research paper on role of entrepreneurship

Corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review and future research agenda

• Open access
• Published: 05 January 2022
• Volume 59 , pages 1541–1565, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• David Urbano   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7600-8656 1 , 2 ,
• Andreu Turro 1 , 2 ,
• Mike Wright 3 &
• Shaker Zahra 4  

30k Accesses

42 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This article analyzes the state of the art of the research on corporate entrepreneurship, develops a conceptual framework that connects its antecedents and consequences, and offers an agenda for future research. We review 310 papers published in entrepreneurship and management journals, providing an assessment of the current state of research and, subsequently, we suggest research avenues in three different areas: corporate entrepreneurship antecedents, dimensions and consequences. Even though a significant part of the overall corporate entrepreneurship literature has appeared in the last decade, most literature reviews were published earlier. These reviews typically cover a single dimension of the corporate entrepreneurship phenomenon and, therefore, do not provide a global perspective on the existing literature. In addition, corporate entrepreneurship has been studied from different fields and there are different approaches and definitions to it. This limits our understanding of accumulated knowledge in this area and hampers the development of further research. Our review addresses these shortcomings, providing a roadmap for future research.

Plain English Summary

This review analyzes the articles published in the corporate entrepreneurship field and presents the future research agenda. Research agrees that corporate entrepreneurship has a positive impact on firms’ profits and growth. This has generated an increase in the number of research articles published in this area. However, previous literature has some limitations and areas that should be further explored. First, there are many different definitions and terms to refer to corporate entrepreneurship activities. This makes it difficult to understand the current state of corporate entrepreneurship research. Second, we lack up to date comprehensive literature reviews summarizing the knowledge and advances generated in the field in the last years. Overall, the objective of this research is to explore the content and evolution of corporate entrepreneurship research. This research contributes by summarizing and synthesizing the main findings in previous literature. It also contributes by identifying relevant inconsistencies and ambiguities in previous literature that have prevented the development of certain areas within the corporate entrepreneurship field.

Similar content being viewed by others

Digital transformation: a review, synthesis and opportunities for future research

Research Methodology: An Introduction

Do ESG Controversies Matter for Firm Value? Evidence from International Data

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) has generated considerable research attention because of its importance to corporate vitality and economic wealth generation (Dess et al., 2003 ). Past studies from several complementary fields, such as strategy, finance, entrepreneurship or marketing, have contributed to a better understanding of complex and dynamic entrepreneurship within established organizations (Hornsby, et al., 2013 ). CE is widely considered important for facilitating a firm’s efforts to exploit its current competitive advantages and explore new opportunities and the competencies required to pursue them successfully. Hence, it is widely viewed as contributing to the evolution of a firm’s corporate strategy (Ireland et al., 2003 ) by building new capabilities and businesses that enable renewal, foster strategic change and enhance a company’s profits and growth (Narayanan et al., 2009 ; Zahra & Hayton, 2008 ; Zahra, 1996a ).

However, despite the growing research in the last few years, there are aspects where we still lack understanding (Hornsby et al., 2009 ; Phan et al., 2009 ) as “the theoretical and empirical knowledge about the domain of CE and the entrepreneurial behavior on which it is based are still key issues that warrant a deeper understanding” (Kuratko et al., 2015 , p.247). Since it has been studied from different fields, different definitions and approaches to the CE phenomenon have appeared (Simba & Thai, 2019 ). This fragmentation makes it more difficult to understand the current state of CE research. In this regard, some previous research has used interchangeably different terms, such as, intrapreneurship (Pinchot, 1985 ), corporate venturing (McMillan, 1986 ) or corporate internal entrepreneurship (Schollhammer, 1982 ) as synonyms of CE (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001 ; Parker, 2011 ). These differences in terminology and the fact that some studies do not build on each other make it difficult to evaluate and compare results across studies (Narayanan et al., 2009 ). Overall, this limits our understanding of the CE phenomenon, hamper the development of further knowledge in this area, and make it more difficult to establish relations and boundaries with other relevant constructs (Shepherd et al., 2015 ).

In addition, there are few literature reviews focusing specifically on the CE phenomenon (Dess et al., 2003 ; Narayanan et al., 2009 ; Phan et al., 2009 ). Moreover, most of these articles focus only on specific dimensions of the CE phenomenon, and thus do not provide an overall perspective on the literature in this field. This limits the capacity of these studies to provide an integrative framework that summarizes and captures the state-of-the-art literature in the CE field. Narayanan et al. ( 2009 ), for example, examine corporate venturing and propose an organizing and integrative framework to guide future research. Similarly, Minola et al. ( 2016 ) focus on corporate venturing in family businesses. In the case of Dess et al. ( 2003 ), the authors attempt to identify emerging issues in CE by focusing specifically on its role in inducing and cultivating organizational learning. Therefore, while informative, these analyses are limited since other CE fundamental activities (such as innovation or strategic renewal) are not part of their remit. Thus, we are missing an up to date comprehensive review that covers the knowledge and advances generated in the field. In this regard, systematic literature reviews are particularly appropriate approaches to highlight the key contents from the literature in a structured way. Focusing on aspects such as the most prestigious journals, the most relevant authors in the field or analyzing the specific contents studied, can contribute to provide an enhanced understanding about the trend a research field is taking (Mourao & Martinho, 2020 ). It is important to address this gap to provide a meaningful assessment of how the CE literature has continued to evolve beyond earlier reviews and to set out new directions for research in this area. Hence, this article addresses the question: How has the field of corporate entrepreneurship research evolved, as reflected in articles published in top management and entrepreneurship journals? Based on this, we develop a systematic literature review and provide a conceptual framework and agenda for future research.

This article makes several contributions to literature. First, we develop a systematic literature review of 310 papers published in the top journals of the management and entrepreneurship fields and we analyze and discuss key aspects in the CE literature (such as, the most cited articles, authors and topics of analysis). In addition, through a citation and co-citation analysis, we provide a map that explains the intellectual structure of the CE phenomenon (Ramos-Rodriguez & Ruiz-Navarro, 2004 ). Hence, we contribute by summarizing and synthesizing the main findings in previous literature. In doing so, we develop a conceptual framework in which we outline and assess the main antecedents, dimensions and consequences of CE activity (Kolev et al., 2019 ). In this regard, although a very significant part (54%) Footnote 1 of the overall CE research has been published in the last decade, most literature reviews were published earlier. A few introductions to special issues have been published in the last years (Corbett et al., 2013 ; Kuratko et al., 2015 ; Minola et al., 2021 ; Phan et al., 2009 ). These articles typically explain the relevance of the CE phenomenon, summarize the evolution of the CE field and suggest future research. However, these papers do not develop an in-depth literature review analysis as they focus mostly on highlighting the key findings of the papers that are part of the special issue. Thus, although relevant, their contributions are incomplete as they do not provide a comprehensive overview and analysis of the research in this area. Second, we also contribute by identifying relevant inconsistencies, ambiguities and gaps in previous literature that have prevented a more detailed understanding of certain areas within the CE field. Based on this, we provide a research agenda for the future.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. In the next section we provide a summary of the main definitions on CE. Next, we explain the methodology of the study (our journal selection and systematic literature review). We then describe the study’s main findings. Finally, we position our findings in relation to existing literature and suggest future research directions.

2 Definitions and scope

CE research focuses on ways in which companies create new businesses that generate new revenue streams and value for shareholders (Narayanan et al., 2009 ). In this regard, the concept of CE has evolved over time and several definitions have appeared. Guth and Ginsberg ( 1990 ) explained that CE embodies two different phenomena: new venture creation within existing organizations and the transformation of on-going organizations through strategic renewal. One of the most extensively used definitions is that by Sharma and Chrisman ( 1999 , p. 18). They define it as “the process whereby an individual or a group of individuals, in association with an existing organization, create a new organization or instigate renewal or innovation within that organization.” Other previous research use the terms CE and intrapreneurship indistinctively (Hornsby et al., 2002 ). From this perspective, Antoncic and Hisrich ( 2001 , p. 498) use an even broader definition of intrapreneurship, to denote “entrepreneurship within an existing organization.” Later, some studies explicitly differentiated between CE and intrapreneurship (Stam, 2013 ). Following Pinchot ( 1985 ), Stam refers to intrapreneurship or entrepreneurial employee activity as the development of new business activities by an employee; hence, it follows a bottom-up approach. In contrast, CE is considered a decision initiated by the top management team and subsequently implemented to the lower hierarchical levels of the organization.

Overall, there are different types of CE (i.e., sustained regeneration, organizational rejuvenation, strategic renewal or domain redefinition) and organizations that exhibit CE are viewed as dynamic, flexible entities able to take advantage of new opportunities when they arise (Dess et al., 2003 ). Among such organizations, there is an acceptance of risk and an understanding that the outcomes of innovation are uncertain (Bloodgood et al., 2015 ). CE is concerned with various forms of newness (e.g., organizational renewal, innovation, and establishing new ventures) and affects organizational survival, growth and performance (Zahra, 1991 , 1996a ). Following Sharma and Chrisman ( 1999 ) we adopt a broad perspective of CE. Specifically, we consider CE as those initiatives that take place within companies and that aim at creating and adding new business, or at fostering innovation, change and renewal. In the next section, we present the methodology employed to review the literature using this broad approach.

3 Methodology

We conducted a systematic literature review and used a bibliometric approach to analyze and describe the findings. Analyzing the bibliometric structure of a specific body of literature allows for increased objectivity (compared with other forms of literature review) and enables the researcher to sift through large amounts of data (Wallin, 2012 ). Bibliometrics (combined with author citation analysis techniques) have found advocates in the fields of entrepreneurship and innovation (Schildt et al., 2006 ). To our knowledge, this approach has not yet been undertaken in the specific CE literature.

Our research was carried out in several steps. First, as other authors in the management and entrepreneurship fields (e.g., Schildt et al., 2006 ), we used the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) from the Web of Science to search for conceptual and empirical articles. We analyzed exclusively full-length articles as they are considered to be validated knowledge (López-Duarte et al., 2016 ; Phan et al., 2009 ; Urbano et al., 2019 ). Doctoral theses, books or conference proceedings were not considered in this review. The search was conducted following the most commonly used terms in the literature to describe the entrepreneurial activities that occur within organizations: “corporate entrepreneurship,” “intrapreneurship,” “corporate venture,” “corporate venturing,” “internal entrepreneurship,” “strategic renewal,” “entrepreneurial employee activity,” “sustained regeneration,” and “organizational rejuvenation.” We searched for these words in the title, abstract, keywords, and text of the articles and did not limit our search to any specific period of time. Hence, the oldest paper dates back to 1969 (Westfall, 1969 ) and the most recent were published in 2021 (the search ended in November 2021). These terms are consistent with the definitions and forms of CE mentioned above. It is extremely unlikely that an article related to CE is published without using them. Other related terms, such as, organizational creativity, organizational ambidexterity, business model innovation or entrepreneurial orientation were excluded from our search because they are beyond the scope of our analysis.

Second, following an approach similar to Busenitz et al. ( 2014 ) and Marvel et al. ( 2016 ), our search was restricted to top or high impact journals in order to control for overall research quality. From this perspective, the first search round focused on those outlets that are widely agreed to be top journals in the management field. The journals included have the highest five-year impact factor in the 2020 Journals Citations Report (JCR). Footnote 2 These are: Journal of Management (JOM, 16.662), Academy of Management Journal (AMJ, 15.873), Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ, 14.365), Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS, 13.555), Strategic Management Journal (SMJ, 12.226), Journal of Management Studies (JMS, 10.960), and Management Science (MS, 6.619). This first search round yielded 100 articles, however, only 84 remained as 16 were discarded. The reason for this is that although they appeared in the results of the initial search, when analyzing the papers in detail, they used the above terms only in the references section (not in the title, abstract, keywords or text of the articles).

Subsequently, we searched the top entrepreneurship and small business journals with the highest five-year impact factor in the 2020 JCR. These are: Journal of Business Venturing (JBV, 15.732), Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (ETP, 15.191), Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal (SEJ, 10.636), Small Business Economics (SBE, 8.139), International Small Business Journal (ISBJ, 7.220), Journal of Small Business Management (JSBM, 6.799), and Entrepreneurship and Regional Development (ERD, 6.142). Using the previous criteria, in this second round, out of a total of 283 articles, 226 remained. Overall, this search yielded 310 papers. The appendix of this paper provides a list of all the articles included.

Third, all papers were read, analyzed, coded, and classified by the authors. Differences in classification were resolved by discussion between the authors. The following information was collected for each article: authors’ names, number of authors per article, publication year, publication journal, theoretical perspective, research objective, type of research (theoretical or empirical), methodology and research technique applied, level of analysis, database origin (country), authors’ affiliation (country), main findings, number of citations and reference list. In addition, we use a co-citation analysis which is defined as the frequency with which two documents (or two authors) are cited together (Small, 1973 ). This technique has been used to map the intellectual structure of various fields of research such as the diffusion of innovations (Cottrill et al., 1989 ), macroeconomics (McCain, 1983 ) or strategic management (Ramos-Rodriguez & Ruiz-Navarro, 2004 ; Shafique, 2013 ). This type of analysis considers that citations can be used as indicators of present and past activities of scientific work. Hence, it is based on the idea that authors cite those documents they consider to be relevant for their research (Post et al., 2020 ). This analysis was performed using VOSviewer (Mourao & Martinho, 2020 ; van Eck & Waltman, 2010 ).

The results of literature reviews are often explained by differentiating between the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the analysis (Clark et al., 2014 ). From a quantitative point of view, research describes, measures and counts the main results of the analysis. This may include the sources of publication, authors, articles, citations or publishing countries. Conversely, a qualitative analysis (e.g., content analysis) of the results includes the study of the main topics and trends, generally by explaining whether and how the content of the topic has evolved over time (Clark et al., 2014 ).

4.1 Descriptive analysis

Our results show that the number of articles on CE per journal and year has increased significantly (Table 1 ). In the period 2006–2010, 57 papers were published, more than three times the number of articles in the previous five years (17 articles in the 2001–2005 period). This trend continued in the 2011–2015 period when 73 papers were published and it is confirmed in the period 2016–2020 with 76 papers published. This development in the last decade is explained by the entrepreneurship journals (rather than the management ones) and is related to the publication of several special issues (Bettinelli et al., 2017 ; Covin & Lumpkin, 2011 ; Kuratko et al., 2015 ). Overall, 54% of research in the CE field published in top and high impact journals has appeared in the last decade (168 out of the 310 papers studied came out in 2011 or later). Table 1 also shows that this trend is more evident for entrepreneurship than for management journals. In terms of specific journals, JBV is the most prolific as it accounts for the vast majority of publications (25% of the articles; 78 out of 310 papers). To analyze the impact of the articles, we used the number of their SSCI total citations. The most cited article by far is that by Miller ( 1983 ) (2353 citations), which studies the determinants of entrepreneurship in established companies and develops a typology of three different types of firms. Table 2 presents information on the most cited articles.

Overall, the articles reviewed are written by 537 different authors and on average, each article has 2.6 authors. The most prolific in terms of publications are Covin (21 articles), Zahra (18 articles), and Kuratko (18 articles). Table 3 shows that, for instance, the 18 articles published by Zahra have produced 5787 citations in SSCI, which represents 17.1% of the total citations produced by the 310 articles studied. In addition, in 64% of the articles reviewed in Table 1 at least one of the authors is from a US university (198 out of 310). This percentage is more than four times higher than the following country, the UK (14%); 43 articles (out of 310) have at least one author from a British university. This prevalence of American (and Anglo-Saxon) based researchers is common but has begun to change in more recent years.

Most papers are empirical (76%, 237 out of 310) and quantitative (63%, 196 articles). These articles use mostly data for one single country, as shown in Table 4 , in most cases the samples used contain information only for US companies (54.1%, 106 out of 196). In addition, studies using global datasets are not very common in CE research since only 11.2% of the articles use data with information for 3 or more countries (22 out of 196). We also studied the differences in the number of citations depending on the methodology applied: qualitative researches have an average of 72 citations, whereas quantitative works have an average of 109. These differences are statistically not significant.

Finally, following past practice in the literature (e.g., Ramos-Rodriguez & Ruiz-Navarro, 2004 ; Schildt et al., 2006 ; Wallin, 2012 ), Fig.  1 shows the main intellectual structure of CE research (only the most co-cited researches are shown in the graph) where each circle represents an article. Specifically, the diameter of these circles (and the size of its corresponding labels) is proportional to the number of citations and articles with similar co-citation profiles tend to show up close to each other (van Eck & Waltman, 2010 ). That is, “if two articles are cited in the same paper, they are considered to be closely related to each other either because they belong to the same topic area or their topic areas are closely connected” (Schildt et al., 2006 , p. 400). Similarly, the lines linking different circles/articles show which articles have been cited together in the same paper (to simplify the graph, the lines appear only for those articles that have been cited together 10 times or more).

Intellectual structure of corporate entrepreneurship research

Overall, Fig.  1 shows that the papers on the left-hand side are some of the most cited articles in the CE (Miller, 1983 ) and entrepreneurial orientation (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996 ) fields. These highlight the relationship between CE and strategy (Burgelman, 1983a , 1983b ), the effect of CE on firm performance (Zahra, 1991 , 1995 ) or, in some cases, they discuss the main definitions and issues in the field (Guth & Ginsberg, 1990 ; Sharma & Chrisman, 1999 ). In contrast, the articles at the right-hand side tend to be cited together and are not very connected to the rest of the literature. These articles on the right focus mostly on corporate venture capital, which appears as a separate topic within CE literature, and are published more often in strategy and management journals than in entrepreneurship ones (Dushnitsky & Lenox, 2005 ; Wadhwa & Kotha, 2006 , among others).

4.2 Content analysis

Following previous research (Clark et al., 2014 ), in this section we focus on the main topics and their trends in the CE literature. This allows to see how the key concepts and ideas have changed and evolved over time (Volery & Mazzarol, 2015 ).

The increase in the number of articles published in recent years has led to a wider number of topics studied. Emphasis has been placed on the different forms and dimensions of CE, such as: Corporate venture capital (Rind, 1981 ); International CE (Zahra & Garvis, 2000 ); Corporate venturing (Zahra, 1996b ); Social intrapreneurship (Kistruck & Beamish, 2010 ); Franchising (Dada et al., 2012 ); Innovation based CE (Kelley et al., 2009 ; Wadhwa et al., 2016 ); or, Strategic renewal (Glaser et al., 2015 ; Zahra, 1993 , 1996a ). Previous research has highlighted the clarification of the different CE domains (and its definitions) as a key issue for the future understanding of this field (Kuratko et al., 2015 ). In addition, most theoretical models have also paid attention to the role of both antecedents and consequences of engaging in corporate entrepreneurial activity (Zahra, 1991 ). For instance, Antoncic and Hisrich ( 2001 ) present and test a model that studies the effect of a set of antecedents at different levels of analysis (organization and environment). Subsequently, they measure the effect of corporate entrepreneurial activity on firm growth and profitability. Similarly, Ireland et al. ( 2009 ) develop an integrative model of corporate entrepreneurship strategy that considers antecedents, elements and consequences of CE.

Overall, we develop a model (Fig.  2 ) that summarizes extant literature differentiating between 3 main areas: CE antecedents, CE dimensions, and CE consequences. This approach is consistent with previous literature (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001 ; Ireland et al., 2009 ; Kuratko et al., 2015 ; Zahra, 1991 ) and allows to provide a systematic content analysis as well as an organizing framework to analyze CE literature current status (Keupp & Gassmann, 2009 ). The different clusters presented in Fig.  2 are the result of the analysis and coding of the articles analyzed. In particular, the analysis of the research objectives, findings and levels of analysis was particularly useful for creating and developing this model. Finally, the information in Fig.  2 was complemented with information from other literature reviews and theoretical articles to ensure our model considered and extended the knowledge generated in previous research (Corbett et al., 2013 ; Dess et al., 2003 ; Guth & Ginsberg, 1990 ; Ireland et al., 2009 ; Kuratko et al., 2015 ; Minola et al., 2016 , 2021 ; Narayanan et al., 2009 ; Phan et al., 2009 ; Sharma & Chrisman, 1999 ).

Conceptual model for CE activity

4.2.1 Antecedents

Research has focused on which conditioning factors have an effect on the development of CE initiatives. The main objectives of the early studies (those published in the 1960s and 1970s) were to explain how to stimulate the development of CE activities (Westfall, 1969 ). Later, in the 1980s, the first papers on the antecedents of CE activity and on the compensation and incentive practices for venture managers were published (Block & Ornati, 1987 ). In the 1990s, papers deepened analysis of the antecedents of CE activity (Zahra, 1991 ). Generally, researchers examined company related factors (i.e., Zahra, 1991 , 1993 ), although some started taking into account the role of environmental factors (Tsai et al., 1991 ). Overall, the literature has highlighted at least three different types of factors at different levels that can influence CE: individual, company related and environmental. For instance, Guth and Ginsberg ( 1990 ) highlight the importance of strategic leaders for CE and explain the influence of the environment (competitive, technological, social and political) and of the organization (strategy, structure, process and values). Similarly, Antoncic and Hisrich ( 2001 ) differentiate explicitly between organizational (including person-related) and environmental factors. Other theoretical models such as Zahra ( 1991 , 1993 ), or, Zahra et al. ( 2009 ) follow similar approaches by grouping the conditioning factors at these different levels of analysis.

At the individual level, literature has highlighted demographic and personal characteristics as a key factor for CE (Camelo-Ordaz et al., 2012 ). Specifically, emotional and cognitive factors (Biniari, 2012 ; Corbett & Hmieleski, 2007 ) including attitudes, values and beliefs, have been repeatedly considered to play a crucial role in initiating and sustaining CE activities (Ireland et al., 2009 ; Turner & Pennington, 2015 ). From this perspective, research has explained how having a willingness to change (Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2006 ), a risk taking propensity (Heavey et al., 2009 ) or being satisfied and committed to your job (Akehurst et al., 2009 ) increase the likelihood of engaging in CE activity.

In addition, other aspects have also been considered to condition CE. Research has shown that different types of previous professional experiences increase the likelihood of engaging in CE initiatives (Dokko & Gaba, 2012 ). Also, the self-evaluation of entrepreneurial abilities has been considered as an antecedent of CE (Martiarena, 2013 ). Special emphasis has been placed on the effect of compensation (Monsen et al., 2010 ; Wang et al., 2015 ), rewards, awards and recognition in motivating people to engage in CE (Burgers et al., 2009 ).

At the organizational level, one of the first antecedents studied was companies’ organizational structure and values (Zahra, 1991 ) and issues such as communication, formal controls, environmental scanning or organizational support have been shown to have a positive effect on CE (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001 ). More recently, the literature highlights resource availability as one of the most important organizational antecedents and shows that access to resources is closely related to the firm’s overall entrepreneurial orientation (Grande et al., 2011 ) and strategy (Zahra, 1991 ). From this perspective, time availability (Marvel et al., 2007 ) or knowledge capabilities (Maes & Sels, 2014 ) are also relevant. In addition, the effect of factors such as financial resources, R&D investments (Sahaym et al., 2010 ) or organizational size (Nason et al., 2015 ) have also been researched. However, the nature of the relationship between these specific resources and entrepreneurial activity has been subject to discussion among scholars. One stream of research argues that a bigger pool of such resources should facilitate the development of CE activities. Scholars suggest that having more resources or working in bigger companies may impede developing entrepreneurial activities because employees tend to be more risk averse because of bureaucracy and organizational processes tend to be more complex and rigid (Plambeck, 2012 ). Finally, researchers examined the association of a company’s governance and ownership systems and its level of CE (Romero-Martínez et al., 2010 ; Zahra, 1996a ; Zahra et al., 2000 ).

The different role of managers at different hierarchical levels has been studied (Radaelli & Sitton-Kent, 2016 ). From a top management team perspective, managers are considered to have multiple and critical roles in CE activity, mainly because they are centrally involved in the defining processes of both the corporate venturing and strategic renewal forms of CE (Kuratko & Audretsch, 2013 ). Further, attention has been given to the vital role that middle managers can have in creating an environment that encourages innovation and entrepreneurship (Wooldridge et al., 2008 ).

Antecedents at the environmental level of analysis have been less researched. Most studies focus on industry-related variables such as: the degree of market dynamism, hostility and heterogeneity (Zahra, 1991 , 1993 ); technological change (Sahaym et al., 2010 ); competitive intensity (Basu et al., 2011 ); industry growth and demand for new products (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001 ); or the level of munificence and complexity (Simsek et al., 2007 ). Further, only a few authors have empirically examined the influence of national culture related factors on companies’ entrepreneurial initiatives (Judge et al., 2015 ; Turro et al., 2016 ). Similarly, our research identified no empirical studies and only one theoretical article that study the effect of government policy on CE (Doh & Pearce, 2004 ).

4.2.2 Dimensions

In the 1980s, the literature was mainly concerned with the organizational renewal process and the combination of resources necessary to commit to develop an innovative project (Burgelman, 1983a , 1983b ; Pinchot, 1985 ; Schollhammer, 1982 ). Later, in the 1990s, CE was more clearly associated with the creation of new businesses within established companies (Bosma et al., 2013 ; Zahra, 1991 ). Similarly, during this decade some researchers made explicit use for the first time of some theoretical frameworks such as population ecology (Tsai et al., 1991 ) or the resource-based view (McGrath et al., 1994 ).

The beginning of the twenty-first century is associated with a much greater number of topics being studied, such as international CE (Zahra & Garvis, 2000 ), CE in family firms (Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2006 ) or the development of theoretical models explaining different areas of CE (Ireland et al., 2009 ). In addition, several studies focused on the differing nature of CE activities compared with those of independent entrepreneurship (e.g., Parker, 2011 ).

In recent years, the different dimensions that constitute the CE phenomenon have become more evident as researchers increasingly study them separately. However, the literature still does not agree completely on its main dimensions (Ireland et al., 2009 ). Based on the entrepreneurial orientation construct, researchers usually classify CE into three to five dimensions (Covin & Slevin, 1991 )—new business venturing, product, service and process innovativeness, self-renewal and proactiveness (Guth & Ginsberg, 1990 ; Lampe et al., 2020 ; Zahra, 1993 ) are the most common. Others, such as Phan et al. ( 2009 ), consider that innovation and corporate venturing activities, on the one hand, and renewal and the ability to compete and take risks, on the other, are two distinct but related phenomena. These activities are closely related to the strategic entrepreneurship concept, which has been defined by Hitt et al., ( 2001 , p. 481) as “the integration of entrepreneurial (i.e., opportunity-seeking behavior) and strategic (i.e., advantage-seeking) perspectives in developing and taking actions designed to create wealth.” Therefore, some previous research propose that CE entails two main activities. The first is a company’s involvement in the creation of new businesses. The second is strategic entrepreneurship, which corresponds to a broader array of entrepreneurial initiatives which do not necessarily involve new businesses being added to the firm (Kuratko et al., 2011 ). In this regard, it has been argued that the main forms that strategic entrepreneurship can take are strategic renewal, sustained regeneration, domain redefinition, organizational rejuvenation and business model reconstruction (Kuratko et al., 2015 ; Pettit & Crossan, 2020 ).

The corporate venturing dimension is the most researched (Narayanan et al., 2009 ; Zahra & Hayton, 2008 ) and the literature usually differentiates between two types of corporate venturing activities: Externally directed corporate venturing units; and internally directed corporate venturing units which try to exploit business opportunities within the boundaries of the parent firm (Covin et al., 2021 ; Sharma & Chrisman, 1999 ). In addition, a growing number of articles have studied the differences between independent (also known as, traditional or private) venture capital and corporate venture capital (Dushnitsky & Shapira, 2010 ).

4.2.3 Consequences

The relationship between CE and firm performance has also attracted considerable research interest over the past four decades. In the late 1980s, researchers began studying the relationship between performance and engagement in CE activities (Miller et al., 1988 ) and during the 1990s, the positive effect of CE on firm performance became even more evident (Zahra, 1991 ). Overall, there is agreement that CE can renew a company’s capabilities and increase its capacity to acquire and use new competencies that improve performance (Zahra et al., 2000 ). Indeed, Antoncic and Hisrich ( 2001 , p. 504) state that “organizations that engage in intrapreneurial activities are expected to achieve higher levels of growth and profitability than organizations that do not.”

Researchers agree that some CE initiatives have strategic objectives, while others pursue financial goals. From a strategic perspective, firms may engage in CE because of several benefits that include: learning, successful integration of a company’s operations, improved responsiveness, successful standard setting (Narayanan et al., 2009 ) or acquiring new skills or technologies (Dushnitsky & Lenox, 2005 ). However, research has primarily focused on the financial consequences of entrepreneurial activities (which may be easier to measure) and, therefore, there is a need to study the non-financial goals of CE initiatives (Zahra, 1991 ).

From a financial perspective, there is general agreement in the literature that CE has a positive effect on firm performance (Bierwerth et al., 2015 ; Zahra, 1991 ) by increasing the company’s proactiveness and risk taking, and by promoting product, process, and service innovations (e.g., Lumpkin & Dess, 1996 ; Walter et al., 2006 ). These capabilities allow the firm to improve its competitive position and can enable it to enter new industries in pursuit of profitability and growth (Clark et al., 2014 ; Zahra et al., 2000 ; Zahra, 1996a ). CE has an effect on a firm’s ability to compete and adapt to successfully perform in increasingly turbulent environments, by enabling the ongoing rejuvenation of product, market and strategic positions and the revitalization of knowledge and intellectual capital (Zahra et al., 1999 ). Thus, CE activities have become a key variable in explaining performance differences across firms (Heavey & Simsek, 2013 ).

Building on key findings of the content analysis we have just presented, Fig.  2 provides a conceptual framework summarizing and synthesizing the most relevant concepts.

5 Emerging trends and avenues for future research

In the light of our preceding analysis and discussion of the literature, in this section, we suggest an agenda for further research on CE antecedents, dimensions and consequences. We also outline limitations of our analysis.

5.1 Corporate entrepreneurship antecedents

The role of the institutional environment.

Studies that emphasize the organizational and individual levels of analysis have focused on issues such as organizational structure (Covin & Slevin, 1991 ; Zahra, 1991 ), incentive and control systems (Sathe, 1985 ), managerial support towards entrepreneurial initiatives (Hornsby et al., 2002 ), personal traits and values (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001 ), or gender (Lyngsie & Foss, 2017 ).

Yet, as noted, when studying which environmental factors can affect CE, the emphasis is normally placed on industry related factors. Hence, other environmental or even institutional variables that could have a significant influence, such as culture or legal regulations have been less researched (Urbano et al., 2019 ).

To our knowledge, since the early work of Morris et al., ( 1993 , 1994 ), few empirical papers have appeared analyzing the role of national culture related factors at a country (or specific region) level of analysis (Turro et al., 2014 ). Nevertheless, theoretical research has pointed out the importance that institutional variables could have for CE. For instance, Hornsby, Bloodgood, et al. ( 2013 ), p. 312) state that “it is important to consider how cultural factors may also influence the internal dynamics of the CE process.” Some researchers have considered the companies’ internal corporate culture and values (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001 ; Zahra, 1991 ; Zahra et al., 2009 ). Although internal corporate values may be affected by the more general (national) cultural setting, the literature considers it to be an organizational factor rather than an environmental one. Similarly, even though public policies may have a direct impact on the development of entrepreneurial initiatives (Gnyawali & Fogel, 1994 ), there are very few papers on the role of government regulations in the CE field (Doh & Pearce, 2004 ).

The above shortcomings are even more striking when we consider that the literature on independent entrepreneurship has repeatedly highlighted the impact of informal and formal institutional factors such as culture or regulations (Kreiser et al., 2002 ; Morris et al, 1994 ). Since national culture reinforces certain personal characteristics and penalizes others, these types of studies show how entrepreneurship differs from one national culture to another as some values favor entrepreneurial behavior more than others (Hayton et al., 2002 ). In addition, the literature suggests that regulations can also have a significant effect on entrepreneurship (Begley et al., 2005 ). For instance, inefficient government regulations in the economy may be perceived negatively by entrepreneurs and, hence, this may discourage them from starting new businesses (Djankov et al., 2002 ). Despite the appeal of such claims, we need to study them carefully in the context of CE.

An institutional perspective on CE would help delineate the effect of the environment on stimulating CE activities as well as its potential role as a moderator of the CE-company performance relationships. To gain a better appreciation of the nature and magnitude of this effect, it is necessary for future research to examine different dimensions of institutions such as labor laws, IP, extent of government regulations, among others. Separately and in combination these dimensions could shape managerial incentives which, in turn influence their decision time horizons, willingness to invest in CE, and take the risks associated with various efforts needed to stimulate innovation and strategic renewal. Future research also needs to consider how the nature of the diversity of individuals’ demographics and expertise interacts with institutional factors to facilitate or constrain CE. For example, while we have some evidence that more women on top management teams is associated with more CE (Lyngsie & Foss, 2017 ), we have little understanding of how this might differ in institutional contexts with differing gender attitudes and roles. Similarly, there is an absence of the evidence on the impact on CE of other dimensions such as ethnic and religious diversity. This could be related to those studies that emphasize the relevance of the different entrepreneurial mindsets for CE activities, however, it remains unexplored (Kuratko et al., 2021 ). Previous research has already suggested that the role of the institutional environment for CE can be different between developing and developed countries, however, these findings have not been tested quantitatively (Hughes & Mustafa, 2017 ).

Furthermore, the role of the business sector to which the company belongs has rarely been considered seriously when studying CE. Yet, a business sector has a fundamental influence on CE as it affects the rate of change of the competitive environment (Burgers et al., 2009 ). Further, with very few exceptions (Schildt et al., 2005 ), empirical research focuses upon the manufacturing sector. However, service sectors also develop CE activities which should be systematically studied. More generally, research is now emerging on the nature of the role and dimensions of the ecosystem for the start-up entrepreneurship (e.g., Autio et al., 2018 ). However, we know little about how the ecosystem for CE may be distinctive and the research agenda in this space would appear to be a potentially rich one.

Methodological approaches

Despite the literature agreeing on the multilevel nature of CE antecedents (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001 ; Ireland et al., 2009 ; Zahra, 1991 ), our search identified few studies using a multilevel regression technique (or any other type of hierarchical linear modelling method) (e.g., Behrens & Patzelt, 2016 ; Kang et al., 2016 ). Hence, future research could exploit this methodological approach to better establish the contributions of CE to firm performance. The potential importance of individuals at different levels in the organization, from non-managerial employees upward, suggests scope for future studies to develop linked employee-managerial-organization-databases. Such cross-level analyses may go some way to exploring the gap in understanding of the microfoundations of a firm’s systematic organizational capability for corporate entrepreneurship. Developing such a capability may require firms to combine individual-level entrepreneurial roles and firm-level entrepreneurial processes (Salvato et al., 2009 ).

Hierarchical levels and compensation

The role of first level managers has been less researched as literature focuses mainly on middle and top management. However, some authors have suggested that bottom-up processes are important for CE and that first level managers play a key role in this process (Hornsby et al., 2009 ). Further, in some sectors and firms, non-managerial employees through their day-to-day interaction with the market may have access to the kind of information that enables them to identify new entrepreneurial opportunities. Similarly, the effects of managers’ and employees’ compensation (regardless of the hierarchical level) on CE have not been studied in depth (Hornsby et al., 2002 ). Issues such as which kind of compensation methods should be used with corporate entrepreneurs to foster their entrepreneurial initiatives need further examination. Moreover, although the nature of compensation for management has already been considered important for CE since it can influence time horizons and strategic behaviors (Block & Ornati, 1987 ; Phan et al., 2009 ), recent changes in corporate ownership and funding of innovation and other CE activities make it essential to revisit these contributions to CE.

5.2 Corporate entrepreneurship dimensions

Independent entrepreneurship vs ce.

There have recently been some attempts to compare CE and independent entrepreneurship as two separate phenomena (instead of CE being a sub-field of entrepreneurship) (Stam, 2013 ). Hence, the antecedents that make individuals choose between becoming self-employed or corporate entrepreneurs have been well documented (Hellman, 2007 ; Kacperczyk, 2012 ). However, several issues remain unexplored. For instance, a better understanding of the design of contracts and work environments that minimize the risk that the employees seek to avoid by starting their own ventures, could generate interesting insights (Parker, 2011 ). In addition, while both independent entrepreneurship and CE are important drivers of economic growth, the net effect of both types of ventures is not clear. Therefore, further studies could investigate and compare the performance of internal versus external ventures to assess better their weights and impacts on economic growth (Kacperczyk, 2012 ).

Our results show that, to date, few studies have examined the dissimilarities among the different forms of CE (for an exception, see Verbeke et al., 2007 ). However, since entrepreneurial activities are essential for companies to adapt to environmental changes, a greater appreciation of the factors that determine such activities should have both theoretical and practical implications (Zahra et al., 1999 ). The lack of studies in this particular area reflects a lack of consensus about the main forms of entrepreneurship in established companies, which is surprising given the large volume of research on CE. Understanding these forms will help in establishing their usefulness to companies and the conditions leading to their success.

Opportunity identification process

Relatedly, few studies have explored the opportunity identification side of the different CE activities and the subsequent exploitation of these opportunities (Bloodgood et al., 2015 ; Foss et al., 2013 ). This is in contrast to literature on independent entrepreneurship where the fundamental importance of the opportunity identification process has been extensively highlighted (Shane, 2000 ). Given recent debates in the independent entrepreneurship literature about whether opportunities are created or discovered (Alvarez & Barney, 2019 ), exploration of whether and how the CE context differs in this respect seems warranted. Thus, it may also be fruitful to study the extent to which internal decision-making processes in corporations affect the nature of opportunities identified and pursued because they maybe more attuned to dealing with assessing risk rather than uncertainty. In this regard, O’Connor and Rice ( 2001 ) explore the opportunity identification process for technological breakthrough innovations, however, their multiple case study analysis is limited to large, technology-intensive, established firms. Therefore, further research focusing on other aspects and contexts is necessary.

Life cycle and CE

The life cycle dimension of CE activities has not been sufficiently studied, highlighting the need for further research on the topic. This is an important gap in understanding the processes by which CE activities emerge, develop and decline and their impact on corporate performance is likely to vary with these changes. Understanding this life cycle may clarify how the form of CE might change with increased organizational experience and time (Guerrero et al., 2021 ). Further, understanding the relationship between different life cycles (industry, company, segments or products) and CE could provide significant implications for future research (Hoy, 2006 ). Further, studying firm and organizational life cycles might help researchers identify the gamut of CE activities that unfold over time and their implications for organizational success and adaptation.

Ownership and governance

In the area of governance systems and property rights, findings from prior studies on the role of ownership in different types of CE are fragmentary. Nason et al. ( 2015 ) only cover ownership in the sense that they explore private SMEs versus large listed corporations. But private ownership is more nuanced and includes family firms, venture capital and private equity backed firms, and even socially owned and hybrid enterprises that may engage in CE related activities (Zahra et al., 2009 ). Amess et al. ( 2016 ), Wright et al. ( 1992 ) and Zahra ( 1995 ) consider some initial aspects of CE in private equity owned firms, while Chrisman et al. ( 2015 ) consider CE in the form of innovation in family firms. As a result, more systematic analysis comparing different types of ownerships is needed (Hale & Woronkowicz, 2020 ). We also know that even within different types of ownership, organizations may have different goals (Kotlar et al., 2018 ) which would suggest a need to consider CE in the context of organizational goals.

The role of size: Large Corporation and SME

Even though some authors have explained that CE can be relevant for large corporations as well as small and medium sized enterprises (Carrier, 1994 ; Zahra et al., 2000 ), there are few studies focusing on the different sizes of corporate entrepreneurial projects (an exception is Nason et al., 2015 ). There is little information on antecedents of and the extent to which major and minor intrapreneurial initiatives have the same characteristics. We also know little about their contribution to the general economy and firm performance. Overall, there seems to be a need for further studies focusing on the nature of CE (e.g., focus, goals, form and size) among large, established companies and SMEs (Zahra et al., 2000 ).

Complexity of CE

In addition to the size of CE projects, complexity is also a dimension of CE. Complexity may relate to technological aspects but also to the complexity of the markets to be served and the services to be provided. Such complexity may call for collaboration among organizations. Beyond the extensive literature on joint ventures and alliances between corporations, collaborations may involve corporations and universities, governmental agencies, not-for-profit organizations, individual entrepreneurs, etc. For example, co-creation arrangements, either focused on particular projects or longer term linkages, have emerged recently to engage in CE activities that combine social and commercial goals (DeSilva & Wright, 2019 ). At present, we have very limited analysis of the motivations, organizational forms, processes and outcomes of such CE activities.

5.3 Corporate entrepreneurship consequences

Performance measures.

Our analyses also highlight shortcomings and areas to develop further research in terms of CE consequences. Studies that examine the relation between CE and firm financial performance typically use measures such as return on investment (Zahra, 1991 ), return on sales (Zahra, 1993 ), return on equity (Zahra & Hayton, 2008 ), market share gain (Bojica & Fuentes, 2012 ) or cash flow (Miller et al., 1988 ). Previous literature has already highlighted the difficulties of measuring performance in organizational studies, particularly among new ventures because even successful start-ups often do not reach profitability for a long period of time (Tsai et al., 1991 ). Hence, some researchers have explained the benefits of using other types of performance measures (Miller et al., 1991 ). Similarly, from a CE consequences perspective, we have limited understanding of the drivers that lead to project failure and to the termination of CE activities (Behrens & Patzelt, 2016 ; Shepherd et al., 2009 ). In addition, and related to the points above regarding types of ownership and goal variety, studies of the consequences of CE also need to explore social as well as financial, and economic outcomes in relation to ownership goals. Moreover, prior research ignores the specific goals companies pursue when they measure the overall impact of CE activities, failing to delineate where particular CE efforts influence specific performance goals and criteria (Kreiser et al., 2021 ).

CE consequences and cross-cultural research

Another area for further study relates to the focus of most prior studies on the financial outcomes of developing CE activities in US firms. Few studies focus on European companies (Bojica & Fuentes, 2012 ; Walter et al., 2006 ), or explicitly adopt a cross country comparison between the US and elsewhere (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001 ) and only one examines this phenomenon using global data (Zahra & Hayton, 2008 ). From this view, some authors have considered that cross-cultural research has the potential to expand the concepts and theories that have been developed in a single cultural setting (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001 ). For instance, Hills and LaForge ( 1992 ) stress the importance of conducting entrepreneurship research in an international context as some authors observe that entrepreneurial initiatives cannot be understood without attention to the context in which they take place. The review by Bierwerth et al ( 2015 ) cites studies on CE in Austria, Canada, China, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey, among others. This growing interest in CE worldwide reflects its importance for stimulating innovation, risk taking, competitive aggressiveness which are essential for success in today’s intensely competitive global markets. While true of economies the world over, CE is especially relevant to companies in emerging economies where privatization efforts have been widespread aiming to stimulate entrepreneurship. Companies in these economies also seek to catch up technologically with their counterparts from advanced economies. State owned enterprises in these countries are also facing tough competition for foreign entrants as well as local start-ups, making CE a key means for these companies’ adaptation. Recent shifts associated with the resurgence of state capitalism may also warrant a reassessment of how CE is measured (Grossman et al., 2016 ). State owned enterprises may differ in their goals and objectives, the expectations of their stakeholders, their life-cycle phases, their time horizons and the involvement of their owners in boards of directors that can help facilitate or constrain CE rather than just providing a monitoring function. These differences may have implications for the nature and use of CE. For example, to what extent is CE driven by financial and economic objectives, or social and political objectives, and what conflicts arise? Further, how do these conflicts affect CE’s success? Clearly, these issues deserve careful study and analysis.

The lack of good databases poses challenges for conducting cross-cultural and international research on CE – most studies collect their own data (i.e., Maula et al., 2009 ). Among the secondary sources of information, the Profit Impact of Marketing Strategy (PIMS) start up database (employed mostly at the beginning of the 1990s) and the VentureXpert database (Park & Steensma, 2012 ) are the most widely employed.

Funding and CE

There are also very few examples of articles that examine the consequences of different types of funding for CE (Park & Steensma, 2012 ), especially across countries and industries despite the acknowledged structural differences that might exist in this regard. This could be explained because researchers tend to assume that companies fund these activities; however, this is not always the case (Dushnitsky & Shapira, 2010 ). Therefore, future research could deepen more specifically the outcomes and consequences of different types of CE funding (e.g., inhouse vs outside), given that managers’ incentives could potentially determine their preferences for particular types of venturing and other CE activities.

Table 5 summarizes our discussion by presenting some examples of future research questions on CE. It also provides a synthesis of topics that the literature has considered to be relevant but that have not been studied in detail. The results of our systematic literature review show that the increase in the number of articles published in the last decade has led to additional research questions and relevant topics to be explored. Moreover, some areas have been significantly more researched than others. Overall, despite the progress made to date, there are many important topics that require further research. With the globalization of the world economy, CE researchers have a golden opportunity to examine differences (and similarities) across countries and document how CE activities of different types could impact companies’ competitiveness, ability to adapt, and engage in continuous innovation and renewal.

