Although previous research shows that corporate spin–offs contribute to economic growth, few studies link growth to the type of corporate spin–off. We distinguish between three types of corporate spin–offs: incumbent–backed, opportunity, and necessity spin–offs. Using empirical data on 46 corporate spin–offs in Flanders, we find that opportunity spin–offs outperform the other two types. By identifying the type of corporate spin–offs, this study aims to add to our knowledge on the relationship between spin–off type and firm growth.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgarwalR. & BayusB.L. (2002). The market evolution and sales takeoff of product innovations. Management Science, 48(8), 1024–1041.
2.
AgarwalR., EchambadiR., FrancoA., & SarkarM. (2004). Knowledge transfer through inheritance: Spin–out generation, development and survival. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 501–522.
3.
AmadorM. & LandierA. (2003). Entrepreneurial pressure and innovation. Mimeo, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.
4.
AntonJ.J. & YaoD. (1995). Start–ups, spin–offs, and internal projects. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 11(2), 362–378.
5.
AutioE., SapienzaH., & AlmeidaJ. (2000). Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 909–924.
6.
BamfordC.E., DeanT.J., & McDougallP.P. (2000). An examination of the impact of initial founding conditions and decisions upon the performance of new bank start–ups. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(3), 253–277.
7.
BarneyJ. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–119.
8.
BaumR. & LockeE. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 587–598.
9.
BaumR., LockeE.A., & SmithK.G. (2000). A longitudinal model of a multi–dimensional model of venture growth. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 222–303.
10.
BhidéA.V. (2000). The origin and evolution of new businesses. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
11.
BoekerW. (1989). Strategic change: The effects of founding and history. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 489–515.
12.
BowerJ.L. & ChristensenC.M. (1995). Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, 73(1), 43–53.
13.
BraunE. & MacDonaldS. (1978). Revolution in miniature: The history and impact of semiconductor electronics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
BuenstorfG. (2009). Opportunity spin–offs and necessity spin–offs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 1, 22–40.
15.
CantwellJ. & IammarinoS. (2001). EU regions and multinational corporations: Change, stability and strengthening of technological comparative advantages. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 1007–1037.
16.
CarterN.M., StearnsT.M., ReynoldsP.D., & MillerB.A. (1994). New venture strategies: Theory development with an empirical base. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 21–41.
17.
ChatterjiA. (2009). Spawned with a silver spoon: Entrepreneurial performance and innovation in the medical device industry. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 185–206.
18.
ChristensenC.M. (1993). The rigid disk drive industry: A history of commercial and technological turbulence. Business History Review, 67, 531–588.
19.
ChristensenC.M. (1997). Innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
20.
ClarysseB., BruneelJ., & WrightM. (2011). Explaining growth paths of young technology based firms: Structuring resource portfolios in different competitive environments. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(2), 137–157.
21.
CooperA., Gimeno–GasconF.J., & WooC.Y. (1994). Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 371–395.
22.
CovinJ. & MilesM. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 47–63.
23.
DavidssonP., AchtenhagenL., & NaldiL. (2007). Research on small firm growth: A review. Working paper at Brisbane Graduate School of Business, Queensland University of Technology.
24.
DavisP., RobinsonR., PearceJ., & ParkS. (1992). Business unit relatedness and performance: A look at the pulp and paper industry. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5), 349–361.
25.
DelmarF. (1997). Measuring growth: Methodological considerations and empirical results. In DonckelsR. & MiettinenA. (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and SME research: On its way to the next millennium (pp. 190–216). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
26.
DelmarF., DavidssonP., & GartnerW. (2003). Arriving at the high–growth firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 189–216.
27.
ErikssonT. & KuhnJ.M. (2006). Firm spin–offs in Denmark 1981–2000—patterns of entry and exit. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24, 1021–1040.
28.
EvaldM.R., ClarkeA.H., & JensenK.W. (2009). Do direct or indirect relations between incumbent firms and corporate spin–offs affect the performance of spin–offs?International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 1(2), 147–163.
29.
GilbertB.A., McDougallP., & AudretschD. (2006). New venture growth: A review and extension. Journal of Management, 32(6), 926–950.
30.
GrantR. (1996). Toward a knowledge–based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 109–122.
31.
GundryL.K. & WelchH.P. (2001). The ambitious entrepreneur: High growth strategies of women–owned enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 453–470.
32.
HamelG. (1991). Competition for competence and inter–partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 83–104.
33.
HamiltonR.T. & ChowY.K. (1993). Why managers divest—evidence from New Zealand's largest companies. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 479–484.
34.
HeirmanA. (2004). From invention to innovation: A study of research–based start–ups. Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University.
35.
HeirmanA. & ClarysseB. (2005). The imprinting effect of initial resources and market strategy on the early growth path of start–ups. Working Paper Series, Ghent University.
36.
HellmannT. (2007). When do employees become entrepreneurs?Management Science, 53(6), 919–933.
37.
HillS., MaulaM., BirkinshawJ., & MurrayG. (2009). Transferability of the venture capital model to the corporate context: Implications for the performance of corporate venture units. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(1), 3–27.
38.
HittM., NixonD., HoskissonR., & KochharR. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and cross–functional fertilization: Activation, process and disintegration of new product design team. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 145–167.
39.
IrelandR.D., CovinJ.G., & KuratkoD.F. (2009). Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 19–46.
40.
KeilT., AutioE., & GeorgeG. (2008). Corporate venture capital, disembodied experimentation, and capability development. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1475–1505.
41.
KlepperS. (2001). Employee startups in high–tech industries. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(3), 639–674.
42.
KlepperS. (2007). Silicon Valley—A chip off the old Detroit bloc. In AudretschD. B. & StromR. (Eds.), Entrepreneurship, growth, and public policy (pp. 76–115). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
KlepperS. & ThompsonP. (2006). Submarkets and the evolution of market structure. The Rand Journal of Economics, 37, 861–886.
45.
KlepperS. & ThompsonP. (2010). Disagreements and intra–industry spinoffs. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 28(5), 526–538.
46.
KogutB. & ZanderU. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383–397.
47.
KuratkoD.F. & AudretschD.B. (2009). Strategic entrepreneurship: Exploring different perspectives of an emerging concept. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 1–17.
48.
LarsonA. (1992). Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1), 76–104.
49.
MehranH. (1995). Executive compensation structure, ownership, and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 38, 163–184.
50.
MeyerW. & RowanB. (1977). Institutional organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
51.
MooreG. & DavisK. (2004). Learning the Silicon Valley way. In BresnahanT. & GambardellaA. (Eds.), Building high–tech clusters: Silicon Valley and beyond (pp. 7–39). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
NarayananV., YangY., & ZahraS. (2009). Corporate venturing and value creation: A review and proposed framework. Research Policy, 38, 58–76.
54.
NeterJ., WassermanW., & KutherW.H. (1990). Applied linear statistical model (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Richard D. Irwin Inc.
55.
ParhankangasA. & AreniusP. (2003). From a corporate venture to an independent company: A base for a taxonomy for corporate spin–off firms. Research Policy, 32, 463–481.
56.
PfefferJ. & SalancikG.R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
57.
PhillipsD. (2002). A genealogical approach to organizational life chances: The parent–progeny transfer among Silicon Valley law firms, 1946–1996. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 474–506.
58.
PorterM. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: The Free Press.
59.
RobertsE.B. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology. Lessons from MIT and beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.
60.
RosenbloomR.S. & ChristensenC.M. (1994). Technological discontinuities, organizational capabilities, and strategic commitments. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3, 655–685.
61.
SandersW.G. & BoivieS. (2004). Sorting things out: Valuation of new firms in uncertain markets. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 167–186.
62.
SapienzaH., ParhankangasA., & AutioE. (2004). Knowledge relatedness and post–spin–off growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 809–829.
63.
SchoonhovenC.B. & RomanelliE. (2001). The entrepreneurship dynamic. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
64.
ShaneS. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469.
65.
ShaneS. & VenkataramanS. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217–226.
66.
SharmaP. & ChrismanJ. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 11–27.
67.
Van de VeldeE., ZahraS.A., & ClarysseB. (2006). A model of antecedents and characteristics of corporate spin–offs. Paper presented an the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
68.
WeinzimmerL.G., NystromP.C., & FreemanS.J. (1998). Measuring organizational growth: Issues, consequences and guidelines. Journal of Management, 24, 235–262.
69.
WhitneyJ.O. (1996). Strategic renewal for business units. Harvard Business Review, 74(4), 84–98.
70.
WiklundJ. & ShepherdD. (2003). Aspiring for, and achieving growth: The moderating role of resources and opportunities. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 1919–1941.
71.
WrightM., HoskissonR.E., & BusenitzL.W. (2001). Firm rebirth: Buyouts as facilitators of strategic growth and entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 111–126.
72.
ZahraS.A. (1993). Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: A taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 319–340.
73.
ZahraS.A. (1996). Technology strategy and new venture performance: A study of corporate–sponsored and independent biotechnology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 289–321.
74.
ZahraS.A. & CovinJ.G. (1995). Contextual influence on the corporate entrepreneurship–performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 43–58.
