A Systematic Literature Review on Entrepreneurial Growth Intentions: Emerging Themes and Future Research Agenda Through a TCCM Lens

Abstract

Entrepreneurial Growth Intention (EGI) as a research construct has received intense academic scrutiny in the extant literature. However, the available literature on EGI appears to be scattered and less organized, lacking a cohesive structure. This paper presents a systematic literature review on EGI, with the primary objective of systematizing and organizing contemporary knowledge in this domain and identifying avenues for future research. The analysis includes 44 papers on EGI published between 2013 and 2024, sourced from the Web of Science and Scopus databases. The analytical approach in this study comprised two key phases. First, a general overview of 44 selected articles was conducted, examining publication trends and co-occurrence patterns. Second, the TCCM framework was employed to guide a thematic analysis across four dimensions: Theories, Contexts, Characteristics, and Methodologies. The findings highlight a fragmented and predominantly single-theory use, particularly the frequent reliance on the Theory of Planned Behavior, while revealing underexplored theoretical integration. Conceptual ambiguity persists around the definition of EGI, and contextual analyses are largely limited to developed and European settings. Additionally, the review uncovers variations in growth intentions across gender, immigrant status, and firm size, while methodological approaches remain heavily skewed toward quantitative, cross-sectional designs. This review offers a structured synthesis of the EGI literature, identifies critical gaps, and provides direction for future research that is more integrative, context-sensitive, and methodologically diverse. The study also provides practically important insights for entrepreneurs, policymakers, and educators to improve strategic decision-making, support targeted interventions, and the enrichment of the current entrepreneurship curriculum.

Keywords

entrepreneurial growth intention systematic literature review thematic analysis TCCM future research agenda

Introduction

Entrepreneurial Intention is a crucial driving force behind entrepreneurial activity (Anjum et al., 2020). The body of literature on entrepreneurial intentions (EI) has experienced higher attention since the seminal works published approximately 30 years ago by Shapero and Kent (1984). Interestingly, it is evident that intention models can be applied to any planned behavior, not just to the initial startup phase of a venture (Liñán & Fayolle, 2015). Given that entrepreneurship comprises multiple stages, researchers have explored alternative entrepreneurial process behaviors and studies have primarily concentrated on subsequent steps, such as the intention to grow the venture (Kozan et al., 2006), indicating a broadening interest in applying intention models to various aspects of the entrepreneurial journey beyond its inception (Liñán & Fayolle, 2015).

In the past two decades, there has been a notable academic interest in entrepreneurial growth intentions (EGI; Wang et al., 2019). Considering how crucial growth intention is for entrepreneurship and small businesses, the choice to pursue growth is a conscious and personal decision made by the entrepreneur (Levie & Autio, 2013). This decision is influenced by the entrepreneur’s perception of available opportunities, skills, and willingness to follow the growth trajectory (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2003). So, it is possible to define EGI as an “entrepreneur’s explicit intent in terms of the growth trajectory he or she would like their venture to follow over its life-cycle” (Dutta & Thornhill, 2014b, p. 148). While numerous studies have explored entrepreneurial intention broadly (Kariv et al., 2019), systematic reviews are available on entrepreneurial intention in general (Hueso et al., 2021; Liñán & Fayolle, 2015). Moreover, several systematic literature reviews (SLRs) have been conducted on various types of entrepreneurial intentions, including social entrepreneurial intention (Ambad, 2022; Bazan et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020), academic entrepreneurship intention (Neves & Brito, 2020), youth entrepreneurship intention (Hughes & Schachtebeck, 2017), and digital entrepreneurial intention (Alkhalaileh, 2021), etc. However, the only prominent effort to synthesize EGI was by Levie and Autio (2013), who conducted a meta-analysis focused predominantly on the relationship between EGI and firm performance, adopting a strongly economic perspective. Despite this, the work is now over a decade old, and since then, the field has witnessed a significant expansion in scope, theory, and empirical insights. Although, there is an increasing number of studies on EGI since 2013, the absence of systematic organization and categorization has resulted in new studies often starting from scratch, indicating a need for an updated review. This long-standing gap has led to fragmented advancements in the field, with recent empirical studies lacking cumulative integration and direction. Accordingly, there is a clear need for systematic organization in this domain, as no prior thematic synthesis has employed an analytical framework like TCCM to comprehensively examine EGI. The primary objective of this paper is to systemize and organize the contemporary knowledge on entrepreneurial growth intention with a focus on identifying areas where further research is needed.

Therefore, we conducted a systematic literature review to achieve the aforementioned objective, and the present review employs the TCCM framework (Theories, Contexts, Characteristics, and Methodologies), as proposed by Paul and Rosado-Serrano (2019), to meticulously structure and analyze 44 empirical and conceptual studies published between 2013 and 2024. The use of TCCM in this study ensures a robust review architecture that enables the extraction of meaningful insights, identification of conceptual gaps, and generation of a multi-dimensional future research agenda, which has not been conducted previously in the domain of EGI. This framework-based review meets the criteria of a “well-done” SLR by ensuring methodological rigor, analytical clarity, and thematic depth (Lim et al., 2021).

Therefore, the present review not only provides an in-depth synthesis of knowledge on the existing literature on EGI but also serves as a structured and impactful framework to evaluate the current state of the field. By employing the TCCM framework, this study systematically categorizes and analyzes prior research across theoretical foundations, contextual diversity, and methodological approaches. First, from a theoretical perspective, this review reveals a broad but fragmented application of theories in EGI research, emphasizing the need for greater theoretical integration and conceptual clarity particularly in distinguishing between growth intention and growth aspiration. Second, it examines the contextual landscape of the literature, analyzing both geographical distribution and industrial focus. Third, it synthesizes the characteristics of the reviewed studies by highlighting key themes, and fourth, through a review of the methodological approaches, the study identifies dominant and underutilized techniques, while underlining the need for greater methodological diversity to enhance the depth and robustness of EGI research. Finally, this review serves as a future research agenda, guiding scholars toward more targeted, context-aware, and theoretically robust studies on EGI.

This paper is structured as follows: First, we provide an overview of the entrepreneurial growth intention research sphere, and secondly, a detailed discussion of the methodology is provided. Thirdly, it presents data analysis and discussion, including a general overview of the studies and insights derived through the TCCM framework. Finally, this paper outlines future research directions, discusses theoretical and practical implications, and concludes the study.

The Entrepreneurial Growth Intention Research Sphere

Intentions, according to Ajzen (1991), are seen to represent the motivational elements that impact behavior, and they are an indicator of the degree of effort and hard work people are prepared to put forth to carry out their behaviors (Al-Jubari et al., 2019; Kautonen et al., 2015). Recognizing the robust predictive role of intention to behavior (Usman & Sun, 2022), researchers can employ EI to augment their understanding and forecast their actions, and it signifies an individual’s commitment to initiate a new venture and profoundly influences entrepreneurs’ decisions concerning venture growth and closure (Zapkau et al., 2015).

Delving into the literature on EI reveals two distinct strands of research. The first emanates from social psychology, aiming to analyze behaviors in a broader context and elucidate the cognitive processes that lead from attitudes and beliefs to effective actions. Pivotal contributions to this discipline, particularly pertinent to the study of EI, come from Ajzen (1980) and Bandura and Freeman (1997). Moreover, Ajzen’s subsequent development, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991) has gained widespread adoption in social psychology and entrepreneurship (Liñán & Fayolle, 2015). The second strand is specific to entrepreneurship as a field (Bird, 1988; Shapero & Kent, 1984; Shapero & Sokol, 1982). It was attempted to be reconciled with Shapero & Kent’s (1984) idea of the entrepreneurial event model (EEM) by Krueger and Brazeal (1994). Boyd and Vozikis (1994) expand on Bird’s approach and align it with the TPB model. Next, two well-known works by Kolvereid (1996) helped conclusively prove that the TPB model could be used and was beneficial in entrepreneurship. The convergence of these two literary sub-streams can be attributed to works that presented a compelling argument for applying psychological theories and techniques in entrepreneurship (Shaver & Scott, 1992). However, since the work of Krueger and Carsrud (1993), the TPB became the accepted “reference” theory in EI research (Liñán & Fayolle, 2015).

Thereafter, the number of research being conducted on EI has increased considerably (Al-Jubari, 2019; Chandra, 2018; García-Lillo et al., 2023). These empirical studies consistently emphasize the critical role of specific intentions, such as EGI, in shaping entrepreneurial behavior (Davidsson et al., 2010; O. O. Fatoki, 2010; Liñán & Fayolle, 2015; Nguyen et al., 2021). Consequently, conducting a systematic literature review of recent research efforts to identify key sub-areas within EGI research is justifiable.

Methodology of the Study

The study employs a Systematic Literature Review to ensure an efficient and high-quality approach to exploring and assessing the extensive body of literature (Tranfield et al., 2003). We adhered to the framework established by Tranfield et al. (2003) to (i) plan the review, (ii) conduct the review, and (iii) report the findings. This method guided the development of the review protocol, the identification of sources, data extraction, and inclusion, as well as the reporting and presentation of evidence. We created a review protocol to systematically document the identification of data sources. Additionally, we utilized “Thematic Analysis” as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006, 2022), a methodology also adopted in other studies such as Vrontis et al. (2023) and Zirar et al. (2023). To ensure a structured and multidimensional synthesis, the TCCM framework was adopted to interpret the findings.

Identifying, Screening, and Selecting Relevant Studies

We employed an analysis of EGI articles sourced from the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases, as they include a wide range of peer-reviewed journals in Entrepreneurship, Business & Management (Anees-ur-Rehman et al., 2016) and emphasis was placed on selecting quality publications from reputable journals from these databases (Wallace & Wray, 2021; Xia et al., 2018). Consequently, WoS and Scopus were searched for English-language research papers due to their extensive journal coverage. The search terms entrepreneurial AND growth AND intention OR “Growth Intentions” OR “Business Growth Intention” OR “Venture Growth Intention” were employed in the title/abstract/keyword field across the selected databases. This systematic review was conducted, employing the PRISMA approach as outlined by Moher et al. (2009). PRISMA serves as an effective tool for adhering to evidence-based reporting standards and facilitating critical appraisal (Ferdinansyah & Purwandari, 2021). A pre-established protocol was developed to detail the analysis method and inclusion criteria (Tranfield et al., 2003). The search protocol is outlined in the PRISMA model, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

PRISMA diagram.

A total of 566 articles were identified from database searching, and subsequent to this, duplicate entries were removed, resulting in 528 articles.

Inclusion Exclusion Criteria

The results were then refined according to the following eligibility, inclusion, and exclusion criteria:

Journal publications

Published in the last 10 years (The period from 2013 to 2024 captures a decade of recent research, which is crucial for reflecting contemporary developments and emerging trends in the field. The timeframe enables us to include the most recent theories, methodologies, and findings, ensuring that the review is up-to-date and relevant to current academic and practical contexts).

Peer-reviewed journal articles

Written in English

Relevant to the subject area of growth intention

Excluded other academic and non-academic sources, such as book chapters, conference articles, reports, editorials, website links, and gray literature (Seuring & Müller, 2008).

Next, the authors manually reviewed the titles, abstracts, and keywords of 528 articles, resulting in 268 eligible full-text articles. Thereafter, the authors reviewed the full text of 268 papers to identify research that investigates EGI. This screening process resulted in the exclusion of 224 papers, resulting in a final selection of 44 papers for in-depth analysis.

Data Extraction and Analysis

A co-occurrence analysis was conducted on the articles identified during the initial screening process using VOS viewer software. Subsequently, 44 papers were selected for in-depth analysis, employing descriptive and thematic analysis techniques to uncover the primary focus areas within the research topic, adopting the TCCM framework (Krippendorff, 2018). Thematic analysis was conducted following Braun and Clarke (2006), and the TCCM framework was adopted to guide the identification of themes within each of its four dimensions: theoretical foundations (T), contextual settings (C), key characteristics examined (C), and methodological approaches (M). The researchers manually generated the themes, which explore the literature on EGI and suggest future research directions. In instances where articles addressed topics in more than one category, a decision was made to classify them into the category that represented the majority of their focus and advocacy.

Findings and Discussion

This section will present the results and discussion of the present study in two main sections. The first section will discuss the general overview of studies on EGI, including the co-occurrence analysis and year-wise distribution of the studies. The second section presents the thematic analysis of the study, which is structured using the TCCM framework.

General Overview of Studies on Entrepreneurial Growth Intention

Co-Occurrence Analysis

Using VOSviewer software, a co-occurrence analysis of author keywords was conducted on the complete set of articles identified during the initial screening stage. A minimum threshold of five occurrences per keyword was applied to ensure that only well-established terms were included in the visualization, thereby providing a comprehensive overview of the field (Figure 2). The resulting network map reveals “entrepreneurial intention” as the most dominant and centrally located node, indicating its extensive scholarly focus and sustained research interest in general entrepreneurial intention over time. In contrast, the term “growth intention” appears as a smaller and more peripheral node in the co-occurrence map, indicating that it has received less attention and is less connected to the core themes in literature. This suggests that the concept of EGI is still developing and has not been widely integrated into mainstream entrepreneurial research.

Figure 2.

Co-occurrence analysis.

This contrast highlights a clear gap in the literature, while entrepreneurial intention has been extensively studied, entrepreneurial growth intention remains relatively overlooked and fragmented. The network visualization highlights a pressing need for more focused research on EGI to strengthen and advance this emerging area of study. This review responds to this gap by presenting a structured synthesis and setting a foundation for future research in this emerging area.

Year-Wise Distribution of the Studies

The year-wise distribution of the 44 reviewed studies shows a gradual increase in research interest in EGI over time (Figure 3). The topic gained attention in 2013 and 2014, with a combined total of nine publications. Between 2015 and 2017, research activity was relatively low, with only two to three papers published each year. Interest picked up again in 2018 and 2019, showing more consistent engagement from the academic community.

Figure 3.

Number of papers published yearly from 2013 to 2024.

Although there was a slight drop in publications from 2020 to 2023, 2024 shows the highest number of publications (eight studies), indicating a strong renewed interest in EGI research. This recent increase suggests that scholars are now paying more attention to growth intentions as a specific and important area within entrepreneurship studies. Interestingly, while EGI has been studied for over a decade, it is still a developing field with growing academic relevance, highlighting the importance of this review in organizing and guiding future work.

A TCCM-Based Analysis of Literature

The articles that meet the selection criteria are presented in this section. In the present study the TCCM framework enables a structured comparison of the literature across four key dimensions relevant to EGI research: first, the theoretical foundations underpinning the studies; second, the contextual settings, including geographical regions and sector; third, the characteristics of the research that has been conducted, finally the methodological approaches adopted by scholars in examining EGI. These four dimensions are discussed in detail in the following sections, where thematic analysis was employed to identify key patterns, trends, and underexplored areas, enabling the extraction of meaningful insights within each dimension.

Theoretical Foundation (T)

To understand how scholars have conceptualized and explained EGI, this section explores the theoretical underpinnings across the reviewed literature. Theoretical perspectives not only shape the way EGI is defined and measured but also influence the framing of antecedents, mechanisms, and outcomes (Ganti & Singhania, 2025). This section is organized around two key themes. The first, “Theoretical Lenses of Entrepreneurial Growth Intentions,” highlights the dominant and emerging theories that have guided inquiry in this field. The second theme, “Scoping Up Entrepreneurial Growth Intentions,” addresses the definitional boundaries of EGI, focusing on how researchers have differentiated it from related constructs. Collectively, these themes provide a broad understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of EGI research and highlight areas where further integration and development are needed. The following sections provide a detailed discussion of these themes.

Theoretical Lenses of Entrepreneurial Growth Intentions

The first theme of this section presents a synthesis of the dominant theoretical perspectives underpinning the existing body of literature. Interestingly, the analysis of the reviewed literature reveals the adoption of a wide range of theoretical frameworks in the study of EGI. The Theory of Planned Behavior (e.g., Awotoye & Singh, 2018; Li et al., 2019; Qian et al., 2022; Venugopal, 2016) emerges as the most prominently applied theory, reflecting its widespread utility in intention-based research. This is followed by notable usage of Human Capital Theory (e.g., Ali, 2018; Capelleras et al., 2019; Gkypali & Roper, 2024), Institutional Theory (e.g., Calvo et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2019), Identity Theory (e.g., Dhakal et al., 2024; Neneh, 2021), Dynamic Capabilities Theory (e.g., O. Fatoki, 2013; Sachitra & Padmini, 2021a), and the Resource-Based View (RBV) (e.g., Eide et al., 2021; Nyakudya et al., 2024), each contributing to different aspects of understanding growth intentions through individual, organizational, and environmental lenses. Table 1 provides a consolidated account of the theories employed across the reviewed studies on EGI. The most frequently adopted theories are examined in further detail in the subsequent discussion.

Table 1.

Summary of Theoretical Perspectives Utilized in EGI Literature.

Theories	Articles	Citations
Theory of planned behavior	15	Awotoye and Singh (2018), Qian et al. (2022), Fuentelsaz et al. (2023), Giotopoulos et al. (2017b), Li et al. (2019), Venugopal (2016), Zampetakis et al. (2016), Kariv et al. (2019), Giotopoulos et al. (2017a), Rathogwa and Msimango-Galawe (2023), Kolvereid and Åmo (2019), Neneh and Vanzyl (2014), Kolvereid and Isaksen (2017), Gkypali and Roper (2024), Dhakal et al. (2022)
Institutional theory	7	Calvo et al. (2024), Sachitra and Padmini (2021a), Capelleras et al. (2019), Wang et al. (2019), Li et al. (2019), Lajqi and Krasniqi (2017), Estrin et al. (2013)
Human capital theory	7	Gkypali and Roper (2024), Capelleras et al. (2019), Ali (2018), Lajqi and Krasniqi (2017), O. Fatoki (2013), Fuentelsaz et al. (2023), Dhakal et al. (2024)
Identity theory	5	Dhakal et al. (2024, 2022), Neneh (2021), Venugopal (2016), Zampetakis et al. (2016)
Dynamic capability theory	3	Sachitra and Padmini (2021a, 2021b), O. Fatoki (2013)
Resource based view (RBV)	3	Eide et al. (2021), Lajqi and Krasniqi (2017), Nyakudya et al. (2024)
Effectuation and causation models	1	Dutta and Thornhill (2014a)
Cognitive style theory	1	Knockaert et al. (2015)
Push and pull factor theory	2	O. Fatoki (2013), Ali (2018)
Stereotype activation theory	1	Sweida and Reichard (2013)
Social learning theory	1	Sweida and Reichard (2013)
Prospect theory	1	Poblete (2018)
Innovation diffusion theory	1	Carreón-Gutiérrez and Saiz-Álvarez (2019)
Utility maximization theory	2	Cesinger et al. (2018), Douglas (2013)
Structural change theory	1	Huber et al. (2015)
Self-determination theory	2	Dhakal et al. (2024), Douglas (2013)
Self-efficacy theory	1	Dhakal et al. (2024)
Structural change theory	1	Huber et al. (2015)
Person-environment fit theory	1	Douglas (2013)
Achievement goal motivation theory	1	Loi et al. (2021)
Self-regulation theory	1	Loi et al. (2021)
Stressor-Strain-outcome framework	1	Neneh (2024)
Pendrose growth theory	1	Eide et al. (2021)
Tripod strategy theory	1	Utama et al. (2024)
Gender and stereotype theory	1	Nyakudya et al. (2024)
Social cognitive theory	2	Dhakal et al. (2024), Henriquez-Daza et al. (2024)
Entrepreneurial ecosystem theory	1	Guerrero et al. (2024)
Upper Echelons theory	1	Rasmussen et al. (2018)

Interestingly, the Ajzen (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior has been widely applied to understand EGI. According to TPB, intentions are the most immediate predictor to behavior and are influenced by three factors (Li et al., 2019). The theory emphasizes the importance of the role of the attitude toward the behavior—how favorably or unfavorably an individual evaluates the behavior, Subjective norms—perceived social pressures to perform or not perform the behavior and finally, Perceived behavioral control as the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behavior (Qian et al., 2022). In the context of EGI, these components operate as entrepreneurs with positive attitudes toward business growth, who feel supported by influential social groups toward their growth, and who perceive that they have control over their ability to grow a business, play a crucial role in creating strong growth intentions (Giotopoulos et al., 2017b; Venugopal, 2016).

Entrepreneurial activity, while inherently an individual-level decision-making process, is profoundly influenced by the broader institutional environment in which it is embedded (Wennberg et al., 2013). The application of Institutional Theory in the context of EGI offers critical insights into how formal and informal institutions shape entrepreneurial intention and behavior (Calvo et al., 2024). From the perspective of Institutional Theory, as articulated by Scott (1995), institutions consist of three interrelated pillars: regulative, normative, and cognitive structures and each dimension exerts a unique influence on EGI (Li et al., 2019). Interestingly, the regulative pillar includes formal rules and policies that shape entrepreneurial behavior through mechanisms like property rights, credit access, and regulatory clarity, thereby encouraging growth intentions when perceived as supportive (Estrin et al., 2013).The normative pillar comprises societal values and norms that confer legitimacy on entrepreneurship, enhancing its desirability for growth, and the cognitive pillar relates to shared beliefs and knowledge systems that influence how entrepreneurs interpret their environment and assess the feasibility and appropriateness of pursuing growth (Lajqi & Krasniqi, 2017). The application of Human Capital Theory in the context of EGI highlights the significance of human capital in shaping growth intentions (Capelleras et al., 2019). Interestingly, this theory, conceptualized by Becker (1964), remains influential in distinguishing between two key forms of capital: general human capital, derived from formal education, and specific human capital, gained through practical entrepreneurial experience, each playing a distinct role in influencing EGI (O. Fatoki, 2013; Lajqi & Krasniqi, 2017).

Identity Theory explains how individuals’ self-concepts, shaped by their social roles, guide behavior in ways consistent with those identities (Stryker & Burke, 2000). In the context of entrepreneurship, when individuals strongly identify as entrepreneurs or leaders, they are more likely to engage in behaviors aligned with business growth (Dhakal et al., 2024). This theory has been increasingly applied to understand EGI, especially in research exploring how identity shapes the motivation to expand ventures. Recent studies show that identity salience, such as seeing oneself as a leader or prioritizing a work role, can significantly influence the desire to grow a business (Dhakal et al., 2022; Neneh, 2021). As such, identity theory provides a psychologically grounded lens to examine EGI, emphasizing that growth intentions are not only shaped by external factors but also by how entrepreneurs perceive and prioritize their roles (Dhakal et al., 2024; Zampetakis et al., 2016).

Moreover, the advancement of Dynamic Capability Theory introduces a nuanced perspective to the domain of EGI (Sachitra & Padmini, 2021a, 2021b). With entrepreneurship increasingly taking place in volatile and unpredictable environments, dynamic capabilities have gained importance for explaining growth-driven behavior. This perspective highlights a firm’s ability to adjust, combine, and restructure its internal and external resources to remain competitive amid constant change (Wilson & Martin, 2015). Interestingly, the studies illustrate how dynamic capabilities such as organizational learning, technological agility, alliance formation, and process management play a central role in facilitating growth intentions (Sachitra & Padmini, 2021a). The findings highlight that these capabilities are not only enablers of performance but also reflect the entrepreneurs’ ability to make strategic choices beyond available static resources (O. Fatoki, 2013).

The Resource-Based View (RBV) provides a foundational lens for understanding how internal firm resources shape EGI. Rooted in the work of Barney (1991), the RBV posits that resources which are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable offer a sustained competitive advantage. Within the context of entrepreneurial ventures, particularly micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), RBV emphasizes the role of intangible assets such as entrepreneurial knowledge, functional competencies, and individual capabilities in fostering growth-oriented decision-making (Eide et al., 2021; Nyakudya et al., 2024). Within MSMES, entrepreneurial knowledge encompassing skills, competencies, and experience is commonly conceptualized as a key internal resource under the RBV framework, influencing growth intentions. Although RBV has been applied in several studies, Tripod Strategy Theory, which integrates institutional, industry-based capabilities into RBV, remains underutilized in this context, despite its potential to offer a more holistic perspective on the strategic drivers of EGI (Utama et al., 2024).

In addition to these commonly employed theories, several other theories were utilized across individual studies, such as Push and Pull Factor Theory (Ali, 2018; O. Fatoki, 2013), Utility Maximization Theory (Cesinger et al., 2018; Douglas, 2013), and Structural Change Theory (Huber et al., 2015), which explain economic and motivational drivers of entrepreneurial behavior. Also, Psychological and behavioral frameworks like Self-Determination Theory and self-efficacy theory (Dhakal et al., 2024), Self-Regulation Theory and Achievement Goal Motivation Theory (Loi et al., 2021), offer insights into individual-level motivation and intention formation. Moreover, cognitive and social influences are captured through Social Learning Theory and Stereotype Activation Theory (Sweida & Reichard, 2013), Social Cognitive Theory (Dhakal et al., 2024), Cognitive Style Theory (Knockaert et al., 2015), and Person–Environment Fit Theory (Douglas, 2013), emphasizing the role of perception, identity, and learning. Further, decision-making and risk are explored through Prospect Theory (Poblete, 2018) and the Effectuation and Causation Models (Dutta & Thornhill, 2014a), which help explain how entrepreneurs navigate uncertainty and opportunity. Then innovation-related dynamics are addressed using Innovation Diffusion Theory (Carreón-Gutiérrez & Saiz-Álvarez, 2019), while broader strategic and structural viewpoints are supported by Penrose’s Growth Theory (Eide et al., 2021), the Tripod Strategy Theory (Utama et al., 2024), and the Upper Echelons Theory (Rasmussen et al., 2018). In addition, Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Theory (Guerrero et al., 2024) and the Stressor–Strain–Outcome Framework (Neneh, 2024) highlight contextual and environmental influences. Finally, the gendered dimensions of entrepreneurship are examined through Gender and Stereotype Theory (Nyakudya et al., 2024), reflecting the field’s growing attention to social and demographic variables. These theories offer alternative explanatory perspectives, especially in context-specific or identity-driven research.

A noteworthy observation is that some studies have begun to integrate multiple theoretical perspectives, combining two or more frameworks to enrich the explanation of growth intentions. For example, combinations such as TPB with Institutional Theory (Li et al., 2019), Human Capital Theory with Institutional Theory (Capelleras et al., 2019), and RBV with other structural frameworks (Utama et al., 2024) have been identified. However, such integrative approaches remain relatively limited in number. This points to an important avenue for future research, the need for multi-theoretical models that can capture the complex and multi-layered nature of EGI across diverse contexts. In summary, the theoretical foundation of EGI research is rich but fragmented. While TPB provides a consistent baseline, the integration of socio-cognitive, institutional, and capability-based theories remains underdeveloped. There are considerable opportunities for multi-theoretical models that better reflect the multifaceted nature of growth intentions, particularly in emerging and transitional economies.

Scoping Up Entrepreneurial Growth Intentions

Our second theme explores the conceptual challenges associated with defining EGI. The studies have used different terms to define a similar construct, the growth intention (Rathogwa & Msimango-Galawe, 2023). Interestingly, the terms “growth aspirations” and “growth intentions” have been widely used by prior studies and scholars have paid the attention on distinguishing between these various terms. According to Douglas (2013, p. 636), growth intentions are defined as the “individual’s intention to start a new venture that will be substantially larger in subsequent time periods.” The researcher therefore defines growth intentions to be present in intending entrepreneurs in their initial stage whereas growth aspirations present in practicing entrepreneurs. Therefore, an individual will form intentions in the “exploration stage” of the entrepreneurial process, and these will transform into aspirations in the “exploitation stage” of the entrepreneurial process after the launch of the new venture according to Douglas (2013). Interestingly, even though Douglas (2013) has defined growth intention as an initial intention to grow the business, Dutta and Thornhill (2014b, p. 148) defines entrepreneurial growth intention as the “entrepreneur’s explicit intent in terms of the growth trajectory he or she would like their venture to follow over its life-cycle” implying that growth intention as the intent at the later stages of the venture life cycle to grow the business. Moreover, Hermans et al. (2015) clarify that growth aspirations represent an entrepreneur’s intrinsic desire for growth, while growth intentions represent the entrepreneur’s readiness to take the necessary action to drive growth. It is evident that the core of all these definitions highlights the desire or intent for business growth over time. Moreover, the defined timing or stage at which growth intentions become significant within the entrepreneurial process raises the question of whether growth intention is the intention in the early stages of the entrepreneurial process or the intent for growth throughout the entire life cycle of the venture. The distinction between growth aspirations and growth intentions highlights differing psychological motivations and behavioral orientations toward growth among entrepreneurs respectively. Even though several studies have tried to bring conceptual clarity and define EGI, it is still not uniform. Therefore, future research should aim to further clarify this conceptual ambiguity in EGI.

Contextual Setting (C)

According to Paul et al. (2017) context refers to the environmental, institutional, or situational conditions in which research is conducted. This section explores two contextual dimensions: the regional-level distribution of EGI research, which reveals regional disparities and underexplored national environments; and the industry settings within which EGI has been studied.

