International Entrepreneurial Orientation and Performance of ...

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Procedia Economics and Finance 32 (2015) 186 – 193

Emerging Markets Queries in Finance and Business

International entrepreneurial orientation and performance of Romanian small and medium-sized firms: empirical assessment of direct and environment moderated relations Feder EmĘke–Szidóniaa,* a

West University of TimiЮoara, J.H. Pestalozzi Street no. 16, 300115, TimiЮoara, Romania

Abstract The Europe 2020 Strategy claims entrepreneurship as catalyst of technological, social and economic output. In this sense, small and medium-sized firms with entrepreneurial orientation potentially represent the most dynamic actors of the European transition economies. Therefore, the study aims to identify the role entrepreneurial orientation can play in the creation of international performance in the case of Romanian small and medium-sized firms. The critical analysis of theoretical literature and empirical results impose, on one hand, the reconceptualisation of entrepreneurial orientation within the international business framework, on the other hand, the analysis of virtually unexplored potential relations between international entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance. Besides the aggregated and multidimensional exploration of the research model, the complex relation of international entrepreneurial orientation with foreign sales and profitability performance measure is considered also in the framework of the contingency theory via the foreign market specific business environment dynamics and hostility. © 2015 2015 Authors. The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.isThis is anaccess open article accessunder articlethe under the CC BY-NC-ND Published by Elsevier B.V. This an open CC BY-NC-ND license license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Emerging Markets Queries in Finance and Business local organization. under responsibility responsibilityof ofthe Asociatia Grupul Roman de Cercetari in Finante Corporatiste Selection and and peer-review peer-review under Keywords: international entrepreneurial orientation; international performance; enviornment dynamics and hostility.

1. Introduction In the last decades, entrepreneurial issues exacerbated the global interest, due to the phenomenon’s focus on new firm creation and its regional and national vital positive outcomes, highlighted by the economic approach.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +40-256-592-559; fax: +40-256-592-500. E-mail address: [email protected].

2212-5671 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Asociatia Grupul Roman de Cercetari in Finante Corporatiste doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01381-7

Feder Emőke–Szidónia / Procedia Economics and Finance 32 (2015) 186 – 193

Strategic studies on entrepreneurship, are predominantly concentrated on the role entrepreneurial orientation (EO) can play in strategy and other entrepreneurial activity development. EO, as the manifestation of firm-level entrepreneurship phenomenon, regards “decisions, processes and practices that lead to a new entry” (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996, p. 136). Several points of view exist regarding the EO concept and construct, as prominent element of the entrepreneurship literature, referring to the essential nature of the phenomenon (George and Marino, 2011), its dimensionality (Kreiser et al., 2013), the dimensional independence or interdependence (George and Marino, 2011), empirical links to firm performance (Rauch et al., 2009) and moderating factors enhancing or limiting its benefits (Wales et al., 2011). The international entrepreneurship literature highlighted minor consideration to EO within international firms. Recently, Covin and Miller, 2014, explicitly conceived international entrepreneurial orientation (IEO), as the EO leveraged within the context of international business, of firms with activities that transcend national boundaries. Consequently, the undertaken research aims to explore the topic of IEO in relationship with international performance, starting with the conceptual elements and measurement issues regarding IEO, linear and non-linear relationships with performance attained on foreign markets, either directly or moderated by specific business environment characteristics. The paper is structured as follows: (i) the first section provides a brief introduction regarding the research theme and objective; (ii) the second section highlights key aspects of the theoretical background regarding conceptual and measurement considerations, potential influences on firm performance in different settings, designing the conceptual model and research hypotheses; (iii) the next section includes methodological issues; (iv) the fourth section empirically assess the proposed hypotheses on international sales and profitability using configurational models; while (v) the last section concludes with results discussion, practical implications for managers and research avenues for academics, correspondingly acknowledging the study limitations. 2. Literature review: international entrepreneurial orientation Initial studies on entrepreneurial orientation aimed to identify criteria for assessing the nature of entrepreneurial firms and activity. “New (entry)” became the primary criterion in entrepreneurial act assessment (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996), while Shane and Venkataraman, 2000, sustained opportunities for new business creation. In an integrative manner, EO refers to decision making criteria, rules, principles, strategies and processes regarding opportunity based entrepreneurial activities in new and existing firms (Kreiser et al., 2002). From operationalization and measurement perspective, Miller, 1983, initially identified three dimensions (3D) of EO: (i) innovativeness (INOV), as search of creative solutions for new technologies, new processes, new materials, products and services; (ii) proactivity (PRO), anticipate the changing needs of the market and exploit identified opportunities; (iii) calculated risk-taking (RISK) is necessary to devote the right resources for the recognized opportunities. Lumpkin and Dess (1996) completed with two additional dimensions (5D): (iv) autonomy, as the ability to independently develop, produce and implement a new idea; and (v) competitive aggressiveness, focusing on competitors and not on market. In time, various measurement scales have been developed (Covin and Slevin 1989; Lumpkin and Dess 1996) and numerous studies tested, validated and reviewed the construct and dimensions of EO to obtain a more complete representation of the phenomenon (Wales et al., 2011). Another challenge regarding EO is the dimensionality problem. Treating EO as a higher order aggregate construct did not allow the quantification of individual effects of PRO, INOV, RISK on firm performance. González-Benito et al., 2009 argued for the multidimensional approach, stating that the aggregated approach is suggested for cases when simplicity is sought, affecting measurement accuracy. Following Jantunen et al.’s, 2008, claim of insufficient research on strategic orientations adopted in the internationalization process of SMEs, the international entrepreneurial orientation appeared as a result of concept travelling of the original EO (George and Marino, 2011). Covin and Miller, 2014, highlighted two approaches regarding the new concept: (i) the adoption of the traditional EO on typical international outcomes,

187

188

Feder Emőke–Szidónia / Procedia Economics and Finance 32 (2015) 186 – 193

thus performance in an international context; (ii) a distinct conceptualization and operationalization of IEO with international/export style verbiage, especially important for international new ventures and born-global firms. Although a distinct construct, IEO reflects the same dimensions associated with EO, either if it is considered as “the behavior elements of a global orientation ... capturing the propensity for risk-taking, innovativeness and proactiveness” (Freeman and Cavusgil, 2007, p. 3), highlighting the traditional 3D Covin-Slevin scale, either it is perceived as “(exporters) capability to differentiate from the rest of competitors by calculated risk-taking, proactivity, aggressive competitiveness, innovation and the introduction of new products and technologies” (Boso et al., 2012, p. 668), “aimed to discover, enact, evaluate and exploit opportunities across national borders” (Sundqvist et al., 2012, p. 205) to outperform rivals, evidencing the Lumpkin-Dess 5D proposition. Early studies argued for a general positive influence of EO on firm performance. The perception that EO would be universally beneficial creates erroneous results and false normative conclusions. The majority of the research proved the existence of significant positive influence (Covin and Slevin, 1991; Zahra and Covin, 1995; Wiklund, 1999; Gonzalez-Benito et al., 2009), a limited number of studies found some insignificant relations (Andersen, 2010) and negative links (Zahra and Garvis, 2000). The multidimensional approach of firm performance demonstrates differential influence on certain outcome components (Wales et al., 2011). Rauch et al., 2009, confirmed a stronger influence of EO on financial performance than on marketing ones, while Zahra and Covin, 1995, identified stronger influence on long-term performance indicators than on short-termed ones. Dimitratos et al., 2004; Jantunen et al., 2008, and Boso et al., 2012, established positive effects of EO on international performance, without delineating the individual dimensional influence, whilst Rauch et al., 2009, proved that EO dimensions relate differently to performance. Differences in the explanatory power of EO can be attributed to relationship complexity or context specificity. Adopting a certain strategic orientation must happen in correspondence with environmental conditions influencing firm behavior and reaction. EO is considered to be able to influence the environment (Dimitratos et al., 2004), by inducing changes in the form of new values, principles, activities, routines. Environmental heterogeneity, complexity, dynamics (Lumpkin and Dess, 2001) and hostility (Zahra and Garvis, 2000) are generally proposed for moderators. Levels of EO dimensions may also vary depending on environmental context (Boso et al., 2012). Because opportunities occur most often in dynamic and changing environments (Covin and Slevin, 1991), in times of uncertainty entrepreneurially oriented firms can achieve superior international performance, due to proactivity and competitive aggressiveness (Dess et al., 1997), whereas passive or reactive behaviors are detrimental to firm performance. Environment hostility (HOST) and dynamics (DYN) H1

H3

International firm performance: ƒ sales (Perf_S) ƒ profitability (Perf_P)

International entrepreneurial orientation (IEO)

International proactivity (PRO) International innovativeness (INOV)

H2 H2 H2

H4 International firm performance: ƒ sales (Perf_S) ƒ profitability (Perf_P)

International risk-taking (RISK) Fig. 1. International entrepreneurial orientation research model with direct and environment moderated relations

The proposed research framework aims to explain the role and effects of IEO on SME performance through direct and moderated relations depending on various environmental setting characteristics of key foreign

Feder Emőke–Szidónia / Procedia Economics and Finance 32 (2015) 186 – 193

markets. It corrects for the previously identified methodological deficiencies, allowing the investigation of direct and moderated, linear and non-linear relations, providing foundation for 8 hypotheses. Previous studies investigated almost exclusively linear and direct relationships between EO and international firm performance (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Some recent studies obtained consistent positive results of the super-ordinate (Covin et al., 2006) and multidimensional construct (Kreiser et al., 2013), proposing: H1a: International entrepreneurial orientation positively and significantly influences firm performance. H2a: International proactivity, innovativeness and risk-taking positively and significantly influence firm performance. Kreiser et al., 2013, proposed non-linear relationships between EO dimensions and firm performance: H1b: International entrepreneurial orientation convexly (U form) and significantly influences firm performance. H2b: International proactivity, innovativeness and risk-taking curvilinear (U, U, ŀ) and significantly influences firm performance. Embracing a contingent approach, the research model also recognises the importance of the context in which firms conduct their operations on the foreign markets. The characteristics of the environment from target foreign markets should take in consideration the perceived level of hostility and dynamism: H3: Environmental hostility and dynamics moderates the relationship between international entrepreneurial orientations and firm performance. Thus, (H3a): the positive linear relationship is more pronounced under environmental hostility and dynamism; (H3b): the convex U-shaped relationship is more pronounced under environmental hostility and dynamism. H4: Environmental hostility and dynamics moderates the relationship between international proactivity, innovativeness, risk-taking and firm performance. Thus, (H4a): the linear (+, +, -) relationships are more pronounced under environmental hostility and dynamism; (H4b): the curvilinear (U, U, ŀ - shaped) relationships are more pronounced under environmental hostility and dynamism. 3. Research methodology: sample profile, variable measurement and data analysis algorithm In order to obtain pertinent responses for the study, data has been collected from Romanian SMEs (2003/361/EC). As selection criteria besides nationality and size, the involvement in foreign market operations was compulsory. Data has been collected through on-line self-administrated questionnaires in 2013. Due to the lack of an accessible complete national database, records have been concatenated from the Romanian Centre for Trade and Investment, Kompass and Amadeus business directories. From the 1660 sent on-line questionnaires, 127 were returned in two waves, 5 removed due to partial completion, determining a final sample of 122 useful responses and an effective response rate of 7.34%. The sample size and the response rate can be considered adequate and comparable to analogous studies (Covin et al., 2006; Andersen, 2010; Kreiser et al., 2013). Sample heterogeneity is guaranteed on size and industry base. Considering the number of employees, 19% of the sample represents micro-enterprises, 38% small businesses and 43% are medium sized. The sample includes firms from all main economy sectors in a great variety of specialization: agriculture (7%); mineral, metal, stoneware, pottery and glass (8%); textiles, apparel, footwear and leather (15%); wood and paper (17%); chemicals and plastics (12%); vehicles, machinery and electronics (26%); optical instruments; information technology and telecommunications; professional services (5% each). Using a single informant as source of self-reported data, the non-response bias was assessed, as a comparison on early (75%) and late respondents (25%), with no evidence of significant differences regarding activity domain, establishment year and firm size. Measurement model building was based on international literature, thus for the independent construct operationalisation a newly introduced IEO has been developed by placing the traditional 3D Covin and Slevin, 1989, EO scale in international verbiage and business framework. As dependent construct, international firm performance was measured through sales and profitability, the two most commonly studied indicators (Rauch et al., 2009; Stoian et al., 2010), creating for each a two-item weighted measure by multiplying satisfaction and

