According to research, maintaining the proper balance between innovation-driven transformation and proficiency-driven stability is the managerial problem faced by business owners throughout the spectrum (Cho & Lee 2018). A strong desire for change is necessary for entrepreneurial management because it is opportunity-driven and disregards resources’ availability and potential obstacles (Hisrich & Ramadani 2017). Based on this, Jantunen (2005) described entrepreneurship as a demonstration of how to develop an organisation and innovate within or outside a company. It is the ability to take chances, be imaginative and put ideas into practice. Additionally, it implies the capacity to organise and manage tasks in order to meet the predetermined objectives (Lounsbury et al. 2019). Hence, the term ‘entrepreneurship’ can be viewed in a variety of ways as shown in Figure 1.

Based on these viewpoints, Davidsson, Delmar and Wiklund (2017) expressed that entrepreneurship refers to the possession of specialised knowledge and aggressive activity that causes changes in the economy. Landstrom, Fayolle and Santos (2017) added that entrepreneurship is driven by opportunities or by a need. The entrepreneurship process starts with opportunity exploration and progresses to opportunity usage, which results in value generation. Opportunities prevail freely for entrepreneurs and because of the different nature, the startup’s success depends on the entrepreneur’s special understanding, skills, aptitudes and the way they organise the operations. As a result, it may be said that the economy is heterogeneous and that people, companies and geographical regions differ in terms of how they utilise and use opportunities (Hisrich & Ramadani 2017). Researchers have identified a variety of factors such as self-awareness, independence and persistent learning as aspects that inspire entrepreneurs to launch their own businesses (Staller & Kirschke 2021). These factors are greatly influenced by the entrepreneurial ecosystem in which an entrepreneur operates.

The entrepreneurial ecosystem is the environmental aspects (such as government, the venture capital sector, the financial system and society) that make up and have an impact on new businesses either directly or indirectly. The success of businesses is greatly influenced by external factors such as industry and economic structure, and regulatory and innovative changes (Hisrich & Ramadani 2017). Harel, Schwartz and Kaufmann (2021) highlighted that an entrepreneur is a hero whose biggest quality is taking chances by vehemently establishing and implementing innovation procedures within the firm by obtaining external resources. Nonetheless, as a leader, the entrepreneur is in charge of overseeing all organisational management tasks, even though this means that the entrepreneur may not always follow the traditional organisational theory. Additionally, this view recognises that an entrepreneur’s role is to develop fresh ideas and turn them into desired results (Walsh & Cunningham 2016). Therefore, entrepreneurs need to create open innovation projects that fit with their firms’ strategies. The advantages of open innovation significantly contribute to a firm’s position. Nevertheless, open innovation cannot be used in businesses if there are little opportunities for product development or invention. In this case, it is the responsibility of the entrepreneur to continuously focus on the newest trends and methods to improve operational efficiency.

Promoting dynamic approaches like open innovations in business firms is crucial for comprehending the role of entrepreneurship. In 2013, Wynarcxyk undertook a study on the influence of open innovation approaches on export performance and innovative skills (Qureshi 2018). The study’s conclusions included information on how small and medium enterprises’ (SMEs) competitiveness is influenced by a variety of internal characteristics, such as their capacity for entrepreneurship, organisational structure and research and development (R&D) capabilities. In addition, it appears that the concept of open innovation is intrinsically linked to the growing trend of globalisation.

In support, Mazzarol and Reboud (2017) added that an entrepreneur who acts as a businessperson is required to carry out a variety of tasks, including identifying market opportunities, developing new products and production procedures, and managing and combining elements of innovation approaches. Therefore, an entrepreneur plays a vital role in creating new ideas and prospects, having the ability to manage ambiguous risks, and providing a fresh combination of necessary skills for strengthening the business competitiveness, and survival and guaranteeing a healthy performance.

The entrepreneurship in the digital economy has attracted the attention of scholars. Li, Li and Xie (2024) found that exposed to a broad impact from digital technologies, innovations driven by genuine entrepreneurship are expected to create a wider impact. Chen et al. (2024) showed that entrepreneurship has a significant positive impact on the dual innovation and enterprise growth of technology-based small and medium-sized enterprises, and its promotion effect on exploratory innovation in dual innovation is stronger. The digitalisation application level dimension has a U-shaped moderating effect on the relationship between entrepreneurship and exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation and enterprise growth.

Bringing about change is an essential component of entrepreneurship, but separating out market-related activity is the main factor that leads to entrepreneurship (Davidsson et al. 2017). Entrepreneurship only occurs when value is created, which may be calculated by analysing the business’ level of innovation activity. Thus, because of rising competition, rapid technical advancements, globalisation and the current economic crisis, businesses are more pushed than ever to reevaluate their plans (Santoro et al. 2018). As a result, businesses have begun to switch from close to open innovation. Conboy and Morgan (2011) expressed that the era of open innovation began with businesses boosting their efforts to license out and sell internally generated technologies to other businesses as well as their research collaborations and reliance on external information to develop new products and services.

Although the concept of open innovation is not novel to businesses, in recent years it has emerged as a popular topic in the field of innovation management study (Blume 2020). Moreover, Santoro et al. (2018) exposed that the abundant literature on open innovation encompasses management, governance, strategy and competitiveness. In order to develop rigorous partnerships with stakeholders in their ecosystem, businesses are increasingly integrating open innovation techniques into their operations (Scuotto et al. 2017). This is because such open and engaging collaborations foster a thriving exchange of internal and external knowledge, assisting firms in repeatedly introducing additional innovations. These businesses reduce their fixed and variable costs while improving performance by combining internal and external expertise (West & Bogers 2014). Usman and Vanhaverbeke (2017) further emphasise that this integration is a crucial step in the open innovation approach, which encourages cooperation within the ecosystem. In reality, Open Innovation Theory surpasses the internal perspective presented in knowledge management literature by asserting that firms can and should leverage both external and internal ideas, as well as utilise both internal and external channels to market their technology (Usman & Vanhaverbeke 2017).

Morgan, Obal and Jewell (2021) presented that businesses classified as knowledge-based, technology-intensive and utilising innovative business models are likely to engage in open innovation. As such, entrepreneurship is the act of integrating innovation into a firm’s business model. Chesbrough (2017) claimed that open innovation techniques encompass both inbound (Technology Exploration) and outbound (Technology Exploitation) efforts. Hung and Chou (2013) also expressed that a firm can expand its horizons and increase the depth of its own knowledge base through inbound open innovation. Thus, businesses that adopt inbound open innovation may gain from fresh perspectives and knowledge combinations, as well as fresh market prospects and improved problem-solving skills. As opposed to inbound open innovation, outbound open innovation refers to the utilisation of internal ideas or technological know-how that are disseminated outside of the organisation through licensing, patenting or contractual agreements to obtain financial and nonfinancial benefits (Hung & Chou 2013). Prior research has indicated that companies are more likely to achieve higher competitive advantages when they pursue both outbound and inbound open innovation (Lichtenthaler 2008).

Open innovation in a digital economy is also a focus of attention for scholars. Open innovation can promote business success or stimulate entrepreneurship, but it can also bring challenges to entrepreneurship (Nambisan, Siegel & Kenney 2018). Kim, Roh and Boroumand (2024) provided a theoretical framework proposing that the underlying motivations for each open innovation approach may exhibit notable differences.

According to Zhou et al. (2019), environmental dynamism constitutes one of the three dimensions of environmental turbulence. The discussion of the concept of environmental turbulence’s dimensions suggests that events might alter, be unclear and take unexpected turns at the same time. Environment dynamism, complexity and predictability – also known as environmental munificence – are the three elements of turbulence. The three components have been divided into two additional sub-dimensions as presented in Figure 2.

According to Endres (2017), environmental dynamism describes the rapid and unpredictable change in the surrounding environment of a firm. This implies that the advantages of innovative activities of a business depend on the environment in which they are carried out. A dynamic environment is one that includes technological advancements, shifting consumer preferences and shifts in material supply or demand for products. According to research by Blume (2020) and Morgan et al. (2021), open innovation strategy is more appropriate in environments marked by market and technology volatility, globalisation and intense competition. According to researchers, the building of a robust knowledge management capability for open innovation practices, however, requires consideration of both low- and high-dynamic situations (Martinez-Conesa, Soto-Acosta & Carayannis 2017).

Studies on the moderating impact of environmental dynamism on various dependent variables in diverse contexts have produced inconsistent results in innovation management. However, Martinez-Conesa et al. (2017) exposed that environmental dynamism has no influence on the link between knowledge management competency and open innovation practices. Yet, academics agree that environmental dynamism captures the turbulence of change in an organisation’s environment, which affects the connection between company-level strategy and firm performance (Ting, Wang & Wang 2012). Mohammad (2019) added that dynamism in the environment also endangers an organisation’s ability to perform. Product life cycles typically have relatively brief lifespans and face more frequent technological paradigm shifts when environmental dynamism is high (Schilke 2014). Because product life cycles are brief, particularly in highly dynamic contexts, businesses must continually look for and employ fresh external information as well as regularly exploit new internal ideas or technological knowledge. When there is significant environmental dynamism, this instability may have an undesirable impact on the business’s operational effectiveness.

‘Open innovation’ is gradually becoming the dominant mode of enterprise innovation. This theory points out that enterprises should raise the role of external creativity and external marketisation channels to the same important position as that of internal creativity and internal marketisation channels under the closed innovation mode, balance and coordinate internal and external resources for innovation, and not only place the innovation goal on traditional product management.

The stability of the environment provides a predictable framework for businesses, making long-term investments and partnerships in open innovation more feasible. Open innovation crosses the line between corporate strategy components and, as a result, establishes itself as the primary method of innovation strategy. Open innovation has a significant effect on corporate entrepreneurship, with open innovation serving as a suitable mediator (Valmohammadi et al. 2024).

Chesbrough (2006) defined open innovation as the practice of innovation and the cognitive mode of creating, interpreting and researching these practices. In other words, open innovation is both a management practice and a cognitive mode. Accordingly, enterprises should fully leverage internal and external ideas and resources, as well as access to market channels, to maximise their own market access, shorten the time for enterprise products and ideas to enter the market, and reduce uncertainties. Enterprises that integrate resources to create market opportunities are said to exhibit entrepreneurial behaviour, with its core concept being a revolution, which has implications for risk, trust, accountability and innovation.

The aforementioned attributes define the theory of innovation, which has become an urgent question to clarify the mechanism through which entrepreneurship enables enterprises to engage in open innovation. Cheng and Shiu (2015) stated that because of the constraints of the dynamic changes in the external environment, entrepreneurs tend to be trapped in a challenging strategy-oriented choice: enterprises face the dilemma of choosing between ‘marketability’ to meet practical demands and ‘technology’ to lead industry reform. Scholars worldwide have conducted extensive theoretical and empirical studies on the mechanism of entrepreneurship on open innovation, primarily reflecting that entrepreneurship promotes open innovation in enterprises and influences innovation openness from the two sub-dimensions of environmental dynamism (intensity and frequency of changes) (Endres 2017; Mammassis & Kostopoulos 2019; Zhou et al. 2019).

However, existing studies fail to address the potential changes in the relationship between entrepreneurship and open innovation under different levels of environmental dynamism (Heracleous & Bartunek 2021). By focussing on the relationship between entrepreneurship and open innovation, this article argues that it is challenging to reach a more explanatory and operational research conclusion. Thus, it is necessary to consider the role of various factors between the two and clarify the environmental dynamism, such as knowledge, skill updating and product upgrading, and their impact on open innovation. This is based on the findings of a study by Ali (2017), which demonstrated that environmental dynamics moderate the relationship between the entrepreneurial mechanism and business performance, with the entrepreneurial mechanism contributing positively to firm success.

Since the concept of open innovation was first introduced nearly 20 years ago, corporate scholars have closely studied it because of its impact on entrepreneurial success and growth. According to Chesbrough (2020), businesses must adapt to the new social reality and adopt an open innovation model to create and maintain long-term competitive advantages. This allows them to fully utilise both internal and external resources and creative talent to support the achievement of sustainable innovation (Chesbrough 2020).

In Open Innovation Theory, businesses can and should employ both internal and external ideas, as well as internal and external channels to market, to enhance their technology (Chesbrough 2006). According to this paradigm, businesses can and ought to utilise both internal and external sources of inspiration, as well as internal and external channels for distributing their products. The goal of open innovation is to improve business practices by assisting organisations in going beyond simply developing and commercialising new ideas. The notion of open innovation has provided many practitioners with a new vocabulary to discuss the nature of R&D, assisting in the shift of predominant R&D logic from internal discoveries to outward interaction. It also encourages company executives to experiment with various novel models to generate and market innovation.

Understanding the activities of open innovation is crucial to comprehending the concept. The business model of an organisation influences which knowledge inflows can spur innovation and which knowledge should be shared with other firms. This defines the model of the future of open innovation in an entrepreneurial setting (Chesbrough 2017). Gassmann, Enkel and Chesbrough (2010) confirmed that a variety of already-existing entrepreneurial activities have been incorporated under the umbrella of open innovation. According to Hossain (2013), other ideas like value creation, crowdsourcing and distributed innovation intersect with open innovation. Based on this, Gassmann et al. (2010) further classified open innovation into the following three macro-methods.

This article argues that entrepreneurial risk-taking has a positive effect on open innovation behaviour. A core process of the innovation process is to seek ideas and originalities with potential commercial value. Enterprises often invest a mass of resources and time to search for innovative opportunities. These investments and efforts effectively improve the enterprise’s ability to create, utilise and restructure new and existing knowledge (Hung & Chou 2013; Martinez-Conesa et al. 2017; Morgan et al. 2021; Scuotto et al. 2017). In addition, Joseph Alois Schumpeter (2017) believed that the entrepreneur is to develop and utilise market opportunities by technological innovation or organisational innovation.

Entrepreneurship is to create new resources and realise the commercialisation of new products and provide new services for customers (Conboy & Morgan 2011). Entrepreneurship is a dynamic factor that affects the innovation openness of enterprises. It is the inherent instinct of entrepreneurs to take the lead in adopting the new mode of open innovation to implement innovation. Entrepreneurship promotes the open innovation of enterprises and influences the openness of innovation from the four dimensions of innovation, cooperation, risk and competition (World Economic Forum 2020). In light of this, the article proposes the hypothesis:

This article makes the case that entrepreneurial insights have a favourable impact on open innovation behaviour. Firstly, entrepreneurial intuition unexpectedly aligns with open innovation behaviours. Both of them support increasing the flow of innovation components and big-data-based collaboration to accelerate the pace of technological innovation. They also both insist on accelerating the pace and lowering the cost to achieve creative competitive advantages. Secondly, entrepreneurship emphasises the strategic condition of an organisation and represents the initiative, inventiveness and risk-taking of a business (Ali 2017).

Schumpeter (2017) was the first person to recognise the quality of the initiative, and he believed that the initiative of entrepreneurship is one of the most important characteristics of entrepreneurs. Being proactive reflects the entrepreneur’s initiative, which is the first element of the enterprise to win the opportunity. Being proactive is opportunity-seeking. There is an anticipation view exists that involves introducing new products or services into the competition and anticipating future demand to create change and shape the environment. A number of people enrol creative creation, problem prevention, effective communication, adaptability, future positioning, implementation of new processes and introduction of new products and services as signs of being proactive (Nasution et al. 2011). In the complex and changeable living environment, proactive entrepreneurs are able to respond to the changes in the market environment under the complex and changeable living market and able to stabilise the performance of the enterprise. There is a significant relationship between the initiative of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial activities. Also, the initiative of entrepreneurship can obviously improve entrepreneurial performance (Kennard 2022). In line with this, the study proposed the hypothesis:

The concept of entrepreneurship has been accompanied by innovation since its birth. In the beginning, entrepreneurship was manifested as a series of optimal allocation behaviours of economic resources generated by the realisation of innovative economic value (Schumpeter 2017). Rainey (2010) assessed enterprise development strategy from the perspective of senior managers and analysed its constraints. The research showed that entrepreneurs’ strategic recognition had a great impact on enterprise development strategy, and the study believed that enterprise development strategy required the full participation of enterprise managers, among which entrepreneurship was the most influential factor. Barney (1986) believes that corporate development strategy is gradually formed in the process of corporate development. The development strategy is formed because of the influence of corporate culture, and it is very prone to change under the influence of entrepreneurship. According to Lorsch (1986), corporate culture is the key to the success of an enterprise, and spiritual culture promotes the implementation of strategic management change. According to Davidsson et al. (2017), entrepreneurship as a crucial resource for strategic management is of vital importance to the development and research of entrepreneurship, which is necessary to enterprises regardless of their size. Therefore, this article makes the following hypothesis:

The advantage of open innovation lies in obtaining sufficient information and technology resources from the external market to cover the shortage of internal innovation resources and commercialising the innovation results through external and internal channels rapidly, so as to respond promptly to the market demand to maximise commercial profits and thus improve the innovation performance of enterprises (Morgan et al. 2021). As a new sustainable innovation paradigm, open innovation has attracted extensive attention from entrepreneurs.

