Sustainability Issues in the Traditional Cashmere Supply Chain: Empirical Evidence from Kashmir, India
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the invitation to review this article. This is an interesting read to learn more details on sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) regarding a traditional industry in India. The paper makes clear contributions on SSCM to offer readers the insights of the sector on its specific sustainability issues. Although it focuses on a particular sector, I believe it can also help us to understand similar issues apply to traditional sectors also in other countries (this can be highlighted as contribution in conclusion).
The paper needs to address following issues:
- Readers may not familiar with cashmere industry/supply chain, such background should be presented in Introduction (e.g. lines 147-153, 359-364 should move to introduction). Furthermore, the research motivation should be strengthened, e.g. what are the issues happened during the transition need urgent research;
- Provide major findings/contributions and paper structure in introduction;
- In section 2, SCRM is not so relevant to the research focus, I would suggest to remove the relevant information but to strengthen the literature on SSCM from a multi stakeholder, multi-level perspective. SSCM with a focus on luxury and textiles supply chains can be added and multi-tier SSCM papers can be added;
- Figure 1 is a good framework to guide analysis and discussion, but the contents under each dimension offer little insights. Thus I would suggest remove figure 1 but present the figure in section 4 according to findings;
- Swap the sequence of Table 1 and Table 2, Table 2 presents the abbreviations whilst Table 1 without;
- Table 3 offers little information given the sample size, suggest remove the table and provide the information in text;
- Regarding unemployment and mechanisation, can you provide the sector statistic information, which will be more powerful in addition to the applied quotations;
- 4.1.5 could be revised to unbalanced supply chain power which leads to the improper profit sharing;
- 4.2.1 it could be important to mention the ‘culture’ aspect;
- Themes under 4.3 are not in parallel that 4.3.1 is a factor not an outcome as the others;
- By Figure 4 and text we can know that actually the local government or associations have tried to solve the issues however seems not effective, it would be more in-depth to discuss this and to make better recommendations in conclusion;
- Discussion should be strengthened by making comparisons with literature. So far, there is no citation in section 5;
- Any recommendations for future research?
- Appendices offer limited insights, suggest remove.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for their helpful comments to help improve the paper. Please see authors’ response on the comments made in the review in the attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I read your research with interest. I want to make some clarifications.
In the introductory part, try to reformulate scientifically the information provided, emphasizing how and why sustainability is related to the artisanal industry in small communities.
I would like to suggest the need for a concordance between the model presented in Figure 4. Sustainability issues surrounding major traditional cashmere supply chain processes and reference to Risk management. (present in research 8 times)
Appendix C needs to be redone. The segmentation is not clear.
The keyword Luxury Fashion must be removed. This term in your research has no reference in the text. I noticed only one bibliographic reference.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for their helpful comments to help improve the paper. Please see authors’ response on the comments made in the review.
Point 1: In the introductory part, try to reformulate scientifically the information provided, emphasizing how and why sustainability is related to the artisanal industry in small communities.
Response 1: As suggested, the content is reformulated scientifically in the introduction emphasizing on the sustainability aspects related to artisanal communities in the cashmere industry.
Point 2: I would like to suggest the need for a concordance between the model presented in Figure 4. Sustainability issues surrounding major traditional cashmere supply chain processes and reference to Risk management. (present in research 8 times)
Response 2: The model presented in Figure 4 primarily addresses sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) aspects. Supply chain Risk management (SCRM) is critical in supply chain operations. However, to confine the scope of the work, SCRM is not included in the present study. The valuable suggestions provided regarding SCRM will be incorporated in future research papers.
Point 3: Appendix C needs to be redone. The segmentation is not clear.
Response 3: For better clarity, data presented in Appendix C is now presented in a tabular form in Appendix A. The data presented in Appendix A captures in-depth information about cashmere product; categories, price and market share.
Point 4: The keyword Luxury Fashion must be removed. This term in your research has no reference in the text. I noticed only one bibliographic reference.
Response 4: As suggested, the keyword luxury fashion has been removed.
Reviewer 3 Report
This study investigates sustainability issues prevalent in the present-day traditional cashmere industry in Kashmir, India. To achieve this aim data collection was carried out using semi-structured interviews, observations, and documentary evidence. However, before I recommend its publication, it has several limitations to be overcome: As for the introduction section authors should focus more on the need of the study, the novelty of this work and the choice of the unit of investigation. Moreover, it emerges the need to clarify the associated research question/s in the introduction section. The introduction and literature background misses a clear statement of the importance of supply chain resilience models developed in sustainability body of literature . When deepening your theoretical argumentation you may, in every section, start from a general standpoint before focusing on the specific context of investigation. This guarantees that the authors have not overlooked some relevant papers and recent literature reviews on supply chain resilience. To achieve these aims, the authors could provide summary overview of the body of literature according to the review methodologies proposed in the recent body of literature. You may also consider these references for the justification of literature review conducted: https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2015-012; https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2428. In addition, I further invite authors to review some other related methodologies that have been used in the body of literature to deal with the same research topic. How your qualitative approaches differ from these methods and why out so many alternative methods, why current approach is most suitable in present context. As for the unit of analysis, a list of more specific information should appear. With regard to the main results, please stress how and why the context of investigation affects the results. Please stress managerial implications of the study. Future research opportunities should also be better emphasized.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for their helpful comments to help improve the paper. Please see authors’ response on the comments made in the review in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for addressing my comments. Below please take a look some minor issues:
- Apply a latest citation for the second reference;
- Line 45-46, "fiber processing" can indicate "fiber processing (spinning and weaving)", for readers who are not familiar with the industry and have a better connection with the rest of the paragraph;
- Overall, well done with the changes on literature review. However, the last paragraph regarding traceability doesn't have a close link with the rest of sections, suggest remove; the last sentence in Section 6 should be section 4;
- There are a few expressions of PI which should be changed into authors or the lead author, as this is not a project report.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for their comments in round two of the review. Please see authors’ response in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
