Effects of Internal Corporate Venturing on the Transformation of Established Companies

Tackling the Digitalization Challenge
  • Christoph J. SeligEmail author
  • Tim Gasser
  • Guido H. Baltes
Part of the FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship book series (FGFS)


The organizational capability to adapt to the fast and radical changes of market parameters becomes a prerequisite for companies’ long-term survival. In this context, organizational ambidexterity has gained much attention in research and practice. It is the capability to develop new businesses (exploration) while simultaneously optimizing the existing core businesses (exploitation). Established companies face several challenges in achieving this capability, as the underlying learning modes of exploration and exploitation are mutually incompatible. One way to solve these challenges is to separate the exploration-oriented part from the core organization. Corporate venturing has been widely recognized as one tool to create these dual structures to develop new businesses, based on discontinuous innovation. In recent times, new corporate venturing forms emerge in practice. This growing number of different forms has led to new applications of corporate venturing which go beyond the pure development of new businesses, toward supporting the entrepreneurial transformation of companies. This study aims at answering how different corporate venturing forms contribute to the strategic renewal of established companies. For this purpose, qualitative research methods are used to analyze data from 17 interviews conducted in two German high-tech companies. The study at hand provides empirical evidence in the field of corporate venturing by uncovering new insights about the different transformational effects of corporate venturing initiatives on the core organization. It further reveals that corporate venturing forms can be classified into two categories according to their respective level of entrepreneurship and frequency of execution. Both categories exhibit different transformational effects and can be understood as being complementary to each other.


Organizational ambidexterity Corporate entrepreneurship Strategic renewal Corporate venturing Internal corporate accelerator 


  1. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20, 696–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2001). Intrapreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 495–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Badguerahanian, L., & Abetti, P. A. (1995). The rise and fall of the Merlin-Gerin Foundry Business: A case study in French corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 477–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 36, 256–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basu, S., Phelps, C., & Kotha, S. (2011). Towards understanding who makes corporate venture capital investments and why. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Battistini, B., Hacklin, F., & Baschera, P. (2013). The state of corporate venturing: Insights from a global study. Research-Technology Management, 56, 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benson, D., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2009). Corporate venture capital as a window on new technologies: Implications for the performance of corporate investors when acquiring startups. Organization Science, 20, 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45, 47–55.Google Scholar
  9. Birkinshaw, J., & Hill, S. A. (2005). Corporate venture units: Vehicles for strategic success in the new Europe. Organizational Dynamics, 34, 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Birkinshaw, J., Zimmermann, A., & Raisch, S. (2016). How do firms adapt to discontinuous change? Bridging the dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity perspectives. California Management Review, 58, 36–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A model of the interaction of strategic behavior, corporate context, and the concept of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 8, 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burgers, J., & Jansen, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity and corporate entrepreneurship: The differential effects on venturing, innovation and renewal processes. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 28(19), 1–16.Google Scholar
  14. Burr, W., Valentowitsch, J., & Bosler, M. (2017). Neuartige Formen der Kooperation mit dem Start-up Sektor. In H. Proff & T. M. Fojcik (Eds.), Innovative Produkte und Dienstleistungen in der Mobilität: Technische und betriebswirtschaftliche Aspekte (pp. 87–99). Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Camelo-Ordaz, C., Fernandez-Alles, M., Ruiz-Navarro, J., & Sousa-Ginel, E. (2012). The intrapreneur and innovation in creative firms. International Small Business Journal, 30, 513–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Caniëls, M., Neghina, C., Schaetsaert, N., Carayannis, E., & Grigoroudis, E. (2017). Ambidexterity of employees: The role of empowerment and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 85, 1098–1119.Google Scholar
  17. Cefis, E. (2005). A matter of life and death: Innovation and firm survival. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 1167–1192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Christensen, C. M., & Overdorf, M. (2000). Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harvard Business Review, 78, 66–76.Google Scholar
  19. 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, 812–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Corbin, J. M. S. A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crockett, D. R., McGee, J. E., & Payne, G. T. (2013). Employing new business divisions to exploit disruptive innovations: The interplay between characteristics of the corporation and those of the venture management team. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30, 856–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eckblad, J., & Golovko, E. (2016). Organizing for innovation. Journal of Evolutionary Studies in Business, 1, 15–37.Google Scholar
  24. Freeman, J., & Engel, J. S. (2007). Models of innovation: Startups and mature corporations. California Management Review, 50, 94–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gard, J. (2015). Corporate venture management in SMEs: Evidence from the German IT consulting industry. Leiden: Leiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science (LIACS), Faculty of Science, Leiden University.Google Scholar
  26. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences and mediation role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226.Google Scholar
  27. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Govindarajan, V., & Trimble, C. (2010). The other side of innovation: Solving the execution challenge. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
  29. Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editors’ introduction: Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 5–15.Google Scholar
  30. Gutmann, T. (2018). Harmonizing corporate venturing modes: An integrative review and research agenda. Management Review Quarterly, 37, 819.Google Scholar
  31. Hatum, A., & Pettigrew, A. (2016). Adaptation under environmental turmoil: Organizational flexibility in family-owned firms. Family Business Review, 17, 237–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh, H., & Winter, S. G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Honig-Haftel, S., & Martin, L. R. (1993). The effectiveness of reward systems on innovative output: An empirical analysis. Small Business Economics, 5, 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hunt, R. A., Townsend, D. M., Asgari, E., & Lerner, D. A. (2018). Bringing it all back home: Corporate venturing and renewal through spin-ins. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47, 104225871877854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ireland, D. R., & Webb, J. W. (2007). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating competitive advantage through streams of innovation. Business Horizons, 50, 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jansen, J. J. P., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review, 57, 351–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jemison, D. B., & Sitkin, S. B. (1986). Corporate acquisitions: A process perspective. Academy of Management Review, 11, 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Junarsin, E. (2009). Managing discontinuous innovation. International Management Review, 5, 10–18.Google Scholar
  39. Kanbach, D. K., & Stubner, S. (2016). Corporate accelerators as recent form of startup engagement: The what, the why, and the how. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 32, 1761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kierulff, H. E. (1979). Finding—and keeping—corporate entrepreneurs. Business Horizons, 22, 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kogut, B. (1991). Joint ventures and the option to expand and acquire. Management Science, 37, 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kohler, T. (2016). Corporate accelerators: Building bridges between corporations and startups. Business Horizons, 59, 347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kullik, O., Hölzle, K., Halecker, B., & Hartmann, M. (2018). Company building-a new phenomenon of corporate venturing? In ISPIM Innovation Symposium. The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM) (pp. 1–9).Google Scholar
  44. Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2009). Strategic entrepreneurship: Exploring different perspectives of an emerging concept. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2013). Clarifying the domains of corporate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9, 323–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Hayton, J. (2015). Corporate entrepreneurship: The innovative challenge for a new global economic reality. Small Business Economics, 45, 245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lai, H.-C., Chiu, Y.-C., & Liaw, Y.-C. (2010). Can external corporate venturing broaden firm’s technological scope? The role of complementary assets. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 27, 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 797–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 109–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., & Boland, R. J., Jr. (2016). Digital product innovation within four classes of innovation networks. Information Systems Journal, 26, 47–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Makarevich, A. (2017). Organizing for success in internal corporate venturing: An inductive case study of a multinational consumer goods company. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26, 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Marcus, M. H., & Zimmerer, T. W. (2003). A longitudinal study of the impact of intrapreneurial programs in fortune 500 firms. Journal of Management Research, 3, 11.Google Scholar
  54. Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Miles, M. P., & Covin, J. G. (2002). Exploring the practice of corporate venturing: Some common forms and their organizational implications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26, 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Narayanan, V. K., Yang, Y., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Corporate venturing and value creation: A review and proposed framework. Research Policy, 38, 58–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Norman, D. A., & Verganti, R. (2014). Incremental and radical innovation: Design research vs. technology and meaning change. Design Issues, 30, 78–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 324–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Park, S. H., Kim, J.-N., & Krishna, A. (2014). Bottom-up building of an innovative organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 28, 531–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sandberg, B., & Aarikka-Stenroos, L. (2014). What makes it so difficult?: A systematic review on barriers to radical innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, 1293–1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schilke, O., Hu, S., & Helfat, C. E. (2018). Quo Vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 12, 390–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Selig, C. J., & Baltes, G. H. (2017). Clarifying the roles in corporate entrepreneurship. In 2017 International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC) (pp. 879–887). IEEE.Google Scholar
  66. Selig, C. J., Stettina, C. J., & Baltes, G. H. (2016). The corporate entrepreneur: A driving force for strategic renewal and radical innovation in established companies. In 2016 International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC). IEEE.Google Scholar
  67. Selig, C. J., Gasser, T., & Baltes, G. H. (2018). How corporate accelerator foster organizational transformation: An internal perspective. In 2018 International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC) (pp. 1–9). IEEE.Google Scholar
  68. Sharma, P., & Chrisman, S. J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. In Á. Cuervo, D. Ribeiro, & S. Roig (Eds.), Entrepreneurship: Concepts, theory and perspective (pp. 83–103). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  69. Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 864–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Soskice, D. (2006). German technology policy, innovation, and national institutional frameworks. Industry and Innovation, 4, 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Teece, D. J. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and entrepreneurial management in large organizations: Toward a theory of the (entrepreneurial) firm. European Economic Review, 86, 202–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Turner, N., Swart, J., & Maylor, H. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15, 317–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tushman, M., Smith, W. K., Wood, R. C., Westerman, G., & O’Reilly, C. (2010). Organizational designs and innovation streams. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19, 1331–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vanhaverbeke, W., & Peeters, N. (2005). Embracing innovation as strategy: Corporate venturing, competence building and corporate strategy making. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14, 246–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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, 585–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Veryzer, R. (1998). Discontinuous innovation and the new product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15, 304–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wang, C. L., & Rafiq, M. (2014). Ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual ambidexterity and new product innovation: A comparative study of UK and Chinese high-tech firms. British Journal of Management, 25, 58–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Weiblen, T., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2015). Engaging with startups to enhance corporate innovation. California Management Review, 57, 66–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Yin, R. K. (2013). Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation, 19, 321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 917–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph J. Selig
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tim Gasser
    • 1
  • Guido H. Baltes
    • 1
  1. 1.IST Institute for Strategic Innovation and Technology ManagementKonstanz University of Applied SciencesKonstanzGermany

Personalised recommendations