A Meta Analytic Synthesis of How Market and Entrepreneuria 2023 Industrial M

Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 1–22
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Industrial Marketing Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indmarman
A meta-analytic synthesis of how market and entrepreneurial orientation

contribute to export performance: Do home country institutions matter?
İlayda İpek a, *, Nilay Bıçakcıoğlu-Peynirci b, Ayça Kübra Hizarcı c
a
Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Business, Dokuz Eylül University, Tınaztepe Yerleşkesi, 35390, Buca İzmir, Turkey
b
Marketing & Strategy Department, University of Sussex Business School, Jubilee Building Falmer, BN1 9SL, United Kingdom
c
Department of International Business and Trade, Faculty of Business, Dokuz Eylül University, Tınaztepe Yerleşkesi 35390, Buca İzmir, Turkey
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Although the related streams of research have witnessed a burgeoning interest in recent decades, empirical
Market orientation evidence on how strategic orientations are relevant to export performance remains inconclusive. Therefore, this
Entrepreneurial orientation research aims to review and quantitatively synthesize the existing literature on the relationship between strategic
Export performance
orientations and export performance by investigating the moderating effects of home country institutions and
Home country institutions
Meta-analysis
measurement factors. Meta-analyzing 42 empirical articles containing 11,518 firms with 185 effect sizes, this
study provides strong support for the favorable effects of both market and entrepreneurial orientation on the
multiple facets of export performance. Besides, the meta-analysis has uncovered that the magnitude of the
correlation between market orientation and export performance is contingent upon the uncertainty avoidance
dimension of national culture; but not upon the formal institutions in the home country. Further, the association
between entrepreneurial orientation and export performance has been found to be moderated by formal as well
as informal institutions of the home country. Significant variations in the influences of market and entrepre
neurial orientation on export performance have also been spotted depending on measurement factors, particu
larly upon objective and subjective measures for assessing export performance and the dimensional nature of the
strategic orientation scales.
1. Introduction Story, & Cadogan, 2013). Relying on the suggestion that learning pro
vides a strong basis for both MO and EO (Baker & Sinkula, 2009), MO
It is indubitable that the marketplace has undergone a considerable and EO are strongly intertwined (Grinstein, 2008a). In line with this,
transformation over the last decades (Lisboa, Skarmeas, & Lages, 2011). many researchers have acknowledged the complementary role of MO
The disappearance of trade barriers resulted in the emergence of cutting- and EO (Atuahene-Gima & Ko, 2001; Boso, Cadogan, & Story, 2012).
edge technology, never-ending competition, and new opportunities and Besides, these two strategic orientations have a high degree of interre
challenges (Cadogan, Boso, Story, & Adeola, 2016). In response to these latedness, which helps them strive for super-additive performance by
developments, market orientation (MO) and entrepreneurial orientation the help of generating synergistic outcomes (Grinstein, 2008a; Hakala,
(EO) have come into prominence and gained an aspirational appeal with 2011; Schweiger, Stettler, Baldauf, & Zamudio, 2019).
their superior firm-level outcomes (Boso, Oghazi, & Hultman, 2017; It is also critical to note that both MO and EO enable one to gain
Kirca, Jayachandran, & Bearden, 2005; Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & lucrative outcomes, particularly in industrial and business-to-business
Frese, 2009). MO and EO are complementary in that entrepreneurial (B2B) markets (Cui, Fan, Guo, & Fan, 2018; Wilden, Gudergan, &
proclivity expedites the market learning process, identifying the Lings, 2019). Industrial firms usually diversify into new markets and
requirement to control environmental ambiguity and supporting need to control geographically distant relationships, which are apt to be
reasonable risk-taking (Matsuno, Mentzer, & Özsomer, 2002). Besides, long-lasting and costly to be broken down (Gregory, Ngo, & Karavdic,
whereas firms with higher EO mostly encounter uncertain and risky 2019; Liao, Chang, Wu, & Katrichis, 2011). In this sense, it is essential
situations, which bring about a greater chance for expansion, market- for industrial firms to be deeply involved in firm-customer interactions
oriented firms lean toward less unsafe and unsettled tasks (Boso, and to scrutinize the market for capitalizing on business opportunities
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ilayda.gungor@deu.edu.tr (İ. İpek), N.Bicakcioglu-Peynirci@sussex.ac.uk (N. Bıçakcıoğlu-Peynirci), ayca.hizarci@deu.edu.tr (A.K. Hizarcı).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.11.001
Received 14 September 2020; Received in revised form 27 October 2022; Accepted 1 November 2022
Available online 10 November 2022
0019-8501/© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
İ. İpek et al. Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 1–22
by pursuing a proactive perspective (Genc, Dayan, & Genc, 2019; O’Cass through a supportive mechanism that assists in arriving at necessary
& Ngo, 2012). Along with the complicated nature of B2B markets and information in foreign markets (Ma, Ding, & Yuan, 2016).
the large requirement for establishing sustainable customer relation Moreover, a meta-analytic synthesis can shed light on the in
ships, industrial firms should formulate a competitive strategy to consistencies among the studies by identifying measurement charac
respond to market changes actively and maintain a stance against rival teristics that affect the link between strategic orientations and export
movements (Genc et al., 2019; Reijonen, Hirvonen, Nagy, Laukkanen, & performance. There is still no consensus on the measurement indicators
Gabrielsson, 2015). In doing so, MO and EO have a prominent place in utilized for conceptualizing and operationalizing export performance in
industrial and B2B markets (Cui et al., 2018; O’Cass & Ngo, 2012). the pertinent literature (Chen et al., 2016). This circumstance reflects
Given the uncertain and complex environments in industrial and B2B the difficulties in interpreting and comparing different findings from
export markets, understanding stimulating factors that could aid in distinctive studies in a specific field of inquiry (Oliveira, Cadogan, &
cultivating export performance has still been an ongoing discussion in Souchon, 2012). Several measures of export performance can be
the industrial marketing literature (Chen, Sousa, & He, 2016). addressed in two groups: (a) objective measures, implying absolute
Contemporary research has elaborated export strategic orientations as values, and; (b) subjective measures, comprising perceptual or attitu
critical precursors of industrial exporters’ success, which hone superior dinal indicators (Shoham, Rose, & Kropp, 2005). It could also help to
export performance (Cadogan et al., 2016; Gerschewski, Rose, & Lind explain why the effects of MO and EO on export performance produce
say, 2015). In this regard, MO and EO are cardinal strategic orientations, different and contrasting results owing to the measurement character
as they capture how industrial exporting organizations elevate perfor istics of the export performance construct. Besides, there is an ongoing
mance indicators in foreign markets (e.g., Murray, Gao, & Kotabe, discussion on the measurement characteristics of the MO and EO con
2011). These two strategic orientations are of great importance for in structs that have been assessed through unidimensional and multidi
dustrial exporters since industrial exporters face severe challenges in mensional scales in the extant literature. Therefore, it is also critical to
international markets, such as greater institutional distance, cultural evaluate the measurement characteristics of the MO and EO constructs,
differences, and uncertain market conditions (Campbell, Eden, & Miller, as various measurement types have different advantages and re
2012). In that vein, the present study fundamentally aims to evaluate the percussions on performance-related outcomes (Diamantopoulos &
generalizability of the association between MO/EO and export perfor Winklhofer, 2001; Rogelberg & Stanton, 2007).
mance through a meta-analysis. Several meta-analytic investigations have been devoted to under
Despite numerous research attempts to explain both the separate and standing the relationship between strategic orientations and their con
synergistic impacts of MO and EO on export performance, most previous sequences. Among these, there exist considerable research attempts
studies unveil inconsistent results. About the former set of findings synthesizing the empirical evidence about the impact of either MO (e.g.,
examining the link between MO and export performance, prior studies Chang, Franke, Butler, Musgrove, & Ellinger, 2014; Ellis, 2006) or EO on
have reported positive (e.g., Chang & Fang, 2015; Ussahawanitchakit, overall firm performance (e.g., Miao, Coombs, Qian, & Sirmon, 2017;
2002), negative (e.g., Mac & Evangelista, 2016), and insignificant linear Saeed, Yousafzai, & Engelen, 2014). Another line of meta-analytic
impacts (e.g., Olabode, Adeola and Assadinia, 2018; Rose & Shoham, research has focused on exploring the MO’s association with innova
2002), as well as a small number of quadratic relationships among the tion- and customer-related consequences (e.g., Grinstein, 2008b; Kirca
theoretical constructs (e.g., Lengler, Sousa, & Marques, 2013; Sørensen et al., 2005). Also, some meta-analytic reviews have integrated MO, EO,
and Madsen, 2012). Regarding the latter group of evidence assessing the and learning orientation and showed the differential effects of strategic
link between EO and export performance, previous empirical research orientations on various performance indicators such as organic sales
has yielded positive (e.g., Rua, França, & Ortiz, 2018), negative (e.g., growth (e.g., Bahadir, Bharadwaj, & Parzen, 2009), innovation out
Kropp, Lindsay, & Shoham, 2006), non-significant (e.g., Gerschewski comes (e.g., Kraft & Bausch, 2016), and organizational performance (e.
et al., 2015), and even curvilinear relationships (e.g., Cadogan et al., g., Schweiger et al., 2019). Notably, a recent meta-analysis by Peng, Li,
2016). Accordingly, these inconclusive findings delineate how the van Essen, and Peng (2020) has centered on how national institutions
existing literature is far from reaching maturity, which may derive lead to variations in the impact of MO and EO on firm performance.
fundamentally from the insufficient recognition of the home country’s Therefore, the coverage of prior meta-analyses in the pertinent
formal and informal institutions. literature has been mostly limited to domestic settings. Nonetheless,
Institutions can be defined as “the rules of the game in a society or, Bıçakcıoğlu-Peynirci and İpek (2020) conducted a meta-analytical
more formally, are the humanly devised constraints that shape human analysis on MO in exporting, which warrants significant attention, as
interaction” (North, 1990: 3). Home country institutions serve a critical it summarizes the performance, resource-based, and strategy-related
function in devising industrial organization’s strategic orientations consequences of MO within the export context considering the moder
(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Kostova, Roth, & Dacin, 2008), which ating roles of contextual and measurement factors. In this sense, being
encompass firm’s export operations and performance in the interna one of the initial efforts, this meta-analysis offers worthwhile and novel
tional marketplace (Chacar, Newburry, & Vissa, 2010; He & Cui, 2012). insights into the act of MO in overseas markets. However, a need still
In a parallel vein, a firm’s strategic decisions and international impli remains for research pursuing a meta-analytic approach to comprehend
cations are primarily dependent upon two fundamental tenets of home the impact of both MO and EO on different aspects of export perfor
country institutions: (i) formal institutions, embodying regulatory, leg mance, with a detailed account for home country institutions, and
islative, and political compromises and enforcements, determining the importantly, to explore the simultaneous effects of the MO and EO
rules of the game in the industrial business environment, and (ii) phenomena in the export setting. Yet, table 1 summarizes the key
informal institutions, comprising unwritten cultural values, norms, and characteristics of the previous meta-analytic reviews in the pertinent
attitudes, shaping societal belief systems and structures (Holmes, Miller, literature.
Hitt, & Salmador, 2013; North, 1990; Peng, 2002; Van Essen, Heugens, In response to this gap, this study endeavors to assess both the in
Otten, & van Oosterhout, 2012). In this regard, discrepancies across dividual and joint export performance effects of strategic orientations in
existing research can arise from the fact that home country institutions the export context, considering the role of institutions through a meta-
have a decisive role in the development and the extent of both exporting analytical procedure. Accordingly, this study attempts to address the
firms’ market-oriented activities (Zhou, Wu, & Luo, 2007) and following research questions: (1) Do the individual and joint export
entrepreneurially-oriented behaviors (Wang, Hong, Kafouros, & Boat performance contributions of MO and EO vary concerning the different
eng, 2012). The weaknesses in the home country institutions are detri types of export performance (i.e., market, strategic, financial, and
mental to foreign expansion operations (He & Cui, 2012), while the overall)?; (2) How do home country’s formal (i.e., political and legal
strengths in home country institutions reinforce international activities institutions) and informal institutions (i.e., national culture - future
2
İ. İpek et al.
Table 1
Summary of prior meta-analyses in the related literature
Study name Focal dependent variable(s) Joint Export Determinant(s) Moderators examined Coverage & size
(Export performance-related outcome(s)) perf. context examined of the data set
effects (Strategic
orientation(s))
Financial Export Strategic Overall MO EO LOa Time Scope of # of # of

export perf. market export perf. export period sample studies effect
perf. perf. size
Present study ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Institutional moderators 2000-2020 11,518 42 185

- Formal institutions (Political environment; export
Legal environment) firms
- Informal institutions (Uncertainty
avoidance; Future orientation)
Measurement moderators
- Objective vs. subjective measures
- Unidimensional vs. multidimensional scales
Peng et al. (2020) ✓ ✓ Contextual moderators Rosenthal, 35,367 154 160
- Developed vs. emerging countries 1995 firms
- Economic development level
- Firm size
Bıçakcıoğlu- ✓ ✓ ✓ Contextual moderators 1998-2018 8,652 36 89
Peynirci and İpek - Cultural context (Collectivism; Masculinity) export
(2020) - Economic development firms
- Measurement scale of MO
3
Schweiger et al. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Contextual moderators 1983-2016 48,593 202 761

(2019) - Geographical region firms
- Firm size
- Industry
- Type of performance measures
- Strategic orientation scales used
Miao et al. (2017) ✓ Contextual moderators 1991-2013 23,954 74 N.A.
- Cultural effects (In-group collectivism; firms
Assertiveness; future orientation;
Performance orientation; Power distance;
Uncertainty avoidance)

- EO scales used
Kraft and Bausch
✓ ✓ ✓ N.A. 1999-2015 2,038 firms 75 215
(2016)
Contextual moderators
- Cultural context (Uncertainty avoidance,
Power distance, In-group collectivism, and
Assertiveness)
- Market size 47,140
Saeed et al. (2014) ✓ 1986-2013 177 203
- Economic development firms
- Industry control
- Firm size
- Technology focus
- Study quality
(continued on next page)
İ. İpek et al.
Table 1 (continued )
effects (Strategic
orientation(s))

perf. perf. size
- Non-published studies vs published studies
Institutional moderators
- Political stability
- Regulatory quality
- Subjective vs objective performance
measures
✓ Contextual moderators N.A. 2013 125,644 422 619
Chang et al. - Product type (services vs. goods) firms
(2014)
✓ Contextual moderators 1980-2010 N.A. 181 N.A.
Rosenbusch - Firm size
et al., 2013
Rauch et al. (2009) ✓ Contextual moderators 1986-2006 14,259 51 N.A.
- Firm size firms
- Industry
- National culture (Femininity; Collectivism)
4
- Types of performance categories (Perceived
nonfinancial; Perceived financial; Archival
financial performance)
- Measurement scales used
Bahadir et al. ✓ ✓ Firm-related moderators 1960-2008 N.A. 92 N.A.
(2009) - Firm age
- Firm size
- R&D expenditure
- Marketing expenditure
- Inter-organizational network
- Management capacity
- Environment

- Industry
- Country
- Start-up
- Competition
- Munificence
- Dynamism
- Data structure
- Estimation
- Temporal specification
- Dependent variable specification
- Dependent variable measure
- Common source
İ. İpek et al.
effects (Strategic
orientation(s))

perf. perf. size
- Innovation measure
- MO composite
- MO type
- Network measure
- Network type
- EO measure
- Management capacity measure
- Management experience
- Firm size measure
Grinstein (2008b) ✓ Contextual moderators 1994-2006 14,728 56 69
- National culture (Individualism; firms
Masculinity; Power distance; Long-term
orientation; Uncertainty avoidance)
- Technology turbulence
- Product type (services vs. goods)
- Competitive intensity
- Firm size
Ellis (2006) ✓ Contextual moderators 1990-2004 14,586 56 N.A.
- East vs. West region firms
- Distance from the USA
5
- Firm size
- Level of market development
- MO scales used
- Objective vs. subjective performance
assessments
- Scope of performance
Kirca et al. (2005) ✓ Contextual moderators 1990-2004 76,071 114 418
- Manufacturing vs. service firms firms
- Cultural context (Power distance;
Individualism; Masculinism; Long term
orientation; Uncertainty avoidance)
- Market/Environmental
turbulence

- Technological turbulence
- Competitive intensity
- Cost-based vs. revenue-based measures
- Objective vs. subjective measures
- Single vs. multi-item measures
Shoham et al. ✓ Contextual moderators 1990-2002 5,054 firms 29 35
(2005) - Study location
- MO operationalization
- Performance operationalization
Cano et al. (2004) ✓ 1990-2002 53 59
orientation and uncertainty avoidance) influence the MO-export per

formance and EO-export performance relationships?; and (3) Do mea
effect
surement factors (i.e., objective/subjective measures and
# of
size
unidimensional/multidimensional scales) affect the MO-export perfor
mance and EO-export performance relationships in the same way? More
studies
explicitly, the objectives of the present study are three-layered: (1) to
# of
meta-analyze previous empirical articles related to the impacts of MO of
EO on export performance; (2) to unpack the moderating roles of home
country institutions and measurement factors in the constructs of in
Scope of
sample
12,043 terest; and, (3) to present theoretical and practical implications in an

firms attempt to enlighten the field of research on strategic orientations and its
Coverage & size
performance inferences in the export context.

of the data set
2. Theoretical background
period
Time
Fig. 1 displays the theoretical framework of the meta-analysis. In this

regard, the hypotheses of this meta-analytic research (i.e., H1 - H8) are
built upon the central premises of the dynamic capabilities (DC) view.
According to the DC view, the term ‘dynamic’ represents the ability to
- Profit vs not for profit organizations
- Objective vs subjective performance

- Service vs manufacturing industries
replenish competencies to fit the requirements of the altering environ

ment; the concept ‘capabilities’ highlights the importance of strategic
management to respond to the conditions of a dynamic environment
through adapting and coordinating intrinsic and extrinsic organizational
Moderators examined
skills (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). Within this context, the DC view
- MO scales used
embraces and draws attention to both the MO and EO constructs. While

the former can be regarded as a "market-driven information-processing
measures
capability" based on its exploitative nature, the latter can be considered

a "market-driving exploratory capability" (Boso et al., 2012). Further,
the present study also acknowledges the role of institutions with the
intent of conceiving differences among countries, which firms need to
LOa
recognize in addressing the legal requirements to operate in foreign

Determinant(s)
orientation(s))
markets (Scott, 2001). In doing so, this research emphasizes formal and
EO
examined
(Strategic
informal institutions that have a crucial effect on managerial practi

ces/strategies to gain social legitimacy in the international arena
MO
(Holmes et al., 2013).

context
Export
2.1. MO - export performance
From the behavioral perspective, MO mainly deals with information

accumulation and sharing activities throughout the organization to
effects
Joint
understand and satisfy customers (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990). On the

perf.
other hand, from a cultural perspective, it stands for organizational

norms and standards to establish superior customer value (Deshpandé,
Farley, & Webster Jr, 1993; Narver & Slater, 1990). In a nutshell,
Overall
export
market-oriented firms gravitate towards responding to customers’ needs

perf.
to fuel firm success, which underlines that customers represent the focal
point of both behavioral and cultural perspectives to conceptualize MO
export perf.
(Mavondo & Farrell, 2000).

(Export performance-related outcome(s))
Strategic
Along with the increase in the pressures of globalization and inter

national business, it has become necessary for firms to pay more
attention to MO activities in foreign markets (Murray, Gao, Kotabe, &
Focal dependent variable(s)
Zhou, 2007; Ngansathil, 2001). Market knowledge is of critical impor

tance for firms operating in international markets due to the greater
market
Export
perf.
level of business risks, the complexity of the variables associated with

international trade, and the high degree of competitive intensity in in
ternational business. In this sense, Cadogan, Kuivalainen, and Sundqvist
export perf.
(2009) relate the export MO concept with the attempts to what extent
Financial
firms accommodate the marketing approach into their export activities

LO: Learning orientation
and elaborate on its three sub-dimensions: (a) export intelligence gen

eration, referring to the actions that attempt to gather market knowl
edge which is firm-specific and related to the environmental factors that

N.A. Not available
affect managerial decisions in foreign markets; (b) export intelligence

Study name
dissemination, implying the activities that aim to share market knowl

edge obtained through information exchange process; and (c) export
intelligence responsiveness, representing the activities that intend to put
all accumulated market intelligence into action (Andersen, 2006). In this
a
6
Fig. 1. Theoretical framework
sense, firms with higher export MO are better able to meet foreign influence on export market performance by boosting export sales, export
customers’ preferences owing to the generation, dissemination, and sales growth, and export market share (e.g., Boso, Adeola, Danso, &
responsiveness of market knowledge (Acikdilli, Mintu-Wimsatt, Kara, & Assadinia, 2019; İpek & Tanyeri, 2021). In a similar vein, MO has also
Spillan, 2020; Nagy and Berács, 2012). been found to give rise to financial export performance with a leverage
Particularly in exporting, market expansion activities necessitate impact on export profits, return on export investments, and export
activities such as information gathering and processing in foreign mar margins (e.g., Chang & Fang, 2015; Faroque, Mostafiz, Faruq, & Bashar,
kets (Leonidou & Katsikeas, 1996). Export information obtained through 2021). Moreover, market-oriented exporting firms have registered
market intelligence plays a critical role in the pre-export phase since it higher scores on the strategic export performance outcomes, such as
offers a chance to assess market opportunities in advance (Wiedersheim- establishing brand/firm awareness, enhancing the firm’s competitive
Paul, Olson, & Welch, 1978). In the preliminary steps, exporting firms stance, and improving product competitiveness in foreign markets (e.g.,
have to deal with more uncertainties owing to inadequate knowledge Birru, Runhaar, Zaalberg, Lans, & Mulder, 2019; Lin, Huang, & Peng,
about the international business environment, which generates a strict 2014).
requirement for self-generated information (Seringhaus, 1993).
H1. MO is positively related to (a) export market performance, (b)
Together with learning by doing, firms accumulate knowledge about
financial export performance; (c) strategic export performance; and (d)
international markets and ways of doing business, resulting in more
overall export performance.
advanced exporting stages (Welch & Luostarinen, 1988).
According to the DC view, MO has increasingly gained significance in
understanding firms’ continuity and achievements within exporting
2.2. EO - export performance
(Murray et al., 2011), standing primarily for "a market-driven infor
mation-processing capability that draws heavily on a market-driven
EO primarily denotes a firm’s understanding of conducting business
exploitative logic to fuel business success" (Boso et al., 2012: 58). The
and the extent of being in concert with its external environment through
focal point of MO in the exporting field rests firmly on the recognition of
the predisposition of innovativeness, proactiveness, aggressiveness, risk-
the dynamics in overseas markets, with the emphasis put on customer
taking, and autonomy proclivities (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Rauch et al.,
demands, competitor movements, and institutional forces (Cadogan,
2009). The ultimate premise of EO is to discern critical resources that
Paul, Salminen, Puumalainen, & Sundqvist, 2001; Sichtmann & von
enable firms to innovate and take risky actions toward their rivals in the
Selasinsky, 2010). Accordingly, exporting firms with high MO has been
marketplace (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Miao et al., 2017; Wu, Chang, &
assumed to be more outstanding at formulating peculiar marketing
Chen, 2008). EO, emerging as an extensively researched area, has crit
strategies and targeting export markets (Katsikea, Theodosiou, & Makri,
ical importance in attaining a sustainable competitive advantage over
2019; Navarro, Acedo, Robson, Ruzo, & Losada, 2010; Oliveira, 2015).
rivals in international markets (Coviello, McDougall, & Oviatt, 2011;
Accordingly, market-oriented exporting firms have been identified as
Covin & Miller, 2014; Makri, Theodosiou, & Katsikea, 2017) and a
being more proactive in capitalizing on market opportunities, providing
“market-driving exploratory capability” in line with the DC view (Boso
higher customer value, and, ultimately, gaining more lucrative export
et al., 2012: 58). EO or entrepreneurial proclivity refers to the strategic
outcomes (Cadogan et al., 2009; Chang & Fang, 2015; Rose & Shoham,
posture of a firm towards entrepreneurship (Anderson, Kreiser, Kuratko,
2002). In parallel with these issues, a considerable amount of research
Hornsby, & Eshima, 2015), motivating firms to explore and seize the
has been devoted to investigating the MO-export performance rela
opportunities across markets (Balabanis & Katsikea, 2003; Waldron,
tionship in the pertinent literature (İpek & Bıçakcıoğlu-Peynirci, 2020).
2004). EO research traces back to the early work of Miller (1983),
The related empirical research has largely supported that MO has a
proclaiming that more entrepreneurially-oriented firms tend to foster
favorable effect on overall export performance (e.g., He, Brouthers, &
innovation activities, enter into new markets aggressively, bear strategic
Filatotchev, 2018; Navarro-García, Arenas-Gaitán, & Rondán-Cataluña,
and financial risks, and exploit new opportunities across markets.
2014). More specifically, MO has been suggested to exert a positive
Notwithstanding the fact that there is no consensus on the
7
dimensionality of EO in the extant literature, an accumulated body of environment symbolizes "an impartial system that promotes trans
research considers the phenomenon as a multi-faceted construct with parency in business relationships and enforcement of contracts and
five dimensions involving risk-taking, innovativeness, competitive imposes penalties on illegal opportunistic behaviors" (Li, Vertinsky, &
aggressiveness, proactiveness, and autonomy (Boso et al., 2017; Lump Zhang, 2013: 364).
kin & Dess, 1996). Both political and legal institutions of the home country have a
Entrepreneurial activities and exporting are closely intertwined, significant influence on the development of MO and EO in export mar
such that several scholars have identified exporting as an entrepre kets because the institutional quality in the home country considerably
neurial move specifically for small-sized enterprises (Ibeh, 2003; Thor shapes a firm’s inclination to spend for export-related resources and
elli, 1987). Export entrepreneurship can be defined as "the process by capabilities (He & Cui, 2012; Ngo & Janssen, 2016; Zhang, Gao, & Cho,
which individuals, either on their own or inside organizations, engage in 2017). In particular, political uncertainty or regulatory burden in a
the proactive and aggressive pursuit of exporting-related product-mar domestic context leads to an increase in transaction costs and invest
ket innovations and opportunities without regard to the environmental ment risks, which potentially impair growth-oriented firms from
disincentives they face” (Ibeh, 2003: 51). engaging in international market research and entrepreneurship activ
Following this, EO signals how it cultivates different performance ities (Lu, Zhou, Bruton, & Li, 2010; Qi et al., 2020; Sahasranamam &
features in export markets. In this respect, regarding export market Nandakumar, 2020). Moreover, political, and legal institutional voids in
performance, firms with higher levels of EO are more likely to experi a home country (e.g., high political vulnerability, lack of government
ment with new ideas, develop new products and practices, and exploit efficiency, weak product liability laws, etc.) make firms vulnerable to
new market opportunities (Dai, Maksimov, Gilbert, & Fernhaber, 2014; preserve their strategic assets and competencies (Eisend, Evanschitzky,
Li, Wei, & Liu, 2010; Robertson & Chetty, 2000). Besides, with the help & Calantone, 2016; Hoskisson, Eden, Lau, & Wright, 2000).
of proactiveness, firms capitalize on unforeseen opportunities in inter In pursuing MO, some researchers denote that a favorable home
national markets in the sense of changing industrial demands and country regulatory environment cultivates MO activities, which out
product technologies (Baker & Sinkula, 2009). Unsurprisingly, more performs export performance (İpek & Tanyeri, 2021). This is particu
entrepreneurially-oriented firms explore new foreign markets and larly evident in the argument that home country governmental support
aggressively respond to competitors’ actions to cultivate their market and regulations catalyze a firm’s motivation to be extensively involved
performances in export markets (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Knight, 2000). in export operations and acquire market knowledge related to foreign
Moreover, concerning financial export performance, an entrepreneurial markets. Nevertheless, other scholars assert that formal institutions such
posture helps firms maximize their financial earnings, particularly in as government interference are detrimental to a firm’s inclination to
foreign markets, owing to its enthusiastic and dedicated stance in pur ward MO (Li, Sun, & Liu, 2006) and highlight the differential effects of
suing export activities (Balabanis & Katsikea, 2003; Fernández-Mesa & MO on export performance in distinct institutional factors (Zhou et al.,
Alegre, 2015). 2007). Considering EO within the specific context and institutional
In terms of strategic export performance, EO demonstrates the extent mechanism (Donbesuur, Boso, & Hultman, 2020), weaker institutional
of firms’ strategic behavior proclivities that exist on a continuum frameworks diminish the extent of entrepreneurial activities, whereas
ranging from more conservative to more entrepreneurial, dealing with higher institutional support mobilizes the activities related to opportu
decisions about risk-taking, innovativeness, and responsiveness (Covin nity exploitation through the existence of relevant export policies and
& Slevin, 1989; Kuivalainen, Sundqvist, & Servais, 2007; Lumpkin & government support programs (Nakku, Agbola, Miles, & Mahmood,
Dess, 1996). In line with this view, more entrepreneurially-oriented 2020; Webb, Ireland, Hitt, Kistruck, & Tihanyi, 2011). Following this
firms have a chance of developing valuable strategic competencies via logic, some researchers indicate that institutional support enhances a
tolerating ambiguities in cross-border operations and undertaking risky firm’s motivation towards entrepreneurially-oriented activities (Rwe
decisions, which help to foster strategic performance in export markets humbiza & Marinov, 2020), while others argue that institutional factors,
(Acs, Morck, Shaver, & Yeung, 1997; Zaheer & Mosakowski, 1997). namely government policies, procedures, and regulations, mitigate the
Overall, empirical evidence demonstrates how EO plays a significant impacts of EO on export performance (Ajayi, 2016).
role in increasing a firm’s intent to extend further its cross-border ac Encouraging the home country’s regulatory environment is also
tivities (Camara, 2018; De Clercq, Sapienza, & Crijns, 2005; Martin and critical in improving export performance, as financial aid-related pro
Javalgi, 2016; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005) and enhancing international grams and governmental export promotion initiatives are crucial drivers
performance across markets (Boso, 2010; Covin & Miller, 2014; of attaining superior performance through identifying potential cus
Sundqvist, Kyläheiko, Kuivalainen, & Cadogan, 2012). tomers (Durmuşoğlu, Apfelthaler, Nayir, Alvarez, & Mughan, 2012;
Shamsuddoha & Ali, 2006). Besides, supporting regulatory conditions
H2. EO is positively related to (a) export market performance; (b)
provide a baseline for an environment offering an available source of
financial export performance; (c) strategic export performance; and (d)
experiential knowledge, which helps to eliminate the complexities of
overall export performance.
export operations and to boost export performance (Gençtürk & Kotabe,
2001). In this regard, it is expected that weaker home country formal
2.3. Moderating role of home country institutions institutions are likely to discourage international firms from leaning
toward building and improving MO and EO in the field of exporting.
2.3.1. Formal institutions
H3a. The relationship between MO and export performance is weaker
Formal institutions mainly cover contracts, rules, and regulations
when the degree of political risk in the home country is high.
that govern a society’s existing and future behaviors (North, 1990; Scott,
1995). Formal institutions have been critical in terms of international H3b. The relationship between MO and export performance is weaker
ization activities since the enabling/disabling factors in firms’ strategic when the legal environment in the home country is highly corrupt.
paths have been closely intertwined with the quality of formal in
H4a. The relationship between EO and export performance is weaker
stitutions (Ngo, Janssen, Leonidou, & Christodoulides, 2016; Peng, Sun,
when the degree of political risk in the home country is high.
Pinkham, & Chen, 2009). Various formal constraints prevail in an
institutional framework, but political and legal institutions notably H4b. The relationship between EO and export performance is weaker
acknowledge the significance of managerial considerations (Holmes when the legal environment in the home country is highly corrupt.
et al., 2013). In this sense, political institutions primarily deal with the
degree of political risk, unrest, or imperfections (Bekaert, Harvey, 2.3.2. Informal Institutions
Lundblad, & Siegel, 2014; Qi et al., 2020). A high-quality legal National culture is an outstanding piece of informal institutions and
8
considerably shapes the establishment of formal institutions (North, (Kreiser, Marino, Dickson, & Weaver, 2010). This is evident in the fact
1990; Peng, Wang, & Jiang, 2008). As firms are embodied by a diverse that ambiguity is deeply rooted in all entrepreneurial behaviors and
group of cultural beliefs, attitudes, and meanings (North, 1990), na actions (Mueller & Thomas, 2001). In this sense, cultures with a lower
tional culture has a substantial impact on managerial practices, strate tolerance for ambiguity are expected to have fewer innovative initia
gies, and firm performance (Deshpandé & Farley, 2004; Griffin, tives, producing unfavorable effects on entrepreneurially-oriented ac
Guedhami, Kwok, Li, & Shao, 2017; Newman & Nollen, 1996). In this tivities (Van Everdingen & Waarts, 2003). Nonetheless, firms with
sense, national cultural values shape managers’ decisions regarding higher EO adopt a more aggressive stance in exploiting opportunity-
exploiting resources, responding to strategic actions and interpreting driven outcomes in a culture with lower uncertainty avoidance (Rose
situations (Schneider & De Meyer, 1991; Steenkamp & Geyskens, 2012). nbusch, Rauch, & Bausch, 2013). Accordingly, the meta-analytic find
Nevertheless, national culture matters even more for firms operating in ings of Saeed et al. (2014) have reported significant differences in the
foreign markets, mainly because of the dynamics of the intercultural impact of EO on performance among low and high uncertainty avoid
environment and cultural distance among countries (Steenkamp, 2001). ance cultures, such that the magnitude of the linkage between EO and
Several researchers have exemplified the vital role of national culture in performance is stronger in cultures with a low degree of uncertainty
exporter-importer relationships and revealed how national culture in avoidance.
fluences relational values between buyers and sellers in international Aside from this, people are more concerned with the idea that suf
markets and, ultimately, export performance (Nes, Solberg, & Silkoset, ficient investments should deliver long-term benefits, and entrepre
2007; Zhang, Cavusgil, & Roath, 2003). Building upon these un neurial activities might be restrained notably due to a lower inclination
derpinnings, the preponderance of prior work has acknowledged the toward risk-taking and competitive aggressiveness in future-oriented
profound effects of uncertainty avoidance and future orientation on cultures (Lumpkin, Brigham, & Moss, 2010). Put differently, societies
affecting export relationships (e.g., He et al., 2018; Li, Liu, & Qian, with higher future orientation are better at carefully assessing each
2019). While the former elaborates on the degree to which members of a business opportunity with the intent to capture the most profitable one
nation seek stability and feel threatened by risky and ambiguous situa (Lin, Shi, Prescott, & Yang, 2019); however, this could delay their
tions, the latter reflects the extent to which a group of people within a engagement in taking active steps toward investments (Rusu, 2014). In
society puts special attention on future-oriented rewards and involves in that vein, individuals with lower future orientation are more prone to
such behaviors as investing and planning (Hofstede, 2001; House, respond to present deals and accelerate the actions that could drive them
Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Vipin, 2004). to get ahead of their competitors in dynamic marketplaces via grasping
Previous work emphasizes the cultural inclinations of a society that first-mover advantages (Covin & Lumpkin, 2011; Lumpkin et al., 2010;
may have a crucial influence on the strength of the association between Rauch et al., 2009). In terms of the long-term orientation dimension in
MO and its performance outcomes (e.g., Kirca et al., 2005). In line with the EO-performance relationship, Basco, Hernández-Perlines, and
this, firms with higher MO are inclined to produce superior export Rodríguez-García (2020) have concluded that EO exerts the greatest
performance in a low uncertainty-avoidant culture depending upon the effect on firm performance in the context of short-term oriented coun
fact that individuals originating from cultures with a high degree of tries compared to the countries with high and moderate levels of long-
uncertainty avoidance negatively perceive the dissemination and ex term orientation.
change of information (Nakata & Sivakumar, 2001). Owing to the self-
H5a. The relationship between MO and export performance is stronger
protection nature in cultures with a high degree of uncertainty avoid
when the degree of uncertainty avoidance in the home country is low.
ance, individuals restrain themselves engage in intelligence dissemina
tion activities not to be negatively evaluated (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987; H5b. The relationship between MO and export performance is stron
Lamm & Trommsdorff, 1973). In contrast, employees’ productivity is ger when the degree of future orientation in the home country is high.
triggered to exploit new market opportunities by gathering and trans
H6a. The relationship between EO and export performance is stronger
mitting information in countries with low uncertainty avoidance. Thus,
when the degree of uncertainty avoidance in the home country is low.
MO has a stronger relationship with performance outcomes in countries
with a low degree of uncertainty avoidance (Kirca et al., 2005). H6b. The relationship between EO and export performance is stronger
Besides, market-oriented firms yield better performance implications when the degree of future orientation in the home country is low.
in future-oriented cultures, attaching greater importance to values of
persistence and productivity, as information generation and exploitation 2.4. Moderating role of measurement factors
of market intelligence necessitate high levels of persistence and long-
term orientation (Culpan & Kucukemiroglu, 1993; Kirca et al., 2005; 2.4.1. Objective vs. subjective measures
Nakata & Sivakumar, 2001). In this regard, national culture is also a In the extant literature, various indicators have been employed to
crucial determinant of export performance (Malik, Xiang, & Huo, 2021; operationalize the export performance construct, which can be sepa
Nes et al., 2007), as national culture is a critical factor that shapes both rated into objective and subjective measures (Katsikeas, Piercy, &
the cognitive and thinking styles of export executives and causes vari Ioannidis, 1996; Shoham et al., 2005). Broadly, variables that are mainly
ations in strategic decisions of exporting firms (Dimitratos, Petrou, dependent on absolute values (e.g., export intensity growth, export sales
Plakoyiannaki, & Johnson, 2011). Similarly, national culture substan efficiency, and export profit margin) are regarded as objective measures.
tially enhances exporter-importer relationship quality and performance In contrast, variables that assess the perceptual or behavioral export
outcomes (Leonidou, Aykol, Larimo, Kyrgidou, & Christodoulides, performance (e.g., export market share compared to competitors,
2021). In that vein, firms with higher MO are advantageous in meeting expectations, and strategic export performance) constitute
improving export performance in a highly future-oriented culture subjective measures (Shoham, 1998; Sousa, 2004). The main advantage
relying upon the premise that firms originating from future-oriented that objective performance indicators offer is the opportunity for
cultures benefit from MO activities to maintain their business relation directly comparable evaluations of performance (Shoham, Evangelista,
ships (Hwang, Chung, & Jin, 2013). In this respect, empirical evidence & Albaum, 2002). However, objective metrics have indicated some
has indicated that MO has a crucial impact on performance among firms limitations (Katsikeas et al., 1996; Lages & Lages, 2004). For instance,
in future-oriented countries such as Singapore and China (e.g., Ram firms may be unwilling to share confidential data with outsiders (Francis
aseshan, Caruana, & Pang, 2002; Zhang & Zhu, 2016). & Collins-Dodd, 2000; Leonidou, Katsikeas, & Samiee, 2002), or due to
In the case of EO, in uncertainty-avoidant cultures, individuals feel the difficulty in assigning a fixed reference point across firms, a financial
uncomfortable with uncertain environments because risk-taking and achievement for one firm may form failure for another (Lages & Lages,
proactiveness are two prominent facets of entrepreneurial activities 2004).
9
Compared to objective measures, subjective measures offer a much complex variables, and (c) assuring predictive validity (Baumgartner &
more comprehensive range of consequences to be analyzed; thus, there Homburg, 1996; Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001; Moore, Halle,
has been an increasing trend toward employing subjective variables at Vandivere, & Mariner, 2002).
the exporting level (e.g., Martin & Javalgi, 2019; Pyper, Doherty, Gou As both MO and EO have a complicated nature with the embodiment
naris and Wilson, 2019). The underlying argument for using subjective of various activities, the linkage between MO/EO and export perfor
performance measures is based on the premise that a positive propensity mance is expected to be stronger when performance is measured with
to export and satisfaction with the export venture are vital signs of multidimensional scales, resting upon the tenet that variables of interest
export success (Raymond, Kim, & Shao, 2001; Shoham et al., 2002). encompass a comprehensive set of dimensions with either behavioral
Also, subjective metrics are highly associated with objective measures components or specific marketing functions (Deng & Dart, 1994; Siguaw
(Geringer & Herbert, 1991; Stoian, Rialp, & Rialp, 2011). Correspond & Diamantopoulos, 1995). In this sense, there appear various; but
ingly, the MO’s and EO’s repercussions on the performance show vari equally diverse facets when a firm decides on the way for a new entry,
ations dependent upon subjective or objective measures used for the such as acting autonomously, engaging in innovative activities, and
performance construct. responding proactively toward rivals (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Hence,
Albeit the fact that some prior studies report consistency between multidimensional scales are more capable of capturing the distinct as
objective and subjective measures (e.g., Covin, Slevin, & Schultz, 1994; pects of both constructs of interest (Churchill Jr, 1979; Henard & Szy
Venkatraman & Ramanujam, 1987), González-Benito and González- manski, 2001).
Benito (2005) and Sundqvist, Puumalainen, Salminen and Cadogan
(2000) elaborate that the linkage between MO and performance is
for multidimensional scales of the MO construct than for unidimensional
stronger when performance is subjectively assessed. Because subjective
scales of the MO construct.
measures not only cover complicated dimensions of performance such as
customer satisfaction; but also enable making assessments based upon H8b. The relationship between EO and export performance is stronger
the comparisons among competitors in the market. More specifically, in for multidimensional scales of the EO construct than for unidimensional
hostile and low turbulent environments, MO has a favorable influence scales of the EO construct.
on subjectively measured firm performance; under less environmental
dynamics, MO has positive effects on firm performance measured with 3. Research method
objective indicators (Harris, 2001). In terms of the impact of EO on
performance, both subjective and objective firm performance has been 3.1. Literature search and screening
proposed to have a curvilinear association with EO; however, the cor
relation between the squared EO and objective firm performance has To establish a systematic empirical evaluation, we gathered data
been reported to be greater (Tang, Tang, Marino, Zhang, & Li, 2008). through a comprehensive search process depending upon preset inclu
Previous meta-analytic studies examining the MO/EO - performance sion criteria (Grewal, Puccinelli, & Monroe, 2018; Hunter & Schmidt,
relationship within the domestic context also conclude that the strength 2004). In this respect, we selected the studies that met the following
of the correlation between MO/EO and performance is greater if sub rules: (i) empirical research assessing strategic orientation (i.e., MO
jective indicators are included to measure firm performance (e.g., Ellis, and/or EO) in the export context, (ii) studies investigating the rela
2006; Saeed et al., 2014). tionship between strategic orientations and export performance, (iii)
studies considering firm level as the unit of analysis, and (iv) studies
reporting correlation coefficients or outcome statistics that can be
for subjective measures of the export performance construct than for
transformed into necessary numerical measures (Rosenthal, 1995).
objective measures of the export performance construct.
We conducted computer and manual searches to identify relevant
H7b. The relationship between EO and export performance is stronger articles and ensure the representativeness of the final dataset. The
for subjective measures of the export performance construct than for computer search includes the database screening - EBSCO, Elsevier,
objective measures of the export performance construct. JSTOR, Emerald, Sage, Taylor & Francis, Wiley, and ProQuest - using the
following keywords and their variations: “entrepreneurial orientation”
2.4.2. Unidimensional vs. multidimensional scales or “strategic posture” or “corporate entrepreneurship” or “entrepre
