonstrated in an operational environment.”

3- The effect size discussion should also elaborate on the differing effect sizes e.g. whether the 0.62 (0.619) is three times the (0.26) effect size, does it mean it that it's 3 times as more important? etc.

Thank you for this comment. The effect size expresses the magnitude of the necessity effect of each individual “X” for “Y.” The larger the effect size, the larger the constrain that “X” puts on “Y” and the more than “Y” is constrained by “X.”  Small effect size indicates small constraining effect. Large effect size indicates large constraining effect. However, in NCA, the magnitude of the effect size is not automatically an indicator of higher practical relevance. A a small effect size might indicate that a small level of X is needed for the desired level of Y. If one needs to achieve this level of Y, the small effect size is highly relevant. Therewith, a small effect size can be equally relevant like a large effect size.

 

Furthermore, NCA analyses a single necessary factor independently of all other causal factors. Following Dul (2016), we consider 0 < d < 0.1 as a small effect, 0.1 ≤ d < 0.3 as a medium effect, 0.3 ≤ d < 0.5 as a large effect, and d ≥ 0.5 as a very large effect. Thus, the effect size of d = 0.1 has been used as a threshold to consider an effect as theoretically and practically meaningful. Yet, their relevance also depends on the context of study. Therefore, we discuss the differing effect size of the focus areas in order of importance. The formulation that an effect size of 0.62 is three times more important than an effect size of 0.26 can be problematic and misleading.  Theoretical justification for such kind of statements is not yet present.

4- The methodology does not highlight the sample size requirements for NCA, the authors should make it clear about the choice of 8 cases for present study. What are the reasons for choosing a sample size of 8? Is it sufficient enough? Secondly how could the relative effect size be changed if the sample size is enhanced? These points should be elaborated.

NCA does not impose rules on sample size. NCA can be conducted with a small number of cases for testing necessary condition hypotheses. With our sample (N=8) we are able test the hypotheses that the conditions chosen are necessary for innovation to different degrees. The reason for the sample size of N=8 in this study is that no other cases were found in Europe that would meet the criteria for case selection and were able to provide the necessary information for the study. Of course, stronger conclusions can be drawn, when we replicate our study with more cases. But we could test NC hypothesis even with a single case. Researchers must follow general guidelines to make sure to select a good sample and good data.

 

In this study we aimed at having a heterogenous sample. We selected cases varying in terms of outcome and conditions level to represent a larger group of cases for which we aim to generalise our findings.

With regards to the question whether the relative effect size be changed if the sample size changes, mathematical proofs and simulations have proven the validity of the permutation tests in NCA. Thus, a larger sample size per se is not expected to have a big effect on the relative effect size.  

5- The chosen sample ranges from DEMOS to established grassland startups. How many of these were DEMOS and how many were the established ones? Could a different mix of these also alter the magnitudes and importance of independent factors?

One of the fundamental aims of the GOGRASS project, which served as a research platform for the current study, is to support the transition from demonstration cases financed by the EU to self-sustaining businesses that can be replicated in Europe and beyond. In this study, our chosen sample ranges from demonstrations to established grass-based businesses, with different levels of innovation readiness and different levels in the independent variables.  

The cases located in Spain, Hungary and Romania are considered as follower cases in the GOGRASS project and have very low stages of maturity. The demonstration cases in GOGRASS are the cases in Germany, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands which are at different levels of maturity, but more advanced than the followers. Finally, the case of Zelfo Technology in Germany is a self-sustaining business with proven sales worldwide.

With regards to the question whether the relative effect size be changed if the sample size changes, we base our analysis on 10,000 permutations. Mathematical proofs and simulations have proven the validity of the permutation tests in NCA. Since the necessary conditions are considered in relation to the level of readiness of the cases, a different mix does not alter the outcome of the analysis.


6- In my opinion, the authors may consider reviewing the relative importance of these independent variables also from an expert panel to double-check the veracity/accuracy of your results.

Thank you for this comment. We have already presented and discussed the relative importance of the independent variables in two conferences among experts and practitioners. As this was not mentioned in the previous version of the article, we have added this in the method description of the revised article in L 249-251:

„The relative importance of the independent variables and the accuracy of the results were presented and discussed in two conferences among experts and practitioners. “

7- The references need to be thoroughly checked for consistent format. See for example Line 408 references where the format is missing.

Thank you for this correct observation and we apologize for the two citations with inconsistent styles. We have now checked the citations and references thoroughly for correct and consistent style.

8- The manuscript needs proofing for minor grammatical errors.

Thank you. The manuscript has now been reviewed thoroughly by a native English speaker.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have put-in considerable efforts to improve the article. All the concerns are well addressed now. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for your valuable comments and recommendations, which motivated us to significantly improve the manuscript. 

Following your recommendations, we reviewed thoroughly the manuscript to address minor spell checks in English language and style. 

We checked the citations in the document to ensure that all cited references are relevant to the research. 

We have included further explanation on the Methods section. In particular, related to Necessary Condition Analysis and the choice of variables. 

We are grateful for your reviews.