sustainability

Article
Digital Entrepreneurship: A Theory-Based
Systematization of Core Performance Indicators
Liliya Satalkina 1, * and Gerald Steiner 1,2, *
1 Department for Knowledge and Communication Management, Danube University Krems,
3500 Krems, Austria
2 Complexity Science Hub Vienna, 1080 Vienna, Austria
* Correspondence: liliya.satalkina@donau-uni.ac.at (L.S.); gerald.steiner@donau-uni.ac.at (G.S.)




Received: 17 April 2020; Accepted: 11 May 2020; Published: 14 May 2020


Abstract: Digital transformation affects socioeconomic systems, bringing inevitable changes to

business processes, particularly those related to resource demands, networking processes, and
communication mechanisms within entrepreneurial activities. Furthermore, digital transformation
leads to unintended side effects on the societal system and affects the competitiveness, resilience,
and viability of the overall innovation system. It also fosters the formation of new business models
or the reshaping of existing ones and determines digital entrepreneurship as a process or as an
outcome of business activity. The tendencies of digital entrepreneurship differ concerning the
underlying innovation system conditions. The analysis and the systematization of categories and
performance indicators of digitalization and digital entrepreneurship provide a framework for micro-
and macro analytic perspectives. This research aims to provide a theory-based systematization of the
existing performance indicators that characterize digital entrepreneurship, with a particular focus
on compound indicators that characterize the tendencies of digital entrepreneurship on a country
basis in the period from 2016 to 2019. As a theoretical basis for categorization and further analysis of
the indicators, we applied a set of 10 determinants of digital entrepreneurship. These determinants
cover a broad range of elements (from individual patterns to organizational management processes
and the influence of external infrastructure and institutional settings) that define the phenomenon of
digital entrepreneurship within three core dimensions: the entrepreneur, the entrepreneurial process,
and the relevant ecosystem. We defined how the subindices of the chosen compound indicators
are interrelated with the determinants of digital entrepreneurship. Further correlation analysis was
applied in order to define the systematic interrelations between the different dimensions of digital
entrepreneurship as part of a socioeconomic system.

Keywords: digital entrepreneurship; digital transformation; integrated performance indicators;

sustainable transformation and transition capacity; innovation system resilience; complex
societal transitions

1. Introduction
Current societal systems are characterized by the rapid development of technologies and
digitalization. Closely related to communication methods and processes, networking processes,
and information flows [1,2], digital transformation has become a factor of the societal transitions
affecting different innovation systems. This fosters the innovative integration of entrepreneurial and
business models in different industries [3–7], determining the development of digital entrepreneurship.
We suggest that digital entrepreneurship relates not only to specific outcomes of business activities.
It is rather a multidimensional phenomenon that interrelates various elements in industrial supply
chains within various innovation systems. The development and impact of digital entrepreneurship

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4018; doi:10.3390/su12104018 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4018 2 of 22

differ in regard to the different socioeconomic conditions, determining different patterns of digital
transformation. This may also include challenges (e.g., [8]) and supporting conditions for doing
digital business (e.g., [9]). The variety of existing indicators and indices provides measurements
for specific digital categories (e.g., ICT, value in a digital economy, digital risk), as well as for the
impact of digitalization on socioeconomic processes (e.g., employment, innovation development,
financial flows). However, the interrelation of existing indicators, including those that measure digital
business and its different dimensions, with the overall digital transformation process is highly dynamic
and non-deterministic.
According to Tilson et al., digitalization is “a sociotechnical process of applying digitizing techniques
to broader social and institutional contexts that render digital technologies infrastructural” [10]. As a
source of digital transformation, digitalization is interpreted as “the changes that the digital technology
causes or influences in all aspects of human life” [11]. In its turn, digital entrepreneurship as a
part of such transformation processes may be considered, on the one hand, a driving force for
innovation development [5,12,13]. On the other hand, it becomes a challenge (i.e., vulnerabilities
and opportunities) for the resilience and, ultimately, the sustainability of the innovation system in
general [14,15]. Therefore, it is particularly important to understand how digital entrepreneurship as a
driver of digital transformation may affect the sustainable transition capacity of the innovation system
and, consequently, the socioeconomic system. In our research, we consider the innovation system as a
subsystem and important driver within the dynamics of the total socioeconomic system, particularly
with respect to its development, transition, and sustainability processes.
The research aims to provide a theory-based systematization of core performance indicators of
digital entrepreneurship in order to understand its role within multidimensional digital transformation
processes. We aim to understand the interrelation between different aspects of digital entrepreneurship
as part of the innovation and, consequently, socioeconomic system. To achieve this aim, we provide a
critical reflection on core indicators of digitalization and digital entrepreneurship and analyze their
interrelations. As a basis for our reflections, we apply the results of theory systematization acquired in
previous research [16]. The research provides the determinants of digital entrepreneurship within the
three dimensions of the innovation system (i.e., entrepreneur, entrepreneurial process, and ecosystem),
which cover a broad scope of elements from mentality patterns, personal characteristics, and outcomes
to the organizational management process and the influence of external infrastructure and institutions.
The analysis of the correlations between the determinants of digital entrepreneurship in the framework
of the innovation system provides a useful basis for further determination of the correlates between
such entrepreneurship and its sustainable implications for the socioeconomic system in general.
In addition to the main objective, the research aims to provide a supporting consolidation of the
relevant digital entrepreneurship indicators for its target group (e.g., policy makers, business agents,
and entrepreneurs as well as researchers).
The article is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe a working process and research
design that was applied for systematization of core performance indicators. Section 3 provides an
overview of the existing data sources and relevant indicators that characterize digitalization and
digital entrepreneurship. In Section 4, we provide an overview of the core indices and indicators
based on a country comparison. In Section 5, we analyze how the indicators and subindices are
correlated within the determinants of digital entrepreneurship and, therefore, different dimensions of
the innovation system.

2. Materials and Methods

The research includes two stages: (1) theory systematization and (2) core performance indicators
systematization (Figure 1).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4018 3 of 22
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 25

Theory systematization, based on a systematic literature review

Results acquired in Extraction and clustering of core Definition and discussion of the
previous research categories of digital entrepreneurship into determinants of digital
initial nodes entrepreneurship

Systematization of core performance indicators

Overview of the performance
Identification of core indices and
tendencies of digitalization and digital
indicators
entrepreneurship based on country
(Table 2, Section 3.2)
A focus of the comparison (Section 4)
current article

Discussion of the role of digital Analysis of the correlations between

entrepreneurship within the framework of the different determinants and
the digital transformation of dimensions of the digital
socioeconomic systems entrepreneurship

Figure 1. Working process and research design.

Figure 1. Working process and research design.
As illustrated in Figure 1, theory systematization is represented by the results of the systematic
As illustrated in Figure 1, theory systematization is represented by the results of the systematic
literature review on digital entrepreneurship that was conducted in previous research and provides
literature review on digital entrepreneurship that was conducted in previous research and provides
the basis for analysis [16]. Applying the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
the basis for analysis [16]. Applying the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-
Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach, the core determinants of digital entrepreneurship were defined
Analyses (PRISMA) approach, the core determinants of digital entrepreneurship were defined and
and clustered within three core dimensions: Entrepreneur, Entrepreneurial Process, and Ecosystem.
clustered within three core dimensions: Entrepreneur, Entrepreneurial Process, and Ecosystem.
According to
Accordingthe PRISMA
to the PRISMA method, the selection
method, process
the selection was was
process performed
performed in four
in foursteps:
steps:(1)(1)the
the
identification of relevant
identification research
of relevant by briefly
research searching
by briefly through
searching the databases
through the databases (Harvard
(Harvard Hollis
Hollisandand
Web of Knowledge);
Web of Knowledge); (2) a screening of abstracts;
(2) a screening (3) a full-text
of abstracts; assessment;
(3) a full-text assessment;andand(4) (4)
decision-making
decision-making
concerning eligibility. After all screening stages 52 peer-reviewed articles
concerning eligibility. After all screening stages 52 peer-reviewed articles published published in in
journals
journals from
from
2014 to 2018
2014 to in 2018
the English language
in the English werewere
language included
includedin the review.
in the review.For Forthe
the detailed description
detailed description of of
the
the methodmethod as well
as well as theas review
the review process
process (including
(including the the exclusion
exclusion andand inclusion
inclusion criteria,
criteria, coding,and
coding, and
consolidation)
consolidation) see [16].see [16].
In this article,
In this article, we applywe apply the findings
the findings of the
of the abovementionedresearch
abovementioned research as as aaconceptual
conceptual basis. We
basis.
further extend the theoretical achievements with the systematization of core
We further extend the theoretical achievements with the systematization of core performance indicators. performance indicators.
As a firstAs a first
step, westep, we screened
screened the existing
the existing pool ofpool of indicators
indicators and and indices
indices andand identified
identified thethe most
most relevant
relevant
concerning the focus of our research (see Section 3). Based on the chosen indices, we provide an
concerning the focus of our research (see Section 3). Based on the chosen indices, we provide an
overview of the main tendencies of digitalization and digital entrepreneurship on a country basis (see
overview of the main tendencies of digitalization and digital entrepreneurship on a country basis (see
Section 4). Further, we build a matrix that shows how the existing metrics (i.e., indicators and indices)
Section 4). Further, we build a matrix that shows how the existing metrics (i.e., indicators and indices)
and their subindices are interconnected with the determinants of the digital entrepreneurship (see
and theirthesubindices
Matrix of are interconnected
indicators and indiceswith the determinants
in relation of theofdigital
to determinants digitalentrepreneurship
entrepreneurship in (see the
Section
Matrix of5).indicators
In order toand indices
analyze in relation
digital to determinants
entrepreneurship of digital
within the entrepreneurship
framework in Section 5).
of digital transformation, we
In order apply
to analyze digitalanalysis,
correlation entrepreneurship
which allowswithin the framework
for defining of digital transformation,
the interrelatedness we apply
of the core indicators and
correlation analysis,
indices within which allows for
the different defining the
dimensions interrelatedness
of the of the A
innovation system. core indicators
detailed and indices
description of the
within the differentdataset
correlation dimensions of the innovation
and coefficients is provided system.
in SectionA detailed
5.2.1. description of the correlation
dataset and coefficients is provided in Section 5.2.1.
3. Indicator Analysis
3. Indicator Analysis
3.1. Underlying Basis: Relevant Learning from the Systematic Literature Review
3.1. Underlying Basis: Relevant Learning from the Systematic Literature Review
Theoretical systematization was based on the qualitative analysis of 52 articles published in
peer-reviewed journals. Within
Theoretical systematization the systematic
was based literatureanalysis
on the qualitative review, of
we52extracted the categories
articles published in
peer-reviewed journals. Within the systematic literature review, we extracted the categories initial
mentioned by authors in relation to digital entrepreneurship and clustered them into the nodes.
mentioned
Further,
by authors the initial
in relation nodes
to digital were grouped and
entrepreneurship according to three
clustered them core scopes:
into the (1)nodes.
initial the behavioral,
Further,
the initial nodes were grouped according to three core scopes: (1) the behavioral, competence,
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4018 4 of 22

and mentality patterns, as well as the personal outcomes and consequences, of entrepreneurial activity;
(2) the activities related to digitalization in the organizational management process, transformation
within strategic and operational activities, digital start-up establishment, etc.; and (3) the influences that
external infrastructure and institutions have on digital entrepreneurship development. The three core
scopes were classified into three dimensions: Entrepreneur, Entrepreneurial Process, and Ecosystem.
The analysis of the initial nodes allowed us to define the main determinants of digital entrepreneurship
within each of the three dimensions (Table 1).

Table 1. Determinants of digital entrepreneurship [16].

Dimensions Determinants
Determinant 1: Personal characteristics and competences
â Basic characteristics for starting a digital business
â Professional flexibility
Determinant 2: Decision-making and bounded rationality
Entrepreneur â Opportunity–risk attitude
â Personal motivation
Determinant 3: Personal outcomes
â Social positioning
â Access to new entrepreneurial possibilities

Determinant 4: Prerequisites for digitalization

â Digital capabilities
â Adoption of digital drivers
â Digital facilities
Determinant 5: Dynamic shifts in the transformation of business
â Digital features in operation activities
â Merging of value creation
â Revenue mechanism
â Competition and leadership
â Knowledge acquisition and strategic learning
Entrepreneurial Process â Digital business tendencies
Determinant 6: Digital business model innovation
â Shifts in digital business model configurations
â Digital tools
â Risks associated with innovative business models
â Digital innovation models’ validation and assessment
â Shortcomings in digital business models
Determinant 7: Digital business affordances
â Intermediary role
â Enhancing role
â Social influence

Determinant 8: Regional digital business environment

â Resource availability/constraints
â Digital entrepreneurship attitudes
â Context effect on digital start-up formation
Determinant 9: Digital business infrastructure
Ecosystem
â Digital cluster framework
â Facilitating conditions within the infrastructure
â Digital infrastructure architecture
Determinant 10: Collaboration and social values
â System of relationships
â Community and network patterns
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4018 5 of 22

3.2. Systematization of Core Performance Indicators

The consolidation of the results of existing research within the defined determinants provided
a theoretical basis for the comprehensive analysis of integrated indicators. As shown in Figure 1,
the systematization of indicators, which characterize the embeddedness of digital entrepreneurship
within socioeconomic transformation, was conducted in several steps. Initially, we defined the pool of
existing indicators, indices, and metrics that characterize digitalization as well as digital businesses and
entrepreneurial processes. We used the reports of international organizations and research institutions,
as well as statistical databases for the main data sources. The following sources were screened: reports
of the European Commission, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),
the United Nations, and the World Economic Forum; research reports produced by The Fletcher
School at Tufts University; and Eurostat and OECD statistical databases. An Excel spreadsheet was
created with a list of 207 indicators with relevant data sources. Table 2 presents an overview of the
identified indicators.

Table 2. Digital economy indicators relevant for digital entrepreneurship.

Source Indicators
European Commission Reports
Foley, P.; Sutton, D.; Wiseman, I.; Green, L.; Moore, J. (2018).
International Digital Economy and Society Index 2018. European  International Digital Economy and Society Index
Commission.
Autio, E.; Szerb, L.; Komlósi, É.; Tiszberger, M. (2018). The
European Index of Digital Entrepreneurship Systems (EUR 29309
EN). Publications Office of the European Union.  European Index of Digital Entrepreneurship Systems
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/european-index-
digital-entrepreneurship-systems
OECD
Various indicators that show trends in:
 Access and connectivity (Chapter 3)
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.  ICT usage and skills (Chapter 4)
(2017). OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2017. OECD Publishing.  Innovation, application, and transformation (Chapter 5)
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276284-en  Digital risk and trust (Chapter 6)
 Technology outlook (Chapter 7)

 International trade and SMEs with digital presence

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
(2017). Entrepreneurship at a Glance 2017. OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/entrepreneur_aag-2017-en
 Digital presence, international trade and
business confidence
 Digital presence, international trade and prospects of
job creations
(Chapter 1: Recent developments in entrepreneurship)

Official webpage: OECD. Stat Services Trade Restrictions:  Digital services trade restrictiveness index (Digital STRI)
https://stats.oecd.org/?datasetcode=STRI_DIGITAL  Digital STRI Heterogeneity indices

The Fletcher School, Tufts University

Chakravorti, B.; Bhalla, A.; Chaturvedi, R.S. (2017). Digital  Digital Evolution Index
Planet 2017. How Competitiveness and Trust in Digital Economies  Digital Trust
Vary Across the World. The Fletcher School, Tufts University.

Chakravorti, B.; Chaturvedi, R.S.; Fillpovic, C. (2019). Ease of

Doing Digital Business 2019. Which Countries Help Expedite Entry,  Ease of Doing Digital Business
Growth, and Exit of Technology-Based Businesses? The Fletcher
School, Tufts University.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4018 6 of 22

Table 2. Cont.

Source
United Nations Reports
Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2019). Digital
Economy Report 2019: Value Creation and Capture: Implications for
Developing Countries. S.l.: UNITED NATIONS
Indicators
Various indicators that show trends in:
 Recent trends in the digital economy (Chapter 1)
 Measuring value in the digital economy (Chapter 3)
 Value creation and capture in the digital economy: A
global perspective (Chapter 4)
 Opportunities and limitations in developing countries
(Chapter 5)

World Economic Forum

Baller, S.; Dutta, S.; Lanvin, B. (2016). The Global Information
Technology Report 2016: Innovating in the Digital Economy.
http://www.deslibris.ca/ID/10090686
Eurostat
Database
(Official webpage: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database)
 The Networked Readiness Index and subindices
Topic—“Science, technology, digital society”
Subtopic—“Digital economy and society”:
 ICT usage in households and by individuals
 ICT usage in enterprises
 Digital skills
 ICT sector
 Digital economy and society—historical data

Eurostat Statistics Explained

Category Digital economy and society Various indicators in topics:
Statistical article “Digital economy and society  E-business
statistics—enterprises”  Digital economy and society—enterprises
(see https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.
php?title=Digital_economy_and_society)

For further analysis, we focused on integrated indices, which, as compound indicators, measure
the complex patterns of digitalization and digital entrepreneurship more holistically. In the research,
we apply the following indicator sets:
(1) International Digital Economy and Society Index;
(2) European Index of Digital Entrepreneurship Systems;
(3) Digital Evolution Index;
(4) Digital Trust;
(5) Ease of Doing Digital Business;
(6) Network Readiness Index.
As mentioned in relation to Figure 1, the theory-based analysis of the defined indicators allowed
us to determine how digital entrepreneurship is embedded within the pattern of digital transformation.

4. Results
In general, the indicator sets discussed are related to digital business and digital entrepreneurship
as part of digital transformation at a country level. Particularly, applying the Digital Evolution Index,
Digital Trust (The Fletcher School of Tufts University), the International Digital Economy and Society
Index (European Commission), and the Network Readiness Index (World Economic Forum), we
analyze the overall tendency of digitalization and the factors that show its interconnectedness with
the core elements of the socioeconomic system. The European Index of Digital Entrepreneurship
Systems (European Commission) and the Ease of Doing Digital Business (The Fletcher School of Tufts
University) are the indicators that we apply for the analysis of digital business, its core elements, and
their interrelatedness with the other factors of digitalization.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4018 7 of 22

4.1. Digital Evolution Index

The Digital Evolution Index (DEI) was developed by researchers at The Fletcher School of Tufts
University (US) and provides an analysis of the current state of countries’ digitalization levels as well
as digital potential and prospects (“momentum”) [17]. According to the original report (Digital Planet
2017. How Competitiveness and Trust in Digital Economies Vary Across the World) the structure of
the index comprises the following elements [17]:
(1) Supply Conditions: Access Infrastructure (communication, sophistication, and coverage
security); Transaction Infrastructure (access to financial institutions and electronic payment options);
Fulfillment Infrastructure (the quality of transportation infrastructure, logistics performance);
(2) Demand Conditions: Consumer Capacity to Engage (consumer ability and willingness to
spend and the gender digital divide); Digital Payment Uptake (the degree of financial inclusion and
use of digital money); Digital Uptake (device prevalence and density, technology, Internet and mobile
connection uptake, and digital consumption);
(3) Institutional Environment: Institutions and the Business Environment (the legal environment
and efficiency in settling disputes, IP and investment protections and bureaucracy); Institutions and
the Digital Ecosystem (government uptake and the use of ICT and digital technology, and telecom
competition); Institutional Effectiveness and Trust (transparency, rule of law, and regulatory quality);
(4) Innovation and Change: Inputs (financing options and opportunities, start-up capacity, ability
to attract and retain talent); Process (sophistication of business practice, and R&D); Output (the depth
of mobile engagement, reach of innovation, and use of social networks and digital entertainment).
The country rates for the Digital Evolution Index in 2017, with the rates of digital momentum are
shown in Figure
Sustainability 2.x FOR PEER REVIEW
2020, 12, 8 of 25

Figure 2. Digital Evolution Index (developed based on the data from [17] (pp. 21–22)).
Figure 2. Digital Evolution Index (developed based on the data from [17, pp. 21–22]).
4.2. Digital Trust
4.2. Digital Trust
In addition to the Digital Evolution Index, the mentioned research includes the Digital Trust (DT)
In addition
framework, whichtoincludes
the Digital
fourEvolution Index,
main drivers [17]:the mentioned research includes the Digital Trust
(DT)(1)framework, which includes four main drivers
Behavior that shows the correlation between [17]:
the engagement behavior of users and their
(1) toward
attitude Behavior that shows the correlation between the engagement behavior of users and their
digitalization;
attitude toward digitalization;
(2) Attitudes that relate to users’ feelings about the digital environment and their trust in
(2) Attitudes
transactions and data that relate to users’ feelings about the digital environment and their trust in
security;
transactions and data security;
(3) Experience – based on the quality of users’ digital experiences as a proxy measurement that
demonstrates “the extent of frictions” in a country’s digital environment, i.e., the speed and ease of
digital interactions and transactions with respect to different sources of frictions (e.g., regulatory,
infrastructural);
(4) Environment – an evaluation of the “maturity” of trust indicators, such as privacy, security,
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4018 8 of 22

(3) Experience – based on the quality of users’ digital experiences as a proxy measurement that
demonstrates “the extent of frictions” in a country’s digital environment, i.e., the speed and ease
of digital interactions and transactions with respect to different sources of frictions (e.g., regulatory,
infrastructural);
(4) Environment – an evaluation of the “maturity” of trust indicators, such as privacy, security,
and accountability measures.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 25
The scores for the four drivers of Digital Trust in 2017 are shown in Figure 3.

Remark: areas with red frames signify the highest rates of particular drivers

Figure3.3.Drivers
Figure DriversofofDigital
DigitalTrust
Trust(developed
(developedbased
basedonon
the data
the from
data [17]
from [17,(pp.
pp.31–34)).
31–34]).

As shown in Figure 3, the country rankings also differ within each of the four drivers. Country
As shown in Figure 3, the country rankings also differ within each of the four drivers. Country
leaders according to the scores for the Attitudes driver are Australia, China, and Sweden. The highest
leaders according to the scores for the Attitudes driver are Australia, China, and Sweden. The highest
rankings for the Behavior driver were for China, Ireland, and Spain. Estonia, the Netherlands, and
rankings for the Behavior driver were for China, Ireland, and Spain. Estonia, the Netherlands, and
Switzerland are the leaders in the Environment driver. Finally, Experience is the strongest driver of
Switzerland are the leaders in the Environment driver. Finally, Experience is the strongest driver of
digital trust in Norway, South Korea, and Switzerland.
digital trust in Norway, South Korea, and Switzerland.
4.3. The International Digital Economy and Society Index
4.3. The International Digital Economy and Society Index
The International Digital Economy and Society Index (I-DESI) was prepared for the European
The International Digital Economy and Society Index (I-DESI) was prepared for the European
Commission and provides analyses and comparisons of the digital performance of 45 countries (the
Commission and provides analyses and comparisons of the digital performance of 45 countries (the
EU’s 28 member states and 17 non-EU countries). According to the European Commission, the I-DESI is
EU’s 28 member states and 17 non-EU countries). According to the European Commission, the I-DESI
an extended version of the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) since it measures similar variables
is an extended version of the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) since it measures similar
for EU and non-EU countries. The I-DESI combines 24 indicators in five different dimensions [18]:
variables for EU and non-EU countries. The I-DESI combines 24 indicators in five different
(1) Connectivity (fixed broadband, mobile broadband, speed, and affordability);
dimensions [18]:
(2) Human capital (basic skills and usage, advanced skills and development);
(1) Connectivity (fixed broadband, mobile broadband, speed, and affordability);
(3) Citizen Internet use (content, communications, transactions, and ubiquitous use);
(2) Human capital (basic skills and usage, advanced skills and development);
(4) Business technology integration (business digitization, e-Commerce);
(3) Citizen Internet use (content, communications, transactions, and ubiquitous use);
(5) Digital public services (e-Government development index).
(4) Business technology integration (business digitization, e-Commerce);
For further analysis, we chose the I-DESI because, on the one hand, there is no difference in
(5) Digital public services (e-Government development index).
structure compared to the DESI, and, on the other hand, it allows the comparison of the trends of
For further analysis, we chose the I-DESI because, on the one hand, there is no difference in
structure compared to the DESI, and, on the other hand, it allows the comparison of the trends of
digital transformation within different country groups (i.e., EU and non-EU countries). Figure 4
illustrates a comparison of the overall I-DESI rates for EU and non-EU countries as well as the rates
of its different dimensions.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4018 9 of 22

digital transformation within different country groups (i.e., EU and non-EU countries). Figure 4
illustrates a comparison of the overall I-DESI rates for EU and non-EU countries as well as the rates of
its different dimensions.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 25

Figure 4. International
Figure Digital
4. International Economy
Digital EconomyandandSociety Indexcomparison
Society Index comparisonforfor
EUEU
andand non-EU
non-EU countries
countries
(developed based
(developed on the
based data
on the from
data [18]
from [18,(pp. 47–61)).
pp. 47–61]).

The analysis
The analysis of theofI-DESI
the I-DESI demonstrates
demonstrates thatdigital
that the the digital performance
performance of EUofand
EU non-EU
and non-EU
countries
in 2016 increased to 0.59, compared to 0.51 and 0.50, respectively, in 2013. During the analyzedthe
countries in 2016 increased to 0.59, compared to 0.51 and 0.50, respectively, in 2013. During period,
analyzed
the largest period,
change forthe largest
both change
country for bothwas
groups country
withingroups was within thedimension.
the Connectivity ConnectivityAlthough
dimension.there
Although there were no significant differences in the overall rates of the I-DESI for both country
were no significant differences in the overall rates of the I-DESI for both country groups, the largest
groups, the largest variations of the index within the dimensions were Digital public services and
variations of the index within the dimensions were Digital public services and Citizen Internet use.
Citizen Internet use. Figure 5 shows the EU and non-EU countries with I-DESI rates in 2016 higher
Figure 5 shows
than the EU and non-EU countries with I-DESI rates in 2016 higher than the average.
the average.

Figure
Figure 5. EU 5. and
EU and non-EU
non-EU countrieswith
countries withI-DESI
I-DESI rates
rates higher
higherthan
thanaverage
average(developed based
(developed on the
based on the
data from [18, p.
data from [18] (p. 47)). 47]).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4018 10 of 22
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 25

4.4. The
4.4. The Network
Network Readiness
Readiness Index
Index
The Network
The Network Readiness
ReadinessIndex
Index(NRI)
(NRI)was
wasinitially
initiallydeveloped
developed in in
2001 and
2001 extended
and extendedin 2012 by the
in 2012 by
World Economic Forum. The core implication of the index relates to the assessment
the World Economic Forum. The core implication of the index relates to the assessment of a country’s of a country’s
ability to
ability to benefit
benefit from
from digital
digital transformation.
transformation. In In other
other words,
words, NRI
NRI measures
measures atat what
what rate
rate digital
digital
technologies may be implemented within a certain socioeconomic system and
technologies may be implemented within a certain socioeconomic system and how they impact how they impact it [19].
it
The index consists of 53 indicators structured within four subindices
[19]. The index consists of 53 indicators structured within four subindices [19]: [19]:
(1) Environment
(1) Environment subindex: Political and
subindex: Political and regulatory
regulatory environment,
environment, business
business and
and innovation
innovation
environment;
environment;
(2) Readiness
(2) Readiness subindex: Infrastructure, affordability,
subindex: Infrastructure, affordability, skills;
skills;
(3) Usage
(3) Usage subindex: Individual usage,
subindex: Individual usage, business
business usage,
usage, government
government usage;
usage;
(4) Impact subindex: Economic impacts, social
(4) Impact subindex: Economic impacts, social impacts. impacts.
The overall
The overall scores
scores of
of the
the NRI
NRI and
and rates
rates of
of its
its subindices
subindices inin 2016
2016 are
are shown
shown inin Figure
Figure 6.
6.

Figure 6. Network
Figure6. Network Readiness
Readiness Index
Index (developed
(developed based
based on
onthe
thedata
datafrom
from[19]
[19, (pp. 16–20)).
pp. 16–20]).

Among the analyzed countries, the highest NRI score relates to Finland, which is also among the
Among the analyzed countries, the highest NRI score relates to Finland, which is also among
leaders in terms of all subindices, except for the Usage subindex. The lowest NRI score relates to China.
the leaders in terms of all subindices, except for the Usage subindex. The lowest NRI score relates to
China.
4.5. Ease of Doing Digital Business
As previously
4.5. Ease noted,Business
of Doing Digital in addition to the DEI and DT, researchers at The Fletcher School developed
the Ease of Doing Digital Business scale (EDDB) in 2019, which combines the basic measures that are
As previously noted, in addition to the DEI and DT, researchers at The Fletcher School
important for doing digital business on different stages. Particularly, the index combines [20]:
developed the Ease of Doing Digital Business scale (EDDB) in 2019, which combines the basic
(1) Platform levers: e-commerce, for online trading and delivery platforms (e.g., Amazon, eBay);
measures that are important for doing digital business on different stages. Particularly, the index
digital media, referring to platforms for distributing media and entertainment (e.g., YouTube); sharing
combines [20]:
economy, meaning platforms for sharing items between individuals and groups (e.g., Uber, Airbnb);
(1) Platform levers: e-commerce, for online trading and delivery platforms (e.g., Amazon, eBay);
online freelance, for platforms connecting individual freelancers with potential employees (e.g., Upwork);
digital media, referring to platforms for distributing media and entertainment (e.g., YouTube); sharing
(2) Foundational factors: data accessibility, meaning the intensity of data flows, the extent of free
economy, meaning platforms for sharing items between individuals and groups (e.g., Uber, Airbnb);
flow of data, policies for public data sharing; digital and analog foundations referring to conditions of
online freelance, for platforms connecting individual freelancers with potential employees (e.g.,
demand, supply, institutions, and innovation; World Bank Doing Business, including the Doing Business
Upwork);
Distance to Frontier score by the World Bank, which shows how far an economy’s performance is
(2) Foundational factors: data accessibility, meaning the intensity of data flows, the extent of free
from the best performance observed for each Doing Business topic across all economies and years
flow of data, policies for public data sharing; digital and analog foundations referring to conditions of
(“frontier”).
demand, supply, institutions, and innovation; World Bank Doing Business, including the Doing
The scores of the EDDB scale for 2019 are shown in Figure 7.
Business Distance to Frontier score by the World Bank, which shows how far an economy’s
 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 25

performance is from the best performance observed for each Doing Business topic across all
economies
Sustainability 2020, 12,and
4018years (“frontier”). 11 of 22
The scores of the EDDB scale for 2019 are shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Ease7.of
Figure Doing
Ease Digital
of Doing Business
Digital Business(developed basedonon
(developed based thethe data
data fromfrom [20]25–35]).
[20, pp. (pp. 25–35)).

The overview provides

The overview evidence
provides that
evidence thatthe
therates ofthe
rates of theEDDB
EDDB correlate
correlate relatively
relatively to the to theofrates
rates the of the
Digital Evolution Index (see Figure 2) among countries. According to the methodology
Digital Evolution Index (see Figure 2) among countries. According to the methodology of the index, of the index,
the scores of digital platforms include such levers as supply, institution, and market sophistication.
the scores of digital platforms include such levers as supply, institution, and market sophistication.
4.6. The European Index of Digital Entrepreneurship Systems
4.6. The European Index of Digital Entrepreneurship Systems
The European Index of Digital Entrepreneurship Systems (EIDES), provided by the European
The European measures
Commission, Index ofphysical
Digitaland
Entrepreneurship Systems (EIDES),
digital ecosystem conditions provided
for stand-up, start-up,by
andthe European
scale-
Commission, measures
up ventures physical
in 28 EU and
countries digital
[21]. ecosystem
The EIDES conditions
structure includes twoforcondition
stand-up, start-up,[21]:
frameworks and scale-up
ventures in (1)
28 General Framework
EU countries [21].Conditions
The EIDES thatstructure
are appliedincludes
broadly totwo
entrepreneurship and include the
condition frameworks [21]:
following “pillars”: Culture and Informal Institutions; Formal Institutions,
(1) General Framework Conditions that are applied broadly to entrepreneurship Regulation, and Taxation;
and include the
Market Conditions; and Physical Infrastructure;
following “pillars”: Culture and Informal Institutions; Formal Institutions, Regulation, and Taxation;
(2) Systemic Framework Conditions that affect the entrepreneurial dynamic and are related to
Market resources
Conditions; and of
in terms Physical Infrastructure;
such “pillars” as Human Capital; Knowledge Creation and Dissemination;
(2)Finance;
Systemic and Networking and Support. that affect the entrepreneurial dynamic and are related to
Framework Conditions
resources inTable
terms of suchthe
3 illustrates “pillars” as Humanaccording
country distribution Capital;to Knowledge Creation
the scores of the and
EIDES rates forDissemination;
the year
2018.
Finance; and Networking and Support.
Table 3 illustrates the country distribution according to the scores of the EIDES rates for the year 2018.

Table 3. European Index of Digital Entrepreneurship Systems by country groups (developed based on
the data from [21]).

Countries Index Score

I. Leaders 75.7
Denmark 80.7
Sweden 75.6
Luxembourg 74.0
Finland 72.4
II. Followers 52.3
Germany 63.8
United Kingdom 63.7
Netherlands 62.2
Ireland 61.3
Belgium 57.6
Austria 54.3
Malta 54.3
Estonia 51.0
France 49.6
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4018 12 of 22

Table 3. Cont.

Countries Index Score

III. Catchers-up 38.4
Spain 44.2
Czech Republic 42.3
Lithuania 40.6
Slovenia 38.4
Portugal 38.1
Cyprus 36.3
IV. Laggards 29.4
Poland 32.9
Latvia 32.9
Italy 32.6
Croatia 30.6
Hungary 30.1
Slovakia 29.9
Greece 24.4
Bulgaria 23.9
Romania 21.6

According to the rates for the EIDES, the 28 EU countries are clustered in four groups based on
their general and systemic framework conditions for digital entrepreneurship. Denmark, Sweden,
Luxembourg, and Finland were country leaders, with an average rate of 75.7 on the EIDES.
Comparatively, the average EIDES rate for the countries lagging behind (e.g., Poland, Latvia, Italy)
was 24.9.
As noted above, according to the methodology of the index, the Systemic Framework Conditions
depend on the entrepreneurial dynamic, which includes three phases, namely the stand-up, start-up,
and scale-upSustainability
stages (see Figure
2020, 12, 8).REVIEW
x FOR PEER 14 of 25

Leaders Followers
250
150 65.1 65.6 64.7 59.7
200 80.9 58.5 55.9 52
76.9 74 72 48.7 51.4
150 100 61.7 60.6 57.6 62.7 57
77.1 76.4 72.1 54.2 56.2 51.5 47.7
100 71.3
50
50 64.6 65 64.3 61.5 57.5 52.8 54.6 52.7 49.7
84 73.4 75.9 73.8 0
0
Austria
Netherlands

Ireland

Belgium
Germany

Malta

France
United Kingdom

Estonia
Denmark

Sweden

Luxembourg

Finland

Catchers-up Laggards
140 100
120 90
42.9 43.2
100 40.3 38.2 36.8 80 33.4 33.2 34
34 29.9 30.9 30.6
80 70
60 44.6 41.9 41.6 41.6 38.7 38.3 60 23.5 23.2
40 20.8
50 33.6 32.8 31.8 32.3
20 45.2 41.9 39.8 35.5 38.9 36.7 40 32 30.8
0 26.4 25.6 22.4
30
Portugal
Spain

Czech Republic

Lithuania

Slovenia

Cyprus

20
31.8 32.7 32 29.5 27.4 28.3
10 22.9 22.8 21.6
0
Slovakia

Romania
Italy

Greece
Latvia

Croatia

Bulgaria
Poland

Hungary

Stand-up Start-up Scale-up

Figurescores
Figure 8. EIDES 8. EIDESaccording
scores according to the
to the stagesof
stages of entrepreneurial
entrepreneurial dynamic (developed
dynamic based on thebased on the
(developed
data from [21, p. 38]).
data from [21] (p. 38)).
The structure of the EIDES according to the scores of the main pillars for each country group is
shown in Figure 9.
 0

Czec

Slovakia

Romania
Italy

Greece
Poland

Latvia

Croatia

Bulgaria
Hungary
Stand-up Start-up Scale-up

Figure2020,
Sustainability 8. EIDES
12, 4018scores according to the stages of entrepreneurial dynamic (developed based on the
13 of 22
data from [21, p. 38]).

The
Thestructure
structureofofthe
theEIDES
EIDESaccording
accordingto
tothe
thescores
scoresof
ofthe
themain
mainpillars
pillarsfor
foreach
eachcountry
countrygroup
groupisis
shown in Figure 9.
shown in Figure 9.

Figure9.9.EIDES
Figure EIDESaccording
accordingtotothe
thescores
scoresofofmain
mainpillars
pillars(developed
(developedbased
basedonon
the data
the from
data [21]
from (p.p.38)).
[21, 38]).

According to the main dimensions in the framework conditions, the highest rate of EIDES scores
among the country leaders had the Culture and Informal Institutions pillar, 91.3. For laggard countries,
the highest rate of EIDES had a Networking and Support pillar, 35.1.

5. Discussion

5.1. Systematization of Core Performance Indicators—Systems Understanding of Digital Entrepreneurship

The systematic literature review on digital entrepreneurship and the analysis of the indices
and indicators of digitalization and digital entrepreneurship in different countries support the role
of digital entrepreneurship as a driver of digital transformation at all levels of the socioeconomic
system (i.e., from the level of the individual entrepreneur to the company, organizational, and regional
ecosystem levels).
Based on the determinants of digital entrepreneurship (see Section 3.1) and the structure of
integrated indicators (see Section 4), we propose a matrix that illustrates how certain indicators and
their subindices are interrelated with the determinants of digital entrepreneurship (Table 4).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4018 14 of 22

Table 4. 1 Matrix of indicators and indices in relation to determinants of digital entrepreneurship.

Digital Entrepreneurship
Indicator Sets Entrepreneur Entrepreneurial Process Ecosystem
Personal Dynamic Shifts Digital Regional
Decision-Making Prerequisites Digital Digital Collaboration
Characteristics Personal in the Business Digital
and Bounded for Business Business and Social
and Outcomes Transformation Model Business
Rationality Digitalization Affordances Infrastructure Values
Competences of Business Innovation Environment
Digital Evolution Index (DEI)
Access infrastructure
Transaction infrastructure
Fulfillment infrastructure
Consumer capacity to engage
Digital payment uptake
Digital uptake
Institutions and the business
environment
Institutions and the digital
ecosystem
Institutional effectiveness and
trust
Inputs
Process
Outputs
Digital Trust (DT)
Behavior
Attitudes
Experience
Environment
International Digital
Economy and Society Index
(I-DESI)
Connectivity
Human capital
Citizen use of Internet
Business technology
integration
Digital pubic services
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4018 15 of 22

Table 4. Cont.
Digital Entrepreneurship
Indicator Sets Entrepreneur Entrepreneurial Process Ecosystem
Personal Dynamic Shifts Digital Regional
Decision-Making Prerequisites Digital Digital Collaboration
Characteristics Personal in the Business Digital
and Bounded for Business Business and Social
and Outcomes Transformation Model Business
Rationality Digitalization Affordances Infrastructure Values
Competences of Business Innovation Environment
Network Readiness Index
(NRI)
Political and regulatory
environment
Business and innovation
environment
Infrastructure
Affordability
Skills
Individual usage
Business usage
Government usage
Economic impacts
Social impacts
Ease of Doing Digital
Business (EDDB)
E-commerce platform
Digital media platform
Sharing economy platform
Online freelance platform
European Index of Digital
Entrepreneurship Systems
(EIDES)
Culture and informal
institutions
Formal institutions, regulation,
and taxation
Market conditions
Physical infrastructure
Human capital
Knowledge creation and
dissemination
Finance
Networking and support

1 —the relation of a subindex to a certain determinant.

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4018 16 of 22

As shown in Table 4, several indicators relate to more than one dimension of digital
entrepreneurship. For example, skills or individual usage (NRI) relate to a regional digital business
environment, characterizing the availability of human resources with relevant competences, but also
to the personal characteristics and competences of entrepreneurs.

5.2. Correlates between the Three Dimensions of Digital Entrepreneurship

Digital entrepreneurship is based on complex mechanisms [22–32] that integrate the various
dimensions of the socioeconomic system. We argue that the dynamics within the mentioned
determinants (e.g., due to permanent interaction between the key agents) determine the dynamic
patterns of digital entrepreneurship. We provide a correlation analysis in order to reach a better
understanding of how the three dimensions of digital entrepreneurship are interrelated and how they
are integrated within the digital transformation process.

5.2.1. Data and Method

In order to form a dataset for correlation analysis, we chose 13 metrics (one compound indicator
and 12 subindices), which were interrelated to specific determinants of digital entrepreneurship
(see Table 4). In addition, for the analysis, we chose those countries for which all 13 metrics were
available. We also coded the heading of the subindices, mentioning the relevance to a certain compound
indicator and dimension of digital entrepreneurship (Table 5). According to the methodology of each
compound indicator [17–20], all indices and subindices have different ranges of scales (see Table 5).

Table 5. 1 Codes of the metrics for correlation matrix.

Range of Code for Correlation
Compound Indicator Subindex
Scales Matrix
Attitudes A_DT
Digital Trust [0;5]
Behavior B_DT
Skills S_NRI
Individual usage IU_NRI
Network Readiness Index [1;7]
Business usage BU_NRI
Infrastructure I_NRI
Human Capital HC_I-DESI
International Digital Economy and Society Index [0;1]
Business technology
BTI_I-DESI
integration
Digital Evolution Index – [0;5] DEI
E-Commerce EC_EDDB
Digital media DM_EDDB
Ease of doing digital business [0;5]
Sharing economy SE_EDDB
Online freelancing OF_EDDB

1 —Ecosystem dimension
—Entrepreneurial process dimension
—Entrepreneur dimension
—Entrepreneurial process and Ecosystem dimensions

The formed dataset for the correlation analysis contained 13 metrics for 19 countries (see
Appendix A). Since the dataset contains only the values of specific sub-indices and relates to the
interval scale of values, we applied the Pearson correlation coefficients for the analysis. The critical
values for Pearson correlation were calculated for 0.05 and 0.01 significance levels. Using the Excel
function T.INV.2T, we calculated Student’s T Critical Values for probabilities 0.05 and 0.01 with 245
degrees of freedom (sample size 247). We obtained 1.97 and 2.596 for probability 0.05 and 0.01
respectively. Further, we calculated the critical values for the Pearson correlation coefficients, which
were 0.125 and 0.164 for 0.05 and 0.01 significance levels respectively. Table 6 shows the Pearson
correlation coefficient matrix.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4018 17 of 22

Table 6. 1,2,3 Pearson correlation coefficient matrix between the indices.

DM_EDDB
BTI_I-DESI
HC_I-DESI

OF_EDDB
EC_EDDB

SE_EDDB
BU_NRI
IU_NRI
S_NRI

I_NRI
A_DT

B_DT

DEI
A_DT 1
B_DT 0.105 1
S_NRI 0.003 −0.217 ** 1
IU_NRI −0.163 * −0.459 ** 0.582 ** 1
BU_NRI 0.082 −0.345 ** 0.686 ** 0.749 ** 1
HC_I-DESI −0.187 ** −0.314 ** 0.486 ** 0.650 ** 0.275 ** 1
BTI_I-DESI 0.04 −0.242 ** 0.602 ** 0.715 ** 0.772 ** 0.272 ** 1
DEI −0.050 −0.342 ** 0.676 ** 0.866 ** 0.846 ** 0.574 ** 0.844 ** 1
I_NRI −0.105 −0.584 ** 0.645 ** 0.889 ** 0.736 ** 0.668 ** 0.693 ** 0.911 ** 1
EC_EDDB −0.196 ** −0.31 ** 0.611 ** 0.791 ** 0.769 ** 0.423 ** 0.799 ** 0.883 ** 0.810 ** 1
DM_EDDB −0.28 ** −0.412 ** 0.455 ** 0.639 ** 0.660 ** 0.194 ** 0.663 ** 0.743 ** 0.712 ** 0.903 ** 1
SE_EDDB 0.012 −0.026 0.479 ** 0.563 ** 0.482 ** 0.190 ** 0.673 ** 0.647 ** 0.534 ** 0.717 ** 0.679 ** 1
OF_EDDB −0.177 ** −0.287 ** 0.563 ** 0.779 ** 0.57 ** 0.541 ** 0.714 ** 0.839 ** 0.812 ** 0.896 ** 0.844 ** 0.839 ** 1

1 —Ecosystem dimension
—Entrepreneurial process dimension
—Entrepreneur dimension
—Entrepreneurial process and Ecosystem dimensions
2 * significant at 0.05, ** significant at 0.01 3 critical values 0.125 and 0.164 for 0.05 and 0.01 significance levels respectively.

5.2.2. Correlation Analysis

The core aim of the correlation analysis was to define how the different subindices are interconnected
within the different dimensions of digital entrepreneurship. Consequently, the implications of the
analysis refer to a better understanding of the interrelations between the different determinants of digital
entrepreneurship, which provide evidence for the role of a systematic approach for understanding
digital business transformations, their part in societal transition patterns and, their impact on the
transformation capacity and resilience of the innovation system. The following interconnections may
serve as examples:
(1) Digital trust affects the development of skills and the usage of digital products, which, in turn,
affect the digitalization of business.
The results of correlation did not show a significant interrelation between the trust indicators
(A_DT and B-DT) and metrics that characterize digital skills and usage (S_NRI, IU_NRI, and BU_NRI;
HC_I-DESI). Nor did the data show a significant correlation between digital trust (A_DT and B-DT)
and business technology integration (BTI_I-DESI). Nevertheless, between the IU_NRI and BU_NRI
and BTI_I-DESI, direct correlation is rather strong at 0.715 and 0.772, respectively.
(2) The digital environment is interrelated with the development of digital infrastructure and the
intensity of business digitalization.
A high and direct correlation is observed between the state of digitalization level (DEI) and the
infrastructure (I_NRI) at 0.911, as well as with business technology integration (BTI_I-DESI) at 0.844.
(3) The digital environment is interrelated with the development and application of
digital platforms.
The correlation matrix shows the significant level of direct interconnectedness between DEI and
e-Commerce, digital media, and online freelancing platforms (EC_EDDB; DM_EDDB; OF_EDDB) at
0.883, 0.743, and 0.839, respectively. The correlation with the sharing economy platform (SE_EDDB) is
the lowest at 0.647.

5.3. Digital Entrepreneurship and Its Resilience and Sustainability Implications

The interrelatedness of various indicators within three core dimensions of digital entrepreneurship
provide evidence of the validity of a systematic approach for understanding the impact of digital
entrepreneurship on the innovation system as well as its part in societal transitions. Results obtained
from previous [16] as well as current research allowed us to contribute to a better understanding of
digital entrepreneurship within the complexity of digitally induced transitions. We may define digital
 5.3. Digital Entrepreneurship and Its Resilience and Sustainability Implications
The interrelatedness of various indicators within three core dimensions of digital
entrepreneurship provide evidence of the validity of a systematic approach for understanding the
impact of2020,
Sustainability digital entrepreneurship on the innovation system as well as its part in societal transitions.
12, 4018 18 of 22
Results obtained from previous [16] as well as current research allowed us to contribute to a better
understanding of digital entrepreneurship within the complexity of digitally induced transitions. We
entrepreneurship as a complex mechanism that is, on the one hand, a consequence and, on the other
may define digital entrepreneurship as a complex mechanism that is, on the one hand, a consequence
hand, a driver for the transformation of social relations (under the effect of digital technologies) within
and, on the other hand, a driver for the transformation of social relations (under the effect of digital
the different dimensions and levels of the innovation and socioeconomic systems. A specific example
technologies) within the different dimensions and levels of the innovation and socioeconomic
for such transformation of social relations concerns the principles of sharing economy (see [33]).
systems. A specific example for such transformation of social relations concerns the principles of
Nevertheless, it is crucial to define the interconnection between the transformative and sustainable
sharing economy (see [33]). Nevertheless, it is crucial to define the interconnection between the
impacts of digital entrepreneurship. In other words, it is important to understand how certain
transformative and sustainable impacts of digital entrepreneurship. In other words, it is important to
elements of the digital entrepreneurship mechanism (e.g., intentions, competences, and initiatives)
understand how certain elements of the digital entrepreneurship mechanism (e.g., intentions,
may contribute to sustainable transitions of the innovation system, its viability, and its resilience within
competences, and initiatives) may contribute to sustainable transitions of the innovation system, its
complex societal transitions (e.g., contribution to system innovation implications, and influence on the
viability, and its resilience within complex societal transitions (e.g., contribution to system innovation
sustainable transformation and transition capacities) (Figure 10).
implications, and influence on the sustainable transformation and transition capacities) (Figure 10).

Figure
Figure 10.10.Digital
Digitalentrepreneurship
entrepreneurship within
within the
the societal
societal transition
transition patterns.
patterns.

Discussingthe
Discussing therole
roleof
of digital entrepreneurship
entrepreneurship for forsustainable
sustainabletransition
transitionpatterns,
patterns,wewe
point also
point
to atoparticular
also rolerole
a particular of entrepreneurial
of entrepreneurialcompetences
competences as a as
crucial element
a crucial for the
element fordevelopment
the developmentof digital
of
business initiatives. A future research avenue related to applying a systems science
digital business initiatives. A future research avenue related to applying a systems science approach approach should
include
should the implications
include for the
the implications fordevelopment
the development of anofentrepreneurial
an entrepreneurialcompetence
competence portfolio. Such
portfolio.
competences
Such competencesshould include
should the ability
include to apply
the ability a systems
to apply understanding
a systems as a basis
understanding as for the problem-
a basis for the
solving capacitycapacity
problem-solving of futureof entrepreneurs and, consequently,
future entrepreneurs the development
and, consequently, of system innovations.
the development of system
In turn, the systems
innovations. approach
In turn, the systems in approach
the innovation
in theimplications allows dealing
innovation implications with dealing
allows the vulnerabilities
with the
within the various systems dimensions (i.e., different dimensions of socioeconomic
vulnerabilities within the various systems dimensions (i.e., different dimensions of socioeconomic systems, different
systems, different time prospects), contributes to the sustainable transition capacity of the innovation
system, and becomes a factor of its viability and resilience within complex societal transitions
(see [14,15]).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4018 19 of 22

6. Conclusions
The aim of this research was to provide a theory-based systematization of core performance
indicators of digital entrepreneurship in order to understand how digital tendencies affect the
transformation of business frameworks and how they may further relate to innovation system
resilience. As a theoretical basis for such systematization, we applied the results of previous research
(i.e., a systematic literature review in the field of digital entrepreneurship). In particular, we based the
indicator analysis on 10 determinants of digital entrepreneurship clustered within three dimensions:
Entrepreneur, Entrepreneurial process, and Ecosystem. We analyzed the current tendencies of digital
entrepreneurship in different countries. In order to understand how the indicators can be applied to
evaluate digital entrepreneurship, we analyzed their interrelatedness with the determinants of digital
entrepreneurship. Applying the correlation analysis, we examined how the different dimensions
of digital entrepreneurship are interconnected. This provided evidence for the role of a systematic
approach in the understanding of the digital transformation of socioeconomic systems. Moreover, the
overview of the relevant digital entrepreneurship indicators, their strengths, focuses, and possible
implications is posited as a supporting consolidation for readers (e.g., policy makers, business agents,
and entrepreneurs as well as researchers).
With respect to future research, the results presented in this paper call for the extended study of
societal transitions, particularly those brought about by digital transformation. Particularly important
is the application of a systems science approach in a field of entrepreneurial transformation and further
formation of a competence portfolio. Such an approach would advance the understanding of the
interrelatedness of entrepreneurial processes with socioeconomic system dimensions, particularly in
terms of global societal transitions [34]. This includes an understanding of how the resilience and
sustainability of a socioeconomic system, on the one hand, may be affected by different disturbances
and vulnerability factors within its interrelated dimensions. On the other hand, such understanding
may define the role of digital entrepreneurs in contributing to the resilience of the innovation system
and, consequently, the sustainability of the socioeconomic system in general.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.S. and G.S.; methodology, L.S. and G.S.; validation, L.S.; formal
analysis, L.S.; investigation, L.S.; writing—original draft preparation, L.S.; writing—review and editing, L.S.
and G.S.; visualization, L.S.; supervision, G.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the research grant FTI 17-011 as part of the FTI-Call 2017 ‘Digitalization’
by the ‘NÖ Forschungs- und Bildungsges.m.b.H.’ (NFB).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4018 20 of 22

Appendix A

Table A1. Dataset for Pearson correlation coefficient matrix.

Countries A_DT B_DT S_NRI IU_NRI BU_NRI HC_I-DESI BTI_I-DESI DEI I_NRI EC_EDDB DM_EDDB SE_EDDB OF_EDDB
China 3.04 3.62 5.4 3.9 3.9 0.41 0.41 2.49 3.3 2.04 2.24 2.51 2.06
Estonia 2.57 2.45 5.9 6.3 4.4 0.66 0.53 3.24 6.5 3.1 2.93 3.29 3.21
Finland 2.57 2.53 6.5 6.6 5.8 0.73 0.67 3.72 7 3.4 2.86 3.58 3.15
France 2.41 1.49 5.9 6 5 0.62 0.53 3.25 6.3 3.17 2.99 2.82 2.82
Germany 2.73 1.93 6.1 6.2 5.8 0.62 0.59 3.36 6.6 3.35 3.03 2.83 2.87
Ireland 2.27 2.96 6.1 5.9 4.9 0.77 0.51 3.41 6 3.21 2.77 3.14 3.09
Netherlands 2.75 2.12 6.2 6.6 5.8 0.69 0.75 3.55 6.4 3.63 3.06 3.7 3.35
Spain 2.21 2.87 5.3 5.6 3.9 0.62 0.55 2.95 5.4 3.17 2.85 2.88 2.9
Sweden 3.34 2.52 5.8 6.7 6 0.69 0.65 3.79 7 3.44 2.89 3.24 3.17
UK 2.29 2.4 5.8 6.6 5.2 0.65 0.68 3.67 6.3 3.66 3.46 3.72 3.56
Australia 2.9 1.85 6 6.3 4.8 0.81 0.57 3.55 7 3.35 3.06 3.33 3.35
Canada 2.66 1.76 6.1 5.7 4.9 0.67 0.65 3.55 7 3.28 3.13 3.11 3.25
Japan 2.25 2.16 6.1 6.4 5.9 0.7 0.53 3.52 6.6 3.57 3.28 2.56 3.01
Norway 2.41 2.8 6 6.7 5.5 0.69 0.66 3.79 7 3.48 3.04 3.53 3.3
New Zealand 2.51 2.66 6.2 6.1 5 0.79 0.56 3.54 6.8 3.32 2.97 3.05 3.3
South Korea 2.4 1.73 5.6 6.5 5.4 0.76 0.64 3.68 7 3.05 2.75 2.51 2.84
Switzerland 2.65 2.38 6.4 6.6 6.1 0.65 0.8 3.74 6.8 3.4 3.08 3.14 3.08
USA 2.45 1.96 5.8 6.2 5.9 0.56 0.62 3.61 7 3.62 3.62 3.79 3.4
Russia 2.58 2.24 5.4 5.3 3.6 0.64 0.3 2.44 4.7 1.7 2.05 2.22 2.22
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4018 21 of 22

References
1. Castells, M. The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK; Malden, MA, USA, 2010.
2. Van Dijk, J. The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA,
USA, 2006.
3. Elia, G.; Margherita, A.; Passiante, G. Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem: How digital technologies and
collective intelligence are reshaping the entrepreneurial process. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 150,
119791. [CrossRef]
4. Li, W.; Du, W.; Yin, J. Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem as a new form of organizing: The case of
Zhongguancun. Front. Bus. Res. China 2017, 11. [CrossRef]
5. Martín-Peña, M.L.; Garrido, E.D.; Sánchez-López, J.M. The digitalization and servitization of manufacturing:
A review on digital business models. Strateg. Chang. 2018, 27, 91–99. [CrossRef]
6. Nambisan, S.; Lyytinen, K.; Majchrzak, A.; Song, M. Digital Innovation Management: Reinventing Innovation
Management Research in a Digital World. MIS Q. 2017, 41, 223–238. [CrossRef]
7. Yu, C.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, Y. Understanding new ventures’ business model design in the digital era: An empirical
study in China. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 95, 238–251. [CrossRef]
8. Dong, J.Q. Moving a mountain with a teaspoon: Toward a theory of digital entrepreneurship in the regulatory
environment. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 146, 923–930. [CrossRef]
9. Geissinger, A.; Laurell, C.; Sandström, C.; Eriksson, K.; Nykvist, R. Digital entrepreneurship and field
conditions for institutional change– Investigating the enabling role of cities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
2019, 146, 877–886. [CrossRef]
10. Tilson, D.; Lyytinen, K.; Sørensen, C. Research Commentary—Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS
Research Agenda. Inf. Syst. Res. 2010, 21, 748–759. [CrossRef]
11. Stolterman, E.; Fors, A.C. Information Technology and the Good Life. In Information Systems Research;
Kaplan, B., Truex, D.P., Wastell, D., Wood-Harper, A.T., DeGross, J.I., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers:
Boston, MA, USA, 2004; Volume 143, pp. 687–692.
12. Ardolino, M.; Rapaccini, M.; Saccani, N.; Gaiardelli, P.; Crespi, G.; Ruggeri, C. The role of digital technologies
for the service transformation of industrial companies. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 2116–2132. [CrossRef]
13. Hinings, B.; Gegenhuber, T.; Greenwood, R. Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional
perspective. Inf. Organ. 2018, 28, 52–61. [CrossRef]
14. Steiner, G. Unlock Hidden Innovation Potentials: Uncertainty, Risk, & Opportunity Costs. In Proceedings of
the IFA: Production and International Trade Conference, Paris, France, 22–24 February 2017.
15. Steiner, G. From probabilistic functionalism to a mental simulation of innovation: By collaboration from
vulnerabilities to resilient societal systems. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2018, 38, 92–98. [CrossRef]
16. Satalkina, L.; Steiner, G. Digital Entrepreneurship and its Role in Innovation Systems: A Systematic Literature
Review as a Basis for Future Research Avenues for Sustainable Transitions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2764.
[CrossRef]
17. Chakravorti, B.; Bhalla, A.; Chaturvedi, R.S. Digital Planet 2017. How Competitiveness and Trust in Digital
Economies Vary Across the World; The Fletcher School, Tufts University: Medford, MA, USA, 2017.
18. Foley, P.; Sutton, D.; Wiseman, I.; Green, L.; Moore, J. International Digital Economy and Society Index 2018;
Publications Office of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2018.
19. Baller, S.; Dutta, S.; Lanvin, B. The Global Information Technology Report 2016: Innovating in the Digital
Economy. 2016. Available online: http://www.deslibris.ca/ID/10090686 (accessed on 12 December 2019).
20. Chakravorti, B.; Fillpovic, C.; Chaturvedi, R.S. Ease of Doing Digital Business 2019. Which Countries Help Expedite
Entry, Growth, and Exit of Technology-Based Businesses? The Fletcher School, Tufts University: Medford, MA,
USA, 2019; Available online: https://sites.tufts.edu/digitalplanet/research/ease-of-doing-digital-business/
(accessed on 15 January 2020).
21. Autio, E.; Szerb, L.; Komlósi, É.; Tiszberger, M. The European Index of Digital Entrepreneurship Systems (EUR
29309 EN); Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2018.
22. Bouwman, H.; Nikou, S.; Molina-Castillo, F.-J.; De Reuver, M. The impact of digitalization on business
models. Digit. Policy, Regul. Gov. 2018, 20, 105–124. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4018 22 of 22

23. Du, W.D.; Pan, S.L.; Zhou, N.; Ouyang, T. From a marketplace of electronics to a digital entrepreneurial
ecosystem (DEE): The emergence of a meta-organization in Zhongguancun, China. Inf. Syst. J. 2018, 28,
1158–1175. [CrossRef]
24. Gupta, G.; Bose, I. Strategic learning for digital market pioneering: Examining the transformation of
Wishberry’s crowdfunding model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018. [CrossRef]
25. Heavin, C.; Power, D.J. Challenges for digital transformation–towards a conceptual decision support guide
for managers. J. Decis. Syst. 2018, 27, 38–45. [CrossRef]
26. Hull, C.E.; Hair, N.; Perotti, V.; Hung, Y.-T.C.; DeMartino, R. Taking advantage of digital opportunities:
A typology of digital entrepreneurship. Int. J. Netw. Virtual Organ. 2007, 4, 290. [CrossRef]
27. Jabłoński, M. Value Migration to the Sustainable Business Models of Digital Economy Companies on the
Capital Market. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3113. [CrossRef]
28. Kraus, S.; Palmer, C.; Kailer, N.; Kallinger, F.L.; Spitzer, J. Digital entrepreneurship. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res.
2018, 25, 353–375. [CrossRef]
29. Nambisan, S. Digital Entrepreneurship: Toward a Digital Technology Perspective of Entrepreneurship.
Entrep. Theory Pr. 2017, 41, 1029–1055. [CrossRef]
30. Pagani, M. Digital Business Strategy and Value Creation: Framing the Dynamic Cycle of Control Points. MIS
Q. 2013, 37, 617–632. [CrossRef]
31. Standing, C.; Mattsson, J. “Fake it until you make it”: Business model conceptualization in digital
entrepreneurship. J. Strat. Mark. 2018, 26, 385–399. [CrossRef]
32. Sussan, F.; Acs, Z.J. The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Bus. Econ. 2017, 49, 55–73. [CrossRef]
33. Richter, C.; Kraus, S.; Brem, A.; Durst, S.; Giselbrecht, C. Digital entrepreneurship: Innovative business
models for the sharing economy. Creativity Innov. Manag. 2017, 26, 300–310. [CrossRef]
34. Rebernik, M.; Bradač Hojnik, B.; Crnogaj, K.; Knez-Riedl, J.; Krošlin, T.; Močnik, D.; Tominc, P. Building
an Entrepreneurial Society 25 Years of Entrepreneurship at FEB UM; University of Maribor Press: Maribor,
Slovenia, 2018.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).