It takes an ecosystem to reduce poverty: a call for research on inclusive business entrepreneurial ecosystems

Inclusive business (IB) is a novel approach to poverty alleviation, community development and economic growth that empowers marginalized groups to participate in the value chains of commercial organizations (Faling & Schouten, 2025; Lange et al., 2023; Lashitew et al., 2024). IBs adopt a market-based strategy for generating financial, social and civic wealth by integrating people who are poor, disadvantaged and/or marginalized into the supply and demand sides of businesses (Akiode & Roundy, 2025; Hart & Sharma, 2004; Likoko & Kini, 2017; Schoneveld, 2020). Specifically, IBs co-create value with impoverished groups through business models that incorporate them as suppliers, distributors, employees and customers. The IB approach has been applied to several sectors, including agriculture (De Gelder et al., 2025), aquaculture (Kaminski et al., 2020), manufacturing (Kamgnia & Ahouré, 2023) and tourism (Chambwe & Saayman, 2025; Trilaksono et al., 2025), and has been particularly transformative in the so-called “Global South” (Weng et al., 2024). IBs enable marginalized groups to participate in the formal economy and co-produce positive outcomes with stakeholders, such as increases in income, financial independence, well-being and dignity (Hahn, 2012).

IBs are created and scaled by “IB entrepreneurs,” entrepreneurs who pursue opportunities to design innovative business models that incorporate marginalized groups into their value chains. The overarching goal of IB entrepreneurs is value co-creation and mutual benefit, in which partnerships with disadvantaged groups yield economic profits for the business and socioeconomic benefits for the low-income communities involved. For instance, Psaltry International is an IB in Nigeria, created by an entrepreneur to benefit smallholders (i.e. low-income farmers) by integrating them into the venture’s agricultural value chain. Through its cassava processing supply chain, Psaltry has helped to transform smallholders into thriving commercial farmers, thereby reducing unemployment, improving productivity, providing a living wage and raising the overall quality of life of local communities [Psaltry International (Psaltry International Company LTD, 2025)].

IB entrepreneurs take an “outside in” approach (Dyllick & Muff, 2016) that concentrates on the challenges of marginalized groups and their communities and prioritizes developing business models that address these challenges, rather than focusing exclusively on the business, its financial objectives, and how it can exploit its local environment in the pursuit of organizational interests (i.e. an “inside out” approach). IB entrepreneurship requires a fundamental shift in the mindset, goals and activities of entrepreneurs toward trying to reduce poverty directly through the activities of businesses, rather than through donation-based, “giving” models, or corporate philanthropy, by making value chains accessible to marginalized groups. In doing so, IB entrepreneurs actively seek to transform markets by opening them to groups that would normally be excluded, which is part of a broader movement to make marketplaces more inclusive to all community members (Zainuddin et al., 2025). Entrepreneurs are particularly influential in the IB movement because of growing evidence that large multinational corporations cannot provide all-encompassing solutions to poverty alleviation. For instance, Lange et al. (2023, p. 2588) explain that “notwithstanding the assumed enormous market opportunities in Africa, multinational players have begun to leave the continent and investment has decreased […] these firms could not cope with ongoing challenges such as unstable economic growth, infrastructural issues, and skills shortages.” However, the flexibility, responsiveness and organizational ambidexterity of entrepreneurs and their ventures make them well-suited to rapidly changing and challenging environments (Kickul & Lyons, 2020).

Despite their potential for improving the well-being of disadvantaged and marginalized groups (Likoko & Kini, 2017), IB entrepreneurs face significant challenges. When creating and scaling early-stage ventures, IB entrepreneurs must overcome the classic problem faced by most entrepreneurs: a sizeable gap between the resources within their control and those needed to pursue opportunities. Like other entrepreneurs, IB entrepreneurs are typically resource-constrained and must devise creative strategies to acquire and organize resources, particularly financial capital and human resources (Zhao & Lounsbury, 2016). However, IB entrepreneurs also experience distinct challenges stemming from their unique emphasis on co-creating value with marginalized stakeholder groups. IB entrepreneurs must acquire the specialized knowledge needed to design innovative business models that successfully integrate low-income groups, connect to networks that help them to identify qualified members of marginalized groups with whom they can partner and create an organizational (and value chain) culture based on norms that support both financial viability and poverty alleviation.

Insights from the study of other types of entrepreneurs suggest that IB entrepreneurs can overcome these distinctive challenges by leveraging their entrepreneurial ecosystems − the interdependent actors and factors within a geographic territory that are coordinated to support entrepreneurship (Stam & Van de Ven, 2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) research emphasizes the importance of the contexts in which entrepreneurs pursue opportunities. One of the main insights of EE research is that different geographic territories create unique conditions and environments for entrepreneurship. For instance, the factors that influence entrepreneurship in large, high-income cities are often very different than the locational forces in low-income rural areas and small towns. Likewise, the resources available in vibrant EEs, like Silicon Valley, São Paulo and Berlin (Noak et al., 2025), are distinct from those in struggling or transitioning regions (Roundy et al., 2025). Effective EEs, which are ecosystems that support high levels of entrepreneurial activity, provide entrepreneurs with access to a range of local resource providers, such as investors, support organizations (i.e. incubators, accelerators and small business development centers), startup talent (e.g. software engineers), customers and mentors. These actors can provide entrepreneurs with the cognitive, social and cultural resources − referred to as an ecosystem’s “knowledge, networks, norms” − needed to create and scale ventures.

A growing body of research finds that entrepreneurs focused on having a social impact are supported by unique entrepreneurial ecosystems (Lyons & Roundy, 2023). These EEs are often sub-ecosystems within entrepreneurs’ conventional entrepreneurial ecosystem (Loots et al., 2021) and are coordinated to provide impact-oriented entrepreneurs with the resources needed to fulfill their societal goals. However, while inclusive business is a topic garnering growing attention, the distinctive entrepreneurial ecosystems that support IB entrepreneurship − inclusive business entrepreneurial ecosystems (“IB-EEs”) − are largely unexplored.

The lack of academic attention to IB-EEs has created conceptual and practical problems. First, inclusive business research has generally focused on mature organizations, not entrepreneurs, and thus important questions remain about how businesses created from the outset to co-create value with marginalized groups can benefit from leaning into the resources in their local communities. Most notably, scholars have a limited understanding of the unique dynamics of IB-EEs, which limits the actionable advice they offer to policymakers, communities and EE “builders” on how to create and strengthen local communities that support inclusive businesses. Likewise, it is unclear how entrepreneurs, particularly in low and middle-income contexts, can use and contribute to supportive IB-EEs. As a result, the causal mechanisms and outcomes of IB-EEs remain unidentified, and it is unclear how entrepreneurs and the marginalized groups they partner with effectively leverage their local ecosystems to create and scale IB ventures.

To stimulate research on how local communities can facilitate (or hinder) IB entrepreneurship and alleviate poverty, this perspective piece takes initial steps to address the research omissions at the intersection of IB entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Specifically, two related questions are pursued to set the stage for studying IB-EEs and serve as a call for future research on the topic: What are the unique actors, activities, alignment, and value proposition of IB entrepreneurial ecosystems? And how do entrepreneurial ecosystems function to improve the performance of IB entrepreneurs and their ventures? By answering these questions, we clarify IB entrepreneurship by conceptualizing it as a unique form of social entrepreneurship aimed at improving the conditions of marginalized groups, but one that depends on distinctive contextual systems: IB-EEs. As we explain, these specialized entrepreneurial ecosystems can provide entrepreneurs with the knowledge, networks and norms they need to pursue IB opportunities and, in doing so, improve the performance of IB entrepreneurs and their ventures. We highlight IB-EEs as a ripe phenomenon for researchers and practitioners focused on innovative strategies to reduce poverty, particularly in low-income countries, emerging economies and peripheral regions.

Inclusive business (IB) involves business models that “include the poor on the demand side as clients and customers, and on the supply side as employees, producers and business owners at various points in the value chain […] They build bridges between business and the poor for mutual benefit” (UNDP, 2008, p. 2). IB has gained popularity as part of the “pro-poor” approach to inclusive development that seeks to ensure that marginalized groups can fulfill their needs in economically, socially and environmentally sustainable ways (Likoko & Kini, 2017). The IB approach places a premium on the dignity of low-income populations and on activities that empower them to improve their well-being (Lashitew & van Tulder, 2017; Likoko & Kini, 2017). IB is based on the notion that well-being in low-income contexts can be improved by unleashing the capacity of marginalized groups to engage in entrepreneurship, wealth generation and community development. As such, IB is not a charity-based model but rather one that enables marginalized groups to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities through their own efforts (Lange et al., 2023; UNDP, 2008). For instance, Babban Gona is an IB in Nigeria that helps smallholders overcome the limited economies of scale that keep farmers in poverty by making them part owners of the business, which involves offering training to improve their commercial mindset, encouraging farmers to adopt yield-improving agronomic practices and providing access to credit, harvesting and marketing services and food storage. By incorporating smallholders into the venture’s value chain, farmers establish and run their own micro-enterprises, which improves their profitability and lowers community unemployment (Babban Gona, 2025).

