Early research described immigrant entrepreneurship as the process by which an immigrant establishes a business in the country of settlement different from his or her country of origin (Dalhammar, 2004). Several studies have addressed the importance of entrepreneurship on the social and economic integration of immigrants (Lofstrom, 2014; Peroni et al., 2016; Naudé et al., 2017; Duan, 2022). Immigrant entrepreneurship refers to the process whereby immigrants identify, create and exploit economic opportunities to start new ventures in their host nations” (Dheer and Lenartowicz, 2018, p.558). Conceptual understanding of immigrant entrepreneurship implies to pin down several frameworks and models that extant research provides. These theoretical views allowed researchers to explore the particularities of factors enabling or impeding immigrants to start a business venture. Rather than suggest mono-causal and then multi-causal approaches to make the bill consistent, Peroni et al. (2016) classified theories that seek to explain the relationship between immigration and entrepreneurial involvement into two broad groups: the first group focuses on the specific characteristics of immigrants for explaining differences in the propensity to start a business compared to non-immigrants; the second group relies on the institutional and cultural environment of the host country. Theories in the first group spotlight higher probabilities that make immigrants to start a new business due to (1) several forms of disadvantages in the host country (racial, linguistic, educational: the disadvantage theory, Wong, 1985) pushing them to necessity of self-employment instead of low paid jobs, (2) cultural traits that immigrants inherit from their home countries driving them to use ethnic resources (intra-group solidarity, financing; and shared values through ethnicity or cultural attributes, attitudes, information and advice) in areas (enclaves) where they run business belonging to the same ethnic group (the ethnic enclave theory: Wilson and Portes, 1980), (3) role played by certain immigrants seen as foreign traders, specifically middlemen or intermediaries between market actors (the theory of middleman minorities: Bonacich, 1973). Among this group, the second theory has received considerable attention through the fact of maintaining networks and connections with the country of origin.

Theories in the second group focus on the interaction between individual characteristics of immigrants and the institutions and features of the hosting societies and markets. The interactive model (Waldinger et al., 1990) explains immigrants’ involvement in entrepreneurship as the outcome of the interaction between their own (cultural or ethnic) resources and societies’ opportunity structures; so, immigrants mobilize their specific characteristics called ethnic strategies to access these opportunity structures. “The latter are historically shaped circumstances such as market conditions that do not require mass production or distribution, characterised by decreasing return to scale in which ethnic goods are in demand” (Peroni et al., 2016, p.642). One decade later, Kloosterman and Rath (2001) refined the former model to account for (host) country-specific institutional frameworks. Their so-called mixed embeddedness suggests that immigrants are not solely belonging to ethnic networks, “they are also embedded (entrenched) in specific market conditions, socio-economic and politico-institutional environments” (Peroni et al., 2016, p.642). By and large, most scholars in the field of immigrant entrepreneurship research base their arguments on the mixed embeddedness theoretical approach (Kloosterman and Rath, 2018). However, the conceptualization of this approach did not take into account the effects of countries of origin (Zhu et al., 2023). Yet “immigrants are in a unique position to create opportunities by combining and adapting ideas, products, and processes from different socio-cultural contexts” (Dheer and Lenartowicz, 2018, p.560), including but not limited to the host country. Accordingly, while scholars found immigrant entrepreneurs to be embedded in multiple contexts, literature has ignored the need to focus on the embedding process itself (Wigren-Kristoferson et al., 2022), disregarding the learning which is necessary to achieve the embeddedness (learning aspect of embedding).

Entrepreneurship crystallizes the business creation process. To understand this entrepreneurial process, authors such as Bird (1988) and Krueger and Carsrud (1993) identify EI as the link between ideas and action; that, therefore, makes it so crucial in this process. For Ajzen (1991), intention captures how people exhibit their motivation and willingness to carry out the desired behaviour. Intention is one of the best predictors of planned behaviours (Armitage and Conner, 2001). However, understanding the consequences of intention requires an understanding of intention’s antecedents (Krueger, 2000).

There are various theoretical frameworks for EI (Lin et al., 2013; Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014) proposed by previous studies; each of them claims that every entrepreneurial behaviour is preceded by the intention to develop such behaviour and that several specific different factors influence this intention. The TPB (Ajzen, 1991) is probably the most applied, widely supported, and robust intention model (Krueger et al., 2000; Fayolle and Liñán, 2014; Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014; Ajzen, 2020). The theory suggests three factors that contribute to forming entrepreneurial intention: attitude towards behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control. Attitude towards behaviour is defined as the individual’s evaluative effect towards creating a new business. The subjective norms suggest that individuals are more likely to adopt a family and close friends or mentors’ behaviours, and/or behaviours that these reference individuals/groups approve. Perceived behavioural control reflects the perceived ease or difficulty of engaging in that behaviour. Control factors include, along with many others, skills and abilities, experience, cooperation by other people, money and other resources (Ajzen, 2020) the immigrant is supposed to have acquired or learned. Several previous studies in various countries and contexts have shown the vital role played by EI (Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014; Liñán and Fayolle, 2015). Using the TPB, other studies have empirically analysed and adequately shown the positive impact each of these three antecedents has on EI (Fayolle and Liñán, 2014; Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014). According to Urban and Chantson (2019), the beleifs, values and capabilities of an individual influence the choices and decisions they make. Immigrants who believe and know that they can succeed in their entrepreneurial drive will do the needful to succeed. Immigrants with greater control of exhibiting a behaviour will have a greater intention or efforts to achieve that goal or behaviour. Attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural controls collectively form behavioural intentions, and so lead to actual behaviours (Ajzen, 1991; Mohiuddin et al., 2018). Based on the results of these studies, we formulate the following hypotheses:

Our model (see Figure 1 below) aligns with the TPB on two grounds. Firstly, that there is an interaction between subjective norms and personal attitude on the one hand and behavioural control on the other hand (Ajzen, 1991). Hui-Chen et al. (2014) found a positive impact of personal attitude and perceived behavioural control on subjective norms. Still, this effect was not significant on EI. However, although the predictors of intentions are conceptually independent, empirically they are free to correlate with each other (Ajzen, 2020). Consequently, we assume an effect of personal attitude and perceived behavioural control on subjective norms. Theoretically, attitude is conceived as personal (i.e., internal) in nature and subjective norms reflect external social influence. However, attitudes have two components: personal attitude and social attitude. Behavioural outcomes can be social in addition to personal because an immigrant entrepreneur’s behaviour often has consequences for other people. Subjective norms is different from social attitude, and deals with what reference groups think about the behaviour itself. Put together, social attitude and subjective norms refer to a person’s behaviour in relation to other people and show the relatedness of social attitude to subjective norms. Immigrants are considered high in self-consciousness and self-monitoring, social attitudes significantly and positively influence their behavioural measures (Park, 2000). It implies that a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship of the immigrant and his own perceived feasibility of the project can contribute to the increase of perceived social pressure to engage in the entrepreneurship. This leads us to formulate the following hypothesis:

Secondly, it aligns with the TPB in that those external factors, such as demographic (individual) or environmental (contextual) characteristics, do not directly influence intentions, but are mediated by the three antecedents of intentions (Ajzen, 1991). Furthermore, in light of Ajzen (2020), this study theorizes that the degree to which immigrants have control over the entrepreneurial behaviour will depend on their ability to overcome entrepreneurial culture distance (and perceived risk as threat or barriers of this kind) and on the presence of such facilitating factors as past experience and assistance provided by social networks and institutional context.

This study focuses on immigrants living in Canada regardless of their countries of origin. Recently, innovations in the GEM (2020) methodology have made it possible to assess the quality of an economy’s entrepreneurial ecosystem or the entrepreneurship environment, graded over 10 points. According to the 2019 NECI (National Entrepreneurship Context Index), out of the 5 participating economies that we consider as traditional countries of immigration (TCI), Canada is the second country with the most favorable environment for entrepreneurship after the United States of America. Moreover, in its 2019 Budget, the Government of Canada extended its support for inclusive entrepreneurship (for youth, women, seniors and indigenous people). With the proven success of economic-class immigrants in entrepreneurial activities, it is clear that this economy has an environment that is the most conducive (for an explanation of why this matters, see Guerrero et al., 2020). This is the reason why we decided to base our work on immigrants in Canada. The following procedure and instruments were known to and approved by the ethics committee of the Laval University.

Our data draw from a survey conducted from June 2018 to July 2019 through the following sampling procedure. We were able to contact the immigrants through MIFI (Ministère de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration), where we accessed the TCRI (Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes) to obtain a list of immigrant associations registered in their database. The list enabled us to contact the presidents of several African, European, Latin-Caribbean, and Asian immigrant associations. With the help of the associations’ presidents, we were able to send our questionnaire to a total of 444 participants. The questionnaire was developed in English and French, the two official languages of Canada. To administer it to the participants, we combined two data collection techniques, namely an online survey via an electronic link and manual completion of printed copies of the questionnaire. For the online survey, an email with the electronic link to the survey was sent to association presidents, who then forwarded it to their respective members. Printed copies of the questionnaire were distributed to participants during association gatherings such as community fairs, general meetings, and open events. The questionnaire items were formulated in such a way as to minimize social desirability bias. Also, respondents were assured of the anonymity of their responses (Kautonen et al., 2015). Out of the 444 distributed questionnaires, 275 were returned by respondents. Out of these 275 returned questionnaires, we had to reject 25 based on incomplete answers. Therefore, 250 valid questionnaires were finally retained. This sample of 250 respondents was made up of 54% Africans, 26% Europeans, 10% Latin-Caribbeans, and 10% Asians. From a gender perspective, the sample was made up of 27% men and 73% women. As for the sectors of activity envisaged for their future businesses, among the 101 participants who answered this question, 18% targeted restaurants, 15% groceries, 12% services related to new technologies, and 9% retail sales (see Table 1).

We tested the different scales used to ensure their convergent validity, discriminant validity, and reliability. To this end, an exploratory factorial analysis was carried out on all the items making up each of the multi-item variables used in our IEI model. We first verified the relevance of the factorial analysis by using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test to evaluate the homogeneity of the items. The results presented in Table 2 below show that there is a factorial solution for each of the variables because the KMO values are more significant than 0.5 (Kaiser, 1974). In addition, the factor analysis confirmed the unidimensional structure of the scales used because, for each of the variables, only one eigenvalue is greater than 1. The proportion of the total variance explained by each factor is also consistent with the recommendations in the literature (Child, 1990). In addition to the exploratory factorial analysis, we used Cronbach’s alpha to examine the internal reliability of each of the constructs used in our model. The results of this test reveal that the different constructs have an acceptable level of internal consistency.

In addition, the mean, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations between the independent and dependent variables are presented in Table 3. In this study, correlations analysis confirmed a statistically significant relationship between EI and all its three antecedents, according to the TPB. There is also a statistically significant relationship between some exogenous variables and EI antecedents (endogenous variables). Testing further for structural validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), the square root of the variance shared between the constructs and their measures (average variance extracted, AVE) was analysed. Table 3 reveals that the square root of AVE is in all cases larger than the bivariate correlations, thus confirming structural validity.

It should be stated from the outset that we tested two models in succession, one with a social network (Model 1) and the other without a social network (Model 2). Since social network ties (H5a,b,c) were all found to be insignificant, this variable and all other insignificant relations (H3a,b; H4c; H6a,b; H7a,b) were removed from the initial model to test whether the adjustment would, at best, improve or, at worst, be maintained.

The results presented in Table 4 below show that the structural model proposed without considering the network (Model 2) is overall well fitted and can therefore be used to test our different research hypotheses. All the models were tested with MPlus 6.1 (Muthén and Muthén, 2010). The criteria used to assess the fit quality of this model are the Chi-square ratio to the degree of freedom (χ2/df = 1.401), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.040, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.968, and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.923. A comparison of these different indicators’ values with those recommended in the literature: χ2/df ≤ 3, RMSEA ≤0.1, CFI ≥ 0.90, TLI ≥ 0.90 (Segars and Grover, 1993; Gefen et al., 2000) shows that the estimated model is well fitted. Moreover, Chi-square is insignificant. In addition, most of the estimated relationships are significant. Except for H1c and H2b, all the other research hypotheses are validated. Thus, our results show that immigrants’ attitudes toward entrepreneurship and their perception of subjective norms positively affect their EI. Hypotheses 1a and 1b are therefore validated. The results also indicate that H3c, H4a, and H4b on the relationships between individual variables and the antecedents of intention are validated. Similarly, the hypotheses on the relationships between contextual variables and perceived behavioural control (H6c, H7c) are validated. As for the relationships between EI antecedents, Hypothesis 2a, which postulates that attitudes towards entrepreneurship positively affect subjective norms, has been validated.

The results of Model 1 are also presented in Table 3; they show that the structural model incorporating social networks is generally well-fitted, as was the previous model. The adjustment indices show that the model fits well with the data: the Chi-square ratio to the degree of freedom (χ²/df) = 1.296, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.034, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.967, and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.934. Apart from the hypotheses about bridging social networks, which appear to have no significant effect, all relationships in the model maintained their significance level.

Figure 2 summarizes the results of the final empirical model with all the relationships tested. When comparing the standardised coefficients represented in this Figure, it is clear that the magnitudes of the standardised coefficients differ. Perceived risk as a threat was related to personal attitude (β = −0.126, significant at 5%) and subjective norms (β = 0.154, significant at 5%), confirming H4a and H4b, respectively. Entrepreneurial experience was related to perceived behavioural control (β = 0.406, significant at 1%), which partially confirms H3. Cultural difference in entrepreneurship was related to perceived behavioural control (β = −0.179, significant at 1%), which partially confirms H6. Institutional entrepreneurial support offered by formal institution was linked to perceived behavioural control (β = 0.126, significant at 10%), which partly confirms H7.

