Unpacking the performance of corporate accelerators: can management structure and strategic focus explain their success in supporting startup exits?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Corporate accelerators have emerged as a prominent corporate venturing strategy, enabling large corporations to engage with entrepreneurial opportunities by supporting and nurturing startups. While existing research has explored various dimensions of corporate accelerators, such as location, size, and program design, scant attention has been given to the influence of management structure and strategic focus on accelerator performance. This paper aims to fill this gap by investigating how these dimensions shape the effectiveness of corporate accelerators in fostering startup success. Design/methodology/approach Using a dataset of 188 corporate accelerators registered on Crunchbase as of February 2023, we conducted econometric analyses to examine these relationships. Findings Our findings reveal that in-house accelerators, where corporations internally manage program activities, outperform powered-by accelerators in facilitating startup exits and survival. Furthermore, accelerators with a broad or no strategic focus (horizontal) are more effective in supporting startup exits than those aligned with the corporations’ core business (vertical). Conversely, vertical accelerators prove more successful at promoting startup survival. Originality/value These results enrich the sparse literature on corporate accelerator performance by demonstrating the critical role of management structure and strategic focus and provide valuable guidance for entrepreneurs in selecting acceleration programs and for corporations’ managers in designing their acceleration programs.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".