The key to successful business development in this industry is understanding the market from a regional perspective as Canada is a large country with different local dynamics.
successful business development is an unspecific activity, so no article is used.
regional perspective is one of several possible perspectives (views), so I would use a.
dynamics is plural, so no article.
The proof of their success is evident in acquisition interest by larger players and ongoing creation of smaller companies by their former employees.
interest here would be one of several "interests", or "interest" in general. So optional article use here.
larger players and smaller companies are plural so no article.
Here are your two sentences with the correct use of articles, and I've tried to explain my reasoning afterwards. In fact, I only added the indefinite article "a" to "regional perspective" and the rest was already correct.
The key to successful business development in this industry is
understanding the market from a regional perspective as Canada is a
large country with different local dynamics.
The proof of their success is evident in acquisition interest by
larger players and ongoing creation of smaller companies by their
former employees.
Successful business development:
—Takes no article, because "development" is not a count noun.
Regional perspective:
—Takes the article "a" because you're talking about understanding something from "a perspective" and "perspective" is countable (ie, your perspective, 3 different perspectives, etc.)
Different local dynamics:
—Takes no article, because "dynamics" despite being a count noun, is plural and indefinite. If you were referring to specific dynamics, however, you might say something like "The business dynamics in Ontario in the 90s...".
Acquisition interest:
—Takes no article because interest is a mass noun in this context (interest in general as opposed to "my interests in art").
Larger Players:
—Takes no article, because "players," despite being a count noun, is plural and indefinite. Unless you were talking about specific players (ie., comparing the larger players to the smaller players)
Smaller Companies:
—Same as "players"... takes no article for the same reasons.
Best Answer
Yes, sort of. A determiner, which includes articles, has to be there. Other classes include, possessive pronouns and nouns (e.g. my, your, John's) and demonstratives (e.g. this, that). Something, often an article, has to grant that shirt a sort of relative presence in the universe. Thus the red shirt, a red shirt, John's red shirt, that red shirt -- they all work. What does not work is red shirt with no word summarizing how it fits in the universe.
I understand that certain other languages do not require determiners. Or rather, context or some grammatical structure besides determiners accomplishes the same purpose. It is difficult to imagine a language which had no way of differentiating that red shirt from Tom's red shirt from any red shirt.
Inspired by Satnam's answer, let's look at plural nouns:
Note that neither of the plural nouns has an obvious determiner. How can that be? It would appear English sometimes uses the context of plurality to apply an invisible or assumed determiner. The words any, the, and some would be good candidates. These vary in subtle ways:
The possibility exists that there are no red shirts, and perhaps not even any boys.
Both boys and red shirts exist.
This case has strong implications that there may be girls or adults, and that some of the boys' shirts may not be red. Neither of the first two rule out those possibilities though, nor does this case require them.
Any vagueness of meaning could have been avoided by choosing actual determiners instead of leaving it to the listener or reader to decide. But if it doesn't matter to the author/speaker, so be it.