The RBV has a central focus on the exploitation of firm resources in order to gain competitive advantage that affords the accrual of superior performance (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991; Collis and Montgomery, 1998; Newbert, 2007; Becerra, 2008; Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010). However, developing an all-inclusive list of resources is a daunting if not an impossible task given the diverse and disjointed conceptual definition in the extant literature (Fahy, 2000; Hoopes et al., 2003). Caloghirou et al. (2004) noted that research on firm-specific resources has not reached maturity. The existing literature lacks widely accepted and consistent operationalisations of the relevant constructs. The main reason for the ambiguity is that the constituents,
boundaries, and definitions of resources vary considerably, according to the viewpoint of different interest groups (Galbreath, 2005; Nothnagel, 2008). Furthermore, the RBV has brought great richness to the analysis of competitive advantage, but still has some important limitations and lags in its conceptualisation that, to some extent, can be filled by drawing from other business disciplines. For example, the RBV does not currently explain which resources should be bundled under the same administrative framework (Becerra, 2009).
An opportunity presents itself to link the RBV and marketing. Drawing upon the RBV, marketing theorists addressed the fundamental challenge of organisational survival by determining what resources give rise to competitive advantage and how they can be sustained (Day, 1991; Hunt and Morgan, 1995; Srivastava et al., 2001). The RBV has then become a major focus among marketing scholars, and a new direction of marketing literature has recently emerged, drawing on marketing resources. Scholars have proposed several configurations and classifications of marketing resources: market-based capabilities (Day, 1994), market-based assets (Srivastava et al., 1998; Srivastava et al., 2001), and marketing assets and capabilities (Hooley et al., 1998; Hooley et al., 2001). Despite the importance of these marketing resources, there is a general lack of the RBV frameworks to help develop competitive strategies in an export context (Peng, 2001; Morgan et al., 2004).
The present study seeks to shed light on this issue. A review of extant literature suggests that four dimensions of marketing resources are the most critical determinants of a firm‟s success in an export context: (1) tangible export market- based assets, (2) relational export market-based assets, (3) intellectual export market- based assets, and (4) export market-based capabilities. In spite of the efforts in
understanding these export marketing resources, an integrative and empirically tested framework is still not available. The study offers an alternative to the previous export performance models as a way of looking at the idiosyncratic nature of a firm‟s assets and capabilities. Responding to recent calls for research (e.g., Balabanis et al., 2004; Ketchen et al., 2007; Newbert, 2007; Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010), the study moves beyond a simple resources - performance link and attempts to develop and test a conceptual framework that fully captures the intricacies of export marketing resources and their performance implications.
A conceptual framework underpinning the study seeks to clearly identify the internal processes by which export marketing resources (tangible and intangible assets and capabilities) influence performance in the export context. According to Becerra (2009), firms do not have superior performance because they have superior resources, which is an oversimplified conclusion from the resource-based perspective. Similarly, Ketchen et al. (2007) and Murray et al. (2011) stated that firms do not achieve performance simply because of their resources. Rather, firms achieve performance because they are able to convert the positive aspects of their resources into something valuable, which in turn affect performance. By using the RBV framework as an interpretive lens, the study examines the mediating role of competitive advantage in assets/capabilities - performance relationships (Collis an Montgomery, 1995; Srivastava et al., 1998; Fahy and Smithee, 1999; Srivastava et al., 2001; Peteraf and Barney, 2003; Morgan et al., 2004; Barney and Clark, 2007; Newbert, 2007; Becerra, 2009) and capabilities in assets - competitive advantage relationships (Grant, 1991; Day, 1994; Srivastava et al., 1998; Srivastava et al., 2001; Krasnikov and Jayachandran, 2008). In addition, the study further investigates how intangible
(relational and intellectual) assets moderate the effects of tangible assets - capabilities relationships (Srivastava et al., 1998; Becerra, 2008). Hence, a comprehensive adaptation of the RBV theory has the potential of bridging the knowledge gap in the literature.
As a result, this study aims to investigate the sources of competitive advantage and superior performance by focusing on export market-based assets and capabilities. Export market-based assets can be defined as the resource endowments that the firm has acquired or built over time and that can be deployed to advantage in the export markets (Srivastava et al. 1998; Fahy and Smithee, 1999; Srivastava et al., 2001; Hooley et al., 2001; Zou et al., 2003). Export market-based assets consist of not only tangible market-based assets but also intangible (relational and intellectual) market- based assets (Srivastava et al. 1998; Srivastava et al., 2001). On the other hand, export market-based capabilities are the integrative processes by which available assets are developed, combined, and transformed into value offerings for the export markets (Day, 1994; Morgan et al., 2004; Kaleka, 2011). The standpoint of the study is that a firm‟s competitive strategies are based on the deployments of its export market-based assets and capabilities. Differences in firm success can be explained by differences in these export marketing resource deployments.
The scope of the study is governed by a conceptual framework presented in Figure 3.2. There are three main components of the framework: (1) export marketing resources including tangible export market-based assets, relational export market-based assets, intellectual export market-based assets, and export market-based capabilities, (2) export competitive advantage, and (3) export performance.
Figure 3.2: A Conceptual Framework & Hypotheses
The starting points in the framework are tangible export market-based assets (TA), relational export market-based assets (RA), and intellectual export market-based assets (IA). By exploiting and combining these export market-based assets, a firm should be able to build export market-based capabilities (MC), gain export competitive advantage (CA), and ultimately achieve export performance (EP). In addition, the framework contends that the differential ability of firms to transform tangible export market-based assets (TA) into export market-based capabilities (MC) lies in their relational and intellectual export market-based assets (IA and RA). The hypotheses formulated from the framework are delineated towards explaining the links between these theoretical constructs.
Relational Export Market- Based Assets (RA) Tangible Export Market- Based Assets (TA) Export Market- Based Capabilities (MC) Export Competitive Advantage (CA) Export Performance (EP) Intellectual Export Market- Based Assets (IA) H6 (+) H10 (+) H4 (+) H5 (+) H7 (+) H1 (+) H2 (+) H8 (+) H9 (+) H3 (+) Relational Export Market- Based Assets (RA) Tangible Export Market- Based Assets (TA) Export Market- Based Capabilities (MC) Export Competitive Advantage (CA) Export Performance (EP) Intellectual Export Market- Based Assets (IA) H6 (+) H10 (+) H4 (+) H5 (+) H7 (+) H1 (+) H2 (+) H8 (+) H9 (+) H3 (+)