IER-08-01-01-pp007--2043-Boutchich 2022, Vol. 8, No. 1 10.15678/IER.2022.0801.01 Elaborating on a new entrepreneur typology from the corporate governance perspective Driss El Kadiri Boutchich A B S T R A C T Objective: This work aims to build a new entrepreneur typology in line with corporate governance approaches adopted by the enterprises and therefore to adequately implement public policy and strategy about entrepre- neurship, since governance is an important basis for decision-making. Research Design & Methods: To achieve the above objective, associations are established between entrepre- neur types and corporate governance approaches via multiple correspondence analysis with grouping method for discretization and variable principal for normalization. Findings: Findings highlight a new entrepreneur typology, which comprises four types of entrepreneurs with regard to corporate governance approaches. The new typology is as follows: structure-oriented shareholder; behaviour-oriented stakeholder; legal control oriented and economic-managerial control oriented. Implications & Recommendations: This work has theoretical implications which reside in the need to use cor- porate governance for strategic modelling. It also has practical implications in that it is easier and more appro- priate to make decisions from corporate governance approaches than from types of enterprises. Thus, enter- prises and the state must take advantage of these implications to improve the entrepreneurship productivity. Contribution & Value Added: This work conceives a new entrepreneur typology in line with corporate govern- ance. Thus, it allows promoting strategic modelling based on corporate governance in business and public areas. Article type: research article Keywords: new entrepreneur typology; corporate governance approaches; strategic implications; ex-post typologies; multiple correspondence analysis JEL codes: C02, G3, L26 Received: 15 July 2021 Revised: 22 February 2022 Accepted: 1 March 2022 Suggested citation: El Kadiri Boutchich, D. (2022). Elaborating on a new entrepreneur typology from the corporate governance perspective. International Entrepreneurship Review, 8(1), 7-22. https://doi.org/10.15678/ IER.2022.0801.01 INTRODUCTION Entrepreneurship is an important factor for the development of a region or a country, since it is the source of the creation of wealth, jobs and incomes. In addition, entrepreneurship is an essential con- tribution to innovation and technological growth, driving productivity and economic development (Aljazzazen, 2021). Also, entrepreneurship is closely linked to the type of entrepreneur who shapes it according to his habits (Bourdieu, 1972). In this way, several types of entrepreneurs have been high- lighted to offer attractive conceptualizations of the personality of the entrepreneur and enlighten the plurality of its behaviours (Grandclaude & Nobre, 2018). On the other hand, corporate governance is a key factor of the enterprise performance and decision making (Ndemezo & Kayitana, 2018). But, there are several approaches to corporate gov- ernance, each of which fits well with a given type of entrepreneur, according to a configurational- contingency approach (El Kadiri Boutchich, 2020). But the link between entrepreneur types and corporate governance is not highlighted, in par- ticular via empirical studies (Tribbitt, 2012). Indeed, while several entrepreneur typologies have been constructed according to factors like psychological needs, risk and innovation, there is an ab- International Entrepreneurship Review RI E 8 | Driss El Kadiri Boutchich sence of work on the entrepreneur typologies building in relation to corporate governance (Salmony & Kanbach, 2021). Thus, this work seeks to fill this gap by establishing the relationship between the types of entre- preneur and the corporate governance approaches in order to build a new entrepreneur typology in harmony with corporate governance approaches adopted by the enterprises. At this level, the building of the above typology is motivated by the importance of corporate governance for performance im- provement and decision-making (Ndemezo & Kayitana, 2018). In fact, the association of types of en- trepreneur with governance allows adopting corporate and public strategies that ameliorate the en- trepreneurship productivity, since the corporate governance is considered as a particular form of strat- egy (Salepçioğlu & Sarı, 2021). In addition to the gap filled, this work is interesting, since it uses correspondence multiple anal- ysis, which is not widely employed in the field of social sciences. Equally, the method used in this work adopts a configurational approach taking into account intra and inter-variable interactions. This configurational approach has an analogy with discriminating alignment hypothesis of William- son, which postulates that transactions differ in their attributes, in line with governance structures, which differ in their cost and competence (Williamson, 1999). Furthermore, this work highlights sci- entific methods to build ex-post typologies for entrepreneurs and updates the types of entrepre- neurs list, which further legitimizes its interest. Lastly, the presentation of this work in terms of types allows highlighting the complexity of the phenomena studied (Grandclaude & Nobre, 2018) and produces a mirror-effect for the enterprise to better recognize itself and make adequate decisions (Savall et al., 2017). Thus, the presentation of this work with reference to entrepreneur types contributes managerially and pedagogically to improve the performance of the enterprise (Fayolle, 2012). This work is divided into five parts, in addition to the introduction. The first is devoted to the liter- ature review. The second deals with the methodology, while the third is dedicated to the results. As for the fourth part, it is related to the discussion and finally, a general conclusion is subsequently drawn in the fifth section, which includes the response to the problematic, the implications of this work and the limitations, their justifications as well as the perspectives of this research. LITERATURE REVIEW The literature review deals with types of entrepreneurs, corporate governance approaches and rela- tionship between the both. Types of Entrepreneurs Several typologies have been established and recapitulated by Woo et al. (1991), Filion (2000) and especially by Daval, et al. (2002) who built 36 typologies and proposed a related reading grid. After, other typologies of entrepreneurs have been built, such as that of Vega and Kidwell (2007) distinguish- ing social entrepreneur and business one and that of Tang et al. (2008) identifying four types of entre- preneurs based on the degree of their ignorance and reluctance. It is equally a question of the typology of Veena and Nagaraja (2013), which differentiates male entrepreneur, and female entrepreneur as well as the typology of Tarillon (2014) highlighting four types of entrepreneur-managers according to their representations of growth and governance. Later, Tessier-Dargent (2015) refines the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor typology, which distin- guishes entrepreneur by necessity and entrepreneur by opportunity through a study of the effectual dimension of start-up processes. After, Alexandre (2016) quoted 16 entrepreneur typologies. Then, Grandclaude and Nobre (2018) elaborated three entrepreneur categories according to sociological at- tributes. In the same period, Chen and Chang (2018) identify four types of creative entrepreneurs, with regard to creativity and opportunity recognition. Lastly, Cannatelli et al. (2019) distinguished entrepre- neur with a passion for products and entrepreneur passionate about growth. The main entrepreneur typologies are presented in table 1, in line with the literature review above and the typologies cited by Daval et al. (2002) as well as Alexandre (2016). Elaborating on a new entrepreneur typology from the corporate governance perspective | 9 Table 1. Entrepreneur Typology Author Date Typology Cantillon 1755 Fixed income wage earners / Non-fixed income wage earners Schumpeter 1935 Revolutionary entrepreneur / Imitating entrepreneur Cole 1942 Empirical / Rational / Cognitive Smith 1967 Craftsman / Opportunist Collins and Moore 1970 Administrative entrepreneur / Independent entrepreneur Laufer 1975 Innovator entrepreneur / Growth-oriented entrepreneur / Efficiency-oriented entrepreneur / Craftsman entrepreneur Standworth and Curran 1976 Artisan / Classic/ Manager Miles et Snow 1978 Prospector / defender (follower) / analyzer (innovator) / reactor Dunkelberg and Cooper 1982 Craftsman / Growth-oriented / Independent Carland et al. 1988 Entrepreneur / SME owner Lafuente et Salas 1989 Craftsman / Risk-oriented / Family oriented / Managerial Marchesnay 1998 Isolated, Nomadic / Notable / Enterprising Filion 2000 Operator / Visionary Vega and Kidwell 2007 Business entrepreneur / Social entrepreneur Tang et al. 2008 True-believer / Ignorant / Practical / Reluctant Fourquet 2011 Visionary / Enthusiast Veena and Nagaraja 2013 Male entrepreneur / Female entrepreneur Tarillon 2014 Independent / Collective / Manager / Self-centred Tessier-Dargent 2015 Entrepreneur by necessity / Entrepreneur by opportunity Grandclaude and Nobre 2018 Growth-oriented / Non-growth oriented/ Moderate Chen and Chang 2018 Constructionist / Opportunist / Designer / Producer Cannatelli et al. 2019 Entrepreneur with passion for products / Entrepreneur with passion for growth Source: own study. Corporate Governance Approaches A multitude of governance approaches can be utilized in enterprise, among which the following are re- tained: shareholder, partnership, cognitive, ethical, institutional, legal, economic and managerial. The shareholder approach gives priority to funders, considers them as the source of value creation and seeks to protect their interests by disciplining leaders or managers and to solve the agency problem. The part- nership approach takes into account the contribution of all the actors of the organization, in the process of creation and distribution of the value. As for the cognitive approach, it considers that value derives from the ability of management to imagine, perceive and create new productive opportunities through innova- tion, coordination and learning (Nordberg, 2018). Concerning the ethical approach, it states that the or- ganization must be governed according to moral principles and good conduct (Mason & Simmons, 2014). With regard to the institutional approach, it stipulates that governance is impacted by external institutional environment (Ge et al., 2017) and enterprise specific institutional attributes such as trust and relational norms (Bell et al., 2014). Thus, the institutional approach differs from legal one, since the former relies on norms to protect shareholders and the parties in relation to them, while the second uses an obligatory model of company’s law, setting rules in order to protect the interests of shareholders, the company and the society (OECD, 2015). Also, there is an economic efficiency approach to corporate governance, which consists of es- tablishing a good match between the resources used and the results obtained in terms of corporate governance (Goo, 2017). Finally, there is the managerial approach to corporate governance, which is based on responsible managerial practices and strategies for better corporate governance (Fila- totchev & Nakajima, 2014). Relationship between Entrepreneur Types and Corporate Governance In this section entrepreneur is not dissociated from enterprise. In this way, several studies linked en- trepreneur (or enterprise) types to corporate governance. For instance, Zahra (1996) highlighted the 10 | Driss El Kadiri Boutchich association between corporate governance and owner systems with its types of enterprises in terms of their level of entrepreneurship and the technological opportunities they have. Then, Hagen and Alshare (2005) and Tribbitt (2012) examined the impact of enterprise governance mechanisms on en- trepreneurs. Also, Hung and Mondejar (2005) found that corporate governance approach influences the behavior of the entrepreneur in the risk and innovation area. Later, Albu and Mateescu (2015) showed that the impact of board independence and institutional ownership on entrepreneurship var- ies according to differences between types of entrepreneurs. Furthermore, Bartholomeusz and Tanewski (2006) demonstrated that the difference between the family entrepreneur and the non-family entrepreneur has a significant impact on the structure of cor- porate governance. On other hand, Khurshed et al. (2011) found that institutional block-holding is as- sociated with directors’ ownership and board composition at governance level. Also, Omri et al. (2014) argued that governance based on ownership structure is associated with the enterprise innovation level. In the same vein, Bertoni et al. (2014) show that enterprise age (young enterprises vs older ones) affects board independence for corporate governance. Equally, Calabrò and Mussolino (2013) find that the relational norms trusts, as well as the board independence impact the enterprise internationaliza- tion level. Finally, several other studies have examined the aforementioned relationships between en- trepreneur types and corporate governance (Li et al., 2020). RESEARCH METHODOLOGY It includes problematic-epistemological stance, typologies, variables and the data analysis method em- ployed to carry out this study. Problematic-Epistemological Stance The problematic of this research is articulated around the association between entrepreneur types and corporate governance approaches for identifying a new ex-post entrepreneur typology associated with the corporate governance approaches. The epistemological stance adopted is positivist using an exploratory analysis, which allows avoiding the formulation of hypotheses and the need for their confirmation or invalidation (El Kadiri Boutchich, 2020). It is characterised by objectivity and exogeneity reflected by the distanciation from the object of the study. In this way, a questionnaire was administered to 70 enterprises, of which only 63 agreed to fill it in 2020. The sample of 63 is composed by enough structured enterprises that can adequately respond to the questionnaire. The latter comprises questions from the data in table 3 (variables), to which are added some definitions of each type of entrepreneur and each governance approach. The respondent who is the entrepreneur need only to check the box that corresponds to his situation. Typologies and Variables Two typologies are used in the field of entrepreneurship, ex-ante typology and ex-post typology. The first uses intuition, while the second is based on an empirical approach, which is articulated around three main methods: ideal type’s procedure, attribute reduction and aggregation kernel (Grandclaude & Nobre, 2018). Other multidimensional methods can be used is this area like multiple correspondence analysis, which is employed in this work in order to identify the ex-post typology of entrepreneurs in relation with corporate governance. Related to this study, three typologies are retained as ex-ante entrepreneur typologies. They are as below: 1. Entrepreneur of Entrepreneurial Firm/ Entrepreneur of non-Entrepreneurial Firm. 2. Social Entrepreneur / Business Entrepreneur. 3. Entrepreneur by Necessity/Entrepreneur by Opportunity. The first typology is determined from lexical analysis dashboard in table 2. Elaborating on a new entrepreneur typology from the corporate governance perspective | 11 Table 2. Lexical analysis dashboard Keyword Frequency Percentage Growth-oriented 7 9.46 Craftsman/Artisan 5 6.76 Independent 3 4.05 Manager 3 4.05 Opportunist 2 2.70 Efficiency-oriented 2 2.70 Risk-oriented 2 2.70 Family-oriented 2 2.70 Classic 1 1.35 Innovator 1 1.35 Moderate 1 1.35 Product-oriented 1 1.35 Source: Sphinx Software from Data of Table1. The table 2 distinguishes clearly entrepreneur of entrepreneurial firm (growth-oriented, independent, manager, opportunist, efficiency-oriented, risk-oriented and innovator) from entrepreneur of non-entre- preneurial firm (craftsman/artisan, family-oriented, classic, moderate and product-oriented). Dealing with the two last typologies, they are retained because they are not sufficiently studied in empirical way (Alexandre, 2016; Daval et al., 2002). Concerning the second typology, difference be- tween social entrepreneur and business one is made according to the vision of Prabhu (1999), by in- sinuating that the former create an economic surplus like the second, but through a social mission. In the same vein, Parkinson and Howorth (2008) argued that social entrepreneurs can be found in profit- seeking businesses that have some commitment to helping society and the environment. Lastly, about the third typology, entrepreneur by opportunity seeks good opportunities in the market to create or develop an enterprise, while entrepreneur by necessity starts or develops a business because there is no better or no other choice for him to avoid unemployment (Mota et al., 2019). As for the typologies of governance approaches, the following three typologies are selected: 1. Shareholder / Stakeholder. 2. Economic-Managerial / Legal. 3. Behavioral (cognitive) / Structural. The first typology is established on the basis of the targeted performance (financial performance versus overall performance). The second typology is built on the basis of the corporate governance control tool adopted. With respect to the third typology, it is constructed on the basis of corporate governance implementation; in this case the behaviours or structures. The approach based on struc- tures for corporate governance implementation mobilizes both the shareholder approach and the stakeholder approach (Dallago, 2002). Related to the variables used in this work, they are synthesized in table 3 with their codes. The Method Used: Multiple Correspondence Analysis Multiple correspondence analysis establishes the correspondences between variables and modali- ties in a reduced representation space by extracting dimensions so that they have a maximum var- iance, which is achieved through the diagonalization of the product matrix of column profiles and row profiles. This diagonalization allows calculating the eigenvalues and therefore the eigenvectors (coordinates) as well as the explained inertia. It also highlights associations between modalities of variables to constitute homogeneous groups of variables or modalities, often via two dimensions that encompass the more relevant information. The multiple correspondence analysis in this work employs grouping method for discretization and variable principal for normalization. 12 | Driss El Kadiri Boutchich Table 3. Entrepreneurial Typologies and Corporate Governance Approaches Typologies Entrepreneur Typologies Modalities Corporate Governance Approaches Typologies Modalites Typology 1 Entrepreneur of Entrepreneurial Firm (coded 1) Typology 1 Shareholder (coded 1) Entrepreneur of non-Entrepreneurial Firm (coded 2) Stakeholder (coded 2) Typology 2 Social Entrepreneur (coded 1) Typology 2 Economic-Managerial (coded 1) Business Entrepreneur (coded 2) Legal (coded 2) Typology 3 Entrepreneur by Necessity (coded 1) Typology 3 Behavioral (coded 1) Entrepreneur by Opportunity (coded 2) Structural (coded 2) Source: own study. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results include quality of the multiple correspondence models, discrimination measures and associations between entrepreneur types and corporate governance approaches. After, a discussion of results is made. Quality of the Multiple Correspondence Model The quality of this model is evaluated via the rate of the variance explained and the Cronbach’s Alpha, which reflects the homogeneity of the modalities used in multiple correspondence analysis. The Cronbach’s Alpha is acceptable if it ranges from 0.6 to 0.8 for an exploratory study and 0.8 to 1 for a confirmatory one (Ghewy, 2010). This quality is shown through the model summary, which reveals that the two dimensions retained restitute 81.1% of the information. This rate is very good, given that it is often underestimated in the multiple correspondence analysis (on the contrary of principal com- ponents analysis), because of the repetition of the data contained in the disjunctive table used by the multiple correspondence analysis. Also, the consistency between the modalities is quite good as long as Cronbach’s Alpha exceeds 0.6, with mean value of 0.707. Discrimination Measures Discrimination measures are presented in table 4. Table 4. Discrimination Measures TYpologies Dimension 1 2 Entrepreneur Typology 1 0.727 0.012 Entrepreneur Typology 2 0.007 0.889 Entrepreneur Typology 3 0.729 0.019 Corporate Governance Approach Typology 1 0.741 0.006 Corporate Governance Approach Typology 2 0,027 0.869 Corporate Governance Approach Typology 3 0,841 0.000 Active Total 3.071 1.796 Per cent of Variance 51.184 29.937 Source: SPSS. Discrimination measures indicate that Entrepreneur Typology 1, Entrepreneur Typology 3, Corpo- rate Governance Approach Typology 1 as well as Corporate Governance Approach Typology 3 belong to the dimension 1, while Entrepreneur Typology 2 and Corporate Governance Approach Typology 2 Elaborating on a new entrepreneur typology from the corporate governance perspective | 13 belong to the dimension 2. These results associated with the variable coordinates provided in table 5 allow establishing associations between entrepreneur types and corporate governance approaches. Associations between Entrepreneur Types and Corporate Governance Approaches Discrimination measures with modality coordinates provided by SPSS allow establishing Table 5. Table 5. Correspondences between Entrepreneurial Typologies and Corporate Governance Dimensions Modalities with Negative Coordinates Modalities with Positive coordinates D i m e n s i o n 1 Entrepreneur Typology 1 Entrepreneur with entrepre- neurial firm Entrepreneur with non-entre- preneurial firm Entrepreneur Typology 3 Entrepreneur by Opportunity Entrepreneur by Necessity Corporate Governance Approach Typology 1 Shareholder Stakeholder Corporate Governance Approach Typology 3 Structural Implementation Basis Behavioural Implementation Basis D i m e n s i o n 2 Entrepreneur Typology 2 Social Entrepreneur Business Entrepreneur Corporate Governance Approach Typology 2 Legal control Tools Economic-Managerial Control Tools Source: own study. With regard to the first dimension, entrepreneur of entrepreneurial firm is an opportunist entre- preneur, who favors the interests of shareholders (financial performance) and structural implementa- tion basis at the corporate governance level. On the other hand, entrepreneur of non-entrepreneurial firm is an entrepreneur by necessity, who prioritizes the interests of stakeholders, (overall perfor- mance) and behavioral implementation basis for effective corporate governance. About the second dimension, it opposes social entrepreneur who uses legal control tools to business entrepreneur who utilizes economic-managerial control tools in the field of corporate governance. In definitive, the results allow highlighting a new entrepreneur typology, which comprises four en- trepreneur types with regard to corporate governance approaches: structure-oriented shareholder; behaviour-oriented shareholder; legal control oriented and economic-managerial control oriented. Related to the discussion, for associations between nature of the firm owned by the entrepreneur and others variables, it is argued that governance ownership structure is more developed in innovative enterprise and therefore in entrepreneurial firm (Omri et al., 2014). In the same way, the structural implementation mechanisms to corporate governance are more advanced in entrepreneurial firm through innovation (Belenzon et al., 2009) and growth orientation via R&D (Tribbitt, 2012). In the sim- ilar way, growth, financial performance and therefore the shareholder approach to corporate govern- ance are crucial aspects in the entrepreneurial firm (Li et al., 2020). On the other hand, the entrepreneur of a non-entrepreneurial firm has great similarly with the en- trepreneur by necessity insofar as both attach little importance to the growth of the firm (Fairlie & Fossen, 2018). In addition, the entrepreneur by necessity seems to be more social than the entrepreneur by opportunity according to this study. However, several studies refute this assertion, such as that of Larsson and Thulin (2018), which shows that the entrepreneur by necessity has a little interest in subjec- tive well-being, that of Giacomin, Janssen, and Guyot (2016) who states the entrepreneur by necessity is locked into himself because of the weakness of his human and social capital and his professional network and the study of Tessier-Dargent (2014) that indicates the entrepreneur by necessity perceives the social, political and economic environment as negative, which has a negative impact on his behaviour. But, Tessier-Dargent (2015), argued that the practice of entrepreneurship by necessity is differenti- ated according to individual and socio-economic contexts. In this way, the social character of entrepre- neurs by necessity in this study can be explained by the fact that a great part of them is composed by people retiring through voluntary departure who continue to receive their full wages in addition to the voluntary departure grant, which has enabled them to create an enterprise under favourable conditions. 14 | Driss El Kadiri Boutchich On another side, Young and Thyil (2014) demonstrated that corporate responsibility, which implies stakeholders and social aspects that entrepreneur by necessity prioritizes, is used by him as a strategy to counteract different contextual alias trough behavioural norms. In the same way, the entrepreneur by ne- cessity favours governance based on behavioural control, since he does not have sufficient managerial po- tential to set up governance structures. In addition, the entrepreneur by necessity replaces the low im- portance given to its business activity by social aspects related to it (Tessier-Dargent, 2015; Williams, 2007;). Concerning the two last associations between entrepreneurship and corporate governance, so- cial entrepreneurship employs a legal approach to associate social responsibility with corporate gov- ernance in order to avoid unethical behaviour in socially vulnerable economies (Rahim, 2012). Con- versely, business entrepreneurship favours managerial tools like performance reporting, financial controls and systems of risk management (Rigolini, 2013) and economic tools in terms of efficiency (Goo, 2017) at the corporate governance level. CONCLUSIONS The conclusion comprises the response to the problematic, theoretical implications, enterprise stra- tegic implications, implications, public strategic implications as well as limitations, their justifications and perspectives of this work. Response to the Problematic As a response to the problematic of this research, this work highlighted four new entrepreneur types with regard to corporate governance: structure-oriented shareholder; behaviour-oriented shareholder; legal control oriented; economic-managerial control oriented. The first entrepreneur type favours the interests of shareholders and structures as basis of corporate governance imple- mentation. The second entrepreneur type prioritizes the interests of stakeholders and behaviours for corporate governance implementation. The third entrepreneur type uses legal control tools to corporate governance, while the fourth entrepreneur type utilizes economic-managerial control tools at the corporate governance level. These entrepreneur types are determined through appropriate multidimensional method, with is multiple correspondence analysis. This method allows building these types in configurational manner. This method was applied on three typologies of entrepreneurs and three typologies of corporate gov- ernance approaches that are selected from lexical analysis performed in this work and literature re- view. Finally, this method led to obtaining new types of entrepreneurs in relation to corporate govern- ance from discrimination measures associated with the coordinates of the modalities of the six typol- ogies integrated in the multiple correspondence analysis. In addition, since governance is an important factor of performance, the association of types of entrepreneurs with governance allows opting for adequate enterprise and public strategies. Theoretical Implications With regard to theoretical implications, this work encourages the elaboration on ex-post entrepreneurial typologies and based on empirical studies that highlight the complexity of entrepreneurial phenomena and improve the entrepreneur understanding (Grandclaude & Nobre, 2018). It equally leads to consider corporate governance as an inevitable intermediation between entrepreneurship and strategic decision- making on the one hand and between action and performance on the other hand (Ndemezo & Kayitana, 2018). Finally, this work is likely to promote the specific strategic modelling based on corporate govern- ance like sustainable strategy and strategy within a crisis context (Salepçioğlu & Sarı, 2021). Enterprise Strategic Implications Enterprise strategic implications are studied, since strategy is the essential factor of enterprise perfor- mance (Islami et al., 2020). In this way, the new entrepreneur types are useful for trainers to adopt the most appropriate training strategies with regard to the management and governance style the Elaborating on a new entrepreneur typology from the corporate governance perspective | 15 entrepreneur wishes to adopt (Filion, 2000). At this level, according to Global Entrepreneurship Mon- itor (2017), it should be noted that insufficient or inadequate training is one of the important factors of entrepreneurial failure. However, training strategies must be defined via coordination with the uni- versity and enterprises to give convincing results (Galvão et al., 2018). Also, the entrepreneur typology produces a mirror-effect for entrepreneurs to better recognize them- selves and make the right strategic decisions (Savall et al., 2017). In this direction, enterprises can choose the strategic model taking into account the corporate governance approach they adopt. So, the first en- trepreneur type identified by this study with important corporate governance structures must perform more strategic change than the second entrepreneur type with weak ownership structures (Brunninge et al., 2007). In the same vein, the first entrepreneur type is able to adopt an intensive growth strategy, while the second entrepreneur type opts for a gradual growth strategy (Ramadani et al., 2020). In addition, it is plausible to take into account link between governance and strategy to identify some strategic types for enterprises. For instance, it is possible to use the McKinsey matrix, which crosses busi- ness strength (high, medium, low) and industry/market attractiveness (high, medium, low). In this regard, the second entrepreneur type has business strength in terms of low governance implementation costs thanks to its modest governance structures, but has low market attractiveness (Giacomin et al., 2016). On the other hand, the first entrepreneur type incurs high governance costs because of its sophisticated governance structures but has high market attractiveness by operating in profitable market segments to cover governance implementation costs and to achieve a satisfactory performance (Block & Wagner, 2010). Thus, it is possible to assert that the second entrepreneur type must adopt a selective strategy, while the first entrepreneur type has to opt for a leader strategy with intensive growth, according to the McKinsey matrix. Also, the first entrepreneur type with an independent chairman of the board adopts a more diver- sified strategy for suppliers than the other entrepreneur types with a dependent chairman of the board (Da-Silva & Black, 2005). In the same vein, in the field of the internationalization strategy, the first entrepreneur type tends to apply unrelated diversification thanks to developed governance structures, while the second entrepreneur type tends to opt for other forms of diversification due to the insuffi- ciency of its governance structures (RitossaI & Bulgacov, 2009). Furthermore, the third entrepreneur type who is a social entrepreneur can take advantage of his respect for social rules related to governance to adopt a national or international citizen strategy that will be supported by governments and social associations (Forouharfar et al., 2019), while the fourth entrepreneur type can borrow from the two first entrepreneur types in the field of strategy. Finally, the first type of entrepreneur, taking into account his expanded governance structures is able to adopt a causation strategy allowing a prediction and a control of the future, while the other entrepreneur types must go for an effectual strategy consisting of building the future according to the existing resources in the enterprise (Tessier-Dargent, 2015). Public Strategic Implications Currently, public strategy is primarily based on productivity in order to promote entrepreneurship, because entrepreneurial productivity leads to the country’s economic growth (Bosma et al., 2018). At this level, the State can orient its entrepreneurship strategy to increase the entrepreneurship productivity expressed is terms of entrepreneurial firm-to-non-entrepreneurial firm ratio. Thus, if this strategy tends to improve corporate governance quality and Per capita GDP, the State must encourage the first entrepreneur type aforementioned. However, if this strategy seeks to benefit from small economy size in order to reduce unemployment, the State has to encourage especially the second entrepreneur type (Fredström et al., 2020). Moreover, it is argued that flexible strategy by the State in the areas of finance, labour market, education and training, as well as inter-enterprise institutions, encourages the creation of the first entrepreneur type (entrepreneurial firms), which prioritize shareholder approach and are productive (Dilli et al., 2018). Similarly, the State can adopt strategy of free entry into the market in order to pro- mote entrepreneurial firms (Mazzarol & Reboud, 2020a). Furthermore, another strategy to increase the productivity of entrepreneurship is to provide continuous training to entrepreneurs by necessity 16 | Driss El Kadiri Boutchich on managerial innovation (Sandström et al., 2018), which leads to the development of their govern- ance structures (Maizatul & Shahril, 2011) and then to growing their productivity (Ratten, 2021). In the same vein, the State can opt for the partnership strategy to improve entrepreneurship productivity via bring together universities and companies so that the two participate in a con- certed manner in promoting R&D and innovation (El Kadiri Boutchich, 2021a), which can transform the three last entrepreneur types into an entrepreneur of the entrepreneurial firm and thus in- crease the productivity of entrepreneurship. For stimulating entrepreneurship productivity, besides the training, the government must en- sure the financial support (Bowen & De Clercq, 2008) and financial stability (Bjørnskov & Foss, 2010) for the first and the fourth types. On the other side, the government must develop enterprise reg- ulatory measures for the third type (De Clercq et al., 2010) and socially supportive culture for the second type (Stephan & Uhlaner, 2010), since culture has a significant impact on entrepreneurship (Bätz, & Siegfried, 2021). However, two oppositions emerge concerning the above assertions. First, the entrepreneurship productivity, expressed in terms of aforementioned ratio, is not always reliable, since a study showed that innovation in entrepreneurial firms is negatively correlated with total factor productivity growth. Thus, policy makers should put in place an alternative measure approach accordingly (El Ghak et al., 2020). Second, the encouragement of the first entrepreneur type (entrepreneurial firms), is not without problems because these can create economic and social risks in crisis period. In the same context, it is preferable to promote the second and the third entrepreneur types highlighted by this work, who are conservative entrepreneurs with social orientation and option for legal tools in support of their gov- ernance (Mazzarol & Reboud, 2020a). Limitations, Justifications and Perspectives First, several entrepreneur typologies may not be integrated in this work. However, most established entrepreneur typologies are based on an intuitive approach or a methodology that does not allow the comparability of the results of these typologies (Janssen, 2011). In this regard, this work uses an ap- propriate multidimensional empirical analysis, which enables to establish an entrepreneur typology in relation with governance approaches in order to improve enterprise performance. It is also admitted that some governance approaches have not been processed in this work such as stewardship approach or resource-dependence approach. But, the objective of this work is to establish an association between entrepreneur types and governance approaches via an approach oriented towards the methodology more than the exhaustive citation of entrepreneur types and governance approaches. Second, associations of entrepreneur types with corporate governance approaches do not take into account the influence of time and events, which reduces the observed reality (Messeghem & Sammut, 2011). To overcome this problem, it is possible to build a cartographic space to visualize the transition states of associations between entrepreneur types and corporate governance ap- proaches (Grandclaude & Nobre, 2018). In this way, to assess the transition impact from one state to another, it is appropriate to use the econometric event study method or other dynamic econo- metric methods for considerations of time (Gilleskie, 2014). Third, the problem of generalization of the results can be posed. In fact, the generalization of re- sults depends on the sample size, its nature and the approach used to generate results. Related to the sample size, it has to be greater. With regard to the nature of sample, even if the study took place in a single country, the international character of this work is not affected, since the literature review, discussion, implications and limitations as well as future research are international in nature. In addition, accord- ing to generic constructivism, empirical analysis in an exploratory analysis like this one is only a com- plement to the literature review (Capelletti et al., 2018). In relation with the approach used to generate results, generalizing of these is a very difficult task. Indeed, except for mathematical deduction and totalizing induction, the generalization requires the replication of the study in time and space and the absence of noise according to the mathematical theory of information (El Kadiri Boutchich, 2020). Elaborating on a new entrepreneur typology from the corporate governance perspective | 17 As perspective, it is interesting to adopt hybrid forms of entrepreneurship and integrated ap- proaches to corporate governance that serve the interests of shareholders and stakeholders simul- taneously in the core strategy of the firm (World Economic Forum, 2020). It is equally interesting to associate to the four entrepreneur types, resulting from correspondences between entrepreneur types and corporate governance approaches, a dependent variable like entrepreneurship produc- tivity to highlight the importance of each of the four entrepreneur types, from an appropriate mul- tidimensional data analysis. In this way, it is commode to replace entrepreneurial firm-to-non-en- trepreneurial firm ratio, which is very simplistic by a composite index of entrepreneurship produc- tivity via a method that retains only entrepreneurial productive outputs such as adjusted data en- velopment analysis (El Kadiri Boutchich, 2021b). Moreover, there is a need for more empirical studies to verify the plausibility of associating the productivity of entrepreneurship with opportunism and innovation, and perhaps to replace these concepts with others such as achievement performance speed and responsiveness (Fu et al., 2020). Thus, the productivity of entrepreneurship can be associated with particular types of companies such as gazelle companies (Mazzarol &Reboud, 2020b). It is also interesting to take into account behavioural addiction to entrepreneurship as important factor of the productivity and success of the entrepreneurship (Tshikovhi et al., 2021). Lastly, another perspective, which is developed thanks to economy digitalization, consists of replacing corporate governance by platform governance in terms of three strategies: community- based, cultural-based and content-based (Fenwick et al., 2019). Thus, the link between entrepre- neurship and strategy can be established directly without going through corporate governance. This promotes strategic entrepreneurship. REFERENCES Albu, N., & Mateescu, R.A. (2015). The Relationship between Entrepreneurship and Corporate Governance. The Case of Romanian listed Companies. Amfiteatru Economic Journal, 17(38), 44-59. Alexandre, L. (2016). Typologie des entrepreneurs, une approche par le genre. Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, 15(3- 4), 109-127. https://doi.org/doi:10.3917/entre.153.0109 Aljazzazen, S. A. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystem of Luxembourg: Empirical insights into barriers and stimuli based on GEI data. International Entrepreneurship Review, 7(2), 43-53. https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2021.0702.04 Bartholomeusz, S., & Tanewski, G.A. (2006). The Relationship between Family Firms and Corporate. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2), 245-267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2006.00166.x Bätz, K., & Siegfried, P. (2021). Complexity of culture and entrepreneurial practice. International Entrepreneur- ship Review, 7(3), 61-70. https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2021.0703.05 Belenzon, S., Berkovitz, T., & Bolton, P. (2009). Intracompany Governance and Innovation. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1442968 Bell, R.G., Filatotchev, I. & Aguilera, R.V. (2014). Corporate governance and investors’ perceptions of foreign IPO value: an institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 301-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0146 Bertoni, F., Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2014). Board independence, ownership structure and the valuation of IPOs in continental Europe. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 22(2), 116-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12051 Block, J.H., & Wagner, M. (2010). Necessity and Opportunity Entrepreneurs in Germany: Characteristics and Earn- ings Differentials. Schmalenbach Business Review, 62, 154-174. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396803 Bjørnskov, C., & Foss, N. (2010). Economic freedom and entrepreneurial activity: some cross-country evidence. In Freytag, A. & Thurik, R. (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and Culture (pp. 201-225). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87910-7_10. Bosma, N., Content, J., Sanders, M.,& Stam, E. (2018). Institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth in Europe. Small Business Economics, 51, 483-499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0012-x Bourdieu, P. (1972). Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique. Précédée de trois études d’ethnologie kabyle. Droz. 18 | Driss El Kadiri Boutchich Bowen, H. P., & De Clercq, D. (2008). Institutional context and the allocation of entrepreneurial effort. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4), 747-767. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400343 Brunninge, O., Nordqvist, M., & Wiklund, J. (2007). Corporate Governance and Strategic Change in SMEs: The Effects of Ownership, Board Composition and Top Management Teams. Small Business Economics, 29, 295- 308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9021-2 Calabrò, A., & Mussolino, D. (2013). How do boards of directors contribute to family SME export intensity? The role of formal and informal governance mechanisms. Journal of Management & Governance, 17(2), 363-403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-011-9180-7 Cannatelli, B., M. Pedrini, M., & Braun, M. (2019). Individual-level antecedents of the entrepreneurial approach: the role of different types of passion in the Italian craft brewing industry. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00585-6 Cappelletti, L., Voyant, O., & Savall, H. (2018). Quarante ans après son invention : la méthode des coûts cachés. ACCRA, 2(2), 71-91. Chen, M.-H., & Chang, Y.-Y. (2018). Typology of creative entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial success. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 12(5), 632-656. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-07-2017-0041 Dallago, B. (2002). Corporate Governance and Governance Paradigms. Journal of Economics and Business, 5(2), 173-196. Da-Silva, W.M., & Black, E.L. (2005). Corporate Governance Strategy, and Supply Management Performance: an Empirical Analysis of Companies Listed in Sao Paulo Stock Exchange. International Law & Management Re- view, 2(1), 43-64. Daval, H., Deschamps, B., & Geindre, S. (2002). Proposition d’une grille de lecture des profils d’entrepreneurs. La Revue des Sciences de Gestion, 32, 53-74. De Clercq, D., Danis, W.M., & Dakhli, M. (2010). The moderating effect of institutional context on the relationship between associational activity and new business activity in emerging economies. International Business Re- view, 19(1), 85-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.09.002 Dilli, S., Elert, N., & Herrmann, A.M. (2018). Varieties of entrepreneurship: exploring the institutional foundations of different entrepreneurship types through ‘Varieties-of-Capitalism’ arguments. Small Business Economics, 51, 293-320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0002-z El Ghak, T., Gdairia, A. & Abassi, B. (2020). High-tech Entrepreneurship and Total Factor Productivity: the Case of Innovation-Driven Economies. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12, 1152-1186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-020-00659-9 El Kadiri Boutchich, D. (2020). Factors with significant impact on efficiency of research laboratories: case of the Public university. Quality & Quantity, 54(4), 1317-1333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-00987-7 El Kadiri Boutchich, D. (2021a). Impact of ethics on research productivity in higher education. International Jour- nal of Ethics Education, 6, 253-271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40889-021-00123-5 El Kadiri Boutchich, D. (2021b). Research Governance in Public University: Proposal of a Composite Index. Journal of Education, July. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574211032582 El Kadiri Boutchich, D., & Gallouj, N. (2022). The dark side of innovation in local authorities: influential typologies and impacted modalities. International Journal of Innovation Science – ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-08-2021-0159 Fairlie, R.W., & Fossen, F.M. (2018). Opportunity versus Necessity Entrepreneurship: Two Components of Business Creation. IZA DP No. 11258. http://ftp.iza.org/dp11258.pdf Fayolle, A. (2012). Entrepreneuriat. Apprendre à entreprendre. Dunod. Fenwick, M., McCahery, J.A., & Vermeulen, E.P.M. (2019). The End of ‘Corporate Governance’: Hello ‘Platform’ Governance. European Business Organization Law Review, 20, 171-199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804- 019-00137-z Filatotchev, I., & Nakajima, C. (2014). Corporate Governance, Responsible Managerial Behavior, and Corporate Social Responsibility: Organizational Efficiency Versus Organizational Legitimacy? Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(3), 289-306. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2014.0014 Filion, L.J. (2000). Six types de propriétaires-dirigeants de PME. Revue Organisations et Territoires, 9(1), 5-16. Elaborating on a new entrepreneur typology from the corporate governance perspective | 19 Forouharfar, A., Rowshan, S.A., & Salarzehi, H. (2019). Social entrepreneurship strategic grid: Visualizing Class fi- cation, orientation and dimensionality in the strategic paradigms of governmental-scale social entrepreneur- ship (A literature-based approach). Cogent Business & Management, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1644714 Fredström, A., Peltonen, J., & Wincent, J. (2020). A country-level institutional perspective on entrepreneurship productivity: The effects of informal economy and regulation. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106002 Fu, K., Wennberg, K., &. Falkenhall, B. (2020). Productive entrepreneurship and the effectiveness of insol- vencylegislation: a cross-country study. Small Business Economics, 54, 383-404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0040-6 Galvão, A., Ferreira, J.J., & Marques, C. (2018). Entrepreneurship education and training as facilitators of regional development: A systematic literature review. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 25(1), 17-40. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-05-2017-0178 Ge, J., Stanley, L.J., Eddleston, K., & Kellermanns, F.W. (2017). Institutional deterioration and entrepreneurial investment: the role of political connections. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(4), 405-419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.04.002 Ghewy, P. (2010). Guide pratique de l’analyse de données, avec applications sous IBM SPSS Statistics et Excel, Questionnez, analysez… et décidez.” De Boeck. Giacomin, O., Janssen, F., & Guyot, J.L. (2016). Entrepreneurs de nécessité et d’opportunité : quels comporte- ments durant la phase de création ? Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, 15(3-4), 181-204. Gilleskie, D. (2014). Dynamic Models: Econometric Considerations of Time. In Anthony J. Culyer (Ed.), Encyclope- dia of Health Economics, Vol. 1 (pp. 209-216). Elsevier. DOI : 10.1016/B978-0-12-375678-7.00721-5 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. (2017). GEM Morocco 2017 Report. https://www.gemconsortium.org/econ- omy-profiles/morocco-2 Goo, S.H. (2017). An Economic Efficiency Approach to Reforming Corporate Governance: The Case of Multiple Stakeholder Boards. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 4(2), 387- 404. https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2017.10 Grandclaude, D., & Nobre, T. (2018). Approche sociologique et typologique des logiques de croissance de l’entre- preneur. Revue internationale P.M.E, 31(2), 161-200. Hagen, A., Emmanuel, T., & Alshare, K. (2005). Major determinants of entrepreneurship in mid-size companies: Empirical investigation. In: Southwest Decision Sciences Institute, 2005 Conference Proceedings (pp.468- 478), Dallas, USA, 3-4 March. Hung, H., & Mondejar, R. (2005). Corporate directors and entrepreneurial innovation: An empirical study. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 14(2), 117-129. https://doi.org/10.1177/097135570501400203 Islami, X., Mustafa, N., & Topuzovska Latkovikj, M. (2020). Linking Porter’s generic strategies to firm performance. Future Business Journal, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-0009-1 Janssen, F. (2011). Entreprendre : une introduction à l’entrepreneuriat. De Boeck Supérieur. Khurshed, A. , Lin, S., & Wang, M. (2011). Institutional block-holdings of UK firms: do corporate governance Mech- anisms matter? The European Journal of Finance, 17(2), 133-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/13518471003638658 Mason, C., & Simmons, J. (2014). Embedding Corporate Social Responsibility in Corporate Governance: A Stake-holder Systems Approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 77-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1615-9 Larsson, J.P., & Thulin, P. (2019). Independent by necessity? The life satisfaction of necessity and opportunity entrepreneurs in 70 countries. Small Business Economics, 53, 921-934. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018- 0110-9 Li, H., Terjesen, S. & Umans, T. (2020). Corporate governance in entrepreneurial firms: a systematic review and research agenda. Small Business Economics, 54, 43-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0118-1 Maizatul, A. M., & Shahril, E.I. (2011). Governance Structure and the Creativity and Innovation Process. The Inter- national Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences: Annual Review, 6(1), 231-238. DOI: 10.18848/1833- 1882/CGP/v06i01/51999 Mazzarol, T., & Reboud, S. (2020a). Adoption and Diffusion of Innovation. In: Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Springer Texts in Business and Economics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9412-6_6 20 | Driss El Kadiri Boutchich Mazzarol, T., & Reboud, S. (2020b). Entrepreneurship as a Social and Economic Process. In: Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Springer Texts in Business and Economics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9412-6_1 Messeghem, K., &. Sammut, S. (2011). L’Entrepreneuriat. Cormelles-le-Royal : EMS. Mota, A., Braga, V., & Ratten, V. (2019). Entrepreneurship Motivation: Opportunity and Necessity. In: Ratten V, Jones, P., Braga, V. & Marques, C. (Eds.), Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Contributions to Management Sci- ence. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12342-0_8 Ndemezo, E., & Kayitana, C. (2018). Corporate Governance, Corporate Entrepreneurship and Firm Performance: Evidence from the Rwandese Manufacturing Industry. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, 11(2), 103- 121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0974686218806715 Nordberg, D. (2018). Edging Toward ‘Reasonably’ Good Corporate Governance. Philosophy of Management, 17, 353-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-017-0083-9 OECD. (2015). Recommendation of the Council on Principles of Corporate Governance. https://legalinstru- ments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0413 Omri, W., Becuw, A., &. Mathe, J.C. (2014). Ownership structure and innovative behavior: testing the mediatory role of board composition. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 4(2), 220-239. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-07-2012-0033 Parkinson, C., & Howorth, C. (2008). The language of social entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Develo- pment, 20(3), 285-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620701800507 Prabhu, G.N. (1999). Social Entrepreneurial Leadership. Career Development International, 4(3), 140-145. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620439910262796 Rahim, M.M. (2012). Corporate Governance as Social Responsibility: A Meta-regulation Approach to Raise Social Responsibility of Corporate Governance in a Weak Economy. In S. Boubaker & D.K.Nguyen (Eds.), Board Di- rectors and Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 145-166). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230389304_8 Ramadani, V., Memili, E., Palalic, R., &. Chang, E.P.C. (2020). Strategic management in family business. In V. Rama-Dani, E. Memili, R. Palalic, &. E.P.C. Chang (Eds.), Entrepreneurial Family Businesses: Innovation, Gov- ernance, and Succession (pp. 43-53). Springer. Ratten, V. (2021). Entrepreneurial Innovation. Strategy and Competition Aspects. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4795-6 Rigolini, A. (2013). Corporate entrepreneurship and corporate governance: The influence of board of directors and owner identity. Milan: McGraw-Hill. RitossaI, C.M., & Bulgacov, S. (2009). Internationalization and diversification strategies of agricultural coopera- tives: a quantitative study of the agricultural cooperatives in the state of Parana. Brazilian Administration Review, 6 (3). http: //dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1807-76922009000300003 Salepçioğlu, A., & Sarı, B. (2021). Investigation of strategic human resources activity in corporate governance Pra- ctices: A research with Artificial Neural Networks. Journal of Transnational Management, 26(2), 18-138. Salmony, F.U., & Kanbach, D.K. (2021). Personality trait differences across types of entrepreneurs: a systematic literature review. Review of Managerial Science, 16, 713-749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00466-9 Sandström, C., Wennberg, K., Wallin, M.W., & Zherlygina, Y.(2018). Public policy for academic entrepreneurship initiatives: a review and critical discussion. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 1232-1256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9536-x Savall, H., Péron, M., Zardet, V., & Bonnet, M. (2017). Socially Responsible Capitalism and Management. Roudledge. Tshikovhi, N., Dziike, F., & Moyo, S. (2021). Restarting for the thrill: Behavioural addiction to entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship Review, 7(3), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2021.0703.03 Stephan, U., & Uhlaner, L. M. (2010). Performance-based vs socially supportive culture: a cross-national study of descriptive norms and entrepreneurship. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8), 1347-1364. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.14. Tang, J., Tang, Z, Zhang, Y., & Li, Q. (2008). The Impact of Entrepreneurial Orientation and Ownership Type on FirmPerformance in the Emerging Region of China. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 12(4), 383- 397. DOI: 10.1142/S108494670700073 Elaborating on a new entrepreneur typology from the corporate governance perspective | 21 Tarillon, C. (2014). Les représentations des dirigeants en matière de croissance et de gouvernance à l’origine destrajectoires de start-up. Thèse de doctorat en sciences de gestion. Université de Grenoble- France. Tribbitt, M.A. (2012). The moderating role of environment on the relationship between corporate governance and corporate entrepreneurship.” PhD: Drexel University. Veena, M., & Nagaraja, N. (2013). Comparison of Male and Female Entrepreneurs – An Empirical Study. Interna- tional Journal of Engineering and Management Research, 3(6), 138-143. Vega, G., & Kidwell, R.E. (2007). Toward a typology of new venture creators: Similarities and contrasts between- business and social entrepreneurs. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 10(2), 15-28. https://doi.org/10.1108/NEJE-10-02-2007-B002 Williams, C. (2007). De-linking Enterprise Culture from Capitalism and its Public Policy Implication. Public Policy and Administration, 22(4), 461-474. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076707081590 Williamson, O.E. (1999). Strategy Research: Governance and Competence Perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 20(12), 1087-1108. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199912)20:12<1087::AID- SMJ71>3.0.CO;2-Z Woo, C.Y., Cooper, A.C., & Dunkelberg, W.C. (1991). The Development and Interpretation of Entrepreneurial Typologies. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 93-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(91)90013-4 World Economic Forum. (2020). Integrated Corporate Governance: A Practical Guide to Stakeholder Capitalism for Boards of Directors.http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Integrated_Corporate_Governance_2020.pdf Young, S., & Thyil, V. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance: Role of Context in Inter- national Settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 1-24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42921413 Zahra, S.A. (1996). Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: the moderating impact of industry- technological opportunities. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1713-1735. https://doi.org/10.2307/257076 22 | Driss El Kadiri Boutchich Author Driss El Kadiri Boutchich Professor-Researcher at the Higher School of Technology, Mohammed First University, Morocco. He is also Director of the research laboratory in Management and Development of Enterprises and Organizations. He has a PhD in applied economics and a graduate degree in management techniques. He is a reviewer in several international journals including SCOPUS indexed journals. Finally, he is the author of several scientific works in French and in English in journals including SCOPUS indexed journals, book chapters and proceedings. Correspondence to: Prof. dr Driss El Kadiri Boutchich, Higher School of Technology, Mohammed First Univer- sity, Morocco, e-mail: d.elkadiriboutchich@ump.ma ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5824-4441 Acknowledgements and Financial Disclosure The author would like to thank the anonymous referees for their useful comments, which allowed increasing the value of this article. The author would like to express his gratitude to the enterprises that contributed to this work by completing the questionnaire that was administered to them. Conflict of Interest The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relation- ships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Copyright and License This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution – NoDerivs (CC BY-ND 4.0) License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ Published by Cracow University of Economics – Krakow, Poland