Untangling the Influence of Corporate Sustainability on Export Intensity: The Moderating Role of R&D Intensity

Export Intensity, Corporate Sustainability, and International Business

The exploration of export intensity in the context of emerging market firms’ international business (IB) activities has garnered significant attention due to its dynamic nature (Agnihotri and Bhattacharya 2015; Charoenrat and Amornkitvikai 2021; Teplova et al. 2022; Wu et al. 2022). This concept revolves around the extent to which emerging market enterprises engage in export activities relative to their overall business operations. Notably, the global business landscape has witnessed a marked upswing in export-focused strategies pursued by emerging market firms in recent years (Teplova et al. 2022; Wu et al. 2022). These firms have recognized and seized the abundant opportunities presented by international markets, spurred by technological advancements (Filipescu et al. 2013), decreasing trade barriers (Jongwanich and Kohpaiboon 2008), and evolving consumer preferences (Hultman, Katsikeas, and Robson 2011). Consequently, export intensity has taken center stage as a crucial component of their growth trajectories.

The discourse surrounding export intensity examines the intricate dynamics influencing emerging market firms’ participation in international trade. This exploration encompasses an array of factors spanning from firm-specific attributes such as size, resource endowments, capabilities, R&D investments, and innovation to external determinants like prevailing market conditions, regulatory frameworks, and geopolitical considerations (Haddoud et al. 2023; Majocchi, Bacchiocchi, and Mayrhofer 2005). Unraveling these influences offers valuable insights into the motivations guiding firms’ strategic allocation of resources toward their export ventures.

The notion of export intensity holds profound implications for the broader economic progress of emerging economies (Swinnen 2007). Higher levels of export intensity often correlate with deeper integration into the global economic landscape, facilitating the transfer of technology and dissemination of knowledge (Wang and Ma 2018). This, in turn, can contribute significantly to economic growth, employment generation, and overall improvements in living standards within these emerging market nations. However, the pursuit of heightened export intensity is not devoid of challenges. Emerging market firms often grapple with barriers related to market entry, competitive pressures, logistical complexities, and mounting demands for sustainability compliance from foreign clientele (Costa, Lages, and Hortinha 2015; Teplova et al. 2022). Hence, the discourse surrounding export intensity trends in the domain of emerging market firms’ IB encapsulates a dynamic interplay of internal and external factors, including the pivotal role of corporate sustainability, that collectively shape and define their engagement in global trade.

Corporate sustainability is an increasingly profound phenomenon of interest in IB research (Eteokleous et al. 2016; Gölgeci, Makhmadshoev, and Demirbag 2021; Li, Zhou, and Wu 2017; Zeriti et al. 2014). As researchers have emphasized the vital role of exporting across the globe for firms to leverage their resources internationally and achieve continued growth (Azar and Ciabuschi 2017; Beleska-Spasova 2014; Cadogan et al. 2016), corporate sustainability is gradually becoming an integral component of IB. As such, with growing concerns for and the prevalence of environmental and social challenges worldwide (Eteokleous et al. 2016; Gölgeci, Makhmadshoev, and Demirbag 2021), sustainability has grown into a critical factor for success in foreign markets, especially in relation to export intensity. Most sustainability challenges are complex, unresolved, and, at times, daunting problems related to the environment and society (Berrone et al. 2016). They represent an increasingly pressing and critical issue that exporting firms must tackle to better serve foreign customers. Environmental changes and deviations in customers’ purchasing behavior have been shaping firms’ export intensity at the international level (Varadarajan 2014). Hence, firms are progressively working to succeed in target markets by combining their business strategies with environmental and socially responsible practices (Becker-Olsen et al. 2011).

This approach conforms to stakeholder theory and the RBV. Stakeholder theory argues that managing relationships with stakeholders is the key to achieving competitive advantages (Li, Zhou, and Wu 2017). Public concerns about sustainability issues, different environmental regulations, and local standards in foreign markets affect the sustainability strategies of exporting firms. If inconsistent actions regarding sustainability are observed, consumer groups protest firms, and governments punish them (Banerjee, Iyer, and Kashyap 2003). This is especially true for exporting firms from emerging markets. They face increasingly challenging situations. They often find themselves in paradoxical situations, stuck between fierce competition and urgency to catch up with their competitors from the developed world on the one hand and growing environmental and social imperatives both at home and abroad, with major cost implications, on the other hand (Gölgeci, Makhmadshoev, and Demirbag 2021).

In view of these arguments, firms that engage with their partners to manage environmental issues are better positioned to respond to social responsibility concerns (Yeniyurt, Cavusgil, and Hult 2005). Therefore, exporting firms are often compelled to execute sustainability activities by considering the needs of customers and their sensitivity to environmental and social matters. In other words, they are required to convert the sustainability-related concerns of stakeholders into market opportunities by aligning their strategies with their concerns.

Prior studies have revealed that sustainability strategies are positively associated with the competitiveness of exporting firms (Katsikeas, Samiee, and Theodosiou 2006; Leonidou et al. 2015; Zeriti et al. 2014). Leonidou et al. (2015) assert that foreign environmental public concern and top management sustainability sensitivity are vital in crafting a sustainability-friendly export strategy. This is more prevalent among firms producing industrial goods with high technological intensity and exporting to developed countries. Similarly, Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai (2008) show that automotive firms in China made strategic environmental agreements with their customers to manage their sales to foreign customers. In a similar study on Chinese automotive firms by Imran et al. (2018), the findings confirm that cleaner production significantly affects export performance. These studies allude to the notion that sustainability strategies are especially crucial in emerging markets and constitute a key lever for exporting firms, allowing them to develop an environmental and social orientation toward meeting stakeholders’ expectations in foreign markets beyond cost leadership.

These findings are also underpinned by the RBV. According to the RBV, firms can enhance their performance by using unique resources and capabilities to differentiate themselves from their competitors (Barney 1991). Hence, firms can sustain a competitive advantage when sustainability attributes are incorporated into their business strategy as intangible resources (Chen, Sousa, and He 2016). Implementing corporate sustainability strategies and practices strengthens a firm's ability to identify and give value to inimitable resources, stimulating the development of intangibles related to human capital, innovation, and knowledge. Porter and Kramer (2006) support that argument by claiming that firms incorporate sustainability practices into their business strategies to obtain commercial success, improve reputation, and strengthen brand value. To this end, serious global sustainability challenges coupled with the insufficiency of sustainability-driven resources and activities in emerging markets (Gölgeci, Makhmadshoev, and Demirbag 2021) elevate sustainability-driven resources as strategic resources. This argument is also grounded in the established notion that corporate sustainability and sustainability practices embody resources that bring value to the firm, are unique and not readily available, are inimitable especially in the context of emerging markets, and cannot be substituted by other strategically equivalent valuable resources (Hart and Dowell 2011). Thus, valuable, rare, inimitable, and nonsubstitutable resources and capabilities underlying corporate sustainability may lead to a more sustainable world and create value for shareholders and stakeholders (Hart and Milstein 2004). The intangible resource pool helps firms gain insightful competencies, enabling them to allocate resources according to the scope and demand of international operations.

Furthermore, sustainability standards could enhance trade by reducing information asymmetries and transaction costs (Henson and Jaffee 2008) and modernizing supply chains through upgrading (Swinnen 2007). Papadopoulos and Martín (2010) assert that international experience influences firms’ dedication to sustainability, positively influencing export performance. International markets also favor sustainability due to the safety and quality of certified products and harmonization. Consequently, exporting firms that highlight their commitment to sustainability are expected to perform better.

Innovation and R&D in International Business

Innovation and R&D are among the crucial pillars of IB (Boso et al. 2013; Lages, Silva, and Styles 2009; Nyuur, Brecic, and Debrah 2018; Zhang, Di Benedetto, and Hoenig 2009). Firm innovativeness is often found to be associated positively with export success, especially in competitive and dynamic export markets (Boso et al. 2013). Similarly, product innovation is found to enhance export performance (Lages, Silva, and Styles 2009), and breakthrough and incremental product development activities are found to reinforce and maintain relevant performance outcomes in foreign markets (Zhang, Di Benedetto, and Hoenig 2009).

Furthermore, Gourlay, Seaton, and Suakitjarak (2005) and Hwang, Hwang, and Dong (2015) both highlight the critical role of R&D intensity—the extent to which firms invest in innovation in relation to its revenue—in enhancing export intensity and export performance, respectively. In an earlier study, Singh (2009) notes, in an argument based on the RBV, that R&D expenditure—the expense incurred by an organization in conducting R&D activities—is an essential antecedent of exporting activities for Indian firms. Building on the same theory and using the data from 306 Vietnamese firms, Vo, Binh, and Trang (2022) point out that increasing investment in R&D helps firms promote international trade, and R&D intensity is positively associated with export intensity. Thus, mainstream IB research showcases the importance of innovation and R&D to compete in foreign markets, thereby motivating firms to develop cutting-edge technologies and cost-effective advanced production processes.

Addressing environmental and societal challenges increasingly involves innovative approaches (Engelen et al. 2018; Martí 2018). As sustainability challenges are multifaceted phenomena that cannot be addressed effectively through linear and monolithic approaches and involve dynamic interactions across multiple intrinsic and extrinsic factors (Doh, Tashman, and Benischke 2019), they require innovative approaches and behaviors (Martí 2018) as well as creative reconfiguration and the implementation of strategic resources and capabilities, especially in emerging markets (Gölgeci et al. 2019). Thus, adopting innovative and market-oriented strategies across national differences can be instrumental in competing across foreign markets (Zeriti et al. 2014). Likewise, Boehe and Cruz (2010) investigate the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and export performance for a sample of 252 Brazilian firms. They suggest that CSR product differentiation by emerging market firms predicts export performance almost as well as product innovation differentiation. Teplova et al. (2022) examine 37 Asian and Eastern European countries and demonstrate that innovative activity and CSR facilitate entry to foreign markets for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). They also reveal a significant positive effect of R&D intensity on export intensity. Hence, the corporate sustainability and export intensity relationship can also be affected by R&D intensity. In general, R&D improves the competitiveness of products and services provided abroad (Flor and Oltra 2005; Ganotakis and Love 2011). In particular, it can help firms achieve high levels of competitiveness in international markets (Porter and Van der Linde 1995).

To this end, there has been extensive research on the link between R&D and export performance. Most earlier studies have found a positive association between R&D expenditure and export performance (e.g., Charoenrat and Amornkitvikai 2021; Filipescu et al. 2013; Flor and Oltra 2005; Gourlay, Seaton, and Suakitjarak 2005; Hwang, Hwang, and Dong 2015). For example, Ganotakis and Love (2011) and Harris and Li (2009) point out that R&D affects exports positively but does not affect export intensity. Similarly, Lefebvre and Lefebvre (2002) suggest that R&D expenditure, which is a component of R&D intensity, is one of the determinants of export performance for SMEs. In contrast, D’Angelo (2012) and Leung and Sharma (2021) report that R&D expenditure does not affect export performance. Although there are mixed results, R&D intensity helps firms meet international eco-criteria that create an opportunity to expand exports and enter new markets.

New sustainability standards and policies in target markets also induce R&D activities in emerging market firms. Da Rocha Vencato et al. (2014) claim that exporting firms engage in more R&D to integrate sustainable practices into producing eco-friendly products than nonexporting firms. This usually necessitates technological resources. Katsikeas, Samiee, and Theodosiou (2006) claim that technological advancement and people's increasing environmental and social awareness compel firms to be more innovative. Meneto and Siedschlag (2020) investigate the relationship between green innovations and export performance for Irish firms from 2012 to 2014. They indicate that product innovations with environmental benefits for consumers were positively associated with the firms’ export performance. Haddoud et al. (2021) reveal that firms’ commitment to environmental issues positively affects export activities, claiming that environmental commitment facilitates compliance with international standards and stimulates green innovations. Similarly, Sdiri (2022) examines 521 Tunisian firms and finds that environmental commitment and product innovation drive export intensity. Thus, firms that differentiate their products, services, and supply chain by considering stakeholders’ environmental and social expectations are likely to promote them better in target markets (Al-Ghwayeen and Abdallah 2018; Katsikeas, Samiee, and Theodosiou 2006).

Table 1 summarizes selected studies on innovation/corporate sustainability and export performance/intensity links.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

A Summary of Selected Studies on Innovation/Corporate Sustainability and Export Performance/Intensity Links.

Author(s)	Variables	Innovation/Corporate Sustainability Coverage	Theoretical Perspective(s)	Sample/Method	Key Finding(s)
Boehe and Cruz (2010)	Product quality, product innovation, CSR differentiation, and export performance	Both	Institutional theory, RBV	252 Brazilian firms, structural equation modeling (SEM)	CSR product differentiation and product innovation positively influence export performance.
Costa, Lages, and Hortinha (2015)	Exploratory innovation and export performance	Both	Stakeholder theory	170 firms in Portugal, partial least squares (PLS) SEM	CSR principles enhance the impact of exploratory innovation on export performance and decrease the impact of exploitative innovation on export performance.
Filipescu et al. (2013)	Export breadth, export depth, R&D intensity, product, and process innovation	Innovation	RBV	696 Spanish firms 1994–2005, Tobit and logit regression, Granger causality test	R&D intensity is positively associated with export breadth and depth.
Gourlay, Seaton, and Suakitjarak (2005)	Export activities, R&D expenditure, capital intensity, firm size, and product diversification	Innovation	RBV	U.K. firms 1988–2001, Tobit and probit regression	R&D intensity is positively related to export intensity.
Harris and Li (2009)	Export intensity, R&D expenditure, and firm size	Innovation	RBV	U.K. firms 1998–2000, Heckman's approach, probit regression	R&D does not increase export intensity.
Hwang, Hwang, and Dong (2015)	Export intensity, innovation, and R&D	Innovation	Life-cycle theory	Korean firms 2005, 2008, and 2010, Tobit model	R&D positively influences export performance.
Lefebvre and Lefebvre (2002)	Export performance, R&D, knowledge intensity, and diversification	Innovation	RBV	3,032 firms in the United States, Canada, and European Union 1994–1997, Tobit and probit models	R&D is one of the determinants of export performance.
Leonidou et al. (2015)	Foreign competitive intensity, environmentally friendly export business strategy, and export performance	CS	N.A.	233 firms in Greece, elliptical reweighted least squares estimation	Green export strategy positively affects differentiation but not cost advantage in export ventures.
Leung and Sharma (2021)	R&D intensity, export intensity, innovation performance, firm value, and board size	Innovation	N.A.	385 firms in Shanghai and Shenzhen 2010–2013, panel data	R&D does not affect export performance. Innovation performance mediates the impact of R&D intensity and R&D internationalization on firm performance.
Martin-Tapia, Aragon-Correa, and Senise-Barrio (2008)	Proactive environmental strategy, export intensity, and perceived uncertainty	CS	RBV	145 Spanish firms, moderated hierarchical regression analysis	A proactive environmental strategy is positively related to export performance.
Martos-Pedrero et al. (2023)	Innovation, export performance, and corporate social responsibility	Both	Stakeholder view	107 Spanish firms, PLS SEM	CSR has no direct effect on export performance, but innovation serves as a mediator in this link.
Meneto and Siedschlag (2020)	R&D intensity, export intensity, and productivity	Both	Porter hypothesis	3,036 Irish firms 2012–2014, Heckman's approach	Green innovations are positively associated with firms’ export participation, but they do not impact export intensity.
Singh (2009)	Business group affiliation, R&D expenditure, advertising expenditure, and firm size	Innovation	RBV	3,542 Indian firms 1990–2005, two-stage least squares estimation	R&D expenditure positively affects exports, whereas advertising expenditure negatively affects it.
Teplova et al. (2022)	CSR, R&D investment, financial constraints, export intensity	Both	RBV	18,676 SMEs from 37 Asian and Eastern European emerging countries, Heckman model	Innovative activity and CSR facilitate entry to foreign markets, whereas equity concentration is a major deterrent. R&D investment has a positive effect on export intensity.
Villena-Manzanares and Souto-Pérez (2016)	Sustainability, corporate image, innovative orientation, and export performance	Both	Dynamic capabilities view	180 SMEs in Spain, PLS SEM	Sustainability and innovative approaches have positive effects on export performance.
Vo, Binh, and Trang (2022)	R&D intensity and export intensity	Innovation	RBV	306 exporting Vietnamese firms, robust standard errors, and Tobit regression models	R&D intensity is positively associated with export intensity.
This study	CS, R&D intensity, and export intensity	Both	RBV stakeholder theory	141 firms listed on Borsa Istanbul 2014–2021, Tobit regression	CS positively influences export intensity. R&D intensity strengthens the relationship between CS and export intensity.

Notes: N.A. = not available.

Hypothesis Development

The moderating role of R&D intensity

Drawing on the RBV, which posits that a firm's resources and capabilities, including R&D investments and corporate sustainability initiatives, can serve as sources of competitive advantage, leading to superior performance outcomes (Barney 1991; Chen, Sousa, and He 2016; Hart and Dowell 2011), we contend that R&D intensity assumes a pivotal position as an intrinsic wellspring of innovation within emerging market firms. This dynamic internal resource not only bolsters firm value by augmenting economic contributions within the production process but also exerts a positive influence on marketing dynamics, as highlighted by Singh (2009). Furthermore, R&D intensity augments the efficacy of corporate sustainability initiatives in engendering export intensity, stemming from its capacity to empower emerging market entities to harness corporate sustainability in innovative ways that differentiate their offerings within foreign markets. Notably, the augmentation of R&D intensity also fosters the cultivation of invaluable, scarce, nonimitable, and nonsubstitutable resources within the organizational fabric. This elevation of resource quality, in turn, uplifts the standard of exported products, thus positioning firms advantageously to surpass their competitors and excel within the international arena (Gourlay, Seaton, and Suakitjarak 2005).

Anticipating a catalytic role, we posit that R&D intensity functions as a fulcrum, propelling corporate sustainability toward higher efficacy in foreign market application and thereby modulating the interconnection between corporate sustainability and export intensity. This supposition rests on the premise that corporate sustainability fundamentally encompasses innovation and R&D undertakings that deviate from conventional routines, as affirmed by Mariadoss, Tansuhaj, and Mouri (2011) and Villena-Manzanares and Souto-Pérez (2016). To illustrate, firms endeavoring to implement environmentally conscious and socially responsible practices, such as the adoption of clean energy solutions or restoration of biodiversity, can harness the amplifying potential of heightened R&D intensity to refine the impact of these initiatives and set their products and services apart within foreign markets. This strategic amalgamation of corporate sustainability and intensified R&D intensity leads to an orchestration of synergies that fosters heightened export intensity. Thus, firms that devote resources to R&D can ingeniously channel their endeavors toward augmenting environmental and social sustainability, culminating in elevated export intensity resultant from the judicious use of corporate sustainability practices.

In the landscape of foreign markets, the need to align with customers’ and stakeholders’ heightened expectations concerning environmental and social facets necessitates innovative approaches (Costa, Lages, and Hortinha 2015). Consequently, a pronounced emphasis on R&D efforts accompanies corporate sustainability–related innovative undertakings. Emerging market firms that systematically enhance R&D intensity and nurture innovation capabilities are strategically positioned to harness corporate sustainability more adeptly, catering effectively to the environmentally and socially conscious demands of customers overseas, thereby boosting export intensity (Mariadoss, Tansuhaj, and Mouri 2011; Martos-Pedrero et al. 2023). Thus, firms endowed with a substantial R&D intensity are poised to capitalize on their enhanced corporate sustainability deployment, driving heightened levels of export intensity.

Furthermore, the advent of corporate sustainability initiatives heralds a departure from established business norms, ushering in innovative paradigms (Gölgeci et al. 2019). The intersection of corporate sustainability with heightened R&D intensity amplifies the impact of these initiatives on export intensity. This amalgamation begets a scenario where R&D intensity not only complements but also accentuates corporate sustainability's influence on export intensity. For instance, incorporating environmentally and socially responsible practices, such as developing eco-friendly products, sanitation initiatives, empowerment projects, and poverty reduction endeavors, acquires added impetus when coupled with heightened R&D intensity. The symbiosis between these factors enables the elevation of the initiatives’ impact on export intensity, given the innovative methods that fortify the efficacy of environmental and social practices (Gölgeci et al. 2019). In essence, the concurrent adoption of corporate sustainability practices and increased R&D intensity empowers firms to optimize their resources for environmental and social sustainability, consequently intensifying the influence of corporate sustainability on export intensity. This perspective aligns seamlessly with the RBV, reinforcing the significance of strategic resource possession, particularly the fusion of R&D with corporate sustainability, in bolstering firms’ international market endeavors.

To summarize, our proposition contends that R&D intensity functions as an enabler, magnifying the nexus between corporate sustainability and export intensity by facilitating innovative approaches that augment exports while fostering sustainable practices. Hence, we formulate our hypothesis:

H₂: R&D intensity positively moderates the corporate sustainability and export intensity relationship.

Figure 1 outlines the research framework along with the hypothesized relationships.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Research Framework.

Research Context and Data Sample

The survey setting of the present study is Türkiye, one of the top emerging markets in the world. The economic growth in Türkiye is highly dependent on exports. Türkiye's exports reached USD 256 billion in 2022 from USD 102 billion in 2009 (Türkiye Exporters Assembly 2023). Its share in global exports surpassed 1% for the first time in its history in 2021, increasing from .44% in 2000 (Statista 2022). Likewise, exports play a significant role in the Turkish economy, with a growth rate of 50% over the last decade. Türkiye ranked 29th out of 35 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries in total exports in 2020 (OECD 2021).

Moreover, sustainability activities showed a remarkable increase among listed firms in recent years, particularly with the launching of the BIST SI in 2014. Firms have deliberately raised their commitment to being a member of the BIST SI as well as meeting the expectations of institutional investors and other stakeholders. Consequently, as an important emerging market with a growing presence in the world economy and international trade and with growing attention to environmental and social sustainability (Gölgeci et al. 2019), Türkiye is deemed a proper research context for this study.

We used panel data from 141 nonfinancial firms listed on the BIST Industrials Index to conduct a longitudinal study. The sample comprises firms with more than three years of international experience. The time frame covers the years from 2014 to 2021, that is, 1,102 firm-year observations since the BIST SI was initially launched in 2014. We obtained the data from the following sources: (1) BIST, (2) Public Disclosure Platform, (3) Central Registry Agency, (4) Thomson Reuters Datastream, (5) corporate annual reports, and (6) corporate websites. Table 2 presents the distribution of firms across industries. Three industries (i.e., metal products and machinery; chemicals, petroleum, and plastic; and food and beverages) represent a large portion of the total number of firms. However, the remaining industries are also populated.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Distribution of Firms Across Industries.

Name of Industry	Number of Firms	Percentage
Metal products and machinery	29	21
Chemical, petroleum, and plastic	28	20
Food and beverage	23	16
Basic metal	17	12
Textile, apparel, and leather	15	11
Wood, paper, and printing	13	9
Nonmetal mineral products	12	9
Other industries	4	3
Total	141	100

Variable Measurement

We used dependent, independent, and control variables. The measurement of these variables is provided in the following subsections.

Data Analysis

We used the Tobit regression model, commonly employed in similar studies examining export intensity (Agnihotri and Bhattacharya 2015; Rodríguez and Nieto 2012). We included firms with at least three years of exporting to avoid selectivity bias. A small number of firms still had no exports in some years. One way of dealing with this problem is to use the Tobit model, which is appropriate for censored data. The model incorporates the decision of whether to export and the level of exports relative to sales.

We estimated a random-effects Tobit model to control the possibility of significant unobserved, time-invariant firm-specific effects correlated with the explanatory variables (see Barrios, Görg, and Strobl 2003). Equations 1 and 2 are given subsequently. A dummy variable is included for each year to capture anything unique to the selected period, while another dummy variable is included for the industry. CS_i,t × RDI_i,t is the composite independent variable included in the model to check for possible moderation effects at time t.

E I i , t = α + X 1 C S i , t + X 2 RD I i , t + X 3 MA R i , t + X 4 SIZ E i , t + X 5 LE V i , t + X 6 AG E i , t + X 7 INTAG E i , t + X 8 MUL T i , t + X 9 Industr y i , t + X 10 ∑ k = 1 8 Tim e i , t + e i , t .

(1)

E I i , t = α + X 1 C S i , t + X 2 RD I i , t + X 3 C S i , t × RD I i , t + X 4 MA R i , t + X 5 SIZ E i , t + X 6 LE V i , t + X 7 AG E i , t + X 8 INTAG E i , t + X 9 MUL T i , t + X 10 Industr y i , t + X 11 ∑ k = 1 8 Tim e i , t + e i , t .

(2)

Descriptive Statistics

Table 3 provides a summary of the descriptive statistics and the correlation matrix. On average, the EI of the firms in the sample is 29%, while RDI is 50%. The average firm age is 43.01 years, while the average international experience is 8.35 years. EI has a positive and significant correlation with CS, SIZE, INTAGE, and MULT and a negative and significant correlation with RDI and MAR. The highest correlation, .58, is observed between SIZE and CS. When the independent variable (CS) and moderator (RDI) correlate, the power of detecting the moderation effects is reduced. In our sample, the correlation between CS and RDI is −.00, indicating that we can model the moderation effect. All the other correlations are modest to low and pose no multicollinearity problem. To check for multicollinearity, we also calculated the variance inflation factor (VIF), which is reported in the Appendix. The VIF values of the explanatory variables are below 10, indicating that multicollinearity is unlikely to influence our results.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix.

Variable	Variable Names	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. EI	Export intensity	.29	.25	1
2. CS	Corporate sustainability	.12	.32	.15*	1
3. RDI	R&D intensity	.50	1.43	−.06*	−.00	1
4. MAR	Marketing intensity	7.38	7.57	−.10*	−.00	.09*	1
5. SIZE	Firm size	20.10	1.84	.10*	.58*	−.05	−.13*	1
6. LEV	Leverage	.56	.32	.03	.08*	−.04	.16*	.07*	1
7. AGE	Firm age	43.01	16.24	.00	.12*	−.03	−.01	.38*	−.02	1
8. INTAGE	International experience	8.35	3.23	.19*	.20*	.03	.00	.40*	.12*	.38*	1
9. MULT	MNC affiliation	.22	.41	.07*	.24*	−.06*	−.00	.21*	.00	.08*	.15*	1

*p < .05.

Notes: N = 141.

Estimation Results

Table 4 shows the random effects of Tobit regression results. Model 1 focuses on the direct effects of the independent variables, whereas Model 2 includes the interaction of CS and RDI. The moderation indicates that the CS–EI relationship differs by the level of RDI. If the regression coefficient of the interaction term (CS × RDI) is significant, it suggests that RDI modifies the CS–EI relationship. The moderator does not elicit the corporate sustainability effect but affects its size or direction.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Tobit Regression Results.

Variables	Random-Effects Tobit
	Model 1	Model 2
CS	.055 (.02)*	.034 (.022)
RDI	−.005 (.003)	−.005 (.003)
MAR	.002 (.001)	.002 (.001)
SIZE	.01 (.009)	.01 (.009)
LEV	.018 (.019)	.019 (.019)
AGE	−.002 (.001)	−.002 (.001)
INTAGE	.014 (.008)	.013 (.008)
MULT	.01 (.048)	.014 (.048)
CS × RDI		.057 (.03)*
Constant	.049 (.165)	.062 (.164)
Industry dummies	Included	Included
Time dummies	Included	Included
Log-likelihood	624.08	625.94
Number of observations	1102	1102
Likelihood-ratio test	1,386.08**	1,346.95**

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Notes: Standard errors in are parentheses.

The coefficient analysis of Model 1 reveals a pivotal and compelling finding supporting H₁. Our results illuminate a robust and statistically significant positive relationship between CS and EI. This connection serves as a cornerstone in understanding how firms’ commitment to corporate sustainability practices has a pronounced impact on their ability to engage and thrive in international markets. This alignment with H₁ underscores the strategic significance of integrating sustainability principles into the core fabric of a firm's operations and strategies.

Corporate sustainability, in this context, emerges as a dynamic and multifaceted resource that offers firms a tangible competitive advantage in the global marketplace. Our findings resonate with the assertions of Boehe and Cruz (2010), who suggest that corporate sustainability functions as a valuable resource capable of bolstering corporate performance on multiple fronts. Beyond the confines of domestic operations, corporate sustainability extends its influence to international forays, where it serves as a catalyst for enhanced reputation and brand image. The ability of firms to resonate with international stakeholders through their commitment to sustainable practices further cements their positioning as responsible and conscientious actors on the global stage. This positive perception fosters goodwill and trust among foreign consumers, partners, and investors, thus catalyzing export intensity.

Transitioning to Model 2, we unveil an intricate layer of our investigation, one that underscores the nuanced interplay between corporate sustainability and R&D intensity. Our analysis corroborates H₂, revealing a significant and positive coefficient for the interaction between CS and RDI. This outcome heralds the moderating role of R&D intensity in amplifying the influence of corporate sustainability on export intensity, enriching our understanding of how these two factors synergistically contribute to a firm's international expansion endeavors.

Our findings align harmoniously with the extant literature, echoing the insights of Meneto and Siedschlag (2020) as well as Villena-Manzanares and Souto-Pérez (2016). This synchrony is particularly salient when considering the landscape of increasingly complex global business dynamics, where innovation and adaptability are quintessential. R&D intensity, as a conduit of innovation and a harbinger of competitive differentiation, serves as a key driver that augments the relationship between corporate sustainability and export intensity. The partnership between sustainability-focused practices and strategic R&D investments becomes a compelling narrative for firms aspiring not only to navigate the challenges of international markets but to truly thrive within them.

Intriguingly, the results of Model 2 do more than merely affirm the relationship between corporate sustainability and export intensity. They unveil the dynamic transformation that unfolds when R&D intensity enters the equation. The positive coefficient elucidates that R&D intensity enhances the amplitude of corporate sustainability's influence on export intensity, suggesting that the innovative endeavors bolstered by R&D investments fortify the export-oriented outcomes of firms committed to sustainability. This synergy manifests as a pathway through which firms optimize their sustainable practices, utilizing the strategic impetus of R&D to amplify the traction of these practices in foreign markets.

In light of the intricate interplay between corporate sustainability and export intensity and the moderating role of R&D intensity, a crucial juncture emerges in our analysis: calculating marginal effects and predictions. This analytical step provides us with a dynamic lens through which to fathom the nuanced landscape of R&D intensity's moderating effect on the corporate sustainability–export intensity relationship.

Tobit models, acknowledged for their nonlinear nature, beckon the exploration of marginal effects and predictions to unravel the intricate nature of our findings. Through these calculated metrics, we unearth the mechanisms that underpin the influence of R&D intensity on the corporate sustainability–export intensity nexus. Figure 2, a visual representation of our derived insights, sheds light on the profound implications of R&D intensity's involvement in shaping the relationship between corporate sustainability and export intensity.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Marginal Effects: Predictive Margins of CS.

The insights unveiled in Figure 2 reverberate with strategic significance. It becomes abundantly clear that the positive correlation between corporate sustainability and export intensity gains enhanced momentum as R&D intensity escalates. In essence, the positive trajectory of the corporate sustainability–export intensity relationship assumes a fortified stance with increased R&D investment. This dynamic underscores the pivotal role of R&D intensity as a potent catalyst, amplifying the potency of sustainable practices in steering export-oriented outcomes. The intuitive narrative that unfolds is one of strategic alignment: firms that channel resources into research and innovation not only enhance their competitive standing through the augmentation of sustainability efforts but also harness the intensified influence of these efforts on their export intensity.

This synthesis of corporate sustainability and R&D intensity, as showcased in Figure 2, converges with the conceptual views put forth by Hultman, Katsikeas, and Robson (2011). As exporting firms traverse the complex terrains of international markets, their integration of sustainability practices morphs into a comprehensive strategy. This strategy, intricately woven with considerations of environmental and social factors of target markets, aligns with evolving consumer needs and anticipates future market requirements. The strategic synergy between sustainability considerations and R&D investments enhances firms’ navigational prowess, allowing them to chart courses that resonate with the evolving preferences and exigencies of diverse international stakeholders.

Finally, a glance at the control variables in our analysis unveils an interesting facet. Within the realm of our investigation, none of these variables emerges as a significant contributor. While this outcome does not dominate the spotlight, it serves as a reminder of the nuanced nature of the variables at play in the context of corporate sustainability, R&D intensity, and export intensity. It accentuates the importance of the prominent factors in our study—corporate sustainability and R&D intensity—as primary drivers shaping the export-oriented aspirations of firms.

Robustness Checks

Sample selection bias and endogeneity

To check the robustness of the Tobit regression results, we estimated the export intensity equation using Heckman's (1979) two-stage selection model, which is mainly designed to address endogeneity caused by the sample selection (Jean et al. 2016). Heckman states that sample selectivity occurs when the selection into the observed sample is not random. Thus, excluding nonexporters and estimating export intensity only with exporters may induce selectivity bias. Heckman proposes the sample selection model to correct the sample selection bias. To perform Heckman's two-stage selection model, we specified both a selection equation to estimate export propensity and a full equation to estimate export intensity for each model. A dummy variable indicating whether the firm was an exporter (0 = not exporter, 1 = exporter) was created before the start of the analysis.

Table 5 displays the estimation results. We accepted the null hypothesis of lambda = 0, indicating that the sample selection bias did not exist. This result shows that the decision to export and the export intensity can be estimated separately. In our robustness analysis, we found support for H₁ (Model 1, main equation). The result for our second hypothesis (H₂) is also consistent (Model 2, main equation), indicating the positive and significant moderating impact of RDI on the CS–EI relationship.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

Heckman's Two-Stage Model Results.

Variables	Model 1		Model 2
	Main Equation	Selection Equation	Main Equation	Selection Equation
CS	.131 (.066)*	−.364 (.364)	.02 (.07)	−.369 (.425)
RDI	−.013 (.011)	.011 (.049)	−.018 (.01)	.011 (.049)
MAR	−.004 (.002)	.008 (.011)	−.004 (.002)*	.008 (.011)
SIZE	−.015 (.016)	.164 (.063)*	−.013 (.015)	.164 (.063)*
LEV	.04 (.059)	−.285 (.196)	.028 (.054)	−.285 (.196)
AGE	−.002 (.001)	.001 (.006)	−.002 (.001)*	.001 (.006)
INTAGE	.002 (.018)	.112 (.028)**	.002 (.017)	.112 (.028)**
MULT	.001 (.04)	.039 (.235)	.018 (.037)	.039 (.236)
CS × RDI			.216 (.066)**	.011 (.43)
Constant	.679 (.374)	−1.465 (1.198)	.656 (.345)	−1.464 (1.198)
Industry dummies	Included	Included	Included	Included
Time dummies	Included	Included	Included	Included
Wald chi-square	17.64		31.62*
Number of observations	1,102		1,102
Lambda	−.526 (.605)		−.485 (.558)

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses.

The direct effect of RDI on EI is negative and insignificant in the main equations (Model 1 and Model 2). This negative but insignificant finding tends to emphasize further the mixed nature of the direct relationship between RDI and EI. Of the control variables, MAR is negative and significant only in the main equation (Model 2). This is in line with the findings of the prior studies (Lee and Griffith 2004; Singh 2009). This may be because marketing efforts usually focus on domestic markets (Benvignati 1990) and may not always be relevant to foreign markets, considering the difficulty of directly reaching out to a diverse set of foreign customers across many countries. Due to the limited resources, emerging market firms may not target overseas customers in their marketing campaigns. SIZE and INTAGE are positive and significant in selection equations (Model 1 and Model 2), indicating that the performance of a firm that internationalizes early is superior to that of one that internationalizes late. This finding is in line with the previous studies (e.g., Prashantham and Young 2011; Puig, González-Loureiro, and Ghauri 2014). Furthermore, firm size is important for export due to scale economies in production and a greater capacity to take risks due to internal diversification. Finally, AGE is negative and significant only in the main equation (Model 2). It is consistent with recent research (e.g., Dixon, Guariglia, and Vijayakumaran 2017). With the decentralization of foreign trade rights, young firms probably engage more in foreign sales markets.

Reverse causality and endogeneity

The reverse causality between independent and dependent variables may be led by endogeneity. To address simultaneity, many researchers choose explanatory variables with one or more years lagged (Jean et al. 2016). We make further attempts to reduce the effects of endogeneity on our regression estimates. Dong, Kokko, and Zhou (2022) recommend using lag values for all explanatory variables in dealing with various forms of endogeneity, including simultaneity, omitted variable bias, and a correlated error term. Reverse causality problems are associated with the possibility that export intensity may influence some firm-specific characteristics, causing estimation biases. Therefore, all the explanatory variables were lagged by one year. Table 6 displays the estimation results. We obtain similar results. The predicted value for CS in Model 1 (main equation) shows a positive and statistically significant relationship with EI, supporting H₁. The coefficient value of the interaction between CS and RDI in Model 2 (main equation) is also positive and statistically significant, supporting H₂. This indicates that our results are robust to endogeneity. Of the control variables, MAR is negative and significant in the main equations (Model 1 and Model 2). SIZE and INTAGE are positive and significant in selection equations (Model 1 and Model 2). Finally, AGE is negative and significant only in the main equation (Model 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 6.

Regression Results for Endogeneity.

Variables	Heckman's Two-Stage Model
	Model 1		Model 2
	Main Equation	Selection Equation	Main Equation	Selection Equation
CSt−1	.165 (.073)*	−.323 (.443)	.044 (.063)	−.272 (.538)
RDIt−1	−.005 (.013)	−.016 (.036)	−.011 (.01)	−.015 (.036)
MARt−1	−.005 (.003)*	.019 (.013)	−.005 (.002)**	.019 (.013)
SIZEt−1	−.025 (.02)	.238 (.07)**	−.02 (.015)	.238 (.07)**
LEVt−1	.042 (.061)	−.275 (.193)	.024 (.046)	−.274 (.193)
AGEt−1	−.002 (.001)	.001 (.006)	−.002 (.001)**	.001 (.006)
INTAGEt−1	.005 (.014)	.08 (.031)**	.007 (.01)	.08 (.031)**
MULTt−1	.005 (.044)	.004 (.244)	.021 (.033)	0 (.244)
CSt−1 × RDIt−1			.215 (.058)**	−.087 (.492)
Constant	.851 (.43)*	−2.822 (1.297)	.755 (.322)*	−2.829 (1.299)*
Industry dummies	Included	Included	Included	Included
Time dummies	Included	Included	Included	Included
Number of observations	962	962	962	962
Wald chi-square	16.58		42.90**
Lambda	−.54 (.518)	−.54 (.518)	−.403 (.387)	−.403 (.387)

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses.

Post Hoc Analysis Using Additional Data

To check the robustness of our results, we tested whether our findings were sensitive to an alternative measure of corporate sustainability. In so doing, we obtained data from Thomson Reuters DataStream. Thomson Reuters provides ESG scores for three main pillars of corporate sustainability: environment, social, and governance. Environmental performance was measured by the environmental pillar score (EPS), social performance was measured by the social pillar score (SPS), and corporate governance performance was measured by the governance pillar score (GPS). The inclusion of ESG scores as an alternative measure of corporate sustainability is also in line with recently growing yet quite nascent research on ESG issues in IB (e.g., Ferrell 2021; Paolone et al. 2022) that underscores ESG pillars as important and complementary pillars of corporate sustainability across different contexts and marketing domains.

The subsample having ESG scores covers 110 observations from 23 firms. Note that this subsample represents 67% of the total market capitalization of the firms listed on the BIST Industrials Index and thus provides a highly satisfactory level of representation. By using this subsample, we conducted an unbalanced panel data analysis. Since all values of our dependent variable (i.e., EI) are nonzero, we relied on linear regression techniques (ordinary least squares) to model the relationship between CS and EI. Table 7 provides a summary of the descriptive statistics and the correlation matrix.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 7.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix for the Subsample.

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. EI	.37	.23	1
2. EPS	58.31	24.97	.48*	1
3. SPS	62.62	23.37	.36*	.81*	1
4. GPS	53.55	21.00	.37*	.53*	.33*	1
5. RDI	.59	1.07	.10	−.21*	−.29*	−.26*	1
6. MAR	7.16	7.52	.29*	.42*	.41*	.20*	−.02	1
7. SIZE	23.21	.98	.03	.36*	.32*	.19*	−.22*	.05	1
8. LEV	.62	.16	.46*	.34*	.40*	.10	−.14	.23*	−.08	1
9. AGE	49.92	15.67	−.00	.09	.04	.10	.07	−.01	−.19*	.18	1
10. INTAGE	10.07	2.11	−.01	.04	.17	−.04	.16	−.13	.07	.08	.06	1
11. MULT	.47	.50	.25*	.01	−.08	.13	−.23*	.05	.11	−.17	−.10	−.22*	1

*p < .05.

Notes: N = 23.

We first conducted a fixed-effects model and an F-test to estimate the regression model and see if any firm-specific attributes exist. The results showed that the pooled ordinary least squares model could not be used. Next, we employed Hausman’s (1978) test. The result indicated that the fixed-effects model is better than the random-effects model. Before the analysis, we first tested whether the assumptions of the regression model were violated. Breusch and Pagan's (1980) test was utilized for heteroskedasticity, and the Durbin–Watson test was used for autocorrelation. The test results show that the panel exhibits autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity. Therefore, we estimated a model with Driscoll and Kraay's (1998) standard errors.

In all models, all the explanatory variables are lagged by one year to control for possible simultaneity bias and potential endogeneity (Aitken and Harrison 1999; Dong, Kokko, and Zhou 2022). The R&D intensity is lagged by two years as R&D projects may require more time before they lead to innovative results (Filipescu et al. 2013; Hall et al. 2016). It may take longer for firms to realize efficiency gains derived from R&D intensity. Thus, it is reasonable to expect some lagged relationship between R&D intensity and export intensity (Dong, Kokko, and Zhou 2022; Sandu and Ciocanel 2014).

The regression results are reported in Table 8. Model 1 shows that the EPS dimension of corporate sustainability has a positive and significant effect on EI, lending additional support to H₁. In addition, RDI has a positive and significant moderating impact on the CS–EI relationship, further supporting H₂. These findings indicate that our results are similar to the environmental pillar of corporate sustainability, providing strong evidence for the role of environmental performance in countries’ efforts to improve global competitiveness in international trade-related activities. Therefore, emerging market firms firmly committed to climate change mitigation activities with clear carbon reduction targets are more likely to succeed in their export endeavors. This result aligns with the findings of previous studies (e.g., Blyde and Ramirez 2021; Doganay, Sayek, and Taskın 2014). Models 2 and 3 in Table 8 indicate that SPS and GPS dimensions of corporate sustainability have a positive but insignificant effect on EI, failing to provide further support for H₁. The coefficient values for the interaction between CS and RDI for SPS (Model 2) and GPS (Model 3) are also positive but insignificant, again failing to provide additional support for H₂. Of the control variables, MAR is negative and significant, whereas LEV is positive and significant. Thus, the results of the post hoc analysis using additional data show that the environmental dimension of corporate sustainability is the most important pillar for improving export intensity for emerging market firms expanding into foreign markets. This is probably due to the more tangible nature of environmental outcomes and their immediate relevance to customers and stakeholders abroad (Gölgeci, Makhmadshoev, and Demirbag 2021) rather than social and governance dimensions, which are likely to be relatively more localized and intangible.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 8.

Regression Results for the Subsample.

Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
	Environmental Pillar Score (CS = EPS)	Social Pillar Score (CS = SPS)	Governance Pillar Score (CS = GPS)
CSt−1	.001 (.000)**	.000 (.000)	.000 (.000)
RDIt−2	−.006 (.006)	.016 (.008)	−.019 (.011)
MARt−1	−.017 (.004)**	−.018 (.006)*	−.022 (.006)*
SIZEt−1	.069 (.037)	.073 (.033)	.104 (.06)
LEVt−1	.534 (.051)**	.498 (.035)**	.507 (.034)**
AGEt−1	−.035 (.02)	−.035 (.018)	−.051 (.032)
INTAGEt−1	.019 (.012)	.022 (.009)	.034 (.019)
MULTt−1	Omitted	Omitted	Omitted
CSt−1 × RDIt−2	.001 (.0002)*	.000 (.001)	.001 (.001)
Constant	Omitted	Omitted	Omitted
Industry dummies	Included	Included	Included
Time dummies	Included	Included	Included
Number of observations	67	64	64
R2	.51	.46	.48
F(11, 5)	156.94	313.53	2,827.02

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses.

Theoretical Implications

This study offers important implications for theory and adds to the growing research on corporate sustainability in the IB field (Becker-Olsen et al. 2011; Bıçakcıoğlu, Theoharakis, and Tanyeri 2020; Leonidou et al. 2015; Zeriti et al. 2014). Based on the longitudinal analysis of panel data of 141 Turkish exporting firms listed on the BIST Industrials Index, our findings indicate that export intensity increasingly depends on the successful development and implementation of corporate sustainability at home and abroad. Thus, especially in the context of emerging markets, the corporate sustainability imperative is an increasingly visible and profound factor for operating successfully in foreign markets. This impact is prominent even after accounting for the relevant factors of marketing intensity, international experience, leverage, and MNC affiliation, highlighting that corporate sustainability has a distinct and significant impact on export intensity. Our study bridges and advances sustainability and IB research by establishing a positive link between corporate sustainability and export intensity grounded in an objective and longitudinal analysis. The intersection of corporate sustainability and IB is an intricate tapestry, weaving together strategic management, environmental consciousness, and global expansion. Our study brings the RBV and stakeholder theory to life, offering a canvas where these theoretical perspectives converge and flourish. The fundamental tenets of RBV (Barney 1991) and its offshoot, natural-RBV (Hart and Dowell 2011), regarding the importance of the resource-based and sustainability-conscious perspective of the firm for export intensity in international markets find resonance in our findings. The positive link between corporate sustainability and export intensity echoes RBV's core assertion that when harnessed effectively, resources lead to competitive advantage. Corporate sustainability, in our context, emerges as a unique and valuable resource that not only improves firms’ international competitiveness but also highlights the dynamic nature of competitive advantage. Firms that channel resources into sustainable practices not only address societal and environmental concerns but also carve out a niche in the international market, bolstered by the goodwill and trust they foster among diverse stakeholders.

Stakeholder theory, which emphasizes the multifaceted interplay between a firm and its stakeholders, finds empirical validation in our study. As stakeholders’ expectations evolve to include sustainability considerations, firms are compelled to align their strategies with these expectations to thrive in the global marketplace. The link between environmental performance and export intensity underscores that firms aligning with sustainability principles transcend traditional borders, resonating with an increasingly conscientious consumer base and attracting ethically oriented investors. Our findings underscore that firms that adopt a holistic perspective, recognizing stakeholders as critical enablers of success, are poised to excel in international expansion efforts.

Furthermore, the moderating role of R&D intensity shows that the effect of corporate sustainability on export intensity is contingent on R&D and the ensuing innovation that R&D intensity generates and that R&D intensity is critical for effectively leveraging corporate sustainability to succeed in foreign markets. Indeed, R&D can be an instrumental means of tackling customers’ and stakeholders’ demands for sustainability abroad and help realize the potential of corporate sustainability to tackle sustainability challenges and achieve greater export intensity. Thus, our research incorporates innovation-related insights into environmental and social sustainability in IB (Bıçakcıoğlu, Theoharakis, and Tanyeri 2020; Leonidou et al. 2015; Zeriti et al. 2014) and highlights the critical role of the marketing–innovation interface (Azar and Ciabuschi 2017; Filipescu et al. 2013; Mariadoss, Tansuhaj, and Mouri 2011) for better implementation of corporate sustainability in foreign markets. It also shows the boundary conditions of corporate sustainability in relation to IB and indicates that firms need higher levels of R&D not only to develop better products and services but also to optimize their leverage of corporate sustainability, especially its environmental dimension, abroad. Thus, our research highlights the imperative for the simultaneous integration of corporate sustainability and R&D intensity to better serve foreign customers’ broadening needs, which increasingly comprise environmental and social concerns, and to enhance export intensity. In particular, the significant link between environmental performance and export intensity and the significant moderating role of R&D intensity in that link highlight that the environmental performance of emerging market firms matters more in foreign markets than their social and governance performance. This finding contributes to nascent research on ESG issues in IB (Ferrell 2021; Paolone et al. 2022) and stresses the particular relevance of the environmental dimension in emerging markets.

Practical Implications

This study also yields valuable insights for practitioners. The results encourage Turkish firms to engage in more sustainability activities and consider R&D efforts as a potential source of improvement in their export intensity. Therefore, Turkish firms should expend more effort on implementing these practices in a rapidly changing environment and must understand the conditions under which different kinds of product differentiation may influence export intensity in different countries. Hence, they should focus on specific market segments and countries and tailor their corporate sustainability and R&D resources to produce fruitful outcomes. Furthermore, the results imply that since consumers in developed countries have higher valuations for environmental matters than consumers in emerging markets, exporters targeting developed markets should particularly improve environmental performance to enhance their export intensity.

The findings also have implications for the sustainability and IB literature. First, sustainability and R&D are essential drivers of export intensity. The significant positive effect of sustainability and the moderating effect of R&D intensity on export intensity constitute a new finding, particularly in an emerging market. Second, sustainability activities and R&D intensity help build reputation, trust, and awareness in the eyes of customers in international markets, which may eventually take several years to become effective due to the time lag between product ideas, development, and product launch. Hence, fostering environmental and social practices and the corresponding R&D efforts could build trust in the relationship with the target market stakeholders and improve export intensity.

Limitations and Future Research

We acknowledge several limitations in our study that offer avenues for improvement and future exploration. First, our study's focus on a single country, albeit valuable for in-depth analysis, limits the generalizability of our findings. Extending this research to encompass a broader array of emerging markets, each with distinct sociocultural, economic, environmental, and legal dynamics, would enhance the external validity of our results.

Second, our investigation centered on the connection between sustainability and export intensity while considering only one moderating antecedent, R&D intensity. Future research endeavors could enrich our understanding by incorporating additional intangible antecedents, thereby delving deeper into the intricate relationship between sustainability practices and various aspects of international trade, such as global partnerships and management within global value chains.

Moreover, the diversity of industries represented in our study, although providing a comprehensive perspective, prevents us from capturing potential industry-specific attributes that could yield valuable insights into the relationship between corporate sustainability and export intensity. Future research endeavors could focus on specific industries, acknowledging the unique environmental and social attributes that might influence the export intensity dynamics within each sector.

Finally, in our study, as noted previously, we adopted a binary variable to gauge corporate sustainability. We acknowledge that this simplified approach may not encompass the full spectrum of corporate sustainability practices and could potentially overlook nuances within firms’ sustainability initiatives. We concur that the choice of a binary variable presents a limitation in terms of the depth and granularity of corporate sustainability measurement. Although we opted for this approach due to the inclusion of firms scrutinized by Vigeo EIRIS, an international rating agency, it is important to recognize that this may not capture the entire landscape of sustainability efforts undertaken by firms. Future research could explore more comprehensive measures for assessing corporate sustainability to provide a more nuanced understanding of its impact on export intensity.