Entrepreneurial orientation in Vietnam a systematic literature review and future directions Open Access

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) has emerged as a crucial construct in management research. It has served as a lens through which to explore how firms cultivate entrepreneurial behaviors to drive growth, innovation and competitive advantage (Covin and Wales, 2012). EO encompasses a firm’s innovativeness, proactiveness, autonomy, risk-taking and competitive aggressiveness (Giraud Voss et al., 2005; Mintzberg, 1973; Pearce et al., 2010). EO has been studied extensively over the last three decades and has been shown to have a positive impact on firm performance across various contexts (Covin and Wales, 2012). Despite its global relevance, the study of EO in emerging economies, such as Vietnam, remains a relatively underexplored area of research and warrants further investigation.

Vietnam’s sustained high economic growth further highlights the need for enhancing EO research. Vietnam has transitioned from a predominantly agrarian society to a manufacturing and exporting hub, particularly in high-tech industries (World Bank, 2024a). Foreign direct investment (FDI) continues to flow into Vietnam, with policies enacted to further economic reforms. These transformations are enabling Vietnam’s transition into a critical player in global supply chains (World Bank, 2024a). Fully taking advantage of this transition will require Vietnamese firms to shift toward innovation-led value creation, where firms adapt to dynamic marketings and exploit emerging opportunities whilst mitigating risks, all hallmarks of EO.

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) comprise 99% of all Vietnamese enterprises and employ nearly half of the labor force, making them a crucial component of the broader Vietnamese economy (OECD, 2021). However, SMEs face significant challenges, including how to integrate into global value chains, resource constraints and competition from state-owned enterprises that dominate many markets (OECD, 2021). EO can provide a conceptual and practical framework for overcoming these barriers, helping SMEs innovate, internationalize and enhance their competitiveness. Adopting EO practices could help Vietnamese firms participate more in global export markets and drive digital transformation, allowing them to align more closely with Vietnam’s economic modernization goals of achieving “high income status by 2045” (World Bank, 2024b).

The Vietnamese context presents several unique dimensions for EO research. First, cultural factors, such as collectivism, respect for hierarchy and a cautious approach to risk-taking, will influence how entrepreneurial behaviors are viewed and implemented. Second, EO research is predominantly conducted in Western contexts; therefore, applying EO in the Vietnamese context can provide valuable insights into how the specific context of the research influences EO. Finally, the development of contextualized EO models can help policy makers, entrepreneurs, SMEs and educators in developing an entrepreneurial ecosystem that reflects Vietnam’s socioeconomic reality.

This paper aims to critically synthesize the existing literature on EO in Vietnam through a systematic literature review (SLR), to assess how EO has been conceptualized and empirically tested within this emerging economy. By mapping the theoretical frameworks, methodological approaches and contextual adaptations used in EO research, the study aims to uncover how Vietnam’s unique socioeconomic and cultural environment shapes the EO-performance relationship. The goal is to develop a more nuanced and context-sensitive research agenda for EO in emerging markets.

To do this, we propose five research questions:

EO has become a cornerstone in the entrepreneurship literature, particularly in studies examining how firms strategically behave to enhance their performance. Over the past three decades, scholars have developed EO into a structured concept that captures a firm’s posture toward innovation, competitive action and risk management (Covin and Wales, 2012; Soares and Perin, 2019; Wales et al., 2011). While definitions vary across the literature, there is general agreement that EO consists of three core dimensions: innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking, along with two additional elements, autonomy and competitive aggressiveness, introduced in later models (Giraud Voss et al., 2005; Mintzberg, 1973; Pearce et al., 2010).

The most widely used operationalization of EO originates from Covin and Slevin (1989), whose three-dimensional scale has gained prominence due to its conceptual clarity and ease of use. This model measures firm behavior using Likert-scale items that assess a firm’s innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking. Innovativeness refers to a firm’s support for new ideas and creativity. Proactiveness refers to the extent to which a firm anticipates and responds to future market trends. Risk-taking reflects the firm’s willingness to commit resources to ventures with uncertain outcomes (Covin and Slevin, 1989; Covin and Wales, 2012).

Over time, however, some scholars have argued that this framework does not fully capture the complexity of entrepreneurial behavior, particularly in varied cultural and institutional settings (Lyon et al., 2000). Hughes and Morgan (2007) responded to this concern by developing a five-dimensional EO scale. Their model adds autonomy and competitive aggressiveness to the traditional triad. Autonomy refers to the degree of independence employees have in their work, specifically their freedom to take initiative, make decisions and determine how to accomplish tasks without constant oversight. Competitive aggressiveness refers to a firm’s intensity in confronting competitors and capturing market share. These additions help capture a broader range of strategic behaviors, especially in dynamic or uncertain environments.

The contrast between narrow and broad EO models reflects a deeper tension in the literature. Narrower approaches, such as the influential framework by Covin and Slevin (1989), provide methodological efficiency and enhance comparability across studies. In contrast, broader conceptualizations, such as those advanced by Hughes and Morgan (2007), encompass the multifaceted ways in which firms pursue entrepreneurial activities. This trade-off becomes particularly salient in emerging markets like Vietnam, where local institutional and cultural contexts strongly influence how EO is practiced and understood.

Vietnam is a rapidly growing economy, experiencing significant growth in GDP and other economic indicators over the past decade, with future predictions suggesting robust growth (World Bank, 2024a). There has been considerable growth in exports and FDI, with further investments likely in 2025 if President Trump reignites the trade war with China (Goodman, 2024), which could push MNCs to reduce their dependence on China further (Dhar et al., 2023). The wide-ranging tariff actions taken by Trump since his reelection, with Vietnam being hit with one of the lowest tariffs in Asia, present a possibility for Vietnam to attract investment in high-tech areas that can capitalize on the global ramifications of Trump’s reelection.

The inflows of FDI and a strengthening economy mean that Vietnam’s economy is transitioning to one that is increasingly based on innovation and value creation. EO is a crucial aspect for firms seeking to grow and internationalize. Developing a greater understanding of EO is essential as Vietnam advances in its economic modernization.

SMEs are a critical part of the Vietnamese economy, contributing significantly to Vietnam’s employment and GDP, although this contribution lags behind OECD proportions (OECD, 2021). SMEs employ approximately 47% of the labor force and contribute 36% of the national value added (OECD, 2021). According to (GSO, 2022), 99% of enterprises in Vietnam have fewer than 300 employees, and 61% of enterprises have fewer than five employees. However, only a small proportion of SMEs in Vietnam are involved in the global supply chain, showing a lack of internationalization from Vietnamese SMEs (GSO, 2022). According to OECD (2021), Vietnam exhibits “strong entrepreneurialism, as shown by high rates of business churning (business entry and exit rates combined), high-growth firms and gazelles.”

A challenge for Vietnam is that a significant proportion of its GDP (40%) is derived from state-owned enterprises, which restricts competition and hinders the growth of SMEs (OECD, 2021). There have been policies aimed at facilitating entrepreneurship within Vietnam and providing business development services for SMEs. However, these are currently restricted to the three major cities of Vietnam: Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City and Da Nang (OECD, 2021). Various other programs have been implemented to help fund SMEs, such as the SME Development Fund and the Credit Guarantee Fund; however, participation in these schemes has been low (OECD, 2021).

