Sustainable Investments in Responsible SMEs: That’s What’s Distinguish Government VCs from Private VCs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this above titled paper. There are many things I like about the paper. First, the paper touches on an important subject in the literature which has been overlooked by researchers. You can see some recent journal articles, such as, 

Mendy, J., Rahman, M., & Bal, P. M. (2020). Using the “best‐fit” approach to investigate the effects of politico‐economic and social barriers on SMEs' internationalization in an emerging country context: Implications and future directions. Thunderbird International Business Review, 62(2), 199-211.

Rahman, M., Akter, M., & Radicic, D. (2020). Internationalization as a strategy for small and medium‐sized enterprises and the impact of regulatory environment: An emerging country perspective. Business Strategy & Development, 3(2), 213-225.

Please proofread your paper as there are some minor issues throughout the paper, for example-

Page 21 line 9 Assessment of political and regional signals appear to be relatively ambiguous in terms of what is

Page 21  line 14 services that may be considered as unethical and questionable. The GVCs further assure that the

Page 21  line 16 investments and that the SMEs don’t move out of the region after investments are provided.

Page 2 line 3-4 Accordingly, the goal of GVCs is to complement the traditional venture capital market ..Leleux and Surlemont, 2013 or Leleux and Surlemount, 2013?

Page 2 line 12 accounted for and that GVCs and PVCs are not mutually exclusive

Page 3 line 4 that have shown the limited impact of GVCs, our findings reveal why GVCs are less financially effective

Author Response

Reviewer 1: Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this above titled paper. There are many things I like about the paper. First, the paper touches on an important subject in the literature which has been overlooked by researchers. You can see some recent journal articles, such as, 

Mendy, J., Rahman, M., & Bal, P. M. (2020). Using the “best‐fit” approach to investigate the effects of politico‐economic and social barriers on SMEs' internationalization in an emerging country context: Implications and future directions. Thunderbird International Business Review, 62(2), 199-211.

Rahman, M., Akter, M., & Radicic, D. (2020). Internationalization as a strategy for small and medium‐sized enterprises and the impact of regulatory environment: An emerging country perspective. Business Strategy & Development, 3(2), 213-225.

Reply: Thank you for the positive words and the suggestions for improvement of the paper. We added the two suggested references that fit well with the topic of the paper.

Reviewer 1: Please proofread your paper as there are some minor issues throughout the paper, for example-

Page 21 line 9 Assessment of political and regional signals appear to be relatively ambiguous in terms of what is

Reply: Thank you for pointing out this. The sentence is now rephrased; “Assessment of political and regional signals appear ambiguous, specifically the definitions of sustainability and responsible SMEs”

Reviewer 1: Page 21  line 14 services that may be considered as unethical and questionable. The GVCs further assure that the

Reply: Thank you for pointing out this. The sentence is now rephrased; “The investors often end up in assuring that the SMEs are not irresponsible. For instance, that the SMEs do not; discriminate, take advantage of people, or provide unethical products or services.”

Reviewer 1: Page 21  line 16 investments and that the SMEs don’t move out of the region after investments are provided.

Reply: Thank you for pointing out this. The sentence is now rephrased; “The GVCs further try to secure that the entrepreneurs do not privately take advantage of the GVC investments. They also try to secure that the SMEs stay within the region post-investments.”

Reviewer 1: Page 2 line 3-4 Accordingly, the goal of GVCs is to complement the traditional venture capital market ..Leleux and Surlemont, 2013 or Leleux and Surlemount, 2013?

Reply: Thank you for noticing this misspelling of the author. It should be Leleux & Surlemont, 2013.

Reviewer 1: Page 2 line 12 accounted for and that GVCs and PVCs are not mutually exclusive

Reply: Thank you for pointing out this. The sentence is now rephrased; “In contrast, the study by Bertoni et al (2019) show that GVCs provide indirect effects not accounted for when purely looking into direct financial performance. (Guerini & Quas, 2016).

Reviewer 1: Page 3 line 4 that have shown the limited impact of GVCs, our findings reveal why GVCs are less financially effective

Reply: Thank you for pointing out this. The sentence is now rephrased; “We highlight factors that undermine GVCs’ financial performance as well as factors enforcing the GVCs’ goals of sustainable investments.”

We have also tried to look over the text in general to find similar flaws in language.

Once again, thank you for the comments! They will certainly improve the quality of the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

• please be uniform in formatting the paper (in the first part of the paper the paragraphs start without indentation and the alignment is to the left. Then, starting with section 4. Results, the first line of the paragraph is indented and the alignment of the text is justified. In section 5. Discussion you return to the formatting from the first part of the paper);
• please be uniform in formatting the references from the text (for example you write: Callagher et al 2015, and Block et al., 2017, and Block et al. 2017. Similar you sometimes write: Zacharakis and Meyer, 2000 and other times: Zakharakis & Meyer, 2000. Choose a formatting type and use it everywhere).
• after table 3 appears the mention [Table 3 near here] , I think it should be deleted;
• I consider that the writing in the tables should be smaller, without spaces between lines, in order to be more grouped the information presented in the table;

Author Response

Reviewer 2: please be uniform in formatting the paper (in the first part of the paper the paragraphs start without indentation and the alignment is to the left. Then, starting with section 4. Results, the first line of the paragraph is indented and the alignment of the text is justified. In section 5. Discussion you return to the formatting from the first part of the paper);

Reply: Thank you so much for attention of these flaws. We have now looked through the paper and changed the formatting.

Reviewer 2: please be uniform in formatting the references from the text (for example you write: Callagher et al 2015, and Block et al., 2017, and Block et al. 2017. Similar you sometimes write: Zacharakis and Meyer, 2000 and other times: Zakharakis & Meyer, 2000. Choose a formatting type and use it everywhere).

Reply: Thank you so much! We have now looked over the references and selected one formatting type.

Reviewer 2: after table 3 appears the mention [Table 3 near here] , I think it should be deleted;

Reply: Thank you for noticing this, the text is removed since the Table is inserted in the paper.

Reviewer 2: I consider that the writing in the tables should be smaller, without spaces between lines, in order to be more grouped the information presented in the table;

Reply: Thank you for noticing the formatting in the tables. We have now looked over and changed all tables.

Finally, thank you for your comments. They certainly helped to improve the formatting.