Do Firm and Entrepreneur Characteristics Play a Role in SMEs’ Sustainable Growth in a Middle-Income Economy like Côte d’Ivoire?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has hot clearly presented gaps which it is fulfilling. Chosen example - the country - is interesting and there is presented the reason of choosing it.
As well as the country profile is presented well, in the research context, there should be pointed the sources of presented data (lines 61-62, 72, 74, 78, 449).
Authors are pointing that: "there are (line 84) three wide parameters defining SMEs" and next they are providing only two of them for each kind of enterprises. It may give the impression that for microenterprises the criteria are only annual revenue and number of employees as for small enterprises the criteria are annual turnover and the number of employees. But the true is that for each kind of enterprises the criteria are: annual turnover, annual revenue and the number of employees. This data should be pointed for all presented kinds of enterprises. Also in this presentation the section 2.2. Concept of SMEs with its content should be presented before section 2.1.2. Characteristics and Importance of SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire.
Also section 2.3.The Concept of Growth and Its Measurement does not need to be parted for so many subsections. The subsections may be deleted with leaving its content as a part of section 2.3.
Although the methodology was planned and is presented well, especially the research probe and chosen methodology, the number of 7 hypothesis seems to be too high. Maybe Authors could find them as research question, not hypothesis?
As the research and its background are presented clearly and really may be the inspiration for further/other/comparative studies, the article by itself needs only few check-outs to be presented for a wide audience.
Author Response
The article has hot clearly presented gaps which it is fulfilling. Chosen example - the country - is interesting and there is presented the reason of choosing it.
Point 1: As well as the country profile is presented well, in the research context, there should be pointed the sources of presented data (lines 61-62, 72, 74, 78, 449).
Response 1:
We have added the sources of presented figures (see highlighted changes).
As for suggestions relating to the conclusion, we have tried to enrich the content of the discussions by:1- Conducting critical analysis;
2- Presenting the results of some relevant papers in the field (including relevant papers about SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire, and studies conducted in similar contexts); and
3- Comparing our empirical evidence with other studies.
Point 2: Authors are pointing that: "there are (line 84) three wide parameters defining SMEs" and next they are providing only two of them for each kind of enterprises. It may give the impression that for microenterprises the criteria are only annual revenue and number of employees as for small enterprises the criteria are annual turnover and the number of employees. But the true is that for each kind of enterprises the criteria are: annual turnover, annual revenue and the number of employees. This data should be pointed for all presented kinds of enterprises.
Response 2:
We wrote three parameters (instead of two parameters) by mistake. The error has been corrected.
In Côte d’Ivoire, in addition to the legal recognition, there are two wide parameters defining SMEs: annual turnover and number of employees. There is no requirement about annual revenue.
Point 3:
*Section 2.2 (Concept of SMEs) with its content should be presented before section 2.1.2 (Characteristics and Importance of SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire).
2.2. Concept of SMEs - I do not understand what role has this 14 rows subchapter. If the authors want to define SMEs, they could do it at the beginning of the paper. I think it should be removed because it is not relevant.
*Section 2.3 (The Concept of Growth and Its Measurement) does not need to be parted for so many subsections. The subsections may be deleted with leaving its content as a part of section 2.3.
Response 3:
Based on your comments and suggestions, the whole manuscript has been revised and re-organised to meet the objectives of the study.
The following is the list of contents.
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background and Research Hypotheses
2.1. Definition and Characteristics of SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire
2.2. Overview and Realities of Côte d’Ivoire with Respect to SMEs
2.3.Concept of Growth and Its Measurement
2.3.1. Business Performance and Its Dimensions
2.3.2. Sustainable Growth and Its Measurement
2.4. Hypotheses about the Relation between Entrepreneur and Firm Characteristicsand Growth
2.4.1. Impact of Entrepreneur Characteristics on the Growth of SMEs
2.4.2. Impact of the Firm’s Characteristics on the Growth of SMEs
2.4.3. Effects of the Firm’s Characteristics together with the Entrepreneur’s Characteristics on the Growth of SMEs
3. Method
3.1. Framework of the Research
3.2. Sampling and Data Collection
3.3. Variables Specifications
3.4. Data Analysis Method
4. Results
4.1. Statistics on Entrepreneurs and SMEs
4.2. Testing Association between Independent Variables and Growth: Chi-Square Tests
4.3. Binomial Logistic Regression between Growth and a Set of Independent Variables
5. Conclusions
5.1. Discussion and Suggestions
5.2. Limitations of the Study and Recommendations for Further Research
References
Point 4: Although the methodology was planned and is presented well, especially the research probe and chosen methodology, the number of 7 hypotheses seems to be too high. Maybe Authors could find them as research question, not hypothesis?
Response 4:
Two main factors were taken into consideration in this research: firm characteristics (i.e. business size, business sector and source of funding) and Entrepreneurs’ personal characteristics (i.e. entrepreneurs’ age, level of education, and work experience). Each of the two (2) characteristics includes three (3) specific factors.
We could consider only three hypotheses, namely H1 (Firm Characteristics versus Growth), H2 (Entrepreneur Characteristics versus Growth) and H3 (Firm and Entrepreneur Characteristics versus Growth) if, and only if, we were not interested in some specific aspects/factors of the Firm and Entrepreneur Characteristics.