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recommends several policy approaches to enhance SME participation and importance in Vietnam (OECD, 2021). EO can have a significant impact on firm performance, particularly in emerging economies (Fatima and Bilal, 2020; Mahrous and Genedy, 2019; Rezaei and Ortt, 2018; Susanto et al., 2023). Further adoption of an EO could help Vietnam further develop its innovativeness and modernize its economy, as well as enhance its importance in the global value chain. Previous research, such as by Mustafa et al. (2022), suggests that further training in business schools (for graduates) and corporates (for top management teams) could be beneficial for firms in emerging economies. A study from Tanzania has demonstrated that EO can contribute to successful export performance, which would be helpful for Vietnam’s growing role in the global economy (Ringo et al., 2022). These studies highlight the importance of EO research in emerging economies as it is a significant driver of firm performance.

We adopted a SLR approach to compile, analyze and synthesize research on EO in Vietnam. SLRs are a type of literature review distinguished by their objectivity, repeatability and transparency. SLRs aim to identify all research relevant to answering a specific question, producing an unbiased summary of the research (Nightingale, 2009). Our SLR follows the five-step process proposed by Khan et al. (2003), which includes:

1. formulating research questions;

2. identifying relevant studies;

3. assessing research quality;

4. synthesizing the data; and

5. interpreting the results.

This five-step process has been used in previous SLRs in management literature (Hoang et al., 2023; Nguyen et al., 2023).

To enhance transparency, we clearly defined and documented our search strategy, data sources and inclusion criteria prior to data collection. We conducted a comprehensive database search to identify relevant and high-quality research on EO in Vietnam. The articles for our study were selected from Scopus, a database known for its rigorous standards and peer-reviewed publications (Khanra et al., 2022). The initial search used the following search query: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“entrepreneur* orientation”) AND (“Vietnam”) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Vietnam”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Vietnam”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Entrepreneurial Orientation”)) . This search query formulation is adapted from prior reviews of EO (e.g. Wales, 2016). Two inclusion criteria were then applied to ensure the quality and accessibility of the studies included in this review. First, only articles published in peer-reviewed journals were considered. This criterion establishes a baseline level of academic rigor and methodological quality, as peer review serves as a filter for sound research design and contributions to the field. Second, we limited our search to studies published in the English language. This filter is necessary to enable consistent coding, synthesis and comparison across studies and to ensure accessibility to a broader international academic audience.

To ensure methodological rigor, we implemented a multistage screening process (see Figure 1). First, 159 full-text articles were retrieved using the specified query and filters. Three articles were duplicates and, therefore, were removed from the sample. The remaining 156 articles were then thoroughly reviewed independently by two researchers. Studies were included in the final sample if they met all the following criteria:

1. The article presents empirical data analysis, offering original insights.

2. EO is a central focus of the research, not merely mentioned in passing.

3. The study examines firms operating in Vietnam, with EO measured in the Vietnamese context.

Articles that did not meet all three criteria were excluded from the sample. Following full-text screening, 120 articles were removed from consideration. The final sample included 36 papers published in 30 journals between 2011 and 2025. The cutoff date for our sample is August 2025.

We adopted a content analysis approach outlined by Gardner et al. (2011) to analyze the empirical findings of the 36 articles in our sample. First, we extracted and coded basic information for each article, including the author(s), journal name and publication year. Next, we coded various study components, including theories applied, hypotheses, sample details (e.g. sample size and respondents), data collection methods, measurement tools, level of analysis and the identified antecedents, moderators, mediators and outcomes associated with EO. Two independent researchers conducted the coding process, each coding the information separately before collaboratively reviewing and verifying the results to ensure accuracy and consistency.

There was a notable consistency in the research methods and measurement tools used to investigate EO in Vietnam. Our analysis revealed that all 36 articles used quantitative methods, with questionnaire surveys serving as the predominant data collection tool. Specifically, 13 (36%) of the studies used the Covin and Slevin (1989) eight-item scale to measure EO, while six papers (17%) applied the Miller and Friesen (1982) scale. The analysis also shows a gap in the use of qualitative research methods to study EO in Vietnam, as no studies in the sample used qualitative approaches. Regarding the level of analysis, 34 studies (94%) focused on EO at the firm level, while only two studies (5%) examined it at the individual level (Hung and Khai, 2022; Roxas, 2021).

Table 1 summarizes the theoretical frameworks used in studies on EO in Vietnam. Among these, the resource-based view (RBV) emerged as the most frequently applied lens (n = 10). RBV positions firms as collections of valuable, rare, inimitable and organizationally embedded resources, which can be leveraged for sustained competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). Several EO studies in Vietnam use this lens to examine how EO serves as a strategic resource that enhances firm outcomes. For example, Ngo (2023) found that EO enhances innovation capabilities and differentiation advantages, both of which fully mediate the relationship between EO and performance. Similarly, Binh et al. (2022) highlighted how EO and human capital work together to support digital transformation initiatives that enhance competitiveness.

While RBV is dominant, a variety of other theories support and extend EO-related inquiry in the Vietnamese context. Dynamic capabilities theory (DCT) (n = 4) builds on RBV by focusing on firms’ ability to adapt, integrate and reconfigure internal and external resources in dynamic environments (Teece et al., 1997). Studies by Tuan Luu (2017) and Nguyen et al. (2024) show that firms with high EO are better positioned to develop dynamic capabilities, such as innovation agility or responsive supply chains, which in turn improve operational and strategic outcomes.

Several studies also incorporate organizational behavior and psychology-based theories, such as field theory (Luu, 2016), social capital theory (Nguyen et al., 2020) and the theory of planned behavior (Do and Luu, 2020), to explore individual- or team-level antecedents and moderators of EO. Less commonly used theories, such as stakeholder theory, institutional theory and social learning theory, reflect the interdisciplinary nature of EO research and allow for a more contextualized understanding of how EO interacts with leadership, culture and market dynamics.

Figure 2 illustrates the nomological network of EO research in Vietnam. This framework visually maps the relationships among key constructs, including antecedents, EO dimensions, mediators, moderators and outcomes (Gregor et al., 2014). It reflects how EO operates within a broader system of organizational behavior, leadership, capabilities, and performance. The network highlights recurring variables and theoretical linkages, offering a structured lens through which to understand EO’s role in Vietnamese organizational contexts (Verma and Khatri, 2021). To guide interpretation and maintain analytical clarity, the subsequent Sections (4.4–4.7) unpack the specific components of this nomological network. Each of these sections presents the results of our synthesis in greater depth, including the identified antecedents, outcomes, mediating mechanisms and moderating variables. While we organize these findings into thematic sub-sections for clarity, they are all derived from the integrative mapping shown in Figure 2 and collectively constitute the empirical structure of the nomological network of EO research in Vietnam.

Antecedents of EO identified in the literature can be grouped into three levels of analysis: individual, team and organizational. At the individual level, founder polychronicity has been identified as a meaningful predictor of EO. This trait, defined by a preference for multitasking and cognitive flexibility, has been shown to influence firms’ openness to innovation and risk-taking behaviors (Franczak et al., 2024). However, the sample contains only one study that examines the entrepreneur’s personality-level factors, suggesting a gap in micro-foundational perspectives on EO in Vietnam.

At the team level, various forms of leadership consistently emerge as drivers of EO. Studies demonstrate that entrepreneurial and ambidextrous leadership styles, which balance exploration and exploitation, promote strategic agility and responsiveness to environmental changes (Luu et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2024, 2021; Tuan Luu, 2017). These leadership types enable firms to cultivate a shared vision and empower employees to act innovatively, aligning with core EO dimensions such as proactiveness and autonomy.

At the organizational level, antecedents are more diverse but converge on the idea that relational and structural enablers facilitate EO. Studies highlight the role of customer relationship orientation, adaptive capability and organizational ambidexterity in supporting EO (Ngo et al., 2024; Tapanainen et al., 2022). In addition, systems such as diagnostic and interactive controls (Dao et al., 2023) and high-quality partnerships (Nguyen et al., 2020) create environments conducive to entrepreneurial behavior. Across the reviewed studies, the literature focuses primarily on enabling conditions. There remains a lack of investigation into potential inhibitors, such as organizational rigidity, fear of failure or cultural norms that might constrain EO development in the Vietnamese context.

The performance outcomes associated with EO are varied and operate at the individual and organizational levels. At the individual level, EO has been linked to increased job crafting and knowledge sharing (Tuan, 2015). These behaviors suggest that EO can impact employee engagement and learning behaviors, thereby facilitating bottom-up innovation and capacity building within firms. At the organizational level, EO is associated with improvements in sales growth, corporate social responsibility engagement and innovation capabilities. For instance, studies report links between EO and business model innovation, differentiation advantage and enhanced digital presence (Le et al., 2023; Ngo, 2023; Nguyen et al., 2022). EO is also linked to strategic renewal, collaborative performance and marketing capabilities, indicating its broad impact on a firm’s adaptability and resilience. Although EO is portrayed as a positive driver of performance, several studies suggest that its influence is indirect or contextually moderated. For example, the presence of innovation capability or a differentiation strategy is often required to translate EO into actual gains (Ngo, 2023). Moreover, some studies have noted mixed or modest effects of EO on final performance metrics, suggesting that the benefits of EO may be contingent upon complementary assets or environmental fit.

A small subset of the reviewed studies (n = 5) examines mediators that explain how EO translates into firm outcomes. These mediators are grouped into two broad categories: internal strategic capabilities and external engagement mechanisms. Internal capabilities such as innovation and differentiation strategies appear as dominant pathways. For example, Ngo (2021, 2023) finds that EO improves performance primarily through its effect on these strategic behaviors. Firms with high EO tend to develop unique value propositions and foster continuous innovation, which in turn enhances competitive advantage. Similarly, Nguyen Thi Minh et al. (2025) found that the firm’s sustainable natural resource management practices partially mediate the positive impact of the firm’s EO on its response to environmental externalities.

Other studies highlight external engagement as a mediating mechanism. For example, Nguyen et al. (2022) show that social media adoption and managerial ties mediate the EO-performance relationship, emphasizing the role of external connectivity. Le et al. (2023) identify corporate social responsibility as another important mediator, especially in sectors where stakeholder engagement is critical. These findings suggest that EO does not operate in isolation but is most effective when embedded within a broader ecosystem of internal capabilities and external relationships.

In six studies, EO was examined as a moderating variable, underscoring its role in amplifying the impact of other factors on firm outcomes. For instance, Luu (2016) demonstrated that EO strengthened the relationship between the psychological contract and knowledge sharing, indicating that an entrepreneurial culture fosters prosocial behaviors among employees. In a similar vein, Phan et al. (2020) demonstrated that EO enhanced the effectiveness of sustainability strategies in improving financial performance, suggesting that EO enables firms to convert socially oriented initiatives into economic value.

A distinctive contribution comes from Roxas (2021), who investigated managerial rather than firm-level EO. This study revealed that managers with entrepreneurial tendencies were better able to transform environmental resources into sustainability engagement, positioning EO as an enabling mindset at the individual level rather than solely an organizational attribute. Collectively, these studies illustrate that EO can operate as a powerful moderator across multiple levels, amplifying both social and sustainability outcomes.

Nevertheless, EO is not the only factor shaping performance effects. Other moderators have also been identified, pointing to the importance of complementary organizational enablers and contextual conditions in determining how EO translates into outcomes.

Beyond EO, several studies in the sample examined additional moderators of the EO–outcome relationship. These are grouped into two broad categories: organizational enablers and contextual or individual characteristics.

Organizational enablers include social capital, value chain collaboration and the adoption of circular economy principles. For instance, Dung et al. (2021) show that firms engaging in collaborative practices are better able to leverage EO for knowledge acquisition and performance gains. Le et al. (2023) find that circular economy practices enhance the relationship between EO and CSR outcomes, suggesting a complementarity between EO and sustainability-oriented practices.

At the contextual level, Tuan (2015) finds that leaders’ cultural intelligence strengthens the link between EO and performance. This suggests that the impact of EO depends not only on organizational systems but also on the cognitive and cultural competencies of leaders. Overall, these findings indicate that EO is most effective when aligned with other organizational strengths and when supported by leadership that is attuned to contextual dynamics.

The findings from this SLR highlight the growing body of research on EO in Vietnam. Whilst the field has made progress, closer analysis reveals several imbalances and conceptual limitations that reduce the depth of understanding. A more critical lens shows that research remains descriptive, with limited engagement with the contextual specificities that shape entrepreneurial behavior in Vietnam. Ngo et al. (2024) present some interesting findings regarding the impact of Vietnam’s collectivist society on EO, but this is one of the few papers that try to integrate cultural differences into their study within Vietnam.

One of the most notable observations in the reviewed literature is the overwhelming use of quantitative methods. A more balanced integration of quantitative, mixed-methods and qualitative approaches could yield richer insights into EO within the Vietnamese context (Cowden and Tang, 2021). In particular, using more varied data sets and data types would deepen our understanding of how EO is shaped in Vietnam (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Miller, 2011). For example, Dessì et al. (2023), illustrate the potential of qualitative inquiry through their study of artisans in Sardinia, demonstrating how context-specific methods can reveal perspectives often overlooked by survey-based research.

Notably, all studies in our sample relied on survey data, with most adopting measurement tools developed in Western contexts, such as the Covin and Slevin (1989) scale. Whilst this approach provides consistency and comparability, it raises concerns about the appropriateness of applying these tools without adaptation. EO is a concept shaped by the broader institutional and cultural environment. For example, Lee and Peterson (2000) suggested that specific cultural aspects could result in a stronger EO and briefly highlighted the cases of various countries. Nguyen et al. (2022) attempted this but did not provide context-specific measures for Vietnam, focusing instead on “collectivism.” The use of imported measurement tools, without critical reflection on their cultural relevance, may limit our understanding of how EO is conceptualized and operationalized in Vietnam.

In terms of theoretical framing, the literature shows a firm reliance on the RBV and DCT. These frameworks provide valuable insights into how firms develop and use internal capabilities to respond to change and achieve a competitive advantage. However, the consistent application of these theories also suggests a lack of diversity in theoretical perspectives. Whilst the RBV and DCT are well-established in EO research globally, they often overlook the influence of external factors, such as institutional constraints, policy environments and cultural norms. In Vietnam, these factors may significantly influence the development of EO and its impact on firm performance. The underutilization of other theoretical frameworks, such as institutional theory or upper echelons theory (UET), limits the ability of EO research to capture the full complexity of entrepreneurial activity in Vietnam (Ngo et al., 2024). In the broader literature, scholars have increasingly drawn on alternative perspectives in EO research, including environmental dynamism (Musawa and Ahmad, 2018), organizational learning theory (Huang et al., 2020) and effectuation (Cowden and Tang, 2021). Adopting similarly novel approaches in Vietnam would enrich our understanding of EO by generating context-specific insights into how entrepreneurial processes operate.

The nomological network presented in the literature outlines key antecedents and outcomes of EO in Vietnam. However, most of the antecedents identified are enabling factors. There is a distinct lack of research into factors that may inhibit EO, such as regulatory barriers, cultural norms that discourage risk-taking or resource constraints that are common in SMEs. This lack of research in this area within Vietnam is consistent with the wider global literature on EO (Wales et al., 2011). Without understanding what prevents EO, the picture remains incomplete. Similarly, the outcomes associated with EO are generally positive, with few studies exploring the adverse effects that have been studied more widely outside of Vietnam, for example, those by Hughes and Morgan (2007) and Kreiser et al. (2013). Whilst the review highlights several firm-level benefits, including improved performance, innovation capability and competitiveness, the impact of EO is unlikely to be universally positive. EO can increase risk exposure and lead to resource misallocation in uncertain environments. More balanced research is needed to investigate the conditions under which EO contributes to, or detracts from, a firm’s success.

The studies that examine mediating and moderating mechanisms between EO and performance help to add nuance to the understanding of these relationships. For example, innovation capability, differentiation strategy and digital engagement were identified as essential mediators. However, these studies remain limited in number, and the mechanisms are often examined in isolation, rather than as part of a broader system of interactions. Likewise, while EO was shown to act as a moderator in some contexts, such as the relationship between sustainability practices and performance, there is little consistency across studies. The fragmented nature of this analysis limits opportunities for cumulative theory development.

Overall, the literature on EO in Vietnam shows signs of advancement but remains at an early stage in its theoretical and methodological development. The current focus is predominantly on confirming the positive role of EO in supporting firm performance, with little exploration of how EO operates in context-specific ways. A more critical and diverse approach to studying EO is needed to ensure that future research captures the full range of entrepreneurial dynamics in Vietnam. Using more novel frameworks, mixed and purely qualitative methods and more nuanced, context-specific cases would help to strengthen our understanding of EO in Vietnam.

EO is a crucial framework for understanding how firms adopt and implement entrepreneurial behaviors that can foster growth, innovation and competitiveness. In the Vietnamese context, which is characterized by a rapidly developing economy, EO research has the potential to address the unique opportunities and challenges faced by Vietnamese firms. This SLR highlights that considerable progress has been made in exploring EO in Vietnam; however, there are notable gaps in the methodological approaches, use of theoretical frameworks and the contextual application of EO that warrant further investigation.

The findings highlight the emphasis on quantitative research methods, with questionnaire surveys being the most used approach. The Covin and Slevin (1989) scale, being the most widely used measurement, highlights the need for more diverse scales and methods to be used, so that we can gain insights into how EO operates in Vietnam’s economic and cultural context. The focus on firm-level EO, with limited attention to individual-level EO, offers opportunities to explore how leadership traits and founder characteristics shape entrepreneurial behavior within Vietnamese firms. These insights could be valuable for Vietnamese SMEs, which dominate the economic landscape but face many barriers to innovation and internationalization.

The application of frameworks like the RBV and DCT has driven theoretical advancements in EO. These theories can offer valuable insights into how firms can leverage and adapt their resources to gain a competitive advantage. However, integrating other theories, such as EUT, could provide further insights into the role of leadership and decision making within the Vietnamese entrepreneurial ecosystem. In addition, exploring how cultural and institutional factors mediate or moderate the impact of EO could enhance the applicability of EO within the Vietnamese context and emerging economies more widely.

EO research has important implications for Vietnamese policy, education and business strategy. For policymakers, fostering an entrepreneurial ecosystem that supports SMEs and encourages innovation is vital for achieving Vietnam’s economic goals. Expanding funding, enhancing business development support and addressing structural barriers that limit competition and innovation are crucial for the continued growth and development of the economy. For educators and business leaders, integrating EO principles into training programs can enable entrepreneurs and managers to become more proactive, innovative and take more risks, allowing them to compete more effectively in the global markets.

The advancement of EO research is essential for Vietnam’s economic modernization and its integration into the global economy. By addressing the gaps identified here and leveraging context-specific insights, future research can contribute to both the theoretical understanding and practical solutions that support the growth of Vietnamese enterprises and their economy. Vietnam’s transition to a knowledge-based economy highlights the increasing importance of entrepreneurship, with EO playing a pivotal role in promoting innovation and competitiveness among firms. This, in turn, can further enhance Vietnam’s integration into global value chains.

The current SLR demonstrates the consistent use of the RBV and DCT in studies of EO in Vietnam. This underscores their relevance to understanding how Vietnamese firms achieve and sustain competitive advantage. RBV emphasizes the importance of valuable, rare, inimitable and nonsubstitutable resources as the foundation of competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). In the Vietnamese market, which is characterized by rapid growth and increasing integration into global markets (Nguyen and Özçaglar-Toulouse, 2021), RBV can be extended to consider how unique local resources, such as cultural intelligence and regional customer relationships (Chao et al., 2017; Guerola-Navarro et al., 2021), contribute to EO.

Meanwhile, DCT emphasizes the firm’s ability to adapt, reconfigure and renew its resources in response to environmental changes (Teece et al., 1997), which is crucial in dynamic, often volatile economic environments such as Vietnam. As Vietnamese firms face challenges such as technological advancement, increased competition from foreign firms and evolving regulatory landscapes, they require dynamic capabilities that enable them to sense and seize new opportunities while efficiently reconfiguring their resources to respond to shifts in the market (Farzaneh et al., 2022). Future research could delve deeper into how Vietnamese firms develop these dynamic capabilities and whether specific capabilities emerge as critical in Vietnam’s unique socioeconomic context.

Given the strong influence of founder and CEO attributes on EO identified in the reviewed literature, integrating UET (Hambrick and Mason, 1984) into EO research in Vietnam offers a promising theoretical direction. Vietnamese entrepreneurs often play a central role in shaping their firms’ strategic orientation, particularly in SMEs, where leadership is typically hands-on and involved. Characteristics such as CEO polychronicity – the ability to handle multiple tasks and switch focus as needed (Franczak et al., 2024) – have been shown to support entrepreneurial activities by enhancing leaders’ flexibility and responsiveness to emerging opportunities.

For Vietnam and Vietnamese entrepreneurs, this research highlights several key areas that could enhance the entrepreneurial ecosystem and help the country achieve its modernization goals by 2050. The studies in our sample demonstrate that current research has been entirely quantitative in nature. The use of mixed or qualitative data could provide a deeper contextual understanding of EO in Vietnam and offer further insights into how EO can be used in Vietnamese firms. Another clear trend is toward firm level, rather than individual level, understanding the antecedents of EO in the Vietnamese context could help to inform entrepreneurship or leadership skills development programs.

This research shows that there are common theories that have been used in the study of EO in Vietnam, most notably the RBV and DCT. Using these frameworks could form the basis of training workshops that help business leaders improve their strategic planning processes, build their human capital, enhance their innovation capabilities and upgrade their digital infrastructure. Targeting support at SMEs could also be a fruitful approach; many countries have initiatives aimed at developing the competencies of start-ups, with the UK and Canada serving as prime examples (CBDC, 2024; DfBT, 2024). Vietnam’s current system for encouraging start-ups is underdeveloped. Targeted training and seed funding are essential for encouraging potential high-growth start-ups capable of competing globally; however, in Vietnam, these are still lagging behind best practices globally.

Vietnam has implemented some policies aimed at achieving this, but they typically lack sufficient funding and impact (Lan, 2022; Vietnamese Government, 2016). Schemes such as mentoring programs are typical in other countries; connecting SMEs with experienced entrepreneurs could help to foster the development of EO. In Vietnam, there is a growing trend of incubators that connect firms with resources and support. Furthering this support to more potential entrepreneurs through government schemes could be a catalyst for even more high-growth start-ups. According to Viet Nam News (2024), Vietnam “has more than 1,400 start-up support organizations, 202 co-working spaces, 208 investment funds, 35 business promotion organizations, 79 incubators and about 170 universities and colleges engaging in innovative start-up activities.”

Raising awareness of the potential impacts of having an EO is crucial; this requires support from the Government, businesses and universities to develop a more robust entrepreneurial ecosystem. Policies aimed at enhancing EO development can help improve the competitiveness of Vietnamese firms and contribute to the country’s goal of becoming a high-income country by 2050.