189

190

Feder Emőke–Szidónia / Procedia Economics and Finance 32 (2015) 186 – 193

importance scores. Due to the difficulty of measuring objective SME performance and the convergence of results regardless objective and subjective measures (Stoian et al., 2010), perceptual subjective sale and profitability measures were enclosed. In the case of the moderating constructs, the dynamics (DYN) and hostility (HOST) of the environment are used, as presented by Miller and Friesen, 1982, modified to represent the characteristics of the business environment on main foreign markets. All constructs are measured on 5-point Likert scales (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) as latent continuous variables with multiple items. Two control variables were included, firm size using a 3 category classification depending employees number (Size) and international experience (EXP) as the number of years involvement in international transactions. The applied research method for the current quantitative study is grounded in a questionnaire based sample survey. Data analysis algorithm regarding measurement and structural model evaluation in SPSS 21 involved: (i) descriptive statistics assessed normality distribution via mean, standard deviation, variance, skewness and kurtosis; (ii) scale reliability tested through Į Cronbach, composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE); (iii) factor analysis via loadings with Kaiser criteria, principal component analysis and oblimin rotation; (iv) convergent and discriminant validity analysis through factorial loadings and Pearson correlations; (v) hypotheses testing performed via hierarchical regression analysis to determine regression coefficient (ȕ), significance level (p); (vi) coefficient of determination level (R2), change (ǻR2) and significance (Fǻ). 4. Empirical results The empirical analysis of the collected data follows the stepwise investigation posited in the six-stage research algorithm. The majority of independent (IEO, PRO, RISK), dependent (Perf_S, Perf_P) and moderating factors (DYN, HOST) are slightly above the average value (3), except for INOV, showing that Romanian export SMEs register a smaller inclination toward innovation development and implementation. The EXP, PRO, INOV, RISK have larger standard deviations (5.761, .9596, .8431, .8599), meaning that the sample group is heterogeneous in respect to firm’s EO. Skewness analysis was slightly negative for the majority of constructs, exception for IEO and INOV, limited between -.7 and +.4, skewness being almost absent, values symmetrical distributed around the mean. Kurtosis analysis shows values between -.5 and +.7, slightly positive for IEO, DYN, HOST, and slightly negative for all the rest, determining mesokurtic distributions. Į Cronbach, as pointer of traditional scale reliability, indicates the purity level of the measurement scale. Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994, recommend .5 or .6 as sufficient values, therefore all scales can be considered of acceptable reliability and good internal consistency. Modern reliability indicators, CR measuring the degree of item contribution to construct formation, and AVE as variance of the items composing the latent variable (Hair et al., 1998), are jointly assured over the cutting value of .5. For all measurement scales AVE is above .7, while CR being over .8 for PRO, RISK, DYN and over .9 for IEO, INOV, HOST scales. Factor analysis provides information about the size of factor loadings and the number of factors extracted for each construct, results indicating factor loadings over .5. All constructs are one-dimensional, except for IEO deliberately considered both under the form of latent superordinate construct and in the 3 dimensional version. Convergent validity is assured through the positive factor loadings, while discriminant validity is guaranteed by significant Pearson correlation coefficients. Main constructs emphasize high and significant correlations between the IEO and its’ composite dimensions (PRO: .833, INOV: .689, RISK: .662). Furthermore, DYN and HOST (.350) are similarly inter-correlated, as well as Perf_S and Perf_P (.644). Before processing the regression analysis, all independent and moderator variables were mean-centered in order to reduce potential multicollinearity for interaction terms. The VIF values are slightly over 1.04 and under 3.96 for all interactions, well below the critical value of 10, showing no multicollinearity problems. According to the research model, the study aimed to empirically estimate several equations, taking into account in a stepwise manner the control, independent and moderator variables in the configuration analysis.

Feder Emőke–Szidónia / Procedia Economics and Finance 32 (2015) 186 – 193

The control variables model (Model 1), contained only 2 variables, firm size and international experience. The main effects model (Model 2), added terms for IEO, HOST and DYM. Model 3 is a 2-way configuration model, including 2nd level interaction terms; while Model 4 as a 3-way configuration model, includes 3rd level interaction term reporting results of the full model. Models 2a, 3a, 4a include the linear effect of the independent and moderator variables, while models 2b, 3b, 4b include the quadratic term for IEO in order to test for curvilinear relationships on Perf_S and Perf_P. Models 5, 6, 7 and 8 refers to the same construction as model 1, 2, 3 and 4, instead of IEO it will include its’ 3D disaggregated version in PRO, INOV and RISK. In the latter cases, a significant positive regression coefficient of the squared term (IEO2, PRO2, INOV2, RISK2) demonstrates a convex (U) relationship, while a significant negative coefficient shows a concave (ŀ) relation. Model 1 highlighted the necessity to control for the outcome of firm size and international experience, both significant not just in the control effect model, but for all the other models. As shown in Model 2a, IEO is positively, directly and significantly (ȕ=1.651, p=.054) related to SME’s foreign sales in stable and benign foreign environments. Thus, hypothesis H1a is supported. However, Model 3a shows that in relation to any characteristic of the business environment, the linear relation between IEO and sales is insignificant (ȕ=-.212, p=.821; ȕ=.867, p=.526). Similarly, when considering both hostility and dynamics, the direct linear influence is negative and insignificant (ȕ=-1.235, p=.464), empirically invalidating hypothesis H3a in conformity to Model 4a. In the same vein, Model 2b and 3b shows only insignificant quadratic relationships between the IEO2 and foreign sales (ȕ=-.582, p=.555; ȕ=-.508, p=.626), invalidating hypothesis H1b. The 3-way configuration model 4b significantly increased the explained variance of international sales to 17.1%. The model shows significant concave U-shape quadratic relationship between IEO2 considered in a hostile-dynamic foreign environment and SMEs international sales (ȕ=4.593, p=.038), supporting hypothesis H3b. Complementary, in Model 2a and 3a, the linear relation between IEO and international profitability is insignificant (ȕ=.807, p=.339; ȕ=.714, p=.405) independently and in relation to either hostility or dynamics, invalidating H1a. Instead, Model 4a with hostile and dynamic settings, the direct linear influence is negative and insignificant (ȕ=-1.612, p=.33), empirically invalidating hypothesis H3a. In the same time, only in dynamic environments, the linear influence of IEO on foreign profitability is positive and significant at a lower level (ȕ=2.322, p=.088). Models 2b and 3b show only insignificant relationships between IEO2 and foreign profitability (ȕ=-.561, p=.560; ȕ=-.657, p=.522), invalidating hypothesis H1b. Even so, the 3-way configuration model 4b significantly increased the explained variance of international profitability to 12.5%. Model 4b shows significant quadratic relationship between the IEO2 and SMEs international profitability (ȕ=4.834, p=.026) in hostile-dynamic foreign environment, forming a convex U shaped relationship, thus supporting hypothesis H3b. In Models 6a and 7a RISK influence directly and positively, in a linear manner international sales (ȕ=1.945, p=.005; ȕ=1.931, p=.007). Furthermore, Model 8a is evidence of linear positive influence of RISK (ȕ=1.860, p=.010) in all kind of environments and linear positive influence of PRO (ȕ=2.234, p=.091) in hostile-dynamic environments. The 3-way configuration model significantly increased the explained variance of international sales to 24.5%, partially supporting hypotheses H2a and H4a. In the case of model 8b, significant quadratic relationship between the PRO2 is proved for hostile-dynamic foreign environments and international profitability (ȕ=2.901, p=.039), forming a convex U-shaped relationship, thus partially validating hypothesis H4b, while explaining 19.9% of the international sales variance. Complementary, in Models 6a and 7a RISK influences directly and positively international profitability (ȕ=1.419, p=.039; ȕ=1.422, p=.047), supporting H2a. Furthermore, Model 8a is evidence of linear positive influence of RISK, generally in all kind of environments (ȕ=1.347, p=.058), particularly in dynamic foreign markets (ȕ=2.279, p=.065), respectively in hostile-dynamic environments (ȕ=-3.206, p=.036). Thus, the model partially supports hypothesis H2b, showing a concave relationship. In the case of model 8b, insignificant quadratic relationships between the PRO2, INOV2, RISK2 and SMEs international profitability (ȕ=1.729, p=.204; ȕ=.642, p=.673; ȕ=.622, p=.605) are found for hostile-dynamic foreign environments, invalidating hypothesis H4b.

191

192

Feder Emőke–Szidónia / Procedia Economics and Finance 32 (2015) 186 – 193

5. Discussions, conclusions, research limitations and future directions The study results suggest differential linear, non-linear and moderated relationships between IEO and international SME performance, at construct and dimensional level. Findings are consistent with recent research results of Jantunen et al., 2008; Rauch et al., 2009; Andersen, 2010; Kreiser et al., 2013. The present study complementary extends previous findings by: (i) assessing the presence of linearity and non-linearity in the strategic orientation–performance relationship; (ii) considering both the formative approach, IEO as composite construct and as well the reflective approach, including the separate dimensions of PRO, INOV, RISK; (iii) applying the contingent approach, via two main characteristics of foreign business environments, HOST and DYN; (iv) empirically testing all the above mentioned relationships in the context of transition country SMEs. For managers, there are some noteworthy implications of the findings. When decision makers do not consider the environmental characteristics or they are present in stable and benign environments, the study suggests a general positive linear influence of IEO on foreign sales. On the other hand, in hostile-dynamic environments, the convex non-linear relations between the IEO2, foreign sales and profitability are significant. Hence, low or high levels of IEO determine international firm performance in unfriendly environment settings, because the benefits of developing and implementing an IEO exceed its cost, creating organisational prosperity. In conclusion, the IEO construct is applicable and relevant to international firms. At dimensional level, PRO2 is the most significant determinant of international sales, in a convex form. Low and high levels of PRO contribute to sales enhancement, while the moderate level determines lower influence. Proactive firms position themselves better by exploiting or creating opportunities before competitor, contouring favourably their external environment (Kreiser et al., 2013). RISK is a similarly important determinant of international sales and profitability in its linear form in stable-benign contexts, enhancing foreign profitability in dynamic settings, while in hostile-dynamic situations just the moderate level of RISK influences profitability in ŀ-shape, evidencing the need to control for assumed international risk level, because SMEs perceive entering new markets as already uncertain activities. INOV was not a significant dimension for international performance. Romanian firms are considered as modest innovators, having innovation performance below the EU average (Innovation Union Scoreboard, 2014). Consequently, managers facing hostile-dynamic foreign markets have to invest significant resources in supporting IEO, in general, PRO and RISK, in particular, if they seek higher levels of international sales and profitability. The conducted research has several potential limitations. The study investigated effects of IEO exclusively on international sales and profitability. Future research should investigate the effects on other financial and marketing measures of international efficiency and effectiveness. The model included a single strategic orientation, thus the interaction with other strategic (market-, learning-, technological-) orientations could open up new directions and identify optimal strategic configurations. Prospective research might focus on the firm link between domestic EO and its international demeanor. The study did not examine additional dimensions proposed by Boso et al., 2012, which may deepen empirical findings. Also, it would be interesting to analyze environmental munificence, complexity and resource commitment, as further moderators. Acknowledgements This work was cofinanced from the European Social Fund through Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development 2007-2013, project number POSDRU/159/1.5/S/134197 „Performance and excellence in doctoral and postdoctoral research in Romanian economics science domain”.