According to Blume (2020), both open innovation and independent innovation have a significant impact on the innovation performance of enterprises. Additional inspections show that there is a reverse correlation between innovation sources and innovation performance. Under the effect of an open innovation strategy, the reverse effect is more obvious. Also, there is a positive correlation between innovation degree and innovation performance. Under the effect of an open innovation strategy, the positive influence degree will be strengthened (Chen, Zang & Luo 2017). In other words, the interaction and matching between independent innovation strategy and open innovation play a positive role in the improvement of enterprise innovation performance. The article argues that:

As a connection of action between entrepreneurship and open innovation behaviour, a firm strategic orientation of innovation may be highly effective in predicting firm open innovation behaviour. Through the implementation of an innovation strategy in enterprises, enterprises can obtain innovation factors from the outside more efficiently and also transform from closed innovation to open innovation. The influence of entrepreneurial risk-taking and anticipation on open innovation behaviour is implemented through strengthening innovation strategic orientation. Therefore, a firm strategic orientation of innovation may play a mediating role between entrepreneurship and its sub-dimensions and open innovation behaviour. Therefore, this article puts forward the following hypothesis:

Several academics concur that the external environment has a significant impact on the management discipline (Bourgeois 1980) and that there is empirical support for the idea that the external environment can influence a wide range of corporate strategy decisions (Goll, Brown & Rasheed 2007). Also, a number of researchers have looked into how the external environment influences the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance (Ali 2017; Hung & Chou 2013; Ting et al. 2012; Mohammad 2019; Schilke 2014).

Environmental dynamism is a measure of how quickly an environment is changing. For instance, Song and Kang (2019) explained environmental dynamism as the pace of change in consumer preferences and organisational productivity across time. Dynamic environments are by definition volatile and lack patterns and regularities (Kennard 2022).

Environmental characteristics like dynamism and munificence may modify the association between the variables of pro-activeness, inventiveness and the risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurial attitude and success (Song & Kang 2019). Song and Kang (2019) added that firms operating in dynamic contexts are more likely to gain from new product innovation than firms operating in stable conditions.

The adoption of proactive corporate activities and environmental dynamism intuitively go hand in hand (Kickul & Gundry 2002). Businesses that are proactive and aggressively look for possibilities will succeed better than businesses that are reluctant to take advantage of market prospects, even when industry conditions in a dynamic environment are vulnerable to quick change. Proactive tactics can be used successfully and economically to take advantage of the numerous new opportunities that dynamic surroundings create for businesses, giving them a competitive advantage over rivals (Rezaei & Ortt 2018). Similarly, Ali (2017) exposed that dynamic environmental factors would compel firms to stop acting proactively in order to protect their scarce resources. Based on each of these reasons, proactive actions will be more and more favourably correlated with firm performance in generous conditions than in dynamic settings.

According to Ali (2017), dynamic environments encourage entrepreneurial enterprises to provide evidence of innovative activities, which are less common in stable situations. Such businesses benefitted from proactive initiative-taking actions because they could set the terms of competition by entering the market first and making their technology the norm. Rezaei and Ortt (2018) discovered that pro-activeness with dynamism relation is positively and significantly associated with market expansion, sales growth and profitability.

According to many points of view, dynamic settings will also lead to a larger correlation between entrepreneurial risk-taking and business performance (Jantunen 2005; Mohammad 2019; Schilke 2014; Ting et al. 2012). Landstrom et al. (2017) noted that enterprises that do not take chances in dynamic situations will see their market share and growth rate decline and will not be able to compete effectively against more aggressive rivals. Rezaei and Ortt (2018) discovered that in dynamic situations, there is a greater correlation between entrepreneurial risk-taking and business performance. To navigate the ongoing changes typical in dynamic contexts, companies must make bold, risk-taking strategic decisions. These considerations indicate that, compared to stable environments, dynamic contexts are more conducive to businesses enhancing their business performance through entrepreneurial risk-taking.

The relationship between numerous organisational characteristics and business success is moderated by the dynamic environment (Ali 2017). Mohammad (2019) revealed that environmental dynamism influences how decisions are made and how well businesses execute. In light of this, there is a compelling case for accepting entrepreneurial orientation when a business operates in a dynamic setting. The strategic orientation of enterprise innovation is supposed to seek information resources and technology resources more rapidly, and also the innovation process is more complex. Wijbenga and Van Witteloostuij (2007) proposed that enterprises engaged in open innovation have the ability and habit to look beyond the existing market, and they are able to pay attention to the future market. Whether the innovation strategy orientation can strengthen open innovation behaviour or not depends on the innovation strategy that greatly supports enterprises to obtain sufficient information and technology resources from the external environment (Dess & Beard 1984). Under the background of the Internet era with increasing uncertainty of the external environment, the drastic changes in external market demand and industry technology make enterprises more willing to adopt open innovation behaviour instead of the original closed innovation behaviour. It is found that enterprise open innovation is affected by R&D capability, asset specificity, environmental uncertainty and other factors (Song & Kang 2019). As a result of this, the following hypothesis is proposed:

In general, this article suggests a conceptual framework for entrepreneurship, strategic enterprise innovation and open innovation behaviour as presented in Figure 3.

Hierarchical regression is a group analysis of several independent variables, mainly used for model comparison or to determine the importance of variables. It is often used in regression analyses that use demographic variables as control variables, or in studies of mediating effects. Control variables refer to items that may interfere with the model, such as gender, age, education and other basic information.

This article tests the hypothesis proposed by collecting data from a questionnaire survey. The targets of the survey are mainly middle and senior managers who are familiar with the company’s innovative decisions and operational conditions (Zahra 1996). In addition to the variables of company establishment time, employee number and enterprise type, all the variables used in this article were measured using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 indicates very low or strongly disagree, and 5 indicates very high or strongly agree. Data collection was conducted in two stages: The first stage was the pre-survey, which involved the distribution of the survey questionnaire to a limited number (preferably 5–10) of participants to complete it. This is popularly referred to as a pilot study which helps to minimise errors, the need for extra work from the researchers and participants as well as the waste of research resources by providing the data needed for evaluation of all parts of the main study. In this case, the feedback obtained through the pilot study helped to make essential corrections to the questionnaire and to ensure that the questionnaire was able to collect all critical and essential data needed for the current study. This means that questionnaires were modified and improved according to the feedback of the respondents during the survey.

The second stage was the actual formal investigation, which involved the distribution of the questionnaires to the targeted sample size of 400 respondents from various businesses operating (middle and senior managers in small and medium-sized high-tech enterprises) in Shandong, Shanghai, Beijing and other provinces and cities. Beijing and Shanghai are municipalities directly under the central government of China and are the economic, educational and innovation centres of China. According to the China Statistical Yearbook, Shandong Province is a province in China where the national high-tech enterprises and small and medium-sized high-tech enterprises grow rapidly. The sample distribution provinces have a better innovation environment and market competition atmosphere, which are suitable for conducting research on open innovation. A total of 400 electronic questionnaires were sent out, and 386 questionnaires were collected with a recovery rate of 96.5%. Removing some unqualified questionnaires, 329 valid questionnaires remained which was an effective response rate of 82.25%.

In addition to the control variables such as the year of the company’s establishment, the number of employees, the nature of the company, the industry, the working years of the respondents and the position of the respondents and other basic information of the enterprise and the respondents, the other variables were measured by five-level Likert scale. The details are as follows (see Table 1):

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Shandong Women’s University, Institutional Review Board (reference no.: 2023/IRB/#057_).

The questionnaire survey data were coded into SPSS, a statistical software package, to facilitate data analysis and generate statistical information for addressing the research hypotheses. The structured questionnaire with primary data ensured effective and efficient data collection. SPSS was chosen for its user-friendly interface and versatility in conducting analytical tests and presenting results through graphs, tables and charts, facilitating accessible interpretation of the analysis.

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences enabled the researcher to perform a range of analytical tests and present the results in graphs, tables and charts, facilitating the understanding of the analysis outcomes. The research output included descriptive and inferential results necessary for drawing conclusions. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences was deemed appropriate for this research, as it aided the researcher in addressing the research questions and achieving the research objectives. The findings are as follows:

In this study, hierarchical regression is utilised to evaluate the aforementioned hypothesis. The findings are displayed in Table 3.

M1 is a regression model with entrepreneurship (risk-taking) and entrepreneurship (anticipation) as explanatory variables and strategic orientation of innovation as explained variables. The results of M1 show that the model F value is 45.41. Based on the significance test, the regression coefficient of explanatory variable entrepreneurship (risk-taking) on the strategic orientation of innovation is 0.343, which is significant at the 1% level. The regression coefficient of the explanatory variable, entrepreneurship (anticipation) on the strategic orientation of innovation is 0.495, which is significant at the 1% level, indicating that entrepreneurship has a positive impact on innovation strategy orientation. Hypotheses H2a and H2b are confirmed.

M2 is a regression model with strategic orientation of innovation as the explanatory variable and open innovation behaviour as an explained variable. The results of M2 show that the model F value is 38.82. Based on the significance test, the regression coefficient of the explanatory variable, the strategic orientation of innovation on open innovation behaviour is 0.557, which is significant at the 1% level. It indicates that the strategic orientation of innovation has a positive impact on open innovation behaviour, and hypothesis H3 is proved.

M3 is a regression model with entrepreneurship (risk-taking) and entrepreneurship (anticipation) as explanatory variables and open innovation behaviour as explained variables. M3 results show that the model F value is 37.39. Based on the significance test, the regression coefficient of the explanatory variable, entrepreneurship (risk-taking) on open innovation behaviour is 0.212, which is significant at the 1% level. The regression coefficient of the explanatory variable, entrepreneurship (anticipation) on open innovation behaviour is 0.486, and it is significant at the 1% level, indicating that entrepreneurship has a positive impact on open innovation behaviour, and H1a and H1b are confirmed.

On the basis of M3, M4 is added into the strategic orientation of innovation variable to test the mediating effect of strategic orientation of innovation between entrepreneurship and open innovation behaviour. The results show that the participation performance of the explanatory variable remains at a significant level below 1% after adding the mediating variable. However, the regression coefficient of entrepreneurship (risk-taking) decreases from 0.212 to 0.105 and the regression coefficient of entrepreneurship (anticipation) decreases from 0.486 to 0.332. According to the test criteria of the mediation effect, it can be determined that the strategic orientation of innovation has a partial mediating effect on the relationship between participation in entrepreneurship and open innovation behaviour. That is, part of the positive effect of entrepreneurship on open innovation behaviour is realised through strategic orientation of innovation, which is confirmed by hypothesis H4.

Adjustment test: Adding the adjustment effect of environmental dynamism of the adjustment variable, the samples were divided into two groups: high environmental dynamism (N = 149) and low environmental dynamism (N = 180). The results show that environmental dynamism positively moderates the relationship between the strategic orientation of innovation and open innovation behaviour. In the group with higher environmental dynamism, the regression coefficient of strategic orientation of innovation is higher (β = 0.428, p < 0.001), indicating that the influence of strategic orientation of innovation on open innovation behaviour is stronger when the environmental dynamism is higher. Thus, H5 is confirmed. In addition, the moderating effects are graphed in Figure 4. It is found that the positive relationship between the strategic orientation of innovation and open innovation behaviour has a higher dynamic slope in high environment dynamism. Moreover, the slope of the former increases more significantly under high market orientation, which supports the test of H5 in this article.

Based on the empirical test results, the relationships for the constructs in the conceptual model are as follows:

The research findings show that entrepreneurial risk-taking and entrepreneurial anticipation have a positive impact on open innovation behaviour. Entrepreneurial risk-taking and entrepreneurial anticipation have a positive impact on the strategic orientation of innovation. An enterprise’s strategic orientation of innovation plays a mediating role in the relationship between entrepreneurship and open innovation behaviour. Environmental dynamism will strengthen the impact of strategic orientation of innovation on open innovation behaviour. Small and medium-sized enterprises are the ‘capillaries’ of the Chinese economy, playing an important role in driving innovation, promoting employment and improving people’s lives. The findings of this article extend the application of entrepreneurship, open innovation and strategic orientation of innovation research in the context of China’s small and medium-sized high-tech enterprises, which is beneficial to fostering entrepreneurship in small and medium-sized high-tech enterprises and enhancing their understanding of the environment, such as the digital economy, artificial intelligence and the trend of reverse globalisation.

This article has focussed on small and medium-sized high-tech enterprises in China, exploring the influence of entrepreneurial spirit on open innovation behaviour, as well as the mediating and moderating effects of strategic orientation of innovation and environmental dynamism. Through empirical research, it is shown that entrepreneurs with risk-taking and anticipation adopt a wide-ranging and more in-depth approach to open innovation in order to obtain external technological resources as much as possible. Therefore, this article makes a significant contribution to the study of open innovation.

Firstly, by examining the role of entrepreneurship and strategic orientation of innovation in assisting enterprises’ open innovation practices, this study contributes knowledge to the theoretical perspective. The resource-based view and the capability-based view are both expanded and improved by this work from a theoretical perspective. The innovation literature makes it clear that, even while organisational competencies are essential for achieving a competitive advantage, there is still room for improvement.

Secondly, this study expands on how open innovation can be used to boost a certain area of a firm’s performance (operational) in order to gain a competitive edge. There is currently a dearth of research in the business world examining the relationship between entrepreneurship and open innovation on firm performance. As a result, the present study broadens the theoretical framework by examining how the strategic orientation of innovation towards entrepreneurship supports open innovation practices to improve the operational performance of organisations.

Thirdly, the research empirically examines the moderating impact of environmental dynamism on the relationship between entrepreneurial strategic orientation and open innovation-based environmental dynamism on company performance. The findings add to the body of literature on open innovation by showing that in the extremely dynamic setting of this study, the impact of open innovation on perceived operational performance will wane.

This study sheds some light on how open innovation behaviour is used in businesses highly dynamic settings. Therefore, based on the findings, the study presents the following practical implications.

Entrepreneurial risk-taking has a positive impact on open innovation behaviour, and entrepreneurial anticipation has a positive impact on open innovation behaviour. Entrepreneurial risk-taking has a positive impact on the strategic orientation of innovation, and entrepreneurial anticipation has a positive impact on the strategic orientation of innovation. An enterprise’s strategic orientation of innovation plays a mediating role in the relationship between entrepreneurship and open innovation behaviour, that is, the influence of entrepreneurs’ risk-taking and anticipation on open innovation behaviour is realised through strengthening the strategic orientation of innovation. Environmental dynamism will strengthen the impact of strategic orientation of innovation on open innovation behaviour, that is, the higher the environmental dynamism, the stronger the positive effect of strategic orientation of innovation on open innovation behaviour.

In order to improve enterprises’ open innovation behaviour, entrepreneur’ risk-taking and anticipation behaviour depend on enterprises’ innovation strategy behaviour and the dynamic environment to adjust their efforts to promote open innovation behaviour. According to the research of this article and the discussion of the research conclusions, the more dynamic the environment, the more risk-taking and anticipation the entrepreneurs are. Thus, it is a more efficient strategy to positively influence open innovation behaviour by strengthening the strategic orientation of innovation. When the environment is less dynamic, the influence of innovation strategy orientation on open innovation behaviour becomes weakened, which guides entrepreneurs’ risk-taking and anticipation behaviour to be more effectively influenced by other methods.

However, the relationship formulated between entrepreneurial risk-taking and entrepreneurial anticipation towards strategic orientation is because of the growing integration of strategic anticipation and strategic entrepreneurship in businesses, despite data indicating the absence of a comprehensive framework, philosophical, theoretical and conceptual fundamentals of knowledge for strategic anticipation. Strategic anticipation helps to improve the elements that support entrepreneurs. The findings show that customer needs have been a major factor in the success of business entrepreneurship because meeting customer needs and wishes helps to improve the conditions for business entrepreneurship.

When the external dynamic environment of enterprises is high, entrepreneurs are supposed to strengthen the strategic orientation of innovation and expand the open innovation behaviour in order to improve the innovation performance of enterprises. However, when the external dynamic environment of enterprises is low, the positive influence of the strategic orientation of innovation on open innovation behaviour becomes weaker. Entrepreneurship should strengthen open innovation behaviour through other ways, so as to improve enterprise innovation performance. This is based on the study findings which reveal that entrepreneurship plays an influential role in organising and implementing open innovation practice in business. Therefore, according to this study, the influence of entrepreneurship is manifested through the entrepreneurial vision and entrepreneurial skills and capabilities of the entrepreneur.