Contextualizing corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic review and future research agenda

ABSTRACT

Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is an essential concept in entrepreneurship research. Many scholars have shown CE theoretical and empirical implications for firms’ survival, development, and growth. We use a systematic literature review approach to analyse and discuss 214 articles published in top-tier journals from 1985 to 2023. This review proposes a conceptual model and highlights that little attention has been given to discussing the role of context in the corporate entrepreneurial process. Thus, we propose a research agenda for contextualizing corporate entrepreneurship concerning business, social, spatial, institutional, organizational, and ownership contexts.

KEYWORDS:

• Corporate entrepreneurship
• context
• review
• research agenda
• entrepreneurial opportunities
• entrepreneurial behaviour
• internal and external enablers

Introduction

Globally, the business environment is becoming increasingly dynamic, unpredictable, and competitive (Kuratko, Ireland, and Hornsby 2004). Current challenges related to climate change, pandemics, and poverty put new pressure on corporations to achieve purpose-driven progress (George et al. 2021). In such an environment, corporate entrepreneurship (CE) has been shown to play a significant role in firms’ survival, development, and growth (Zahra, Filatotchev, and Wright 2009) in rapidly changing environments (Lumpkin and Dess 1996). In this literature review, we adopt the definition of CE proposed by Sharma and Chrisman (1999, 18) as ‘the process whereby an individual or a group of individuals, in association with an existing organization, create a new organization or instigate renewal or innovation within that organization’.

CE is a multifaceted phenomenon explored and described from different perspectives. Although CE is a relevant research topic in several fields, such as HR (Haar and White 2013) and strategy (Barringer and Bluedorn 1999), the bulk of the related research is typically found in the entrepreneurship literature (see Table 1), which is also the disciplinary home of Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. Nonetheless, we argue for an essential theoretical and empirical gap connected to the contexts in which CE occurs. Considering the heterogeneity of contexts and the need for indigenous theory in management and entrepreneurship studies, scholars have called for considering these issues (Bruton et al. 2022; Filatotchev, Ireland, and Stahl 2022). In particular, Welter (2011) points to the need to contextualize entrepreneurship research. Contextualization connects an entrepreneurial organization with its environment and allows researchers to understand and integrate existing frameworks and theories from different perspectives of origins, forms, functioning, and diverse outcomes (Johannisson et al. 1994; Zahra 2015). In this literature review, we extend these calls to the domain of CE. Our objective is to discuss the current literature on CE and to suggest a future research agenda for CE that elucidates the importance of contextualization. The contexts considered in our review are business, spatial, social, and institutional, derived from Welter (2011), and organizational and ownership aspects, derived from Zahra (2015) and Foss et al. (2021).

Table 1. Journals and published articles.

Journal	Field	AJG 21	Stage 1	Stage 2
Academy of Management Annals	GEN-MAN&ETHICS	4*	0	0
Academy of Management Journal	GEN-MAN&ETHICS	4*	12	4
Academy of Management Review	GEN-MAN&ETHICS	4*	4	2
Administrative Science Quarterly	GEN-MAN&ETHICS	4*	5	2
Journal of Management	GEN-MAN&ETHICS	4*	30	9
Academy of Management Perspectives	GEN-MAN&ETHICS	4	3	2
British Journal of Management	GEN-MAN&ETHICS	4	8	1
Business Ethics Quarterly	GEN-MAN&ETHICS	4	0	0
Journal of Management Studies	GEN-MAN&ETHICS	4	38	16
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice	ENT&SBM	4	78	24
Journal of Business Venturing	ENT&SBM	4	88	36
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal	ENT&SBM	4	35	4
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development	ENT&SBM	3	16	4
Family Business Review	ENT&SBM	3	8	1
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research	ENT&SBM	3	18	9
International Small Business Journal	ENT&SBM	3	29	4
Journal of Small Business Management	ENT&SBM	3	43	8
Small Business Economics	ENT&SBM	3	47	27
Human Resource Management Journal (UK)	HRM&EMP	4*	3	2
British Journal of Industrial Relations	HRM&EMP	4	0	0
Human Resource Management (USA)	HRM&EMP	4	8	5
Industrial Relations	HRM&EMP	4	0	0
Work, Employment and Society	HRM&EMP	4	0	0
Journal of International Business Studies	IB&AREA	4*	6	2
Journal of World Business	IB&AREA	4	14	7
Research Policy	INNOV	4*	12	4
Journal of Product Innovation Management	INNOV	4	21	9
Organization Science	ORG STUD	4*	29	7
Human Relations	ORG STUD	4	1	0
Leadership Quarterly	ORG STUD	4	2	0
Organization Studies	ORG STUD	4	4	0
Organizational Research Methods	ORG STUD	4	2	0
Public Administration Review	PUB SEC	4*	0	0
Governance	PUB SEC	4	0	0
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory	PUB SEC	4	1	1
Public Administration	PUB SEC	4	0	0
Public Management Review	PUB SEC	4	6	3
Strategic Management Journal	STRAT	4*	46	19
Global Strategy Journal	STRAT	4	5	2
TOTAL			622	214

We use a systematic literature review approach that considers more than 35 years of CE research in top-tier journals. This review contextualizes the enablers of entrepreneurial opportunities, corporate strategies, and HR practices that sustain the entrepreneurial behaviour of existing organizations and CE output in corporate venturing, innovation, and strategic renewal. We develop and discuss an input-process-output framework of CE activities in existing organizations.

This review contributes to the field of CE by adding contextual dimensions and extending the conversation on contextualizing entrepreneurship at the organizational level, acknowledging the context of CE. Furthermore, we contribute by offering a conceptual model that organizes the reviewed literature and identifying research gaps for future research on various contextual aspects of CE.

In the following sections, we introduce the concept and role of context in CE research. Next, we include a description of our review method. Thereafter, a conceptual model developed from the review analysis is presented. Finally, we discuss promising avenues for future research and offer concluding remarks.

Introducing CE

Several definitions of CE have been proposed. Authors have referred to Burgelman’s (1983, 1349) seminal definition of CE as ‘the process whereby firms engage in diversification through internal development’. According to Burgelman (1983), diversification requires a firm to use a combination of new resources to undertake activities in unrelated or marginally related areas within its existing domain of competencies. Burgelman’s definition of CE stresses the internal venturing activities of a firm through the utilization of existing competencies. In addition to discussing internal venturing, Guth and Ginsberg (1990, 5) described ‘CE in terms of two types of phenomena: (1) the birth of new businesses within existing organizations, i.e. internal innovation or venturing, and (2) the transformation of organizations through a renewal of the key ideas on which they are built, i.e. strategic renewal’. Consistent with Guth and Ginsberg (1990), Zahra (1993, 321) defined CE as ‘a process of organizational renewal that has two distinct but related dimensions: innovation and venturing, and strategic renewal’.

Moreover, Zahra (1995, 227) conceptualized CE as ‘the sum of a company’s innovation, renewal, and venturing efforts’. Similarly, Sharma and Chrisman (1999, 18) described CE as ‘the process whereby an individual or a group of individuals, in association with an existing organization, create a new organization or instigate renewal or innovation within that organization’. Corporate venturing is associated with creating new businesses within an organization through expanding operations in existing or new markets (Zahra 1995). Innovation is related to creating and introducing new products, processes, and systems (Zahra 1996). Strategic renewal involves using a new combination of resources, improving competitiveness through new products or processes for creating wealth within an established organization (Guth and Ginsberg 1990; Zahra 1993).

Covin and Miles (1999, 50) explained CE as ‘the presence of innovation plus the presence of the objective of rejuvenating or purposefully redefining organizations, markets or industries to create or sustain competitive superiority’. Covin and Miles (1999) identified four forms of the phenomenon of CE: sustained regeneration, organizational rejuvenation, strategic renewal, and domain redefinition. On the other hand, CE is conceptualized not only as the creation of a new business inside an existing firm but also as other innovative activities, such as the ‘development of new products, services, technologies, administrative technologies, strategies, and competitive postures’ (Antoncic and Hisrich 2001, 498). In addition, CE is conceptualized in terms of entrepreneurial behaviour involving organizational sanctions and commitments to introduce different types of innovative activities (Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra 2002). Furthermore, as a strategy, CE requires a set of commitments, decisions, and entrepreneurial behaviours necessary for a firm to enhance its current and future competitive success (Kuratko, Ireland, and Hornsby 2004). From the strategy perspective, Ireland et al. (2009, 21) defined CE strategy as ‘a vision-directed, organization-wide reliance on entrepreneurial behaviour that purposefully and continuously rejuvenates the organization and shapes the scope of its operations through the recognition and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunity’. Thus, CE has been seen as an important factor contributing to the success and performance of a firm, allowing it to explore new opportunities and competencies in the market (Covin and Miles 1999; Kuratko et al. 2005; Zahra 1996). Moreover, CE can be an appropriate adaptation mechanism when organizations face a rapidly changing competitive environment (Lumpkin and Dess 1996).

The role of context in entrepreneurship research

There has been growing recognition and consideration of context in entrepreneurship research (Baker and Welter 2018; Korsgaard et al. 2022; Shepherd et al. 2019; Welter 2011; Wigren-Kristoferson et al. 2022; Zahra 2015). Context is the ‘circumstances, conditions, situations, or environments that are external to the respective phenomenon and enable or constrain it’ (Welter 2011, 167). The study of context in entrepreneurship has generated novel explanations of the phenomenon and fostered the emergence of various theoretical perspectives in entrepreneurship research across different settings (Zahra 2015). The need to understand the different contextual variables influencing the entrepreneurial efforts of a firm calls for further research to advance the knowledge and theoretical perspectives of the area (Zahra 2015), especially considering that entrepreneurs are embedded in different contexts simultaneously (Korsgaard et al. 2022). Context is also significant in understanding the situations under which entrepreneurship occurs, how and why it arises, and who becomes involved (Welter 2011). For example, entrepreneurs in different cultural contexts perceive the value of a particular resource differently and identify opportunities differently (Dana 2007).

Welter (2011) identifies context dimensions as business, social, spatial, and institutional contexts. The business context, which focuses on industries and markets, is the most studied context in entrepreneurship research. The social context comprises the use of the networks of a firm with various stakeholders and communities to recognize and utilize entrepreneurial opportunities important to the firm. The spatial context emphasizes the importance of geographical location for entrepreneurial opportunities. The institutional context focuses on the influence of formal and informal institutions on opportunity recognition. In addition to Welter’s (2011) context dimensions, we include ownership and organizational contexts, which are emphasized in entrepreneurship research (Foss et al. 2021; Zahra 2015).

This review attempts to combine the domain of CE with the various contexts of entrepreneurship related to the recognition and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities in existing organizations. Understanding the influences of context across CE activities is important for advancing the theoretical perspectives and frameworks of the domain to provide a better explanation of CE in specific contexts (Zahra 2015; Zahra and Covin 1995). Therefore, contextualizing CE within business, spatial, social, institutional, organizational, and ownership settings could open avenues for future research to further strengthen the knowledge and theoretical perspectives needed to explain the phenomenon based on novel insights.

Method

We used a systematic literature review because it helps uncover evidence on the topic and allows the opportunity to combine the knowledge from the literature with creating a foundation for future research (Kraus, Breier, and Dasí-Rodríguez 2020). Moreover, a systematic literature review allows for determining the effects across different studies and discovering what future studies are beneficial for developing the study area (Munn et al. 2018; Snyder 2019). To guide our systematic work, we followed the stages described by Kraus et al., (2020) and implemented in Palmaccio et al. (2021), 1) plan the review; 2) identify and evaluate articles; 3) extract and synthesize data; and 4) disseminate the results.

Stage 1. Plan the review

Identify the need

Previous review articles and special issues are important to our study and signal the field’s maturity. Therefore, taking stock of previous works, we identified one literature review on CE (Nason, McKelvie, and Lumpkin 2015), two bibliometric studies (Lampe, Kraft, and Bausch 2020; Urbano et al. 2022), and one meta-analysis (Bierwerth et al. 2015). Nason et al. (2015) focused on the role of organizational size in the heterogeneous nature of CE. Bibliometric studies have clustered the structure and theoretical foundations of the entrepreneurial organization literature (Lampe, Kraft, and Bausch 2020) and mapped the evolution of CE as a research field (Urbano et al. 2022). Finally, Bierwerth et al. (2015) conducted a meta-analytical study that mapped the nexus between CE and performance. We also identified five special issues related to CE (Corbett et al. 2013; Guth and Ginsberg 1990; Kuratko, Hornsby, and Hayton 2015; Minola et al. 2021; Phan et al. 2009).

Nonetheless, the domain of CE has not systematically considered the quest to contextualize entrepreneurship research (e.g. Welter 2011). We thereby find justification for systematically reviewing the area of CE further to advance our understanding and knowledge of this topic. We review CE, focusing on the internal and external enablers of entrepreneurial opportunities resulting in different CE activities of existing organizations. Furthermore, we considered three phases: input, process, and outcomes of CE in established organizations. We further look at the contextual dimension of CE in terms of business, social, spatial, institutional, organizational, and ownership contexts. The aspects of CE play out differently in different contexts, so we stress the need to contextualize the input, process, and output phases to advance our understanding of CE. Thus, systematically reviewing CE enables us to identify gaps and address future research.

Review protocol

The data were derived from the Web of Science core collection database using keywords (‘corporate entrepreneur*’, ‘corporate ventur*’, ‘strategic renewal’, and ‘intrapreneur*’) appearing in the title, keywords, and abstracts of the articles. This initial search of the Web of Science resulted in 2 883 articles. For better quality of the review process, our research team agreed to use the Web of Science database, focusing on top-tier journals rated in the AJG list (2021) as 3–4×. We further limited our search to journals in fields relevant to CE. For the core field of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management”, we included all the journals ranked as AJG 3 or above. In the fields of ‘General Management, Ethics, Gender, and Social Responsibility’, ‘Human Resource Management and Employment Studies’, ‘Innovation’, ‘International Business and Area Studies’, ‘Organizational Studies’, ‘Public Sector’, and ‘Strategy’, we included all the journals in AJG 4 and 4 × . With these restrictions, our search resulted in 622 articles.

Stage 2: identify and evaluate the articles

We analysed the abstracts of the 622 articles to identify those focused on phases and dimensions of CE in line with our research aim. We followed a three-step iterative process for the inclusion and exclusion of articles in the review. First, we carefully read the abstracts, and those articles that did not rely on the concepts of CE or its forms in terms of corporate venturing, innovation, or strategic renewal in the abstract were excluded from the sample. In this regard, we reduced our sample to 236 articles. Second, a careful reading of the full articles was performed to identify the final sample articles for the review. In this regard, we excluded articles that mentioned one of the keywords but did not address research on CE. In addition, we excluded articles focused on general venture capital investment, which is believed to be a broader concept than the study area. Moreover, innovation is considered one of the core dimensions of CE activities; relevant articles focus on CE. For example, the review did not include studies related to innovation from a ‘technological push’ perspective (Bierwerth et al. 2015). By doing so, we excluded 22 articles, yielding a final sample of 214 contributions. Finally, the third step examined the 214 identified papers to identify the role of context (business, spatial, social, institutional, organizational, ownership) in theoretically defining and empirically assessing CE. This was done by reading the full text of each article once more and identifying clear references to any of the six contextual dimensions. In doing so, we singled out 42 contributions that devoted explicit attention to closely describing at least one of the contextual dimensions.

Stage 3: extract and synthesize the data

Data extraction

We retrieved the final sample of 214 articles from the Web of Science database and produced a spreadsheet for the later review steps. The table provides the following information: author(s), article titles, source title, publication year, volume, issue, pages, article number, source and document type, publication stage, DOI, abstract, and keywords.

Data synthesis

We added columns to the spreadsheet to aid the systematic analysis and capture methods, theories, hypotheses, sample information, countries, sectors, main findings, and conclusions. Finally, we conducted a content analysis of the full-text articles that allowed us to identify categories and synthesize the main themes and contextual dimensions in the sample.

Stage 4: disseminating the review results

Our systematic literature review tries to identify those enablers of entrepreneurial opportunities in existing organizations resulting in the pursuit of different CE activities. Thus, we develop and analyse the conceptual model from the review articles organized in terms of an input, process, and output framework. Then, we discuss the context of CE in terms of business, social, spatial, institutional, organizational, and ownership dimensions to identify research gaps. Finally, adopting the approach of the most recent systematic reviews in the entrepreneurship literature, we developed a research agenda (see, e.g. Ivanycheva et al. 2023; Shepherd et al. 2019, 2021).

An overview of the four stages of our systematic review method is illustrated in Figure 1, and the list with the number of articles in each journal and field of study is presented in Table 1.

Figure 1. Systematic review method.

Conceptual model

The conceptual model presented in this review is composed of, adapted to, and organized by the literature included in the review. The model depicts the relationships between the three phases of input, process, and output and outlines the six contextual dimensions we have mapped across the studies. The first part of the model explains the input needed as an enabler to facilitate entrepreneurial opportunities in existing organizations that result in entrepreneurial actions to pursue CE. The model’s input phase combines external and internal enablers that facilitate firms’ identification and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities (EO) in existing organizations to engage in different CE activities. The second phase of the model explains the procedural aspect of how entrepreneurial opportunities trigger entrepreneurial behaviour (EB) that leads to CE. Corporate strategy and human resource-related aspects are included to reveal how these aspects facilitate entrepreneurial actions in existing organizations. In the third phase of the model, the output of CE activities is explained in terms of corporate venturing, innovation, and strategic renewal. The bottom line presents the six contextual dimensions: business, spatial, social, institutional, organizational, and ownership context. Each contextual dimension applies to the three phases and influences CE input, process, and output. Figure 2 summarizes the conceptual model used to organize, structure, and discuss the literature. This conceptual model highlights the broad categories under which the various themes identified in the literature are further grouped. The papers considered in this review can appear in multiple phases, categories, and contextual dimensions. In the following sections, each part of the model is discussed and analysed according to the literature included in the review, and an overview of how CE has been contextualized in previous studies is provided.

Figure 2. The conceptual model.

Input

Entrepreneurial opportunities

Research highlights the importance of recognizing and exploiting EO for established organizations to gain a competitive edge, as such opportunities are central to CE strategies (Barney, Foss, and Lyngsie 2018; Bloodgood et al. 2015; Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009). Studies indicate that in dynamic industrial contexts, firms must continually identify such opportunities (De Clercq, Dimov, and Thongpapanl 2010), which can arise across different industry segments (Hoskisson et al. 2011). Exploring EO is linked to enhancing firms’ engagement in CE (Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009; Zahra 1996; An et al. 2018). This process not only stimulates firms’ existing and new capabilities (Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009) but also relies on the contributions of knowledgeable and experienced employees and management teams (Bloodgood et al. 2015; Heavey and Simsek 2013; Ren and Guo 2011; Turro, Alvarez, and Urbano 2016). However, an organizational context characterized by supportive structures, cultures, and reward systems is essential for effectively recognizing and leveraging these opportunities (Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009).

External enablers

Davidsson (2015, p. 683) defines external enabler as ‘single distinct, external circumstancewhich has the potential of playing an essential role in eliciting and/or enabling a variety of entrepreneurial endeavors by several (potential) actors’. According to Davidsson et al. (2020), ‘external enablers occur and operate in a context of existing circumstances, which we analytically construe as stable to contrast the change represented by the enabler. In this sense, external enablers are relational’. They include forces and elements external to an organization’s boundaries that influence its entrepreneurial actions (Davidsson, Recker, and von Briel 2020). The external environment poses challenges and offers new opportunities for firms to respond creatively through CE. Cestino et al. (in press recently presented how external enablers in existing organizations favour the emergence, novelty, and persistence of CE initiatives. Hence, the external enablers in the proposed model relate to the dimensions of a firm’s external environment. These dimensions include intense competition, technological change, government policy and support, and environmental scanning. While external enables are deeply rooted in the context in which firms operate, we found a limited number of papers that embrace the opportunity to deepen their consideration of the different dimensions of context (e.g. Boone et al. 2019; Doh and Pearce 2004; Romero-Martínez, Fernández-Rodríguez, and Vázquez-Inchausti 2010; Vanacker, Zahra, and Holmes 2021; Yiu and Lau 2008).

Intense competition

Intense competition enhances CE and adaptability to change (Romero-Martínez, Fernández-Rodríguez, and Vázquez-Inchausti 2010; Zahra 1993). Studies link competition for resources to increased entrepreneurial activities, innovation, and new ventures (Antoncic and Hisrich 2001; Guth and Ginsberg 1990), pushing firms to develop new competencies (Basu and Wadhwa 2013), transforming the organizational context (Yiu and Lau 2008), and balancing exploitation with exploration (Kammerlander et al. 2015). With particular attention given to the business context, Yiu and Lau (2008) focus on emerging markets, showing how firms use CE for resource configuration and strategic renewal and highlighting the role of social networks. Romero-Martínez et al. (2010) explore changes in the organizational context due to privatization, showing the adaptability needed for dynamic markets and how shifts from state to private ownership affect CE, governance, and management, revealing the intricate relationship between the organizational context and competitive strategy.

Technological change

Globalization and technological evolution increase the demands on firms’ CE efforts. Technological advancements impact mature industries, new product development, and innovation activities (Agarwal and Helfat 2009; Kim and Pennings 2009; Zahra 1993), revealing the necessity of innovation and renewal to navigate technological uncertainties and disruptions (Ahuja and Lampert 2001; Boone et al. 2019), where technological change stimulates CE in existing organizations (Kellermanns and Eddleston 2006; Zahra 1996). The business context is therefore led by firms investing significantly in product and technology development, exploring new technologies, leveraging assets for product improvement, and engaging in venturing and innovation (Basu and Wadhwa 2013; Zahra and Covin 1995). Additionally, the complexity and pace of technological transitions stimulate the search for external knowledge (Keil et al. 2008). Unexpectedly, when mapping this cluster of studies, we found very little attention given to the role of context. Only one paper has considered the organizational context by capturing how TMT nationality diversity and culture impact organizational structures (e.g. decentralization) and facilitate or hinder corporate entrepreneurship and innovation (Boone et al. 2019).

Government policy and support

Government policy significantly influences the institutional context, impacting CE by shaping entrepreneurial decisions (Doh and Pearce 2004; Fini and Toschi 2016). Policy changes such as democratization, privatization, deregulation, and trade liberalization transform market structures and business strategies, forcing the need to change operations and strategic positions (Yiu and Lau 2008). Governments are fundamental in providing firms with funding, information, services, and legitimacy, creating the conditions for developing new entrepreneurial initiatives and ventures (Doh and Pearce 2004; Heavey and Simsek 2013; Yiu and Lau 2008). Moreover, government policy, social networks, and country-specific institutions jointly affect CE, directly impacting decisions and performance. Studies such as Yiu and Lau (2008) emphasize the role of social networks in providing resources and legitimacy for competitive advantage, while research by Doh and Pearce (2004) and Vanacker et al. (2021) highlights the need for firms to respond to policy changes and how country-specific institutions affect entrepreneurial success.

Environmental scanning

Firms need to conduct thorough environmental scanning to detect and leverage changes in their environment, aiding in the timely gathering of crucial information and identifying threats and opportunities (Barringer and Bluedorn 1999; Zahra 1991). Such scanning has significantly contributed to CE by supporting continuous innovation and competitiveness (Antoncic and Hisrich 2001; Zahra 1991).

Internal enablers

We define internal enablers as the forces related to a firm’s internal environment influencing its CE actions. The internal enablers consist of several factors internal to the organization that enhance the entrepreneurial opportunities of the firm, enabling it to interact effectively in a competitive environment. The internal environment of an organization could also enable it to promote and pursue different entrepreneurial opportunities through which it could actively innovate and create a new venture to compete in the marketplace. Kuratko et al. (1990) proposed the use of three internal enablers in terms of management support, organizational structure, reward, and resource availability. These scales were further refined in more recent studies by Hornsby et al., 2002; 2009) and referred to as the Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument. This is a key instrument for researchers to use to measure a firm’s organizational preparedness for corporate entrepreneurship. Therefore, the internal enablers in the proposed model relate to several basic dimensions of a firm’s internal factors, which include organizational structure, organizational culture, top management support, work discretion/autonomy, effective reinforcement, and time availability. While internal enables are affected by the different types of context, it is still remarkable to emphasize that only a small portion of the studies that we mapped in this group made an extensive effort to contextualize their empirical setting; nonetheless, we identified some notable examples (e.g. Biniari 2012; De Massis, Eddleston, and Rovelli 2021; Fayolle, Basso, and Bouchard 2010; Hughes and Mustafa 2017; Lee, Makri, and Scandura 2019; Meynhardt and Diefenbach 2012; Nason, McKelvie, and Lumpkin 2015; Raitis, Sasaki, and Kotlar 2021).

Organizational structure

Organizational structure impacts firms’ CE capabilities (Brazeal 1993; De Massis, Eddleston, and Rovelli 2021; Marvel et al. 2007). Restructuring a firm to enhance innovation and decision-making has been recommended (Antoncic and Hisrich 2001; Zahra 1993). The degree of centralization or decentralization affects the pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities, with rigid structures hindering and decentralized ones favouring idea generation and innovation (Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra 2002; Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009; Ling et al. 2008; Russell and Russell 1992). Deepening the organizational context and pursuing CE initiatives in complex, multilayered organizations is challenging (Kuratko, Montagno, and Hornsby 1990). Two studies devoted particular effort to describing the organizational context and its implications for CE. Nason et al. (2015) argue that organizational size influences structures, processes, and cultures, affecting CE scalability. Fayolle et al. (2010) further explore how corporate culture, including values, norms, and practices, impacts entrepreneurial orientation (EO), underscoring the importance of organizational design and culture in fostering entrepreneurial activities.

Organizational culture

Organizational culture fosters CE through management support, work discretion, and rewards that are driven by shared assumptions and practices (Fayolle, Basso, and Bouchard 2010; Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra 2002; Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009). Key cultural elements are identified as commitment, responsibility acceptance, and high standards. Cultures that encourage proactivity, innovation, and risk-taking significantly influence CE (Kuratko et al. 2005). We identified a few studies that assess the effects of spatial, ownership, and social contexts on CE. Fayolle et al. (2010) discuss how national and cultural contexts shape CE; De Massis et al. (2021) examine the impact of ownership structures on entrepreneurial behaviour, highlighting differences between family and nonfamily firms; and Raitis et al. (2021) explore the influence of family and community values in family firms. These studies suggest that promoting CE requires a comprehensive understanding of both internal organizational dynamics and external cultural, spatial, and social influences.

Top management support

Top management is crucial in fostering entrepreneurial activities within firms, with support linked to positive entrepreneurial outcomes. Research highlights the importance of top managers in promoting and facilitating entrepreneurship through resources, expertise, and institutional support (Biniari 2012; Crawford and Kreiser 2015; Kuratko et al. 2005). Middle and operational managers are encouraged to adopt entrepreneurial behaviours when they perceive top management support (Hornsby et al. 2009). Top managers who are able to leverage opportunities, processes, and social skills favour the pursuit of entrepreneurial strategies (Kwee, Van Den Bosch, and Volberda 2011; Shimizu 2012). Hughes and Mustafa (2017), Biniari (2012), and Lee et al. (2019) enrich our understanding of the complexities surrounding top management’s support for entrepreneurial activities. Fostering CE involves not only top management’s direct actions but also the interplay of business, institutional, social, and ownership contexts. For instance, Hughes and Mustafa (2017) highlight the importance of business and institutional contexts in emerging economies, showing how internal factors such as management support and organizational culture, in addition to external regulatory frameworks and policies, play a pivotal role in enabling or constraining CE activities. Biniari (2012) and Lee et al. (2019) discuss the critical influence of social and ownership contexts. Biniari (2012) underscores the importance of emotional and social interactions between corporate entrepreneurs and other organizational members, indicating that emotional embeddedness is crucial in the entrepreneurial process. Lee et al. (2019) extend the discussion by examining the impact of family involvement and nepotism on the dynamics of top management teams, thereby affecting CE.

Work discretion/autonomy

Research highlights the importance of granting autonomy to middle and operational managers to help organizations adapt to competitive changes (Floyd and Lane 2000; Shimizu 2012). Work discretion/autonomy is characterized by an organization’s tolerance for failure, decision-making freedom, minimal oversight, and delegation of authority to lower-level staff (Hornsby et al. 2009; Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra 2002; Kuratko et al. 2005). Entrepreneurial outcomes often stem from individuals who are given the freedom to experiment entrepreneurially. Particularly interesting is the paper by Meynhardt and Diefenbach (2012), which extends this discussion by examining the impact of public sector reforms on EO within the context of Germany’s Federal Labor Agency. Their research focused on the institutional and ownership contexts of entrepreneurship by analysing how these reforms influence EO in the public sector. This perspective is particularly valuable because it highlights the unique challenges and opportunities associated with fostering entrepreneurship in a context that traditionally prioritizes stability and predictability over entrepreneurial risk-taking and innovation.

Effective reinforcement

Research defines ‘rewards and reinforcement’ as systems that provide incentives based on CE activities and successes, significantly influencing CE outcomes (Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra 2002; Kreiser et al. 2021). Effective reinforcement is positively related to CE, particularly impacting lower-level managers who may be more risk-averse; rewards help mitigate this aversion and motivate entrepreneurial behaviour by compensating for risks (Block and Ornati 1987). Without rewards or recognition for entrepreneurial efforts, there is little extrinsic motivation for engaging in risky CE activities (Hornsby et al. 2009).

Time availability

Managerial time availability is crucial for fostering corporate entrepreneurship (CE) and innovation in firms, as it enables engagement in CE processes and innovative activities (Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra 2002; Sykes and Block 1989). Managers are encouraged to allocate their available time to tasks that are most critical to their roles, with first-line managers focusing on specific, conforming activities, while senior managers have a broader scope, including organizational and external environment scanning (Floyd and Lane 2000; Hornsby et al. 2009). Adequate time is essential for promoting and developing new, innovative ideas (Kreiser et al. 2021; Kuratko et al. 2005).

Process

Entrepreneurial behavior

CE embodies established firms’ entrepreneurial behaviours (EB) and activities crucial to the business’ transformation, growth, and performance (Simsek, Veiga, and Lubatkin 2007; Zahra 1996). EB involves discovering, evaluating, and exploiting opportunities, with top management support being essential for fostering an entrepreneurial environment within organizations and providing necessary resources (Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra 2002; Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009), where effectiveness depends on the top management team’s human capital and knowledge integration skills (De Clercq, Dimov, and Thongpapanl 2010; Heavey and Simsek 2013). Organizational commitment at all levels is crucial, as managerial actions vary from strategic direction at the top to execution at the operational level (Floyd and Lane 2000; Kuratko, Hornsby, and McKelvie 2021). More than others, four papers highlighted how spatial, business, industry, institutional, and organizational contexts influence EB and CE activities. Turro et al. (2016) showed that a region’s economic development affects CE through spatial factors, including resources, market opportunities, and collaboration, which are crucial for innovation. Tang et al. (2017) find that cultural and competitive dynamics in regions such as China shape CE approaches, extending the spatial context to cultural norms and market conditions. Azulay et al. (2002) examine the defence industry’s shift to civilian markets and find that industry trends and regional developments interact, influencing entrepreneurial strategies. Soleimanof et al. (2019) explore how family firms’ governance and values impact CE, highlighting the role of family ownership in shaping entrepreneurial priorities and practices.

Corporate strategy

Strategy is an organizational-level driver of CE. By pursuing entrepreneurial strategies, firms can recognize and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities (Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009). Therefore, identifying and creating strategic opportunities is crucial for developing CE (Ben Arfi and Hikkerova 2021). The corporate strategy dimension of the proposed model includes strategic alliances, networks, orientation, and adaptation. Quite surprisingly, our expectation of finding a substantial number of studies focused on describing the business, spatial, social, and institutional contexts was not met, and only a few studies substantially contributed to the effort of contextualizing CE (e.g. Doh and Pearce 2004; Plambeck 2012; Thorgren, Wincent, and Örtqvist 2012; Yiu and Lau 2008; Yiu, Lau, and Bruton 2007).

Strategic alliances

Strategic alliances are key to enhancing CE by bridging resource gaps and granting access to essential assets, competencies, and capabilities for innovation (Hoskisson et al. 2011; Teng 2007; Yiu and Lau 2008). These alliances allow firms to combine resources uniquely, share risks, and foster innovation, especially when adapting to technological shifts (Doh and Pearce 2004; Stopford and Baden-Fuller 1994; Teng 2007). Yiu and Lau (2008) and Doh and Pearce (2004) emphasize the importance of business, social, and institutional contexts in forming strategic alliances for CE, showing that in emerging markets, alliances are crucial for resource acquisition and strategic renewal, with social networks playing a vital role in gaining resources and legitimacy. Doh & Pearce also note how public policy changes necessitate strategic adaptation of alliances for success. These insights underline strategic alliances’ reliance on complex contexts for resource accessibility and strategic flexibility in response to policy shifts.

Strategic networks

Similarly to strategic alliances, strategic networks offer firms the opportunity to gather and merge resources, enhancing their CE activities (Thorgren, Wincent, and Örtqvist 2012; Yiu, Lau, and Bruton 2007). Strategic networks support CE by facilitating resource accumulation and providing a platform for sharing and recombining information, skills, and resources; fostering innovation; reducing costs; and distributing risks. Strategic networks are deeply embedded in a social context that influences their effectiveness in supporting CE (Thorgren, Wincent, and Örtqvist 2012; Yiu, Lau, and Bruton 2007). The role of social context – in terms of relational capital, partner fit, interdependence, and the leveraging of home country networks – emerges as a critical factor in realizing the full potential of strategic networks for CE.

Strategic orientation

A strategic orientation is important for implementing a CE, guiding firms to develop new competencies and adapt to new information and knowledge to engage in innovative activities (Bruneel, Gaeremynck, and Weemaes 2022; Naldi, Achtenhagen, and Davidsson 2015; Plambeck 2012). Strategic orientation includes decisions about the firm’s product range, the markets served, and competitive strategies (Naldi, Achtenhagen, and Davidsson 2015). Plambeck (2012) provides evidence of the crucial influence of organizational context on a firm’s strategic orientation, emphasizing that managerial interpretation of contextual changes plays a key role in driving product innovativeness. This work underlines the importance of cognitive processes in strategic formulation, demonstrating how the perceptions and responses of managers to external shifts can significantly shape innovation outcomes within firms.

Human resource management

HRM integrates HR functions with strategic organizational goals to boost performance and foster a culture of innovation and flexibility (Morris, Kuratko, and Covin 2008). Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) demands specific knowledge, skills, and abilities for organizational effectiveness, necessitating HR systems that incentivize innovation and entrepreneurial behaviour. Key aspects include focusing on human capital, rewards and compensation, training and development, and the formalization of supportive policies and procedures (Kim et al. 2021). We observe that the effect of context on CE has been better captured in HRM than in other reviewed categories. In particular, the discussion of the organization context provided the most interesting insights (e.g. Adachi and Hisada 2017; Guerrero, Amorós, and Urbano 2021; Hayton 2003; Schmelter et al. 2010; Wang et al. 2022).

Human capital

Pursuing entrepreneurial opportunities requires diverse and qualified human capital (Guerrero, Amorós, and Urbano 2021; Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009). Teams with varied tenure offer a wider range of skills and experiences beneficial for CE, while the internationalization of management teams enhances R&D and innovation performance through diverse work experiences and national backgrounds (Belderbos et al. 2022; Floyd and Lane 2000). Large firms benefit from access to heterogeneous human capital, enabling specialization in various entrepreneurial processes (Barney, Foss, and Lyngsie 2018; Bojica and Fuentes 2012). Top management’s knowledge, experience, and cognitive abilities are critical for identifying entrepreneurial opportunities and proactively engaging in CE activities (Heavey and Simsek 2013; Simsek and Heavey 2011). In this context, Guerrero et al. (2021) and Wang et al. (2022) investigate the influence of organizational and social contexts on an organization’s human capital. Furthermore, looking at the ownership context, Wang et al. (2022) analyse the influence of ownership patterns (state vs. private, concentration of ownership) on HR activities.

Rewards and compensation

Reward systems are among the most effective approaches for promoting CE and innovation (Block and Ornati 1987; Brazeal 1993). Both financial and nonfinancial incentives are key strategic tools for encouraging risk-taking and innovative motivation among employees (Marvel et al. 2007; Schmelter et al. 2010). The entrepreneurial engagement of managers is influenced by the nature of their incentives, with short-term rewards potentially deterring and long-term evaluations promoting CE (Jones and Butler 1992; Ling et al. 2008). Additionally, competitive compensation is crucial for CE success and individual contributions to innovation (Croucher and Rizov 2011; Hayton 2003). Understanding the role of the social context, including factors such as gender and employment status (Adachi and Hisada 2017), as well as spatial and institutional contexts, such as those seen in the Russian labour market’s adaptation to macroeconomic and political changes (Croucher and Rizov 2011), allows us to better recognize the need for adaptive and inclusive reward systems to effectively motivate and engage a diverse workforce in entrepreneurial initiatives.

Training and development: Training and development practices are key to fostering entrepreneurial behaviour and enhancing employee engagement in CE activities (Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra 2002; Morris, Kuratko, and Covin 2008). Training is essential for companies to initiate CE, develop employees as valuable resources, and provide motivation through learning opportunities (Kim et al. 2021; Kuratko, Montagno, and Hornsby 1990). Indeed, effective training programmes mitigate the risk of inappropriate behaviours and build the capabilities essential for CE. Thus, targeted training and development programmes focusing on implementing new ideas or acquiring resources for entrepreneurial projects are crucial for boosting CE (Chirico et al. 2021; Schmelter et al. 2010). Chirico et al. (2021) and Schmelter et al. (2010) emphasize the impact of the organization and ownership context on the effectiveness of training and development practices in fostering CE. They argue that businesses’ unique cultural and operational dynamics influence the design and implementation of training programmes, affecting their ability to enhance CE dimensions such as innovativeness and risk-taking. This suggests that training programmes should be tailored to fit the specific ownership and organizational contexts to cultivate an entrepreneurial culture effectively.

Policies and procedures

Policies and procedures promoting participation, open communication, and collaboration significantly contribute to CE success (Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra 2002; Kim et al. 2021). It is suggested that revising and updating policies and practices to reflect new insights can enhance innovation (Simsek and Heavey 2011). However, overly restrictive policies may hinder entrepreneurial behaviour and innovation by imposing excessive regulation on individuals. Traditional HR practices, such as detailed job descriptions and manuals, might also limit innovative activities (Kim et al. 2021). Firms are advised to consider the impact of such policies on entrepreneurial behaviour when formulating their procedures.

Output

Corporate entrepreneurship

Research has positioned CE as a strategy for revitalizing large, established firms, conceptualizing them as firm-level activities focused on discovering and pursuing new opportunities through innovation, venturing, and renewal (Kelley, Peters, and O’Connor 2009; Phan et al. 2009). CE involves concrete entrepreneurial behaviours and activities, acting upon identified opportunities. The outcomes of CE include corporate venturing, strategic renewal, and innovation, which are essential for organizational growth and adaptation (Guth and Ginsberg 1990; Simsek, Veiga, and Lubatkin 2007; Zahra 1995). Discussing the role of context, two articles are particularly interesting because of the effort made in capturing such dimensions. Morris et al. (1994) capture aspects related to the organizational and institutional context, highlighting the impact of cultural orientation (individualism vs. collectivism) on entrepreneurial activities within firms and suggesting that the societal and national cultural context influence the effectiveness of CE strategies. Minola et al. (2016) delve into the social and ownership context, examining how the lifecycle of the enterprising family affects CE motivation and activities.

Corporate venturing

Corporate venturing (CV) involves the creation of new businesses within existing or new fields, serving as both an entrepreneurial effort and a strategy for business development (Sharma and Chrisman 1999; Zahra 1995). It allows parent companies to explore new opportunities or leverage existing assets, renewing and enhancing strategic and financial performance (Benson and Ziedonis 2009; Covin and Miles 2007). CV can be classified as either internal, with ventures created within the organization, or external, involving ventures positioned outside the organization, each with distinct implications for business strategy and organizational growth (Basu and Wadhwa 2013; Corbett et al. 2013). Social and ownership context, particularly in family-owned businesses, significantly influence CV. For instance, two papers, Marchisio et al. (2010) and Riar et al. (2021), explore how CV activities affect family cohesion and the development of individual family members. This perspective highlights the intertwining of personal relationships and business strategies in family-owned enterprises, suggesting that CV can serve as a family development and cohesion mechanism.

Internal corporate venturing (ICV)

Internal corporate venturing (ICV) is the process in which new businesses are established within the existing corporate structure, leveraging the firm’s current resources and capabilities (Covin and Miles 2007; Kuratko, Hornsby, and McKelvie 2021). ICV is an entrepreneurial initiative that stimulates growth and profitability through high-risk investments, knowledge acquisition, and capability development (Garrett and Covin 2015; Husted and Vintergaard 2004). Successful ICV requires adjusting resource configurations and enhancing employees’ abilities to identify new venture opportunities (Kacperczyk 2012; McGrath, Venkataraman, and MacMillan 1994). Moreover, aligning ICV with organizational strategy is critical for revitalizing firms through new business activities. However, compared with traditional activities, devoting to operational modes, reward systems, and organizational structures is necessary (Burgers et al. 2009; Parker 2011). The internal dynamics, decision-making processes, and entrepreneurial spirit within organizations, such as those observed within Toshiba, play crucial roles in leading to innovation in corporate venturing (Abetti 1997). A focus on the organizational context underscores the importance of the internal environment in fostering or hindering the development and success of new ventures.

External corporate venturing (ECV)

ECV is the process in which corporations invest in or acquire new businesses initiated by external parties (Covin and Miles 2007; Keil 2004). ECV allows firms to access new knowledge, exploit opportunities, and establish valuable partnerships during periods of technological change (Keil et al. 2008; Ramírez‐Pasillas, Lundberg, and Nordqvist 2021). It can significantly alter or expand a firm’s technological direction and provide insights into novel opportunities (Basu and Wadhwa 2013). Additionally, in this case, we found in the family business literature a strong example of how a deeper assessment of the firm’s context can provide opportunities for a better understanding of CE activities. Joint consideration of social, organizational, and ownership contexts allows us to bridge important aspects, as in Prügl & Spitzley (2021). Family dynamics and communication are crucial in determining openness to digital ventures, with family governance and innovation strategies intersecting to either support or impede digital engagement. Additionally, the family’s identity, values, and vision shape the firm’s digital transformation approach, influencing strategies for investing in or acquiring digital ventures. The various investment modes in ECV include corporate venture capital (CVC), acquisitions, and joint ventures (JVs), each offering different strategic benefits and avenues for growth.

Corporate venture capital (CVC)

CVC enables established firms to connect with entrepreneurial firms and venture capitalists, fostering their development (Basu and Wadhwa 2013; Benson and Ziedonis 2009). These firms can access external technologies and valuable knowledge resources (Cabral, Francis, and Kumar 2021; Titus, House, and Covin 2017). Corporations can venture into new technologies and markets through CVC investments, enhance existing competencies, and refine their products and business models, contributing to their strategic growth and innovation (Basu and Wadhwa 2013; Danneels and Miller 2023). According to our review of the literature, we did not find any notable study that contributed to contextualizing CVC.

Acquisitions

Acquisitions are identified as a key strategy for ECV, allowing established firms to renew and enhance their capabilities and resources (Agarwal and Helfat 2009; Hunt et al. 2019). They enable firms to develop pioneering technologies, speed up new product launches, broaden product lines, and boost technological skills (Titus, House, and Covin 2017). Corporate spin-ins, a specific form of acquisition involving firms started by former employees, play a significant role in CE by enabling companies to capitalize on existing relationships for improved CE outcomes (Benson and Ziedonis 2009; Hunt et al. 2019). While we can find in the M&A literature studies that shed light on the role of the six dimensions of context (e.g. Tarba et al. 2020; Yahiaoui, Chebbi, and Weber 2016), when focusing on their impact on CE, we did not find any study matching our expectations.

Joint ventures (JV)

JV involves two firms collaboratively establishing a new entity, sharing ownership risks (Keil et al. 2008; Titus, Parker, and Covin 2020). This arrangement creates a separate entity that mitigates opportunism and promotes knowledge transfer. Joint ventures uniquely blend knowledge access with risk distribution for CE particularly under conditions of environmental uncertainty (Titus, House, and Covin 2017). We did not identify any paper contextualizing JV in the CE.

Strategic renewal

Strategic renewal is an outcome of CE that reflects how a firm revitalizes its operations by changing its business scope and competitive approaches (Floyd and Lane 2000; Guth and Ginsberg 1990; Zahra 1996) and capturing new product-market opportunities (Dess et al. 2003; Guth and Ginsberg 1990). As an output of CE, strategic renewal commonly entails changes in a firm’s core businesses, reorganization of structure, reconfigurations of technology and business models, and strategic repositioning. Nonetheless, we found very little attention devoted to exploring the role of context in strategic renewal activities in the reviewed papers.

Changes in firms’ core businesses

Firm renewal initiatives typically result in reconfiguring existing businesses and a strategic shift towards new, unfamiliar business areas (Basu and Wadhwa 2013; Crossan and Berdrow 2003). This process may involve fundamental and discontinuous strategic renewal, changing the core product-market domains of firms (Floyd and Lane 2000; Huff, Huff, and Thomas 1992). Given the high risks associated with such strategic shifts, the dynamics of renewals that involve moving away from core businesses necessitate deeper understanding.

Reorganization of structure

Strategic renewal stimulates innovation and venturing through developing or adopting new structures (Zahra 1993). This process involves redefining the firm’s mission and reallocating resources to foster new product and technology combinations (Guth and Ginsberg 1990). Effective renewal may require reorganizing procedures to enhance communication and establish systems that support innovation (Zahra 1993).

Business model redesign

Strategic renewal involves fundamental changes in a firm’s competition methods, such as business models, technologies, and structures, and includes incremental adjustments within existing businesses (Agarwal and Helfat 2009; Basu and Wadhwa 2013; Huff, Huff, and Thomas 1992). An illustrative example of this can be seen in the business context of the tennis racket industry, as analysed by Kim and Pennings (2009). Their study focused on how innovation drives strategic renewal in mature markets, emphasizing the critical role of product innovation in maintaining a competitive market position.

Strategic repositioning

Strategic repositioning is the process that existing firms undertake to move into entirely new competitive spaces and strategic positions (Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009; Stopford and Baden-Fuller 1994). As a consequence, strategic repositioning can change the relationships among competitors in an industry by strategically positioning firms within newly defined competitive spaces (Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009; Stopford and Baden-Fuller 1994). Realizing strategic repositioning by exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities consists of a change in the competitive landscape (Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009). Nonetheless, while we can see clear opportunities for deepening the role of context in strategic repositioning, we currently observe a clear gap in the literature.

Innovation

Innovation reflects a firm’s commitment to creating and introducing new products, processes, and organizational systems or methods that offer growth opportunities, enhance the performance of organizations and create sustainable competitive advantages (Ben Arfi and Hikkerova 2021; Lumpkin and Dess 1996; Teng 2007; Zahra 1996; Zahra and Covin 1995). In this regard, established firms are more likely to pursue opportunities for innovation due to their ability to access more internal knowledge and assets (Stam 2013). However, firms must create a conducive environment that enhances the participation and collaboration of employees for effective innovation performance (Knox and Marin-Cadavid 2022; Wang et al. 2010). As an output of CE, innovation commonly entails new product innovation, technology-based acquisition, and alliances. Examining the role of context, we found particular attention devoted to considering the business context (e.g. Dunlap‐Hinkler, Kotabe, and Mudambi 2010; Kim and Pennings 2009; Molloy et al. 2020), the institutional context (e.g. Camelo-Ordaz et al. 2012; Molloy et al. 2020), and the organizational context (e.g. Boone et al. 2019; Plambeck 2012; Wang et al. 2010).

New product development

Product innovation, seen as the output of corporate entrepreneurial action, is crucial for firms to gain competitive advantages and improve performance. Introducing many novel products can reshape competition or gain a competitive advantage in an industry and help create a new market (Plambeck 2012). Moreover, firms with a high level of CE are characterized by extensive and frequent product development or improvement, which can enhance their capacity to perform well in product innovation or development (Y. Chen et al. 2014).

Technology-based acquisitions and alliances

Firms can enhance innovation performance by adopting external knowledge-sourcing strategies such as technology-based acquisitions and alliances, which expand their knowledge base and open up new technological opportunities. These strategies provide resources, enhanced market power, and strategic renewal and facilitate cross-fertilization and recombination, leading to new inventions and improved product and process performance (Boone et al. 2019; Graebner, Eisenhardt, and Roundy 2010).

Extended model

Figure 3 and Table 2 present the results of our systematic analysis of the literature of CE. Mapping CE in three phases of input (i.e. entrepreneurial opportunities, external enablers, internal enablers), process (i.e. entrepreneurial behaviour, corporate strategy, human resource management), and output (i.e. corporate entrepreneurship, corporate venturing, strategic renewal, innovation) allowed us to better capture the complexity of CE and recognize the level of attention devoted to its contextualization in previous studies. Our systematic search and interpretation allowed us to identify 42 papers, from the total of 214 papers considered in this review, that contributed to advancing our understanding of the role of context in CE. We present these articles in Table 3. However, this process reveals how the role of context in CE remains the major gap in the literature, awaiting further exploration and future research. Moving forward, we devote the next chapter of this paper to developing a research framework for investigating the role of context in CE, building on the contributions we have identified and linking insights from the general management literature.

Figure 3. Expanded model.

Table 2. Articles per group.

Main topics	Sub-topics	Significant contributions
Entrepreneurial opportunities		(Barney, Foss, and Lyngsie 2018; Bloodgood et al. 2015; De Clercq, Dimov, and Thongpapanl 2010; Dragan et al. 2022; Heavey and Simsek 2013; Hoskisson et al. 2011; Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009; Kollmann and Stöckmann 2014; Ren and Guo 2011; Rigtering, Weitzel, and Muehlfeld 2019; Turro, Alvarez, and Urbano 2016; Zahra 1996; Zahra, Filatotchev, and Wright 2009; An et al. 2018).
External enablers	Intense competition	(Antoncic and Hisrich 2001; Basu and Wadhwa 2013; Burgers and Covin 2016; Y. Chen et al. 2014; Hinz and Ingerfurth 2013; Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009; Kammerlander et al. 2015; Nielsen, Peters, and Hisrich 1985; Romero-Martínez, Fernández-Rodríguez, and Vázquez-Inchausti 2010; Stopford and Baden-Fuller 1994; Yiu and Lau 2008; Zahra 1991, 1993; Zahra and Covin 1995).
	Technological change	(Agarwal and Helfat 2009; Ahuja and Lampert 2001; Basu and Wadhwa 2013; Boone et al. 2019; Keil et al. 2008; Kellermanns and Eddleston 2006; Titus, House, and Covin 2017; Zahra 1993, 1996; Zahra and Covin 1995; Zahra, Neubaum, and Huse 2000).
	Government policy and support	(Doh and Pearce 2004; Fini and Toschi 2016; Garrido et al. 2021; Heavey and Simsek 2013; Holmes et al. 2016; Ruiz, Amorós, and Guerrero 2023; Shu et al. 2019; Smith 2014; Vanacker, Zahra, and Holmes 2021; Yiu and Lau 2008).
	Environmental scanning	(Antoncic and Hisrich 2001; Barringer and Bluedorn 1999; Cestino, Naldi, and Ots in press; Simsek, Veiga, and Lubatkin 2007; Zahra 1991).
Internal enablers	Organizational structure	(Antoncic and Hisrich 2001; Brazeal 1993; De Massis, Eddleston, and Rovelli 2021;Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra 2002; Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009; Kuratko, Montagno, and Hornsby 1990; Ling et al. 2008; Marvel et al. 2007; Nason, McKelvie, and Lumpkin 2015; Russell and Russell 1992; Zahra 1993).
	Organizational culture	(Fayolle, Basso, and Bouchard 2010; Fulop 1991; Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra 2002; Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009; Kuratko et al. 2005; Raitis, Sasaki, and Kotlar 2021; Sykes and Block 1989).
	Top management support	(Biniari 2012; J. Chen and Nadkarni 2017; Crawford and Kreiser 2015; Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra 2002; Hornsby et al. 2009; Hughes and Mustafa 2017; Kuratko, Hornsby, and McKelvie 2021; Kuratko et al. 2005; Kwee, Van Den Bosch, and Volberda 2011; Lee, Makri, and Scandura 2019; Ling et al. 2008; Pearce, Kramer, and Robbins 1997; Shimizu 2012; Sykes and Block 1989; Yuan, Bao, and Olson 2017).
	Work discretion/ autonomy	(Floyd and Lane 2000; Hornsby et al. 2009; Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra 2002; Hughes and Mustafa 2017; Kuratko et al. 2005; Meynhardt and Diefenbach 2012; Shimizu 2012).
	Effective reinforcement	(Block and Ornati 1987; Hornsby et al. 2009; Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra 2002; Hughes and Mustafa 2017; Kreiser et al. 2021; Meynhardt and Diefenbach 2012; Sykes and Block 1989).
	Time availability	(Floyd and Lane 2000; Hornsby et al. 2009; Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra 2002; Hughes and Mustafa 2017; Kreiser et al. 2021; Kuratko et al. 2005; Sykes and Block 1989).
Entrepreneurial behaviour		(Azulay, Lerner, and Tishler 2002; Covin and Lumpkin 2011; De Clercq, Dimov, and Thongpapanl 2010; Douglas and Fitzsimmons 2013; Elert and Stenkula 2022; Fini et al. 2012; Floyd and Lane 2000; Garrett and Holland 2015; Heavey and Simsek 2013; Hornsby et al. 2009; Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra 2002; Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009; Kuratko and Audretsch 2009; Kuratko et al. 2005; Kuratko, Hornsby, and Hayton 2015; Kuratko, Hornsby, and McKelvie 2021; Ling et al. 2008; Martiarena 2013; Pearce, Kramer, and Robbins 1997; Razavi and Ab Aziz 2017; Simsek, Veiga, and Lubatkin 2007; Soleimanof, Singh, and Holt 2019; Tang, Tang, and Cowden 2017; Turro, Noguera, and Urbano 2020; Urban and Moloi 2022; Wales, Gupta, and Mousa 2013; Zahra 1996, 2015).
Corporate strategy	Strategic alliances	(Doh and Pearce 2004; Hoskisson et al. 2011; Stopford and Baden-Fuller 1994; Teng 2007; Yiu and Lau 2008).
	Strategic networks	(Thorgren, Wincent, and Örtqvist 2012; Turner and Pennington 2015; Yiu and Lau 2008; Yiu, Lau, and Bruton 2007).
	Strategic orientation	(Bruneel, Gaeremynck, and Weemaes 2022; Naldi, Achtenhagen, and Davidsson 2015; Plambeck 2012).
Human resource management	Human capital	(Barney, Foss, and Lyngsie 2018; Belderbos et al. 2022; Bojica, Del Mar Fuentes‐Fuentes, and Fernández Pérez 2017; Bojica and Fuentes 2012; Dalziel, Gentry, and Bowerman 2011; Floyd and Lane 2000; Guerrero, Amorós, and Urbano 2021; Hayton and Kelley 2006; Heavey and Simsek 2013; Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009; Kim et al. 2021; Lengnick-Hall 1992; Parker 2011; Post, Lokshin, and Boone 2022; Scarpellini et al. 2017; Schlepphorst et al. 2020; Schmelter et al. 2010; Simsek and Heavey 2011; Wang et al. 2022; Williams, Chen, and Agarwal 2017).
	Reward and compensation	(Adachi and Hisada 2017; Block and Ornati 1987; Brazeal 1993; Croucher and Rizov 2011; Hayton 2003; Jones and Butler 1992; Kim et al. 2021; Ling et al. 2008; Marvel et al. 2007; Monsen, Patzelt, and Saxton 2010; Poskela and Martinsuo 2009; Schmelter et al. 2010; Sykes 1992; Wang, Chung, and Lim 2015).
	Training and development	(Byrne et al. 2016; Chirico et al. 2021; Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra 2002; Kim et al. 2021; Kuratko, Montagno, and Hornsby 1990; Schmelter et al. 2010; Shepherd, Haynie, and Patzelt 2013).
	Policies and procedures	(Courpasson, Dany, and Martí 2016; Haar and White 2013; Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra 2002; Kim et al. 2021; Simsek and Heavey 2011).
Corporate entrepreneurship		(Bierwerth et al. 2015; Chin et al. 2021; Corbett et al. 2013; Fang et al. 2021; Heavey et al. 2009; Hornsby et al. 2013; Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009; Jennings and Lumpkin 1989; Lampe, Kraft, and Bausch 2020; Minola et al. 2021; Morris, Davis, and Allen 1994; Phan et al. 2009; Randolph, Li, and Daspit 2019; Shimizu 2012; Stopford and Baden-Fuller 1994; Urbano et al. 2022; Zahra 1996; Zahra and Covin 1995).
Corporate venturing		(Abetti 1997; Biniari et al. 2015; Covin and Miles 2007; Covin and Slevin 1991; Desarbo, Ian, and Day 1987; Hill and Birkinshaw 2008, 2014; Hoy 2006; Hussinger, Dick, and Czarnitzki 2018; MacMillan and Day 1987; Marchisio et al. 2010; McDougall, Robinson, and DeNisi 1992; Miller, Spann, and Lerner 1991; Minola et al. 2016; Narayanan, Yang, and Zahra 2009; Ohe, Honjo, and Merrifield 1992; Parhankangas and Arenius 2003; Tsai, MacMillan, and Low 1991; Zahra 1995; Zhang and Biniari 2021).
	Internal corporate venturing	(Brumana et al. 2017; Burgers et al. 2009; Covin et al. 2015, 2018, 2021; Garrett and Covin 2015; Garud and Van de Ven 1992; Husted and Vintergaard 2004; Johnson 2012; Kacperczyk 2012; Keil, McGrath, and Tukiainen 2009; Kuratko, Morris, and Schindehutte 2015; McGrath 1995; McGrath, Venkataraman, and MacMillan 1994; Miller, Gartner, and Wilson 1989; Miller, Wilson, and Adams 1988; Parker 2011; Riar et al. 2021; Williams, Tsai, and Day 1991).
	External corporate venturing	(Basu and Wadhwa 2013; Cirillo, Brusoni, and Valentini 2014; Keil 2004; Keil et al. 2008; Prügl and Spitzley 2021; Ramírez‐Pasillas et al. 2021; Singla and Levasseur 2022; Titus, House, and Covin 2017).
	Corporate venture capital	(Basu and Wadhwa 2013; Bendig, Hensellek, and Schulte 2023; Benson and Ziedonis 2009; Cabral, Francis, and Kumar 2021; Chen et al. 2023; Danneels and Miller 2023; Keil 2004; Keil et al. 2008; Siegel, Siegel, and MacMillan 1988; Titus, House, and Covin 2017).
	Acquisitions	(Agarwal and Helfat 2009; Benson and Ziedonis 2009; Hunt et al. 2019; Kiessling, Harvey, and Moeller 2012; Titus, House, and Covin 2017).
	Joint ventures	(Keil et al. 2008; Titus, Parker, and Covin 2020).
Strategic renewal		(Canales 2013; Capron and Mitchell 2009; Dess et al. 2003; Glaser, Fourné, and Elfring 2015; Herbane 2019; Kearney and Morris 2015; Kim and Pennings 2009; Pettit and Crossan 2020; Poskela and Martinsuo 2009; Post, Lokshin, and Boone 2022; Zahra 1996).
	Changes in firm’s core businesses	(Basu and Wadhwa 2013; Crossan and Berdrow 2003; Floyd and Lane 2000; Huff, Huff, and Thomas 1992).
	Reorganization of structure	(Guth and Ginsberg 1990; Zahra 1993).
	Reorganization of technology and business model	(Agarwal and Helfat 2009; Basu and Wadhwa 2013; Cucculelli and Bettinelli 2015; Huff, Huff, and Thomas 1992).
	Strategic repositioning	(Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009; Stopford and Baden-Fuller 1994).
Innovation		(Ben Arfi and Hikkerova 2021; Braunerhjelm, Ding, and Thulin 2018; Camelo-Ordaz et al. 2012; Hale and Woronkowicz 2021; Kelley, Peters, and O’Connor 2009; Kim and Pennings 2009; Knox and Marin-Cadavid 2022; Lumpkin and Dess 1996; Molloy et al. 2020; Stam 2013; Teng 2007; Wang et al. 2010; Zahra 1996; Zahra and Covin 1995).
	New product innovation	(Chen et al., 2014; Dunlap‐Hinkler et al. 2010; Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko 2009; Plambeck 2012).
	Technology-based acquisition and alliance	(Boone et al. 2019; Graebner, Eisenhardt, and Roundy 2010; Wang et al. 2010).

Note: Papers that have been singled out for their contribution to contextualizing CE are indicated in italics in the table.

Table 3. Articles contributing to contextualizing CE and related context.

	Business context	Spatial context	Social context	Institutional context	Organizational context	Ownership context
Entrepreneurial opportunities	–	Turro et al., (2016)	–	–	–	–
External enablers	Cestino et al., (in press; Yiu and Lau (2008)	–	Cestino et al., (in press; Yiu and Lau (2008)	Doh and Pearce (2004); Vanacker et al., (2021)	Boone et al., (2019); Romero-Martínez et al. (2010)	Romero-Martínez et al. (2010)
Internal enablers	Hughes and Mustafa (2017)	Fayolle et al., (2010)	Biniari (2012); Lee, Makri, and Scandura (2019); Raitis, Sasaki, and Kotlar (2021)	Hughes and Mustafa (2017); Meynhardt and Diefenbach (2012)	Fayolle et al., (2010); Nason et al., (2015)	De Massis et al., (2021); Lee, Makri, and Scandura (2019); Meynhardt and Diefenbach (2012); Raitis, Sasaki, and Kotlar (2021)
Entrepreneurial behavior	Azulay et al. (2002)	Turro et al., (2016); Tang et al., (2017)	–	Soleimanof et al., (2019)	Fini et al., (2012); Tang et al., (2017)	Soleimanof et al., (2019)
Corporate strategy	Yiu and Lau (2008)	–	Thorgren et al., (2012); Yiu et al., (2007); Yiu and Lau (2008)	Doh and Pearce (2004)	Plambeck (2012)	–
Human resource management	–	Croucher and Rizov (2011); Wang et al. (2022)	Adachi and Hisada (2017); Wang et al. (2022)	Croucher and Rizov (2011)	Adachi and Hisada (2017); Guerrero, Amorós, and Urbano (2021); Hayton (2003); Schmelter et al. (2010); Wang et al. (2022)	Chirico et al., (2021)
Corporate entrepreneurship	–	–	Morris et al., (1994)	Morris et al., (1994)	–	Minola et al., (2016)
Corporate venturing	–	Ramírez‐Pasillas et al. (2021)	Abetti (1997); Prügl and Spitzley (2021); Ramírez‐Pasillas et al. (2021)	–	Marchisio et al., (2010); Prügl and Spitzley, (2021)	Marchisio et al., (2010); Prügl and Spitzley (2021); Riar et al., (2021)
Strategic renewal	Kim and Pennings (2009)	–	–	–	–	–
Innovation	Dunlap‐Hinkler, Kotabe, and Mudambi (2010); Kim and Pennings (2009); Molloy et al. (2020)	Wang et al., (2010)	Kelley et al., (2009)	Camelo-Ordaz et al. (2012); Molloy et al. (2020)	Boone et al. (2019); Plambeck (2012); Wang et al., (2010)	–

Research agenda and conclusions

Contextualizing corporate entrepreneurship

Our review shows that the extant literature has emphasized the antecedents, processes, and outcomes of CE. Prior research has linked firms’ CE to sustainable competitive advantages that can be a foundation for profitable growth (Hornsby et al. 2009; Kuratko et al. 2005). In addition, it has been found that CE is a multifaceted phenomenon requiring human capital to explore and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities. However, there is little systematic knowledge of the different forms and activities of CE in context. Understanding context is important for understanding the situations under which entrepreneurship occurs, how and why it arises, and who becomes involved (Welter 2011). Furthermore, context incorporates a range of dimensions that vary in terms of the level of analysis and domain, requiring consideration of the heterogeneity of contexts in using and developing theories and methodologies (Bruton et al. 2022; Filatotchev, Ireland, and Stahl 2022; Zahra and Wright 2011). Therefore, understanding the different contextual influences across CE activities is important for advancing the theoretical perspectives and frameworks of the research field (Zahra 2015). Previous research has emphasized ownership less, even though it is fundamental to firm strategy and economic function (Foss et al. 2021). We highlight the need to add ownership as a contextual dimension of the literature of CE. Ownership control allows owners to utilize resources in new ways, acquire and sell them, invest in them, or recombine them based on their beliefs (Foss et al. 2021).

This paper has suggested contextualizing an input-process-output model of CE whereby internal and external enablers help firms explore and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities for CE activities. Thus, the conceptual model, organized based on previous research, has allowed us to identify gaps emerging from our literature review. In the following sections, we discuss a future research agenda for CE on the contextual dimensions of business, spatial, social, institutional, organizational, and ownership. An overview of the proposed contextual dimensions, identified research gaps, and corresponding research questions are displayed in Table 4.

Table 4. Summary and examples of future research questions.

Context	Focus	Research gaps	Research questions
Business context	Industries, markets	Exploring the transition from for-profit to profit-and-purpose Sector studies Impact of alliances, JV, M&A, and franchising	RQ1. How can enterprises use CE for transitioning from for-profit to profit-and-purpose? RQ2. How do purpose-driven organizations pursue their goals through CE? RQ3. How does CE differ within and accross sectors? RQ4. How are CE activities affected by alliances, JV, M&A, and franchising?
Spatial context	Geographical	Regional differences Indigenous theories Global South	RQ5. How do the regional differences in economies affect CE activities? RQ6. How can studies in developing countries inform theories and practices in CE? RQ7. How can indigenous theories contribute to contextualize CE? RQ8. How does CE unfold in different areas of the Global South?
Social context	Networks, relationships	Multistakeholder engagement Sustainability and SDGs Social entrepreneurship	RQ9. How do multistakeholder engagement affect CE activities? RQ10. How do firms create and participate in different networks to facilitate CE activities? RQ11. What is the role of CE in accomplishing progress towards the UN SDGs? RQ12. What is the role of CE in stimulating social entrepreneurship?
Institutional context	Policies, rules, practices	Governmental policies, changes and support Instability and weakness of institutions	RQ13. How can government policies impact on CE? RQ14. How do changes of government policies stimulate or inhibit CE activities? RQ15. How do political instability impact on CE? RQ16. How do weak institutions impact on CE?
Organizational context	Structures, processes, culture, norms	Intercultural interactions Legacy, heritage, and resilience HRM practices, recruitment and retention	RQ17. How do intercultural relations and communication impact on multinational CE activities? RQ18. How do the legacy and heritage of an organization influence CE initiatives? RQ19. How does CE develop and support organizational resilience? RQ20. How can an organization attract, cultivate, and manage human resources to enhance CE activities?
Ownership context	Ownership forms, governance	Heterogeneity of ownership Change of ownership Public ownership Role of the board	RQ21. How do different ownership forms influence CE? RQ22. How do changes in ownership affect CE activities? RQ23. How does CE unfold in the context of public sector organization? RQ24. How does the board of directors influence CE initiatives?

Business context

Industries and markets are the most frequently studied contexts in previous studies. In context, industries vary in the opportunities they offer and the intensity of their competitive forces (Zahra 2015). Yet, little attention is given to the relation between CE and the specificity of industry sectors, opening for research opportunities to contextualize CE in different business sectors. Davidsson et al. (2020) argues that ‘contexts moderate effects of external enabler characteristics, mechanisms, and roles’. Previous studies have shown that intense competition offers entrepreneurial opportunities for firms to pursue and engage in CE activities. Scholars have explored entrepreneurial venturing initiatives such as alliances, joint ventures, M&As, and franchising. For instance, in the previous literature, alliances and joint ventures (e.g. Yiu and Lau 2008) are important for firms aiming to facilitate entrepreneurial behaviour. However, in previous studies, little emphasis has been given to alliances and joint ventures designed to enhance CE activities. Hence, future research should examine how CE activities can be strengthened and made effective through strategic alliances and joint ventures. Additionally, recent studies have examined franchising as a unique and prevalent form of firm-level CE (Chirico et al. 2021), a novel area that needs further exploration. Hence, future research could examine the contribution of franchising to a firm’s effectiveness and study the relationship of franchising in this context as a type of CE activity.

Our review shows that most related research has focused on the use of CE for profit and growth in different industries and markets. Nonetheless, there is a general debate regarding a profit-with-purpose orientation for corporations that combines social or environmental benefits with usual profit-making motives (Levillain and Segrestin 2019; Stubbs 2017). Such a purpose can be used to minimize the negative impacts of a company’s activities on various stakeholders or a charitable effort to benefit a particular population (Levillain and Segrestin 2019). For example, profit-with-purpose corporations include B-corps, foundations, cooperatives, and social enterprises. B-Corps pursue profits to create positive social, environmental, and economic outcomes (Stubbs 2017). On the one hand, growing profitability requirements have undermined the profit-with-purpose orientation (Levillain andSegrestin 2019). On the other hand, research has suggested that purpose-driven companies grow more quickly and perform better in the market than other firms (George et al. 2021). In this context, purpose can be expressed regarding a company’s values, social service, and environmental stewardship (George et al. 2021). Therefore, exploring how enterprises can transition from a for-profit orientation to a profit-with-purpose orientation through CE opens avenues for future research. Furthermore, future research could also explore how purpose-driven organizations pursue their goals through CE.

Spatial context

The spatial dimension of context highlights the impact of geography and location on entrepreneurial firms regarding their global, national, regional, and local distribution (Welter 2011). For example, some countries are geographically well located and benefit from the advantages of their location (Zahra 2015). Concerning the spatial context, studies on CE have placed much emphasis on established economies. New avenues for future research await the application of CE considering regional differences in human resources, diverse economic resources, and the supply of talented and educated entrepreneurs. However, scholars have overlooked ‘cultural and ideological differences in other settings’, as theories developed in the United States and Europe have dominated management and organizational studies (Bruton et al. 2022, 1057). Bruton et al. (2022) suggested that scholars should develop indigenous theories recognizing the distinct nature of local contexts. Indigenous theories are context specific, recognize space and time and offer detailed insights into a given context (Bruton et al. 2022). Previous research on CE has placed little emphasis on the Global South, which refers broadly to low-income countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America (Dadon and Conell 2012). This is unfortunate since research indicates that different mechanisms underlie the relationship between society and the economy in Global South contexts (Bruton et al. 2022), and a much greater level of symbiosis between communities and enterprises exists (Buratti, Sillig, and Albanese 2022). Thus, studying CE in emerging economies and developing countries provides an opportunity for theoretical integration and extension. For example, focusing on issues of CE in emerging economies might broaden our understanding of the intercultural and intergroup variation in how CE is constructed and enacted. The potential for indigenous entrepreneurship to inform theory on entrepreneurial behaviour (Dana 2007) and social entrepreneurship (Tapsell and Woods 2010) is just as relevant for advancing CE. Moreover, we suggest paying more attention to the Global South, as this would favour the exploration of the role of indigenous entrepreneurship in the CE.

Social context

The most common application of social context in entrepreneurship research is related to social network approaches. Networks can provide financial capital, information, potential employees, and client access (Welter 2011). Networks provide opportunities for firms to accumulate and combine their resources to engage in entrepreneurial activities (Thorgren, Wincent, and Örtqvist 2012). However, little research has focused on how actors build social capital to strengthen CE activities through network participation. Indeed, CE initiatives involve multiple stakeholders to create additional opportunities to impact the social context. Many calls have been made for multistakeholder engagements to tackle ‘wicked problems’ (Waddock et al. 2015) and achieve sustainable development (Van Tulder and Keen 2018). A deeper understanding of how sustainable CE can be realized through multistakeholder interactions is needed. This trajectory is important for business development and required to accelerate joint efforts to realize the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Nonet et al. (2022) acknowledged the engagement of business organizations in achieving social sustainability goals. In this context, CE can be decisive in pursuing multistakeholder engagement and collaboration to achieve the SDGs (Nonet et al. 2022). The role of CE in sustainable social development is a nascent area with great potential for social contextualization in entrepreneurship research. Furthermore, there is a need for social CE in existing organizations where managers can obtain an opportunity to analyse whether the environment is supportive of corporate entrepreneurial behaviours and creates social value (Kuratko et al. 2017). Therefore, future studies can explore the role of CE in fostering and creating social value through corporate social entrepreneurship initiatives.

Institutional context

The institutional context focuses on the influence of formal and informal institutions on opportunity recognition. Formal institutions are political and economic rules that create or restrict opportunity fields for entrepreneurship (Welter 2011). Previous studies have paid little attention to government policy changes, regulations, and support in relation to CE activities (e.g. Doh and Pearce 2004). This situation creates avenues for future research into how government policy changes influence CE activities. In addition, future research should examine how a nation’s political instability and economic system affect CE. Stimulating entrepreneurial activities through governmental interventions is a delicate matter that can lead to unintended negative outcomes; therefore, a better understanding of the link between policy and CE is needed (Segaro and Haag 2022). Furthermore, we know little about the influence of cultural systems on CE activities. Acknowledging the cultural-bound nature of CE implies the need to study this topic within different institutional contexts (Centeno-Caffarena and Discua Cruz 2021; Dana 2007).

Organizational context

The organizational context may vary depending on how an organization encourages or discourages entrepreneurship (Zahra 2015). Organizational culture, values, norms, and sociocultural practices can be conducive to driving or influencing entrepreneurship (Krueger, Liñán, and Nabi 2013). Future research should address the influence of organizational culture and values on CE activities. Managers target different organizational outcomes, such as developing the organization’s culture, building identity, promoting authenticity, and/or enhancing legitimacy, to produce changes in the organizational environment (Foster et al. 2017). Moreover, future studies should also address how an organization’s legacy, heritage, and resilience impact CE activities (Spielmann et al. 2022). For example, an entrepreneurial legacy provides the basis for transferring entrepreneurial perspectives, skills, and capabilities across generations in family businesses (Radu-Lefebvre et al. 2020).

Surprisingly, the role of gender is a neglected phenomenon that was only recently addressed by Ruiz et al. (2023), who showed that any gender differences could be explained by the influence of country-level conditions (gender equality levels, culture, and social norms), opening significant opportunities for future studies across contexts. Moreover, an organization’s CE platform is formed by individuals’ knowledge, skills, and abilities (Kim et al. 2021). The recruitment, development, and retention of people skilled in CE activities are increasingly important. Understanding HR practices related to CE activities in different organizational contexts is needed to advance the field. Future research can examine how an organization can attract, cultivate, and manage human resources to enhance CE activities.

Ownership context

Previous research has placed little emphasis on the role of the ownership context in CE activities, although this context is fundamental to a firm’s strategy and economic function (Foss et al. 2021). The ownership context takes various forms for different entrepreneurial firms, such as private and listed corporations; family and nonfamily firms; firms with venture capital or private equity ownership; and those with public, single, or group ownership structures (Akhter et al. 2023; Zahra 2015). Accounting for ownership aspects opens several research avenues. For example, additional research is needed to understand ownership heterogeneity and its impact on CE activities. Notably, a few studies have identified the importance of entrepreneurial activity in public organizations (Kearney, Hisrich, and Roche 2007; Morris and Jones 1999), paving the way for further research on CE in this context. In addition, authors have suggested the importance of entrepreneurial activities for the improved delivery of services to users in the public sector (Walker, Damanpour, and Devece 2011). Kraus et al. (2019) also investigate the individual capability to explore and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities in existing organizations to alleviate challenges and resource constraints in the public sector. To date, however, little is known about how changes in ownership (e.g. a public company going private or undergoing family business succession) influence the entrepreneurial activities of the firm (Kuratko, Hornsby, and Covin 2014; Zahra 2015). Accordingly, future research can address the impact of changes in ownership on CE activities in the context of public sector organizations. Furthermore, future research could address the extent to which CE differ between centralized and dispersed ownership forms.

Finally, CE is assumed to arise in private and listed corporations, but few studies have examined CE in the public sector. Therefore, there is a particular gap in publicly owned organizations involving CE, and this issue requires attention given such organizations’ central role in many countries. Future studies can explore the extent of CE activities in the public sector. In addition, future research could explore the effectiveness of CE in the public sector through various entrepreneurial venturing initiatives, including strategic alliances, M&As, and joint ventures. Moreover, from a governance perspective, the board of directors is central to the corporate governance system. Nevertheless, little attention has been given to the role of boards in CE activities (e.g. Zahra 1996). Hence, there is a need for further research on how boards are developed to enable CE through different ownership forms.

Limitations

This literature review has limitations due to the abovementioned choices. Since CE is a mature topic with considerable research output, we decided to limit our search to top-tier journals. In this way, we ensure that knowledge synthesis is based on rigorous research. We also decided to include only English-language articles to ensure that we could interpret the content properly, a commonly used search limitation (Blalock, Fan, and Lyu 2023). This does not mean that high-quality contributions cannot be found in other outlets or languages but that our review is limited to our selected sample.

Concluding remarks

A large body of research has examined the nature and dimensions of CE as well as its construct, antecedents, and implications for firm performance (Teng 2007, Zahra and Hayton 2008; Zahra, Neubaum, and Huse 2000). Previous studies have also examined the internal and external factors affecting CE concerning the various outcomes of a firm (Antoncic and Hisrich 2001; Yiu and Lau 2008; Zahra 1991, 1993). This paper first reviewed the enablers of entrepreneurial opportunities in existing organizations resulting in different CE activities and thereafter discussed future research suggestions about business, spatial, social, institutional, organizational, and ownership contexts. Based on our review of extant literature, we argue that there is little systematic knowledge of the different forms and activities of CE in context. Context incorporates a range of dimensions that vary in terms of the level of analysis and domain, requiring consideration of the heterogeneity of contexts in using and developing theories and methodologies (Bruton et al. 2022; Filatotchev, Ireland, and Stahl 2022; Welter 2011; Zahra and Wright 2011). Thus, understanding the different contextual influences across CE activities is important for advancing the theoretical perspectives and frameworks of the research field (Zahra 2015). The conceptual model developed in this review has enabled us to identify future directions that respond to recent calls to seriously address the context of entrepreneurship research and offer a contextualized research agenda for CE.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).