Female-Led Rural Nanoenterprises in Business Research: A Systematic and Bibliometric Review of an Overlooked Entrepreneurial Category

Abstract

This study presents a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis focused on female-led nanoenterprises in rural contexts, a marginal yet increasingly relevant category within enterprise research. Despite the growing attention to micro and small businesses, nanoenterprises—defined as unipersonal, informal, low-income productive units—remain underexplored and largely excluded from formal economic frameworks. Using the PRISMA 2020 guidelines with the 10-step B-SLR approach, 12 peer-reviewed articles were selected through a targeted search combining terms such as “nanoenterprise”, “women”, and “rural”. The analysis included citation counts, journal impact, country of origin, and thematic focus. Findings indicate conceptual and geographic fragmentation in existing research, with studies concentrated in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, and focused primarily on commerce, personal services, and subsistence agriculture. Gender emerges as a structural axis, as women face compounded barriers in digital access, credit, and formal recognition. The review reveals a lack of theoretical consolidation, comparative studies, and longitudinal research. This work contributes by articulating the distinct nature of nanoenterprises, proposing a research agenda, and highlighting their role in fostering economic inclusion, resilience, and empowerment among marginalized populations. The results call for inclusive public policies and scholarly frameworks that go beyond traditional models of entrepreneurship.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, the study of entrepreneurship has gained relevance as a key driver of economic development, social innovation, and territorial transformation. However, within this broad field, certain types of entrepreneurships remain underrepresented in academic research. A representative example of this lack of visibility in business literature is nanoenterprise, defined as minimal-scale productive units, often operated by a single individual or a small family group. These organizational forms nanoenterprises face distinct dynamics and limitations, such as operating predominantly in informal markets, relying on self- or family labor, and lacking access to financial services or formal support institutions (Nguyen et al., 2025).

Although the prefix “nano” originates primarily from the scientific domain, where it refers to molecular or subatomic dimensions, particularly in nanotechnology, its incorporation into economic and business language has led to conceptual confusion. This transference has resulted in a deficiently defined category, characterized by ambiguous usage and a lack of precise delineation in academic literature. As cautioned by Boholm (2016), in American English, the term “nano” has acquired symbolic and figurative meanings outside the scientific field, a phenomenon also reflected in economic and public policy discourse.

In entrepreneurship studies, the term nanoenterprise has been applied inconsistently and without consensus. In some cases, it has been used to describe individual, informal productive initiatives with minimal capital, while in others, it has been grouped together with microenterprises or informal ventures without clear analytical distinctions. This lack of agreement has sparked debates regarding the term’s usefulness and its validity as a distinct category within the business ecosystem. Some scholars, such as (González Flores, 2015), have advocated for its recognition as a specific economic unit, arguing that its visibility would enable the design of more inclusive policies tailored to the realities of those undertaking entrepreneurship from marginalized conditions.

On the other hand, multiple studies have emphasized the significance of these units in vulnerable contexts, underscoring their role in developing economic resilience strategies and fostering social cohesion, particularly in rural areas or environments characterized by institutional exclusion. Recent research in countries such as Bangladesh, Uganda, and Kenya have documented how rural women entrepreneurs utilize mobile technologies, community cooperation networks, and local resources to sustain small-scale businesses despite the structural constraints they encounter (Ingutia & Sumelius, 2024; Parthiban et al., 2024; Saavedra, 2024).

This reality challenges the narrative of self-sufficiency and economic dynamism frequently attributed to them. In rural areas of regions such as Europe and Oceania, recent research demonstrates how women entrepreneurs experience trajectories characterized by historical dependence on traditional roles, the burden of unpaid domestic work, and persistent exclusion from digital environments, despite institutional discourses promoting innovation and sustainability as central pillars of rural development (Nordbø, 2022).

In this scenario characterized by conceptual tensions, limited visibility, and notable methodological dispersion, this study aims to conduct a systematic and bibliometric review of the literature on nanoenterprises, with a particular focus on female-led ventures in rural contexts. The objective is to identify the main conceptual and thematic gaps, as well as the intersectional challenges—especially those related to gender, territorial marginality, and digital exclusion—that shape their operation. The analysis specifically focuses on their definition and characteristics, the sectors where they operate, their role in rural women’s entrepreneurship, and persistent gaps in academic literature.

Conceptual Delimitation of Nanoenterprises

Despite its conceptual ambiguity, the term “nanoenterprise” captures a recurring empirical reality observed in many low-income and rural contexts: ultra-small, often unregistered businesses that do not meet the formal thresholds of microenterprise classification. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO, 2018), over 61% of the world’s employed population works in the informal economy, and a large portion of this activity is concentrated in household-based or single-person units.

These units, although not always labeled as nanoenterprises, share core characteristics such as minimal capital, lack of legal registration, and subsistence-level income. In Latin America, informal self-employment represents more than 50% of female rural employment (ILO, 2017), underscoring the economic relevance of this category in development and gender equity debates.

While the term nanoenterprise has been used sporadically in academic and policy discourse, it remains underdefined and often conflated with other categories such as microenterprises, necessity entrepreneurship, or informal self-employment. To clarify its analytical distinctiveness, this study positions nanoenterprises as production or service units that operate at the lowest end of the entrepreneurial spectrum in terms of scale, capital, and institutional integration.

Based on Chen (2012) and Saavedra (2024), nanoenterprises are characterized by:

• Self-employment or family-based labor (typically ≤2 people);
• Absence of legal registration or fiscal traceability;
• Low to zero capital investment;
• Localized and subsistence-oriented market strategies;
• Limited or no access to formal credit, technology, or training.

In conclusion, nanoenterprises differ from other small-scale economic forms not only in scale but in structural conditions. In contrast, microenterprises may be registered, employ up to 10 workers, and often aim for market integration. Necessity entrepreneurs may share some constraints with nanoentrepreneurs1 but do not necessarily operate outside formal circuits. Informal economic actors are a broader category, encompassing both nanoenterprises and other types of unregulated work.

Table 1. Comparative framework distinguishing nanoenterprises from microenterprises, necessity entrepreneurship, and informal labor.

Criteria	Nanoenterprise	Microenterprise	Necessity Entrepreneurship	Informal Worker
Legal registration	No	Often yes	Variable	Mostly no
Labor structure	Self/family (1–2 people)	1–10 employees	Self-employed	Wage labor (unregulated)
Capital intensity	Very low	Low to moderate	Low	Very low
Goal	Survival, subsistence	Growth or stability	Income generation	Income/wage
Market strategy	Local, social/family	Regional/local markets	Mixed	Depends on sector
Formal ecosystem access	None or limited	Partial to full	Partial	None

below summarizes these differences and introduces a proposed typology to distinguish nanoenterprises from adjacent forms of small-scale economic activity.

To enrich the conceptual foundation of this review, this article draws upon three theoretical perspectives that illuminate the socioeconomic positioning of nanoenterprises: the informal economy framework (Chen, 2012), contextual entrepreneurship (Welter, 2011), and effectuation under constraints (Sarasvathy, 2001).

According to Chen (2012), informal economies comprise diverse actors excluded from regulatory and institutional frameworks. Nanoenterprises occupy a unique niche within this landscape due to their hyper-local nature, minimal capital needs, and reliance on household labor. Welter (2011) emphasizes the role of context—social, spatial, institutional—in shaping entrepreneurial behavior.

This lens is crucial for understanding how nanoenterprises emerge in marginalized geographies where opportunity structures are severely constrained. Sarasvathy’s (2001) theory of effectuation offers an interpretive tool to analyze how nanoentrepreneurs make decisions based on available resources, social ties, and emergent goals, rather than predictive planning. This aligns with the improvisational and survival-oriented logic evident in the reviewed literature.

Together, these frameworks enable a more robust interpretation of the nanoenterprise phenomenon, situating it within broader discourses of exclusion, resilience, and informal economic agency.

Through a systematic review based on the PRISMA methodology, complemented by bibliometric and qualitative analysis, this study seeks to contribute to a better understanding of the phenomenon and establish foundations to guide future research more closely aligned with the realities of these productive units. While small in size, they may play a potentially strategic role in vulnerable contexts. Based on this problematic, the study is structured around the following research questions:

• RQ1: How has the concept of nanoenterprises evolved in scientific literature to date?
• RQ2: Which are the main characteristics and differences between nanoenterprises, microenterprises, and small businesses?
• RQ3: In which sectors have nanoenterprises been most developed?
• RQ4: Which challenges do women nanoentrepreneurs face and which strategies have proven successful for their inclusion in the business ecosystem?

This article contributes a combined methodological approach that distinguishes it from other works in the field. First, a bibliometric analysis is employed to examine the behavior and distribution of scientific production regarding nanoenterprise. Second, a systematic review guided by the PRISMA methodology is applied, enabling rigorous mapping of the main trends, gaps, and potential avenues for academic development in this emerging field.

Through this comprehensive approach, the study provides a critical and foundational perspective on how nanoenterprise have been addressed in academic literature. Key findings emerging from the analysis include the following points:

• Lack of a commonly accepted definition: The concept of nanoenterprise remains poorly structured, hindering cross-study comparisons and limiting the design of inclusive policies for these ventures.
• Focus on basic needs: Unlike MSMEs (micro-, small, and medium enterprises), these economic units primarily operate under survival constraints, relying on familial networks and lacking full integration into the formal economic system.
• Geographical concentration of studies: Research is heavily concentrated in countries such as Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines, and Brazil, while regions like Europe, and North America remain underrepresented in the available literature.
• Gender disparities: Women-led nanoenterprises reflect structural inequalities in access to financing, technologies, support networks, and training opportunities.
• Sectoral limitations: Although studies predominantly focus on informal trade and services, significant gaps exist in strategic sectors such as rural tourism, street vendors, informal domestic workers, and others.
• Under analyzed transformative potential: Nanoenterprises could drive empowerment, sustainability, and social cohesion, yet they remain overlooked in global economic development agendas.

Far from being anecdotal or conceptually void, nanoenterprises constitute a critical empirical category that remains underrepresented in both policy frameworks and academic literature. Their marginal visibility in indexed journals may reflect not a lack of relevance, but rather a misalignment with dominant entrepreneurial models that prioritize scalability, formality, and innovation. This review seeks to give analytical substance to the term “nanoenterprise” by systematizing dispersed literature, clarifying its conceptual distinctiveness, and proposing future lines of inquiry.

This article is structured into five main sections. Section 1 presents the conceptual and contextual framework justifying the study, positioning the term nanoenterprise within the entrepreneurship field and emphasizing the importance of distinguishing it from other organizational forms such as microenterprises. Section 2 describes the adopted methodology, combining a systematic review based on PRISMA and B-SLR approach criteria with a bibliometric analysis that examines trends, geographical distribution, and publication venues of selected articles.

Section 3 presents the study’s results, organized at two levels: (1) quantitative findings derived from the bibliometric analysis, and (2) qualitative results addressing the established research questions. Section 4 focuses on the discussion, interpreting findings in comparison with prior studies while identifying commonalities, theoretical disagreements, and potential implications for both theory and practice. Finally, Section 5 synthesizes the study’s key conclusions, highlighting its original contribution to inclusive entrepreneurship research, along with its limitations and potential avenues for future investigation.

2. Materials and Methods

This study follows a hybrid protocol that integrates the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Page et al., 2021) for transparent reporting of systematic reviews with the Bibliometric-Systematic Literature Review (B-SLR) framework developed by Marzi et al. (2025). While PRISMA ensures procedural clarity in the selection and reporting of studies, B-SLR provides a robust foundation for combining bibliometric indicators, thematic coding, and conceptual synthesis within the field of business and management research.

2.1. Data Sources and Search Strategy

The review process was guided by the 10-step B-SLR framework (Marzi et al., 2025), which combines bibliometric and thematic analysis in a structured sequence from scope definition to theoretical synthesis. Each of the ten steps—ranging from database selection to data extraction, visualization, and theory development—is addressed throughout Section 2, Section 3, Section 4 and Section 5 of this manuscript.

Although the review protocol was not registered in advance, all procedures regarding article selection, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and data synthesis followed the principles outlined by PRISMA. A detailed flow diagram summarizes the article identification and screening process. The review protocol was not prospectively registered due to the exploratory and emergent nature of the topic under study.

The initial search was conducted from 13 February 2025 to 18 April 2025, across major academic databases including Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis, and MDPI. However, no records were found using the target keywords.

The literature search was not restricted by a predefined time window, as the aim was to capture all available scholarly work related to nanoenterprises published up to the search date (April 2025). Given the low density of the field, no temporal filters were applied, allowing for the inclusion of earlier works that may have contributed to foundational definitions or frameworks. The earliest included article was published in 2015, and the most recent in 2024.

Given this absence, the review incorporated Google Scholar as the primary source, which is acknowledged for its broader document retrieval, especially of regional and non-indexed publications (Halevi et al., 2017; Martín-Martín et al., 2018).

While not a formally indexed database with strict impact criteria, this platform provides access to a wider diversity of publications, including regional journals and open-access articles that are not always available in high-impact repositories. Publications were considered from the earliest available records to the present date. The final search string applied was as follows:

(“nano entrepreneur” OR “nanoempresa” OR “nano empresa” OR “nano entrepreneur” OR “nanobusiness” OR “nano business” OR “nano enterprise” OR “nanoenterprise”) AND (“women” OR “female”) AND (“rural”) NOT (“urban”)

This string was applied in both English and Spanish to maximize sensitivity across documents published in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. To explicitly address the gendered and rural dimensions of nanoentrepreneurship, the search protocol was designed to include studies referencing “nanoenterprise” in combination with “women” and “rural” as targeted keywords. This reflects the research objective of exploring nanoenterprises led by women in marginal or rural contexts.

While the concept of nanoenterprise is still emerging, the methodological decision to incorporate these social dimensions from the initial search phase ensures that the review captures structural inequalities and context-specific challenges. This inclusion criterion aligns with the conceptual emphasis of the study and supports the identification of intersectional barriers in the nanoenterprise ecosystem.

It is important to recognize that the initial search string did not include terms such as “self-owned,” “family-based,” or “1–2 workers,” despite their relevance to the conceptualization of nanoenterprises. This was due to the absence of a standardized vocabulary across databases and the focus on retrieving documents that explicitly used the term “nanoenterprise.” The reviewed articles, however, were analyzed using a coding process that captured these definitional attributes. In hindsight, incorporating occupational or structural descriptors could have expanded the corpus. A follow-up study is currently being conceptualized to trace adjacent conceptual categories—including “informal business,” “sole proprietorship,” and “non-registered enterprises”—in order to map the broader conceptual field beyond the strict nanoenterprise label.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

To ensure the quality and relevance of included articles, the following inclusion and exclusion criteria were established.

The inclusion criteria were defined a priori and focused on

• Peer-reviewed journal articles (no books, theses, or reports);
• Studies addressing nanoenterprises, nanoentrepreneurs, or nanoenterprises in any geographical context;
• Publications focusing on women entrepreneurs or rural entrepreneurship;
• Articles published in any language;
• Documents with verifiable DOI or reliable identifier.

Exclusion criteria included

• Publications about nanotechnology or any other use of the “nano” prefix unrelated to business;
• Studies without full-text availability;
• Non-peer-reviewed sources;
• Articles addressing education, public policy, technologies, or corporate management unrelated to entrepreneurship.

Although the initial search retrieved a range of documents—including books, book chapters, theses, and technical reports—these sources were excluded to maintain a consistent scope focused solely on peer-reviewed journal articles. This decision was guided by the aim of ensuring traceability, methodological comparability, and the validation standards associated with scholarly publishing. However, it is acknowledged that in emerging or underdeveloped research fields, non-journal literature can play a foundational role. The exclusion of these sources is thus a methodological delimitation rather than a judgment on their scholarly merit. Future research could address this limitation by incorporating gray literature through a tailored inclusion protocol and alternative synthesis frameworks.

2.3. Article Selection Process

While major academic databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect were initially consulted, no results matching the nanoenterprise construct emerged. Given this limitation, was turned to Google Scholar to capture peripheral and regional publications (Halevi et al., 2017; Martín-Martín et al., 2018). Although this platform lacks standardized indexing protocols, it is recognized for its inclusive coverage of emerging or marginal topics. The search process followed systematic screening protocols to mitigate bias and ensure scholarly validity.

Although the initial search in Google Scholar yielded 88 documents, a multi-phase screening process was applied to ensure methodological rigor. Following PRISMA and B-SLR guidelines, 6 duplicates were removed, and 52 documents were excluded for being books, chapters, theses, or non-peer-reviewed materials. An additional 19 were discarded due to unrelated focus on nanotechnology or science-based definitions of “nano.” Six others were removed for addressing education or corporate topics without relevance to entrepreneurship.

The initial corpus consisted of eight peer-reviewed articles that directly addressed nanoenterprises or nanoentrepreneurship2 in the intended context. While this number is limited, it reflects the current fragmentation of the field and the necessity for foundational reviews like this one.

Following reviewer feedback on the empirical limitations of the original dataset, a complementary search was conducted in July 2025. This targeted the following elements:

• Recent publications (2023–2025);
• Regional journals not captured by Google Scholar’s main algorithm;
• Multidisciplinary databases, including Latindex and Dialnet.

The same inclusion/exclusion criteria were maintained. This extension identified four additional peer-reviewed articles, bringing the total sample corpus to 12. Only these 12 articles form the formal base for answering the research questions. Contextual literature is referenced separately when needed, and clearly distinguished from the systematic corpus.

Due to the limitations of Google Scholar’s search interface, all retrieved records were manually reviewed one by one to assess relevance based on title, abstract, and source type. A detailed PRISMA flow diagram is presented in Figure 1, that includes the complete quantitative breakdown of the literature selection process. Given the exploratory nature and the small number of included articles, formal bias assessment tools (e.g., ROBIS) were not applied.

It should be noted, however, that most identified journals are not indexed in high-impact databases such as JCR (Journal Citation Reports) or SJR (SCImago Journal Rank), meaning they lack impact factors or quartile rankings. Nevertheless, these studies represent the only available academic literature on nanoenterprises, which grants them significant value for this review as they constitute the sole scientific contributions addressing the topic within this study’s specific parameters.

2.4. Complementary Literature

While the main analysis in this article is strictly based on the 12 peer-reviewed journal articles selected through the systematic procedure detailed above, additional theoretical references were consulted to clarify definitional boundaries and sectoral distinctions between nanoenterprises, microenterprises, and small businesses. These complementary sources were not included in the formal corpus analyzed through the B-SLR protocol and do not inform the empirical results. Instead, they serve to enrich the conceptual framing of nanoenterprises, particularly where the 12 reviewed studies lack definitional precision.

The inclusion of these references followed a narrative search strategy guided by relevance and thematic alignment, and their role is limited to supporting comparative discussion and contextual interpretation in specific sections of the paper.

2.5. Data Extraction and Thematic Coding

Bibliometric and thematic data were extracted manually using a structured Excel matrix and analyzed with the support of ATLAS.ti. Extracted variables included the following:

• Title, year, and country of publication.
• Journal quality (indexing, impact).
• Keywords and thematic focus.
• Gender and sectoral lens.
• Citation counts

Thematic codes were iteratively developed and refined following B-SLR Step 5, resulting in five primary thematic clusters: conceptualization, sectoral distribution, gender inclusion, informality, and digital access.

To complement the core analysis of the 12 included articles, selected theoretical and empirical sources were consulted to support comparative analysis and conceptual framing. These external references are not part of the original corpus retrieved through the systematic protocol. This secondary literature was treated separately from the core findings and does not replace the insights derived from the systematic review. Instead, it serves to contextualize and frame the contributions of the included studies within the wider field of entrepreneurship research.

2.6. Bibliometric Analysis Strategy

In alignment with B-SLR Steps 6–8, a set of bibliometric visualizations was developed. These included the following elements:

• Word cloud visualizations for English and Spanish keywords.
• Keyword co-occurrence matrix categorized by thematic family.
• Keyword frequency graph by conceptual group.

For the organization, systematization, and analysis of collected bibliographic data, complementary tools were employed to ensure precise information management. First, Microsoft Excel was utilized to classify and organize selected articles according to variables including publication year, country of origin, citation count, journal type, methodological approach, and economic sector addressed. This database facilitated both the bibliometric analysis and the development of comparative tables. Data from each article were manually extracted and categorized using Microsoft Excel, following a structured template that included citations, thematic focus, context, and journal quality indicators.

Given that none of the selected studies originated from Scopus or Web of Science, it was not possible to use standard VOSviewer routines (e.g., bibliographic coupling or citation mapping) due to the lack of structured export formats. Instead, a manual bibliometric strategy was adopted. Keywords were extracted from each article and thematically coded using ATLAS.ti.

These were grouped into five conceptual clusters, which were visualized through a co-occurrence network and summarized in a thematic matrix. While not identical to automated citation analysis, this approach aligns with B-SLR Step 6, ensuring structured insight into thematic fragmentation. The combined use of these tools strengthened analytical rigor, supporting a critical, systematic, and evidence-based examination of studies included in the review. All extracted data were manually standardized and grouped thematically for synthesis.

The methodology described has enabled the identification of a corpus of studies representing the current state of knowledge regarding nanoenterprises and nanoentrepreneurship in rural contexts with a gender perspective. The following sections present the bibliometric and content analysis results, examining principal literature trends, existing gaps, and key findings in relation to the established research questions.

3. Results

The conducted review enabled the retrieval and analysis of a limited yet significant body of scientific studies addressing the concept of nanoenterprises in its various dimensions, particularly regarding rural entrepreneurship, gender perspectives, and economic inclusion conditions. Given the underdeveloped nature of this field and its low academic density, the obtained findings should be interpreted as constituting a first systematic approach to this evolving phenomenon.

The analysis was conducted through a dual approach: (1) a quantitative perspective employing bibliometric techniques, and (2) a thematic qualitative perspective designed to address the established research questions. This methodological combination enabled not only the identification of publication patterns but also the systematic categorization of thematic content within the reviewed studies.

3.1. Quantitative Analysis of Bibliometric Results

This section presents the bibliometric analysis results of the 12 selected articles. The objectives are to demonstrate (a) the temporal evolution of research on this topic, (b) the geographical distribution of studies, and (c) the academic impact of these publications through citation analysis. Although the number of articles is limited, the obtained data reveal significant trends and confirm that nanoenterprises remain an understudied subject in the scientific literature.

3.1.1. Publication Year Analysis and Geographical Distribution

The temporal analysis reveals that literature concerning nanoenterprises has emerged gradually and irregularly in recent years, as illustrated in Figure 2a. The first identified article was published by González Flores (2015) in Mexico, representing one of the initial attempts to develop the nanoenterprise concept from a rural perspective.

As shown in Figure 2a, most of the selected articles were published between 2021 and 2024, reflecting a recent but emerging academic interest in the topic. Geographically, the contributions are largely concentrated in Latin America and West Africa (Figure 2b), particularly in Mexico and Nigeria, regions where informal nano-scale entrepreneurship plays a vital socioeconomic role.

3.1.2. Scientific Journal Analysis

A key component of bibliometric analysis concerns the publication venues of the selected studies. This examination enables the assessment of three critical dimensions: (a) research visibility, (b) editorial quality, and (c) the academic impact level of scientific production related to nanoenterprises. These findings are presented in

Table 2. Editorial characteristics of journals publishing the selected articles.

Journal Name	JCR/WOS/Scopus/SJR Indexing	Quartile (If Applicable)	Impact Factor (If Applicable)	Country
Revista Boletín El Conuco	Not indexed	N/A	N/A	Colombia
Revista Venezolana de Análisis de Coyuntura	Not indexed	N/A	Not reported	Venezuela
Jalingo Journal of Social and Management Sciences	Not indexed	N/A	N/A	Nigeria
Contaduría y Administración (UNAM)	Scopus (Q3), SJR (Q2 in Economics)	Q3 (Scopus), Q2 (SJR)	SJR 2022: 0.24 (Scopus)	Mexico
Revista Mexicana de Sociología (UNAM)	Scopus (Q2 in Sociology), WOS (ESCI)	Q2 (Scopus)	SJR 2022: 0.38 (Scopus)	Mexico
Problemas del Desarrollo. Revista Latinoamericana de Economía (UNAM-IIEC)	Scopus (Q3 in Economics), WOS (ESCI)	Q3 (Scopus)	SJR 2022: 0.29 (Scopus)	Mexico
Journal of Development Communication	Not indexed	N/A	N/A	Malaysia
Conhecer: Debate Entre O Público E O Privado	Not indexed	N/A	Not reported	Brazil
Cooperativismo & Desarrollo	Not indexed	N/A	Not reported	Colombia
Vinculatégica EFAN	Not indexed	N/A	Not reported	Mexico
Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar	Not indexed	N/A	Not reported	Mexico
International Journal of Entrepreneurship, Business and Creative Economy (IJEBCE)	Not indexed	N/A	Not reported	Indonesia (editorial Research Synergy Press)

.

Among the 12 articles included in this review, three were published in Scopus-indexed journals, while five appeared in journals not indexed in high-impact international databases such as JCR or Scopus. The three indexed journals are affiliated with prestigious Mexican academic institutions, specifically the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), indicating institutional concentration of published research on this topic.

In contrast, the remaining five journals are not indexed in Scopus, JCR, or SJR. These include local and regional publications. These journals lack verifiable impact factors or quartile rankings, significantly restricting their visibility within international academic networks.

These findings demonstrate that scientific production on nanoenterprises primarily circulates in low-to-medium visibility publication venues, a common pattern for emerging or underexplored research areas. This limited dissemination may reflect the ongoing conceptual development of nanoenterprises as a field of study.

Furthermore, the analysis confirms that most examined articles were published in Latin American, Asia and African journals, with no representation in high-impact factor journals from Europe, or the United States. This pattern reinforces the characterization of nanoenterprise research as an emerging, geographically concentrated field with limited penetration in global business scholarship.

3.1.3. Citation Analysis of Included Articles

The academic impact of included articles was assessed through citation counts recorded in Google Scholar as of the review date. This metric serves to identify the level of scholarly attention received by these publications, while acknowledging that Google Scholar may incorporate citations from non-peer-reviewed sources.

Citation counts ranged from 0 to 18, with eight of the 12 articles cited fewer than five times (

Table 3. Distribution of citation counts per article in Google Scholar.

Ref.	Journal Name	Country of Study	Publication Language	Citations
(Alvarado Lagunas et al., 2021)	Revista Mexicana de Sociología (UNAM)	Mexico	Spanish	18
(Alvarado Lagunas, 2021)	Contaduría y Administración (UNAM)	Mexico	Spanish/English	16
(González Flores, 2015)	Revista Venezolana de Análisis de Coyuntura	Mexico	Spanish	16
(Rodríguez Medina et al., 2023)	Problemas del Desarrollo. Revista Latinoamericana de Economía (UNAM-IIEC)	Mexico	Spanish/English	7
(Valencia-Sandoval et al., 2023)	Vinculatégica EFAN	Mexico	Spanish	2
(Sulaiman et al., 2023)	Jalingo Journal of Social and Management Sciences	Nigeria	English	1
(Gussi & Thé, 2020)	Conhecer: Debate Entre O Público E O Privado	Brazil	English/Portuguese	1
(Chuc Pech & Canul Dzul, 2024)	Revista Boletín El Conuco	Mexico	Spanish	0
(Ola-Akuma & Okocha, 2024)	Journal of Development Communication	Nigeria	English	0
(Canales-García et al., 2024)	Cooperativismo & Desarrollo	Mexico	Spanish	0
(Cunanan et al., 2025)	International Journal of Entrepreneurship, Business and Creative Economy	Philippines	English	0
(Mendoza Guerrero et al., 2024)	Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar	Mexico	Spanish	0

). This confirms the marginal bibliometric presence of the field.

Regarding publication language, Spanish clearly predominates, representing eight of the 12 articles. Three articles were published in English, with one additional publication featuring bilingual content (English and Portuguese) and two more in Spanish. This distribution reflects the regionally concentrated nature of nanoenterprise research, primarily focused on Latin America and Africa while utilizing English as a secondary language.

The limited presence of English-language publications—the dominant language of global scientific communication—likely contributes to restricted international visibility and impact of these studies. This linguistic limitation further correlates with the minimal inclusion of these journals in high-impact databases.

Furthermore, the reviewed studies on nanoenterprises demonstrate significant thematic diversity, ranging from structural and conceptual analyses of the phenomenon to interventions focused on empowerment and financial inclusion. This thematic breadth reveals both the concept’s potential and the current fragmentation of available knowledge, as detailed in

Table 4. Key themes, methodologies, and sectoral focus in the selected articles.

Ref.	Key Themes	Methodological Approach	Sectoral Focus
(Chuc Pech & Canul Dzul, 2024)	Agricultural distribution and commercialization.	Empirical (mixed methods)	Agriculture (backyard farming)
(González Flores, 2015)	Conceptual framework and policy recognition.	Theoretical-conceptual	Multisectoral (international comparison)
(Sulaiman et al., 2023)	Monetary policy and business welfare.	Empirical (quantitative/qualitative)	Informal food trade
(Alvarado Lagunas, 2021)	Formalization and informal entrepreneurship.	Experimental (intervention-based)	Urban informal services
(Alvarado Lagunas et al., 2021)	Female empowerment and training.	Experimental (gender-focused)	Urban informal trade
(Rodríguez Medina et al., 2023)	Informality and spatial dynamics.	Empirical (spatial-statistical)	Trade and services
(Ola-Akuma & Okocha, 2024)	Digital inclusion and gender gaps.	Quantitative (surveys)	E-commerce and ICT
(Gussi & Thé, 2020)	Microfinance and social economy.	Qualitative (ethnographic)	Social and solidarity economy
(Canales-García et al., 2024)	Schumpeterian nanoentrepreneurship; innovation; cooperation networks.	Qualitative (Case Study)	Automotive (Industry 5.0)
(Cunanan et al., 2025)	Work–life balance; dual roles; nanoenterprises as secondary income.	Quantitative (surveys)	Public workers’ side-businesses
(Mendoza Guerrero et al., 2024)	“NENIS3” concept; informal marketing via social media; gendered empowerment.	Quantitative (surveys)	Beauty, food, apparel
(Valencia-Sandoval et al., 2023)	Challenges during COVID-19; finance, insecurity, inflation; validated instrument.	Quantitative (EFA)	Informal trade during pandemic

.

Following the bibliometric analysis that revealed quantitative patterns in academic production on nanoenterprises, the next section presents the thematic qualitative analysis of the 12 included articles. Through detailed textual examination, the study identified conceptual patterns, discursive approaches, and empirical findings that collectively address the research questions established in Section 1. While Section 3.1 provided a descriptive overview, the following section focuses on analytical patterns emerging from the literature.

3.2. Thematic Analysis of Systematic Review Results

This subsection synthesizes the qualitative findings of the systematic review, structured around three transversal analytical axes: (1) conceptual clarity and definitional boundaries of nanoenterprises; (2) sectoral and geographic patterns; and (3) intersectional challenges such as gender disparities, digital exclusion, and territorial marginality. These axes integrate the original research questions (RQs), allowing for a more cohesive interpretation of the literature.

Thematic patterns were first explored through a visual analysis of keyword co-occurrence and conceptual density across the 12 reviewed articles. To begin this subsection, the word clouds displayed in Figure 3 synthesize the main keywords extracted from the articles included in this review, organized by language. These graphical representations allow identification of the most frequently used concepts by authors, as well as the most recurrent themes in nanoenterprise research.

In Figure 3a, the English-language literature emphasizes terms such as “nano enterprises,” “micro enterprises,” and “informal business status,” reflecting a policy-oriented focus on employment, formalization, and economic inclusion. Keywords like “digital technologies,” “gender,” and “empowerment” signal emerging interest in equity and innovation, albeit less frequently.

In contrast, Figure 3b shows that Spanish-language articles are more rooted in local and rural contexts, with dominant terms like “nanoempresas,” “informalidad,” and “logit,” alongside sectoral references such as “hortalizas” and “plaza.” Mentions of “empoderamiento” and “poder de decisión de las mujeres” point to gender considerations, though these remain secondary. Together, both word clouds highlight distinct thematic emphases shaped by regional research traditions and disciplinary perspectives.

To deepen the thematic analysis of the reviewed literature, a normalization process was conducted for the keywords identified in the 12 selected articles. This procedure involved grouping synonymous or conceptually equivalent terms under unified thematic categories, yielding a clearer perspective of predominant research focuses.

Table 5. Thematic grouping of keywords identified in the reviewed articles.

Thematic Category	Keywords Included	Frequency
Nanoenterprise (concept)	Nanoempresas (nanoenterprises), nanoempresario (nanoentrepreneur), nano enterprises, nano-businesses	11
Informality	Informalidad (informality), economía informal (informal economy), informal business status, transition to a formal business	5
Microenterprise	Micro-enterprises, employment	2
Gender and empowerment	Empoderamiento (empowerment), poder de decisión de las mujeres (women’s decision-making power), gender	3
Agriculture/Local trade	Hortalizas (vegetables), plaza (marketplace), canales (distribution channels), distribución (distribution), minoristas (retail)	1
Digital inclusion	Digital technologies, new media	2
Policy and support	Public policy, microcredit, solidarity economy, development bank	4
Theorical concepts	Organización (organization), sistema abierto (open system), enfoque de procesos (process approach)	4

presents these categories along with their component specific terms and frequency of occurrence. This grouping revealed that the most recurrent category is nanoenterprise (concept), which encompasses various terms referring to the study’s core phenomenon. Subsequent categories include informality, local commerce and agriculture, and policy support, reinforcing the notion that nanoenterprises develop in contexts characterized by exclusion from the formal economic system.

To complement the thematic coding process, a keyword co-occurrence analysis was conducted using ATLAS.ti. Figure 4 displays a Sankey diagram representing the conceptual interlinkages between major themes identified across the 12 reviewed studies. This visualization serves as an alternative bibliometric approach aligned with Step 6 of the B-SLR protocol (Marzi et al., 2025), particularly relevant when citation-based coupling is not feasible due to the non-indexed nature of the sources.

As shown in Figure 4, the concept of nanoenterprise is situated at the intersection of multiple dimensions. It is closely associated with gender and empowerment, informality, and local trade—suggesting that nanoenterprises are primarily embedded in subsistence economies shaped by social exclusion and survival-driven strategies. The gendered pathway emerges as particularly relevant, linking digital inclusion to empowerment and ultimately to nanoenterprise development. Additionally, informal conditions appear structurally connected to the lack of policy support, highlighting institutional gaps. Finally, the convergence of these themes toward the category “theoretical concepts” underscores the need for conceptual consolidation in the field, as the reviewed literature often remains empirically rich but theoretically fragmented.

To improve analytical cohesion and reduce fragmentation, the findings from the systematic review have been reorganized around three transversal analytical axes: (1) definitional and conceptual boundaries of nanoenterprises; (2) sectoral and geographical patterns; and (3) intersectional challenges related to gender, digital access, and territorial exclusion. Each of the original research questions (RQs) aligns with one or more of these axes, as summarized in

Table 6. Integration of research questions (RQs) within the revised thematic analytical framework.

Analytical Axis	Related Research Question (RQs)
3.2.1. Definitional and Conceptual Boundaries of Nanoenterprises	RQ1: How has the concept of nanoenterprises evolved in the scientific literature? RQ2 (part): What distinguishes nanoenterprises from micro- and small businesses?
3.2.2. Sectoral and Geographical Patterns	RQ3: In which sectors have nanoenterprises developed most? RQ2 (part): How do nanoenterprises differ contextually across sectors?
3.2.3. Intersectional Challenges: Gender, Digital Access, and Exclusion	RQ4: What challenges do women nanoentrepreneurs face, and what strategies have proven effective for their inclusion?

.

Thematic findings are presented below, structured along three transversal analytical axes proposed for this review. Each axis incorporates insights derived from one or more of the original research questions (RQs).

3.2.1. Definitional and Conceptual Boundaries of Nanoenterprises

This subsubsection addresses the definitional ambiguity and conceptual fragmentation that characterizes the current use of the term nanoenterprise in academic literature. The analysis includes how different authors define the concept, what criteria are used (e.g., size, informality, registration status), and how these definitions distinguish nanoenterprises from microenterprises or necessity-based entrepreneurship. This synthesis responds primarily to RQ1 and partially to RQ2.

The concept of nanoenterprises has developed unevenly and remains predominantly context-specific, lacking theoretical consolidation or universal recognition in academic literature. The reviewed studies reveal an evolution centered on operational definitions tied to self-employment, informality, and ultra-small operational scale.

Across the studies, nanoenterprises are consistently characterized by informality, low-capital self-employment, and a lack of access to credit, technology, or training. Most definitions emphasize survival entrepreneurship within subsistence contexts, particularly for women or marginalized communities. However, none of the reviewed articles proposes a formal definition or conceptual model, suggesting that the term “nanoenterprise” remains under-theorized.

González Flores (2015) pioneered the formal conceptualization of nanoenterprises as “a single-person economic unit lacking tax registration, utilizing personal resources and operating informally” (p. 9). This definition emerged from comparative observations across Mexico, Colombia, Italy, and Spain, explicitly distinguishing nanoenterprises from microenterprises based on three criteria, employee count, legal formality, and organizational structure.

Table 7. Definitions of nanoenterprise in the selected articles.

Ref.	Country of Study	Nanoenterprise Definition
(Chuc Pech & Canul Dzul, 2024)	Mexico	Rural business with no employees, local resources, informal economy.
(González Flores, 2015)	Mexico	Single-person unit, informal, no tax registration.
(Sulaiman et al., 2023)	Nigeria	Unregistered business, income < 3M NGN4/year.
(Alvarado Lagunas, 2021)	Mexico	Individual without labor contract or legal registration.
(Rodríguez Medina et al., 2023)	Mexico	Family unit of ≤3 people, no tax registration, precarious income.
(Canales-García et al., 2024)	Mexico	Portrayed as innovation-driven ventures operating, typically involving 1–2 individuals, often family-based.
(Cunanan et al., 2025)	Philippines	Informal, side-venture businesses initiated by public workers to generate supplemental income; typically, individually operated with minimal capital and no formal registration.
(Mendoza Guerrero et al., 2024)	Mexico	Defined implicitly through the concept of “NENIS” as ultra-small, informally operating women-led businesses using social media platforms for sales, often lacking physical premises and operating individually or within household spaces.
(Valencia-Sandoval et al., 2023)	Mexico	Framed as part of the informal trade sector, operated by individuals in highly precarious economic conditions with very limited financial, social, and technological resources.

provides a comparative synthesis of these definitional approaches.

Having examined the conceptual evolution of nanoenterprises in the scientific literature, it becomes essential to position this construct relative to other small-scale business categories, particularly microenterprises and small businesses. This comparative analysis is crucial for determining whether the term “nanoenterprise” merely represents discursive variation or, alternatively, describes a distinct organizational and economic reality.

The studies included in this review do not provide explicit comparative definitions distinguishing nanoenterprises, microenterprises, and small businesses. However, through content analysis, key common elements emerge that enable relevant distinctions. Nanoenterprises are characterized as subsistence-level units, typically individually or family-managed, lacking tax registration, excluded from formal financial systems, and demonstrating minimal capital accumulation capacity.

In contrast, microenterprises typically exhibit partial formalization, maintain a limited workforce (generally up to 10 employees), and operate with basic administrative structures. Small businesses, meanwhile, demonstrate greater operational capacity, higher formalization levels, and more established integration into local and regional markets.

To strengthen the conceptual distinctions between nanoenterprises, microbusinesses, and small businesses, the following

Table 8. Comparative characteristics among nanoenterprise, microbusinesses, and small business.

Part A: Nanoenterprises’ characteristics identified in the reviewed articles (Systematic Corpus)
Criteria	Nanoenterprise		Ref.
Size (people)	1–3 people, often self-employed or family-run.		(Mendoza Guerrero et al., 2024; Rodríguez Medina et al., 2023)
Legal status	Predominantly informal, no tax registration.		(Alvarado Lagunas, 2021)
Capital/Income	Subsistence-level, minimal capital.		(Chuc Pech & Canul Dzul, 2024)
Operational modality	Home-based, informal street or backyard work.		(Valencia-Sandoval et al., 2023)
Market scope	Local, community-oriented.		(Cunanan et al., 2025)
Part B: Conceptual comparison based on complementary literature (Not part of systematic corpus)
Criteria	Nanoenterprise (Based on Systematic Corpus literature included on Part A)	Microbusiness (Hussain & Tyagi, 2025)	Small Business (Giri & Mehrotra, 2019; Mazzarol & Reboud, 2020)
Size (people)	1–3 people	Up to 10 employees (OECD/EU definition).	11–49 employees (OECD/EU)
Legal formalization	Typically, informal	May be registered or not; in formalization process.	Typically formalized, with defined legal structure
Capital/annual income	<10,000 USD/year (estimated).	Moderate; income varies by context. 10,000–100,000 USD/year.	Stable income, access to credit/financing. >100,000 USD/year.
Operational modality	Individual or family-based, home-based or informal space.	Family or individual, may operate in local markets.	Structured operations with hired staff and physical location.
Access to financial services	Limited or nonexistent.	Partial, with restrictions.	Broader access to credit, insurance, and accounting systems.
Market coverage	Local or community-level.	Local or regional.	Regional or national.
Example sectors	Street vending, personal services, backyard agriculture.	Workshops, retail, fast food.	Manufacturing, logistics, specialized trade.

presents a two-part comparative typology. Part A synthesizes definitional traits and operational characteristics derived exclusively from the 12 peer-reviewed articles included in the systematic review, ensuring full methodological consistency with the PRISMA-guided corpus.

In contrast, Part B consolidates insights from complementary theoretical literature, which—while not included in the primary review—offers conceptual clarity and contextual framing to better situate nanoenterprises within the broader spectrum of business classifications. This dual structure allows for a transparent distinction between empirical findings from the selected articles and theoretical attributes derived from the wider academic discourse.

This revised Table 8 explicitly distinguishes between characteristics identified in the systematic corpus (Part A) and those synthesized from complementary literature (Part B). The aim is to clarify the conceptual positioning of nanoenterprises in relation to micro and small businesses without conflating external theoretical sources with the primary analytical base of this study.

Nanoenterprises occupy the most minimal end of the business spectrum in terms of both scale and formalization. These units are predominantly operated by single individuals or family units, lack tax registration, and generate minimal revenues—often below local minimum wage thresholds (Alvarado Lagunas, 2021; Mendoza Guerrero et al., 2024). They typically emerge in contexts of subsistence economies, labor informality, and precarity, with frequent presence in sectors such as street vending, personal services, or backyard agriculture.

These distinctions prove valuable not only for analytical purposes but also for developing targeted public policies. The failure to explicitly recognize nanoenterprises as a distinct category within small-scale economic units has hindered their statistical visibility and inclusion in productive support programs. Consequently, advancing the definition and characterization of these organizational forms becomes crucial for establishing more inclusive regulatory frameworks that respond to the realities of marginalized entrepreneurs.

Having established the structural distinctions between nanoenterprises and other small-scale productive units, it becomes essential to examine the specific economic sectors where these ventures predominantly concentrate. This sectoral analysis facilitates understanding of both the operational nature of nanoenterprises and the socioeconomic environments that foster their emergence and sustainability.

3.2.2. Sectoral and Geographic Patterns

This subsubsection examines the economic sectors and territorial contexts where nanoenterprises are most often identified. It explores the literature’s focus on rural trade, informal services, agriculture, and solidarity economies, as well as the geographic concentration of studies in Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines and Brazil. These patterns respond directly to RQ3 and supplement RQ2 by clarifying contextual distinctions.

The reviewed studies indicate that nanoenterprises predominantly emerge in sectors characterized by: (a) low entry barriers, (b) structural informality, and (c) subsistence-level or localized demand. These include economic activities such as informal trade, personal services, backyard agriculture, small-scale urban commerce, and more recently, digital platform-based ventures.

The predominance of these sectors appears driven not by strategic selection but by structural conditions of economic exclusion, limited access to formal employment, and immediate resource constraints.

Table 9. Sectoral distribution of selected articles.

Sector	Ref.	Countries	Approximate % of Total Articles
Informal trade	(Rodríguez Medina et al., 2023); (Alvarado Lagunas et al., 2021); (Ola-Akuma & Okocha, 2024); (Valencia-Sandoval et al., 2023)	Mexico, Nigeria	33.3%
Personal services	(Alvarado Lagunas, 2021); (Ola-Akuma & Okocha, 2024); (Mendoza Guerrero et al., 2024)	Mexico, Nigeria	25%
Rural agriculture	(Chuc Pech & Canul Dzul, 2024); (Cunanan et al., 2025)	Mexico, Philippines	16.7%
Solidarity economy	(Gussi & Thé, 2020), (Canales-García et al., 2024)	Brazil, Mexico	16.7%
Digital commerce/ICT	(Ola-Akuma & Okocha, 2024)	Nigeria	8.3%

details the most frequently represented sectors in the reviewed literature, based on the empirical contexts of the included studies.

The selected studies show that nanoenterprises are concentrated in specific sectors, particularly informal retail, agricultural trade, and home-based production. The activities are often embedded in subsistence economies and community-based distribution networks, with limited growth potential.

However, the adoption of technological platforms by nanoenterprises remains an emerging research area, characterized by significant gender gaps and connectivity barriers—particularly in rural regions and areas with limited digital infrastructure. Furthermore, the analysis reveals a notable absence of studies examining manufacturing, light industry, or tourism sectors, constraining our understanding of potential sectoral diversity in nanoenterprise operations. This limitation underscores the need for broader sectoral inclusion in future research to more accurately capture the productive diversity of these economic units.

While the sectors where nanoenterprises operate demonstrate established patterns of informality and precarity, these challenges intensify when examining women’s roles within these productive units. Gender emerges as a critical dimension for understanding the structural barriers that constrain access, sustainability, and growth in ultra-small-scale entrepreneurship, thereby introducing our final research question.

3.2.3. Intersectional Challenges: Gender, Digital Access, and Territorial Exclusion

This subsubsection focuses on the compounded barriers faced by nanoentrepreneurs—especially women—in accessing credit, training, digital platforms, and institutional support. It draws from studies that address structural exclusions shaped by gender, informality, rural location, and digital divides. This axis directly addresses RQ4 and also contributes to understanding the sociopolitical dimensions of nanoenterprise ecosystems.

It is important to note that the inclusion of gender as a thematic axis was not only based on the search string used but also emerged inductively during the coding and review process: five of the 12 included studies explicitly addressed women’s participation, challenges, or empowerment within nanoenterprises.

The analyzed studies consistently identify that women leading nanoenterprises face compounded challenges extending beyond those inherent to informal entrepreneurship. These structural barriers include the following factors:

• Limited financial access, with exclusion from formal credit systems and microfinance programs (Alvarado Lagunas, 2021; Cunanan et al., 2025).
• Minimal participation in business support networks, exacerbating isolation (Ola-Akuma & Okocha, 2024; Mendoza Guerrero et al., 2024).
• Domestic responsibility overload, reducing time for enterprise growth (Gussi & Thé, 2020).
• Technical/digital skill gaps, hindering technological adoption (Rodríguez Medina et al., 2023; Canales-García et al., 2024).
• Market exclusion and regulatory invisibility, particularly among informal street vendors operating in urban margins (Valencia-Sandoval et al., 2023).
• Gendered perception of entrepreneurial capacity, where women’s informal businesses are often undervalued or not recognized as legitimate economic activity (Mendoza Guerrero et al., 2024).

Collectively, these findings reinforce the notion that nanoentrepreneurship is not merely shaped by economic scarcity but by overlapping dynamics of gender inequality, digital exclusion, and institutional neglect. Some studies also underline the importance of intersectional strategies—such as localized training, community-based credit access, and digital literacy initiatives—to foster inclusive participation.

A most persistent challenge is financial exclusion. Women leading nanoenterprises typically lack credit history or collateral to qualify for formal microcredit. Sulaiman et al. (2023) Nigerian study reveals that 86% of nanoenterprise owners lack credit access—a situation disproportionately affecting women, who constitute merely 25% of funded entrepreneurs. While microfinance programs like PAPPS5 target women specifically, Gussi and Thé (2020) find their sustainability remains limited, with many beneficiaries failing to achieve economic autonomy.

The digital technology gap further compounds inclusion challenges for women nanoentrepreneurs. Ola-Akuma and Okocha (2024) Nigerian study reveals that 51% of female nanoentrepreneurs lack functional knowledge of e-commerce platforms. Their research also documents a gendered digital practice divide: while women primarily use social media for personal networking (82% of cases), male entrepreneurs predominantly employ these platforms for sales and business promotion (67% utilization rate).

These findings underscore how intersectional factors such as rurality, gender norms, and economic precarity, amplify digital exclusion. The domestic anchoring of women’s nanoenterprises through home-based operations and familial networks creates significant expansion barriers, particularly regarding access to formal market channels.

Finally, women face a double workload: productive and reproductive. This situation limits their time, mobility, and ability to take business risks. In the study by Alvarado Lagunas et al. (2021), married women and female heads of household who managed to formalize their businesses also showed greater participation in household decisions and community activities, suggesting that formalization and training can serve as empowerment levers. Despite the challenges, some studies document interventions with positive effects, as can be seen in

Table 10. Effective inclusion strategies for nanoenterprise.

Strategy	Observed Outcomes	Ref.
Gender-focused training	31.4% increase in self-confidence, 39.8% higher business formalization rate.	(Rodríguez Medina et al., 2023)
Solidarity microcredit (BNB program)	Strengthened community networks, 80% of women reported political empowerment.	(Gussi & Thé, 2020)
Family-based distribution networks (Yucatán)	Enabled product commercialization without formal market dependence.	(Chuc Pech & Canul Dzul, 2024)
Social media adoption	Limited but growing impact, Most prevalent among young women with secondary education.	(Ola-Akuma & Okocha, 2024)
Digital micro-enterprise training	Improved business formalization and digital skill acquisition among rural women.	(Canales-García et al., 2024)
Cooperative-based marketing platforms	Enhanced visibility of women’s informal businesses, improved negotiation capacity.	(Mendoza Guerrero et al., 2024)

.

The reviewed studies identify various strategies aimed at enhancing women’s inclusion in the nanoenterprise ecosystem, demonstrating positive outcomes across multiple dimensions. Gender-sensitive training programs have proven particularly effective, yielding significant improvements in both personal self-confidence (+31.4%) and business formalization rates (+39.8%) (Alvarado Lagunas et al., 2021). Similarly, solidarity microcredit initiatives implemented by Banco do Nordeste have strengthened community networks and fostered political empowerment, with 80% of female beneficiaries reporting enhanced self-esteem and civic participation (Gussi & Thé, 2020).

In rural contexts, family-based distribution networks, such as those documented in Yucatán, have enabled women to commercialize products without formal market integration, representing an adaptive strategy to economic constraints (Chuc Pech & Canul Dzul, 2024). Finally, while social media adoption as a sales channel remains limited, younger women with secondary education show higher engagement, suggesting digital tools as a potential inclusion pathway (Ola-Akuma & Okocha, 2024).

Recent studies reinforce these trends. Canales-García et al. (2024) highlight the impact of targeted digital microenterprise training, which has led to improved business formality and increased digital fluency among rural women. Additionally, Mendoza Guerrero et al. (2024) report that cooperative-based marketing platforms enhance women’s visibility in local markets, enabling collective negotiation and resource pooling, particularly for street vendors operating in urban peripheries. These findings underscore the need for inclusive, context-aware interventions tailored to the constraints of nanoentrepreneurial environments.

Collectively, these findings provide a comprehensive overview of current knowledge regarding nanoenterprises, encompassing their conceptualization, sectoral distribution, gender-related challenges, and positioning within scientific literature. Although the number of studies remains limited, the results reveal significant patterns that help delineate the unique characteristics of these economic units and their relationship with contexts of informality, exclusion, and resilience. The following section discusses these results in relation to existing theoretical frameworks, along with their implications for future research.

4. Discussion

Nanoentrepreneurship has emerged as a critical strategy for women’s economic autonomy in rural contexts. Unlike microenterprises and small businesses, nanoenterprises constitute ultra-small-scale productive units, typically operated by single individuals or family groups with minimal capital and subsistence-level operations. Yet their impact remains significant, serving as a pathway to financial inclusion and income generation in resource-constrained environments where access to training, markets, and institutional support is limited (Da Cunha et al., 2025).

The findings of this review gain deeper significance when interpreted through established theoretical frameworks. For instance, the diversity of nanoenterprise definitions and their rootedness in informal labor markets reflects what Chen (2012) describes as the “structural heterogeneity” of the informal economy—where actors operate under fragmented regulation, institutional voids, and social invisibility.

Welter’s (2011) contextual entrepreneurship framework helps explain why nanoenterprises are concentrated in geographically and socially marginalized environments. These contexts not only constrain resource access but also shape entrepreneurial motivations, strategies, and success criteria.

Moreover, Sarasvathy’s (2001) theory of effectuation offers a useful lens to understand the survival-oriented logic evident in nanoentrepreneurial activity. Rather than following a linear, growth-based path, these actors rely on improvisation, available means, and social ties—often prioritizing stability over scalability. Viewed through these lenses, nanoenterprises are not merely “smaller” businesses, but distinct forms of entrepreneurial agency shaped by constraint, context, and informality.

This review offers an original contribution to business knowledge by focusing on a type of economic unit that has been systematically ignored in mainstream academic literature. While traditional studies on MSMEs have centered on themes like competitiveness, resilience, and growth strategies (Malesu & Syrovátka, 2025; Lwesya & Mwakasangula, 2023), the analysis presented here reveals a parallel universe of ultra-small, informal, and frequently female-led businesses that operate under very different logics than formal MSMEs.

Unlike consolidated literature that assumes a linear path between informality, formalization, and expansion (Teka, 2022), the reviewed studies show that nanoenterprises do not necessarily aspire to this transition. In fact, many function as mechanisms of subsistence and community resistance rather than as business projects with scaling objectives. This also diverges from the competitiveness-oriented approach in digital and global markets that characterizes works like Kreiterling (2023), which analyzes digital innovation as a lever for business transformation. Nanoenterprises, conversely, innovate from social, relational, and domestic dimensions, using family networks, barter systems, or local alliances to sustain themselves.

Moreover, while recent reviews on MSME resilience in crisis contexts (Koporcic et al., 2025) emphasize the need for digitalization, government support, and access to global markets, the articles analyzed in this review show that not even minimum conditions of institutional inclusion are guaranteed for nanoenterprises. In many cases, women nanoentrepreneurs lack access to credit networks, technical training, or digital infrastructure, as documented in studies conducted in both Latin America and Africa.

From a gender perspective, this review also complements studies such as those by Goncalves and Ahumada (2025) and Rodríguez-Vera et al. (2025) on women entrepreneurs, by showing that in the case of nanoenterprises, gender is not just a demographic variable but a structural factor that conditions access to resources, social legitimacy, and economic autonomy. Women-led nanoenterprises face additional barriers related to care burdens, limited mobility, and exclusion from masculinized commercial networks—aspects poorly visible in traditional analyses of women entrepreneurs in sectors like tourism or technology (Rodríguez-Vera et al., 2025).

The systematic review and bibliometric analysis conducted reveal an emerging, fragmented, and still-evolving field of study centered on nanoenterprises. Despite growing academic and policy attention devoted to micro and small enterprises, nanoenterprises remain marginalized within business research—both in terms of publication volume and theoretical consolidation. To proceed with this section, each of the research questions outlined in Section 1 will be addressed based on the findings obtained.

While the primary insights in this section are derived from the reviewed corpus, complementary literature was incorporated to expand theoretical interpretation and propose a research agenda grounded in broader conceptual debates.

The discussion presented below is grounded exclusively in the 12 peer-reviewed articles selected through the systematic review process. Each subsection addresses one of the four research questions (RQs), drawing solely from the coded findings of the primary corpus. By maintaining this boundary, the internal coherence and methodological transparency of the review are preserved, ensuring that conclusions are based on the documented evidence within the established inclusion criteria.

4.1. RQ1: How Has the Concept of Nanoenterprises Evolved in Scientific Literature to Date?

The results demonstrate that the nanoenterprise concept has been applied contextually, operationally, and without standardization. While most studies characterize these units as single-person, informal operations lacking tax registration or formal credit access—typically engaged in subsistence-level or local market activities—no universally accepted definition or established theoretical framework exists to enable international comparisons.

Most of the reviewed articles use the concept operationally or empirically, without problematizing its relationship with existing categories such as informality, precarious entrepreneurship, or economic subsistence. Only one of the studies (González Flores, 2015) offers a systematized definition proposal. This hinders both the comparability between studies and the formulation of differentiated public policies.

Incorporating the additional four articles further reinforces the conceptual ambiguity that surrounds the term “nanoenterprise.” While earlier studies emphasized informal, family-run, or single-person ventures with minimal capital intensity (e.g., González Flores, 2015; Alvarado Lagunas, 2021), more recent research expands this conceptual terrain. Canales-García et al. (2024), for example, define nanoenterprises as informal digital ventures led by women in rural or semi-rural areas, often lacking access to stable internet or digital literacy. Similarly, Cunanan et al. (2025) emphasize a street-based manifestation of nanoenterprises characterized by low capital requirements, spatial precarity, and regulatory invisibility. These contributions underscore the growing heterogeneity within the conceptual domain of nanoenterprises, particularly as digital and spatial dynamics become more central.

Other authors propose definitional criteria rooted in economic necessity. Mendoza Guerrero et al. (2024) frames nanoenterprises as an intermediary category within the microenterprise spectrum, marked by minimal revenue thresholds and survival-oriented logics. This formulation echoes prior work by Sulaiman et al. (2023) in its emphasis on income ceilings and informal constraints. Valencia-Sandoval et al. (2023), on the other hand, conceptualizes nanoenterprises as self-employment solutions arising from institutional neglect, often in response to regulatory voids in Mexican urban centers.

Collectively, these studies suggest that the term “nanoenterprise” remains more operational than theoretical, serving as a descriptor of entrepreneurial responses to intersecting vulnerabilities—particularly gender, geography, and digital access—rather than a unified analytical category. This reinforces earlier claims that a consistent typological or definitional framework remains underdeveloped in the literature.

4.2. RQ2: Which Are the Main Characteristics and Differences Between Nanoenterprises, Microenterprises, and Small Businesses?

This type of entrepreneurship responds to subsistence logics rather than growth, limiting its accumulation capacity and integration into broader value chains. While microenterprises seek to insert themselves into local or regional markets with some degree of institutionalization, nanoenterprises typically operate in community, domestic, or itinerant spaces, with low incomes and no sustained access to credit, technology, or business support networks.

Regional studies have reinforced this micro-nano distinction by examining case-specific features in localized economies. For instance, research Chuc Pech and Canul Dzul (2024) explored nanoenterprises in rural Mexico engaged in backyard vegetable cultivation, emphasizing their non-monetized exchange systems, family labor reliance, and informality. Similarly, Gussi and Thé (2020) analyzed beneficiaries of solidarity credit programs in Brazil and identified a subset of ventures best described as nanoenterprises, based on their community-based distribution models and absence of legal registration. These works offer contextual depth to the definitional framework, supporting the analytical axes used in this review without being part of the systematic corpus itself.

The newly integrated studies reaffirm the distinctive traits that separate nanoenterprises from micro- and small businesses, particularly in terms of informality, scale, and gendered labor patterns. Canales-García et al. (2024) describe nanoenterprises as ultra-small, often home-based ventures operating at the margins of formal industry frameworks, such as Industry 5.0. Their findings underscore that these businesses tend to lack any technological sophistication and are instead sustained by low-tech, manual labor, usually performed by a single individual.

Similarly, Mendoza Guerrero et al. (2024) analyze the phenomenon of “Las Nenis” in Mexico—informal female-led businesses based on social media platforms and domestic logistics. These nanoenterprises are characterized by zero formal infrastructure, no salaried employees, and an operational scope limited to household-level income supplementation. This distinguishes them sharply from microenterprises, which typically exhibit minimal formal registration, modest capital investment, and occasional employment of third parties.

The lack of official recognition of these units in many national legislations not only hinders their statistical measurement but also leaves them outside the scope of public support programs.

4.3. RQ3: In Which Sectors Have Nanoenterprises Been Most Developed?

The results of this review show that nanoenterprises tend to concentrate in small-scale economic sectors, with minimal entry barriers and a strong presence of structural informality. Activities such as street vending, personal services, and urban self-employment are the most represented, particularly in contexts of labor precariousness and absence of opportunities in the formal market (Rodríguez Medina et al., 2023; Alvarado Lagunas, 2021; Ola-Akuma & Okocha, 2024).

Recent studies expand the understanding of sectoral dispersion of nanoenterprises by documenting their emergence in previously underexplored domains. Mendoza Guerrero et al. (2024) identify social media–mediated commerce as a rapidly growing nanoenterprise sector in Mexico, particularly among women entrepreneurs. These ventures, often referred to informally as “Las Nenis” operate through Facebook Marketplace and WhatsApp, selling clothing, cosmetics, and household goods. Despite their low capital requirements and informal nature, they demonstrate high adaptability to market fluctuations. This sector is marked by non-physical infrastructure and peer-based marketing, distinguishing it from traditional informal trade. Similarly, Canales-García et al. (2024) highlight nanoenterprises involved in artisanal production and micro-manufacturing in rural Mexico, albeit with limited engagement in technological upgrading, despite references to Industry 5.0 rhetoric.

Valencia-Sandoval et al. (2023) contribute evidence of nanoenterprises in the personal services and subsistence retail sectors during the COVID-19 crisis in Mexico, reinforcing the predominance of survival-oriented business models. Their findings indicate that these ventures often involve street-level food vending, mobile beauty services, or informal transportation—all embedded in informal urban circuits. Meanwhile, Cunanan et al. (2025) present nanoenterprises embedded within local government economies in the Philippines, often overlapping with precarious public employment arrangements.

These observations suggest that nanoenterprises not only operate in conventional sectors like informal trade and agriculture but are increasingly visible in emerging sectors such as digital commerce, micro-logistics, and hybrid public–private service delivery, all marked by ultra-low capital intensity and labor precarity.

4.4. RQ4: Which Challenges Do Women Nanoentrepreneurs Face and Which Strategies Have Proven Successful for Their Inclusion in the Business Ecosystem?

From a gender perspective, the analysis reveals women’s central role in establishing and maintaining these productive units, while simultaneously confronting multidimensional inequalities in resource access, technology adoption, and institutional representation. Several studies demonstrate nanoenterprises” potential for female empowerment, particularly when supported by training programs, peer networks, or solidarity economy frameworks.

The review results confirm that women leading nanoenterprises face multiple structural barriers that limit their capacity to start, sustain, and grow their ventures. Among the most recurrent obstacles are restricted access to credit, low digital literacy, double workload (domestic and productive), and exclusion from formal business support networks. These conditions are accentuated in rural or marginal contexts, where entrepreneurial opportunities are reduced to subsistence activities with low profitability. Although development discourses promote female entrepreneurship as an empowerment engine, in practice many women operate in precarious environments, without legal protection or institutional support (Alvarado Lagunas, 2021; Saavedra, 2024; Nordbø, 2022).

Facing this scenario, some studies identify inclusion strategies that have shown certain positive impact, though still limited. Gender-sensitive training has contributed to strengthening self-confidence and formalization of small businesses (Alvarado Lagunas et al., 2021), while solidarity microcredit programs, like those promoted by Banco do Nordeste, have fostered community network building and active participation of women in decision-making spaces (Gussi & Thé, 2020). In rural contexts, the use of family and community networks as distribution channels has enabled many women to commercialize without depending on the formal market (Chuc Pech & Canul Dzul, 2024).

However, access to digital tools remains unequal, and its adoption still strongly depends on age, education level, and socio-technological environment (Ola-Akuma & Okocha, 2024). Regarding inclusion strategies, Cunanan et al. (2025) report that flexible nanoentrepreneurship models within municipal economies in the Philippines can offer partial solutions for balancing domestic roles with income generation. Nonetheless, such arrangements often lack career progression or formal protection.

Canales-García et al. (2024) emphasize the need for context-specific training that integrates digital skills, rural connectivity, and gender-sensitive business mentoring. Their case study recommends embedding nanoenterprise programs within cooperative networks to mitigate isolation and build collective resilience.

Collectively, these studies call for targeted inclusion mechanisms that go beyond individual empowerment, advocating instead for structural changes in credit systems, education access, and digital infrastructure to foster sustainable engagement of women in the nanoenterprise ecosystem.

4.5. Toward a Conceptual Agenda for Nanoenterprise Research

While the reviewed literature confirms the relevance of nanoenterprises in sustaining livelihoods under conditions of informality and exclusion, it lacks theoretical cohesion. Drawing from this review, this article proposes a preliminary conceptual agenda to guide future research on nanoenterprises within the broader field of entrepreneurship studies.

• First, nanoenterprises should be distinguished as a category that operates outside the logics of growth, scalability, and formal institutional support. Unlike conventional microenterprises, they are deeply embedded in survival economies, often mediated by gendered labor, spatial marginality, and resource constraints.
• Second, future research should examine nanoenterprises through the lens of entrepreneurship under constraint (Welter et al., 2017), feminist political economy (Benería et al., 2015; Chen, 2012), and resource bricolage (Baker & Nelson, 2005), as these frameworks capture the non-linear, informal, and adaptive dynamics shaping nanoeconomic activity.
• Third, empirical studies should move beyond classification and description toward comparative typologies and translocal analyses, identifying how nanoenterprises differ not just in size, but in their ontological positioning within socioeconomic systems.
• Lastly, the present article calls for more attention to epistemological asymmetries in entrepreneurship research. Nanoenterprises are rarely theorized from the Global South upward, and existing models often fail to account for their systemic invisibility and policy marginalization. A critical engagement with “what counts” as entrepreneurship is thus essential.

Figure 5 provides a visual synthesis of the proposed conceptual agenda. It outlines four progressive directions for advancing nanoenterprise research: (1) recognizing nanoenterprises as embedded in survival-based entrepreneurial logics; (2) integrating feminist and constraint-based theoretical frameworks; (3) constructing comparative typologies that differentiate nanoenterprises from adjacent categories; and (4) engaging critically with the epistemic exclusions that limit their visibility in mainstream entrepreneurship studies.

Together, these directions offer a conceptual foundation for articulating nanoentrepreneurship as a valid and necessary analytical lens in the field.

Despite its methodological rigor, this review is constrained by the extremely limited number of peer-reviewed articles available on nanoenterprises. This scarcity restricts the generalizability of bibliometric patterns and limits the capacity for deeper statistical or longitudinal inferences. However, rather than being a methodological flaw, this limitation reflects the epistemic marginality of the topic and underscores the urgent need for scholarly engagement with nanoenterprises as an under-theorized entrepreneurial category.

5. Conclusions

This systematic and bibliometric review provides an original contribution to the study of nanoenterprises, a field that remains marginal in business research. Through detailed analysis of 12 studies selected under the PRISMA 2020 guidelines with the 10-step B-SLR approach, it is demonstrated that nanoenterprises constitute a distinct category of productive units characterized by their ultra-small scale, informality, subsistence orientation, and strong communal and gender dimensions.

In contrast to the dominant literature on MSMEs, this study reveals that nanoenterprises do not follow growth or competitiveness logics, but rather adaptive strategies in contexts of structural precarity. Far from constituting a lower tier within entrepreneurship, they represent legitimate forms of income generation, economic agency, and local sustainability, particularly in marginalized and rural territories.

The review also highlights the fundamental role of women in creating and sustaining these initiatives, along with the multiple obstacles they face regarding access to financing, networks, digital training, and institutional recognition. Despite these barriers, studies demonstrate that nanoenterprises can serve as spaces of empowerment and autonomy, provided they are supported by public policies that are territorially sensitive and gender-focused.

From a theoretical and methodological standpoint, the article identifies significant gaps: the absence of a consolidated conceptual framework, limited international comparability, the lack of longitudinal studies, and restricted sectoral and geographical coverage. These gaps present substantial opportunities for developing a robust research agenda committed to the territories where nanoenterprises emerge as creative responses to exclusion.

Key findings emerging from the analysis include the following points:

• Lack of a commonly accepted definition.
• Focus on basic needs on MSMEs.
• Geographical concentration of studies.
• Gender disparities.
• Sectoral limitations.
• Under analyzed transformative potential.

Collectively, this article contributes to the field of inclusive entrepreneurship by highlighting nanoenterprises as relevant—yet underrecognized—organizational forms operating at the intersection of informal economy, gender, and territory.

Although limited in number, the reviewed articles offer a unique window into a neglected area of entrepreneurship research. Rather than a limitation, this scarcity underscores the urgency of mapping and theorizing nanoenterprises systematically. The reduced corpus reflects structural gaps in visibility, not the irrelevance of the phenomenon itself.

Final Considerations: Epistemic Visibility and Research Inequalities

One of the more subtle findings of this review is the consistent publication of nanoenterprise-related research in regional, non-indexed journals, particularly from Latin America, Asia, and Africa. This fact points to an epistemic asymmetry in academic publishing—where knowledge emerging from subsistence contexts, informal economies, and the Global South is often excluded from high-impact, English-dominant platforms.

Such invisibility is not merely a matter of indexing but reflects deeper hierarchies of what counts as “valid” or “generalizable” knowledge. As noted by scholars of Southern theory and epistemic justice (Santos, 2014; Connell, 2007; Alatas, 2022), this marginalization limits the global dialog on alternative forms of entrepreneurship rooted in gendered labor, territorial exclusion, and adaptive economic strategies.

Elevating nanoenterprises as a legitimate subject of theory and policy requires not only empirical attention but also a transformation in the circuits of visibility, legitimacy, and academic power. Addressing these inequities is essential for building a more inclusive and representative field of entrepreneurship studies.

The reduced number of included studies and the low citation counts observed reflect not only a methodological limitation but also the epistemic marginality of the topic. Rather than weakening the review, this scarcity underscores the relevance of mapping the field and initiating theoretical consolidation.

While the restricted number of articles analyzed may limit the empirical breadth of this study, the findings should be interpreted as indicative rather than definitive. This review aims not to close the debate but to open a new scholarly dialog. By exposing the conceptual gaps and epistemic silences surrounding nanoenterprises, this work positions itself as a foundation for future empirical studies and theoretical development in this emergent area.

The study of nanoenterprises must transition from a peripheral concern to a strategic focus within local development analysis, popular economies, and inclusive entrepreneurship. Recognizing, understanding, and supporting these entities will not only enrich academic discourse but also contribute to democratizing economic policies from the grassroots level.