Purpose Entrepreneurial Engagement (EE) is an increasingly important area of focus in recent times. It encompasses various stages of entrepreneurship that require understanding from both general and sustainability perspectives. This study reviews existing literature on EE and offers future research directions from a sustainability perspective. Design/methodology/approach The Theory–Context–Characteristics–Methodology (TCCM) approach was used to review existing studies on EE, based on sources retrieved from the Scopus database. Findings Among the 67 studies reviewed, the Theory of Planned Behavior, Human Capital Theory, and Social Capital Theory were widely used. The studies also examined the influence of socio-demographic, personality, and institutional factors on EE. Only four studies explicitly incorporated a sustainability perspective. Notably, most studies focused on students and academics, with a strong concentration in European countries. Research limitations/implications The study provides future research directions through the lens of the Triple Bottom Line approach, encompassing economic, social, and environmental dimensions. It highlights gaps related to underexplored populations, geographic contexts, and methodological approaches. Practical implications By integrating sustainable frameworks into their ventures, entrepreneurs can enhance their employer brand image among generations. Entrepreneurship education can be strengthened and the study also provides valuable insights for policymaking. Social implications The study promotes sustainable business practices by encouraging researchers, educators, policymakers, and entrepreneurs to consider stakeholder needs and environmental responsibility for societal well-being. Originality/value This study is the first to apply the TCCM framework to entrepreneurial engagement literature and proposes a conceptual framework integrating sustainability into entrepreneurial engagement through economic, social, and environmental dimensions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Achanta et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: