The effects of entrepreneurialmarketing on born global

performanceAkin Kocak

Faculty of Political Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey, and

Temi AbimbolaManagement and Strategic Management Group, Warwick Business School,

The University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate born global (BG) business organizations that(from or near their founding) seek superior performance.

Design/methodology/approach The methodology is based on a multi-case analysis ofinterviews conducted with five BG enterprises in which it evaluates, compares and contrasts theviews of owner founders.

Findings It seems clear to the authors that organizational structure, the entrepreneurial processesadopted in creating firms, as well as marketing and learning orientation are all crucial ingredients inthe successful early internationalization of enterprises from emerging economies.

Originality/value Although there are a number of studies on BG firms and a well-developedliterature on entrepreneurial marketing, to the best of the knowledge, this is one of the earliest studiesevaluating the synergetic effect of entrepreneurial marketing and issues that arise from thecommingling of organisational dynamics, resources and the performance of small- and medium-sizedenterprises (SMEs) from emerging economies in the international arena. The paper contributes toscholarly discourse on the internationalization process of BG firms. The paper has practical relevanceto entrepreneurs and SME from in emerging markets.

Keywords Entrepreneurialism, Marketing, Learning processes, Small to medium-sized enterprises,Business development, Globalization

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionEarlier research on the internationalisation process of firms in the field of internationalmarketing focused mainly on two approaches: the Uppsala internationalization model( Johanson and Vahlne, 1977) and the innovation-related model (Simmons and Smith,1968; Bilkey and Tesar, 1977; Cavusgil, 1980). Both approaches are often referred toas the stages model, because they explained the internationalization process of firmsas an incremental and gradual process. However, rapid change in the global businessenvironment during the last few decades has had a strong impact on theinternationalization process of most companies around the world. Hence, for manysmall- and medium-sized firms, the internationalization process deviates fromthe stages model (Laanti et al., 2007). In other words, there is a significant increase inthe number of firms that undertake international business from an early stage in theirdevelopment (Weerawardena et al., 2007). Because of the inconsistency between thestages theory and the empirical reality of a growing number of small- andmedium-sized firms which tend to adopt a global focus from their conception, scholars

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm

The effects ofentrepreneurial

marketing

439

Received September 2008Revised February 2009

Accepted February 2009

International Marketing ReviewVol. 26 No. 4/5, 2009

pp. 439-452q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0265-1335DOI 10.1108/02651330910971977

in the field of entrepreneurship have questioned the universality of the stages-theoryexplanation of firms internationalisation (Etemad and Wright, 2003).

This incremental and sequential approach is deterministic in nature. It is also pathdependent, and it does not recognize the role of other firms profile factors such as thepath-breaking strategic choice of internationally oriented, entrepreneurial andowner-managers (Weerawardena et al., 2007). In view of these circumstances,internationalization is considered as an entrepreneurial process of behaviour ( Jonesand Coviello, 2005). Oviatt and McDougall (1994) highlighted the importance of theinternational new venture alongside established and international firms. Despite beingnew and small with the lack of financial, human, and other resources that characterizenew business, these firms achieve considerable international success (Knight et al.,2004). Therefore, the study of the international new venture is becoming an importantpart of the growing international entrepreneurship literature (Rialp et al., 2005).

A stream of literature on the international new venture or born global emergedin the early 1990s (McKinsey & Co., 1993; Knight and Cavusgil, 1996; Oviatt andMcDougall, 1994). They conceptualise the idea of born global (BG) small-medium firmswho derive significant competitive advantages through the deployment of resources tofoster international development. Following Knight and Cavusgils (2004) work, we usethe term born global in this research to mean business organizations that, from ornear their founding, seek sustainable international business performance from theapplication of knowledge-based resources to the sale of outputs in multiple countries(Knight and Cavusgils, 2004, p. 124).

Our main research question in the current study is predicated upon havingsustainable competitive advantages in terms of international performance. In order tohave competitive advantages in the international market, a firm should have certainresources and capabilities. Consistent with recent research that highlights theimportance of studying the role of resources and capabilities of the BG firms(Laanti et al., 2007; Jones and Coviello, 2005; Knight and Cavusgil, 2004; Moen andServais, 2002), we analyse key enabling resources and capabilities that facilitate thefirms internationalization process in their early years. Since the main focus of thepaper is on resources and capabilities, we draw from the literature on dynamiccapabilities in the conceptualization of BG firms.

As Kundu and Katz (2003) assert, while research on the BG is strong on theinternational aspect, it is somewhat lacking in terms of the birth and formation aspects.Thus, with studies on new-international firms in their early years, we believe it ispremature to offer comprehensive models to account for the process. This study buildson the model for organizational emergence developed by Katz and Gartner (1988) and theperson-and-firm approach of Gardner (1985); these models specify four properties ofemerging organizations: intention, boundary, resources and exchange. Boundary refersto the creation of a specified or formalized area from which the emergence can occur;resources are the building blocks of the new organization; intention reflects a purposefuleffort or ideation to have an organization emerge; and exchange involves the crossing ofthe boundary with intent to place outputs and secure new inputs (Kundu and Katz, 2003,p. 25). Amongst these properties, resources and intention are given special considerationin the case of BG firms. Internationalization can only occur if the entrepreneur intends tosell internationally. Once intention is asserted, it requires additional resources or arecombination of current resources to come to fruition (Kundu and Katz, 2003). Thus, in

IMR26,4/5

440

keeping with Katz and Gartner (1988), this study considers variables at both theindividual and the organizational levels where appropriate.

This paper is organized along the following lines. In the first section, we will discussthe theoretical background of the term born global. The second section discusses theinterface between entrepreneurship and marketing with reference to the BG firm. In thethird section, we discuss the factors that enable BG firms to enter the global marketjust after their establishment; and in the last section, the methodology and multiplecase study analysis is presented.

Theoretical backgroundTheoretical support for the BG phenomenon can be found from three main different, butcommensurate, perspectives. First, resources that enable the generation of capabilitiesare especially important to the BG, so a resource-based view (RBV) can be considered atheoretical explanation for the BG phenomenon. RBV helps to explain how resourcesand capabilities are developed and leveraged by enterprising firms (Knight andCavusgil, 2004). Being young, the BG tends to lack substantial financial and humanresources as well as other physical resources that may have accrued to older firms. It isthis primary tangible resource that older firms typically tend to leverage to succeed inforeign markets. In contrast, the BG appears to leverage a collection of fundamentalintangible resources, which comprise a specific constellation of strategic orientationssuch as market, entrepreneurial and technological orientations. These resources mayinclude trade secrets, embedded technological knowledge and managerial, marketingand production skills, which are valuable and difficult to imitate and provide thecompetitive advantages needed for internationalization (Loane and Bell, 2006).

However, the RBV has come under recent criticism as much of the literature takesresource stocks as given; it pays little attention to the process of resource development(Loane and Bell, 2006). Since the BG is defined as a business organization that, from ornear its founding, seeks superior international business performance from theapplication of knowledge-based resource to the sale of outputs in multiple countries(Knight and Cavusgil, 2004), the second theoretical support for the BG would be theknowledge-based view which has emerged from the RBV perspective. In thisstandpoint, knowledge can be considered as the most important resource (Boisot, 1998)and heterogeneous knowledge bases across firms are the main determinant ofperformance differences. Hence, the development, integration and transfer ofknowledge should be regarded as a critical aspect of internationalization (Gassmannand Keupp, 2007; Prashantham, 2005). Since the idiosyncratic knowledge of BG firmsgives rise to their organizational capabilities (Knight and Cavusgil, 2004), the firmmust learn from multiple sources and resources and harness knowledge resulting fromthis learning for accelerated internationalization (Weerawardena et al., 2007).

The third theoretical support for the BG is the dynamic capabilities view. Dynamiccapabilities are defined as the organizational and strategic routines by which the firmachieves new resource configurations as markets emerge, collide, split, evolve and die(Teece et al., 1997). Dynamic capabilities are linked with a firms performance in thatthey change the firms bundle of resources, operation routines and competencies.In other words, dynamic capabilities reflect a path-breaking perspective. Since the BGphenomenon is also a path-breaking strategic choice, the dynamic capabilities viewseems especially suitable as a theoretical background of the BG.

The effects ofentrepreneurial

marketing

441

The other theme that appears to characterize the BG firm is associated with the roleof networks such as personal connections and inter-organizational arrangements.These networks help the BG firm to overcome any resource constraints that theyencounter (Young et al., 2003). Network relationships also generate the social capitalthat provides better access to resources and international opportunities and the meansby which to overcome the liabilities of newness and foreignness (Coviello, 2006).

BG at the interface between marketing and entepreneurshipAt the nexus of the interface between entrepreneurship and marketing are valuecreation and value appropriation within the market (Schindehutte et al., 2008). Thedynamic capability view of the firm explores how the firm builds, integrates andreconfigures a valuable asset position. Thus, we examine the BG phenomena at theinterface between marketing and entrepreneurship from the perspective of dynamiccapabilities.

Zhou (2007) stated that many newly internationalized firms make an early leap intothe international marketplace because of their unique organizational capabilities.Market orientation (MO) and entrepreneurial orientation (EO) are considered asorganizational capabilities (Bhuian et al., 2005). MO is defined as the organizationalculture that most effectively and efficiently creates the necessary behaviour for thecreation of better value for buyers than the competing alternatives and, thusentrenches continuous better performance for the business (Narver and Slater, 1990).When the value creation is for foreign customers, it is conceptualized as aninternational MO (Knight and Cavusgil, 2004). Similarly, internationalentrepreneurship is defined as a combination of innovative, proactive andrisk-seeking behaviour that crosses national borders and is intended to create valuein organizations (McDougall and Oviatt, 2000).

By entering international markets, new firms acquire knowledge that can be used tobuild value creation skills (Zahra et al., 2000). The entrepreneurial nature of BG firms isbelieved to enhance the ability of these firms to learn by actively seeking knowledgeabout international markets, potential customers and competitors, and the issue ofoperations across national borders (Zhou, 2007). The knowledge about internationalmarkets can be obtained through EO and MO. The EO of BG firms can be invaluable topromote and acquire forward-looking knowledge about the foreign market frommultiple resources of information (Zhou, 2007). Similarly, market-oriented firms followspecific and identifiable routines and processes, such as generating information aboutcustomers through monitoring, assessing their changing needs and wants and sharingthe information throughout the firm, and revising business strategies to enhancecustomer value (Menguc and Auh, 2006).

A key characteristic of the BG firm is that they reflect proactive behaviour( Jantunen et al., 2008), an important dimension of EO. As Narver et al. (2004) suggest,MO can comprise either responsive or proactive behaviour. Proactive MO finds thefirm attempting to discover, understand and satisfy the latent needs of customers.We believe that a proactive MO overlaps with BG phenomena.

The speed of internationalization is another characteristic of BG firms. Theentrepreneurial characteristic, which is innovative, proactive and risk taking, may playa part in internationalization speed (Acedo and Jones, 2007). This can be done only byfostering marketing capabilities such as offering unique product.

IMR26,4/5

442

Consistent with Shane and Venkataramans (2001) opportunity perspective, Oviattand McDougall (2005) defined international entrepreneurship as the discovery,enactment, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities across national borders tocreate future goods and services. When EO is combined with other resources andcapabilities such as strong marketing skills, it enables the BG firms to identify andexploit opportunities in foreign markets (Knight and Cavusgil, 2004).

Conceptual framework: model developmentMcDougall et al. (1994) emphasised that BG firms can be international from inceptionbecause their founders possess an unusual constellation of competences. It is alsoargued that the capability building process in the BG firm is driven by entrepreneurialowner-managers with a global mindset (Weerawardena et al., 2007) and experience andnetwork (Laanti et al., 2007). They may also have significant international experienceprior to establishing their firms, and the use of this experience is an important driverfor their international development (Nordman and Melen, 2008). Zahra et al. (2000)highlighted the importance of international experience and learning from internationaloperation for building BG firms competencies and achieving high performance.Experiential knowledge can also be gained from the network of the founder of the BGfirms (Chetty and Campbell-Hunt, 2004). These network relationships generate socialcapital (Coviello, 2006). Therefore, it can be said that extensive experience, skills,networks and the mindset of the BG firms founder are all part of the key resourceswhich help the BG firms to create a competitive gap ahead of other international firms.Thus, the resources held by the founder are important for BG firms. This brings us tothe concept of entrepreneurial capital (EC).

At the time of start-up, the founding entrepreneur is the source of EC. EC includeshuman and social capital that together enables the entrepreneur to envision the future,recognize opportunity, pursue and mitigate risk, leverage, combine unique resourcebundles and demonstrate tenacity in exploiting a given opportunity (Schindehutte et al.,2008). In other words, EC allows the individual to be alert to internationalisation. Thus,EC has implications for EO and MO:

P1. The BG process starts with EC, and it is a determinant of MO and EO.

MO and EO as a firm level process refers to the practice, principles anddecision-making style (Jantunen et al., 2008) and they are seen as the main sourcesof competitive advantages (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1990; Covinand Miles, 1999; Zahra et al., 1999). Moreover, the ability to internationalise early andsucceed in the foreign market is a function of the internal capabilities of the firm (Zahraet al., 2000). This highlights the importance of an EO as an organizational capabilitythat supports opportunity recognition and exploitation in expanding into internationalmarkets (Jantunen et al., 2005). Since BG firms need a new operating model thatimproves performance in the international market, an EO can provide support forthe new model. Dess et al. (1999), for example, argue that entrepreneurship is a keydriver of organizational transformation and strategic renewal through the creationand combination of organizational resources. Similarly, Zahra et al. (1999, p. 169)suggest that entrepreneurial activities can provide a foundation for building newcompetencies or revitalizing existing ones. BG firms also need to generate anddisseminate international market information, especially on current and future

The effects ofentrepreneurial

marketing

443

customers needs and an understanding of the competitive environment (Kohli andJaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1990).

Both EO and MO influence the firms performance interactively (George and Zahra,2002). Hult and Ketchen (2001) showed that as a component of positional advantages,MO positively affects a firms performance. But, they noted that the potential value ofMO should be considered together with other important capabilities of a firm, such asentrepreneurship and organizational learning. Entrepreneurship, in combination withMO, positively affects a firms performance and the degree of MO and EO.Atuahene-Gima and Ko (2001) report that the maximum positive effect on performanceis achieved when the firms MO and EO are aligned. Bhuian et al. (2005) found that therelationship between MO and entrepreneurship orientation was curvilinear and that amoderate level of entrepreneurship orientation had a most synergetic effect onperformance with MO.

In the international market, the MO enhances the firms future evaluation thatprovides the firms fit in the international environment (Kropp et al., 2006). Firms haveachieved success by concentrating on latent needs and unserved markets. In this sense,proactive MO helps the firm attempt to discover, understand and satisfy the latentneeds of customers (Narver et al., 2004).

From the above, one can surmise that, MO and EO are important resources for BGfirms (Kropp et al., 2006; Jantunen et al., 2008; Knight et al., 2004; Dimitratos andPlakoyiannaki, 2003; Jantunen et al., 2005; Ripolles-Melia et al., 2007; Knight andCavusgil, 2004).

Han et al. (1998) found that MO affected the two core components of organizationalinnovativeness (technical and administrative). Marketing and innovation are stimuli toeconomic growth and major components of competitive advantages. Lukas and Ferrell(2000) found that each MO dimension had an effect on different innovation strategies.Verhees and Meulenberg (2004) stated that innovativeness, an element of EO,stimulated market intelligence and market intelligence was related positively toproduct innovation. This gives rise to our P2 that:

P2. MO and EO are closely related to BG firms and lead to innovation.

We maintain that MO and EO as a source of competitive advantage are insufficient tosustain a competitive advantage. As Han et al. (1998) point out, innovation is needed forcompetitive advantage and, in order to sustain competitive advantage, firms need tohave the ability to restrict competitive forces (Mizik and Jacobson, 2003). Accordingto Rumelt (1984), the duration of a firms competitive advantage is directly related to thestrength of its isolation mechanism. One way of building an isolation mechanism isinnovation. Thus, in the process of determining the internationalization performance ofthe firm, innovation should be considered. As Knight and Cavusgil (2004) mentioned, thefirms innovative culture engenders the development of products or improvement ofproducts and new methods for doing business. Young firms with a strong innovationculture and a proclivity to pursue international markets tend to internationalize early:

P3. Innovation is a mediating factor in BG firms international competitiveness.

We also consider two moderator factors, namely organizational structure and learningorientation (LO), to determine the impact on the performance of BG firms. It is arguedthat EO and organization structure, namely formalization, centralization and

IMR26,4/5

444

departmentalization are negatively related (Ken et al., 2002). Lumpkin and Dess (1996)argue that entrepreneurially predisposed organizations value autonomy and freedomto encourage creativity and champion untested but promising ideas. Autonomy, in anorganizational context, refers to action taken free from the structural constraints thatstifle risk taking, exploration and out-of-the-box thinking. Thus, a greater degree offormalization, centralization and departmentalization appears to be neither consistentwith the generalized concept of entrepreneurial management processes nor conduciveto the pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities (Ken et al., 2002). Kohli and Jaworski(1990) argued that the greater the departmentalization, formalization andcentralization, the lower the intelligence generation, dissemination and responsedesign. Auh and Menguc (2007) addressed the direct and moderating effects ofcentralization and formalization on customer orientation. For Schindehutte and Morris(2001), the adaptation process of an small- and medium-sized enterprise (SME) dependson the organizations structure.

Next we considered LO. As discussed earlier, resources that enable the generation ofcapabilities are especially important to internationalisation. From the RBV standpoint,intangible resource is critical for competitive advantage rather than physical resources.In this perspective, knowledge is the most important resource. Kropp et al. (2006)highlights numerous benefits of LO. First, LO play a major role in strategic renewal.Second, organizational learning serves as a buffer between firms and theirenvironments, which is especially important for BG firms. Third, learning isforward-looking; it reduces the impact of major environmental jolts. Fourth, learningorganizations maintain close contacts with stakeholders including customers, suppliersand lawmakers, enhancing their ability to deal with unexpected environmental changes.Finally, organizational learning can play a major role in opportunity recognition. Zahraet al. (2000) highlighted the importance of learning on international expansion andperformance. Thus, LO plays a critical role in this process. This study, in addition toapproaches mentioned above, also builds on dynamic capability (Teece et al., 1997;Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). As a result, the proposed conceptual model is as follows(Figure 1):

Figure 1.Proposed conceptual

model of the influence ofmarketing-entrepreneurialfactors on BG performance

Performance ofborn global

EO

MO

Innovation

Note: Or. Structure organisational structure, EO entrepreneurial orientation,EC entrepreneurial capital, MO market orientation, LO learning orientation

LO

Or. Structure

EC

The effects ofentrepreneurial

marketing

445

P4. The specific approach undertaken in the process of creating a BG firm has amediating effect on the interaction between LOs and innovation.

P5. LO of the BG firm has a mediating effect between orientation and innovation.

Methodology and analysisMethodologyFollowing Yin (2003), we use a multiple case studies approach. Our justification for thisis based on its appropriateness for research where questions involving how or whyare posed. It enables researchers to find richer explanations and a deeper insight intophenomena (Laanti et al., 2007) and to use both literal and theoretical replication. Sincethe BG phenomenon is new in the research area, the case study is appropriate for ourinvestigation. Hence, five cases were chosen on the basis of literal replication. In otherwords, cases were selected for extending existing theories by being typicalrepresentatives of the population rather than by random selection (Laanti et al., 2007).

In order to increase the reliability of the study, before entering the field, a case studyprotocol was prepared according to Yins (2003) recommendation. We conducted asemi-structured in-depth interview with the founders of five Turkish, BG SMEs. Theinterviews ranged in time from 40 to 60 minutes. The interviews were recorded and adatabase was created to maintain the prepared case study protocol. In addition toin-depth interviews, we applied a search of different sources to collect informationabout the firms, which increased the construct validity of the study.

Each firm was selected from different industries to understand whether there wasany variation in the factors that enabled firms to enter the international market in theirearly years. We used the European Union (EU) definition of SMEs, which is a legalentity having a number of employees less than 250 (Table I).

Analysis and resultsTo analyze the data from the five case studies, cross-case synthesis (Yin, 2003) wasused to determine similarities and differences in terms of the factors mentioned in themodel. Examples from all the cases are shown in Table II.

Entrepreneurial capital. Founders and managers of the firms in this researchdemonstrated strong opportunity driven behaviour. Their starting histories showus that all founders leverage limited resources to exploit the opportunity in theinternational market. They have technical knowledge which is a driver for theinternational market. However, Case A had a lack of international market knowledgewhereas all the other cases had international experience prior to the internationalizationprocess. All five cases had a strong network in the international market, especially

CasesYear of

foundingYear of entering

international marketNumber ofemployees

Number ofcountries

Exportpercentages

A 1996 1996 140 3 100B 1988 1988 220 16 90C 1993 1995 45 8 100D 2001 2001 105 4 50E 2005 2005 30 6 80

Table I.Detailed description ofthe sample

IMR26,4/5

446

a social network. Although, Case A had never been in any foreign country, he had astrong relationship with foreigners at home before founding the company. Hisknowledge of the industry and his network drove him to the international market. Onthe other hand, Cases B, D and E had both technical and international marketknowledge. Case Cs network in the international market enabled him to learninternationalization by doing business in the international arena after entering themarket.

Market and entrepreneurial orientations. While all the cases had been gaininginternational experience through international operation, they showed extensive marketsensing and they arranged their marketing strategies according to market change. Theywere all growth oriented, and they leveraged their resources and investment to gaincompetitive advantage. For example, Case A developed new and unique processtechnology. They all had an innovative tendency, seeking new products and newmarkets. Case B had entered almost 16 EU countries within eight years. Among the othercases, C and D represented a responsive MO instead of a proactive MO. They followedinternational market changes and competitors actions and then developed theirresponses. They are a market driven firm, although this might be due to productcharacteristics in the industry. Both of them were innovative in entering new markets.Case E had strong market knowledge because of physical closeness (company locatedSoutheast of Turkey) and built a strong relationship with foreign customers with theirunique product in the market. They produced a special product which was new for themarket and also a standard product which was found everywhere. Case A hadproactively sought success in foreign markets by having a 20 per cent market share of

A B C D E

EC Opportunitydriven, strongtechnologicalknowledge andstrong socialnetwork

Opportunitydriven, strongtechnologicaland marketknowledge andstrong socialnetwork

Opportunitydriven, strongtechnologicalknowledge andstrong socialnetwork

Opportunitydriven, strongtechnologicalknowledge andstrong socialnetwork

Opportunitydriven, strongtechnologicaland marketknowledge andstrong socialnetwork

MO Proactive marketorientation andhigh-marketingcapability

Proactive marketoriented andhigh-marketingcapability

Responsive marketorientation

Responsivemarketorientation

Proactive marketorientation andhigh-marketingcapability

EO Proactiveinnovative

Proactiveinnovative, high-entrepreneurialfrequency anddegree

Moderate level ofentrepreneurialfrequency anddegree

Moderate level ofentrepreneurialfrequency anddegree

Proactiveinnovative, high-entrepreneurialfrequency anddegree

LO High-learningoriented

High-learningoriented

High-learningoriented

High-learningoriented

High-learningoriented

OS Owner dominantand flexible

Owner dominantand flexible

Departmentalized Owner dominantand flexible

Owner dominantand flexible

IN Unique processinnovation

Unique productand high-rateproductdifferentiation

Incrementalinnovation

Incrementalinnovation

Unique productTable II.

Summary of the factorsof case firms

The effects ofentrepreneurial

marketing

447

the EU market. There are six major competitors in the EU market. Two of them are bigfirms in terms of employees. Cases B and E are also major players in the industry. Theyaggressively pursue international success by differentiation. Cases C and D mostly useniche marketing strategies to achieve success in the international market. All the casesemphasised quality. Providing valuable, quality-enhanced offerings shows that theyhave strong marketing capabilities.

Organizational structure. All cases in the study were family businesses, andfounders were dominant in the firms. Apart from Case B, the other firms have aninstitutionalization problem. Case B is the only firm which has professionaldepartmentalization. They also have their own agency in Germany. However, Case B isrun by the third generation though the founder still plays a dominant role. All firmshave a flexible structure.

Learning orientation. All cases in the study are highly learning oriented.All founders are open-minded and committed to learning. All the cases attendinternational trade shows very often. B and E also visit the countries to which theyexport more frequently than the others. With the benefits of learning the internationalmarket, Cases C, D and E have increased their number of exporting countries and A andB have achieved a high-growth rate.

Innovation. All cases in the study are innovative firms. Innovations in the case ofA, B and E are predominantly radical innovations. On the other hand, Cases C and Dseem to be incrementally innovative firms. Although Case A produces one specializedproduct with specialized knowledge, they developed a unique production processwhich is their competitive advantage. Case B has its own research and developmentlaboratory to develop new products in the industry. Case E also has special productsfor the markets. Thus, Cases A, B and E leverage their innovativeness and knowledgebase to develop high-quality products.

ConclusionOur study examined BG business organizations which, from their inception, or soonafterwards, sought to gain better than average competitive performance from theapplication of knowledge-based resources to the marketing of their outputs in multiplecountries. We examined enabling factors that facilitated their internationalizationprocess from their foundation. Based on a multi-case analysis and interviewsconducted with five BG enterprises, our study indicates that EC, MO, EO andinnovation are the main sources of positive performance for BG firms. A number oflimitations emerged following the review of our research. First, our research did nottake into consideration the specific impact that the EU-Turkey Trade Agreement mayhave played in the internationalization process of Turkish born global SMEs.However, our fieldwork seems to suggest that convergence of taste among consumersand the Turkish diaspora are much more likely targets to respond to the offerings ofthe firms in our sample than any specific aspect of the EU-Turkey Trade Agreement.Second, the focus of our research is on the strategic aspects of the internationalizationprocess as it applies to organizations that operate in free and competitive markets.Third, our study engaged with the concept of innovation within a multidisciplinaryapproach rather than root and branch analysis of innovation to distinguish betweensoft and new-new innovation. However, this is broadly in line with the suggestedapproach in the literature (Tidd et al., 2001). Finally, the findings from this exploratory

IMR26,4/5

448

study engendered a number of lines of enquiry for the next step in our research.For instance, would our research propositions hold in a different context such as indeveloped economies, well-established, emerging and survival economies? How wouldspecific variables interact in environments that are different from that of our researchsetting? Most importantly, how would specific variables interact with each other in aservice-oriented economy such as the UK?

References

Acedo, F.J. and Jones, M.V. (2007), Speed of internationalization and entrepreneurial cognition:insights and a comparison between international new ventures, exporters and domesticfirms, Journal of World Business, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 236-52.

Atuahene-Gima, K. and Ko, A. (2001), An empirical investigation of the effect of marketorientation and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on product innovation,Organizational Science, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 54-74.

Auh, S. and Menguc, B. (2007), Performance implications of the direct and moderating effects ofcentralization and formalization on customer orientation, Industrial MarketingManagement, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 1022-34.

Bhuian, S.N., Menguc, B. and Bell, S.J. (2005), Just entrepreneurial enough: the moderating effectof entrepreneurship on the relationship between market orientation and performance,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 9-17.

Bilkey, W.J. and Tesar, G. (1977), The export behavior of smaller-sized Wisconsinmanufacturing firms, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 93-8.

Boisot, M.H. (1998), Knowledge Assets: Securing Competitive Advantage in the InformationEconomy, OUP, Oxford.

Cavusgil, S.T. (1980), On the internationalization process of firms, European Research, Vol. 8No. 6, pp. 273-81.

Chetty, S. and Campbell-Hunt, C. (2004), A strategic approach to internationalization:a traditional versus a born-global approach, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 12No. 1, pp. 57-81.

Coviello, N.E. (2006), The network dynamics of international new ventures, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 713-31.

Covin, G. and Miles, M.P. (1999), Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitiveadvantage, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 47-63.

Dess, G., Lumpkin, G.T. and McGee, J.E. (1999), Linking corporate entrepreneurship to strategy,structure, and process: suggested research directions, Entrepreneurship: Theory andPractice, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 85-102.

Dimitratos, P. and Plakoyiannaki, E. (2003), Theoretical foundations of an internationalentrepreneurial culture, Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 187-215.

Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), Dynamic capabilities: what are they?, StrategicManagement Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 10/11, pp. 1105-21.

Etemad, H. and Wright, R. (2003), Internationalization of SMEs: toward a new paradigm,Small Business Economics, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-4.

Gardner, W.B.B. (1985), A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venturecreation, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 696-706.

The effects ofentrepreneurial

marketing

449

Gassmann, O. and Keupp, M.M. (2007), The internationalization of research and development inSwiss and German born globals: survey and case study evidence, International Journal ofEntrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 214-33.

George, G. and Zahra, S.A. (2002), Being entrepreneurial and being market driven: exploring theinteraction effects on entrepreneurial and market orientation on firm performance,Frontiers for Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA.

Han, J.K., Kim, N. and Srivastava, R.K. (1998), Market orientation and organizationalperformance: is innovation a missing link?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 30-45.

Hult, G.T.M. and Ketchen, D.J. Jr (2001), Does market orientation matter? A test of therelationship between positional advantage and performance, Strategic ManagementJournal, Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 899-906.

Jantunen, A., Nummela, N., Puumalinen, K. and Saarenketo, S. (2008), Strategic orientation ofborn globals do they really matter?, Journal of World Business, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 158-70.

Jantunen, A., Nummela, N., Puumalinen, K., Saarenketo, S. and Kylaheiko, K. (2005),Entrepreneurial orientation, dynamic capabilities and international performance, Journalof International Entrepreneurship, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 223-43.

Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.E. (1977), The internationalization process of the firm a model ofknowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 23-32.

Jones, M.V. and Coviello, N.E. (2005), Internationalization: conceptualising an entrepreneurialprocess of behaviour in time, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 36 No. 3,pp. 284-303.

Katz, J. and Gartner, W.B. (1988), Properties of emerging organizations, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 429-41.

Ken, M., Mentzer, J.T. and Ozsomer, A. (2002), The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity andmarket orientation on business performance, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 18-22.

Knight, G.A. and Cavusgil, S.T. (1996), The global firm: a challenge to traditionalinternationalization theory, in Cavusgil, S.T. and Medsen, T. (Eds), Advances inInternational Marketing, Vol. 8, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 11-26.

Knight, G.A. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2004), Innovation, organizational capabilities, and theborn-global firm, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 124-41.

Knight, G.A., Madsen, T.K. and Servais, P. (2004), An inquiry into born-global firms in Europeand the USA, International Marketing Review, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 645-65.

Kohli, K.A. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), Market orientation: the construct, research propositions,and managerial implications, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 1-18.

Kropp, F., Lindsay, N.J. and Shoham, A. (2006), Entrepreneurial, market, and learningorientations and international entrepreneurial business venture performance inSouth African firms, International Marketing Review, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 504-23.

Kundu, S.K. and Katz, J.H. (2003), Born international SMEs: bi-level impacts of resources andintentions, Small Business Economics, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 25-49.

Laanti, R., Gabrielsson, M. and Gabrielsson, P. (2007), The globalization strategies ofbusiness-to business born global firms in wireless technology, Industrial MarketingManagement, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 1104-17.

Loane, S. and Bell, J. (2006), Rapid internationalisation among entrepreneurial firms inAustralia, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand an extension to the network approach,International Marketing Review, Vol. 23 No. 25, pp. 467-85.

IMR26,4/5

450

Lukas, B.A. and Ferrell, O.C. (2000), The effect of market orientation on product innovation,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 239-47.

Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996), Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct andlinking it to performance, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 135-72.

McDougall, P.P. and Oviatt, B.M. (2000), International entrepreneurship: the intersection of tworesearch paths, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 902-6.

McDougall, P.P., Shane, S. and Oviatt, B.M. (1994), Explaining the formation of internationalnew ventures: the limits of theories from international business research, Journal ofBusiness Venturing, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 469-87.

McKinsey & Co. (1993), Emerging Exporters. Australias High Value-added ManufacturingExporters, McKinsey & Company and Australian Manufacturing Council, Melbourne.

Menguc, B. and Auh, S. (2006), Creating a firm-level dynamic capability through capitalizing onmarket orientation and innovativeness, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 63-73.

Mizik, N. and Jacobson, R. (2003), Trading off between value creation and value appropriation:the financial implications of shifts in strategic emphasis, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67No. 1, pp. 63-76.

Moen, Q. and Servais, P. (2002), Born global or gradual global? Examining the export behaviourof small and medium sized enterprises, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3,pp. 49-72.

Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), The effect of a market orientation on business profitability,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 20-35.

Narver, J.C., Slater, S.F. and MacLachlan, D.L. (2004), Responsive and proactive marketorientation and new-product success, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 21No. 5, pp. 334-47.

Nordman, E.M. and Melen, S. (2008), The impact of different kinds of knowledge for theinternationalization process of born globals in the biotech business, Journal of WorldBusiness, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 171-85.

Oviatt, B.M. and McDougall, P.P. (1994), Toward a theory of international new ventures,Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 45-64.

Oviatt, B.M. and McDougall, P.P. (2005), Defining international entrepreneurship and modelingthe speed of internationalization, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 5,pp. 537-53.

Prashantham, S. (2005), Toward a knowledge based conceptualization of internationalization,Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 37-52.

Rialp, A., Rialp, J. and Knight, G.A. (2005), The phenomenon of early internationalizing firms:what do we know after a decade (1993-2003) of scientific inquiry?, International BusinessReview, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 147-66.

Ripolles-Melia, M., Menguzzato-Boulard, M. and Sanchez-Peinado, L. (2007), Entrepreneurialorientation and international commitment, Journal of International Entrepreneurship,Vol. 5 Nos 3/4, pp. 65-83.

Rumelt, R.P. (1984), Toward a strategic theory of the firm, in Lamb, R.P. (Ed.), CompetitiveStrategic Management, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 556-70.

Schindehutte, M. and Morris, M.H. (2001), Understanding strategic adaptation in small firms,International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 84-107.

Schindehutte, M., Morris, M.H. and Kocak, A. (2008), Understanding market-driving behavior:the role of entrepreneurship, Journal of Small BusinessManagement, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 4-26.

The effects ofentrepreneurial

marketing

451

Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2001), Entrepreneurship as a field of research: a response toZahra and Dess, Singh, and Erikson, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1,pp. 13-16.

Simmons, K. and Smith, H. (1968), The first export order: a marketing innovation, BritishJournal of Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 93-100.

Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), Dynamic capabilities and strategic management,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33.

Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2001), Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological,Market and Organizational Change, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY.

Verhees, F. and Meulenberg, M. (2004), Market orientation, innovativeness, product innovation,and performance in small firms, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 42 No. 2,pp. 134-54.

Weerawardena, J., Mort, G.S., Liesch, P.W. and Knight, G. (2007), Conceptualizing acceleratedinternationalization in the born global firm: a dynamic capabilities perspective, Journal ofWorld Business, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 294-306.

Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research-design and Method, 3rd ed., ASR Method Series, Vol. 5,Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Young, S., Dimitratos, Y.S. and Dana, L.P. (2003), International entrepreneurship research: whatscope for international business theories?, Journal of International Entrepreneurship,Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 31-42.

Zahra, S.A., Ireland, R.D. and Hitt, M.A. (2000), International expansion by new venture firms:international diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 925-50.

Zahra, S.A., Nielson, A.P. and Bogner, W.C. (1999), Corporate entrepreneurship, knowledge, andcompetence development, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 23 No. 3,pp. 169-89.

Zhou, L. (2007), The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and foreign market knowledge on earlyinternationalization, Journal of World Business, Vol. 47, pp. 281-93.

About the authorsAkin Kocak is an Associate Professor of Marketing, Faculty of Political Sciences at AnkaraUniversity. He teaches marketing management, consumer behaviour and entrepreneurship.His research interests are the interface between marketing and entrepreneurship, marketingstrategies for SMEs, strategic marketing management, market and entrepreneurship orientationand innovation. He holds a PhD from Ankara University. He is a former Fulbright Scholar(Syracuse University, 2005-2006). He has published in Journal of Marketing Management,Marketing Intelligence and Planning and International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behavior andResearch. His works have also been presented and published in various conference proceedings.

Temi Abimbola is at the Management and Strategic Management (MSM) Group, WarwickBusiness School, Coventry, UK. Her research interests are in the areas of brand strategy, brandfinance, entrepreneurial marketing and corporate marketing. Her work has appeared in a numberof journals including Journal of Marketing Management, Journal of Entrepreneurial Marketing,Qualitative Marketing Research: An International Journal, European Journal of Marketing,Journal of Brand Management and Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. She is the MSMRepresentative on the Warwick Doctoral Programme Committee. Temi Abimbola is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: temi.abimbola@wbs.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

IMR26,4/5

452