Examining the Relationship between Entrepreneurial Perceived Behaviour, Intentions, and Competencies as Catalysts for Sustainable Growth: An Indian Perspective

Reviewers Comments

Modifications Incorporated

The paper is interesting since in it uses entrepreneurial competencies as a mediator in the relationship between EPB and EI, again beside the positive things the paper has some negative points that need to be developed further

Thanks for appreciating the efforts and suggesting valuable inputs to help us enhance the quality of the paper

1. First of all, the abstract is not structured well, it needs to develop by following the intro logic, starting with objectives, methodology, results implications and conclusion.

Abstract has been revised and structured as suggested.

2. Regarding the introduction part, the authors need to develop the research gap and what has been researched previously in order to emphasize the contribution of this study.

The introduction part has been revised by adding the latest relevant studies and highlighting the research gaps.

3. The literature review needs to be added some more new references, there are a lot of new papers that tackle this issue.  Hypotheses need to be reformulated by not adding items to them

The hypothesis has not been revised as they are based on factors only. The items of these factors have been provided in Appendix Table 8. The literature has been revised to include the latest studies related to these hypotheses.

4. The discussion part is short and needs to provide more evidence.

The discussion has been enhanced by adding references to contemporary research.

Reviewers Comments

Modifications Incorporated

1 – To begin with, the title is exceedingly long, and it fails to grasp the fundamental fact that the study is conducted in India. It should be rephrased. 

Thanks for the same. The Title has been rephrased, and now it is:

EXAMINING THE RELATION OF ENTREPRENEURIAL PERCEIVED BEHAVIOUR, INTENTIONS AND COMPETENCIES AS CATALYSTS FOR SUSTAINABLE GROWTH: AN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE

2 – Some acronyms appear without prior contextualization. This should be corrected throughout the paper and authors should mention it the first-time a given expression appears. Also, in line 1 there is EPB and then PEB. Which one is correct?

All the acronyms used in the manuscript have now been contextualized PEB has been replaced by EPB in the entire manuscript.

3 – In the abstract SDGs 3,8,9 and 10 are mentioned. However, from line 354 to line 357 SDG 8 disappears and SDG 11 comes about without any previous discussion about it. Then again, in line 28 SDG 10 is also omitted. Authors should revise these situations.

We have modified the same in the abstract and in the manuscript.

4 – The statements made in lines 22 and 23 are rather strong and should be supported with recent references (more than the most that are presented throughout the paper). Indeed, the claim that entrepreneurship is recognized as a major driver must be underpinned. Also, the study mentioned in line 24 is from 1991. The authors should state why they believe that it is the most adequate study to support the research carried out, i.e. what other studies were conducted afterwards, what limitations they have, among other issues that should be considered by the authors.

In addition to the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), other theories like Social Cognitive Theory, Self-determination theory, and Resource-based theory can be used to explain the relationship between Entrepreneurial Perceived Behavior (EPB) and Entrepreneurial Intentions (EI). These theories differ in terms of the specific factors they emphasize and the mechanisms they propose to explain behavior. The choice of theory depends on the research question and the context of the study.

Empirical studies have extensively examined the impact of these direct determinants on entrepreneurial intentions, and there is a growing need to explore additional factors that can account for such intentions. (Hueso et al., 2021; Lortie & Castogiovanni, 2015; Otache, 2019).

5 – The claim in line 56 must be underpinned by a more recent study.

Recent study by Barbara Sanchez has been cited to support the statements.

6 – What recent studies do authors refer to in lines 60-61?

More recent studies on the topic have been added in support of the statements.

7 – What evidence can authors bring to the fore to support the claim in lines 64 and 65? The studies are more than 10 years old.

More recent studies on the topic have been added in support of the statements.

8 – In line 74 authors claim that their study has as main purpose the application of TPB. However, they do not contextualise the raison d’êtreof their choice. What are the advantages of TPB over other methods used in previous studies? This must be addressed.

In addition to the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), other theories like Social Cognitive Theory, Self-determination theory, and Resource-based theory can be used to explain the relationship between Entrepreneurial Perceived Behavior (EPB) and Entrepreneurial Intentions (EI). These theories differ in terms of the specific factors they emphasize and the mechanisms they propose to explain behavior. The choice of theory depends on the research question and the context of the study.

9 – The references used in lines 83 and 98 are from studies from the 1990s, 2000s and early 2010s. The same thing for the studies invoked between lines 85-98. Authors must address this and mitigate these fragilities, otherwise their study might be seen as already dated

The references have been modified and replaced by recent studies in the entire manuscript.

10 – What evidence do authors have of that intention of the Indian government?

The Indian Govt. is promoting the entrepreneurial and startup culture and is providing funding to the educational institutions to start business incubators.  Following citations to the initiatives have been added in the manuscript.

·       Government initiatives https://www.startupindia.gov.in/content/sih/en/international/go-to-market-guide/government-initiatives.html  [Accessed: 20-03-2023].

·       Pooja, M. These 8 government schemes are making the Indian startup ecosystem robust. https://yourstory.com/2022/05/government-schemes-indian-startup-ecosystem-samridh-msmes  [Accessed: 21-03-2023]

·       List Of Government Schemes for Startups in India. https://startuptalky.com/list-of-government-initiatives-for-startups/ [Accessed: 21-03-2023]

·       Atal Innovation Mission (AIM). https://aim.gov.in/  [Accessed: 21-03-2023].

11 – Lines 100-125. The studies invoked are more than 10 years old. This is an area with significant academic dynamism. This should be addressed.

The references have been modified and replaced by recent studies in the entire manuscript.

12 – In line 143: what does ET mean?

The acronym EI for Entrepreneurial Intention has been corrected.

13 – In line 265 there is mention of an appendix. However, I did not access it. As a reviewer, I consider having access to this document critical to my stance about the approval or rejection of this manuscript, given that it is crucial to understand the work carried out by the authors.

We apologize for missing the appendix while submitting the manuscript. It has now been added.

14 - The authors mention in line 277 a bootstrapping situation. More details should be provided.

As PLS-SEM is a non-parametric method, thus, there is a need to use bootstrapping to assess the path coefficients’ significance and also to interpret a construct’s indirect effect. Bootstrapping is a resampling procedure to assess the precision of the estimates (Hair et al., 2017). 

Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, et al. (2017) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

15 – In line 329 the authors claim that the results corroborate the studies by Souitaris and Shook, conducted in 2007 and 2003, respectively. Not to mention the fact that Shook’s study focuses Venture creation and the enterprising individual, how come that authors could not resort to more recent studies, given that these issues have been extensively studied in academia in recent years?

The references have been modified and replaced by recent studies in the entire manuscript.

16 – In line 383 the authors address Brinckmann. However, this work is not listed in the references. Furthermore, the authors do not justify why is it that this work from 2008 is the one that supports their claim that there is space for theoretical and empirical analysis. 

The article citation to Brinckmann has now been added in the references. The reference to the article has been added at 114 in the references. Further, the empirical analysis has been supported by more recent studies by Arafeh (20160, and Knight et al. (2020).

17 – In the methods section, the authors say they will resort to a specific scale and the PLS-SEM. However, it is not provided context as to why they choose these frameworks or why they are the most adequate option. What are their pros and cons, considering other possibilities? A figure with pros and cons and several other options would be useful and would certainly lend credibility to the study.

PLS-SEM is an alternative to Jöreskog’s (1973) CB-SEM, which has many restrictive assumptions as suggested by Hair et al. (2011). PLS-SEM syndicates principal components analysis with ordinary least squares regressions (Mateos-Aparicio, 2011). While CB-SEM (AMOS), is covariance-based, PLS-SEM is variance-based. The latter applies total variance to estimate parameters, thus leading to its increasing acceptance among researchers (Hair et al. 201; Rigdon, 2016, Petter, 2018). As the current research is based on numerous constructs with several items, and complex relations, PLS-SEM was preferred.

Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM, European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.

Jöreskog KG. (1973) A General Method for Estimating a Linear Structural Equation System. In:Goldberger AS and Duncan OD (eds) Structural Equation Models in the Social Sciences. New York: Seminar Press, 255-284.

Mateos-Aparicio G. (2011) Partial Least Squares (PLS) Methods: Origins, Evolution, and Application to Social Sciences. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 40(13): 2305-2317.

Petter S. (2018) Haters Gonna Hate: PLS and Information Systems Research. ACM SIGMIS

Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems 49(2): 10-13.

Rigdon E.E. (2016) Choosing PLS Path Modeling as Analytical Method in European Management Research: A Realist Perspective. European Management Journal 34(6) 598-605.

18 – Literary speaking, the paper is very dense and what should be clear and concrete becomes rather technical and an abstraction. I strongly encourage the authors to find ways to bridge the enormous gap between the heavy methodological part and what their findings, conclusions and other parts of the paper actually mean in people’s everyday life. Also: the explanation of what the methodology helps clarify and in what ways it is useful would improve the readability of the paper considerably.

Thanks for reporting the level of abstraction. The discussion section has now been improved. We have tried to simplify and explain results to make it easier for readers to understand.

19 – In the same vein, it is difficult to understand what the practical implications of the findings are and in what ways they can point a way forward. For instance, at some point, the importance of entrepreneurship education is mentioned. But this is not developed – and it should be. Especially when this is a hot topic.