Regional -level distribution of EGI research: Figures 4 and 5 provide a comprehensive overview of the regional distribution of the 44 articles analyzed in this review. The data clearly reveals a geographical imbalance in the research on EGI. A significant proportion of the studies (Table 2), 32%, were conducted in Europe, making it the most represented region. This high representation indicates a well-established research focus on EGI within European settings, but it also emphasizes the need for greater contextual diversification to ensure the applicability of findings across more varied institutional and cultural environments. Following Europe, Asia accounts for 16% and Africa for 14%. This indicates a growing, yet still limited, scholarly focus on regions where entrepreneurial activity is often shaped by informal institutions, necessity-driven motives, and systemic constraints. The USA (9%) and Canada (7%) show continued research interest in EGI, with several studies conducted in these countries. In contrast, Australia (4.5%), New Zealand (2%), and Mexico (2%) have only one or two studies each, highlighting noticeable gaps in country-level research coverage. Furthermore, 9% adopt a multi-regional perspective, which is valuable for comparative analysis but still relatively rare. This suggests that most EGI research remains confined within national boundaries, limiting the exploration of how institutional and cultural variation across countries influences growth intentions. Moreover, Figure 6 presents the developmental classification of the study context. Of the 44 studies (Table 3), 52% were conducted in developed countries. These studies often examine EGI in well-established entrepreneurial ecosystems characterized by access to finance, regulatory support, and cultural legitimacy. In contrast, 14 studies (32%) were conducted in developing country contexts, such as parts of Asia, Africa, and Mexico. These settings often reveal how growth intentions are shaped by resource scarcity, informal networks, and institutional voids. Additionally, (11%) spanned both developed and developing countries, allowing for cross-contextual comparisons. Two conceptual papers (4.5%) did not specify a country context and were excluded from the regional/developmental breakdown.

Figure 4.

Region wise distribution of research.

Figure 5.

Region-wise distribution of research.

Table 2.

Region-Wise Distribution of Articles.

Region	Number of studies	Percentage (%)
Europe	14	32
Asia	7	16
Africa	6	14
USA	4	9
Canada	3	7
Australia	2	4.5
New Zealand	1	2
Mexico	1	2
Multiple	4	9
Conceptual	2	4.5
Total	44	100

Figure 6.

Studies in developed and developing countries.

Table 3.

Development-Level Classification.

Economic classification	Number of studies	Percentage (%)
Developed countries	23	52
Developing countries	14	32
Mixed (developed + developing)	5	11
Conceptual (not applicable)	2	4.5

This contextual analysis shows that EGI research remains heavily concentrated in developed and European settings, with limited attention to underrepresented regions. Notably, only one of the reviewed studies by Lajqi and Krasniqi (2017) focused on a post-conflict context despite the growing importance of entrepreneurship in fragile and transitional economies. This highlights a significant gap in the literature, where entrepreneurship is often viewed as a pathway to recovery but remains empirically underexplored. Future research should broaden its contextual scope by giving greater attention to post-conflict, rural, and developing environments.

Industrial settings in EGI research: The industry context of EGI studies shows a clear emphasis on firm type over sector-specific analysis (Table 4). Nearly half of the studies (47.7%) focus on SMEs or start-ups without anchoring in a particular industry. Only a small number of studies explore defined sectors such as agriculture/agribusiness (6.8%), high-tech/professional fields (4.5%), and tourism (2.3%). Furthermore, 20.5% of studies involve multiple or mixed sectors, and 13.6% are explicitly non-industry specific. This pattern reflects the generalizability of EGI frameworks but also highlights a gap in understanding how sectoral dynamics shape EGI. Therefore, future research should address this by engaging more deeply with underrepresented but economically significant industries.

Table 4.

Industry Context Classification of Reviewed Studies.

Industry category	Number of studies	Percentage (%)
SMEs/start-ups/small businesses (firm type, not industry)	21	47.7
Multiple sectors	9	20.5
Conceptual studies (no empirical context)	2	4.5
Non-industry-specific (explicitly stated)	6	13.6
Agriculture/agribusiness	3	6.8
High-Tech/professional sector	2	4.5
Tourism industry	1	2.3

Characteristics Studied (C)

The Characteristics dimension of the TCCM framework focuses on identifying the key constructs and domains that have been examined within the research area (Jebarajakirthy et al., 2021). This section supports the recognition and organization of the literature into four major themes each of which is discussed in detail below.

Variations in Growth Intentions Among Different Categories of Entrepreneurs

The analysis demonstrates how extensively EGI has been studied across various entrepreneurial groups/ segments. The study identified three dominant categories of entrepreneurs where the EGI is widely discussed (a) investigation of EGI in light of gender differences (male and female entrepreneurs), (b) investigation of EGI among native and immigrant entrepreneurs, and (c) investigation of EGI of firms based on size differences (small, medium, and large).

The first aspect highlights the variations in growth intentions among men and women entrepreneurs. In terms of driving factors of EGI, literature views that men’s EGI is highly grounded on the desire to achieve financial success. However, the literature suggests a broader set of drivers affecting women entrepreneurs to have EGI (Neneh, 2021). The literature largely supports the idea that EGI significantly varies depending on gender differences among entrepreneurs (Ali, 2018; Neneh, 2021; Wang et al., 2019). We identified several reasons for this phenomenon through the empirical studies that we analyzed. The first reason identified was the role salience (Knežević et al., 2016; Neneh, 2021). Although women entrepreneurs engage in multiple roles simultaneously, these roles differ in their level of importance; some could be peripheral, and others could be considered prominent (salient) roles (Knežević et al., 2016). The family salient roles will have a negative effect on the growth intention whereas the work role salience will have a positive effect (Neneh, 2021). The second reason identified was work-life balance (Neneh, 2021). Work-life balance has a positive effect on the growth intentions of women entrepreneurs (Neneh, 2021). The third reason was the removal of masculine stereotype-related barriers (Sweida & Reichard, 2013). Decreasing the masculine stereotype-related barriers associated with growth intention increases women’s intention to engage in high-growth venture creation (Sweida & Reichard, 2013). Females who had higher femininity orientation and independent self-construal have lower growth intention compared to those with lower independent self-construal (Zampetakis et al., 2016). The final reason was entrepreneurial stressors and emotional exhaustion, which negatively affected the intention to grow the business (Neneh, 2024). However, analyzing these findings, we observed that research on entrepreneurs’ growth intentions has produced mixed results regarding empirical differences between men and women and not all scholars agree that women and men differ in their overall business growth intention and requires future research attention.

Second, exploring EGI among immigrant and native entrepreneurs has received substantial academic scrutiny. Immigrant entrepreneurship has been pioneered in many popular migration destinations, and therefore, it is imperative to evaluate the growth intentions of immigrant entrepreneurs (Kushnirovich et al., 2018). Immigrant entrepreneurs who decide to grow their business usually have growth intentions on one of the following strategies: diversification within an ethnic market, diversification (or moving) outside of an ethnic group, or internationalization (Dabić et al., 2020). Immigrants demonstrate a strong intention toward initiating new ventures, but their growth intentions are lower compared to those of native entrepreneurs (Awotoye & Singh, 2018). It was identified that immigrant entrepreneurs deal with increased stress yet continue to maintain higher intentions to start new ventures compared to non-immigrants (Awotoye & Singh, 2018) but it implies that immigrant entrepreneurs’ stress and obstacles reduce their intentions to grow their firms (Awotoye & Singh, 2018). But contrastingly, it was identified in another empirical study that immigrant early-stage entrepreneurs are using new technologies and introducing new products/services are internationally oriented to a greater extent and has higher growth intentions than native early-stage entrepreneurs (Širec & Tominc, 2017). Therefore, the findings of the studies can be showed as contradictory where some findings conclude that growth intentions of immigrant entrepreneurs are high compared to growth intentions of native entrepreneurs and vice versa. Moreover, it can finally be identified that the growth intentions of immigrants may change due to variations in higher education, managerial experience, related experience, motivation and networking of the individual entrepreneur (O. Fatoki, 2013). However, analyzing these research it can be concluded that there are limited studies with contradictory findings, and there should be future studies conducted on this contradiction between native and immigrant entrepreneurs. There is a valuable avenue for future research on the determinants of EGI of immigrant entrepreneurs.

The third subtheme explores the variations in growth intentions based on the size difference of firms. Studies have been conducted on both SMEs and established businesses. The main challenge for entrepreneurs is not simply starting a business but rather making it grow (Carucci, 2016). Among these studies, a majority of studies have been dedicated to studying the EGI of SMEs (Ali, 2018; Kolvereid & Åmo, 2019). The growth intentions of the owner and the venture are interwoven in small firms, as demonstrated by Levie and Autio (2013). Therefore, the entrepreneur’s growth intentions for their venture are a mirror of their own driving forces behind running the venture (Levie & Autio, 2013). Moreover, it was identified that high-growth intentions are sustained during the early stages of the entrepreneurs (Guelich, 2020). But when these firms transition to established business, the growth intentions decrease (Guelich, 2020). However, the availability of current studies is inadequate to compare the differences in EGI between firms of different sizes; therefore, this area requires further attention.

Antecedents of Entrepreneurial Growth Intention

The antecedents of EGI have been examined across multiple levels, including individual, firm, and institutional & environmental domains, reflecting the multifaceted nature of growth-oriented entrepreneurship. A comprehensive understanding of these antecedents is essential to explain why some entrepreneurs intend to grow their ventures while others do not.

