69 
 

CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP – DISTILLING THE CONCEPT 

 

Colene Hind * 

hindc@unisa.ac.za 

 

Renier Steyn 

steynr@unisa.ac.za 

UNISA Graduate School of Business Leadership 

*To whom correspondence should be addressed 

 

ABSTRACT 

Background: Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is credited for many positive 

organisational outcomes, including systemic growth and increased revenue. 

Several terms associated with CE, including strategic renewal, corporate 

venturing and intrapreneurship are frequently used interchangeably and often 

confuse scholars, researchers and practitioners. The lack of clarity about the 

exact meaning of these terms is detrimental to the synergy in the current body 

of knowledge and the development of models involving these concepts. 

Objective: The aim of this paper was to describe CE as a unique concept, 

distinguishable from related concepts. Methodology: Several definitions of CE 

as well as the related terms were dissected, to identify core elements 

associated with each of them. The validity of these comprehensive definitions 

was tested by requesting 68 master’s degree students to classify the 

definitions. Inter-rater reliabilities were calculated in order to assess the level 

of agreement in the classification of the constructs. Results: The results 

indicate that CE is difficult to distinguish from strategic renewal and corporate 

venturing, but that intrapreneurship seems to be better defined and separate 

from the other constructs. Conclusion: These results emphasise the 

conceptual confusion that exists around CE and the need for further 

clarification of terminology. 

 

KEY WORDS 

Corporate entrepreneurship, strategic renewal, corporate venturing, 

intrapreneurship. 

SAJESBM Volume 7 (2015)

www.sajesbm.co.za 
Article 148

mailto:hindc@unisa.ac.za
mailto:steynr@unisa.ac.za


 

70 
 

INTRODUCTION 

Increasingly research is confirming the importance of establishing corporate 

entrepreneurship (CE) as an essential success strategy (Hornsby, Kuratko, 

Holt & Wales, 2013:937), and has a direct positive influence on organisational 

performance (Bojica & del Mar Fuentes Fuentes, 2012: 397 & Urbano & 

Turro, 2013: 379). Engaging in CE is credited for many positive organisational 

outcomes, including increased shareholder value, creating and sustaining 

corporate competitiveness and innovation. With regard to shareholder value 

Zahra, Neck and Kelly (2004: 145) find that CE skills development has 

become essential if organisations are to create value for their shareholders by 

competing in new markets. Zahra (1996: 1713) makes a similar link, with 

reference to the value for shareholders. The author finds a positive 

association between executive ownership of company stock and CE, as well 

as long-term institutional ownership by using data from 127 Fortune 500 

companies. CE can be seen as a valuable wealth creation process (Ireland, 

Hitt, Camp & Sexton, 2001: 49). A literature review by Antonic and Hisrich 

(2004: 518) makes it is clear that CE is imperative to corporate vitality and 

wealth generation in the present world economy. 

 

With reference to creating and sustaining corporate competitiveness, 

Barringer and Bluedorn (1999: 421) point out that CE is a significant 

contributor to the rejuvenation of organisations, and in cases their survival. 

Covin and Miles (1999: 47) and Goodale, Kuratko, Hornsby and Covin       

(2011: 116) add that CE can be utilised to improve an organisations’ 

competitive positioning through transformation of industries, products and 

markets or exploiting value-creating innovation. Teng (2007: 119) states that 

for a firm to successfully and consistently be faster than its competitors, 

collective CE activity is essential. Covin and Miles (1999: 47) further suggest 

that certain generic forms of CE can be successfully utilised as methods 

towards competitive advantage.  

 

As for innovation, given the challenges in developing future competencies 

balanced with nurturing present competencies, modern-day firms increasingly 

rely on CE as a means of coping (Kuratko, Ireland & Hornsby, 2004: 7). Roffe 

SAJESBM Volume 7 (2015)

www.sajesbm.co.za 
Article 148



 

71 
 

(1999: 227) finds innovation to be a crucial element in the wellbeing of 

organisations. The practice of CE enhances an organisation's ability to 

practise this crucial element of innovation. Zahra (1991: 259) and Coad and 

Rao (2008: 633) use the term “super-star” growth when observing growth in 

high-tech sectors, and state that this type of growth is inseparable form 

innovation.  

 

Many more positive outcomes are associated with CE. These include job 

creation (Christensen, 2005: 305), successful international venturing (Yiu, Lau 

& Burton, 2007: 519; Zahra & Garvis, 2000: 469), stimulating while at the 

same time capitalising on creative thinkers (Hisrich, Peters & Shepherd, 2010: 

36) and a positive association with financial and overall organisational 

performance (Zahra, 1991: 259; Zahra, 1995: 43). 

 

Zahra (2005: xv), in the introduction of a special journal edition on corporate 

entrepreneurship expresses frustration at the absence of a “unified and widely 

excepted” definition of the concept of CE. Several terms associated with CE 

can be found in the academic literature, including strategic renewal, corporate 

venturing and intrapreneurship. However, the existence of a general, agreed 

on definition is difficult to find (van Wyk & Andonisi, 2012: 66) and ambiguities 

in terminology used exist (Sharma & Chrisman, 1999: 13). Barreira, Dhliwayo, 

Luiz, Naude and Urban (2012: 139) echoes this and suggest that authors do 

not distinguish between the terms "corporate entrepreneurship" and 

"intrapreneurship". Parker (2011: 19) demonstrates this ambiguity and notes 

that intrapreneurship is also known as corporate entrepreneurship or 

corporate venturing. Hornsby, Kuratko and Zahra (2002: 254; seminal authors 

in the field of CE) further illustrate these ambiguities when they state that CE 

is also referred to as corporate venturing or intrapreneurship. From the 

aforementioned, and stated by Covin and Miles (1999: 48), the term CE is 

sometimes used broadly, to refer to multiple concepts, and sometimes very 

specific, referring to well-defined concepts. Even though there are some 

agreement on what CE is, authors use different terms when expressing 

themselves on this topic (Sharma & Chrisman, 1999: 11). 

 

SAJESBM Volume 7 (2015)

www.sajesbm.co.za 
Article 148



 

72 
 

Fifteen years ago, Sharma and Chrisman (1999: 11) notes that for 

researchers to be able to build on existing work it is imperative that the 

research concept be clearly defined. The authors extend this importance 

beyond the academic field to practitioners. Sharma and Chrisman (1999: 11) 

state that only when concepts are clearly defined can practitioners decide 

whether research findings are indeed applicable to them. This concern is still 

valid and Cooper and Schindler (2011: 54) stated that clarity regarding a 

concept also saves future time and money spent on research efforts. 

 

RESEARCH 

The aim of this research was to present definitions unique to CE and the 

related terms of strategic renewal, corporate venturing and intrapreneurship. 

This aim was achieved with cognisance of similar research on differentiating 

between CE-related terms done by Nath (2007, no page) and Sharma and 

Chrisman (1999: 11). 

 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

Before exploring definitions of terms in the field of CE, let us briefly turn to its 

root term, namely entrepreneurship, and progress made in distilling the 

meaning of this concept. A significant amount of studies in the field of 

entrepreneurship exists, yet the debate regarding an agreed upon definition 

for this root construct is very much alive (Howorth, Tempest & Coupland, 

2005: 24). Davidsson (2003: 316) states that the literature is lavished with 

definitions, however all these definitions differ along several dimensions. 

These dimensions include dispositions, outcomes, behaviour and even to 

which domain the discipline belongs. Hansen, Shrader and Monllor               

(2001: 285) note the presence of not only ambiguities in definitions but even 

contradictions. It is clear that agreement on exactly what constitutes 

entrepreneurship is still lacking (Landstrom, Harirchi & Astrom, 2012: 1154). 

 

Despite the above-mentioned confusion, some authors agree on certain 

mutual elements in the definition of entrepreneurship. Nieman, Hough and 

Nieuwenhuizen (2003: 9), for example, summarise the key concepts derived 

from a number of definitions. These concepts are: the entrepreneurs’ ability to 

SAJESBM Volume 7 (2015)

www.sajesbm.co.za 
Article 148



 

73 
 

identify an opportunity, the novelty of the opportunity (creativity and 

innovation), the entrepreneurs’ ability to gather the necessary resources, and 

then creating and growing the venture, a propensity for risk-taking, 

management ability and finally some kind of reward as a result of the 

entrepreneurs' efforts. The fact that there is growing consensus regarding the 

meaning of what entrepreneurship entails brings forth hope that, with time and 

discussion, concepts such as CE will be used with more precision. However, it 

must be acknowledged that small differences would continue to exist, based 

on the specific disciplinary lens applied in each study on CE. 

 

Strategic renewal, corporate venturing and intrapreneurship seem to be the 

terms most used in the literature when referring to corporate 

entrepreneurship. Definitions of the concepts associated with CE are 

presented below to obtain a comprehensive understanding of these concepts 

as presented in literature. The presented list of verbatim definitions was 

limited to four due to space constraints. However, references are made to 

other authors who have defined the concepts, and whose definitions were 

read. Following the presentation of the definitions found in the literature, a 

comprehensive and distinct definition of each of the concepts was developed. 

These definitions were formulated with due consideration of the core elements 

of those provided and cognisance of the definitions of the related terms. This 

process will be explained further in the methodology section. 

 

Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) 

The following are definitions of CE. These definitions were selected from a 

long list of definitions based on recency as well as comprehensiveness. 

 

… is seen as the sum of a company’s innovation, renewal, and 

venturing efforts (CE1; Zahra,1995: 227). 

 

… is generally believed to refer to the development of new ideas and 

opportunities within large or established businesses, directly leading to 

the improvement of organizational profitability and an enhancement of 

SAJESBM Volume 7 (2015)

www.sajesbm.co.za 
Article 148



 

74 
 

competitive position or the strategic renewal of an existing business 

(CE2; May, 2014: no page). 

 

… the term used to describe entrepreneurial behavior in an 

established, larger organization. … to gain a competitive advantage by 

encouraging innovation at all levels in the organization (CE3; Burns,  

2008: 13). 

 

… the process by which teams within an established company 

conceive, foster, launch and manage a new business that is distinct 

from the parent company but leverages the parent’s assets, market 

position, capabilities or other resources. It differs from corporate 

venture capital, which predominantly pursues financial investments in 

external companies (CE4; Wolcott & Lippitz, 2007: 75). 

 

Barreira, Dhliwayo, Luiz, Naude and Urban (2012: 139), Barringer and 

Bluehorn (1999: 139), Birkinshaw (1997: 208), Corbett, Covin, O’Connor and 

Tucci (2013: 812), Covin and Miles (1999: 49), Gomez-Haro, Aragon-Correa 

and Cordon-Pozo (2001: 1678), Guth and Ginsburg (1990: 5), Hornsby, 

Kuratko and Zahra (2002: 254), Kuratko, Morris and Covin (2011: 110), 

Morris, Kuratko and Covin (2008: 11), Sharma and Chrisman (1999: 18), 

Zahra (1995: 260–261), Zahra (1996: 1714–1715) and Zahra and Covin 

(1995: 44) also provide definitions of CE. The aforementioned list of 

definitions, as well as the verbatim definitions, and definitions of the related 

terms, were considered when formulating a unique CE definition. CE was 

defined as “a broad concept which refers to strategic organizational 

adaptation to improve an organization’s position”. 

 

Strategic renewal 

Strategic renewal can be defined as follows: 

 

(The) phenomenon whereby the organization seeks to redefine its 

relationship with its markets or industry competitors by fundamentally 

altering how it competes (SR1; Covin & Miles, 1999: 52). 

SAJESBM Volume 7 (2015)

www.sajesbm.co.za 
Article 148



 

75 
 

 

An evolutionary process associated with promoting, accommodating, 

and utilizing new knowledge and innovative behaviour in order to bring 

about change in an organization’s core competencies and/or change in 

its product market domain (SR2; Hopkins, Malette & Hopkins,             

2013: 77). 

 

… involves the creation of new wealth through new combinations of 

resources (SR3; Guth & Ginsberg, 1990: 6). 

 

… corresponds to a broader array of entrepreneurial initiatives that do 

not necessarily involve new businesses being added to the firm. All 

forms of this phenomenon have one thing in common: They all involve 

organizationally consequential innovations that are adopted in the 

pursuit of competitive advantage (SR4; Kuratko et al, 2011: 97). 

 

Corbett, Covin, O’Connor and Tucci (2013: 812), Dess, Ireland, Zahra, Floyd, 

Janney and Lane (2003: 335), Sáez-Martínez and González-Moreno (2011: 

44), Agarwal and Helfat (2009: 282), and Flier, Van den Bosch and Volberda 

(2003: 2168) also provide definitions of strategic renewal and their definitions, 

with the definition of the related constructs, were considered when defining 

the construct. Strategic renewal was defined as “primarily internal changes to 

the organisation which occurs as a result of strategic organisational 

adaptation”.  

 

Corporate venturing 

The following definitions of corporate venturing are typical of those used in 

literature and are quoted as examples: 

 

… the process of actively investing in small start-up business by large 

firms (CV1; Birkinshaw, Van Batenburg & Murray, 2002: 11). 

 

SAJESBM Volume 7 (2015)

www.sajesbm.co.za 
Article 148



 

76 
 

It involves investment in high-risk activities that generate new business 

within or closely related to the activities of the parent corporation (CV2; 

Husted & Vintergaard, 2004: 296). 

 

…concerned with larger businesses needing to manage new, 

entrepreneurial business separate from the mainstream activity (CV3; 

Burns, 2008: 13) 

 

 (It) involves entrepreneurial efforts in which established business 

organizations invest in and/or create new businesses (CV4; Sharma & 

Chrisman, 1999: 18). 

 

Basu and Wadhwa (2013:  965), Birkinshaw (1997: 208), Guth and Ginsberg 

(1990: 6), Kuratko, Montagno and Hornsby (1990: 50), Miles and Covin (2002: 

21), Kuratko et al (2011: 86) and Thornhill and Amit (2000: 26) also provide 

definitions of the concept. Given these and the other definitions provided in 

this section, corporate venturing was defined as to refer to “the creation or 

acquisition of new business units with the aim to improve the organisation's 

position”. 

 

Intrapreneurship 

The following are definitions of intrapreneurship: 

 

… individual or individuals (who) champion new product ideas within a 

corporate context (I1; Covin & Miles, 1999: 48). 

 

The act of behaving like an entrepreneur while working within a large 

organization (I2; Murray, 2012). 

 

Individuals who are typically defined as intra-organizational 

revolutionaries entrepreneurs within established organizations (I3; 

Teltumbde, 2006: 129). 

 

SAJESBM Volume 7 (2015)

www.sajesbm.co.za 
Article 148



 

77 
 

…a peculiar mix of skills that combine attributes of the entrepreneur 

with those of corporate managers (I4: Sayeed & Gazdar, 2003:76). 

 

Definitions of the concept are also provided by Burns (2008: 13), Kuratko, 

Montagno and Hornsby (1990:49), Moriano, Molero, Topa & Levy Mangin 

(2014: 103) Villiers-Scheepers (2011: 250) and Subramanium (2005: 488). 

Given the aforementioned literature, intrapreneurship was defined as to refer 

to “the employee activities which facilitates entrepreneurial activity within an 

organization”. 

 

METHODOLOGY 

An exploratory study was conducted. This is necessary with CE, because 

there is a lack of clarity relating to the concept and this justifies such 

exploration (Cooper & Schindler, 2011: 143). The first objective was to 

develop simple yet comprehensive definitions of CE and the related terms.  

 

The unit of analysis was direct or verbatim quotes of definitions of the 

concepts under discussion, namely CE, corporate venturing and 

entrepreneurship. These concepts were selected because of their prominence 

in the CE literature and specifically the reference of Hornsby et al. (2002; a 

seminal work in the area of CE), who states that these concepts are used 

interchangeably. The definitions were primarily from journal articles, but some 

academic textbooks were also used. In total 43 definitions were collected.  

 

The definitions were listed by the authors in table form to ease the analysis 

process. Similarities and differences were identified and summarised. This 

was done on a concept level and across concepts. Based on this analysis 

comprehensive definitions were developed by the authors. The aim was 

capturing the essence of each of the concepts. In table 1 the results of this 

process are reported. 

 

To determine if these new definitions of the concepts effectively capture the 

essence of the constructs and allow readers to effectively differentiate 

between the constructs, the assistance of master’s degree students were 

SAJESBM Volume 7 (2015)

www.sajesbm.co.za 
Article 148



 

78 
 

requested. Those willing to participate were asked to classify the source 

definitions (those used to develop the new definitions) according to the new, 

comprehensive definitions. The verbatim source definitions were provided to 

the students with the reference of the concept being defined left out. Table 2 

resembles the design of the form on which the respondents indicated their 

answers. 

 

Next, a statistical test was sourced to determine to what extent the 

respondents were able to classify the source definitions to correspond with 

those definitions developed by the authors. Inter-rater reliability, as described 

by Shaughnessy, Zechmeister and Zechmeister (2009: 122) was used. They 

state that inter-rater reliability is simply the number of times observers agreed 

divided by the times they had the opportunity to agree, presented as a 

percentage. They also state that “although there is no hard-and-fast 

percentage of agreement that defines low inter-rater reliability, researchers 

generally report estimates of reliability that exceed 85%” (Shaughnessy at al, 

2009: 122). This margin was set as the margin of acceptance in this research. 

Should this level be achieved, it will be indicative of the success of the 

comprehensive definition in capturing the essence of the construct. 

 

FINDINGS 

The first group of findings are the comprehensive definitions developed from 

literature. These are presented in table 1. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAJESBM Volume 7 (2015)

www.sajesbm.co.za 
Article 148



 

79 
 

Table 1 

Comprehensive definitions of CE, strategic renewal, corporate venturing 

and intrapreneurship 

Concept Definitions 

CE CE is a broad concept which refers to strategic 

organizational adaptation to improve an organization’s 

position. 

Strategic renewal Strategic renewal is primarily internal changes to the 

organisation which occurs as a result of strategic 

organisational adaptation. 

Corporate 

venturing 

Corporate venturing is the creation or acquisition of new 

business units with the aim to improve the 

organisation's position. 

Intrapreneurship Intrapreneurship is the employee activities which 

facilitates entrepreneurial activity within an organisation. 

 

The respondents were asked to classify source definitions under the headings 

of the definitions provided in table 1. Table 2 presents data on the consensus 

about the representivity of these definitions. The matches are presented in 

bold. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAJESBM Volume 7 (2015)

www.sajesbm.co.za 
Article 148



 

80 
 

Table 2 

Respondent’s classification of source definitions 

 Comprehensive definitions 

Source 

definitions 
CE SR CV I 

1 SR1 33 28a/68b  

= 0.411c 

7 0 

2 I1 4 3 13 48/68 = 0.705 

3 CV1 7 2 51/68 = 0.750 8 

4 CE1 28/68 = 0.411 24 14 2 

5 SR2 23 34/68 = 0.500 5 6 

6 CE2 26/68 = 0.382 23 12 7 

7 CV2 8 8 49/68 = 0.720 3 

8 I2 5 1 3 59/68 = .867 

9 SR3 7 18/38 = 0.264 39 4 

10 I3 2 1 2 63/68 = 0.926 

11 CV3 14 13 38/68 = 0.558 3 

12 CV4 5 7 51/68 = 0.750 5 

13 CE3 25/68 = 0.367 14 1 28 

14 SR4 26 33/68 = 0.485 7 2 

15 I4 8 1 3 56/68 = 0.823 

16 CE4 16/68 = 0.235 22 23 7 

Average 

reliability 
0.349 0.415 0.694 0.830 

aThe number of individuals who could pair the source definition with the new definition. 
bThis is n = the number of individuals who could have paired the definitions correctly. 
cThe inter-rater reliability . 

 

From table 2 it can be observed that the average reliability for CE, strategic 

renewal and corporate venturing was far below the margin set by 

Shaughnessy et al (2009: 122). Although close to the margin of .85, the value 

of intrapreneurship was below this level. In no cases did the respondents 

agree, to the satisfaction of the set guideline, with the creators of the 

SAJESBM Volume 7 (2015)

www.sajesbm.co.za 
Article 148



 

81 
 

comprehensive definition, that the source definitions feed into the 

comprehensive definitions. 

 

DISCUSSION 

The authors of this paper went to great lengths to create a simple yet 

comprehensive definition of CE and the related terms. The authors were 

convinced, as many before them, that their definitions captured the essence 

of the source information they used. They were also convinced that the 

definitions were developed in such a way as to be unambiguous, leaving no 

doubt as to what is defined. Testing the validity of this conviction, the authors 

engaged 68 master’s degree students, to assess to what extent they concur. 

The expectations of the authors were not met, and in none of the cases did 

the respondents concur sufficiently with the authors on the way they applied 

the source definitions. 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The authors failed to provide definitions that were seen as representative of 

CE and the related terms. Respondents were still confused about how the 

final definitions related to their presumed sources. A way to address the 

problem of not being able to distinguish between terms may be addressed by 

shying away from the use of the terms (say CE, entrepreneurship, 

intrapreneurship) and rather using descriptions when dealing with these 

matters. It may be more useful to say “I am investigating a broad concept 

which refers to strategic organizational adaptation to improve an 

organization’s position” than “I am investigating CE”. 

 

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 

The use of students as respondents is also limiting, firstly as they had very 

little to gain from participating in the study and as such legitimate questions 

may be asked about their motivation to engage in the material. The motivation 

of the participant could be enhanced by offering incentives to participate or 

linking their participation to their own learning or projects in which they are 

involved. Secondly participants were students enrolled in a master's course 

that covers material on general business aspects. The course material does 

SAJESBM Volume 7 (2015)

www.sajesbm.co.za 
Article 148



 

82 
 

not cover specific information on entrepreneurship or corporate 

entrepreneurship. Thus, their lack of background knowledge in the field could 

be seen as a limitation.  

 

CONCLUSION  

The last word on how to define CE, and the related terms, has not been 

written yet. As is the case with entrepreneurship, the road to finding some 

clarity on how to define CE may be a long road. The authors take comfort in 

the fact that use of a term such as entrepreneurship still confuses academics 

and practitioners alike. 

 

“Examine your words well, and you will find that even when you have 

no motive to be false, it is a very hard thing to say the exact truth.” 

 

 - George Eliot, Adam Bede - 

 

REFERENCES 

Agarwal, R & Helfat, CE. 2009. Strategic renewal of organisations. 

Organisation Science, 20(2):281-293. 

Barreira, J, Dhliwayo, S, Luiz, J, Naude, W & Urban, B. 2012. Frontiers in 

Entrepreneurship. (5th ed). Johannesburg: Heinemann Publishers.  

Barringer, BR & Bluedorn, AC. 1999. The relationship between corporate 

entrepreneurship and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 

20: 421–444. 

Basu, S & Wadhwa, A. 2013. External venturing and discontinuous strategic 

renewal: An options perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 

30(5): 956-975. 

Birkinshaw, J. 1997. Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: the 

characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 18(3): 

207–229. 

Birkinshaw, J, Van Batenburg, R & Murray, G. 2002. Venturing to succeed. 

Business Strategy Review, 13(4): 10–17. 

 

SAJESBM Volume 7 (2015)

www.sajesbm.co.za 
Article 148



 

83 
 

Bojica, AM & Del Mar Fuentes Fuentes, M. 2012. Knowledge acquisition and 

corporate entrepreneurship: Insights from Spanish SMEs in the ICT sector. 

Journal of World Business, 47(3): 397-408. 

Burns, P. 2008. Corporate entrepreneurship. Building the entrepreneurial 

organization. (2nd ed) London. Palgrave Macmillan. 

Christensen, KS. 2005. Enabling intrapreneurship: the case of a knowledge-

intensive industrial company. European Journal of Innovation Management, 

8(3): 305–322. 

Coad, A & Rao, R. 2008. Innovation and firm growth in high-tech sectors: A 

quantile regression approach. Research Policy, 37: 633–648. 

Cooper, RC & Schindler, SS. 2011. Business research methods. London: 

McGraw-Hill Education. 

Corbett, A, Covin, JG, O’Connor, GC & Tucci, CL. 2013. Corporate 

entrepreneurship: State-of-the-art research and a future agenda. Journal Of 

Product Innovation Management, 30(5): 812-820. 

Covin, JG & Miles MP. 1999. Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of 

competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Spring: 47–63. 

Davidsson, P. 2003. The domain of entrepreneurship research: some 

suggestions. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 6: 

315–372.  

Dess, GG, Ireland, RD, Zahra, SA, Floyd, SW, Janney, JJ & Lane, PJ. 2003. 

Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 

29(3): 351–378. 

Flier, B, Van den Bosch, FAJ & Volberda, HW. 2003. Co-evolution in strategic 

behaviour of British, Dutch and French financial incumbents: Interaction of 

environmental selection, institutional effects and managerial intentionality. 

Journal of Management Studies, 40(8): 2163–2187. 

Gomez-Haro, S, Aragon-Correa, JA & Cordon-Pozo, E. 2011. Differentiating 

the effects of the institutional environment on corporate entrepreneurship. 

Management Decision, 49(10): 1677–1693. 

Goodale, CJ, Kuratko, DF, Hornsby, JS, Covin, JG. 2011. Operations 

management and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating effect of 

operations control on the antecedents of corporate entrepreneurial activity in 

SAJESBM Volume 7 (2015)

www.sajesbm.co.za 
Article 148



 

84 
 

relation to innovation performance. Journal of Operations Management, 29: 

116–127. 

Guth, WD & Ginsberg, A. 1990. Guest editors’ introduction: corporate 

entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11: 5–15. 

Hansen, DJ, Shrader, R & Monllor, J. 2001. Defragmenting definitions of 

entrepreneurial opportunity. Journal of Small Business management, 49(2): 

283–304. 

Hisrich, RD, Peters, MP & Shepherd, DA. 2010. Entrepreneurship. (9th ed.). 

New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Hopkins, WE, Malette, P & Hopkins, SA. 2013. Proposed factors influencing 

strategic inertia/strategic renewal in organisations. Academy of Strategic 

Management Journal, 12(2): 77–94. 

Hornsby, JS, Kuratko, DF, Holt, DT & Wales, WJ. 2013 Assessing the 

measurement of organizational preparedness for corporate entrepreneurship. 

Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(5): 937-955. 

Hornsby, JS, Kuratko, DF and Zahra, SA. 2002. Middle managers’ perception 

of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a 

measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17: 253–273. 

Howorth, C, Tempest, S & Coupland, C. 2005. Rethinking entrepreneurship 

methodology and definitions of the entrepreneur. Journal of Small Business 

Enterprise Development, 12(1): 24–40. 

Husted, K & Vintergaard, C. 2004. Stimulating innovation through corporate 

venture bases. Journal of World Business, 39: 296–306. 

Ireland, RD, Hitt, MA, Camp, M & Sexton, L. 2001. Integrating 

entrepreneurship and strategic management actions to create firm wealth. 

Academy of Management Perspectives, 15(1): 49–63. 

Kuratko, DF, Ireland, RD & Hornsby, JS. 2004. Corporate entrepreneurship 

behaviour among managers: a review of theory, research and practice. 

Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm emergence and Growth, 7: 7–45. 

Kuratko, DF, Montagno, RV & Hornsby, JS. 1990. Developing an 

intrapreneurial assessment instrument for an effective corporate 

entrepreneurial environment. Strategic Management Journal, 11: 49–58. 

 

SAJESBM Volume 7 (2015)

www.sajesbm.co.za 
Article 148



 

85 
 

Kuratko, DF, Morris, MH & Covin, JG. 2011. Corporate Innovation and 

Entrepreneurship. (3rd ed). Canada. Cengage Learning. 

Landstrom, H, Harirchi, G, & Astrom, F. 2012. Entrepreneurship: Exploring the 

knowledge base. Research Policy, 41: 1154–1181. 

May, R. 2014. Corporate entrepreneurship and its importance in large 

companies. Retrieved from: 

http://www.businessdictionary.com/article/726/corporate-entrepreneurship-

and-its-importance-in-large-companies/ Accessed: 04-02-2014. 

Miles, MP & Covin, JG. 2002. Exploring the practice of corporate venturing: 

some common forms and their organisational implications. Entrepreneurship 

Theory and Practice, Spring: 21-40. 

Moriano, JA, Molera, F, Topa, G & Levy Mangin, J-P. 2014. The influence of 

transformational leadership and organizational identification on 

intrapreneurship. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 

10(2014): 103-119. 

Morris, MM, Kuratko, DF & Covin, JG. 2008. Corporate entrepreneurship and 

innovation. (2nd ed). Mason. Thomson Higher Education.  

Murray, S. 2012. Get the boss to embrace your innovation. Retrieved from: 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ab16a1a6-87b8-11e1-ade2-

00144feab49a.html#axzz2sLddCUZg Accessed: 04-02-2014. 

Nath, CL. 2007. Corporate Entrepreneurship: A Strategic and Structural 

Perspective. Paper presented at the Seventh Biennial Conference on The 

New Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, 21–23 March, Gandhinagar, India. 

Nieman, G, Hough, J & Nieuwenhuizen, C. 2003. Entrepreneurship: A South 

African perspective. (1st ed). Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers. 

Parker, SC. 2011. Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship. Journal of Business 

Venturing, 26: 19–34. 

Sáez-Martinez, FJ & Gonzalez-Moreno, A. 2001. Strategic renewal, 

cooperation, and performance: A contingency approach. Journal of 

Management and Strategy, 2(4): 43–55. 

Sayeed, OB & Gazdar, MK. 2003. Intrapreneurship: Assessing and defining 

attributes of intrapreneurs. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 12: 75–88. 

 

SAJESBM Volume 7 (2015)

www.sajesbm.co.za 
Article 148

http://www.businessdictionary.com/article/726/corporate-entrepreneurship-and-its-importance-in-large-companies/
http://www.businessdictionary.com/article/726/corporate-entrepreneurship-and-its-importance-in-large-companies/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ab16a1a6-87b8-11e1-ade2-00144feab49a.html#axzz2sLddCUZg
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ab16a1a6-87b8-11e1-ade2-00144feab49a.html#axzz2sLddCUZg


 

86 
 

Sharma, P & Chrisman, JJ. 1999. Toward a reconciliation of the definitional 

issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory 

and Practice, 23(3): 11–27. 

Shaughnessy, JJ, Zechmeister, EB & Zechmeister, JS. 2009. Research 

methods in psychology. (8th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Subramanian, N. 2005. The economics of intrapreneurial innovation. Journal 

of Economic Behavior & Organization, 58: 487–510. 

Teltumbde, A. 2006. Entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs in corporations. 

Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 31(1): 129–132. 

Teng, B-S. 2007. Corporate entrepreneurship activities through strategic 

alliances: A resource-based approach toward competitive advantage. Journal 

of Management Studies, 44(1): 119–142.  

Thornhill, S. & Amit, R. 2000. A dynamic perspective of internal fit in corporate 

venturing. Journal of Business Venturing, 16: 26–50. 

Urbano, D & Turro, A. 2013. Conditioning factors for corporate 

entrepreneurship: an in(ex)ternal approach. International Entrepreneurship 

Management Journal, 9(2013): 379-396. 

Van Wyk, R & Andonisi, M. 2012. Ascendants of corporate entrepreneurship. 

South African Journal of Business Management, 43(3): 65–78. 

Villiers-Scheepers, MJ. 2011. Motivating intrapreneurs: The relevance of 

rewards. Industry and Higher Education, 25(4): 249–263. 

Wolcott, RC & Lippitz, MJ. 2007. The Four Models of corporate 

entrepreneurship. MITSloan Management Review. Retrieved from: 

http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-four-models-of-corporate-

entrepreneurship/ Accessed: 04-02-2014. 

Yiu, DW, Lau, C & Burton, GD. 2007. International venturing by emerging 

economy firms: the effects of firm capabilities, home country networks, and 

corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of International Business Studies, 38: 

519–540. 

Zahra, SA. 1991. Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate 

entrepreneurship: an exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6: 

259–285. 

 

SAJESBM Volume 7 (2015)

www.sajesbm.co.za 
Article 148



 

87 
 

Zahra, SA. 1995. Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: The 

case of management leveraged buyouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 

10(3): 225-247. 

Zahra, SA. 1996. Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: 

the moderating impact of industry technology opportunities. Academy of 

Management Journal, 39(6): 1713–1735. 

Zahra, SA. 2005. Corporate Entrepreneurship and Growth. Cheltenham: 

Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 

Zahra, SA. & Covin, JG 1995. Contextual influences in the corporate 

entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of 

Business Venturing, 10(1): 43–58. 

Zahra, SA & Garvis, DM. 2000 International corporate entrepreneurship and 

firm performance: The moderating effect of international environmental 

hostility. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6): 469–492. 

Zahra, SA, Neck, HM & Kelly, DM. 2004. International corporate 

entrepreneurship and the evolution of organizational competence: A 

knowledge-based perspective. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm 

Emergence and Growth, 7: 145–171. 

 

 

 

 

SAJESBM Volume 7 (2015)

www.sajesbm.co.za 
Article 148