strategic managament 13

8/8/2019 Strategic Managament 13

1/23

Antecedentsand ConsequencesofFirms Export Commitment: An

Empirical StudyAntonio Navarro,Francisco J. Acedo,Matthew J. Robson ,

Emilio Ruzo, and Fernando Losada

ABSTRACT

Theory posits that export commitment is key to the effective implementation of resource-led strategy. The authors

investigate the role of export commitment, considered a multidimensional construct, in linking export resources and

capabilities to positional advantages achieved in foreign markets. They test their resource-basedview assertions amonga

multi-industry sample of 150 Spanish exporters. The results show that experiential resources, specific export capabili-ties, and export market orientation (EMO) reinforce export commitment, which exerts a positive effect on perceived

positional advantages. These perceptions also are likely to be positive if the firm adapts its marketing mix to the needs

of its foreign markets. Moreover, the results show that EMO exerts a positive influence on marketing-mix adaptation.

Resources linked to experience and informational knowledge about foreign markets foster the development of capabili-

ties (i.e., specific export capabilities and/or EMO). Finally, the results indicate that specific export capabilities influence

EMO. The authors conclude with a discussion of practical implications for facilitating export competitive strategy and

success.

Keywords: export commitment, perceived positional advantages, adaptation of marketing strategy, export market

orientation, specific export capabilities, export resources, dynamic capabilities view

Exporting is the basic entry mode into foreign

markets, and traditionally, this field has generatedgreat managerial and scholarly interest. Internal driversof export outcomes have received the bulk of research

attention because they are the primary control

Antonio Navarro is Associate Professor of Marketing and

Market Research (e-mail: anavar [email protected]), and Francisco

J. A ce do is Associate Pro fessor of Strategic Management

(e-mail: [email protected]), Business Management Faculty,

University of Sevilla.

Matthew J. Robson is Professor of Marketing, Leeds Uni-

versity Business School, University of Leeds (e-mail:

[email protected]).

Emilio Ruzo is Associate Professor of Marketing and Market

Research (e-mail: [email protected]), and Fernando Losada

is Associate Professor of Marketing and Market Research

(e-mail: [email protected]),Business Management

Faculty of Lugo, University of Santiago.

management exercises. Indeed, the literature treatsmanagement attitudes as malleable elements that canfoster the progress of the company in its exportmarket operations (Lages, Jap, and Griffith 2008).Among these attitudes, Aaby and Slaters (1989) andZou and Stans (1998) reviews give a main role toexport commitment. The public policy implications of

export commitment are understood. By assessingfirms levels of export commitment, national govern-ments can identify appropriate forms of assistance (e.g.,educational programs focusing on the attractiveness ofexporting, funding to go to international trade fairs)

(Singer and Czinkota 1994).

Journal of InternationalMarketing

2010, AmericanMarketingAssociation

Vol. 18, No. 3, 2010, pp. 4161

ISSN 1069-0031X (print) 1547-7215 (electronic)


2/23

Firms Export Commitment 41


3/23

Inspection of the exporting literature reveals studies

(e.g., Beamish et al. 1999; Styles and Ambler 2000) that

theorize that export commitment is a direct antecedent

of performance. However, prior research has concen-

trated on the role of strategy in general and marketing

program adaptation/standardization in particular in

leading to export performance outcomes (Hultman,

Robson, and Katsikeas 2009; Sousa, Martinez-L pez,

and Coelho 2008). In line with the influential structure

conductperformance framing, several studies (e.g.,

Lages, Jap, and Griffith 2008; Lages and Montgomery

2004; Naidu and Prasad 1994; OCass and Julian 2003)

treat export commitment as an antecedent or contin-

gency factor that affects international marketing

strategy, which in turn determines performance.

Exporters could be forgiven for finding it easier to for-

mulate strategies that outline how they intend to achieve

their goals than to implement strategies using appropri-

ating mechanisms (Beamish et al. 1999; Vorhies and

Morgan 2003).

Using the resource-based view (RBV), we theorize a

central role for export commitment in the effective

implementation of resource-led strategy. Export com-

mitment is defined as the willingness of a firms manage-

ment to devote adequate financial, managerial, and

human resources to exporting activities (Donthu

and Kim 1993). Our study makes three main contribu-

tions. First, prior work has found that export commit-

ment increases the likelihood of success in foreign mar-

kets. However, this work assumes a direct link with

performance outcomes, and as yet, studies have notlinked export commitment to positional advantage

in export markets. Our RBV framing is the first to

stipulate this.

Second, the study is novel in investigating the role

of export commitment, alongside marketing-mix

adaptation, in mediating the relationships of resources

(scale, experiential, structural, and informational) and

capabilities (specific export capabilities and export

market orientation [EMO]) with perceived positional

advantages. Previous studies (Cavusgil and Zou 1994;

Zou and Stan 1998) have explained that managerscommitted to exporting carefully plan the entry and

allocate sufficient managerial and nonmanagerial

resources to their export ventures. This means that

resource strategy can be implemented effectively. Such

an implementation-related performance effect comple-

ments the formulation-related outcomes of marketing-

mix adaptation frequently observed in the exporting

literature.

Third, we develop a multidimensional conceptualizationof export commitment that takes into account currentand anticipated commitment levels. Existing conceptu-alizations emphasize export venture planning andresource levels within unidimensional measurements.With few exceptionssuch as OCass and Julians

(2003) measure, which includes an item on resources

available for export developmentprevious studieshave concentrated on current commitment. Notwith-

standing the importance of current behavioral commit-

ments, the commitment literature (e.g., Kim and Frazier

1997) has also highlighted the importance of the stabil-

ity of attitudinal commitment sentiments.

We organize the remainder of the article as follows: The

next section discusses the nature of export commitment.

Then, we present the theoretical background of the con-

ceptual model using the RBV, along with study hypothe-

ses. Next, we explain the research methods involved in

developing our data from a multi-industry sample of150 exporters. We follow this with the study results and

a discussion that draws conclusions from these and pro-

vides implications for theory and management practice.

The work ends with limitations and suggested future

lines of research.

EXPORT COMMITMENT: CONCEPTAND NATURE

A review of the literature reveals two main approachesto conceptualizing export commitment. First, studies

have depicted commitment as an attitudeas an endur-

ing positive disposition held by management toward the

act of exporting. For example, Bello and Barksdale

(1986) argue that committed exporters believe strongly

that exporting can contribute to achievement of their

firms goals, and Cavusgil and Nevin (1981) argue that

committed exporters are willing to devote necessary

resources to exporting. Second, a stream of studies has

conceptualized export commitment as a behavior, focus-

ing on manifestations of the construct. Cavusgil and

Zou (1994), as well as recent studies employing their

measures (e.g., Lages, Jap, and Griffith 2008), capture

commitment as the amount of planning, financial, and

managerial resources the firm allocates to exporting.

Despite the performance relevance of behavioral com-

mitment, theorists (e.g., Leonidou, Katsikeas, and Piercy

1998) argue that a comprehensive picture of commit-

ment can only be obtained by incorporating attitudes as

well as behaviors.

42 Journal of International Marketing


4/23

Applying the RBV, we theorize that export commitmentoffers strategic guidelines that orientate managers deci-sion making in foreign markets and helps improve theefficiency and effectiveness of the resource allocationgoing forward (Lages and Montgomery 2004). If exportcommitment increases managers willingness to makeefforts to achieve export objectives, it is important that

behavioral commitments are made in the present andthat these commitments are ongoing. This reflection onthe continuity of commitment and allied attitudinal sen-timents (Frazier and Rody 1991) is in line with researchin marketing and management (see Kim and Frazier

1997).

We argue that export commitment is an organizational

variable that focuses on how firms currently function

and intend to make improvements in leveraging export

resources. Thus, we view export commitment as a multi-

dimensional and dynamic phenomenon that comprises

both behavioral and attitudinal dimensions (Pauwels

and Matthyssens 1999; Stump, Athaide, and Axinn

1999). Specifically, we posit that export commitment

consists of current export commitment, defined by the

financial, managerial, and human resources the firm

currently dedicates to foreign trade operations to

achieve its goals (Cavusgil and Zou 1994), and antici-

pated export commitment, which pertains to managers

willingness to dedicate financial, managerial, and

human resources to ongoing export activity (Donthu

and Kim 1993).

CONCEPTUAL MODEL ANDHYPOTHESES

To advance knowledge about export commitment, we

must conceptualize its antecedentsand consequences

using a robust theoretical lens. The RBV is one of the

most widely accepted theories in international market-

ing (Jean, Sinkovics, and Kim 2010; Lages, Silva, and

Styles 2009). This theory characterizes firms as unique

bundles of resources and capabilities that are available

for the firms business ventures to deploy (e.g., Hamel

and Prahalad 1994). Heterogeneity in the resources and

capabilities ultimately leads to variations in firm per-formance (Teece, Pisano, and Shuen 1997). Resource-

based logic holds that export managers use resources

and capabilities in devising strategic actions that achieve

competitive superiority in the form of positional advan-

tages in overseas markets (Morgan, Kaleka, and Kat-

sikeas 2004). An exporters advantageous value offering

to customers and cost position in realizing the value

drive its performance (Day and Wensley 1988).

However, a limitation of traditional RBV frameworks isunawareness of implementation issues. Strategic actionsmust attend not only to strategy formulation mattersbut also to organization behaviors or activities thatpermit proper strategy implementation. We posit thatexport commitment serves as the organizing mechanismthat enables firms to exploit the full potential of

resource-basedstrategy. Processes that build and adjustresources and capabilities in line with environmentalflux can continuously shape attitudes and behaviorstoward exporting that provide the platform for exploit-ing the resource base. Therefore, our conceptual model

(see Figure 1) identifies relationships of resources and

capabilities with export commitment and marketing-

mix adaptation, both of which lead to perceived posi-

tional advantage.

Our model acknowledges the key distinction between

resources and capabilities (Day 1994). Resources are the

firm-controlled asset stocks that constitute the raw

materials available to the firm for developing export

activity (Black and Boal 1994). Although many

resources may be available to exporters, four emerged as

particularly important in our fieldwork: (1) resources

derived from the firms size (scale resources)that are an

indicator of managerial and financial assets available for

export activity (Dhanaraj and Beamish 2003); (2)

resources associated with the firms experience in for-

eign markets (experiential resources), which reduce

uncertainty and foster the exporters learning ability

(Cavusgil and Zou 1994); (3) resources derived from

formal structuringthat is, whether an export depart-

ment exists (structural resources)whichare considereda preparatory move toward developing significant for-

eign trade activity (Donthu and Kim 1993); and (4)

resources associated with foreign market research

(informational resources) that enable export marketing

programs to match the needs of channel members and

foreign customers (Morgan, Kaleka, and Katsikeas

2004).

Capabilities are the organizational processes by which

available resources are developed, combined, and trans-

formed into value offerings for the export market (Day

1994; Teece, Pisano, and Shuen 1997). Our literaturesearch and fieldwork suggested two types of capabilities

that could ultimately lead to export advantage: (1) spe-

cific export capabilities, which derive from managers

characteristics and certain export activity skills (e.g.,

Zou and Stan 1998), and (2) market-sensing capabilities

achieved through the firms EMO. Acquiring and dis-

seminating information about customers, competitors,



5/23

Figure 1.GraphicalDesc riptio nof Mo de l

Resources

Firmsize

Exportexperience

Exportdepartment

Informationsystem

Exportcommitment

Perceivedpositionaladvantages

Specific exportcapabilities

Marketing-mix

adaptation

EMO

Capabilities

channels, and the broader export market environment

can help reduce uncertainty in export marketing and

enable efficacy in the design and implementation of

responses directed toward export markets (Cadogan,

Diamantopoulos, and De Mortanges 1999).

Export Commitment and PerceivedPositionalAdvantages

A firm possesses a competitive advantage when it has

certain resources and capabilities that are unique and

difficult to imitate and it can present an offer to the mar-

ket that provides more value to its customers than com-

peting offers (Barney 1991). Kaleka (2002) points out

that the positional advantages derived from exporting

constitute the position the firm achieves in relation tothe combination of cost, product, and service elements

in a particular foreign market. As such, we define export

positional advantage as managerial perceptions of the

firms competitive strength (e.g., cost and product

advantages) relative to its competitors in export markets

(Albaum et al. 2003).

Studies have demonstrated that export commitment

exerts a positive effect on financial and operational per-

formance outcomes (Cavusgil and Zou 1994; Donthu

and Kim 1993; Lages, Jap, and Griffith 2008; Stump,

Athaide, and Axinn 1999). Still, the influence of export

commitment on positional advantages has not been

studied in the literature, and thus additional research isrequired. Our framing of positional advantage as an

outcome variable of note is consistent with the RBV that

capabilities contribution to performance should be

investigated by disaggregating firm performance into

key processes that are less distal from the resources

(Ray, Barney, and Muhanna 2004).

Cavusgil and Zou (1994) point out that firms commit-

ted to exporting carefully plan entry tasks and allocate

essential managerialand nonmanagerialresources to

their export ventures. For example, firms committed to

their export activity tend to offer strong support to theirdistribution partners in foreign markets, enhancing the

exchange of information to overcome resource deploy-

ment issues. In addition, firms committed to exporting

are likely to develop value-adding services (e.g., post-

sales support, customer attention). These services tend

to be highly valued by customers in foreign markets,

influencing their degree of loyalty (Beamish, Craig, and

McLellan 1993). Export commitment serves to increase



6/23

and configure information flows from the marketplaceto reduce the uncertainty and risks related to exporting. Itenables a firm to allocate resources correctly andproactively to ongoing exporting activities (Styles andAmbler 2000) to achieve positional advantages over-seas. In summary, export commitment enables a firm toorganize marketing strategy activities so that these can

be implemented, with less difficulty, to achieve advan-tage in competitive export markets. These argumentsgive rise to the following:

H1: Export commitment is positively related to

perceived positionaladvantages.

Antecedents of Export Commitment

The literature reveals a range of internal and external

factors that underpin export firm strategic actions. For

example, Lages and Montgomery (2004) combine inter-

nal and external perspectives to assert that export com-mitment stems from satisfaction with prior export per-

formance, the intensity of export market competition,

and the level of export market development. That being

said, the literature has placed emphasis on controllable,

internal drivers of export commitment. For example,

Kacker (1975) argues that export commitment is a func-

tion of top management philosophies and organiza-

tional goals, such that if management believes that

exporting is beneficial only to use up excess capacity,

the firm is expected to be less committed to exporting.

Cavusgil and Nevin (1981) and Reid (1983) both con-

tend that commitment may be a function of resource

availability. Building on this line of enquiry, we concep-

tualize a set of resources and capabilities that provide a

significant explanation of export commitment.

Effect of EMO on Export Commitment. Although there

are similarities in the conceptual application of market

orientation to domestic and foreign markets, because of

problems of accessibility and quality of information, the

greater complexity of the export environment necessi-

tates content adaptation (Cadogan et al. 2001; Van

Raaij and Stoelhorst 2008). As such, and in line with

Cadogan, Diamantopoulos, and De Mortanges (1999),

we define EMO activities as (1) the generation of mar-ket intelligence pertinent to the firms exporting opera-

tions; (2) the dissemination of this information to

appropriate decision makers; and (3) the design and

implementation of responses directed toward export

customers, export competitors, and other extraneous

export market factors that affect the firm and its ability to

provide superior value to export customers.

Our conceptualization of EMO emphasizes the abilityof a firm to learn about customers, competitors, and therest of its stakeholders so that it can continuously senseand act on events and trends in present and prospectivemarkets (Day 1994). Moreover, EMO may even beviewed as a dynamic (outside-in) capability that allowsfor the developmentof market-sensingprocesses for

gathering, interpreting, and using foreign market infor-mation in a more systematic, thoughtful, and anticipa-tory way than other firms can accomplish. Developingthis capability can assist a firm in discovering marketopportunities and designing a value proposal. Such avalue proposal affects the whole organization becausecorporate resources must be aligned to create a market-responsive firm (Cadogan and Diamantopoulos 1995).Therefore, EMO encourages firms to be more willing tocommit resources to exporting to realize the identifiedmarket opportunities (Armario, Ruiz, and Armario

2008). Thus, we hypothesize the following:

H2: EMO is positively related to exportcommitment.

Effect of Specific Export Capabilities on Export

Commitment. Specific export capabilities are essential

to processing and interpreting information coming from

the foreign markets: They facilitate the strategic

management of export marketing (OCass and Julian

2003). Zou and Stan (1998) point to specific managerial

capabilities as one of the key determinants of firms

export success. These capabilities include (1) fluency in

foreign languages and formal education in internationalbusiness, because this helps managementdevelop more

effective practices for developing and processing infor-

mation about the needs and preferences of foreign

consumers (Morgan, Kaleka, and Katsikeas 2004); (2)

permanent contacts with the foreign markets through

regular visits and/or attendance at international fairs,

because this strengthens the firms exporting focus

(Bello and Gilliland 1997); and (3) knowledge of the

foreign markets idiosyncrasies (e.g., values, culture,

lifestyle), because this reduces uncertainty in decision

making and favors the expansion of export activity

(Julien and Ramangalahy 2003). We

posit that owningspecific export capabilities serves to reinforce manage-

rial attitudes and behaviors directed toward increasing

the resources allocated to exporting. The firm is incen-

tivized to leverage specialized export capabilities

through greater export organization because doing oth-

erwise would be wasteful. Thus, we hypothesize the

following:



7/23

H3: Specific export capabilities are positively

related to export commitment.

Effects of Resources on Export Commitment. Prior

research (e.g., Morgan, Kaleka, and Katsikeas 2004) has

indicated that the resources that potentially shape export

commitment are diverse. Here, we consider resources

that are derived from the firms size, associated with the

firms experience in foreign markets, derived from the

structure available for undertaking the export activity

(i.e., an export department), and linked to systematic

information collection about foreign markets.

Relationships between firm size and export behavior

have been extensively studied in the export marketing

literature, with contradictory results (Zou and Stan

1998). However, there is agreement that larger firms

possess greater managerial and financial resources, have

greater production capacity, attain superior economies

of scale, and face lower levels of perceived risk in

exporting operations (Bonaccorsi 1992; Brouthers et al.

2009). Likewise, firm size influences the number of

employees and managers linked to exporting as well as

managerial attitudes toward allocating resources for

exporting (Katsikeas 1994). Export experience is indica-

tive of the level of knowledge about foreign markets.

Previous research has theorized that knowledge gained

through experience from business operations in a spe-

cific overseas market generates opportunities and, con-

sequently, is a driving force in a firms internationaliza-

tion (Bodur 1994). Because export experience conveys a

foreign market knowledge base, it can reduce perceivedrisks. Thus, an experienced firm should be more willing

to commit resources to exporting (Cavusgil and Zou

1994).

Furthermore, firms demonstrating high levels of export

commitment are likely to have a separate organizational

setup, such as an export department to achieve their

export goals (Katsikeas 1994). The existence of a sepa-

rate export department facilitates the design of export

marketing structures and tasks to deploy resources more

effectively (Jain 2002). It would act as a positive input

to managerial attitudes and behaviors toward export-ing. Finally, decisions related to the commitment of

resources to foreign markets will depend on the firms

level of knowledge about opportunities and threats in

those foreign markets (Cavusgil and Zou 1994). The

presence of a foreign market information collection sys-

tem helps reduce uncertainty in the development of

export marketing and thus engenders the developmentof

a more proactive attitude in approaching exporting

opportunities (Souchon and Diamantopoulos 1996).

This requires a greater level of resources committed tothe export activity, as well as a greater propensity andwillingness to keep on committing them in the future.Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:

H4: (a) Firm size, (b) export experience, (c) the

existence of an export department, and (d) theexistence of an information system for foreignmarkets are positively related to exportcommitment.

Marketing-Mix Adaptation and PerceivedPositional Advantages

Similar to other firms, exporting firms overriding goal

is operational survival through securing assets and

growing (Bradley 1984). The literature suggests that a

firms capability to achieve and sustain positional

advantages is closely linked to the efficient and effectiveexecution of a planned export marketing strategy

(Sousa, Martinez-Lopez, and Coelho 2008). Specifically,

when marketing-mix strategies are coaligned with

export venture idiosyncrasies, positive outcomes can be

expected for the firm (Cavusgil and Zou 1994).

Although the appropriateness of marketing-mix adapta-

tion rests on antecedent conditions (e.g., within the

structureconductperformance paradigm), appropriate

adaptations across exporting operations may be

unavoidable. For example, pricing adaptations can fol-

low differences in diverse factors such as marketing

objectives, competitive policies, inflation rates, and gov-ernment policies (Theodosiou and Leonidou 2003).

Indeed, appropriate levels of adaptation may vary across

marketing-mix components. That being said, Morgan,

Kaleka, and Katsikeas (2004), OCass and Julian (2003),

and several other authors argue that by developing a dif-

ferentiated marketing strategy tailored to the venture

context, exporters can build superior value offerings in

the sense that they meet local consumers needs more

closely. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

H5: Marketing-mix adaptation is positively related

to perceived positional advantages.

Antecedents of Marketing-MixAdaptation

Effect of EMO on Marketing-Mix Adaptation. Firms

with a strong EMO will be more active in their search

for, and better able to identify and take advantage of,

opportunities emerging in overseas markets than firms

lacking this capability. The generation of knowledge



8/23

about foreign markets can effectively reduce the levels ofuncertainty and risk associated with export activity.Knowledgeable firms should behave more proactivelyand confidently in adapting to the desires and needs ofeach national market (Racela, Chaikittisilpa, andThoumrungroje 2007). Specifically, firms that have rele-vant information about their foreign markets are likely

to be more willing to make adaptations to their prod-ucts, prices, promotions, and so on, than other firmsthat lack such information and make their decisions onthe basis of intuition (Cadogan and Diamantopoulos

1995). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

H6: EMO is positively related to marketing-mix

adaptation.

Effect of Specific Export Capabilities on Marketing-Mix

Adaptation . Exporting firms recognize that the idiosyn-

crasies of their foreign markets might force them to make

some adaptations to marketing-mix strategies to fit thecharacteristics of each market more closely and reduce

foreign consumers psychological distance (Leonidou,

Katsikeas, and Samiee 2002). The aim is to achieve a

proximity to foreign customers at least comparable to

traditional suppliers. To this end, it is pivotal that an

exporter knows its foreign markets well and accesses and

processes up-to-date information about these, as well as

about general international trends (Katsikeas, Piercy, and

Ioannidis 1996). Thus, the firm should employ prag-

matic procedures for collecting and appraising export

market information; its managers should remain in con-

tinuous contact with its foreign markets, have educa-

tional backgrounds pertaining to international business

and foreign trade techniques, and be fluent in foreign

languages (Bello and Gilliland 1997; Styles and Ambler

1994). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:


related to marketing-mix adaptation.

Resources and Capabilities

Effect of Specific Export Capabilities on EMO. Export

firms competitive strategies are planned patterns of

resource and capability deployment that support choices

about how the firm will compete for target customers

and achieve desired goals (Cavusgil and Zou 1994). Bet-

tis and Prahalad (1995) indicate that firms within the

same environment and with similar resources could take

different decisions and compete in different ways

because of their different capabilities. We posit that

firms could capture, process, and use information to

compete in export markets differently. Assuming that itis more difficult to adopt a market orientation in foreignmarkets than in the home market because the environ-ment is more complex and the information is less avail-able and accessible, we speculate that specific exportcapabilities are necessary to facilitate the firms exportmarket-oriented activities (Rose and Shoham 2002).

Therefore, we hypothesize the following:


related to EMO.

Effects of Resources on EMO. Behaving in a market-ori-

ented way requires considerable resource investments,

especially in the context of exporting (Cadogan, Diaman-

topoulos, and Siguaw 2002). As such, firm size may con-

dition the ability of the firm to obtain, interpret, and use

the information coming from foreign markets. For exam-

ple, Armario, Ruiz, and Armario (2008) report that

smaller exporters routinely fail to access potentially use-ful export information sources. Likewise, Francis and

Collins-Dodd (2000) point out that the amount of

human, financial, and management resources derived

from firm size has a notable influence on export orienta-

tion. Researchers have also noted that as organizations

become more experienced within their foreign markets,

their knowledge of and familiarity with export markets

increase (Diamantopoulos, Schlegelmilch, and Tse 1993).

Similarly, because knowledge is a function of experience,

in inexperienced firms, it is likely that key organizational

members may not be sufficiently knowledgeable about

the intricate details regarding export operations: If rele-vant information is not recognized as such, it is unlikely

to be passed along communication corridors (Cadogan

and Diamantopoulos 1995). Thus, experiential and infor-

mational resources are essential antecedents of EMO.

Finally, the existence of a specific structure for exporting

(i.e., an export department) improves export coordina-

tion within the firm and increases its degree of

orientation toward foreign markets (Cadogan et al. 2001).

Therefore, we hypothesize the following:


existence of an export department, and (d) theexistence of an information system for foreignmarkets are positively related to EMO.

Effects of Resources on Specific Export Capabilities.

Resources also serve as inputs to specific export capabil-

ities. In this context, the probability of developing train-

ing programs in the export business and having man-

agers and staff with capabilities required to develop

export market operations successfully will be greater in



9/23

larger than smaller firms (Gomez-Mejia 1988). Thus,we expect larger firms to exhibit greater capabilities todevelop exporting activities. Furthermore, becauseknowledge is a function of experience (Johanson andVahlne 1977), experience is a primary source of organi-zational learning. Thus, export experience will helpdefine and shape specific managerial capabilities

required for the successful development of exporting(Aaby and Slater 1989; Zou and Stan 1998). Prior

research (e.g., Donthu and Kim 1993) has also indicated

that the existence of a specific structure to support

exporting should contribute to the development of spe-

cific capabilities needed to be successful in export mar-

kets. Finally, the availability of a system to collect infor-

mation about foreign markets potentially abets

managerial capabilities because this provides manage-

ment with a continuing flow of information about con-

sumers needs, expectations,and satisfaction levels

(Katsikeas,Piercy, and Ioannidis 1996). Accordingly, we

hypothesize the following:


existence of an export department, and (d)the existence of an information system forforeign markets are positively related to spe-cific export capabilities.

