CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 52Entrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesUniversity-Industry-Government Innovation ModelsInnovation and Knowledge Management

Connecting entrepreneurial ecosystem and innovation. Grasping at straws or hitting a home run?

Open access
Chaudhary, Sanjay, Kaur, Puneet, Ferraris, Alberto, Bresciani, Stefano, Dhir, Amandeep·2024·Technovation
DOI 10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102942
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Why do some regions continuously exhibit productive entrepreneurship while others stagnate? The entrepreneurial ecosystem and innovation are buzzwords within academic research, representing the cultural, economic, social, and political environment supporting productive entrepreneurship. Scholars have examined the linkage between ecosystems and innovation in the past few years, and there is an agreement that the interaction of entrepreneurial actors, institutions, and cultures facilitates new venture development and productive entrepreneurship. However, despite burgeoning research, the entrepreneurial ecosystem still represents a metaphor lacking clarity. There is little agreement on the causal mechanisms driving the entrepreneurial ecosystem and innovation outcomes as the research at the current stage involves diverse views and is currently fragmented. We present a review of ninety-eight articles to synthesize existing research evidence on entrepreneurial ecosystems by identifying the ecosystem aspects maximizing innovative capacity. The content analysis reveals three predominant themes: (1) the role of universities, (2) the role of entrepreneurial actors, and (3) innovation as an outcome of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. The findings highlight scholarly attention on the interactions between elements of the entrepreneurial ecosystem and reveal the crucial role of entrepreneurial actors as drivers of innovation. We contribute to the prior research by offering an overview of predominant themes and proposing a conceptual framework. Shedding light on the intersection between the entrepreneurial ecosystem and innovation is a potential pathway for future ecosystem research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102942

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Sustainable entrepreneurship differs significantly from traditional entrepreneurship, especially in terms of access to entrepreneurial ecosystem resources and linkages.

    “So far, literature has identified that sustainable entrepreneurship differs significantly from traditional entrepreneurship, especially in terms of access to EE resources and linkages (Chaudhary et al. 2024).”

    From Dynamic Configurations of Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Elements for Blended Value Creation (2025) · cites this paper as Chaudhary et al. 2024

    Section 4.3 (p. 8) discusses linkages between entrepreneurial ecosystems and sustainable business models, and says that actors and resources can support sustainable innovation. Section 6.2 (p. 11) likewise discusses resources for sustainable ventures. Neither passage compares sustainable with traditional entrepreneurship or establishes a significant difference in access to resources and linkages. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 131

  1. Abdelkafi, 2018, Ecopreneurs' creation of user business models for green tech: an exploratory study in e-mobility, Int. J. Entrepreneurial Ventur., 10, 32, 10.1504/IJEV.2018.090978 · DOI
  2. Acs, 2013, The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship, Small Bus. Econ., 41, 757, 10.1007/s11187-013-9505-9 · DOI
  3. Acs, 2014, National systems of entrepreneurship: measurement issues and policy implications, Res. Pol., 43, 476, 10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.016 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Acs, 2017, The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach, Small Bus. Econ., 49, 1, 10.1007/s11187-017-9864-8 · DOI
  5. Adner, 2006, Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem, Harv. Bus. Rev., 84, 98
  6. Adner, 2017, Ecosystem as structure: an actionable construct for strategy, J. Manag., 43, 39
  7. Adner, 2010, Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations, Strat. Manag. J., 31, 306, 10.1002/smj.821 · DOI
  8. Aman, 2021, Interestingly it's innovation: reviewing sustainability performance management in the base of the pyramid (BoP), Technovation, 112
