Inclusive Innovation in Higher Education: Evidence on Entrepreneurship and Sexual Diversity

Context. Higher-education entrepreneurship in Mexico operates amid unequal resource access and bias against sexual minorities. Universities pursue SDG-aligned inclusion, evidence on LGBTQ+ entrepreneurship remains scarce. This study examines whether such gaps affect students´ entrepreneurial intention (EI). Problem. Scholarship often assumes that discrimination and weak support networks reduce EI among sexual minorities, while resource access offsets these barriers. This study asks: Does sexual orientation predict EI among Mexican university students, and do perceived discrimination, support networks, and access to resources moderate that relationship? Purpose. The research integrated entrepreneurship, gender and diversity studies, and education policy to inform Oslo-aligned social innovations in higher-education ecosystems and advance SDGs 4, 5, 8, and 10. Methodology. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 477 undergraduates at the University of Guadalajara (Mexico) between January and March 2025. Instruments included an entrepreneurial intention scale and measures of perceived discrimination, support networks, and access to resources. All instruments showed adequate reliability and validity. Analyses in R included descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis, Welch’s t-test, and multiple regression models with interactions. Theoretical and Practical Findings. Results showed no significant differences in EI by sexual orientation. Moderation effects were no significant, but access to resources had a positive direct effect. Theoretically, the study nuances identity-based assumptions by foregrounding resource availability. Practically, it supports social innovations in universities to widen access, and reduce bias. Originality The study bridges entrepreneurship, gender studies, and education design to promote social innovations that advance SDGs 4/5/8/10. Conclusions and limitations. EI is equivalent across sexual orientations, while resource access emerges as a lever for action. Limits include a single institution and cross-sectional design; future research should be multi-site and longitudinal, include behavioral outcomes and intersectional analyses, and test inclusive program designs in the field.