Building a Resilient Digital Entrepreneurship Landscape: The Importance of Ecosystems, Decent Work, and Socioeconomic Dynamics

Abstract

This study explores the relationship between the entrepreneurship ecosystem and decent work in digital entrepreneurship, raising essential questions about the roles of economic growth and socioeconomic status. By examining this relationship, the research aims to clarify how these factors influence opportunities, inclusivity, and sustainable development in the digital entrepreneurship landscape. It investigates both the direct impacts of the entrepreneurship ecosystem and decent work and the moderating effects of economic growth and socioeconomic disparities on digital entrepreneurship. These moderating factors are crucial for understanding how broader economic conditions can enhance or limit the entrepreneurship ecosystem’s effectiveness. Data were collected from 624 entrepreneurs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to empirically test this model, providing a solid foundation for the proposed hypotheses. The findings significantly affect knowledge advancement and policymaking, particularly concerning KSA Vision 2030. The results confirm the vital roles of a well-developed entrepreneurship ecosystem and the promotion of decent work in supporting digital entrepreneurship. Moreover, the moderating effects of economic growth and socioeconomic status indicate that policy interventions should consider these broader contextual factors to be effective. For policymakers, this study emphasizes the need to foster an environment that strengthens the entrepreneurship ecosystem while addressing economic inequalities and promoting sustained growth. Aligning these initiatives with KSA Vision 2030 could advance digital entrepreneurship as a pivotal element of the country’s economic diversification and development strategies. Ultimately, the study aims to inform policies that enhance inclusivity and sustainability in the digital entrepreneurship sector, ensuring that the advantages of digital innovation are widely accessible across society.

1. Introduction

Digital entrepreneurship is a dynamic field where innovation, technology, and entrepreneurial spirit converge to transform the global business landscape [1]. It includes e-commerce, app development, online marketing, and social media influence [2,3]. At its core, digital entrepreneurship involves visionary individuals who utilize the internet and emerging technologies to identify opportunities, craft innovative solutions, and establish a significant presence in today’s economy [4]. These pioneers drive economic growth and foster a culture of innovation, enabling new business models and transforming traditional industries. Furthermore, digital entrepreneurship is vital for promoting social inclusion and democratizing access to opportunities [5]. By leveraging digital tools, entrepreneurs can transcend geographical and socio-economic barriers, engaging a global audience and diverse communities [6]. This inclusivity enriches the business ecosystem with diverse perspectives and ideas, leading to more significant equity and innovation.

Furthermore, digital entrepreneurship accelerates sustainable practices and enhances environmental responsibility [7]. Many digital entrepreneurs lead the way in developing green technologies and sustainable business models, tackling global issues like climate change and resource scarcity [8]. These initiatives align with increasing consumer demand for sustainable products and contribute to long-term economic resilience and environmental stewardship. Nevertheless, the growth of digital entrepreneurship requires the continual evolution of skills and competencies [9]. To remain competitive and innovative, entrepreneurs must keep pace with technological advancements, cybersecurity practices, and data analytics [10].

Ongoing learning and adaptation are vital for navigating the complex digital landscape and capitalizing on new trends and opportunities [11]. In addition, digital entrepreneurship promotes collaboration and networking, creating supportive ecosystems for knowledge exchange [12,13]. Through online communities, incubators, and accelerators, entrepreneurs access essential resources, mentorship, and funding, which are critical for scaling their ventures and achieving long-term success [14]. This collaborative approach fosters innovation, sets industry standards, and accelerates the growth of the digital economy. Thus, digital entrepreneurship drives economic growth while promoting social inclusion, sustainability, and ongoing learning. By leveraging digital technologies, entrepreneurs reshape traditional industries and foster a more innovative and inclusive global business environment (e.g., [15]).

Decent work is essential for the sustainability and social impact of digital entrepreneurship. It encompasses fair wages, job security, and equitable working conditions [16]. By promoting these principles, digital entrepreneurs can attract top talent, foster customer loyalty, and enhance social and economic well-being [17]. In addition, decent work applies to secure and ethical freelance arrangements, enabling a more inclusive digital economy. This commitment benefits various stakeholders and contributes to a resilient entrepreneurial landscape [18]. Ensuring fair working conditions helps drive positive social change, enhances reputation, and establishes a sustainable foundation for long-term success.

Incorporating values like transparency, inclusivity, and respect into decent work practices can further amplify its benefits [19]. Transparency builds trust among employees, customers, and partners; inclusivity recognizes diverse voices and fosters innovation; and respect cultivates a culture of dignity and fairness, essential for engagement and productivity [20]. By integrating these values, digital entrepreneurs can create workplaces that inspire and motivate their workforce, leading to higher job satisfaction and loyalty, reduced turnover, and lower costs. A strong reputation for ethical practices and social responsibility can attract values-driven customers [21].

In a broader context, digital entrepreneurs advocating for decent work promote a more equitable society, bridging economic gaps and providing opportunities for marginalized groups. This holistic approach ensures that economic growth aligns with social justice and that the benefits of digital innovation are shared widely (e.g., [13]). Ultimately, by providing fair working conditions and embedding core values into their operations, digital entrepreneurs can drive positive social change, enhance their reputation, and establish a sustainable foundation for long-term success, resulting in a comprehensive strategy for a vibrant entrepreneurial landscape [20].

On top of that, innovation-driven initiatives are vital for societal progress, prosperity, and quality of life [22]. The relationship between digital entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial ecosystems, and decent work is essential for comprehensive economic growth [14]. Economic growth fosters digital entrepreneurship by creating new markets and job opportunities. Entrepreneurial ecosystems enhance this growth by offering support, mentorship, and funding, helping entrepreneurs scale their ventures [23]. Commitment to decent work practices ensures the equitable distribution of economic benefits, resulting in improved job quality, fair wages, and job security. This bolsters worker well-being, strengthens consumer confidence, and promotes social cohesion, further stimulating economic growth [24].

Access to mentorship and funding helps entrepreneurs navigate initial challenges and encourages ongoing innovation. As businesses expand, they diversify the economy, enhancing its resilience. Embedding values like transparency, inclusivity, and respect in decent work practices promotes sustainable growth and social impact. Transparency builds trust, inclusivity fosters innovation, and respect cultivates a positive work environment [25]. Therefore, innovation-driven initiatives that merge digital entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial ecosystems, and decent work practices create a vibrant, equitable, and sustainable economic landscape, benefiting economic growth and quality of life.

This research addresses critical gaps in the existing literature by emphasizing the interplay between entrepreneurial ecosystems and decent work in fostering digital entrepreneurship. While previous studies have highlighted the importance of entrepreneurial ecosystems and fair working conditions in promoting inclusive economic growth (e.g., [22]), a significant gap exists in understanding how these elements interact specifically to support digital entrepreneurship across diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. This study aims to fill this gap by investigating how supportive entrepreneurial environments can bridge resource gaps, encourage innovation, and empower aspiring digital entrepreneurs from various socioeconomic strata to realize their potential. By focusing on how fair and equitable working conditions contribute to the success and sustainability of digital entrepreneurship, the research underscores the role of decent work in driving positive social change and enhancing the reputations of entrepreneurs [26]. Furthermore, the study evaluates how the interaction between robust entrepreneurial ecosystems and decent work standards can address socioeconomic disparities, promoting upward mobility and inclusive economic participation. This exploration provides valuable insights into how digital entrepreneurship can be harnessed as a powerful tool for socio-economic advancement, helping individuals overcome economic limitations and fully engage in the digital economy. By addressing these gaps, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of how the synergy between supportive environments and fair labor practices fosters a more inclusive, sustainable, and resilient economic growth trajectory. The findings offer practical implications for policymakers, educators, and entrepreneurs, guiding efforts to create a dynamic economic landscape driven by innovation, ethical practices, and equitable opportunities.

In essence, this study aimed to examine the direct effect of the entrepreneurship ecosystem and decent work on digital entrepreneurship. It also further investigated the conditional role of economic growth and socioeconomic status in the entrepreneurship ecosystem and decent work in digital entrepreneurship.

General Research Objective

The primary objective of this study is to investigate the components that influence digital entrepreneurship in Saudi entrepreneurs

RO1. 

To investigate the relationship between the entrepreneurship ecosystem and digital entrepreneurship.

RO2. 

To determine the relationship between decent work and digital entrepreneurship.

RO3. 

To explore the moderating role of economic growth in the relationship between the entrepreneurship ecosystem and digital entrepreneurship.

RO4. 

To analyze the moderating role of socioeconomic status in the relationship between the entrepreneurship ecosystem and digital entrepreneurship.

For further clarification, the research objectives enhance digital entrepreneurship theory by examining the intricate interactions among the entrepreneurship ecosystem, decent work, economic growth, and socioeconomic status in Saudi Arabia. The first objective investigates how elements of the Saudi entrepreneurship ecosystem—government initiatives, cultural attitudes, and technological infrastructure—affect digital entrepreneurship. It extends existing theories to show their distinct roles in a digital economy versus traditional business environments. The second objective introduces decent work into the discourse, theorizing the impact of labor standards, job security, and workplace conditions on individuals’ choices to pursue digital entrepreneurship. This link between decent work and entrepreneurial activity is underexplored, especially in rapidly developing economies like Saudi Arabia, providing a novel theoretical perspective [22].

The study investigates the moderating role of economic growth, enhancing our understanding of how macroeconomic factors like GDP growth and economic diversification influence the relationship between the entrepreneurship ecosystem and digital entrepreneurship [20]. This introduces an essential dimension to existing theories by recognizing that the economic context can significantly affect entrepreneurial outcomes. Furthermore, by examining how socioeconomic status moderates the relationship between the entrepreneurship ecosystem and digital entrepreneurship, the study offers a nuanced theoretical perspective on how income, education, and resource access disparities impact entrepreneurial success. These objectives refine existing theories and propose essential extensions, particularly concerning digital entrepreneurship in emerging markets like Saudi Arabia, where economic growth and social stratification are crucial to shaping entrepreneurial opportunities and outcomes.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Relationship between Entrepreneurship Ecosystems and Digital Entrepreneurship

The synergy between entrepreneurship ecosystems and digital entrepreneurship underscores a dynamic interplay crucial for fostering innovation and economic growth [23]. Entrepreneurship ecosystems, encompassing stakeholders, resources, and institutions, serve as fertile grounds for nurturing startups, while digital entrepreneurship leverages technology to create transformative ventures. Refs. [14,27] highlight how these ecosystems facilitate knowledge exchange and collaboration among startups, established firms, and research institutions, nurturing a culture of innovation. Ref. [28] emphasizes the role of policy and regulation within the ecosystem, creating an environment conducive to digital innovation. Access to funding, a cornerstone of successful entrepreneurship ecosystems, is essential for digital startups to develop and scale innovative technologies [29]. By fostering digital literacy, skill development, and favorable regulatory frameworks, entrepreneurship ecosystems cultivate an enabling environment where digital entrepreneurship thrives, driving economic advancement and societal progress [30]. Thus, entrepreneurship ecosystems will be positively related to digital entrepreneurship.

2.2. The Relationship between Decent Work and Digital Entrepreneurship

The intersection between decent work and digital entrepreneurship unfolds a complex interplay that reshapes labor dynamics and economic structures [31]. Digital entrepreneurship, rooted in technology-driven innovation, holds the potential to provide flexible work opportunities and bridge geographical constraints, aligning with the principles of decent work outlined by the International Labour Organization (ILO). By affording remote work arrangements and enabling gig economy participation, digital entrepreneurship can enhance work–life balance and promote inclusivity. However, caution is warranted, as the digital realm also introduces challenges such as precarious employment and lack of social protections. The relationship between decent work and digital entrepreneurship necessitates a comprehensive approach that safeguards labor rights, ensures fair compensation, and promotes entrepreneurial resilience within the evolving digital landscape [32]. Moreover, integrating decent work principles within digital entrepreneurship presents a complex and evolving landscape. Digital entrepreneurship, characterized by technological innovation and flexible business models, holds the potential to offer opportunities aligned with the tenets of decent work. It can empower individuals with remote work options, enhance work–life balance, and enable economic participation for marginalized groups. However, this dynamic also introduces challenges such as job instability, the lack of social protections, and unequal bargaining power between platforms and workers. Achieving a harmonious relationship between decent work and digital entrepreneurship requires a comprehensive approach that ensures fair compensation, safeguards labor rights, and addresses the evolving nature of work in the digital age [33]. Balancing innovation and inclusivity is essential to harnessing the transformative potential of digital entrepreneurship while upholding the principles of decent work. Hence, decent work is significant for digital entrepreneurship.

2.3. Role of Economic Growth

In recent years, the evolving landscape of entrepreneurship has witnessed a significant transformation due to the rise of digital entrepreneurship and its intricate relationship with entrepreneurial ecosystems and decent work [34]. As the global economy becomes increasingly digitalized, fostering an environment conducive to digital entrepreneurship is of paramount significance [35]. Entrepreneurial ecosystems, which encompass a complex interplay of various stakeholders, such as government institutions, corporations, investors, and support organizations, play a pivotal role in nurturing and sustaining the growth of digital entrepreneurship [36]. These ecosystems provide essential resources, mentorship, and networking opportunities, thus serving as catalysts for innovative startups and creating employment opportunities in the digital sector. In this context, decent work, as outlined by the International Labour Organization (ILO), becomes a crucial aspect of the relationship. Promoting decent work principles within digital entrepreneurship is imperative, as it ensures that individuals involved in this domain have access to secure, fair, and fulfilling employment opportunities, thereby enhancing their overall well-being and quality of life [37].

The link between entrepreneurial ecosystems, digital entrepreneurship, and decent work is dynamic. Successful entrepreneurial ecosystems foster the growth of digital startups and contribute to job creation by supporting the scaling of these ventures [38]. This synergy is vital in addressing contemporary challenges related to employment and the changing nature of work [23]. In particular, as traditional job markets face disruption and digital technologies continue to reshape industries, the ability of entrepreneurial ecosystems to adapt and promote decent work practices is instrumental in providing a stable and conducive environment for the workforce [39]. Moreover, the latest developments in digital entrepreneurship are marked by innovations in the appearance economy, remote work arrangements, and the utilization of emerging technologies such as blockchain, artificial intelligence, and the Internet of Things. These innovations offer novel opportunities for entrepreneurship and challenge traditional notions of decent work [40]. Ensuring that digital entrepreneurship remains aligned with decent work principles requires ongoing collaboration between governments, businesses, and civil society organizations to create regulatory frameworks, social safety nets, and educational programs that empower individuals to navigate the digital landscape while safeguarding their rights and well-being [41].

Recent research highlights the critical role of this relationship. For example, a study by Jones et al. [42] underscores how entrepreneurial ecosystems that foster digital entrepreneurship significantly impact job creation and employment quality. These findings emphasize the need for tailored strategies that address the evolving intersection of entrepreneurial ecosystems, digital entrepreneurship, and decent work [43]. Hence, the convergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems, digital entrepreneurship, and the promotion of decent work represents a compelling paradigm for contemporary labor markets. As the digital economy continues to evolve, the collaborative efforts of various stakeholders, informed by the latest research and supported by innovative policies and practices, are essential in ensuring that digital entrepreneurship not only fuels economic growth but also upholds the principles of decent work, providing individuals with the means to thrive in an ever-changing and digitally driven professional landscape [28,44].

2.4. Role of the Socioeconomic Status

Socioeconomic status (SES) refers to an individual’s or group’s social and economic position concerning others based on income, education, and occupation. SES often describes and analyzes wealth, resources, and opportunity disparities within a society. Critical components of SES include the following. Income: The amount earned from work, investments, or other sources. Education: The highest level of education attained, which can influence employment opportunities and earning potential. Occupation: The type and status of one’s job, which can reflect and affect social standing and economic security [45].

The relationship between socioeconomic status and digital entrepreneurship is important as the digital economy becomes increasingly central to global economic activity. Socioeconomic status, encompassing factors such as income, education, and occupation, is pivotal in shaping an individual’s access to resources and opportunities [45]. In digital entrepreneurship, socioeconomic status can influence the ability to engage in entrepreneurial activities and the likelihood of success in the digital marketplace [23,46].

Research by Fairlie and Robb [47] highlights the significant impact of socioeconomic status on entrepreneurship. Individuals from higher socioeconomic backgrounds often possess greater access to financial capital, educational resources, and professional networks, which are crucial for launching and sustaining digital ventures [48]. These advantages can facilitate the development of innovative ideas, access to mentorship, and the ability to navigate complex regulatory environments, all of which are essential for success in the digital entrepreneurship landscape [49]. However, it is important to note that digital entrepreneurship also presents a unique opportunity to bridge socioeconomic gaps. The digital economy has lowered barriers to entry in some respects, enabling individuals with limited resources to participate in online marketplaces, e-commerce platforms, and digital service offerings. This phenomenon has been observed in studies such as that of Hossain and Jain [50], suggesting that digital entrepreneurship can serve as a pathway for individuals from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds to create income-generating opportunities and improve their overall economic prospects [51]. Hence, the relationship between socioeconomic status and digital entrepreneurship is complex and multifaceted. While higher socioeconomic status can provide advantages regarding resources and networks, the digital realm also offers avenues for greater inclusivity and the democratization of entrepreneurial opportunities [45]. Policymakers and stakeholders should be mindful of these dynamics to ensure that digital entrepreneurship catalyzes socioeconomic mobility and prosperity for individuals across all strata of society [42]. As a result, this research anticipated that socioeconomic status will substantially impact entrepreneurial ecosystems in digital entrepreneurship.

The following hypotheses are summarized.

H-1. 

Entrepreneurial ecosystems positively influence digital entrepreneurship.

H-2. 

Decent work positively influences digital entrepreneurship.

H-3a. 

Economic growth positively moderates the relationship between entrepreneurial ecosystems and digital entrepreneurship.

H-3b. 

Economic growth positively moderates the relationship between decent work and digital entrepreneurship.

H-3c. 

Socioeconomic status positively moderates the relationship between entrepreneurial ecosystems and digital entrepreneurship.

H-3d. 

Socioeconomic status positively moderates the relationship between decent work and digital entrepreneurship.

This paper significantly contributes to the field by presenting a novel investigation into the relationships between the entrepreneurship ecosystem, decent work, and digital entrepreneurship in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It uniquely focuses on how economic growth and socioeconomic status moderate these relationships, an area previously underexplored. By examining these moderating factors, the research provides insights into how broader economic and social conditions affect the effectiveness of the entrepreneurship ecosystem in promoting digital entrepreneurship. This approach addresses gaps in the literature and enhances the understanding of how varying contexts impact entrepreneurial outcomes. Furthermore, the study aligns with KSA Vision 2030, demonstrating its relevance for informing policy-making and strategic planning in emerging economies. Overall, it offers a fresh perspective on digital entrepreneurship, emphasizing the importance of contextual factors and advancing theoretical and practical knowledge in the field.

Thus, as indicated in Figure 1, the proposed research model aims to examine the intricate relationship between the entrepreneurship ecosystem, decent work, economic growth, and socioeconomic status in influencing digital entrepreneurship in Saudi Arabia. It asserts that the entrepreneurship ecosystem and the quality of work directly affect digital entrepreneurship by creating or restricting opportunities for individuals to engage in digital business. In addition, it suggests that economic growth and individual socioeconomic factors play key moderating roles. Economic growth may enhance or diminish the impacts of the entrepreneurship ecosystem and decent work on digital entrepreneurship, depending on overall economic conditions. Likewise, socioeconomic status is expected to shape how individuals respond to digital entrepreneurship opportunities, potentially reinforcing or undermining the effects of the ecosystem and work conditions. By exploring these moderating effects, the model offers a deeper understanding of how macroeconomic and social factors interact with the entrepreneurship ecosystem to influence digital entrepreneurship’s inclusivity, sustainability, and success in Saudi Arabia, providing insights for policy and practice in similar emerging economies.

3. Method

3.1. Sample and Process

This research was primarily focused on investigating the following elements: entrepreneurial ecosystems, decent work, economic growth, and socioeconomic status in digital entrepreneurship. I collected data from a sample of respondents from entrepreneurs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, employing a convenience sampling method. This choice aligns with the KSA government’s strong emphasis on fostering entrepreneurial opportunities for young individuals [52]. Convenience sampling is essential in research because of its practicality and efficiency. This method allows researchers to quickly and cost-effectively collect data from readily accessible participants, which is particularly valuable when resources are limited or the target population is hard to reach. For example, in studies on emerging trends like digital entrepreneurship in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, convenience sampling provides timely insights and preliminary findings that can inform further research. Convenience sampling enables data collection from a relevant population, even if it does not fully represent the broader group. This approach helps researchers test initial hypotheses and build foundational knowledge. Although the generalizability of the findings may be limited, convenience sampling offers valuable exploratory insights that can guide future, more comprehensive studies. However, the survey was distributed through the official email. Consequently, I received 655 responses out of the 624 questionnaires. A total of 31 cases were eliminated due to incomplete responses and missing data in various sections, resulting in 624 usable responses. This constituted a response rate of 0.95 percent. Importantly, no notable demographic variations were discerned between the retained and discarded responses.

3.2. Variables Measurement

The survey was accurately designed to align with the research objectives, focusing on the entrepreneurship ecosystem, decent work, digital entrepreneurship, and the moderating effects of economic growth and socioeconomic status. The questionnaire was structured into sections addressing demographic information, entrepreneurship ecosystem measures, assessments of decent work, and variables related to economic growth and socioeconomic status. Expert reviews confirmed content and construct validity, which was established using established theoretical frameworks and factor analysis. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, achieving acceptable levels of internal consistency (see Appendix A). A pilot test with a small sample of around 85 cases ensured clarity and relevance, leading to refinements based on feedback. Thus, this comprehensive design and validation process enhances the reliability and validity of the survey data, providing a robust foundation for interpreting the research results.

This is an investigation of the five variables adapted from the published studies. Entrepreneurial ecosystems were assessed with three indications: the macro level, meso level, and micro level, taken from [53]. Regarding decent work, indicators were measured through safe working conditions, access to healthcare, adequate compensation, free time and rest, and complementary values borrowed from [54]. Economic growth was measured with seven items involving the growth input and output [55]. The measurement of entrepreneurs’ socioeconomic status in this study is consistent with the methodology employed in prior research [41]. Socioeconomic status was evaluated through a survey in which entrepreneurs self-rated their social and economic status on a 10-point Likert scale, where 1 represents the highest status and 10 is the lowest. I inverted the values to enhance interpretation so that a higher score indicates more excellent status. We then calculated the average of the social and economic indices to reflect the entrepreneurs’ overall socioeconomic status. Entrepreneurs’ self-assessment of their social and economic status relative to others in society was obtained through a survey. This self-evaluation was carried out using a 10-point Likert scale, where a score of 1 corresponded to the highest societal status, and a score of 10 signified the lowest status. Finally, digital entrepreneurship was assessed with five items [56]. The statements in the questionnaire were measured with the help of multiple items, using a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 indicated Strongly Disagree and 7 indicated Strongly Agree.

4. Data Analysis Aggregation

To verify the assumptions, Smart PLS 4 software was used to combine structural equation modeling (SEM) with partial least squares (PLS). The reason for applying this technique is that this powerful, vigorous statistical method is suitable for complicated causal analyses involving both first- and second-order notions and does not require stringent assumptions regarding the variables [57]. The PLS analysis employed 5000 subsamples to create bootstrap t-statistics with n − 1 degrees of freedom to examine the statistical significance of the path coefficients (where n is the number of subsamples).

4.1. Common Method Variance (CMV)

Because the data processing place recognized for this study was a single source, significant time was spent reducing the possibility of encountering common method variance (CMV). Therefore, we have followed the rigorous design methods suggested [58,59]. For example, procedural remedies are recommended to minimize (CMV) bias before data collection through robust research design. However, the researcher attempted to reduce the likelihood of CMV bias by using the following procedures. The first step of procedural remedies was adopted to minimize the common method bias, which has been carefully considered (e.g., ensuring the confidentiality and anonymity of the participants, counterbalancing the order of the survey questions, and using the separating of the measurements. Concerning the statistical aspect, I follow the following approaches: (i) Harman’s single-factor analysis and (ii) a full collinearity test based on variance inflation factors (VIFs). Therefore, I ran Harman’s single-factor analysis, and the results confirmed that a single component accounts for just 13.82% of the total variation, which indicates that this study is free from CMV.

4.2. Measurement Model Assessment

In regard to the reflective measures dealing with item reliability (indicator loading), the results revealed that all items exceed the recommended 0.707 level [57] (see

Table 1. Measurement Model, Item Loadings, Construct Reliability, and Convergent Validity.

First-Order Constructs	Second-Order Constructs	Items	Loading (>0.5)	CR (>0.7)	AVE (>0.5)
Macro Entrepreneurial Ecosystem		MEE1	0.737	0.825	0.563
		MEE2	0.813
		MEE3	0.756
		MEE4	0.826
		MEE5	0.726
Meso Entrepreneurial Ecosystem		MOEE1	0.781
		MOEE2	0.745
		MOEE3	0.845
		MOEE4	0.777
Micro Entrepreneurial Ecosystem		MIEE1	0.881	0.877	0.655
		MIEE2	0.780
		MIEE3	0.778
		MIEE4	0.800
	Entrepreneurial Ecosystems	Macro Entrepreneurial Ecosystem	0.745	0.875	0.668
		Meso Entrepreneurial Ecosystem	0.817
		Micro Entrepreneurial Ecosystem	0.868
Safe Working Conditions		SWC1	0.812	0.857	0.698
		SWC2	0.812
		SWC3	0.795
Access to Healthcare		ATHC1	0.783	0.857	0.685
		ATHC2	0.827
		ATHC3	0.841
Adequate Compensation		AC1	0.789	0.852	0.563
		AC2	0.841
		AC3	0.856
Free Time and Rest		FTR1	0.784	0.886	0.609
		FTR2	0.786
		FTR3	0.769
Complementary Values		CMV1	0.745	0.822	0.598
		CMV2	0.831
		CMV3	0.822
	Decent Work	Safe working conditions	0.842	0.891	0.749
		Access to healthcare	0.812
		Adequate compensation	0.786
		Free time and rest	0.736
		Complementary values	0.822
Economic Growth		ECG1	0.774	0.874	0.623
		ECG2	0.814
		ECG3	0.877
		ECG4	0.873
		ECG5	0.856
Socioeconomic Status		SCS1	0.798	0.811	0.588
		SCS2	0.757
		SCS3	0.847
Digital Entrepreneurship		DIE1	0.785	0.798	0.667
		DIE2	0.877
		DIE3	0.873
		DIE4	0.856
		DIE5	0.786

Notes: CR = Composite Reliability, AVE = Average Variance Extracted.

). We employed composite reliability to assess the constructs’ internal consistency, which was higher than the 0.70 cut-offs [57]. In support of convergent validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) for the constructs was over the 0.5 threshold [57]. Thus, the mentioned results are shown in Table 1.

Regarding discriminant validity, Fornell-Larcker’s method revealed no problems; the AVE for each construct was greater than the variance that each construct shared with the other latent variables [57] (see

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics, Correlation Matrix, and Discriminant Validity Via Fornell and Larcher.

Constructs	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Entrepreneurial Ecosystems	3.647	0.585	0.778
2. Decent Work	3.472	0.551	0.602	0.713
3. Economic Growth	4.184	0.637	0.432	0.514	0.829
4. Socioeconomic Status	4.513	0.519	0.134	0.165	0.483	0.809
5. Digital Entrepreneurship	4.211	0.549	0.335	0.583	0.472	0.305	0.742

Note (s): SD = Standard Deviation. Bold values on the diagonal in the correlation matrix are square roots of AVE (variance shared between the constructs and their respective measures). Off-diagonal elements below the diagonal are correlations among the constructs, where values between 0.13 and 0.16 are significant at p < 0.05, and values above 0.16 are significant at p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

). Also, the (HTMT) showed no issues with the discriminant validity when the HTMT value was greater than HTMT0.85. So,

Table 3. Discriminant Validity Via HTMT.

Constructs	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
2. Decent Work	0.454
3. Economic Growth	0.399	0.679
4. Socioeconomic Status	0.527	0.604	0.529
5. Digital Entrepreneurship	0.189	0.264	0.359	0.558

Note (s): HTMT should be lower than 0.85_.

displayed that the HTMT values are all below the threshold of 0.85, thus confirming discriminant validity for each pair of constructs [60].

4.3. Hypothesis Testing

The hypothesis testing that involves direct and interaction hypotheses is presented as follows, as shown in

Table 4. Structural Path Analysis: Direct Effect.

						Bias and Corrected Bootstrap 95% CI
Hypothesis	Relationship	Std Beta	Std Error	t-Value	p-Value	BCI 95% LL	BCI 95% UL	Decision
H-1	Entrepreneurial Ecosystems -> Digital Entrepreneurship	0.312	0.088	3.484	0.000	0.125	0.289	Supported
H-3	Decent Work -> Digital Entrepreneurship	0.202	0.054	3.115	0.000	0.313	0.553	Supported

Note (s): n = 377. Bootstrap sample size = 5000. LL = lower limit; CI = confidence interval; UL = upper limit 95% bias-correlated CI.

. Hence, the hypothesis testing provided the first signal of the direct effect (H1), i.e., entrepreneurial ecosystems were significantly related to digital entrepreneurship (β = 0.312, t = 3.484, and p < 0.000). Hence, H1 was accepted. The second direct effect (H2) of the relationship between decent work and digital entrepreneurship was positively substantial (β = 0.202, t = 3.115, and p < 0.000). Therefore, H2 was also supported.

Concerning the moderation predictions in

Table 5. Structural Path Analysis: The Interaction Effect.

	(1) Patient Empowerment Healthcare Sustainability					Bias and Corrected Bootstrap 95% CI
Hypothesis	Relationship	Std Beta	Std Error	t-Value	p-Values	BCI 95% LL	BCI 95% UL	Decision
H-3a	Entrepreneurial Ecosystems × Economic Growth --> Digital Entrepreneurship	0.068	0.027	2.143	0.000	0.023	0.123	Supported
H-3b	Decent Work × Economic Growth --> Digital Entrepreneurship	0.166	0.096	2.239	0.000	0.010	0.274	Supported
H-3c	Entrepreneurial Ecosystems × Socioeconomic Status --> Digital Entrepreneurship	0.289	0.088	3.722	0.000	0.020	0.076	Supported
H-53d	Decent Work × Socioeconomic Status --> Digital Entrepreneurship	0.215	0.061	3.524	0.000	0.124	0.321	Supported

Note (s): n = 377. Bootstrap sample size = 5000. LL = lower limit; CI = confidence interval; UL = upper limit 95% bias-correlated CI.

, the current study includes two moderating variables: (i) economic growth from H3a to H3b and (ii) socioeconomic status encompassing hypotheses H3c to H3d. Thus, the results of the moderation analysis are discussed as follows: The first interaction between entrepreneurial ecosystems and economic growth regarding digital entrepreneurship revealed a significant interaction such that (β = 0.068, t = 2.143, and p < 0.000). Hence, H3a is supported. The second interaction between decent work and economic growth in digital entrepreneurship exposed insignificant interaction with values of (β = 0.166, t = 2.239, and p < 0.000). Therefore, H3b is accepted. The third interaction presents the relationship between entrepreneurial ecosystems and socioeconomic status in digital entrepreneurship, and the statistical analysis exhibited a positive interaction, with values of (β = 0.289, t = 3.722, and p < 0.000). Consequently, H3c is reinforced. Concerning the interaction between decent work and socioeconomic status towards digital entrepreneurship (β = 0.215, t = 3.524, and p < 0.000). So, H3d was supported.

According to Dawson [61], the interaction should be plotted to understand how it differs from high versus low. Hence, in this study, we used an interaction plot for all the supported interactions to look at the gradient of the slopes. Refer to Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5.

5. Discussion and Implications

The theoretical contribution of this study, which delves into the interconnected relationships among the entrepreneurship ecosystem, decent work, digital entrepreneurship, and the moderating influences of economic growth dynamics and socioeconomic status, is both profound and multifaceted. The research significantly advances our understanding of the complex and evolving landscape of entrepreneurship studies and labor economics by addressing these critical concepts. The core focus of the survey—how the entrepreneurship ecosystem can either facilitate or impede digital entrepreneurship—offers nuanced insights into how contextual factors such as policy frameworks, cultural norms, and infrastructural elements influence entrepreneurial success in a rapidly changing economic environment [46]. This exploration enhances our comprehension of the dynamic interplay between various components of the entrepreneurship ecosystem and their collective impact on digital business ventures.

Moreover, the study’s investigation into decent work within the entrepreneurial context sheds light on the evolving nature of labor in the digital age, emphasizing the importance of aligning entrepreneurial activities with high labor standards. This aspect of the research highlights how digital entrepreneurship can contribute to creating quality jobs, addressing a critical global issue. By integrating the moderating roles of economic growth and socioeconomic status, the research adds a valuable layer of complexity to the theoretical framework. It unravels how macroeconomic conditions and social disparities interact with individual and systemic factors to shape entrepreneurial outcomes. The consideration of economic growth dynamics underscores the pivotal role of technological innovation and economic advancement in influencing the digital entrepreneurship landscape, revealing broader implications for national and global economic development. Similarly, the focus on socioeconomic status illuminates how variations in social and economic conditions can enable or constrain entrepreneurial opportunities, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the factors driving digital entrepreneurship. Overall, this research enriches theoretical perspectives by integrating diverse elements, offering a holistic view of how various factors intersect and influence the evolution and success of digital entrepreneurship.

In addition, the study’s examination of decent work within the entrepreneurial context offers valuable insights into the evolving nature of labor in the digital era. It highlights how digital entrepreneurship can contribute to creating decent work opportunities, which is a growing area of global concern. This aspect of the research underscores the significance of aligning entrepreneurial activities with broader labor standards and quality of work [5]. Investigating the moderating effects of economic growth and socioeconomic status introduces a nuanced dimension to the theoretical framework. By analyzing how these factors interact with individual characteristics and access to resources, the study reveals their differential impacts on the entrepreneurial process. The consideration of economic growth dynamics emphasizes the role of technological innovation and economic development in shaping the digital entrepreneurship landscape, which has broader implications for national and global economic growth. Similarly, the focus on socioeconomic status illuminates how social and economic disparities can influence entrepreneurial opportunities and outcomes, offering a more comprehensive perspective on the digital entrepreneurship phenomenon [62]. Overall, this research enriches theoretical understanding by integrating these diverse elements, providing a holistic view of how various factors intersect to influence digital entrepreneurship.

Therefore, the statistical significance of the results lays a solid foundation for understanding the relationships among the entrepreneurship ecosystem, decent work, and digital entrepreneurship; however, their practical relevance deserves further investigation. Translating these findings into real-world implications is vital to understanding how they impact digital entrepreneurship in Saudi Arabia. The results indicate that a supportive entrepreneurship ecosystem and fair working conditions are essential for nurturing digital ventures. Therefore, policymakers, business leaders, and educators should prioritize creating environments that offer necessary resources, foster innovation, and uphold equitable labor practices. Enhancing access to funding, mentoring, and infrastructure can help bridge resource gaps for entrepreneurs while enforcing fair labor standards, which can improve job quality and sustainability in the digital sector. Additionally, examining how economic growth and socioeconomic status influence these dynamics can aid in developing targeted strategies to address the challenges faced by entrepreneurs from various backgrounds. By turning these insights into actionable policies, stakeholders can better foster the growth of digital entrepreneurship, promote inclusive economic development, and further Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 goals.

By delving into these multifaceted dimensions, this research contributes to the theoretical advancement of entrepreneurship studies, offering fresh insights into the dynamic relationship between entrepreneurship ecosystems, decent work, digital entrepreneurship, growth, and socioeconomic status. It provides a conceptual framework that can guide future research in understanding the evolving landscape of work, economic growth, and entrepreneurship in the digital age and offers theoretical foundations for policy development, with implications that extend to fostering inclusive economic growth and sustainable development in an increasingly digitalized global economy [63].

Regarding the practical implications for policymakers and government, this study is poised to have a far-reaching impact on policymakers and governments alike. This research underscores the critical importance of nurturing a conducive entrepreneurship ecosystem to foster digital entrepreneurship. To this end, policymakers should create an environment encouraging innovation, technology adoption, and entrepreneurship support mechanisms. Investment in digital infrastructure, incubators, accelerators, and access to finance can empower aspiring digital entrepreneurs and provide them with the tools needed to thrive in the digital economy (e.g., [23]).

Moreover, the study underscores the importance of policies that promote decent work in digital entrepreneurship. Principles like fair compensation, job security, and safe working conditions should be embedded in entrepreneurial activities to ensure the equitable distribution of economic growth benefits [64]. Policymakers must prioritize labor market regulations and social protection programs that protect the rights and welfare of digital workers. The research also points to the moderating effects of economic growth dynamics and socioeconomic status, indicating that entrepreneurs may need tailored support. For example, growth startups could benefit from research and development incentives, while those from disadvantaged backgrounds may require enhanced access to education and training. Bridging the digital divide is essential, focusing on reducing disparities in technology access and digital skills for underrepresented groups [65].

Furthermore, governments should consider fostering collaborations between the public and private sectors to create a more holistic and supportive ecosystem for digital entrepreneurship. This includes engaging with industry leaders, academia, and civil society to co-create initiatives that can drive digital entrepreneurship forward. Importantly, governments should work to ensure that the benefits of digital entrepreneurship reach not only urban areas but also remote and underserved regions and marginalized communities through strategic infrastructure development and targeted initiatives [66]. For stakeholders and entrepreneurs, this study presents a roadmap for understanding the vital elements that contribute to a successful digital entrepreneurship ecosystem. Entrepreneurs can leverage the insights from this research to advocate for supportive policies and seek resources that align with the identified success factors. Stakeholders, including investors and business support organizations, can use these findings to tailor their support services and investment strategies to meet digital entrepreneurs’ needs better. Additionally, entrepreneurs can benefit from understanding the importance of decent work principles in their ventures. By ensuring fair compensation, job security, and safe working conditions, entrepreneurs contribute to a more equitable economy and enhance their business’s reputation and sustainability [25].

For policymakers, the implications extend to educational reforms integrating digital literacy and entrepreneurship into curricula at all academic levels. This ensures a steady pipeline of skilled individuals ready to participate in and drive the digital economy. The government should also consider tax incentives and grants for digital businesses, encouraging more entrepreneurs to enter the market and innovate. Moreover, this study suggests that policymakers should continuously monitor and evaluate the impact of their policies. By doing so, they can make data-driven adjustments to better support the dynamic needs of digital entrepreneurs and the evolving digital landscape. Establishing a feedback loop between policymakers and entrepreneurs can lead to more approachable and effective governance [67].

Thus, this research offers a comprehensive theoretical foundation for policymakers and government stakeholders. It calls for a proactive approach integrating elements of entrepreneurship, economic growth, decent work, and socioeconomic equity into a cohesive policy framework. By heeding these recommendations, policymakers have the opportunity to nurture a thriving digital entrepreneurship landscape that contributes to economic growth, job creation, and the well-being of citizens while fostering inclusive development in the digital age. This holistic approach ensures that digital entrepreneurship drives sustainable and equitable economic growth, benefiting society [68].

6. Limitations and Future Work

Despite this research exploring the entrepreneurship ecosystem’s relationship with decent work in digital entrepreneurship, it presents critical questions and certain limitations that are worthy of attention. First, the study’s focus on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) may limit the generalizability of its findings, as the unique economic, cultural, and social dynamics of KSA may not directly apply to other regions. This context-specific focus highlights the need for caution when interpreting the results in broader or different settings. Moreover, challenges related to data collection, including the availability and quality of data, could impact the robustness of the findings, especially given the evolving nature of entrepreneurship ecosystems. Establishing clear causality between economic growth, socioeconomic status, and their moderating effects on the relationship between the entrepreneurship ecosystem and decent work in digital entrepreneurship also presents a significant challenge. The complexity of accurately measuring constructs like “decent work” and socioeconomic status, which are inherently context-dependent, further complicates the study.

Future research should consider longitudinal studies to track the evolution of digital entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurship ecosystem’s impact over time in KSA or other regions. This would show how these relationships evolve in response to changing economic and social conditions [69]. Comparative studies across different countries or regions could highlight common patterns and unique differences in how entrepreneurship ecosystems affect digital entrepreneurship and decent work. Additionally, qualitative methods such as interviews and case studies could provide deeper insights into the experiences of digital entrepreneurs, uncovering challenges and opportunities that quantitative data may miss.

Future research in this area would greatly benefit from longitudinal studies that examine the evolution of digital entrepreneurship and the impact of the entrepreneurship ecosystem over time, both in KSA and other regions. These studies would offer valuable insights into how digital entrepreneurship adapts to changing economic, social, and technological conditions. By tracking these dynamics over an extended period, researchers could gain a deeper understanding of the long-term effects of the entrepreneurship ecosystem and decent work on digital entrepreneurship, revealing trends that cross-sectional studies might overlook. In addition, comparative analyses across different countries or regions could highlight similarities and differences in how entrepreneurship ecosystems shape digital entrepreneurship and decent work. Such studies could clarify the generalizability of findings from the KSA context and determine the significance of unique regional factors. These cross-contextual insights would be essential for developing a more robust, globally applicable theory of digital entrepreneurship [70].

Moreover, future research could benefit from incorporating qualitative methods, such as interviews, focus groups, and case studies, to delve deeper into the experiences and challenges faced by digital entrepreneurs. These methods would allow for a richer, more nuanced understanding of the factors that drive or hinder digital entrepreneurship, particularly regarding the entrepreneurship ecosystem and decent work. Expanding the study to explore the intersectionality of gender, age, and education within the entrepreneurship ecosystem would also be valuable, as these factors likely significantly influence entrepreneurial opportunities and outcomes. Moreover, considering the impact of globalization and emerging technological trends, such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and the gig economy, could further enhance the understanding of the rapidly evolving digital entrepreneurship landscape. Finally, examining the effectiveness of government policies and initiatives designed to foster digital entrepreneurship and decent work within the context of KSA, particularly in alignment with KSA Vision 2030, would be a critical avenue for future research. This focus would provide actionable insights for policymakers and stakeholders aiming to create a more supportive and inclusive environment for digital entrepreneurs, ultimately contributing to sustainable economic development in KSA and beyond.