Javascript is required
Adelowo, C. M. & Surujlal, J. (2020). Academic entrepreneurship and traditional academic performance at universities: Evidence from a developing country. Pol J. Manage. Stud, 22(1), 9–25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Adha, M. A., Wibowo, A., Faslah, R., Ariyanti, N. S., & Lutfia, A. (2022). Students’ ideal career in the 4.0 Industrial. J. Eastern Eur Central Asian Res., 9(4), 651–664. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Alenizi, F. A., Abbasi, S., Mohammed, A. H., & Rahmani, A. M. (2023). The artificial intelligence technologies in Industry 4.0: A taxonomy, approaches, and future directions. Comput. Ind Eng., 185, 109662. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Attiany, M., Al-Kharabsheh, S., Abed-Qader, M., Al-Hawary, S., Mohammad, A., & Rahamneh, A. (2023). Barriers to adopt industry 4.0 in supply chains using interpretive structural modeling. Uncert. Supply Chain Manag., 11(1), 299–306. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Bahulikar, S., Chattopadhyay, A., & Hudnurkar, M. (2023). Framework for integrating lean thinking with Industry 4.0: Way ahead for entrepreneurs in Indian MSME’s. J. Entrep., 32(2), 271–306. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Belmoukari, B., Audy, J. F., & Forget, P. (2023). Smart port: A systematic literature review. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev., 15(1), 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Belousova, O., Walsh, S., & Groen, A. (2021). COVID-19 as industry forcing function: Challenges for entrepreneurship in the post-pandemic future. J. Natl Res. Univ. High Sch. Econ., 15(4), 33–41. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Bettiol, M., Capestro, M., Di Maria, E., & Grandinetti, R. (2023). Leveraging on intra- and inter-organizational collaboration in Industry 4.0 adoption for knowledge creation and innovation. Eur J. Innov. Manag., 26(7), 328–352. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Bettiol, M., Capestro, M., Di Maria, E., & Micelli, S. (2021). Disentangling the link between ICT and Industry 4.0: Impacts on knowledge-related performance. Int J. Prod. Perform. Manag., 71(4), 1076–1098. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Bhatti, W. A., Vahlne, J. E., Glowik, M., & Larimo, J. A. (2022). The impact of industry 4.0 on the 2017 version of the Uppsala model. Int Bus. Rev, 31(4), 101996. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Biclesanu, I., Savastano, M., Chinie, C., & Anagnoste, S. (2023). The role of business students’ entrepreneurial intention and technology preparedness in the digital age. Adm. Sci., 13(8), 177. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Braun, J., Júnior, A. O., Berger, G., Pinto, V. H., Soares, I. N., Pereira, A. I., Lima, J., & Costa, P. (2022). A robot localization proposal for the RobotAtFactory 4.0: A novel robotics competition within the Industry 4.0 concept. Front. Robot. AI, 9, 1023590. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Brinken, J., Behrendt, F., & Trojahn, S. (2023). Comparing decarbonization potential of digital and green technologies. Sustain Futures, 6, 100125. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Brozzi, R., Rauch, E., Riedl, M., & Matt, D. T. (2021). Industry 4.0 roadmap for SMEs: Validation of moderation techniques for creativity workshops. Int J. Agile Syst. Manag., 14(2), 276–291. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Capetillo, A., Abraham Tijerina, A., Ramirez, R., & Galvan, J. A. (2021). Evolution from triple helix into penta helix: The case of Nuevo Leon 4.0 and the push for industry 4.0. Int J Interact Des Manuf, 15, 597–612. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Chakrabarti, D., Kumar, R., Sarkar, S., & Mukherjee, A. (2021). A case study: How did IoT start-up Distronix change its business model to sustain growth in the pay-per-use economy. J. Inf. Technol. Teach. Cases, 12(1), 65–71. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Chalmers, D., MacKenzie, N. G., & Carter, S. (2020). Artificial intelligence and entrepreneurship: Implications for venture creation in the fourth industrial revolution. Entrep. Theory Pract., 45(5), 1028–1053. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Chang, L., Zhang, Q., & Liu, H. (2022). Digital finance innovation in green manufacturing: A bibliometric approach. Environ Sci. Pollut. Res., 30(22), 61340–61368. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Chernovaa, O. A., Mitrofanovab, I. V., Pleshakovad, M. V., & Batmanovac, V. V. (2023). Use of big data analytics for small and medium sized businesses. Serbian J. Manag., 18(1), 93–109. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Chunthasiri, Y., Carr, S. C., Young-Hauser, A. M., & Intrarakamhang, U. (2023). Sustaining Thailand’s seafood processing sector: Workforce development. Humanit. Arts Soc Sci. Stud., 23(1), 220–234. [Google Scholar]
Dalalah, D., Khan, S. A., Al-Ashram, Y., Albeetar, S., Abou Ali, Y., & Alkhouli, E. (2022). An integrated framework for the assessment of environmental sustainability in wood supply chains. Environ Tech. Innov., 27, 102429. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Darwish, H. & Van Dyk, L. (2018). Bottom of Pyramid 4.0: Modularising and assimilating industrial revolution cognition into a 4-tiered social entrepreneurship upliftment model for previously disconnected communities. J. Ind Integr. Manag., 3(2), 1850010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Delke, V., Schiele, H., Buchholz, W., & Kelly, S. (2023). Implementing Industry 4.0 technologies: Future roles in purchasing and supply management. Technol Forecast. Soc Change, 196, 122847. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Dossou, P. E. & Nshokano, C. (2023). Framework for implementing digital twin as an industry 5.0 concept to increase the SME performance. In Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing: Establishing Bridges for More Sustainable Manufacturing Systems (pp. 590–600). Springer, Nature, Switzerland. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Dossou, P. E. & Tchuenmegne, K. D. (2023). Decision aided tool for a SME supply chain sustainable digital transformation. In Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing: Establishing Bridges for More Sustainable Manufacturing Systems (pp. 1090–1101). Springer, Nature, Switzerland. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Ed-Dafali, S., Al-Azad, M. S., Mohiuddin, M., & Reza, M. N. H. (2023). Strategic orientations, organizational ambidexterity, and sustainable competitive advantage: Mediating role of industry 4.0 readiness in emerging markets. J. Clean. Prod., 401, 136765. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Espina-Romero, L., Noroño Sánchez, J. G., Rojas-Cangahuala, G., Palacios Garay, J., Parra, D. R., & Rio Corredoira, J. (2023). Digital leadership in an ever-changing world: A bibliometric analysis of trends and challenges. Sustainability, 15(17), 13129. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Evans, N. & Miklosik, A. (2023). Driving digital transformation: Addressing the barriers to engagement in university-industry collaboration. IEEE Access, 11, 60142–60152. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Fiorini, N. (2021). New value creation opportunities for start-ups with I4.0: Resources and capabilities capitalisation and effects on the value chain. Sinergie Ital J. Manag., 39(3), 49–73. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Fiorini, N., Devigili, M., Pucci, T., & Zanni, L. (2019). Managing resources and innovation inside the industry (industrial) 4.0 revolution: The role of supply chain. Sinergie Ital J. Manag., 37(2), 35–56. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Gagnidze, I. (2023). Industry 4.0 and industry 5.0: Can clusters deal with the challenges? (A systemic approach). Kybernetes, 52(7), 2270–2287. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Goel, P., Kumar, R., Banga, H. K., Kaur, S., Kumar, R., Pimenov, D. Y., & Giasin, K. (2022). Deployment of interpretive structural modeling in barriers to Industry 4.0: A case of small and medium enterprises. J. Risk Financial Manag., 15(4), 171. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Gunawan, A. S. & Cahayani, A. (2022). Do demographic variables make a difference in entrepreneurial leadership style? Case study amongst micro and small in creative economy entrepreneurs in Jakarta, Indonesia. Int J. Asian Bus. Inf. Manag., 13(2), 1–6. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Guo, R., Lv, X., Wang, Y., Chaudhry, P. E., & Chaudhry, S. S. (2020). Decision‐making logics and high‐tech entrepreneurial opportunity identification: The mediating role of strategic knowledge integration. Syst. Res. Behav Sci., 37(4), 719–733. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Hamidi, S. R., Ismail, M. A., Mohamed Shuhidan, S., & Abd Kadir, S. (2023). Corporate reputation in Industry 4.0: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. SAGE Open, 13(4). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Heubeck, T. (2023). Managerial capabilities as facilitators of digital transformation? Dynamic managerial capabilities as antecedents to digital business model transformation and firm performance. Digit Bus., 3(1), 100053. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Hudáková, M., Urbancová, H., & Vnoučková, L. (2019). Key criteria and competences defining the sustainability of start-up teams and projects in the incubation and acceleration phase. Sustainability, 11(23), 6720. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Iakovets, A., Balog, M., & Židek, K. (2023). The use of mobile applications for sustainable development of SMEs in the context of Industry 4.0. Appl Sci., 13(1), 429. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Ijaz Baig, M. & Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2023). Exploring moderating effects of industry 4.0 adoption on sustainable performance of Malaysian manufacturing organizations. J. Ind. Prod. Eng., 40(4), 271–286. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Islam, N., Marinakis, Y., Olson, S., White, R., & Walsh, S. (2021). Is blockchain mining profitable in the long run? IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., 70(2), 386–399. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Jamil, F., Pang, T. Y., & Cheng, C. T. (2023). Developing an I4.0 cyber-physical system to enhance efficiency and competitiveness in manufacturing. Appl Sci., 13(16), 9333. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kadarisman, M., Wijayanto, A. W., & Sakti, A. D. (2022). Government agencies’ readiness evaluation towards Industry 4.0 and society 5.0 in Indonesia. Soc Sci., 11(8), 331. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kamran, S. M., Khaskhely, M. K., Nassani, A. A., Haffar, M., & Abro, M. M. Q. (2022). Social entrepreneurship opportunities via distant socialization and social value creation. Sustainability, 14(6), 3170. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kazantsev, N., Petrovskyi, O., & Müller, J. M. (2023). From supply chains towards manufacturing ecosystems: A system dynamics model. Technol Forecast. Soc Change, 197, 122917. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Khan, S., Tomar, S., Fatima, M., & Khan, M. Z. (2022). Impact of artificial intelligent and industry 4.0 based products on consumer behaviour characteristics: A meta-analysis-based review. Sustain Oper. Comput., 3, 218–225. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kiani, M. & Andalib Ardakani, D. (2023). Finding causal relationship and ranking of industry 4.0 implementation challenges: A fuzzy DEMATEL-ANP approach. Soft Comput., 27(21), 15479–15496. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kruger, S. & Steyn, A. A. (2019). Enhancing technology transfer through entrepreneurial development: Practices from innovation spaces. J. Technol. Transf., 45(6), 1655–1689. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kruger, S. & Steyn, A. A. (2021). A conceptual model of entrepreneurial competencies needed to utilise technologies of Industry 4.0. Int J. Entrep. Innov., 22(1), 56–67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kumar, R., Banga, H. K., Kumar, R., Singh, S., Singh, S., Scutaru, M. L., & Pruncu, C. I. (2021). Ergonomic evaluation of workstation design using taguchi experimental approach: A case of an automotive industry. Int J. Interact Des. Manuf., 15, 481–498. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kumar, R., Rani, S., & Awadh, M. A. (2022). Exploring the application sphere of the Internet of Things in Industry 4.0: A review, bibliometric and content analysis. Sensors, 22(11), 4276. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kumar, R., Rani, S., & Khangura, S. S. (2023). Machine Learning for Sustainable Manufacturing in Industry 4.0: Concept, Concerns and Applications. CRC Press. [Google Scholar]
Kunrath, T. L., Dresch, A., & Veit, D. R. (2023). Supply chain management and industry 4.0. Braz J. Oper. Prod. Manag., 20(1), 1263. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Larrañaga, A., Lucas-Estañ, M. C., Lagén, S., Ali, Z., Martinez, I., & Gozalvez, J. (2023). An open-source implementation and validation of 5G NR configured grant for URLLC in ns-3 5G LENA: A scheduling case study in Industry 4.0 scenarios. J. Netw. Comput. Appl., 215, 103638. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Lee, H., Zhang, Y., Zhang, H., & Liu, X. (2023). Challenges and opportunities of utilizing design thinking in the industry 4.0 era: Based on the case study of industry wastewater treatment system development project process. J. Innov. Entrep., 12(1), 56. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Lepore, D. & Spigarelli, F. (2020). Integrating Industry 4.0 plans into regional innovation strategies. Local Econ., 35(5), 496–510. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Lepore, D., Testi, N., & Pasher, E. (2023). Building inclusive smart cities through innovation intermediaries. Sustainability, 15(5), 4024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Lieu Tran, T. B., Törngren, M., Nguyen, H. D., Paulen, R., Gleason, N. W., & Duong, T. H. (2019). Trends in preparing cyber-physical systems engineers. Cyber-Phys Syst., 5(2), 65–91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Low, S. P., Gao, S., & Ng, E. W. L. (2021). Future-ready project and facility management graduates in Singapore for Industry 4.0: Transforming mindsets and competencies. Eng. Constr. Arch Manag., 28(1), 270–290. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Lucks, K. (2022). Industry 4.0 from an entrepreneurial transformation and financing perspective. Sci., 4(4), 47. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Mariani, M. M. & Nambisan, S. (2021). Innovation analytics and digital innovation experimentation: The rise of research-driven online review platforms. Technol Forecast. Soc Change, 172, 121009. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
McPhillips, M., Nikitina, T., Tegtmeier, S., & Wójcik, M. (2022). What skills for multi-partner open innovation projects? Open innovation competence profile in a cluster ecosystem context. Sustainability, 14(20), 13330. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Mesa, D., Renda, G., Gorkin III, R. ., Kuys, B., & Cook, S. M. (2022). Implementing a design thinking approach to de-risk the digitalisation of manufacturing SMEs. Sustainability, 14(21), 14358. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Meyendorf, N., Ida, N., Singh, R., & Vrana, J. (2023). NDE 4.0: Progress, promise, and its role to industry 4.0. NDT E Int., 140, 102957. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Mikhailovna, C. L. & Semyonovich, A. Y. (2016). Financial and economic mechanism of national forest policy implementation. J. Appl Eng. Sci., 14(4), 443–450. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Miljenović, D. & Beriša, B. (2022). Pandemics trends in E-commerce: Drop shipping entrepreneurship during COVID-19 pandemic. Pomorstvo (Online), 36(1), 31–43. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Mishrif, A. & Khan, A. (2023). Technology adoption as survival strategy for small and medium enterprises during COVID-19. J. Innov. Entrep., 12(1), 53. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Moktadir, M. A. & Ren, J. (2023). Modeling challenges for Industry 4.0 implementation in new energy systems towards carbon neutrality: Implications for impact assessment policy and practice in emerging economies. Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 199, 107246. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Mustafa Hilal, A., Alzahrani, J. S., Abunadi, I., Nemri, N., Al-Wesabi, F. N., Motwakel, A., Yaseen, I., & Sarwar Zamani, A. (2022). Intelligent deep learning model for privacy preserving IIoT on 6G environment. Comput. Mater. Continua, 72(1), 333–348. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Nabokikh, A. A., Ryattel, A. V., Sanovich, M. A., & Lapteva, S. V. (2020). Quality as the basis of effective management of the educational market and a goal of development of universities in the conditions of Industry 4.0. Int J. Qual. Res., 14(1), 93–110. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Nakayama, M., Isik, Ö., Sutcliffe, N., & Olbrich, S. (2020). Grassroots business intelligence as an enabler of change management: A case study at a large global manufacturing firm. Complex Syst. Inf. Model. Q., 23, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Navakitkanok, P., Aramvith, S., & Chandrachai, A. (2020). Innovative entrepreneurship model for agricultural processing SMEs in Thailand’s digital and Industries 4.0 era. Acad. Entrep. J., 26(4), 1–15. [Google Scholar]
Olıverı, L. M., Arfò, S., Matarazzo, A., D’Urso, D., & Chıacchıo, F. (2023). Improving the composting process of a treatment facility via an Industry 4.0 monitoring and control solution: Performance and economic feasibility assessment. J. Environ Manag., 345, 118776. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Onu, P., Pradhan, A., & Mbohwa, C. (2023). The potential of industry 4.0 for renewable energy and materials development – The case of multinational energy companies. Heliyon, 9(10), e20547. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Osano, H. M. (2023). Global scaling by SMEs: Role of innovation and technology. J. Int Counc. Small Bus., 4(3), 258–281. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Osiyevskyy, O., Shevchenko, L., Marchenko, O., & Umantsiv, Y. (2022). Hybrid firm: The future of organizing for Industry 4.0. Rutgers Bus. Rev., 7(3), 289–308. [Google Scholar]
Özköse, H. & Güney, G. (2023). The effects of industry 4.0 on productivity: A scientific mapping study. Technol. Soc., 75, 102368. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Patil, R. Y., Patil, Y. H., & Bannore, A. (2024). Cybersecurity in medical Internet of Things: Issues, challenges, and future directions. In Security Implementation in Internet of Medical Thing (pp. 87–110). CRC Press. [Google Scholar]
Perossa, D., Acerbi, F., Rocca, R., Fumagalli, L., & Taisch, M. (2023). Twin Transition cosmetic roadmapping tool for supporting cosmetics manufacturing. Clean. Environ Syst., 11, 100145. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Pham, T. H., Ho, M. T., Vuong, T. T., Nguyen, M. C., & Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Entrepreneurial finance: Insights from English language training market in Vietnam. J. Risk Financial Manag., 13(5), 96. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Popkova, E. G. & Sergi, B. S. (2020). Human capital and AI in industry 4.0. Convergence and divergence in social entrepreneurship in Russia. J. Intellect Cap., 21(4), 565–581. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Popkova, E. G., Sergi, B. S., Rezaei, M., & Ferraris, A. (2021). Digitalisation in transport and logistics: A roadmap for entrepreneurship in Russia. Int J. Technol. Manag., 87(1), 7–28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Raco, J. R., Raton, Y. C., Krejci, J. V., Ohoitimur, J., Soputan, J., Tumewu, T. W., Korompis, M. J., Taroreh, F. J. H., Rachmadi, R. A., & Ngenget, S. (2022). Soft skills of higher education in Industry 4.0 era using Buckley’s fuzzy-AHP. Int J. Anal Hierarch. Process, 14(1), 1–37. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Ragulina, J. V. (2019). Influence of education on placement of production in the AIC in the conditions of Industry 4.0. On Horiz., 27(3/4), 153–158. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Raj, R., Kumar, A., Mandloi, A., & Pal, R. (2023). Applications of machine learning and 5G new radio vehicle-to-everything communication in smart cities. In Internet of Everything for Smart City and Smart Healthcare Applications. Signals and Communication Technology (pp. 75–92). Springer, Cham. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Ramesh, P. S., Vanteru, M. K., Rajinikanth, E., Ramesh, J. V. N., Bhasker, B., & Begum, A. Y. (2023). Design and optimization of feedback controllers for motion control in the manufacturing system for digital twin. SN Comput. Sci., 4(6), 782. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Ren, Y., Liu, X., Sharma, P. K., Alfarraj, O., Tolba, A., Wang, S., & Wang, J. (2023). Data storage mechanism of industrial IoT based on LRC sharding blockchain. Sci Rep., 13(1), 2746. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Romanello, R. & Veglio, V. (2022). Industry 4.0 in food processing: Drivers, challenges and outcomes. Brit Food J., 124(13), 375–390. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Sadikin, A., Salim, U., Soerachman, & Moeljadi. (2020). Ethno-methodology study: Entrepreneurial resilience of Urang Banjar in South Kalimantan as the efforts to improve local economic sustainability in digitalization Industry 4.0 era. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res., 9(1), 1827–1831. [Google Scholar]
Sahi, G. K., Gupta, M. C., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2020). The effects of strategic orientation on operational ambidexterity: A study of indian SMEs in the industry 4.0 era. Int J. Prod. Econ., 220, 107395. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Salah, B., Khan, R., Ramadan, M., Ahmad, R., & Saleem, W. (2021). Lab scale implementation of Industry 4.0 for an automatic yogurt filling production system—Experimentation, modeling and process optimization. Appl Sci., 11(21), 9821. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Salvadorinho, J., Bastos, T., Pintor, P., & Teixeira, L. (2023). Lean manufacturing vs coaching alliance in engagement promotion: An employee suggestion system prototype. In Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing: Establishing Bridges for More Sustainable Manufacturing Systems (pp. 332–339). Springer, Cham. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Samo, A. H., Channa, N. A., & Qureshi, N. A. (2021). The role of universities and entrepreneurial ecosystem in producing entrepreneurs for Industry 4.0. J. High. Educ. Theory Pract., 21(11), 28–40. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Sarachuk, K. & Missler-Behr, M. (2020). Is ultra-broadband enough? The relationship between high-speed internet and entrepreneurship in Brandenburg. Int. J. Technol., 11, 1103–1114. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Sassanelli, C. & Terzi, S. (2022). Building the value proposition of a digital innovation hub network to support ecosystem sustainability. Sustainability, 14(18), 11159. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Schmidtke, N., Behrendt, F., Gerpott, F., & Wagner, M. (2022). Integration of new business models in smart logistics zones. Int J. Supply Oper. Manag., 9(1), 15–33. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Scuotto, V., Tzanidis, T., Usai, A., & Quaglia, R. (2023). The digital humanism era triggered by individual creativity. J. Bus. Res., 158, 113709. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Sehnem, S., Lara, A. C., Benetti, K., Schneider, K., Marcon, M. L., & da Silva, T. H. H. (2023). Improving startups through excellence initiatives: addressing circular economy and innovation. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 1–47. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Senna, P. P., Barros, A. C., Bonnin Roca, J., & Azevedo, A. (2023). Development of a digital maturity model for Industry 4.0 based on the technology-organization-environment framework. Comput. Ind Eng., 185, 109645. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Siriwardhana, S. & Moehler, R. C. (2023). Enabling productivity goals through construction 4.0 skills: Theories, debates, definitions. J. Clean. Prod., 425, 139011. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Siuta-Tokarska, B., Juchniewicz, J., Kowalik, M., Thier, A., & Gross-Gołacka, E. (2023). Family SMEs in Poland and their strategies: The multi-criteria analysis in varied socio-economic circumstances of their development in context of Industry 4.0. Sustainability, 15(19), 14140. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Soltysova, Z. & Modrak, V. (2020). Challenges of the sharing economy for SMEs: A literature review. Sustainability, 12(16), 6504. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Spaltini, M., Terzi, S., & Taisch, M. (2024). Development and implementation of a roadmapping methodology to foster twin transition at manufacturing plant level. Comput. Ind., 154, 104025. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Steenkamp, R. J. (2019). The quadruple helix model of innovation for Industry 4.0. Acta Commercii, 19(1), a820. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Strazzullo, S., Cricelli, L., Grimaldi, M., & Ferruzzi, G. (2022). Connecting the path between open innovation and Industry 4.0: A review of the literature. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., 1–13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Tanpure, G., Yadav, V., Jain, R., & Soni, G. (2023). Framework for cloud product lifecycle management system: A case study of an automotive industry. Bus. Process Manag. J., 29(6), 1920–1937. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Tataj, D., Krutko, P., & Bellavista, J. B. I. (2022). The Ann Arbor SPARK - Network Intelligence as a driver for the emergence of a next generation science and technology park. J. Evol. Stud. Bus., 7(2), 100–132. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Tortorella, G. L., Cauchick‐Miguel, P. A., Frazzon, E. M., Fogliatto, F. S., Godinho Filho, M., & Thürer, M. (2023). Readiness of Brazilian industrial engineering postgraduate programs for Industry 4.0: A knowledge dimensions assessment. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ., 31(3), 501–519. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Townsend, T. A., Pedron, C. D., Souza, R. M. D., & Ruas, R. L. (2023). Industry 4.0 projects: A set of new individual competencies. Int J. Comput. Aided Eng. Technol., 18(4), 225–252. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Tran, A. T., Nguyen, D. V., Le, T., Nguyen, H. Q., Le, C. H., Zlatov, N., Hristov, G., Zahariev, P., & Solanki, V. K. (2023). A Conceptual Model of Digital Twin for Potential Applications in Healthcare. In Intelligent Systems and Networks (pp. 610–619). Springer, Nature, Singapore. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Varadarajan, S. (2023). Contradictions and paradoxes in design-centric engineering education: A complex responsive processes perspective. Int J. Technol. Des. Educ., 33(2), 685–716. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Veile, J. W., Schmidt, M. C., Müller, J. M., & Voigt, K. I. (2022). The transformation of supply chain collaboration and design through Industry 4.0. Int J. Logist. Res. Appl., 1–29. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Virmani, N., Sharma, S., Kumar, A., & Luthra, S. (2023). Adoption of industry 4.0 evidence in emerging economy: Behavioral reasoning theory perspective. Technol Forecast. Soc Change, 188, 122317. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Wang, X., Yang, J., Wang, Y., Miao, Q., Wang, F. Y., Zhao, A., Deng, J. L., Li, L. X., Na, X. X., & Vlacic, L. (2023). Steps toward industry 5.0: Building “6S” parallel industries with cyber-physical-social intelligence. IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sin., 10(8), 1692–1703. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Xu, M. X. (2023). The effects of personality traits on entrepreneurial intention and creativity among Chinese and African college students in era of Industry 4.0/5.0. Front. Psychiatry, 14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Yang, Y., Dai, X., Yang, B., Zou, P., Gao, F., Duan, J., & Wang, C. (2023). Optimization of polylactic acid 3D printing parameters based on support vector regression and cuckoo search. Polym. Eng. Sci., 63(10), 3243–3253. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Žažar, K., Čengić, D., & Degač, Đ. (2022). The fourth industrial revolution in the Croatian context: Science fiction or a new developmental paradigm. Druš. Istraž, 31(4), 639–659. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Zhou, C., Peng, H., & Li, B. (2022). How risk prevention mechanisms regulate serial entrepreneurs to achieve sustainable entrepreneurship—A policy text analysis. Sustainability, 14(21), 13904. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Search
Open Access
Research article

Industry 4.0 and Its Impact on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: An Examination of Trends and Key Implications

raman kumar1*,
swapandeep kaur2,
živko erceg3,
ivan mirović4
1
Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College, 141006 Ludhiana, Punjab, India
2
Department of Electrical Engineering, Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College, 141006 Ludhiana, Punjab, India
3
Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, University of East Sarajevo, 74000 Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovina
4
Faculty of Business Economics, University of East Sarajevo, 74000 Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Journal of Organizations, Technology and Entrepreneurship
|
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2023
|
Pages 12-34
Received: 07-29-2023,
Revised: 09-17-2023,
Accepted: 09-22-2023,
Available online: 09-29-2023
View Full Article|Download PDF

Abstract:

In the burgeoning nexus between Industry 4.0 and entrepreneurial ecosystems, a transformative and disruptive dynamic has been observed. Defined by the integration of digital technologies into traditional sectors, Industry 4.0 has been found to alter the way in which entrepreneurs conceptualize, function, and collaborate. This review elucidates salient outcomes and implications of such intersections. Paramount among the findings are the proliferation of companies operating within the Industry 4.0 paradigm, the emergence of hubs centred on collaborative innovation, and the rising prominence of industry-specific ecosystems. Startups have been identified as pivotal in effecting supply chain transformations, embedding sustainability, and fostering digital talent. For practitioners navigating this terrain, it is imperative to champion digital metamorphosis, forge strategic partnerships, underscore the primacy of sustainable practices, and nurture digital expertise. Corporate alliances, ecosystem synergies, and opportunities in the global marketplace have been underscored as potent avenues for expansion and ingenuity. Furthermore, a marked influence of Industry 4.0 on the resilience and adaptability of entrepreneurial ecosystems has been discerned. The confluence of such technologies and ecosystems has been posited as offering an unprecedented juncture for both nascent and established businesses to spur economic progress, tackle pressing global challenges, and cultivate a robust culture of innovation and entrepreneurship.

Keywords: Industry 4.0, Entrepreneurial ecosystems, Innovation, Digital transformation, Sustainability, Startups, Collaboration, Resilience

1. Introduction

In recent years, a convergence has been observed between advanced technology, digital innovation, and the dynamics of entrepreneurship, culminating in a new industrial epoch termed Industry 4.0. This transformation, characterized by smart manufacturing, automation, and decisions anchored in data, has been found to dramatically reshape business operations and bolster economic vitality (M​i​k​h​a​i​l​o​v​n​a​ ​&​ ​S​e​m​y​o​n​o​v​i​c​h​,​ ​2​0​1​6). Simultaneously, entrepreneurial ecosystems, by amalgamating varied stakeholders and resources, have been identified as significantly enhancing entrepreneurship and facilitating economic proliferation. The intersection of Industry 4.0 with entrepreneurial ecosystems presents a multifaceted and evolving interplay that reshapes the economic and industrial landscape (D​a​r​w​i​s​h​ ​&​ ​V​a​n​ ​D​y​k​,​ ​2​0​1​8).

The inception of Industry 4.0 is believed to have been triggered by recognising the capabilities of technologies like the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), big data, and automation. These technologies are reported to have introduced a phase marked by unmatched efficiency, adaptability, and tailored solutions in industrial functionalities. A discernible disruption in entrenched sectors has been witnessed, enabling firms' expansion through the digitization of production, supply chains, and overall operations. Such profound alterations have garnered attention from scholars, policymakers, and industrial leaders, prompting them to explore the ramifications of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Simultaneously, entrepreneurial ecosystems have emerged as vital conduits of innovation and economic growth. Constituted by elements such as startups, accelerators, venture capitalists, state-endorsed financing, academic institutions, and collaborative frameworks, these ecosystems have been proposed to play pivotal roles (F​i​o​r​i​n​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​9). By fostering amicable environments, they have been observed to drive innovation and job creation, thereby enabling entrepreneurs to conceptualize, refine, and magnify their initiatives (H​u​d​á​k​o​v​á​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​9).

With the backdrop of Industry 4.0, challenges and opportunities have been presented to entrepreneurs and nascent entities. Emerging technologies are seen to stimulate innovation, lay the foundation for alternative business models, and delineate new market frontiers. In tandem, evolutionary nuances in entrepreneurial ecosystems are noted, showcasing a proclivity to support these technologically centred entities through resource provision, mentorship, and networking (L​i​e​u​ ​T​r​a​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​9; R​a​g​u​l​i​n​a​,​ ​2​0​1​9). A comprehensive exploration of this intricate confluence and its downstream impacts on entrepreneurship and economic elevation is deemed essential (A​d​e​l​o​w​o​ ​&​ ​S​u​r​u​j​l​a​l​,​ ​2​0​2​0; S​t​e​e​n​k​a​m​p​,​ ​2​0​1​9).

In light of the mounting significance of Industry 4.0 and entrepreneurial ecosystems, there emerges a compelling rationale to delve deeper into this domain's salient concepts and emerging trajectories. This review endeavors to illuminate the contemporary fabric of entrepreneurship and innovation by probing the interrelations between Industry 4.0 and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Through this examination, it is anticipated that existing informational voids will be bridged, thus serving as an instrumental guide for academic entities, governmental bodies, industries, and entrepreneurial advocates. Evaluative insights into the current knowledge base, imminent paradigms, challenges, and prospects surrounding the nexus between Industry 4.0 and entrepreneurial ecosystems are intended to be presented.

1.1 Objectives of the Review
  • To offer an intricate comprehension of Industry 4.0 and elucidate the dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
  • To investigate the confluence between Industry 4.0 and entrepreneurial ecosystems, pinpointing salient concepts and emergent trends.
  • To undertake an analysis of prevailing challenges, opportunities, and consequential strategic implications.
  • To delineate prospective research trajectories and discern extant gaps in understanding.
1.2 Understanding Industry 4.0

Popularized as the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Industry 4.0 represents a transformative phase in manufacturing, characterized by the infusion of contemporary digital technologies into myriad industrial operations (A​l​e​n​i​z​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3). Such assimilation is understood to encompass the deployment of intelligent systems, the IoT, AI, data analytical tools, cloud infrastructure, and a gamut of innovative technologies, all converging to heighten automation, connectivity, and decision-making capabilities within industrial spheres (A​t​t​i​a​n​y​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3). Under the ambit of Industry 4.0, the objective is posited to be the conception of "smart factories" — establishments with optimized, flexible, and bespoke production methodologies and supply networks, tailored to align with the exigencies of the current market landscape (B​e​l​m​o​u​k​a​r​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3; B​r​i​n​k​e​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3). Key principles of Industry 4.0 are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Key principles of Industry 4.0

"Industry 4.0" is often characterized by pivotal concepts poised to reshape the manufacturing and industrial milieu. As elucidated in Figure 2, central to these transformative notions are principles such as interconnectivity, which, through the deployment of the IoT, orchestrates a synchronized, real-time production environment by integrating machines, devices, and systems seamlessly (H​a​m​i​d​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3; K​i​a​n​i​ ​&​ ​A​n​d​a​l​i​b​ ​A​r​d​a​k​a​n​i​,​ ​2​0​2​3). Information transparency ensures that real-time data can be accessed by decision-makers, thus amplifying situational cognizance and fostering informed choices. Decentralized decision-making empowers machines and systems to function autonomously, adapting to variable conditions and optimizing operations. The concept of technical assistance leverages state-of-the-art technologies, notably AI, to amplify human competencies, spanning decision-making to operational efficacy (K​u​n​r​a​t​h​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3). Robust cybersecurity becomes paramount to shield critical data and systems, simultaneously maintaining the integrity and reliability of the Industry 4.0 ecosystem. Sustainability, underpinned as a core tenet, accentuates conscientious resource stewardship and the mitigation of environmental repercussions through the adoption of green technologies and efficacious modalities, paving the path for a more sustainable industrial and production future (L​e​e​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3; M​e​y​e​n​d​o​r​f​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 2. Revolution of industry

The narrative of industrial revolutions traces an illustrious metamorphosis of manufacturing paradigms and technological milestones. As depicted in Figure 2, the contours of these revolutions, the seminal facets of Industry 4.0, and their primary applications are further expounded upon in Figure 3. The journey is believed to have been inaugurated in the late 18th century with the First Industrial Revolution, signifying a pronounced transition from agrarian to industrialized economies (O​n​u​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3; Ö​z​k​ö​s​e​ ​&​ ​G​ü​n​e​y​,​ ​2​0​2​3). This epoch is distinguished by the advent of automation, the innovation of the steam engine, and the ascension of the textile and industrial sectors, collectively laying the foundation for a novel production paradigm.

In the late nineteenth century, the Second Industrial Revolution was marked by pivotal advancements in transportation, electricity, and communication. The advent of mass production and assembly line techniques, which heightened industrial efficiency and output, were observed during this era (S​e​n​n​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3). This period played an instrumental role in sculpting the industrial terrain. The Third Industrial Revolution, often characterized as the digital revolution, emerged in the late twentieth century. A surge in computers, electronics, information technology, and automation, which radically transformed industrial operations, was noted (P​e​r​o​s​s​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3). Integration of digital systems refined production procedures, bestowing unparalleled precision and control. Presently, the world is enveloped by the Fourth Industrial Revolution, colloquially termed as Industry 4.0. This contemporary epoch of the twenty-first century predominantly underscores the infusion of smart technologies, automation, and data-centric decision-making processes. Building upon the foundation of the Third Industrial Revolution, a pronounced emphasis is laid on the holistic integration of digital technology across all facets of production (R​a​m​e​s​h​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3; S​i​r​i​w​a​r​d​h​a​n​a​ ​&​ ​M​o​e​h​l​e​r​,​ ​2​0​2​3). Consequently, in the prevailing industrial milieu, the relevance of networked devices, AI, cloud computing, and other avant-garde technologies cannot be understated, pivotal as they are to augmenting efficiency, sustainability, and competitiveness. Such advancements perpetually reshape modes of commodity production, resource management, and technological engagement, setting the stage for a profoundly interconnected and automated future (S​i​u​t​a​-​T​o​k​a​r​s​k​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3; T​a​n​p​u​r​e​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

A comprehensive grasp of Industry 4.0's conceptual and historical underpinnings offers an invaluable scaffold for probing its ramifications on entrepreneurial ecosystems and innovation. This seismic shift in manufacturing paradigms has precipitated a plethora of novel opportunities and challenges (K​u​m​a​r​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

Figure 3. Main components of Industry 4.0 and its applications
1.3 Core Technologies and Pillars

The efficacious implementation of Industry 4.0 is contingent upon sophisticated technologies and foundational concepts, often denoted as the Industry 4.0 pillars. Such technologies and concepts serve as the bedrock for the metamorphosis of industrial processes and operations.

At the epicentre of Industry 4.0 lies the pervasive adoption of the IoT. IoT is characterized by the connectivity of physical entities over the internet, thereby enabling data collection and sharing (K​u​m​a​r​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2). Through this connectivity, real-time monitoring, remote control, and data-driven decision-making are facilitated. For the IoT in the context of Industry 4.0, the indispensability of sensors, smart devices, and embedded systems is accentuated. Big data and analytics are harnessed to exploit the copious data generated by IoT devices and industrial procedures. Such data are subjected to advanced analytics, including machine learning and AI, to distil actionable insights. Enhanced decision-making, predictive maintenance, and the optimization of manufacturing processes are all resultant from this data-driven approach (R​a​m​e​s​h​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

AI holds high importance for Industry 4.0. Machines and systems, enabled by AI, acquire the capacity to learn, adapt, and make autonomous determinations. Machine learning algorithms, natural language processing, and computer vision are employed across various realms such as quality control, predictive maintenance, and process optimization. AI-infused systems remain central to the philosophy of autonomous manufacturing. Cloud computing provisions the necessary computational framework and storage capabilities to cater to the prodigious data volume intrinsic to Industry 4.0 (P​e​r​o​s​s​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3). Cloud platforms, offering scalable and economical data and application stewardship, simplify the exchange, access, and processing of information. Cyber-physical systems (CPS) epitomize the digital mirroring of tangible entities and processes. By merging the virtual and physical domains, CPS engenders real-time, closed-loop control systems, integrating sensors, software, and communication mechanisms to attain precision in monitoring and controlling physical processes (G​o​e​l​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

In the realm of Industry 4.0, 3D printing and additive manufacturing techniques have been accorded heightened prominence. These techniques permit the expedient and economical production of intricate, bespoke components and products, inducing profound implications for both product design and supply chain stewardship (Ö​z​k​ö​s​e​ ​&​ ​G​ü​n​e​y​,​ ​2​0​2​3; S​e​n​n​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3). Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) technologies, under the aegis of Industry 4.0, enrich training paradigms, maintenance regimes, and operational procedures. They furnish immersive engagements coupled with real-time data overlays, thereby bolstering worker efficacy and diminishing the prerequisite for on-site expertise (K​u​m​a​r​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1). Within manufacturing and logistics, autonomous robots and vehicles find applications. Such systems, designed to execute tasks with minimal human intervention, augment operational efficiency and mitigate the propensity for human-induced errors. Imperative for real-time data interchange between machinery and systems is the incorporation of robust and reliable communication technologies, such as 5G. High-velocity, low-latency communication is pivotal for synchronizing processes across diverse locales. Given Industry 4.0's profound dependence on data communication and interconnection, the imperativeness of robust cybersecurity and data privacy measures cannot be understated. Safeguarding critical data and essential infrastructure from potential cyber threats remains paramount (L​e​e​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3; M​e​y​e​n​d​o​r​f​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3; O​n​u​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

1.4 Inferences for Industries and Economies

The integration of Industry 4.0 technologies is observed to wield significant repercussions across diverse industries and economies, influencing not merely the way of businesses but reshaping the broader economic terrain (X​u​,​ ​2​0​2​3; V​a​r​a​d​a​r​a​j​a​n​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Enhanced productivity and efficiency in businesses are achieved through the deployment of Industry 4.0 technology. Processes are refined by automation, data analytics, and real-time monitoring, leading to reduced operational expenses and elevated production standards (T​o​r​t​o​r​e​l​l​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Precision and control, characteristics intrinsic to Industry 4.0 technology, are identified as enhancers of product quality and customization. Tailored client expectations are addressed more proficiently, yielding heightened customer satisfaction and retention (S​c​u​o​t​t​o​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Comprehensive insight into, and optimization of, supply networks are facilitated by Industry 4.0. Real-time data exchange, predictive analytics, and intelligent logistics converge to refine supply chain management, truncating lead times and abating inventory expenses (O​s​a​n​o​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Beyond mere product innovation, business model innovation is spurred by Industry 4.0. Exploration of data-driven services, subscription frameworks, and digital platforms by businesses has been noted, identifying them as novel revenue streams (I​j​a​z​ ​B​a​i​g​ ​&​ ​Y​a​d​e​g​a​r​i​d​e​h​k​o​r​d​i​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Alterations in workforce dynamics are precipitated by automation and AI. Concurrently, an ascendant demand for expertise in data science, IoT, and AI has been discerned. Investment in workforce retraining and upskilling becomes imperative (H​e​u​b​e​c​k​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Enhanced global competitiveness is associated with nations and industries assimilating Industry 4.0 technologies. A heightened capacity to pivot in response to market fluctuations, curtail expenses, and offer inventive solutions attracts international investments and fosters alliances (G​a​g​n​i​d​z​e​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Sustainability initiatives receive a boost from Industry 4.0, attributed to resource optimization, waste minimization, and eco-friendly manufacturing paradigms. Ecological impact mitigation is facilitated through intelligent networks, energy-frugal solutions, and anticipatory maintenance (E​d​-​D​a​f​a​l​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Economic buoyancy, stimulated by innovation and bolstered industrial competitiveness, is linked to the uptake of Industry 4.0 technologies. Job genesis in tech-centric professions and emergent enterprises has been observed (C​h​u​n​t​h​a​s​i​r​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • The ascendancy of agile firms proficient in Industry 4.0 competencies potentially imperils entrenched sectors. Adaptation becomes a sine qua non for legacy businesses to retain market relevance.

  • An ecosystem conducive to entrepreneurial vigour is forged by Industry 4.0. Startups not only benefit from the burgeoning tech landscape but also serve as innovation accelerators within extant enterprises (B​i​c​l​e​s​a​n​u​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Economic metamorphosis of a considerable magnitude, catalyzed by Industry 4.0, witnesses the evolution of erstwhile industrial sectors into data-centric, high-tech entities, fostering economic diversification and fortitude (Z​h​o​u​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

  • Global connectivity is enhanced by Industry 4.0, with the digitization of supply chains and facilitation of transboundary collaborations. Unprecedented avenues for global trade and collaboration are unveiled (Ž​a​ž​a​r​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

  • Regulatory frameworks are necessitated to adapt to the challenges and prospects presented by Industry 4.0. Formulation of guidelines to address burgeoning issues like data privacy, cybersecurity, and intellectual property becomes vital (T​a​t​a​j​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

  • The disparity in technological advancement is potentially exacerbated by Industry 4.0 adoption, with early embracers securing pronounced advantages. Policymakers and industrial magnates are impelled to ensure broader accessibility to these technologies (S​t​r​a​z​z​u​l​l​o​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

  • Voluminous data acquisition and utilization, inherent to Industry 4.0, spawns concerns pertaining to data ownership, privacy, and ethical considerations. These challenges beckon rigorous scrutiny and regulation (S​c​h​m​i​d​t​k​e​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

The transformative potential of Industry 4.0 is underscored by its profound ramifications for industries and economies. While technological advancements promise augmented efficiency, innovation, and economic ascendancy, they concurrently usher in complexities related to workforce dynamics, cybersecurity, and regulatory agility. Navigating these repercussions adeptly emerges as a pivotal determinant in the evolving industrial and economic milieu (L​u​c​k​s​,​ ​2​0​2​2; O​s​i​y​e​v​s​k​y​y​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

1.5 Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Definition and Components

Entrepreneurial ecosystems are defined as dynamic, interconnected networks of entities, individuals, and resources that collectively bolster entrepreneurship and innovation within a designated geographical or sectoral domain. The significance of these ecosystems to startups, nascent enterprises, and innovative entities has been established (K​a​m​r​a​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2). It is deemed essential to discern the underlying components of entrepreneurial ecosystems to appreciate their relevance and overarching ramifications:

  • Central to any entrepreneurial ecosystem are the entrepreneurs. These individuals or consortia are identified as the ones unveiling opportunities, undertaking risks, and conceptualize new products or services. Their activities serve as catalysts for entrepreneurial ventures and economic augmentation (K​a​d​a​r​i​s​m​a​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

  • Early-phase startups, coupled with rapidly expanding scale-up entities, are recognized as indispensable to the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Their presence has been linked to economic vitality, employment generation, and regional inventive prowess (G​u​n​a​w​a​n​ ​&​ ​C​a​h​a​y​a​n​i​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

  • Support entities, encompassing incubators, accelerators, shared workspaces, and innovation hubs, are noted to fortify entrepreneurial ecosystems. Resources, mentorship, and networking avenues are provided to startups and entrepreneurs by these establishments (B​r​a​u​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

  • Financial proponents, including angel investors and venture capitalists, are integral to these ecosystems. Funding essential for the growth trajectory of entrepreneurs is offered by these financial intermediaries (B​h​a​t​t​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

  • Universities and research institutions are observed to play a pivotal role in buttressing entrepreneurship. They grant access to pioneering research, expertise, and academic programs, potentially fuelling enterprise inception and innovation (S​a​m​o​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1).

  • Policymaking entities and governmental bodies influence the regulatory milieu, furnish financial support, and endorse entrepreneurial endeavors. The policies instituted by these entities are posited to mould the broader entrepreneurial ambience within the ecosystem (L​o​w​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1).

  • Established corporations and industry allies are often seen collaborating with startups and innovators. Such collaborations have been associated with spurring innovation, fostering market access, and amplifying entrepreneurial pursuits (K​r​u​g​e​r​ ​&​ ​S​t​e​y​n​,​ ​2​0​2​1).

  • Veteran entrepreneurs, corporate magnates, and sector specialists extend mentorship, strategic advisement, and coaching to emergent enterprises. The imparted wisdom and expansive networks are considered invaluable to nascent ventures (C​h​a​l​m​e​r​s​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0).

  • Events fostering interaction, such as networking events, symposiums, and conventions, enable entrepreneurs to forge ties with contemporaries, financiers, and potential collaborators. Such congregations are believed to catalyse collaborative efforts and ideational exchanges (B​r​o​z​z​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1).

  • Access to risk capital, imperative for business sustenance, is facilitated by entities like angel investor cohorts and venture capital associations, marking them as cornerstone components of an ecosystem (C​h​a​l​m​e​r​s​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0).

  • Cultural paradigms and societal dynamics of a region are posited to sway the entrepreneurial ambiance. Cultures endorsing risk ventures, venerating innovation, and championing enterprise pursuits are deemed valuable (B​r​o​z​z​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1).

  • Physical and digital infrastructural elements, ranging from co-working spaces to high-velocity internet and research amenities, are identified as prerequisites for startup operational success (C​h​a​l​m​e​r​s​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0).

  • Vicinity to prospective markets and consumer bases has been highlighted as vital for entrepreneurial entities. Ecosystems are often observed to burgeon in regions offering diverse market access (B​r​o​z​z​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1).

  • The entrepreneurial trajectory is impacted by the prevailing legal and regulatory milieu. A facilitative regulatory framework has been linked to fostering enterprise and innovation (B​e​l​o​u​s​o​v​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1).

  • Feedback mechanisms, encompassing post-project evaluations of unsuccessful ventures, knowledge sharing, and iterative enhancements, are common in entrepreneurial ecosystems, aiding in continuous learning and improvement (S​o​l​t​y​s​o​v​a​ ​&​ ​M​o​d​r​a​k​,​ ​2​0​2​0).

It is discerned that entrepreneurial ecosystems, while diverse in scale and focus, exhibit malleability in their components over temporal spans. They are characterized by their ability to engender environments conducive to nurturing ideas into tangible enterprises, thereby driving economic growth and sectoral innovation (Sarachuk & Mißler-Behr, 2020).

1.6 The Role of Entrepreneurs in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

Entrepreneurs are perceived as the primary impetuses and pivotal actors within entrepreneurial ecosystems. A myriad of indispensable functions within these ecosystems is executed by them, each catering to the formulation, stimulation, and sustenance of the ecosystem. The following are the paramount roles undertaken by entrepreneurs in these ecosystems:

  • Innovative Precursors: Within ecosystems, entrepreneurs are frequently identified as the instigators of innovation at the macro level. Unmet needs, challenges, and opportunities are discerned by them, leading to the development of distinctive solutions, products, or services. Economic growth and competitiveness are enhanced by their innovative endeavours (W​a​n​g​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Employment Generators: It has been observed that startups and evolving enterprises founded by entrepreneurs predominantly hire from the local talent pool, thereby elevating employment rates and presenting opportunities within the ecosystem (V​i​r​m​a​n​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Risk Undertakers: The propensity to undertake measured risks in realising their visions is exhibited by entrepreneurs. This readiness to confront uncertainty is vital in fostering economic dynamism and incubating new enterprise initiatives (T​o​w​n​s​e​n​d​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Networking Architects: Through interactions with fellow entrepreneurs, investors, mentors, and supporting entities, expansive networks are established and augmented by entrepreneurs. Ecosystem-wide benefits, such as information dissemination, collaboration, and resource accessibility, are facilitated by these networks (S​e​h​n​e​m​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Resource Mobilisers: Resources, encompassing financial and human capital as well as physical infrastructure, are assiduously secured and employed by entrepreneurs to initiate and augment their ventures. Such resourcefulness is integral to the ecosystem's robustness (O​l​ı​v​e​r​ı​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Knowledge Artisans: By engaging in research and development or proffering innovative solutions to enterprise challenges, knowledge is both generated and applied by entrepreneurs. Such knowledge-centric approaches serve to invigorate ecosystem-wide innovation (I​s​l​a​m​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1).

  • Ecosystem Envoys: Entrepreneurs often act as ambassadors for their ecosystems, promoting them on regional, national, and global scales. Their accomplishments channel attention, investment, and talent towards the ecosystem's offerings (I​a​k​o​v​e​t​s​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Feedback Conduits: Valuable insights are provided to ecosystem stakeholders, including support entities and policymakers, through feedback mechanisms instituted by entrepreneurs. These insights, derived from their experiences and viewpoints, aid in refining programs, policies, and services tailored for the entrepreneurial demographic (C​h​e​r​n​o​v​a​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Change Harbingers: Existing industries are disrupted and conventional norms are challenged by entrepreneurs. By introducing novel business frameworks and methodologies, transformations are induced within the ecosystem (B​i​c​l​e​s​a​n​u​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Issue Resolvers: Entrepreneurs exhibit an acumen for problem identification and solution formulation, be it addressing market gaps, refining processes, or enhancing efficiency. Such ventures are frequently driven by an inherent motive to address tangible challenges (B​e​t​t​i​o​l​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Guides and Exemplars: Entrepreneurs who have achieved a degree of success often take on mentoring roles for burgeoning entrepreneurs. Insights and pivotal recommendations are disseminated, thereby fostering the growth trajectory of other entities (B​a​h​u​l​i​k​a​r​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Investment Pioneers: A subset of entrepreneurs, having amassed wealth and expertise, revert as angel investors or venture capitalists. Their participation is crucial for financing and mentoring the subsequent entrepreneurial generation (Z​h​o​u​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

  • Advocates for Policy Revisions: Entrepreneurial lobbying for policy amendments that bolster entrepreneurship is not uncommon. Collaborations with legislative bodies to craft policies and incentives are often initiated, aiming for a more conducive entrepreneurial atmosphere (R​o​m​a​n​e​l​l​o​ ​&​ ​V​e​g​l​i​o​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

  • Community Catalysts: The sense of community within an ecosystem is enriched by entrepreneurs. Their involvement in local endeavours, alliances, and projects fosters a collaborative and supportive milieu for all participants (R​a​c​o​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

In conclusion, entrepreneurs are discerned as the linchpin of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Their collective innovations, risk endeavors, resource allocations, and leadership engender and sustain these ecosystems, amplifying economic growth, job genesis, and continuous ingenuity. Their embodiment of the entrepreneurial ethos is instrumental in sculpting the entrepreneurial landscape

1.7 Importance of Ecosystems in Innovation

Entrepreneurial ecosystems are posited as instrumental in catalyzing innovation, offering an environment conducive to creativity, mutual endeavors, and resource amalgamation (M​a​r​i​a​n​i​ ​&​ ​N​a​m​b​i​s​a​n​,​ ​2​0​2​1; M​c​P​h​i​l​l​i​p​s​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2). The salient factors underscoring the indispensability of ecosystems for propelling innovation are delineated in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Vital driving forces for an ecosystem in innovation

Within these ecosystems, a confluence of diverse stakeholders, encompassing entrepreneurs, scholars, investors, and service facilitators, is observed. Such heterogeneity engenders collaboration and the exchange of knowledge, enabling entities and individuals to glean insights from one another, thereby promoting the mutual dissemination of ideas and proficiency (B​e​t​t​i​o​l​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1). Through these ecosystems, essential resources, including capital, mentorship, research apparatus, and infrastructural elements, are made accessible to entrepreneurs and innovators. The acquisition of these resources is crucial for the fruition of nascent concepts.

A high degree of risk is often associated with endeavors undertaken by startups and innovators. In such scenarios, risk mitigation is facilitated by ecosystems through mentorship provisions and linkages to potential investors. Consequently, barriers to entry are reduced for aspirant entrepreneurs, fostering a more inclusive environment for risk-taking and innovative pursuits (P​o​p​k​o​v​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1; S​a​l​a​h​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1).

For the innovator, a feedback mechanism is instituted within the ecosystem. Ideas are subjected to scrutiny, feedback is garnered from mentors and contemporaries, and subsequent refinements to innovations are influenced by pragmatic data. Such iterative mechanisms are imperative for the meticulous refinement of concepts. Access to markets and clientele is pivotal for the evolution of new products and services. Innovators, it has been observed, are often bridged to potential clientele within these ecosystems, enabling the validation of their concepts and the attainment of initial momentum (O​l​ı​v​e​r​ı​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3; S​e​h​n​e​m​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

A notable influx of diverse expertise, including adept professionals, researchers, and entrepreneurial minds, is attracted by these ecosystems. This reservoir of skills is leveraged to galvanize innovation and devise solutions to intricate challenges. Furthermore, within these ecosystems, a culture fostering innovation is engendered, wherein risk-taking and experimental approaches are championed. Such a cultural facet crafts an ambiance conducive to the forming of ideas and exploration of avant-garde concepts (I​a​k​o​v​e​t​s​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

Innovations stemming from ecosystem-based approaches are posited to yield broader and more profound impacts. Collaborative efforts and resource access within the ecosystem expedite the pace of innovative developments and their scalability. It has been noted that ecosystems manifest a capacity for adaptation in response to economic and technological flux. The multifariousness of stakeholders and the prevailing spirit of collaboration equip ecosystems to morph and evolve over epochs (B​e​t​t​i​o​l​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3; B​i​c​l​e​s​a​n​u​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3). Ecosystems with a track record of spawning novel enterprises and technologies invariably allure venture capitalists and corporate affiliations. Such investments are pivotal in sustaining the innovative momentum of the ecosystem. A nurturing milieu, proffered by an entrepreneurial ecosystem, augments creativity for both innovators and entrepreneurs. Through collaboration, resource allocation, and an ethos of experimentation, the ramifications of innovation are magnified, thereby bolstering economic expansion and maturation (D​a​l​a​l​a​h​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2; K​a​m​r​a​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

2. Intersections of Industry 4.0 and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Industry 4.0 as a Catalyst for Entrepreneurship

The convergence between Industry 4.0 and entrepreneurial ecosystems is posited to manifest a potent synergy with transformative implications. Technologies emblematic of Industry 4.0, typified by automation, digitization, and data-centric decision-making, are noted to exert a profound influence on entrepreneurship, innovation, and the broader commercial milieu (H​u​d​á​k​o​v​á​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​9).

The intersections between Industry 4.0 and entrepreneurial ecosystems are depicted in Figure 5, showcasing a dynamic synergy where principles inherent to Industry 4.0 are observed to interlace seamlessly with the activities characteristic of entrepreneurial ecosystems. At these junctures, technological adoption and innovation are discerned to converge with entrepreneurial facilitation and collaboration (L​i​e​u​ ​T​r​a​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​9; R​a​g​u​l​i​n​a​,​ ​2​0​1​9). The crux of Industry 4.0 rests on the pervasive digital transformation of manufacturing and industrial paradigms. In this matrix, entrepreneurial ecosystems are identified as instrumental, furnishing essential scaffolding for innovators and entrepreneurs to engineer digital solutions consonant with this transformative ethos.

Figure 5. Intersections of Industry 4.0 and entrepreneurial ecosystems

The broader advocacy for the incorporation of innovative technologies, as championed by both Industry 4.0 and entrepreneurial ecosystems, finds its embodiment in the entrepreneurial ecosystems. These terrains serve as fertile grounds for digital entrepreneurs, facilitating the development, maturation, and inauguration of avant-garde solutions resonating with the Industry 4.0 paradigm (A​d​e​l​o​w​o​ ​&​ ​S​u​r​u​j​l​a​l​,​ ​2​0​2​0; S​t​e​e​n​k​a​m​p​,​ ​2​0​1​9). It is observed that the intrinsic collaborative nature of Industry 4.0 resonates with the collaborative zeitgeist inherent in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Alliances, often formed between nascent startups and established industrial behemoths, are not uncommon, aiming to pioneer technologies that enhance industrial workflows. Entrepreneurial ecosystems are noted to extend a lifeline to these startups by proffering pivotal resources encompassing financial backing, mentorship, and access to research amenities and infrastructure imperative for the development and integration of Industry 4.0 technologies (G​u​o​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0; K​r​u​g​e​r​ ​&​ ​S​t​e​y​n​,​ ​2​0​1​9).

A salient attribute of entrepreneurial ecosystems lies in their propensity to avail real-world market validation avenues to entrepreneurs. Through these channels, insights into the pragmatic applications of their Industry 4.0 technologies and market exigencies are obtained. Both Industry 4.0 and entrepreneurial ecosystems benefit from a diverse confluence of skilled professionals, academic luminaries, and entrepreneurial talents. This diverse reservoir of expertise is deemed crucial for the genesis and deployment of contemporary Industry 4.0 technologies (L​e​p​o​r​e​ ​&​ ​S​p​i​g​a​r​e​l​l​i​,​ ​2​0​2​0; N​a​b​o​k​i​k​h​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0). An innovation-centric culture, where risk-taking and experimentation are encouraged, is inherently fostered within entrepreneurial milieus. This culture is perceived to be in alignment with the rapid technical innovations and experimental fervour at the heart of Industry 4.0. Given the gamut of stakeholders and the collaborative ethos, entrepreneurial ecosystems exhibit an inherent resilience when faced with technological and industrial perturbations, enabling them to acclimatize to the oscillating prerequisites and trends of Industry 4.0 (N​a​k​a​y​a​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0; N​a​v​a​k​i​t​k​a​n​o​k​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0).

As a collective entity, entrepreneurial ecosystems have been observed to shape legislation and frameworks that directly impinge upon the integration and evolution of Industry 4.0 technologies. Such orchestrations cultivate a milieu conducive to creative and technical proliferation. Notably, innovations emanating from entrepreneurial ecosystems attuned to Industry 4.0 are often found to magnetize substantial investments from venture capitalists and corporate consortium. It is documented that entrepreneurial ecosystems periodically sponsor educational initiatives and training endeavors centred on Industry 4.0 technologies (P​h​a​m​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0; P​o​p​k​o​v​a​ ​&​ ​S​e​r​g​i​,​ ​2​0​2​0). Such initiatives prepare a skilled and adept workforce poised to further the technical advancement of the sector. The interplay of diverse stakeholders within entrepreneurial ecosystems, encompassing startups, academies, and industries, is seen to foster a milieu propitious for intellectual exchanges. Such multidisciplinary interactions frequently germinate innovative ideas, driving forward the momentum of Industry 4.0. In summation, the intersections between Industry 4.0 and entrepreneurial ecosystems epitomize a flourishing collaborative landscape, engendering innovation and technological progress, and culminating in the inception and assimilation of frontier technologies in the industrial and manufacturing arenas (S​a​d​i​k​i​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0; S​a​h​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0).

2.1 Contribution of Entrepreneurship to Industry 4.0

Within the domain of Industry 4.0's growth and evolution, the pivotal role played by entrepreneurship is underscored. As innovative conceptions are metamorphosed into commercial ventures by entrepreneurs, a significant contribution to this industrial paradigm shift is noted. The nexus between entrepreneurship and its influence on Industry 4.0 is delineated in Table 1.

The imperative role of entrepreneurship as a catalyst for Industry 4.0 is underscored, with contributions spanning the realms of innovation, market transformation, and digital technological advancement. Entrepreneurial endeavors are recognized as conduits for change, serving to bridge the chasm between nascent technological breakthroughs and their subsequent acceptance within the mainstream, thereby moulding the future contours of the industrial landscape

Table 1. Contribution of entrepreneurship to Industry 4.0

Contribution

Explanation

Ref.

Innovation Hub

Entrepreneurship is an innovation hub where entrepreneurs and innovators create and deploy innovative ideas and solutions under Industry 4.0 concepts.

(L​e​p​o​r​e​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3; S​a​s​s​a​n​e​l​l​i​ ​&​ ​T​e​r​z​i​,​ ​2​0​2​2)

Technology Adoption

Entrepreneurial enterprises are frequently at the forefront of adopting and adapting sophisticated technology, paving the path for greater integration of Industry 4.0 technologies in the industrial environment.

(M​i​s​h​r​i​f​ ​&​ ​K​h​a​n​,​ ​2​0​2​3)

Rapid Prototyping

Startups are agile and skilled at fast prototyping, allowing them to quickly test and refine Industry 4.0 concepts, speeding up the development process.

(Y​a​n​g​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3)

Niche Solutions

Within the Industry 4.0 framework, entrepreneurship discovers and tackles specific challenges and market possibilities, frequently leading to specialized solutions that complement broader industrial processes.

(S​p​a​l​t​i​n​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​4)

Ecosystem Development

Entrepreneurial ecosystems build a supportive atmosphere that fosters Industry 4.0-related companies by offering resources, mentorship, and networking opportunities.

(K​a​z​a​n​t​s​e​v​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3; V​e​i​l​e​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2)

Risk-Taking

The entrepreneurial attitude is inherently risk-taking, which is crucial in the fast-paced and dynamic world of Industry 4.0.

(M​c​P​h​i​l​l​i​p​s​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2)

Market Validation

Startups verify Industry 4.0 solutions in real-world marketplaces, determining their viability and market demand, which helps the industry.

(K​a​z​a​n​t​s​e​v​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3)

Cross-Industry Collaboration

Entrepreneurship thrives on cross-industry collaboration, resulting in the cross-pollination of ideas, leading to more inventive Industry 4.0 solutions.

(E​v​a​n​s​ ​&​ ​M​i​k​l​o​s​i​k​,​ ​2​0​2​3; M​e​s​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2)

Customization and Scalability

Startups thrive at creating tailored solutions that can be scaled to fit the specific needs of diverse industrial processes.

(R​e​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3)

Talent Attraction

Entrepreneurial initiatives recruit personnel with the necessary skills and expertise to advance Industry 4.0 technology.

(D​e​l​k​e​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3)

2.2 Symbiotic Relationships and Collaborations in Industry 4.0 and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

A symbiotic partnership and cooperation between Industry 4.0 and entrepreneurial ecosystems is observed, laying the foundation for mutual growth and innovation. Within the fabric of Industry 4.0, collaboration, involving multiple organizations, is identified as paramount, fostering both innovation and technical progression (V​e​i​l​e​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2). In these collaborative endeavors, a spectrum of partners—ranging from startups and expansive enterprises to research institutes and support groups—is engaged. Key relationships between startups and corporations in Industry 4.0 are highlighted, where the latter seeks innovative solutions through partnerships with the former, whilst startups, in return, benefit from corporate resources, mentorship, and market ingress (B​e​t​t​i​o​l​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

Co-innovation initiatives are observed to be formed by integrating startups, extant enterprises, and research bodies, harnessing the distinctive strengths of each to collaboratively devise novel products and technologies. Open innovation platforms are utilized to foster cross-sector collaborations, providing an arena wherein external entities offer their expertise and innovations to address specific challenges (E​v​a​n​s​ ​&​ ​M​i​k​l​o​s​i​k​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

It is noted that partnerships in research and development, often encompassing research institutes, universities, and entrepreneurial ventures, push technological boundaries, thereby stimulating innovation. Such cross-sector alliances become pivotal for the dissemination of knowledge, expertise, and technology, as well as for catalyzing the genesis of ideas and innovative applications (A​d​e​l​o​w​o​ ​&​ ​S​u​r​u​j​l​a​l​,​ ​2​0​2​0). Collaboration is further manifested in supply chain configurations, which, through digital technology, are rendered more transparent, efficient, and agile, yielding benefits for both manufacturers and suppliers alike. Regulatory and policy alliances, established among politicians, industrial cohorts, and startups, are tailored to shape regulatory frameworks conducive to fostering innovation and entrepreneurial undertakings (L​e​p​o​r​e​ ​&​ ​S​p​i​g​a​r​e​l​l​i​,​ ​2​0​2​0).

Talent exchange, viewed as an integral facet, fosters skill augmentation and knowledge transfer. Startups are frequently seen to align with well-established entities, leveraging their existing clientele, distribution conduits, and industry acumen, thus facilitating a swift market entry and subsequent growth. The ambiance within entrepreneurial ecosystems is discerned to be one that accentuates innovation, equitable resource distribution, and the cultivation of an entrepreneurial culture supportive of its constituents (D​a​l​a​l​a​h​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

Collaborative endeavors in data analytics and sharing are deemed instrumental for enterprises, offering profound insights derived from expansive datasets, with startups often at the forefront of crafting analytical instruments. It is evidenced that incubators and accelerators collaborate closely with corporations, proffering mentorship, funding, and resources, all aimed at propelling startup evolution (L​u​c​k​s​,​ ​2​0​2​2). Moreover, standardization measures are instituted to ensure the seamless interfacing of varied systems and technologies within Industry 4.0, streamlining operations and laying the groundwork for continued innovation. Collaboration in risk management and investment, typically involving venture capitalists and startups, is deemed crucial, encompassing shared risk profiles whilst offering the requisite capital for innovative undertakings. Such multifaceted interactions cultivate a vibrant ecosystem conducive to innovation, harmoniously interweaving Industry 4.0 concepts and technology across a plethora of sectors (M​c​P​h​i​l​l​i​p​s​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

In essence, the collaborative fabric binding Industry 4.0 and entrepreneurial ecosystems is underscored as pivotal. This synergy not only champions innovation but also nurtures growth, creating a fertile milieu wherein a diverse array of stakeholders collaboratively forges ahead, driving technological and entrepreneurial advancements (E​v​a​n​s​ ​&​ ​M​i​k​l​o​s​i​k​,​ ​2​0​2​3; O​s​a​n​o​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

2.3 Key Concepts in the Evolution of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Digital Transformation and Startups

The trajectory of entrepreneurial ecosystems' evolution is discerned to be intimately interwoven with digital transformation paradigms, with startups posited at the epicentre of facilitating such metamorphosis. Core concepts pivotal to this dynamic evolution are elucidated in Table 2.

The genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems has been observed to be profoundly tethered to principles of digital transformation. Concurrently, startups are identified to play an indispensable role in steering this digital shift. With sectors undergoing constant metamorphosis owing to the incursion of digital technologies, entrepreneurial ecosystems are recognized as fertile grounds, fostering innovation, facilitating cross-sectoral collaborations, and birthing enterprises innately versed in digital paradigms, set to delineate the contours of future commercial and industrial realms.

Table 2. Key concepts: Digital transformation in entrepreneurial ecosystems

Sr. No.

  1. Key Concept

Explanation

Ref.

1

Digital Transformation

The integration of digital technologies into all aspects of an organization’s operations.

Fundamental changes in how value is delivered to customers.

(E​v​a​n​s​ ​&​ ​M​i​k​l​o​s​i​k​,​ ​2​0​2​3; H​e​u​b​e​c​k​,​ ​2​0​2​3)

2

Startup Ecosystems

Networks of entrepreneurs, investors, and support organizations.

Fostering innovation, a supportive environment, and entrepreneurship.

(S​e​h​n​e​m​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3)

3

Technological Disruption

Startups disrupt traditional industries with innovative technologies.

Accelerating digital transformation across sectors.

(M​a​r​i​a​n​i​ ​&​ ​N​a​m​b​i​s​a​n​,​ ​2​0​2​1)

4

Innovation Hubs

Entrepreneurial ecosystems as innovation hubs.

Facilitate knowledge exchange, collaboration, and access to resources.

(L​e​p​o​r​e​ ​&​ ​S​p​i​g​a​r​e​l​l​i​,​ ​2​0​2​0)

5

Digital Native Startups

Companies born in the digital age.

Leveraging advanced technologies from inception.

(K​r​u​g​e​r​ ​&​ ​S​t​e​y​n​,​ ​2​0​2​1; P​o​p​k​o​v​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1)

6

Industry 4.0

The digitalization and automation of manufacturing and industrial processes.

Startups are advancing Industry 4.0 technologies.

(B​h​a​t​t​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2)

7

Cross-Sector Collaboration

Startups contribute innovations across industries.

Accelerating digital technology adoption.

(L​u​c​k​s​,​ ​2​0​2​2)

8

Access to Global Markets

Digital transformation facilitates global market access.

E-commerce, digital marketing, and online platforms connect startups with international customers.

(N​a​k​a​y​a​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0)

9

Supportive Ecosystem Components

Incubators, accelerators, co-working spaces, and venture capital firms provide support.

Navigating rapid growth and innovation.

(S​a​m​o​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1)

10

Data-Driven Decision-Making

Data is essential for refining products and services.

Analytics and insights guide decision-making.

(G​u​o​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0)

11

AI and Machine Learning

AI and machine learning drive digital transformation.

Automation, improved decision-making, and enhanced customer experiences.

(K​r​u​g​e​r​ ​&​ ​S​t​e​y​n​,​ ​2​0​2​1)

12

Cybersecurity and Privacy

Startups develop solutions for data protection.

Addressing cybersecurity and privacy concerns.

(M​u​s​t​a​f​a​ ​H​i​l​a​l​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2)

13

Regulatory Adaptation

Policymakers adapt regulations for technology issues.

Addressing data privacy and intellectual property.

(M​u​s​t​a​f​a​ ​H​i​l​a​l​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2)

14

Agile and Lean Methodologies

Agile and lean methodologies for quick iteration.

Responsiveness to market feedback and pivoting as needed.

(B​r​o​z​z​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1)

15

Sustainability and Green Tech

Some startups focus on sustainability and green technology.

Contributing to environmental goals in the context of digital transformation.

(H​u​d​á​k​o​v​á​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​9)

2.4 Capital and Funding Accessibility in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

In the cultivation of startups and entrepreneurial ventures, the pivotal role of financial accessibility and investment is emphasized. Within entrepreneurial ecosystems, a complex myriad of funding sources tailored to varied growth trajectories and distinct business demands is observed (F​i​o​r​i​n​i​,​ ​2​0​2​1). Within these multifaceted financing channels, funds, vital mentorship, and commercial acumen are bestowed by angel investors and individuals of significant net worth. It is noted that venture capital firms channel investments towards enterprises demonstrating significant growth prospects, extending benefits from financial endowments to strategic counsel and industrial affiliations. By granting financial reprieves, government subsidies and incentives are discerned to alleviate fiscal pressures on enterprises whilst simultaneously kindling innovation (A​d​e​l​o​w​o​ ​&​ ​S​u​r​u​j​l​a​l​,​ ​2​0​2​0).

Incubators and accelerators, in their engagement with businesses, are discerned to proffer capital, training, and resources, typically demanding equity in return, often through structured schemes aimed at hastening business model evolution and proliferation. Crowdfunding platforms are perceived as mechanisms enabling businesses to secure capital from a dispersed populace of backers, whilst concurrently serving as instrumental tools for marketing and validation. Investments, market ingress, resources, and mentorship are seen to be procured through corporate affiliations and investments. Traditional financial mechanisms, encompassing bank loans and credit facilities, are employed to cater to operational capital needs and distinct corporate requisites. Although arduous, bootstrapping enables ventures to fuel their operations via personal reservoirs, accrued revenues, or restrained external investments, all while preserving absolute proprietorship (S​a​r​a​c​h​u​k​ ​&​ ​M​i​s​s​l​e​r​-​B​e​h​r​,​ ​2​0​2​0). Angel networks, by congregating individual angel investors, facilitate enterprises' access to an augmented capital pool and a wider skill expanse. Stock crowdfunding, amalgamating the advantages of crowdfunding with venture capital, empowers businesses to proffer equity to a diverse investor base. Through pitch competitions and contests within entrepreneurial ecosystems, businesses are availed monetary rewards and investment opportunities, thereby bolstering initial capital and visibility (C​a​p​e​t​i​l​l​o​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1).

In the blockchain and cryptocurrency domain, funding acquisition through Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) and token sales, wherein tokens or coins are exchanged for investments, is identified. Emphasis on impact investing reveals a preference towards endorsing enterprises harboring social or ecological missions, with dual aims of financial return and significant societal or environmental contributions (H​e​u​b​e​c​k​,​ ​2​0​2​3). It is discerned that entrepreneurial ecosystems also pave the way for transnational and cross-border investments, enabling ventures to entice global benefactors and navigate opportunities beyond regional confines. Such diverse financing conduits are posited to invigorate entrepreneurship, capacitating businesses for expansion and novelty. A diverse range of financial and investment options is made available within entrepreneurial ecosystems, thus ensuring ventures are well-equipped with the requisite fiscal resources to burgeon and flourish. Given the multifarious financing sources at their disposal, entrepreneurs are afforded the flexibility to tailor their financial strategies, aligning them with their enterprise blueprints and aspirations (A​d​h​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2; F​i​o​r​i​n​i​,​ ​2​0​2​1).

3. Emerging Trends in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

Entrepreneurial ecosystems are observed to be in a state of perpetual adaptation, responding to shifts in economic, technological, and societal paradigms. Several prevailing currents are discerned to sculpt the contour of these ecosystems:

  • Acceleration in Digital Transformation: The onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic is perceived to have expedited the assimilation of digital technologies across diverse enterprises. Consequently, a surge in entities focusing on digital transformative solutions, including tools for remote operations, platforms for electronic commerce, and innovations in healthcare technology, is witnessed in entrepreneurial ecosystems (D​o​s​s​o​u​ ​&​ ​N​s​h​o​k​a​n​o​,​ ​2​0​2​3; D​o​s​s​o​u​ ​&​ ​T​c​h​u​e​n​m​e​g​n​e​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Advent of the Remote and Distributed Workforce: The momentum of the remote work ethos, intensified by the pandemic, has unveiled novel avenues for entrepreneurial endeavours, aimed at equipping distributed teams with requisite utilities. A pronounced demand is noted for solutions fostering virtual collaboration, communication, and enhanced productivity (S​a​l​v​a​d​o​r​i​n​h​o​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Rise of Sustainability and Green Technologies: With mounting environmental apprehensions, traction is observed in green technological innovations and sustainability-centric ventures. Ecosystems of entrepreneurship bear witness to advancements in renewable energy solutions, sustainable agricultural practices, and eco-compatible products and services (S​p​a​l​t​i​n​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​4).

  • HealthTech and Telehealth Proliferation: A significant perturbation in the healthcare domain is discerned due to the burgeoning presence of HealthTech and telehealth enterprises. This sea change pivots around digital methodologies, altering conventional paradigms of healthcare provisioning and accessibility (P​a​t​i​l​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​4; T​r​a​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • EdTech and Digital Pedagogy: Entities within the EdTech sphere are discerned to metamorphose educational practices by proffering platforms for online instruction, interactive curricula, and bespoke learning trajectories. A burgeoning inclination towards malleable and digital educational alternatives is observed (E​s​p​i​n​a​-​R​o​m​e​r​o​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Innovations in Fintech and Digital Finance: Entities operating in the fintech arena are perceived to recalibrate the financial sector's pulse by ushering in avant-garde payment infrastructures, digital banking paradigms, and novel approaches to cryptocurrency and blockchain methodologies. Noteworthy fiscal injections into fintech are registered within entrepreneurial ecosystems (C​h​a​n​g​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

  • Advancements in AI and Machine Learning: AI and machine learning are identified as cornerstone technologies underpinning a myriad of nascent ventures. They are perceived to steer progressions in realms of data scrutiny, task automation, prognostic modelling, and tailored advisories (K​r​u​g​e​r​ ​&​ ​S​t​e​y​n​,​ ​2​0​2​1).

  • Circular Economy and Innovations in Recycling: Entities with a focal point on circular economic strategies and recycling innovations grapple with sustainability challenges. Novel methodologies aimed at curbing waste and enhancing resource efficiency are brought to the fore (M​o​k​t​a​d​i​r​ ​&​ ​R​e​n​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • Resurgence in SpaceTech and Aerospace: A revitalization in the space domain is observed with the advent of commercial celestial exploration ventures. Notable breakthroughs within entrepreneurial ecosystems encompass satellite innovations, space voyages, and extraterrestrial resource extraction (K​a​z​a​n​t​s​e​v​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

  • 5G Network Implementation and IoT Evolution: The unveiling of 5G networks is seen to invigorate the evolution of IoT applications. Entities are discerned to craft connected devices, smart urban solutions, and industrial IoT innovations (R​a​j​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

3.1 Challenges Faced by Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

Entrepreneurial ecosystems are discerned to grapple with multifarious challenges that impede their expansion and enduring viability. Foremost among these challenges, access to capital is frequently identified as a salient impediment, especially for nascent enterprises. It is observed that the procurement of financial endorsements from venture capitalists, angel investors, or the acquisition of government-backed financial instruments might prove elusive. In renowned technological hubs, the retention of adept talent is noted to be arduous, and the phenomenon of 'brain drain' – whereby local expertise relocates to more mature ecosystems – emerges as a source of consternation for budding ecosystems (J​a​m​i​l​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

Market saturation, prevalent within specific sectors and locales, is perceived to form a potent barrier, complicating the endeavours of new market entrants to carve out market presence and distinctiveness. Regulatory intricacies encompassing licensure prerequisites, intellectual property safeguards, and sector-specific adherence often serve to stifle the ascent of startups. Sustainable growth, crucial for both individual startups and the broader ecosystem, necessitates prescient long-term strategies coupled with conducive operational frameworks to eschew the perils of cyclical "boom and bust" scenarios (R​a​j​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

Issues pertaining to inclusivity and diversity persist across myriad ecosystems, illuminating the perennial challenge of ensuring equitable access and representation within entrepreneurial circles. It is highlighted that a robust infrastructural foundation, replete with co-working venues, incubation centers, acceleration hubs, and avenues for networking, is instrumental in catalyzing entrepreneurial ingenuity. Yet, disparities in access to such pivotal resources could potentially undermine entrepreneurial expansion.

The governmental milieu and its regulatory stance are discerned to exert a profound influence on ecosystem viability, underscoring the imperative of policies that are attuned to the exigencies of entrepreneurship and the attendant challenges of their continual implementation (J​a​m​i​l​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3). For startups, the task of penetrating both local and global markets is identified as formidable, necessitating the formulation of robust distribution conduits, strategic alliances, and a loyal customer base (J​a​m​i​l​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

Coordination within the ecosystem, mandating efficacious synergies among diverse stakeholders – encompassing entrepreneurs, financiers, academic entities, and governmental bodies – is acknowledged as an operational hurdle. In certain geographies, a prevailing culture of risk aversion is noted to stifle entrepreneurial undertakings, underscoring the perennial task of advocating risk-embracing attitudes and repositioning failures as edifying experiences (R​a​j​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3; S​a​l​v​a​d​o​r​i​n​h​o​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

Moreover, the competition with entrenched global hubs for the trifecta of investments, talent, and innovative ventures is ceaselessly formidable. Reliable infrastructural underpinnings, such as high-velocity internet connectivity, efficient transportation avenues, and proximate co-working establishments, are identified as pivotal to fostering innovation. Yet, discrepancies in infrastructural deployment could potentially exacerbate the challenges faced by entrepreneurial ecosystems in their quest to thrive and invigorate innovation (L​a​r​r​a​ñ​a​g​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

3.2 Opportunities for Growth and Development in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

Entrepreneurial ecosystems are perceived to offer vast prospects for growth and evolution, contingent upon stakeholders demonstrating proactive and collaborative stances to harness these opportunities in their entirety. Among the prominent allurements is the access to an expansive reservoir of qualified professionals, technological connoisseurs, and innovative thinkers. Through the active championing of diversity and inclusivity, a multifarious spectrum of talents and experiences is drawn into these ecosystems, thereby amplifying the innovative capacities of businesses (S​p​a​l​t​i​n​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​4).

Such ecosystems are often identified as springboards for entities eager to extend their footprint into both domestic and global arenas. The allure to international investors and clientele is acknowledged to be pivotal, paving the way for rejuvenated trajectories of commercial expansion. Enveloped within the financial repertoire of these ecosystems lie angel investors, venture capitalists, governmental grants, and impact investors. The onus of establishing robust networks and demonstrating viable prospects for return on investments is underscored as a requisite for unlocking these fiscal avenues (D​o​s​s​o​u​ ​&​ ​T​c​h​u​e​n​m​e​g​n​e​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

In addition, these ecosystems are increasingly being recognized as nexuses of innovation and industry disruption. Market lacunae are identified, and through the genesis of avant-garde concepts and products, established commercial entities are often found to be at the receiving end of challenges. By cultivating opportunities for networking and fostering affiliations with seasoned entrepreneurs, mentors, and sector-specific luminaries, startups within these realms are afforded access to invaluable insights, intelligence, and strategic liaisons (S​e​h​n​e​m​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

Collaborative undertakings between entrepreneurial ecosystems and academic institutions have been noted to yield curricula steeped in entrepreneurial and technological orientations, bridging discerned skills deficits and equipping nascent entrepreneurs with the acumen requisite for navigating contemporary commercial landscapes. Symbiotic relationships encompassing governmental entities, pedagogic institutions, and private-sector firms have been observed to invigorate startups, furnishing them with a rich tapestry of resources, capital, and expertise (N​a​b​o​k​i​k​h​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0).

It is discerned that entrepreneurial ecosystems facilitate the assimilation of emergent technologies such as AI, IoT, blockchain, and big data analytics, empowering ventures to craft transformative solutions and recalibrate traditional sectors in this digitized epoch. Through e-commerce conduits, digital promotional strategies, and online platforms, startups are enabled to access both local and global markets, amplifying their reach and escalating their operational scale (F​i​o​r​i​n​i​,​ ​2​0​2​1; R​e​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3). Moreover, in collaborative endeavours with legislative bodies, these ecosystems play pivotal roles in sculpting regulations that promulgate innovation and entrepreneurship, laying the bedrock for a congenial regulatory milieu conducive to ecosystem augmentation. Such synergistic initiatives within entrepreneurial ecosystems not only elevate individual startup trajectories but also contribute profoundly to the holistic vitality and progression of the ecosystem itself (C​h​a​k​r​a​b​a​r​t​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1).

3.3 Future Directions and Research Gaps in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

With the proliferation of entrepreneurial ecosystems, the imperative to discern emergent patterns and bridge extant knowledge lacunae within these dynamic paradigms has been highlighted (B​e​t​t​i​o​l​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3). Foremost, an intensified examination is called for regarding the merits and pitfalls of cross-ecosystem collaboration. Queries pertaining to the mechanisms through which ecosystems, whether geographically or nationally disparate, might foster innovation and reciprocal growth are posited, accentuating the intricate dynamics of transnational partnerships (V​e​i​l​e​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

In the entrepreneurial sphere, an escalating emphasis is observed on sustainability and societal impact. Endeavours necessitate a more rigorous exploration into the ramifications of startups and entrepreneurial ecosystems concerning enduring sustainability, societal accountability, and ecological objectives. The manner in which these innovative entities contribute to overarching societal imperatives warrants keen scrutiny (D​a​r​w​i​s​h​ ​&​ ​V​a​n​ ​D​y​k​,​ ​2​0​1​8). As the landscape is continually recalibrated by digital innovations like AI, blockchain, and IoT, emphasis has been redirected towards their implications for ecosystem dynamism and enterprise prosperity (M​a​r​i​a​n​i​ ​&​ ​N​a​m​b​i​s​a​n​,​ ​2​0​2​1). The pertinence of comprehending these technological shifts in the context of the entrepreneurial milieu, especially vis-à-vis competitive stances in the digital epoch, has been underscored (P​o​p​k​o​v​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1).

Distinct challenges and opportunities are posited within rural and remote entrepreneurial ecosystems. Probing methodologies to galvanize entrepreneurial endeavours in these terrains is deemed paramount for equable economic advancement. The resilience of ecosystems, notably their adaptability and recuperative capacities post-exogenous perturbations such as economic downturns or pandemics, emerges as a focal research concern (C​h​u​n​t​h​a​s​i​r​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3). Cultural and social dimensions are recognized to exert profound influences on entrepreneurial undertakings, thus necessitating rigorous explorations into the reverberations of cultural mores, social matrices, and gender dynamics on entrepreneurial ventures to sculpt more inclusive and heterogeneous ecosystems (N​a​v​a​k​i​t​k​a​n​o​k​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0).

For stakeholders and policymakers, the development of salient metrics and evaluative instruments to monitor ecosystem health and impact has been deemed indispensable. These instruments, it is suggested, might decisively shape decisions and capital allocations. The efficacy of governmental strategies and incentives in catalyzing ecosystem progression is mooted as a domain warranting astute evaluation, potentially offering critical insights to policymakers and entrepreneurs (V​i​r​m​a​n​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3). The overarching import of inclusivity and diversity in ecosystems is iteratively emphasized, prompting calls for rigorous inquiries into the economic, innovative, and societal ramifications of such inclusive ecosystems (W​a​n​g​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

Within the broad ambit of entrepreneurial ecosystems, entities such as industry clusters, innovation districts, and network topology have been identified as offering rich investigative avenues (F​i​o​r​i​n​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​9). The potential interplay between collaboration and ecosystem dynamism, it is suggested, might delineate best practices. Access to capital, especially for nascent and underrepresented entrepreneurs, has emerged as an area meriting intensified scrutiny. The implications of knowledge spillovers between ecosystems on innovation and startup trajectories, believed to significantly modulate ecosystem vitality, beckon further exploration (L​e​p​o​r​e​ ​&​ ​S​p​i​g​a​r​e​l​l​i​,​ ​2​0​2​0; S​t​e​e​n​k​a​m​p​,​ ​2​0​1​9).

Longitudinal studies tracing the ebb and flow of entrepreneurial ecosystems are mooted to elucidate factors modulating their ascension and decline, offering invaluable historical contexts (K​a​m​r​a​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2). The confluence of technological and traditional sectors, as well as cross-sector collaborations, is identified as fertile ground for probing, with implications for unearthing novel innovation pathways (M​i​l​j​e​n​o​v​i​ć​ ​&​ ​B​e​r​i​š​a​,​ ​2​0​2​2). In the post-pandemic landscape, ecosystems melding tangible and virtual facets have been spotlighted as significant, the exploration of which might shed light on evolutionary ecosystem trajectories (B​e​l​o​u​s​o​v​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1).

The advocacy for ethical innovation has been pronounced, with research directives aimed at elucidating mechanisms through which ecosystems might champion ethically congruent and socially responsible innovations (L​u​c​k​s​,​ ​2​0​2​2). Emphasis has also been placed on discerning the interplay between startups and ancillary ecosystem components like incubators, accelerators, and co-working spaces. These inquiries are believed to unveil modalities through which such components modulate startup success and ecosystem expansion.

In summation, the domain of entrepreneurial ecosystems emerges as a veritable crucible for research and introspection. Highlighted research objectives and extant gaps underscore avenues wherein focused exploration might deepen collective comprehension of ecosystem mechanics and preservation strategies (K​h​a​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

4. Conclusion

In the dynamic milieu where Industry 4.0 converges with entrepreneurial ecosystems, an evolving landscape has been discerned, characterized by synergistic forces endeavoring to navigate the complexities of the digital epoch. A notable surge in enterprises emphasizing Industry 4.0 technologies—AI, IoT, and blockchain in particular—has been observed. Within these ecosystems, startups have been identified as pivotal catalysts propelling innovation and digital metamorphosis.

In response to this transformation, entrepreneurial ecosystems have been reported to spearhead the establishment of collaborative innovation centers. These epicenters, serving as nexus points for startups, established industries, academic factions, and governmental entities, have been credited with accelerating technological advancement and fostering cross-sectoral dialogues, thereby laying fertile ground for profound shifts.

Tailored modifications catering to specific industries—ranging from manufacturing to healthcare—within these ecosystems have been documented. Such nuanced adjustments aim to facilitate bespoke assistance to nascent ventures. It has been noted that conventional businesses are vigorously gravitating towards collaborations with Industry 4.0 entities, embarking on digital transitions. Such strategic alliances, analysts suggest, play a quintessential role in fuelling innovation and sharpening the competitive edge of extant organizations.

Supply networks, in turn, are undergoing structural recalibrations influenced by the integration of Industry 4.0 frameworks. Startups specializing in supply chain optimization, real-time monitoring, and predictive maintenance have experienced rising prominence, addressing the evolved requisites of this digital age.

Amidst this, an amplified focus on sustainability within entrepreneurial ecosystems has been identified. Ventures utilizing Industry 4.0 mechanisms to mitigate environmental impacts and champion circular economy tenets have emerged. Furthermore, in response to the burgeoning requirements of the digital era, the creation of digital skills enhancement initiatives has been stimulated.

Applications of blockchain technology, primarily directed towards ensuring supply chain transparency, have been spotlighted, with startups harnessing its potential to amplify traceability and bolster sustainability. The healthcare sector, too, has witnessed the ascent of health tech enterprises leveraging IoT for diverse functionalities, ranging from remote patient supervision to personalized therapeutic strategies.

Edge computing ventures, capitalizing on proximate data analysis, thereby expediting decision-making processes, have flourished. Cross-regional collaborations have been embraced expansively within these ecosystems, with endeavours aiming to consolidate expertise and resources. Such amalgamated efforts aspire to unlock the latent potential of Industry 4.0, fostering trans-disciplinary innovation and birthing novel avenues.

Interactions with legislative bodies have been fostered by these ecosystems, endeavoring to craft regulatory frameworks that judiciously counterbalance the ethical utilization of Industry 4.0 technology with paramount concerns of data privacy and security.

Lastly, a transformative potential has been attributed to Industry 4.0, empowering entrepreneurs in nascent economies to leapfrog traditional industrial phases and partake holistically in digital metamorphosis. This confluence has been posited as a seminal juncture, emblematic of a transformative realm underpinned by innovation, sustainability, and multi-sectoral wisdom, aimed at deciphering the multifaceted challenges and opportunities inherent to the digital epoch. It is inferred that entrepreneurial ecosystems act as crucibles, nurturing an effervescent ambience conducive for Industry 4.0 ingenuity.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.K.; methodology, S.K.; software, R.K.; validation, R.K. and S.K.; formal analysis, S.K.; investigation, R.K.; resources, R.K.; data curation, S.K.; writing—original draft preparation, R.K.; writing—review and editing, S.K.; visualization, R.K.; supervision, R.K.; project administration, S.K..; funding acquisition, Y.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data Availability

