Sustainable Entrepreneurial Process in the Deep-Tech Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses an interesting intersection of sustainable entrepreneurship and deep-tech entrepreneurship. The authors state that “the aim of this article is to investigate the process of sustainable entrepreneurs as they transition from startup ventures to scaleup enterprises within the context of the deep-tech industry.” However, the paper struggles to fully achieve this objective.

 

First, the literature review is insufficient, offering limited understanding of sustainable entrepreneurship in general and within the context of deep-tech specifically. While there is a rich body of work on sustainable entrepreneurship, much of it is absent from this paper. The review also fails to adequately explore deep-tech entrepreneurship and its distinctions from non-deep tech entrepreneurship. Furthermore, there is no discussion of more critical perspectives on technology innovation—the claim that “regardless of the sectors they operate in, deep-tech companies develop products that address critical issues confronting humanity and the earth, such as climate change, disease, and food scarcity [11], hence contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals [12,13]” offers a very narrow view of this area of innovation.

 

Second, the study itself lacks clarity. Although the authors suggest that there is a distinct sustainable entrepreneurship process within the context of deep tech, the uniqueness of this process is not sufficiently established. The authors' findings suggest a specialized process tailored for deep-tech sustainable entrepreneurship, but it is unclear how this differs from other sustainable entrepreneurial processes unrelated to deep tech. Furthermore, it remains unclear how the proposed process deviates from a general entrepreneurial process. For example, the claim that 'the generation of ideas is based on the founder's specialized knowledge in a certain domain' could apply to entrepreneurs in various fields, not just those focused on sustainability or deep tech.

 

It is also not clearly explained why the companies selected for this study are positioned at the intersection of sustainability and deep tech.

 

Overall, as it stands, the paper does not seem to offer a significant contribution. If the authors intend to explore the uniqueness of this specific niche, they need to provide a stronger theoretical foundation and consider including additional case studies of sustainable startups that are not deep-tech related. This would allow for a clearer comparison between these startups, thereby strengthening their argument.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally understandable, but it requires moderate editing to improve clarity and readability. Some sentences are awkwardly phrased, and there are occasional grammatical and structural errors that need correction. In addition, the flow of ideas can be improved by refining sentence structures. Addressing these issues will make the manuscript more accessible and engaging for readers.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below:

Comment 1: The literature review is insufficient, offering limited understanding of sustainable entrepreneurship in general and within the context of deep-tech specifically

Response 1: We appreciate you bringing this to our attention. We have included a section on "Deep-tech startup" in the literature review. This section provides detailed information about deep-tech startups and highlights their differences from traditional digital startups.

Comment 2: The study itself lacks clarity. Although the authors suggest that there is a distinct sustainable entrepreneurship process within the context of deep tech, the uniqueness of this process is not sufficiently established.

It is also not clearly explained why the companies selected for this study are positioned at the intersection of sustainability and deep tech.

Response 2: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We have included an additional paragraph on line 67 of page 2 to provide further clarification on the comment.

Comment 3: If the authors intend to explore the uniqueness of this specific niche, they need to provide a stronger theoretical foundation and consider including additional case studies of sustainable startups that are not deep-tech related.

Respone 3: Thank you very much for your suggestion. This paper is a component of a research project. Adding case studies of non deep-tech sustainable startups would be a wonderful idea. We are open to the possibility of including additional non deep-tech case studies in our upcoming research.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review the manuscript. Your input is greatly appreciated.

Sincere regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is very interesting to address a topic such as those in the field of sustainable entrepreneurship. It is remarkable to see the need for studies on how business activities contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful for the valuable suggestions and feedback from you.

Regarding your suggestion "It is remarkable to see the need for studies on how business activities contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals.", we have taken your suggestion into consideration and have included an additional paragraph to provide further clarification on how deep-tech startups contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals. The paragraph can be located on line 48, page 2.

Once again, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for taking the time to review the manuscript. Your input is greatly appreciated.

Sincere regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 the Article is good research quality and of some interest for readers in the field of sustainable entrepreneurship in Deep Tech. However, there are some notes which, in my opinion, must be revised before manuscript’s promotion.

 

Abstract:

From “Abstract” section is s not clear what results were achieved beyond conceptual model of sustainable entrepreneurial process, declared by Authors, and what methods were used for it.

 1. Introduction:

In this section, the aim, tasks and object of research should be given.                

It is also unclear what problem, significant for the entire Deep Tech sector, the authors are trying to help solve.

 2. Literature Review

In my opinion, sustainable entrepreneurship in the Deep Tech Sector should be observed with several more references, as it is quite interesting for readers. Now the main number of sources is given in the Introduction section.

This section does not summarize previously published works and known approaches, so it is not clear what gaps in the research of the problem the authors are trying to fill.

 3. Research methodology

In Table 1, the description of selected case studies is given. However, the article completely lacks a detailed description of these cases, with appropriate statistics and conclusions for each of them. This is the main flaw of the article, in my opinion.

In Subsection 3.3. “Data collection” (line 167-168) the authors say that collected data is originated from search engines including Google, EMIS. However, performing a study in the field of sustainable entrepreneurship in the high-tech industry without relying on corporate data compiled into the analysis of specific cases is, to say the least, invalid.

 4. Results

This section provides only general conclusions regarding the author’s ideas on the sustainable development of sustainable entrepreneurship in Deep Tech. Therefore, I consider it necessary to recommend that the Authors present in this section the results of the analysis of those cases that should be in section 3. “Research methodology”, and give final conclusions based on this analysis.

 5. Discussion

Although this section is the largest in the paper, the Authors should provide information about what specific findings from the study actually advance existing knowledge, what limitations there were to this study, and how future research will overcome these limitations.

 

 Good luck!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below:

Abstract:

From “Abstract” section is s not clear what results were achieved beyond conceptual model of sustainable entrepreneurial process, declared by Authors, and what methods were used for it.

Response: I appreciate you mentioning that. We have included narrative process research in the abstract.

1. Introduction:

In this section, the aim, tasks and object of research should be given.                

It is also unclear what problem, significant for the entire Deep Tech sector, the authors are trying to help solve.

Reponse 1: Thank you for your input. We have made revisions to the introduction section in order to enhance clarity for readers. Specifically, we have included the aims, research question, and expected contribution to provide a more comprehensive understanding. The information can be found from line 58, page 2.

2. Literature Review

In my opinion, sustainable entrepreneurship in the Deep Tech Sector should be observed with several more references, as it is quite interesting for readers. Now the main number of sources is given in the Introduction section.

This section does not summarize previously published works and known approaches, so it is not clear what gaps in the research of the problem the authors are trying to fill.

Response 2: We appreciate you bringing this to our attention. We have included a section on "Deep-tech startup" in the literature review. This section provides detailed information about deep-tech startups and highlights their differences from traditional digital startups.

3. Research methodology

In Table 1, the description of selected case studies is given. However, the article completely lacks a detailed description of these cases, with appropriate statistics and conclusions for each of them. This is the main flaw of the article, in my opinion.

In Subsection 3.3. “Data collection” (line 167-168) the authors say that collected data is originated from search engines including Google, EMIS. However, performing a study in the field of sustainable entrepreneurship in the high-tech industry without relying on corporate data compiled into the analysis of specific cases is, to say the least, invalid.

Response 3: We appreciate your thoughtful comment. We have made some adjustments to the data collection process and included an additional primary source that was utilised during the research, namely Crunchbase. The Crunchbase database provides an extensive information on startups worldwide, with current data and a wide range of financial funding details. For more information, please refer to the Data collection section.

4. Results

This section provides only general conclusions regarding the author’s ideas on the sustainable development of sustainable entrepreneurship in Deep Tech. Therefore, I consider it necessary to recommend that the Authors present in this section the results of the analysis of those cases that should be in section 3. “Research methodology”, and give final conclusions based on this analysis.

Response 4: We greatly appreciate your suggestion. Thank you for taking the time to share it. We greatly appreciate your feedback as it helps us improve the structure of our future manuscripts.

5. Discussion

Although this section is the largest in the paper, the Authors should provide information about what specific findings from the study actually advance existing knowledge, what limitations there were to this study, and how future research will overcome these limitations.

Response 5: We appreciate you bringing that to my attention. The "Theoretical and practical contributions" section has been revised. Please refer to page 14 for more information.

Once again, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for taking the time to review the manuscript. Your input is greatly appreciated!

Sincere regards,

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study explores the sustainable entrepreneurial process in the deep-tech industry, proposing a conceptual model with five phases and six activities: sustainable idea generation, opportunity recognition and evaluation, venture launch, sustainable product/service development, new sustainable enterprise financing, and enterprise scale-up. Through multiple case studies of six deep-tech startups, the study identifies the unique challenges these companies face as they transition from startups to scale-up enterprises, requiring specialized knowledge and resources. The findings provide a comprehensive overview of the critical entrepreneurial stages to guide deep-tech entrepreneurs from startup to scale-up.

 

The following are some specific recommendations:

1. Please add a section in the Introduction to elaborate on the research's main contributions and novel aspects.

2. The literature review seems to focus primarily on sustainable entrepreneurship. Please consider including literature related to deep-tech entrepreneurship.

3. Recommend providing more details on the coding framework, steps, cross-case analysis, and consistency validation to enhance methodological transparency.

4. Please consider adding figures or tables in the results section to support the textual content and help readers grasp the results at a glance.

5. A period is missing in the Proposition 2 section of the Discussions. Please complete it.

6. The conclusion section could summarize some practical recommendations for deep-tech entrepreneurs to help apply the research findings more effectively in real-world entrepreneurial activities.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Except for some typos and tense errors, no issues were detected.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below:

Comment 1: Please add a section in the Introduction to elaborate on the research's main contributions and novel aspects.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable input. We have included a main contribution to the introduction. You can find it on line 77, page 2.

Comment 2. The literature review seems to focus primarily on sustainable entrepreneurship. Please consider including literature related to deep-tech entrepreneurship.

Response 2: We appreciate you bringing this to our attention. We have included a section on "Deep-tech startup" in the literature review. This section provides detailed information about deep-tech startups and highlights their differences from traditional digital startups

Comment 3: Recommend providing more details on the coding framework, steps, cross-case analysis, and consistency validation to enhance methodological transparency.

Response 3: We appreciate your recommendation. We have included a proposed event types table (located in table 2, page 5), as well as table A1: Systhesis of research results, which displayed highlighted information from the cross-case studies analysis

Comment 4: Please consider adding figures or tables in the results section to support the textual content and help readers grasp the results at a glance.

Response 4: Thanks for your comment. The synthesis of research results can now  be found in Table A1. The table displayed highlighted information from the cross-case studies analysis, and research results.

Comment 5: A period is missing in the Proposition 2 section of the Discussions. Please complete it.

Response 5: Thank you for your comment. You can find Proposition 2 on line 454, page 10.

Comment 6: The conclusion section could summarize some practical recommendations for deep-tech entrepreneurs to help apply the research findings more effectively in real-world entrepreneurial activities.

Response 6: We appreciate you bringing this to our attention. We added one more practical recommendation for deep-tech entrepreneurs "The research and development of deep-tech products necessitates a significant amount of time and financial investment. By committing to contribute to sustainability, the startups may more easily attract finance". The sentences can be found on line 663, page 15.

Once again, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for taking the time to review the manuscript. Your input is greatly appreciated.

Sincere regards,

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revisions.

1. Literature Review: While the additions on deep-tech startups to the literature review are appreciated, the literature review on sustainable entrepreneurship is still lacking. The introduction provides very little foundation for understanding what sustainable entrepreneurship entails, and the literature review does not add sufficient depth to this understanding. I suggest the authors review Rosário, A.T.; Raimundo, R.J.; Cruz, S.P. Sustainable Entrepreneurship: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5556. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095556 as a starting point.

2. Clarity of the Study: There is no clear understanding of the context of sustainable entrepreneurship within the deep-tech industry. For example, it is not clear why a security company (Enterprise F) or automation companies (Enterprises D and E) are considered sustainable deep-tech enterprises. Additionally, there is little to no consideration of the potential negative sustainability impacts of deep tech, only positive ones, providing a partial picture of this industry (see, for example, Cowls J, Tsamados A, Taddeo M, Floridi L. The AI gambit: leveraging artificial intelligence to combat climate change—opportunities, challenges, and recommendations. AI Soc. 2023;38(1):283-307. doi: 10.1007/s00146-021-01294-x).
   
   While I appreciate the added clarification on page 2, line 67, the response does not indicate a substantial revision or expansion of the argument to clearly differentiate the sustainable entrepreneurial process in deep-tech from general sustainable or non-deep-tech processes. This suggests that the study may still lack clarity in establishing the uniqueness of the sustainable entrepreneurial process within deep-tech.

3. Additional Case Studies: The authors indicated that including non-deep-tech sustainable startups would be a good idea for future research but did not incorporate this suggestion into the current paper. While this acknowledges my comment, it does not strengthen the current paper's theoretical foundation or comparative analysis, potentially leaving the paper's argument less robust than it could be.

 

In summary, the authors have made some revisions in response to my feedback but have not fully addressed the core issues raised, particularly regarding the depth of the literature review and the clarity in differentiating the unique process of deep-tech sustainable entrepreneurship. The paper would benefit from further refinement in these areas. Additionally, it would benefit from proofreading to ensure clarity and accuracy throughout the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper needs to be proofread.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your insightful comments, which have been guiding us toward improving the quality and clarity of our manuscript. Please see below for our detailed responses:

Comment 1: Literature Review: While the additions on deep-tech startups to the literature review are appreciated, the literature review on sustainable entrepreneurship is still lacking. The introduction provides very little foundation for understanding what sustainable entrepreneurship entails, and the literature review does not add sufficient depth to this understanding. I suggest the authors review Rosário, A.T.; Raimundo, R.J.; Cruz, S.P. Sustainable Entrepreneurship: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5556. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095556 as a starting point.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion to improve the literature review on sustainable entrepreneurship. We have carefully reviewed and included findings from the article written by Rosário et al. (2022), just as you suggested. We have made an addition that has improved our explanation of sustainable entrepreneurship. We hope that these improvements have addressed the issues you raised.

Comment 2: Clarity of the Study: There is no clear understanding of the context of sustainable entrepreneurship within the deep-tech industry. For example, it is not clear why a security company (Enterprise F) or automation companies (Enterprises D and E) are considered sustainable deep-tech enterprises. Additionally, there is little to no consideration of the potential negative sustainability impacts of deep tech, only positive ones, providing a partial picture of this industry (see, for example, Cowls J, Tsamados A, Taddeo M, Floridi L. The AI gambit: leveraging artificial intelligence to combat climate change—opportunities, challenges, and recommendations. AI Soc. 2023;38(1):283-307. doi: 10.1007/s00146-021-01294-x).

While I appreciate the added clarification on page 2, line 67, the response does not indicate a substantial revision or expansion of the argument to clearly differentiate the sustainable entrepreneurial process in deep-tech from general sustainable or non-deep-tech processes. This suggests that the study may still lack clarity in establishing the uniqueness of the sustainable entrepreneurial process within deep-tech.

Response 2:

We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of sustainable entrepreneurship within the deep-tech industry and the examples you have shared. We have provided a more comprehensive explanation of the multiple case study design in section 3.1.

In addition, we provide a more detailed explanation of the distinctions between deep-tech SEP and general SEP. It can be found in the session 5.8. A sustainable entrepreneurial process model of deep-tech entrepreneurship and 6.1. Theoretical and practical contributions.

We appreciate your feedback. In addition, we acknowledge the importance of considering the potential negative sustainability impacts of deep tech and conducting further research to compare deep-tech and non-deep-tech SEP, which we include as the research limitation.

Comment 3: Additional Case Studies: The authors indicated that including non-deep-tech sustainable startups would be a good idea for future research but did not incorporate this suggestion into the current paper. While this acknowledges my comment, it does not strengthen the current paper's theoretical foundation or comparative analysis, potentially leaving the paper's argument less robust than it could be.

Response 3: We appreciate your suggestion regarding the inclusion of non-deep-tech sustainable startups for comparative analysis. We recognize that it would strengthen the current paper’s theoretical foundation, due to time limitation, we include your suggestion to the paper's limitation.

Comment 4: Further Refinement and Proofreading

We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript. We made sure to carefully proofread our work to improve the language and presentation of our arguments. We also took the time to address any possible ambiguities or inconsistencies.

We hope that these revisions adequately address your concerns and contribute to a more comprehensive and clear presentation of our paper. We are grateful for your constructive feedback and remain open to any further suggestions you may have.

Thank you once again for your valuable insights.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I wish you good luck!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript!

Sincerely,

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. After the initial definition of abbreviations in the manuscript, it is recommended to maintain consistent use, avoiding redundant definitions or the introduction of abbreviations that are not subsequently used.

2. When first using the abbreviation “BCG,” it is recommended that you provide the full form “Boston Consulting Group.”

3. It is recommended that the title be changed from “2.1. Deep-tech startup” to “2.2. Deep-tech startup.”

4. Please provide an appropriate explanation for Table 2, ensuring that each figure is introduced in the text, clearly stating its content and contribution to the argument.

5. The discussion section should strengthen the connection between the theoretical framework and empirical results by elaborating in more detail on how the case study supports or challenges existing theories.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no issues detected.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with a detailed review of our manuscript. We greatly value your input and suggestions for areas that can be improved. We have thoroughly worked on them and made the necessary changes. Please see below for our detailed responses:

Comment 1: After the initial definition of abbreviations in the manuscript, it is recommended to maintain consistent use, avoiding redundant definitions or the introduction of abbreviations that are not subsequently used.

Response 1:  We understand that it is important to use abbreviations consistently throughout the manuscript. We have thoroughly reviewed the entire document to ensure that each abbreviation is defined only once when it is first mentioned, and we have eliminated any unnecessary duplicate definitions. 

Comment 3: It is recommended that the title be changed from “2.1. Deep-tech startup” to “2.2. Deep-tech startup.”

Response 3: Thank you for pointing out this inconsistency. We have made the necessary correction to the numbering of the section title, as you suggested.

Comment 4: Please provide an appropriate explanation for Table 2, ensuring that each figure is introduced in the text, clearly stating its content and contribution to the argument.

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. We have included Table 2 in the text.

Comment 5: The discussion section should strengthen the connection between the theoretical framework and empirical results by elaborating in more detail on how the case study supports or challenges existing theories.

Response 5: Thank you for your feedback. We have made revisions to the discussion section in order to improve the connection between the theoretical framework and our empirical findings.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback and for assisting us in improving our work. 

Sincerely,

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your revised manuscript. 

Comment 1: Literature review - sustainable entrepreneurship
You improved this part of the literature review, creating a clearer context for your research. However, while the addition does enhance the depth of the review, the overall literature section could benefit from further elaboration on the broader conceptual underpinnings of sustainable entrepreneurship, using more up-to-date research.

Comment 2: Clarity of the study 
The manuscript provides a more focused explanation of the unique challenges deep-tech startups face in adopting sustainable entrepreneurship. However, clearer differentiation is still needed between deep-tech startups and other types of sustainable entrepreneurship. For example, you write: "In contrast to prior research on the process of sustainable entrepreneurship, sustainable entrepreneurial opportunities within the context of the deep-tech industry come from entrepreneurs' interests and knowledge of emerging technologies that can be leveraged to address current sustainability challenges." This assertion seems unsubstantiated. How is this different from a sustainable startup in the broader tech industry or one using technology in other sectors? This distinction needs clarification to emphasize the unique role of sustainability in deep tech. Additionally, how the startups in the case studies contribute to sustainability should be further clarified, as this is a critical part of your research.

Comment 3: Additional case studies
I accept the authors' response.

Comment 4: Proofreading
While a few minor inconsistencies in grammar and phrasing remain, the overall quality of writing has improved from the previous version.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While a few minor inconsistencies in grammar and phrasing remain, the overall quality of writing has improved from the previous version.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough and constructive feedback on my manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have taken to provide detailed comments, which have helped guide the revisions. Below, we address each of your points.

1. Literature Review - Sustainable Entrepreneurship:

Response: We are grateful for your recognition of the improvements made to this section. In response to your suggestion for further elaboration, we have incorporated more up-to-date research to strengthen this area.

2. Clarity of the Study:

Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the differentiation between deep-tech startups and other forms of sustainable entrepreneurship. We understand that this distinction was not fully clear in the previous version. To address this, we have expanded the discussion to provide a more detailed explanation of how deep-tech startups specifically differ from other sustainability-oriented ventures. 

Additionally, we added the contribution of deep-tech to sustainability challenges. 

3. Additional Case Studies:

Response: We are pleased to hear that you are satisfied with the revisions made in response to your previous comments regarding case studies. Thank you for your acceptance of this part.

4. Proofreading:

Response: We appreciate your positive note on the overall improvement in writing quality. We have conducted another thorough round of proofreading to address the remaining minor inconsistencies in grammar and phrasing.

Once again, thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We believe the revisions have strengthened the manuscript, and we look forward to your further feedback.

Sincerely,