Technological Forecasting & Social Change 88 (2014) 360–369

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

Culture and innovation: The moderating effect of culturalvalues on corporate entrepreneurship

Andreu Turró a, David Urbano a, Marta Peris-Ortiz b,⁎a Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spainb Universitat Politécnica de València, Valencia, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

⁎ Corresponding author at: Universitat Politécnica deof Business Administration, Spain.

E-mail addresses: andreu.turro@e-campus.uab.catdavid.urbano@uab.es (D. Urbano), mperis@doe.upv.es

0040-1625/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.004

a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 30 September 2013Accepted 30 September 2013Available online 11 November 2013

In the few last decades researchers have paid attention to the role of entrepreneurship andinnovation in productivity, employment, and economic and social development. In addition,literature has focused on the entrepreneurship that occurswithin organizations, such as corporateentrepreneurship. Also, the role of culture is crucial for the development of innovation.Consequently, it is vital to understand why some firms are more innovative and develop moreentrepreneurial projects than others, and what determines innovation performance. Thisresearch uses Institutional Economics as a conceptual framework with the objective of analyzingthe environmental factors that condition innovation within the firms. Specifically, the studydetermines the moderating effect of cultural values on corporate entrepreneurship. The studyuses a logistic regression and the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor – GEM – database from theyears 2004–2008, with information of 62 different countries (718.758 observations). The mainfindings highlight the impact of the environmental factors on organizational innovation, specificallyon corporate entrepreneurship. Variables such as living in an entrepreneurial culture and mediaexposure (informal factors), and the number of procedures necessary to create a new business oraccess to finance (formal factors), appear to be significant for corporate entrepreneurship.Moreover,informal factors behave asmoderators between formal factors and corporate entrepreneurship. Thearticle has several implications from both theoretical perspective (advancing in the application ofInstitutional Economics for the study of innovationwithin the firms) and from the practical point ofview (providing insights for governmental policies interested in fostering innovation and corporateentrepreneurship).

© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:InnovationCorporate entrepreneurshipCultureInstitutional EconomicsGEM

1. Introduction

There is consensus among scholars that entrepreneurship isa key determinant of firm, regional and national economicperformance [1,2]. Thus, in the few last decades researchershave paid attention to the role of entrepreneurship in pro-ductivity, employment, and economic and social development[3]. Entrepreneurship research has been expanding its bound-aries by exploring anddeveloping explanations and predictionsof entrepreneurship phenomena in terms of events, such as

València, Department

(A. Turró),(M. Peris-Ortiz).

ll rights reserved.

new venture creation, innovation and entrepreneurial organi-zations [4]. In addition, attention has been paid to entrepre-neurship that occurs within organizations, such as corporateentrepreneurship. Most empirical studies show a positiverelationship between innovation and organizational perfor-mance [5–7]. Literature agrees that innovation can be consid-ered an economic growth driver with significant implicationsfor wealth creation [8]. Also, the role of culture is crucial for thedevelopment of innovation [1,9]. Consequently, it is vital tounderstand why some firms are more innovative and developmore entrepreneurial projects than others, andwhat determinesinnovation performance [10].

Despite all this, the factors that determine innovation infirms still remain somewhat unclear [11]. In addition, it isnoteworthy that most empirical articles in this field do not

361A. Turró et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 88 (2014) 360–369

use an explicit theoretical framework. This research usesInstitutional Economics (IE) as a conceptual framework withthe objective of analyzing the environmental factors thatcondition innovation within the firms. Specifically, the studydetermines themoderating effect of cultural values on corporateentrepreneurship. Previous research has tried to identify whichorganizational and environmental factors influence corporateentrepreneurship [9,12,13]. However, despite the fact that theinstitutional perspective has been widely used in entrepre-neurial research [14], to our knowledge very few papers in theinnovation field are grounded in this IE [9]. Besides, theinstitutional environment has historically been viewed as adeterminant of entrepreneurial activity at both the individualand organizational levels [15]. The list of environmental con-ditions that can trigger innovation in established firms is quiteextensive [16,17]. Schindehutte et al. identify no less than 40“key triggers” of corporate entrepreneurship activity and organi-zational innovation, roughly half of which would be considered“environmental” in nature [18]. Thus, in terms of influencingentrepreneurship in general terms and specifically corporateentrepreneurship, the environment appears to be an importantdeterminant [15].

This study used a logistic regression technique and aGlobal Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) database from theyears 2004–2008. The GEM research program is an annualassessment of the national level of entrepreneurial activityand has become the largest survey-based study of entre-preneurship in the world. In addition, these data werecomplemented with data from the Doing Business projectand from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The DoingBusiness project provides objective measures of businessregulations and their enforcement across 183 economies. Theresults highlight the impact of the environmental factors onorganizational innovation, specifically on corporate entre-preneurship. Variables such as living in an entrepreneurialculture and media exposure (informal factors), and thenumber of procedures necessary to create a new businessor access to finance (formal factors), appear to be significantfor corporate entrepreneurship. Moreover, informal factorsalso have an indirect effect as they behave as moderatorsbetween formal factors and corporate entrepreneurship.The article has several implications from both theoreticalperspective (advancing in the application of IE for the studyof innovation within the firms) and from the practical point ofview (providing insights for governmental policies interestedin fostering innovation and corporate entrepreneurship).

The article is structured as follows. After this brief intro-duction in Sections 2 and 3 the conceptual framework andthe research hypotheses are presented. In Section 4 themethodology used in the empirical part is detailed. Section 5provides the results and discussion. Finally, Section 6 presentsthe main conclusions of the study.

2. Conceptual framework: corporate entrepreneurshipand Institutional Economics

Since Schumpeter's description of the introduction of a novelgood as an entrepreneurial action, many scholars have viewedinnovation as one form of corporate entrepreneurial action[19,20]. As we mentioned before, corporate entrepreneurship(entrepreneurshipwithin existing organizations) is an important

element in organizational and economic development. Scholarsand practitioners have shown interest in the concept since thebeginning of the 1980s due to its beneficial effect on therevitalization and performance of firms [21]. The fact thatcorporate entrepreneurship is considered an important remedyfor a lack of innovative and competitive capabilities withinorganizations has led the research in this field to flourish [12,22].

Corporate entrepreneurship has typically been characterizedas amultidimensional construct. It has been defined as “the sumof a company's innovation, renewal, and venturing efforts” [23:227]. In this case, innovation refers to the firm's commitment tointroducing new products, production processes and organi-zational methods [24,25]. Venturing refers to new businesscreation [15,26] and strategic renewal (or self-renewal) refers tothe creation of new wealth through new combinations ofresources [27]. In addition, corporate entrepreneurship andinnovation have been linked to the entrepreneurial orientationconcept. In this regard, Miller defined an entrepreneurial firm asone that “…engages in product–market innovation, undertakessomewhat risky ventures, and is first to come up with proactiveinnovations, beating competitors to the punch” [28,29]. Incontrast, “…a non-entrepreneurial firm is one that innovatesvery little, is highly risk averse, and imitates the moves ofcompetitors instead of leading the way…” [28: 771].

Overall, the adoption of innovative activities represents afundamental change in firms' strategic behaviors in responseto institutional changes [29]. It is commonly believed inmature markets that a firm without the ability to engage insome levels of corporate entrepreneurship will fail [30].Hence, as the firm grows and evolves, an entrepreneurialtransformation is necessary to achieve efficiency, improveproductivity and create wealth [31].

2.1. Institutional Economics

IE suggests that human behavior is influenced by theinstitutional environment [32,33]. Hence, institutional theoryis traditionally concerned with how people and organizationsbetter secure their positions and legitimacy by conforming tothe rules and norms of the institutional environment [34].There are many definitions of institutions, Scott suggests thatinstitutions consist of cognitive, normative and regulativestructures and activities that provide stability andmeaning insocial behavior. These institutions are derived from rulessuch as regulatory structures, governmental agencies, laws,courts, professions, and scripts and other societal and culturalpractices that exert conformance pressures [35,36]. Overall,these institutional patterns strongly influence economicbehavior [32], organizational behavior [37], and innovationand entrepreneurship [31].

Most scholars follow North's definition, according to whichinstitutions can be formal, such as political and economic rulesand contracts, or informal, such as codes of conduct, conventions,attitudes, values and norms of behavior [32,33]. Formalinstitutions are subordinate to informal institutions in thesense that they are the deliberate means used to structure theinteractions of a society in line with the norms and values thatmake up its informal institutions. North's definition implies thatpolicy-making which attempts to change the formal institutionsof societywithoutmeasures to adjust the informal institutions incompatible ways will have marginal success [14].

362 A. Turró et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 88 (2014) 360–369

The application of institutional theory has proven to beespecially helpful to entrepreneurial research [13], therefore, IEhas been widely used in the field of entrepreneurship[14,38–40] and research relating the institutional environmentto entrepreneurship is attracting growing attention [41,42].However, in the corporate entrepreneurship field there hasbeen limited attention to the influence of the institutionalenvironment [11]; this fact is evenmore striking if we considerthat many authors have considered the environment animportant antecedent for corporate entrepreneurship [17].

3. Hypotheses and proposed model

3.1. Informal factors: entrepreneurial culture

The literature suggests that the formation of different culturalvalues in different societies influences the decision to create newbusinesses [14]; therefore, not all societies foster entrepreneurialactivity and innovation with equal effectiveness. Shapero andSokol observed how business formation rates vary from societyto society. They argue that these differences occur becausedifferent cultures hold different beliefs about the desirability andfeasibility of beginning a newenterprise [43,44]. Similarly, Shanedemonstrated (using a Hofstede approach) that the nationalcultural values of individualism and power distance explainnational differences in rates of inventiveness [45].

These differences in the socio-cultural contextmay influence,among others, the status and social recognition of corporateentrepreneurs, promoting or inhibiting entrepreneurial careerchoice [46]. Culture influences the cognitive framework thataffects howmembers in an organization perceive issues, as wellas how they view their firm's competitive landscape [47]. Itfacilitates and accommodates the entrepreneurial activities ofthe firm and makes more likely to engage in entrepreneurialventures seeking opportunities [48]. Overall, culture, as distinctfrom political, social, technological or economic contexts, hasrelevance for economic behavior, innovation and entrepre-neurship [43]. Therefore, we posit the following hypothesis:

H1. It is more likely that individuals will become corporateentrepreneurs when they are involved in an entrepreneurialculture.

3.2. Informal factors: media impact

The day-to-day selection and display of news by journalistscan focus the public's attention and influence its perceptions[49]. The specific ability to influence the salience of topics andtheir images among the public has come to be called theagenda-setting role of the newsmedia. The core proposition ofthis view is that the prominence of elements in the newsinfluences the prominence of those elements among the public[50]. The public uses these salience cues from the media toorganize their own agendas, to decide which issues, persons orother objects are the most important. Over time, the set ofpriorities visible on the agenda of the news media becomes, toa considerable degree, the agenda of the public [50,51].Therefore, stories reported by the media can play a criticalrole in the processes that enable new businesses to emerge.Stories that are told by or about entrepreneurs define a newventure inways that can lead to favorable interpretations of the

wealth-creating possibilities of the venture; this enablesresource flows to the new enterprise [50]. These stories can behelpful to potential entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and otherinstitutional actors (such as investment banks, foundations,innovative organizations, etc.) [52,53].

H2. It is more likely that individuals will become corporateentrepreneurs when the media often report stories aboutsuccessful new businesses.

3.3. Formal factors: procedures

One of the main steps that can be taken by SME andentrepreneurship policy makers seeking to increase rates ofinnovation and new firm formation is to enable the startingof a business to take place as quickly and cheaply as possible[54]. Djankov et al. suggest that the time and cost necessaryto create a business vary significantly among countries andconsequently affect its rate of business creation. For example,even aside from the costs associated with the corruption thatexists in some countries, business entry is considered to bemore expensive in developing economies [54,55]. Similarly,Gnyawali and Fogel found that governmental regulation isgenerally perceived negatively by potential entrepreneurs[46]. However, other studies, such as van Stel et al., posit thatthe relation between the time and cost of starting a businessand entrepreneurship is not as clear as implied by Djankov etal. and Gnyawali and Fogel [46,54,55]. Nevertheless, corporateentrepreneurs may be discouraged from starting a business ifthey have to follow many rules and procedures. Overall,inefficient government regulation in the economy may beperceived negatively, especially by those interested in startingnew businesses [54]. Hence, we formulate the followinghypothesis:

H3. The more procedures that are necessary to create acompany, the less likely it is that individuals will becomecorporate entrepreneurs.

3.4. Formal factors: credit

Economic research has focused intensely on the roleplayed by financial markets and institutions in real economicactivity [56]; capital emerges as a critical success factor whenstarting a business [57,58]. Evans and Leighton and Evans andJovanovic argue that entrepreneurs face liquidity constraints,and Blanchflower and Oswald cite lack of capital as one of themain impediments entrepreneurs have to face and suggestthis might be a reason for nascent entrepreneurs to abandonthe start-up process [59–61]. Similarly, in a study based onindividuals who had business ideas but who had not created afirm, van Auken found that financial constraints were themainobstacle [62]. Therefore, a key challenge for entrepreneurs andcorporate entrepreneurs is to find a means of accessing bankloans efficiently [63]. Research evidence shows that policieswhich increase access to bank credit, credit with low interestrates, and credit guarantee schemes, lead to the creation ofinvestment in companies and contribute significantly to thepromotion of new businesses [46,64]. However, most firmsstart out with a small amount of capital provided by the firm

363A. Turró et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 88 (2014) 360–369

founder(s) [65]. Overall, therefore, we advance the followinghypothesis:

H4. The greater the access to finance to create a company,the more likely it is that individuals will become corporateentrepreneurs.

3.5. The moderating role of entrepreneurial culture

One of the difficulties in examining the cultural affects andeffects in relation to innovation is the lack of a precise andcommonly understood definition of culture [44]. Some authors,such as Scott and Lane, define culture as “an interpretiveframework throughwhich individuals make sense of their ownbehavior, as well as the behavior of collectivities in theirsociety” [66: 49]. However, much of the research in entre-preneurship and innovation that considers cultural variableshas followed Hofstede's seminal work showing how culture ismanifested in various forms and how cultural values atindividual or societal levels are influenced by national culture[14,67,68].

Overall, most of the research agrees that entrepreneurialactivity may vary across countries due to differences incultural values and beliefs. Shapero and Sokol, for example,observed that business formation rates vary from society tosociety [43]. They argue that this is so because differentcultures carry different beliefs about the desirability andfeasibility of beginning a new enterprise. Similarly, Timmonsfound that being well organized, being highly committed towork and willing to accept responsibility for outcomesresulting from it, and having a desire for high standards, areamong the attributes associated with an effective entre-preneurial culture [69]. In addition, national culture has alsobeen linked to corporate entrepreneurship. Using a Hofstedeapproach, Morris et al. found that corporate entrepreneurshipis highest in moderately individualistic cultures [70], whileVenkataraman et al. argued that the cultural values of uncer-tainty avoidance and power distance explain the differentapproaches to the corporate venturing process in differentcountries [71,72].

From an institutional approach, both formal and informalinstitutions can legitimize and delegitimize business activity asa socially valued or attractive activity, and can promote andconstrain the entrepreneurial spirit [38,39]. Institutions areconstituted by culture and social relations, and human, socialand cultural capitals are often antecedents to acquiringfinancial capital and other resources needed to start a business[14]. For example, developing countries tend to have higherrates of informal work rates – greater unofficial economies –

than high-income countries. In such contexts there is less socialand legal pressure on enforcing rules and regulations and thusseveral formalities and procedures for starting a business areavoided by entrepreneurs [73]. Similarly, Djankov et al. foundthat heavier regulation of entry is generally associated withgreater corruption and a larger unofficial economy [55]. Also,entry is regulated more heavily by less democratic governmentsand such regulation does not seem to yield visible social benefits.In terms of access to bank credit, developing countries arecharacterized by larger unofficial economies and so entre-preneurs have even fewer bank guarantees than is the case in

developed countries and the access to credit is alsomore difficult[46]. Overall, therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:

H5a. The impact of the number of procedures for corporateentrepreneurship is moderated by culture; in a country with anentrepreneurial culture, the more procedures that are necessaryto create a company, the less likely it is that individuals willbecome corporate entrepreneurs.

H5b. The impact of access to finance for corporate entrepre-neurship is moderated by culture; in a country with an entre-preneurial culture, the greater the access to finance, the morelikely it is that individuals will become corporate entrepreneurs.

3.6. The moderating role of the media

The media assist in transmitting the accepted values of asociety, both reflecting public perceptions of what is desirableand tolerated in a society and having an impact on these publicperceptions [74]. Society legitimizes or restricts entrepre-neurial actions because culturally accepted role models havean influence on the recognition of entrepreneurship as a viablecareer option, as well as on the types of entrepreneurship [75].In this context, public discourses as transmitted bymassmediaplay an important role as journalists disseminate theirperceptions and opinions on a large scale and are seen asauthoritative sources of information [49], thereby performingthe role of institutional intermediaries [53] and critics. Themedia play a unique role in transmitting information to massaudiences and supply most of the information people use inconsuming [76]. The role of the media as “a visible andenduring public of critics who act as a primary audience forproduct offerings” and guide to the public's evaluations of theseofferings [77: 1404] is particularly important in contexts wherestakeholders face high levels of uncertainty, such as emergingmarkets or entrepreneurial activities. Several studies haveshown the powerful role of mass media in creating publicdiscourses [78]. Bruni et al. point out that the role of media inthe social construction of entrepreneurship is “all the moreimportant because they replicate themes and notions in thespecialist literature, which they merely popularize” [79].

Entrepreneurial stories serve as inspiration for legions ofaspiring entrepreneurs. In addition, these stories act asaccounts that legitimate individual entrepreneurs to networksof investors, competitors, and visionaries, who make resourcedecisions and take strategic actions based upon what thestories mean to them [52]. Given that most start-ups lackproven track records, obvious asset value and profitability,stories can provide needed accounts that explain, rationalizeand promote a new venture to reduce the uncertainty typicallyassociated with entrepreneurship [80]. Therefore, we pose thefollowing hypotheses:

H6a. The impact of the number of procedures for corporateentrepreneurship is moderated by the media; in a countrywhere the media often report stories about successful newbusinesses, and the more procedures that are necessary tocreate a company, the less likely it is that individuals willbecome corporate entrepreneurs.

H6b. The impact of access to finance for corporate entre-preneurship is moderated by the media; in a country where

364 A. Turró et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 88 (2014) 360–369

themedia often report stories about successful newbusinesses,and the greater the access to finance, the more likely it is thatindividuals will become corporate entrepreneurs.

4. Methodology

4.1. Data and methods

The study uses theGlobal EntrepreneurshipMonitor (GEM)database. The GEM research program is an annual assessmentof the national level of entrepreneurial activity. The projectwasinitiated in 1999 with 10 countries; in 2011 the databaseincluded information for 62 economies worldwide. Thus, theGEM has become the largest survey-based study of entre-preneurship in the world; since its creation it has surveyedabout a million people and has interviewed around 11,000experts. The GEM research has three main objectives: tomeasure differences in the level of entrepreneurial activityamong countries, to uncover factors determining nationallevels of entrepreneurial activity, and to identify policies thatmay enhance the national level of entrepreneurial activity. Inaddition, in 2011, a total of 106 articles had been published inJCR-indexed publications using a GEM database [73].

To ensure the quality of the data, the individual nationalteam surveys are collected in exactly the same way and atexactly the same time of year. The individual national teamsurveys are harmonized into one master data set that allowsusers to investigate entrepreneurial activity at various stages ofthe entrepreneurial process, as well as to study a variety offactors characterizing both entrepreneurs and their businesses

Table 1Description of variables.

Description

Dependent variableCorporateentrepreneurship

Binary variable that indicates “to start a new business or a neis part of your normal work.”

Independent variablesInformal factors Entrepreneurial culture Binary variable which indicate

that in their country, “those sulevel of status and respect”

Media impact Binary variable which indicate“In your country, you will oftenew businesses”

Formal factors Procedures Number of days that are officiaformally operate an industrial

Credit Categoric variable (5 item Likethere is sufficient debt funding

Moderating variables Culture ∗ procedures Number of days that are officiaformally operate an industrialentrepreneurial culture

Culture ∗ credit Credit effect (“in your countryand growing firms”) for those

Media ∗ procedures Number of days that are officiaformally operate an industrialoften report stories about succ

Media ∗ credit Credit effect (“in your countryand growing firms”) for thosesuccessful new businesses

Informal factorsPer capita income Gross domestic product at pur

in each participating nation and across countries. This researchuses two different GEM tools. First, the adult population survey(APS), which gathers information randomly from people agedfrom 18 to 64 years. The main objective of the survey is tomeasure the attitudes towards entrepreneurship in the generalpopulation [81]. In addition, the study also uses the nationalexpert survey (NES), in this case, it is a survey instrumentadministered to aminimumof 36 experts in eachGEMcountry,allowing the measurement of nine different key entrepre-neurial frameworks. Overall, the specific database used in thisresearch contains information for the period 2004–08, itprovides information of 62 different countries and it has atotal of 718.758 observations. In addition, for the variable“procedures” (formal institution), the research complementsthe GEM data with data from the Doing Business project. Thisproject provides objective measures of business regulationsand their enforcement across 183 economies. It was launchedin 2002, and looks at domestic small and medium-sizecompanies and measures the regulations applying to themthrough their life cycle. The fundamental premise of DoingBusiness is that economic activity requires good rules; thus,this database is an adequate proxy for formal institutions.Finally, the control variables are measured with data from theInternational Monetary Fund.

4.2. Description of variables and model

The dependent variable, from the 2004–2008 GEM-APSdatabase, measures corporate entrepreneurship. This variableis a binary variable that indicates “if you are alone or with

Source

if you are alone or with others, currently tryingw venture with your employer — an effort that

GEM APS 2004–2008

s that the respondent agrees with the statementccessful at starting a new business have a high

GEM APS 2004–2008

s that the respondent agreed with the statementn see stories in the public media about successful

GEM APS 2004–2008

lly required for an entrepreneur to start up andor commercial business

Doing Business2004–2008

rt scale) which indicates that “in your countryavailable for new and growing firms”

GEM NES 2004–2008

lly required for an entrepreneur to start up andor commercial business in a country with an

GEM APS/DoingBusiness 2004–2008

there is sufficient debt funding available for newcountries with an entrepreneurial culture

GEM APS/NES2004–2008

lly required for an entrepreneur to start up andor commercial business in a country where mediaessful new businesses

GEM APS/DoingBusiness 2004–2008

there is sufficient debt funding available for newcountries where media often report stories about

GEM APS/NES2004–2008

chasing power parity per capita (US dollars) IMF 2004–2008

matrix.

Mea

nStan

dard

deviation

12

34

56

78

910

1.Co

rporateen

trep

rene

ursh

ip0.03

0.16

12.

Entrep

rene

urialc

ulture

0.68

0.47

0.01

8***

13.

Med

iaim

pact

0.56

0.50

0.04

0***

0.19

***

14.

Proc

edures

33.55

32.36

0.01

9***

−0.04

***

−0.04

3***

15.

Cred

it2.97

0.43

−0.01

1***

−0.02

3***

−0.01

4***

−0.20

4***

1g

6.Cu

lture∗proc

edures

22.95

30.88

0.01

5***

0.51

4***

0.07

3***

0.68

2***

−0.15

8***

17.

Culture∗cred

it1.86

1.47

0.02

2***

0.97

3***

0.18

6***

−0.02

8***

0.18

4***

0.50

0***

18.

Med

ia∗proc

edures

18.84

29.37

0.03

2***

0.09

0***

0.57

0***

0.59

1***

−0.15

8***

0.51

5***

0.07

9***

19.

Med

ia∗cred

it1.49

1.51

0.04

7***

0.18

8***

0.97

9***

−0.02

8***

0.15

3***

0.07

5***

0.26

5***

0.55

3***

110

.Per

capita

inco

me

27,332

.93

11,127

.92

−0.06

2***

−0.02

5***

−0.06

6***

0.43

6***

0.42

3***

−0.32

3***

0.04

8***

−0.34

2−

0.00

4***

1

ntat

p≤

0.00

1.

365A. Turró et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 88 (2014) 360–369

others, currently trying to start a new business or a newventure with your employer — an effort that is part of yournormal work.” Many studies in the innovation and entrepre-neurship fields have already used this type of binary dependentvariables [82–84]. Concerning the independent variables, on onehand, informal factors aremeasuredwith twodifferent variables(“entrepreneurial culture” and “media impact”) that come fromthe 2004–2008 GEM-APS database; both variables have beenused in other researches [82,85]. On the other hand, formalfactors are gauged with two different variables (“procedures”and “credit”); both variables have also been used in other works[54,55]. The variable “procedures” comes from the DoingBusiness project and the variable “credit” from the GEM-NESdatabase. Finally, given that the level of development ofcountries is a key factor in explaining entrepreneurial activity[3], we include the gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasingpower parity per capita as a measure of the development ofcountries. This data was obtained from the InternationalMonetary Fund (IMF) World Economic Outlook database.

The description of the variables is summarized in Table 1.Due to the binary nature of the dependent variable

(corporate entrepreneurship) we used a logistic regressionmodel. The model can be expressed as:

P Ei ¼ 1ð Þ ¼ δ1IFi þ δ2FFi þ δ3MODi þ β1Xi þ μ i

where:

IFi collects information related to informal factors,FFi collects information related to formal factors,MODi collects information related to the moderating

effect of informal factors,Xi collects information related to control variables,μi is the random disturbance.

5. Results and discussion

Table 2 shows that some variablesmay be highly correlated(specifically, entrepreneurial culture and media impact; andprocedures and credit).

Hence, we conducted a multicollinearity diagnostic test(examining the variance inflation factors – VIFs – of allvariables in the analysis) and we found that for thesevariables it is not likely to be a problem. Also, to addressthe possibility of heteroskedasticity and autocorrelationamong observations pertaining to the same country, robuststandard errors were estimated [86]. In addition, we tried todevelop a panel data analysis; however, the Breusch andPagan test (for random effects) and the significance F-test(for fixed effects) showed that it was more appropriate toestimate using a pool regression1.

Aiming to analyze and compare the role of the environmentfor corporate entrepreneurship, we created two differentmodels. Model 1 includes the effect of informal and formalfactors for corporate entrepreneurship, whereas Model 2includes the moderating effect of culture and media forcorporate entrepreneurship (see Table 3).

Table2

Correlation

Inform

al

Form

al

Mod

eratin

Control

***Sign

ifica

1 We conducted a graphical analysis (not reported) to provide a completeassessment of the nature of the interaction effect. This analysis confirmedthe significant role of the interaction effect.

Table 3Logistic regression (dependent variable: corporate entrepreneurship).

Model 1 Model 2

Coef. (std. error) Odds ratio Coef. (std. error) Odds ratio

Institutional factorsEntrep. culture 0.122⁎⁎⁎ (0.020) 1.131Media impact 0.389⁎⁎⁎ (0.019) 1.476Procedures −0.005⁎⁎⁎ (0.000) 0.995Credit 0.146⁎⁎⁎ (0.022) 1.157

Moderating factorsCulture ∗ procedures −0.003⁎⁎⁎ (0.000) 0.997Culture ∗ credit 0.090⁎⁎⁎ (0.009) 1.094Media ∗ procedures −0.001⁎⁎ (0.000) 0.998⁎

Media ∗ credit 0.157⁎⁎⁎ (0.008) 1.170

Control variableGDP ∗ capita −0.000⁎⁎⁎ (0.000) 0.999 −0.000⁎⁎⁎ (0.000) 0.999Number of obs 368.325 385.062Prob N chi2 0.000 0.000Pseudo R-squared 14.7 15.7

⁎ Significant at p ≤ 0.05.⁎⁎ Significant at p ≤ 0.01.

⁎⁎⁎ Significant at p ≤ 0.001.

366 A. Turró et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 88 (2014) 360–369

In Model 1, the informal institutions' “entrepreneurialculture” and “media impact” played a significant role as theywere significant at the 99.9% level and with the expected sign.Thus, living in a country where entrepreneurship has a highlevel of status and respect, or where the media often reportstories of successful businesses, increases the probability ofcorporate entrepreneurship behavior. Ultimately, we cannotreject the first two hypotheses. Entrepreneurial cultureconditions corporate entrepreneurship as culture affects thedesirability and feasibility of beginning a new business [44].Therefore, H1 cannot be rejected. Similarly,media emerged as asignificant variable. Hence, we cannot reject H2 either, sincethe results confirmed that stories explained by the media playan important role in the processes that enable new businessesto emerge [52].

The formal factors in Model 1 behaved in a similar way.The two formal institutions “procedures” and “credit” alsoplay a significant role as they were significant at the 99.9%level and with the expected sign. As expected, the variable“procedures”was significant with a negative sign. This meansthat the more days that are required for the creation of a newcompany, the less likely it is that corporate entrepreneurshipwill occur. Thus, H3 is not rejected; having to follow manyrules and procedures has a negative effect on innovation andcorporate entrepreneurship [55]. However, the impact of thisvariable is limited (compared to the rest of the variables) as itreduces the probability of an individual becoming a corporateentrepreneur by less than 1% (see odds ratio in Table 3).Finally, the variable “credit” shows that access to finance is asignificant factor and hence nor can H4 be rejected. Thisfinding agrees with most of the literature, as capital emergesas a key success factor when developing innovative projects[60].

Model 2 shows that in countries with an entrepreneurialculture the number of days necessary to create a newbusiness and the access to finance are significant variables.

Hence, we cannot reject H5a and H5b. Therefore, the fact thatentrepreneurial projects may be associated with a high levelof status and respect can affect the decision to create newbusinesses [14]. A culture that emphasizes and supports thepursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities impacts on thequality and quantity of innovativeness inside firms [87,88].This finding is in line with studies that show that culture has animpact on economic behavior and on entrepreneurial activities[43]. Hence, culture has both a direct and an indirect effect forcorporate entrepreneurship (as it behaves as a moderator aswell). Similarly, the media also moderate the relationshipbetween “procedures” and “credit”; and corporate entrepreneur-ship. That is, in countries where media often reported storiesabout successful new businesses, the variables “procedures” and“credit” were significant with the expected sign. Hence, wecannot reject H6a and H6b. Exposure to stories reported by themedia about successful new businesses has a positive effect onthe development of intrapreneurial activities. Media may actas an account that legitimates entrepreneurial activities tonetworks of investors, competitors, and visionaries, who makeresource decisions and take strategic actions based upon whatthe stories mean to them [52].

Other studies, such as that of Antoncic and Hisrich, haveshown the influence that environmental factors may have on anorganization's entrepreneurial activities [21]. However, the roleof the environment for the development of entrepreneurship hasnot always been clear. Some authors, such as Covin and Slevinand Hornsby et al., suggest that internal organizational factorsplay a more important role in encouraging corporate entrepre-neurship and innovation than environmental factors [16,89]. Inthe same line, Lewin and Massini explain that innovation mainsource is the internal R&D that draws on the firm accumulatedknowledge. In this type of studies, the firms' internal culture,combined with appropriate accumulated knowledge stocks, isconsidered to engender the development or improvement ofproducts and new methods for doing business [90,91]. The

367A. Turró et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 88 (2014) 360–369

results of this paper contribute to this discussion by showing thatthe environment also influences corporate entrepreneurship.These results are in line with Ireland et al. who consider thatcertain environmental conditions can precipitate the need fora corporate entrepreneurship strategy [19]. Similarly, Zahraargued that greater amounts of environmental hostility, dyna-mism and heterogeneity call for the development of innovativeactivities [7].

6. Conclusions

Considering that innovation and specifically corporateentrepreneurship is an important element in organizationaland economic development [21], understanding which factorscontribute to fostering and enhancing it emerges as a relevantissue. The objective of this article was to analyze theenvironmental factors that condition innovation within thefirms. Specifically, using Institutional Economics as a conceptualframework the study determined the moderating effect ofcultural values on corporate entrepreneurship. The researchuses data from the 2004–2008 GEM project (718.758observations), for 62 countries (complemented with datafrom the Doing Business project and the IMF). The mainfindings outline the importance of the environmental factorson the corporate entrepreneurship; variables such as living in anentrepreneurial culture and media exposure (informal factors),and the number of procedures necessary to create a newbusiness or access to finance (formal factors), appear to besignificant for corporate entrepreneurship. Overall, bothinformal and formal institutions have a direct effect oncorporate entrepreneurship, in addition, informal factorsalso behave as a moderator between formal factors andcorporate entrepreneurship.

The study has several contributions. First, it advances theexisting theory in the field of corporate entrepreneurship andInstitutional Economics as few empirical papers are groundedin both theories [9]. Second, the study has implications formanagers who are interested in fostering and promotingcorporate entrepreneurship in their companies as it identifieswhich factors affect it and how much they affect it. Specially,the findings could be especially useful to companies operatingin different countries or in different institutional environments.Third, the results have implications for the design of gov-ernmental policies to promote innovation within firms andconcretely corporate entrepreneurship.

This research also has some limitations that could becomefuture research lines. First, more accurate proxies for both ourdependent and our independent variables could be used. Onthe one hand, some authors consider corporate entrepre-neurship (as a proxy to innovation within the firms), to be avery wide concept [92], but most studies (including thisresearch) measure only a part of the whole phenomenon[7,93,94]. On the other hand, using other (or more) envi-ronmental variables could be specially enriching as we couldsee if the role of informal and formal institutions is still thesame (especially in the case of access to credit). Second, thestudy could take into account companies' internal factors (apartfrom environmental ones). In this regard, using Resource-basedTheory would seem to be a fruitful theoretical framework[95–97]. Third, the nature of organizations, innovation andcorporate entrepreneurship makes the use of a multilevel

analysis especially suitable, as it seems clear that variables atone hierarchical level can influence variables at anotherhierarchical level. In fact, numerous theoretical discussionsand empirical investigations have identified relationshipsbetween variables that reside at different levels [98]. In thissense, the research could include other theoretical approaches(such as the expectancy theory, motivation theory or humancapital theory). Finally, using a wider range of time could alsocontribute to enrich the results. For example, it could allowseeing the effects of a specific event (such as an economic crisis)on innovation and corporate entrepreneurship.

Acknowledgments

Marta Peris Ortiz gratefully acknowledges support fromthe Universitat Politècnica de València through the projectPaid-06-12 (Sp 20120792).

References

[1] V. Gupta, I.C. MacMillan, G. Surie, Entrepreneurial leadership: developingand measuring a cross cultural construct, J. Bus. Ventur. 19 (2) (2004)241–260.

[2] P. Herbig, J.E. Golden, S. Dunphy, The relationship of structure toentrepreneurial and innovative success, Mark. Intell. Plan. 12 (9)(1994) 37–48.

[3] S. Wennekers, A. van Stel, R. Thurik, P. Reynolds, Nascent entrepreneurshipand the level of economic development, Small Bus. Econ. 24 (3) (2005)293–309.

[4] B. Antoncic, R.D. Hisrich, Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept, J.Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 10 (1) (2003) 7–24.

[5] J.A. Antoncic, B. Antoncic, Employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship andfirm growth: a model, Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 111 (4) (2011) 589–607.

[6] M.P. Hekkert, R.A.A. Suurs, S.O. Negro, S. Kuhlmann, R.E.H.M. Smits,Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analyzingtechnological change, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 74 (4) (2007)413–432.

[7] S.A. Zahra, Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship:an exploratory study, J. Bus. Ventur. 6 (4) (1991) 259–285.

[8] C.H. Davis, T. Creutzberg, D. Arthurs, Applying an innovation clusterframework to a creative industry: the case of screen-based media inOntario, Innov. Manag. Policy Pract. 11 (2) (2009) 201–214.

[9] S. Gomez-Haro, J.A. Aragón-Correa, E. Cordón-Pozo, Differentiating theeffects of the institutional environment on corporate entrepreneurship,Manag. Decis. 49 (9–10) (2011) 1677–1693.

[10] P. Sunley, S. Pinch, S. Reimer, J. MacMillen, Innovation in a creativeproduction system: the case of design, J. Econ. Geogr. 8 (5) (2008)675–698.

[11] C. Camelo-Ordaz, M. Fernández-Alles, J. Ruiz-Navarro, The intrapreneurand innovation in creative firms, Int. Small Bus. J. 30 (5) (2012)513–535.

[12] S.A. Zahra, Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financialperformance: a taxonomic approach, J. Bus. Ventur. 8 (4) (1993) 319–340.

[13] G. Pinchot, Intrapreneuring, Harper & Row Publisher, New York, NY,1985.

[14] G.D. Bruton, D. Ahlstrom, H.L. Li, Institutional theory and entrepreneurship:where are we now and where do we need to move in the future? Enterp.Theory Pract. 34 (3) (2010) 421–440.

[15] P.H. Thornton, D. Ribeiro-Soriano, D. Urbano, Socio-cultural factors andentrepreneurial activity: an overview, Int. Small Bus. J. 29 (2) (2011)105–118.

[16] J.G. Covin, D.P. Slevin, A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firmbehavior, Entrep. Theory Pract. 16 (1) (1991) 7–25.

[17] V. Sathe, Corporate Entrepreneurship: TopManagers and New BusinessCreation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.

[18] M. Schindehutte, M.H. Morris, D.F. Kuratko, Triggering events,corporate entrepreneurship and the marketing function, J. Mark.Theory Pract. 8 (2) (2000) 18–20.

[19] R.D. Ireland, J.G. Covin, D.F. Kuratko, Conceptualizing corporate entre-preneurship strategy, Enterp. Theory Pract. 33 (1) (2009) 19–46.

[20] J.A. Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiryinto Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle, 2nd ed.Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1934.

368 A. Turró et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 88 (2014) 360–369

[21] B. Antoncic, R.D. Hisrich, Intrapreneurship: construct refinement andcross-cultural validation, J. Bus. Ventur. 16 (5) (2001) 495–527.

[22] D.F. Kuratko, R.V. Montagno, J.S. Hornsby, Developing an intrapreneurialassessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurialenvironment, Strateg. Manag. J. 11 (1990) 49–58.

[23] S.A. Zahra, Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: thecase of management leveraged buyouts, J. Bus. Ventur. 10 (3) (1995)225–247.

[24] V. Agca, Y. Topal, H. Kaya, Linking intrapreneurship activities tomultidimensional firm performance in Turkish manufacturing firms:an empirical study, Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 8 (1) (2012) 15–33.

[25] H. Pohl, M. Yarime, Integrating innovation system and managementconcepts: the development of electric and hybrid electric vehicles inJapan, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 79 (8) (2012) 1431–1446.

[26] G.T. Lumpkin, G.G. Dess, Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientationconstruct and linking it to performance, Acad. Manag. Rev. 21 (1)(1996) 135–172.

[27] W.D. Guth, A. Ginsberg, Guest editors' introduction: corporateentrepreneurship, Strateg. Manag. J. 11 (4) (1990) 5–15.

[28] D. Miller, The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms,Manag. Sci. 29 (7) (1983) 770–791.

[29] K.I. Spenner, O.O. Suhomlinova, S.A. Thore, K.C. Land, D.C. Jones, Stronglegacies and weak markets: Bulgarian state-owned enterprises duringearly transition, Am. Sociol. Rev. 63 (4) (1998) 599–617.

[30] D.W. Yiu, C. Lau, G.D. Bruton, International venturing by emerging economyfirms: the effects of firm capabilities, home country networks, and corporateentrepreneurship, J. Int. Bus. Stud. 38 (2007) 519–540.

[31] W.J. Baumol, Entrepreneurship: productive, unproductive, and destructive,J. Bus. Ventur. 11 (1) (1996) 3–22.

[32] D.C. North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.

[33] D.C. North, Understanding the Process of Economic Change, PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, 2005.

[34] J.W. Meyer, B. Rowan, Institutionalized organizations: formal structureas myth and ceremony, in: W.W. Powell, P.J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The NewInstitutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press,Chicago, 1991, pp. 41–62.

[35] W.R. Scott, Institutions and organizations: ideas and interests, Foundationsfor Organizational Science Series, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, 2008.

[36] P.J. DiMaggio, W.W. Powell, The iron cage revisited: institutionalisomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, Am.Sociol. Rev. 48 (2) (1983) 147–160.

[37] S. Tello, S. Latham, V. Kijewski, Individual choice or institutionalpractice: which guides the technology transfer decision-makingprocess? Manag. Decis. 48 (8) (2010) 1261–1281.

[38] R. Aidis, S. Estrin, T. Mickiewicz, Institutions and entrepreneurshipdevelopment in Russia: a comparative perspective, J. Bus. Ventur. 23(6) (2008) 656–672.

[39] F. Welter, D. Smallbone, Institutional perspectives on entrepreneurialbehavior in challenging environments, J. Small Bus. Manag. 49 (1)(2011) 107–125.

[40] A. Coduras, D. Urbano, A. Rojas, S. Martínez, The relationship betweenuniversity support to entrepreneurship with entrepreneurial activity inSpain: a GEM data based analysis, Int. Adv. Econ. Res. 14 (4) (2008)395–406.

[41] D.S.K. Lim, E.A. Morse, R.K. Mitchell, K.K. Seawright, Institutionalenvironment and entrepreneurial cognitions: a comparative businessperspective, Enterp. Theory Pract. 34 (3) (2010) 491–516.

[42] Liñán, D. Urbano, M. Guerrero, Regional variations in entrepreneurialcognitions: start-up intentions of university students in Spain, Entrep.Reg. Dev. 23 (3–4) (2011) 187–215.

[43] A. Shapero, L. Sokol, The social dimensions of entrepreneurship, in: C.Kent, L. Sexton, K. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship,Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1982, pp. 72–90.

[44] R.G. McGrath, I.C. Macmillan, E. Ai-Yuan Yang, W. Tsai, Does cultureendure or is it malleable? J. Bus. Ventur. 7 (6) (1992) 441–458.

[45] S. Shane, Why do some societies invent more than others, J. Bus.Ventur. 7 (1) (1992) 29–46.

[46] D.R. Gnyawali, D.S. Fogel, Environments for entrepreneurship development:key dimensions and research implications, Entrep. Theory Pract. 18 (4)(1994) 43–62.

[47] L.K. Johnson, The organizational identity trap, MIT Sloan Manag. Rev.43 (4) (2002) 11.

[48] P. Dimitratos, I. Voudouris, E. Plakoyiannaki, G. Nakos, Internationalentrepreneurial culture—toward a comprehensive opportunity-basedoperationalization of international entrepreneurship, Int. Bus. Rev. 21(2012) 708–721.

[49] D. Deephouse, Media reputation as a strategic resource: an integrationof mass communication and resource-based theories, J. Manag. 26 (6)(2000) 1091–1112.

[50] C.E. Carroll, M. McCombs, Agenda-setting effects of business news onthe public's images and opinions about major corporations, Corp.Reput. Rev. 6 (1) (2003) 36–46.

[51] C.J. Fombrun, M. Shanley, What's in a name? Reputation building andcorporate strategy, Acad. Manag. J. 33 (2) (1990) 233–258.

[52] M. Lounsbury, M.A. Glynn, Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy,and the acquisition of resources, Strateg. Manag. J. 22 (6–7) (2001)545–564.

[53] T.G. Pollock, V.P. Rindova, Media legitimation effects in the market forinitial public offerings, Acad. Manag. J. 46 (5) (2003) 63–642.

[54] A. van Stel, D.J. Storey, R. Thurik, The effect of business regulations onnascent and young business entrepreneurship, Small Bus. Econ. 28(2–3) (2007) 171–186.

[55] S. Djankov, R. La Porta, F. Lopez-De-Silanes, A. Shleifer, The regulationof entry, Q. J. Econ. 117 (1) (2002) 1–37.

[56] T.M. Begley, W. Tan, H. Schoch, Politico-economic factors associatedwith interest in starting a business: a multi-country study, Entrep.Theory Pract. 29 (1) (2005) 35–55.

[57] N. Cetorelli, P.E. Strahan, Finance as a barrier to entry: bank competition andindustry structure in local U.S. markets, J. Finance 61 (1) (2006) 437–461.

[58] D. Ahlstrom, G.D. Bruton, Venture capital in emerging economies:networks and institutional change, Enterp. Theory Pract. 30 (2) (2006)299–320.

[59] D.S. Evans, L.S. Leighton, Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship,Am. Econ. Rev. 79 (3) (1989) 519–535.

[60] D.S. Evans, B. Jovanovic, An estimated model of entrepreneurial choiceunder liquidity constraints, J. Polit. Econ. 97 (4) (1989) 808–827.

[61] D.G. Blanchflower, A.J. Oswald, What makes an entrepreneur? J. LaborEcon. 16 (1) (1998) 26–60.

[62] H.E. van Auken, Obstacles to business launch, Journal of DevelopmentalEntrepreneurship 4 (2) (1999) 175–187.

[63] N.T.B. Le, T.V. Nguyen, The impact of networking on bank financing: thecase of small and medium-sized enterprises in Vietnam, Entrep. TheoryPract. 33 (4) (2009) 867–887.

[64] M. van Gelderen, R. Thurik, N. Bosma, Success and risk factors in thepre-startup phase, Small Bus. Econ. 26 (4) (2006) 365–380.

[65] H.E. Aldrich, Organization Evolving, Sage Publications, London, 1999.[66] S.G. Scott, V.R. Lane, A stakeholder approach to organizational identity,

Acad. Manag. Rev. 25 (1) (2000) 43–62.[67] G. Hofstede, Culture's Consequences: International Differences in

Work-related Values, SAGE, Beverly Hills, CA, 1980.[68] G. Hofstede, Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,

Institutions and Organizations across Nations, 2nd ed. SAGE, ThousandOaks, CA, 2001.

[69] J.A. Timmons, New Venture Creation, 5th ed. Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1999.[70] M.H. Morris, R.A. Avila, J. Allen, Individualism and the modern

corporation — implications for innovation and entrepreneurship, J.Manag. 19 (3) (1993) 595–612.

[71] S. Venkataraman, S. Shane, R. McGrath, I. MacMillan, Some centraltensions in the management of corporate venturing, in: S. Birley, IanMcMillan (Eds.), Entrepreneurship Research: Global Perspectives,Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 1993, pp. 177–199.

[72] S. Shane, Uncertainty avoidance and the preference for innovationchampioning roles, J. Int. Bus. Stud. 26 (1) (1995) 47–68.

[73] C. Alvarez, D. Urbano, Environmental factors and entrepreneurial activity inLatin America, Acad. Rev. Latinoam. Adm. 48 (2011) 31–45.

[74] J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: AnInquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, MIT Press, Boston, 1991.

[75] L. Achtenhagen, F. Welter, Surfing on the ironing board — therepresentation of women's entrepreneurship in German newspapers,Entrep. Reg. Dev. 23 (9–10) (2011) 763–786.

[76] D. Stromberg, Mass media competition, political competition, andpublic policy, Rev. Econ. Stud. 71 (1) (2004) 265–284.

[77] E.W. Zuckerman, The categorical imperative: security analysts and theillegitimacy discount, Am. J. Sociol. 104 (5) (1999) 1398–1438.

[78] V.P. Rindova, A.P. Petkova, S. Kotha, Standing out: how new firms inemerging markets build reputation, Strateg. Organ. 5 (1) (2007)31–70.

[79] A. Bruni, S. Gherardi, B. Poggio, Entrepreneur-mentality, gender andthe study of women entrepreneurs, J. Organ. Change Manag. 17 (4)(2004) 256–268.

[80] H.E. Aldrich, C.M. Fiol, Fools rush in? The institutional context ofindustry creation, Acad. Manag. Rev. 19 (4) (1994) 645–670.

[81] P. Reynolds, N. Bosma, E. Autio, S. Hunt, N. De Bono, I. Servais, P.López-García, N. Chin, Global entrepreneurship monitor: data collectiondesign and implementation 1998–2003, Small Bus. Econ. 24 (3) (2005)205–231.

[82] P. Arenius, A. Kovalainen, Similarities and differences across the factorsassociated with women's self-employment preference in the Nordiccountries, Int. Small Bus. J. 24 (1) (2006) 31–59.

369A. Turró et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 88 (2014) 360–369

[83] P. Arenius, M. Minniti, Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship,Small Bus. Econ. 24 (3) (2005) 233–247.

[84] M. Minniti, C. Nardone, Being in someone else's shoes: the role of genderin nascent entrepreneurship, Small Bus. Econ. 28 (2007) 223–238.

[85] P. Tominic, M. Rebernik, Growth aspirations and cultural support forentrepreneurship: a comparison of post-socialist countries, Small Bus.Econ. 28 (2–3) (2007) 239–255.

[86] H. White, A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance-matrix estimator anda direct test for heteroskedasticity, Econometrica 48 (4) (1980) 817–838.

[87] W.E. Baker, J.M. Sinkula, Learning orientation, market orientation, andinnovation: integrating and extending models of organizationalperformance, J. Mark.-Focus. Manag. 4 (4) (1999) 295–308.

[88] H. Wai, C. Yeung, Entrepreneurship in international business: aninstitutional perspective, Asia Pac. J. Manag. 19 (1) (2002) 29–61.

[89] J.S. Hornsby, D.F. Kuratko, S.A. Zahra, Middle managers' perception ofthe internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing ameasurement scale, J. Bus. Ventur. 17 (3) (2002) 253–273.

[90] A.Y. Lewin, S.Massini, Knowledge creation and organizational capabilitiesof innovating and imitating firms, in: H. Tsoukas, N. Mylonopoulos (Eds.),Organizations as Knowledge Systems, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2003.

[91] G.A. Knight, S.T. Cavusgil, Innovation, organizational capabilities, andthe born-global firm, J. Int. Bus. Stud. 35 (2004) 124–141.

[92] B. Antoncic, Intrapreneurship: a comparative structural equationmodeling study, Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 107 (3) (2007) 309–325.

[93] L. Alpkan, C. Bulut, G. Gunday, G. Ulusoy, K. Kilic, Organizational supportfor intrapreneurship and its interaction with human capital to enhanceinnovative performance, Manag. Decis. 48 (5) (2010) 732–755.

[94] S. Parker, Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship? J. Bus. Ventur. 26 (1)(2011) 19–34.

[95] D. Urbano, D. Yordanova, Determinants of the adoption of HRMpractices in tourism SMEs in Spain: an exploratory study, Serv. Bus. 2(3) (2008) 167–185.

[96] D. Ribeiro-Soriano, D. Urbano, Overview of collaborative entrepreneurship:an integrated approach between business decisions and negotiations,Group Decis. Negot. 18 (5) (2009) 419–430.

[97] G.J. Castrogiovanni, D. Urbano, J. Loras, Linking corporate entrepreneurshipand human resource management in SMEs, Int. J. Manpow. 32 (1) (2011)34–47.

[98] D.A. Hofman, An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchicallinear models, J. Manag. 23 (6) (1997) 723–744.

Andreu Turró is a PhD student in the International Doctorate inEntrepreneurship and Management at the Autonomous University ofBarcelona (UAB — Spain). He is also an assistant professor at the BusinessEconomics Department (UAB). His research is focused on intrapreneurshipin the context of the resource-based theory from a quantitative analysis andhe is currently participating in various Spanish projects on this topic.

David Urbano is a Professor in Entrepreneurship at the Business EconomicsDepartment of the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB — Spain) anddirector of the Postgraduate in Entrepreneurship (UAB). His PhD was inEntrepreneurship and Small Business Management (UAB and VäxjöUniversity, Sweden) and his research is focused on the conditioning factorsof entrepreneurship in different contexts using an institutional approach. Hehas several scholarly international publications and is an associate editor ofthe International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. He is currentlyparticipating in various European research projects and is a fellowresearcher in the “Entrepreneurship, internationalization and performanceof new ventures (SMEs) in a globalized context” (Science and InnovationMinistry — Spain) and in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM —Spain).

Marta Peris-Ortiz is an Associate Professor at Universitat Politècnica deValència. She received her PhD in Management from the University ofValencia. Her current research is focused on the topics of Entrepreneurship,Human Resource Management and Knowledge Management. She is alsointerested in issues related to internationalization strategy and franchising.She has published articles in journals such as Journal Business Research,Management Decision, Service Industries Journal, Service Business,European Journal of International Management, Journal of InternationalChange Management, International Entrepreneurship and ManagementJournal and International Journal of Manpower among others and is also areviewer.