Corporate venture capital and interfirm rivalry: A competitive dynamics perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research Summary This study views corporate venture capital (CVC) investment as a form of inter‐firm rivalry. Adopting a competitive dynamics perspective, we argue that when a focal corporate investor invests in an entrepreneurial venture, that investment sends important competitive signals to its rivals, thereby increasing their likelihood of initiating a matching response. We theorize how three factors characterizing such investment—the amount of funding, industry relatedness between the corporate investor and the entrepreneurial venture, and the reputation of the corporate investor—can influence rivals' awareness of competitive threat, their motivation to respond, and therefore their likelihood of launching a matching counterattack. Our results demonstrate substantial support for our theoretical model. Managerial Summary This study views CVC investment as a form of competitive interaction, arguing that when a corporate investor participates in an investment round, it sends a competitive signal to its rival, motivating the latter to respond by also investing in CVC. Because of this counteraction, the competitive advantages of firms' CVC strategies may be temporary as rivals catch up and nullify the benefits of a CVC initiative. Thus, when planning strategy, CVC managers need to take potential rival counteractions into account and carefully assess the competitive implications of their CVC strategy, perhaps by avoiding harmful counteractions through initiatives more subtle in execution and orientation, and thus “under the radar” of rivals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it