Late calls for new beginnings: an integrated framework for motivations and intentions in senior entrepreneurship Open Access

The world is getting older, especially in richer countries, with various ripple effects on individuals, communities and governments. According to the OECD (2021, 2023), the average life expectancy at birth increased by around 15% in half a decade, from 70 years in 1970 to 80.3 years in 2021. More importantly, life expectancy at 65 increased by more than 40% over the same period, from 78.5 years to 84.5 years (OECD, 2023). By 2035, adults aged 65 and above are expected to outnumber youths aged under 18 for the first time in history (Zhao et al., 2021). These changes are progressively pressing public finances due to their impacts on retirement systems and welfare entitlements (Kulik et al., 2014).

To resolve some of the practical effects of an aging population, most EU Member States have reformed their pension systems with measures ranging from an increase in retirement age to expansions in supplementary pensions (Kurek and Rachwał, 2011). For example, Denmark’s parliament has very recently adopted a new law that will gradually raise the retirement age to the highest in Europe: At present, workers retire at 67 years of age, but this will rise to 68 in 2030, to 69 in 2035, and to 70 in 2040 for all people born after 31 December 1970 (Gozzi, 2025). The problem is not exclusive to developed economies, since emerging countries such as Brazil, China and Turkey are rapidly approaching the same reality (Linardi and Costa, 2021). Because of these changes, the burden to fund one’s retirement is increasingly falling on individuals themselves, making it more common for seniors to end up with insufficient income during retirement (Wainwright and Kibler, 2013). To aggravate matters, people are not generally educated to make proper investment decisions, making it more common to end up with insufficient income at retirement age (Clark et al., 2012; Thaler and Benartzi, 2004). This is a problem even in developed countries such as Australia, where a third of pensioners live below the poverty line (Maritz et al., 2021). Consequently, it is no longer an option for many individuals from generations X and Y to stop working at the legal retirement age (Small, 2012), heightening the importance that senior citizens remain financially productive (Singh, 2009).

Fortunately, longer life expectancy and better health in older age are permitting individuals to remain active in the workforce for longer, and a growing number is choosing to do so through self-employment (Stirzaker et al., 2019; Weller et al., 2018). This has attracted policymakers’ attention beyond pension reforms to also consider entrepreneurship to mitigate negative economic consequences of aging societies (Kautonen and Soto-Simeone, 2021). As a result, the promotion of entrepreneurship for late-career individuals, through start-ups or self-employment, has gained force in the public policy debate (Maritz, 2015). This has in turn ignited a growing stream of academic literature devoted to senior entrepreneurship (e.g. Al Hosni et al., 2023; Amaral et al., 2018; Biron and St. Jean, 2019; Harms et al., 2014; Kautonen et al., 2017; Maâlaoui et al., 2013; Martin and Welsch, 2019).

As a burgeoning field that is receiving growing interest from scholars, some themes already emerge as prevalent in studies of senior entrepreneurship, including the analysis of individual characteristics of senior entrepreneurs and their relationship with the antecedents of the entrepreneurial act. Foremost among these antecedents are the motivations (i.e. the reasons or causes of behavior [Ryan and Deci, 2017]), and the intentions (i.e. thoughts about targets [Bird, 2015] or decisions to perform actions [Sheeran, 2002]) of senior entrepreneurs. These are quite plausibly different from those of younger individuals such as students, who are the focus of many studies on motivations and intentions in entrepreneurship (e.g. Bird, 2015; Kolvereid, 2016; Malebana, 2014; Raza et al., 2018). Although some research has been carried out on the motivations and entrepreneurial intentions (EI) of senior entrepreneurs (e.g., Al Hosni et al., 2023; Al-Jubari and Mosbah, 2021; Brännback and Carsrud, 2019; Gimmon et al., 2019), there are still various gaps in the literature, which may be attributed to at least three main problems.

First, EI has been the focus of a number of studies in senior entrepreneurship (Brännback and Carsrud, 2019; Linardi and Costa, 2021; Maâlaoui et al., 2013, 2020, 2023; Tsai et al., 2016), but findings indicate that EI alone is insufficient to account for the complex decision-making process in later life. Although EI is widely considered to be the best predictor of entrepreneurial behavior, research shows that it explains only 30%–45% of variance in actual entrepreneurial activity (Kautonen et al., 2015). This paper proposes that motivation can help explain part of this gap.

Second, studies in the area mostly conflate the concepts of motivations and intentions, either using them as proxies of one another or even interchangeably as if they are the same (e.g. Ahmad et al., 2014; Gimmon et al., 2019; Kooij et al., 2008). A case in point is a recent paper by Al Hosni et al. (2023), who propose a conceptual framework to explain the entrepreneurial intentions of senior entrepreneurs. However, their framework is in fact underpinned by the self-determination theory (SDT: Ryan and Deci, 2000) and socioemotional selectivity theory (SST: Carstensen, 1992), both of which are theories of motivation rather than intentions. This tendency to conflate motivations and intentions is problematic because, although they are to some extent interrelated (Carsrud and Brännback, 2011), the broader literature clearly establishes a difference between the two constructs: Motivation refers to the purpose or the reasons for engaging in particular actions such as engaging in concrete actions related to the entrepreneurial process (Schacter et al., 2011), whereas EI represents a state of mind to actually engage in those particular entrepreneurial actions (Bird, 1988, 2015). In simple terms, motivations are the reason or the “why” one does something, whereas intentions are the volition to do “what” one does.

Third, while there is a considerable body of literature on motivations in entrepreneurship more broadly, there is still limited depth of understanding when it comes to this phenomenon in senior entrepreneurship specifically. Notably, studies on what leads senior individuals to an entrepreneurial path tend to focus on data-driven exploratory approaches or are based on inadequate or incomplete theoretical underpinnings. For example, Al-Jubari and Mosbah (2021) conducted exploratory empirical research on senior entrepreneurship in Malaysia, but their study lacks a clear conceptual framework. Very few studies (Kautonen et al., 2017, 2023; Zhang et al., 2025; Zhu et al., 2022) have adopted robust theoretical underpinnings such as the SDT to study motivations among senior entrepreneurs, as most have focused on simple push vs pull factors (Isele and Rogoff, 2014; Kautonen, 2008; Singh and DeNoble, 2003; Small, 2012; Stirzaker et al., 2019; Weller et al., 2018), or on narrow questions such as desires to leave something to posterity (Kautonen and Soto-Simeone, 2021; Kooij et al., 2008). Al Hosni et al. (2023) do offer a theoretical framework based on SDT, but they only consider intrinsic motivation while disregarding extrinsic motivation and amotivation, as well as causality orientations, life goals or aspirations and contexts, all of which play a central role in this theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000).

There is therefore a need for more research on senior entrepreneurship which considers both motivations and intentions in the same study for a more comprehensive picture, disentangles motivations from intentions by conceptualizing them separately while recognizing their interconnectedness, and is underpinned by robust and appropriate theoretical foundations. The aim of this paper is to address the above gaps in the literature by laying theoretical groundwork for future empirical research. It contributes by offering a clear, integrated conceptual framework that links motivations and intentions in senior entrepreneurship. It addresses three key limitations in prior studies. First, it considers motivations alongside intentions, which remain the strongest yet insufficient predictors of senior entrepreneurship (Kautonen et al., 2015). Second, it distinguishes between the two constructs while recognizing their interdependence (Carsrud and Brännback, 2011). Third, it builds on robust psychological and entrepreneurial theories, namely the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Ryan and Deci, 2000), the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991), and the trigger event from the Entrepreneurial Event Model (EEM) (Shapero and Sokol, 1982). The framework is complemented by a set of propositions that may be empirically tested in future studies to provide a more nuanced understanding of why older individuals engage in entrepreneurial activity.

For the purpose of this paper, entrepreneurship is defined as “any attempt at new business or new venture creation, such as self-employment, a new business organization or the expansion of an existing business” (Bosma et al., 2012, p. 9). Regarding the age range of senior entrepreneurs, a wide variety of positions coexist in the literature. Nevertheless, a consensus has been identified in recent studies to adopt the threshold of 50 years of age as a boundary (Amaral et al., 2018; Biron and St. Jean, 2019). Above 50 years of age is also the senior entrepreneurship parameter adopted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which is an authority in the area of inclusive entrepreneurship (an umbrella term that covers entrepreneurship among under-represented and disadvantaged groups including seniors: Pilková and Rehák, 2017).

This paper proceeds as follows: The next section provides context by means of a brief literature review on senior entrepreneurship. The conceptual framework is presented next, underpinned by the above-mentioned theories of motivations and intentions (SDT, TPB and EEM) and complemented by a set of propositions relating the theories to senior entrepreneurship. Finally, this paper’s contributions to the literature are discussed, followed by its limitations, suggestions for future research, practical implications and a brief conclusion.

Ageism and job market uncertainty have encouraged many seniors to pursue self-employment (Stirzaker et al., 2019; Weller et al., 2018). Recent research confirms that senior participation in entrepreneurship has increased considerably in recent years. For example, Zhang and Acs (2018) illustrate the recency of the senior entrepreneurship trend and its evolution by comparing the findings of Parker (2009), who presented the peak of entrepreneurial activity to be between 35 and 44 years, with the more recent ones of Fairlie et al. (2016) showing the strongest increase coming from the age group between 55 and 64 years. Despite some disparities between different regions of the world, the overall trend is of an increase in entrepreneurial activity among people aged 50 years and more (Biron and St. Jean, 2019). The involvement of seniors in entrepreneurship is becoming more incorporated as a normal activity among communities with increasing impact on social and economic life (Isele and Rogoff, 2014) and therefore growing to become a relevant phenomenon worldwide (Kerr, 2017; Lewis and Walker, 2013; Maritz, 2015; Singh, 2009; Weber and Schaper, 2004).

