July 15, 2025, IMANI Project Team
Founders with a migration background bring unique strengths, perspectives, and connections to the entrepreneurial landscape. Their diverse experiences often inspire innovative business ideas and open up new avenues for cross-cultural collaboration, making them valuable contributors to vibrant, inclusive economies (David et al., 2024). However, they also encounter hurdles when accessing networks, resources, and funding.
This is precisely where the IMANI project comes in. IMANI explores how migrant entrepreneurs’ innovation capacity shapes and is shaped by innovation in entrepreneurial ecosystems—both local and “remote”. Specifically, it focuses on how to support and measure these processes of interdependence and mutuality. In this blog post, we shed light on the core ideas behind IMANI, illustrate why migrant-founded companies are so crucial for innovation, and show how local and digital ecosystems intertwine.
A particular focus is placed on the impact assessment, which we are developing further by bringing in individual, organisational, and societal perspectives. This assessment looks at how migrant start-ups interact with their ecosystems, identify opportunities, experience challenges, shape actionable strategies and the ecosystem itself. The next sections dive into these ideas, linking innovation with entrepreneurship and exploring how founders and their ecosystems align across different perspectives.
Innovation and Entrepreneurial Innovativeness
Entrepreneurial innovativeness refers to the ability of founders to recognize, develop and implement new ideas, products, processes or business models that generate added value for the economy or society (Sternberg et al., 2003; Kline & Rosenberg, 2010). At the heart of it all is the emergence of something “new”.
Two main pathways to innovation are commonly differentiated:
- Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI): Usually knowledge-intensive and research-driven, requiring inputs such as formalised research and development (R&D), advanced technical skills and collaborations with scientific institutions. The results of STI innovation are often technological breakthroughs, patents and new scientific knowledge, which frequently lead to radical innovations (Pavitt, 1984; Santner, 2018).
- Doing, Using, Interacting (DUI): Based on experiential learning, practical knowledge and interactions in networks, including customers and employees. Necessary inputs for DUI are social capital, knowledge sharing mechanisms and collaborative practices. The results are mostly incremental innovations, process improvements and adaptations to specific market needs that improve the resilience and adaptability of companies (Santner, 2018).
When combined, these two approaches can supercharge a region’s or industry’s ability to innovate. STI innovation sparks technological breakthroughs and paves the way for entirely new markets, while DUI innovation keeps businesses closely tuned to their customers, driving smart, responsive improvements in existing ones.
Diversity & Creativity in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
In organisations, empirical studies show that culturally diverse teams are more creative and develop innovative solutions more frequently, as their different experiences and ways of thinking enable them to approach tasks in a variety of ways (Bouncken, 2004; Alesina & La Ferrara, 2005; de Mol et al., 2015). In cities and regions, cultural diversity also has a positive effect on innovation levels. New ideas arise more readily when people from different social and cultural groups interact (Bathelt et al., 2004; Audretsch & Keilbach, 2007).
Economist Richard Florida sums it up with his “3 Ts”: Talent, Technology, Tolerance: In open, diverse environments, creativity thrives – fresh ideas emerge more easily, and talented individuals are drawn in, fuelling dynamic innovation networks (Saxenian, 2006). Take Berlin’s, Essen’s or Duisburg’s ecosystem, for example: here migrant entrepreneurs are not just participants but key actors driving innovation and new thinking (Baron & Harima, 2019; Scheidgen & Brattström, 2023).
State of Research & Gaps: The Innovative Potential of Migrant Founders and Start-ups
While the U.S. has studied migrant entrepreneurship for decades, Germany’s growing diversity has only recently brought the topic into sharper focus (Ram et al., 2017). Early studies suggest that (1) a migration background among entrepreneurs can positively affect a company’s level of innovation, while (2) this relationship is weakened by a less supportive environment (Gao et al., 2021).
We already know that migrants have a higher tendency to start businesses (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Sternberg et al. 2023). Examples in Germany such as DeepL, BioNtech, or ResearchGate clearly show the radical breakthroughs that can emerge from migrant founders.
Given this, surprising little attention has been given to the two-way relationship between startup ecosystem and migrant entrepreneurs —not only how these environments shape migrant founders’ activities but also how migrant founders, in turn, help to shape and enrich the ecosystem. In this regard,
- “Embedding” (embeddedness) describes the extent to which entrepreneurs are rooted in social, regional, and economic contexts (Polanyi, 1944; Granovetter, 1973, 1985). For migrant entrepreneurship, it’s not just the entrepreneur alone, but the characteristics of the entire environment that determine success and development (Acs et al., 2014; Brown & Mason, 2017; Terstriep et al., 2023). Embeddedness emphasises the relationship dynamics of economic actors and companies to their respective environments by understanding spaces as flexible social constructs (David & Schäfer, 2022).
- Connectedness denotes to the emotional need and ability of an individual to feel a sense of belonging to a particular group. For entrepreneurs, connectedness means the ability to build networks and relationships that help them mobilize resources, support and market opportunities and include them in the power structure (David et al., 2023). David, Terstriep and Freiling (2025) argue that connectedness is crucial in determining whether entrepreneurs seek deep entrenchment in a regional ecosystem or distance themselves from it and engage in so-called ‚ecosystem hopping‘ between online, offline and ‚ethnic community‘-specific (see AiDiA, Ment2Be etc.) ecosystems (Elo et al., 2022).
- Belongingness describes the actual feeling of being part of a group or community. Entrepreneurs who feel emotionally connected and a sense of belonging are more willing to invest in and actively shape the regional ecosystem. They not only benefit from the existing structures, but also contribute to strengthening the ecosystem (David et al., 2024).
While connectedness represents the pursuit of social connections, belongingness refers to the result: the feeling of acceptance and integration.
To understand the success of migrant start-ups therefore necessitates a multi-level perspective, encompassing the:
- Individual: The personality, education, and background of the founder(s).
- Organisational: The start-up’s structures, resources, and processes.
- Ecosystem/Contextual: Political, economic, and social framework conditions.
Particularly for start-ups founded by minorities, challenges such as limited networks, prejudice, or poor access to finance can prevent the full potential from being unleashed (Kloosterman & Rath, 2001; Ram et al., 2008; Aldrich & Waldinger, 1990). Many founders respond by focusing on niche markets. While this can help in the short term, it often limits scaling potential (David & Terstriep, 2024).
The IMANI Research Approach – Interaction Between Migrant Founders and Their Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
In the IMANI project, we especially look at how support infrastructures and intermediaries (e.g., startup support programs, associations, or networks) shape the interplay between migrant founders and their entrepreneurial ecosystems. For IMANI, AiDiA— a network specifically for Afro-German and Afro-European founders— will be our key research partner for connecting with founders. Its targeted community-building includes cultural and business events, plus a “Tech Booster” in partnership with Google.
From the entrepreneurial ecosystem viewpoint, AiDiA is part of the “entrepreneurial support ecosystem” (Theodoraki & Messeghem, 2017). This highlights give-and-take: migrant start-ups benefit from the ecosystem—yet they also strengthen it with their own innovative capacities (the downward causation in Stam’s 2015 model).
Initiatives like AiDiA show how to empower migrant founders in practice. Their offerings include:
- Pitch events (e.g. for entrepreneurs from the African diaspora)
- Educational and coaching programs in cooperation with tech corporations
- Delegation trips to Africa that promote intercultural exchange and build networks with African innovation ecosystems
Communities such as AiDiA are more than just traditional incubators. They often replace missing mainstream support with trusting relationships and provide visibility and advocacy for migrant founders.
When migrant entrepreneurs receive better—i.e. tailored—support, they can bring new ideas into the community, and in turn, the ecosystem benefits from their talents and networks. To learn more about how these support ecosystems impact migrant entrepreneurship, the IMANI project will be researching questions such as:
- What contribution do migrant entrepreneurs and their innovative capacity make to the innovative capacity of their start-up environment?
- What contribution does the regional or other start-up environment make to the innovative capacity of migrant entrepreneurs?
- What dependencies and conditions shape the interaction between entrepreneurs and start-up ecosystems?
- How do exclusionary tendencies impact migrant founders‘ contributions to the broader ecosystem?
- How does AiDiA substitute ecosystem functions to create empowering spaces that enhance the interplay between founders and their ecosystems?
Conclusion: Shaping the Future for Inclusive Start-up Ecosystems
The IMANI project sets out to explore what happens when diverse entrepreneurial talent meets dynamic, supportive ecosystems—both local and remote. Migrant founders not only bring innovative ideas and international networks to the table; they also challenge and enrich the very structures that surround them. When ecosystems are open, inclusive, and digitally connected, they don’t just enable innovation—they multiply it.
By understanding how migrant entrepreneurs and their environments influence one another, we can design more regenerative, resilient systems that work for everyone. IMANI aims to provide the evidence, tools and fresh perspectives needed to unlock this mutual potential—so that no good idea gets left behind, and every founder can find a place to thrive.
References
Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National Systems of Entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476-494.
Aldrich, H., & Waldinger, R. (1990). Ethnicity and Entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology, 16(1), 111-135.
Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2005). Ethnic diversity and economic performance. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(3), 762-800.
Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2007). The Theory of Knowledge Spillover Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1242-1254.
Baron, T., & Harima, A. (2019). The role of diaspora entrepreneurs in start-up ecosystem development – A Berlin case study. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 36(1-2), 74-102.
Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and Knowledge: Local Buzz, Global Pipelines and the Process of Knowledge Creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1), 31-56.
Bouncken, R. B. (2004). Cultural diversity in entrepreneurial teams: Findings of new ventures in Germany. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(4), 240-253.
Brown, R., & Mason, C. (2017). Looking inside the spiky bits: A critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 11-30.
David, A., & Schäfer, S. (2022). The social dynamics of migrant entrepreneurship. ZFW–Advances in Economic Geography, 66(3), 131-136.
David, A., Terstriep, J., & Elo, M. (2024). Bridging the Gap Transnationally—Coupling Migrants‘ Informal and Formal Business Activities Through Hybrid Business Models. Thunderbird International Business Review.
David, A., Terstriep, J., & Freiling, J. (2025). Understanding the nuances of (dis-)connectedness of migrant entrepreneurs within entrepreneurial ecosystems. International Small Business Journal, online first.
David, A., & Terstriep, J. (2025). Against all odds – migrant entrepreneurs in entrepreneurial ecosystems with constraints. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 19(2), 248-275.
de Mol, E., Khapova, S. N., & Elfring, T. (2015). Entrepreneurial team cognition: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(2), 232-255.
Elo, M., Täube, F. A., & Servais, P. (2022). Who is doing “transnational diaspora entrepreneurship”? Understanding formal identity and status. Journal of World Business, 57(1).
Gao, J., Wu, H., You, J., & Smith, M. (2021). Migrant entrepreneurs and firm innovation. Accounting & Finance, 61(5), 6069-6112.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
Kline, S. J., & Rosenberg, N. (2010). An overview of innovation. In Studies on Science and the Innovation Process: Selected works of Nathan Rosenberg (pp. 173-203).
Kloosterman, R., & Rath, J. (2001). Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Venturing Abroad in the Age of Globalization. Berg Publishers.
Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral Patterns of Technical Change: Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343-373.
Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation. Beacon Press.
Ram, M., Jones, T., & Villares-Varela, M. (2017). Migrant entrepreneurship: Reflections on research and practice. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 35(1), 3-18.
Ram, M., Jones, T., & Villares-Varela, M. (2008). Migrant Entrepreneurship: Reflections on Research and Practice. International Small Business Journal, 36(1), 3-12.
Santner, D. (2018). Proximity and modes of innovation – evidence from two agricultural engineering industries in north-west Germany. European Planning Studies, 26(5), 877-894.
Saxenian, A. (2006). The New Argonauts: Regional Advantage in a Global Economy. Harvard University Press.
Scheidgen, K., & Brattström, A. (2023). Berlin is hotter than Silicon Valley! How networking temperature shapes entrepreneurs’ networking across social contexts. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(6), 2233-2262.
Sternberg, R. J., Pretz, J. E., & Kaufman, J. C. (2003). Types of innovations. In The International Handbook on Innovation (pp. 158-169).
Sternberg, R., Gorynia-Pfeffer, N., Täube, F., Stolz, L., Schauer, J., Baharian, A. & Wallisch, M. (2023). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor – Unternehmensgründungen im weltweiten Vergleich. Länderbericht Deutschland 2022/23. Düsseldorf: RKW-Kompetenzzentrum.
Terstriep, J., David, A., Ruthemeier, A., & Elo, M. (2023). The Role of Embeddedness of Migrant Start-ups in Local Entrepreneurship Ecosystems during the COVID-19 Crisis. Journal of Comparative International Management, 26(1), 1-34.
Theodoraki, C., & Messeghem, K. (2017). Exploring the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the field of entrepreneurial support: a multi-level approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 31(1), 47-66.