Small Bus Econ (2015) 45:255278
DOI 10.1007/s11187-015-9629-1
Corporate entrepreneurship and performance:
A meta-analysis
Michael Bierwerth Christian Schwens
Rodrigo Isidor Rudiger Kabst
Accepted: 12 December 2014 / Published online: 13 February 2015
! Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract Despite considerable research, empirical
findings on the relationship between corporate entre-
preneurship (CE) (i.e., strategic renewal, innovation
and corporate venturing) and performance remain
inconclusive. Using a meta-analysis, the present paper
synthesizes prior literature regarding the CEperfor-
mance relationship of 43 independent samples includ-
ing 13,237 firms. Our results reveal that strategic
renewal, innovation and corporate venturing positively
influence overall, subjective and objective firm per-
formance. In addition, we conduct moderator analyses
to reflect on the context and to verify whether and how
the relationships vary in the presence of several study-
specific factors. We find that innovation has a stronger
effect on performance in high-tech as opposed to low-
tech industries, and the association between corporate
venturing and performance is the strongest in Europe
(compared with North America and Asia). Against our
theoretical predictions, we find the association
between strategic renewal and performance to be
M. Bierwerth ! R. Isidor ! R. Kabst
Chair for International Business, Faculty of Business
Administration and Economics, University of Paderborn,
Warburger Strasse 100, 33098 Paderborn, Germany
C. Schwens (&)
Chair for Management, Faculty of Business
Administration and Economics, University of
Duesseldorf, Universitaetsstrasse 1, 40225 Duesseldorf,
Germany
e-mail: christian.schwens@hhu.de
stronger for larger than for smaller firms. Based on our
results, we derive recommendations for future research
and point to managerial implications.
Keywords Corporate entrepreneurship ! Strategic
renewal ! Innovation ! Corporate venturing !
(subjective and objective) Performance ! Meta-
analysis
JEL Classifications L25 ! L26
1 Introduction
Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE) encompasses firm-
level formal and informal activity that focuses on
discovering and pursuing new business opportunities
by means of strategic renewal, innovation and corpo-
rate venturing (Sharma and Chrisman 1999; Guth and
Ginsberg 1990). CE is an established and ever-
growing topic for both management and entrepre-
neurship research. A significant body of the literature
examines CE as an important means for large and
established multinational enterprises (MNEs) to revi-
talize their business (e.g., Zahra 1996a) and to
appropriately react to changes in the firms environ-
ment (Zahra 1991). However, recent studies show that
CE is also an effective means for small- and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs) to renew themselves (e.g.,
Heavey and Simsek 2013). The more recent focus on
123
256
SMEs is particularly timely and pertinent considering
that for SMEs, in pursuing growth opportunities and
becoming larger in the new global economic reality, a
key challenge is to continuously adapt and renew
themselves.
Prior literature demonstrates that CE plays an
important role in the firms performance. Because
firms can engage in CE for financial and/or strategic
reasons (Phan et al. 2009), the literature distinguishes
between the different motivations behind the firms
CE activity when considering its performance out-
comes. To this end, one stream of the literature
examines the impact of CE on objective performance,
including financial performance such as return on
sales (ROS), return on assets (ROA), and profitability
(e.g., Zahra and Covin 1995; Zahra et al. 2000) and/or
financial growth such as sales growth and growth in
profits (e.g., Salimath et al. 2008; Zahra 1993a). Other
studies focus on subjective performance, including
perceived non-financial performance (e.g., customer
satisfaction) (e.g., Agca et al. 2012) and/or perceived
financial performance (e.g., perceived profitability of
firms compared with their major competitors) (e.g.,
Simsek and Heavey 2011). Studies also consider
overall performance, which is a combination of
objective and subjective performance.
The present paper seeks to answer two major
research questions: (a) how does CE affect perfor-
mance across existing empirical studies? and (b) how
does the relationship between CE and performance
vary in the presence of different boundary conditions?
To answer these questions, we integrate extant
research on the relationship between CE (i.e., strategic
renewal, innovation and corporate venturing) and
performance (i.e., overall, subjective and objective
performance) by means of a meta-analysis. Further-
more, we reflect on the boundary conditions of the
CEperformance association by investigating the
impact of moderating factors (i.e., firm size, industry
and country of origin) on the relationship.
Two major research deficits inspired the present
research. First, although the majority of prior literature
generally attests a positive effect of CE on perfor-
mance (e.g., Zahra 1993a; Zahra and Covin 1995), the
existing empirical findings regarding this association
remain rather inconclusive. For example, Zahra et al.
(2000) investigate the impact of CE (i.e., product,
process and organizational innovation, domestic ven-
turing, foreign venturing) on firms financial
123
M. Bierwerth et al.
performance (i.e., ROA, ROS and earning per share)
and financial growth (i.e., sales growth). Among other
findings, the study shows that domestic venturing has a
positive effect on sales growth, while foreign ventur-
ing is negatively associated with ROA and ROS. Agca
et al. (2012) investigate the relationship between CE
(i.e., innovativeness, new business venturing and self-
renewal) and objective performance (i.e., profitability
and growth) as well as subjective performance (i.e.,
perceived customer and employee satisfaction). The
authors find that self-renewal is negatively associated
with profitability, while innovation has a positive
effect. Moreover, innovation is the only CE dimension
that positively affects customer and employee satis-
faction. Lin and Lee (2011) study the impact of
corporate venturing investments on firm-level perfor-
mance. Among other findings, their empirical results
reveal that corporate venturing investments do not
affect the firms growth value alone but only in
contingency with industrial characteristics.
Second, prior research indicates that there is a need
to reflect more systematically on the boundary condi-
tions surrounding the CE and performance associa-
tions. For example, existing empirical evidence
concerning the CEperformance relationships stems
from (a) various types of firms (e.g., SMEs, large
MNEs), (b) different industries (e.g., low-tech, high-
tech) and (c) various countries of origin (USA, Europe
and Asia). On the one hand, this variety shows the
multifaceted nature and broad-based relevance of CE
in different contexts (Phan et al. 2009). On the other
hand, the contextual variety can be a cause for the
inconclusive findings. For example, the above-men-
tioned study by Zahra et al. (2000) focuses on
medium-sized US manufacturing firms, while Agca
et al. (2012) focus on large manufacturing firms from
Turkey, and Lin and Lee (2011) draw on a longitudinal
dataset of Taiwanese technology-based companies.
We suggest that the time is ripe to quantitatively
consolidate knowledge regarding the CEperfor-
mance relationship and its respective boundary con-
ditions. More specifically, we argue that the field is in
need of a quantitative consolidation of the literature in
order to take stock of the current knowledge regarding
CE and performance in a systematic and evidence-
based way. Furthermore, we regard the contextual
variety as highly valuable, demonstrating the impor-
tance of CE in different settings. However, this variety
also points to the necessity to reflect more
Corporate entrepreneurship and performance
systematically on the boundary conditions surround-
ing the CEperformance associations, as they form a
potential source for the previously inconclusive find-
ings. Our claim is consistent with Phan et al. (2009, p.
198), who state that it has become clear that CE
activities within corporations are heterogeneous and
we need to know more about this variety in order to
pave the way for future scholarship in this growing
research domain.
We offer three major contributions to extant
research. First, our study results reveal differences in
the magnitude by which strategic renewal, innovation
and corporate venturing impact firms performance.
Because prior literature generally holds a relatively
positive notion regarding the performance implica-
tions of different CE activities, obtaining differenti-
ated findings regarding CE activities performance
contributions is imperative for future theory building.
In the absence of a strong and significant effect size, a
general recommendation that firms use CE may point
in the wrong direction, as the risks of the respective CE
activity can potentially be underestimated (Rauch
et al. 2009). We draw on broad-based empirical
evidence to unveil the different strengths to which CE
activities impact performance, and hence, we follow
an evidence-based approach that entrepreneurship
research frequently calls for (Frese et al. 2012, 2014).
Second, we help clarify previously inconclusive
findings by reflecting on the boundary conditions of
the CEperformance associations in a systematic
manner. Studying the impact of moderating factors
on the CEperformance association allows the iden-
tification of areas that can be fruitful for a more
detailed examination in future research as well as
contextual areas where future research is less prom-
ising (Rauch et al. 2009). Specifically, by investigating
the moderating effect of firm-level, industry-level and
country-level factors, we provide more detailed
information about the boundary conditions of the
CEperformance relationship. The particular perti-
nence of considering contextual factors potentially
intervening in the CEperformance relationship is
consistent with claims by various scholars (e.g.,
Gordon et al. 2000; Tushman and Rosenkopf 1996).
Third, we contribute to the literature by disentan-
gling the performance construct into subjective and
objective performance, thereby illustrating how CE
dimensions impact different types of performance. In
terms of sign, we theoretically establish CE activities
257
to have positive effects on (subjective and objective)
performance, but we envisage differences in the
magnitude of effect strengths for strategic renewal,
innovation and corporate venturing and their impact
on subjective and objective performance, and we
discuss the methodological and theoretical implica-
tions thereof.
2 Background literature and development
of the research model
Our research model encompasses the direct effect of
CE (i.e., strategic renewal, innovation and corporate
venturing) on performance (i.e., overall, subjective
and objective performance) as well as the moderating
impact of firms size, industry and country of origin on
the associations among strategic renewal, innovation,
corporate venturing and (overall) performance.
Consistent with the definition followed in the
present paper, CE captures the activities of an
established firm in terms of strategic renewal, inno-
vation and corporate venturing (e.g., Sharma and
Chrisman 1999; Guth and Ginsberg 1990). Strategic
renewal encompasses entrepreneurial activities alter-
ing an organizational entitys business and/or overall
strategy or structure (Sharma and Chrisman 1999).
Innovation captures the creation and introduction of
products, production processes and organizational
systems (Zahra 1996a). To avoid an overlap with
innovation management literature, we follow Phan
et al. (2009) and only consider the discovery and
pursuit of market opportunities when referring to
innovation in the context of CE. Finally, corporate
venturing describes entrepreneurial activities resulting
in the creation of semiautonomous or autonomous
organizational entities that reside outside the existing
organizational domain (Sharma and Chrisman
1999, p. 19).
Generally, the literature takes a positive outlook
regarding the performance implications of CE. For
example, Zahra (1993a) hypothesizes that CE is
positively associated with objective performance
(i.e., financial performance and financial growth).
Antoncic and Hisrich (2001) argue that CE positively
impacts subjective performance (as perceived by the
main decision maker) in terms of the companys
relative performance in comparison with its compet-
itors. However, distinguishing between different
123
258
Fig. 1 Research model
Corporate entrepreneurship
Strategic renewal
Innovation
Corporate venturing
dimensions of CE, types of performance and the
context in which the relationship is considered, it
becomes obvious that a more detailed perspective is
necessary. While Zahra (1993a) finds the impact of CE
on financial performance to vary by the respective CE
dimension (i.e., corporate venturing and strategic
renewal), Antoncic and Hisrich (2001) find a signif-
icant impact of CE on subjective performance for
Slovenian firms, but no such effect for the US firms.
The present research analyzes how CE (i.e., stra-
tegic renewal, innovation and corporate venturing)
affects performance (i.e., overall performance and its
sub-dimensions of subjective and objective perfor-
mance). Considering the impact of different CE
activities on performance, we account for the possi-
bility of diverging performance implications of stra-
tegic renewal, innovation and corporate venturing.
Accounting for differences between subjective and
objective performance enables us to detect the depen-
dency of effects on the respective outcome considered
(Phan et al. 2009).
Beyond the direct effects, we investigate the
moderating effect of firm-level, industry-level and
country-level factors on the CEperformance associ-
ation.1 This is consistent with Hitt et al. (2007), who
argue that an integration of factors from different levels
leads to a more detailed understanding of the phenom-
ena under study. At the firm level, we focus on the
moderating influence of firms size. This focus is
consistent with Salimath et al. (2008), who argue that
1
Because we are constrained in the number of studies included
in our analyses, we are unable to consider the moderating effects
on subjective and objective performance in our analyses.
123
M. Bierwerth et al.
Country
Industry
of origin
Size (high- vs.
(US, Europe
low-tech)
and Asia)
H2a-c - H3a-b + H4a-c +
Overall performance
H1a-c +
H1d +
Subjective vs. objective
performance
size is particularly relevant for the entrepreneurial firm
and constitutes one of the basic structural characteris-
tics of an organization relevant for CE. We also
consider the moderating effect of industry (low-tech
versus high-tech). Industry determines the degree of
dynamism and growth rates influencing the potential
number of new business opportunities (Zahra 1993b).
Extant research demonstrates that firms nested in
different industries vary in their pursuit of CE
measures underlining the importance to consider
industry as a core boundary condition when studying
the CEperformance relationship (Zahra 1993b,
1996b). Finally, we study the firms country of origin
as an important moderating factor on the environmen-
tal level. The firms country of origin determines the
informal institutions a firm is exposed to in its domestic
market. Considering domestic market characteristics is
consistent with Zhou et al. (2006), who argue that the
market environment in which a firm is located is a key
factor distinguishing firms in their likelihood to
undertake organizational change. Studying country-
level factors and their role in CE is also consistent with
a large body of the literature investigating various
dimensions of the environmental context (e.g.,
DAveni and Ravencraft 1994; Yiu et al. 2007).
Our research model is shown in Fig. 1.
3 Hypotheses
3.1 CE and performance
In this section, we delineate how firms accomplish
strategic renewal, innovation objectives and corporate
Corporate entrepreneurship and performance
venturing using business structures that are exten-
sions, adaptations or diversification from their existing
business models.
Strategic renewal efforts such as the redefinition of
a companys vision, mission, business concept, reor-
ganization of activities and competitive approach are
primary means for firms to adapt to changing
environments. By adapting organizational structures
that better align firms strategies with their organiza-
tion and environment, firms obtain competitive advan-
tages (Russell 1999; Teece et al. 1997). Strategic
renewal efforts make firms more sensitive to the
external environment and diversify their ability to
react to threats and opportunities (Zahra 1993a). Thus,
strategic renewal allows a company to adapt its
business structure to altered environmental conditions
and to react more efficiently to environmental changes
(Zhou et al. 2006). Strategic renewal also enhances
firms performance by increasing their ability to
extend firm capabilities and creatively leverage them
to add shareholder value (Zahra 1996a). However,
strategic renewal also entails potential downsides,
such as confusion on the part of the customers and
employees. For example, switching from a low-cost
strategy to a differentiation strategy can lead to a loss
of firms customers being price sensitive (Parnell
1994). In addition, the employees may not identify
themselves with the new strategy, thus lowering their
motivation, which negatively influences the firms
performance.
H1a Strategic renewal is positively associated with
(overall) performance.
Innovation represents an adaptation mechanism
helping firms exploit changing market conditions such
as advancing technologies, changing customer needs
or shortening product life cycles (Zahra and Covin
1995; Cillo et al. 2010). Innovation improves perfor-
mance in existing businesses by adapting organiza-
tional structures and processes and by creating (or
modifying) products (Zahra 1995). Innovative firms
can react more easily to opportunity gaps opening up
in the market (Goosen et al. 2002), and therefore, they
frequently pioneer the introduction of new products,
services or processes. By developing new process
innovations, firms can eliminate costly steps, reduce
inputs and increase utilization. Thus, innovation
increases firm performance by decreasing production
costs and improving quality and efficiency (Gunday
259
et al. 2011). Furthermore, pioneering firms have the
possibility to serve premium markets, allowing them
to charge higher prices, to gain control over market
access by directing distribution channels and to
establish their own products, services and brands as
a benchmark in the industry (Zahra and Covin 1995).
These advantages result in higher market shares and
improved profitability (Cillo et al. 2010). Innovation
also enhances firm performance by developing a
strong reputation and positive image, helping firms
differentiate themselves from competitors (Goosen
et al. 2002). In addition to the positive aspects of
innovation, there are also potential downsides. The
extant literature has shown that market uncertainty,
poor commercialization or market timing can cause
market failure of the introduced innovations (Roth-
aermel 2001). Additionally, a successful innovation
implementation demands significant amounts of
resources, enhancing the costs and risks (Zahra and
Covin 1995). If an innovation fails, a significant
decrease in the profitability of the firm may occur.
H1b Innovation is positively associated with (over-
all) performance.
Corporate venturing enhances performance by
extending or diversifying firms current business
structures. Extensions of existing business structures
can be achieved by creating new venture units in
product markets related to the parent firms main
product market. Strategic linkages between the new
venture units and the parent firm enhance synergies by
facilitating the sharing of critical resources or the
cross-leveraging of business opportunities and mana-
gerial experience (Lin and Lee 2011). In contrast,
corporate venturing diversifies parents product mar-
ket domains when the new venture units are estab-
lished in diverse industrial segments that are new to
the parent firms. The exposure to new technologies
expands firms knowledge and capabilities and facil-
itates the achievement of subjective performance
objectives, such as learning at different locations
within organizations (Simsek and Heavey 2011).
Being exposed to diverse streams of information from
various industries is valuable because it drives firms to
better recognize and pursue growth opportunities (Lin
and Lee 2011). By decoupling corporate ventures from
mainstream businesses, firms can enhance flexibility
and local adaptation in corporate venturing units,
resulting in enhanced performance. The structural
123
260 M. Bierwerth et al.

decoupling from the existing organizational domain extension of the product portfolio and diversifying
prevents corporate ventures from the dominant business structures often require time to yield better
bureaucratic routinization and organizational inertia financial performance. This aspect, however, is not
that often prevail in the parents mainstream activities assessed by the majority of existing studies in the field
(Benner and Tushman 2003; Gilbert 2005). Addition- drawing on cross-sectional data. Hence, the objective
ally, corporate ventures adopt working methods that performance effect may be underestimated in this
are better suited for their exploratory processes regard. In contrast, subjective performance is often
(Burgers et al. 2009), leading to more creative assessed by the major strategic decision makers, who
breakthroughs (Fiol 1995). However, corporate ven- are also likely involved in the CE activities them-
turing also has some drawbacks. For example, corpo- selves, which can result in a better subjective perfor-
rate venturing is associated with high initial mance assessment.
investments that stress the overall company resource
H1d The above relationships among strategic
base. In the worst case, the expenses may exceed profit
renewal, innovation, corporate venturing and perfor-
margins gained through corporate venturing and cause
mance are stronger when performance is measured
severe losses (Rothaermel 2001). Moreover, costly
subjectively (rather than objectively).
corporate venturing investments might be taken at the
expense of other investments, such as in the areas of
3.2 Boundary conditions of the CEperformance
R&D or advertising (Hitt et al. 1991).
relationship
H1c Corporate venturing is positively associated
with (overall) performance. We expect firm size to moderate the relationship
between CE and performance such that the smaller the
We expect the relationship between CE activities
firm is, the stronger the relationship. SMEs and larger
(i.e., strategic renewal, innovation and corporate
firms differ from each other in terms of flexibility and
venturing) and performance to be stronger when
organizational inertia (Autio et al. 2000). Larger firms
performance is assessed subjectively (opposed to
are often trapped in their bureaucratic and highly
objective performance assessment). Our rationale is
formalized structure, mitigating the successful imple-
both theoretically and methodologically motivated.
mentation of CE (Zahra and Hayton 2008; Zahra
From a theoretical view, firms have different motiva-
1995).
tions when engaging in CE activities, including
Strategic renewal is supposed to be more beneficial
strategic and financial motives (Phan et al. 2009).
for smaller than larger firms. Due to organizational
Objective performance primarily captures the finan-
inertia and deeply rooted structures, strategic renewal
cial motives behind CE, and hence, it is narrower
activities are more difficult to implement in larger
(compared with subjective performance) because it
corporations (Zahra 1995). If a company seeks to
solely focuses on the quantitative results obtained by
realize strategic renewal, it has to modify or unlearn
an activity in terms of outcome performance. Some
established routines before establishing new ones
firms strive for CE activities in order to learn or to
(Barkema and Vermeulen 1998). The inherent inertia
enter new market segments, which can hardly be
in larger firms reduces the organizations ability to
captured by objective performance measures. Sub-
handle new situations and increases its resistance to
jective performance, on the other hand, is broader in
change making the successful implementation of
nature, capturing multiple facets, including the pro-
strategic renewal more difficult (Dean et al. 1993).
cess leading up to the dissemination of final results as
In contrast, small firms usually lack these highly
well as performance-relevant issues going beyond
formalized structures, routines and control systems
sheer financial data (Arino 2003). Furthermore,
(Messeghem 2003), enabling them to adapt to chang-
potential spillover effects or other unintended positive
ing market conditions more efficiently.
outcomes of CE can positively influence the subjective
performance assessment, which is less likely the case H2a The relationship between strategic renewal and
of objective performance. (overall) performance is moderated by firm size such
From a methodological perspective, it is important that the smaller the firm is, the stronger the
to note that adaptation to changing environments, relationship.

123
Corporate entrepreneurship and performance
We expect smaller firms to benefit more from
innovation than larger firms because smaller firms
enjoy a greater flexibility and are deemed to be more
innovative than larger companies suffering from
organizational inertia (Zahra et al. 2000). Organiza-
tional inertia and the bureaucratic systems hamper
personal autonomy and individual creativity (Morse
1986). Additionally, the high formalization makes
large firms less flexible in their way of thinking
compared with smaller firms (Zahra and Hayton 2008;
Zahra 1995). Thus, the consequences of cumbersome
structures in large firms hinder the successful imple-
mentation of innovations. In contrast, smaller firms
provide a friendlier environment for innovation, where
structures and processes are kept simple and adaptable
(Carrier 1994). The smaller number of hierarchical
levels in SMEs also reinforces their structural flexi-
bility, making them more fertile than larger firms in
terms of innovation. This enables SMEs to innovate
more instinctively, naturally and especially, more
efficiently (Adams and Brock 2004).
H2b The relationship between innovation and (over-
all) performance is moderated by firm size such that
the smaller the firm is, the stronger the relationship.
Corporate venturing might be more strongly asso-
ciated with the performance of smaller firms because
they merely engage in corporate venturing activities
that are connected to their core business and that
possess a high probability of success. Firm size is often
used as a proxy for the availability of slack resources
(Kellermanns et al. 2012; Zahra 1995). Thus, larger
firms possess higher levels of slack resources, encour-
aging them to experiment with new strategies by
venturing into markets that are new to the parent firms
(Burgelman and Sayles 1986; Thompson 1967). In
contrast, smaller firms are less likely to engage in
experimental corporate venturing but are more likely
engage in corporate venturing with regard to their core
products and services. While the experimental corpo-
rate venturing activities of larger firms might benefit
performance in the long run, corporate venturing
activities carried out by smaller firms that are more
directly tied to their core businesses are arguably more
likely to benefit performance. Additionally, smaller
firms have to carefully select corporate venturing
activities according to their potential for success, as
the failure of a corporate venturing activity is a
261
credible threat to firm survival. In contrast, larger firms
have the resource slack to absorb failure, diminishing
their discipline over corporate venturing projects
(Nohria and Gulati 1996).
H2c The relationship between corporate venturing
and (overall) performance is moderated by firm size
such that the smaller the firm is, the stronger the
relationship.
The industry in which a company is nested
constitutes an important component of a firms
external environment contextualizing the CEperfor-
mance relationship (Zahra and Covin 1995; Zahra and
Hayton 2008). Industry types are characterized by
different degrees of dynamism and growth rates.
Dynamism refers to the continuity of changes in a
firms environment, arising from technological pro-
gress, competitive rivalry, regulatory developments
and similar forces (Zahra 1993a, p. 322). Constant
dynamism and advancement is a typical characteristic
of high-tech industries. Firms operating in these
industries are frequently confronted with an abun-
dance of exploitable opportunities to realize CE and to
gain competitive advantages (Zahra and Hayton
2008). High-tech industries are characterized by fast
changes and developments, making it imperative for
firms to continuously react to such changes. In this
regard, strategic renewal, innovation and corporate
venturing are important means to respond to changes
and developments and, hence, to ensure continuous
success in an industry.
Strategic renewal is an agile response to dynamism
that enables firms in fast changing high-tech industries
to find novel ways to compete and redefine industry
boundaries. By altering their structure and improving
their internal processes, firms can compete more
vigorously in dynamic industries (Zahra 1993a).
Focusing on durable competitive competencies and
renewing their business missions to differentiate
themselves from competitors improves firms com-
petitive positioning (Zahra and Das 1993). Addition-
ally, self-renewal programs that redefine or adapt
firms business concepts increase their ability to react
faster to threats and opportunities in dynamic indus-
tries (Zahra 1993a).
H3a The relationship between strategic renewal and
(overall) performance is moderated by industry, such
that strategic renewal has a stronger impact on
123
262
performance in high-tech industries than in low-tech
industries.
Innovation is an efficient way to cope with the high
demand for new products in dynamic industries (Zahra
1993b). High-tech industries require the development
of new products, as current products and services
become obsolete very quickly (Jansen et al. 2005;
Srensen and Stuart 2000). To overcome this threat of
obsolescence, firms in high-tech industries need to
continuously introduce innovations that depart from
existing products and services (Jansen et al. 2006).
Firms introducing innovative new products and
services meet the needs of dynamic industries and
benefit from a better competitive positioning (Zahra
1996b).
H3b The relationship between innovation and (over-
all) performance is moderated by industry, such that
innovation has a stronger impact on performance in
high-tech industries than in low-tech industries.
As our data are limited in the number of studies, we
cannot test the moderating influence of industry on the
corporate venturing-performance relationship, and
hence, do not derive a hypothesis for this contingency.
We expect the strength of the relationship between
CE activities and performance to vary depending on
the firms country of origin. Country of origin can be
seen as a proxy of culture. Because organizational
culture is embedded in national culture (Pothokuchi
et al. 2002), cultural dimensions at the societal level
(e.g., individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoid-
ance) are likely to influence firms organizational
culture (Rosenbusch et al. 2011). Of the nine cultural
dimensions suggested by House et al. (2004), uncer-
tainty avoidance, collectivism and power distance are
considered the most central with regard to CE
activities (Hayton et al. 2002; Feng and Liu 2013).
Uncertainty avoidance describes the extent to which
uncertainty is tolerated in a society (House et al. product champions (Nakata and Sivakumar 1996).
2004, p. 602). The US firms, for example, are nested in
a country hallmarked by lower levels of uncertainty
avoidance than European or Asian firms, and hence,
they tend to be less calculating when taking risks enthusiastically promoting them through the critical
and show a lower resistance to change (House et al.
2004, p. 618). Collectivism refers to the degree to
which organizational and societal institutional prac-
tices encourage and reward collective distribution of
resources and collective action (House et al. 2004, p.
123
M. Bierwerth et al.
30), with individualism as the opposite pole of the
individualism-collectivism dimension (Hofstede
2001). The American culture is known to be much
more individualistic than the European and Asian
cultures. Power distance refers to the degree to which
members of an organization [] expect and agree that
power should be stratified and concentrated at higher
levels of an organization (House et al. 2004, p. 12).
Asian countries are supposed to be very high power
distance societies (House et al. 2004).
Strategic renewal will be more beneficial in uncer-
tainty accepting societies. Higher resistance to change
in countries where uncertainty avoidance is high (e.g.,
China) enhances the likelihood that strategic renewal
will be considered too risky. However, firms need to
frequently change and adapt to volatile environmental
conditions to remain successful (Shane et al. 1995).
Firms from uncertainty accepting societies (e.g., USA)
are more tolerant of nonconformity to social norms
(Hofstede 2001) and, hence, are more likely to violate
organizational rules, norms and procedures to over-
come inertia to new organizational structures (Shane
et al. 1995).
H4a The relationship between strategic renewal and
(overall) performance is moderated by country of
origin, such that strategic renewal has a stronger
impact on performance in North American compared
with European and Asian contexts.
Successful innovations require freedom because it
facilitates creativity. Individualistic societies (e.g.,
the USA) are more likely than collectivist ones (e.g.,
Asian countries) to stress the importance of freedom
(Hofstede 2001). Thus, individualism promotes
creativity, independence and autonomy, making the
innovation processes more beneficial for firms
(Tiessen 1997). Additionally, individualistic socie-
ties profit from successful innovations driven by
Product champions are individuals who informally
emerge in an organization and put themselves on the
line for ideas of doubtful success, actively and
stages (Schon 1963). According to research on
product champions, a high degree of individualism
is positively associated with successful development
of new product innovations (Nakata and Sivakumar
1996).
Corporate entrepreneurship and performance
H4b The relationship between innovation and (over-
all) performance is moderated by country of origin,
such that innovation has a stronger impact on perfor-
mance in North American compared with European
and Asian contexts.
Corporate venturing benefits from lower power
distance. In societies characterized by high power
distance (e.g., China), firms rely on strong vertical
hierarchical structures (Waldman et al. 2006). How-
ever, informality of hierarchy is important to corporate
venturing because bureaucracy reduces creative activ-
ities (Shane 1992). Business structures change over
the industry life cycle, and new corporate venture units
in emerging industries that are new to the parent firms
are considered to be the most organic (Covin and
Slevin 1990). Power distance also reduces the flexi-
bility to cope with unexpected events, hampering the
exploitation of opportunities arising in adjacent or new
markets. Additionally, power distance demands much
effort from firms to overcome the maintenance of
existing authority structures, plans and procedures in
firms, reducing the beneficial effect of corporate
venturing.
H4c The relationship between corporate venturing
and (overall) performance is moderated by country of
origin, such that corporate venturing has a stronger
impact on performance in North American compared
with European and Asian contexts.
4 Methods
4.1 Literature search
The goal of the study-identification process was to
gather the available quantitative empirical articles on
CE activities and (objective and subjective) firm
performance. To obtain relevant articles, the literature
search involved multiple computerized and manual
search techniques. First, we conducted a comprehen-
sive search in electronic databases and Google Scholar
using various keywords. Second, we conducted man-
ual searches of reference lists from previous reviews
(e.g., Zahra et al. 1999; Sharma and Chrisman 1999).
Third, we conducted a manual issue-by-issue search in
international scholarly entrepreneurship, innovation
and management journals.
263
To be included in the meta-analysis, studies had to
fulfill the following selection criteria. First, consistent
with our definition, studies had to have an explicit
focus on CE activities. When studies focused on only
one CE activity, we were particularly careful to only
include those studies relevant to the CE literature. For
example, the search for innovation as a sub-
dimension of CE resulted in a vast number of studies
that are less definitively aligned with CE research
(Ireland et al. 2005). Innovation is studied widely in
multiple research domains, including the literature on
innovation management. Following Phan et al. (2009),
we did not consider those studies that elaborated
innovation from a technological push perspective.
Rather, we focused on the literature considering
innovations driven by opportunities that prevail in
the market. To this end, we did not consider studies
such as those by Morgan and Berthon (2008), Yalcin-
kaya et al. (2007), Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan
(2001), and Talke et al. (2010), while we incorporated
the studies by Ahuja and Lampert (2001), Goosen
et al. (2002), and Kellermanns et al. (2012). We
screened all articles obtained to verify that the study
indeed dealt with CE topics, hence ensuring a greater
homogeneity of the analyzed studies.2 Second, the
studies had to be quantitative empirical, providing
information regarding the relationships between at
least one CE activity and (objective and/or subjective)
firm performance. Third, each study had to report its
sample sizes and bivariate correlations for the CE
performance relationship or effect size statistics that
could be converted to bivariate correlations (Hunter
and Schmidt 2004). Additionally, we considered
whether two (or more) studies were based on the
same or at least partly overlapping samples. We did
not include correlations between identical constructs
more than once when they stemmed from the same
dataset. To this end, we excluded the studies by Zahra
(1991), Covin et al. (1990), Yiu and Lau (2008), Zahra
(2012), Wang and Zhang (2009), and Simsek et al.
(2009).
When assessing articles in terms of relevance for
the meta-analysis, the very few discrepancies between
the co-authors regarding the inclusion or exclusion of
an article were resolved after discussion. Based on the
2
The column CE measure displayed in Table 1 illustrates
which CE dimensions have been considered in the respective
studies included in our final analyses.
123
 Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations of meta-analysis samples
264

Study Journala Sample Firm Industry type Country Performance CE Effect sizes on performance
size sizeb of measured measuree

123
originc SR IN CV CE

Agca et al. (2012) IEMJ 331 TR obj/sub SR, CV 0.163 0.233 0.198
Ahuja and Lampert (2001) SMJ 721 11.02 High-tech obj IN 0.450 0.450
Alpkan and Kaya (2004) AEJ 70 High-tech TR sub SR 0.260 0.260
Benitez-Amado et al. (2010) IMDS 203 19.11 ES sub IN 0.340 0.340
Bloodgood et al. (1996) ET&P 61 1,668 High-tech US obj IN 0.005 0.005
Boeker (1997) AMJ 67 High-tech US obj SR -0.340 -0.340
Bratnicki and Dyduch (2007) FER 464 PL obj CE 0.256
Brizek and Khan (2007) HM 522 Low-tech sub CE 0.419
Burgers et al. (2009) JBV 240 495.39 NL sub CV 0.290 0.290
Covin et al. (2000) JBV 103 749.71 US sub IN 0.070 0.070
Covin et al. (1994) JMS 91 145.87 High-tech US sub SR, IN 0.100 -0.020 0.040
DAveni and Ravencraft AMJ 3,185 US obj SR 0.000 0.000
(1994)
Garca-Morales et al. (2014) JBR 160 High-tech EU sub CE 0.160
Goodale et al. (2011) JOPM 177 1,779.6 US sub CE 0.200
Goosen et al. (2002) SAJBM 86 ZA obj IN 0.277 0.277
Gordon et al. (2000)f JOM 74/43 High-tech/low- US obj SR/SR -0.16/-0.23 -0.16/-0.23
tech
Heavey and Simsek (2013) JPIM 99 157 High-tech US sub CE 0.220
Heavey et al. (2009) JMS 349 8.25 IE sub CE 0.286
Hill and Birkinshaw (2008) JBV 95 obj/sub IN, CV 0.290 0.125 0.208
Jansen et al. (2006) MS 283 33.37 Low-tech obj IN 0.180 0.180
Jones et al. (2000) JBV 188 1,712 US sub IN 0.188 0.188
Kellermanns et al. (2012) SBE 70 93.43 US sub IN 0.372 0.372
Leitner and Guldenberg (2010) SBE 100 128 Low-tech AT obj/sub SR, IN -0.025 0.004 -0.011
Lin and Lee (2011) JBV 444 High-tech TW obj CV 0.040 0.040
Lisboa et al. (2011) IMM 254 142 PT sub IN 0.345 0.345
Nkongolo-Bakenda et al. JIE 81 39 Low-tech CA sub SR, IN -0.025 -0.013 -0.019
(2010)
O
zdemirci (2011) PSBS 141 TR sub SR, IN, CV 0.413 0.406 0.624 0.481
Rothaermel et al. (2006) SMJ 492 13,954 High-tech obj SR, IN, CV 0.343 0.530 0.520 0.464
M. Bierwerth et al.
 Table 1 continued
Study Journala Sample Firm Industry type Country Performance CE Effect sizes on performance
size sizeb of measured measuree
originc SR IN CV CE

Salimath et al. (2008) DS 278 109.85 US obj SR, IN 0.170 0.170 0.170
Simsek and Heavey (2011) SEJ 125 345 IE sub CE 0.190
Simsek et al. (2007) JMS 495 70 US sub CE 0.110
Tushman and Rosenkopf MS 921 Low-tech US obj SR 0.015 0.015
(1996)
Yang et al. (2007) JTMC 167 CN sub SR, IN, CV 0.420 0.560 0.300 0.427
Yiu et al. (2007) JIBS 278 399.41 CN obj SR, IN, CV -0.035 0.055 0.020 0.013
Zahra (1993a) JBV 102 US sub SR, IN, CV 0.430 0.380 0.430 0.413
Corporate entrepreneurship and performance

Zahra (1993b) ET&P 134 107.58 US sub SR, IN 0.140 0.360 0.250
Zahra (1995) JBV 47 6,734 US obj IN, CV 0.193 0.124 0.158
Zahra (1996a) AMJ 127 23,093 High-tech US obj SR, IN, CV 0.260 0.190 0.230 0.227
Zahra (2010) JMS 741 15,136 US obj CV 0.145 0.145
Zahra and Hayton (2008) JBV 217 39,823 obj CV -0.035 -0.035
Zahra et al. (2000) JOM 231 1,684 US obj SR, IN, CV 0.160 0.199 0.055 0.138
Zhou et al. (2006) JIBS 180 432.68 CN obj IN 0.230 0.230
In case a study reported two or more measures of a variable, we report the row means of the respective correlations
a
AEJ Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, AMJ Academy of Management Journal, DS Decision Sciences, ET&P Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, FER Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, HM Hospitality Management, IEMJ International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, IMDS Industrial Management & Data Systems, IMM
Industrial Marketing Management, JBR Journal of Business Research, JBV Journal of Business Venturing, JIBS Journal of lnternational Business Studies, JIE Journal of
International Entrepreneurship, JMS Journal of Management Studies, JOM Journal of Management, JOPM Journal of Operations Management, JPIM Journal of Product
Innovation Management, JTMC Journal of Technology Management in China, MS Management Science, PSBS ProcediaSocial and Behavioral Sciences, SAJBM South African
Journal of Business Management, SBE Small Business Economics, SEJ Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, SMJ Strategic Management Journal
b
Measured by number of employees, sales measures were excluded
c
AT Austria, CA Canada, CN China, ES Spain, EU European Union, IE Ireland, NL Netherlands, PL Poland, PT Portugal, TR Turkey, TW Taiwan, US United States, ZA South
Africa
d
obj objective, sub subjective
e
CE corporate entrepreneurship (composite measure), CV corporate venturing, IN innovation, SR strategic renewal
f
Two independent samples
265

123
266
criteria, we were able to identify 42 studies with 43
independent samples including a total of 13,237 firms.
For a detailed overview on the inclusion and exclusion
criteria and for further information regarding the
search methods applied, please see Appendix.3
Table 1 gives an overview of the articles included
in the meta-analysis and information on the studys
sample size, firm size, industry and country of origin.
We also provide information about the performance
measures (i.e., objective, subjective or both) and the
CE measures (i.e., strategic renewal, innovation,
corporate venturing and a composite measure includ-
ing (all or parts of) the activities of CE) employed in
the respective studies.
4.2 Measurement
A common difficulty in terms of measurement when
performing a meta-analysis is related to the usage of
the same measures for different constructs and/or the
employment of different measures for the same
constructs as used in the primary studies (Lipsey and
Wilson 2001). Thus, a meta-analyst must decide
whether all the measures of the constructs of interest
that appear in the eligible studies have to be coded
(Lipsey and Wilson 2001).
To resolve this, first, it is important to define the
respective constructs in an appropriate way. Second,
the meta-analyst has to ensure that the construct
measures as employed in the primary studies fit the
definition of the respective construct (Lipsey and
Wilson 2001). To accomplish this, we defined our
constructs in line with prior literature. After defining
constructs, we examined a random sample of 10
studies. The goal was to have a standard methodology
for coding effect sizes and study artifacts (Tihany et al.
2005). Then, two raters from the author team read each
of the remaining 32 articles and coded the effect sizes
of the respective constructs independently. The inter-
rater reliability was acceptable (Cohens
Kappa = 0.81, p \ 0.001), as values above 0.60
suggest adequate agreement (Landis and Koch
1977). Discrepancies were resolved by discussions
among the authors.
Strategic renewal encompasses corporate entrepre-
neurial efforts that result in significant changes to an
3
The comprehensive article by Jones et al. (2011) informed us
in drafting the Appendix.
123
M. Bierwerth et al.
organizations business or corporate level strategy or
structure. [] Renewal activities reside within an
existing organization and are not treated as new
businesses by the organization (Sharma and Chrisman
1999, p. 19). Accordingly, strategic renewal was mea-
sured by index variables referring to entrepreneurial
activities of a firm altering its (competitive) strategy
and/or (organizational) structure (e.g., the company has
changed its competitive approach for each business unit;
the extent to which a company has emphasized the
reorganization of units to increase innovation) (e.g., Yiu
et al. 2007; Zahra 1993a).
Innovation encompasses a firms commitment to
creating and introducing products and production
processes (Simsek and Heavey 2011, p. 83; Zahra
1996a) and was measured by multi-item scales
capturing a firms entrepreneurial activities in terms
of product and process innovations (e.g., the company
has introduced a large number of new products to the
market; the company has pioneered the development
of breakthrough innovations in its industry) (e.g.,
Zahra 1996a; Yiu et al. 2007) or by count variables
referring to the number of product and/or process
innovations (e.g., Zahra 1993b; Nkongolo-Bakenda
et al. 2010).
Corporate venturing encompasses the set of orga-
nizational systems, processes and practices that focus
on creating businesses in existing or new fields,
markets or industries-using internal and external
means (Narayanan et al. 2009, p. 59). Accordingly,
corporate venturing was measured based on scales
capturing the set of entrepreneurial venturing activities
of firms (e.g., the company has diversified its opera-
tions into new industries; the company has acquired
many companies in very different industries) (e.g.,
Burgers et al. 2009; Zahra et al. 2000) or by count
variables indicating the number of a firms venturing
activities (e.g., the number of new businesses the
company has entered this year; the number of new
market segments served; the number of mergers and
acquisitions in which the focal firm was engaged) (e.g.,
Zahra 1995; Rothaermel et al. 2006).
The studies included in our meta-analysis focus on
different types of performance. Studies using objective
performance either focused on financial performance
measures, including return on sales (ROS), return on
assets (ROA), profitability, sales revenue, net profit and
earnings per share (e.g., Zahra et al. 2000; Rothaermel
et al. 2006), or on financial growth measures, such as
Corporate entrepreneurship and performance
sales growth and growth in profits (e.g., Salimath et al.
2008; Yiu et al. 2007). Other studies have investigated
the impact of CE on subjective performance, such as
perceived financial performance in comparison with
major strategic groups (e.g., the market share and
profitability of firms relative to that of major compet-
itors as perceived by the companys top management
members) (e.g., Simsek and Heavey 2011; Garca-
Morales et al. 2014) and perceived non-financial
performance measures (e.g., the perceived extent to
which a company outperforms its competitors in terms
of product and market development and customer
satisfaction) (e.g., Benitez-Amado et al. 2010). Overall
performance encompasses combinations of objective
and subjective performance on an aggregated level.
4.3 Analysis
We applied a random-effects model (Hedges and Olkin
1985). As measures of accuracy of the effect sizes, we
calculated the 95 % confidence intervals around the
weighted correlation (Whitener 1990). The total effect
size measured in the meta-analysis was considered to
be significant if the confidence interval did not include
zero. Furthermore, we used the Q-statistic to test the
homogeneity of the effect sizes (Hedges and Olkin
1985). A significant Q-value indicates moderators are
likely to explain the variability in effect sizes across
studies (Lipsey and Wilson 2001).
Moderator analysis. For the continuous modera-
tor (i.e., firm size), we conducted a meta-regression
(Geyskens et al. 2009). The regression coefficient of
the meta-regression describes the change of the
correlation coefficient between the dependent and
independent variables if the moderator increases by
one unit. QM is the homogeneity test for the regression
model and, if significant, indicates that the regression
model is significant (Lipsey and Wilson 2001). We
analyzed categorical moderators (i.e., industry, coun-
try of origin) by means of subgroup analysis (Geys-
kens et al. 2009). The logic of the categorical
moderator test is analogous to analysis of variance
(ANOVA). We calculated the QB, which is analogous
to a main effect in an ANOVA and, if significant,
indicates that the categorical moderator explains the
heterogeneity of correlations (Lipsey and Wilson
2001). Moderator analyses of subgroups are only
reasonably interpretable when at least three effect
267
sizes per subgroup can be included in the analysis
(Dalton et al. 2003).
5 Results
Table 2 gives the results pertaining to the direct effects
of strategic renewal, innovation and corporate venturing
on overall performance (hypotheses 1ac). Table 2 also
displays the empirical results pertaining to hypothesis
1d, which distinguishes the respective relationships
between subjective and objective performance.
Strategic renewal (! rz = 0.126, p \ 0.01), innova-
tion (!rz = 0.261, p \ 0.001) and corporate venturing
rz = 0.237, p \ 0.001) were significantly and posi-
(!
tively related to overall performance, supporting
hypotheses 1a1c. In hypothesis 1d, we argued that
the influence of strategic renewal, innovation and
corporate venturing on performance is stronger when
performance is measured subjectively (rather than
objectively). As indicated in Table 2, strategic
renewal has a positive and significant impact on
subjective performance (! rz = 0.254, p \ 0.001),
while the impact on objective performance is weaker
and not significant (! rz = 0.037, p [ 0.05). The dif-
ference between the two effect sizes is significant
(QB = 9.152, p \ 0.01). Innovation has a significant
positive impact on subjective performance (! rz =
0.274, p \ 0.001), and the effect is stronger than the
impact on objective performance (! rz = 0.232, p \
0.001). However, the difference between the two
effect sizes is insignificant (QB = 0.260, p [ 0.05).
Corporate venturing was also significantly and posi-
tively related to subjective performance (! rz = 0.379,
p \ 0.001), and the effect was stronger than the
significant effect on objective performance (! rz =
0.143, p \ 0.05). The difference between the two
effect sizes is significant (QB = 5.004, p \ 0.05). In
sum, we find empirical support for hypothesis 1d.
To provide complete information, we also calculated
an overall CE measure by a composite measure including
(all or parts of) the activities of CE (i.e., strategic renewal,
innovation and corporate venturing) (e.g., Heavey et al.
2009; Garca-Morales et al. 2014). Overall, CE has a
significant and positive effect on overall performance
rz = 0.189, p \ 0.001), and the effect on subjective
(!
performance (! rz = 0.262, p \ 0.001) is again signif-
icantly (QB = 7.136, p \ 0.01) stronger than the
123
268 M. Bierwerth et al.

Table 2 Effects of CE activities on overall, subjective and objective performance

Hypothesis K n r!z 95 % Confidence interval Q QB

H1a Strategic renewal ? Overall performance 19 6,913 0.126** 0.043 - 0.209 155.03***
H1b Innovation ? Overall performance 24 4,513 0.261*** 0.181 - 0.341 156.47***
H1c Corporate venturing ? Overall performance 14 3,653 0.237*** 0.119 - 0.355 157.40***
H1d Strategic renewal 9.152**
? Subjective performance 9 1,217 0.254*** 0.143 - 0.364 28.15***
? Objective performance 12 6,127 0.037 0.052 - 0.126 89.42***
H1d Innovation 0.260
? Subjective performance 13 1,729 0.274*** 0.163 - 0.385 63.21***
? Objective performance 13 2,979 0.232*** 0.118 - 0.346 105.05***
H1d Corporate venturing 5.004*
? Subjective performance 6 1,076 0.379*** 0.238 - 0.520 25.40***
? Objective performance 10 3,003 0.143* 0.012 - 0.274 108.52***
Corporate entrepreneurship (composite 7.136**
measure)
? Overall performance 43 13,237 0.189*** 0.131 - 0.248 420.04***
? Subjective performance 23 4,297 0.262*** 0.203 - 0.321 76.63***
? Objective performance 23 9,466 0.115** 0.034 - 0.195 279.37***
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

effect on objective performance (! rz = 0.115,
p \ 0.01), lending additional support to our findings.
The results revealed considerable heterogeneity
among effect sizes (as indicated by the Q-statistic).
Q-values for all relations were significant (p-values
\ 0.001), indicating that correlations vary across
studies and that potential moderators explaining these
variations might exist. In a next step, therefore, we
conducted moderator analyses.
Moderator analysis. The continuous moderator
analysis for firm size is summarized in Table 3.
Firm size significantly moderated the relationship
between strategic renewal and firm performance
(QM = 6.974, p \ 0.01), indicating that the larger
the firm is, the stronger the relationship. Although the
effect is significant, we had to reject H2a because we
had expected the relationship to be stronger for smaller
firms. Because the relationships of corporate venturing
and innovation with performance were not moderated
by firm size, we also had to reject H2b and H2c.
Table 4 displays the results of the categorical
moderators industry and country of origin.4 The
4
We distinguish among North America, Asia and Europe in
terms of country of origin. Although the existing studies were
conducted in different countries, the number of observations is
moderator analyses for industry show that the relation
between strategic renewal and firm performance was
not significantly moderated by industry, leading us to
reject H3a. However, the relation between innovation
(QB = 5.386, p \ 0.05) and firm performance was
significantly moderated by industry, such that the
relationship was stronger in high-tech (! rz = 0.279)
than in low-tech (! rz = 0.065) industries, supporting
H3b. Due to the limited number of studies, we were
unable to test for the moderating effect of industry on
the relationship between corporate venturing and firm
performance.
The findings further show that country of origin
significantly moderates the relationship of corporate
venturing and performance (QB = 6.440, p \ 0.05).
However, the relationship with firm performance is
strongest in Europe (! rz = 0.409) and weaker in North
America (! rz = 0.199) and Asia (! rz = 0.116).
Although not statistically significant, the obtained
Footnote 4 continued
small in each individual country, disallowing a more differen-
tiated moderator analysis on a country level. However, because
there are, for example, certain cultural similarities across con-
tinents (cf. the GLOBE study, House et al. 2004), we aggregated
the data to refer to different geographic regions (Rauch et al.
2009). By doing so, we obtained a sufficient number of studies
for only three geographic regions.

123
Corporate entrepreneurship and performance 269

Table 3 Continuous Hypothesis Moderator b SE 95 % Confidence QM

moderator analysis interval

Strategic renewal ? Overall performance

H2a Firm size 0.000** 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 6.974**
Innovation ? Overall performance
H2b Firm size 0.000 0.000 -0.000 - 0.000 0.815
Corporate venturing ? Overall performance
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; H2c Firm size -0.000 0.000 -0.000 - 0.000 0.093
*** p \ .001

Table 4 Categorical Hypothesis Moderator K n r!z 95 % QB

moderator analysis Confidence
interval

Strategic renewal ? Overall performance

H3a Industry 2.263
High-tech 6 921 0.098 -0.079 - 0.274
Low-tech 4 1,145 -0.053 -0.270 - 0.163
Innovation ? Overall performance
H3b Industry 5.386*
High-tech 5 1,492 0.279 0.089 - 0.469
Low-tech 3 464 0.065 -0.183 - 0.313
Corporate venturing ? Overall performance
Industry 0.000
High-tech 3 1,063 0.285 -0.091 - 0.660
Low-tech 0
Strategic renewal ? Overall performance
H4a Country 3.147
America 12 5,334 0.063 -0.032 - 0.159
Asia 2 445 0.195 -0.025 - 0.414
Europe 4 642 0.212 0.046 - 0.377
Innovation ? Overall performance
H4b Country 1.969
America 12 1,513 0.184 0.082 - 0.286
Asia 3 625 0.299 0.111 - 0.488
Europe 5 981 0.272 0.124 - 0.420
Corporate venturing ? Overall performance
H4c Country 6.440*
America 5 1,248 0.199 0.045 - 0.353
Asia 3 889 0.116 -0.070 - 0.302
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; Europe 3 712 0.409 0.220 - 0.598
*** p \ .001

pattern of relationships for innovation and corporate firm performance is stronger in North America than in
venturing is similar, that is, the relationships are Europe or Asia. As the results revealed the opposite
stronger in Asia and Europe than in North America. pattern (relationships are weaker in North America
We hypothesized that the relation between CE and than in Europe and Asia), we had to reject H4aH4c.

123
270
6 Discussion
Over the years, CE has developed into an established
research field (Phan et al. 2009). However, the field is
lacking the establishment of a common stock of
knowledge (Ireland et al. 2009). Although the majority
of prior literature generally attests a positive effect of
CE on performance (e.g., Zahra 1993a; Zahra and
Covin 1995), the existing empirical findings remain
rather inconclusive. Controversies and conflicting
results on how different CE dimensions relate to
different performance measures hampers further
development of the field. Furthermore, contextual
factors have not yet been sufficiently emphasized in the
research field (Phan et al. 2009). The present research
suggests that it is time to consolidate knowledge
regarding the CEperformance relationship and its
boundary conditions by means of meta-analysis.
6.1 Effects of CE and performance
Our findings support the general notion that CE has
significant and positive performance implications.
However, our results also reveal differences in the
magnitude by which strategic renewal, innovation and
corporate venturing impact firms performance, such
that innovation and corporate venturing have stronger
performance effects than strategic renewal. This
finding suggests that firms have to carefully take into
account the advantages and disadvantages of the
respective CE activity before engaging in CE. Fur-
thermore, it is important for firms to consider the time
frame related to the implementation of the respective
CE activities. Innovation and corporate venturing can
be put into practice relatively quickly, yielding faster
performance effects (Espinosa and Suanes 2011; Hitt
et al. 1991), while strategic renewal activities take
more time to take full effect (Parnell 1994; Zhou et al.
2006). Because the majority of extant studies are cross-
sectional rather than longitudinal, the effect of strategic
renewal on performance is possibly underestimated in
the present study. Based on this discussion, we
encourage future research to examine the short-, mid-
and long-term implications of different CE activities,
which will require a longitudinal perspective, as is
consistent with the study by Zahra and Covin (1995).
Another explanation for the weaker effect of
strategic renewal on performance is related to the
motivation behind the CE activities. Firms can pursue
123
M. Bierwerth et al.
different goals (e.g., adaptation, extension, diversifi-
cation of existing business structures for strategic and/
or financial objectives) when engaging in CE activities
(Phan et al. 2009). The differentiation between
objective and subjective performance in our meta-
analysis is an indicator of this line of reasoning. The
empirical findings revealed that the effects of CE
activities on subjective performance are stronger than
the effects on objective performance. CE activities do
not always aim at improving firms objective perfor-
mance and, hence, are not solely financially moti-
vated. This especially holds true for strategic renewal
activities, where we do find a significant effect on
subjective performance but no effect on objective
performance. The motivation behind strategic renewal
might particularly be the achievement of non-financial
objectives, such as enhancing customer satisfaction or
adapting its market positioning.
Hence, our recommendations for future research
are threefold. First, we recommend not using a
summed index of the three sub-dimensions in future
studies. It seems that the motivations behind CE
activities differ, and therefore, a summed index would
lead to a dilution of the results. Second, we recom-
mend that researchers align the used performance
measure with the motivation behind the CE activities
(Phan et al. 2009). Third, future research should
extend existing theories or develop new ones that
account for the different motivations behind CE
activities and the associated performance outcomes.
Current theories, such as real options approaches or
standard return on investment frameworks, cannot be
applied to the different motivations behind CE activ-
ities, as they only capture financial objectives (Phan
et al. 2009). Thus, we believe that new perspectives
are necessary to fully understand the performance
enhancing effects of different CE activities.
In addition to the three recommendations outlined
above regarding the magnitude of subjective perfor-
mance measures, it is also imperative to consider who
has implemented the respective CE activity and who
has been interviewed regarding the perceived perfor-
mance. If both are the same person, the subjective
performance may be biased, as managers are rewarded
with regard to the success or failure of the respective
activity employed and, hence, may overrate the
success. One way to avoid such biases is to at least
to try to enlist two respondents per firm when
obtaining subjective performance assessments.
Corporate entrepreneurship and performance
6.2 Moderators
We find considerable variance in the strength of the
correlation between CE and performance, indicating
that context is important to consider when assessing
the CEperformance relationship. We identify three
moderators from the firm-, industry- and environmen-
tal levels that we tested in our meta-analysis (i.e., firm
size, industry and country of origin).
Contrary to our hypothesis, our results reveal that
firm size has a positive moderating effect on the
relationship between strategic renewal and perfor-
mance. The greater resource availability of larger
firms might explain this finding. Small firms usually
possess limited resources, while larger firms are
equipped with slack resources and, hence, possess an
abundance of financial, organizational and human
resources. These slack resources enable larger firms to
absorb failure, while for smaller firms, the unsuccess-
ful strategic renewal is a credible threat to firm
survival (Nohria and Gulati 1996). Thus, slack allows
larger firms to more likely benefit from strategic
renewal activities because it protects them from the
uncertainty regarding the success of those activities
(Bourgeois 1981). This finding lends support to recent
research arguing that when investigating CE activities
(such as strategic renewal), it is important to consider
firms of different size (Simsek et al. 2007). Because
firm size is often considered a proxy for resource
availability, our finding is an important addition to
existing research on the impact of resources on firms
entrepreneurial activities (e.g., Heavey and Simsek
2013), such that it explicitly displays the interaction
among firm size, strategic renewal and performance.
To move the literature forward on this important front,
we encourage future scholarship to specifically
address two major deficits. First, the current dominant
usage of proxies for resource availability has limita-
tions. A vast majority of quantitative research in CE
solely focuses on measures such as size (e.g., Yiu et al.
2007; Zahra et al. 2000) and discretionary slack (e.g.,
Simsek et al. 2007) to measure the availability of
resources in general. Summarizing various resources
(e.g., financial, organizational or human resources) in
one integrated measure, however, prevents scholar-
ship from obtaining more detailed insights into the
underlying mechanisms of the impact of different
resources on the CEperformance relationship. Sec-
ond, in the few studies where specific resources are
271
considered, financial resource measures are predom-
inant in capturing the resource availability of firms
(e.g., Zahra and Hayton 2008; Zahra 1996a). Delving
deeper, only some qualitative in-depth case studies
focus on exploring the impact of firm resources on the
firms ability to change (e.g., Feldman 2004; Lee et al.
2011). However, there are a limited number of
quantitative empirical studies considering other
resources besides financial resources (e.g., Simsek
and Heavey 2011). To move the literature forward, we
call for future quantitative empirical research exam-
ining the different types of resources and capabilities
impacting the relationship between CE activities and
performance in greater detail.
A more disentangled perspective in this matter may
also help obtain more detailed findings regarding the
moderating effect of firm size in terms of those CE
activities, where we did not obtain significant results
in our analyses (i.e., innovation and corporate ventur-
ing). An additional reason for why we could only find
the relationship between strategic renewal and overall
firm performance to be moderated by firm size could
be that the majority of extant literature has focused on
large MNEs (e.g., Goodale et al. 2011; Zahra 1996a).
Thus, there is relatively limited variance in the
moderator variable on firms size. More recent studies
began to place a stronger focus on SMEs as well (e.g.,
Heavey and Simsek 2013; Leitner and Guldenberg
2010). We strongly encourage future scholarship to
consider both types of firms and to compare how CE
measures and their effects vary between MNEs and
SMEs in order to learn more about this important
boundary condition.
We also moderated the CEperformance relation-
ship by the industry in which a firm is conducting
business. Our results reveal that innovation is more
strongly related to performance in high-tech than in
low-tech industries. Although not statistically signif-
icant, the results for strategic renewal revealed a
similar pattern. This is an important finding, consid-
ering that high-tech industries are characterized by
high degrees of dynamism. Compared with firms
conducting business in low-tech industries, firms
operating in high-tech industries profit from numerous
exploitable opportunity gaps that prepare the ground
for the successful implementation of CE (Zahra
1993a). Unfortunately, we were unable to test whether
the relationship between corporate venturing and
performance varies by industry due to the limited
123
272
number of studies. Thus, the question of whether there
is a moderating effect of industry on the corporate
venturing-performance relationship remains unan-
swereda gap future research should strive to close.
Additionally, a large number of studies have analyzed
the relationship between CE and performance within
high-tech or low-tech industries. However, only one of
the studies analyzed the relationship within the service
industry (i.e., Brizek and Khan 2007). The service
sectors may also provide scope for significant CE
activities (Phan et al. 2009). Furthermore, prior
research has predominantly focused on traditional
commercial firms. Research on CE activities in non-
commercial organizations is relatively scarce. To
move the field forward, we call for more research
investigating the boundary conditions of industry
factors and the contingencies of how the industry
context moderates the CEperformance association in
different settings.
Finally, our findings reveal that the relationship
between CE and performance varies by the firms
country of origin. However, our results show an
unexpected pattern. Both Asian and European firms
profit more from CE activities than North American
firms. This finding contradicts our theoretical predic-
tions and raises some important questions, such as, do
higher degrees of uncertainty avoidance, collectivism
and power distance enhance the effect of CE on
performance? For instance, higher levels of uncer-
tainty avoidance in Asia and Europe might cause firms
located in these areas to ponder the changes and risks
of potential CE activities to a greater extent compared
with North American firms. As a result, Asian and
European firms might scrap plans of less promising or
too risky CE activities, whereas North American firms
implement such activities more often due to their
higher affinity toward risks. If such activities fail, this
can mitigate the relationship between CE and perfor-
mance. Another question is whether formal institu-
tional differences (e.g., property rights and financial
institutions) in domestic markets also influence the
CEperformance relationship. Because we can only
speculate but not fully explain the significant differ-
ences between the continents, we call for more
research on (in)formal institutions of countries to shed
light on the question of which country-specific
boundary conditions enhance the CEperformance
relationship.
123
M. Bierwerth et al.
The research designs of previous studies limited the
assessment of moderators in our meta-analysis.
Although we could test for different firm-level,
country-level and industry-level moderators, consid-
erable variance across studies remained in our anal-
yses, indicating further moderators influencing the
CEperformance relationship. Thus, we recommend
that future research test for other moderators than the
specific factors tested in this meta-analysis. For
example, firm age may be an interesting firm-level
characteristic. The performance implications of CE
activities might differ in different stages of the
corporate life cycle. Unfortunately, we could not
adequately test for this moderating variable, as the
firms in our sample were relatively homogeneous,
with a strong focus on mature firms.
7 Limitations and implications
Our paper has several limitations. First, due to the
limited number of studies using various performance
operationalizations, we were unable to further distin-
guish between different performance measurements.
This is particularly pertinent in our moderator analy-
ses, where we were able to test the moderating effects
of firm size, industry and country of origin on the
relationship between strategic renewal, innovation and
corporate venturing and only overall performance.
Although we would expect the directions of the
moderating effects to be similar regardless of whether
subjective and objective performance is used, there
may be considerable variances in effect sizes, as
already indicated with regard to the direct effects.
Second, due to an insufficient number of studies in
specific countries, we had to aggregate the studies to
refer to different continents. Because there are certain
cultural similarities in continents (House et al. 2004),
this is reasonable and is a standard procedure in meta-
analyses (Rauch et al. 2009). However, a more fine-
grained differentiation between different countries
might provide more insightful information enhancing
our understanding of how culture might influence the
CEperformance relationship. Additionally, the vast
majority of studies have been conducted in North
America, Europe or Asia. Hence, our meta-analysis is
restricted to studies from these areas and lacks studies
from other areas, such as Africa and South America.
Corporate entrepreneurship and performance
Third, and associated with the second limitation, we
were unable to account for the multi-nationality of
firms. For example, the subsidiary of a North Amer-
ican firm located in Asia might be influenced by both
the culture of the country of origin and by the Asian
culture where it is currently conducting business.
Additionally, the different cultures may also bias the
subjective performance assessmentan issue worth
accounting for in future research.
Fourth, considerable heterogeneity across studies
remained in our analysis, indicating that there might
be other moderating variables than the ones we were
able to integrate in our meta-analysis. For example,
Zahra and Garvis (2000) have shown that hat there are
upper limits to the potential performance a firm can
achieve from its CE activities when the environment in
which it competes is hostile. Additionally, Barrett
et al. (2000) found that individual marketing mix
factors significantly moderate the CE business perfor-
mance relationship. Therefore, we encourage future
research to further contextualize the effect of CE on
performance.
Our study offers several implications for practitio-
ners. We show that CE activities (i.e., strategic
renewal, innovations and corporate venturing) are
promising means for firms to react to changes in the
business environment. However, because firms have
different motivations when engaging in CE activities,
managers should carefully evaluate the performance
outcomes. Both objective and subjective performance
measures provide valuable insights for decision mak-
ers with respect to the success of a specific CE activity.
For instance, the question of whether strategic renewal
contributes to the successful adoption of an entrepre-
neurial culture within a firm cannot be answered by
solely relying on financial measurements.
Moreover, CE activities might have delayed effects
on firm performance. Strategic renewal activities, in
particular, imply extensive and profound changes
regarding the structure and/or strategy of a firm and,
thus, require a considerable amount of time to exert
their full effect. Thus, managers should not evaluate
the success of CE activities from a short-term
perspective but in a mid- or even long-term
perspective.
Furthermore, our results reveal that contextual
factors (e.g., firm size, industry and country of origin)
273
influence the successful implementation of CE. An
extensive evaluation of the firms capabilities and
resources, the informal institutions predefined by the
firms country of origin, as well as the parameters
within the firms industry can seriously impact the
outcomes of CE in terms of performance. Thus,
managers should carefully evaluate the boundary
conditions before engaging in certain CE activities
to realize the best possible outcomes.
Appendix
Inclusion/exclusion criteria and search methods
(based on Jones et al. 2011)
A. Inclusion criteria for articles
1. Consistent with our definition, studies had to
have an explicit focus on CE or one of its sub-
dimension (i.e., strategic renewal, innovation,
and corporate venturing).
2. Studies had to be quantitative empirical
providing information regarding the empiri-
cal relationships among at least one of the CE
activities and (objective and subjective) firm
performance.
3. Studies had to report the sample size and
outcome statistics.
B. Exclusion criteria for articles
1. Studies in which the primary focus is not CE;
e.g., we excluded studies that elaborated
innovation from a technological push per-
spective, but rather focused on the literature
considering innovations driven by opportuni-
ties that prevail in the market (entrepreneurial
behavior).
2. Studies focused on EO (orientations) rather
than CE (activities) and/or using established
EO measures for the measurement of the CE
variable (e.g., Barrett and Weinstein 1998;
Kellermanns and Eddleston 2006).
3. Studies based on the same or at least partly
overlapping sample of another relevant study
already considered.
123
274
4. Theoretical articles and/or articles with no
data collection and statistical analysis (e.g.,
case studies, conceptual papers, review arti-
cles, editor notes, and replies to published
articles).
5. Research published in books, book chapters,
periodicals, and working papers.
C. Search methods and scopeStep 1
1. Comprehensive keyword search in electronic
databases using Business Source Premier and
EconLit databases, as well as Google Scholar
Keywords (including variations and combi-
nations thereof):
a. corporate entrepreneurship, firm-level
entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship
b. strategic renewal, entrepreneurial strat-
egy making, organizational change, reju-
venation, reorganization, reorientation
c. innovation
d. corporate venturing
e. performance and success
2. Manual searches of reference lists from
previous reviews (e.g., Zahra et al. 1999;
Sharma and Chrisman 1999).
3. Manual issue-by-issue search from 1985 to
2014 in selected international scholar entre-
preneurship, innovation, and management
journals.
Journals: Journal of Business Venturing,
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Small
Business Economics, Research Policy, Jour-
nal of Product Innovation Management, Jour-
nals of Small Business Management,
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Academy
of Management Journal, Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, Journal of Management Stud-
ies, Journal of Management, Management
Science.
4. Manual searches of reference lists of relevant
articles found in 13.
D. Search methods and scopeStep 2
1. Following the inclusion/exclusion criteria,
two authors from the authors team assessed
whether to include.
Finale sample for meta-analysis: n = 42
articles with k = 43 independent samples.
123
M. Bierwerth et al.
References
Studies with an asterisk (*) included in our analyses
Adams, W., & Brock, J. W. (2004). The bigness complex:
Industry, labor, and government in the American economy.
Stanford: University Press.
*Agca, V., Topal, Y., & Kaya, H. (2012). Linking intrapre-
neurship activities to multidimensional firm performance
in Turkish manufacturing firms: An empirical study.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
8(1), 1533.
*Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the
large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established
firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 22(67), 521543.
*Alpkan, L., & Kaya, N. (2004). Exploring the financial per-
formance impacts of two dimensions of corporate entre-
preneurship. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal,
10(12), 7788.
Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Con-
struct refinement and cross-cultural validation. Journal of
Business Venturing, 16(5), 495527.
Arino, A. (2003). Measures of strategic alliance performance:
An analysis of construct validity. Journal of International
Business Studies, 34(1), 6679.
Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J., & Almeida, J. G. (2000). Effects of
age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on
international growth. Academy of Management Journal,
43(5), 909924.
Barkema, H. G., & Vermeulen, F. (1998). International expan-
sion through start-up or acquisition: A learning perspec-
tive. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 726.
Barrett, H., Balloun, J. L., & Weinstein, A. (2000). Marketing
mix factors as moderators of the corporate entrepreneur-
ship-business performance relationshipA multistage,
multivariate analysis. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 8(2), 5062.
Barrett, H., & Weinstein, A. (1998). The effect of market ori-
entation and organizational flexibility on corporate entre-
preneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(1),
5770.
*Benitez-Amado, J., Llorens-Montes, F. J., & Perez-Arostegui,
M. N. (2010). Information technology-enabled intrapre-
neurship culture and firm performance. Industrial Man-
agement & Data Systems, 110(4), 550566.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, explo-
ration, and process management: The productivity
dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review,
28(2), 238256.
*Bloodgood, J. M., Sapienza, H. J., & Almeida, J. G. (1996).
The internationalization of new high-potential U.S. ven-
tures: Antecedents and outcomes. Entrepreneurship The-
ory and Practice, 20, 6176.
*Boeker, W. (1997). Strategic change: The influence of mana-
gerial characteristics and organizational growth. Academy
of Management Journal, 40(1), 152170.
Corporate entrepreneurship and performance
Bourgeois, L. J. (1981). On the measurement of organizational
slack. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 2939.
*Bratnicki, M., & Dyduch, W. (2007). Measuring corporate
entrepreneurship and relating it to performance: What
really matters for fast growth and superior effects? Fron-
tiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 27, 115.
*Brizek, M. G., & Khan, M. A. (2007). An empirical investi-
gation of corporate entrepreneurship intensity in the casual
dining sector. International Journal of Hospitality Man-
agement, 26(4), 871885.
Burgelman, R. A., & Sayles, L. R. (1986). Inside corporate
innovation: Strategy, structure, and managerial skills.
New York: Free Press.
*Burgers, J. H., Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., &
Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural differentiation and
corporate venturing: The moderating role of formal and
informal integration mechanism. Journal of Business
Venturing, 24(3), 206220.
Carrier, C. (1994). Intrepreneurship in large firms and SMEs: A
comparative study. International Small Business Journal,
12(3), 5461.
Cillo, P., de Luca, L. M., & Troilo, G. (2010). Market infor-
mation approaches, product innovativeness, and firm per-
formance: An empirical study in the fashion industry.
Research Policy, 39(9), 12421252.
Covin, J. G., Prescott, J. E., & Slevin, D. P. (1990). The effects
of technological sophistication on strategic profiles,
structure and firm performance. Journal of Management
Studies, 27(5), 485510.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1990). New venture posture,
structure, and performance: An industry life cycle analysis.
Journal of Business Venturing, 5(2), 123135.
*Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P., & Heeley, M. B. (2000). Pioneers
and followers: Competitive tactics, environment, and firm
growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 175210.
*Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P., & Schultz, R. L. (1994). Imple-
menting strategic missions: Effective strategic, structural
and tactical choices. Journal of Management Studies,
31(4), 481505.
Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Certo, S. T., & Roengpitya, R.
(2003). Meta-analysis of financial performance and equity:
Fusion or confusion? Academy of Management Journal,
46(1), 1326.
Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001). The dynamic of
the adoption of product and process innovations in orga-
nizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38(1), 4565.
*DAveni, R. A., & Ravencraft, D. J. (1994). Economies of
integration versus bureaucracy costs: Does vertical inte-
gration improve performance? Academy of Management
Journal, 37(5), 11671206.
Dean, T. J., Meyer, G. D., & DeCastro, J. (1993). Determinants of
new-firm formations in manufacturing industries: Industry
dynamics, entry barriers, and organizational inertia.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(2), 4960.
Espinosa, M. D. M. B., & Suanes, A. M. (2011). Corporate
entrepreneurship through joint venture. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(3), 413430.
Feldman, M. S. (2004). Resources in emerging structures and
processes of change. Organization Science, 15(3),
295309.
275
Feng, J. B., & Liu, L. A. (2013). How cultures influence national
rate of innovation? A longitudinal analysis of 52 countries.
Academy of Management Proceedings.
Fiol, C. M. (1995). Thought worlds colliding: The role of con-
tradiction in corporate innovation processes. Entrepre-
neurship Theory and Practice, 19(3), 7190.
Frese, M., Bausch, A., Schmidt, P., Rauch, A., & Kabst, R.
(2012). Evidence-based entrepreneurship (EBE): Cumu-
lative science, action principles, and bridging the gap
between science and practice. Foundations and Trends in
Entrepreneurship, 8(1), 162.
Frese, M., Rousseau, D. M., & Wiklund, J. (2014). The emer-
gence of evidence-based entrepreneurship. Entrepreneur-
ship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 209216.
*Garca-Morales, V. J., Bolvar-Ramos, M. T., & Martn-Rojas,
R. (2014). Technological variables and absorptive capac-
itys influence on performance through corporate entre-
preneurship. Journal of Business Research, 67(7),
14681477.
Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Cunha, P.
V. (2009). A review and evaluation of meta-analysis
practices in management research. Journal of Manage-
ment, 35(2), 392419.
Gilbert, C. G. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia:
Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management
Journal, 48(5), 741763.
*Goodale, J. C., Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Covin, J. G.
(2011). Operations management and corporate entrepre-
neurship: The moderating effect of operations control on
the antecedents of corporate entrepreneurial activity in
relation to innovation performance. Journal of Operations
Management, 29(12), 116127.
*Goosen, D., de Coning, T. J., & Smit, E. vd. M. (2002). Cor-
porate entrepreneurship and financial performance: The
role of management. South African Journal of Business
Management, 33(4), 2127.
*Gordon, S. S., Steward, W. H, Jr, Sweo, R., & Luker, W. A.
(2000). Convergence versus strategic reorientation: The
antecedents of fast-paced organizational change. Journal
of Management, 26(5), 911945.
Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects
of innovation types on firm performance. International
Journal of Production Economics, 133(2), 662676.
Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editors introduc-
tion: Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management
Journal, 11(4), 515.
Hayton, J. C., George, G., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). National
culture and entrepreneurship: A review of behavioral
research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4),
3352.
*Heavey, C., & Simsek, Z. (2013). Top management compo-
sitional effects on corporate entrepreneurship: The mod-
erating role of perceived technological uncertainty.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(5),
837855.
*Heavey, C., Simsek, Z., Roche, F., & Kelly, A. (2009). Deci-
sion comprehensiveness and corporate entrepreneurship:
The moderating role of managerial uncertainty preferences
and environmental dynamism. Journal of Management
Studies, 46(8), 12891314.
123
276
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. O. (1985). Statistical methods for
meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press.
*Hill, S. A., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Strategy-organization
configurations in corporate venture units: Impact on per-
formance and survival. Journal of Business Venturing,
23(4), 423444.
Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E.
(2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across
levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(6), 13851399.
Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., Ireland, R. D., & Harrsion, J. S.
(1991). Effects of acquisitions on R&D inputs and outputs.
Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 693706.
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing
values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across
nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., &
Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-ana-
lysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd
ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.
Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Concep-
tualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepre-
neurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 1964.
Ireland, R. D., Reutzel, C. R., & Webb, J. W. (2005). Editors
note: Entrepreneurship research in AMJ: What has been
published, and what might be the future hold? Academy of
Management Journal, 48(4), 556564.
Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W.
(2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive
capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter?
Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 9991015.
*Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W.
(2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation,
and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents
and environmental moderators. Management Science,
52(11), 16611674.
Jones, M. V., Coviello, N. E., & Tang, Y. K. (2011). Interna-
tional entrepreneurship research (19892009): A domain
ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Ven-
turing, 26(6), 632659.
*Jones, G. K., Lanctot, A, Jr, & Teegen, H. J. (2000). Deter-
minants and performance impacts of external technology
acquisition. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 255283.
Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. (2006). Corporate
entrepreneurship in family firms: A family perspective.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 809830.
*Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., Sarathy, R., & Murphy,
F. (2012). Innovativeness in family firms: A family influ-
ence perspective. Small Business Economics, 38(1),
85101.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of
observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1),
159174.
Lee, S. M., Peris-Ortiz, M., & Fernandez-Guerrero, R. (2011).
Corporate entrepreneurship and human resource manage-
ment: Theoretical background and a case study. Interna-
tional Journal of Manpower, 32(1), 4867.
*Leitner, K.-H., & Guldenberg, S. (2010). Generic strategies
and firm performance in SMEs: A longitudinal study of
123
M. Bierwerth et al.
Austrian SMEs. Small Business Economics, 35(2),
169189.
*Lin, S.-J., & Lee, J.-R. (2011). Configuring a corporate ven-
turing portfolio to create growth value: Within-portfolio
diversity and strategic linkage. Journal of Business Ven-
turing, 26(4), 489503.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-ana-
lysis. Applied social research methods series, 49. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
*Lisboa, A., Skarmeas, D., & Lages, C. (2011). Entrepreneurial
orientation, exploitative and explorative capabilities, and
performance outcomes in export markets: A resource-
based approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(8),
12741284.
Messeghem, K. (2003). Strategic entrepreneurship and mana-
gerial activities in SMEs. International Small Business
Journal, 21(2), 197212.
Morgan, R. E., & Berthon, P. (2008). Market orientation, gen-
erative learning, innovation strategy and business perfor-
mance inter-relationships in bioscience firms. Journal of
Management Studies, 45(8), 13291353.
Morse, C. (1986). The delusion of intrapreneurship. Long Range
Planning, 19(6), 9295.
Nakata, C., & Sivakumar, K. (1996). National culture and new
product development: An integrative review. Journal of
Marketing, 60(1), 6172.
Narayanan, V. K., Yang, Y., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Corporate
venturing and value creation: A review and proposed
framework. Research Policy, 38(1), 5876.
*Nkongolo-Bakenda, J.-M., Anderson, R., Ito, J., & Garven, G.
(2010). Structural and competitive determinants of glob-
ally oriented small- and medium-sized enterprises: An
empirical analysis. Journal of International Entrepre-
neurship, 8(1), 5586.
Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1996). Is slack good or bad for inno-
vation? Academy of Management Journal, 39(5),
12451264.
zdemirci, A. (2011). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategy
*O
process: A performance based research on Istanbul market.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 611626.
Parnell, J. A. (1994). Strategic consistency versus flexibility:
Does strategic change really enhance performance?
American Business Review, 12(2), 2230.
Phan, P. H., Wright, M., Ucbasaran, D., & Tan, W.-L. (2009).
Corporate entrepreneurship: Current research and future
directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 197205.
Pothokuchi, V., Damanpour, F., Choi, J., Chen, C. C., & Park, S.
H. (2002). National and organizational culture differences
and international joint venture performance. Journal of
International Business Studies, 33(2), 243265.
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009).
Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An
assessment of past research and suggestions for the future.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761787.
Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Bausch, A. (2011). Is
innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the
relationship between innovation and performance in
SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), 441457.
Rothaermel, F. T. (2001). Incumbents advantage through
exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation.
Strategic Management Journal, 22(67), 687699.
Corporate entrepreneurship and performance
*Rothaermel, F. T., Hitt, M. A., & Jobe, L. A. (2006). Balancing
vertical integration and strategic outsourcing: Effects on
product portfolio, product success, and firm performance.
Strategic Management Journal, 27(11), 10331056.
Russell, R. D. (1999). Developing a process model of intra-
preneurial systems: A cognitive mapping approach.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 6584.
*Salimath, M. S., Cullen, J. B., & Umesh, U. N. (2008). Out-
sourcing and performance in entrepreneurial firms: Con-
tingent relationships with entrepreneurial configurations.
Decision Sciences, 39(3), 359381.
Schon, D. A. (1963). Champions for radical new inventions.
Harvard Business Review, 41(2), 7786.
Shane, S. A. (1992). Why do some societies invent more than
others? Journal of Business Venturing, 7(1), 2974.
Shane, S., Venkataraman, S., & MacMillan, I. (1995). Cultural
differences in innovation championing strategies. Journal
of Management, 21(5), 931952.
Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of
the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepre-
neurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3),
1127.
*Simsek, Z., & Heavey, C. (2011). The mediating role of
knowledge-based capital for corporate entrepreneurship
effects on performance: A study of small to medium-sized
firms. Strategic Entrepreneurial Journal, 5(1), 81100.
Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2009).
The role of an entrepreneurially alert information system in
promoting corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Research, 62(8), 810817.
*Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., & Lubatkin, M. H. (2007). The impact
of managerial environmental perceptions on corporate
entrepreneurship: Towards understanding discretionary
slacks pivotal role. Journal of Management Studies, 44(8),
13981424.
Srensen, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. (2000). Aging, obsolescence, and
organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 45(1), 81112.
Talke, K., Salomo, S., & Rost, K. (2010). How top management
team diversity affects innovativeness and performance via
the strategic choice to focus on innovation fields. Research
Policy, 39(7), 907918.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capa-
bilities and strategic management. Strategic Management
Journal, 18(7), 509533.
Tiessen, J. H. (1997). Individualism, collectivism, and entre-
preneurship: A framework for international comparative
research. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 367384.
Tihany, L., Griffith, D. A., & Russell, C. J. (2005). The effect of
cultural distance on entry mode choice, international
diversification, and MME performance: A meta-analysis.
Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3), 270283.
Thompson, J. (1967). Organization in action. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
*Tushman, M. L., & Rosenkopf, L. (1996). Executive succes-
sion, strategic reorientation and performance growth: A
longitudinal study in the U.S. cement industry. Manage-
ment Science, 42(7), 939953.
Waldman, D. A., de Luque, M. S., Washburn, N., House, R. J.,
Adetoun, B., Barrasa, A., et al. (2006). Cultural and lead-
ership predictors of corporate social responsibility values
277
of top management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries.
Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 823837.
Wang, Y., & Zhang, X. (2009). Operationalization of corporate
entrepreneurship and its performance implications in
China: An empirical study. Journal of Chinese Entrepre-
neurship, 1(1), 820.
Whitener, E. M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and
credibility intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75(3), 315321.
Yalcinkaya, G., Calantone, R. J., & Griffith, D. A. (2007). An
examination of exploration and exploitation capabilities:
Implications for product innovation and market perfor-
mance. Journal of International Marketing, 15(4), 6393.
*Yang, Z., Li-Hua, R., Zhang, X., & Wang, Y. (2007). Corpo-
rate entrepreneurship and market performance: An empir-
ical study in China. Journal of Technology Management in
China, 2(2), 154162.
Yiu, D. W., & Lau, C.-M. (2008). Corporate entrepreneurship as
resource capital configuration in emerging market firms.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 3757.
*Yiu, D. W., Lau, C., & Bruton, G. D. (2007). International
venturing by emerging economy firms: The effects of firm
capabilities, home country networks, and corporate entre-
preneurship. Journal of International Business Studies,
38(4), 519540.
Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of cor-
porate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of
Business Venturing, 6(4), 259285.
*Zahra, S. A. (1993a). Environment, corporate entrepreneur-
ship, and financial performance: A taxonomic approach.
Journal of Business Venturing, 8(4), 319340.
*Zahra, S. A. (1993b). New product innovation in established
companies: Associations with industry and strategy vari-
ables. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(2),
4769.
*Zahra, S. A. (1995). Corporate entrepreneurship and financial
performance: The case of management leverage buyouts.
Journal of Business Venturing, 10(3), 225247.
*Zahra, S. A. (1996a). Governance, ownership, and corporate
entrepreneurship: The moderating impact of industry
technological opportunities. Academy of Management
Journal, 39(6), 17131735.
Zahra, S. A. (1996b). Technology strategy and financial per-
formance: Examining the moderating role of the firms
competitive environment. Journal of Business Venturing,
11(3), 189219.
*Zahra, S. A. (2010). Harvesting family firms organizational
social capital: A relational perspective. Journal of Man-
agement Studies, 47(2), 345366.
Zahra, S. A. (2012). Organizational learning and entrepreneur-
ship in family firms: Exploring the moderating effect of
ownership and cohesion. Small Business Economics, 38(1),
5165.
Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the
corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing,
10(1), 4358.
Zahra, S. A., & Das, S. R. (1993). Innovation strategy and
financial performance in manufacturing companies: An
empirical analysis. Production and Operations Manage-
ment, 2(1), 1537.
123
278
Zahra, S. A., & Garvis, D. M. (2000). International corporate
entrepreneurship and firm performance: The moderating
effect of international environmental hostility. Journal of
Business Venturing, 15(5), 469492.
*Zahra, S. A., & Hayton, J. C. (2008). The effect of international
venturing on firm performance: The moderating influence
of absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Venturing,
23(2), 195220.
Zahra, S. A., Jennings, D. F., & Kuratko, D. F. (1999). The
antecedents and consequences of firm-level entrepreneur-
ship: The state of the field. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 24(2), 4565.
123
M. Bierwerth et al.
*Zahra, S. A., Neubaum, D. O., & Huse, M. (2000). Entrepre-
neurship in medium-size companies: Exploring the effects
on ownership and governance systems. Journal of Man-
agement, 26(5), 947976.
*Zhou, K. Z., Tse, D. K., & Li, J. J. (2006). Organizational
changes in emerging economies: Drivers and conse-
quences. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(2),
248263.