Feder Emőke–Szidónia / Procedia Economics and Finance 32 (2015) 186 – 193

References Andersen, J. 2010. “A Critical Examination of the EO-Performance Relationship”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 16( 4), p. 309-328. Boso, N., Cadogan, J., Story, V. 2012. “Complementary Effect of Entrepreneurial and Market Orientation on Export New Product Success under Differing Levels of Competitive Intensity and Financial Capital,” International Business Review, 21 (4), p. 667-681. Covin, J, Slevin, D. 1989. “Strategic Management of Small Firms in Hostile and Begin Environments”, Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), p. 75-87. Covin, J., Green, K., Slevin, D. 2006. “Strategic Process Effects on the Entrepreneurial Orientation-Sales Growth Rate Relationship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, p. 57-81. Covin, J., Miller, D., 2014. “International Entrepreneurial Orientation: Conceptual Considerations, Research Themes, Measurement Issues, and Future Research Directions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, p. 11-44. Dess, G., Lumpkin, G., Covin, J. 1997. “Entrepreneurial Strategy Making and Firm Performance: Tests of Contingency and Configurational Models”, Strategic Management Journal, 18 (1), p. 2-23. Dimitratos, P., Lioukas, S., Carter, S. 2004. “The Relationship between Entrepreneurship and International Performance: The Importance of Domestic Environment”, International Business Review, 13(1), p.19-41. European Union, 2014. “Innovation Union Scoreboard 2014”, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ius/ius-2014_en.pdf, Belgium. Freeman, S., Cavusgil, S. 2007. “Toward a typology of commitment states among managers of born-global firms: A study of accelerated internationalization”, Journal of International Marketing, 15(4), p. 1–4. George, B., Marino, L., 2011. “The Epistemology of Entrepreneurial Orientation: Conceptual Formation, Modeling, and Operationalization”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, p. 989-1024. González-Benito, O., Gonzáles-Benito, J., Munoz-Gallego, P. 2009. “Role of Entrepreneurship and Market Orientation in Firms’ Success,” European Journal of Marketing, 43 (3/4), p. 500-522. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., Black, W. 1998. “Multivariate data analysis”, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River. Hansen, J., Deitz, G., Tokman, M., Marino, L., Weaver, M. 2011. “Cross national invariance of the entrepreneurial orientation scale”, Journal of Business Venturing, 26, p. 61-78. Jantune.n A., Nummela, N., Puumalainen, K., Saarenketo, S. 2008. “Strategic Orientations of Born Globals - Do They Really Matter”, Journal of World Business, 43, p. 158–17. Kreiser, P., Marino, L., Kuratko, D., Weaver, M. 2013. “Disaggregating entrepreneurial orientation: the non-linear impact of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking on SME performance”, Small Business Economy, 40, p. 273–291. Kreiser, P., Marino, L., Weaver, M. 2002. „Assessing the Psychometric Properties of the Entrepreneurial Orientation Scale: A MultiCountry Analysis”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, p. 71-94. Lumpkin, G., Dess G. 1996. “Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking it to Performance”, Academy of Management Review, 21(1), p. 135-172. Lumpkin, G., Dess, G. 2001. “Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle”, Journal of business venturing, 16(5), p. 429-451. Miller, D., Friesen, P. 1982. “Innovation in Conservative and Entrepreneurial Firms: Two Models of Strategic Momentum”, Strategic Management Journal, 3 (1), p. 1-25. Miller, D. 1983. “The Correlates of the Entrepreneurship in Three Types of Firms”, Management Science, 29(7), p. 770-791. Nunnally, J., Bernstein, I. 1994, “Psychometric Theory”, McGraw Hill, USA. Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G., Frese, M. 2009. “Entrepreneurial Orientation and Business Performance: an Assessment of Past Research and Sugestions for the Future”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), p. 761-787. Shane, S., Venkataraman, S. 2000. “The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research”, Academy of Management Review, 25, p. 217-226. Stoian, C., Rialp, A., Rialp, J. 2010. “Export performance under the microscope: A glance through Spanish lenses”, International Business Review, p. 1-19. Sundqvist, S., Kylaheiko, K., Kuivalainen, O. 2012. “Kirznerian and Schumpeterian entrepreneurial oriented behavior in turbulent export markets”, International Marketing Review, 29(2), p. 203–219. Wales, W., Gupta, V., Mousa, F. 2011. “Empirical research on entrepreneurial orientation: An assessment and suggestions for future research”, International Small Business Journal, p. 1-27. Wiklund, J. 1999. “The sustainability of the entrepreneurial orientation-performance relationship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(1), p. 37–48. Wiklund, J., Shepherd, D. 2005, “Entrepreneurial Orientation and Small Business Performance: a Configurational Approach”, Journal of Business Venturing, 20 (1), p. 71–91. Zahra, S., Covin, J. 1995. “Contextual Influence on the Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance Relationship: A Longitudinal Analysis, Journal of Business Venturing, 10, p. 43-58. Zahra, S., Garvis, D. 2000. “International Corporate Entrepreneurship and Firm Performance: the Moderating Effect of International Environmental Hostility”, Journal of Business Venturing, 15, p. 469-492.

193