Literature Review

The Relationship between FIIB Business Review

1–15
2023 Fortune Institute of
Entrepreneurial Ecosystems International Business
Article reuse guidelines:
and Digital Transformation in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/23197145231173850
journals.sagepub.com/home/fib

Jaiandra da Silva Guimarães1, Cristina Fernandes1,2, Pedro Mota Veiga3

and Veland Ramadani4

Abstract
Given the growing importance of digital transformation, on the one hand, and the recognized importance of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
(EE) on the other, we find that these are two fragmented fields in the literature and that they lack a systematization of the literature. Our
research aims to develop a systematic literature review, in which we will study the relationship between entrepreneurial ecosystems
and digital transformation, at the micro, meso and macro levels. For this, we used the Web of Science to collect our database, and
we analysed 73 articles that were included in our study for their purpose. In our analysis, we were able to identify the characteristics
of the environments of entrepreneurial ecosystems, the actions of digital technology approaches to digital transformation and the
necessary skills in the scenario of entrepreneurship. Thus, we proposed a conceptual model with the presentation of the relationship
between entrepreneurial ecosystems and digital transformation, which may be useful in future studies. The greatest contribution of our
investigation is the offer of this systematization to this field of study, allowing us to see the different paths of investigation.

Keywords
Digital transformation, entrepreneurial ecosystem, systematic literature review, conceptual model

Introduction positive benefits to stakeholders. It involves revolutionizing

sectors by impacting business models and driving global
In the digital economy, defined by the dissemination of development (Denicolai & Previtali, 2020). The contrast to
information, commercial content on the internet and this scenario is entrepreneurial organizations that often fail
relationships through social networks are the entrepreneurial to achieve financial viability due to the initial design of the
ecosystems, which consist of active institutions and business model and the inability to evolve over time
articulations for economic performance (Kehinde et al., (Khuntia et al., 2017). This conjuncture may be due to the
2022; Mas & Gómez, 2021). It is a scenario of spatial findings of Pereira et al. (2022), where many managers
structure organized by relationships between economic are still unaware of technological concepts and use in the
entities, which includes technologies, products, trade, operating environment. Thus, the digital era, by bringing
creation and use of information (Sokolov et al., 2021). as a critical factor the learning capacity and adaptation
The entrepreneurial ecosystem is compared to the natural (Gianluca et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2022; Morris &
ecosystem; simultaneously, the latter needs propitious König, 2021), stimulates the development of digital
means for reproduction, while the former needs resources capabilities, a challenge for certain organizations in
present in different and interactive environments. Madichie view of the formation of their identity (Keller et al., 2022;
et al. (2021) highlight the importance of partnerships Narula et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022a, 2022b). In this
between the actors of the different environments of context, digital transformation acts for the entrepreneurial
entrepreneurial ecosystems as a critical condition to ensure ecosystems as a disruption tool by driving innovation

1 Universidade da Beira Interior & NECE Research Unit in Business Sciences, Covilhã, Beira Baixa, Portugal
2 Centre for Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, UK
3 Escola Superior de Educação de Viseu – Instituto Politécnico de Viseu e Universidade Católica Portuguesa & NECE Research Unit, Covilhã, Beira

Baixa, Portugal
4 Faculty of Business and Economics, South-East European University, Tetovo, North Macedonia

Corresponding author:
Veland Ramadani, Faculty of Business and Economics, South-East European University, Tetovo, Tetovo 1200, North Macedonia.
E-mail: [email protected]
2 FIIB Business Review

using new business models and integrating digital digital transformation, no literature review addresses the
technologies into the organizational processes. The direct relationship between these components. In this
conception of technology in entrepreneurial ecosystems regard, and as advocated by O’Kane et al. (2020), an EE is
escapes the specificity and is relational, as a process of composed of several layers that coexist and evolve
practical and technological arrangements (Bejjani et al., simultaneously; Theodoraki and Messeghem (2017) use
2023; Lanamäki et al., 2020), which promote opportunities, the macro level to describe the EE, the meso level to
risks and competitive advantages (Proskurnina et al., 2021; describe the ecosystem supporting entrepreneurship and
Ramadani et al., 2022). That is why Garcez et al. (2022a, the micro level to describe the business incubator. From
2022b) state that in the changes in the process of interaction these considerations, we infer that there may be several
between organizations and the actors involved, digital models of EE, depending precisely on the characteristics
transformation is relevant, especially in entrepreneurship. of the environment where each ecosystem is inserted.
Digital transformation affects socioeconomic systems Thus, this study aims to conduct a systematic literature
with changes in business processes, resource demand, review (SLR), identifying more comprehensively the
communication in entrepreneurial activities (Satalkina & relationship between entrepreneurial ecosystems and digital
Steiner, 2020), knowledge exchanges and objectives and transformation at micro, meso and macro levels, based on
values integration. the definition of Theodoraki and Messeghem (2017).
When analysing the literature, we observe the rise in the The contributions of this study in academic terms lie in
development of reviews that portray individually and presenting characteristics, behaviours and competencies
specifically the elements of this interaction, such as related to the actors of the entrepreneurial ecosystem to
innovation, technologies, business models, entrepreneurship optimize the use of the digital transformation and the
and digitalization. For instance, the review by Vaska et al. organizational results (Alomar, 2023). In the organizational
(2021)looks at the development of digital transformation sense, it contributes so that managers can identify necessary
and the impact of technologies on business innovation. skills and facilitating tools related to digital technology,
Whereas Švarc (2021) aims to provide a framework for which leads to improvements in production, communication,
exploring digital innovation, Strazzullo et al. (2022) seek activity flows and internal and external relationships of
how 4.0 technologies support open innovation, and the organization. In the social aspect, this awakens the
Tarabasz et al. (2018) delve into skills for managers importance of interactions between society’s actors, which
involving technology. In the field of entrepreneurship, translates into benefits regarding cost reduction, well-being
we highlight two reviews by Garcez et al. (2022a, 2022b) and growth at a collective level.
that examine, respectively, technical skills based on
digital transformation and the proposal of a framework
for the link between digital transformation and Methodology
entrepreneurship. Jardim (2021), meanwhile, aims to To achieve the objective of this review, the procedures
systematize entrepreneurial skills considering digital were used according to Kraus et al (2022), which involve
transformation, and Secundo et al. (2020) review the research question and protocol, inclusion and exclusion
academic entrepreneurship literature according to the criteria, research strategies and selection, article evaluation,
emergence of digital technologies. In this same perspective, data extraction and synthesis, and dissemination of results.
Gorelova et al. (2021) address the interconnection between
digital entrepreneurship and smart cities, and Morris and
Planning the Review
König (2021) present the purpose of arguing that the
digital era marks transformations in entrepreneurship. In To identify, evaluate, interpret and synthesize the results on
turn, De Bernardi et al. (2021) intend the comparative the influence of digital transformation in entrepreneurial
network analysis of the conceptual framework of social ecosystems, the SLR was the approach used to conduct this
entrepreneurship at academic and non-academic levels. In study (Rana et al., 2022). For Siddaway et al. (2019), the
the context of business models, Trischler and Li-Ying’s SLR matches an investigation of systematic and predefined
(2022) review aims to outline the basis of the digital methods to identify the relevant documents on a topic,
business model concept attributes, and Soltysova and being the articles evaluated, the data extracted and
Modrak (2020) intend to categorize business models based the results summarized, which allows a reliable review
on the sharing economy with the help of literature. In the through planned steps according to an established protocol.
aspect of digitalization, Ferraro and Cristiano (2021) Available WEB sources were used through a process that
explore evolutionary scenarios of family businesses in involved searches formed by keywords in an indexed
the age of digitalization and Haefner and Sternberg electronic base, being considered the strings (preferably
(2020) aim to focus on the implications of digitalization found in titles, abstracts and keywords) and the inclusion
on economic geography. Thus, even in the face of the and exclusion criteria for the acceptance and rejection
inseparability between the entrepreneurial ecosystem and of articles. The selection of the articles presented the stages
Guimarães et al. 3

of reading the titles, analysis of the abstracts and, if abstract or keywords: Refined by: ‘digital transformation’
considered relevant, the selection of the work for reading (Topic) and ‘entrepreneur*’ (Topic) and ‘*system*’ in
in full. After reading in full, a data extraction form October 2022.
was developed with the information: bibliographic data, When conducting the choice of articles, the inclusion
abstracts and a summary of the articles, for understanding criteria established were the studies that addressed
and conclusions about the study. The Web of Science entrepreneurial ecosystems and their relationship with
TM Core Collection database was used for selecting digital transformation. The exclusion criterion for reading
sources, as it presents a significant number of titles and the documents that we have in the database was due to the
thus provides a comprehensive scenario of the research fact that its objective does not respond to the relationship
production (Hu et al., 2019). In this database, we chose the that we intend to systematize, entrepreneurial ecosystems
document type articles, review articles and early access and digital transformation, thus 73 articles were found. The
articles; the English language and no limitation regarding search triage is illustrated in Figure 1.
subarea, journal and year. As per Table 1, the articles included in this study present
To identify relevant studies, research was developed a total of 200 authors, of which 7 articles were published
using the following expressions present in the title, by one author and 66 articles as part of a co-authorship.

Figure 1.  Data Selection Process.

4 FIIB Business Review

Table 1.  Summary of the Articles Included in the Study. associations that support entrepreneurship). At the micro
level, we find the entrepreneurial ecosystem environment
Description Results
with business developers who must present the profiles
Documents 73 of bravery, determination, overcoming and focus on
Sources (magazines, books, etc.) 52 management capacity. The meso level comprises the
Keywords plus (ID) 434
entrepreneurial ecosystem environment formed by a
Author’s keywords (DE) 436
Period 2017–2022
relationship that encompasses qualified people, partnerships
The average number of citations per document 75.3 and development. The entrepreneurial ecosystem environment
Authors 200 and the external conditions that encourage entrepreneurship
Authors of single-author documents 7 at the macro level, such as quality of life, local infrastructure,
Authors of multi-author documents 66 public policies, and fiscal and tax incentives.
Authors by document 2,7

Results
This part of the review is structured in a descriptive
Method analysis, with the characteristics of the articles included in
To understand the relationship between entrepreneurial this study, followed by a content analysis, which allowed
ecosystems and digital transformation, the SLR the identification of clusters, the designation of themes and
methodology is used. During the systematic review, an the development of a textual structure.
inductive ontological analysis of articles is used.
Greenhalgh (1997) argued that an SLR is an overview of
Descriptive Analysis
the main studies containing an explicit statement of
objectives, materials and methods that were conducted According to Figure 2, from the year 2020, the theme
according to an explicit and reproducible methodology. To presented a significant evolution in the number of
perform this method, we followed the protocols suggested publications and citations, with a total of 66 articles and
by Thorpe et al. (2005) and Tranfield et al. (2003). In the 5,152 citations, representing about 90% of the studies in
ontological analysis, we followed the methods of Andreini the analysis and 94% of all citations.
et al. (2019) and Jones et al. (2011). This analysis is Table 2 shows 10 articles with the highest number of
obtained by inductively reading and rereading the articles citations. Two articles present the same and a higher
while interacting with them in cycles to identify and number of citations (152), published in 2021 and authored
categorize concordant themes that ensure consistency by Sternberg (2021) and De Bernardi et al. (2021). The
within and between the categories of these themes other most cited studies are Ritala et al. (2021) (146
(Andreini et al., 2019; Jones et al., 2011). We limited the citations), Jardim (2021) (131 citations), Satalkina and
review to articles published in peer-review journals because Steiner (2020) (126 citations), Trischler and Li-Ying
they are a validated source of knowledge and have a strong (2022) (123 citations) and Soluk and Kammerlander (2021)
impact on the research field (Ordanini et al., 2008). To (120 citations).
identify the articles, we applied three search strategies According to Table 3, to structure the study on
whose objective was to be able to increase the number of entrepreneurial ecosystems, articles were organized
papers. The final database was composed of 73 articles. according to the countries in which they were developed.
Based on the SLR and ontological analysis of the 73 The country with the largest number of publications is Italy
selected articles, they were grouped using two criteria. First, (16 articles), followed by Germany (11 articles), England
we distinguished the papers based on whether the main (9 articles), Russia (7 articles) and the USA (6 articles).
focus of the empirical research was the relationship between
entrepreneurial ecosystems and digital transformation or
Content Analysis
whether they were SLRs. Second, we categorized the
papers based on their level of analysis, distinguished by For the development of this analysis, 73 articles were used,
micro, meso and macro levels. with a total of 5,497 cited references. According to the
As already mentioned, in this SLR, we used mixed analysis, a total of three clusters are observed, grouped
methods and created a mapping structure that includes by authors, according to the study objective (Table 4),
different but aggregated levels: micro (composed of studies which allowed the identification of differences and
that address the entrepreneur and his/her business), meso aspects and favoured the following designations: (a) the
(composed of studies that investigate about agents of macro-environment of the entrepreneurial ecosystem,
change for entrepreneurship, such as universities, (b) the meso-environment of the entrepreneurial ecosystem
innovation centres and technology parks) and macro and (c) the micro-environment of the entrepreneurial
(composed of studies about governments, investors and ecosystem.
Guimarães et al. 5

Figure 2.  Number of Articles and Citations Per Year.

Table 2.  Top 10 Articles with the Highest Number of Table 3.  List of Countries with the Most Articles.
Citations.
Countries Articles
Articles A Quote From
Italy 16
Sternberg (2021) 152 Germany 11
De Bernardi et al. (2021) 152 England 9
Ritala et al. (2021) 146 Russia 7
Jardim (2021) 131 USA 6
Satalkina and Steiner (2020) 126 Austria 5
Trischler and Li-Ying (2022) 123 China 4
Soluk and Kammerlander (2021) 120
Portugal 4
Dressler and Paunovic (2020) 120
Canada 3
Haefner and Sternberg (2020) 120
Denmark 3
Castagna et al. (2020) 114

Cluster 1. Macro-environment of Entrepreneurial these interactions include investors, associations and

Ecosystem (n = 33) governments, and actors in the macro-environment of
In the dynamic organizational context, which requires an the entrepreneurial ecosystem, for the promotion of
innovative orientation in business (Shtal et al., 2021), entrepreneurship through security, infrastructure, policies
the entrepreneurial ecosystem acts for innovation and and incentives. Against this background, government
growth. It is a network that includes the creative sector, policy has recently paid much more attention to
telecommunication services, e-business, remote services entrepreneurship than in the past, for example, related to
and the like (Sokolov et al., 2021). One notices a set the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach (Sternberg, 2021).
of institutions that play an active role in the rules defined Government initiatives aim to improve the engagement
in the industry, in the social ecosystem and in articulating between various actors in the planning system, such as
policies for the generation of work (Mas & Gómez, 2021). urban, local authorities and central government, with
Thus, industries worldwide have been impacted by technology startups and digital entrepreneurs (Devlin
the remarkable transformation in processes, roles and & Coaffee, 2021). Government policies suitable for
interactions (Cennamo et al., 2020). The elements of digital process management contribute to the role of
6 FIIB Business Review

Table 4.  Content Analysis Clusters.

References Clusters
Candelo et al. (2022), Castagna et al. (2020), Cennamo et al. (2020), Devlin and Cluster 1 (n = 33)
Coaffee (2021), Di Giulio and Vecchi (2022), Dressler and Paunovic (2020), Garzoni The macro-environment of the
et al. (2020), Gorelova et al. (2021), Gupta and Bose (2022), Haefner and Sternberg entrepreneurial ecosystem
(2020), Heng et al. (2022), Hinings et al. (2018), Keller et al. (2022), Kraus and
Marchenko (2021), Madichie et al. (2021), Markova et al. (2021), Mas and Gómez
(2021), Proskurnina et al. (2021), Rossi et al. (2020), Satalkina and Steiner (2020),
Shtal et al. (2021), Sobczak (2021), Sokolov et al. (2021), Song et al. (2022),
Sternberg (2021), Strazzullo et al. (2022), Szalavetz (2020), Tekic and Koroteev (2019),
Valdez-De-Leon (2019), Vasilev et al. (2020), Vaska et al. (2021)
Androutsos and Brinia (2019), Bikse et al. (2022), De Bernardi et al. (2021), Cluster 2 (n = 18)
Egorova et al. (2021), Endres et al. (2022), Garcez et al. (2022a, 2022b), The meso-environment of the
Holmström et al. (2021), Katsamakas and Pavlov (2022), Katsamakas et al. (2022), entrepreneurial ecosystem
Khuntia et al. (2017), Lanamäki et al. (2020), Lian (2021), Popov and Semyachkov
(2022), Reibenspiess et al. (2022), Soltysova and Modrak (2020), Stolze and Sailer
(2021), Xie et al. (2021), Yildirim and Tuncalp (2021)
Burton-Jones et al. (2020), Denicolai and Previtali (2020), Ferraro and Cluster 3 (n = 22)
Cristiano (2021), Garcez et al. (2022a, 2022b), Gfrerer et al. (2021), Giacosa et al. The micro-environment of the
(2022), Haftor and Climent (2021), Jardim (2021), Kosterich (2021), Lin et al. entrepreneurial ecosystem
(2020), Liu et al. (2022), Machleid et al. (2020), Magesa and Jonathan (2021),
Morris and König (2021), Pelletier and Cloutier (2019), Pereira et al. (2022),
Ritala et al. (2021), Secundo et al. (2020), Soluk and Kammerlander (2021),
Švarc (2021), Tarabasz et al. (2018), Zhang et al. (2022a, 2022b)

digital transformation in socioeconomic relations and driving the redefinition of strategies, which results in
organizations (Vasilev et al., 2020). However, the need to changes in the value chain, relationships in digital markets
create winning coalitions in public policy can undermine (Cennamo et al., 2020) and the functioning of individual
the absorptive capacity required by the government to entities and industries (Sobczak, 2021). Thus, the role of
engage entrepreneurial ecosystems (Di Giulio & Vecchi, actors such as entrepreneur support institutions, funding
2022). Thus, it can be seen that digital entrepreneurship can agencies and the government is to create opportunities for
be influenced by institutional and digital infrastructures digital transformation to promote results by maximizing
and building blocks (Hinings et al., 2018). By stimulating strengths and neutralizing organizational barriers to the
changes in the innovation system, digital technology creation, improvement and use of technologies. In this
can offer new business opportunities, be disruptive and respect, in the macro-environment of the entrepreneurial
cause vulnerabilities (Satalkina & Steiner, 2020). Being ecosystem, facilitating mechanisms are stimulated so that,
disruptive contributes to the digital revolution, impacting according to Szalavetz (2020), digital transformation
the economic system and organizational competitiveness produces opportunities in economies by progressing
(Rossi et al., 2020). Vulnerability is associated with threats towards the globalization of research and development,
to established business models (Dressler & Paunovic, entrepreneurial integration and collaboration of ecosystem-
2020; Gupta & Bose, 2022), funding and innovation type innovation. Thus, the development of strategies for digital
infrastructure (Kraus & Marchenko, 2021) and challenges transformation leads to new business models, with channels
to accelerating digital entrepreneurship in countries for customer support, connections of management systems
(Madichie et al., 2021). Thus, side effects occur in the (Proskurnina et al., 2021) and entrepreneurial initiatives
social system, in the competitiveness capacity and (Keller et al., 2022), which differ in risks and challenges
in the innovation viability, which determines digital (Tekic & Koroteev, 2019). From this perspective,
entrepreneurship as a result of the organizational activity encouraging artificial intelligence–related technologies
(Satalkina & Steiner, 2020). It is observed a digital stimulates the country’s economic growth and becomes
organizational ecosystem with effective entrepreneurial influential in determining policies promoting global
activities (Gorelova et al., 2021) and with digital development (Heng et al., 2022). Supporting technologies
technologies that promote digital collaboration (Garzoni enable a global connection among consumers, employees
et al., 2020) and lead to new forms of value creation (Strazzullo et al., 2022) and organizations operating in
(Valdez-De-Leon, 2019). Such technologies, such as creative industries in knowledge management, as opposed
platforms, shared ecosystems and enablers, fragment to traditional technologies that hinder agile responses to
digital transformation and impact organizational value change (Castagna et al., 2020). In this environment, the
creation and delivery (Vaska et al., 2021). The effect is digitalization of physical assets transforms economic
Guimarães et al. 7