EMPIRICAL STUDY

Data Collection

We performed an empirical study of Spanish export

firms. The sample is representative of the population of

exporters whose headquarters are in Spain. With regard

to the activity of Spanish export firms in general, data

from the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce

(2008) reveal a strong concentration of export activity in

a small number of firms (1% of the exporters generate

64% of total exports) and a strong geographic con-

centration in the foreign markets (70% of the exports

go to other European Union countries). The main sec-

tors are capital goods (22%), automobiles (18%), and

food (14%). The bulk of Spanish exporters qualify as

small firms (84%) (De Lucio, Mnguez, and lvarez

2007), and the majority have an export department(51%) and employees with education in international

trade (71%) (Alonso and Donoso 1998).

After we built and refined the export firm data, the total

population consisted of 1734 firms. We used a multi-

industry sample to increase observed variance and rein-

force the generalizability of the findings (Morgan,

Kaleka, and Katsikeas 2004). The data were collectedthrough personal interviews with the export managersof 150 firms selected at random (sampling error:

7.65%). The majority of the sample firms were small

(68% with fewer than 50 employees) and allocated a

small number of employees to export-related tasks

(81% with fewer than 5 export-related employees).

More than half (59%) had assigned export managers,

though a minority (33%) had an export department.

Most firms had a great amount of experience in their

business (66% with more than 16 years in their sector),

but firms with a great amount of experience in inter-

national business were a minority (59% with less than

10 years of exporting). Finally, the majority of sample

firms had a strong concentration of export sales in few

markets (93% exported to five or fewer countries).

We selected a single key informant in each firm to com-

ment on its export activity. Use of a knowledgeable,

single key informant can reduce the potential for sys-tematic and random sources of error (Huber and Power

1985). To ensure the reliability of the data source, we

required the respondents to be senior managers with a

responsibility for exporting. A specific section of the

questionnaire asked respondents for their job title and

assessed their competency in terms of knowledge of,

involvement with, and responsibilities in exporting.

High scores on the competency questions indicated that

potential sources of measurement error attributable to

the key informant were minimized.

Variable Measurement

We used reflective and formative measurementperspec-

tives to capture the study constructs. It is important that

research involving latent variables measured using dif-

ferent manifest indicators define the type of relation-

ships established between variables and indicators. Con-

ventional measurement practice in marketing and

business research is based on reflective measurement,in

which observed measures (i.e., indicators) are assumed

to reflect variation in latent constructs. The direction of

causality runs from the construct to the indicators, and

thus we expect changes in the construct to be evident inchanges in all indicators constituting the scale (Edwards

and Bagozzi 2000).

An alternative measurement approach uses formative

indicators, which are assumed to cause variation in the

construct. In other words, the indicators form or deter-

mine the construct, and the latter is modeled as a (typi-

cally linear) combination of its indicators plus a distur-



10/23

bance term (Bollen 1989). Although several studiesdevoted to formative measurement exist (e.g., Diaman-topoulos and Siguaw 2006; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, andJarvis 2005), the properties, advantages, and limitationsof formative measures still seem misunderstood. Indeed,theorists (e.g., Jarvis, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff 2003;Podsakoff, Shen, and Podsakoff 2006) assert that meas-

urement models in prior studies often are misspecified(i.e., they assume a reflective structure when a formative

approach should have been adopted),probably because of

researchers lack of familiarity with formative measures

(Diamantopoulos 2008).

Using a formative approach is particularly attractive

when building measures for highly complex constructs,

of which the current study has several. We based the

measurement perspectives developed for our multi-item

measures on MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Jarviss (2005)

recommendations for distinguishing formative and

reflective variables. We

captured perceived positionaladvantages, marketing-mix adaptation, and specific

export capabilities as first-order formative constructs.

For these, each item is related to a specific aspect of the

measured construct, so they are not interchangeable

(e.g., competitive advantage in costs does not necessarily

confer advantage in distribution). We treated EMO as a

second-order formative construct (Cadogan, Kuiva-

lainen, and Sundqvist 2009; Cadogan, Souchon, and

Procter 2008), with three reflective dimensions (i.e.,

export intelligence generation, export intelligence dis-

semination, and export market responsiveness). We

considered export commitment a second-order reflec-

tive construct with two reflective dimensions (i.e., cur-

rent export commitment and anticipated export

commitment).

We captured current export commitment and antici-

pated export commitment on four- and three-item

scales, respectively, modified from prior scales and

theory (Cavusgil and Zou 1994; Donthu and Kim

1993). We measured perceived positional advantages in

foreign markets on a six-item scale based on Albaum

and colleagues (2003) work. We captured marketing-

mix adaptation using four items that tap adaptation to

product, price, distribution, and promotion strategies(Theodosiou and Leonidou 2003). We measured each

dimension of EMO using three-item scales based on

Cadogan, Diamantopoulos, and De Mortangess (1999)

work. We assessed specific export capabilities using

three indicators modified from Julien and Ramangalahy

(2003), Leonidou, Katsikeas, and Piercy (1998), and

Morgan, Kaleka, and Katsikeas (2004). Finally, we cap-

tured the resources considered through single items:

firm size, in terms of number of employees (Bonaccorsi

1992); the firms export experience, measured by num-

ber of years exporting; the existence of a structure

specifically dedicated to the export activity in the firm,

namely, the export department (Jain 2002); and the

availability of a system for collecting information about

foreign markets (Styles and Ambler 1994). The Appen-

dix disclosesour measures.

Data Analysis

After building the different scales and obtaining the cor-

responding information, next we analyzed the data. We

tested the hypotheses using partial least squares (PLS)

because of the characteristicsof the model and sample.1

Because PLS models are analyzed and interpretedin two

stages (Barclay, Higgins, and Thompson 1995), we eval-

uated the measurement model first and then the struc-

tural model. This sequence ensured that the measures ofthe constructs were valid and reliable before we

attempted to draw conclusions about the relationships

among the constructs.

Because of the characteristics of the conceptual model

being analyzed, several considerationsshould be noted.

When analyzing the second-order constructs, it should

be remembered that this work considers molar or

molecular models rather than multiple regression mod-

els (Chin and Gopal 1995). The difference between a

molecular and a molar model is that the former shows

each first-order construct as a separate dimension, andthe set of such constructstogether representsthe second-

order construct, whereas the latter does not take into

account the interdependencies between the variables,

with the first-order constructs acting as formative fac-

tors or variables (Chin and Gopal 1995). The latter case

corresponds to the proposed model. However, building

a second-order structural model also requires a two-step

process. The first step involves estimating the model

with the indicators of the first-order factors, and the

second involves adding all these previous indicators as

indicators of the second-order factor (construct) as well.

This method is known as the hierarchical componentmodel (Wold 1979).

For the constructs with reflective measures, researchers

may examine the loadings to refine the scales. Item reli-

ability is considered adequate when the loading on its

respective construct is greater than .70 (Carmines and

Zeller 1979). Still, researchers have argued against the

rigid enforcement of this rule of thumb (Barclay, Hig-



11/23

gins, and Thompson 1995; Chin 1998). Thus, we leftreflective items that did not meet the threshold in themodel only if the rest of the reliability criteria (e.g., com-posite reliability) were fulfilled. In particular, the load-ings (.89 and .81 for current and anticipated exportcommitment, respectively) support the second-orderexport commitment structure. We assessed composite

reliability using Nunnallys (1978) benchmark of .80 forbasic research. Our reflective scales met this standard.The average variance extracted (AVE) values exceededthe minimum value of .50 that Fornell and Larcker

(1981) recommend, supporting the convergent validity

of the reflective constructs.

Finally, to assess the reflective constructs discriminant

validity, we checked that the AVE did not exceed the

variance shared with any other construct in the model

(i.e., the squared correlation between the two con-

structs) (Barclay, Higgins, and Thompson 1995). The

reflective constructs met this condition (see the correla-

tion matrix in Table 1). Furthermore, that construct

intercorrelations were significantly different than 1 for

all the study variables provides additional evidence of

discriminant validity.

To validate our formative measures, we followed recom-

mendations in the formative measurement literature

(Diamantopoulos, Riefler, and Roth 2008). To fully cap-

ture the meaning of a formative construct, a census of

indicators is required because omitting an indicator is

omitting a part of the construct (Bollen and Lennox

1991). Therefore, we took the view that omitting indi-

cators is equivalent to curbing the domain of the con-struct (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Jarvis 2005). More-

over, a major concern in estimating formative constructs

is multicollinearity. Variance inflation factors (VIF)

should be less than 5 to be able to retain a construct forthe model (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer 2001). Forthe current study, no variable exceeded 5 in the VIF,either in the first step of the second-order model or inthe definitive second-order model.

Advantages in promotion (weight = .54), costs (weight =

.37), and human resources (weight = .33) were the form-ative dimensions that contributed most to perceived

positional advantages, and strategic decisions about

adapting promotion (weight = .72) and price (weight =

.44) were the dimensions that contributed most to

marketing-mix adaptation. In the formation of EMO

activities, the main contributors were the dimensions

export intelligence generation (weight = .62) and export

market responsiveness(weight = .50). Likewise, the con-

struct specific export capabilities was well explained by

its formative indicators. Table 2 summarizesour meas-

ure validation results.

With the validity of the model confirmed, we next tested

the stability of the structural model estimates (see Table

3). We used a bootstrap approach (1000 subsamples) to

generate standard errors and statistics. We determined

support for our hypotheses by examining the sign and

significance of the t-values for each corresponding path.

The results show that export commitment was posi-

tively linked (= .27,p < .01) to the achievement of

positional advantages in foreign markets, in support ofH1. The results reveal three drivers of export commit-

ment, accounting for an explained variance for thisdependent variable of 47.4%. Specifically, EMO (=

.36,p < .01, in support of H2), specific export capabili-

ties (= .25,p < .01, in support of H3), and export

experience(= .13,p < .05, in support of H4b) had a

Table 1.Correla tionsBetwee n Con structs

1 2 3 4 5

1. Export commitment .85

2. Perceived positional advantages .42 N.A.

3. Marketing-mix adaptation .31 .55 N.A.

4. EMO .60 .42 .43 N.A.

5. Specific export capabilities .58 .36 .32 .62 N.A.

Notes: The bold number on the diagonal is the square root of the AVE; off-diagonalelements are correlations among constructs. N.A. = not applicable.



12/23

Table 2.MeasurementModelResults

Composite

ReliabilityCONSTRUCT /Dimension/Indicator VIF Weight Loading (

c) AVE

EXPORT COMMITMENT(second-orderreflective construct) .84 .73

Current Export Commitment(first-order reflective construct) .89 .85 .58

COMM 1 .75

COMM 2 .72

COMM 3 .84

COMM 4 .73

Anticipated Export Commitment(first-order reflective construct) .81 .95 .85

COMM 5 .92

COMM 6 .93

COMM 7 .92

PERCEIVED POSITIONAL ADVANTAGES(first-orderformativeconstruct) N.A. N.A.

ADV1 1.17 .03

ADV2 1.54 .17

ADV3 1.89 .23

ADV4 1.99 .54

ADV5 2.19 .33

ADV6 1.70 .37

MARKETING-MIX ADAPTATION (first-orderformativeconstruct) N.A. N.A.

PROD 2.42 .04

PRIC 2.02 .44

DIST 2.31 .05

PROM 1.65 .72

EMO (second-orderformativeconstruct) N.A. N.A.Export Intelligence Generation (first-order reflective 1.46 .62 .92 .80construct)

GEN1 .77

GEN2 .94

GEN3 .94

Export Intelligence Dissemination (first-order reflective 1.41 .10 .92 .78construct)

DIS1 .85

DIS2 .52

DIS3 .74



13/23

Table 2.Continued

Export Market Responsiveness(first-order reflective construct) 1.28 .50 .93 .82

RESP1 .91

RESP2 .81RESP3 .60

RESOURCES

S ize 1 1 1 1

Export experience 1 1 1 1

Export department 1 1 1 1

Information system 1 1 1 1

SPECIFIC EXPORT CAPABILITIES(formativeconstruct) N.A. N.A.

CAP1 1.73 .50

CAP2 1.84 .51

CAP3 1.82 .22

Notes: N.A. = not applicable.

positive influence on export commitment. In contrast,

the bulk of the resourcesthat is, firm size (=.01,p

> .05), export department (= .13,p > .05), and infor-

mation system (= .01,p > .05)were not determinants

of export commitment. Thus, H4a, H4c, and H4d cannot

be accepted. Marketing-mix adaptation linked strongly

to positional advantages ( = .47,p < .01), which con-firms H5. Taken together, the formative measures,

export commitment, and marketing-mix adaptationexplained 39.2% of the variance in perceived positionaladvantages.

The formative measures and structural relationshipsaccounted for 19.2% of the variance in marketing-mixadaptation. The results show that EMO was positively

associated( = .36,p < .01) with marketing-mix adap-

tation, confirming H6. However, contrary to H7, specific

export capabilities were not linked to marketing-mix

adaptation (= .10,p > .05).

The explained variance for EMO was 44.9%. In addi-tion to the formative dimensions, two elements wererevealed as key antecedents of EMO. First, specific

export capabilities influenced EMO activities (= .39,p

< .01), confirming H8. Second, the resource related to

organized foreign market research (i.e., an information

system) linked positively (= .32,p < .01) to EMO, in

support of H9d. The other three resourcesfirm size

(=.04,p > .05), export experience (=.02,p > .05),

and export department (= .08,p > .05)had no role

in driving EMO, failing to support H9a, H9b, and H9c.

The formativemeasuresand resource antecedentstogether

explained 46.5% of the variance in specific export capa-bilities. The resources that linked significantly to this con-

struct were the firms export experience(= .16,p < .01)

and information system (= .58,p < .01), in support of

H10b and H10d. However, neither firm size (=.01,p >

.05) nor the existence of an export department (= .06,

p > .05) shaped managerial capabilities required in export-ing activity. Therefore, H10aand H10ccannot be accepted.

Our structural model results imply mediation roles of

export commitment and marketing-mix adaptation in

linking export experience, specific export capabilities,

and/or EMO to perceived positional advantages.Nonetheless, in line with Zhao, Lynch, and Chen

(2010), we reran the analysis to obtain Baron and

Kennys coefficients a (for independent variable

mediator paths), b (for mediatordependent variable

paths), and c (for independent variabledependent

variable paths). The Sobel z-test, applied to our boot-

strap output, confirmed that there is indirect-only medi-

ation (i.e., significant ab, together with nonsignificant



14/23

Table 3.Structu ralM od elRe sults

Path t-Value

Hypothesis Coefficient () (Bootstrap) Support

H1: Export commitmentpositional advantages .27 3.25* * Yes

H2: EMO

export commitment .36 3.79* * Yes

H3: Specific export capabilitiesexport commitment .25 2.37* * Yes

H4a: Firm sizeexport commitment .01 .13n.s. No

H4b: Export experienceexport commitment .13 2.06* Yes

H4c: Export departmentexport commitment .13 1.59n.s. No

H4d: Information systemexport commitment .01 .11n.s. No

H5: Marketing-mix adaptationpositional advantages .47 6.46* * Yes

H6: EMOmarketing-mix adaptation .36 3.20* * Yes

H7: Specific export capabilitiesmarketing-mix adaptation .10 .79n.s. No

H8: Specific export capabilitiesEMO .39 3.65* * Yes

H9a: Firm sizeEMO .04 .43n.s. No

H9b: Export experienceEMO .02 .29n.s. No

H9c: Export departmentEMO .08 1.22n.s. No

H9d: Information system

EMO .32 3.16* * Yes

H10a: Firm sizespecific export capabilities .01 .23n.s. No

H10b: Export experiencespecific export capabilities .16 3.00* * Yes

H10c: Export departmentspecific export capabilities .06 1.02n.s. No

H10d: Information systemspecific export capabilities .58 8.89* * Yes

*p < .05.**p < .01.

Notes: Items marked with superscript n.s. are not significant (based on t (999), one-tailed test).

c effects, atp < .05) of export commitment in the rela-

tionships of export experience, specific export capabili-

ties, and EMO with positional advantage and ofmarketing-mix adaptation in the link between EMO

and positional advantages.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This study makes several contributions to existing

theory on export marketing strategy management.

First, although the exporting literature has consis-

tently emphasized the criticality of marketing-mix

strategyperformance relationships (Sousa, Martinez-

Lopez, and Coelho 2008), far less is known about

strategy implementationrelated outcomes. The study is

novel in theorizing that managers committed to export-

ing carefully plan the entry and allocate sufficient mana-

gerial and nonmanagerial resources to their ventures.

We extend prior research on the role of export commit-

ment as an organizing structure (e.g., Beamish et al.1999; Cavusgil and Zou 1994) by revealing mediating

mechanisms through which export commitment con-

nects resources and capabilities to positional advan-

tages. As such, export commitment enables firms to

effectively implement resource-led strategy.

In particular, significant recent research has focused on

the relationship between EMO and performance. Stud-

ies (e.g., Cadogan, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw 2002)

have shown that firms that are market oriented can rec-

ognize and respond to global opportunities more effec-

tively in todays competitive environment. We add to the

emerging understanding of EMO by revealing that

market-sensing capabilities may be leveraged produc-

tively through export commitment.



15/23

Second, prior work (e.g., Lages, Jap, and Griffith 2008)has found that export commitment increases the likeli-hood of success in foreign markets, but our studyassumes a direct link to performance outcomes. To thebest of our knowledge, ours is the first study to test theRBV logic that export commitment is directly linked topositional advantage in export markets. Furthermore,

our RBV framing provides a comprehensive explanationof drivers of export commitment. We show that experi-ential resources, specific capabilities in the developmentof export activity (e.g., skills in languages, training inexport operations, permanent contact with foreign cus-tomers and distributors), and EMO are essentialantecedents of export commitment.

Third, the international marketing literature reveals that

resources are complementary inputs of capabilities (Yal-

cinkaya, Calantone, and Griffith 2007) and that both

are indirect determinants of positional advantages in

foreign markets (Morgan, Kaleka, and Katsikeas 2004).

Our study adds precise new insights to this literaturestream: that firms with greater export experience and

better information systems with respect to foreign

operations can deploy exporting capabilities more effec-

tively (e.g., through export commitment).

Fourth, we juxtapose the general commitment (e.g., Kim

and Frazier 1997) and export commitment (e.g., Lages

and Montgomery 2004) literature streams to develop a

multidimensional conceptualization of export commit-

ment that takes into account current and anticipated

commitment levels. The study results nomologically

validate our unorthodox position that export commit-ment is a manifest behavior and a favorable disposition to

facilitate the development of exporting as an ongoing

course of action (Stump, Athaide, and Axinn 1999).

This study also informs exporting research by emphasizing

methodological features pertaining to formative measure

development. We overcome one of the weaknesses that

Diamantopouloss (e.g., 2008) body of work observes:

that research in the export marketing area is characterized

by the implicit or explicit use of reflective indicators. Few

exporting studies use formative indicators, despite their

superiority for capturing certain complex variables. Ourstudy is novel in analyzing firms export processes using

formative and reflective constructs.

Implications for Management

Managers can use our findings to systematizedecisions

and actions associated with their firms export activity.

Specific implications can be drawn from the study. First,managers should note that export commitment is funda-mental to the success of exporting strategic action: Thisstrategic factor plays a central organizing role in theimplementationof resource-basedstrategy. Export com-mitment mediates the relationships between multipleresources and capabilities and perceived positional

advantages in foreign markets and thus is deserving ofmanagerial attention (e.g., alongside marketing-mixadaptation). In this context, export experience posi-tively affects the human, financial, and managementresources that the firms management is ready to dedi-cate to its export activity; no such effect exists for thefirms size and whether it has an export department andinformation system germane to foreign markets. Like-wise, export commitment increases with the develop-ment of specific export capabilities and EMO or market-sensing activities. In summary, various knowledgeresources and processes of the firm require export com-mitment to translate into managers perceptions of

higher positional advantages in foreign markets.

Second, the firm can satisfy the needs and desires of for-

eign consumers more effectively than its competitors if it

adapts elements of its marketing mix. To this end, we

reveal that EMO is the sole driver of marketing-mix

adaptation, which mediates the pathway between EMO

and positional advantage. Again, it is important that

managers place emphasis on obtaining relevant infor-

mation about the market and enhancing speed of

response to changes in the environment. Both acquiring

and disseminating relevant market information encour-

age the firm to behave more proactively in adapting to

the desires and needs of each export market (Armario,

Ruiz, and Armario 2008).

Third, firms should use their selection and training pro-

grams to ensure that export managers have strong skills

in foreign languages and foreign trade techniques, as

well as a good knowledge of the idiosyncrasies of for-

eign markets. Such specific export capabilities exert

their positive effect on marketing strategy actions indi-

rectly through EMO activities. Information system

resources conducive to foreign market research likewise

serve as input to EMO. Finally, we find that specific

export capabilities are a function of experiential andinformational resources. Taken together, our results sug-

gest that managers should develop and harness experi-

ence and information system resources, rather than firm

size and export department resources, in exploiting

strategic resourcesstrategicactionscompetitiveadvan-

tage linkages.



16/23

Limitations and Future ResearchDirections This study makes novel contributions tothe export marketing literature but suffers from

limitations that should constitute the starting point for

further research. First, because the data on the study

constructswere self- reported from a single

questionnaire, the possibility of common methodvariance exists. Following Huber and Powers (1985)

and Podsakoff and colleagues (2003) advice and

bearing in mind that the data could not be obtained

from different sources without great difficulty, we

employed various procedural remedies related to

quest ionnaire design (e.g. , protecting respondent

anonymity, varying scale anchors). Furthermore, we

assessed the possibility of common influence across all

responses using Harmans one-factor test (Podsakoff

and Organ 1986). Using a factor analysis, we identified

no single factor that explained variance across the items.

Of the six factors that emerged (export commitment,marketing-mix adaptation, perceived positional advan-

tages, EMO, specific export capabilities, and resources),

the main factor explained only 36% of the variance.

That no factor explained 50% or more of the variance

indicates that methods bias is unlikely (Podsakoff and

Organ 1986). That being said, we cannot rule out com-

mon method bias completely.

The second limitation involves the studys cross-

sectional nature. The data collected refer to a specific

moment in time, and it would be useful to carry out a

longitudinal study to analyze how strategic modifica-tions to the firm and changes in its business profile

affect its current and future export commitments. A

third limitation involves the sample used, which comes

from a single country (Spain). Although the majority of

empirical studies in the export activity field involve

single-country samples (Leonidou, Katsikeas, and

Samiee 2002), further research using multicountry sam-

ples would reinforce the generalizability of our findings.

Fourth, this study evaluates the adaptation of the mar-

keting strategy to foreign markets by globally consider-

ing price, distribution, promotion, and product ele-

ments. It could be advantageous theoretically and

pragmatically to analyze the degree of adaptation of

each of the marketing-mix elements separately (Lages,

Jap, and Griffith 2008). The fifth limitation is that our

model does not consider many other (e.g., external)

antecedentsof the dependentvariables, such as charac-

teristics of the product being exported (Shoham 1999),

level of competition in and development of export mar-

kets (Lages and Montgomery 2004), type of relationship

between the export firm and its foreign distributors

(Racela, Chaikittisilpa, and Thoumrungroje 2007), and

so on. These additional antecedents might haveimproved the variance explained in the dependent

variables.

Finally, a more complete view of the firms strategic

actions would require an analysis of other marketing

organization characteristics (e.g., pertaining to struc-

tural and task characteristics; Vorhies and Morgan

2003) that may shape export strategy implementation

and other strategic choices (e.g., positioning and market

selection strategies) that may affect positional advan-

tages in export markets (Leonidou, Katsikeas, and

Samiee 2002). Further research could determinewhether export marketing organization fit with export

marketing strategy delivers superior performance

outcomes.

Appendix. Measures

Export Commitment

The following blocks of questions aim to determine your firms commitment to export activity. Please answeron a scale of 17(1 = very low, and 7 = very high).

Current Export Commitment

COMM 1 The level of time and effort our firms management currently commits to export activity is ...

COMM 2 The level of financial resources currently committed to export activity is . ..

COMM 3 The level of human resources currently committed to export activity is ...

COMM 4 Compared to the Spanish market, the resources currently committed to export activity are . ..



17/23

Appendix.Continued

Anticipated Export Commitment

COMM 5 The level of time and effort that the management will be willing to commit to export activity is ...

COMM 6 The level of financial resources that the management will be willing to commit to export activity is ...

COMM 7 The level of human resources that the management will be willing to commit to export activity is ...

PerceivedPositionalAdvantages

Indicate generally your firms competitive position compared to its main rivals in its foreign markets with respect to the follow-

ing concepts, using a scale of 17 (1 = much worse, and 7 = much better).

ADV1 Product differentiation

ADV2 Price

ADV3 Distribution

ADV4 Promotion or communication

ADV5 Human resources

ADV6 Costs

Marketing-Mix Adaptation

The following block of questions aims to find out the extent to which your firm adapts the four marketing-mix variables in its

foreign markets compared to its home market. Please answer on a scale of 17 (1 = not at all, and 7 = substantially).

PROD Product

PRIC Price

DIST Distribution

PROM Promotion or communication

EMO

The following blocks of questions aim to evaluate your firms level of export market orientation, using a scale of 17 (1 =totally disagree, and 7 = totally agree).

Export Intelligence Generation

GEN1 In our firm, we systematically collect information about our foreign markets (needs, desires, level of satisfaction

with our products, etc.).

GEN2 In our firm, we systematically collect information about our rivals actions in our foreign markets (price policy,

product, market segments targeted, etc.).

GEN3 In our firm, we systematically collect information about any changes in our export environment (technologies,

regulations,economic aspects, etc.).

Export Intelligence Dissemination

DIS1 In our firm, there is a fluid communication between the different departments/employeesabout any changes occur-

ring in our export markets (customers, competitors, environment).

DIS2 In our firm, we have regular meetings to discuss the trends and developments in our export markets.

DIS3 In our firm there is a strong collaboration between staff involved in the export activity and the other departments

(R&D, finance, accounting, etc.).

Export Market Responsiveness

RESP1 Our firm tends to respond quickly to changes detected with respect to our foreign customers.



18/23

Appendix.Continued

RESP2 Our firm tends to respond quickly to changes detected with respect to our foreign rivals actions.

RESP3 Our firm tends to respond quickly to changes detected in our export environment.

SpecificExportCapabilities

The following block of questions aims to evaluate managerial capabilities related to export activity, using a scale of 17 (1 =

totally disagree, and 7 = totally agree).

CAP1 Our managers dedicated to exports have strong knowledge of: foreign languages,foreign trade techniques,etc.

CAP2 Our managers with responsibility for exports visit our foreign markets regularly and/or participate regularly in

international trade fairs.

CAP3 Our export managers have a strong knowledge of the values, culture, and customs prevalent in our foreign

markets.

Resources

Firm size Total number of employees in the firm

Export experience Number of years exporting

Export department Firm has export department (yes/no)

Information system Our firm has a system to collect information allowing us to investigate and assess foreign markets (1

totally disagree, and 7 = totally agree).

NOTE

1. For the empirical study, we used the statistics package

PLS-Graph (Chin and Frye 2003).

REFERENCES

Aaby, Nils-Erik and Stanley F. Slater (1989), Management

Influences on Export Performance: A Review of the Empirical

Literature 19781988, International Marketing Review, 6

(4), 726.

Albaum, Gerald, David K. Tse, George C. Hozier Jr., and Ken-

neth G. Baker (2003), Extending Marketing Activities and

Strategies from Domestic to Foreign Markets, Journal of

Global Marketing, 16 (3), 105129.

Alonso, Jos A. and Vicente Donoso (1998), Competir en el

Exterior. La Empresa Espaola y los Mercados Interna-cionales. Madrid: Editorial ICEX.

Armario, Julia M., David M. Ruiz, and Enrique M. Armario(2008), Market Orientation and Internationalization in

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Journal of Small Busi-

ness Management, 46 (4), 485511.

Barclay, Donald, Christopher Higgins, and Ronald L. Thomp-

son (1995), The Partial Least Squares Approach to Causal

Modeling: Personal Computer Adoption and Use as an Illus-

tration, TechnologyStudies, 2 (2), 285309.

Barney, Jay (1991), Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive

Advantage,Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99120.

Beamish, Paul W., Ron Craig, and Kerry McLellan (1993), The

Performance Characteristics of Canadian Versus U.K.Exporters in Small and Medium Sized Firms,Management

International Review, 33 (2), 121137.

, Lambros Karavis, Anthony Goerzen, and Christopher

Lane (1999), The Relationship Between Organizational

Structure and Export Performance, Management Inter-

national Review, 39 (1), 3754.

Bello, Daniel C. and Hiram C. Barksdale (1986), Exporting at

Industrial Trade Shows,Industrial Marketing Management,

15 (3), 197206.

and David I. Gilliland (1997), The Effect of Output

Controls, Process Controls, and Flexibility on Export ChannelPerformance,Journal of Marketing, 61 (January), 2238.

Bettis, Richard A. and C.K. Prahalad (1995), The Dominant

Logic: Retrospective and Extension, Strategic Management

Journal, 16 (1), 514.

Black, Janice A. and Kimberly B. Boal (1994), Strategic

Resources:Traits, Configurations and Paths to Sustainable



19/23

Competitive Advantage, Strategic Management Journal, 15

(S2), 13148.

Bodur, Muzaffer (1994), Foreign Market Indicators, Structural

Resources and Marketing Strategies as Determinants of

Export Performance, in Advances in International Market-

ing, Vol. 6, C.N. Axinn, ed. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,

183205.

Bollen, Kenneth A. (1989), Structural Equations with LatentVariables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

and Richard Lennox (1991), Conventional Wisdom on

Measurement: A Structural Equation Perspective, Psycho-

logical Bulletin, 110 (2), 305314.

Bonaccorsi, Andrea (1992), On the Relationship Between Firm

Size and Export Intensity, Journal of International Business

Studies, 23 (4), 605635.

Bradley, M.F. (1984), Effects of Cognitive Style, Attitude

Toward Growth, and Motivation on the Internationalizationof the Firm, inResearch in Marketing, Vol. 7, Jagdish Sheth,

ed. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 23760.

Brouthers, Lance E., George Nakos, John Hadjimarcou, and

Keith D. Brouthers (2009), Key Factors for Successful Export

Performance for Small Firms, Journal of International Mar-

keting, 17 (3), 2138.

Cadogan, John W. and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (1995),Narver and Slater, Kohli and Jaworski and the Market Ori-

entation Construct: Integration and Internationalization,

Journal of Strategic Marketing, 3 (1), 4170.

, , and Charles Pahud de Mortanges (1999), A

Measure of Export Market Orientation: Scale Construction

and Cross-Cultural Validation, Journal of International

BusinessStudies, 30 (4), 689707.

, , and Judy A. Siguaw (2002), Export Market-

Oriented Activities: Their Antecedents and Performance Con-

sequences,Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (3),

61526.

, Olli Kuivalainen, and Sanna Sundqvist (2009), Export

Market-Oriented Behavior and Export Performance: Qua-

dratic and Moderating Effects Under Differing Degrees of

Market Dynamism and Internationalization, Journal of

International Marketing, 17 (4), 7189.

, Nicola J. Paul, Risto T. Salminen, Kaisu Puumalainen,

and Sanna Sundqvist (2001), Key Antecedents to Export

Market-Oriented Behaviors: A Cross-National EmpiricalExamination, International Journal of Research in Market-

ing, 18 (3), 26182.

, Anne L. Souchon, and David B. Procter (2008), The

Quality of Market-Oriented Behaviors: Formative Index Con-

struction, Journal of BusinessResearch, 61 (12), 126377.

Carmines, Edward G. and Richard A. Zeller (1979),Reliability

and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Cavusgil, S. Tamer and John R. Nevin (1981), Internal Deter-minants of Export Marketing Behavior: An Empirical Investi-gation, Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February),

11419.

and Shaoming Zou (1994), Marketing Strategy-

Performance Relationship: An Investigation of the Empirical

Link in Export Market Ventures, Journal of Marketing, 58

(January), 121.

Chin, Wynne W. (1998), The Partial Least Squares Approach

to Structural Equation Modeling, in Modern Methods for

BusinessResearch, G.A. Marcoulides, ed. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,295336.

and T.A. Frye (2003),PLS-Graph: Version 3.00 Build

1016. Houston: University of Houston.

and Abhijit Gopal (1995), Adoption Intention in GSS:

Relative Importance on Beliefs, Data Base Advances, 26

(23), 4263.

Day, George S. (1994), The Capabilities of Market-Driven

Organizations,Journal of Marketing, 58 (October), 3751.

and Robin Wensley (1988), Assessing Advantage: A

Framework for Diagnosing Competitive Superiority,Journal

of Marketing, 52 (April), 120.

De Lucio, Juan J., Ral Mnguez, and Daniel lvarez (2007),El Tamao de la Empresa Exportadora e ImportadoraEspaola, Informacin Comercial Espa ola, BoletnEcon mico, 2908, 1330.

Dhanaraj, Charles and Paul W. Beamish (2003), A Resource-

Based Approach to the Study of Export Performance,Jour-

nal of Small Business Management, 41 (3), 24261.

Diamantopoulos, Adamantios (2008), Formative Indicators:Introduction to the Special Issue, Journal of Business

Research, 61 (12), 12011202.

, Petra Riefler, and Katharina P. Roth (2008), Advanc-

ing Formative Measurement Models, Journal of Business

Research, 61 (12), 12031218.

, Bodo B. Schlegelmilch, and K.Y. Katy Tse (1993),Understanding the Role of Export Marketing Assistance:

Empirical Evidence and Research Needs, European Journal

of Marketing, 27 (4), 519.

and Judy A. Siguaw (2006), Formative Versus Reflec-

tive Indicators in Organizational Measure Development: A

Comparison and Empirical Illustration, British Journal ofManagement, 17 (4), 26382.

and Heidi M. Winklhofer (2001), Index Construction

with Formative Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Develop-

ment, Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (May), 26977.

Donthu, Naveen and Sam H. Kim (1993), Implications of Firm

Controllable Factors on Export Growth,Journal of Global

Marketing, 7 (1), 4763.



20/23

Edwards, Jeffrey R. and Richard P. Bagozzi (2000), On theNature and Direction of Relationships Between Constructsand Measures,Psychological Methods, 5 (2), 15574.

Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), Evaluating Struc-

tural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Mea-

surement Error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (Febru-

ary), 3950.

Francis, June and Collen Collin-Dodd (2000), The Impact of

Firms Export Orientation on the Export Performance of

High-Tech Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Journal of

International Marketing, 8 (3), 84103.

Frazier, Gary L. and Raymond C. Rody (1991), The Use of

Influence Strategies in Interfirm Relationships in Industrial

Product Channels, Journal of Marketing, 55 (January),

5269.

Gmez-Mejia, Luis R. (1988), The Role of Human Resources

Strategy in Export Performance: A Longitudinal Study,

Strategic ManagementJournal, 9 (5), 493505.

Hamel, Gary and C.K. Prahalad (1994), Competing for the

Future. Boston: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Huber, G.P. and D.J. Power (1985), Retrospective Reports of

Strategic-Level Managers: Guidelines for Increasing Their

Accuracy,Strategic ManagementJournal, 6 (2), 17180.

Hultman, Magnus, Matthew J. Robson, and Constantine S.

Katsikeas (2009), Export Product Strategy Fit and Perfor-

mance: An Empirical Investigation, Journal of International

Marketing, 17 (4), 123.

Jain, Subhash C. (2002), Marketing Internacional. Mexico:

Thomson International.

Jarvis, Cheryl B., Scott B. MacKenzie, and Philip M. Podsakoff

(2003), A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Mea-

surement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Con-

sumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2),

199218.

Jean,Ruey-Jer, Rudolf R. Sinkovics, and Daekwan Kim (2010),

Drivers and Performance Outcomes of Relationship Learn-

ing for Suppliers in Cross-Border Customer-Supplier Relation-

ships: The Role of Communication Culture, Journal of Inter-

national Marketing, 18 (1), 6385.

Johanson, Jan and Jan-Erik Vahlne (1977), The Internationali-zation Process of the Firm: A Model of Knowledge Develop-

ment and Increasing Foreign Market Commitments, Journal

of InternationalBusiness Studies, 8 (1), 2332.

Julien, Pierre-Andre and Charles Ramangalahy (2003),

Competitive Strategy and Performance of Exporting SMEs:

An Empirical Investigation of the Impact of Their Export

Information Search and Competencies, Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 27 (3), 22745.

Kacker, Madhav P. (1975), Export Oriented Product Adapta-tion: Its Patterns and Problems, Management InternationalReview, 15 (6), 6170.

Kaleka, Anna (2002), Resources and Capabilities Driving

Competitive Advantage in Export Markets: Guidelines for

Industrial Exporters, Industrial Marketing Management, 31

(3), 27383.

Katsikeas, Constantine S. (1994), Export Competitive Advan-

tages: The Relevance of Firm Characteristics, International

Marketing Review, 11 (3), 3353.

, Nigel F. Piercy, and Chris Ioannidis (1996), Determi-

nants of Export Performance in a European Context,Euro-

pean Journal of Marketing, 30 (6), 635.

Kim, Keysuk and Gary L. Frazier (1997), Measurement of Dis-

tributor Commitment in Industrial Channels of Distribution,

Journal of BusinessResearch, 40 (2), 13954.

Lages, Luis Filipe, Sandy D. Jap, and David A. Griffith (2008),The Role of Past Performance in Export Ventures: A Short-

Term Reactive Approach, Journal of International BusinessStudies, 39 (2), 304325.

and David B. Montgomery (2004), Export Perfor-

mance as an Antecedent of Export Commitment and Market-

ing Strategy Adaptation: Evidence from Small and Medium

Sized Exporters,European Journal of Marketing, 38 (910),

1186214.

, Graa Silva, and Chris Styles (2009), Relationship

Capabilities, Quality, and Innovation as Determinants of

Export Performance, Journal of International Marketing, 17

(4), 4770.

Leonidou, Leonidas C., Constantine S. Katsikeas, and Nigel F.

Piercy (1998), Identifying Managerial Influences on Export-

ing: Past Research and Future Directions, Journal of Inter-


, , and Saeed Samiee (2002), Marketing Strategy

Determinants of Export Performance: A Meta-Analysis,

Journal of BusinessResearch, 55 (1), 5167.

MacKenzie, Scott B., Philip M. Podsakoff, and Cheryl B. Jarvis(2005), The Problem of Measurement Model Misspecifica-

tion in Behavioral and Organizational Research and Some

Recommended Solutions,Journal of Applied Psychology, 90

(4), 71030.

Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce (2008),Foreign

Trade Statistics. Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce

(Spain).

Morgan, Neil A., Anna Kaleka, and Constantine S. Katsikeas

(2004), Antecedents of Export Venture Performance: A

Theoretical Model and Empirical Assessment, Journal of

Marketing, 68 (January), 90108.



21/23

Naidu, G.M. and V. Kanti Prasad, (1994), Predictors of ExportStrategy on Export Sales Performance, Journal of BusinessResearch, 31 (23), 107115.

Nunnally, Jum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory. New York:McGraw-Hill.

OCass, Aron and Craig Julian (2003), Examining Firm and

Environmental Influences on Export Marketing Mix Strategy

and Export Performance of Australian Exporters, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, 37 (34), 36684.

Pauwels, Pieter and Paul Matthyssens (1999), A Strategy

Process Perspective on Export Withdrawal, Journal of Inter-national Marketing, 7 (3), 1037.

Podsakoff, Nathan P., Wei Shen, and Philip M. Podsakoff(2006), The Role of Formative Measurement Models in

Strategic ManagementResearch:Review, Critique, and Impli-

cations for Future Research, in Research Methodology in

Strategy and Management, Vol. 3, David J. Ketchen Jr. and

Donald M. Berg, eds. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 201256.

Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and

Nathan P. Podsakoff (2003), Common Method Biases in

Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and

RecommendedRemedies,Journal of Applied Psychology, 88

(5), 879903.

and Dennis W. Organ (1986), Self-Reports in Organi-

zational Research: Problems and Prospects, Journal of Man-

agement, 12 (4), 53144.

Racela, Olimpia C., Chawit Chaikittisilpa, and Amonrat

Thoumrungroje (2007), Market Orientation, International

Business Relationships and Perceived Export Performance,

International Marketing Review, 24 (2), 14463.

Ray, Gautam, Jay B. Barney, and Waleed A. Muhanna (2004),Capabilities, Business Processes, and Competitive Advan-

tage: Choosing the Dependent Variable in Empirical Tests of

the Resource-BasedView,Strategic Management Journal, 25

(1), 2337.

Reid, Stan (1983), Firm Internationalization Transaction Cost

and Strategic Choice,International Marketing Review, 1 (2),

4456.

Rose, Gregory M. and Aviv Shoham (2002), Export Perfor-

mance and Market Orientation: Establishing an Empirical

Link, Journal of BusinessResearch, 55 (3), 21725.

Shoham, Aviv (1999), Bounded Rationality, Planning, Stan-

dardization of International Strategy, and Export Perfor-

mance: A Structural Model Examination, Journal of Inter-


Singer, Thomas Owen and Michael R. Czinkota (1994), Fac-

tors Associated with Effective Use of Export Assistance,

Journal of International Marketing, 2 (1), 5371.

Souchon, Anne L. and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (1996), A

Conceptual Framework of Export Marketing Information

Use: Key Issues and Research Propositions,Journal of Inter-national Marketing, 4 (3), 4971.

Sousa, Carlos M.P., Francisco J. Martnez-Lpez, and Filipe

Coelho (2008), The Determinants of Export Performance: A

Review of the Research in the Literature Between 1998 and

2005,International Journal of Management Reviews, 10 (4),34374.

Stump, Rodney L., Gerard A. Athaide, and Catherine N. Axinn(1999), The Conceptualization and Measurement of Export

Commitment, inMarketing Theory and Applications, Vol.

10, Anil Menon and Arun Sharma, eds. Chicago: American

Marketing Association, 8283.

Styles, Chris and Tim Ambler (1994), Successful Export Prac-

tice: The UK Experience, International Marketing Review,

11 (6), 2347.

and (2000), The Impact of Relational Variables

on Export Performance: An Empirical Investigation in Aus-

tralia and the UK, Australian Journal of Management, 25

(3), 26181.

Teece, David J., Gary Pisano, and Amy Shuen (1997),Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management,Strategic

Management Journal, 18 (7), 509535.

Theodosiou, Marios and Leonidas C. Leonidou (2003), Stan-

dardization Versus Adaptation of International Marketing

Strategy: An Integrative Assessment of the Empirical

Research,International Business Review, 12 (2), 14171.

Van Raaij, Erik M. and J.W. Stoelhorst (2008), The Implemen-

tation of a Market Orientation: A Review and Integration of

the Contributions to Date,European Journal of Marketing,

42 (1112), 126593.

Vorhies, Douglas and Neil A. Morgan (2003), A Configura-tion Theory Assessment of Marketing Organization Fit with

Business Strategy and Its Relationship with Marketing Perfor-

mance,Journal of Marketing, 67 (January), 100115.

Wold, H. (1979), Model Construction and Evaluation When

Theoretical Knowledge Is Scarce: An Example of the Use of

Partial Least Squares. Genve: Universit de Genve.

Yalcinkaya, G

strategic managament 13

Documents