Theoretically, this study makes several important contributions to immigrant entrepreneurship. First, we connect immigration with entrepreneurship to integrate mixed embeddedness with the TPB, both conceptually and empirically on a cognitive level. Based on our assessment, both TPB and mixed embeddedness logics are important to understand the relevance of the IEI formation process. This indicates new theoretical linkages that have rich potential for theory and research in immigrant entrepreneurship. This study extends the TPB by contributing significantly to the limited literature on factors driving the immigrants’ intention process to become entrepreneurs in their host country. In this article, we are concerned with the antecedent drivers of IEI, and whether these are different from the drivers of traditional EI. Since both immigrant and traditional entrepreneurship are desirable for economic growth, global competitiveness and entrepreneurship diversity, it is important to understand how both types of entrepreneurships behaviour emerge. This empirical study confirms the plausibility of TPB in understanding the antecedents of intention to start a business by immigrants. It has clearly shown the importance of several factors that are often overlooked in previous works on IEI. The goodness of fit of the model validates the inclusion of these factors in the TPB when predicting EI of immigrants. Moreover, while the evidence from the literature shows that the TPB variables have been extensively studied in the decisions of individuals to engage with an intention to start a business in various contexts, studies that engage immigrant entrepreneurs’ intention formation process are rare. The inclusion of such previously unexplored factors fills important knowledge gaps and enriches the understanding of their effects on the EI of immigrants in host countries, under a holistic decision-making process (Douglas, 2020). Second, it also enriches the theory by comforting the TPB against “the problem of ‘inclined abstainers’, individuals who form an intention and subsequently fail to act, that has been a recognized limitation of the TPB” (Sniehotta et al., 2014, p.2). Third, it improves the understanding of the mixed embeddedness approach, by adding the effects of country of origin (which are part of cognition), a neglected aspect that recently drew criticism (Zhu et al., 2023). The approach is a Waldinger et al.’s (1990) interactive model refined by adding new elements limited to the host country-specific institutional frameworks (Kloosterman and Rath, 2018). Finally, to the best of our knowledge, entrepreneurial culture distance in entrepreneurship research has not been adequately addressed previously. In doing so, this study advances theoretical conceptualization in the field of immigrant entrepreneurship. Furthermore, the IEI formation process cannot be adequately described without addressing the factors holistically, through learning and cultural sensitivity. This logical argument (close to cognitive embeddedness: Dequech, 2003) that underpins this study helped us to identify which factors should be studied, as well as how and why they are inter-linked.

The operationalization of cultural distance of entrepreneurship concept is intended as an empirical contribution to existing knowledge on immigrant entrepreneurship. This study empirically tests an entrepreneurial model based on the relationship of belief-attitude-intention framework developed by several authors such as Krueger (2009). We present an integrative model integrating individual and contextual dimensions along with psychological factors that jointly form the immigrant entrepreneurship intention formation process. This study differs from the study of Zhu et al. (2023) where variables like entrepreneurial cultural differences were absent.

The importance of our research lies, first, in the fact it provides a valuable piece of information to those in charge of entrepreneurial support and decision-makers who seek to further promote the emergence of entrepreneurial activity in immigration context. Immigrants cannot claim to become entrepreneurs merely on the basis of an identity (Kirkley, 2016). As entrepreneurship is a learning process (Lin et al., 2023), even more so is entrepreneurial intention itself. We argue that EI is also a learning process with regards to the way enterprises are doing business. Second, analysis across the world’s entrepreneurial ecosystems displays common challenges posed by an entrepreneurial culture to develop and transmit and how to ensure that individuals who wish to start a business actually take action (GEM, 2020). The study affords clear implications of theory for problem-solving in immigrant integration situations. Immigrants should ‘learn to undertake’ for ensuring progress in the process. Rather than developing rigid policy instruments, our results allude to the importance of encouraging the entrepreneurial mindset and network of immigrants. The problem is not just taking action, but rather persisting in action. This requires integral embeddedness. We therefore support and plead for formal experience-based training. Third, if our results show that perceived risk can weaken the passion for entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial behaviour reality and contexts require individuals to get familiar with local entrepreneurial culture. Examining culture at a more granular level than previous research reveals that entrepreneurial culture is a shared liability issue: the liability of foreignness behoves the immigrant to learn the local entrepreneurial culture whereas the liability of the host country consists of cultivating such culture in a way that allows learning it to boost the entrepreneurial mindset. Empowering immigrants’ entrepreneurial intention through entrepreneurial culture is the key. Policy makers should take action to help their entrepreneurial ecosystems to thrive by strengthening human capital, addressing local/national inequalities through promoting cohesive, inclusive, and sustainable entrepreneurship. To support integration through entrepreneurship, destination countries should help the immigrants in improving their human and social capital. Consequently, this would lessen the disadvantage they face in their host countries. Finally, in international business literature, several recent studies have begun to focus on the joint effect of formal and informal institutions (Shen et al., 2023). The results of our study are consistent with this and call for institutional complementarity in the support to be offered to immigrant entrepreneurs.