Customer functional value creation through a sustainable entrepreneurial orientation approach

Figures & data

Table 1. Total sample measurement model: reliability and convergent validity for first- and second-order indicators, collinearity, weights and significance for the third-order indicator.

Item/Construct/ Dimension	Loading	Weight	Composite reliability	AVE	TOL	VIF	t-value
SEO
EO		0,720	0,795	0,567	0,87	1,155	5,587***
Innovativeness	0,618	0,367	0,865	0,763			4,469***
EMPRINN1	0,852						18,000***
EMPRINN2	0,894						25,363***
Risk taking	0,763		0,859	0,675			7,575***
EMPRISK3	0,658						6,666***
EMPRISK4	0,861						22,005***
EMPRISK5	0,922						43,710***
Proactiveness	0,859		0,860	0,754
EMPROAC6	0,888						15,756***
EMPROAC7	0,848						13,711***
SO		0,479	0,910	0,719	0,87	1,155	2,991**
ORSOS1	0,894						35,162***
ORSOS2	0,656						7,427***
ORSOS3	0,916						39,301***
ORSOS4	0,900						25,144***
CFVC			0,933	0,670
CVF1	0,849						29,568***
CVF2	0,700						16,154***
CVF3	0,883						31,153***
CVF4	0,884						36,552***
CVF5	0,891						32,670***
CVF6	0,557						7,633***
CVF7	0,901						46,017***
PERF			0,795	0,835
Customer performance	0,942		0,917	0,787			35,941***
PERFCL1	0,905						34,224***
PERFCL2	0,894						21,695***
PERFCL3	0,862						20,435***
Business performance	0,885		0,969	0,796			19,744***
PERFIRM4	0,857						14,854***
PERFIRM5	0,900						40,406***
PERFIRM6	0,882						33,898***
PERFIRM7	0,882						36,917***
PERFIRM8	0,910						44,687***
PERFIRM9	0,919						46,534***
PERFIRM10	0,876						13,879***
PERFIRM11	0,910						37,902***

*p < 0.05;

**p < 0.01;

***p < 0.001 (based on t (4999), two-tailed test).

Table 2. Structural model analysis: multicollinearity, path coefficients, predictive relevance, indirect effects for mediation model and hypotheses testing.

Hypotheses	VIF	TOL	Path	Indirect Effect	Total Effect	R^2	F^2
H1: SEO -> CFVC	1.000	1.000	0.397***		0.397*** (6.462)	0.158	0.19 (medium)
H2: SEO -> PERF	1.187	0.842	0.158*		0.266*** (4.242)	0.132	0.02 (small)
H3: SEO -> CFVC -> PERF	1.187	0.842	0.270***	0.107*** (3.405)	0.270*** (3.949)	0.132	0.07 (small)
Hypotheses	Q^2	q^2	t value	p value	Correlations	% Explained Variance	Supported
H1: SEO -> CFVC	0,151	0.18 (medium)	6.462	0.000	0.397	0.158	✓
H2: SEO -> PERF	0,105	0 (null)	2.171	0.015	0.158	0.042	✓
H3: SEO -> CFVC -> PERF	0,105	0,06 (small)	3.949	0.000	0.270	0.090	✓

'p < 0,1;

*p < 0,05;

**p < 0,01;

***p < 0,001 (based on t(4999), one-tailed test).

Figure 1. Conceptual model and hypotheses.

Figure 2. Structural model results.

'p < 0,1;

*p < 0,05;

**p < 0,01;

***p < 0,001 (based on t(4999), one-tailed test)

Table

Construct/Dimension	Item	Source
SEO
EO		Based on Matsuno et al. (2002, p. 29–30)
Innovativeness	EMPRINN1. When it comes to problem solving, in this firm we value creative new solutions more than the conventional solutions. EMPRINN2. The development of innovative marketing strategies is promoted, knowing that some could fail.
Risk taking	EMPRISK3. Initiatives that avoid risk are more valued than initiatives seeking for change. EMPRISK4. We like to ‘play it safe’ EMPRISK5. We like to implement plans only if we are certain that they will work
Proactiveness	EMPROAC6. We strongly believe that a change in the market creates a positive opportunity for us. EMPROAC7. Members in this firm tend to talk more about opportunities rather than problems.
SO	The company considers sustainability* as	Adapted from Bos-Brouwers (2010b, p.180)
	ORSOS1… an opportunity for profit.
	ORSOS2… a duty, a normal part of the business.
	ORSOS3… an investment for the company.
	ORSOS4… something that is relevant to the company.
CFVC	CVF1. The firm competes by offering products/services adapted to the needs of the market. CVF2. It competes offering products/services with superior results to the competition. CVF3. It has a reputation for making useful products/services. CVF4. It has a reputation for making quality products/services. CVF5. Competes primarily by offering useful products/services to its customers. CVF6. It is known for its technological innovation. CVF7. The products/services offered by the company sell well because they work.	Adapted from Smith y Colgate (2007, p. 22)
PERF		Adapted from García-Rodríguez et al. (2010, p. 75) and Santos-Vijande et al. (2013, p. 101)
Customer performance	PERFCL1. Our customer satisfaction levels are higher than those of my main competitor. PERFCL2. Our levels of value provision to our customers are higher than those of my main competitor. PERFCL3. Our retention of valued customers is superior to that of my main competitor.
Business performance	PERFIRM4. Our market share growth is superior to that of my main competitor. PERFIRM5. Our sales revenue growth outpaces that of my largest competitor. PERFIRM6. The acquisition of new customers is superior to my main competitor. PERFIRM7. The increase in sales to existing customers is greater than that of my main competitor. PERFIRM8. The company has outperformed my main competitor. PERFIRM9. The Return on Investment (ROI = Return on Investment/Invested Capital) has been higher than that of my main competitor. PERFIRM10. The Return on Sales (ROS = Profits/Sales) has been higher than that of my main competitor. PERFIRM11. The achievement of financial goals has been superior to that of my main competitor.

* ‘Understanding that sustainability is the voluntary incorporation of environmental, social and economic aspects into the core of its operations, taking into account the concerns of its different stakeholders (employees, managers, suppliers, customers, authorities, community, etc.) in its business decisions to improve business performance in the short and long term …’.

Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J. T., & Ozsomer, A. (2002). The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and market orientation on business performance. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), 18–32. doi:10.1509/jmkg.66.3.18.18507

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bos-Brouwers, H. E. J. (2010b). Sustainable innovation processes within small and medium-sized enterprises (Doctoral Thesis). Vrije Universiteit.

 Google Scholar

García-Rodríguez, N., Álvarez, B., & Santos Vijande, M. L. (2010). Aplicación de la lógica dominante del servicio (LDS) en el sector turístico: el marketing interno como antecedente de la cultura de co-creación de innovaciones con clientes y empleados. Cuadernos de Gestión, 11(2), 53–75. doi:10.5295/cdg.100238ng

 Google Scholar

Santos-Vijande, M. L., González-Mieres, C., & Ángel, J. (2013). An assessment of innovativeness in KIBS: Implications on KIBS' co-creation culture, innovation capability and performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 28(2), 86–102. doi:10.1108/08858621311295236

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar