The Effect of Market Orientation on Performance of Sharing Economy Business: Focusing on Marketing Innovation and Sustainable Competitive Advantage
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Market Orientation
2.2. Marketing Innovation
2.3. Sustainable Competitive Advantage
2.4. Performance
3. Research Method and Procedure
3.1. Research Model and Hypotheses
3.2. Measurement Tools
3.3. Data Collection and Analysis
4. Research Findings and Discussions
4.1. Demographic Characteristics of Research Subjects
4.2. Reliability and Validity Test
4.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
4.4. Research Hypothesis Testing
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lifkin, J. The Zero Marginal Cost Society; Palgrave McMillan: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, B.; Kietzmann, J. Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing economy. Organ. Environ. 2014, 27, 279–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belk, R. You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 1595–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stephany, A. The Business of Sharing: Making it in the New Sharing Economy; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Möhlmann, M. Collaborative consumption: Determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again: Collaborative consumption—30 determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. J. Consum. Behav. 2015, 14, 193–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nadkrni, S.; Hermann, P. CEO personality, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: The case of the Indian business process outsourcing industry. Acad. Manag. J. 2010, 53, 1050–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cadogan, J.W.; Sundqvist, S.; Puumalainen, K.; Salminen, R.T. Strategic flexibilities and export market-oriented behavior and the export environment. Eur. J. Mark. 2012, 46, 1418–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, V.; Jones, E.; Venkatesan, R.; Leone, R.P. Is market orientation a source of sustainable competitive advantage or simply the cost of competing. J. Mark. 2011, 75, 16–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vorhies, D.W.; Harker, H.M. The capabilities and performance advantages of market-driven firms: An empirical investigation. Aust. J. Manag. 2000, 25, 145–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langerak, F. Effects of market orientation on the behaviors of salespersons and purchasers, channel relationships and performance of manufactures. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2001, 18, 221–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jang, H.Y. Relationships among market orientation, marketing performance and CRM performance: Focused on the modulating effects of customer asset value. Acad. Cust. Satisf. Manag. 2013, 15, 1–27. [Google Scholar]
- Christensen, C.M.; Bower, J.L. Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strateg. Manag. J. 1996, 17, 197–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weerawardena, J.; O’Cass, A. Exploring the characteristics of the market-driven firms and antecedents to sustained competitive advantage. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2004, 33, 419–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shergill, G.S.; Nargundkar, R. Market orientation, marketing innovation as performance drivers: Extending the paradigm. J. Glob. Mark. 2005, 19, 27–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narver, J.C.; Slater, S.F.; MacLachlan, D.L. Responsive and proactive market orientation and new product success. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2004, 21, 334–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.I.; Chung, J.H. The impact of market orientation on marketing capability and performance in the hotel industry. J. Hosp. Tour. Stud. 2006, 8, 44–56. [Google Scholar]
- Jeong, G.Y. The effect of entrepreneurial orientation on marketing capability. Korean Corp. Manag. Rev. 2017, 24, 75–106. [Google Scholar]
- Kohli, A.K.; Jaworski, B.J. Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. J. Mark. 1990, 54, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaworski, B.J.; Kohli, A.K. Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. J. Mark. 1993, 57, 52–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hills, S.B.; Sarin, S. From market driven to market driving: An alternate paradigm for marketing in high technology industries. J. Mark. Theor. Pract. 2003, 11, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.I. The relationships of market orientation, marketing/R&D interface, strategic flexibility and performance, and the moderating effect of environmental turbulence in the domestic manufacturing firms: From the perspective of CEO. J. Prof. Manag. 2013, 16, 141–167. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, W.C.; Mauborgne, R. Value innovation: The strategic logic of high growth. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1997, 75, 103–112. [Google Scholar]
- Levitt, T. Marketing success through differentiation of anything. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1980, 58, 83–91. [Google Scholar]
- Schlegelmilch, B.B.; Ram, R. The impact of organizational and environmental variables on strategic market orientation: An empirical investigation. J. Glob. Mark. 2000, 13, 111–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conduit, J.; Mavondo, F.T. How critical in internal customer orientation to market orientation? J. Bus. Res. 2001, 51, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, M.S.; Lee, D.J. The role of integrating mediators between market orientation and performance of hotels. Asia Mark. J. 2002, 4, 55–78. [Google Scholar]
- Han, J.K.; Kim, N.W.; Srivastava, R.K. Market orientation and organizational performance: Is innovation a missing link? J. Mark. 1998, 62, 30–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.Y.; Lee, S.H. An examination of the differences in perceptions of generic characteristics of innovative new products between innovative and imitative consumers for product innovation types. J. Mark. Manag. Res. 2016, 21, 75–101. [Google Scholar]
- Tellis, G.J.; Yin, E.; Bell, S. Global consumer innovativeness: Cross-country differences and demographic commonalities. J. Int. Mark. 2009, 17, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naidoo, V. Firm survival through a crisis: The influence of marketing orientation, marketing innovation and business strategy. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2010, 39, 1311–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotabe, M.; Srinivasan, S.S.; Aulakh, P.S. Multinationality and firm performance: The moderating role of R&D and marketing capabilities. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2002, 33, 79–97. [Google Scholar]
- Aaker, D. Managing Brand Equity, Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Cobb-Welgren, C.J.; Ruble, C.A.; Dunthu, N. Bland preference and purchase intent. J. Mark. 1995, 24, 25–40. [Google Scholar]
- Ailawadi, K.L.; Borin, N.; Farris, P.W. Market power and performance: A cross-industry analysis of manufacturers and retailers. J. Retail. 1995, 71, 211–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Day, G.S.; Wensley, R. Assessing advantage: A framework for diagnosing competitive superiority. J. Mark. 1988, 52, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tamayo-Torres, I.; Ruiz-Moreno, A.; Verdu, A.J. The moderating effect of innovative capacity on the relationship between real options and strategic flexibility. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2010, 39, 1120–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schilling, M. Strategic Management of Technological Innovation; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Yoo, J.M.; Kim, S.H.; Yi, Y.J. Determinants of perceived innovativeness and their relationship with intention of product adoption: Focusing on consumers’ perspectives. Korean Mark. Rev. 2006, 21, 27–52. [Google Scholar]
- Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 2000, 46, 186–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atuahene-Gima, K.; Ko, A. Effects of market and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on production innovation. Organ. Sci. 2001, 12, 54–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.Y.; Choi, S.S.; Hong, S.K. The effects of market orientation, marketing capability on competitive advantage and performance in SME. Korean J. Bus. Adm. 2011, 24, 1115–1137. [Google Scholar]
- Zerbini, F.; Goldetto, F.; Gilbert, M. Marketing of competence: Exploring the resource-based content of value for customers through a case study analysis. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2007, 36, 784–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sargeant, A. Relationship fundraising: How to keep donors loyal? Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2001, 12, 177–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vorhies, D.W.; Morgan, N.A. Benchmarking marketing capabilities for sustainable competitive advantage. J. Mark. 2005, 69, 80–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sigalas, C. Competitive advantage: The know unknown concept. Manag. Dec. 2015, 53, 2004–2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, S.M.; Ha, Y.W.; Jang, D.R. Competitive Advantage Marketing Strategy, 4th ed.; Parkyeongsa: Seoul, Korea, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Porter, M.E. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Hill, W.L.; John, G.R. Strategic Management: An Integrated Approach; Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Reid, R.D.; Sanders, N.R. Operations Management, 4th ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Jaakkola, M.; Moller, K.; Parvinen, P.; Evanshitzky, H.; Muhlbacher, H. Strategic marketing and business performance: A study in three European engineering countries. Ind. Market. Manag. 2010, 39, 1300–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dwyer, L.M.; Cvelbar, L.K.; Edwards, D.J.; Mihalic, T.A. Tourism firms’ strategic flexibility: The case of Slovenia. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2014, 16, 377–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, Z.; Yi, Y.; Guo, H. Organizational learning ambidexiterity, strategic flexibility and new product development. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2014, 31, 832–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Itami, H. Mobilizing Invisible Assets; Harvard University Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leonard-Barton, D. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox on managing new product development. Strateg. Manag. J. 1992, 13, 111–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Won, J.Y.; Ryu, S.L. The effect of firm life-cycle and competitive strategy on performance persistence. Korean Acc. J. 2016, 25, 33–65. [Google Scholar]
- Banker, R.D.; Mashruwala, R.; Tripathy, A. Does a differentiation strategy lead to more sustainable financial performance than a cost leadership strategy? Manag. Dec. 2014, 52, 872–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Cass, A.; Ngo, L.V. Market orientation versus innovative culture: Two routes to superior brand performance. Eur. J. Mark. 2007, 40, 868–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirca, A.H.; Jayachandranm, H.S.; Bearden, W.O. Market orientation: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance. J. Mark. 2005, 69, 24–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jun, Y.S.; Park, J.Y. The effect of the service employee’s job satisfaction, customer orientation, and management performance by the market orientation in travel agency: Focused on listed travel agency. Korean J. Tour. Res. 2011, 26, 527–545. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, Y.K.; Jang, K.R.; Kwon, Y.J. The impact of market orientation on service quality, customer satisfaction, switching costs and word-of-mouth communication. J. Tour. Sci. 2000, 24, 57–74. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, J.W.; Jeon, K.H.; Lee, S.G. The effect of market orientation on performance of channel relationships: Distributors’ perspective. Korean Mark. Rev. 2001, 16, 93–114. [Google Scholar]
- Hult, T.G.; Ketchen, D.J. Does market orientation matter? A test of the relationship between positional advantage and performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2001, 22, 899–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Im, S.; Workman, J.P. Market orientation, creativity and new product performance in high-technology firms. J. Mark. 2004, 68, 114–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vorhies, D.W.; Harker, M.; Rao, C.P. The capabilities and performance advantages of market driven firms. Eur. J. Mark. 1999, 33, 1172–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narver, J.C.; Slater, S.F. The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. J. Mark. 1990, 54, 20–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, G.H. The influence of market orientation and export marketing capabilities on export performance. Int. Bus. Rev. 2009, 13, 93–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Hippel, E. A source of novel product concepts. Manag. Sci. 1986, 32, 791–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gulati, R.; Nohria, N.; Zaheer, A. Strategic networks. Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21, 203–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Day, G.S. The capabilities of marketing driven organizations. J. Mark. 1994, 58, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, N.A.; Vorhies, D.W.; Mason, C.H. Research notes and commentaries: Market orientation marketing capabilities and firm performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2009, 30, 909–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, J.L.; Lee, R.P.; Saini, A.; Grohmann, B. Market-focused strategic flexibility: Conceptual advances and an integrative model. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2003, 31, 74–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, J.H.; Grbac, B. Using supply chain management to leverage a firm’s market orientation. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2003, 32, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slater, F.S.; Mohr, J.J. Successful development and commercialization of technological innovation: Insights based on strategy type. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2006, 23, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.I. The study on the relationships among market orientation, marketing innovation, sustained competitive advantage and performance: From the perspective of CEO. J. Prof. Manag. 2012, 15, 115–138. [Google Scholar]
- Gonzalez, B.O.; Gonxalez, B.J.; Munoz, G.P.A. Role of entrepreneurship and market orientation in firms’ success. Eur. J. Mark. 2002, 43, 500–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enz, C.A.; Siguaw, J.A. Revisiting the best of the vest: Innovations in hotel practice. Cornell Hotel Q. 2003, 44, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, T.G.; Lee, G.H. Examining social capital and knowledge sharing as antecedents of service innovativeness and business performance in the hotel industry: An application of the resource-based view (RBV) theory. J. Tour. Sci. 2010, 34, 13–36. [Google Scholar]
Variables | Items | Eigenvalues | Component | Variance | Cronbach’s α | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cultural market orientation | Consumer orientation | - Sharing economy services should reflect customer responses to service development. | 2.353 | 0.827 | 16.918 | 0.733 |
- Sharing economy services should link customer information with service development. | 0.826 | |||||
- In sharing economy services, understanding customer needs are important as a competitive factor. | 0.777 | |||||
Competitive orientation | - Sharing economy services need to understand and share competitors’ strategies. | 2.338 | 0.879 | 14.656 | 0.822 | |
- Sharing economy services should attach great importance to competitors’ strengths and weaknesses and reflect them in the service. | 0.853 | |||||
- Sharing economy services should reflect the strategic behavior of competitors. | 0.845 | |||||
Functional coordination | - Sharing economy services should promptly adjust differences in opinions between service and user. | 1.783 | 0.878 | 11.686 | 0.813 | |
- Sharing economy services should share the value and experience information between service and user. | 0.848 | |||||
- Sharing economy services should establish policies between service and user. | 0.833 | |||||
Behavioral market orientation | Market information generation | - Sharing economy services should make continuous efforts to identify the potential desires of users. | 3.005 | 0.848 | 11.063 | 0.82 |
- Sharing economy services should reflect users’ desires that cannot be expressed in service development. | 0.803 | |||||
- Sharing economy services should make efforts to find opportunities in the attribute that users have difficulty expressing it. | 0.801 | |||||
- Sharing economy services should always think about new trends regarding user’s service preferences. | 0.771 | |||||
Market information exchange | - Sharing economy services should freely share information on success/failure cases about shared value service. | 2.066 | 0.856 | 10.115 | 0.743 | |
- Sharing economy services should always monitor the level of information that satisfies users’ desire. | 0.823 | |||||
- Sharing economy services need to improve products/ services suitable for the market. | 0.761 | |||||
Response to market information | - Sharing economy services should measure user satisfaction systematically and regularly. | 1.956 | 0.89 | 8.005 | 0.828 | |
- Sharing economy services should either rapidly reestablish or adjust strategies when the market changes. | 0.889 | |||||
- Sharing economy services should rapidly perform strategic alternatives according to environmental changes. | 0.807 |
Variables | Items | Eigenvalues | Component | variance | Cronbach’s α | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Marketing innovation | Product (service) innovation | - Sharing economy services should actively present innovative new product ideas. | 2.486 | 0.808 | 35.509 | 0.82 |
- Sharing economy services should respond quickly to market demands. | 0.772 | |||||
- Sharing economy services should actively develop new products (services). | 0.753 | |||||
- Sharing economy services should actively embrace user-centered pricing policies. | 0.614 | |||||
Communication innovation | - Sharing economy services should have an active promotion that can express the value. | 2.211 | 0.834 | 31.582 | 0.772 | |
- Sharing economy services should integrate various distribution channels for users to easily access them. | 0.817 | |||||
- Sharing economy services should have horizontal communication with consumers. | 0.638 |
Variables | Items | Eigenvalues | Component | Variance | Cronbach’s α |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sustainable competitive advantage | - Sharing economy services should continuously have resources that can give them a competitive advantage in the market. | 2.156 | 0.864 | 35.941 | 0.81 |
- Sharing economy services should develop the factors of competitive advantage so that competitors cannot easily imitate. | 0.851 | ||||
- The competitive advantage of sharing economy services should be sustained in the market. | 0.839 | ||||
Performance | - Sharing economy services should have higher market share than competitors. | 2.154 | 0.85 | 35.904 | 0.787 |
- Sharing economy services should provide better value than competitors. | 0.837 | ||||
- Sharing economy services should have better brand image than competitors. | 0.825 |
Measurement Item | Unstandardized Coefficient | Standardized Coefficient | SE | CR | Construct Reliability | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cultural Market Orientation | ||||||
Consumer orientation | ||||||
1 | 1.000 | 0.688 | - | - | 0.775 | 0.680 |
2 | 0.998 | 0.833 | 0.057 | 19.066 | ||
3 | 0.841 | 0.776 | 0.045 | 15.286 | ||
Competitive orientation | ||||||
1 | 1.000 | 0.787 | - | - | 0.907 | 0.714 |
2 | 0.908 | 0.810 | 0.043 | 14.590 | ||
3 | 0.884 | 0.750 | 0.037 | 11.575 | ||
Functional coordination | ||||||
1 | 1.000 | 0.778 | - | - | 0.857 | 0.707 |
2 | 0.894 | 0.772 | 0.046 | 15.484 | ||
3 | 0.851 | 0.776 | 0.035 | 11.742 | ||
Behavioral Market Orientation | ||||||
Market information generation | ||||||
1 | 1.000 | 0.782 | - | - | 0.884 | 0.769 |
2 | 0.890 | 0.728 | 0.062 | 15.706 | ||
3 | 0.879 | 0.713 | 0.043 | 10.957 | ||
4 | 0.819 | 0.763 | 0.033 | 8.329 | ||
Market information exchange | ||||||
1 | 1.000 | 0.796 | - | - | 0.779 | 0.666 |
2 | 0.860 | 0.763 | 0.064 | 20.123 | ||
3 | 0.710 | 0.752 | 0.040 | 13.594 | ||
Response to market information | ||||||
1 | 1.000 | 0.713 | - | - | 0.916 | 0.695 |
2 | 0.992 | 0.781 | 0.049 | 16.441 | ||
3 | 0.767 | 0.807 | 0.027 | 9.133 | ||
Marketing Innovation | ||||||
Product innovation | ||||||
1 | 1.000 | 0.772 | - | - | 0.878 | 0.781 |
2 | 0.951 | 0.823 | 0.056 | 14.175 | ||
3 | 0.792 | 0.778 | 0.052 | 13.191 | ||
4 | 0.745 | 0.775 | 0.030 | 7.567 | ||
Communication innovation | ||||||
1 | 1.000 | 0.805 | - | - | 0.796 | 0.685 |
2 | 0.959 | 0.789 | 0.054 | 18.302 | ||
3 | 0.785 | 0.794 | 0.038 | 12.896 | ||
Sustainable Competitive Advantage | ||||||
1 | 1.000 | 0.794 | - | - | 0.854 | 0.713 |
2 | 0.956 | 0.856 | 0.044 | 14.739 | ||
3 | 0.917 | 0.797 | 0.038 | 12.783 | ||
Performance | ||||||
1 | 1.000 | 0.866 | - | - | 0.811 | 0.779 |
2 | 0.969 | 0.809 | 0.066 | 16.569 | ||
3 | 0.864 | 0.826 | 0.045 | 11.255 | ||
4 | 0.724 | 0.749 | 0.041 | 10.419 |
Type | Pathway | Estimate | SE | CR | p-Value | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1-1-1 | Consumer orientation | → | Product innovation | 0.313 | 0.070 | 4.453 | 0.000 | Accept |
H1-1-2 | Competitive orientation | → | Product innovation | 0.070 | 0.068 | 1.036 | 0.301 | Reject |
H1-1-3 | Functional coordination | → | Product innovation | 0.188 | 0.073 | 2.582 | 0.010 | Accept |
H1-2-1 | Consumer orientation | → | Communication innovation | 0.003 | 0.068 | 0.041 | 0.967 | Reject |
H1-2-2 | Competitive orientation | → | Communication innovation | 0.266 | 0.066 | 4.035 | 0.000 | Accept |
H1-2-3 | Functional coordination | → | Communication innovation | 0.337 | 0.071 | 4.769 | 0.000 | Accept |
H1-3-1 | Market information generation | → | Product innovation | 0.429 | 0.073 | 5.883 | 0.000 | Accept |
H1-3-2 | Market information exchange | → | Product innovation | 0.092 | 0.071 | 1.296 | 0.196 | Reject |
H1-3-3 | Response to market information | → | Product innovation | 0.346 | 0.071 | 4.893 | 0.000 | Accept |
H1-4-1 | Market information generation | → | Communication innovation | 0.002 | 0.078 | 0.022 | 0.982 | Reject |
H1-4-2 | Market information exchange | → | Communication innovation | 0.413 | 0.076 | 5.457 | 0.000 | Accept |
H1-4-3 | Response to market information | → | Communication innovation | 0.216 | 0.075 | 2.862 | 0.005 | Accept |
H2-1 | Product innovation | → | Sustainable competitive advantage | 0.490 | 0.046 | 10.579 | 0.000 | Accept |
H2-2 | Communication innovation | → | Sustainable competitive advantage | 0.382 | 0.046 | 8.240 | 0.000 | Accept |
H3 | Sustainable competitive advantage | → | Performance | 0.638 | 0.045 | 14.031 | 0.000 | Accept |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Na, Y.K.; Kang, S.; Jeong, H.Y. The Effect of Market Orientation on Performance of Sharing Economy Business: Focusing on Marketing Innovation and Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Sustainability 2019, 11, 729. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030729
Na YK, Kang S, Jeong HY. The Effect of Market Orientation on Performance of Sharing Economy Business: Focusing on Marketing Innovation and Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Sustainability. 2019; 11(3):729. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030729
Chicago/Turabian StyleNa, Youn Kue, Sungmin Kang, and Hye Yeon Jeong. 2019. "The Effect of Market Orientation on Performance of Sharing Economy Business: Focusing on Marketing Innovation and Sustainable Competitive Advantage" Sustainability 11, no. 3: 729. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030729
APA StyleNa, Y. K., Kang, S., & Jeong, H. Y. (2019). The Effect of Market Orientation on Performance of Sharing Economy Business: Focusing on Marketing Innovation and Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Sustainability, 11(3), 729. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030729