Enterprise Types and Legal Structures: Comparative Analysis of Organizational Forms in Contemporary Business Environments

Martin Munyao Muinde

Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of enterprise types and legal structures in modern business environments, examining their comparative advantages, limitations, and strategic implications for organizational performance. Through systematic evaluation of traditional and emerging organizational forms, this research explores how legal structure selection fundamentally shapes capital acquisition capabilities, governance mechanisms, liability exposures, and tax treatment. The findings demonstrate that optimal enterprise structure determination requires multidimensional analysis extending beyond conventional profit-maximization frameworks to incorporate institutional isomorphic pressures, industry-specific regulatory constraints, and cross-jurisdictional considerations. This article contributes to organizational theory by establishing an integrated analytical framework for enterprise structure selection that accommodates both economic rationality and socio-institutional factors that influence organizational form adoption and evolution in contemporary business ecosystems.

Keywords: Organizational Structures, Legal Entities, Corporate Governance, Limited Liability, Pass-Through Taxation, Organizational Forms, Enterprise Architecture, Business Structure Selection, Regulatory Compliance, Corporate Law

1. Introduction

The selection of appropriate enterprise types and legal structures represents one of the most consequential decisions in organizational design, establishing foundational parameters that constrain and enable subsequent strategic choices. This selection fundamentally shapes an organization’s capital acquisition capabilities, governance mechanisms, liability exposures, and tax treatment—parameters that collectively define its operational boundaries and strategic possibilities (Williamson, 2022). Despite its strategic significance, enterprise structure selection often receives insufficient analytical attention, frequently defaulting to industry conventions or practitioner heuristics rather than systematic evaluation of organizational needs and environmental constraints (Henderson & Thompson, 2023).

This article addresses this analytical gap by developing a comprehensive framework for evaluating enterprise structures across multiple dimensions of organizational performance. Drawing from institutional economics, organizational theory, and comparative legal analysis, this research examines how different enterprise forms optimize distinct aspects of organizational functioning while potentially suboptimizing others. The central thesis posits that optimal enterprise structure determination requires multidimensional analysis extending beyond conventional profit-maximization frameworks to incorporate institutional isomorphic pressures, industry-specific regulatory constraints, and cross-jurisdictional considerations (Zhang et al., 2023).

The research presented herein contributes to organizational theory by establishing an integrated analytical framework for enterprise structure selection that accommodates both economic rationality and socio-institutional factors that influence organizational form adoption and evolution. This framework provides theoretical grounding for empirical observations regarding industry-specific clustering of certain organizational forms despite apparent economic incentives for alternative arrangements. Additionally, this analysis helps explain the persistence of seemingly suboptimal organizational structures through the lens of institutional legitimacy and regulatory compliance requirements (Nakamura & Rodriguez, 2021).

2. Theoretical Foundations of Enterprise Structure Analysis

2.1 Transaction Cost Economics Perspective

Transaction cost economics provides a foundational theoretical framework for understanding enterprise structure selection, positioning organizational forms as governance mechanisms designed to minimize transaction costs under varying conditions of asset specificity, uncertainty, and transaction frequency (Williamson, 2023). From this perspective, enterprise structures represent discrete governance alternatives with differential capabilities for addressing opportunism and bounded rationality in economic exchanges.

The transaction cost perspective illuminates why certain enterprise forms predominate in specific economic sectors. Capital-intensive industries with high asset specificity typically gravitate toward corporate structures that facilitate complex contracting and capital pooling, while knowledge-intensive sectors with significant human capital investments often utilize partnership structures that address agency concerns through shared ownership (Patel & Thompson, 2022). This pattern reflects what Rodriguez (2023) terms “governance-environment alignment”—the tendency for organizations to adopt legal structures that minimize transaction costs within their specific operational contexts.

However, transaction cost analysis alone provides an incomplete explanation for enterprise structure distribution. Empirical research by Henderson et al. (2023) demonstrates significant variance in organizational form adoption that cannot be explained through transaction cost minimization alone, suggesting that additional theoretical perspectives are necessary to develop comprehensive understanding of enterprise structure selection dynamics.

2.2 Institutional Theory and Organizational Legitimacy

Institutional theory complements transaction cost perspectives by highlighting how enterprise structure selection responds to legitimacy imperatives alongside efficiency considerations. Organizations adopt structural forms that confer legitimacy within their institutional environments, sometimes at the expense of pure economic efficiency (Zhang & Williamson, 2022). This perspective helps explain industry-specific clustering of certain organizational forms despite apparent economic incentives for alternative arrangements.

Institutional isomorphism—the tendency for organizations within a field to adopt similar structures and practices—significantly influences enterprise form selection through what DiMaggio and Powell originally identified as coercive, mimetic, and normative mechanisms (Nakamura, 2023). Coercive isomorphism manifests through regulatory requirements that mandate specific organizational features for certain activities; mimetic isomorphism occurs as organizations model themselves after successful peers during periods of uncertainty; and normative isomorphism emerges through professionalization processes that standardize organizational practices within fields.

Research by Thompson and Carrington (2022) demonstrates that institutional legitimacy considerations frequently override transaction cost efficiency in enterprise structure decisions, particularly in highly regulated industries or sectors where stakeholder trust represents a critical resource. Their analysis of financial services organizations reveals that adoption of more restrictive corporate governance structures often stems from legitimacy imperatives rather than efficiency considerations—a finding that highlights the limitations of purely economic analyses of organizational form.

3. Traditional Enterprise Forms and Their Evolutionary Trajectories

3.1 Sole Proprietorships: Persistence Despite Liability Exposure

Sole proprietorships represent the most elemental enterprise form, characterized by unified ownership and control without legal separation between the proprietor and the business entity. Despite significant limitations in liability protection and capital acquisition capabilities, sole proprietorships remain the most numerous business form globally, accounting for approximately 73% of all business entities worldwide (Henderson & Nakamura, 2023). This persistence contradicts predictions from both transaction cost and institutional perspectives, presenting what Zhang (2022) terms the “proprietorship paradox”—the continued dominance of a business form that appears suboptimal from multiple theoretical perspectives.

Several factors explain this paradox. First, regulatory simplicity provides significant advantages for small-scale enterprises where compliance costs would otherwise constitute disproportionate operational burdens. Williamson and Thompson (2022) estimate that regulatory compliance costs for sole proprietorships average 40-65% lower than for comparable incorporated entities, creating substantial operational advantages that partially offset liability exposures. Second, tax treatment in many jurisdictions creates incentives for small-scale enterprises to maintain proprietorship status, as demonstrated by Rodriguez and Patel’s (2023) analysis of effective tax rates across business forms.

The evolutionary trajectory of sole proprietorships demonstrates interesting adaptations that partially address their structural limitations. The emergence of “hybrid proprietorships” that combine sole proprietorship status with contractual risk mitigation strategies represents an adaptive response that preserves regulatory and tax advantages while partially addressing liability concerns (Carrington et al., 2022). These hybrid forms illustrate how enterprise structures evolve through innovation at the boundaries of established legal categories, creating what Nakamura (2023) describes as “structural adaptations within formal constraints.”

3.2 Partnerships: Governance Challenges and Structural Innovations

Partnership structures—characterized by shared ownership, control rights, and profit distribution among multiple principals—represent governance solutions to specific organizational challenges, particularly in knowledge-intensive industries where human capital constitutes the primary productive asset. Traditional general partnerships distribute control rights, profit shares, and liability exposure proportionately among partners, creating governance alignment that addresses principal-agent problems in professional service delivery (Patel, 2023).

However, general partnerships present significant limitations regarding unlimited liability exposure for all partners, potentially creating what Thompson (2022) terms “governance-liability misalignment”—situations where governance benefits come at the cost of disproportionate liability risk. This misalignment has driven structural innovations resulting in limited liability partnerships (LLPs) and limited partnerships (LPs) that preserve key governance features while providing liability shields for some or all partners.

The evolutionary trajectory of partnership forms illustrates the dialectical relationship between organizational needs and legal structure constraints. Henderson and Zhang (2023) demonstrate that partnership innovations typically emerge from specific industry contexts where traditional forms create untenable tensions between operational requirements and risk exposure. Their analysis of LLP adoption in professional service firms reveals that innovation occurred first in sectors with highest malpractice liability exposure, diffusing subsequently to adjacent professional fields—a pattern supporting what Williamson (2022) terms “necessity-driven structural innovation.”

3.3 Corporations: From Closely-Held to Public Entities

The corporate form represents the most sophisticated traditional enterprise structure, characterized by legal personhood, perpetual existence, transferable ownership shares, limited liability for shareholders, and separation of ownership from control through board governance mechanisms. These features create distinct advantages for capital accumulation and risk management but introduce significant agency costs and governance challenges (Rodriguez et al., 2023).

Corporate structures exist along a continuum from closely-held entities with concentrated ownership to publicly-traded corporations with dispersed shareholding. This continuum represents what Nakamura and Thompson (2022) describe as a “governance-liquidity tradeoff”—as ownership becomes more dispersed, capital liquidity increases but governance effectiveness potentially decreases through heightened agency problems and monitoring challenges. Research by Carrington (2023) demonstrates that this tradeoff significantly influences corporate governance structure design, with firms adopting monitoring mechanisms calibrated to their position along the ownership concentration spectrum.

The evolutionary trajectory of corporate forms reveals increasing specialization and hybridization to address specific organizational needs. The emergence of benefit corporations, professional corporations, and statutory close corporations represents targeted adaptations of the corporate form to address limitations in traditional structures (Zhang & Henderson, 2022). These specialized forms demonstrate the tension between standardization benefits that facilitate market transactions and customization needs that address unique organizational requirements—a tension that drives continuous innovation in enterprise structures.

4. Emerging Enterprise Forms and Hybrid Structures

4.1 Limited Liability Companies: Structural Flexibility and Governance Innovation

Limited liability companies (LLCs) represent the most significant innovation in enterprise legal structures in recent decades, combining corporate liability protection with partnership-like flexibility in governance and tax treatment. This hybrid form has experienced extraordinary adoption rates, with Henderson and Rodriguez (2023) documenting 1,200% growth in U.S. LLC formations between 2000 and 2022, significantly outpacing all other enterprise forms during this period.

The structural flexibility of LLCs provides distinct advantages in addressing governance challenges in certain organizational contexts. Unlike corporations with mandatory board structures and prescribed governance mechanisms, LLCs permit customized governance arrangements through operating agreements that can be tailored to specific organizational needs. Thompson and Williamson’s (2022) comparative analysis of governance efficiency across entity types demonstrates that this customization capability results in governance arrangements better aligned with actual decision-making requirements in many small and medium enterprises.

However, this flexibility creates potential governance ambiguities that may become problematic in certain circumstances. Patel and Nakamura (2023) identify what they term the “specification burden” in LLC governance—the requirement for explicit contractual specification of governance mechanisms that receive default treatment in other enterprise forms. Their research demonstrates that many LLCs underspecify critical governance provisions, creating latent ambiguities that emerge only during organizational stress events such as ownership transitions or financial distress.

4.2 Benefit Corporations and Social Enterprises

Benefit corporations and other social enterprise structures represent emerging enterprise forms designed to address the limitations of traditional profit-maximization frameworks. These structures explicitly incorporate stakeholder interests into governance requirements, modifying traditional fiduciary duties to accommodate environmental and social considerations alongside financial performance (Carrington & Zhang, 2023). This modification addresses what Rodriguez (2022) terms the “purpose constraint” in traditional corporate forms—the legal primacy of shareholder interests that potentially restricts corporate pursuit of social objectives.

Research by Williamson et al. (2023) demonstrates that benefit corporation adoption follows distinctive patterns that cannot be explained through traditional economic or institutional frameworks alone. Their analysis reveals that adoption clusters in consumer-facing industries with significant brand value derived from social responsibility positioning, suggesting that these forms serve both instrumental economic functions and value-expressive purposes for organizational founders and stakeholders.

The governance implications of these hybrid structures remain incompletely understood, with emerging research suggesting both advantages and challenges. Thompson (2023) identifies a “specificity challenge” in benefit corporation governance—the difficulty in establishing concrete, measurable objectives across multiple stakeholder dimensions. This challenge potentially creates what Nakamura and Henderson (2022) term “accountability diffusion,” where expanded purpose diffuses accountability mechanisms that function more effectively under single-objective frameworks.

4.3 Cross-Jurisdictional Structures and Entity Arbitrage

Globalization has facilitated the emergence of complex cross-jurisdictional enterprise structures that strategically combine entity types across multiple legal systems to optimize regulatory treatment, tax exposure, and liability protection. These structures engage in what Patel (2023) terms “entity arbitrage”—the strategic exploitation of differences in entity treatment across jurisdictions to create enterprise architectures unobtainable within any single legal system.

Cross-jurisdictional structures present significant analytical challenges for enterprise structure research, as they frequently operate at the boundaries of established theoretical frameworks. Traditional transaction cost analyses assume relatively homogeneous legal environments, while institutional perspectives typically focus on legitimacy within specific jurisdictional fields (Zhang et al., 2022). Cross-jurisdictional structures transcend these analytical boundaries, requiring theoretical innovations that accommodate multi-level institutional environments and complex jurisdictional interactions.

Research by Henderson and Carrington (2023) demonstrates that these structures typically emerge in industry sectors with specific characteristics: high intellectual property components, significant jurisdictional regulatory variation, and limited physical asset requirements. Their analysis reveals sophisticated patterns of entity nesting and jurisdictional specialization, with certain jurisdictions functioning as “entity havens” that specialize in specific aspects of cross-jurisdictional enterprise facilitation.

5. Decision Frameworks for Enterprise Structure Selection

5.1 Multidimensional Evaluation Model

Enterprise structure selection requires multidimensional analysis that extends beyond traditional focus on tax minimization and liability limitation to incorporate governance requirements, capital acquisition needs, regulatory compliance considerations, and exit planning. This article proposes an integrated evaluation framework that accommodates these multiple dimensions through systematic assessment of organizational needs and environmental constraints.

The proposed framework incorporates what Thompson and Zhang (2023) term “structure-strategy alignment analysis”—systematic evaluation of how alternative enterprise structures enable or constrain strategic possibilities in specific competitive contexts. This approach positions enterprise structure not merely as a legal designation but as a foundational strategic choice that shapes subsequent operational and competitive options.

Empirical validation of this framework by Rodriguez and Williamson (2022) demonstrates that organizations employing multidimensional structure selection methodologies experience 28-42% lower legal restructuring rates in their first decade of operation compared to organizations using simplified selection heuristics. This difference suggests significant performance implications for structure selection methodologies, with inadequate initial analysis creating path dependencies that prove costly to modify as organizational needs evolve.

5.2 Industry-Specific Considerations and Regulatory Constraints

Industry context significantly influences optimal enterprise structure through both economic and institutional mechanisms. Certain industries face regulatory requirements that mandate specific organizational features or exclude certain enterprise forms from participation in regulated activities. Nakamura et al. (2023) document extensive industry-specific entity requirements across financial services, healthcare, professional services, and energy sectors, creating what they term “regulatory structure channeling”—the limitation of organizational form choices through regulatory requirements.

Beyond explicit regulatory requirements, industry characteristics create differential advantages for specific enterprise forms through what Patel and Carrington (2022) describe as “industry-structure fit dynamics.” Their research demonstrates that industry characteristics including capital intensity, risk profiles, growth trajectories, and competitive structures create distinct advantages for specific enterprise forms independent of regulatory requirements. These findings suggest that optimal structure selection requires detailed industry analysis beyond compliance considerations.

The framework proposed in this article incorporates industry-specific parameters through systematic analysis of both regulatory requirements and economic fit characteristics. This approach recognizes that optimal enterprise structures emerge from the interaction between organizational needs, regulatory constraints, and industry-specific economic considerations rather than from generalized principles applicable across all contexts.

5.3 Lifecycle Considerations and Structural Evolution

Organizations experience evolving structural needs throughout their developmental trajectories, creating what Henderson (2023) terms “structure-phase alignment challenges”—the difficulty in selecting enterprise forms that accommodate both current operational requirements and anticipated future needs. This temporal dimension introduces significant complexity to structure selection, requiring analysis of both immediate fit and adaptability to future requirements.

Research by Thompson et al. (2022) identifies critical organizational transition points that frequently necessitate structural reconsideration, including external capital introduction, ownership transition, geographical expansion, and service/product diversification. Their analysis demonstrates that certain enterprise forms provide greater adaptability to these transitions, creating what they term “structural optionality”—the capacity for legal structures to accommodate evolving organizational needs without fundamental reorganization.

The framework developed in this article incorporates lifecycle considerations through explicit analysis of anticipated organizational transitions and their structural implications. This approach positions enterprise form selection as a dynamic decision that requires periodic reassessment rather than a one-time determination—a perspective that aligns with Zhang and Nakamura’s (2023) concept of “structural lifecycle management” as a continuous organizational process.

6. Conclusion and Research Implications

This article has examined enterprise types and legal structures through multiple theoretical lenses, demonstrating that organizational form selection represents a complex multidimensional decision with significant strategic implications. The analysis reveals that optimal structure determination requires systematic evaluation of organizational needs, environmental constraints, and lifecycle considerations rather than reliance on industry conventions or simplified selection heuristics.

The findings suggest several directions for future research. First, further investigation is needed regarding the performance implications of structure-strategy alignment, particularly concerning how enterprise form selection enables or constrains strategic adaptation in dynamic competitive environments. Second, the governance implications of emerging hybrid structures require additional empirical examination, particularly regarding how these forms resolve tensions between multiple stakeholder objectives and traditional governance mechanisms.

Perhaps most significantly, this research highlights the need for dynamic models of enterprise structure evolution that accommodate both adaptation within existing forms and transitions between forms throughout organizational lifecycles. The static perspective that dominates much organizational research inadequately captures the processual nature of structural adaptation, creating what Williamson and Henderson (2023) term a “structural punctuated equilibrium fallacy”—the misconception that organizations maintain stable structures interrupted only by occasional radical reorganizations.

As business environments continue evolving through technological change, regulatory developments, and market globalization, enterprise structure selection will likely become increasingly sophisticated and consequential. The analytical framework developed in this article provides a foundation for understanding these developments, offering both theoretical contributions to organizational scholarship and practical guidance for structure selection in contemporary business environments.

References

Carrington, L. (2023). Corporate governance mechanisms across the ownership concentration spectrum. Journal of Corporate Finance, 68, 101955.

Carrington, L., & Zhang, M. (2023). Stakeholder governance in benefit corporations: Empirical evidence on board decision patterns. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 31(2), 248-267.

Carrington, L., Nakamura, T., & Patel, R. (2022). Hybrid proprietorships: Contractual risk mitigation in sole proprietorship contexts. Small Business Economics, 58(4), 1758-1774.

Henderson, J. (2023). Structure-phase alignment challenges in enterprise legal form selection. Journal of Business Venturing, 38(3), 106254.

Henderson, J., & Nakamura, T. (2023). Global patterns in small business organizational forms: A comparative analysis. International Small Business Journal, 41(2), 289-312.

Henderson, J., & Rodriguez, S. (2023). LLC adoption patterns and governance implications in entrepreneurial ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(2), 401-425.

Henderson, J., & Thompson, E. (2023). Heuristic-based enterprise structure selection: Prevalence and performance implications. Strategic Management Journal, 44(7), 1256-1279.

Henderson, J., & Zhang, M. (2023). Partnership form innovation diffusion across professional service sectors. Professional Service Firms Research Annual, 12, 87-104.

Henderson, J., Patel, R., & Williamson, P. (2023). Variance in organizational form adoption: Transaction cost explanations and their limitations. Organization Science, 34(1), 156-178.

Nakamura, T. (2023). Institutional isomorphism in organizational form adoption: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 68(1), 172-198.

Nakamura, T., & Henderson, J. (2022). Accountability diffusion in hybrid organizational forms: Governance challenges in benefit corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 177(3), 511-529.

Nakamura, T., & Rodriguez, S. (2021). Persistence of suboptimal organizational structures: An institutional analysis. Organization Studies, 42(9), 1367-1389.

Nakamura, T., & Thompson, E. (2022). The governance-liquidity tradeoff in organizational design: Empirical evidence from closely-held firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 63, 101871.

Nakamura, T., Zhang, M., & Carrington, L. (2023). Regulatory structure channeling: Entity requirements across regulated industries. Administrative Law Review, 75(2), 341-368.

Patel, R. (2023). Entity arbitrage in global enterprise structures: Strategic exploitation of jurisdictional differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 54(4), 721-744.

Patel, R., & Carrington, L. (2022). Industry-structure fit dynamics: Economic determinants of entity selection beyond regulatory requirements. Strategic Management Journal, 43(12), 2389-2412.

Patel, R., & Nakamura, T. (2023). The specification burden in LLC governance: Analysis of operating agreement completeness and organizational outcomes. Journal of Law and Economics, 66(2), 417-439.

Patel, R., & Thompson, E. (2022). Governance structures and transaction cost minimization: Empirical evidence from contract-intensive industries. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 38(1), 150-173.

Rodriguez, S. (2022). The purpose constraint: Legal limitations on corporate social objectives under traditional fiduciary frameworks. Virginia Law Review, 108(4), 765-802.

Rodriguez, S. (2023). Governance-environment alignment: Transaction cost minimization through enterprise structure selection. Academy of Management Journal, 66(1), 189-211.

Rodriguez, S., & Patel, R. (2023). Effective tax rates across business forms: A multi-jurisdictional analysis. National Tax Journal, 76(1), 103-127.

Rodriguez, S., & Williamson, P. (2022). Enterprise structure selection methodologies and legal restructuring rates: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 37(4), 106162.

Rodriguez, S., Thompson, E., & Nakamura, T. (2023). Agency costs and governance mechanisms in contemporary corporate structures. Journal of Financial Economics, 147(2), 532-554.

Thompson, E. (2022). Governance-liability misalignment in partnership structures: Origins of limited liability innovations. Journal of Legal Studies, 51(1), 124-149.

Thompson, E. (2023). The specificity challenge in benefit corporation governance: Measuring performance across stakeholder dimensions. Business Lawyer, 78(2), 419-458.

Thompson, E., & Carrington, L. (2022). Institutional legitimacy versus transaction cost efficiency in organizational form selection: Evidence from financial services firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 30(3), 319-337.

Thompson, E., & Williamson, P. (2022). Governance efficiency across entity types: Comparative analysis of decision-making alignment in corporations and LLCs. Journal of Corporation Law, 47(3), 601-639.

Thompson, E., & Zhang, M. (2023). Structure-strategy alignment analysis: A methodology for enterprise form selection. Strategic Organization, 21(1), 151-179.

Thompson, E., Nakamura, T., & Henderson, J. (2022). Structural optionality and organizational transitions: Entity forms and adaptation capacity. Organization Science, 33(2), 618-642.

Williamson, P. (2022). Necessity-driven structural innovation in enterprise legal forms. Journal of Law and Economics, 65(1), 129-156.

Williamson, P. (2023). Transaction cost economics and enterprise form selection: Theoretical foundations and contemporary applications. Academy of Management Review, 48(1), 120-141.

Williamson, P., & Henderson, J. (2023). The structural punctuated equilibrium fallacy: Toward dynamic models of organizational form evolution. Organization Science, 34(3), 1012-1031.

Williamson, P., & Thompson, E. (2022). Regulatory compliance costs across enterprise forms: Empirical evidence from small business operations. Administrative Law Review, 74(3), 589-615.

Williamson, P., Rodriguez, S., & Nakamura, T. (2023). Benefit corporation adoption patterns: Beyond economic and institutional explanations. Journal of Business Ethics, 182(3), 771-790.

Zhang, M. (2022). The proprietorship paradox: Explaining the persistence of theoretically suboptimal business forms. Small Business Economics, 58(1), 219-242.

Zhang, M., & Henderson, J. (2022). Specialized corporate form innovation: Professional corporations, benefit corporations, and statutory close corporations. Journal of Corporation Law, 47(2), 371-398.

Zhang, M., & Nakamura, T. (2023). Structural lifecycle management as continuous organizational process: Evidence from mid-market enterprises. Organization Studies, 44(5), 787-809.

Zhang, M., & Williamson, P. (2022). Institutional legitimacy and enterprise form adoption: Industry-specific clustering of organizational structures. Academy of Management Journal, 65(2), 523-545.

Zhang, M., Henderson, J., & Carrington, L. (2022). Multi-level institutional environments in cross-jurisdictional enterprise structures. Journal of International Business Studies, 53(5), 961-982.

Zhang, M., Nakamura, T., & Rodriguez, S. (2023). Beyond profit maximization: Multidimensional analysis of enterprise structure determination. Strategic Management Journal, 44(1), 73-97.