The influence of distributor support and price adaptation on the export performance of small and medium-sized enterprises

Abstract

Although a number of studies have examined the antecedents of export performance, little empirical attention has been given to the influence of distribution support and price adaptation on this issue. To address this gap in the literature, this article develops a new model which integrates these two constructs as key variables affecting export performance. The results suggest that support given to the distributor has a strong and positive impact on export performance. In addition, the findings indicate that distribution support plays a mediating role in the model. Contrary to expectations, the results show that price adaptation has no significant impact on export performance. Although in the literature price adaptation and export performance is assumed to have a linear relationship, further analysis shows a non-linear (U-shaped) relationship between these two constructs. The implications of these findings along with the limitations of the study are discussed.

Keywords

distribution support export performance non-linear relationship price adaptation

Introduction

Contemporary scholars have suggested that the globalisation of markets in recent years has made it imperative for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to look for foreign market opportunities in order to gain competitive advantage (Dhanaraj and Beamish, 2003; Zain and Ng, 2006). In export-oriented countries, SMEs have long viewed foreign market opportunities as a growth path and as an alternative to growth strategies based on extension of the market for existing products or a modification of the product range (Bonaccorsi, 1992). In addition, exporting is a particularly attractive mode of foreign market entry for SMEs, as it offers a greater degree of flexibility and minimal resource commitment. Moreover, export success for SMEs is relevant for governments, as it contributes to the economic development of nations.

Several studies attribute SMEs’ limited ability to acquire information and knowledge about foreign markets as the main cause for their lack of involvement and success in exporting (Julien and Ramangalahy, 2003; Sousa and Bradley, 2009a). This lack of information has been found to constrain export attempts and heighten perceptions of risk and uncertainty (Benito et al., 1993). This emphasises how important it is for firms to establish close relationships with distributors in foreign markets. Therefore, this article will examine the importance of distribution support to explain the export performance of SMEs. Specifically, it will investigate the determinants of distribution support and its direct impact on export performance. In this study, distribution support refers to the level of assistance given to the foreign distributor, as well as the level of cooperation and interaction that exists between the firm and the distributor.

In the model presented here, we have selected price adaptation as a key strategic variable to explain export performance. Price adaptation refers to the degree to which the pricing strategies for a product differ across national boundaries; price related decisions are of paramount importance given their direct effect on revenue. Price is also the most flexible element of the marketing mix, in that strategies can be changed relatively quickly (Tzokas et al., 2000). Not surprisingly, it has been argued that price formulation is one of the keys to profitability for most SMEs (Zeng et al., 2011). However, despite its crucial role in explaining the export performance of a firm, few guidelines exist to help managers with their international pricing efforts. The level of difficulty is compounded further as owners and managers face unique constraints in each export market destination that need to be taken into account when developing a pricing strategy. Although managers acknowledged export pricing as the most critical pressure point of the 1980s (Cavusgil, 1988), this remains the most neglected variable within the marketing mix (Sousa and Bradley, 2008).

The need to focus on distribution support and pricing decisions is illustrated by the fact that only a limited number of studies have focused specifically on uncovering the influence of price and place decisions (Chung, 2008). Moreover, previous studies (e.g. Bonaccorsi, 1992) suggest that when SMEs enter foreign markets, most of them do not adapt their product or promotion strategy due to a lack of resources and/or knowledge of the idiosyncrasies of the foreign market. However, pricing decisions can be changed relatively (Diamantopoulos, 1991): a fact particularly relevant in the context of SMEs. As for distribution support, previous studies (e.g. Cavusgil and Zou, 1994) have considered it to be the key component of a firm’s export distribution decisions. The relationship with distributors is an important factor to consider when explaining the export success of SMEs as they have access to customers, possess important local market knowledge (Bello et al., 2003) and offer SMEs a relatively easy and low-cost way of entering a foreign market.

Therefore, the contribution of this article is twofold. First, it examines the determinants of distribution support and its impact on export performance. Although the importance of supporting distributors in the foreign market appears to make sense, it has been argued that the level of export performance is not affected by the level of support provided to the overseas distributor (e.g. Koh, 1991). Moreover, the model presented here not only highlights the importance of sustaining distribution support for achieving export success, but also uncovers new insights which indicates that distribution support mediates the effect of technology intensity of the product on export performance. Second, the article investigates the drivers of price adaptation and its impact on the export performance of the firm. A variety of studies focusing on the determinants of exporting success found that pricing plays a critical role in export performance (e.g. Chung, 2008; Theodosiou and Leonidou, 2003). However, despite longstanding interest in price adaptation, empirical research into this issue has been scant and the findings contradictory (Sousa et al., 2008). A possible explanation for such inconsistent results may be due to a lack of precision when specifying the form of the relationship between price adaptation and export performance. Although price adaptation and export performance is assumed to have a linear relationship, Tan and Sousa (2011) suggest that a non-linear relationship may exist between these two constructs and that this needs to be taken into account when examining the link between price adaptation and export performance. Consequently, we propose to address this gap in the literature by examining whether the relationship between price adaptation and export performance is linear or quadratic.

In the next section, the theoretical background to the research is presented, along with the development of specific research hypotheses. Subsequently, the research methodology and test results are described. After discussing the implications for managers, the article concludes with the limitations of this research.

Theoretical background

Although historically resource-based view theory and contingency theory have been positioned as competing concepts, certain studies (Morgan et al., 2004) have demonstrated how these two different viewpoints can be synthesised into a robust theoretical model. The resource-based view derives from an internal analysis of the firm and its resources, which can be tangible and intangible (Barney, 1991). According to this theory, the set of resources accumulated by the company is so unique that it can be considered as a competitive advantage (Zou et al., 2003). Heterogeneity in terms of resources and a firm’s capacity to manage them is an advantage in the export market and this could explain differences in performance. Conversely, contingency theory suggests that similar or identical strategies may not be appropriate in all situations; instead, these should be adapted (Robertson and Chetty, 2000); as such, export activities are considered a strategic response by management to the interaction between a firm’s internal and external resources (Cavusgil and Zou, 1994).

Consistent with contingency theory, the model presented in this study predicts a direct relationship between pricing and distribution strategies and export performance. Pricing decisions are particularly important for SMEs having been identified as one of the key strategic decisions that managers have to decide upon to ensure profitability (Zeng et al., 2011). For SMEs, distribution support is also very important as it plays a crucial role in identifying global market opportunities and extending connections with foreign customers. It is also relevant that information acquired from distributors tends to be cheaper and easier to obtain than using a marketing research agency, for example (Gripsrud et al., 2006). Indeed, information obtained through a collaborative and close relationship between exporters and channel partners may be considered more reliable (Gripsrud et al., 2006). In addition, trust-based personal connections and referrals can facilitate the key capabilities of these firms in terms of the speed and flexibility of response to global markets (Oviatt and McDougall, 2005). These benefits are seen to reduce information and knowledge barriers, thereby facilitating successful cross-border business operations and reducing monitoring costs (Roath and Sinkovics, 2006).

The export literature indicates that pricing decisions and the support given to the distributor depend on contingent variables in a dynamic environment (Cavusgil and Zou, 1994; Walters, 1989). For example, pricing decisions can be difficult and often speculative due to the uncertainties associated with today’s dynamic environments (Forman and Hunt, 2005). As such, the pricing process is too complex to be managed by a universal and general strategy and therefore, must be related to external forces (Myers, 2004). Empirical studies in the export literature support the contention that firms need to adjust their pricing and distribution strategies according to the environment in which they operate (e.g. Theodosiou and Katsikeas, 2001). It is generally acknowledged that the macro-environment (e.g. economic environment) and the micro-environment (e.g. competition intensity) in the foreign market will have a significant influence on firm strategy (Chung and Wang, 2007; Myers and Harvey, 2001). Two environmental market factors, namely competitive intensity and environmental characteristics, have been identified as significant influences on strategic decisions (Cavusgil and Zou, 1994). In line with contingency theory, the theoretical model presented here indicates that both market competition and environmental characteristics have an impact on the firm’s pricing strategies and distribution support.

Competitive intensity is the degree of competition that a company faces in the market (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993). It has been found to be a key determinant of strategic decisions and particularly likely to affect pricing decisions (Chung, 2005; Powers and Loyka, 2010) and the support given to distributors (Mudambi and Aggarwal, 2003; Terpstra, 1987). Competitive pressures may force the firm to adapt strategies to meet consumer demand better in foreign markets, as well as to match price levels of local competitors. In this context, it may be necessary to adjust pricing and/or distribution strategies in order to remain competitive. Therefore, competitive intensity has been identified by managers and researchers as one of the major determinants to consider when deciding the appropriate strategies (Tan and Sousa, 2011).

In this study, environmental characteristics refer to the differences between markets in terms of economic and industrial development, marketing and communications infrastructure and technical requirements. These characteristics have been consistently found to have a significant impact on a firm’s marketing strategy (e.g. Theodosiou and Leonidou, 2003), since the external environment imposes pressures to which it must respond in order to prosper. Markets across countries reflect unique features and these differences play a crucial role in explaining strategic decisions (Cavusgil and Zou, 1994). Strategic decisions are altered when substantial differences exist between markets (Sousa and Bradley, 2008). Consequently, the examination and inclusion of environmental characteristics is necessary in order to understand the firm’s export activities fully.

In addition to the external factors affecting export strategy, we have followed Edelman et al.’s (2005) study and model the alignment between resources and strategies as a mediated relationship. According to the resource-based view, it is the use of resources that leads to firm growth and enhanced performance (Penrose, 1959; Peteraf and Barney, 2003), in which marketing strategy decisions should leverage the resources available to a firm (Dickson, 1996; Hunt and Morgan, 1996; Srivastava et al., 2001).

In the present study we propose the size of the firm and technology intensity of the products as two important internal resources of the company. Firm size has been acknowledged as an important resource (Dickson et al., 2006; Majocchi et al., 2005; Makhija, 2003); indeed, it has been considered the main source of heterogeneity in performance (Halkos and Tzeremes, 2007). Thus, the model draws on the resource-based view to argue that firm size is an important determinant of the firm’s export activities. The reasoning being that larger firms have more internal resources which can be deployed to conduct and manage international activities.

The resource-based view also acknowledges that the technological intensity of the export product is also an important internal resource for the firm whilst technological intensity refers to the extent of scientific know-how that is embodied in a product (John et al., 1999) whilst technological resources are the tangible and intangible technical assets of the firm. These resources are particularly important as they inform innovative capacity and are important for the creation of competitive advantages (Rodríguez and Rodríguez, 2005). Competitive advantages derive from the capability to develop new technologies more rapidly than other firms and from the ability to promote and facilitate the creation and dissemination of technological innovations (Guan and Ma, 2003). In this case, a high degree of technological intensity provides the firm with unique technological know-how supporting international expansion. In addition, technological resources can confer competitive advantage based on differentiation as superior design, performance and quality provide a higher degree of competitiveness. Moreover, technological resources are highly knowledge-intensive assets. Often, technology is inhibited by a lack of creativity and insight in terms of the use of materials, functionality and design. Much of this knowledge has a crucial tacit component, making it difficult to codify and transfer to other companies (Rodríguez and Rodríguez, 2005). It follows that because of the increasing rate of product imitation from competitors in emerging countries, the tacit nature of knowledge makes technological products difficult to imitate. Unsurprisingly, the role of technological intensity as one of the main factors to explain export operations has been emphasised (e.g. Cavusgil and Zou, 1994; Rodríguez and Rodríguez, 2005).

Specifically, we propose that strategic decisions such as price adaptation and distribution support are affected by internal and external factors. In turn, the export performance of the firm is determined by internal factors and strategic decisions such as price adaptation and distribution support. The hypothesised relationships are described subsequently on the basis of theoretical and empirical support available in the literature. An overview of the conceptual framework is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The conceptual model.

Hypotheses

Environmental differences between markets in terms of economic and industrial development, marketing and communications infrastructure and technical requirements are expected to influence the amount of support given to a foreign distributor. However, the direction of the impact is less clear. For example, some studies argue that the greater the differences between markets, the harder it will be for international marketers to communicate with foreign intermediaries (Nes et al., 2007; Solberg, 2008); consequently, less interaction and support will be given to the distributor. However, we postulate the relationship to be positive: that is, the greater the environmental differences between the home and foreign market, the higher the likelihood that the firm will increase its level of interaction and cooperation with the distributor. The literature indicates that when a firm attempts to enter a country considered dissimilar to the home country, uncertainty arises as the difficulty of obtaining and interpreting information increases (Boyacigiller, 1990; Erramilli and Rao, 1993). This lack of adequate information makes it difficult for firms to predict the consequences of their strategic decisions (Achrol and Stern, 1988), which can lead to erroneous decisions and/or a reduction in exporters’ ability to respond to the changing environment in a timely manner (Sousa et al., 2008). Thus, an incomplete understanding of the foreign environment causes the firm to rely upon foreign distributors for guidance (Zhang et al., 2003), because they possess crucial local market knowledge. Cooperation between suppliers and distributors can reduce waste and facilitate the information flow, thereby enhancing responsiveness to changes in the market (Matanda and Freeman, 2009). Therefore, it is expected that as differences between markets increase, the level of interaction and cooperation between the firm and the foreign distributor will increase. This leads to our first hypothesis:

H1: Environmental differences between the home and foreign market positively affect the level of support given to the foreign distributor.

Recent empirical studies (Myers et al., 2002; Sousa and Bradley, 2008) indicate that environmental differences between the home and foreign market influence the degree of price adaptation by firms in international markets. Similarities drive firms toward standardisation, whereas market diversity drives them toward adaptation (Jain, 1989). A price adaptation strategy may yield better rewards when environmental differences exist between the home and foreign market. The economic and industrial development of a country determines the prices that customers are able and willing to pay for certain products. Consumers in countries at a similar stage of economic and industrial development are more likely to have a similar consumer demand, lifestyle pattern and purchasing power (Chung, 2005). Therefore, differences in the price elasticity of demand could lead to a modification in pricing strategy (Baalbaki and Malhotra, 1993; Walters, 1989). Moreover, the need to comply with different technical requirements often obliges firms to adapt their products, thereby incurring extra costs that force them to adapt their pricing strategies (Theodosiou and Katsikeas, 2001). Therefore, firms are able to ensure responsiveness to changing market conditions and environmental forces through the employment of an adaptive pricing strategy (Griffith, 2010). This leads to our second hypothesis:

H2: Environmental differences between the home and foreign market positively affect the degree of price adaptation.

The degree of competitive intensity of the export market is another factor that influences the level of support provided to the distributor; this refers to the degree of competition a firm faces in a market (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993). While it is acknowledged that the characteristics of international markets can influence the quality and closeness of the relationship that develops between manufacturers and their foreign-based distributors (Bello et al., 1996), the direction of the impact of competitive intensity on distribution support is less obvious in the literature. For example, in highly competitive markets where changes happen rapidly, either it may motivate the parties to engage in close cooperative action to respond more effectively to change or lead them to reduce their reliance on each other (Bello et al., 2003) and prioritise other, less competitive markets. In the present study, we propose that market competition has a positive impact on the support given to the distributor. When competition in a market is intense, customers can choose from many alternatives (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990). In this context, supporting the distributor is particularly important in order to ensure that they provide adequate promotion, timely delivery and proper maintenance and service (Cavusgil and Zou, 1994; Terpstra, 1987). As a result, in competitive intensive markets firms need to collaborate with distributors to achieve better performance (Kalafatis, 2002; Mudambi and Aggarwal, 2003), which leads to our third hypothesis:

H3: The level of competitive intensity of the foreign market positively affects the level of support given to the foreign distributor.

The level of competitive intensity also may influence the degree of price adaptation. This is consistent with Myers et al. (2002), who claim that given the increasing competitive intensity of global markets, firms have to be more flexible in setting prices. As competitive levels within the export market rise, the firm must price its product at or near that, of the competition in order to survive (Simon, 1995). Thus, firms should analyse and compare the pricing strategies of their competitors in the foreign market in order to have a reference for developing their pricing strategies in export markets. In the event that a firm opts for a standardised pricing strategy, there always will be some competitors willing to provide a better offer to address consumer needs (Lages and Montgomery, 2005). So, in markets where competition is intense, exporters must monitor their prices constantly in relation to competitors’ prices and offerings (Cavusgil, 1988), in order to ensure that the export venture is not undermined by competitors. This argument is consistent with Powers and Loyka’s (2007) findings, whereby in highly competitive markets the need for pricing differentiation becomes even greater. Accordingly, as the competitive intensity of the export market increases, the more likely it is that the firm will adopt a price adaptation strategy. This leads to our fourth hypothesis:

H4: The level of competitive intensity of the foreign market positively affects the degree of price adaptation.

The technological intensity of the product is included in the model as a potentially significant variable influencing distribution support. A number of researchers point out that manufacturers of technology-intensive products need to provide increased support for foreign distributors, so that the product can be properly handled, marketed and serviced (e.g. Cavusgil and Zou, 1994; Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1985; McGuinness and Little, 1981). This is consistent with the argument posited by Bello et al. (2003), that customers of technology-intensive products place demands on manufacturers and distributors that require them to collaborate intensively as well as exchange information frequently. The manufacturers and foreign distributor must coordinate a variety of pre-sale (technical analysis, customer evaluation) and post-sale (repair, servicing) services that become increasingly important as the technical nature of the export product increases (Celly and Frazier, 1996). This leads to our fifth hypothesis:

H5: The degree of technology intensity of the product positively affects the level of support given to the foreign distributor.

The relationship between technology intensity and price adaptation has been largely ignored in the literature. Nonetheless, we predict the technological intensity of the product to be positively related to the degree of price adaptation. Previous studies (Cavusgil and Zou, 1994; Chryssochoidis and Theoharakis, 2004) have found technology orientation to have a positive impact on price competitiveness, suggesting that the greater the technology orientation of the product, the more likely it is that exporters will adapt their prices in order to remain competitive in the foreign market. Moreover, technology-intensive products are characterised by a short product life cycle curve (Rosenau Jr, 1988; Sahadev and Jayachandran, 2004). This is a consequence of the constant technological changes that characterise technology intensive products. Similarly, the price of technologically short-lived products needs to be adapted rapidly as newer products enter the market (Samiee and Roth, 1992). This leads to our sixth hypothesis:

H6: The degree of technology intensity of the product positively affects the degree of price adaptation.

It is expected that the degree of technology intensity of the product will positively affect a firm’s export performance. It has been indicated that the core competitiveness of SMEs is based on manufacturing-related quality factors such as product innovation, reliability and durability, performance and product technology (Bonaccorsi, 1992). Zhou et al. (2005) also found that technology orientation strongly correlates with technology-based innovation, which in turn has a significant and positive impact on a firm’s performance. Technology intensity means that firms can use their technical knowledge to build a new technical solution to answer and meet the new needs of their customers (Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997), thereby improving the firm’s performance. This relationship between technology and performance appears to be particularly conspicuous in high-technology industries. The technology profile of a firm might be considered a relevant resource in order to achieve competitive advantage (Yeoh and Roth, 1999). For example, in the case of science-based firms, Pla-Barber and Alegre (2007) reported that the technology profile is a structural factor that positively affects the export intensity of the firm. Although the relationship between technology intensity and export performance has been largely ignored in the literature, the positive impact of technology intensity on export performance has been reported (e.g. Beleska-Spasova et al., 2012; Solberg and Olsson, 2010). This leads to our seventh hypothesis:

H7: The degree of technology intensity of the product positively affects the firm’s export performance.

The amount of support given to a foreign distributor is likely to be affected by the size of the firm. Large firms appear to be in a better position to provide more support to the foreign distributor: as mentioned previously, the rationale for this argument is that larger firms have more resources. Insufficient resources reduce a firm’s organisational capability to exchange information in the timely and in-depth manner necessary to coordinate task interdependencies with a foreign distributor (Welch and Luostarinen, 1988). Bello et al. (2003) indicate that insufficient resources reduce capacity to react to distributor demands for change. Similarly, inadequate human and financial resources limit the manufacturer’s organisational capability to exchange information in the timely manner necessary to coordinate the required task interdependences with a foreign partner. Therefore, large firms have less difficulty in maintaining close ties with foreign distributors that enable trading partners to coordinate export tasks effectively (Root, 1998). This leads to our eighth hypothesis:

H8: The size of the firm positively affects the level of support given to the foreign distributor.

The size of the firm is likely to affect pricing decisions. Specifically, we propose that the greater the size of the firm, the more likely it is that it will adapt their pricing strategies in the foreign market. Although there is some evidence that size has no significant impact on pricing decisions (Seifert and Ford, 1989), it has also been suggested that size does have a positive impact on price adaptation (Sousa and Bradley, 2008). The rationale for this positive effect is that since an adaptation strategy requires greater financial resource commitment from the firm (Whitelock and Pimblett, 1997), it is likely that larger firms adapt their strategies given the possession of greater resources. This leads to our ninth hypothesis:

H9: The size of the firm positively affects the degree of price adaptation.

The relationship between firm size and export performance has been extensively discussed in the literature (Sousa et al., 2008). However, despite a large number of studies, there is little consensus regarding the impact of this variable on a firm’s export performance. While some authors report a non-significant relationship between the size of the firm and export performance (e.g. Contractor et al., 2005), others have found firm size to be positively related to export performance (e.g. Sousa and Bradley, 2008). Nonetheless, the argument that the stock of resources may prevent small firms from succeeding in international markets has been questioned (e.g. Czinkota and Johnston, 1983; Moen, 1999). Bonaccorsi (1992) demonstrated that foreign markets are quite accessible and that small firms with non-brand products are capable of penetrating several foreign markets and exporting a large share of their total turnover with very limited resources. As such, it is more likely that the quality rather than the quantity of resources will determine a firm’s export success. As such, the literature is divided regarding the impact that firm size has on the export performance. Although empirical findings have been mixed, we propose a positive relationship between size of the firm and export performance. The rationale for this positive relationship is that larger firms have more resources (personnel, financial and marketing) that enable them to compete successfully in international markets (Aaby and Slater, 1989; Wheeler et al., 2008). This leads to our tenth hypothesis:

H10: The size of the firm positively affects the export performance of the firm.

It is hypothesised that export performance is positively affected by a firm’s support for a foreign distributor. This argument is consistent with a meta-analysis study by Leonidou et al. (2002), where a strong link between distributor support and export performance was found. The results indicate that firms increasingly rely on distributors for distribution and marketing activities (Merritt and Newell, 2001). In this context, distributors also function as the firms’ marketing tool, transferring knowledge of customer needs and market trends back to the firm (Paun, 1997), demonstrating the importance of supporting and collaborating with distributors in the foreign market. Personal relations with distributors represent major sources of market information. Personal sources, whereby firms and distributors exchange what is defined as experiential information, prevail over impersonal sources of information that firms might obtain from government publications, statistical data and market research. Moreover, cooperation can enhance the implementation of new ideas and foster the achievement of mutual objectives (Powers and Loyka, 2010; Quelch and Hoff, 1986). Thus, intense interaction and cooperation between the firm and the foreign distributor tend to lead to strategic gains and enhanced export performance (Rosson and Ford, 1982). This leads us to our eleventh hypothesis:

H11: The level of support given to the foreign distributor positively affects the export performance of the firm.

Export pricing strategy has been identified as a key determinant of export performance (Sousa et al., 2008; Zou and Stan, 1998); several studies have examined the impact of price adaptation on export performance (Sousa and Bradley, 2008; Zou et al., 1997; Lages et al., 2008). However, in a review of the literature, Tan and Sousa (2011) report that findings regarding the impact of price adaptation is mixed. Some studies found price adaptation to have a non-significant impact (e.g. Waheeduzzaman and Dube, 2003), while others found it to have a negative influence (e.g. Chung and Wang, 2007; Lages and Montgomery, 2005), and a further group found price adaptation to be positively related to export performance (e.g. Lee and Griffith, 2004; Shoham, 1996). In the present study, we expect price adaptation to have a positive impact on the export performance of the firm. A firm that adapts its pricing strategy to the characteristics of the foreign market is more likely to enhance its export performance (Samiee and Roth, 1992). As the fundamental element of value delivery entails satisfying customer needs and desires, price adaptation is theoretically justifiable and suggestive of a positive effect (Lages et al., 2008). This is consistent with previous results that found a positive relationship between price adaptation and export performance (Das, 1994; Koh, 1991; Shoham, 1996). The rationale for this argument is that by adapting a firm’s marketing strategy to market specific characteristics, a firm can deliver greater value in the local market by meeting local market needs, thereby improving its export performance (e.g. Cavusgil and Zou, 1994; Shoham, 1999). This leads to our twelfth hypothesis:

H12: The degree of price adaptation positively affects the export performance of the firm.

The argument that export performance always will increase with greater degrees of price adaptation has been questioned in the literature. As indicated previously, a review of the literature indicates that the impact of price adaptation on export performance has been mixed and inconclusive. Although not tested empirically, Özsomer and Simonin, (2004); and Tan and Sousa, (2011) suggest that these conflicting findings in the literature could be due to the non-linear relationship that may exist between price adaptation and export performance. Accordingly, we propose testing an alternative hypothesis which suggests that the relationship between price adaptation and export performance is non-linear in nature.

High degrees of price adaptation have also been found to exert a positive impact on export performance (e.g. Lee and Griffith, 2004). However, it has also been found that firms with low degrees of price adaptation perform well in export markets (e.g. Sousa and Bradley, 2008). While the first argument favours an adaptation approach considering markets to be heterogeneous, the second favours a standardisation approach, arguing that the forces of globalisation contribute toward the homogenisation of world markets. In addition, by following a standardisation approach, firms do not incur the investment costs associated with the development and maintenance of an adaptation strategy. Conversely, firms with mid-range degrees of adaptation may perform poorly because they may not adapt their pricing strategy sufficiently to the characteristics of the foreign market. As a result, these firms would be at a disadvantage when competing with those that adopt a high degree of adaptation strategy. At the same time, they are failing to focus on an efficiency approach, compared with those firms that follow a standardisation strategy (low degree of adaptation). Accordingly, we expect to observe a U-shaped relationship between price adaptation and export performance. This leads to our final hypothesis:

H13: There is a U-shaped relationship between the degree of price adaptation and the export performance of the firm.

Although we do not develop a formal hypothesis, we examine whether strategy (i.e. price adaptation and distribution support) mediates the relationship between internal resources and performance. While the mediating role of export strategy in the resource–performance relationship has been advanced and well argued in a number of studies, the empirical validation of this proposition is very limited (Beleska-Spasova et al., 2012). Following the resources–strategy–performance model, it is argued that firm strategies in conjunction with the firm’s resources determine firm performance. The literature suggests that in the case of small firms, the manager’s strategic decisions, together with resource choices, determine a firm’s ultimate performance (Edelman et al., 2005). Therefore, the quality of a firm’s strategy cannot be evaluated independently of the firm’s resources on which it is based (Barney and Zajac, 1994). Similarly, having superior resources does not guarantee success, as firms have to mobilise these resources adequately if they are to gain competitive advantage (Hunt and Morgan, 1995). This suggests that superior performance may be obtained by the appropriate alignment of strategy to resources. Consistent with this view, a small number of articles have suggested that strategies mediate the relationship between resources and firm performance (Beleska-Spasova et al., 2012; Chrisman et al., 1998; Edelman et al., 2005). As a consequence, we propose examining whether strategies (i.e. price and distribution) act as a mediating variable in transforming a firm’s resources (i.e. technology intensity and firm size) into superior export performance.

Method

Sample and data collection

The study was conducted using a sample of exporting firms based in a region located in north-east Italy (the Veneto region), which has long depended on international trade (Bonaccorsi, 1992). Although a multi-industry sample was used to increase observed variance and to strengthen the ability to generalise the results (Morgan et al., 2004), the units studied are manufacturing firms which compete in foreign markets through some specific products. The sample comprised 845 small and medium-sized exporting firms from all parts of the region. The effective response rate was 18.2 percent (154 usable questionnaires). This is an appropriate response rate, considering that the average management survey response rates are in the range of 15 to 20 percent (Menon et al., 1996).

Particular attention was paid to identifying and selecting the most appropriate person in each firm to participate in the study. To ensure the reliability of the data, the respondents selected were senior managers and export managers with responsibility for foreign operations (see Appendix 1). The approach suggested by Huber and Power (1985), of using a single key informant, was adopted with a view to minimising the potential for systematic and random sources of error. In order to ensure that the most appropriate person would receive the questionnaire, each firm was contacted by telephone beforehand. As for the unit of analysis, we focused on the firm’s main export venture. This decision was taken following exploratory interviews with managers who indicated that they typically developed a marketing strategy only for their main export venture.

To explore the issue of non-response bias, we tested for differences between early and late respondents (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). According to Weiss and Heide (1993), early responses were defined as the first 75 percent of returned questionnaires. The final 25 percent were considered late responses and representative of firms that did not respond to the survey. Using a t-test, early and late respondents were compared on all variables, but no significant differences were found (at the conventional 0.05 level). Based on these results, it was concluded that non-response bias did not appear to be a significant problem in this study. Moreover, since anonymity was guaranteed, the bias associated with those who did not wish to respond for reasons of confidentiality was reduced (Bialaszewski and Giallourakis, 1985).

It is generally recognised that a common method bias is a potential problem in surveys. As a result we decided to investigate whether the presence of common method bias might have inflated construct interrelationships. This can be particularly threatening when respondents are aware of the conceptual framework of interest. However, respondents were not told the specific purpose of the study and all construct items were separated and mixed so that no respondent should have been able to detect which items were associated with which factors (Jap, 2001). Moreover, anonymity should have reduced method biases further (Podsakoff et al., 2003), thereby minimising the possibility of common methods variance bias. Nevertheless, two statistical tests were conducted to determine the extent of possible method variance in the data. The Harman one-factor test (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986) demonstrated that the risk of common method variance was unlikely to be significant in this case, because exploratory factor analysis showed that no single general factor accounted for most of the variance. In order to confirm these results, additional analyses were performed to test for common method variance following the procedure recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003). Following this approach, we re-estimated the confirmatory model with all the indicator variables loading on a general method factor. The resulting model fit was unacceptable. Lastly, further supporting evidence that the constructs were distinct was provided when testing for discriminant validity in the confirmatory factor analysis.

Measures

The survey instrument used was developed following a comprehensive review of the relevant literature. Four academic experts who were familiar with the topic under investigation assessed the content and face validity of the survey. To evaluate individual item content, clarity of instructions and response format, we tested the questionnaire in a series of face-to-face settings with 15 managers involved in export operations.

The items used to operationalise each construct were developed on the basis of existing literature (see Appendix B). Drawing on previous studies (Morgan et al., 2004; Robertson and Chetty, 2000; Zou et al., 1998), we operationalised export performance using four items: meeting expectations, export sales growth, export profitability and export market share. In relation to price adaptation, we adopted the measures developed by Sousa and Bradley (2009b). Price strategy was measured by the level of adaptation of margins, credit concession and pricing strategies. Distribution support was measured by asking respondents to indicate the overall level of support for the foreign distributor; the level of interaction between firm employees and those of the foreign distributor, including phone calls, exchange of documents and visits; the level of cooperation between the firm and foreign distributor for the development of product and communication strategies; and the extent to which this distribution support was planned (Cavusgil and Zou, 1994; Sousa and Bradley, 2009a). The technology intensity of the products was assessed by asking respondents to indicate the degree of technological content on a five-point scale ranging from non-technology intensive to highly technology intensive. Environmental characteristics were measured using items that focused on economic or industrial development, marketing infrastructure, communications infrastructure and technical requirements (Shoham, 1999; Theodosiou and Katsikeas, 2001). As regards firm size, there is no universally accepted measure for capturing size, therefore, we employed the most commonly used criteria: namely, number of employees and annual turnover. Finally, competitive intensity was measured by following the measurement model developed by Cavusgil and Zou (1994) and later by Morgan et al. (2004). These items consider the willingness and ability of rivals to respond to competitive moves in the principal market.

Results

Measurement model reliability and validity

In order to assess the validity of the constructs, the items were examined by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS. Discriminant validity, convergent validity and scale reliability were assessed by CFA in line with the paradigm advocated by Gerbing and Anderson (1988). In CFA, each item is restricted to load on its pre-specified factor. Table 1 shows the results obtained from the estimation of the CFA model. Technological intensity is a single indicator construct, and thus measurement errors are assumed to be zero. Measurement error in the number of employees was constrained to zero to prevent a negative error variance (Bollen and Long, 1993). The overall chi-square for this model was 251.162 (p = 0.002; d.f. = 189). Four measures of fit were examined: the comparative fit index (CFI = 0.965), the Tucker-Lewis fit index (TLI = 0.957), the incremental fit index (IFI = 0.965) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA = 0.046). The results suggest that the scale measures were internally consistent, able to discriminate and provided a good fit of the factor model to the data.

Table 1.

Construct measurement models and reliability.

Constructs and items	Standardised loadings	t-value
Export performance (CR = 0.92; AVE = 0.76; α_c* = 0.94)*
Export sales growth	0.911
Meeting expectations	0.772	15.121
Export profitability	0.875	13.818
Export market share	0.922	16.722
Price adaptation (CR = 0.86; AVE = 0.68; α_c = 0.87):
Margins	0.809
Credit concession	0.928	11.010
Pricing strategies	0.730	9.895
Environment (CR = 0.88; AVE = 0.66; α_c = 0.88):
Economic/industrial development	0.695
Marketing infrastructure	0.905	10.017
Communications infrastructure	0.894	14.934
Technical requirements	0.737	10.959
Distribution support (CR = 0.81; AVE= 0.52; α_c = 0.81):
Cooperation with distributors on marketing strategies	0.731
Support to foreign distributors	0.809	8.856
Level of interaction with distributors	0,753	8.400
Distributor support planning	0,600	6.786
Size of the firm (CR = 0.78; AVE = 0.64; α_c = 0.81):
Number of employees	0.752
Annual turnover	0.837	5.698
Competitive intensity (CR = 0.71; AVE = 0.46; α_c = 0.77):
Competition in our export market is cut-throat	0.494
Anything that one competitor can do others can match easily	0.743	5.037
One hears of a new competitive move every day	0.772	5.010
Model fit indices:
Chi-squared	251.162
d.f.	189 (p = 0.002)
CFI	0.965
RMSEA	0.046
TLI	0.957
IFI	0.965

Composite reliability (CR) (Bagozzi, 1980).

Average variance extracted (AVE) (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

***

Cronbach Alpha (α_c).

An inspection of these results shows that the items employed to measure the constructs were both valid (convergent validity and discriminant validity) and reliable (composite reliability and variance extracted). More specifically, convergent validity is evidenced by the large and significant standardised loadings (t>1.96, p<.05) of the items on the respective constructs. Conversely, discriminant validity was assessed by observing the construct intercorrelations. These were significantly different from 1 and the shared variance between any two constructs (i.e. the square of their intercorrelation) was less than the average variance explained by the items in the construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The correlation matrix for the constructs is shown in Table 2. Adequate discriminant validity is evident for all constructs, since their diagonal elements are greater than the off-diagonal elements in their corresponding rows and columns.

Table 2.

Convergent and discriminant validity tests.

Construct	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Export performance	0.872
2. Distribution support	0.536	0.721
3. Price adaptation	0.078	0.125	0.825
4. Environment	− 0.009	0.089	0.195	0.812
5. Competitive intensity	− 0.252	− 0.128	− 0.045	− 0.188	0.678
6. Size of the firm	0.467	0.219	0.047	0.131	− 0.318	0.800

Note: the diagonal is the square root of the average variance extracted.

In regard to the reliability of the constructs, Table 1 presents the results of composite reliability and variance extracted. The values for composite reliability, ranging from 0.92 for export performance to 0.71 for competitive intensity, considerably exceed the recommended minimum level of 0.60 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). In terms of the variance extracted, only competitive intensity fell slightly short of the 0.50 guideline, while all others exceeded the recommended level. Therefore we can conclude that for all constructs, the indicators were sufficient and adequate in terms of how the measurement model was specified.

Structural model

Given the confirmatory nature of this research, structural equations were used by applying the maximum likelihood method. The overall chi-square for the model in Figure 2 was significant (chi-square = 439.162, d.f. = 334, p<0.001). As with the CFA model, the other measures of fit were as follows: CFI = 0.959; TLI = 0.953; IFI = 0.959; and RMSEA = 0.045. Given that all the fit indices were within conventional cut-off values, the model was deemed acceptable as it reproduces the population covariance structure (Vandenberg and Lance, 2000). The relationships proposed in the model were examined next.

Figure 2.

Final model.

Consistent with H2, the results indicate that the greater the differences between home and export markets, the higher the degree of price adaptation of the firm, as indicated by a parameter estimated as 0.188 (p<0.05). However, the results for H1 (0.041; p>.10) show that the relationship between environmental characteristics and distribution support is not significant. Contrary to expectations, the results suggest that competitive intensity has a negative effect on the distribution support (-0.197; p<0.05), thereby refuting H3. In relation to H4, the findings indicate that the relationship between competitive intensity and price adaptation is not significant (-0.031; p>.10). As predicted by H5, the level of technological intensity of the product has a significant positive impact on the support given to the firm’s distributor (0.466; p<0.01). In contrast, the results relating to the direct effect of technology intensity on price adaptation (H6) and on export performance (H7) were found not to be statistically significant (p>.10). While the strong and positive coefficient between firm size and export performance provides support for H10 (0.342; p<0.01), the impact of firm size on distribution support (H8) and price adaptation (H9) was found not to be significant (p>.10). Supportive findings for H11 (0.453; p<0.01) indicate that export performance is positively influenced by the level of distribution support. Finally, while the result for H12 shows that the relationship between price adaptation and export performance was not significant (p>.10), the present study provides support for H13, since the coefficient for the quadratic term of price adaptation is positive and significant (0.116; p<0.05). This provides evidence of a U-shaped relationship between price adaptation and export performance.

In order to check the structural model fit, we created a constrained model where only the main effects are allowed to be freely estimated; the quadratic term was fixed at zero. In the unconstrained model, the quadratic term is freely estimated. The reduction in chi-square on moving from the constrained to the unconstrained model is significant (Δdf = 1; ΔChisquare = 3.85; p = 0.05), indicating that the unconstrained model provides a better fit than the constrained model.

Testing for mediation effects

Although we did not formally develop a mediation hypothesis, we did examine whether export strategy mediates the relationship between internal resources and performance. While there was no indication that export strategy mediates the impact of firm size on export performance, the results did suggest that distribution support may act as a mediating variable in the relationship between technology intensity and export performance. To test for the mediating effect, we followed the three-step approach recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986). To meet the first mediation condition, we found that technology intensity is significantly related to distribution support, thus satisfying this condition. To test the second mediation condition, we estimated a new model that specifies only the direct paths between technology intensity and export performance. It was found that in the absence of distribution support, technology intensity is significantly related to export performance. This result satisfies the second condition of mediation. Finally, after entering the mediator distribution support, the results indicate that distribution support is significantly related to export performance, and that technology intensity no longer significantly affects export performance. This suggests that distribution support fully mediates the impact of technology intensity on the firms’ export performance.

Discussion

Although an increasing number of studies have examined the antecedents of export performance, little empirical attention has been paid to the impact of distribution support and price adaptation on export performance in comparison with other determinants. In order to contribute to filling this void in the literature, we have identified the factors that drive export performance with special emphasis on the influence of distribution support and the non-linear relationship between price adaptation and export performance. We also examined the mediated effect of internal resources on performance, with export strategy as the mediator.

The findings indicate that the performance of export ventures is strongly related to the support given to foreign distribution. Specifically, the results demonstrate that cooperation with the distributor in the foreign market may be based on social interaction between the firm’s employees and those of the foreign partner, and have a positive impact on export performance. This finding supports recent literature (Sousa and Bradley, 2009a), which demonstrates that distribution is no longer a weak link in the value chain, but has now become one of the key elements in the success of SMEs abroad. In addition, distribution support is strongly related to the technology intensity of products. As indicated by previous studies (Cavusgil and Zou, 1994; McGuinness and Little, 1981), complex or technologically advanced products require support for their distribution, since foreign buyers may need manufacturing firms expertise in order to market products efficiently. Moreover, this result might support the view that firms establish long-term buyer–supplier relationships based on mutual trust in order to facilitate product innovation and learning, thereby implementing a technology strategy.

Beyond these issues, an important feature of these research findings is the relationship between technology intensity, distribution support and export performance. The results show that distributors are a critical factor in mediating the performance impact of technology products. This mediating effect would suggest that there is an underlying collaborative mechanism through which a firm’s technological products contribute to its superior performance. Given the various benefits or strategic value of intermediaries and distributors, we assume that managers are eager and strive to exploit social relations with the external entities necessary for resource mobilisation and opportunity identification. We contend that these forms of collaboration can help internationalising firms to overcome the resource limitations that frequently constrain international expansion, and facilitate the development of new capabilities for international expansion at lower risks (Zhou et al., 2007). This model suggests that the mere possession of technologically advanced products would not automatically yield better export performance unless they are associated with supplier–distributor collaboration. The present findings regarding the indirect effects on export performance of technological advanced products extend the findings of previous research (Rodriguez and Rodriguez, 2005), by providing novel empirical evidence of the critical role of distribution support in mediating between firms’ internal resources and export success.

Despite some contradictory results in the literature regarding the impact of firm size on export performance (e.g. Sousa et al., 2008), the results of this study support the view that firm size has a positive impact on the export performance of the firm. This is consistent with the longitudinal study by Majocchi et al. (2005) on Italian exporting firms. They found that firm size has a positive impact on export performance, even if the analysis is carried out over a five-year period and not only on a cross-sectional basis. Generally, larger firms can capitalise on production economies of scale more easily than smaller firms and may be better organised to capitalise on the potential benefits of globalisation than smaller firms (Mittelstaedt et al., 2003). Although the results of the present study support a positive relationship between size and export performance, recommending that SMEs increase in size in order to improve their performance in foreign markets is probably too simplistic to grasp the complexity of such a relationship. For example, we should be aware that this result is based on a selection of small and medium-sized firms only, as the sample frame does not include larger companies. Moreover, previous studies have found that size is positively related to the propensity to export, but that size only matters for smaller firms (Calof, 1994). Nonetheless, the results appear to suggest that in the case of SMEs, the amount and availability of resources may help small firms to succeed in international markets.

In contrast with our initial expectations, the results show that the level of competitive intensity of the foreign market negatively affects the level of support given to the foreign distributor. Assuming that exporting technological intensive products may require long-term collaboration with distributors, it might be argued that SMEs use their limited resources to build and sustain distributor support only in those markets where competition is less intense. Costly and time-consuming external relationships may not be outweighed by the reduced margins resulting from market competition. As pointed out by Bonaccorsi (1992), in highly competitive foreign markets, local intermediaries have many alternatives and work with a multitude of different foreign partners. In such circumstances, intermediaries might display opportunistic behaviour and use market or product information in a self-interested way. In this sense, intermediaries might be considered to no longer be supporting the firm in foreign markets. To shed further light on the negative relationship between competitive intensity and distribution support, we interviewed a sample of marketing directors who participated in the research. The marketing director of a company operating in the global apparel sector explained this finding in the following way:

In highly competitive markets the distributor does not play a key role, since in such competitive markets the distributor has often agreements with other firms. As a result, the distributor is not as loyal and committed to your firm, because they are involved in many relationships.

This comment appears to provide further support for Bonaccorsi’s (1992) argument, that distributors in highly competitive markets can display opportunistic behaviours that may induce tensions and strain in the relationship, leading to a decrease in support by the export firm. Nonetheless, despite the possibility of opportunistic behaviours by the distributor, we believe that in order for the firm to succeed in highly competitive markets, it is necessary to support and collaborate with the distributor to obtain the desired attention for the firm’s products, as well as crucial local market knowledge.

As expected, the results strongly support the hypothesis that the degree of price adaptation is influenced by the environmental differences that exist between the home and foreign market. This supports the results of previous studies (e.g. Sousa and Bradley, 2008; Theodosiou and Katsikeas, 2001), and reinforces the need for managers to assess the foreign environment correctly, since the quality of a pricing strategy decision is only as good as the quality of the accumulated information on which the pricing decision is based.

Finally, the results show that price adaptation has no significant impact on the export performance of the firm. This seems to be consistent with a recent review paper on export pricing, which shows the results regarding the impact of price adaptation on export performance to be inconsistent and often contradictory (Tan and Sousa, 2011). Despite the amount of research in this area over the last four decades, these inconsistent and often conflicting results show the complexity and difficulty of investigating this topic because of the uncertainties associated with today’s dynamic environment, together with the large number of factors that need to be taken into account when examining export pricing decisions. A possible explanation is that the relationship between price adaptation and export performance is non-linear (Özsomer and Simonin, 2004). This argument is supported in the present study, since the results indicate a non-linear relationship between price adaptation and export performance. Specifically, the present findings provide support for the alternative hypothesis (H13), that there is a U-shaped relationship between price and export performance. In other words, firms with high degrees of price adaptation perform well as do firms with very low degrees of price adaptation. Conversely, firms with mid-range degrees of price adaptation will be outperformed in the foreign market by firms with high and low degrees of price adaptation.

Thus, as firms start to adapt their pricing strategy, their export performance experiences an initial decrease (downward slope of the U-shaped curve), while in the case of higher degrees of price adaptation, export performance increases (upward slope of the U-shaped curve). A price adaptation strategy requires significant investment in product-service quality and market research (Porter, 1980). Therefore, a standardised pricing strategy might be more effective for SMEs because the costs associated with adaptation are avoided, leading to better export performance. In addition, a standardised strategy permits scale economies, synergies, efficiencies and simplifies planning (Hamel and Prahalad, 1985; Levitt, 1983). However, as firms start to adapt their pricing strategy, the initial impact on export performance is negative (downward slope of the U-shaped curve) due to the cost implications of adapting their strategy. At the same time, the level of adaptation is not high enough to take into account all the idiosyncrasies of the foreign market. Beyond a mid-range point of price adaptation (upward slope of the U-shaped curve), the paybacks will be more beneficial because of continued investment in understanding customer needs and adapting the pricing strategy accordingly. This means that the positive impact of price adaptation on export performance will be greater than its investment. This non-linear relationship finds further support in the strategy literature: Porter (1980) states that a cost strategy (which is similar to standardisation) or differentiation strategy (which is similar to adaptation) may be pursued, since there is an inherent potential to achieve the same profit level with either strategy (U-shaped curve). Nonetheless, this is an issue that warrants further empirical investigation.

Limitations of the study and directions for further research

Several limitations of this research should be acknowledged which, in turn, pose opportunities for future research. First, we explored distribution support from the exporting firm’s perspective, neglecting the other side of the relationship dyad. It would be interesting for future research to consider how distributors react to different levels of support and cooperation from exporting SMEs. Another possible limitation of this study is that the survey was restricted to firms in Italy, which could raise questions regarding the extent to which the findings can be generalised. Testing the external validity of the findings would necessitate replication of this study in other countries. The study also employed a cross-sectional research design, which could be criticised for failing to capture the dynamic aspects of the constructs incorporated in the model. Thus, future work should consider adopting a longitudinal design that would provide an insight into these relationships over time.

Another fruitful avenue for research would be to examine the interaction effects of distribution support and price adaptation. For example, a recent study by Sousa and Bradley (2009b) has found that distribution strategies may influence a firm’s export pricing strategy. This suggests that instead of hypothesising that distribution support and price adaptation independently influences export performance, future studies should consider the possible interaction effects of these two constructs. In addition, future studies should continue to investigate the mediating role of strategy in the resource–performance relationship. Although there are theoretical arguments in the literature to support the mediating role of strategy, the empirical validation of this proposition remains very limited (Beleska-Spasova et al., 2012).

Finally, further research is required into the issue of non-linearity between price adaptation and export performance. In this context, future studies should consider examining non-linear relationships between the other elements of the marketing mix and export performance. We believe that a formal study of the nature of the relationship between adaptation and export performance is a promising area for future research.

Footnotes

Appendix 1: Sample characteristics

	N	%
Position
Export managers	63	41
Senior managers	51	33
Managing directors	40	26
Years of export experience
Up to 5 years	14	9
6 to 10 years	55	36
11 to 15 years	46	30
16 to 20 years	21	13
Over 20 years	18	12
Education
Secondary school	25	16
High school	56	36
University degree	63	41
Master’s degree	10	7

Appendix 2: Constructs and measures

Environment

Scale (1 = very similar to 5 = very different):

Competitive intensity

Scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree):

Technology intensity

Scale (1 = not technology intensive to 5 = highly technology intensive):

Size of the firm:

Price adaptation

Scale (1 = very similar to 5 = very different):

Distribution support

Scale (1 = none to 5 = substantial):

Export performance

Scale (1 = very unsatisfied to 5 = very satisfied):

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Author biographies

Carlos M.P. Sousa is Reader in Marketing at Durham University Business School, Durham University. His research interests are in the area of international marketing strategy, determinants of company performance, business performance measurement and cultural influences on international marketing strategies. He has published in the International Small Business Journal, Journal of Small Business Management, Journal of International Marketing, Journal of World Business, European Journal of Marketing, International Marketing Review, International Business Review, Academy of Marketing Science Review and Journal of Marketing Management, among others.

Simone Novello is a Lecturer at the CESUGA-University College Dublin, Spain and member of the Quantitative Methods Research Group at University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain. His research interests are in the area of international marketing strategy, regional economic development and knowledge transfer. His articles have been published in Regional Studies, Management Learning and other Spanish journals.

References

Aaby

N-E

Slater

(1989) Management influences on export performance: A review of the empirical literature, 1978–1988. International Marketing Review 6(4): 7–26.

Achrol

Stern

(1988) Environmental determinants of decision-making uncertainty in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing Research 25(1): 36–50.

Armstrong

Overton

(1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 14(3): 396–402.

Baalbaki

Malhotra

(1993) Marketing management bases for international market segmentation: An alternate look at the standardization/customization debate. International Marketing Review 10(1): 19–44.

Bagozzi

(1980) Causal Models in Marketing. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bagozzi

(1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 16(1): 74–94.

Barney

(1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17(1): 99–120.

Barney

Zajac

(1994) Competitive organizational behavior: Toward an organizationally-based theory of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal 15(supp.1): 5–9.

Baron

Kenny

(1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6): 1173–1182.

10.

Beleska-Spasova

Glaister

Stride

(2012) Resource determinants of strategy and performance: The case of British exporters. Journal of World Business 47(4): 635–647.

11.

Bello

Chelariu

Zhang

(2003) The antecedents and performance consequences of relationalism in export distribution channels. Journal of Business Research 56(1): 1–16.

12.

Bello

Zhang

Sachdev

(1996) The quasi-integrated export marketing channel. Journal of Marketing Channels 5(1): 59–90.

13.

Benito

GRG

Solberg

Welch

(1993) An exploration of the information behaviour of Norwegian exporters. International Journal of Information Management 13(4): 274–286.

14.

Bialaszewski

Giallourakis

(1985) Perceived communication skills and resultant trust perceptions within the channel of distribution. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 13(2): 206–217.

15.

Bollen

Long

(1993) Testing structural equation models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16.

Bonaccorsi

(1992) On the relationship between firm size and export intensity. Journal of International Business Studies 23(4): 605–635.

17.

Boyacigiller

(1990) The role of expatriates in the management of interdependence, complexity and risk in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies 21(3): 357–381.

18.

Calof

J L

(1994) The relationship between firm size and export behavior revisited. Journal of International Business Studies 25(2): 367–387.

19.

Cavusgil

(1988) Unraveling the mystique of export pricing. Business Horizons 31(3): 54–63.

20.

Cavusgil

Zou

(1994) Marketing strategy–performance relationship: An investigation of the empirical link in export market ventures. Journal of Marketing 58(1): 1–21.

21.

Celly

Frazier

(1996) Outcome-based and behavior-based coordination efforts in channel relationships. Journal of Marketing Research 33(2): 200–210.

22.

Chrisman

Bauerschmidt

Hofer

(1998) The determinants of new venture performance: An extended model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 23(1): 5–29.

23.

Chryssochoidis

Theoharakis

(2004) Attainment of competitive advantage by the exporter–importer dyad: The role of export offering and import objectives. Journal of Business Research 57(4): 329–337.

24.

Chung

HFL

(2005) An investigation of crossmarket standardisation strategies: Experiences in the European Union. European Journal of Marketing 39(11–12): 1345–1371.

25.

Chung

HFL

(2008) The impact of a centralised organisational structure on marketing standardisation strategy and performance: The experience of price, place and management processes. Journal of Global Marketing 21(2): 83–107.

26.

Chung

HFL

Wang

(2007) Analysis of marketing standardization strategies. Journal of Global Marketing 20(1): 39–59.

27.

Contractor

Hsu

C-C

Kundu

(2005) Explaining export performance: A comparative study of international new ventures in Indian and Taiwanese software industry. Management International Review 45(3): 83–110.

28.

Cooper

Kleinschmidt

(1985) The impact of export strategy on export sales performance. Journal of International Business Studies 16(1): 37–55.

29.

Czinkota

Johnston

(1983) Exporting: Does sales volume make a difference? Journal of International Business Studies 14(1): 147–153.

30.

Das

(1994) Successful and unsuccessful exporters from developing countries: Some preliminary findings. European Journal of Marketing 28(12): 19–33.

31.

Dhanaraj

Beamish

(2003) A resource-based approach to the study of export performance. Journal of Small Business Management 41(3): 242–261.

32.

Diamantopoulos

(1991) Pricing: Theory and evidence – A literature review. In: Baker

(ed.) Perspectives on Marketing Management. London: John Wiley, pp.63–192.

33.

Dickson

Weaver

Hoy

(2006) Opportunism in the R&D alliances of SMEs: The roles of the institutional environment and SME size. Journal of Business Venturing 21(4): 487–513.

34.

Dickson

(1996) The static and dynamic mechanics of competition: A comment on Hunt and Morgan’s comparative advantage theory. Journal of Marketing 60(4): 102–106.

35.

Edelman

Brush

Manolova

(2005) Co-alignment in the resource–performance relationship: strategy as mediator. Journal of Business Venturing 20(3): 359–383.

36.

Erramilli

Rao

(1993) Service firms’ international entry mode choice: A modified transaction cost approach. Journal of Marketing 57(3): 19–38.

37.

Forman

Hunt

(2005) Managing the influence of internal and external determinants on international industrial pricing strategies. Industrial Marketing Management 34(2): 133–146.

38.

Fornell

Larcker

(1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1): 39–50.

39.

Gatignon

Xuereb

J-M

(1997) Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance. Journal of Marketing Research 34(1): 77–90.

40.

Gerbing

Anderson

J C

(1988) An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research 25(2): 186–192.

41.

Griffith

(2010) Understanding multi-level institutional convergence effects on international market segments and global marketing strategy. Journal of World Business 45(1): 59–67.

42.

Gripsrud

Solberg

Ulvnes

(2006) The effect of information collection behaviour on market performance: The role of partner relationships. Advances in International Marketing 16: 135–155.

43.

Guan

(2003) Innovative capability and export performance of Chinese firms. Technovation 23(9): 737–747.

44.

Halkos

Tzeremes

(2007) Productivity efficiency and firm size: An empirical analysis of foreign owned companies. International Business Review 16(6): 713–731.

45.

Hamel

Prahalad

(1985) Do you really have a global strategy? Harvard Business Review 63(July–August): 139–148.

46.

Huber

Power

(1985) Retrospective reports of strategic-level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management Journal 6(2): 171–180.

47.

Hunt

Morgan

(1995) The comparative advantage theory of competition. Journal of Marketing 59(2): 1–15.

48.

Hunt

Morgan

(1996) The resource-advantage theory of competition: Dynamics, path dependencies and evolutionary dimensions. Journal of Marketing 60(4): 107–114.

49.

Jain

(1989) Standardization of international marketing strategy: Some research hypotheses. Journal of Marketing 53(1): 70–79.

50.

Jap

(2001) ‘Pie sharing’ in complex collaboration contexts. Journal of Marketing Research 38(1): 86–99.

51.

Jaworski

Kohli

(1993) Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing 57(3): 53–70.

52.

John

Weiss

Dutta

(1999) Marketing in technology-intensive markets: Toward a conceptual framework. Journal of Marketing 63(4): 78–91.

53.

Julien

P-A

Ramangalahy

(2003) Competitive strategy and performance of exporting SMEs: An empirical investigation of the impact of their export information search and competencies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 27(3): 227–245.

54.

Kalafatis

(2002) Buyer–seller relationships along channels of distribution. Industrial Marketing Management 31(3): 215–228.

55.

Koh

(1991) Relationships among Organisational Characteristics, Marketing Strategy and Export Performance. International Marketing Review 8(3): 46–60.

56.

Kohli

Jaworski

(1990) Market orientation: The construct, research propositions and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing 54(2): 1–18.

57.

Lages

Montgomery

(2005) The relationship between export assistance and performance improvement in Portuguese export ventures: An empirical test of the mediating role of pricing strategy adaptation. European Journal of Marketing 39(7/8): 755–784

58.

Lages

Jap

Griffith

(2008) The role of past performance in export ventures: A short-term reactive approach. Journal of International Business Studies 39(2): 304–325.

59.

Lee

Griffith

(2004) The marketing strategy–performance relationship in an export-driven developing economy: A Korean illustration. International Marketing Review 21(3): 321–334.

60.

Leonidou

Katsikeas

Samiee

(2002) Marketing strategy determinants of export performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research 55(1): 51–67.

61.

Levitt

(1983) The globalization of markets. Harvard Business Review 61(3): 92–102.

62.

McGuinness

Little

(1981) The influence of product characteristics on the export performance of new industrial products. Journal of Marketing 45(2): 110–122.

63.

Majocchi

Bacchiocchi

Mayrhofer

(2005) Firm size, business experience and export intensity in SMEs: A longitudinal approach to complex relationships. International Business Review 14(6): 719–738.

64.

Makhija

(2003) Comparing the resource-based and market-based views of the firm: Empirical evidence from Czech privatization. Strategic Management Journal 24(5): 433–451.

65.

Matanda

Freeman

(2009) Effect of perceived environmental uncertainty on exporter–importer inter-organisational relationships and export performance improvement. International Business Review 18(1): 89–107.

66.

Menon

Bharadwaj

Howell

(1996) The quality and effectiveness of marketing strategy: Effect of functional and dysfunctional conflict in intraorganizational relationships. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 24(4): 299–313.

67.

Merritt

Newell

(2001) The extent and formality of sales agency evaluations of principals. Industrial Marketing Management 30(1): 37–49.

68.

Mittelstaedt

Harben

Ward

(2003) How small is too small? Firm size as a barrier to exporting from the United States. Journal of Small Business Management 41(1): 68–84.

69.

Moen

(1999) The relationship between firm size, competitive advantages export performance revisited. International Small Business Journal 18(1): 53–72.

70.

Morgan

Kaleka

Katsikeas

(2004) Antecedents of export venture performance: A theoretical model and empirical assessment. Journal of Marketing 68(1): 90–108.

71.

Mudambi

Aggarwal

(2003) Industrial distributors: Can they survive in the new economy? Industrial Marketing Management 32(4): 317–325.

72.

Myers

(2004) Implications of pricing strategy–venture strategy congruence: An application using optimal models in an international context. Journal of Business Research 57(6): 591–600.

73.

Myers

Harvey

(2001) The value of pricing control in export channels: A governance perspective. Journal of International Marketing 9(4): 1–29.

74.

Myers

Cavusgil

Diamantopoulos

(2002) Antecedents and actions of export pricing strategy: A conceptual framework and research propositions. European Journal of Marketing 36(1–2): 159–188.

75.

Nes

Solberg

Silkoset

(2007) The impact of national culture and communication on exporter–distributor relations and on export performance. International Business Review 16(4): 405–424.

76.

Oviatt

McDougall

(2005) Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29(5): 537–554.

77.

Özsomer

Simonin

(2004) Marketing program standardization: A cross-country exploration. International Journal of Research in Marketing 21(4): 397–419.

78.

Paun

(1997) A study of ‘best’ versus ‘average’ buyer–seller relationships. Journal of Business Research 39(1): 13–21.

79.

Penrose

(1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. London: Basil Blackwell.

80.

Peteraf

Barney

(2003) Unraveling the resource-based tangle. Managerial and Decision Economics 24(4): 309–323.

81.

Pla-Barber

Alegre

(2007) Analysing the link between export intensity, innovation and firm size in a science-based industry. International Business Review 16(3): 275–293.

82.

Podsakoff

Organ

(1986) Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12(4): 531–544.

83.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

J-Y

. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879–903.

84.

Porter

(1980) Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press.

85.

Powers

Loyka

(2007) Market, industry and company influences on global product standardization. International Marketing Review 24(6): 678–694.

86.

Powers

Loyka

(2010) Adaptation of marketing mix elements in international markets. Journal of Global Marketing 23(1): 65–79.

87.

Quelch

Hoff

(1986) Customizing global marketing. Harvard Business Review 64(May–June): 59–68.

88.

Roath

Sinkovics

(2006) Utilizing relational governance in export relationships: Leveraging learning and improving flexibility and satisfaction. Advances in International Marketing 16: 157–185.

89.

Robertson

Chetty

(2000) A contingency-based approach to understanding export performance. International Business Review 9(2): 211–235.

90.

Rodríguez

RMG

(2005) Technology and export behaviour: A resource-based view approach. International Business Review 14(5): 539–557.

91.

Root

(1998) Entry Strategies for International Markets. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

92.

Rosenau

Jr (1988) Speeding your new product to market. Journal of Consumer Marketing 5(2): 23–36.

93.

Rosson

Ford

(1982) Manufacturer–overseas distributor relations and export performance. Journal of International Business Studies 13(2): 57–72.

94.

Sahadev

Jayachandran

(2004) Managing the distribution channels for high-technology products: A behavioural approach. European Journal of Marketing 38(1–2): 121–149.

95.

Samiee

Roth

(1992) The influence of global marketing standardization on performance. Journal of Marketing 56(2): 1–17.

96.

Seifert

Ford

(1989) Are exporting firms modifying their product, pricing and promotion policies? International Marketing Review 6(6): 53–68.

97.

Shoham

(1996) Marketing-mix standardization: determinants of export performance. Journal of Global Marketing 10(2): 53–73.

98.

Shoham

(1999) Bounded rationality, planning, standardization of international strategy and export performance: A structural model examination. Journal of International Marketing 7(2): 24–50.

99.

Simon

(1995) Pricing problems in a global setting. Marketing News 29(21): 4–8.

100.

Solberg

(2008) Product complexity and cultural distance effects on managing international distributor relationships: A contingency approach. Journal of International Marketing 16(3): 57–83.

101.

Solberg

Olsson

(2010) Management orientation and export performance: The case of Norwegian ICT companies. Baltic Journal of Management 5(1): 28–50.

102.

Sousa

CMP

Bradley

(2008) Antecedents of international pricing adaptation and export performance. Journal of World Business 43(3): 307–320.

103.

Sousa

CMP

Bradley

(2009a) Effects of export assistance and distributor support on the performance of SMEs: The case of Portuguese export ventures. International Small Business Journal 27(6): 681–701.

104.

Sousa

CMP

Bradley

(2009b) Price adaptation in export markets. European Journal of Marketing 43(3–4): 438–458.

105.

Sousa

CMP

Martinez-Lopez

Coelho

(2008) The determinants of export performance: A review of the research in the literature between 1998 and 2005. International Journal of Management Reviews 10(4): 343–374.

106.

Srivastava

Fahey

Christensen

(2001) The resource-based view and marketing: The role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage. Journal of Management 27(6): 777–802.

107.

Tan

Sousa

CMP

(2011) Research on export pricing: Still moving towards maturity. Journal of International Marketing 19(3): 1–35.

108.

Terpstra

(1987) International Marketing. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.

109.

Theodosiou

Katsikeas

(2001) Factors influencing the degree of international pricing strategy standardization of multinational corporations. Journal of International Marketing 9(3): 1–18.

110.

Theodosiou

Leonidou

(2003) Standardization versus adaptation of international marketing strategy: An integrative assessment of the empirical research. International Business Review 12(2): 141–171.

111.

Tzokas

Hart

Argouslidis

. (2000) Industrial export pricing practices in the United Kingdom. Industrial Marketing Management 29(3): 191–204.

112.

Vandenberg

Lance

(2000) A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods 3(1): 4–70.

113.

Waheeduzzaman

ANM

Dube

(2003) Elements of standardization, firm performance and selected marketing variables. Journal of Global Marketing 16(1–2): 187–205.

114.

Walters

PGP

(1989) A framework for export pricing decisions. Journal of Global Marketing 2(3): 95–111.

115.

Weiss

Heide

(1993) The nature of organizational search in high technology markets. Journal of Marketing Research 30(2): 220–233.

116.

Welch

Luostarinen

(1988) Internationalization: Evolution of a concept. Journal of General Management 14(2): 34–55.

117.

Wheeler

Ibeh

Dimitratos

(2008) UK export performance research: Review and implications. International Small Business Journal 26(2): 207–239.

118.

Whitelock

Pimblett

(1997) The standardization debate in international marketing. Journal of Global Marketing 10(3): 45–66.

119.

Yeoh

P-L

Roth

(1999) An empirical analysis of sustained advantage in the US pharmaceutical industry: Impact of firm resources and capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 20(7): 637–653.

120.

Zain

(2006) The impacts of network relationships on SMEs’ internationalization process. Thunderbird International Business Review 48(2): 183–205.

121.

Zeng

Yang

. (2011) Small business industrial buyers’ price sensitivity: Do service quality dimensions matter in business markets? Industrial Marketing Management 40(3): 395–404.

122.

Zhang

Cavusgil

Roath

(2003) Manufacturer governance of foreign distributor relationships: Do relational norms enhance competitiveness in the export market? Journal of International Business Studies 34(6): 550–566.

123.

Zhou

Yim

Tse

(2005) The effects of strategic orientations on technology- and market-based breakthrough innovations. Journal of Marketing 69(2): 42–60.

124.

Zhou

W-P

Luo

(2007) Internationalization and the performance of born-global SMEs: The mediating role of social networks. Journal of International Business Studies 38(4): 673–690.

125.

Zou

Stan

(1998) The determinants of export performance: A review of the empirical literature between 1987 and 1997. International Marketing Review 15(5): 333–356.

126.

Zou

Andrus

Norvell

(1997) Standardization of international marketing strategy by firms from a developing country. International Marketing Review 14(2): 107–123.

127.

Zou

Fang

Zhao

(2003) The effect of export marketing capabilities on export performance: An investigation of Chinese exporters. Journal of International Marketing 11(4): 32–55.

128.

Zou

Taylor

Osland

(1998) The EXPERF scale: A cross-national generalized export performance measure. Journal of International Marketing 6(3): 37–58.