International entrepreneurship in SMEs: a study of influencing factors in the textile industry

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11365-012-0242-3International entrepreneurship is an incipient research area with a rapidly increasing body of knowledge and contributions. An important part of this literature has focused on the analysis of the contributing factors to IE development. From these studies, this work attempts to analyse and validate through an integrative model the effect on this construct in SME of some of the main factors proposed by the literature such as Skills and Competences, Attitude and Proactiveness, Creativity and Innovation, Networking, Employees and Activity. To proceed with this aim, we conducted an empirical research focused on 174 textile SME in Spain. The results obtained confirm a positive relationship between the studied factors and the IE development. In consequence, this work agrees with previous literature that point out the need to use multi-theoretical perspectives, combining multiple factors.Gil Pechuán, I.; Expósito Langa, M.; Tomas Miquel, JV. (2013). International entrepreneurship in SMEs: a study of influencing factors in the textile industry. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 9(1):45-57. doi:10.1007/s11365-012-0242-3S455791Akgün, A., Keskin, H., & Byrne, J. (2012). Organizational emotional memory. Management Decision, 50(1), 95–114.Andersén, J. (2011). Strategic resources and firm performance. Management Decision, 49(1), 87–98.Anderson, A. R., Dodd, S. D., & Jack, S. L. (2012). Entrepreneurship as connecting: some implications for theorising and practice. Management Decision, 50(5), 958–971.Appelbaum, S. H., Roy, M., & Gilliland, T. (2011). Globalization of performance appraisals: theory and applications. Management Decision, 49(4), 570–585.Arribas, I., Hernández, P., Urbano, A., & Vila, J. E. (2012). Are social and entrepreneurial attitudes compatible? A behavioral and self-perceptional analysis. Management Decision, 50(10), 1739–1757.Audretsch, D. (2012). Entrepreneurship research. Management Decision, 50(5), 755–764.Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J., & Almeida, J. G. (2000). Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 909–924.Bannon, L. (1998). Mattel plans to double sales abroad. Wall Street Journal, February 11, (A3 and A8).Battistella, C., Biotto, G., & De Toni, A. (2012). From design driven innovation to meaning strategy. Management Decision, 50(4), 718–743.Bell, J., McNaughton, J., Young, R., & Crick, D. (2003). Towards an integrative model of small firm internationalization. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1, 339–362.Bonzo, P., Valadares de Oliveira, P., & McCormarck. (2012). Planning, capabilities, and performance: an integrated value approach. Management Decision, 50(6), 1001–1021.Bossak, J., & Nagashima, S. (1997). Corporate strategies for a borderless world: sharpening your competitive edge. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization.Cambra-Fierro, J., Florin, J., Perez, L., & Whitelock, J. (2011). Inter-firm market orientation as antecedent of knowledge transfer, innovation and value creation in networks. Management Decision, 49(3), 444–467.Cantarello, S., Nosella, A., Petroni, G., & Venturini, K. (2011). External technology sourcing: evidence from design-driven innovation. Management Decision, 49(6), 962–983.Chang, Y. Y., Hughes, M., & Hotho, S. (2011). Internal and external antecedents of SMEs’ innovation ambidexterity outcomes. Management Decision, 49(10), 1658–1676.Chaston, I., & Scott, G. J. (2012). Entrepreneurship and open innovation in an emerging economy. Management Decision, 50(7), 1161–1177.Coviello, N. E., & Jones, M. V. (2004). Methodological issues in international entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 485–508.Coviello, N. E., & McAuley, A. (1999). Internationalization and the smaller firm: a review of contemporary empirical research. Management International Review, 39, 223–256.Covin, J., & Slevin, D. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87.Covin, J., & Slevin, D. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16, 7–25.Davis, D., Morris, M., & Allen, J. (1991). Perceived environmental turbulence and its effect on selected entrepreneurship, marketing, and organizational characteristics in industrial firms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(1), 43–51.Dean, C. C., Thibodeaux, M. S., Beyerlein, M., Ebrahimi, B., & Molina, D. (1993). Corporate entrepreneurship and competitive aggressiveness. A comparison of U.S. firms operating in eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States with U.S. firms in other high-risk environments. Advances in International Comparative Management, 8, 31–54.Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. B. (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: the case of privately held firms and conglomerate business units. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 265–273.Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance: tests of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 677–695.Díaz-Casero, J. C., Díaz-Aunión, A., Sánchez-Escobedo, M. C., Coduras-Martinez, A., & Hernández-Mogollón, R. (2012). Economic freedom and entrepreneurial activity. Management Decision, 50(9), 1686–1711.Dimitratos, P., & Plakoyiannaki, E. (2003). Theoretical foundations of an international entrepreneurial culture. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1, 187–215.Dubini, P., & Aldrich, H. (1991). Personal and extended networks are central to the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 305–313.Felício, J. A., Rodrigues, R., & Caldeirinha, V. R. (2012). The effect of intrapreneurship on corporate performance. Management Decision, 50(10), 1717–1738.Goktan, A. B., & Miles, G. (2011). Innovation speed and radicalness: are they inversely related? Management Decision, 49(4), 533–547.Gómez-Haro, S., Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Cordón-Pozo, E. (2011). Differentiating the effects of the institutional environment on corporate entrepreneurship. Management Decision, 49(10), 1677–1693.Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, L. D. (2001). Strategic entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation [Special Issue]. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6), 479–492.Hotho, S., & Champion, K. (2011). Small businesses in the new creative industries: innovation as a people management challenge. Management Decision, 49(1), 29–54.Hu, Y.-S. (1995). The international transferability of competitive advantage. California Management Review, 37(4), 73–88.Huarng, K. H., & Yu, T. H. K. (2011). Entrepreneurship, process innovation and value creation by a non-profit SME. Management Decision, 49(2), 284–296.Jones, M. V. (1999). The internationalization of small UK high technology based firms. Journal of International Marketing, 7, 15–41.Jones, M. V., & Coviello, N. E. (2005). Internationalization: conceptualising and entrepreneurial process of behaviour in time. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3):284–303.Khandwalla, P. (1977). The design of organizations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2004). Innovation, organization capabilities, and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 124–141.Kropp, F., Lindsay, N. J., & Shoham, A. (2006). Entrepreneurial, market, and learning orientations and international entrepreneurial business venture performance in South African firms. International Marketing Review, 23(5), 504–523.Liebeskind, J. P. (1996). Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 93–107.Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21, 135–172.McDougall, P. P., & Oviatt, B. M. (2000). International entrepreneurship: the intersection of two research paths. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 902–908.McDougall, P. P., Shane, S., & Oviatt, B. M. (1994). Explaining the formation of international new ventures: the limits of theories from international business research. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 469–487.McGrath, R. G., MacMillan, I. C., & Venkataraman, S. (1995). Global dimensions of new competencies. In S. Birley & I. C. MacMillan (Eds.), International entrepreneurship. New York: Routledge.McNaughton, R. B. (2001). The export mode decision-making process in small knowledge- intensive firms. Market Intelligence and Planning, 19, 12–20.McNaughton, R. B. (2003). The number of export markets that a firm serves: process models versus the born-global phenomenon. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1, 297–311.Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770–791.Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1984). Organizations: a quantum view. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Morrow, J. F. (1988). International entrepreneurship: a new growth opportunity. New Management, 3, 59–61.Murphy, G. B., Trailer, J. W., & Hill, R. C. (1996). Measuring performance in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Research, 36, 15–23.Naman, J. L., & Slevin, D. P. (1993). Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: a model and empirical tests. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 137–153.Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation or imitation? The role of organizational culture. Management Decision, 49(1), 55–72.Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45–64.Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (1999). A framework for understanding accelerated international entrepreneurship. In R. Wright (Ed.), Research in global strategic management (pp. 23–40). Stamford: JAI Press.Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internalization. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 29(5), 537–554.Peiris, I.K., Akoorie, M.E.M., & Sinha, P.N. (2012). International entrepreneurship: A critical analysis of studies in the past two decades and future directions for research. Journal of International Entrepreneurship. Article in press.Pinchot, G., III. (1985). Intrapreneuring: why you don’t have to leave the corporation to become entrepreneur. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. London: Collier-Macmillan.Renko, M., Shrader, R. C., & Simon, M. (2012). Perception of entrepreneurial opportunity: a general framework. Management Decision, 50(7), 1233–1251.Sandulli, F. D., Fernandez-Menendez, J., Rodriguez-Duarte, A., & Lopez-Sanchez, J. I. (2012). Testing the Schumpeterian hypotheses on an open innovation framework. Management Decision, 50(7), 1222–1232.Santos, F. J., Romero, I., & Fernández-Serrano, J. (2012). SMEs and entrepreneurial quality from a macroeconomic perspective. Management Decision, 50(8), 1382–1395.Shama, A. (1995). Entry strategies of U.S. firms to the former Soviet Bloc and Eastern Europe. California Management Review, 37(3), 90–109.Simon, H. (1996). Hidden champions: lessons from 500 of the world’s best unknown companies. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Singh, S., Darwish, T. K., Costa, A. C., & Anderson, N. (2012). Measuring HRM and organisational performance: concepts, issues, and framework. Management Decision, 50(4), 651–667.Smart, T. (1996). GE’s Welch: ‘Fighting like hell to be No. 1’. Business Week, July 8, 48.Snow, C., & Hrebiniak, L. (1980). Strategy, distinctive competence, and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 317–336.Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17–27.Styles, C., & Seymour, R. G. (2006). Opportunities for marketing researchers in international entrepreneurship. International Marketing Review, 23(2), 126–145.Turner, R., Ledwith, A., & Kelly, J. (2012). Project management in small to medium-sized enterprises: tailoring the practices to the size of company. Management Decision, 50(5), 942–957.Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: a comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11, 801–814.Vlasic, B. (1998). The little car that could carry Chrysler overseas. Business Week, 19, 39.Welbourne, T. M., Neck, H., & Meyer, G. D. (2012). The entrepreneurial growth ceiling: using people and innovation to mitigate risk and break through the growth ceiling in initial public offerings. Management Decision, 50(5), 778–796.Williamson, P. J. (1997). Asia’s new competitive game. Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 55–67.Yeoh, P. L. (2004). International learning: antecedents and performance implications among newly internationalizing companies in an exporting context. International Marketing Review, 21(4/5), 511–535.Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship. An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(4), 259–285.Zahra, S. A. (1993a). Environment, corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance. A taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(4), 319–340.Zahra, S. A. (1993b). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior: a critique and extensión. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(4), 5–21.Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). International entrepreneurship: the current status of the field and future agenda. In M. A. Hitt, R. D. Ireland, S. M. Camp, & D. L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: creating a new mindset. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Zahra, S. A., Jennings, D. F., & Kuratko, D. F. (1999). The antecedents and consequences of firm-level entrepreneurship: the state of the field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(2), 45–63.Zhou, L. (2007). The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and foreign market knowledge on early internationalization. Journal of World Business, 42(3), 281–293

Criteria for efficient prevention of dissemination and successful eradication of Erwinia amylovora (the cause of fire blight) in Aragón, Spain

Erwinia amylovora was detected on pome fruits in the Aragón region (North-Eastern Spain), in a ca. 5 km radius area located in the mid Jalón river (mid Ebro Valley) in the province of Zaragoza, during 2000‒2003. Eight years have now passed since this pathogen was last detected, without new infections being reported in the same area. The bases for surveys and rapid eradication performed have been analyzed in detail to understand the reasons for the success in removing fireblight. The results demonstrate that intensive surveillance, risk assessment, plant analyses using accurate identification methods, and, especially, rapid total or selective eradication of infected trees in the plots have been very effective in preventing the generalized spread of fireblight and in delaying economic losses associated with this disease. Eradication and compensation to growers, estimated to cost approx. € 467,000, were clearly counterbalanced by the economic value of apple and pear production in the 2000‒2003 period (approx. € 368 million). Fire blight risk-assessment, using the MARYBLYT system, showed that climatic conditions in the studied area were favourable to infections during the analyzed period (1997‒2006). Molecular characterization of E. amylovora strains had revealed their homogeneity, suggesting that these fire blight episodes could have been caused by just one inoculum source, supporting the hypothesis that there was a unique introduction of E. amylovora in the studied area. Spatial spread of E. amylovora to trees was analyzed within six orchards, indicating an aggregated distribution model. This Spanish experience demonstrates the success of scientifically-based prevention methods that lead to the deployment of a fast and strict containment strategy, useful for other Mediterranean area

Combined synchronization and superovulation treatments negatively impact embryo viability possibly by the downregulation of WNT/beta-catenin and Notch signaling genes in the porcine endometrium

The combination of estrus synchronization and superovulation treatments introduces molecular modifications whose effects are yet to be disclosed. Here, reproductive parameters and gene expression changes in ovaries and endometrium were explored on day 6 after artificial insemination (AI), when synthetic progestin altrenogest (ALT) was combined with gonadotropins. Sows were administered ALT for 7 d beginning on the day of weaning and superovulated with equine chorionic gonadotropin (eCG) 24 h later and human chorionic gonadotropins (hCG) at the onset of estrus (SS-7 group; n = 6). The controls were either superovulated sows with eCG 24 h postweaning and hCG at the onset of estrus (SC group; n = 6) or sows with postweaning spontaneous estrus (NC group; n = 6). Ovary examination and embryo and tissue collection were performed in all sows via laparotomy on day 6 post-AI. RNA-Seq was conducted to analyze differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between groups. Statistical analysis of the reproductive parameters was conducted with ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests. DEGs were analyzed with an ANOVA (fold changes &amp;gt;= 2 or &amp;lt;= 2, P value &amp;lt;0.05). Hormonal treatments almost doubled (P &amp;lt; 0.03) the number of corpora lutea (39.8 +/- 10.2 and 38.3 +/- 11.1 in SS-7 and SC sows, respectively) compared with that in the NC group (23.1 +/- 3.8). In contrast, embryo viability significantly decreased (P &amp;lt; 0.003) in response to SS-7 treatment (75.1% +/- 15.2%) compared to SC and NC groups (93.8 +/- 7.6% and 91.8 +/- 6.9%, respectively). RNA-Seq analyses revealed 675 and 1,583 DEGs in the SS-7 group compared to both SC and NC groups in endometrial and ovarian samples, respectively. Interestingly, many genes with key roles in the Wnt/beta-catenin and Notch signaling pathways were differentially expressed in SS-7 sows relative to SC and NC groups (e.g., Ctnnb1, Myc, Gli3, Scyl2, Ccny, Daam1, Ppm1n, Rbpj, and Usp8). A key finding in this study was the downregulation of beta-catenin (Ctnnb1) gene expression in the SS-7 endometrium, suggesting that this treatment influences embryo-uterine dialogue by triggering a cascade of events leading to embryo maldevelopment. These data explain the proliferative defects in SS-7 embryos and suggest a novel mechanism of a porcine embryo-maternal crosstalk. Lay Summary Methods for porcine superovulation (increasing the number of ovulated oocytes per cycle) and estrus synchronization (grouping estrus sows on the same day) are available for assisted reproductive technologies, using hormonal treatments. The main goal of the present study was to understand how hormones used for these purposes influence gene expression patterns in the female reproductive tract (ovaries and endometrium). We observed that hormonal treatments (synchronization combined with superovulation) have the potential to alter ovarian and endometrial gene expression patterns, triggering improper follicle development and oocyte growth, and leading to abnormal embryonic development before implantation. Genes involved in two key metabolic pathways for embryo development (Wnt/beta-catenin and Notch signaling pathways) were dysregulated in reproductive tissues.Funding Agencies|Ministerio de Ciencia e Inovacion/Agencia Estatal de Investigacion/European Regional Development Fund [RTI2018-093525-B-I00]; Seneca Foundation [19892]; Swedish Research Council FORMAS Stockholm, Sweden [2019-00288]; European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the MSCA [891663]</p