Do entrepreneurial and digital orientations impact e-marketing adoption? The COVID-19 pandemic context1

Witek-Hajduk, Marzanna K.; Grudecka, Anna

doi:10.2478/ijme-2024-0016

Figures & Tables

Conceptual model and research hypotheses.
Source: Own elaboration. DLO, digital learning orientation; DSO, digital strategic vision orientation; EMAD, e-marketing adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic-distribution; EMAP, e-marketing adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic promotion; EMI, e-marketing implementation; EOI, entrepreneurial orientation innovativeness; EOP, entrepreneurial orientation proactiveness; EOR, entrepreneurial orientation risk-taking. — Conceptual model and research hypotheses. Source: Own elaboration. DLO, digital learning orientation; DSO, digital strategic vision orientation; EMAD, e-marketing adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic-distribution; EMAP, e-marketing adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic promotion; EMI, e-marketing implementation; EOI, entrepreneurial orientation innovativeness; EOP, entrepreneurial orientation proactiveness; EOR, entrepreneurial orientation risk-taking.

Estimated structural equation model.
Source: Own elaboration based on SmartPLS. DLO, digital learning orientation; DSO, digital strategic vision orientation; EMAD, e-marketing adoption during COVID-19 pandemic-distribution; EMAP, e-marketing adoption during COVID-19 pandemic promotion; EMI, e-marketing implementation; EOI, entrepreneurial orientation innovativeness; EOP, entrepreneurial orientation proactiveness; EOR, entrepreneurial orientation risk-taking. — Estimated structural equation model. Source: Own elaboration based on SmartPLS. DLO, digital learning orientation; DSO, digital strategic vision orientation; EMAD, e-marketing adoption during COVID-19 pandemic-distribution; EMAP, e-marketing adoption during COVID-19 pandemic promotion; EMI, e-marketing implementation; EOI, entrepreneurial orientation innovativeness; EOP, entrepreneurial orientation proactiveness; EOR, entrepreneurial orientation risk-taking.

Fornell-Lacker discriminant validity

	DLO	DSO	EMAD	EMAP	EMI	EOI	EOP	EOR
DLO	0.876
DSO	0.191	0.850
EMAD	0.317	0.560	0.808
EMAP	0.330	0.633	0.797	0.903
EMI	0.357	0.535	0.409	0.507	0.729
EOI	0.288	0.754	0.611	0.733	0.608	0.765
EOP	0.277	0.526	0.558	0.714	0.500	0.736	0.768
EOR	0.618	0.198	0.260	0.323	0.693	0.427	0.399	0.817

Path coefficients and significance of relationships between constructs (total and indirect effects) for all the studied companies

Hypothesis	Regression paths	Path coefficients		T-statistics		p values
Hypothesis	Regression paths	Indirect effects	Total effect	Indirect effects	Total effect	Indirect effects	Total effect
H1a	DLO ->EMI		−0.153		2.725		0.006**
H1b	DSO ->EMI		0.365		5.502	0.162	0.000***
H2a	DLO ->EMAP	−0.017	0.161	1.416	3.144	0.157	0.002**
H2b	DSO ->EMAP	0.043	0.195	1.463	2.729	0.144	0.006**
H3a	DLO ->EMAD	−0.009	0.206	0.662	3.160	0.508	0.002***
H3b	DSO ->EMAD	0.0260	0.224	0.641	2.226	0.552	0.026**
H4a	EOP ->EMI		0.038		0.553		0.580
H4b	EOI ->EMI		0.065		0.675		0.500
H4c	EOR ->EMI		0.670		7.736		0.000***
H5a	EOP ->EMAP	0.005	0.387	0.427	5.594	0.670	0.000***
H5b	EOI ->EMAP	0.008	0.294	0.500	3.186	0.617	0.001**
H5c	EOR ->EMAP	0.077	−0.094	1.610	1.832	0.108	0.067*
H6a	EOP ->EMAD	0.004	0.247	0.260	2.581	0.795	0.010**
H6b	EOI ->EMAD	0.006	0.243	0.286	2.194	0.775	0.028**
H6c	EOR ->EMAD	0.043	−0.116	0.691	1.735	0.489	0.083*
H7a	EMI ->EMAP		0.118		1.551		0.121
H7b	EMI ->EMAD		0.069		0.667		0.505