spaces (Haefner & Sternberg, 2020) by creating innovative is, an organizational form of digital data sharing (Khuntia
business management for interaction ecosystems (Shtal et al., 2017). In this performance sphere, there are
et al., 2021), so it is on the agenda of countries that aim for innovations in wireless technologies that enable business
digital improvements for the reduction of inequalities value creation (Katsamakas & Pavlov, 2022) and social
(Haefner & Sternberg, 2020). In digitalization, emphasis media for accumulating social capital and support in the
is placed on advanced information and production development of the performance sector (Xie et al., 2021).
technologies, such as cloud services, mobile devices, In this context, social entrepreneurship comes to the
virtual reality, the internet of things, geolocalization, 3D fore because it can leverage organizational processes
printing and robotics (Markova et al., 2021). Information to achieve social value and ensure profits (De Bernardi
technologies transform the business models of different et al., 2021). In this way, digital transformation offers
economic activities and increase competitive advantages organizations opportunities to engage intrapreneurs, that
by transforming and updating the organizational ecosystem is, employees who innovate through idea generation
(Song et al., 2022). In this context, when the relationships (Reibenspiess et al., 2022), in a general technology
among stakeholders are based on trust, engagement and category rather than a specific one enacted in a time and
empowerment, it facilitates the digital transformation in place (Lanamäki et al., 2020).
relational models of communal sharing (Candelo et al.,
Cluster 3. Micro-environment of Entrepreneurial
2022).
Ecosystem (n = 22)
Cluster 2. Meso-environment of Entrepreneurial In the micro-environment, one observes the business and
Ecosystem (n = 18) the entrepreneur. In this, there is the need to develop
In the meso-environment are the universities, the innovation economically viable offers (Haftor & Climent, 2021) and a
centres, the research centres, the startups and market set of skills to face the challenges of roles in the digital
components, in a relationship that encompasses qualified world (Tarabasz et al., 2018). Thus, the inspirational
people, partnerships and knowledge. In this scenario, and visionary role becomes necessary for the promotion
universities are economic development catalysts and of innovation (Magesa & Jonathan, 2021); the adventurous
produce organizational capital through digital transformation spirit, for impacts on organizational performance (Liu
with collaborative networks and co-creation processes et al., 2022) and the dynamic capability, for the re-evaluation
(Stolze & Sailer, 2021). Therefore, Popov and Semyachkov of strategies (Lin et al., 2020). In the context of
(2022) state that the entrepreneurial ecosystem functions as organizational strategies, the use of proactivity, relational
an element of economic and social development analysis capital and target achievement performance is essential for
by involving value creation and digital transformation. In the entrepreneur (Ritala et al., 2021). In such a scenario,
this aspect, educational institutions have been changing the organizations are supported by an ecosystem immersed
way of knowledge acquisition with changes in the in digital transformation, promoting access to free IT
teaching–learning interaction (Garcez et al., 2022a, 2022b) applications, which demand support (Pelletier &
and through partnerships to stimulate co-creative and Cloutier, 2019). Thus, the combination of self-directed
innovative skills (Androutsos & Brinia, 2019). Cooperation and experiential learning supports the adaptability for
between universities and entrepreneurs promotes entrepreneurial competence (Morris & König, 2021).
employability with transformation in business, investments Digital literacy and skills, through courses covering data
in human capital (Bikse et al., 2022) and aggregation of management, ethics and entrepreneurship, should become
new knowledge (Holmström et al., 2021). It thus represents requirements for professionals to leverage the potential of
the era of digital transformation, with the development of digital technologies (Machleid et al., 2020). This
new products (Endres et al., 2022), with a service encompasses a digital mindset (Giacosa et al., 2022),
perspective that comprises tangibility and empathy (Lian, with clear communication, resilience and self-efficacy
2021) and with associations, such as between universities (Gugnani, 2022; Jardim, 2021). While there are similar
and organizations (Yildirim & Tuncalp, 2021). In this perceptions of attitude and empowerment towards change,
panorama, actions such as the sharing economy, stimulated perceptions of individual readiness, competencies and
by startups and digital platforms, are towards the digital barriers to innovation differ (Gfrerer et al., 2021). To
literacy of generations, promoting cost-reduction and this end, digital technology functions as a transformer
sustainable practices (Soltysova & Modrak, 2020). of the business environment by stimulating education,
Approaches such as digital platforms act in projecting skills (Secundo et al., 2020), outcomes and coordination
intrapreneurial behaviours (Reibenspiess et al., 2022), of activities (Machleid et al., 2020) and by altering
evaluating public procurement (Egorova et al., 2021), organizations culturally, socially and technically (Garcez
maximizing profits and creating social value (Katsamakas et al., 2022a, 2022b). The niche structure of types of
et al., 2022). Multifaceted digital platforms are enablers of organizations, such as micro and small enterprises small and
digital transformation through information exchanges, that medium entreprises, is influenced by technology, resource,
8 FIIB Business Review

demand and network factors (Zhang et al., 2022a, 2022b). of human capital and technologies to drive competitiveness
In this landscape, digital transformation, by involving at the organizational level, new business models,
large investments, potential consequences (Burton-Jones digitalization, partnerships for knowledge exchange and
et al., 2020) and the digitization of processes, products cost reduction. In the global context, economic growth and
and business models, requires the need for dynamic digital entrepreneurship are stimulated through incentives,
capabilities to accelerate the advancement of innovation policies, regulations and investments.
(Soluk & Kammerlander, 2021). However, the concept of
innovation faces contemporary crises in adapting to
socioeconomic conditions, with the rise of the digital Discussion
economy requiring reconsideration (Švarc, 2021). To
Through content analysis, different interactions between
meet demands, organizations seek to use digital tools to
entrepreneurial ecosystem players were identified. In
facilitate business internationalization (Pereira et al., 2022)
this system, a connection is developed that covers
and require a dynamic business assessment process
functionalities, necessary profiles and facilitating tools
(Ferraro & Cristiano, 2021). Thus, entrepreneurs promote
related to digital technologies to comply with the new
changes and restructure their area’s professional frontiers
innovation perspective and achieve economic development
(Kosterich, 2021) in a context involving new forms of
at an organizational and global level. The development
entrepreneurial ecosystems (Denicolai & Previtali, 2020).
of the textual body of research led to the deepening of
the relationship between entrepreneurial ecosystems
Conceptual Framework and digital transformation, being observed in distinct
environments, which present agents that mutually influence
Figure 3 represents the conceptual model of the
relationship between entrepreneurial ecosystems and each other through competencies and peculiarities, in a
digital transformation. It is a network interaction triggered cause-and-effect relationship, which leads to the perception
by technologies that digitally transform entrepreneurial of the multidisciplinarity of the theme studied in this
ecosystems in economic, social and technical terms. In this review. Thus, the comprehensiveness of aspects observed
relationship of mutual influences, the entrepreneurial in the analysed articles evidences the evolution in the
ecosystem environments—micro, meso and macro—are findings on entrepreneurial ecosystems and digital
observed with types of actors. These act as business transformation and gaps that need to be filled through
developers and agents of change through the development future research.

Figure 3.  Conceptual Model for the Relationship between Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Digital Transformation.
Guimarães et al. 9

We believe that from our systematic review emerged a Future Research Agenda
wealth of trends and patterns of entrepreneurial ecosystems
and their relationship with digital transformation, both at According to several authors (Secundo et al., 2020; Soluk
the level of the general field and at the level of different & Kammerlander, 2021; Tekic & Koroteev, 2019; Vaska
subfields, characterized by levels: micro, meso and macro. et al., 2021), although the importance of entrepreneurial
In this section, we explain what is most pertinent to these ecosystems, digital transformation and the relationship
trends and patterns, before we develop a forward-looking between them is widely recognized as paramount,
research agenda. this research area is still fragmented and poorly theorized.
Thus, the need for filling the gaps as per below is
perceived.
Overarching Trends and Patterns
Based on the research organizational structure of Research into the Macro-environment of
entrepreneurial ecosystems and digital transformation Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
presented in the planning section of the review, an
encouraging finding is that we were able to identify In the macro-environment of entrepreneurial ecosystems,
research packages that can be identified to fill each domain the influence of governmental actions with incentives and
of the structure. There is significant progress made in a policies is observed. Thus, research that portrays the types
short space of time, and an impressive portfolio of of partnerships between governments and organizations for
contributions has been developed at various levels of financial investments and potential influences on society
analysis. At the same time, it is clear that while some areas becomes necessary (Shtal et al., 2021; Sokolov et al.,
have become heavily researched, blind spots remain. The 2021). The primordiality of studies identifying the
relationship between entrepreneurial ecosystems and characteristics of government policies that stimulate and
digital transformation is met in this study, and it is the first discourage entrepreneurial activities at the organizational
theoretical systematization. Although research on the level is also evident. In support of financing institutions, as
characteristics of entrepreneurial ecosystems has already a point of emphasis for future studies, the barriers
been widely studied (Garcez et al., 2022a, 2022b; Gorelova encountered by entrepreneurs in obtaining capital with the
et al., 2021; Jardim, 2021), the study of their relationship purpose of starting a new business are observed (Cennamo
with digital transformation, considering the three main et al., 2020; Mas & Gómez, 2021).
levels of analysis (micro, meso and macro), remains poorly
studied. Research in the Meso-environment of
Crucially, the bibliometric methods applied in our study Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
allow us to discover the relational nature of knowledge
creation in the field of entrepreneurial ecosystems and In the meso-environment constituted by the agents of
digital transformation. An ingrained characteristic in innovation change, the need for studies that show the
the investigation of entrepreneurial ecosystems is its difficulties of universities in the teaching–learning
multidisciplinary nature, encompassing several disciplinary relationship, that is, the development of human capital to
boundaries. It is therefore not surprising that the field of stimulate entrepreneurship through the development of
research is somewhat heterogeneous, with multiple profiles and digital technologies is observed (Garcez et al.,
subfields emerging, each with distinct characteristics and 2022a, 2022b; Popov & Semyachkov, 2022; Stolze &
trajectories. For example, our bibliometric analysis showed Sailer, 2021). The importance of research addressing
that different entrepreneurial ecosystems research groups governmental dysfunctionalities in supporting university
emphasized different parts of our organizational structure education in promoting digital entrepreneurship in
(micro, meso and macro). That is separate research organizations is noted in the relationship between
trajectories formed around key ideas developed in different government, universities and organizations. Within the
sets of articles and continue to shape distinct trajectories field of action of developers, such as incubators, one
within the entrepreneurial ecosystems literature. In this notices the significance of research that identifies factors
way, we verify that, although the focus of the investigations that hinder the strengthening of organizations on the market
may change at the level of the relationships that are as a stimulus for realizing good ideas and business plans
established with entrepreneurial ecosystems, even if in a (Androutsos & Brinia, 2019; Bikse et al., 2022; Holmström
discreet way, the micro, meso and macro levels are present et al., 2021).
in all investigations. Broadly speaking, research within
these approaches emerges as quite diverse, exploring Research in the Micro-environment of
their considerations in many different contexts, with Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
regard to different organizational forms, at different
analytical levels, and emphasizing different aspects of the Given the main figures of the micro-environment of
entrepreneurial process. entrepreneurial ecosystems, the business and the
10 FIIB Business Review

entrepreneur, one notes the relevance of research that lists choices of objectives, tactics and management. The digital
the positive and negative points of government support for transformation environment continuously presents a new
entrepreneurs concerning developing and implementing idea of what innovation is through the adoption in the
new business models. Besides the governmental sphere, entrepreneurial ecosystem of approaches that facilitate
the academic sphere has presented support to entrepreneurs learning, use and improve the performance of digital
through a considerable number of research on the technologies, which makes certain skills essential. In this
technical factor of digital transformation. However, this ecosystem, among the important entrepreneurial skills are
theme is obscure in relational terms, which expresses the the ability to meet goals, leverage ideas, identify
importance of investigations that support leadership opportunities, and be strategic, proactive, creative, resilient
styles, behaviours and profiles to contribute to achieving and flexible. In contrast to the SLRs, we found, which
results in organizations (Lin et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2022; mostly focus on the analysis of articles, our research aims
Magesa & Jonathan, 2021). at an integrated analysis of the three levels of ecosystems:
Another significant point for studies is the relationship micro, meso and macro. In this way, we seek to offer a
between the quality-of-life factor and the entrepreneur, holistic model that allows measuring the three levels of
where internal and external aspects of the business that entrepreneurial ecosystems and their relationship with
influence health, personal growth and social interaction digital transformation. Our research brings two main
should be indicated. The research contexts presented here contributions. First, at a methodological level, our SLR
motivate the optimal use of digital technology and the allowed us to better understand the relationships between
effective performance of organizational members, with the ideas, authors and current research works and how the
creation of types of management, processes, products, research field is structured. Second, at the research level of
services and knowledge exchanges (Pelletier & Cloutier, entrepreneurial ecosystems and their relationship with
2019; Ritala et al., 2021; Tarabasz et al., 2018). digital transformation, the application of SLR techniques
allowed us to discover subfields within the literature and
characterize them based on the micro, meso and macro
Conclusion levels. A systematic review was particularly helpful due to
This research, which involved descriptive and content the multidisciplinary and heterogeneous nature of
analysis, aimed at identifying the relationship between ecosystems. The identification of trends, patterns and
entrepreneurial ecosystems and digital transformation. trajectories at the field and subfield levels allowed us to
It was observed that in the digital economy scenario, the develop a future research agenda at the level of
entrepreneurial ecosystem contributes to the economic entrepreneurial ecosystems and the relationship with
development of organizations, which involves aspects such digital transformation.
as organizational performance, government policies and Not unlike other investigations, this one is not exempt
support from partner institutions. These factors are related from limitations. Namely, the choice of a single database
to the best use of digital transformation, a process resulting was due to the small number of studies addressing the
from facilitating and intelligent technologies that cause research question, which explains why around 96% of the
adjustments and ruptures in the most diverse contexts articles included in the investigation also belong to other
of society, neutralize risks, improve decision-making, databases. Exclusion points were used in the configuration
develop areas, increase profits and social capital, aspects for the analysis development, which may have removed
that stimulate digital entrepreneurship in organizations. some studies that allowed understanding the theme.
Digital transformation leads to entrepreneurial activities, However, the techniques used allowed interpretations,
which include new knowledge, creativity and functional understandings and directions that met the purposes of this
behaviours. In this context, the effects are management, research.
process, product and service innovation; dynamic capacity;
organizational agility; good partnerships; quality intra- Declaration of Conflicting Interests
and inter-organizational relationships; knowledge The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
sharing and organizational co-creation. In parallel, digital to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
transformation can show the weaknesses of an organization
related to new challenges imposed by global crises and the Funding
lack of innovation viability, which drives the need for new The authors received no financial support for the research,
business models. These models understand the importance authorship and/or publication of this article.
of digital literacy and lead to more robust interactions
between the stakeholders of organizations, which
ORCID iD
respectively encompass the use of technological structures,
which optimize the exchange of digital information; the Veland Ramadani https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8495-9141
Guimarães et al. 11

References in Italy. Review of Policy Research, 40(3), 406–432. https://

doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12488
Alomar, J. A. (2023). Assessing factors influencing female
Dressler, M., & Paunovic, I. (2020). Converging and diverging
entrepreneurship intentions and behaviour. FIIB Business business model innovation in regional intersectoral
Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145221146348 cooperation-exploring wine industry 4.0. European Journal
Andreini, D., Bettinelli, C., Pedeliento, G., & Apa, R. (2019). of Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-04-
How do consumers see firms’ family nature? A review of the 2020-0142
literature. Family Business Review, 33(1), 18–37. Egorova, M., Andreeva, L., Andreev, V., Tsindeliani, I., &
Androutsos, A., & Brinia, V. (2019). Developing and piloting Kikavets, V. (2021). Digitalization of public procurement
a pedagogy for teaching innovation, collaboration, and in the Russian Federation: Case study. NISPAcee Journal of
co-creation in secondary education based on design thinking, Public Administration and Policy, 14(1), 87–106. https://doi.
digital transformation, and entrepreneurship. Education org/10.2478/nispa-2021-0004
Sciences, 9(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci902 Endres, H., Huesig, S., & Pesch, R. (2022). Digital innovation
0113 management for entrepreneurial ecosystems: Services and
Bejjani, M., Lutz, G., & Matthias, M. (2023). Digital entrepreneurial functionalities as drivers of innovation management software
ecosystems: A systematic literature review. Technological adoption. Review of Managerial Science, 16(1), 135–156.
Forecasting & Social Change, 189, 122372. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00441-4
10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122372 Ferraro, O., & Cristiano, E. (2021). Family business in the digital
Bikse, V., Grinevica, L., Rivza, B., & Rivza, P. (2022). age: The state of the art and the impact of change in the
Consequences and challenges of the fourth industrial estimate of economic value. Journal of Risk and Financial
revolution and the impact on the development of employability Management, 14(2), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm
skills. Sustainability, 14(12), 6970. https://doi.org/10.3390/ 14070301
su14126970 Garcez, A., Silva, R., & Franco, M. (2022a). Digital transformation
Burton-Jones, A., Akhlaghpour, S., Ayre, S., Barde, P., Staib, shaping structural pillars for academic entrepreneurship: A
A., & Sullivan, C. (2020). Changing the conversation on framework proposal and research agenda. Education and
evaluating digital transformation in healthcare: Insights from Information Technologies, 27(1), 1159–1182. https://doi.
an institutional analysis. Information and Organization, 30(1), org/10.1007/s10639-021-10638-5
100255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.100255 Garcez, A., Silva, R., & Franco, M. (2022b). The hard skills
Candelo, E., Casalegno, C. G., & Civera, C. (2022). Digital bases in digital academic entrepreneurship in relation to
transformation or analogic relationships? A dilemma for small digital transformation. Social Sciences, 11(5), 192. https://
retailer entrepreneurs and its resolution. Journal of Strategy doi.org/10.3390/socsci11050192
and Management, 15(3), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.1108/ Garzoni, A., De Turi, I., Secundo, G., & Del Vecchio, P. (2020).
JSMA-02-2021-0056 Fostering digital transformation of SMEs: A four levels
Castagna, F., Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., Esposito, E., Oropallo, approach. Management Decision, 58(8), 1543–1562. https://
E., & Passaro, R. (2020). Customer knowledge management doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2019-0939
in SMEs facing digital transformation. Sustainability, 12(9), Giacosa, E., Culasso, F., & Crocco, E. (2022). Customer agility in
1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093899 the modern automotive sector: How lead management shapes
Cennamo, C., Dagnino, G. B., Di Minin, A., & Lanzolla, G. (2020). agile digital companies. Technological Forecasting and
Managing digital transformation: Scope of transformation and Social Change, 175(2), 121362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
modalities of value co-generation and delivery. California techfore.2021.121362
Management Review, 62(4), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Gianluca, E., Margherita, A. & Passiante, G. (2020). Digital
0008125620942136 entrepreneurship ecosystem: How digital technologies and
De Bernardi, P., Bertello, A., Forliano, C., & Orlandi, L. B. collective intelligence are reshaping the entrepreneurial
(2021). Beyond the ‘ivory tower’: Comparing academic process. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 150,
and non-academic knowledge on social entrepreneurship. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119791
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. Gorelova, I., Dmitrieva, D., Dedova, M., & Savastano, M. (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-021-00783-1 Antecedents and consequences of digital entrepreneurial
Denicolai, S., & Previtali, P. (2020). Precision medicine: ecosystems in the interaction process with smart city
Implications for value chains and business models in life development. Administrative Sciences, 11(3), 94. https://doi.
sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, org/10.3390/ADMSCI11030094
151(1), 119767. https://doi.org/:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.11 Greenhalgh, T. (1997). How to read a paper: Papers that summarise
9767 other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses). British
Devlin, C., & Coaffee, J. (2021). Planning and technological Medical Journal, 315(7109), 672–675.
innovation: The governance challenges faced by English local Gugnani, R. (2022). Assessing the moderating impact of self-
authorities in adopting planning technologies. International efficacy on locus of control and individual entrepreneurship
Journal of Urban Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/1226593 orientation relationship. FIIB Business Review. https://doi.
4.2021.1997632 org/10.1177/23197145221088642
Di Giulio, M., & Vecchi, G. (2023). How “institutionalization” Gupta, G., & Bose, I. (2022). Digital transformation in
can work. Structuring governance for digital transformation entrepreneurial firms through information exchange with
12 FIIB Business Review

