Sustainable Aspects of Startups among Generation Z—Motivations and Uncertainties among Students in Higher Educations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The reviewed research paper aims to analyse the motivations and barriers perceived by young people (generation Z) to start a new green/sustainable business based on the quantitative and qualitative research. As stated above, the research theme is interesting in the field of social sciences, although several  improvements regarding the paper are proposed and needed to be considered:

C1:  Concerning the Introductory part, it should be extended with the originality elements and the structure of the paper.

 C2: One of the two main shortcomings of the reviewed manuscript concerns the theoretical background of it, which is lacking. Some aspects from the introductory part might be transferred to the literature review part, although this component of the study should be significantly extended with recent studies from the international literature (not just the national one), reflecting also a critical approach. Thus, a detailed review on studies regarding the motivations and barriers to start a new business (a start-up) should be included. Also, the Authors should discuss what kind of linkages have been already studied within the literature, what kind of results were obtained regarding the motivations and barriers, respectively between them and entrepreneurial intentions and behaviours.

 C3: Regarding the Methodological part (2) the next concerns should be addressed:

- A presentation of the objectives for the quantitative study, the structure (questions/items and measurement scales) of the questionnaire, the research hypothesis to be tested.

- The Authors should include here some arguments why they choose to include only descriptive and correlational statistics, as well some references to studies using similar techniques should be encompassed.

- A presentation regarding the study context (Hungarian entrepreneurial landscape) can be placed within the methodological part, instead of the introductory section.

 

C4: The other main shortcoming of the reviewed manuscript concerns the empirical part. The results of the qualitative study should be presented more systematically along with the main questions addressed to and responses received from the focus group, even divided for the three groups. Concerning the quantitative study, results should be presented in the same manner.

C5: The Conclusions part should be extended, by adding managerial/entrepreneurial and policy implications, research limitations and future research directions should be added.

C6: Some further observations:

- Some typos can be found within the body of the manuscript (e.g., lines: 98).

- Shortenings should be presented in their longer form first (e.g., NFKIH within the abstract, BGE, KSH, etc.)

I hope the above observations will contribute to the improvement of the reviewed manuscript.

Best regards,

  The Reviewer

 

- Some phrases should be reformulated (e.g., lines: 126-127).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for taking the time to review our research paper and for providing us with valuable feedback. We have carefully considered each of your comments and suggestions, and we have made efforts to address them comprehensively in order to enhance the quality of our paper.

C1: We appreciate your suggestion to extend the introductory part of our paper. In the revised version, we tried to provide more detailed information about the originality of our research and have outlined the structure of the paper.

C2: We acknowledge your concern regarding the theoretical background. In response to your comment, we have expanded the literature review section, incorporating recent international studies in addition to the Hungarian ones. We have also included a deeper analysis of the existing literature.

C3: Thank you for your insightful comments on the methodological part. We have incorporated the objectives of the quantitative study, the structure of the research, and the research questions. Additionally, we have provided reasons for choosing descriptive and correlational statistics in case of the quantitative research. 

C4: We have taken your feedback into consideration and restructured the presentation of the results from both the qualitative and quantitative studies. The results from the qualitative study are now systematically presented, with a clear focus on the main questions addressed. The quantitative study results are also presented in a more organized manner, hopefully.

C5: Thank you for your suggestion to extend the Conclusions part. We have expanded this section to include not only a summary of our findings but also implications, as well as a discussion of the research limitations and possible directions for future research.

C6: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript for typos and hopefully have made the necessary corrections. We have also ensured that abbreviations are presented in their longer forms before being abbreviated.

Once again, we greatly appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback. Your insights have played a significant role in improving the quality of our paper. 

Best regards,

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The research topic is of growing interest in the field of entrepreneurship and it is important to monitor the sentiment of young students towards entrepreneurship and startups.

However, in this field there is a literature that does not seem to be considered here, since the references are mostly Hungarian and not well connected with the international debate on the argument. This is the first shortcoming of the paper.

The second one is about a better description of the groups analyzed: the only information we have is about age and where do they come from in Hungary. Some more information, for example about the backgrounds of the participants, would be useful to see some differences among respondents, like differences between who actually attended an entrepreneurship course and who did not. Since the role if universities is mentioned, I think that this aspect should deserve some more analysis. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate your thoughtful review of our research paper and your insightful comments regarding the research topic and its relevance in the field of entrepreneurship. We are grateful for your feedback, which has prompted us to make substantial improvements to our paper.

Comment 1: We acknowledge your observation that our paper's references are predominantly Hungarian, lacking proper integration with the international discourse on the subject. In response to your feedback, we have significantly expanded our literature review to incorporate relevant international studies and debates in the field of entrepreneurship and startups. By doing so, we aim to provide a more comprehensive overview of the existing research and its global context.

Comment 2: Thank you for raising a valid point about the need for a more detailed description of the groups analyzed in our study. We agree that providing additional information about the participants' backgrounds would enhance the depth of our analysis. In the revised version of our paper, we have included more detailed demographic information about the respondents, such as their educational backgrounds, including whether they attended entrepreneurship courses or not. We have also dedicated a section to discussing the role of universities and have conducted a more thorough analysis of the differences among respondents based on their educational experiences.

Your feedback has been invaluable in refining our paper and addressing its shortcomings. We believe that the changes we've made in response to your comments will significantly enhance the overall quality and depth of our research. If you have any further suggestions or concerns, we would greatly appreciate your input.

Thank you once again for your thorough review and insightful feedback.

Best regards,

The Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

The study on Sustainable startups among Generation Z is desirable, and the introduction attempts to justify this topic. The subject itself is so interesting that it became a motivation for me to undertake a review.

The article's title promises a lot, but the study is not about "sustainable startup". It is a general study of entrepreneurial attitudes among students and participants in training courses. It is a study of knowledge about startups and does not add much to the current state of knowledge.

No research gap was identified, and the assumed goal was not achieved ("The main goal of the research is to examine the entrepreneurship of young people, i.e. Generation Z, as well as its relationship to sustainability"). In addition, there is no indication of previous achievements in the discussed topic.

The research sample, the research tool, how, and the research process are poorly described, but we know that the study included students (and participants in courses). They do not represent Generation Z, so the study's conclusions can be generalized to this population. However, the authors do this; for example, "The study presents the Z-generation's biggest fears about starting a business and startup, and what importance they attach to the issue of sustainability" (lines 22-23).

My main objection, however, is that the research subject is not sustainable startups, and even research on the relationship with green technologies or sustainable development - as mentioned in the introduction - is a trace amount.

As for the research object - generation Z: firstly, it should not be identified with students (which has already been emphasized), and secondly - it would be advisable to show the differences and similarities against other generations, and not only within the generation.

 

In addition - as it turns out at the beginning of the research - the knowledge and awareness of the surveyed people about startups is relatively poor, which leads to the question of the sense of deepening questions about startups among the surveyed people and the adopted research method and sample.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your thoughtful review of our research paper and for your valuable insights regarding our study on sustainable startups among Generation Z. Your feedback has been instrumental in guiding us towards a more comprehensive and accurate presentation of our research findings. We appreciate the effort you've taken to provide us with constructive feedback.

Comment 1: We appreciate your acknowledgment of the importance of the subject matter and its potential significance. We understand your concern about the alignment between the article's title and the actual content of the study. In response to your comment, we have made substantial revisions to our paper to ensure that the focus is appropriately directed towards the exploration of sustainable startups among Generation Z. Our aim was to bridge the gap between the initial promise of the title and the actual study objectives, ensuring a more coherent narrative.

Comment 2: We understand your concern regarding the identification of the research queastions. In the revised version of our paper, we have explicitly identified the research questions, and also emphasized the lack of research that specifically delves into the relationship between sustainable startups and Generation Z. Additionally, we have refined our study objectives to more precisely reflect the exploration of sustainability-related attitudes and intentions among Generation Z individuals, university students.

Comment 3: Your observations about the research sample, research tool, and process are well-received. We have addressed this concern by providing a more comprehensive description of the research sample, methodology, and data collection process. We have also included a clearer delineation of the characteristics that define Generation Z, while acknowledging the limitations of solely identifying them with students. We have taken steps to ensure that our conclusions are appropriately nuanced and don't overgeneralize the findings.

Comment 4: Your main objection about the lack of focus on sustainable startups and the relationship with green technologies or sustainable development is noted. We have revised our paper to better align with these aspects. The introduction, methodology, and discussion sections now emphasize more the connection to sustainability, with a particular focus on the attitudes and perceptions of Generation Z.

Comment 5: We appreciate your suggestion to explore differences and similarities between Generation Z and other generations. However, due to the limitations of the article's length, there was not enough time to delve deeper into this aspect during the presentation.

Your feedback has played an integral role in refining our paper and steering it towards a more accurate representation of sustainable startups among Generation Z. We sincerely thank you for your valuable insights. If you have any further suggestions or concerns, we would greatly appreciate your continued guidance.

Best regards,

The Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Esteemed Reviewer,

We extend our heartfelt appreciation for dedicating your time to provide us with an extensive and insightful review of our research paper, "Sustainable Startups among Generation Z - Motivations and Uncertainties." Your detailed feedback has proven invaluable in guiding us towards enhancing the quality and impact of our study. We are truly grateful for your thorough assessment and constructive suggestions.

We have carefully considered your points and have taken substantial measures to address your feedback:

1. Clarity and Relevance: We are glad to hear that the manuscript's clarity and relevance were apparent. To enhance the logical structure, we have revised and demarcated the sections more explicitly, providing a clearer delineation between the literature review, methodology, findings, and discussions.

2. References and Citations: Your insight into the relevance of our references to the study's subject matter is well-received. We have taken your suggestion to heart and have included more references that contribute to the novelty and scope of our research. The citations of have been carefully selected based on their direct relevance to the topic and their significance in the field.

3. Scientific Soundness: We acknowledge your point regarding the need for a clearer research question or hypothesis. In response, we have refined our research question to provide greater scientific soundness, contributing to the overall rigor of the study.

4. Reproducibility: We have recognized the need for more comprehensive details on our data collection and analysis methods. To address this concern, we have provided additional information to ensure the reproducibility of our results.

5. Figures/Tables/Images/Schemes: Your feedback about the insufficient figures and tables for presenting results has been duly noted. We have incorporated more tables to better support the presentation of our research findings.

6. Review and Gap in Knowledge: We have taken steps to strengthen our literature review by providing a more comprehensive overview of relevant research and clearly identifying the research questions that our study aims to address.

7. Novelty, Scope, and Significance: We appreciate your recognition of the potential significance of our study. We have worked to expand the scope and novelty of our research, incorporating more references and content that contribute to its overall impact.

8. Quality and Scientific Soundness: To enhance the quality and scientific soundness of our study, we have taken your feedback into consideration and have provided more detailed information about our methods and analyses.

9. Interest to Readers: We are committed to developing the topic further to capture the interest of a broader readership. By addressing the points you've raised and expanding our research, we aim to increase the appeal and impact of our work.

10. Overall Merit: We have refined our manuscript to explicitly outline the contributions of our study to knowledge and to incorporate more references that bolster its academic merit. We have upgraded the methods and approach, embracing both quantitative and qualitative techniques to enhance the robustness of our results.

11. English Level: We are pleased that the English language usage in our paper meets your standards. We have reviewed and refined the text to improve its flow and clarity.

Your extensive review has been instrumental in shaping our revisions, and your thoughtful suggestions have contributed significantly to the advancement of our research paper. We are truly grateful for your time and expertise in providing us with this invaluable feedback.

If you have any further insights, suggestions, or concerns, please do not hesitate to share them. Your continued guidance will be greatly appreciated as we work towards presenting a more refined and impactful research contribution.

Best regards,

The Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The reviewed research paper aims to analyze the motivations and barriers perceived by young people/ students from generation Z to start a new green/sustainable business based on the quantitative and qualitative research. As stated above, the research theme is interesting in the field of social sciences, although several significant improvements regarding the paper are proposed and needed to be considered:

C1:  Regarding the theoretical background of the study, a more detailed review on the extant literature regarding the motivations and barriers to start a new business (a start-up) should be included. Also, the Authors should discuss what kind of linkages have been already studied within the literature, what kind of results were obtained regarding the motivations and barriers, respectively between them and entrepreneurial intentions and behaviours.

C2: One of the main shortcomings of the re-reviewed manuscript concerns the Methods and Materials part, where titles should be numbered for the chapter and following subsections of it as well, because they are numbered chaotic (starts with ”1.4. The background of the research”, followed by ” 1.1. Research methodology”).

C32: Instead of lines 243-250, rather a table should present the home university and the major of the respondents, including some distriibution type statistics as well.

C4: Within the Methods and Materials part, the Authors should include information regarding the source of the used questions for the qualitative study and of the items/scales for the quantitative study.

C5: The Authors should include some references to studies using similar empirical techniques (descriptive, correlations, etc.).

C6: Figures should not be entitles as questions, rather as: Distribution of responses regarding the question ”…?”

C6: The last part of the manuscript has been completed research limitations; however, some future research directions should be added afterwards. Similarly, some managerial/entrepreneurial and policy implications should be encompassed.

 

I hope the above observations will contribute to the improvement of the reviewed manuscript.

Best regards,

  The Reviewer

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough and constructive review of our research paper. Your feedback has been immensely valuable in enhancing the quality and comprehensiveness of our work, and we appreciate your dedication to the peer-review process.

We have carefully considered and addressed each of the specific points you raised:

1. Theoretical Background (C1): We have taken your suggestion to heart and have substantially expanded the theoretical background of the study by incorporating an additional 15 scientific articles related to motivations and barriers in entrepreneurship. This has strengthened the foundation of our research.

2. Methods and Materials (C2): We apologize for the previous disorder in the numbering of chapter titles and subsections. We have rectified this issue, ensuring that the chapter titles and subsections are now numbered sequentially and logically.

3. Presentation of Home University and Major (C32): We have tried to provide a clear and easily understandable overview of the respondents' home university and major.

4. Source of Questions (C4): We have included additional information regarding the sources of the questions used in both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of our study. This includes mentioning the use of an interview guide for the qualitative research and the development of the quantitative survey questionnaire based on the qualitative findings, with a scale ranging from 1 to 5.

5. References to Similar Empirical Techniques (C5): In response to your suggestion, we have included references to studies employing similar empirical techniques, particularly in the research methodology section.

6. Figure Titles (C6): We have revised the figure titles as per your recommendation.

7. Research Limitations, Future Directions, and Implications (C6): We have expanded the last section of the manuscript to encompass research limitations, future research directions, and managerial/entrepreneurial and policy implications, making our article more comprehensive and practical.

We genuinely appreciate your detailed observations, as they have significantly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript. Your commitment to helping us refine our work is commendable, and we believe that these revisions have strengthened our research considerably.

Thank you once again for your time and expertise.

Reviewer 2 Report

the comments on the previous version have been adequately addressed. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable feedback and comments on the previous version of our article. Your insights and suggestions have been instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of our research. We are pleased to hear that you found our responses to your comments satisfactory.

Your continued support and engagement in the peer-review process have been greatly appreciated. With your approval, we are now one step closer to sharing our work with the scientific community. 

Thank you once again for your time and expertise.

Reviewer 3 Report

While some improvements have been made, especially in the methodological aspect, serious flaws remain.

On the methodological issue - which has already been improved, it should be noted that there is no definition of the research subject. The authors do not define what they understand by the term startup or sustainable startup and what they test. One gets the impression that the startup concept is identified with the first phase of economic activity (e.g. Fig. 5).

The research gap has still not been clearly indicated, and the assumed goal does not correspond to the work title. There is still no broader indication of previous achievements in the discussed topic.

 

The title "Sustainable startups among Generation Z - Motivations and uncertainties" still does not correspond to the content - the study (mainly empirical) only slightly concerns "sustainable startups" and does not concern Generation Z, only one part of it - students. It is instead a general study of entrepreneurial attitudes among students and participants in training courses, a study of knowledge about startups.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

We appreciate your thorough and thoughtful review of our manuscript, and your dedication to improving the quality of our research has not gone unnoticed. While we value your continued input, we understand your concerns as well.

Your feedback has been crucial in shaping our work, and we are committed to addressing the issues you've highlighted to further enhance the quality of our article. We want to assure you that we take your suggestions seriously, and we are grateful for your constructive comments.

Regarding the specific points you've raised:

1. Definition of Research Subject: We have taken your feedback to heart and worked to provide a clearer definition of our research subject, particularly in relation to the concepts of startups, sustainable startups, and green startups. We have drawn from both scientific articles and materials from relevant organizations to refine our definitions.

2. Research Gap and Article Goals: We have reevaluated our article's title and revised it to better align with the content. The new title, "Sustainable Aspects of Startups among Generation Z - Motivations and Uncertainties among Students in Higher Education," aims to more accurately represent the focus of our study. We have also made efforts to highlight the significance of our research and clarify our goals within the article.

3. Previous Achievements and Source Citations: We have taken your feedback to heart and expanded our list of sources, incorporating 15 additional references that are directly related to our topic and similar research published in scientific journals, including the journal where we intend to submit our article.

We genuinely appreciate your input, which has played a vital role in improving our work. We hope that these revisions address your concerns and contribute to a more robust and compelling manuscript. We remain open to any further suggestions or feedback you may have.

Thank you for your time and contributions to our research.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

You have made significant changes, accepting my suggestions. Thank you. 

Improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

We would like to extend our heartfelt appreciation for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your expertise and guidance have been invaluable in shaping the direction of our research. We are delighted to hear that the changes we made in response to your suggestions have met your expectations.

With your kind permission to publish, we are eager to share our research with the scientific community, knowing that it has benefited from your insights. 

Thank you once again for your time and expertise.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Currently, a significant improvement is visible. Changing the title made it much better suited to the content. The only reservation I have is that a broader description of the results of previous research (presented here) and their comparison with the research presented in the article would be advisable.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback on our article. We are delighted to hear that the change in the title has improved the alignment with the content.

Regarding your suggestion for a broader description of the results of previous research and their comparison with our article's findings, we want to express our gratitude for this valuable input. We have taken your advice to heart and have expanded the discussion section of the article to include references to relevant studies such as Thoudam et al. (2022), Shinnar et al. (2009), Hameed et al. (2021), and Amankwah and Sesen (2021). In this expanded discussion, we not only reference these works but also provide a detailed comparison with the results of our present research.

Once again, thank you for your insightful comments, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality and comprehensiveness of our article.