Authors : Ashima Varghese; Esha Bansal

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 6 - June

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/muccwyrv

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/y2zua2nm

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26jun001

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : This study provides an overall bibliometric review of the intersection between corporate accountability (including corporate governance, ESG, and CSR) and entrepreneurship with a particular emphasis on the governance-innovation paradox – the tension between accountability mechanisms that emphasize control and compliance, and entrepreneurial processes that require flexibility, risk-taking, and innovation. Using VOSviewer, we analyzed 2,033 documents retrieved from Scopus for co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling (documents, nations, sources), keyword co-occurrence and citation analysis with the keywords “corporate accountability” OR “corporate governance” AND “entrepreneurship”. The data show a very fragmented intellectual structure: “corporate governance” (703) and “accountability” (373) are the dominant keywords; entrepreneurship-related phrases are marginal (e.g., “entrepreneurship” = 6; “innovation” = 14). Co‐citation analysis revealed five topic clusters—agency theory, stakeholder theory, public accountability, critical social theory and empirical entrepreneurship—and weak links between the streams of governance and innovation. Li (2018) received the highest 858 citations, Jongbloed (2008) received 691 citations and so on. Key journal sources such as Sustainability (Switzerland) published 62 documents received 1196 citations (TLS=8584), CSR, Sustainability, Ethics And Governance published 32 documents received 68 citations (TLS=2958) act as intellectual hubs. At the country level, the United Kingdom (TLS=108,294) and United States (73,887) are central and rising economies (India, Malaysia, China, South Africa) are highly integrated. We conclude that segregated research traditions perpetuate the governance-innovation contradiction and propose a future research program focused on “future-relevant governance” that reconciles accountability with entrepreneurial dynamism. This assessment provides practical lessons for entrepreneurs, board members, and policy makers who are interested in developing governance systems that support rather than inhibit innovation.

Keywords : Corporate Accountability; Corporate Governance; Entrepreneurship; Governance‑Innovation Paradox; Bibliometric Analysis.

References :

1. El Tarabishy A, Lee Y, Cortes AF, Ahlstrom D (2025), "The direction of ESG for SMEs: from bureaucracy to innovation". New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 28 No. 2 pp. 82–85, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/NEJE-12-2025-127
2. https://natlawreview.com/article/compliance-competitive-advantage-guide-better-corporate-governance?utm_campaign=Director%27s%20Domain&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--tG03-GxaioPd8wTRa_K9-cc1i2Mg8SHsWj8CljrzxOalnCLSP-nqwwyGr2oxC3m5twUMw
3. Widaryanti, W., Abdullah, W.A.W. Two decades corporate governance research evolution: a bibliometric analysis. SN Bus Econ 5, 85 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43546-025-00849-0
4. Carlos Estévez-Mendoza, Ángeles Montoro-Sánchez, Exploring the relationship between innovation and corporate governance, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 209, 2024, 123784, ISSN 0040-1625, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123784. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162524005821)
5. Khatami, M. , padash, H. and Rezvani, M. (2025). Elucidating the Role of Corporate Governance in Firms' Entrepreneurial Performance. Social Business, 2(4),380-394.doi: 10.22059/jsbu.2025.404160.1072
6. Kolk, A. (2008), Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: exploring multinationals' reporting practices. Bus. Strat. Env., 17: 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.511
7. Brennan NM, Solomon J, Brennan NM, Solomon J (2008), "Corporate governance, accountability and mechanisms of accountability: an overview". Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 7 pp. 885–906, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570810907401
8. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J. & Salerno, C. Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. High Educ 56, 303–324 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9128-2
9. Fama, E.F., Jensen, M.C., 1983. Separation of ownership and control. J. Law Econ. 26 (2), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1086/467037.
10. Pearce, J.A., Zahra, S.A., 1992. Board composition from a strategic contingency perspective. J. Manag. Stud. 29 (4), 411–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 6486.1992.tb00672.x.
11. Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman.
12. Hill, C.W.L., Jones, T.M., 1992. Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies 29 (2), 22–2380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00657.x.
13. Jones, T.M., 1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory: a synthesis of ethics and economics. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (2), 404–437.
14. Belloc, F., Laurenza, E., Rossi, M.A., 2016. Corporate governance effects on innovation when both agency costs and asset specificity matter. Ind. Corp. Chang. 25 (6), 977–999. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtw009.
15. Gangi, F., Meles, A., Monferr` a, S., Mustilli, M., 2020. Does corporate social responsibility help the survivorship of SMEs and large firms? Glob. Financ. J. 43. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.gfj.2018.01.006.
16. Sigurdsson, K., Candi, M., 2020. Saying and doing: social responsibility declared and applied. Creat. Innov. Manag. 29 (1), 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/ caim.12340.
17. Scherer, A.G., Voegtlin, C., 2020a. Corporate governance for responsible innovation: approaches to corporate governance and their implications for sustainable development. Academy of Management Perspectives 34 (2), 182–208. https://doi. org/10.5465/amp.2017.0175.
18. Shaikh, I., Randhawa, K., 2022. Managing the risks and motivations of technology managers in open innovation: bringing stakeholder-centric corporate governance into focus. Technovation 114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. technovation.2021.102437.
19. Hossain, M., Atif, M., Ahmed, A., Mia, L., 2020. Do LGBT workplace diversity policies create value for firms? Journal of Business Ethics 167 (4), 775–791. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10551-019-04158-z.
20. McGahan, A.M., 2021. Integrating insights from the resource-based view of the firm into the new stakeholder theory. J. Manag. 47 (7), 1734–1756. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0149206320987282.
21. Sun, P., Deng, Z., Wright, M., 2021. Partnering with Leviathan: the politics of innovation in foreign-host-state joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies 52 (4), 595–620. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00340-y.
22. Wright, M., Wood, G., Musacchio, A., Okhmatovskiy, I., Grosman, A., Doh, J.P., 2021. State capitalism in international context: varieties and variations. Journal of World Business 56 (2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2020.101160. Elsevier Inc.
23. Gast, J., Filser, M., Coen Rigtering, J.P., Harms, R., Kraus, S., Chang, M.-L., 2018. Socioemotional wealth and innovativeness in small-and medium-sized family enterprises: a configuration approach. J. Small Bus. Manag. 56, 53.
24. Hern´andez-Lara, A.B., Camelo-Ordaz, C., Valle-Cabrera, R., 2014. Does board member stock ownership influence the effect of board composition on innovation? Eur. J. Int. Manag. 8 (4), 355–372. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2014.062956.
25. Hern´andez-Lara, A.B., Gonzales-Bustos, J.P., 2020. The influence of family businesses and women directors on innovation. Appl. Econ. 52 (1), 36–51.
26. Hughes, M., Filser, M., Harms, R., Kraus, S., Chang, M.L., Cheng, C.F., 2018. Family firm configurations for high performance: the role of entrepreneurship and ambidexterity. Br. J. Manag. 29 (4), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- 8551.12263.
27. Scholes, L., Hughes, M., Wright, M., De Massis, A., Kotlar, J., 2021b. Family management and family guardianship: governance effects on family firm innovation strategy. J. Fam. Bus. Strat. 12 (4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2020.100389.
28. Aghion, P., Van Reenen, J., Zingales, L., 2013. Innovation and institutional ownership. American Economic Review 103 (1), 277–304. https://doi.org/10.1257/ aer.103.1.277.
29. Hoskisson, R.E., Hitt, M.A., Johnson, R.A., Grossman, W., 2002a. Conflicting voices: the effects of institutional ownership heterogeneity and internal governance on corporate innovation strategies. Source: The Academy of Management Journal 45 (4).
30. Rong, Z., Wu, X., Boeing, P., 2017. The effect of institutional ownership on firm innovation: evidence from Chinese listed firms. Research Policy 46 (9), 1533–1551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.05.013.
31. Cumming, D., Werth, J.C., Zhang, Y., 2019. Governance in entrepreneurial ecosystems: venture capitalists vs. technology parks. Small Bus. Econ. 52 (2), 455–484. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9955-6.
32. Cumming, D., Meoli, M., Vismara, S., 2019. Investors’ choices between cash and voting rights: evidence from dual-class equity crowdfunding. Research Policy 48 (8). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.014.
33. Arzubiaga, U., Kotlar, J., De Massis, A., Maseda, A., Iturralde, T., 2018. Entrepreneurial orientation and innovation in family SMEs: unveiling the (actual) impact of the Board of Directors. J. Bus. Ventur. 33 (4), 455–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusvent.2018.03.002.
34. Cumming, D., Leung, T.Y., 2021. Board diversity and corporate innovation: regional demographics and industry context. Corp. Gov. 29 (3), 277–296. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/corg.12365.
35. Li, Y. xi, He, C., 2021. Board diversity and corporate innovation: evidence from Chinese listed firms. International Journal of Finance and Economics December 2020, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2465.
36. Torchia, M., Calabr`o, A., Gabaldon, P., Kanadli, S.B., 2018. Women directors contribution to organizational innovation: a behavioral approach. Scand. J. Manag. 34 (2), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2018.02.001.
37. Wincent, J., Anokhin, S., ¨ Ortqvist, D., 2010. Does network board capital matter? A study of innovative performance in strategic SME networks. J. Bus. Res. 63 (3), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.03.012.
38. Župič, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
39. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
40. Kannan P. (2019). Bibliometric Analysis of Library Philosophy and Practice: A study based on Scopus Database. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac
41. Waltman, L., Van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. M. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523 538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
42. Raman, R., Nair, V. K., Shivdas, A., Bhukya, R., Viswanathan, P. K., Subramaniam, N., & Nedungadi, P. (2023). Mapping sustainability reporting research with the UN’s sustainable development goal. Heliyon, 9, e18510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18510.
43. Zhu, J., & Liu, W. (2020). A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics, 123(1), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11192-020-03387-8
44. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Antes, G., Atkins, D., Barbour, V., Barrowman, N., Berlin, J. A., Clark, J., Clarke, M., Cook, D., D’Amico, R., Deeks, J. J., Devereaux, P. J., Dickersin, K., Egger, M., Ernst, E., Gøtzsche, P. C., … Tugwell, P. (2009b). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PMED.1000097