Corporate entrepreneurship strategy: measuring and mapping an impact model

Corporate entrepreneurship strategy: measuring andmapping animpact model Pedro Baena‑Luna1* and Esther García‑Río2 Introduction In recent years, entrepreneurship has attracted great interest in different fields (Kuratko etal., 2015a, 2015b; Marques etal., 2018). Furthermore, it is usual that in times of economic crisis, the focus is on entrepreneurship (Chaves-Maza & Fedriani, 2025). At a global level, it currently occupies a unique position owing to its transformative capacity and potential for radical change. Entrepreneurship is shaped by demographic, ethnic, organizational, institutional, socioeconomic, geographical, cultural, and even border factors (Kuratko & Morris, 2018). Given its multidimensional dimension, it has been studied from different perspectives (Audretsch etal., 2015; Kuratko & Morris, 2018). One example of its multifaceted character is what has become known as “corporate entrepreneurship” (CE) (Audretsch etal., 2015; Kuratko & Morris, 2018). CE promotes strategic agility, flexibility, creativity, and continual innovation (Urbano etal., 2022). As an entrepreneurial activity, it involves pursuing actions to seize opportunities that create value and involve risks fostering innovation to achieve a competitive advantage (D’Angelo etal., 2024). However, it does not necessarily require the Abstract Research studies on corporate entrepreneurship have been increasing in recent years. This is a consequence of the interest in entrepreneurship, the need for strategic renewal, and the promotion of innovation in firms. The corporate entrepreneurship strategy is part of corporate entrepreneurship, and one of the most frequently used models in scientific research is one proposed by Ireland, Covin, & Kuratko. This research paper conducts a systematic review of the literature to analyze the use and applica‑ tion of this model. The scientific databases consulted were Web of Science and Scopus, with an initial result of 1133 articles. Once the results were unified, 456 were finally selected for analysis. The Bibliometrix tool was used to process the information, provide annual production results, and analyze journals, authors, documents, keywords, etc. These results will allow us to identify the prominent authors and research topics in this area, examine the main conceptual, intellectual, and social structures, and detect future research opportunities. The results show that despite the large number of citations, the number of research papers showing the model’s feasibility is still insufficient. Keywords: Corporate entrepreneurship strategy, Corporate entrepreneurship, Systematic literature review, Bibliographic analysis, Bibliometrix Open Access © The Author(s) 2025. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution‑NonCommercial‑NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non‑commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by‑ nc‑ nd/4. 0/. RESEARCH Baena‑Lunaand García‑Río Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2025) 14:64 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731‑025‑00516‑6 Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship *Correspondence: [email protected] 1 Department of Business Administration and Marketing, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain 2 Department of Financial Economics and Operations Management, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain Page 2 of 24 Baena‑Lunaand García‑Río Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2025) 14:64 creation of a new firm (Kraus & Rigtering, 2017). The importance of CE lies in its ability to revitalize organizations and improve their productivity (Zahra, 2015). Organizations oriented toward change through continual innovation in the competitive economic environment obtain better results (Ekingen etal., 2018; Yang, 2018). The rise of CE as a field of study and research is not only associated with its entrepreneurial facet (Bierwerth etal., 2015), but also with necessary strategic renewal and fostering innovation in companies and organizations (Ceptureanu etal., 2017; Niemann etal., 2019). Nevertheless, the knowledge about CE remains heterogeneous and somewhat fragmented. This is so despite (or precisely due to) it being an expanding field of study. This situation highlights how complex it is to establish the essence and very knowledge of CE, the processes by which it is created, and the context in which it is conceived and developed in companies and organizations (Zahra, 2015). Although related to CE, “corporate entrepreneurship strategy” (CES) offers a broader and more comprehensive vision of implementing an entrepreneurial strategy in a company. Compared to CE, CES emphasizes the complementary roles of entrepreneurship and strategic management in promoting corporate growth (Kim, 2018). Included in the knowledge areas of entrepreneurship and strategic management, CES attempts to combine certain aspects of these two areas, thus giving rise to this new concept (Kuratko & Audretsch, 2009). Interest in CES has increased substantially (Kreiser etal., 2021). CES is grounded on identifying and exploiting competitive advantages (Ahmed etal., 2018). It aims to increase companies’product diversity, create new market opportunities, and generate new ways of competing with other actors while contributing to their welfare by improving their chances of success (Kantur, 2016). The perspective offered by CES makes it possible to overcome some of the potential limitations of CE. Thus, it is a relevant concept that merits further study. The departure point of this paper is the CES model for organizations proposed by Ireland etal. (2009) and published in their article “Conceptualizing Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy”, which will be referred to hereinafter as the CES reference model. This model stresses the importance of aligning CE actions with the strategic management of organizations and the crucial role of strategy combined with entrepreneurship in generating relevant business opportunities in organizations (Ferreira etal., 2016). The decision to take this document as the basis for this research is based on a previous identification of works dealing with the term “corporate entrepreneurship strategy”. By consulting two of the most relevant academic databases and obtaining the papers that presented this term, it was observed that more than half of the documents repeatedly cited the work of Ireland etal. (2009). This fact led the authors to consider the importance of this document and to analyze its presence in the bulk of the scientific literature in the related thematic areas. Considering the number of times the paper has been referred to or cited in subsequent studies, the CES reference model has had an enormous impact. Accordingly, this work aims to analyze the influence and development of the CES reference model in the specialized literature through a complete bibliometric study, which, as indicated by Perlines etal. (2022), will make it possible to have a global and comprehensive vision of the subject under study. The following specific research questions will guide our analysis: Page 3 of 24 Baena‑Lunaand García‑Río Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2025) 14:64 RQ1. Which are the journals and authors in which the CES reference model has had the greatest impact? RQ2. In which countries have the CES reference model had the greatest impact on related scientific works? RQ3. What conceptual, intellectual, and social structures were generated from the analyzed scientific literature related to the CES reference model? RQ4. What existing and evolving issues can be explored through further studies? In addition to answering these research questions, this work will significantly contribute to the literature related to CES, specifically about the CES model of Ireland etal. (2009), by discussing the results and establishing the most relevant conclusions. It is also important to note the originality of this work, which combines qualitative and quantitative elements based on the joint use of the scientific databases currently considered most relevant: Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. Only a few research works of a bibliometric nature jointly approach both databases (WoS and Scopus) to perform a single integrated analysis (Caputo & Kargina, 2022). Based on the bibliometric technique, this review makes it possible to summarize and synthesize the trends and uses of the CES Reference Model. To this end, we have previously developed a conceptual framework based on the reality of the CES, outlining and analyzing its background, primary elements, and consequences derived from its implementation. In the case of the CES Reference Model, we can see that despite its influence in the following scientific works related to the theoretical field, the same does not occur in the business field. The rest of the document is structured as follows. In the next section, we approach the concept of the corporate entrepreneurship strategy and, more specifically, the CES reference model. Next, we explain the study methodology (databases consulted, exclusion criteria, and homogenization of results). Afterward, the main findings of our work are described in a contextualized manner, providing answers to the research questions posed. Finally, we show the theoretical and practical implications of our work together with the limitations identified and suggest future lines of research, ending the article with the most relevant conclusions. Review oftherelated literature Corporate entrepreneurship strategy Notwithstanding the relationship between CE and CES, they are not synonymous (Mazzei etal., 2017). While CE focuses on identifying and generating opportunities for firms (Girma-Aragaw etal., 2024), CES represents a specific manifestation of entrepreneurship in a company (Ireland etal., 2009). CES focuses on the results of strategic innovation, as well as on new products, processes, and/or innovations in the business model that do not necessarily imply the introduction of new lines of business (Kuratko & Audretsch, 2013; Kuratko etal., 2015a, 2015b). Based on a previous strategic management model, the first reference to CE linked to organizational strategy appears in Burgelman (1983a, 1983b). His model is grounded on the existence of two types of strategic needs that are vital for the survival of an organization: on the one hand, those relating to order and, on the other hand, those about Page 4 of 24 Baena‑Lunaand García‑Río Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2025) 14:64 diversity. The subsequent CE models proposed have emphasized the need for a link between structure, strategic decision-making, environment, management and processes, and entrepreneurial orientation (Kuratko etal., 2015a, 2015b). Ireland etal., (2009, p. 21) state that CES is “entrepreneurial behavior that purposefully and continuously rejuvenates the organization and shapes the scope of its operations through the recognition and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities.” CES requires behaviors leading to performance to be based not only on the creative act per se, but also on the entrepreneurial spirit of an organization (Mazzei, 2018). The underlying notion of CES consists of connecting entrepreneurial mentality with strategic thought, irrespective of the company’s size, environment, or resources (Kim, 2018). Together with this objective, the identified opportunities should help organizations gain a competitive advantage. Growth and wealth generation ought to be the practical result of combining entrepreneurial attitude and strategic management (Ireland etal., 2003). Strategic management affects entrepreneurial activity through the following five variables: scanning intensity, planning flexibility, planning horizon, locus of planning, and control attributes (Bluedorn & Barringer, 1999). Additionally, CES necessarily involves a process of strategic renewal within the organization (Elia & Margherita, 2018). Integrating entrepreneurial actions with strategic management occurs naturally in some organizational areas (Titus & Anderson, 2016). Those companies pursuing CES through strategic innovation must be prepared to be transformed, adapt, and work actively for change as they leverage their competitive advantages (Mazzei, 2018). An integrative model ofcorporate entrepreneurship strategy According to Ireland etal.. (2009), the importance of the CES reference model lies in how it differs from previous models, which focused on elements that were no longer in force in organizations. It involves adopting a sole and identifiable organization-wide strategy. These authors developed their model after having reviewed nine previous contributions based on five criteria: “[T]he focal entrepreneurial phenomenon, the locus of entrepreneurship, the relationship between the entrepreneurial phenomenon and strategy, the causally adjacent antecedents of the entrepreneurial phenomenon, and the causally adjacent outcomes of the entrepreneurial phenomenon” (Ireland etal., 2009, p. 21–23). Until this integrative model of CES emerged, knowledge of CES had been fragmentary (Crawford & Kreiser, 2015). The model by Ireland etal. (2009) integrates several essential aspects for launching a CES, as seen in Fig.1. On the one hand, the external environment of the firm, with its external environmental conditions and the entrepreneurial values and cognitions of the members of the company or organization in question, and on the other hand, the internal environment consists of three fundamental pillars: An entrepreneurial strategic vision: the model reflects how companies ensure the necessary congruence between their strategic vision and the coherent behaviors of their personnel through a pro-entrepreneurship organizational architecture, and a series of entrepreneurial processes and behaviors, reflecting the behaviors necessary to ensure that the implementation of a CES in a company or organization is feasible and contributes to achieving the established objectives (Ireland etal., 2009). Lastly, this CES provides some specific Page 5 of 24 Baena‑Lunaand García‑Río Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2025) 14:64 consequences of its implementation (outcomes): competitive capabilities and strategic repositioning (Crawford & Kreiser, 2015). Therefore, the CES reference model is not intended “to represent how entrepreneurship commonly intervenes or interfaces with an organization’s strategic processes” (Ireland etal., 2009, p. 20). On the contrary, the mere fact that autonomous behaviors exist in an organization or that these are validated by processes foreseen by it does not imply implementing a CES. Methods The review performed using the bibliometric technique in this study is divided into two main categories: performance analysis and scientific mapping. Performance analysis provides information on authors, institutions, journals, and countries. Scientific mapping focuses on understanding the relationships, connections, and networks within the research domain, allowing the development of a thematic map (Alkathiri etal., 2024). The criteria for study selection were the same for performance analysis as for scientific mapping to achieve greater consistency and comparability of results in both approaches. This study reviewed 456 references, citing Ireland etal.’s paper “Conceptualizing Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy” (2009). To this end, WoS and Scopus were consulted. These databases were chosen because they index many prestigious, high-impact journals (Janik etal., 2020). Most bibliometric analyses have data sources in common: WoS from Thomson Reuters and Scopus from Elsevier (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016). Concerning quality and content control, WoS applies basic principles of objectivity, selectivity, and collection dynamics, using a set of quality and impact criteria to evaluate journals (Mangan, 2017). Similarly, Scopus uses criteria to ensure that indexed publications maintain high standards of scholarly quality and contribute significantly to their respective fields of study. Both databases present quality assurance of the sources by WoS, applying the tool for use and consultation of Journal Citation Report (JCR) data, and Scopus, employing Scimago Journal Rank (SJR), among other impact metrics. The non-inclusion of different databases is due to the possible lack of guarantee that the documents have undergone peer review, the lack of proven impact metrics, and potential biases. According to Yadav and Banerji (2023) the study and analysis of the data collected were carried out in two ways: first, descriptive, through the analysis of the Fig. 1 Elements of the CES reference model. Source: Author´s elaboration based on Ireland et al. (2009) Page 6 of 24 Baena‑Lunaand García‑Río Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2025) 14:64 bibliometric information derived, focusing on the"sources","journals""authors"and "documents", and second, through techniques that follow the so-called"Scientific mapping", the"network analysis"and"thematic maps"thus enabling a complementary review of the literature in a field of scientific knowledge. Data collection For data collection, the WoS and Scopus databases were searched. The following queries were used to search these databases. First, the search criterion aimed to identify all the articles citing the work mentioned above. The inclusion criterion related to the document type, “article”, considers articles to be the main source of updated and original scientific information. Articles represent primary research and usually undergo a rigorous peer review process for publication. To ensure that the articles citing the work that is the object of this research correspond to the subject matter related to CES, a criterion has been added regarding the study area that encompasses subjects related to business, management, and/or business economics. The preselected documents were also obtained using the"English language"filter (Yadav & Banerji, 2023). The study period was from January 2009, when Ireland etal. published their paper, to December 2023. The papers’bibliometric analysis (Fig.2) was performed based on adapting the Schematic of General Workflow in Scientific Mapping methodology. This allows for managing large datasets and reducing possible data fragmentation (Xie etal., 2020). This first consultation in WoS and Scopus yielded 1133 documents by the established criteria. In WoS, 506 documents were obtained, and in Scopus, 627 papers. The inclusion and exclusion criteria related to the document type, language, and area or research category were applied in the second step. Once the above criteria were used, the articles were reduced to 367 in WoS and 397 in Scopus. The search string in WoS was “Citations of Conceptualizing Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy and Article (Document Types) and English (Languages) and Business Economics (Research Areas) and Business or Management or Economics (Web of Science Categories)” and in Scopus, “ALL(”conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy“) and (limitto (doctype, ‘ar’)) and (limit-to (language, ‘english’)) and (limit-to (subjarea, ‘busi’) or limit-to (subjarea, ‘econ’))”. Fig. 2 Flowchart research methodology Page 7 of 24 Baena‑Lunaand García‑Río Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2025) 14:64 Bibliometric analysis tools In the first phase, the databases were queried by filtering by the previously defined search criteria. The results obtained from the two selected databases were exported in BibTeX format in the case of Scopus and plaintext in the case of WoS. The next step related to processing the results obtained in the previous phase required R Studio software, which allowed the unification and cleaning process to be carried out, detecting possible duplicities and eliminating them from the final collection. Different R packages were used to perform this task, and the R Studio libraries “tidyverse” and “tosr” were downloaded and run. To analyze the conceptual structure, it was necessary to normalize the authorship and affiliation information of the authors, which was carried out using the same tool. In the mapping phase, principal component and grouping analysis is performed to construct the scientific map, which allows data analysis, networks, and maps and their subsequent graphical visualization and interpretation of results. R Studio and the Bibliometrix package with its Biblioshiny interface (Ab Rashid & Aziz, 2022) were used. Bibliometrix is recommended for bibliometric analysis and visual presentation of the whole process, such as for statistical analysis, data preprocessing, construction of co-occurrence matrices, co-citation analysis, co-word analysis, and Biblioshiny cluster analysis, which incorporates analysis and graphs for three-level metrics (source, author, and document) and three knowledge structures: conceptual, intellectual and social (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017). Bibliometrix analyzes multiple correspondences possible through the Conceptual Structure Map function. This establishes the conceptual structure of the field and a grouping of K-means that shows sets of elements that address common concepts (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017). Biblioshiny allows two levels of analysis. On the one hand, it will enable an analysis of authors (scientific production and its evolution, citation or indexes by author), an analysis of documents (citation and references or keywords), and an analysis of sources (number of publications, citations or indexes by sources); and on the other hand, from a structural point of view, an analysis of the conceptual structure (co-occurrence matrix, thematic map, thematic evolution or factorial analysis), intellectual structure (co-citation network or historiography) and social structure collaboration network or collaboration map. After the unification (elimination of duplicates), homogenization, and harmonization of these papers, the final number of documents under study was 456. Findings Descriptive analysis Table1 provides descriptive information about the 456 papers analyzed. It shows the performance study, total publications, number of authors (single author and co-authorship), number of active years of publication, productivity per year of publication, metrics related to total and average citations, and the collaboration index. Figure3 shows the growth of the scientific production of papers citing the CES reference model. The evolution of scientific production shows an increasing trend. A pronounced decline was observed between 2014 and 2022. Looking at the number of citations, 2018 presents the highest number, followed by 2011–2013. Page 8 of 24 Baena‑Lunaand García‑Río Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2025) 14:64 The most cited reference (Table2) is the article by Teece. published in Long Range Planning in 2018. This research delves into the relationship between business models, dynamic capabilities and strategy, and interdependencies. This research totals 1297 citations, well ahead of Wales W.J.’s 2016 paper with 412 citations. In this article, a review of key research on entrepreneurial orientation is conducted to guide researchers concerning entrepreneurial orientation. Journals The papers appeared in a wide range of scientific journals, those publishing the highest number being as follows: Small Business Economics, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Journal of Business Research, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Business Horizon, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Journal of Product Innovation Table 1 Data set summary Source: Author’s elaboration Description Results Timespan 2009:2023 Sources (journals) 216 Documents (articles) 456 Annual growth rate % 11.16 Document average age 6.31 Average citations per doc 37.31 References 34,792 Keywords Plus (ID) 546 Authors 979 Authors of single‑authored docs 50 Single‑authored docs 59 Co‑authors per doc 2.76 International co‑authorships % 3.289 Fig. 3 Growth in scientific production. Source: Author´s elaboration Page 9 of 24 Baena‑Lunaand García‑Río Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2025) 14:64 Management and Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. These ten scientific journals published 112 papers, representing 23.7% of the journals that cited the CES reference model. Small Business Economics alone represents almost 5% of the journals in which the CES reference model has been cited, as does Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice (the journal in which the CES reference model was published), which has published eleven papers in which the model under study is cited. Authors andauthors´ collaboration Among the authors with the most significant impact of the CES reference model out of 979, as shown in Table3, where the ten authors with the most crucial number of papers appear, Kuratko D.F. stands out. This author has participated in 24 papers Table 2 Most cited references Source: Author´s elaboration References Title Total citations Teece, (2018) Business models and dynamic capabilities 1297 Wales, (2016) Entrepreneurial orientation: A review and synthesis of promising research directions 412 Kraus et al., (2012) Entrepreneurial orientation and the business performance of SMEs: a quantitative study from the Netherlands 336 Nadkarni and Prügl (2020) Digital transformation: a review, synthesis, and opportunities for future research 333 Foss et al., (2013) The role of external knowledge sources and organizational design in the process of opportunity exploitation 321 Halme et al., (2012) Innovation for Inclusive Business: Intrapreneurial Bricolage in Multi‑ national Corporations 291 Bouwman et al., (2019) Digitalization, business models, and SMEs: How do business model innovation practices improve performance of digitalizing SMEs? 284 Wales et al., (2011) The Organizational Pervasiveness of Entrepreneurial Orientation 280 Chen et al., (2015) IT capabilities and product innovation performance: The roles of corporate entrepreneurship and competitive intensity 250 Kreiser et al., (2013) Disaggregating entrepreneurial orientation: the non‑linear impact of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk‑taking on SME perfor‑ mance 247 Table 3 Most relevant authors Source: Author´s elaboration h_index: number of articles with some citations greater than or equal to h; g_index: the (unique) most significant number such that the top g articles received (together) at least g2 citations; m_index: shows the h‑index per year since first publication; TC: times cited; NP: number publications; PY_start: year start Author/s h_index g_index m_index TC NP PY_start Kuratko, D 19 24 1.188 2004 24 2009 Hornsby, J 12 15 0.75 1041 15 2009 Urban, B 8 12 0.615 171 15 2012 Urbano, D 10 11 0.667 576 11 2010 Hughes, M 10 10 0.769 1109 10 2012 Covin, J 9 9 0.563 1174 9 2009 Guerrero, M 8 8 0.667 375 8 2013 Wales, W 8 8 0.571 1292 8 2011 Kearney, C 6 7 0.400 136 7 2010 Kreiser, P 6 6 0.400 771 6 2010 Page 16 of 24 Baena‑Lunaand García‑Río Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2025) 14:64 can be seen in Fig.13 from its division into four quadrants. Those considered as driving themes appear in the high-density and centrality quadrants. Low density and high centrality represent the core topics addressed. High density and low centrality show the niche topics. Finally, low density and centrality offer the emerging themes. A comprehensive literature review To know the state of the literature, the primary papers that accumulate a higher number of citations have been analyzed. This begins with the paper by Teece, (2018) with 1297 citations, which is used within the framework of dynamic capabilities and the strategy business models. In this paper, the author identifies the dynamic solid capabilities that enable the creation and implementation of practical business models, and the importance of a company’s strategy in managing the organization’s dynamic capabilities. The second highest number of citations is the work of Wales, (2016), with 412, which deals with entrepreneurial orientation and the construct of the Miller/Covin and Slevin conceptualization. In this case, the construct of entrepreneurial orientation is addressed independently and not as part of an entrepreneurial corporate strategy, so that the organization’s entrepreneurial orientation acquires its independent relevance concerning other potential internal elements. Third, the article by Kraus etal., (2012) in the Fig.12 Thematic evolution. Source: Author´s elaboration Fig. 13 Thematic map. Source: Author´s elaboration Page 17 of 24 Baena‑Lunaand García‑Río Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2025) 14:64 Netherlands shows that the proactive behavior of firms contributes positively to the performance of SMEs during the economic crisis. The study of 536 Danish companies indicates that using external knowledge sources is positively associated with exploiting strategic opportunities in the work of Foss etal., (2013). Halme etal., (2012) discuss an interesting term, corporate entrepreneurship, in large organizations, and social corporate entrepreneurship, which is centered on innovation for inclusive business. Wales etal., (2011) propose three models of how entrepreneurial orientation can manifest dynamically throughout an organization, opening new avenues for future research. They also develop a theoretically grounded model Chen etal., (2015) that traces the path from information technology capabilities to a firm’s product innovation performance through the mediating role of corporate entrepreneurship. Kreiser etal., (2013) suggest that three dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation (innovativeness, proactivity, and risk-taking) may have differential relationships with performance in smaller firms. The reading of the cited articles indicates how research in corporate entrepreneurship strategy cited by Ireland etal., (2009) focuses on various topics such as dynamic capabilities, knowledge of external sources, entrepreneurial bricolage, or making proposals for modeling the reality of corporate entrepreneurship. Discussion The CES reference model (Ireland etal., 2009) has had an essential impact on the scientific literature about the concepts of CE and CES. Whenever the scientific community draws attention to the relevant elements and the results expected from implementing a CES by a company or organization, they inevitably refer to the work of Ireland etal., (2009) and the elements of their model. The number of works citing them is proof of this. The fact that this work is so frequently mentioned, together with the references to the model’s elements, confirms the scientific community’s growing interest in CE and, more specifically, in the status of the CES in organizations. From the review of all the scientific literature in which the model is cited, other considerations can be made related to applying the CES reference model. The model has yet to be, totally or partially, used in an empirical study. This does not enable confirming the utility and feasibility of implementing a CES in organizations. All this makes performing an empirically based analysis of the results obtained from applying this model even less possible, and verifying these results in empirical studies allowed for establishing elements of consensus and dissent on the potential benefits of using this model versus other CES models. From analyzing the results, answers can be given to the research questions initially raised in this paper. RQ1. Which are the journals and authors in which the CES reference model has had the greatest impact? The results show the significant impact of this model on subsequent related works. A remarkable fact is that almost 25% of the scientific production cited by the CES reference model is concentrated in ten journals. These journals stand out for their high impact factor in WoS and high position in the Scopus quartiles. The predominant area of knowledge among the prominent journals that have impacted publications cited by the CES Page 18 of 24 Baena‑Lunaand García‑Río Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2025) 14:64 reference model is Management, with the top ten journals included in this category, both in WoS and Scopus databases. A noteworthy fact is that the journal Small Business Economics includes 22 papers that cite the work under study. Also important is the place occupied by the journal Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. This is the journal in which the CES reference model was published in 200, with 11 papers citing it. Concerning the authors with the highest number of papers in which the CES reference model is cited, D.F. Kuratko, one of the three co-authors of the paper in which the CES reference model was published, stands out in the first place. Another of the paper’s coauthors, J. Covin, is among the ten authors with the highest number of documents citing the CES reference model. Specifically, he is the sixth author with the highest number of papers. A relevant element among the authors citing the CES reference model is that there needs to be more collaboration between different authors, being highly concentrated in homogeneous and sustained groups of authors. RQ2. In which countries have the CES reference model had the greatest impact on related scientific works? Five countries—the USA, the UK, Germany, Spain, and South Africa—have the highest affiliations with papers published in the WoS and Scopus databases that have cited the CES reference model. This result is aligned with the authors’affiliations, with the highest number of papers citing the work under study. A relevant fact derived from the analysis of the results is the scarce collaboration between authors with affiliations from different countries, so most of the papers citing the CES reference model belong to affiliations in institutions of the same country. RQ3. What conceptual, intellectual, and social structures were generated from the analyzed scientific literature related to the CES reference model? The main results obtained from the conceptual structure map and the mapping of co-occurrence networks in"Keywords"and"Cluster analysis and multiple correspondence analysis of high-frequency keywords"section, together with the cluster analysis and multiple correspondence analysis of high-frequency keywords in"Thematic evolution analysis"section and the thematic evolution analysis in"Thematic map and co-occurrence network mapping"section conclude in two major conceptual areas related to scientific production. Firstly, and as a significant abstract area, there is the relevance in the papers that cite the CES reference model of the reality of innovation. This, in turn, appears with different concepts related to management and the CE, highlighting a more recent thematic evolution toward the dimensions of business management, such as dynamic capabilities, performance, and its connection with innovation in its different business meanings. Secondly, connecting these elements with the concepts and facts of generating new business models based on new business approaches is no less critical. Undoubtedly, this is not a decision applicable only to large companies; it can also be implemented in different types of companies. As shown in Fig.13, emerging issues in works that cite the CES reference model stand out, especially those that refer to entrepreneurial corporate actions of established company personnel and, on the other hand, their link with the necessary transfer of knowledge and technology of companies that carry out CES actions. Page 19 of 24 Baena‑Lunaand García‑Río Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2025) 14:64 RQ4. What existing and evolving issues can be explored through further studies? The results of this work establish fascinating and almost essential connections between different elements that make up the internal environment of organizations and which, from their relationship and interrelation, will condition the results of an entrepreneurial strategy for an organization. The constant linkage of results, such as the results of innovative activities, as well as the potential strategic repositioning of companies, highlight the need to deepen the investigation of the elements that can favor those that make up a CES model, precisely and according to the CES Reference Model: entrepreneurial strategic vision, pro-entrepreneurship organizational architecture, and a series of entrepreneurial processes and behaviors. How these three elements should relate and interrelate with each other in such a way as to generate better results for the organizations is an element apropos of which to deepen and continue advancing within the related research. Theoretical implications Regarding the theoretical implications of this work, the present analysis offers the first review of this model by Ireland etal., (2009) within the scientific literature and one of the rarest bibliometric analyses merging two different databases. Our study makes a significant contribution to the literature on the CES, mainly thanks to the in-depth and detailed analysis of the impact of the CES Reference Model. Despite its high number of citations in subsequent related works, it can be largely seen that the impact of this model is grounded on serving as a theoretical basis for the elements that subsequent CES model proposals have used. The relationships and interrelationships proposed by the authors of the CES Reference Model make this model difficult to implement and even to contrast empirically. Proof of this is that, as far as we know, the CES Reference Model has not been used in empirical work where it has been tested in a real business and organizational environment. Thus, our work also contributes to theory by addressing the need expressed in recent works that addressed the reality of CES, such as those of Civera and Meoli, (2024), Funko etal., (2023) or Urbano etal., (2022) highlighting the need to synthesize, investigate and analyze existing knowledge to identify knowledge gaps and develop a future agenda regarding CES. By integrating knowledge of the variables that influence the elements of CES and the drivers that can improve their organizational outcomes, this study extended the existing theoretical debates on which drivers enhance CES as a source of optimal organizational outcomes and new strategic repositioning for the firm. Practical implications Also important are the potential practical implications of the results derived from this work, mainly for company managers who are involved in or want to plan CES processes. Given the present review, it can be claimed that implementing this CES model in an organization implies considerable difficulties due to its complexity and the authors’ lack of definition of the variables comprising it. Thus, it is tough to perform an empirical study that analyzes the level of implementation of this CES model and its results. Likewise, the lack of indicators for the expected results is a hindrance when attempting to establish their level of achievement in a hypothetical empirical study. Page 20 of 24 Baena‑Lunaand García‑Río Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2025) 14:64 Despite the potential difficulty in implementing a CES model such as the one under study in this work, the elements it contains and the consideration of the possible effect of dimensions external to the company and organization make the CES Reference Model a valuable instrument. This instrument has to do with evaluating the consequences of the external environment with respect to the internal environment for the latter to become a translator of the former and favors the improvement of organizational results. However, the number of studies that address issues related to the CES and works that cite the CES Reference Model makes it possible to determine the importance of this type of entrepreneurial action in the field of organizations. This undoubtedly shows the relevance that the potential results obtained, and their causes are always a source of interest in knowing how companies function and the conditions that favor achieving the desired success through generating and obtaining sustainable competitive advantages over time. Limitations andfuture research lines This work, like all research, is not free of limitations. Concerning the choice of WoS and Scopus as databases, limitations related to coverage are detected (Martín-Martín etal., 2018). Also, the two selected databases present an Anglo-Saxon bias (Repiso-Caballero & Delgado-López-Cózar, 2013), with English sources obtaining an overrepresentation to the detriment of other languages (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016). The non-choice of some of these different databases is based on criticisms that they collect documents and citations considered as non-academic sources (Kulkarni etal., 2009), inconsistently accurate results, and inadequate and less updated citation information (Falagas etal., 2008). Other limitations are derived from and inherent to the application of bibliometric techniques. Firstly, the fact that all the papers citing the CES Reference Model have been analyzed (once the exclusion criteria have been applied) is not in itself a guarantee of the level of influence and impact of a paper. Another possible limitation is related to the potential existence of joint citations, which do not always and in all cases imply a conceptual connection. Finally, there is undoubtedly the existence of subjectivity in the authors’decision-making when setting the thresholds and exclusion criteria applied. The authors find the importance of the articles by Ireland etal., (2009) in the bulk of the literature related to corporate entrepreneurship strategy interesting. Still, this decision to do with the selection criteria may be a limitation as they have not established inclusion criteria keywords that would ensure the subject matter of the selected papers, such as the terms"CES"or"corporate entrepreneurship strategy"(see Table1). Regarding future lines of work and research, the first element to consider is the possibility of addressing some of the identified limitations of this research work in subsequent related research projects. On the other hand, it would be interesting for future research work to define each of the variables that make up the different elements of the model. Studies of this type would serve as a basis for contrasting the model in empirical research. Then, its possible implementation in companies and organizations and its results could be analyzed longitudinally to corroborate the theoretical and practical implications highlighted by the model’s authors. In addition, this work shows the results of a field of research that, despite its growth in recent years, is still incipient in its connection with other areas related to business management. This is the case, for example, in the study of the CES and fundamental realities Page 21 of 24 Baena‑Lunaand García‑Río Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2025) 14:64 at present, such as its effect on sustainable development by implementing innovative strategies that make it possible to overcome resistance to change and improve decisionmaking processes derived from environmental conditions. Conclusions In this paper, we have reviewed the application of the CES reference model in the related scientific literature and its impact. Given our results, three relevant conclusions can be drawn. The paper in which the proposed CES reference model has been cited and referenced in many works in the WoS and Scopus databases. Secondly, relating to citations and references, this impact does not correspond to the actual application of the model in empirical or conceptual studies. It has only been partly applied in one abstract study to propose such a model for the public sector. Thirdly, one of the reasons behind the model’s lack of application may be its complexity, among other factors, because it is based on three levels of organizational analysis at three different moments. Furthermore, the diverse variables comprising the model’s elements—between which the necessary interactions occur—and its expected application results have yet to be defined or established. Given the large number of citations received by the CES model proposed by Ireland etal., (2009), we can assume it represents a valid interpretation of the elements and complexities involved in any CES. However, at present, its level of abstraction is too high to be applied. We call for researchers to focus on specific elements within the model and to try to operate them. Acknowledgements Not applicable. Author contributions Both authors collaboratively generated this article. Both authors were responsible for the conception and design, and the corresponding author was mainly accountable for the analysis and interpretation of the data. Both authors actively engaged in composing the paper, carefully reviewing it for intellectual content, and ultimately granting their final approval for publication. Furthermore, both authors have accepted responsibility for all parts of the work. Funding All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial or non‑financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. Availability of data and materials Available upon request. Declarations Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Received: 12 December 2024 Accepted: 25 April 2025 References Abashid, M. F., & Aziz, M. A. (2022). A Comprehensive overview of world mapping analysis research trends on impact of artificial intelligence in tourism from 2000 to 2022 a literature review and bibliometric analysis. ICRRD Quality Index Research Journal, 3(3), 136–160. https:// doi. org/ 10. 53272/ icrrd. v3i3.4 Ahmed, U., Shah, S. A., Qureshi, M. A., Shah, M. H., & Khuwaja, F. M. (2018). Nurturing innovation performance through corporate entrepreneurship: The moderation of employee engagement. Studies in Business and Economics, 13(2), 20–30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2478/ sbe‑ 2018‑ 0017 Alkathiri, N. A., Said, F. B., Meyer, N., & Soliman, M. (2024). Knowledge management and sustainable entrepreneurship: A bibliometric overview and research agenda. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s13731‑ 024‑ 00387‑3 Page 22 of 24 Baena‑Lunaand García‑Río Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2025) 14:64 Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R‑tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. joi. 2017. 08. 007 Audretsch, D. B., Kuratko, D. F., & Link, A. N. (2015). Making sense of the elusive paradigm of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 45(4), 703–712. Baruah, B., & Ward, A. (2015). Metamorphosis of intrapreneurship as an effective organizational strategy. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 811–822. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11365‑ 014‑ 0318‑3 Bierwerth, M., Schwens, C., Isidor, R., & Kabst, R. (2015). Corporate entrepreneurship and performance: A meta‑analy‑ sis. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 255–278. Bluedorn, A. C., & Barringer, B. R. (1999). The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and strategic manage‑ ment. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 421–444. Bouwman, H., Nikou, S., & de Reuver, M. (2019). Digitalization, business models, and SMEs How do business model innovation practices improve performance of digitalizing SMEs? Telecommunications Policy, 43(9), 101828. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. telpol. 2019. 101828 Caputo, A., & Kargina, M. (2022). A user‑friendly method to merge Scopus and Web of Science data during bibliomet‑ ric analysis. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 10(1), 82–88. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ s41270‑ 021‑ 00142‑7 Ceptureanu, E. G., Ceptureanu, S. I., & Popescu, D. I. (2017). Relationship between entropy, corporate entrepreneur‑ ship and organizational capabilities in Romanian medium sized enterprises. Entropy, 19(8), 412. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ e1908 0412 Chaves‑Maza, M., & Fedriani, E. M. (2025). How to avoid profiles of failure when supporting entrepreneurs in an economic crisis. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 27(1), 17–38. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JRME‑ 04‑ 2023‑ 0055 Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Nevo, S., Benitez‑Amado, J., & Kou, G. (2015). IT capabilities and product innovation performance: The roles of corporate entrepreneurship and competitive intensity. Information and Management, 52(6), 643–657. Civera, A., & Meoli, M. (2024). Corporate entrepreneurship strategy in universities: Emerging leadership in austerity time. Journal of Technology Transfer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10961‑ 024‑ 10076‑8 Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7–26. Crawford, G. C., & Kreiser, P. M. (2015). Corporate entrepreneurship strategy: Extending the integrative framework through the lens of complexity science. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 403–423. Cuccurullo, C., Aria, M., & Sarto, F. (2016). Foundations and trends in performance management. A twenty‑five years bibliometric analysis in business and public administration domains. Scientometrics, 108(2), 595–611. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11192‑ 016‑ 1948‑8 D’Angelo, S., Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A., Di Lorenzo, F. Understanding corporate entrepreneurship in the digital age: a review and research agenda. In Review of Managerial Science (Vol. 18, Issue 12). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. (2024). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11846‑ 024‑ 00730‑8 Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133(April), 285–296. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2021. 04. 070 Ekingen, E., Ekemen, M. A., Yildiz, A., & Korkmazer, F. (2018). The effect of intrapreneurship and organizational factors on the innovation performance in hospital. Revista De Cercetare Si Interventie Sociala, 62(9), 196–219. Elia, G., & Margherita, A. (2018). Assessing the maturity of crowdventuring for corporate entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 61(2), 271–283. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, scopus, web of science, and google scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1096/ fj. 07‑ 9492l sf Ferreira, J. J. M., Fernandes, C. I., & Ratten, V. (2016). A co‑citation bibliometric analysis of strategic management research. Scientometrics, 109(1), 1–32. Foss, N. J., Lyngsie, J., & Zahra, S. A. (2013). The role of external knowledge sources and organizational design in the process of opportunity exploitation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(12), 1453–1471. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2135 Funko, I. S., Vlačić, B., & Dabić, M. (2023). Corporate entrepreneurship in public sector: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 8(2), Article 100343. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jik. 2023. 100343 Girma‑Aragaw, Z., Haag, K., & Baù, M. (2024). Contextualizing corporate entrepreneurship: A systematic review and future research agenda. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 37(1–2), 1–37. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08985 626. 2024. 23418 86 Halme, M., Lindeman, S., & Linna, P. (2012). Innovation for inclusive business: Intrapreneurial bricolage in multina‑ tional corporations. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), 743–784. Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., Holt, D. T., & Wales, W. J. (2013). Assessing a measurement of organizational preparedness for corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(5), 937–955. Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 19–46. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1540‑ 6520. 2008. 00279.x Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimen‑ sions. Journal of Management, 29(6), 963–989. Janik, A., Ryszko, A., & Szafraniec, M. (2020). Scientific landscape of smart and sustainable cities literature: A bibliomet‑ ric analysis. Sustainability, 12(3), 779. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su120 30779 Kantur, D. (2016). Strategic entrepreneurship: Mediating the entrepreneurial orientation‑performance link. Management Decision, 54(1), 24–43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ MD‑ 11‑ 2014‑ 0660 Kearney, C., & Meynhardt, T. (2016). Directing corporate entrepreneurship strategy in the public sector to public value: Antecedents, components, and outcomes. International Public Management Journal, 19(4), 543–572. Page 23 of 24 Baena‑Lunaand García‑Río Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2025) 14:64 Kim, H. J. (2018). Reconciling entrepreneurial orientation and dynamic capabilities: A strategic entrepreneurship perspective. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 27(2), 180–208. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09713 55718 781252 Kraus, S., & Rigtering, C. (2017). Strategic corporate entrepreneurship: A configuration approach‑based case study. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 9(2), 101–121. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1504/ IJEV. 2017. 086481 Kraus, S., Rigtering, J. P. C., Hughes, M., & Hosman, V. (2012). Entrepreneurial orientation and the business perfor‑ mance of SMEs: A quantitative study from the Netherlands. Review of Managerial Science, 6(2), 161–182. Kreiser, P. M., Kuratko, D. F., Covin, J. G., Ireland, R. D., & Hornsby, J. S. (2021). Corporate entrepreneurship strategy: Extending our knowledge boundaries through configuration theory. Small Business Economics. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11187‑ 019‑ 00198‑x Kreiser, P. M., Marino, L. D., Kuratko, D. F., & Weaver, K. M. (2013). Disaggregating entrepreneurial orientation: The non‑ linear impact of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk‑taking on SME performance. Small Business Economics, 40(2), 273–291. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11187‑ 012‑ 9460‑x Kulkarni, A. V., Aziz, B., Shams, I., & Busse, J. W. (2009). Comparisons of citations in web of science. JAMA, 302(10), 1092–1096. Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2009). Strategic entrepreneurship exploring different perspectives of an emerging concept. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 1–17. Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2013). Clarifying the domains of corporate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), 323–335. Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Covin, J. G. (2014). Diagnosing a firm’s internal environment for corporate entrepreneur‑ ship. Business Horizons, 57(1), 37–47. Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Hayton, J. (2015a). Corporate entrepreneurship: The innovative challenge for a new global economic reality. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 245–253. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11187‑ 015‑ 9630‑8 Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & McKelvie, A. (2023). Entrepreneurial mindset in corporate entrepreneurship: Forms, impediments, and actions for research. Journal of Small Business Management, 61(1), 132–154. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00472 778. 2021. 19075 85 Kuratko, D. F., & Morris, M. H. (2018). Examining the future trajectory of entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(1), 11–23. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jsbm. 12364 Kuratko, D. F., Morris, M., & Schindehutte, M. (2015b). Understanding the dynamics of entrepreneurship through framework approaches. Small Business Economics, 45(1), 1–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11187‑ 015‑ 9627‑3 Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 258632 Mangan, R. Web of science: manual de uso versión español. In Clarivate Analytics. (2017). https:// www. recur sosci entif icos. fecyt. es/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ 2018_ 01_ 15_ manual_ uso_ rmws‑ wok‑ 23_ 20_ 2017_ sparm. pdf Marques, C. S., Valente, S., & Lages, M. (2018). The influence of personal and organisational factors on entrepreneur‑ ship intention: An application in the health care sector. Journal of Nursing Management, 26(6), 696–706. Martín‑Martín, A., Orduna‑Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & Delgado López‑Cózar, E. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. joi. 2018. 09. 002 Mazzei, M. J. (2018). Strategic entrepreneurship: Content, process, context, and outcomes. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(3), 657–670. Mazzei, M. J., Ketchen, D. J., & Shook, C. L. (2017). Understanding strategic entrepreneurship: A “theoretical toolbox” approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(2), 631–663. Mongeon, P., & Paul‑Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of web of science and scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11192‑ 015‑ 1765‑5 Nadkarni, S., Prügl, R. Digital transformation: a review, synthesis and opportunities for future research. In Management Review Quarterly (Issue 0123456789). Springer International Publishing. (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11301‑ 020‑ 00185‑7 Niemann, C. C., Dickel, P., & Eckardt, G. (2019). The interplay of corporate entrepreneurship, environmental orienta‑ tion, and performance in clean‑tech firms—a doubled‑edged sword. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20, 180–196. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 2357 Parker, S. (2010). Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 19–34. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusv ent. 2009. 07. 003 Perlines, F. H., Ariza‑Montes, A., & Blanco‑González‑Tejero, C. (2022). Intrapreneurship research: A comprehensive literature review. Journal of Business Research, 153, 428–444. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2022. 08. 015 Repiso‑Caballero, R., & Delgado‑López‑Cózar, E. (2013). The impact of scientific journals of communication: Compar‑ ing google scholar metrics, web of science and scopus El impacto de las revistas de comunicación: Com‑ parando google scholar metrics Web of Science y Scopus. Comunicar, 21(41), 45–53. Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40–49. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. lrp. 2017. 06. 007 Titus, V. K., & Anderson, B. S. (2016). Firm structure and environment as contingencies to the corporate venture capital‑parent firm value relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(3), 498–522. Urbano, D., Turro, A., Wright, M., & Zahra, S. (2022). Corporate entrepreneurship: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Small Business Economics, 59, 1541–1565. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11187‑ 021‑ 00590‑6 Wales, W. J. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation: A review and synthesis of promising research directions. International Small Business Journal, 34(1), 3–15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02662 42615 613840 Wales, W. J., Covin, J. G., & Monsen, E. (2020). Entrepreneurial orientation: The necessity of a multilevel conceptualiza‑ tion. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14(4), 639–660. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ sej. 1344 Wales, W., Monsen, E., & McKelvie, A. (2011). The organizational pervasiveness of entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 895–923. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1540‑ 6520. 2011. 00451.x Xie, H., Zhang, Y., Wu, Z., & Lv, T. (2020). A bibliometric analysis on land degradation: Current status, development, and future directions. Land, 9(1), 28. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ LAND9 010028 Page 24 of 24 Baena‑Lunaand García‑Río Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2025) 14:64 Yadav, M., & Banerji, P. (2023). A bibliometric analysis of digital financial literacy. American Journal of Business. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ AJB‑ 11‑ 2022‑ 0186 Yang, M. (2018). International entrepreneurial marketing strategies of MNCs: Bricolage as practiced by marketing managers. International Business Review, 27(5), 1045–1056. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ibusr ev. 2018. 03. 004 Yihua, W., Meng, F., Farrukh, M., Raza, A., & Alam, I. (2023). Twelve years of research in The International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 16(1), 154–174. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IMEFM‑ 03‑ 2020‑ 0134 Zahra, S. A. (2015). Corporate entrepreneurship as knowledge creation and conversion: The role of entrepreneurial hubs. Small Business Economics, 44(4), 727–735. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11187‑ 015‑ 9650‑4 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.