Lusophone Entrepreneurship: Analysis of Entrepreneurial Behavioural Characteristics in Brazilian and Portuguese Universities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First of all, there is no adequate discussion and definition of lusophone in this paper. Since the critical concept expressed in this paper is "lusophone entrepreneurship," careful and careful theory building should be done on this.
Isn't this study simply a comparison of entrepreneurship in Brazilian and Portuguese universities?
If that is the case, what can we learn by comparing entrepreneurship in Brazilian and Portuguese universities? It would be meaningful if the essence of "Lusophone entrepreneurship" could be clarified through it, but this has not been discussed at all. It seems that the concept of "lusophone entrepreneurship" is simply an adornment of the paper.
At any rate, if "Lusophone entrepreneurship" is not discussed or examined, this is just an international comparison of academic entrepreneurship, and no new insights have been gained.
There is also not enough mention of why we need to study entrepreneurship in the McClelland model. On the other hand, the fact that the primary literature on academic entrepreneurship is rarely cited is also very problematic.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
We appreciated your attention on the previous version of this research. As deserved we inserted an initial acknowledgement highlight our recognition: “Authors recognize the stimuli provided by three anonymous reviewers of Sustainability. Remaining limitations are authors’ exclusive ones.” We also appreciated positive and stimulating statements from all Reviewers and editors who led us to produce this renewed version.
Please consider the major changes here highlighted.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is important to place it in the geopolitical context of the area because there are major differences between and thus between Portugal and Brazil.
Europe seems to be lagging behind other regions of the world with regard to the role of entrepreneurship in society. Entrepreneurship does have a positive image in the eyes of the general public, with 85% of Americans, 87% of Chinese and 88% of Europeans seeing entrepreneurs as job creators. However, in terms of professional career choice, 71% of Chinese, 55% of USA and only 45% of EU citizens would prefer to be self-employed rather than work in an existing organization. The impact of entrepre-neurial education is regarded as important by 53% of Chinese, 51% of USA and only 25% of EU citizens. This gap is not necessarily caused by the EU citizens’ rejection of entrepreneurship, but rather the result of a combination of struc-tural, administrative and cultural factors that inhibit entrepreneurial spirit.
How is the situation in Brazil? Same as in Europe and Portugal?
Research regarding the entrepreneurial intentions of students is based on psychosocial intention models, such as the theory of planned behaviour by Ajzen (1991), the entrepreneurial model developed by Shapero and Sokol (1982) and the model of Krueger and Carsrud (1993), which can be seen as an intention model applied in entre-preneurship. According to these theories, any behaviour can be predicted based on the individual’s actions at a certain time.
Culture manifests itself through the values, beliefs and motivations of the individual. For example, in some Asian cultures, failure is not associated with loss of respect, a fact that supports entrepreneurship. In European cultures, the fear of failure is the main barrier for the manifestation of entre-preneurship
These elements should also be considered in the literature review part.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
We appreciated your attention on the previous version of this research. As deserved we inserted an initial acknowledgement highlight our recognition: “Authors recognize the stimuli provided by three anonymous reviewers of Sustainability. Remaining limitations are authors’ exclusive ones.” We also appreciated positive and stimulating statements from all Reviewers and editors who led us to produce this renewed version.
Please consider the major changes here highlighted.
Now, we clarify the gains from our research, given the high correlation between academic entrepreneuship and an enlarged entrepreneuship action: “There is ample evidence that proves the weight of entrepreneurship seen in academia as an important source of entrepreneurship that the economy will welcome in the near future. College students will soon be in the job market, and will be engines of entrepreneurship in general. In addition, entrepreneurship does not appear only in the constitution of new companies, but it can present itself in already established companies (corporate entrepreneurship), in the collaborators / employees of public and private institutions (intrapreneurship), in other for-profit institutions (social entrepreneurship) , cultural, sports, academic…). Thus, the study of entrepreneurship in the university environment reflects entrepreneurship actions in general (Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, 2020).”
In this version we also produced extensive paragraphs about Brazilian and Portuguese data related to entrepreneurship: “In Brazil in 2019, a total of 53.4 million Brazilians are estimated to be in charge of some entrepreneurial activity, involved in the creation of a new enterprise, consolidating a new business or making efforts to maintain an already established enterprise. With regard to initial entrepreneurship, which is considered to be projects with less than forty-two months (3.5 years), the country reached 23.3% (Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, 2020). The study also points out that Brazil resumed its growth in initial entrepreneurship after a fall registered between 2016 and 2018.
As for the profile of Brazilian entrepreneurs, it appears that in the initial entrepreneurs there is minimal difference between women and men, the most active are aged between 25 and 44 years old and have completed higher education. In established entrepreneurs, with enterprises over forty-two months old, men are the majority, aged between 45 and 54 years old and who have incomplete elementary education (Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, 2020).
Entrepreneurship in Portugal is essentially based on an ecosystem close to that advocated by researchers (Mason & Brown, 2013) in which there is a set of interconnected entrepreneurs who control entrepreneurial organizations (firms) and collaborate with the public (universities, public sector) and private institutions (banks, organizations). Several studies have identified the main barriers that entrepreneurs face in Portugal, which are: (1) Lack of access to networks and business contacts (Jain & Ali, 2013), (2) Psychological and cultural limitations in accessing the entrepreneurial activity (Fuerlinger, Fandl, & Funke, 2015); (3) Low level of self-efficacy and corporate ambition (Shane, 2003), (4) Lack of capital to finance start-up and business growth (Liu, 2015); (5) Lack of transparency and predictability of the legislative and regulatory environment (Auerswald, 2015); (6) Reduced number of entrepreneurship education programs (Bourgeois & Balcon, 2016), (7) Lack of high growth companies (Henrekson & Johansson, 2010); (8) Lack of programs of "Procurement" by the public administration aimed at start-ups (Li & Georghiou, 2016); (9) Residual number of success cases within the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem (Napier & Hansen, 2011) and (10) Lack of involvement of large companies in the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010)
Regarding Entrepreneurship Education, there is an academic need for greater transversality of educational programs and more innovative learning methodologies (Bourgeois & Balcon, 2016). In this sense, public authorities, especially those related to employment and education, should actively promote entrepreneurial education to increase the entrepreneurial spirit, confidence, initiative and self-esteem of the future generations of successful entrepreneurs. (Jain & Ali, 2013). These possible success cases would make Entrepreneurship Education programs more interesting, dynamic, and able to increase society's wealth and well-being. They could also increase large companies' involvement if the mentioned barriers are lowered, reducing the efficiency problems related to the implementation of such programs. (Banha, Almeida, Rebelo, & Ramos, 2017).”
We also took advantage of reading your suggested references and now we also quote them.
Research regarding the entrepreneurial intentions of students is based on psychosocial intention models, such as the theory of planned behaviour by Ajzen (1991), the entrepreneurial model developed by Shapero and Sokol (1982) and the model of Krueger and Carsrud (1993), which can be seen as an intention model applied in entre-preneurship. According to these theories, any behaviour can be predicted based on the individual’s actions at a certain time.
After this considerable effort, and due to your attention, we are now submitting a more proper version of this research to be accepted as an Article for Sustainability.
Yours,
The Authors.
Reviewer 3 Report
Very interesting research paper on international comparative studies of academies in the field of entrepreneurship ; very well documented with a long and complete review of international literature on the entrepreneurial behaviours ; cultural context of entrepreneurship at the university in both countries could be stressed a little bit more (similarities and differences)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
We appreciated your attention on the previous version of this research. As deserved we inserted an initial acknowledgement highlight our recognition: “Authors recognize the stimuli provided by three anonymous reviewers of Sustainability. Remaining limitations are authors’ exclusive ones.” We also appreciated positive and stimulating statements from all Reviewers and editors who led us to produce this renewed version, especially your statements: “Very interesting research paper on international comparative studies of academies in the field of entrepreneurship ; very well documented with a long and complete review of international literature on the entrepreneurial behaviours”
Please consider the major changes here highlighted.
Now, we clarify the gains from our research, given the high correlation between academic entrepreneuship and an enlarged entrepreneuship action: “There is ample evidence that proves the weight of entrepreneurship seen in academia as an important source of entrepreneurship that the economy will welcome in the near future. College students will soon be in the job market, and will be engines of entrepreneurship in general. In addition, entrepreneurship does not appear only in the constitution of new companies, but it can present itself in already established companies (corporate entrepreneurship), in the collaborators / employees of public and private institutions (intrapreneurship), in other for-profit institutions (social entrepreneurship) , cultural, sports, academic…). Thus, the study of entrepreneurship in the university environment reflects entrepreneurship actions in general (Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, 2020).”
In this version we also produced extensive paragraphs about Brazilian and Portuguese data related to entrepreneurship: “In Brazil in 2019, a total of 53.4 million Brazilians are estimated to be in charge of some entrepreneurial activity, involved in the creation of a new enterprise, consolidating a new business or making efforts to maintain an already established enterprise. With regard to initial entrepreneurship, which is considered to be projects with less than forty-two months (3.5 years), the country reached 23.3% (Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, 2020). The study also points out that Brazil resumed its growth in initial entrepreneurship after a fall registered between 2016 and 2018.
As for the profile of Brazilian entrepreneurs, it appears that in the initial entrepreneurs there is minimal difference between women and men, the most active are aged between 25 and 44 years old and have completed higher education. In established entrepreneurs, with enterprises over forty-two months old, men are the majority, aged between 45 and 54 years old and who have incomplete elementary education (Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, 2020).
Entrepreneurship in Portugal is essentially based on an ecosystem close to that advocated by researchers (Mason & Brown, 2013) in which there is a set of interconnected entrepreneurs who control entrepreneurial organizations (firms) and collaborate with the public (universities, public sector) and private institutions (banks, organizations). Several studies have identified the main barriers that entrepreneurs face in Portugal, which are: (1) Lack of access to networks and business contacts (Jain & Ali, 2013), (2) Psychological and cultural limitations in accessing the entrepreneurial activity (Fuerlinger, Fandl, & Funke, 2015); (3) Low level of self-efficacy and corporate ambition (Shane, 2003), (4) Lack of capital to finance start-up and business growth (Liu, 2015); (5) Lack of transparency and predictability of the legislative and regulatory environment (Auerswald, 2015); (6) Reduced number of entrepreneurship education programs (Bourgeois & Balcon, 2016), (7) Lack of high growth companies (Henrekson & Johansson, 2010); (8) Lack of programs of "Procurement" by the public administration aimed at start-ups (Li & Georghiou, 2016); (9) Residual number of success cases within the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem (Napier & Hansen, 2011) and (10) Lack of involvement of large companies in the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010)
Regarding Entrepreneurship Education, there is an academic need for greater transversality of educational programs and more innovative learning methodologies (Bourgeois & Balcon, 2016). In this sense, public authorities, especially those related to employment and education, should actively promote entrepreneurial education to increase the entrepreneurial spirit, confidence, initiative and self-esteem of the future generations of successful entrepreneurs. (Jain & Ali, 2013). These possible success cases would make Entrepreneurship Education programs more interesting, dynamic, and able to increase society's wealth and well-being. They could also increase large companies' involvement if the mentioned barriers are lowered, reducing the efficiency problems related to the implementation of such programs. (Banha, Almeida, Rebelo, & Ramos, 2017).”
We also took advantage of reading your suggested references and now we also quote them.
Research regarding the entrepreneurial intentions of students is based on psychosocial intention models, such as the theory of planned behaviour by Ajzen (1991), the entrepreneurial model developed by Shapero and Sokol (1982) and the model of Krueger and Carsrud (1993), which can be seen as an intention model applied in entre-preneurship. According to these theories, any behaviour can be predicted based on the individual’s actions at a certain time.
After this considerable effort, and due to your attention, we are now submitting a more proper version of this research to be accepted as an Article for Sustainability.
Yours,
The Authors.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It would be nice to have a discussion section between the analysis results (5. Results) and the conclusions (5. Conclusions, Implications, and Further Challenges). It is now unclear how the analysis results were interpreted and how the conclusions were reached. The content of the “conclusion” also seems somewhat abrupt.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your contributions and efforts to improve this article.
We attach a new version with responses to your suggestions.
The changes and responses are in colour and in comments attached to the file.
Thank you very much for your help.
Best Regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The content has been further revised and is now well understood.
