Governance in the Italian Processed Tomato Value Chain: The Case for an Interbranch Organisation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The subject area discussed in the paper is interesting. The research procedure has complex character. The value of the paper results from appropriate combination of literature studies with the results of an empirical study.
To improve the quality of the paper I would suggest to:
-indicate the theoretical contributions of the article,
- develop the description of the limitations of conducted research and indicate the trends for further empirical research,
- develop the discussion.
Author Response
Point 1: indicate the theoretical contributions of the article.
Response 1: Thanks for suggesting this. In line with other reviewers’ comments, we edited the theoretical backgrounds to strengthen the connections amongst the three theories rather than listing them separately. Moreover, we added a reflection on the theoretical contributions of the article in lines 570-573.
Point 2-3: develop the description of the limitations of conducted research and indicate the trends for further empirical research and develop the discussion.
Response 2: Thanks for suggesting this. We developed the discussion by adding the limitations and areas of further research in section 3.5.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is well written and presents an interesting study on the role of interbranch organisation in the governance of the processed tomato value chain and of market prices regulation. However, I have some minor remarks.
- This manuscript focuses on the case study of practical experience of one organization (i.e. IBO North Italy for Processing Tomato) and the research was conducted through an expert interview organised by the authors of this articles themselves. Therefore, it should not by cite the literature in the methodology section on the description of the interview procedures (lines 232-236).
- The same data are given in Table 2 and Figure 4 about the volume of production and the reference price of the tomatoes. Therefore, Figure 4 is redundant, there is no reference to it in the text.
- The quality characteristics of tomatoes should not be described in Annex A, as this information is not used in the analysis of tomato prices, i.e. the relationship between price and quality of tomatoes has not been analysed.
Author Response
Point 1: This manuscript focuses on the case study of practical experience of one organization (i.e. IBO North Italy for Processing Tomato) and the research was conducted through an expert interview organised by the authors of this articles themselves. Therefore, it should not by cite the literature in the methodology section on the description of the interview procedures (lines 232-236).
Response 1: Thanks for your comment. As the references in lines 232-236 are methodological publications that guided the development of the current research methodology, the authors believe they provide a methodological background supporting the methods section.
Point 2: The same data are given in Table 2 and Figure 4 about the volume of production and the reference price of the tomatoes. Therefore, Figure 4 is redundant, there is no reference to it in the text.
Response 2: Thanks for pointing this out, we deleted Figure 4.
Point 3: The quality characteristics of tomatoes should not be described in Annex A, as this information is not used in the analysis of tomato prices, i.e. the relationship between price and quality of tomatoes has not been analysed.
Response 3: Thanks for suggesting this, we deleted Table A1.
Reviewer 3 Report
please see the attached report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: As for the contribution of the study, the term “interbranch organisation” or “interbranch cooperation” is the key/ innovative point. The authors, however, did not provide a clear definition and description of this term and how this is different from the existing literature. There is a lack of linkage between what they presented and what is existed in the extant studies. I believe there are studies touching on different types of IBOs, and the authors need to add the relevant studies when discussing about the research gap in the Introduction part.
Response 1: Thanks for suggesting we give more relevance to the point of innovation of our work, we agree it wasn’t clearly stated. In lines 40-43, we added a short summary of the previous research on IBOs (which is then explained in the literature review in more detail), highlighting how the concept of cooperation was not the focus of previous studies. We believe this gives a more solid background to the use of the term “Interbranch cooperation” and its innovative stance.
Point 2: A second issue comes from the theoretical part. I suggest the authors consider the connections amongst the three theories rather than listing them separately. In particular, the new institutional economics is a very broad topic, it as well as the transaction cost theory covers two components of the IBOs analysis framework (in fig 1). Discussion about the interactions can provide a much solid theoretical grounding for this study.
Response 2: thanks for the comment. As you suggested, we edited the theoretical backgrounds in order to consider the connections amongst the three theories rather than listing them separately in lines 186-194. We also tweaked Figure 1 to better convey such approach.
Point 3: A third issue comes from the methodology part. The authors interviewed the stakeholders between 2017 and 2021, but they did not explain if they design this so that the interviews covers a span of several years or what? Did this reflect changes of stakeholders’ views, trust, etc.? If so, they need to present a clear comparison – they touched on that at some point but not in a consistent and clear way. Lastly, they need to specify the time of interviews in the appendix table.
Response 3: Thanks for pointing this out, we added the interviews timing in table A1 in the Appendix. We also added a more detailed explanation of the interviewing process in lines 236-242.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In a new version of the manuscript, the authors have included the reviewer's suggestions
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for addressing the issues raised in the previous report.
