the state of corporate venturing: insights from a global study (cvc)

Research-Technology Management • January—February 2013 | 31

Corporate venturing is on the rise. The growing intensity of corporate venturing activities since the start of 2011 has been described as a resurgence or a golden age ( Mawson 2011 ). While the current fi nancial and economic environment de-termines the emergence of a “new normal for innovation” ( Euchner 2011 , 9), an increasing number of corporations are launching or expanding venturing programs.

Among others, Baxter, BMW, WPP, and China ’ s largest In-ternet conglomerate, Tencent, have joined leading corporate innovators such as Google or Intel in actively funding and supporting new entrepreneurial ventures. As documented by recent reports on venture investments ( Ernst & Young 2012 ), corporate venture activities span industrial sectors and geographical regions, extending into emerging markets. Fund-raising is surging and venture funds have become much larger.

These developments raise important questions regarding how corporations organize for venturing. To respond to the growing need for evidence-based insights into the current state of corporate venturing activities, we collaborated with Bain & Company in the Corporate Venturing Research Initia-tive to study 48 high-profi le venture units at leading global corporations. The results of the study provide an overview of the strategic scope of venturing activities for parent corpora-tions, the organization of corporate venture units, the fi nan-cial and strategic performance of these units, and the top operational challenges for corporate ventures.

Rediscovering Corporate Venturing Corporate venturing is not an isolated phenomenon, but an important part of a broader trend that is transforming the role of the R&D function. The rise of a new model of business innovation ( Engel 2011 ) and the challenges posed by in-creasingly globalized markets for technology are forcing corporate decision makers to reconsider their innovation

Boris Battistini is a research associate in the department of management, technology, and economics at ETH Zurich. He is a project leader of the Corporate Venturing Research Initiative (with Bain & Company). His re-search focuses on innovation, strategic investments, and venture capital, and his work has appeared in journals such as Long Range Planning and Nature Biotechnology . He is a graduate of King’s College London and holds an MSc and an MRes in management from the University of London. [email protected]

Fredrik Hacklin is a lecturer in the department of management, technology, and economics at ETH Zurich, where he heads the research activities of the entrepreneurship group. Previously, he was an associate with Booz & Com-pany and held visiting positions at Stanford University and Keio University. His research interests are in corporate innovation and strategic entrepre-neurship. Fredrik holds a PhD in management from ETH Zurich and an MSc in computer science from KTH Stockholm. [email protected]

Pius Baschera is a professor in the department of management, technol-ogy, and economics at ETH Zurich, where he holds the Chair of Entrepre-neurship. He is the chairman of Hilti Corporation and the Venture Incubator, a seed-stage venture capital fund in Switzerland. He is a member of the Board of Directors of Roche Group, Schindler Holding, Vorwerk & Co. KG, and Ardex GmbH. He holds a PhD in management and an MSc in mechani-cal engineering from ETH Zurich. [email protected]

DOI: 10.5437/08956308X5601077

FEATURE ARTICLE

The State of Corporate Venturing Insights from a Global Study A global study of leading corporate venture units offers some insights into current venturing strategies and practices.

Boris Battistini , Fredrik Hacklin , and Pius Baschera

OVERVIEW: Corporate venturing is on the rise. The growing intensity of corporate venturing activities presents extraordi-nary opportunities for corporations to redefi ne their innovation and investment practices. While corporate venturing has received considerable research attention, previous studies have often insuffi ciently captured the evolution of corporate venturing activities. This article presents the key insights of a global study of leading corporate venture units and offers a benchmark against which to compare current and future corporate venturing initiatives. We discuss the state of corporate venturing activities and practices at leading global corporations and outline the distinctive features of today’s venture landscape.

KEYWORDS: Corporate venturing , Open innovation , Venture capital , Strategic investments

32 | Research-Technology Management The State of Corporate Venturing

strategies and practices ( Enkel, Gassmann, and Chesbrough 2009 ; Jelinek, Bean, and Antcliff 2012 ). To increase returns on innovation, corporations are complementing internal R&D with open initiatives such as IP licensing, academic partnerships, innovation consortia, open-source platforms, and venture capital investments.

Corporate venturing is one of the fastest-growing strate-gies for remodeling the closed, linear approach to corporate innovation into an open, collaborative model with new re-search and development partners. Corporate venturing en-tails the origination, fi nancing, and development of new business ventures. Driven largely by the need to enhance in-house research and development capability, venturing allows large, established corporations to identify and capture the strategic value of emerging technology and entrepreneurial ventures ( Dushnitsky and Lenox 2005 ; Napp and Minshall 2011 ; Sahaym, Steensma, and Barden 2010 ).

The involvement of corporate venture units in new busi-ness development and venture creation is not new. Corpora-tions introduced the fi rst venturing initiatives following the extraordinary success of pioneering independent venture capital funds in the mid-1960s ( Landström 2007 ; Rind 1981 ). Since then, corporations have periodically come in and out of venture investing, prompted by the cyclical nature of the venture capital industry and economic downturns. Histori-cally, the growth of corporate venturing activities occurred in bull markets with rising share prices, an active and robust market for IPOs, and widely available fi nancing ( Gompers 2002 ). The dot-com boom, characterized by disruptive tech-nological advances and the proliferation of high-tech entre-preneurial ventures, is an obvious example; a plethora of corporate venturing programs were swiftly launched at the height of the boom, only to be dismantled when the market collapsed, prompting corporations to reconsider the case for venturing initiatives. The last 12 to 18 months have been the fi rst period in the 50-year history of corporate venturing that has seen initiatives being established or extended at the be-ginning of an economic cycle, despite adverse fi nancial con-ditions ( Dushnitsky 2011 ). With traditional venture capital investing under pressure in uncertain capital markets, corpo-rations are fi lling the gap, stepping up their venture arms.

Today’s corporate venturing has come a long way from earlier efforts. Corporations are now playing a more promi-nent role in today’s venture landscape, as it becomes clearer that engaging with venture capitalists and entrepreneurs

offers access to external innovation. It is, therefore, timely to review the current state of global corporate venturing. While the subject has received considerable research attention over the last decade, advancing our understanding of the contri-bution of venturing programs to innovative performance and growth (see, for example, Benson and Ziedonis 2009 ; Dushnitsky and Lenox 2006 ; Keil, McGrath, and Tukiainen 2009 ; Lin and Lee 2011 ; Wadhwa and Kotha 2006 ), there have not been many recent large-scale attempts to document the state of corporate venturing activities in a systematic manner using primary data. Rather, most work has been based either on quantitative analysis of deals or illustrative case studies. The most comprehensive study is now over a decade old ( Birkinshaw, van Basten Batenburg, and Murray 2002 ) and focused primarily on dot-com companies. This article addresses this gap. We present the key insights of a global study and offer a benchmark against which to com-pare current and future corporate venturing initiatives.

Research Design and Methodology The fi ndings presented here are based on a global study of leading corporate venture units, the Corporate Venturing Re-search Initiative undertaken by ETH Zurich in collaboration with Bain & Company. The study adopted a systematic, mul-tiphase research design that included primary data collection via surveys and interviews.

The fi rst stage consisted of semistructured interviews with industry experts and senior professionals from venture capital funds and an extensive literature review, both in-tended to inform the development of the study methodol-ogy and instruments in the second stage. The purpose of the preliminary interviews was to identify contemporary prac-tices in corporate venturing and the central issues believed to infl uence the effective management of venturing activi-ties. The review systematically evaluated the current re-search published in relevant academic journals, corporate reports and reviews by industry associations such as the Na-tional Venture Capital Association and the European Ven-ture Capital and Private Equity Association, and industry data aggregated in specialized databases such as Global Cor-porate Venturing and Dow Jones VentureSource.

The second phase consisted of sample identifi cation, survey and interview design, and data collection. To identify our study sample, we fi rst conducted a search of the top 50 Forbes Global 2000 corporations in fi ve major industrial sectors (a total of 250 companies) in order to identify corporate venture units and their key decision makers. For this purpose, we defi ned a corporate venture unit as a distinct organizational unit, owned or partially owned by a large corporation, with the mandate to make strategic investments in new business ventures. The search yielded 146 active corporate venture units; 52 units were willing to participate in the study. Four units were ex-cluded from the analysis due to missing data. Thus, the fi nal study sample includes 48 high-profi le venture units operating in fi ve major industrial sectors ( Figure 1 ).

The questionnaire, which was designed to document the current state of corporate venturing among large corporations,

Corporations are playing a more

prominent role in the venture landscape

as engaging with venture capitalists and

entrepreneurs offers access to external

innovation.

The State of Corporate Venturing January—February 2013 | 33

included four sections of items asking about the reasons for venturing, the organization of venturing activities, the in-vestment portfolio, and performance issues affecting ventur-ing activities. Semistructured interviews were designed to complement and expand upon the survey, especially with re-spect to strategic issues; organizational structure, process, and performance; evolution and trends in the company’s in-dustry; and managerial challenges. For each unit participat-ing in the study, we administered a questionnaire surveying the head of the venture unit and conducted semistruc-tured interviews with top executives involved in corpo-rate venturing—managing directors of corporate venture units, investment managers, and board-level executives. Our analysis complemented survey results with interview data, allowing us to uncover patterns in recent global corporate venturing activities and practices.

Recent Patterns in Global Corporate Venturing Our data demonstrate that corporate venturing has signifi -cantly evolved over the last decade. Seventy-seven percent of survey respondents reported that important changes that redefi ned the scope and nature of their activities had oc-curred in their units. In our follow-up interviews, when asked to identify change drivers, managers of venturing units pointed to the learning effects of increased experience in deal origination and the increased availability of high-quality hu-man resources with relevant background in venture capital or new business development. More importantly, perhaps, a key change driver was the increased awareness among se-nior executives that a sustainable innovation strategy re-quires both internal initiatives and systematic access to external sources of innovation. As a result of these transfor-mations, the majority of respondents saw an extension in the scope and longevity of their venturing unit operations. Our insights provide qualitative support for the recent longitudi-nal analysis conducted by Dushnitsky (2011) , which showed that upwards of 350 corporate venturing programs were ac-tive in the period 2000–2009, more than 40 percent of which had been in operation for nearly twice as long as the average lifespan for corporate venturing units in the previous three

waves in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1990s. The extended longev-ity of corporate venturing programs and the increasing rec-ognition of their importance as mechanisms to access external innovation have brought important shifts in the organiza-tion, strategic focus, and management of human capital in these units.

Strategic scope. The rationale given for establishing a venturing unit typically combines a set of strategic and fi nan-cial objectives, with the former representing the underlying rationale for the mandate and the latter the necessary condi-tions for the sustainability of the activities. The prime market focus of venturing activity for the majority of units we stud-ied is in adjacent business areas (56 percent), while the rein-forcement and strengthening of the core business represent the primary market focus for over one quarter of the units examined (27 percent). Only 17 percent of venturing units focus on “white space” opportunities beyond usual business activities. Fifty-six percent of corporations defi ne the scope of their venturing units in relation to corporate growth in terms of a search for expansion opportunities in markets near a strong core business area. This is borne out by recent case studies, notably Meyer and Poza’s (2009) study of Raytheon’s homeland security venture. Corporate venture units tend to focus on issues of strategic growth, fi nancial return, and organizational learning, including the development of tech-nology and market intelligence and strategic relationships. The tasks and activities of venturing units are related to their strategic focus; these units are primarily concerned with identifying and developing new business opportunities—from evaluating potential ideas and performing due diligence to making decisions about participation and investment structure. In this way, corporate venturing operations help their corporate parents identify novel opportunities that ex-ploit existing assets and competencies. These fi ndings sup-port the empirical work of Yang, Narayanan, and Zahra (2009) .

Organization. Corporate venturing programs take a vari-ety of organizational forms, ranging from independent struc-tures to special units within the parent company. This heterogeneity also implies that there is no fi xed form of

FIGURE 1 . Distribution of study sample by industry


venture unit fi nancing. However, while 31 percent of units in our study exhibited relatively limited decision-making au-tonomy, reporting that all investments are subject to internal review, more than two-thirds of the units examined have a dedicated source of capital, with a sizable portion (37 per-cent) operating with a closed fund structure. Autonomous governance structures not only allow faster, more indepen-dent operations; they are also more effi cient in managing po-tential misalignment of interests between the long-term strategic objectives of the venturing unit and the short-term performance requirements of its parent company ( Dougherty 1995 ; Simon, Houghton, and Gurney 1999 ). The reporting line to the corporate parent depends on strategic focus and objectives; for example, where technology intelligence is the prime motive of the venturing initiative, the unit reports di-rectly to the CTO and R&D organization. Importantly, 30 per-cent of respondents also indicated that they report directly to the CEO and the board of directors, emphasizing the strong mandate of the venturing unit and the increased strategic importance of corporate venturing.

With respect to incentive and reward systems, we found that high-powered incentives are an increasingly important component of the overall compensation package for manag-ers of corporate venturing programs. Notably, 42 percent of the units we studied adopted performance-based incentive structures, offering long-term incentives based on fi nancial and strategic performance, refl ecting both the investment time horizon and maximization of shareholder value, and 15 percent adopted a compensation package that combines a fi xed salary with a carried-interest reward (that is, a share of the profi ts generated by an investment or investment fund). Recent empirical work has shown the important role of in-centives in shaping corporate venturing investment practices and, in particular, the positive effect of performance-related compensation schemes on the performance of corporate venturing activities ( Dushnitsky and Shapira 2010 ). The in-creased use of value-based incentives is expected to enable better alignment between the interests of the corporate par-ent and those of the venture unit. A performance-based in-centive system should also be instrumental in attracting and retaining high-quality employees with relevant experience in venture capital and new business development.

Performance. Assessing the performance of venturing activities is inherently diffi cult due to the various, sometimes-confl icting objectives of the activity. While traditional

venture capital funds have the single objective of maximizing fi nancial return, most corporate venturing units must meet a combination of fi nancial and strategic targets. Participants in our study reported a number of objectives ( Figure 2 ). The most important objectives reported are fi nancial return (rated important or very important by 75 percent of respon-dents) and a window on technology and market intelligence (rated important or very important by 63 percent), followed by access to breakthrough technologies (52 percent), devel-opment of strategic relationships (52 percent), and new product development (44 percent). In terms of performance, the majority of respondents appear to be satisfi ed.

However, performance measures often capture the strate-gic value of venturing activities for the parent corporation only incompletely. Indeed, the most frequently adopted key performance indicators are fi nancial metrics, such as the in-ternal rate of return or the fi nancial gain of portfolio compa-nies. These are followed by quantitative indicators of strategic value, such as measures of technological intelligence, the number of business ideas screened, the increase in sales of related products and technology, and the number of techno-logical innovations (patents or new products). As Napp and Minshall (2011) suggest, the strategic value of corporate ven-turing is measured most effectively by taking into account the ultimate outcomes, as with other open innovation initia-tives. In addition to traditional metrics, it is important to adopt a wide range of indicators to capture and document both the signifi cance of the insights venturing units provide to top management, business units, and the R&D organiza-tion and the strategic impact of collaborations and partner-ships developed through venturing and associated networking activity. Interestingly, we found that while 85 percent of ven-turing units in our study systematically use multiple perfor-mance measures, only 49 percent defi ne related target values. Performance indicators are an indispensable feedback mechanism for improving the organization of venturing ac-tivities and determining their actual contribution to the in-novation and growth targets of the corporation.

Models for Corporate Venturing Throughout our research, we have observed renewed inter-est in the venture space at the corporate level. Approaches and models may vary, as do the reasons for embarking on ventures in the fi rst place. But where corporations want to differentiate their strategic investments in innovation, they increasingly view corporate venturing as key components of their innovation portfolios. Whether a corporation is consid-ering establishing a new venture arm or reorganizing an ex-isting one, it is important to take a set of operational challenges into account.

The top challenges faced by corporate venturing units are fundamentally concerned with the sustainability of the rela-tionship and quality of the interaction between the unit, the parent corporation, and the external entrepreneurial ecosys-tem. The three top challenges for venturing units identifi ed in our data are all concerned with this network of relation-ships: securing long-term parent commitment, building and

Where corporations want to differentiate

their strategic investments in innovation,

they increasingly view corporate

venturing as key components of their

innovation portfolios.


maintaining relevant relationships, and accessing adequate deal fl ow ( Figure 3 ). While these are certainly not the only operational challenges senior managers and venturing pro-fessionals face, they represent the essence of effective ventur-ing programs. On the one hand, the venture unit requires committed high-level sponsorship to guarantee the long-term engagement necessary to entrepreneurial innovation. On the other, its purpose is to identify and develop strategic options, which requires consistent relationship building.

According to our research, successful corporate venturing operations at established companies tend to address these re-curring challenges following a disciplined path. The fi rst step is ensuring the right level of internal commitment. This is relatively easy to conceive, but it is often diffi cult to ensure follow-through in a changing organization and through the ups and downs of the market. For this reason, it is important to translate the objectives of the strategic mandate into an aligned organizational structure and related internal struc-tural links by creating coherent reporting systems and engag-ing key power brokers in the process. Effective communication is central to ensuring internal visibility and developing a sense of shared ownership.

Second, establishing meaningful relationships with inter-nal and external partners is key to generating a high-volume,

high-quality deal fl ow. Corporate venture units are ideally positioned to leverage internal innovation capabilities for se-lected external innovation. They can also identify potential synergies with R&D and business units through their strategy and technology groups. For this purpose, it is important that the venturing unit becomes a reliable value-added partner both inside and outside the corporation. Externally, the unit can build a network of trusted co-investors through stable and active involvement. Internally, it can become a re-spected corporate navigator, debunking misplaced percep-tions that R&D should see venturing activity as a competitor ( Chesbrough and Euchner 2011 ), and actively contribute to enhancing the innovation process by reinforcing and com-plementing core R&D capabilities ( Figure 4 ).

FIGURE 2 . Corporate venturing performance against key objectives

Our data demonstrate that corporate

venturing has signifi cantly evolved over

the last decade.


What structures are most effective in equipping the ven-turing unit to achieve its objectives and meet the challenges of corporate venturing? What can one learn from successful corporate venturing units? In our analysis of 48 high-profi le CV units, we identifi ed three basic organizational models, each defi ned by a distinct rationale and specifi c patterns in terms of primary scope, objectives, and structure ( Table 1 ).

The Strategic Model The fi rst organizational model of corporate venturing, ad-opted by 14 (29 percent) of the units we studied, is

characterized by a purely strategic rationale, with the pri-mary scope generating growth options and accelerating busi-ness innovation. Recurrent objectives are to establish an innovation culture across the organization to make employ-ees more commercially minded and entrepreneurial, to fos-ter greater variety in ideas entering the innovation pipeline, and to incorporate external intelligence into the internal in-novation process. In this model, the interest in technology and applications defi nes the boundaries of the strategic investments. Corporate venturing units are structurally dif-ferentiated, yet partly integrated within mainstream units

(for instance, divisions or R&D centers). They report directly to the CTO and the R&D organization. The per-formance indicators are quantitative and qualitative measures of strategic value, such as the rate of technol-ogy transfer, the number of ideas generated, the number of deals screened or made, or the frequency of collabo-ration with business units.

For this model, we have observed a number of key factors to watch out for: • It is important for the corporate parent to establish a clear value proposition

FIGURE 3 . Top operational challenges for venturing units

FIGURE 4 . How corporate venturing adds value


with well-defi ned strategic objectives for the corporate venture unit to avoid misplaced expectations and disap-pointing outcomes.

• Changes in corporate strategy can result in loss of the long-term sponsorship that is key to the sustainability of operations; all parties should understand that an abrupt closure of the venturing initiative is likely to have conse-quences for the credibility and legitimacy of future rela-tionships with the venture capital community.

• It is crucial to develop a fi nancially viable approach for corporate venturing activities that rationalizes program size for both good and bad times.

The Financial Model The second organizational model of corporate venturing is characterized by a fi nancial rationale. This model, which was adopted by 11 (23 percent) of the units studied, is focused on diversifi cation, that is, investing in other types of strategic investments. The primary objective is to deliver sustainable fi -nancial returns by leveraging industry expertise and channels. In this model, proprietary industry knowledge and networks defi ne the scope of venture capital investments. Venturing units are established as independent entities and have access to a committed, separate pool of fi nancial resources. The in-tent of this structural design is to minimize corporate interfer-ence, ensuring fast and independent processes for internal assessment and ratifi cation. Strategically relevant venture

proposals unable to meet investment criteria might be referred to other units of the corporation that can explore alternative arrangements, such as development contracts or non-equity alliances. With respect to governance and performance moni-toring, venturing units organized along this model provide the corporate parent with periodic reports on the value and prog-ress of portfolio companies. Additional key performance indi-cators include the overall internal rate of return and the relative contribution to corporate revenue.

For this second organizational model, we have observed a number of key factors that should be considered to avoid pit-falls that can undermine fi nancially focused venturing efforts: • Confl icts of interest between the venture arm and the

corporate parent regarding investment and exit decisions (such as the exit strategy for a minority investment) should be anticipated and accounted for in advance.

• The corporate parent must limit interference in corpo-rate venturing operations to avoid hampering the devel-opment of relationships with co-investors and other entities; in particular, interference with respect to the in-vestment strategy and objectives may threaten the fi nan-cial discipline and overall viability of this model.

• Inadequate compensation and incentive systems will re-duce the venture capital organization’s capacity to re-cruit and retain key talent, especially professionals with relevant venture capital experience.

TABLE 1 . Organizational models for corporate venturing activities

Main Rationale

Strategic Financial Balanced

Scope Option generation and acceleration of innovation

Diversifi cation and fi nancial return

Strategic value and fi nancial return

Objectives • Establish entrepreneurial climate.

• Foster internal creation of ideas.

• Incorporate external intelligence.

• Derive fi nancial profi t by leveraging industry expertise and channels.

• Gain window on technology/business models.

• Develop strategic ecosystem.

• Offer attractive returns.

Guiding Principles • Interest in technology defi nes boundaries of investments.

• Partnership development is primary, fi nancing secondary.

• Industry expertise and networks defi ne boundaries of investments.

• Independent internal assessment process and ratifi cation provides evaluation of investments.

• Corporate strategy defi nes boundaries of investments.

• Evaluation is supported by corporate functions and expertise.

Structure Incorporated in parent company � As division � Within R&D � Within business units

• Independent entity with separate decision-making process

• Limited/general partnership structure common

• Separate entity with parent exercising control at various levels

• Advisory board • Investment committee • Binding mandate

Reporting Line • R&D / CTO • Business units

• Limited partners of independent entity

• CEO • Investment committee

including CFO

KPIs • # of collaborations with business units

• Rate of technology transfer • # of commercial relationships

• Internal rate of return • Contribution to

corporate revenues • Valuation of portfolio

companies

• IP position • Strategic relationships

derived • Initial investment to

fair market value = yield


The Balanced Model The third organizational model of corporate venturing, ad-opted by 23 (48 percent) of the units studied, is character-ized by a balanced rationale, with a focus on delivering both strategic and fi nancial value. Gaining a window on emerg-ing technologies and business models is widely heralded as the prime strategic motive for this kind of venturing activity. However, as strategic relevance cannot be mea-sured directly, positive fi nancial returns are instrumental in addressing bottom-line concerns. Moreover, fi nancial via-bility raises the profi le and credibility of the unit in the mar-ketplace, allowing it operate as a sophisticated, reliable strategic partner for entrepreneurs and other venture capital investors. In this model, the long-term corporate strategy defi nes the boundaries of strategic investments. Venturing units are established as separate entities and pro-vided with a strong mandate from the executive team and the board of directors. The units periodically report to the CEO and to an investment committee that includes senior executives. The adoption of multiple key performance indi-cators and related target values is particularly important to retain clarity on goals and their alignment with the unit’s strategic objectives and to balance the fi nancial focus on the internal rate of return and fi nancial gain of portfolio com-panies with innovation and growth targets.

For this model, we have observed a number of key factors that require careful attention: • Setting up a corporate venture unit with a balanced fo-

cus on strategic and fi nancial objectives and an unclear or unspecifi ed mandate would likely result in ineffi cient resource allocation and an unfocused investment strategy.

• Arbitrary changes of strategic objectives without suf-fi cient consideration of the implications for fi nancial targets is likely to dilute performance and credibility.

• Given the need to combine strategic and fi nancial objec-tives, it is vital to ensure that corporate venturing teams have the appropriate combination of fi nancial and stra-tegic expertise.

For corporations considering redefi ning or establishing a corporate venture unit, each organizational model presents specifi c advantages, and no single model is defi nitive or all-encompassing. While the appropriate approach will vary based on, among other factors, the overall corporate strat-egy, organizational culture, and innovation portfolio, suc-cessful corporate venturing initiatives are designed and implemented to evolve beyond the business cycle while le-veraging the assets and capabilities of the corporate parent.

Conclusion: Looking Ahead Capturing innovation is at the top of the corporate agenda for global growth and represents an important lever for increasing profi tability and competitiveness. Corporate venturing is a strategic vehicle that can accelerate the pace of business innovation, open a window on emerging

technologies, and provide an opportunity for strategic partnerships. This is a time of opportunity: in the current turbulent economic conditions, with a slowdown in tra-ditional venture capital investments, the role of corporate venturing is increasingly important. Remarkable oppor-tunities lie ahead for those ready to grasp the challenge.

We are grateful to Alexander Pertot, Thomas Lustgarten, and Rebecca Altmann from Bain & Company for their support and participation in the Corporate Venturing Research Initiative. We would also like to thank the Swiss Commission for Technology and Innovation for the fi nancial support (CTI grant 13872.1).

References Benson , D. , and Ziedonis , R. H. 2009 . Corporate venture capi-

tal as a window on new technologies: Implications for the performance of corporate investors when acquiring start-ups . Organization Science 20 ( 2 ): 329 – 351 .

Birkinshaw , J. , van Basten Batenburg , R. , and Murray , G. 2002 . Corporate venturing: The state of the art and the prospects for the future . London : Centre for the Network Economy, London Business School .

Chesbrough , H. , and Euchner , J. 2011 . The evolution of open innovation: An interview with Henry Chesbrough . Research-Technology Management 54 ( 5 ): 13 – 18 .

Dougherty , D. 1995 . Managing your core incompetencies for corporate venturing . Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 19 ( 3 ): 113 – 135 .

Dushnitsky , G. 2011 . Riding the next wave of corporate ven-ture capital . Business Strategy Review 22 ( 3 ): 44 – 49 .

Dushnitsky , G. , and Lenox , M. J. 2005 . When do fi rms under-take R&D by investing in new ventures? Strategic Manage-ment Journal 26 ( 10 ): 947 – 965 .

Dushnitsky , G. , and Lenox , M. J. 2006 . When does corporate venture capital investment create fi rm value? Journal of Business Venturing 21 ( 6 ): 753 – 772 .

Dushnitsky , G. , and Shapira , Z. 2010 . Entrepreneurial fi nance meets organizational reality: Comparing investment practices and performance of corporate and independent venture capi-talists . Strategic Management Journal 31 ( 9 ): 990 – 1017 .

Engel , J. S. 2011 . Accelerating corporate innovation: Lessons from the venture capital model . Research-Technology Manage-ment 54 ( 3 ): 36 – 43 .

Enkel , E. , Gassmann , O. , and Chesbrough , H. 2009 . Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon . R&D Management 39 ( 4 ): 311 – 316 .

Ernst & Young . 2012 . Globalizing Venture Capital: Global Venture Capital Insights and Trends Report 2011 . London : Ernst & Young .

Euchner , J. A. 2011 . Innovation in the “new normal.” . Research-Technology Management 54 ( 6 ): 9 .

Gompers , P. A. 2002 . Corporations and the fi nancing of inno-vation: The corporate venturing experience . Economic Re-view , Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 4 : 1 – 17 .

Jelinek , M. , Bean , A. S. , Antcliff , R. , Whalen-Pedersen , E. , and Cantwell , A. 2012 . 21st-Century R&D: New rules and roles for the R&D “lab“ of the future . Research-Technology Manage-ment 55 ( 1 ): 16 – 26 .

Keil , T. , McGrath , R. , and Tukiainen , T. 2009 . Gems from the ashes: Capability creation and transformation in internal corporate venturing . Organization Science 20 ( 3 ): 601 – 620 .

Landström , H. 2007 . Pioneers in venture capital research. In Handbook of Research on Venture Capital , ed. H. Landström, 3–65. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar .


Lin , S.-J. , and Lee , J.-R. 2011 . Confi guring a corporate ventur-ing portfolio to create growth value: Within-portfolio diver-sity and strategic linkage . Journal of Business Venturing 26 ( 4 ): 489 – 503 .

Mawson , J. 2011 . Corporate venturing enters its golden age . Private Equity News , March 28. www.penews.com/today/index/content/4068295507 .

Meyer , M. H. , and Poza , H. 2009 . Venturing next to the core: From defense to homeland security . Research-Technology Management 53 ( 3 ): 24 – 37 .

Napp , J. J. , and Minshall , T. 2011 . Corporate venture capi-tal investments for enhancing innovation: Challenges and solutions . Research-Technology Management 54 ( 2 ): 27 – 36 .

Rind , K. W. 1981 . The role of venture capital in corporate development . Strategic Management Journal 2 : 169 – 180 .

Sahaym , A. , Steensma , H. K. , and Barden , J. Q. 2010 . The in-fl uence of R&D investment on the use of corporate venture capital: An industry-level analysis . Journal of Business Ventur-ing 25 ( 4 ): 376 – 388 .

Simon , M. , Houghton , S. M. , and Gurney , J. 1999 . Succeeding at internal corporate venturing: Roles needed to balance au-tonomy and control . Journal of Applied Management Studies 8 ( 2 ): 145 – 159 .

Wadhwa , A. , and Kotha , S. B. 2006 . Knowledge creation through external venturing: Evidence from the telecommu-nications equipment manufacturing industry . Academy of Management Journal 49 ( 4 ): 819 – 835 .

Yang , Y. , Narayanan , V. K. , and Zahra , S. 2009 . Developing the selection and valuation capabilities through learning: The case of corporate venture capital . Journal of Business Ventur-ing 24 ( 3 ): 261 – 273 .

As the nation turns to advancing its infrastructure, now is the time to post your open positions on the IRI Career Center. Since IRI is a part of the Engineering & Science Career Network, thousands of qualified candidates will see your job postings, plus you’ll have access to all resumes posted to the network. Don’t miss this unique opportunity to expand your search. Visit the IRI Career Center today!

Solidify Your Organization.Visit the IRI Career Center to find the right candidate.

2200 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 1102, Arlington, VA 22201 | Phone: 703.647.2580 | Fax: 703.647.2581

The ESCN is a strategic industry alliance formed by IRI and other top trade and professional associations that serve companies searching for engineering and science professionals.

http://careers.iriweb.org