The concept of entrepreneurial opportunities: a review and directions for future research

Schlichte, Franziska; Junge, Sebastian Article — Published Version The concept of entrepreneurial opportunities: a review and directions for future research Management Review Quarterly Suggested Citation: Schlichte, Franziska; Junge, Sebastian (2024) : The concept of entrepreneurial opportunities: a review and directions for future research, Management Review Quarterly, ISSN 2198-1639, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Vol. 75, Iss. 4, pp. 3699-3725, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00466-5 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/333233 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Vol.:(0123456789) Management Review Quarterly (2025) 75:3699–3725 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00466-5 The concept ofentrepreneurial opportunities: areview anddirections forfuture research FranziskaSchlichte1· SebastianJunge1 Received: 9 February 2024 / Accepted: 4 October 2024 / Published online: 28 November 2024 © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract Shane and Venkataraman’s (2000) seminal work reshaped the landscape of entrepreneurship research by introducing the concept of entrepreneurial opportunities. Their groundbreaking article sparked a wave of scholarly interest that spawned a wealth of literature and propelled entrepreneurship research forward. However, over time, a large number of studies have been published, delving into various facets and sometimes detached determinants of the concept of entrepreneurial opportunities. Now, more than two decades after the pivotal contribution of Shane and Venkataraman (2000), it is imperative to reflect on the breadth of accumulated knowledge and identify overlooked areas within the field of entrepreneurial opportunities. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive examination of entrepreneurial opportunities and their associated underlying processes. Using a systematic literature review, we highlight key findings from previous studies and identify research gaps that provide promising directions that future research needs to address in order to further enhance this field of research. Keywords Entrepreneurship· Entrepreneurial opportunities· Entrepreneurial opportunity process· Systematic literature review 1 Introduction “To have entrepreneurship, you must first have entrepreneurial opportunities” (Shane and Venkataraman 2000: 220). Entrepreneurship is indispensable to the economic welfare of both developed and developing nations (Busenitz etal. 2003; Van Burg and Romme 2014). Entrepreneurship is commonly seen as a key driver of product and service innovation * Franziska Schlichte [email protected] 1 Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Lange Gasse 20, 90403Nuremberg, Germany 3700 F.Schlichte, S.Junge (Ireland etal. 2005; Schumpeter 1934) and as the reason why firms exist (Langlois 2007). In this regard, entrepreneurship encompasses all new economic activity (Davidsson etal. 2020; Wiklund etal. 2011) and is defined as “the act of launching a new venture, either by a start-up firm, through an existing firm, or via ‘internal corporate venturing’” (Lumpkin and Dess 1996: 136). Entrepreneurial activity ultimately leads to the creation of organizations, generates new jobs, and promotes economic growth (Audretsch and Keilbach 2007; Davidsson etal. 2001; Davidsson and Wiklund 2001; Grégoire and Shepherd 2012). While the importance of entrepreneurship to societal welfare is undisputed, the development of entrepreneurship into a legitimate and separate research field has long been questioned (Busenitz etal. 2014; De Carolis and Saparito 2006; Ireland etal. 2005; Venkataraman 2019). Entrepreneurship is in an incredibly broad and highly fragmented research field that has long been criticized as having breadth but little depth (Busenitz etal. 2014; Shane and Venkataraman 2000; Singh 2001; Zahra and Dess 2001). Entrepreneurship research was alleged to only reproduce concepts already existing in other research areas, such as in strategic management, and to be a ‘hodgepodge’ of research without any conceptual framework (Ireland etal. 2005; Shane and Venkataraman 2000; Singh 2001; Zahra and Dess 2001). To establish entrepreneurship as a unique research domain, Shane and Venkataraman (2000) created an integrated framework. In their groundbreaking article about the promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research, the authors defined the field as “the scholarly examination of how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to create future goods and services are discovered, evaluated, and exploited” (Shane and Venkataraman 2000: 218). Since the release of the article, entrepreneurship research has largely focused on the field of entrepreneurial opportunities as a potential distinctive domain (e.g., Aldrich 2012; Busenitz etal. 2014; Davidsson 2015; Welter and Wuebker 2016). In doing so, research especially focused on (1) the entrepreneurial opportunity process of discovery and creation, evaluation, and exploitation, and (2) the set of individuals who discover, create, evaluate, and exploit such entrepreneurial opportunities (Davidsson 2015; Shane and Venkataraman 2000). Studying the aspects of entrepreneurial opportunities is regarded as one of the most important directions for entrepreneurship research (Busenitz et al. 2014; Short etal. 2010; Venkataraman 2019; Wright and Phan 2020). However, as scholarly attention has grown dramatically, literature on the concept of entrepreneurial opportunities has become increasingly fragmented. Due to the broad applicability of entrepreneurial opportunities, numerous research streams have emerged that highlight the various and often detached determinants of this concept (Short etal. 2010). Given the importance of this concept to entrepreneurship research, there is a need to synthesize the existing knowledge in order to provide the basis for further advances on the concept (Short etal. 2010). In this regard, comprehensive literature reviews in relation to entrepreneurial opportunities have been published, significantly advancing the field. Short et al. (2010), for example, made a notable contribution by examining the antecedents, outcomes, and moderators of entrepreneurial opportunities, but their insights are not directly integrated with the framework proposed by Shane and Venkataraman 3701 The concept ofentrepreneurial opportunities: areview and… (2000). Other reviews have focused on alternative conceptualizations (Davidsson 2015; Shepherd etal. 2019) or specific aspects of the entrepreneurial opportunity concept (Canavati et al. 2021; Shepherd etal. 2015). Acknowledging their great work and contribution, however, these reviews are either not directly tied to the core concept of entrepreneurial opportunities or focus only on parts of it. Recognizing the importance of the entrepreneurial opportunity concept to scholars, individual entrepreneurs, and organizations, this literature review aims to update the initially-proposed concept of entrepreneurial opportunities of Shane and Venkataraman (2000) by synthesizing existing conceptual and empirical research that has emerged over time. More precisely, we attempt to answer the following research questions: (1) Which research findings regarding the entrepreneurial opportunity process have evolved since Shane and Venkataraman’s (2000) seminal work and how can they be contextualized? (2) In what ways can future research integrate these insights and advance the understanding of the entrepreneurial opportunity process? To address these research question, we first outline the concepts’ theoretical foundation. Subsequently, we conduct a systematic review that contributes to the entrepreneurial opportunity literature in two ways: first, by systematically reviewing the existing literature in this research area, we provide a detailed overview of insights about entrepreneurial opportunities and the underlying processes; second, we derive and offer guidance on promising directions for the further development of this field of research. 2 Theoretical foundation 2.1 Origins ofthefield ofentrepreneurship The fundamental aspects of entrepreneurship originate from three different viewpoints of entrepreneurship: the schools of Schumpeter (1934), Kirzner (1979), and Knight (1921). According to Schumpeter’s (1934) view, entrepreneurship is characterized by the actions of individuals that disrupt the existing market equilibrium. This line of argument defines an entrepreneur as “an innovator who ‘shocks’ and disturbs the economic equilibrium during times of uncertainty, change, and technological upheaval” (Dutta and Crossan 2005: 429). Based on this, researchers have argued that “identifying new products, new markets, new ways of organizing, and new production processes in response to (technological) change are key factors” of entrepreneurship research (Eckhardt and Shane 2003: 413). Contrary to the Schumpeterian view, Kirzner (1979) emphasizes entrepreneurial alertness as a critical economic driver (Valliere 2013). As some individuals (i.e., entrepreneurs) possess a specific alertness towards change, they are “quicker to detect its signals; more accurate in sizing up its true significance; quicker to infer 3702 F.Schlichte, S.Junge the full scope of its implications; and most importantly, more accurate in uncovering its commercial potential” (Gaglio 2004: 535). Accordingly, a higher expression of entrepreneurial alertness differentiates entrepreneurs from other individuals (Kirzner 1979). Entrepreneurship research thus involves the understanding how certain individuals make profits based on knowledge and information gaps that arise between individuals in the market (Dutta and Crossan 2005; Langlois 2007). As a third and crucial viewpoint of entrepreneurship, Knight (1921) underlines the importance of risk and uncertainty. According to Knight (1921), risk is defined as “a measurable unknown to which we can assign probabilities, and can be dealt with through various means of insurance” (York and Venkataraman 2010: 452). While uncertainty cannot be assigned to a probability or be predicted in an accurate manner (Knight 1921; York and Venkataraman 2010). Meaning that while risk can be managed by entrepreneurs, uncertainty is something that entrepreneurs cannot manage (Navis and Ozbek 2016). Influenced by the work of these three schools of thought, for a long time, the field of entrepreneurship was solely defined by an entrepreneur and his or her actions. Initiated by Venkataraman (1997), as well as by Shane and Venkataraman (2000), the aspect of entrepreneurial opportunities has emerged as an additional research stream within the field of entrepreneurship (Busenitz etal. 2014; Eckhardt and Shane 2003). 2.2 The concept ofentrepreneurial opportunities Shane and Venkataraman (2000) were the first to build an integrated framework for the field of entrepreneurship. They defined the field as “the scholarly examination of how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to create future goods and services are discovered, evaluated, and exploited” (Shane and Venkataraman 2000: 218). This led to the study of the process that entails the discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities, and of the set of individuals who discover, evaluate, and exploit such entrepreneurial opportunities (Shane and Venkataraman 2000). The interaction between opportunities and entrepreneurial individuals is commonly described as the individual-opportunity nexus (Shane and Venkataraman 2000). Concerning the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities, research focuses on the crucial question of why “some people and not others discover particular entrepreneurial opportunities?” (Shane and Venkataraman 2000: 221). According to discovery theory, opportunities already and objectively exist in the external world and are only waiting to be discovered (Alvarez etal. 2013; Baron 2007; Barreto 2012). Consequently, in a discovery context, the role of an entrepreneur is to discover and subsequently exploit market opportunities by reorganizing existing economic resources in new and innovative ways (Alvarez etal. 2013; Minniti and Bygrave 1999). Besides the predominant view of discovery, recent literature has stressed the importance of opportunity creation. From a creation perspective, opportunities are generated endogenously through actions of the entrepreneur and can thus be detached from existing markets or industries (Aldrich and Kim 2007; Alvarez etal. 2013; Barreto 2012). This leads to the following assumption: just as no two 3703 The concept ofentrepreneurial opportunities: areview and… individuals or firms are the same, neither are any two opportunities (Grégoire and Shepherd 2012). Therefore, entrepreneurial opportunities are part of an entrepreneurial process, in which actors actively create opportunities from nothing (Baker and Nelson 2005; Sarasvathy 2001). To exploit an entrepreneurial opportunity, an entrepreneur must first evaluate the discovered or created opportunity and then reach the decision to further pursue this opportunity (Shane and Venkataraman 2000). Therefore, research in this context aims to answer the question: “why, when, and how, do some people and not others exploit the opportunities that they discover?” (Shane and Venkataraman 2000: 222). After the positive evaluation of an opportunity and the resulting decision to pursue it, another critical question that subsequently arises for entrepreneurs is how to properly exploit such opportunities (Shane and Venkataraman 2000). 3 Method andsample Seeking to create a detailed overview and analysis of the concept of entrepreneurial opportunities, we conducted a systematic literature review. A systematic literature review is a replicable, transparent, and rigorous process for reviewing publications, designed to minimize subjectivity and sampling errors (Kuckertz and Block 2021; Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek and Szymczak 2023). To achieve this, we followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol (Moher etal. 2009). The PRISMA protocol organizes the review process in the four steps of identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion (Moher etal. 2009). Figure1 illustrates the application of the PRISMA process in this study, including the search procedure as well as all inclusion and exclusion criteria. 3.1 Identification In the first step, relevant research papers were identified through an advanced search via the ‘Business Source Complete (EBSCO)’ database. In order to create a comprehensive sample regarding the topic of entrepreneurial opportunities, we followed a systematic search procedure and used the specific inclusion criteria as outlined in Fig.1. In particular, we searched for (1) the keyword ‘entrepreneurial opportunit*’, (2) in the title or abstract of (3) articles published in top-ranked journals1 to ensure journal and subsequently article quality (e.g., Bauer etal. 2023; Graf-Vlachy etal. 2020; Hagen etal. 2023). (4) The articles must be published between 2000 and September 2024 as this literature review builds upon the entrepreneurial opportunity framework of Shane and Venkataraman (2000) and (5) had to be written in English. These search criteria resulted in 124 journal articles. 1 The VHB-JOURQUAL3 ranking, a journal ranking published by the ‘German Academic Association for. Business Research’, served as a quality indicator. Only journals that ranked ‘A + ’ or ‘A’ in the fields of ‘General Business Studies’ (ABWL) and ‘Entrepreneurship’ were considered. 3704 F.Schlichte, S.Junge 3.2 Screening In a second step, we screened the abstracts of the journal articles. Consistent with other reviews (e.g., Shepherd et al. 2021), we excluded 17 published articles that were (6) commentaries, (7) introductions to special issues, or (8) review papers.After this step, the database decreased to 107 articles. 3.3 Eligibility In the third stage, the authors independently read the entire text of the remaining 107 articles to thoroughly evaluate whether these articles were significantly appropriated for this review. To meet this goal, we set the following inclusion criteria: (9) the article focuses on entrepreneurial opportunities as a subject area. As the keyword search was very specific, only a small number of articles (n = 4) did not meet the criteria and hence were excluded from the sample. After this step, the database decreased to 103 articles. As an additional step, we used backward snowballing search (e.g., Canavati etal. 2021; Su and Junge 2023) to identify and manually add additional studies that did not make it into the initial sample but were: (10) frequently cited in the studies included in the initial sample and (11) focus on entrepreneurial opportunities as a subject area. This step resulted in 32 manually added articles, which ultimately increased the sample to 135 journal articles. Fig. 1 PRISMA flowchart of this review study. Source: Adapted from Moher etal. (2009) 3705 The concept ofentrepreneurial opportunities: areview and… 3.4 Included After these comprehensive steps, the final sample consists of 135 articles, including 62 conceptual and 73 empirical articles. The majority of the articles were published in three major entrepreneurship journals: ‘Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice’ (n = 31), ‘Journal of Business Venturing’ (n = 28), and ‘Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal’ (n = 25). Overall, these three journals account for 84 out of the 135 reviewed articles on entrepreneurial opportunities. As a last step, we followed previous categorizations (e.g., Busenitz etal. 2003, 2014; Venkataraman 1997) and coded the studies into three main levels of analysis: individual, organizational, and environmental. The individual level concerns human characteristics that influence individuals to become entrepreneurs. The organizational level encompasses characteristics of established organizations that influence the entrepreneurial opportunity process. The environmental level is concerned with cultural, economic, or market-related factors that enhance or inhibit entrepreneurial activity. Moreover, we categorized the studies into the separate phases of the entrepreneurial opportunity process: discovery and creation, evaluation, and exploitation. While the phases are inextricably linked, research has shown that different phenomena are associated with each phase, and thus, it is necessary to theoretically and empirically study them separately (Haynie etal. 2009; Keh etal. 2002; Shane and Venkataraman 2000; Wood and Williams 2014). 4 Research overview The majority of the studies in the sample (n = 73) focus on individual entrepreneurs and their underlying characteristics that influence the entrepreneurial opportunity process. However, recent research goes beyond the individual-opportunity nexus and argues that organizations can go through an entrepreneurial opportunity process as well (e.g., Ireland etal. 2003). A smaller but still considerable size of studies (n = 30) takes an organizational point of view. Moreover, many studies in the sample (n = 47) highlight environmental conditions that shape the entire entrepreneurial opportunity process. For this reason, the presented results focus on key insights regarding individual, organizational, and environmental aspects of the entrepreneurial opportunity process. Regarding the phases of the entrepreneurial opportunity process, we will present the findings in relation to opportunity discovery and creation, opportunity evaluation, and opportunity exploitation. Notably, some studies address more than one level or phase.The online appendix provides a complete and detailed overview of all the studies analyzed. 3706 F.Schlichte, S.Junge 4.1 Individual level 4.1.1 Discovery andcreation Both discovery and creation theory share the central assumption that entrepreneurs possess unique characteristics, enabling them to discovery already existing opportunities (Alvarez and Barney 2010; Barach and Rider 2023; Shane 2012; Suddaby etal. 2015) or create new opportunities (Alvarez and Barney 2010; Alvarez etal. 2024; Pryor etal. 2016). Meanwhile, a more recent stream of research adopts the actualization perspective (McMullen et al. 2024; McMullen and Shepherd 2006; Ramoglou and McMullen 2024; Ramoglou and Tsang 2016), suggesting that opportunities are not discovered or created things, but rather “they are discovered or created possibilities” (McMullen etal. 2024: 3). Overall, research especially highlights the importance of human capital and focuses on (1) personality traits, (2) knowledge, as well as (3) cognitive and behavioral factors. First, individuals that possess personality traits such as affection (Baron 2008; Baron etal. 2012; Baron and Tang 2011; Cardon etal. 2012; Foo etal. 2015), alertness (Ardichvili etal. 2003; Tang etal. 2012), creativity (Ardichvili etal. 2003; Dimov 2007a; Shane and Nicolaou 2015), curiosity (Arikan etal. 2020), imagination (Chiles etal. 2007), optimism, resilience, self-efficacy (Hmieleski etal. 2015), and self-esteem (McCline etal. 2000) are shown to have an increased likelihood of discovering or creating entrepreneurial opportunities. For example, by empirically investigating over 3,000 twins in the United Kingdom, Shane and Nicolaou (2015), found evidence that creative personalities are more likely to identify opportunities and start a business. Second, besides these stable personality traits, some research highlights how previous knowledge enables individuals to discover or create entrepreneurial opportunities (Grégoire and Shepherd 2012; Shepherd and DeTienne 2005). For instance, some research emphasizes the importance of prior education and prior experience (Canavati etal. 2021; Hmieleski etal. 2015; Miller 2012; Ucbasaran etal. 2009). Prior experience can thereby be divided into general experience and entrepreneurial experience. General experience encompasses prior work experience, prior knowledge of a market, industry or customers (Baron 2007; Prandelli etal. 2016; Shepherd and DeTienne 2005) as well as cross-cultural experience (Vandor and Franke 2016). For example, Shepherd and DeTienne, (2005) used a sample of graduate students and provided groups within the sample with different amounts of information about the underlying problems associated with a product. They empirically show that prior knowledge of a customer problem leads to the identification of more opportunities (Shepherd and DeTienne 2005). Entrepreneurial experience refers to the experience individuals have gained by previously attempting to create a new venture (Baron and Ensley 2006; Politis 2005). Such experience enables individuals to achieve a “clearer, richer, and action-oriented mental image of an opportunity” (Canavati etal. 2021: 459). Third, an individual’s cognitive and behavioral factors are of major importance (Pryor etal. 2016). Particularly, learning asymmetries determine if an individual identifies entrepreneurial opportunities (Corbett 2007). The term learning 3713 The concept ofentrepreneurial opportunities: areview and… opportunity exploitation and subsequent performance (Dencker and Gruber 2015). This research indicates that the riskier an opportunity was, the greater the performance of the start-up was, regardless of the given founder characteristics (Dencker and Gruber 2015). On a macro level, the combined effects of selected cultural values, social capital, and social institutions can explain national differences in rates of opportunity exploitation (Cullen etal. 2014; De Carolis and Saparito 2006). For example, nations that are characterized by high individualism, high power distance, and low uncertainty avoidance are shown to possess more entrepreneurial activity (Cullen etal. 2014). Additionally, the welfare of a nation affects overall opportunity exploitation (Alvarez and Barney 2014; Bradley etal. 2012). Unfortunately, nations that are characterized by high poverty contexts, impede the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities, even though such exploitation holds the greatest potential for significant economic impact (Alvarez and Barney 2014). 5 Directions forfuture research Since the groundbreaking conceptualization of Shane and Venkataraman (2000), research on entrepreneurial opportunities has grown steadily, and has become to the most unique domain of entrepreneurship research (Busenitz etal. 2014). The presented overview confirms that research on the concept of entrepreneurial opportunities is profound. Researchers have extensively investigated the different phases of the entrepreneurial opportunity process on the individual, organizational, and environmental levels. However, concerning the phases of the entrepreneurial opportunity process, researchers in the sample do not always consistently differentiate between these phases in their conducted studies. This lacking differentiation consequently blurs the borders of such elements. While it is true that the phases of discovery and creation, evaluation, and exploitation are inextricably linked, research has shown that different phenomena are associated with each phase, and thus, it is necessary to theoretically and empirically study them separately (Haynie etal. 2009; Keh etal. 2002; Shane and Venkataraman 2000; Wood and Williams 2014). We therefore encourage future research to carefully integrate their studies into the phases of the entrepreneurial opportunity process. Regarding the level of analysis, research in the sample not only focuses on the predominant individual-opportunity nexus but also approaches the concept from an organizational point of view. In addition, many studies highlight the importance of environmental conditions that shape the entire entrepreneurial opportunity process. By reviewing, synthesizing, and discussing previous studies, we answered our first research question, which focuses on the contribution of prior research to the entrepreneurial opportunity process. Looking ahead and in order to answer our second research questing, we propose that future researchers should use the presented insights of the entrepreneurial opportunity process on an individual, organizational, and environmental level as a guidance for future advances on the concept of 3714 F.Schlichte, S.Junge entrepreneurial opportunities. More precisely, we aim to highlight specific directions for future research regarding each level that would significantly enhance the field. 5.1 Individual level The majority of research has focused on the intersection between opportunities and entrepreneurial individuals, originally referred to as the individual-opportunity nexus by Shane and Venkataraman (2000). Research findings in this context are extensive and cover a variety of factors regarding an individual’s personality traits, knowledge, and cognition and behavior. While it appears that the insights on an individual level are exhaustive, we aim to stress two areas that have not been addressed sufficiently so far. First, research could still benefit from a wider approach and could additionally investigate factors from other research disciplines. In management research, for example, upper echelons research focuses particularly on psychological characteristics and related personality traits that strongly influence top executives’ views of situations, shape their decision-making, and ultimately affect organizational behavior and performance (Bromiley and Rau 2016; Neely etal. 2020; Peterson etal. 2003; Wang etal. 2016). One characteristic that has increasingly gained attention in this literature stream is the personality trait of narcissism (see Cragun etal. 2020 for a recent review). To fulfill their narcissistic needs, narcissists continually pursue success, control, and power (Kernberg 1975; Raskin etal. 1991). Leadership positions in firms offer individuals significant power and social status (Campbell etal. 2011; Kets de Vries and Miller 1985). Hence, they might be particularly desirable for narcissistic individuals (Junge etal. 2024). Narcissistic individuals might find becoming an entrepreneur highly attractive because starting a successful business can lead to gains in power, status and self-affirmation (Navis and Ozbek 2016). As narcissistic individuals are less risk-averse, they might over evaluate entrepreneurial opportunities and exploit them more aggressively. Even though narcissism may be especially prominent among entrepreneurs, entrepreneurship research that investigates the effects of narcissism is extremely underdeveloped (Cragun etal. 2020; Navis and Ozbek 2016). Future research could build upon insights from upper echelons theory and investigate the influence of narcissism along the entrepreneurial opportunity process. Second, gender differences are shown to influence the discovery and creation of entrepreneurial opportunities (DeTienne and Chandler 2007), Yet, research regarding the subsequent evaluation and exploitation in the sample is missing. However, some recent studies (mostly from lower ranking entrepreneurship journals) provide promising approaches on these themes. For example, the differences between men and women regarding their risk and uncertainty perception are argued to (partially) explain the low rates of female entrepreneurs (Dawson and Henley 2015). Moreover, women and men are argued to favor new ventures consistent with their gendered social identity, which ‘nudges’ female entrepreneurs into lower-return ventures in less lucrative industries (Wieland etal. 2019). Regarding venture exploitation, women for example, are shown to have less startup capital in general as they 3715 The concept ofentrepreneurial opportunities: areview and… encounter more barriers in obtaining proper funding (Fairlie and Robb 2009) and are more undervalued in IPOs (Liu etal. 2024). These insights are promising avenues of entrepreneurship research but are insufficiently linked to the concept of entrepreneurial opportunities. Future research should aim to investigate the topic of gender differences under the lens of entrepreneurial opportunities in order to properly contribute to the scientific entrepreneurship debate. 5.2 Organizational level Besides the individual-opportunity nexus, a solid but smaller number of studies focuses on the entrepreneurial opportunity process on an organizational level. Research in this context stresses the importance of general organizational characteristics and internal capabilities that influence the entrepreneurial opportunity process. However, entrepreneurship research simultaneously recognizes an emerging field that comprises similar research approaches: corporate entrepreneurship (see Ireland etal. 2009; Phan etal. 2009; Urbano etal. 2022 for detailed reviews). Corporate entrepreneurship deals with various factors that promote entrepreneurial activities in established organizations. First, research in this context investigates cognitive and behavioral factors of the organization’s members (e.g., top-level managers’ pro-entrepreneurship cognitions) that foster an organization’s general entrepreneurial behavior (Ireland et al. 2009; Urbano et al. 2022). The research also highlights organizational structures (e.g., organizational culture) and environmental conditions (e.g., environmental hostility, dynamism, and heterogeneity) that foster entrepreneurial activities, and subsequently affect organizational outcomes (Ireland etal. 2009; Urbano etal. 2022). Corporate entrepreneurship thereby includes internal activities (e.g., corporate accelerator or incubator programs), as well as external activities (e.g., corporate venture capital, licensing, acquisitions or joint ventures) that promote entrepreneurial activities in established organizations (Phan et al. 2009). While many of these insights are in line with the elements of the entrepreneurial opportunity process, only few studies have so far linked the concept of entrepreneurial opportunities with the concept of corporate entrepreneurship. The field of entrepreneurship should avoid the development of two parallel lines of research that comprise similar investigations. Future research should therefore aim to align both strands of research to get a unified picture of entrepreneurship on an organizational level. Besides the alignment with corporate entrepreneurship, research on entrepreneurial opportunities could also be transferred to research on family firms. Family firms are commonly considered to be distinct social institutions and, as such, are typically investigated separately (Aldrich and Cliff 2003). Nowadays, it has become increasingly important to family firms that they develop an entrepreneurial mindset in order to compete and survive in dynamic and uncertain environments (Jaskiewicz etal. 2015; Kellermanns and Eddleston 2006; Salvato etal. 2020; Soluk etal. 2021). Therefore, family firms should integrate corporate entrepreneurship activities into their organizational duties (Kellermanns and Eddleston 2006). However, few studies 3716 F.Schlichte, S.Junge have so far examined how family firms implement entrepreneurial activities and why some family firms are more successful at corporate entrepreneurship than others (e.g., Kellermanns and Eddleston 2006; Nordqvist 2005; Rogoff and Zachary Heck 2003; Salvato 2004). Using the concept of entrepreneurial opportunities in alignment with corporate entrepreneurship, research could gain new implications of how family firms discover or create new business opportunities and how they subsequently evaluate and exploit them. Family firms differ from the larger set of organizations as they are usually smaller, possess fewer resources, and are more risk-averse (Randøy and Goel 2003). Accordingly, it is likely that they differ significantly in all aspects of the entrepreneurial opportunity process. Hence, we encourage research to link the concept of entrepreneurial opportunities to the field of research on family firms. 5.3 Environmental level Many studies in the sample highlight environmental conditions that shape the entire entrepreneurial opportunity process. In this regard, research especially stresses the importance of uncertainty and risk fostered by certain market conditions and changes in the market (Alvarez and Barney 2007; Edelman and Yli-Renko 2010; Hmieleski and Baron 2008). The recent megatrend of digitalization and the accompanying technological innovations are argued to especially influence the entire entrepreneurial opportunity process (Eckhardt and Shane 2011; Godley 2013; Nambisan etal. 2018; Shepherd and Majchrzak 2022). For example, the recent technological megatrends of open innovation and platformization are argued to have created a multitude of opportunities for entrepreneurs and corresponding ventures (Nambisan etal. 2018). Besides the effects of recent technological advances, another megatrend is currently influencing our society. Trigged by the ongoing discourse on climate change, sustainability has become a highly important concern of our society. The high awareness of climate change has led to normative and heightened regulatory pressures, as well as customer awareness towards sustainable products (Ioannou and Serafeim 2019). This has led to the emergence of new business opportunities and consequently a sharp increase in the number of new ventures that focus on sustainability (Demirel etal. 2019; Hoogendoorn etal. 2020). However, research investigating how sustainability influences the entrepreneurial opportunity process is still missing. We encourage future studies to thoroughly investigate how sustainability awareness enables the discovery and creation of entrepreneurial opportunities, and how the evaluation and exploitation might differ from other settings. Thus, future research might help to answer the question ‘does it pay to be green?’ (Demirel etal. 2019; Dixon-Fowler etal. 2013; Mrkajic etal. 2019). 3717 The concept ofentrepreneurial opportunities: areview and… 6 Limitations andconclusion This review holistically overviews the concept of entrepreneurial opportunities and offers directions for future research. However, it also has some limitations. First, the review focuses on top-ranked journals from the fields of ‘General Business Studies’ and ‘Entrepreneurship’. Due to the sample composition, further theoretical and empirical insights that might be found in lower ranked journals, in journals from other research disciplines, or in books and book chapters were not considered (Graf-Vlachy etal. 2020). Second, many studies, even though related to the concept of entrepreneurial opportunities, might not have had an explicit link to entrepreneurial opportunities. Therefore, these studies are not included in the sample and their insights may not be represented in this review. Third, in order to structure the review, we divided insights regarding the concept of entrepreneurial opportunities into individual, organizational, and environmental aspects. We acknowledge that other researchers might choose other categories and thus reveal divergent insights on entrepreneurial opportunities, which could equally prove to be fertile ground for future research. The primary aim of this review is to provide a holistic overview on the concept of entrepreneurial opportunities. Over the last decades, entrepreneurial opportunities have become a central pillar in the entrepreneurship literature (Busenitz etal. 2014; Short etal. 2010; Venkataraman 2019). However, as scholarly attention has grown, literature on the concept of entrepreneurial opportunities has become increasingly fragmented. Given the importance of the concept of entrepreneurial opportunities, research has called for the need to synthesize the existing knowledge in order to provide the basis for further advances on this concept (Short etal. 2010). In view of this need, we seek to offer two contributions that address our initially raised research questions. First, we synthesize the work of prior studies and contribute to research by providing a comprehensive overview of the literature in this field to date. Second, we contribute to research by highlighting potential directions for future research that could significantly enhance the field of research. We hope that my review clarifies and elucidates existing literature and that it inspires future research on entrepreneurial opportunities. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1130102400466-5. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Data availability Theonline appendixprovides a complete and detailed overview of all studies analyzed. All other data sets generated and/or analyzed as part of the current study are available from the corresponding author upon request. Declarations Conflict of interest The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative 3718 F.Schlichte, S.Junge Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/. References Aldrich HE (2012) The emergence of entrepreneurship as an academic field: a personal essay on institutional entrepreneurship. Res Policy 41:1240–1248 Aldrich HE, Cliff JE (2003) The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: toward a family embeddedness perspective. J Bus Ventur 18:573–596 Aldrich HE, Kim PH (2007) Small worlds, infinite possibilities? How social networks affect entrepreneurial team formation and search. Strateg Entrep J 1:147–165 Alvarez SA, Barney JB (2007) Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strateg Entrep J 1:11–26 Alvarez SA, Barney JB (2010) Entrepreneurship and epistemology: the philosophical underpinnings of the study of entrepreneurial opportunities. Acad Manag Ann 4:557–583 Alvarez SA, Barney JB (2014) Entrepreneurial opportunities and poverty alleviation. Entrep Theory Pract 38:159–184 Alvarez SA, Barney JB, Anderson P (2013) Forming and exploiting opportunities: the implications of discovery and creation processes for entrepreneurial and organizational research. Organ Sci 24:301–317 Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B., Arikan, A. M., and Arikan, I. 2024. The Creation Theory of Entrepreneurship and Lean Startup Frameworks: Complementary or Contradictory? Journal of Management, XX: 1–16. Ardichvili A, Cardozo R, Ray S (2003) A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. J Bus Ventur 18:105–123 Arikan AM, Arikan I, Koparan I (2020) Creation opportunities: entrepreneurial curiosity, generative cognition, and knightian uncertainty. Acad Manag Rev 45:808–824 Arora A, Nandkumar A (2011) Cash-out or flameout! Opportunity cost and entrepreneurial strategy: theory, and evidence from the information security industry. Manage Sci 57:1844–1860 Audia PG, Freeman JH, Reynolds PD (2006) Organizational foundings in community context: instruments manufacturers and their interrelationship with other organizations. Adm Sci Q 51:381–419 Audretsch DB, Keilbach M (2007) The theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. J Manage Stud 44:1242–1254 Auerswald P, Lokesh D (2022) Entrepreneurial opportunity and related specialization in economic ecosystems. Res Policy 51:104445 Autio E, Dahlander L, Frederiksen L (2013) Information exposure, opportunity evaluation, and entrepreneurial action: an investigation of an online user community. Acad Manag J 56:1348–1371 Autio E, Nambisan S, Thomas LDW, Wright M (2018) Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strateg Entrep J 12:72–95 Baker T, Nelson RE (2005) Creating something from nothing: resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Adm Sci Q 50:329–366 Bao Y, Wei Z, Di Benedetto A (2020) Identifying the tacit entrepreneurial opportunity of latent customer needs in an emerging economy: the effects of experiential market learning versus vicarious market learning. Strateg Entrep J 14:444–469 Barach MA, Rider CI (2023) Discovery, discernment, and exploitation: entrepreneurial mechanisms at the nexus of individual and opportunity. Strateg Manag J 44:2858–2887 Barney JB, Foss NJ, Lyngsie J (2018) The role of senior management in opportunity formation: direct involvement or reactive selection? Strateg Manag J 39:1325–1349 Baron RA (2007) Behavioral and cognitive factors in entrepreneurship: entrepreneurs as the active element in new venture creation. Strateg Entrep J 1:167–182 Baron RA (2008) The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Acad Manag Rev 33:328–340 3719 The concept ofentrepreneurial opportunities: areview and… Baron RA, Ensley MD (2006) Opportunity recognition as the detection of meaningful patterns: evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs. Manage Sci 52:1331–1344 Baron RA, Hmieleski KM, Henry RA (2012) Entrepreneurs’ dispositional positive affect: the potential benefits - and potential costs - of being “up.” J Bus Ventur 27:310–324 Baron RA, Tang J (2011) The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: joint effects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. J Bus Ventur 26:49–60 Barreto I (2012) Solving the entrepreneurial puzzle: the role of entrepreneurial interpretation in opportunity formation and related processes. J Manage Stud 49:356–380 Bauer, D., Junge, S., and Reif, T. 2023. May the resources be with you: a systematic review and framework of startup funding options. Management Review Quarterly. Bingham C, Eisenhardt KM, Furr NR (2007) What makes a process a capability? Heuristics, strategy, and effective capture of opportunities. Strateg Entrep J 1:27–47 Bradley SW, McMullen JS, Artz K, Simiyu EM (2012) Capital is not enough: innovation in developing economies. J Manage Stud 49:684–717 Bromiley P, Rau D (2016) Social, behavioral, and cognitive influences on upper echelons during strategy process: a literature review. J Manag 42:174–202 Busenitz LW, Plummer LA, Klotz AC, Shahzad A, Rhoads K (2014) Entrepreneurship research (1985– 2009) and the emergence of opportunities. Entrep Theory Pract 38:981–1000 Busenitz LW, West GP, Shepherd D, Nelson T, Chandler GN etal (2003) Entrepreneurship research in emergence: past trends and future directions. J Manag 29:285–308 Bygrave WD, Minniti M (2000) The social dynamics of entrepreneurship. Entrep Theory Pract 24:25–36 Campbell WK, Hoffman BJ, Campbell SM, Marchisio G (2011) Narcissism in organizational contexts. Hum Resour Manag Rev 21:268–284 Canavati S, Libaers D, Wang T, Hooshangi S, Sarooghi H (2021) Relationship between human capital, new venture ideas, and opportunity beliefs: a meta-analysis. Strateg Entrep J 15:454–477 Cardon MS, Foo M-D, Shepherd D, Wiklund J (2012) Exploring the heart: entrepreneurial emotion is a hot topic. Entrep Theory Pract 36:1–10 Chiasson M, Saunders C (2005) Reconciling diverse approaches to opportunity research using the structuration theory. J Bus Ventur 20:747–767 Chiles TH, Bluedorn AC, Gupta VK (2007) Beyond creative destruction and entrepreneurial discovery: a radical austrian approach to entrepreneurship. Organ Stud 28:467–493 Choi YR, Shepherd DA (2004) Entrepreneurs’ decisions to exploit opportunities. J Manag 30:377–395 Cohen B, Winn MI (2007) Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. J Bus Ventur 22:29–49 Constantinides P, Slavova M (2020) From a monopoly to an entrepreneurial field: the constitution of possibilities in South African energy. J Bus Ventur 35:106061 Corbett AC (2007) Learning asymmetries and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. J Bus Ventur 22:97–118 Cragun OR, Olsen KJ, Wright PM (2020) Making CEO narcissism research great: a review and metaanalysis of CEO narcissism. J Manag 46:908–936 Cullen JB, Johnson JL, Parboteeah KP (2014) National rates of opportunity entrepreneurship activity: insights from institutional anomie theory. Entrep Theory Pract 38:775–806 Cuntz A, Peuckert J (2023) From hackers to start-ups: innovation commons and local entrepreneurial activity. Res Policy 52:104675 Dahlqvist J, Wiklund J (2012) Measuring the market newness of new ventures. J Bus Ventur 27:185–196 Davidsson P (2015) Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: a re-conceptualization. J Bus Ventur 30:674–695 Davidsson P, Low MB, Wright M (2001) Editor’s introduction: low and macmillan ten years on: achievements and future directions for entrepreneurship research. Entrep Theory Pract 25:5–15 Davidsson P, Recker J, Von Briel F (2020) External enablement of new venture creation: a framework. Acad Manag Perspect 34:311–332 Davidsson P, Wiklund J (2001) Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: current research practice and suggestions for the future. Entrep Theory Pract 25:81–99 Dawson C, Henley A (2015) Gender, risk, and venture creation intentions. J Small Bus Manage 53:501–515 De Carolis DM, Saparito P (2006) Social capital, cognition, and entrepreneurial opportunities: a theoretical framework. Entrep Theory Pract 30:41–56 3720 F.Schlichte, S.Junge De Clercq D, Dimov D, Thongpapanl N (2010) The moderating impact of internal social exchange processes on the entrepreneurial orientation-performance relationship. J Bus Ventur 25:87–103 Demirel P, Li QC, Rentocchini F, Tamvada JP (2019) Born to be green: new insights into the economics and management of green entrepreneurship. Small Bus Econ 52:759–771 Dencker JC, Gruber M (2015) The effects of opportunities and founder experience on new firm performance. Strateg Manag J 36:1035–1052 DeTienne DR, Chandler GN (2007) The role of gender in opportunity identification. Entrep Theory Pract 31:365–386 Dew N, Velamuri SR, Venkataraman S (2004) Dispersed knowledge and an entrepreneurial theory of the firm. J Bus Ventur 19:659–679 Dimov D (2007a) Beyond the single-person, single-insight attribution in understanding entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrep Theory Pract 31:713–732 Dimov D (2007b) From opportunity insight to opportunity intention: the importance of person-situation learning match. Entrep Theory Pract 31:561–583 Dimov D (2010) Nascent entrepreneurs and venture emergence: opportunity confidence, human capital, and early planning. J Manage Stud 47:1123–1153 Dimov D (2011) Grappling with the unbearable elusiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrep Theory Pract 35:57–81 Dixon-Fowler HR, Slater DJ, Johnson JL, Ellstrand AE, Romi AM (2013) Beyond “Does it Pay to be Green?” A meta-analysis of moderators of the CEP-CFP relationship. J Bus Ethics 112:353–366 Drover W, Busenitz L, Matusik S, Townsend D, Anglin A etal (2017) A review and road map of entrepreneurial equity financing research: venture capital, corporate venture capital, angel investment, crowdfunding, and accelerators. J Manag 43:1820–1853 Dutta DK, Crossan MM (2005) The nature of entrepreneurial opportunities: understanding the process using the 4I organizational learning framework. Entrep Theory Pract 29:425–449 Dyer JH, Gregersen HB, Christensen C (2008) Entrepreneur behaviors, opportunity recognition, and the origins of innovative ventures. Strateg Entrep J 2:317–338 Eckhardt JT, Shane SA (2003) Opportunities and entrepreneurship. J Manag 29:333–349 Eckhardt JT, Shane SA (2011) Industry changes in technology and complementary assets and the creation of high-growth firms. J Bus Ventur 26:412–430 Edelman L, Yli-Renko H (2010) The impact of environment and entrepreneurial perceptions on venturecreation efforts: bridging the discovery and creation views of entrepreneurship. Entrep Theory Pract 34:833–856 Ejdemo T, Örtqvist D (2020) Related variety as a driver of regional innovation and entrepreneurship: a moderated and mediated model with non-linear effects. Res Policy 49:104073 Ertugrul M, Krishnan K, Yu Q (2024) Knowledge spillover and entrepreneurship: evidence from BITNET. Res Policy 53:105091 Fairlie RW, Robb AM (2009) Gender differences in business performance: evidence from the characteristics of business owners survey. Small Bus Econ 33:375–395 Fisher G, Josefy MA, Neubert E (2024) Event-based entrepreneurship. J Bus Ventur 39:106366 Foo M-D (2011) Emotions and entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation. Entrep Theory Pract 35:375–393 Foo M-D, Uy MA, Murnieks C (2015) Beyond affective valence: untangling valence and activation influences on opportunity identification. Entrep Theory Pract 39:407–431 Gaglio CM (2004) The role of mental simulations and counterfactual thinking in the opportunity identification process. Entrep Theory Pract 28:533–552 Gande A, Lewis CM (2009) Shareholder-initiated class action lawsuits: shareholder wealth effects and industry spillovers. J Financ Quantit Anal 44:823–850 George G, Kotha R, Zheng Y (2008) Entry into insular domains: a longitudinal study of knowledge structuration and innovation in biotechnology firms. J Manage Stud 45:1448–1474 Godley A (2013) Entrepreneurial opportunities, implicit contracts, and market making for complex consumer goods. Strateg Entrep J 7:273–287 Graf-Vlachy L, Oliver AG, Banfield R, König A, Bundy J (2020) Media coverage of firms: background, integration, and directions for future research. J Manag 46:36–69 Grégoire DA, Shepherd DA (2012) Technology-market combinations and the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities : an investigation of the opportunity-individual nexus. Acad Manag J 55:753–785 3721 The concept ofentrepreneurial opportunities: areview and… Gruber M, Kim SM, Brinckmann J (2015) What is an attractive business opportunity? An empirical study of opportunity evaluation decisions by technologists, managers, and entrepreneurs. Strateg Entrep J 9:205–225 Hagen M, Su W, Junge S (2023) 60th birthday of ‘A Behavioral Theory of the Firm’: a review of the relational concepts and recommendations for future research. Springer International Publishing, Management Review Quarterly Harmeling S (2011) Contingency as an entrepreneurial resource: How private obsession fulfills public need. J Bus Ventur 26:293–305 Haynie JM, Shepherd DA, McMullen JS (2009) An opportunity for me? The role of resources in opportunity evaluation decisions. J Manage Stud 46:337–361 Hiatt SR, Sine WD, Tolbert PS (2009) From pabst to Pepsi: the deinstitutionalization of social practices and the creation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Adm Sci Q 54:635–667 Hite JM (2005) Evolutionary processes and paths of relationally embedded network ties in emerging entrepreneurial firms. Entrep Theory Pract 29:113–144 Hmieleski KM, Baron RA (2008) Regulatory focus and new venture performance: a study of entrepreneurial opportunity exploitation under conditions of risk versus uncertainty. Strateg Entrep J 2:285–299 Hmieleski KM, Carr JC, Baron RA (2015) Integrating discovery and creation perspectives of entrepreneurial action: the relative roles of founding CEO human capital, social capital, and psychological capital in contexts of risk versus uncertainty. Strateg Entrep J 9:289–312 Holland DV, Shepherd DA (2013) Deciding to persist: adversity, values, and entrepreneurs’ decision policies. Entrep Theory Pract 37:331–358 Hoogendoorn B, van der Zwan P, Thurik R (2020) Goal heterogeneity at start-up: are greener start-ups more innovative? Res Policy 49:104061 Hsieh C, Nickerson JA, Zenger TR (2007) Opportunity discovery, problem solving and a theory of the entrepreneurial firm. J Manage Stud 44:1255–1277 Ioannou, I., and Serafeim, G. 2019. Corporate Sustainability: A Strategy? Harvard Business School and Management Unit Working Paper, 19: 1–43. Ireland RD, Covin JG, Kuratko DF (2009) Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Entrep Theory Pract 33:19–46 Ireland RD, Hitt MA, Sirmon DG (2003) A model of strategic entrepreneurship: the construct and its dimensions. J Manag 29:963–989 Ireland RD, Reutzel CR, Webb JW (2005) Entrepreneurship research in AMJ: What has been published, and what might the future hold? Acad Manag J 48:335–348 Jaskiewicz P, Combs JG, Rau SB (2015) Entrepreneurial legacy: toward a theory of how some family firms nurture transgenerational entrepreneurship. J Bus Ventur 30:29–49 Junge, S., Graf-Vlachy, L., Hagen, M., and Schlichte, F. 2024. Narcissism at the CEO–TMT Interface: Measuring Executive Narcissism and Testing Its Effects on TMT Composition. Journal of Management. Keh HT, Foo M-D, Lim BC (2002) Opportunity evaluation under risky conditions: the cognitive processes of entrepreneurs. Entrep Theory Pract 27:125–148 Kellermanns FW, Eddleston KA (2006) Corporate entrepreneurship in family firms: a family perspective. Entrep Theory Pract 30:809–830 Kernberg, O. F. 1975. Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. Northvale: NJ: Jason Aronson. Kets de Vries M, Miller D (1985) Narcissism and leadership: an object relations perspective. Human Relations 38:583–601 Kirzner IM (1979) Perception, Opportunity and Profit. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Knight FH (1921) Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA Kuckertz A, Block J (2021) Reviewing systematic literature reviews: ten key questions and criteria for reviewers. Manag Rev Quarterly 71:519–524 Kwon SW, Arenius P (2010) Nations of entrepreneurs: a social capital perspective. J Bus Ventur 25:315–330 Langlois RN (2007) The entrepreneurial theory of the firm and the theory of the entrepreneurial firm. J Manage Stud 44:1107–1124 Lee JH, Venkataraman S (2006) Aspirations, market offerings, and the pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities. J Bus Ventur 21:107–123 Lerner DA (2016) Behavioral disinhibition and nascent venturing: relevance and initial effects on potential resource providers. J Bus Ventur 31:234–252 3722 F.Schlichte, S.Junge Leyden DP, Link AN, Siegel DS (2014) A theoretical analysis of the role of social networks in entrepreneurship. Res Policy 43:1157–1163 Lim JYK, Busenitz LW, Chidambaram L (2013) New venture teams and the quality of business opportunities identified: faultlines between subgroups of founders and investors. Entrep Theory Pract 37:47–67 Liu, Y. L., Park, H. D., and Velamuri, S. R. 2024. How Different Institutional Logics Affect the Female CEO Gender Effect on IPO Underpricing in China. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 48: 451–477. Logue D, Grimes M (2022) Living up to the hype: How new ventures manage the resource and liability of future-oriented visions within the nascent market of impact investing. Acad Manag J 65:1055–1082 Luksha P (2008) Niche construction: the process of opportunity creation in the environment. Strateg Entrep J 2:269–283 Lumpkin GT, Dess GG (1996) Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Acad Manag Rev 21:135–172 Lumpkin GT, Lichtenstein BB (2005) The role of organizational learning in the opportunity-recognition process. Entrep Theory Pract 29:451–472 Lyons E, Zhang L (2017) The impact of entrepreneurship programs on minorities. Am Econ Rev 107:303–307 Mahnke V, Venzin M, Zahra SA (2007) Governing entrepreneurial opportunity recognition in MNEs: Aligning interests and cognition under uncertainty. J Manage Stud 44:1278–1298 McBride R, Wuebker R (2022) Social objectivity and entrepreneurial opportunities. Acad Manag Rev 47:75–92 McCline RL, Bhat S, Baj P (2000) Opportunity recognition: an exploratory investigation of a component of the entrepreneurial process in the context of the health care industry. Entrep Theory Pract 25:81–94 McMullen JS, Fitzsimmons JR, Shetty K, Ramoglou S (2024) A temporal typology of entrepreneurial opportunities: implications for the optimal timing of entrepreneurial action. J Bus Ventur 39:106356 McMullen JS, Shepherd DA (2006) Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Acad Manag Rev 31:132–152 Merida AL, Rocha V (2021) It’s about time: the timing of entrepreneurial experience and the career dynamics of university graduates. Res Policy 50:104–135 Miller JI (2012) The mortality problem of learning and mimetic practice in emerging industries: dying to be legitimate. Strateg Entrep J 6:59–88 Minniti M, Bygrave W (1999) The microfoundations of entrepreneurship. Entrep Theory Pract 23:41–52 Mitchell JR, Shepherd DA (2010) To thine own self be true: images of self, images of opportunity, and entrepreneurial action. J Bus Ventur 25:138–154 Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Antes, G., etal. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6. Mrkajic B, Murtinu S, Scalera VG (2019) Is green the new gold? Venture capital and green entrepreneurship. Small Bus Econ 52:929–950 Nair S, Gaim M, Dimov D (2022) Toward the emergence of entrepreneurial opportunities: organizing early-phase new venture creation support systems. Acad Manag Rev 47:162–183 Nambisan S, Siegel D, Kenney M (2018) On open innovation, platforms, and entrepreneurship. Strateg Entrep J 12:354–368 Nanda R, Sørensen JB (2010) Workplace peers and entrepreneurship. Manage Sci 56:1116–1126 Navis C, Ozbek OV (2016) The right people in the wrong places: the paradox of entrepreneurial entry and successful opportunity realization. Acad Manag Rev 41:109–129 Neely BH, Lovelace JB, Cowen AP, Hiller NJ (2020) Metacritiques of upper echelons theory: verdicts and recommendations for future research. J Manag 46:1029–1062 Nordqvist M (2005) Familiness in top management teams: commentary on Ensley and Pearson’s “an exploratory comparison of the behavioral dynamics of top management teams in family and nonfamily new ventures: Cohesion, conflict, potency, and consensus.” Entrep Theory Pract 29:285–292 Oriaifo J, Torres de Oliveira R, Ellis KM (2020) Going above and beyond: How intermediaries enhance change in emerging economy institutions to facilitate small to medium enterprise development. Strateg Entrep J 14:501–531