Access to this full-text is provided by Taylor & Francis.
Content available from Cogent Business & Managment
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION | RESEARCH ARTICLE
COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT
2025, VOL. 12, NO. 1, 2496733
The corporate cooperativeness with start-ups across development
stages: a risk assessment in acceleration programs
Tran Viet Tama, Michal Bankab and Nguyen Hoang Tienc
aDepartment of Management, Information Systems, Ho Chi Minh University of Banking, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam;
bDepartment of Management,Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland; cFaculty of Business, WSB Merito University
in Gdansk, Gdańsk, Poland
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the article is to find out whether corporations differ in their readiness
to cooperate with start-ups at three stages of their development (ideation, growth,
scaling) in the context of assessing relevant risk factors. The research was based on a
descriptive statistical analysis of CAWI survey data on a sample of 101 start-ups within
one of ten Polish start-up sectors. These start-ups have been involved in corporate
acceleration programs in line with a model of consortium accelerator. The results of this
research allow us to conclude that the success of such cooperation is influenced by
their ability to manage risks throughout the mentioned stages of start-up’s development.
This article contributes to identifying and describing a number of risks that can be
distinguished in such cooperation under the acceleration program. Additionally, different
types of risks are highlighted in different stages of start-up corporation cooperation
leading to different kinds and levels of cooperativeness (readiness to cooperate)
between sides leading to the final success of the collaborative project.
1. Introduction
The significance of start-ups in fostering economic development is underscored by their role in propel-
ling innovation and technological creativity (Christopherson & Clark, 2007; Denney et al., 2021; Osano,
2023). While some ascend beyond the ideation phase, scaling their ventures, others remain confined as
small-scale enterprises (Brush & Elam, 2024; de Esteban Escobar, 2020; Van Rijnsoever, 2020). Early-stage
start-ups in the nascent ideation phase often confront heightened vulnerability due to barriers to market
entry, restricted financial access and cultural and experiential limitations (Li & Kang, 2024). To circumvent
the dearth of economic, human and social resources during this phase, these start-ups frequently seek
refuge in incubation and acceleration support programmes, which provide a platform for networking,
forging alliances and facilitating collaboration with larger, more established entities (Vesela & Gavin,
2018, Silva, 2022).
In contrast, corporations (established companies), driven by the imperative of heightened innovation,
view start-ups from dual perspectives. On the one hand, they perceive start-ups as potent adversaries
capable of rapidly launching new products and services that swiftly amass market share, posing a tan-
gible threat to larger corporations (Fernández et al., 2015; Kebaili et al., 2015). On the other hand, these
start-ups represent strategic partners for external innovation, fostering open innovation through multi-
faceted collaborations.
Acceleration programmes, the bedrock of this collaboration, offer a diverse spectrum of support to
start-ups. Tailored to specific industries such as food tech, automotive, Fintech and Cleantech, these pro-
grammes also target start-ups at various stages of development. They are meticulously crafted to survey
external markets for innovative concepts, nurturing start-ups’ journey to prepare novel technologies and
© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Nguyen Hoang Tien vietnameu@gmail.com Faculty of Business, WSB Merito University in Gdansk, Gdańsk, Poland
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2025.2496733
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been
published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 22 November
2024
Revised 7 April 2025
Accepted 9 April 2025
KEYWORDS
Acceleration program;
corporate; start-up; risk
assessment; development
stages
SUBJECTS
Economics and
Development; Business,
Management and
Accounting; Economics;
Industry & Industrial
Studies
2T. VIET TAM ETAL.
seamlessly linking them with established companies capable of assimilating these innovations into their
operations or launching fresh products and services (Pan & Guo, 2022; Shankar & Clausen, 2020).
The success of such acceleration programmes hinges upon the capacity of larger corporations to fur-
nish resources to start-ups in return for the realisation of their expectations. Nonetheless, harmonising
the dynamics of collaboration between established companies and start-ups is a complex undertaking,
given their inherent disparities. Contextual nuances can influence the likelihood of success, introducing
risk factors into the equation (Gama etal., 2021; Vesela & Gavin, 2018). A slew of discrepancies can pose
obstacles to effective collaboration. At the forefront, the inherently malleable business model that
start-ups often embody contrasts with the imperative for standardised processes (Hubner et al., 2022).
Notably, start-ups in their early stages may lack comprehensive metrics, and their operational processes
and capacities require further refinement to ensure sustainable profitability. Cultural barriers can also
hinder productive collaboration, potentially reducing the prospects of successful partnerships (Spigel &
Harrison, 2018).
The collaborative paradigms between corporations and start-ups encompass four distinct models:
in-house accelerator, hybrid accelerator, accelerator-powered and consortium accelerator (Bańka et al.,
2022b; Moschner et al., 2019). Within the realm of collaboration, this article delves into the intricacies of
operating start-up acceleration initiatives in conjunction with large corporations, commonly referred to
as consortium accelerators. These programmes typically strive to identify domestic or international solu-
tions tailored to address the specific business needs of the corporation (Bańka et al., 2022a; Guerrero
et al., 2021). Consequently, the central objective of start-up accelerators managing such programmes is
cultivating inter-organisational relations between start-ups and corporations.
Several risk factors can be distinguished in the cooperation of corporations with start-ups. The success
of such collaboration depends to some extent on the ability of these organisations to manage risk. We
focused on the central question: How does corporations’ readiness to engage in collaborative partner-
ships with start-ups at different stages of their development impact the assessment of risk factors within
acceleration programmes? This research intends to fill these gaps by determining whether corporations
differ in their readiness to cooperate with start-ups at various stages of their development (ideation,
growth, scaling) in assessing specific risk factors related to cooperation with start-ups.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Current state of research on acceleration programmes
The realm of acceleration programmes has recently witnessed a surge in interest. However, the scholarly
landscape has challenges. Researchers such as Albort-Morant and Ribeiro-Soriano (2016) as well as
Pauwels etal. (2016) contend that the growing literature needs more methodological rigour, marginalises
start-up perspectives and adheres to prescriptive tendencies. Additionally, a consensus exists among
other scholars that the existing body of research often needs to be more balanced with the complex
phenomenon of company acceleration, weakening to capture the nuanced nature of collaboration among
established companies and start-ups. Becker and Gassmann (2006), Barbero et al. (2014) and Kötting
(2020) underline this lacuna. However, the collaborative journey between start-ups and corporations
sometimes unfolds differently than expected. Previous research has explicitly explored start-ups’ dissatis-
faction with corporate interactions, underscoring the need for corporations to enhance their engagement
in collaborative innovation. Dooley et al. (2016) assert that companies must develop core strategies to
foster innovation, including meaningful involvement in external networks. Moreover, De Groote and
Backmann (2020) highlight the scarcity of research on partnerships between established incumbents and
start-ups. Bagno et al. (2020) contend that research dedicated to unravelling the intricacies of collabora-
tion between large corporations and start-ups remains in its infancy. They argue that prevailing studies
on corporate-start-up engagement often sidestep the multifaceted realm of internal organisational
dynamics, leaning instead towards oversimplified portrayals centred around an independent champion
tasked with interfacing with start-ups. Similarly, Selig et al. (2018) have called attention to the need for
more research on the internal dimensions of open innovation, as most studies predominantly scrutinise
external sources of innovation. Start-ups occupy a pivotal niche in propelling economic development,
COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 3
galvanised by their role in nurturing innovation. Nevertheless, their trajectories are multifaceted, marked
by flourishing or languishing in the small-business sphere. The exigencies of start-ups in their embryonic
ideation phase render them susceptible, prompting them to seek solace in incubation and acceleration
programmes. Simultaneously, established corporations, propelled by the mandate of heightened innova-
tion, view start-ups as both challengers and collaborators (Osano, 2023). The bedrock of this collabora-
tion is the acceleration programme, which extends diverse support forms to start-ups, aligning with
specific industries or developmental stages. However, the complex interplay of cooperation between
these divergent entities underscores the inherent challenges, necessitating a nuanced approach to sur-
mounting cultural, operational and metric disparities. As a distinctive collaboration model, consortium
accelerators highlight the symbiotic relationship between start-ups and established corporations. This
collaboration resonates within the competitive milieu of substantial organisations, with start-ups gaining
from mentorship, expert guidance and resource access while corporations glean external innovation.
Nonetheless, the academic discourse surrounding company acceleration programmes exhibits lacuna.
Though recent interest has surged, scholars underscore the need for more methodological rigour and
the exclusion of start-up perspectives. Furthermore, the research landscape tends to homogenise the
company acceleration phenomenon, neglecting the intricate nuances of collaboration between estab-
lished corporations and start-ups. The fruition of collaborative aspirations between these entities occa-
sionally deviates from expectations, as exemplified by start-ups’ dissatisfaction with corporate interactions.
Overcoming these challenges necessitates a more robust engagement in collaborative innovation within
the corporate arena. Research dedicated to understanding the collaboration between large companies
and start-ups is still in its infancy Bagno et al. (2020). Most studies on company commitment to start-ups
need to pay more attention to the density of internal organisational factors based on the simplification
of an independent champion responsible for interacting with start-ups. In this sense, Selig et al. (2018)
have already drawn attention to the need for more research on the internal aspects of open innovation
since most studies focus on external sources of innovation.
2.2. Benets of acceleration programmes
Acceleration programmes, in their essence, bolster the growth trajectory of innovative enterprises within
the competitive backdrop of sizable organisations. Through participation in these programmes, start-ups
gain access to mentorship, expert guidance and a repository of resources spanning start-up accelerators
and corporate entities (Banka et al., 2023; Wagner, 2021). Furthermore, these start-ups can tap into the
resources extended by corporations, encompassing access to infrastructure, clientele and cutting-edge
technology. Simultaneously, engagement in acceleration initiatives offers start-ups the opportunity to
undertake pilot implementations and glean invaluable market feedback (Attour & Lazaric, 2020).
Conversely, corporations enrolling in acceleration programmes access novel solutions that transcend the
confines of their organisational boundaries. This collaboration empowers corporations to establish rela-
tionships and cooperate with forward-thinking start-ups, frequently endowed with distinctive technolo-
gies or products capable of elevating the development or refinement of the corporations’ existing
offerings (Franco et al., 2021; Vesela & Gavin, 2018). The outcome of this symbiotic alliance may span
enduring collaborations, financial investments, or even full-fledged acquisitions of start-ups. Furthermore,
engagement in the acceleration realm facilitates establishing connections between corporations and
diverse stakeholders within the innovation ecosystem (Donaldson et al., 2024; Greco & Tregua, 2022).
Corporations can also subject prototypes and start-up solutions to testing, enhancing their understand-
ing of potential solutions aligned with client preferences (Osano, 2023; Roundy, 2019).
Accelerator programmes, managed by or under the direct sponsorship of corporations, have evolved
into a crucial component of start-up ecosystems, serving as pivotal conduits for start-up engagement by
established entities (Donaldson et al., 2024; Greco & Tregua, 2022; Guerrero etal., 2021). This phenome-
non has gained diverse manifestations due to recent shifts in accelerator models. Start-ups have emerged
as crucial pillars of open innovation endeavours for established firms. Their distinctive attributes, includ-
ing their penchant for innovation, rapid operation and adaptability, render them highly appealing collab-
orative partners, particularly in joint ventures centred around novel technologies or reconfiguring existing
business paradigms (Brush & Elam, 2024; Castañer & Oliveira, 2020). Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that
4T. VIET TAM ETAL.
start-ups encounter limitations arising from resource scarcity and inherent liabilities. These deficiencies,
encompassing shortcomings in management acumen, organisational structures and procedural frame-
works, introduce potential challenges to the efficacy of such collaborations (Harlin & Berglund, 2021;
Qoriawan & Apriliyanti, 2023.).
The significance of accelerator programmes lies in their potential to alleviate these impediments faced
by start-ups and facilitate their advancement through the provision of traction. These initiatives system-
atically furnish substantial resources, such as capital or office facilities, while delivering expertise, men-
torship and evaluative insights from seasoned entrepreneurs, angel investors, coaches and corporate
executives (Schückes & Gutmann, 2021). Recent years have increased interest in these programmes
among established firms, spurred by the accomplishments of renowned enterprises like Airbnb and
Dropbox, who have gained prominence through their association with accelerator initiatives (Andrade &
Pinheiro, 2023).
The strategic value of accelerators manifests in their function as conduits for facilitating encounters
between inventive start-ups, their innovative technologies, and their entrepreneurial mindsets (Khandelwal
et al., 2022; Triguero et al., 2022), thereby engendering a bridge between the realms of start-ups and
established enterprises (Castro et al., 2021). This role augments and complements alternative modes of
engagement, spanning from hackathon events to research and development partnerships, buyer-supplier
relationships (Del Vecchio et al., 2021), as well as investments or acquisitions facilitated by corporate
venture capital (Brush & Elam, 2024; Giaretta & Chesini, 2021; Van Rijnsoever, 2020).
2.3. Assimilation of acceleration programmes
Accelerators’ existing acumen and recognition promise an accelerated trajectory of more polished and
proficient start-up development. The overarching corporate objective converges on financial gain, con-
joining a model of start-up refinement with corporate investment objectives. Managers should remain
cognizant of the quandary faced by start-ups: their participation in corporate accelerator initiatives can
yield access to potential clientele, as well as to essential resources like distribution channels, manufactur-
ing capabilities and financial reservoirs; yet concurrently, their expansion may be hindered by corporate
influence and entrenched internal operational inertia (Guerrero et al., 2021). Consequently, companies
must not only acknowledge the imperatives of fostering an agile milieu for start-up evolution. However,
they must also recalibrate their internal mechanisms and organisational structures to accommodate
start-up requisites better. This adaptability assumes heightened significance following the culmination of
the acceleration phase, as successful programmes often confront the rigidity of corporate procedures for
the first time (Blair et al., 2020).
The assimilation of the acceleration programme with a company’s broader start-up undertakings is
imperative in the present landscape. Enterprises frequently engage start-ups on multiple fronts, and this
diversity is accentuated within sizable corporations, where distinct business units might foster varying
collaboration models. Ensuring that these disparate facets of corporate start-up engagement remain
interconnected and mutually reinforcing is pivotal to harnessing their cumulative potential. Consolidated
firms should thus formulate an encompassing strategy for liaising with start-ups that align optimally with
their overarching aims (Fready etal., 2022).
2.4. Accelerator models
A variant in the realm of accelerator models is the consortium accelerator, an external entity catering to
the needs of multiple corporate entities. This format furnishes enterprises with two critical advantages:
firstly, it amalgamates activities to enhance the professionalisation of start-ups, and secondly, it engen-
ders affiliations between incumbents and start-ups, often materialising as collaborative pilot projects.
Participating companies seek access to external innovations while concurrently projecting a more inno-
vative image. Conversely, incumbent corporations can delegate the task of identifying start-ups that offer
solutions to specific quandaries or pioneering technologies to the accelerator. Funding start-ups and
acquiring equity stakes is an approach undertaken by some programmes, though alternatives exist (de
Esteban Escobar, 2020). Comparatively, the accelerator model presents advantages over internally
COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 5
orchestrated endeavours, as it circumvents the need for substantial investments in internal frameworks,
processes and personnel. Instead, external providers orchestrate accelerator activities, encompassing
administrative and legal aspects, along with steering the professional development of start-ups (Priestley
& Simperl, 2022). This approach curtails entry and exit barriers for companies and confers the benefit of
an independent platform for inter-firm networking and the exchange of best practices. For start-ups, this
translates to a more comprehensive grasp of their potential customers or industries and a nuanced com-
prehension of how their products can confer value to established corporations (Fready et al., 2022). The
selection of accelerator models unfolds a spectrum of advantages: (1) comprehensive and esteemed
firms derive rewards; (2) the consortium accelerator is particularly advantageous for medium-sized cor-
porations; (3) mutual benefits accrue from market access versus market professionalisation; (4) pro-
grammes mitigate the need for excessive adjustments in start-up collaborations; (5) integration into
established corporations’ start-up engagement strategies is facilitated (Moschner et al., 2019). Prominent
enterprises leverage their financial and human capital to foster collaborations with start-ups, considering
the varying resource needs of start-ups across distinct stages of maturity. In addition to resource provi-
sioning, a reputable brand with an unblemished standing is pivotal in the powered-by model (Attour &
Lazaric, 2020). The consortium model aligns well with medium-sized and lesser-known firms, offering
lower investment outlays, finite contractual arrangements, and the added allure of associating with
reputed participating entities. The accelerated interweaving of external start-ups with mid-sized corpora-
tions is expedited by more agile decision-making structures, mitigating challenges associated with
accessing and nurturing external start-ups. Notably, medium-sized firms evince less proclivity for start-up
investment than larger counterparts, thereby elevating the efficacy and resource efficiency of the con-
sortium model (Guerrero et al., 2021).
2.5. Risk factors in the acceleration programmes
The dynamics of cooperation facilitated by acceleration programmes hinge upon a nexus of pivotal factors,
the astute management of which serves as the linchpin for enhancing interactions and erecting barriers to
success. Notably, extant research (Aftab et al., 2022; Crick & Crick, 2018; Rankovic et al., 2020) underscores
that the primary impediments to fruitful collaboration lie in the interplay of cultural and organisational dis-
parities among participating firms. Tensions often arise from incongruent work models, decision-making pro-
cesses and operational cadence. Such challenges can be ameliorated by cultivating a congenial and informal
environment, enabling established corporations to transcend bureaucratic impediments and operate with
greater agility. Elucidating this, Cajuela and Galina (2020) posit that the cultural milieu of large corporations
exerts a profound influence on start-ups, particularly when the former espouse cross-functional thinking. In
tandem, when collaborating with start-ups, established entities often cultivate an innovation-oriented culture
(Bagno et al., 2020). The orchestration of acceleration programmes is an intricate undertaking, meticulously
planned with strategic delineations encompassing objectives, temporal dimensions, problem domains to be
tackled, technology facets to be nurtured, preferred start-up profiles and mentorship teams, all preordained.
Thus, the factors shaping the efficacy of interactions between start-ups and established firms pivot around
the extent of involvement by business units and the overall direction charted by the accelerator programme
(Bandera et al., 2018). The involvement of business units entails the magnitude of dedication funnelled into
the acceleration endeavour, thereby encapsulating the identities of the participating stakeholders, the quan-
tum of temporal allocation to the programme, and the qualitative aspect of the engagement. The level of
involvement carries far-reaching implications, with certain ancillary aspects reflecting this dimension and
affording a milieu conducive to co-production (Polo García-Ochoa et al., 2020). Notably, the spectrum of
autonomy granted to start-ups is another salient determinant of collaboration success. A substantial degree
of autonomy is imperative to incentivise creativity, fostering an environment wherein accelerators and
start-ups exercise freedom in orchestrating processes, resource allocation and even pivoting when exigencies
warrant (Cánovas-Saiz et al., 2020). This dichotomy unveils an inherent paradox: augmented autonomy
engenders innovation velocity and the potential for disruptive innovation separated from the principal busi-
ness, albeit at the expense of knowledge transfer to business units. In contrast, diminished autonomy spurs
innovation that is more easily integrated into the core business, albeit with lesser disruption (Kötting, 2020).
The architecture of acceleration programmes empowers start-ups to cultivate specialised capabilities via
6T. VIET TAM ETAL.
mentoring networks and tailored training regimens (Cajuela & Galina, 2020) and grapples with the challenge
of knowledge institutionalisation (Bagno etal., 2020). Given the often extrinsic location of these programmes
about the overarching organisational structure, the assimilation and consolidation of generated knowledge
and technology can be compromised. Challenges rooted in cultural and organisational disparities can impede
the seamless transfer of knowledge, yielding resistance to externally generated contributions further exacer-
bated by internal commitment deficits (Borges & Silva, 2022). In the quest for successful outcomes, synchro-
nising incentives with applicant needs within the acceleration programme is imperative (Polo García-Ochoa
et al., 2020). Inevitably, conflicts can ensue as incumbents and start-ups vie for resources and customer
protection (Priestley & Simperl, 2022). Furthermore, safeguards shielding proprietary know-how and intellec-
tual property can impede collaboration, as corporations, mindful of potential industrial espionage, guard
critical processes and resources even in collaborative contexts (Borges & Silva, 2022).
3. Methodology
The data was gathered through Computer-Assisted Web Interview (CAWI), an Internet surveying tech-
nique in which the interviewee follows a script provided on a website. The questionnaires are made in
a program for creating web interviews. The program allows for the questionnaire to contain also multi-
media and links to different web pages, etc. The website is able to customise the flow of the question-
naire based on the answers provided, as well as information already known about the participant. It is
considered to be a cheap and reasonable way of surveying since it is fully automated without the use
of people (Wiki, 2025). Due to these regards, we have primarily used CAWI in the process of data collec-
tion for our research. The research focused on Polish start-ups participating in one of ten accelerator
programmes within the start-up-accelerator-corporation framework. Initially, the research sample size for
this study was 202, but afterwards, due to the lack of access to data, was reduced to 101 start-ups.
However, these selected enterprises are still considered representatives of the national start-up ecosys-
tem as they belong to one of ten start-up sectors, not all start-up sectors in Poland. The researchers used
the IBM SPSS Statistics 25 software package to statistically analyse the data. Due to the significant num-
ber of start-ups selected to the research sample, the following tools for statistical analysis were applied:
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, independent t-tests, analyses of variance (ANOVA) and Spearman’s ρ rank cor-
relation analyses.
The survey structure regarding the number and types of questions revolves around the identified risk
factors regarding cooperation between corporations and start-ups: loss or weakening of the company’s
reputation; loss of invested funds (financial loss); resistance to changes associated with corporate-start-up
cultural differences; the uncertainty of achieving positive effects of cooperation; insufficient maturity of
the company to implement processes/products offered by a start-up; the risk of running too many proj-
ects at the same time. All the survey participants (the managers of above mentioned Polish start-ups)
are informed and aware of the goals and the roles of the research and the possible application of the
research results, expressing at the same time the informed consent and willingness to participate in this
study. The consent to survey participation statement from the respondents was obtained in written form
as a preliminary part of the survey content. The informed consent was expressed in the survey by ticking
the proper field at the beginning of the survey research content. Moreover, before the start, all respon-
dents were also been contacted by the research team and they expressed oral content and were
well-informed about the purpose, the scope and the significance of the forthcoming survey. Ethical
approval was obtained for the study by both the board of rectors of the Warsaw University of Technology
(in Polish: Politechnika Warszawska) and the dean representatives of the management faculty of this
university. The ethical approval was expressed by assigning a special ethics committee consisting of an
odd number of members who took an investigation, and by secret ballot they have finally provided
approval as a commitment of this research to follow the best local common ethical practices.
4. Research results
A number of risk factors can be distinguished in the cooperation of corporations with start-ups. The
success of such cooperation depends to some extent on the ability of these organisations to manage
risk. The risks taken into account in this study are:
COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 7
• loss or weakening of the company’s reputation;
• loss of invested funds (nancial loss);
• resistance to changes associated with corporate-start-up cultural dierences;
• uncertainty of achieving positive eects of cooperation;
• insucient maturity of the company to implement processes/products oered by a start-up;
• the risk of running too many projects at the same time.
The main conclusions of this research are summarised below, considering three different stages of
start-up development (ideation, growth, scaling):
The risk assessment regarding the need for more certainty in achieving positive collaboration out-
comes was significantly higher in the companies that should have considered collaborating with start-ups
at the idea/MVP (Minimum Viable Product) stage. The strength of the observed effect was tremendous.
One difference at the level of statistical tendencies was also noted. The risk assessment regarding the
loss of invested funds was higher in the group of companies that should have considered the possibility
of collaborating with start-ups at the idea/MVP stage. The strength of this effect was moderately large.
No differences were observed concerning other potential risks identified, not even in statistical tenden-
cies (see: Table 1, Figure 1).
The risk assessment regarding the loss or weakening of the company’s reputation was higher in the
group of companies strongly inclined to collaborate with start-ups at the growth stage. The strength of
the observed effect was tremendous. No differences were observed in other aspects, not even in statis-
tical tendencies. It is possible to examine a statistically insignificant impact with moderately large strength
regarding the employees’ lack of adaptation to the start-up’s working culture and consequent resistance
to change. This problem was more significant in evaluating companies willing to unconditionally collab-
orate with start-ups at the growth stage (see: Table 2, Figure 2).
The risk assessment regarding the loss or weakening of the company’s reputation was higher in the
group of companies strongly inclined to collaborate with start-ups at the scaling stage. The strength of
the observed effect was very large. One difference at the level of statistical tendencies was also noted.
The risk assessment regarding the lack of certainty in achieving positive collaboration outcomes was
higher in the companies strongly inclined to collaborate with start-ups at the scaling stage. The strength
Table 1. The readiness to cooperate with start-ups at the idea/MVP stage and the assessment of specic risk factors in
cooperation with start-ups.
Evaluation of establishing cooperation
do not cooperate at
all (n = 11)
cooperate sometimes
(n = 14) 95% CI
d CohenM SD M SD t p LL UL
Loss or weakening of the
company’s reputation
5,18 1,60 3,64 2,65 1,70 0,104 −0,34 3,42 0,68
Loss of invested funds
(nancial loss)
7,27 0,79 5,57 3,08 1,99 0,066 −0,12 3,53 0,72
Resistance to changes
associated with
corporate-start-up
cultural dierences
5,91 1,30 5,36 2,17 0,74 0,465 −0,98 2,09 0,30
Uncertainty of
achieving positive
eects of
cooperation
8,00 0,77 5,71 2,20 3,61 0,002 0,95 3,62 1,32
Insucient "maturity" of
the company to
implement processes/
products oered by a
start-up
6,82 0,98 5,57 2,82 1,54 0,142 −0,46 2,96 0,56
The risk of running too
many projects at the
same time
6,55 1,44 5,36 2,95 1,32 0,202 −0,69 3,07 0,49
M – mean; SD – standard deviation; t – t-test; p – signicance; 95%CI – condence interval; LL – lower limit; UL – upper limit.
Source: Own calculation.
8T. VIET TAM ETAL.
of the observed effect was moderately large. No differences were observed concerning other potential
risks identified, not even in statistical tendencies (see: Table 3, Figure 3).
5. Results implications
Acceleration programmes boost the development of innovative companies in the competitive environ-
ment of large organisations.
Figure 1. The readiness to cooperate with start-ups at the idea/MVP stage and the assessment of specic risk factors
in cooperation with start-ups.
Presented: mean (bar) and standard error (ticks).
Source: Based on calculation in Table 1.
Table 2. Readiness to cooperate with start-ups at the growth stage and the assessment of specic risk factors in
connection with cooperation with start-ups.
Evaluation of establishing cooperation
cooperate sometimes
(n = 20)
cooperate
(n = 5) 95% CI
d CohenM SD M SD t p LL UL
Loss or weakening of
the company’s
reputation
3,80 1,82 6,40 3,21 −2,44 0,023 −4,80 −0,40 1,22
Loss of invested funds
(nancial loss)
6,20 2,31 6,80 3,35 −0,48 0,638 −3,21 2,01 0,24
Resistance to changes
associated with
corporate-start-up
cultural dierences
5,35 1,90 6,60 1,14 −1,40 0,176 −3,10 0,60 0,70
Uncertainty of achieving
positive eects of
cooperation
6,60 2,19 7,20 1,48 −0,58 0,570 −2,75 1,55 0,29
Insucient "maturity" of
the company to
implement processes/
products oered by a
start-up
6,00 2,47 6,60 1,14 −0,52 0,606 −2,97 1,77 0,26
The risk of running too
many projects at the
same time
5,75 2,45 6,40 2,61 −0,53 0,605 −3,21 1,91 0,26
M – mean; SD – standard deviation; t – t-test; p – signicance; 95%CI – condence interval; LL – lower limit; UL – upper limit.
Source: Own calculation.
COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 9
5.1. Benets for start-ups participating in acceleration programmes
By participating in the acceleration programme, start-ups receive mentoring and expert support and
have the opportunity to take advantage of the offer provided not only by the start-up accelerator, but
also from resources provided by corporations in the form of e.g. access to infrastructure, clients or tech-
nology (Arreola et al., 2021; Kanbach & Stubner, 2016; Mahmoud-Jouini et al., 2018). Moreover, partici-
pating in such acceleration programmes is also an excellent opportunity for start-ups to carry out a pilot
Figure 2. Readiness to cooperate with start-ups at the growth stage and the assessment of specic risk factors in
connection with cooperation with start-ups.
Presented: mean (bar) and standard error (ticks).
Source: Based on calculation in Table 2.
Table 3. Readiness to cooperate with start-ups at the scaling stage and the assessment of specic risk factors in
connection with cooperation with start-ups.
Evaluation of establishing cooperation
cooperate sometimes
(n = 15) cooperate (n = 10) 95% CI
d CohenM SD M SD t p LL UL
Loss or weakening of
the company’s
reputation
3,33 1,76 5,80 2,39 −2,97 0,007 −4,18 −0,75 1,21
Loss of invested funds
(nancial loss)
5,93 2,58 6,90 2,33 −0,95 0,350 −3,06 1,13 0,39
Resistance to changes
associated with
corporate-start-up
cultural dierences
5,33 2,13 6,00 1,25 −0,89 0,382 −2,22 0,88 0,36
Uncertainty of
achieving positive
eects of
cooperation
6,20 2,40 7,50 1,08 −1,84 0,080 −2,77 0,17 0,65
Insucient "maturity" of
the company to
implement processes/
products oered by a
start-up
5,67 2,74 6,80 1,03 −1,45 0,162 −2,76 0,50 0,51
The risk of running too
many projects at the
same time
5,67 2,72 6,20 2,04 −0,53 0,603 −2,62 1,56 0,22
M – mean; SD – standard deviation; t – t-test; p – signicance; 95%CI – condence interval; LL – lower limit; UL – upper limit.
Source: Own calculation.
10 T. VIET TAM ETAL.
implementation or receive valuable feedback from the market. On the other hand, corporations taking
part in the acceleration programme gain access to innovative solutions outside the organisation’s borders.
5.2. Benets for corporations participating in acceleration programmes
Corporations have the opportunity to establish relationships and cooperate with innovative start-ups that
often offer unique technologies or products that can help develop or improve their own products and
services. Such cooperation may lead to long-term investments or even acquisitions of start-ups. In addi-
tion, participation in the acceleration programme helps corporations build relationships with various par-
ticipants in the innovation ecosystem (Donaldson et al., 2024; Greco & Tregua, 2022). Corporations can
also test prototypes and start-up solutions to gain knowledge about potential solutions desired by their
clients (Connolly et al., 2018; Eesley et al., 2014).
5.3. Risks in cooperation of start-up and corporation within acceleration programmes
The purpose of acceleration programmes is usually to search for solutions in the domestic or interna-
tional market that respond to the defined business needs of a corporation. Thus, the goal of the start-up
accelerator managing such a programme is to build inter-organisational relations between start-ups and
corporations. Such a process is usually challenging and can be associated with overcoming various risks.
This article focused on the operation of start-up acceleration programmes in partnership with large com-
panies and associated risks including loss or weakening of the company’s reputation; loss of invested
funds (financial loss); resistance to changes associated with corporate-start-up cultural differences; uncer-
tainty of achieving positive effects of cooperation; insufficient maturity of the company to implement
processes/products offered by a start-up; the risk of running too many projects at the same time.
6. Discussion and conclusion
6.1. Discussion
A comprehensive synthesis of the extant literature underscores cultural divergence as a central conun-
drum meriting resolution. The entrenched routines of established firms can stymie innovation, beset by
Figure 3. Readiness to cooperate with start-ups at the scaling stage and the assessment of specic risk factors in
connection with cooperation with start-ups.
Presented: mean (bar) and standard error (ticks).
Source: Based on calculation in Table 3.
COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 11
ossified processes and practices rooted in successful historical strategies. While overcoming these chal-
lenges necessitates multifaceted strategies encompassing goal alignment, incentive structuring and pre-
determined intellectual property arrangements, reliance on seasoned professionals, both internal and
external, assumes significance in mediating potential conflicts (Jones et al., 2021).
Literature-driven insights categorise factors that catalyse or curtail start-up-established firm collabora-
tion into two following cardinal dimensions:
• The rst dimension encapsulates attributes contingent upon business unit involvement, encompass-
ing dedication levels, autonomy thresholds and knowledge dissemination dynamics.
• The second dimension centres on features engendered by the incubation programme, encapsulating moti-
vations and incentives, intellectual property safeguards and cultural disparities (Borges & Silva, 2022).
Concomitantly, the confluence of risks spotlighted in this study encompasses potential impairments
to corporate reputation, financial loss, tensions stemming from cultural differences, the precariousness of
realising positive, cooperative outcomes, developmental inadequacies in assimilating start-up-driven pro-
cesses/products and the risk of undertaking an excessive project load simultaneously.
6.2. Conclusion
The risks taken into account in this study were: loss or weakening of the company’s reputation; loss of
invested funds (financial loss); resistance to changes associated with corporate-start-up cultural differ-
ences; uncertainty of achieving positive effects of cooperation; insufficient ‘maturity’ of the company to
implement processes/products offered by a start-up; the risk of running too many projects at the
same time.
The risk assessment regarding the need for more certainty in achieving positive collaboration out-
comes was significantly higher in the companies that should have considered collaborating with start-ups
at the idea/MVP stage. The risk assessment regarding the loss or weakening of the company’s reputation
was higher in the group of companies strongly inclined to collaborate with start-ups at the growth stage.
The risk assessment regarding the loss or weakening of the company’s reputation was higher in the
group of companies strongly inclined to collaborate with start-ups at the scaling stage.
6.3. Directions for future research
Future research could go in-depth into how corporations’ readiness to engage in collaborative partner-
ships with start-ups at different stages of their development impact the assessment of risk factors within
acceleration programmes dedicated to specific industries. Also, future research could identify and describe
effective and ineffective risk mitigation mechanisms and their use by corporations and start-ups.
Disclosure statement
There are no relevant competing nancial and non-nancial interests between authors of this paper.
Authors contribution statement
All authors have read and approved the nal version of the manuscript. The manuscript has been carried out by
Michal Banka: resources, supervision, validation, visualisation.
Nguyen Hoang Tien: writing – original draft, writing – reviewing& editing.
Tran Viet Tam: conceptualisation, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project
administration.
Author contributions
CRediT: Tran Viet Tam: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project admin-
istration; Michal Banka: Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization; Nguyen Hoang Tien: Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing.
12 T. VIET TAM ETAL.
Funding
This research is supported by FCT under grant 2022.14694.BD.
ORCID
Nguyen Hoang Tien http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6205-0666
Data availability statement
Data and materials supporting the results or analyses presented in this paper will be fully or partly available upon
reasonable request by contacting the corresponding author via email.
References
Aftab, A. M., Rooney, D., & Taylor, M. (2022). Measuring inter-rm openness in innovation ecosystems. Journal of
Business Research, 138, 436–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.069
Albort-Morant, G., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2016). A bibliometric analysis of the international impact of business incu-
bators. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1775–1779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.054
Andrade, R. D., & Pinheiro, P. G. (2023). Start-ups knowledge sharing through entrepreneurial networks and the cat-
alytic role of incubators. In Knowledge management in organisations. KMO 2023. Communications in computer and
information science. Springer.
Arreola, F., Favre-Bonte, V., & Tran, S. (2021). The corporate accelerator: A new kind of strategic factor market to
access strategic resources. Management,
Attour, A., & Lazaric, N. (2020). From knowledge to business ecosystems: Emergence of an entrepreneurial activity
during knowledge replication. Small Business Economics, 54(2), 575–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0035-3
Bagno, R. B., Salerno, M. S., Souza, W. C., & OConnor, G. C. (2020). Corporate engagements with start-ups: Antecedents,
models, and open questions for innovation management. Product Management & Development, 18(1), 39–52.
https://doi.org/10.4322/pmd.2019.019
Bandera, C., Collins, R., & Passerini, K. (2018). Risky business: Experiential learning, information and communications
technology, and risk-taking attitudes in entrepreneurship education. The International Journal of Management
Education, 16(2), 224–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2018.02.006
Bańka, M., Kukurba, M., & Waszkiewicz, A. (2022a). The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on start-ups’ collaboration
with corporations. Procedia Computer Science, 207, 1283–1292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.09.184
Bańka, M., Salwin, M., & Waszkiewicz, A. E. (2022b). Start-up accelerators. International Journal of Management and
Economics, 58(1), 80–118.
Banka, M., Suplewska, I., Trzaskowska-Dmoch, A., & Boulange, P. (2023). Co-working space vs. support for start-ups
under accelerator programmemes. Procedia Computer Science, 225, 3736–3744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procs.2023.10.369
Barbero, J. L., Casillas, J. C., Wright, M., & Ramos Garcia, A. (2014). Do dierent types of incubators produce dierent
types of innovations? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9308-9
Blair, B., Khan, M. S., & Iftikhar, R. (2020). Role of accelerators in innovation ecosystems: The case of New Zealand.
Journal of General Management, 46(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306307020932876
Borges, R. S. G., & Silva, G. A. (2022). Open innovation: Assessing critical factors of corporate incubation programmes.
Revista Brasileira de Inovação, 21(e022019), e022019. https://doi.org/10.20396/rbi.v21i00.8665685
Brush, C. G., & Elam, A. B. (2024). Clearing the hurdles: Revisiting the under-performance hypothesis for women-led
VC funded rms. Journal of Small Business Management, 62(5), 2287–2321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2023.
2229868
Cajuela, A., & Galina, S. (2020). Processes in Interorganisational relationships to develop absorptive capacity in
start-ups. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 24(6), 550–566. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2020180329
Cánovas-Saiz, L., March-Chordà, I., & Yagüe-Perales, R. M. (2020). New evidence on accelerator performance based on
funding and location. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 29(3), 217–234. https://doi.
org/10.1108/EJMBE-10-2017-0029
Castañer, X., & Oliveira, N. (2020). Collaboration, coordination, and cooperation among organisations: Establishing the
distinctive meanings of these terms through a systematic literature review. Journal of Management, 46(6), 965–
1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320901565
Castro, C. C., Antunes, L. G. R., & Freire, C. D. (2021). Critical Factors in the Formation and Development of
Technology-Based Firm Networks in Incubation Environments in Brazil. International Journal of Innovation and
Technology Management, 18(08)
Christopherson, S., & Clark, J. (2007). Power in rm networks: What it means for regional innovation systems. Regional
Studies, 41(9), 1223–1236. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701543330
COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 13
Connolly, A. J., Turner, J., & Potocki, A. D. (2018). Ignite your corporate innovation: Insights from setting up an ag-tech
start-up accelerator. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 21(6), 833–846. https://doi.
org/10.22434/IFAMR2017.0089
Cosma, S., Grasso, A. G., Pattarin, F., & Pedrazzoli, A. (2022). Platforms’ partner networks: The missing link in crowd-
funding performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 25(6), 122–151. https://doi.org/10.1108/
EJIM-06-2020-0230
Crick, J. M., & Crick, D. (2018). Angel investors’ predictive and control funding criteria: The importance of evolving
business models. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 20(1), 34–56. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JRME-11-2016-0043
de Esteban Escobar, D. (2020). Relational coordination in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. ESIC MARKET Economic and
Business Journal, 51(1), 135–158.
De Groote, J., & Backmann, J. (2020). Initiating open innovation collaborations between incumbents and start-ups:
How can David and Goliath get along? International Journal of Innovation Management, 24(02), 2050011. https://
doi.org/10.1142/S1363919620500115
Del Vecchio, P., Secundo, G., Mele, G., & Passiante, G. (2021). Sustainable entrepreneurship education for circular
economy: Emerging perspectives in Europe. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 27(8),
2096–2124. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-03-2021-0210
Denney, S., Southin, T., & Wolfe, D. A. (2021). Entrepreneurs and cluster evolution: The transformation of Toronto’s ICT
cluster. Regional Studies, 55(2), 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1762854
Donaldson, C., Villagrasa, J., & Theodoraki, C. (2024). Inside-out and outside-in: How entrepreneurial ecosystems can
build legitimacy through signaling. Journal of Small Business Management, 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778
.2024.2394499
Dooley, L., Kenny, B., & Cronin, M. (2016). Inter-organisational innovation across geographic and cognitive boundar-
ies: Does rm size matter? R&D Management, 46(S1), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12134
Eesley, C. E., Hsu, D. H., & Roberts, F. B. (2014). The contingent eects of top management teams on venture perfor-
mance: Aligning founding team composition with innovation strategy and commercialisation environment.
Strategic Management Journal, 35(12), 1798–1817. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2183
Fernández, M. T., Jiménez, F. J., & Cuadrado, R. J. R. (2015). Business incubation: Innovative services in an entrepre-
neurship ecosystem. Service Industries Journal, 35(14), 783–800.
Franco, M., Neves, D., Haase, H., & Rodrigues, M. (2021). The importance of intellectual capital in networks formed
by start-ups. International Journal of Organisational Analysis,.
Fready, S., Vel, P., & Nyadzayo, M. W. (2022). Business customer virtual interaction: Enhancing value creation in B2B
markets in the post-COVID-19 era - an SME perspective. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 37(10), 2075–
2094. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-01-2021-0074
Gama, A. P. M., Emanuel-Correia, R., Augusto, M., & Duarte, F. (2021). Bringing modernity to prosocial crowdfunding’s
campaigns: An empirical examination of the transition to modern sectors. Applied Economics, 53(49), 5677–5694.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2021.1927968
Giaretta, E., & Chesini, G. (2021). The determinants of debt nancing: The case of ntech start-ups. Journal of
Innovation & Knowledge, 6(4), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2021.10.001
Greco, F., & Tregua, M. (2022). It gives you wheels: The university-based accelerators in start-up ecosystems.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 45(2), 235–257. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2022.121000
Guerrero, M., Liñán, F., & Cáceres-Carrasco, F. R. (2021). The inuence of ecosystems on the entrepreneurship process:
A comparison across developed and developing economies. Small Business Economics, 57(4), 1733–1759. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00392-2
Harlin, U., & Berglund, M. (2021). Designing for sustainable work during industrial start-ups - the case of a high-growth
entrepreneurial rm. Small Business Economics, 57(2), 807–819. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00383-3
Hubner, S., Most, F., Wirtz, J., & Auer, C. (2022). Narratives in entrepreneurial ecosystems: Drivers of eectuation ver-
sus causation. Small Business Economics, 59(1), 211–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00531-3
Jones, S. L., Leiponen, A., & Vasudeva, G. (2021). The evolution of cooperation in the face of conict: Evidence from
the innovation ecosystem for mobile telecom standards development. Strategic Management Journal, 42(4), 710–
740. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3244
Kanbach, D., & Stubner, S. (2016). Corporate accelerators as recent form of start-up engagement: The What, The Why,
And The How. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 32(6), 1761. https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v32i6.9822
Kebaili, B., Al-Subyae, S. S., Al-Qahtani, F., & Belkhamza, Z. (2015). An exploratory study of entrepreneurship barriers:
The case of Qatar. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 11(3), 210–219.
https://doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD-03-2015-0014
Khandelwal, R., Kolte, A., & Rossi, M. (2022). A study on entrepreneurial opportunities in digital health-care
post-Covid-19 from the perspective of developing countries. foresight, 24(3/4), 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1108/
FS-02-2021-0043
Li, L., & Kang, K. (2024). Impact of opportunity and capability on e-entrepreneurial motivation: A comparison of
urban and rural perspectives. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 16(4), 932–953. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JEEE-06-2022-0178
14 T. VIET TAM ETAL.
Mahmoud-Jouini, S. B., Duvert, C., & Esquirol, M. (2018). key factors in building a corporate accelerator capability:
Developing an eective corporate accelerator requires close attention to the relationships between start-ups and
the sponsoring company. Research-Technology Management, 61(4), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2018.1
471274
Moschner, S.-L., Fink, A., Kurpjuweit, S., Wagner, S., & Herstatt, C. (2019). Toward a better understanding of corporate
accelerator models. Business Horizons, 62(5), 637–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.05.006
Osano, H. M. (2023). Global scaling by SMEs: Role of innovation and technology. Journal of the International Council
for Small Business, 4(3), 258–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/26437015.2023.2201896
Pan, J., & Guo, J. (2022). Innovative collaboration and acceleration: An integrated framework based on knowledge
transfer and triple helix. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13(4), 3223–3247. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13132-021-00852-4
Pauwels, C., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Van Hove, J. (2016). Understanding a new generation incubation model: The
accelerator. Technovation, 50-51, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.09.003
Polo García-Ochoa, C., De-Pablos-Heredero, C., & Blanco Jiménez, F. J. (2020). How business accelerators impact
start-up’s performance: Empirical insights from the dynamic capabilities approach. Intangible Capital, 16(3), 107–
125. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1669
Priestley, M., & Simperl, E. (2022). Open innovation programmemes related to data and AI: How do the entrepreneur-
ial orientations of start-ups align with the objectives of public funders? Data & Policy, 4. https://doi.org/10.1017/
dap.2022.8
Qoriawan, T., & Apriliyanti, I. D. (2023). Exploring connections within the technology-based entrepreneurial ecosystem
(EE) in emerging economies: Understanding the entrepreneurship struggle in the Indonesian EE. Journal of
Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 15(2), 301–332. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-02-2021-0079
Rankovic, M., Dedic, V., Pavlovic, N., & Ilic, M. P. (2020). Analysis of business systems and automation; The application
of the original Web platform for start-up entrepreneurial endeavours. Independent Journal of Management &
Production, 11(3), 945–966.
Roundy, P. T. (2019). Rust belt or revitalisation: Competing narratives in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Management
Research Review, 42(1), 102–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-01-2018-0019
Schückes, M., & Gutmann, T. (2021). Why do start-ups pursue initial coin oerings (ICOs)? The role of economic driv-
ers and social identity on funding choice. Small Business Economics, 57(2), 1027–1052. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11187-020-00337-9
Selig, C., Gasser, T., & Baltes, G. (2018). How corporate accelerators foster organisational transformation: An internal
perspective.
Shankar, R. K., & Clausen, T. H. (2020). Scale quickly or fail fast: An inductive study of acceleration. Technovation, 98,
102174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102174
Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. (2018). Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 12(1), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1268
Triguero, Á., Cuerva, M. C., & Sáez-Martínez, F. J. (2022). Closing the loop through eco-innovation by European rms:
Circular economy for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(5), 2337–2350. https://
doi.org/10.1002/bse.3024
Van Rijnsoever, F. J. (2020). Meeting, mating, and intermediating: How incubators can overcome weak network prob-
lems in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Research Policy, 49(1), 103884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103884
Vesela, V., & Gavin, B. (2018). "Corporate-entrepreneur collaborations to advance a circular economy. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 188, 20–37.
Wagner, S. M. (2021). Start-ups in the supply chain ecosystem: An organizing framework and research opportunities.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 51(10), 1130–1157. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJPDLM-02-2021-0055
Wiki. (2025). Wikipedia. Access on 25 Jun 2025: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-assisted_web_interviewing
