Systematic literature review identifies key success factors for entrepreneurial ecosystems, highlighting their importance in sustainability and governance.
The growing influence of entrepreneurship on the advancement and economic progress of the people and regions surrounding the entrepreneurs has led to increased attention on developing an entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE). However, such an ecosystem demands an in‐depth understanding of the factors that can support and further grow entrepreneurship in the region surrounding it. This paper (i) consolidates literature and findings on different success factors of the EE and (ii) identifies key success factors, including environment, social, and governance (ESG) factors that are responsible for the EE's success and sustainability. A bibliometric‐systematic literature review (B‐SLR) of 109 papers has been conducted, guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analysis (PRISMA). In the analysis of 109 studies, a total of 14 critical factors of entrepreneurial ecosystem development have been identified based on primary and secondary level factors. This is the first study in which a B‐SLR has been conducted to understand the critical success factors of entrepreneurial ecosystem development based on the Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Model—academia, industry, civil society, government, and natural environment. The study invites scholars and researchers to explore the dynamic interplay between institutional logics, resource configurations, and sustainability imperatives—thus enriching EE literature with a more holistic, interdisciplinary perspective. It also offers a comprehensive framework for managers and policymakers to foster resilient, innovative, and sustainable EEs. By leveraging the critical success factors and integrating ESG principles, stakeholders can create ecosystems that not only enable entrepreneurial growth but also address pressing global challenges and contribute to a more inclusive and sustainable future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kumari et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: