1. An Integrated Definition of Corporate Entrepreneurship
Harry Entebang
Faculty of Economics & Business
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
Kota Samarahan, Malaysia
eharry@feb.unimas.my
Richard T. Harisson
Queen’s University Management School
Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
Abstract - The issue of globalization has affected the world community significantly in numerous ways over the
last few decades. Developing countries in Asia are no exception. Global phenomena brought about by rapid
technological advancement, unsustainable economic and/or financial models, liberalization of trade policies,
unstable commodity prices and continuous market disruption have caused the world to move at an unexpectedly
accelerated pace leaving no room for political, economic, financial and social institutions to develop
concomitantly in terms of sustainable growth. As a consequence, organizations (public and private) throughout
the world continue to face unprecedented global turbulence and hostility. Given this, many have turned to
corporate entrepreneurship (CE) for answers. However, there has been inconsistency as to what CE really is.
This paper examines the multifaceted dimensions of CE and proposes an integrated definition of CE within
established organizations for superior growth and performance.
Keywords - corporate entrepreneurship; entrepreneurial orientation; entrepreneurial advantage
The term “entrepreneurship” has resisted precise definition for over 200 years (Hebert & Link, 1988).
Earlier researchers in the field of entrepreneurship have focused solely on determining the traits and
behaviours of entrepreneurs (Cole, 1946; Collins & Moore, 1970; Hartman, 1959; Schumpeter, 1942).
Specifically, the traditional emphasis was on the efforts of an individual who goes against the odds in
translating a vision into a successful business enterprise (Collins & Moore, 1964). Thus,
entrepreneurship has been characterized from the perspective of an individual alone. However,
increasingly there is more focus on examining entrepreneurship from an organizational or corporate
perspective. Some postulate that intensifying global competition, corporate downsizing and
delayering, rapid technological progress, and other organizational as well as environmental forces
have caused the need for organizations to become more entrepreneurial in order to survive and
prosper (Dess, Lumpkin, & McGee, 1999). Hence, corporate entrepreneurship or intrapreneurship has
been viewed as a means for corporations to enhance the innovative abilities of their employees and, at
the same time, increase corporate success through the creation of new corporate ventures (Kuratko,
Montagno, & Hornsby, 1990). In short, within the domain of entrepreneurship research there are a
number of distinct research areas that focus on different aspects of entrepreneurship.
Scholars have conceptualized entrepreneurship as a process which can occur in organizations of all
sizes and types and which is distinct from, but relies on, specific individuals (Burgelman, 1983;
Gartner, 1985; Miller, 1983; Stevenson, Roberts, & Grousbeck, 1989). Although there has been a shift
in entrepreneurship research, viewing entrepreneurship from an organizational perspective appears to
be consistent with the views of Schumpeter (see Schumpeter, 1942), who argues that
entrepreneurship will eventually be dominated by corporations that are capable of allocating or
devoting more resources to innovation (cited in Sembhi, 2002).
1 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development.
(2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.

2. Past literature on CE suggests that CE is an important facet of the strategic renewal, profitability,
innovation and growth of organizations (Adonisi, 2003). Additionally, CE has also been recognized as
an important element in organizational performance (Antoncic & Zorn, 2004), and a means to
stimulate and sustain the overall competitiveness of an organization (Mair & Rata, 2004). CE and the
practices of entrepreneurial activities within an established organization have been discovered to be as
an effective strategy for improving an organization’s performance (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2004; Covin
& Slevin, 1991; Zahra, 1991), even though Teng (2007) argues that CE does not always have positive
effects on a firm’s competitive advantage. However, CE and its related issues continue to be a popular
area of research among entrepreneurship and organizational scholars. Nonetheless, despite past
studies of CE and its related fields, our understanding of the subject is still minimal. In fact, the
emergence of multiple dimensions of CE has led to definitional issues. This paper examines the
multifaceted dimensions of CE and then proposes an integrated definition of CE within established
organizations for superior growth and performance.
WHAT IS CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP?
According to Burgelman (1984), the term “corporate entrepreneurship” seems oxymoronic. This can
be substantiated by the following works of entrepreneurship scholars. For example, the body of
literature on CE suggests that CE has been interpreted in various ways: as corporate venturing, or
intrapreneurship in established organizations for the purposes of profitability and to enhance firms’
competitive position (Zahra, 1991); strategic renewal (Guth & Ginsberg, 1990); product innovation,
proactiveness, and risk-taking (Miller, 1983); the development of new products and/or new markets
(Jennings & Lumpkin, 1989); development of corporate cultures and institutional processes which the
organization embraces (Kuhn, 1993); fostering innovativeness (Baden-Fuller, 1995); gaining
knowledge for future revenue streams (McGrath, 1994); international success (Birkinshaw, 1997);
product, process, and administrative innovations (Covin & Miles, 1999); radical product innovation,
risk-taking and proactiveness (Covin & Slevin, 1991); diversification (Burgelman, 1991); and
processes through which individuals’ ideas are transformed into collective actions through the
management of uncertainties (Chung & Gibbons, 1997). More generally, Morris and Kuratko (2002)
have used the term to describe the entrepreneurial behaviour inside established organizations.
In short, scholars and researchers in the field of CE have not defined CE consistently. A further
review of CE literature continues to suggest that CE has multiple definitions. In fact, CE has been
commonly defined either as an entrepreneurial activity, as an entrepreneurial process, or as an
entrepreneurial behaviour, and sometimes CE has been perceived as a strategy to enhance
organizational competitive position. However, all of these tend to occur in established organizations.
Within the stream of CE literature, there has been no clear definition. Building on past literature, it is
clear that CE can be viewed from four perspectives namely: as an activity, as a process, as a strategy
and as a firm behaviour and the following review extends these four perspectives of CE.
Corporate Entrepreneurship as an Activity
Schumpeter (1934) argued in the 1930s that entrepreneurship is about new combinations,
encompassing the doing of new things or the doing of things in a new way. Specifically, he argues
that new combinations include: (1) introduction of new goods, (2) new methods of production, (3)
opening of new markets, (4) new sources of supply, or (5) new organizations. Later, Drucker (1985)
defines entrepreneurship as an act of innovation that involves endowing existing resources with new
wealth-producing capacity. Low and MacMillan (1988) and Rumelt (1987) respectively claim that
entrepreneurship is concerned with the creation of new business. Subsequently, Sharma & Chrisman
(1999) regard entrepreneurship as organizational creation, renewal, or innovation that occurs within or
outside an existing organization. The following discussion further clarifies and establishes CE as an
activity of the firm.
2 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development.
(2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.

3. Corporate entrepreneurship or intrapreneurship refers to entrepreneurial activities within existing
business organizations (Schollhammer, 1982). Schollhammer argues that internal or intra-corporate
entrepreneurship refers to all formalized entrepreneurial activities within existing business
organizations. These formalized internal entrepreneurial activities are those which received explicit
organizational sanction and resource commitment for the purpose of innovative corporate endeavour,
such as new product developments, product improvement, and new methods or procedures. The writer
also suggests that CE can be in the form of administrative, imitative, acquisitive and incubative
initiatives of the organization.
In addition, Zahra (1991) advocates that CE may be formal or informal activity aimed at creating new
business in established organizations through product and process innovations and market
developments for the purposes of profitability. He argues that CE may take place at the corporate,
division, business unit, functional, and/or project levels with the unifying objective of improving a
company’s competitive position and financial performance. Later, Zahra (1995) views CE as the sum
of a company’s innovation, renewal, and venturing efforts. He contends that innovation involves
creating and commercializing products and technologies, providing financial and human resources for
innovative projects, and maintaining an appropriate infrastructure for innovation. Renewal means
revitalizing an organization’s business through innovation and changing its competitive profile, while
venturing requires creating and nurturing new business in current and new industries.
Antoncic and Zorn (2004) also prefer to view CE as entrepreneurship activities within an existing
organization. They suggest that this encompasses the creation of new business ventures and other
innovative activities as well as orientations such as development of new products, services,
technologies, administrative techniques, strategies and competitive postures. They note that the three
most pronounced elements of organizational level entrepreneurial activities are: new venture
formation, and product/service and process innovation. Immediately after this, McFadzean et al.
(2005) view CE as the effort of promoting innovation from an internal organizational perspective,
through the assessment of potential new opportunities, alignment of resources, exploitation and
commercialization of said opportunities. In summary, entrepreneurship scholars have defined CE as
entrepreneurial activities occurring in established organizations.
Corporate Entrepreneurship as a Process
Initially, Gartner (1988) tends to argue that entrepreneurship is the creation of organizations but later
the author perceives entrepreneurship as the process by which new organizations come into existence.
However, Kirzner (1973) considers entrepreneurship as the ability to perceive new opportunities and
similarly Morris (1998) also appears to agree that entrepreneurship is the process through which
individuals and teams create value by bringing together unique packages of resource inputs to exploit
opportunities in the environment which eventually results in a variety of possible outcomes such as
new ventures, products, services, processes, markets, and technologies. The following discussion
highlights CE as a process within established organizations.
Burgelman (1983) advocates that corporate entrepreneurship is a process whereby the firms engage in
diversification through internal development. Stevenson et al. (1989) also propose that
entrepreneurship is a process in which individuals-either on their own or inside organizations - pursue
opportunities without regard to the resources they currently control. Guth and Ginsberg (1990) argue
that CE encompasses two types of phenomena and the processes surrounding them i.e. the birth of
new businesses within existing organizations (e.g. internal innovations or corporate venturing
(acquisition) and the transformation of organizations through strategic renewal of the key ideas on
which they are built (e.g. actions like refocusing a business competitively, making major changes in
marketing or distribution, redirecting product development and reshaping operations). Subsequently,
the work of Sharma and Chrisman (1999) reinforce the definition postulated by Guth and Ginsberg
3 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development.
(2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.

4. and define CE as the process whereby an individual or group of individuals in established
organization, create a new organization or corporate venturing, and instigate renewal which involves
major strategic or structural changes and innovation such as introducing something new to the
marketplace within the current organization.
Carrier (1996) also considers CE as a process of creating new business within established firms to
improve organizational profitability and enhance a company’s competitive position. Following this
logic, Chung and Gibbons (1997) later define CE as an organizational process that transforms
individual ideas into collective actions through the management of uncertainties. Alternatively, CE is
the process whereby an individual or a group creates a new venture within an existing organization,
revitalizes, and renews an organization or innovates (Dess et al., 1999). Antoncic and Hisrich (2001)
claim that CE is actually a process that goes on inside an existing firm, regardless of its size, and leads
not only to new business ventures, but also to other innovative activities, and orientations such as
development of new products, services, technologies, administrative techniques, strategies and
competitive postures.
Alternatively, Ucbasaran, Westhead and Wright (2001) view CE as a process of organizational
renewal associated with two distinct but related dimensions: (1) creating new businesses through
market developments or by undertaking product, process, technological and administrative
innovations, (2) redefinition of the business concept, reorganization, and the introduction of system-
wide changes for innovation. Recently, Ireland, Kuratko and Morris (2006) postulated that corporate
entrepreneurship is a process through which an individual in an established organization pursues
entrepreneurial opportunities to innovate without regard to the level and nature of currently available
resources. Therefore, collectively, researchers have argued that corporate entrepreneurship is best
defined as an entrepreneurial process that occurs within established organizations.
Corporate Entrepreneurship as a Strategy
A review of the literature indicates that viewing CE as a strategy has not received much attention
among entrepreneurship scholars. However, discussion and prior research on key strategic variables
and their influence on a firm’s entrepreneurship activities have been quite extensive. In addition,
strategies that emphasize innovation and new product introductions are generally associated with an
entrepreneurial approach to competitive advantage (Dess et al., 1999). To allow further analysis of
whether or not CE has been viewed as a strategy, the key strategy variables namely generic strategies,
functional strategies, and the entry strategy of Porter (1980) are briefly discussed below.
Generically, researchers in the field of organizational behaviour believe that a firm’s competitive
strategy can foster its entrepreneurship activities. Consequently, the low-cost strategy and
differentiation strategy of Porter have been considered as strategic issues in CE (Dess et al., 1999).
They argue that the demands of global competition have heightened the need for cost-based strategies
and suggest that successful CE may hinge on a firm’s ability to “fit” with strategic approaches that
emphasize quality and effectiveness. On the other hand, they appear to question whether cost-based
approaches can be useful to corporate entrepreneurs or whether firms can pursue CE successfully by
using low-cost strategies as well as differentiation strategies.
On the other hand, Burgelman (1984) develops a model of the strategic process and shows how two
different strategic behaviours of managers (i.e. autonomous strategic behaviour and induced strategic
behaviour) can go on simultaneously in large, complex organizations when they are faced with
entrepreneurial activities/projects such as new product development, market development, strategic
capital investment, or engage in project championing efforts.
Hence, whether or not CE can be perceived as a strategy is yet to be established through empirical
study but the use of various strategic approaches within the context of large, established organizations
4 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development.
(2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.

5. in relation to corporate entrepreneurship activities continues to generate much interest among
organizational scholars.
Corporate Entrepreneurship as a Firm Behaviour
According to Dess et al., (1999, p.85), “all organizations are striving to exploit product-market
opportunities through innovative and proactive behaviour.” Later, Morris and Kuratko (2002) suggest
that CE is a term used to describe entrepreneurial behaviour inside established mid-sized and large
organizations. Subsequently, Kuratko, Ireland, Covin and Hornsby (2005) postulate CE as a type of
proactive behaviour that can stimulate desired innovation. They argue that there is a link between
successful corporate entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial behaviour of middle-level managers.
Nonetheless, the most notable work of CE as a firm behaviour comes from Covin & Slevin (1991). In
presenting their argument, Covin & Slevin propose a conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm
behaviour which later becomes well accepted among CE scholars particularly in advancing research
on CE and its related fields. This model becomes well recognized for several reasons: (1) it depicts
the organizational system elements that relate to entrepreneurial behaviour in larger, established
organizations and, (2) it delineates the antecedents and consequences of an entrepreneurial posture as
well as the variables that moderate the relationship between the posture and organization
performance.
In summary, entrepreneurship scholars appear to perceive CE as an entrepreneurial activity, as a
process, as a strategy and as a behaviour executed by a group of employees in existing organizations
for the purpose of creating organizational growth and improving competitive position through
innovation, strategic renewal, and corporate venturing activities. Following this line of argument, CE
has been perceived as an entrepreneurial activity, an entrepreneurial process, an entrepreneurial
strategy and as a behaviour of a firm persistently pursued by individuals (a group of employees)
within or outside organizations to generate a stream of continuous innovation, strategic renewal, and
corporate venturing activities for the purposes of creating and improving organizational growth,
competitive position and the overall financial performance of firms.
WHAT IS ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION?
The degree to which an organization produces new things, reacts towards and exploits new
opportunities and is able to take risks is considered as entrepreneurial orientation.
Miller (1983, p.780) states that:
“in general, theorists would not call a firm entrepreneurial if it changed its technology or product lines
… simply by directly imitating competitors while refusing to take any risks. Some proactiveness
would be essential as well. By the same token, risk-taking firms that are highly leveraged financially
are not necessarily entrepreneurial. They must also engage in product-market or technological
innovation”
Therefore, Miller suggests that the study of corporate entrepreneurial orientation should be explored
by assessing organizational activities/behaviour such as product innovation, proactiveness, and risk-
taking. Subsequently, Covin and Slevin (1991) also discuss the strategic effects of a firm’s
entrepreneurial posture on organizational performance and argue that entrepreneurial firms will act
innovatively, take risks, and behave proactively and competitively. Later, Lumpkin and Dess (1996)
propose another two dimensions for measuring an entrepreneurial orientation of a firm i.e. autonomy
and competitive aggressiveness. However, others posit that the degree of entrepreneurship refers to
the extent to which any one event is innovative, risky, and proactive while the number of events such
as new products, services, and processes has been regarded as entrepreneurial frequency (Morris &
5 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development.
(2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.

6. Sexton, 1996). They postulate that the frequency of entrepreneurial events and the degree of
entrepreneurship form a variable term: entrepreneurial intensity.
Within this framework, empirical results indicate that the entrepreneurial orientation (EO) of an
organization may influence its performance (Wiklund, 1999). It has been argued that EO has a long-
term effect on perceived performance and that EO can over time contribute to value-adding activities
of organizations (Madsen, 2004). Subsequently, the performance of an organization is enhanced when
its entrepreneurial intensity exceeds the industry average (Ireland et al., 2006). In short, past studies
suggest that the entrepreneurial orientation of an organization tends to demonstrate organizational
entrepreneurial proclivity/tendency in terms of innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking, competitive
aggressiveness and autonomous behaviour when dealing with entrepreneurial projects/activities.
Given this, the extent to which a firm will pursue CE is dependent on its entrepreneurial orientation.
CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP PERFORMANCE
Zahra (1995) strongly argues that innovation, strategic renewal and corporate venturing efforts within
established organizations are called corporate entrepreneurship.
Innovation
Innovation has been associated with the work of Schumpeter in 1934 who argued that organizational
innovation occurs when it creates and develops new products and processes. Later, innovation was
defined as a process that provides added value and a degree of novelty to the organization and its
suppliers and customers through the development of new procedures, solutions, products and services
as well as new methods of commercialization (Covin & Slevin, 1991a; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996a;
Zahra, 1993). Similarly, Zahra (1996a, p. 1715) views innovation as “creating and introducing new
products, production processes, and organisational systems”, while Covin and Miles (1999) argue that
this form of continuous innovation as sustained regeneration is the most frequently recognized form
of CE activity where the organization develops cultures, processes, and structures to support and
encourage a continuous stream of new product introductions in its current market and entries with
existing products into new markets.
New Business Creation / Corporate Venturing
New business creation and corporate venturing are terminologies used to describe entrepreneurship
activity within existing organizations, another form of CE activity. An organization is considered to
have created a new business or engaged in corporate venturing initiatives when it enters a new market,
and/or establishes a new division or a subsidiary as a strategy to exploit opportunities. For instance,
corporate venturing involves entering new businesses through the creation or purchase of new
business organizations (Block & MacMillan, 1993; Zahra, 1993). Later, Sathe (2003, p.12) viewed
activities such as a new product initiative, a new market initiative, or a new product-market initiative,
as a “new business initiative.” A joint venture between a corporate division and another company, or a
new business initiative that has a dedicated venture organization within the division, will be called a
“new venture.” Previous researchers also argue that corporate venturing can be an important source
of organizational strategic renewal (Burgelman, 1983c; Guth & Ginsberg, 1990; Stopford & Baden-
Fuller, 1994).
Strategic Renewal
CE literature suggests that strategic renewal concerns activities that organizations undertake in order
to refresh, reinvigorate, or transform their current actions or strategies (Zahra, 1993). In response to
external as well as internal stimuli, both successful and struggling organizations may undertake such
activities. Past studies have shown that changes in technology and market disruption can cause core
competencies to become obsolete or irrelevant. In response to such a phenomenon, organizations
begin to create their own sources of strategic change, through various forms of entrepreneurial
6 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development.
(2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.

7. activities such as research and development, new product and process innovation, divestment, mission
reformulation, reorganization, changes in systems, learning-by-doing, and competitive interactions
with other organizations (Zahra, 1993). Consistent with this view, Zahra (1996a, p. 1715) suggests
that strategic renewal of a firm means “transforming the organisation, or revitalizing a company’s
operation by changing the scope of its business, its competitive approach, or both.” Here, the
organization is seeking to change how it competes and concentrates on renewing the strategies it uses
to successfully align itself with its external environment (Dess, Ireland, Zahra, Floyd, Janney & Lane,
2003).
PROPOSED DEFINITION OF CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Building on past empirical evidence of corporate entrepreneurship and its related field, the debates
remain on definitional issues, and consequences of firm-level entrepreneurship on organizational
performance, particularly financial performance (Covin & Slevin, 1991; Zahra, 1991).
Although empirical evidence related to CE has been around for more than three decades, there is still
a great deal of ambiguity about it. Hence, different writers have used different perspectives to
approach CE. For example, the organizational learning perspective (Dess et al., 2003; Sambrook &
Robert, 2005); wealth creation (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2004); a competency-based perspective (Hayton
& Kelley, 2006); the human resource approach (Maes, Sels, & Winne, 2005); the process-based
approach (Shaw, O'Loughlin, & McFadzean, 2005); knowledge management and organizational
learning theory (Drejer, Christensen, & Ulhoi, 2004); the resource-based perspective (Maes, 2006;
Teng, 2007); the strategic management perspective (Barringer & Bluedorn, 1999); and the agency
theory perspective (Jones & Butler, 1992). As a result, our understanding about CE and its related
approaches has been fragmented, inconsistent and disintegrated.
In sum, previous studies on corporate entrepreneurship have viewed CE from four dimensions and
therefore there is a need to integrate these with the internal and external organizational factors and
subsequently assess the extent to which they can affect overall organizational performance. Admitting
this and given the scope of the research, CE can be defined as “the pursuit of strategic organizational
innovation, strategic renewal and corporate venturing initiatives or activities (corporate
entrepreneurship performance) achieved through entrepreneurial orientation by established
organizations facilitated by efficient and effective management of both internal and external
corporate entrepreneurship factors for the purpose of improving organizational overall performance
”.
The proposed definition of corporate entrepreneurship is relevant in today’s business environment as
it incorporates four critical elements surrounding entrepreneurship at firm level: firstly, by pursuing
the strategic corporate entrepreneurship initiatives/activities through entrepreneurial orientation
signifying an organization as an entrepreneurial entity. This in turn will lead an organization to
achieve entrepreneurial advantage above its competitors. Therefore, when an organization introduces
a new product, a new service, and enters into a new market, implements new administrative and
internal process improvements, has a tendency to pursue high risk projects without regard to the
existing situation, continuously pursues R&D, forms a new subsidiary, merger and acquisition,
strategic alliances, pursues a low cost strategy as well as changing the way the business competes,
they are establishing strategic corporate entrepreneurship performance. And it is this form of strategic
performance that will lead the company or organization to achieve entrepreneurial advantage and
subsequently outperformed its competitors.
The second element in the proposed definition concerns the internal organizational factors of a firm.
These factors refer to the whole structure and set up that governs the whole operation of the
organization. Examples of these factors are: boards of directors, strategic leadership, top management
7 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development.
(2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.

8. team, human capital (a pool of technological and scientific employees), strategic planning, strategic
decision-making processes, rewards and compensation, internal processes of the firm (administrative
procedures/controls), resources (tangible and intangible), the structure of the firm, cultures as well as
organizational size and age. It is argued that to be entrepreneurial, firms must continue to ensure that
these factors should promote/spur and not impede/stifle the strategic entrepreneurship performance of
the organization.
The third element of the definition considers the external industry or market forces (environmental
factors) of the organization. A firm’s ability to respond strategically to its external forces will also
affect its performance. Example of these forces are: environmental dynamism, hostility, industry life
cycle stage, technological sophistication, industry and competitive forces such as customer pressures,
suppliers’ innovation and production capability, threats of substitutes, industry rivalry, government
regulations/policies, industry standards, new technology, and adverse economic conditions. Building
on this argument, these external forces of the business should be considered in the definition of
corporate entrepreneurship. Hence, for an organization to experience further growth, effective and
efficient management of these forces is necessary. Therefore, it is also argued that in order to achieve
strategic entrepreneurship performance, which in turn will lead to entrepreneurial advantage, firms of
all sizes must continue to ensure these factors promote/spur and do not impede the performance of the
organization.
The final element of CE within the proposed definition is concerned with the outcomes of CE
activities, processes, behaviours and strategies. Building on past literature, organizations will find it
difficult to grow and improve their competitiveness as well as their performance if they fail to pursue
innovation, strategic renewal and corporate venturing activities continuously or simultaneously.
Therefore, the ultimate goal of an entrepreneurial organization is to achieve strategic entrepreneurship
performance and, in doing so, the organization will grow and improve its overall performance in
terms of wealth and other aspects of value creation.
CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Regardless of inconsistency in defining corporate entrepreneurship, the proposed definition has shed
some light on the problem. Therefore, to achieve an entrepreneurial advantage demonstrated in terms
of organizational innovation, renewal and venturing initiatives, the proclivity towards risk-taking,
proactiveness and innovativeness should remain the centre of corporate entrepreneurial strategy.
Given the hostility and dynamism of today’s business environment, managers should recognize the
need for corporate entrepreneurship. However, this paper comes with several limitations. No
discussion has been provided on the role of the internal and external corporate entrepreneurship
factors on CE. Given the proposed definition, future research should consider investigating the effects
of internal and external environments on firms’ performance.
REFERENCES
Adonisi, M. 2003. The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship, market orientation,
organisational flexibility and job satisfaction. University of Pretoria, Pretoria.
Antoncic, B., and Hisrich R. D. 2001. Intrapreneurship: construct refinement and cross-cultural
validation. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16, No. 5, 495-527.
Antoncic, B., and Hisrich R. D. 2004. Corporate entrepreneurship contingencies and organizational
wealth creation Journal of Management Development, Vol. 23, No. 6, 518-550.
Antoncic, B., and Zorn O. 2004. The mediating role of corporate entrepreneurship. Managing Global
Transitions, Vol. 2, No. 1, 5-14.
Baden-Fuller, C. 1995. New directions for effective strategy research. British Journal of
Management, Vol. 6, 3-16.
8 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development.
(2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.

9. Barringer, B. R., and Bluedorn A. C. 1999. The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and
strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20, 421-444.
Birkinshaw, J. 1997. Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteristics of subsidiary
initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, 207-229.
Block, Z., and MacMillan, I. 1993. Corporate venturing: creating new business within the firm.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Burgelman, R. A. 1983. Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a
process study. Management Science, Vol. 29, No. 12, 1349-1364.
Burgelman, R. A. 1984. Designs for corporate entrepreneurship. California Management Review,
Vol. 26, No. 2, 154-166.
Burgelman, R. A. 1991. Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation:
Theory and field research. Organization Science, Vol. 2, 239-262.
Carrier, C. 1996. Intrapreneurship in small businesses: An exploratory study. Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, Vol. 21, No. 1, 5-20.
Chung, L. H., and Gibbons P. T. 1997. Corporate Entrepreneurship: The Roles of Ideology and Social
Capital. Group and Organization Management, Vol. 22, No. 1, 10-30.
Cole, A. H. 1946. An approach to the study of entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic History, Suppl.
4, 1-55.
Collins, O., and Moore, D. 1964. The Enterprising Man. Michigan State University.
Collins, O., and Moore, D. G. 1970. The organization makers. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft.
Covin, J. G., and Miles M. P. 1999. Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive
advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 23, No. 3.
Covin, J. G., and Slevin D. P. 1991. A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol.16, No. 1, 7-26.
Dess, G. G., Ireland, R. D., Zahra, S. A., Floyd, S. W., Janney, J. J., and Lane P. J. 2003. Emerging
issues in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, Vol. 29, No. 3, 351-378.
Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., and McGee J. E. 1999. Linking corporate entrepreneurship to strategy,
structure, and process: Suggested research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Vol. 23, No. 3, 85-102.
Drejer, A., Christensen, K. S., and Ulhoi J. P. 2004. Understanding intrapreneurship by means of
state-of-the-art knowledge management and organisational learning theory. International
Journal of Management Enterprise Development, Vol. 1, No. 2, 102-119.
Drucker, P. F. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship: practice and principles Harper & Row.
Gartner, W. B. 1985. A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture
creation. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 4, 696-706.
Gartner, W. B. 1988. Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small
Business, Vol. 12, No. 4, 11-32.
Guth, W. D., and Ginsberg A. 1990. Guest editors' introduction: Corporate entrepreneurship.
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, Summer, 5-15.
Hartman, H. 1959. Managers and entrepreneurs: A useful distinction. Admin. Science Quarterly, Vol.
3, 429-451.
Hayton, J. C., and Kelley D. J. 2006. A competency-based framework for promoting corporate
entrepreneurship. Human Resource Management, Vol. 45, No. 3, 407-427.
Hebert, R. F., and Link A. N. 1988. The entrepreneur: Mainstream views and radical critiques
(Second ed.). New York: Praeger
Ireland, R. D., Kuratko, D. F., and Michael H. M. 2006. A health audit for corporate entrepreneurship:
Innovation at all levels: Part I. Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 27, No. 1, 10-17.
Jennings, D. F., and Lumpkin J. L. 1989. Functionally Modeling Corporate Entrepreneurship: An
Empirical Integrative Analysis. Journal of Management, Vol. 15, No. 3, 485-503.
Jones, G. R., and Butler J. E. 1992. Managing internal corporate entrepreneurship: An agency theory
perspective. Journal of Management, Vol.18, 733-749.
Kirzner, I. 1973. Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development.
(2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.

10. Kuhn, R. L. 1993. Generating creativity and innovation in large bureaucracies Westport,
Connecticut: Quorum Book.
Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., and Hornsby J. S. 2005. A model of middle-level
managers' entrepreneurial behaviour. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 699-716.
Kuratko, D. F., Montagno, R. V., and Hornsby, J. S. 1990. Developing an intrapreneurial assessment
instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 11, Special Issue, 49-58.
Low, M. B., and MacMillan I. C. 1988. Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges.
Journal of Management, Vol.14, No. 2, 139-161.
Lumpkin, G. T., and Dess G. G. 1996. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking
it to performance. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 1, 135-172.
Madsen, E. L. 2004. Resources, long-term entrepreneurial orientation, and firm performance. Paper
presented at the 13th Nordic Conference on Small Business Research.
Maes, J. 2006. Innovation, venturing and renewal as corporate entrepreneurial outcomes: A resource-
based analysis. Katholieke Universitent Leuven.
Maes, J., Sels, L., and Winne S. D. 2005. Innovation as a corporate entrepreneurial outcome in newly
established firms: A human resource-based view. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
Mair, J., and Rata, C. 20004. Corporate entrepreneurship: Linking strategic roles to multiple
dimensions of performance. IESE Business School.
McFadzean, E., O'Loughlin, A., and Shaw, E. 2005. Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation: Part
I: The missing link. European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 8, No. 3, 350-372.
McGrath, M. E. 1994. Product strategies for high-technology companies: How to achieve growth,
competitive advantage, and increased profits. New York: Irwin.
Miller, A., and Camp B. 1985. Exploring determinants of success in corporate ventures. Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 1. No.1, 247-259.
Miller, D. 1983. The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, Vol.
29, No. 7, 770-791.
Morris, M. H. 1998. Entrepreneurial intensity: Sustainability advantages for individuals,
organizations and societies. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Morris, M. H., and Kuratko D. F. 2002. Corporate entrepreneurship. United States of America:
Harcourt College Publisher.
Morris, M. H., and Sexton, D. L. 1996. The concept of entrepreneurial intensity: Implication for
company performance. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 36, 5-13.
Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New
York: Free Press.
Rumelt, R. P. 1987. Theory, strategy, and entrepreneurship. In D. J. Teece (Ed.), The competitive
challenge (pp. 137-158). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Russell, R. D. 1999. Developing a process model of intrapreneurial systems: a cognitive mapping
approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.
Sambrook, S., and Robert C. 2005. Corporate entrepreneurship and organizational learning: A review
of the literature and the development of a conceptual framework. Strategic Change, Vol. 14,
141-155.
Sathe, V. 2003. Corporate entrepreneurship: top managers and new business creation (1 ed.). United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Schollhammer, H. 1982. Internal corporate entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton & K. H.
Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship
(pp. 209-223). Englewood Cliffs, NI: Prentice Hall.
Schumpeter, J. A. 1934. Theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. 1942. Capitalism, socialism, and democracy New York: Harper & Brothers.
Sembhi, R. S. 2002. Entrepreneurial orientation: A review of selected literature. University of
Waterloo.
10 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development.
(2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.

11. Sharma, P., and Chrisman, J. J. 1999. Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of
corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 23, No. 3, 11-27.
Shaw, E., O'Loughlin, A., & McFadzean, E. 2005. Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation: Part 2:
A role-and process-based approach. European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 8,
No. 4, 393-408.
Stevenson, H. H., Roberts, M. J., and Grousbeck, H. I. 1989. New business ventures and the
entrepreneur. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Stopford, J. M., and Baden-Fuller C. W. F. 1994. Creating corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic
Management Journal, Vol.15, No. 6, 521-536.
Teng, B. S. 2007. Corporate entrepreneurship activities through strategic alliances: A resource-based
approach toward competitive advantage. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1,
119-142.
Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., and Wright M. 2001. The focus of entrepreneurial research: contextual
and process issues. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 25, No. 4, 57-80.
Wiklund, J. 1999. The sustainability of the entrepreneurial orientation-performance relationship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 24, No. 1.
Zahra, S. A. 1991. Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory
study. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 6, 259-286.
Zahra, S. A. 1993. Environment, corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: a taxomomic
approach. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8, 318-340.
Zahra, S. A. 1995. Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: The case of management
leveraged buyouts. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 10, 225-247.
Zahra, S. A. 1996. Governance, ownership and corporate entrepreneurship: the moderating impact of
industry technology opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 6, 1713-
1735.
Biography
Harry Entebang is a Senior Lecturer of the Faculty of Economics & Business at Universiti Malaysia
Sarawak. He received his PhD from Queen’s University of Belfast, United Kingdom. His current
research interests include corporate entrepreneurship in established organizations.
Richard T. Harrison is a Professor of Management and Director of the Queen’s University
Management School at Queen’s University of Belfast, United Kingdom. His current research interests
include venture capital, entrepreneurial finance and corporate entrepreneurship.
11 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development.
(2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.