Abstract
Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (EEs) have attracted the attention of academics, practitioners, and policymakers, that attempt to unlock 'a winning recipe' considering the different EEs pillars in order to ignite entrepreneurship at large. Therefore, understanding the degree of influence of each pillar on Entrepreneurial Initiative (EI) is helpful in framing more effective policies towards entrepreneurship. This study aims to bring a new facet to entrepreneurship research, specifically on decomposing the transformation of EEs and the influence of EEs pillars on EI. The transformation of EEs is shown by a balanced panel approach based on the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) dataset over 8 years (2010-2017), comprising 18 countries. The study has several implications for entrepreneurship theory and practice as well as public policy since discusses three main issues, mainly supported by empirical results. First, the results show an unbalanced influence of EEs pillars on EI. Second, results also show the ineffectiveness of institutions in encouraging the desire to act entrepreneurially. Third, entrepreneurship needs to be part of the acculturation process evidencing the importance of collective normative. Therefore, providing the instruments and structures is not enough to encourage individuals to start an entrepreneurial journey. Generally, the results reveal that contextual determinants are significant in fostering entrepreneurial propensity to start a business. But the impact of the nine pillars is not equalized, revealing a fragmented influence with funding measures, R&D transfer, and cultural and social norms discouraging entrepreneurial initiative. Overall, the study contributes to the understanding of a multidimensional perspective on EEs and points future policy directions to overcome the lack of entrepreneurship and amend flawed entrepreneurship policies.

Abstract
The main goal of this article is to appraise the existence of different patterns of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, to identify its relationship with Entrepreneurial Initiative, and recommend entrepreneurship policies that may influence the growth of entrepreneurial action. Without evidence on entrepreneurial ecosystems landscape and what determinants stimulate entrepreneurship in a given environment, policies could become flawed and miss the target. To address research purposes, the analysis was performed using data extracted from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) Database carried out between 2010 and 2016. To ensure a longitudinal perspective, it was used a balanced panel approach followed by Logistic Regression estimations. The article offers a novel and systematic approach, the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Taxonomy, to overcome a disaggregated perspective on entrepreneurial ecosystems, between individual and context levels. Empirical findings capture four different country profiles, based on two measures: Entrepreneurial ecosystems and entrepreneurial initiative. The results allow to compare the four groups and appraise significant disparities around entrepreneurship determinants, namely, the education factor. While education is commonly recognized as a positive influence on entrepreneurship, the results suggest a contradictory effect. The existence of differentiated profiles and its determinants points outs the importance of developing specific entrepreneurship policy packages attending group specificities.

Abstract
Entrepreneurial universities are a significant element of entrepreneurial ecosystems and aspire to foster entrepreneurial initiative through their "third mission". However, while entrepreneurial ecosystems are scrutinized using a contextual approach to detect differences and similarities and how they affect entrepreneurship, little is known about how entrepreneurial universities impact entrepreneurial initiatives in general, considering multiple environments. Drawing on entrepreneurial university and entrepreneurial ecosystem theories, a conceptual framework is proposed that aims to explain the effect of the entrepreneurial university on an entrepreneurial initiative through its three "missions", using an entrepreneurial ecosystem taxonomy. Based on individual data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, this entrepreneurial initiative analyzed 18 European countries in 2017. The results do not generally support the importance of entrepreneurial universities to entrepreneurial initiative. The relevance of entrepreneurial universities increases in more fragile entrepreneurial ecosystems since individuals need support over multiple dimensions. Conversely, the entrepreneurial universities that are embedded in stronger entrepreneurial ecosystems lose relevance and negatively affect the entrepreneurial initiative. Therefore, the value of entrepreneurial universities is reduced when individuals receive greater support from other dimensions. The variations across both groups suggest that the concept of entrepreneurial universities is not a contemporaneous phenomenon; however, their effect is progressively revealed by the maturity of each university's mission. This perspective substantially changes the understanding of entrepreneurial universities as a thwartwise strategy, suggesting that the universities' impact is expanded as their missions gradually evolve. Overall, the study contributes to an understanding of the implications for universities that blindly follow entrepreneurship, neglecting the exogenous environment, namely, the entrepreneurial ecosystem and individual drive.

Abstract
Digital transformation is progressing exponentially. Given the importance of this transformation, managerial strategies and practices need to be adapted to meet the new challenges. While countries are on a journey toward a process where human interactions and transactions—with the government, businesses—and consumption of goods, services, and ideas primarily conducted through the use of the internet and internet-based technologies, they are all traveling at different speeds. Based on the theory, drawing from the Global Innovation Index (GII) input-output framework and literature review on innovation, the chapter intends to answer the question: What is the impact of management and strategies for digital enterprise transformation on welfare?

Abstract
Keywords: family business; internationalization; SMEs; family SMEs; international expansion; family ownership

Abstract
Open innovation is proved to be determinant in the rationalization of sustainable innovation ecosystems. Firms, universities, governments, user communities and the overall environment are called to contribute to this dynamic process. This study aims to contribute to a better understanding of the impact of open innovation on firms' performance and to empirically assess whether university-industry collaborations are complementary or substitutes for this activity. Primary data were collected from a survey encompassing 908 firms, and then combined with performance indicators from SABI (Spanish and Portuguese business information). Econometric estimations were run to evaluate the role of open innovation and university-industry collaboration in the firm innovative propensity and performance. Results highlight the importance of diversity in collaborations with the academia and inbound open innovation strategy as enhancers of firm performance. The two activities reinforce each other. By testing the impact of open innovation practices on company performance, the need for heterogeneity in terms of contact type and university is also demonstrated. Findings cast light on the need to reformulate existing policy packages, reinforcing the ties with academia as well as the promotion of open innovation strategies. The connection to the innovation ecosystem needs to be further encouraged as well as the promotion of persistent connections with the knowledge sources in an open and multilateral framework.