Unfortunately, despite the increased prevalence of senior entrepreneurship, the path is still far from smooth for older individuals, and their active economic contribution is not yet conventional in the prevailing culture (Kautonen, 2012; Ratten, 2019). Regrettably, negative associations between senior individuals and entrepreneurship remain pervasive in society, where new venture creation is still seen as a young people’s game (Ratten, 2019). Lévesque and Minniti (2006) proposed a conceptual model based on Becker (1965) that became a reference for senior entrepreneurship studies. Their conceptual framework, called the LM model in later articles, concluded that the relationship between age and EI followed an inverse U-shape, increasing up to a certain age interval (35–44) and decreasing thereafter. There are many studies considering entrepreneurial activity as a youthful domain (Ainsworth and Hardy, 2008; Lévesque and Minniti, 2006), even portraying young people as the only proactive and innovative age group (Lin and Wang, 2018). In fact, the innovative and risk-taking Schumpeterian model of the entrepreneur is still dominant in both academic and professional fields, leaving older individuals out of its pattern of expectations (Stypinska, 2018). Even official government material on entrepreneurship has a communication style that sounds tailored to attract younger cohorts (Kautonen et al., 2008). Reinforcing this picture, several studies have shown entrepreneurial activity rates among seniors to be lower than among younger people (e.g., Curran and Blackburn, 2001; Kenny and Rossiter, 2017; Kautonen et al., 2008; Pilkova et al., 2014).

Over the past 20 years, many scholars ventured to explore the causes of this apparent lack of entrepreneurial activity among senior individuals. Some characteristics of older individuals were framed as detrimental to entrepreneurial activity, especially health problems, risk-aversion and time-allocation preferences (Curran and Blackburn, 2001; Kenny and Rossiter, 2017; Maritz, 2015; Singh and DeNoble, 2003). Poor health is one of the most common reasons for older individuals to not engage in a challenging endeavor like new venture creation (Cahill et al., 2013; Curran and Blackburn, 2001; Kerr and Armstrong-Stassen, 2011; Parker and Rougier, 2007). Another important characteristic of seniors is their sense of finitude of time, focusing their energy on more emotional goals (Carstensen et al., 1999) and reducing their entrepreneurial impetus.

On the other hand, a growing body of recent research has challenged deficit-oriented views of older entrepreneurship by advancing a contrasting perspective that emphasizes age-related advantages, such as accumulated financial, social and human capital of senior individuals (Azoulay et al., 2018; Maritz, 2015; Martin and Welsch, 2019; Ratten, 2019; Zhao et al., 2021). While the main perceived barriers to start a business have been found to include inadequate financial support, lack of information on how to start a business, and complexity of administrative procedures, these three elements were perceived less as barriers by senior entrepreneurs than by the general population (Maritz, 2015).

Even though relatively recent, the topic of senior entrepreneurship has grown in importance to society and, consequently, received growing coverage from scholars. More recent research in the field has been depicting a rosier scenario for senior entrepreneurs, especially in more developed economies (Stirzaker et al., 2019; Pilkova et al., 2014). There are several empirical studies showing that necessity entrepreneurship has a low prevalence among older individuals, suggesting positive rather than negative drivers (e.g., Ahmad et al., 2014; Gimmon et al., 2019; Gray and Smith, 2020; Karoly and Zissimopoulos, 2007; Kautonen, 2013; Kautonen et al., 2017; Kolvereid, 2016). Moreover, even for many of those pushed into entrepreneurship by negative reasons, a silver-lining effect is observed in recent studies, in most cases coming from non-pecuniary rewards that are particularly valued by this demographic. These include enhanced well-being due to positive feelings associated with their entrepreneurial activities (Stirzaker and Galloway, 2017; Gray and Smith, 2020).

Nevertheless, some old problems still prevail, like mature individuals turning to self-employment as a response to discrimination in the labor market or insufficiency of their retirement funds (Mallett and Wapshott, 2015). Seniors are consequently recognized by the OECD and European Commission (2023) as “missing entrepreneurs”, suggesting that while they often possess greater experience, networks and financial resources, they are nonetheless less likely to engage in entrepreneurial activity than younger age groups as they face structural or systemic barriers to starting and running a business. This underrepresentation highlights the importance of better understanding what leads to entrepreneurial behavior in later life.

This section presents the proposed conceptual framework (Figure 1) of motivations and intentions in senior entrepreneurship, complemented by a set of propositions to guide future research. As indicated above, the building blocks of the framework are the SDT (Ryan and Deci, 2000) for the motivations component (left-hand side of the framework), together with the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) and the trigger event from the EEM (Shapero and Sokol, 1982) for the intentions component (right-hand side of the framework). The main tenets of the theories are first summarized and related to the context of senior entrepreneurship, and then discussed as integrated in a framework that recognizes the potential links and mutual impact of the two constructs along the senior entrepreneurial journey.

Forming an EI is a first step in the complex process of entrepreneurship (Lin and Wang, 2018), however, many individuals form an intention to start a business without even knowing what type of business they will start (Krueger and Carsrud, 1993). Even though EI is acknowledged as the best predictor of entrepreneurial behavior, it was found to account for only 30%–45% of actual entrepreneurial activity (Kautonen et al., 2015), leaving an important gap to be explained. Carsrud and Brännback (2011) tried to shed light on the intention-behavior gap in entrepreneurship by suggesting motivation as the missing element. They argue that motivations encompass the energy, direction and persistence to activate a certain behavior, and the factor that makes entrepreneurs persevere on their intentions: “Motivations may be the spark that transforms a latent intention into real action and therefore, the missing link between intentions and action” (p. 12).

This paper incorporates that missing link concept in its proposed framework. It defines motivations as forces that drive individuals towards specific actions (Ryan and Deci, 2017), reflecting aspirations related to energy, direction and persistence (Ryan and Deci, 2000). While intentions provide direction, motivations supply the energy that propels senior entrepreneurs forward. Motivations are higher order constructs providing senior individuals with the aspirations and energy leading to subsequent entrepreneurial behavior, thus increasing commitment to reinforce the intentions-behavior link.

As noted in the Introduction, this paper treats motivations and intentions as interrelated but separate constructs. Specifically, the level of commitment impacting individuals’ EI-behavior gap is attributed to their level of motivation, as suggested by Carsrud and Brännback (2011) and followed by other scholars (e.g. Fayolle and Liñán, 2014; Malebana, 2014; Solesvik, 2013). In other words, motivations are conceptualized as people’s ultimate aspiration, an ulterior strength preceding the volition to take concrete steps toward a certain behavior, such as entrepreneurial action. As mentioned above, many entrepreneurs know they want to start a business even before they decide about the type of business they will be in (Krueger and Carsrud, 1993), which is frequently attributable to latent desires for autonomy or competence (Ahmad et al., 2014; Al-Jubari et al., 2019; Gray and Smith, 2020; Lanivich et al., 2021; Stirzaker et al., 2019).

This research adopts the SDT as the theoretical lens for understanding the motivations driving senior individuals to engage in entrepreneurship. Originally created by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan and developed over more than 40 years, the SDT is a widely used theory of human motivation which seeks to explain people’s reasons to behave “experienced from within, as well as what forces facilitate, divert, or undermine that natural energy and direction” (Ryan and Deci, 2017, Preface). The SDT postulates that people can embrace three types of motivations, each with a particular regulatory style to behavior: intrinsic, extrinsic and amotivation (Blanchard et al., 2007). Intrinsic motivation is observed in activities done for their inherent satisfaction; when intrinsically motivated, the activity itself is the reward (Ryan and Deci, 2000) – or the end in itself. For older individuals launching businesses, intrinsic motivation may manifest as a pursuit of legacy, creativity, or lifelong passions. In the case of extrinsic motivation, activities are done for an ulterior purpose (Ryan and Deci, 2000) – or as means to an end. For senior entrepreneurs, extrinsic motivation may be the pursuit of wealth or fame. Finally, at the other end of the spectrum lies amotivation. In this state, one lacks the will to act and, therefore, does not act at all or acts unwillingly (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Amotivated individuals are neither intrinsically nor extrinsically motivated, with feelings of helplessness, depression and incompetence (Blanchard et al., 2007). In the context of aging, amotivation may result from perceived irrelevance, health decline, or institutional barriers, and it is unlikely to lead to senior entrepreneurship.

The SDT has been widely applied in several areas, such as parenting, education, health care, sports and physical activity, psychotherapy and virtual worlds, as well as the fields of work motivation and management, consistently presenting high explanatory power (Deci et al., 2017). Recent studies (e.g. Lanivich et al., 2021) suggest the SDT is particularly suitable for understanding the motives of entrepreneurs in later life stages, where identity reconstruction and autonomy are often central themes, but its relevance to later-life entrepreneurship remains understudied. Considering that the decision by seniors to follow an entrepreneurial path is often taken as an alternative to retirement or a waged job and analyzed in comparison to those options, inferences may be drawn from the literature on SDT and work behavior, which is well-established (Deci et al., 2017), and which follows a decision process similar to that of entrepreneurship by senior individuals (Singh and DeNoble, 2003). In this respect, Deci et al. (2017) concluded that an accurate picture of motivation in the workplace may be obtained through the analysis of three independent variables, namely, causality (motivational) orientations – to understand if their motivations are autonomous, controlled or impersonal; context – to assess if the environment is supporting or thwarting their basic needs; and life goals or aspirations – to investigate the predominance of intrinsic or extrinsic goals. The conceptual framework depicted in Figure 1 includes a comprehensive representation of the SDT comprising the three main variables and sub-components, as follows.

Causality orientations are conceptualized as one’s “propensities to focus on specific features and affordances within social contexts, and to express corresponding motives” (Ryan and Deci, 2019, p. 23). According to Ryan and Deci (2017, 2019): Autonomy orientation presents a tendency toward intrinsic or internalized extrinsic motivation, leading individuals to be more proactive and focused on growth and self-development opportunities; Controlled orientation is marked by a tendency toward external or introjected motivation, and signals a conformist identity with predominancy of external incentives to behaviors; Impersonal orientation shows a tendency towards amotivation and lack of wiliness, wherein individuals lose their sense of agency, believing they do not have control of their fate and the outcomes of their actions.

The above indicates that people who are driven by autonomous types of motivation persevere more and have better performance (Deci et al., 2017). This is particularly relevant in entrepreneurship, where autonomy is critical to persistence and success (Caliendo et al., 2020; Patel and Thatcher, 2014). For seniors, whose sense of identity and social utility may be in flux, autonomous motivation can empower meaningful reinvention.

In view of the above, the following is proposed:

The SDT posits that the context or social environment can be supportive or antagonistic to the satisfaction of basic needs, resulting in differences on the level of self-motivation, energy and integration from one context to another (Vallerand et al., 2008). Autonomous or self-determined motivations will arise in people when their three innate psychological needs – autonomy, relatedness and competence – are satisfied (Lanivich et al., 2021). Autonomy is one’s perception that one’s behavior is self-authored and volitional, relatedness is one’s perception of one’s meaningful closeness and connectedness with others, and competence is one’s perception of one’s capability to influence the environment in desirable ways (Al-Jubari et al., 2019). In senior entrepreneurship, the satisfaction of these needs may offset age-related declines in self-efficacy and social recognition, fostering the motivation to launch and sustain new ventures.

The satisfaction of all three needs is the only condition in which people feel free to pursue self-determined or autonomous actions (which, as argued above, is the highest form of motivation) and the one to produce the best outcomes in performance and well-being (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Although the SDT does not imply any hierarchy among the three basic needs, it acknowledges autonomy as the most important enabler to complete their fulfillment and the pursuit of intrinsically motivated behaviors (Ryan and Deci, 2017). When people perceive being in a context where their autonomy is supported, they feel reassured to pursue the satisfaction of the other needs (Ryan and Ryan, 2018). Contexts that support autonomy therefore play a key role to facilitate the pursuit of all basic needs (Ryan and Deci, 2017). This is particularly relevant for senior entrepreneurs, who often navigate institutional and social environments not originally designed for their demographic.

In view of the above, the following is proposed:

Life goals or aspirations are usually added to causality orientations as a complement in the SDT, increasing precision levels of motivational outcomes predictive studies (Deci et al., 2017). The SDT identifies seven life goals, split into two types:

1. intrinsic, comprising personal growth, community contribution, meaningful relations and physical fitness; and

2. extrinsic, comprising wealth/money, fame and attractiveness.

People choose and pursue their goals hoping to feel contented and rewarded. However, the outcomes are not always positive, depending on the type of aspirations pursued (Ryan and Deci, 2017). Intrinsic aspirations are directly related to one’s perception of autonomy, while extrinsic goals are only indirectly related or, sometimes, even antagonistic to it (Ryan et al., 2019). The literature indicates that many senior entrepreneurs are pulled rather than pushed into self-employment, i.e. they make the move voluntarily (Isele and Rogoff, 2014; Kautonen et al., 2017; Small, 2012; Weller et al., 2018). This could be because older adults have had the opportunity to accumulate wealth and satisfy their extrinsic motivations throughout their working lifetime.

Considering the above, the following is proposed:

A lengthy process is usually observed between deciding to start a business and actually doing so (Gartner, 1985; Shane et al., 2003). Entrepreneurship is a long and bumpy road where EI acts as the entrepreneurs’ compass, guiding their decisions along the way (Bird, 1988). EI is considered by many scholars as the most relevant immediate antecedent in the decision to start an enterprise, both in the broader literature and in senior entrepreneurship more specifically (Carsrud et al., 2000; Fayolle and Liñán, 2014; Kautonen et al., 2015; Liñán et al., 2013; Chen and Liñán, 2009; Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014; Solesvik, 2013). It is therefore intricately associated with the entrepreneurial process, the judgements along it, and the actions following these decisions.

This paper adopts the TPB as the main theory for understanding senior individuals’ EI. The TPB is based on a framework of general intentions developed by Ajzen (1991) and incorporated into entrepreneurship research by Krueger and Carsrud (1993). Since then, the TPB has become the reference model in EI (Donaldson, 2019; Fayolle and Liñán, 2015; Hueso et al., 2020), and it is also widely used in the senior entrepreneurship literature (Amaral et al., 2018; Biron and St. Jean, 2019). The TPB identifies three key components as determinants of intentions and, ultimately, of actions, namely attitude toward behavior (ATB), subjective norms (SN) and perceived behavioral control (PBC) (Ajzen, 1991, 2002; Harms et al., 2014; Malebana, 2014). The conceptual framework includes all three components of the TPB to explain how entrepreneurship is selected over different perceived alternatives (retirement, waged job, voluntary work, self-employment), as follows:

The first component, ATB, denotes one’s personal view regarding the behavior under evaluation. The view is formed as a function of individuals’ expectations of the outcome resulting from performing a behavior (Carsrud et al., 2000). The positive or negative evaluation of the expected outcome corresponds to ATB (Ajzen, 1991). In the context of senior entrepreneurship, ATB refers to the view that older individuals have of themselves starting a business: they are more likely to venture into entrepreneurship if they believe that this would have positive consequences, and would avoid it if they expect undesirable ones.

The second component, SN, brings contextual and cultural elements into the study of intention formation. SN represents the perceived beliefs about significant others’ (e.g. family, friends, colleagues) views on the behavior (Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014). In other words, SN is how the individual views society’s demands regarding the action performance (Raza et al., 2018) and consequent social pressure to perform behavior (Ajzen, 1985). In the context of senior entrepreneurship, SN relates to how older individuals’ close circles and society in general perceive older adults who engage in self-employment and business ownership: seniors are more likely to venture into entrepreneurship if their significant others perceive this positively. Interestingly, in studies based on student samples, SN is the least significant component to predict EI (Kautonen et al., 2015; Kolvereid, 2016). However, research on senior entrepreneurs found a higher relevance for the SN component (Kautonen et al., 2015; Tsai et al., 2016), possibly due to the fact that older people tend to give more importance to their close social circles, especially family (Carstensen, 1992, 2006). This increases the relevance of SN in the intentions development of older individuals.

The third component, PBC, describes the perception of how easy or difficult it is to perform a certain action (Raza et al., 2018) and accounts for the degree of control one has over the performance of the behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In the context of senior entrepreneurship, PBC concerns older individuals’ belief in their abilities to succeed in performing the entrepreneurial act at their stage in life: seniors are more likely to venture into entrepreneurship if they believe they are capable of being self-employed or starting a business. According to Ajzen (2020), the factors influencing PBC include required skills and abilities, availability of time, money and other resources and cooperation by others – all of which may be greater later in life due to the accumulation of financial, social and human capital (Azoulay et al., 2018; Maritz, 2015; Martin and Welsch, 2019; Ratten, 2019; Zhao et al., 2021).

In view of the above, the following is proposed:

In addition to the TPB, this paper’s conceptual framework integrates the trigger event element of the EEM (Shapero and Sokol, 1982), which is another influential theory in the EI literature. The EEM has been extensively used in entrepreneurship research to explain the transition from intention to behavior and is frequently positioned alongside or integrated with the TPB (Krueger and Carsrud, 1993; Iakovleva and Kolvereid, 2009; Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014). It has informed several influential studies in the entrepreneurship literature examining entrepreneurial entry and displacement events (Krueger and Carsrud, 1993; Kolvereid, 2016; Fayolle and Liñán, 2015; Maritz et al., 2018). These works collectively demonstrate the EEM’s empirical and theoretical influence, especially in explaining how triggering events transform latent intentions into entrepreneurial action.

The starting point and a distinctive characteristic of the EEM when compared to other EI models (especially the TPB) is the assumption of individuals’ predisposition to inertial behavior until something, i.e. a trigger event, disrupts or ‘displaces’ that tendency (Iakovleva and Kolvereid, 2009). This event can be favorable (positive pull, e.g. from one’s partner, mentor, or investor), unfavorable (negative push, e.g. illness, redundancy, divorced or widowed) or neutral (between things, e.g. completed a project). Whichever it is, it prompts the entrepreneur to act (Maritz et al., 2018; Shapero and Sokol, 1982).

In the face of a trigger event, individuals analyze the alternative behaviors through perceptions of desirability and feasibility to define their paths. In the context of senior entrepreneurship, perceptions of desirability refer to the personal inclination that older individuals feel to start a business. This is influenced by external factors such as culture, family, peers and mentors (Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014; Shapero and Sokol, 1982), and is hence related to the SN element of the TPB (Ajzen, 1991). Seniors may wish to start a business but may be discouraged by a negative bias from society or their family and friends (Ratten, 2019). Perceived feasibility reflects how confident individuals are of their capability to start a business (Carsrud et al., 2000; Shapero and Sokol, 1982), which is similar to the PBC component of the TPB (Ajzen, 1991). Seniors may perceive greater feasibility to start a business as they are less affected by barriers such as insufficient financial support, lack of information on starting a business, and complexity in administrative procedures (Maritz, 2015). Based on the EEM, it may be concluded that an external shock is more likely to trigger entrepreneurial intentions and actions in senior individuals who have higher perceived desirability and higher perceived feasibility regarding new venture creation.

The trigger event has gained space in the senior entrepreneurship field, especially represented by redundancy and lack of prospects in the job market (Ainsworth and Hardy, 2008; Gray and Smith, 2020; Maritz et al., 2018; Small, 2012; Stirzaker and Galloway, 2017). Consequently, it is included as a variable in this paper’s conceptual framework. However, in Shapero and Sokol’s (1982) original model, the trigger event was associated with the beginning of the entrepreneurial activity, as the ignitor of the intentional process. Conversely, the beginning of the EI process in this paper’s conceptual framework is manifested in concrete actions to seek information towards the objective of starting an enterprise (Katz and Gartner, 1988), which could happen before the trigger event occurs. As observed by Carsrud et al. (2000), even when the entrepreneurial behavior is triggered by an event such as redundancy, a previous entrepreneurial desire is often present. Therefore, even though the conceptual framework proposed in this paper recognizes the importance of a trigger event, this does not necessarily coincide with the beginning of the entrepreneurial intentionality process.

Considering the above, the following is proposed:

This paper argues for the importance of differentiating motivations and intentions as distinct but mutually influencing forces to form entrepreneurial behavior (Krueger, 2017). The proposed conceptual framework depicted in Figure 1 therefore brings together motivations and intentions as separate but interrelated drivers of senior entrepreneurship.

This framework proposes that motivations constitute the first activating force in the senior entrepreneurial process. Motivations, as conceptualized through the SDT (Ryan and Deci, 2000), energize and direct behavior by satisfying autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs. These motivational forces precede and shape EI. Intentions, as defined by the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) and complemented by the trigger event from the EEM (Shapero and Sokol, 1982), channel this motivational energy into specific goal-oriented actions. Finally, the relationship between motivations and intentions is dynamic and cyclical: once intentions materialize in behavior, new motivational feedback loops emerge, reinforcing or reshaping the individual’s purpose and commitment.

The motivations component is presented on the left-hand side of the framework as it is considered a superior strength that precedes intention and energizes all aspects of activation. This aligns with previous research indicating that underlying motivations, such as a desire for autonomy or competence, often drive individuals to pursue entrepreneurship (Ahmad et al., 2014; Al-Jubari et al., 2019; Gray and Smith, 2020; Lanivich et al., 2021; Stirzaker et al., 2019) even before they have determined the specific nature of their business (Krueger and Carsrud, 1993).

The intentions component is presented on the right-hand side of the framework as it is the most immediate antecedent and best predictor of behaviors, including senior entrepreneurship (Kautonen et al., 2015). It includes the three elements of EI according to the SDT (Ajzen, 1991), together with the trigger event from the EEM (Shapero and Sokol, 1982). The beginning of the EI process is marked by the first concrete actions to start the new enterprise, when the individual takes a deliberate first step to move in that direction.

Moreover, as previously mentioned, the interrelationship between motivations and intentions is viewed as bi-directional and continuous, where motivations provide depth and energy to intentions, and intentions helps organize and channel motivations toward a specific behavior. The likelihood of senior individuals translating EI into action increases when the strength of both motivations and intentions are high, suggesting an interactive effect between them. This supports Carsrud and Brännback (2011) who describe the relationship between the two constructs and actual entrepreneurial behavior as “most likely neither linear nor unidirectional” (p. 12).

In view of the above, the following are proposed:

In summary, the conceptual model operates sequentially from motivations to intentions and behavior, and then back to motivations through feedback. Motivations provide the “why” and “energy”, intentions provide the “what” and “direction” and together they explain the “how” of senior entrepreneurship. This cyclical process recognizes that motivations not only precede intentions but also are reshaped by the experience of pursuing entrepreneurial goals in later life.

The integration of the SDT (Ryan and Deci, 2000), TPB (Ajzen, 1991) and part of the EEM (Shapero and Sokol, 1982) within a comprehensive conceptual framework is driven by the need to capture the multifaceted psychological and situational dynamics underpinning senior entrepreneurship. Together, these theories provide complementary insights into the entrepreneurial process, linking motivation (SDT) with intention (TPB) and triggering mechanisms (EEM). They offer a holistic explanation of how and why older adults engage in entrepreneurial activity through a sequential and cyclical model: motivational drivers initiate the process, intention structures it, and triggering events operationalize it, while experiences feed back into motivation, completing the loop.

Building on these theoretical foundations, this paper posits that – in addition to being sensitive to the opinions or significant others and a response to external triggers, senior entrepreneurship may also represent a liberating and intrinsically motivated life project. The entrepreneurial venture may act as a vehicle through which older individuals reclaim agency, pursue personal growth or enact long-standing aspirations that were deferred during earlier career phases. This reconceptualization challenges deficit-based narratives around aging and retirement, instead positioning senior entrepreneurs as active agents driven by volition, purpose and psychosocial resilience. In this light, the SDT (Ryan and Deci, 2000), TPB (Ajzen, 1991) and EEM (Shapero and Sokol, 1982) are integrated to form a theoretical lens that reimagines aging as a period of potential and innovation, where motivations and intentions are reconfigured and intensified in response to late calls for new beginnings.

This paper proposes a conceptual framework that addresses three research gaps and lays the groundwork for further research on motivations and intentions in senior entrepreneurship. In doing so, it contributes to three distinct streams of literature. First, it extends the entrepreneurial motivation literature by demonstrating how autonomy-supportive contexts and intrinsic aspirations may act as antecedents of entrepreneurial persistence in later life. This draws on SDT (Ryan and Deci, 2000), which was later applied to entrepreneurship by Carsrud and Brännback (2011) and Fayolle and Liñán (2014). Second, it expands the EI literature by suggesting that subjective norms and trigger events play a more dominant role for senior entrepreneurs than for younger ones. This is rooted in the TPB (Ajzen, 1991), which was transferred into entrepreneurship by Krueger and Carsrud (1993), Fayolle and Liñán (2015), and Kautonen et al. (2015). Third, it contributes to the emerging senior entrepreneurship literature, which examines business venturing in later life (e.g. Maritz, 2015; Kautonen et al., 2017; Biron and St. Jean, 2019). It proposes that entrepreneurship can be a form of identity reconstruction and self-determination, and reframes aging not as decline but as potential. By integrating these three streams of literature, this paper clarifies how motivational forces (SDT) and cognitive-intentional forces (TPB, EEM) interact in the specific context of aging, thereby expanding both motivation and intention theories to a demographic that remains conceptually under-theorized.

Moreover, the framework is supported by three sets of testable propositions to guide future empirical research on motivations, intentions and the interplay between them in senior entrepreneurship. Together, these propositions offer a more nuanced explanation than what is currently present in the literature of why older adults might pursue self-employment or new business creation.

Conceptually, this paper bridges motivational and intentional models that have traditionally evolved separately in entrepreneurship studies. While Carsrud and Brännback (2011) called for a unified framework linking “why” (motivation) and “what” (intention) dimensions of entrepreneurial behavior, few studies have empirically or conceptually achieved this integration. By integrating them in the context of senior entrepreneurship, this paper provides a theoretical extension of the SDT, TPB and EEM into later adulthood. This positions the framework as a transferable conceptual tool that can be adapted to other under-researched demographic groups such as female or minority entrepreneurs.

The main limitation of the current study lies in its conceptual nature and need for empirical testing. The conceptual framework and propositions could serve as a basis to empirically test the link between the constructs using qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups, or widely-tested quantitative models and questionnaires that are available for the TPB (see Ajzen, 2020) and the SDT (see Ryan and Deci, 2017 and Link to selfdeterminationtheory.orgLink to the website of selfdeterminationtheory.org).

For example, the propositions suggest that SN, trigger events, autonomy and intrinsic life goals are key components in senior individuals’ motivations and intentions to transition to entrepreneurship. Future studies could explore these concepts further through qualitative and/or quantitative techniques to assess their significance in this complex transition process. Such studies could increase the understanding of the process, providing insights for practitioners and policymakers seeking not only to foster entrepreneurship among seniors but also to improve their journeys.

Moreover, literature on senior entrepreneurship has so far focused on variables at a specific point or phase of the entrepreneurial process. The evolution of those factors over time is an underexplored dimension in the field’s studies (Biron and St. Jean, 2019; Fayolle and Liñán, 2015). In general, research in the area focuses on pictures of the phenomenon at a specific point in time, analyzing issues in a static instead of a dynamic manner, with very little attention to temporal issues (Murnieks et al., 2020). Therefore, another potential research avenue would be designing a longitudinal study to understand the evolution of the constructs of motivations and intentions throughout the journey of senior entrepreneurs. In practical terms, an appropriately designed study focusing on this specific evolutionary issue could enrich the initial portrait of the senior entrepreneurial journey presented by this conceptual framework.

In addition to its academic contributions, this paper offers practical value by providing a structured framework that helps policymakers, support organizations and practitioners identify when, why, and under which conditions older adults are likely to engage in entrepreneurial activity. By explicitly distinguishing between motivational drivers, EI and trigger events, the framework enables more targeted and timely interventions tailored to later-life contexts.

First, by explicitly modelling the role of SN in shaping EI among older adults, the framework suggests that senior entrepreneurship initiatives should prioritize peer networks, mentorship and community-based support. Policymakers could promote senior entrepreneur role models, cohort-based incubators or senior entrepreneur networks to enhance social legitimacy and normalize self-employment in later life. Regulatory measures that reduce the perceived consequences of failure – particularly for families – may further lower psychological barriers to entry.

Second, by conceptualizing retirement and redundancy as triggering events rather than endpoints, the framework highlights key intervention windows. Entrepreneurship training, coaching or seed funding could be embedded within retirement planning services or redundancy packages, offering a proactive alternative to labor market withdrawal and addressing inertia commonly observed in later life transitions.

Third, by emphasizing autonomy and intrinsic aspirations as central motivational drivers, the framework suggests that policy approaches should move beyond purely financial incentives. Instead, policymakers could foster autonomy-enhancing conditions through flexible regulatory environments that support purpose-driven, social or intergenerational ventures aligned with seniors’ values and life goals.

The rise of senior entrepreneurship calls for collective action. Governments should promote initiatives that address pension insecurity, while individuals should be supported in turning their later years into meaningful and productive stages of life. In both cases, entrepreneurship seems destined to play a key role in smoothing the transformations witnessed over the past decades. Therefore, furthering knowledge about this complex phenomenon is an imperative with both academic and practical relevance. This paper contributes by clarifying how motivational forces interact with intention formation, and how both are shaped by age-related contexts and triggering events. This deeper conceptual integration addresses an underdeveloped area in the literature, offering a more comprehensive account of the entrepreneurial process in later life.