A Study on the Effects of Entrepreneurial Orientation and Learning Orientation on Financial Performance: Focusing on Mediating Effects of Market Orientation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract is well constructed - but I would add a research purpose - because the specific results of the study are described in it, but its purpose is unknown (lines 12-30).

Keywords well-matched to the content of the article (lines 31-33)

The aim of this study is clearly presented (lines 141-145).

The literature query was based on relevant, current sources (78 items in the references) and is presents in the Introduction and Theoretical Backgrounds

Introduction presents well selected areas that will be presented later in the article - I really like the presentation of the research process (lines 92-99).

Theoretical Backgrounds - content presented by addressing relevant aspects of learning organizations, market orientation and entrepreneurship - a very accessible presentation method for various audiences (lines 100-197).

Part 3 - Research Design and Methods

There are 10 hypothesis divided into 5 groups. The research model is very clear (lines 198-311). the method of collecting primary data from the market using the questionnaire was presented in detail - it is worth noting that the authors base their own research project (lines 313-355)

Research method has been fully described in “4. Results „ (lines 356-544).  Presentation of test results very good, tables are legible and results are well discussed.

I like the table 15 very much -  Summary of hypothesis testing results. Among a large amount of text - discussion of the hypotheses was included, but this summary is very convenient for the recipient (line 544).

Discussion (lines 545 -606) the discussion of the results is very insightful - but I suggest changing the Discussion to Discussion and conclusions (editorial change). The first two paragraphs refer to the summary of previous research in the subject of entrepreneurial orientation, Miller's research is indicated - however, there is no citation - referenced to specific authors - it was well done in the literature review - it is worth adding citations here (lines 545 -562).

References: There are 78 sources in the references. Citations are correct (but please see Discussion) and included in the article. The subject of the submitted bibliography is fully in line with the subject of the article.

General comment: the presentation of literature query and research methods is noteworthy - the authors have demonstrated the ability to communicate scientific content in an accessible and interesting way for the recipient. I have no substantive comments - the content of the article guides the recipient well through subsequent issues.

I didn't make any changes to the file - my minor comments are rather editorial - please include them in the final version of the article :) 

regards
Your Reviewer 

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for submitting the paper to sustainability - it is very interesting and fits the scope of the journal well.

The article is well written, the theoretical background is well argued and presented, the statistical methods are appropriate and the results are interesting.

However, I have a few rather minor comments which you should please relate to prior to the final publication.

1. In the very first part of the introduction (line 41-43) you should provide a reference and relate to the fact that there is a discussion about the issue that entrepreneurship provides a safety net - not all agree about it (I myself wrote a very critical article on entrepreneurship and growth (Heilbrunn & Iannone 2019 - Neoliberal undercurrents in entrepreneurship policy?)
2. References 7 and 8 could be removed by more updated articles.
3. Reference 15 is not Miller (if I understand right)
4. In line 79- 82 you point to a gap in the literature but you do not "name" it gap in the literature - you should - that is important because it adds to the academic discourse. 
5. Comment 4 goes along with the need to present your contribution - talk about your contribution in the abstract, the introduction and the conclusion.
6. Line 107 - innovation is not a definition of entrepreneurship. Use updated literature to discuss the relation between innovation and entrepreneurship. 
7. Line 127 - businesses can't show innovativeness etc. It is either that business owners are ..... or businesses are....
8. I would rename 3.1. to Hypotheses Development (this part is done very well!)
9. Explain what kind of sample yours is, please (Convenient sample?)
10. The statistical part is done very well and presented very well.
11. In the conclusion part some points missing: a. Contribution to academic discourse b. limitations of the study (i.e. rather small sample) c. practical implications also for policy makers

I would suggest light English editing. There are some small language issues all over the paper.

Overall I really enjoyed reading the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper studies the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation and market orientation, on one hand, and firm financial and non-financial performances, on the other. The study is based on a survey on Korean owners of entrepreneurial firms (under seven years old) and nascent entrepreneurs. The paper is well structured and the study conducted is presented in a clear way. However, it has some weaknesses that limits its potential.

1) The authors do not highlight adequately the contribution that the paper offers and what distinguishes it from previous studies. The introduction presents the variables used in the study, but it does not explain why investigating the studied relationship is interesting and which is the gap in the literature that the study is aimed to fill. In order to improve the paper, it would be useful to clearly present the positioning of the paper in the introduction.

2) In presenting the distinctive contribution of this paper, it would be useful also to highlight differences and value added compared to the following study of the same authors that seems to be based on the same or a very similar research/questionnaire:

Yun Hee Cho, Joo-Heon Lee, (2018) "Entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial education and performance", Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12 Issue: 2, pp.124-134,https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-05-2018-0028

3) The section devoted to Theoretical Backgrounds provides definitions and a general presentation of entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, market orientation and entrepreneurial performances; the section devoted to Research Model introduces the hypotheses, but it does not explain adequately why the authors hypothesize certain relationships. Describing results obtained by previous studies is not enough to justify the hypotheses. This part of the paper should be improved by providing more details on the mechanisms that are at the basis of the expected relationships.

4) In testing the hypotheses, the mediating role of customer orientation and competitor orientation are tested separately (Tab. 10 customer orientation and Tab. 13 competitor orientation in the relationship with financial performance and, similarly, Tab. 11 customer orientation and Tab. 14 competitor orientation in the relationship with non-financial performance). I suggest to test in the same model the effect of customer orientation and competitor orientation. More precisely, two different models for, respectively, financial and non-financial perform:

• regression analysis of entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, customer orientation and competitor orientation on financial performance
• regression analysis of entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, customer orientation and competitor orientation on non-financial performance

5) As the authors recognize, “the explanatory power of the regression is only 6.1%. …This means that many environmental factors, other than the entrepreneur’s trait, may affect financial performance”. This limitation in unavoidable.  Nonetheless, the total absence of control variables is a limit of the study. At least, some control variables regarding firm characteristics should be included (for example, initial size, firm age, industry).

6) The discussion of results could be improved.

In this version of the section devoted to Discussion, results are presented but there is a limited explanation of their meaning, implications and possible alternative explanations. Just to provide an example, the authors state at page 17 that “risk-taking propensity dimension of entrepreneurial orientation has no significant effects on both financial and non-financial performance”, but they do not discuss this result. However, also non significant effects may be interesting to interpret, since they suggest that, for example in this case, risk taking attitude leads to exploit entrepreneurial opportunities but not necessarily to select valuable entrepreneurial opportunities or to exploit them in a profitable and effective way.

Moreover, limitations should be discussed (for example, with the regard to the use of subjective measures of performance).

Finally, the contribution of the paper would be better highlighted by discussion more explicitly theoretical and practical implications of the study.

7) Minor issues:

• Innovation is an aspect of entrepreneurship more than a synonymous (line 112).
• In formulating the hypotheses the term “growth-seeking entrepreneurs” is used, but this concept is not adequately introduced in the previous part of the paper.
• Even non-financial performance could be better presented. In particular, organizational commitment could be better described.
• Please check for typos. For instance, in Tab. 4 “4ustom.”

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has been improved, in particular as concerns the hypotheses development and the presentation of the contribution of the paper.

However, there is a significant inconsistency between the response letter and the revised version of the paper that I have received. In the letter, the authors state “At present, we want to exclude this variable (non-financial performance) because too many variables were included in the analysis. The paper becomes too long because we include too many variables in this study.” However, in the paper non-financial performance is one of the dependent variables (as in the previous version). How is it possible?

If the variable continues to be included in the study, I think that it could be better presented (in particular, with regard to organizational commitment).

Finally, I have appreciated the fact that, at least in one model, the authors have tried to include control variables (at firm level, as I suggested). As concerns the motivation of the non-inclusion in the paper, I am not sure to have correctly understood the point. The authors state: “In most previous studies, control variables have not been included [16, 24-25]. Researchers usually do not want to include the variables that do not have any effects. This might be the reason”. Which is the meaning of these sentences? Are you saying that usually study design is totally data driven? It shouldn’t!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf