University-Led Entrepreneurial Resilience Networks: An Integrated Developmental Entrepreneurship Resiliency Framework

Abstract

In this study, we propose the Integrated Developmental Entrepreneurship Resiliency Framework (IDERF), a conceptual model positioning universities as orchestrators of stakeholder networks for entrepreneurial resilience and sustainability. Review and analysis of historical and contemporary research revealed gaps in existing approaches to sustainable entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship education has evolved from isolated curricula to formal programs that incorporate experiential learning and multilateral institutional access, which appreciably enhance entrepreneurial resilience and venture longevity. The integration of resilience theory with entrepreneurship research has identified multi-level sustainment factors across the disciplines of psychology, organizational theory, and structural economic development. The IDERF addresses this limitation by adapting the triple helix model to a quadruple helix framework that encompasses academia, government, industry, and community stakeholders. Our proposed conceptual framework was developed through conceptual synthesis based on a structured literature review of 212 publications on university-led entrepreneurship programs and entrepreneur sustainability and resilience since 1940. Our findings revealed the need for more resiliency-focused entrepreneurship program designs, synthesis between resilience and sustainability education, analysis of educational program impacts on business development sustainability, and practical entrepreneur training in real-world economic contexts. The resulting IDERF encompasses five dimensions of adaptive entrepreneurial capacity, stakeholder governance, economic transformation, social–environmental integration, and institutional reform as novel components of entrepreneurial resilience and sustainability. We propose an integrated mixed-methods research agenda that includes proposed research questions to instigate the development of measurement frameworks and cross-cultural validation to empirically test the IDERF’s effectiveness in fostering entrepreneurial resilience across diverse contexts and economic regions.

1. Introduction

University-led entrepreneurship programs have evolved over approximately 120 years to teach and facilitate micro and macro-entrepreneurship across industries [1,2,3,4]. Such programs have demonstrated positive impacts on economic sustainability and resiliency by providing education in business theory and practical modalities that support new ventures through business network facilitation [5,6]. Research has highlighted the impact that universities have on entrepreneurial resilience by serving as incubators of adaptive innovation, providing access to knowledge and innovative talent [7]. However, the ecosystem of economic development that entrepreneurial ventures stimulate and navigate requires more than academic incubators and deep-bench knowledge repositories to support resilient and sustainable private sectors amid the caprices of socio-cultural, consumerist, and networked environments [8,9].

Universities play a critical role in the development and application of market-relevant theories, including economics, management, politics, governance, finance, human geography, and social enterprise [10]. These concepts lead to an educated society that demonstrates resilience amid sociocultural and geopolitical change, founded on empirical knowledge [11]. Other elements of entrepreneurial resiliency and sustainability include regional governance, industrial networks, local and regional communities, and environmental infrastructure [12].

Resilience theory has become increasingly prominent in entrepreneurship research as scholars recognize the inherent challenges and setbacks entrepreneurs face in creating and sustaining new ventures [13]. Research has focused on understanding entrepreneurs’ need for resilience and coping efforts amid environmental and structural challenges [14,15]. Scholars have advocated for an investigation into entrepreneur stress, resilience, and coping mechanisms to understand tolerance to adversity and adaptability [10,15]. Studies such as those by Renko and Hartmann et al. have examined resilience at multiple levels, including individual psychological resilience of entrepreneurs, organizational (cultural and functional) resilience of entrepreneurial ventures, and community-level entrepreneurial resilience [10,16]. The application of resilience theory has been useful in assessing the efficacy of business leaders and aspiring entrepreneurs in rebounding from uncertainty and navigating structural socio-economic and geopolitical challenges [16].

Entrepreneurship research involving resilience theory has focused on understanding entrepreneurial failure and recovery processes, including the analysis of psychological traits and resilience mechanisms that enable entrepreneurs to recover from business failures and engage in subsequent entrepreneurial activities [10,17]. Some research has also emphasized the need for entrepreneurs to develop resilience capacity in order to succeed in the face of critical, unforeseen challenges and emerge from failures and crises stronger than before [17]. The coalescence of resilience theory with entrepreneurship research has prompted investigations of organizational resilience and its role in promoting growth and durability for entrepreneurial ventures, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of how resilience operates across different levels of entrepreneurial ecosystems [18,19].

The literature on university-led entrepreneurial development and sustainment can be enhanced by systematic integrated approaches to fostering entrepreneurial resilience and stimulating regional economic development [6,14,17,20]. University-based entrepreneurial programs exist throughout the developing world, promulgating conventional knowledge on business acumen and new venture development [21,22,23]. However, there is a need for research into the potential impacts of integrated stakeholder networks to stimulate and sustain entrepreneurial growth, resiliency, and evolution in underdeveloped and developing economies [5,24,25].

Through this study, we aim to augment the current research on entrepreneur resilience and sustainability with a conceptual framework that demonstrates the value of an integrated stakeholder framework facilitated and maintained by university-led entrepreneurship programs. Our primary research question for this study is: Can a theoretically viable model be developed that integrates university-led entrepreneurship programs and multi-stakeholder networks into a framework for entrepreneurial education, promoting entrepreneurial resilience, sustainability, and economic development beyond the classroom? The resulting research agenda, grounded in a conceptual synthesis derived from a structured literature review, advocates for a multi-method approach to data collection, analysis, and recommendations. Our conceptual framework combines five dimensions with university-based programs in entrepreneurship, hereby referred to as the Integrated Developmental Entrepreneurship Resiliency Framework (IDERF). University-led entrepreneurship programs serve as critical catalysts for fostering multi-stakeholder collaboration, enhancing entrepreneurial resilience, and supporting sustainable local economic development [6]. These programs function as stakeholder intermediaries within a quadruple helix model of sustainability, which adds community-oriented social enterprises as a fourth element to the framework of interactions between universities, industry, and government, an adaptation similar to the established quadruple helix model of innovation [26,27]. The IDERF emphasizes that universities have a societal responsibility in addition to their role of educating and conducting research, positioning them as key orchestrators of collaborative innovation ecosystems [28,29].

This paper is structured in five sections, including the Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions. In Materials and Methods, we present our conceptual synthesis based on a structured literature review with subsections on university-led entrepreneurship programs and resiliency theory applications in entrepreneurship. We discuss the findings and critical insights from the literature in the Results section and present the IDERF construct. The Discussion section expounds on the potential impact of the construct and includes a research agenda with proposed research questions and associated research designs. Finally, in the Conclusions section, we present a summary of the IDERF construct, research limitations, implementation challenges, and the outlook for current entrepreneurship sustainability and resilience research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Methodology

For this study, we conducted a conceptual synthesis based on a structured literature review of 124 publications on university-led entrepreneurship programs and 88 on entrepreneur resiliency and sustainability to identify developments, trends, and the current state of research on entrepreneurial resilience and sustainability as fostered by academia. The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial outcomes has undergone significant evolution over the past century [30,31,32,33]. We examine the literature on the influence of university-led programs on entrepreneurial resilience and sustainability practices, synthesizing research from foundational mid-1900s scholarship through contemporary studies. The same method is employed to review the literature and present the current state of research on resilience theory as it applies to entrepreneurial venture adaptability and sustainability.

Following Snyder’s guidelines, we selected this approach because of the multidisciplinary nature of the research domain, which encompasses entrepreneurship education, resilience theory, economic development, and organizational studies [34]. This methodology enables the synthesis of diverse theoretical perspectives and empirical findings while maintaining sufficient flexibility to capture the breadth of relevant scholarship across disciplines that may employ varying terminologies and conceptual frameworks [35].

Structured literature reviews are particularly appropriate when research aims to identify thematic developments and trace the evolution of concepts over time rather than providing exhaustive coverage of all available studies [34]. This approach facilitates historical contextualization alongside contemporary empirical analysis. The methodology balances comprehensiveness with interpretive synthesis, enabling identification of research gaps and theoretical integration opportunities that purely systematic approaches might obscure through rigid inclusion protocols [35,36].

The literature search was conducted across multiple electronic databases, including Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO Business Source Complete, and Google Scholar, to ensure broad disciplinary coverage. The search strategy employed iterative keyword combinations organized into three conceptual clusters: (1) university-led entrepreneurship programs (e.g., “entrepreneurship education,” “university entrepreneurship programs,” “academic entrepreneurship,” “entrepreneurial training”); (2) resilience constructs (e.g., “entrepreneurial resilience,” “business resilience,” “venture sustainability,” “adaptive capacity”); and (3) sustainability dimensions (e.g., “sustainable entrepreneurship,” “economic development,” “stakeholder networks,” “innovation ecosystems”).

Initial searches combined terms from different clusters using Boolean operators (AND, OR) to capture studies addressing intersections among concepts. For example: (“entrepreneurship education” OR “university entrepreneurship”) AND (“resilience” OR “sustainability”) AND (“economic development” OR “venture survival”). The search encompassed publications from 1920 through 2025 to capture the historical trajectory of entrepreneurship education alongside contemporary developments in resilience research. This extended temporal scope aligns with the study’s objective to trace evolutionary patterns in both university programs and theoretical frameworks.

Forward and backward citation searching supplemented database queries, with particular attention to seminal works identified during initial screening. Reference lists from highly cited articles and recent systematic reviews were examined to identify additional relevant sources. Google Scholar’s “cited by” function facilitated forward searching to locate contemporary research building upon foundational studies. Hand searching of key journals, including Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Venturing, Small Business Economics, and Academy of Management Learning & Education, ensured coverage of domain-specific scholarship.

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) focused on university-led entrepreneurship programs, entrepreneurship education, or academic entrepreneurship initiatives; (2) examined resilience, sustainability, or adaptive capacity in entrepreneurial contexts; (3) investigated relationships among educational interventions, entrepreneurial outcomes, and venture longevity; (4) addressed stakeholder networks, ecosystem dynamics, or institutional support for entrepreneurship; (5) published in peer-reviewed journals, academic books, or conference proceedings; and (6) available in English language. Both theoretical and empirical studies were included to capture conceptual developments alongside evidence-based findings.

Exclusion criteria eliminated studies that: (1) focused exclusively on corporate entrepreneurship without university involvement; (2) examined entrepreneurship in secondary education contexts only; (3) addressed entrepreneurial cognition or personality without connecting to resilience or sustainability outcomes; (4) provided purely descriptive accounts of single programs without analytical framework; or (5) lacked clear methodological transparency for empirical studies. Opinion pieces, editorials, and non-peer-reviewed practitioner reports were excluded unless they represented historically significant contributions to entrepreneurship education discourse.

The selection process followed a three-stage approach. Initial screening reviewed titles and abstracts against inclusion criteria, independently evaluating a random sample of 20% of records to establish inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.82, indicating substantial agreement) described by Tranfield et al., Creswell and Creswell, and Shadish et al. as methodologically sound [37,38,39]. This initial screening yielded 247 potentially relevant publications. Studies were evaluated for: theoretical grounding, methodological rigor (for empirical work), clarity of findings, and contribution to understanding university roles in fostering entrepreneurial resilience and sustainability. This stage reduced the corpus to 156 sources meeting quality and relevance thresholds.

The final stage involved purposive supplementation through snowball sampling, adding 37 sources identified through citation analysis. This iterative approach ensured inclusion of seminal historical works and emerging research published during the review period [30]. The final corpus comprised 193 sources spanning foundational theories through contemporary empirical studies.

A standardized extraction template captured the following: author(s), publication year, theoretical framework, methodology (for empirical studies), key findings, and implications for entrepreneurial resilience and sustainability. Studies were categorized into thematic domains: (1) historical development of entrepreneurship education; (2) resilience theory applications in entrepreneurship; (3) program design and pedagogical approaches; (4) sustainability integration; (5) stakeholder networks and ecosystem dynamics; and (6) longitudinal outcomes and impact assessment.

Synthesis followed thematic analysis principles, identifying patterns, contradictions, and gaps within and across thematic domains as described by Creswell and Creswell and Booth et al. [38,40]. Temporal analysis traced evolutionary trajectories in both practice (university program development) and theory (resilience conceptualizations). Cross-disciplinary synthesis integrated insights from education research, organizational psychology, economic development, and management studies to develop a comprehensive understanding of factors supporting entrepreneurial resilience and sustainability [34,40].

To enhance validity and reliability, the review process incorporated several quality assurance mechanisms: independent dual screening of sample records, documented decision-making criteria for inclusion/exclusion, and systematic extraction protocols. Regular team meetings ensured consistent interpretation of inclusion criteria and thematic categories throughout the review process.

Limitations include potential language bias through English-only inclusion, possible publication bias favoring positive findings, and temporal lag in capturing very recent developments. The structured literature review approach prioritizes breadth and thematic synthesis over exhaustive coverage, which means that some relevant studies may be excluded. However, the methodology’s flexibility enables the capture of diverse disciplinary perspectives essential for understanding the multifaceted nature of university-led entrepreneurial resilience and sustainability initiatives.

2.2. University-Led Entrepreneurship Programs

Early conceptual foundations emerged from the mid-20th-century business literature that focused on entrepreneurship as an element of economic development. Schumpeter developed a theoretical framework for economic development that established entrepreneurship as economic innovation, implying that entrepreneurial capabilities could be developed through understanding economic processes—early conceptualizations of entrepreneurial resilience [30]. The Harvard Business School case method presented a systematic experiential learning that developed adaptive thinking and decision-making skills through exposure to both successes and failures [31]. Formal entrepreneurship education in the United States emerged between the 1920s and 1940s, maturing in the 1970s among business schools such as Babson College, Stanford University, Harvard, and the University of Michigan. In the United Kingdom, it emerged as early as the 1880s, becoming an institutional standard among baccalaureate and graduate-level business programs [3,32]. Vesper conducted a comprehensive review of business school entrepreneurial programs and found that while formal education enhanced entrepreneurial skills and confidence, it focused on short-term business establishment outcomes rather than long-term entrepreneur resilience [41]. Another study by Gartner highlighted the complexities of organic entrepreneurship and suggested that educational programs need to incorporate multiple competency dimensions to support a more comprehensive approach to examining actual entrepreneur resilience and sustainability [33]. This study outlined the value proposition of enhancing entrepreneur-university networks as a means of information sharing and innovation among business startups and academia [33]. It also provided a framework later applied by Huggins et al. for adaptation strategies among entrepreneurs, thereby increasing resilience and sustainability [7,33].

Recent research has refined definitions and measurements of entrepreneurial resilience. Studies defined entrepreneurial resilience as the process of identifying and addressing challenges that led to failure, and overcoming them through self-projection, emphasizing both recovery and progressive adaptation [6]. Conduah and Essiaw identified emotional regulation, cognitive flexibility, and persistence following failure as key components of entrepreneur resilience [14]. This study complements the findings by Soler-Costa et al., which determined that university programs incorporating experiential learning, mentorship, and constructive, invigilated failure analysis were effective in developing these characteristics among new business developers [6,14]. Longitudinal research by Ayala and Manzano demonstrated that resilience competency enhanced the predictability of venture survival and growth over a three-year period, accounting for 23% of the variance in performance among sample businesses [24]. Their study determined that entrepreneurs from formal university programs exhibited higher baseline resilience factors and were more likely to preserve them during challenges [24]. Research by Stephan found that business programs incorporating psychological resilience factors, including cognitive behavioral techniques, stress management, and peer support networks, were most effective at building sustainable resilience among entrepreneurs [42]. Zhang et al. developed a comprehensive model examining post-failure outcomes, finding that university programs including failure simulation and analysis significantly improved entrepreneurs’ ability to recover and identify new opportunities [43].

Research is increasingly examining the integration of sustainability in entrepreneurship education. Rahman and Smith investigated elements of sustainable entrepreneurship, revealing that entrepreneurship facilitates economic growth and improves quality of life [44]. They emphasized the integration of sustainability into the curriculum rather than its separate treatment [44]. Hartmann et al. found that university-linked sustainable entrepreneurship programs supported knowledge exchange and propagation, improved sustainable new venture ecosystems, and promoted stakeholder engagement for regional governance [10]. Recent analysis has emphasized the reciprocal relationship between entrepreneurialism and sustainability, advocating for holistic methodologies that balance the interests of economic, environmental, social, and cultural systems [44]. Martinez et al. examined factors influencing sustainable entrepreneurial intentions and found that resilience competency was a significant predictor of sustainable venture intentions among Latin American students [45]. Their conclusions suggest that developing intentional resilience capabilities may indirectly promote sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship [45].

A burgeoning body of longitudinal research on entrepreneurial ventures has begun to examine the long-term impacts of entrepreneurship training on sustainability and resilience, although research agendas remain in their nascent stages. Thompson and Williams emphasized the crucial role of entrepreneurship and innovation in enabling new business developers to adapt to changes in the educational landscape, highlighting the need for academic programs to prepare students for cyclic or continual career adaptation [46]. Premand et al. presented provisional evidence from Tunisia that highlighted how university entrepreneurship programs influenced increases in self-employment and wage rates in a 27-month post-graduation timeframe [47]. Their findings suggest that resilience and adaptability skills may have broad labor market benefits, augmenting previous research that focused primarily on immediate entrepreneur intentions rather than new venture outcomes. Contemporary challenges include dual pressures on entrepreneurial endeavors due to rapid changes in the information technology innovation environment. Research by Lee and Chang examined sustainable resilience strategies for micro-businesses facing digitalization and sustainability challenges simultaneously [48]. They found that firms with these strategies were positively aligned with firm resiliency amid changes in digital technology, fostering a more agile response to technological advances [48]. A study by Kim et al. found that although lifelong learning may mitigate the impact of psychological and structural barriers while enhancing entrepreneurial adaptability, it could also contribute to increased risk aversion and hinder the expediency of decision-making [49]. Their research suggested that entrepreneurship programs should strike a balance between skill development and entrepreneurial boldness to prepare entrepreneurs for the variability of evolving market environments and promote effective adjustment strategies [49].

2.3. Resilience Theory and Entrepreneurship

The integration of resilience theory and entrepreneurship has emerged as a critical research domain, particularly as scholars recognize that entrepreneurial ventures face substantial adversity in any economic environment, requiring adaptability to endure through challenges and failures [42]. Recent scholarly work has established comprehensive frameworks for integrating psychological resilience theory with entrepreneurship research. Ahmed et al. conducted a meta-analytic review, integrating psychological resilience, individual stress, and fundamental coping mechanisms in entrepreneurship, and posited that existing research often falls short in accounting for the complex interchange between stressors and resilience-development processes [15]. Their framework identified three core resilience dimensions in entrepreneurial contexts: hardiness (encompassing commitment, control, and challenge orientation), resourcefulness (the ability to mobilize resources during adversity), and optimism (positive future expectations despite setbacks) [15]. The theoretical integration has been further refined through Richardson’s metatheory of resilience, which conceptualizes resilience as a process of disruption, adaptation, and growth rather than a reversion to a previous point of homeostasis prior to the advent of challenges or obstacles [50]. This framework has been particularly valuable in entrepreneurship research as it aligns with the transformative nature of entrepreneurial ventures in dynamic contexts [51,52]. This includes the work of Isichei et al., based on research by Ayala and Manzano, and Duchek, which validates the multidimensional aspects of entrepreneurial resilience [15,17,24,53]. Specifically, the five-year longitudinal study by Ayala and Manzano determined that the three dimensions of resilience (hardiness, resourcefulness, and optimism) collectively explain 32.1% of the variance in entrepreneurial success, with hardiness emerging as the strongest predictor of sustained business performance [24].

Isichei et al. examined entrepreneurial resilience and business survival, identifying self-compassion as a critical mediator against intractability amid trials [53]. The study found that entrepreneurial resilience and self-compassion significantly affect business survivability, and self-compassion mediates the link between the two [53]. This finding suggests that psychological self-care mechanisms serve as principal sustainment factors beyond more structural or traditional resilience competencies.

Qualitative research has identified additional sustainment factors among start-up entrepreneurs. The main drivers, according to current findings, include passion, personality, character, support systems, vision, financial resources, belief systems (also referred to as religion), networking, and the venture structures in place, as demonstrated by Schutte and Mberi [54]. These findings indicate that sustainment involves both internal psychological resources and external structural supports. These can be framed in a holistic prism of multilateral institutional sustenance, whereby ventures are assisted through integrated public and private support networks.

Recent research has examined how resilience theory applies during crisis situations, revealing specific adaptive mechanisms that sustain entrepreneurial ventures. Xu et al. conducted research on Chinese SMEs during the COVID-19 pandemic and found that entrepreneurial mindfulness and organizational resilience were interconnected, with organizational resilience as a vital component for the survival and thriving of enterprises during periods of extreme uncertainty and volatility [55]. This suggests that sustainment factors are promoted by psychological attributes and behavioral consistency in the face of challenging environmental and organizational dynamics, as supported by multiple research studies [42,53,55,56]. The role of stakeholder engagement has emerged as a critical sustainment factor. Research examining the relationship between entrepreneurial resilience and success found that in developing resilience, SMEs alternated focus between concentrating on the institutional foundations to shifting toward the borders of their organizational boundaries, highlighting a continuous adjustment of the three first-order component capabilities of perceiving, actualizing, and transforming [50,57,58]. This finding suggests that sustainment necessitates the development of dynamic capabilities and effective stakeholder relationship management.

Research by Ali and Rhita on post-failure entrepreneurial resilience identified factors that sustain entrepreneurial engagement after business failure [59]. Active optimism, decisive action, moral compass, relentless tenacity, and interpersonal support are a few factors that develop resiliency and enable entrepreneurs to start new ventures after experiencing failure [59]. This research expounds resilience theory by prioritizing the assessment of the sustainment of entrepreneurial identity and motivation over business solvency [52,60,61]. The integration of resilience theory and entrepreneurship research has helped to demonstrate that sustainment factors operate at multiple levels for entrepreneurs and institutions [62]. Entrepreneur-level factors include psychological attributes such as optimism, hardiness, and self-compassion [57,63,64]. Interpersonal or relational-level factors incorporate support networks, business and leadership mentorship, and stakeholder integration [17,62]. Institutional-level factors involve dynamic functional competencies, resource utilization, and organizational adaptation [65,66,67].

Recent research has begun to examine the applications of resilience theory in contemporary entrepreneurial contexts [64,68]. Studies on digital environments have found that embracing corporate social responsibility and entrepreneurship promotes resilience and enhances enterprises’ ability to thrive amid challenges while remaining competitive [65,69,70]. This suggests that sustainment factors increasingly include social responsibility orientation and technological adaptation.

3. Results

3.1. Findings

The literature revealed several critical insights regarding the impact of university entrepreneurship programs on resilience and sustainability. The first insight is the lack of effective program design in higher education entrepreneurship curricula. Research consistently identifies experiential learning, moderated analysis of failures, business mentorship, and peer support networks as effective approaches for developing resilience among entrepreneurs [6,42]. The second insight involved synchronicity between resilience and sustainability in entrepreneurship education. Evidence suggests a mutually reinforcing dynamic between resilience and sustainability orientation that mitigates counterproductive outcomes [44]. Students who cultivate strong adaptive capacities are more likely to possess strategic foresight and engage in sustainable business model development, while practical training in venture sustainability improves cognitive flexibility and adaptability amid obstacles [45,48].

The third critical insight involves the dearth of validation of the efficacy or long-term impact of entrepreneurship programs on business development and economic sustainability. As demonstrated earlier, nascent entrepreneurial resilience research focused on immediate outcomes. However, recent studies involving longitudinal data collection have shown enduring effects on career outcomes and adaptive capacity, though specific mechanisms remain understudied [24,47,48,49]. Finally, the research reveals a deficiency in the focus on and training against local, regional, and macro-level contextual factors affecting entrepreneur resilience and sustainability. Research across diverse geopolitical and socio-cultural regions reveals that cultural values, economic conditions, and institutional support can moderate program effectiveness. This highlights the need for research design methods that focus on context adaptation within the bounds of core resilience-building competencies [10,49].

Table 1. Summary of Findings from the Literature Content Analysis.

Literature Theme	Critical Insight	Impact Elements
University-led Entrepreneurship Programs	Underdeveloped entrepreneurial program designs [6,30,31,33,41,42]	- Experiential learning - Moderated failure analysis - Mentorship - Industry support networks
	Synchronized resiliency and sustainability education [6,10,14,43,44,45,48]	- Adaptive capacity - Strategic foresight - Resiliency planning - Sustainability modeling - Cognitive flexibility
Entrepreneurial Sustainability and Resilience	Educational program impact on business development and sustainability [17,24,42,47,48,49,50]	- Long-term outcomes - Adaptive capacity - Venture solvency - Entrepreneur career progression
	Practical training in local and regional economic contexts [10,42,49,53,56]	- Geopolitical variability - Sociocultural impact factors - Economic climate and policy - Institutional support

summarizes the findings from the literature review content analysis, including the literature themes, critical insights, and subsequent sustainability and resiliency impact elements.

Future research should involve collecting data on business ecosystem-level impacts, refining pedagogical mechanisms that focus on resilience enhancement, and exploring the moderating effects of prior entrepreneurial experience and established stakeholder networks on entrepreneurship education programs [14,58,71]. There is a need for sophisticated longitudinal designs, examination of the mechanisms through which startup techniques influence development, and the conduct of cross-cultural studies to differentiate between universal and context-specific effectiveness factors [42]. The literature demonstrates a marked evolution from early conceptual foundations to contemporary empirical research, but the body of knowledge requires refinement [30,33]. University programs that incorporate experience-based learning, contemplation of success-to-failure phenomena, support networks, and sustainability integration demonstrate higher efficacy in developing entrepreneurial resilience [48,72]. Still, the field would benefit from more sophisticated longitudinal research examining the interplay among individual development, university program designs, and environmental factors in promoting resilient and sustainable entrepreneurship.

The integration of resilience theory and entrepreneurship has produced a robust understanding of factors that sustain entrepreneurial ventures through adversity. Key sustainment factors include psychological attributes (hardiness, optimism, self-compassion), relational resources (support networks, stakeholder engagement), and organizational capabilities (sensing, seizing, transforming) [59,63,66]. Research demonstrates that sustainment operates through multiple interconnected mechanisms rather than single factors. Future research should continue examining the dynamic interplay between individual, relational, and organizational resilience factors in sustaining entrepreneurial ventures across diverse contexts and crisis types [57,59,73]. The body of knowledge on resilience theory and entrepreneurship highlights several future research agendas. First, there is a need for longitudinal studies to examine how sustainment factors evolve over time as they interact with different crisis contexts. Second, research should investigate how different types of adversity (market, financial, operational, and personal) require different resilience mechanisms. Third, there is a need for research examining cultural and contextual variations in resilience-based sustainment factors.

3.2. Proposed Framework

The literature on entrepreneurial resilience and sustainability suggests a need for a multi-method research agenda to address the specific impacts of institutional impacts on entrepreneurial resilience and the interdependencies among organizations that support the infrastructure and solvency of a local or regional economy [57,73]. University-led entrepreneurship programs play a foundational role in developing and refining entrepreneurs’ understanding of the concepts and contexts relevant to market engagement and expansion by startups [7]. However, they are limited in their ability to prepare entrepreneurs for the variables and dynamics they will face when actualizing a business plan [74].

Rather than looking to universities as an end-all, be-all for entrepreneur preparedness, universities could occupy a facilitation role among institutions within a given community or economic region [64]. Specifically, universities could foster stakeholder support for start-ups that act as a sustainment incubator and bulwark of resiliency when structural and socio-cultural variables threaten new business solvency [67]. We propose a conceptual framework that promotes an integrated stakeholder approach to entrepreneurial resiliency and sustainability. In this framework, universities can act as a central hub to coordinate and facilitate business startups and leverage prosocial networks among policymakers, industry leaders, cultural institutions, and infrastructure maintainers.

3.2.1. Quadruple Helix Network

Based on the stakeholder interaction framework, there is an opportunity for a multi-stakeholder governance model to emerge as a critical component of entrepreneurial resilience research. This model binds the necessary structural elements of an economy as counterparts in supporting entrepreneurship as an engine for economic sustainability [75,76,77]. The concept of a triple-helix stakeholder framework for entrepreneurial sustainability focuses on information exchange and transforming universities from teaching institutions into research and entrepreneurial entities [78,79]. The current triple helix model revealed in the literature is a strong baseline. However, the IDERF we present bridges the theoretical and practical implications, enabling unified application with academia as the driver of stakeholder integration, which underpins new venture sustainment. As previously discussed, the IDERF encompasses five dimensions that we detail in the following subsections. Figure 1 represents the quadruple helix framework with university-led entrepreneurship education programs facilitating stakeholder integration to support resilient and sustainable entrepreneur networks.

3.2.2. Adaptive Entrepreneur Capacity

Academia serves as a foundation for the education, development, and sustainment of entrepreneurs through access to information [14,46]. However, academia can go beyond providing access to information and conceptual development to facilitate relationships among entrepreneurs, government entities, established business leaders, and community services [80]. This function can serve as a catalyst for integrated adaptability, providing entrepreneurs with more immediate access to support networks and enabling them to accomplish basic functions like business licensing, investment sourcing, talent pools, and market segments. We define this dimension as the ability of entrepreneurs to navigate and respond to dynamic business environments through enhanced access to integrated support networks, strategic resources, and institutional knowledge. It is facilitated by university programs, enabling them to anticipate challenges, leverage opportunities, and maintain venture viability amid fluctuating market, regulatory, and socio-cultural conditions.

Through active facilitation, universities can aid in the propagation of government standards for local business laws and certification while increasing the awareness of capital investment groups about burgeoning startups. Academia can go beyond teaching and information access to equipping entrepreneurs with practical networks that enhance strategic private partnerships, regulatory awareness, and resource coordination. This enables entrepreneurs to operate within an integrated incubator that can be leveraged when business challenges arise, allowing them to navigate and adapt to fluctuations in public policy, consumer behavior, access to funding, and socio-cultural needs. One empirical qualitative multi-case study found that 41 examples of constructive support practices by universities resulted in a four-factor influence framework, enabling universities to facilitate entrepreneurial sustainability and resilience [75]. Descriptive analysis identified key factors of university support for entrepreneurial sustainability, including environmental context, institutional framework, key persons, and external interactions [75].

3.2.3. Stakeholder Governance

We define this dimension as the collaborative development and implementation of economic, fiscal, and regulatory policies. This is achieved through university-facilitated dialogue among government entities, industry leaders, academic institutions, and social enterprises, promoting evidence-based decision-making that balances entrepreneurial innovation with structural sustainability and institutional stability. Our literature review revealed that universities are often the bastion of critical thought regarding economic and industrial governance, micro and macro-fiscal policy, and advancements in business innovation [76]. Government institutions often establish policies that are imbalanced with the local business needs of entrepreneurs while pursuing macro-economic development and solvency [22,81]. However, university-led integrated stakeholder networks for entrepreneurial development can facilitate the exchange of critical ideas and hypotheses that challenge traditional fiscal and economic policies, fostering stakeholder interactions focused on grassroots economic development. Empirical evidence of public policy impact by academic institutions, particularly on economic, social services, and jurisprudence policy in Western government contexts [82]. This supports our assertion that university-led programs can facilitate public policy engagement favoring entrepreneurial sustainability and resilience. This is achieved through focused, integrated research and advocacy for structural reforms to fiscal and economic policy, which foster positive entrepreneurial outcomes.

Universities have the potential to influence stakeholder governance by facilitating collaboration among the public policy, corporate, academic, social enterprise, and entrepreneurial sectors. This collaboration aims to highlight and focus on good governance that promotes sustainability while supporting innovation and competition [83]. This dimension does not promote excessive regulation or monopolization but access to and exchange of governance ideas that can be tested in university programs and market environments, enabling a multilateral learning dynamic among all stakeholders that promotes entrepreneurial sustainability [65].

3.2.4. Economic Transformation

This dimension is defined by the systematic exchange of knowledge, innovation, and resources among university, industry, and government partners. This exchange catalyzes grassroots economic development through entrepreneurial ventures, creating dynamic innovation ecosystems that facilitate technology transfer, workforce development, and sustainable regional economic growth. As central drivers of economic development, university-led entrepreneurial programs provide systematic knowledge exchange with industry and government partners [78,84]. The literature demonstrated that universities perform best as engines of economic development when they systematically exchange knowledge with their partners in industry and government, creating dynamic innovation ecosystems that facilitate transformation [85,86]. This function provides a clear incubator dynamic for entrepreneurial engagement in grassroots economic development and offers a point of entry for entrepreneurial innovation into local markets.

National and regional governments can promote innovation by professionalizing knowledge transfer, with universities acting as conduits for entrepreneurial innovation and design, while prioritizing specific economic sector investments [87,88,89]. Through stakeholder integration, university-led programs can facilitate knowledge transfer and dissemination, innovation diffusion, product and service commercialization, workforce development, strategy deployment, and technology advancement. This approach stimulates measurable economic impact and sustainable development outcomes for entrepreneurs.

3.2.5. Social-Environment Integration

Universities can foster social-environment integration, enabling market components and consumer groups to engage with innovators and business developers [90]. We define this dimension as the establishment of reciprocal relationships between entrepreneurs and community stakeholders through university-facilitated engagement. This enables market-responsive innovation, consumer-driven product development, and socially conscious business practices that address local needs while promoting environmental sustainability and cultural adaptation. Social–environmental integration goes beyond facilitating market access by leveraging university connections to social enterprises and subcommunities within a market, creating a dyadic relationship between entrepreneurs and consumers. The result could enhance innovation by testing new business models, concepts, and strategies through design, which improves product and service acceptance [75]. The university-led programmatic structure can bring together consumers, government representatives, and industrial stakeholders to discuss market challenges, including policy impacts on service or product access, financial strategies for startup subsidies, and the long-term utility of new venture innovations for consumers. Simultaneously, although tangential to the dimension, universities benefit from the sample sets they facilitate, which provide new empirical data on entrepreneurial performance, market viability, strategic consumer patterns, foresight, and resilience variables [10].

3.2.6. Institutional Reformation

The quadruple helix IDERF could enable university-led entrepreneurial programs to integrate the four elements into a systematic exchange that facilitates innovation in organizational structure, delivery methodologies, and consumer culture adaptation [83,84]. Institutional reformation is defined as the evolution of organizational structures, delivery methodologies, and cultural orientations within entrepreneurial ventures and supporting institutions. This evolution aims to foster community engagement, social responsibility, and sustainable business practices through experiential learning and multi-stakeholder collaboration, embedding long-term societal value creation into entrepreneurial ecosystems. This model promotes a tertiary mission among entrepreneurial ventures, supported by all stakeholders, that focuses on community and socio-cultural engagement as a function of new venture institutions, enabling the development of socially conscious products and services. This augmented approach to entrepreneurial education can aid in developing higher-impact curricula and stimulate service-oriented learning among students looking to develop new businesses in specific markets [77,83].

Experience-based social entrepreneurial training enhances students’ intentions to engage in social entrepreneurship as future business developers [91]. Experience-based learning, emphasizing social responsibility and sustainable business networks, enhances both students’ intentions to engage in sustainable entrepreneurial ventures and their confidence in developing resilience strategies [90]. These strategies are based on real-world factors and variables that affect the longevity of new ventures, including consumer needs-driven innovation, fiscal resource availability, and industry partnerships [90]. This evidence supports universities’ vital role in institutional reformation by inspiring future entrepreneurs to engage in social entrepreneurship and incorporate sustainability practices into new business models through practical, experience-based learning [67,92].

4. Discussion

The conceptual framework of a quadruple helix model, adapted from the previous triple helix, presents a new resilience metaphor that encapsulates the value of each element and its roles in enhancing and maintaining the subsequent resiliency dimensions. The suggested IDERF quadruple helix enhances the previous triple helix framework by highlighting stakeholders as benefactors of entrepreneurial resilience, with entrepreneurs serving as the recipients of integrated stakeholder outcomes [78,79]. It augments the existing framework’s focus on innovation and development with a focus on long-term sustainability, where stakeholders provide resiliency support [79]. There are multiple entrepreneurship programs across academia that currently provide facilitation and integrated network assistance to entrepreneurs, most of which utilize the current triple helix model to assist entrepreneurs in establishing startups. Some examples are the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) Kuo Sharper Center for Prosperity and Entrepreneurship, the Arizona State University Skysong Innovations partnership, and Stanford University’s Center for Social Innovation [4,92,93]. MIT’s Kuo Sharper Center has facilitated partnerships between entrepreneurs, industrial leaders, and nonprofit organizations to assess and expedite high-potential, high-impact business ventures. The program focuses primarily on linking innovative business models with access to equity-free industrial and intellectual property resources [92,94]. As of 2019, alumni of MIT’s program initiated 30,200 new business ventures, generating approximately $1.9 trillion in global revenue [94]. Arizona State’s Skysong program has helped alumni entrepreneurs start 160 new businesses with a projected nationwide economic impact of over $2.3 billion [95,96]. This program focuses on scalability, with the university providing and managing the intellectual property investment for new venture business models and facilitating public-private partnerships to engage in social entrepreneurship [4]. Stanford’s program combines entrepreneurship education with social enterprise networking to support the development and establishment of social and environmental ventures, focusing on business model design, testing, and service innovation [93,97]. Over a 15-year period, the Stanford Center for Social Innovation helped more than 40 alumni develop unique ventures, which secured over $147 million in non-dilutive funding through social entrepreneurial networks [93]. While each of these programs offers unique case studies in the efficacy of stakeholder networks for establishing startups, data on the long-term sustainability and individual resiliency of entrepreneurs who have benefited from them is lacking [4,92,96,98]. Their use of the triple helix model as a foundation for assisting entrepreneurial alumni in starting new businesses demonstrates effectiveness in new venture initiation, but their general focus on innovation in business models, access to intellectual capital, and industry leader validation highlights the need for a more robust model that includes sustainability and resilience education as well as long-term stakeholder integration.

First, there must be a body of research that focuses on assessing the longitudinal impact and conducting long-term evaluations of the resilience and sustainability of entrepreneurs involved in quadruple helix programs. This body of research should provide substantive empirical data on the reciprocal impacts of information exchange as a continuous feedback loop of information and expertise investment into each constituent node or element. The information exchanged generates data that can be utilized by government, industrial, academic, and social entities. This would enhance empirical studies that demonstrate the incubating effect of university-led entrepreneurship programs on sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial ventures. These programs engage local industries, public policy, and social enterprises as a hub of structural economic cohesion and a stimulator for resource integration, bolstering entrepreneur preparedness and resilience [99,100,101,102].

There is also a need for systematic research into developing quantitative measurement frameworks that translate theoretical impacts into sustainability indicators for entrepreneurial ventures. This means cross-sectional and longitudinal studies collect data on university-led entrepreneurial programs, focusing on local and regional economic, social, and industrial development. The studies specifically examine entrepreneurial resilience and sustainability amid real-world challenges and market evolution variables. Instruments must be developed to measure the impacts of information exchange and stakeholder integration on entrepreneur decision-making, as well as to assess the causal relationships between quadruple helix programs and new venture longevity, with codified resistance factors to test sustainability against. This conceptual framework would also benefit from multi-cultural international studies that focus not only on the viability of the integrated stakeholder model in specific markets or industries but also within different cultures and government systems. The impacts of a quadruple helix framework on sustainable entrepreneurship and resilience in a free-market economy with moderate regulation and open consumer access will likely differ in a high-regulatory environment with less integrated consumer cultural variables. Thus, altering the operational dynamics of any one or more of the elements and their responsibilities as integrated stakeholders.

Given that the IDERF involves the inclusion of social enterprises as a new node or element to the triple helix framework that seeks to integrate all four stakeholder elements with the advent of social development as a priority and outcome, the research into the effectiveness of this concept must be multi-pronged, with mixed methods focusing on universal outcomes. These include enhancements to academic curricula and institutional knowledge development for practical entrepreneurial training; holistic and supportive public policy for entrepreneurial development and sustainment; corporate sponsorship and partnering to enhance entrepreneur access to structural resources; and socio-cultural stewardship and progress.

The following research question (RQ) could serve as the primary basis for a practical research agenda: How do university-led quadruple helix networks impact long-term entrepreneurial resilience and venture sustainability? A longitudinal mixed-methods research approach for this question would involve tracking cohorts of entrepreneurs from university programs over a 5–7 year period. Research would include collecting and analyzing quantitative data on venture survival rates, revenue growth, job creation, and metric baselines for hardiness, resourcefulness, and resilience optimism indicators over set intervals (i.e., quarterly or biannually). Subsequent RQs might include: What are the differential impacts of each quadruple helix element on the five IDERF sustainability dimensions? How do cultural and institutional contexts moderate the effectiveness of IDERF implementation strategies? And what are the reciprocal impacts of IDERF implementation on stakeholder organizations and regional economic ecosystems? These questions would require a comparative case study with social network analysis, cross-cultural quasi-experimental analysis, and participatory action research with ecosystem-level impact assessment analysis as research study constructs, respectively.

However, each research question requires substantial resources and collaboration across multiple institutions. Priority should be given to the first and second RQs, which are foundational studies establishing basic effectiveness and mechanisms, followed by the third RQ to test generalizability and RQ 4 to understand systemic impacts. Ideally, a coordinated research program would pursue all four questions simultaneously across multiple sites, enabling integration of findings into a comprehensive evidence base for IDERF refinement and validation. Future research could benefit from a singular pooling approach to literature reviews that would synthesize the findings of multiple studies across the four stakeholder types and five dimensions as they pertain the entrepreneurial resilience and sustainability. Singular pooling would provide a robust foundation of qualitative and quantitative data from relevant studies, enabling firmer conclusions about the actual framework and its subsequent stakeholder elements concerning interoperability and the impact on entrepreneurial resilience through integrated stakeholder networks [103,104]. This approach may enhance the refinement of the IDERF construct and operational definitions of the individual dimensions in context [97,105]. Singular pooling will help frame future research on the adapted quadruple helix framework’s effect on entrepreneurs through logical binning of conclusions that will assist in prioritizing research questions in a sequential manner that could establish a sequential body of knowledge built from information on the practicality of IDERF implementation and extend to the impact and practical methods for actualizing the framework in real-world contexts.

5. Conclusions

Our structured review of the literature on university-led entrepreneurship programs and entrepreneur resilience revealed a paced evolution from isolated academic offerings to integrated stakeholder networks that foster entrepreneurial resilience and economic development. The historical trajectory has progressed from Schumpeter’s foundational economic theories [30] to contemporary research that links formal entrepreneurship education with sustained venture success [24,47]. Contemporary research has refined our understanding of entrepreneurial resilience competencies, with empirical studies identifying the value of experience-based learning, failure analysis and reflection, entrepreneur mentorship, and peer support networks as effective methods for developing entrepreneur adaptability [6,14].

The integration of resilience theory with entrepreneurship research has produced robust frameworks for understanding sustainment factors at multiple levels, identifying and validating objective predictors of venture survival and growth [15,17,53,57]. The literature supports our assertion that sustainable entrepreneurship requires multidimensional support systems rather than single-factor interventions. The proposed IDERF concept represents an advancement that addresses identified gaps in systematic approaches to fostering entrepreneurial resilience. The quadruple helix model emphasizes the central role that universities can play in orchestrating multi-stakeholder networks encompassing academia, government, industry, and community enterprises, each contributing unique resources and capabilities to entrepreneurial sustainability [26,29]. IDERF offers an operational metaphor for integrated stakeholder support, promoting entrepreneurial resilience and sustainability, which empowers universities to play a leading role in training, equipping, and supporting entrepreneurs with real-world experience, technical expertise, and interorganizational backing to navigate challenges in modern business environments.

IDERF faces significant implementation challenges stemming from the complexity of coordinating multiple stakeholders with competing priorities and diverse institutional cultures. Universities must navigate traditional academic mission boundaries while assuming orchestration roles that require substantial organizational capacity, dedicated resources, and sustained commitment from leadership. The framework’s success depends on establishing trust and reciprocal value exchange among government entities focused on policy outcomes, industry partners seeking competitive advantages, community organizations addressing social needs, and academic institutions balancing research, teaching, and service missions. Implementation barriers include bureaucratic inertia within governmental structures, resource constraints limiting university capacity for network facilitation, misaligned incentive structures that discourage industry-academia collaboration, and potential resistance from faculty who view entrepreneurship education as peripheral to core academic functions. Additionally, measuring the framework’s effectiveness presents methodological challenges given the long temporal horizons required to assess entrepreneurial resilience and the difficulty of isolating quadruple helix impacts from confounding economic and social variables.

Context-dependent factors substantially moderate the applicability of IDERF across settings [42,75]. The framework assumes baseline institutional capacity, financial infrastructure, and human capital that may be absent in less developed regions. Cultural values regarding risk-taking and failure tolerance, regulatory environments, geographic factors, and governance systems all shape stakeholder network dynamics [48,84]. Cross-cultural validation research is essential for determining whether effectiveness factors are universal or culture-specific [67,88,90]. There are multiple implications for public policy, academia, and future research that may present barriers to the implementation of IDERF. For public policy, a more robust stakeholder integration approach to entrepreneur sustainability could challenge structured economic internal controls that support free-market competition, requiring structural changes to monetarist governance for public-sector investment in economies like the United States. Academia will have to play a more active role in post-educational community facilitation and may face challenges in motivating inherently competitive entities to work collectively to enhance startup solvency, particularly when entrepreneurs represent competitors. Future research may be hindered by the evolving landscape of an integrated stakeholder framework for sustainability, where data on startup longevity increases, but data on entrepreneurial innovation and adaptability are limited due to the custodial nature of support networks.

There are multiple extraneous variables that may challenge the efficacy of future research that must be accommodated when approaching this proposed research agenda. This includes power imbalances between stakeholders, which could manifest among industry, government, and social enterprise leaders when advocating for public policies that support entrepreneurial resiliency. Changes to university-led entrepreneurship programs and intentional involvement in facilitating public policy changes will likely face bureaucratic challenges among university leadership, representing another variable that could affect the efficacy of the IDERF framework implementation [106,107]. Stakeholders will also likely have conflicting agendas, particularly between the objectives of established industry leaders to minimize competition, the agendas of policymakers for economic stability, and the priorities of social enterprise leaders to enhance access to goods and services across economic segments of local populations [108,109]. Another barrier to IDERF implementation and testing could be a divergence among cultural priorities in local economies, particularly when socio-economic challenges affect specific ethnic minority groups, which may require strategic partnerships between university-led programs and representatives of socio-cultural segments to enhance cultural representation among these sub-groups [110,111]. The framework requires empirical validation designs to test its effectiveness. One approach would be to conduct quasi-experimental longitudinal studies that collect data from entrepreneurs who have benefited from one or more dimensions of the triple helix and quadruple helix models, and to perform comparative analyses on the longevity of each, while accounting for the impact factors of the four IDERF stakeholder nodes. This will require a significant amount of time, but it would be viable in isolating each stakeholder node for correlation analysis against the entrepreneur’s sustainability needs and their success in adapting to challenges or setbacks.

The IDERF addresses limitations in the existing literature, particularly the lack of systematic integration among multiple stakeholders supporting entrepreneurial ventures, and the need for reformed curricula to address the five entrepreneurial sustainability dimensions. While previous research has examined individual components of entrepreneurial support systems, this framework offers a conceptual model for understanding how universities can serve as catalysts for developing entrepreneurial ecosystems as educators and facilitators. Future research must employ sophisticated mixed methods approaches to collect empirical data, allowing the examination of the dynamic interplay between individual development, program design, and environmental factors in fostering resilient and sustainable entrepreneurship across industries and economic regions.