Governance is central to innovation networks and ecosystems, yet core terms such as orchestration, coordination, and intermediation are frequently used interchangeably or without clear conceptual boundaries. This conceptual ambiguity weakens theory-building and limits the practical transferability of governance insights across contexts. This paper develops a structured conceptual analysis of these mechanisms and asks: How are orchestration, coordination, and intermediation defined and operationalized in innovation management research? Using a structured literature review design, the paper maps the three constructs and shows that they occupy distinct theoretical niches: orchestration emphasises deliberate actions by a structurally prominent hub firm; coordination captures alignment and co-adaptation of interdependent activities shaped by governance forms; and intermediation refers to third-party bridging and capability-building across innovation processes. Building on these distinctions, the paper proposes an integrative framework that specifies boundary conditions (unit of analysis, authority basis, temporal scope, and outcome orientation) to support clearer construct use and cumulative knowledge development.

Entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) research has largely been developed in urban, resource-rich contexts, leaving the dynamics of rural and hybrid ecosystems undertheorized. This paper examines how entrepreneurial ecosystems operate inhybrid rural cross-border regions and through which mechanisms regional actors compensate for structural resource constraints. Drawing on a qualitative single-case study of the Lake Constance region at the intersection of Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, and based on semi-structured interviews with key ecosystem actors, the study adopts a mechanism-based analytical perspective. The findings reveal an ecosystem sustained not through formal institutional density but through distributed informal coordination, relational network substitution for absent governance structures, and active external resource mobilization. Two mechanisms extend existing theoretical frameworks: first, strategic adaptation, whereby actors calibrate market positioning and business models to local structural constraints rather than optimizing against metropolitan performance benchmarks and second, the exploitation of cross-border asymmetries, through which actors engage in deliberate institutional arbitrage across adjacent regulatory and economic systems, constituting cross-border heterogeneity as a strategic asset rather than merely a source of friction. The paper contributes to a more context-sensitive and mechanism-based understanding of entrepreneurial ecosystem dynamics in non-metropolitan settings and carries implications for both EE theory and regional development practice.

Entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) emphasize that venture outcomes emerge from the interaction of interdependent conditions, yet evidence on the effectiveness of specific support combinations remains fragmented and context-insensitive. This paper focuses on support portfolios including microfunding, a small-scale, grant-based early-stage support embedded in ecosystem-oriented programs and distinct from credit-based microfinance. Employing QCA, we analyze 158 ventures in an EE in north-western Norway across rural and urban contexts, assessing venture survival against six conditions: entrepreneurial engagement, microfunding, location, team size, funding diversity, and ecosystem embeddedness. The findings show that venture failure is associated with co-occurring constraints rather than single missing factors, and that microfunding acts as a compensatory mechanism where ecosystem conditions are weak, particularly in rural settings. The paper advances EE and entrepreneurial support research by developing a configurational perspective on support effectiveness and offering implications for designing targeted support mechanisms.

Over the past decades, we have noticed the proliferation of business modeling frameworks. These tools have clearly become increasingly sophisticated, but at the same time, exhibit systematic limitations that hinder the actual entrepreneurial practice. This paper addresses the fragmentation and interconnection limitations of existing static frameworks by introducing a dynamic, stage-responsive meta-framework. The framework enables software entrepreneurs to uncover business models that balance viability, feasibility, desirability, sustainability and scalability. Compared to traditional frameworks, the proposed approach serves as a system to navigate the ever-expanding landscape of business modeling frameworks. It fulfills a dual purpose: guiding software entrepreneurs toward analytically appropriate tools for their venture’s current stage while enabling deep, contextualized exploration of business model dimensions specific to that maturity level. Recognizing that priorities shift with venture maturity, this stage-responsive approach minimizes decision friction and ensures early decisions in desirability and feasibility shape later scalability and sustainability. Empirical evidence confirms the framework’s effectiveness in assisting first-time entrepreneurs and in educational settings where structured guidance is particularly impactful. The findings carry practical implications for entrepreneurship education, incubator initiatives, and the design of digital tools. By reframing business modeling as a process of dynamic capability development rather than static template completion, this work equips entrepreneurs with structured pathways to deeper insights while preserving practical relevance throughout their startup journey.

This study examines how traditional and specialized impact venture capital (VC) investors differ in their assessment of sustainable start-ups’ attractiveness. To address this question, we combine a systematic literature review with qualitative expert interviews involving traditional and impact VC investors as well as founders of sustainable start-ups. The literature reveals diverging perspectives. Some studies suggest impact VC investors perceive sustainable start-ups as more attractive, as their specialization may enable both financial returns and meaningful impact. However, the combined evidence from the literature and interviews indicates that investment assessments across both investor types are largely similar. Financial considerations remain the primary determinant, while the realization of dual returns appears limited. Although impact VC investors incorporate sustainability-related criteria, these remain subordinate to economic considerations and primarily increase selectivity rather than fundamentally altering investment logic. Overall, the study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of financing dynamics in sustainable entrepreneurship and sheds light on the selection mechanisms shaping the scaling of sustainable innovations, with implications for both theory and practice.