Research
A curated selection of peer-reviewed and academic research on corporate venturing and venture studios. We include only independent academic work. Consulting, vendor and industry-association publications are deliberately excluded.
Last reviewed: October 2026
Foundations
| Publication | Summary | Link |
|---|---|---|
| A Process Model of Internal Corporate Venturing in the Diversified Major Firm Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), 223–244 | The foundational field study of how large firms build new businesses from within. Burgelman studied six major projects in the new venture division of a large US high-tech firm, interviewing 61 employees involved. He concludes that internal ventures succeed when three things come together: entrepreneurial initiative at the operating level, middle managers who can frame those initiatives strategically, and top management that sets up selection mechanisms that let viable ventures change the corporate strategy. | Stanford GSB → |
| Making Sense of Corporate Venture Capital Harvard Business Review, 80(3), 90–99 | The classic framework for structuring corporate venture investments. It classifies an investment along two dimensions: its objective, and how closely the operations of the investing company and the startup are linked. The resulting four types (driving, enabling, emergent, passive) remain a standard tool for deciding why and how a corporate should invest in or build ventures. | HBR → |
| The Ambidextrous Organization Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–81 | The core argument for why new ventures need protection from the parent organisation. The authors find that companies which manage breakthrough innovation alongside their core business keep exploratory units separate from traditional ones, with their own processes, structures and cultures, while maintaining tight links at senior executive level. This is the conceptual basis for most corporate venture building governance models. | HBR → |
| When Does Corporate Venture Capital Investment Create Firm Value? Journal of Business Venturing, 21(6), 753–772 | One of the first large-scale empirical studies to measure strategic as well as financial value from corporate venturing. It finds that CVC investment is associated with firm value creation, especially in devices and IT, and that the effect is strongest when the investment aims for a window on technology rather than narrow financial returns. | LBS → |
Venture Studios
| Publication | Summary | Link |
|---|---|---|
| The influence of differences between venture studios on differences in venture outcomes Venture Capital, 26(3), 283–301 | The largest quantitative study of venture studios to date, covering ventures from 350 studios in 34 countries. Differences between studios explain about 30% of the variation in venture outcomes, more than country, industry or founding year. The implication is that how a studio is designed and run matters more than where or when it operates. | DOI → |
| Founders for hire? The role of venture studios in breaking the individual-opportunity nexus Journal of Business Venturing, 41(4), 106600 | A case study of 16 studios, based on 50 interviews. It shows how studios develop and validate venture ideas before recruiting founders, which moves entrepreneurial initiative from the individual to the organisation. It provides the theoretical basis for entrepreneur-in-residence and "founder-for-hire" models. | ScienceDirect → |
| Is a Venture Studio Right for Your Company? MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring 2026 | The first research-based guide to corporate venture studios. It sets out four preconditions: at least one critical internal resource (talent, IP or market insight), the ability to source the rest externally, suitable governance, and long-term commitment of time and capital. It also warns that high equity stakes and parent control can deter strong founders and follow-on investors. | MIT SMR → |
| Venture studios beyond the hype: Key challenges and a way forward Business Horizons, 69(4), 575–589 | A managerial framework based on eight leading studios and 14 Italian studios. It names three recurring structural tensions: unclear studio identity, misaligned founder incentives after spin-out, and conflict between short- and long-term goals. It ends with practical guiding questions for co-founders, studio investors and follow-on investors. | DOI → |
Some publications are behind publisher paywalls. Know a relevant academic source we should add? Let us know.