6 Conclusion

Despite the recent increase in the number of publications on CE, there are few recent systematic literature reviews focusing on the topic. Offering such a review, this research provides information on the content and evolution of CE. Specifically, 310 papers published in the top and highly cited journals in the business, management and entrepreneurship fields are examined. Our review contributes to the literature by providing a complete analysis of the current state of the art of research in this field. The review highlights the types of articles, theoretical frameworks and quantitative and qualitative methods used. It also provides a detailed analysis of how the main topics studied have evolved over time. This enabled us to identify the main categories (CE antecedents, CE dimensions, and CE consequences) and subcategories in this field. The changing scope of the CE concept over the decades has helped to enlarge the research agenda. The emerging trends and under researched areas of CE that we have identified open up further avenues for scholarly exploration. Clearly, there is a great deal of interest in CE and this interest is global, suggesting the need for more careful investigations of its international dimensions and strategic relevance.

As with all studies, our review also has several limitations that offer opportunities for further research. First, in line with many other review articles, our focus is on the main journals in the management and entrepreneurship fields that involve robust review procedures and are likely to include CE work. This approach is consistent with previous literature (Busenitz et al., 2014 ; Marvel et al., 2016 ) and allowed us to focus on outlets where CE has a central role, however, this implied not searching in journals that focus specifically on fields such as innovation or international business. Similarly, studies published elsewhere in conference proceedings and doctoral theses have been excluded to avoid overlap as they are often the first step before publication in a journal and also to ensure that we include the most rigorous and definitive version. Second, as is generally recognized, citation, and co-citation techniques have some inherent flaws. When compiling citations, it is impossible to distinguish their objectives. Authors may refer to other articles to explain, justify or build their own ideas. However, citations may be used for other purposes such as to criticize another author’s work or to mention one’s own articles, or are simply gratuitous citations. While this may potentially inflate some aspects of the citations analysis, it is less likely to impact the scope of the themes we have presented. Third, although we have adopted a broad definition of CE (Sharma and Chrisman ( 1999 ); Antoncic and Hisrich ( 2001 ), our review did not incorporate the study of the strategic entrepreneurship concept as this was beyond our scope. Although the fields of strategic management and entrepreneurship have developed independently (Ireland et al., 2003 ), they both focus on “how firms adapt to environmental change and exploit opportunities created by uncertainties and discontinuities in the creation of wealth” (Hitt et al., 2001 ; p. 480). Hence, as shown in Fig.  2 , future research should integrate both approaches as some entrepreneurship and innovation activities fit within the definition of both concepts. For the same reason, other overlapping fields such as, organizational creativity, organizational ambidexterity or entrepreneurial orientation were also excluded from the search terms. Future research could deepen on the relation with these neighboring fields.

See Table 1 for more information.

The journals are part of the Business and Management categories. Initially, we searched in the Finance and Economics categories as well. However, no articles were found in these categories. For the same reason, the Marketing and Consumer research journals were also dismissed.

Ahuja, G., & Morris Lampert, C. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (6–7), 521–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.176

Article   Google Scholar  

Akehurst, G., Comeche, J. M., & Galindo, M. A. (2009). Job satisfaction and commitment in the entrepreneurial SME. Small Business Economics, 32 (3), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-008-9116-z

Alvarez, S., & Barney, J. (2019). Has the Concept of Opportunities Been Fruitful in the Field of Entrepreneurship? Academy of Management Perspectives, 34 (3), 300–310. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2018.0014

Amess, K., Stiebale, J., & Wright, M. (2016). The impact of private equity on firms’ patenting activity. European Economic Review, 86 , 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.08.013

Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40 (5), 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128

Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16 (5), 495–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00054-3

Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L., & Wright, M. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12 (1), 72–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1266

Basu, S., Phelps, C., & Kotha, S. (2011). Towards understanding who makes corporate venture capital investments and why. Journal of Business Venturing, 26 (2), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.001

Begley, T. M., Tan, W., & Schoch, H. (2005). Politico-economic factors associated with interest in starting a business: A multi-country study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29 (1), 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00068.x

Behrens, J., & Patzelt, H. (2016). Corporate entrepreneurship managers’ project terminations: Integrating portfolio-level, individual-level, and firm-level effects. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40 (4), 815–842. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12147

Bettinelli, C., Sciascia, S., Randerson, K., & Fayolle, A. (2017). Researching entrepreneurship in family firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 55 (4), 506–529. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12347

Bierwerth, M., Schwens, C., Isidor, R., & Kabst, R. (2015). Corporate entrepreneurship and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Business Economics, 45 (2), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9629-1

Biniari, M. G. (2012). The emotional embeddedness of corporate entrepreneurship: The case of envy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36 (1), 141–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00437.x

Birkinshaw, J. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (3), 207–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199703)18:3%3C207::AIDSMJ864%3E3.0.CO;2-Q

Block, Z., & Ornati, O. A. (1987). Compensating corporate venture managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 2 (1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(87)90018-8

Bloodgood, J. M., Hornsby, J. S., Burkemper, A. C., & Sarooghi, H. (2015). A system dynamics perspective of corporate entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 45 (2), 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9634-4

Bojica, A. M., & Fuentes, M. D. M. (2012). Knowledge acquisition and corporate entrepreneurship: Insights from Spanish SMEs in the ICT sector. Journal of World Business, 47 (3), 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2011.05.007

Bosma, N., Wennekers, S., Guerrero, M., Amorós, J.E., Martiarena, A., & Singer S. (2013). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Special report on entrepreneurial employee activity , GERA.

Burgelman, R. A. (1983a). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the major diversified firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (2), 223–244. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392619

Burgelman, R. A. (1983b). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a process study. Management Science, 29 (12), 1349–1364. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.12.1349

Burgers, J. H., Jansen, J. J., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural differentiation and corporate venturing: The moderating role of formal and informal integration mechanisms. Journal of Business Venturing, 24 (3), 206–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.01.006

Busenitz, L. W., Plummer, L. A., Klotz, A. C., Shahzad, A., & Rhoads, K. (2014). Entrepreneurship research (1985–2009) and the emergence of opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38 (5), 981–1000. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12120

Camelo-Ordaz, C., Fernández-Alles, M., Ruiz-Navarro, J., & Sousa-Ginel, E. (2012). The intrapreneur and innovation in creative firms. International Small Business Journal, 30 (5), 513–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610385396

Carrier, C. (1994). Intrapreneurship in large firms and SMEs: A comparative study. International Small Business Journal, 12 (3), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242694123005

Chrisman, J., Chua, J., De Massis, A., Frattini, F., & Wright, M. (2015). The ability and willingness paradox in family firm innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32 (3), 310–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12207

Clark, T., Wright, M., Iskoujina, Z., & Garnett, P. (2014). JMS at 50: Trends over Time. Journal of Management Studies, 51 (1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12040

Corbett, A. C., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2007). The conflicting cognitions of corporate entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31 (1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00165.x

Corbett, A., Covin, J. G., O’Connor, G. C., & Tucci, C. L. (2013). Corporate entrepreneurship: State-of-the-art research and a future research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30 (5), 812–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12031

Cottrill, C. A., Rogers, E. M., & Mills, T. (1989). Co-citation analysis of the scientific literature of innovation research traditions: Diffusion of innovations and technology transfer. Science Communication, 11 (2), 181–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554708901100204

Covin, J. G., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: Reflections on a needed construct. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35 (5), 855–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00482.x

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behaviour. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16 (1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879101600102

Covin, J. G., Garrett, R. P., Kuratko, D. F., & Bolinger, M. (2021). Internal corporate venture planning autonomy, strategic evolution, and venture performance. Small Business Economics, 56 , 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00220-2

Dada, O. L., Watson, A., & Kirby, D. A. (2012). Toward a model of franchisee entrepreneurship. International Small Business Journal, 30 (5), 559–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610376078

De Silva, M., & Wright, M. (2019). Entrepreneurial co-creation: Societal impact through open innovation. R&D Management Journal, 49 (3), 318–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12362

Dess, G. G., Ireland, R. D., Zahra, S. A., Floyd, S. W., Janney, J. J., & Lane, P. J. (2003). Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29 (3), 351–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00015-1

Djankov, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2002). The regulation of entry. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117 (1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355302753399436

Doh, J. P., & Pearce, J. A. (2004). Corporate entrepreneurship and real options in transitional policy environments: Theory development. Journal of Management Studies, 41 (4), 645–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00448.x

Dokko, G., & Gaba, V. (2012). Venturing into new territory: Career experiences of corporate venture capital managers and practice variation. Academy of Management Journal, 55 (3), 563–583. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0909

Dushnitsky, G., & Lenox, M. J. (2005). When do firms undertake R&D by investing in new ventures? Strategic Management Journal, 26 (10), 947–965. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.488

Dushnitsky, G., & Shapira, Z. (2010). Entrepreneurial finance meets organizational reality: Comparing investment practices and performance of corporate and independent venture capitalists. Strategic Management Journal, 31 (9), 990–1017. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.851

Foss, N. J., Lyngsie, J., & Zahra, S. A. (2013). The role of external knowledge sources and organizational design in the process of opportunity exploitation. Strategic Management Journal, 34 (12), 1453–1471. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2135

Glaser, L., Fourné, S. P., & Elfring, T. (2015). Achieving strategic renewal: The multi-level influences of top and middle managers’ boundary-spanning. Small Business Economics, 45 (2), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9633-5

Gnyawali, D. R., & Fogel, D. S. (1994). Environments for entrepreneurship development: key dimensions and research implications. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 18 (4), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879401800403

Grande, J., Madsen, E. L., & Borch, O. J. (2011). The relationship between resources, entrepreneurial orientation and performance in farm-based ventures. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23 (3–4), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620903183710

Grossman, A., Okhmatovskiy, I., & Wright, M. (2016). State control and corporate governance in transition economies: 25 years on from 1989. Corporate Governance- International Review, 24 (3), 200–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12145

Guerrero, M., Amorós, J. E., & Urbano, D. (2021). Do employees’ generational cohorts influence corporate venturing? A multilevel analysis. Small Business Economics, 57 (1), 47–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00304-z .

Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editors’ introduction: Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11 , 5–15.

Google Scholar  

Hale, J. S., & Woronkowicz, J. (2020). Artists as public sector intrapreneurs: an experiment.  Small Business Economics , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00417-w

Hayton, J., George, G., & Zahra, S. (2002). National culture and entrepreneurship: A review of behavioral research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26 (4), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225870202600403

Heavey, C., & Simsek, Z. (2013). Top Management compositional effects on corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating role of perceived technological uncertainty. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30 (5), 837–855. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12033

Heavey, C., Simsek, Z., Roche, F., & Kelly, A. (2009). Decision comprehensiveness and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating role of managerial uncertainty preferences and environmental dynamism. Journal of Management Studies, 46 (8), 1289–1314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00858.x

Hellman, T. (2007). When do employees become entrepreneurs? Management Science, 53 (6), 919–933. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0648

Hills, G., & LaForge, R. (1992). Research at the marketing interface to advance entrepreneurship theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16 (3), 33–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879201600303

Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Strategic entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (6–7), 479–491. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.196

Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle managers’ perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17 (3), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00059-8

Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., Shepherd, D. A., & Bott, J. P. (2009). Managers’ corporate entrepreneurial actions: Examining perception and position. Journal of Business Venturing, 24 (3), 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.03.002

Hornsby, J. S., Peña-Legazkue, I., & Guerrero, M. (2013a). Guest editorial: The role of corporate entrepreneurship in the current organizational and economic landscape. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9 , 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0255-6

Hornsby, J. S., Bloodgood, J. M., Hayton, J., & Kuratko, D. F. (2013b). Network legitimacy diffusion: A model for corporate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9 (3), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0256-5

Hoy, F. (2006). The complicating factor of life cycles in corporate venturing. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30 (6), 831–836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00154.x

Hughes, M., & Mustafa, M. (2017). Antecedents of corporate entrepreneurship in SMEs: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Small Business Management, 55 (S1), 115–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12269

Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29 (6), 963–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00086-2

Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33 (1), 19–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00279.x

Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. (2011). International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): a domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26 (6), 632–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.04.001

Judge, W. Q., Liu-Thompkins, Y., Brown, J. L., & Pongpatipat, C. (2015). The impact of home country institutions on corporate technological entrepreneurship via R&D investments and virtual world presence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39 (2), 237–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12036

Kacperczyk, A. J. (2012). Opportunity structures in established firms entrepreneurship versus intrapreneurship in mutual funds. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57 (3), 484–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839212462675

Kang, J. H., Matusik, J. G., Kim, T. Y., & Phillips, J. M. (2016). Interactive effects of multiple organizational climates on employee innovative behavior in entrepreneurial firms: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Business Venturing, 31 (6), 628–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.08.002

Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. (2006). Corporate entrepreneurship in family firms: A family perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30 (6), 809–830. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00153.x

Kelley, D. J., Peters, L., & O’Connor, G. C. (2009). Intra-organizational networking for innovation-based corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 24 (3), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.05.010

Keupp, M. M., & Gassmann, O. (2009). The past and the future of international entrepreneurship: A review and suggestions for developing the field. Journal of Management, 35 (3), 600–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308330558

Kistruck, G. M., & Beamish, P. W. (2010). The interplay of form, structure, and embeddedness in social intrapreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34 (4), 735–761. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00371.x

Kolev, K. D., Wangrow, D. B., Barker, V. L., III., & Schepker, D. J. (2019). Board committees in corporate governance: A cross-disciplinary review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management Studies, 56 (6), 1138–1193. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12444

Kotlar, J., DeMassis, A., Wright, M., & Frattini, F. (2018). Organizational goals: Antecedents, formation processes, and implications for firm behavior and performance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20 , S3–S18. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12170

Kreiser, P. M., Marino, L. D., & Weaver, K. M. (2002). Assessing the psychometric properties of the entrepreneurial orientation scale: A multi-country analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26 (4), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225870202600405

Kreiser, P. M., Kuratko, D. F., Covin, J. G., Ireland, R. D., & Hornsby, J. S. (2021). Corporate entrepreneurship strategy: extending our knowledge boundaries through configuration theory. Small Business Economics, 56 , 739–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00198-x

Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2013). Clarifying the domains of corporate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9 (3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0257-4

Kuratko, D. F., Morris, M. H., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Corporate Innovation & Entrepreneurship (International Edition) (3rd ed.). South-Western/Cengage Learning.

Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Hayton, J. (2015). Corporate entrepreneurship: The innovative challenge for a new global economic reality. Small Business Economics, 45 (2), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9630-8

Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & McKelvie, A. (2021). Entrepreneurial mindset in corporate entrepreneurship: Forms, impediments, and actions for research.  Journal of Small Business Management , 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1907585

Lampe, J., Kraft, P. S., & Bausch, A. (2020). Mapping the field of research on entrepreneurial organizations (1937–2016): A bibliometric analysis and research agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44 (4), 784–816. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719851217

López-Duarte, C., Vidal-Suárez, M. M., & González-Díaz, B. (2016). International business and national culture: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18 (4), 397–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12070

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21 (1), 135–172. https://doi.org/10.2307/258632

Lyngsie, J., & Foss, N. J. (2017). The more, the merrier? Women in top-management teams and entrepreneurship in established firms. Strategic Management Journal, 38 (3), 487–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2510

Maes, J., & Sels, L. (2014). SMEs’ radical product innovation: The role of internally and externally oriented knowledge capabilities. Journal of Small Business Management, 52 (1), 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12037

Martiarena, A. (2013). What’s so entrepreneurial about intrapreneurs? Small Business Economics, 40 (1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9348-1

Marvel, M. R., Griffin, A., Hebda, J., & Vojak, B. (2007). Examining the technical corporate entrepreneurs’ motivation: Voices from the field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31 (5), 753–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00198.x

Marvel, M. R., Davis, J. L., & Sproul, C. R. (2016). Human capital and entrepreneurship research: A critical review and future directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40 (3), 599–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12136

Maula, M. V., Autio, E., & Murray, G. C. (2009). Corporate venture capital and the balance of risks and rewards for portfolio companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 24 (3), 274–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.10.012

McCain, K. W. (1983). The author cocitation structure of macroeconomics. Scientometrics, 5 (5), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02147224

McGrath, R. G., Venkataraman, S., & MacMillan, I. C. (1994). The advantage chain: Antecedents to rents from internal corporate ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 9 (5), 351–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)90012-4

McMillan, I. C. (1986). Progress in research on corporate venturing. In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Company.

Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 27 (7), 770–791. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770

Miller, A., Wilson, B., & Adams, M. (1988). Financial performance patterns of new corporate ventures: An alternative to traditional measures. Journal of Business Venturing, 3 (4), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(88)90010-9

Miller, A., Spann, M. S., & Lerner, L. (1991). Competitive advantages in new corporate ventures: The impact of resource sharing and reporting level. Journal of Business Venturing, 6 (5), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(91)90023-7

Minola, T., Brumana, M., Campopiano, G., Garrett, R. P., & Cassia, L. (2016). Corporate venturing in family business: A developmental approach of the enterprising family. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10 (4), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1236

Minola, T., Kammerlander, N., Kellermanns, F. W., & Hoy, F. (2021). Corporate entrepreneurship and family business: Learning across domains. Journal of Management Studies, 58 (1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12672

Monsen, E., Patzelt, H., & Saxton, T. (2010). Beyond simple utility: Incentive design and trade-offs for corporate employee-entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34 (1), 105–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00314.x

Morris, M. H., Avila, R. A., & Allen, J. W. (1993). Individualism and the modern corporation: Implications for innovation and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 19 (3), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639301900305

Morris, M. H., Davis, D. L., & Allen, J. W. (1994). Fostering corporate entrepreneurship: Cross-cultural comparisons of the importance of individualism versus collectivism. Journal of International Business Studies, 25 (1), 65–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490849

Mourao, P. R., & Martinho, V. D. (2020). Forest entrepreneurship: A bibliometric analysis and a discussion about the co-authorship networks of an emerging scientific field. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256 , 120413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120413

Narayanan, V. K., Yang, Y., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Corporate venturing and value creation: A review and proposed framework. Research Policy, 38 (1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.08.015

Nason, R. S., McKelvie, A., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2015). The role of organizational size in the heterogeneous nature of corporate entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 42 (2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9632-6

O’connor, G. C., & Rice, M. P. (2001). Opportunity recognition and breakthrough innovation in large established firms. California Management Review, 43 (2), 95–116. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166077

Park, H. D., & Steensma, H. K. (2012). When does corporate venture capital add value for new ventures? Strategic Management Journal, 33 (1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.937

Parker, S. C. (2011). Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 26 (1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.003

Pettit, K. L., & Crossan, M. M. (2020). Strategic renewal: Beyond the functional resource role of occupational members. Strategic Management Journal, 41 (6), 1112–1138. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3115

Phan, P. H., Wright, M., Ucbasaran, D., & Tan, W. L. (2009). Corporate entrepreneurship: Current research and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 24 (3), 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.01.007

Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneurship . Harper & Row.

Plambeck, N. (2012). The development of new products: The role of firm context and managerial cognition. Journal of Business Venturing, 27 (6), 607–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.08.002

Post, C., Sarala, R., Gatrell, C., & Prescott, J. E. (2020). Advancing theory with review articles. Journal of Management Studies, 57 (2), 351–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12549

Radaelli, G., & Sitton-Kent, L. (2016). Middle managers and the translation of new ideas in organizations: A review of micro-practices and contingencies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18 (3), 311–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12094

Ramos-Rodriguez, A. R., & Ruiz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal , 1980–2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25 (10), 981–1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.397

Rind, K. W. (1981). The role of venture capital in corporate development. Strategic Management Journal, 2 (2), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250020206

Romero-Martínez, A. M., Fernández-Rodríguez, Z., & Vázquez-Inchausti, E. (2010). Exploring corporate entrepreneurship in privatized firms. Journal of World Business, 45 (1), 2–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.04.008

Sahaym, A., Steensma, H. K., & Barden, J. Q. (2010). The influence of R&D investment on the use of corporate venture capital: An industry-level analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 25 (4), 376–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.12.001

Salvato, C., Sciascia, S., & Alberti, F. (2009). The microfoundations of corporate entrepreneurship as an organizational capability. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 10 (4), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000009790012291

Sathe, V. (1985). Managing an entrepreneurial dilemma: nurturing entrepreneurship and control in large corporations. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research , Babson College, Wesley Mas, pp. 636–656.

Schildt, H. A., Maula, M. V., & Keil, T. (2005). Explorative and exploitative learning from external corporate ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29 (4), 493–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00095.x

Schildt, H. A., Zahra, S. A., & Sillanpää, A. (2006). Scholarly communities in entrepreneurship research: A co-citation analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30 (3), 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00126.x

Schollhammer, H. (1982). Internal corporate entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, & K. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship. Prentice-Hall.

Shafique, M. (2013). Thinking inside the box? Intellectual structure of the knowledge base of innovation research (1988–2008). Strategic Management Journal, 34 (1), 62–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2002

Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11 (4), 448–469. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.448.14602

Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23 (3), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.448.14602

Shepherd, D. A., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Project failure from corporate entrepreneurship: Managing the grief process. Journal of Business Venturing, 24 (6), 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.01.009

Shepherd, D. A., Williams, T. A., & Patzelt, H. (2015). Thinking about entrepreneurial decision making: Review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 41 (1), 11–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314541153

Simba, A., & Thai, M. T. T. (2019). Advancing entrepreneurial leadership as a practice in MSME management and development. Journal of Small Business Management, 57 (sup2), 397–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12481

Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., & Lubatkin, M. H. (2007). The impact of managerial environmental perceptions on corporate entrepreneurship: Towards understanding discretionary slack’s pivotal role. Journal of Management Studies, 44 (8), 1398–1424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00714.x

Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 24 (4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406

Stam, E. (2013). Knowledge and entrepreneurial employees: A country-level analysis. Small Business Economics, 41 (4), 887–898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9511-y

Tsai, W. M. H., MacMillan, I. C., & Low, M. B. (1991). Effects of strategy and environment on corporate venture success in industrial markets. Journal of Business Venturing, 6 (1), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(91)90003-V

Turner, T., & Pennington, W. W., III. (2015). Organizational networks and the process of corporate entrepreneurship: How the motivation, opportunity, and ability to act affect firm knowledge, learning, and innovation. Small Business Economics, 45 (2), 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9638-0

Turro, A., Urbano, D., & Peris-Ortiz, M. (2014). Culture and innovation: The moderating effect of cultural values on corporate entrepreneurship. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 88 , 360–369.

Turro, A., Alvarez, C., & Urbano, D. (2016). Intrapreneurship in the Spanish context: A regional analysis. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28 (5–6), 380–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2016.1162850

Urbano, D., Aparicio, S., & Audretsch, D. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: What has been learned? Small Business Economics, 53 (1), 21–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0038-0

Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84 (2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Verbeke, A., Chrisman, J. J., & Yuan, W. (2007). A note on strategic renewal and corporate venturing in the subsidiaries of multinational enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31 (4), 585–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00189.x

Volery, T., & Mazzarol, T. (2015). The evolution of the small business and entrepreneurship field: A bibliometric investigation of articles published in the International Small Business Journal. International Small Business Journal, 33 (4), 374–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242613516139

Wadhwa, A., & Kotha, S. (2006). Knowledge creation through external venturing: Evidence from the telecommunications equipment manufacturing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (4), 819–835. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159800

Wadhwa, A., Phelps, C., & Kotha, S. (2016). Corporate venture capital portfolios and firm innovation. Journal of Business Venturing, 31 (1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.04.006

Wallin, M. W. (2012). The bibliometric structure of spin-off literature. Innovation, 14 (2), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.2012.14.2.162

Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21 (4), 541–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.005

Wang, Y. K. M., Chung, C. C., & Lim, D. S. (2015). The drivers of international corporate entrepreneurship: CEO incentive and CEO monitoring mechanisms. Journal of World Business, 50 (4), 742–753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2015.02.002

Westfall, S. L. (1969). Stimulating Corporate Entrepreneurship in U.S. industry. Strategic Management Journal, 12 (2), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.2307/254819

Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T., & Floyd, S. W. (2008). The middle management perspective on strategy process: Contributions, synthesis, and future research. Journal of Management, 34 (6), 1190–1221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308324326

Wright, M., Thompson, S., & Robbie, K. (1992). Venture capital and management-led leveraged buy-outs. Journal of Business Venturing, 7 (1), 47–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(92)90034-O

Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6 (4), 259–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(91)90019-A

Zahra, S. A. (1993). Environment, corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: A taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 8 (4), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(93)90003-N

Zahra, S. A. (1995). Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: The case of management leveraged buyouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 10 (3), 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)00024-O

Zahra, S. A. (1996a). Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating impact of industry technological opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (6), 1713–1735. https://doi.org/10.2307/257076

Zahra, S. A. (1996b). Technology strategy and new venture performance: A study of corporate-sponsored and independent biotechnology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 11 (4), 289–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(95)00128-X

Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10 (1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)00004-E

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), 469–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00036-1

Zahra, S. A., & Hayton, J. (2008). The effect of international venturing on firm performance: The moderating influence of absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Venturing, 23 (2), 195–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2007.01.001

Zahra, S. A., Nielsen, A. P., & Bogner, W. C. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship, knowledge, and competence development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23 (3), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879902300310

Zahra, S. A., Neubaum, D. O., & Huse, M. (2000). Entrepreneurship in medium-size companies: Exploring the effects of ownership and governance systems. Journal of Management, 26 (5), 947–976. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00064-7

Zahra, S. A., Filatotchev, I., & Wright, M. (2009). How do threshold firms sustain corporate entrepreneurship? The role of boards and absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Venturing, 24 (3), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.09.001

Download references

Acknowledgements

Our co-author, Mike Wright, sadly passed away before this article was published. He is sorely missed. David Urbano acknowledges the financial support from the projects ECO2017-87885-P (Spanish Ministry of Economy & Competitiveness) and 2017-SGR-1056 (Economy & Knowledge Department, Catalan Government), and ICREA under ICREA Academia programme.

Open Access Funding provided by Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Business, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Building B, Campus UAB, 08913 - Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain

David Urbano & Andreu Turro

Centre for Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation Research (CREIS), Universitat Autònoma Barcelona, Building S, Campus Sabadell UAB, C/ Emprius 2, 08202 - Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain

Centre for Management Buy-Out Research, Imperial College Business School University of Ghent, Exhibition Road, London, SW7 2AZ, UK

Mike Wright

Strategic Management & Entrepreneurship Department, Carlson School of Management, Gary S. Holmes Center for Entrepreneurship, 3-430 Carlson School, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Shaker Zahra

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Urbano .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

1.1 List of articles included in the study (ranked by number of articles published in each of the selected journals)

Journal of Business Venturing:

Abetti (1997); Allen and Hevert (2007); Antoncic and Hisrich (2001); Arzubiaga et al. (2018); Badguerahanian and Abetti (1995); Basu et al. (2011); Belderbos et al. (2018); Block and Ornati (1987); Bradley et al. (2011); Brazeal (1993); Browder et al. (2019); Brundin et al. (2008); Burgers et al. (2009); Covin et al. (1999); Covin et al. (2015); Covin et al. (2020); DeSarbo et al. (1987); Dushnitsky and Lenox (2006); Filatotchev et al. (1999); Green et al. (2008); Gupta et al. (2004); Gupta and Sapienza (1992); Hill and Birkinshaw (2008); Hornsby et al. (2002); Hornsby et al. (2009); Janney and Dess (2006); Jones et al. (2011); Kang et al. (2016); Kelley et al. (2009); Lin and Lee (2011); MacMillan and Day (1987); Maula et al. (2009); McDougall et al. (1992); McGrath (1995); McGrath et al. (1994); Miller et al. (1989); Miller et al. (1991); Miller et al. (1988); Ohe et al. (1992); Park and Kim (1997); Parker (2011); Patzelt et al. (2020); Patzelt et al. (2021); Pearce et al. (1997); Phan et al. (2009); Plambeck (2012); Ravasi and Turati (2005); Rigtering et al. (2019); Sahaym et al. (2009); Shankar and Shepherd (2019); Shepherd et al. (2009); Shrader and Simon (1997); Siegel et al. (1988); Sorrentino and Williams (1995); Srivastava and Lee (2005); Sykes (1986); Sykes (1990); Sykes (1992); Sykes and Block (1989); Sykes and Dunham (1995); Thornhill and Amit (2000); Tsai et al. (1991); Van de Vrande et al. (2009); Wadhwa et al. (2016); Waldkirch et al. (2021); Walter et al. (2006); Weber and Weber (2011); Westhead and Wright (1998); Wincent et al. (2014); Yang et al. (2009); Zahra (1991); Zahra (1993); Zahra (1995); Zahra (1996a, 1996b); Zahra and Covin (1995); Zahra and Garvis (2000); Zahra and Hayton (2008); Zahra et al. (2009).

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice:

Biniari (2012); Block et al. (2019); Borch et al. (2021); Corbett and Hmieleski (2007); Covin and Lumpkin (2011); Covin and Miles (1999); Covin and Miles (2007); Covin and Miller (2014); Covin and Wales (2019); Covin et al. (2018); De Clercq et al. (2016); Dess et al. (1999); Doughery (1995); Eddleston et al. (2010); Fang et al. (2021); Fini et al. (2012); Finkle (2012); Garret and Covin (2015); Heller (1999); Hornsby et al. (1993); Hornsby et al. (1999); Hoy (2006); Hunt et al. (2019); Ireland et al. (2009); Jennings and Young (1990); Judge et al. (2015); Keil et al. (2010); Kellermanns and Eddleston (2006); Kistruck and Beamish (2010); Kotlar and Sieger (2019); Kreiser et al. (2020); Kuratko et al. (2005); Lampe et al. (2020); Marvel et al. (2007); Miles and Covin (2002); Monsen et al. (2010); Riar et al. (2021); Schild et al. (2005); Sharma and Chrisman (1999); Soleimanof et al. (2019); Titus Jr and Anderson (2018); Titus Jr et al. (2020); Uzuegbunam et al. (2019); Van de Vrande and Vanhaverbeke (2013); Verbeke et al. (2007); Vozikis et al. (1999); Yiu and Lau (2008).

Small Business Economics:

Adachi and Hisada (2017); Akehurst et al. (2009); Amoroso et al. (2017); Audretsch (2015); Audretsch et al. (2015); Ben Arfi and Hikkerova (2019), Bertoni et al. (2013); Bierwerth et al. (2015); Biniari et al. (2015); Bloodgood et al. (2015); Braune et al. (2021); Braunerhjelm et al. (2018); Byrne et al. (2016); Cantner et al. (2020); Covin et al. (2021); Crawford and Kreiser (2015); Cruz and Nordqvist (2012); Cucculelli and Bettinelli (2015); Cucculelli and Peruzzi (2020); Cumming et al. (2008); Douglas and Fitzsimmons (2013); Fryges and Wright (2014); Glaser et al. (2015); Garrett and Holland (2015); Guerrero et al. (2019); Hale and Woronkowicz (2020); Iacobucci and Rosa (2005); Kearney and Morris (2015); Kellermanns et al. (2012); Kreiser et al. (2021); Kuratko et al. (2015); Kuratko et al. (2015); Martiarena (2013); Nason et al. (2015); Stam (2013); Turner and Pennington (2015); Useche and Pommet (2020); Zahra (2015); Zellweger and Sieger (2012).

Strategic Management Journal:

Ahuja and Lampert (2001); Alvarez-Garrido and Dushnitsky (2016); Barringer and Bluedorn (1999); Birkinshaw (1997); Boone et al. (2019); Burgers and Covin (2016); Ceccagnoli et al. (2018); Deichmann and Jensen (2018); Dushnitsky and Lenox (2005); Dushnitsky and Shapira (2010); Dushnitsky and Shaver (2009); Gaba and Dokko (2016); Garud and Van de ven (1992); Guth and Ginsberg (1990); Kannan-Narasimhan and Lawrence (2018); Keil et al. (2008); Kuratko et al. (1990); Larrañeta et al. (2014); Nielsen et al. (1985); Park and Steensma (2012); Pettit and Crossan (2019); Rind (1981); Schendel (1990); Shortell and Zajac (1988); Stopford and Baden-Fuller (1994); Yang et al. (2014).

Journal of Small Business Management:

Bettinelli et al. (2017); Bojica et al. (2017); Brumana et al. (2017); de Lange and Valliere (2020); Gentry et al. (2013); Hakala et al. (2016); Hughes and Mustafa (2017); Johnson (2012); Kim et al. (2018); Kim et al. (2021); Kuratko et al. (2021); Ma and Huang (2016); Maes and Sels (2014); Moreno and Munuera (2016); Naldi et al. (2015); Noyes et al. (2014); Park et al. (2019); Randolph et al. (2017); Simba and Thai (2019); Simon et al. (2002); Swoboda and Olejnik (2016).

Journal of Management:

Anderson et al. (2014); Dess et al. (2003); Drover et al. (2017); Engelen et al. (2015); Engelen et al. (2016); Hill and Birkinshaw (2014); Jennings and Lumpkin (1989); Jones and Butler (1992); Keupp and Gassmann (2009); Kim et al. (2019); Lengnick (1992); Lyon et al. (2000); Morris et al. (1993); Rosenbusch et al. (2013); Russell and Russell (1992); Shepherd et al. (2014); Shepherd et al. (2019); Titus Jr et al. (2017); Wooldridge et al. (2008); Zahra et al. (2000).

Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal:

Basu et al. (2016); Cabral et al. (2020); Di Lorenzo and Van de Vrande (2019); Dushnitsky and Lavie (2010); Eckhardt et al. (2018); Gaba and Bhattacharya (2012); Hill et al. (2009); Hinkler et al. (2010); Huang and Madhavan (2020); McGrath (2015); Minola et al. (2016); Mohammadi and Khashabi (2020); Park and Steensma (2013); Simsek and Heavy (2011); Smith and Shah (2013); Souitaris and Zerbinati (2014); Van Ness and Seifert (2016); Wang and Wan (2013); Weber et al. (2016); Zahra (2016).

Journal of Management Studies:

Alt and Craig (2016); Ambos and Tatarinova (2021); Chirico et al. (2021); De Massis et al. (2021); Dimov and Gedajlovic (2010); Doh and Pearce (2004); Fang et al. (2021); Haynes et al. (2015); Heavy et al. (2009); Keil (2004); Keil et al. (2008); Minola et al. (2021); Prugl and Spitzley (2021); Raitis et al. (2021); Ramirez-Pasillas et al. (2021); Simsek et al. (2007); Simsek et al. (2015); Teng (2007).

International Small Business Journal:

Camelo et al. (2012); Dada and Fogg (2016); Dada et al. (2010); Fini and Toschi (2016); Gupta and Batra (2016); Messeghem (2003); Shu et al. (2020); Thorgren et al. (2012); Wales et al. (2013); Wales et al. (2015); Yu et al. (2019); Zahra et al. (2014).

Academy of Management Journal:

Chin et al. (2021); Bae and Lee (2021); Dokko and Gaba (2012); Gaba and Meyer (2008); Ling et al. (2008); Souitaris et al. (2012); Wadhwa and Kotha (2006); Westfall (1969); Zahra (1996a, 1996b).

Entrepreneurship and Regional Development:

Casillas and Moreno (2010); Fayolle et al. (2010); Grande et al. (2011); Herbane (2019); Kemelgor (2002); Marchisio et al. (2010); Nordqvist and Melin (2010); Salvato et al. (2010); Turro et al. (2016).

Administrative Science Quarterly:

Burgelman (1983a, 1983b); Chen and Nadkarni (2017); Kacperczyk (2012); Pahnke et al. (2015); Pontikes (2012).

Management Science:

Bhardwaj et al. (2006); Burgelman (1983a, 1983b); de Bettignies and Chemla (2008); Miller (1983).

Journal of International Business Studies:

Morris et al. (1994); Yiu et al. (2007).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Urbano, D., Turro, A., Wright, M. et al. Corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review and future research agenda. Small Bus Econ 59 , 1541–1565 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00590-6

Download citation

Accepted : 28 November 2021

Published : 05 January 2022

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00590-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Corporate entrepreneurship
• Intrapreneurship
• Corporate venturing
• Strategic renewal
• Systematic literature review
• Bibliometrics

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Entrepreneurship and family role: a systematic review of a growing research.

• Department of Social Psychology and Anthropology, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

In recent years, research on the family role and entrepreneurship has increased noticeably, consolidating itself as a valid and current subject of study. This paper presents a systematic analysis of academic research, applying bibliometric indicators, and cluster analysis, which define the state of research about the relationship between family role and entrepreneurship. For this purpose, using three well-accepted databases among the research community: Scopus, Web of Science, Business Source, a total of 92 articles were selected and analyzed, published between 1989 and 2019 (until March). A cluster analysis shows five main areas of literature development: (1) cultural dimension and geneder issue; (2) family business and succession; (3) parental role models and entrepreneurial intentions; (4) entrepreneurship and self-employment; (5) family support and women entrepreneurs. Findings also show how this is a relatively recent field of study, with a multidisciplinary character.

Introduction

Entrepreneurship is a determining factor of economic development ( Thurik, 2009 ; Hessels and van Stel, 2011 ; Audretsch et al., 2015 ), social and structural change ( Acs et al., 1999 ; North, 2005 ). Entrepreneurship not only contributes to the economic and social growth of a nation, but also stimulates the development of knowledge ( Shane, 2000 ), technological change ( Acs and Varga, 2005 ), competitiveness and innovation ( Parker, 2009 ; Blanco-González et al., 2015 ). In fact, the European community has promoted numerous actions aimed to improve and develop the entrepreneurial attitude of European citizens toward Business venture, focusing on aspects that are essential for creating a corporate identity. However, the levels of entrepreneurial activity in some European countries are still low. According to the latest international study of Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), published in 2018, Europe has the lowest TEA (Total Entrepreneurial Activity) of all regions in all age studied. This is a concerning result, especially in it's current crisis period.

Entrepreneurial activity is not just about discovering new ideas and possibilities ( Shane and Venkataraman, 2000 ), but also intentional planning, developed through the cognitive processing of internal and external factors ( Del Giudice et al., 2014 ). Intention is a cognitive process that precedes the effective involvement of the individual in any type of activity ( Liñán and Chen, 2009 ), and in particular, entrepreneurial intention is closely linked to business world ( Moriano et al., 2012 ) and has become a rapidly evolving research sector in the international scene ( Liñán and Fayolle, 2015 ).

Currently, in the literature there are two different theoretical approaches which attempt to clarify why some individuals are more inclined toward an entrepreneurial career when compared to others: the first analyzes personality traits ( Zhao and Seibert, 2006 ; Rauch and Frese, 2007 ; Leutner et al., 2014 ; DeNisi, 2015 ), the second focuses on environmental and behavioral factors ( Peterson, 1980 ; Aldrich, 1990 ; Baum et al., 2001 ). Specifically, researchers study the importance of some individual traits as factors predetermining to perform entrepreneurial activities such as high levels of self-efficacy ( Krueger et al., 2000 ; Zhao et al., 2005 ; Lee et al., 2011 ; Rasul et al., 2017 ), risk propensity ( Schwartz and Whistler, 2009 ; Tumasjan and Braun, 2012 ; Yurtkoru et al., 2014 ), tolerance to ambiguity, and uncertainty ( Hmieleski and Corbett, 2006 ; Schwartz and Whistler, 2009 ; Arrighetti et al., 2012 ), metacognitive abilities and individual abilities ( Kor et al., 2007 ; Dickson et al., 2008 ; Liñán et al., 2011 ), locus of control ( Battistelli, 2001 ; Gordini, 2013 ), as well as creativity ( Hamidi et al., 2008 ; Smith et al., 2016 ; Biraglia and Kadile, 2017 ); the environmental and behavioral focuses refers to the Social Learning Theory ( Bandura, 1986 ), according to which, individuals learn certain skills from other people, which act as models. Specifically, the term “role model” emphasizes the individual's tendency to identify with other people occupying important social and the consequent cognitive interdependence of skills and behavior patterns ( Gibson, 2004 ).

In this scenario, the role of the family in guiding young people toward choosing an autonomous/entrepreneurial job becomes important ( Fraccaroli and Vitali, 2001 ; Odoardi, 2003 ); the social network is an important intangible resource for the development of their business activities ( Presutti et al., 2011 ); in particular, the perception of the family support influences, in the university students, the choice of career in general ( Henderson and Robertson, 2000 ) and specifically the business one ( Türker et al., 2005 ; Taormina and Lao, 2007 ; Zellweger et al., 2011 ; Laspita et al., 2012 ).

This evidence is not enough proof. For example, some researchers have not found a statistically significant relationship between entrepreneurial parenting role models and children's decision to choose an entrepreneurial career ( Rodriguez et al., 1999 ; Kim et al., 2006 ), other studies, instead, have found a negative effect, especially in situations of failure of the family business ( Scherer et al., 1989 ; Mungai and Velamuri, 2011 ).

Taking into consideration the ideas exposed above, we conducted this systematic review to analyze the relationship between the role of the family and the entrepreneurial process. Specifically, we aim to answer the following questions:

1. What is the temporal development of research on the relationship of the role model in entrepreneurship?

2. Who are the most productive authors, countries and journals?

3. What are the thematic areas that have been most studied by researchers?

Furthermore, to reduce the risk of bias to a minimum, we applied a series of bibliometric indicators. Bibliometric indicators are defined as a rigorous set of statistical and mathematics methods to be applied to documents and other patterns of knowledge ( Pritchard, 1969 ). It is a method widely used in the literature as it provides an overview of academic research, through the identification of the main trends in a given field of study ( Martínez-López et al., 2018 ). Many bibliometric revisions regarding entrepreneurship have been conducted ( Cabeza-Ramírez et al., 2017 ; Baier-Fuentes et al., 2019 ). However, specifically to the relationship between family role and entrepreneurship, our research did not generate any results. The only existing revisions take into consideration the family, understood as a family business ( López-Fernández et al., 2015 ).

In the following section we explain the methodology for systematic analysis, and we will report the main results. In the final part, we present the conclusions that can be drawn from our analysis, its limitations, as well as reflections for future developments.

Materials and Methods

In this article, we review the literature on the family role in entrepreneurial capacity using the systematic analysis method as “explicit, rigorous and transparent methodology” ( Greenhalgh et al., 2004 , p. 582). In this sense, we collected the publications until March 2019 and extracted the most relevant results, through the application of statistical methods.

To reduce the risk of bias, during the selection phase of the articles, we used a mechanism established in the literature, the PRISMA method ( Liberati et al., 2009 ; Urrútia and Bonfill, 2010 ), which allows to make the work replicable ( Lourenço and Jones, 2006 ; Pittaway and Cope, 2007 ).

In order to search for relevant articles, we used three databases: Scopus, Web of Science and Business Source, without defining a specific publication period. The selection of these items was made on basis that are considered the most powerful databases in existence. Specifically, Web of Science because it is the oldest database of citations, dating back to 1900, and provides strong coverage in international research ( Li et al., 2010 ), guaranteeing the highest quality; Scopus, on the other hand, with 27 million abstracts, is the largest database of scientific literature ( Burnham, 2006 ); Business Source as a third database, as it provides a repertoire on entrepreneurial, business, and economics sciences literature.

Initially, within each database, we applied the Boolean search terms “famil * role,” “famil * support,” “parent * role,” “parent * support,” and “entrepren * ” to identify all the publications that contained the keywords in the title of publications, author of key words or abstract. After eliminating all the duplicate articles, a total of 192 documents were identified over a period of time between 1989 and 2019. All 192 abstracts were read to ensure that the document deals with our construct. When a doubt arose, the entire document was read to confirm this.

As far as the inclusion/exclusion criterion is concerned, we have only considered journal articles since they are scientific knowledge ( Podsakoff et al., 2005 ), written in English or Spanish language, and containing a direct relationship between the family (parental) role and entrepreneurship. On the contrary, were excluded: chapters of books and conference papers, publications that did not make any connection between the two constructs, or that analyzed the role of family members other than the parental couple (for example, possible partners or brothers), and all articles written in a language other than English or Spanish. For example, we have excluded the article by Fernández Robin et al. (2017 ) because they mention “the role of the family” in the abstract, but they refer specifically to housewives for women and how entrepreneurship and of family assistance seem incompatible, or the article by Logan (2014) , as it analyzes the relationship between family and entrepreneurship, but refers to the support received from the partner or spouse.

A total of 92 articles were analyzed in this study (Annex 1 in Supplementary Material ).

Figure 1 shows the flow Diagram of the study according to the recommendations of the PRISMA method.

Figure 1 . PRISMA 2009 flow diagram.

Different types of indicators have been used.

Specifically, we analyzed year of publication, the productivity of authors, countries and journals, research area (e.g., Social Science, Business and Management, Economic etc.), type of research and sample. In addition, in order to measure the impact on productivity and on citation of an author's publications and journals we used the h -index ( Hirsch, 2005 ). In this sense, as underlined by Gaviria-Marin et al. (2018) , it is an important bibliometric indicator that is commonly used by researchers given its ease of interpretation.

To analyze the most investigated thematic areas, was used the analysis of the co-occurrence of the authors' keywords, through the VOSviewer software version 1.6.10 ( Van Eck and Waltman, 2010 , 2014 ). It is a bibliometric technique that allows graphic representation, identification and classification of clusters in a strategic matrix associated on the basis of similarities and dissimilarities (distance-based maps). Moreover, while the qualitative analysis of the literature can be affected by the subjectivity of the author, this method allows to overcome this problem, becoming an instrument of undisputed and consolidated analysis ( Vallaster et al., 2019 ), used in presently ( Valenzuela et al., 2017 ; Martínez-López et al., 2018 ).

In Table 1 we show a summary of the main methodological features of the study.

Table 1 . Characteristics of the bibliometric study.

Figure 2 illustrates the growth, during the period 1989–2019, of the family role and entrepreneurship publications in the international scene. Research has experienced great development in recent years, in fact, since 2011, the interest in topics concerning the relationship between family and entrepreneurship has increased significantly, recording the most profitable peak of publications in 2017. Although only the first 3 months of 2019 are included in the data set, 4 articles had already been published during this period.

Figure 2 . Evolution of publications.

This increase in publications in recent years may suggest a continuous evolution of family role in entrepreneurship as current and still valid research trend topic.

In order to analyze the trend of research in the family/parent support and entrepreneurship constructs, we used the dimensions obtained from cluster analysis. Figure 3 shows the progress of the research from 1989 to 2019. As noted, the constructs are associated with different fields of research, emphasizing the multidisciplinary character.

Figure 3 . Article published by cluster by year.

For example, over the years, the trend of research interests has changed. From the interest shown by the literature toward the cultural and social dimension (cluster 1—red line) and toward the individual personological characteristics of the entrepreneur (cluster 4—yellow line), in recent years the dimension that has received the most attention is the family one. The two most in-depth research themes, with a peak of interest between 2017 and 2018, are: the influence of parental role models and the educational dimension in the development of entrepreneurial intentions (cluster 3—turquoise line), and the importance of family support (cluster 5—purple line), especially in developing countries and disadvantaged groups, such as female entrepreneurship.

Furthermore, in the year 2019 it would seem that there is a potential recovery for the theme of family businesses as factors of economic development, but clusters 2 and 3 would still seem to be actual.

Afterwards, we analyzed the productivity of scientific journals, generating a list of 92 articles. For the purposes of our analysis, we have considered journals with a minimum of 3 publications on the subject, classifying them from the most productive to the least productive. As can be seen from Table 2 , the scientific journal that has more active the role of the family in the entrepreneurial process is International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research ( n = 6 articles; h -index = 44).

Table 2 . Article with the most publications on the subject.

The analysis also revealed the multidisciplinary nature of the research area. Most publications ( n = 71) are related to business and management research, but others come from psychology and social sciences ( n = 14), economics ( n = 6), and engineering ( n = 1).

We performed as well an analysis to identify the authors who, are considered most influential in the development of this field of study. In the 92 articles that were part of the bibliometric study, a total of 239 authors were found (2.59 authors per article). 90.9% contributed with only one work on the subject, which shows that it is a highly dispersed field, probably due to its multidisciplinary nature.

This interpretation gained more strength after verifying that only 8 authors participated in two or more articles, as shown in Table 3 . The first 3 authors with 4 articles are Kaciak, E. (h-index = 8); Memili, E. (h-index = 13), and Welsh, D. (h-index = 14).

Table 3 . Authors with the greatest number of articles published.

Were also analyzed the countries where the research field of our object of study is more developed ( Figure 4 ). Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis we have considered only countries with a minimum of 3 publications. The United States is the country with the largest number of publications ( n = 20), followed by India ( n = 9), and Canada ( n = 7). The United Kingdom ( n = 6) and Spain ( n = 5) follow, in fourth and fifth place of the rank, and represent the two most productive countries in Europe in terms of research on the role of the family and entrepreneurship.

Figure 4 . Publications of countries.

Finally, we conducted an analysis on the nature of the research and the type of sample. The quantitative analysis is the most used in the selected studies (69.6%), using a variety of analysis techniques: descriptive ( n = 34) logistic, linear and hierarchical regression ( n = 22); confirmatory, using Structural Equation Modeling ( n = 14); correlation ( n = 17); t -test ( n = 6); univariate ( n = 5); and multivariate ( n = 4). Qualitative studies ( n = 19), on the other hand, the ones less frequently used are: observation ( n = 3), case studies ( n = 5), interviews ( n = 6), in-depth interviews ( n = 8), and focus group ( n = 1), representing only 20.7% of the studies. Most of the articles applied more than one analysis technique. Finally, four articles (4.4%) used a mixed method (quantitative and qualitative research).

The results are summarized in Table 4 .

Table 4 . Nature of research and type of sample.

Descriptive statistics and regression analysis are the most commonly used techniques in the reviewed articles, followed by correlation analysis and confirmation analysis through Structural Equation Modeling. The latter was mostly used, especially in more recent articles.

As for the type of sample used, the studies with entrepreneurs prevailed in 59.9% of the analyzed articles (of which 26.7% were female entrepreneurs), while the studies that analyzed students accounted for 30.5%. 7.7% of the studies considered other types of samples that do not fall into the categories previously explained.

En general, to identify the state of research on the relationship between family role and entrepreneurship, proceeded the co-occurrence analysis with one occurrence per keyword, for a total frequency of 237 authors' keywords grouped in 25 clusters.

As shown in Figure 5 , the stronger relationships are graphically represented by larger circles and labels. The research topics most closely examined by scholars deals with entrepreneurship, family support and entrepreneurial intent.

Figure 5 . One co-occurrence for keywords. Source: VOSviewer version 1.6.10.

For the purposes of the study, we have narrowed the field, performing a co-occurrence analysis with a minimum of three occurrences for keyword, for a total of 22 authors' keywords. The mapping and grouping provides a general review of the research in the context of entrepreneurial literature and in Figure 6 are shown the five most relevant clusters. Each cluster is represented by a different color that highlights the relationship between them while the distance between the clusters provides information on the intensity of the relationship ( Van Eck and Waltman, 2010 ).

Figure 6 . Three co-occurrence for keywords. Source: VOSviewer version 1.6.10.

Cluster 1: Cultural Dimension and Gender Issue (7 Items)

The occurrence of 21.8% of the keywords studied is associated with the red cluster formed by the following keywords: culture, women, female entrepreneurship, entrepreneurialism, gender, social capital and students.

The cultural dimension is one of the key elements for the family background and entrepreneurial process. According to some authors ( Li, 2007 ; Gurel et al., 2010 ; Castillo-Palacio et al., 2017 ) the social and family context in which the individual growths, shapes his creative thinking, predisposes him to innovation and risk perception, develops social capital, generates value, thus creating cultures that encourage more entrepreneurship and autonomy than others.

As suggested by Zhao et al. (2012) there are two different theoretical explanations about the role that culture plays in business world. The first one, of a psychological nature, acting at the individual level ( Hayton et al., 2002 ) and presupposes that culture acts on the skills and abilities of individual, modifying the behavior. The second line, based on institutional theory, considers culture as a substratum of the community, so some societies are more likely to promote entrepreneurial processes.

Several authors use this prospective to analyze entrepreneurial activity in different contexts, for example, Welsh et al. (2018) , applying institutional theory, compared women entrepreneurs in Morocco and Turkey. Other studies have focused on other business contexts ( McIntosh and Islam, 2010 ; Ramadani, 2015 ), predominantly Islamic ( Anggadwita et al., 2015 ; Mohd Rhouse et al., 2016 ), and Middle Eastern cultures ( Bastian et al., 2018 ).

From this point of view, the cultural dimension is closely related to the “woman” variable and more generally to the “gender issue” because, as several studies have shown ( Freytag and Thurik, 2007 ; Sengupta et al., 2013 ), behavior is often a consequence of different socio-cultural values that are taught and learned since youth and that last over time, which also applies to entrepreneurial behavior ( Hofstede, 2001 ; Eid, 2006 ).

Indeed, despite the positive aspects of entrepreneurship understood as a career accessible to all and economically advantageous, a more in-depth analysis shows that there are many cultural obstacles ( Ahl and Marlow, 2012 ), especially for women.

Specifically, the gap between male and female entrepreneurship has been explained by various theories, among which the most exhaustive is the “Social Role Theory” developed by Eagly (1987) . According to this explanation, the male group is configured as the ideal for the entrepreneurial field ( Bird and Brush, 2002 ), while women consider entrepreneurship less as a career path ( Ahl, 2006 ).

Rubio-Bañón and Esteban-Lloret (2016 ) conducted a research to analyze the possible differences between male and female entrepreneurs in 55 different countries, considering cultural factors as among the most relevant hindrances for entrepreneurship ( Bosma and Kelley, 2018 ). The observed results do not yet confirm that cultures with a higher rate of masculinity lead to a greater gender gap in female entrepreneurship rates. Other research has shown that in communities with high virility, women can share and take ownership of these cultural values and be more motivated toward an entrepreneurial career.

Indeed, the relationship between gender and cultural beliefs is still unclear: some studies have shown that women are pursue less an entrepreneurial career ( Chen et al., 1998 ; Gupta et al., 2005 ). Other studies, instead, suggest that in cultures considered to be stereotypically masculine, women are more inclined toward entrepreneurial activity ( Mueller and Conway Dato-on, 2008 ; Cardozo Crowe, 2010 ).

The cultural component, as a substrate of a society, comes into play with the variable “students,” in fact, as the literature shows, it is important to adopt policies that support entrepreneurial development at school.

The promotion and enhancement of the “entrepreneurial culture” has become an important component in the initiatives and in the offer of services for students. Universities are called to accept this challenge to prepare students for the acquisition of entrepreneurial skills and competences that allow them to cope with the multiplicity of today's society, in constant evolution and change ( Bygrave, 2004 ).

Promoting student entrepreneurship means making them more aware of their future, in the field of business, to translate ideas into actions.

This cluster shows a relationship with the main terms of the analysis: entrepreneurship and family support, because cultural factors pass through the micro-social dimension of society, including the institutions that live in that community. Social agencies like the school, but also the family, have the task of creating an entrepreneurial-supportive environment that can encourage entrepreneurial activities in students, helping to develop an entrepreneurial culture ( Roffe, 1999 ). Supporting this point of view, many authors ( Pruett et al., 2009 ; Al-Harthi, 2017 ) agree that regardless of the type of person, different strategies can be used to motivate the students in choosing an entrepreneurial career, encouraging them to work independently and to expose them to entrepreneurial success stories that can serve as models for the acquisition of skills, technical knowledge and relevant know-how.

Cluster 2: Family Business and Succession (4 Items)

The green cluster consists of the following keywords: family business, succession, economic development, and Arabia Saudita, which constitute the 12.1% of the occurrences.

The authors agree that the factor that distinguishes family and non-family businesses is the intention to transfer the control of the company to its following generation ( Chua et al., 1999 ), a factor that also contributes to economic growth in the developing countries (and also in advanced economies).

The intertwining of family firms and business has a profound impact on entrepreneurial experiences, especially for children, it is so influential that it is considered by Rogoff and Heck (2003) , together with human capital and education, as the oxygen that fuels the entrepreneurial fire.

Family businesses are important, not only from a financial point of view, but also because provide long-term stability in the labor market because of the responsibility they show to communities, since they convey values and knowledge. All these factors are valuable instruments of change to counteract the current financial crisis. As highlighted in the final report on family businesses, conducted in 2009 by the European Commission, at European level, more than 60% of existing businesses are family-run. “Most SMEs (especially micro and small enterprises) are family businesses and a large majority of family companies are SMEs” ( European Commission, 2009 , p. 4).

However, the successor's intention to continue their family's business depends on whether their parents are willing to support them, contributing to the development and success of their family activities ( De Massis et al., 2014 ). In fact, despite the undoubted importance that family succession has from an economic and social point of view, international studies have shown that the newer generation has low interest as well as intention to work in their parents' business ( Zellweger, 2017 ). According to the Sieger et al. (2016) , conducted in 50 countries, 8.8% of the 122,000 university students intend to start their own business, but only 2.7% want to be part of the family business. A model of “employee first, then founder” emerges 5 years after studies, in which 38.2% intend to found a business, but only 4.8% consider themselves as employee in their own family business ( Sieger et al., 2016 ). Similar results were achieved by Zellweger et al. (2011) , who found that the possibility of being able to inherit the family business does not make it a desirable choice. The successors tend to feel confident about their skills and knowledges, but appear pessimistic about the succession because they considered themselves less autonomous.

In the current context, characterized by an aging population and the desire of many entrepreneurs to transfer the family business to their children, this result is worrying ( Garcia et al., 2018 ).

The performance of those who enter the family business is better when perceived family responsibility as strong, this result highlights the strength of family expectations in positively influencing members' performance ( Dawson et al., 2015 ).

One of the very few studies on the succession of daughters in the family business, conducted by Overbeke et al. (2013) , examined the factors that may contribute to this generational shift. The results revealed that family support and leadership tutoring are the most important elements.

Parental support in family businesses is very important not only in the succession phase, but also when the company is consolidated, for example, based on data from 228 entrepreneurs, Marshall et al. (2018) found that the active involvement of the family creates a common destiny among members that favors resilience for an entrepreneur, compared to the owners of non-family businesses.

It is important to understand that the factors that influence the intentions of the members of the next generation to undertake an entrepreneurial career requires a systemic analysis that also considers the behaviors of their parents ( Nordqvist and Melin, 2010 ) and the perception that children have of this support ( Garcia et al., 2018 ).

Cluster 3: Parental Role Models and Entrepreneurial Intention (4 Items)

The third cluster associates the following keywords: entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurship education, parental role models and self-efficacy. The 22.6% of keywords are related to this cluster which emphasizes the importance of entrepreneurial education, parental role model and self-efficacy for entrepreneurial intention development.

Historically, intentions have been considered as the antecedent of behavior ( Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977 ; Ajzen, 1991 ). The meta-analysis by Sheeran (2002) conducted on 422 studies, showed that the correlation between intentions and behavior explains 28% of the variance in behavior. For this reason, much of the literature has been interested in studying the factors influencing intentions. In this regard, in recent decades, great importance has been attached to the positive influence played by role models in improving the intentions of choosing an entrepreneurial career. Bosma et al. (2012) found that 54% of a sample of 292 entrepreneurs had a role model (20% in the pre-start-up phase, 10% in the post-start-up phase and 24% in both phases), in addition, one-third of the sample stated that they would not have founded their company without this role model.

The positive influence of role models on entrepreneurial intentions has been empirically analyzed in various cultural contexts. A German study by Chlosta et al. (2012) showed that parental role models increased the likelihood of individuals becoming self-employed. Urbano et al. (2011) , instead, established that individuals with the same ethnicity can act as a model, encouraging other individuals in the community to create new businesses. The study conducted by Pablo-Lerchundi et al. (2015) showed that the profession carried out by parents influences the entrepreneurial intentions of students, who were more likely to choose an entrepreneurial career if their parents were entrepreneurs than children of public officials. In recent years, the impact of role models on entrepreneurial process was confirmed in different professional categories, as in academic entrepreneurs ( Fernández-Pérez et al., 2015 ) and active entrepreneurs ( Bosma et al., 2012 ; Fritsch et al., 2012 ).

Self-efficacy has also been considered an important factor that increases the intentions to undertake a certain behavior, especially if associated with a positive attitude toward this behavior ( Markham et al., 2002 ). Relationship between self-efficacy and parental role models as well as attitudes toward entrepreneurship have been established in numerous studies. For instance, Carr and Sequeira (2007) in a research conducted on 308 individuals, found direct and indirect effects of previous family exposures on entrepreneurial intention, through the mediation of perceived family support and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. BarNir et al. (2011) , which indicated the positive influence of role models on entrepreneurial intention and the role of mediation exercised by self-efficacy, arrived at the same conclusion. Similar studies were conducted for female university students ( Sahinidis et al., 2019 ). Laviolette et al. (2012) found that role models positively influence entrepreneurial intentions by increasing self-efficacy, provided that such models are positively perceived by individuals, so as to enable them to identify themselves.

Furthermore, role models also play a key role in entrepreneurial training processes, positively influencing the development of entrepreneurial skills ( Heinonen and Poikkijoki, 2006 ). Entrepreneurship education, effectively, influences on the intention of undertaking autonomous activities through two objectives: creating and spreading knowledge ( Perreira and Da Silva, 2003 ) and encouraging students to develop skills in human capital ( Gupta and York, 2008 ). The importance given to the role of education in the entrepreneurial process is underlined by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) which dedicated the special theme of 2008 to Entrepreneurship Education and Training.

In the literature there are studies that explain how perceived family support can come into play in this process. For example, in a research by Denanyoh et al. (2015) emerged that university support, structural support and emotional support of the family are important factors that influence the entrepreneurial intention of students in Ghana. The same result emerges from a study conducted by Bignotti and le Roux (2016) which found that entrepreneurship education and family support positively influence students' need for achievement and entrepreneurial intentions. In another study conducted, Laguía et al. (2019 ) found that the perceived family support and university support are positively associated with entrepreneurial intentions in students. Furthermore, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial education moderate the relationship between support and entrepreneurial intention.

At the same time, the research emphasized the importance of entrepreneurship education as a possible tool that, based on skills and knowledge useful to the subjects in order to achieve greater self-confidence and security, could lead to overcoming the gap between men and women in the entrepreneurial field (gender bias).

Entrialgo and Iglesias (2017) , on a sample of 338 students found that the role models and entrepreneurship education have a greater positive influence on attitudes toward entrepreneurship in women compared to men.

Exposure to parental role models and entrepreneurship education can be used as tools to reduce the negative prejudicial effects, in general and those related to female entrepreneurship in particular, improving attitudes toward an autonomous career choice.

Cluster 4: Entrepreneurship and Self-Employment (4 Items)

The co-occurrence of 25% of keywords is related to the fourth cluster that shows the greatest number of connections in the map. The following words are part of this cluster: entrepreneurship, self-employment, entrepreneurs, and personalities ( Figure 7 ).

Figure 7 . Relations of the yellow cluster. Source: VOSviewer version 1.6.10.

Entrepreneurship is considered instrumental to economic growth and technological development ( Fellnhofer and Kraus, 2015 ; Nowinski and Haddoud, 2019 ), as an important source of employment in developed and developing countries ( Kuratko, 2005 ). It is not just a factor of economic growth aimed at creating new jobs; it also constitutes a useful personal development tool contributing to the resolution of social issues by promoting a society capable of attributing the correct value to the entrepreneurial mind, and by fostering development of positive attitudes in achieving objectives that concern the community. For example, according to The European Commission (2003) , it is a state of mind and a process aimed at creating and developing economic activity by combining willingness to take risks, creativity and innovation.

For the reasons mentioned above, discovering which factors, at the micro and macro level, can lead people to pursue an entrepreneurial career, in recent decades has been the one of the central theme of scholars. In particular, studies conducted on the characteristics of potential entrepreneurs tend to focus, especially on the importance attributed to personality traits (this explains the strong relationship between the words “entrepreneurship” and “personality”), but also, albeit with less strong relationships, to the resources accumulated from education and experience (educational and family background) ( Serneels, 2008 ) and specific behavioral models ( Liñán and Fayolle, 2015 ), which is why, in our analysis, it represents the construct with more relationships with other clusters .

The study of the phenomenon of entrepreneurship can be divided into two phases. In the initial stages of the research, the psychological literature has focused on the study of the personality and the motivations that push a subject to undertake this choice and that can lead to a possible work and personal success ( Boyd and Vozikis, 1994 ). Caird (1993) , in an attempt to trace a profile of the typical entrepreneur, offered a synthesis of the results of the researches that have used psychological tests on entrepreneurs, it is necessary to underline that the poor homogeneity of the entrepreneurial population represents a critical aspect for this survey. For this reason, currently, the focus has shifted to the interaction between socio-economic and cultural reality, and decision-making behaviors capable of influencing a chain of events on different levels (personal, family, and economic) ( Shane, 2003 ; Rauch and Frese, 2007 ). What we are witnessing, in fact, is a decentralization of personal characteristics and a greater attention to complex behaviors acted along different phases of the entrepreneurial process. However, the effects of the cultural-family component have not yet been fully clarified ( Ucbasaran et al., 2008 ). Research on the creation of new businesses has focused mainly on the importance of higher education and employment, with a limited emphasis on education received in the family. This could be the explanation about the challenging why it is so difficult to establish clear links between the role of the family and the potential entrepreneurial spirit.

Cluster 5: Family Support and Women Entrepreneurs (3 Items)

Finally, the fifth cluster in purple shows the closeness and strength of connection in the words family support, women entrepreneurs and India. Together with cluster four, it represents the heart of this analysis, which is why even if the number of keywords related to this cluster is low (18.5% of the occurrences) it is the second cluster with the greatest number of relationships with others ( Figure 8 ).

Figure 8 . Relations of the violet cluster. Source: VOSviewer version 1.6.10.

In most societies, especially in developing countries, women's access to entrepreneurship is difficult. The possible explanations have been analyzed in the literature and, although with some socio-cultural differences, they can be summarized as follows: poor social background and lack of support family; conflicts family/care responsibilities; inadequate training; lack of institutional and social interest; consequences of male domination in society and socio-economic discrimination ( Kibas, 2006 ; Mutuku et al., 2006 ; Lockyer and George, 2012 ; Raghuvanshi et al., 2017 ). In recent years, many researchers have analyzed female entrepreneurship and associated limitations ( Gautam and Mishra, 2016 ; Raghuvanshi et al., 2017 ).

For example, in our analysis, several studies have underlined the importance of family support, when external support systems are limited, especially economically disadvantaged countries or in the case of female entrepreneurship ( Pearson et al., 2008 ; Chang et al., 2009 , 2012 ).

Family support is important with particular reference to women entrepreneurs ( Neneh, 2017 ; Welsh et al., 2018 ), particularly for those who may not have access to other networks during the business development process ( Greve and Salaf, 2003 ), but also in finding the right balance between family duties and working. In this direction, are the results of a research conducted by Heilbrunn and Davidovitch (2011) with 11 Israeli women entrepreneurs. The support perceived by the family can be even more valuable in the case of entrepreneurial families, because they become models for aspiring entrepreneurs during the process of preparing for the adventure, influencing entrepreneurial intentions ( Ahmed et al., 2012 ; Edelman et al., 2016 ; Zhu et al., 2017 ).

As a result, the study also confirmed the positive influence of family members, in terms of support, in the strategic management process. In fact, family members act as positive educational models, which can contribute to starting a business and successful management ( Steier, 2003 ; Arregle et al., 2007 ), through knowledge and values that are handed down to the children become their human and social capital.

In addition, family members can provide the entrepreneur with a financial start capital of family finances (for example, in the initial phases) or help obtain external funding sources ( Aldrich and Cliff, 2003 ; Anderson et al., 2005 ). Furthermore, they can offer the necessary work and support that can be useful for creating and managing a business ( Teixeira, 2001 ; Karra et al., 2006 ).

We could fundamentally highlight two types of family support, emotional/relational, and economic/financial, both a vital resource for supporting entrepreneurship, and useful for both entrepreneurial and economic growth ( Shen et al., 2017 ). In this sense it is wise to expect that emotional support is important especially in developing intentions, as a source of encouragement for those who have no direct experience and can rely on the resources of their families.

While the economic one comes into play, especially in the start-up phase of a business, a transition from intention to behavior, which affects a larger slice of the population.

In line with Aldrich and Cliff (2003) , the family plays a key role in the children's enterprise, not only economically, but also by providing knowledge for new initiatives (for example, advice on how to start a business). Sometimes, even “new ideas” ( Dyer and Handler, 1994 ).

Through this work, we carry out a systematic review of the literature on the role of the family in the entrepreneurial process, using different types of bibliometric indicators and cluster analysis.

In the research and selection phase of the articles, we have used various databases of proven utility, such as Scopus, Web of Science and Business Source. Several conclusions emerged from our analysis.

From the results of the bibliometric indicators, it is a relatively recent area of study, but in continuous evolution, considering that the first articles date back to the year 1989, and from a multidisciplinary field of study, which as shown by the analysis of scientific journals, it is mainly linked to the business and management field, and even if in a smaller number, also to social and psychological sciences, economics, and engineering.

Moreover, as shown in Figure 6 , research on the role of the family in entrepreneurial activity has grown considerably, especially over the last decade with the United States of America being the country with the most publications on the topic ( n = 20).

The review also reveals that the scientific journals with the greatest number of publications on the subject is the International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research ( n = 6), while the most productive author is Kaciak Eugene ( n = 4).

Regarding the analysis structure, the most important result is the fact that it is a field of study with non-sharply outlined borders that lacks systematization, probably due to its multidisciplinary character. Indeed, 90.9% of researchers contributed with only one work, this result acquired a greater intensity when it was verified that only 8 authors participated in two or more articles from the examined databases.

As for the cluster analysis, five themes have been highlighted which try to better explain the relationship between family role and entrepreneurship. Specifically, we found: (1) cultural dimension and gender issue, (2) family business and succession, (3) parental role models and entrepreneurial intention, (4) entrepreneurship and self-employment, (5) family support and women entrepreneurs.

Furthermore, the analysis also found that most of the research focused on different themes.

The cluster that obtained the highest percentage of co-occurrences is the yellow one, associated with the following keywords: entrepreneurship, self-employment, entrepreneurs, and personalities, and is also the cluster with the greatest number of relationships with other clusters, especially with family support and exposure to parental role models, emphasizing once again the importance that family has in the entrepreneurial process. On the contrary, the cluster with the lowest percentage of co-occurrences keywords is related to family business, succession, economic development, and Arabia Saudita.

This result could be a good starting point for future research, as it suggests that there are many opportunities to increase and further develop knowledge about the relationship between the role of the family and entrepreneurship. For example, it might be useful to reflect on the possible role that exposure to parental role models plays in corporate succession and analyze any differences through the comparison between entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial families. Future research could analyze how and why exposure to models of parental role, or support perceived by family members, has a different influence in different cultures and contexts, especially in disadvantaged contexts, making clear reference to Hofstede's cultural dimensions. It could reflect on why, some contexts, families emotionally support the new generations, promoting entrepreneurial behavior, even in females, while others do not, even if both belong to a stereotypically considered patriarchal culture at the macro level.

Some limitations should be noted. First, in this study, only peer-reviewed articles are considered, eliminating other types of documents, such as book chapters and conference papers. Although this is considered important for the purposes of reliability and quality of the results, it can represent a limit as part of the scientific contributions has been neglected limiting a more detailed knowledge on the research object.

Furthermore, it should be stressed that there is a tendency to mention journals that have open access. There are also journals that can be accessed through payment and that publish articles in languages other than English and Spanish. These are limitations that the reader should consider.

From a purely methodological point of view, some considerations must be made. This article focuses on a group of bibliometric indicators to examine the articles published in the selected databases. Alternative objective analysis techniques and different databases could be useful to provide a systematic description of the literature and to analyze each relevant topic concerning the support of the family from a different point of view, in order to adequately understand the research evolution and propose future research directions in a more accurate way.

Moreover, as regards cluster analysis, even if it is considered a reliable scientific method widely recognized by scholars ( Rafols et al., 2010 ) because it offers an immediate and simple interpretation of the information and the contextualization of a specific one research field, even for non-experts, the boundaries between the various clusters are not always clearly interpreted. This could derive from the fact that the same article can be part of different clusters if it contains keywords that are part of several clusters. For this reason, the mappings should not be considered as tools that provide unequivocal answers to emerging problems, but heuristic methods useful for opening plural perspectives in order to give information about a given field of research.

Furthermore, as pointed out by Rafols et al. (2012) , the analysis through maps is very complex in studies on innovation, business, and management as it provides a limited number of significant relationships that take into account the amount of keywords considered (for example, only 22 keywords were generated in this study). This result may be a limitation considering the multidisciplinary nature of the research field and the high fragmentation that characterizes specialized literature.

This study sought to define the boundaries of existing research and at the same time to bring new perspectives of future research, through theoretical and methodological suggestions, aiming to be useful for the development and discovery of new fields of study, expanding the knowledge about the relationship between family support and entrepreneurship. This is an important aspect, not only for academic research and for professionals, but for the agents responsible to promote the entrepreneurial spirit in the community, important as it emerged also in our analysis, at the micro and macro level, for human, social, and economic growth.

Author Contributions

In the contribution for this survey we describe in detail the following: GC has selected all the useful information for this review. BH-S has provided interesting details on the subject. JS-G examined the final document and the methodological protocol. The authors have decided to approve the final work and take full responsibility for the originality of the research.

This research was funded by the Board of Education of the Junta de Castilla y León (ref J424), Spain.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Chair of Entrepreneurs University of Salamanca for supporting the research and monitoring of all activities.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02939/full#supplementary-material

Acs, Z. J., Armington, C., and Robb, A. (1999). Measures of job flow dynamics in the U.S. economy. Centre for Research Into Industry, Enterprise, Finance and the Firm, CRIEFF Discussion Papers (Scotland), 1–50.

Google Scholar

Acs, Z. J., and Varga, A. (2005). Entrepreneurship, agglomeration and technological change. Small Bus. Econo. 24, 323–334. doi: 10.1007/s11187-005-1998-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ahl, H. J. (2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrep. Theor Pract. 30, 595–621. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00138.x

Ahl, H. J., and Marlow, S. (2012). Exploring the dynamics of gender, feminism and entrepreneurship: advancing debate to escape a dead end? Organization 19, 543–562. doi: 10.1177/1350508412448695

Ahmed, I., Nawaz, M. M., and Ramzan, M. (2012). Do external factors influence students' entrepreneurial inclination? An evidence based approach. Actual Prob. Econ. 125, 51–58. doi: 10.5772/36570

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol. Bull. 84, 888–918. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888

Aldrich, H. E. (1990). Using an ecological perspective to study organizational founding rates. Entrep. Theor Pract. 14, 7–24. doi: 10.1177/104225879001400303

Aldrich, H. E., and Cliff, J. E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: toward a family embeddedness perspective. J. Bus. Ventur. 18, 573–596. doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00011-9

Al-Harthi, A. S. A. (2017). Understanding entrepreneurship through the experiences of Omani entrepreneurs: implications for entrepreneurship education. J. Develop. Entrepreneurship 22, 1–20. doi: 10.1142/S1084946717500017

Anderson, A. R., Jack, S. L., and Dodd, S. D. (2005). The role of family members in entrepreneurial networks: beyond the boundaries of the family firm. Fam. Bus. Rev. 18, 135–154. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.2005.00037.x

Anggadwita, G., dwi Mulyaningsih, H., and Ramadani, V. (2015). Women entrepreneurship in islamic perspective: driver for social change. Int. J. Bus. Global. 15, 389–404. doi: 10.1504/IJBG.2015.071914

Arregle, J., Hitt, M. A., Sirmon, D. G., and Very, P. (2007). The development of organizational social capital: attributes of family firms. J. Manag. Stud. 44, 73–95. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00665.x

Arrighetti, A., Caricati, L., Landini, F., and Monacelli, N. (2012). Entrepreneurial intention in the time of crisis: a field study. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 22, 835–859. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-12-2015-0326

Audretsch, D. B., Belitski, M., and Desai, S. (2015). Entrepreneurship and economic development in cities. Ann. Reg. Sci. 55, 33–60. doi: 10.1007/s00168-015-0685-x

Baier-Fuentes, H., Merigó, J. M., Amorós, J. E., and Gavieri-Martin, M. (2019). International entrepreneurship: a bibliometric overview. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 15, 385–429. doi: 10.1007/s11365-017-0487-y

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

BarNir, A., Watson, W. E., and Hutchins, H. M. (2011). Mediation and moderated mediation in the relationship among role models, self-efficacy, entrepreneurial career intention, and gender. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 41, 270–297. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00713.x

Bastian, B. L., Sidani, Y. M., and El Amine, Y. (2018). Women entrepreneurship in the Middle East and North Africa. Gender Manag. 33, 14–29. doi: 10.1108/GM-07-2016-0141

Battistelli, A. (2001). I giovani e la Scelta Imprenditoriale . Milano: Angelo Guerini e Associati.

Baum, R. J., Locke, E. A., and Smith, K. G. (2001). A multidimensional model of venture growth. Acad. Manag. J. 44, 292–303. doi: 10.5465/3069456

Bignotti, A., and le Roux, I. (2016). Unravelling the conundrum of entrepreneurial intentions, entrepreneurship education, and entrepreneurial characteristics. Acta Commercii 16, 1–10. doi: 10.4102/ac.v16i1.352

Biraglia, A., and Kadile, V. (2017). The role of entrepreneurial passion and creativity in developing entrepreneurial intentions: insights from American homebrewers. J. Small Bus. Manag. 55, 170–188. doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12242

Bird, B., and Brush, C. (2002). A gendered perspective on organizational creation. Entrep. Theor. Pract. 26, 41–65. doi: 10.1177/104225870202600303

Blanco-González, A., Díez-Martín, F., and Prado-Román, A. (2015). “Entrepreneurship, global competitiveness and legitimacy,” in New Challenges in Entrepreneurship and Finance: Examining the Prospects for Sustainable Business Development, Performance, Innovation, and Economic Growth , eds M. Peris-Ortiz and J. M. Sahut (Springer International Publishing), 57–69. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-08888-4_4

Bosma, N., Hessels, J., Schutjens, V., van Praag, M., and Verheul, I. (2012). Entrepreneurship and role models. J. Econ. Psychol. 33, 410–424. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2011.03.004

Bosma, N., and Kelley, D. (2018). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Global Report 2018/2019. The Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA).

Boyd, N. G., and Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrep. Theor. Pract. 18, 63–77. doi: 10.1177/104225879401800404

Burnham, J. F. (2006). Scopus database: a review. Biomed. Digit. Lib. 3:1. doi: 10.1186/1742-5581-3-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bygrave, W. D. (2004). “The entrepreneurial process,” in The Portable MBA in Entrepreneurship , eds W. D. Bygrave and A. Zacharakis (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons), 1–26.

Cabeza-Ramírez, L. J., Sanchez-Cañizares, S. M., and Fuentes-García, F. J. (2017). Entrepreneurship as a dynamic field of study: a bibliometric analysis of research output. Tourism Manag. Stud. 13, 59–71. doi: 10.18089/tms.2017.13307

Caird, S. P. (1993). What do psychological tests suggest about entrepreneurs? J. Manag. Psychol. 8, 11–20. doi: 10.1108/02683949310047428

Cardozo Crowe, A. P. C. (2010). La motivación para emprender: Evolución del modelo de rol en emprendedores argentinos (thesis). Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid, Spain. http://e-spacio.uned.es/fez/eserv.php?pid=tesisuned:CiencEcoEmp-Apcardozo&dsID=Documento.pdf (accessed June, 2019).

Carr, J. C., and Sequeira, J. M. (2007). Prior family business exposure as intergenerational influence and entrepreneurial intent: a theory of planned behavior approach. J. Bus. Res. 60, 1090–1098. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.12.016

Castillo-Palacio, M., Batista-Canino, R. M., and Zuñiga-Collazos, A. (2017). The relationship between culture and entrepreneurship: from cultural dimensions of GLOBE project. Rev. Espacio 38, 12–26.

Chang, E. P. C., Memili, E., Chrisman, J. J., Kellermanns, F. W., and Chua, J. H. (2009). Family social capital, venture preparedness, and start-up decisions: a study of Hispanic entrepreneurs in New England. Fam. Bus. Rev. 22, 279–292. doi: 10.1177/0894486509332327

Chang, E. P. C., Memili, E., Chrisman, J. J., and Welsh, D. H. B. (2012). What can drive successful entrepreneurial firms? An analysis of the Inc 500 companies. J. Small Bus. Strategy 22, 27–49.

Chen, C., Greene, P., and Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? J. Bus. Ventur. 13, 295–316. doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00029-3

Chlosta, S., Patzelt, H., Klein, S. B., and Dormann, C. (2012). Parental role models and the decision to become self-employed: the moderating effect of personality. Small Bus. Econ. 38, 121–138. doi: 10.1007/s11187-010-9270-y

Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., and Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrep. Theor. Pract. 23, 19–39. doi: 10.1177/104225879902300402

Dawson, A., Sharma, P., Irving, P. G., Marcus, J., and Chirico, F. (2015). Predictors of latergeneration family members' commitment to family enterprises. Entrep. Theor. Pract. 39, 545–569. doi: 10.1111/etap.12052

De Massis, A., Kotlar, J., Chua, J., and Chrisman, J. J. (2014). Ability and willingness as sufficiency conditions for family-oriented particularistic behavior: implications for theory and empirical studies. J. Small Bus. Manag. 52, 344–364. doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12102

Del Giudice, M., Della Peruta, M. R., and Scuotto, V. (2014). Student Entrepreneurship, creativity and success. How much does knowledge heterogeneity really matter? Int. J. Entrep. Innov. Manag. 18, 45–58. doi: 10.1504/IJEIM.2014.062789

Denanyoh, R., Adjei, K., and Nyemekye, G. E. (2015). Factors that impact on entrepreneurial intention of tertiary students in Ghana. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Res. 5, 19–29.

DeNisi, A. S. (2015). Some further thoughts on entrepreneurial personality. Entrep. Train. Pract. 39, 997–1003. doi: 10.1111/etap.12168

Dickson, P. H., Solomon, G. T., and Weaver, K. M. (2008). Entrepreneurial selection and success: does education matter? J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 15, 239–258. doi: 10.1108/14626000810871655

Dyer, W. G., and Handler, W. C. (1994). Entrepreneurship and family business: exploring the connections. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 19, 71–83. doi: 10.1177/104225879401900105

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Edelman, L. F., Manolova, T., Shirokova, G., and Tsukanova, T. (2016). The impact of family support on young entrepreneurs' start-up activities. J. Bus. Ventur. 31, 428–448. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.04.003

Eid, F. (2006). Recasting job creation strategies in developing regions: a role for entrepreneurial finance. J. Entrep. 15, 115–143. doi: 10.1177/097135570601500202

Entrialgo, M., and Iglesias, V. (2017). Are the intentions to entrepreneurship of men and women shaped differently? The impact of entrepreneurial role-model exposure and entrepreneurship education. Entrep. Res. J. 8, 179–211. doi: 10.1515/erj-2017-0013

European Commission (2009). The Expert Group Overview of Family-Business-Relevant Issue: Research, Networks, Policy Measures and Existing Studies. Final Report. https://ec.europa.eu (accessed June, 2019).

Fellnhofer, K., and Kraus, S. (2015). Examining attitudes towards entrepreneurship education: a comparative analysis among experts. Int. J. Entrep. Ventur. 7, 396–411. doi: 10.1504/IJEV.2015.073648

Fernández Robin, C., Santander Astorga, P., and Yáñez Martínez, D. (2017). Entrepreneurial constraints on women in chile: an empirical approach. Dimen. Empres. 15, 57–72. doi: 10.15665/rde.v15i2.969

Fernández-Pérez, V., Alonso-Galicia, P. E., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., and del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes, M. (2015). Entrepreneurial cognitions in academia: exploring gender differences. J. Manag. Psychol. 30, 630–644. doi: 10.1108/JMP-08-2013-0262

Fraccaroli, F., and Vitali, F. (2001). “Verso la scelta imprenditoriale? Il ruolo dei significati attribuiti al lavoro,” in I giovani e la scelta imprenditoriale , ed A. Battistelli (Milano: Angelo Guerini e Associati), 111–136.

Freytag, A., and Thurik, R. (2007). Entrepreneurship and its determinants in a cross-country setting. J. Evol. Econ. 17, 117–131. doi: 10.1007/s00191-006-0044-2

Fritsch, M., Kritikos, A., and Rusakova, A. (2012). “Who starts a business and who is self-employed in Germany,” in Jena Economic Research Papers. 2012-001 (Friedrich Schiller University and Max Planck Institute of Economics Jena). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2006494

Garcia, P. R. J. M., Sharma, P., De Massis, A., Wright, M., and Scholes, L. (2018). Perceived parental behaviors and next-generation engagement in family firms: a social cognitive perspective. Entrep. Theor. Prat. 43, 224–243. doi: 10.1177/1042258718796087

Gautam, R. K., and Mishra, K. (2016). Study on rural women entrepreneurship in India: issues and challenges. Int. J. Appl. Res. 2, 33–36.

Gaviria-Marin, M., Merigó, J. M., and Popa, S. (2018). Twenty years of the Journal of Knowledge Management: a bibliometric analysis. J. Knowl. Manag. 22, 1655–1687. doi: 10.1108/JKM-10-2017-0497

Gibson, D. (2004). Role models in career development: new directions for theory and research. J. Vocat. Behav. 65, 134–156. doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00051-4

Gordini, N. (2013). Imprenditori e attitudini imprenditoriali. Aspetti teorici ed evidenze empiriche . Milano-Torino: Pearson.

Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., and Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 82, 581–629. doi: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x

Greve, A., and Salaf, J. (2003). Social networks and entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theor. Pract. 28, 1–22. doi: 10.1111/1540-8520.00029

Gupta, V. K., Turban, D., Wasti, S., and Sikdar, A. (2005). Entrepreneurship and stereotypes: are entrepreneurs from Mars or from Venus? Paper Presented at the Academy of Management Conference (Honolulu, HI). doi: 10.5465/ambpp.2005.18778633

Gupta, V. K., and York, A. S. (2008). The effects of geography and age on women's attitudes towards entrepreneurship: evidence from the state of Nebraska. Int. J. Entrep. Innov. 9, 251–262. doi: 10.5367/000000008786208777

Gurel, E., Altinay, L., and Daniele, R. (2010). Tourism student's entrepreneurial intentions. Ann. Tour. Res. 37, 646–669. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2009.12.003

Hamidi, D. Y., Wennberg, K., and Berglund, H. (2008). Creativity in entrepreneurship education. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 15, 304–320. doi: 10.1108/14626000810871691

Hayton, J. C., George, G., and Zahra, S. A. (2002). National culture and entrepreneurship: a review of behavioral research. Entrep. Theor. Pract. 26, 33–52. doi: 10.1177/104225870202600403

Heilbrunn, S., and Davidovitch, L. (2011). Juggling family and business work–family conflict of women entrepreneurs in Israel. J. Entrep. 20, 127–141. doi: 10.1177/097135571002000106

Heinonen, J., and Poikkijoki, S. A. (2006). An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship education: mission impossible? J. Manag. Devel. 25, 80–94. doi: 10.1108/02621710610637981

Henderson, R., and Robertson, M. (2000). Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young adult attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career. Career Dev. Int. 5, 279–287. doi: 10.1108/00400919910279973

Hessels, J., and van Stel, A. (2011). Entrepreneurship, export orientation, and economic growth. Small Bus. Econ. 37, 255–268. doi: 10.1007/s11187-009-9233-3

Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 16569–16572. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102

Hmieleski, K. M., and Corbett, A. C. (2006). Proclivity for improvisation as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. J. Small Bus. Manag. 44, 45–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2006.00153.x

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. 2nd Edn . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Karra, N., Tracey, P., and Phillips, N. (2006). Altruism and agency in the family firm: Exploring the role of family, kinship and ethnicity. Entrep. Theor. Pract. 30, 861–877. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00157.x

Kibas, P. B. (2006). Women in Entrepreneurship: Analysis of Factors Influencing Growth Oriented Women Enterprises in Kenya . Geneva: International Labour Office.

Kim, P. H., Aldrich, H. E., and Keister, L. A. (2006). Access (not) denied: the impact of financial, human, and cultural capital on entrepreneurial entry in the United States. Small Bus. Econ. 27, 5–22. doi: 10.1007/s11187-006-0007-x

Kor, Y. Y., Mahoney, J. T., and Michael, S. C. (2007). Resources, capabilities and entrepreneurial perceptions. J. Manag. Stud. 44, 1187–1212. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00727.x

Krueger, N., Reilly, M. D., and Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. J. Bus. Ventur. 15, 411–432. doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00033-0

Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: development, trends and challenges. Entrep. Theory Pract. 29, 577–597. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00099.x

Laguía, A., Moriano, J. A., and Gorgievski, M. J. (2019). A psychosocial study of self-perceived creativity and entrepreneurial intentions in a sample of university students. Think. Skills Creat. 31, 44–57. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.11.004

Laspita, S., Breugst, N., Heblich, S., and Patzelt, H. (2012). Intergenerational transmission of entrepreneurial intentions. J. Bus. Ventur. 27, 414–435. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.11.006

Laviolette, E. M., Lefebvre, M. R., and Brunel, O. (2012). The impact of story bound entrepreneurial role models on self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 18, 720–742. doi: 10.1108/13552551211268148

Lee, L., Wong, P., Der Foo, M., and Leung, A. (2011). Entrepreneurial intentions: the influence of organizational and individual factors. J. Bus. Ventur. 26, 124–136. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.04.003

Leutner, F., Ahmetoglu, G., Akhtar, R., and Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014). The relationship between the entrepreneurial personality and the Big Five personality traits. Pers. Individ. Dif. 63, 58–63. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.042

Li, J., Burnham, J. F., Lemley, T., and Britton, R. M. (2010). Citation analysis: comparison of web of Science ® , Scopus™, SciFinder ® , and Google Scholar. J. Electr. Resour. Med. Lib. 7, 196–217. doi: 10.1080/15424065.2010.505518

Li, L. (2007). A review of entrepreneurship research published in the hospitality and tourism management journals. Tour. Manag. 29, 1013–1022. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2008.01.003

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ital. J. Public Health 7, 354–391. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700

Liñán, F., and Chen, Y. W. (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrep. Theor. Pract. 33, 593–617. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00318.x

Liñán, F., and Fayolle, A. (2015). A sistematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 11, 907–933. doi: 10.1007/s11365-015-0356-5

Liñán, F., Santos, F. J., and Fernández, J. (2011). The influence of perceptions on potential entrepreneurs. Int. Entrepreneurship Manage. J. 7, 373–390. doi: 10.1007/s11365-011-0199-7

Lockyer, J., and George, S. (2012). What women want: barriers to female entrepreneurship in the West Midlands. Int. J. Gender Entrep. 4, 179–195. doi: 10.1108/17566261211234661

Logan, J. (2014). An exploration of the challenges facing women starting business at fifty. Int. J. Gender Entrep. 6, 83–96. doi: 10.1108/IJGE-03-2013-0019

López-Fernández, M. C., Serrano-Bedia, A. M., and Pérez-Pérez, M. (2015). Entrepreneurship and family firm research: a bibliometric analysis of an emerging field. J. Small Bus. Manag. 54, 622–639. doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12161

Lourenço, F., and Jones, O. (2006). Developing entrepreneurship education: comparing traditional and alternative teaching approaches. Int. J. Entrep. Educ. 4, 111–140.

Markham, G., Balkin, D., and Baron, R. (2002). Inventors and new venture formation: the effects of general self-efficacy and regretful thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 27, 149–165. doi: 10.1111/1540-8520.00004

Marshall, D., Dibrell, C., and Eddleston, K. A. (2018). What keeps them going? Socio-cognitive entrepreneurial career continuance. Small Bus. Econ. 53, 1–16. doi: 10.1007/s11187-018-0055-z

Martínez-López, F. J., Merigó, J. M., Valenzuela-Fernández, L., and Nicolás, C. (2018). Fifty years of the European Journal of Marketing: a bibliometric analysis. Eur. J. Mark. 52, 439–468. doi: 10.1108/EJM-11-2017-0853

McIntosh, J. C., and Islam, S. (2010). Beyond the veil: the influence of Islam on female entrepreneurship in a conservative muslim context. Int. Manag. Rev. 6, 103–109.

Mohd Rhouse, S., Wahid, H. A. B., Ahmad, N. L., Rahman, R. A., and Mustafa, W. S. W. (2016). The narratives of islamic entrepreneurship: evidence from muslim women entrepreneurs in Malaysia. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 6, 755–774. doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v6-i11/2554

Moriano, J. A., Gorgievski, M., Laguna, M., Stephan, U., and Zarafshani, K. (2012). A cross-cultural approach to understanding entrepreneurial intention. J. Career Dev. 39, 162–185. doi: 10.1177/0894845310384481

Mueller, S., and Conway Dato-on, M. (2008). Gender role orientation as a determinant of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. J. Dev. Entrep. 13, 3–20. doi: 10.1142/S108494670800082X

Mungai, E., and Velamuri, S. R. (2011). Parental entrepreneurial role model influence on male offspring: Is it always positive and when does it occur? Entrep. Theor. Pract. 35, 337–357. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00363.x

Mutuku, M., Olubandwa, A., and Odero, D. (2006). Entrepreneurial learning among women microentrepreneurs in Kenyan dairy processing industry. Paper Presented at the 3rd International Entrepreneurship Conference (Nairobi: Organized by the United International University (USIU)).

Neneh, B. N. (2017). Family support and performance of women-owned enterprises: the mediating effect of family-to-work enrichment. J. Entrep. 26, 196–219. doi: 10.1177/0971355717716762

Nordqvist, M., and Melin, L. (2010). Entrepreneurial families and family firms. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 22, 211–239. doi: 10.1080/08985621003726119

North, D. (2005). Understanding the Process of Economic Change . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi: 10.1515/9781400829484

Nowinski, W., and Haddoud, M. Y. (2019). The role of inspiring role models in enhancing entrepreneurial intention. J. Bus. Res. 96, 183–193. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.005

Odoardi, C. (2003). Le opinioni sul lavoro imprenditoriale: una ricerca su studenti e genitori. Risorsa Uomo, Rivista di Psicologia del Lavoro e dell'Organizzazione 3–4, 283–293.

Overbeke, K. K., Bilimoria, D., and Perelli, S. (2013). The dearth of daughter successors in family businesses: gendered norms, blindness to possibility, and invisibility. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 4, 201–212. doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2013.07.002

Pablo-Lerchundi, I., Morales-Alonso, G., and González-Tirados, R. M. (2015). Influences of parental occupation on occupational choices and professional values. J. Bus. Res. 68, 1645–1649. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.02.011

Parker, S. (2009). The Economics of Entrepreneurship . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pearson, A. W., Carr, J. C., and Shaw, J. C. (2008). Toward a theory of familiness: a social capital perspective. Entrep. Theor. Pract. 32, 949–969. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00265.x

Perreira, M. A., and Da Silva, M. T. (2003). Stakeholders in university education. Paper Presented at the 31st Annual Conference of the Production and Operations Management Society (Atlanta, GA).

Peterson, R. A. (1980). “Entrepreneurship and organization,” in Handbook of Organizational Design , eds P. C. Nystrom and W. H. Starbuck (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 65–83.

Pittaway, L., and Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence. Int. Small Bus. J. 25, 479–510. doi: 10.1177/0266242607080656

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2005). The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Manag. J. 26, 473–488. doi: 10.1002/smj.454

Presutti, M., Boari, C., and Majocchi, A. (2011). The importance of proximity for the start-ups' knowledge acquisition and exploitation. J. Small Bus. Manag. 49, 361–389. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2011.00331.x

Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. J. Document. 25, 348–349. doi: 10.1108/eb026482

Pruett, M., Shinnar, R. S., Toney, B., Llopis, F., and Fox, J. (2009). Explaining entrepreneurial intentions of university students: a cross-cultural study. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 15, 571–594. doi: 10.1108/13552550910995443

Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O'Hare, A., Nightingale, P., and Stirling, A. (2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: a comparison between innovation studies and business & management. Res. Policy 41, 1262–1282. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.015

Rafols, I., Porter, A. L., and Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Science overlay maps: a new tool for research policy and library management. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 61, 1871–1887. doi: 10.1002/asi.21368

Raghuvanshi, J., Agrawal, R., and Ghosh, P. K. (2017). Analysis of barriers to women entrepreneurship: the DEMATEL approach. J. Entrep. 26, 220–238. doi: 10.1177/0971355717708848

Ramadani, V. (2015). The woman entrepreneur in Albania: an exploratory study on motivation, problems and success factors. J. Balkan Near Eastern Stud. 17, 204–221. doi: 10.1080/19448953.2014.997488

Rasul, O., Bekun, F. V., and Akadiri, S. S. (2017). The impact of self-efficacy on international student entrepreneur intention. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark. 7, 169–174.

Rauch, A., and Frese, M. (2007). Let's put the person back into entrepreneurship research: a meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners' personality traits, business creation, and success. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 16, 353–385. doi: 10.1080/13594320701595438

Rodriguez, S. N., Hildreth, G. J., and Mancuso, J. (1999). The dynamics of families in business: how therapists can help in ways consultants don't. Contemp. Fam. Ther. 21, 453–468. doi: 10.1023/A:1021671020586

Roffe, I. (1999). Innovation and creativity in organisations: a review of the implications for training and development. J. Eur. Industr. Train. 23, 224–241. doi: 10.1108/03090599910272103

Rogoff, E. G., and Heck, R. K. Z. (2003). Evolving research in entrepreneurship and family business: recognizing family as the oxygen that feeds the fire of entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 18, 559–566. doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00009-0

Rubio-Bañón, A., and Esteban-Lloret, N. (2016). Cultural factors and gender role in female entrepreneurship. Suma de Negocios 7, 9–17. doi: 10.1016/j.sumneg.2015.12.002

Sahinidis, A., Stavroulakis, D., Kossieri, E., and Varelas, S. (2019). “Entrepreneurial intention determinants among female students. The influence of role models, parents' occupation and perceived behavioral control on forming the desire to become a business owner”, in Strategic Innovative Marketing and Tourism. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics , eds A. Kavoura, E. Kefallonitis, and A. Giovanis (Cham: Springer), 173–178. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-12453-3_20

Scherer, R. F., Adams, J. S., Carley, S. S., and Wiebe, F. A. (1989). Role model performance effects on development of entrepreneurial career preference. Entrep. Theor. Pract. 13, 53–71. doi: 10.1177/104225878901300306

Schwartz, D., and Whistler, R. L. (2009). “History and future of starch,” in Starch: Chemistry and Technology. 3rd Edn , eds J. N. BeMiller and R. L. Whistler (San Diego, CA: Academic Press; Elsevier), 1–10. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-746275-2.00001-X

Sengupta, A., Datta, S., and Mondal, S. (2013). Women's entrepreneurial abilities: a study in the Indian informal service sector. J. Entrep. 22, 223–243. doi: 10.1177/0971355713490622

Serneels, P. (2008). Human capital revisited: the role of experience and education when controlling for performance and cognitive skills. Labour Econ. 15, 1143–1161. doi: 10.1016/j.labeco.2007.10.003

Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Org. Sci. 11, 448–469. doi: 10.1287/orsc.11.4.448.14602

Shane, S. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-Opportunity News Approach to Entrepreneurship. Aldershot: Edward Elgar. doi: 10.4337/9781781007990

Shane, S. A., and Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 25, 217–226. doi: 10.5465/amr.2000.2791611

Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention - behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 12, 1–36. doi: 10.1080/14792772143000003

Shen, T., Osorio, A. E., and Settles, A. (2017). Does family support matter? The influence of support factors an entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions of college students. Acad. Entrep. J. 23, 23–43. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2017.10901abstract

Sieger, P., Fueglistaller, U., and Zellweger, T. (2016). Student Entrepreneurship 2016: Insights from 50 Countries. International report of the GUESSS Project 2016. http://www.guesssurvey.org/resources/PDF_InterReports/GUESSS_2016_INT_Report_final5.pdf (accessed June, 2019).

Smith, R. M., Sardeshmukh, S. R., and Combs, G. M. (2016). Understanding gender, creativity, and entrepreneurial intentions. Educ. Train. 58, 263–282. doi: 10.1108/ET-06-2015-0044

Steier, L. (2003). Variants of agency contracts in family-financed ventures as a continuum of familial altruistic and market rationalities. J. Bus. Ventur. 18, 597–618. doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00012-0

Taormina, R. J., and Lao, S. K. M. (2007). Measuring Chinese entrepreneurial motivation: personality and environmental influences. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 13, 200–221. doi: 10.1108/13552550710759997

Teixeira, C. (2001). Community resources and opportunities in ethnic economies: a case study of Portuguese and Black entrepreneurs in Toronto. Urban Stud. 38, 2055–2078. doi: 10.1080/00420980120080934

The European Commission (2003). Green Paper Entrepreneurship in Europe . Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/green-paper-entrepreneurship-europe-0_es (accessed January 21, 2003).

Thurik, R. (2009). Entrepreneurship, Economic Growth and Policy in Emerging Economies . UNUWIDER Research Paper, World Institute for Development Economic Research.

Tumasjan, A., and Braun, R. (2012). In the eye of the beholder: How regulatory focus and self-efficacy interact in influencing opportunity recognition. J. Bus. Ventur. 27, 622–636. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.08.001

Türker, D., Onvural, B., Kursunluoglu, E., and Pinar, C. (2005). Entrepreneurial propensity: a field study on the Turkish university students. Int. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 1, 15–27.

Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., and Wright, M. (2008). Opportunity identification and pursuit: does an entrepreneur's human capital matter? Small Bus. Econ. 30, 153–173. doi: 10.1007/s11187-006-9020-3

Urbano, D., Toledano, N., and Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2011). Socio-cultural factors and transnational entrepreneurship: a multiple case study in Spain. Int. Small Bus. J. 29, 119–134. doi: 10.1177/0266242610391934

Urrútia, G., and Bonfill, X. (2010). PRISMA declaration: a proposal to improve the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Med. Clín. 135, 507–511. doi: 10.1016/j.medcli.2010.01.015

Valenzuela, L. M., Merigó, J. M., Johnston, W. J., Nicolas, C., and Jaramillo, J. F. (2017). Thirty years of the journal of Business & Industrial Marketing: a bibliometric analysis. J. Bus. Industr. Mark. 32, 18–29 doi: 10.1108/JBIM-04-2016-0079

Vallaster, C., Kraus, S., Merigó Lindahl, J. M., and Nielsen, A. (2019). Ethics and entrepreneurship: a bibliometric study and literature review. J. Bus. Res. 99, 226–237. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.050

Van Eck, N. J., and Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: vosviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84, 523–538. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Van Eck, N. J., and Waltman, L. (2014). “Visualizing bibliometric networks”, in Measuring Scholarly Impact: Methods and Practice , eds Y. Ding, R. Rousseau, and D. Wolfram (Cham: Springer), 285–320. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13

Welsh, D. H. B., Kaciak, E., Memili, E., and Minialai, C. (2018). Business-family interface and the performance of women entrepreneurs: the moderating effect of economic development. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 13, 330–349. doi: 10.1108/IJoEM-03-2017-0095

Yurtkoru, S., Kuşcu, Z. K., and Doganay, A. (2014). Exploring the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention on Turkish university students. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 150, 841–850. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.093

Zellweger, T. (2017). Managing the Family Business: Theory and Practice . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Zellweger, T., Sieger, P., and Halter, F. (2011). Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family business background. J. Bus. Ventur. 26, 521–536. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.04.001

Zhao, H., and Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: a meta-analytical review. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 259–271. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.259

Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., and Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. J. Appl. Psychol. 90, 1265–1272. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265

Zhao, X., Li, H., and Rauch, A. (2012). Cross-country differences in entrepreneurial activity: the role of cultural practice and national wealth. Front. Bus. Res. China 6, 447–474. doi: 10.3868/s070-001-012-0021-0

Zhu, F., Burmeister-Lamp, K., and Hsu, D. K. (2017). To leave or not? The impact of family support and cognitive appraisals on venture exit intention. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 23, 566–590. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-04-2016-0110

Keywords: entrepreneur, family support, parent role, literature review, role models

Citation: Cardella GM, Hernández-Sánchez BR and Sánchez García JC (2020) Entrepreneurship and Family Role: A Systematic Review of a Growing Research. Front. Psychol. 10:2939. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02939

Received: 19 July 2019; Accepted: 11 December 2019; Published: 10 January 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Cardella, Hernández-Sánchez and Sánchez García. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Brizeida Raquel Hernández-Sánchez, brizeida@usal.es

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship

A Systems View Across Time and Space

Interview with the Editor-in-Chief

Professor Carayannis welcomes correspondence on matters of journal content via  [email protected] .

Featured interview

As a part of International Open Access Week 2022, Springer selected six researchers across a variety of disciplinary spectrums with whom to conduct interviews. Among these was David F. J. Campbell (Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt and University of Applied Arts Vienna), Associate Editor of  Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

Call for Papers – Academic Firms and Entrepreneurial Mode 3 Universities in Knowledge Economies and Knowledge Democracies within Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Innovation Systems Architectures

This Collection inquires as to how business and higher education may evolve over the course of the twenty-first century, and how they might interact and co-develop within the context of the knowledge economy and knowledge democracy.

• Most accessed
• Collections

Emerging best strategies and capabilities for university–industry cooperation: opportunities for MSMEs and universities to improve collaboration. A literature review 2000–2023

Authors: Elizaveta Tereshchenko, Erno Salmela, Elsa Melkko, Swee King Phang and Ari Happonen

A taxonomy of innovation spaces from the innovation networks lens

Authors: Jose Montes, Aglaya Batz and Lizeth Fernanda Serrano Cárdenas

A system dynamics approach for the development of a Regional Innovation System

Authors: Elpida Samara, Pavlos Kilintzis, Efthymios Katsoras, George Martnidis and Paraskevi Kosti

The role of university–industry linkages in promoting technology transfer: implementation of triple helix model relations

Authors: Assefa Tesfaye Hailu

Innovation strategy and firm competitiveness: a systematic literature review

Authors: Biniam Getnet Agazu and Chalchissa Amentie Kero

Most recent articles RSS

View all articles

Small businesses and their challenges during COVID-19 pandemic in developing countries: in the case of Ethiopia

Authors: Abriham Ebabu Engidaw

Innovation practices for survival of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the COVID-19 times: the role of external support

Authors: Nawal Abdalla Adam and Ghadah Alarifi

Firm growth and its determinants

Authors: Priya Dhamija Gupta, Samapti Guha and Shiva Subramanian Krishnaswami

The impact of savings on economic growth in a developing country (the case of Kosovo)

Authors: Artur Ribaj and Fitim Mexhuani

The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation

Authors: Elias G Carayannis, Thorsten D Barth and David FJ Campbell

Most accessed articles RSS

The  Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship publishes the following collections on topics of special interest. 

NEW! Design Thinking: Challenges and Opportunities Publishing jointly with the Journal of the Knowledge Economy Edited by Evangelos Grigoroudis and Elias G. Carayannis Publishing 9 December 2018 onward Open for submission! Read the Call for papers here .

Creative Technologies Edited by Richard Jochum and Elias G. Carayannis Published 11 November 2016 through 13 June 2017

Innovation and Entrepreneurship as Sustainable Enterprise Excellence Triggers, Catalysts and Accelerators Edited by Andy Neely, Rick Edgeman, Jacob Eskildsen, Elias G. Carayannis and Stavros Sindakis Published 16 January 2016 through 17 May 2016

Entrepreneurial Dynamics and Innovation Strategies Edited by Dimitri Uzunidis and Blandine Laperche  Published 14 January 2014 through 27 January 2015

Aims and scope

The Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship is dedicated to exchanging the latest academic research and practical findings on all aspects of innovation and entrepreneurship in spatial context and over time. The journal explores why some regions grow and others stagnate; considers the dynamics of entrepreneurship in global context, with an eye toward emerging markets; and evaluates the effects and implications of innovation and entrepreneurship in a transdisciplinary context that takes both historical evolution and geographical location into account. The Journal addresses questions driving policy and decision-making at the company, industry, national and regional levels– Which cultural traits foster or impede innovation? How is wealth distributed and concentrated ?–and probes whether innovation emerges differently across such sectors as health, education, technology, and the social and physical sciences. Articles analyze patterns, triggers, catalysts and accelerators to innovation, gauging their impact on future research, practice, and policy. The Journal  also takes interest in the ways that technology and the new organizational approaches it often enables are impacting the field of education, broadly considered in all of its forms to include a spectrum of age-specific (pre-K through post-secondary and career training) and traditional physical structures, as well as online and blended models. 

The Editors of the Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship welcome submissions from researchers and practitioners working in a wide variety of fields, particularly those that probe the relationships and interdependencies among innovation, political regime, economic and social development, and the intersection of technology and education.

JIAE in context

The  Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship is an integral part of an ecosystem of publications developed by Elias Carayannis and Springer Nature. Featuring journals (hybrid and Open Access), monograph series, and large-scale reference works, these projects explore a wide range of topics relating to development of regions, institutions, organizations, policies, and management practices, with particular emphasis on the impacts of emerging technologies, education, and knowledge creation on economic, social, and environmental sustainability. We encourage authors and readers alike to join the community and contribute ideas and content. For more information, please contact Elias Carayannis and/or explore the links below as well as the  Arts, Research, Innovation and Society  series, the  Handbook of Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy, and Cyber-Defense ,  and the  Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth   series.

Related Springer publications

• Journal of the Knowledge Economy
• Innovation, Technology and Knowledge Management
• SpringerBriefs in Business
• Encyclopedia of Creativity, Innovation, Invention and Entrepreneurship

Read More about Technology, Innovation and Education

In 2016, the journal expanded its scope to encompass a special emphasis on technology, innovation and education. Articles previously published by the complementary SpringerOpen journal  Technology, Innovation and Education  may be read in their entirety here .

Check out the infographic

Click to learn why you should publish your research in the  Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship .

• ISSN: 2192-5372 (electronic)
• Editorial Board
• Sign up for article alerts and news from this journal

The Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship  is indexed in Scopus , the Directory of Open Access Journals , and others: see About .

Annual journal metrics.

2022 Citation Impact 2.141 - SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper) 0.958 - SJR (SCImago Journal Rank)

2023 Speed 50 days submission to first editorial decision for all manuscripts (Median) 346 days submission to accept (Median)

2023 Usage 1,195,350 downloads 106 Altmetric mentions

• More about our metrics

Conversations about JIAE

The Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship is proud to be a completely Gold Open Access journal, freely accessible to anyone with an internet connection. This report  breaks down the impact of JIAE's publications, on social media, in the press, and more. 

• Follow us on Twitter

Latest Tweets

Your browser needs to have JavaScript enabled to view this timeline

This journal is indexed by

• Google Scholar
• EBSCO Discovery Service
• UGC-CARE List (India)
• ProQuest-ExLibris Primo
• ProQuest-ExLibris Summon
• ProQuest ABI/INFORM
• OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service
• TD Net Discovery Service
• EBSCO Entrepreneurial Studies Source
• Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals and Series

More From Forbes

The Argument For Slow Growth Over Rapid Expansion

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

In a world that celebrates fast results and immediate success, the concept of slow growth can seem antiquated and unappealing. Yet, a growing body of evidence and a chorus of business leaders are advocating for the merits of slow growth as a more sustainable and potentially more successful approach than the much-lauded rapid expansion strategy when it comes to starting and sustaining a business.

About 20% of small businesses end up closing within their first year, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A primary cited reason is a lack of money, which can be exasperated by a business owner who tries to do too much too soon. The relatively high risk of business failure is a key reason why slow growth could be a wiser path for businesses aiming for long-term success and sustainability.

Understanding Slow Growth

Slow growth is a deliberate strategy focused on gradual, organic expansion instead of rapid development. It prioritizes long-term stability and sustainable practices over short-term gains and explosive growth metrics. This method involves meticulously scaling business operations, carefully managing resources, and ensuring that every step is thoughtful and sustainable.

“I initially resisted the idea of expanding our restaurants into franchises after experiencing some of the pitfalls firsthand as the former VP of US Operations for an international education company,” says Rachel Fine Wilson, CEO of Gigglewaters , a Florida-based 1920s themed social club that provides an immersive dining experience. “I knew we had to approach franchising from a fresh perspective, and that required us to first put a culture of systems and support in place. Once we had the foundation, we could start scaling through franchising.”

The Risks Of Rapid Expansion

Rapid expansion can be tempting, promising quick returns, market domination, and scalability. But it can quickly take a downturn and lead to unintended slower growth. “In the process of chasing growth, companies can easily destroy the things that made them successful in the first place, such as their capacity for innovation, their agility, their great customer service, or their unique cultures,” says Gary P. Pisano .

Samsung Issues Critical Update For Millions Of Galaxy Users

Drake kendrick lamar feud timeline another trespasser caught at drake s toronto home police say, here s what to know about barron trump as his first political role is called off.

Rapid expansion comes with significant financial and cultural risks that can undermine long-term business health. “Quick expansions often rely on substantial external funding, which can lead to a loss of control by original stakeholders and a shift in company direction that might not align with the founding principles,” adds Fine Wilson.

Benefits Of Slow Growth

“ There are limits to how fast you can grow, without starting to suffer from it,” says Freek Vermeulen . Here are a few benefits to taking a slow and steady approach to business growth.

1. Financial Stability

Slow growth allows companies to maintain tighter control over their finances. By expanding operations gradually, businesses can reinvest profits rather than rely heavily on outside investments. “Maintaining financial prudence when growing your business helps build a solid foundation free from the pressures of investor expectations, which often push for rapid growth to secure quick returns on investment,” says Fine Wilson.

2. Cultivation Of Company Culture

One of the most significant advantages of slow growth is preserving and cultivating a company’s culture. “We have worked diligently to cultivate a strong culture for our guests and employees. Slow growth ensures we integrate our core values into every new facet of the business to maintain consistency and alignment,” adds Fine Wilson.

There are many things to consider in order to preserve company culture during times of expansion or growth – from careful hiring that puts an emphasis on finding the right candidates, to consistent recognition of employee achievements, and effective training programs.

3. Enhanced Customer Relationships

Finally, slow growth strategies often place a high value on customer relationships. This approach allows businesses to focus on customer satisfaction and build loyalty through consistent, high-quality service or product offerings. In contrast, rapid expansion might shift the focus to acquiring new customers rather than nurturing existing ones, which can lead to a transactional rather than relational customer approach.

Implementing Slow Growth Strategies

Implementing a slow growth strategy requires patience, discipline, and a clear vision. Businesses should focus on building a robust operational framework that supports gradual expansion. Additionally, leaders need to set realistic milestones and continuously evaluate progress against these goals.

Businesses should also communicate the value of slow growth to stakeholders, ensuring that everyone understands and supports the approach.

While rapid expansion has its appeal and appropriate contexts, slow growth offers a compelling alternative for businesses focused on long-term viability. By fostering financial stability, preserving company culture, enhancing customer relationships, and maintaining adaptability, slow growth strategies equip businesses to thrive in an increasingly complex and unpredictable business environment.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

Inaugural innovation and entrepreneur intern playing pivotal role at 16 Tech

Jayakumar is a first-year master’s student at the Indiana University Luddy School of Informatics, Computing and Engineering in Indianapolis, where she studies human-computer interaction. As an innovation and entrepreneur intern at 16 Tech, she’ll play a pivotal role in helping the organization position downtown Indianapolis as an ecosystem of innovation by engaging local entrepreneurs and company leaders.

“In this role, I try to make better use of the technology at 16 Tech,” Jayakumar said. “Innovation-wise, I’m learning the operations and understanding the things people need for a better ecosystem there.”

Jayakumar’s internship through the Institute of Engaged Learning is just one example of existing collaborations between IU Indianapolis and 16 Tech and is one of the many ways both are leveraging urban research and budding economic development in Indianapolis.

While 16 Tech is already in close proximity to IU Indianapolis, it will soon become easier to travel between the two locations. Come late summer, 16 Tech will complete construction of the 16 Tech Bridge, which will connect the innovation district to Indianapolis’ downtown research medical corridor, including IU Health and the IU Indianapolis campus. And JagLine, the campus’s student transportation shuttle service, includes stops at 16 Tech for students wanting to utilize its workshops.

Additionally, AnalytiXIN , a Central Indiana Corporate Partnership program housed at 16 Tech, announced a program partnership with IU, other universities and local companies to reduce energy and carbon footprints of Indiana manufacturers. IU Research’s Innovation and Commercialization Office, which works with faculty to explore commercialization options related to their research, is also housed at the innovation district.

“We’re thrilled to engage in this partnership, it’s a great opportunity for young talent to get tremendous exposure into the innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem,” said Nida Ansari, who serves as chief innovation officer of 16 Tech. “With over 250 entities represented in the district, our interns will get to interact with venture capitalists, startups, non-profits and academic institutions and develop professional experience that meaningfully informs career trajectories. This creates access to a talent pipeline for the entities in the district in a novel way and we’re excited to be driving this activity.”

Jayakumar works alongside 16 Tech’s chief innovation officer and experience manager to identify opportunities to grow membership, support tenants and minimize pain points in joining the community. Using research and data, Jayakumar helps local entrepreneurs envision themselves in the space and utilize its infrastructure. It’s a role that requires Jayakumar to wear several hats, but that’s what excites her, she said.

“There’s no one day that looks like another,” Jayakumar said. “You get to see new faces, new problems, which gives the opportunity to work out new solutions.”

She said her major sets her up for success in the role. Studying human-computer interaction is heavily focused on enhancing user experience and designing better ways to help people engage with emerging systems and technologies. Jayakumar said she’s able to constantly push the limit of design systems to achieve a better, customer-focused experience for 16 Tech’s members.

After Jayakumar completes her master’s degree, she plans to blend her undergraduate architecture experience with her computing knowledge to create sustainable physical and digital spaces. Though, once the time is right, she wants to again embrace chaos by creating her own start-up or agency.

“I’m looking forward to building my own identity,” Jayakumar said. “I think the 16 Tech internship is the opportunity that is right for me to start everything I’m aiming for.”

Jaleesa Elliott

Filed under:, more stories.

Chemistry professor travels to Cuba to share Distributed Drug Discovery program

Music and Arts Technology joins Herron School, expanding opportunities for faculty, students

Social media.

• Facebook for IU
• Linkedin for IU
• Twitter for IU
• Instagram for IU
• Youtube for IU

Additional resources

Indiana university.

• About Email at IU
• People Directory
• Non-discrimination Notice
• Email Newsletters & Press Releases

• Starting a Business
• Growing a Business
• Small Business Guide
• Business News
• Science & Technology
• Money & Finance
• For Subscribers
• Write for Entrepreneur
• Entrepreneur Store
• United States
• Asia Pacific
• Middle East
• South Africa

Copyright © 2024 Entrepreneur Media, LLC All rights reserved. Entrepreneur® and its related marks are registered trademarks of Entrepreneur Media LLC

'I'm Smarter Now...But Also Poorer': Warren Buffett Says Berkshire Hathaway Ditched Its Entire Stake in Paramount at a Big Loss Buffett confirmed the decision during Saturday's Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholder meeting.

By Emily Rella • May 6, 2024

Key Takeaways

• Berkshire Hathaway sold all of its Paramount stock.
• "We lost quite a bit of money," Buffett told attendees of Berkshire Hathaway's annual meeting on Saturday.

Billionaire Warren Buffett revealed that his investment company, Berkshire Hathaway, offloaded its shares in Paramount — and it'll cost them.

During the company's annual shareholder meeting on Saturday, Buffett took responsibility for selling Berkshire's stake in the entertainment company.

"I was 100% responsible for the Paramount decision," Buffett told attendees . "It was 100% my decision, and we've sold it all, and we lost quite a bit of money. That happens in this business."

Saturday's meeting marked Buffett's first Annual Shareholder meeting without Vice Chairman Charlie Munger, who passed away in November last year.

Related: Paramount Is Laying Off Hundreds of Employees Just Days After 'Blockbuster' Super Bowl LVIII Success

In May 2022, Buffett and Berkshire purchased a $2.6 billion stake in Paramount and more in November later that year, which put the company's total stock holding at over 91 million shares. This made Berkshire the largest non-voting shareholder of the company. At the time of purchase, the shares were estimated to be worth around $1.7 billion.

According to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Berkshire Hathaway owned 63.3 million Class B shares at the end of Q4 2023 as the company began offloading its stake. The shares were worth around $800 million at the time.

"Owning Paramount made me think even deeper, but I certainly looked harder about the whole question of what people do with their leisure time and what the governing principles are of running an entertainment business of any sort, whether it's sports or movies or whatever it might be," Buffett said during Saturday's meeting. "I think I'm smarter now than I was a couple years ago, but I also think I'm poorer because I acquired the knowledge in the manner I did."

Paramount, the parent company of CBS, Nickelodeon, and MTV, has had a rocky two years due to tough competition in the streaming industry and the turn away from traditional cable media.

Last year, the company dramatically slashed its dividend, which Buffett described as "not good news."

Paramount laid off roughly 800 employees in February despite the "blockbuster" streaming success of Super Bowl LVIII as the company looks to "return the company to earnings growth."

Last week, Paramount CEO Bob Bakish was ousted , placing executives Chris McCarthy, George Cheeks, and Brian Robbins in a position to temporarily share the role as an "Office of the CEO."

Related: Read Warren Buffett's Annual Letter to Berkshire Shareholders

Then, days later , Sony Pictures and Apollo Global Management reportedly sent a joint letter to Paramount Group expressing interest in purchasing the company in a joint deal for $26 billion.

The offer comes amid a separate request, from Skydance Media to Paramount's special committee, to recommend a bid for Skydance to acquire the company from the majority shareholder, Shari Redstone.

Meanwhile, Paramount reported a strong Q1 2024, backed by a 51% year-over-year revenue increase on Paramount+ and record-breaking viewership numbers for Super Bowl LVIII — the most viewed Super Bowl of all time.

"It was a record-setting quarter for Paramount+ in engagement and revenue, and in the DTC segment as we continued to substantially narrow streaming losses," said Paramount CFO Naveen Chopra in an earnings release last week. "As we look ahead, we remain focused on execution and transforming our cost base to best position Paramount for the future."

Paramount has not publicly commented on the potential bids or acquisitions. The company was down over 20% in one year as of Monday afternoon.

Entrepreneur Staff

Senior News Writer

Want to be an Entrepreneur Leadership Network contributor? Apply now to join.

Editor's Pick Red Arrow

• This Mother and Daughter Were 'Kind of Fringe Weirdos' When They Started an Uncommon Business in Their Garage. Now They're in Major Retailers — and Victoria Beckham Is a Fan.
• Lock A Leadership Shortage Is Coming. Here's What Needs to Happen to Prevent It.
• Lock The Author of 'Million Dollar Weekend' Says This Is the Only Difference Between You and the Many 'Very, Very Dumb People' Making a Lot of Money
• What the NLRB Appeal of the Expanded Joint Employer Rule Judgment Means for Your Business
• Lock 12 Books That Self-Made Millionaires Swear By
• The Sweet Side Hustle She Started in an Old CVS Made $800,000 in One Year. Now She's Repeating the Success With Her Daughter — and They've Already Exceeded 8 Figures.

Most Popular Red Arrow

My startup couldn't raise vc funding, so we became profitable. here's how we did it — and how you can too..

Four months ago, my startup reached profitability for the first time. It came after more than a year of active work and planning, and here's what it took.

Warren Buffett Had to Work From His iPhone After Telephone Lines Went Down at Berkshire Hathaway: 'I'm Glad We Didn't Sell All of Our Apple'

Berkshire sold around $20 billion worth of Apple recently.

Clinton Sparks Podcast: From Hit Records to Humanitarian Powerhouse, Akon Shares His Entrepreneurial Journey

This podcast is a fun, entertaining and informative show that will teach you how to succeed and achieve your goals with practical advice and actionable steps given through compelling stories and conversations with Clinton and his guests.

McDonald's Is Responding to Sky-High Fast Food Prices By Rolling Out a Much Cheaper Value Meal: Report

The news comes as the chain looks to redirect back to customer "affordability."

Clinton Sparks Podcast: CEO of Complex Shares How Media, Culture Have Shifted in Recent Years

Jack dorsey explains bluesky exit: 'literally repeating all the mistakes we made' at twitter.

Dorsey left the Bluesky board and deleted his account earlier this week.

Successfully copied link

Find anything you save across the site in your account

In the campus protests over the war in Gaza, language and rhetoric are—as they have always been when it comes to Israel and Palestine—weapons of mass destruction.

By Zadie Smith

A philosophy without a politics is common enough. Aesthetes, ethicists, novelists—all may be easily critiqued and found wanting on this basis. But there is also the danger of a politics without a philosophy. A politics unmoored, unprincipled, which holds as its most fundamental commitment its own perpetuation. A Realpolitik that believes itself too subtle—or too pragmatic—to deal with such ethical platitudes as thou shalt not kill. Or: rape is a crime, everywhere and always. But sometimes ethical philosophy reënters the arena, as is happening right now on college campuses all over America. I understand the ethics underpinning the protests to be based on two widely recognized principles:

There is an ethical duty to express solidarity with the weak in any situation that involves oppressive power.

If the machinery of oppressive power is to be trained on the weak, then there is a duty to stop the gears by any means necessary.

The first principle sometimes takes the “weak” to mean “whoever has the least power,” and sometimes “whoever suffers most,” but most often a combination of both. The second principle, meanwhile, may be used to defend revolutionary violence, although this interpretation has just as often been repudiated by pacifistic radicals, among whom two of the most famous are, of course, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr . In the pacifist’s interpretation, the body that we must place between the gears is not that of our enemy but our own. In doing this, we may pay the ultimate price with our actual bodies, in the non-metaphorical sense. More usually, the risk is to our livelihoods, our reputations, our futures. Before these most recent campus protests began, we had an example of this kind of action in the climate movement. For several years now, many people have been protesting the economic and political machinery that perpetuates climate change, by blocking roads, throwing paint, interrupting plays, and committing many other arrestable offenses that can appear ridiculous to skeptics (or, at the very least, performative), but which in truth represent a level of personal sacrifice unimaginable to many of us.

I experienced this not long ago while participating in an XR climate rally in London. When it came to the point in the proceedings where I was asked by my fellow-protesters whether I’d be willing to commit an arrestable offense—one that would likely lead to a conviction and thus make travelling to the United States difficult or even impossible—I’m ashamed to say that I declined that offer. Turns out, I could not give up my relationship with New York City for the future of the planet. I’d just about managed to stop buying plastic bottles (except when very thirsty) and was trying to fly less. But never to see New York again? What pitiful ethical creatures we are (I am)! Falling at the first hurdle! Anyone who finds themselves rolling their eyes at any young person willing to put their own future into jeopardy for an ethical principle should ask themselves where the limits of their own commitments lie—also whether they’ve bought a plastic bottle or booked a flight recently. A humbling inquiry.

It is difficult to look at the recent Columbia University protests in particular without being reminded of the campus protests of the nineteen-sixties and seventies, some of which happened on the very same lawns. At that time, a cynical political class was forced to observe the spectacle of its own privileged youth standing in solidarity with the weakest historical actors of the moment, a group that included, but was not restricted to, African Americans and the Vietnamese. By placing such people within their ethical zone of interest, young Americans risked both their own academic and personal futures and—in the infamous case of Kent State—their lives. I imagine that the students at Columbia—and protesters on other campuses—fully intend this echo, and, in their unequivocal demand for both a ceasefire and financial divestment from this terrible war, to a certain extent they have achieved it.

But, when I open newspapers and see students dismissing the idea that some of their fellow-students feel, at this particular moment, unsafe on campus, or arguing that such a feeling is simply not worth attending to, given the magnitude of what is occurring in Gaza, I find such sentiments cynical and unworthy of this movement. For it may well be—within the ethical zone of interest that is a campus, which was not so long ago defined as a safe space, delineated by the boundary of a generation’s ethical ideas— it may well be that a Jewish student walking past the tents, who finds herself referred to as a Zionist, and then is warned to keep her distance, is, in that moment, the weakest participant in the zone. If the concept of safety is foundational to these students’ ethical philosophy (as I take it to be), and, if the protests are committed to reinserting ethical principles into a cynical and corrupt politics, it is not right to divest from these same ethics at the very moment they come into conflict with other imperatives. The point of a foundational ethics is that it is not contingent but foundational. That is precisely its challenge to a corrupt politics.

Practicing our ethics in the real world involves a constant testing of them, a recognition that our zones of ethical interest have no fixed boundaries and may need to widen and shrink moment by moment as the situation demands. (Those brave students who—in supporting the ethical necessity of a ceasefire—find themselves at painful odds with family, friends, faith, or community have already made this calculation.) This flexibility can also have the positive long-term political effect of allowing us to comprehend that, although our duty to the weakest is permanent, the role of “the weakest” is not an existential matter independent of time and space but, rather, a contingent situation, continually subject to change. By contrast, there is a dangerous rigidity to be found in the idea that concern for the dreadful situation of the hostages is somehow in opposition to, or incompatible with, the demand for a ceasefire. Surely a ceasefire—as well as being an ethical necessity—is also in the immediate absolute interest of the hostages, a fact that cannot be erased by tearing their posters off walls.

Part of the significance of a student protest is the ways in which it gives young people the opportunity to insist upon an ethical principle while still being, comparatively speaking, a more rational force than the supposed adults in the room, against whose crazed magical thinking they have been forced to define themselves. The equality of all human life was never a self-evident truth in racially segregated America. There was no way to “win” in Vietnam. Hamas will not be “eliminated.” The more than seven million Jewish human beings who live in the gap between the river and the sea will not simply vanish because you think that they should. All of that is just rhetoric. Words. Cathartic to chant, perhaps, but essentially meaningless. A ceasefire, meanwhile, is both a potential reality and an ethical necessity. The monstrous and brutal mass murder of more than eleven hundred people, the majority of them civilians, dozens of them children, on October 7th, has been followed by the monstrous and brutal mass murder (at the time of writing) of a reported fourteen thousand five hundred children. And many more human beings besides, but it’s impossible not to notice that the sort of people who take at face value phrases like “surgical strikes” and “controlled military operation” sometimes need to look at and/or think about dead children specifically in order to refocus their minds on reality.

To send the police in to arrest young people peacefully insisting upon a ceasefire represents a moral injury to us all. To do it with violence is a scandal. How could they do less than protest, in this moment? They are putting their own bodies into the machine. They deserve our support and praise. As to which postwar political arrangement any of these students may favor, and on what basis they favor it—that is all an argument for the day after a ceasefire. One state, two states, river to the sea—in my view, their views have no real weight in this particular moment, or very little weight next to the significance of their collective action, which (if I understand it correctly) is focussed on stopping the flow of money that is funding bloody murder, and calling for a ceasefire, the political euphemism that we use to mark the end of bloody murder. After a ceasefire, the criminal events of the past seven months should be tried and judged, and the infinitely difficult business of creating just, humane, and habitable political structures in the region must begin anew. Right now: ceasefire. And, as we make this demand, we might remind ourselves that a ceasefire is not, primarily, a political demand. Primarily, it is an ethical one.

But it is in the nature of the political that we cannot even attend to such ethical imperatives unless we first know the political position of whoever is speaking. (“Where do you stand on Israel/Palestine?”) In these constructed narratives, there are always a series of shibboleths, that is, phrases that can’t be said, or, conversely, phrases that must be said. Once these words or phrases have been spoken ( river to the sea, existential threat, right to defend, one state, two states, Zionist, colonialist, imperialist, terrorist ) and one’s positionality established, then and only then will the ethics of the question be attended to (or absolutely ignored). The objection may be raised at this point that I am behaving like a novelist, expressing a philosophy without a politics, or making some rarefied point about language and rhetoric while people commit bloody murder. This would normally be my own view, but, in the case of Israel/Palestine, language and rhetoric are and always have been weapons of mass destruction.

It is in fact perhaps the most acute example in the world of the use of words to justify bloody murder, to flatten and erase unbelievably labyrinthine histories, and to deliver the atavistic pleasure of violent simplicity to the many people who seem to believe that merely by saying something they make it so. It is no doubt a great relief to say the word “Hamas” as if it purely and solely described a terrorist entity. A great relief to say “There is no such thing as the Palestinian people” as they stand in front of you. A great relief to say “Zionist colonialist state” and accept those three words as a full and unimpeachable definition of the state of Israel, not only under the disastrous leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu but at every stage of its long and complex history, and also to hear them as a perfectly sufficient description of every man, woman, and child who has ever lived in Israel or happened to find themselves born within it. It is perhaps because we know these simplifications to be impossible that we insist upon them so passionately. They are shibboleths; they describe a people, by defining them against other people—but the people being described are ourselves. The person who says “We must eliminate Hamas” says this not necessarily because she thinks this is a possible outcome on this earth but because this sentence is the shibboleth that marks her membership in the community that says that. The person who uses the word “Zionist” as if that word were an unchanged and unchangeable monolith, meaning exactly the same thing in 2024 and 1948 as it meant in 1890 or 1901 or 1920—that person does not so much bring definitive clarity to the entangled history of Jews and Palestinians as they successfully and soothingly draw a line to mark their own zone of interest and where it ends. And while we all talk, carefully curating our shibboleths, presenting them to others and waiting for them to reveal themselves as with us or against us—while we do all that, bloody murder.

And now here we are, almost at the end of this little stream of words. We’ve arrived at the point at which I must state clearly “where I stand on the issue,” that is, which particular political settlement should, in my own, personal view, occur on the other side of a ceasefire. This is the point wherein—by my stating of a position—you are at once liberated into the simple pleasure of placing me firmly on one side or the other, putting me over there with those who lisp or those who don’t, with the Ephraimites, or with the people of Gilead. Yes, this is the point at which I stake my rhetorical flag in that fantastical, linguistical, conceptual, unreal place—built with words—where rapes are minimized as needs be, and the definition of genocide quibbled over, where the killing of babies is denied, and the precision of drones glorified, where histories are reconsidered or rewritten or analogized or simply ignored, and “Jew” and “colonialist” are synonymous, and “Palestinian” and “terrorist” are synonymous, and language is your accomplice and alibi in all of it. Language euphemized, instrumentalized, and abused, put to work for your cause and only for your cause, so that it does exactly and only what you want it to do. Let me make it easy for you. Put me wherever you want: misguided socialist, toothless humanist, naïve novelist, useful idiot, apologist, denier, ally, contrarian, collaborator, traitor, inexcusable coward. It is my view that my personal views have no more weight than an ear of corn in this particular essay. The only thing that has any weight in this particular essay is the dead. ♦

New Yorker Favorites

The day the dinosaurs died .

What if you started itching— and couldn’t stop ?

How a notorious gangster was exposed by his own sister .

Woodstock was overrated .

Diana Nyad’s hundred-and-eleven-mile swim .

Photo Booth: Deana Lawson’s hyper-staged portraits of Black love .

Fiction by Roald Dahl: “The Landlady”

Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker .

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Ruth Margalit

By Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor

By Jay Caspian Kang

By Susan B. Glasser