Driving Success: Unveiling the Synergy of E-Marketing, Sustainability, and Technology Orientation in Online SME
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development
2.1. E-Marketing Orientation (EMO)
2.2. Sustainability Orientation (SO)
2.3. Technological Orientation (TO)
2.4. Online SME Business Performance (OBP)
2.5. Research Model and Hypothesis
3. Method
3.1. Materials and Measurement
3.2. Data Collection
3.3. Measurement Items
3.4. Data Analysis
3.5. Respondent Profile
3.6. Questionnaire Validation: Preliminary Results
3.7. Common Method Bias
4. Results
4.1. Measurement (Outer) Model Results
4.2. Structural (Inner) Model Results
4.3. Moderating Effects of E-Commerce Intensity
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Implications
5.2. Managerial Implications
5.3. Implications for Environmental Decision Makers
6. Limitations and Future Research Directions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Items | EMO | OBP | SO | TO |
---|---|---|---|---|
EMO_1 | 0.871 | 0.637 | 0.635 | 0.828 |
EMO_2 | 0.840 | 0.571 | 0.557 | 0.645 |
EMO_3 | 0.811 | 0.536 | 0.561 | 0.625 |
EMO_4 | 0.743 | 0.513 | 0.552 | 0.652 |
OBP_1 | 0.564 | 0.817 | 0.524 | 0.564 |
OBP_2 | 0.569 | 0.867 | 0.584 | 0.527 |
OBP_3 | 0.468 | 0.770 | 0.470 | 0.428 |
OBP_4 | 0.569 | 0.705 | 0.601 | 0.659 |
SO_1 | 0.506 | 0.378 | 0.701 | 0.542 |
SO_2 | 0.400 | 0.240 | 0.764 | 0.388 |
SO_3 | 0.555 | 0.453 | 0.760 | 0.564 |
SO_4 | 0.535 | 0.706 | 0.784 | 0.536 |
TO_1 | 0.871 | 0.637 | 0.635 | 0.828 |
TO_2 | 0.616 | 0.566 | 0.580 | 0.839 |
TO_3 | 0.654 | 0.539 | 0.581 | 0.820 |
TO_4 | 0.570 | 0.518 | 0.524 | 0.754 |
Path | 2.5% (EIU) | 97.5% (EIU) | 2.5% (EIO) | 97.5% (EIO) |
---|---|---|---|---|
EMO -> OBP | 0.197 | 0.525 | −0.202 | 0.232 |
SO -> OBP | 0.141 | 0.396 | 0.287 | 0.646 |
TO -> OBP | −0.015 | 0.363 | 0.104 | 0.620 |
Original Correlation | Correlation Permutation Mean | 5% | Permutation p-Values | |
---|---|---|---|---|
EMO | 0.999 | 0.999 | 0.997 | 0.448 |
OBP | 0.999 | 0.999 | 0.997 | 0.433 |
SO | 0.998 | 0.995 | 0.986 | 0.800 |
TO | 0.998 | 0.999 | 0.997 | 0.160 |
Mean– Original Correlation | Mean Permutation Mean Difference | 2.5% | 97.5% | Permutation p-Value | Variance- Original Correlation | Variance Permutation Mean Difference | 2.5% | 97.5% | Permutation p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMO | 0.055 | 0.005 | −0.210 | 0.239 | 0.626 | −0.031 | 0.007 | −0.275 | 0.271 | 0.814 |
OBP | 0.089 | 0.004 | −0.220 | 0.214 | 0.419 | 0.156 | 0.008 | −0.321 | 0.364 | 0.388 |
SO | −0.003 | 0.007 | −0.209 | 0.222 | 0.976 | −0.070 | 0.011 | −0.306 | 0.329 | 0.657 |
TO | 0.045 | 0.003 | −0.230 | 0.230 | 0.660 | −0.106 | 0.006 | −0.274 | 0.276 | 0.495 |
References
- Watson, R.T.; Pitt, L.F.; Berthon, P.; Zinkhan, G.M. U-commerce: Expanding the universe of marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2002, 30, 333–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ainin, S.; Parveen, F.; Moghavvemi, S.; Jaafar, N.I.; Mohd Shuib, N.L. Factors influencing the use of social media by SMEs and its performance outcomes. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2015, 115, 570–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caniëls, M.C.J.; Lenaerts, H.K.L.; Gelderman, C.J. Explaining the internet usage of SMEs: The impact of market orientation, behavioural norms, motivation and technology acceptance. Internet Res. 2015, 25, 358–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaynak, E.; Tatoglu, E.; Kula, V. An analysis of the factors affecting the adoption of electronic commerce by SMEs: Evidence from an emerging market. Int. Mark. Rev. 2005, 22, 623–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dholakia, R.R.; Kshetri, N. Factors Impacting the Adoption of the Internet among SMEs. Small Bus. Econ. 2004, 23, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awad, H.A.; Aboalganam, K.M. The impact of e-marketing and marketing orientation on firm performance with moderating role of social media usage. Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst. 2023, 42, 542–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roxas, B.; Chadee, D. Environmental sustainability orientation and financial resources of small manufacturing firms in the Philippines. Soc. Responsib. J. 2012, 8, 208–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sung, C.S.; Park, J.Y. Sustainability Orientation and Entrepreneurship Orientation: Is There a Tradeoff Relationship between Them? Sustainability 2018, 10, 379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bodas-Freitas, I.M.; Corrocher, N. The use of external support and the benefits of the adoption of resource efficiency practices: An empirical analysis of european SMEs. Energy Policy 2019, 132, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dey, P.K.; Malesios, C.; Chowdhury, S.; Saha, K.; Budhwar, P.; De, D. Adoption of circular economy practices in small and medium-sized enterprises: Evidence from Europe. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022, 248, 108496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neri, A.; Cagno, E.; Trianni, A. Barriers and drivers for the adoption of industrial sustainability measures in European SMEs: Empirical evidence from chemical and metalworking sectors. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 28, 1433–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, G.Y.; Zhou, K.Z.; Yim, C.K.B. On what should firms focus in transitional economies? A study of the contingent value of strategic orientations in China. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2007, 24, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mamduh, A.; Pratikto, H. Technology orientation and innovation capability in the digital transformation process of SMEs: A review. Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. (2147-4478). 2021, 10, 76–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ziarul Financiar.ro. Available online: https://www.zf.ro/supliment-zf-imm-2021/radiografia-imm-urilor-din-romania-cate-au-aparut-si-cate-au-20106569 (accessed on 17 November 2023).
- Dura, C.C.; Iordache, A.M.M.; Ionescu, A.; Isac, C.; Breaz, T.O. Analyzing Performance in Wholesale Trade Romanian SMEs: Framing Circular Economy Business Scenarios. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berinde, S.-R.; Herța, L.-M. Performance Improvements for Romanian SMEs and Their Predictors. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ziarul Financiar.ro. Available online: https://www.zf.ro/special/zf-ecommerce-summit-2023-comertul-online-unul-motoarele-cresterii-21740878 (accessed on 17 November 2023).
- Khalid, B.; Naumova, E. Digital transformation SCM in view of COVID-19 from Thailand SMEs perspective. Glob. Chall. Digit. Transform. Mark. 2021, 1, 49–66. [Google Scholar]
- Rehman, N.; Razaq, S.; Farooq, A.; Zohaib, N.M.; Nazri, M. Information technology and firm performance: Mediation role of ab-sorptive capacity and corporate entrepreneurship in manufacturing SMEs. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2020, 32, 1049–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheth, J.N.; Sharma, A. International e-marketing: Opportunities and issues. Int. Mark. Rev. 2005, 22, 611–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.Y.; Huang, H.L. Developing and Validating the Measurement Scale of e-Marketing Orientation. In Rediscovering the Essentiality of Marketing, Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science; Petruzzellis, L., Winer, R., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, S.A. E-marketing, e-commerce, e-business, and internet of things: An overview of terms in the context of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Glob. Appl. Internet Things Digit. Mark. 2023, 332–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avlonitis, G.J.; Gounaris, S.P. Marketing orientation and company performance: Industrial vs. consumer goods companies. Ind. Mark. Manag. 1997, 26, 385–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sürer, A.; Mutlu, H.M. The effects of an e-marketing orientation on performance on turkish exporter firms. J. Internet Commer. 2015, 14, 123–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Gohary, H. E-Marketing-A literature Review from a Small Businesses perspective. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2010, 1, 214–244. [Google Scholar]
- Ciunova-Shuleska, A.; Osakwe, C.N.; Palamidovska-Sterjadovska, N. Complementary impact of capabilities and brand orientation on SMBs performance. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2016, 17, 1270–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilmore, A.; Gallagher, D.; Henry, S. E-marketing and SMEs: Operational lessons for the future. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2007, 19, 234–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herbig, P.; Hale, B. Internet: The marketing challenge of the twentieth century. Internet Res. 1997, 7, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andreki, P.H.; Yazdanifard, R. Is E-marketing the future of marketing field. Am. J. Ind. Bus. Manag. 2014, 4, 47649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bleier, A.; Goldfarb, A.; Tucker, C. Consumer privacy and the future of data-based innovation and marketing. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2020, 37, 466–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiang, C.-T. Developing an eMarketing model for tourism and hospitality: A keyword analysis. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 3091–3114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwan, I.S.; Fong, J.; Wong, H.K. An e-customer behavior model with online analytical mining for internet marketing planning. Decis. Support Syst. 2005, 41, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, M.D.; Coleman, B.C. Marketing on the internet: An online course to merge e-marketing theory and systems development. Issues Inf. Syst. 2005, 6, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordon, I. Organizing for relationship marketing. In Handbook of Relationship Marketing; Sheth, J.N., Parvatiyar, A., Eds.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2000; pp. 505–523. [Google Scholar]
- Neff, T.; McKnight, L. The Multimedia Contact Center: Corporate Façade or Human Face? The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy: Medford, MA, USA, 2000; Available online: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/345232.html (accessed on 17 November 2023).
- Tarokh, M.J.; Ghahremanloo, H. Intelligence CRM: A contact center model. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 27–29 August 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christopher, M.; Lowson, R.; Peck, H. Creating agile supply chains in the fashion industry. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2004, 32, 367–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kucuk, S. Towards integrated e-marketing value creation process. J. Direct Data Digit. Mark. Pract. 2011, 12, 345–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pitta, D.A.; Franzak, F.; Laric, M. Privacy and one-to-one marketing: Resolving the conflict. J. Consum. Mark. 2003, 20, 616–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lonial, S.C.; Carter, R.E. The impact of organizational orientations on medium and small firm performance: A resource-based perspective. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2015, 53, 94–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaltoni, A.M.; West, D.; Alnawas, I.; Shatnawi, T. Electronic marketing orientation in the Small and Medium-sized Enterprises context. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2018, 30, 272–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsiotsou, R.H.; Vlachopoulou, M. Understanding the effects of market orientation and e-marketing on service performance. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2011, 29, 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilmore, A.; Carson, D.; Grant, K. SME marketing in practice. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2001, 19, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brodie, R.J.; Winklhofer, H.; Coviello, N.E.; Johnston, W.J. Is e-marketing coming of age? An examination of the penetration of e-marketing and firm performance. J. Interact. Mark. 2007, 21, 2–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, F.; Mahajan, V.; Balasubramanian, S. An analysis of e-business adoption and its impact on business performance. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2003, 31, 425–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atkinson, A.A.; Waterhouse, J.H.; Wells, R.B. A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 1997, 38, 25–27. [Google Scholar]
- Strategic Direction. Embracing the power of e-marketing: The importance of e-trust and improving strategic business performance. Strateg. Dir. 2018, 34, 28–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yousaf, Z.; Sahar, N.; Majid, A.; Rafiq, A. The effects of e-marketing orientation on strategic business performance: Mediating role of e-trust, World Journal of Entrepreneurship. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 14, 309–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stone, L.J. Limitations of cleaner production programmes as organisational change agents I. Achieving commitment and on-going improvement. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Troise, C.; Santoro, G.; Jones, P.; Bresciani, S. Small and medium enterprises and sustainable business models: Exploring enabling factors for adoption. J. Manag. Organ. 2023, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roxas, B.; Ashill, N.; Chadee, D. Effects of entrepreneurial and environmental sustainability orientations on firm performance: A study of small businesses in The Philippines. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2017, 55 (Suppl. S1), 163–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaltegger, S.; Wagner, M. Sustainable entrepreneurship, and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2011, 20, 222–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jagani, S.; Hong, P. Sustainability orientation, byproduct management and business performance: An empirical investigation. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 357, 131707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansmann, R.; Koellner, T.; Scholz, R.W. Influence of consumers’ socioecological and economic orientations on preferences for wood products with sustainability labels. For. Policy Econ. 2006, 8, 239–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viengkham, D.; Baumann, C.; Winzar, H.; Dahana, W.D. Toward understanding Convergence and Divergence: Inter-ocular testing of traditional philosophies, economic orientation, and religiosity/spirituality. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 139, 1335–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mittal, S.; Khan, M.A.; Romero, D.; Wuest, T. A critical review of smart manufacturing & industry 4.0 maturity models: Implications for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). J. Manuf. Syst. 2018, 49, 194–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bresciani, S.; Puertas, R.; Ferraris, A.; Santoro, G. Innovation, environmental sustainability and economic development: DEA-bootstrap and multilevel analysis to compare two regions. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 172, 121040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nishitani, K. Demand for ISO 14001 adoption in the global supply chain: An empirical analysis focusing on environmentally conscious markets. Resour. Energy Econ. 2010, 32, 395–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aragón-Correa, J.A.; Hurtado-Torres, N.; Sharma, S.; García-Morales, V.J. Environmental strategy and performance in small firms: A resource-based perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 86, 88–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Valero-Amaro, V.; Galera-Casquet, C.; Barroso-Méndez, M.J. Market orientation in NGDOs: Construction of a scale focused on their stakeholders. Soc. Sci. 2019, 8, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laczniak, G.; Shultz, C. Toward a doctrine of socially responsible marketing (SRM): A macro and normative-ethical perspective. J. Macromark. 2021, 41, 201–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rondinelli, D.A.; Berry, M.A. Environmental citizenship in multinational corporations: Social responsibility and sustainable development. Eur. Manag. J. 2000, 18, 70–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Shami, S.; Rashid, N. A holistic model of dynamic capabilities and environment management system towards eco-product innovation and sustainability in automobile firms. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2022, 37, 402–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Q.Z.; Song, B. Eco-design for product lifecycle sustainability. In Proceedings of the 2006 4th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics, Singapore, 16–18 August 2006; pp. 548–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pizzi, S.; Corbo, L.; Caputo, A. Fintech and SMEs sustainable business models: Reflections and considerations for a circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 281, 125217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nidumolu, R.; Prahalad, C.K.; Rangaswami, M.R. Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2009, 87, 56–64. Available online: https://www.billsynnotandassociates.com.au/images/stories/documents/sustainability_the_key_driver_of_innovation.pdf (accessed on 9 November 2023).
- Hong, P.; Jagani, S.; Kim, J.; Youn, S.H. Managing sustainability orientation: An empirical investigation of manufacturing firms. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 211, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arora, A.; Arora, A.S.; Sivakumar, K.; Burke, G. Strategic sustainable purchasing, environmental collaboration, and organizational sustainability performance: The moderating role of supply base size. Supply Chain. Manag. 2020, 25, 709–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broccardo, L.; Truant, E.; Dana, L.P. The sustainability orientation in the wine industry: An analysis based on age as a driver. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2023, 30, 1300–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Widayati, T.; Nurchayati, N.; Suparmi, S.; Suprapti, S. The Effect of Sustainability Orientation and Marketing Orientation on Marketing Performance in SMEs. Res. Horiz. 2023, 3, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Y. New OLI advantages in digital globalization. Int. Bus. Rev. 2021, 30, 101797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, L.; Jing, L. Strategic orientation and performance of new ventures: Empirical studies based on entrepreneurial activities in China. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2017, 13, 989–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gatignon, H.; Xuereb, J.-M. Strategic Orientation of the Firm and New Product Performance. J. Mark. Res. 1997, 34, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deshpandé, R.; Grinstein, A.; Kim, S.-H.; Ofek, E. Achievement motivation, strategic orientations and business performance in entrepreneurial firms: How different are Japanese and American founders? Int. Mark. Rev. 2013, 30, 231–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeong, I.; Pae, J.H.; Zhou, D. Antecedents and consequences of the strategic orientations in new product development: The case of Chinese manufacturers. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2006, 35, 348–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsou, H.-T.; Chen, J.-S.; Liao, W.-H. Market and technology orientations for service delivery innovation: The link of innovative competence. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2014, 29, 499–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leng, Z.; Liu, Z.; Tan, M.; Pang, J. Speed leaders and quality champions: Analyzing the effect of market orientation and technology orientation alignment on new product innovation. Manag. Decis. 2015, 53, 1247–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ritala, P.; Henttonen, K.; Salojärvi, H.; Sainio, L.; Saarenketo, S. Gone fishing for knowledge? The effect of strategic orientations on the scope of open knowledge search. Balt. J. Manag. 2013, 8, 328–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chae, H.-C.; Koh, C.E.; Prybutok, V.R. Information Technology Capability and Firm Performance: Contradictory Findings and Their Possible Causes. MIS Q. 2014, 38, 305–326. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26554879 (accessed on 17 November 2023). [CrossRef]
- Ibarra-Cisneros, M.-A.; Demuner-Flores, M.d.R.; Hernández-Perlines, F. Strategic orientations, firm performance and the moderating effect of absorptive capacity. J. Strategy Manag. 2021, 14, 582–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madu, I. Production techniques and technological orientation on the performance of manufacturing industries in Nigeria. Int. Bus. Manag. 2016, 13, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masa’deh, R.; Al-Henzab, J.; Tarhini, A.; Obeidat, B.Y. The associations among market orientation, technology orientation, entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance. Benchmark. Int. J. 2018, 25, 3117–3142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hakala, H. Strategic orientations in management literature: Three approaches to understanding the interaction between market, technology, entrepreneurial and learning orientations. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2011, 13, 199–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Do Hyung, L.; Dedahanov, A. Firm performance and entrepreneurial, market and technology orientations in korean technology intensive smes. Asian Soc. Sci. 2014, 10, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar Panda, D. Managerial networks and strategic orientation in SMEs: Experience from a transition economy. J. Strategy Manag. 2014, 7, 376–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nakola, J.O.; Tarus, B.K.; Buigut, K.; Kipchirchir, K.E. Effect of strategic orientation on performance of small and medium enterprises: Evidence from Kenya. Int. J. Econ. Commer. Manag. 2015, 3, 336–351. Available online: http://41.89.164.27:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/1214 (accessed on 17 November 2023).
- Lo, M.C.; Wang, Y.C.; Wah, C.R.J.; Ramayah, T. The critical success factors for organizational performance of SMEs in Malaysia: A partial least squares approach. Rev. Bras. Gestão Negócios. 2016, 18, 370–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ismail, I.J. Speaking to the hearts of the customers! The mediating effect of customer loyalty on customer orientation, technology orientation and business performance. Technol. Sustain. 2023, 2, 44–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yousaf, S.; Anser, M.K.; Tariq, M.; Sahibzada Jawad, S.U.R.; Naushad, S.; Yousaf, Z. Does technology orientation predict firm performance through firm innovativeness? World J. Entrep. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 17, 140–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Idrus, S.; Abdussakir, A.; Djakfar, M. The effect of entrepreneurial orientation and technology orientation on market orientation with education as moderation variable. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2020, 10, 2351–2360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gotteland, D.; Shock, J.; Sarin, S. Strategic orientations, marketing proactivity and firm market performance. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2020, 91, 610–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borodako, K.; Berbeka, J.; Rudnicki, M.; Łapczyński, M.; Kuziak, M.; Kapera, K. Market orientation and technological orientation in business services: The moderating role of organizational culture and human resources on performance. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0270737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nugroho, A.; Prijadi, R.; Kusumastuti, R.D. Strategic orientations and firm performance: The role of information technology adoption capability. J. Strategy Manag. 2022, 15, 691–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alerasoul, S.A.; Afeltra, G.; Bouncken, R.B.; Hakala, H. The synergistic impact of market and technology orientations on sustainable innovation performance: Evidence from manufacturing firms. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2022, 28, 1556–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, D.R.; Leifu, G.; Rehman, R.U. The The impact of technology orientation and Customer orientation on firm Performance: Evidence form chinese firms. Int. J. Manag. Mark. Res. 2016, 9, 1–11. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800239 (accessed on 9 November 2023).
- Clark, B.H. Marketing performance measures: History and interrelationships. J. Mark. Manag. 1999, 15, 711–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anser, M.K.; Yousaf, Z.; Usman, M.; Yousaf, S. Towards Strategic Business Performance of the Hospitality Sector: Nexus of ICT, E-Marketing and Organizational Readiness. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, T.; Kumar, R.; Kalia, P. E-marketing Practices of Micro-, Small- and Medium-sized Enterprises: Evidence from India. In Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age; Camilleri, M.A., Ed.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Leeds, UK, 2021; pp. 197–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, N.A. Marketing and business performance. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012, 40, 102–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowzohour, L.; Stracca, L. More than a feeling: Confidence, uncertainty, and macroeconomic fluctuations. J. Econ. Surv. 2020, 34, 691–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hacioglu, G.; Gök, O. Marketing performance measurement: Marketing metrics in Turkish firms. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2013, 14 (Suppl. S1), S413–S432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hellerstein, J.L.; Katircioglu, K.; Surendra, M. An on-line, business-oriented optimization of performance and availability for utility computing. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 2005, 23, 2013–2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roxas, B.; Coetzer, A. Institutional environment, managerial attitudes and environmental sustainability orientation of small firms. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 111, 461–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Claudy, M.; Peterson, M.; Pagell, M. The roles of sustainability orientation and market knowledge competence in new product development success. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2016, 33, 72–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adams, R.; Jeanrenaud, S.; Bessant, J.; Denyer, D.; Overy, P. Sustainability-oriented innovation: A systematic review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2016, 18, 180–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ecommerce-Europe. Available online: https://ecommerce-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CMI2022_FullVersion_LIGHT_v2.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2023).
- Economica.net. Available online: https://www.economica.net/vanzarile-online-a-bunuri-si-servicii-genereaza-317-din-pib-ul-romaniei_699766.html (accessed on 28 November 2023).
- Mankgele, K. The effect of organizational ambidexterity on the sustainable performance of SMEs in the Limpopo province of South Africa. Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. (2147-4478) 2023, 12, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristensen, K.; Eskildsen, J. Design of PLS-Based Satisfaction Studies. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares; Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W., Henseler, J., Wang, H., Eds.; Springer Handbooks of Computational Statistics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C.-C. Investigating Complimentary E-Marketing Strategy for Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises at Growth Stage in Taiwan. Information 2021, 12, 380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Croom, S.; Vidal, N.; Spetic, W.; Marshall, D.; McCarthy, L. Impact of social sustainability orientation and supply chain practices on operational performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2018, 38, 2344–2366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danso, A.; Adomako, S.; Amankwah-Amoah, J.; Owusu-Agyei, S.; Konadu, R. Environmental sustainability orientation, competitive strategy and financial performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 885–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, D.H.; Dedahanov, A.T.; Rhee, J. Moderating role of external networks and mediating effect of innovation performance on the relationship between technology orientation and firm performance. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 2015, 23, 321–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Etim, G.S.; James, E.E.; Nnana, A.N.; Okeowo, V.O. E-marketing strategies and performance of small and medium-sized enterprises: A new-normal agenda. J. Bus. Manag. Stud. 2021, 3, 162–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kusyk, S.M.; Lozano, J.M. SME social performance: A four-cell typology of key drivers and barriers on social issues and their implications for stakeholder theory. Corp. Gov. 2007, 7, 502–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraus, S.; Burtscher, J.; Niemand, T.; Roig-Tierno, N.; Syrjä, P. Configurational Paths to Social Performance in SMEs: The Interplay of Innovation, Sustainability. Resour. Achiev. Motivation. Sustain. 2017, 9, 1828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, G.; Park, K.; Jeon, H.W.; Kremer, G.E.O. Usage dynamics of environmental sustainability indicators for manufacturing and service systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 360, 132062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rehman, S.U.; Bresciani, S.; Yahiaoui, D.; Giacosa, E. Environmental sustainability orientation and corporate social responsibility influence on environmental performance of small and medium enterprises: The mediating effect of green capability. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2022, 29, 1954–1967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, W.W. How to write up and report PLS analyses. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods, and Applications; Esposito, V.V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J., Wang, H., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 655–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Busu, C.; Busu, M. Economic Modeling in the Management of Transition to Bioeconomy. Amfiteatru Econ. 2019, 21, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.M. SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH. 2015. Available online: http://www.smartpls.com (accessed on 11 December 2023).
- Keil, M.; Tan, B.C.; Wei, K.-K.; Saarinen, T.; Tuunainen, V.; Wassenaar, A. A cross-cultural study on escalation of commitment behavior in software projects. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 2000, 24, 299–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riedqhie, B.N.; Indarto, I.; Wardoyo, P. The Effect of Innovation, Customer Orientation and Digital Marketing on Business Performance Through Competitive Advantage as An Intervening Variable. Bus. Sci. J. Bus. Entrep. 2023, 1, 128–143. Available online: https://journal.csspublishing.com/index.php/business/article/view/357 (accessed on 10 November 2023).
- Judd, C.M.; McClelland, G.H.; Ryan, C.S. Data Analysis: A Model Comparison Approach to Regression, ANOVA, and Beyond, 3rd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 72–167. [Google Scholar]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-based Structural Equation Modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, J.M.; Klein, K.; Wetzels, M. Hierarchical Latent Variable Models in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for Using Reflective-Formative Type Models. Long Range Plan 2012, 45, 359–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dijkstra, T.K.; Henseler, J. Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Q. 2015, 39, 297–316. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26628355 (accessed on 17 November 2023). [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Routledge: Mahwah, NJ, USA; Lawrence Erlbaum: New York, NY, USA, 1988; pp. 407–409. [Google Scholar]
- Tenenhaus, M.; Vinzi, V.E.; Chatelin, Y.-M.; Lauro, C. PLS path modeling. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2005, 48, 159–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarstedt, M.; Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M. Multigroup analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling: Alternative methods and empirical results. In Measurement and Research Methods in International Marketing; Sarstedt, M., Schwaiger, M., Taylor, C.R., Eds.; Advances in International Marketing; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Leeds, UK, 2011; Volume 22, pp. 195–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, W.W.; Dibbern, J. An Introduction to a Permutation Based Procedure for Multi-Group PLS Analysis: Results of Tests of Differences on Simulated Data and a Cross Cultural Analysis of the Sourcing of Information System Services Between Germany and the USA. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares; Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W., Henseler, J., Wang, H., Eds.; Springer Handbooks of Computational Statistics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 171–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kozubikova, L.; Kubalek, J.; Rowland, Z.; Palcak, L. The significant factors of sustainability of SME in the V4 Countries. Transform. Bus. Econ. 2023, 22, 98–114. Available online: http://www.transformations.knf.vu.lt/58 (accessed on 10 November 2023).
- Khizar, H.M.U.; Iqbal, M.J.; Murshed, F.; Ahsan, M. Sustainability Outcomes in SMEs: A Configurational View of the Interplay of Strategic Orientations and Environmental Conditions. J. MicroMark. 2024, 44, 534–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akomea, S.Y.; Agyapong, A.; Ampah, G.; Osei, H.V. Entrepreneurial orientation, sustainability practices and performance of small and medium enterprises: Evidence from an emerging economy. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2023, 72, 2629–2653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barney, J. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, M.E.; Alves, A.P.F.; Dias, P.; Nascimento, L.F.M. The role of orientation towards sustainability in supply chains: Insights from empirical experiences. Benchmarking Int. J. 2022, 29, 305–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz-Ortega, M.J.; Parra-Requena, G.; García-Villaverde, P.M. From entrepreneurial orientation to sustainability orientation: The role of cognitive proximity in companies in tourist destinations. Tour. Manag. 2021, 84, 104265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kramer, V.; Krafft, M. When and how information and communication technology orientation affects salespeople’s role stress: The interplay of salesperson characteristics and environmental complexity. Eur. J. Mark. 2023, 57, 659–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Putra, A.R.; Darmawan, D. Competitive Advantage of MSMEs in Terms of Technology Orientation and Entrepreneurship Competence. International Journal of Service Science. Manag. Eng. Technol. 2022, 2, 15–20. Available online: https://ejournalisse.com/index.php/isse/article/view/24 (accessed on 22 November 2023).
- Ramírez-Solis, E.R.; Llonch-Andreu, J.; Malpica-Romero, A.D. How beneficial are relational capital and technology orientation for innovation? Evidence from Mexican SMEs. Int. J. Innov. Stud. 2022, 6, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Objective | Description |
---|---|
Q1 | Discovering specific items for e-marketing orientation (EMO), sustainability orientation (SO), and technology orientation (TO), and assessing their combined impact on online SME business performance (OBP); |
Q2 | Identifying significant differences between e-commerce intensity groups for the three proposed correlation paths (EMO → OBP, SO → OBP, and TO → OBP). |
Online SMEs | Respondent Online SMEs | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dimensions | No. | % | Dimensions | No. | % |
Enterprise size | Respondents’ gender | ||||
Micro enterprises | 62 | 18.02 | Male | 213 | 61.92 |
Small enterprises | 145 | 42.15 | Female | 131 | 38.08 |
Medium enterprises | 137 | 39.83 | Respondents’ age | ||
Sector | Up to 30 years | 44 | 12.79 | ||
Manufacturing | 41 | 11.99 | Between 31–50 years | 218 | 63.37 |
Technology | 26 | 7.60 | Over 51 years | 82 | 23.84 |
Services | 275 | 80.41 | Respondents’ level of education | ||
Enterprise age | Upper Secondary | 38 | 11.05 | ||
Between 3–5 years | 57 | 16.57 | Post-Secondary School | 77 | 22.38 |
Between 6–10 years | 166 | 48.26 | Bachelor’s | 175 | 50.87 |
Over 10 years | 121 | 35.17 | Master’s/Doctorate | 54 | 15.70 |
E-commerce Intensity | Respondents’ designation | ||||
Under 500,000 €/year | 215 | 62.50 | CEO/MD/Business Owner | 99 | 28.70 |
600,000–1.4 mil. €/year | 106 | 30.81 | Senior Management | 168 | 48.70 |
Over 1.5 mil. €/year | 23 | 6.69 | Middle-Level Management | 78 | 22.61 |
Total | 344 | 100 | Total | 344 | 100 |
Constructs and Items | Item Loading | CA | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|
E-marketing orientation (EMO) | ||||
EMO_1: My enterprise uses e-marketing resources (e.g., search engine marketing (SEM), social media marketing, mobile, email, display advertising, etc.) to communicate with the target audience. | 0.871 | 0.834 | 0.842 | 0.669 |
EMO_2: My enterprise uses e-marketing resources to ensure the continuity of traditional activities (e.g., offers, pricing information, customer service, customer support, etc.). | 0.840 | |||
EMO_3: My enterprise uses e-marketing resources to stimulate commercial transactions (e.g., sale of products and services, payment and return system via website, etc.). | 0.811 | |||
EMO_4: My enterprise uses e-marketing resources to streamline marketing activities (e.g., manages computerized databases to inform customers about new products, discounts for loyal customers, monthly promotions, etc.). | 0.743 | |||
Sustainability orientation (SO) | ||||
SO_1: My enterprise supports the achievement of human resources development goals (e.g., job creation, health and safety programs, dedicated programs for personal and professional development, gender equality, cessation of discrimination against women, etc.). | 0.701 | 0.795 | 0.753 | 0.650 |
SO_2: My enterprise contributes to achieving economic objectives (e.g., stimulating product and process innovation, improving the quality of products and services, expanding production and sales markets, etc.). | 0.564 | |||
SO_3: My enterprise supports the achievement of social protection objectives (e.g., supporting collaboration with local suppliers, engaging with local communities, making local investments, paying taxes to local administrations, etc.). | 0.760 | |||
SO_4: My enterprise supports the achievement of environmental and climate objectives (e.g., contributing to reducing carbon and water footprint, achieving climate neutrality, recycling waste, using green energy sources, protecting biodiversity, etc.). | 0.784 | |||
Technology orientation (TO) | ||||
TO_1: My enterprise attracts “future-oriented entrepreneurs” (e.g., adopts and utilizes new technologies, implements policies and practices related to technology and innovation, pursues strategic alignment, develops and exploits technological capabilities for sustainable competitive advantage, etc.). | 0.828 | 0.826 | 0.832 | 0.657 |
TO_2: My enterprise supports “technological innovation adoption/development and diffusion” (e.g., facilitates the rapid exchange of information and knowledge, expands communication and cooperation with suppliers or other stakeholders through the use of information and communication technology (ICT) tools, etc.). | 0.839 | |||
TO_3: My enterprise trains “customer-oriented technicians” (e.g., meets customer needs with innovative technology approaches, creates new and innovative products and services that address customer desires and needs before they express them, etc.). | 0.820 | |||
TO_4: My enterprise facilitates the integration and/or training of “new employee technology orientation” (e.g., contributes to improving technical and technological skills to operate easily and efficiently with various equipment or technologies they encounter, etc.). | 0.754 | |||
Online SME business performance (OBP) | ||||
OBP_1: My enterprise has achieved good “e-marketing performance”, reflected in the improvement of various tools and indicators, such as: website (conversion rates, unique visitors, bounce rate, visit-to-signup and visit-to-lead rates, share of new visitors, etc.); social media (followers or fans or subscribers, audience growth rate, conversion rate from social, share/interest/response rate, etc.); email marketing and online advertising (customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, conversion of visits to sales, e-marketing sales value, etc.). | 0.817 | 0.800 | 0.802 | 0.627 |
OBP_2: My enterprise has achieved good “financial and customer service performance”, reflected in the improvement of indicators such as growth in profitability, return on assets, return on equity, return on investment, net and gross profit margin, as well as customer satisfaction, employees’ satisfaction, and the enhancement of the enterprise’s image, product and service quality, etc. | 0.867 | |||
OBP_3: My enterprise has achieved good “social and environmental performance”, reflected in the improvement of various means and indicators such as: renewable/recyclable energy (energy use, and transportation energy intensity), water usage, recycling, waste quality (water intensity/pollution/quality/usage), waste utilization, environmental by-products (carbon footprint/intensity), etc. | 0.770 | |||
OBP_4: My enterprise has achieved good “technology performance” reflected by improving various indicators such as: network uptime, account termination success, alert-to-ticket ratio, customer connection effectiveness, incidents from change, data center capacity consumed, email client availability, internet proxy performance, etc. | 0.705 |
Items | EMO | OBP | SO | TO |
---|---|---|---|---|
EMO | 0.818 | |||
OBP | 0.693 | 0.792 | ||
SO | 0.706 | 0.697 | 0.707 | |
TO | 0.846 | 0.700 | 0.718 | 0.811 |
Items | EMO | OBP | SO | TO |
---|---|---|---|---|
EMO | ||||
OBP | 0.737 | |||
SO | 0.729 | 0.710 | ||
TO | 0.704 | 0.742 | 0.725 |
Path | Path Coeff. | STDEV | t-Value | p-Values | F-Square | Hypothesis Outcome |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMO -> OBP | 0.231 | 0.069 | 3.369 | 0.001 | 0.034 | H1 → Accepted |
SO -> OBP | 0.353 | 0.055 | 6.381 | 0.000 | 0.134 | H2 → Accepted |
TO -> OBP | 0.251 | 0.079 | 3.195 | 0.001 | 0.038 | H3 → Accepted |
Path | Path Coeff. | STDEV | t-Value | p-Values | Hypothesis Outcome |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
E-commerce intensity—under 500,000 €/year (EIU) | |||||
EMO → OBP | 0.357 | 0.084 | 4.259 | 0.000 | 1 → Accepted |
SO → OBP | 0.274 | 0.065 | 4.200 | 0.000 | 2 → Accepted |
TO → OBP | 0.186 | 0.117 | 2.022 | 0.002 | 3 → Accepted |
Path | Path Coeff. | STDEV | t-Value | p-Values | Hypothesis Outcome |
E-commerce intensity—over 600,000 €/year (EIO) | |||||
EMO → OBP | 0.018 | 0.111 | 0.166 | 0.868 | 1 → Unaccepted |
SO → OBP | 0.476 | 0.091 | 5.203 | 0.000 | 2 → Accepted |
TO → OBP | 0.371 | 0.135 | 2.752 | 0.006 | 3 → Accepted |
Path Coefficients – Difference (EIU-EIO) | PLS-MGA | Parametric Test | Welch–Satterthwait Test | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
E-Commerce Intensity Under 500,000 €/Year (EIU)–Over 600,000 €/Year (EIO) | |||||||
p-Value New (EIU vs. EIO) | t-Value (EIU vs. EIO) | p-Value New (EIU vs. EIO) | t-Value (EIU vs. EIO) | p-Value New (EIU vs. EIO) | |||
1 | EMO → OBP | 0.339 | 0.016 | 2.440 | 0.015 | 2.439 | 0.016 |
2 | SO → OBP | −0.202 | 0.074 | 1.830 | 0.068 | 1.802 | 0.074 |
3 | TO → OBP | −0.185 | 0.264 | 1.132 | 0.258 | 1.118 | 0.265 |
Path | Path Coeff. (EIU) | Path Coeff. (EIO) | Path Coeff. Difference (EIU-EIO) | Permutation Mean Difference | 2.5% | 97.5% | Permutation p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMO → OBP | 0.357 | 0.018 | 0.339 | −0.004 | −0.284 | 0.274 | 0.020 |
SO → OBP | 0.274 | 0.476 | −0.202 | −0.004 | −0.234 | 0.224 | 0.085 |
TO → OBP | 0.186 | 0.371 | −0.185 | 0.006 | −0.320 | 0.336 | 0.268 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Türkeș, M.C. Driving Success: Unveiling the Synergy of E-Marketing, Sustainability, and Technology Orientation in Online SME. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2024, 19, 1411-1441. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020071
Türkeș MC. Driving Success: Unveiling the Synergy of E-Marketing, Sustainability, and Technology Orientation in Online SME. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. 2024; 19(2):1411-1441. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020071
Chicago/Turabian StyleTürkeș, Mirela Cătălina. 2024. "Driving Success: Unveiling the Synergy of E-Marketing, Sustainability, and Technology Orientation in Online SME" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 19, no. 2: 1411-1441. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020071
APA StyleTürkeș, M. C. (2024). Driving Success: Unveiling the Synergy of E-Marketing, Sustainability, and Technology Orientation in Online SME. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 19(2), 1411-1441. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020071