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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm

The effects of entrepreneurial

marketing on born global
performance
Akin Kocak
Faculty of Political Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey, and

Temi Abimbola
Management and Strategic Management Group, Warwick Business School,
The University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

The effects of
entrepreneurial
marketing
439
Received September 2008
Revised February 2009
Accepted February 2009

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate born global (BG) business organizations that
(from or near their founding) seek superior performance.
Design/methodology/approach The methodology is based on a multi-case analysis of
interviews conducted with five BG enterprises in which it evaluates, compares and contrasts the
views of owner founders.
Findings It seems clear to the authors that organizational structure, the entrepreneurial processes
adopted in creating firms, as well as marketing and learning orientation are all crucial ingredients in
the successful early internationalization of enterprises from emerging economies.
Originality/value Although there are a number of studies on BG firms and a well-developed
literature on entrepreneurial marketing, to the best of the knowledge, this is one of the earliest studies
evaluating the synergetic effect of entrepreneurial marketing and issues that arise from the
commingling of organisational dynamics, resources and the performance of small- and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) from emerging economies in the international arena. The paper contributes to
scholarly discourse on the internationalization process of BG firms. The paper has practical relevance
to entrepreneurs and SME from in emerging markets.
Keywords Entrepreneurialism, Marketing, Learning processes, Small to medium-sized enterprises,
Business development, Globalization
Paper type Research paper

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

International Marketing Review

Vol. 26 No. 4/5, 2009
pp. 439-452
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-1335
DOI 10.1108/02651330910971977

IMR
26,4/5

440

in the field of entrepreneurship have questioned the universality of the stages-theory

explanation of firms internationalisation (Etemad and Wright, 2003).
This incremental and sequential approach is deterministic in nature. It is also path
dependent, and it does not recognize the role of other firms profile factors such as the
path-breaking strategic choice of internationally oriented, entrepreneurial and
owner-managers (Weerawardena et al., 2007). In view of these circumstances,
internationalization is considered as an entrepreneurial process of behaviour ( Jones
and Coviello, 2005). Oviatt and McDougall (1994) highlighted the importance of the
international new venture alongside established and international firms. Despite being
new and small with the lack of financial, human, and other resources that characterize
new business, these firms achieve considerable international success (Knight et al.,
2004). Therefore, the study of the international new venture is becoming an important
part of the growing international entrepreneurship literature (Rialp et al., 2005).
A stream of literature on the international new venture or born global emerged
in the early 1990s (McKinsey & Co., 1993; Knight and Cavusgil, 1996; Oviatt and
McDougall, 1994). They conceptualise the idea of born global (BG) small-medium firms
who derive significant competitive advantages through the deployment of resources to
foster international development. Following Knight and Cavusgils (2004) work, we use
the term born global in this research to mean business organizations that, from or
near their founding, seek sustainable international business performance from the
application of knowledge-based resources to the sale of outputs in multiple countries
(Knight and Cavusgils, 2004, p. 124).
Our main research question in the current study is predicated upon having
sustainable competitive advantages in terms of international performance. In order to
have competitive advantages in the international market, a firm should have certain
resources and capabilities. Consistent with recent research that highlights the
importance of studying the role of resources and capabilities of the BG firms
(Laanti et al., 2007; Jones and Coviello, 2005; Knight and Cavusgil, 2004; Moen and
Servais, 2002), we analyse key enabling resources and capabilities that facilitate the
firms internationalization process in their early years. Since the main focus of the
paper is on resources and capabilities, we draw from the literature on dynamic
capabilities in the conceptualization of BG firms.
As Kundu and Katz (2003) assert, while research on the BG is strong on the
international aspect, it is somewhat lacking in terms of the birth and formation aspects.
Thus, with studies on new-international firms in their early years, we believe it is
premature to offer comprehensive models to account for the process. This study builds
on the model for organizational emergence developed by Katz and Gartner (1988) and the
person-and-firm approach of Gardner (1985); these models specify four properties of
emerging organizations: intention, boundary, resources and exchange. Boundary refers
to the creation of a specified or formalized area from which the emergence can occur;
resources are the building blocks of the new organization; intention reflects a purposeful
effort or ideation to have an organization emerge; and exchange involves the crossing of
the boundary with intent to place outputs and secure new inputs (Kundu and Katz, 2003,
p. 25). Amongst these properties, resources and intention are given special consideration
in the case of BG firms. Internationalization can only occur if the entrepreneur intends to
sell internationally. Once intention is asserted, it requires additional resources or a
recombination of current resources to come to fruition (Kundu and Katz, 2003). Thus, in

keeping with Katz and Gartner (1988), this study considers variables at both the
individual and the organizational levels where appropriate.
This paper is organized along the following lines. In the first section, we will discuss
the theoretical background of the term born global. The second section discusses the
interface between entrepreneurship and marketing with reference to the BG firm. In the
third section, we discuss the factors that enable BG firms to enter the global market
just after their establishment; and in the last section, the methodology and multiple
case study analysis is presented.
Theoretical background
Theoretical support for the BG phenomenon can be found from three main different, but
commensurate, perspectives. First, resources that enable the generation of capabilities
are especially important to the BG, so a resource-based view (RBV) can be considered a
theoretical explanation for the BG phenomenon. RBV helps to explain how resources
and capabilities are developed and leveraged by enterprising firms (Knight and
Cavusgil, 2004). Being young, the BG tends to lack substantial financial and human
resources as well as other physical resources that may have accrued to older firms. It is
this primary tangible resource that older firms typically tend to leverage to succeed in
foreign markets. In contrast, the BG appears to leverage a collection of fundamental
intangible resources, which comprise a specific constellation of strategic orientations
such as market, entrepreneurial and technological orientations. These resources may
include trade secrets, embedded technological knowledge and managerial, marketing
and production skills, which are valuable and difficult to imitate and provide the
competitive advantages needed for internationalization (Loane and Bell, 2006).
However, the RBV has come under recent criticism as much of the literature takes
resource stocks as given; it pays little attention to the process of resource development
(Loane and Bell, 2006). Since the BG is defined as a business organization that, from or
near its founding, seeks superior international business performance from the
application of knowledge-based resource to the sale of outputs in multiple countries
(Knight and Cavusgil, 2004), the second theoretical support for the BG would be the
knowledge-based view which has emerged from the RBV perspective. In this
standpoint, knowledge can be considered as the most important resource (Boisot, 1998)
and heterogeneous knowledge bases across firms are the main determinant of
performance differences. Hence, the development, integration and transfer of
knowledge should be regarded as a critical aspect of internationalization (Gassmann
and Keupp, 2007; Prashantham, 2005). Since the idiosyncratic knowledge of BG firms
gives rise to their organizational capabilities (Knight and Cavusgil, 2004), the firm
must learn from multiple sources and resources and harness knowledge resulting from
this learning for accelerated internationalization (Weerawardena et al., 2007).
The third theoretical support for the BG is the dynamic capabilities view. Dynamic
capabilities are defined as the organizational and strategic routines by which the firm
achieves new resource configurations as markets emerge, collide, split, evolve and die
(Teece et al., 1997). Dynamic capabilities are linked with a firms performance in that
they change the firms bundle of resources, operation routines and competencies.
In other words, dynamic capabilities reflect a path-breaking perspective. Since the BG
phenomenon is also a path-breaking strategic choice, the dynamic capabilities view
seems especially suitable as a theoretical background of the BG.

The effects of
entrepreneurial
marketing
441

IMR
26,4/5

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

442
BG at the interface between marketing and entepreneurship
At the nexus of the interface between entrepreneurship and marketing are value
creation and value appropriation within the market (Schindehutte et al., 2008). The
dynamic capability view of the firm explores how the firm builds, integrates and
reconfigures a valuable asset position. Thus, we examine the BG phenomena at the
interface between marketing and entrepreneurship from the perspective of dynamic
capabilities.
Zhou (2007) stated that many newly internationalized firms make an early leap into
the international marketplace because of their unique organizational capabilities.
Market orientation (MO) and entrepreneurial orientation (EO) are considered as
organizational capabilities (Bhuian et al., 2005). MO is defined as the organizational
culture that most effectively and efficiently creates the necessary behaviour for the
creation of better value for buyers than the competing alternatives and, thus
entrenches continuous better performance for the business (Narver and Slater, 1990).
When the value creation is for foreign customers, it is conceptualized as an
international MO (Knight and Cavusgil, 2004). Similarly, international
entrepreneurship is defined as a combination of innovative, proactive and
risk-seeking behaviour that crosses national borders and is intended to create value
in organizations (McDougall and Oviatt, 2000).
By entering international markets, new firms acquire knowledge that can be used to
build value creation skills (Zahra et al., 2000). The entrepreneurial nature of BG firms is
believed to enhance the ability of these firms to learn by actively seeking knowledge
about international markets, potential customers and competitors, and the issue of
operations across national borders (Zhou, 2007). The knowledge about international
markets can be obtained through EO and MO. The EO of BG firms can be invaluable to
promote and acquire forward-looking knowledge about the foreign market from
multiple resources of information (Zhou, 2007). Similarly, market-oriented firms follow
specific and identifiable routines and processes, such as generating information about
customers through monitoring, assessing their changing needs and wants and sharing
the information throughout the firm, and revising business strategies to enhance
customer value (Menguc and Auh, 2006).
A key characteristic of the BG firm is that they reflect proactive behaviour
( Jantunen et al., 2008), an important dimension of EO. As Narver et al. (2004) suggest,
MO can comprise either responsive or proactive behaviour. Proactive MO finds the
firm attempting to discover, understand and satisfy the latent needs of customers.
We believe that a proactive MO overlaps with BG phenomena.
The speed of internationalization is another characteristic of BG firms. The
entrepreneurial characteristic, which is innovative, proactive and risk taking, may play
a part in internationalization speed (Acedo and Jones, 2007). This can be done only by
fostering marketing capabilities such as offering unique product.

Consistent with Shane and Venkataramans (2001) opportunity perspective, Oviatt

and McDougall (2005) defined international entrepreneurship as the discovery,
enactment, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities across national borders to
create future goods and services. When EO is combined with other resources and
capabilities such as strong marketing skills, it enables the BG firms to identify and
exploit opportunities in foreign markets (Knight and Cavusgil, 2004).

The effects of
entrepreneurial
marketing
443

Conceptual framework: model development

McDougall et al. (1994) emphasised that BG firms can be international from inception
because their founders possess an unusual constellation of competences. It is also
argued that the capability building process in the BG firm is driven by entrepreneurial
owner-managers with a global mindset (Weerawardena et al., 2007) and experience and
network (Laanti et al., 2007). They may also have significant international experience
prior to establishing their firms, and the use of this experience is an important driver
for their international development (Nordman and Melen, 2008). Zahra et al. (2000)
highlighted the importance of international experience and learning from international
operation for building BG firms competencies and achieving high performance.
Experiential knowledge can also be gained from the network of the founder of the BG
firms (Chetty and Campbell-Hunt, 2004). These network relationships generate social
capital (Coviello, 2006). Therefore, it can be said that extensive experience, skills,
networks and the mindset of the BG firms founder are all part of the key resources
which help the BG firms to create a competitive gap ahead of other international firms.
Thus, the resources held by the founder are important for BG firms. This brings us to
the concept of entrepreneurial capital (EC).
At the time of start-up, the founding entrepreneur is the source of EC. EC includes
human and social capital that together enables the entrepreneur to envision the future,
recognize opportunity, pursue and mitigate risk, leverage, combine unique resource
bundles and demonstrate tenacity in exploiting a given opportunity (Schindehutte et al.,
2008). In other words, EC allows the individual to be alert to internationalisation. Thus,
EC has implications for EO and MO:
P1.

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

MO and EO as a firm level process refers to the practice, principles and

decision-making style (Jantunen et al., 2008) and they are seen as the main sources
of competitive advantages (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1990; Covin
and Miles, 1999; Zahra et al., 1999). Moreover, the ability to internationalise early and
succeed in the foreign market is a function of the internal capabilities of the firm (Zahra
et al., 2000). This highlights the importance of an EO as an organizational capability
that supports opportunity recognition and exploitation in expanding into international
markets (Jantunen et al., 2005). Since BG firms need a new operating model that
improves performance in the international market, an EO can provide support for
the new model. Dess et al. (1999), for example, argue that entrepreneurship is a key
driver of organizational transformation and strategic renewal through the creation
and combination of organizational resources. Similarly, Zahra et al. (1999, p. 169)
suggest that entrepreneurial activities can provide a foundation for building new
competencies or revitalizing existing ones. BG firms also need to generate and
disseminate international market information, especially on current and future

IMR
26,4/5

444

customers needs and an understanding of the competitive environment (Kohli and

Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1990).
Both EO and MO influence the firms performance interactively (George and Zahra,
2002). Hult and Ketchen (2001) showed that as a component of positional advantages,
MO positively affects a firms performance. But, they noted that the potential value of
MO should be considered together with other important capabilities of a firm, such as
entrepreneurship and organizational learning. Entrepreneurship, in combination with
MO, positively affects a firms performance and the degree of MO and EO.
Atuahene-Gima and Ko (2001) report that the maximum positive effect on performance
is achieved when the firms MO and EO are aligned. Bhuian et al. (2005) found that the
relationship between MO and entrepreneurship orientation was curvilinear and that a
moderate level of entrepreneurship orientation had a most synergetic effect on
performance with MO.
In the international market, the MO enhances the firms future evaluation that
provides the firms fit in the international environment (Kropp et al., 2006). Firms have
achieved success by concentrating on latent needs and unserved markets. In this sense,
proactive MO helps the firm attempt to discover, understand and satisfy the latent
needs of customers (Narver et al., 2004).
From the above, one can surmise that, MO and EO are important resources for BG
firms (Kropp et al., 2006; Jantunen et al., 2008; Knight et al., 2004; Dimitratos and
Plakoyiannaki, 2003; Jantunen et al., 2005; Ripolles-Melia et al., 2007; Knight and
Cavusgil, 2004).
Han et al. (1998) found that MO affected the two core components of organizational
innovativeness (technical and administrative). Marketing and innovation are stimuli to
economic growth and major components of competitive advantages. Lukas and Ferrell
(2000) found that each MO dimension had an effect on different innovation strategies.
Verhees and Meulenberg (2004) stated that innovativeness, an element of EO,
stimulated market intelligence and market intelligence was related positively to
product innovation. This gives rise to our P2 that:
P2.

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

We maintain that MO and EO as a source of competitive advantage are insufficient to

sustain a competitive advantage. As Han et al. (1998) point out, innovation is needed for
competitive advantage and, in order to sustain competitive advantage, firms need to
have the ability to restrict competitive forces (Mizik and Jacobson, 2003). According
to Rumelt (1984), the duration of a firms competitive advantage is directly related to the
strength of its isolation mechanism. One way of building an isolation mechanism is
innovation. Thus, in the process of determining the internationalization performance of
the firm, innovation should be considered. As Knight and Cavusgil (2004) mentioned, the
firms innovative culture engenders the development of products or improvement of
products and new methods for doing business. Young firms with a strong innovation
culture and a proclivity to pursue international markets tend to internationalize early:
P3.

Innovation is a mediating factor in BG firms international competitiveness.

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

departmentalization are negatively related (Ken et al., 2002). Lumpkin and Dess (1996)
argue that entrepreneurially predisposed organizations value autonomy and freedom
to encourage creativity and champion untested but promising ideas. Autonomy, in an
organizational context, refers to action taken free from the structural constraints that
stifle risk taking, exploration and out-of-the-box thinking. Thus, a greater degree of
formalization, centralization and departmentalization appears to be neither consistent
with the generalized concept of entrepreneurial management processes nor conducive
to the pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities (Ken et al., 2002). Kohli and Jaworski
(1990) argued that the greater the departmentalization, formalization and
centralization, the lower the intelligence generation, dissemination and response
design. Auh and Menguc (2007) addressed the direct and moderating effects of
centralization and formalization on customer orientation. For Schindehutte and Morris
(2001), the adaptation process of an small- and medium-sized enterprise (SME) depends
on the organizations structure.
Next we considered LO. As discussed earlier, resources that enable the generation of
capabilities are especially important to internationalisation. From the RBV standpoint,
intangible resource is critical for competitive advantage rather than physical resources.
In this perspective, knowledge is the most important resource. Kropp et al. (2006)
highlights numerous benefits of LO. First, LO play a major role in strategic renewal.
Second, organizational learning serves as a buffer between firms and their
environments, which is especially important for BG firms. Third, learning is
forward-looking; it reduces the impact of major environmental jolts. Fourth, learning
organizations maintain close contacts with stakeholders including customers, suppliers
and lawmakers, enhancing their ability to deal with unexpected environmental changes.
Finally, organizational learning can play a major role in opportunity recognition. Zahra
et al. (2000) highlighted the importance of learning on international expansion and
performance. Thus, LO plays a critical role in this process. This study, in addition to
approaches mentioned above, also builds on dynamic capability (Teece et al., 1997;
Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). As a result, the proposed conceptual model is as follows
(Figure 1):

The effects of
entrepreneurial
marketing
445

Or. Structure

EO
Innovation

EC

Performance of
born global

MO

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

Figure 1.
Proposed conceptual
model of the influence of
marketing-entrepreneurial
factors on BG performance

IMR
26,4/5

446

P4.

The specific approach undertaken in the process of creating a BG firm has a

mediating effect on the interaction between LOs and innovation.

P5.

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

Methodology and analysis

Methodology
Following Yin (2003), we use a multiple case studies approach. Our justification for this
is based on its appropriateness for research where questions involving how or why
are posed. It enables researchers to find richer explanations and a deeper insight into
phenomena (Laanti et al., 2007) and to use both literal and theoretical replication. Since
the BG phenomenon is new in the research area, the case study is appropriate for our
investigation. Hence, five cases were chosen on the basis of literal replication. In other
words, cases were selected for extending existing theories by being typical
representatives of the population rather than by random selection (Laanti et al., 2007).
In order to increase the reliability of the study, before entering the field, a case study
protocol was prepared according to Yins (2003) recommendation. We conducted a
semi-structured in-depth interview with the founders of five Turkish, BG SMEs. The
interviews ranged in time from 40 to 60 minutes. The interviews were recorded and a
database was created to maintain the prepared case study protocol. In addition to
in-depth interviews, we applied a search of different sources to collect information
about the firms, which increased the construct validity of the study.
Each firm was selected from different industries to understand whether there was
any variation in the factors that enabled firms to enter the international market in their
early years. We used the European Union (EU) definition of SMEs, which is a legal
entity having a number of employees less than 250 (Table I).
Analysis and results
To analyze the data from the five case studies, cross-case synthesis (Yin, 2003) was
used to determine similarities and differences in terms of the factors mentioned in the
model. Examples from all the cases are shown in Table II.
Entrepreneurial capital. Founders and managers of the firms in this research
demonstrated strong opportunity driven behaviour. Their starting histories show
us that all founders leverage limited resources to exploit the opportunity in the
international market. They have technical knowledge which is a driver for the
international market. However, Case A had a lack of international market knowledge
whereas all the other cases had international experience prior to the internationalization
process. All five cases had a strong network in the international market, especially

Cases

Table I.
Detailed description of
the sample

A
B
C
D
E

Year of
founding

Year of entering
international market

Number of
employees

Number of
countries

Export
percentages

1996
1988
1993
2001
2005

1996
1988
1995
2001
2005

140
220
45
105
30

3
16
8
4
6

100
90
100
50
80

Opportunity
driven, strong
technological
and market
knowledge and
strong social
network
MO Proactive market Proactive market
orientation and oriented and
high-marketing high-marketing
capability
capability
EO Proactive
Proactive
innovative
innovative, highentrepreneurial
frequency and
degree
LO High-learning
High-learning
oriented
oriented
OS Owner dominant Owner dominant
and flexible
and flexible
IN Unique process Unique product
innovation
and high-rate
product
differentiation
EC

Opportunity
driven, strong
technological
knowledge and
strong social
network

Opportunity
driven, strong
technological
and market
knowledge and
strong social
network
Proactive market
Responsive market Responsive
orientation and
orientation
market
high-marketing
orientation
capability
Moderate level of Proactive
Moderate level of
innovative, highentrepreneurial
entrepreneurial
entrepreneurial
frequency and
frequency and
frequency and
degree
degree
degree
High-learning
High-learning
High-learning
oriented
oriented
oriented
Departmentalized Owner dominant Owner dominant
and flexible
and flexible
Incremental
Incremental
Unique product
innovation
innovation
Opportunity
driven, strong
technological
knowledge and
strong social
network

Opportunity
driven, strong
technological
knowledge and
strong social
network

a social network. Although, Case A had never been in any foreign country, he had a
strong relationship with foreigners at home before founding the company. His
knowledge of the industry and his network drove him to the international market. On
the other hand, Cases B, D and E had both technical and international market
knowledge. Case Cs network in the international market enabled him to learn
internationalization by doing business in the international arena after entering the
market.
Market and entrepreneurial orientations. While all the cases had been gaining
international experience through international operation, they showed extensive market
sensing and they arranged their marketing strategies according to market change. They
were all growth oriented, and they leveraged their resources and investment to gain
competitive advantage. For example, Case A developed new and unique process
technology. They all had an innovative tendency, seeking new products and new
markets. Case B had entered almost 16 EU countries within eight years. Among the other
cases, C and D represented a responsive MO instead of a proactive MO. They followed
international market changes and competitors actions and then developed their
responses. They are a market driven firm, although this might be due to product
characteristics in the industry. Both of them were innovative in entering new markets.
Case E had strong market knowledge because of physical closeness (company located
Southeast of Turkey) and built a strong relationship with foreign customers with their
unique product in the market. They produced a special product which was new for the
market and also a standard product which was found everywhere. Case A had
proactively sought success in foreign markets by having a 20 per cent market share of

The effects of
entrepreneurial
marketing
447

Table II.
Summary of the factors
of case firms

IMR
26,4/5

448

the EU market. There are six major competitors in the EU market. Two of them are big
firms in terms of employees. Cases B and E are also major players in the industry. They
aggressively pursue international success by differentiation. Cases C and D mostly use
niche marketing strategies to achieve success in the international market. All the cases
emphasised quality. Providing valuable, quality-enhanced offerings shows that they
have strong marketing capabilities.
Organizational structure. All cases in the study were family businesses, and
founders were dominant in the firms. Apart from Case B, the other firms have an
institutionalization problem. Case B is the only firm which has professional
departmentalization. They also have their own agency in Germany. However, Case B is
run by the third generation though the founder still plays a dominant role. All firms
have a flexible structure.
Learning orientation. All cases in the study are highly learning oriented.
All founders are open-minded and committed to learning. All the cases attend
international trade shows very often. B and E also visit the countries to which they
export more frequently than the others. With the benefits of learning the international
market, Cases C, D and E have increased their number of exporting countries and A and
B have achieved a high-growth rate.
Innovation. All cases in the study are innovative firms. Innovations in the case of
A, B and E are predominantly radical innovations. On the other hand, Cases C and D
seem to be incrementally innovative firms. Although Case A produces one specialized
product with specialized knowledge, they developed a unique production process
which is their competitive advantage. Case B has its own research and development
laboratory to develop new products in the industry. Case E also has special products
for the markets. Thus, Cases A, B and E leverage their innovativeness and knowledge
base to develop high-quality products.
Conclusion
Our study examined BG business organizations which, from their inception, or soon
afterwards, sought to gain better than average competitive performance from the
application of knowledge-based resources to the marketing of their outputs in multiple
countries. We examined enabling factors that facilitated their internationalization
process from their foundation. Based on a multi-case analysis and interviews
conducted with five BG enterprises, our study indicates that EC, MO, EO and
innovation are the main sources of positive performance for BG firms. A number of
limitations emerged following the review of our research. First, our research did not
take into consideration the specific impact that the EU-Turkey Trade Agreement may
have played in the internationalization process of Turkish born global SMEs.
However, our fieldwork seems to suggest that convergence of taste among consumers
and the Turkish diaspora are much more likely targets to respond to the offerings of
the firms in our sample than any specific aspect of the EU-Turkey Trade Agreement.
Second, the focus of our research is on the strategic aspects of the internationalization
process as it applies to organizations that operate in free and competitive markets.
Third, our study engaged with the concept of innovation within a multidisciplinary
approach rather than root and branch analysis of innovation to distinguish between
soft and new-new innovation. However, this is broadly in line with the suggested
approach in the literature (Tidd et al., 2001). Finally, the findings from this exploratory

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

References
Acedo, F.J. and Jones, M.V. (2007), Speed of internationalization and entrepreneurial cognition:
insights and a comparison between international new ventures, exporters and domestic
firms, Journal of World Business, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 236-52.
Atuahene-Gima, K. and Ko, A. (2001), An empirical investigation of the effect of market
orientation and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on product innovation,
Organizational Science, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 54-74.
Auh, S. and Menguc, B. (2007), Performance implications of the direct and moderating effects of
centralization and formalization on customer orientation, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 1022-34.
Bhuian, S.N., Menguc, B. and Bell, S.J. (2005), Just entrepreneurial enough: the moderating effect
of entrepreneurship on the relationship between market orientation and performance,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 9-17.
Bilkey, W.J. and Tesar, G. (1977), The export behavior of smaller-sized Wisconsin
manufacturing firms, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 93-8.
Boisot, M.H. (1998), Knowledge Assets: Securing Competitive Advantage in the Information
Economy, OUP, Oxford.
Cavusgil, S.T. (1980), On the internationalization process of firms, European Research, Vol. 8
No. 6, pp. 273-81.
Chetty, S. and Campbell-Hunt, C. (2004), A strategic approach to internationalization:
a traditional versus a born-global approach, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 57-81.
Coviello, N.E. (2006), The network dynamics of international new ventures, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 713-31.
Covin, G. and Miles, M.P. (1999), Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive
advantage, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 47-63.
Dess, G., Lumpkin, G.T. and McGee, J.E. (1999), Linking corporate entrepreneurship to strategy,
structure, and process: suggested research directions, Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 85-102.
Dimitratos, P. and Plakoyiannaki, E. (2003), Theoretical foundations of an international
entrepreneurial culture, Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 187-215.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), Dynamic capabilities: what are they?, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 10/11, pp. 1105-21.
Etemad, H. and Wright, R. (2003), Internationalization of SMEs: toward a new paradigm,
Small Business Economics, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-4.
Gardner, W.B.B. (1985), A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture
creation, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 696-706.

The effects of
entrepreneurial
marketing
449

IMR
26,4/5

450

Gassmann, O. and Keupp, M.M. (2007), The internationalization of research and development in
Swiss and German born globals: survey and case study evidence, International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 214-33.
George, G. and Zahra, S.A. (2002), Being entrepreneurial and being market driven: exploring the
interaction effects on entrepreneurial and market orientation on firm performance,
Frontiers for Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA.
Han, J.K., Kim, N. and Srivastava, R.K. (1998), Market orientation and organizational
performance: is innovation a missing link?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 30-45.
Hult, G.T.M. and Ketchen, D.J. Jr (2001), Does market orientation matter? A test of the
relationship between positional advantage and performance, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 899-906.
Jantunen, A., Nummela, N., Puumalinen, K. and Saarenketo, S. (2008), Strategic orientation of
born globals do they really matter?, Journal of World Business, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 158-70.
Jantunen, A., Nummela, N., Puumalinen, K., Saarenketo, S. and Kylaheiko, K. (2005),
Entrepreneurial orientation, dynamic capabilities and international performance, Journal
of International Entrepreneurship, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 223-43.
Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.E. (1977), The internationalization process of the firm a model of
knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 23-32.
Jones, M.V. and Coviello, N.E. (2005), Internationalization: conceptualising an entrepreneurial
process of behaviour in time, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 36 No. 3,
pp. 284-303.
Katz, J. and Gartner, W.B. (1988), Properties of emerging organizations, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 429-41.
Ken, M., Mentzer, J.T. and Ozsomer, A. (2002), The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and
market orientation on business performance, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 18-22.
Knight, G.A. and Cavusgil, S.T. (1996), The global firm: a challenge to traditional
internationalization theory, in Cavusgil, S.T. and Medsen, T. (Eds), Advances in
International Marketing, Vol. 8, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 11-26.
Knight, G.A. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2004), Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the
born-global firm, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 124-41.
Knight, G.A., Madsen, T.K. and Servais, P. (2004), An inquiry into born-global firms in Europe
and the USA, International Marketing Review, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 645-65.
Kohli, K.A. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), Market orientation: the construct, research propositions,
and managerial implications, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 1-18.
Kropp, F., Lindsay, N.J. and Shoham, A. (2006), Entrepreneurial, market, and learning
orientations and international entrepreneurial business venture performance in
South African firms, International Marketing Review, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 504-23.
Kundu, S.K. and Katz, J.H. (2003), Born international SMEs: bi-level impacts of resources and
intentions, Small Business Economics, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 25-49.
Laanti, R., Gabrielsson, M. and Gabrielsson, P. (2007), The globalization strategies of
business-to business born global firms in wireless technology, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 1104-17.
Loane, S. and Bell, J. (2006), Rapid internationalisation among entrepreneurial firms in
Australia, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand an extension to the network approach,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 23 No. 25, pp. 467-85.

Lukas, B.A. and Ferrell, O.C. (2000), The effect of market orientation on product innovation,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 239-47.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996), Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and
linking it to performance, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 135-72.
McDougall, P.P. and Oviatt, B.M. (2000), International entrepreneurship: the intersection of two
research paths, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 902-6.
McDougall, P.P., Shane, S. and Oviatt, B.M. (1994), Explaining the formation of international
new ventures: the limits of theories from international business research, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 469-87.
McKinsey & Co. (1993), Emerging Exporters. Australias High Value-added Manufacturing
Exporters, McKinsey & Company and Australian Manufacturing Council, Melbourne.
Menguc, B. and Auh, S. (2006), Creating a firm-level dynamic capability through capitalizing on
market orientation and innovativeness, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 63-73.
Mizik, N. and Jacobson, R. (2003), Trading off between value creation and value appropriation:
the financial implications of shifts in strategic emphasis, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67
No. 1, pp. 63-76.
Moen, Q. and Servais, P. (2002), Born global or gradual global? Examining the export behaviour
of small and medium sized enterprises, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 49-72.
Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), The effect of a market orientation on business profitability,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 20-35.
Narver, J.C., Slater, S.F. and MacLachlan, D.L. (2004), Responsive and proactive market
orientation and new-product success, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 21
No. 5, pp. 334-47.
Nordman, E.M. and Melen, S. (2008), The impact of different kinds of knowledge for the
internationalization process of born globals in the biotech business, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 171-85.
Oviatt, B.M. and McDougall, P.P. (1994), Toward a theory of international new ventures,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 45-64.
Oviatt, B.M. and McDougall, P.P. (2005), Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling
the speed of internationalization, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 5,
pp. 537-53.
Prashantham, S. (2005), Toward a knowledge based conceptualization of internationalization,
Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 37-52.
Rialp, A., Rialp, J. and Knight, G.A. (2005), The phenomenon of early internationalizing firms:
what do we know after a decade (1993-2003) of scientific inquiry?, International Business
Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 147-66.
Ripolles-Melia, M., Menguzzato-Boulard, M. and Sanchez-Peinado, L. (2007), Entrepreneurial
orientation and international commitment, Journal of International Entrepreneurship,
Vol. 5 Nos 3/4, pp. 65-83.
Rumelt, R.P. (1984), Toward a strategic theory of the firm, in Lamb, R.P. (Ed.), Competitive
Strategic Management, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 556-70.
Schindehutte, M. and Morris, M.H. (2001), Understanding strategic adaptation in small firms,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 84-107.
Schindehutte, M., Morris, M.H. and Kocak, A. (2008), Understanding market-driving behavior:
the role of entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 4-26.

The effects of
entrepreneurial
marketing
451

IMR
26,4/5

452

Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2001), Entrepreneurship as a field of research: a response to

Zahra and Dess, Singh, and Erikson, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 13-16.
Simmons, K. and Smith, H. (1968), The first export order: a marketing innovation, British
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 93-100.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), Dynamic capabilities and strategic management,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2001), Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological,
Market and Organizational Change, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY.
Verhees, F. and Meulenberg, M. (2004), Market orientation, innovativeness, product innovation,
and performance in small firms, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 42 No. 2,
pp. 134-54.
Weerawardena, J., Mort, G.S., Liesch, P.W. and Knight, G. (2007), Conceptualizing accelerated
internationalization in the born global firm: a dynamic capabilities perspective, Journal of
World Business, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 294-306.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research-design and Method, 3rd ed., ASR Method Series, Vol. 5,
Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Young, S., Dimitratos, Y.S. and Dana, L.P. (2003), International entrepreneurship research: what
scope for international business theories?, Journal of International Entrepreneurship,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 31-42.
Zahra, S.A., Ireland, R.D. and Hitt, M.A. (2000), International expansion by new venture firms:
international diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 925-50.
Zahra, S.A., Nielson, A.P. and Bogner, W.C. (1999), Corporate entrepreneurship, knowledge, and
competence development, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 169-89.
Zhou, L. (2007), The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and foreign market knowledge on early
internationalization, Journal of World Business, Vol. 47, pp. 281-93.
About the authors
Akin Kocak is an Associate Professor of Marketing, Faculty of Political Sciences at Ankara
University. He teaches marketing management, consumer behaviour and entrepreneurship.
His research interests are the interface between marketing and entrepreneurship, marketing
strategies for SMEs, strategic marketing management, market and entrepreneurship orientation
and innovation. He holds a PhD from Ankara University. He is a former Fulbright Scholar
(Syracuse University, 2005-2006). He has published in Journal of Marketing Management,
Marketing Intelligence and Planning and International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behavior and
Research. His works have also been presented and published in various conference proceedings.
Temi Abimbola is at the Management and Strategic Management (MSM) Group, Warwick
Business School, Coventry, UK. Her research interests are in the areas of brand strategy, brand
finance, entrepreneurial marketing and corporate marketing. Her work has appeared in a number
of journals including Journal of Marketing Management, Journal of Entrepreneurial Marketing,
Qualitative Marketing Research: An International Journal, European Journal of Marketing,
Journal of Brand Management and Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. She is the MSM
Representative on the Warwick Doctoral Programme Committee. Temi Abimbola is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: temi.abimbola@wbs.ac.uk
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints