Fueling the Growth Engines: A Cross-Country Study on Business Accelerators’ Role in Startup Sustainability
, Giuseppe Empoli 2, Violeta Maria Isai 1 and Iuliana Oana Mihai 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear co-authors,
Thank you to the Editors for the opportunity to review this manuscript. It presents an interesting comparative analysis of entrepreneurial ecosystems in Romania, the United States and Italy, with a focus on financial management and sustainability practices. While the paper offers interesting insights, I feel that some areas can be further developed to improve its academic rigor and practical relevance. I present my suggestions for improvement below.
1. Introduction:
The authors are encouraged to deepen the theoretical framework for cross-country comparisons, particularly in the sections dealing with entrepreneurial ecosystems in the target countries (Romania, USA and Italy). This would position the study in the existing literature and highlight its importance.
2. Theoretical background:
The rationale for identifying financial management and sustainability practices as mediators needs to be stronger. The authors should develop the conceptual reasoning behind these choices, drawing on existing studies to strengthen their argument.
3. Methodology:
Although PLS-SEM is a valid analytical approach, authors should explain why it was chosen over other alternatives. Highlighting its advantages for cross-country comparative analysis would strengthen this section. In addition, the authors should acknowledge the potential biases inherent in self-reported data and explain how these were mitigated.
4. Results:
To deepen the statistical analyses, authors are encouraged to include specific examples or narratives derived from the data recovered after applying the PLS-SEM algorithm and bootstrapping. This would contextualize the quantitative results and make the conclusions more tangible for readers.
5. Discussion:
The authors need to delve deeper into the implications of their results, including explaining why country-specific differences emerged. For example, they could discuss how cultural or regulatory factors may have shaped the observed results. Such an analysis would strengthen the theoretical contribution of the manuscript.
6. Conclusions:
In their conclusion, the authors are advised to propose concrete strategies to policymakers in each country to better integrate gas pedals into their entrepreneurial ecosystems. This would reinforce the practical value of the paper and provide actionable recommendations.
Thank you again for the opportunity to contribute to the review of this manuscript. I hope that these suggestions will help to strengthen its quality and impact.
Yours sincerely,
Author Response
Comment: The authors are encouraged to deepen the theoretical framework for cross-country comparisons, particularly in the sections dealing with entrepreneurial ecosystems in the target countries (Romania, USA and Italy). This would position the study in the existing literature and highlight its importance.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have deepened the ideas in our introductory section by elaborating on the distinct characteristics of entrepreneurial ecosystems across the target countries—Romania, the USA, and Italy. Our analysis emphasizes the contrasts between the U.S. ecosystem, with its culture of risk-taking, robust venture capital infrastructure, and strong academia-industry ties, and the European ecosystems, where regional diversity influences regulatory environments, cultural attitudes toward risk, and market dynamics.
Comment: The rationale for identifying financial management and sustainability practices as mediators needs to be stronger. The authors should develop the conceptual reasoning behind these choices, drawing on existing studies to strengthen their argument.
Response: Thank you for the insightful comment. We have clarified the rationale for identifying financial management and sustainability practices as mediators by emphasizing their role in optimizing resource allocation and aligning entrepreneurial strategies with environmental and social imperatives.
Comment: Although PLS-SEM is a valid analytical approach, authors should explain why it was chosen over other alternatives. Highlighting its advantages for cross-country comparative analysis would strengthen this section. In addition, the authors should acknowledge the potential biases inherent in self-reported data and explain how these were mitigated.
Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback. We chose PLS-SEM for its suitability in cross-cultural research, particularly its capacity to manage complex models with non-normal data distributions, which are typical in cross-country studies. To mitigate biases in self-reported data, we ensured respondent anonymity, used validated scales, provided clear instructions, and applied statistical tests such as Harman’s single-factor test to address common method bias, ensuring robust and reliable findings.
Comment: To deepen the statistical analyses, authors are encouraged to include specific examples or narratives derived from the data recovered after applying the PLS-SEM algorithm and bootstrapping. This would contextualize the quantitative results and make the conclusions more tangible for readers.
Response: Thank you for the helpful suggestion. We have enriched the Findings section by including specific examples derived from the PLS-SEM and bootstrapping results. These examples contextualize the quantitative outcomes, such as the strong influence of accelerators on grant utilization efficiency in Romania, accelerators’ focus on sector-specific innovation in USA, and the promotion of sustainability practices in Italy, providing tangible insights that enhance the interpretability of our conclusions.
Comment: The authors need to delve deeper into the implications of their results, including explaining why country-specific differences emerged. For example, they could discuss how cultural or regulatory factors may have shaped the observed results. Such an analysis would strengthen the theoretical contribution of the manuscript.
Response: Thank you for the insightful comment. We have expanded the discussion on country-specific differences, highlighting Romania's structural challenges, the USA’s focus on sectoral specialization driven by venture capital availability, and Italy's transition from traditional family-owned businesses to modern innovation strategies.
Comment: In their conclusion, the authors are advised to propose concrete strategies to policymakers in each country to better integrate gas pedals into their entrepreneurial ecosystems. This would reinforce the practical value of the paper and provide actionable recommendations.
Response: Thank you for the valuable suggestion. We have included tailored recommendations for policymakers in the conclusion, emphasizing the need for regulatory reforms and funding support in Romania, public-private collaboration in the USA, and integration of accelerators with regional clusters and sustainability initiatives in Italy.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGood Day,
Thank you for an interesting topic. Focusing on developing countries or countries categorised as Italy would have more impact as start up support is most crucial in these societies.
The questionnaire distributed to the startups should be summarise in the main text to understand the context of question sent to the respondents. It would add to the understanding of the research conclusion.
There are some grammatical errors, which should be checked.
Regards
Author Response
Comment: The questionnaire distributed to the startups should be summarise in the main text to understand the context of question sent to the respondents. It would add to the understanding of the research conclusion.
Response: Thank you for the thoughtful suggestion. We would like to highlight that the items of the questionnaire, assessed on a five-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree, are comprehensively detailed in Table 2 of the manuscript for full transparency and clarity.
Comment: There are some grammatical errors, which should be checked.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have reviewed the manuscript for grammatical errors and made the necessary corrections to ensure clarity and accuracy throughout the text.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study investigates the impact of business accelerators on the development of startups. Using a cross-country analysis, the authors focused on the efficiency of grant use, financial management capabilities, sustainable business practices, and income growth and diversification.
I like the paper. Next, you may find some strengths and recommendations.
Strengths:
- Title of the paper is clear and adequate;
- The content of the paper is well structured;
- References are adequate to the topic;
- The method used is correct;
- The authors highlighted their contribution to the literature, limitations and future research
Recommendations:
- I suggest to give more details regarding the methodology applied in the Abstract (questionnaire, period of analysis, number of start-ups)
- Regarding section 2, I suggest to entitle Theoretical background and research hypothesis
- Even the authors, explain their selection of analyzed countries from Introduction and also mentioned this aspect as a limitation of their paper, I am wondering why they did not included more countries to confirm the results for every type of economy (emerging, developed, mix).
- In the questionnaire, the questions targeted the last five years, that means 2019-2024? How COVID-19 pandemic affects the results?
- How did the authors distribute the questionnaire to the founders or co-founders of 162 start-ups included in the sample. Can you give more details about it? I think the questionnaire can be included as an Annex.
Author Response
Comment: I suggest to give more details regarding the methodology applied in the Abstract (questionnaire, period of analysis, number of start-ups).
Response: Thank you for the suggestion. In response, we have ensured that the methodology details are adequately represented. The questionnaire items, are presented in Table 2. The number of startups that replied to the questionnaire is included in the text. Additionally, we have clarified in the text that the online questionnaires were completed over a six-month period, from April to October 2024, to ensure a comprehensive and representative data collection process.
Comment: Regarding section 2, I suggest to entitle Theoretical background and research hypothesis
Response: We updated the title of this section accordingly, thank you !
Comment: Even the authors, explain their selection of analyzed countries from Introduction and also mentioned this aspect as a limitation of their paper, I am wondering why they did not included more countries to confirm the results for every type of economy (emerging, developed, mix).
Response: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We chose to focus on Romania, the United States, and Italy as representative examples of emerging, developed, and mixed economies to provide a comparative lens within manageable research boundaries. While including more countries would enhance the generalizability of our findings, the geographic scope and sample size were intentionally limited to ensure depth of analysis for each ecosystem. We acknowledge this as a limitation in our study and recommend future research to expand the scope and include additional countries to confirm and broaden the applicability of our results.
Comment: In the questionnaire, the questions targeted the last five years, that means 2019-2024? How COVID-19 pandemic affects the results?
Response: Thank you for the insightful comment. We have addressed how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted each country’s entrepreneurial ecosystem: amplifying structural barriers in Romania, accelerating digital innovation in the U.S., and emphasizing sustainability and adaptability in Italy.
Comment: How did the authors distribute the questionnaire to the founders or co-founders of 162 start-ups included in the sample. Can you give more details about it? I think the questionnaire can be included as an Annex
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The questionnaire was distributed through an online survey link shared with business accelerator representatives in Romania, the United States, and Italy. Personalized email invitations were sent to these representatives, who then facilitated participation by forwarding the link to founders or co-founders of startups within their networks. We mentioned that all items from the questionnaire are transparently mentioned in Table 2 inserted in the manuscript, being assessed on a 5 points Likert scale.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study examines the impact of business accelerators on startup performance in Romania, the United States, and Italy, revealing distinct roles shaped by ecosystem maturity. Romanian accelerators address resource constraints and improve financial management but show limited influence on sustainability and income diversification. U.S. accelerators enhance financial capabilities and innovation in a well-established ecosystem, though they lack a focus on long-term sustainability. Italian accelerators navigate between traditional and innovative sectors, excelling in sustainability promotion but struggling with income diversification. The findings highlight the need for localized, adaptive accelerator models tailored to specific ecosystem challenges.
Identified Limitations
While the paper offers valuable insights into accelerator roles across ecosystems, it lacks a comprehensive definition of "accelerators," making it challenging for readers unfamiliar with the term. Additionally, the study could elaborate on its methodology to clarify how ecosystem-specific differences were measured. Lastly, the discussion on sustainability practices would benefit from deeper exploration of accelerators' strategic contributions.
Review Suggestions
Provide a clear definition of "accelerators" in the introduction or methodology to aid readers unfamiliar with the term.
Expand the methodology section to explain how cross-country ecosystem differences were analyzed and compared.
Include more detailed examples of sustainable business practices facilitated by accelerators to enrich the discussion and strengthen the practical relevance of the findings.
Author Response
Comment: Provide a clear definition of "accelerators" in the introduction or methodology to aid readers unfamiliar with the term.
Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have included a clear definition of "business accelerators" in the Introduction, retrieved from the paper: Kulkov, I., Hellström, M., & Wikström, K. (2021). Identifying the role of business accelerators in the developing business ecosystem: the life science sector. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(4), 1459-1479.
Comment: Expand the methodology section to explain how cross-country ecosystem differences were analyzed and compared.
Response: Thank you for the thoughtful comment. We have expanded the Methodology section to clarify our approach to analyzing cross-country differences. PLS-SEM was chosen for its capacity to handle complex models, accommodate non-normal data, and analyze measurement invariance, ensuring reliable cross-cultural comparisons. Additionally, we contextualized the quantitative findings with qualitative insights, utilizing secondary data on regulatory environments, cultural attitudes, and economic conditions in each country to provide a comprehensive analysis.
Comment: Include more detailed examples of sustainable business practices facilitated by accelerators to enrich the discussion and strengthen the practical relevance of the findings.
Response: Thank you for this valuable recommendation. We have enriched the Discussion section with detailed examples of sustainable business practices facilitated by accelerators, highlighting resource efficiency projects in Romania, cleantech development in the U.S., and circular economy initiatives in Italy.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors adressed all the issues raised as sugestion/recommendations and I agree the publication of the paper.