Since the literature has demonstrated that there could be a relationship between each of the six (6) factors and business growth, by formulating a hypothesis on relationship between each of the six (6) entrepreneur and firm characteristics and growth, there should be six (6) hypotheses. The seventh (7th) hypothesis is derived from the assumption of relationship between the set of factors (i.e. firm characteristics together with the entrepreneur characteristics) on the growth of SMEs.
Given the fact that we were interested in each of the specific factors based on the objective of the study, we opted for the formulation of seven (7) hypotheses.This option of seven (7) hypotheses was also motivated by the fact that some published articles with quasi-similar objectives have higher numbers of hypotheses:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030735
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030604
Point 5: As the research and its background are presented clearly and really may be the inspiration for further/other/comparative studies, the article by itself needs only few check-outs to be presented for a wide audience.
Response 5:
As suggested in your comments, we have tried to revise the manuscript and provide detailed responses, point-by-point, as far as possible.We hope that you will find these changes and responses convincing.
Grammar, spelling and punctuation have been checked again in order to confirm the correctness of the sentences, and to improve the English level of the whole document.
In addition, in order to better express the rational choice of the variables and measurements, we have added Table 2 summarising sources of the growth measurement and hypotheses on the relationship between factors and SME growth. This could significantly contribute to the improvement of the presentability of results.
In short, based on your comments and suggestions, we have tried to:
1. Revise the manuscript and provide detailed responses point-by-point. We have used the "track changes" function to clearly highlight revisions.
2. Improve the English level of the whole document by checking and editing the grammar, spelling and punctuation in order to ensure the correctness of the sentences.
3. Enrich the content of the introduction by:
a- Discussing and showing how the literature has dealt with the topic;
b- Identifying the gaps that the literature does not deal with;
c- Setting the research question based on the gaps.
d- Formulating and presenting the objectives of the study and its novelty.
The new introduction includes many relevant papers/authors.
4. Better describe methods in the manuscript.
Methods may therefore be better appreciated in the new version of the manuscript since methods are adequately described and the content has been better organised.
5. Better express the rational choice of the variables and measurements by adding Table 2 (Sources of the growth measurement and hypotheses on the relationship between factors and SME growth). This significantly improves the presentability of results.
6. Enrich the content of the whole paper by:
a- Inserting more relevant papers related to the topic of SME growth (including relevant papers about SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire, and/or studies conducted in similar contexts);
b- Comparing our empirical evidence with other studies;
c- Conducting critical analysis.
We hope that you will find these changes and responses convincing. The new considerations and major revisions should better show the paper's rationale.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
- the authors should consult also other significant studies which address the concept of SMEs;
- Figure 1, p. 8: you wrote FERFORMANCE; should write the correct form: PERFORMANCE
- Table 3, p. 10: you wrote Per cent; should write Percent
- In the Title you talk about SMEs’ Sustainable Growth, how do you quantify it? I refer exactly to the use of word Sustainable. You should provide more information on the concept of sustainable growth of SMEs and how you measure it or give up the use of the word sustainable.
Author Response
Point 1: The authors should consult also other significant studies which address the concept of SMEs.
Response 1:
We have tried to enrich the content of the paper by:
1- Inserting more relevant papers related to the topic of SME growth (including relevant papers about SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire, and studies conducted in similar contexts);
2- Comparing our empirical evidences with other studies; and
3- Conducting critical analysis.
Point 2:
*Figure 1, p. 8: you wrote FERFORMANCE; should write the correct form: PERFORMANCE.
*Table 3, p. 10: you wrote Per cent; should write Percent.
Response 2:
Beyond the correction of the word ‘performance’, all the grammar, spelling and punctuation have been checked again in order to confirm the correctness of the sentences, and to improve the English level of the whole document. Since this paper is written in the English style of the United Kingdom, rather than in American English, the spelling ‘per cent’ has been retained. Kindly see the Oxford English Dictionary for the spelling of per cent.
Point 3: In the Title you talk about SMEs’ Sustainable Growth, how do you quantify it? I refer exactly to the use of word Sustainable. You should provide more information on the concept of sustainable growth of SMEs and how you measure it or give up the use of the word sustainable.
Response 3:
Based on your comments and suggestions, the whole manuscript has been revised and reorganised to meet the objectives of the study.
We have tried to enrich the content of the paper by trying to explain how the research model was
developed. Please see highlighted changes in the revised version of the manuscript.
We have added a new section relating to ‘Sustainable Growth and its Measurement (see 2.3.2).
The new introduction together with the re-organisation and detailed definition of the concept of Sustainable Growth and its Measurement could help with the understanding of the relationship between the research hypotheses and the empirical evidence.
In addition, in order to better express the rational choice of the variables and measurements, we added Table 2 summarising sources of the growth measurement and hypotheses on the relationship between factors and SME growth. This could significantly contribute to the improvement of the presentability of results.
As for your suggestion to improve the content of the introduction (i.e. by providing sufficient background including relevant references), we have tried to enrich the content of the introduction (see highlighted changes).
In the revised introduction we have tried to show how the literature has dealt with the topic, and we have better identified the gaps that the literature does not deal with – which then become the foundation of the research question.
In short, based on your comments and suggestions, we have tried to:
1. Revise the manuscript and provide detailed responses point-by-point. We have used the "track changes" function to clearly highlight revisions.
2. Improve the English level of the whole document by checking and editing the grammar, spelling and punctuation in order to ensure the correctness of the sentences.
3. Enrich the content of the introduction by:
a- Discussing and showing how the literature has dealt with the topic;
b- Identifying the gaps that the literature does not deal with;
c- Setting the research question based on the gaps.
d- Formulating and presenting the objectives of the study and its novelty.
The new introduction includes many relevant papers/authors.
4. Better describe methods in the manuscript.
Methods may therefore be better appreciated in the new version of the manuscript since methods are adequately described and the content has been better organised.
5. Better express the rational choice of the variables and measurements by adding Table 2 (Sources of the growth measurement and hypotheses on the relationship between factors and SME growth). This significantly improves the presentability of results.
6. Enrich the content of the whole paper by:
a- Inserting more relevant papers related to the topic of SME growth (including relevant papers about SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire, and/or studies conducted in similar contexts);
b- Comparing our empirical evidence with other studies;
c- Conducting critical analysis.
We hope that you will find these changes and responses convincing. The new considerations and major revisions should better show the paper's rationale.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This article is interesting and well written. The main objective was to investigate the firm and entrepreneur characteristics influencing the growth of SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire, with special insight into why this country has been a middle-income economy for decades despite its numerous economic potentialities.
However, there are few shortcomings to be solve. These are my recommendations:
Subchapter 1. Introduction - is presented in a very brief manner. It does not accurately presents the objectives of the study, its novelty, the relevant literature to which it relates, etc.
Subchapter 2. Theoretical Background and Research Hypotheses
2.1.1. Country Profile: Economy, Political Landscape and Business Environment -In my opinion this subchapter should be removed as it does not add value for the readers. More relevant would be if for the authors present an analysis of the particularities of Cote D'Ivoire SMEs compared to other countries in the region.
2.1.2. Characteristics and Importance of SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire- this subchapter should be thorough revised as it does not present a coherent approach to the entrepreneurial phenomenon in Cote d'Ivoire, but it is rather a presentation of SME-specific parameters in this country. I do not see the connections between the title of the subchapter and the content.
2.1.3. Constraints and Government Policies in Promoting SME Development- in my opinion, should be included in 2.1.2
2.2. Concept of SMEs - I do not understand what role has this 14 rows subchapter. If the authors want to define SMEs, they could do it at the beginning of the paper. I think it should be removed because it is not relevant.
2.4. Hypotheses about the Relation between ‘Entrepreneur and Firm Characteristics’ and Growth - this subchapter should be extended by presenting the results of some relevant papers in the field (i.e. 1) Abimbola Windapo, Entrepreneurial Factors Affecting the Sustainable Growth and Success of a South African Construction Company, Sustainability, 2018, 10(4), 1276.; 2) Ceptureanu, S.I., Ceptureanu, E.G., Marin, I. Assessing the Role of Strategic Choice on Organizational Performance by Jacquemin-Berry Entropy Index, Entropy, 2017, 19(9),448; 3) Ceptureanu, S.I., Ceptureanu, E.G., Visilieanu, E. Comparative analysis of small and medium enterprises organizational performance in clothing industry, Industria Textila, 2017, 68(2), 156-162.
Author Response
This article is interesting and well written. The main objective was to investigate the firm and entrepreneur characteristics influencing the growth of SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire, with special insight into why this country has been a middle-income economy for decades despite its numerous economic potentialities.
However, there are few shortcomings to be solved.
Point 1: Subchapter 1. Introduction - is presented in a very brief manner. It does not accurately presents the objectives of the study, its novelty, the relevant literature to which it relates, etc.
Response 1:
Based on your comments, we have tried to enrich the content of the introduction (see highlighted changes).
In the revised introduction we have tried to show how the literature has dealt with the topic, and we have better identified the gaps that the literature does not deal with – which then become the foundation of the research question. The objectives of the study and its novelty are clearly formulated and presented.
Point 2: 2.1.1. Country Profile: Economy, Political Landscape and Business Environment -In my opinion this subchapter should be removed as it does not add value for the readers.
More relevant would be if for the authors present an analysis of the particularities of Cote D'Ivoire SMEs compared to other countries in the region.
Response 2:
The subchapter ‘Country Profile’ has been removed from the list of contents. Its content has been integrated into the new Section 2.2 (Overview and Realities of Côte d’Ivoire with Respect to SMEs).
Discussions can be seen in the Introduction, in Hypotheses Formulation, and in the Conclusion.
Overall, based on your comments and suggestions, ‘Theoretical Background and Research Hypotheses’ has been revised and reorganised as follows:
2. Theoretical Background and Research Hypotheses
2.1. Definition and Characteristics of SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire
2.2. Overview and Realities of Côte d’Ivoire with Respect to SMEs
2.3.Concept of Growth and Its Measurement
2.3.1. Business Performance and Its Dimensions
2.3.2. Sustainable Growth and Its Measurement
2.4. Hypotheses about the Relation between Entrepreneur and Firm Characteristicsand Growth
Point 3: 2.1.2. Characteristics and Importance of SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire- this subchapter should be thorough revised as it does not present a coherent approach to the entrepreneurial phenomenon in Cote d'Ivoire, but it is rather a presentation of SME-specific parameters in this country. I do not see the connections between the title of the subchapter and the content.
Response 3:
In order to present a coherent approach to the entrepreneurial phenomenon in Côte d'Ivoire, the subchapter ‘Characteristics and Importance of SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire’ has been thoroughly revised and reformulated into ‘Definition and Characteristics of SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire’ (see Section 2.1.).
New Section 2.1 (Definition and Characteristics of SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire) includes the ‘Concept of SMEs’.
Point 4: 2.1.3. Constraints and Government Policies in Promoting SME Development- in my opinion, should be included in 2.1.2.Characteristics and Importance of SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire.
Response 4:
In the improved version of the manuscript, ‘Country Profile’ and ‘Constraints and Government Policies in Promoting SME Development’ are grouped together in Section 2.2. (Overview and Realities of Côte d’Ivoire with Respect to SMEs).
Point 5: 2.2. Concept of SMEs - I do not understand what role has this 14 rows subchapter. If the authors want to define SMEs, they could do it at the beginning of the paper. I think it should be removed because it is not relevant.
Response 5:
The section entitled ‘Concept of SMEs’ has been removed, and its content has been integrated into ‘Definition and Characteristics of SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire’ (see Section 2.1).
Point 6: 2.4. Hypotheses about the Relation between ‘Entrepreneur and Firm Characteristics’ and Growth - this subchapter should be extended by presenting the results of some relevant papers in the field, for example:
1) AbimbolaWindapo, (2018) Entrepreneurial Factors Affecting the Sustainable Growth and Success of a South African Construction Company, Sustainability, 10(4), 1276.;
2) Ceptureanu, S.I., Ceptureanu, E.G., Marin, I. Assessing the Role of Strategic Choice on Organizational Performance by Jacquemin-Berry Entropy Index, Entropy, 2017, 19(9),448;
Response 6:
After reading these interesting papers related to the topic of SME performance, we are pleased to inform you that we find them convincing.
*We found the place of Ceptureanu et al. (2017) in the ‘introduction’, in which we have tried to show how the literature has dealt with the topic and, we better identified the gaps that the literature does not deal with – which then become the foundation of the research question. The objectives of the study and its novelty are clearly formulated and presented.
*The results of Windapo (2018) have been presented in Section 2.4 (Hypotheses about the Relation between Entrepreneur and Firm Characteristics and Growth) and are discussed in the conclusion.
In short, based on your comments and suggestions, we have tried to:
1. Revise the manuscript and provide detailed responses point-by-point. We have used the "track changes" function to clearly highlight revisions.
2. Improve the English level of the whole document by checking and editing the grammar, spelling and punctuation in order to ensure the correctness of the sentences.
3. Enrich the content of the introduction by:
a- Discussing and showing how the literature has dealt with the topic;
b- Identifying the gaps that the literature does not deal with;
c- Setting the research question based on the gaps.
d- Formulating and presenting the objectives of the study and its novelty.
The new introduction includes many relevant papers/authors.
4. Better describe methods in the manuscript.
Methods may therefore be better appreciated in the new version of the manuscript since methods are adequately described and the content has been better organised.
5. Better express the rational choice of the variables and measurements by adding Table 2 (Sources of the growth measurement and hypotheses on the relationship between factors and SME growth). This significantly improves the presentability of results.
6. Enrich the content of the whole paper by:
a- Inserting more relevant papers related to the topic of SME growth (including relevant papers about SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire, and/or studies conducted in similar contexts);
b- Comparing our empirical evidence with other studies;
c- Conducting critical analysis.
We hope that you will find these changes and responses convincing. The new considerations and major revisions should better show the paper's rationale.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
I think that the topic of the paper here presented, related SMEs’ sustainable growt, has interest for publication in Sustainability journal. However, with regards to this paper, there are several aspects which must be considered before the paper enters for publication.
Some recent researchers (e.g., Al-Mahrouq, 2010; Franco & Haase, 2011; Adams & Sykes, 2003; Franco & Haase, 2015) have been interested in analyses the topics associated with SMEs success and failure, and given the existing knowledge one needs to be careful to highlight the novelty and value added of each study mainly when associated with SMEs context. So, in “Introduction” section, the author(s) necessity to show how the literature has dealt with the topics in concert and then identify better the gaps that the literature does not deal with which then become the foundation of the research question. There is too much vagueness in theoretical introduction.
First and foremost, it remains unclear what the theoretical contributions of your research are. In other words, what is fundamentally new about your work? How does it differ from what has been done before? You cite previous literature scarcely and do not explore these differences in detail; neither do you develop a convincing line of arguments as to why extant research might not apply (or, at least, may need adaptation) in the context of your research.
In addition when developing the research model, the author(s) needs to explain how it was developed rather than offering a description of it. The author(s) necessity to define more clearly the research hypotheses. In my opinion the number of hypnoses is very high. I still don’t really understand how your hypotheses were derived from the literature is trying to fill or how your results relate to it. Please, the authors can be complete this point in your paper…
The Literature Review of the paper is, in some topics, brief for the reader to be convinced of the robustness of the work. Some work needs to be done to the arguments in the manuscript to make its contribution shorter and more convincing.
As referred above, the contemporary literature on SMEs has been developed in a number of widely published journals nearly all of which to be missing from the list of references.
The authors should also explain better the choice of the variables/dimensions and measurement used in your empirical study. There is no rationale to choose these variables which are insightful for study.
The relationship between the research hypotheses and your empirical evidence is not fully clear with your objectives.
Overall, I am not convinced that the proposed methodology and results discussion can, as such, be a sufficient theoretical contribution in this research area. However, along of the paper lacks a more discussion and critical analysis that would ground it in the relevant context(s) and make explicit its value. I really do not feel that some dimensions/variables of the model is rigorous enough as it stands. In “Discussion” section, more discussion about the empirical evidence is necessary. The author(s) should compare their empirical evidences with other studies realised.
I may seem to have been harsh in my comments. I hope you will find these comments useful. All the best.
Author Response
I think that the topic of the paper here presented, related SMEs’ sustainable growth, has interest for publication in Sustainability journal. However, with regards to this paper, there are several aspects which must be considered before the paper enters for publication.
Point 1: Some recent researchers (e.g., Al-Mahrouq, 2010; Franco &Haase, 2011; Adams & Sykes, 2003; Franco &Haase, 2015) have been interested in analyses the topics associated with SMEs success and failure, and given the existing knowledge one needs to be careful to highlight the novelty and value added of each study mainly when associated with SMEs context. So, in “Introduction” section, the author(s) necessity to show how the literature has dealt with the topics in concert and then identify better the gaps that the literature does not deal with which then become the foundation of the research question. There is too much vagueness in theoretical introduction.
First and foremost, it remains unclear what the theoretical contributions of your research are. In other words, what is fundamentally new about your work? How does it differ from what has been done before? You cite previous literature scarcely and do not explore these differences in detail; neither do you develop a convincing line of arguments as to why extant research might not apply (or, at least, may need adaptation) in the context of your research.
Response 1:
Even though a number of studies have been done on factors leading to the failure or success of SMEs in numerous countries, none has been geared towards the firm and entrepreneur characteristics in enhancing sustainable growth of SMEs operating in Côte d’Ivoire (i.e. a country that has been a middle-income economy for decades despite its numerous economic potentialities).
This paper is the first (or one of the first) case studies carried out in the environment and context of the Ivorian economy.
This can be considered as evidence of originality / value of this research. Hence, the paper may have merit.
We have however tried to enrich the content of the introduction (see highlighted changes).
Point 2: In addition, when developing the research model, the author(s) needs to explain how it was developed rather than offering a description of it.
Response 2:
We have tried to enrich the content of the paper by trying to explain how the research model was developed. You can see changes in the revised version of the manuscript (see highlighted changes).
Point 3: The author(s) necessity to define more clearly the research hypotheses.
In my opinion the number of hypotheses is very high. I still don’t really understand how your hypotheses were derived from the literature is trying to fill or how your results relate to it. Please, the authors can be complete this point in your paper…
Response 3:
Two main factors were taken into consideration in this research: firm characteristics (i.e. business size, business sector and source of funding) and entrepreneurs’ personal characteristics (i.e. entrepreneurs’ age, level of education and work experience). Each of the two (2) characteristics includes three (3) specific factors.
We could consider only three hypotheses, namely H1 (Firm Characteristics versus Growth), H2 (Entrepreneur Characteristics versus Growth) and H3 (Firm and Entrepreneur Characteristics versus Growth) if, and only if, we were not interested in some specific aspects/factors of the ‘Firm and Entrepreneur Characteristics’.
Since the literature has demonstrated that there could be a relationship between each of the six (6) factors and business growth, by formulating a hypothesis on relationship between each of the six (6) entrepreneur and firm characteristics and growth, there should be six (6) hypotheses. The seventh (7th) hypothesis is derived from the assumption of a relationship between the set of factors (i.e. firm characteristics together with the entrepreneur characteristics) on the growth of SMEs.
Given the fact that we were interested in each of the specific factors based on the objective of the study, we have opted for the formulation of seven (7) hypotheses.This option of seven hypotheses is also motivated by the fact that some published articles with quasi-similar objectives have a higher number of hypotheses:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030735
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030604
As for how hypotheses were derived from the literature, the explanation of the way the hypotheses are formulated and presented could be helpful.
We think that the particularity and originality of this research lies in the presentation of results.In order to avoid unnecessary and unjustified repetitions, we have decided to group all the hypotheses in Table 1 entitled 'Summary of Research Hypotheses'.We have nevertheless taken care to quote each of the hypotheses in the content, while mentioning 'see Table 1' each time.For example: … consequently, there is a trend implying the existence of a relation between the firm’s industry and its success, hence our formulation of Hypothesis 5 for this study (see H.5 in Table 1).*Section 2 describing the Theoretical Background and Research Hypotheses is presented as follows:2. Theoretical Background and Research Hypotheses2.4. Hypotheses about the Relation between Entrepreneur and Firm Characteristics and Growth2.4.1. Impact of Entrepreneur Characteristics on the Growth of SMEs· Entrepreneurs’ Age and Performance: H1· Entrepreneurs’ Highest Level of Education and Growth: H2· Entrepreneurs’ Work Experience and Growth: H32.4.2. Impact of Firm Characteristics on the Growth of SMEs· Business Size and Growth: H4· Business Sector and Growth: H5· Source of Funding: H62.4.3. Effects of Firm Characteristics together with Entrepreneur Characteristics on the Growth of SMEs: H7In such way, each hypothesis was derived from the literature and presented in Table 1.
Point 4: The Literature Review of the paper is, in some topics, brief for the reader to be convinced of the robustness of the work. Some work needs to be done to the arguments in the manuscript to make its contribution shorter and more convincing.
As referred above, the contemporary literature on SMEs has been developed in a number of widely published journals nearly all of which to be missing from the list of references.
Al-Mahrouq, M. (2010). Success Factors of Small and Medium Enterprises: The Case of Jordan. Zagreb International Review of Economics and Business, 13(2), 89-106.
Haase, H., M. Franco (2011), "Information Sources for Environmental Scanning: Do Industry and Firm Size Matter?", Management Decision, 49(10), 1642-1657.
Haase, H., M. Franco (2016), "What factors drive performance of small and medium-sized enterprises?", European Journal of International Management, 10(6).
Response 4:
After reading these interesting papers related to the topic of SMEs’ success and failure, we are pleased to inform you that we find them convincing. We found a place for them in the Literature Review, precisely in the introductory part.We went from the gaps that the previous studies (existing literature) do not deal with to set the foundation of our research question.
We have therefore tried to enrich the content of the introduction by integrating several papers/authors into the list of references (see highlighted changes and List of references).
Point 5: The authors should also explain better the choice of the variables/dimensions and measurement used in your empirical study. There is no rationale to choose these variables which are insightful for study.
Response 5:
The explanation as detailed and added in the introduction is as follows:
In the light of the existing findings, analyses and literature on the topics associated with SMEs performance, it is clear that owing to the distinctions existing for every individual SME and entrepreneur, there seem to be no specific factors that will, in every case, steadily promote success or failure. Hence, many studies led to difficulties in understanding precise causes, since factors considered as reasons for failure may also appear as factors touching on success (Gaskill, VanAuken, and Manning, 1993).
This study therefore attempts to investigate the significant ‘firm and entrepreneur characteristics’ currently affecting SMEs’ sustainable growth in Côte d’Ivoire. This topic, although considered too basic in a developed and/or emerging country, is of topical interest in a developing economy like Côte d’Ivoire because there are virtually no (or very few) case studies carried out in environments and contexts of the Ivorian economy. The business environment is so unfavourable (i.e. an environment with a context which is difficult to grasp) that, being able to conduct such research in a developing country like Côte d’Ivoire, proves to be a great challenge…
In addition, in order to better express the rational choice of the variables and measurements, we added Table 2 summarising sources of the growth measurement and hypotheses on the relationship between factors and SME growth. This could significantly contribute to the improvement of the presentability of results.
Point 6: The relationship between the research hypotheses and your empirical evidence is not fully clear with your objectives.
Response 6:
The main objective of this study was to investigate the firm and entrepreneur characteristics influencing the growth of SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire, with special insight into why this country has been a middle-income economy for decades despite its numerous economic potentialities.
We have tried to enrich the content of the introduction and added a new section relating to Sustainable Growth and its Measurement (see Section 2.3.2). The new introduction, together with the re-organisation and detailed definition of the concept of Sustainable Growth and Its Measurement, could help in understanding the relationship between the research hypotheses and the empirical evidence.
Moreover, we have clearly mentioned in the conclusion that: If Côte d’Ivoire remains a middle-income economy despite its economic performance of recent years, this may be partly because of some essential ‘entrepreneurs’ personal characteristics’ and ‘specific characteristics of their companies’ that are not contributing to the sustainable growth of SMEs operating in the country.
Point 7: Overall, I am not convinced that the proposed methodology and results discussion can, as such, be a sufficient theoretical contribution in this research area. However, along of the paper lacks a more discussion and critical analysis that would ground it in the relevant context(s) and make explicit its value. I really do not feel that some dimensions/variables of the model is rigorous enough as it stands. In “Discussion” section, more discussion about the empirical evidence is necessary. The author(s) should compare their empirical evidences with other studies realized.
Response 7:
We have tried to better describe methods in the revised manuscript based on your comments.Methods could therefore be better appreciated in the new version of the manuscript since revisions are made and the content has been better organised.As for the results discussion, we have tried to enrich the content of the discussion part by:1-Conducting critical analysis;
2- Presenting the results of some relevant papers in the field (including relevant papers about SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire, and/or studies conducted in similar contexts); and
3- Comparing our empirical evidence with other studies.
Point 8: I may seem to have been harsh in my comments. I hope you will find these comments useful. All the best.
Response 8:
When we decided to submit our manuscript to Sustainability, we knew it would be checked by professional reviewers. We found your comments useful, and we don’t think you have been harsh.We have therefore tried to revise the manuscript and provide detailed responses, point-by-point, as far as possible.
In short, based on your comments and suggestions, we have tried to:
1. Revise the manuscript and provide detailed responses point-by-point. We have used the "track changes" function to clearly highlight revisions.
2. Improve the English level of the whole document by checking and editing the grammar, spelling and punctuation in order to ensure the correctness of the sentences.
3. Enrich the content of the introduction by:
a- Discussing and showing how the literature has dealt with the topic;
b- Identifying the gaps that the literature does not deal with;
c- Setting the research question based on the gaps.
d- Formulating and presenting the objectives of the study and its novelty.
The new introduction includes many relevant papers/authors.
4. Better describe methods in the manuscript.
Methods may therefore be better appreciated in the new version of the manuscript since methods are adequately described and the content has been better organised.
5. Better express the rational choice of the variables and measurements by adding Table 2 (Sources of the growth measurement and hypotheses on the relationship between factors and SME growth). This significantly improves the presentability of results.
6. Enrich the content of the whole paper by:
a- Inserting more relevant papers related to the topic of SME growth (including relevant papers about SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire, and/or studies conducted in similar contexts);
b- Comparing our empirical evidence with other studies;
c- Conducting critical analysis.
We hope that you will find these changes and responses convincing. The new considerations and major revisions should better show the paper's rationale.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this article, which addresses a topic of high importance.
The paper is interesting and addresses a topical issue. It is generally well written and well structured. The literature is adequate and refers to appropriate and good quality titles. The research is well developed and the paper has merit.
Please find here several comments and suggestions for improving the quality and readability of the paper.
1. In section 2.4.3. and Conclusions
Relating ‘growth’ with three variables (i.e. ‘avoiding having to report a loss’/ ‘inability to repay creditors’/ ‘avoiding having to close up over six months’) describing circumstances specific to the SME’s evolution, but quite diverse in financial and managerial terms seems a little bit artificial, affecting the real findings and value of this paper. For example, 'avoiding having to close up over six months' is usually associated with the survival stage (the growth being in fact the next stage following the survival), so the three above mentioned perspectives relate to different stages of company growth. Please explain and elaborate.
2. In the Conclusions section
One of the main paper’s conclusion - the basic factors, namely age, experience and education, need no longer be seen as invaluable factors in the sustainable growth of SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire (rows 446-447) is surprising and challenging a lot of literature which supports the essential importance of these factors (age, experience and, especially, education) in SMEs growth.
Questioning the existing theories and the development of new contexts are essential in scientific progress and add value to the paper. However, we suggest that this statement be carefully formulated. Moreover, the paper should also answer to questions such as - if these factors, in a specific national/socio-economic context, are not so relevant, then, which are the really relevant factors for SMEs’ sustainable growth?
If the paper can’t provide a detailed analysis of them, then they should be remembered as future research directions, and as an invitation to academic debate.
Table 3. Summary of entrepreneurs and business information contains several data that seem (at first glance) somewhat atypical. Thus, we find an unusual high proportion of male entrepreneurs (85%). Moreover, in the case of Source of start-up funding, the category Personal savings, or borrowing from friends reaches a surprisingly 91%. In this latter case, the literature associates this type of funding to the initial stages of the company (in the first 2-3 years of activity). On the other hand, in the case of Duration of business, more than 59% of companies are over 5 years old.
In order to have a properly established and representative sample, the authors should provide proofs from literature and statistical reports supporting that these situations (i.e. the overwhelming proportion of male entrepreneurs and funding through Personal savings or borrowing from friends) is representative to the entire population, i.e. SMEs from Côte d'Ivoire.
The authors use the definition of sustainability in a narrow sense, referring to the financial aspects of the venture, to the survival /business continuity... - The sustainability of an enterprise is judged by its ability to be maintained at a viable level for an indefinite period. rows 450-451. - .... and less to the social, environmental aspects, use of resources, new business models wide-spreading. Maybe because of this, the essential variables in promoting sustainable business (in the broader understanding, mainly education), do not correlate with the evolution of firms and entrepreneurship. Brief considerations in this regard would better explain the paper’s rationale.
Others:
This study is not without limitations, and its main limitations are mostly linked to its limited scope. (rows 483-484). Please reformulate in order to avoid a tautology.
Table 3 Summary of entrepreneurs and business information, wouldn‘t be more appropriate in section 3.1. ?
GOCI - Please define as first time used in text.
Author Response
Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this article, which addresses a topic of high importance.
The paper is interesting and addresses a topical issue. It is generally well written and well structured. The literature is adequate and refers to appropriate and good quality titles. The research is well developed and the paper has merit.
Please find here several comments and suggestions for improving the quality and readability of the paper.
Point 1: In section 2.4.3 and Conclusions
Relating ‘growth’ with three variables (i.e. ‘avoiding having to report a loss’/ ‘inability to repay creditors’/ ‘avoiding having to close up over six months’) describing circumstances specific to the SME’s evolution, but quite diverse in financial and managerial terms seems a little bit artificial, affecting the real findings and value of this paper. For example, 'avoiding having to close up over six months' is usually associated with the survival stage (the growth being in fact the next stage following the survival), so the three above mentioned perspectives relate to different stages of company growth. Please explain and elaborate.
Response 1:
We understand your comment, and we think that it is important to take it into consideration seriously.
We would therefore like to thank you for this helpful comment that will probably contribute to the improvement of this paper.
We have tried to explain further in the Subchapter 3.1 (Framework of the Research) and 2.3 (The Concept of Growth and Its Measurement) by showing the similarities and relationship between the concepts of performance and growth.
Point 2: In the Conclusions section
One of the main paper’s conclusion - the basic factors, namely age, experience and education, need no longer be seen as invaluable factors in the sustainable growth of SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire (rows 446-447) is surprising and challenging a lot of literature which supports the essential importance of these factors (age, experience and, especially, education) in SMEs growth.
Questioning the existing theories and the development of new contexts are essential in scientific progress and add value to the paper.
However, we suggest that this statement be carefully formulated.
Moreover, the paper should also answer to questions such as - if these factors, in a specific national/socio-economic context, are not so relevant, then, which are the really relevant factors for SMEs’ sustainable growth?
If the paper can’t provide a detailed analysis of them, then they should be remembered as future research directions, and as an invitation to academic debate.
Response 2:
*As you have suggested, the statement has been reformulated, and we went into detail.
*Based on your comments and suggestions, we have tried to enrich the content of the discussions (in the conclusion) in order to meet the objective of the study, by:
1- Conducting critical analysis;
2- Presenting the results of some relevant papers in the field (including relevant papers about SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire, and/or studies conducted in similar contexts); and
3- Comparing our empirical evidence with other studies.
*Yes, since the study has highlighted that the basic factors (e.g. age, experience and education) are not playing invaluable roles, which are the really relevant factors for SMEs’ sustainable growth in Côte d’Ivoire? It sounds very interesting as a future research direction. Therefore, we have mentioned this in Subchapter 5.2 (Limitations of the Study and Recommendations for Further Research).
Point 3: Table 3 (Summary of entrepreneurs and business information) contains several data that seem (at first glance) somewhat atypical. Thus, we find an unusual high proportion of male entrepreneurs (85%). Moreover, in the case of Source of start-up funding, the category Personal savings, or borrowing from friends reaches a surprisingly 91%. In this latter case, the literature associates this type of funding to the initial stages of the company (in the first 2-3 years of activity). On the other hand, in the case of Duration of business, more than 59% of companies are over 5 years old.
In order to have a properly established and representative sample, the authors should provide proofs from literature and statistical reports supporting that these situations (i.e. the overwhelming proportion of male entrepreneurs and funding through Personal savings or borrowing from friends) is representative to the entire population, i.e. SMEs from Côte d'Ivoire.
Response 3:
Till now, studies on SMEs and entrepreneurship in Côte d’Ivoire have been very scarce. Hence, supportive literature and statistical reports are few. However, we have tried to support these results with explanations, existing literature and statistical reports.
*If access to finance is considered as the most critical limitation that negatively affects the growth of organisations (Beck, T. et al., 2005), lack of funding for start-up sis therefore a major constraint that hinders the development of entrepreneurial activities in Côte d'Ivoire (Sleuwaegen & Goedhuys, 2002; Kouadio, 2011; Ghimire & Abo, 2013; Wang, 2016).In a study by Kouadio (2011), 64% of micro businesses operating in Côte d'Ivoire considered the issue of access to finance as the most serious hindrance to their growth.That may be the reason why the category ‘Personal savings, or borrowing from friends’ reaches 91% in this study.
*This result is in conformity with the statistics of the Ivorian Investment Promotion Centre (CEPICI). According to figures from CEPICI, out of 800 SMEs created from January to May 2013, only 15% were owned by women. This percentage is not so far from 25% (Orange Group Report, 2018), the average proportion of women entrepreneurs in Africa. When all is said, women remain under-represented in entrepreneurship in spite of their high number and their advanced educational background (Kauffman Foundation, 2016). According to the Kauffman Foundation’s report (2016), all owner-managers and their enterprises face the obligation to be successful, but most women entrepreneurs are helpless in securing funding. Hence, 68%of investors preferred to finance the enterprise when it was owned or managed by a man.
Point 4: The authors use the definition of sustainability in a narrow sense, referring to the financial aspects of the venture, to the survival /business continuity... - The sustainability of an enterprise is judged by its ability to be maintained at a viable level for an indefinite period. rows 450-451. - .... and less to the social, environmental aspects, use of resources, new business models wide-spreading. Maybe because of this, the essential variables in promoting sustainable business (in the broader understanding, mainly education), do not correlate with the evolution of firms and entrepreneurship. Brief considerations in this regard would better explain the paper’s rationale.
Response 4:
It is amazing how logical this analysis is.
We have taken this analysis into consideration (see Section 5.1. Discussion and Suggestions).
We have formulated it as follows:
In this study, the sustainability of a SME is judged by its ability to be maintained at a viable level for a long-lasting period. This consideration of sustainability excludes aspects such as social, environmental issues and use of resources. Perhaps because of this, the essential variables in promoting sustainable business do not correlate with the evolution of SMEs in the Ivorian context.
Point 5: The study is not without limitations, and its main limitations are mostly linked to its limited scope. Please reformulate in order to avoid a tautology.
Response 5:
The sentence has been rephrased (see highlighted changes).
Point 6: Table 3 (Summary of entrepreneurs and business information), wouldn‘t be more appropriate in section 3.1 (Sampling and Data Collection)?
Response 6:
We think Table 3 is more appropriate in Section 4.1 (Statistics on Entrepreneurs and SMEs) because it is part of Results.
Point 7: GOCI - Please define as first time used in text.
Response 7:
This has been done.
In short, based on your comments and suggestions, we have tried to:
1. Revise the manuscript and provide detailed responses point-by-point. We have used the "track changes" function to clearly highlight revisions.
2. Improve the English level of the whole document by checking and editing the grammar, spelling and punctuation in order to ensure the correctness of the sentences.
3. Enrich the content of the introduction by:
a- Discussing and showing how the literature has dealt with the topic;
b- Identifying the gaps that the literature does not deal with;
c- Setting the research question based on the gaps.
d- Formulating and presenting the objectives of the study and its novelty.
The new introduction includes many relevant papers/authors.
4. Better describe methods in the manuscript.
Methods may therefore be better appreciated in the new version of the manuscript since methods are adequately described and the content has been better organised.
5. Better express the rational choice of the variables and measurements by adding Table 2 (Sources of the growth measurement and hypotheses on the relationship between factors and SME growth). This significantly improves the presentability of results.
6. Enrich the content of the whole paper by:
a- Inserting more relevant papers related to the topic of SME growth (including relevant papers about SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire, and/or studies conducted in similar contexts);
b- Comparing our empirical evidence with other studies;
c- Conducting critical analysis.
We hope that you will find these changes and responses convincing. The new considerations and major revisions should better show the paper's rationale.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors modified the paper according to my recommendations. I'm satisfied with current version of the manuscript and I recommend publication.
Reviewer 4 Report
This revised version of the paper is improved. Now the authors show the contribution and reinforced the gap in the literature aboutr this topic. The results discussion were also extended and reinforced.
Theorectical and practical implications are presented in the last section.
