External Enablers of Entrepreneurship: A Review and Agenda For Accumulation of Strategically Actionable Knowledge

Paper submission to a special issue
Entrepreneurship Theory and
External Enablers of Practice

00(0) 1–45
Entrepreneurship: A
© The Author(s) 2021
Review and Agenda for Article reuse guidelines:

s agepub.com/journals-permissions
Accumulation of DOI: 10.1177/10422587211010673

journals.sagepub.com/home/etp
Strategically
Actionable Knowledge
Jiyoung Kimjeon1 ‍ ‍and Per Davidsson2 ‍ ‍
Abstract
The enabling influence of environmental changes—be they technological, regulatory, demo-
graphic, sociocultural, or otherwise—on emerging ventures receives a growing interest from
researchers and practitioners. To support knowledge accumulation in this important area, we
systematically review and integrate research that is dispersed across disciplines, nominal types
of change, and theoretical approaches. Under a unified terminology within a cross-level (en-
vironment to agent), process-aware framework, we examine what has been done and learnt.
On this basis, we develop an agenda for further, future accumulation of knowledge about the
strategic and serendipitous influence of environmental changes throughout and beyond the
venture creation process.
Keywords
entrepreneurship, environmental change, external enablers, new ventures, opportunity search/
discovery, strategic management
While there is no entrepreneurship without creative agency, entrepreneurs do not create new
ventures out of thin air. Therefore, it has long been argued that various changes to the busi-
ness environment create important “raw material” for entrepreneurs to work on (Davidsson,
2015; Drucker, 1985; Shane, 2012). Accordingly, studies address how new technologies
(Grégoire & Shepherd, 2012), regulatory changes (Eberhart et al., 2017), sociocultural trends
(Hiatt et al., 2009) and changes to the natural environment (Dutta, 2017) enable new ven-
tures. However, these studies are dispersed across disciplines, nominal types of change, and
1
Center for Family Enterprise and Ownership, Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping, Sweden
2
Australian Centre for Entrepreneurship Research, Queensland University of Technology, Australia, and Jönköping
International Business School, Jönköping, Sweden
Corresponding Author:
Jiyoung Kimjeon, Center for Family Enterprise and Ownership, Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping,
Sweden.
Email: jiyoung.kim@ju.se
2 Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 00(0)
theoretical approaches. As a result, we lack unified understanding of what makes external

changes more and less enabling; what the precise mechanisms of enablement are; how entre-
preneurs activate such mechanisms, and where in the venture creation process enablement
occurs.
Therefore, our goal is to enhance knowledge accumulation about how changes to the business
environment enable new venture creation, with a special emphasis on strategically actionable
knowledge. That is, we aim to further knowledge on how entrepreneurial agents can identify and
actualize the potentials provided by external changes. To this end, we undertake a systematic
literature review across disciplines, nominal types of change, theories, and methods within a
unifying structure and terminology, namely the External Enabler (EE) Framework (Davidsson
et al., 2020) which was developed for analysis of entrepreneurial responses to external change.
We thus accumulate knowledge from past research by integrating and highlighting previously
dispersed studies. Further, we critically assess the reviewed literature’s collective delivery of the
strategically actionable type of knowledge that we seek to further. This provides the basis for our
most important goal: to enhance knowledge accumulation in future research. We pursue this goal
by (1) developing a research agenda based on commonalities, gaps and exemplars identified in
our review, and (2) testing and refining the EE Framework.
We believe highlighting and enhancing the reviewed type of research is of great theoretical
and practical importance. The COVID-19 pandemic, including the regulatory and sociocultural
changes it brings, is a stark reminder of the immense influence environmental changes have on
business. Apart from spelling disaster for some established businesses (Bartik et al., 2020), the
pandemic is a strong enabling force for emerging ventures across a range of industries (Donthu
& Gustafsson, 2020). Another contemporary demonstration of the need for attention to external
change is the growing entrepreneurial responses to climate change and related sociocultural and
regulatory changes (e.g., Hiatt & Carlos, 2019). These responses often leverage new, digital
technologies (Berger et al., 2021; Nambisan, 2017) which represent another type of change that
is an obvious basis for many recent, entrepreneurial successes.
Shane and Venkataraman’s (2000) notion of objective opportunity has not been effective in
addressing these phenomena (Davidsson, 2015; Dimov, 2011; Korsgaard, 2013). At the same
time, the crucial role of external change in the above examples makes active neglect of the exter-
nal environment in theorizing new venture creation (e.g., Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Arikan et al.,
2020) increasingly absurd. Accordingly, our review reveals an emerging surge of interest in the
reviewed type of research, albeit still at a moderate absolute level (cf. Davidsson, 2020).
We make the following contributions to knowledge accumulation. First, we highlight and
integrate an important but previously scattered literature, thereby increasing the studies’ reach
beyond the narrower streams from which they originate. Second, based on commonalities, gaps
and exemplars in past research, we develop an agenda for future research. This agenda can guide
theory development and effective designs for accumulation of actionable insights into how entre-
preneurial agents can leverage external changes. Third, we test and refine the EE Framework
based on the facets of enablement identified in past research. Considering that its original devel-
opment was not informed by a systematic review of past research, our test and refinements
should increase the framework’s validity as a conceptual tool for future knowledge
accumulation.
In the next section we introduce the EE Framework in more detail. We then turn to a brief
description of our review method, with more detail provided in the Appendix. This is followed
by review findings regarding descriptive characteristics of the reviewed research stream; how it
addresses elements of the EE Framework, and what the review suggests about how the EE
Framework captures the research and what revisions it might need. Based on review findings we
then outline our agenda for future research.
Kimjeon and Davidsson 3
Figure 1. Depiction of the External Enabler Framework.
The External Enabler Framework: Conceptual Basis of the Review

Similar to Tharenou and Kulik (2020) we use an existing conceptual framework to connect pre-
viously scattered research. Specifically, we apply the structure and unified terminology of
Davidsson et al.’s EE framework—developed for analyzing external changes that enable new
venture creation—to identify commonalities and gaps across a heterogeneous set of studies.1
EEs are significant changes to the business environment that have the potential of playing an
important role in enabling a variety of entrepreneurial endeavors by several (potential) agents.
Davidsson (2015, p. 683) exemplifies with “Changes to technology, demography, culture, human
needs and wants; institutional framework conditions, macro-economic conditions, and the natu-
ral environment.” The status as EE is based on the theoretical assumption—aligned with histor-
ical experience—that by disequilibrating some part of the economy, any environmental change
improves the prospects for some conceivable new ventures. This justifies the “enabler” label
without evidence of entrepreneurial action and success.2 EEs are thus aggregate-level external
changes that provide partial enablement, in contrast to the “complete success recipe” notion of
“objective opportunity” (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). The enablement can take many differ-
ent forms; occur at various points of the new venture creation process, and with varying levels of
entrepreneurial agency. That is, the enablement may be fortuitous or strategically considered.
Often, several EEs are interrelated and/or interactive in their overall enabling impact.
The EE Framework provides structure and terminology for the forms and functions of EEs
under the notions of EE-level characteristics and venture-level mechanisms and roles, as depicted
in Figure 1. All of these are considered strategically important because they are assumed to affect
what type of agent is likely to benefit and how EEs can improve performance and competitive
advantage. Explicit definitions and subcategories are provided in Table 1.
EE characteristics are intrinsic properties reflecting how EEs vary in contextual boundaries
of enablement (scope) and initial emergence (onset). Enabling mechanisms indicate
Table 1. List of External Enabler Terms (including our revisions).

Term Definition [clarifying note]
Characteristics Salient, inherent EE level properties that describe their structure and
form
Scope The range of contexts in which the EE has impact and hence potential to
enable new venture creation (no original provided). [Apart from range
of contexts, variance in degree or magnitude of aggregate enablement
potential within contexts is important]
Spatial The geographic area within which the EE provides enabling potential
Temporal The period during which the EE provides enabling potential
Sectoral The range of types of economic activity for which the EE provides enabling
potential
Socio-demographic The range of (sub)populations whose circumstances are potentially
affected by the EE, from niche groups to all human beings
Onset How EEs first come into being
Gradualness How rapidly an EE and its enabling capacity occurs
Predictability The extent to which an EE’s occurrence and influence can be anticipated
Evolution The pace and pattern by which the EE develops over time [Alternative to
Onset; possibly with Onset, Trajectory, and Expiration as subcategories
(cf. 4 dimensions of scope)]
Mechanisms Mechanisms specify how EE’s enable individual ventures
Compression Reduction for the focal venture in the amount of time required for an
activity
Conservation Reduction for the focal venture in the amount of resources required for an
activity
Resource access Improved access for the focal venture to a previously existing (type of) resource
Resource creation Making a previously nonexisting (type of) resource available to the focal venture
Resource expansion Increase in the amount of a resource that is available for the focal venture
Resource substitution Replacement of one resource with another for the focal venture
Combination Coupling of the focal venture’s product or service with external resources
or artifacts to provide functionality
Generation Allowing the focal venture to create new or improved artifacts (products/
services; functionality; business models)
Risk/uncertainty reduction Reduction in the perceived uncertainty pertaining to the focal venture, or
increase in the perceived uncertainty pertaining to competitors’ offerings
Legitimation Increase in the legality or psychological/sociocultural acceptability of
the focal venture, its offerings, or its practice, or reduction in such
acceptability of competitors
Market access Improved access for the focal venture to a previously existing market
Demand creation Creation of demand for a product/service where no demand previously existed
Demand expansion Increase in demand at a given price and given functionality
Demand substitution Increase in demand that is due to making a focal venture’s market
offerings more needed/attractive or competitors’ offerings less needed/
attractive
Enclosing Increase in a venture’s ability to capture the value it creates and the
loyalty of buyers
Characteristics of Dimensions along which the identification and activation of enabling
Mechanisms mechanisms vary
(Continued)
Table 1. Continued

Term Definition [clarifying note]
Opacity The extent to which the benefits of an enabling mechanism for specific
purposes is rather obvious or requires specialized knowledge and/or
extraordinary imagination
Agency-intensity The extent to which activation of an enabling mechanism requires
tenacity, risk-bearing and resource investments
Roles Higher-order functions of EE mechanisms at different stages of a
venture’s development
Venture triggering EE enticing entrepreneurs to initiate the creation of a new venture
Pivot triggering EE enticing entrepreneurs to undertake a major reorientation of their emerging
venture
Shaping EE influencing the nature of the venture, its product(s), served market(s),
or creation process (no original; occurrence at outset vs. later is
emphasized)
Venture shaping EE influencing the focal venture’s structure, boundaries, or routines
Product shaping EE influencing the focal venture’s product(s) or service(s)
Market shaping EE influencing the focal venture’s choice of spatial, sectoral, or socio-
demographic market(s)
Process shaping EE influencing the pace and/or timing of the new venture creation process
Outcome-enhancing EE mechanisms contribute to better outcomes for a venture than
possible in the absence of the EE [Review suggests specifying
outcome/distinguishing among outcomes]
Note. The table includes review-based revision suggestions. Italics denote deviations from the original EE Framework
(Davidsson et al., 2020). Original definitions are not necessarily verbatim but can be derived from more elaborate
descriptions and explanations. The framework also mentions “social utility” as a mechanism characteristic. Because
this dimension is evaluative and not strategic in nature, we have not coded for it in our review.
venture-level benefits—potential to improve supply, demand, or value appropriation—provided

by aggregate-level EEs. The ability to derive specific mechanisms depends on the EE as well as
the venture; there are inherent limits to what mechanisms an EE can provide, and among those it
can provide there are inherent limits to particular ventures’ ability to activate them. Further, the
EE characteristics–mechanisms relationship is bidirectional: scope and onset may determine
what mechanisms an EE can offer but its scope can also depend on its ability to provide these
mechanisms. Apart from varying in type and amount of enablement (e.g., cost-saving or resource-
provision), mechanisms vary in opacity (difficulty of identifying) and agency-intensity (difficulty
of activating; cf. Ramoglou & Tsang, 2016). Roles denote higher-order influences of EE mecha-
nisms across a venture’s creation process: triggering, shaping and outcome-enhancement. We
provide further explication of EE terms in their respective result sections.
It is important to note what the EE Framework focuses on (i.e., elements of the framework)
versus what else it acknowledges. It fully recognizes the key role of agents and the important
influence of context beyond the EE itself. The intention is for the EE Framework to complement
agent-focused theories on organizational and individual levels as well as insights on the role of
context developed elsewhere (e.g., Johns, 2006; Welter, 2011; Zahra et al., 2014). The frame-
work also acknowledges that not all new ventures draw heavily on external change, and that such
changes can have both positive and negative effects on incumbents’ current activities and on the
economy overall. However, the framework focuses on the enabling side for (independent or
corporate) new ventures because all changes are assumed beneficial for some ventures and
because not-yet-existing ventures are attracted by facilitation, not hindrances. This being said, no
changes are EEs in general for all ventures and agents. Finally, the framework acknowledges that
entrepreneurs can change environmental structures by collectively creating new markets and
individually as inventors or lobbyists (Davidsson et al., 2020, p. 322–323). However, this phe-
nomenon is not a focus of the framework. Hence, by adopting the EE Framework, this review
accepts both “natural” and “manmade” EEs while regarding these changes as occurring inde-
pendently of the focal agent (Davidsson et al., 2020).
Review Method
Guided by Tranfield et al. (2003), our review process was necessarily iterative due to the chal-
lenging fragmentation of the reviewed literature. Below, we briefly describe our literature search
and selection strategies, criteria, and review processes. In the interest of transparency and repro-
ducibility we provide further details in the Appendix.
Due to the lack of common terminology across types of environmental change, we employed
a principle-based search strategy for the main literature search. The four principles of EE are: (1)
aggregate-level instance of (2) change(s) focusing on (3) enablement of (4) new venture creation
(Davidsson et al., 2020; Davidsson, 2015). Based on these, we developed inclusion and exclu-
sion criteria (Table 2) and specific search terms (Table A1). We used the keyword ‘external
enabl*’ in a supplementary search to capture research explicitly using the EE concept. Recognizing
the cross-disciplinary appeal of the EE phenomenon, we searched all journals listed on Financial
Times 50 (FT50). To increase total coverage of new venture creation we added another five entre-
preneurship journals of high standing.3 We used combinations of search terms developed for
each principle in Elsevier’s Scopus® database. The review covers the 2000–2020 (September)
period. This yielded 791 candidate articles from our main (766) and supplementary (25) searches.
We identified a final set of articles for review through the following selection steps against the
four principle-based criteria: (1) title and abstract examination; (2) full-text examination; and (3)
initial coding of EE features (e.g., characteristics, mechanisms, and roles). All three rounds
involved iterative processes of independent examinations, cross-checks, re-inspections, and rec-
onciliation in case of disagreement or doubt. This led to the identification of 94 (90 + 4) papers
as well as further refinement of inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Appendix for further details,
including summaries of each article through an EE lens in Table A2).
Using the EE Framework helped resolve some concerns pertaining to systematic reviews
noted by Rauch (2020, p. 851-852). Clearly defined elements of the framework provided a basis
for systematic coding and analysis of what is heterogeneously described and labelled in the liter-
ature. In addition to counts of occurrences, we undertake bibliometric cross-citation analysis4 to
formally evaluate knowledge integration (the technical term indicative of knowledge accumula-
tion). Cross-citation analysis assesses linkages between articles, revealing patterns among jour-
nals, articles and/or authors (Gomezelj, 2016; Howey et al., 1999). A selective set of cross-citation
results is provided in Appendix (Figure A1 (a-i)).
Using the EE Framework as a basis draws also on another advantage of systematic reviews
noted by Rauch (2020), namely that it allows combining evidence across qualitative and quanti-
tative studies. Systematic reviewing is less suited for assessing how the cumulative evidence
weighs on substantive matters (cf. meta-analysis); a problem aggravated in our case by the diver-
sity of issues addressed in the reviewed literature. Therefore, our systematic review aims mainly
at giving a fair and informative portrayal of ‘what has and has not been done, and how?’
Rauch (2020) also notes that a systematic review “often highlights gaps in the literature, helps
to develop and advance theoretical models, and presents new perspectives on emerging issues
leading to valuable suggestions for future research.” Accordingly, we identified papers to engage
Table 2. Inclusion and Exclusion Principles.

Principles of external
enabler Inclusion definitions Reasons for exclusion with examples
Aggregate-level Aggregate-level instance(s) that may impact Significant external instance for particular venture
instances multiple (potential) new ventures only
Example: one of the venture’s first buyers wins a
major government contract
Instance(s) within an organization
Example: introduction of new program or the like
within business incubator/university or firms
Change Distinct instance whose occurrence alters the Cross-sectional variation1)
aggregate-level setting (disequilibrating) Examples: Institutional differences across countries;
‘environmental dynamism’ as a continuous
regional trait w/o distinct change
New venture Activities undertaken toward creating or Activities undertaken by or outcomes achieved by
creation functioning of new venture(s). Both for- established firms
profit and not-for-profit; by independent or Example: gradual product refinement or market
incumbent. expansion
Example: opportunity recognition, R&D
investment
Evidence of outcomes reflecting new venture
creation.
Example: new venture emergence; spin-offs; firm
growth; firm survival
Elements that enable creating/functioning new/
nascent/young venture(s)
Example: venture capital
Enabling influence Theorization or argument indicative of causal, External change as outcome rather than cause of
enabling effect of environmental change entrepreneurial action
on new venture creation or enablement Example: dominant focus on agents’ ‘institutional
of what indirectly enables new venture work’ to bring about an enabling change rather
creation (e.g., venture capital) than the enablement provided to others by the
change
The external change is not seen as enabling or is not
the cause focused on
Example: economic transition increases uncertainty,
which is only considered as negative
Enabling is only relative in the sense of some being
less negatively affected than others by adversity
Note.1) We strictly adopt Davidsson et al.’s (2020) focus on change. Studies using multi-country panel data, hence reflecting at least in
part effects of change within contexts, are included (e.g., Audretsch et al., 2015; Bennett, 2021).
with more deeply in identifying, validating and refining ideas for a future research agenda,
beyond ideas that can be derived directly from our quantitative results. In the interest of transpar-
ency, we cite the individual exemplars when synthesizing patterns across works that guide
research agenda suggestions and proposed refinements of the EE Framework.
Review Findings
Before reporting our findings, we reiterate that because of the broad range of aspects of enable-
ment addressed in the reviewed research, our review’s main foci are “What has (and has not)
been done, and how?” as input to inform future research. We do not focus on conclusions or the
weight of evidence regarding particular variable relationships. Further, we selected studies that
address influence of external change on new venturing to some extent and for various purposes
and critically assess their delivery on a goal imposed by us: accumulation of strategically action-
able knowledge about how disequilibrating external changes enable new venture creation. Our
reporting does not aim to critique their ability to achieve their own, respective goals. All papers
in our review were published in highly ranked journals and often exemplify excellent scholarship
regardless of the extent to which they contribute strongly to the kind of knowledge we
emphasize.
The first half of our review findings presents observations based on publication outlets, theory
usage, research design, and the types and instances of environmental change that are investigated
(Table 3). This summarizes what has been addressed and how, and helps identifying gaps in the
literature. Although we apply the EE label for the studied environmental changes, we do not use
any other terminology from the EE Framework in this initial part of the results. By contrast, we
base the second part of our review findings on the structure and terminology of the EE frame-
work (Table 4).5 In this part we formally estimate the extent of knowledge integration through
cross-citation analysis (cf. Mingers & Leydesdorff, 2015; Stewart, 2018). In the last part, we
assess the EE Framework’s ability to represent the reviewed work and suggest some
refinements.
A Modestly Sized (But Growing) Literature with Limited Focus on

Strategic Action
An important, first finding in Table 3 is that despite the broad set of external changes covered, the
number of articles qualifying for our review is small. This highlights the limited attention that
has been given to this essential area of research. However, interest is growing as more than half
of the studies (49) were published in the last 5 years. This said, the proportion appearing in the
three FT50-listed journals in entrepreneurship is modest (22 articles). The non-FT50 entrepre-
neurship journals account for 34 articles, primarily found in the more aggregate-level oriented
journals Small Business Economics (15) and Entrepreneurship & Regional Development (11).
Table 3 shows that quantitative studies are dominant, often using secondary data sets. Most of
these studies relate a single, aggregate-level change to effects on the new firm start-up rate.
Despite the strategic potential EEs offer to the micro-level (entrepreneurs, firms, ventures), only
nine studies empirically link the aggregate-level change to venture- and agent-level action (e.g.,
type of venture to initiate, the amount of investment, decision to start a firm). The neglect of EEs
in contemporary strategy research is reflected in the two FT50 journals run by the Strategic
Management Society only contributing four articles combined, across 20 years (cf. Davidsson,
2020). We observe that the qualitative studies often better link EEs and micro-level action by
combining aggregate-level data collected through publicly available sources such as newspapers
and governmental documentation to the micro-level data from interviews and observations cov-
ering extended periods of time, albeit often retrospectively (e.g., Weber et al., 2008; York et al.,
2016). We return to this in our research agenda.
Dominance of Empirical Research Lacking a Coherent Theoretical

Basis
Table 3 shows that the reviewed articles are predominantly empirical and either phenomenon-
focused or eclectic in their use of theory. The former approach may be justified when addressing
new phenomena such as crowdfunding and fintech (e.g., Burtch et al., 2013; Huang et al., 2017;
Roma et al., 2017). The ‘eclectic’ category reflects the pulling of concepts and arguments from
multiple theories that researchers arguably resort to when they find that no application of only
one or two theories would suffice for their theorization. Only the various branches of institutional
theory (North, 1990; Powell & DiMaggio, 1991; Scott, 1995) are used repeatedly in this litera-
ture. Another 19 studies rely on a named theoretical perspective, but each represents a one-off
effort within our set of 94 studies. In all, the results indicate a real or perceived shortage of con-
ceptual tools fit for the purpose of this type of research. In our research agenda, we will return to
the dominance for phenomenon-oriented or theoretically eclectic research as related to long term
knowledge accumulation.
Considerable Interest in Regulatory Change and an Absence of

Research on Demographic Transition
The second last panel in Table 3 demonstrates that regulatory change is the most frequently
addressed type in this literature. On top of these 36 instances there is the Economic Transition
category, which typically involves a confluence of inter-related regulatory, political, economic
and sociocultural developments. Most studies of regulatory change empirically verify that the
intended effects of initiatives specifically designed to stimulate business activity actually materi-
alize (e.g., deregulations related to the business registration process or employment laws [21
studies] and regulations providing monetary subsidies and the like [7 studies]).
Other studies address enablement drawn from a) failure of, b) seemingly unfavorable, and c)
non-business regulatory changes. For example, initial failure—due to the prevalent misconduct
of government entities—of deregulations to create private firms in China and Russia instead
fostered new venturing efforts that help to overcome the problems (Ahlstrom & Bruton, 2010;
Smallbone & Welter, 2012; Welter & Smallbone, 2011). Similarly, stringent regulation on infor-
mation disclosure and on business advisors led to creation of new ventures by inducing venture
capital activities and by creating new demand (Cumming & Knill, 2012; David et al., 2013).
Further, regulatory change for “non-business” purposes (e.g., environment, social liberalization,
prohibition, and digital use) offer a variety of nonobvious, yet effective enablement for new ven-
ture creation (Hiatt et al., 2009; Song, 2019; Vakili & Zhang, 2018; York & Venkataraman,
2010). These findings support that disequilibrating environmental changes enable some emerg-
ing ventures regardless of their initial intentions and overall effects on the economy.
Technological change has the second highest frequency in Table 3 although a substantial lit-
erature on this topic in non-FT50 specialty journals is excluded (see note to Table 3). Studies on
sociocultural EEs often focus on social movements (e.g., Hiatt et al., 2009), while the natural-
environmental category often concerns social venturing in response to natural disasters (e.g.,
Dutta, 2017). A perplexing observation in Table 3 is the complete absence of studies of entrepre-
neurship in response to demographic change, whether based on ageing or migration.6
Interrelations and Interactions Among Environmental Changes

A minority of papers address more than one type (19) and/or instance of EE (26). Some of them
imply causal interrelations among multiple EEs as well as interaction effects on particular ven-
tures. Examples of causal interrelations include (1) changes such as social movements, environ-
mental degradation, and economic crisis that lead to regulatory change (Hiatt et al., 2009; Sine
& David, 2003; York & Venkataraman, 2010; York et al., 2016), and (2) fundamental political
change in transition economies leads to several institutional changes (Ahlstrom & Bruton, 2010;
Hu et al., 2020; Nasra & Dacin, 2010; Smallbone & Welter, 2012; Tan & Tan, 2017; Tan, 2001;
Welter & Smallbone, 2011). While the former focuses on a single resulting EE (the particular
regulation enacted) the latter tends to cover multiple, interrelated EEs such as formal and infor-
mal institutions. However, while the interrelations are noted or implied, the analysis rarely pur-
sues them in depth.
Papers capturing multiple EEs highlight two types of interaction effects: (1) a supplementary
EE enhances the impact of what is construed as the main EE, and (2) the enabling influence of
Table 3. Outlets, Theories, Approaches, Type of Data, and Type of Environmental Change.
Empirical (80)
Total Quantitative Qualitative Mixed Nonempirical
(94) (50) (25) (5) (14)
Outlet
FT50 entrepreneurship journals 22 8 6 0 8
Other entrepreneurship journals 34 21 9 1 3
Other FT50 journals 38 21 10 4 3
Theory
Phenomenon-focused 33 20 11 2 0
Eclectic 24 10 5 2 7
Institutional theory 13 6 4 1 2
External Enabler framework 5 3 0 0 2
Other (e.g., effectuation, knowledge- 19 11 5 0 3
spillover, etc.)
Dataset
Primary 17 9 8 n/a n/a
Secondary (one data type) 40 40 0 n/a n/a
Secondary (combination of multiple data 9 0 7 2 n/a
types)
Primary and secondary mixed 14 1 10 3 n/a
Type of environmental change
Regulatory 36 21 8 2 5
Technologicala) 24 12 7 1 4
Economic 16 12 4 0 0
Sociocultural 13 2 6 2 3
Natural-environmental 9 2 4 0 3
Economic transition 7 2 2 0 3
Physical infrastructure 4 3 1 0 0
Knowledge infrastructure 4 4 0 0 0
Demographic 0 0 0 0 0
Other 9 1 5 2 1
Number of types and instances of change
investigated
One type 67 41 17 3 6
More than one type 19 5 7 2 5
Undefined number of types 8 4 1 0 3
One instance 24 14 7 2 1
More than one instance 26 18 4 1 3
Undefined number of instances 44 18 14 2 10
Note. (a) We are likely to have considerably more under-coverage for new technology compared to other EE
types due to much of the conversation occurring in non-FT50 journals within innovation and information systems.
Entrepreneurship based on new, digital technologies has recently attracted very strong interest, including several
special issues of journals (see Berger et al., 2021; Fang et al., 2018; Sahut et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2018). However,
not least because technological change is interrelated with and can interact with regulatory, sociocultural, and
natural-environmental changes we think there are gains to be made in both directions by regarding new technology
as one type of environmental change among others, as per the EE Framework.
one EE is contingent on the occurrence of another environmental change that may not yet have
occurred. An example of the former is fintech development (main) enabling new product offer-
ings while erosion of trust in the traditional financial industry due to the Global Financial Crisis
(supplementary) increases legitimacy and expands demand for the new alternatives (Cojoianu
et al., 2020). As an example of the latter, papers on economic transition emphasize the lack of
sociocultural acceptance and legal infrastructure, suppressing the enabling impact of another
environmental change (e.g., legalization of private new ventures; Ahlstrom & Bruton, 2010;
Smallbone & Welter, 2012; Welter & Smallbone, 2011). This means that a realization of the
intended enabling outcome depends on successful interactions among multiple EEs.
Papers that investigate multiple EEs shed light on within- and cross-type variance of EEs.
Within-type variance is investigated for different kinds of infrastructure (e.g., rail, broadband,
highways etc.), regulation (e.g., legalization of intra- and inter-state banking), and economic
factors (e.g., gross domestic product, income per capita; Chen et al., 2020; Kerr & Nanda, 2009;
Wang, 2006). Empirical evidence for within-type variance cautions against over-generalization
regarding the enabling power of particular types of EE. On the other hand, cross-type variance
receives relatively little empirical attention. In all, observations from our review call for improved
understanding of EE interdependence. We return to this in the research agenda.
Results Pertaining to EE Characteristics

EE characteristics are conceptualized as salient EE level features that influence the economic and
strategic potential of an EE (Davidsson et al., 2020). The four dimensions of EE scope are sec-
toral, socio-demographic, temporal, and spatial. Some EEs’ impact may be local, highly specific
and of short duration whereas others have global and all-encompassing scope (like the introduc-
tion and evolution of the Internet). The two dimensions of onset are gradual-sudden and
predictable-unpredictable. For example, environmental disasters are sudden while environmen-
tal degradation is gradual, and patent expiry is predictable while introduction of new, disruptive
technology is less so. About half the reviewed papers (49 studies) provide causal statements
about EE characteristics.
Scope
Table 4 confirms that variance in scope is a factor that attracts researchers’ interest across all
types of EE. In the reviewed articles, the sectoral scope is mostly reflected as a particular industry
or industry type where the impact of an EE occurs (e.g., Audretsch et al., 2015; Sine & Lee,
2009) while some studies go beyond “industry” scope examining EE’s impact on categories of
new venture like social (Lehner, 2014), hybrid (Schulz et al., 2016) and formal vs. informal ven-
tures (Dau & Cuervo-Cazurra, 2014).
Several studies feature a sector as a significant moderator of EE effects. For example, industry
categories and industry attributes (e.g., maturity and fragmentation) determine the influence of
EEs (e.g., Audretsch et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2020; Meoli et al., 2019; Pan & Yang, 2019; Shane,
2001; Wang, 2006). The left-hand side of Figure A1 (a) indicates nontrivial knowledge integra-
tion about sector-specific influence on venture emergence and growth across various types of
EEs (e.g., sociocultural, knowledge infrastructural, regulatory, and natural environmental EE).
All these cross-citing papers refer to ‘institutional theory’ whereas none of the non-linked papers
on the right-hand side do so and only a few make any mention of ‘institution’. This demonstrates
the knowledge-integrating power of common theory and terminology.
Socio-demographic scope reflects an EE’s impact on particular groups of people (e.g., by
educational attainment, ethnicity, gender) in terms of who would strategically respond (Chatterji
& Seamans, 2012; Eberhart et al., 2017) or who would be the likely users or customers (e.g.,
Table 4. Selected Coding Based on the EE Framework (Characteristics, Mechanisms, and Roles).
Phy. Know.
Total Reg. Tech. Eco. Socio. Env. Eco. Tran. Infra. Infra. Other
EE characteristics
Sectoral scope 20 10 4 2 3 2 2 3 3
Spatial scope 17 6 5 4 2 1 2 1 2
Temporal scope 12 2 4 4 1 1 1
Socio-dem. scope 11 8 2 2 1
Gradualness of onset 3 1 2 1
Predictability of onset 3 2 1
EE mechanisms
Resource expansion 53 27 5 7 7 3 1 3 3 3
Legitimation 33 14 6 4 10 3 5 1 2 5
Conservation 28 14 10 2 3 1 1 2 2 1
Demand expansion 20 4 6 5 2 5 1 2 2
Uncertainty reduction 17 5 7 2 1 1 3
Generation 12 2 9 1 1 1 1
Demand substitution 16 7 2 4 9 3 1 1 3
Enclosing 14 7 6 1 2 1
Combination 10 1 8 1 2 1 2
Compression 13 6 6 1 1
Resource substitution 5 3 1 1 1
Characteristics of EE Mechanisms
Opacity 8 2 4 1 1 1
Agency-intensity 8 4 3 1 1
EE Roles
Triggering 69 28 14 11 12 9 4 3 3 7
Shaping 60 9 19 8 10 8 5 2 2 6
Product shaping 42 12 17 6 10 6 2 2 2 6
Venture shaping 20 5 7 4 3 1 3 1 1 1
Process shaping 11 4 4 2 1 1
Outcome-enhancing 32 14 14 5 2 2 1 1 2
Note. Entries denote the number of articles that address each EE component. Entries often do not sum up to the
total horizontally because an article can cover the same EE component for more than one type of EE.
young individuals, see Gomber et al., 2018). In several cases, regulatory EEs receive stronger
response from particular socio-demographic groups in a manner not intended in the design of the
regulations (Castellaneta et al., 2020; Chatterji & Seamans, 2012; Cueto et al., 2017; Schulz
et al., 2016). Also, the Global Financial Crisis enhanced the influence of particular socio-
demographic attributes, such as gender and human capital, on creating new ventures (Cao & Im,
2018; Giotopoulos et al., 2017). Although cross-cited, the context of cross-citation among the
studies to the left in Figure A1 (b) only weakly reflects the focus on socio-demographic scope.
Instead, articles are cross-cited for the impact of regulatory EEs on entrepreneurial activity. This
confirms segregation by type of change although institutional theory is also a common denomi-
nator across four of the five studies.
Spatial scope specifies geographical boundaries, for instance, physical distance from an EE’s
‘epicenter’ (e.g., regions close to new infrastructure and to top financial clusters, see Chen et al.,
2020; Pan & Yang, 2019). It also reflects natural geographical features that make an EE variously
enabling (e.g., the conditions for certain types of energy production, see Sine & Lee, 2009) or
‘acquired’ regional features (e.g., level of regional economic development; agglomeration econ-
omies of major cities, see Pan & Yang, 2019; Zhou, 2011). An EE’s influence is often highly
localized due to these geographical features. Like for socio-demographic scope, the limited
cross-citation among articles featuring spatial scope seems driven by a shared EE type (banking
deregulation) rather than shared scope dimension (Figure A1 (c)).
Temporal scope specifies the timing and duration of an EE’s impact (Burtch et al., 2013; Hunt
& Fund, 2016). Studies support stronger enabling impact of EEs in the earlier period than later
(e.g., Bayus & Agarwal, 2007). Although our review integrates knowledge on EE’s temporal
scope across types of EE, Figure A1 (d) indicates a total absence of knowledge integration across
studies.
Finally, while the original EE Framework portrays scope as a matter of an EE being either
present or not within a context, a nontrivial number of studies across all scope dimensions
emphasize varying (aggregate) degree or magnitude of enablement within an EE’s scope (see
Bayus & Agarwal, 2007; Dutta, 2017; Song, 2019; York & Venkataraman, 2010).
Onset
Although the review confirms the relevance of onset (Ahlstrom & Bruton, 2010; Mezias &
Kuperman, 2000; Williams & Vorley, 2017), few studies address variance in gradualness and
predictability of onset (Table 4) and there is limited depth when they do. For example, some
studies anecdotally note gradual trends in technology as a within-venture tool for entrepreneurs
and also its prevalent impact on the user base (Browder et al., 2019; Song, 2019) without theo-
rizing or empirically testing this onset characteristic. Further, the review suggests that the contin-
ued trajectory and eventual expiration of EEs are also important (Bayus & Agarwal, 2007;
Branzei & Abdelnour, 2010). This suggests expanding onset to evolution of EEs, which would
allow more detailed attention to the pace and manner of EEs’ development over time (see
Chalmers et al., 2020; Smallbone & Welter, 2012; Williams & Vorley, 2017).
Results Pertaining to EE Mechanisms

Mechanisms are venture-level manifestations of EEs, specifying cause-effect relationships per-
taining to what supply-, demand- or value-appropriation improvement an EE offers (Table 1).
Apart from being strategically important in themselves, mechanisms vary on two strategically
important characteristics: opacity, referring to how difficult they are to identify, and agency-
intensity, referring to how demanding is their realization.
In support of the rationale behind our review, the columns and rows in Table 4 confirm that a
given type of EE can offer many different mechanisms and that a given mechanism can be
derived from several different types of EE. Causal effects of four mechanisms—resource expan-
sion, legitimation, conservation, and demand expansion—are argued in 20 studies or more.
Below we specify prominent types of enablement under each of these four mechanisms.
Resource Expansion and Conservation

The reviewed research often refers to provision and saving of three types of enabling resources.
Financial resources are the most prevalent (e.g., governmental subsidies and reduced interest rate
as obvious enablement; Black & Strahan, 2002; Colombelli et al., 2020; Kromidha & Robson,
2016 vs. reduced cost for acquiring customers and technologies as non-obvious enablement;
Gomber et al., 2018; von Briel et al., 2018). Expansion of and reduced cost for acquiring knowl-
edge/information (e.g., Kolympiris et al., 2014) and human resources (Wang, 2006 & Vakili &
Zhang, 2018) are also recurring key enablement offered by EEs for new venturing. In some
cases, the enablement concerns access to rather than expansion of resources (e.g., Roma et al.,
2017).
Legitimation
Two main types of legitimacy provided by EEs are: (1) toward venturing activity in general and
(2) toward particular market offerings and business practices. Examples of the former include
legalization and increased social acceptance for profit-seeking activity (Tan & Tan, 2017;
Williams & Vorley, 2017). Social movements that increase legitimacy by heightening customer
awareness and appreciation of new products and production practices illustrate the latter (Sine &
Lee, 2009; Sine & David, 2003, Sebastiani et al., 2013). This includes legitimacy offered by
other stakeholders, such as investors (Akemu et al., 2016).
We found dense cross-citation linkages for resource expansion, conservation, and legitima-
tion mechanisms, indicating potential knowledge integration for these mechanisms (Figure A1
(e) for legitimation). However, the context of citation is often a common type of EE (e.g., regu-
latory change and social movements) and a shared theoretical basis (institutional theory).
Demand Expansion
Demand expansion often refers to increase in total demand driven by (accessible) population
(Bennett, 2019; Chen et al., 2020; Song, 2019); improved economic status of the population
(Partridge et al., 2020; Wang, 2006), and increase of unfilled niches (Cohen & Winn, 2007; Tan,
2001). Other instances concern increases in demand for specific product categories due to natural
disasters (Dutta, 2017; Grube & Storr, 2018; Nelson & Lima, 2020; Williams & Shepherd, 2016)
and increase in the user base of internet/mobile-based financial services (Gomber et al., 2018).
Some of this should perhaps be seen as demand substitution instead, although it is often hard to
identify what is sacrificed to make room for the increased demand. In some cases, the expanding
demand could more accurately be seen as demand creation (e.g., David et al., 2013) or improved
market access (e.g., Chen et al., 2020).
We found an absence of cross-citation across studies addressing the demand expansion mech-
anism while relatively strong knowledge integration emerges for the demand substitution (Figure
A1 (f)). Although this may be driven also by shared type (social movement) and theory (institu-
tional), the context of citation reflects what the demand substitution mechanism specifically
refers to (existing demand is replaced through the emergence of the EE) rather than other or
general enabling influence of sociocultural changes.
Characteristics of Mechanisms
Few studies address the opacity and agency-intensity of mechanisms (Table 4) and then usually
not in much depth. We address future research on the strategically important issue of character-
istics of mechanisms in our research agenda.
Results Pertaining to EE Roles

Derived from mechanisms, EE roles are higher-order functions of EEs at different stages of a
new venture’s development (Davidsson et al., 2020). The EE Framework outlines three distinct
but non-exclusive roles: triggering, outcome-enhancing and shaping. An EE can trigger new
venture creation due to anticipation of one or more enabling mechanisms. Both anticipated and
unanticipated mechanisms can enhance the outcomes. Further, EE mechanisms can contribute to
shaping the product (e.g., social movements creating demand for particular products); the ven-
ture (e.g., new technologies shaping the business model); and/or the process (e.g., deregulation
making the venture creation process easier and faster).
While roles can be discerned from the manuscripts (Table 4) they are usually not expressed
with the clarity and precision that is assumed by the framework’s terminology. Articles some-
times rely on concepts that do not denote the exact influence of an EE (e.g., effects on entrepre-
neurial ‘opportunity’ or ‘activity’) and rarely specify when in the new venture creation process
the enablement occurs. Our coding is thus based on explicit theoretical arguments but also
inferred from implicit or imprecise arguments, and operationalizations.
Triggering
Table 4 shows that triggering is the most studied role. However, we coded half of the instances
(38) as ambiguously operationalized, confounding triggering with outcome-enhancement. This
is because the operationalization as increase in national, regional, or sectoral entry rates does not
distinguish between increase in attempts to start ventures (triggering) and a larger share reaching
successful emergence (outcome-enhancing; cf. von Briel et al., 2018). Only four studies use a
completely unambiguous, individual or venture-level measure of triggering (e.g., decision to
start a new venture; Castellaneta et al., 2020; Eberhart et al., 2017; Giotopoulos et al., 2017;
Schulz et al., 2016). Similarly, only six articles develop separate hypotheses or propositions for
triggering and outcome-enhancing effects (Cueto et al., 2017; Cumming & Knill, 2012; Eberhart
et al., 2017; Giotopoulos et al., 2017; Mezias & Kuperman, 2000; von Briel et al., 2018).
Regarding the triggering role, cross-citation patterns indicate a level of knowledge integration
arguably driven by the use of a shared dependent variable (start-up rate). Moreover, cross-citation
tends to occur much more within than across types of EEs (Figure A1 (g)).
Outcome-Enhancing
While accepting a broader range of outcomes, Davidsson et al. (2020, footnote 7) hold that
“under the view that entrepreneurship is about new venture creation, the most relevant outcome
is whether or not the process leads to a viable new venture.” Few articles in the review actually
address such ‘emergence success’, Gozman et al. (2018), Viotto da Cruz (2018) and Song (2019)
being among the exceptions. Instead, the articles mostly focus on survival (Bayus & Agarwal,
2007; Conti, 2018; Partridge et al., 2020), financial performance (Burtch et al., 2013; Cohen &
Winn, 2007), and growth (Eberhart & Eesley, 2018; Kobeissi, 2009) beyond that point.
Through cross-citation analysis, we found segregation of knowledge by different type of EE
and also limited integration of knowledge within types as the context of cross-citation reflects
general impact of a particular EE type on new venturing activity rather than whether or how it
enhances the outcome of new ventures (Figure A1 (h)).
Shaping
Table 4 reveals that many articles address product and venture shaping to some extent. However,
the treatment of shaping is not always deep or central. Only 18 articles represent any type of
shaping in formal hypotheses or propositions. In the remaining cases the coding is based on
reported observations, examples, theoretical arguments, or rather implicit suggestions.
Interestingly, attention to product- and venture shaping is much more prevalent in qualitative
and conceptual (27 papers; 69%) than quantitative papers (15 papers; 29%). This arguably
reflects the challenge of compressing shaping to a few quantitative variables; that such informa-
tion (consequently) is absent in secondary data sets, and that close-up study may be necessary to
effectively capture shaping phenomena. Grandy and Hiatt (2020) is a quantitative exception by
empirically testing the process-shaping role as time taken for regulatory approval.
Different varieties of product shaping were identified through our review. First, the examined
EE—for instance, a social movement or natural disaster—can narrowly specify the type of
increased demand, thereby determining what to offer the market in the first place (Hiatt & Carlos,
2019; Hiatt et al., 2009). Second, the EE may constitute the core or components (e.g., big data
and artificial intelligence) of the product or service (e.g., automation of credit applications;
Mohsen et al., 2019; Toms et al., 2020). Third, an EE can facilitate stakeholder interaction guid-
ing improvement of attributes of the offerings (e.g., Lehner, 2014, about crowdfunding). Further,
influence on the choice of market to address can be independent of product shaping (e.g., Mohsen
et al., 2019). Such market shaping is currently not covered in the EE Framework.
The notions ‘organizational form’ and ‘business model’ appear sporadically in the coding for
venture shaping (e.g., Hunt & Fund, 2016; Lehner, 2014; Song, 2019). Other papers address a
diverse set of venture shaping indicators. Except for Hunt and Fund’s (2016) ‘sustainability
shaping’ and Welter and Smallbone’s (2011) elaboration on six management practices driven by
economic transitions, there is only passing mention of possible venture-shaping effects.
We found relatively strong knowledge integration for the shaping role within and across EE
types (Figure A1 (i)). Cross-citation occurs across articles addressing each of the four dimen-
sions of the shaping role (e.g., within EE type: Grégoire et al., 2010; Grégoire & Shepherd, 2012;
Shane, 2000, 2001 and across EE types: Akemu et al., 2016; Sine & David, 2003; Williams &
Shepherd, 2016; York & Venkataraman, 2010). Again, institutional theory is well represented
among cross-cited articles.
Assessment and Revision of the External Enabler Framework

Overall, our review confirms broad applicability of the EE Framework (Davidsson et al., 2020)
as a vantage point for investigation of multi-faceted external enablement of new venture cre-
ation. The summary of our findings in Table 4 clearly supports the premise that there is variance
within and commonalities across types of EEs regarding how they enable new venturing. Further,
our cross-citation analyses often indicated either limited, or narrow integration within types of
EE except when common theory drives integration more broadly across types. This suggests that
the EE Framework’s shared conceptualizations have considerable knowledge accumulation
potential.
The EE Framework (1) invites integration across a broad range of types of change while
providing bases for identifying similarities and differences between instances of change within
and across types (scope, onset), (2) emphasizes enabling impact for new ventures, and (3) pro-
vides detailed terminology for functions of enablement (mechanisms; roles). Across these crite-
ria, the framework arguably offers an alternative for analyzing enabling impact of external
change on new venturing that is superior to other integrative terms like external shock, environ-
mental jolt, disruption, and entrepreneurial opportunity as well as frameworks like SWOT,
PEST[EL/LE], Porter’s Five Forces, and the like.
This being said, although the current structure and terminology of the EE Framework largely
captures the variance and commonalities—relevant to enablement of new venture creation—that
the reviewed research addresses, the review work yielded some observations that can motivate
further refinements and revisions of the EE Framework. We have mentioned above that apart
from EE scope, the degree or magnitude of enablement within an EEs scope needs to be consid-
ered. A liberal interpretation of sectoral scope makes room for effects on categories like social,
hybrid, and informal ventures. The notion of onset should possibly be expanded to EE evolution.
We should caution, though, about potentially problematic overlap with the temporal scope con-
cept. For some purposes, access vs. creation vs. expansion to/of resources and demand may be
useful distinctions in the mechanism category. Though observed in the review, we advise against
adding mechanisms like incentivizing of founders (Cao & Im, 2018; Cumming & Knill, 2012;
Eberhart et al., 2017; Sine & Lee, 2009) and signaling to stakeholders (Roma et al., 2017)
because they are already represented by the triggering role and/or underlying, favorable circum-
stances covered by current EE mechanisms. Market shaping—influence on what market to
serve—can be added as a fourth type of shaping role. For process-oriented studies, there may be
reason to consider Pivot triggering (e.g., Lehner, 2014) alongside the original category re-labeled
as Venture triggering. We also found definitions of some concepts missing or wanting. Table 1
summarizes our revision suggestions and provide definitions for all concepts in the (revised) EE
Framework.
Agenda: Future Research Directions

Our review demonstrates that changes to the business environment benefit many new ventures in
numerous, significant ways. The overall goal for this literature review is to enhance knowledge
accumulation about how such changes enable new venture creation, with a special emphasis on
strategically actionable knowledge. Our most important means for this is the research agenda
outlined below. This agenda has primarily been informed by the following review observations,
which were reported above. First, the literature addressing effects of external change on new
venture creation is small. This motivates a strong call for 1) more research in this area. We also
found limited, recurring use of particular theories, indicating 2) a need for theoretical develop-
ment in this domain. This was further reinforced by our cross-citation analyses, which suggest
that common theory and terminology integrates research addressing different nominal types of
change.
Further, the review demonstrates that the forms of enablement-relevant variance are shared
across different types of external change, while most studies focus on a single type. This supports
a call for 3) more research and theorizing across nominal types of environmental change. The
predominant focus on a single type (and often single instance) of change further indicates 4) a
need for research on interrelationships and interactions among external factors that enable new
venture development. Our cross-citation analysis reinforced this point by indicating narrow
knowledge integration, occurring within rather than across types of change. Further, the single
instances studied frequently represent sudden, external shocks. This calls for (5) more attention
to variance in the onset of the changes as well as to gradual changes such as demographic
trends.
We also found that change in the firm start-up rate is the most common effect assessed and that
the research often appears in journals with an aggregate-level orientation but infrequently in
strategy journals. Studies rarely assess venture-level mechanisms empirically, nor do they often
address strategically important variance in opacity and agency-intensity. This strongly motivates
(6) strengthening the emphasis on developing knowledge that is strategically actionable on the
level of entrepreneurial agents and ventures. Moreover, effects on triggering of venture creation
efforts are rarely separated from effects on the outcomes of such efforts, and process shaping is
the least frequently addressed role. This calls for (7) more process-oriented research on the role
of environmental change in new venture creation. Further, many studies are limited to verifying
enabling effects of changes that are designed or widely believed to have enabling effects for new
ventures. In addition, the predominant “single [type of] change increases the start-up rate”
approach only captures main tendencies. There is thus a need for 8) research addressing non-
obvious enabling effects of environmental change and enablement of deviant forms of venturing
that break new ground and arguably signify the most interesting forms of entrepreneurship.
There are thus many interesting and important aspects of external enablement of entrepre-
neurship that are still largely unexplored territory, providing exciting opportunities for
entrepreneurship scholars. In the following, we elaborate on these either under separate headings
or integrated under others.
Theory Development
Our review found extensive use of eclectic and phenomenon-focused approaches in empirical
research as well as much one-off use of theories (76 studies). The only example of recurring use
are the various branches of institutional theory, which have been employed across theoretical as
well as quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies. This demonstrates two things. First,
institutional theories are a promising theoretical basis for future work in this area. Our cross-
citation analyses gave repeated indications of its knowledge-integrating potential, confirming
that key anchoring theories facilitate knowledge accumulation (Shepherd & Wiklund, 2009;
Singh et al., 2003). We believe institutional theories are especially fruitful if augmented with
elements of the EE Framework, such as variance in EE characteristics, and attention to mecha-
nisms beyond legitimation and demand substitution. However, not all environmental changes
can comfortably be cast as institutional change, and institutional theories have limitations as a
basis for explaining micro-level action (Aldrich, 2010), especially deviant action that breaks
norms and disrupts the status quo, as high-end entrepreneurship tends to do (Bylund & McCaffrey,
2017; Gozman et al., 2018). Hence, other alternatives are also desirable.
Second, the absence of recurring use indicates that other agent- or cross-level theories cur-
rently do not seem fit to fill that void. We therefore call for knowledge accumulation through
indigenous theoretical development tailored to explaining entrepreneurship’s core phenomenon:
new venture creation. The EE Framework—which is not yet full-blown theory—is one possible
vantage point. This can take at least two forms: 1) elevating some facets of the EE Framework to
theory status, and 2) using the EE Framework to augment existing, agent-centric theories.
The former would involve the development of propositions, typologies or process models
(Cornelissen, 2017) concerning the inter- and cross-relationships among EE characteristics,
mechanisms and roles; elements which are currently merely defined, structured, and listed within
the framework (with some speculations about relationships). For example, theorizing could take
aim at explaining how EE characteristics relate to particular mechanisms; how mechanisms
interact and interrelate; how mechanisms and the shaping role pan out across stages of the ven-
ture creation process, and why certain mechanisms should be expected to have an exaggerated
influence on triggering compared to their influence on outcomes, and vice versa, to mention but
a few examples (cf. Cueto et al., 2017; Eesley, Li, et al., 2016; von Briel et al., 2018).
Using the EE Framework to augment existing, agent-centric theories implies theory elabora-
tion (Fisher & Aguinis, 2017). There is no shortage of theories and concepts pertaining to the
effects of variance among agents, and some of them concern how agents can deal with external
change. However, it seems unlikely that the full potential in agent-focused theories about, for
example, individual-level creativity, attributions, and regulatory focus, or firm level theories of
absorptive capacity, dynamic capabilities or managerial attention can be realized without sys-
tematic attention to variance in the changes to which the agents respond (cf. Davidsson, 2020).7
The EE Framework provides suitable material for such theory elaboration by specifying several
types of enablement-relevant variance among environmental changes on different levels, which
can be combined with the variance among agents already highlighted in these theories.
Such matching of agent and enabling conditions in theorizing could lead to realization of the
intent behind Shane and Venkataraman’s (2000) entrepreneurship nexus. The EE concept and
framework offer an alternative that bypasses the problematic assumptions in the nexus idea
(Shane, 2012): that all the relevant conditions exist at the outset; that these conditions by defini-
tion make the difference between certain failure and potential success, and that successful
entrepreneurs correctly perceive the relevant confluence of conditions and their potential at the
start of the journey. By focusing on a delimited set of conditions—environmental changes—and
partial enablement, the EE Framework makes the theorizing task manageable. It also invites
process-oriented theorizing (see von Briel et al., 2018) which Shane and Venkataraman’s (2000)
focus on discovery of pre-existing opportunities came to downplay (Korsgaard, 2013). This can
induce process-oriented theorists’ attention to external conditions despite their active aversion to
conceptualization of objective opportunities (Alvarez & Barney, 2007, p. 15; Arikan et al., 2020).
One type of theory elaboration would be to add not only EE variance but also a temporal dimen-
sion (see Davidsson & Gruenhagen, 2020) to otherwise static, agent-centered theories.
Interrelated and Interacting Environmental Changes

Although our review demonstrates potential knowledge integration on interactions of varying
environmental changes, past research has mostly focused on a single type—and often a single
instance—of EE, and cross-citation analysis confirms the segregation of research by type of
change. Research has thus asked “What are the new venturing effects of environmental change
X?” This approach risks exaggerating the importance of a single source of enablement and
downplaying EE interactions. One important strategy for future work is therefore to start instead
from the question “What enables the observable surge in new venturing activity (in context X or
by agents of type Z)?” This gears attention to interaction among several enabling circumstances.
For example, had Hiatt et al. (2009) started from the question “What was driving the surge in soft
drink start-ups in the early 1900s?” they might have considered enablement beyond the mecha-
nisms provided by the temperance movement and prohibition, such as electrified refrigeration
(technological change; combination mechanism) and the economic boom of the 1920s (eco-
nomic change; demand expansion mechanism).
Similarly, Davidsson (2020) suggests that a range of technological, infrastructural, natural-
environmental and sociocultural changes help explain the appearance and rapid growth of elec-
tric scooter sharing businesses. Some of these changes appear to be causally linked, as with
climate change and the evolution of the Internet driving improved battery technology and the
prevalence and functionality of smartphones, both of which are leveraged in the business model.
Others appear to be interactive or additive, like new bikeways infrastructure adding further to the
product’s utility. These patterns of interrelatedness and interaction are likely to be commonplace.
Working backwards from known increases in new venturing activity seems to be a good strategy
for gaining further insights into such interactions among enabling conditions (cf. von Briel et al.,
2018).
Environmental changes interact with the (construed as) stable characteristics of spatiotempo-
ral contexts as well. Although we cannot outline the research implications and opportunities in
full detail here (cf. Johns, 2006; Welter, 2011; Zahra et al., 2014), we highlight one possibility of
particular interest for developing policy-relevant insights. Regulatory change is undoubtedly the
most directly actionable type of change for policy makers. To gain insight into how best to use
this instrument to boost spontaneously occurring enablement, studies can cross-sectionally com-
pare the entrepreneurial response to one or more environmental changes across countries or
regions with varying regulatory frameworks, culture, demographic structure, or economic devel-
opment. Differences attributed to dissimilar regulatory arrangements would inform how policies
can be designed to enhance the entrepreneurial leverage of spontaneously occurring changes.
Effects of variance in other context conditions would moderate such conclusions by indicating
challenges that might limit the efficacy of the considered regulatory changes (Greene et al., 2008;
Hoppmann & Vermeer, 2020; Mohsen et al., 2019) as well as the conditions under which policy
initiatives may be particularly effective.
Strengthening the Emphasis on Strategically Actionable Knowledge,

Including About the Deviant and Non-Obvious
Our review established that change in the firm start-up rate without direct attention to the micro-
level mechanisms is the most common effect assessed and that the research often appears in
journals with an aggregate-level orientation but infrequently in strategy journals. Viewing the
issue of entrepreneurial responses (and non-responses) to environmental changes through the
lens of micro-level strategic action triggers a range of relevant questions, most of which have
been sparsely addressed in the reviewed research. For example: How does the gradualness and
predictability of an EE’s onset (or evolution) influence who (else) will act and who is likely to be
successful? What type and strength of EE mechanisms can be expected from EEs depending on
their scope and onset? What mechanisms are likely associated with lower and higher opacity and
agency-intensity, respectively? How do opacity and agency-intensity relate to aggregate trigger-
ing (competitive intensity) and venture-level outcome-enhancement (potential reward for taking
the less trodden path)? How does the efficacy of EE mechanisms vary across outcomes such as
becoming an operational venture vs. growth vs. profitability? How can EE mechanisms be stra-
tegically used at different stages of the venture development process? Finally, what does the
(successful) deviant minority do differently in deriving strategic benefits from EEs?
Developing strategically actionable knowledge by addressing these and similar questions
requires research that goes beyond linking aggregate change to aggregate effects on start-up
rates. This can take the form of mixed-method studies that add venture-level data to analysis of
aggregate-level data sets or as separate, agent and venture-level projects that stay connected with
the overall insights about enablement from aggregate-level research. We discuss four approaches
to increased strategic insights: 1) better aggregate-level data sets guided by more effective con-
ceptualizations; 2) using qualitative, case-based data; 3) simulations linking macro patterns to
micro-level behavior; and 4) scenario-based experimentation.
Better Aggregate Data Sets Guided by More Effective Conceptualizations

We found that the more strategically insightful studies relying on aggregated data typically use a
purpose-built data set compiled by the researchers from various sources. For example, Chen et
al.’s (2020) application of the EE Framework from data compilation onward led to interesting
insights concerning spatial and temporal scope and even a credible, empirically supported case
for ventures leveraging specific mechanisms offered by China’s high-speed rail infrastructure
expansion.
The point here is not application of the EE Framework as such, but the use of conceptualiza-
tions that capture variance in the environmental changes and that the conceptualization guides
the creation of the data set. Candidates for this approach beyond the EE Framework include, for
example, institutional theories as discussed above, the notion of affordances (Autio et al., 2018;
Gibson, 1977) and the literature on strategic issues (Dutton & Jackson, 1987; Gartner et al.,
2008).
Using Qualitative, Case-Based Data

Our review indicated that qualitative and mixed-method studies often capture the link between
aggregate-level change and micro-level action more explicitly, addressing issues like product-
and venture shaping influenced by external change. Studies using qualitative, case methodology
as main method can reach further and deeper into the strategic use of environmental changes
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Langley, 1999). Although we side with Davidsson and Gruenhagen (2020) in
not equating process research with qualitative methods, the case method is no doubt productive
for gaining processual insights, as well as for capturing minority cases of deviant, yet successful
entrepreneurial behavior. Challenges include identifying and gaining access to entrepreneurs or

investors who specialize in exploiting environmental change for entrepreneurial purposes; mak-
ing bold and effective, transferable abstractions beyond description of interesting cases
(Davidsson & Gruenhagen, 2020); and staying connected with the discourse based on large-
scale, quantitative studies of enablement. Weber et al. (2008) make a good example by investi-
gating the process of new venturing for the grass-fed meat production enabled by a grassroots
coalition. Based on extensive qualitative data, they unveil varying forms of enablement that play
a role at different points in the process of new venture creation.
Qualitative, case-based data can also be used as supplementary evidence in studies using the
above type of data set. An example is Hiatt et al. (2009). Like Chen et al. (2020), they combine
quantitative data from multiple sources in creating a custom-built data set to analyze the effects
of the temperance movement on soft drink venturing (and the demise of breweries). In addition,
they use archival, qualitative data to support the existence and strategic use of conservation,
resource expansion, legitimation and demand expansion mechanisms.
Simulations Linking Macro Patterns to Micro-Level Behavior

Like Hunt and Fund (2016) within our review, we see clear potential in the simulation method.
In particular, Agent-Based Modeling and Simulation (ABMS) is regarded well suited for inves-
tigating the micro-processes that may underlie observed aggregate-level patterns (Macy &
Willer, 2002). This makes it an interesting avenue toward building better knowledge on external
enablement of new venture creation. ABMS can be applied as supplementary method to investi-
gate alternative micro-level explanations for the study’s aggregate results or do the latter as main
method in relation to received views in the literature regarding aggregate-level relationships. It
may also find productive application where aggregate-level conclusions cannot yet be drawn.
This might apply, for example, to examining the effects of varying degrees of discrepancy
between which mechanisms trigger many start-up efforts and which have the greatest impact on
successful outcomes. Mauer et al. (2018) and Smith and Rand (2018) provide exemplars of link-
ing aggregate patterns to strategic action with ABMS in other areas of strategy research.
Scenario-Based Experimentation
Although few experimental studies qualified for our review, scenario-based experimentation—
with conjoint- and other designs—has been prominent in related “opportunity identification/
evaluation” research (see Davidsson, 2015; Grégoire et al., 2019). Grégoire and Shepherd (2012;
included in our review) is a particularly relevant application (see also Wood et al., 2016).
Originating from a re-conceptualization of the idea of “objective opportunity,” the EE Framework
readily lends itself to augmenting this research approach. For example, designs can systemati-
cally manipulate scope and onset of EEs, or opacity and agency-intensity of mechanisms. Beyond
an overall assessment of the attractiveness of the situation, identification and/or evaluation of
specific mechanisms and roles can be used as dependent (or mediating) variable. If data on real-
world relationships between mechanisms and outcomes can be obtained or approximated, exper-
iments can address cognitive biases leading to over- and under-emphasis of particular mechanisms
in venture- and pivot triggering. Experimentation also lends itself to combinations of interacting
environmental changes.
The notions of opacity and agency-intensity are of particular interest for studying agent-
enabler interactions in assessing the entrepreneurial potential of enablers. Traditionally, this type
of variance has been attributed solely to the agent as variance in knowledge and resources at
hand. Grégoire and Shepherd (2012) is a forerunner and exemplar in this regard by manipulating
superficial vs. structural alignment of technology-market combinations—theorized as represent-
ing opacity in EE terminology—while using the evaluator’s prior knowledge about markets and
technologies as moderator. In a different topical domain, Gielnik et al. (2015) exemplify how
experimentation can be used as supplementary method to gain evidence on causal mechanisms
that could not be tested in an observational main study as well as how experimental design can
be applied to processual research questions.
Conclusion
A swimmer who tries to make waves in the ocean will not achieve much, while surfers who know
how to ride the ocean’s waves can amaze the world while enjoying themselves and reaching their
own goals. Although not all ventures are based on environmental changes, the influence of such
changes on entrepreneurial action and outcomes is no doubt vital in many cases. The rebounding
interest in this previously neglected and dispersed topic of research is a positive sign and is likely
to be further boosted by COVID-19, the climate change challenge, continued development of
digital technologies, and other changes still unknown to us. We hope that our review and agenda
can inspire and guide pathbreaking new work in this domain, accumulating knowledge on how
environmental changes strategically—and sometimes fortuitously—benefit entrepreneurs as
they conceive new ventures and successfully navigate the process of making them become real.
Appendix. Systematic literature review: Process, criteria and

procedures
Journal and period selection. In order to secure inclusion of high-quality research and consid-
eration of strategic actionability while recognizing the cross-disciplinary appeal of research on
environmental change, we searched all journals listed in Financial Times 50 plus five additional
entrepreneurship journals. We limited the review to the 2000–2020 (September) period.
Identification of four EE principles. A lack of common terminology rendered a purely
keyword-based literature search strategy unfeasible. Instead, we started by identifying four prin-
ciples of EE based on its definition: 1) aggregate-level instance of 2) change(s) focusing on 3)
enablement of 4) new venture creation (Davidsson et al., 2020). These four principles constitute
the basis of criterion sampling (Table 2) and search term development (Table A1). This is similar
to the search strategy employed by Read et al. (2009) who also faced the issue of collecting scat-
tered papers without use of a common explicit keyword (i.e., effectuation).
Failing to meet any of the four principles leads to exclusion of a paper. For example, changes
that are helpful only to a particular venture do not qualify. The same goes for helpful circum-
stances that do not represent change. Studies that also consider detrimental effects of external
change are included if there is at least some consideration of enabling effects in the theorizing or
empirical assessment. Positive effects only on established firms’ current activities do not
qualify.
Specification of principle-based search terms. Three of the four principles could be used in
the development of search terms whereas the enablement criterion could not be employed until
article contents were inspected. Table A1 includes specific search terms developed for the three
principles. Specifically, as aggregate-level instances are often described by type (Drucker, 1985;
Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Sine & Lee, 2009), we developed search terms for nine types of
external environment (see the first column of Table A1). Search terms that indicate changes at
aggregate level are sometimes implied in search terms for aggregate-level instance (e.g., dereg-
ulation, global warming, hurricane, cyclone, etc.) but more often had to be contextualized into
each type of external environment. In order to capture various roles of EEs throughout new
venture creation processes, search terms cover different aspects of instances (e.g., sudden, grad-
ual, increase, decrease, etc.) and varying focal elements of new venture creation.
Specification of supplementary, keyword-based search term. In order to secure inclusion

of recent research applying the EE concept, we conducted a supplementary search using ‘exter-
nal enabl*’ as keyword combined with search terms for new venture creation already
developed.
Inclusion and exclusion of main, principle-based search results. Search for post year 2000
articles generated 791 candidate papers captured by our main (766) and supplementary (25)
searches in Elsevier’s Scopus® database. We conducted two rounds of title/abstract examination.
In the first round, both authors independently examined the title and abstract of each paper and
suggested exclusion or retention for full text assessment. We choose to be strict on what consti-
tutes an EE and somewhat liberal on the delineation of ‘new venture creation’ due to its fluid and
often insufficiently described temporal demarcations. Through this process, we identified and
eliminated ambiguities by refining the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Based on the improved crite-
ria, we re-inspected title and abstract of articles, suggesting exclusion and retention for full text
assessment. In case of disagreement or doubt raised by either author, articles were retained for
further inspection. As per our strict inclusion strategy for EE constituents, the most common
exclusion reason was ‘unqualified EE’, meaning the potential EE was not aggregate level, not
change, or not conceived of as enabling. In terms of paper type, a total of 53 non-original research
articles were excluded such as reviews, meta-analyses, commentaries, editorials, and the like.
Title and abstract based examination led to a set of 154 papers for full text inspection. Again,
both authors inspected each paper making suggestions for inclusion or exclusion. In case of dis-
agreement or doubt, both authors re-inspected the articles and discussed until agreement could
be reached. As a result, the authors decided to retain 94 papers for review.
One important exclusion decision was made for research on science parks; incubators; accel-
erators; universities; educational programs, and ecosystems. Although these may meet the defi-
nition of EE when they clearly represent change, we decided to exclude this category for two
reasons. Firstly, these ‘institutions’ are specifically created or transformed with the purpose of
furthering new venture creation. They are not broad societal changes that can have different
effects in many domains while this review aims to develop knowledge about the often non-
obvious benefits that not-yet-existing ventures might find by turning attention to environmental
changes. Secondly, the research in this category mostly seems to have other main foci than the
enabling mechanisms by which these institutions can provide benefits to particular ventures.
They typically seemed ‘marginally relevant’ at best.
Inclusion and exclusion of supplementary, keyword-based search results. The 25 papers
identified in the supplementary search were first screened based on inclusion of reference either
to Davidsson (2015) or Davidsson et al. (2020). This was to confirm whether the External Enabler
concept used in the research matches the use in this review. We eliminated 12 articles for non-
matched EE concept. We also excluded Davidsson (2015)—the paper introducing the External
Enabler concept—and a duplicate article already retained from the principle-based search. We
conducted full text examination for the remaining 11 papers and excluded seven of them due to
their marginal relevance. As a result, four papers identified uniquely through the supplementary
search were retained in the review, increasing the total number to 98.
Coding and further reduction of the sample. Two different coding schemes, general and EE-
specified, were developed according to the type of information we aimed to extract. The general
coding scheme was used to register descriptive information of articles including type and instance of
EE(s) investigated, key concepts (e.g., dependent and independent variables), research designs, data-
set, etc. The EE-specified coding was used to capture direct, moderating, and mediating effects
involving EE characteristics, EE mechanisms including their own characteristics (agency-intensity
and opacity), or EE roles. Additional and more refined coding categories were added during the
process (requiring re-analyses of earlier papers). Both authors either coded or cross-checked each
article for all categories of coding. In the case of disagreement or doubt, discussion and re-
examination continued until agreement could be reached. During the extensive coding process, an
additional four papers were deemed ineligible, resulting in a final sample of 94 articles.
Data extraction. For the papers that provide formal hypotheses or propositions, coding of causal
effects was based on theoretical arguments underlying the hypotheses/propositions. For the remain-
ing papers, this coding was based on key, front-end arguments and/or interpretation of findings
where the article’s authors make more than a passing remark about the reasons for a relationship.
That is, it should appear in the main body of the paper (not a single appearance in introduction or
conclusion). The process of data extraction was open-ended as we tracked also the occurrence of EE
characteristics, mechanisms, and roles that are not listed in the EE Framework.
It should be noted that the article inclusion and EE-specified coding involve subjective inter-
pretation to some extent. This is due to the challenge of reviewing literature that predated the EE
concept and framework and thereby applied varying terminologies to describe elements of the
framework. Other coders would likely not arrive at exactly the same coding, but we are confident
that the main thrust of our results would be replicated by other researchers.
TABLE A1 Search Terms for Paper Selection (Main, Principle-based Search)
Three (out of four) principles of external enabler

Aggregate-level instance Change New venture creation
General external, environment*, or shock, crisis, disrupt*, chang*, jolt, (venture, business, firm,
institution* new, develop*, trans*, upheaval; organization*, or
Technology tech* or digit* new, novel, break*, develop*, shift; organisation*) and
(creation, founding,
Economic econom* or financ* chang*, shift, swing, fluct*, *up*,
gestation, emergence,
*down*, crisis, collapse,
or formation); (new
depression, boom, recession,
or nascent) and
growth, shock, flourish*, thriving,
(venture, business,
development, expansion,
firm, organization,
recovery, trans*, liberali*, or
or organisation);
reform*;
(opportunity) and
Demographic demograph*, population, migrat*, shift*, chang*, trend, trans*, or (identification,
immigrat*, or emigrat* develop*; creation, discovery, or
Regulatory law, leg*, regulat*, or deregulat* chang*, new, shift*, reform*, or development); start-up;
refine*; entrepreneur*
Environmental natural, environment*, climate, global disaster, degradation, pollution,
warming, hurricane, cyclone, chang*, or shift*;
typhoon, eruption, tsunami,
wildfire, flooding, earthquake, or
weather
Sociocultural soci* or cultur* move*, chang*, shift*, trend,
develop*, trans*, or advance*;
Infrastructure infrastructure
Political poli* shift*, trans*, or chang*
Table A2 Paper Summaries through an EE Framework Lens
Author Year Journal1 Paper Type2 EE Type3 Main EE Content4
Acs & Sanders, 2012 SBE C R Increasing patent protection from low to moderate
expands knowledge resources; further increases
strengthen the enclosing mechanism but reduce
knowledge spillover
Ahlstrom & Bruton, 2010 ETP C TR Maturing institutions increase legitimacy of
technology entrepreneurs, shaping ventures and
increasing the chance of funding
Akemu et al., 2016 JMS EQL SC The associated social movement provides resource
expansion, legitimation, and demand substitution
mechanisms in the Fairphone case, shaping the
product, venture and process
Audretsch et al., 2015 SBE EQT PI New infrastructure increases connectivity for new
ventures in some sectors (scope) through
increased access to resources and customers
Autant-Bernard et al., 2006 SBE EQT KI Biotech start-ups cluster in regions with high (and
relevant) knowledge infrastructure investments
(triggering by sectoral and spatial scope) through
resource expansion mechanism
Bayus & Agarwal, 2007 MS EQT T Survival advantages of independent vs. corporate
ventures using the latest technology in their
products depend on time of entry (temporal
scope; product-shaping and outcome enhancing
roles)
Bennett, 2019 JBV EQT PI Infrastructure investments trigger new venture
creation in particular areas (sectoral scope)
through resource expansion and demand
expansion/substitution mechanisms
Bennett, 2021 SBE EQT R Increased economic freedom (regulatory EE)
benefits new entry through compression,
conservation and enclosing mechanisms
Black & Strahan, 2002 JOF EQT T, R Bank deregulation benefits new ventures through
conservation and resource expansion
mechanisms, spatially moderated (scope) by
varying regional competition in the banking sector
Browder et al., 2019 JBV C T, SC New technology in the hands of the maker
space movement shapes product-, venture-
and process aspects through compression,
conservation, generation and resource
expansion
Burtch et al., 2013 ISR EQT T Crowdfunding (tech EE) has outcome-enhancing
effects through multiple mechanisms but crowd
effects have limited temporal scope
Cao & Im, 2018 SBE EQT E The onset of the Global Financial Crisis has process-
shaping influence on the relationship between
founders’ human capital and their technology
ventures’ R&D search intensity
Castellanata et al., 2020 SMJ EQT R Reduction of entry barriers offers multiple enabling
mechanisms which increase start-up rates
(triggering) especially among women
Chalmers et al., 2020 JBR C T AI technology can enable venture creation through
a range of mechanisms, some of which have high
opacity
(Continued)
(Continued)
Chang et al., 2011 JBV EQT E Regional economic growth leads to increase in new
venture creation through resource expansion
and uncertainty reduction
Chatterji & Seamans, 2012 JFE EQT R Credit card deregulation triggers new venturing
activity through resource expansion, especially
among financially disadvantaged socio-economic
groups (socio-demographic scope)
Chen et al., 2020 JBV EQT PI China’s high-speed rail expansion has important
scope effects and provides mechanisms as well
as, regarding onset, no announcement effect, i.e.,
no increased venturing before the trains start
running
Cohen & Winn, 2007 JBV C NE, SC Climate change and the sociocultural movement to
counter it enable start-ups through legitimation
and demand substitution
Cojoianu et al., 2020 SBE EQT E, T Helped by new technologies and trust erosion from
the GFC, fintech start-ups are enabled through a
range of mechanisms
Colombelli et al., 2020 RP EQT R Regulatory reform to stimulate innovative young
companies provides conservation, enclosing and
resource expansion mechanisms
Conti, 2018 OSc EQT R Broadened access to R&D subsidy enhances
sectoral survival (outcome-enhancement)
through generation and resource expansion
Cueto et al., 2017 SBE EQT R Spanish support program increases creation and
survival (triggering and outcome-enhancement)
of new ventures by young unemployed
individuals (socio-demographic scope)
Cumming & Knill, 2012 JIBS EQT R More stringent securities regulation is positively
associated with entrepreneurial spawning
induced by venture capital via reduced
uncertainty, resource expansion, and enclosing
mechanisms
Dau & Cuervo-Cazurra, 2014 EQT R Based on multiple enabling mechanisms, economic
JBV liberalization triggers and shapes the products of
formal and informal ventures
David et al., 2013 OSc EQL E, R, O Regulatory and economic-structural changes provide
enablement and shape new organizational forms
(venture-shaping) via demand creation and
demand substitution mechanisms
Dean & McMullen, 2007 JBV C NE Market failure in environmental degradation
triggers entrepreneurial action via expansion of
resources and demand
Dobrev, 2000 OSc EQT E, R Decreasing concentration of newspaper industry
shifts relative profitability, stimulating the entry
of generalist (vs. specialist) ventures
Dutta, 2017 ASQ EQT NE Natural disasters trigger founding of relief
organizations, moderated by spatial scope
(voluntary association legacy)
Eberhart & Eesley, 2018 SMJ EQT O New junior stock exchange provides (financial)
resource expansion mechanism for new
technology firms
(Continued)
(Continued)
Eberhart et al., 2017 OSc EQT R Bankruptcy reform leads to more high-growth
start-ups by elite entrepreneurs (several roles
driven by uncertainty reduction and resource
expansion moderated by socio-demographic
scope)
Eesley, 2016 OSc EQT R Reduction of institutional barriers to growth
increases legitimacy and expands resources at
reduced agency-intensity, triggering new venture
founding by individuals with high human capital
Eesley et al., 2016 OSc EQT KI Governmental innovation stimulus legitimates
entrepreneur’s investment in technologically
intensive ventures but leads to lower
performance (opposite trigger vs. outcome
effects)
Eliasson & Eliasson, 2006 ERD EQL E Withdrawal of dominant, sophisticated employer
(Pharmacia) expands local resources for new
firms in the same industry (sectoral scope)
Giotopoulos et al., 2017 SBE EQT E Key person factors influence high quality
entrepreneurship more strongly during crisis
(temporal and socio-demographic scope)
Gomber et al., 2018 JMIS EQL T Digital technologies provide a range of mechanisms
(incl. combination and generation) serving
shaping and outcome-enhancing roles
Gozman et al., 2018 JMIS EM T New digital technologies facilitate start-ups’
generation of fintech innovation contributing to
product and process shaping
Grandy & Hiatt, 2020 ASQ EM R Increased regulatory discretion favors independent
start-ups through legitimation and simplified
creation process (process shaping)
Grégoire & Shepherd, 2012 AMJ EQT T Structural and superficial alignment configurations
between new technology and potential market
represent varying opacity, affecting evaluation of
new venture ideas (triggering)
Grégoire et al., 2010 OSc EQT T Structural features of new technology trigger
greater cognitive activity toward a new venture
idea than superficial features, reflecting effects of
variance in opacity
Grube & Storr, 2018 ERD EQL NE Natural disasters legitimate a decision of
entrepreneurs to act on community needs
Günalp & Cilasun, 2006 SBE EQT E Economic indicators such as growth rate imply
increased economic return for new firm
founding due to higher disposable income
Heyman et al., 2019 RP EQT R A range of regulatory changes made conservation
and resource expansion trigger and enhance
outcomes for Swedish ICT ventures
Hiatt & Carlos, 2019 SMJ EM SC, O Shifting socio-cognitive framing of the biodiesel
market over time reduces uncertainty and
increases the legitimation for certain product
varieties over others
Hiatt et al., 2009 ASQ EM SC, R Temperance movement and prohibition expand
demand and production resources for booming
soft drink ventures
(Continued)
(Continued)
Hoppmann & Vermeer, 2020 EQT R Foreign policy initiatives lead to increased venture
JBV capital for domestic solar photovoltaic ventures
(resource expansion)
Hu et al., 2020 ETP EQL E, R, SC Sociocultural, economic and regulatory EEs interact
to provide demand- and supply-side mechanisms
for social ventures
Huang et al., 2017 MIS EQL T New digital technologies shape the business
operation and enables WeCash to significantly
expand their user base
Huggins & Williams, 2011 ERD EQL R Entrepreneurship policy triggers new firm founding
by providing resources
Hunt & Fund, 2016 JMS C R Environmental policies enable environmentally
friendly ventures in the short run through
multiple mechanisms but risk crowding out
superior solutions in the longer run
Itskhoki & Moll, 2019 E C R (Optimal) regulatory change (e.g., tax policies)
enable entrepreneurship unequally by sector
through conservation and resource expansion
Ireland et al., 2008 ETP C TR, SC The extent and nature of entrepreneurial
enablement in Europe’s post-communist
countries will depend on the direction in which
institutional and political environments develop
Jansson, 2011 ERD EM O The evolution of Stockholm’s Internet-related
industry enables and gives shape to further start-
ups through multiple mechanisms that become
less opaque in the agglomeration environment
Kerr & Nanda, 2009 JFE EQT R US banking deregulation provides conservation and
resource expansion that varies by sector and
region (scope)
Kobeissi, 2009 JSBM EQT R The Community Reinvestment Act triggers and
helps the survival of new ventures through
resource expansion
Kolympiris et al., 2014 RP EQT KI Public R&D funding triggers and shapes
biotechnology start-ups through multiple
mechanisms incl. combination and generation
Kromidha & Robson, 2016 ERD EQT T Crowdfunding shapes and enhances the
performance of start-ups through legitimation,
resource expansion and combination, leveraging
the platform’s capacity to reach funders’
networks
Lehner, 2014 ERD EQL T Crowdfunding shapes social ventures and their
creation process by reducing uncertainty and
providing legitimacy and resources
Lynskey, 2006 RP EQL R Regulatory reforms trigger, shape and enhance
the performance of biotech start-ups in Japan
through legitimation and resources
Martin & Schouten, 2014 JCR EQL O Consumer-led change in motorcycle industry serves
to trigger and shape products due to demand
expansion
Meoli et al., 2019 SBE EQT R National reform of university governance leads
to increase in university spin-offs through
compression and legitimation mechanisms
(Continued)
(Continued)
Mezias & Kuperman, 2000 JBV EQL T, O New technologies and intra-industry change affect
start-ups in the early US film industry via
multiple roles and mechanisms
Mohsen et al., 2019 EQT T The conservation, generation, and demand
expansion benefits that new ventures can
derive from using the latest technology vary
due to different institutional conditions across
countries
Moore et al., 2020 JMS EQT E Increase in monetary foreign aid triggers increase
in formal and informal start-ups in recipient
country
Muñoz et al., 2019 ERD EQL NE Volcanic eruption triggers and shapes new venture
creation but enabling effect is dependent on the
predictability of the onset
Nasra & Dacin, 2010 ETP C TR Economic transition in the UAE stimulates
international entrepreneurship through
legitimation and uncertainty reduction
Nelson & Lima, 2020 SBE EQL NE Entrepreneurial responses to mudslide disaster
in Brazil are driven by demand creation and
contingent on opacity and temporal scope
Pan & Yang, 2019 SBE EQT E Economic development in China triggers and
enhances performance of new ventures through
resource expansion, albeit to varying extent
across sectors and cities (scope)
Partridge et al., 2020 SBE EQT E, T The shale boom in the US triggers and enhances
outcomes for new ventures variously across
sectors, regions, and time (scope)
Roma et al., 2017 RP EQT T Technology ventures benefit from the signaling
value of crowdfunding performance through
uncertainty reduction and resource expansion
Schulz et al., 2016 JBV EQT R Regulatory reform in Mexico saves time and
resources. The response to the reform is
stronger among hybrid entrepreneurs (sectoral
scope)
Sebastiani et al., 2013 JBE EQL SC The ethical consumption social movement triggers
and shapes the Eataly case through several
demand and supply mechanisms
Shane, 2000 OSc EQL T 3D printing triggers and shapes new product
development by founders with prior knowledge
that allow them to overcome high opacity
Shane, 2001 MSc EQT T Narrower market segmentation and higher
effectiveness of patented technologies trigger
and enhance outcomes of new ventures
Shepherd et al., 2000 JBV C O External enablers legitimate new venture (or
product) via reduced liability of newness
enhancing outcomes (i.e., survival)
Simón-Moya et al., 2016 ERD EQT E Economic growth leads to demand expansion,
providing outcome-enhancement
Sine & David, 2003 RP EQL E, R, O Oil crisis in the 1970s triggers new entrepreneurial
action by legitimating new practices and creating
new demand
(Continued)
(Continued)
Sine & Lee, 2009 ASQ EQT SC, R, NE Social movement triggers new entrepreneurial
activity in wind energy by increasing legitimation
and mobilizing resources
Smallbone & Welter, 2012 ERD C TR The enabling influence of economic transition on
the emergence of entrepreneurship in society
varies by gradualness of onset
Song, 2019 SBE C T, R Advances in digital technology platforms and digital
knowledge of citizens trigger entrepreneurial
innovation and enhance profit
Tan, 2001 JBV EQT TR Economic transition in China triggers private new
venture creation
Tan & Tan, 2020 OSc EQT TR The positive effects of economic transition on
venture creation varies across venture types and
regions with varying economic structure
Toms et al., 2020 SEJ EQL T, R, PI Financial and technical intermediation help to
shape the product and enhance the outcome of
entrepreneurial activity
Vakili & Zhang, 2018 SMJ EQT R Social liberalization triggers social interaction
that lead to innovation, exploiting resource
expansion, generation, and enclosing
mechanisms
Viotto da Cruz, 2018 JBV EQT T Crowdfunding enhances the possibility of product
release by reducing uncertainty via informational
resources
von Briel et al., 2018 ETP C T Digital technologies offer a range of enabling
mechanisms pertaining to different stages of IT
hardware startup processes
Wang, 2006 SBE EQT E Economic growth triggers new venture creation via
demand expansion
Weber et al., 2008 ASQ EQL SC Social activism (i.e., green revolution) for grass-fed
meat and dairy production provides cultural
codes (legitimation) for new ventures and helps
them to exploit enclosing mechanism and thus
survive
Welter & Smallbone, 2011 JSBM C TR Institutional changes during economic transition
make new venture creation more doable (taking
a triggering role)
Williams & Shepherd, 2016 AMJ EQL NE Haiti earthquake triggers entrepreneurial action
in response to new and/or expanding demand
using expanded available resources
Williams & Vorley, 2017 ERD EQL SC, R Onset gradualness of formal and informal
institutional changes trigger specific type of new
venture (sectoral scope)
Woolley, 2014 ETP EQL T Development of nanotechnology industry slowly
triggers new venture creation via resource
expansion
York et al., 2016 AMJ EQL SC, R Regulatory change led by social movement specifies
a desirable business practice (legitimation;
triggering and product-shaping roles)
York & Venkataraman, 2010 JBV C R, NE Environmental degradation and regulatory change
interactively trigger and enhance the outcome of
innovation led by new ventures
(Continued)
(Continued)
Zhou, 2011 ERD EQT R Triggering impact of a deregulation on new
venturing varies by spatial (inland/northern part
of China), temporal (earlier stage), and sectoral
(previously restricted) scope
Note. (1) The paper types: C = Conceptual [Non-empirical]; EQL = Empirical-qualitative; EQT = Empirical-quantitative; EM
= Empirical-mixed; (2) External Enabler types: E = Economic; KI = Knowledge infrastructure; NE = Natural-environmental;
PI = Physical infrastructure; R = Regulatory; SC = Sociocultural; T = Technological; TR = Economic transition; O =
Other; (3) The paper summaries are our interpretations through the EE Framework lens and not the original authors’
terminology, nor necessarily their main emphasis. The summaries do not reflect all affirmative EE coding in every case;
(4) Journal acronyms are as follows: AMJ (Academy of Management Journal); ASQ (Administrative Science Quarterly);
E (Econometrica); ERD (Entrepreneurship & Regional Development); ETP (Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice);
ISR (Information Systems Research); JBE (Journal of Business Ethics); JBR (Journal of Business Research); JBV (Journal
of Business Venturing); JCR (Journal of Consumer Research); JFE (Journal of Financial Economics); JMIS (Journal of
Management Information Systems); JMS (Journal of Management Studies); MSc (Management Science); MIS (MIS Quarterly);
OSc (Organization Science); OSt (Organization Studies); RP (Research Policy); SBE (Small Business Economics); SEJ
(Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal); SMJ (Strategic Management Journal); and TJF (The Journal of Finance).
Figure A1. The Status of Knowledge Integration Across Articles
‍ ‍
Note. 1) Each node represents one paper (with the name of first author) and a linkage between two articles indicates
the cross-citation from later published article to the one published earlier. Types of EE investigated are indicated
in parentheses with the same acronyms used in Table A2 (see note); 2) Two articles dropped from the analysis are
Chalmers et al. (2020) and Mohsen et al. (2019). At the time of retrieval (March 1, 2021), these were not yet available
from Thomson Reuter’s Web of ScienceTM Core Collection which provides bibliometric information for CitNet Explorer.
‍ ‍
‍ ‍
‍ ‍
‍ ‍
‍ ‍
‍ ‍
Note. Figure A1(g) shows only nodes and linkages of cross-cited papers excluding nodes of 30 non-cross-cited papers
due to limited space.
‍ ‍
‍ ‍
Note. Figure (i) shows only nodes and linkages of cross-cited papers excluding nodes of 38 non-cross-
cited papers due to limited space.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID IDs
Jiyoung Kimjeon ‍ ‍ https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8553-7020
Per Davidsson ‍ ‍ https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6363-1382
Notes
1. The EE concept has been adopted in numerous works in high tier journals (see Bennett, 2021; Bennett,
2019; Browder et al., 2019; Frederiks et al., 2019; Leten et al., 2016; McAdam et al., 2020; Nambisan,
2017; Obschonka & Audretsch, 2020; von Briel et al., 2018). Elaborate applications of the EE Framework
are starting to appear in high tier entrepreneurship journals (e.g., Chalmers et al., 2021; Chalmers et al.,
2020; Chen et al., 2020).
2. Although Davidsson’s (2015) original definition suggests the EE potentially has an “essential” role in
several ventures’ development, there can be no exact specification of “how much” change is required
for something to be an EE. We hold this to be of limited theoretical and practical importance as neither
researchers nor practitioners are likely to spend much energy on instances of minuscule change.
3. The FT50 journal list (https://www.ft.com/content/3405a512-5cbb-11e1-8f1f-00144feabdc0) includes
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Journal of Business Venturing and Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal. Additional entrepreneurship journals included are Entrepreneurship and Regional Development;
Family Business Review; International Small Business Journal; Journal of Small Business Management;
and Small Business Economics. EBSCOhost was used to cover The Accounting Review, which is not
captured in Elsevier’s Scopus®.
4. Cross-citation analysis is distinctive from other bibliometric analysis methods such as co-citation and
coupling-citation that compare reference structure of articles (Sainaghi et al., 2018). Studies that em-
ploy cross-citation analysis often rely on a network approach considering articles as nodes and citations
between them as links (Sainaghi et al., 2018). The manageable number of articles in narrowly defined
categories allows us to interpret the patterns of cross-citation based on graphs, visualized using the
CitNet Explorer program (https://www.citnetexplorer.nl; see Figure A1).
5. We reiterate that the studies discuss the variance and effects under many different terminologies and that
the basis for coding may range from being a core aspect of the research to a relatively minor side-issue.
6. To ascertain this was not an artifact of our method, we conducted a search including all journals
listed in Elsevier’s Scopus® database. This yielded 125 candidate articles but only two demonstrate
enabling influence of demographic change (i.e., ageing population) marginally related to new ven-
ture creation (Kohlbacher et al., 2015, Kohlbacher & Rabe, 2015). This additional investigation
verifies the low prevalence of research linking entrepreneurial action and success to demographic
transitions.
7. In this regard, the EE Framework can be seen as a variation of the general call for attention to context in
entrepreneurship and organizational research (Johns, 2006; Welter, 2011; Zahra et al., 2014)
References
* = Cited only in Appendix. For articles included in the review, see Table A2 (Appendix).
*Acs, Z. J., & Sanders, M. (2012). Patents, knowledge spillovers, and entrepreneurship. Small Business
Economics, 39(4), 801–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9322-y
Ahlstrom, D., & Bruton, G. D. (2010). Rapid institutional shifts and the co-evolution of entrepreneurial
firms in transition economies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3), 531–554. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00373.x
Akemu, O., Whiteman, G., & Kennedy, S. (2016). Social enterprise emergence from social movement
activism: The Fairphone case. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 846–877. https://doi.org/10.
1111/joms.12208
Aldrich, H. E. (2010). Beam me up, Scott(ie)! Institutional theorists’ struggles with the emergent nature
of entrepreneurship. In W. Sine & R. David (Eds.), Institutions and entrepreneurship (pp. 329–364).
Emerald.
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial
action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1-2), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.4
Arikan, A. M., Arikan, I., & Koparan, I. (2020). Creation opportunities: Entrepreneurial curiosity, generative
cognition, and knightian uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 45(4), 808–824. https://doi.
org/10.5465/amr.2018.0252
Audretsch, D. B., Heger, D., & Veith, T. (2015). Infrastructure and entrepreneurship. Small Business
Economics, 44(2), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9600-6
*Autant-Bernard, C., Mangematin, V., & Massard, N. (2006). Creation of biotech SMEs in France. Small
Business Economics, 26(2), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-004-3578-4
Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. D. W., & Wright, M. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial affordances,
and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 72–95.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1266
Bartik, A. W., Bertrand, M., Cullen, Z., Glaeser, E. L., Luca, M., & Stanton, C. (2020). The impact of
COVID-19 on small business outcomes and expectations. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 117(30), 17656–17666. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2006991117
Bayus, B. L., & Agarwal, R. (2007). The role of pre-entry experience, entry timing, and product technology
strategies in explaining firm survival. Management Science, 53(12), 1887–1902. https://doi.org/10.
1287/mnsc.1070.0737
Bennett, D. L. (2019). Infrastructure investments and entrepreneurial dynamism in the U.S. Journal of
Business Venturing, 34(5), 105907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.10.005
Bennett, D. L. (2021). Local economic freedom and creative destruction in America. Small Business
Berger, E. S. C., von Briel, F., Davidsson, P., & Kuckertz, A. (2021). Digital or not – the future of
entrepreneurship and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 125(6–7), 436–442. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.020
Black, S. E., & Strahan, P. E. (2002). Entrepreneurship and bank credit availability. The Journal of Finance,
57(6), 2807–2833. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6261.00513
Branzei, O., & Abdelnour, S. (2010). Another day, another dollar: Enterprise resilience under terrorism in
developing countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(5), 804–825. https://doi.org/10.
1057/jibs.2010.6
Browder, R. E., Aldrich, H. E., & Bradley, S. W. (2019). The emergence of the maker movement:
Implications for entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(3), 459–476. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.01.005
Burtch, G., Ghose, A., & Wattal, S. (2013). An empirical examination of the antecedents and consequences
of contribution patterns in crowd-funded markets. Information Systems Research, 24(3), 499–519.
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1120.0468
Bylund, P. L., & McCaffrey, M. (2017). A theory of entrepreneurship and institutional uncertainty. Journal
of Business Venturing, 32(5), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.05.006
Cao, X., & Im, J. (2018). Founder human capital and new technology venture R&D search intensity: The
moderating role of an environmental jolt. Small Business Economics, 50(3), 625–642.
Castellaneta, F., Conti, R., & Kacperczyk, A. (2020). The (un) intended consequences of institutions
lowering barriers to entrepreneurship: The impact on female workers. Strategic Management Journal,
41(7), 1274–1304. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3133
Chalmers, D., MacKenzie, N. G., & Carter, S. (2020). Artificial intelligence and entrepreneurship:
Implications for venture creation in the fourth industrial revolution. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 19(1), 104225872093458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720934581
Chalmers, D., Matthews, R., & Hyslop, A. (2021). Blockchain as an external enabler of new venture ideas:
Digital entrepreneurs and the disintermediation of the global music industry. Journal of Business
Research, 125(5), 577–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.002
Chatterji, A. K., & Seamans, R. C. (2012). Entrepreneurial finance, credit cards, and race. Journal of
Financial Economics, 106(1), 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.04.007
Chen, J. J., Cui, C., Hunt, R. A., & Li, L. S. -Z. (2020). External enablement of new venture creation:
An exploratory, query-driven assessment of China’s high-speed rail expansion. Journal of Business
Venturing, 35(6), 106046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106046
Cohen, B., & Winn, M. I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship.
Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.12.001
Cojoianu, T. F., Clark, G. L., Hoepner, A. G., Pažitka, V., & Wójcik, D. (2020). Fin vs. tech: Are trust
and knowledge creation key ingredients in fintech start-up emergence and financing? Small Business
Economics, 1–17.
Colombelli, A., Grilli, L., Minola, T., & Mrkajic, B. (2020). To what extent do young innovative companies
take advantage of policy support to enact innovation appropriation mechanisms? Research Policy,
49(10), 10379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.05.006
Conti, A. (2018). Entrepreneurial finance and the effects of restrictions on government R&D subsidies.
Organization Science, 29(1), 134–153.
Cornelissen, J. (2017). Editor’s comments: Developing propositions, a process model, or a typology?
Addressing the challenges of writing theory without a boilerplate. Academy of Management Review,
42(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0196
Cueto, B., Mayor, M., & Suárez, P. (2017). Evaluation of the Spanish flat rate for young self-employed
workers. Small Business Economics, 49(4), 937–951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9853-y
Cumming, D., & Knill, A. (2012). Disclosure, venture capital and entrepreneurial spawning. Journal of
International Business Studies, 43(6), 563–590. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2012.9
Dau, L. A., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2014). To formalize or not to formalize: Entrepreneurship and pro-
market institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5), 668–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.
2014.05.002
David, R. J., Sine, W. D., & Haveman, H. A. (2013). Seizing opportunity in emerging fields: How
institutional entrepreneurs legitimated the professional form of management consulting. Organization
Science, 24(2), 356–377. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0745
Davidsson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: A re-conceptualization.
Davidsson, P. (2020). Guidepost: Look out! See change? Sea change ahead! Academy of Management
Discoveries. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2019.0141
Davidsson, P., & Gruenhagen, J. H. (2020). Fulfilling the process promise: A review and agenda for new
venture creation process research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 50(8), 104225872093099.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720930991
Davidsson, P., Recker, J., & von Briel, F. (2020). External enablement of new venture creation: A framework.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), 311–332. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0163
*Dean, T. J., & McMullen, J. S. (2007). Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing
environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1),
50–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.09.003
Dimov, D. (2011). Grappling with the unbearable elusiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.
00423.x
*Dobrev, S. D. (2000). Decreasing concentration and reversibility of the resource partitioning process:
Supply shortages and deregulation in the Bulgarian newspaper industry, 1987-1992. Organization
Studies, 21(2), 383–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840600212004
Donthu, N., & Gustafsson, A. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on business and research. Journal of Business
Research, 117(September), 284–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.008
Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Dutta, S. (2017). Creating in the crucibles of nature’s fury: Associational diversity and local social
entrepreneurship after natural disasters in California, 1991–2010. Administrative Science Quarterly,
62(3), 443–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216668172
Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy
of Management Review, 12(1), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1987.4306483
Eberhart, R. N., & Eesley, C. E. (2018). The dark side of institutional intermediaries: Junior stock exchanges
and entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 39(10), 2643–2665. https://doi.org/10.1002/
smj.2934
Eberhart, R. N., Eesley, C. E., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2017). Failure is an option: Institutional change,
entrepreneurial risk, and new firm growth. Organization Science, 28(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.
1287/orsc.2017.1110
*Eesley, C. (2016). Institutional barriers to growth: Entrepreneurship, human capital and institutional
change. Organization Science, 27(5), 1290–1306. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1077
Eesley, C., Li, J. B., & Yang, D. (2016). Does institutional change in universities influence high-tech
entrepreneurship? Evidence from China’s Project 985. Organization Science, 27(2), 446–461. https://
doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1038
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review,
14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
*Eliasson, G., & Eliasson, Åsa. (2006). The Pharmacia story of entrepreneurship and as a creative
technical university – an experiment in innovation, organizational break up and industrial
renaissance. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 18(5), 393–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08985620600831488
Fang, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2018). Editorial on generating business and social value
from digital entrepreneurship and innovation. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27(4),
275–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2018.11.001
Fisher, G., & Aguinis, H. (2017). Using theory elaboration to make theoretical advancements. Organizational
Research Methods, 20(3), 438–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116689707
Frederiks, A. J., Englis, B. G., Ehrenhard, M. L., & Groen, A. J. (2019). Entrepreneurial cognition and
the quality of new venture ideas: An experimental approach to comparing future-oriented cognitive
processes. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(2), 327–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.
05.007
Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., & Liao, Jianwen (Jon). (2008). Opportunities as attributions: Categorizing
strategic issues from an attributional perspective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(4), 301–315.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.62
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. E. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and
knowing (pp. 67–82). Erlbaum.
Gielnik, M. M., Spitzmuller, M., Schmitt, A., Klemann, D. K., & Frese, M. (2015). “I put in effort, therefore
i am passionate”: Investigating the path from effort to passion in entrepreneurship. Academy of
Management Journal, 58(4), 1012–1031. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0727
Giotopoulos, I., Kontolaimou, A., Korra, E., & Tsakanikas, A. (2017). What drives ICT adoption by SMEs?
Evidence from a large-scale survey in Greece. Journal of Business Research, 81(1), 60–69. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.08.007
Gomber, P., Kauffman, R. J., Parker, C., & Weber, B. W. (2018). On the fintech revolution: Interpreting the
forces of innovation, disruption, and transformation in financial services. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 35(1), 220–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1440766
Gomezelj, D. O. (2016). A systematic review of research on innovation in hospitality and tourism.

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(3), 516–558. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IJCHM-10-2014-0510
Gozman, D., Liebenau, J., & Mangan, J. (2018). The innovation mechanisms of fintech start-ups: insights
from SWIFT’s innotribe competition. Journal of Management Information Systems, 35(1), 145–179.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1440768
Grandy, J. B., & Hiatt, S. R. (2020). State agency discretion and entrepreneurship in regulated markets.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(4), 1092–1131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839220911022
Greene, F. J., Mole, K., & Storey, D. J. (2008). Three decades of enterprise culture: Entrepreneurship,
economic regeneration and public policy. Palgrave Macmillan.
*Grégoire, D. A., Barr, P. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2010). Cognitive processes of opportunity recognition:
The role of structural alignment. Organization Science, 21(2), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.
1090.0462
Grégoire, D. A., Binder, J. K., & Rauch, A. (2019). Navigating the validity tradeoffs of entrepreneurship
research experiments: A systematic review and best-practice suggestions. Journal of Business
Venturing, 34(2), 284–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.10.002
Grégoire, D. A., & Shepherd, D. A. (2012). Technology-market combinations and the identification of
entrepreneurial opportunities: An investigation of the opportunity-individual nexus. Academy of
Management Journal, 55(4), 753–785. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0126
Grube, L. E., & Storr, V. H. (2018). Embedded entrepreneurs and post-disaster community recovery.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(7-8), 800–821. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.
2018.1457084
*Günalp, B., & Cilasun, S. M. (2006). Determinants of entry in Turkish manufacturing industries. Small
Business Economics, 27(2-3), 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-0021-z
Hiatt, S. R., & Carlos, W. C. (2019). From farms to fuel tanks: Stakeholder framing contests and
entrepreneurship in the emergent U.S. biodiesel market. Strategic Management Journal, 40(6), 865–
893. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2989
Hiatt, S. R., Sine, W. D., & Tolbert, P. S. (2009). From Pabst to Pepsi: The deinstitutionalization of social
practices and the creation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(4),
635–667. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2009.54.4.635
Hoppmann, J., & Vermeer, B. (2020). The double impact of institutions: Institutional spillovers and
entrepreneurial activity in the solar photovoltaic industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(3),
105960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.105960
Hu, X., Marlow, S., Zimmermann, A., Martin, L., & Frank, R. (2020). Understanding opportunities in
social entrepreneurship: A critical realist abstraction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(5),
1032–1056. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719879633
Huang, J., Henfridsson, O., Liu, M. J., Newell, S., & University of Sussex. (2017). Growing on steroids:
Rapidly scaling the user base of digital ventures through digital innovation. MIS Quarterly, 41(1),
301–314. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.1.16
Howey, R. M., Savage, K. S., Verbeeten, M. J., & Van Hoof, H. B. (1999). Tourism and hospitality research
journals: Cross-citations among research communities. Tourism Management, 20(1), 133–139. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(98)00099-5
Huggins, R., & Williams, N. (2011). Entrepreneurship and regional competitiveness: The role and
progression of policy. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(9-10), 907–932. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08985626.2011.577818
Hunt, R. A., & Fund, B. R. (2016). Intergenerational fairness and the crowding out effects of well‐intended
environmental policies. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 878–910. https://doi.org/10.1111/
joms.12202
*Ireland, R. D., Tihanyi, L., & Webb, J. W. (2008). A tale of two politico-economic systems: Implications
for entrepreneurship in central and eastern Europe. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1),
107–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00218.x
*Itskhoki, O., & Moll, B. (2019). Optimal development policies with financial frictions. Econometrica,
87(1), 139–173. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA13761
*Jansson, J. (2011). Emerging (internet) industry and agglomeration: Internet entrepreneurs coping with
uncertainty. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(7-8), 499–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08985620903505987
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management
Review, 31(2), 386–408. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208687
Kerr, W. R., & Nanda, R. (2009). Democratizing entry: Banking deregulations, financing constraints,
and entrepreneurship☆. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(1), 124–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jfineco.2008.12.003
Kobeissi, N. (2009). Impact of the community reinvestment act on new business start‐ups and economic
growth in local markets. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(4), 489–513. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1540-627X.2009.00280.x
Kohlbacher, F., Herstatt, C., & Levsen, N. (2015). Golden opportunities for silver innovation: How
demographic changes give rise to entrepreneurial opportunities to meet the needs of older people.
Technovation, 39-40(5), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.05.002
Kohlbacher, F., & Rabe, B. (2015). Leading the way into the future: The development of a (lead) market for
care robotics in Japan. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 15(1), 21–44.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTPM.2015.067797
Kolympiris, C., Kalaitzandonakes, N., & Miller, D. (2014). Public funds and local biotechnology firm
creation. Research Policy, 43(1), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.012
Korsgaard, S. (2013). It’s really out there: a review of the critique of the discovery view of opportunities.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 19(2), 130–148. https://doi.org/10.
1108/13552551311310347
Kromidha, E., & Robson, P. (2016). Social identity and signalling success factors in online crowdfunding.
2016.1198425
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4),
691–710. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2553248
Lehner, O. M. (2014). The formation and interplay of social capital in crowdfunded social ventures. Entrepreneurship
& Regional Development, 26(5-6), 478–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2014.922623
Leten, B., Belderbos, R., & Looy, B. V. (2016). Entry and technological performance in new technology
domains: Technological opportunities, technology competition and technological relatedness. Journal
of Management Studies, 53(8), 1257–1291. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12215
*Lynskey, M. J. (2006). Transformative technology and institutional transformation: Coevolution of
biotechnology venture firms and the institutional framework in Japan. Research Policy, 35(9), 1389–
1422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.07.003
Macy, M. W., & Willer, R. (2002). From factors to actors: Computational sociology and agent-based
modeling. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.
110601.141117
Mauer, R., Wuebker, R., Schlüter, J., & Brettel, M. (2018). Prediction and control: An agent-based simulation
of search processes in the entrepreneurial problem space. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(2),
237–260. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1271
McAdam, M., Crowley, C., & Harrison, R. T. (2020). Digital girl: Cyberfeminism and the emancipatory
potential of digital entrepreneurship in emerging economies. Small Business Economics, 55(2), 349–
362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00301-2
Meoli, M., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2019). The governance of universities and the establishment of
academic spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 52(2), 485–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-
9956-5
Mezias, S. J., & Kuperman, J. C. (2000). The community dynamics of entrepreneurship: The birth of the
American film industry, 1895–1929. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(3), 209–233.
Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). Identifying research fields within business and management: A
Journal cross-citation analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 66(8), 1370–1384.
https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2014.113
Mohsen, K., Saeed, S., Raza, A., Omar, S., & Muffatto, M. (2019). Does using latest technologies impact
new venture innovation? A contingency‐based view of institutional environments. Journal of Small
Business Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12534
*Moore, E. M., Dau, L. A., & Doh, J. (2020). Does monetary aid catalyse new business creation? Analysing
the impact of global aid flows on formal and informal entrepreneurship. Journal of Management
Studies, 57(3), 438–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12552
*Muñoz, P., Kimmitt, J., Kibler, E., & Farny, S. (2019). Living on the slopes: Entrepreneurial preparedness
in a context under continuous threat. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 31(5-6), 413–434.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1541591
Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029–1055. https://doi.org/10.
1111/etap.12254
Nasra, R., & Dacin, M. T. (2010). Institutional arrangements and international entrepreneurship: The state
as institutional entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3), 583–609. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00354.x
Nelson, R., & Lima, E. (2020). Effectuations, social bricolage and causation in the response to a natural
disaster. Small Business Economics, 54(3), 721–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00150-z
North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance (The political economy of
institutions and decisions). Cambridge University Press.
Obschonka, M., & Audretsch, D. B. (2020). Artificial intelligence and big data in entrepreneurship: A
new era has begun. Small Business Economics, 55(3), 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-
00202-4
Pan, F., & Yang, B. (2019). Financial development and the geographies of startup cities: Evidence from
China. Small Business Economics, 52(3), 743–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9983-2
Partridge, M., Rohlin, S. M., & Weinstein, A. L. (2020). Firm formation and survival in the Shale boom.
Small Business Economics, 55(4), 975–996. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00162-9
Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of
Chicago Press.
Ramoglou, S., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2016). A realist perspective of entrepreneurship: Opportunities as
propensities. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 410–434. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.
0281
Rauch, A. (2020). Opportunities and threats in reviewing entrepreneurship theory and practice.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(5), 847–860. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719879635
*Read, S., Song, M., & Smit, W. (2009). A meta-analytic review of effectuation and venture performance.
Roma, P., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., & Perrone, G. (2017). From the crowd to the market: The role of reward-
based crowdfunding performance in attracting professional investors. Research Policy, 46(9), 1606–
1628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.07.012
Sahut, J. -M., Iandoli, L., & Teulon, F. (2021). The age of digital entrepreneurship. Small Business
Sainaghi, R., Phillips, P., Baggio, R., & Mauri, A. (2018). Cross-citation and authorship analysis of hotel
performance studies. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 73(6), 75–84. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.02.004
Schulz, M., Urbig, D., & Procher, V. (2016). Hybrid entrepreneurship and public policy: The case of firm
entry deregulation. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(3), 272–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.
2016.01.002
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Sage.
Sebastiani, R., Montagnini, F., & Dalli, D. (2013). Ethical consumption and new business models in the
food industry. Evidence from the Eataly case. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 473–488. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1343-1
*Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization
Science, 11(4), 448–469. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.448.14602
Shane, S. (2001). Technology regimes and new firm formation. Management Science, 47(9), 1173–1190.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.9.1173.9785
Shane, S. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: Delivering on the promise of entrepreneurship
as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.
2011.0078
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of
Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611
Shen, K. N., Lindsay, V., & Xu, Y. (2018). Digital entrepreneurship. Information Systems Journal, 28(6),
1125–1128. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12219
Shepherd, D., & Wiklund, J. (2009). Are we comparing apples with apples or apples with oranges?
Appropriateness of knowledge accumulation across growth studies. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 33(1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00282.x
Shepherd, D. A., Douglas, E. J., & Shanley, M. (2000). New venture survival: Ignorance, external shocks,
and risk reduction strategies. Journal of business venturing, 15(5-6), 393–410.
*Simón-Moya, V., Revuelto-Taboada, L., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2016). Influence of economic crisis on
new SME survival: Reality or fiction? Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(1-2), 157–176.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2015.1118560
Sine, W. D., & David, R. J. (2003). Environmental jolts, institutional change, and the creation of
entrepreneurial opportunity in the US electric power industry. Research Policy, 32(2), 185–207.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00096-3
Sine, W. D., & Lee, B. H. (2009). Tilting at Windmills? The environmental movement and the emergence
of the U.S. wind energy sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1), 123–155. https://doi.org/10.
2189/asqu.2009.54.1.123
Singh, K., Ang, S. H., & Leong, S. M. (2003). Increasing replication for knowledge accumulation in
strategy research. Journal of Management, 29(4), 533–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(03)
00024-2
Smallbone, D., & Welter, F. (2012). Entrepreneurship and institutional change in transition economies:
The Commonwealth of independent states, central and eastern Europe and China compared.
2012.670914
Smith, E. B., & Rand, W. (2018). Simulating macro-level effects from micro-level observations.
Management Science, 64(11), 5405–5421. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2877
*Song, A. K. (2019). The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem—a critique and reconfiguration. Small Business
Economics, 53(3), 569–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00232-y
Stewart, A. (2018). Can family business loosen the grips of accounting, economics, and finance? Journal of
Family Business Strategy, 9(3), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2018.06.001
Tan, D., & Tan, J. (2017). Far from the tree? Do private entrepreneurs agglomerate around public sector
incumbents during economic transition? Organization Science, 28(1), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.
1287/orsc.2017.1111
Tan, J. (2001). Innovation and risk-taking in a transitional economy: A comparative study of Chinese
managers and entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(4), 359–376.
Tharenou, P., & Kulik, C. T. (2020). Skilled migrants employed in developed, mature economies: From
newcomers to organizational Insiders. Journal of Management, 46(6), 1156–1181. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0149206320921229
Toms, S., Wilson, N., & Wright, M. (2020). Innovation, intermediation, and the nature of entrepreneurship:
A historical perspective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.
1002/sej.1310
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed
management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–
222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Vakili, K., & Zhang, L. (2018). High on creativity: The impact of social liberalization policies on innovation.
Strategic Management Journal, 39(7), 1860–1886. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2778
Viotto da Cruz, J. (2018). Beyond financing: Crowdfunding as an informational mechanism. Journal of
Business Venturing, 33(3), 371–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.02.001
von Briel, F., Davidsson, P., & Recker, J. (2018). Digital technologies as external enablers of new venture
creation in the IT hardware sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(1), 47–69. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1042258717732779
Wang, S. -wan. (2006). Determinants of new firm formation in Taiwan. Small Business Economics, 27(4-5),
313–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-8722-2
Weber, K., Heinze, K. L., & DeSoucey, M. (2008). Forage for thought: Mobilizing codes in the movement
for grass-fed meat and dairy products. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 529–567. https://doi.
org/10.2189/asqu.53.3.529
Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship-conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.x
Williams, N., & Vorley, T. (2017). Fostering productive entrepreneurship in post-conflict economies: The
importance of institutional alignment. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 29(5-6), 444–466.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2017.1297853
Welter, F., & Smallbone, D. (2011). Institutional perspectives on entrepreneurial behavior in challenging
environments. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1540-627X.2010.00317.x
Williams, T. A., & Shepherd, D. A. (2016). Building resilience or providing sustenance: Different paths of
emergent ventures in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6),
2069–2102. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0682
Wood, M. S., Bylund, P., & Bradley, S. (2016). The influence of tax and regulatory policies on entrepreneurs’
opportunity evaluation decisions. Management Decision, 54(5), 1160–1182. https://doi.org/10.1108/
MD-10-2015-0446
*Woolley, J. L. (2014). The creation and configuration of infrastructure for entrepreneurship in emerging
domains of activity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(4), 721–747. https://doi.org/10.1111/
etap.12017
York, J. G., Hargrave, T. J., & Pacheco, D. F. (2016). Converging winds: Logic hybridization in the
Colorado wind energy field. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 579–610. https://doi.org/10.
5465/amj.2013.0657
York, J. G., & Venkataraman, S. (2010). The entrepreneur–environment nexus: Uncertainty, innovation, and
allocation. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.
07.007
Zahra, S. A., Wright, M., & Abdelgawad, S. G. (2014). Contextualization and the advancement of
entrepreneurship research. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship,
32(5), 479–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242613519807
Zhou, W. (2011). Regional deregulation and entrepreneurial growth in China’s transition economy.
2011.577816
Author Biographies
Jiyoung Kimjeon is PhD Student in Business Administration at Jönköping International
Business School, Sweden.
Per Davidsson is Talbot Family Chair in Entrepreneurship at the Australian Centre for
Entrepreneurship Research, QUT, Australia, and professor of Entrepreneurship at Jönköping
International Business School, Sweden.

External Enablers of Entrepreneurship: A Review and Agenda For Accumulation of Strategically Actionable Knowledge

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

External Enablers of Entrepreneurship: A Review and Agenda For Accumulation of Strategically Actionable Knowledge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paper submission to a special issue

Entrepreneurship Theory and

External Enablers of Practice

Review and Agenda for Article reuse guidelines:

Accumulation of ​DOI: ​10.​1177/​1042​2587​2110​10673

Jiyoung Kimjeon1 ‍ ‍and Per Davidsson2 ‍ ‍

theoretical approaches. As a result, we lack unified understanding of what makes external

Figure 1. Depiction of the External Enabler Framework.

The External Enabler Framework: Conceptual Basis of the Review

Table 1. List of External Enabler Terms (including our revisions).

Table 1. Continued

venture-­level benefits—potential to improve supply, demand, or value appropriation—provided

Table 2. Inclusion and Exclusion Principles.

A Modestly Sized (But Growing) Literature with Limited Focus on

Dominance of Empirical Research Lacking a Coherent Theoretical

Considerable Interest in Regulatory Change and an Absence of

Interrelations and Interactions Among Environmental Changes

Results Pertaining to EE Characteristics

Results Pertaining to EE Mechanisms

Resource Expansion and Conservation

Results Pertaining to EE Roles

Assessment and Revision of the External Enabler Framework

Agenda: Future Research Directions

Interrelated and Interacting Environmental Changes

Strengthening the Emphasis on Strategically Actionable Knowledge,

Better Aggregate Data Sets Guided by More Effective Conceptualizations

Using Qualitative, Case-Based Data

entrepreneurial behavior. Challenges include identifying and gaining access to entrepreneurs or

Simulations Linking Macro Patterns to Micro-Level Behavior

Appendix. Systematic literature review: Process, criteria and

Specification of supplementary, keyword-­based search term. In order to secure inclusion

TABLE A1 Search Terms for Paper Selection (Main, Principle-­based Search)

Three (out of four) principles of external enabler

Table A2 Paper Summaries through an EE Framework Lens

Author Year Journal1 Paper Type2 EE Type3 Main EE Content4

Figure A1. The Status of Knowledge Integration Across Articles

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Gomezelj, D. O. (2016). A systematic review of research on innovation in hospitality and tourism.

You might also like

Accumulation of DOI: 10.1177/10422587211010673

venture-level benefits—potential to improve supply, demand, or value appropriation—provided

Specification of supplementary, keyword-based search term. In order to secure inclusion

TABLE A1 Search Terms for Paper Selection (Main, Principle-based Search)