IB entrepreneurship can be conceptualized as a distinct type of social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurs create IB models that address societal problems (Kickul & Lyons, 2020). In doing so, they often serve two demand-side groups: customers who purchase their products and services, and beneficiaries who receive a portion of the value created by the venture. An example of social entrepreneurship is the “buy-one-give-one” business model in which for every product purchased, a second product is donated to those affected by a social problem (Carrillo-Duran & Castillo-Diaz, 2021).

IB entrepreneurs, however, are distinct from other types of social entrepreneurs in that they seek to co-create value with beneficiary groups, rather than simply redistribute value they have already created to beneficiaries through donation-based models. Other models of social entrepreneurship are based on “value sharing,” in which entrepreneurs create and capture value and then donate a portion of their value to stakeholders through charity-oriented, giving programs (i.e. with value sharing business models entrepreneurs freely transfer and distribute the value they create and capture to a wider community that includes other stakeholders; Hlady-Rispal and Servantie, 2018). In contrast, IB entrepreneurs create business models with marginalized groups by integrating them into their value chains and prioritizing value co-creation activities over value capture for the organization, while ensuring that the business is financially viable (Lashitew & van Tulder, 2017; Santos, 2012; Schoneveld, 2020). IB entrepreneurs, thus, must balance social impact and economic sustainability. Schoneveld (2020, p. 10) summarizes the aspects of the complex business models designed by IB entrepreneurs:

However, designing business models and operating ventures that effectively implement value co-creating activities is challenging. Like conventional entrepreneurs, IB entrepreneurs may address their challenges by leveraging the resources and support of the entrepreneurial ecosystems in which they are located (Lyons & Roundy, 2023). However, because IB entrepreneurs have specialized needs, the local ecosystems that support them are distinct. To understand the features of these ecosystems, the ecosystem-as-structure (see Adner, 2017) perspective suggests exploring the unique actors, activities and alignment within an ecosystem and how its elements produce a distinctive value proposition for its participants. The next sections explore the structural elements of IB-EEs.

Developing effective business ecosystems is key to successful value co-creation. IBs need to be embedded in larger ecosystems, IB-EEs, which give them access to resources and community support (Lashitew & van Tulder, 2017). IB-EEs are comprised of unique actors, including entrepreneurs, their ventures, marginalized groups, international economic development organizations, NGOs, investors (e.g. impact-oriented angels and VCs), traditional financial institutions (e.g. federal governments and central banks), crowdfunding platforms (e.g. Kiva), support organizations (e.g. incubators) and research institutions. One of the primary actors of IB-EEs is IB entrepreneurs who are driven by multiple, interrelated goals: improving the lives of impoverished groups by increasing their incomes, making markets more inclusive and building financially sustainable ventures.

Marginalized groups are another critical type of actor in IB-EEs. For instance, agriculture-focused IB entrepreneurs, such as FMS Farms in Nigeria (FMS Farms, 2025), often work with low-income farmers (smallholders) who are commonly part of the base of the pyramid (i.e. the segment of the world’s population with a per capita income of less than US$2 per day; Prahalad, 2009). Smallholders commonly use basic agricultural practices that have not changed for generations, have underutilized farmland, and lack basic amenities and infrastructure (e.g. electricity, stable road networks, effective waste systems). As a result, they can have low productivity and produce crops at subsistence levels. Marginalized groups, such as smallholders, must overcome a myriad of resource challenges, including limited access to credit, limited purchasing power and difficulty transporting raw materials and finished goods (Akiode, 2021; Reficco & Márquez, 2012). IB entrepreneurs partner with actors in their local ecosystems to enable disadvantaged groups to overcome these challenges.

IB entrepreneurs have distinctive needs and mobilize unique resources to pursue opportunities different from those of conventional entrepreneurs. These differences mean that IB-EEs function differently from traditional (i.e. profit-dominant) EEs and offer specialized activities to support IB entrepreneurship. In general, the activities of EEs center on three general types of ecosystem attributes: cognitive, social and cultural (Spigel, 2017; Stam & Van de Ven, 2021; Theodoraki et al., 2018). An EE’s cognitive attributes correspond to the knowledge in and about the ecosystem; its social attributes involve the networks that connect ecosystem participants; and an EE’s cultural attributes consist of the norms that guide how EE participants should interact with one another and approach the process of entrepreneurship (Fernandes & Ferreira, 2022; Hannigan et al., 2022; Jones & Ratten, 2021). In IB-EEs, the knowledge, networks and norms of the ecosystems (described next) are tailored to support IB entrepreneurs.

IB entrepreneurs can learn to design business models that co-create value with marginalized groups from interactions with the actors in their local ecosystems. For instance, a study of IB in the rice sector in Ghana found that IB entrepreneurs had to acquire the knowledge to make several strategic decisions about their “level of investment and decision making, quality standards, price, payment schedules, and control” (Creppy et al., 2024). These types of decisions can be challenging because IB entrepreneurs often create ventures in contexts with limited economic activity. When making key decisions, IB entrepreneurs must also obtain knowledge that gives them deep insight into the marginalized groups they are integrating into their value chains and the distinctive needs and competencies of these groups. To do so, entrepreneurs engage in an information gathering and evaluation phase in which they seek knowledge directly from marginalized groups and indirectly from other EE actors who work with marginalized groups (e.g. social service organizations). Entrepreneurs’ goal is to obtain knowledge that enables them to understand not only the groups they are trying to partner with in their value chains but also the contextual conditions in their local environments that contribute to their marginalization. This knowledge allows them to empathize with and understand their targeted partners. In addition to stakeholder-specific knowledge, IB entrepreneurs need broader knowledge of the entrepreneurship process, including the knowledge necessary to introduce new products and processes to the market. An important type of knowledge IB entrepreneurs can gain from their ecosystems is deep insight into their value chains and how they function. Entrepreneurs may have an intuitive understanding of the aspect of the value chain that their venture is directly responsible for (e.g. the marketing of a final product); however, IB entrepreneurs need to expand their knowledge of more distant aspects of their value chains to understand how best to partner with marginalized groups and integrate them into their activities. Through feedback and mentoring, IB-EE actors can help entrepreneurs determine what aspects of their value chain are most feasible to innovate. In doing so, IB-EEs provide entrepreneurs with the knowledge needed to effectively co-create value.

As their businesses scale, IB entrepreneurs also need knowledge about how to manage venture growth so that scaling does not lead to mission dilution, which can involve managing the ever-evolving dynamics between disadvantaged groups and other stakeholders in their value chain (e.g. between farmers and transporters of raw materials and finished goods). Finally, IB-EEs also contain meta-knowledge about the ecosystem itself, including information about who the key actors are, how they are connected, and what local resources are available. This meta-knowledge enables IB entrepreneurs to better utilize their ecosystems.

The embeddedness of inclusive entrepreneurs in local “issue-driven” networks supports the mobilization of resources to achieve sustainability and value co-creation goals (Mark-Herbert & Prejer, 2018; Ros-Tonen et al., 2019). A balance (“the right partner mix”) between producers, consumers, public actors and NGOs ensures that the dual focus on financial viability and societal impact is not compromised (Ros-Tonen et al., 2019). IB entrepreneurs can obtain the knowledge they need from their network connections with other EE participants. Beyond knowledge, IB-EE networks can be conduits for other resources, including financial capital, such as private sector credit and access to impact investors (i.e. investors who seek both financial and social returns; Schlütter et al., 2024). For instance, agriculture-focused IB entrepreneurs secure funding through local networks to provide farmers with fertilizers, tractors and other agricultural resources (Ofori-Sasu et al., 2025). IB entrepreneurs can use ecosystem networks to access critical human capital and to identify and recruit members of marginalized groups who are best suited to participating in their value chains. If entrepreneurs become embedded in their IB-EE networks, their connections to others in the local communities can also help them to establish trust with marginalized groups, strategic partnerships and collaborations with other organizations, all of which can facilitate venture development.

IB entrepreneurship is based on distinct norms (De Bruin et al., 2023; Lévesque, 2016), which revolve around entrepreneurs seeking to benefit marginalized groups through value chain integration. Like other forms of social entrepreneurship, IB entrepreneurship is heavily influenced by entrepreneurs’ values, which cause them to recognize a societal problem in their community (e.g. crop spoilage, youth unemployment, crime) and to feel a moral responsibility to address it through venture creation. Likewise, Lashitew et al. (2024) contend that IB is based on empathy (i.e. “the ability to intellectually recognize and emotionally share the emotions or feelings of others”; Mair & Noboa, 2006: p. 128) and moral judgment (i.e. “the cognitive process that motivates an individual to help others in search of a common good”; Mair & Noboa, 2006, p. 129). These two elements give IB entrepreneurs the motivation to create IBs aimed at improving the well-being of marginalized groups.

IB entrepreneurs can learn and reinforce the values that support inclusive business by being exposed to the norms of their IB-EEs. For instance, interactions with other local IB entrepreneurs, community mentors and IB-oriented support organizations, either directly or vicariously (e.g. the sharing of community narratives), are opportunities for entrepreneurs to learn the culture of IB. For instance, through exposure to the norms of their EEs, IB entrepreneurs learn the importance of taking a design approach where they work with marginalized groups to co-create value rather than assuming that entrepreneurs’ initial poverty reduction ideas are necessarily the optimal solution. For entrepreneurs to learn the culture that supports IB, certain values must be present in the local community, such as a preference for cooperation, trust and other prosocial norms. In general, effective EEs have a culture based on a set of simple rules, such as “give to the ecosystem before taking,” “help others,” “take the meeting” and “favor cooperation or competition with other ecosystem participants” (Feld, 2020). In addition to these norms, for IB entrepreneurship, it is also important for an EE to have a culture that values applying market-based solutions to social problems, such as poverty. Such values make community members more likely to notice marginalized groups and consider ways of enabling them to address problems through entrepreneurship. However, not all aspects of a local culture may support IB entrepreneurship. For instance, norms within a region may work to support the status quo (i.e. preferences for non-IB approaches to production and consumption). Yet, the values in IB-EEs can help entrepreneurs push back on exclusionary market practices and entrenched approaches to poverty alleviation.

To be an effective EE that can support high levels of entrepreneurial activity, the actors and activities of IB-EEs must be aligned. The alignment of an EE represents the degree to which its elements work together to support entrepreneurship (see Adner, 2017). In EEs with strong alignment, the knowledge, networks and norms of the ecosystems are coherent, orchestrated and coordinated (Santos et al., 2023; Santos et al., 2025). If an IB-EE is aligned, recursive feedback loops exist among key ecosystem elements, making the networks conduits for knowledge and norms, which in turn strengthen connections among IB-EE participants. For instance, if an IB-EE has strong norms supporting communication, collaboration and cooperation among participants, these values strengthen ecosystem networks and result in more knowledge about IB being produced and spread among participants. In contrast, in weakly aligned IB-EEs, ecosystem elements are disjointed, and actors and activities are isolated. In unaligned and fragmented ecosystems, the elements are not coordinated to work together to support entrepreneurship. For example, if a community lacks strong norms supporting cooperation and instead promotes competition among IB-EE participants, there will not be strong networks connecting ecosystem participants, and the specialized knowledge and norms needed for IB will remain siloed and not widely distributed among community members. The knowledge, networks and norms of EEs become aligned based on both “bottom-up” processes (Spigel, 2018), such as the shared goals and actions of EE participants naturally producing coherence in ecosystem activities, and “top-down” processes, such as the deliberate, coordinating efforts of EE leaders (Santos et al., 2025).

The ecosystem-as-structure perspective explains that an ecosystem’s actors, activities and alignment determine its unique value propositions for participants (Adner, 2017). In the case of IB-EEs, the actors, activities and alignment of the ecosystem produce a distinct value proposition: improving entrepreneurs’ ability to design business models that co-create value with marginalized groups. This unique value proposition reflects the focus of IB-EEs and is distinct from the value propositions of other types of EEs. For example, conventional (i.e. primarily profit-driven) EEs offer a value proposition focused on improving the financial performance of traditional ventures by strengthening their sustainable competitive advantages and ability to generate rents relative to rivals (e.g. by pursuing opportunities faster than competitors). The focus of conventional EEs is on enabling entrepreneurs to capture value for their organizations. In contrast, IB-EEs offer a value proposition that reflects and supports the unique mission of IB entrepreneurs. IB entrepreneurs do not leverage their ecosystems to maximize the value they can capture for their ventures, but rather to maximize the value that can be co-created with marginalized groups as partners in their value chains. Thus, the activities, actors and alignment of IB-EEs work together in a unique way to produce a value proposition tailored to the distinct motivations and needs of IB entrepreneurs.