The practical implications of the findings are explained more and directions for future research have been added.

20 – Indeed, entrepreneurship education is closely linked to the topic of this paper. Therefore, it should be more present in it. I believe that the evolution of entrepreneurship education throughout the years (especially in compulsory school and higher education) would be a useful addition to the literature review and the “future scope” section (where you also mention the role of state governments). Possible references include:

Banha, F.; Coelho, L.S.; Flores, A. Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic Literature Review and Identification of an Existing Gap in the Field. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 336. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050336

Banha, F.; Flores, A.; Coelho, L.S. NUTS III as Decision-Making Vehicles for Diffusion and Implementation of Education for Entrepreneurship Programmes in the European Union: Some Lessons from the Portuguese Case. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 436. https://doi.org/10.3390/ educsci12070436

Nabi, G.; Linan, F.; Fayolle, A.; Krueger, N.; Walmsley, A. The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2017, Vol. 16, No. 2

Introduction, Literature review and discussion have been amended. These studies have also been reported in the revised manuscript.

21 – References should adhere to MDPI’s style.

The references have been added using BibTex. Although, they have been checked carefully for compliance with MDPI’s style.

22 – The abstract should present in a clearer way what is it that this study adds to the existing literature. It is already widely known that EPB influences EI, for instance.

The abstract has been strengthened. It has been highlighted that there is a need to consider Entrepreneurial Competencies while measuring the influence of Perceived behavior on Intentions. The results empirically justify that with mediation of ECs, the impact on SG has improved. 

Reviewers Comments

Modifications Incorporated

Thank you for inviting me to review the article ENTREPRENEURIAL PERCEIVED BEHAVIOUR AND ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS (WITH MEDIATING ROLE OF ENTREPRENEURIAL COMPETENCIES) AS CATALYST FOR SUSTAINABLE GROWTH: ANALYSING USING SPECIFIC SDGs

Thanks for providing valuable inputs to help us revise the manuscript.

The study intended to investigate the relationship between Perceived Entrepreneurial Behavior and Entrepreneurial Intentions by providing empirically evidence regarding whether Entrepreneurial intention positively influences sustainable growth (SG). The mediation of ECs on the effect of EI on sustainable growth was also tested. The topic of the paper is relevant and of interest, however, there are some areas for improvement.

Thanks for appreciating our efforts and also suggesting changes to help enhance the quality of the manuscript.

Abstract: Not every reader will be familiar with the UNSDGs. Define before using acronyms. It is not necessary to give the full definition of each SDG in the Abstract. Same for competencies scale. Too much info for Abstract. Define acronyms the first time they are used, for example

Acronyms have been defined and the changes are incorporated in the entire manuscript.

The Abstract should include, briefly: The area of exploration, the question. The topic. Why the topic is important, or of interest. What methodology was used. What data was used including the source of the data. What analysis was done on the data. The key findings, briefly. Who may find the study useful? The methodology of the study is empirical analysis of primary survey data. The language of the paper is clear and understandable but is idiosyncratic and requires some editing. The structure of the paper is logical and conforms to the AIMRAD structure

The abstract has been modified as suggested and we have edited the paper to check language errors.

The Introduction and Discussion sections should clearly explain a theoretical contribution to the body of knowledge. This connection is not well explained in either section, nor is it apparent in Section 2, although mentioned briefly at line 126

We have modified he introduction and discussion section has been modified to provide theoretical contribution.

Introduction: The originally of the topic is supported, but not explicitly stated. Doing, clearly stating the gap, would improve the readability of the paper. The study builds on the foundation and expands the findings of prior research.

Introduction has been modified and gaps have been highlighted. 

The Hypothesis development appears sound. The methodology and analysis appear sound, based on well-established methods, and are explained clearly and with detail.

Thanks for your valuable feedback. 

Section 3.1 Was the survey online or paper? How was it distributed? Were all responses complete and used in the analysis? A little more detail please. Given the complexity, and importance of the survey instrument, it should be included (as stated on line 266), or, if word count is a limitation, at least described more completely in Section 3.2 The References are sufficient in number, relevance and recency. I enjoyed reading this paper.

The survey data has been collected in two waves, phase 1, from 1 June 2019 to 30 August 2020. In the second wave data has been collected between the period of September 2020 to October 2021. In phase 1, the responses were slow. In the subsequent phase respondents were also contacted through electronic media. The respondents for the data were selected from institution of high repute having rank<100 as per National Institutional Ranking Framework. A total of 6 public and 6 private institutions from Punjab, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh were selected for collection of data. The Survey scale has been added in appendix.