Antecedentsand Consequencesof

Firms’ Export Commitment: An

Empirical Study
Antonio Navarro, Francisco J. Acedo , Matthew J. Robson ,
Emilio Ruzo, and Fernando Losada

ABSTR ACT
Theory posits that export commitment is key to the effective implementation of resource-led strateg y. The authors
investigate the role of export commitment, considered a multidimensional construct, in linking export resources and
capabilities to positional advantages achieved in foreign markets. They test their resource-based view assertions among a
multi-industry sample of 150 Spanish exporters. The results show that experiential resources, specific export capabili-
ties, and export market orientation (EMO) reinforce export commitment, which exerts a positive effect on perceived
positional advantages. These perceptions also are likely to be positive if the firm adapts its marketing mix to the needs
of its foreign markets. Moreover, the results show that EMO exerts a positive influence on marketing-mix adaptation.
Resources linked to experience and informational knowledge about foreign markets foster the development of capabili-
ties (i.e., specific export capabilities and/or EMO). Finally, the results indicate that specific export capabilities influence
EMO. The authors conclude with a discussion of practical implications for facilitating export competitive strategy and
success.

Keywords: export commitment, perceived positional advantages, adaptation of marketing strategy, export market
orientation, specific export capabilities, export resources, dynamic capabilities view

E
xporting is the basic entry mode into foreign
markets, and traditionally, this field has generated
great managerial and scholarly interest. Internal drivers
of export outcomes have received the bulk of research
attention because they are the primary control
Antonio Navarro is Associate Professor of Marketing and
Market Research (e-mail: anavarro@us.es), and F rancisco
J. A ce do is Associate Professor of Strategic Management
(e-mail: fjacedo@us.es), Business Management Faculty,
University of Sevilla.
Matthew J. Robson is Professor of Marketing, Leeds Uni-
versity Business School, University of Leeds (e-mail:
M.J.Robson@lubs.leeds.ac.uk).
Emilio Ruzo is Associate Professor of Marketing and Market
Research (e-mail: emilio.ruzo@usc.es), danFernando Losad a
is Associate Professor of Marketing and Market Research
(e-mail: fernando.losada@usc.es), Business Management
Faculty of Lugo, University of Santiago.
management exercises. Indeed, the literature treats
management attitudes as malleable elements that can
foster the progress of the company in its export
market operations (Lages, Jap, and Griffith 2008).
Among these attitudes, Aaby and Slater’s (1989) and
Zou and Stan’s (1998) reviews give a main role to
export commitment. The public policy implications of
export commitment are understood. By assessing
firms’ levels of export commitment, national govern-
ments can identify appropriate forms of assistance (e.g.,
educational programs focusing on the attractiveness of
exporting, funding to go to international trade fairs)
(Singer and Czinkota 1994).
Journal of International Marketing
©2010, American Marketing Association
Vol. 18, No. 3, 2010, pp. 41–61
ISSN 1069-0031X (print) 1547-7215 (electronic)
Firms’ Export Commitment 41
Inspection of the exporting literature reveals studies
(e.g., Beamish et al. 1999; Styles and Ambler 2000) that
theorize that export commitment is a direct antecedent
of performance. However, prior research has concen-
trated on the role of strategy in general and marketing
program adaptation/standardization in particular in
leading to export performance outcomes (Hultman,
Robson, and Katsikeas 2009; Sousa, Martinez-Ló pez,
and Coelho 2008). In line with the influential structure–
conduct–performance framing, several studies (e.g.,
Lages, Jap, and Griffith 2008; Lages and Montgomery
2004; Naidu and Prasad 1994; O’Cass and Julian 2003)
treat export commitment as an antecedent or contin-
gency factor that affects international marketing
strategy, which in turn determines performance.
Exporters could be forgiven for finding it easier to for-
mulate strategies that outline how they intend to achieve
their goals than to implement strategies using appropri-
ating mechanisms (Beamish et al. 1999; Vorhies and
Morgan 2003).
Using the resource-based view (RBV), we theorize a
central role for export commitment in the effective
implementation of resource-led strategy. Export com-
mitment is defined as the willingness of a firm’s manage-
ment to devote adequate financial, managerial, and
human resources to exporting activities (Donthu
and Kim 1993). Our study makes three main contribu-
tions. First, prior work has found that export commit-
ment increases the likelihood of success in foreign mar-
kets. However, this work assumes a direct link with
performance outcomes, and as yet, studies have not
linked export commitment to positional advantage
in export markets. Our RBV framing is the first to
stipulate this.
Second, the study is novel in investigating the role
of export commitment, alongside marketing-mix
adaptation, in mediating the relationships of resources
(scale, experiential, structural, and informational) and
capabilities (specific export capabilities and export
market orientation [EMO]) with perceived positional
advantages. Previous studies (Cavusgil and Zou 1994;
Zou and Stan 1998) have explained that managers
committed to exporting carefully plan the entry and
allocate sufficient managerial and nonmanagerial
resources to their export ventures. This means that
resource strategy can be implemented effectively. Such
an implementation-related performance effect comple-
ments the formulation-related outcomes of marketing-
mix adaptation frequently observed in the exporting
literature.
42 Journal of International Marketing
Third, we develop a multidimensional conceptualization
of export commitment that takes into account current
and anticipated commitment levels. Existing conceptu-
alizations emphasize export venture planning and
resource levels within unidimensional measurements.
With few exceptions—such as O’Cass and Julian’s
(2003) measure, which includes an item on resources
available for export development—previous studies
have concentrated on current commitment. Notwith-
standing the importance of current behavioral commit-
ments, the commitment literature (e.g., Kim and Frazier
1997) has also highlighted the importance of the stabil-
ity of attitudinal commitment sentiments.
We organize the remainder of the article as follows: The
next section discusses the nature of export commitment.
Then, we present the theoretical background of the con-
ceptual model using the RBV, along with study hypothe-
ses. Next, we explain the research methods involved in
developing our data from a multi-industry sample of
150 exporters. We follow this with the study results and
a discussion that draws conclusions from these and pro-
vides implications for theory and management practice.
The work ends with limitations and suggested future
lines of research.
EXPORT COMMITMENT: CONCEPT
AND NATURE
A review of the literature reveals two main approaches
to conceptualizing export commitment. First, studies
have depicted commitment as an attitude—as an endur-
ing positive disposition held by management toward the
act of exporting. For example, Bello and Barksdale
(1986) argue that committed exporters believe strongly
that exporting can contribute to achievement of their
firms’ goals, and Cavusgil and Nevin (1981) argue that
committed exporters are willing to devote necessary
resources to exporting. Second, a stream of studies has
conceptualized export commitment as a behavior, focus-
ing on manifestations of the construct. Cavusgil and
Zou (1994), as well as recent studies employing their
measures (e.g., Lages, Jap, and Griffith 2008), capture
commitment as the amount of planning, financial, and
managerial resources the firm allocates to exporting.
Despite the performance relevance of behavioral com-
mitment, theorists (e.g., Leonidou, Katsikeas, and Piercy
1998) argue that a comprehensive picture of commit-
ment can only be obtained by incorporating attitudes as
well as behaviors.
Applying the RBV, we theorize that export commitment
offers strategic guidelines that orientate managers’ deci-
sion making in foreign markets and helps improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of the resource allocation
going forward (Lages and Montgomery 2004). If export
commitment increases managers’ willingness to make
efforts to achieve export objectives, it is important that
behavioral commitments are made in the present and
that these commitments are ongoing. This reflection on
the continuity of commitment and allied attitudinal sen-
timents (Frazier and Rody 1991) is in line with research
in marketing and management (see Kim and Frazier
1997).
We argue that export commitment is an organizational
variable that focuses on how firms currently function
and intend to make improvements in leveraging export
resources. Thus, we view export commitment as a multi-
dimensional and dynamic phenomenon that comprises
both behavioral and attitudinal dimensions (Pauwels
and Matthyssens 1999; Stump, Athaide, and Axinn
1999). Specifically, we posit that export commitment
consists of current export commitment, defined by the
financial, managerial, and human resources the firm
currently dedicates to foreign trade operations to
achieve its goals (Cavusgil and Zou 1994), and antici-
pated export commitment, which pertains to managers’
willingness to dedicate financial, managerial, and
human resources to ongoing export activity (Donthu
and Kim 1993).
CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND
HYPOTHESES
To advance knowledge about export commitment, we
must conceptualize its antecedents and consequences
using a robust theoretical lens. The RBV is one of the
most widely accepted theories in international market-
ing (Jean, Sinkovics, and Kim 2010; Lages, Silva, and
Styles 2009). This theory characterizes firms as unique
bundles of resources and capabilities that are available
for the firms’ business ventures to deploy (e.g., Hamel
and Prahalad 1994). Heterogeneity in the resources and
capabilities ultimately leads to variations in firm per-
formance (Teece, Pisano, and Shuen 1997). Resource-
based logic holds that export managers use resources
and capabilities in devising strategic actions that achieve
competitive superiority in the form of positional advan-
tages in overseas markets (Morgan, Kaleka, and Kat-
sikeas 2004). An exporter’s advantageous value offering
to customers and cost position in realizing the value
drive its performance (Day and Wensley 1988).
However, a limitation of traditional RBV frameworks is
unawareness of implementation issues. Strategic actions
must attend not only to strategy formulation matters
but also to organization behaviors or activities that
permit proper strategy implementation. We posit that
export commitment serves as the organizing mechanism
that enables firms to exploit the full potential of
resource-basedstrategy. Processes that build and adjust
resources and capabilities in line with environmental
flux can continuously shape attitudes and behaviors
toward exporting that provide the platform for exploit-
ing the resource base. Therefore, our conceptual model
(see Figure 1) identifies relationships of resources and
capabilities with export commitment and marketing-
mix adaptation, both of which lead to perceived posi-
tional advantage.
Our model acknowledges the key distinction between
resources and capabilities (Day 1994). Resources are the
firm-controlled asset stocks that constitute the raw
materials available to the firm for developing export
activity (Black and Boal 1994). Although many
resources may be available to exporters, four emerged as
particularly important in our fieldwork: (1) resources
derived from the firm’s size (scale resources)that are an
indicator of managerial and financial assets available for
export activity (Dhanaraj and Beamish 2003); (2)
resources associated with the firm’s experience in for-
eign markets (experiential resources), which reduce
uncertainty and foster the exporter’s learning ability
(Cavusgil and Zou 1994); (3) resources derived from
formal structuring—that is, whether an export depart-
ment exists (structural resources)—which are considered
a preparatory move toward developing significant for-
eign trade activity (Donthu and Kim 1993); and (4)
resources associated with foreign market research
(informational resources) that enable export marketing
programs to match the needs of channel members and
foreign customers (Morgan, Kaleka, and Katsikeas
2004).
Capabilities are the organizational processes by which
available resources are developed, combined, and trans-
formed into value offerings for the export market (Day
1994; Teece, Pisano, and Shuen 1997). Our literature
search and fieldwork suggested two types of capabilities
that could ultimately lead to export advantage: (1) spe-
cific export capabilities, which derive from managers’
characteristics and certain export activity skills (e.g.,
Zou and Stan 1998), and (2) market-sensing capabilities
achieved through the firm’s EMO. Acquiring and dis-
seminating information about customers, competitors,
Firms’ Export Commitment 43
Figure 1. GraphicalDescriptionof M odel

R esources

Firm
size

Export
experience
Export
commitment
Export
department
Perceived
Information
system positional
advantages

Specific export
capabilities
Marketing-mix
adaptation

EMO

Capabilities

channels, and the broader export market environment
can help reduce uncertainty in export marketing and
enable efficacy in the design and implementation of
responses directed toward export markets (Cadogan,
Diamantopoulos, and De Mortanges 1999).
Export Commitment and Perceived
Positional
Advantages
A firm possesses a competitive advantage when it has
certain resources and capabilities that are unique and
difficult to imitate and it can present an offer to the mar-
ket that provides more value to its customers than com-
peting offers (Barney 1991). Kaleka (2002) points out
that the positional advantages derived from exporting
constitute the position the firm achieves in relation to
the combination of cost, product, and service elements
in a particular foreign market. As such, we define export
positional advantage as managerial perceptions of the
firm’s competitive strength (e.g., cost and product
advantages) relative to its competitors in export markets
(Albaum et al. 2003).
Studies have demonstrated that export commitment
exerts a positive effect on financial and operational per-
formance outcomes (Cavusgil and Zou 1994; Donthu
and Kim 1993; Lages, Jap, and Griffith 2008; Stump,
Athaide, and Axinn 1999). Still, the influence of export
commitment on positional advantages has not been
studied in the literature, and thus additional research is
required. Our framing of positional advantage as an
outcome variable of note is consistent with the RBV that
capabilities’ contribution to performance should be
investigated by disaggregating firm performance into
key processes that are less distal from the resources
(Ray, Barney, and Muhanna 2004).
Cavusgil and Zou (1994) point out that firms commit-
ted to exporting carefully plan entry tasks and allocate
essential managerial and nonmanagerial resources to
their export ventures. For example, firms committed to
their export activity tend to offer strong support to their
distribution partners in foreign markets, enhancing the
exchange of information to overcome resource deploy-
ment issues. In addition, firms committed to exporting
are likely to develop value-adding services (e.g., post-
sales support, customer attention). These services tend
to be highly valued by customers in foreign markets,
influencing their degree of loyalty (Beamish, Craig, and
McLellan 1993). Export commitment serves to increase

44 Journal of International Marketing

and configure information flows from the marketplace
to reduce the uncertainty and risks related to exporting. It
enables a firm to allocate resources correctly and
proactively to ongoing exporting activities (Styles and
Ambler 2000) to achieve positional advantages over-
seas. In summary, export commitment enables a firm to
organize marketing strategy activities so that these can
be implemented, with less difficulty, to achieve advan-
tage in competitive export markets. These arguments
give rise to the following:
H1: Export commitment is positively related to
perceived positional advantages.
Antecedents of Export Commitment
The literature reveals a range of internal and external
factors that underpin export firm strategic actions. For
example, Lages and Montgomery (2004) combine inter-
nal and external perspectives to assert that export com-
mitment stems from satisfaction with prior export per-
formance, the intensity of export market competition,
and the level of export market development. That being
said, the literature has placed emphasis on controllable,
internal drivers of export commitment. For example,
Kacker (1975) argues that export commitment is a func-
tion of top management philosophies and organiza-
tional goals, such that if management believes that
exporting is beneficial only to use up excess capacity,
the firm is expected to be less committed to exporting.
Cavusgil and Nevin (1981) and Reid (1983) both con-
tend that commitment may be a function of resource
availabilit y. Building on this line of enquiry, we concep-
tualize a set of resources and capabilities that provide a
significant explanation of export commitment.
Effect of EMO on Export Commitment . Although there
are similarities in the conceptual application of market
orientation to domestic and foreign markets, because of
problems of accessibility and quality of information, the
greater complexity of the export environment necessi-
tates content adaptation (Cadogan et al. 2001; Van
Raaij and Stoelhorst 2008). As such, and in line with
Cadogan, Diamantopoulos, and De Mortanges (1999),
we define EMO activities as (1) the generation of mar-
ket intelligence pertinent to the firm’s exporting opera-
tions; (2) the dissemination of this information to
appropriate decision makers; and (3) the design and
implementation of responses directed toward export
customers, export competitors, and other extraneous
export market factors that affect the firm and its ability to
provide superior value to export customers.
Our conceptualization of EMO emphasizes the ability
of a firm to learn about customers, competitors, and the
rest of its stakeholders so that it can continuously sense
and act on events and trends in present and prospective
markets (Day 1994). Moreover, EMO may even be
viewed as a dynamic (outside-in) capability that allows
for the development of market-sensing processes for
gathering, interpreting, and using foreign market infor-
mation in a more systematic, thoughtful, and anticipa-
tory way than other firms can accomplish. Developing
this capability can assist a firm in discovering market
opportunities and designing a value proposal. Such a
value proposal affects the whole organization because
corporate resources must be aligned to create a market-
responsive firm (Cadogan and Diamantopoulos 1995).
Therefore, EMO encourages firms to be more willing to
commit resources to exporting to realize the identified
market opportunities (Armario, Ruiz, and Armario
2008). Thus, we hypothesize the following:
H2: EMO is positively related to export
commitment.
Effect of Specific Export Capabilities on Export
Commitment. Specific export capabilities are essential
to processing and interpreting information coming from
the foreign markets: They facilitate the strategic
management of export marketing (O’Cass and Julian
2003). Zou and Stan (1998) point to specific managerial
capabilities as one of the key determinants of firms’
export success. These capabilities include (1) fluency in
foreign languages and formal education in international
business, because this helps management develop more
effective practices for developing and processing infor-
mation about the needs and preferences of foreign
consumers (Morgan, Kaleka, and Katsikeas 2004); (2)
permanent contacts with the foreign markets through
regular visits and/or attendance at international fairs,
because this strengthens the firm’s exporting focus
(Bello and Gilliland 1997); and (3) knowledge of the
foreign markets’ idiosyncrasies (e.g., values, culture,
lifestyle), because this reduces uncertainty in decision
making and favors the expansion of export activity
(Julien and Ramangalahy 2003). We posit that owning
specific export capabilities serves to reinforce manage-
rial attitudes and behaviors directed toward increasing
the resources allocated to exporting. The firm is incen-
tivized to leverage specialized export capabilities
through greater export organization because doing oth-
erwise would be wasteful. Thus, we hypothesize the
following:
Firms’ Export Commitment 45
 H3: Specific export capabilities are positively
related to export commitment.
Effects of Resources on Export Commitment. Prior
research (e.g., Morgan, Kaleka, and Katsikeas 2004) has
indicated that the resources that potentially shape export
commitment are diverse. Here, we consider resources
that are derived from the firm’s size, associated with the
firm’s experience in foreign markets, derived from the
structure available for undertaking the export activity
(i.e., an export department), and linked to systematic
information collection about foreign markets.
Relationships between firm size and export behavior
have been extensively studied in the export marketing
literature, with contradictory results (Zou and Stan
1998). However, there is agreement that larger firms
possess greater managerial and financial resources, have
greater production capacity, attain superior economies
of scale, and face lower levels of perceived risk in
exporting operations (Bonaccorsi 1992; Brouthers et al.
2009). Likewise, firm size influences the number of
employees and managers linked to exporting as well as
managerial attitudes toward allocating resources for
exporting (Katsikeas 1994). Export experience is indica-
tive of the level of knowledge about foreign markets.
Previous research has theorized that knowledge gained
through experience from business operations in a spe-
cific overseas market generates opportunities and, con-
sequently, is a driving force in a firm’s internationaliza-
tion (Bodur 1994). Because export experience conveys a
foreign market knowledge base, it can reduce perceived
risks. Thus, an experienced firm should be more willing
to commit resources to exporting (Cavusgil and Zou
1994).
Furthermore, firms demonstrating high levels of export
commitment are likely to have a separate organizational
setup, such as an export department to achieve their
export goals (Katsikeas 1994). The existence of a sepa-
rate export department facilitates the design of export
marketing structures and tasks to deploy resources more
effectively (Jain 2002). It would act as a positive input
to managerial attitudes and behaviors toward export-
ing. Finally, decisions related to the commitment of
resources to foreign markets will depend on the firm’s
level of knowledge about opportunities and threats in
those foreign markets (Cavusgil and Zou 1994). The
presence of a foreign market information collection sys-
tem helps reduce uncertainty in the development of
export marketing and thus engenders the development of
a more proactive attitude in approaching exporting
opportunities (Souchon and Diamantopoulos 1996).
46 Journal of International Marketing
This requires a greater level of resources committed to
the export activity, as well as a greater propensity and
willingness to keep on committing them in the future.
Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:
H4: (a) Firm size, (b) export experience, (c) the
existence of an export department, and (d) the
existence of an information system for foreign
markets are positively related to export
commitment.
Marketing-Mix Adaptation and Perceived
Positional Advantages
Similar to other firms, exporting firms’ overriding goal
is operational survival through securing assets and
growing (Bradley 1984). The literature suggests that a
firm’s capability to achieve and sustain positional
advantages is closely linked to the efficient and effective
execution of a planned export marketing strategy
(Sousa, Martinez-Lopez, and Coelho 2008). Specifically,
when marketing-mix strategies are coaligned with
export venture idiosyncrasies, positive outcomes can be
expected for the firm (Cavusgil and Zou 1994).
Although the appropriateness of marketing-mix adapta-
tion rests on antecedent conditions (e.g., within the
structure–conduct–performance paradigm), appropriate
adaptations across exporting operations may be
unavoidable. For example, pricing adaptations can fol-
low differences in diverse factors such as marketing
objectives, competitive policies, inflation rates, and gov-
ernment policies (Theodosiou and Leonidou 2003).
Indeed, appropriate levels of adaptation may vary across
marketing-mix components. That being said, Morgan,
Kaleka, and Katsikeas (2004), O’Cass and Julian (2003),
and several other authors argue that by developing a dif-
ferentiated marketing strategy tailored to the venture
context, exporters can build superior value offerings in
the sense that they meet local consumers’ needs more
closely. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H5: Marketing-mix adaptation is positively related
to perceived positional advantages.
Antecedents of Marketing-Mix
Adaptation
Effect of EMO on Marketing-Mix Adaptation . Firms
with a strong EMO will be more active in their search
for, and better able to identify and take advantage of,
opportunities emerging in overseas markets than firms
lacking this capability. The generation of knowledge
about foreign markets can effectively reduce the levels of
uncertainty and risk associated with export activity.
Knowledgeable firms should behave more proactively
and confidently in adapting to the desires and needs of
each national market (Racela, Chaikittisilpa, and
Thoumrungroje 2007). Specifically, firms that have rele-
vant information about their foreign markets are likely
to be more willing to make adaptations to their prod-
ucts, prices, promotions, and so on, than other firms
that lack such information and make their decisions on
the basis of intuition (Cadogan and Diamantopoulos
1995). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H6: EMO is positively related to marketing-mix
adaptation.
Effect of Specific Export Capabilities on Marketing-Mix
Adaptation. Exporting firms recognize that the idiosyn-
crasies of their foreign markets might force them to make
some adaptations to marketing-mix strategies to fit the
characteristics of each market more closely and reduce
foreign consumers’ psychological distance (Leonidou,
Katsikeas, and Samiee 2002). The aim is to achieve a
proximity to foreign customers at least comparable to
traditional suppliers. To this end, it is pivotal that an
exporter knows its foreign markets well and accesses and
processes up-to-date information about these, as well as
about general international trends (Katsikeas, Piercy, and
Ioannidis 1996). Thus, the firm should employ prag-
matic procedures for collecting and appraising export
market information; its managers should remain in con-
tinuous contact with its foreign markets, have educa-
tional backgrounds pertaining to international business
and foreign trade techniques, and be fluent in foreign
languages (Bello and Gilliland 1997; Styles and Ambler
1994). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H7: Specific export capabilities are positively
related to marketing-mix adaptation.
Resources and Capabilities
Effect of Specific Export Capabilities on EMO. Export
firms’ competitive strategies are planned patterns of
resource and capability deployment that support choices
about how the firm will compete for target customers
and achieve desired goals (Cavusgil and Zou 1994). Bet-
tis and Prahalad (1995) indicate that firms within the
same environment and with similar resources could take
different decisions and compete in different ways
because of their different capabilities. We posit that
firms could capture, process, and use information to
compete in export markets differently. Assuming that it
is more difficult to adopt a market orientation in foreign
markets than in the home market because the environ-
ment is more complex and the information is less avail-
able and accessible, we speculate that specific export
capabilities are necessary to facilitate the firm’s export
market-oriented activities (Rose and Shoham 2002).
Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H8: Specific export capabilities are positively
related to EMO.
Effects of Resources on EMO. Behaving in a market-ori-
ented way requires considerable resource investments,
especially in the context of exporting (Cadogan, Diaman-
topoulos, and Siguaw 2002). As such, firm size may con-
dition the ability of the firm to obtain, interpret, and use
the information coming from foreign markets. For exam-
ple, Armario, Ruiz, and Armario (2008) report that
smaller exporters routinely fail to access potentially use-
ful export information sources. Likewise, Francis and
Collins-Dodd (2000) point out that the amount of
human, financial, and management resources derived
from firm size has a notable influence on export orienta-
tion. Researchers have also noted that as organizations
become more experienced within their foreign markets,
their knowledge of and familiarity with export markets
increase (Diamantopoulos, Schlegelmilch, and Tse 1993).
Similarly, because knowledge is a function of experience,
in inexperienced firms, it is likely that key organizational
members may not be sufficiently knowledgeable about
the intricate details regarding export operations: If rele-
vant information is not recognized as such, it is unlikely
to be passed along communication corridors (Cadogan
and Diamantopoulos 1995). Thus, experiential and infor-
mational resources are essential antecedents of EMO.
Finally, the existence of a specific structure for exporting
(i.e., an export department) improves export coordina-
tion within the firm and increases its degree of
orientation toward foreign markets (Cadogan et al. 2001).
Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H9: (a) Firm size, (b) export experience, (c) the
existence of an export department, and (d) the
existence of an information system for foreign
markets are positively related to EMO.
Effects of Resources on Specific Export Capabilities.
Resources also serve as inputs to specific export capabil-
ities. In this context, the probability of developing train-
ing programs in the export business and having man-
agers and staff with capabilities required to develop
export market operations successfully will be greater in
Firms’ Export Commitment 47
larger than smaller firms (Gomez-Mejia 1988). Thus, Kaleka, and Katsikeas 2004). The data were collected
we expect larger firms to exhibit greater capabilities to through personal interviews with the export managers
develop exporting activities. Furthermore, because of 150 firms selected at random (sampling error:
knowledge is a function of experience (Johanson and ±7.65%). The majority of the sample firms were small
Vahlne 1977), experience is a primary source of organi- (68% with fewer than 50 employees) and allocated a
zational learning. Thus, export experience will help small number of employees to export-related tasks
define and shape specific managerial capabilities (81% with fewer than 5 export-related employees).
required for the successful development of exporting More than half (59%) had assigned export managers,
(Aaby and Slater 1989; Zou and Stan 1998). Prior
though a minority (33%) had an export department.
research (e.g., Donthu and Kim 1993) has also indicated
Most firms had a great amount of experience in their
that the existence of a specific structure to support
business (66% with more than 16 years in their sector),
exporting should contribute to the development of spe-
but firms with a great amount of experience in inter-
cific capabilities needed to be successful in export mar-
national business were a minority (59% with less than
kets. Finally, the availability of a system to collect infor-
10 years of exporting). Finally, the majority of sample
mation about foreign markets potentially abets
firms had a strong concentration of export sales in few
managerial capabilities because this provides manage-
markets (93% exported to five or fewer countries).
ment with a continuing flow of information about con-
sumers’ needs, expectations, and satisfaction levels
We selected a single key informant in each firm to com-
(Katsikeas, Piercy, and Ioannidis 1996). Accordingly, we
ment on its export activity. Use of a knowledgeable,
hypothesize the following:
single key informant can reduce the potential for sys-
tematic and random sources of error (Huber and Power
H10: (a) Firm size, (b) export experience, (c) the 1985). To ensure the reliability of the data source, we
existence of an export department, and (d) required the respondents to be senior managers with a
the existence of an information system for responsibility for exporting. A specific section of the
foreign markets are positively related to spe- questionnaire asked respondents for their job title and
cific export capabilities.
assessed their competency in terms of knowledge of,
involvement with, and responsibilities in exporting.
High scores on the competency questions indicated that
EMPIRICAL STUDY
potential sources of measurement error attributable to
Data Collection the key informant were minimized.
We performed an empirical study of Spanish export
firms. The sample is representative of the population of Variable Measurement
exporters whose headquarters are in Spain. With regard
We used reflective and formative measurement perspec-
to the activity of Spanish export firms in general, data
tives to capture the study constructs. It is important that
from the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce
research involving latent variables measured using dif-
(2008) reveal a strong concentration of export activity in
ferent manifest indicators define the type of relation-
a small number of firms (1% of the exporters gener- ate
ships established between variables and indicators. Con-
64% of total exports) and a strong geographic con-
ventional measurement practice in marketing and
centration in the foreign markets (70% of the exports
business research is based on reflective measurement,in
go to other European Union countries). The main sec-
which observed measures (i.e., indicators) are assumed
tors are capital goods (22%), automobiles (18%), and
to reflect variation in latent constructs. The direction of
food (14%). The bulk of Spanish exporters qualify as
causality runs from the construct to the indicators, and
small firms (84%) (De Lucio, Mínguez, and Á lvarez
thus we expect changes in the construct to be evident in
2007), and the majority have an export department
changes in all indicators constituting the scale (Edwards
(51%) and employees with education in international
and Bagozzi 2000).
trade (71%) (Alonso and Donoso 1998).
An alternative measurement approach uses formative
After we built and refined the export firm data, the total
indicators, which are assumed to cause variation in the
population consisted of 1734 firms. We used a multi-
construct. In other words, the indicators form or deter-
industry sample to increase observed variance and rein-
mine the construct, and the latter is modeled as a (typi-
force the generalizability of the findings (Morgan,
cally linear) combination of its indicators plus a distur-

48 Journal of International Marketing

bance term (Bollen 1989). Although several studies tured the resources considered through single items:
devoted to formative measurement exist (e.g., Diaman- firm size, in terms of number of employees (Bonaccorsi
topoulos and Siguaw 2006; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and 1992); the firm’s export experience, measured by num-
Jarvis 2005), the properties, advantages, and limitations ber of years exporting; the existence of a structure
of formative measures still seem misunderstood. Indeed, specifically dedicated to the export activity in the firm,
theorists (e.g., Jarvis, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff 2003; namely, the export department (Jain 2002); and the
Podsakoff, Shen, and Podsakoff 2006) assert that meas- availability of a system for collecting information about
urement models in prior studies often are misspecified
foreign markets (Styles and Ambler 1994). The Appen-
(i.e., they assume a reflective structure when a formative
dix discloses our measures.
approach should have been adopted), probably because of
researchers’ lack of familiarity with formative meas- ures
(Diamantopoulos 2008). Data Analysis
After building the different scales and obtaining the cor-
Using a formative approach is particularly attractive
responding information, next we analyzed the data. We
when building measures for highly complex constructs,
tested the hypotheses using partial least squares (PLS)
of which the current study has several. We based the
because of the characteristicsof the model and sample.1
measurement perspectives developed for our multi-item
Because PLS models are analyzed and interpreted in two
measures on MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Jarvis’s (2005)
stages (Barclay, Higgins, and Thompson 1995), we eval-
recommendations for distinguishing formative and
uated the measurement model first and then the struc-
reflective variables. We captured perceived positional
tural model. This sequence ensured that the measures of
advantages, marketing-mix adaptation, and specific
the constructs were valid and reliable before we
export capabilities as first-order formative constructs.
attempted to draw conclusions about the relationships
For these, each item is related to a specific aspect of the
among the constructs.
measured construct, so they are not interchangeable
(e.g., competitive advantage in costs does not necessarily
Because of the characteristics of the conceptual model
confer advantage in distribution). We treated EMO as a
being analyzed, several considerations should be noted.
second-order formative construct (Cadogan, Kuiva-
When analyzing the second-order constructs, it should
lainen, and Sundqvist 2009; Cadogan, Souchon, and
be remembered that this work considers molar or
Procter 2008), with three reflective dimensions (i.e.,
molecular models rather than multiple regression mod-
export intelligence generation, export intelligence dis-
els (Chin and Gopal 1995). The difference between a
semination, and export market responsiveness). We
molecular and a molar model is that the former shows
considered export commitment a second-order reflec-
each first-order construct as a separate dimension, and
tive construct with two reflective dimensions (i.e., cur-
the set of such constructs together represents the second-
rent export commitment and anticipated export
order construct, whereas the latter does not take into
commitment).
account the interdependencies between the variables,
with the first-order constructs acting as formative fac-
We captured current export commitment and antici-
tors or variables (Chin and Gopal 1995). The latter case
pated export commitment on four- and three-item
corresponds to the proposed model. However, building
scales, respectively, modified from prior scales and
a second-order structural model also requires a two-step
theory (Cavusgil and Zou 1994; Donthu and Kim
process. The first step involves estimating the model
1993). We measured perceived positional advantages in
with the indicators of the first-order factors, and the
foreign markets on a six-item scale based on Albaum
second involves adding all these previous indicators as
and colleagues’ (2003) work. We captured marketing-
indicators of the second-order factor (construct) as well.
mix adaptation using four items that tap adaptation to
This method is known as the “hierarchical component
product, price, distribution, and promotion strategies
model” (Wold 1979).
(Theodosiou and Leonidou 2003). We measured each
dimension of EMO using three-item scales based on
For the constructs with reflective measures, researchers
Cadogan, Diamantopoulos, and De Mortanges’s (1999)
may examine the loadings to refine the scales. Item reli-
work. We assessed specific export capabilities using
ability is considered adequate when the loading on its
three indicators modified from Julien and Ramangalahy
respective construct is greater than .70 (Carmines and
(2003), Leonidou, Katsikeas, and Piercy (1998), and
Zeller 1979). Still, researchers have argued against the
Morgan, Kaleka, and Katsikeas (2004). Finally, we cap-
rigid enforcement of this rule of thumb (Barclay, Hig-

Firms’ Export Commitment 49

gins, and Thompson 1995; Chin 1998). Thus, we left
reflective items that did not meet the threshold in the
model only if the rest of the reliability criteria (e.g., com-
posite reliability) were fulfilled. In particular, the load-
ings (.89 and .81 for current and anticipated export
commitment, respectively) support the second-order
export commitment structure. We assessed composite
reliability using Nunnally ’s (1978) benchmark of .80 for
basic research. Our reflective scales met this standard.
The average variance extracted (AVE) values exceeded
the minimum value of .50 that Fornell and Larcker
(1981) recommend, supporting the convergent validity
of the reflective constructs.
Finally, to assess the reflective constructs’ discriminant
validit y, we checked that the AVE did not exceed the
variance shared with any other construct in the model
(i.e., the squared correlation between the two con-
structs) (Barclay, Higgins, and Thompson 1995). The
reflective constructs met this condition (see the correla-
tion matrix in Table 1). Furthermore, that construct
intercorrelations were significantly different than 1 for
all the study variables provides additional evidence of
discriminant validity.
To validate our formative measures, we followed recom-
mendations in the formative measurement literature
(Diamantopoulos, Riefler, and Roth 2008). To fully cap-
ture the meaning of a formative construct, a census of
indicators is required because omitting an indicator is
omitting a part of the construct (Bollen and Lennox
1991). Therefore, we took the view that omitting indi-
cators is equivalent to curbing the domain of the con-
struct (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Jarvis 2005). More-
over, a major concern in estimating formative constructs
is multicollinearit y. Variance inflation factors (VIF)
Table 1. CorrelationsBetween Constructs
1. Export commitment
2. Perceived positional advantages
3. Marketing-mix adaptation
4. EMO
5. Specific export capabilities
Notes: The bold number on the diagonal is the square root of the AVE; off-diagonal elements are correlations among constructs. N.A. = not applicable.
50 Journal of International Marketing
should be less than 5 to be able to retain a construct for
the model (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer 2001). For
the current study, no variable exceeded 5 in the VIF,
either in the first step of the second-order model or in
the definitive second-order model.
Advantages in promotion (weight = .54), costs (weight =
.37), and human resources (weight = .33) were the form-
ative dimensions that contributed most to perceived
positional advantages, and strategic decisions about
adapting promotion (weight = .72) and price (weight =
.44) were the dimensions that contributed most to
marketing-mix adaptation. In the formation of EMO
activities, the main contributors were the dimensions
export intelligence generation (weight = .62) and export
market responsiveness (weight = .50). Likewise, the con-
struct specific export capabilities was well explained by
its formative indicators. Table 2 summarizes our meas-
ure validation results.
With the validity of the model confirmed, we next tested
the stability of the structural model estimates (see Table
3). We used a bootstrap approach (1000 subsamples) to
generate standard errors and statistics. We determined
support for our hypotheses by examining the sign and
significance of the t-values for each corresponding path.
The results show that export commitment was posi-
tively linked ( = .27, p < .01) to the achievement of
positional advantages in foreign markets, in support of
H1. The results reveal three drivers of export commit-
ment, accounting for an explained variance for this
dependent variable of 47.4%. Specifically, EMO ( =
.36, p < .01, in support of H2), specific export capabili-
ties ( = .25, p < .01, in support of H3), and export
experience ( = .13, p < .05, in support of H4b) had a
1 2 3 4 5
.85
.42 N.A.
.31 .55 N.A.
.60 .42 .43 N.A.
.58 .36 .32 .62 N.A.
Table 2. M easurem ent
M odelR esults

Composite
Reliability
CONSTRUCT /Dimension/Indicator VIF Weight Loading ( c) AVE
EXPORT COMMITMENT(second-orderreflective construct) .84 .73

Current Export Commitment (first-order reflective construct) .89 .85 .58

COMM 1 .75
COMM 2 .72
COMM 3 .84
COMM 4 .73
Anticipated Export Commitment (first-order reflective construct) .81 .95 .85
COMM 5 .92
COMM 6 .93
COMM 7 .92

PERCEIVED POSITIONAL ADVANTAGES (first-orderformativeconstruct) N.A. N.A.

ADV1 1.17 .03

ADV2 1.54 .17
ADV3 1.89 –.23
ADV4 1.99 .54
ADV5 2.19 .33
ADV6 1.70 .37

MARKETING-MIX ADAP TATION (first-orderformative construct) N.A. N.A.

PROD 2.42 .04

PRIC 2.02 .44
DIST 2.31 –.05
PROM 1.65 .72

EMO (second-orderformativeconstruct) N.A. N.A.

Export Intelligence Generation (first-order reflective 1.46 .62 .92 .80
construct)
GEN1 .77
GEN2 .94
GEN3 .94
Export Intelligence Dissemination (first-order reflective 1.41 .10 .92 .78
construct)
DIS1 .85
DIS2 .52
DIS3 .74

Firms’ Export Commitment 51

Table 2. Continued
Export Market Responsiveness (first-order reflective construct)
RESP1
RESP2
RESP3
RESOURCES
Size
Export experience
Export department
Information system
SPECIFIC EXPORT CAPABILITIES (formative construct)
CAP1
CAP2
CAP3
Notes: N.A. = not applicable.
positive influence on export commitment. In contrast,
the bulk of the resources—that is, firm size ( = –.01, p
> .05), export department ( = .13, p > .05), and infor-
mation system ( = .01, p > .05)—were not determinants
of export commitment. Thus, H4a, H 4c, and H4d cannot
be accepted. Marketing-mix adaptation linked strongly
to positional advantages ( = .47, p < .01), which con-
firms H5. Taken together, the formative measures,
export commitment, and marketing-mix adaptation
explained 39.2% of the variance in perceived positional
advantages.
The formative measures and structural relationships
accounted for 19.2% of the variance in marketing-mix
adaptation. The results show that EMO was positively
associated ( = .36, p < .01) with marketing-mix adap-
tation, confirming H6. However, contrary to H7, specific
export capabilities were not linked to marketing-mix
adaptation ( = .10, p > .05).
The explained variance for EMO was 44.9%. In addi-
tion to the formative dimensions, two elements were
revealed as key antecedents of EMO. First, specific
export capabilities influenced EMO activities ( = .39, p
< .01), confirming H8. Second, the resource related to
organized foreign market research (i.e., an information
system) linked positively ( = .32, p < .01) to EMO, in
52 Journal of International Marketing
1.28 .50 .93 .82
.91
.81
.60
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
N.A. N.A.
1.73 .50
1.84 .51
1.82 .22
support of H9d. The other three resources—firm size
( = –.04, p > .05), export experience ( = –.02, p > .05),
and export department ( = .08, p > .05)—had no role
in driving EMO, failing to support H9a, H9b, and H9c.
The formative measures and resource antecedents together
explained 46.5% of the variance in specific export capa-
bilities. The resources that linked significantly to this con-
struct were the firm’s export experience ( = .16, p < .01)
and information system ( = .58, p < .01), in support of
H10b and H10d. However, neither firm size ( = –.01, p >
.05) nor the existence of an export department ( = .06,
p > .05) shaped managerial capabilities required in export-
ing activity. Therefore, H10a and H10c cannot be accepted.
Our structural model results imply mediation roles of
export commitment and marketing-mix adaptation in
linking export experience, specific export capabilities,
and/or EMO to perceived positional advantages.
Nonetheless, in line with Zhao, Lynch, and Chen
(2010), we reran the analysis to obtain Baron and
Kenny’s coefficients “a” (for independent variable–
mediator paths), “b” (for mediator–dependent variable
paths), and “c” (for independent variable–dependent
variable paths). The Sobel z-test, applied to our boot-
strap output, confirmed that there is indirect-only medi-
ation (i.e., significant a ⋅ b, together with nonsignificant
Table 3. StructuralM odelResults

Path t-Value
Hypothesis Coefficient () (Bootstrap) Support
H1: Export commitment  positional advantages .27 3.25* * Ye s
H2: EMO  export commitment .36 3.79* * Ye s
H3: Specific export capabilities export commitment .25 2.37* * Ye s
H4a: Firm size export commitment –.01 .13n.s. No
H4b: Export experience  export commitment .13 2.06* Yes
H4c: Export department  export commitment .13 1.59n.s. No
H4d: Information system  export commitment .01 .11n.s. No
H5: Marketing-mix adaptation  positional advantages .47 6.46* * Ye s
H6: EMO  marketing-mix adaptation .36 3.20* * Ye s
H7: Specific export capabilities marketing-mix adaptation .10 .79n.s. No
H8: Specific export capabilities EMO .39 3.65* * Ye s
H9a: Firm size EMO –.04 .43n.s. No
H9b: Export experience  EMO –.02 .29n.s. No
H9c: Export department  EMO .08 1.22n.s. No
H9d: Information system  EMO .32 3.16* * Ye s
H10a: Firm size specific export capabilities –.01 .23n.s. No
H10b: Export experience  specific export capabilities .16 3.00* * Yes
H10c: Export department  specific export capabilities .06 1.02n.s. No
H10d: Information system  specific export capabilities .58 8.89* * Yes

*p < .05.
**p < .01.
Notes: Items marked with superscript n.s. are not significant (based on t(999), one-tailed test).

c effects, at p < .05) of export commitment in the rela-
tionships of export experience, specific export capabili-
ties, and EMO with positional advantage and of
marketing-mix adaptation in the link between EMO
and positional advantages.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
gerial and nonmanagerial resources to their ventures.
We extend prior research on the role of export commit-
ment as an organizing structure (e.g., Beamish et al.
1999; Cavusgil and Zou 1994) by revealing mediating
mechanisms through which export commitment con-
nects resources and capabilities to positional advan-
tages. As such, export commitment enables firms to
effectively implement resource-led strategy.

This study makes several contributions to existing
theory on export marketing strategy management.
First, although the exporting literature has consis-
tently emphasized the criticality of marketing-mix
strategy–performance relationships (Sousa, Martinez-
Lopez, and Coelho 2008), far less is known about
strategy implementation–related outcomes. The study is
novel in theorizing that managers committed to export-
ing carefully plan the entry and allocate sufficient mana-
In particular, significant recent research has focused on
the relationship between EMO and performance. Stud-
ies (e.g., Cadogan, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw 2002)
have shown that firms that are market oriented can rec-
ognize and respond to global opportunities more effec-
tively in today’s competitive environment. We add to the
emerging understanding of EMO by revealing that
market-sensing capabilities may be leveraged produc-
tively through export commitment.

Firms’ Export Commitment 53

Second, prior work (e.g., Lages, Jap, and Griffith 2008)
has found that export commitment increases the likeli-
hood of success in foreign markets, but our study
assumes a direct link to performance outcomes. To the
best of our knowledge, ours is the first study to test the
RBV logic that export commitment is directly linked to
positional advantage in export markets. Furthermore,
our RBV framing provides a comprehensive explanation
of drivers of export commitment. We show that experi-
ential resources, specific capabilities in the development
of export activity (e.g., skills in languages, training in
export operations, permanent contact with foreign cus-
tomers and distributors), and EMO are essential
antecedents of export commitment.
Third, the international marketing literature reveals that
resources are complementary inputs of capabilities Yal-(
cinkaya, Calantone, and Griffith 2007) and that both
are indirect determinants of positional advantages in
foreign markets (Morgan, Kaleka, and Katsikeas 2004).
Our study adds precise new insights to this literature
stream: that firms with greater export experience and
better information systems with respect to foreign
operations can deploy exporting capabilities more effec-
tively (e.g., through export commitment).
Fourth, we juxtapose the general commitment (e.g., Kim
and Frazier 1997) and export commitment (e.g., Lages
and Montgomery 2004) literature streams to develop a
multidimensional conceptualization of export commit-
ment that takes into account current and anticipated
commitment levels. The study results nomologically
validate our unorthodox position that export commit-
ment is a manifest behavior and a favorable disposition to
facilitate the development of exporting as an ongoing
course of action (Stump, Athaide, and Axinn 1999).
This study also informs exporting research by emphasizing
methodological features pertaining to formative measure
development. We overcome one of the weaknesses that
Diamantopoulos’s (e.g., 2008) body of work observes:
that research in the export marketing area is characterized
by the implicit or explicit use of reflective indicators. Few
exporting studies use formative indicators, despite their
superiority for capturing certain complex variables. Our
study is novel in analyzing firms’ export processes using
formative and reflective constructs.
Implications for Management
Managers can use our findings to systematize decisions
and actions associated with their firms’ export activity.
54 Journal of International Marketing
Specific implications can be drawn from the study. First,
managers should note that export commitment is funda-
mental to the success of exporting strategic action: This
strategic factor plays a central organizing role in the
implementation of resource-based strategy. Export com-
mitment mediates the relationships between multiple
resources and capabilities and perceived positional
advantages in foreign markets and thus is deserving of
managerial attention (e.g., alongside marketing-mix
adaptation). In this context, export experience posi-
tively affects the human, financial, and management
resources that the firm’s management is ready to dedi-
cate to its export activity; no such effect exists for the
firm’s size and whether it has an export department and
information system germane to foreign markets. Like-
wise, export commitment increases with the develop-
ment of specific export capabilities and EMO or market-
sensing activities. In summary, various knowledge
resources and processes of the firm require export com-
mitment to translate into managers’ perceptions of
higher positional advantages in foreign markets.
Second, the firm can satisfy the needs and desires of for-
eign consumers more effectively than its competitors if it
adapts elements of its marketing mix. To this end, we
reveal that EMO is the sole driver of marketing-mix
adaptation, which mediates the pathway between EMO
and positional advantage. Again, it is important that
managers place emphasis on obtaining relevant infor-
mation about the market and enhancing speed of
response to changes in the environment. Both acquiring
and disseminating relevant market information encour-
age the firm to behave more proactively in adapting to
the desires and needs of each export market (Armario,
Ruiz, and Armario 2008).
Third, firms should use their selection and training pro-
grams to ensure that export managers have strong skills
in foreign languages and foreign trade techniques, as
well as a good knowledge of the idiosyncrasies of for-
eign markets. Such specific export capabilities exert
their positive effect on marketing strategy actions indi-
rectly through EMO activities. Information system
resources conducive to foreign market research likewise
serve as input to EMO. Finally, we find that specific
export capabilities are a function of experiential and
informational resources. Taken together, our results sug-
gest that managers should develop and harness experi-
ence and information system resources, rather than firm
size and export department resources, in exploiting
strategic resources–strategic actions–competitive advan-
tage linkages.
Limitations and Future Research
Directions This study makes novel contributions to
the export mar- keting literature but suffers from
limitations that should constitute the starting point for
further research. First, because the data on the study
constructs were self- reported from a single
questionnaire, the possibility of common method
variance exists. Following Huber and Power’s (1985)
and Podsakoff and colleagues’ (2003) advice and
bearing in mind that the data could not be obtained
from different sources without great difficulty, we
employed various procedural remedies related to
questionnaire design (e.g., protecting respondent
anonymity, varying scale anchors). Furthermore, we
assessed the possibility of common influence across all
responses using Harman’s one-factor test (Podsakoff
and Organ 1986). Using a factor analysis, we identified
no single factor that explained variance across the items.
Of the six factors that emerged (export commitment,
marketing-mix adaptation, perceived positional advan-
tages, EMO, specific export capabilities, and resources),
the main factor explained only 36% of the variance.
That no factor explained 50% or more of the variance
indicates that methods bias is unlikely (Podsakoff and
Organ 1986). That being said, we cannot rule out com-
mon method bias completely.
The second limitation involves the study’s cross-
sectional nature. The data collected refer to a specific
moment in time, and it would be useful to carry out a
longitudinal study to analyze how strategic modifica-
tions to the firm and changes in its business profile
affect its current and future export commitments. A
third limitation involves the sample used, which comes
from a single country (Spain). Although the majority of
Appendix
. M easu res
Export Commitment
The following blocks of questions aim to determine your firm’s commitment to export activity. Please answer on a scale of 1–7
(1 = “very low,” and 7 = “very high”).
Current Export Commitment
COMM 1 The level of time and effort our firm’s management currently commits to export activity is ...
COMM 2 The level of financial resources currently committed to export activity is ...
COMM 3 The level of human resources currently committed to export activity is ...
COMM 4 Compared to the Spanish market, the resources currently committed to export activity are ...
empirical studies in the export activity field involve
single-country samples (Leonidou, Katsikeas, and
Samiee 2002), further research using multicountry sam-
ples would reinforce the generalizability of our findings.
Fourth, this study evaluates the adaptation of the mar-
keting strategy to foreign markets by globally consider-
ing price, distribution, promotion, and product ele-
ments. It could be advantageous theoretically and
pragmatically to analyze the degree of adaptation of
each of the marketing-mix elements separately (Lages,
Jap, and Griffith 2008). The fifth limitation is that our
model does not consider many other (e.g., external)
antecedents of the dependent variables, such as charac-
teristics of the product being exported (Shoham 1999),
level of competition in and development of export mar-
kets (Lages and Montgomery 2004), type of relationship
between the export firm and its foreign distributors
(Racela, Chaikittisilpa, and Thoumrungroje 2007), and
so on. These additional antecedents might have
improved the variance explained in the dependent
variables.
Finally, a more complete view of the firm’s strategic
actions would require an analysis of other marketing
organization characteristics (e.g., pertaining to struc-
tural and task characteristics; Vorhies and Morgan
2003) that may shape export strategy implementation
and other strategic choices (e.g., positioning and market
selection strategies) that may affect positional advan-
tages in export markets (Leonidou, Katsikeas, and
Samiee 2002). Further research could determine
whether export marketing organization fit with export
marketing strategy delivers superior performance
outcomes.
Firms’ Export Commitment 55
Appendix
. Continued

Anticipated Export Commitment

COMM 5 The level of time and effort that the management will be willing to commit to export activity is ...
COMM 6 The level of financial resources that the management will be willing to commit to export activity is ...
COMM 7 The level of human resources that the management will be willing to commit to export activity is ...

PerceivedPositionalAdvantages
Indicate generally your firm’s competitive position compared to its main rivals in its foreign markets with respect to the follow-
ing concepts, using a scale of 1–7 (1 = “much worse,” and 7 = “much better”).
ADV1 Product differentiation
ADV2 Price
ADV3 Distribution
ADV4 Promotion or communication
ADV5 Human resources
ADV6 Costs

Marketing-Mix Adaptation
The following block of questions aims to find out the extent to which your firm adapts the four marketing-mix variables in its
foreign markets compared to its home market. Please answer on a scale of 1–7 (1 = “not at all,” and 7 = “substantially”).
PROD Product
PRIC Price
DIST Distribution
PROM Promotion or communication

EMO

The following blocks of questions aim to evaluate your firm’s level of export market orientation, using a scale of 1–7 (1 =
“totally disagree,” and 7 = “totally agree”).
Export Intelligence Generation
GEN1 In our firm, we systematically collect information about our foreign markets (needs, desires, level of satisfaction
with our products, etc.).
GEN2 In our firm, we systematically collect information about our rivals’ actions in our foreign markets (price policy,
product, market segments targeted, etc.).
GEN3 In our firm, we systematically collect information about any changes in our export environment (technologies,
regulations, economic aspects, etc.).
Export Intelligence Dissemination
DIS1 In our firm, there is a fluid communication between the different departments/employeesabout any changes occur-
ring in our export markets (customers, competitors, environment).
DIS2 In our firm, we have regular meetings to discuss the trends and developments in our export markets.
DIS3 In our firm there is a strong collaboration between staff involved in the export activity and the other departments
(R&D, finance, accounting, etc.).
Export Market Responsiveness
RESP1 Our firm tends to respond quickly to changes detected with respect to our foreign customers.

56 Journal of International Marketing

Appendix
. Continued

RESP2 Our firm tends to respond quickly to changes detected with respect to our foreign rivals’ actions.
RESP3 Our firm tends to respond quickly to changes detected in our export environment.

SpecificExportCapabilities

The following block of questions aims to evaluate managerial capabilities related to export activity, using a scale of 1–7 (1 =
“totally disagree,” and 7 = “totally agree”).
CAP1 Our managers dedicated to exports have strong knowledge of: foreign languages, foreign trade techniques, etc.
CAP2 Our managers with responsibility for exports visit our foreign markets regularly and/or participate regularly in
international trade fairs.
CAP3 Our export managers have a strong knowledge of the values, culture, and customs prevalent in our foreign
markets.

R esources
Firm size Total number of employees in the firm
Export experience Number of years’ exporting
Export department Firm has export department (yes/no)
Information system Our firm has a system to collect information allowing us to investigate and assess foreign markets (1
“totally disagree,” and 7 = “totally agree”).

NOTE Modeling: Personal Computer Adoption and Use as an Illus-

tration, ” Technology Studies, 2 (2), 285–309.

1. For the empirical study, we used the statistics package
PLS-Graph (Chin and Frye 2003).
REFERENCES
Aaby, Nils-Erik and Stanley F. Slater (1989), “Management
Influences on Export Performance: A Review of the Empirical
Literature 1978–1988,” International Marketing Review, 6
(4), 7–26.
Albaum, Gerald, David K. Tse, George C. Hozier Jr., and Ken-
neth G. Baker (2003), “Extending Marketing Activities and
Strategies from Domestic to Foreign Markets,” Journal of
Global Marketing, 16 (3), 105–129.
Barney, Jay (1991), “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive
Advantage,” Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99–120.
Beamish, Paul W., Ron Craig, and Kerry McLellan (1993), “The
Performance Characteristics of Canadian Versus U.K.
Exporters in Small and Medium Sized Firms,” Management
International Review, 33 (2), 121–137.
———, Lambros Karavis, Anthony Goerzen, and Christopher
Lane (1999), “The Relationship Between Organizational
Structure and Export Performance,” Management Inter-
national Review, 39 (1), 37–54.
Bello, Daniel C. and Hiram C. Barksdale (1986), “Exporting at
Industrial Trade Shows,” Industrial Marketing Management,
15 (3), 197–206.

Alonso, José A. and Vicente Donoso (1998), Competir en el ——— and David I. Gilliland (1997), “The Effect of Output
Exterio r. La Empresa Españ ola y los Mercados Interna- Controls, Process Controls, and Flexibility on Export Channel
cionales. Madrid: Editorial ICEX. Performance,” Journal of Marketing, 61 (January), 22–38.

Armario, Julia M., David M. Ruiz, and Enrique M. Armario
(2008), “Market Orientation and Internationalization in
Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises,” Journal of Small Busi-
ness Management, 46 (4), 485–511.
Barclay, Donald, Christopher Higgins, and Ronald L. Thomp-
son (1995), “The Partial Least Squares Approach to Causal
Bettis, Richard A. and C.K. Prahalad (1995), “The Dominant
Logic: Retrospective and Extension,” Strategic Management
Journal, 16 (1), 5–14.
Black, Janice A. and Kimberly B. Boal (1994), “Strategic
Resources: Traits, Configurations and Paths to Sustainable

Firms’ Export Commitment 57

 Competitive Advantage,” Strategic Management Journal, 15
(S2), 131–48.
Bodur, Muzaffer (1994), “Foreign Market Indicators, Structural
Resources and Marketing Strategies as Determinants of
Export Performance,” in Advances in International Market-
ing, Vol. 6, C.N. Axinn, ed. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,
183–205.
Bollen, Kenneth A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent
Variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
——— and Richard Lennox (1991), “Conventional Wisdom on
Measurement: A Structural Equation Perspective,” Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 110 (2), 305–314.
Bonaccorsi, Andrea (1992), “On the Relationship Between Firm
Size and Export Intensity,” Journal of International Business
Studies, 23 (4), 605–635.
Bradley, M.F. (1984), “Effects of Cognitive Style, Attitude
Toward Growth, and Motivation on the Internationalization
of the Firm,” in Research in Marketing, Vol. 7, Jagdish Sheth,
ed. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 237–60.
Brouthers, Lance E., George Nakos, John Hadjimarcou, and
Keith D. Brouthers (2009), “Key Factors for Successful Export
Performance for Small Firms,” Journal of International Mar-
keting, 17 (3), 21–38.
Cadogan, John W. and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (1995),
“Narver and Slater, Kohli and Jaworski and the Market Ori-
entation Construct: Integration and Internationalization,”
Journal of Strategic Marketing, 3 (1), 41–70.
———, ———, and Charles Pahud de Mortanges (1999), “A
Measure of Export Market Orientation: Scale Construction
and Cross-Cultural Validation, ” Journal of International
BusinessStudies, 30 (4), 689–707.
———, ———, and Judy A. Siguaw (2002), “Export Market-
Oriented Activities: Their Antecedents and Performance Con-
sequences,” Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (3),
615–26.
———, Olli Kuivalainen, and Sanna Sundqvist (2009), “Export
Market-Oriented Behavior and Export Performance: Qua-
dratic and Moderating Effects Under Differing Degrees of
Market Dynamism and Internationalization, ” Journal of
International Marketing, 17 (4), 71–89.
———, Nicola J. Paul, Risto T. Salminen, Kaisu Puumalainen,
and Sanna Sundqvist (2001), “Key Antecedents to ‘Export’
Market-Oriented Behaviors: A Cross-National Empirical
Examination, ” International Journal of Research in Market-
ing, 18 (3), 261–82.
———, Anne L. Souchon, and David B. Procter (2008), “The
Quality of Market-Oriented Behaviors: Formative Index Con-
struction, ” Journal of Business Research, 61 (12), 1263–77.
Carmines, Edward G. and Richard A. Zeller (1979), Reliability
and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
58 Journal of International Marketing
Cavusgil, S. Tamer and John R. Nevin (1981), “Internal Deter-
minants of Export Marketing Behavior: An Empirical Investi-
gation, ” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February),
114–19.
——— and Shaoming Zou (1994), “Marketing Strategy-
Performance Relationship: An Investigation of the Empirical
Link in Export Market Ventures,” Journal of Marketing, 58
(January), 1–21.
Chin, Wynne W. (1998), “The Partial Least Squares Approach
to Structural Equation Modeling,” in Modern Methods for
Business Research, G.A. Marcoulides, ed. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 295–336.
——— and T.A. Frye (2003), PLS-Graph: Version 3.00 Build
1016. Houston: University of Houston.
——— and Abhijit Gopal (1995), “Adoption Intention in GSS:
Relative Importance on Beliefs,” Data Base Advances, 26
(2–3), 42–63.
Day, George S. (1994), “The Capabilities of Market-Driven
Organizations,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (October), 37–51.
——— and Robin Wensley (1988), “Assessing Advantage: A
Framework for Diagnosing Competitive Superiority,” Journal
of Marketing , 52 (April), 1–20.
De Lucio, Juan J., Raú l Mínguez, and Daniel Á lvarez (2007),
“El Tamañ o de la Empresa Exportadora e Importadora
Españ ola, ” Informac ió n Comercial Españ ola, Boletín
Econó mico, 2908, 13–30.
Dhanaraj, Charles and Paul W. Beamish (2003), “A Resource-
Based Approach to the Study of Export Performance,” Jour-
nal of Small Business Management, 41 (3), 242–61.
Diamantopoulos, Adamantios (2008), “Formative Indicators:
Introduction to the Special Issue,” Journal of Business
Research, 61 (12), 1201–1202.
———, Petra Riefler, and Katharina P. Roth (2008), “Advanc-
ing Formative Measurement Models,” Journal of Business
Research, 61 (12), 1203–1218.
———, Bodo B. Schlegelmilch, and K.Y. Katy Tse (1993),
“Understanding the Role of Export Marketing Assistance:
Empirical Evidence and Research Needs,” European Journal
of Marketing , 27 (4), 5–19.
——— and Judy A. Siguaw (2006), “Formative Versus Reflec-
tive Indicators in Organizational Measure Development: A
Comparison and Empirical Illustration,” British Journal of
Management, 17 (4), 263–82.
——— and Heidi M. Winklhofer (2001), “Index Construction
with Formative Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Develop-
ment, ” Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (May), 269–77.
Donthu, Naveen and Sam H. Kim (1993), “Implications of Firm
Controllable Factors on Export Growth,” Journal of Global
Marketing, 7 (1), 47–63.
Edwards, Jeffrey R. and Richard P. Bagozzi (2000), “On the
Nature and Direction of Relationships Between Constructs
and Measures,” Psychological Methods, 5 (2), 155–74.
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Struc-
tural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Mea-
surement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (Febru-
ary), 39–50.
Francis, June and Collen Collin-Dodd (2000), “The Impact of
Firms’ Export Orientation on the Export Performance of
High- Tech Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises,” Journal of
International Marketing, 8 (3), 84–103.
Frazier, Gary L. and Raymond C. Rody (1991), “The Use of
Influence Strategies in Interfirm Relationships in Industrial
Product Channels,” Journal of Marketing, 55 (January),
52–69.
Gó mez-Mejia, Luis R. (1988), “The Role of Human Resources
Strategy in Export Performance: A Longitudinal Study,”
Strategic Management Journal, 9 (5), 493–505.
Hamel, Gary and C.K. Prahalad (1994), Competing for the
Future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Huber, G.P. and D.J. Power (1985), “Retrospective Reports of
Strategic-Level Managers: Guidelines for Increasing Their
Accuracy,” Strategic Management Journal, 6 (2), 171–80.
Hultman, Magnus, Matthew J. Robson, and Constantine S.
Katsikeas (2009), “Export Product Strategy Fit and Perfor-
mance: An Empirical Investigation,” Journal of International
Marketing, 17 (4), 1–23.
Jain, Subhash C. (2002), Marketing Internacional. Mexico:
Thomson International.
Jarvis, Cheryl B., Scott B. MacKenzie, and Philip M. Podsakoff
(2003), “A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Mea-
surement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Con-
sumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2),
199–218.
Jean, Ruey-Jer, Rudolf R. Sinkovics, and Daekwan Kim (2010),
“Drivers and Performance Outcomes of Relationship Learn-
ing for Suppliers in Cross-Border Customer-Supplier Relation-
ships: The Role of Communication Culture,” Journal of Inter-
national Marketing, 18 (1), 63–85.
Johanson, Jan and Jan-Erik Vahlne (1977), “The Internationali-
zation Process of the Firm: A Model of Knowledge Develop-
ment and Increasing Foreign Market Commitments,” Journal
of International Business Studies, 8 (1), 23–32.
Julien, Pierre-Andre and Charles 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), 227–45.
Kacker, Madhav P. (1975), “Export Oriented Product Adapta-
tion: Its Patterns and Problems,” Management International
Review, 15 (6), 61–70.
Kaleka, Anna (2002), “Resources and Capabilities Driving
Competitive Advantage in Export Markets: Guidelines for
Industrial Exporters, ” Industrial Marketing Management, 31
(3), 273–83.
Katsikeas, Constantine S. (1994), “Export Competitive Advan-
tages: The Relevance of Firm Characteristics,” International
Marketing Review, 11 (3), 33–53.
———, Nigel F. Piercy, and Chris Ioannidis (1996), “Determi-
nants of Export Performance in a European Context,” Euro-
pean Journal of Marketing, 30 (6), 6–35.
Kim, Keysuk and Gary L. Frazier (1997), “Measurement of Dis-
tributor Commitment in Industrial Channels of Distribution,”
Journal of Business Research, 40 (2), 139–54.
Lages, Luis Filipe, Sandy D. Jap, and David A. Griffith (2008),
“The Role of Past Performance in Export Ventures: A Short-
Term Reactive Approach,” Journal of International Business
Studies, 39 (2), 304–325.
——— and David B. Montgomery (2004), “Export Perfor-
mance as an Antecedent of Export Commitment and Market-
ing Strategy Adaptation: Evidence from Small and Medium
Sized Exporters,” European Journal of Marketing, 38 (9–10),
1186–214.
———, Graç a Silva, and Chris Styles (2009), “Relationship
Capabilities, Quality, and Innovation as Determinants of
Export Performance,” Journal of International Marketing, 17
(4), 47–70.
Leonidou, Leonidas C., Constantine S. Katsikeas, and Nigel F.
Piercy (1998), “Identifying Managerial Influences on Export-
ing: Past Research and Future Directions,” Journal of Inter-
national Marketing, 6 (2), 74–102.
———, ———, and Saeed Samiee (2002), “Marketing Strategy
Determinants of Export Performance: A Meta-Analysis,”
Journal of Business Research, 55 (1), 51–67.
MacKenzie, Scott B., Philip M. Podsakoff, and Cheryl B. Jarvis
(2005), “The Problem of Measurement Model Misspecifica-
tion in Behavioral and Organizational Research and Some
Recommended Solutions,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 90
(4), 710–30.
Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce (2008), Foreign
Trade Statistics. Ministry of Industr y, Tourism and Commerce
(Spain).
Morgan, Neil A., Anna Kaleka, and Constantine S. Katsikeas
(2004), “Antecedents of Export Venture Performance: A
Theoretical Model and Empirical Assessment,” Journal of
Marketing, 68 (January), 90–108.
Firms’ Export Commitment 59
Naidu, G.M. and V. Kanti Prasad, (1994), “Predictors of Export
Strategy on Export Sales Performance,” Journal of Business
Research, 31 (2–3), 107–115.
Nunnall y, Jum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
O’Cass, Aron and Craig Julian (2003), “Examining Firm and
Environmental Influences on Export Marketing Mix Strategy
and Export Performance of Australian Exporters,” European
Journal of Marketing, 37 (3–4), 366–84.
Pauwels, Pieter and Paul Matthyssens (1999), “A Strategy
Process Perspective on Export Withdrawal, ” Journal of Inter-
national Marketing, 7 (3), 10–37.
Podsakoff, Nathan P., Wei Shen, and Philip M. Podsakoff
(2006), “The Role of Formative Measurement Models in
Strategic Management Research: Review, Critique, and Impli-
cations for Future Research,” in Research Methodology in
Strategy and Management, Vol. 3, David J. Ketchen Jr. and
Donald M. Berg, eds. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 201–256.
Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and
Nathan P. Podsakoff (2003), “Common Method Biases in
Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and
RecommendedRemedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88
(5), 879–903.
——— and Dennis W. Organ (1986), “Self-Reports in Organi-
zational Research: Problems and Prospects,” Journal of Man-
agement, 12 (4), 531–44.
Racela, Olimpia C., Chawit Chaikittisilpa, and Amonrat
Thoumrungroje (2007), “Market Orientation, International
Business Relationships and Perceived Export Performance,”
International Marketing Review, 24 (2), 144–63.
Ray, Gautam, Jay B. Barney, and Waleed A. Muhanna (2004),
“Capabilities, Business Processes, and Competitive Advan-
tage: Choosing the Dependent Variable in Empirical Tests of
the Resource-BasedView,” Strategic Management Journal
, 25
(1), 23–37.
Reid, Stan (1983), “Firm Internationalization Transaction Cost
and Strategic Choice,” International Marketing Review, 1 (2),
44–56.
Rose, Gregory M. and Aviv Shoham (2002), “Export Perfor-
mance and Market Orientation: Establishing an Empirical
Link, ” Journal of Business Research, 55 (3), 217–25.
Shoham, Aviv (1999), “Bounded Rationality, Planning, Stan-
dardization of International Strategy, and Export Perfor-
mance: A Structural Model Examination,” Journal of Inter-
national Marketing, 7 (2), 24–50.
Singer, Thomas Owen and Michael R. Czinkota (1994), “Fac-
tors Associated with Effective Use of Export Assistance,”
Journal of International Marketing, 2 (1), 53–71.
Souchon, Anne L. and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (1996), “A
Conceptual Framework of Export Marketing Information
60 Journal of International Marketing
Use: Key Issues and Research Propositions,” Journal of Inter-
national Marketing, 4 (3), 49–71.
Sousa, Carlos M.P., Francisco J. Martínez-Ló pez, and Filipe
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),
343–74.
Stump, Rodney L., Gerard A. Athaide, and Catherine N. Axinn
(1999), “The Conceptualization and Measurement of Export
Commitment,” in Marketing Theory and Applications, Vol.
10, Anil Menon and Arun Sharma, eds. Chicago: American
Marketing Association, 82–83.
Styles, Chris and Tim Ambler (1994), “Successful Export Prac-
tice: The UK Experience,” International Marketing Review,
11 (6), 23–47.
——— and ——— (2000), “The Impact of Relational Variables
on Export Performance: An Empirical Investigation in Aus-
tralia and the UK,” Australian Journal of Management, 25
(3), 261–81.
Teece, David J., Gary Pisano, and Amy Shuen (1997),
“Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management,” Strategic
Management Journal, 18 (7), 509–535.
Theodosiou, Marios and Leonidas C. Leonidou (2003), “Stan-
dardization Versus Adaptation of International Marketing
Strategy: An Integrative Assessment of the Empirical
Research,” International Business Review, 12 (2), 141–71.
Van Raaij, Erik M. and J.W. Stoelhorst (2008), “The Implemen-
tation of a Market Orientation: A Review and Integration of
the Contributions to Date,” European Journal of Marketing,
42 (11–12), 1265–93.
Vorhies, Douglas and Neil A. Morgan (2003), “A Configura-
tion Theory Assessment of Marketing Organization Fit with
Business Strategy and Its Relationship with Marketing Perfor-
mance,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (January), 100–115.
Wold, H. (1979), Model Construction and Evaluation When
Theoretical Knowledge Is Scarce: An Example of the Use of
Partial Least Squares. Gené ve: Université de Gené ve.
Yalcinkaya, Goksel, Roger J. Calantone, and David A. Griffith
(2007), “An Examination of Exploration and Exploitation
Capabilities: Implications for Product Innovation and Market
Performance,” Journal of International Marketing, 15 (4),
63–93.
Zhao, Xinshu, John G. Lynch Jr., and Qimei Chen (2010),
“Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths About
Mediation Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37
(August), forthcoming.
Zou, Shaoming and Simona Stan (1998), “The Determinants of
Export Performance: A Review of the Empirical Literature
Between 1987 and 1997,” International Marketing Review,
15 (5), 333–56.
THE AUTHORS
Antonio Navarro is Associate Professor of Marketing
and Market Research at the Business Management Fac-
ulty at the University of Sevilla (Spain). He holds a doc-
torate in business administration from the University of
Sevilla. His research interests include international mar-
keting strategy, franchising, and retailing. He has pub-
lished in Journal of World Business, International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Inter-
national Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer
Research, Management Research Review, and other
journals.
Francisco J. Acedo is Associate Professor of Strategic
Management at the University of Sevilla (Spain). He
holds a doctorate in business administration from the
University of Sevilla. His research interest focuses
mainly on the internationalization process of small and
medium-sized enterprises and the role of time in the
international growth of firms. He has published in
Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Management
Studies, Journal of World Business, International Busi-
ness Review, and other journals. He is also Honorary
Research Fellow at the Centre for Internationalisation
and Enterprise Research at the University of Glasgow.
Matthew J. Robson is Professor of Marketing at Leeds
University Business School at the University of Leeds.
He earned a doctoral degree at Cardiff University, where
he served as a member of faculty before moving to the
University of Leeds. His research interests focus on
cross-border interfirm collaborative strategies, distribu-
tion channel relationships, exporting strategies, and
social and structural relationship governance and main-
tenance mechanisms.His research has been published in
British Journal of Management, Journal of International
Marketing, Journal of World Business, Industrial Mar-
keting Management, International Marketing Review,
Management International Review, Organization Sci-
ence, and others. He is also an associate editor for mar-
keting at British Journal of Management.
Emilio Ruzo is Associate Professor of Marketing and
Market Research at the Business Management Faculty
of Lugo at the University of Santiago de Compostela
(Spain). He holds a doctorate in business administration
from the University of Santiago de Compostela. His
research interests include competitive market analysis,
international marketing strategy, brand equity, con-
sumer behavior, entrepreneurship, and family business.
His research has been published in Internationa l Journal
of Market Research, Journal of World Business, Journal
of International Marketing, Management Research
Review, and other journals.
Fernando Losada is Associate Professor of Marketing
and Market Research at the Business Management
Faculty of Lugo at the University of Santiago de Com-
postela (Spain). He holds a doctorate in business admin-
istration from the University of Santiago de Com-
postela. His research interests include international
marketing strategy, competitive market analysis, con-
sumer behavior, entrepreneurship, and family business.
His research has been published in International Journal
of Market Research, Journal of World Business, Journal
of International Marketing, Management Research
Review, and other journals.
Firms’ Export Commitment 61
Copyright of Journal of International Marketing is the property of American Marketing Association and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.