Determinants of marketing innovation among SMEs in Vietnam: a resource-based and stakeholder perspective
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/im.16(4).2020.07
-
Article InfoVolume 16 2020, Issue #4, pp. 74-90
- Cited by
- 1118 Views
-
288 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Innovative marketing practices are essential for firms to increase sales and profitability. This paper aims to investigate the determinants of firms’ marketing innovation based on the employment of resource-based view and stakeholder theory. A probit regression model linking marketing innovation with proxies of firms’ resources and pressures from firms’ stakeholders was tested based on a dataset of 5,857 Vietnamese enterprises taken from a survey by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Vietnam in 2016. The findings indicate that firms’ size decreases the probability of marketing innovation by 1%, while internal knowledge gained from internal R&D causes the probability of marketing innovation to increase by 0.18%. Besides, the political connection and collaborations with competitors and private consultants drive the probability that firms implement the marketing innovation up by 0.09%, 0.12%, and 0.09%, respectively. On the other hand, export-oriented firms are more likely to implement marketing innovation by 0.03%, while foreign ownership reduces the chance of this decision by 0.05%. This research also reveals the essential role of the firm’s market pressures to enter into new markets or improve product quality in encouraging marketing innovation by 0.16% and 0.13%, respectively.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by National Economics University, Grant Number: 343-QĐ-ĐHKTQD.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)M31, M38, O31
-
References93
-
Tables5
-
Figures0
-
- Table 1. Variable descriptions
- Table 2. Determinants of innovation strategies
- Table 3. Moderating effects of government support by the firm’s political connection
- Table 4. The mediating role of government support by types of government support
- Table A1. Correlation
-
- Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2008). The Role of Institutions in Growth and Development (Working Paper No. 10). Commission on Growth and Development. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
- Adhikari, A., Derashid, C., & Zhang, H. (2006). Public policy, political connections, and effective tax rates: Longitudinal evidence from Malaysia. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25(5), 574-595.
- American Marketing Association (AMA). (2007). Definition of Marketing.
- Ansoff, H. I. (1957). Strategies for diversification. Harvard Business Review, 35(5), 113-124.
- Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
- Basu, S. (2014). Product market strategies and innovation types: Finding the fit. Strategic Direction, 30(3), 28-31.
- Becker, G. (1964). Human capital. New York, NY: National Bureau of Economic Research.
- Blind, K. (2012). The influence of regulations on innovation: A quantitative assessment for OECD Countries. Research Policy, 41(2), 391-400.
- Boubakri, N., Cosset, J. C., & Saffar, W. (2008). Political connections of newly privatized firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(5), 654-673.
- Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345-423.
- Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I., & Tsakanikas, A. (2004). Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: Complements or substitutes for innovative performance? Technovation, 24(1), 29-39.
- Chebbi, H., Yahiaoui, D., Thrassou, A., & Vrontis, D. (2013). The exploration activity’s added value into the innovation process. Global Business and Economics Review, 15(2/3), 265-278.
- Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
- Choi, J. (2015). Create or buy? Internal vs. external source of innovation and firms’ productivity (TMCD Working Paper No. 67).
- Claessens, S., Feijen, E., & Laeven, L. (2008). Political connections and preferential access to finance: The role of campaign contributions. Journal of Financial Economics, 88(3), 554-580.
- Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
- Contò, F., La Sala, P., & Papapietro, P. (2011). The wine food chain in Apulia: From theory to practice. Economia Agro-Alimentare, 3(1), 426-499.
- Crespi, G., & Zuniga, P. (2011). Innovation and productivity: Evidence from six Latin American countries. World Development, 40(2), 273-290.
- Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 659-669.
- DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
- Dong, M. (2017). Does corporate political activity make firms less risk taking? Advances in Management & Applied Economics, 7(6), 1-16.
- Dyer, J., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategies and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Journal, 23(4), 660-679.
- ERIA. (2018). Innovation policy in ASEAN. Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East.
- Fabrizio, K. R. (2009). Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation. Research Policy, 38(2), 255-264.
- Faccio, M. (2006). Politically connected firms. American Economic Review, 96(1), 369-386.
- Faccio, M. (2007). The characteristics of politically connected firms (Working paper No. 2007-006). Vanderbilt University.
- Faccio, M., & Lang, H. P. (2002). The ultimate ownership of Western European corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 65(3), 365-395.
- Fan, J. P., Wong, T. J., & Zhang, T. (2007). Politically connected CEOs, corporate governance and post-IPO performance of China’s newly partially privatized firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 84(2), 330-357.
- Franklin, A., Qian, M., & Xie, J. (2018). Understanding informal financing. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 39, 19-33.
- Freel, M. S. (2005). Patterns of innovation and skills in small firms. Technovation, 25(2), 123-134.
- Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston, MA: Pitman Publishing.
- Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(2), 109-122.
- Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of innovation types on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(2), 662-676.
- Harms, F., Rohmann, S., Heinrich, M., Druener, M., & Trommsdorff, V. (2002). Innovative marketing. Pharmaceuticals Policy and Laws, 5(5), 135-149.
- Heunks, F. (1998). Innovation, creativity and success. Small Business Economics, 10(3), 263-272.
- Hillman, A., & Hitt, M. (1999). Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation and strategy decisions. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 825-842.
- Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Schuler, D. (2004). Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 30(6), 837-857.
- Huber, G. P. (2004). The Necessary Nature of Future Firms: Attributes of Survivors in a Changing World. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
- Jensen, K. W., & Schøtt, T. (2015). Start-up firms’ networks for innovation and export: Facilitated and constrained by entrepreneurs’ networking in private and public spheres. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 5(1), 1-17.
- Kasahara, H., & Rodrigue, J. (2008). Does the use of imported intermediates increase productivity? Plant-level evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 87(1), 106-118.
- Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397.
- Kotler, P., & Keller, K. (2015). Marketing Management (15th ed.). Pearson.
- Kraatz, M. S., & Moore, J. H. (2002). Executive migration and institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 120-143.
- Lee, H., & Stone, J. A. (1994). Product and process innovation in the product life cycle: Estimates for U.S. manufacturing industries. Southern Economics Journal, 60(3), 754-763.
- Lee, K., & Kang, S. M. (2007). Innovation types and productivity growth: Evidence from Korean manufacturing firms. Global Economic Review, 36(4), 343-359.
- Leyden, D. P., Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2014). A theoretical analysis of the role of social networks in entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 43(7), 1157-1163.
- Lhuillery, S., & Pfister, E. (2009). R&D cooperation and failures in innovation projects: Empirical evidence from French CIS data. Research Policy, 38(1), 45-57.
- Lipparini, A., & Sobrero, M. (1994). The glue and the pieces: Entrepreneurship and innovation in small-firm networks. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 125-140.
- Lokshin, B., Hagedoorn, J., & Letterie, W. (2011). The bumpy road of technology partnerships: Understanding causes and consequences of partnershipmal-functioning. Research Policy, 40(2), 297-308.
- Lorenz, E. (2014). Do credit constrained firms in Africa innovate less? A study based on nine African nations. Paper presented at the 12th Globelics Conference (pp. 2014-2029). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
- Lounsbury, M. (2002). Institutional transformation and status mobility: The professionalization of the field of finance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 255-266.
- Love, J. H., Roper, S., & Bryson, J. R. (2011). Openness, knowledge, innovation and growth in U.K. business services. Research Policy, 40(10), 1438-1452.
- Mahendra, E., Zuhdi, U., & Muyanto, R. (2015). Determinants of firm innovation in Indonesia: The role of institutions and access to finance. Economics and Finance in Indonesia, 61(3), 149-179.
- Masron, T. (2017). Relative institutional quality and FDI inflows in ASEAN countries. Journal of Economic Studies, 44(1), 115-137.
- Mcmillan, J., & Woodruff, C. (2002). The central role of entrepreneurs in transition economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(3), 153-170.
- Meroño-Cerdán, A. L., & López-Nicolás, C. (2017). Innovation objectives as determinants of organizational innovations. Innovation, 19(2), 208-226.
- Meyer, M. J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
- Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-86.
- Moreira, J. (2010). Marketing Innovation – Study of the Determinants of Innovative Marketing Capability of Portuguese Companies (Doctoral Thesis in Management). University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal.
- Moreira, J., Silva, M. J., Simoes, J., & Maia, G. S. (2012). Marketing innovation: Study of determinants of innovation in the design and packaging of goods and services – Application to Portuguese firms. Contemporary Management Research, 8(2), 117-130.
- Naidoo, V. (2010). Firm survival through a crisis: The influence of market orientation, marketing innovation and business strategy. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(8), 1311-1320.
- Nieto, M., & Quevedo, P. (2005). Absorptive capacity, technological opportunities, knowledge spillovers and innovative efforts. Technovation, 25(10), 122-130.
- North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the Tertius Lungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 100-130.
- OECD. (2005). Investment Incentives and FDI in Selected ASEAN Countries. In International Investment Perspective 2004. OECD Publishing.
- OECD. (2005). Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data: Oslo Manual (3rd ed.). Paris: OECD.
- OECD. (2017). OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Kazakhstan 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing.
- Parmigiani, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2011). Clearing a path through the forest: A meta-review of interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1108-1136.
- Partanen, J., Chetty, S. K., & Rajala, A. (2014). Innovation types and network relationships. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(5), 1027-1055.
- Peng, M. W. (2006). Global strategy. Cincinnati: South-Western Thomson.
- Peng, M. W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B., & Chen, H. (2009). The institution-based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 63-81.
- Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Review, 5(3-4), 137-168.
- Richter, B. K., Samphantharak, K., & Timmons, J. F. (2009). Lobbying and taxes. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 893-909.
- Schneider, L., Günther, J., & Brandenburg, B. (2010). Innovation and skills from a sectoral perspective: A linked employer-employee analysis. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 19(2), 185-202.
- Schott, T., & Jensen, K. W. (2016). Firm’s innovation benefiting from networking and institutional support: A global analysis of nation and firm effects. Research Policy, 45(6), 1233-1246.
- Schøtt, T., & Sedaghat, M. (2014). Innovation embedded in entrepreneurs’ networks and national educational systems: A global study. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 463-476.
- Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (3rd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
- Sharma, C. (2014). Imported intermediate inputs, R&D, and productivity at firm level: Evidence from Indian manufacturing industries. The International Trade Journal, 28(3), 246-263.
- Shergill, G., & Nargundkar, R. (2005). Market orientation, marketing innovation as performance drivers: Extending the paradigm. Journal of Global Marketing, 19(1), 27-44.
- Smith, K. G., Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2005). Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 346-357.
- Tebaldi, E., & Elmslie, B. (2013). Does institutional quality impact innovation? Evidence from cross-country patent grant data. Applied Economics, 45(7), 887-900.
- Teixeira, A. A. C., & Tavares-Lehmann, A. T. (2014). Human capital intensity in technology based firms located in Portugal: Does foreign ownership matter? Research Policy, 43(4), 737-748.
- Tether, B. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31(6), 947-967.
- Thrassou, A., Vrontis, D., Chebbi, H., & Yahiaoui, D. (2012). Transcending innovativeness towards strategic reflexivity. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 15(4), 420-437.
- Tian, Y., Wang, Y., Xie, X., Jiao, J., & Jiao, H. (2019). The impact of business-government relations on firms’ innovation: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 143, 1-8.
- Tilton, J. H. (1971). International diffusion of technology: The case of semiconductors. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
- Uden, A. V., Knoben, J., & Vermeulen, P. (2016). Human capital and innovation in sub-Saharan countries: A firm-level study. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 19(2), 103-124.
- Van Dijk, B., Den Hertog, R., Menkveld, B., & Thurik, D. (1997). Some new evidence on the determinants large and small firm determinants. Small Business Economics, 9(4), 335-343.
- Wong, W. Y., & Hooy, C. W. (2018). Do types of political connection affect firm performance differently? Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 51(3), 297-317.
- Zaheer, A., Gulati, R., & Nohria, N. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 203-215.
- Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Journal, 27(2), 185-203.
- Zemplinerova, A., & Hromadkova, E. (2012). Determinants of firm’s innovation. Prague Economic Papers, 4, 487-503.
- Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., & Tam, C. M. (2010). Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation, 30(3), 181-194.