This systematic review synthesizes 190 academic articles to identify 41 factors that influence the performance and lifespan of both corporate venture capitalists (CVCs) and independent venture capitalists (IVCs) across four analytical dimensions: strategic decision-making, exploitation of VC resources and characteristics, active involvement in the VC environment, and structural constraints on maneuverability. The central empirical finding is a paradox that the paper works to explain: CVCs generate greater financial performance than IVCs in aggregate, and yet CVCs have significantly shorter lifespans, meaning they close or are disbanded at a higher rate than independent funds. The paper identifies five CVC-specific factors that explain this lifespan gap. First, investment objectives: CVCs pursue dual strategic and financial goals simultaneously, and when the strategic rationale shifts (due to corporate strategy changes) the financial performance alone is often insufficient to justify continuation. Second, organizational autonomy and structure: CVCs embedded too deeply in corporate hierarchies lose the decision-making speed and incentive structures needed to compete for the best deals. Third, interorganizational relationships: CVC units that cannot operate with sufficient independence from their parent's existing partnership networks are constrained in the deals they can pursue. Fourth, commitment of the corporate parent: CVC units are particularly vulnerable to budget cycles, leadership changes, and shifts in corporate priorities in ways that IVCs structured as independent limited partnerships are not. Fifth, parent company size: larger parent companies create more bureaucratic friction and more competing internal priorities that erode the CVC unit's operational effectiveness over time.

This paper is directly relevant to three distinct audiences within the VCA ecosystem. For founders evaluating whether to take CVC money versus IVC money, it provides the most rigorous available synthesis of the structural differences in how these two investor types behave, what they optimize for, and how reliably they will remain active partners across a multi-year company building journey, which is a critical consideration when choosing between a strategic corporate investor and an independent fund. For VC professionals and LPs evaluating the design of CVC programs, the five-factor framework explaining lifespan differences provides a practical diagnostic checklist for whether a CVC unit is structurally set up to succeed or is likely to be wound down before its portfolio companies reach maturity. For ecosystem analysts and policymakers, the finding that CVCs outperform IVCs financially while still closing at higher rates raises important questions about whether corporate venturing is being structured optimally in Europe, where CVC activity has grown rapidly but structural design guidance has been limited. The 41-factor taxonomy synthesized from 190 articles also makes this one of the most comprehensive reference documents available for anyone building a rigorous understanding of what actually drives VC performance beyond the anecdotal level.