Individual level antecedents—Individual antecedents are related to personality traits, mindset, and cognitive drivers. At the individual level, key personal attributes have emerged as influential drivers. Entrepreneurial leadership identity (Dhakal et al., 2024), entrepreneurial passion (Qian et al., 2022), and perceived entrepreneurial ability (Ali, 2018) contribute significantly to shaping growth intentions. Interestingly, empirical studies consistently highlight educational attainment and prior entrepreneurial experience as key antecedents of EGI, linking higher education to improved cognitive abilities and opportunity recognition, and entrepreneurial experience to greater confidence and practical skills for pursuing growth (Capelleras et al., 2019; Fuentelsaz et al., 2023; Kariv et al., 2019). Fear of failure has a direct negative effect on entrepreneurial growth intentions, indicating that higher fear reduces entrepreneurs’ intention to grow their ventures (Gkypali & Roper, 2024). Moreover, studies highlight how particular cognitive styles (e.g., analytical vs. intuitive) influence their growth intentions (Dutta & Thornhill, 2014b). Knockaert et al. (2015) found that a planning cognitive style positively influences EGI, whereas a knowing style has a constraining effect on EGI. Moreover, decision-making logics such as causation and effectuation have a positive effect on EGI (Dutta & Thornhill, 2014b). It is suggested that entrepreneurs who engage in effectual reasoning may pursue flexible, experimentation-driven pathways to growth, while those relying on causation may set more structured, goal-driven growth plans.

These individual-level antecedents directly shape EGI by influencing how entrepreneurs think, feel, and act in relation to growth. Entrepreneurial leadership identity instills a strong sense of purpose and vision, motivating entrepreneurs to pursue strategic growth (Dhakal et al., 2024). Entrepreneurial passion sustains high levels of motivation, persistence, and emotional commitment, which fuel intentions to expand the business (Qian et al., 2022). Perceived entrepreneurial ability enhances confidence in managing growth-related challenges and seizing opportunities, thereby strengthening EGI (Ali, 2018). Educational attainment improves opportunity recognition and decision-making capacity, while prior entrepreneurial experience provides the practical knowledge and resilience needed to support growth intentions (Capelleras et al., 2019; Fuentelsaz et al., 2023; Kariv et al., 2019). In contrast, fear of failure reduces EGI by increasing risk aversion and lowering perceived control over outcomes (Gkypali & Roper, 2024). Furthermore, cognitive styles play a vital role entrepreneurs with a planning cognitive style tend to exhibit higher EGI due to structured and forward-looking thinking, whereas a knowing cognitive style may inhibit growth intentions by promoting overconfidence and rigidity (Knockaert et al., 2015). Finally, the use of causation and effectuation logics enhances EGI by enabling both goal-oriented planning and adaptive experimentation in uncertain environments (Dutta & Thornhill, 2014b). Out of these, higher attention has been given to education and entrepreneurial experience; but however, other psychological and identity-based factors remain underexplored and warrant further scholarly attention.

Firm Level Antecedents—At the firm level, several factors have been recognized as key antecedents of EGI. Innovation capabilities (Gkypali & Roper, 2024) and product newness have been linked to stronger growth intentions, as firms that pursue novel offerings are often oriented toward competitive differentiation and market expansion (Carreón-Gutiérrez & Saiz-Álvarez, 2019). Firm size also plays a role, with larger firms typically exhibiting higher growth intentions due to greater resource availability and operational scalability (Huber et al., 2015). In addition, board composition, including factors like founder involvement or board diversity, can influence strategic vision and ambition, thereby shaping growth-oriented intentions (Rasmussen et al., 2018). These firm-level antecedents influence EGI by shaping firms’ readiness and capability to pursue expansion. Innovation capabilities foster EGI by enabling firms to respond to market changes and proactively seek growth through novel solutions (Gkypali & Roper, 2024). Similarly, product newness strengthens EGI by signaling a commitment to innovation and positioning the firm for competitive advantage and market entry (Carreón-Gutiérrez & Saiz-Álvarez, 2019). Firm size contributes to stronger EGI by providing access to broader resources and scalable infrastructure that lower the barriers to growth (Huber et al., 2015). Additionally, board composition including founder involvement and diversity enhances EGI by improving strategic oversight, broadening perspectives, and cultivating an ambitious growth agenda (Rasmussen et al., 2018). Together, these firm-level characteristics create a supportive internal environment that enables and motivates firms to set and pursue growth-oriented goals. Despite this, these firm-level factors remain underexamined across diverse industry contexts.

Institutional & Environmental Level Antecedents—The role of institutional and environmental factors also has a critical impact on EGI. Factors such as government policy and support (Estrin et al., 2013), access to business advisory services (Ali, 2018), and broader formal and informal institutional structures (Lajqi & Krasniqi, 2017; Li et al., 2019) shape the entrepreneurial climate in which growth intentions are formed. Favorable policy measures such as tax exemptions and a supportive business environment can significantly stimulate EGI by reducing barriers and increasing the perceived feasibility of business expansion. More recently, studies have begun to explore dynamic capabilities (Sachitra & Padmini, 2021a, 2021b) and crisis contexts, such as economic downturns and the COVID-19 pandemic (Giotopoulos et al., 2017a, 2017b), as external enablers or constraints influencing EGI. At times, limited employment opportunities within a country lead to frustration among individuals, prompting them to focus on scaling their own businesses as a viable alternative.

These institutional and environmental factors shape EGI by influencing both the perceived supportiveness of the ecosystem and the urgency or attractiveness of growth-oriented entrepreneurship. Government policy and support, such as financial incentives, reduced regulatory burdens, etc., can directly enhance EGI by increasing confidence in the viability and reward of business expansion (Estrin et al., 2013). Similarly, access to business advisory services improves entrepreneurs’ capacity to plan, strategize, and implement growth, thus positively impacting their intention to grow (Ali, 2018). Formal and informal institutional structures, such as legal protections, property rights, and social norms, shape the entrepreneurial climate, where favorable institutions tend to foster stronger EGI (Lajqi & Krasniqi, 2017; Li et al., 2019). Dynamic capabilities, such as adaptability and resource reconfiguration, enhance EGI by equipping entrepreneurs to navigate uncertainty and seize emergent opportunities (Sachitra & Padmini, 2021a, 2021b). In contrast, crisis contexts like economic downturns or the COVID-19 pandemic can either constrain or accelerate EGI, depending on how individuals perceive the risk-reward balance (Giotopoulos et al., 2017a, 2017b).

Although literature offers a diverse range of antecedents to EGI, it remains predominantly focused on individual-level factors such as education and experience. In contrast, psychological attributes, identity-related variables, firm-level dynamics, cognitive mechanisms, and institutional and environmental influences have received comparatively limited attention. Future research would benefit from adopting more integrative and comparative approaches to examine how these factors interact across multiple levels and contexts, and to uncover underexplored antecedents that may play a critical role in shaping EGI.

Moderators, Mediators, and Control Variables of EGI

The literature identifies a wide range of moderating variables that influence how various antecedents shape EGI, spanning individual-level, institutional, firm-level dimensions. At the individual level, entrepreneurial status moderates how perceived value from educational programs translates into growth intentions (Kariv et al., 2019). Gender and age also shape how self-efficacy affects EGI, with positive effects observed primarily among male entrepreneurs (Gkypali & Roper, 2024). Additionally, work-life balance enhances the positive impact of work role salience on women’s growth intentions (Neneh, 2021). At the institutional level, several factors play a moderating role. For example, regional entrepreneurial culture amplifies the impact of human capital, particularly prior experience, on EGI (Capelleras et al., 2019). Institutional collectivism reduces the negative effect of fear of failure in emerging economies (Henriquez-Daza et al., 2024), while social networks buffer the adverse effects of weak institutions such as corruption and lack of executive constraints (Estrin et al., 2013). Moreover, the periods of economic crisis moderate the influence of individual-level factors such as gender, education, work experience, and opportunity motivation on growth intentions (Giotopoulos et al., 2017a). At the firm level, firm size positively moderates the relationship between informal institutional barriers and EGI (Lajqi & Krasniqi, 2017), while financial capital strengthens the link between product newness and EGI (Carreón-Gutiérrez & Saiz-Álvarez, 2019). Finally, technological infrastructure plays a contextual moderating role. In areas with high-quality ICT infrastructure, entrepreneurs rely less on government support during crises to sustain growth intentions (Guerrero et al., 2024).

Moreover, the literature identifies several mediating mechanisms that explain how antecedents influence EGI, falling across psychological, competency-based, and institutional domains. Psychological mediators play a prominent role in shaping EGI. For instance, gender identity traits mediate the relationship between biological sex and growth intentions, with femininity exerting a stronger positive influence (Zampetakis et al., 2016). Similarly, entrepreneurial self-efficacy mediates the effect of stereotype activation on high-growth intentions, with exposure to implicit and explicit stereotypes influencing self-efficacy differently across genders (Sweida & Reichard, 2013). Additionally, perceived behavioral control has been conceptually proposed as a mediator between immigration-induced stress and immigrant entrepreneurs’ intentions to grow the ventures (Awotoye & Singh, 2018). From a competency-based perspective, entrepreneurial leadership competency partially mediates the link between entrepreneurial identity and venture growth intentions, reflecting how leadership capability channels identity into action (Dhakal et al., 2024). Finally, institutional and financial perceptions serve as contextual mediators. For example, the perceived institutional environment mediates the relationship between gender and growth intentions, indicating that favorable perceptions of the institutional setting can enable female entrepreneurs to translate intent into growth-oriented action (Wang et al., 2019).

