This study is guided by three key objectives. Firstly, it aims to analyse how DIHs integrate multi- and inter-disciplinary approaches (such as business development, digital technology, education and policy) to foster entrepreneurship across African innovation ecosystems. By bringing together these diverse domains, DIHs serve as collaborative platforms that address complex socio-economic challenges faced by startups and SMEs. Secondly, the study seeks to evaluate DIHs as models for economic growth and development, particularly in how they facilitate access to finance, skills, prototyping infrastructure and market linkages that accelerate business viability and scale. Thirdly, the research aims to propose actionable strategies for scaling the impact of DIHs across varied African economies. This includes recommendations on policy alignment, regional integration, public–private partnerships (PPPs) and inclusive design to ensure that DIHs remain sustainable, accessible and transformative across the continent.

The KSTE posits that unintended knowledge diffusion fuels entrepreneurial activity by enabling individuals and organisations to build on innovations they did not originally create (Acs et al. 2009). Traditionally facilitated by geographic proximity and informal exchanges within industrial clusters, these processes are amplified in DIHs through digital technologies, structured programming and institutional partnerships. The DIHs create knowledge-rich environments where startups benefit from co-location, collaboration and curated learning through workshops, hackathons and online repositories. Digital tools such as virtual platforms and cloud environments extend these spillovers beyond physical proximity, accelerating knowledge flows (Ferreira, Ratten & Dana 2017; Madaleno et al. 2022). This study highlights three mechanisms through which DIHs enhance spillovers, namely cross-fertilisation of ideas, derisked innovation and collaborative learning spaces. By fostering collaboration among startups, academia and corporates, DIHs stimulate new product development and inter-sectoral knowledge transfer (Braunerhjelm, Ding & Thulin 2018). They also provide access to research facilities and mentorship that reduce innovation costs and uncertainties (Audretsch, Belitski & Caiazza 2021). Structured programmes, such as accelerators and peer exchanges, further reinforce iterative knowledge loops, strengthening entrepreneurial capabilities (Shu et al. 2020).

The study also extends the theory by underscoring the significance of unintentional knowledge diffusion within DIHs. Informal sharing occurs through co-working spaces and mentor interactions, which aligns with Block, Thurik and Zhou’s (2013) assertion that knowledge benefits others without direct compensation. Moreover, DIHs are formalising mechanisms to measure spillover effects using KPIs such as joint venture formations and collaboration indices to track knowledge transfer in digital contexts (Ferreira et al. 2017; Kalpaka et al. 2020; Sassanelli et al. 2021). The KSTE remains central to understanding DIHs’ role in Africa’s digital economy, where digital platforms and data sharing tools replicate the benefits of physical clusters (Ferreira et al. 2017; Porter 2000). Embedding this framework in Africa’s maturing innovation systems illustrates how DIHs can catalyse inclusive economic development by enhancing innovation capacity and knowledge-based inclusion in underserved regions (Dheer 2017; DiMaggio & Powell 1983).

Institutional Theory offers a valuable lens for understanding how DIHs shape entrepreneurial activity by influencing the norms, structures and behaviours startups adopt to gain legitimacy (DiMaggio & Powell 1983). Within DIHs, these institutional forces are operationalised through formal support structures such as mentorship, digital training, funding access and policy-aligned initiatives that collectively reduce startup risk and enhance legitimacy (Covin & Miller 2014; Dubey et al. 2019).

The theory further highlights mimetic isomorphism, wherein startups strategically emulate successful peers to gain validation and market acceptance (Covin & Miller 2014). This is particularly relevant in African contexts, where informal entrepreneurial pathways dominate and alignment with prevailing hub practices fosters trust and legitimacy (Dheer 2017). The DIHs also serve as socio-organisational anchors, embedding dominant business models while lowering entry barriers for underrepresented groups such as youth and women (Glynn & D’aunno 2023; Van Wijk et al. 2019). Moreover, digital mechanisms such as online mentorship, virtual demo days and automated services extend institutional support beyond geographic boundaries, creating new forms of legitimacy through digital competence and engagement (Ferreira et al. 2017).

Although Institutional Theory has been critiqued for neglecting power dynamics, this study recognises the varying influence of stakeholders such as funders, corporates, academia and governments within DIHs (Aksom 2023; Drori 2019). Effective hubs mitigate these dynamics by fostering inclusive, transparent and multistakeholder governance structures. Thus, DIHs are positioned not merely as innovation spaces but as evolving institutions that legitimise, sustain and connect entrepreneurial ecosystems, bridging informal and formal economies and enabling startups to navigate complex regulatory and financial landscapes (David, Tolbert & Boghossian 2019; DiMaggio & Powell 1983; Dubey et al. 2019).

Originally advanced by Marshall (1961) and later by Porter (1990, 2000), Cluster Theory posits that geographic concentration of firms fosters innovation, efficiency and competitiveness through shared infrastructure, workforce and informal knowledge exchange. The DIHs embody this principle by functioning as spatial and functional clusters for entrepreneurial development, offering shared services such as internet access, labs, co-working spaces and advisory support, which lower entry costs, encourage collaboration and foster early-stage innovation (Madaleno et al. 2022; Spigel & Harrison 2018).

This study extends Cluster Theory by highlighting digital clustering, where DIHs leverage digital platforms, remote collaboration tools and online training to replicate the benefits of physical proximity, particularly relevant in Africa’s dispersed geographies. The DIHs also act as microclusters embedded within broader regional innovation systems, linking startups to universities, investors and global partners, thereby amplifying local capabilities (Rudawska 2022; Zamiri et al. 2021).

Traditional cluster models have been critiqued for a narrow economic focus (Bathelt, Malmberg & Maskell 2004). However, DIHs adopt a more holistic approach by supporting social entrepreneurs and creative industries alongside tech startups, integrating social innovation and community engagement. However, the study also acknowledges inclusivity challenges within clustering, urging DIHs to actively ensure that benefits extend beyond elite actors through targeted outreach and support for underserved groups.

Thus, DIHs advance Cluster Theory by integrating digital infrastructure, broadening co-location concepts and embedding inclusive clustering strategies. They emerge as critical innovation nodes driving regional competitiveness, cross-sectoral collaboration and systemic entrepreneurial growth.

The study population comprised DIH managers and startup founders with direct experience in DIH ecosystems. To ensure diversity in geographic representation and functionality, purposive sampling was employed. The study focused on the 12 inaugural DIHs established under the AEDIBNet, which span nine African countries, namely South Africa, Senegal, the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, Cameroon, Tanzania, Tunisia, Egypt, Kenya and Rwanda. These hubs were selected because of their early role in piloting DIH models on the continent, thereby offering a valuable empirical base for exploring their developmental impact.

For DIH managers, one representative per DIH was targeted; thus, 12 managers were invited and six were interviewed (50% participation), with non-participation largely because of hubs still being established or not yet operational. For startup founders, the sampling frame comprised entrepreneurs affiliated with the only DIH in South Africa, selected because it is one of the AEDIBNet DIHs and because it provided easy accessibility. From a targeted sample of 79 founders, 28 interviews were completed (35% participation). A total of 11 invitations bounced, and the remainder did not respond, likely because of business closures or personal choice.

Data were collected using semi-structured interview guides tailored to each participant group. The manager guide focused on hub design, governance, functions and ecosystem engagement, while the entrepreneur guide emphasised experiences of support, challenges and perceived impact of DIHs on business growth. Interviews were conducted between March and September 2023 on the virtual Zoom platform. Each interview lasted between 45 and 60 min and was audio recorded with participants’ consent.

The interviews were transcribed and analysed manually using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase thematic analysis framework. As such, initial coding was conducted in spreadsheets to capture recurring ideas, which were then clustered into themes and sub-themes through iterative review and refinement. The emerging themes were compared against the study’s theoretical lenses (KSTE, Institutional Theory and Cluster Theory) to ensure analytical alignment. Trustworthiness was enhanced through peer debriefing and reflexive methods, which helped to validate coding decisions and strengthen the credibility of interpretations.

To ensure rigour, the study applied the four criteria of trustworthiness. These are: (1) credibility; (2) transferability; (3) dependability; and (4) confirmability. Credibility was supported by triangulating managers’ and entrepreneurs’ perspectives, while transferability was facilitated by providing detailed contextual descriptions. Dependability was enhanced by maintaining an audit trail of coding decisions and confirmability was achieved through reflexive journaling and peer debriefing.

Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Pretoria on 13 March 2023. The ethical clearance number is EMS236/22. All participants provided written informed consent before their involvement in the research. To ensure the confidentiality and anonymity of participants, no identifying information such as names, affiliations or specific locations was disclosed in any part of the data analysis or reporting. Data were securely stored in password-protected digital files accessible only to the researcher. Ethical standards were upheld throughout all phases of the research before, during and after data collection; there was a continuous commitment to protecting the dignity, privacy and voluntary participation of all respondents. This reflects a comprehensive and ongoing application of ethical research principles beyond mere procedural compliance.

The study included 34 participants, as mentioned. These included six DIH managers drawn from the 12 inaugural AEDIBNet hubs across nine African countries and 28 startup founders affiliated with the only hub in South Africa under the AEDIBNet. The managers (coded M1–M6) were responsible for designing and implementing hub activities, with professional backgrounds spanning ICT, entrepreneurship support and policy coordination, and an average of more than 5 years of experience in innovation ecosystems. The entrepreneurs (coded E1–E28) reflected diversity in gender, education, and sectors such as fintech, agritech and creative industries, with between 1 and 6 years in business. Demographic and professional details are summarised in Table 1 and Table 2, and this coding system is applied throughout the results section to attribute perspectives and illustrative quotations. The profiles highlight inclusivity, particularly in legitimising the participation of youth and women, while also revealing the uneven yet promising pathways of African startups, where early fragility coexists with signs of resilience and growth potential.

Table 1 and Table 2 present the demographic and professional profiles of the study participants. The six DIH managers (M1–M6) were relatively young but professionally qualified, with most holding postgraduate degrees, and represented a balanced gender mix across diverse national contexts. Their backgrounds in ICT, entrepreneurship support and policy underscore the professionalisation of African DIHs and the growing diversity in hub leadership. In contrast, the 28 entrepreneurs (E1–E28) displayed greater variation, ranging from early-stage founders with no employees and negligible revenues to more established ventures employing multimember teams and generating annual revenues above ZAR500 000.00, with one exceeding ZAR2 million. These contrasts illustrate both the fragility and the growth potential of African startups, while also highlighting the inclusivity of DIHs in legitimising the participation of youth and women. Taken together, these profiles establish the foundation for the thematic findings that follow, which draw on the coded perspectives of managers and entrepreneurs to illustrate the catalytic role of DIHs in shaping entrepreneurial activity.

The analysis revealed six interrelated pillars of impact that collectively illustrate how DIHs catalyse inclusive and sustainable innovation across African contexts. These pillars include: (1) startup empowerment; (2) inclusive economies; (3) ecosystem integration; (4) transformative education; (5) sustainability practices; and (6) policy alignment. They represent the multidimensional outcomes of DIH activity. Together, they depict DIHs as adaptive institutional infrastructures that nurture entrepreneurial capability, bridge opportunity gaps and embed innovation within broader developmental systems. The sections that follow unpack each of these thematic pillars. The subsections will show how DIHs extend beyond their technical functions to operate as catalysts of entrepreneurial transformation, social inclusion and systemic ecosystem strengthening across diverse African environments.

While this study provided valuable insights into the role of DIHs in Africa’s entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems, several limitations should be acknowledged. Firstly, the study employed a qualitative design focused on a purposive sample of DIH managers and startup founders, which, while rich in depth, may limit the generalisability of findings across all African DIHs. Secondly, the analysis centred primarily on DIHs affiliated with the AEDIBNet initiative, which may represent more structured or better-resourced hubs compared to less formalised or community-based innovation spaces. Thirdly, the reliance on self-reported data through interviews may introduce subjective biases, particularly regarding perceptions of impact and success. Lastly, the study’s geographic representation, while diverse, was not exhaustive, and future research could benefit from a more comprehensive regional spread and inclusion of longitudinal data to assess long-term outcomes of DIHs. Addressing these limitations in future studies will strengthen the empirical base for understanding the systemic value and sustainability of DIHs across Africa’s evolving digital economy.

Building on the findings of this study, future research should explore the longitudinal impact of DIHs on startup sustainability, job creation and regional development across diverse African contexts. Quantitative or mixed-methods approaches could complement the current qualitative insights by measuring outcomes such as venture survival rates, revenue growth and innovation diffusion. Furthermore, comparative studies between urban and rural-based DIHs would offer a nuanced understanding of spatial dynamics in innovation access and inclusion. Scope also exists to deepen theoretical contributions by examining how emerging constructs such as digital legitimacy, hybrid governance and inclusive innovation metrics evolve within DIH ecosystems. Moreover, policy-focused research could investigate how national innovation strategies and regional frameworks, such as AfCFTA, can better integrate and support DIHs as formal institutions. Expanding the analysis to include community-driven hubs and informal innovation networks will further enrich the understanding of Africa’s innovation landscape and the contextual adaptability of DIH models.

This article contributed to the growing scholarship on entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystems in Africa by providing empirical insights into the evolving role of DIHs in promoting inclusive and sustainable entrepreneurship. It advanced contextual understanding by showing how DIHs in Africa are being adapted to address persistent challenges such as digital exclusion, youth unemployment and informal entrepreneurship. Drawing on evidence from 12 DIHs under the AEDIBNet initiative, the study highlighted how these hubs function as context-responsive mechanisms that integrate digital capability building, mentorship and ecosystem linkages within resource-constrained environments.

Theoretically, the article integrated KSTE, Institutional Theory and Cluster Theory into a unified framework. It offered a robust lens to explain how DIHs operate as ecosystem nodes that enable knowledge exchange, confer legitimacy and foster both physical and digital clustering. By grounding these theories in African contexts, the study extended their applicability to digitally mediated, resource-constrained environments.

Practically, the study identified emerging lessons for policymakers, ecosystem builders and development partners. The findings pointed to the importance of public–private collaboration, alignment with continental frameworks such as AfCFTA and sustainable funding models that strengthen the long-term viability of DIHs. In addition, the evidence underscored the value of gender responsive and socially inclusive approaches that expand participation and ensure equitable access to digital and entrepreneurial opportunities.

Finally, the study enriched multidisciplinary innovation literature by capturing the perspectives of DIH managers and startup founders. This illustrated how DIHs drive entrepreneurship, digital transformation and cross-sector collaboration. In doing so, the article positioned DIHs not only as digital support centres but as institutional innovations central to reshaping Africa’s entrepreneurial and economic trajectory.