Over three decades, most evidence has legitimated that using valid neurial behavior” or “strategic orientation” or “market orientation” or
and reliable measures in marketing research is critical (Diamantopoulos, “customer orientation” or “competitor orientation” or “inter-functional
Sarstedt, Fuchs, Wilczynski, & Kaiser, 2012; Drolet & Morrison, 2001). coordination” or “intelligence generation” or “intelligence dissemina
In this respect, researchers primarily rely on two primary measurement tion” or "responsiveness" in combination with "export". Determining the
methods to operationalize an empirical phenomenon: (i) single-item keywords to be utilized for the computer search depends on the extant
measurement and (ii) multi-item measurement (Bearden & Netemeyer, literature. In particular, the keywords for MO were specified based on
1999; Bruner & Hensel, 1993). Nevertheless, there is an ongoing and the cultural (e.g., Deshpandé et al., 1993; Narver & Slater, 1990) and
heavy dispute over whether unidimensional or multidimensional scales behavioral perspectives (e.g., Kohli & Jaworski, 1990) to conceptualize
of perceived objects outperform in terms of predictive validity and in the MO phenomenon. Aside from this, the EO-related keywords were
ternal consistency (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007; Fuchs & Dia gathered from previous systematic reviews on the subject (Rauch et al.,
mantopoulos, 2009). Relying upon the main premises of the 2009; Rosenbusch et al., 2013). We looked over the titles, abstracts, and
conventional measurement theory, the reflective indicators, aggregating keywords of the articles, which has been a frequently used way for the
a multidimensional scale of a conceptualized phenomenon, serve as a eligibility check in systematic reviews (e.g., Leonidou, Christofi, Vrontis,
synthesis of all potential items that help to measure a focal construct & Thrassou, 2020; Vrontis & Christofi, 2021). Additionally, the manual
(DeVellis, 2003; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Even though unidimen search consists of scanning the reference lists of the relevant studies to
sional scales offer several advantages for researchers, such as ease of warrant that all related articles were acknowledged in the present study.
administration, avoiding common method bias, shorter surveys with Accordingly, we scrutinized all studies included in the seminal quali
increased response rates, and lower data processing costs (Drolet & tative reviews and meta-analysis studies to ensure the completeness of
Morrison, 2001; Rogelberg & Stanton, 2007), a wealth of studies in the the dataset (e.g., Ellis, 2006; Rosenbusch et al., 2013).
extant literature has advocated that multidimensional scales outperform Considering the quality of the studies involved in the present
unidimensional scales depending upon several reasons: (a) allowing for research, we assessed all related articles by relying upon the academic
computation of inter-item correlations, (b) grasping different facets of guide of the Association of Business Schools (ABS) (e.g., Ding,
10
McDonald, & Wei, 2021; Luoto, Brax, & Kohtamäki, 2017). Empirical attributes of society are classified into nine cultural dimensions (i.e.,
studies that appeared in business and business-related publication out uncertainty avoidance, power distance, institutional collectivism, in-
lets listed in the ABS were covered in the sample. Besides, we were also group collectivism, gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, future orien
concerned with unpublished studies via reviewing theses and disserta tation, performance orientation, and humane orientation) (Dorfman,
tions on the relevant subject, which is paramount in a meta-analytic Javidan, Hanges, Dastmalchian, & House, 2012; House et al., 2004). In
investigation (Eisend & Tarrahi, 2014). Furthermore, we removed du this meta-analytic investigation, the GLOBE project has been extensively
plicates and excluded the empirical articles addressing other interna utilized by researchers addressing the implications of national culture in
tional entry modes (i.e., licensing, investment, and strategic alliances). international marketing and management literature (e.g., Mueller,
Fig. 2 displays the overview of the literature search and screening Rosenbusch, & Bausch, 2013; Tang & Buckley, 2020), providing a
process. foundation for assessing informal institutions. This is mainly because the
Further, in case a study can be grouped into conceptually similar measures of this cultural typology have been suggested to be "time-
parts but offers statistically independent iterations, we recorded each invariant" (Marano, Arregle, Hitt, Spadafora, & Van Essen, 2016: 1089),
statistical result individually (Grewal et al., 2018). This means that based on a theory-driven perspective (Javidan, House, Dorfman,
when an article explores the effect of MO/EO on different aspects of Hanges, & De Luque, 2006) and empirically confirmed (Dikova, Sahib,
export performance (e.g., market performance, financial performance, & Van Witteloostuijn, 2010). Besides, as underlined by Leung et al.
and strategic performance), we separately considered the respective (2005: 366), in the field of international business, “the usefulness of a
effect size in the meta-analysis. The study search yielded 185 effect sizes more refined typology of the Hofstede dimensions remains to be
from 44 independent samples reported in 42 empirical studies (N = demonstrated."
11,518), published between 2000 and 2020. This establishes a solid Related to this, despite the originally developed structure of the
empirical basis for meta-analytical research (Brinckmann, Grichnik, & GLOBE cultural framework with nine dimensions, we focused solely on
Kapsa, 2010). Among these, 32 independent samples with 132 effect uncertainty avoidance and future orientation in this study for the
sizes are related to the studies examining the MO construct within the following reasons. First, the uncertainty avoidance and future orienta
context of exporting, whereas 12 independent samples with 53 effect tion dimensions of the GLOBE project have been firmly acknowledged to
sizes are associated with the research investigating EO within the be conceptually and empirically associated with the uncertainty avoid
exporting context. ance and long-term orientation dimensions of Hofstede’s cultural ty
pology (Leung et al., 2005) and identified as being one of the most
3.2. Coding and measures significant elements of informal institutions on the internationalization-
performance linkage (Marano et al., 2016). Furthermore, in the meta-
We followed the agenda adopted in other meta-analytical studies in analysis of Kirca et al. (2005), the uncertainty avoidance dimension of
the domain of marketing for the embodiment of the ultimate dataset (e. national culture significantly moderates the influence of MO on per
g., Brown & Peterson, 1993; Henard & Szymanski, 2001). In line with formance. Kirca et al. (2005) also elaborate on the potential moderating
these procedures, we first developed a standardized coding protocol to role of long-term orientation in the relationship between MO and per
eliminate possible coding and measurement errors (Lipsey & Wilson, formance as a future research avenue. Drawing on the country scores of
2001). The coding protocol incorporates five distinct sub-sections: (1) the GLOBE cultural framework and pursuing the median split method
main study and methodological components (i.e., author, year, publi (Kirca et al., 2005), we grouped the countries where the data were
cation outlet, industry, country, sample size, unit of analysis, and data gathered for the studies in the sample as low or high on the uncertainty
collection method); (2) operationalization of MO/EO and export per avoidance and future orientation dimensions.
formance: (a) export market performance (e.g., export market share,
export sales volume, and export sales growth), (b) financial export 3.3. Meta-analytical methods
performance (e.g., export profitability, export profit margin, and ROI),
(c) strategic export performance (e.g., competitiveness, strategic posi In this research, we examined the correlations within the individual
tion, and market expansion), and (d) overall export performance (e.g., studies by employing the meta-analytic procedures suggested by Hunter
overall satisfaction with export performance) and related effect size and Schmidt (2004). This perspective is consistent with previous meta-
metrics; (3) categorization of measurement factors (i.e., objective vs. analyses in the field of marketing and management (e.g., Geyskens,
subjective measures, and unidimensional vs. multidimensional scales); Steenkamp, & Kumar, 1998; Rauch et al., 2009). To ensure the strength
(4) classification of formal institutions (i.e., political and legal in of the focal relationship between strategic orientations and export per
stitutions) on the basis of the World Bank (2018) Political Stability formance, we harvested correlation coefficients from each study in the
Absence of Violence/Terrorism Index and Transparency International final dataset (Rosenthal, 1995). Given the existence of studies reporting
(2019) Corruption Perception Index in conformity with prior prominent necessary statistical metrics on strategic orientations at the dimensional
studies (e.g., Kostova et al., 2020; Marano, Tashman, & Kostova, 2017); level, we calculated an overall score by computing the average across
and (5) distribution of informal institutions (i.e., uncertainty avoidance sub-components (e.g., Palmatier, Dant, Grewal, & Evans, 2006). We
and future orientation), depending upon the Global Leadership and corrected effect size metrics for measurement errors by adjusting cor
Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) cultural framework relation coefficients by the product of the square root of the reliabilities
(House et al., 2004). Table 2 summarizes the moderator variables, (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Nevertheless, we used the mean reliabilities
measures, sources of data, and coding used in the present study. Three for the construct reliabilities of the studies, which did not report the
authors of this study coded the entire data individually, and then all associated information (Geyskens et al., 1998). To correct skewed dis
discrepancies were resolved through a set of discussions. This process tributions, we transformed reliability-corrected correlations into
resulted in satisfactory inter-coder reliability, which varies from 90% to Fisher’s Z-scores (Card, 2012; Hunter & Schmidt, 2004), then we con
95% (Szymanski & Henard, 2001). verted them back to correlation coefficients with the intent to pave the
way for the interpretation of meta-analytic findings (e.g., Grinstein,
3.2.1. GLOBE cultural framework 2008a; Kirca et al., 2005).
The GLOBE refers to a multi-step research program that approaches Following the suggestions of Geyskens, Krishnan, Steenkamp, and
culture as practices and values (House et al., 2004). The fundamental Cunha (2009) and Grewal et al. (2018), we controlled for publication
objective of the GLOBE project is to shed light on the interplay between bias with the help of the three most widely used procedures to check the
culture and leadership in different parts of the world (House, Javidan, robustness of the meta-analysis results: (i) the trim and fill procedure,
Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002). Within the scope of this project, cultural considering the number of potential missing studies and recalculating
11
Fig. 2. Overview of literature search and screening
the effect size via incorporating them to the sample size (Duval & 4. Findings and discussion
Tweedie, 2000); (ii) file drawer method, estimating the number of un
published studies and indicating the absolute number of papers that 4.1. Main impacts
could turn a significant impact into a non-significant impact (the file
drawer N number is 29,772) (Rosenthal, 1979); and (iii) Orwin (1983) We performed our analysis exploiting the random-effects meta-
failsafe N, representing the number of missing studies (set to 0.05) analysis model in the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 3.0 (Borenstein
required to convert overall effect size into a specific non-zero value. et al., 2009). Table 3 demonstrates the descriptive statistics and the
These procedures did not produce any evidence for publication bias in meta-analytic findings regarding the proposed main impacts. In line
the present study. Further, we performed a sensitivity analysis with the with H1a, the results of the meta-analytic investigation confirm the
help of the ‘one study removed’ option and forest plot analysis (Boren suggestion that MO gives rise to export market performance (r = 0.254; p
stein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). Relying upon the forest plot < 0.05). This could be attached to the notion that industrial firms with
diagram (e.g., Baker & Jackson, 2008) and funnel plot graphic (e.g., Ieva higher MO comprehend the current and latent needs and expectations of
and Paganoni, 2015), we also controlled whether potential outliers customers and, ultimately, build more excellent customer value and
appeared within the dataset. Finally, we implemented a homogeneity satisfaction, which cultivate the market-related performance metrics
test to decide on the appropriate model for the meta-analysis and (Matsuno et al., 2002). This is also particularly evident in market-
whether to select a fixed-effects meta-analysis model or a random-effects oriented industrial goods producers, who have more competent
meta-analysis model. The homogeneity test Hedge’s Q test (Hedges & knowledge about their customers and preferences (Avlonitis & Gou
Olkin, 1985) elaborated that there is a significant heterogeneity across naris, 1997).
effect sizes (Q-value (131df) = 1852.753 (p = 0.000), I-squared = Besides, the meta-analysis proves that market-oriented exporting
92.929). Hence, we adopted the random-effects meta-analysis model firms register higher scores on financial export performance (r = 0.177;
(Card, 2012; Cooper, Hedges, & Valentine, 2009), which fits the data p < 0.05), which supports H1b. This is mainly because market-oriented
more thoroughly with the premise that significant variations in effect firms successfully adapt their offerings to target markets and effec
sizes across studies exist (Borenstein et al., 2009; Grewal et al., 2018). tively manage their integrated marketing strategies to better respond to
The homogeneity test results also signal potential moderators in the customer demands and enhance long-term business profitability (Hor
meta-analytic investigation (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). tinha, Lages and Lages, 2011; Navarro-García et al., 2014). This finding
is also in harmony with the fact that industrial goods producers put
particular emphasis on the generation and dissemination of information
12
Table 2
Descriptions/measures of moderator variables
Constructs Measure Description Data source Coding
of interest
World Bank -
Political institutions: This variable measures the perception 0 - highest
Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism Index (2018)
Political Stability and and the tendency of political instability risk,
Absence of Violence/ and/or politically motivated violence 100 - lowest
https://tcdata360.worldbank.org/indicators/b89c1cd1?
Formal Terrorism Index in countries/territories. risk
country=BRA&indicator=40270&viz=line_chart&years=2013,2018
institutions
This variable quantifies the corruption 0 - highly
Legal institutions: Transparency International - Corruption Perception Index (2019)
level of countries/territories based corrupt,
Corruption Perception
upon the perceptions of experts and 100 - very
Index https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2019/results
professionals. clean
This variable evaluates the degree of
Uncertainty avoidance: which a society, organization, or group House et al. (2004)
1 - very low,
GLOBE Cultural depend upon social values, procedures,
7 - very high
Framework and norms with an intent of mitigating http://globeproject.com/study_2004_2007#data
Informal unambiguity of future circumstances.
institutions This variable rank countries/territories
Future orientation: relying upon the extent to which House et al. (2004)
1 - very low,
GLOBE Cultural individuals tend to make decisions
7 - very high
Framework considering future such as making http://globeproject.com/study_2004_2007#data
investments.
This variable assesses whether
researchers
exploit from objective (absolute 0 - objective
Harris (2001);
Objective vs. subjective numbers/secondary sources) or 1 - subjective
Venkatraman and Ramanujam (1986)
subjective measures (perceptions of 2 - mixed
Measurement
respondents) when operationalizing the
factors constructs of interest.
This variable evaluates whether
0 – uni
researchers exploit from Bearden and Netemeyer (1999);
Unidimensional vs. dimensional
unidimensional or multidimensional Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007);
multidimensional 1 – multi
scales when operationalizing the Diamantopoulos et al. (2012)
dimensional
constructs of interest.
compared to consumer goods producers (Kaynak & Kara, 2004). industrial firms (Cui et al., 2018; Reijonen et al., 2015). EO is particu
As hypothesized in H1c, MO acts as a significant precursor of strategic larly important for industrial exporters, where entrepreneurial actions
export performance (r = 0.440; p < 0.05). This finding underlines that are more dynamic and sensitive to firms’ endurance than those oper
industrial export firms with higher MO are better at strengthening their ating in consumer markets (Yang & Gabrielsson, 2017).
strategic stance in foreign markets by favorably positioning their firms Contrary to H2c, the meta-analysis findings fail to support the hy
and products (Birru et al., 2019; Murray et al., 2011). This can rely upon pothesized positive relationship between EO and strategic export per
the fact that MO strongly rests on deeply scrutinizing customers, com formance (r = 0.009; n.s.). One possible reason that underlies this weak
petitors, and external circumstances (Cadogan et al., 2001; Kohli & correlation could be ascribed to the tenet that the nature of the EO’s
Jaworski, 1990). In accordance with H1d, MO is positively associated association with performance could be more complicated than expected;
with overall export performance (r = 0.325; p < 0.05). This meta- such that EO might indirectly lead to performance improvements with
analytic result is aligned with both previous empirical evidence (e.g., the contributions of other mechanisms (Baker & Sinkula, 2009; Slater &
Cadogan, Cui and Li, 2003; He et al., 2018; Murray et al., 2007) and Narver, 2000). As for H2d, a statistically significant correlation between
prior meta-analytical findings examining MO-firm performance corre EO and overall export performance has been reported in the meta-
lation in the domestic context (e.g., Cano, Carrillat, & Jaramillo, 2004; analysis (r = 0.309; p < 0.05). This lends credence to earlier research
Shoham et al., 2005) and export context (e.g., Bıçakcıoğlu-Peynirci & on EO and export performance (e.g., Martin & Javalgi, 2019) and to
İpek, 2020). This is consistent with other studies where MO yields su prior meta-analytic studies devoted to understanding the interplay be
perior performance outcomes for industrial goods companies (Gounaris tween EO and firm performance in the domestic setting (e.g., Rauch
& Avlonitis, 2001). et al., 2009; Rosenbusch et al., 2013).
Regarding the impact of EO on export performance, as predicted in In addition to investigating these main impacts, the joint export
H2a, EO has been revealed to be related to export market performance (r performance effects of strategic orientation were also assessed as an
= 0.310; p < 0.05). Owing to its market-driving exploratory capability additional post-hoc analysis (Table 3). Empirical evidence verifies the
nature (Boso et al., 2012), EO identifies and capitalizes on new market joint significant influence of MO and EO on export market performance
opportunities (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2003), thereby reinforcing the (r = 0.260; p < 0.05), financial export performance (r = 0.215; p < 0.05),
effectiveness aspect of export performance (Martin & Javalgi, 2019). strategic export performance (r = 0.323; p < 0.05), and overall export
The meta-analytic results also validate H2b, indicating that EO exerts a performance (r = 0.321; p < 0.05). This finding is consistent with pre
favorable influence on financial export performance (r = 0.257; p < vious work and the individual performance effects of MO and EO (e.g.,
0.05). This moderate correlation between the theoretical constructs of Boso et al., 2012; Schweiger et al., 2019).
interest affirms a signal that EO fundamentally contributes to the
financial features of performance (Rauch et al., 2009; Rosenbusch et al., 4.2. Moderator impacts
2013). Firms with higher entrepreneurial orientation are more capable
of reaching upscale customers, setting high prices, and controlling the Aside from the cumulative assessment of the main impacts, we also
market ahead of competitors, yielding high financial returns and prof carried out the moderator analyses to depict whether the export per
itability (Zahra & Covin, 1995). It is also in line with the studies formance outcomes of MO and EO are based on home country in
examining how EO enhances the performance implications of B2B stitutions and measurement factors. For this purpose, we implemented
13
Table 3
Descriptive statistics and the meta-analytic findings of the main impacts
Hypothesized links # of ka Nb Min. Max. Simple Corrected SEr -95% þ95% p- Q- Failsafe
studies average r r LCI UCI value statistic N
H1: MO → Export
performance
H1a: MO → Export
13 42 4,421 -0.21 0.77 0.215 0.254*** 0.008 0.203 0.304 0 580.7 1768
market performance
H1b: MO → Financial
7 17 1,834 -0.148 0.291 0.149 0.177*** 0.005 0.124 0.23 0 60.1 776
export performance
H1c: MO → Strategic
4 7 982 0.196 0.761 0.28 0.440*** 0.062 0.234 0.608 0 128.2 532
export performance
H1d: MO → Overall
20 66 5,206 0 0.71 0.238 0.325*** 0.008 0.28 0.368 0 988.9 10461
export performance
H2: EO → Export
performance
H2a: EO → Export
3 7 608 0.16 0.312 0.249 0.310*** 0.003 0.266 0.353 0 2.9 282
market performance
H2b: EO → Financial
5 18 1,490 -0.059 0.412 0.205 0.257*** 0.011 0.182 0.329 0 170 1748
export performance
H2c: EO → Strategic
1 3 150 -0.088 0.097 0.006 0.009 0.012 -0.113 0.131 0.885 3.4 N.A.
export performance
H2d: EO → Overall
7 25 1,411 -0.156 0.578 0.264 0.309*** 0.018 0.22 0.393 0 277.6 3549
export performance
Post-hoc links
MO & EO → Export
performance
MO & EO → Export
market performance
MO & EO → Financial 16 49 5,029 -0.21 0.38 0.234 0.260*** 0.007 0.215 0.305 0 594.3 5554
export performance 12 35 3,324 -0.148 0.4 0.183 0.215*** 0.006 0.169 0.261 0 230.6 4890
MO & EO → Strategic
5 10 1,132 -0.088 0.761 0.22 0.323*** 0.054 0.132 0.491 0.001 187.2 536
export performance
MO & EO → Overall
27 91 6,617 -0.156 0.57 0.286 0.321*** 0.007 0.281 0.36 0 1277.6 18076
export performance
ka Number of effect sizes; Nb Total sample size; SE Standard error; LCL Lower confidence interval; UCL Upper confidence interval; N.A. Not available
MO: Market orientation; EO: Entrepreneurial orientation
***
significant at p < 0.001
subgroup analyses, which have been widely used for moderator analysis country is uncertainty avoidant, the greater the influence that MO reg
in the related literature, as Geyskens et al. (2009) reported. Concerning isters on export performance (r = 0.361; p < 0.05). This cumulative
the moderating role of home country institutions in the link between evidence underpins that in countries with low uncertainty avoidance
MO/EO and export performance, inconsistent with H3a and H3b, sig MO is more encouraged to be promoted, as lower uncertainty avoidance
nificant differences have been uncovered in the MO’s repercussion on firms are more inclined to pursue novel market opportunities and to
export performance across neither low political risk versus high political respond to the market with radical changes (Kirca et al., 2005; Nakata &
risk (Q (1df) = 0.8; p = 0.380) nor clean versus corrupt legal environ Sivakumar, 2001). However, it has also been noticed that the magnitude
ment (Q (1df) = 0.2; p = 0.667). This could be because the environ of the linkage between MO and export performance does not alter based
mental dynamism and institutional factors in export markets on whether the level of future orientation is high in the home country. In
considerably influence the degree to which exporting firms engage in this case, the results fail to support H5b (Q (1df) = 0.3; p = 0.578), which
market learning to meet the expectations of a target market promptly is in line with the findings of Grinstein (2008b).
and, ultimately, to boost export performance to the utmost (Cadogan, As opposed to H6a, the findings indicate that there is no significant
Sundqvist, Puumalainen, & Salminen, 2012; He et al., 2018) (Table 4). variation in the relationship between EO and export performance,
Furthermore, it has been detected that both political and legal in considering the moderator role of uncertainty avoidance (Q (1df) = 2.6;
stitutions moderate the interrelationship between EO and export per p = 0.104). This confirms prior empirical evidence on the subject,
formance (Q (1df) = 5.4; p = 0.020; Q (1df) = 6.4; p = 0.012). reporting that either entrepreneurial activities or the interplay between
Nevertheless, the meta-analytic findings have been in the opposite di entrepreneurial intention and its behavioral outcomes are not statisti
rection compared to H4a and H4b. When the level of political risk is high, cally intertwined with the degree of uncertainty avoidance in culture
and the legal environment is corrupt in the home country, EO produces (Sambharya & Musteen, 2014; Shirokova, Osiyevskyy, & Bogatyreva,
larger effects on export performance (r = 0.335; p < 0.05; r = 0.338; p < 2016). Besides, critical differences in the relevance of EO to export
0.05). In that vein, the institutional escapism view explains that growth- performance have been ascertained among countries with low and high
oriented firms tend to gravitate toward entrepreneurship activities in future orientation (Q (1df) = 10.7; p = 0.001). In this sense, the quan
well-developed international markets to avoid institutional voids exist titative synthesis upholds H6b by revealing greater effect sizes for the
ing in a domestic environment (Mingo, Junkunc, & Morales, 2018; relationship between EO and export performance in cultures with a low
Wang & Chung, 2020). degree of future orientation (r = 0.350; p < 0.05). This could be
The results demonstrate mixed findings for the moderating effect of fundamentally attached to the fact that a huge concentration on future
informal institutions in the home country on MO/EO and export per rewards might inhibit long-term oriented firms from acting toward
formance. In this sense, the uncertainty avoidance dimension of national entrepreneurship in a little while; instead, such firms are more apt to
culture produces significant variations in the impact of MO on export assign considerable time to figure out the pros and cons of each business
performance (Q (1df) = 4.3; p = 0.037). As posited in H5a, the less the opportunities (Lumpkin et al., 2010).
14
Table 4
Meta-analytical findings of the moderator sub-groups
İ. İpek et al.

Moderators Hypotheses The links # of ka Nb Min. Max. Simple Corrected SEr -95% þ95% p- Q-
studies average r r LCI UCI value statistic
Political environment x MO → Export

Home country institutions 0.38 0.8
performance
H3a
(1) Formal institutions High political risk 8 25 2,099 -0.002 0.761 0.208 0.331 0.03 0.217 0.436
Low political risk 27 107 6,459 -0.21 0.71 0.225 0.279 0.004 0.25 0.308
Legal environment x MO → Export
0.667 0.2
performance
H3b
High corruption level 18 62 3,381 -0.148 0.77 0.23 0.297 0.01 0.244 0.348
Low corruption level 16 70 4,283 -0.21 0.71 0.214 0.283 0.006 0.246 0.319
Political environment x EO → Export
0.02 5.4*
performance
H4a
High political risk 2 18 520 0.225 0.432 0.305 0.335 0.002 0.302 0.367
Low political risk 9 35 1,949 -0.156 0.578 0.187 0.241 0.017 0.167 0.313
Legal environment x EO → Export
0.012 6.4*
performance
H4b
High corruption level 3 19 688 0.225 0.432 0.308 0.338 0.002 0.306 0.37
Low corruption level 8 34 1,781 -0.156 0.578 0.182 0.236 0.017 0.159 0.309
Uncertainty avoidance x MO →
0.037 4.3*
Export performance
H5a High uncertainty avoidance 20 105 5,972 -0.21 0.71 0.099 0.249 0.004 0.219 0.279
Low uncertainty avoidance 10 18 1,911 -0.002 0.77 0.31 0.361 0.021 0.261 0.453
Future orientation x MO → Export

0.578 0.3
performance
H5b High future orientation 12 64 4,210 -0.21 0.71 0.172 0.257 0.006 0.215 0.298
Low future orientation 18 59 3,673 -0.148 0.626 0.246 0.274 0.006 0.233 0.314
(2) Informal institutions
Uncertainty avoidance x EO → Export
0.104 2.6
performance
15
H6a High uncertainty avoidance 7 45 1,790 -0.156 0.578 0.221 0.258 0.009 0.204 0.31
Low uncertainty avoidance 4 8 679 -0.036 0.53 0.265 0.377 0.026 0.242 0.497
Future orientation x EO → Export

0.001 10.7***
performance
H6b
High future orientation 5 27 1,270 -0.156 0.578 0.164 0.199 0.017 0.116 0.279
Low future orientation 6 26 1,119 -0.036 0.53 0.293 0.35 0.005 0.306 0.392
Measurement types x MO → Export
Measurement factors 0.001 14.9***
performance
(1) Objective vs. subjective
H7a Objective measures 6 35 1,296 -0.21 0.57 0.076 0.191 0.013 0.12 0.259
measures
Subjective measures 26 94 6,479 -0.02 0.761 0.273 0.326 0.005 0.294 0.357
Mixed measures 1 3 137 0.14 0.27 0.21 0.225 0.007 0.13 0.316
Measurement types x EO → Export
0.878 0

performance
H7b
Objective measures 3 6 275 -0.059 0.412 0.125 0.264 0.031 0.093 0.419
Subjective measures 6 47 1,674 -0.156 0.578 0.2 0.277 0.009 0.224 0.329
Measurement scales x MO → Export
0 20.9***
performance
H8a Unidimensional scales 5 5 606 0.3 0.51 0.418 0.463 0.006 0.395 0.526
Multidimensional scales 29 127 7,952 -0.21 0.77 0.214 0.282 0.005 0.251 0.313
(2) Unidimensional vs.
multidimensional scales
Measurement scales x EO → Export
0.002 9.2**
performance
H8b
Unidimensional scales 2 2 318 0.36 0.4 0.38 0.436 0.009 0.342 0.522
Multidimensional scales 9 51 2,151 -0.156 0.578 0.229 0.269 0.009 0.217 0.32
ka Number of effect sizes; Nb Total sample size; SE Standard error; LCL Lower confidence interval; UCL Upper confidence interval
MO: Market orientation; EO: Entrepreneurial orientation
*
**
***
Diverse results have been found in terms of the moderating role of improved overall export performance (Mac & Evangelista, 2016; Martin
measurement factors in the correlation between MO/EO and export & Javalgi, 2019). On the contrary, the hypothesized relationship be
performance. The MO’s effect on export performance has been spotted tween EO and strategic export performance failed to support also offers
to be different if export performance is subjectively or objectively vital theoretical implications. In this respect, the integration of EO with
assessed (Q (2df) = 14.9; p = 0.001). Specifically, the MO-export per auxiliary mechanisms has been indicated as significant, as EO may
formance association is the strongest for the employment of subjective indirectly impact performance by strengthening product and market
measures (r = 0.326; p < 0.05), compared to the moderate impacts development practices (Baker & Sinkula, 2009; Kollmann & Stöckmann,
exerted by mixed (blend of subjective and objective measures) and 2014; Slater & Narver, 2000). This finding is also an indicator of the
objective measures of export performance, respectively (r = 0.225; p < complementarity relationship among MO and EO, denoting the super-
0.05; r = 0.191; p < 0.05). This echoes the conclusions of the previous additive performance effects of two strategic orientations, based upon
empirical evidence and the related field’s meta-analytic reviews (e.g., the fact that firms with higher market orientation are best at striving for
French, 2006; Harris, 2001; Shoham et al., 2005); H7a has been therefore better outcomes in improving strategic export performance. It is
supported. Nevertheless, the estimates of subjective or objective mea important to note that these findings are specifically crucial to B2B firms
sures for the association between EO and export performance have failed where MO and EO are critical for the success of those companies oper
to produce statistically distinctive results (Q (1df) = 0.0; p = 0.878), ating in highly vibrant markets (Cui et al., 2018; Kaynak & Kara, 2004).
which contradicts the pertinent literature (e.g., Saeed et al., 2014; Tang Specifically, the cumulative results highlight that firms with higher
et al., 2008); thus, H7b has not been supported. MO produce better outcomes in enhancing strategic export performance,
As for the investigation of unidimensional versus multidimensional while firms with higher EO yield outstanding performance in improving
scales in the role of measurement factors, it has been brought to light the export market performance. Given this, market-oriented industrial
that the dimensional natures of both MO and EO measurements cause exporting firms surpass their rivals in proactively capturing market
significant variations in the influence of MO and EO on export perfor opportunities and attaining a strong competitive stance in foreign
mance (Q (1df) = 20.9; p = 0.000; Q (1df) = 9.2; p = 0.002). Nonetheless, markets, consistent with prior studies (Birru et al., 2019; Murray et al.,
on the contrary to H8a and H8b, the magnitude of the correlation be 2011). Further, this evidence reflects that more entrepreneurially-
tween MO/EO and export performance is greater when unidimensional oriented exporting firms move ahead of their competitors by elevating
scales are used to capture MO and EO in the export context (r = 0.463; p their export market performance through their triggered innovative
< 0.05; r = 0.436; p < 0.05), which is in line with the prior works (e.g., actions across the markets, which is in harmony with the previous
Lengler, Sousa, Perin, Sampaio and Martínez-López, 2016; Makri, The studies (e.g., Boso et al., 2012). This is not a surprising finding, as in
odosiou and Katsikea, 2017). This varies from the view that the essence dustrial exporters with high EO tend to attain their goals related to
of MO is multi-faceted, containing an extensive range of market-related innovative activities such as new product or process development,
activities (Cadogan, Souchon, & Procter, 2008; Kayabasi and Mtetwa, which finally attempt to improve their export market performance in the
2016; Matsuno, Mentzer, & Rentz, 2005). Despite the growing attention long run (Martin & Javalgi, 2019).
toward the multidimensional conceptualization of the EO phenomenon Notably, the post-hoc results reveal that the joint export performance
(Kaya, 2008), this meta-analytic finding corresponds to the general effects of strategic orientations yield better outcomes in comparison
tendency in the relevant body of research to operationalize EO as a with its individual effects, which shows that better-organized firms are
unidimensional construct (Rauch et al., 2009; Wales, Gupta, & Mousa, more agile and perform higher in export markets. In particular, while
2011), which has been firmly suggested in the seminal studies of Miller the individual performance effect of MO significantly impacts export
(1983) and Covin and Slevin (1989). market performance, the joint performance effect of MO and EO pro
duces superior export market performance. Another surprising piece of
5. Conclusion evidence reveals that EO, by oneself, does not have a significant effect on
strategic export performance, albeit the fact that the joint performance
5.1. Theoretical implications effect of MO and EO induces a substantial increase in strategic export
performance.
Based upon the accumulated research, the present study endeavors Regarding the moderating role of the home country’s formal in
to meta-analyze the prior empirical evidence by integrating the inde stitutions in the strategic orientations-export performance interrela
pendent findings of different studies and evaluating the moderating role tionship, the meta-analytic results reveal that the MO’s impact on export
of home country institutions and measurement factors in the strategic performance does not differ according to the level of political risk and
orientations-export performance association. First, the cumulative re the quality of the legal environment in the home country. In terms of
sults denote that MO acts as a precursor of not only overall export theoretical implications, this finding denotes that exporting firms’ MO
performance but also export market performance, financial export per activities are considerably shaped by the environmental dynamism and
formance, and strategic export performance. This finding implies that institutions in overseas markets (Cadogan et al., 2012; He et al., 2018;
market-oriented industrial exporting firms have been deemed to be Zhang & Zhu, 2016), while home country’s formal institutions influence
more successful at establishing higher customer value and satisfaction export MO to a limited extent (İpek & Tanyeri, 2021). Another inference
(Boso et al., 2019; Cadogan et al., 2012; İpek & Tanyeri, 2021), meeting of the present study that warrants attention is in case the degree of
customer requirements adequately and in profitable ways (Tantong, political risk is high and the legal environment is highly corrupt in the
Karande, Nair, & Singhapakdi, 2010), and improving competitive po domestic institutional framework, more entrepreneurially-oriented in
sition in international markets (Birru et al., 2019; Murray et al., 2011). dustrial firms register greater export performance scores, which is con
This boosts overall export performance outcomes, which has also been trary to the proposed associations. However, this can be theoretically
signified in the relevant empirical body of research (e.g., He et al., 2018; explained by the institutional escapism perspective, arguing that to
Navarro-García et al., 2014). avoid the dark sides of the weak institutions prevailing in a domestic
Second, the other findings suggest that EO plays a critical role in environment, international firms search for entrepreneurship activities
triggering higher levels of export performance by specifically enhancing in countries where the institutional quality is high (Mingo et al., 2018;
market-related and financial metrics. This is because EO rests heavily on Wang & Chung, 2020).
pinpointing and exploiting novel market opportunities (Lumpkin & In terms of informal institutions, countries with low uncertainty
Dess, 1996; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2003), which enables industrial firms avoidance foster the development of MO to strengthen export perfor
to target upscale customers, charge higher prices, and dominate the mance, while countries with low future orientation might be better at
market before rivals (Zahra & Covin, 1995). This eventually produces the pursuit of EO in the way of performing exceptionally in export
16
markets. Even though the related body of research has strongly claimed orientations and export performance. And third, it spotlights the
that long-term orientation is supportive of innovativeness, proactive moderating effect of measurement factors on the magnitude of the
ness, and autonomy activities of entrepreneurially-oriented firms in linkages between strategic orientations and export performance.
particular due to the necessity to follow a long-run approach to effec
tively implement these dimensions of EO (Lumpkin et al., 2010), oper 5.2. Managerial implications
ating in a national culture surrounded by long-term orientation may
hinder firms’ abilities to quickly capitalize on market opportunities Drawing on the results of this meta-analytic approach, a few com
(Basco et al., 2020). This situation can be explained by the notion that ments can be explicated to provide insightful implications for practi
members are more successful at thoroughly analyzing the pros and cons tioners. First, industrial export managers need to be conscious of the
of each action in long-term oriented cultures (Lin et al., 2019), and ul impact of MO and EO on boosting not only overall export success but
timately, more tend to postpone making final business decisions (Rusu, also the multiple features of export performance. Given this, managers
2014). Considering all, the affirmed contingency effect of the institu are advised to create an organizational culture that encourages the
tional context home country on the strength of the relationships between development of both MO and EO activities in export markets. This is
strategic orientations and export performance gives countenance to the mainly because an organizational culture being supportive of market
notion that home country institutions shape transaction costs and learning and/or entrepreneurial proclivity with a strong managerial
managerial concerns and, ultimately, the potentiality of firms to build commitment spurs employees to deploy and improve each dimension of
and utilize strategic resources and capabilities, and also to gain MO and EO (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Zahra, Hayton, & Salvato, 2004).
achievements in target markets (He & Cui, 2012; Marano et al., 2016). In that vein, organizational structure characteristics are also critically
However, the empirical findings reveal no significant variations in important, as high centralization and formalization levels may act as
the correlation between MO and export performance, regardless of the barriers to MO and EO activities (Dess, Pinkham, & Yang, 2011; Harris,
degree of future orientation. This result may be due to the holistic 2000; Jaworski & Kohli, 1993). Considering this, executives should offer
approach adopted to conceptualize the MO concept in this meta- flexibility and empowerment to their employees in terms of imple
analysis. For example, some idiosyncrasies exist among different di menting MO and EO.
mensions of MO, and intelligence generation and dissemination have Moreover, managers are recommended not only to focus on rein
been suggested to enhance intelligence responsiveness in an organiza forcing either MO or EO but also to lean towards improving both MO and
tion (Chung, 2012), which may require long-term orientation to be EO simultaneously to produce superior export performance outcomes,
implemented. Furthermore, the effect of EO on export performance which should be a notably concerned during the process of business
among low and high-uncertainty avoidance cultures also merits partic planning. For instance, industrial exporters with higher EO alone could
ular interest. It can be inferred from the meta-analysis that the EO- not improve their strategic export performance, whereas industrial ex
export performance relationship is not bound to the level of uncer porters with higher MO and EO can successfully attain their strategic
tainty avoidance in a culture. This conforms to previous empirical export performance goals. Accordingly, mechanisms in which customers
research, showing that neither entrepreneurial activities nor the linkage are at the center should be established in exporting firms to deploy the
between entrepreneurial intention and its behavioral consequences are synergetic benefits of MO and EO, which can be further enhanced by the
statistically correlated with the degree of uncertainty avoidance of na contributions of inter-departmental project teams.
tional culture (Sambharya & Musteen, 2014; Shirokova et al., 2016). Further, the confirmed moderating role of home country institutions
Another insightful conclusion from this meta-analysis is how mea in the association between MO/EO and export performance offers
surement factors cause significant variations in the correlations between several directions for executives. In this sense, managers should be
strategic orientations and export performance. Notably, the repercus aware that the institutional quality of the political and legal environ
sion of MO on export performance has been reported to be determined ment in the home country leads to diverse entrepreneurially-oriented
by using subjective or objective indicators to monitor the export per export achievements. This could signal industrial firms operating
formance concept, of which subjective measures positively moderate the merely in the domestic market, as there exists an escape from the
proposed association among the theoretical constructs of interest. This weaknesses of home country institutions, supporting the central pre
mirrors the previous empirical and meta-analytic evidence in the related mises of the institutional escapism view. However, practitioners must
stream of research (e.g., Ellis, 2006; Shoham et al., 2005). Nevertheless, understand that MO activities leverage managerial tendencies to ensure
we have also found a non-significant impact of measurement types on export performance regardless of the home country’s formal
the EO-export performance association, which can be explained by the institutions.
limited number of effect sizes closely dispersing across categories Besides, the specific cultural characteristics of countries should be
detected for this hypothesized relationship. Besides, this study consid another managerial concern for the market- and entrepreneurially-
erably adds to the extant literature by putting particular stress on the oriented exporting firms, as culture is of capital importance among
consequence that the export performance’s linkages with both MO and informal institutional factors (Peng et al., 2008), and it causes variations
EO are greater in magnitude when unidimensional scales are adopted to in the influence of MO and EO on export performance. Therefore, it
evaluate the phenomenon of strategic orientation, despite opposition to would be wise for practitioners to stress the export performance out
the study hypotheses. In this respect, the meta-analytic findings put comes of MO in low uncertainty avoidance countries, but in nations with
special emphasis on the importance of following a holistic perspective to low future orientation, export success cultivated by the help of entre
handle the MO and EO concepts, which provides fresh insights into the preneurial proclivity should be underlined. In particular, export man
conceptualization of the MO phenomenon but supports the views of the agers in countries with low uncertainty avoidance should promote
initial contributors to the development of EO (Covin & Slevin, 1989; information collection and sharing within an organization to capitalize
Miller, 1983). on market opportunities. Besides, in less future-oriented nations, export
Building on these premises, this meta-analytic review makes three practitioners must adhere to the notion that an entrepreneurial stance
main contributions to the existing knowledge of the strategic with correct timing is critically important in outperforming competitors
orientations-export performance relationship. First, we advance the DC in overseas markets.
view by providing cumulative evidence on how multiple aspects of
export performance are related to MO and EO in particular and how MO 5.3. Limitations and future research directions
and EO jointly influence export performance. Second, it extends the
institutional view by revealing whether home country institutions There should be an awareness that this meta-analytic research suffers
matter for contextualizing the associations between strategic from certain limitations. First, the statistical data covered in this meta-
17
analysis is confined to the empirical articles presenting effect sizes, Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in
marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in
implying that this study needed to have contained all empirical research
Marketing, 13(2), 139–161.
on the influence of MO and EO on export performance. Second, this Bearden, W. O., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1999). Handbook of marketing scales: Multi-item
meta-analytic investigation focuses only on the influence of the home measures for marketing and consumer behavior research. Sage publications.
country’s formal and informal institutions and measurement factors as Bekaert, G., Harvey, C. R., Lundblad, C. T., & Siegel, S. (2014). Political risk spreads.
Journal of International Business Studies, 45(4), 471–493.
potential moderators on the association between MO/EO and export Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus
performance. Another limitation can be arisen from the potential con single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2),
ceptual overlaps among strategic orientations, as organizational decisive 175–184.
Bıçakcıoğlu-Peynirci, N., & İpek, İ. (2020). Export market orientation and its
alignment is fractionally nested within individual orientations consequences: a meta-analytic review and assessment of contextual and
(Schweiger et al., 2019). And finally, another important concern could measurement moderators. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 35(5),
be the lack of examination of other strategic orientations and the factors 939–954.
*Birru, W. T., Runhaar, P., Zaalberg, R., Lans, T., & Mulder, M. (2019). Explaining
related to MO and EO in the export setting. organizational export performance by single and combined international business
Based upon these limitations, this meta-analytic review offers valu competencies. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(3), 1172–1192.
able avenues for further research to improve the existing knowledge of Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to
meta-analysis. UK: John Wiley & Sons.
the strategic orientations-export performance relationship. In conjunc *Boso, N. (2010). “Export entrepreneurial-oriented behaviour and export performance”,
tion with home country institutions, examining host country institu unpublished manuscript, Loughborough’s Institutional Repository, Creative Commons.
tional conditions as moderators is likely to offer additional insights into Leicestershire, United Kingdom: Loughborough University.
*Boso, N., Adeola, O., Danso, A., & Assadinia, S. (2019). The effect of export marketing
the current understanding of how MO and EO are related to export
capabilities on export performance: Moderating role of dysfunctional competition.
performance. Another fruitful consideration can be adopting a network Industrial Marketing Management, 78, 137–145.
perspective by acknowledging the possible effects of the top manage Boso, N., Cadogan, J. W., & Story, V. M. (2012). Entrepreneurial orientation and market
ment team’s social capital (e.g., managerial ties and political ties) on the orientation as drivers of product innovation success: A study of exporters from a
developing economy. International Small Business Journal, 31(1), 57–81.
relationship between strategic orientation and export performance. Boso, N., Oghazi, P., & Hultman, M. (2017). International entrepreneurial orientation
Another future research direction that merits further attention might be and regional expansion. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 29(1-2), 4–26.
to conduct a meta-analysis by aggregating other strategic orientations Boso, N., Story, V. M., & Cadogan, J. W. (2013). Entrepreneurial orientation, market
orientation, network ties, and performance: Study of entrepreneurial firms in a
(e.g., learning orientation, innovation orientation, and employee developing economy. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 708–727.
orientation). Further research should also address the determinants of Brinckmann, J., Grichnik, D., & Kapsa, D. (2010). Should entrepreneurs plan or just
MO and EO with the intent to provide a bigger picture of the constructs storm the castle? A meta-analysis on contextual factors impacting the business
planning–performance relationship in small firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 25
of interest. (1), 24–40.
Brown, S. P., & Peterson, R. A. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job
Data availability satisfaction: Meta-analysis and assessment of causal effects. Journal of Marketing
Research, 30(1), 63–77.
Bruner, G. C., & Hensel, P. J. (1993). Multi-item scale usage in marketing journals: 1980
No data was used for the research described in the article. to 1989. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(4), 339–344.
*Cadogan, J. W., Boso, N., Story, V. M., & Adeola, O. (2016). Export strategic orientation-
performance relationship: Examination of its enabling and disenabling boundary
References1
conditions. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5046–5052.
*Cadogan, J. W., Cui, C. C., & Li, E. K. Y. (2003). Export market-oriented behavior and
Acikdilli, G., Mintu-Wimsatt, A., Kara, A., & Spillan, J. E. (2020). Export market export performance. International Marketing Review, 20(5), 493–513.
orientation, marketing capabilities and export performance of SMEs in an emerging *Cadogan, J. W., Kuivalainen, O., & Sundqvist, S. (2009). Export market-oriented
market: A resource-based approach. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 1–16. behavior and export performance: Quadratic and moderating effects under differing
Acs, Z. J., Morck, R., Shaver, J. M., & Yeung, B. (1997). The internationalization of small degrees of market dynamism and internationalization. Journal of International
and medium-sized enterprises: A policy perspective. Small Business Economics, 9(1), Marketing, 17(4), 71–89.
7–20. Cadogan, J. W., Paul, N. J., Salminen, R. T., Puumalainen, K., & Sundqvist, S. (2001). Key
Ajayi, B. (2016). The impact of entrepreneurial orientation and networking capabilities antecedents to "export" market-oriented behaviors: A cross-national empirical
on the export performance of Nigerian agricultural SMEs. Journal of Entrepreneurship examination. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 18(3), 261–282.
and Innovation in Emerging Economies, 2(1), 1–23. Cadogan, J. W., Souchon, A. L., & Procter, D. B. (2008). The quality of market-oriented
Andersen, P. H. (2006). Listening to the global grapevine: SME export managers’ behaviors: Formative index construction. Journal of Business Research, 61(12),
personal contacts as a vehicle for export information generation. Journal of World 1263–1277.
Business, 41(1), 81–96. *Cadogan, J. W., Sundqvist, S., Puumalainen, K., & Salminen, R. T. (2012). Strategic
Anderson, B. S., Kreiser, P. M., Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Eshima, Y. (2015). flexibilities and export performance. European Journal of Marketing, 46(10),
Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 36 1418–1452.
(10), 1579–1596. *Camara, F. J. R. (2018). “Entrepreneurial orientation, export performance and green
Atuahene-Gima, K., & Ko, A. (2001). An empirical investigation of the effect of market innovation performance: The mediating effect of open innovation in SMEs”, unpublished
orientation and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on product innovation. manuscript, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. València, Spain: Universitat de València.
Organization Science, 12(1), 54–74. Campbell, J. T., Eden, L., & Miller, S. R. (2012). Multinationals and corporate social
Avlonitis, G. J., & Gounaris, S. P. (1997). Marketing orientation and company responsibility in host countries: Does distance matter? Journal of International
performance: industrial vs. consumer goods companies. Industrial Marketing Business Studies, 43(1), 84–106.
Management, 26(5), 385–402. Cano, C. R., Carrillat, F. A., & Jaramillo, F. (2004). A meta-analysis of the relationship
Bahadir, S. C., Bharadwaj, S., & Parzen, M. (2009). A meta-analysis of the determinants between market orientation and business performance: Evidence from five
of organic sales growth. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4), continents. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(2), 179–200.
263–275. Card, N. A. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. United States of
Baker, R., & Jackson, D. (2008). A new approach to outliers in meta-analysis. Health Care America: Guilford Publications.
Management Science, 11(2), 121–131. Chacar, A. S., Newburry, W., & Vissa, B. (2010). Bringing institutions into performance
Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (2009). The complementary effects of market orientation persistence research: Exploring the impact of product, financial, and labor market
and entrepreneurial orientation on profitability in small businesses. Journal of Small institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(7), 1119–1140.
Business Management, 47(4), 443–464. Chang, W., Franke, G. R., Butler, T. D., Musgrove, C. F., & Ellinger, A. E. (2014).
Balabanis, G. I., & Katsikea, E. S. (2003). Being an entrepreneurial exporter: does it pay? Differential mediating effects of radical and incremental innovation on market
International Business Review, 12(2), 233–252. orientation-performance relationship: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Theory
Basco, R., Hernández-Perlines, F., & Rodríguez-García, M. (2020). The effect of and Practice, 22(3), 235–250.
entrepreneurial orientation on firm performance: A multigroup analysis comparing *Chang, Y. S., & Fang, S. R. (2015). Enhancing export performance for business markets:
China, Mexico, and Spain. Journal of Business Research, 113, 409–421. Effects of interorganizational relationships on export market orientation (EMO).
Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 22(3), 211–228.
Chen, J., Sousa, C. M., & He, X. (2016). The determinants of export performance: a
review of the literature 2006-2014. International Marketing Review, 33(5), 626–670.
*Chung, H. F. (2012). Export market orientation, managerial ties, and performance.
1
References with an asterisk represent the studies covered in the meta- International Marketing Review, 29(4), 403–423.
analytic investigation.
18
Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing *Faroque, A. R., Mostafiz, M. I., Faruq, M. O., & Bashar, M. F. B. (2021). Revisiting
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73. entrepreneurial capabilities and export market orientation: a multi-scale
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis investigation in an emerging economy. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 16
and meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. (3), 556–579.
Coviello, N. E., McDougall, P. P., & Oviatt, B. M. (2011). The emergence, advance and *Fernández-Mesa, A., & Alegre, J. (2015). Entrepreneurial orientation and export
future of international entrepreneurship research—An introduction to the special intensity: Examining the interplay of organizational learning and innovation.
forum. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 625–631. International Business Review, 24(1), 148–156.
Covin, J. G., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: *Francis, J., & Collins-Dodd, C. (2000). The impact of firms’ export orientation on the
Reflections on a needed construct. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), export performance of high-tech small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of
855–872. International Marketing, 8(3), 84–103.
Covin, J. G., & Miller, D. (2014). International entrepreneurial orientation: Conceptual *French, M. R. (2006). “Export market orientation: Performance, timing, and extent of
considerations, research themes, measurement issues, and future research directions. internationalization”, unpublished manuscript. Florida, United States: ProQuest
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 11–44. Dissertations Publishing, UMI Number 3211694, Nova Southeastern University.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and Fuchs, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2009). Using single-item measures for construct
benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87. measurement in management research: Conceptual issues and application
Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P., & Schultz, R. L. (1994). Implementing strategic missions: guidelines. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 69(2), 195–210.
Effective strategic, structural and tactical choices. Journal of Management Studies, 31 Genc, E., Dayan, M., & Genc, O. F. (2019). The impact of SME internationalization on
(4), 481–505. innovation: The mediating role of market and entrepreneurial orientation. Industrial
Cui, L., Fan, D., Guo, F., & Fan, Y. (2018). Explicating the relationship of entrepreneurial Marketing Management, 82, 253–264.
orientation and firm performance: Underlying mechanisms in the context of an Gençtürk, E. F., & Kotabe, M. (2001). The effect of export assistance program usage on
emerging market. Industrial Marketing Management, 71, 27–40. export performance: a contingency explanation. Journal of International Marketing, 9
Culpan, R., & Kucukemiroglu, O. (1993). A comparison of US and Japanese management (2), 51–72.
styles and unit effectiveness. Management International Review, 33(1), 27–42. Geringer, J. M., & Herbert, L. (1991). Measuring performance of international joint
Dai, L., Maksimov, V., Gilbert, B. A., & Fernhaber, S. A. (2014). Entrepreneurial ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(2), 249–264.
orientation and international scope: The differential roles of innovativeness, Gerschewski, S., Rose, E. L., & Lindsay, V. J. (2015). Understanding the drivers of
proactiveness, and risk-taking. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(4), 511–524. international performance for born global firms: An integrated perspective. Journal
De Clercq, D., Sapienza, H. J., & Crijns, H. (2005). The internationalization of small and of World Business, 50(3), 558–575.
medium-sized firms. Small Business Economics, 24(4), 409–419. Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Cunha, P. V. (2009). A review and
Deng, S., & Dart, J. (1994). Measuring market orientation: A multi-factor, multi-item evaluation of meta-analysis practices in management research. Journal of
approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 10(8), 725–742. Management, 35(2), 393–419.
Deshpandé, R., & Farley, J. U. (2004). Organizational culture, market orientation, Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Kumar, N. (1998). Generalizations about trust in
innovativeness, and firm performance: An international research odyssey. marketing channel relationships using meta-analysis. International Journal of
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(1), 3–22. Research in Marketing, 15(3), 223–248.
Deshpandé, R., Farley, J. U., & Webster, F. E., Jr. (1993). Corporate culture, customer González-Benito, Ó., & González-Benito, J. (2005). Cultural vs. operational market
orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis. Journal of orientation and objective vs. subjective performance: Perspective of production and
Marketing, 57(1), 23–37. operations. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(8), 797–829.
Dess, G. G., Pinkham, B. C., & Yang, H. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation: Assessing the Gounaris, S. P., & Avlonitis, G. J. (2001). Market orientation development: a comparison
construct’s validity and addressing some of its implications for research in the areas of industrial vs consumer goods companies. Journal of Business & Industrial
of family business and organizational learning. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Marketing, 16(5), 354-38.
35(5), 1077–1090. Gregory, G. D., Ngo, L. V., & Karavdic, M. (2019). Developing e-commerce marketing
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: theory and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage capabilities and efficiencies for enhanced performance in business-to-business export
Publications. ventures. Industrial Marketing Management, 78, 146–157.
Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P., & Kaiser, S. (2012). Grewal, D., Puccinelli, N., & Monroe, K. B. (2018). Meta-analysis: integrating
Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct accumulated knowledge. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(1), 9–30.
measurement: a predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Griffin, D., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C., Li, K., & Shao, L. (2017). National culture: The
Science, 40(3), 434–449. missing country-level determinant of corporate governance. Journal of International
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative Business Studies, 48(6), 740–762.
indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), Grinstein, A. (2008a). The relationships between market orientation and alternative
269–277. strategic orientations. European Journal of Marketing, 42(1/2), 115–134.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the Grinstein, A. (2008b). The effect of market orientation and its components on innovation
solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497. consequences: A meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2),
Dikova, D., Sahib, P. R., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2010). Cross-border acquisition 166–173.
abandonment and completion: The effect of institutional differences and Hakala, H. (2011). Strategic orientations in management literature: Three approaches to
organizational learning in the international business service industry, 1981-2001. understanding the interaction between market, technology, entrepreneurial and
Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 223–245. learning orientations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 199–217.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional Harris, L. C. (2000). The organizational barriers to developing market orientation.
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological European Journal of Marketing, 34(5/6), 598–624.
Review, 147–160. Harris, L. C. (2001). Market orientation and performance: Objective and subjective
Dimitratos, P., Petrou, A., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Johnson, J. E. (2011). Strategic decision- empirical evidence from UK companies. Journal of Management Studies, 38(1), 17–43.
making processes in internationalization: Does national culture of the focal firm *He, X., Brouthers, K. D., & Filatotchev, I. (2018). Market orientation and export
matter? Journal of World Business, 46(2), 194–204. performance: The moderation of channel and institutional distance. International
Ding, S., McDonald, F., & Wei, Y. (2021). Is internationalization beneficial to innovation? Marketing Review, 35(2), 258–279.
Evidence from a meta-analysis. Management International Review, 61(4), 469–519. He, X., & Cui, L. (2012). Can strong home country institutions foster the
Donbesuur, F., Boso, N., & Hultman, M. (2020). The effect of entrepreneurial orientation internationalization of MNEs? Multinational Business Review, 20(4), 352–375.
on new venture performance: Contingency roles of entrepreneurial actions. Journal Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. London: Academic
of Business Research, 118, 150–161. Press.
Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A., & House, R. (2012). GLOBE: A Henard, D. H., & Szymanski, D. M. (2001). Why some new products are more successful
twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership. Journal of than others. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 362–375.
World Business, 47(4), 504–518. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
Drolet, A. L., & Morrison, D. G. (2001). Do we really need multiple-item measures in organizations across nations. United States of America: Sage Publications.
service research? Journal of Service Research, 3(3), 196–204. Holmes, R. M., Miller, T., Hitt, M. A., & Salmador, M. P. (2013). The interrelationships
Durmuşoğlu, S. S., Apfelthaler, G., Nayir, D. Z., Alvarez, R., & Mughan, T. (2012). The among informal institutions, formal institutions, and inward foreign direct
effect of government-designed export promotion service use on small and medium- investment. Journal of Management, 39(2), 531–566.
sized enterprise goal achievement: A multidimensional view of export performance. *Hortinha, P., Lages, C., & Lages, L. F. (2011). The trade-off between customer and
Industrial Marketing Management, 41(4), 680–691. technology orientations: impact on innovation capabilities and export performance.
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting Journal of International Marketing, 19(3), 36–58.
for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. (2000). Strategy in emerging
95(449), 89–98. economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 249–267.
Eisend, M., Evanschitzky, H., & Calantone, R. J. (2016). The relative advantage of House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and
marketing over technological capabilities in influencing new product performance: implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE.
The moderating role of country institutions. Journal of International Marketing, 24(1), Journal of World Business, 37(1), 3–10.
41–56. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Vipin, G. (2004). Culture,
Eisend, M., & Tarrahi, F. (2014). Meta-analysis selection bias in marketing research. leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31(3), 317–326. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in
Ellis, P. D. (2006). Market orientation and performance: A meta-analysis and cross- research findings. US: Thousand Oaks.
national comparisons. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 1089–1107.
19
Hwang, J., Chung, J. E., & Jin, B. (2013). Culture matters: The role of long-term Leonidou, L. C., Katsikeas, C. S., & Samiee, S. (2002). Marketing strategy determinants of
orientation and market orientation in buyer-supplier relationships in a Confucian export performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 55(1), 51–67.
culture. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 25(5), 721–744. Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buchan, N. R., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. B. (2005). Culture and
Ibeh, K. I. (2003). Toward a contingency framework of export entrepreneurship: international business: Recent advances and their implications for future research.
conceptualisations and empirical evidence. Small Business Economics, 20(1), 49–68. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4), 357–378.
Ieva, F., & Paganoni, A. M. (2015). Detecting and visualizing outliers in provider Li, J., Liu, B., & Qian, G. (2019). The belt and road initiative, cultural friction and
profiling via funnel plots and mixed effect models. Health Care Management Science, ethnicity: Their effects on the export performance of SMEs in China. Journal of World
18(2), 166–172. Business, 54(4), 350–359.
İpek, İ., & Bıçakcıoğlu-Peynirci, N. (2020). Export market orientation: An integrative Li, J., Vertinsky, I., & Zhang, H. (2013). The quality of domestic legal institutions and
review and directions for future research. International Business Review, 29(4), 1–19. export performance. Management International Review, 53(3), 361–390.
*İpek, İ., & Tanyeri, M. (2021). Home country institutional drivers and performance Li, Y., Sun, Y., & Liu, Y. (2006). An empirical study of SOEs’ market orientation in
outcomes of export market orientation: The moderating role of firm resources. transitional China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(1), 93–113.
International Journal of Emerging Markets, 16(4), 806–836. Li, Y., Wei, Z., & Liu, Y. (2010). Strategic orientations, knowledge acquisition, and firm
Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & De Luque, M. S. (2006). performance: the perspective of the vendor in cross-border outsourcing. Journal of
Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: A comparative Management Studies, 47(8), 1457–1482.
review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s approaches. Journal of International Business Liao, S. H., Chang, W. J., Wu, C. C., & Katrichis, J. M. (2011). A survey of market
Studies, 37(6), 897–914. orientation research (1995-2008). Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 301–310.
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. *Lin, K. H., Huang, K. F., & Peng, Y. P. (2014). Impact of export market orientation on
Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70. export performance. Baltic Journal of Management, 9(4), 403–425.
*Katsikea, E., Theodosiou, M., & Makri, K. (2019). The interplay between market Lin, Y., Shi, W., Prescott, J. E., & Yang, H. (2019). In the eye of the beholder: Top
intelligence activities and sales strategy as drivers of performance in foreign markets. managers’ long-term orientation, industry context, and decision-making processes.
European Journal of Marketing, 53(10), 2080–2108. Journal of Management, 45(8), 3114–3145.
Katsikeas, C. S., Piercy, N. F., & Ioannidis, C. (1996). Determinants of export performance Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Practical meta-analysis.
in a European context. European Journal of Marketing, 30(6), 6–35. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Kaya, A. N. (2008). “Integration of market and entrepreneurial orientations; and their Lisboa, A., Skarmeas, D., & Lages, C. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation, exploitative
impact on export performance: A contingency approach”, unpublished manuscript, ODU and explorative capabilities, and performance outcomes in export markets: A
Digital Commons. Norfolk, Virginia, Unites States: Old Dominion University. resource-based approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(8), 1274–1284.
*Kayabasi, A., & Mtetwa, T. (2016). Impact of marketing effectiveness and capabilities, Lu, Y., Zhou, L., Bruton, G., & Li, W. (2010). Capabilities as a mediator linking resources
and export market orientation on export performance. European Business Review, 28 and the international performance of entrepreneurial firms in an emerging economy.
(5), 532–559. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(3), 419–436.
Kaynak, E., & Kara, A. (2004). Market orientation and organizational performance: A Lumpkin, G. T., Brigham, K. H., & Moss, T. W. (2010). Long-term orientation:
comparison of industrial versus consumer companies in mainland China using Implications for the entrepreneurial orientation and performance of family
market orientation scale (MARKOR). Industrial Marketing Management, 33(8), businesses. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(3–4), 241–264.
743–753. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct
Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. O. (2005). Market orientation: A meta- and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.
analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance. Luoto, S., Brax, S. A., & Kohtamäki, M. (2017). Critical meta-analysis of servitization
Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 24–41. research: Constructing a model-narrative to reveal paradigmatic assumptions.
Knight, G. (2000). Entrepreneurship and marketing strategy: The SME under Industrial Marketing Management, 60, 89–100.
globalization. Journal of International Marketing, 8(2), 12–32. Ma, X., Ding, Z., & Yuan, L. (2016). Subnational institutions, political capital, and the
Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research internationalization of entrepreneurial firms in emerging economies. Journal of
propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18. World Business, 51(5), 843–854.
Kollmann, T., & Stöckmann, C. (2014). Filling the entrepreneurial *Mac, L., & Evangelista, F. (2016). The relative impact of market orientation and
orientation–performance gap: The mediating effects of exploratory and exploitative entrepreneurship on export performance: Do we really know enough? Journal of
innovations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(5), 1001–1026. Global Marketing, 29(5), 266–281.
Kostova, T., Beugelsdijk, S., Scott, R., Kunst, V. E., Chua, C. H., & van Essen, M. (2020). *Makri, K., Theodosiou, M., & Katsikea, E. (2017). An empirical investigation of the
The construct of institutional distance through the lens of diverse institutional antecedents and performance outcomes of export innovativeness. International
perspectives: Review, analysis, and future directions. Journal of International Business Business Review, 26(4), 628–639.
Studies, 51, 467–497. Malik, T. H., Xiang, T., & Huo, C. (2021). The transformation of national patents for high-
Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. (2008). Institutional theory in the study of technology exports: Moderating effects of national cultures. International Business
multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 1–13.
Review, 33(4), 994–1006. Marano, V., Arregle, J. L., Hitt, M. A., Spadafora, E., & Van Essen, M. (2016). Home
Kraft, P. S., & Bausch, A. (2016). How do transformational leaders promote exploratory country institutions and the internationalization-performance relationship: A meta-
and exploitative innovation? Examining the black box through MASEM. Journal of analytic review. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1075–1110.
Product Innovation Management, 33(6), 687–707. Marano, V., Tashman, P., & Kostova, T. (2017). Escaping the iron cage: Liabilities of
Kreiser, P. M., Marino, L. D., Dickson, P., & Weaver, K. M. (2010). Cultural influences on origin and CSR reporting of emerging market multinational enterprises. Journal of
entrepreneurial orientation: The impact of national culture on risk taking and International Business Studies, 48(3), 386–408.
proactiveness in SMEs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(5), 959–984. *Martin, S. L., & Javalgi, R. R. G. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation, marketing
Kropp, F., Lindsay, N. J., & Shoham, A. (2006). Entrepreneurial, market, and learning capabilities and performance: The moderating role of competitive intensity on Latin
orientations and international entrepreneurial business venture performance in American International new ventures. Journal of Business Research, 69(6),
South African firms. International Marketing Review, 23(5), 504–523. 2040–2051.
Kuivalainen, O., Sundqvist, S., & Servais, P. (2007). Firms’ degree of born-globalness, *Martin, S. L., & Javalgi, R. R. G. (2019). Explaining performance determinants: A
international entrepreneurial orientation and export performance. Journal of World knowledge based view of international new ventures. Journal of Business Research,
Business, 42(3), 253–267. 101, 615–626.
Lages, L. F., & Lages, C. R. (2004). The STEP scale: A measure of short-term export Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J. T., & Özsomer, A. (2002). The effects of entrepreneurial
performance improvement. Journal of International Marketing, 12(1), 36–56. proclivity and market orientation on business performance. Journal of Marketing, 66
Lamm, H., & Trommsdorff, G. (1973). Group versus individual performance on tasks (3), 18–32.
requiring ideational proficiency (brainstorming): A review. European Journal of Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J. T., & Rentz, J. O. (2005). A conceptual and empirical
Social Psychology, 3(4), 361–388. comparison of three market orientation scales. Journal of Business Research, 58(1),
*Lengler, J. F., Sousa, C. M., & Marques, C. (2013). Exploring the linear and quadratic 1–8.
effects of customer and competitor orientation on export performance. International Mavondo, F. T., & Farrell, M. A. (2000). Measuring market orientation: Are there
Marketing Review, 30(5), 440–468. differences between business marketers and consumer marketers? Australian Journal
*Lengler, J. F., Sousa, C. M., Perin, M. G., Sampaio, C. H., & Martínez-López, F. J. (2016). of Management, 25(2), 223–244.
The antecedents of export performance of Brazilian small and medium-sized Miao, C., Coombs, J. E., Qian, S., & Sirmon, D. G. (2017). The mediating role of
enterprises (SMEs): The non-linear effects of customer orientation. International entrepreneurial orientation: A meta-analysis of resource orchestration and cultural
Small Business Journal, 34(5), 701–727. contingencies. Journal of Business Research, 77, 68–80.
Leonidou, E., Christofi, M., Vrontis, D., & Thrassou, A. (2020). An integrative framework Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management
of stakeholder engagement for innovation management and entrepreneurship Science, 29(7), 770–791.
development. Journal of Business Research, 119, 245–258. Mingo, S., Junkunc, M., & Morales, F. (2018). The interplay between home and host
Leonidou, L. C., Aykol, B., Larimo, J., Kyrgidou, L., & Christodoulides, P. (2021). country institutions in an emerging market context: Private equity in Latin America.
Enhancing international buyer-seller relationship quality and long-term orientation Journal of World Business, 53(5), 653–667.
using emotional intelligence: The moderating role of foreign culture. Management Moore, K. A., Halle, T. G., Vandivere, S., & Mariner, C. L. (2002). Scaling back survey
International Review, 1–38. scales: How short is too short? Sociological Methods & Research, 30(4), 530–567.
Leonidou, L. C., & Katsikeas, C. S. (1996). The export development process: An Mueller, S. L., & Thomas, A. S. (2001). Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine
integrative review of empirical models. Journal of International Business Studies, 27 country study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16
(3), 517–551. (1), 51–75.
20
Mueller, V., Rosenbusch, N., & Bausch, A. (2013). Success patterns of exploratory and Reijonen, H., Hirvonen, S., Nagy, G., Laukkanen, T., & Gabrielsson, M. (2015). The
exploitative innovation: A meta-analysis of the influence of institutional factors. impact of entrepreneurial orientation on B2B branding and business growth in
Journal of Management, 39(6), 1606–1636. emerging markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 51, 35–46.
*Murray, J. Y., Gao, G. Y., & Kotabe, M. (2011). Market orientation and performance of Robertson, C., & Chetty, S. K. (2000). A contingency-based approach to understanding
export ventures: The process through marketing capabilities and competitive export performance. International Business Review, 9(2), 211–235.
advantages. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 252–269. Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Introduction: Understanding and dealing with
*Murray, J. Y., Gao, G. Y., Kotabe, M., & Zhou, N. (2007). Assessing measurement organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10(2),
invariance of export market orientation: A study of Chinese and Non-Chinese firms 195–209.
in China. Journal of International Marketing, 15(4), 41–62. Rose, G. M., & Shoham, A. (2002). Export performance and market orientation:
*Nagy, G., & Berács, J. (2012). Antecedents to the export market orientation of Establishing an empirical link. Journal of Business Research, 55(3), 217–225.
Hungarian higher education institutions, and their export performance Rosenbusch, N., Rauch, A., & Bausch, A. (2013). The mediating role of entrepreneurial
consequences. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 22(2), 231–256. orientation in the task environment-performance relationship: A meta-analysis.
Nakata, C., & Sivakumar, K. (2001). Instituting the marketing concept in a multinational Journal of Management, 39(3), 633–659.
setting: The role of national culture. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological
(3), 255–276. Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641.
Nakku, V. B., Agbola, F. W., Miles, M. P., & Mahmood, A. (2020). The interrelationship Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118(2), 183.
between SME government support programs, entrepreneurial orientation, and *Rua, O., França, A., & Ortiz, R. F. (2018). Key drivers of SMEs export performance: the
performance: A developing economy perspective. Journal of Small Business mediating effect of competitive advantage. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(2),
Management, 58(1), 2–31. 257–279.
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business Rusu, C. (2014). Culture-moderator of the relationship between contextual factors and
profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35. entrepreneurial outcomes. Managerial Challenges of the Contemporary Society, 7(1),
Navarro, A., Acedo, F. J., Robson, M. J., Ruzo, E., & Losada, F. (2010). Antecedents and 63–67.
consequences of firms’ export commitment: An empirical study. Journal of Rwehumbiza, D., & Marinov, M. A. (2020). Development of entrepreneurial orientation
International Marketing, 18(3), 41–61. of export manufacturers from emerging economies. International Entrepreneurship and
*Navarro-García, A., Arenas-Gaitán, J., & Rondán-Cataluña, F. J. (2014). External Management Journal, 16(2), 667–689.
environment and the moderating role of export market orientation. Journal of Saeed, S., Yousafzai, S. Y., & Engelen, A. (2014). On cultural and macroeconomic
Business Research, 67(5), 740–745. contingencies of the entrepreneurial orientation - performance relationship.
Nes, E. B., Solberg, C. A., & Silkoset, R. (2007). The impact of national culture and Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 255–290.
communication on exporter–distributor relations and on export performance. Sahasranamam, S., & Nandakumar, M. K. (2020). Individual capital and social
International Business Review, 16(4), 405–424. entrepreneurship: Role of formal institutions. Journal of Business Research, 107,
Newman, K. L., & Nollen, S. D. (1996). Culture and congruence: The fit between 104–117.
management practices and national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, Sambharya, R., & Musteen, M. (2014). Institutional environment and entrepreneurship:
27(4), 753–779. An empirical study across countries. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 12(4),
*Ngansathil, W. (2001). Market orientation and business performance: Empirical evidence 314–330.
from Thailand. unpublished manuscript, Minerva Access. Australia: The University of Schneider, S. C., & De Meyer, A. (1991). Interpreting and responding to strategic issues:
Melbourne. The impact of national culture. Strategic Management Journal, 12(4), 307–320.
Ngo, V. D., & Janssen, F. (2016). Resources investment and export competitive Schweiger, S. A., Stettler, T. R., Baldauf, A., & Zamudio, C. (2019). The complementarity
advantage of firms in a transition economy: the moderating role of domestic of strategic orientations: A meta-analytic synthesis and theory extension. Strategic
institutional environment and competitive pressures. International Journal of Export Management Journal, 40(11), 1822–1851.
Marketing, 1(2), 166–192. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. London: Sage.
Ngo, V. D., Janssen, F., Leonidou, L. C., & Christodoulides, P. (2016). Domestic Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
institutional attributes as drivers of export performance in an emerging and Seringhaus, F. R. (1993). Comparative marketing behaviour of Canadian and Austrian
transition economy. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2911–2922. high-tech exporters. Management International Review, 33(3), 247–269.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New York, Shamsuddoha, A. K., & Ali, M. Y. (2006). Mediated effects of export promotion programs
NY: Cambridge University Press. on firm export performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 18(2),
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychological theory. New York: McGraw Hill. 93–110.
O’Cass, A., & Ngo, L. V. (2012). Creating superior customer value for B2B firms through Shirokova, G., Osiyevskyy, O., & Bogatyreva, K. (2016). Exploring the intention-behavior
supplier firm capabilities. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(1), 125–135. link in student entrepreneurship: Moderating effects of individual and
*Olabode, O. E., Adeola, O., & Assadinia, S. (2018). The effect of export market-oriented environmental characteristics. European Management Journal, 34(4), 386–399.
culture on export performance. International Marketing Review, 35(4), 637–660. Shoham, A. (1998). Export performance: A conceptualization and empirical assessment.
*Oliveira, J. S. (2015). “Export marketing adaptation and export performance”, unpublished Journal of International Marketing, 6(3), 59–81.
manuscript, Loughborough’s Institutional Repository, Creative Commons. Leicestershire, Shoham, A., Evangelista, F., & Albaum, G. (2002). Strategic firm type and export
United Kingdom: Loughborough University. performance. International Marketing Review, 19(3), 236–258.
Oliveira, J. S., Cadogan, J. W., & Souchon, A. (2012). Level of analysis in export Shoham, A., Rose, G. M., & Kropp, F. (2005). Market orientation and performance: A
performance research. International Marketing Review, 29(1), 114–127. meta-analysis. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23(5), 435–454.
Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational *Sichtmann, C., & von Selasinsky, M. (2010). Exporting services successfully:
Statistics, 8(2), 157–159. Antecedents and performance implications of customer relationships. Journal of
Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors influencing the International Marketing, 18(1), 86–108.
effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), Siguaw, J. A., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1995). Measuring market orientation: some
136–153. evidence on Narver and Slater’s three-component scale. Journal of Strategic
Peng, L., Li, Y., van Essen, M., & Peng, M. W. (2020). Institutions, resources, and strategic Marketing, 3(2), 77–88.
orientations: A meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37, 499–529. Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (2000). The positive effect of a market orientation on
Peng, M. W. (2002). Towards an institution-based view of business strategy. Asia Pacific business profitability: A balanced replication. Journal of Business Research, 48(1),
Journal of Management, 19(2–3), 251–267. 69–73.
Peng, M. W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B., & Chen, H. (2009). The institution-based view as a *Sørensen, H. E., & Madsen, T. K. (2012). Strategic orientations and export market
third leg for a strategy tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 63–81. success of manufacturing firms. International Marketing Review, 29(4), 424–441.
Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y., & Jiang, Y. (2008). An institution-based view of international Sousa, C. M. (2004). Export performance measurement: An evaluation of the empirical
business strategy: a focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business research in the literature. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2004(9), 1–22.
Studies, 39(5), 920–936. Steenkamp, J. B. E. (2001). The role of national culture in international marketing
Pyper, K., Doherty, A. M., Gounaris, S., & Wilson, A. (2019). Investigating international research. International Marketing Review, 18(1), 30–44.
strategic brand management and export performance outcomes in the B2B context. Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Geyskens, I. (2012). Transaction cost economics and the roles of
International Marketing Review, 37(1), 98–129. national culture: A test of hypotheses based on Inglehart and Hofstede. Journal of the
Qi, G., Zou, H., Xie, X., Meng, X., Fan, T., & Cao, Y. (2020). Obedience or escape: Academy of Marketing Science, 40(2), 252–270.
Examining the contingency influences of corruption on firm exports. Journal of Stoian, M. C., Rialp, A., & Rialp, J. (2011). Export performance under the microscope: A
Business Research, 106, 261–272. glance through Spanish lenses. International Business Review, 20(2), 117–135.
Ramaseshan, B., Caruana, A., & Pang, L. S. (2002). The effect of market orientation on *Sundqvist, S., Kyläheiko, K., Kuivalainen, O., & Cadogan, J. W. (2012). Kirznerian and
new product performance: A study among Singaporean firms. Journal of Product & Schumpeterian entrepreneurial-oriented behavior in turbulent export markets.
Brand Management, 11(6), 399–409. International Marketing Review, 29(2), 203–219.
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation *Sundqvist, S., Puumalainen, K., Salminen, R. T., & Cadogan, J. W. (2000). The
and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the interaction between market orientation, industry environment and business success:
future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761–787. Evidence from an exporting context. Australasian Marketing Journal, 8(1), 55–69.
Raymond, M., Kim, J., & Shao, A. (2001). Export strategy and performance: A Szymanski, D. M., & Henard, D. H. (2001). Customer satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the
comparison of exporters in a developed market and an emerging market. Journal of empirical evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(1), 16–35.
Global Marketing, 15(2), 5–29. Tang, J., Tang, Z., Marino, L. D., Zhang, Y., & Li, Q. (2008). Exploring an inverted
U–shape relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and performance in
Chinese ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 219–239.
21
Tang, R. W., & Buckley, P. J. (2020). Host country risk and foreign ownership strategy: entrepreneurship process, and institutional theory. Journal of the Academy of
Meta-analysis and theory on the moderating role of home country institutions. Marketing Science, 39(4), 537–554.
International Business Review, 29(4), 1–15. Welch, L. S., & Luostarinen, R. (1988). Internationalization: Evolution of a concept.
Tantong, P., Karande, K., Nair, A., & Singhapakdi, A. (2010). The effect of product Journal of General Management, 14(2), 34–55.
adaptation and market orientation on export performance: A survey of Thai Wiedersheim-Paul, F., Olson, H. C., & Welch, L. S. (1978). Pre-export activity: The first
managers. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 18(2), 155–170. step in internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 9(1), 47–58.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2003). Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial
management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic
Thorelli, H. B. (1987). Entrepreneurship in international marketing: Some research Management Journal, 24(13), 1307–1314.
opportunities. In G. E. Hills (Ed.), Research at the Marketing/Entrepreneurship Interface Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business
(pp. 183–204). Marietta, GA: USASBE. performance: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1),
Transparency International. (2019). Transparency International Corruption Perception 71–91.
Index. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2019/results Accessed date: 6 July Wilden, R., Gudergan, S., & Lings, I. (2019). The interplay and growth implications of
2020. dynamic capabilities and market orientation. Industrial Marketing Management, 83,
*Ussahawanitchakit, W. (2002). Resource-based determinants of export performance: Effects 21–30.
of ISO 9000 certification. unpublished manuscript, elibrary ID 5710285,. United World Bank. (2018). Worldwide Governance Indicators: Political Stability and Absence
States: Washington State University. of Violence/Terrorism Index. https://tcdata360.worldbank.
Van Essen, M., Heugens, P. P., Otten, J., & van Oosterhout, J. H. (2012). An institution- org/indicators/b89c1cd1?country=BRA&indicator=40270&viz=line_ch
based view of executive compensation: A multilevel meta-analytic test. Journal of art&years=2013,2018 Accessed date: 9 July 2020.
International Business Studies, 43(4), 396–423. Wu, W. Y., Chang, M. L., & Chen, C. W. (2008). Promoting innovation through the
Van Everdingen, Y. M., & Waarts, E. (2003). The effect of national culture on the accumulation of intellectual capital, social capital, and entrepreneurial orientation.
adoption of innovations. Marketing Letters, 14(3), 217–232. R&D Management, 38(3), 265–277.
Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in Yang, M., & Gabrielsson, P. (2017). Entrepreneurial marketing of international high-tech
strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of management review, 11 business-to-business new ventures: A decision-making process perspective. Industrial
(4), 801–814. Marketing Management, 64, 147–160.
Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1987). Measurement of business economic Zaheer, S., & Mosakowski, E. (1997). The dynamics of the liability of foreignness: A
performance: An examination of method congruence. Journal of Management, 13(1), global study of survival in financial services. Strategic Management Journal, 18(6),
109–122. 439–463.
Vrontis, D., & Christofi, M. (2021). R&D internationalization and innovation: A Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate
systematic review, integrative framework and future research directions. Journal of entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of
Business Research, 128, 812–823. Business Venturing, 10(1), 43–58.
*Waldron, N. O. (2004). “Entrepreneurial orientation and its relation to the Zahra, S. A., Hayton, J. C., & Salvato, C. (2004). Entrepreneurship in family vs. non-
internationalization of small business manufacturing enterprises in New England”, family firms: A resource-based analysis of the effect of organizational culture.
unpublished manuscript. Minneapolis, United States: ProQuest Dissertations Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 363–381.
Publishing, UMI Number 3150395, Capella University. Zhang, C., Cavusgil, S. T., & Roath, A. S. (2003). Manufacturer governance of foreign
Wales, W. J., Gupta, V. K., & Mousa, F. T. (2011). Empirical research on entrepreneurial distributor relationships: do relational norms enhance competitiveness in the export
orientation: An assessment and suggestions for future research. International Small market? Journal of International Business Studies, 34(6), 550–566.
Business Journal, 31(4), 357–383. *Zhang, J., & Zhu, M. (2016). Market orientation, product innovation and export
Wang, C., Hong, J., Kafouros, M., & Boateng, A. (2012). What drives outward FDI of performance: Evidence from Chinese manufacturers. Journal of Strategic Marketing,
Chinese firms? Testing the explanatory power of three theoretical frameworks. 24(5), 377–397.
International Business Review, 21(3), 425–438. Zhang, M., Gao, Q., & Cho, H. S. (2017). The effect of sub-national institutions and
Wang, C. L., & Chung, H. F. (2020). Business networking and innovation of Asian international entrepreneurial capability on international performance of export-
enterprises in Western countries: The moderation of institutional distance. Industrial focused SMEs: evidence from China and South Korea. Journal of International
Marketing Management, 88, 152–162. Entrepreneurship, 15(1), 85–110.
Webb, J. W., Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., Kistruck, G. M., & Tihanyi, L. (2011). Where is the Zhou, L., Wu, W. P., & Luo, X. (2007). Internationalization and the performance of born-
opportunity without the customer? An integration of marketing activities, the global SMEs: the mediating role of social networks. Journal of International Business
Studies, 38(4), 673–690.
22

A Meta Analytic Synthesis of How Market and Entrepreneuria 2023 Industrial M

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Meta Analytic Synthesis of How Market and Entrepreneuria 2023 Industrial M

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 1–22

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

A meta-analytic synthesis of how market and entrepreneurial orientation

Financial Export Strategic Overall MO EO LOa Time Scope of # of # of

Present study ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Institutional moderators 2000-2020 11,518 42 185

Schweiger et al. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Contextual moderators 1983-2016 48,593 202 761

Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 1–22

Financial Export Strategic Overall MO EO LOa Time Scope of # of # of

- Non-published studies vs published studies

Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 1–22

Financial Export Strategic Overall MO EO LOa Time Scope of # of # of

Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 1–22

orientation and uncertainty avoidance) influence the MO-export per­

12,043 terest; and, (3) to present theoretical and practical implications in an

performance inferences in the export context.

Fig. 1 displays the theoretical framework of the meta-analysis. In this

- Objective vs subjective performance

replenish competencies to fit the requirements of the altering environ­

embraces and draws attention to both the MO and EO constructs. While

capability" based on its exploitative nature, the latter can be considered

recognize in addressing the legal requirements to operate in foreign

informal institutions that have a crucial effect on managerial practi­

(Holmes et al., 2013).

2.1. MO - export performance

From the behavioral perspective, MO mainly deals with information

understand and satisfy customers (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990). On the

other hand, from a cultural perspective, it stands for organizational

market-oriented firms gravitate towards responding to customers’ needs

(Mavondo & Farrell, 2000).

Along with the increase in the pressures of globalization and inter­

Zhou, 2007; Ngansathil, 2001). Market knowledge is of critical impor­

level of business risks, the complexity of the variables associated with

firms accommodate the marketing approach into their export activities

and elaborate on its three sub-dimensions: (a) export intelligence gen­

edge which is firm-specific and related to the environmental factors that

affect managerial decisions in foreign markets; (b) export intelligence

dissemination, implying the activities that aim to share market knowl­

Fig. 1. Theoretical framework

Fig. 2. Overview of literature search and screening

İ. İpek et al.

Political environment x MO → Export

Future orientation x MO → Export

Future orientation x EO → Export

Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 1–22

You might also like

orientation and uncertainty avoidance) influence the MO-export per

replenish competencies to fit the requirements of the altering environ

informal institutions that have a crucial effect on managerial practi

Along with the increase in the pressures of globalization and inter

Zhou, 2007; Ngansathil, 2001). Market knowledge is of critical impor

and elaborate on its three sub-dimensions: (a) export intelligence gen

dissemination, implying the activities that aim to share market knowl