Further, the reviewed studies incorporated a range of control variables to account for alternative explanations influencing EGI. Commonly controlled factors included demographic variables such as age (Ali, 2018; Qian et al., 2022), gender (Giotopoulos et al., 2017b; Li et al., 2019), education (Dutta & Thornhill, 2014a; Wang et al., 2019), family background (Qian et al., 2022), and ethnicity (Awotoye & Singh, 2018), as well as business-related attributes like firm size (Ali, 2018; O. Fatoki, 2013), business age (O. Fatoki, 2013; Sachitra & Padmini, 2021b), industry type (Wang et al., 2019), and location (Sachitra & Padmini, 2021b). Although numerous moderators, mediators, and control variables have been examined in relation to EGI, their inclusion has often been limited and lacks consistent theoretical justification. Together, these moderating, mediating, and control variables highlight the multifaceted and context-dependent nature of EGI, highlighting the importance of accounting for both interaction effects and background conditions when examining how EGI are formed and expressed.

Consequences of Entrepreneurial Growth Intentions

There have been studies on the consequences of EGI, and the final theme explores these consequences. New businesses grow more quickly than established ones (Blackburn et al., 2013). Nevertheless, most research on growth intention and its consequences have focused on well-established businesses, and only a handful of studies have investigated the relationship between growth intentions and subsequent business outcomes in new businesses (Kolvereid & Isaksen, 2017) and the majority of the studies conducted have used quantitative methods. It was identified that several consequences have been studied by previous scholars, but higher attention has been given to the impact of EGI on the growth of the business. Interestingly, scholars have found that entrepreneurs with strong growth intentions are more likely to pursue high growth in their ventures, such as sales growth (Kolvereid & Isaksen, 2017; Neneh & Vanzyl, 2014), and asset growth (Neneh & Vanzyl, 2014). Some studies have also discovered that only 4% to 5% of the variation in growth rates can be attributed to growth intentions (Kolvereid & Åmo, 2019; Kolvereid & Isaksen, 2017). Other than the growth as a consequence, studies have identified product development (Taghizadeh et al., 2024), financial performance (Taghizadeh et al., 2024), increase in radical innovation (Eide et al., 2021), and export share (Eide et al., 2021) as positive consequences of EGI. Moreover, EGI is shown to reduce employee well-being and therefore, is a negative consequence (Eide et al., 2021). However, only a handful of studies have investigated the impact of growth intentions on subsequent business outcomes. It is suggested that the amount of studies on this phenomenon is inadequate, and therefore, future studies should focus on this aspect and new firms need more attention to study the consequences of EGI (Figure 7).

Figure 7.

Integrative framework.

Methodological Approaches (M)

In line with the TCCM framework, this section examines the methodological approaches adopted in studies on EGI. As defined by Khatri and Duggal (2022), methodology refers to the procedures and analytical tools used to conduct research. Table 5 provides an overview of the research methodology, including study design, data collection methods, and analytical techniques applied across the reviewed literature. Researchers found upon review of the 44 selected studies on EGI shows a strong empirical orientation, with 95% (42 studies) employing empirical designs and only 5% (2 studies) being conceptual. Among the empirical studies (Figure 8), quantitative methods dominate (86%), while qualitative and mixed-methods approaches are each used in 7% of studies, indicating limited methodological diversity. Interviews were the primary qualitative tool used in all qualitative designs. In terms of the time frame of data collection, a clear preference for cross-sectional approaches is evident, accounting for 85.7% of empirical studies. Only 14.3% employed longitudinal designs, highlighting the need for more time-sensitive investigations into how growth intentions evolve. With respect to analysis techniques, logistic regression (21.4%), hierarchical regression (14.3%), and PLS-SEM (14.3%) were the most commonly applied methods. Additionally, tools like PROCESS macro (9.5%), multilevel regression (4.8%), and qualitative techniques such as thematic analysis (4.8%) were used in a smaller number of studies. Techniques like ordered probit regression, moderated mediation, SUR, and Spearman’s correlation appeared infrequently, each in a single study. Overall, the methodological landscape of EGI research is heavily skewed toward cross-sectional, regression-based, and quantitative approaches, highlighting an opportunity for future research to adopt longitudinal, qualitative, and mixed-methods designs to enrich both theory and context-specific insights. The next section identifies several research gaps that future researchers can address.

Table 5.

Overview of Research Methodologies Applied Across the Literature.

Criteria	Research methodology	Number of articles
Type of paper	Empirical	42
Type of paper	Conceptual	2
Research design	Quantitative	36
	Qualitative	3
	Mixed	3
Time frame of data collection	Cross sectional	36
Time frame of data collection	Longitudinal	6
Data analysis	Logistic regression	9
	Hierarchical regression	6
	Pls-Sem	6
	Standard regression	5
	Process macro	4
	Multilevel regression	2
	Ordered regression	2
	Conceptual	2
	Moderated mediation regression	1
	Seemingly unrelated regression (SUR)	1
	Thematic + PLS SEM	1
	Spearman correlation	1
	Thematic analysis	4

Figure 8.

Research methods used in previous publications.

Future Research Agenda

Theory—Advancing EGI research requires a stronger integration of theoretical perspectives to capture its complex nature. Most existing studies rely on single-theory frameworks, especially the TPB, which often overlook the interplay between cognitive, institutional, and behavioral factors. Future research should develop multi-theoretical models, for example, combining TPB with Institutional Theory to reflect both motivation and environmental constraints, or integrating Identity Theory with Dynamic Capabilities Theory to explain how self-concept drives strategic growth behavior, etc. These integrations can offer more holistic and context-sensitive insights, particularly in dynamic or resource-constrained settings.

Additionally, there remains conceptual ambiguity around EGI, particularly the distinction between growth intention and growth aspiration. While some view intention as a pre-startup mindset, others link it to post-launch scaling goals. These inconsistencies hinder theoretical clarity and cross-study comparability. Future research should work toward clear, operational definitions that distinguish between these constructs across different entrepreneurial stages and contexts.

Context—The contextual analysis reveals a strong geographic concentration of EGI research in developed and European economies, while regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America remain significantly underrepresented. Future research should expand to these regions to better understand how institutional voids, informal economies, and cultural norms influence growth intentions. In particular, the role of entrepreneurship in post-conflict and transitional economies is a crucial yet underexplored area, where entrepreneurship is often positioned as a tool for socio-economic recovery but lacks empirical investigation.

In addition to geographic gaps, industry-specific contexts are also underrepresented in EGI literature. The majority of existing studies focus on SMEs and startups in general, with minimal attention to sectors such as agriculture, tourism, technology, etc. These industries operate under unique structural and regulatory dynamics that may profoundly affect growth intention. Thus, future research should explore how sectoral characteristics interact with institutional and individual-level factors to shape EGI. Greater contextual diversity in both regions and industry will enhance the generalizability and practical relevance of EGI research.

Characteristics—Future research on EGI should seek to address several important gaps in the characteristics dimension. First, although studies have examined EGI across gender, immigrant status, and firm size, findings remain inconsistent and fragmented, particularly regarding differences between male and female entrepreneurs and between immigrant and native entrepreneurs. More comparative and intersectional research is needed to reconcile these contradictions and explore how intersecting characteristics (e.g., gender vs. immigrant status) jointly influence growth intentions.

Second, firm size and lifecycle stage are underexplored as dynamic factors influencing EGI. Existing research focuses heavily on small firms, with limited insights into how growth intentions evolve as ventures transition from startup to maturity. Future studies should adopt approaches to investigate how individual and firm-level characteristics influence growth intentions across the entrepreneurial journey.

Another important subject for future research is the change of growth intentions as ventures move through different stages of the life cycle. Growth intentions may be influenced by different factors as they progress from startup to growth and, eventually, maturity. Therefore, the EGI should be studied in relation to the ways in which these antecedents, such as personal level attributes, cognitive factors, firm-level dynamics, and external environmental factors, interact and change over time. Furthermore, even if the effects of EGI on financial performance, employee well-being, and innovation have been studied, there is still much to learn about these results, as prior studies have identified contradictory findings on successful business outcomes. Therefore, further studies are needed to reconcile these inconsistencies, furnishing a more comprehensive understanding of how EGI impacts varied entrepreneurial consequences.

While scholars have explored a wide range of moderators, mediators, and control variables that influence EGI, these have often been incorporated in` a fragmented manner, with limited theoretical grounding. Many studies introduce such variables empirically without embedding them within a robust conceptual framework, making it difficult to assess their relevance or generalizability. Only a handful of studies provide integrated models that explain how and why such variables influence EGI. Future research should aim to develop and test multi-level, theory-driven models that clearly articulate the mechanisms and boundary conditions through which antecedents influence EGI. Additionally, scholars should standardize the use of control variables across studies and ensure these are conceptually justified, not just statistically convenient. This would improve comparability and allow for more meaningful cumulative knowledge building in the EGI domain.

Methodology—The methodological landscape of EGI research remains heavily skewed toward cross-sectional and quantitative designs, which limits our understanding of how growth intentions evolve over time. To address this, future studies should prioritize longitudinal designs that can track changes in EGI across different venture stages and external conditions. Such designs are critical for uncovering causal relationships and temporal dynamics that cross-sectional methods cannot capture. Furthermore, the field would benefit from greater methodological diversity, including the use of qualitative and mixed-methods approaches. These can yield deeper, context-sensitive insights into the underlying motivations, cognitive processes, and environmental interactions influencing EGI. Methodological innovations should also extend to advanced analytical techniques, such as moderated mediation models, multi-level analysis, and configurational methods like fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA). These tools allow researchers to capture the complex interplay between antecedents, moderators, and outcomes, offering richer and more nuanced interpretations of EGI phenomena. Expanding methodological approaches will be instrumental in advancing both theoretical development and practical application in the EGI domain.

Conclusion

This review offers a comprehensive and updated synthesis of knowledge on EGI, filling a notable gap since the meta-analysis by Levie and Autio (2013). Unlike prior reviews focused broadly on entrepreneurial intention or its subtypes (e.g., social, academic), this study is the first to examine EGI exclusively through a structured and thematic lens using the TCCM framework. Drawing on 44 studies published between 2013 and 2024, the review provides a multidimensional view of the field analyzing theoretical foundations, contextual settings, characteristics of entrepreneurs, and methodological approaches.

This review contributes to theory by organizing fragmented EGI literature into a cohesive synthesis and identifying the need for clearer definitions and more integrative theoretical frameworks. By employing the TCCM framework, the study highlights overlooked intersections between cognitive, institutional, and behavioral theories and calls for multi-theoretical models that reflect the complexity of growth intentions across contexts. Theoretically, the review highlights the dominance of the Theory of Planned Behavior but also reveals underutilized theoretical perspectives. The lack of theoretical integration and persistent conceptual ambiguities particularly between growth intention and growth aspiration present key areas for refinement. Contextually, research is concentrated in developed regions, with limited attention to post-conflict and developing economies. Characteristic-level analysis shows variation in EGI based on gender, immigration status, and firm size, yet remains skewed toward a few antecedents like education and experience. Moderators and mediators, though increasingly studied, remain fragmented, and methodologically, research is dominated by cross-sectional, regression-based designs.

For educators and support organizations, this study highlights the need to broaden training beyond technical skills by incorporating identity development, leadership, and resilience. Tailored programs should consider the unique drivers of growth intentions across entrepreneurial groups, including women, immigrants, and SME owners. The findings stress the importance of context-sensitive policy design. In developing and post-conflict regions, where formal institutions may be weak, policymakers should foster entrepreneurial ecosystems from targeted interventions such as improving access to finance, simplifying regulations, and investing in informal support structures like networks and mentorship.

While this review provides a structured synthesis based on studies from Scopus and Web of Science, future research could expand the scope by incorporating additional databases such as EBSCO, ProQuest, etc. This broader inclusion would help capture interdisciplinary perspectives that may offer unique insights into EGI. Moreover, future studies could use advanced tools like SciMAT, CitNetExplorer, to gain deeper insights into the EGI research. Such methodological diversification can deepen our understanding of the intellectual landscape surrounding EGI and reveal hidden connections across time and domains. Nevertheless, by offering a rigorous and structured synthesis, this review serves as a foundational step encouraging future scholars to expand the scope of inquiry and further develop the research landscape on entrepreneurial growth intentions.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Wijekoon Mudiyanselage Heshani Kaushalya Bandara

Hapugoda Achchi Kankanamge Nadee Sheresha Surangi

Kumudu Jayawardhana

Ethical Considerations

This article is a literature review and not related to any human or animal studies. Therefore, the approval or ethical clearance is not applicable accordingly.

Author Contributions

W. M. H. K. Bandara—conception and design of the work, the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work, Drafting the work and revising it. Hapugoda Achchi Kankanamge Nadee Sheresha Surangi—conception and design of the work, the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work, Drafting the work, revising it critically, final approval of the version to be published. Kumudu Jayawardhana—conception and design of the work, the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work, Drafting the work or revising it critically, final approval of the version to be published.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

Ajzen

(1980). Understanding attitudes and predictiing social behavior. Prentice-Hall.

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

Ali

R. S.

(2018). Determinants of female entrepreneurs growth intentions: A case of female-owned small businesses in Ghana’s tourism sector. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 25(3), 387–404.

Al-Jubari

(2019). College students’ entrepreneurial intention: Testing an integrated model of SDT and TPB. Sage Open, 9(2), 2158244019853467.

Al-Jubari

Hassan

Liñán

(2019). Entrepreneurial intention among University students in Malaysia: integrating self-determination theory and the theory of planned behavior. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(4), 1323–1342.

Alkhalaileh

M. Y.

(2021). Systematic review: Digital Entrepreneurship Intention. Network Intelligence Studies, 9(17), 25–34.

Ambad

S. N. A.

(2022). A systematic literature review on social entrepreneurial intention: Citation, thematic analyses and future research directions. In F. Quoquab, & D. Crowther (Eds.), Social entrepreneurs: Mobilisers of social change (pp. 93–124). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Anees-ur-Rehman

Wong

H. Y.

Hossain

(2016). The progression of brand orientation literature in twenty years: A systematic literature review. Journal of Brand Management, 23, 612–630.

Anjum

Phung

Ramani

(2020). Moderating role of university support on the relationship between effective entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention. Test Engineering Management, 83(2), 16377–16387.

10.

Awotoye

Y. F.

Singh

R. P.

(2018). Immigrant entrepreneurs in the USA: A conceptual discussion of the demands of immigration and entrepreneurial intentions. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 21(2), 123–139.

11.

Bandura

Freeman

(1997). Company. In W. H. Freeman (Ed.), Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Worth Publishers.

12.

Barney

(1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

13.

Bazan

Gaultois

Shaikh

Gillespie

Frederick

Amjad

Yap

Finn

Rayner

Belal

(2020). A systematic literature review of the influence of the university’s environment and support system on the precursors of social entrepreneurial intention of students. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 1–28.

14.

Becker

G. S.

(1964). Human capita. National Bureau of Economic Research.

15.

Bird

(1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442–453.

16.

Blackburn

R. A.

Hart

Wainwright

(2013). Small business performance: Business, strategy and owner-manager characteristics. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 20(1), 8–27.

17.

Boyd

N. G.

Vozikis

G. S.

(1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(4), 63–77.

18.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

19.

Braun

Clarke

(2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology, 9(1), 3–26.

20.

Calvo

Neira

Atrio

(2024). Analysis of entrepreneurs’ motivations and role models for growth expectations in the time of coronavirus. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 20(2), 841–866.

21.

Capelleras

J.-L.

Contin-Pilart

Larraza-Kintana

Martin-Sanchez

(2019). Entrepreneurs’ human capital and growth aspirations: The moderating role of regional entrepreneurial culture. Small Business Economics, 52, 3–25.

22.

Carreón-Gutiérrez

J. P.

Saiz-Álvarez

J. M.

(2019). Product newness, low competition, recent technology, and export orientation as predictors for entrepreneurial growth aspirations. Sustainability, 11(20), 5818.

23.

Carucci

(2016). Make strategic thinking part of your job. Harvard Business Review.

24.

Cesinger

Gundolf

Géraudel

(2018). Growth intention and sales revenue growth in small business: The mediating effect of firm size growth. International Journal of Technology Management, 78(3), 163–181.

25.

Chandra

(2018). Mapping the evolution of entrepreneurship as a field of research (1990-2013): A scientometric analysis. PLoS One, 13(1), e0190228.

26.

Dabić

Vlačić

Paul

Dana

L.-P.

Sahasranamam

Glinka

(2020). Immigrant entrepreneurship: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 113, 25–38.

27.

Davidsson

Achtenhagen

Naldi

(2010). Small firm growth. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 6(2), 69–166.

28.

Dhakal

Wiesner

Maraseni

(2022). When entrepreneurial leadership identity and passion meet venture growth intention. Sustainability, 14(20), 13129.

29.

Dhakal

Wiesner

Maraseni

(2024). The interplay between the entrepreneurial leadership identity, entrepreneurial leadership competency and venture growth intentions of women in rural Australia. PLoS One, 19(2), e0296865.

30.

Douglas

E. J.

(2013). Reconstructing entrepreneurial intentions to identify predisposition for growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(5), 633–651.

31.

Dutta

D. K.

Thornhill

(2014a). How do entrepreneurial growth intentions evolve? A sensemaking-sensegiving perspective. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 24(1), 61–76.

32.

Dutta

D. K.

Thornhill

(2014b). Venture cognitive logics, entrepreneurial cognitive style, and growth intentions: A conceptual model and an exploratory field study. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 4(2), 147–166.

33.

Eide

A. E.

Moen

Ø.

Madsen

T. K

Azari

M. J.

(2021). Growth aspirations in SMEs: managerial determinants and organizational outcomes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 28(4), 640–665.

34.

Estrin

Korosteleva

Mickiewicz

(2013). Which institutions encourage entrepreneurial growth aspirations? Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4), 564–580.

35.

Fatoki

(2013). The determinants of immigrant entrepreneurs’ growth expectations in South Africa. Journal of Social Sciences, 37(3), 209–216.

36.

Fatoki

O. O.

(2010). Graduate entrepreneurial intention in South Africa: Motivations and obstacles. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(9), 87.

37.

Ferdinansyah

Purwandari

(2021). Challenges in combining agile development and CMMI: A systematic literature review [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2021 10th International Conference on Software and Computer Applications.

38.

Fuentelsaz

González

Mickiewicz

(2023). Entrepreneurial growth aspirations at re-entry after failure. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 29(2), 297–327.

39.

Ganti

Singhania

(2025). Integration of game theory optimization in financial markets: A systematic literature review based on TCCM framework. Journal of Modelling in Management, 20(1), 276–299.

40.

García-Lillo

Seva-Larrosa

Sánchez-García

(2023). What is going on in entrepreneurship research? A bibliometric and SNA analysis. Journal of Business Research, 158, 113624.

41.

Giotopoulos

Kontolaimou

Tsakanikas

(2017a). Antecedents of growth-oriented entrepreneurship before and during the Greek economic crisis. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 24(3), 528–544.

42.

Giotopoulos

Kontolaimou

Tsakanikas

(2017b). Drivers of high-quality entrepreneurship: What changes did the crisis bring about? Small Business Economics, 48, 913–930.

43.

Gkypali

Roper

(2024). Innovation and sales growth intentions among the solopreneurs: The role of experience and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 200, 123201.

44.

Guelich

(2020). Wishful thinking versus reality: High-growth aspirations of start-ups and established entrepreneurs in ASEAN. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 25(1), 148–151.

45.

Guerrero

Mickiewicz

Qin

(2024). Entrepreneurial growth aspirations during the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of ICT infrastructure quality versus policy response. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 36(1-2), 55–75.

46.

Henriquez-Daza

M. C.

Capelleras

J.-L.

Osorio-Tinoco

(2024). Does fear of failure affect entrepreneurial growth aspirations? The moderating role of institutional collectivism in emerging and developed countries. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 16(5), 1213–1234.

47.

Hermans

Vanderstraeten

Van Witteloostuijn

Dejardin

Ramdani

Stam

(2015). Ambitious entrepreneurship: A review of growth aspirations, intentions, and expectations. In A. C. Corbett, J. A. Katz, & A. Mckelvie (Eds.), Entrepreneurial growth: Individual, firm, and region (pp. 127–160). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

48.

Huber

Flury

Finger

(2015). Factors affecting farm growth intentions of family farms in mountain regions: Empirical evidence for Central Switzerland. Land Use Policy, 47, 188–197.

49.

Hueso

J. A.

Jaén

Liñán

(2021). From personal values to entrepreneurial intention: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 27(1), 205–230.

50.

Hughes

Schachtebeck

(2017). Youth entrepreneurial intention in South Africa–A systematic review during challenging economic times. In Delener

Schweikert

(Eds.), Changing business environment: Gamechangers, opportunifies and risks (pp. 260–268). Global Business & Technology Association.

51.

Jebarajakirthy

Maseeh

H. I.

Morshed

Shankar

Arli

Pentecost

(2021). Mobile advertising: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(6), 1258–1291.

52.

Kariv

Cisneros

Ibanescu

(2019). The role of entrepreneurial education and support in business growth intentions: The case of Canadian entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 31(5), 433–460.

53.

Kautonen

Van Gelderen

Fink

(2015). Robustness of the theory of planned behavior in predicting entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), 655–674.

54.

Khatri

Duggal

H. K.

(2022). Well-being of higher education consumers: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(5), 1564–1593.

55.

Knežević

Gregov

Šimunić

(2016). Salience and conflict of work and family roles among employed men and women. Arh Hig Rada Toksikol, 67, 152–163.

56.

Knockaert

Der Foo

Erikson

Cools

(2015). Growth intentions among research scientists: A cognitive style perspective. Technovation, 38, 64–74.

57.

Kolvereid

Åmo

B. W.

(2019). Growth intention and growth in small accounting firms. Administrative Sciences, 9(2), 36.

58.

Kolvereid

Isaksen

E. J.

(2017). Expectations and achievements in new firms. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 24(3), 649–668.

59.

Kolvereid

(1996). Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(1), 47–58.

60.

Kozan

M. K.

Oksoy

Ozsoy

(2006). Growth plans of small businesses in Turkey: Individual and environmental influences. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(1), 114–129.

61.

Krippendorff

(2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications.

62.

Krueger

N. F.

Jr. Brazeal

D. V.

(1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), 91–104.

63.

Krueger

N. F.

Carsrud

A. L.

(1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behaviour. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 5(4), 315–330.

64.

Kushnirovich

Heilbrunn

Davidovich

(2018). Diversity of entrepreneurial perceptions: Immigrants vs. native population. European Management Review, 15(3), 341–355.

65.

Lajqi

Krasniqi

B. A.

(2017). Entrepreneurial growth aspirations in challenging environment: The role of institutional quality, human and social capital. Strategic Change, 26(4), 385–401.

66.

Levie

Autio

(2013). Growth and growth intentions: A meta-analysis of existing evidence. Enterprise Research Centre.

67.

Lim

W. M.

Yap

S.-F.

Makkar

(2021). Home sharing in marketing and tourism at a tipping point: What do we know, how do we know, and where should we be heading? Journal of Business Research, 122, 534–566.

68.

Liñán

Fayolle

(2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: Citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11, 907–933.

69.

Wang

Long

(2019). How do institutions inspire ambitions? Differentiating institutional effects on entrepreneurial growth intentions: Evidence from China. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 9(4), 20180161.

70.

Loi

Barbieri

Castriotta

Di Guardo

M. C.

(2021). Strive towards a good performance or avoid a failure performance in entrepreneurship education: A look into growth and independence-oriented intentions. Education + Training, 63(4), 513–529.

71.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

D. G.

(2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269.

72.

Neneh

B. N.

(2021). Role salience and the growth intention of women entrepreneurs: does work-life balance make a difference? The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 24, e4.

73.

Neneh

B. N.

(2024). Why peer support matters: Entrepreneurial stressors, emotional exhaustion, and growth intentions of women entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 14, 985–1019.

74.

Neneh

B. N.

Vanzyl

(2014). Growth intention and its impact on business growth amongst SMEs in South Africa. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(20), 172.

75.

Neves

Brito

(2020). Academic entrepreneurship intentions: A systematic literature review. Journal of Management Development, 39(5), 645–704.

76.

Nguyen

T. T.

Nguyen

L. T. P.

Phan

H. T. T.

A. T.

(2021). Impact of entrepreneurship extracurricular activities and inspiration on entrepreneurial intention: Mediator and moderator effect. Sage Open, 11(3), 21582440211032174.

77.

Nyakudya

F. W.

Mickiewicz

Theodorakopoulos

(2024). The moderating role of individual and social resources in gender effect on entrepreneurial growth aspirations. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 30(6), 1576–1599.

78.

Paul

Parthasarathy

Gupta

(2017). Exporting challenges of SMEs: A review and future research agenda. Journal of World Business, 52(3), 327–342.

79.

Paul

Rosado-Serrano

(2019). Gradual internationalization vs born-global/international new venture models: A review and research agenda. International Marketing Review, 36(6), 830–858.

80.

Poblete

(2018). Growth expectations through innovative entrepreneurship: The role of subjective values and duration of entrepreneurial experience. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 24(1), 191–213.

81.

Qian

Brannon

D. L.

Tabak

(2022). Exploring mechanisms in the entrepreneurial passion–entrepreneurial behavior relationship: Mediating role of growth-oriented intentions. Journal of Career Development, 49(4), 922–933.

82.

Rasmussen

C. C.

Ladegård

Korhonen-Sande

(2018). Growth intentions and board composition in high-growth firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(4), 601–617.

83.

Rathogwa

Msimango-Galawe

(2023). The role of growth aspirations in SMME financing decisions. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1), 2196040.

84.

Sachitra

Padmini

(2021a). Entrepreneurial growth intention and capability approach in agriculture: Lesson from Sri Lanka. South Asian Journal of Business Studies, 10(2), 171–191.

85.

Sachitra

Padmini

(2021b). Toward dynamic capability views of entrepreneurial growth intention: Perspective of floricultures industry in Sri Lanka. World Journal of Entrepreneurship Management and Sustainable Development, 17(2), 274–289.

86.

Scott

W. R.

(1995). Institutions and organizations. Sage Publications.

87.

Seuring

Müller

(2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699–1710.

88.

Shapero

Kent

C. A.

(1984). The environment for entrepreneurship. Lexington Books.

89.

Shapero

Sokol

(1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.

90.

Shaver

K. G.

Scott

L. R.

(1992). Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2), 23–46.

91.

Širec

Tominc

(2017). Growth aspirations and growth determinants of immigrants early stage entrepreneurs. Ekonomicky Casopis, 65(7), 618–643.

92.

Stryker

Burke

P. J.

(2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 284–297.

93.

Sweida

G. L.

Reichard

R. J.

(2013). Gender stereotyping effects on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and high-growth entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 20(2), 296–313.

94.

Taghizadeh

S. K.

Al Riyami

Rahman

S. A.

Khan

G. M.

Al Abri

(2024). Does entrepreneurial intention for innovation at firm-level matter to affect performance? International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 25(4), 263–273.

95.

Tan

L. P.

A. N. H.

Xuan

L. P.

(2020). A systematic literature review on social entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 11(3), 241–256.

96.

Tranfield

Denyer

Smart

(2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.

97.

Usman

M. A.

Sun

(2022). Global pandemic and entrepreneurial intention: How adversity leads to entrepreneurship. Sage Open, 12(3), 21582440221123421.

98.

Utama

Yusfiarto

Pertiwi

R. R.

Khoirunnisa

A. N.

(2024). Intentional model of MSMEs growth: A tripod-based view and evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 18(1), 62–84.

99.

Venugopal

(2016). Investigating women’s intentions for entrepreneurial growth. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 8(1), 2–27.

100.

Vrontis

Christofi

Pereira

Tarba

Makrides

Trichina

(2023). Artificial intelligence, robotics, advanced technologies and human resource management: A systematic review. In Malik

Budhwar

(Eds.), Artificial intelligence and international HRM (pp. 172–201). Routledge.

101.

Wallace

Wray

(2021). Critical reading and writing for postgraduates. Sage.

102.

Wang

Long

(2019). Gender gap in entrepreneurial growth ambition: The role of culturally contingent perceptions of the institutional environment in China. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 25(6), 1283–1307.

103.

Wennberg

Pathak

Autio

(2013). How culture moulds the effects of self-efficacy and fear of failure on entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(9–10), 756–780.

104.

Wiklund

Shepherd

(2003). Aspiring for, and achieving growth: The moderating role of resources and opportunities. Journal of management studies, 40(8), 1919–1941.

105.

Wilson

Martin

(2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities for all? Entrepreneurial capability and the capabilities approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 16(3), 159–169.

106.

Xia

Zou

P. X. W.

Griffin

M. A.

Wang

Zhong

(2018). Towards integrating construction risk management and stakeholder management: A systematic literature review and future research agendas. International Journal of Project Management, 36(5), 701–715.

107.

Zampetakis

L. A.

Bakatsaki

Kafetsios

Moustakis

V. S.

(2016). Sex differences in entrepreneurs’ business growth intentions: An identity approach. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 1–20.

108.

Zapkau

F. B.

Schwens

Steinmetz

Kabst

(2015). Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 639–653.

109.

Zirar

Ali

S. I.

Islam

(2023). Worker and workplace Artificial Intelligence (AI) coexistence: Emerging themes and research agenda. Technovation, 124, 102747.