Analysis on Moderator Effect of Environmental Factors in The Relationships Among Entrepreneurial Orientation, Innovation Capacity and Financial Performance

Öz

The aim of the study is to conduct research on the moderator effects of environmental factors on the relationships among entrepreneurial orientation, innovation capacity, and financial performance. From this perspective, the main objective of the levels of the study is to investigate the relationship of the dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation; “innovation, proactivity and risk-taking” with innovation capacity and financial performance, and to reveal the moderator effects of environmental dynamism and environmental competition on these relationships. The population of the research for this purpose is constituted by Türkiye’s production centers in Istanbul and Kocaeli regions. The sample of the study, however, consists of 210 executives of the companies with an R&D center and 50 or more employees determined by the judgmental sampling method. The survey questionnaire technique is used to obtain the data due to its superior data analysis features. The structural equation model was used to test the framed hypotheses. Both SPSS and SmartPLS3 software are utilized in the analysis of the data obtained collected by courtesy of the survey questionnaires. According to the analysis results; it is determined that entrepreneurial orientation has an effect on the innovation capacity. Nevertheless, no significant effects of entrepreneurial orientation and innovation capacity on financial performance are detected. It is asserted that the moderator effects of environmental factors on the relationship among entrepreneurial orientation, innovation capacity, and financial performance, which constitute the main objective of the study, are not statistically significant.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Entrepreneurial Orientation
• Innovation Capacity
• Financial Performance
• Moderator Variable.
• SmartPLS

Girişimcilik Yönelimi, İnovasyon Kapasitesi ve Finansal Performans Arasındaki İlişkide Çevresel Faktörlerin Moderatör Etkileri Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Öz

Çalışmanın amacı girişimcilik yönelimi, inovasyon kapasitesi ve finansal performans arasındaki ilişkide çevresel faktörlerin moderatör etkileri üzerine bir araştırma yapmaktır. Bu noktadan hareketle çalışmanın asıl amacı, girişimcilik yönelimi boyutları; “yenilikçilik, proaktiflik ve risk alma” ile inovasyon kapasitesi ve finansal performans kavramları arasındaki ilişki düzeylerini tespit etmek ve bu ilişkide çevresel dinamizm ve çevresel rekabet gücünün moderatör etkisini ortaya koymaktır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda çalışmanın evrenini Türkiye’nin üretim merkezlerinden İstanbul ve Kocaeli bölgesi oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmanın örneklemini ise 50 ve üzeri çalışanı ile AR-GE merkezi olan kasıtlı örneklem yöntemiyle belirlenmiş 210 firma yöneticisi oluşturmaktadır. Verilerin elde edilmesinde üstün veri analizi sunma özelliklerinden dolayı anket tekniği kullanılmıştır. Anketler sonucu elde edilen verilerin analizinde SPSS ve SmartPLS3 programlarından yararlanılmıştır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre; girişimcilik yöneliminin inovasyon kapasitesi üzerinde etkili olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ancak girişimcilik yöneliminin ve inovasyon kapasitesinin finansal performans üzerinde anlamlı herhangi bir etkisi tespit edilememiştir. Çalışmanın asıl amacını oluşturan, girişimcilik yönelimi, inovasyon kapasitesi ve finansal performans arasındaki ilişkide çevresel faktörlerin moderatör etkilerinin de istatistiki olarak anlamlı olmadığı tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Girişimcilik Yönelimi
• İnovasyon Kapasitesi
• Finansal Performans
• Moderatör Değişken.
• SmartPLS

Kaynakça

1. Ağca, V. and Kandemir, T. (2008). Entrepreneurship-financial performance relationship in family firms: a research in Afyonkarahisar, Journal of Social Sciences, X(3), 210-230.
2. Aini, E.K., Shen, D.C.L., Musdaieq, M.A. and Handayani, S.R. (2013). The role of innovation capability on business performance at small-medium enterprises, Jurnal Profit, 7(1), 101-112.
3. Alam, S.S., Arumugam, V., Nor, N.G.M., Kaliappan, P. and Fang, L.S. (2013). Relationships between innovation capabilities, business performance, marketing performance and financial performance: A literature review, Business and Management Horizons, 1(1): 59-73. https://doi.org/10.5296/bmh.v1i1.3415
4. Ali, Y.S.A. (2017). Entrepreneur orientation and firms performance: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research, 1(5), 425-447.
5. Alpkan, L., Ergün, E., Bulut, Ç. and Yılmaz, C. (2005). Şirket girişimciliğinin şirket performansına etkileri, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 6(2), 175-189.
6. Altuntaş, G. and Dönmez, D. (2010). The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance: Evidence from the hotel industry in Çanakkale Region. Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Business, 39(1), 50-74.
7. Aminu, M.İ. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation and financial performance of simple firms in Nigeria. Sokoto Journal of Management Studies, 10(1), 1-15.
8. Aras, G., Tezcan, N., Kutlu Furtuna, Ö. and Aybars, A. (2014). Firmaların AR-GE ve inovasyon performanslarının stratejik analizi. Yayın No: 2014-10, İstanbul Ticaret Odası, İstanbul.

9. Atalay, M., Anafarta, N. and Sarvan, F. (2013). The relationship between innovation and firm performance: An empirical evidence from Turkish automotive supplier industry. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 75, 226-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.026
10. Ayaydın, H. and Karaaslan, İ. (2016). The influence of capital structure and intangible resourches on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm growth: The example of TR90. Int. Journal of Management Economics and Business, ICAFR 16 Special Issue: 506-518.
11. Bulut, Ç., Yılmaz, C. and Alpkan, L. (2009). The effects of market orientation dimensions on firm performance. Ege Academic Review, 9(2), 513-538.
12. Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961). The management of innovation, tavistock, London. Business Week (1994), The Information Revolution (Special Issue), May.
13. Casillas, J.C., Moreno, A.M. and Barbero, J.L. (2010). A configurational approach of the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and growth of family firms. Family Business Review, 23(1), 27- 44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486509345159
14. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis fort the Behavioral Sciences. Second Edition, Lawrence Erlbaum. Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16, 7-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879101600102
15. Dadfar, H., Dahlgaard, J.J., Brege, S. and Alamirhoor, A. (2013). Linkage between organizational innovation capability, product platform development and performance-The case of pharmaceutical SMEs in Iran, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 24(7-8), 819-834. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14783363.2013.791102
16. Demir, H. and Okan, T. (2009). A research on the relationship among technology, organizational structure and performance, Dogus University Journal, 10(1), 57-72.
17. Dogan, D. (2019). Data Analysis with SmartPLS, (2nd edition), ZET Publications, Ankara.
18. Etriya, E., Scholten, V., Wubben, E. and Omta, O. (2012). Exploring factors related to entrepreneurial orientation and innovation capacity of farm-firms: A lesson from vegetable farmers in West Java, Indonesia. https://pdfs.semanticscholarorg/b036/b2baa4d8c838060cf6624e6d433f06347d24.pdf, available at.
19. Filser, M. and Eggers, F. (2014). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: A comparative study of Austria, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland, South African Journal of Business Management, 45(1), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v45i1.117
20. Garson, G. D. (2016). Partial Least Squares: Regression and Structural Equation Models. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Associates Publishers.
21. Guan, J. & Ma, N. (2003). Innovative capability and export performance of Chinese firms, Technovation, 23, 737-747. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00013-5
22. Gürbüz, S. (2019). Mediator, Regulatory and Situational Impact Analysis in Social Sciences, Seçkin, Ankara.
23. Gürbüz, S., Maraşlı, F. and Costigan, R. (2018). Between Personality and Emotional Commitment Exploring the Mechanism: The basic self-evaluation and situational of emotional the role of intermediation. 6th Organizational Behavior Congress , 2-3 Kasım, Isparta.
24. Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M and Gudergan, S.P. (2018). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks.
25. Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M and Sarstedt, M. (2014). A Primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), (Second Edition), Los Angeles: Sage Publication.
26. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-Sem: Indeed a silver bullet, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-151. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
27. Hameed, I. and Ali, B. (2011). Impact of entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial management and environmental dynamism on firm’s financial performance, Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 3(2), 101-114. https://doi.org/10.22610/jebs.v3i2.260
28. Hayes, A.F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach, (2nd Edition). New York: The Guilford Press.
29. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., and Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing, In Advances in International Marketing, 20, 277-319. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014
30. Jayaram, J., Oke, A. and Prajogo, D. (2014). The antecedents and consequences of product and process innovation strategy implementation in Australian manufacturing firms, International Journal of Production Research, 52(15), 4424-4439. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013. 849363
31. Jiao, H., Alon, I. and Cui, Y. (2011). Environmental dynamism, innovation, and dynamic capabilities: the case of China, Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 5(2), 131-144. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506201111131550
32. Kamatra, N. and Kartikaningdyah, E. 2015. Effect corporate social responsibility on financial performance. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 5(Special Issue): 157-164.
33. Kee, D.M.H. and Rahman, N.A. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation, innovation and SME performance: A study of SME in Malaysia using PLS-SEM. 3rd International Conference on Advanced Research in Business and Social Sciences, 29th to 30th March, Malaysia.
34. Kemelgor, B.H. (2002). A comparative analysis of corporate entrepreneurial orientation between selected firms in the Netherlands and the USA, Entrepreneurship Regional Development, 14(1), 67-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620110087023
35. Koe, W.L. (2013). Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and performance of government-linked companies (GLCs), Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 9(3), 21-41.
36. Koellinger, P. (2008). The relationship between technology, innovation, and firm performance-Empirical evidence from e-business in Europe, Research Policy, 37, 1317-1328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.024
37. Kolaric, B. and Mitrovica, S. (2013). Relationship between organizational design and innovation processes Serbian publıc companies, (JPMNT) Journal of Process Management – New Technologies, International, 1(2), 102-109.
38. Kraus, S., Rigtering, J.P.C., Hughes, M. and Hosman, V. (2012). Entrepreneurial orientation and the business performance of SMEs: a quantitative study from the Netherlands. Rev Manag Sci, 6, 161-182. doi. 10.1007/s11846-011-0062-9
39. Lakhwani, V.M., Tiwari, S. and Jauharı, S. (2017). Mergers and acquisitions’ impact on financial performance: An evaluation with the perspective of time, J Fundam Appl Sci. 9(5), 945-957.http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ jfas.v9i5 s.67
40. Lawrence, P.R. & Lorsch, J.W. 1967. Organization and environment. Harvard University, Boston, MA.
41. Li, L., Jiang, F., Pei, Y and Jiang, Nengqian. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation and strategic alliance success: The contingency role of relational factors, Journal of Business Research, 72, 46-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2016.11.011
42. Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle, Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429-451. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00048-3
43. Marques, C.S. and Ferreira, J. (2009). SME innovative capacity, competitive advantage, and performance in a ‘traditional’ industrial region of Portugal, J. Technol. Manag. Innov., 4(4), 53-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242009000400005
44. Mason, M. C., Floreani, J., Miani, S., Beltrame, F. & Cappelletto, R. (2015). Understanding the impact of entrepreneurial orientation on SMEs performance, The role of the financing structure. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 1649-1661. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00470-0
45. Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770-791.https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770
46. Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1983). Strategy-making and environment: the third link, Strategic Management Journal, 4(3), 221-35. https://doi.org/ 10. 1002/smj.4250040304
47. Milovanovic, B.M and Wittine, Z. (2014). Analysis of external environment’s moderating role on the entrepreneurial orientation and business performance relationship among Italian small enterprises, International Journal of Trade, Economics, and Finance, 5(3), 224-229. doi: 10.7763/IJTEF.2014.V5.375
48. Mukarutesi, D. (2018). The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation, government policy, and SME performance: The case of small and medium enterprises in Rwanda. East Africa Research Papers in Business, Entrepreneurship, and Management, EARP-BEM No:10.
49. Muller, D., Jud, C.M. and Yzerbyt, V.Y. (2005). When Mediation is Moderated and Moderation is Mediated, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852-863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852
50. Muzaffar, H. (2011). The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation, dynamic capabilities, and firm performance. [Unpublished Ph.D.], Ankara University.
51. Naala, M. N.I., Nordin, N.B. and Omar, W.A.B.W. (2017). Innovation capability and firm performance relationship: A study of Pls-Structural equation modeling (Pls-Sem). International Journal of Organization & Business Excellence, 2(1), 39-49.
52. Noor, N.A.M. and Aljanabi, A.Q.R.A. (2015). The mediating role of absorptive capacity on its relation between entrepreneurial orientation and technological innovation capabilities. International Journal of Business Administration and Management Research, 1(3), 15-20. doi:10.5539/ass. v11n5p219
53. Nunnally, J.C. 1967. Psychometric theory, NY, US: McGraw-Hill, New York.
54. Omar, N.A. Aris, H.M. and Nazri, M.A. (2016). The Effect of entrepreneurial orientation, innovation capability and knowledge creation on firm performance: A perspective on small scale entrepreneurs, Jurnal Pengurusan, 48, 187-200.
55. Oura, M., Zilber, S.N. and Lopes, E.L. (2016). Innovation capacity, international experience, and export performance of SMEs in Brazil, International Business Review, 25, 921-932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ibusrev. 2015.12.002
56. Öncü, M. A., Bayat, M., Kethüda, Ö. and Zengin, E. (2015).The effect of the innovation and customer performances on financial performance: A research on medium-sized enterprises, Marmara University İ.İ.B. Journal, XXXVII(I), 149-164. https://doi.org/10.14780/iibd.19898
57. Özer, Ö. (2011). The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance: An implementation in four and five-star hotels, [Unpublished Ph.D.], Dokuz Eylül University.
58. Özer, Ö., Yılmaz, B.S. and Avcı, U. (2017). The Effect of Corporate Entrepreneurship on Hotel Performance: An Investigation in Turkish Hotel Industry. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 6(2), 25-49.
59. Ozsomer, A., Calantone, R.J. and Benedetto, A.D. (1997). What makes firms more innovative? A look at organizational and environmental factors, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 12(6), 400-416.https://doi.org/ 10.1108/08858629710190259
60. Petrovic, Z., Vukotic, S., Anicic, J. and Zakic, N. (2015). Moderating effect of national culture on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An evidence from Serbia. (JPMNT) Journal of Process Management-New Technologies, International, 3(4), 84-89.
61. Platin, N. and Ergün, H.S. (2017). The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and performance; Evidence from Turkish SMEs. Business and Management Studies 3(2), 78-89. https://doi.org/10.11114/bms.v3i2.2408
62. Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D. and Hayes, A.F. (2007). Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods and Prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00273170701341316
63. President’s Commission on industrial competitiveness 1985. Report of the President’s Commission on Industrial Competitiveness, Washington.
64. Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G.T. and Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761-787. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00308.x
65. Resmi, S.I., Begum, N.N. and Hassan, M.M. (2018). Impact of CSR on firm’s financial performance: A study on some selected agribusiness industries of Bangladesh. American Journal of Economics, Finance, and Management, 4(3), 74-85.
66. Rezaei, J. and Ortt, R. (2018). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: the mediating role of functional performances, Management Research Review, 41(7), 878-900. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2017-0092
67. Ribau, C.P., Moreira, A.C. and Raposo, M. (2017). SMEs innovation capabilities and export performance: An entrepreneurial orientation view, Journal of Business Economics and Management, 18(5), 920-934. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2017.1352534
68. Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Hair, J.F. (2017). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. Handbook of Market Research, 1-40.
69. Schilke, O. (2014). On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism, Strategic Management Journal, 35, 179-203. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/smj.2099
70. Solmaztürk, A.B. and Dündar, G. (2018). The impact of entrepreneurial orientation on the career anchors, the role of perceived organizational support in this correlation. International Journal of Disciplines Economics & Administrative Sciences Studies, 4(7), 64-86.
71. Sözüer, A. (2016). Inter-firm relationship quality in international trade: A study on the relationships between exporters in Turkey and their customers abroad, [Unpublished Ph.D.], Istanbul University.
72. Tajeddini, K. and Mueller, S. (2018). Moderating effect of environmental dynamism on the relationship between a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation and financial performance, Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 9(4), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2018-0283
73. Talaja, A. (2013). Innovative capabilities, firm performance and foreign ownership: Empirical analysis of large and medium-sized companies form all industries. BEH- Business and Economic Horizons 9(3), 69-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.15208/beh.2013.14
74. Varian, H. (2005). Bootstrap tutorial. The Mathematica Journal 9(4), 768-775.
75. Vu, H.N. (2017). Relationships between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The role of family involvement amongst small firms in Vietnam. [Unpublished Ph.D.], Thesis, Management at Massey University.
76. Wang, C., Lu, I. and Chen, C. (2008). Evaluating firm technological innovation capability under uncertainty, Technovation, 28(6), 349-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.10.007
77. Wiklund, J. (1999). The sustainability of the entrepreneurial orientation-performance relationship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24, 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879902400103
78. Wiklund, J. and Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 71-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.01.001
79. Yuan, X., Shin, S., He, X. and Kim, S.Y. (2016). Innovation capability, marketing capability, and firm performance: A two-nation study of China and Korea, Asian Business & Management 15(15), 32-56. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1057/abm.2015.17
80. Zahra, S.A. and Garvis, D.M. (2000). International corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance: The moderating effect of international environmental hostility. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6), 469-492. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00036-1
81. Zahra, S.A. and Covin, J.G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis, Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)00004-E
82. Zahra, S.A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study, Journal of Business Venturing, 62(4), 59-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(91)90019-A
83. Zhang, M.J. (2006). IS support for strategic flexibility, environmental dynamism, and firm performance, Journal of Managerial Issues 18(1), 84-103.