  9. Audretsch, 2019, Entrepreneurial ecosystems: economic, technological, and societal impacts, J. Technol. Tran., 44, 313, 10.1007/s10961-018-9690-4 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Autio, 2014, Entrepreneurial innovation: the importance of context, Res. Pol., 43, 1097, 10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.015 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Autio, 2018, Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems, Strateg. Entrep. J., 12, 72, 10.1002/sej.1266 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Belz, 2017, Sustainable entrepreneurship: a convergent process model, Bus. Strat. Environ., 26, 1, 10.1002/bse.1887 · DOI
  13. Berman, 2021, Innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems: fintech in the financial services industry, Review of Managerial Science, 1
  14. Bouncken, 2021, Entrepreneurial ecosystems in an interconnected world: emergence, governance and digitalization, Review of Managerial Science, 16
  15. Brem, 2017, Efficient Triple Helix collaboration fostering local niche innovation projects–A case from Denmark, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 123, 130, 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.01.002 · DOI
  16. Brown, 2014, Inside the high-tech black box: a critique of technology entrepreneurship policy, Technovation, 34, 773, 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.07.013 · DOI
  17. Brown, 2017, Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems, Small Bus. Econ., 49, 11, 10.1007/s11187-017-9865-7 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Calabrò, 2019, Innovation in family firms: a systematic literature review and guidance for future research, Int. J. Manag. Rev., 21, 317, 10.1111/ijmr.12192 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Canh, 2021, Entrepreneurship and natural resource rents: evidence from excessive entrepreneurial activity, Sustain. Prod. Consum., 25, 15, 10.1016/j.spc.2020.07.010 · DOI
  20. Cao, 2020, A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial ecosystems in advanced and emerging economies, Small Bus. Econ., 57, 75, 10.1007/s11187-020-00326-y · DOI
  21. Carayannis, 2009, 'Mode 3'and'Quadruple Helix': toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem, Int. J. Technol. Manag., 46, 201, 10.1504/IJTM.2009.023374 · DOI
  22. Carayannis, 2018, The ecosystem as helix: an exploratory theory‐building study of regional co‐opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as Quadruple/Quintuple Helix Innovation Models, R&D Management, 48, 148, 10.1111/radm.12300 · DOI
  23. Cavallo, 2019, Entrepreneurial ecosystem research: present debates and future directions, Int. Enterpren. Manag. J., 15, 1291
  24. Chaudhary, 2022, Way off the mark? Open innovation failures: decoding what really matters to chart the future course of action, J. Bus. Res., 142, 1010, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.062 · DOI
  25. Chauhan, 2022, Linking circular economy and digitalisation technologies: a systematic literature review of past achievements and future promises, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 177, 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121508 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Cho, 2021, Evolutionary entrepreneurial ecosystems: a research pathway, Small Bus. Econ., 58, 1865, 10.1007/s11187-021-00487-4 · DOI
  27. Christofi, 2015, Innovation and cause-related marketing success: a conceptual framework and propositions, J. Serv. Market., 29, 354, 10.1108/JSM-04-2014-0114 · DOI
  28. Christofi, 2017, Marketing research on mergers and acquisitions: a systematic review and future directions, Int. Market. Rev., 34, 629, 10.1108/IMR-03-2015-0100 · DOI
  29. Christofi, 2021, Agility and flexibility in international business research: a comprehensive review and future research directions, J. World Bus., 55
  30. Christofi, 2021, Micro-foundational ambidexterity and multinational enterprises: a systematic review and a conceptual framework, Int. Bus. Rev., 30, 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101625 · DOI
  31. Civera, 2019, Do academic spinoffs internationalize?, J. Technol. Tran., 44, 381, 10.1007/s10961-018-9683-3 · DOI
  32. Cohen, 2006, Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems, Bus. Strat. Environ., 15, 1, 10.1002/bse.428 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Cooke, 2001, Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy, Ind. Corp. Change, 10, 945, 10.1093/icc/10.4.945 · DOI
  34. Cooke, 1997, Regional innovation systems: institutional and organisational dimensions, Res. Pol., 26, 475, 10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00025-5 · DOI
  35. De Brito, 2021, Mapping and defining entrepreneurial ecosystems: a systematic literature review, Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract., 19, 21, 10.1080/14778238.2020.1751571 · DOI
  36. Dedehayir, 2018, Roles during innovation ecosystem genesis: a literature review, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 136, 18, 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.028 · DOI
  37. Doblinger, 2019, Governments as partners: the role of alliances in US cleantech startup innovation, Res. Pol., 48, 1458, 10.1016/j.respol.2019.02.006 · DOI
  38. du Plessis, 2004, Knowledge management in eBusiness and customer relationship management: South African case study findings, Int. J. Inf. Manag., 24, 73
  39. Duarte, 2021, Innovation Ecosystem framework directed to Sustainable Development Goal #17 partnerships implementation, Sustainable Development, 29, 1018, 10.1002/sd.2191 · DOI
  40. Elia, 2020, Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem: How digital technologies and collective intelligence are reshaping the entrepreneurial process, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150, 119791, 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119791 · DOI
  41. Endres, 2022, Digital innovation management for entrepreneurial ecosystems: services and functionalities as drivers of innovation management software adoption, Review of Managerial Science, 16, 135, 10.1007/s11846-021-00441-4 · DOI
  42. Feldman, 2019, New developments in innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems, Ind. Corp. Change, 28, 817, 10.1093/icc/dtz031 · DOI
  43. Ferreira, 2017, Knowledge spillover-based strategic entrepreneurship, Int. Enterpren. Manag. J., 13, 161
  44. Fichter, 2009, Innovation communities: the role of networks of promotors in Open Innovation, R&D Management, 39, 357, 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00562.x · DOI
  45. Fichter, 2016, Diffusion dynamics of sustainable innovation-insights on diffusion patterns based on the analysis of 100 sustainable product and service innovations, Journal of Innovation Management, 4, 30, 10.24840/2183-0606_004.002_0004 · DOI
  46. Fritsch, 2013, New business formation and regional development: a survey and assessment of the evidence, Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 9, 249, 10.1561/0300000043 · DOI
  47. Fudickar, 2018, What's the price of academic consulting? Effects of public and private sector consulting on academic research, Ind. Corp. Change, 27, 699, 10.1093/icc/dty007 · DOI
  48. Goswami, 2018, Accelerator expertise: understanding the intermediary role of accelerators in the development of the Bangalore entrepreneurial ecosystem, Strateg. Entrep. J., 12, 117, 10.1002/sej.1281 · DOI
  49. Granstrand, 2020, Innovation ecosystems: a conceptual review and a new definition, Technovation, 90, 91
  50. Grimaldi, 2011, 30 years after bayh–dole: reassessing academic entrepreneurship, Res. Pol., 40, 1045, 10.1016/j.respol.2011.04.005 · DOI
  51. Hakala, 2020, Re-storying the business, innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem concepts: the model-narrative review method, Int. J. Manag. Rev., 22, 10, 10.1111/ijmr.12212 · DOI
  52. Halbinger, 2020, The relevance of makerspaces for university-based venture development organizations, Enterpren. Res. J., 10
  53. Heaton, 2019, Universities and innovation ecosystems: a dynamic capabilities perspective, Ind. Corp. Change, 28, 921, 10.1093/icc/dtz038 · DOI
  54. Hernández-Chea, 2021, Moving beyond intermediation: how intermediary organizations shape collaboration dynamics in entrepreneurial ecosystems, Technovation, 108, 10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102332 · DOI
  55. Hu, 2020, Radical innovation in family firms: a systematic analysis and research agenda, Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res., 26, 1199, 10.1108/IJEBR-11-2019-0658 · DOI
  56. Huang-Saad, 2018, Technology and talent: capturing the role of universities in regional entrepreneurial ecosystems, J. Enterprising Communities People Places Glob. Econ., 12, 92
  57. Huggins, 2011, Entrepreneurship and regional competitiveness: the role and progression of policy, Enterpren. Reg. Dev., 23, 907, 10.1080/08985626.2011.577818 · DOI
  58. Igwe, 2020, How entrepreneurship ecosystem influences the development of frugal innovation and informal entrepreneurship, Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev., 62, 475, 10.1002/tie.22157 · DOI
  59. Isenberg, 2010, How to start an entrepreneurial revolution, Harv. Bus. Rev., 88, 40
  60. Jarchow, 2018, Patent-based investment funds: from invention to innovation, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44, 404, 10.1007/s10961-018-9691-3 · DOI
  61. Kamalaldin, 2021, Configuring ecosystem strategies for digitally enabled process innovation: a framework for equipment suppliers in the process industries, Technovation, 105, 10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102250 · DOI
  62. Kansheba, 2020, Small business and entrepreneurship in Africa: the nexus of entrepreneurial ecosystems and productive entrepreneurship, Small Enterprise Research, 27, 110, 10.1080/13215906.2020.1761869 · DOI
  63. Kansheba, 2020, Entrepreneurial ecosystems: a systematic literature review and research agenda, J. Small Bus. Enterprise Dev., 27, 943, 10.1108/JSBED-11-2019-0364 · DOI
  64. Kaur, 2020, An innovation resistance theory perspective on mobile payment solutions, J. Retailing Consum. Serv., 55, 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102059 · DOI · Paper page
  65. Kaur, 2020, Systematic literature review of food waste in educational institutions: setting the research agenda, Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag., 33, 1160, 10.1108/IJCHM-07-2020-0672 · DOI
  66. Khan, 2021, Past, present, and future of green product innovation, Bus. Strat. Environ., 30, 4081, 10.1002/bse.2858 · DOI
  67. Khanra, 2020, Big data analytics and enterprises : a bibliometric synthesis of the literature, Enterprise Inf. Syst., 14, 737, 10.1080/17517575.2020.1734241 · DOI
  68. Kraus, 2020, The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research, Int. Enterpren. Manag. J., 16, 1023
  69. Kraus, 2022, Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice, Review of Managerial Science, 16, 2577, 10.1007/s11846-022-00588-8 · DOI
  70. Krugman, 1991, Increasing returns and economic geography, J. Polit. Econ., 99, 483, 10.1086/261763 · DOI
  71. Leendertse, 2022, Measure twice, cut once: entrepreneurial ecosystem metrics, Res. Pol., 51, 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104336 · DOI · Paper page
  72. Leonidou, 2018, International marketing research: a state-of-the-art review and the way forward, Advances in Global Marketing: A Research Anthology, 3, 10.1007/978-3-319-61385-7_1 · DOI
  73. Leydesdorff, 1998, The triple helix as a model for innovation studies, Sci. Publ. Pol., 25, 195
  74. Li, 2017, Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem as a new form of organizing: the case of Zhongguancun, Front. Bus. Res. China, 11, 1, 10.1186/s11782-017-0004-8 · DOI
  75. Lo, 2021, The influence of alliance ambidexterity on innovation performance and the moderating role of firm age, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., 68, 418, 10.1109/TEM.2020.3022465 · DOI
  76. Mack, 2016, The evolutionary dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems, Urban Stud., 53, 2118, 10.1177/0042098015586547 · DOI
  77. Madanaguli, 2022, The innovation ecosystem in rural tourism and hospitality – a systematic review of innovation in rural tourism, J. Knowl. Manag., 26, 1732, 10.1108/JKM-01-2021-0050 · DOI
  78. Mariani, 2021, Corporate social responsibility in family firms: a systematic literature review, J. Small Bus. Manag., 00, 1
  79. Maroufkhani, 2018, Entrepreneurial ecosystems: a systematic review, Journal of Enterprising Communities, 12, 545, 10.1108/JEC-03-2017-0025 · DOI · Paper page
  80. Mason, 2013, Creating good public policy to support high-growth firms, Small Bus. Econ., 40, 211, 10.1007/s11187-011-9369-9 · DOI
  81. Mei, 2019, Exploring the effects of inter-firm linkages on SMSMEs'pen innovation from an ecosystem perspective: an empirical study of Chinese manufacturing SMEs, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 144, 118, 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.04.010 · DOI
  82. Moore, 1993, Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition, Harv. Bus. Rev., 71, 75
  83. Moya-Clemente, 2020, Configurations of sustainable development goals that promote sustainable entrepreneurship over time, Sustain. Dev., 28, 572, 10.1002/sd.2009 · DOI
  84. Nofal, 2018, Biology and management: a review, critique, and research agenda, J. Manag., 44, 7
  85. Ozdemir, 2022, Supply chain resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic, Technol. Soc., 68, 10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101847 · DOI
  86. Pitelis, 2012, Clusters, entrepreneurial ecosystem co-creation, and appropriability: a conceptual framework, Ind. Corp. Change, 21, 1359, 10.1093/icc/dts008 · DOI · Paper page
  87. Pittaway, 2007, Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence, Int. Small Bus. J., 25, 479, 10.1177/0266242607080656 · DOI · Paper page
  88. Pittz, 2019, Collaborating smartly: the role of open strategy in absorptive capacity, J. Small Bus. Manag., 57, 1595, 10.1111/jsbm.12430 · DOI
  89. Porter, 1996, Competitive advantage, agglomeration economies, and regional policy, Int. Reg. Sci. Rev., 19, 85, 10.1177/016001769601900208 · DOI
  90. Pustovrh, 2020, The role of open innovation in developing an entrepreneurial support ecosystem, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 152, 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119892 · DOI · Paper page
  91. Qian, 2013, Regional systems of entrepreneurship: the nexus of human capital, knowledge and new firm formation, J. Econ. Geogr., 13, 559, 10.1093/jeg/lbs009 · DOI
  92. Radziwon, 2019, Open innovation in SMEs: exploring inter-organizational relationships in an ecosystem, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 146, 573, 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.021 · DOI
  93. Raposo, 2022, We dreamed a dream that entrepreneurial ecosystems can promote sustainability, Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J., 33, 86, 10.1108/MEQ-01-2021-0010 · DOI
  94. Rashid, 2020, Entrepreneurial ecosystems during COVID-19: the survival of small businesses using dynamic capabilities, World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 17, 457
  95. Ritala, 2018, Q&A. Innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem research: where are we now and how do we move forward?, Technology Innovation Management Review, 8, 52, 10.22215/timreview/1171 · DOI
  96. Sarpong, 2017, Organizing practices of university, industry and government that facilitate (or impede) the transition to a hybrid triple helix model of innovation, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 123, 142, 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.032 · DOI
  97. Schaeffer, 2016, Development of academic entrepreneurship in a non-mature context: the role of the university as a hub-organisation, Enterpren. Reg. Dev., 28, 724, 10.1080/08985626.2016.1247915 · DOI · Paper page
  98. Schwab, 2019, A new methodological frontier in entrepreneurship research: big data studies, Entrep. Theory Pract., 43, 843, 10.1177/1042258718760841 · DOI
  99. Secundo, 2020, Sustainable development, intellectual capital and technology policies: a structured literature review and future research agenda, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 153, 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119917 · DOI
  100. Shane, 2000, The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research, Acad. Manag. Rev., 25, 217
  101. Shipilov, 2020, Integrating research on interorganizational networks and ecosystems, Acad. Manag. Ann., 14, 92, 10.5465/annals.2018.0121 · DOI
  102. Song, 2019, The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem—a critique and reconfiguration, Small Bus. Econ., 53, 569, 10.1007/s11187-019-00232-y · DOI
  103. Song, 2021, The digital transformation of a traditional market into an entrepreneurial ecosystem, Review of Managerial Science, 1
  104. Spigel, 2017, The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems, Entrep. Theory Pract., 41, 49, 10.1111/etap.12167 · DOI · Paper page
  105. Stam, 2015, Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique, Eur. Plann. Stud., 23, 1759, 10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484 · DOI · Paper page
  106. Stam, 2021, Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements, Small Bus. Econ., 56, 809, 10.1007/s11187-019-00270-6 · DOI
  107. Stephens, 2019, Austin, Boston, Silicon Valley, and New York: Case studies in the location choices of entrepreneurs in maintaining the technopolis, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 146, 267, 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.030 · DOI · Paper page
  108. Suchek, 2021, Innovation and the circular economy: a systematic literature review, Bus. Strat. Environ., 30, 3686, 10.1002/bse.2834 · DOI
  109. Sussan, 2017, The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem, Small Bus. Econ., 49, 55, 10.1007/s11187-017-9867-5 · DOI
  110. Szerb, 2019, The relevance of quantity and quality entrepreneurship for regional performance: the moderating role of the entrepreneurial ecosystem, Reg. Stud., 53, 1308, 10.1080/00343404.2018.1510481 · DOI · Paper page
  111. Talwar, 2020, Consumers' resistance to digital innovations: a systematic review and framework development, Australas. Market J., 28, 286, 10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.06.014 · DOI
  112. Talwar, 2021, Big Data in operations and supply chain management: a systematic literature review and future research agenda, Int. J. Prod. Res., 59, 3509, 10.1080/00207543.2020.1868599 · DOI
  113. Talwar, 2021, Why have consumers opposed, postponed, and rejected innovations during a pandemic? A study of mobile payment innovations, Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 25, 1, 10.3127/ajis.v25i0.3201 · DOI
  114. Theodoraki, 2017, Exploring the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the field of entrepreneurial support: a multi-level approach, Int. J. Enterpren. Small Bus., 31, 47
  115. Theodoraki, 2018, A social capital approach to the development of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems: an explorative study, Small Bus. Econ., 51, 153, 10.1007/s11187-017-9924-0 · DOI
  116. Thompson, 2018, How entrepreneurial ecosystems take form: evidence from social impact initiatives in Seattle, Strateg. Entrep. J., 12, 96, 10.1002/sej.1285 · DOI · Paper page
  117. Tilson, 2010, Research commentary—digital infrastructures: the missing IS research agenda, Inf. Syst. Res., 21, 748, 10.1287/isre.1100.0318 · DOI · Paper page
  118. Torres, 2022, Levels of necessity of entrepreneurial ecosystems elements, Small Bus. Econ., 59, 29, 10.1007/s11187-021-00515-3 · DOI
  119. Tranfield, 2003, Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review, Br. J. Manag., 14, 207, 10.1111/1467-8551.00375 · DOI · Paper page
  120. Usman, 2017, How start-ups successfully organize and manage open innovation with large companies, Eur. J. Innovat. Manag., 20, 171, 10.1108/EJIM-07-2016-0066 · DOI
  121. Van De Ven, 1993, The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship, J. Bus. Ventur., 8, 211, 10.1016/0883-9026(93)90028-4 · DOI
  122. van Weele, 2018, Start-EU-up! Lessons from international incubation practices to address the challenges faced by Western European start-ups, J. Technol. Tran., 43, 1161, 10.1007/s10961-016-9538-8 · DOI
  123. Vedula, 2019, Gimme shelter or fade away: the impact of regional entrepreneurial ecosystem quality on venture survival, Ind. Corp. Change, 28, 827, 10.1093/icc/dtz032 · DOI
  124. Wagner, 2021, University-linked programmes for sustainable entrepreneurship and regional development: how and with what impact?, Small Bus. Econ., 56, 1141, 10.1007/s11187-019-00280-4 · DOI
  125. Wang, 2009, Community learning in information Technology innovation, Management Information Systems Quarterly, 33, 709, 10.2307/20650324 · DOI
  126. Wibisono, 2023, The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem in the European Union: evidence from the digital platform economy index, Eur. Plann. Stud., 31, 1270, 10.1080/09654313.2023.2202683 · DOI
  127. Williams, 2019, Applying experimental methods to advance entrepreneurship research: on the need for and publication of experiments, J. Bus. Ventur., 34, 215, 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.12.003 · DOI
  128. Witell, 2016, Defining service innovation: a review and synthesis, J. Bus. Res., 69, 2863, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.055 · DOI
  129. Xie, 2021, Entrepreneurial ecosystem and the quality and quantity of regional entrepreneurship: a configurational approach, J. Bus. Res., 128, 499, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.015 · DOI
  130. Yi, 2021, Knowledge spillover, knowledge management capabilities, and innovation among returnee entrepreneurial firms in emerging markets: does entrepreneurial ecosystem matter?, J. Bus. Res., 130, 283, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.024 · DOI
  131. Zahra, 2007, Contextualizing theory building in entrepreneurship research, J. Bus. Ventur., 22, 443, 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.04.007 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chaudhary, S., Kaur, P., Ferraris, A., Bresciani, S., & Dhir, A.
Affiliations
  • O. P. Jindal Global University (IN)
  • Jaipuria Institute of Management (IN)
  • Ural Federal University (RU)
  • VSB - Technical University of Ostrava (CZ)
  • University of Agder (NO)
Corresponding author
Ferraris, Alberto
ORCID
Venue
Technovation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-02
Volume
130
Pages
102942
ISSN
0166-4972 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102942
OpenAlex
W4389802938
Cited by
52
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1
FWCI
12.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Technovation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Entrepreneurship Studies and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › University-Industry-Government Innovation Models
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
Keywords
entrepreneurial ecosystems, innovation, productive entrepreneurship, university-industry interaction, entrepreneurs, entrepreneurial culture, institutional environment, startups, regional entrepreneurship, conceptual framework

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review