The Pathway to Startup Success: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of Critical Factors and the Future Research Agenda in Developed and Emerging Markets

Abstract

Notwithstanding the benefits derived from successful startup firms in the contemporary entrepreneurial landscape, for many startup firms, the pathway to success is extremely challenging; unfortunately, the failure rate is globally high. The aim of this article is to review empirical contributions regarding startup firms and provide a comprehensive analysis of the factors influencing their success in developed and emerging markets. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic search was undertaken within the Web of Science database, encompassing studies published between 2004 and 2024, which were analyzed. The PRISMA framework is preferred because it stands out from other guidelines due to its transparent and complete reporting and evidence-based recommendations. This work also employed aggregate impact estimation to rank the relative importance of each success factor regarding the success of startups. This article offers a comprehensive analysis of 24 success factors extracted from a systematic review of 48 empirical studies conducted on the subject. We prioritized each success factor according to their relative impact on the success of startup firms. These were classified as personal (entrepreneurial vision and leadership, adaptability, networking), organizational (team building, financial and resource management, innovation, strategy and marketing) and environmental factors (government support and dynamism of political, economic and cultural environment). The findings underscore the importance of a holistic approach that considers both internal and external factors in fostering startup success. However, it is essential to acknowledge that not all factors exert comparable effects on success; certain factors wield a substantial influence, whereas others demonstrate a significant yet lesser impact. Several conclusions and implications for startup founders, government policymakers and startup firm researchers are derived.

1. Introduction

In the dynamic landscape of contemporary business, startup firms have emerged as crucial players in driving economic growth in both advanced and developing countries [1,2,3]. A startup is a small emerging enterprise that is expected to identify or create a new need, an innovative and unique product or a scalable business model and achieve rapid and significant growth [4], being a critical catalyst for innovation and research and development [5,6]. Startups not only aim to solve real-world problems in the economy, technology, communication, ecology, leisure and entertainment [7], but are also a significant contributor to employment generation [8,9,10].

A startup is a relatively new and appealing business model that is being explored in a wider economic and industry context [4]. Startups, with their agility and propensity for disruptive innovation, have captured the attention of entrepreneurs, investors, policymakers and researchers. The global startup ecosystem has witnessed an unprecedented surge in entrepreneurial activity, marked by the proliferation of new ventures across various industries and regions [11].

Despite their well-established importance, unfortunately, the failure rates of startups are high globally, with estimates ranging from 50% [12] to 90% [13,14]. Given that entrepreneurship leads to economic growth, it is imperative to nurture more successful entrepreneurs to fuel economic growth, while minimizing the number of failed ventures, which waste valuable resources [1,15,16]. It is reasonable to infer that if we can better understand why startup firms succeed, we should be able to increase the success to failure ratio. However, it has proven extremely difficult to predict which ventures will succeed and which factors influence their success [17]. This has recently become a major topic because researchers have failed to understand, explain and predict why some businesses succeed and others fail [18,19].

Most importantly, currently, there is no widely agreed-upon definition for startups, with significant variations in different countries [13,20,21,22,23,24,25], as well as no agreed-upon, comprehensive and consistent definition of success [18,26,27] and no universally accepted model or theory that incorporates all aspects of startup success [1,17,28].

Several research attempts have been undertaken to explore the growth of the startup phenomenon over the last decade. These research works have either considered a holistic approach by examining startups across all industries, under the assumption of a uniform industrial setting and political environment across all sectors, regardless of where they operate [18,19,29,30,31], or focused on a specific success factor or industry [32,33,34,35,36]. Moreover, the findings of these studies have been reasonably inconsistent, with the knowledge being fragmented rather than building from previous findings, thus creating confusion as to the real success factors [10,37]. This is due to the nature of the specific samples, the industry type, the region and the time at which the research works were carried out [38].

In recent years, the literature surrounding startups has witnessed a significant increase in interest across economic, entrepreneurial, technological and innovational researchers. The increase in publications addressing this dynamic subject in both scholarly journals and monographs serves as a testament to the importance of this trend [18,19]. The fragmented and heterogeneous body of knowledge characterizing this rapidly advancing field necessitates further scrutiny and integration [10,37]. Consequently, conducting a comprehensive review of the accumulated knowledge pertaining to startups in developed and emerging markets could facilitate the formulation of an overall picture and identify research gaps and directions for future research studies [39].

Although there are a few studies that contribute to addressing this gap, it is important to acknowledge that these studies are not free from weaknesses. Sevilla-Bernardo and Sanchez-Robles [11] primarily focused on the success factors in the startup ecosystem, potentially overlooking internal factors and other contextual factors beyond regional contexts and their influence on startup firms. Simultaneously, José Santisteban [40] focused on identifying success factors associated with different stages of startups in the ICT sector and did not provide a detailed understanding of the specific nature of the success factors. Similarly, other research pertaining to this topic is characterized by several notable shortcomings: (1) the research tends to be excessively isolated, disjointed and dispersed, thereby engendering ambiguity regarding the real success factors for startup firms; (2) it offers merely a partial analysis of the success factors, ignoring, in many cases, a plethora of other important factors with a serious effect on success; (3) it lacks the in-depth categorization of the success factors, which could enhance their clarity and utility for stakeholders; (4) it fails to deliver a comprehensive understanding of the specific characteristics and comparative effects of each factor on startups’ success.

This article attempts to fill this gap in the literature by providing a comprehensive and insightful analysis of all success factors of startup firms based on a systematic review of 48 empirical studies conducted during the period of 2004–2024 in developed and emerging markets. To achieve the main objective, we use the PRISMA framework, which stands out from other guidelines due to its transparent and complete reporting and evidence-based recommendations, as well as ensuring the credibility and dependability of the outcomes. This study distinguishes itself by addressing emerging success factors for startups that have not been thoroughly explored in previous research. Moreover, differing from most existing review literature, we do not limit our focus to a single industry or country or the partial examination of success factors [31]. Rather, we provide a broader view of the success factors for startup firms in developed and emerging markets, which enables us to map the existing contributions. Furthermore, this research sets itself apart from prior studies through its novel insights in developing a multifaceted classification framework for the success factors and prioritizing each success factor in terms of their relative impacts on the success of startup firms. This introduces a new perspective that has not been widely explored previously.

Motivated by the above, this systematic literature review endeavors to build upon the foundation laid by previous works, addressing their identified weaknesses and examining unexplored areas. Specifically, the main objective of this work is threefold: (1) to extract, compile and synthesize the existing body of knowledge pertaining to the nature of success factors and their relation with the growth and success of startups; (2) to analyze the characteristics, content and impact of each success factor as they pertain to the strategic decision-making processes of startup founders and stakeholders; and (3) to formulate overarching conclusions regarding the success factors of startups, identify research gaps and outline a future research agendum, along with implications for various stakeholders. The subsequent sections of this article are structured in accordance with these three objectives.

The rationale for the selection of developed and emerging countries for this review study includes several key factors. First, the literature on startups in developed and emerging markets is expanding, reflecting their importance in the global economy. This growing body of research provides a solid foundation for further studies, making it a compelling area for new contributions. Second, these regions have a high startup density and contribute substantially to the GDP and job creation. Third, they serve as global innovation hubs, attracting talent and investment. Reviewing studies conducted in these areas could provide insights into the factors that drive success in high-performing startup environments, which may not be as visible in less developed regions.

There is no doubt that establishing and maintaining a startup business can be a challenging and complex. However, understanding the key success factors can help entrepreneurs to follow the correct path [41]. In addition, the founders of startup businesses are keen to understand the factors that contribute to success in their endeavors. Equipped with this knowledge, they can assess their own prospects and potential challenges [18].

The significance of this review lies in its pragmatic and scholarly ramifications. For individuals involved in business ventures and the establishment of new companies, a comprehensive understanding of the factors that lead to success can offer valuable guidance in making strategic decisions and enhance the probability of both survival and growth. Investors can benefit from gaining insights into the criteria to consider when evaluating startups with considerable growth potential. Policymakers can employ the findings to establish ecosystems that are more supportive of startups, tailored to the specific requirements of distinct industries and regions. For scholars, this review contributes to the ongoing academic dialog on entrepreneurship and the achievement of success in startup ventures. By identifying areas that require further investigation and synthesizing the current body of knowledge, it provides guidance for future research and presents a comprehensive and insightful analysis of the critical success factors that shape the outcomes of startup firms.

The remainder of this article is organized into five sections. Section 2 outlines the research methodology employed. Section 3 offers a descriptive analysis of the selected literature. Section 4 presents the results and discussion. Finally, in Section 5, we present the conclusions, implications and potential directions for future research.

2. Materials and Methods

In this paper, we present a systematic review dealing with the success factors of startup firms. A systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of the scientific contributions on a particular topic, utilizing replicable and transparent methods [42]. According to Tranfield and Denyer [43], a systematic literature review ensures the comprehensive coverage of the existing research on a particular topic. It minimizes the risk of overlooking relevant studies, providing a thorough understanding of the current state of knowledge. A review employs defined systematic methods to collate and synthesize the findings of studies that address a well-formulated question [44].

This study conducted a systematic literature review with the use of the Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This is preferred over other methods for literature review analysis because it adheres to rigorous methodological standards that enhance the validity of the findings and reduces bias [42,45]. The framework consists of a series of steps, including the identification and screening of the papers; analyzing the retrieved papers; and presenting the results [44].

Historically, the establishment of PRISMA occurred in 1987, when Mulrow conducted an analysis of 50 review articles and published four manuscripts in prominent medical journals from 1985 to 1986 [46]. Interestingly, in 2005, the methodology underwent revision and was expanded to include a twenty-seven-point checklist, which encompassed a four-phase PRISMA diagram, aimed at ensuring the credibility and dependability of the outcomes. Consequently, PRISMA offers a transparent and well-structured framework for reporting, which has undergone continuous refinement [45]. Over the years, PRISMA has gained global acceptance and become a widely utilized framework for systematic reviews and meta-analyses across various disciplines [44]. In addition, to complement the qualitative analysis, a keyword co-occurrence analysis was conducted using the VOSviewer software version 1.6.20. The analysis was based on author keywords extracted from the final dataset of 48 articles. Binary counting was applied, and a minimum occurrence threshold of 2 was set to identify the most significant terms. The co-occurrence map generated by VOSviewer was used to identify distinct clusters of related keywords, providing a visual representation of the thematic structure of the literature on critical success factors for startups.

2.1. Search Materials and Data Sources

To ensure the comprehensiveness and reliability of the data, this study acquired data sources from the Web of Science (WOS) database. These sources encompassed the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Social Sciences and Humanities (CPCI-SSH), as well as two chemical databases. The WOS database is recognized as one of the world’s largest and most comprehensive data resource platforms, covering a wide array of disciplines and having a significant volume of high-quality literature. This provided a solid foundation for the data collection in this study. The PRISMA method involves four main steps: identifying relevant research through database searches, screening abstracts, conducting full-text assessments of the retrieved publications, and making decisions based on eligibility criteria (see Figure 1).

This study applied the following steps for data collection. First, it is essential to identify the precise search terms for data retrieval. This study searched for “success factors and startups” to determine the terms. We conducted extensive literature reading that included top-rated international journals related to the field of entrepreneurship. We used the following search string for the titles, abstracts and keywords: (success factor) AND (startups OR startups OR startup OR startup).

Second, as mentioned above, the data for this study were obtained from the WOS Core Collection database, ensuring the inclusion of the mainstream journals in the field of entrepreneurship research. Third, the literature retrieved in this study spanned from 1 January 2004 to 2 April 2024 (finally retrieved on 2 April 2024), covering all disciplines related to the success factors of startup firms in the WOS database, for a total of 20 years.

Fourth, we performed an extensive search within the Web of Science database, focusing on the domains of Social Sciences, Science and Technology, Technology, Life Sciences and Physical Sciences. The study of success factors in startup firms is inherently multidisciplinary, encompassing various fields, such as management, economics, technology and the social sciences. By not restricting our initial search, we aimed to capture a wide range of quality research across these disciplines to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the critical success factors affecting startups. This approach allowed us to gather diverse perspectives and insights, which are essential for a detailed analysis of the factors contributing to startup success.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

In order to focus on the research contributions that were the most relevant to the topic under investigation, five inclusion and three exclusion criteria for the research papers were identified, as reported in

Table 1. Inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion Criteria
Inclusion Criteria	Reason for Inclusion
Focus of abstract	Studies that identify critical success factors and, ideally, those that categorize these factors
Level of analysis	Adopting a microbusiness rather than a macroeconomic perspective in examining the factors
Use of methodology	Papers that indicate the research methodologies included
Place	Only research dealing with developed and emerging markets
Document type	Only papers published in journals and review papers
Language	Only papers published in English language
Research area	All types of research disciplines
Year of publication	Papers published after 2004
Exclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria	Reason for Exclusion
Document type	Exclude books, book chapters, conference proceedings and dissertations
Use of methodology	Exclude papers that do not indicate the methodology
Focus of abstract	Exclude papers that do not clearly indicate the subject

.

Accordingly, based on the above inclusion and exclusion criteria, we further read the titles and abstracts of the literature to remove the irrelevant articles. Figure 1 shows the screening process via the PRISMA flow diagram.

As illustrated in the PRISMA flow diagram below, the initial search yielded 513 records. Subsequently, we eliminated 211 records using filters for the year and document type, leaving 302 records for screening. A datasheet was then created, containing the title, author name, year of publication and abstract. Following further screening based on the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, a final total of 48 studies were included in the review. It is important to note that a significant portion of the articles included in this review focused on knowledge-intensive technology startups. This reflects the current emphasis in the literature, where technology-driven ventures are frequently examined due to their high growth potential and unique challenges. While the critical success factors (CSFs) identified may be applicable to a broad range of startups, readers should consider the potential bias towards technology-focused studies.

3. Descriptive Analysis

The objective of the descriptive analysis was to provide an initial examination of the papers that focused on the topic of success factors within the framework of startup firms. In order to conduct the descriptive analysis, a total of 48 selected papers were scrutinized from four different viewpoints, namely papers over a period of time, papers across various journals, papers categorized by their methodology and papers focused on a particular study region.

3.1. Papers over Time

The trends of the publications as can be seen in Figure 2, which indicates that there has been an increase in the number of contributions on this topic. The papers included in this review were articles published between 2004 and 2024. However, more than 60 percent of the studies were published after 2018. A significant number of contributions was published in 2023 (11 papers). This study, therefore, seems timely, given the recent rise in the number of academic papers addressing the factors that influence the success of startups.

3.2. Papers Across Journals

Figure 3 provides a detailed overview of the journals in which the selected articles were published. Notably, this topic spans multiple disciplines, with the selected literature encompassing 34 different journals. In particular, Sustainability published the most articles (four), followed by Small Business Economics and Frontiers in Psychology, each with three articles.

3.3. Analysis by Methodology

Regarding the methodologies employed in the papers, most were based on quantitative approaches, while fewer utilized qualitative or mixed methods. Out of the total 48 articles, 26 adopted quantitative methods, which included surveys, mathematical models and simulation models. The surveys employed diverse means of data collection, namely e-mail (one), online forms (two), face-to-face (eight) and telephone (one). On the other hand, 18 articles employed qualitative methodologies and incorporated case studies, ground theory and meta-analyses; lastly, the remaining four articles employed mixed methods by combining qualitative and quantitative methodologies.

3.4. Analysis of Studies by Geographic Location

In research grounded in narrative exposition, it is customary to consider the location as a pivotal factor, as the location is typically linked to cultural attributes and regional circumstances. These disparities may also offer valuable perspectives on the level of significance attributed to successful startup companies. The variable of the location in our examination is denoted by the term “country”, referring to the specific area of focus for the research. Additionally, we incorporate an analysis at the continental level to comprehend the regional variance within the study area.

From the total of 48 papers that were analyzed in this review, it was found that the majority of the studies were conducted in the United States of America and Germany. These two countries accounted for the largest number of papers, with a total of 10 studies. This represents approximately 24% of all studies that were considered in this review, as shown in the following

Table 2. Geographical distribution of articles in the top 10 countries and by continent.

Country	No. of Publications	Percentage	Continent	No. of Publications	Percentage
Germany	5	12%	Europe	22	54%
USA	5	12%	Asia	12	29%
Spain	4	10%	North America	5	12%
China	3	7%	Oceania	1	2%
Indonesia	2	5%	South America	1	2%
India	2	5%
Denmark	1	2%
France	1	2%
Jordan	1	2%
Chile	1	2%

.

In terms of the number of articles per “continent”, the most represented regions are as follows: Europe with 22 articles (54%), Asia with 12 (29%), North America (USA) with 5 (12%) and, finally, Oceania and South America, each with one article (2%) (see Table 2). Notably, Africa has no contributions among these studies. Europe and North America account for over 66% of the articles, while South America and Oceania collectively represent just over 4% of the articles. These findings reflect the academic research culture in North America and Europe, suggesting that developed countries have given significant attention to startup firms and their success.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Success in Startups

The literature lacks a comprehensive and consistent definition of success in the context of entrepreneurship [27]. The definition of success in the literature is multifaceted and depends on the specific industry and context being studied. Furthermore, success in startup firms can be defined in various ways, and different stakeholders may have different perspectives on what constitutes success. Therefore, the definition of success in the literature is not unanimous and remains unclear. However, success can be defined as the achievement of the desired outcomes or goals. In the context of entrepreneurship, success can refer to the performance or survival of a new business venture [26]. While achieving profitability and financial sustainability is a fundamental aspect of success for startups, there are several dimensions that collectively contribute to defining success for startup firms.

Table 3. Definitions of success.

Definition of Success	Reference
A firm’s duration of business or survival	[26,47]
The achievement of desired outcomes or goals or firms’ performance improvement (e.g., sales and profits)	[18]
An impact on household incomes	[27]
Product innovation	[48]
An increase in economies of scale and network externalities	[49]
Financial strength and internationalization	[49,50]
An increase in the social networks and experience of entrepreneurs and a sufficient amount of funds collected for a project	[51]
Growth in terms of the number of employees	[26]

shows the different definitions of success found in the selected studies.

4.2. Factors That Influence the Success of Startup Firms and Their Influence Across Regions

In the current review, factors are defined as the elements that can determine the success or failure of a startup. The antecedents and success factors of startup firms were found to be complex and dependent on multiple factors. While there have been studies focused on the success factors of startup firms, the outcomes are fragmented and controversial due to methodological differences and study structure variations [27]. Among the chosen publications, 24 success factors have been recognized based on statistical evidence.

Table 4. Factors that influence the success of startup firms and their regional emphasis.

Factor ID	Factor	Definition	Reference	Regional Emphasis
F1	Founding team Previous experience	Relevant industry experience and expertise of the startup’s founders and team members.	[32,34,35,48,52,53,54]	Shared in both regions
F2	Founders’ vision	The ability of the founders to articulate a clear vision for the company, make strategic decisions and provide effective leadership to guide the team and to fulfill its mission.	[6,18,27,50,54,55,56]	Shared in both regions
F3	Personal behavior of founder	These personal characteristics, among others, collectively shape the founder’s approach to building and leading a startup.	[6,27,34,54,57,58]	Shared in both regions
F4	Team	Having a skilled, committed and cohesive team with complementary expertise.	[27,32,52,57,59,60,61]	Shared in both regions
F5	Organizational governance	Effective management and decision-making processes within the startup.	[60,62]	More influential on developed markets
F6	Customer centricity	Placing the customer at the center of business strategies and decision-making.	[52,60,63]	More influential on developed markets
F7	Communication	Effective communication with stakeholders, including customers, employees and investors.	[48,62]	Shared in both regions
F8	Responsiveness	Ability to adapt and respond quickly to market changes and customer needs.	[64]	More influential on emerging markets
F9	Innovation management	Systematic approach to managing and fostering innovation within the startup.	[48,49,50,55,65,66]	Shared in both regions
F10	Entrepreneurial culture	Fostering a culture that encourages innovation, risk-taking and an entrepreneurial mindset.	[48,55,62,65]	Shared in both regions
F11	Funding	Availability of financial resources to support business operations and growth.	[27,32,55,56,63,66,67,68,69,70]	Shared in both regions
F12	Networking or partnering	Building and leveraging professional connections and relationships for business opportunities.	[27,36,54,59,61,68]	Shared in both regions
F13	Government support	The financial sponsorship of the government, through seed capital, at the initial stage of the startup; support programs are also included, especially for startups.	[53,64]	Shared in both regions
F14	Dynamism of the environment	The high pace of changes in the external environment of the company.	[26,34,36,53,55,56]	Shared in both regions
F15	Technological resources and uses	The availability of technological resources and firms’ inclination towards new information technology.	[6,48,49,71,72]	Shared in both regions
F16	Professional knowledge	The expertise and knowhow possessed by the founders and key team members.	[65,71,73]	More influential on developed markets
F17	Family backgrounds of entrepreneurs	The history and experience of a founder’s family in entrepreneurial activities.	[52]	More influential on developed markets
F18	Marketing	Developing and implementing effective marketing strategies to create awareness, attract customers and build a strong and recognizable brand.	[27,52,54,55,60,65]	Shared in both regions
F19	Service or product quality	Delivering high-quality products or services that meet or exceed customer expectations.	[49,71,74]	Shared in both regions
F20	Process	Well-defined and efficient operational processes to ensure smooth business operations.	[36,48]	Shared in both regions
F21	Opportunity recognition	The ability to identify and capitalize on viable business opportunities in the market.	[61,75]	Shared in both regions
F22	Timing	Strategic entry into the market at the appropriate moment. Being in sync with market trends and customer demands.	[26,27]	Shared in both regions
F23	Idea	The concept or proposition that the startup brings each time to the market.	[26,60]	Shared in both regions
F24	Business plan	A comprehensive document outlining the startup’s roadmap for the achievement of success.	[27,60,68]	More influential on developed markets

summarizes the identified critical success factors (CSFs) for startup firms. This table also highlights the regional emphasis of each factor, indicating whether it is shared across both markets or is more influential in developed versus emerging market contexts.

The analysis presented in Table 4 reveals that, while many CSFs, such as the founders’ vision (F2), team cohesion (F4) and innovation management (F9), are critical across both developed and emerging markets, certain factors show a distinct regional emphasis. For instance, organizational governance (F5) and business plan development (F24) are more influential in developed markets, where structured management practices and strategic planning capabilities are well established. In contrast, factors like responsiveness (F8) and government support (F13) play a greater role in emerging markets, reflecting the need for agility and reliance on local initiatives due to regulatory and financial constraints.

4.3. Cluster Analysis Results

Cluster analysis is a powerful statistical technique used to group similar items based on their characteristics, facilitating the exploration of complex datasets. Likewise, keyword co-occurrence analysis serves as a critical tool for the identification of relationships between research topics by examining how frequently keywords appear together within the academic literature. By clustering keywords that frequently co-occur, researchers can uncover underlying themes and trends and the intellectual structure of a field, thereby providing valuable insights into the evolution of research areas and the connections between different concepts.

The VOSviewer co-occurrence analysis revealed five main clusters representing distinct themes related to the critical success factors for startup firms. These clusters include (1) strategic growth and technology; (2) entrepreneurs, entrepreneurial ecosystems and gender diversity; (3) industry-specific factors; (4) external support mechanisms; and (5) general business success factors. Each cluster is represented by a different color in the co-occurrence map (Figure 4). The VOSviewer software also produced a density visualization of the keyword co-occurrence network related to critical success factors of startup firms, as presented in Figure 5.

Cluster 1: Entrepreneurial Role and Entrepreneurial Ecosystem (Green). This cluster revolves around keywords such as entrepreneur, entrepreneurial ecosystem and business success. It emphasizes the critical roles of entrepreneurs, personal networks and access to resources within the entrepreneurial ecosystem. This cluster highlights the foundational characteristics of entrepreneurs, including leadership and strategic decision-making, along with the systemic factors that nurture entrepreneurial success.

Cluster 2: Strategic Growth and Technology (Red). This focuses on growth strategies for startups, with keywords such as startup, survival, sustainability and technology. This cluster emphasizes innovation efforts, technology adoption, sustainability practices and survival tactics. It focuses on growth strategies, technology adoption and sustainability, which are key organizational capabilities that contribute to small firms’ success. It also reflects the current trends in research focusing on the integration of technology and sustainability, particularly for startups, which are increasingly relevant in today’s economic and environmental landscape.

Cluster 3: Organizational and Strategic Foundations (Purple). Centered on keywords such as business success, company and firm, this cluster explores general organizational factors contributing to startup success. It highlights strategic planning and core business practices, essential in the early stages of business development.

Cluster 4: Critical Success Factors and External Support (Yellow). This cluster includes keywords like critical factor and incubator. It emphasizes the role of external support mechanisms, such as incubators and accelerators, in providing startups with essential resources like mentorship, funding and infrastructure. The term critical factor reflects the identification of determinants that are central to startup success.

Cluster 5: Industry-Specific Applications (Blue). Keywords such as firm and biotechnology suggest this cluster’s focus on industry-specific success factors. This group highlights the unique challenges and the strategies employed in highly specialized sectors like biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, where regulatory frameworks and technological advancements are crucial for success.

To provide a comprehensive understanding of the critical success factors for startups, we combined qualitative insights with bibliometric cluster analysis. Our qualitative multifaceted framework, presented in the subsequent section, categorizes the success factors into the personal, organizational and environmental domains, reflecting key dimensions of entrepreneurial success. By integrating these categories with the clusters generated through VOSviewer, we establish a cohesive narrative that bridges qualitative interpretations and quantitative data patterns. This approach enhances the robustness of our findings, revealing both thematic consistencies and unique contributions from each method.

Table 5. Summary of the cluster analysis and its relations with the multifaceted classification framework.

Category	Related Cluster(s)	Key Themes Identified
Personal/Entrepreneurial Factors	Cluster 1 (Entrepreneurial Role and Entreprenurial Ecosystem)	Entrepreneurial traits, personal networks, leadership and ecosystem support
Firm-Level/Organizational Factors	Cluster 2 (Startup Growth and Technology Integration)	Growth strategies, technology adoption, sustainability, strategic planning and foundational business practices
	Cluster 3 (Organizational and Strategic Foundations)
Environmental Factors	Cluster 4 (Critical Success Factors and External Support)	External support mechanisms (incubators, accelerators), mentorship, funding, industry-specific strategies and regulatory frameworks
	Cluster 5 (Industry-Specific Applications)

below provides a clear linkage between the clusters from the VOSviewer analysis and the qualitative framework categories, ensuring the cohesive presentation of our findings.

4.4. The Nature of Success Factors

A significant body of research indicates that the factors contributing to the success of startup businesses can be categorized into three overarching domains: individual factors, firm-related factors and factors associated with the external business environment [76,77,78,79,80]. Numerous previous studies exploring the growth and success of startups also assert that individual determinants, external factors and firm characteristics directly impact success [76,78,79,81].

Despite the practical advantages of this classification, for analytical purposes, in this study, we provide a new classification framework. In this framework, personal factors can be broken down into entrepreneurial vision and leadership, adaptability and networking; organizational factors can be separated into team building, financial and resource management, innovation and strategies and marketing; and environmental factors are divided into government support and the dynamism of the political, economic and cultural environment (see Figure 6).

This multifaceted classification framework integrates numerous prior endeavors aimed at delineating success factors, including those documented by Sevilla-Bernardo and Sanchez-Robles [11], Pasayat and Bhowmick [27] and Lampadarios and Kyriakidou [80]. To evaluate the robustness of this comprehensive framework and its associated content, the following methodological steps were implemented. Initially, a thorough examination of the relevant literature was conducted, employing both manual and electronic search techniques, which yielded 32 identified success factors; subsequently, the preliminary compilation of the success factors was meticulously analyzed to identify those that exhibited the greatest relevance, significance and prevalence, culminating in a refined list of 25 items; finally, independent researchers were asked to categorize the unclassified final compilation of success factors into each of the four analytical groups, followed by a comparative analysis of their classifications until a consensus was achieved.

Due to the diverse methodologies employed for the presentation of results in the analyzed studies (specifically, absolute numbers, percentage distributions and mean scores), it became essential to convert these figures into rank scales arranged in ascending order of frequency, intensity or significance. This conversion revealed substantial discrepancies among the studies, which could be partially ascribed to the various research methodologies utilized, including differences in the fieldwork duration, the country of origin among the startups, the industry in which they operated, the unit of analysis and the measurement scales employed. Appendix A delineates the success factors scrutinized, along with the distinct rankings assigned in the reviewed studies, while

Table 6. Aggregate impact of success factors for startups and success factor frequency histogram.

Very High Impact
Opportunity recognition
Personal behavior of the founder
Founding team’s previous experience
Founder’s vision
Funding
High Impact
Team
Service or product quality
Family background of entrepreneurs
Networking or partnering
Communication
Professional knowledge
The use of information technology
Moderate Impact
Responsiveness
Business idea
Customer centricity
Timing
Innovation management
Business plan
Process
Marketing
Low Impact
Government support
Organizational governance
Dynamism of the political, economic and sociocultural environment
Entrepreneurial culture

N.B. The success factor histogram displays the frequency with which each success factor is mentioned in the reviewed studies.

organizes these success factors based on their cumulative impacts1. Each success factor is subjected to a more comprehensive analysis subsequently, following their sequence of appearance within the classification framework presented in Figure 6.

4.4.1. Personal Factors

(a)

Entrepreneurial Vision and Leadership

The founding team’s previous work experience: The literature notes that previous experience has a positive influence on startup firms’ performance [14,82,83,84,85,86,87,88]. Founders who have accumulated experience about the market and the resources in the sector are important for the success of startups [2,89,90,91,92,93,94]. Entrepreneurs with prior experience are more likely to avoid costly mistakes and have a distinct advantage in establishing and sustaining ventures [95]. These findings suggest that previous work experience provides entrepreneurs with valuable knowledge and skills that can contribute to the success of startup firms.

Personality and behavior (traits) of the founder: In the literature, there are a number studies indicating that the owner’s personality traits and qualities play an important role in startup success [14,15,41,85,86]. Personality traits, such as the need for achievement, innovativeness, an internal locus of control and risk propensity, were found to have a significant impact on startups’ success and growth [57,58,79,96,97]. Similarly, the growth and success of startups primarily depend on specific personal characteristics, such as flexibility, an adventurous spirit and attention to detail, which significantly and positively influence their success [89].

Founder’s vision: A vision is a foundational personal factor influencing startup success. Visionary leaders articulate a compelling direction for the startup, inspiring and aligning the team towards common goals [98]. Founders play a crucial role in shaping the vision of the venture and communicating it effectively to stakeholders. They also provide the necessary leadership by ensuring the best decision-making and inspire the team towards achieving the vision [49].

Professional knowledge (education level): Previous studies indicate that the education level of the owner impacts business success and should therefore be regarded as a critical success factor for small firms [83,87,96,99]. A number of studies indicate that education has positive correlations with entrepreneurial performance [6,27,34,54,88,100,101]. Education improves skills such as searching, foresight, imagination and computational and communication skills, which are crucial for business success. Moreover, specific forms of knowledge-intensive education, such as engineering and computer science, provide recipients with an advantage when starting a business related to their area of expertise [102].

Opportunity recognition: Sarwoko and Frisdiantara [97] argue that individual factors such as being able to identify opportunities and generate creative ideas in response to market changes are crucial for businesses to grow. Brandstätter [103] found that who respond to an opportunity proactively exhibit innovation and this has significant correlations with business creation and business success. The author argues that opportunity recognition is favorable both for the business’ foundation and its success. In their study, Lumpkin and Dess [104] found that proactiveness in responding to opportunities is an effective strategy for firms operating in dynamic environments or in growth-stage industries where the conditions are rapidly changing and opportunities for advancement are abundant.

(b)

Adaptability and Resilience

Responsiveness and resilience: Resilience and responsiveness are also identified as critical factors contributing to success [60]. The ability of the founders to adapt to changing circumstances and overcome setbacks is a key personal factor. Resilient entrepreneurs navigate challenges with a positive mindset, learning from failures and adjusting their strategies as needed. Responsiveness is essential in dynamic startup environments. To thrive, startups need to be responsive and resilient in order to navigate through challenges and changes in the business environment [89].

Entrepreneurial culture: Studies acknowledge that the entrepreneurial culture is a key component for organizational success [104,105,106,107]. Davis and Greg Bell [106] argue that top managers who foster an entrepreneurial culture characterized by high tolerance for risk, encourage innovative activities and demonstrate a strong degree of proactiveness will positively influence firm performance. The introduction, growth and long-term survival of startups depend largely on the entrepreneurial abilities and enterprise knowledge of the individuals who own and manage these businesses [107]. Various studies conducted in different countries have found a positive relationship between the entrepreneurial culture and business performance including [108] in Taiwan, [109] Hungary, and [110] Turkey.

Organizational governance: The organizational setup of the new firm [63] and the decisions and actions taken to identify and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities play a role in determining success [49]. The governance factors that influence entrepreneurial performance include the levels of decentralization, formalization, flexibility and adaptiveness. This includes factors related to planning, learning and strategic flexibility and resource control [26]. Several studies have revealed that organizational governance has a positive and meaningful impact on business success [16,98,111]. It is widely accepted in the business literature that efficient governance by the founder or the manager is essential for startups [9,17,37,87,88].

(c)

Networking and Collaboration

Business network: Oliva and Teberga [2] argue that a solid network of contacts and networks with other companies are key factors for small firms’ success. Several studies indicate networks have positive correlations with entrepreneurial performance [6,27,34,54,112]. Successful founders actively engage in networking and relationship-building. Oliva and Teberga [2] argue that a network of partnerships or strategic alliances with other companies is an important factor for success because it enables startups to leverage resources from network partners to compensate for their own resource deficiencies. Networking enhances visibility and opens doors to partnerships. Establishing and developing external relations, including personal and business networks, is essential for startups to access resources, gain support and foster growth and innovation [50].

Family background of the business: A number of studies have noted that the family background of the entrepreneur has a positive correlation with entrepreneurial performance [6,27,34,54]. Zafar and Khan [100] found that successful entrepreneurs were influenced by their family background, particularly having a father or maternal uncle in business, which likely shaped their entrepreneurial aspirations through the support of their family and friends.

4.4.2. Organizational Factors

(a)

Team Building and Collaboration

Organizational team: The literature highlights the importance human capital, which includes the core team’s attitudes and abilities, as well as expertise and commitment, for startup firms’ success [49,57,60,61,63]. A number of authors have found a significant and positive relationship between human capital and firm performance [113,114,115,116]. Human capital in the form of teams run by more experienced owners with vocational qualifications and fewer outside options seem to survive longer [12]. Human capital or staffing is considered a significant variable in prediction models [82,99].

Organizational communication: Internal organizational communication is crucial for success. Effective team building and collaboration foster a culture of innovation and high performance. Similarly Crook and Todd [117] argued that founders who invest in building diverse and skilled teams create environments that are conducive to creativity and problem-solving. Founding teams with better communication and mutual trust, demonstrating the capabilities to learn, adapt and collaborate, will lead to more effective work and better decision-making [34].

(b)

Financial Management and Resources

Funding and resources: Nowadays, it is common knowledge in the business literature that financial resources are critical for startups’ growth and development [72,118]. A plethora of studies indicate that the availability of financing affects business success in a positive way [1,29,60,99]. On the other hand, success can be influenced by the resources and capabilities that a firm possesses, as well as its ability to obtain and combine critical assets [18,26]. Financial acumen within the organization is a foundational success factor. Startups that strategically manage their finances, allocate resources judiciously and navigate funding challenges effectively position themselves for sustained growth and scalability. Effective financial management involves making strategic decisions regarding the sources and size of capital for the firm [26].

Technological resources and use: The study by Indarti and Maria [29] revealed that technology affects business success in a positive way. More specifically, in the context of digital startups, the use of technology was found to be a significant contributor to their success [49]. On the other hand, success can be influenced by the technological resources and capabilities that a firm possesses, as well as its ability to obtain and combine critical assets [18,26].

(c)

Innovation

Innovation management: Satyanarayana and Chandrashekar [119] identified that the innovation and R&D capabilities of startups are crucial in determining the competitiveness of high-tech enterprises. Organizational success is closely tied to innovation and the quality of the products or services offered. Startups that prioritize innovation and consistently deliver high-quality offerings gain a competitive edge in the market and foster customer loyalty. Startups in creative industries rely heavily on innovation to introduce market novelties and increase their competitiveness [50].

Process: The success of startups often relies on well-defined processes, including how the company develops its products, manages growth and adapts to market changes. A smooth, efficient process helps in executing ideas effectively and scaling operations. This factor includes setting clear objectives, agile methodologies and iterative development models to respond to feedback. Well-managed processes improve innovation and help to reduce risks in uncertain market environments [11,39]

Timing: This is crucial in determining startup success. Launching a product too early or too late can affect the adoption rates and market competition. Successful startups identify the optimal moment at which the market demand is ready for their solution. This factor includes an understanding of market trends, competitor movement and consumer readiness [91]. Timing is often referred to as one of the most critical aspects of startup success, as a great idea can fail if the market is not ready for it. Entrepreneurs must determine when their innovation will best meet the market’s needs [39].

Idea: The idea behind a startup is the foundation of its existence. However, not all ideas lead to success. For a startup to thrive, the idea needs to be innovative [4], solve a real problem and be scalable [7]. The best startup ideas often disrupt existing industries or create entirely new markets. The uniqueness and feasibility of an idea play a major role in attracting investors and customers [5,6]. While execution is vital, a strong idea is what initially draws attention and drives the startup forward [11].

(d)

Strategy and Marketing

Customer centricity: This refers to the systematic process of managing the initiation, maintenance and termination of customer relationships across all contact points to maximize the value of the relationship portfolio [120]. Kian and Shafaghi [22] critically explored business-to-business critical success factors (B2B CSFs) for firms in the Chinese B2B marketplace and found that successful customer relationships were the critical element for success. A significant number of studies have found a positive and significant relationship between enhanced customer centricity and firm performance [120,121,122,123,124,125].

Marketing: A study conducted in Kenya identified strong marketing skills and the ability to create recognizable brands as critical success factors. It highlights that thorough market analysis within the plan helps to identify target customers, assess competition and recognize market trends, enabling more informed marketing strategies [126]. High-growth firms are more distinguished by the strategies and actions of their managers than by their profile characteristics. The most significant differences between fast-growing firms and others lie in their approaches to product and market development [127].

Product and service quality: The literature recognizes that product and service quality are considered major success factors for firms. It emphasizes that high-quality products and services lead to greater customer satisfaction, which can result in repeat business and customer loyalty. Satisfied customers are more likely to recommend the business to others [74]. Philip [88] identified that the most significant factors affecting the business success of SMEs in Bangladesh were quality products and services.

Business plan: A study found that the presence of a business plan is highly correlated with performance. It indicated that a well-structured business plan outlines the company’s vision, mission and strategic goals, providing a clear direction for decision-making and the prioritization of resources [128]. In line with this, Smallbone and Leig [127] emphasized that a well-designed business strategy, as reflected in a business plan, will lead to improved business performance.

4.4.3. External Environment

Government support: Government facilitation and support is key for startup success. This facilitation and support include access to finance [129], the accessibility and availability of research and development [78], the availability of the required infrastructure and intellectual property rights [86] and sociocultural factors [91], as well as operating in a location that provides every facility needed [78]. Factors such as industry closeness, university policy and structure and technology transfer strategies are among the factors that influence success [72].

Dynamism of the political, economic and sociocultural environment: Environmental factors include industry trends and competition, the economic conditions and the market demand. Moreover, the regulatory environment and legal considerations significantly impact startup success. Startup firms that are attuned to industry developments, analyze the market demand and identify unmet needs, as well as navigating legal complexities effectively, will undoubtedly bring success to the firm [91]. The availability of resources, government policies and programs, business infrastructure, the market conditions and cultural norms all play a role in shaping the success and performance of startups [49]. The environmental factors include incubators [130], a high level of education, research institutions and a smooth business environment (financing, taxation and trade facilitation), which, accompanied by industrial factors, contribute to a startup firm’s growth and success [86]. The most important aspect for a startup to be successful is an institutional environment with many new opportunities, created by knowledge spillover, and the broad availability of capital [131].

Overall, the themes identified through the VOSviewer cluster analysis are consistent with the three main categories of success factors identified in the success factor classification framework: personal/entrepreneurial factors, firm-level/organizational factors and environmental factors. For instance, the entrepreneur, entrepreneurial ecosystem and gender diversity cluster highlights the importance of the entrepreneur’s role, external support and inclusivity, which aligns with the personal/entrepreneurial factors category. Similarly, the strategic growth and technology cluster reflects firm-level strategies that are essential for startup success, supporting the findings of the qualitative review.

4.5. Contextual Analysis

4.5.1. Industry Factors and Geographical Location

Industries: The success factors vary across different industries. For digital startups, individual factors such as social networks and higher education have been examined as performance factors. Meanwhile, in the creative industries, startups have been found to have a higher propensity for product innovation [132]. On the other hand, service startups may focus more on factors related to resources and competencies/capabilities. The success of service startups is closely related to the types of resources and competencies/capabilities that they have developed, and they thrive on customer-centric strategies, emphasizing effective service delivery [133].

Geographical location: The success factors of startup firms can vary depending on their location. Some literature suggests that the location is the only contextual driver that significantly impacts the growth of startups [19]. Furthermore, the location of startups, particularly in or near metropolitan areas, can provide more opportunities for the acquisition of formal external financing. The choice of location may also affect the growth of startups, as their proximity to their place of residence and access to knowledge and expertise in the regional context can play a role [63]. A study conducted in Poland, Hungary and Lithuania found that, even though they have historical similarities in connection with the Soviet Union, the intensity level of entrepreneurship varied among these three countries. The success factors for these countries varied and were influenced by factors such as the market size and the level of entrepreneurship [134].

4.5.2. Success Factors at Development Stage of Startup Firms

The success factors of startups can vary depending on the development stage of the company. As the organization moves into the startup phase, the strategy, core team expertise and diversified knowledge become crucial. Various models have been proposed to understand the factors that contribute to the success of startups at different stages of their development. These models provide insights into the seed startup process, organization creation and exchange with the market [18,60]. It is important to note that the success factors in one phase may not necessarily guarantee success in other phases [67]. Additionally, the choice of financing sources for startups varies depending on their lifecycle stage and financial requirements [50]

The success factors evolve dynamically over a startup’s lifecycle. In the early stages, visionary leadership and adaptability are paramount in overcoming uncertainties [49]; as startups mature, the emphasis shifts towards effective team management and strategic financial planning [60]. This temporal dynamic underscores the importance of agility and the ability to recalibrate strategies in response to changing organizational needs. Although it is crucial to realize the determinants of success at each phase of a startup’s lifecycle, it is equally important to acknowledge that specific success factors exert an influence on the transition of the enterprise across the various stages of startup development. The following figure (Figure 7) shows the factors that influence the different startup stages.

5. Conclusions

The above analysis has sufficiently illustrated that the path of startup enterprises towards success is not free from challenges; it is influenced by numerous factors that exhibit varying degrees of severity and significance. Some of these determinants of success are linked to personal factors (for instance, entrepreneurial vision and leadership and personal traits), while others pertain to organizational factors (financial and resource management) along with external environmental factors. This review identifies key success determinants for startups, filling a gap in the startup literature regarding developed and emerging markets. It also serves to bring the many success factor frameworks together by highlighting the importance of these components and develops a new and comprehensive classification framework for success factors. Unlike the previous literature in the area, this paper provides comprehensive evidence by examining the success factors based on their relative aggregate impacts and ranks them accordingly. Previous papers have examined the success factors assuming that their effects are uniform, regardless of the startup lifecycle, the geographical location and the industry that they operate in. However, we provide interesting evidence suggesting that not all factors exert comparable effects on success; certain factors wield a substantial influence, whereas others demonstrate a significant yet lesser impact.

To achieve the main objective of this work, we used different methodologies. We employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In addition, to complement the qualitative analysis, a keyword co-occurrence analysis was conducted using the VOSviewer software version 1.6.20. The aggregate impact was used to estimate the ranking of each success factor. Descriptive analysis was employed to provide an overview of the papers included in the literature review. This allowed us to create a summary of the papers on the success factors of startup firms. The PRISMA framework is preferred over other potential models because it stands out due to its transparent and complete reporting and evidence-based recommendations. The integration of the cluster analysis using VOSviewer provided empirical validation for the themes identified in the qualitative systematic literature review. The co-occurrence map offered a visual representation of the critical success factors for startups, highlighting key themes such as the role of entrepreneurs, technology adoption, ecosystem support and industry-specific factors. This mixed-methods approach enhanced the robustness of the analysis, offering a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing startup success. Based on our analysis, we obtained interesting and informative results about the factors that influence the growth and success of startup firms in developed and emerging markets. The main findings and theoretical contributions of this study consistently confirm that the effects of the success factors are not uniform. This implies that the frequency, intensity or significance of these success determinants fluctuate in accordance with different spatial and industrial contexts. Irrespective of this, certain factors (such as opportunity recognition, personal traits, previous experience, the entrepreneur’s vision and funding) exert consistently strong influences on the success of startups.

In conclusion, this paper comprehensively considers startup owners and managers to carefully assess the relative impact of each success factor, which could strengthen their ability to devise strategies and run their businesses more efficiently and effectively by concentrating their efforts and resources on the areas that truly make a difference in their businesses.

5.1. Literature Gaps and Future Research Agenda

First, there was a limited focus on specific industries or regions. In this review, most of the studies focused on developed countries and on knowledge-intensive technology startups. There is a need for more research that explores the success factors across a broader range of industries, startup types and geographic locations, especially in the developing world.

Second, there was a lack of longitudinal studies among the selected studies. With the exception of a few of them, most studies were cross-sectional, providing a snapshot of the success factors at a particular point in time. Longitudinal studies that track startup firms over time could provide valuable insights into the dynamic nature of the success factors and how they evolve throughout the different stages of a startup’s lifecycle.

Third, insufficient attention was given to contextual factors. In this review, we can see that the influence of contextual factors, such as the cultural, economic and regulatory environments, on success factors is often overlooked. Future research should investigate more deeply how these contextual factors shape the effectiveness and applicability of success factors in different settings.

Fourth, there was limited integration of theoretical frameworks. Most of the studies in this review lacked a strong theoretical foundation. Future research could integrate established theoretical frameworks, such as the resource-based view, institutional theory or social network theory, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying mechanisms and dynamics of the success factors in startup firms.

Fifth, there was a lack of consistency in the measurement and definitions. There was a lack of consistency in how success factors are defined and measured across the studies. This makes it challenging to compare the findings and draw robust conclusions. Establishing standardized definitions and measurement approaches would enhance the comparability and reliability of the research in this field.

Sixth, an important avenue for future research involves complementing the analysis of critical success factors with an exploration of the factors associated with failure. Investigating the reasons behind startup failure could offer valuable insights into the conditions that enable success, as failures often highlight challenges and weaknesses that successful ventures manage to overcome. By integrating lessons from both successes and failures, future studies could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence startups’ performance and resilience.

To summarize, identifying and addressing these literature gaps could contribute to a more comprehensive and deeper understanding of the success factors in startup firms. Researchers can focus on these areas to advance the knowledge in this field and provide practical insights for entrepreneurs, policymakers and investors.

5.2. Implications

This comprehensive review of the success factors for startup firms holds significant implications for various stakeholders, offering valuable insights for entrepreneurs, policymakers, investors and researchers. The synthesized findings provide entrepreneurs with strategic guidance to address the complexities of the startup landscape. Armed with a detailed understanding of these success factors, founders can tailor their strategies to align with the unique challenges and opportunities of their operating environments. It also serves as a practical roadmap for aspiring and established entrepreneurs. Specifically, startup entrepreneurs should adopt a proactive attitude regarding these determinants of success and undertake several actions: (1) clearly anticipate, identify and comprehend any factor that may significantly affect their success; (2) rank these success determinants in accordance with their influence on the firm’s growth and overall success; and (3) implement initiatives and measures to enhance these factors, while continuously assessing their progress by establishing specialized feedback mechanisms.

The results of this study may be used by the government and other stakeholders to create and carry out policies aimed at startups; to identify areas for improvement; to enhance the efficacy of interventions resulting from support policies; to enhance and expand the essential infrastructure for support; to broaden the scope and type of advice; and to provide training and education for startup owners, managers and staff. Investors would gain a clearer understanding of the factors influencing startup success, allowing for more informed investment decisions.

Finally, researchers focusing on startups should capitalize on the findings derived from this study and pursue various research endeavors: (1) evaluate the frequency, intensity and significance of each success factor described in this study and determine its weighted contribution to the growth of startups; (2) analyze the distinct and collective effects of success factors at each phase of the startup lifecycle; and (3) perform longitudinal and cross-cultural investigations that capture the variations in the success factors due to time and spatial dynamics. We also acknowledge two key limitations of this review. First, the inclusion of only studies published in English may lead to the exclusion of relevant insights from the non-English literature, limiting the diversity of the perspectives. Second, focusing solely on peer-reviewed journal articles introduces the potential for publication bias, as studies from other sources, such as conference papers or the practitioner literature, were not considered. Lastly, the predominance of studies focusing on the success determinants of startups firms in developed and emerging countries and knowledge-intensive technology startups limits the generalizability of this review’s findings to the entire spectrum of startup firms. Therefore, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of this area, it is crucial to direct future research towards the success factors of other types of startup firms and developing countries.