Sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems (SEEs) are increasingly understood as place-based configurations in which firms, institutions, and intermediaries pursue economic, social, and environmental objectives simultaneously. Yet, little is known about how coordination among heterogeneous actors emerges, how firm-level strategies scale into ecosystem-level governance arrangements, and how such arrangements are reproduced and stabilized over time. Addressing this gap, we examine how firm-level strategies evolve into ecosystem governance arrangements and how these are recursively reproduced through ongoing institutional work, shaping subsequent firm behavior. Empirically, we draw on an in-depth qualitative study of the Local Action Group (LAG) Daunia Rurale 2020 in Southern Italy, based on 28 interviews with firm owners and ecosystem stakeholders, complemented by observational and archival data. Our findings show that ecosystem governance emerges through the interplay between LAG-led coordination efforts and firms’ place-based practices of territorial valorization. We identify four recurring patterns of place-based institutional work through which incumbent firms translate firm-level strategies into ecosystem-level governance arrangements: multilateral dependency with the LAG, strategic territorial commitment, community-based value creation, and the enactment of territorial value logics through practices and coordination support. These patterns progressively scale into two ecosystem-level governance dynamics: the emergence of legitimate ecosystem embeddedness and the stabilization of a territorial value logic in ecosystem governance. We further show how these governance arrangements recursively shape subsequent firm behavior and participation. By theorizing governance as an emergent, stabilized, and recursively reproduced accomplishment rather than a pre-existing backdrop, this study contributes to research on entrepreneurial ecosystems, sustainable entrepreneurship, and place-based strategy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Santo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: