Risk Assessment for Social Practices in Small Vegetable farms in Poland as a Tool for the Optimization of Quality Management Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The objective of the manuscript was to assess the feasibility of Polish small vegetable farms adhering to the GLOBAL G.A.P GRASP standard, and thus allowing Polish agricultural products to become globally sold rather than locally sold. The results are very interesting, but the authors’ need to do a lot of revising before the manuscript can be published in my opinion. In many places, particularly in their introduction and at the beginning of their “Results and Discussion” section, the authors include too much wording. It would appear the authors’ are trying to include everything worth mentioning in these sections of the manuscript, and the wording appears to be unfocused. The authors could certainly use less wording to get their points across. Also, the authors are weak on describing the methodology used in their risk analysis. Their Methods section is weak. Also, the authors’ need to provide more information about the farms they surveyed. They provide very little information about these, and it would certainly add value to the manuscript if they were to add more details about these farms. The conclusions of their study are that it would be hard for Polish small farms to achieve compliance with the standard. This is indeed good information. However, the authors’ don’t provide any possible alternatives available for these Polish small farms. It would be good to know if these farms could sell their produce locally using some more profitable means. In my opinion, this would be a good way to promote further research based on their findings.

--------

I felt the conclusions of the manuscript were sound. The authors provided good reasons why Polish small vegetable farms are unable to comply with the GLOBAL G.A.P GRASP standard. However, much of the manuscript was very wordy. In many places, it appears the authors are peppering the reader with too many seemingly unrelated facts, giving the reader the opinion that the authors lack focus. Also, very little information was provided about the small farms in question, and the method used for risk assessment needs to be explained in more detail. Below are some specific comments about the manuscript.

Introduction, Pages 2 – 4: The introduction is too wordy. It includes too many things and appears to be unfocused. I was unable to figure out what the authors’ paper was about until lines 94 – 103. Also, the authors’ need to break up large sections of wording into smaller paragraphs. The authors could have said much more by using much fewer words.

Research Methods, Page 11: More needs to be said about the methodology used by the authors’. The authors’ indicate they employed a risk analysis, but say nothing about what this risk analysis was. What were the metrics used in the risk analysis?

The 2018 Survey: The authors also provide little information from the survey conducted in 2018. All that is known about the surveyed farms is that they were “small family farms in Poland,” and that they were all vegetable farms. The authors’ group the 62 farms surveyed by worker specification and give the average farm area for each group, but the authors’ provide no more details about these farms. More summary statistics of these farms would add value to the manuscript. As a reader, I would like to know more about these farms, such as the things they each have in common and the things that may differ across farms. Also, the authors’ discard 17 farms from their analysis because these farms do not employ workers. I as a reader would like to know more about these farms. Why do these farms not employ workers, for example? What makes these 17 farms different from the other 45 farms in the study? A more in-depth comparison of the surveyed farms could be added in the “Results and Discussion” section.

Results and Discussion, Page 5 – 8: As with the introduction, the “Results and Discussion” section suffers from too many words. The beginning of this section (lines 167 – 188) does not actually contain any results but rather contains more introductory information that seems to be out of place in this section of the manuscript. The wording in many of the lines that follow (189 – 218) could be reduced considerably. The authors’ could use fewer words to say the same things.

Table 1, Page 6: – This should be Table 2.

Summary, Pages 8 – 9: The summary does a good job explaining why small farmers in Poland would have a hard time with implementation of the GRASP standard. It would appear compliance with such a standard is indeed infeasible. Is this actually a bad thing for Polish small farms? Would there be any more profitable ways for Polish small farms to sell their produce locally rather than globally? This would appear to be a good area for further study.

Author Response

Good morning,

in turn, I am sending the corrected version of the manuscript

Reviewer 2 Report

1)      The abstract in my opinion is a little bit too long.

2)      The aim of the article is stated properly however Authors of the study do not test any hypothesis. It would be better to have one  - later is easier for future readers to use it as a source for future citation.

3)      “To meet the set objective, surveys were conducted in 2018 in small family farms in Poland, in 148 the following provinces: Świętokrzyskie, Mazovia, Łódź, Lublin and Wielkopolska. The surveys 149 covered 62 vegetables or farms that grow berry plants, with a cultivated area of up to 20 ha.” Comment: Need to be extended by adding the justification for choosing this sample of farms. How farms were selected? The study is a part of some project? How many farms were in every province? What type of production farms conducted?

4)      Ad Page 1 row 33

„Surveys were conducted in 2018” How the survey was conducted?  By using questionnaires? Directly? By phone? By email? By web? Please add this information.

5)      Ad. Page 4 row 139-140

“However, such an approach associated with certification poses a 139 threat to product quality in the case of an ineffective system of controlling the members of the 140 producer group by head office which implements the quality management system..”.
I am not really understanding: “product quality”.

6)      Ad. Page 4 row 148-152 – There is a need to add here information about sample selection criteria. The methodology part need to be extended. This part is crucial for future readers to cite it.

7)      Ag Page 6 row 236

8)      How the risk assessment for social practice in the researched farms scale looks like? (ad. Table 2) It was only H – high risk, M – medium risk, L – low risk, n.a. – not applicable?

9)      The discussion part could be extended to other EU country experience or US in explored by Authors filed. Like:

·         Brown, S., & Getz, C. (2008). Privatizing farm worker justice: Regulating labor through voluntary certification and labeling. Geoforum, 39(3), 1184-1196.\

·         Staricco, J. I., & Ponte, S. (2015). Quality regimes in agro-food industries: A regulation theory reading of Fair Trade wine in Argentina. Journal of Rural Studies, 38, 65-76.

·         Oya, C., Schaefer, F., Skalidou, D., McCosker, C., & Langer, L. (2015). Effects of certification schemes for agricultural production on socio-economic outcomes. MPS (Fair flowers fair plants), 25, 08.

·         García-Alcaraz, J. L., Adarme-Jaimes, W., & Blanco-Fernández, J. (2016). Impact of human resources on wine supply chain flexibility, quality, and economic performance. Ingeniería e Investigación, 36(3), 74-81.

General comments:

-          How many farms in Poland use GRASP standards?

-          Please add limitation of the study and future research problem

Author Response

Good morning,

in turn, I am sending the corrected version of the manuscript

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All my comments have been sufficiently addressed.

Author Response

response to comments from Reservation No. 2
1. The abstract in my opinion is a little bit too long
The abstract is indeed long, nevertheless, according to the authors, it is necessary. The article deals with a new problem and for proper understanding at the reading level of the abstract, more information should be included than usual
2. The aim of the article is stated properly however Authors of the study do not test any hypothesis. It would be better to have one  - later is easier for future readers to use it as a source for future citation.
The research hypothesis was "risk analysis is an indispensable element in shaping the quality system in the context of social practices"

3. “To meet the set objective, surveys were conducted in 2018 in small family farms in Poland, in 148 the following provinces: Świętokrzyskie, Mazovia, Łódź, Lublin and Wielkopolska. The surveys 149 covered 62 vegetables or farms that grow berry plants, with a cultivated area of up to 20 ha.” Comment: Need to be extended by adding the justification for choosing this sample of farms. How farms were selected? The study is a part of some project? How many farms were in every province? What type of production farms conducted?
To meet the set objective, surveys were conducted in 2018 in small family farms in Poland, in the following provinces: Świętokrzyskie (11 farms), Mazovia (18 farms), Łódź (19 farms), Lublin (6 farms) and Wielkopolska (8 farms). The research was conducted using the direct interview method. The study involved farms, in which the buyers of products reported the need to implement the GRASP standard. The surveys covered 62 vegetables or farms that grow berry plants, with a cultivated area of up to 20 ha. Among the examined farms, 37 of them were grown vegetables, while 25 were grown in berry plants. Nearly 30% of the surveyed farms declared that they did not employ workers.
The research was conducted as part of the statutory activity of the University of Agriculture
4. Surveys were conducted in 2018” How the survey was conducted?  By using questionnaires? Directly? By phone? By email? By web? Please add this information.

The research was conducted using the direct interview method.
5. However, such an approach associated with certification poses a 139 threat to product quality in the case of an ineffective system of controlling the members of the 140 producer group by head office which implements the quality management system..”.
I am not really understanding: “product quality”
In accordance with the approach of quality management systems in primary production, including the GLOBAL GAP system, the product quality consists of its properties (safety, chemical composition, organoleptic parameters) and other parameters such as production technology compatible with environmental protection and the use of social practices consistent with international labor conventions. GLOBAL G.A.P. sees a wider context of product quality. Meeting social practices is also an element of product quality
6. Ad. Page 4 row 148-152 – There is a need to add here information about sample selection criteria. The methodology part need to be extended. This part is crucial for future readers to cite it.
Added
7. How the risk assessment for social practice in the researched farms scale looks like? (ad. Table 2) It was only H – high risk, M – medium risk, L – low risk, n.a. – not applicable?
Added
8. How the risk assessment for social practice in the researched farms scale looks like? (ad. Table 2) It was only H – high risk, M – medium risk, L – low risk, n.a. – not applicable?
Added
9. The discussion part could be extended to other EU country experience or US in explored by Authors filed
10. Added
Please add limitation of the study and future research problem
added
Due to the changing requirements of retail chains, one should expect an increase in farmers' interest in the GLOBAL G.A.P. GRASP. Based on the obtained results, it was found that they need to be continued in the conditions of small commercial farms
How many farms in Poland use GRASP standards?
During the research period, the number of farms with the implemented GRASP standard was around 1000. Currently, there is a dynamic increase in the number of certified farms.