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
Adelowo, C. M. & Surujlal, J. (2020). Academic entrepreneurship and traditional academic performance at universities: Evidence from a developing country. Pol J. Manage. Stud, 22(1), 9–25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Adha, M. A., Wibowo, A., Faslah, R., Ariyanti, N. S., & Lutfia, A. (2022). Students’ ideal career in the 4.0 Industrial. J. Eastern Eur Central Asian Res., 9(4), 651–664. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Alenizi, F. A., Abbasi, S., Mohammed, A. H., & Rahmani, A. M. (2023). The artificial intelligence technologies in Industry 4.0: A taxonomy, approaches, and future directions. Comput. Ind Eng., 185, 109662. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Attiany, M., Al-Kharabsheh, S., Abed-Qader, M., Al-Hawary, S., Mohammad, A., & Rahamneh, A. (2023). Barriers to adopt industry 4.0 in supply chains using interpretive structural modeling. Uncert. Supply Chain Manag., 11(1), 299–306. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Bahulikar, S., Chattopadhyay, A., & Hudnurkar, M. (2023). Framework for integrating lean thinking with Industry 4.0: Way ahead for entrepreneurs in Indian MSME’s. J. Entrep., 32(2), 271–306. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Belmoukari, B., Audy, J. F., & Forget, P. (2023). Smart port: A systematic literature review. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev., 15(1), 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Belousova, O., Walsh, S., & Groen, A. (2021). COVID-19 as industry forcing function: Challenges for entrepreneurship in the post-pandemic future. J. Natl Res. Univ. High Sch. Econ., 15(4), 33–41. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Bettiol, M., Capestro, M., Di Maria, E., & Grandinetti, R. (2023). Leveraging on intra- and inter-organizational collaboration in Industry 4.0 adoption for knowledge creation and innovation. Eur J. Innov. Manag., 26(7), 328–352. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Bettiol, M., Capestro, M., Di Maria, E., & Micelli, S. (2021). Disentangling the link between ICT and Industry 4.0: Impacts on knowledge-related performance. Int J. Prod. Perform. Manag., 71(4), 1076–1098. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Bhatti, W. A., Vahlne, J. E., Glowik, M., & Larimo, J. A. (2022). The impact of industry 4.0 on the 2017 version of the Uppsala model. Int Bus. Rev, 31(4), 101996. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Biclesanu, I., Savastano, M., Chinie, C., & Anagnoste, S. (2023). The role of business students’ entrepreneurial intention and technology preparedness in the digital age. Adm. Sci., 13(8), 177. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Braun, J., Júnior, A. O., Berger, G., Pinto, V. H., Soares, I. N., Pereira, A. I., Lima, J., & Costa, P. (2022). A robot localization proposal for the RobotAtFactory 4.0: A novel robotics competition within the Industry 4.0 concept. Front. Robot. AI, 9, 1023590. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Brinken, J., Behrendt, F., & Trojahn, S. (2023). Comparing decarbonization potential of digital and green technologies. Sustain Futures, 6, 100125. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Brozzi, R., Rauch, E., Riedl, M., & Matt, D. T. (2021). Industry 4.0 roadmap for SMEs: Validation of moderation techniques for creativity workshops. Int J. Agile Syst. Manag., 14(2), 276–291. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Capetillo, A., Abraham Tijerina, A., Ramirez, R., & Galvan, J. A. (2021). Evolution from triple helix into penta helix: The case of Nuevo Leon 4.0 and the push for industry 4.0. Int J Interact Des Manuf, 15, 597–612. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Chakrabarti, D., Kumar, R., Sarkar, S., & Mukherjee, A. (2021). A case study: How did IoT start-up Distronix change its business model to sustain growth in the pay-per-use economy. J. Inf. Technol. Teach. Cases, 12(1), 65–71. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Chalmers, D., MacKenzie, N. G., & Carter, S. (2020). Artificial intelligence and entrepreneurship: Implications for venture creation in the fourth industrial revolution. Entrep. Theory Pract., 45(5), 1028–1053. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Chang, L., Zhang, Q., & Liu, H. (2022). Digital finance innovation in green manufacturing: A bibliometric approach. Environ Sci. Pollut. Res., 30(22), 61340–61368. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Chernovaa, O. A., Mitrofanovab, I. V., Pleshakovad, M. V., & Batmanovac, V. V. (2023). Use of big data analytics for small and medium sized businesses. Serbian J. Manag., 18(1), 93–109. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Chunthasiri, Y., Carr, S. C., Young-Hauser, A. M., & Intrarakamhang, U. (2023). Sustaining Thailand’s seafood processing sector: Workforce development. Humanit. Arts Soc Sci. Stud., 23(1), 220–234. [Google Scholar]
Dalalah, D., Khan, S. A., Al-Ashram, Y., Albeetar, S., Abou Ali, Y., & Alkhouli, E. (2022). An integrated framework for the assessment of environmental sustainability in wood supply chains. Environ Tech. Innov., 27, 102429. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Darwish, H. & Van Dyk, L. (2018). Bottom of Pyramid 4.0: Modularising and assimilating industrial revolution cognition into a 4-tiered social entrepreneurship upliftment model for previously disconnected communities. J. Ind Integr. Manag., 3(2), 1850010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Delke, V., Schiele, H., Buchholz, W., & Kelly, S. (2023). Implementing Industry 4.0 technologies: Future roles in purchasing and supply management. Technol Forecast. Soc Change, 196, 122847. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Dossou, P. E. & Nshokano, C. (2023). Framework for implementing digital twin as an industry 5.0 concept to increase the SME performance. In Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing: Establishing Bridges for More Sustainable Manufacturing Systems (pp. 590–600). Springer, Nature, Switzerland. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Dossou, P. E. & Tchuenmegne, K. D. (2023). Decision aided tool for a SME supply chain sustainable digital transformation. In Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing: Establishing Bridges for More Sustainable Manufacturing Systems (pp. 1090–1101). Springer, Nature, Switzerland. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Ed-Dafali, S., Al-Azad, M. S., Mohiuddin, M., & Reza, M. N. H. (2023). Strategic orientations, organizational ambidexterity, and sustainable competitive advantage: Mediating role of industry 4.0 readiness in emerging markets. J. Clean. Prod., 401, 136765. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Espina-Romero, L., Noroño Sánchez, J. G., Rojas-Cangahuala, G., Palacios Garay, J., Parra, D. R., & Rio Corredoira, J. (2023). Digital leadership in an ever-changing world: A bibliometric analysis of trends and challenges. Sustainability, 15(17), 13129. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Evans, N. & Miklosik, A. (2023). Driving digital transformation: Addressing the barriers to engagement in university-industry collaboration. IEEE Access, 11, 60142–60152. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Fiorini, N. (2021). New value creation opportunities for start-ups with I4.0: Resources and capabilities capitalisation and effects on the value chain. Sinergie Ital J. Manag., 39(3), 49–73. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Fiorini, N., Devigili, M., Pucci, T., & Zanni, L. (2019). Managing resources and innovation inside the industry (industrial) 4.0 revolution: The role of supply chain. Sinergie Ital J. Manag., 37(2), 35–56. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Gagnidze, I. (2023). Industry 4.0 and industry 5.0: Can clusters deal with the challenges? (A systemic approach). Kybernetes, 52(7), 2270–2287. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Goel, P., Kumar, R., Banga, H. K., Kaur, S., Kumar, R., Pimenov, D. Y., & Giasin, K. (2022). Deployment of interpretive structural modeling in barriers to Industry 4.0: A case of small and medium enterprises. J. Risk Financial Manag., 15(4), 171. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Gunawan, A. S. & Cahayani, A. (2022). Do demographic variables make a difference in entrepreneurial leadership style? Case study amongst micro and small in creative economy entrepreneurs in Jakarta, Indonesia. Int J. Asian Bus. Inf. Manag., 13(2), 1–6. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Guo, R., Lv, X., Wang, Y., Chaudhry, P. E., & Chaudhry, S. S. (2020). Decision‐making logics and high‐tech entrepreneurial opportunity identification: The mediating role of strategic knowledge integration. Syst. Res. Behav Sci., 37(4), 719–733. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Hamidi, S. R., Ismail, M. A., Mohamed Shuhidan, S., & Abd Kadir, S. (2023). Corporate reputation in Industry 4.0: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. SAGE Open, 13(4). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Heubeck, T. (2023). Managerial capabilities as facilitators of digital transformation? Dynamic managerial capabilities as antecedents to digital business model transformation and firm performance. Digit Bus., 3(1), 100053. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Hudáková, M., Urbancová, H., & Vnoučková, L. (2019). Key criteria and competences defining the sustainability of start-up teams and projects in the incubation and acceleration phase. Sustainability, 11(23), 6720. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Iakovets, A., Balog, M., & Židek, K. (2023). The use of mobile applications for sustainable development of SMEs in the context of Industry 4.0. Appl Sci., 13(1), 429. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Ijaz Baig, M. & Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2023). Exploring moderating effects of industry 4.0 adoption on sustainable performance of Malaysian manufacturing organizations. J. Ind. Prod. Eng., 40(4), 271–286. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Islam, N., Marinakis, Y., Olson, S., White, R., & Walsh, S. (2021). Is blockchain mining profitable in the long run? IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., 70(2), 386–399. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Jamil, F., Pang, T. Y., & Cheng, C. T. (2023). Developing an I4.0 cyber-physical system to enhance efficiency and competitiveness in manufacturing. Appl Sci., 13(16), 9333. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kadarisman, M., Wijayanto, A. W., & Sakti, A. D. (2022). Government agencies’ readiness evaluation towards Industry 4.0 and society 5.0 in Indonesia. Soc Sci., 11(8), 331. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kamran, S. M., Khaskhely, M. K., Nassani, A. A., Haffar, M., & Abro, M. M. Q. (2022). Social entrepreneurship opportunities via distant socialization and social value creation. Sustainability, 14(6), 3170. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kazantsev, N., Petrovskyi, O., & Müller, J. M. (2023). From supply chains towards manufacturing ecosystems: A system dynamics model. Technol Forecast. Soc Change, 197, 122917. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Khan, S., Tomar, S., Fatima, M., & Khan, M. Z. (2022). Impact of artificial intelligent and industry 4.0 based products on consumer behaviour characteristics: A meta-analysis-based review. Sustain Oper. Comput., 3, 218–225. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kiani, M. & Andalib Ardakani, D. (2023). Finding causal relationship and ranking of industry 4.0 implementation challenges: A fuzzy DEMATEL-ANP approach. Soft Comput., 27(21), 15479–15496. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kruger, S. & Steyn, A. A. (2019). Enhancing technology transfer through entrepreneurial development: Practices from innovation spaces. J. Technol. Transf., 45(6), 1655–1689. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kruger, S. & Steyn, A. A. (2021). A conceptual model of entrepreneurial competencies needed to utilise technologies of Industry 4.0. Int J. Entrep. Innov., 22(1), 56–67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kumar, R., Banga, H. K., Kumar, R., Singh, S., Singh, S., Scutaru, M. L., & Pruncu, C. I. (2021). Ergonomic evaluation of workstation design using taguchi experimental approach: A case of an automotive industry. Int J. Interact Des. Manuf., 15, 481–498. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kumar, R., Rani, S., & Awadh, M. A. (2022). Exploring the application sphere of the Internet of Things in Industry 4.0: A review, bibliometric and content analysis. Sensors, 22(11), 4276. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kumar, R., Rani, S., & Khangura, S. S. (2023). Machine Learning for Sustainable Manufacturing in Industry 4.0: Concept, Concerns and Applications. CRC Press. [Google Scholar]
Kunrath, T. L., Dresch, A., & Veit, D. R. (2023). Supply chain management and industry 4.0. Braz J. Oper. Prod. Manag., 20(1), 1263. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Larrañaga, A., Lucas-Estañ, M. C., Lagén, S., Ali, Z., Martinez, I., & Gozalvez, J. (2023). An open-source implementation and validation of 5G NR configured grant for URLLC in ns-3 5G LENA: A scheduling case study in Industry 4.0 scenarios. J. Netw. Comput. Appl., 215, 103638. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Lee, H., Zhang, Y., Zhang, H., & Liu, X. (2023). Challenges and opportunities of utilizing design thinking in the industry 4.0 era: Based on the case study of industry wastewater treatment system development project process. J. Innov. Entrep., 12(1), 56. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Lepore, D. & Spigarelli, F. (2020). Integrating Industry 4.0 plans into regional innovation strategies. Local Econ., 35(5), 496–510. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Lepore, D., Testi, N., & Pasher, E. (2023). Building inclusive smart cities through innovation intermediaries. Sustainability, 15(5), 4024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Lieu Tran, T. B., Törngren, M., Nguyen, H. D., Paulen, R., Gleason, N. W., & Duong, T. H. (2019). Trends in preparing cyber-physical systems engineers. Cyber-Phys Syst., 5(2), 65–91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Low, S. P., Gao, S., & Ng, E. W. L. (2021). Future-ready project and facility management graduates in Singapore for Industry 4.0: Transforming mindsets and competencies. Eng. Constr. Arch Manag., 28(1), 270–290. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Lucks, K. (2022). Industry 4.0 from an entrepreneurial transformation and financing perspective. Sci., 4(4), 47. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Mariani, M. M. & Nambisan, S. (2021). Innovation analytics and digital innovation experimentation: The rise of research-driven online review platforms. Technol Forecast. Soc Change, 172, 121009. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
McPhillips, M., Nikitina, T., Tegtmeier, S., & Wójcik, M. (2022). What skills for multi-partner open innovation projects? Open innovation competence profile in a cluster ecosystem context. Sustainability, 14(20), 13330. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Mesa, D., Renda, G., Gorkin III, R. ., Kuys, B., & Cook, S. M. (2022). Implementing a design thinking approach to de-risk the digitalisation of manufacturing SMEs. Sustainability, 14(21), 14358. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Meyendorf, N., Ida, N., Singh, R., & Vrana, J. (2023). NDE 4.0: Progress, promise, and its role to industry 4.0. NDT E Int., 140, 102957. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Mikhailovna, C. L. & Semyonovich, A. Y. (2016). Financial and economic mechanism of national forest policy implementation. J. Appl Eng. Sci., 14(4), 443–450. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Miljenović, D. & Beriša, B. (2022). Pandemics trends in E-commerce: Drop shipping entrepreneurship during COVID-19 pandemic. Pomorstvo (Online), 36(1), 31–43. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Mishrif, A. & Khan, A. (2023). Technology adoption as survival strategy for small and medium enterprises during COVID-19. J. Innov. Entrep., 12(1), 53. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Moktadir, M. A. & Ren, J. (2023). Modeling challenges for Industry 4.0 implementation in new energy systems towards carbon neutrality: Implications for impact assessment policy and practice in emerging economies. Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 199, 107246. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Mustafa Hilal, A., Alzahrani, J. S., Abunadi, I., Nemri, N., Al-Wesabi, F. N., Motwakel, A., Yaseen, I., & Sarwar Zamani, A. (2022). Intelligent deep learning model for privacy preserving IIoT on 6G environment. Comput. Mater. Continua, 72(1), 333–348. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Nabokikh, A. A., Ryattel, A. V., Sanovich, M. A., & Lapteva, S. V. (2020). Quality as the basis of effective management of the educational market and a goal of development of universities in the conditions of Industry 4.0. Int J. Qual. Res., 14(1), 93–110. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Nakayama, M., Isik, Ö., Sutcliffe, N., & Olbrich, S. (2020). Grassroots business intelligence as an enabler of change management: A case study at a large global manufacturing firm. Complex Syst. Inf. Model. Q., 23, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Navakitkanok, P., Aramvith, S., & Chandrachai, A. (2020). Innovative entrepreneurship model for agricultural processing SMEs in Thailand’s digital and Industries 4.0 era. Acad. Entrep. J., 26(4), 1–15. [Google Scholar]
Olıverı, L. M., Arfò, S., Matarazzo, A., D’Urso, D., & Chıacchıo, F. (2023). Improving the composting process of a treatment facility via an Industry 4.0 monitoring and control solution: Performance and economic feasibility assessment. J. Environ Manag., 345, 118776. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Onu, P., Pradhan, A., & Mbohwa, C. (2023). The potential of industry 4.0 for renewable energy and materials development – The case of multinational energy companies. Heliyon, 9(10), e20547. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Osano, H. M. (2023). Global scaling by SMEs: Role of innovation and technology. J. Int Counc. Small Bus., 4(3), 258–281. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Osiyevskyy, O., Shevchenko, L., Marchenko, O., & Umantsiv, Y. (2022). Hybrid firm: The future of organizing for Industry 4.0. Rutgers Bus. Rev., 7(3), 289–308. [Google Scholar]
Özköse, H. & Güney, G. (2023). The effects of industry 4.0 on productivity: A scientific mapping study. Technol. Soc., 75, 102368. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Patil, R. Y., Patil, Y. H., & Bannore, A. (2024). Cybersecurity in medical Internet of Things: Issues, challenges, and future directions. In Security Implementation in Internet of Medical Thing (pp. 87–110). CRC Press. [Google Scholar]
Perossa, D., Acerbi, F., Rocca, R., Fumagalli, L., & Taisch, M. (2023). Twin Transition cosmetic roadmapping tool for supporting cosmetics manufacturing. Clean. Environ Syst., 11, 100145. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Pham, T. H., Ho, M. T., Vuong, T. T., Nguyen, M. C., & Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Entrepreneurial finance: Insights from English language training market in Vietnam. J. Risk Financial Manag., 13(5), 96. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Popkova, E. G. & Sergi, B. S. (2020). Human capital and AI in industry 4.0. Convergence and divergence in social entrepreneurship in Russia. J. Intellect Cap., 21(4), 565–581. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Popkova, E. G., Sergi, B. S., Rezaei, M., & Ferraris, A. (2021). Digitalisation in transport and logistics: A roadmap for entrepreneurship in Russia. Int J. Technol. Manag., 87(1), 7–28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Raco, J. R., Raton, Y. C., Krejci, J. V., Ohoitimur, J., Soputan, J., Tumewu, T. W., Korompis, M. J., Taroreh, F. J. H., Rachmadi, R. A., & Ngenget, S. (2022). Soft skills of higher education in Industry 4.0 era using Buckley’s fuzzy-AHP. Int J. Anal Hierarch. Process, 14(1), 1–37. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Ragulina, J. V. (2019). Influence of education on placement of production in the AIC in the conditions of Industry 4.0. On Horiz., 27(3/4), 153–158. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Raj, R., Kumar, A., Mandloi, A., & Pal, R. (2023). Applications of machine learning and 5G new radio vehicle-to-everything communication in smart cities. In Internet of Everything for Smart City and Smart Healthcare Applications. Signals and Communication Technology (pp. 75–92). Springer, Cham. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Ramesh, P. S., Vanteru, M. K., Rajinikanth, E., Ramesh, J. V. N., Bhasker, B., & Begum, A. Y. (2023). Design and optimization of feedback controllers for motion control in the manufacturing system for digital twin. SN Comput. Sci., 4(6), 782. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Ren, Y., Liu, X., Sharma, P. K., Alfarraj, O., Tolba, A., Wang, S., & Wang, J. (2023). Data storage mechanism of industrial IoT based on LRC sharding blockchain. Sci Rep., 13(1), 2746. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Romanello, R. & Veglio, V. (2022). Industry 4.0 in food processing: Drivers, challenges and outcomes. Brit Food J., 124(13), 375–390. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Sadikin, A., Salim, U., Soerachman, & Moeljadi. (2020). Ethno-methodology study: Entrepreneurial resilience of Urang Banjar in South Kalimantan as the efforts to improve local economic sustainability in digitalization Industry 4.0 era. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res., 9(1), 1827–1831. [Google Scholar]
Sahi, G. K., Gupta, M. C., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2020). The effects of strategic orientation on operational ambidexterity: A study of indian SMEs in the industry 4.0 era. Int J. Prod. Econ., 220, 107395. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Salah, B., Khan, R., Ramadan, M., Ahmad, R., & Saleem, W. (2021). Lab scale implementation of Industry 4.0 for an automatic yogurt filling production system—Experimentation, modeling and process optimization. Appl Sci., 11(21), 9821. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Salvadorinho, J., Bastos, T., Pintor, P., & Teixeira, L. (2023). Lean manufacturing vs coaching alliance in engagement promotion: An employee suggestion system prototype. In Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing: Establishing Bridges for More Sustainable Manufacturing Systems (pp. 332–339). Springer, Cham. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Samo, A. H., Channa, N. A., & Qureshi, N. A. (2021). The role of universities and entrepreneurial ecosystem in producing entrepreneurs for Industry 4.0. J. High. Educ. Theory Pract., 21(11), 28–40. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Sarachuk, K. & Missler-Behr, M. (2020). Is ultra-broadband enough? The relationship between high-speed internet and entrepreneurship in Brandenburg. Int. J. Technol., 11, 1103–1114. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Sassanelli, C. & Terzi, S. (2022). Building the value proposition of a digital innovation hub network to support ecosystem sustainability. Sustainability, 14(18), 11159. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Schmidtke, N., Behrendt, F., Gerpott, F., & Wagner, M. (2022). Integration of new business models in smart logistics zones. Int J. Supply Oper. Manag., 9(1), 15–33. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Scuotto, V., Tzanidis, T., Usai, A., & Quaglia, R. (2023). The digital humanism era triggered by individual creativity. J. Bus. Res., 158, 113709. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Sehnem, S., Lara, A. C., Benetti, K., Schneider, K., Marcon, M. L., & da Silva, T. H. H. (2023). Improving startups through excellence initiatives: addressing circular economy and innovation. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 1–47. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Senna, P. P., Barros, A. C., Bonnin Roca, J., & Azevedo, A. (2023). Development of a digital maturity model for Industry 4.0 based on the technology-organization-environment framework. Comput. Ind Eng., 185, 109645. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Siriwardhana, S. & Moehler, R. C. (2023). Enabling productivity goals through construction 4.0 skills: Theories, debates, definitions. J. Clean. Prod., 425, 139011. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Siuta-Tokarska, B., Juchniewicz, J., Kowalik, M., Thier, A., & Gross-Gołacka, E. (2023). Family SMEs in Poland and their strategies: The multi-criteria analysis in varied socio-economic circumstances of their development in context of Industry 4.0. Sustainability, 15(19), 14140. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Soltysova, Z. & Modrak, V. (2020). Challenges of the sharing economy for SMEs: A literature review. Sustainability, 12(16), 6504. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Spaltini, M., Terzi, S., & Taisch, M. (2024). Development and implementation of a roadmapping methodology to foster twin transition at manufacturing plant level. Comput. Ind., 154, 104025. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Steenkamp, R. J. (2019). The quadruple helix model of innovation for Industry 4.0. Acta Commercii, 19(1), a820. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Strazzullo, S., Cricelli, L., Grimaldi, M., & Ferruzzi, G. (2022). Connecting the path between open innovation and Industry 4.0: A review of the literature. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., 1–13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Tanpure, G., Yadav, V., Jain, R., & Soni, G. (2023). Framework for cloud product lifecycle management system: A case study of an automotive industry. Bus. Process Manag. J., 29(6), 1920–1937. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Tataj, D., Krutko, P., & Bellavista, J. B. I. (2022). The Ann Arbor SPARK - Network Intelligence as a driver for the emergence of a next generation science and technology park. J. Evol. Stud. Bus., 7(2), 100–132. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Tortorella, G. L., Cauchick‐Miguel, P. A., Frazzon, E. M., Fogliatto, F. S., Godinho Filho, M., & Thürer, M. (2023). Readiness of Brazilian industrial engineering postgraduate programs for Industry 4.0: A knowledge dimensions assessment. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ., 31(3), 501–519. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Townsend, T. A., Pedron, C. D., Souza, R. M. D., & Ruas, R. L. (2023). Industry 4.0 projects: A set of new individual competencies. Int J. Comput. Aided Eng. Technol., 18(4), 225–252. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Tran, A. T., Nguyen, D. V., Le, T., Nguyen, H. Q., Le, C. H., Zlatov, N., Hristov, G., Zahariev, P., & Solanki, V. K. (2023). A Conceptual Model of Digital Twin for Potential Applications in Healthcare. In Intelligent Systems and Networks (pp. 610–619). Springer, Nature, Singapore. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Varadarajan, S. (2023). Contradictions and paradoxes in design-centric engineering education: A complex responsive processes perspective. Int J. Technol. Des. Educ., 33(2), 685–716. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Veile, J. W., Schmidt, M. C., Müller, J. M., & Voigt, K. I. (2022). The transformation of supply chain collaboration and design through Industry 4.0. Int J. Logist. Res. Appl., 1–29. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Virmani, N., Sharma, S., Kumar, A., & Luthra, S. (2023). Adoption of industry 4.0 evidence in emerging economy: Behavioral reasoning theory perspective. Technol Forecast. Soc Change, 188, 122317. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Wang, X., Yang, J., Wang, Y., Miao, Q., Wang, F. Y., Zhao, A., Deng, J. L., Li, L. X., Na, X. X., & Vlacic, L. (2023). Steps toward industry 5.0: Building “6S” parallel industries with cyber-physical-social intelligence. IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sin., 10(8), 1692–1703. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Xu, M. X. (2023). The effects of personality traits on entrepreneurial intention and creativity among Chinese and African college students in era of Industry 4.0/5.0. Front. Psychiatry, 14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Yang, Y., Dai, X., Yang, B., Zou, P., Gao, F., Duan, J., & Wang, C. (2023). Optimization of polylactic acid 3D printing parameters based on support vector regression and cuckoo search. Polym. Eng. Sci., 63(10), 3243–3253. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Žažar, K., Čengić, D., & Degač, Đ. (2022). The fourth industrial revolution in the Croatian context: Science fiction or a new developmental paradigm. Druš. Istraž, 31(4), 639–659. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Zhou, C., Peng, H., & Li, B. (2022). How risk prevention mechanisms regulate serial entrepreneurs to achieve sustainable entrepreneurship—A policy text analysis. Sustainability, 14(21), 13904. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Cite this:
APA Style
IEEE Style
BibTex Style
MLA Style
Chicago Style
GB-T-7714-2015
Kumar, R., Kaur, S., Erceg, Z., & Mirović, I. (2023). Industry 4.0 and Its Impact on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: An Examination of Trends and Key Implications. J. Organ. Technol. Entrep., 1(1), 12-34. https://doi.org/10.56578/jote010102
R. Kumar, S. Kaur, Z. Erceg, and I. Mirović, "Industry 4.0 and Its Impact on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: An Examination of Trends and Key Implications," J. Organ. Technol. Entrep., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 12-34, 2023. https://doi.org/10.56578/jote010102
@research-article{Kumar2023Industry4A,
title={Industry 4.0 and Its Impact on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: An Examination of Trends and Key Implications},
author={Raman Kumar and Swapandeep Kaur and žIvko Erceg and Ivan Mirović},
journal={Journal of Organizations, Technology and Entrepreneurship},
year={2023},
page={12-34},
doi={https://doi.org/10.56578/jote010102}
}
Raman Kumar, et al. "Industry 4.0 and Its Impact on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: An Examination of Trends and Key Implications." Journal of Organizations, Technology and Entrepreneurship, v 1, pp 12-34. doi: https://doi.org/10.56578/jote010102
Raman Kumar, Swapandeep Kaur, žIvko Erceg and Ivan Mirović. "Industry 4.0 and Its Impact on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: An Examination of Trends and Key Implications." Journal of Organizations, Technology and Entrepreneurship, 1, (2023): 12-34. doi: https://doi.org/10.56578/jote010102
KUMAR R, KAUR S, ERCEG Z, et al. Industry 4.0 and Its Impact on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: An Examination of Trends and Key Implications[J]. Journal of Organizations, Technology and Entrepreneurship, 2023, 1(1): 12-34. https://doi.org/10.56578/jote010102
cc
©2023 by the author(s). Published by Acadlore Publishing Services Limited, Hong Kong. This article is available for free download and can be reused and cited, provided that the original published version is credited, under the CC BY 4.0 license.