http://www.smallbusinessinstitute.biz A B S T R A C T Keywords: Journal of Small Business Strategy 2021, Vol. 31, No. 03, 01-18 ISSN: 1081-8510 (Print) 2380-1751 (Online) ©Copyright 2021 Small Business Institute® w w w. j s b s . o rg Introduction 1Universidad Ana G Mendez – Cupey, Division de Negocios UAGM Cupey, PO BOX 21150, San Juan PR, USA, 00928 2Keiser University- Latin Division, 1500 NW 49th St, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309, USA, ulmendez@uagm.edu 3Universidad Estatal a Distancia, Escuela de Ciencias de la Administración, Edificio C, 4to piso, Oficina 405, De la Rotonda la Betania 500 metros al este, carretera a Sabanilla, Mercedes de Montes de Oca, San José, Costa Rica, g.munizumana@student.keiseruniversity.edu 4Keiser University- Latin Division, 1500 NW 49th St, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309, USA, ulmendez@uagm.edu 5Universidad Ana G Mendez- Gurabo, PO Box 3030, Gurabo, PR, USA, 00778-3030, flechaj1@uagm.edu 6Keiser University- Latin Division, 1500 NW 49th St, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309, USA, ulmendez@uagm.edu 7Universidad Ana G Mendez- Gurabo, PO Box 3030, Gurabo, PR, USA, 00778-3030, msantos@uagm.edu Innovation as competitiveness driving force through the resources and capacities of SMEs in Costa Rica, Puerto Rico, and Dominican Republic Resource-based, Capacity-based, Innovation, Competitiveness APA Citation Information: Mendez-Vega, U., Muñiz-Umana, G., Flecha-Ortiz, J. A., & Santos-Corrada, M.. (2021). Innovation as compet- itiveness driving force through the resources and capacities of SMEs in Costa Rica, Puerto Rico, and Dominican Republic. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 31(3), 01-18. The Theory of Resources and Capabilities analyzes how companies use rare, valuable, and inimitable resourc- es (Cruz, 2018; García et al., 2018; Miller & Breton, 2017; Reynoso et al., 2017) in order to increase their capacity to achieve competitive advantages through their strategic adjustment (García et al., 2018; Miller & Breton, 2017; Reynoso et al., 2017). The academic literature establishes that the use of unique resources results in a greater capac- ity for innovation than other groups of variables (Akhtar et al., 2015; Badriyah, 2017; Bedoya & Arango, 2017; Choo, et al., 2010; Cruz, et al., 2018; Fernández Guer- rero et al., 2018; Fernández Ortiz et al., 2006; Gil-Lacruz & Gil-Lacruz, 2006; Lonial & Carter, 2015; Matsuno et al., 2014; Reynoso et al., 2017; Sok et al 2017; Sok et al., 2017; Villegas et al., 2018). The capacity for innovation is also an important element for the establishment of com- petitive advantages in small and medium-sized enterpris- es (SMEs) (Villegas et al., 2018; Cruz, 2018; Pérez et al., 2018; González, 2018; Mejía-Giraldo et al., 2015; Magda- leno et al., 2015). Arroyo (2008) argues that SMEs in Latin America and the Caribbean face an external environment of great uncer- tainty and high competitiveness. This level of uncertainty is related to financial crises, globalization, political and social instability, among other factors, which promote the availability of various business alternatives (Venegas, 2008; De Arruda, 2009). Therefore, the capacity for innovation is recognized as a key factor in achieving the competitiveness of SMEs. However, it is recognized that the capacity for in- novation will be based on the use of resources. In few cases are the studies on innovation capacity and SMEs in Latin America and the Caribbean analyzed from the perspective of their resources and capacities. Even Fong Reynoso et al. (2017) highlight the need for studies that analyze factors such as innovation on resources and capacities in SMEs in Latin America and the Caribbean. Currently, Latin America and the Caribbean have more SMEs compared to the rest of the world (Yang, 2017) and maintain a relevant role in the region’s economy (Lederman et al., 2014; Saavedra García, 2012; Tabares, 2012). Valdez Literature reflects that Latin America and the Caribbean register more SMEs and produce more entrepreneurial activity than any other place in the world. Using the Theory of Resources and Capabilities, this research explored how SMEs in Costa Rica, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic managed the heterogeneity of their entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, social and human capital resources and their impact on innovation capacity and competitiveness. With a survey of 467 SMEs and the analysis of data with the use of PLS-SEM & PLS-MGA, this study contributed new information based on resources and capacities that showed the maximum set of possible variables analyzed for a theoretical understanding and practice of the heterogeneity of resources. The results reflected a positive impact on the proposed hypothesis through the structural model. The data highlight market orientation as the most valuable resource that facilitates innovation and competitiveness in SMEs analyzed. The results revealed and contributed to the new lines of research on how differences and the degree of importance in managing resources generated high competitiveness through their capacity for innovation. Ulises Mendez-Vega1, 2, Glenda Muñiz-Umana3,4, José A. Flecha-Ortiz5,6, Maria Santos-Corrada7 http://www.smallbusinessinstitute.biz http://www.jsbs.org 2 U. Mendez-Vega, G. Muñiz-Umana, J. A. Flecha-Ortiz, & M. Santos-Corrada Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 3 (2021) / 01-18 et al. (2017) explain that internal and external knowledge through innovation capacity will have an impact on the profitability of a SME. Therefore, the Theory of Resourc- es and Capabilities is an ideal theoretical framework that will allow an analysis of how SMEs use their resources to impact their capacity for innovation and achieve high com- petitiveness. This quantitative research explored how SMEs in Costa Rica (CR), Puerto Rico (PR), and the Dominican Republic (DR) valued their social capital (SC), entrepreneurial ori- entation (EO), market orientation (MO), and human capital (HC) over their capacity for innovation. Secondly, it studied how the innovation capacity in the SMEs of CR, PR, and DR could be a factor that had a positive impact on compet- itiveness. Finally, it investigated if there were significantly different impacts on the way in which SMEs in CR, PR, and DR valued their resources over their capacity for innovation and how the capacity for innovation had a different impact on competitiveness. The research model was analyzed through an electron- ic survey of 455 SMEs in CR, PR, and DR and divided the analysis into two parts. The first part of the study employed the use of partial least squares structural equations (PLS- SEM) and the second part of the study used a multi-group analysis (PLS-MGA). The results reflected a positive im- pact for four of the analyzed resources, EO, MO, HC and SC, on their ability to innovate, out of which the MO was the most valued resource. The researchers also obtained positive results on the study variables. Then, using PLS- MGA, the researchers explored if the research model had a significantly different impact on the variables of interest. The paper will present a background of the research objectives and the development of a group of hypothesis on the research model developed by the researchers through the review of literature. At the end of the study, there will be a discussion of its results and contributions, as well as its limitations and lines of future research. This study provides new literature in the face of limited studies in Latin America and the Caribbean on SMEs and the Theory of Resources and Capabilities. Literature Review Strategic Planning Based on the Resources of SMEs in Latin America and the Caribbean Rogo et al. (2017) state that all performance of a SME is observed based on its available resources in order to maintain a competitive advantage. A recent study reveals that Latin America and the Caribbean register more SMEs compared to the rest of the world (Yang, 2017). It is for that reason that SMEs have an important role in the econ- omy since they generate employment and compensate for the commercial activities left by large companies (Saave- dra García, 2012; Tabares, 2012; Lederman et al., 2014). The Resource-Based Theory states that companies achieve sustainable competitive advantages only when they have valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and non-substitutable resources (Cruz, 2018; García et al., 2018; Miller & Breton, 2017; Reynoso et al., 2017). Ferreira & Fernandes (2017) report that an effective strategy requires the understand- ing of resources and capabilities with an emphasis on how these resources contribute to the formation of organization- al strengths. Fong Reynoso et al. (2017), on the other hand, report that the heterogeneity of resources and the compa- ny’s ability to manage them determines its competitive ad- vantage over obtaining benefits. Studies of interest show in detail that the adequate man- agement of resources allows a strategic adjustment through its capacity for innovation that will then positively influ- ence the competitiveness of companies (García et al., 2018; Hernández et al., 2018; Lin & Wu, 2014). The identified literature provides four types of valuable resources (EO, MO, HC and SC) (Cruz, 2018; Domínguez et al., 2017; Ferreira & Fernandes, 2017; González, 2018; Hernández et al., 2018; Lonial & Carter, 2015; Miller & Breton, 2017; Paradkar et al., 2015; Pérez et al., 2018; Ramos et al., 2018; Sok et al., 2017; Villegas et al., 2018). However, these stud- ies are limited only to analyzing some of these resources by business sector or specific region. Due to that, the need to study these four resources is even more relevant. Entrepreneurial Orientation The entrepreneurial orientation is defined as a driving force behind the organizational search that allows defining and analyzing entrepreneurial behavior (Frese et al., 2002, Sok et al., 2017). Researchers establish that the EO ana- lyzes the entrepreneur’s behavior through three dimensions: (a) innovation, (b) risk taking and (c) proactivity (Bedoya & Arango, 2017; Matsuno et al., 2014; Sok et al., 2017). The EO allows us to observe how a company faces environ- mental conditions, thought, and the execution of the entre- preneur’s strategy (Fernández-Mesa et al., 2012) and how the three dimensions allow it to implement improvements in its innovation capacity (Elche & González, 2008). This research analyzed the EO in terms of the way that the SMEs of CR, PR, and DR used EO as a strategic resource through its three dimensions. It also studied how a strategic execu- tion allowed them to boost their capacity for innovation. Literature concludes that EO is an important factor that positively influences innovation capacity (Ajayi, 2016; Be- 3 U. Mendez-Vega, G. Muñiz-Umana, J. A. Flecha-Ortiz, & M. Santos-Corrada Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 3 (2021) / 01-18 doya & Arango, 2017; López & Contreras, 2009; Schum- peter 2000). These arguments are supported by other studies that establish that an adequate EO will allow SMEs to react more aggressively to changes in the environment and on how entrepreneurs implement improvements in their com- panies through their capacity for innovation (Gómez Villan- ueva et al., 2010; Martins et al., 2012). SMEs must remain in constant adaptation through a competitive environment in which their capacity for innovation will allow them great- er competitiveness in order to evaluate their performance and obtain competitive advantages (Hernández et al., 2018). Therefore, EO appears as an important factor for SMEs to manage innovation, which has better competitiveness as a result (Silva et al., 2017; Valero & González, 2018; Vargas & Lerma, 2018; Augusta, 2018). It is established that EO is a valuable resource for SMEs since its impact on innovation capacity provides an ideal environment that brings competi- tiveness as a result (Augusta, 2018; Sok et al., 2017, Solano et al., 2017, Vargas & Lerma, 2018). Market Orientation In an analysis of the marketing variable in an SME, a substantial resource can be observed with variables such as promotion, pricing, distribution, services, development of commercial networks, and development of customer rela- tionships (Sok et al., 2017). However, the Resource-Based Theory focuses on the strategic study of marketing in two aspects. First, it analyzes resources based on marketing sup- port (Asikhia, 2010). This approach contributes indirectly and analyses how managers implement strategies based on their internal resources that result in a competitive advan- tage (Asikhia 2010; Reynoso et al., 2017). Secondly, the theory analyzes marketing resources based on their market orientation (Asikhia, 2010). Market orientation as a re- source contributes directly as it can be executed immediate- ly and results in maintaining a competitive advantage in the market (Li & Liu, 2013; Lonial & Carter, 2015; Reynoso et al., 2017; Sok et al., 2017; Villegas et al., 2018). MO is defined in the way that an organization generates superior value to customers through its strategic adjustment that will result in superior performance to the organization (Solano et al., 2017). Studies establish that MO in SMEs positively influences their capacity for innovation and is one of the relevant factors for a SME to be able to innovate success- fully (Asikhia, 2010; Didonet et al., 2016). Therefore, this research analyzed marketing resources based on the direct impact that MO generated in SMEs in CR, PR, and DR in terms of their ability to innovate. One study concluded that an approach to MO in SMEs maintained a positive impact on their capacity for innova- tion (Afriyie et al., 2018). Other researchers highlight that MO was a more significant factor than the other SMEs variables on average according to the sector in which they compete over their ability to innovate (García, et al., 2008; Santos et al., 2000). Didonet et al. (2016) concluded that MO is a critical factor in SMEs, which allows us to observe the success in their capacity for innovation. Therefore, the management of marketing resources based on their market orientation allows for competitive advantages and impacts their ability to innovate, which will result in higher returns (Estrella et al., 2012; Vorhies & Morgan, 2005). It is im- portant to note that MO also has positive innovation mech- anisms based on the way SMEs execute their innovation capacity (Didonet et al., 2016). Human Capital Warnier et al. (2013) highlight that human capital is one of the most analyzed variables throughout the Theory of Resources. Human capital is defined as all the competenc- es and skills of human resources that result in competitive advantages beyond their structure and production processes (Choo, et al., 2010; Cruz, 2018; Fernández Ortiz et al., 2006; Fernández Guerrero et al., 2018). HC research is analyzed under two approaches: (a) specific and (b) generic. The generic perspective analyzes it on the general knowledge of the entrepreneur and the specific perspective analyzes it on the abilities of the personnel to be able to execute their work (Kato et al., 2015). This research analyzed HC under a specific perspective on how the SMEs of CR, PR & DR used their resources in order to hire qualified personnel with the ability to increase knowledge in order to improve their processes and influence their ability to innovate. Studies es- tablish that HC has implications for SMEs since it can posi- tively impact the results of the business (Fernández Ortiz et al., 2006; Marenzana & Abraham, 2016) and allows for an increase in innovation capacities by using it as a unique and differentiating resource among its competitors (Carson, et al., 2004, Choo et al., 2010; Marenzana & Abraham, 2016). Kato et al. (2015) identify that the specific HC is as- sociated with the capacity for innovation based on previ- ous experiences of innovation that the staff has had. Oth- er studies detail that HC is a source of value creation that has a positive impact on its ability to innovate (Cruz, 2018; Martínez-Román et al., 2015; Pike et al., 2005). In addi- tion, other studies conclude that the innovation capacity of a SME in HC results in greater competitiveness in the com- peting sector (Marulanda et al., 2016; Rocca et al., 2016). On the other hand, some researchers sustain that HC reflects a lesser impact or is not a factor that influences innovation capacity (Canales & Álvarez, 2017, Cruz, 2018; González, 4 U. Mendez-Vega, G. Muñiz-Umana, J. A. Flecha-Ortiz, & M. Santos-Corrada Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 3 (2021) / 01-18 2017; Zontek, 2016). Cruz (2018) argue that the HC has an influence on the innovation strategy, but sometimes it is not observed as a source of innovation since from their specific perspective they observe it as a resource that executes spe- cific tasks. These antecedents establish that human capital may or may not advance innovative capacities. Social Capital Ramos et al. (2018) explain that social capital resourc- es are an important factor in analyzing trade relations be- tween different parties. The SC is defined by how organi- zations establish ties of collaboration, trust, and frequent reciprocity on the implementation of individual strategies (Arredondo et al., 2017; Castañeda & Bazán, 2017; Ramos et al., 2018). Studies establish that the SC is one of the vari- ables that facilitates innovation in a positive way for SMEs and directly impacts competitiveness (Akhtar et al., 2015; Badriyah, 2017; Gil-Lacruz & Gil-Lacruz, 2006). Subrama- niam & Youndt (2005) establish that SC is an important fac- tor for SMEs since it allows increasing innovation process- es more rapidly. Social capital was analyzed in this research by studying how the SMEs of CR, PR, and DR employed strategies through their collaborative networks in order to increase their capacity for innovation. The literature estab- lishes that the SC is essential to improve the competitive- ness of SMEs through their capacity for innovation (Kim & Shim, 2018). Mejía-Giraldo et al. (2015) show that SC is decisive for increasing entrepreneurial knowledge (Xu, 2011) through productive learning (Ortega et al., 2016) and results in an increase in the capacity for innovation (Badri- yah, 2017). Consequently, SC is a valuable resource as it facilitates the capacity for innovation through collaboration between different parties. Innovation Capabilities and their Impact on Competi- tiveness in SMEs The capacity-based theory establishes how companies make use of various resources that allow them to obtain a competitive advantage through their strategic adjustment (Cruz, 2018; García et al., 2018; Miller & Breton, 2017; Reynoso et al., 2017). A broad body of literature has ana- lyzed the resources on the variables of entrepreneurial ori- entation (Bedoya & Arango, 2017; Matsuno et al., 2014; Sok et al., 2017), market orientation (Lonial & Carter, 2015; Reynoso et al., 2017; ; Sok et al., 2017; Villegas et al., 2018), human capital (Choo, et al., 2010; Cruz, 2018; Fernández Ortiz et al., 2006; Fernández Guerrero et al., 2018), and so- cial capital (Akhtar et al., 2015; Badriyah, 2017; Gil-Lacruz & Gil-Lacruz, 2006) as a group of important variables that facilitate innovation capacity. Innovation is defined as the generation, acceptance, and implementation of new ideas, products or services that arise through an interactive process in order to influence a market (Brunswicker & Vanhaver- beke, 2015; García & Calantone, 2002; ; Hsieh & Chou, 2018; Sahut & Peris, 2014; Zhai et al., 2018). This research analyzed the capacity for innovation in the way in which the PyMES of CR, PR, and DR implemented continuous improvements in order to improve their competitiveness in the markets they operated. On the other hand, competitiveness was analyzed in this investigation as the set of productive processes that increased the income of a business, over its resources and capabilities. As it is detailed, competitiveness is complex because it involves a series of variables that are analyzed according to the needs of the company through its resources (Aguilera et al., 2011; Flores-Romero & González-Santoyo, 2009; Parody et al., 2016). Several studies establish that the implementation of innovation strategies in SMEs has a positive impact on competitiveness (Cruz, 2018; González, 2018; Magdaleno et al., 2015; Mejía-Giraldo et al., 2015; Pérez et al., 2018; Villegas et al., 2018;). In the search for competitiveness, SMEs can determine their competitive ad- vantage and increase the chances of success through their resources and capabilities (Flores-Romero González-San- toyo, 2009; Montoya et al., 2010). Therefore, the capacity for innovation allows them to be more competitive in the market in which they operate (Aragón-Sánchez, & Ru- bio-Bañón, 2005; Jankowska, et al., 2017; Montoya et al., 2010). Brunswicker & Vanhaverbeke (2015) explain that the scope of competitiveness in SMEs is associated with a greater approach to innovation. Therefore, the innovation capacity of a SME will be determined by the development of competitive strategies over the execution of its resources and capabilities (González-Campo & Ayala, 2014; Lin & Wu, 2014). López and Merono (2011) conclude that innovation capacity positively influences competitiveness resulting in positive performance. The capacity for innovation will allow the transformation of resources, resulting in great- er competitiveness in the sector in which SMEs compete. These antecedents make the researchers pose the following hypothesis, which can be seen in Figure 1: H1. The heterogeneous effect of the EO, MO, HC, and SC resources has a positive impact in the capacity for innova- tion of the SEMs in CR, PR, and DR. H2. The capacity of innovation through the generation, ac- ceptance, and implementation of new ideas, products or ser- vices has a positive impact in competitiveness in the mar- 5 U. Mendez-Vega, G. Muñiz-Umana, J. A. Flecha-Ortiz, & M. Santos-Corrada Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 3 (2021) / 01-18 kets where the SEMs of CR, PR and the DR operate. H3. There is a significantly different impact among the SEMs of CR, PR, and the DR in the heterogeneity of the EO, MO, HC, and SC resources and their impact in the in- novation capacity. H4. There is a significantly different impact in the SEMs from CR, PR, and the DR in how the innovation capacity through the generation, acceptance, and implementation of new ideas, products or services positively impacts the com- petitiveness in the markets in which they operate. Figure 1. Research Model Method An electronic survey was sent to the email database of the main organizations DIGEPYME Costa Rica, the Commerce and Export Company of Puerto Rico, and the Chamber of Commerce and Production of Santo Domin- go. With the support of these organizations, 659 surveys were received in which 467 were valid for the analysis. The data collection used the technique of no replacement. To comply with the rigor of the technique of no replacement, the survey was coded and protected so that it could only be accessed once. If the participant abandoned or left the survey incomplete, it was automatically rejected (Malhotra & Dash, 2016). The distribution of participants culminated with n = 193 from Costa Rica, n = 141 from Puerto Rico and n = 121 from the Dominican Republic. Instrument Design Thirty-one (31) items were used to measure the study variables. The researchers designed the items based on the review of the literature and the research objectives. The items of the instrument were designed on a five-point Likert scale where participants responded 1 as totally disagree and 5 as totally agree. The design of each item began with the variable heterogeneity of the resources that researchers con- figured as a second level variable through its dimensions of entrepreneurship orientation, market orientation, social capital, and human capital. To analyze the variable, the re- searchers used the Hierarchical Component Models (HCM) using the repeated indicators approach of the dimensions EO, MO, SC & HC (Ringle et al., 2012). To measure the dimensions, the variable EO had seven items, which were designed through the dimensions of innovation, risk taking, and proactivity. For this group of items, the researchers in- vestigated how the EO allowed reacting with greater agil- ity to the changes of the environment through its capacity for innovation. The MO had five items, which investigated how SMEs adapted their strategies in the markets in which they operated and how this allowed them to achieve com- petitive advantages. The SC dimension had three items that analyzed how SMEs used their collaborative network and contacts in order to establish innovations through individual strategies. The HC had two items analyzed from the specific perspective of how managers hired qualified personnel and how knowledge of their staff could improve their produc- tion processes. The innovation variable had six items that investigated the way in which innovation capacity allowed the obtaining of competitive advantages within a market and how they responded to different contingencies based on their strategy. In the end, the competitiveness variable had seven items that investigated how the tactics used by SMEs 6 U. Mendez-Vega, G. Muñiz-Umana, J. A. Flecha-Ortiz, & M. Santos-Corrada Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 3 (2021) / 01-18 have allowed them to respond based on their resources and capabilities. Validity & Reliability of Research Before analyzing the data, the researchers analyzed the validity and reliability of the study. The summary of the re- sults can be seen in Table 1. The results show that the alpha coefficients, standardized loads, and convergent validity are according to the criterion of .70 in most of the analysis variables (Hair et al., 2011; Henseler., et al., 2009). In the HC variable an alpha of .69 was observed; however, stan- dardized loads and convergent validity showed validity and reliability. Furthermore, composite reliability represents a better indicator for analyzing alpha coefficients. According to Chin (1998), the composite reliability is much more ac- curate since the received indicators are not assumed to be weighted. In the end, the AVE values reflected results over .50 that led researchers to conclude that the latent variables explained more than half of the variance on their indicators, according to the criteria of .50 by Hair et al. (2016). Thus, in turn AVE values are a measure that provides the value that a constructor obtains from its indicators. This test is ideal since it indicates that a set of indicators represents a single underlying construct (Henseler et al., 2009). This analysis led to the conclusion that the study showed high validity and reliability. Table 1 Reliability and validity analysis Variable Dimensions Coding Factor Loading Cronbach’s Alpha Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted (AVE) Competitiveness COMP01 COMP02 COMP03 COMP04 COMP05 COMP06 COMP07 0.747 0.817 0.739 0.794 0.783 0.819 0.767 0.893 0.916 0.61 Entrepreneurial Orientation MEEM01 MEEM02 MEEM03 MEEM04 MEEM05 MEEM06 MEEM07 MEEM08 0.673 0.705 0.661 0.796 0.742 0.848 0.807 0.781 0.890 0.913 0.569 Human Capital CAPH01 CAPH02 0.853 0.895 0.693 0.866 0.764 Innovation INNO01 INNO02 INNO03 INNO04 INNO05 INNO06 0.795 0.767 0.742 0.807 0.890 0.887 0.899 0.923 0.667 Market Orientation MARK01 MARK02 MARK03 MARK04 MARK05 0.841 0.841 0.814 0.829 0.708 0.866 0.904 0.653 Social Capital CAPS01 CAPS02 CAPS03 0.834 0.834 0.841 0.786 0.875 0.700 7 U. Mendez-Vega, G. Muñiz-Umana, J. A. Flecha-Ortiz, & M. Santos-Corrada Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 3 (2021) / 01-18 Discriminant Validity The researchers analyzed that there was no significant variance between the different variables that could have the same meaning. The researchers analyzed the data using the Fornaken & Laker criterion (Table 2). According to these results, the study did not indicate problems between variables that could have the same meaning. For the For- nell-Larcker Criterion analysis, a diagonal level of the re- sults of the square root of AVE values is observed while the rest of the cells present the correlation data between the constructs. The discriminant validity analysis allows us to justify the definition and choice of the indicators. It leads to the conclusion that there is no significant variance between the different variables that could have the same meaning (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Luque, 2000). Hierarchical Component Models (HCM) The researchers analyzed the explanatory power of the variable resources. As established in the literature, the researchers analyzed the four internal resources that were unique and difficult to imitate. To observe the heterogeneity of the resources, the researchers analyzed the variable using the Hierarchical Component Models (HCM). According to Hair Jr et al. (2018), using the HCM allows researchers to reduce the number of relationships in the structural mod- el, which makes the PLS route model more accurate and easier to understand. To achieve this, the researchers used the approach of repeated indicators for second-order con- structs that made up the variable resources (Hair Jr et al., 2018; Ringle et al., 2012). The results of Figure 2 reflect a strong impact on the conformation and heterogeneity of the resources and the way in which they are valued is explained Table 2 Analysis of discriminant validity Competitiveness Entrepreneurial Orientation Human Capital Innovation Market Orientation Resources Social Capital Competitiveness 0.781 Entrepreneurial Orientation 0.585 0.754 Human Capital 0.663 0.454 0.874 Innovation 0.729 0.638 0.53 0.816 Market Orienta- tion 0.764 0.586 0.573 0.683 0.808 Resources 0.803 0.87 0.694 0.787 0.865 0.661 Social Capital 0.701 0.504 0.605 0.718 0.646 0.78 0.836 Entrepreneurial Orientation Market Orientation Human Capital Social Capital Resource-Based Capacity-based Innovation Competitiveness 𝑅𝑅 =1.000 𝑅𝑅 =0.638 𝑅𝑅 =0.532 Figure 2. Hypothesis Results 8 U. Mendez-Vega, G. Muñiz-Umana, J. A. Flecha-Ortiz, & M. Santos-Corrada Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 3 (2021) / 01-18 first by MO (β = 0.36; t = 27.617), followed by EO (β = 0.48; t = 24.181), then SC (β = 0.22; t = 23.139) and finally HC (β = 0.13; t = 17.375). Results The results of the measurement model can be seen in Figure 2. These reflect a high predictive power. The anal- ysis began by observing whether the heterogeneous effect of the EO resources (β = 0.48; t = 24.181), MO (β = 0.36; t = 27.617), HC (β = 0.13; t = 17.375) and SC (β = 0.22; t = 23.139) maintained a positive impact (H1 β = 0.72; t = 35.345) on the SMEs innovation capacity of CR, PR, & DR. Secondly, it was analyzed whether the innovation capaci- ty (H2 β = 0.72; t = 24.692) maintained a positive impact on competitiveness. The results showed support for H1 & H3. These results demonstrate that there is a strong rela- tionship through variable resources and variable innovation (β = 0.72) and, in the same way, another strong relationship between innovation and competitiveness (β = 0.72). Other data of interest is seen when observing the results of R² and Q². The data lead to the conclusion that the research model maintains a high predictive power. The dynamic data from the innovation variable is explained in 65% and 53% by competitiveness. This result is also supported by observing values of .30 and .40 through the blindfolding test (Q²) so that the modified model data has a high predictive power and strengthens the discussion of the selected results. Discussion The statistical analysis of this first part of the study provided empirical evidence on how the heterogeneity of resources was valued and how the way they were managed (Fong Reynoso et al., 2017) generated innovation capacity (Loggiodice, 2012). The Theory of Resources and Capabili- ties emphasizes the need for companies to develop strengths in order to achieve competitive success (Carrillo et al., 2017). The data showed how differences and the degree of importance in managing resources generated the capacity for innovation. This is how HCM data explained the hetero- geneity of resources through the impact obtained on inno- vation capacity (Otero et al., 2018). Therefore, the results of the HCM in the conformation of the resources variable and its impact on the capacity for innovation presented valu- able information about the way in which they executed and managed their resources. First, MO was listed as the most valued resource, which was managed in order to achieve superior performance for the generation of innovations in the markets in which they operated. The EO positively in- creased the capacity for innovation through the exploration of new strategies (Bedoya & Arango, 2017; Matsuno et al., 2014; Sok et al., 2017) and was managed as a relevant fac- tor to innovate successfully (Asikhia, 2010; Didonet et al., 2016). On the other hand, the SC was established as a pow- erful determinant (Chen et al., 2011) and an element that generated the capacity for differential innovations (Kim & Shim, 2018; Li et al., 2018). Finally, the HC allowed them to hire qualified personnel and increase knowledge in order to improve processes and thus increase their capacity for innovation. Study 2 In this second part of the work, the researchers ana- lyzed whether there was a significantly different impact between the SME groups of CR, PR & DR through the re- search model. The selection of analyses of these three coun- tries is sustained since the Hispanic Caribbean is made up of PR, DR and Cuba. Given the political and economic dif- ferences in Cuba, it is not considered comparable. Instead, PR and DR are in the Caribbean region and are neighboring countries with free trade and democratic economies. CR is now selected as a Central American country that is remark- ably close to the Caribbean. In other aspects, according to the 2019 global competitiveness index, it places a CR at number 62 and DR at number 78 of 141 economic purchas- es (Schwab, 2019). On the other hand, PR does not appear in this report due to its territorial relationship with the Unit- ed States. In addition, according to Doing Business (2020) statistics, it gives a rating of .60 for CR, PR .70, and DR .60 to the analysis of national SMEs and the ease of doing busi- ness in the country. Hence, these three ideal countries are similar enough for this study. A summary of demographic data of interest can be observed in Table 3. Method To determine whether there was a significantly dif- ferent impact between the paths of the research model, the model was analyzed through PLS-MGA. Prior to the analy- sis, an invariance analysis was performed on the constructs, using the three-step Measurement Invariance of Composite Model (MICOM) test and the calculation of permutations in SMART-PLS, in order to validate whether PLS-MGA was adequate for the analysis and presentation of results (Henseler et al., 2016). 9 U. Mendez-Vega, G. Muñiz-Umana, J. A. Flecha-Ortiz, & M. Santos-Corrada Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 3 (2021) / 01-18 Table 3 Demographic sample summary Puerto Rico n = 142 Costa Rica n = 193 Dominican Republic n = 121 How long has the company been established? One year or less 5 3.52% 5 2.59% 22 18.18% 2 to 5 years 46 32.39% 56 29.02% 48 39.67% 6 to 10 years 18 12.68% 35 18.13% 24 19.83% 11 to 15 years 22 15.49% 38 19.69% 12 9.92% 16 to 20 years 21 14.79% 23 11.92% 3 2.48% 21 years or more 30 21.13% 36 18.65% 12 9.92% Total Employees 7 employee or less 79 55.63% 131 67.88% 86 71.07% 8 to 25 employees 32 22.54% 44 22.80% 24 19.83% 26 or more employees 31 21.83% 18 9.33% 11 9.09% Estimated Annual Income (US Dollars) $ 500,000.00 or less 77 54.23% 145 75.13% 100 82.64% 501,000.00 to $ 3,000,000.00 35 24.65% 30 15.54% 17 14.05% $ 3,000,000.00 or more 30 21.13% 18 9.33% 4 3.31% SEMs Type of Business Agriculture, forest hunting and fishing 1 0.70% 6 3.11% 4 2.48% Mining 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Electricity, water and gas 0 0.00% 2 1.04% 3 2.48% Construction Industry 4 2.82% 15 7.77% 11 9.09% Manufacture 20 14.08% 11 5.70% 8 5.79% Wholesale trade 5 3.52% 7 3.63% 12 9.92% Retail trade 16 11.27% 68 35.23% 6 3.31% Information’s System 2 1.41% 2 1.04% 2 1.65% Finance and Insurance 2 1.41% 0 0.00% 5 4.13% Real Estate, rent or lease 3 2.11% 3 1.55% 1 0.83% Professional and technical services 29 20.42% 35 18.13% 34 27.27% Management Companies 2 1.41% 0 0.00% 1 0.83% Administrative Services and Solid Waste 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Educational services 9 6.34% 5 2.59% 2 1.65% Health and social assistance services 6 4.23% 2 1.04% 5 4.13% Arts, entertainment and recreation 7 4.93% 5 2.59% 2 1.65% Tourism and food services 4 2.82% 12 6.22% 3 2.48% Other services (except public admi- nistration) 4 2.82% 14 7.25% 8 2.48% Other 28 19.72% 6 3.11% 24 19.83% 10 U. Mendez-Vega, G. Muñiz-Umana, J. A. Flecha-Ortiz, & M. Santos-Corrada Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 3 (2021) / 01-18 MICOM Test The first step was to establish the Configural Invari- ance. To achieve the first step, the researchers configured the PLS algorithm using the same indicators for each vari- able observed and the same treatment for the data on the CR n = 193, PR n = 141 and DR n = 121 groups. They concluded that the configural invariance was successfully established, so they continued with Step 2 (Henseler et al., 2016). Hair Jr et al. (2018) state that the second step is to analyze the compositional invariance using the permutation test. To determine the compositional invariance, the null hy- pothesis could not be rejected where H0 c =1; 1. It will also be observed for its level of significance of p > 5% (Hair Jr et al., 2018, Henseler et al., 2016). The summary of the results can be observed in Table 4. One thousand (1,000) permutations were executed on the study sample, leading researchers to support the hypothesis that the groups being compared showed significantly 1 scores (c). The data re- flected that there was no invariant effect, so the grouping of the data was not necessary. This result led to the conclusion that Step 3 was not necessary, determining that PLS-MGA was appropriate for analysis purposes (Henseler et al., 2016; Hair Jr et al., 2018). Table 4 Configural invariance (MICMO TEST step 2) Country Comparison CR vs PR CR vs RD PR vs RD Configural Invariance c=1 5% p < .05 c=1 5% p < .05 c=1 95% p < .05 CV Competitiveness 1.000 0.999: 1.000 0.543 1.000 0.998:1.000 0.834 0.998 0.996:1.000 0.332 YES Entrepreneurial Orientation 0.999 0.999:1.000 0.420 0.999 0.995:1.000 0.613 0.999 0.999:1.000 0.386 YES Human Capital 0.999 0.995:1.000 0.081 0.999 0.995:1.000 0.436 0.999 0.994:1.000 0.465 YES Innovation 1.000 0.999:1.000 0.517 1.000 0.999:1.000 0.473 0.999 0.999:1.000 0.110 YES Market Orienta- tion 1.000 0.999:1.000 0.685 1.000 0.999:1.000 0.893 1.000 0.999:1.000 0.972 YES Resources 0.999 0.998:1.000 0.326 1.000 0.998:1.000 0.922 0.999 0.997:1.000 0.501 YES Social Capital 1.000 0.998:1.000 0.921 1.000 0.998:1.000 0.983 1.000 0.997:1.000 0.988 YES Results PLS-MGA PLS-MGA is a non-parametric one-tailed test where p <.05 values indicate whether the coefficient of the route is significantly higher in the first group and is compared with the second group (CR, PR & DR) on the results of Boot- strapping (Hair Jr et al., 2018). In analyzing more than three groups, the researchers conducted a preliminary test through an Omnibus Test of Group Differences (OTG) proposed by Sarstedt et al. (2011). The OTG allows the researchers to analyze more than three groups of CR, PR & DR simulta- neously and offers an acceptable level of statistical power without relying on distribution assumptions. The OTG test is not available through PLS-SEM. To calculate the OTG, the researchers used a spreadsheet for OTG designed by Chan (2014). Through the spreadsheet, the researchers placed the estimates of 1000 bootstrapped generated by PLS-SEM. Preliminary results showed no significant dif- ferences between CR, PR & DR to be compared (Table 5). After this preliminary evaluation, the PLS-MGA was ex- ecuted and the results in Table 5 led researchers to reject the hypothesis for H3 and H4 as there was no significantly different impact through the measurement model. Discussion The results in Table 5 reflect that there was no sig- nificantly different impact on the variables throughout the research model, so H3 and H4 were rejected. The results of this second part allowed the researchers to deepen their knowledge and provided additional information in the way in which the resources and capacities presented in Study 1 were managed. Although the results showed similarity in the way they managed resources, the results of the t-test re- flected some interesting data. CR reflected impacts greater than PR and DR in the way in which they managed their resources, but it was DR that managed to take greater ad- vantage of its capacity to innovate (Innovation Competi- tiveness; t = 17.861) than CR and PR in order to develop strengths to achieve competitive success. It is interesting to note that in DR its most valued resource is the EO (t = 11.966) and in PR the second most valued resource is SC (t 11 U. Mendez-Vega, G. Muñiz-Umana, J. A. Flecha-Ortiz, & M. Santos-Corrada Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 3 (2021) / 01-18 = 14.089). This second part of the study provided valuable information on the different thinking perspectives of the SME administrators in the region and the degree of impor- tance in managing resources and capacities in the markets in which they operate. Conclusion The theory states that the heterogeneity and the way in which resources and capabilities are managed persist over time and provide a competitive advantage, as long as they are valuable and rare, in order to maintain a sustainable ad- vantage over time (Cruz, 2018; García et al., 2018; Matsuno et al., 2014; Miller & Breton, 2017; Reynoso et al., 2017). This study explored how CR, PR and DR SMEs tailored their EO, MO, SC, and HC resources and their impact on their innovation capacity. Secondly, it explored how inno- vation capacity appeared as a component for the generation of competitive advantages and its impact on competitive- ness. Finally, it explored if there was a significantly differ- ent impact on the SMEs of CR, PR, and DR through the proposed research model. This study offers several contributions to literature. According to Barney et al. (2011) and Bedoya and Arango, (2017), the new direction of resource-based studies should contemplate the analysis of the maximum set of variables to present a theoretical and practical understanding of the heterogeneity of resources. Historically, the resource-based study only contemplates one to two variables in which the literature reveals positive impacts on innovation capacity (Ajayi, 2016; Asikhia, 2010; Bedoya & Arango, 2017; Ca- nales & Álvarez, 2017; Cruz, 2018; Didonet et al., 2016; González, 2017; López & Contreras, 2009; Schumpeter 2000; Zontek, 2016). When contemplating the set of most analyzed variables (EO, MO, SC and HC) in the literature through the HCM, it presents a valuable contribution of how the heterogeneity in the variable resources is observed. The theory supports the idea that the effects of valuable resourc- es must be observed heterogeneously to determine the per- formance of the company. This study offers more extensive information about how the resource variable is composed and how it is used to manage innovation capacity. Secondly, the results add to what Cuervo (1993) states, who establishes that competitiveness is determined by ex- ternal variables and by the internal actions of managers to generate resources and capacities in which heterogene- ity will explain the competitive advantages and success of the company. The adequacy of resources and the way the managers of SMEs obtain their innovation capabilities translate into a positive impact on competitiveness, thus demonstrating that they are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable (Barney et al., 2011; Bedoya & Arango, 2017). Then, when determining the factors in their compet- itive environment, innovation capabilities, together with the way in which they manage and select their resources, ex- plain competitiveness (García et al., 2018; Hernández et al., 2018; Lin & Wu, 2014). The resources are not the ones that generate the competitive advantage, but the combination of resources through their strategic adjustment generates value through their capacity for innovation, thus allowing them to achieve greater competitiveness. The data reflected that the way SMEs of CR, PR and DR adapted their resources is explained firstly by their MO, followed by EO, SC and HC. It is distinctive to note that the Table 5 PLS-MGA results Country CR PR DR CR PR DR CR vs PR CR vs PR PR vs DR CR vs PR CR vs PR PR vs DR Path β β β t t t PLS-MGA p <.05 PLS-MGA p <.05 PLS-MGA p <.05 OTG p<.05 OTG p<.05 OTG p<.05 Entrepreneurial Orientation→ Resources 0.446 0.544 0.492 19.415 12.528 11.966 0.981 0.835 0.193 0.981 0.837 0.192 Human Capital→ Resources 0.133 0.127 0.141 12.878 8.836 6.411 0.367 0.637 0.711 0.499 0.538 0.541 Innovation→ Competitiveness 0.752 0.695 0.739 16.961 12.940 17.861 0.207 0.403 0.735 0.448 0.467 0.528 Market Orientation→ Resources 0.358 0.341 0.37 22.266 14.959 10.881 0.267 0.614 0.762 0.499 0.538 0.541 Resources → Innovation 0.803 0.793 0.76 23.330 21.999 18.804 0.419 0.210 0.272 0.515 0.438 0.432 Social Capital→ Resources 0.213 0.22 0.229 17.137 14.089 9.942 0.63 0.724 0.62 0.501 0.524 0.522 12 U. Mendez-Vega, G. Muñiz-Umana, J. A. Flecha-Ortiz, & M. Santos-Corrada Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 3 (2021) / 01-18 three countries show the same order and level of importance to each resource. This implication is valuable and supports what was exposed by Priem et al. (2001), who explains that the application of strategies requires an understanding of how resources are adapted according to their level of im- portance and how they contribute to capacity building as the innovation. In this sense, each resource contributes to the capacity for innovation in diverse ways. For example, MO is listed as a resource that can be immediately deployed in the market (Ferreira & Fernandez, 2017). The EM explains the participation and the business through its practices and processes (Sok et al., 2017). This is how SC, through its network of contacts, increases processes in an accelerated way (Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005). Finally, the HC af- fects how the entrepreneur implements its strategy and how the human resource contributes its knowledge and skills to the business results (Fernández Ortiz et al., 2006; Marenza- na & Abraham, 2016). Therefore, the degree of importance of these resources and the way in which the owners of the SMEs of CR, PR and DR execute their strategies more quickly allow the innovation of products and services that results in greater competitiveness within their local and in- ternational market. However, the adequacy of the resources of the SMEs of CR, PR and DR reflect an impact on their capacity for innovation and competitiveness. For example, at the level of government policies, the three countries have incentives, training programs for entrepreneurs, the strengthening of business networks and the improvement of productivity that strengthen the efficiency of SMEs. This involvement is valuable since the resources and capacities for innova- tion and competitiveness are similar in CR, PR, and DR, so at the country level there is a strong SME base focused on innovation resulting in greater competitiveness. This is how competitiveness strengthens the economy, becoming a source of competitive advantage. On the other hand, con- sidering the current context of a constantly changing mar- ket, these results have management implications for SMEs in the three countries. With MO, owners must identify and promote value creation for their clients so that they do not lose the loyalty of those who are part of their target market and take advantage of the opportunity to attract new ones with innovative products or services in the new social and market reality. In relation to the EO, the strategic thinking of these owners allows for practice to adapt more easily to changes, and in this way, a culture of innovation is strength- ened. The SC promotes collaborative alliances to increase the competitiveness of SMEs. Suppliers of raw materials or finished products support and innovate. In this way, they manage to stay on the market. Finally, the HC is the one that materializes the strategic thinking of the owners of SMEs. Contributions of ideas by collaborators improve products and services, making them more attractive and responsive to customer needs. For the owners and administrators of SMEs, once the external factors that lead them to be competitive are deter- mined, the results provide valuable information on how internal action generates resources and capabilities. There- fore, the way they manage heterogeneity produces sustain- able competitive advantages. SMEs that want to be more competitive should take into account the resources analyzed in this study in order to establish more innovative compa- nies through their management of products and services, internal processes, collaboration, and staff development which will allow them to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Limitations First, this research used data collection through a cross-sectional design, which can result in bias problems through sample selection. To solve these limitations, re- searchers recommend the use of a longitudinal design in or- der to observe if there are changes over time and thus reduce bias problems. Secondly, the researchers did not analyze other control variables such as company size, established time, among others. Aranguren Peraza (2007) argues that to overcome these limitations there should be a focus on the degree of simplification of experience, training, and social- ization done by the researchers through the recommended methodology. Finally, future research should consider each country’s analysis in more detail to determine differences and similarities depending on where SMEs are located. Future Research & Final Considerations One of the recommendations is to expand the model by analyzing variables such as company size, established time, and differences between SMEs of services and those of products. This analysis will allow researchers to analyze in greater depth the impact that the Theory of Resources and Capabilities has on innovation strategies or which sec- tor takes more advantage of the adequacy of its resourc- es. The final recommendation is to do research comparing SMEs between local business models and export activities. The research model proposed in this study advances current knowledge by suggesting that in order to achieve competi- tiveness over innovation capacity, it is necessary to use all available resources effectively. In the end, the results of the model reveal that the im- plementation of their innovation capabilities, the adequacy of the heterogeneity of the resources, and the degree of im- 13 U. Mendez-Vega, G. Muñiz-Umana, J. A. Flecha-Ortiz, & M. Santos-Corrada Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 3 (2021) / 01-18 portance with which they are managed will result in greater competitiveness within their sector. References Afriyie, S., Du, J., & Appiah, K. (2018). The role of market- ing capabilities as a resource-based view on organi- zational performance. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS), 41(1), 109-123. Aguilera-Enríquez, L., González-Adame, M., & Rodrí- guez-Camacho, R. (2011). Estrategias empresariales para la competitividad y el crecimiento de las pymes. Una evidencia empírica. Investigación y Ciencia, 19(53), 39-48. Ajayi, B. (2016). The impact of entrepreneurial orienta- tion and networking capabilities on the export per- formance of Nigerian agricultural SMEs. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Econ- omies, 2(1), 1-23. Akhtar, C. S., Ismail, K., Ndaliman, M. A., Hussain, J., & Haider, M. (2015). Can intellectual capital of SMEs help in their sustainability efforts. Journal of Man- agement Research, 7(2), 82-97. Aragón-Sánchez, A., & Rubio-Bañón, A. (2005). Facto- res asociados con el éxito competitivo de las Pyme industriales en España. Universia Business Review, (8), 38-51. Aranguren Peraza, G. (2007). La investigación-acción siste- matizadora como estrategia de intervención y for- mación del docente en su rol de investigador. Revista de pedagogía, 28(82), 173-195. Arredondo, P. R., Juárez, M. H., Merino, A. L., & Sanger- man-Jarquin, D. M. (2017). Capital social en empre- sas exitosas de desarrollo rural sustentable. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas, (18), 3771-3786. Arroyo, C. (2008). La cultura y el proceso de globalización en el desarrollo de las pequeñas y medianas empresas latinoamericanas. Ciencias Económicas 26(1), 381- 395. Asikhia, O. U. (2010). SMEs and poverty alleviation in Nigeria: Marketing resources and capabilities impli- cations. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 13(2), 57-70. Augusta-Moreta, M. (2018). Planeación estratégica en pymes: limitaciones, objetivos y estrategias. UT- CIENCIA, 4(3) 171-182. Badriyah, N. (2017). Social capital of human resources in SMES on competitive advantages. Journal Aplikasi Manajemen, 15(3), 491-500. Bárcenas, R. E., Escorza, R. P., Ortiz, M. D. L. L. S., Men- doza, T. M. F., & Barranco, M. R. (2014). Factores de competitividad y su efecto en el rendimiento de la PyME. Boletín Científico de las Ciencias Económico Administrativas del ICEA, 2(4). DOI: 10.29057/icea. v2i4.80 Barney, J. B., Ketchen Jr, D. J., & Wright, M. (2011). The future of resource-based theory: Revitalization or de- cline? Journal of Management, 37(5), 1299-1315. Beavers, A. S., Lounsbury, J. W., Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W., Skolits, G. J., & Esquivel, S. L. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Re- search & Evaluation, 18(6), 1-13. Bedoya, M. A., & Arango, B. (2017). Orientación emprend- edora, recursos y capacidades: una revisión de su marco conceptual para la innovación. Revista ESPA- CIOS, 38(38), 11-28. Brunswicker, S., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2015). Open innova- tion in small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs): External knowledge sourcing strategies and internal organizational facilitators. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(4), 1241-1263. Canales, M., & Álvarez, R. (2017). Impacto de los obstácu- los al conocimiento en la innovación de las empresas chilenas. Journal of Technology Management & In- novation, 12(3), 78-85. Carrillo, L. L., Navarro, C. L. C., & Bergamini, T. P. (2017). El capital intelectual y el capital emprendedor como impulsores del crecimiento económico region- al. Cuadernos de Economía, 40(114), 223-235. Carson, E., Ranzijn, R., Winefield, A., & Marsden, H. (2004). Intellectual capital: Mapping employee and work group attributes. Journal of Intellectual Capi- tal, 5(3) 443-463. Castañeda, R. J., & Bazan, G. S. (2017). Capital social y desempeño empresarial: La industria metalmecánica en Ciudad Juárez, México. Estudios regionales en economía, población y desarrollo, 26, 1-33. Chan, D. K .C., 2014. MG-PLS [Computer Software]. http:// derwinchan.iwopop.com/MG-PLS Chen, J., Chen, Y., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2011). The in- fluence of scope, depth, and orientation of external technology sources on the innovative performance of Chinese firms. Technovation, 31(8), 362-373. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295-336. Choo, S. S., Halim, H., & Keng-Howe, I. C. (2010). The impact of globalization on strategic human resources management: The mediating role of CEO in HR. In- ternational Journal of Business Studies, 18(1), 101- http://dx.doi.org/10.29057/icea.v2i4.80 http://dx.doi.org/10.29057/icea.v2i4.80 http://derwinchan.iwopop.com/MG-PLS http://derwinchan.iwopop.com/MG-PLS 14 U. Mendez-Vega, G. Muñiz-Umana, J. A. Flecha-Ortiz, & M. Santos-Corrada Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 3 (2021) / 01-18 124. Cruz, C. A. (2018). Dimensiones de las competencias clave y del conocimiento organizacional desde el enfoque de los recursos y capacidades. Red Internacional de Investigadores en Competitividad, 8(1), 2164-2181. Cuervo, A. (1993). El papel de la empresa en la competitiv- idad. Papeles de Economía Española, 56, 363-378. De Arruda, M. C. (2009). Ethics and corporate social re- sponsibility in Latin American small and medium sized enterprises: Challenging development. African Journal of Business Ethics, 4(2), 37-47. Didonet, S. R., Simmons, G., Díaz‐Villavicencio, G., & Palmer, M. (2016). Market orientation’s boundary‐ spanning role to support innovation in SMEs. Jour- nal of Small Business Management, 54(S1), 216-233. Domínguez, P. L., Miranda, A. S., & Alvarado, S. Z. (2017). Desarrollo de la capacidad de absorción mediante prácticas de gestión del conocimiento en PYMES al- imentarias del sector manufacturero. Strategy, Tech- nology & Society, 3(2), 69-94. Doing Business (2020). Ease of doing business rankings. The World Bank. www.doingbusiness.org/en/rank- ings?region=latin-america-and-caribbean Elche, D., & González, A. (2008). Influence of innovation on performance: Analysis of Spanish service firms. The Service Industries Journal, 28(10), 1483-1499. Estrella, R. A., Jiménez, C. D., Ruiz, R. J. L., & Sánchez, P. M. (2012). ¿Cómo compiten las Pymes en los merca- dos internacionales? Análisis de un clúster local con vocación exportadora. Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, 18(1), 87-99. Fernández, I. D. (2018). Enfoque de Porter y de la teoría basada en los recursos en la identificación de la ven- taja competitiva: ¿contraposición o conciliación? Re- vista Economía y Desarrollo (Impresa), 144(1), 104- 114. Fernández Guerrero, R., Revuelto-Taboada, L., & Simón Moya, V. (2018). Supervivencia de empresas so- ciales de nueva creación. Un enfoque basado en el análisis cualitativo comparativo fsQCA. Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa 92(9), 183- 221 Fernández-Mesa, A., Alegre-Vidal, J., & Chiva-Gómez, R. (2012). Orientación emprendedora, capacidad de aprendizaje organizativo y desempeño innova- dor. Journal of Technology Management & Innova- tion, 7(2), 157-170. Fernández Ortiz, R., Castresana Ruiz-Carrillo, J. I., & Fernández-Losa, N. (2006). Los recursos humanos en las Pymes: Análisis empírico de la formación, rotación y estructura de propiedad. Cuadernos de Gestión, 6(1), 63-80. Ferreira, J., & Fernandes, C. (2017). Resources and capa- bilities’ effects on firm performance: What are they? Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(5), 1202- 1217. Flores-Romero, B., & González-Santoyo, F. (2009). La competitividad de las Pymes morelianas. Cuadernos del CIMBAGE, (11), 85-104. Fong Reynoso, C., Flores Valenzuela, K. E., & Cardoza Campos, L. M. (2017). La teoría de recursos y ca- pacidades: un análisis bibliométrico. Nova Scientia, 9(19), 411-440. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structur- al equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. Frese, M., Brantjes, A., & Hoorn, R. (2002). Psychological success factors of small-scale businesses in Namibia: The roles of strategy process, entrepreneurial orienta- tion and the environment. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 7(3), 259-282. García, M. L. S., Adame, M. E. C., & Sánchez, B. T. (2018). Calidad para la competitividad en las micro, pequeñas y medianas empresas de la Ciudad de México. Revis- ta Venezolana de Gerencia, 22(80), 551-575. García, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at tech- nological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110-132. García, R. N., Santos, V, L., Sanzo, P. J., & Trespalacios, G. J. (2008). El papel del marketing interno como antecedente de la capacidad de innovación de la Pyme: Efecto sobre los resultados empresariales. In J. Pindado García & G. Payne (Eds.), Estableciendo puentes en una economía global (pp. 1-16). Pozuelo de Alarcón: Esic. Gil-Lacruz, M., & Gil-Lacruz, A. I. (2006). Capital huma- no y capital social, implicaciones en el crecimien- to económico. Revista del Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, 61, 93-104. Gómez Villanueva, J., Llonch Andreu, J., & Rialp Criado, J. (2010). Orientación estratégica, innovación y resulta- dos en PYMES de nueva creación: el rol del market- ing. Cuadernos de Gestión, 10, 85-110. González, E.O.C. (2018). Capital intelectual y competitivi- dad en las Pymes agroexportadoras en el país. Revis- ta Muro de la Investigación, 1(2), 69-80. González-Campo, C. H., & Ayala, A. H. (2014). Influencia de la capacidad de absorción sobre la innovación: Un análisis empírico en las mipymes colombianas. Estu- dios Gerenciales, 30(132), 277-286. 15 U. Mendez-Vega, G. Muñiz-Umana, J. A. Flecha-Ortiz, & M. Santos-Corrada Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 3 (2021) / 01-18 Hair, J., Hult, H., Ringle., C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.) SAGE Publications. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2018). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. SAGE Publications. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 405-431. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in interna- tional marketing. Advances in International Market- ing, 20(1), 277-319. Hernández, A. D., Uribe, E. G. G., & Barrera, M. A. O. (2018). Estrategias de marketing y ventajas compet- itivas en las pymes mueblera. Red Internacional de Investigadores en Competitividad, 10(1), 238-253. Hsieh, Y. H., & Chou, Y. H. (2018). Modeling the impact of service innovation for small and medium enterprises: A system dynamics approach. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 82, 84-102. Huh, J., Delorme, D. E., & Reid, L. N. (2006). Perceived third‐person effects and consumer attitudes on pre- vetting and banning DTC advertising. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 40(1), 90-116. Igartua, J. I., & Markuerkiaga, L. (2018). Application of innovation management techniques in SMEs: A pro- cess based method. In E. Viles, M. Ormazábal, & A. Lleó (Eds.), Closing the gap between practice and research in industrial engineering (pp. 67-74). Springer International Publishing. Jankowska, B., Götz, M., & Główka, C. (2017). Intra-clus- ter cooperation enhancing SMEs’ competitiveness - the role of cluster organisations in Poland. Investiga- ciones Regionales, (39), 195-214. Kasim, A., Ekinci, Y., Altinay, L., & Hussein, K. (2018). Impact of market orientation, organizational learn- ing and market conditions on small and medium-size hospitality enterprises. Journal of Hospitality Mar- keting & Management, 27(7), 855-875. doi.org/10.1 080/19368623.2018.1438955 Kato, M., Okamuro, H., & Honjo, Y. (2015). Does founders’ human capital matter for innovation? Evidence from Japanese start‐ups. Journal of Small Business Man- agement, 53(1), 114-128. Kim, N., & Shim, C. (2018). Social capital, knowledge sharing and innovation of small-and medium-sized enterprises in a tourism cluster. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(6), 2417-2437. Knight, K. (1967). A descriptive model of the intra-firm in- novation process. Journal of Business, 40(4), 478– 496. Lederman, D., Messina, J., Pienknagura, S. & Rigolini, J. (2014). El emprendimiento en América Latina: mu- chas empresas y poca innovación. Banco Mundial. DOI:10.1596/978-1-4648-0284-3 Li, D., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Chen, X., & Cao, C. (2018). Impact of quality management on green innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 462-470. Li, X., Liu, X., & Thomas, H. (2013). Market orientation, embeddedness and the autonomy and performance of multinational subsidiaries in an emerging economy. Management International Review, 53(6), 869-897. Lin, Y., & Wu, L. Y. (2014). Exploring the role of dynam- ic capabilities in firm performance under the re- source-based view framework. Journal of Business Research, 67(3), 407-413. Loggiodice, Z. (2012). La gestión del conocimiento como ventaja competitiva para las agencias de viajes y turismo. Fundación Universitaria Andaluza Inca Gar- cilaso. Lonial, S. C., & Carter, R. E. (2015). The impact of organi- zational orientations on medium and small firm per- formance: A resource‐based perspective. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 94-113. López, S. A., & Contreras, S. R. (2009). Desarrollo de la pequeña y mediana empresa: Implicaciones de la ori- entación emprendedora. Revista Internacional Ad- ministración y Finanzas, 2(1), 1-18. López-Nicolás, C, & Meroño-Cerdán, A. (2011). Strate- gic knowledge management, innovation and perfor- mance. International Journal of Information Man- agement, 31(6), 502-509. Luque, T. (2000). Técnicas de Análisis de Datos en Investi- gaciones de Mercado. Editorial Pirámide. Magdaleno, J. A. R., Enríquez, L. A., & Adame, M. G. (2015). La influencia de la innovación y la infor- mación financiera en la competitividad de la pequeña y mediana empresa manufacturera. Revista Interna- cional, 8(2) 105-119. Malhotra, N. K., & Dash, S. (2016). Marketing research: An applied orientation. Pearson. Marenzana, G. V., & Abraham, C. A. (2016). Compara- ción de la gestión del capital humano, entre pymes y grandes empresas hoteleras de la ciudad de Neuquén. Realidad, Tendencias y Desafíos en Turismo (CON- DET), 14(1), 64-72. https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_ebooks_1?ie=UTF8&field-author=Elisabeth+Viles&text=Elisabeth+Viles&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=digital-text https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_ebooks_2?ie=UTF8&field-author=Marta+Ormaz%C3%A1bal&text=Marta+Ormaz%C3%A1bal&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=digital-text https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_ebooks_3?ie=UTF8&field-author=Alvaro+Lle%C3%B3&text=Alvaro+Lle%C3%B3&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=digital-text https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2018.1438955 https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2018.1438955 16 U. Mendez-Vega, G. Muñiz-Umana, J. A. Flecha-Ortiz, & M. Santos-Corrada Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 3 (2021) / 01-18 Martínez, J. E. V., & Serna, M. D. C. M. (2017). El mar- keting interno y la orientación al aprendizaje cómo antecedentes a la innovación en las pequeñas y me- dianas empresas en Aguascalientes/The internal mar- keting and orientation to learning as background to the innovation in small and medium-sized enterpris- es in Aguascalientes. RICEA Revista Iberoamericana de Contaduría, Economía y Administración, 6(11), 1-24. Martínez-Román, J. A., Tamayo, J. A., Gamero, J., & Romero, J. E. (2015). Innovativeness and business performances in tourism SMEs. Annals of Tourism Research, 54, 118-135. Martins, I., Uribe, F., & Mesa, D. (2012). Contribución de la orientación emprendedora a la rentabilidad de las pymes: un análisis contingente considerando la función del entorno. Ecos de Economía, 16(35), 45- 71. Marulanda, C., López, M., & López, F. (2016). La cultu- ra organizacional y las competencias para la gestión del conocimiento en las pequeñas y medianas empre- sas (PYMEs) de Colombia. Información Tecnológi- ca, 27(6), 03-10. Matsuno, K., Zhu, Z., & Rice, M. P. (2014). Innovation pro- cess and outcomes for large Japanese firms: Roles of entrepreneurial proclivity and customer equity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(5), 1106-1124. Matthews, L. (2017). Applying multigroup analysis in PLS-SEM: A step-by-step process. In H. Latan & R. Noonan (Eds.), Partial least squares path modeling (pp. 219-243). Springer International Publishing. Mejía-Giraldo., A., Mendieta-Cardona, C. P., & Bravo-Cas- tillo, M. (2015). Estrategias de innovación y capital social en las pequeñas y medianas empresas. Inge- niería Industrial, 36(3), 286-296. Miller, D., & Breton‐Miller, L. (2017). Sources of entrepre- neurial courage and imagination: Three perspectives, three contexts. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac- tice, 41(5), 667-675. Montoya, A., & Montoya, I., & Castellanos, O. (2010). Situ- ación de la competitividad de las Pyme en Colombia: Elementos actuales y retos. Agronomía Colombiana, 28(1), 107-117. Mora-Riapira, E. H., Vera-Colina, M. A., & Melgarejo-Mo- lina, Z. A. (2015). Planificación estratégica y niveles de competitividad de las Mipymes del sector comer- cio en Bogotá. Estudios Gerenciales, 31(134), 79-87. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). Mc- Graw-Hill. Ortega, J. A. A., Blanco, J. L. Y., & Cangahuala, G. (2016). El capital social y la planificación adaptativa en una comunidad industrial innovadora del Perú. Estudios Gerenciales, 32(139), 162-169. Otero, P., Luis, J., Ramos Ruiz, J. L., Barcasnegras, A., An- tonio, A., & Ramirez Arbelaez, N. (2018). Impacto de la innovación sobre la conducta exportadora en el sector de alimentos y bebidas de Colombia. Revista de Análisis Económico, 33(1), 89-120. Paradkar, A., Knight, J., & Hansen, P. (2015). Innovation in start-ups: Ideas filling the void or ideas devoid of re- sources and capabilities? Technovation, 41-42, 1-10. Parody-Mindiola, K. D., Jiménez-Cepeda, L. M. & Mon- tero-Pulgarín, J. F. (2016). Análisis de los factores internos de competitividad: caso de las empresas lác- teas del César, Colombia. Revista Ciencias Estratégi- cas, 24(35), 199-210. Pérez, E. O., Márquez, L. M. P. T., & Sánchez, L. C. (2018). Factores que impactan en la competitividad de la micro y pequeña empresa: Municipio de Huejotzin- go, Puebla. Red Internacional de Investigadores en Competitividad, 10(1), 1036-1049. Pike, S., Roos, G., & Marr, B. (2005). Strategic manage- ment of intangible assets and value drivers in R&D organizations. R&D Management, 35(2), 111-124. Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22-40. Pulka, B. M., Ramli, A. B., & Bakar, M. S. (2018). Mar- keting capabilities, resources acquisition capabilities, risk management capabilities, opportunity recogni- tion capabilities and SMEs performance: A proposed framework. Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Stud- ies, 6(1), 12-22. Ramos Ruiz, J. L., Polo Otero, J. L., Arrieta Barcasnegras, A. A., & Vélez Durán, L. F. (2018). Determinantes del grado de apertura de las pymes agroindustriales: una aplicación para el departamento del Atlántico. Revista Desarrollo y Sociedad, (80), 189-229. Ravichandran, T., Lertwongsatien, C., & Lertwongsatien, C. (2005). Effect of information systems resources and capabilities on firm performance: A resource-based perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(4), 237-276. Reynoso, C. F., Valenzuela, K. E. F., & Campos, L. M. C. (2017). La teoría de recursos y capacidades: un análi- sis bibliométrico. Nova Scientia, 9(19), 411-440. Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. (2012). Editor’s com- ments: A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in “MIS Quarterly.” MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 3-18. Rocca Espinoza, E., García Pérez de Lema, D., & Durén- 17 U. Mendez-Vega, G. Muñiz-Umana, J. A. Flecha-Ortiz, & M. Santos-Corrada Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 3 (2021) / 01-18 dez Gómez-Guillamón, A. (2016). Factores determi- nantes del éxito competitivo en la Mipyme: Un estu- dio empírico en empresas peruanas. Contabilidad y Negocios, 11(22), 52-68. Rogo, H. B., Shariff, M. N. M., & Hafeez, M. H. (2017). Moderating effect of access to finance on the rela- tionship between total quality management, mar- ket orientation and SMEs performance: A proposed framework. International Review of Management and Marketing, 7(1), 119-127. Saavedra García, M. L. (2012). Una propuesta para la de- terminación de la competitividad en la Pyme latino- americana. Pensamiento & Gestión, 33, 93-124. Sahut, J. M., & Peris-Ortiz, M. (2014). Small business, in- novation, and entrepreneurship. Small Business Eco- nomics, 42(4), 663-668. Santos, M. L., Vázquez, R., & Álvarez, L. I. (2000). Orient- ación al mercado en la estrategia de innovación: su efecto en las empresas industriales. Economía Indus- trial, 334, 93-106. Sarstedt, M., Henseler, J., & Ringle, C. M. (2011). Mul- tigroup analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling: Alternative methods and empirical results. In M. Sarstedt, M. Schwaiger & C. R. Taylor (Eds.), Measurement and research methods in international marketing (pp. 195-218). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Schumpeter, J. (2000). Entrepreneurship as innovation. In R. Swedberg (Ed.), Entrepreneurship: The social sci- ence view, (pp. 51-75). Oxford University Press. Schwab, K. (2019). The Global Competitiveness Report 2019. World Economic Forum. www3.weforum.org/ docs/WEF_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2019. pdf. Silva, E. E. J., Cerda, L. A. L., & Altamirano, J. F. L. (2017). La gestión del conocimiento organizacional basado en las perspectivas del balanced scorecard como fac- tor clave para la innovación de las PYMES. Revista Publicando, 4(12 (2)), 640-657. Sok, P., Snell, L., Lee, W. J., & Sok, K. M. (2017). Link- ing entrepreneurial orientation and small service firm performance through marketing resources and marketing capability: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 27(1), 231- 249. Solano Acosta, A., Herrero Crespo, A., & Collado Agudo, J. (2017). Efecto de la orientación al mercado, la ca- pacidad de redes y la orientación emprendedora en el desempeño internacional de las PYMEs. XXIX Con- greso de Marketing AEMARK 2017. https://idus. us.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11441/78099/Efecto_ de_la_orientacion_al_mercado_la_capacidad_de_re- des.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Subramaniam, M. & Youndt, M.A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative ca- pabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450-463. Tabares-Arroyave, S. (2012). Internacionalización de la pyme latinoamericana: referente para el éxito empre- sarial en Colombia. Revista Ciencias Estratégicas, 20(27), 119-132. Valdez, L., Ramos, E., Maldonado, G. (2017). El cono- cimiento en la pyme, factor clave para la innovación y la rentabilidad. European Scientific Journal, 13(15), 1-21. Valero-Pastor, J. M., & González-Alba, J. A. (2018). Las startups periodísticas como ejemplos de inno- vación en el mercado mediático español. Estudio de casos. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, (73), 556-582. Vargas-Hernández, J. G., & Lerma, V. Y. V. (2018). Impac- to de business performance y TQM en las pymes de México. Revista de Gestión Empresarial y Sustent- abilidad, 3(1), 23-42. Venegas, I. C. A. (2008). La cultura y el proceso de glo- balización en el desarrollo de las pequeñas y medi- anas empresas latinoamericanas. Revista de Ciencias Económicas, 26(1), 381-395. Villegas, L. I. L., Aguirre, L. J., & Martínez, J. P. (2018). Impacto generado por la implementación de los sistemas de gestión de calidad en el recurso humano, CELEMA SA. Red Internacional de Investigadores en Competitividad, 8(1), 548-567. Vorhies, D. W., & Morgan, N. A. (2005). Benchmarking marketing capabilities for sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 80-94. Warnier, V., Weppe, X., & Lecocq, X. (2013). Extending re- source-based theory: considering strategic, ordinary and junk resources. Management Decision, 51(7), 1359-1379. Xu, Y. (2011). How important are entrepreneurial social capital and knowledge structure in new venture inno- vation? Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 12(5), 11-24. Yang, J. S. (2017). The governance environment and inno- vative SMEs. Small Business Economics, 48(3), 525- 541. Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship performance rela- tionship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1), 43-58. Zhai, Y. M., Sun, W. Q., Tsai, S. B., Wang, Z., Zhao, Y., https://idus.us.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11441/78099/Efecto_de_la_orientacion_al_mercado_la_capacidad_de_redes.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://idus.us.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11441/78099/Efecto_de_la_orientacion_al_mercado_la_capacidad_de_redes.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://idus.us.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11441/78099/Efecto_de_la_orientacion_al_mercado_la_capacidad_de_redes.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://idus.us.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11441/78099/Efecto_de_la_orientacion_al_mercado_la_capacidad_de_redes.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 18 U. Mendez-Vega, G. Muñiz-Umana, J. A. Flecha-Ortiz, & M. Santos-Corrada Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 3 (2021) / 01-18 & Chen, Q. (2018). An empirical study on entrepre- neurial orientation, absorptive capacity, and SMEs’ innovation performance: A sustainable perspective. Sustainability, 10(2), 314. Zontek, Z. (2016). the role of human resources in enhancing innovation in tourism enterprises. Managing Global Transitions: International Research Journal, 14(1), 55-73