The main purpose of this perspective piece is to stimulate research exploring how entrepreneurs acquire the resources needed to navigate the unique challenges of IB and design business models that co-create value with low-income communities. To spark this research, we have suggested examining how IB entrepreneurs leverage their local entrepreneurial ecosystems (what we term “IB-EEs”) to access the specialized networks, knowledge and norms they need to integrate marginalized groups into their value chains. Although a growing stream of research emphasizes how entrepreneurial ecosystems can be designed and used to support social impact and the greater good (De Bruin et al., 2023), this research has not considered the distinctive dynamics of IB entrepreneurs and the unique ecosystems that support their activities. Thus, we call for research on the contextual factors in entrepreneurs’ local environments that enable them to pursue IB entrepreneurship. The next sections outline the first steps to examine these factors and opportunities to expand and integrate work on IB entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Entrepreneurial ecosystems research acknowledges that the causal mechanisms and dynamics of EEs manifest at different levels (Wurth et al., 2022). Specifically, ecosystems research increasingly cautions scholars to be clear about the level(s) of analysis being studied − micro (i.e. EE actors), meso (i.e. organizations) or macro (i.e. ecosystem) − and how these levels interact (Hess et al., 2025; Roundy & Lyons, 2023). For instance, research adopting a microfoundations approach to studying EEs emphasizes that the macro-level characteristics and outcomes of EEs are often influenced by and, in turn, influence the micro and meso-level dynamics of EE participants and their organizations (e.g. da Silva Napoli et al., 2025; Fischer et al., 2024). In the following sections, we call for IB-EE research that explores multiple levels spanning individuals, groups, organizations and ecosystems. To organize the areas of future research on this topic, we build on the microfoundations framework (Coleman, 1990; Cowen et al., 2022) to illustrate the most pressing research questions and topics at each of the main levels of IB-EEs (i.e. micro, meso and macro) and their interactions (Figure 1).

Micro-oriented research couldfocus on the characteristics and dynamics of the individuals who comprise IB-EEs and seek to understand how the cognitions, emotions and other individual-level attributes of IB-EE participants shape their agency, actions and outcomes, which in turn influence the characteristics and outcomes of their ventures (Figure 1, arrows 1–3). For instance, micro-focused research might emphasize the motivations, behaviors and activities of IB entrepreneurs and the marginalized individuals who comprise IB-EEs, or the characteristics of other ecosystem participants, such as impact investors and support organization mentors. Studies at the micro-level of analysis could explore the backgrounds and experiences of IB entrepreneurs to understand who they are and what has fueled their alertness to poverty reduction and community development opportunities. Likewise, research could explore how IB entrepreneurs and other EE actors are encouraged to adopt an ecosystem mindset, which causes them to look to their local ecosystems when seeking and contributing resources, and how they develop critical characteristics, like humility and empathy, which are necessary for formulating businesses that are effective in empowering and co-creating value with impoverished groups. It may also be fruitful to identify the characteristics that make IB entrepreneurs more successful in leveraging their EEs to benefit local communities, such as adopting a design-oriented approach or taking a longer-term perspective toward value creation and venture development.

Although IB entrepreneurs are a type of social entrepreneur, research is needed to explore how the mindsets, objectives and activities of IB entrepreneurs differ from other social impact-oriented entrepreneurs who are not focused on value co-creation and who pursue other approaches to addressing social problems (e.g. value sharing through the production of positive externalities; Santos, 2012). For instance, as described, IB entrepreneurs seek to co-create value with stakeholders by incorporating them into a venture’s value chain, which is a different approach to impact than entrepreneurs who seek to assist disadvantaged groups through business models that create and capture value for the organization, which is then distributed to beneficiary groups through charity-based programs. Although both models may be necessary depending on the circumstances of beneficiaries (e.g. it is not possible to incorporate some marginalized groups into a venture’s value chain), the co-creation model places a greater priority on empowering low-income groups and encouraging dignity through work than value-sharing approaches, which are more donation-based and prone to issues of dependence. Research could explore the specific strategies IB entrepreneurs use to navigate the tension between creating financially viable businesses that generate personal wealth while also creating social value with marginalized groups in their communities. It is also unclear how IB entrepreneurs evaluate and respond to challenging contextual conditions and why contexts experiencing negative disruptions (e.g. wars, natural disasters, famines) may encourage, rather than discourage, individuals to pursue opportunities for inclusive businesses.

In addition to studying the attributes and actions of IB entrepreneurs, research is needed on the characteristics of the marginalized individuals with whom entrepreneurs partner. For instance, studies have found that a critical success factor for the 2SCALE program, an inclusive business program in Nigeria, is the presence of strong and committed business champions among smallholder farmers who embrace the concept of inclusive agribusiness and are open to trying innovative farming practices that allow them to become part of an entrepreneur’s value chain (van Dijk et al., 2020). Studies are needed to explore the mechanisms that drive these smallholder characteristics, such as risk tolerance and openness to change.

Another avenue for future research is for scholars to explore how IB-EE participants, and particularly IB entrepreneurs, function as ecosystem leaders. EE leaders are individuals within a local community who take an active role in developing an EE to make it more effective (see Miles & Morrison, 2020). IB entrepreneurs are both participants within IB-EEs and can become leaders in developing the ecosystem. Indeed, the ventures that IB entrepreneurs design and the interconnected value chains they create often become the cornerstones of EEs. IB entrepreneurs also make decisions that shape the development of the EE and who is included in it. Yet, in their dual roles as entrepreneurs and EE leaders, research is needed to understand how IB entrepreneurs manage the challenges that may arise from attempting to simultaneously build ventures while also orchestrating IB-EEs and encouraging others to develop inclusive businesses.

Meso-level EE research focuses on how individuals who comprise EEs aggregate into more complex social structures, such as groups, teams and organizations, the characteristics and outcomes of these aggregate social structures, and how they influence individuals and ecosystems (Figure 1, arrows 4–6). To date, inclusive business research has implicitly emphasized the meso-level of analysis. In doing so, this research has focused on mature organizations and large multinational companies. However, IB entrepreneurship, which involves creating ventures with the explicit purpose of working with marginalized stakeholders, involves different dynamics than adding inclusive business practices to established value chains. IB entrepreneurs must design ventures with distinct workforces, capabilities and cultures. Research is needed to explore how these organizational characteristics are established and influenced by the actions of IB entrepreneurs and the attributes of their local environments. For instance, beyond the activities of entrepreneurs, how do other organizational participants in IB-EEs, such as support organizations (e.g. IB-focused incubators and accelerators, like 2SCALE in Africa), support the health and performance of IB ventures? Questions also exist about how IB ventures are positioned and compete with rival ventures that may be driven primarily by a traditional focus on profit maximization and value capture for the organization.

IB entrepreneurship is especially dependent on complex inter-organizational dynamics. In fact, the value chains of IB ventures can be conceptualized as meta-organizations (Coulombel & Berkowitz, 2025), which comprise multiple organizations. Opportunities exist for research to explore how these inter-organizational relationships, based on both formal contracts and informal relationships, evolve and function. This research would reflect that IB ventures arguably face a more challenging situation than conventional businesses: they must develop business models that ensure financial viability for the organization while also enabling value-co-creation and financial sustainability for marginalized stakeholders and their organizations. It is not clear if this dual mission of IB ventures is simply an organizational challenge to overcome or a competitive advantage.

Research is also needed at the meso-level of ecosystems to explore how individual IB entrepreneurs coalesce as groups and teams to impact local communities. For instance, research on EEs as multi-team systems suggests that much of the work in ecosystems is accomplished not by lone EE participants operating in isolation but by groups of EE participants from different organizations who come together to pursue joint interests and benefit the community (Roundy & Evans, 2024). According to this perspective, EEs can be conceptualized as a system of teams working together to accomplish a collective goal. In IB-EEs, research could explore how teams comprising inclusive businesses (i.e. teams of co-founders and early employees) work with marginalized groups and with teams from other ecosystem entities, such as support organizations, to build integrated value chains.

Entrepreneurial ecosystems research has traditionally aused the macro-level as its primary level of analysis and has focused on ecosystem-level characteristics and outcomes (Figure 1, arrows 7–9). The complex adaptive systems approach and the microfoundations approach to ecosystem analysis suggest that ecosystem-level dynamics often depend on the ecosystem actors at “lower” levels of analysis (i.e. individuals, groups and organizations). However, it remains valuable to consider how EE attributes, such as an ecosystem’s networks, knowledge and norms, function to produce critical ecosystem outcomes, such as an EE’s effectiveness in supporting entrepreneurship and resilience to disruptions (Noak et al., 2025). Several unaddressed questions could guide future macro-level research on IB-EEs. For instance, IB-EEs are often “embryonic” EEs that emerge from “bottom-up entrepreneurship” opportunities (Akiode, 2021, p. 10); however, it is unclear how IB-EEs emerge and how these systems gain coherence, particularly in regions that previously lacked inclusive business activities. Research is also needed to explore IB-EE resilience, which is the extent to which an ecosystem can recover from and adapt to major disturbances, such as the loss of key ecosystem actors (Noak et al., 2025). Resilience might depend on the strength of IB-EE networks and on how the IB-EE leaders effectively coordinate ecosystem characteristics.

Important questions also exist about other outcomes of IB-EEs. For instance, what are the community and societal impacts of effective IB-EEs, and does the development of IB-EEs coincide with measurable increases in income, levels of education and other aspects of well-being in the communities in which they are located? Finally, regional ecosystems are composed of sub-ecosystems focused on specific types of entrepreneurship. It is important to explore the extent to which an IB-EE, as a sub-ecosystem within a region’s larger entrepreneurial ecosystem, can function with other aspects of the ecosystem (e.g. the conventional, commercial-focused EE) to achieve joint benefits. For instance, some EE actors, such as support organizations and investors, may operate across sub-ecosystems. If so, important knowledge, learning and practices may be transferred across sub-ecosystems.

In addition to the research opportunities at the micro, meso and macro-levels of IB-EEs, several general issues apply across levels and are among the most urgent to address in future research. First, research is needed to clarity the concept of “inclusive business entrepreneurial ecosystems.” Prior work has used multiple terms to refer to similar, but distinct, phenomena (e.g. “inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystems”; Malhotra et al., 2025; “inclusive urban entrepreneurial ecosystems” (Shakiba et al., 2022, 2024). The use of inconsistent terminology creates confusion for scholars and practitioners. For instance, the concept of “inclusiveness” has been applied to different aspects of EEs. Some studies focus on the EE itself as being inclusive (i.e. open to all types of entrepreneurs; de Boer, 2024); however, other studies adopt our approach of emphasizing how “inclusiveness” is a characteristics (and goal) of entrepreneurs, their ventures and their value chains (i.e. entrepreneurs create business models and value chains that are inclusive to marginalized groups). Thus, we emphasize the EEs that support these inclusive business entrepreneurs. However, there are important conceptual and practical questions about what level of analysis “inclusiveness” applies to: the individual, the organization or the ecosystem (or a combination). Likewise, studies of the IB-EE phenomenon need to be clear about which groups in the ecosystem are the source of entrepreneurship. For instance, is the entrepreneurial activity assumed to emanate primarily from IB entrepreneurs who are creating businesses that allow marginalized groups to be integrated in their value chains, or are marginalized groups themselves acknowledged (and encouraged) to be entrepreneurial in their business activities as part of inclusive value chains?

At all levels of analysis, work is needed that explores the ecosystems that support IB entrepreneurs in contexts with diverse characteristics. For instance, it is likely that the actors, activities and alignment of IB-EEs differ in meaningful ways across low-income versus high-income countries, in small towns and rural areas versus large urban centers, and in environments that are munificent and contain ample resources versus unmunificent, resource-scarce environments. In such studies, it is important to explore how understanding of IB-EEs might be informed by insights from research on ecosystems in different contexts, such as poverty EEs and emerging economy EEs (Morris, 2022). Moreover, by focusing primarily on high-income and high-growth entrepreneurs operating in urban and high-income contexts, the EE literature often implicitly assumes that low-income rural areas are absent productive entrepreneurship and have weak or nonexistent EEs. But rural and remote contexts can have fertile communities of productive entrepreneurs and effective EEs (Cowling et al., 2024). Comparable case studies may reveal important variation across contexts in how IB-EEs are structured and function to benefit entrepreneurs and marginalized groups.

If policymakers desire to reduce poverty and make markets more inclusive, they should take steps to enable IB entrepreneurship. A key insight of the entrepreneurial ecosystem perspective is that, despite the increasing connectedness of the global economy and the ubiquity of digital platforms, location still matters for entrepreneurship. Supporting IB entrepreneurs involves creating local environments that foster collaboration, cooperation and community building, and facilitating strong connections between entrepreneurs and marginalized groups. We hope that this paper sparks a vibrant stream of research exploring how such ecosystems are built and how IB entrepreneurs leverage their local communities to create business models that integrate marginalized groups, co-create value and, ultimately, reduce poverty.

This was an invited submission and has been through Editorial review only.