Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The origin of spin-offs: a typology of corporate and academic spin-offs

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We provide a typology of corporate and academic spin-off types, distinguishing spin-offs involving new ventures from those that concern existing activities. We summarize the papers published in this special issue, relating them to the typology we develop. We conclude by developing an agenda for further research on spin-offs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this paper, we use the term “university” to refer to all kind of publically funded, not-for-profit research organizations. In particular, this includes extra university research institutes.

  2. Merton (1942, p. 270) outlines "four sets of institutional imperatives—universalism, communism, disinterestedness, organized scepticism—[that] comprise the ethos of modern science." See also Macfarlane and Cheng (2008) for a recent discussion of Merton’s norms.

  3. The aforementioned legislative reforms and mechanisms of public support are not exclusively related to academic spin-offs that involve the transition of a university researcher from the university sector to the private sector. Other channels of university knowledge commercialization that are targeted by legislation and various public support mechanisms include university–industry partnerships, science parks, patenting, and licensing (see Phan and Siegel 2006, for an overview). Moreover, founders of alumni start-ups may likewise benefit from entrepreneurship education.

  4. Corporate spin-offs are usually regarded as new firms that spun off from for-profit private firms. However, the concept of (entrepreneurial) corporate spin-offs does theoretically not exclude start-ups that are based on ideas emanating from state-owned companies. Although the business idea developed for example by an engineer working for a state-owned company might be similar to an idea developed in a for-profit private firm, the parent–spin-off relationship will be different. For instance, it is unlikely that the state-owned parent company will hold a share in the corporate spin-off or will provide any other kind of financial support.

  5. Van de Velde et al. (2007) point out the employee’s wish to become self-employed and to work on an independent basis as a motivation for creating a corporate spin-off. However, the aspiration to become self-employed usually also coincides with the recognition of an entrepreneurial opportunity.

  6. In contrast, Ito (1995) defines a corporate spin-off as a firm with a parent’s partial ownership that ranges between more than 0 and <100 %.

  7. We thank Anna Lejpras and Andreas Stephan for pointing this out in a personal communication.

References

  • Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., & Sarkar, M. (2010). Knowledge spillovers and strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(4), 271–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 11–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, A., Colombo, M. G., Guerini, M., & Rossi Lamastra, C. (2013). The impact of local and external university knowledge on the creation of knowledge-intensive firms: Evidence from the Italian case, Small Business Economics, this issue. doi:10.1007/s11187-013-9536-2.

  • Bruneel, J., van de Velde, E., & Clarysse, B. (2013). Impact of the type of corporate spin-off on growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(4), 943–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buenstorf, G. (2009). Opportunity spin-offs and necessity spin-offs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 1(1), 22–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiesa, V., & Piccaluga, A. (2000). Exploitation and diffusion of public research: The case of academic spin-off companies in Italy. R&D Management, 30(4), 329–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., Bruneel, J., & Wright, M. (2011a). Explaining growth paths of young technology-based firms: Structuring resource portfolios in different competitive environments. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(2), 137–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & van de Velde, E. (2011b). Entrepreneurial origin, technology endowments and the growth of spin-off companies. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1420–1442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, D., Rammer, C., & Toole, A. A. (2013). University Spinoffs and the “Performance Premium”, Small Business Economics, this issue. doi:10.1007/s11187-013-9538-0.

  • Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djokovic, D., & Souitaris, V. (2008). Spinouts from academic institutions: A literature review with suggestions for further research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 225–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drori, I., Honig, B., & Wright, M. (2009). Transnational entrepreneurship: An emergent field of study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(5), 1001–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeln, J., Dinges, M., Knie, A., Simon, D., Braun-Thürmann, H., Fryges, H., et al. (2010). Evaluation des Existenzgründungsprogramms EXIST III, ZEW Wirtschaftsanalysen (Vol. 95). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Egeln, J., Gottschalk, S., Rammer, C., & Spielkamp, A. (2003). Public research spin-offs in Germany, summary report, ZEW Documentation 03-04. Mannheim: Centre for European Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, T., & Kuhn, J. M. (2006). Firm spin-offs in Denmark 1981–2000—Patterns of entry and exit. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(5), 1021–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferriani, S., Garnsey, E., & Lorenzoni, G. (2012). Continuity and change in a spin-off venture: The process of reimprinting. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(4), 1011–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiet, J. (2002). The systematic search for entrepreneurial discoveries. Westport, CT: Quorum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco, A. M., & Filson, D. (2006). Spin-outs: Knowledge diffusion through employee mobility. The Rand Journal of Economics, 37(4), 841–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fryges, H., Gottschalk, S., Gude, H., Kohn, K., Müller, K., Niefert, M. & Ullrich, K. (2010), Aufbruch nach dem Sturm. Junge Unternehmen zwischen Investitionsschwäche und Innovationsstrategie, Gründungspanelreport, Vol. 3, Creditreform, KfW, ZEW (eds.), Mannheim.

  • Fryges, H., Müller, B., & Niefert, M. (2013). Job machine, think tank, or both—What makes corporate spinoffs different? Small Business Economics, this issue. doi:10.1007/s11187-013-9540-6

  • Gilligan, J., & Wright, M. (2012). Private equity demystified–2012 edition. London: ICAEW.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after bayh–dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C., & Lieberman, M. (2002). The birth of capabilities—Market entry and the importance of pre-history. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 725–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huyghe, A., Knockaert, M., Wright, M., & Piva, E. (2013). Technology transfer offices as boundary spanners in the pre-spin-off process: The case of a hybrid model, Small Business Economics, this issue. doi:10.1007/s11187-013-9537-1

  • Ito, K. (1995). Japanese spinoffs: Unexplored survival strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), 431–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepper, S. (2002). The capabilities of new firms and the evolution of the US Automobile Industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(4), 645–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lejpras, A. (2013). How innovative are spin-offs at later stages of development? Comparing innovativeness of established research spin-offs and otherwise created firms, Small Business Economics, this issue. doi:10.1007/s11187-013-9534-4

  • Lejpras, A., & Stephan, A. (2011). Locational conditions, cooperation, and innovativeness: evidence from research and company spin-offs. The Annals of Regional Science, 46(3), 543–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Dai, O., & Lu, J. (2010). Human mobility and international knowledge spillovers: Evidence from high-tech small and medium enterprises in an emerging market. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(4), 340–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane, B., & Cheng, M. (2008). Communism, universalism and disinterestedness: Re-examining contemporary support among academics for Merton’s scientific norms. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6, 67–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1942). The normative structure of science (1973), In N. Storer (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267–278). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morales-Gualdrón, S. T., Gutiérrez-Garcia, A., & Roig Dobón, S. (2009). The entrepreneurial motivation in academia: A multidimensional construct. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5(3), 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, K. (2010). Academic spin-off’s transfer speed—Analyzing the time from leaving university to venture. Research Policy, 39(2), 189–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muendler, M.-A., Rauch, J. E., & Tocoian, O. (2012). Employee spinoffs and other entrants: Stylized facts from Brazil. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 30(5), 447–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M. G., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., et al. (2006). Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy, 35, 289–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustar, P., & Wright, M. (2010). Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 42–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayan, V., Yang, Y., & Zahra, S. (2009). Corporate venturing and value creation: A review and proposed framework. Research Policy, 38(1), 58–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaou, N., & Birley, S. (2003). Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 333–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parhankangas, A., & Arenius, P. (2003). From a corporate venture to an independent company: A base for a taxonomy for corporate spin-off firms. Research Policy, 32, 463–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: Lessons learned, managerial and policy implications, and the road forward. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 77–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P., Wright, M., Ucbasaran, D., & Tan, W. (2009). Corporate entrepreneurship: Current research and future direction. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 197–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbie, K., & Wright, M. (1996). Management Buyins. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sapienza, H. J., Parhankangas, A., & Autio, E. (2004). Knowledge relatedness and post-spin-off growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(6), 809–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smilor, R. W., Gibson, D. V., & Dietrich, G. B. (1990). University spinout companies: Technology start-ups from UT-Austin. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stam, W., & Elfring, T. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: The moderating role of intra- and extraindustry social capital. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 97–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, A. (2013). Are public research spin-offs more innovative? Small Business Economics, this issue. doi:10.1007/s11187-013-9539-z

  • Stuart, T. E., & Ding, W. W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 112(1), 97–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Velde, E., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Bruneel, J. (2007). Exploring the boundary between entrepreneurship and corporate venturing: From assisted spin-outs to entrepreneurial spin-offs, working paper 2007/472. Ghent: Ghent University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veld, C., & Veld-Merkoulova, Y. V. (2009). Value creation through spin-offs: A review of the empirical evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(4), 407–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weatherston, J. (1995). Academic entrepreneurs: Is a spin-off company too risky? Proceedings of the 40th International Council for Small Business (ICSB), Small Business Advancement National Center, University of Central Arkansas, http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/icsb/1995/pdf/20.pdf.

  • Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., & Wright, M. (2011). The effectiveness of university knowledge spillovers: Performance differences between university spinoffs and corporate spinoffs. Research Policy, 40(8), 1128–1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M. (1986). The make-buy decision and managing markets: The case of management buy-outs. Journal of Management Studies, 23(4), 443–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial mobility, In D. Bergh, & D. Ketchen, Research Methodology in Strategy and Management (Vol. 6, pp. 137–162). Bingley: Emerald.

  • Wright, M. (2013) Academic entrepreneurship, technology transfer and society: Where next? Journal of Technology Transfer, forthcoming.

  • Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Hoskisson, R., Busenitz, L., & Dial, J. (2000). Privatisation and entrepreneurship: The upside of management buy-outs. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 591–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-offs and venture capital. Research Policy, 35(4), 481–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Thompson, S., & Robbie, K. (1993). Finance and control in privatisation by management buyout. Financial Accountability and Management, 9(2), 75–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S., & Wright, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship’s next act. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25, 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the managing editors of Small Business Economics for affording us the opportunity to introduce the special issue with this editorial article. The first author is grateful for the opportunity to edit this special issue. The contribution of all anonymous reviewers who helped to improve the papers presented here is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian Innovation Research Centre, University of Tasmania, 1 College Road, Sandy Bay, TAS, 7005, Australia

    Helmut Fryges

  2. Center for Management Buyout Research, Imperial College Business School, Exhibition Road 46, London, SW7, UK

    Mike Wright

  3. University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium

    Mike Wright

Authors
  1. Helmut Fryges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mike Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helmut Fryges.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fryges, H., Wright, M. The origin of spin-offs: a typology of corporate and academic spin-offs. Small Bus Econ 43, 245–259 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9535-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9535-3

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Search

Navigation