operating environment. Information and Management, 59(3), Khuntia, J., Mithas, S., & Agarwal, R. (2017). How service
103243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103243 offerings and operational maturity influence the viability of
Haefner, L., & Sternberg, R. (2020). Spatial implications of health information exchanges. Production and Operations
digitization: State of the field and research agenda. Geography Management, 26(11), 1989–2005. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Compass, 14(12), e12544. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12544 poms.12735
Haftor, D. M., & Climent, R. C. (2021). CO2 reduction Kosterich, A. (2021). Reengineering journalism: Product manager
through digital transformation in long-haul transportation: as news industry institutional entrepreneur. Digital Journalism.
Institutional entrepreneurship to unlock product-service https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1903959
system innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 94, Kraus, N., & Marchenko, O. (2021). Innovative-digital
115–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.08.022 entrepreneurship as key link of industry X.0 formation in the
Heng, S., Tsilionis, K., Scharff, C., & Wautelet, Y. (2022). conditions of virtual reality. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies,
Understanding AI ecosystems in the global south: The 7(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2021-7-1-
cases of Senegal and Cambodia. International Journal of 47-56
Information Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt. Kraus, S., Breier, M., Lim, W., Dabic, M., Kumar, S., Kanbach,
2021.102454 D., Mukherjee, D., Corvello, V., Piñeiro-Chousa, J., Liguori,
Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital E., Palácios, D., Schiavone, F., Ferraris, A., Fernandes, C., &
innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Ferreira, J. (2022). Literature reviews as independent studies:
Information and Organization, 28(1), 52–61. https://doi. guidelines for academic practice. Review of Managerial
org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.004 Science, 16(8), 2577–2595.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-
Holmström, J., Magnusson, J., & Mähring, M. (2021). 022-00588-8
Orchestrating digital innovation: The case of the Swedish Lanamäki, A., Väyrynen, K., Laari-Salmela, S., & Kinnula, M.
Center for Digital Innovation. Communications of the (2020). Examining relational digital transformation through
Association for Information Systems, 48(2), 248–264. https:// the unfolding of local practices of the Finnish taxi industry.
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 29(3), 101622.
doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04831
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2020.101622
Hu, W., Li, C., Ye, C., Wang, J., Wei, W., & Deng, Y. (2019).
Lian, J.-W. (2021). Determinants and consequences of service
Research progress on ecological models in the field of water
experience toward small retailer platform business model:
eutrophication: CiteSpace analysis based on data from the
Stimulus-organism-response perspective. Journal of Retailing
ISI Web of Science database. Ecological Modelling, 410,
and Consumer Services. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.
108779.
2021.102631
Jardim, J. (2021). Entrepreneurial skills to be successful in the
Lin, T., Sheng, M. L., & Jeng Wang, K. (2020). Dynamic
global and digital world: Proposal for a frame of reference for
capabilities for smart manufacturing transformation by
entrepreneurial education. Education Sciences, 11(7), 356.
manufacturing enterprises. Asian Journal of Technology
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070356 Innovation, 28(3), 403–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/197615
Jones, M. V, Coviello, N. & Tang, Y.K. (2011). International 97.2020.1769486
entrepreneurship research (1989-2009): A domain ontology Liu, S., Zhou, Y., Wang, C., & Yu, Y. (2022). The influence of
and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), entrepreneurship on the innovation path of cultural enterprises
632–659. under the background of digital transformation. Frontiers in
Katsamakas, E., & Pavlov, O. V. (2022). Artificial intelligence Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.892348
feedback loops in mobile platform business models. Machleid, F., Kaczmarczyk, R., Johann, D., Baleiùnas, J.,
International Journal of Wireless Information Networks. Atienza-Carbonell, B., von Maltzahn, F., & Mosch, L.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10776-022-00556-9 (2020). Perceptions of digital health education among
Katsamakas, E., Miliaresis, K., & Pavlov, O. V. (2022). Digital European medical students: Mixed methods survey. Journal
platforms for the common good: Social innovation for of Medical Internet Research, 22(8), e19827. https://doi.
active citizenship and ESG. Sustainability, 14(2) https://doi. org/10.2196/19827
org/10.3390/su14020639 Madichie, N. O., Bolat, E., & Taura, N. (2021). Digital
Kehinde, W. O., Ogunsade, A. I., Obembe, D., & Oluwasoye, M. transformation in West Africa: A two country, two-sector
P. (2022). Entrepreneurial ecosystem and value creation: A analysis. Journal of Enterprising Communities, 15(2), 246–257.
systematic literature review. In S. Rana, Sakshi, & J. Singh https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-06-2020-0114
(Eds.), Exploring the latest trends in management literature Magesa, M. M., & Jonathan, J. (2021). Conceptualizing
(pp. 225–247). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi. digital leadership characteristics for successful digital
org/10.1108/S2754-586520220000001012 transformation: The case of Tanzania. Information Technology
Keller, R., Ollig, P., & Rövekamp, P. (2022). Pathways to for Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2021.
developing digital capabilities within entrepreneurial initiatives 1991872
in pre-digital organizations: A single case study. Business Markova, E. S., Zyuzina, N. N., Krovopuskov, P. A. (2021).
and Information Systems Engineering, 64(1), 33–46. https:// Digital economy and industry 4.0: Russia’s development
doi.org/10.1007/s12599-021-00739-3 trends. International Transaction Journal of Engineering,
Khan, S., Sudhir, R., & Goel, A. (2022). Presence of digital Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies, 12(3),
sources in international marketing: a review of literature using 1–9. http://doi.org/10.14456/ITJEMAST.2021.57
Leximancer. International Journal of Technology Marketing, Mas, J. M., & Gómez, A. (2021). Social partners in the digital
16(3), 246–274. ecosystem: Will business organizations, trade unions and
Guimarães et al. 13

government organizations survive the digital revolution? review as a basis for future research avenues for sustainable
Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi. transitions. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(7), 2764. https://
org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120349 doi.org/10.3390/su12072764
Morris, T. H., & König, P. D. (2021). Self-directed experiential Secundo, G., Rippa, P., & Cerchione, R. (2020). Digital
learning to meet ever-changing entrepreneurship demands. academic entrepreneurship: A structured literature review
Education and Training, 63(1), 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/ and avenue for a research agenda. Technological Forecasting
ET-09-2019-0209 and Social Change, 157, 120118. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Narula, S., Rana, S., Srivastava, S., & Kharub, M. (2021). j.techfore.2020.120118
Improving firm performance using market orientation and Shtal, T. V., Staverska, T. O., Svitlichna, V. Y. U., Kravtsova,
capabilities: a case study approach. South Asian Journal S. V., Kraynyuk, L. N., & Pokolodna, M. M. (2021).
of Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJBS-10-2021- Digitalization as a tool for ensuring innovative development
0375 of restaurant business. Estudios De Economia Aplicada,
O’Kane, C., Cunningham, J. A., Menter, M., & Walton, S. 39(5). https://doi.org/10.25115/EEA.v39i5.4898
(2021). The brokering role of technology transfer ofces within Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to
entrepreneurial ecosystems: An investigation of macro– do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting
meso–micro factors. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46, and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-
1814–1844. syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(4), 747–770.
Ordanini, A., Rubera, G., & DeFillippi, R. (2008). The many Sobczak, A. (2021). Robotic process automation implementation,
moods of inter-organizational imitation: A critical review. deployment approaches and success factors: an empirical
International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(4), 375–398. study. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00233.x Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, 8(4), 122–147,
Pelletier, C., & Cloutier, L. M. (2019). Conceptualising digital June. doi:10.9770/jesi.2021.8.4(7)
transformation in SMEs: An ecosystemic perspective. Journal Sokolov, M., Marushko, D., Zhigun, L., Morozov, I., & Surilov,
of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 26(6–7), M. (2021). Youth innovative entrepreneurship under
855–876. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-05-2019-0144 digitalization of economics: Analysis of foreign experience
Pereira, C. S., Durão, N., Moreira, F., & Veloso, B. (2022). in assessing the effectiveness of support. Economic
The importance of digital transformation in international Annals-XXI, 193(9–10), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.21003/
business. Sustainability, 14(2), 834. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ea.V193-04
su14020834 Soltysova, Z., & Modrak, V. (2020). Challenges of the sharing
Popov, E. & Semyachkov, K. (2022). Methods for analyzing economy for SMEs: A literature review. Sustainability,
economic and social development of smart cities. Economic 12(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166504
and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast. https://doi. Soluk, J., & Kammerlander, N. (2021). Digital transformation
org/10.15838/esc.2022.2.80.7 in family-owned mittelstand firms: A dynamic capabilities
Proskurnina, N. V., Shtal, T. V., Slavuta, O. I., Serogina, D. O., perspective. European Journal of Information Systems, 30(6),
& Bohuslavskyi, V. V. (2021). Omnichannel strategy of 676–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1857666
digital transformation of retail trade enterprise: From concept Song, Y., Escobar, O., Arzubiaga, U., & De Massis, A. (2022).
to implementation. Estudios De Economia Aplicada, 39(6). The digital transformation of a traditional market into an
https://doi.org/10.25115/EEA.v39i6.5238 entrepreneurial ecosystem. Review of Managerial Science,
Ramadani, V. Istrefi-Jahja, A. Zeqiri J., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. 16(1), 65–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00438-5
(2022). COVID-19 and SMEs Digital Transformation. IEEE Sternberg, R. (2021). Entrepreneurship and geography-some
Transactions on Engineering Management. https://doi.org/ thoughts about a complex relationship. Annals of Regional
10.1109/TEM.2022.3174628 Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-021-01091-w
Rana, S., Sakshi, & Singh, J. (2022). Exploring the latest trends Stolze, A., & Sailer, K. (2021). An international foresight
in management literature. Emerald Publishing Limited. reflection on entrepreneurial pathways for higher education
Reibenspiess, V., Drechsler, K., Eckhardt, A., & Wagner, H.-T. institutions. Industry and Higher Education, 35(6), 700–712.
(2022). Tapping into the wealth of employees’ ideas: Design https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422220981814
principles for a digital intrapreneurship platform. Information Strazzullo, S., Cricelli, L., Grimaldi, M., & Ferruzzi, G. (2022).
and Management, 59(3), 103287. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Connecting the path between open innovation and industry 4.0:
j.im.2020.103287 A review of the literature. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Ritala, P., Baiyere, A., Hughes, M., & Kraus, S. (2021). Digital Management. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3139457
strategy implementation: The role of individual entrepreneurial Švarc, J. (2021). Prolegomena to social studies of digital
orientation and relational capital. Technological Forecasting innovation. AI and Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-
and Social Change, 171, 120961. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 021-01220-1
j.techfore.2021.120961 Szalavetz, A. (2020). Digital transformation-enabling factory
Rossi, M., Festa, G., Devalle, A., & Mueller, J. (2020). When economy actors’ entrepreneurial integration in global value
corporations get disruptive, the disruptive get corporate: chains? Post-Communist Economies, 32(6), 771–792. https://
Financing disruptive technologies through corporate venture doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2020.1722588
capital. Journal of Business Research, 118, 378–388. https:// Tarabasz, A., Selaković, M., & Abraham, C. (2018). The classroom
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.004 of the future: Disrupting the concept of contemporary business
Satalkina, L., & Steiner, G. (2020). Digital entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review,
and its role in innovation systems: A systematic literature 6(4), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2018.060413
14 FIIB Business Review

Tekic, Z., & Koroteev, D. (2019). From disruptively digital to (2020). Digitalization peculiarities of organizations: A case
proudly analog: A holistic typology of digital transformation study. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 7(4),
strategies. Business Horizons, 62(6), 683–693. https://doi. 3173–3190. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.7.4(39)
org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.07.002 Vaska, S., Massaro, M., Bagarotto, E. M., & Dal Mas, F. (2021).
Theodoraki, C., & Messeghem, K. (2017). Exploring the The digital transformation of business model innovation: A
entrepreneurial ecosystem in the feld of entrepreneurial structured literature review. Frontiers in Psychology. https://
support: A multi-level approach. International Journal of doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.539363
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 31(1), 47–66. Xie, G., Wang, L., & Khan, A. (2021). An assessment of
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A., & Pittaway, L. (2005). social media usage patterns and social capital: Empirical
Using knowledge within small and medium-sized firms: A evidence from the agricultural systems of China. Frontiers in
systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.767357
Management Reviews, 7(4), 257–281. Yildirim, N., & Tuncalp, D. (2021). A policy design framework
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a on the roles of S&T universities in innovation ecosystems:
methodology for developing evidence-informed management Integrating stakeholders’ voices for industry 4.0. IEEE
knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Transactions on Engineering Management. https://doi.
Management, 14(3), 207–222. org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3106834
Trischler, M. F. G., & Li-Ying, J. (2022). Digital business model Zhang, J., van Gorp D., & Kievit, H. (2022a). Digital technology
innovation: Toward construct clarity and future research and national entrepreneurship: An ecosystem perspective.
directions. Review of Managerial Science. https://doi. The Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/
org/10.1007/s11846-021-00508-2 s10961-022-09934-0
Valdez-De-Leon, O. (2019). How to develop a digital Zhang, X., Gao, C., & Zhang, S. (2022b). The niche evolution of
ecosystem: A practical framework. Technology Innovation cross-boundary innovation for Chinese SMEs in the context
Management Review, 9(8), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.22215/ of digital transformation – Case study based on dynamic
Timreview/1260 capability. Technology in Society. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Vasilev, V. L., Gapsalamov, A. R., Akhmetshin, E. M., j.techsoc.2022.101870
Bochkareva, T. N., Yumashev, A. V., & Anisimova, T. I.

About the Authors

Jaiandra da Silva Guimarães is a Professor at the Federal Institute of Roraima, Brazil. She holds a
PhD from the University of Beira Interior, Portugal. She is researcher at Research Centre of the
Department of Management and Economics (NECE), at the University of Beira Interior (UBI). Features
published articles including the journal Knowledge Management Research & Practice. She has
experience in Management, working mainly on the following topics: planning, strategy, project
management, master plan, decision-making process, marketing, service management, environmental
education and organizational behaviour. She can be reached at [email protected]

Cristina Fernandes is an Assistant Professor w/Habilitation at the University of Beira Interior (UBI),
Portugal. She holds a PhD in Management from the University of Beira Interior. She is a researcher at
the NECE—Centre for Studies in Business Sciences at the University of Beira Interior and at Centre for
Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Loughborough University, UK. She is a part of the
editorial board of Management Decision and has published several dozen scientific articles in
international journals including Journal of Technology Transfer, Journal of Knowledge Management,
R&D Management and Journal of Business Research. She actively participates in scientific meetings
and international conferences on these topics and has been honoured with distinguished awards for presenting the best
article many times. She has participated in several international projects. She can be reached at cristina.isabel.fernandes@
ubi.pt

Pedro Mota Veiga is an Assistant Professor at the Universidade Católica Portuguesa (Viseu, Portugal)
and the University of Beira Interior (Covilhã, Portugal). He has a degree in Probability and Statistics
from the University of Lisbon and a PhD in Management from the University of Beira Interior. He is
currently the scientific coordinator of the Entrepreneurship, Competitiveness and Innovation research
line of the research centre NECE– Center for Studies for Business Sciences at the University of Beira
Interior. His main research interests are Business Strategy, Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Digital
Guimarães et al. 15

Transformation. He actively participates in scientific meetings and international conferences on these topics and has been
honoured with distinguished awards for presenting the best article several times. He has published several dozen scientific
articles in international journals. He performs the role of scientific consultant in several entities. He can be reached at
[email protected]

Veland Ramadani is a Professor of Entrepreneurship and Family Business at the Faculty of Business
and Economics, South-East European University, North Macedonia. His research interests include
entrepreneurship, small business management and family businesses. He has authored or co-authored
around 180 research articles and book chapters, 12 textbooks and 25 edited books. He has published in
the Journal of Business Research, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research and Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, among others. Dr Ramadani has recently published the co-authored book Entrepreneurial
Family Business (Springer). He has received the Award for Excellence 2016—Outstanding Paper by Emerald Group
Publishing. In addition, Dr Ramadani was invited as a keynote speaker at several international conferences and as a guest
lecturer by several universities. During 2017–2021, he served as a member of the Supervisory Board of the Development
Bank of North Macedonia, where for 10 months he acted as Chief Operating Officer (COO) as well. In 2021, in a study
conducted by Stanford University (USA), he was ranked among the top 2% of the most influential scientists in the world.
He can be reached at [email protected]