Surveyed companies’ structure

		No. of indications (N = 241)/Percentage
Industry	Fashion	74/30.56%
	Cosmetics	89/36.97%
	Consumer electronics/household appliances	78/32.47%
Manufacturer vs. trade intermediary	Manufacturer	141/58.50%
	Trade intermediary	100/41.50%
Company size (no. of employees)	50–249	155/64.31%
	250–999	84/34.85%
	?1000	2/0.84%

Likert scales used to measure reflective constructs, their sources, and factor loadings reliabilities

Likert scale statements (1–strongly disagree, 7–strongly agree)	Factor loadings	Sources
DLO
(AVE = 0.768; item reliabilities = 0.929)
We offer different trainings to improve the digital expertise of our team members.	0.925	Proksch et al. [2021]
Digital skills are an important selection criterion in recruiting new team members.	0.780
Our team has the necessary skills to further digitalize our company.	0.957
New digital technology is readily accepted in our organization.	0.831	Khin and Ho [2019]
DSO
(AVE = 0.722; item reliabilities = 0.948)
Our business has a clear vision of how to stay competitive in the next years with respect to the digital strategy.	0.786	Niemand et al. [2017]
Our business has a clearly defined digital strategy.	0.838
Our digital strategy is implemented in all business units.	0.884
Our digital strategy is evaluated and adapted steadily.	0.875
We use sophisticated digital technologies in new product development.	0.904	Chen et al. [2014]
Our firm purchases and uses digital technologies to position itself ahead of competitors.	0.870
We always look out for opportunities to use digital technology in our innovation.	0.783	Khin and Ho [2019]
EOP
(AVE = 0.590; item reliabilities = 0.851)
We consistently look for new business opportunities.	0.843	Eggers et al. [2013]
We continuously try to discover additional needs of our customers of which they are unaware.	0.720
We incorporate solutions to unarticulated customer needs in our products and services.	0.689
We work to find new businesses or markets to target.	0.811
EOI
(AVE = 0.586; item reliabilities = 0.846)
We highly value new product lines.	0.717	Eggers et al. [2013]
When solving problems, we value creative new solutions more than solutions that rely on conventional wisdom.	0.561
We consider ourselves as an innovative company.	0.883
Our business is often the first to market with new products and services.	0.857
EOR
(AVE = 0.667; item reliabilities = 0.855)
We encourage people in our company to take risks with new ideas.	0.887	Eggers et al. [2013]
We value new strategies/plans even if we are not certain that they will always work.	0.891
We engage in risky investments (e.g., new employees, facilities, debt, stock options) to stimulate future growth.	0.648
EMI
(AVE = 0.531; item reliabilities = 0.846)
There are set clear priorities for our e-marketing projects.	0.527	Trainor et al. [2011]
The latest e-marketing technologies (e.g. Web applications) are installed in our organization.	0.617	Shaltoni et al. [2018]
In our organization, there is adequate technical support for e-marketing implementation.	0.803
In our organization, the implementation of e-marketing is done by employees who have e-marketing knowledge.	0.860
The activities of the different departments which are responsible for e-marketing implementation are well coordinated.	0.784
EMAP
(AVE = 0.815; item reliabilities = 0.946)
At our company, we make full use of various social networks for marketing communication with consumers.	0.960	Witek-Hajduk and Zaborek [2016]
We use social media to engage consumers in the brand community.	0.881	Koumproglou [2016]
Our firms allow customers to locate and send information electronically to appropriate contacts within the firm.	0.935	Jaganaham et al. [2018]
We use e-marketing resources to gather market related information on customers, competitors, and industry.	0.830	Colombo and Yasin [2004]
EMAD
(AVE = 0.654; item reliabilities = 0.904)
We use e-marketing resources to enable customers on-line access to product/price/performance information.	0.832	Aziz and Yasin [2004]
Our firm provides after sales service to our customers via online information.	0.781	Jaganaham et al. [2018]
A significant share of online sales of our company’s products is via online intermediaries (e.g., Notino.pl, Zalando.pl) or multi-sided digital platforms (e.g., Amazon, Allegro)	0.780	Own elaboration
A significant share of online sales of our company’s products is via social commerce (e.g., Facebook)	0.821
We use e-marketing resources to provide on-line support to distributors/ dealers.	0.827	Aziz and Yasin [2004]

Do entrepreneurial and digital orientations impact e-marketing adoption? The COVID-19 pandemic context1

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Fornell-Lacker discriminant validity

Path coefficients and significance of relationships between constructs (total and indirect effects) for all the studied companies

Surveyed companies’ structure

Likert scales used to measure reflective constructs, their sources, and factor loadings reliabilities

Paradigm

My account