Science Parks play a crucial role in fostering entrepreneurship and innovation, acting as hubs for knowledgetransfer, technology commercialization, and business development. Despite their growing importance, existingclassifications fail to adequately capture their diversity. This study addresses this gap by proposing a novel typologybased on two key dimensions: ownership and strategic orientation. We categorize them into four types—ResearchParks, Technology Parks, Industrial Parks, and Traditional Parks—providing a framework thatenhances understanding, strategic planning, and policymaking. To empirically validate this typology, we analyse180 Science Parks worldwide, all full members of the International Association of Science Parks and Areas ofInnovation (IASP). The classification relies on data from multiple institutional sources, including IASP directories,reports from national Science Park associations, and individual park websites. Our approach introducesa three-tier classification: i) typology, which establishes the overarching structure; ii) types, representing specificcategories within the typology; and iii) clusters, further categorize the types into subsets, adding depth to theclassification system. Clusters are the results of the practical application of the model to IASP’s full members. Bycategorizing Science Parks into four types and nine clusters, this study provides insights into their distinct needsand challenges, informing more effective policy and management strategies. Ultimately, this research contributesto the broader discourse on Science Parks by offering a refined classification system that improves understandingof their diversity and strategic roles.

This paper focuses on technology transfer through academic entrepreneurship, exploringhow doctoral students’ motivations, social context, and institutional environment influ-ence their entrepreneurial decisions to launch a business, thereby contributing to research-driven innovation. Through semi-structured interviews with 28 doctoral students who havelaunched ventures, this study identifies two distinct entrepreneurial decision-making pat-terns among doctoral students: the ‘inner push’, driven by intrinsic motivation and per-sonal ownership of ideas, and the ‘social pull’, shaped by external influences such as su-pervisors and peer networks. By examining the interplay of personal and social influences,we advance the understanding of academic entrepreneurship and doctoral students’ rolein technology transfer. It demonstrates how different patterns encourage entrepreneurialbehavior, with an emphasis on the “inner push” from personal motivations. Our findingssuggest that universities need to develop support tools to nurture the early stage of doc-toral students’ entrepreneurial process, starting with the recognition of the importance oftheir motivations and the social context in which they operate. Creating an environmentconducive to technology transfer enables doctoral students to translate research into ven-tures, contributing to societal progress and economic growth.

This article explores the establishment of research centres as manifestations of academic intrapreneurship, thus challenging the assumption that academic intrapreneurship is solely commercially driven, emphasizing the critical role of early stakeholder engagement, funding, strategic partnerships, effective communication and clearly defined roles. The article contributes to the intrapreneurship literature by contextualizing research centre creation as an intrapreneurial process, exploring how universities develop intrapreneurial capabilities, and identifying the challenges intrapreneurs face. Practical implications suggest investing in training and recognition systems to enhance intrapreneurial skills among faculty, staff, and students.

This book presents the proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Conference on Innovation, Design, Entrepreneurship, and Sustainable Systems (IDEAS 2024). It explores the cutting-edge ideas that are shaping the future of innovation, design, entrepreneurship, and sustainability. This book navigates the most recent research trends and practices, with unique insights on how to address innovation, design, and entrepreneurship on a sustainable basis. This book is an essential reference for anyone interested in staying up to date on the latest research, whether they are academics, designers, entrepreneurs, or sustainability enthusiasts. Get your copy now and take part in the debate about the future of sustainable innovation.

This introduction chapter aims to discuss the circular entrepreneurship (CEship) ecosystems, theories, and approaches. This book includes eleven chapters that all be related to the most cutting-edge and circularity-enabled entrepreneurship ecosystems. An overview of each chapter is mentioned highlighting its goals and contributions to novel CEship theory and practice. The book will highlight innovative thinking, best practices for CEship ecosystems in progressive spheres, impact in uncertain times, and shaping public policy.

This book focuses on CEship, which is described as the process of exploring and exploiting opportunities in the circular economy domain (Zucchellaand Urban, 2019). In business terms, as the circular economy is considered a strategy to achieve sustainable outcomes (Geissdoerfer et al., 2020), CEship isa form of sustainable entrepreneurship. It includes interactions and collaboration with other actors in the ecosystem, regional governance and determinants,and technological resources (Suchek et al., 2022).Therefore, the transition towards the circular economy is strongly linked to collaborative relationships between stakeholders, whose main goal is to createand capture differential values (Bertassini et al., 2021). The level of development of a supportive environment for CEship plays a prominent role in shaping business ecosystems.

This study investigates the complex processes of growth and evolution exhibited by circular new ventures. A dataset followed the development trajectories of 70 such ventures from 2021 to 2024. One notable observation is that these new ventures often adopt an experimental approach when crafting their circular business models, aiming to effectively address the genuine needs of potential customers while capturing value based on circular principles. Additionally, right from their inception, these ventures demonstrate a proactive interest in integrating themselves into a broader business ecosystem. Nonetheless, the challenges faced by circular new ventures in relation to their liabilities associated with being new to potential customers and markets encompass constraints in resources, limited networks, and the struggle to establish legitimacy, collectively rendering the task of securing strategic partnerships a daunting one. Consequently, counter to the expectations of rapid and extensive expansion, circular new ventures frequently find it necessary to collaborate with and progress gradually alongside other small and nascent ventures.

The novelty of this article lies in its focus on how mature ecosystems align their members around a new value proposition, specifically supporting circular economy entrepreneurship. We use dynamic capabilities theory to analyse the coordination and collaboration challenges in entrepreneurial ecosystems that seek to support entrepreneurship based on circular economy strategies. Drawing on interviews with 34 ecosystem actors and 70 circular new ventures, as well as three focus group discussions, we identify key challenges that hinder the ecosystem's alignment: (i) a lack of shared understanding of the circular economy concept, (ii) diverse business strategies for circular value creation, (iii) insufficient support tools for circular new ventures and (iv) limited interactions between specialists and generalists. Overcoming these challenges requires ecosystem orchestrators with a holistic perspective, strong legitimacy and the ability to mobilize ecosystem-level resources. These orchestrators must foster a shared vision (sensing), promote investment in circular expertise (seizing) and adapt the ecosystem to the evolving needs of circular new ventures (reconfiguring). Using the circular economy context, we contribute to ecosystem theory by highlighting the importance of materiality, the emergence of geographically unbound entrepreneurial ecosystems and the role of non-market exchanges. For practitioners, this article offers actionable insights for reconfiguring mature entrepreneurial ecosystems for new value propositions such as providing support for circular economy entrepreneurs.

The challenges encountered by established firms transforming their linear business models into circular business models (CBMs) have received extensive research attention. Such firms have experience and market foothold but tend to adopt an incremental approach to CBMs due to risks of business model cannibalization. However, there is relatively limited research on the challenges experienced by new ventures developing CBMs from scratch – circular new ventures. New ventures are often agile, experimental and deploy disruptive CBMs even though they lack resources. The lack of knowledge specific to this topic is constraining for entities such as incubators and accelerators that seek to facilitate the emergence and scale-up of circular new ventures. Furthermore, researchers cannot presume that the challenges experienced by established firms are the same for new ventures when developing CBMs. Thus, the aim of this article is to explore the challenges that new ventures experience while developing circular business models from scratch, synthesize the sources of these challenges and provide practitioner implications to overcome them. In doing so, we studied 70 circular new ventures across Europe. Our article makes four original contributions to the literature. First, our study is seminal in using a large cross-country dataset to qualitatively analyse the empirical challenges of new ventures developing circular business models. Second, we identify which challenges are generic for CBMs, which challenges are specific for certain CBM types and for circular new ventures in particular. Third, we show that the challenges of circular new ventures are determined by their: (i) type of circular business model, (ii) industrial sector, (iii) institutional context, and (iv) new ventures liabilities. Altogether, we highlight that while circular new ventures and new ventures experience several similar challenges, circular new ventures particularly struggle to scale-up due to their liabilities of newness and smallness which limits their resources and legitimacy to enter strategic partnerships crucial for new venture survival.

This paper delves into the dyadic relationships between Science Parks (SPs) and universities from the perspective of SPs. It explores various dimensions, including organizational functions, co-location, collaboration, management team activities, partnerships, and connections with university students and senior academics. A survey of 120 European SPs underscores the significance of having the University-Industry Liaison Office within the SP, fostering increased collaboration with the local university, providing career opportunities for university students, and promoting alumni network activities. Additionally, the proximity of universities and research institutions within a 50 km radius positively impacts the relationships between SPs and universities. Additionally, the paper offers several managerial implications. Establishing communication channels between SP management and universities fosters an environment that boosts the open exchange of ideas, collaborative discussions, and problem-solving. The alignment of SPs and universities' goals and objectives, particularly in areas such as research themes, industry partnerships, technology transfer, and talent development, further solidifies the mutually advantageous nature of these relationships, establishing a strong foundation for their enhancement. Within the SP environment, universities can closely collaborate with businesses, start-ups, and entrepreneurs, promoting innovation, commercializing research findings, and incubating spin-off ventures.