Next Article in Journal
In, Out or Beyond? Waste Pickers and Policy Networks: A Story from Jardim Gramacho (Rio de Janeiro)
Next Article in Special Issue
The Anatomy of Entrepreneurial Failure: Antecedents of the Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory and the Role of Social Support
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Exports and Two-Way Foreign Direct Investment between China and Pan-East Asian Countries
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 24
10.3390/su142416978
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Driving Innovation by Managing Entrepreneurial Orientation, Cooperation and Learning for the Sustainability of Companies in the Energy Sector

by
Eduardo Sánchez-García
*,
Bartolomé Marco-Lajara
,
Pedro Seva-Larrosa
and
Javier Martínez-Falcó
Department of Business Organization, Faculty of Economic and Business Sciences, University of Alicante, 03690 San Vicente del Raspeig, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(24), 16978; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416978
Submission received: 7 November 2022 / Revised: 27 November 2022 / Accepted: 15 December 2022 / Published: 18 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovation and Entrepreneurship Management for Sustainable Enterprises)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Nowadays, the attitude of companies seems to play a relevant role in detecting and exploiting opportunities to create value, especially in terms of knowledge and cooperation. Thereon, the concept of entrepreneurial orientation has become relevant over the last years. Firms are entrepreneurially oriented when their decision-making, techniques, and procedures allow them to identify opportunities, develop a proactive mindset, and use creative ways to achieve their objectives. The purpose of this paper is to empirically analyze the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and companies’ innovation capacity, in addition to the mediating effect of entrepreneurial networks and firms’ learning capacity in this relationship. A sample of 197 Spanish companies in the energy sector is analyzed using the variance-based structural equation modeling technique (PLS-SEM), using the software “SmartPLS” in its version 3.9. The results show a direct positive and significant influence of entrepreneurial orientation on companies’ innovation capacity, as well as the existence of an indirect effect through the mediation of entrepreneurial networks and the learning capacity of firms. It is concluded that businesses must dedicate time and resources to develop a strong entrepreneurial orientation which, in addition to allowing them to exploit external entrepreneurial networks, boosts their learning and innovation capabilities, favoring the development of new sustainable possibilities for value creation.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, the importance of the entrepreneurial orientation concept has steadily grown among academics, and it is now a popular field of study that attracts intense discussion and the regular attention of scholars worldwide [1,2,3,4]. It is possible to define the concept of entrepreneurial orientation in terms of methods, processes, and behavioral and decision patterns which drive a company to engage in relatively risky innovative activities and, as a result, to develop outputs that did not previously exist [5,6,7]. Then, this term relates to the behavioral characteristics of entrepreneurs, the management methods they have adopted, and their strategic business environment decision-making [8]. Company performance is often seen as the primary aim of researchers in the field of management [9,10]. In this regard, several academics have established the need for further analysis of the determinants that harness the potential of entrepreneurial orientation and improve its comprehension, particularly the identification of the principal mechanisms by which entrepreneurial orientation affects firms’ competitiveness [4,11,12,13,14,15]. Over the past few years, the perspective based on resources was adopted as the major model to guide research on the causes of entrepreneurship [16]. Indeed, the hypothesis of this approach asserts that a company’s competitiveness stems largely from the company’s unique assets and competencies [17]. Then, this approach highlights the importance of a company’s resources in establishing its degree of competitive advantage in the market. To gain the resources to distinguish themselves from their rivals, firms must participate in transactions with others functioning in their surroundings [18,19,20,21].
Related to the aforementioned, business exchanges are interwoven in the network of personal and social ties, and the company’s performance is contingent on its network of contacts [19,22]. In this vein, entrepreneurial networks have been seen as a contextual complement, implying that entrepreneurs belong to a social framework that favors or restricts certain behaviors [23]. Therefore, to analyze these interactions apart from the relationships of the entrepreneurial networks would derive from the distortion of the comprehension of this occurrence. Entrepreneurial networks may assist businesses in enhancing their ability to learn from external information and to utilize it for creative purposes, so enabling them to confront environmental volatility [24,25]. Innovative businesses also tend to be proactive, to try to be disruptive in their sectors, to desire to stand out not just with innovative goods but also by innovating their internal processes and organizational culture, and by creating unique business and working environments [18,26,27]. Innovation can be understood as the organizations’ predisposition to pursue new commercial activities that are creative, difficult to imitate, competitively advantageous, and distinct from conventional procedures in order to create novel results [28]. In this vein, non-innovative enterprises depend on conventional business practices, conventional products/services, and conventional distribution methods, among other undesirable habits, which would make it more difficult for them to thrive in a dynamic and proactive market [26].
Entrepreneurial orientation and learning capacity have been studied together in the past in order to determine how entrepreneurial orientation influences company performance, and findings suggest that businesses’ capacity for learning may influence this relationship [29,30,31]. In this regard, a number of academics have established a relationship between the entrepreneurial approach and the learning capacity of businesses [13,32,33,34]. Several studies have linked these non-financial elements to organizations’ financial success, such as market efficacy, the attainment of goals, and reputation [30,33,34,35,36,37]. Nonetheless, some research in this field yields contradictory findings [17,25,38,39,40,41]. In addition, to the best of our knowledge, there are no studies that analyze these relationships.
Then, the purpose of this paper is to empirically analyze the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and the innovation capacity of firms, in addition to the mediating effect of entrepreneurial networks and firms’ learning capacity on this relationship. In this way, it is intended to establish how the attitude towards entrepreneurship affects the development of innovations and, consequently, the development of businesses through which new products, processes, and organizations are developed that are more efficient and effective and, therefore, more sustainable and with a greater capacity to create value for society as a whole. To carry out this analysis, a questionnaire composed of validated scales was sent to Spanish companies in the electricity supply sector, obtaining a sample of 197 valid responses. To test the hypotheses raised, variance-based structural equation modeling was used, particularly the PLS-SEM technique. The results show the existence of a direct, positive, and significant relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and the innovative capacity of firms, although it has been empirically evidenced that entrepreneurial networks and learning capacity play a crucial role in this relationship. These factors stand out as key elements that mediate the established relationship, especially in the case of entrepreneurial networks.
This paper is structured as follows. The following section reviews the literature related to the variables under study, on the basis of which the hypotheses to be tested are proposed. Then, in the third section, the methodology used is explained, followed by the results of the statistical analysis in the fourth section. Finally, the conclusions, implications, and limitations of the study are presented, establishing possible future lines of research to be developed based on the results presented.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Entrepreneurial Orientation for Innovation Capacity Enhancement

Entrepreneurial orientation implies certain decision-making habits and practices of a business [42,43,44]. When a business’s decision-making, methods, and practices enable the discovery of opportunities, the development of a proactive attitude and innovative means of attaining the company’s objectives, the company is entrepreneurially oriented [4,45,46] This concept is an organizational characteristic that denotes a company’s entrepreneurial stance, which is represented in the execution of persistent entrepreneurial activities [4,12,47]. Consequently, it may be of significant benefit for organizations of any size to expand and prosper in a competitive and continuously changing market environment [15,48].
Several researchers observed over the years how the development of entrepreneurial orientation theory could benefit from an incisive investigation of the intermediary variables affecting the entrepreneurial orientation and business innovativeness relationship, thus highlighting the need to identify some of the most important mediating variables [12,49,50,51,52,53]. Entrepreneurial attitudes include a desire to test creative ideas, engage in ventures that assume controlled risks, and seek to make market breakthroughs at a faster rate than competitors, which contribute to the effective achievement of business objectives [31,54]. Entrepreneurial orientation, then, is regarded as a base for attaining a competitive edge since it reveals how businesses might redesign their processes for new growth paths [17,44].
The concept of entrepreneurial orientation has expanded over time, and successively new characteristics have been added [54,55,56,57]. To attempt to capture as closely as possible the spirit of this concept, it has been assessed using the five known dimensions: proactiveness, risk-taking, innovation, competitive aggressiveness, and autonomy [48,54,58,59]. Innovative behavior is represented by the innovativeness dimension, which is followed by proactivity, which comprises expecting and preparing in advance to deal with anticipated events. Risk-taking reflects the propensity of companies to assume controlled risk, and competitive aggressiveness means confronting the opponent as opposed to following them [44,57]. Finally, autonomy has also been included, which entails granting workers the ability to make choices based on situational considerations but is uncommon in poor nations [40,59]. Current research on entrepreneurial orientation provides evidence of its relationship to various measures of business performance in different industries [60,61]. Nevertheless, several analyses have shown conflicting or contradictory findings [40,62,63,64,65] Based on the above, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 1 (+).
There is a positive and significant relationship between companies’ entrepreneurial orientation and their innovation capacity.

2.2. Entrepreneurial Networks as a Source of Valuable Resources

In entrepreneurship research, scholars have taken a network view emphasizing that enterprises are entrenched in the social networks to which they are linked [23,60,66,67,68]. This method highlights the significance of network-based elements such as structural positions, cohesiveness, trust, and embeddedness in influencing the execution of entrepreneurial stances, the strategic decisions, and the results of entrepreneurs [15,69,70,71]. From this viewpoint, entrepreneurial orientation may be seen as a strategic stance that encourages firms to proactively participate in environmental scanning and opportunity-seeking activities with external actors with whom they have or desire to establish connections [70,72]. These businesses might be described as having an open-system mentality that aggressively pursues entrepreneurial endeavors within existing and new networks [73]. The resource-based view posits that a firm’s capacity to locate, acquire, and deploy precious, uncommon, unique, and non-replaceable resources is the foundation of value generation and competitive advantage [74,75]. Applying this perspective to the network environment, external resources satisfy a portion of this criterion, since they are valued and relatively scarce, and their successful acquisition depends on path-dependent processes and social intricacies [76,77,78,79]. In this regard, greater density of the network, which relates to the extent of connectivity among network participants, promotes confidence, improving information exchange and minimizing the effect of negative external factors [80,81].
Business networks evolve as a result of the efforts made to establish partnerships and collaborative projects over time and to provide firms with information that is not widely accessible [82]. Thus, the availability of fresh and updated information increases the likelihood that firms will detect pertinent business environment difficulties and will acquire the capacity to respond appropriately [21,83]. Entrepreneurial activities rely largely on the development of valuable networks, which is strongly influenced by a company’s degree of access to entrepreneurial networks; hence, network competency is essential for obtaining the essential resources a business requires [84,85]. However, this is not entirely supported by research, with minor or negative outcomes depending on the contextual and/or dependent circumstances under which the cooperation agreement is formulated [86,87,88,89,90]. Due to lack of resources, unstructured innovation strategies, and inadequate interdisciplinary competency bases, businesses with these disadvantages may find it difficult to realize the potential benefits of external networks [91,92,93]. However, the declining returns of their drawbacks may not be applicable in all instances; studies have indicated that a small number of organizations receive better benefits from inbound open innovation, whilst many firms fail to do so [90,94]. Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 2 (+).
Entrepreneurial networks exert a mediating effect on the relationship between companies’ entrepreneurial orientation and their innovation capacity.

2.3. Learning Capacity as a Consequence of Entrepreneurial Orientation

Entrepreneurial orientation is an organizational characteristic which describes the strategic stance of a company [4,46]. Without the proper organizational procedures, enterprises cannot achieve the revenue potential of this component [13,45]. Learning inside organizational bounds is beneficial in and of itself, but companies frequently depend heavily upon external sources of knowledge to engage in activities of learning which might not otherwise be possible [95,96]. Over time, the exploration and exploitation of knowledge have been portrayed as different tasks of learning based on networks [97,98]. In this respect, learning capacity may be defined as an organization’s capacity to absorb new knowledge and apply it effectively in order to improve its performance [99,100]. Consequently, organizational learning can be understood as the organizational and management features or circumstances that promote or allow an organization to learn [101,102]. This competency has remained associated with performance, particularly in terms of creativity [103,104,105].
Knowledge creation enables the acquisition of knowledge by shifting perceptions of opportunity and resource use possibilities and resource utilization [55]. The notion of enterprises as organizations that produce and exchange knowledge is at the core of the literature on knowledge in the business management field, to a great extent due to the fact that a company’s learning capability allows it to maintain its base of knowledge [106,107,108,109]. Information scanning refers to the pursuit and development of knowledge to establish novel market offers for uncertain demand, while its exploitation implies the improvement and utilization of existing knowledge to improve the functioning of the company [109,110].
Learning capacity in enterprises is an organizational as well as an administrative feature that takes place throughout the process of learning inside firms, which allows for the overcoming of existing restrictions in the learning cycle and facilitates its development [101,108,111,112,113]. Enterprises should establish duties and processes to promote and support the development of organizational knowledge [110,114]. These processes include internalization, socialization, and externalization, in addition to any managerial effort that creates a learning-friendly atmosphere [115]. In general, businesses with a great capacity for learning are better at generating new goods [116,117]. For organizations to remain successful, they must build a strong capacity for learning that allows them to innovate [103,118]. Thus, boosting their learning capacity may assist businesses in adapting to changes in their environment via the development and creation of new functions and skills that are responsive to people’s alterations [119]. In addition, organizations with a high capacity for environmental learning have routines built into their jobs, tools, processes, and personnel to assess and absorb external information to satisfy market demands [29,46,111]. Several studies indicate that the capacity of firms to learn from the environment drives the relationship among entrepreneurial orientation and business outcomes in various fields; however, contradictory results have been obtained in this regard [34,35,45,53], necessitating a deeper examination of this variable in the established relationship. Then, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 3 (+).
Learning capacity exerts a mediating effect on the relationship between companies’ entrepreneurial orientation and their innovation capacity.

2.4. Joint Role of Entrepreneurial Networks and Firms’ Learning Capacity

In the strategic management literature, research on the contribution of organizational learning in inter-organizational structures to innovation has become highly relevant [45,46,120]. Such external innovation networks with dynamic connections across varied firms expose players to management issues when dealing with multifaceted demand from counterparts [85,120]. In addition, organizations with tight ties to innovation-relevant stakeholders are in a better position to receive and integrate new information [121,122]. External networking for facilitating internal processes of innovation in organizations provides a feasible response to entrepreneurial challenges [123,124,125,126]. In addition, information streams obtained from networks enable businesses to increase their base of knowledge [127,128,129]. Some authors analyzed the possible performance implications of enterprises cooperating to access external sources of resources and capabilities [130,131,132,133,134]. Thus, the business’s link to important entrepreneurial networks enables it to leverage the knowledge possessed by networked stakeholders and make it accessible to the firm [135].
Based on the above, organizations may increase their learning capacity via the experience effect, as the company continuously interacts with and learns from its stakeholders; in such instances, the firm is better positioned to integrate information stored across the organization in an iterative cycle [45,53,108]. Learning processes derived from interaction with external agents encourage the open exchange of knowledge assets across the boundaries of the organization under certain conditions and, consequently, leverage on the firm’s stakeholders’ resources and expertise [110,133,135]. High levels of stakeholder involvement enable workers to undertake search behaviors in order to execute their duties with expertise and to enhance organizational learning [32,84]. According to Yström et al. [122], the strategic goal of network members shifts from minimizing transaction costs to extending their internal knowledge bases when learning networks are built for knowledge acquisition and creation. Learning capacity may have a favorable influence on companies’ adaptability to the context’s dynamism, making it simpler for businesses to enhance their knowledge base and apply it to the creation of innovations [126,136]. The idea of organizational learning capacity in interorganizational environments encompasses organizations’ efficient use of environmental information [137,138]. In this context, entrepreneurial orientation helps organizations to emphasize the significance of fresh information, so motivating the whole company to exert greater effort on capitalizing on all available knowledge [34].
It is feasible to overcome the barriers connected with innovation activities via the study of new ideas and the search for new methods [139]. Then, learning capacity may enable businesses to capitalize on their entrepreneurial mindset to improve the performance of their entrepreneurial endeavors [45,104,113]. Due to a propensity for risk-taking and a desire to be the first to act, entrepreneurially minded businesses are eager to engage in new ventures for their value-creation potential [117]. Thus, entrepreneurial orientation immerses a business in uncertain conditions, making it more likely to depend on external expertise [34]. Under these circumstances, organizations with a more entrepreneurial orientation will be more proactive in combining underused knowledge and deploying newly acquired knowledge to overcome challenges and enhance their performance in many sectors [36,139]. Then, it is hypothesized that there is a double mediation of entrepreneurial networks and learning capacity in the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and innovation capacity. The nomogram of the model is showed in Figure 1.
Hypothesis 4 (+).
There is a double mediation of the entrepreneurial networks and learning capacity in the relationship between companies’ entrepreneurial orientation and their innovation capacity.

3. Methodology

3.1. Population and Representative Sample

The population under consideration comprises Spanish firms functioning in the electricity supply sector. According to the SABI database, there were 13,339 companies operating in Spain in 2019. The sample consists of 197 active Spanish firms. In 2019, although employing just 2% of the total workforce in Spain, this industry provided 13.8% of the gross added value and 9.4% of the industrial production, making it the second largest sector. Furthermore, this industry had the greatest employee productivity (466,500 euros on average).

3.2. Data Collecting, Variable Measurement, and Analysis Technique

Data were collected through the elaboration of a questionnaire composed of validated scales, and its subsequent distribution to the chief executive officer of all the companies in the population. After assessing the statistical validity of the completed surveys and eliminating those judged invalid (due to a significant quantity of lost data, patterns of response, or single-value answers), a total of 197 valid responses were collected from companies throughout the national territory. This sample represents a similar distribution to that of the population. Non-response bias has been assessed by comparing the responses of the first and last waves. Hair et al. [140] demonstrate via their “minimum R2” method that a model with a minimum R2 value of 0.5 and a maximum of three predictors, as is the case of the model of this paper, needs a minimum sample size of 38 occurrences. Therefore, the minimum sample size required is far exceeded. Hereunder, the variables involved in this study are explained.
Entrepreneurial orientation (independent variable): This variable is measured using a 7-point Likert scale and 18 items based on the following 5 dimensions: proactiveness, risk-taking, innovation, autonomy, and competitive aggressiveness [48,54,58,59].
Entrepreneurial networks (mediating variable): Using a 7-point Likert scale, this variable was built based on the study of Parra-Requena et al. [141] and has 18 components.
Learning capacity (mediating variable): Based on the work of Flatten et al. [142], 14 questions have been constructed to measure this variable. Like the other criteria, a 7-point Likert scale was used.
Innovation capacity (dependent variable): This was measured using a 13-item and 7-point Likert scale, based on the research of Prajogo and Ahmed [143] and Škerlavaj et al. [144].
Age (control variable): This variable was assessed based on the passage of time between the dates of the firms’ founding and 2019.
Size (control variable): This variable was based on the number of workers employed by the selected companies during the 2019 fiscal year.
To examine the hypotheses, the multivariate second-generation partial least squares methodology, PLS-SEM, was used. Numerous academics in the area of strategic company management have centered their attention on this method [145]. In this case, SmartPLS version 3.9 was used. Due to the latent nature of the variables evaluated in the social sciences, Hair et al. [146] assert that this technique is suitable for predictive analytics, especially in the social sciences.

4. Results

The model under investigation comprises multiple components. These are composed of several interconnected elements that may be evaluated as a single theoretical concept [147]. A preliminary analysis should be performed to get the scores of the first-order latent variables, which will be used to model the second-order constructs in subsequent research [148,149]. Standard in social science research, the two-stage technique permits the second-order construct to be endogenously produced inside the structural model [146,150,151]. Standardized Root Mean Square Residual score of 0.065 > 0.08 for the global model indicates a reasonable match [152].
The construct reliability and validity were measured using Dijkstra-rho Henseler’s (ρA), which is a trusted method for reliability and validity measurements [146,153]. According to these authors, it is used to test internal consistency, whilst external loads (λ) and Average Variance Extracted are used to establish convergent validity. Results are considerably larger than the stated minimal criterion of 0.7, 0.708, and 0.5, respectively, for these criteria [146,154,155], as showed in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3.
After confirming construct reliability and validity, it is important to determine whether the requirements are met through the process of discriminant validity, which demonstrates that the items of a variable measure it more than any other variable. They have been assessed following the criteria established by Henseler et al. [153]. According to Kline [156], the HTMT ratio must be smaller than 0.85.
Having verified that the requirements for the global and measurement models have been met, the structural model is assessed. This enables us to identify the model’s predictive potential and the nature of the model’s various latent variables’ interrelationships, so evaluating the hypotheses presented inside the theoretical framework. The assessment of the structural model is conducted in accordance with Hair et al. [146,157]. In the first stage, the degree of collinearity between the predicted constructs is evaluated, confirming that the VIF values are significantly below 3 [158].
In Table 4, it can be observed that entrepreneurial orientation has a statistically significant and positive influence on the innovation capacity of firms [0.150. p = 0.029]. Moreover, as showed in Table 5, entrepreneurial networks and learning capacity have a mediation effect on this relationship [0.217, p = 0.000; 0.092, p = 0.007], respectively. In addition, they exert a double mediation effect [0.105. p = 0.000], such that the capability of firms to successfully connect with valuable entrepreneurial networks, learn from them, and effectively apply this knowledge are recognized to be crucial elements for enhancing the innovation capacity of the firms.
In Figure 2, the path coefficients integrated in the nomogram of the model are shown. The suggested model explains 46.3%, 52.6%, and 55.7% of the variation of the entrepreneurial networks, and learning and innovation capacity variables, respectively.
Furthermore, the Q2 values for the variable’s entrepreneurial networks, learning capacity, and innovation capacity are 0.392, 0.351, and 0.303, respectively, indicating that the model has a moderate predictive relevance on these variables [157]. Thus, the four hypotheses proposed are accepted.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The results of this research show that entrepreneurial orientation has a direct positive and significant influence on firms’ innovation capacity (Hypothesis 1), as well as the existence of an indirect effect through the mediation of entrepreneurial networks (Hypothesis 2) and the learning capacity of firms (Hypothesis 3). In this regard, it is shown that the mediating effect of entrepreneurial networks is substantially higher than that of learning capacity. Then, entrepreneurial attitude seems to be a major component in enhancing the innovation capacity of organizations, but entrepreneurial networks and a strong capacity for learning are required to successfully harness all the valuable resources within the firm’s reach for this purpose, as a double mediation effect of these variables in the established relationship has been revealed (Hypothesis 4). Considering the most recent data, the results indicate that the research is applicable to both managers and academics.
Regarding the theoretical implications, this research offers new insights into the conception of entrepreneurial orientation as an important organizational resource for innovation, competitiveness, and the sustainable creation of value for society as a whole. Improving sustainability outcomes involves profound changes in organizations, and these changes are only possible through learning and innovation, as well as through collaborative processes carried out with stakeholders of great value to the company [18,20,159]. Learning capacity is the driving force behind internally directed attempts to make complementary organizational decisions that encourage an entrepreneurial behavior pattern. Importantly, our theory lets academics interpret the link between entrepreneurial attitude and innovation capability via the resource- and knowledge-based theoretical lenses. In this manner, businesses may use their entrepreneurial orientation to boost their innovation potential by utilizing their entrepreneurial networks and learning capacity to leverage the environmental knowledge. The conclusion is that it is not just the firm’s aptitude, evaluated in terms of its resources and skills, but also its attitude toward its stakeholders that determines its success. It has been experimentally shown that the entrepreneurial orientation of a company influences its network development, that is, with external sources of valuable resources, as well as its own learning ability to capitalize on the external information obtained via these networks. Then, entrepreneurial orientation is necessary for the formation of entrepreneurial networks of great value, from which firms may access resources, particularly expertise, to boost their innovation capacity. In addition, the data revealed that entrepreneurial networks constitute the most important link between the entrepreneurial approach and the innovative capacity of businesses. In the current context, one of the priorities of innovation is to improve sustainability, seeking to maximize the creation of value for society and to minimize the environmental impact of the solutions developed [160,161,162]. Thus, this research provides a better understanding of the synergistic relationship between entrepreneurial orientation, the development of networks composed of valuable stakeholders for firms, and internal learning capabilities for the achievement of better innovation outcomes, which result in new, more sustainable products, processes, and organizations with higher value-creating capabilities.
In connection with the managerial implications, business owners and executives must consider that high levels of learning capacity enable firms to better use their entrepreneurial orientation in order to boost their innovation capacity. Companies that operate entrepreneurially but fail to create important stakeholder networks probably would see a drop in performance, at least in relative terms. Entrepreneurial attitude jeopardizes the durability of a company’s network linkages via its inherent dynamic and change [4]. Therefore, stakeholder involvement has been highlighted to examine the application of insights from stakeholder theory to the issue at hand. Entrepreneurial orientation allows firms to pursue new business opportunities actively and persistently, with entrepreneurial networks and learning capacity serving as the conduits through which the benefits of entrepreneurial orientation manifest as superior innovation capacity. In addition, it was determined that enterprises’ learning capacity is enhanced when entrepreneurial networks are well developed and fully exploited. The knowledge gained by entrepreneurs via their social networks aids businesses in acquiring crucial resources for enhancing their innovative potential.
Therefore, rather than engaging in heated rivalry, which might eventually result in the collapse of certain businesses, companies should focus on building their networks and cooperating to form win-win cooperation agreements. In this regard, businesses should share information with their stakeholders in order to uncover new possibilities, leverage the existing possibilities, or create new ones. According to Wales et al. [92], the ability to learn has been recognized as a key factor in the development of competitive advantages; therefore, our findings show how firms can strengthen the returns from their entrepreneurial orientation and networks to increase their innovation capacity. Thus, managers must recognize that a company’s attitude toward difficulties and the environment has a direct bearing on the growth of its network of connections and internal capabilities, particularly in terms of learning and innovation. Therefore, they should engage time and resources in fostering an entrepreneurial mindset that not only enables them to exploit possibilities in the environment, but also generates new prospects to produce value. Recent demands for rigorous mediation studies to increase understanding in the field of entrepreneurial orientation have been heard, with efforts concentrated on the entrepreneurial networks and learning capacity variables [12]. A deeper comprehension of the performance implications of entrepreneurial orientation requires continued focus on mediating mechanisms, as well as future research in this area [1,31]. It is plausible that the association between entrepreneurial orientation and innovation capacity is mediated by both learning-related and non-learning-related elements [92,163,164]. Then, to engage in knowledge transfer with stakeholders, companies would require a high external learning capacity in addition to other relevant competencies.
The findings add to the controversy surrounding the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and innovation capacity. Contextual variables such as industry circumstances and country culture may potentially impact the relationships analyzed in our study approach. It is possible, for instance, that the interorganizational relationships between firms and their stakeholders are influenced by economic, socio-cultural, institutional, or industrial factors in ways that were beyond the scope of the preceding research. Notably, Martens et al. [2] have recently identified contexts as a vital area of research for the advancement of entrepreneurial research. In this aspect, this research has several limitations. Although the entrepreneurial network of firms has been considered, there could be other factors of the context in which firms are located that may have an impact on the entrepreneurial orientation of firms, as such as the existence of specialized institutions or the degree of agglomeration of the sector in the region, among others, which have not been analyzed.
Regarding possible directions for future research, it is then proposed to investigate the effect of the regional context on the entrepreneurial orientation of firms. In addition, it would be of interest to determine the impact of effective cooperation agreements, as opposed to focusing solely on business networks or informal interorganizational relationships. It is also suggested that both the internal and external characteristics of a company must be evaluated concurrently in order to determine the primary sources of innovation for organizations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.S.-G.; Methodology, E.S.-G., B.M.-L., P.S.-L. and J.M.-F.; Software, E.S.-G.; Validation, E.S.-G.; Formal analysis, E.S.-G.; Investigation, E.S.-G. and B.M.-L.; Resources, E.S.-G. and B.M.-L.; Data curation, E.S.-G.; Writing – original draft, E.S.-G., P.S.-L. and J.M.-F.; Writing—review & editing, B.M.-L., P.S.-L. and J.M.-F.; Visualization, E.S.-G.; Supervision, E.S.-G.; Project administration, E.S.-G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data available upon request to the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gupta, V.; Gupta, A. The concept of entrepreneurial orientation. Found. Trends Entrep. 2015, 11, 55–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Martens, C.D.P.; Lacerda, F.M.; Belfort, A.C.; de Freitas, H.M.R. Research on entrepreneurial orientation: Current status and future agenda. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2016, 22, 556–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kallmuenzer, A.; Strobl, A.; Peters, M. Tweaking the entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship in family firms: The effect of control mechanisms and family-related goals. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2018, 12, 855–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Covin, J.G.; Wales, W.J. Crafting high-impact entrepreneurial orientation research: Some suggested guidelines. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2019, 43, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Engelen, A.; Kube, H.; Schmidt, S.; Flatten, T.C. Entrepreneurial orientation in turbulent environments: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 1353–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chaudhary, S.; Batra, S. Absorptive capacity and small family firm performance: Exploring the mediation processes. J. Knowl. Manag. 2018, 22, 1201–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Muangmee, C.; Dacko-Pikiewicz, Z.; Meekaewkunchorn, N.; Kassakorn, N.; Khalid, B. Green entrepreneurial orientation and green innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Soc. Sci. 2021, 10, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Anderson, B.S.; Eshima, Y. The influence of firm age and intangible resources on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm growth among Japanese SMEs. J. Bus. Ventur. 2013, 28, 413–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Combs, J.G.; Crook, T.R.; Shook, C.L. The dimensionality of organizational performance and its implications for strategic management research. Res. Methodol. Strategy Manag. 2005, 2, 259–286. [Google Scholar]
  10. Gupta, V.K.; Wales, W.J. Assessing organisational performance within entrepreneurial orientation research: Where have we been and where can we go from here? J. Entrep. 2017, 26, 51–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Saeed, S.; Yousafzai, S.Y.; Engelen, A. On cultural and macroeconomic contingencies of the entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2014, 38, 255–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wales, W.J. Entrepreneurial orientation: A review and synthesis of promising research directions. Int. Small Bus. J. 2016, 34, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hughes, P.; Hodgkinson, I.R.; Hughes, M.; Arshad, D. Explaining the entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship in emerging economies: The intermediate roles of absorptive capacity and improvisation. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2018, 35, 1025–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Yin, M.; Hughes, M.; Hu, Q. Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture resource acquisition: Why context matters. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2021, 38, 1369–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Liu, N.; Hu, H.; Wang, Z. The Relationship between Institutional Pressure, Green Entrepreneurial Orientation, and Entrepreneurial Performance—The Moderating Effect of Network Centrality. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Li, T. Engagement in international entrepreneurship: Interactive effects of resource-based factors and institutional environments. J. Glob. Entrep. Res. 2019, 9, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Kiyabo, K.; Isaga, N. Entrepreneurial orientation, competitive advantage, and SMEs’ performance: Application of firm growth and personal wealth measures. J. Innov. Entrep. 2020, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Claver-Cortés, E.; Marco-Lajara, B.; Sánchez-García, E.; Seva-Larrosa, P.; Manresa-Marhuenda, E.; Ruiz-Fernández, L.; Poveda-Pareja, E. A Literature Review on the Effect of Industrial Clusters and the Absorptive Capacity on Innovation. Int. J. Ind. Manuf. Eng. 2020, 14, 494–503. [Google Scholar]
  19. Orakwue, A.; Iguisi, O. Conceptualizing entrepreneurship in human resource management. Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2020, 9, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Marco-Lajara, B.; Sánchez-García, E.; Martínez-Falcó, J.; Poveda-Pareja, E. Regional Specialization, Competitive Pressure, and Cooperation: The Cocktail for Innovation. Energies 2022, 15, 5346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wu, L.; Xu, M. Research on Cooperative Innovation Network Structure and Evolution Characteristics of Electric Vehicle Industry. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jayawarna, D.; Jones, O.; Macpherson, A. New business creation and regional development: Enhancing resource acquisition in areas of social deprivation. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2011, 23, 735–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. McKeever, E.; Anderson, A.; Jack, S. Entrepreneurship and mutuality: Social capital in processes and practices. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2014, 26, 453–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Al-Abbadi, L.H.M.; Almomani, R.Z.Q.; Rumman, A.R.A.A.A.; Abu-Rumman, A.; Khraisat, A.M.I. Impact of human capital development and human capital isolation mechanisms on innovative performance: Evidence from industrial companies in Jordan. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. 2019, 11, 200–209. [Google Scholar]
  25. Shah, S.Z.A.; Ahmad, M. Entrepreneurial orientation and performance of small and medium-sized enterprises: Mediating effects of differentiation strategy. Compet. Rev. Int. Bus. J. 2019, 29, 551–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jalali, A.; Jaafar, M.; Ramayah, T. Entrepreneurial orientation and performance: The interaction effect of customer capital. World J. Entrep. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 10, 48–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mingaleva, Z.; Shironina, E.; Lobova, E.; Olenev, V.; Plyusnina, L.; Oborina, A. Organizational Culture Management as an Element of Innovative and Sustainable Development of Enterprises. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lee, W.L.; Chong, A.L.; Ramayah, T. The effects of entrepreneurial orientation on the performance of the Malaysian manufacturing sector. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 2018, 11, 30–45. [Google Scholar]
  29. Fernhaber, S.A.; Patel, P.C. How do young firms manage product portfolio complexity? The role of absorptive capacity and ambidexterity. Strateg. Manag. J. 2012, 33, 1516–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Fullerton, R.R.; Wempe, W.F. Lean manufacturing, non-financial performance measures, and financial performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Man. 2009, 29, 214–240. [Google Scholar]
  31. Gupta, V.K.; Dutta, D.K. The Rich Legacy of Covin and Slevin (1989) and Lumpkin and Dess (1996): A Constructive Critical Analysis of Their Deep Impact on Entrepreneurial Orientation Research. In Foundational Research in Entrepreneurship Studies, 1st ed.; Javadian, G., Gupta, V., Dutta, D., Guo, G., Osorio, A., Ozkazanc-Pan, B., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 1, pp. 155–177. [Google Scholar]
  32. Patel, P.C.; Kohtamäki, M.; Parida, V.; Wincent, J. Entrepreneurial orientation-as-experimentation and firm performance: The enabling role of absorptive capacity. Strateg. Manag. J. 2015, 36, 1739–1749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Meekaewkunchorn, N.; Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K.; Muangmee, C.; Kassakorn, N.; Khalid, B. Entrepreneurial orientation and SME performance: The mediating role of learning orientation. Econ. Sociol. 2021, 14, 294–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jiang, F.; Wang, G.; Jiang, X. Entrepreneurial orientation and organizational knowledge creation: A configurational approach. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2019, 36, 1193–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Keh, H.T.; Nguyen, T.T.M.; Ng, H.P. The effects of entrepreneurial orientation and marketing information on the performance of SMEs. J. Bus. Ventur. 2007, 22, 592–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhao, Y.; Li, Y.; Lee, S.H.; Bo Chen, L. Entrepreneurial orientation, organizational learning, and performance: Evidence from China. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2011, 35, 293–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Jiang, X.; Yang, Y.; Pei, Y.L.; Wang, G. Entrepreneurial orientation, strategic alliances, and firm performance: Inside the black box. Long Range Plan. 2016, 49, 103–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Vega-Vázquez, M.; Cossío-Silva, F.J.; Revilla-Camacho, M.Á. Entrepreneurial orientation–hotel performance: Has market orientation anything to say? J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 5089–5094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yoon, J.; Solomon, G.T. A curvilinear relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The moderating role of employees’ psychological safety. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2017, 13, 1139–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cho, Y.H.; Lee, J.H. Entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial education and performance. Asia Pac. J. Innov. Entrep. 2018, 12, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Taheri, B.; Bititci, U.; Gannon, M.J.; Cordina, R. Investigating the influence of performance measurement on learning, entrepreneurial orientation and performance in turbulent markets. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 1224–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Wiklund, J.; Shepherd, D. Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strateg. Manag. J. 2003, 24, 1307–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Anderson, B.S.; Kreiser, P.M.; Kuratko, D.F.; Hornsby, J.S.; Eshima, Y. Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial orientation. Strat. Man. J. 2015, 36, 1579–1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Alam, S.S.; Md Salleh, M.F.; Masukujjaman, M.; Al-Shaikh, M.E.; Makmor, N.; Makhbul, Z.K.M. Relationship between Entrepreneurial Orientation and Business Performance among Malay-Owned SMEs in Malaysia: A PLS Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yang, H.; Dess, G.G.; Robins, J.A. Does entrepreneurial orientation always pay off? The role of resource mobilization within and across organizations. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2019, 36, 565–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wales, W.J.; Covin, J.G.; Monsen, E. Entrepreneurial orientation: The necessity of a multilevel conceptualization. Strateg. Entrep. J. 2020, 14, 639–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wales, W.J.; Kraus, S.; Filser, M.; Stöckmann, C.; Covin, J.G. The status quo of research on entrepreneurial orientation: Conversational landmarks and theoretical scaffolding. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 128, 564–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Covin, J.G.; Slevin, D.P. Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strateg. Manag. J. 1989, 10, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lee, S.M.; Peterson, S.J. Culture, entrepreneurial orientation, and global competitiveness. J. World Bus. 2000, 35, 401–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wiklund, J.; Shepherd, D. Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. J. Bus. Ventur. 2005, 20, 71–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gupta, V.; Batra, S. Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in Indian SMEs: Universal and contingency perspectives. Int. Small Bus. J. 2016, 34, 660–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Real, J.C.; Roldán, J.L.; Leal, A. From entrepreneurial orientation and learning orientation to business performance: Analysing the mediating role of organizational learning and the moderating effects of organizational size. Br. J. Manag. 2014, 25, 186–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Shan, P.; Song, M.; Ju, X. Entrepreneurial orientation and performance: Is innovation speed a missing link? J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 683–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lumpkin, G.T.; Dess, G.G. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1996, 21, 135–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Covin, J.G.; Lumpkin, G.T. Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: Reflections on a needed construct. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2011, 35, 855–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Covin, J.G.; Wales, W.J. The measurement of entrepreneurial orientation. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2012, 36, 677–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Luu, N.; Ngo, L.V. Entrepreneurial orientation and social ties in transitional economies. Long Range Plan. 2019, 52, 103–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Miller, D. The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Manag. Sci. 1983, 29, 770–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lumpkin, G.T.; Cogliser, C.C.; Schneider, D.R. Understanding and measuring autonomy: An entrepreneurial orientation perspective. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2009, 33, 47–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jiang, X.; Liu, H.; Fey, C.; Jiang, F. Entrepreneurial orientation, network resource acquisition, and firm performance: A network approach. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 87, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Alkhazali, Z.; Abu-Rumman, A.; Khdour, N.; Al-Daoud, K. Empowerment, HRM practices and organizational performance: A case study of Jordanian commercial banks. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2020, 7, 2991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wiklund, J.; Shepherd, D.A. Where to from here? EO-as-experimentation, failure, and distribution of outcomes. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2011, 35, 925–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gunawan, T.; Jacob, J.; Duysters, G. Network ties and entrepreneurial orientation: Innovative performance of SMEs in a developing country. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2016, 12, 575–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hernández-Linares, R.; Kellermanns, F.W.; López-Fernández, M.C.; Sarkar, S. The effect of socioemotional wealth on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and family business performance. BRQ Bus. Res. Q. 2019. In press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gupta, V.K.; Niranjan, S.; Markin, E. Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The mediating role of generative and acquisitive learning through customer relationships. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2020, 14, 1123–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hoang, H.; Antoncic, B. Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review. J. Bus. Ventur. 2003, 18, 165–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hoang, H.; Yi, A. Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A decade in review. Found. Trends Entrep. 2015, 11, 1–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Granovetter, M. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 2018, 91, 481–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ozcan, P. Growing with the market: H ow changing conditions during market growth affect formation and evolution of interfirm ties. Strateg. Manag. J. 2018, 39, 295–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Shu, R.; Ren, S.; Zheng, Y. Building networks into discovery: The link between entrepreneur network capability and entrepreneurial opportunity discovery. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 85, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kerr, J.; Coviello, N. Formation and constitution of effectual networks: A systematic review and synthesis. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2019, 21, 370–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Li, Y.; Liu, Y.; Liu, H. Co-opetition, distributor’s entrepreneurial orientation and manufacturer’s knowledge acquisition: Evidence from China. J. Oper. Manag. 2011, 29, 128–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kreiser, P.M.; Marino, L.D.; Kuratko, D.F.; Weaver, K.M. Disaggregating entrepreneurial orientation: The non-linear impact of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking on SME performance. Small Bus. Econ. 2013, 40, 273–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Barney, J.B.; Mackey, A. Text and metatext in the resource-based view. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2016, 26, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Das, T.K.; Teng, B.S. A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. J. Manag. 2000, 26, 31–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Adler, P.S.; Kwon, S.W. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 17–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sodhi, M.S. Conceptualizing social responsibility in operations via stakeholder resource-based view. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2015, 24, 1375–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Steiner, B.; Lan, K.; Unterschultz, J.; Boxall, P. Applying the resource-based view to alliance formation in specialized supply chains. J. Strategy Manag. 2017, 10, 262–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Martínez-Pérez, Á.; Beauchesne, M.M. Overcoming the dark side of closed networks in cultural tourism clusters: The importance of diverse networks. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2018, 59, 239–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Pittz, T.G.; White, R.; Zoller, T. Entrepreneurial ecosystems and social network centrality: The power of regional dealmakers. Small Bus. Econ. 2021, 56, 1273–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zaheer, A.; Gözübüyük, R.; Milanov, H. It’s the connections: The network perspective in interorganizational research. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2010, 24, 62–77. [Google Scholar]
  83. Wu, H.; Chen, J.; Jiao, H. Dynamic capabilities as a mediator linking international diversification and innovation performance of firms in an emerging economy. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 2678–2686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Tehseen, S.; Sajilan, S. Network competence based on resource-based view and resource dependence theory. Int. J. Trade Glob. Mark. 2016, 9, 60–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kanini, K.S.; Muathe, S.M. Nexus between social capital and firm performance: A critical literature review and research agenda. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2019, 14, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Laursen, K.; Salter, A. Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strateg. Manag. J. 2006, 27, 131–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Faems, D.; De Visser, M.; Andries, P.; Van Looy, B. Technology alliance portfolios and financial performance: Value-enhancing and cost-increasing effects of open innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2010, 27, 785–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. West, J.; Salter, A.; Vanhaverbeke, W.; Chesbrough, H. Open innovation: The next decade. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 805–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Bengtsson, L.; Lakemond, N.; Lazzarotti, V.; Manzini, R.; Pellegrini, L.; Tell, F. Open to a select few? Matching partners and knowledge content for open innovation performance. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2015, 24, 72–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Park, J.H. Open innovation of small and medium-sized enterprises and innovation efficiency. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 2018, 26, 115–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Parida, V.; Westerberg, M.; Frishammar, J. Inbound open innovation activities in high-tech SMEs: The impact on innovation performance. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2012, 50, 283–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Wales, W.J.; Patel, P.C.; Parida, V.; Kreiser, P.M. Nonlinear effects of entrepreneurial orientation on small firm performance: The moderating role of resource orchestration capabilities. Strateg. Entrep. J. 2013, 7, 93–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Seo, R. Entrepreneurial orientation and innovation performance: Insights from Korean ventures. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2019, 23, 675–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Frishammar, J.; Ericsson, K.; Patel, P.C. The dark side of knowledge transfer: Exploring knowledge leakage in joint R&D projects. Technovation 2015, 41, 75–88. [Google Scholar]
  95. Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ. Sci. 1994, 5, 14–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Foss, N.J.; Lyngsie, J.; Zahra, S.A. The role of external knowledge sources and organizational design in the process of opportunity exploitation. Strateg. Manag. J. 2013, 34, 1453–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. March, J.G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 1991, 2, 71–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Holmqvist, M. A dynamic model of intra- and interorganizational learning. Organ. Stud. 2003, 24, 95–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Goh, S.; Richards, G. Benchmarking the learning capability of organizations. Eur. Manag. J. 1997, 15, 575–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Jerez-Gomez, P.; Céspedes-Lorente, J.; Valle-Cabrera, R. Organizational learning capability: A proposal of measurement. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 715–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Chiva, R.; Alegre, J. Organizational learning capability and job satisfaction: An empirical assessment in the ceramic tile industry. Br. J. Manag. 2009, 20, 323–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Castaneda, D.I.; Manrique, L.F.; Cuellar, S. Is organizational learning being absorbed by knowledge management? A Syst. Rev. J. Knowl. Manag. 2018, 22, 299–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Alegre, J.; Chiva, R. Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation performance: An empirical test. Technovation 2008, 28, 315–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Xia, T.; Liu, X. Cultural values and innovation: The mediating role of entrepreneurial learning capacity. J. Int. Manag. 2021, 27, 100812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Munoz-Pascual, L.; Galende, J. Ambidextrous knowledge and learning capability: The magic potion for employee creativity and sustainable innovation performance. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Fiol, C.M.; Lyles, M.A. Organizational learning. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1985, 10, 803–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Eisenhardt, K.M.; Santos, F.M. Knowledge-based view: A new theory of strategy. Handb. Strategy Manag. 2002, 1, 139–164. [Google Scholar]
  108. Ganguly, A.; Talukdar, A.; Chatterjee, D. Evaluating the role of social capital, tacit knowledge sharing, knowledge quality and reciprocity in determining innovation capability of an organization. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 23, 1105–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Muhammed, S.; Zaim, H. Peer knowledge sharing and organizational performance: The role of leadership support and knowledge management success. J. Knowl. Manag. 2020, 24, 2455–2489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Westerlund, M.; Rajala, R. Learning and innovation in inter-organizational network collaboration. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2010, 25, 435–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Seo, R. Interorganizational learning for R&D consortium performance: A social capital perspective. J. Knowl. Manag. 2020, 24, 395–414. [Google Scholar]
  112. Camps, J.; Alegre, J.; Torres, F. Towards a methodology to assess organizational learning capability: A study among faculty members. Int. J. Manpow. 2011, 32, 687703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Alegre, J.; Chiva, R. Linking entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The role of organizational learning capability and innovation performance. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2013, 51, 491–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Mustafa, M.; Gavin, F.; Hughes, M. Contextual determinants of employee entrepreneurial behavior in support of corporate entrepreneurship: A systematic review and research agenda. J. Enterprising Cult. 2018, 26, 285–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Mbengue, A.; Sané, S. Organizational learning capability: Theoretical analysis and empirical study in the context of official development aid project teams. Can. J. Adm. Sci. /Rev. Can. Des Sci. De L’administration 2013, 30, 26–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Su, Z.; Ahlstrom, D.; Li, J.; Cheng, D. Knowledge creation capability, absorptive capacity, and product innovativeness. RD Manag. 2013, 43, 473–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Hughes, M.; Hughes, P.; Morgan, R.E.; Hodgkinson, I.R.; Lee, Y. Strategic entrepreneurship behaviour and the innovation ambidexterity of young technology-based firms in incubators. Int. Small Bus. J. 2021, 39, 202–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. González-Campo, C.H.; Ayala, A.H. Influencia de la capacidad de absorción sobre la innovación: Un análisis empírico en las mipymes colombianas. Estud. Gerenc. 2014, 30, 277–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Berghman, L.; Matthyssens, P.; Streukens, S.; Vandenbempt, K. Deliberate learning mechanisms for stimulating strategic innovation capacity. Long Range Plan. 2013, 46, 39–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Rajala, A. Examining the effects of interorganizational learning on performance: A meta-analysis. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2018, 33, 574–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Kostopoulos, K.; Papalexandris, A.; Papachroni, M.; Ioannou, G. Absorptive capacity, innovation, and financial performance. J. Bus. Res. 2011, 64, 1335–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Yström, A.; Ollila, S.; Agogué, M.; Coghlan, D. The role of a learning approach in building an interorganizational network aiming for collaborative innovation. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 2019, 55, 27–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Chesbrough, H.; Vanhaverbeke, W.; West, J. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  124. Enkel, E.; Gassmann, O.; Chesbrough, H. Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon. Rd Manag. 2009, 39, 311–316. [Google Scholar]
  125. Chesbrough, H.; Lettl, C.; Ritter, T. Value creation and value capture in open innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2018, 35, 930–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Sancho-Zamora, R.; Hernández-Perlines, F.; Peña-García, I.; Gutiérrez-Broncano, S. The Impact of Absorptive Capacity on Innovation: The Mediating Role of Organizational Learning. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Gassmann, O.; Enkel, E.; Chesbrough, H. The future of open innovation. RD Manag. 2010, 40, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. West, J.; Bogers, M. Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2014, 31, 814–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Grillitsch, M.; Schubert, T.; Srholec, M. Knowledge base combinations and firm growth. Res. Policy 2019, 48, 234–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Van de Vrande, V.; De Jong, J.P.; Vanhaverbeke, W.; De Rochemont, M. Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation 2009, 29, 423–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Cheng, C.C.; Huizingh, E.K. When is open innovation beneficial? The role of strategic orientation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2014, 31, 1235–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Wang, C.H.; Chang, C.H.; Shen, G.C. The effect of inbound open innovation on firm performance: Evidence from high-tech industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2015, 99, 222–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Stephan, U.; Andries, P.; Daou, A. Goal multiplicity and innovation: How social and economic goals affect open innovation and innovation performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2019, 36, 721–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  134. D’Angelo, A.; Baroncelli, A. An investigation over inbound open innovation in SMEs: Insights from an Italian manufacturing sample. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2020, 32, 542–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Spender, J.C. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 1996, 17, 45–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Cruz-Ros, S.; Guerrero-Sánchez, D.L.; Miquel-Romero, M.J. Absorptive capacity and its impact on innovation and performance: Findings from SEM and fsQCA. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2021, 15, 235–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Sun, P.Y.; Anderson, M.H. An examination of the relationship between absorptive capacity and organizational learning, and a proposed integration. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2010, 12, 130–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Gibb, J.; Sune, A.; Albers, S. Network learning: Episodes of interorganizational learning towards a collective performance goal. Eur. Manag. J. 2017, 35, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Kollmann, T.; Stöckmann, C. Filling the entrepreneurial orientation–performance gap: The mediating effects of exploratory and exploitative innovations. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2014, 38, 1001–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M.A. Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  141. Parra-Requena, G.; Ruiz-Ortega, M.J.; Garcia-Villaverde, P.M. Social capital and effective innovation in industrial districts: Dual effect of absorptive capacity. Ind. Innov. 2013, 20, 157–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Flatten, T.C.; Engelen, A.; Zahra, S.A.; Brettel, M. A measure of absorptive capacity: Scale development and validation. Eur. Manag. J. 2011, 29, 98–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Prajogo, D.I.; Ahmed, P.K. Relationships between innovation stimulus, innovation capacity, and innovation performance. RD Manag. 2006, 36, 499–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Škerlavaj, M.; Song, J.H.; Lee, Y. Organizational learning culture, innovative culture and innovations in South Korean firms. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 6390–6403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Pieper, T.M.; Ringle, C.M. The use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in strategic management research: A review of past practices and recommendations for future applications. Long Range Plan. 2012, 45, 320–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Castillo Apraiz, J.; Cepeda Carrión, G.; Roldán, J.L. Manual de Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 1st ed.; OmniaScience Scholar: Madrid, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  147. Edwards, J.S. (Ed.) The Essentials of Knowledge Management. OR Essentials Series.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  148. Henseler, J. Partial least squares path modeling. In Advanced methods for modeling markets, 1st ed.; Henseler, J., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 1, pp. 361–381. [Google Scholar]
  149. Henseler, J. Bridging design and behavioral research with variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Advert. 2017, 46, 178–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Straub, D.W. Editor’s comments: A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in "MIS Quarterly". MIS Q. 2012, 36, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  151. Sarstedt, M.; Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Thiele, K.O.; Gudergan, S.P. Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bias lies! J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 3998–4010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  152. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. 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] [Green Version]
  154. Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 1998, 295, 295–336. [Google Scholar]
  155. Dijkstra, T.K.; Henseler, J. Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Q. 2015, 39, 297–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Kline, R.B. Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. In The SAGE Handbook of Innovation in Social Research Methods, 1st ed.; Malcolm, W., Vogt, W.P., Eds.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011; pp. 562–589. [Google Scholar]
  157. 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]
  158. Hair, J.F.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed.; Cengage Learning: Hampshire, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  159. Silvestre, B.S.; Ţîrcă, D.M. Innovations for sustainable development: Moving toward a sustainable future. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 325–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Klewitz, J.; Hansen, E.G. Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 57–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Dyck, B.; Silvestre, B.S. Enhancing socio-ecological value creation through sustainable innovation 2.0: Moving away from maximizing financial value capture. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 171, 1593–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Marco-Lajara, B.; Zaragoza-Sáez, P.; Martínez-Falcó, J.; Sánchez-García, E. Green Intellectual Capital in the Spanish Wine Industry. In Innovative Economic, Social, and Environmental Practices for Progressing Future Sustainability, 1st ed.; Marco-Lajara, B., Zaragoza-Sáez, P., Martínez-Falcó, J., Sánchez-García, E., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2022; pp. 102–120. [Google Scholar]
  163. Wang, C.L. Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2008, 32, 635–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Wales, W.; Wiklund, J.; McKelvie, A. What about new entry? Examining the theorized role of new entry in the entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship. Int. Small Bus. J. 2015, 33, 351–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 16978 g001 550
Figure 1. Nomogram of the proposed model.
Figure 1. Nomogram of the proposed model.
Sustainability 14 16978 g001
Sustainability 14 16978 g002 550
Figure 2. Path coefficients.
Figure 2. Path coefficients.
Sustainability 14 16978 g002
Table
Table 1. Internal consistency.
Table 1. Internal consistency.
Cronbach’s Alpharho_AC.R.AVE
E.N.0.8680.8710.9190.791
E.O.0.8530.8540.8950.63
I.C.0.8490.8520.8980.689
L.C.0.8190.8330.880.648
Source: Our own elaboration. Note: E.N.: Entrepreneurial networks; E.O.: Entrepreneurial orientation; I.C.: Innovation capacity; L.C.: Learning capacity; C.R.: Composite reliability.
Table
Table 2. Convergent validity.
Table 2. Convergent validity.
External LoadsE.N.E.O.I.C.L.C.
Autonomy 0.777
Innovation efforts 0.764
Proactivity 0.832
Competitive aggressiveness 0.761
Risk taking 0.832
AC acquisition 0.745
AC assimilation 0.725
AC transformation 0.759
AC exploitation 0.787
Structural E.N.0.884
Relational E.N.0.871
Cognitive E.N.0.914
IC management 0.816
IC marketing 0.786
IC process 0.860
IC product 0.856
VIFI.C.L.C.
E.N.2.4721.863
E.O.2.0801.863
I.C.
L.C.2.139
Age 1.021
Size 1.050
Source: Our own elaboration. Note: E.N.: Entrepreneurial networks; E.O.: Entrepreneurial orientation; I.C.: Innovation capacity; L.C.: Learning capacity.
Table
Table 3. Discriminant validity.
Table 3. Discriminant validity.
Fornell-LarckerE.N.E.O.I.C.L.C.
E.N.0.890
E.O.0.6810.794
I.C.0.6720.5920.830
L.C.0.6930.6290.6400.805
HTMTE.N.E.O.I.C.L.C.
E.N.
E.O.0.785
I.C.0.7810.690
L.C.0.8090.7480.758
Source: Our own elaboration. Note: E.N.: Entrepreneurial networks; E.O.: Entrepreneurial orientation; I.C.: Innovation capacity; L.C.: Learning capacity.
Table
Table 4. Summary of direct effects.
Table 4. Summary of direct effects.
Structural PathCoef. (β)Standard
Deviation		p-Values95% CIResults
E.N. -> I.C.0.319 **0.0790.000[0.166–0.477] **
E.N. -> L.C.0.493 **0.0690.000[0.359–0.626] **
E.O. -> E.N.0.681 **0.0460.000[0.581–0.762] **
E.O. -> I.C.0.150 *0.0680.029[0.017–0.287] *H1 supported
E.O. -> L.C.0.293 *0.0750.000[0.136–0.438] **
L.C. -> I.C.0.313 **0.0830.000[0.142–0.461] **
Source: Our own elaboration. Note: Coef.: Coefficient; S.D.: Standard deviation; C.I.: Confidence interval; E.N.: Entrepreneurial networks; I.C.: Innovation capacity; E.O.: Entrepreneurial orientation; L.C.: Learning capacity; ** Statistically significant at 1%; * Statistically significant at 5%.
Table
Table 5. Summary of indirect effects.
Table 5. Summary of indirect effects.
Total Effect of E.O. on I.C.Direct Effect of E.O. on I.C.Indirect Effect of E.O. on I.C.Conclusion
Coef. (β)T ValueCoef. (β)T ValuePoint EstimatedC.I.. 95%.
0.564 **9.9240.150 *2.190Total0.414
H2 = a1 × b10.217 **[0.115–0.330]H2 supported
H3 = a2 × c10.092 **[0.031–0.164]H3 supported
H4 = a1 × b2 × c10.105 **[0.048–0.163]H4 supported
Source: Our own elaboration. Note: Coef.: Coefficient; C.I.: Confidence interval; E.O.: Entrepreneurial orientation; I.C.: Innovation capacity; ** Statistically significant at 1%; * Statistically significant at 5%.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sánchez-García, E.; Marco-Lajara, B.; Seva-Larrosa, P.; Martínez-Falcó, J. Driving Innovation by Managing Entrepreneurial Orientation, Cooperation and Learning for the Sustainability of Companies in the Energy Sector. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16978. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416978

AMA Style

Sánchez-García E, Marco-Lajara B, Seva-Larrosa P, Martínez-Falcó J. Driving Innovation by Managing Entrepreneurial Orientation, Cooperation and Learning for the Sustainability of Companies in the Energy Sector. Sustainability. 2022; 14(24):16978. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416978

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sánchez-García, Eduardo, Bartolomé Marco-Lajara, Pedro Seva-Larrosa, and Javier Martínez-Falcó. 2022. "Driving Innovation by Managing Entrepreneurial Orientation, Cooperation and Learning for the Sustainability of Companies in the Energy Sector" Sustainability 14, no. 24: 16978. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416978

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop