Small Bus Econ (2022) 59:1541–1565 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00590-6 Corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review and future research agenda David Urbano · Andreu Turro · Mike Wright · Shaker Zahra Accepted: 28 November 2021 / Published online: 5 January 2022 © The Author(s) 2022 Abstract This article analyzes the state of the art of to it. This limits our understanding of accumulated the research on corporate entrepreneurship, develops knowledge in this area and hampers the development a conceptual framework that connects its antecedents of further research. Our review addresses these short- and consequences, and offers an agenda for future comings, providing a roadmap for future research. research. We review 310 papers published in entre- preneurship and management journals, providing an Plain English Summary This review analyzes the assessment of the current state of research and, subse- articles published in the corporate entrepreneurship quently, we suggest research avenues in three different field and presents the future research agenda. Research areas: corporate entrepreneurship antecedents, dimen- agrees that corporate entrepreneurship has a positive sions and consequences. Even though a significant part impact on firms’ profits and growth. This has generated of the overall corporate entrepreneurship literature has an increase in the number of research articles published appeared in the last decade, most literature reviews in this area. However, previous literature has some limi- were published earlier. These reviews typically cover tations and areas that should be further explored. First, a single dimension of the corporate entrepreneurship there are many different definitions and terms to refer phenomenon and, therefore, do not provide a global to corporate entrepreneurship activities. This makes perspective on the existing literature. In addition, cor- it difficult to understand the current state of corporate porate entrepreneurship has been studied from different entrepreneurship research. Second, we lack up to date fields and there are different approaches and definitions comprehensive literature reviews summarizing the D. Urbano (*) · A. Turro M. Wright Department of Business, Universitat Autònoma de Centre for Management Buy‑Out Research, Imperial Barcelona, Building B, Campus UAB, 08913 ‑ Cerdanyola College Business School University of Ghent, Exhibition del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain Road, London SW7 2AZ, UK e-mail: david.urbano@uab.cat e-mail: mike.wright@imperial.ac.uk A. Turro S. Zahra e-mail: andreu.turro@uab.cat Strategic Management & Entrepreneurship Department, Carlson School of Management, Gary S. Holmes Center D. Urbano · A. Turro for Entrepreneurship, 3‑430 Carlson School, Minneapolis, Centre for Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation MN, USA Research (CREIS), Universitat Autònoma Barcelona, e-mail: zahra004@umn.edu Building S, Campus Sabadell UAB, C/ Emprius 2, 08202 ‑ Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain Vol.: (0123456789) 13 1542 D. Urbano et al. knowledge and advances generated in the field in the previous research has used interchangeably differ- last years. Overall, the objective of this research is to ent terms, such as, intrapreneurship (Pinchot, 1985), explore the content and evolution of corporate entre- corporate venturing (McMillan, 1986) or corporate preneurship research. This research contributes by sum- internal entrepreneurship (Schollhammer, 1982) as marizing and synthesizing the main findings in previ- synonyms of CE (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001; Parker, ous literature. It also contributes by identifying relevant 2011). These differences in terminology and the fact inconsistencies and ambiguities in previous literature that some studies do not build on each other make that have prevented the development of certain areas it difficult to evaluate and compare results across within the corporate entrepreneurship field. studies (Narayanan et al., 2009). Overall, this limits our understanding of the CE phenomenon, hamper Keywords Corporate entrepreneurship · the development of further knowledge in this area, Intrapreneurship · Corporate venturing · Strategic and make it more difficult to establish relations and renewal · Systematic literature review · Bibliometrics boundaries with other relevant constructs (Shepherd et al., 2015). JEL Classification L25 · L26 In addition, there are few literature reviews focus- ing specifically on the CE phenomenon (Dess et al., 2003; Narayanan et al., 2009; Phan et al., 2009). 1 Introduction Moreover, most of these articles focus only on spe- cific dimensions of the CE phenomenon, and thus do Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) has generated con- not provide an overall perspective on the literature in siderable research attention because of its importance this field. This limits the capacity of these studies to to corporate vitality and economic wealth generation provide an integrative framework that summarizes (Dess et al., 2003). Past studies from several comple- and captures the state-of-the-art literature in the CE mentary fields, such as strategy, finance, entrepre- field. Narayanan et al. (2009), for example, exam- neurship or marketing, have contributed to a better ine corporate venturing and propose an organizing understanding of complex and dynamic entrepreneur- and integrative framework to guide future research. ship within established organizations (Hornsby, et al., Similarly, Minola et al. (2016) focus on corporate 2013). CE is widely considered important for facili- venturing in family businesses. In the case of Dess tating a firm’s efforts to exploit its current competi- et al. (2003), the authors attempt to identify emerg- tive advantages and explore new opportunities and ing issues in CE by focusing specifically on its role the competencies required to pursue them success- in inducing and cultivating organizational learning. fully. Hence, it is widely viewed as contributing to the Therefore, while informative, these analyses are lim- evolution of a firm’s corporate strategy (Ireland et al., ited since other CE fundamental activities (such as 2003) by building new capabilities and businesses innovation or strategic renewal) are not part of their that enable renewal, foster strategic change and remit. Thus, we are missing an up to date comprehen- enhance a company’s profits and growth (Narayanan sive review that covers the knowledge and advances et al., 2009; Zahra & Hayton, 2008; Zahra, 1996a). generated in the field. In this regard, systematic litera- However, despite the growing research in the last ture reviews are particularly appropriate approaches few years, there are aspects where we still lack under- to highlight the key contents from the literature in a standing (Hornsby et al., 2009; Phan et al., 2009) as structured way. Focusing on aspects such as the most “the theoretical and empirical knowledge about the prestigious journals, the most relevant authors in the domain of CE and the entrepreneurial behavior on field or analyzing the specific contents studied, can which it is based are still key issues that warrant a contribute to provide an enhanced understanding deeper understanding” (Kuratko et al., 2015, p.247). about the trend a research field is taking (Mourao & Since it has been studied from different fields, dif- Martinho, 2020). It is important to address this gap to ferent definitions and approaches to the CE phe- provide a meaningful assessment of how the CE liter- nomenon have appeared (Simba & Thai, 2019). This ature has continued to evolve beyond earlier reviews fragmentation makes it more difficult to understand and to set out new directions for research in this the current state of CE research. In this regard, some area. Hence, this article addresses the question: How Vol:. (1234567890) 13 Corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review and future research agenda 1543 has the field of corporate entrepreneurship research Finally, we position our findings in relation to existing evolved, as reflected in articles published in top literature and suggest future research directions. management and entrepreneurship journals? Based on this, we develop a systematic literature review and provide a conceptual framework and agenda for 2 Definitions and scope future research. This article makes several contributions to litera- CE research focuses on ways in which companies cre- ture. First, we develop a systematic literature review ate new businesses that generate new revenue streams of 310 papers published in the top journals of the and value for shareholders (Narayanan et al., 2009). management and entrepreneurship fields and we ana- In this regard, the concept of CE has evolved over lyze and discuss key aspects in the CE literature (such time and several definitions have appeared. Guth and as, the most cited articles, authors and topics of anal- Ginsberg (1990) explained that CE embodies two ysis). In addition, through a citation and co-citation different phenomena: new venture creation within analysis, we provide a map that explains the intellec- existing organizations and the transformation of on- tual structure of the CE phenomenon (Ramos-Rodri- going organizations through strategic renewal. One guez & Ruiz-Navarro, 2004). Hence, we contribute of the most extensively used definitions is that by by summarizing and synthesizing the main findings Sharma and Chrisman (1999, p. 18). They define it in previous literature. In doing so, we develop a con- as “the process whereby an individual or a group of ceptual framework in which we outline and assess individuals, in association with an existing organiza- the main antecedents, dimensions and consequences tion, create a new organization or instigate renewal of CE activity (Kolev et al., 2019). In this regard, or innovation within that organization.” Other previ- although a very significant part (54%)1 of the over- ous research use the terms CE and intrapreneurship all CE research has been published in the last decade, indistinctively (Hornsby et al., 2002). From this per- most literature reviews were published earlier. A few spective, Antoncic and Hisrich (2001, p. 498) use an introductions to special issues have been published even broader definition of intrapreneurship, to denote in the last years (Corbett et al., 2013; Kuratko et al., “entrepreneurship within an existing organization.” 2015; Minola et al., 2021; Phan et al., 2009). These Later, some studies explicitly differentiated between articles typically explain the relevance of the CE phe- CE and intrapreneurship (Stam, 2013). Following nomenon, summarize the evolution of the CE field Pinchot (1985), Stam refers to intrapreneurship or and suggest future research. However, these papers entrepreneurial employee activity as the development do not develop an in-depth literature review analysis of new business activities by an employee; hence, it as they focus mostly on highlighting the key findings follows a bottom-up approach. In contrast, CE is con- of the papers that are part of the special issue. Thus, sidered a decision initiated by the top management although relevant, their contributions are incomplete team and subsequently implemented to the lower as they do not provide a comprehensive overview and hierarchical levels of the organization. analysis of the research in this area. Second, we also Overall, there are different types of CE (i.e., sus- contribute by identifying relevant inconsistencies, tained regeneration, organizational rejuvenation, ambiguities and gaps in previous literature that have strategic renewal or domain redefinition) and organi- prevented a more detailed understanding of certain zations that exhibit CE are viewed as dynamic, flex- areas within the CE field. Based on this, we provide a ible entities able to take advantage of new opportuni- research agenda for the future. ties when they arise (Dess et al., 2003). Among such The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. organizations, there is an acceptance of risk and an In the next section we provide a summary of the main understanding that the outcomes of innovation are definitions on CE. Next, we explain the methodology of uncertain (Bloodgood et al., 2015). CE is concerned the study (our journal selection and systematic literature with various forms of newness (e.g., organizational review). We then describe the study’s main findings. renewal, innovation, and establishing new ventures) and affects organizational survival, growth and per- formance (Zahra, 1991, 1996a). Following Sharma 1 See Table 1 for more information. and Chrisman (1999) we adopt a broad perspective Vol.: (0123456789) 13 1544 13 Vol:. (1234567890) Table 1  Journals and published articles per year (Please note that the search ended in November 2021) Journal Total < 1980 1981–1985 1986–1990 1991–1995 1996–2000 2001–2005 2006–2010 2011–2015 2016–2020 2021 Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) 26 2 4 2 2 2 3 3 8 Journal of Management (JOM) 20 1 4 2 1 2 5 5 Journal of Management Studies (JMS) 18 2 5 2 1 8 Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) 9 1 1 3 2 2 Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) 5 1 3 1 Management Science (MS) 4 2 2 Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS) 2 1 Total management 84 1 5 5 7 5 5 16 15 15 10 Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) 78 9 16 10 5 18 9 9 2 Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (ETP) 47 1 2 7 3 12 8 12 2 Small Business Economics (SBE) 39 1 2 23 10 3 Journal of Small Business Management (JSBM) 21 1 5 13 2 Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal (SEJ) 20 3 7 10 International Small Business Journal (ISBJ) 12 1 1 5 5 Entrepreneurship and Regional Development (ERD) 9 1 5 1 2 Total entrepreneurship 226 0 0 10 18 17 12 41 58 61 9 TOTAL 310 1 5 15 25 22 17 57 73 76 19 D. Urbano et al. Corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review and future research agenda 1545 of CE. Specifically, we consider CE as those initia- organizational creativity, organizational ambidexter- tives that take place within companies and that aim ity, business model innovation or entrepreneurial ori- at creating and adding new business, or at fostering entation were excluded from our search because they innovation, change and renewal. In the next section, are beyond the scope of our analysis. we present the methodology employed to review the Second, following an approach similar to Buse- literature using this broad approach. nitz et al. (2014) and Marvel et al. (2016), our search was restricted to top or high impact journals in order to control for overall research quality. From this per- 3 Methodology spective, the first search round focused on those out- lets that are widely agreed to be top journals in the We conducted a systematic literature review and management field. The journals included have the used a bibliometric approach to analyze and describe highest five-year impact factor in the 2020 Journals the findings. Analyzing the bibliometric structure Citations Report (JCR).2 These are: Journal of Man- of a specific body of literature allows for increased agement (JOM, 16.662), Academy of Management objectivity (compared with other forms of literature Journal (AMJ, 15.873), Administrative Science Quar- review) and enables the researcher to sift through terly (ASQ, 14.365), Journal of International Business large amounts of data (Wallin, 2012). Bibliometrics Studies (JIBS, 13.555), Strategic Management Journal (combined with author citation analysis techniques) (SMJ, 12.226), Journal of Management Studies (JMS, have found advocates in the fields of entrepreneurship 10.960), and Management Science (MS, 6.619). This and innovation (Schildt et al., 2006). To our knowl- first search round yielded 100 articles, however, only 84 edge, this approach has not yet been undertaken in the remained as 16 were discarded. The reason for this is specific CE literature. that although they appeared in the results of the initial Our research was carried out in several steps. First, search, when analyzing the papers in detail, they used as other authors in the management and entrepre- the above terms only in the references section (not in neurship fields (e.g., Schildt et al., 2006), we used the title, abstract, keywords or text of the articles). the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) from the Subsequently, we searched the top entrepreneur- Web of Science to search for conceptual and empiri- ship and small business journals with the highest cal articles. We analyzed exclusively full-length arti- five-year impact factor in the 2020 JCR. These are: cles as they are considered to be validated knowledge Journal of Business Venturing (JBV, 15.732), Entre- (López-Duarte et al., 2016; Phan et al., 2009; Urbano preneurship Theory and Practice (ETP, 15.191), et al., 2019). Doctoral theses, books or conference Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal (SEJ, 10.636), proceedings were not considered in this review. The Small Business Economics (SBE, 8.139), Interna- search was conducted following the most commonly tional Small Business Journal (ISBJ, 7.220), Journal used terms in the literature to describe the entrepre- of Small Business Management (JSBM, 6.799), and neurial activities that occur within organizations: Entrepreneurship and Regional Development (ERD, “corporate entrepreneurship,” “intrapreneurship,” 6.142). Using the previous criteria, in this second “corporate venture,” “corporate venturing,” “internal round, out of a total of 283 articles, 226 remained. entrepreneurship,” “strategic renewal,” “entrepreneur- Overall, this search yielded 310 papers. The appen- ial employee activity,” “sustained regeneration,” and dix of this paper provides a list of all the articles “organizational rejuvenation.” We searched for these included. words in the title, abstract, keywords, and text of the Third, all papers were read, analyzed, coded, and articles and did not limit our search to any specific classified by the authors. Differences in classification period of time. Hence, the oldest paper dates back to 1969 (Westfall, 1969) and the most recent were published in 2021 (the search ended in November 2 2021). These terms are consistent with the definitions The journals are part of the Business and Management cat- and forms of CE mentioned above. It is extremely egories. Initially, we searched in the Finance and Economics categories as well. However, no articles were found in these unlikely that an article related to CE is published categories. For the same reason, the Marketing and Consumer without using them. Other related terms, such as, research journals were also dismissed. Vol.: (0123456789) 13 1546 D. Urbano et al. were resolved by discussion between the authors. The Table 2  Most cited articles following information was collected for each article: Article Total cita- authors’ names, number of authors per article, publi- tions in cation year, publication journal, theoretical perspec- SSCI tive, research objective, type of research (theoretical Miller (1983) 2203 or empirical), methodology and research technique Anderson et al. (2014) 1136 applied, level of analysis, database origin (country), Ahuja and Morris Lampert (2001) 1105 authors’ affiliation (country), main findings, number Burgelman (1983) 1096 of citations and reference list. In addition, we use a Zahra and Covin (1995) 927 co-citation analysis which is defined as the frequency Zahra (1991) 645 with which two documents (or two authors) are cited Jones et al. (2011) 592 together (Small, 1973). This technique has been used Zahra (1996a) 592 to map the intellectual structure of various fields of Walter et al. (2006) 591 research such as the diffusion of innovations (Cot- Birkinshaw (1997) 552 trill et al., 1989), macroeconomics (McCain, 1983) or strategic management (Ramos-Rodriguez & Ruiz- Navarro, 2004; Shafique, 2013). This type of analysis considers that citations can be used as indicators of present and past activities of scientific work. Hence, 2011–2015 period when 73 papers were published it is based on the idea that authors cite those docu- and it is confirmed in the period 2016–2020 with 76 ments they consider to be relevant for their research papers published. This development in the last decade (Post et al., 2020). This analysis was performed using is explained by the entrepreneurship journals (rather VOSviewer (Mourao & Martinho, 2020; van Eck & than the management ones) and is related to the pub- Waltman, 2010). lication of several special issues (Bettinelli et al., 2017; Covin & Lumpkin, 2011; Kuratko et al., 2015). Overall, 54% of research in the CE field published in 4 Findings top and high impact journals has appeared in the last decade (168 out of the 310 papers studied came out The results of literature reviews are often explained in 2011 or later). Table 1 also shows that this trend by differentiating between the quantitative and quali- is more evident for entrepreneurship than for man- tative aspects of the analysis (Clark et al., 2014). agement journals. In terms of specific journals, JBV From a quantitative point of view, research describes, is the most prolific as it accounts for the vast major- measures and counts the main results of the analysis. ity of publications (25% of the articles; 78 out of 310 This may include the sources of publication, authors, papers). To analyze the impact of the articles, we articles, citations or publishing countries. Con- used the number of their SSCI total citations. The versely, a qualitative analysis (e.g., content analysis) most cited article by far is that by Miller (1983) (2353 of the results includes the study of the main topics citations), which studies the determinants of entre- and trends, generally by explaining whether and how preneurship in established companies and develops a the content of the topic has evolved over time (Clark typology of three different types of firms. Table 2 pre- et al., 2014). sents information on the most cited articles. Overall, the articles reviewed are written by 537 4.1 Descriptive analysis different authors and on average, each article has 2.6 authors. The most prolific in terms of publications are Our results show that the number of articles on CE Covin (21 articles), Zahra (18 articles), and Kuratko per journal and year has increased significantly (18 articles). Table 3 shows that, for instance, the 18 (Table 1). In the period 2006–2010, 57 papers were articles published by Zahra have produced 5787 cita- published, more than three times the number of tions in SSCI, which represents 17.1% of the total articles in the previous five years (17 articles in the citations produced by the 310 articles studied. In 2001–2005 period). This trend continued in the addition, in 64% of the articles reviewed in Table 1 at Vol:. (1234567890) 13 Corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review and future research agenda 1547 Table 3  Authors sorted by Author Nº of citations Nº of articles Overall % Author’s affiliation number of articles citations Zahra, SA 5787 18 17,1 USA Covin, JG 3099 21 9,2 USA Miller, D 2627 2 7,8 Canada Kuratko, DF 2024 18 6,0 USA Burgelman, RA 1631 2 4,8 USA Hornsby, JS 1367 11 4,0 USA Anderson, N 1136 1 3,4 UK Potocnik, K 1136 1 3,4 UK Zhou, J 1136 1 3,4 USA Ahuja, G 1105 1 3,3 USA Lampert, CM 1105 1 3,3 USA least one of the authors is from a US university (198 to each other either because they belong to the same out of 310). This percentage is more than four times topic area or their topic areas are closely connected” higher than the following country, the UK (14%); 43 (Schildt et al., 2006, p. 400). Similarly, the lines link- articles (out of 310) have at least one author from a ing different circles/articles show which articles have British university. This prevalence of American (and been cited together in the same paper (to simplify the Anglo-Saxon) based researchers is common but has graph, the lines appear only for those articles that begun to change in more recent years. have been cited together 10 times or more). Most papers are empirical (76%, 237 out of 310) Overall, Fig. 1 shows that the papers on the left- and quantitative (63%, 196 articles). These articles hand side are some of the most cited articles in the use mostly data for one single country, as shown in CE (Miller, 1983) and entrepreneurial orientation Table 4, in most cases the samples used contain infor- (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996) fields. These highlight the mation only for US companies (54.1%, 106 out of relationship between CE and strategy (Burgelman, 196). In addition, studies using global datasets are not 1983a, 1983b), the effect of CE on firm performance very common in CE research since only 11.2% of the (Zahra, 1991, 1995) or, in some cases, they discuss articles use data with information for 3 or more coun- tries (22 out of 196). We also studied the differences in the number of citations depending on the method- ology applied: qualitative researches have an average Table 4  Database country of origin of 72 citations, whereas quantitative works have an Database origin Nº of articles % average of 109. These differences are statistically not USA 106 54,1 significant. 3 or more countries 22 11,2 Finally, following past practice in the literature Spain 11 5,6 (e.g., Ramos-Rodriguez & Ruiz-Navarro, 2004; 2 countries 9 4,6 Schildt et al., 2006; Wallin, 2012), Fig. 1 shows the Sweden 8 4,1 main intellectual structure of CE research (only the Italy 7 3,6 most co-cited researches are shown in the graph) China 5 2,6 where each circle represents an article. Specifically, Germany 4 2,0 the diameter of these circles (and the size of its cor- Ireland 3 1,5 responding labels) is proportional to the number of Netherlands 3 1,5 citations and articles with similar co-citation profiles UK 3 1,5 tend to show up close to each other (van Eck & Walt- Others 15 7,7 man, 2010). That is, “if two articles are cited in the Total 196 100,0 same paper, they are considered to be closely related Vol.: (0123456789) 13 1548 D. Urbano et al. Fig. 1  Intellectual structure of corporate entrepreneurship research the main definitions and issues in the field (Guth & of both antecedents and consequences of engaging in Ginsberg, 1990; Sharma & Chrisman, 1999). In con- corporate entrepreneurial activity (Zahra, 1991). For trast, the articles at the right-hand side tend to be cited instance, Antoncic and Hisrich (2001) present and together and are not very connected to the rest of the test a model that studies the effect of a set of anteced- literature. These articles on the right focus mostly on ents at different levels of analysis (organization and corporate venture capital, which appears as a separate environment). Subsequently, they measure the effect topic within CE literature, and are published more of corporate entrepreneurial activity on firm growth often in strategy and management journals than in and profitability. Similarly, Ireland et al. (2009) entrepreneurship ones (Dushnitsky & Lenox, 2005; develop an integrative model of corporate entrepre- Wadhwa & Kotha, 2006, among others). neurship strategy that considers antecedents, elements and consequences of CE. 4.2 Content analysis Overall, we develop a model (Fig. 2) that summa- rizes extant literature differentiating between 3 main Following previous research (Clark et al., 2014), in areas: CE antecedents, CE dimensions, and CE con- this section we focus on the main topics and their sequences. This approach is consistent with previous trends in the CE literature. This allows to see how literature (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001; Ireland et al., the key concepts and ideas have changed and evolved 2009; Kuratko et al., 2015; Zahra, 1991) and allows over time (Volery & Mazzarol, 2015). to provide a systematic content analysis as well as an The increase in the number of articles published organizing framework to analyze CE literature cur- in recent years has led to a wider number of topics rent status (Keupp & Gassmann, 2009). The different studied. Emphasis has been placed on the different clusters presented in Fig. 2 are the result of the analy- forms and dimensions of CE, such as: Corporate ven- sis and coding of the articles analyzed. In particular, ture capital (Rind, 1981); International CE (Zahra & the analysis of the research objectives, findings and Garvis, 2000); Corporate venturing (Zahra, 1996b); levels of analysis was particularly useful for creating Social intrapreneurship (Kistruck & Beamish, 2010); and developing this model. Finally, the information Franchising (Dada et al., 2012); Innovation based in Fig. 2 was complemented with information from CE (Kelley et al., 2009; Wadhwa et al., 2016); or, other literature reviews and theoretical articles to Strategic renewal (Glaser et al., 2015; Zahra, 1993, ensure our model considered and extended the knowl- 1996a). Previous research has highlighted the clari- edge generated in previous research (Corbett et al., fication of the different CE domains (and its defini- 2013; Dess et al., 2003; Guth & Ginsberg, 1990; Ire- tions) as a key issue for the future understanding of land et al., 2009; Kuratko et al., 2015; Minola et al., this field (Kuratko et al., 2015). In addition, most 2016, 2021; Narayanan et al., 2009; Phan et al., 2009; theoretical models have also paid attention to the role Sharma & Chrisman, 1999). Vol:. (1234567890) 13 Corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review and future research agenda 1549 ANTECEDENTS DIMENSIONS CONSEQUENCES INDIVIDUAL LEVEL - Employee human capital factors: Demographic and personal characteristics; Role of gender; Educational background; Age; Previous professional experience; Learning and training; Self- evaluation of entrepreneurial abilities. - Employee intrinsic motivation: Emotional and cognitive values; Adding new business to No new business Attitudes, values, beliefs; Willingness to change; Risk taking firm (corporate addition (strategic propensity and proactiveness; Satisfaction and commitment to venturing) entrepreneurship) job; Perception of adverse work conditions. - Employee extrinsic motivation: Rewards, awards and Business model FINANCIAL recognition; Compensation. reconstruction, (focus company) New business venturing Organizational Profitability and growth Top-down ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL (internal/external) rejuvenation, Domain - Firm structure and characteristics: Organizational structure and redefinition, Sustained values; Communication, formal controls, environmental regeneration, Strategic scanning, organizational support; Incentive and control systems. renewal, Innovativeness - Role of managers: Governance and ownership systems; Diversity in top management teams; CEO temporal dispositions; STRATEGIC (focus entrepreneurial Managerial support towards entrepreneurship; Role of managers at different hierarchical levels. - Resources and capabilities factors: Access to resources; Time Learning, integration of Bottom-up employee) availability; R&D investments; Knowledge capabilities; company’s operations, Intrapreneurship improved responsiveness, Organizational size; Firm age. - Job related factors: Job autonomy and job variety; Work successful standard setting; discretion; Presence of business plans; Relation with other Skills and technology involved partners. acquisition ENVIRONMENTAL LEVEL - Industrial factors: Market dynamism, hostility and heterogeneity; Technological change; Competitive intensity; Industry growth and demand for new products; Level of munificence and complexity. - Institutional factors: Social and political environment; Government policy; Technology policy; Labour mobility; National culture related factors. Fig. 2  Conceptual model for CE activity 4.2.1 Antecedents (strategy, structure, process and values). Similarly, Antoncic and Hisrich (2001) differentiate explicitly Research has focused on which conditioning factors between organizational (including person-related) have an effect on the development of CE initiatives. and environmental factors. Other theoretical models The main objectives of the early studies (those pub- such as Zahra (1991, 1993), or, Zahra et al. (2009) lished in the 1960s and 1970s) were to explain how to follow similar approaches by grouping the condition- stimulate the development of CE activities (Westfall, ing factors at these different levels of analysis. 1969). Later, in the 1980s, the first papers on the ante- At the individual level, literature has highlighted cedents of CE activity and on the compensation and demographic and personal characteristics as a key incentive practices for venture managers were pub- factor for CE (Camelo-Ordaz et al., 2012). Specifi- lished (Block & Ornati, 1987). In the 1990s, papers cally, emotional and cognitive factors (Biniari, 2012; deepened analysis of the antecedents of CE activ- Corbett & Hmieleski, 2007) including attitudes, val- ity (Zahra, 1991). Generally, researchers examined ues and beliefs, have been repeatedly considered to company related factors (i.e., Zahra, 1991, 1993), play a crucial role in initiating and sustaining CE although some started taking into account the role activities (Ireland et al., 2009; Turner & Pennington, of environmental factors (Tsai et al., 1991). Overall, 2015). From this perspective, research has explained the literature has highlighted at least three different how having a willingness to change (Kellermanns & types of factors at different levels that can influence Eddleston, 2006), a risk taking propensity (Heavey CE: individual, company related and environmental. et al., 2009) or being satisfied and committed to your For instance, Guth and Ginsberg (1990) highlight the job (Akehurst et al., 2009) increase the likelihood of importance of strategic leaders for CE and explain the engaging in CE activity. influence of the environment (competitive, techno- In addition, other aspects have also been con- logical, social and political) and of the organization sidered to condition CE. Research has shown that Vol.: (0123456789) 13 1550 D. Urbano et al. different types of previous professional experiences & Audretsch, 2013). Further, attention has been increase the likelihood of engaging in CE initiatives given to the vital role that middle managers can (Dokko & Gaba, 2012). Also, the self-evaluation of have in creating an environment that encourages entrepreneurial abilities has been considered as an innovation and entrepreneurship (Wooldridge antecedent of CE (Martiarena, 2013). Special empha- et al., 2008). sis has been placed on the effect of compensation Antecedents at the environmental level of analy- (Monsen et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2015), rewards, sis have been less researched. Most studies focus on awards and recognition in motivating people to industry-related variables such as: the degree of mar- engage in CE (Burgers et al., 2009). ket dynamism, hostility and heterogeneity (Zahra, At the organizational level, one of the first ante- 1991, 1993); technological change (Sahaym et al., cedents studied was companies’ organizational 2010); competitive intensity (Basu et al., 2011); structure and values (Zahra, 1991) and issues such industry growth and demand for new products (Ant- as communication, formal controls, environmental oncic & Hisrich, 2001); or the level of munificence scanning or organizational support have been shown and complexity (Simsek et al., 2007). Further, only to have a positive effect on CE (Antoncic & His- a few authors have empirically examined the influ- rich, 2001). More recently, the literature highlights ence of national culture related factors on companies’ resource availability as one of the most important entrepreneurial initiatives (Judge et al., 2015; Turro organizational antecedents and shows that access et al., 2016). Similarly, our research identified no to resources is closely related to the firm’s over- empirical studies and only one theoretical article that all entrepreneurial orientation (Grande et al., 2011) study the effect of government policy on CE (Doh & and strategy (Zahra, 1991). From this perspective, Pearce, 2004). time availability (Marvel et al., 2007) or knowledge capabilities (Maes & Sels, 2014) are also relevant. 4.2.2 Dimensions In addition, the effect of factors such as financial resources, R&D investments (Sahaym et al., 2010) In the 1980s, the literature was mainly concerned or organizational size (Nason et al., 2015) have also with the organizational renewal process and the com- been researched. However, the nature of the relation- bination of resources necessary to commit to develop ship between these specific resources and entrepre- an innovative project (Burgelman, 1983a, 1983b; Pin- neurial activity has been subject to discussion among chot, 1985; Schollhammer, 1982). Later, in the 1990s, scholars. One stream of research argues that a bigger CE was more clearly associated with the creation of pool of such resources should facilitate the develop- new businesses within established companies (Bosma ment of CE activities. Scholars suggest that having et al., 2013; Zahra, 1991). Similarly, during this dec- more resources or working in bigger companies may ade some researchers made explicit use for the first impede developing entrepreneurial activities because time of some theoretical frameworks such as popula- employees tend to be more risk averse because of tion ecology (Tsai et al., 1991) or the resource-based bureaucracy and organizational processes tend to be view (McGrath et al., 1994). more complex and rigid (Plambeck, 2012). Finally, The beginning of the twenty-first century is associ- researchers examined the association of a company’s ated with a much greater number of topics being stud- governance and ownership systems and its level of ied, such as international CE (Zahra & Garvis, 2000), CE (Romero-Martínez et al., 2010; Zahra, 1996a; CE in family firms (Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2006) Zahra et al., 2000). or the development of theoretical models explaining The different role of managers at different different areas of CE (Ireland et al., 2009). In addi- hierarchical levels has been studied (Radaelli tion, several studies focused on the differing nature & Sitton-Kent, 2016). From a top management of CE activities compared with those of independent team perspective, managers are considered to entrepreneurship (e.g., Parker, 2011). have multiple and critical roles in CE activity, In recent years, the different dimensions that mainly because they are centrally involved in the constitute the CE phenomenon have become more defining processes of both the corporate ventur- evident as researchers increasingly study them ing and strategic renewal forms of CE (Kuratko separately. However, the literature still does not Vol:. (1234567890) 13 Corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review and future research agenda 1551 agree completely on its main dimensions (Ireland the past four decades. In the late 1980s, researchers et al., 2009). Based on the entrepreneurial orienta- began studying the relationship between performance tion construct, researchers usually classify CE into and engagement in CE activities (Miller et al., 1988) three to five dimensions (Covin & Slevin, 1991)— and during the 1990s, the positive effect of CE on new business venturing, product, service and pro- firm performance became even more evident (Zahra, cess innovativeness, self-renewal and proactiveness 1991). Overall, there is agreement that CE can renew (Guth & Ginsberg, 1990; Lampe et al., 2020; Zahra, a company’s capabilities and increase its capacity to 1993) are the most common. Others, such as Phan acquire and use new competencies that improve per- et al. (2009), consider that innovation and corporate formance (Zahra et al., 2000). Indeed, Antoncic and venturing activities, on the one hand, and renewal Hisrich (2001, p. 504) state that “organizations that and the ability to compete and take risks, on the engage in intrapreneurial activities are expected to other, are two distinct but related phenomena. achieve higher levels of growth and profitability than These activities are closely related to the strategic organizations that do not.” entrepreneurship concept, which has been defined Researchers agree that some CE initiatives have by Hitt et al., (2001, p. 481) as “the integration of strategic objectives, while others pursue financial entrepreneurial (i.e., opportunity-seeking behavior) goals. From a strategic perspective, firms may engage and strategic (i.e., advantage-seeking) perspectives in CE because of several benefits that include: learn- in developing and taking actions designed to create ing, successful integration of a company’s operations, wealth.” Therefore, some previous research propose improved responsiveness, successful standard setting that CE entails two main activities. The first is a (Narayanan et al., 2009) or acquiring new skills or company’s involvement in the creation of new busi- technologies (Dushnitsky & Lenox, 2005). However, nesses. The second is strategic entrepreneurship, research has primarily focused on the financial con- which corresponds to a broader array of entrepre- sequences of entrepreneurial activities (which may be neurial initiatives which do not necessarily involve easier to measure) and, therefore, there is a need to new businesses being added to the firm (Kuratko study the non-financial goals of CE initiatives (Zahra, et al., 2011). In this regard, it has been argued that 1991). the main forms that strategic entrepreneurship can From a financial perspective, there is general take are strategic renewal, sustained regeneration, agreement in the literature that CE has a positive domain redefinition, organizational rejuvenation effect on firm performance (Bierwerth et al., 2015; and business model reconstruction (Kuratko et al., Zahra, 1991) by increasing the company’s proactive- 2015; Pettit & Crossan, 2020). ness and risk taking, and by promoting product, pro- The corporate venturing dimension is the most cess, and service innovations (e.g., Lumpkin & Dess, researched (Narayanan et al., 2009; Zahra & Hayton, 1996; Walter et al., 2006). These capabilities allow 2008) and the literature usually differentiates between the firm to improve its competitive position and can two types of corporate venturing activities: Externally enable it to enter new industries in pursuit of profit- directed corporate venturing units; and internally ability and growth (Clark et al., 2014; Zahra et al., directed corporate venturing units which try to exploit 2000; Zahra, 1996a). CE has an effect on a firm’s business opportunities within the boundaries of the ability to compete and adapt to successfully perform parent firm (Covin et al., 2021; Sharma & Chrisman, in increasingly turbulent environments, by enabling 1999). In addition, a growing number of articles have the ongoing rejuvenation of product, market and stra- studied the differences between independent (also tegic positions and the revitalization of knowledge known as, traditional or private) venture capital and and intellectual capital (Zahra et al., 1999). Thus, CE corporate venture capital (Dushnitsky & Shapira, activities have become a key variable in explaining 2010). performance differences across firms (Heavey & Sim- sek, 2013). 4.2.3 Consequences Building on key findings of the content analysis we have just presented, Fig. 2 provides a conceptual The relationship between CE and firm performance framework summarizing and synthesizing the most has also attracted considerable research interest over relevant concepts. Vol.: (0123456789) 13 1552 D. Urbano et al. 5 Emerging trends and avenues for future The above shortcomings are even more striking research when we consider that the literature on independ- ent entrepreneurship has repeatedly highlighted the In the light of our preceding analysis and discussion impact of informal and formal institutional factors of the literature, in this section, we suggest an agenda such as culture or regulations (Kreiser et al., 2002; for further research on CE antecedents, dimensions Morris et al, 1994). Since national culture reinforces and consequences. We also outline limitations of our certain personal characteristics and penalizes oth- analysis. ers, these types of studies show how entrepreneur- ship differs from one national culture to another as 5.1 Corporate entrepreneurship antecedents some values favor entrepreneurial behavior more than others (Hayton et al., 2002). In addition, the The role of the institutional environment Studies literature suggests that regulations can also have a that emphasize the organizational and individual lev- significant effect on entrepreneurship (Begley et al., els of analysis have focused on issues such as organi- 2005). For instance, inefficient government regula- zational structure (Covin & Slevin, 1991; Zahra, tions in the economy may be perceived negatively by 1991), incentive and control systems (Sathe, 1985), entrepreneurs and, hence, this may discourage them managerial support towards entrepreneurial initia- from starting new businesses (Djankov et al., 2002). tives (Hornsby et al., 2002), personal traits and val- Despite the appeal of such claims, we need to study ues (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001), or gender (Lyngsie them carefully in the context of CE. & Foss, 2017). An institutional perspective on CE would help delineate the effect of the environment on stimulating Yet, as noted, when studying which environmental CE activities as well as its potential role as a mod- factors can affect CE, the emphasis is normally placed erator of the CE-company performance relationships. on industry related factors. Hence, other environmen- To gain a better appreciation of the nature and magni- tal or even institutional variables that could have a tude of this effect, it is necessary for future research significant influence, such as culture or legal regula- to examine different dimensions of institutions such tions have been less researched (Urbano et al., 2019). as labor laws, IP, extent of government regulations, To our knowledge, since the early work of Mor- among others. Separately and in combination these ris et al., (1993, 1994), few empirical papers have dimensions could shape managerial incentives which, appeared analyzing the role of national culture related in turn influence their decision time horizons, will- factors at a country (or specific region) level of anal- ingness to invest in CE, and take the risks associated ysis (Turro et al., 2014). Nevertheless, theoretical with various efforts needed to stimulate innovation research has pointed out the importance that insti- and strategic renewal. Future research also needs to tutional variables could have for CE. For instance, consider how the nature of the diversity of individu- Hornsby, Bloodgood, et al. (2013), p. 312) state that als’ demographics and expertise interacts with institu- “it is important to consider how cultural factors may tional factors to facilitate or constrain CE. For exam- also influence the internal dynamics of the CE pro- ple, while we have some evidence that more women cess.” Some researchers have considered the compa- on top management teams is associated with more CE nies’ internal corporate culture and values (Antoncic (Lyngsie & Foss, 2017), we have little understand- & Hisrich, 2001; Zahra, 1991; Zahra et al., 2009). ing of how this might differ in institutional contexts Although internal corporate values may be affected with differing gender attitudes and roles. Similarly, by the more general (national) cultural setting, the there is an absence of the evidence on the impact on literature considers it to be an organizational factor CE of other dimensions such as ethnic and religious rather than an environmental one. Similarly, even diversity. This could be related to those studies that though public policies may have a direct impact emphasize the relevance of the different entrepreneur- on the development of entrepreneurial initiatives ial mindsets for CE activities, however, it remains (Gnyawali & Fogel, 1994), there are very few papers unexplored (Kuratko et al., 2021). Previous research on the role of government regulations in the CE field has already suggested that the role of the institu- (Doh & Pearce, 2004). tional environment for CE can be different between Vol:. (1234567890) 13 Corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review and future research agenda 1553 developing and developed countries, however, these non-managerial employees through their day-to-day findings have not been tested quantitatively (Hughes interaction with the market may have access to the & Mustafa, 2017). kind of information that enables them to identify new Furthermore, the role of the business sector to entrepreneurial opportunities. Similarly, the effects of which the company belongs has rarely been consid- managers’ and employees’ compensation (regardless ered seriously when studying CE. Yet, a business sec- of the hierarchical level) on CE have not been stud- tor has a fundamental influence on CE as it affects ied in depth (Hornsby et al., 2002). Issues such as the rate of change of the competitive environment which kind of compensation methods should be used (Burgers et al., 2009). Further, with very few excep- with corporate entrepreneurs to foster their entrepre- tions (Schildt et al., 2005), empirical research focuses neurial initiatives need further examination. Moreo- upon the manufacturing sector. However, service sec- ver, although the nature of compensation for man- tors also develop CE activities which should be sys- agement has already been considered important for tematically studied. More generally, research is now CE since it can influence time horizons and strategic emerging on the nature of the role and dimensions of behaviors (Block & Ornati, 1987; Phan et al., 2009), the ecosystem for the start-up entrepreneurship (e.g., recent changes in corporate ownership and funding of Autio et al., 2018). However, we know little about innovation and other CE activities make it essential to how the ecosystem for CE may be distinctive and the revisit these contributions to CE. research agenda in this space would appear to be a potentially rich one. 5.2 Corporate entrepreneurship dimensions Methodological approaches Despite the literature agreeing on the multilevel nature of CE anteced- Independent entrepreneurship vs CE There have ents (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001; Ireland et al., 2009; recently been some attempts to compare CE and inde- Zahra, 1991), our search identified few studies using a pendent entrepreneurship as two separate phenomena multilevel regression technique (or any other type of (instead of CE being a sub-field of entrepreneurship) hierarchical linear modelling method) (e.g., Behrens (Stam, 2013). Hence, the antecedents that make indi- & Patzelt, 2016; Kang et al., 2016). Hence, future viduals choose between becoming self-employed or research could exploit this methodological approach corporate entrepreneurs have been well documented to better establish the contributions of CE to firm (Hellman, 2007; Kacperczyk, 2012). However, sev- performance. The potential importance of individu- eral issues remain unexplored. For instance, a better als at different levels in the organization, from non- understanding of the design of contracts and work managerial employees upward, suggests scope for environments that minimize the risk that the employ- future studies to develop linked employee-manage- ees seek to avoid by starting their own ventures, could rial-organization-databases. Such cross-level analyses generate interesting insights (Parker, 2011). In addi- may go some way to exploring the gap in understand- tion, while both independent entrepreneurship and ing of the microfoundations of a firm’s systematic CE are important drivers of economic growth, the net organizational capability for corporate entrepreneur- effect of both types of ventures is not clear. Therefore, ship. Developing such a capability may require firms further studies could investigate and compare the to combine individual-level entrepreneurial roles and performance of internal versus external ventures to firm-level entrepreneurial processes (Salvato et al., assess better their weights and impacts on economic 2009). growth (Kacperczyk, 2012). Hierarchical levels and compensation The role of CE forms Our results show that, to date, few stud- first level managers has been less researched as litera- ies have examined the dissimilarities among the dif- ture focuses mainly on middle and top management. ferent forms of CE (for an exception, see Verbeke However, some authors have suggested that bottom- et al., 2007). However, since entrepreneurial activities up processes are important for CE and that first level are essential for companies to adapt to environmen- managers play a key role in this process (Hornsby tal changes, a greater appreciation of the factors that et al., 2009). Further, in some sectors and firms, determine such activities should have both theoretical Vol.: (0123456789) 13 1554 D. Urbano et al. and practical implications (Zahra et al., 1999). The CE activities that unfold over time and their implica- lack of studies in this particular area reflects a lack of tions for organizational success and adaptation. consensus about the main forms of entrepreneurship in established companies, which is surprising given Ownership and governance In the area of govern- the large volume of research on CE. Understanding ance systems and property rights, findings from prior these forms will help in establishing their useful- studies on the role of ownership in different types of ness to companies and the conditions leading to their CE are fragmentary. Nason et al. (2015) only cover success. ownership in the sense that they explore private SMEs versus large listed corporations. But private Opportunity identification process Relatedly, ownership is more nuanced and includes family firms, few studies have explored the opportunity identifica- venture capital and private equity backed firms, and tion side of the different CE activities and the subse- even socially owned and hybrid enterprises that may quent exploitation of these opportunities (Bloodgood engage in CE related activities (Zahra et al., 2009). et al., 2015; Foss et al., 2013). This is in contrast to Amess et al. (2016), Wright et al. (1992) and Zahra literature on independent entrepreneurship where the (1995) consider some initial aspects of CE in private fundamental importance of the opportunity identifica- equity owned firms, while Chrisman et al. (2015) con- tion process has been extensively highlighted (Shane, sider CE in the form of innovation in family firms. As 2000). Given recent debates in the independent entre- a result, more systematic analysis comparing different preneurship literature about whether opportunities types of ownerships is needed (Hale & Woronkowicz, are created or discovered (Alvarez & Barney, 2019), 2020). We also know that even within different types exploration of whether and how the CE context dif- of ownership, organizations may have different goals fers in this respect seems warranted. Thus, it may (Kotlar et al., 2018) which would suggest a need to also be fruitful to study the extent to which internal consider CE in the context of organizational goals. decision-making processes in corporations affect the nature of opportunities identified and pursued The role of size: Large Corporation and SME Even because they maybe more attuned to dealing with though some authors have explained that CE can be assessing risk rather than uncertainty. In this regard, relevant for large corporations as well as small and O’Connor and Rice (2001) explore the opportunity medium sized enterprises (Carrier, 1994; Zahra et al., identification process for technological breakthrough 2000), there are few studies focusing on the different innovations, however, their multiple case study analy- sizes of corporate entrepreneurial projects (an excep- sis is limited to large, technology-intensive, estab- tion is Nason et al., 2015). There is little information on lished firms. Therefore, further research focusing on antecedents of and the extent to which major and minor other aspects and contexts is necessary. intrapreneurial initiatives have the same characteris- tics. We also know little about their contribution to the Life cycle and CE The life cycle dimension of CE general economy and firm performance. Overall, there activities has not been sufficiently studied, highlight- seems to be a need for further studies focusing on the ing the need for further research on the topic. This nature of CE (e.g., focus, goals, form and size) among is an important gap in understanding the processes large, established companies and SMEs (Zahra et al., by which CE activities emerge, develop and decline 2000). and their impact on corporate performance is likely to vary with these changes. Understanding this life Complexity of CE In addition to the size of CE cycle may clarify how the form of CE might change projects, complexity is also a dimension of CE. Com- with increased organizational experience and time plexity may relate to technological aspects but also (Guerrero et al., 2021). Further, understanding the to the complexity of the markets to be served and relationship between different life cycles (industry, the services to be provided. Such complexity may company, segments or products) and CE could pro- call for collaboration among organizations. Beyond vide significant implications for future research (Hoy, the extensive literature on joint ventures and alli- 2006). Further, studying firm and organizational life ances between corporations, collaborations may cycles might help researchers identify the gamut of involve corporations and universities, governmental Vol:. (1234567890) 13 Corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review and future research agenda 1555 agencies, not-for-profit organizations, individual global data (Zahra & Hayton, 2008). From this view, entrepreneurs, etc. For example, co-creation arrange- some authors have considered that cross-cultural research ments, either focused on particular projects or longer has the potential to expand the concepts and theories that term linkages, have emerged recently to engage in CE have been developed in a single cultural setting (Anton- activities that combine social and commercial goals cic & Hisrich, 2001). For instance, Hills and LaForge (DeSilva & Wright, 2019). At present, we have very (1992) stress the importance of conducting entrepreneur- limited analysis of the motivations, organizational ship research in an international context as some authors forms, processes and outcomes of such CE activities. observe that entrepreneurial initiatives cannot be under- stood without attention to the context in which they take 5.3 Corporate entrepreneurship consequences place. The review by Bierwerth et al (2015) cites studies on CE in Austria, Canada, China, Ireland, Netherlands, Performance measures Our analyses also high- Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey, light shortcomings and areas to develop further among others. This growing interest in CE worldwide research in terms of CE consequences. Studies that reflects its importance for stimulating innovation, risk examine the relation between CE and firm financial taking, competitive aggressiveness which are essen- performance typically use measures such as return tial for success in today’s intensely competitive global on investment (Zahra, 1991), return on sales (Zahra, markets. While true of economies the world over, CE is 1993), return on equity (Zahra & Hayton, 2008), mar- especially relevant to companies in emerging economies ket share gain (Bojica & Fuentes, 2012) or cash flow where privatization efforts have been widespread aiming (Miller et al., 1988). Previous literature has already to stimulate entrepreneurship. Companies in these econ- highlighted the difficulties of measuring performance omies also seek to catch up technologically with their in organizational studies, particularly among new counterparts from advanced economies. State owned ventures because even successful start-ups often do enterprises in these countries are also facing tough com- not reach profitability for a long period of time (Tsai petition for foreign entrants as well as local start-ups, et al., 1991). Hence, some researchers have explained making CE a key means for these companies’ adapta- the benefits of using other types of performance tion. Recent shifts associated with the resurgence of state measures (Miller et al., 1991). Similarly, from a CE capitalism may also warrant a reassessment of how CE consequences perspective, we have limited under- is measured (Grossman et al., 2016). State owned enter- standing of the drivers that lead to project failure and prises may differ in their goals and objectives, the expec- to the termination of CE activities (Behrens & Pat- tations of their stakeholders, their life-cycle phases, their zelt, 2016; Shepherd et al., 2009). In addition, and time horizons and the involvement of their owners in related to the points above regarding types of owner- boards of directors that can help facilitate or constrain CE ship and goal variety, studies of the consequences of rather than just providing a monitoring function. These CE also need to explore social as well as financial, differences may have implications for the nature and and economic outcomes in relation to ownership use of CE. For example, to what extent is CE driven by goals. Moreover, prior research ignores the specific financial and economic objectives, or social and politi- goals companies pursue when they measure the over- cal objectives, and what conflicts arise? Further, how do all impact of CE activities, failing to delineate where these conflicts affect CE’s success? Clearly, these issues particular CE efforts influence specific performance deserve careful study and analysis. goals and criteria (Kreiser et al., 2021). The lack of good databases poses challenges for con- CE consequences and cross‑cultural ducting cross-cultural and international research on research Another area for further study relates to the CE – most studies collect their own data (i.e., Maula focus of most prior studies on the financial outcomes of et al., 2009). Among the secondary sources of infor- developing CE activities in US firms. Few studies focus mation, the Profit Impact of Marketing Strategy on European companies (Bojica & Fuentes, 2012; Walter (PIMS) start up database (employed mostly at the et al., 2006), or explicitly adopt a cross country compari- beginning of the 1990s) and the VentureXpert data- son between the US and elsewhere (Antoncic & Hisrich, base (Park & Steensma, 2012) are the most widely 2001) and only one examines this phenomenon using employed. Vol.: (0123456789) 13 1556 D. Urbano et al. Funding and CE There are also very few examples a detailed analysis of how the main topics studied of articles that examine the consequences of differ- have evolved over time. This enabled us to identify ent types of funding for CE (Park & Steensma, 2012), the main categories (CE antecedents, CE dimensions, especially across countries and industries despite and CE consequences) and subcategories in this field. the acknowledged structural differences that might The changing scope of the CE concept over the dec- exist in this regard. This could be explained because ades has helped to enlarge the research agenda. The researchers tend to assume that companies fund these emerging trends and under researched areas of CE activities; however, this is not always the case (Dush- that we have identified open up further avenues for nitsky & Shapira, 2010). Therefore, future research scholarly exploration. Clearly, there is a great deal of could deepen more specifically the outcomes and interest in CE and this interest is global, suggesting consequences of different types of CE funding (e.g., the need for more careful investigations of its interna- inhouse vs outside), given that managers’ incentives tional dimensions and strategic relevance. could potentially determine their preferences for par- As with all studies, our review also has sev- ticular types of venturing and other CE activities. eral limitations that offer opportunities for further research. First, in line with many other review arti- Table 5 summarizes our discussion by presenting cles, our focus is on the main journals in the manage- some examples of future research questions on CE. ment and entrepreneurship fields that involve robust It also provides a synthesis of topics that the litera- review procedures and are likely to include CE work. ture has considered to be relevant but that have not This approach is consistent with previous litera- been studied in detail. The results of our systematic ture (Busenitz et al., 2014; Marvel et al., 2016) and literature review show that the increase in the num- allowed us to focus on outlets where CE has a central ber of articles published in the last decade has led to role, however, this implied not searching in journals additional research questions and relevant topics to that focus specifically on fields such as innovation or be explored. Moreover, some areas have been signifi- international business. Similarly, studies published cantly more researched than others. Overall, despite elsewhere in conference proceedings and doctoral the progress made to date, there are many important theses have been excluded to avoid overlap as they topics that require further research. With the globali- are often the first step before publication in a jour- zation of the world economy, CE researchers have nal and also to ensure that we include the most rig- a golden opportunity to examine differences (and orous and definitive version. Second, as is generally similarities) across countries and document how CE recognized, citation, and co-citation techniques have activities of different types could impact companies’ some inherent flaws. When compiling citations, it is competitiveness, ability to adapt, and engage in con- impossible to distinguish their objectives. Authors tinuous innovation and renewal. may refer to other articles to explain, justify or build their own ideas. However, citations may be used for other purposes such as to criticize another author’s 6 Conclusion work or to mention one’s own articles, or are simply gratuitous citations. While this may potentially inflate Despite the recent increase in the number of publica- some aspects of the citations analysis, it is less likely tions on CE, there are few recent systematic literature to impact the scope of the themes we have presented. reviews focusing on the topic. Offering such a review, Third, although we have adopted a broad definition this research provides information on the content and of CE (Sharma and Chrisman (1999); Antoncic and evolution of CE. Specifically, 310 papers published Hisrich (2001), our review did not incorporate the in the top and highly cited journals in the business, study of the strategic entrepreneurship concept as this management and entrepreneurship fields are exam- was beyond our scope. Although the fields of strate- ined. Our review contributes to the literature by pro- gic management and entrepreneurship have devel- viding a complete analysis of the current state of the oped independently (Ireland et al., 2003), they both art of research in this field. The review highlights the focus on “how firms adapt to environmental change types of articles, theoretical frameworks and quanti- and exploit opportunities created by uncertainties tative and qualitative methods used. It also provides and discontinuities in the creation of wealth” (Hitt Vol:. (1234567890) 13 Table 5  Examples of future research questions CE Antecedents CE Dimensions CE Consequences To what extent and how do legal regulations affect CE Which is the relationship between different types of own- Which are the non-financial consequences of successfully activity? To what extent is the effect of legal regulations ership and CE performance? engaging in CE? the same for independent entrepreneurship and for CE? How does the role of the institutional environment for CE What is the distinctive opportunity identification process To what extent successfully engaging in CE also provides differ between developing and developed countries? for CE activities? To what extent is it the same as for other positive non-financial consequences? independent entrepreneurship activities? To what extent does the informal institutional environ- How does involvement in CE activity change at different To what extent engaging in CE is beneficial for the career ment (e.g. culture) affect CE activity? stages of the firm’s (or industry, or product) life cycle? of employees? To what extent is manufacturing CE and service CE To what extent is the effect of CE antecedents different To what extent are the consequences of CE the same for affected by the same antecedents? depending on the CE form? different countries/institutional contexts? To what extent are first level managers important for CE How do family firms, venture capital and private equity Which are the determinants of CE success and failure? activity? Which is the role that first level managers play backed firms differ in the development of entrepre- in the CE process? neurial activities? To what extent is the role of first level managers different How do state owned enterprises try to facilitate the devel- To what extent are the determinants of CE failure different depending on CE form? opment of CE activities? than the determinants of independent entrepreneurship failure? Corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review and future research agenda How can board composition facilitate CE? Which is the net effect of independent entrepreneurship To what extent are the determinants of CE failure different and CE on economic growth? depending on the CE form? How does the role of managers at different hierarchical To what extent can managers design contracts and work Which is the net effect of the different types of CE on firm levels (top, middle and first level) change depending on environments that minimize the risk that able employ- performance? the CE form? ees quit to start up their own ventures? How can compensation foster entrepreneurial initiatives Do those engaged in CE have more (or less) ownership Which is the relationship between different types of CE in established companies? (in terms of control and incentive) depending on the funding and firm performance? different size of firms? To what extent are major and minor CE projects affected To what extent do major and minor CE projects have the Which is the relationship between different types of owner- by the same antecedents? same characteristics? ship and CE performance? Vol.: (0123456789) 13 1557 1558 D. Urbano et al. et al., 2001; p. 480). Hence, as shown in Fig. 2, future Gupta et al. (2004); Gupta and Sapienza (1992); research should integrate both approaches as some Hill and Birkinshaw (2008); Hornsby et al. (2002); entrepreneurship and innovation activities fit within Hornsby et al. (2009); Janney and Dess (2006); the definition of both concepts. For the same reason, Jones et al. (2011); Kang et al. (2016); Kelley et al. other overlapping fields such as, organizational crea- (2009); Lin and Lee (2011); MacMillan and Day tivity, organizational ambidexterity or entrepreneurial (1987); Maula et al. (2009); McDougall et al. (1992); orientation were also excluded from the search terms. McGrath (1995); McGrath et al. (1994); Miller et al. Future research could deepen on the relation with (1989); Miller et al. (1991); Miller et al. (1988); Ohe these neighboring fields. et al. (1992); Park and Kim (1997); Parker (2011); Patzelt et al. (2020); Patzelt et al. (2021); Pearce et al. Acknowledgements Our co-author, Mike Wright, sadly (1997); Phan et al. (2009); Plambeck (2012); Ravasi passed away before this article was published. He is sorely missed. David Urbano acknowledges the financial support from and Turati (2005); Rigtering et al. (2019); Sahaym the projects ECO2017-87885-P (Spanish Ministry of Economy et al. (2009); Shankar and Shepherd (2019); Shep- & Competitiveness) and 2017-SGR-1056 (Economy & Knowl- herd et al. (2009); Shrader and Simon (1997); Siegel edge Department, Catalan Government), and ICREA under et al. (1988); Sorrentino and Williams (1995); Sriv- ICREA Academia programme. astava and Lee (2005); Sykes (1986); Sykes (1990); Funding Open Access Funding provided by Universitat Sykes (1992); Sykes and Block (1989); Sykes and Autonoma de Barcelona. Dunham (1995); Thornhill and Amit (2000); Tsai et al. (1991); Van de Vrande et al. (2009); Wadhwa Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Com- et al. (2016); Waldkirch et al. (2021); Walter et al. mons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits (2006); Weber and Weber (2011); Westhead and use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the Wright (1998); Wincent et al. (2014); Yang et al. original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Crea- (2009); Zahra (1991); Zahra (1993); Zahra (1995); tive Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The Zahra (1996a, 1996b); Zahra and Covin (1995); images or other third party material in this article are included Zahra and Garvis (2000); Zahra and Hayton (2008); in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not Zahra et al. (2009). included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice: intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds Biniari (2012); Block et al. (2019); Borch et al. the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly (2021); Corbett and Hmieleski (2007); Covin and from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/. Lumpkin (2011); Covin and Miles (1999); Covin and Miles (2007); Covin and Miller (2014); Covin and Wales (2019); Covin et al. (2018); De Clercq et al. (2016); Dess et al. (1999); Doughery (1995); Eddles- Appendix ton et al. (2010); Fang et al. (2021); Fini et al. (2012); Finkle (2012); Garret and Covin (2015); Heller List of articles included in the study (ranked by (1999); Hornsby et al. (1993); Hornsby et al. (1999); number of articles published in each of the selected Hoy (2006); Hunt et al. (2019); Ireland et al. (2009); journals) Jennings and Young (1990); Judge et al. (2015); Keil et al. (2010); Kellermanns and Eddleston (2006); Journal of Business Venturing: Kistruck and Beamish (2010); Kotlar and Sieger Abetti (1997); Allen and Hevert (2007); Antoncic (2019); Kreiser et al. (2020); Kuratko et al. (2005); and Hisrich (2001); Arzubiaga et al. (2018); Badg- Lampe et al. (2020); Marvel et al. (2007); Miles uerahanian and Abetti (1995); Basu et al. (2011); and Covin (2002); Monsen et al. (2010); Riar et al. Belderbos et al. (2018); Block and Ornati (1987); (2021); Schild et al. (2005); Sharma and Chrisman Bradley et al. (2011); Brazeal (1993); Browder et al. (1999); Soleimanof et al. (2019); Titus Jr and Ander- (2019); Brundin et al. (2008); Burgers et al. (2009); son (2018); Titus Jr et al. (2020); Uzuegbunam et al. Covin et al. (1999); Covin et al. (2015); Covin et al. (2019); Van de Vrande and Vanhaverbeke (2013); (2020); DeSarbo et al. (1987); Dushnitsky and Lenox Verbeke et al. (2007); Vozikis et al. (1999); Yiu and (2006); Filatotchev et al. (1999); Green et al. (2008); Lau (2008). Vol:. (1234567890) 13 Corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review and future research agenda 1559 Small Business Economics: Journal of Management: Adachi and Hisada (2017); Akehurst et al. Anderson et al. (2014); Dess et al. (2003); Drover (2009); Amoroso et al. (2017); Audretsch (2015); et al. (2017); Engelen et al. (2015); Engelen et al. Audretsch et al. (2015); Ben Arfi and Hikkerova (2016); Hill and Birkinshaw (2014); Jennings and (2019), Bertoni et al. (2013); Bierwerth et al. Lumpkin (1989); Jones and Butler (1992); Keupp (2015); Biniari et al. (2015); Bloodgood et al. and Gassmann (2009); Kim et al. (2019); Lengnick (2015); Braune et al. (2021); Braunerhjelm et al. (1992); Lyon et al. (2000); Morris et al. (1993); (2018); Byrne et al. (2016); Cantner et al. (2020); Rosenbusch et al. (2013); Russell and Russell (1992); Covin et al. (2021); Crawford and Kreiser (2015); Shepherd et al. (2014); Shepherd et al. (2019); Titus Cruz and Nordqvist (2012); Cucculelli and Bet- Jr et al. (2017); Wooldridge et al. (2008); Zahra et al. tinelli (2015); Cucculelli and Peruzzi (2020); (2000). Cumming et al. (2008); Douglas and Fitzsimmons Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal: (2013); Fryges and Wright (2014); Glaser et al. Basu et al. (2016); Cabral et al. (2020); Di Lorenzo (2015); Garrett and Holland (2015); Guerrero et al. and Van de Vrande (2019); Dushnitsky and Lavie (2019); Hale and Woronkowicz (2020); Iacobucci (2010); Eckhardt et al. (2018); Gaba and Bhattacha- and Rosa (2005); Kearney and Morris (2015); rya (2012); Hill et al. (2009); Hinkler et al. (2010); Kellermanns et al. (2012); Kreiser et al. (2021); Huang and Madhavan (2020); McGrath (2015); Kuratko et al. (2015); Kuratko et al. (2015); Mar- Minola et al. (2016); Mohammadi and Khashabi tiarena (2013); Nason et al. (2015); Stam (2013); (2020); Park and Steensma (2013); Simsek and Turner and Pennington (2015); Useche and Pommet Heavy (2011); Smith and Shah (2013); Souitaris and (2020); Zahra (2015); Zellweger and Sieger (2012). Zerbinati (2014); Van Ness and Seifert (2016); Wang Strategic Management Journal: and Wan (2013); Weber et al. (2016); Zahra (2016). Ahuja and Lampert (2001); Alvarez-Garrido Journal of Management Studies: and Dushnitsky (2016); Barringer and Bluedorn Alt and Craig (2016); Ambos and Tatarinova (1999); Birkinshaw (1997); Boone et al. (2019); (2021); Chirico et al. (2021); De Massis et al. Burgers and Covin (2016); Ceccagnoli et al. (2021); Dimov and Gedajlovic (2010); Doh and (2018); Deichmann and Jensen (2018); Dushnit- Pearce (2004); Fang et al. (2021); Haynes et al. sky and Lenox (2005); Dushnitsky and Shapira (2015); Heavy et al. (2009); Keil (2004); Keil et al. (2010); Dushnitsky and Shaver (2009); Gaba and (2008); Minola et al. (2021); Prugl and Spitzley Dokko (2016); Garud and Van de ven (1992); (2021); Raitis et al. (2021); Ramirez-Pasillas et al. Guth and Ginsberg (1990); Kannan-Narasimhan (2021); Simsek et al. (2007); Simsek et al. (2015); and Lawrence (2018); Keil et al. (2008); Kuratko Teng (2007). et al. (1990); Larrañeta et al. (2014); Nielsen et al. International Small Business Journal: (1985); Park and Steensma (2012); Pettit and Cros- Camelo et al. (2012); Dada and Fogg (2016); Dada san (2019); Rind (1981); Schendel (1990); Short- et al. (2010); Fini and Toschi (2016); Gupta and Batra ell and Zajac (1988); Stopford and Baden-Fuller (2016); Messeghem (2003); Shu et al. (2020); Thor- (1994); Yang et al. (2014). gren et al. (2012); Wales et al. (2013); Wales et al. Journal of Small Business Management: (2015); Yu et al. (2019); Zahra et al. (2014). Bettinelli et al. (2017); Bojica et al. (2017); Bru- Academy of Management Journal: mana et al. (2017); de Lange and Valliere (2020); Chin et al. (2021); Bae and Lee (2021); Dokko Gentry et al. (2013); Hakala et al. (2016); Hughes and and Gaba (2012); Gaba and Meyer (2008); Ling et al. Mustafa (2017); Johnson (2012); Kim et al. (2018); (2008); Souitaris et al. (2012); Wadhwa and Kotha Kim et al. (2021); Kuratko et al. (2021); Ma and (2006); Westfall (1969); Zahra (1996a, 1996b). Huang (2016); Maes and Sels (2014); Moreno and Entrepreneurship and Regional Development: Munuera (2016); Naldi et al. (2015); Noyes et al. Casillas and Moreno (2010); Fayolle et al. (2010); (2014); Park et al. (2019); Randolph et al. (2017); Grande et al. (2011); Herbane (2019); Kemelgor Simba and Thai (2019); Simon et al. (2002); Swo- (2002); Marchisio et al. (2010); Nordqvist and Melin boda and Olejnik (2016). (2010); Salvato et al. (2010); Turro et al. (2016). Vol.: (0123456789) 13 1560 D. Urbano et al. Administrative Science Quarterly: Bettinelli, C., Sciascia, S., Randerson, K., & Fayolle, A. Burgelman (1983a, 1983b); Chen and Nadkarni (2017). Researching entrepreneurship in family firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(4), 506–529. (2017); Kacperczyk (2012); Pahnke et al. (2015); https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jsbm.​12347 Pontikes (2012). Bierwerth, M., Schwens, C., Isidor, R., & Kabst, R. (2015). Management Science: Corporate entrepreneurship and performance: A meta- Bhardwaj et al. (2006); Burgelman (1983a, 1983b); analysis. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 255–278. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11187-​015-​9629-1 de Bettignies and Chemla (2008); Miller (1983). Biniari, M. G. (2012). The emotional embeddedness of corpo- Journal of International Business Studies: rate entrepreneurship: The case of envy. Entrepreneur- Morris et al. (1994); Yiu et al. (2007). ship Theory and Practice, 36(1), 141–170. https://​doi.​ org/​10.​1111/j.​1540-​6520.​2010.​00437.x Birkinshaw, J. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corpo- rations: The characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Stra- References tegic Management Journal, 18(3), 207–229. https://​doi.​ org/​10.​1002/​(SICI)​1097-​0266(199703)​18:3%​3C207::​ AIDSM​J864%​3E3.0.​CO;2-Q Ahuja, G., & Morris Lampert, C. (2001). Entrepreneurship in Block, Z., & Ornati, O. A. (1987). Compensating corporate the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how estab- venture managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(1), lished firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic 41–51. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0883-​9026(87)​90018-8 Management Journal, 22(6–7), 521–543. https://​doi.​org/​ Bloodgood, J. M., Hornsby, J. S., Burkemper, A. C., & 10.​1002/​smj.​176 Sarooghi, H. (2015). A system dynamics perspec- Akehurst, G., Comeche, J. M., & Galindo, M. A. (2009). Job tive of corporate entrepreneurship. Small Business satisfaction and commitment in the entrepreneurial SME. Economics, 45(2), 383–402. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ Small Business Economics, 32(3), 277–289. https://​doi.​ s11187-​015-​9634-4 org/​10.​1007/​s11187-​008-​9116-z Bojica, A. M., & Fuentes, M. D. M. (2012). Knowledge acqui- Alvarez, S., & Barney, J. (2019). Has the Concept of Oppor- sition and corporate entrepreneurship: Insights from tunities Been Fruitful in the Field of Entrepreneurship? Spanish SMEs in the ICT sector. Journal of World Busi- Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), 300–310. ness, 47(3), 397–408. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jwb.​2011.​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​amp.​2018.​0014 05.​007 Amess, K., Stiebale, J., & Wright, M. (2016). The impact of Bosma, N., Wennekers, S., Guerrero, M., Amorós, J.E., Mar- private equity on firms’ patenting activity. European tiarena, A., & Singer S. (2013). Global Entrepreneurship Economic Review, 86, 147–160. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Monitor: Special report on entrepreneurial employee 1016/j.​euroe​corev.​2015.​08.​013 activity, GERA. Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and Burgelman, R. A. (1983a). A process model of internal corpo- creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, rate venturing in the major diversified firm. Administra- prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Jour- tive Science Quarterly, 28(2), 223–244. https://​doi.​org/​ nal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333. https://​doi.​org/​ 10.​2307/​23926​19 10.​1177/​01492​06314​527128 Burgelman, R. A. (1983b). Corporate entrepreneurship and Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Con- strategic management: Insights from a process study. struct refinement and cross-cultural validation. Journal Management Science, 29(12), 1349–1364. https://​doi.​ of Business Venturing, 16(5), 495–527. https://​doi.​org/​ org/​10.​1287/​mnsc.​29.​12.​1349 10.​1016/​S0883-​9026(99)​00054-3 Burgers, J. H., Jansen, J. J., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L., & Wright, M. (2018). W. (2009). Structural differentiation and corporate ventur- Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis ing: The moderating role of formal and informal integration of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship mechanisms. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 206– Journal, 12(1), 72–95. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​sej.​1266 220. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusv​ent.​2009.​01.​006 Basu, S., Phelps, C., & Kotha, S. (2011). Towards understand- Busenitz, L. W., Plummer, L. A., Klotz, A. C., Shahzad, A., ing who makes corporate venture capital investments and & Rhoads, K. (2014). Entrepreneurship research (1985– why. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(2), 153–171. 2009) and the emergence of opportunities. Entrepreneur- https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusv​ent.​2009.​07.​001 ship Theory and Practice, 38(5), 981–1000. https://​doi.​ Begley, T. M., Tan, W., & Schoch, H. (2005). Politico-eco- org/​10.​1111/​etap.​12120 nomic factors associated with interest in starting a busi- Camelo-Ordaz, C., Fernández-Alles, M., Ruiz-Navarro, J., & ness: A multi-country study. Entrepreneurship Theory Sousa-Ginel, E. (2012). The intrapreneur and innovation and Practice, 29(1), 35–55. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​ in creative firms. International Small Business Journal, 1540-​6520.​2005.​00068.x 30(5), 513–535. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02662​42610​ Behrens, J., & Patzelt, H. (2016). Corporate entrepreneurship 385396 managers’ project terminations: Integrating portfolio- Carrier, C. (1994). Intrapreneurship in large firms and SMEs: level, individual-level, and firm-level effects. Entrepre- A comparative study. International Small Business Jour- neurship Theory and Practice, 40(4), 815–842. https://​ nal, 12(3), 54–61. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02662​42694​ doi.​org/​10.​1111/​etap.​12147 123005 Vol:. (1234567890) 13 Corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review and future research agenda 1561 Chrisman, J., Chua, J., De Massis, A., Frattini, F., & Wright, Dushnitsky, G., & Lenox, M. J. (2005). When do firms under- M. (2015). The ability and willingness paradox in fam- take R&D by investing in new ventures? Strategic Man- ily firm innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Man- agement Journal, 26(10), 947–965. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ agement, 32(3), 310–318. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jpim.​ 1002/​smj.​488 12207 Dushnitsky, G., & Shapira, Z. (2010). Entrepreneurial finance Clark, T., Wright, M., Iskoujina, Z., & Garnett, P. (2014). JMS meets organizational reality: Comparing investment prac- at 50: Trends over Time. Journal of Management Stud- tices and performance of corporate and independent ven- ies, 51(1), 19–37. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​joms.​12040 ture capitalists. Strategic Management Journal, 31(9), Corbett, A. C., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2007). The conflicting 990–1017. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​smj.​851 cognitions of corporate entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Foss, N. J., Lyngsie, J., & Zahra, S. A. (2013). The role of Theory and Practice, 31(1), 103–121. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ external knowledge sources and organizational design in 1111/j.​1540-​6520.​2007.​00165.x the process of opportunity exploitation. Strategic Man- Corbett, A., Covin, J. G., O’Connor, G. C., & Tucci, C. L. agement Journal, 34(12), 1453–1471. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ (2013). Corporate entrepreneurship: State-of-the-art 1002/​smj.​2135 research and a future research agenda. Journal of Prod- Glaser, L., Fourné, S. P., & Elfring, T. (2015). Achieving uct Innovation Management, 30(5), 812–820. https://​doi.​ strategic renewal: The multi-level influences of top and org/​10.​1111/​jpim.​12031 middle managers’ boundary-spanning. Small Business Cottrill, C. A., Rogers, E. M., & Mills, T. (1989). Co-citation Economics, 45(2), 305–327. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ analysis of the scientific literature of innovation research s11187-​015-​9633-5 traditions: Diffusion of innovations and technology trans- Gnyawali, D. R., & Fogel, D. S. (1994). Environments for fer. Science Communication, 11(2), 181–208. https://​doi.​ entrepreneurship development: key dimensions and org/​10.​1177/​10755​47089​01100​204 research implications. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Covin, J. G., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2011). Entrepreneurial ori- Practice, 18(4), 43–62. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10422​ entation theory and research: Reflections on a needed 58794​01800​403 construct. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), Grande, J., Madsen, E. L., & Borch, O. J. (2011). The relation- 855–872. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1540-​6520.​2011.​ ship between resources, entrepreneurial orientation and 00482.x performance in farm-based ventures. Entrepreneurship Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of and Regional Development, 23(3–4), 89–111. https://​doi.​ entrepreneurship as firm behaviour. Entrepreneurship org/​10.​1080/​08985​62090​31837​10 Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7–25. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Grossman, A., Okhmatovskiy, I., & Wright, M. (2016). State 1177/​10422​58791​01600​102 control and corporate governance in transition econo- Covin, J. G., Garrett, R. P., Kuratko, D. F., & Bolinger, M. mies: 25 years on from 1989. Corporate Governance- (2021). Internal corporate venture planning autonomy, International Review, 24(3), 200–221. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ strategic evolution, and venture performance. Small Busi- 1111/​corg.​12145 ness Economics, 56, 293–310. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ Guerrero, M., Amorós, J. E., & Urbano, D. (2021). Do s11187-​019-​00220-2 employees’ generational cohorts influence corpo- Dada, O. L., Watson, A., & Kirby, D. A. (2012). Toward a rate venturing? A multilevel analysis. Small Business model of franchisee entrepreneurship. International Economics, 57(1), 47–74. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ Small Business Journal, 30(5), 559–583. https://​doi.​org/​ s11187-​019-​00304-z. 10.​1177/​02662​42610​376078 Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editors’ introduc- De Silva, M., & Wright, M. (2019). Entrepreneurial co-crea- tion: Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management tion: Societal impact through open innovation. R&D Journal, 11, 5–15. Management Journal, 49(3), 318–342. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Hale, J. S., & Woronkowicz, J. (2020). Artists as public sector 1111/​radm.​12362 intrapreneurs: an experiment. Small Business Economics, Dess, G. G., Ireland, R. D., Zahra, S. A., Floyd, S. W., Janney, 1–14.https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11187-​020-​00417-w J. J., & Lane, P. J. (2003). Emerging issues in corporate Hayton, J., George, G., & Zahra, S. (2002). National culture entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 351– and entrepreneurship: A review of behavioral research. 378. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0149-​2063(03)​00015-1 Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 33–52. Djankov, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10422​58702​02600​403 A. (2002). The regulation of entry. Quarterly Journal of Heavey, C., & Simsek, Z. (2013). Top Management composi- Economics, 117(1), 1–37. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1162/​00335​ tional effects on corporate entrepreneurship: The moder- 53027​53399​436 ating role of perceived technological uncertainty. Journal Doh, J. P., & Pearce, J. A. (2004). Corporate entrepreneurship of Product Innovation Management, 30(5), 837–855. and real options in transitional policy environments: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jpim.​12033 Theory development. Journal of Management Studies, Heavey, C., Simsek, Z., Roche, F., & Kelly, A. (2009). Deci- 41(4), 645–664. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1467-​6486.​ sion comprehensiveness and corporate entrepreneurship: 2004.​00448.x The moderating role of managerial uncertainty prefer- Dokko, G., & Gaba, V. (2012). Venturing into new territory: ences and environmental dynamism. Journal of Man- Career experiences of corporate venture capital managers agement Studies, 46(8), 1289–1314. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ and practice variation. Academy of Management Journal, 1111/j.​1467-​6486.​2009.​00858.x 55(3), 563–583. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​amj.​2009.​0909 Vol.: (0123456789) 13 1562 D. Urbano et al. Hellman, T. (2007). When do employees become entrepre- Kang, J. H., Matusik, J. G., Kim, T. Y., & Phillips, J. M. (2016). neurs? Management Science, 53(6), 919–933. https://​doi.​ Interactive effects of multiple organizational climates on org/​10.​1287/​mnsc.​1060.​0648 employee innovative behavior in entrepreneurial firms: A Hills, G., & LaForge, R. (1992). Research at the marketing cross-level investigation. Journal of Business Venturing, interface to advance entrepreneurship theory. Entrepre- 31(6), 628–642. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusv​ent.​2016.​ neurship Theory and Practice, 16(3), 33–59. https://​doi.​ 08.​002 org/​10.​1177/​10422​58792​01600​303 Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. (2006). Corporate Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. entrepreneurship in family firms: A family perspective. (2001). Strategic entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial strat- Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 809–830. egies for wealth creation. Strategic Management Journal, https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1540-​6520.​2006.​00153.x 22(6–7), 479–491. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​smj.​196 Kelley, D. J., Peters, L., & O’Connor, G. C. (2009). Intra- Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle organizational networking for innovation-based corporate managers’ perception of the internal environment for cor- entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), porate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. 221–235. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusv​ent.​2008.​05.​010 Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253–273. https://​ Keupp, M. M., & Gassmann, O. (2009). The past and the future doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0883-​9026(00)​00059-8 of international entrepreneurship: A review and sugges- Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., Shepherd, D. A., & Bott, J. P. tions for developing the field. Journal of Management, (2009). Managers’ corporate entrepreneurial actions: 35(3), 600–633. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01492​06308​ Examining perception and position. Journal of Business 330558 Venturing, 24(3), 236–247. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ Kistruck, G. M., & Beamish, P. W. (2010). The interplay of jbusv​ent.​2008.​03.​002 form, structure, and embeddedness in social intrapre- Hornsby, J. S., Peña-Legazkue, I., & Guerrero, M. (2013a). neurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), Guest editorial: The role of corporate entrepreneurship 735–761. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1540-​6520.​2010.​ in the current organizational and economic landscape. 00371.x International Entrepreneurship and Management Jour- Kolev, K. D., Wangrow, D. B., Barker, V. L., III., & Schepker, nal, 9, 1–11. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11365-​013-​0255-6 D. J. (2019). Board committees in corporate governance: Hornsby, J. S., Bloodgood, J. M., Hayton, J., & Kuratko, D. F. A cross-disciplinary review and agenda for the future. (2013b). Network legitimacy diffusion: A model for cor- Journal of Management Studies, 56(6), 1138–1193. porate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​joms.​12444 and Management Journal, 9(3), 307–322. https://​doi.​org/​ Kotlar, J., DeMassis, A., Wright, M., & Frattini, F. (2018). 10.​1007/​s11365-​013-​0256-5 Organizational goals: Antecedents, formation processes, Hoy, F. (2006). The complicating factor of life cycles in corporate and implications for firm behavior and performance. venturing. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), International Journal of Management Reviews, 20, S3– 831–836. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1540-​6520.​2006.​00154.x S18. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ijmr.​12170 Hughes, M., & Mustafa, M. (2017). Antecedents of corporate Kreiser, P. M., Marino, L. D., & Weaver, K. M. (2002). Assess- entrepreneurship in SMEs: Evidence from an emerg- ing the psychometric properties of the entrepreneurial ing economy. Journal of Small Business Management, orientation scale: A multi-country analysis. Entrepre- 55(S1), 115–140. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jsbm.​12269 neurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 71–94. https://​doi.​ Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of org/​10.​1177/​10422​58702​02600​405 strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimen- Kreiser, P. M., Kuratko, D. F., Covin, J. G., Ireland, R. D., sions. Journal of Management, 29(6), 963–989. https://​ & Hornsby, J. S. (2021). Corporate entrepreneurship doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0149-​2063(03)​00086-2 strategy: extending our knowledge boundaries through Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Concep- configuration theory. Small Business Economics, 56, tualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepre- 739–758. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11187-​019-​00198-x neurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 19–46. https://​doi.​ Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2013). Clarifying the org/​10.​1111/j.​1540-​6520.​2008.​00279.x domains of corporate entrepreneurship. International Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. (2011). International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): a domain ontol- 1–13. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11365-​013-​0257-4 ogy and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Ventur- Kuratko, D. F., Morris, M. H., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Corpo- ing, 26(6), 632–659. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusv​ent.​ rate Innovation & Entrepreneurship (International Edi- 2011.​04.​001 tion) (3rd ed.). South-Western/Cengage Learning. Judge, W. Q., Liu-Thompkins, Y., Brown, J. L., & Pongpati- Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Hayton, J. (2015). Cor- pat, C. (2015). The impact of home country institutions porate entrepreneurship: The innovative challenge on corporate technological entrepreneurship via R&D for a new global economic reality. Small Business investments and virtual world presence. Entrepreneur- Economics, 45(2), 245–253. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ ship Theory and Practice, 39(2), 237–266. https://​doi.​ s11187-​015-​9630-8 org/​10.​1111/​etap.​12036 Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & McKelvie, A. (2021). Kacperczyk, A. J. (2012). Opportunity structures in established Entrepreneurial mindset in corporate entrepreneurship: firms entrepreneurship versus intrapreneurship in mutual Forms, impediments, and actions for research. Journal funds. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(3), 484–521. of Small Business Management, 1–23.https://​doi.​org/​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00018​39212​462675 10.​1080/​00472​778.​2021.​19075​85 Vol:. (1234567890) 13 Corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review and future research agenda 1563 Lampe, J., Kraft, P. S., & Bausch, A. (2020). Mapping the Miller, A., Spann, M. S., & Lerner, L. (1991). Competitive field of research on entrepreneurial organizations advantages in new corporate ventures: The impact of (1937–2016): A bibliometric analysis and research resource sharing and reporting level. Journal of Business agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(4), Venturing, 6(5), 335–350. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0883-​ 784–816. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10422​58719​851217 9026(91)​90023-7 López-Duarte, C., Vidal-Suárez, M. M., & González-Díaz, Minola, T., Brumana, M., Campopiano, G., Garrett, R. P., & B. (2016). International business and national culture: Cassia, L. (2016). Corporate venturing in family busi- A literature review and research agenda. International ness: A developmental approach of the enterprising fam- Journal of Management Reviews, 18(4), 397–416. ily. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(4), 395–412. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ijmr.​12070 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​sej.​1236 Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entre- Minola, T., Kammerlander, N., Kellermanns, F. W., & Hoy, F. preneurial orientation construct and linking it to per- (2021). Corporate entrepreneurship and family business: formance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), Learning across domains. Journal of Management Stud- 135–172. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​258632 ies, 58(1), 1–26. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​joms.​12672 Lyngsie, J., & Foss, N. J. (2017). The more, the merrier? Monsen, E., Patzelt, H., & Saxton, T. (2010). Beyond sim- Women in top-management teams and entrepreneur- ple utility: Incentive design and trade-offs for corporate ship in established firms. Strategic Management Jour- employee-entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and nal, 38(3), 487–505. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​smj.​2510 Practice, 34(1), 105–130. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1540-​ Maes, J., & Sels, L. (2014). SMEs’ radical product innova- 6520.​2009.​00314.x tion: The role of internally and externally oriented Morris, M. H., Avila, R. A., & Allen, J. W. (1993). Individual- knowledge capabilities. Journal of Small Business ism and the modern corporation: Implications for inno- Management, 52(1), 141–163. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ vation and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, jsbm.​12037 19(3), 595–612. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01492​06393​ Martiarena, A. (2013). What’s so entrepreneurial about intra- 01900​305 preneurs? Small Business Economics, 40(1), 27–39. Morris, M. H., Davis, D. L., & Allen, J. W. (1994). Fostering https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11187-​011-​9348-1 corporate entrepreneurship: Cross-cultural comparisons Marvel, M. R., Griffin, A., Hebda, J., & Vojak, B. (2007). of the importance of individualism versus collectivism. Examining the technical corporate entrepreneurs’ moti- Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 65–89. vation: Voices from the field. Entrepreneurship Theory https://​doi.​org/​10.​1057/​palgr​ave.​jibs.​84908​49 and Practice, 31(5), 753–768. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​ Mourao, P. R., & Martinho, V. D. (2020). Forest entrepreneur- 1540-​6520.​2007.​00198.x ship: A bibliometric analysis and a discussion about the Marvel, M. R., Davis, J. L., & Sproul, C. R. (2016). Human co-authorship networks of an emerging scientific field. capital and entrepreneurship research: A critical review Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, 120413. https://​doi.​ and future directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2020.​120413 Practice, 40(3), 599–626. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​etap.​ Narayanan, V. K., Yang, Y., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Corporate 12136 venturing and value creation: A review and proposed Maula, M. V., Autio, E., & Murray, G. C. (2009). Corporate framework. Research Policy, 38(1), 58–76. https://​doi.​ venture capital and the balance of risks and rewards for org/​10.​1016/j.​respol.​2008.​08.​015 portfolio companies. Journal of Business Venturing, Nason, R. S., McKelvie, A., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2015). The 24(3), 274–286. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusv​ent.​2008.​ role of organizational size in the heterogeneous nature of 10.​012 corporate entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, McCain, K. W. (1983). The author cocitation structure of mac- 42(2), 1–26. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11187-​015-​9632-6 roeconomics. Scientometrics, 5(5), 277–289. https://​doi.​ O’connor, G. C., & Rice, M. P. (2001). Opportunity recogni- org/​10.​1007/​BF021​47224 tion and breakthrough innovation in large established McGrath, R. G., Venkataraman, S., & MacMillan, I. C. (1994). firms. California Management Review, 43(2), 95–116. The advantage chain: Antecedents to rents from inter- https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​41166​077 nal corporate ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, Park, H. D., & Steensma, H. K. (2012). When does corporate 9(5), 351–369. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0883-​9026(94)​ venture capital add value for new ventures? Strategic 90012-4 Management Journal, 33(1), 1–22. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ McMillan, I. C. (1986). Progress in research on corporate ven- 1002/​smj.​937 turing. In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), The Art Parker, S. C. (2011). Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship? and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge: Ballinger Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 19–34. https://​doi.​ Publishing Company. org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusv​ent.​2009.​07.​003 Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three Pettit, K. L., & Crossan, M. M. (2020). Strategic renewal: types of firms. Management Science, 27(7), 770–791. Beyond the functional resource role of occupational https://​doi.​org/​10.​1287/​mnsc.​29.7.​770 members. Strategic Management Journal, 41(6), 1112– Miller, A., Wilson, B., & Adams, M. (1988). Financial perfor- 1138. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​smj.​3115 mance patterns of new corporate ventures: An alternative Phan, P. H., Wright, M., Ucbasaran, D., & Tan, W. L. (2009). to traditional measures. Journal of Business Venturing, Corporate entrepreneurship: Current research and future 3(4), 287–300. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0883-​9026(88)​ directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 197– 90010-9 205. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusv​ent.​2009.​01.​007 Vol.: (0123456789) 13 1564 D. Urbano et al. Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneurship. Harper & Row. Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of Plambeck, N. (2012). The development of new products: The the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneur- role of firm context and managerial cognition. Journal of ship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 11–28. Business Venturing, 27(6), 607–621. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​1287/​orsc.​11.4.​448.​14602 1016/j.​jbusv​ent.​2011.​08.​002 Shepherd, D. A., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Pro- Post, C., Sarala, R., Gatrell, C., & Prescott, J. E. (2020). ject failure from corporate entrepreneurship: Managing Advancing theory with review articles. Journal of Man- the grief process. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(6), agement Studies, 57(2), 351–376. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 588–600. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusv​ent.​2008.​01.​009 1111/​joms.​12549 Shepherd, D. A., Williams, T. A., & Patzelt, H. (2015). Think- Radaelli, G., & Sitton-Kent, L. (2016). Middle managers and ing about entrepreneurial decision making: Review and the translation of new ideas in organizations: A review of research agenda. Journal of Management, 41(1), 11–46. micro-practices and contingencies. International Journal https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01492​06314​541153 of Management Reviews, 18(3), 311–332. https://​doi.​org/​ Simba, A., & Thai, M. T. T. (2019). Advancing entrepreneur- 10.​1111/​ijmr.​12094 ial leadership as a practice in MSME management and Ramos-Rodriguez, A. R., & Ruiz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes development. Journal of Small Business Management, in the intellectual structure of strategic management 57(sup2), 397–416. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jsbm.​12481 research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Manage- Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., & Lubatkin, M. H. (2007). The impact of ment Journal, 1980–2000. Strategic Management Jour- managerial environmental perceptions on corporate entre- nal, 25(10), 981–1004. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​smj.​397 preneurship: Towards understanding discretionary slack’s Rind, K. W. (1981). The role of venture capital in corporate pivotal role. Journal of Management Studies, 44(8), 1398– development. Strategic Management Journal, 2(2), 169– 1424. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1467-​6486.​2007.​00714.x 180. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​smj.​42500​20206 Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new Romero-Martínez, A. M., Fernández-Rodríguez, Z., & measure of the relationship between two documents. Vázquez-Inchausti, E. (2010). Exploring corporate entre- Journal of the Association for Information Science and preneurship in privatized firms. Journal of World Busi- Technology, 24(4), 265–269. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​asi.​ ness, 45(1), 2–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jwb.​2009.​04.​ 46302​40406 008 Stam, E. (2013). Knowledge and entrepreneurial employees: A Sahaym, A., Steensma, H. K., & Barden, J. Q. (2010). The country-level analysis. Small Business Economics, 41(4), influence of R&D investment on the use of corporate 887–898. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11187-​013-​9511-y venture capital: An industry-level analysis. Journal of Tsai, W. M. H., MacMillan, I. C., & Low, M. B. (1991). Effects Business Venturing, 25(4), 376–388. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ of strategy and environment on corporate venture success 1016/j.​jbusv​ent.​2008.​12.​001 in industrial markets. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(1), Salvato, C., Sciascia, S., & Alberti, F. (2009). The microfoun- 9–28. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0883-​9026(91)​90003-V dations of corporate entrepreneurship as an organiza- Turner, T., & Pennington, W. W., III. (2015). Organizational tional capability. The International Journal of Entrepre- networks and the process of corporate entrepreneur- neurship and Innovation, 10(4), 279–289. https://​doi.​org/​ ship: How the motivation, opportunity, and ability to 10.​5367/​00000​00097​90012​291 act affect firm knowledge, learning, and innovation. Sathe, V. (1985). Managing an entrepreneurial dilemma: nur- Small Business Economics, 45(2), 447–463. https://​doi.​ turing entrepreneurship and control in large corporations. org/​10.​1007/​s11187-​015-​9638-0 Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Turro, A., Urbano, D., & Peris-Ortiz, M. (2014). Culture and Wesley Mas, pp. 636–656. innovation: The moderating effect of cultural values on Schildt, H. A., Maula, M. V., & Keil, T. (2005). Explorative corporate entrepreneurship. Technological Forecasting and exploitative learning from external corporate ven- and Social Change, 88, 360–369. tures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), Turro, A., Alvarez, C., & Urbano, D. (2016). Intrapreneur- 493–515. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1540-​6520.​2005.​ ship in the Spanish context: A regional analysis. Entre- 00095.x preneurship & Regional Development, 28(5–6), 380– Schildt, H. A., Zahra, S. A., & Sillanpää, A. (2006). Scholarly 402. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​08985​626.​2016.​11628​50 communities in entrepreneurship research: A co-citation Urbano, D., Aparicio, S., & Audretsch, D. (2019). Twenty- analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), five years of research on institutions, entrepreneurship, 399–415. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1540-​6520.​2006.​ and economic growth: What has been learned? Small 00126.x Business Economics, 53(1), 21–49. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Schollhammer, H. (1982). Internal corporate entrepreneurship. 1007/​s11187-​018-​0038-0 In C. Kent, D. Sexton, & K. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: of entrepreneurship. Prentice-Hall. VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric map- Shafique, M. (2013). Thinking inside the box? Intellectual ping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://​doi.​org/​ structure of the knowledge base of innovation research 10.​1007/​s11192-​009-​0146-3 (1988–2008). Strategic Management Journal, 34(1), Verbeke, A., Chrisman, J. J., & Yuan, W. (2007). A note on 62–93. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​smj.​2002 strategic renewal and corporate venturing in the sub- Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entre- sidiaries of multinational enterprises. Entrepreneurship preneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), Theory and Practice, 31(4), 585–600. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 448–469. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1287/​orsc.​11.4.​448.​14602 1111/j.​1540-​6520.​2007.​00189.x Vol:. (1234567890) 13 Corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review and future research agenda 1565 Volery, T., & Mazzarol, T. (2015). The evolution of the small Zahra, S. A. (1995). Corporate entrepreneurship and financial business and entrepreneurship field: A bibliometric performance: The case of management leveraged buy- investigation of articles published in the International outs. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(3), 225–247. Small Business Journal. International Small Business https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0883-​9026(94)​00024-O Journal, 33(4), 374–396. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02662​ Zahra, S. A. (1996a). Governance, ownership, and corporate 42613​516139 entrepreneurship: The moderating impact of industry Wadhwa, A., & Kotha, S. (2006). Knowledge creation technological opportunities. Academy of Management through external venturing: Evidence from the tel- Journal, 39(6), 1713–1735. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​ ecommunications equipment manufacturing industry. 257076 Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 819–835. Zahra, S. A. (1996b). Technology strategy and new venture https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​20159​800 performance: A study of corporate-sponsored and inde- Wadhwa, A., Phelps, C., & Kotha, S. (2016). Corporate ven- pendent biotechnology ventures. Journal of Business ture capital portfolios and firm innovation. Journal of Venturing, 11(4), 289–321. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0883-​ Business Venturing, 31(1), 95–112. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 9026(95)​00128-X 1016/j.​jbusv​ent.​2015.​04.​006 Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the Wallin, M. W. (2012). The bibliometric structure of spin- corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A off literature. Innovation, 14(2), 162–177. https://doi. longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1), org/10.5172/impp.2012.14.2.162 43–58. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0883-​9026(94)​00004-E Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of net- Zahra, S. A., & Garvis, D. M. (2000). International corporate work capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on entrepreneurship and firm performance: The moderating university spin-off performance. Journal of Business effect of international environmental hostility. Journal of Venturing, 21(4), 541–567. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ Business Venturing, 15(5), 469–492. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ jbusv​ent.​2005.​02.​005 1016/​S0883-​9026(99)​00036-1 Wang, Y. K. M., Chung, C. C., & Lim, D. S. (2015). The Zahra, S. A., & Hayton, J. (2008). The effect of international drivers of international corporate entrepreneurship: venturing on firm performance: The moderating influ- CEO incentive and CEO monitoring mechanisms. ence of absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Ventur- Journal of World Business, 50(4), 742–753. https://​doi.​ ing, 23(2), 195–220. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusv​ent.​ org/​10.​1016/j.​jwb.​2015.​02.​002 2007.​01.​001 Westfall, S. L. (1969). Stimulating Corporate Entrepreneur- Zahra, S. A., Nielsen, A. P., & Bogner, W. C. (1999). Corpo- ship in U.S. industry. Strategic Management Journal, rate entrepreneurship, knowledge, and competence devel- 12(2), 235–246. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​254819 opment. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T., & Floyd, S. W. (2008). The 169–189. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10422​58799​02300​310 middle management perspective on strategy process: Zahra, S. A., Neubaum, D. O., & Huse, M. (2000). Entre- Contributions, synthesis, and future research. Journal preneurship in medium-size companies: Exploring the of Management, 34(6), 1190–1221. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ effects of ownership and governance systems. Journal of 1177/​01492​06308​324326 Management, 26(5), 947–976. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​ Wright, M., Thompson, S., & Robbie, K. (1992). Venture capi- S0149-​2063(00)​00064-7 tal and management-led leveraged buy-outs. Journal of Zahra, S. A., Filatotchev, I., & Wright, M. (2009). How do Business Venturing, 7(1), 47–71. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​ threshold firms sustain corporate entrepreneurship? 0883-​9026(92)​90034-O The role of boards and absorptive capacity. Journal of Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of cor- Business Venturing, 24(3), 248–260. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ porate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal 1016/j.​jbusv​ent.​2008.​09.​001 of Business Venturing, 6(4), 259–286. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 1016/​0883-​9026(91)​90019-A Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard Zahra, S. A. (1993). Environment, corporate entrepreneurship to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional and financial performance: A taxonomic approach. Jour- affiliations. nal of Business Venturing, 8(4), 319–340. https://​doi.​org/​ 10.​1016/​0883-​9026(93)​90003-N Vol.: (0123456789) 13