Coopetition and the marketing/entrepreneurship interface in an international arena
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Guided by resource-based theory, this study unpacks the relationship between an export entrepreneurial marketing orientation (EMO) and export performance. This is undertaken by investigating quadratic effects and the moderating role of export coopetition (cooperation amongst competitors in an international arena). Design/methodology/approach Survey responses were collected from a sample of 282 smaller-sized wine producers in Italy. This empirical context was ideal, as it hosted varying degrees of the constructs within the conceptual model. Put another way, it was suitable to test the underlying issues for theorising purposes. The hypotheses and control paths were tested through a three-step hierarchical regression analysis. Findings An export EMO had a non-linear (inverted U-shaped) association with export performance. Furthermore, this link was positively moderated by export coopetition. With too little of an export EMO, small enterprises might struggle to create value for their overseas customers. With too much of an export EMO, owner-managers could experience harmful performance outcomes. By cooperating with appropriate industry rivals, small companies can acquire new resources, capabilities and opportunities to help them to boost their export performance. That is, export coopetition can stabilise some of the potential dangers of employing an export EMO. Originality/value The empirical findings signified that an export EMO has potential dark-sides if these firm-wide behaviours are not implemented effectively. Nevertheless, cooperating with competitors in export markets can alleviate some of these concerns. Collectively, unique insights have emerged, whereby entrepreneurs are advantaged by being strategically flexible and collaborating with appropriate key stakeholders to enhance their export performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".