Innovation for Sustainable Entrepreneurship: Empirical Evidence from the Bioeconomy Sector in Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research is quite clear and straightforward. It is not entirely clear the context in which the interviews were carried out and if there were conducted during another research. Further details regarding the respondents might improve the paper.

The statement regarding research analysis model is presented rather too much in the paper. 

The research design is quite basic. Therefore the results are of average (to low) relevance and interest.

The English language is of good quality.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reading our manuscript and reviewing it. We also greatly appreciate your comments and suggestions. After carefully revision of our manuscript we have sent the revised manuscript, and a version containing all the changes to be visible (with red text).

 Please find our answers point-by-point according to your comments and suggestions.

Point 1: The research is quite clear and straightforward. It is not entirely clear the context in which the interviews were carried out and if there were conducted during another research. Further details regarding the respondents might improve the paper.

Response 1: Thank you very much for this comment. We are happy to hear that you find our study interesting. The research was carried out within a project focused on different aspects of bioeconomy sector in Malopolska region.

Therefore, we added in lines 282-284 this follow up:

“The EDP model was applied in 2018 within the “Avantgarde Initiative” Project in Małopolska owing to cooperation with the cluster of LifeScience Krakow, which brings together enterprises from the bioeconomy sector.”

Moreover, we also mentioned this in lines 367-370:

“The EDP model was applied in 2018 as part of the “Avantgarde Initiative” Project in Małopolska, as the only region in Poland and the first in Central and Eastern Europe. Implementation of the model was possible owing to cooperation with the cluster of LifeScience Krakow, which brings together enterprises from the bioeconomy sector.”

In addition, we indicated in lines 331-338 that:

“Respondents were asked many questions concerning various areas, ranging from the role of smart specialisations and human capital, through economic conditions to questions related to broadly understood innovativeness (e.g. innovative processes, innovation management, drivers of innovation, sources of information about innovations, barriers to innovation, use of technology, financial needs, relationship management). Bearing in mind the research objective of this article, first of all results concerning factors supporting and hindering the innovation development of enterprises from the bioeconomy sector in Małopolska region will be presented.”

The blue colour indicates new issues that have been added to the description of the scope of the research.

Regarding the respondents, we placed this information on lines 326-330:

“In-depth interviews were conducted in the form of direct meetings and telephone conversations with the chairmen of company management boards, branch directors, managers, as well as business owners or founders. Interviews were conducted - in accordance with the EDP methodology - among the management staff.”

Point 2: The statement regarding research analysis model is presented rather too much in the paper. 

Response 2: Thank you for this suggestions. As for the suggestions to shorten the description about the EDP model, we think that this is a rarely used method in literature and a brief description of the most important elements of this method is, in our opinion, justified. In addition, the second reviewer even asked to extend the description of this method.

Point 3: The research design is quite basic. Therefore the results are of average (to low) relevance and interest.

Response 3: Thank you for this tip. Therefore, we will consider developing our further research in a more advanced way (using statistical methods).

Point 4: The English language is of good quality.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your kind words.

The author(s) have responded to my comments in a satisfactory way.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is original, because is based in an important an unexplored topic, the sustainable entrepreneurship, from an empirical pespective, in the context of bieconomy in Polad. However, some changes should be made to improve the quality of the article:

Introduction: it is clear, and presents and justify the importance of the topic. However, it would be better not to present the findings of the study in this section. Please, consider to delete lines 78-81. Moreover, it would be interesting to put more emphasis on how this article contributes to the existing gaps in literature.

Literature review: this section is structured in two sub-sections in which the role of sustainable entrepreneurship and eco-innovation in the bioeconomy sector are explained, by presenting the different plans and actions carried out until the moment. So this section is well structured, and presents the necessary literature to understand this study.

Methodology: this section should be improved. More information about the enterprises selected should be done (if it is possible), as size, when they were set up...  More information should be also provided about the Entrepreneurial Discovery Process. It is not clear what this method consists of. Moreover, more insights should be provided about the statistical analysis of the data obtained, and the questions of the questionaries should be provided as annex to facilitate the understanding of the research. 

Results: they are well presented and explained. Figures are presented to facilitate the understanding of the results.

Discussion: the findings of the article are presented, and they are compared with previous articles, but maybe it should be better not to add a table in this section (see Table 1). Moreover, it is necessary to add a new paragraph in which the theoretical and practical implications of the article will be presented.

Conclusions: it presents the key findings of the article in a clear way. Also the limitations and future research lines are presented.

In general, the manuscript is well-structured, and easy to read and understand. The findings are interesting for the entrepreneurship field. However some changes should be made to improve the quality of the article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reading our manuscript and reviewing it. We also greatly appreciate your comments and suggestions. After carefully revision of our manuscript we have sent the revised manuscript, and a version containing all the changes to be visible (with red text).

Please find our answers point-by-point according to your comments and suggestions.

Point 1: The article is original, because is based in an important an unexplored topic, the sustainable entrepreneurship, from an empirical perspective, in the context of bioeconomy in Poland. However, some changes should be made to improve the quality of the article:

Introduction: it is clear, and presents and justify the importance of the topic. However, it would be better not to present the findings of the study in this section. Please, consider to delete lines 78-81. Moreover, it would be interesting to put more emphasis on how this article contributes to the existing gaps in literature.

Response 1: Thank you very much for this suggestion. We did the suggested change, respectively and deleted lines 78-81.

We added in lines 81-83 the following sentences to highlight the contribution to the existing gaps in the literature:

“The research contributes to the explanation of the role of innovation for sustainable entrepreneurship by focusing on internal and external factors that support and hinder the development of innovation in enterprises from the bioeconomy sector.”

Point 2: Literature review: this section is structured in two sub-sections in which the role of sustainable entrepreneurship and eco-innovation in the bioeconomy sector are explained, by presenting the different plans and actions carried out until the moment. So this section is well structured, and presents the necessary literature to understand this study.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your kind words.

Point 3: Methodology: this section should be improved. More information about the enterprises selected should be done (if it is possible), as size, when they were set up...  More information should be also provided about the Entrepreneurial Discovery Process. It is not clear what this method consists of. Moreover, more insights should be provided about the statistical analysis of the data obtained, and the questions of the questionnaires should be provided as annex to facilitate the understanding of the research. 

Response 3: We appreciate your comment and have included more details in this regard. As for the enterprises, we added the following explanation in lines 313-322:

“The study was conducted among micro enterprises (35.3%), small and medium enterprises (41.4%) and large enterprises (23.4%). The largest group of respondents were companies operating on the market over 25 years (23.2%) as well as companies existing on the market less than 5 years (20.2%). Interviews were conducted in accordance with the methodology among the management. The companies participating in the survey were divided into eleven sections, according to the Polish Classification of Activities (so called PKD code classification). Most companies represent the manufacturing section (40%) and professional, scientific and technical activities (24%) (Table 1).

Table 1. Profile of companies participating in the study according to the PKD code classification

Source: Own study.

With reference to the suggestion for more information about the EDP, we have indicated other authors presenting the description of this method in detail in the literature. In addition, the second reviewer even asked to shorten the description of this method.

The method consists of several key elements, as indicated in section 3.2. The key elements are: interviews, smart labs, crowdsourcing as well as innovation maps. All these elements were used in the project, however in the article we used only the results based on interviews and smart labs, what was mentioned in line 371.   

Given your recent suggestion, we believe that the inclusion of the entire questionnaire as an annex could raise unnecessary questions and doubts, because the research presented in the article only concerns questions related to innovation, while the whole “Avantgarde Initiative” Project in Małopolska refers to the various issues that were not addressed in this article. In total questionnaire contained 100 questions.

Nevertheless, to facilitate the better understanding of the research we added the issues included in the questionnaires in the text by providing more details in this regard (lines 331-338):

“Respondents were asked many questions concerning various areas, ranging from the role of smart specialisations and human capital, through economic conditions to questions related to broadly understood innovativeness (e.g. innovative processes, innovation management, drivers of innovation, sources of information about innovations, barriers to innovation, use of technology, financial needs, relationship management).

The blue colour indicates new issues that have been added to the description of the scope of the research.

Point 4: Results: they are well presented and explained. Figures are presented to facilitate the understanding of the results.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your positive review.

Point 5: Discussion: the findings of the article are presented, and they are compared with previous articles, but maybe it should be better not to add a table in this section (see Table 1). Moreover, it is necessary to add a new paragraph in which the theoretical and practical implications of the article will be presented.

Response 5: Thank you very much for your suggestions. After careful reflection, however, we decided not to delete tables 1. Despite the simplified form, Table 1 summarizes those factors that support or inhibit the innovation of enterprises from the bioeconomy sector in Poland to the greatest extent.

Moreover, we added the following sentences regarding the theoretical and practical implications (lines 560-566):

“Our study also has both theoretical and practical contributions. The theoretical implications focus on the explanation of the role of innovation for sustainable entrepreneurship by focusing on internal and external factors that support and hinder the development of innovation in enterprises from the bioeconomy sector. From a practical perspective, our research can provide more detailed guidance for managers on how to identify and implement improvements in environmental and economic performance that impact of innovativeness of enterprises and contribute to the creation and implementation of new, more sustainable production and consumption models.”

Point 6: Conclusions: it presents the key findings of the article in a clear way. Also the limitations and future research lines are presented.

Response 6: Thank you very much for your kind words.

Point 7: In general, the manuscript is well-structured, and easy to read and understand. The findings are interesting for the entrepreneurship field. However, some changes should be made to improve the quality of the article.

Response 7: Thank you very much for your positive review as well as for all your comments and suggestions that significantly improve the article.