Sustainable Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies: The Role of Financial Planning, Environmental Consciousness, and Artificial Intelligence in Ecuador—A Cross-Sectional Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The intent of the paper write-up is well articulated, but the following were observed: 

Abstract

Why is Ecuador selected as a keyword? This raises the question of what makes a keyword selection.

Introduction

Since AI prowess has been deduced, should we not consider it as a policy enabler in the framework?

What is MIES? It should be written in full first before the abbreviation, as it was never defined

why the reference to the MIES (2015) is that not too late?

Line 57-59 offers a strong opinion that ought to be referenced.

Line 60-63 is a mixed combination of definition and explanation that should be broken

Literature

Can the previous discussion be linked to each other, such as linking 2.2 to 2.3

Line 268 needs to be redrafted on the hypothesis formulations. It feels that there is a bias in the acclaimed positivity in the writeup

Line 270 needs more validation by stating various studies

line 289 also showed positively and significantly, and this beckons on why

Methodology

How did we come about 300 (that's a round figure)

How does the study offer green entrepreneurship support strategies? Please check line 173. It seems to be hanging

The framework shows the mediation of AI, and I am wondering if this should not affect the topic of the work

What do you mean by accidental non-probabilistic sampling?

The use of the JASP software is commendable

Result

Having the same gender representation requires a high level of questioning, and thus, evidence must be provided

Line 459 reference should be redone and was wrongly cited.

Please check EC6 and FPI under the standard error 1

The result was well-documented.

In line 390, why is there a reference to the informal sector and why the comparison?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is a need for grammatical editing.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The intent of the paper write-up is well articulated, but the following were observed: 

1. Abstract

Why is Ecuador selected as a keyword? This raises the question of what makes a keyword selection.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your observation, it is correct that the term Ecuador would not be a key word that represents the line of research of the manuscript, so we proceeded to eliminate it.

2. Introduction

Since AI prowess has been deduced, should we not consider it as a policy enabler in the framework?

Response:

What is MIES? It should be written in full first before the abbreviation, as it was never defined why the reference to the MIES (2015) is that not too late?

Response: That is correct, we proceeded to define this acronym: Ministry of Economic and Social Inclusion of Ecuador. On the other hand, although these are data from 2015, they provide us with a mapping of the Ecuadorian government's support to entrepreneurs. But it is insufficient according to Mariel and Pizarro (2023).

Line 57-59 offers a strong opinion that ought to be referenced.

Response: Correct, we proceeded to cite the manuscript of Pigola et al., 2024.

Line 60-63 is a mixed combination of definition and explanation that should be broken

Response: The paragraph has been restructured to clearly separate the conceptual definition of sustainable entrepreneurship from its contextual explanation and relevance, addressing the observation regarding the inappropriate mixture of definition and explanation. The original reference has been maintained and textual fluidity has been improved.

 

3. Literature

Can the previous discussion be linked to each other, such as linking 2.2 to 2.3

Response: Yes, they could be merged, but the idea of structuring it by headings within the literature review is to systematize the findings in the previous literature on any given construct. And then come the research hypotheses

Line 268 needs to be redrafted on the hypothesis formulations. It feels that there is a bias in the acclaimed positivity in the writeup

Response: We understand that the reviewer has noted the term “positive” in the hypothesis. This is correct, therefore, in the formulation of the hypotheses, this term has been removed and “significant” has been retained.

Line 270 needs more validation by stating various studies

Response: Thank you for your comment, we apologize for the confusion, therefore we proceeded to cite the studies that support the research hypothesis.

line 289 also showed positively and significantly, and this beckons on why

Response: That's right, line 280 shows positive results.

4. Methodology

How did we come about 300 (that's a round figure)

Response: That's right, line 280 shows positive results.

How does the study offer green entrepreneurship support strategies? Please check line 173. It seems to be hanging

Response: The paragraph has been expanded to resolve the hanging statement by elaborating on how the interconnected nature of sustainability dimensions informs green entrepreneurship support strategies. The revision connects the previously isolated statement to concrete research findings and their practical implications for developing comprehensive support mechanisms.

The framework shows the mediation of AI, and I am wondering if this should not affect the topic of the work

Response: Thank you for this insightful observation. We believe the current framework with AI's mediating role remains consistent with our research objectives and title. However, we acknowledge that this mediation effect presents a valuable opportunity for future research to explore more deeply how AI technologies specifically transform the relationships between financial planning, environmental consciousness, and sustainable entrepreneurship outcomes.

What do you mean by accidental non-probabilistic sampling?

Response: Thank you for your question about our sampling methodology. We have clarified the text to use the more accurate term “non-probability convenience sampling” rather than “accidental” as it better describes our approach to selecting participants based on their accessibility and willingness to participate. We appreciate your recommendation on the use of JASP software for statistical analysis.

The use of the JASP software is commendable

Response: Thank you for your positive feedback regarding our use of JASP software for the statistical analysis. We selected JASP for its robust capabilities in structural equation modeling and its transparent approach to statistical reporting, which aligns with our commitment to methodological rigor and reproducibility in research.

5. Result

Having the same gender representation requires a high level of questioning, and thus, evidence must be provided

Response: Thank you for highlighting this important methodological point. We have clarified that our equal gender representation occurred naturally through our convenience nonprobabilistic sampling approach, not through deliberate stratification. This serendipitous balance provides valuable comparative insights while maintaining the methodological integrity of our nonprobabilistic sampling strategy as described in the manuscript.

Line 459 reference should be redone and was wrongly cited.

Response: Thank you for your comment, changes have been made to the above-mentioned quotation.

Please check EC6 and FPI under the standard error 1

Response: Thank you for your careful review of Table 3. We have thoroughly checked the standard error values for EC6 and FP1, correcting these data points to ensure accuracy. The revised table now presents the correct standard error values of 0.055 for EC6 and 0.063 for FP1, aligning with the expected pattern of standard errors throughout the measurement model.

The result was well-documented.

Response: Thank you for your appreciation of our work

In line 390, why is there a reference to the informal sector and why the comparison?

Response:
Thank you for identifying the issue in line 390. We have revised the paragraph to remove any inappropriate references to the informal sector and eliminated the comparative element. The revised text now focuses specifically on describing the observed AI tool adoption patterns among the surveyed entrepreneurs without making broader sectoral comparisons, thereby maintaining analytical consistency with our research framework.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review the paper. Although the paper is interesting, especially in this gen AI-driven world, below are some of my observations:

1. What is MIES? Please define acronyms at the beginning when you first mention that acronym.
2. It would be beneficial for readers if the authors discuss existing literature that investigated various antecedents of sustainable entrepreneurship.
3. Doing the above would reveal the research gap and “why do we care” question. In addition, it would justify how and why the explanatory variables /independent variables have been selected for this study. The papers below might be useful:

Bickley, S. J., Macintyre, A., & Torgler, B. (2025). Artificial intelligence and big data in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic Surveys, 39(1), 103-145.

Muñoz, P., & Cohen, B. (2018). Sustainable entrepreneurship research: Taking stock and looking ahead. Business strategy and the environment, 27(3), 300-322.

 

4. In their paper, the authors show a mediation model for Financial Planningà Environmental ConsciousnessàSustainable Entrepreneurship (Figure 1). But in their literature review and hypotheses development, there is no mention of this mediator or the mediating mechanism and how it occurs. The SEM results also did not show this test for mediation.
5. The final item measures for the various variables need to be provided.
6. To me the variable “Use of Artificial Intelligence” sounded more like a moderator.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall it is fine. But there is room for improvement. 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review the paper. Although the paper is interesting, especially in this gen AI-driven world, below are some of my observations:

1. What is MIES? Please define acronyms at the beginning when you first mention that acronym.

Response: Thank you for your comment, the changes were made and the MIES definition was added.

1. It would be beneficial for readers if the authors discuss existing literature that investigated various antecedents of sustainable entrepreneurship.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion to enhance the literature review. We have substantially expanded section 2.1 to include a comprehensive discussion of the various antecedents of sustainable entrepreneurship, incorporating multiple dimensions: individual-level factors (psychological attributes, values, orientations), institutional determinants (regulatory frameworks, financing mechanisms), educational factors (sustainability competencies, knowledge transfer), and technological enablers. We have added several key references including Lans et al. (2014), Fichter & Tiemann (2018), Vázquez-Maguirre & Portales (2018), Hansen & Schaltegger (2013), Bocken et al. (2014), and Dean & McMullen (2007), all formatted according to APA 7th edition guidelines. This addition provides readers with a more thorough understanding of the multi-level factors that influence sustainable entrepreneurship development, strengthening the theoretical foundation of our research.

 

1. Doing the above would reveal the research gap and “why do we care” question. In addition, it would justify how and why the explanatory variables /independent variables have been selected for this study. The papers below might be useful:

Response: Thank you for your observation, and I have included the proposed studies since they are closely related to the objectives of our research.

 

Bickley, S. J., Macintyre, A., & Torgler, B. (2025). Artificial intelligence and big data in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic Surveys, 39(1), 103-145.

Muñoz, P., & Cohen, B. (2018). Sustainable entrepreneurship research: Taking stock and looking ahead. Business strategy and the environment, 27(3), 300-322.

 

1. In their paper, the authors show a mediation model for Financial Planningà Environmental ConsciousnessàSustainable Entrepreneurship (Figure 1). But in their literature review and hypotheses development, there is no mention of this mediator or the mediating mechanism and how it occurs. The SEM results also did not show this test for mediation.

Response: Thank you for this perceptive observation regarding the potential mediation relationship in our model. While Figure 1 visually suggests a possible mediation pathway from Financial Planning through Environmental Consciousness to Sustainable Entrepreneurship, we did not explicitly hypothesize or test this mediation effect in the current study. Our research focused primarily on establishing the direct relationships between these constructs as indicated in our five formal hypotheses.

Although the existing literature provides theoretical support for such mediation (as evidenced by works like Muñoz & Cohen, 2018), testing mediation effects was beyond the scope of our current research objectives. Our priority was to first establish the fundamental direct relationships in the Ecuadorian context before exploring more complex pathways. We acknowledge this as a limitation and have identified it as a promising direction for future research in our limitations section, where we note that subsequent studies could examine the specific mediating mechanisms through which financial planning influences sustainable entrepreneurship via environmental consciousness. This approach would provide deeper insights into the causal mechanisms connecting these variables beyond the direct effects documented in the present study.

 

1. The final item measures for the various variables need to be provided.

Response: Thank you for your observation, the final element measurements for the different variables are included in Table 3.

 

1. To me the variable “Use of Artificial Intelligence” sounded more like a moderator.

Response: Thank you for your observation, it is precisely this role that you propose that opens up new possibilities for action.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

sustainability-3511083

The study addresses an interesting topic. The framework is clear and the methodology appropriate. The case study results are important. I would suggest only one minor change.  I would suggest that the authors delete the name of the study area from the hypotheses. Ideally the relationships analyzed and the hypotheses proposed should be relevant for other studies to test in different regional environments.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

The study addresses an interesting topic. The framework is clear and the methodology appropriate. The case study results are important. I would suggest only one minor change.  I would suggest that the authors delete the name of the study area from the hypotheses. Ideally the relationships analyzed and the hypotheses proposed should be relevant for other studies to test in different regional environments.

Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestion regarding the hypotheses formulation. We have removed the specific reference to "merchants in Machala, Ecuador" from all hypotheses as recommended. This revision enhances the theoretical generalizability of our propositions, allowing the relationships analyzed to be tested across different regional environments while maintaining the contextual specificity of our empirical findings in the results and discussion sections. The revised hypotheses now focus on the fundamental relationships between the constructs, which strengthens the theoretical contribution of the paper beyond the specific case study context.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

On page 9, the model only states the flow of H5, which is hypothesis 5, 5but others are missing.

Furthermore, the diagrammatic expression of the structural expression in terms of the model revealing the degree of model relation is missing after the result is presented. it is requested for further clarity of the desired strength of those variables that have been identified

Author Response

Remark: On page 9, the model only indicates the flow of H5, which is hypothesis 5, but others are missing.

Also, after presenting the result, the diagrammatic expression of the structural expression in terms of the model revealing the degree of relationship of the model is missing. More clarity is requested on the desired strength of those variables that have been identified.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Figure 1 was improved. Figure 2 was added where the beta values in the relationships are evident. Also added a note in table 5 explaining the interpretation of the p-value, beta values and effect size. Thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript. The authors have addressed most of my concerns by including a literature review of sustainable entrepreneurship and its antecedents. However, the hypothetical model is not quite correct, in my opinion. This is because hypothetical relationships are made independent of one another. For example, the authors have simply hypothesized the direct relationships instead of explaining it as a mediation and moderation model. 

Author Response

Observation:Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript.The authors have addressed most of my concerns by including a literature review on sustainable entrepreneurship and its background.However, in my opinion, the hypothetical model is not entirely correct.This is because hypothetical relationships are constructed independently.For example, the authors have simply hypothesized the direct relationships instead of explaining them as a model of mediation and moderation.
Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment.
Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment.However, the direct relationships are grounded in the scientific literature.On the other hand, although we could analyze mediation, we did not do so, and this is included as a limitation of the study.It would be important that, in future studies to be conducted, researchers consider analyzing this mediation, which, by the way, was not part of the initial objective of the study.Finally, we clarify that this does not affect the quality of the model, as it meets all indicators of validity, reliability, and acceptable goodness-of-fit indices (measurement model) and structural model to test the direct hypotheses.Anyway, thank you for your comment.