Export performance as an antecedent of export commitment and marketing strategy adaptation :...

Export performance as anantecedent of export commitment

and marketing strategyadaptation

Evidence from small and medium-sizedexporters

Luis Filipe LagesFaculdade de Economia Universidade Nova de Lisboa Lisbon Portugal and

Graduate School of Business Stanford University California USA and

David B MontgomeryGraduate School of Business Stanford University California USA and

School of Business Singapore Management University Singapore

Keywords Organizational performance Marketing strategy Exports StandardizationPortugal

Abstract This paper argues that performance should be investigated as an independent variableUsing survey data of over 400 managers responsible for the main export ventures of PortugueseSMEs (small and medium exporters) this paper shows that past performance plays a crucial rolein building SMEsrsquo commitment to exporting and to the determination of their current marketingstrategy Findings also show that marketing strategy adaptation to the foreign market isparticularly noted in firms exporting to the most developed markets rather than in firms exportingto the most competitive environments Future international marketing research is encouraged tofocus on understanding both the direct and indirect relationships among past performance firmrsquoscommitment to exporting and current marketing strategy under the influence of external forcesSuch a focus has the potential to enrich the theory and generate relevant managerial and publicpolicy implications

IntroductionExporting activity is of extreme importance from the point of view of nations andfirms From the point of view of national governments exporting activity is crucialbecause it contributes to the economic development of nations It influences the amountof foreign exchange reserves as well as the level of imports a country can afford while

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

wwwemeraldinsightcomresearchregister wwwemeraldinsightcom0309-0566htm

This research was funded by research grants from ldquoNOVA EGIDErdquo and ldquoFundacao para aCiencia e Tecnologiardquo (PortugalEuropean Union) to the first author The authors alsoacknowledge the support of Warwick University Business School (UK) in conducting the surveyThey wish to express their thanks for comments on the original work that led to this papernamely the anonymous reviewers of the EJM Tim Ambler Pedro P Barros Miguel P CunhaSandy D Jap Carmen Lages and Aviv Shoham as well as the reviewers and participants of thefollowing conferences European Marketing Academy Academy of International BusinessEuropean International Business Academy and Portuguese Society for Economics Research

EJM38910

1186

Received October 2002Revised February 2003

European Journal of MarketingVol 38 No 910 2004pp 1186-1214q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0309-0566DOI 10110803090560410548933

shaping public perceptions of national competitiveness Additionally exports enhancesocietal prosperity and help national industries to develop improve productivity andcreate new jobs Abroad exports enlarge consumersrsquo accessibility to a diversity ofgoods and services and improve the standard of living and quality of life

At the firm level through market diversification exporting provides an opportunityfor firms to become less dependent on the domestic market By serving new customersabroad the firm may also explore economies of scale and achieve lower production costswhile producing more efficiently The firm may also use the international experience tobecome a stronger competitor at home Additionally by operating abroad the firms maylearn from international competition to eventually explore new foreign markets and getinvolved in other international activities such as licensing franchising joint ventures ordirect investment abroad In sum exporting may assume an important role within thefirm as a means of reducing production costs stabilizing cyclical demand reaching newmarkets and gaining experience for other forms of internationalization (Czinkota 19942002 (see wwwhousegovsmbizhearings107th2002020424czinkotahtml))

Nevertheless while exporting is now one of the fastest growing economic activitiesessential for both nations and firms there is still no strong theoretical framework forresearching the export activity phenomenon (Leonidou et al 2002) A possibleexplanation for this is that researchers live in a world that desires and rewards theoriesthat look for factors to improve export performance Consequently they focus on thedeterminants of performance and tend to ignore firmsrsquo reactive behavior (March andSutton 1997) In this research we suggest that performance levels can also have animmediate impact on marketing strategy decisions similarly to what is observed in thereal world (see Lages 1999) It is not uncommon to hear in the business press of firmsrsquoreactive behavior to past results For example after its 1999 commercial financialdisaster British Airways publicly announced a rethinking of its brandingcommunication and relationship marketing strategies Similarly immediatelyfollowing the disclosure of poor results Marks amp Spencer decided to redefine itsstrategy and appoint a new board-level marketing director (Marketing WeekAugust 19 1999) Many other examples may be cited to exemplify this type ofshort-term reactive behavior to past performance In line with recent work (Ashmoset al 1998) we feel that satisfaction with the most recent past performance is moresalient to managers and more likely to represent financial data that would affectmanagersrsquo subsequent behavior and actions If the exporting activities of small andmedium-sized firms have not been satisfactory in the previous year it will beextremely difficult for managers to focus on the future as they will be under constantpressure Export managers will have (dis)incentives according to their short-termresults and in some cases their own position may came into risk if they have notachieved a satisfactory performance (Lages and Lages 2004)

There are several objectives of this research First we expect to develop a betterunderstanding of performance as an independent variable Historically strategyformulation is viewed as an antecedent to performance outcomes A recent review ofthe top journals in strategy and organizational behavior (March and Sutton 1997)indicates that performance appeared in 71 percent of the articles as a dependentvariable only in 12 percent as an independent variable only and in 11 percent of thestudies as both a dependent and independent variable[1] Similarly in the marketingfield strategy formulation is traditionally viewed as an antecedent to performance

Exportperformance

1187

outcomes (Lages 2000a) Moreover in the specific field of international marketing tothe best of our knowledge no empirical research has examined performance as anantecedent of managersrsquo behavior and marketing strategy definition Insteadinternational marketing researchers prefer to regard performance as causallydependent even when the variables relate to the same period of time and it isunclear which particular variables should be treated as causally dependentNevertheless some recent studies in other fields found that past performance isstrongly associated with a managerrsquos strategic orientation (Lant and Hurley 1999 Lantet al 1992 Lant and Montgomery 1987) Their findings are consistent with a centralassumption of the organizational behavior literature that suggests that organizationsand individuals set goals and adjust their behavior in response to favorable andunfavorable feedback (Cyert and March 1963 March and Simon 1958) Hence in thispaper we argue that the basis of both current commitment to exporting and currentexport marketing strategy lies in past accomplishments and any inability to achievewhat was initially proposed

In this research by discussing past export performance and its implications forstrategy (ie by studying export performance as an independent variable only) weexpect to contribute toward bridging the gap between historical and current exportoperations It is also our aim to open a door for further international marketingresearch that will explore a much more complex relationship the relationship amongpast performance current export marketing strategy and future performance (ie theanalysis of performance as both dependent and independent variable)

Furthermore we advance earlier work by developing a model that accounts forintervening (indirect) effects among variables Most empirical studies focusexclusively on the direct effects of different contingent forces on marketing strategyHowever as the understanding of the export-marketing phenomenon has grown inthe last few years it has become clear that we need to look for more complexpredictive models that allow for the analysis and testing of complexinter-relationships (Katsikeas et al 1998) The strategy and organizationalbehavior literature suggests that satisfaction with preceding performance is likelyto be positively related to commitment in the next period This occurs because whenthe firm performs well internal publics (eg top managers employees unionrepresentatives) and external publics (eg clientscustomers suppliers investorsand credit institutions) are more likely to react favorably (Isen and Baron 1991) tothe exporting activity Additionally the export marketing literature also suggeststhat when firmsrsquo commitment to the exporting venture increases more resources areallocated to the exporting activity and consequently the firm will be able toimprove its planning procedures and implement more adaptive strategies (Lagesand Jap 2002) This suggests that as past performance improves commitmentincreases and this ultimately leads to marketing mix adaptation Hence pastperformance will indirectly and positively influence marketing strategy adaptationthrough commitment However the strategy and organizational behavior literaturesuggests a conflicting rationale If performance improves there will be a decline inadaptive behavior (Greve 1998) The firms may experience the ldquofat cat syndromerdquo(Dutton and Duncan 1987 290) and consequently will opt for much simplerstrategies such as a standardized approach This approach is much simpler than anadapted approach involving less effort and consideration of environmental and

EJM38910

1188

internal forces Based on this rationale one might suggest that past performancewill lead to a lower degree of marketing mix adaptation This conflicting issuemotivates the second purpose of this paper to contribute to a better understandingof the direct indirect and total effects among variables Does past performance havea negative or positive impact on the degree of marketing mix adaptation In anotherwords how does past performance directly influence management commitment toexporting and indirectly influence the degree of marketing strategy adaptationthrough commitment

This paper is also influenced by the contingent approach to the standardizationversus adaptation debate Within the exporting context the contingency perspectivelooks for a balance between marketing strategy adaptation and standardization ofdomestic strategies to the foreign markets It asserts that no strategy is superior to theother Adaptation or standardization is a matter of degree because marketingstrategies are contingent upon internal and external forces This is an area of growinginterest for both academics and practitioners (Rosenbloom et al 1997) widely seen asone of the most vital marketing topics for the twenty-first century (Kahn 1998) Thisleads us to the final objective of our paper to extend the understanding of thecontingent forces influencing standardizationadaptation in an exporting contextThough prior studies tend to look at the various aspects of the marketing mix inisolation and focus mostly on product and promotion strategies (Jain 1989 Lages andJap 2002) this research will take a more comprehensive approach to this debate byincluding the adaptation of product promotion pricing and distribution strategies inthe same model

In the following section based on a review of the literature a set of researchhypotheses are summarized in an operational model This model is tested through across-sectional international survey of more than 400 Portuguese managersresponsible for the exporting activity of small and medium-sized exporters (SMEs)The results and their implications for theory are then discussed After presentingimplications for export business practice and public policy making the paper endswith limitations of this research and suggestions for further research

Theoretical perspectivesA contingency approach to the adaptation versus standardization controversyThe contingency approach to marketing mix adaptationstandardization traces itsroots to general systems theory (Boulding 1956 Von Bertalanffy 1951) and thebehavioral theory of the firm (Cyert and March 1963 March and Simon 1958 Simon1957) The main strength of the contingency theory when applied to thestandardization controversy is based on the fact that it recognizes both advantagesand disadvantages associated with each of the two extremes (adaptation andstandardization) This explains why this theory is also known as the ldquomiddle of theroad approachrdquo

The first steps of the contingency approach in the international marketingcontext were taken in the late 1960s (Buzzell 1968 Bartels 1968 Britt 1974) Theseearly works argued that the key question should not be whether or not one shouldadapt or standardize rather it should involve an examination of the potential foradaptation or standardization taking into consideration the influencing forcesApparently this question no longer exists The most recent international marketing

Exportperformance

1189

literature particularly that which is concerned with the degree of marketingprogram adaptationstandardization is based on this perspective (Shoham 1999Zou et al 1997) The underlying thought of todayrsquos approach to this debate is basedon the idea of degree rather than absolute standardization or adaptationResearchers view marketing strategy along a continuum varying from purestandardization to pure adaptation There is no right strategy either can be thebetter in a particular situation Hence it is more important to consider the degree ofadaptation and the forces that influence it than to determine whether or not acompany should adapt its marketing strategies (Cavusgil and Zou 1994 Samiee andRoth 1992)

Most studies covering the adaptationstandardization topic tend to compare themarketing strategies used by firms across various exporting markets However amuch richer understanding of the phenomenon may be obtained by considering theextent to which domestic marketing strategies may be transferred to a particularforeign market (Cavusgil and Kirpalani 1993 Cavusgil and Zou 1994) This type ofapproach is used in this research as it allows a more precise understanding of theantecedents of marketing strategy Therefore we define the adaptation of productstrategy as the degree to which the product (brand name design labeling variety ofmain exporting product line and quality) differs between the domestic and exportmarket Similarly the adaptation of promotion strategy is defined as the adjustmentof the domestic promotion program (advertising ideatheme media channels foradvertising promotion objectives budget for promotion public relations emphasisand direct marketingmailing) to the main export market Pricing strategyadaptation refers to the degree to which the pricing strategies (determination ofpricing strategy concession of credit price discount policy and margins) for aproduct differ across national boundaries Finally the adaptation of distributionstrategy reflects the readjustment of distribution (criteria to select the distributionsystem transportation strategy budget for distribution and distribution network) tothe export market

Satisfaction with export performanceIn todayrsquos complex business world performance is an indispensable guide for anycompany analyzing its level of success in both the domestic and international arenasAssessing export performance is quite a complex task as export performance can beconceptualized and operationalized in many ways (Diamantopoulos and Schlegelmilch1994) Broadly speaking the literature considers three aspects of export performancefinancial strategic and that of performance satisfaction (Zou et al 1998) In particularone approach that is increasingly relied upon is the aggregation of satisfaction withvarious performance measures into a single measure of export performance (cfDiamantopoulos and Winklhofer 2001 Katsikeas et al 2000) This is the approachincorporated here whereby satisfaction is defined as a compound psychologicalvariable (an affective state) assessing the effectiveness of a marketing program interms of its sales revenue sales volume profitability market share and overallperformance (cf Bonoma and Clark 1988)

Satisfaction is the most studied outcome variable in the marketing literature oninterorganizational relationships (see Geyskens et al 1999 for a review) One reason forthis trend is the fact that performance itself is a complex construct in the view of the

EJM38910

1190

firm (Greve 1998) It is often idiosyncratic to the firm and setting success for onecompany may constitute failure for another Furthermore for research purposes it isoften impossible to establish common definitions or fixed reference points across firmsThe use of satisfaction with performance allows us to compare performance across thewide range of groups presented in our sample because managers will be able toevaluate export performance while taking into consideration their own firmrsquos referencegroups (eg a firmrsquos particular circumstance in terms of industry stage of exportinvolvement and technology intensity) (Katsikeas et al 1996) Hence by measuringsatisfaction with performance instead of performance per se we are able to capture thedegree to which performance has matched the aspiration levels of the firm andcompare it across a variety of exporting firms In this manner a boundary line isincorporated and used as a reference point for perceived success and failure

The importance of research on SMEsThis paper focuses on the study of SMEs as they play an important role in manyeconomies (Zou and Stan 1998) Exporting is now the preferred mode ofinternationalization of these firms As SMEs are not able to compete on price withmultinationals and large firms they have to explore their strengths in other waysA key strength is related to their lighter structure While larger firms oftensuggest that adjustments to the market are not allowed because of ldquocorporatepolicyrdquo smaller firms use this lighter structure to export and rapidly adapt theirstrategies to the special needs of the foreign market The other strength of SMEsis that once they get involved in exporting they present high corporatecommitment (often with the full commitment of the owner and top management)which will be essential for building good relationships with the importer andachieving competitive advantage in relation to larger corporations (Czinkota 2002see wwwhousegovsmbizhearings107th2002020424czinkotahtml)

Previous research on SMEs has tended to focus on the effects of marketingstrategy on performance However exploratory interviews revealed that SMEs areparticularly reactive ndash rather than proactive ndash because they have limited financialresources and are much more dependent on short-term results for survival (seeLages and Melewar 2000) SMEs are particularly vulnerable to previous exportperformance results because export operations require more capital and represent alarger portion of the firmrsquos resources than do domestic transactions Additionallysmaller firms have to rely heavily on their own resources because it is much harderfor them to gain access to credit than it is for larger firms As a result it is muchharder for managers of SMEs to cope with lower performance levels than it is formanagers of larger corporations

SMEs also play a crucial role in the economic security of different nations a rolethat becomes even more vital in times of recession and limited domestic growth Thereis a particular research need to pay more attention to European SMEs as most researchhas been developed with firms based outside the European Union (EU) particularlyNorth American companies (Walters and Samiee 1990 Winer 1998) However the EUis the worldrsquos largest exporter of goods It has maintained a stable share of around onefifth of total world exports (intra-EU trade excluded) since 1990 (EuropeanCommission 2000) The extensive saturation of the smaller European markets such

Exportperformance

1191

as the Portuguese market has placed added pressure on firms of those countries tostart selling their products abroad

Within the European context the Portuguese case is particularly interesting as theexternal commerce has contributed significantly to the economic development of thecountry representing 55 percent-70 percent of the total gross domestic product (GDP)during the last decade The export activity was particularly important in increasing thenational GDP According to the National Statistics Institute over the six-year periodpreceding our survey (1993-1998) Portuguese exports increased 60 percent fromUS$15930 million to US$24158 million Hence like those of other small Europeancountries Portuguese SMEs are a vital ingredient in the countryrsquos growth

Research hypothesesIn this paper we propose that the adaptation of marketing strategy to the foreignmarket is directly affected by the firmrsquos prior performance its commitment toexporting and two foreign market forces (degree of export market competition andexport market development) Moreover it is proposed that marketing strategyadaptation is indirectly affected by preceding export performance and the same twoexternal forces through their influence on the firmrsquos commitment to exporting Anoverview of the conceptual framework is presented in Figure 1 In this section we beginby developing hypotheses regarding the antecedents of marketing mix adaptationThen the antecedents of the firmrsquos commitment to exporting are discussed

Antecedents of marketing strategy adaptationThe effects of prior performance on marketing strategy adaptationDuring the last four decades quite a number of empirical studies have been developedconcerning the impact of marketing strategy adaptation on export performanceAccording to a recent meta-analysis (Leonidou et al 2002) in aggregate these studiesindicate that the adaptation of product promotion pricing and distribution strategieshave a positive impact on export performance Surprisingly and despite the extensiveresearch into this topic no single empirical study has analyzed the reverse relationship

Figure 1A conceptual frameworkof the effects of priorexport performance onfirmrsquos current commitmentto exporting andmarketing strategyadaptation

EJM38910

1192

ie the impact of performance on the degree of marketing strategy adaptation (Lagesand Melewar 2000) In this research we suggest that past performance is alsoassociated with current marketing strategy definition

The organizational and strategy literature suggests that managers of firmsperforming poorly are under considerable pressure (Fredrickson 1985) They areexpected to do a better job which naturally encourages them to develop morecomprehensive and rational strategic decisions than managers faced with a betterperformance (Mintzberg et al 1976) Poor performance puts pressure on managers totake comprehensive accurate and discriminating decisions (Cyert and March 1963)and will make them much more likely to search widely for information and conduct anin-depth analysis of the surrounding environments (Audia et al 2000) The need toimplement specific and distinct strategies marked by the need to analyze the finedistinctions between the domestic and foreign markets will naturally lead themanagers of less successful organizations to develop an adapted strategy In contrastthe literature suggests that a good performance will promote more relaxed (Cyert andMarch 1963) and effortless strategic decisions (Bourgeois 1981 March and Simon1958 Litschert and Bonham 1978) These managers will become narrowly focused andoverly preoccupied with the factors that have contributed to their firmsrsquo goodperformance so that they will tend to exploit the existing opportunities withoutsearching for information and conducting an in-depth analysis of the environment(Cyert and March 1963) Hence managers of firms performing better will lose theirability to react to the various contingent forces (Miller 1993) The consequence of thisbehavior is that the firm may begin to allocate its resources in a simpler way reflectinga singular focus that does not correspond adequately to the complex environment thatthe firm is actually facing Hence we expect that the firm may be more likely to use aless adapted marketing strategy in an export context when its satisfaction with pastperformance has been particularly strong and when managers are satisfied with itBased on this rationale the following is proposed

H1 The greater the performance in the prior year the lower the adaptation ofproduct (H1a) promotion (H1b) price (H1c) and distribution (H1d) strategiesin the current year

The effects of firmrsquos commitment to exporting on marketing strategy adaptationThere are many forces within the firm that may affect export strategy success such asorganizational culture the firmrsquos capabilities and competencies internal status of theexport management location and product differentiation While it would beimpossible to discuss all of them here we consider one that is particularly importantthe firmrsquos commitment to exporting The firmrsquos commitment to exporting refers to thedegree to which organizational and managerial resources are allocated to exportingventures A firmrsquos commitment to exporting is offered in this paper as a construct thatincorporates the amount of planning financial and human resources that the firmallocates to the exporting activity (Cavusgil and Zou 1994) and the extent to which themanager is attached to the organization (Morris and Sherman 1981) and exercisesconsiderable efforts (Porter et al 1974) to support the firmrsquos exporting activity

We have selected the firmrsquos commitment to exporting because it is a strategicdecision that guides resource allocation to export strategies The firmrsquos commitment toa particular direction may enhance employeesrsquo feelings of loyalty and duty to the

Exportperformance

1193

organization (Wiener and Vardi 1980) Because of their devotion to the organizationhighly committed managers are more willing to accept the organizationrsquos solicitationsfor extra work as well as more demanding activities (Etzioni 1975 Randall 1987)Consequently when the firm demonstrates a strong commitment to exportingmanagers may be more apt to work harder on demanding tasks such as marketingstrategy adaptation On the other hand the less committed managers tend to be lessparticipative (Angle and Perry 1981) and thus prefer to implement standardizedstrategies which are much simpler to implement and require much less work

International marketing research suggests that the more committed firms allocatemore resources to the exporting activity (Aaby and Slater 1989 Christensen et al1987) These extra human and financial resources enable companies to improve thedepth of planning procedures (eg in terms of market research and market analysis)that will allow managers to implement marketing strategies that are more adapted tothe needs of different markets (Cavusgil and Zou 1994) In sum as increasing levels ofresources are committed to the exporting venture the firm is in better position toimprove its planning procedures and to implement more adaptive strategies Byapplying this rationale to our study we propose the following

H2 The greater a firmrsquos commitment to exporting the more likely will be theadaptation of product (H2a) promotion (H2b) price (H2c) and distribution(H2d) strategies to the foreign market

The effects of export market forces on marketing strategy adaptationMany export market forces might influence the degree of marketing adaptation to theforeign market Some possibilities include local government influence the exportingcountryrsquos image technological and cost factors as well as export market differences interms of product life-cycle culture infrastructures and government regulationsAmong these possibilities we focus on two aspects of particular importance (degree ofexport market competition and export market development) that are frequentlyexamined by literature focused on the adaptationstandardization debate (eg Cavusgiland Zou 1994 Johnson and Arunthanes 1995 Seifert and Ford 1989)

Export market competition is the extent to which businesses must strive to outdoeach other to gain the economic rents of that industry Competition may vary alongmultiple dimensions such as the number of competitors price competitiveness andservicedelivery Any manager who is committed to developing a suitable marketingstrategy must initially identify the key competitors (Clark and Montgomery 1999 Dayand Wensley 1988) In addition it is necessary to make an analysis of the prices(Cavusgil and Zou 1994) and delivery times (Czinkota et al 1996) of competitors in thedifferent markets

Marketing managers have to pay a good deal of attention to the impact ofcompetition on marketing decisions (Weitz 1985) A direct comparison with othercompetitors will allow managers to assess their own firmrsquos competitive advantage(Day 1984 Day and Wensley 1988) and to use a reference for developing competitivemarketing strategies to the different export markets Previous empirical research in theinternational marketing field has shown that the level of competition in the exportmarket is positively associated with product and promotion adaptation (Cavusgil andZou 1994 Cavusgil et al 1993) If a company opts for a standardized strategyalthough it may be able to achieve lower production costs there will always be some

EJM38910

1194

competitors who are willing to offer what the consumer wants (Kotler 1996)Consequently as the level of competition within an export market rises firms arepressured to adapt their strategies in order to differentiate their offerings and gaincompetitive advantage over local challenges (Hill and Still 1984) Hence as competitionincreases we expect that the exporting firm tends to adapt its product promotionpricing and distribution strategies to the export market

In this paper we refer to the degree of export market development as the overallstandard of living in the export market as evidenced by the level of economicdevelopment and education levels in the foreign market As with export marketcompetition the literature suggests that the degree of export market developmentenhances marketing mix adaptation This occurs because in the more developedmarkets the demands are such that adaptation of marketing has to address thecultural economic and existing legislative rules if companies wish to operate Themore developed markets tend to be more competitive (Sriram and Manu 1995) andfirms exporting to these markets have less power over exports than do firms exportingto the less developed countries (Lages and Jap 2002) Furthermore in the mostdeveloped markets firms are under pressure to adapt the marketing strategy toshopping patterns where consumers tend to be more educated and more sophisticated(Buzzell 1968) Hence similar to what takes place with competition we expect that theadaptation of the marketing mix elements will be enhanced by the degree of marketdevelopment Collectively we hypothesize that

H3 The degree of export market competition is positively related with the degreeof adaptation of product (H3a) promotion (H3b) price (H3c) and distribution(H3d) strategies

H4 The degree of export market development is positively related with the degreeof adaptation of product (H4a) promotion (H4b) price (H4c) and distribution(H4d) strategies

There might be however cases in which the opposite effect occurs This is the case ofcompetitive and developed markets where the question is of selling efficiently throughpractices that take advantage of economies of scale In addition if the degree of foreignmarket competitiondevelopment is similar to the domestic market we may see littleadaptation because the same marketing mix may be applicable in both export anddomestic contexts Nevertheless as revealed by previous empirical research we expectthat overall the degree of foreign market competition and development is associatedwith marketing strategy adaptation

Antecedents of firmrsquos commitment to exportingThe effects of prior performance on firmrsquos commitment to exportingPrevious research in international marketing indicates that the firmrsquos commitment toexporting directly impacts performance because this commitment is associated withthe allocation of greater resources to the task better enabling the organization toachieve its exporting goals In general the more committed the firms the moresuccessful their performance as they are more engaged in planning and thereforeallocate greater financial and human resources to the export activity (for extensivereviews regarding this relationship see Bilkey 1978 Aaby and Slater 1989 Zou andStan 1998)

Exportperformance

1195

In this study we suggest that performance should also directly impact on the firmrsquoscommitment to exporting To the best of our knowledge no study in internationalmarketing has empirically tested this relationship Nevertheless as suggested byprevious studies (Fenwick and Amine 1979 Madsen 1987 Stump et al 1998) pastperformance is very likely to shape the degree of commitment to exporting and shouldbe considered a research priority

The international marketing literature suggests that export commitment is afunction of resource availability (Cavusgil and Nevin 1981) When export operationsperform well the various internal publics and external publics are more likely tosupport the exporting activity within the firm On the other hand the reputations of theexporting operations and export managers are diminished by poor performance andconsequently they will likely have fewer resources available This situation becomeseven more evident in SMEs having a short strategic cycle Nevertheless the literaturesuggests that overall the perception of success on the part of the different entitiesinteracting with the company enhanced by the firmrsquos internal stability will lead themanagers to increase their motivation to exporting This leads to the followinghypothesis

H5 The better the performance in the previous year the greater the firmrsquoscommitment to exporting

Nevertheless one should also note some exceptions For example in certain situationsSMEs might be prepared to accept consistent losses in order to learn and establishmarket share and during this phase commitment might increase It is also worthnoting that while in performing firms the opportunities to increase performance maybe viewed as discretionary possibilities in low performing firms managers will have tobe more committed because the opportunities are seen as vital (Cyert and March 1963)When the firm is not performing well managers will have to be committed toimplementing precise and discriminant decisions and to expending the effort to makeproper choices (Fredrickson 1985) Nonetheless based on the hints previouslydiscussed that emerge from the international marketing literature we will test to see ifthe firmrsquos commitment to exporting increases when managers have achieved pastperformance goals

The effects of export market forces on firmrsquos commitment to exportingForeign markets present both opportunities and threats for exporters (Cavusgil andZou 1994) Managers of firms operating in less competitive environments tend to feelless threatened and more confident about the existing opportunities (Dutton 1993)This situation is likely to make managers less committed because the firm operates in aclosed system and loses its ability to identify and react to the various issues that mayarise from the environment On the other hand the intensity of export marketcompetition is likely to force managers to take strategic decisions in order to gaincompetitive advantage over rivals (Cavusgil et al 1993 Jain 1989) While managers offirms operating in low competitive environments have the luxury of taking effortlessstrategic decisions managers of firms operating in highly competitive environmentsare under constant pressure to be committed to exporting activity The need toconstantly monitor the environment avoid potential threats and differentiate the

EJM38910

1196

offerings across markets forces firms that export to more competitive environments tobe more committed to their export operations

Similar to what occurs with the degree of export market competition we also expectthat the degree of foreign market development is associated with a higher degree of thefirmrsquos commitment to exporting SMEs exporting to less developed countries (LDCs)are expected to be less committed because consumers in these countries are not verydemanding and frequently prefer products from developed countries to those fromtheir own country (Bilkey and Nes 1982) Furthermore as suggested by a Portuguesemanager during a preliminary interview SMEs may impose more convenient decisionson some of the less developed markets because ldquoif the markets are easy companiestend to accommodate themselvesrdquo While Portuguese companies have no power in therelationship with importers based in developed markets they have considerable powerover importers based in the less developed markets In contrast when exporting to themost developed markets firms are under pressure to be committed and satisfy as muchas possible the more educated and sophisticated consumers in those countries (Buzzell1968) Hence similar to what happens with firms operating in the more competitiveenvironments firms operating in the most developed markets will have to becommitted to the exporting activity and try to maximize satisfaction to the importers inthose markets Collectively the above rationales can be expressed in the followinghypotheses

H6 The degree of export market competition is positively related with the firmrsquoscommitment to exporting

H7 The degree of export market development is positively related with the firmrsquoscommitment to exporting

MethodData collection procedureA questionnaire was developed that incorporates a variety of multi-item measures andindicators of the conceptual framework Additional indicators derived fromexploratory interviews in the research context were also included Both adaptationof product and promotion strategies were adapted from Zou et al (1997) bothadaptation of pricing and distribution strategies were adapted from Shoham (1999)With regard to the export market forces the firmrsquos commitment to exporting wasadapted from Cavusgil and Zou (1994) and the degree of foreign market developmentwas specifically developed for this research The scale for satisfaction with prior yearrsquosexport performance was influenced by Shohamrsquos (1996) work

In line with the OECDrsquos 1994 definition we use 500 employees as the dividing linebetween an SME and a large firm A sample of 2100 small and medium-sized exporterswas randomly generated from the government agency database of Icep-Portugal(available at wwwportugalorginformationindexhtml) (ICEP 1997) After analyzingthe results of the preliminary interviews and pre-testing the questionnaire[2] datacollection was conducted in the first quarter of 1999 Questionnaires with aninternational postage-paid business reply envelope were sent to the person responsiblefor exporting operations This was followed by a reminder letter that included a replyenvelope Out of 2100 questionnaires 29 managers replied that they no longerexported and 104 questionnaires were returned by the postal service These firms had

Exportperformance

1197

either closed down or moved without leaving a forwarding address Thus the samplesize was reduced to 1967 By the cut-off date 459 questionnaires had been returned(413 valid) which was equivalent to a 233 percent return rate (21 percent net responserate) This result is quite satisfactory considering that high-level executives are muchless likely to respond than people in the general population (Hunt and Chonko 1987)Furthermore because of the numerous obstacles that have to be overcome thecollection of data from a foreign country is usually more difficult (Douglas and Craig1983) making the response rates much lower for international surveys (Zou et al1997)

The existence of a good response rate provides some confidence that response biasis not a significant problem (Weiss and Heide 1993) Nevertheless non-response biaswas tested by assessing the differences between the early and late respondents withregard to the means of the 36 items exhibited in the Appendix (Armstrong andOverton 1977) No significant differences between the early and late respondents werefound suggesting that response bias was not a significant problem in the study

Data and respondentsrsquo profileNearly 90 percent of the respondents reported on ventures with other European Unioncountries while the remainder occurred with non-EU countries Exporters from all ofthe Portuguese regions participated in the survey While 22 percent of SMEs haveannual sales exceeding e5m only a small number (8 percent) have sales revenues oftotal exports above that figure Even lesser (2 percent) is the number of SMEs withsales revenues of the main export venture above the e5m limit The average salesrevenues of the main export venture ranged from e400000-e750000

The survey was directed to individuals who were primarily responsible forexporting operations and activities The job title of these individuals ranged frompresident to marketing director managing director and exporting director Of therespondents 397 percent indicated that they had been responsible for the exportingoperations of their firm for eight to 15 years while 833 percent ranged from three to 30years Respondents were also asked to indicate their degree of experience in exportingon a scale where 1 frac14 none and 5 frac14 substantial The mean response was 35(SD frac14 085 range 1 to 5) Collectively this indicates that although the title of therespondentsrsquo positions may be wide-ranging the individuals appear to have significantknowledge in the specific exporting activities of the firm and are experienced withexporting in general

The unit of analysisIn line with the most recent export marketing research (Styles 1996 1998 Lages2000b) the firmrsquos main export market venture (MEV) is analyzed in this study Thereare problems involved in analyzing more than one export venture from the same firmbecause as revealed during the exploratory study in many firms managers develop amarketing strategy only for the MEV Many of the secondary export ventures have nodefined strategy or are just a consequence of the strategy defined for the MEVAdditionally the MEV is used because it is believed that analyzing a single product orproduct line exported to a single foreign market makes it possible to associate pastperformance more precisely with its outcomes

EJM38910

1198

Data analysisConfirmatory factor analysisIn order to assess the validity of the measures the items are subjected to aconfirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using full-information maximum likelihood (FIML)estimation procedures in LISREL 83 (Joreskog and Sorbom 1993) In this model eachitem is restricted to load on its pre-specified factor with the eight factors allowed tocorrelate freely Despite the significant chi-square for this model (x2 frac14 86148 467dfp 000) the fit indices ndash the comparative fit index (CFI frac14 095) the Incremental fitindex (IFI frac14 095) and the Tucker-Lewis fit index (TLI frac14 094) ndash are indicative of agood fit Since fit indices can be improved by allowing more terms to be freelyestimated we also assess the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)which assesses fit and incorporates a penalty for lack of parsimony A RMSEA of 005or less indicates a close fit to the population while 008 to 010 indicates a satisfactoryfit with any score over 010 indicating an unacceptable fit The RMSEA of thismeasurement model is 0045

The Appendix (Figure A1) provides an overview of the standardized estimates andt-values of each item on its intended construct Convergent validity is evidenced by thelarge and significant standardized loadings (average loading size was 077) As shownin the Appendix all eight constructs present the desirable levels of compositereliability (Bagozzi 1980) Discriminant validity among the constructs was alsostringently assessed using the Fornell and Larcker (1981) test all possible pairs ofconstructs passed this test Discriminant validity was also evidenced by the correlationestimates between any two constructs (Joreskog and Sorbom 1993) No correlationincludes a value of 1 (Anderson and Gerbing 1988) and the highest correlation is 047for promotion strategy adaptation and distribution strategy adaptation Table Iprovides an overview of the construct means standard deviations and the correlationmatrix among the constructs

Path model parameter estimatesThe conceptual framework of Figure 1 is simultaneously estimated in a structuralequation model using FIML estimation procedures in LISREL 83 Specifically thismodel contains eight constructs 33 observable indicators measurement and latentvariable errors and inter-correlations between the latent factors This model also has asignificant chi-square of 114402 (df frac14 473 p 000) but again the fit indices suggesta good fit of the model to the data (CFI frac14 092 IFI frac14 092 TFI frac14 091RMSEA frac14 0059) Table II provides the maximum likelihood estimates for all thedirect indirect and total effects associated with the structural paths The estimates arestandardized and thus may be treated as an indication of the relative importance ofeach variable relative to each endogenous variable (Goldberger 1964)

When testing H1a and H1b the results suggest that the direct association of priorexport performance with product and promotion adaptation is not significantHowever performance has a significant and positive indirect impact on productstrategy adaptation (004 p 005) Consistent with hypotheses H1c and H1d theresults suggest that the prior yearrsquos export performance has a significant and negativedirect impact on the degree of adaptation of both pricing (g frac14 2013 p 005) anddistribution (g frac14 2015 p 0005) strategies Table II also shows that the significant

Exportperformance

1199

Construct

Mean

SD

Min

Max

12

34

56

78

Y1Firmrsquoscurrentcommitmentto

exporting

32

089

10

50

1

Y2Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

22

109

10

50

0145

1

Y3Currentadaptation

ofpromotionstrategyto

the

foreignmarket

25

116

10

50

0060

0272

1

Y4Currentadaptation

ofpricingstrategyto

the

foreignmarket

28

105

10

50

0019

0379

0422

1

Y5Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategytothe

foreignmarket

32

121

10

50

0101

0179

0470

0441

1

X1Satisfactionwithprior

yearrsquosexportperform

ance

28

079

10

50

0282

0012

0011

20094

20024

1

X2Exportmarket

competition

38

080

10

50

0173

0082

0051

0034

0056

0029

1

X3Exportmarket

development

37

095

10

50

0285

0141

0107

20044

0139

0202

0236

1

Table IMeans standarddeviations andcorrelations among latentconstructs

EJM38910

1200

Y1

Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

Y2

Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Y3

Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

Y4

Currentadaptation

ofpricing

strategyto

theforeignmarket

Y5

Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Effectofon

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

X1Satisfaction

withprior

yearrsquos

export

perform

ance

024

(419)

H5

024

(419)

2006

(2102)

H1a

004

(200)

2002

(2040)

2006

(2102)

H1b

001

(086)

2004

(2080)

2013

(2226)

H1c

002

(129)

2011

(2196)

2015

(266)

H1d

004

(198)

2012

(2210)

X2Exportmarket

competition

015

(249)

H6

015

(249)

000

(2004)

H3a

002

(167)

002

(034)

2010

(2169)

H3b

001

(082)

2009

(2157)

2004

(2056)

H3c

001

(119)

2002

(2034)

2007

(2112)

H3d

002

(166)

2005

(2076)

X3Exportmarket

development

025

(366)

H7

025

(366)

012

(169)

H4a

004

(196)

016

(230)

016

(240)

H4b

001

(087)

018

(272)

003

(036)

H4c

002

(127)

005

(072)

014

(198)

H4d

004

(196)

017

(261)

Y1Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

016

(224)

H2a

016

(224)

006

(088)

H2b

006

(088)

009

(135)

H2c

009

(135)

015

(223)

H2d

015

(223)

NotesValues

inupper

rowsarecompletely

standardized

estimatesValues

inlower

rowsare

t-valuesp

005

p

001p

0005(one-tailed

test)

p

005

(two-tailed

test)Because

ofroundingsom

etim

estheldquototaleffectrdquoisthenot

thesameas

ldquothedirecteffectplustheindirecteffectrdquoThesignsfortheexpectedindirectandtotal

effectswereestablished

byim

plicationWeassumethat

ifallthedirectrelationshipsinvolved

inan

indrect

relationship

arepositivethefinal

indirectrelationship

isalso

expectedto

bepositiveThesameprincipleapplies

tothetotaleffectsIfbothdirectandindirecteffectsareexpectedto

bepositivethen

thesignforthetotaleffect

isalso

expectedto

bepositive

Table IIEffects of exogenous and

prior endogenousconstructs (aximum

likelihoodestimation n frac14 413)

Exportperformance

1201

positive indirect impact of performance on the adaptation of distribution strategy leadsto a weakening of the total effects which however remain negatively significant

As predicted by hypotheses H2a and H2d the results indicate that a firmrsquoscommitment to exporting significantly influences the degree of adaptation of product(b frac14 016 p 005) and distribution (b frac14 015 p 005) strategies The firmrsquoscommitment to exporting is not significantly associated with adaptation of promotion(H2b) and pricing (H2c) strategiesTable II shows that although there is not a significant direct impact of export marketcompetition on product (H3a) promotion (H3b) pricing (H3c) and distribution (H3d)strategies there is a significant positive indirect impact of competition on the degree ofadaptation of both product and distribution strategies However the total effectsremain non-significant

In contrast consistent with H4a H4b and H4d export market development has asignificant positive impact on the degree of adaptation of product (g frac14 012 p 005)promotion (g frac14 016 p 001) and distribution (g frac14 014 p 005) strategies Thethree indirect effects strengthen the total effects for all three relationships because theyare also positive Surprisingly export market development is not significantlyassociated with pricing adaptation (H4c)

The last three hypotheses (H5 H6 and H7) are confirmed The results show thatcommitment to exporting is highly significantly influenced by the three exogenousvariables prior export performance (g frac14 024 p 0005) export market competition(g frac14 015 p 001) and export market development (g frac14 025 p 0005)

In sum ten out of the 19 predicted direct relationships are statistically significant atp 005 level or better Table II also shows that six out of the 12 possible indirecteffects and ten out of the 19 possible total effects are statistically significant atp 005 and beyond

Relative importance of predictor variablesThe above discussion has focused upon the rows of Table II The following discussionwill consider the relative explanatory power of the predictor variables with respect toeach of the five endogenous variables in the model thus examining the columns ofTable II

For Y1 the current yearrsquos commitment to exporting the first columns show that X3export market development (025 p 0005) and X1 satisfaction with prior yearrsquosexport performance (024 p 0005) are equally important and both are more so thanX2 export market competition (015 p 001) although all three variables aresignificant at p 001 and beyond Thus the three exogenous variables have theexpected positive impact on export commitment not just significantly but of areasonable magnitude as well

For Y2 product strategy adaptation only Y1 (016 p 005) the firmrsquos current yearcommitment to exporting and X3 (016 p 005) export market development have asignificant and virtually equal importance However for Y3 promotion strategyadaptation only X3 (018 p 0005) export market development has a statisticallysignificant and sizeable impact

In contrast for Y4 price strategy adaptation only X1 (2011 p 005) satisfactionwith the prior yearrsquos export performance has any significant association and that at

EJM38910

1202

the smallest magnitude of total effects among those in Table II that are statisticallysignificant

Finally for Y5 distribution strategy adaptation three of the four predictor variablesare significant at p 005 or better and are fairly equal in impact X3 (017 p 0005)export market development Y1 (015 p 005) firmrsquos current year exportcommitment and X1 (2012 p 005) satisfaction with prior yearsrsquo exportperformance Thus the decision to adapt distribution strategy appears to be themost multifaceted of all four adaptation decisions

The above results suggest that the three exogenous variables (X1 X2 and X3) andY1 have markedly different impacts on strategy adaptation across marketingrsquos 4PsThis suggests that using a more aggregated variable such as overall marketingstrategy adaptation could lead to misleading results or even mask significantrelationships It should also be noted that our results suggest that X2 export marketcompetition does not appear to have much impact on strategy adaptation to theforeign market in stark contrast to export market development which had asubstantial impact on all except price adaptation

DiscussionThe major contribution of the study stems from the empirical findings First ourfindings support the argument that export performance is an antecedent of the firmrsquoscommitment to exporting Second export performance affects the way managersdefine their exporting strategies Specifically it affects the degree of adaptation ofproduct (significant indirect effects) pricing (significant direct and total effects) anddistribution (significant direct indirect and total effects) This leads us to conclude thatinternational marketing researchers are overlooking a potentially significant part ofthe export-marketing phenomenon

We expect that the empirical findings presented in this paper will lead internationalmarketing academics to reflect on the importance of prior performance to a firmrsquoscommitment to exporting By better understanding this relationship and the differentforces influencing it international marketing researchers will be able to help firmsenhance their export commitment when performing poorly (suggestions are presentedunder ldquoImplications for practice and public policy makingrdquo)

The impact of performance on marketing strategy is particularly relevant in thecontext of SMEs As suggested by the export manager of a clothing firm ldquostrategy isdefined every day as a result of past resultsrdquo Following the view of the manager of ametal-exporting company we might also conjecture that many SMEs are being led intoa vicious circle where they are not able to improve their performance in the long termbecause they are reacting too quickly in the short term without expecting to observethe effects of their strategy in the long term

The interviewees also offered different explanations for the negative impact ofperformance on marketing strategy adaptation The general manager of astone-exporting firm suggested that SMEs tend to have limited resources andldquoPortuguese managers are usually reluctant to investrdquo Hence if companies achieve agood performance they will tend to relax and use more standardized strategies thatrequire many fewer resources than do more adapted strategies Another exportingmanager suggested that since the companies which perform better are not underpressure they might prefer to standardize their strategies in order to ldquobecome more

Exportperformance

1203

homogeneous across markets and reduce the disorderrdquo which normally results fromhaving different strategies for different markets

One of the key advantages of using a path model is the possibility of estimating notonly the direct effects but also the indirect and total effects among latent variables(Bollen 1989) Indeed interesting insights are raised when using this type of approachto analyze our data A surprising finding is that while performance has a negativedirect impact on all the marketing strategy elements (the impact is significant forpricing and distribution) the indirect effects of performance on the four marketingstrategy elements through firmrsquos commitment to exporting are positive (significant forproduct and distribution) which naturally leads to a weakening of the total effects[3](significant for pricing and distribution) Accordingly we conclude that although thefirms that perform better tend to relax and consequently implement simpler strategies(particularly with regard to the standardization of both pricing and distributionstrategies) this situation is less likely to occur when firms are committed to exportingactivity (in which case they will tend to adapt more the product and distributionstrategies)

When comparing the total effects of the three exogenous variables on the firmrsquoscommitment to exporting both prior performance and export market development arefound to have a similar highly significant positive impact on that commitmentAlthough the impact of export market competition on a firmrsquos commitment toexporting is also significant this impact is slightly lower than the impact of the othertwo exogenous constructs[4] When analyzing the key antecedents of the marketingmix strategy it is found that export market development and a firmrsquos commitment toexporting are the most important determinants of product strategy adaptation to themain foreign market The degree of export market development is also found to be themost important determinant of both promotion and distribution strategies adaptationPrior performance is the key determinant of pricing strategy adaptation Finally thestructural model presented here also adds significantly to previous research byshowing that a firmrsquos marketing strategy (namely the degree of adaptation of productand distribution strategies) is affected by the degree of export market competition anddevelopment through the indirect effects of management commitment to exporting

Implications for practice and public policy makingExporting activity may be very attractive from the point of view of both managers andpublic policy makers From the point of view of managers exporting to foreignmarkets can be very rewarding and is sometimes the only way for SMEs to surviveThrough exporting activity SMEs may extend the life cycle of their products reducetheir overall operating costs (eg costs associated with marketing production RampDand technology) and use the foreign market to absorb their excess capacity

The model presented in this paper helps managers to systematize the complexexport-marketing phenomenon and simultaneously might help to improve theirmarketing expertise and enhance their ability to protect and perform better in thedomestic market Our research findings indicate that firms with higher performancelevels are more inclined to standardize their pricing and distribution strategies in thefollowing year (except when the firms are more committed to the exporting activity ifthis situation occurs there is a tendency to increase the adaptation of the product anddistribution strategies) SMEsrsquo managers are particularly encouraged to reflect on the

EJM38910

1204

fact that quite often it will not be possible to see the effects of preceding strategies inthe long run because strategies are determined every year as a reaction to the previousyearrsquos results By better understanding how prior performance and the degree ofexport market competition and development affect marketing strategy definitionSMEsrsquo managers should be able to improve their exporting strategies in the long termFinally the findings might also be of vital importance when the firm is assessing itspropensity to export because at this stage the firm may have to take into account thedegree of competition and market development in making the decision

Research into SMEs is also of relevance for governments from both developedcountries and LDCs While in the more developed countries SMEs represent a growingpercentage of national exporting activity (Dichtl et al 1984) in the LDCs they have beenused as a way to achieve economic growth (Jaffe and Pasternak 1994) By betterunderstanding exporting firms public policy makers will be able to help these firmscompete more effectively in global markets (Lages and Montgomery 2003) In particularour findings reveal that SMEs performing poorly will be less committed to exportingactivity Both national and international public policy makers could use part of theirlimited resources to help overcome this tendency[5] The most obvious option would beto provide training assistance on export strategy to the managers of the less committedfirms Another possibility would be to play an active role in exposing these managers topotential opportunities in foreign markets (eg by sponsoring their participation ininternational trade fairs and visits to potential foreign clients) Moreover sinceinternational market studies are extremely expensive (and are often inaccessible toSMEs) public policy makers could also grant the managers of these firms free access tothe existing EU databases that contain contact details for foreign firms

Research limitationsThe results presented in this paper should be interpreted with caution in the light ofsome significant limitations A first limitation relates to the omission of certainrelevant variables For example future research might include other possibledeterminants of marketing strategy and management commitment[6] As Pedhazurand Schmelkin (1991) explain such an omission may lead to a degree of bias in theparameter estimates associated with the independent variables However it must bestressed that the goal of this research is not to present a holistic approach to the exportmarketing phenomenon The focus is on the relationship among prior performancecommitment and marketing strategy under the influence of key market forces

This research has focused on SMEs operating in Portugal Portugal is particularlyinteresting to study as it is an emergent EU economy that is strongly dependent on theexporting activity of its firms Furthermore the small size of Portugalrsquos domesticmarket leads to a strong export orientation of Portuguese firms Nevertheless a samplebased on export ventures from only SMEs or from firms based in a single country isbound to be limited The results cannot be automatically generalized to larger firms orfirms based in other countries without further evidence

In terms of causality two initial concerns were that the use of techniques such asLISREL could not prove the direction of causality and due to the lack of time andfinancial resources it would not be possible to develop a longitudinal research designAs suggested by Madsen (1987) in order to overcome these obstacles we introducedtime lags in our survey instrument For example in the relationship between 1997

Exportperformance

1205

performance and 1998 pricing strategy adaptation the direction of causality becameclear In terms of a logical progression 1997 performance affects 1998 pricing strategybut the opposite relationship is ruled out Nevertheless in the future it is recommendedto replicate our research through the use of a longitudinal approach

Despite the studyrsquos evident limitations it is believed that a solid survey instrumenthas been produced both at the measurement and causality levels All the measurespresented in this study are reliable and valid and the final structural model presents agood fit

Directions for further researchStrategic decisions are motivated by reactive behaviors in which the firm responds topast results (Lindblom 1959) Most research (including that in marketing) tends toignore the firmrsquos reactive behavior despite the fact that it may play an equal if notgreater role as proactive behavior in the determination of current strategy Hence it isessential for international marketing researchers to start investigating the reactivebehavior and consequently using export performance as a variable on the right side ofthe equation (ie as an independent variable) It is believed that the two relationshipsproposed in this paper (ie ldquoperformance frac14 firmrsquos commitmentrdquo andldquoperformance frac14 marketing strategyrdquo) suggest potentially fruitful avenues ofresearch It is particularly important to investigate the conditions under which pastperformance affects a firmrsquos commitment to exporting and exporting marketingstrategy Although neglected by previous international marketing research managersconsider past performance and its effects as a top priority issue If performance hasbeen satisfactory firms will be in a better position to develop long-term results Theinternal and external publics are more likely to react positively and export managerswill be in a better position to request from top managers and public policy makersmore human and financial support for the development of exporting marketingstrategy Additionally past performance is vital because it relates to managersrsquopersonal interests as a positive performance might have an immediate effect in termsof personal income (eg salary bonus)

In this study we use the 4Ps adaptation as the dependent variables There is a needto develop international marketing frameworks that examine the marketing mix as awhole rather than concentrating on just one of the ldquoPsrdquo Instead of discussing whethera company should standardize its marketing strategies or not a fruitful direction forfuture research is to try to understand the interaction between the existing forces andthe degree of adaptation to the main foreign market (Jain 1989) Furthermore in thisstudy we focus on the rate of change of marketing strategy (export versus domesticadjustments) as a consequence of previous performance Future internationalmarketing research is also encouraged to analyze whether a strategy has beenchanged from one year to the following in response to past performance and thereasons behind this change

Most studies tend to concentrate exclusively on the analysis of the directrelationships among the elements involved in the export-marketing phenomenonMuch more empirical research is needed to focus on the analysis and understanding ofthe indirect relationships (Zou and Stan 1998) The use of an advanced multivariatetechnique such as SEM is recommended to model such complex relationships (Hairet al 1998) Our results indicate that satisfaction with prior yearrsquos export performance

EJM38910

1206

has a direct impact on a firmrsquos commitment to exporting an indirect impact on productstrategy adaptation a direct impact on pricing strategy adaptation and both a directand indirect impact on the adaptation of distribution strategy However there is anon-significant impact of prior yearrsquos export performance on promotion adaptation Itmight be true that it takes longer than a single year to observe the impact of theprevious yearrsquos performance on the decision of adapting promotion strategies ndashparticularly if a promotion campaign is a long-term multi-year effort Future researchis needed to further examine this possibility

This particular study shows that marketing strategy is a function of the fit betweenpreceding performance management commitment and export market forces Althoughthe occurrence of these effects might be observed in SMEs their occurrence might beunusual in larger firms For example since large companies have more resources totrain their managers the latter will almost certainly be more committed to exportingand in a better position to develop marketing strategies Future research should testthis possibility

In order to further test the relationships presented here this study should bereplicated with firms based in different countries Nevertheless generalizations toSMEs based in countries with characteristics similar to those of Portugal (ie smallEuropean countries emergent economies or export-oriented countries) must be madewith caution Two interesting possibilities would be to develop a similar survey acrossdifferent European countries or to compare firms based in developed and lessdeveloped countries It would also be useful to test the hypotheses presented in thispaper according to the level of internationalization of the firms and when comparingservice industries and goods manufacturing Finally both the ldquoperformance frac14 firmrsquos commitment to exportingrdquo and ldquoperformance frac14 marketing strategyrdquorelationships proposed in this paper in an international business context should betested at the domestic level

Notes

1 Percentages do not add up to 100 percent because in 6 percent of the reviewed studiesperformance appears in some other capacity

2 Both the results of the preliminary interviews and an extensive list of the various steps usedto pretest the questionnaire may be obtained from the first author

3 This includes both the significant and non-significant indirect effects

4 The standardized coefficients indicate how a typical variation in the independent variableleads to or is associated with a typical change or variation in the dependent variable(Goldberger 1964) They give an indication of relative importance to the dependent variable

5 By saying this we do not mean that public policy support to exporting should not beprovided to managers of successful firms

6 Possibilities include the use of alternative ways of assessing export market characteristics(eg the extent to which the foreign market is profitable or has potential for growth) and theuse of other export performance measures (eg export intensity) Future may also include thetype and availability of existing resources (eg financial and human resources) as well asother strategic factors (eg degree to which the venture is related to other complementaryexport operations and the extent of information collection about main competitors andmarkets)

Exportperformance

1207

References

Aaby N-E and Slater SF (1989) ldquoManagement influences on export performance a review ofthe empirical literature 1978-1988rdquo International Marketing Review Vol 6 No 4 pp 7-26

Anderson JC and Gerbing DW (1988) ldquoStructural equation modeling in practice a review andrecommended two-step approachrdquo Psychological Bulletin Vol 103 pp 411-23

Angle H and Perry J (1981) ldquoAn empirical assessment of organizational commitment andorganizational effectivenessrdquo Administrative Science Quarterly Vol 26 pp 1-14

Armstrong JS and Overton TS (1977) ldquoEstimating nonresponse bias in mail surveysrdquo Journalof Marketing Research Vol 16 August pp 396-400

Ashmos DP Duchon D and McDaniel RR Jr (1998) ldquoParticipation in strategic decisionmaking the role of organizational predisposition and issue interpretationrdquo DecisionSciences Vol 29 No 1 pp 25-51

Audia PG Locke EA and Smith KG (2000) ldquoThe paradox of success an archival and alaboratory study of strategic persistence following radical environmental changerdquoAcademy of Management Journal Vol 43 No 5 pp 837-53

Bagozzi RP (1980) Causal Models in Marketing John Wiley New York NY

Bartels R (1968) ldquoAre domestic and international marketing dissimilarrdquo Journal of MarketingVol 32 July pp 56-61

Bilkey WJ (1978) ldquoAn attempted integration of the literature on the export behavior of firmsrdquoJournal of International Business Studies Vol 9 No 1 pp 33-46

Bilkey WJ and Nes E (1982) ldquoCountry-of-origin effects on product evaluationsrdquo Journal ofInternational Business Studies Vol 13 No SpringSummer pp 89-100

Bollen KA (1989) Structural Equations With Latent Variables John Wiley New York NY

Bonoma TV and Clark BH (1988) Clark Marketing Performance Assessment HarvardBusiness School Press Boston MA

Boulding K (1956) ldquoGeneral systems theory ndash the skeleton of sciencerdquo Management ScienceVol 2 pp 197-208

Bourgeois LJ (1981) ldquoOn the measurement of organization slackrdquo Academy of ManagementReview Vol 6 No 1 pp 29-39

Britt SH (1974) ldquoStandardizing marketing for the international marketrdquo Columbia Journal ofWorld Business Vol 9 No 4 pp 39-45

Buzzell R (1968) ldquoCan you standardize multinational marketingrdquo Harvard Business ReviewVol 46 November-December pp 102-13

Cavusgil ST and Kirpalani VH (1993) ldquoIntroducing products into export markets successfactorsrdquo Journal of Business Research Vol 27 No 1 pp 1-14

Cavusgil ST and Nevin JR (1981) ldquoInternal determinants of export marketing behavioran empirical investigationrdquo Journal of Marketing Research Vol 18 February pp 114-9

Cavusgil ST and Zou S (1994) ldquoMarketing strategy-performance relationship an investigationof the empirical link in export market venturesrdquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 Januarypp 1-21

Cavusgil ST Zou S and Naidu GM (1993) ldquoProduct and promotion adaptation in exportventures an empirical investigationrdquo Journal of International Business Studies Vol 24No 3 pp 479-506

Christensen CH Da Rocha A and Gertner RK (1987) ldquoAn empirical investigation of thefactors influencing exporting success of Brazilian firmsrdquo Journal of International BusinessStudies Vol 18 Fall pp 61-77

EJM38910

1208

Clark BH and Montgomery DB (1999) ldquoManagerial identification of competitorsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 63 July pp 67-83

Cronbach LJ (1951) ldquoCoefficient alpha and the internal structure of testsrdquo PsychometrikaVol 16 September pp 297-334

Cyert RM and March JG (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm Prentice-Hall EnglewoodCliffs NJ

Czinkota M Ronkainen I and Moffett M (1996) International Business 4th ed Dryden PressLondon

Czinkota MR (1994) ldquoA national export assistance policy for new and growing businessesrdquoJournal of International Marketing Vol 2 No 1 pp 91-101

Day GS (1984) Strategic Market Planning The Pursuit of Competitive Advantage WestPublishing St Paul MN

Day GS and Wensley R (1988) ldquoAssessing advantage a framework for diagnosingcompetitive superiorityrdquo Journal of Marketing Vol 52 No 2 pp 1-20

Diamantopoulos A and Schlegelmilch BB (1994) ldquoLinking exporting manpower to exportperformance a canonical regression analysis of European and US datardquo in Cavusgil STand Axinn C (Eds) Advances in International Marketing 6 JAI Press Greenwich CT

Diamantopoulos A and Winklhofer HM (2001) ldquoIndex construction with formativeindicatorsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research Vol 38 May pp 269-77

Dichtl E Leibold M Koeglamyr G and Mueller S (1984) ldquoThe export decision of small andmedium-sized firms a reviewrdquo Management International Review Vol 24 No 2 pp 49-60

Douglas SP and Craig SC (1983) International Marketing Research Prentice-Hall EnglewoodCliffs NJ

Dutton J (1993) ldquoInterpretations on automatic a different view of strategic issue diagnosisrdquoJournal of Management Studies Vol 30 pp 339-57

Dutton J and Duncan RB (1987) ldquoThe creation of momentum for change through the process ofstrategic issue diagnosisrdquo Srategic Management Journal Vol 8 pp 279-95

Etzioni A (1975) A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations On Power Involvementand Their Correlates Free Press New York NY

European Commission (2000) DGI Report available at httpeuropaeuintcommtradeindex_enhtm

Fenwick I and Amine L (1979) ldquoExport performance and export policyrdquo Journal of theOperational Research Society Vol 30 No 8 pp 747-54

Fornell C and Larcker D (1981) ldquoEvaluating structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research Vol 18 Februarypp 39-50

Fredrickson JW (1985) ldquoEffects of decision motive and organizational performance level onstrategic decision processesrdquo Academy of Management Journal Vol 28 No 4 pp 821-43

Geyskens I Steenkamp J-B and Kumar N (1999) ldquoA meta-analysis of satisfaction inmarketing channel relationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research Vol 36 May pp 223-38

Goldberger AS (1964) Econometric Theory Wiley New York NY

Greve HR (1998) ldquoPerformance aspirations and risky organizational changerdquo AdministrativeScience Quarterly Vol 43 pp 58-86

Hair J Jr Anderson R Tatham R and Black W (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis 5th edPrentice-Hall International Upper Saddle River NJ

Exportperformance

1209

Hill JS and Still RR (1984) ldquoAdapting products to LDC tastesrdquo Harvard Business ReviewVol 62 March-April pp 92-101

Hunt SD and Chonko LB (1987) ldquoEthical problems of advertising agency executivesrdquo Journalof Advertising Vol 16 pp 16-24

ICEP (1997) CD-Export Database Disk 1 European Union Dataware Technologies

Isen AM and Baron RA (1991) ldquoPositive affect as a factor of organizational behaviorrdquo inCummings LL and Staw BM (Eds) Research in Organizational Behavior JAI PressGreenwich CT

Jaffe E and Pasternak H (1994) ldquoAn attitudinal model to determine the export intention ofnon-exporting small manufacturersrdquo International Marketing Review Vol 11 No 3pp 17-32

Jain SC (1989) ldquoStandardization of international marketing strategy some researchhypothesesrdquo Journal of Marketing Vol 53 January pp 70-9

Johnson JL and Arunthanes W (1995) ldquoIdeal and actual product adaptation in US exportingfirms market-related determinants and impact on export performancerdquo InternationalMarketing Review Vol 12 No 3 pp 31-46

Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL 8 Structural Equation Modeling with theSIMPLIS Command Language Scientific Software International Inc Chicago IL

Kahn BE (1998) ldquoMarketing in the 21st century ndash dynamic relationships with customershigh-variety strategiesrdquo Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Vol 26 No 1pp 45-53

Katsikeas CS Bell J and Morgan RE (1998) ldquoEditorial advances in export marketing theoryand practicerdquo International Marketing Review Vol 15 No 5 pp 322-32

Katsikeas CS Piercy NF and Ionnidis LC (1996) ldquoDeterminants of export performance in aEuropean contextrdquo European Journal of Marketing Vol 30 No 6 pp 6-35

Katsikeas CS Leonidas S Leonidou C and Morgan NA (2000) ldquoFirm-level exportperformance assessment review evaluation and developmentrdquo Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science Vol 28 No 4 pp 493-511

Kotler P (1996) Marketing Management Analysis Planning Implementation and Control9th ed Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs NJ

Lages LF (1999) ldquoMarketing lessons from Portuguese wine exporters the development andapplication of a conceptual frameworkrdquo Journal of Wine Research Vol 10 No 2 pp 123-32

Lages LF (2000a) ldquoA conceptual framework of the determinants of export performancereorganizing key variables and shifting contingencies in export marketingrdquo Journal ofGlobal Marketing Vol 13 No 3 pp 29-51

Lages LF (2000b) ldquoExport marketing standardization and its influence on performance astructural model examinationrdquo unpublished PhD dissertation Warwick Business SchoolWarwick University Warwick (for an abstract see wwwjibsnet)

Lages LF and Jap SD (2002) ldquoA contingency approach to marketing mix adaptation andperformance in international marketing relationshipsrdquo working paper no 411 Faculdadede Economia Universidade Nova de Lisboa Lisboa

Lages LF and Lages CR (2004) ldquoThe STEP scale a measure of short-term export performanceimprovementrdquo Journal of International Marketing Vol 12 No 1 pp 36-56

Lages LF and Melewar TC (2000) ldquoAn exploratory study of Portuguese exporters marketingstrategiesrdquo in Wierenga B Smidts A and Antonides G (Eds) Marketing in the NewMillennium 29th EMAC Proceedings (CD ROM) European Marketing AcademyRotterdam

EJM38910

1210

Lages LF and Montgomery DB (2003) ldquoAnalyzing the short term link between public policysupport and export performance improvement the importance of the mediating effects ofprice strategyrdquo in Henderson GR and Moore MC (Eds) Whatrsquos New Whatrsquos Next inMarketing Theory Education and Practice Proceedings of the 2003 AMA WinterEducatorsrsquo Conference 14-17 February Orlando FL American Marketing AssociationChicago IL pp 301-2

Lant TK and Hurley AE (1999) ldquoA contingency model of response to performance feedbackescalation of commitment and incremental adaptation in resource investment decisionsrdquoGroup and Organization Management Vol 24 December pp 421-37

Lant TK and Montgomery DB (1987) ldquoLearning from strategic success and failurerdquo Journalof Business Research Vol 15 No 6 pp 503-18

Lant TK Milliken FJ and Batra B (1992) ldquoThe role of managerial learning and interpretationin strategic persistence and reorientation an empirical explorationrdquo StrategicManagement Journal Vol 13 No 8 pp 585-608

Leonidou LC Katsikeas CS and Samiee S (2002) ldquoMarketing strategy determinants of exportperformance a meta-analysisrdquo Journal of Business Research Vol 55 No 1 pp 51-67

Lindblom CE (1959) ldquoThe science of muddling throughrdquo Public Administration Review Vol 19No 2 pp 79-88

Litschert RJ and Bonham TW (1978) ldquoA conceptual model of strategy formulationrdquo Academyof Management Review Vol 3 No 2 pp 211-9

Madsen TK (1987) ldquoEmpirical export performance studies a review of conceptualizations andfindingsrdquo in Cavusgil ST (Ed) Advances in International Marketing Vol 2 JAI PressGreenwich CT pp 177-98

March JG and Simon HA (1958) Organizations John Wiley amp Sons New York NY

March JG and Sutton RI (1997) ldquoOrganizational performance as a dependent variablerdquoOrganization Science Vol 8 No 6 pp 698-706

Miller D (1993) ldquoThe architecture of simplicityrdquo Academy of Management Review Vol 18 No 1pp 116-38

Mintzberg H Raisinghani D and Theoret A (1976) ldquoThe structure of unstructured decisionprocessesrdquo Administrative Science Quarterly Vol 21 No 2 pp 246-75

Morris JH and Sherman JD (1981) ldquoGeneralizability of an organizational commitment modelrdquoAcademy of Management Journal Vol 24 No 3 pp 512-26

Pedhazur EJ and Schmelkin LP (1991) Measurement Design and Analysis An IntegratedApproach Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale NJ

Porter L Steers R Mowday R and Boulian P (1974) ldquoOrganizational commitment jobsatisfaction and turnover among psychiatric techniciansrdquo Journal of Applied PsychologyVol 59 No 5 pp 603-9

Randall DM (1987) ldquoCommitment and the organization the organization man revisitedrdquoAcademy of Management Review Vol 12 No 3 pp 460-71

Rosenbloom B Larsen T and Mehta R (1997) ldquoGlobal marketing channels and thestandardization controversyrdquo Journal of Global Marketing Vol 11 No 1 pp 49-64

Samiee S and Roth K (1992) ldquoThe influence of global marketing standardization onperformancerdquo Journal of Marketing Vol 56 No 2 pp 1-17

Seifert B and Ford J (1989) ldquoAre exporting firms modifying their products pricing andpromotion policiesrdquo International Marketing Review Vol 6 No 6 pp 53-68

Exportperformance

1211

Shoham A (1996) ldquoMarketing-mix standardization determinants of export performancerdquoJournal of Global Marketing Vol 10 No 2 pp 53-73

Shoham A (1999) ldquoBounded rationality planning standardization of international strategy andexport performance a structural model examinationrdquo Journal of International MarketingVol 7 No 2 pp 24-50

Simon H (1957) Administrative Behavior Macmillan New York NY

Sriram V and Manu FA (1995) ldquoCountry-of-destination and export marketing strategy astudy of US exportersrdquo Journal of Global Marketing Vol 8 No 34 pp 171-90

Stump RL Athaide GA and Axinn CN (1998) ldquoThe contingent effect of the dimensions ofexport commitment on exporting financial performance an empirical examinationrdquoJournal of Global Marketing Vol 12 No 1 pp 7-25

Styles C (1996) ldquoDeterminants of export performance in small and medium sized enterprises anempirical investigation in the UK and Australiardquo unpublished PhD dissertation LondonBusiness School London University London

Styles C (1998) ldquoExport performance measures in Australia and the United Kingdomrdquo Journalof International Marketing Vol 6 No 3 pp 12-36

Von Bertalanffy L (1951) ldquoGeneral system theory a new approach to unity of sciencerdquo HumanBiology Vol 23 December pp 303-61

Walters PGP and Samiee S (1990) ldquoA model for assessing performance in small US exportingfirmsrdquo Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Vol 15 No 2 pp 33-50

Weiss AM and Heide JB (1993) ldquoThe nature of organizational search in high-technologymarketsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research Vol 30 May pp 220-33

Weitz BA (1985) ldquoIntroduction to the special issue on competition in marketingrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research Vol 22 No 3 pp 229-36

Wiener Y and Vardi Y (1980) ldquoRelationships between job organization and careercommitments and work outcomes ndash an integrative approachrdquo Organizational Behaviorand Human Performance Vol 26 pp 81-96

Winer RS (1998) ldquoFrom the Editorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research Vol 35 February pp iii-iiv

Zou S and Stan S (1998) ldquoThe determinants of export performance a review of the empiricalliterature between 1987 and 1997rdquo International Marketing Review Vol 15 No 5pp 333-56

Zou S Andrus D and Norvell D (1997) ldquoStandardization of international marketing strategyby firms from a developing countryrdquo International Marketing Review Vol 14 No 2pp 107-23

Zou S Taylor CR and Osland GE (1998) ldquoThe EXPERF scale a cross-national exportperformance measurerdquo Journal of International Marketing Vol 6 No 3 pp 37-58

Further reading

Bourgeois LJ (1980) ldquoPerformance and consensusrdquo Strategic Management Journal Vol 1pp 227-48

OECD (1995) ldquoDevelopments in individual countries Portugalrdquo Economic Outlook No 58 p 99

Rosa MN (1993) ldquoPortugal EC link brings benefitsrdquo Euromoney January p 90

EJM38910

1212

Appendix

Figure A1Scale items reliabilities

variance extracteditem-loadings and t-values

(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214

shaping public perceptions of national competitiveness Additionally exports enhancesocietal prosperity and help national industries to develop improve productivity andcreate new jobs Abroad exports enlarge consumersrsquo accessibility to a diversity ofgoods and services and improve the standard of living and quality of life

At the firm level through market diversification exporting provides an opportunityfor firms to become less dependent on the domestic market By serving new customersabroad the firm may also explore economies of scale and achieve lower production costswhile producing more efficiently The firm may also use the international experience tobecome a stronger competitor at home Additionally by operating abroad the firms maylearn from international competition to eventually explore new foreign markets and getinvolved in other international activities such as licensing franchising joint ventures ordirect investment abroad In sum exporting may assume an important role within thefirm as a means of reducing production costs stabilizing cyclical demand reaching newmarkets and gaining experience for other forms of internationalization (Czinkota 19942002 (see wwwhousegovsmbizhearings107th2002020424czinkotahtml))

Nevertheless while exporting is now one of the fastest growing economic activitiesessential for both nations and firms there is still no strong theoretical framework forresearching the export activity phenomenon (Leonidou et al 2002) A possibleexplanation for this is that researchers live in a world that desires and rewards theoriesthat look for factors to improve export performance Consequently they focus on thedeterminants of performance and tend to ignore firmsrsquo reactive behavior (March andSutton 1997) In this research we suggest that performance levels can also have animmediate impact on marketing strategy decisions similarly to what is observed in thereal world (see Lages 1999) It is not uncommon to hear in the business press of firmsrsquoreactive behavior to past results For example after its 1999 commercial financialdisaster British Airways publicly announced a rethinking of its brandingcommunication and relationship marketing strategies Similarly immediatelyfollowing the disclosure of poor results Marks amp Spencer decided to redefine itsstrategy and appoint a new board-level marketing director (Marketing WeekAugust 19 1999) Many other examples may be cited to exemplify this type ofshort-term reactive behavior to past performance In line with recent work (Ashmoset al 1998) we feel that satisfaction with the most recent past performance is moresalient to managers and more likely to represent financial data that would affectmanagersrsquo subsequent behavior and actions If the exporting activities of small andmedium-sized firms have not been satisfactory in the previous year it will beextremely difficult for managers to focus on the future as they will be under constantpressure Export managers will have (dis)incentives according to their short-termresults and in some cases their own position may came into risk if they have notachieved a satisfactory performance (Lages and Lages 2004)

There are several objectives of this research First we expect to develop a betterunderstanding of performance as an independent variable Historically strategyformulation is viewed as an antecedent to performance outcomes A recent review ofthe top journals in strategy and organizational behavior (March and Sutton 1997)indicates that performance appeared in 71 percent of the articles as a dependentvariable only in 12 percent as an independent variable only and in 11 percent of thestudies as both a dependent and independent variable[1] Similarly in the marketingfield strategy formulation is traditionally viewed as an antecedent to performance

Exportperformance

1187




EJM38910

1188






Exportperformance

1189





EJM38910

1190





Exportperformance

1191






EJM38910

1192






Exportperformance

1193







EJM38910

1194







Exportperformance

1195






EJM38910

1196







Exportperformance

1197






EJM38910

1198





Exportperformance

1199

Construct

Mean

SD

Min

Max

12

34

56

78


exporting

32

089

10

50

1

Y2Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

22

109

10

50

0145

1

Y3Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

25

116

10

50

0060

0272

1

Y4Currentadaptation

ofpricingstrategyto

the

foreignmarket

28

105

10

50

0019

0379

0422

1

Y5Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategytothe

foreignmarket

32

121

10

50

0101

0179

0470

0441

1



ance

28

079

10

50

0282

0012

0011

20094

20024

1

X2Exportmarket

competition

38

080

10

50

0173

0082

0051

0034

0056

0029

1

X3Exportmarket

development

37

095

10

50

0285

0141

0107

20044

0139

0202

0236

1


EJM38910

1200

Y1

Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

Y2

Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Y3

Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

Y4

Currentadaptation

ofpricing

strategyto

theforeignmarket

Y5

Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Effectofon

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

X1Satisfaction

withprior

yearrsquos

export

perform

ance

024

(419)

H5

024

(419)

2006

(2102)

H1a

004

(200)

2002

(2040)

2006

(2102)

H1b

001

(086)

2004

(2080)

2013

(2226)

H1c

002

(129)

2011

(2196)

2015

(266)

H1d

004

(198)

2012

(2210)

X2Exportmarket

competition

015

(249)

H6

015

(249)

000

(2004)

H3a

002

(167)

002

(034)

2010

(2169)

H3b

001

(082)

2009

(2157)

2004

(2056)

H3c

001

(119)

2002

(2034)

2007

(2112)

H3d

002

(166)

2005

(2076)

X3Exportmarket

development

025

(366)

H7

025

(366)

012

(169)

H4a

004

(196)

016

(230)

016

(240)

H4b

001

(087)

018

(272)

003

(036)

H4c

002

(127)

005

(072)

014

(198)

H4d

004

(196)

017

(261)

Y1Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

016

(224)

H2a

016

(224)

006

(088)

H2b

006

(088)

009

(135)

H2c

009

(135)

015

(223)

H2d

015

(223)

NotesValues

inupper

rowsarecompletely

standardized

estimatesValues

inlower

rowsare

t-valuesp

005

p

001p

0005(one-tailed

test)

p

005

(two-tailed

test)Because

ofroundingsom

etim


thesameas



byim



inan

indrect

relationship

arepositivethefinal


isalso

expectedto



bepositivethen


isalso

expectedto

bepositive




Exportperformance

1201










EJM38910

1202








Exportperformance

1203






EJM38910

1204






Exportperformance

1205






EJM38910

1206




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214




EJM38910

1188






Exportperformance

1189





EJM38910

1190





Exportperformance

1191






EJM38910

1192






Exportperformance

1193







EJM38910

1194







Exportperformance

1195






EJM38910

1196







Exportperformance

1197






EJM38910

1198





Exportperformance

1199

Construct

Mean

SD

Min

Max

12

34

56

78


exporting

32

089

10

50

1

Y2Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

22

109

10

50

0145

1

Y3Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

25

116

10

50

0060

0272

1

Y4Currentadaptation

ofpricingstrategyto

the

foreignmarket

28

105

10

50

0019

0379

0422

1

Y5Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategytothe

foreignmarket

32

121

10

50

0101

0179

0470

0441

1



ance

28

079

10

50

0282

0012

0011

20094

20024

1

X2Exportmarket

competition

38

080

10

50

0173

0082

0051

0034

0056

0029

1

X3Exportmarket

development

37

095

10

50

0285

0141

0107

20044

0139

0202

0236

1


EJM38910

1200

Y1

Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

Y2

Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Y3

Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

Y4

Currentadaptation

ofpricing

strategyto

theforeignmarket

Y5

Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Effectofon

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

X1Satisfaction

withprior

yearrsquos

export

perform

ance

024

(419)

H5

024

(419)

2006

(2102)

H1a

004

(200)

2002

(2040)

2006

(2102)

H1b

001

(086)

2004

(2080)

2013

(2226)

H1c

002

(129)

2011

(2196)

2015

(266)

H1d

004

(198)

2012

(2210)

X2Exportmarket

competition

015

(249)

H6

015

(249)

000

(2004)

H3a

002

(167)

002

(034)

2010

(2169)

H3b

001

(082)

2009

(2157)

2004

(2056)

H3c

001

(119)

2002

(2034)

2007

(2112)

H3d

002

(166)

2005

(2076)

X3Exportmarket

development

025

(366)

H7

025

(366)

012

(169)

H4a

004

(196)

016

(230)

016

(240)

H4b

001

(087)

018

(272)

003

(036)

H4c

002

(127)

005

(072)

014

(198)

H4d

004

(196)

017

(261)

Y1Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

016

(224)

H2a

016

(224)

006

(088)

H2b

006

(088)

009

(135)

H2c

009

(135)

015

(223)

H2d

015

(223)

NotesValues

inupper

rowsarecompletely

standardized

estimatesValues

inlower

rowsare

t-valuesp

005

p

001p

0005(one-tailed

test)

p

005

(two-tailed

test)Because

ofroundingsom

etim


thesameas



byim



inan

indrect

relationship

arepositivethefinal


isalso

expectedto



bepositivethen


isalso

expectedto

bepositive




Exportperformance

1201










EJM38910

1202








Exportperformance

1203






EJM38910

1204






Exportperformance

1205






EJM38910

1206




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214






Exportperformance

1189





EJM38910

1190





Exportperformance

1191






EJM38910

1192






Exportperformance

1193







EJM38910

1194







Exportperformance

1195






EJM38910

1196







Exportperformance

1197






EJM38910

1198





Exportperformance

1199

Construct

Mean

SD

Min

Max

12

34

56

78


exporting

32

089

10

50

1

Y2Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

22

109

10

50

0145

1

Y3Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

25

116

10

50

0060

0272

1

Y4Currentadaptation

ofpricingstrategyto

the

foreignmarket

28

105

10

50

0019

0379

0422

1

Y5Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategytothe

foreignmarket

32

121

10

50

0101

0179

0470

0441

1



ance

28

079

10

50

0282

0012

0011

20094

20024

1

X2Exportmarket

competition

38

080

10

50

0173

0082

0051

0034

0056

0029

1

X3Exportmarket

development

37

095

10

50

0285

0141

0107

20044

0139

0202

0236

1


EJM38910

1200

Y1

Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

Y2

Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Y3

Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

Y4

Currentadaptation

ofpricing

strategyto

theforeignmarket

Y5

Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Effectofon

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

X1Satisfaction

withprior

yearrsquos

export

perform

ance

024

(419)

H5

024

(419)

2006

(2102)

H1a

004

(200)

2002

(2040)

2006

(2102)

H1b

001

(086)

2004

(2080)

2013

(2226)

H1c

002

(129)

2011

(2196)

2015

(266)

H1d

004

(198)

2012

(2210)

X2Exportmarket

competition

015

(249)

H6

015

(249)

000

(2004)

H3a

002

(167)

002

(034)

2010

(2169)

H3b

001

(082)

2009

(2157)

2004

(2056)

H3c

001

(119)

2002

(2034)

2007

(2112)

H3d

002

(166)

2005

(2076)

X3Exportmarket

development

025

(366)

H7

025

(366)

012

(169)

H4a

004

(196)

016

(230)

016

(240)

H4b

001

(087)

018

(272)

003

(036)

H4c

002

(127)

005

(072)

014

(198)

H4d

004

(196)

017

(261)

Y1Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

016

(224)

H2a

016

(224)

006

(088)

H2b

006

(088)

009

(135)

H2c

009

(135)

015

(223)

H2d

015

(223)

NotesValues

inupper

rowsarecompletely

standardized

estimatesValues

inlower

rowsare

t-valuesp

005

p

001p

0005(one-tailed

test)

p

005

(two-tailed

test)Because

ofroundingsom

etim


thesameas



byim



inan

indrect

relationship

arepositivethefinal


isalso

expectedto



bepositivethen


isalso

expectedto

bepositive




Exportperformance

1201










EJM38910

1202








Exportperformance

1203






EJM38910

1204






Exportperformance

1205






EJM38910

1206




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214





EJM38910

1190





Exportperformance

1191






EJM38910

1192






Exportperformance

1193







EJM38910

1194







Exportperformance

1195






EJM38910

1196







Exportperformance

1197






EJM38910

1198





Exportperformance

1199

Construct

Mean

SD

Min

Max

12

34

56

78


exporting

32

089

10

50

1

Y2Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

22

109

10

50

0145

1

Y3Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

25

116

10

50

0060

0272

1

Y4Currentadaptation

ofpricingstrategyto

the

foreignmarket

28

105

10

50

0019

0379

0422

1

Y5Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategytothe

foreignmarket

32

121

10

50

0101

0179

0470

0441

1



ance

28

079

10

50

0282

0012

0011

20094

20024

1

X2Exportmarket

competition

38

080

10

50

0173

0082

0051

0034

0056

0029

1

X3Exportmarket

development

37

095

10

50

0285

0141

0107

20044

0139

0202

0236

1


EJM38910

1200

Y1

Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

Y2

Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Y3

Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

Y4

Currentadaptation

ofpricing

strategyto

theforeignmarket

Y5

Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Effectofon

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

X1Satisfaction

withprior

yearrsquos

export

perform

ance

024

(419)

H5

024

(419)

2006

(2102)

H1a

004

(200)

2002

(2040)

2006

(2102)

H1b

001

(086)

2004

(2080)

2013

(2226)

H1c

002

(129)

2011

(2196)

2015

(266)

H1d

004

(198)

2012

(2210)

X2Exportmarket

competition

015

(249)

H6

015

(249)

000

(2004)

H3a

002

(167)

002

(034)

2010

(2169)

H3b

001

(082)

2009

(2157)

2004

(2056)

H3c

001

(119)

2002

(2034)

2007

(2112)

H3d

002

(166)

2005

(2076)

X3Exportmarket

development

025

(366)

H7

025

(366)

012

(169)

H4a

004

(196)

016

(230)

016

(240)

H4b

001

(087)

018

(272)

003

(036)

H4c

002

(127)

005

(072)

014

(198)

H4d

004

(196)

017

(261)

Y1Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

016

(224)

H2a

016

(224)

006

(088)

H2b

006

(088)

009

(135)

H2c

009

(135)

015

(223)

H2d

015

(223)

NotesValues

inupper

rowsarecompletely

standardized

estimatesValues

inlower

rowsare

t-valuesp

005

p

001p

0005(one-tailed

test)

p

005

(two-tailed

test)Because

ofroundingsom

etim


thesameas



byim



inan

indrect

relationship

arepositivethefinal


isalso

expectedto



bepositivethen


isalso

expectedto

bepositive




Exportperformance

1201










EJM38910

1202








Exportperformance

1203






EJM38910

1204






Exportperformance

1205






EJM38910

1206




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214





Exportperformance

1191






EJM38910

1192






Exportperformance

1193







EJM38910

1194







Exportperformance

1195






EJM38910

1196







Exportperformance

1197






EJM38910

1198





Exportperformance

1199

Construct

Mean

SD

Min

Max

12

34

56

78


exporting

32

089

10

50

1

Y2Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

22

109

10

50

0145

1

Y3Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

25

116

10

50

0060

0272

1

Y4Currentadaptation

ofpricingstrategyto

the

foreignmarket

28

105

10

50

0019

0379

0422

1

Y5Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategytothe

foreignmarket

32

121

10

50

0101

0179

0470

0441

1



ance

28

079

10

50

0282

0012

0011

20094

20024

1

X2Exportmarket

competition

38

080

10

50

0173

0082

0051

0034

0056

0029

1

X3Exportmarket

development

37

095

10

50

0285

0141

0107

20044

0139

0202

0236

1


EJM38910

1200

Y1

Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

Y2

Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Y3

Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

Y4

Currentadaptation

ofpricing

strategyto

theforeignmarket

Y5

Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Effectofon

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

X1Satisfaction

withprior

yearrsquos

export

perform

ance

024

(419)

H5

024

(419)

2006

(2102)

H1a

004

(200)

2002

(2040)

2006

(2102)

H1b

001

(086)

2004

(2080)

2013

(2226)

H1c

002

(129)

2011

(2196)

2015

(266)

H1d

004

(198)

2012

(2210)

X2Exportmarket

competition

015

(249)

H6

015

(249)

000

(2004)

H3a

002

(167)

002

(034)

2010

(2169)

H3b

001

(082)

2009

(2157)

2004

(2056)

H3c

001

(119)

2002

(2034)

2007

(2112)

H3d

002

(166)

2005

(2076)

X3Exportmarket

development

025

(366)

H7

025

(366)

012

(169)

H4a

004

(196)

016

(230)

016

(240)

H4b

001

(087)

018

(272)

003

(036)

H4c

002

(127)

005

(072)

014

(198)

H4d

004

(196)

017

(261)

Y1Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

016

(224)

H2a

016

(224)

006

(088)

H2b

006

(088)

009

(135)

H2c

009

(135)

015

(223)

H2d

015

(223)

NotesValues

inupper

rowsarecompletely

standardized

estimatesValues

inlower

rowsare

t-valuesp

005

p

001p

0005(one-tailed

test)

p

005

(two-tailed

test)Because

ofroundingsom

etim


thesameas



byim



inan

indrect

relationship

arepositivethefinal


isalso

expectedto



bepositivethen


isalso

expectedto

bepositive




Exportperformance

1201










EJM38910

1202








Exportperformance

1203






EJM38910

1204






Exportperformance

1205






EJM38910

1206




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214






EJM38910

1192






Exportperformance

1193







EJM38910

1194







Exportperformance

1195






EJM38910

1196







Exportperformance

1197






EJM38910

1198





Exportperformance

1199

Construct

Mean

SD

Min

Max

12

34

56

78


exporting

32

089

10

50

1

Y2Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

22

109

10

50

0145

1

Y3Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

25

116

10

50

0060

0272

1

Y4Currentadaptation

ofpricingstrategyto

the

foreignmarket

28

105

10

50

0019

0379

0422

1

Y5Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategytothe

foreignmarket

32

121

10

50

0101

0179

0470

0441

1



ance

28

079

10

50

0282

0012

0011

20094

20024

1

X2Exportmarket

competition

38

080

10

50

0173

0082

0051

0034

0056

0029

1

X3Exportmarket

development

37

095

10

50

0285

0141

0107

20044

0139

0202

0236

1


EJM38910

1200

Y1

Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

Y2

Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Y3

Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

Y4

Currentadaptation

ofpricing

strategyto

theforeignmarket

Y5

Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Effectofon

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

X1Satisfaction

withprior

yearrsquos

export

perform

ance

024

(419)

H5

024

(419)

2006

(2102)

H1a

004

(200)

2002

(2040)

2006

(2102)

H1b

001

(086)

2004

(2080)

2013

(2226)

H1c

002

(129)

2011

(2196)

2015

(266)

H1d

004

(198)

2012

(2210)

X2Exportmarket

competition

015

(249)

H6

015

(249)

000

(2004)

H3a

002

(167)

002

(034)

2010

(2169)

H3b

001

(082)

2009

(2157)

2004

(2056)

H3c

001

(119)

2002

(2034)

2007

(2112)

H3d

002

(166)

2005

(2076)

X3Exportmarket

development

025

(366)

H7

025

(366)

012

(169)

H4a

004

(196)

016

(230)

016

(240)

H4b

001

(087)

018

(272)

003

(036)

H4c

002

(127)

005

(072)

014

(198)

H4d

004

(196)

017

(261)

Y1Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

016

(224)

H2a

016

(224)

006

(088)

H2b

006

(088)

009

(135)

H2c

009

(135)

015

(223)

H2d

015

(223)

NotesValues

inupper

rowsarecompletely

standardized

estimatesValues

inlower

rowsare

t-valuesp

005

p

001p

0005(one-tailed

test)

p

005

(two-tailed

test)Because

ofroundingsom

etim


thesameas



byim



inan

indrect

relationship

arepositivethefinal


isalso

expectedto



bepositivethen


isalso

expectedto

bepositive




Exportperformance

1201










EJM38910

1202








Exportperformance

1203






EJM38910

1204






Exportperformance

1205






EJM38910

1206




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214






Exportperformance

1193







EJM38910

1194







Exportperformance

1195






EJM38910

1196







Exportperformance

1197






EJM38910

1198





Exportperformance

1199

Construct

Mean

SD

Min

Max

12

34

56

78


exporting

32

089

10

50

1

Y2Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

22

109

10

50

0145

1

Y3Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

25

116

10

50

0060

0272

1

Y4Currentadaptation

ofpricingstrategyto

the

foreignmarket

28

105

10

50

0019

0379

0422

1

Y5Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategytothe

foreignmarket

32

121

10

50

0101

0179

0470

0441

1



ance

28

079

10

50

0282

0012

0011

20094

20024

1

X2Exportmarket

competition

38

080

10

50

0173

0082

0051

0034

0056

0029

1

X3Exportmarket

development

37

095

10

50

0285

0141

0107

20044

0139

0202

0236

1


EJM38910

1200

Y1

Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

Y2

Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Y3

Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

Y4

Currentadaptation

ofpricing

strategyto

theforeignmarket

Y5

Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Effectofon

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

X1Satisfaction

withprior

yearrsquos

export

perform

ance

024

(419)

H5

024

(419)

2006

(2102)

H1a

004

(200)

2002

(2040)

2006

(2102)

H1b

001

(086)

2004

(2080)

2013

(2226)

H1c

002

(129)

2011

(2196)

2015

(266)

H1d

004

(198)

2012

(2210)

X2Exportmarket

competition

015

(249)

H6

015

(249)

000

(2004)

H3a

002

(167)

002

(034)

2010

(2169)

H3b

001

(082)

2009

(2157)

2004

(2056)

H3c

001

(119)

2002

(2034)

2007

(2112)

H3d

002

(166)

2005

(2076)

X3Exportmarket

development

025

(366)

H7

025

(366)

012

(169)

H4a

004

(196)

016

(230)

016

(240)

H4b

001

(087)

018

(272)

003

(036)

H4c

002

(127)

005

(072)

014

(198)

H4d

004

(196)

017

(261)

Y1Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

016

(224)

H2a

016

(224)

006

(088)

H2b

006

(088)

009

(135)

H2c

009

(135)

015

(223)

H2d

015

(223)

NotesValues

inupper

rowsarecompletely

standardized

estimatesValues

inlower

rowsare

t-valuesp

005

p

001p

0005(one-tailed

test)

p

005

(two-tailed

test)Because

ofroundingsom

etim


thesameas



byim



inan

indrect

relationship

arepositivethefinal


isalso

expectedto



bepositivethen


isalso

expectedto

bepositive




Exportperformance

1201










EJM38910

1202








Exportperformance

1203






EJM38910

1204






Exportperformance

1205






EJM38910

1206




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214







EJM38910

1194







Exportperformance

1195






EJM38910

1196







Exportperformance

1197






EJM38910

1198





Exportperformance

1199

Construct

Mean

SD

Min

Max

12

34

56

78


exporting

32

089

10

50

1

Y2Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

22

109

10

50

0145

1

Y3Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

25

116

10

50

0060

0272

1

Y4Currentadaptation

ofpricingstrategyto

the

foreignmarket

28

105

10

50

0019

0379

0422

1

Y5Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategytothe

foreignmarket

32

121

10

50

0101

0179

0470

0441

1



ance

28

079

10

50

0282

0012

0011

20094

20024

1

X2Exportmarket

competition

38

080

10

50

0173

0082

0051

0034

0056

0029

1

X3Exportmarket

development

37

095

10

50

0285

0141

0107

20044

0139

0202

0236

1


EJM38910

1200

Y1

Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

Y2

Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Y3

Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

Y4

Currentadaptation

ofpricing

strategyto

theforeignmarket

Y5

Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Effectofon

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

X1Satisfaction

withprior

yearrsquos

export

perform

ance

024

(419)

H5

024

(419)

2006

(2102)

H1a

004

(200)

2002

(2040)

2006

(2102)

H1b

001

(086)

2004

(2080)

2013

(2226)

H1c

002

(129)

2011

(2196)

2015

(266)

H1d

004

(198)

2012

(2210)

X2Exportmarket

competition

015

(249)

H6

015

(249)

000

(2004)

H3a

002

(167)

002

(034)

2010

(2169)

H3b

001

(082)

2009

(2157)

2004

(2056)

H3c

001

(119)

2002

(2034)

2007

(2112)

H3d

002

(166)

2005

(2076)

X3Exportmarket

development

025

(366)

H7

025

(366)

012

(169)

H4a

004

(196)

016

(230)

016

(240)

H4b

001

(087)

018

(272)

003

(036)

H4c

002

(127)

005

(072)

014

(198)

H4d

004

(196)

017

(261)

Y1Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

016

(224)

H2a

016

(224)

006

(088)

H2b

006

(088)

009

(135)

H2c

009

(135)

015

(223)

H2d

015

(223)

NotesValues

inupper

rowsarecompletely

standardized

estimatesValues

inlower

rowsare

t-valuesp

005

p

001p

0005(one-tailed

test)

p

005

(two-tailed

test)Because

ofroundingsom

etim


thesameas



byim



inan

indrect

relationship

arepositivethefinal


isalso

expectedto



bepositivethen


isalso

expectedto

bepositive




Exportperformance

1201










EJM38910

1202








Exportperformance

1203






EJM38910

1204






Exportperformance

1205






EJM38910

1206




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214







Exportperformance

1195






EJM38910

1196







Exportperformance

1197






EJM38910

1198





Exportperformance

1199

Construct

Mean

SD

Min

Max

12

34

56

78


exporting

32

089

10

50

1

Y2Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

22

109

10

50

0145

1

Y3Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

25

116

10

50

0060

0272

1

Y4Currentadaptation

ofpricingstrategyto

the

foreignmarket

28

105

10

50

0019

0379

0422

1

Y5Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategytothe

foreignmarket

32

121

10

50

0101

0179

0470

0441

1



ance

28

079

10

50

0282

0012

0011

20094

20024

1

X2Exportmarket

competition

38

080

10

50

0173

0082

0051

0034

0056

0029

1

X3Exportmarket

development

37

095

10

50

0285

0141

0107

20044

0139

0202

0236

1


EJM38910

1200

Y1

Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

Y2

Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Y3

Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

Y4

Currentadaptation

ofpricing

strategyto

theforeignmarket

Y5

Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Effectofon

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

X1Satisfaction

withprior

yearrsquos

export

perform

ance

024

(419)

H5

024

(419)

2006

(2102)

H1a

004

(200)

2002

(2040)

2006

(2102)

H1b

001

(086)

2004

(2080)

2013

(2226)

H1c

002

(129)

2011

(2196)

2015

(266)

H1d

004

(198)

2012

(2210)

X2Exportmarket

competition

015

(249)

H6

015

(249)

000

(2004)

H3a

002

(167)

002

(034)

2010

(2169)

H3b

001

(082)

2009

(2157)

2004

(2056)

H3c

001

(119)

2002

(2034)

2007

(2112)

H3d

002

(166)

2005

(2076)

X3Exportmarket

development

025

(366)

H7

025

(366)

012

(169)

H4a

004

(196)

016

(230)

016

(240)

H4b

001

(087)

018

(272)

003

(036)

H4c

002

(127)

005

(072)

014

(198)

H4d

004

(196)

017

(261)

Y1Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

016

(224)

H2a

016

(224)

006

(088)

H2b

006

(088)

009

(135)

H2c

009

(135)

015

(223)

H2d

015

(223)

NotesValues

inupper

rowsarecompletely

standardized

estimatesValues

inlower

rowsare

t-valuesp

005

p

001p

0005(one-tailed

test)

p

005

(two-tailed

test)Because

ofroundingsom

etim


thesameas



byim



inan

indrect

relationship

arepositivethefinal


isalso

expectedto



bepositivethen


isalso

expectedto

bepositive




Exportperformance

1201










EJM38910

1202








Exportperformance

1203






EJM38910

1204






Exportperformance

1205






EJM38910

1206




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214






EJM38910

1196







Exportperformance

1197






EJM38910

1198





Exportperformance

1199

Construct

Mean

SD

Min

Max

12

34

56

78


exporting

32

089

10

50

1

Y2Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

22

109

10

50

0145

1

Y3Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

25

116

10

50

0060

0272

1

Y4Currentadaptation

ofpricingstrategyto

the

foreignmarket

28

105

10

50

0019

0379

0422

1

Y5Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategytothe

foreignmarket

32

121

10

50

0101

0179

0470

0441

1



ance

28

079

10

50

0282

0012

0011

20094

20024

1

X2Exportmarket

competition

38

080

10

50

0173

0082

0051

0034

0056

0029

1

X3Exportmarket

development

37

095

10

50

0285

0141

0107

20044

0139

0202

0236

1


EJM38910

1200

Y1

Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

Y2

Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Y3

Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

Y4

Currentadaptation

ofpricing

strategyto

theforeignmarket

Y5

Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Effectofon

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

X1Satisfaction

withprior

yearrsquos

export

perform

ance

024

(419)

H5

024

(419)

2006

(2102)

H1a

004

(200)

2002

(2040)

2006

(2102)

H1b

001

(086)

2004

(2080)

2013

(2226)

H1c

002

(129)

2011

(2196)

2015

(266)

H1d

004

(198)

2012

(2210)

X2Exportmarket

competition

015

(249)

H6

015

(249)

000

(2004)

H3a

002

(167)

002

(034)

2010

(2169)

H3b

001

(082)

2009

(2157)

2004

(2056)

H3c

001

(119)

2002

(2034)

2007

(2112)

H3d

002

(166)

2005

(2076)

X3Exportmarket

development

025

(366)

H7

025

(366)

012

(169)

H4a

004

(196)

016

(230)

016

(240)

H4b

001

(087)

018

(272)

003

(036)

H4c

002

(127)

005

(072)

014

(198)

H4d

004

(196)

017

(261)

Y1Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

016

(224)

H2a

016

(224)

006

(088)

H2b

006

(088)

009

(135)

H2c

009

(135)

015

(223)

H2d

015

(223)

NotesValues

inupper

rowsarecompletely

standardized

estimatesValues

inlower

rowsare

t-valuesp

005

p

001p

0005(one-tailed

test)

p

005

(two-tailed

test)Because

ofroundingsom

etim


thesameas



byim



inan

indrect

relationship

arepositivethefinal


isalso

expectedto



bepositivethen


isalso

expectedto

bepositive




Exportperformance

1201










EJM38910

1202








Exportperformance

1203






EJM38910

1204






Exportperformance

1205






EJM38910

1206




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214







Exportperformance

1197






EJM38910

1198





Exportperformance

1199

Construct

Mean

SD

Min

Max

12

34

56

78


exporting

32

089

10

50

1

Y2Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

22

109

10

50

0145

1

Y3Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

25

116

10

50

0060

0272

1

Y4Currentadaptation

ofpricingstrategyto

the

foreignmarket

28

105

10

50

0019

0379

0422

1

Y5Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategytothe

foreignmarket

32

121

10

50

0101

0179

0470

0441

1



ance

28

079

10

50

0282

0012

0011

20094

20024

1

X2Exportmarket

competition

38

080

10

50

0173

0082

0051

0034

0056

0029

1

X3Exportmarket

development

37

095

10

50

0285

0141

0107

20044

0139

0202

0236

1


EJM38910

1200

Y1

Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

Y2

Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Y3

Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

Y4

Currentadaptation

ofpricing

strategyto

theforeignmarket

Y5

Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Effectofon

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

X1Satisfaction

withprior

yearrsquos

export

perform

ance

024

(419)

H5

024

(419)

2006

(2102)

H1a

004

(200)

2002

(2040)

2006

(2102)

H1b

001

(086)

2004

(2080)

2013

(2226)

H1c

002

(129)

2011

(2196)

2015

(266)

H1d

004

(198)

2012

(2210)

X2Exportmarket

competition

015

(249)

H6

015

(249)

000

(2004)

H3a

002

(167)

002

(034)

2010

(2169)

H3b

001

(082)

2009

(2157)

2004

(2056)

H3c

001

(119)

2002

(2034)

2007

(2112)

H3d

002

(166)

2005

(2076)

X3Exportmarket

development

025

(366)

H7

025

(366)

012

(169)

H4a

004

(196)

016

(230)

016

(240)

H4b

001

(087)

018

(272)

003

(036)

H4c

002

(127)

005

(072)

014

(198)

H4d

004

(196)

017

(261)

Y1Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

016

(224)

H2a

016

(224)

006

(088)

H2b

006

(088)

009

(135)

H2c

009

(135)

015

(223)

H2d

015

(223)

NotesValues

inupper

rowsarecompletely

standardized

estimatesValues

inlower

rowsare

t-valuesp

005

p

001p

0005(one-tailed

test)

p

005

(two-tailed

test)Because

ofroundingsom

etim


thesameas



byim



inan

indrect

relationship

arepositivethefinal


isalso

expectedto



bepositivethen


isalso

expectedto

bepositive




Exportperformance

1201










EJM38910

1202








Exportperformance

1203






EJM38910

1204






Exportperformance

1205






EJM38910

1206




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214






EJM38910

1198





Exportperformance

1199

Construct

Mean

SD

Min

Max

12

34

56

78


exporting

32

089

10

50

1

Y2Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

22

109

10

50

0145

1

Y3Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

25

116

10

50

0060

0272

1

Y4Currentadaptation

ofpricingstrategyto

the

foreignmarket

28

105

10

50

0019

0379

0422

1

Y5Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategytothe

foreignmarket

32

121

10

50

0101

0179

0470

0441

1



ance

28

079

10

50

0282

0012

0011

20094

20024

1

X2Exportmarket

competition

38

080

10

50

0173

0082

0051

0034

0056

0029

1

X3Exportmarket

development

37

095

10

50

0285

0141

0107

20044

0139

0202

0236

1


EJM38910

1200

Y1

Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

Y2

Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Y3

Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

Y4

Currentadaptation

ofpricing

strategyto

theforeignmarket

Y5

Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Effectofon

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

X1Satisfaction

withprior

yearrsquos

export

perform

ance

024

(419)

H5

024

(419)

2006

(2102)

H1a

004

(200)

2002

(2040)

2006

(2102)

H1b

001

(086)

2004

(2080)

2013

(2226)

H1c

002

(129)

2011

(2196)

2015

(266)

H1d

004

(198)

2012

(2210)

X2Exportmarket

competition

015

(249)

H6

015

(249)

000

(2004)

H3a

002

(167)

002

(034)

2010

(2169)

H3b

001

(082)

2009

(2157)

2004

(2056)

H3c

001

(119)

2002

(2034)

2007

(2112)

H3d

002

(166)

2005

(2076)

X3Exportmarket

development

025

(366)

H7

025

(366)

012

(169)

H4a

004

(196)

016

(230)

016

(240)

H4b

001

(087)

018

(272)

003

(036)

H4c

002

(127)

005

(072)

014

(198)

H4d

004

(196)

017

(261)

Y1Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

016

(224)

H2a

016

(224)

006

(088)

H2b

006

(088)

009

(135)

H2c

009

(135)

015

(223)

H2d

015

(223)

NotesValues

inupper

rowsarecompletely

standardized

estimatesValues

inlower

rowsare

t-valuesp

005

p

001p

0005(one-tailed

test)

p

005

(two-tailed

test)Because

ofroundingsom

etim


thesameas



byim



inan

indrect

relationship

arepositivethefinal


isalso

expectedto



bepositivethen


isalso

expectedto

bepositive




Exportperformance

1201










EJM38910

1202








Exportperformance

1203






EJM38910

1204






Exportperformance

1205






EJM38910

1206




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214





Exportperformance

1199

Construct

Mean

SD

Min

Max

12

34

56

78


exporting

32

089

10

50

1

Y2Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

22

109

10

50

0145

1

Y3Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

25

116

10

50

0060

0272

1

Y4Currentadaptation

ofpricingstrategyto

the

foreignmarket

28

105

10

50

0019

0379

0422

1

Y5Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategytothe

foreignmarket

32

121

10

50

0101

0179

0470

0441

1



ance

28

079

10

50

0282

0012

0011

20094

20024

1

X2Exportmarket

competition

38

080

10

50

0173

0082

0051

0034

0056

0029

1

X3Exportmarket

development

37

095

10

50

0285

0141

0107

20044

0139

0202

0236

1


EJM38910

1200

Y1

Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

Y2

Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Y3

Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

Y4

Currentadaptation

ofpricing

strategyto

theforeignmarket

Y5

Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Effectofon

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

X1Satisfaction

withprior

yearrsquos

export

perform

ance

024

(419)

H5

024

(419)

2006

(2102)

H1a

004

(200)

2002

(2040)

2006

(2102)

H1b

001

(086)

2004

(2080)

2013

(2226)

H1c

002

(129)

2011

(2196)

2015

(266)

H1d

004

(198)

2012

(2210)

X2Exportmarket

competition

015

(249)

H6

015

(249)

000

(2004)

H3a

002

(167)

002

(034)

2010

(2169)

H3b

001

(082)

2009

(2157)

2004

(2056)

H3c

001

(119)

2002

(2034)

2007

(2112)

H3d

002

(166)

2005

(2076)

X3Exportmarket

development

025

(366)

H7

025

(366)

012

(169)

H4a

004

(196)

016

(230)

016

(240)

H4b

001

(087)

018

(272)

003

(036)

H4c

002

(127)

005

(072)

014

(198)

H4d

004

(196)

017

(261)

Y1Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

016

(224)

H2a

016

(224)

006

(088)

H2b

006

(088)

009

(135)

H2c

009

(135)

015

(223)

H2d

015

(223)

NotesValues

inupper

rowsarecompletely

standardized

estimatesValues

inlower

rowsare

t-valuesp

005

p

001p

0005(one-tailed

test)

p

005

(two-tailed

test)Because

ofroundingsom

etim


thesameas



byim



inan

indrect

relationship

arepositivethefinal


isalso

expectedto



bepositivethen


isalso

expectedto

bepositive




Exportperformance

1201










EJM38910

1202








Exportperformance

1203






EJM38910

1204






Exportperformance

1205






EJM38910

1206




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214

Construct

Mean

SD

Min

Max

12

34

56

78


exporting

32

089

10

50

1

Y2Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

22

109

10

50

0145

1

Y3Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

25

116

10

50

0060

0272

1

Y4Currentadaptation

ofpricingstrategyto

the

foreignmarket

28

105

10

50

0019

0379

0422

1

Y5Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategytothe

foreignmarket

32

121

10

50

0101

0179

0470

0441

1



ance

28

079

10

50

0282

0012

0011

20094

20024

1

X2Exportmarket

competition

38

080

10

50

0173

0082

0051

0034

0056

0029

1

X3Exportmarket

development

37

095

10

50

0285

0141

0107

20044

0139

0202

0236

1


EJM38910

1200

Y1

Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

Y2

Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Y3

Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

Y4

Currentadaptation

ofpricing

strategyto

theforeignmarket

Y5

Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Effectofon

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

X1Satisfaction

withprior

yearrsquos

export

perform

ance

024

(419)

H5

024

(419)

2006

(2102)

H1a

004

(200)

2002

(2040)

2006

(2102)

H1b

001

(086)

2004

(2080)

2013

(2226)

H1c

002

(129)

2011

(2196)

2015

(266)

H1d

004

(198)

2012

(2210)

X2Exportmarket

competition

015

(249)

H6

015

(249)

000

(2004)

H3a

002

(167)

002

(034)

2010

(2169)

H3b

001

(082)

2009

(2157)

2004

(2056)

H3c

001

(119)

2002

(2034)

2007

(2112)

H3d

002

(166)

2005

(2076)

X3Exportmarket

development

025

(366)

H7

025

(366)

012

(169)

H4a

004

(196)

016

(230)

016

(240)

H4b

001

(087)

018

(272)

003

(036)

H4c

002

(127)

005

(072)

014

(198)

H4d

004

(196)

017

(261)

Y1Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

016

(224)

H2a

016

(224)

006

(088)

H2b

006

(088)

009

(135)

H2c

009

(135)

015

(223)

H2d

015

(223)

NotesValues

inupper

rowsarecompletely

standardized

estimatesValues

inlower

rowsare

t-valuesp

005

p

001p

0005(one-tailed

test)

p

005

(two-tailed

test)Because

ofroundingsom

etim


thesameas



byim



inan

indrect

relationship

arepositivethefinal


isalso

expectedto



bepositivethen


isalso

expectedto

bepositive




Exportperformance

1201










EJM38910

1202








Exportperformance

1203






EJM38910

1204






Exportperformance

1205






EJM38910

1206




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214

Y1

Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

Y2

Currentadaptation

ofproduct

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Y3

Currentadaptation


the

foreignmarket

Y4

Currentadaptation

ofpricing

strategyto

theforeignmarket

Y5

Currentadaptation

ofdistribution

strategyto

the

foreignmarket

Effectofon

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

X1Satisfaction

withprior

yearrsquos

export

perform

ance

024

(419)

H5

024

(419)

2006

(2102)

H1a

004

(200)

2002

(2040)

2006

(2102)

H1b

001

(086)

2004

(2080)

2013

(2226)

H1c

002

(129)

2011

(2196)

2015

(266)

H1d

004

(198)

2012

(2210)

X2Exportmarket

competition

015

(249)

H6

015

(249)

000

(2004)

H3a

002

(167)

002

(034)

2010

(2169)

H3b

001

(082)

2009

(2157)

2004

(2056)

H3c

001

(119)

2002

(2034)

2007

(2112)

H3d

002

(166)

2005

(2076)

X3Exportmarket

development

025

(366)

H7

025

(366)

012

(169)

H4a

004

(196)

016

(230)

016

(240)

H4b

001

(087)

018

(272)

003

(036)

H4c

002

(127)

005

(072)

014

(198)

H4d

004

(196)

017

(261)

Y1Firmrsquoscurrent

commitmentto

exporting

016

(224)

H2a

016

(224)

006

(088)

H2b

006

(088)

009

(135)

H2c

009

(135)

015

(223)

H2d

015

(223)

NotesValues

inupper

rowsarecompletely

standardized

estimatesValues

inlower

rowsare

t-valuesp

005

p

001p

0005(one-tailed

test)

p

005

(two-tailed

test)Because

ofroundingsom

etim


thesameas



byim



inan

indrect

relationship

arepositivethefinal


isalso

expectedto



bepositivethen


isalso

expectedto

bepositive




Exportperformance

1201










EJM38910

1202








Exportperformance

1203






EJM38910

1204






Exportperformance

1205






EJM38910

1206




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214










EJM38910

1202








Exportperformance

1203






EJM38910

1204






Exportperformance

1205






EJM38910

1206




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214








Exportperformance

1203






EJM38910

1204






Exportperformance

1205






EJM38910

1206




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214






EJM38910

1204






Exportperformance

1205






EJM38910

1206




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214






Exportperformance

1205






EJM38910

1206




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214






EJM38910

1206




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214




Notes







Exportperformance

1207

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214

References






















EJM38910

1208























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214























Exportperformance

1209




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214




















EJM38910

1210




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214




















Exportperformance

1211

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214

















Further reading




EJM38910

1212

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214

Appendix



(n frac14 411)

Exportperformance

1213

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214

Figure A1

EJM38910

1214

Export performance as an antecedent of export commitment and marketing strategy adaptation :...

Documents

Transcript of Export performance as an antecedent of export commitment and marketing strategy adaptation :...