153 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research Vol. 7, No. 2, 153-158, 2020 ISSN(E) 2409-2622 / ISSN(P) 2518-010X DOI: 10.20448/journal.501.2020.72.153.158 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group The Impact of Innovation on Entrepreneurial Orientation: A Case Study of SMEs in Osun State Opeoluwaseun Ojekemi1 Tomiwa Sunday Adebayo2 ( Corresponding Author) 1,2Cyprus International University, Northern Cyprus Mersin, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Science Department of Business Administration, Turkey. Abstract The study aim is to examine the impact of process innovation, product innovation and market innovation on entrepreneurial orientation using Osun state as a case study. The study based on the CDM theoretical framework. Questionnaires were distributed to SMEs in Osun state. The 350 questionnaires were distributed to the respondents; however, only 201 were filled properly and returned. The multiple regression was deployed to investigate this relationship. The study findings shows; (i) there are positive relationship between product innovation and entrepreneurial orientation; (ii) there is positive relationship between process innovation and entrepreneurial orientation; and (iii) there is positive relationship between market innovation and entrepreneurial orientation. Keywords: E.O, Market innovation, Process innovation, Product innovation, SMEs, Regression technique. JEL Classification: C21, F23. Citation | Opeoluwaseun Ojekemi; Tomiwa Sunday Adebayo (2020). The Impact of Innovation on Entrepreneurial Orientation: A Case Study of SMEs in Osun State. Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 7(2): 153-158. History: Received: 26 March 2020 Revised: 30 April 2020 Accepted: 5 June 2020 Published: 3 July 2020 Licensed: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License Publisher: Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Acknowledgement: Both authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. Funding: This study received no specific financial support. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests. Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study was reported; that no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. Ethical: This study follows all ethical practices during writing. Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................... 154 2. Theoretical Review ....................................................................................................................................................................... 154 3. Empirical Review ........................................................................................................................................................................... 154 4. Data and Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................. 155 5. Data Analysis and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 156 6. Conclusion and Recommendation .............................................................................................................................................. 157 References ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 157 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.20448/journal.501.2020.72.153.158&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-01-14 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ https://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/AJEER/article/view/1831 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6252-7404 https://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/AJEER/article/view/1831 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6252-7404 https://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/AJEER/article/view/1831 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6252-7404 Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2020, 7(2): 153-158 154 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Contribution of this paper to the literature This study is unique because it investigates the impact of innovation on entrepreneurial orientation among SMEs using Osun state as a case study which is yet to be investigated. 1. Introduction Due to the low probability of job opportunities and risk of unemployment, the behavioral attitude of youth’s especially Nigerian youths towards entrepreneurship has apparently changed. The role of upcoming businesses and entrepreneurship played in creating a job opening, encouraging youths to be innovative and boosting of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product is very vital as opined by Hall (2011). This is vital, as unemployment rates are increasing massively and growth of the economy has slowed down. The firm capacity to offer better designs and make quality products outstanding to its competitors will make the firm more competitive (D’Cruz & Rugman, 1992). The changes in the market, makes it hard to find any industry who do not innovate. Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan (2001) describe innovation as a new design similar to a device, product or service regulations adopted by the organization. Also, Nohria and Gulati (1996) concur to the above definition. Entrepreneurial orientation has its source in the process of strategizing (Mintzberg, 1973) and it is first examined by Miller (1983). It is a multidimensional concept, it is defined as one that is “involves in product market innovation, take up somewhat ventures that are risky and is the lead to come up with ’proactive’ innovations, beating their competitors at what they do. Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) is a firm-level strategic orientation which captures an organization's strategy-making practices, managerial philosophies, and firm behaviors that are entrepreneurial in nature. The firm capacity to offer better designs and make quality products outstanding to its competitors will make the firm more competitive (D’Cruz & Rugman, 1992). Over times, innovation has rigorously elevated for the private, the non-profit, and the public sector. However, its effects on SMEs have not been rigorously determined. The emphasis has managed to be the impact of evaluating the effects of innovation on economic entrepreneurial orientation. This work will be limited only to innovation including, product, market and process. Over the years, numerous research have been conducted about the impact of innovation on entrepreneurial activities (Julnes & Holzer, 2001; Pérez-Luño, Wiklund, & Cabrera, 2011; Roper, Youtie, Shapira, & Fernández-Ribas, 2010; Salavou & Lioukas, 2003). The above researchers noted that the strategy utilized is to boost the effectiveness of innovation in SMEs. There's a lot to be learned from innovation, even so, those that isn't productive. It is a major challenge for several small and medium-sized businesses and this is the major reason why creativity is less popular in a state such as Osun State. This research therefore proposes to take a careful look at the effect of process, product, and market innovation on entrepreneurial orientation in Osun State Nigeria, to determine whether innovations have an adverse or positive influence on entrepreneurial orientation. Determining the impact of product, market and process innovation on entrepreneurial orientation is the main aim of this study. No research on the effect of process, product and market innovation on entrepreneurial orientation has indeed been conducted in Osun State. The remaining part of this study is designed as follows: theoretical review and empirical review which are the second and third segment respectively. Data and methodology is described in the fourth section while analysis is interpreted in the fifth section. The last section concludes the study with suggestions proposed. 2. Theoretical Review Theoretical studies including Hall (2011); Mairesse (2009); Kemp, Folkeringa, De Jong, and Wubben (2003) were generally based on the variant Crépon, Duguet, and Mairessec (1998) model (CDM). This model described the three-stage interaction between inputs for innovation, output for innovation, and productivity. Several researchers conducted an overwhelming majority of studies on innovations on this framework. This model pinpoints that the capitalized research and development is often employed as a factor for innovation input. This three-stage equation shed more light on the choice to innovate. Furthermore, Kuratko, Ireland, Covin, and Hornsby (2005) and Encaoua, Guellec, and Martínez (2006) concur that the relationship between market innovation and process innovation and sales is positive in the future. The major reason behind this scenario is that market and process innovation agrees with a monopoly that is temporary via the patents mechanism, which in most cases is one of the major obstacles to firm-followers to entry. Therefore, this research is based on the 3-step innovation process mode. 3. Empirical Review Over the years, numerous studies have investigated the link between innovation and entrepreneurial orientation Kuratko et al. (2005); Pérez-Luño et al. (2011) and Beekman, Steiner, and Wasserman (2012). Baker and Sinkula (2009) analyzed the complementary effects of market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation on profitability in small businesses. The authors deployed the regression analysis to examine the interaction. Finding from this study shows that innovation has positive and significant link with entrepreneurial orientation. Ferreira, Coelho, and Moutinho (2020) investigated the dynamic capabilities, creativity and innovation capability and their impact on competitive advantage and firm performance in Portugal. The investigators deployed 387 enterprises to examine this relationship. Finding shows that the indirect impact of exploitative and explorative capabilities mediated by creativity and innovation competences (hereinafter IC) gives evidence of the influence on competitive advantage and firm's performance. Furthermore, the dynamic capability and innovation competences positively affect performance, while entrepreneurial orientation (hereinafter EO) is a moderator. Wang, Dass, Arnett, and Yu (2020) explored the connection between the management's entrepreneurial intention and its comparative strategic focus on valuation-creation versus value-appropriation was scrutinized. This also explores the moderating positions of relative efficiency, reward systems, and flexibility on the financial market, on the above relation. Utilizing a multi-source dataset between 2007 and 2015 of 337 Standard & Poor (S&P) 500 firms. Findings of the study show that business-oriented managers appear to concentrate more on creating value (e.g. new product development) than shareholder value. Guo, Wang, and Chen (2020) Looking at the Mediating Effect of Supply Chain Learning, evaluated the Green Entrepreneurial Orientation and Green Innovation. This paper Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2020, 7(2): 153-158 155 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group conceptualizes a theoretical framework for GEO, green incremental innovation and green disruptive innovation, and is using empirical data from 416 Chinese companies for research. The findings show a strong influence on environmental incremental innovation and disruptive innovation for corporate GEOs. Supply chain technology impacts green gradual and revolutionary innovation significantly. Additionally, learning the corporate supply chain plays a moderating role in the interaction between GEO and green radical innovation, and also plays a mediating role in the relationship between GEO and green radical innovations. Zhao, Li, Tan, and Liu (2008) examined the moderating effects of EO on the connection of MO and performance in small Chinese firms. To evaluate this dynamics, simulation of the structural equation was deployed. Finding from the research suggests that MO is directly associated with firm efficiency, alone or in combination with other components of the EO. More precisely, creativity and Proactiveness have positively moderated the MO-performance interaction. Arzubiaga, Kotlar, De Massis, Maseda, and Iturralde (2018) examined entrepreneurial mindset and creativity in family SMEs. The use of 230 Spanish family SMEs revealed that family participation in the BoD has a detrimental impact on their ability to turn EO into creativity. In addition, we show that the strategic involvement of the BoD in service, control tasks, provision of knowledge and skills have beneficial benefits while BoD activity intensity has a strikingly detrimental impact. To investigate the impact of MO as a mediating variable in the interaction between EO and performance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), Amin, Thurasamy, Aldakhil, and Kaswuri (2016) deployed A total of 500 SMEs in the manufacturing industry of food and beverages were involved in this study with a response rate of 117. The findings show that EO has a significant relationship with MO, and MO has a significant relationship with SME performance. MO will mediate the relationship between EO and SMEs’ performance. Dost, Arshad, and Afsar (2018) examined the impact of EO on process innovation capability types and the position of social capital as moderator. Authors gathered data from Pakistan's chemical manufacturing companies, and examined it cautiously using various regression techniques. The results showed that gradual and revolutionary process progress is encouraged by Proactiveness and risk-taking. Social capital moderation also highlighted the effect that proactivity had on progressive creativity in systems. Nevertheless, social capital moderation did not affirm the effect risk- taking had on incremental and revolutionary innovation in the process. 4. Data and Methodology Methodology is the theoretical and comprehensive assessment of the strategies that apply to an area of study. Furthermore, this study is descriptive oriented in terms of data gathering, tracking and control of the degree of variables. Moreover, in terms of method, logic and the quantitative and deductive time respectively. In terms of geography, this study is also conducted amongst selected entrepreneurs in each local government in Osun State, Nigeria. The survey consisted of 210 SMEs in the state of Osun. Though, 350 questionnaires were distributed, only 201 were properly filled and returned. The Figure 1 below depicts the study research design. Figure-1. Research Model. In this study, the convenience sampling1 was deployed. Thus, this research employed 201 SMEs to investigate this relationship in Osun states. The study utilized the multiple regression technique to investigate the interaction amongst the variables. The first thing is to formulate the economic function. ………………………………………………………….………………………. [1] The next thing is to formulate the economic model …………………………………………………………………… [2] The econometric framework is formulated by introducing the error term into the economic model. ………………………………………………………...……... [3] 1Convenience sampling is a type of non-probability sampling that involves the sample being drawn from that part of the population that is close to hand. Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2020, 7(2): 153-158 156 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group In Equation 3 above, EO depicts the entrepreneurial orientation, PRO denotes the process innovation, PRD signifies the product innovation, MRT illustrates the market innovation, β1, β2, β3, denotes Coefficients of the Regression while the error term is denoted by e. 5. Data Analysis and Interpretation Before analysis is carried out, it is important to determine the internal consistency of the data deployed. Thus, the reliability of data set was determined. This is done with the aid of Cronbach's alpha to verify the internal consistency. By using the benchmark of α = 0.70 set by Revelle and Zinbarg (2009). The investigators concluded that the data are consistent internally as depicted below in Table 1. Table-1. Reliability Test. Scale Cronbach's Alpha Number of Items Proactivity 0.957 5 Risk taking 0.870 3 Innovativeness 0.960 5 Process Innovation 0.746 3 Product Innovation 0.975 5 Market Innovation 0.746 3 5.1. Descriptive Statistics It is vital to ascertain data description before running a regression analysis. The variables utilized in this paper is represented by the table below. Parameters such as mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum are key information that will be explained based. Table-2. Descriptive statistics. Tests Market Innovation Product Innovation Process Innovation Proactivity Risk Taking Innovativeness Mean 4.04 3.68 3.90 3.98 3.40 3.45 Std. Dev 0.75 0.80 0.64 0.57 0.73 0.72 Minimum 2.00 1.50 2.00 1.67 2.00 1.68 Maximum 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Observation 201 201 201 201 201 201 Table 2 above illustrates the study descriptive statistics. The mean for Market Innovation, Product Innovation, Process Innovation, Proactivity, Risk Taking and Innovativeness are 4.04, 3.68, 3.90, 3.98, 3.40 and 3.45 respectively. The range for Market Innovation is between 2.00 and 5.00, between 1.50 and 5.00 for Product Innovation, between 2.00 and 5.00 for Process Innovation and between 1.67 and 5.00 for Proactivity, between 2.0 and 5.00 for for risk taking and between 1.68 and 5.00 for innoativeness. The standard deviation for Market Innovation, Product Innovation, Process Innovation, Proactivity, Risk Taking and Innovativeness 0.75, 0.80, 0.64, 0.57, 0.73 and 0.72 respectively. Table-3. Regression estimate showing the impact of market innovation, product innovation and process innovation on entrepreneurial orientation. Hypotheses Relationship Coefficient Β T-Value Pvalue Reseult (Constant) -22.729 -13.98 0.000 H1 PRO →EO 5.958 53.833 0.000 Supported H2 PRD →EO 0.374 5.879 0.000 Supported H3 MRK →EO 2.034 14.249 0.000 Supported R2 0.982 Adj R2 0.982 Durbin Watson 2.124 Note: Dependent Variable: Entrepreneurial Orientation, PRO: ProcessInnovation, PRD: Product Innovation, MRT: Market Innovation * signifies 1% level of significance The equation of the regression is interpreted by Equations 1 and 2 respectively. ……………………………... ……….……………. [4] Y= -22.729 +5.958PRO + 0.374PRD + 2.034MRK…………………………............................[5] Where; Y denotes Entrepreneurial Orientation, PRO1 stands for Process Innovation, PRD2 means Product Innovation, MRK3 represents Market Iinnovation, β1, β2, β3, denotes Coefficients of the Regression, and ε indicates the error term Table 3 illustrates the influence of Market Innovation, Product Innovation and Process Innovation on Entrepreneurial Orientation. Findings shows; (i) there is positive connection between product Innovation and entreprenuerial orientation. This means that when other variables are held constant 1% incresae in process innovation will lead to 5.95% increase in entrepreneurial orientation. This finding aligns with the findings of Baker and Sinkula (2009) and Dost et al. (2018); (ii) there is positive connection between process innovation and entreprenuerial orientation. This means that when other variables are held constant 1% incresae in product innovation will lead to 0.374%% increase in entrepreneurial orientation. This finding align with the outcome of Pérez-Luño et al. (2011) and Beekman et al. (2012) and (iii) there is positive connection between Market Innovation and entreprenuerial orientation. This means that when other variables are held constant 1% incresae in market Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2020, 7(2): 153-158 157 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group innovation will lead to 2.03% increase in entrepreneurial orientation This outcome concur with the finding of Zhao et al. (2008) and Amin et al. (2016). The R2 and the adjusted R2 revealed that 98% of the discrepancy in entreprenuerial orientation can be explained by the Market Innovation, Product Innovation and Process Innovation. Error term account for the remaining 2%. Also the value of the Durbin Watson (2.124) shows that there is no sign of serial correlation in the model. 5.2. Hypotheses Testing In Table 4 below, it is clear that all our independent variables (process, product, and market innovation) have a positive and significant relationship with the dependent variable (entrepreneurial orientation). Thus, all the independent variables influence the dependent variable Table-4. Hypotheses table. Null hypotheses Criteria for Acceptance Decision Product innovation does not influence EO Accept Ho if the p-value > 5% Product innovation impact EO posively Process innovation does not influence EO Accept Ho if the p-value > 5% Process innovation impact EO posively market innovation does not influence EO Accept Ho if the p-value > 5% market innovation impact EO posively 6. Conclusion and Recommendation 6.1. Conclusion The study aim is to examine the interaction between process innovation, product innovation and market innovation on etrepreneurial orientation using Osun state as a case study. The study rest on the CDM theoretical framework. Questionaires were distributed to SMEs in Osun state. More than 300 questionaires were distributed to the respondents, however, only 201 were filled properly and returned. The multiple regression was deployed to investigate this relationship. Findings shows; (i) there is positive connection between product Innovation and entreprenuerial orientation. This finding corrobarate with the findings of Wang et al. (2020) and Dost et al. (2018); (ii) there is positive connection between process innovation and entreprenuerial orientation. This finding align with the outcome of Jafarzadeh (2005) and Beekman et al. (2012) and (iii) there is positive connection between Market Innovation and entreprenuerial orientation. This outcome concur with the finding of Zhao et al. (2008) and Amin et al. (2016). 6.2. Recommendations Since there is a positive and significant relationship between product innovation, process innovation and market innovation on entrepreneurial orientation, the study suggests the followings; (i) entrepreneurs should give greater attention to business innovation as it has a significant impact on entrepreneurship; (ii) entrepreneurs should pay closer attention to product creativity, because it has a significant impact on entrepreneurial orientation; and (iii) entrepreneurs should pay much more attention to process innovation, as it has a strong impact on the entrepreneurial orientation. 6.3. Limitations of Study While a broad survey of 201 SMEs enterprise has been utilized in this study, this survey can also involve more companies. Focus was laid on a five- or more-worker entrepreneur. This study exempts entrepreneurs with under 5 employees. The selection of respondents indicated exclusion of start-ups and micro-enterprises. This is a big factor which potential work should be work on. Also, large companies were not involved in the research. Thus future research is needed to provide additional understanding of the role of product , process and market innovation on EO. References Amin, M., Thurasamy, R., Aldakhil, A. M., & Kaswuri, A. H. B. (2016). The effect of market orientation as a mediating variable in the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and SMEs performance. Nankai Business Review International, 7(1), 39-59.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/nbri-08-2015-0019. Arzubiaga, U., Kotlar, J., De Massis, A., Maseda, A., & Iturralde, T. (2018). Entrepreneurial orientation and innovation in family SMEs: Unveiling the (actual) impact of the Board of Directors. Journal of business Venturing, 33(4), 455-469.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.03.002. Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (2009). The complementary effects of market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation on profitability in small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(4), 443-464.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 627x.2009.00278.x. Beekman, A. V., Steiner, S., & Wasserman, M. E. (2012). Where innovation does a world of good: Entrepreneurial orientation and innovative outcomes in nonprofit organizations. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, 8(2), 22-36. Crépon, B., Duguet, E., & Mairessec, J. (1998). Research, innovation and productivi [Ty: An econometric analysis at the firm level. Economics of Innovation and new Technology, 7(2), 115-158.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599800000031. D’Cruz, J., & Rugman, A. (1992). Business networks for international competitiveness. Business Quarterly, 56(4), 101-107. Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001). The dynamics of the adoption of product and process innovations in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38(1), 45-65.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00227. Dost, M., Arshad, M., & Afsar, B. (2018). The influence of entrepreneurial orientation on types of process innovation capabilities and moderating role of social capital. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 8(4), 1-15.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2017-0212. Encaoua, D., Guellec, D., & Martínez, C. (2006). Patent systems for encouraging innovation: Lessons from economic analysis. Research Policy, 35(9), 1423-1440.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.07.004. Ferreira, J., Coelho, A., & Moutinho, L. (2020). Dynamic capabilities, creativity and innovation capability and their impact on competitive advantage and firm performance: The moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation. Technovation, 92, 102061.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.11.004. Guo, Y., Wang, L., & Chen, Y. (2020). Green entrepreneurial orientation and green innovation: The mediating effect of supply chain learning. SAGE Open, 10(1), 2158244019898798.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019898798. Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2020, 7(2): 153-158 158 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Hall, B. H. (2011). Innovation and productivity (No. w17178). National bureau of economic research Isenberg, D. (2011). The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new paradigm for economy policy: Principles for cultivating entrepreneurship, Babson entrepreneurship ecosystem project. Babson Park: MA: Babson College. Jafarzadeh, M. (2005). Designation and explanation of a model for anticipating entrepreneurship of graduates: Tehran University case. Doctoral Dissertation, Doctoral dissertation, Tehran University. Julnes, P. D. L., & Holzer, M. (2001). Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review, 61(6), 693-708.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00140. Kemp, R. G., Folkeringa, M., De Jong, J. P., & Wubben, E. F. (2003). Innovation and firm performance (No. H 200207). Zoetermeer, The Netherlands: EIM. Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Hornsby, J. S. (2005). A model of middle–level managers’ entrepreneurial behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(6), 699-716.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00104.x. Mairesse, J. (2009). Using innovation surveys for econometric analysis. In B. H. Hall and N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation (Vol. 2). North Holland: Elsevier. Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770-791.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770. Mintzberg, H. (1973). Strategy-making in three modes. California Management Review, 16(2), 44-53.Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/41164491. Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of management Journal, 39(5), 1245-1264.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/256998. Pérez-Luño, A., Wiklund, J., & Cabrera, R. V. (2011). The dual nature of innovative activity: How entrepreneurial orientation influences innovation generation and adoption. Journal of business Venturing, 26(5), 555-571.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.03.001. Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145- 154.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z. Roper, S., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Fernández-Ribas, A. (2010). Knowledge, capabilities and manufacturing innovation: A USA–Europe comparison. Regional Studies, 44(3), 253-279.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400802360410. Salavou, H., & Lioukas, S. (2003). Radical product innovations in SMEs: The dominance of entrepreneurial orientation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 12(2), 94-108.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8691.00272. Wang, X., Dass, M., Arnett, D. B., & Yu, X. (2020). Understanding firms’ relative strategic emphases: An entrepreneurial orientation explanation. Industrial Marketing Management, 84, 151-164.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.06.009. Zhao, Y., Li, Y., Tan, J., & Liu, Y. (2008). Moderating effects of entrepreneurial orientation on market orientation-performance linkage: Evidence from Chinese small firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(1), 113-133.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627x.2007.00235.x. Asian Online Journal Publishing Group is not responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability, etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. Any queries should be directed to the corresponding author of the article.