長崎県立大学国際交流研究センター『東アジア評論』
第 16 号（2024.3）〈研究論文〉

Good Strategy, Good Entrepreneurship? Examining Whenand How Digital Business Strategy Drives Firm Strategic
Entrepreneurship
Wenhai Wan1
Taoyan Yang1*
Longjun Liu2
Xiayi Liu1
E-mail : Taoyan Yang: yangtaoyan@stu.hqu.edu.cn
			 Wenhai Wan: wwhwnwl@hqu.edu.cn
			 Longjun Liu: Liu_Longjun@yeah.net
			 Xiayi Liu: 1316136914@qq.com
Research funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant number 72272057).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author (YT), upon reasonable request.

1
2

School of Business Administration, Huaqiao University, Quanzhou, Fujian, China
School of Business, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China− 25 −

長崎県立大学国際交流研究センター『東アジア評論』
第 16 号（2024.3）

Abstract
Theory and practice suggest that digital business strategy may help enterprises to seek opportunities incompetition. However, there is little knowledge about how and when digital business strategy works in driving
strategic entrepreneurship. In order to address this issue, we used dynamic capability theory to discuss how digital business strategy can facilitate strategic entrepreneurship through the mediating role of absorptive capacity
while also exploring the moderating role of market turbulence and technology turbulence in the relationshipbetween digital business strategy and absorptive capacity. We test the hypotheses by conducting a survey study
which use longitudinal date collected from 290 firms in China with digital features. Findings suggest that digitalbusiness strategy promotes the entrepreneurial orientation, accessing relational resources and relational embeddedness in firms, which is achieved mainly through enhanced absorptive capacity. Furthermore, market
turbulence strengthens the relationship between digital business strategy and absorptive capacity, whereas technological turbulence plays an inverted U-shaped moderating role. The study contributes valuable theory andmanagement insights concerning digital platform capabilities and strategic entrepreneurship.
Keywords Digital business strategy; Absorptive capacity; Strategic entrepreneurship; Environmental turbulence;
Dynamic capabilities− 26 −

Good Strategy, Good Entrepreneurship? Examining When and How Digital Business Strategy Drives Firm Strategic Entrepreneurship

Introduction

nal staff, which reduces its staff turnover, cuts down
cooperation expenses, and then stimulates the inter-In the face of global competition and uncertain

nal innovation vitality. The literature believes thatenvironments, including the impact of the crisis,

strategic entrepreneurship enables organizations to

how to seek opportunities and competitive advan-

keep a balance between seeking opportunities andtages has become an important goal of organizations

seeking interests and has a positive impact on orga-(McGrath & MacMillan, 2000). In an uncertain

nizational performance (Shirokova et al., 2013).

environment, firms should not only seek competitive

Based on the positive influence of strategic entrepre-

advantages in existing business areas but also iden-

neurship on organizations, how to promote andtify and make use of new opportunities. In this study,

implement strategic entrepreneurship needs further

we focus on strategic entrepreneurship as it is closely

discussion.

related to how firms can gain competitive advan-

Presently, the most valuable listed companies

tages in uncertain environments (Ireland et al.,globally are all built on digitization (Li, 2022).

2003). Strategic entrepreneurship refers to identify-

Therefore, in response to environmental turbulence,

ing, capturing, and developing new opportunities inmany firms implement digital business strategy. Dig-the market to pursue competitive advantages andital business strategy refers to a series of strategic

strategic objectives (Hitt et al., 2001; Ireland et al.,plans and actions that firms utilize digital technology

2003; Wickham, 2006). In pursuit of competitiveand digitized means to achieve business goals,

advantages, firms actively seek new entrepreneurial

enhance competitiveness, and create value (Mithas

opportunities in the external environment and inte-

et al., 2013). The literature found the potential value

grate existing resources through internal and exter-of digital business strategy to firms (Hinings et al.,nal entrepreneurial actions to develop and utilize

2018; Jun et al., 2022). For example, digital businessthese opportunities, thereby creating new values andstrategy drives entrepreneurs’ opportunity identifica-competitive advantages (Hughes et al., 2021). Stra-tion and development (Swartz et al., 2022). It also

tegic entrepreneurial actions through the continuous

helps firms improve operational efficiency andpromotion of finding opportunities and utilizing

access to external resources (Li & Chan, 2019) andadvantages are extensive. For example, the Ant

realize efficient value co-creation (Blaschke et al.,Financial Services Group has developed from the2018) and even firm innovation and performance

initial subsidiary business of Alibaba into a compre-(Mithas et al., 2013). These studies revealed thehensive financial platform covering financial man-importance of digital business strategy for opportu-

agement, insurance, credit, and other services. This

nity seeking, value co-creation, and innovation,

event is the embodiment of strategic entrepreneur-

which all seem to be closely related to strategic

ship driving firm development. Huawei keeps theentrepreneurship. The reason is that the underlying

continuous innovation vitality through the strategic

logic of these studies indicates that firms can build

entrepreneurial behavior of intrapreneurship: it dis-

digital business strategy to get closer to opportuni-

tributes dividends and equity to the company’s inter-ties, relationship networks, and resources (de Reuver− 27 −

長崎県立大学国際交流研究センター『東アジア評論』
第 16 号（2024.3）

et al., 2018; Sutherland & Jarrahi, 2018). Unfortu-

conducted an in-depth discussion on these potential

nately, we have not seen the key evidence linking

insights. Therefore, we follow the research theme 1

digital business strategy with strategic entrepreneur-

proposed by Nambisan (2017).

ship (Nambisan, 2017; Srinivasan & Venkatraman,

Although digital business strategy has advan-2018), which makes the potential significance oftages in deploying information technology resources

digital business strategy in strategic entrepreneur-(Mithas et al., 2013; Mikalef & Pateli, 2017), if

ship neglected. To better seek opportunities andfirms cannot digest, absorb, and transform theseadvantages, firms need to have a good digital busi-

resources, then benefiting from digital business strat-

ness strategy to change their internal resources andegy to promote strategic entrepreneurship seems dif-

capabilities (Mithas et al., 2013). On the one hand,ficult. The literature showed that although firms’

market risks restrict firms’ ability to seek businesscompetitive advantages are derived from acquired

opportunities, so they need to use digital strategies toknowledge and resources, visible results (e.g., per-deepen their identification of strategic information

formance) also depend on absorptive capacityand entrepreneurial resources in the entrepreneurial(Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Zahra & George, 2002).

ecosystem. On the other hand, market competition

Absorptive capacity refers to the ability of firms tothreatens the existing competitive advantage ofidentify, acquire, process, and apply external knowl-firms, so they need to use digital strategies to cooper-edge (e.g., external new technological information)

ate with stakeholders to seek new resources and cre-(Todorova & Durisin, 2007). If firms have a betterate value. Considering the lack of theoretical insightabsorptive capacity, they are more likely to identify

into the functionality of digital business strategy in

key resources and opportunities in uncertain envi-

strategic entrepreneurship, we will take a step for-ronments (Schweisfurth & Raasch, 2018; Zahra &ward in the literature on digital business strategy andGeorge, 2002). The current literature has not identi-

strategic entrepreneurship. More importantly, we

fied the value of absorptive capacity in connecting

follow a research agenda from the literature (Nam-digital business strategy and strategic entrepreneur-bisan, 2017). The existing literature largely ignored

ship (Hughes et al., 2014; Kohtamäki et al., 2020).

the role of digital technology in entrepreneurship, as

Therefore, we focus on absorptive capacity as a key

they mainly focused on entrepreneurship in a tech-intermediary mechanism. Furthermore, the literature

nology-intensive environment (including digitalsuggested that the performance of firms’ absorptive

technology). That is, technology is only regarded as

capacity is also affected by the dynamic environ-the background of empirical work (Bingham &ment (VandenBosch et al., 1999), which is mainly

Haleblian, 2012). Concerning the typical character-reflected in market turbulence and technological tur-

istics of digital strategies (e.g., openness and interac-bulence. Under high market turbulence, the influx oftivity), these are helpful to the potential generation

new customers and the rapid change in demand willof entrepreneurship and the dynamic emergence andincrease the information load and information update

evolution of entrepreneurial opportunities (Nam-speed on the platform. In this case, identifying andbisan, 2017, p. 11). However, at present, we have notabsorbing information on digital business strategy− 28 −

Good Strategy, Good Entrepreneurship? Examining When and How Digital Business Strategy Drives Firm Strategic Entrepreneurshipmay become difficult for firms. Under high techno-

proven (Hughes et al., 2014; Kohtamäki et al., 2020).

logical turbulence, the rapid technological change in

Therefore, our efforts can provide new insights into

the industry creates new market opportunities (Chenthe relationship between digital business strategy and& Wu, 2011) but increases the cost of firms to build

strategic entrepreneurship. Third, we consider thedigital business strategy (Slater & Narver, 1994).

effects of digital business strategy in uncertain envi-

Therefore, the relationship between digital businessronments. The literature on dynamic capability theory

strategy and absorptive capacity needs to be consid-

called for us to examine the effectiveness of firms’

ered in the context of market turbulence and techno-capabilities (e.g., digital business strategy) in specificlogical turbulence. Given that discussing the func-

environments. Thus, our response to the literaturetionality of dynamic capabilities (digital businesspromotes the development of dynamic capability the-strategy and absorptive capacity) in uncertain envi-

ory (Barreto, 2010; Wang & Ahmed, 2007). Finally,ronments has always been unknown and ongoing,

our efforts can inspire firms to effectively identify andwe continue to discuss these key issues.

absorb external resources and opportunities in uncer-

This study is expected to make the following
theoretical and practical implications. First, we dis-tain environments, which can help them better carryout strategic entrepreneurship in practice.

cuss the specific relationship between digital businessstrategy and strategic entrepreneurship. Althoughprevious literature suggested that digital strategy canTheory framework

bring a range of benefits to entrepreneurship, it does
not propose the value of some specific strategies in

Mithas et al. (2013) believed that digital busi-

promoting strategic entrepreneurship (Nambisan,ness strategy represents the ability to deploy informa-

2017; Srinivasan & Venkatraman, 2018). In addition,

tion and communication technology-based resources

little attention is paid to the special field of strategic

and combine them with other internal and external

entrepreneurshipofresources. As digital business strategy is becoming a

incumbent firms) in the digital era. Thus, our efforts

new source of competitive advantages in the digitalcan advance the literature on digital entrepreneurship

economy (Rai & Tang, 2010), its role has been con-(digital business strategy and strategic entrepreneur-firmed in several ways. In terms of firm performance,ship). Second, we propose an intermediary mecha-

digital business strategy can have a positive and indi-

nism (absorptive capacity) that has not been discussed

rect impact on the performance of small and medi-in the literature to link digital business strategy withum-sized enterprises through network capability

strategic entrepreneurship. The existing literature(Mithas et al., 2013). In addition, digital businessmainly explored the possible influence mechanism ofstrategy can improve the innovation performance ofdigitization on entrepreneurship through some casesorganizations through organizational readiness (Junand qualitative research. However, the role of absorp-

et al., 2022). In terms of innovation, digital orienta-

tive capacity (a specific mechanism) between digitaltion and digital capability have a positive impact on

business strategy and strategic entrepreneurship is notdigital innovation (Khin & Ho, 2020). Digital capa-(entrepreneurial

behaviors− 29 −

長崎県立大学国際交流研究センター『東アジア評論』
第 16 号（2024.3）

bility also has a significant impact on the sustainable

and they need to think about how to build dynamic

competitive advantage and innovation strategy ofcapabilities (e.g., digital business strategy) in uncer-

firms. In terms of value creation, digital businesstain environments to obtain sustainable competitive

strategy not only influences value creation by adopt-

advantages. However, such questions have not been

ing business model innovation (Karimi & Walter,

answered in the current literature. Notably, as an inte-2021) but also develops new paths of value creation

grated action of strategic and entrepreneurial behav-

by maintaining a healthy IT infrastructure portfolio toiors taken by organizations in response to uncertain

keep smooth connections with dynamic businessenvironments, strategic entrepreneurship can moti-

environments (Li & Chan, 2019). In terms of strategic

vate firms to obtain competitive advantages in thedevelopment, the wider the range of adopting newmarket (Ziyae & Sadeghi, 2021). In summary, linking

technologies, the greater the strategic changes (Van-digital business strategy, absorptive capacity, andZeebroeck et al., 2023). In addition, the visualized

strategic entrepreneurship seems beneficial to break-firm digital twin system provides better practices foring through the limitations of the current literature.

strategic management decisions in the changing busi-

Dynamic capabilities are the abilities to inte-

ness world (Yan et al., 2022).

grate, build, and reconstruct the internal and external

On the whole, research on digital business strat-

capabilities of firms to cope with the rapidly changing

egy is abundant, but some limitations exist. First, theexternal environment (Teece et al., 1997). The rela-research results of digital business strategy are mostly

tionship between dynamic capabilities and the com-confined to broad topics, such as firm performance,

petitive advantages of firms has been widely valued

innovation, value creation, or strategic development.

by scholars (Helfat & Peteraf, 2003; Sirmon et al.,However, discussion on some specific strategic2007). Strategic entrepreneurship is characterized bybehaviors of firms (e.g., strategic entrepreneurship) is

seeking opportunities and seeking advantages simul-

limited. Second, new theoretical perspectives are nottaneously, which can be divided into three dimen-

provided, and the mechanisms of digital businesssions: entrepreneurial orientation, accessing rela-strategy on results are ambiguous. The current litera-tional resources, and relational embeddedness

ture on entrepreneurial behaviors and results was(Hughes et al., 2021). Notably, the high uncertainty

mainly based on the resource-based view (Conner,of entrepreneurial situation requires more flexible

1991; Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001)), network perspec-

strategies (Alvarez & Barney, 2007), which accords

tive (Aldrich & Dubini, 1991; Hoang & Antoncic,

with the important connotation of dynamic capabili-2003), institutional perspective (Nee, 1992; Hiatt etties. In essence, digital business strategy are the cen-al., 2018), and others. Therefore, the effectiveness ofters of public knowledge, enabling organizations todigital business strategy on strategic entrepreneurshiprapidly encode, store, and distribute large amounts offrom dynamic capability theory is worth examining.

knowledge based on digital technologies. Moreover,Third, whether digital business strategy will yielddigital business strategy is a trigger for increasing

benefits in uncertain environments is unclear. In thefirms’ vitality (Mithas et al., 2013). It can facilitate

VUCA era, firms are faced with many uncertainties,

internal communication and resource coordination in− 30 −

Good Strategy, Good Entrepreneurship? Examining When and How Digital Business Strategy Drives Firm Strategic Entrepreneurshiporganizations, improve relationship skills, andHypotheses

increase knowledge about partners (Mithas et al.,Digital business strategy and strategic entrepre-

2013; Helfat & Campo-Rembado, 2016). Therefore,

neurshipdigital business strategy can enhance the internal and

Entrepreneurial orientation is considered a stra-external communication capabilities of organizations

tegic decision-making concept and mode with inno-

based on the knowledge provided by digital businessvation, advanced actions, and the courage to take risks

strategy. It can also optimize the absorption and dis-

adopted by firms to enter new business fields (Covintribution of knowledge (Mithas et al., 2013), thereby& Slevin, 1989). Digital business strategy has a sig-enhancing absorption capacity. Essentially, absorp-

nificant advantage in cultivating the entrepreneurial

tive capacity is a specific dynamic capability, andorientation of firms. First, digital business strategy

firms with superior absorptive capacity can better

cultivates firms’ innovation ability. Based on the con-identify opportunities and resources and develop new

struction of open sharing platforms and technology

ones (Zahra & George, 2002). Therefore, dynamic

networks, digital business strategy can effectively

capability theory can explain why digital businessmobilize different technologies to be truly integrated

strategy promotes strategic entrepreneurship byand updated. Therefore, when firms have digital busi-

improving absorptive capacity (Barreto, 2010; Teece

ness strategy, various integrated technologies will

et al., 1997; Wang & Ahmed, 2007). Nevertheless, thedynamically penetrate into the whole process fromincreasingly fierce market competition and the rapid

creative ideas to commercial applications, thereby

updating of technologies make the organizations facecontinuously stimulating the innovation ability of thehigher market and technological turbulence. There-

firms. Second, digital business strategy enables firms

fore, the impact of digital business strategy on absorp-

to take action in advance. The network effect formed

tive capacity and even strategic entrepreneurship may

by digital business strategy effectively integrates andbe affected by environmental turbulence. To sum up,

dynamically matches resources at both ends of supply

based on dynamic capability theory (Teece et al.,and demand. In addition, the openness of the plat-1997), we systematically explore the influence mech-forms and the sharing of big data resources provide

anism of digital business strategy on strategic entre-

many entrepreneurial opportunities (Srinivasan &preneurship, the mediating effect of absorptive capac-

Venkatraman, 2018). Therefore, firms with digital

ity, and the moderating effects of market turbulencebusiness strategy can obtain entrepreneurial resources

and technological turbulence, to expand the relevant

and opportunities more efficiently, thereby adopting

research on digital business strategy and strategic

innovation strategies and establishing competitive

entrepreneurship.

advantages earlier and more quickly than their competitors (Rauch et al., 2009). Third, digital businessstrategy fosters the risk-taking characteristics offirms. Digital business strategy, with their ecosystem
hub status, unique digital technologies, and powerfulabilities of resource integration, provide entrepre− 31 −

長崎県立大学国際交流研究センター『東アジア評論』
第 16 号（2024.3）

neurs with empowerment in technologies, channels,

digital business strategy introduce many new social

brands, and others. This case will help firms take more

relationships and expand the network of relationalrisks and be more open and adventurous in develop-

resources. Several new jobs have been developed

ing new products or introducing new technologies.

owing to the digital business strategy, such as

Thus, these arguments lead to the following hypoth-ride-hailing drivers, food delivery workers, andesis:

livestream salesmen. Firms with digital businessstrategy can take full advantage of these new types

Hypothesis 1a: Digital business strategy promotesof social relationships to acquire and access poten-

the entrepreneurial orientation of a firm.

tial relational resources and then develop theirproducts and services. In summary, these arguments

Entrepreneurial resources are one of the key

lead to the following hypothesis:

elements for the survival and development of entrepreneurial firms (Timmons, 1999). However, mostHypothesis 1b: Digital business strategy promotes

firms will face serious resource constraints in entre-

the accessing relational resources of a firm.

preneurship. In this case, managers can makestrategic choices about relationships by exploiting

Relational embeddedness refers to an informal

relational resources to ease the resource constraints

network formed among firms, suppliers, customers,in their entrepreneurial resource portfolio. Rela-and others. It focuses on the connection of social

tional resources reflect firms’ ability to establish andrelationships, which will affect the degree of knowl-

maintain stable cooperative relationships with theiredge sharing (Andersson et al., 2002). Relational

partners (Wong & Karia, 2010), which is scarce andembeddedness determines the quantity and quality

inimitable. With its unique advantages, digital busi-

of resources in the network and then influences theness strategy provides a feasible way for firms toorganizational behaviors and performance of firms

access relational resources. On the one hand, digital(Granovetter, 2018). Thus, relational embeddedness

business strategy gather and connect many social

seems crucial for strategic entrepreneurship, whereparticipants so that firms can obtain relational

resources play an important role (Hughes et al.,resources by contacting social participants. For2021). Notably, digital business strategy supported

example, through continuous channel expansion,by technologies, such as big data, cloud computing,e-commerce platforms can gather many merchants,

and the Internet of Things, provide good opportuni-

whereas continuous advertising and discount pro-ties for firms’ relational embeddedness. Digitalmotion also attract several consumers. Therefore,business strategy are interdependent systems withbased on the relational resources established by digi-

the characteristics of relational embeddedness

tal business strategy, start-ups can enter e-commerce(Täuscher & Laudien, 2018). They are interwoven

platforms to provide relevant products or services towith institutions, markets, and technologies, thereby

meet the matching between supply and demand andfacilitating firms to build relationships of trust withgain entrepreneurial advantages. On the other hand,

network participants, such as suppliers, customers,− 32 −

Good Strategy, Good Entrepreneurship? Examining When and How Digital Business Strategy Drives Firm Strategic Entrepreneurshipand large digital platform firms. In addition, digitaltional interaction expands the ways firms acquirebusiness strategy have fundamentally changed theknowledge and information, which is conducive tocompetitive relationship between firms and pro-firms’ efficient identification and acquisition of

moted strategic cooperation between competitors toknowledge and information needed for strategicachieve relational embeddedness. Apple, for exam-

entrepreneurship. Of course, the developed informa-ple, competes fiercely with Google on the operatingtion networks have brought considerable valuablesystem but has long used Google as its default

information but also make firms face the problem ofsearch engine. Hence, digital platform-based rela-information overload. Through big data analysis,tional embeddedness among firms replaces thealgorithm optimization, and personalized recom-

traditional zero-sum game and enables firms to inte-

mendation of digital business strategy, firms cangrate and utilize resources in a wider range, thereby

efficiently analyze and integrate the needed data.

constructing ecological competitive advantages

Then, they match, digest, and apply these data

(Alberti-Alhtaybat et al., 2019). Therefore, these

according to their characteristics to accurately pro-arguments lead to the following hypothesis:

vide customers with products and services. For
employees, digital business strategy also lowers the

Hypothesis 1c: Digital business strategy promotes

threshold of learning so that they can access knowl-

the relational embeddedness of a firmedge in various fields, thereby improving their skills.

and traits to absorb more knowledge. Therefore,

Mediating role of absorptive capacity

these arguments lead to the following hypothesis:

The innovation performance of firms depends
not only on the accumulated knowledge but also on

Hypothesis 2a: Digital business strategy promotes

the ability to transform knowledge into actions (Jan-the absorptive capacity of a firm.

tunen, 2005). In addition, the feasible tool of thetransformation is the firms’ absorptive capacity.

Absorptive capacity is a dynamic capability

Absorptive capacity is the ability to identify, acquire,(Wang & Ahmed, 2007). Its positive effects havedigest, and apply external new knowledge. Its

been proved by many studies in the strategic deci-

essence is to apply external information to businesssion-making of firm innovation. When firms have aactivities, promoting firm innovation (Cohen &higher absorptive capacity, they will predict busi-

Levinthal, 1990). In the digital era, digital businessness opportunities more accurately and make morestrategy can effectively enhance firms’ absorptive

active use of them (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990).

capacity with its powerful digital technologies. As a

Absorptive capacity also enables firms to implement

shared space, digital business strategy enables coor-

explorative and exploitative innovation strategies

dination and interactions among firms, businesssimultaneously, thereby influencing the redesign ofpartners, consumers, and others and motivate mem-

existing business models (Müller et al., 2021). As

bers to share knowledge and experience with others.

seen above, the current literature reflected the impor-This kind of cross-departmental and cross-organiza-tance of the absorptive capacity for strategic− 33 −

長崎県立大学国際交流研究センター『東アジア評論』
第 16 号（2024.3）

decision-making in innovation. Therefore, as a deci-

grasp the nature of future technological develop-

sion-making model of innovation strategies (Covinment more accurately (Cohen & Levinthal, 1994).

& Slevin, 1989), entrepreneurial orientation can also

As an important external knowledge, relational

be positively influenced by absorptive capacity. Spe-resources may also be affected by absorptive capac-

cifically, the connotation of absorptive capacity

ity. First, firms with strong absorptive capacity canaffects all three aspects of entrepreneurial orienta-

efficiently learn and digest external knowledge,tion. Among them, the identification and acquisition

thereby establishing a complete knowledge struc-ability in absorptive capacity can help firms acquireture, process, and mechanism. The improvement of

substantial knowledge from the outside to more

knowledge reserve enables firms to access moreaccurately predict market demand and business

unknown channels and business partners, thereby

opportunities, and they can then take proactive

making it easier to access relational resources. Then,

actions. Digestion ability can accelerate firms to

the high knowledge reserve of firms can improve

solve complex problems, reduce the uncertainty of

their creativity, help them manage existing relational

the entrepreneurial process, and thus increase firms’

resources more effectively (Sirmon et al., 2007), andability to take risks to explore new business direc-

create opportunities and approaches to access rela-tions. Application ability is conducive to promoting

tional resources by constructing new relationshipfirms to efficiently integrate existing knowledge andmodels. In addition, as a dynamic capability, absorp-

apply it to actual operations. It helps to avoid thetive capacity can improve the flexibility of firms.

path dependence of firms on existing knowledge andWhen the relationship between the firms and thetruly realizes the transformation from knowledge tooutside changes or goes wrong, firms with a highinnovation. Hence, these arguments lead to the fol-level of absorptive capacity can quickly acquire andlowing hypothesis:

apply the latest solutions. Thus, they can timely
update and improve their access to relational

Hypothesis 2b: Absorptive capacity promotes theresources. These arguments lead to the following

entrepreneurship orientation of a firm.

hypothesis:

A high level of absorptive capacity may
improve the ability of firms to perceive and seize

Hypothesis 2c: Absorptive capacity promotes theaccessing relational resources of a firm.

cooperation opportunities with external networks(Terstriep & Lüthje, 2018). The reason is that it

Relational embeddedness reflects the relation-

increases the compatibility of new knowledge andship of knowledge sharing built by cooperative

enables firms to gain value from the new knowledge.

members based on trust and reciprocity. Notably,

Moreover, as an ability related to learning andabsorptive capacity is a kind of ability to identify,

knowledge, absorptive capacity represents an

acquire, digest, and apply knowledge. Hence, its key

important part of firms’ internal ability. It inspires

significance to knowledge is possibly related to rela-firms to learn the knowledge they do not have andtional embeddedness to some extent. Coincidentally,− 34 −

Good Strategy, Good Entrepreneurship? Examining When and How Digital Business Strategy Drives Firm Strategic Entrepreneurship

Kodama (2008) found that the absorptive capacity

ties (Mithas et al., 2013). However, many kinds ofof firms helps to strengthen the ties between firms

sub-capabilities of dynamic capabilities exist, andand universities, thereby improving the innovation

the specific dynamic capability between digital busi-

performance of scientific and technological coopera-

ness strategy and strategic entrepreneurship should

tions. This finding provides us with a kind of

be further clarified. Notably, some studies showed

speculative evidence that absorptive capacity may

that firms’ innovation performance needs the trans-

promote the relational embeddedness of firms. First,

forming effect of absorptive capacity (Cohen &firms with strong absorptive capacity can bring theLevinthal, 1990; Zahra & George, 2002). Zhao et al.

latest knowledge, technology, and resources to their(2021) found that absorptive capacity plays a com-

partners to help them benefit from each other. They

plete mediating role between internal knowledge

can also obtain necessary resources from their part-sharing and organizational innovation performance.

ners, which is essentially a win–win cooperation.

Considering the positive significance of absorptive

When both sides hope to gain more benefits from

capacity as a knowledge transforming agent on firmeach other, they will increase their mutual economic

innovationand social interactions in frequency, depth, andresources provided by digital business strategy must

breadth, manifested as deeper relational embedded-

also be transformed by absorptive capacity. Thus,

ness. Second, firms with strong absorptive capacity

they are likely to promote strategic entrepreneurshipcan more easily understand the needs of partners andand improve innovation performance.

performance,

numerous

knowledge

efficiently provide corresponding products and ser-

Specifically, first, the effect of digital businessvices. This case is conducive to increasing the trust

strategy in promoting entrepreneurial orientationof partners and their willingness to further coopera-

can only be realized through knowledge absorptiontion. In addition, the stronger the absorptive capacity

and transformation. The reason is that the key toof the firms, the better the effect of applying the newentrepreneurship orientation is to collect, analyze,

knowledge acquired from the relationship networks

and master entrepreneurial information. Second,to the operations management in organizations (Tsai,although digital business strategy provides consider-2001). Gradually, firms’ excellent performance willable knowledge and resources, not all resources canattract more partners to actively establish relational

allow firms to access relational resources. Instead, it

embeddedness with them. Therefore, these argu-

requires firms to screen them to identify and use thements lead to the following hypothesis:

information they need. In addition, the premise of
relational embeddedness is that firms need to collectHypothesis 2d: Absorptive capacity promotes theand analyze the needs of their business partners in

relational embeddedness of a firm.

advance. Then, they should digest and apply theirknowledge to provide the required services for them.

For firms, the complexity of digitization means

Only in this way can the two parties reach a consen-that digital business strategy may not improve firmsus based on trust and reciprocity. In summary, these

performance directly but through dynamic capabili-

arguments lead to the following hypotheses:− 35 −

長崎県立大学国際交流研究センター『東アジア評論』
第 16 号（2024.3）(Sheng et al., 2011). Under such a circumstance,
Hypothesis 3a–3c: Digital business strategy pro-firms are often motivated to build digital businessmotes the entrepreneurship orientation (H3a), thestrategy to improve absorptive capacity. That is, they

accessing relational resources (H3b), and the rela-can better integrate and utilize external criticaltional embeddedness (H3c) of a firm by improving

knowledge to reduce the negative impact of highabsorptive capacity.

market turbulence. To sum up, these arguments leadto the following hypothesis:

Moderating effect of environmental turbulenceMarket turbulence refers to the degree of vola-

Hypothesis 4a: Market turbulence has a positive

tility and unpredictability of the market environment

moderating effect on the relationship between digital

faced by organizations (Sheng et al., 2011). To adapt

business strategy and absorptive capacity.

to the constantly changing market environment,
firms need to improve their absorptive capacity toTechnological turbulence is defined as theobtain market resources and opportunities (Cohen &degree of volatility and unpredictability of techno-

Levinthal, 1990). Building digital business strategy

logical changes in products or services (Terawata-is an effective approach, but it requires high costs, asnavong et al., 2011). When technological turbulence

it must deploy information and communication tech-

is low, the value of firms’ original technologies cannologies, which may require significant investment

remain unchanged for a long time (Autry et al.,(Yunis et al., 2018). Moreover, building digitally2010). Therefore, firms can use and improve theconnected management systems and participating inexisting technologies to meet their own develop-

digital platform construction require large consump-ment needs, and the value of investing substantial

tion of resources. Therefore, compared with building

costs to build digital business strategy to enhance

digital business strategy, the profit from it thatabsorptive capacity is relatively low. In the case of

exceeds the cost is the most sought-after goal ofhigh technological turbulence, the rapid update offirms. When market turbulence is low, consumer

new technologies makes predicting the changing

demand and external competition are relatively sta-trend of industrial technologies difficult for firmsble (Kibbeling et al., 2013). Firms can make use of(Wu et al., 2017). As a result, new knowledge

the existing ways to obtain relatively stablebrought about by digital business strategy can also

resources and information at a low cost and cope

become outdated in a short time, and the absorption

with the risks brought by external market turbulenceof outdated knowledge may not be of high value. In

according to their inherent resources and capabili-

addition, absorptive capacity is characterized byties. In this way, the value gained by building digitalpath-dependence and time accumulation (Zahra &business strategy at a heavy cost is not significant

George, 2002), that is, it is based on firms’ experi-enough. From another aspect, when market turbu-

ence, and greatly improving it in a short time is diffi-

lence is high, firms are troubled by unpredictablecult. Therefore, when technological turbulence is toocompetition and a shortage of external resources

sudden and unpredictable, investing in building digi-− 36 −

Good Strategy, Good Entrepreneurship? Examining When and How Digital Business Strategy Drives Firm Strategic Entrepreneurshiptal business strategy to improve absorptive capacity

resources to maintain competitive advantages. To

makes little sense. By contrast, when technologicalsum up, these arguments lead to the following

turbulence is at a medium level, investing in digital

hypothesis:

business strategy to promote absorptive capacity
may be most beneficial because the technologicalHypothesis 4b: Technological turbulence has anenvironment is changing but stable enough (Tsai etinverted U-shaped moderating effect on the relation-al., 2015). In such a technological environment,

ship between digital business strategy and absorptive

firms can not only acquire new technologies andcapacity.

resources through digital business strategy but also
have enough time to absorb and apply these new

The proposed conceptual model is presented inFig. 1.

Fig. 1 The proposed conceptual model

Methodwe chose needed to have some digital features. For

Sample and procedure

example, these firms were building digital business

We obtained firm data through two waves ofstrategy, relying on them to make management deci-surveys, which started in April 2020 and ended insions and obtain information about partners or

November 2021. The samples were mainly from

customers. We regarded absorptive capacity as thefirms in central, eastern, and southeast China, mainly

key link between digital business strategy and strate-

involving manufacturing, service industries, and thegic entrepreneurship. Therefore, we also consideredInternet. We aimed to explore how digital businessthe initiative of firms in enhancing absorptive capac-

strategy could affect strategic entrepreneurship by

ity and carrying out strategic entrepreneurship.

improving absorptive capacity. Thus, the samples

Generally, these firms we chose were appropriate.

− 37 −

長崎県立大学国際交流研究センター『東アジア評論』
第 16 号（2024.3）

To obtain reliable data, the participants were mainly

multi-stage longitudinal investigation was feasible

middle and senior managers who have a comprehen-(Kaynak, 2003). Therefore, to improve the reliabil-sive grasp of firm information, such as CEO andity of the results and avoid common method

senior managers.

deviation, we collected data in two waves. In the

We built a data survey bridge with the help offirst wave, we asked the managers to complete thesome professors, MBA students, and businessmen.

scales of digital business strategy, absorptive capac-

Before the survey, we communicated with the seniority, market turbulence, technological turbulence, andmanagers and got their approval. Then, we sent thecontrol variables (firm information, competition

questionnaires to the respondents via e-mail and told

intensity, and legal inefficiency). In the second

them what they needed to pay attention to in thewave, we asked managers to complete the strategic

answering process. Finally, participants returned theentrepreneurship scale (three dimensions). We

completed questionnaires through e-mail. A poten-

started the first data collection in April 2020, with atial response bias may exist in the questionnaire sur-

total of 364 questionnaires distributed and 349

vey, so the potential response bias was reduced.

returned. The valid questionnaires after excludingFirst, we offered a reward of 50 yuan to every man-unqualified ones were 323. The eliminating rules

ager who completed the questionnaires to encourage

were mainly eliminating the incomplete answers,

them to answer these questions as truthfully as pos-continuous answers (8 items or more), and question-sible. Second, we believed that compared with mate-naires with evident deviations in feedback. Before

rial incentives, these managers were more interested

the empirical study, we conducted a long-term fol-in how to conduct daily business management andlow-up survey and case interviews with some firms.

operation. We have long been in close contact with

We found that most firms generally take at least one

firms in many business fields, particularly someyear to build digital business strategy to produce

high-tech and Internet firms. During this period, weresults. Therefore, the second collection began inhave accumulated considerable practical experience.

June 2021, and we asked managers to complete theContinuous cultivation in academic research also

strategic entrepreneurship scale. Based on the valid

provided a solid theoretical foundation and knowl-

sample in the first wave, 323 questionnaires wereedge. Therefore, we promised to provide free anddistributed, 308 were collected, and 290 were valid.

open online courses (strategic management and

Finally, we numbered and matched all the data andhuman resource management) for every manager

input them into the database. For the sample match-

who completed the questionnaires to guide them toing, we asked participants to leave the last fouranswer the questions truthfully. Finally, according todigits of their mobile phone numbers in both waves.

the ethical principles of the investigation, we explic-

In this study, the industry distribution wasitly kept confidential information in the question-

diverse, with the service accounting for 7.6%, manu-

naires.

facturing accounting for 29.3%, Internet accounting

Using cross-sectional data to reflect the causal

for 40.7%, and other industries accounting for

relationship between variables was difficult, and a

22.4%. For the firm scale, firms with 100–300− 38 −

Good Strategy, Good Entrepreneurship? Examining When and How Digital Business Strategy Drives Firm Strategic Entrepreneurship

employees accounted for 48.7%. For the firm age,ern, and 10.0% in other regions. In conclusion, the

43.5% have been established for more than 10 years.

firms were of different sizes, ages, industries, andIn addition, the geographical distribution of firms

regions (Table 1), which showed that the samples

was relatively dispersive, accounting for 31.4% inwere highly representative and convincing.

the eastern, 32.1% in the central, 26.6% in the south-

Table 1 Basic characteristics of samples
Characteristic

Firm type

Scale

Firm age

LocationType

Frequency

Percentage

Internet

22

7.60%

Manufacture85

29.30%

Service Sector

118

40.70%

Other

65

22.40%

Under 100 people

99

34.10%

101~200 people

77

26.60%

201~300 people

64

22.10%

More than 300 people50

17.20%

Under 5 years

48

16.50%

5 ~ 10 years

116

40.00%

11 ~ 15 years

86

29.70%

Over 15 years

40

13.80%

East China

91

31.40%

Central China

93

32.10%South China

77

26.60%

Other29

10.00%

Note: N = 290.

− 39 −

長崎県立大学国際交流研究センター『東アジア評論』
第 16 号（2024.3）

Variablesedge and information. We focused on the compre-

The scales used in this study mainly referred tohensive absorptive capacity of firms, so we

foreign mature scales and were designed in the form

integrated it into one dimension. The scale consistedof a Likert seven-point scale, with scores ranging

of 14 items, such as "our company can work morefrom 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). These

effectively by adopting new technologies". Cron-

scales need to be appropriately revised according tobach's α was 0.965 in this study. For the measure-

the research context in this study, which was benefi-

ment of market turbulence (MT) and technologicalcial to improving the reliability of the research data.

turbulence (TT), we referred to the scale developed

We mainly followed the following steps. Before for-by Jaworski and Kohli (1993). There were six items

mulating the scales, we invited teachers fromin the market turbulence, such as "in the industry,

English major and management major to translate

customers' product preferences will change withthe scales in a forward-backward way, then we senttime". Technological turbulence consisted of fivethe translated scales and the original foreign scales

items, such as "it is difficult for us to predict how theto the other two teachers from English major andtechnology of our industry will change in the

management major to discuss and revise. Finally, we

future". In this study, Cronbach's α was 0.871 andformed the final Chinese scales. Then we revised

0.824 respectively. Drawing on the relevant litera-

and improved the scale items through expert consul-

ture (Hughes et al., 2021), we divided strategic

tation and structured interviews. Lastly, through aentrepreneurship (SE) into two aspects: opportunity

small-scale preliminary survey of service firms inseeking and advantage seeking, including entrepre-

Xiamen and Quanzhou, and using statistical meth-neurialods such as exploratory factor analysis, we revised

resources (AR), and relational embeddedness (RE).

and improved the scales again to form the final sur-For entrepreneurial orientation, we referred to thevey questionnaires.

measurement of Covin and Slevin (1989), whichorientation(EO),

accessing

relational

The scale of digital business strategy (DBS)

contained 9 items. A typical item such as "we oftencame from the research of Ukko et al. (2019) con-

try new ideas", and Cronbach's α was 0.915 in thistaining 8 items with a typical item such as “Ourstudy. For accessing relational resources, we referredcompany is familiar with the development and use

to the measurement of Sarkar et al. (2001), whichof digital technology”. In this study, Cronbach’s α

contained five items. A typical item such as "thewas 0.840. Since the establishment and implementa-

stakeholders of firms depend on each other to a cer-tion of digital business strategy cannot be completed

tain extent to achieve higher competitive perfor-

in a short time, the words “recent three years” aremance", and Cronbach's α was 0.876 in this study.

added and highlighted in the questionnaire descrip-

Finally, we referred to Andersson et al. (2002) totion. We referred to the multi-dimensional absorp-

measure relational embeddedness. This dimension

tive capacity (AC) scale developed by Flatten et al.

contained five items with a typical item such as(2011), which mainly evaluated the ability of firms"keeping a close relationship with other firms canto absorb, assimilate, transform and develop knowl-

help us improve our business performance". Cron-− 40 −

Good Strategy, Good Entrepreneurship? Examining When and How Digital Business Strategy Drives Firm Strategic Entrepreneurshipof 40%. By adding latent factors (Podsakoff etbach's α was 0.820 in this study.
Considering that firms' absorptive capacity andal., 2003), it was found that the variance of thestrategic entrepreneurship may be affected by firm

goodness of the model fit was Δ(χ2/df) = -0.011,

type, scale, age, and location, we took them as con-ΔCFI = 0.002, ΔTLI = 0.001 and ΔRMSEA =trol variables to make the results more reliable. In

0.000, and the variance was not significant.

addition, according to the research of Bao et al.

Therefore, the common method bias was well(2020), we also considered the influence of competi-

controlled.

tive intensity and legal inefficiency. For competitive

Finally, to examine the discriminant validity

intensity, we referred to Jaworski and Kohli (1993),

among variables, we made a confirmatory factor

which contained five items. A typical item such as

analysis (Table 3). The results showed that the fitting"the competition in this industry is cruel", and Cron-

degree of the single-factor model was the worst,

bach's α was 0.868 in this study. Referring to Bao etwhile the fitting degree of the nine-factor model (χ2/al. (2020), the legal inefficiency evaluated the degree

df=1.470, CFI = 0.926, TLI = 0.923, SRMR = 0.047,

of illegal and unfair behaviors (such as piracy and

RMSEA = 0.040) met the requirements and wascounterfeiting) in the industry. The scale contained

superior to other models. It indicated that the six fac-

six items, like "many illegal competitive behaviors

tors in this study had great discriminant validity.

in our industry, such as fraud and imitation", andCronbach's α was 0.905 in this study.

Results
Reliability and validity analysis
In this study, the reliability of the formal survey
data was tested again through reliability and validity(Table 2). The scales were found to pass factor analysis with factor loading ranging from 0.695 (> 0.5) to
0.821. It was also found that Cronbach's α value, factor loading, construct reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) of all factors met
the requirements. Secondly, through the Harman single-factor test (Harman, 1976), factor
analysis was conducted on all items of nine variables in the collected data. The first main component obtained without rotation accounted for
27.56%, which did not exceed the critical value− 41 −

− 42 −

Item
DBS1
DBS2
DBS3
DBS4
DBS5
DBS6
DBS7
DBS8
AC1
AC2
AC3
AC4
AC5
AC6
AC7
AC8
AC9
AC10
AC11
AC12
AC13
AC14
LI1
LI2
LI3
LI4
LI5
LI6
CI1
CI2
CI3
CI4
CI5

Loading
0.763
0.827
0.803
0.802
0.797
0.844
0.806
0.782
0.877
0.857
0.84
0.875
0.81
0.844
0.841
0.836
0.787
0.802
0.818
0.792
0.851
0.817
0.813
0.861
0.775
0.812
0.783
0.813
0.81
0.855
0.81
0.833
0.824
0.905

0.868

0.965

0.920

α

0.915

0.919

0.969

0.935

CR

0.683

0.656

0.692

0.645

AVE

Notes: N = 290; Construct reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE).

Competitive intensity

Legal inefficiency

Absorptive capacity

Digital business strategy

Variable

Technological turbulenceMarket turbulence

Relational embeddedness

Accessing relational resources

Entrepreneurial orientation

Variable

Table 2 Scale items and exploratory factor analysis
Loading
0.775
0.83
0.74
0.834
0.735
0.775
0.768
0.802
0.695
0.697
0.828
0.921
0.829
0.827
0.728
0.74
0.865
0.776
0.725
0.782
0.753
0.81
0.782
0.761
0.793
0.721
0.742
0.758
0.779
0.836

Item
EO1
EO2
EO3
EO4
EO5
EO6
EO7
EO8
EO9
AR1
AR2
AR3
AR4
AR5
RE1
RE2
RE3
RE4
RE5
MT1
MT2
MT3
MT4
MT5
MT6
TT1
TT2
TT3
TT4
TT5

0.824

0.871

0.820

0.876

0.915

α

0.877

0.903

0.877

0.912

0.930

CR

0.590

0.609

0.590

0.678

0.598

AVE

長崎県立大学国際交流研究センター『東アジア評論』
第 16 号（2024.3）

Good Strategy, Good Entrepreneurship? Examining When and How Digital Business Strategy Drives Firm Strategic Entrepreneurship

Table 3 Results of confirmatory factor analysis
Model

χ2/df

CFI

TLI

SRMR

RMSEA

Nine-factor model: DBS, AC, EO, AR, RE, MT, TT, CI, LI

1.470

0.926

0.923

0.047

0.04

Eight-factor model: DBS+AC, EO, AR, RE, MT, TT, CI, LI

1.838

0.868

0.862

0.058

0.053

Seven-factor model: DBS+AC+EO, AR, RE, MT, TT, CI, LI

2.820

0.785

0.775

0.078

0.068

Six-factor model: DBS+AC+EO+AR, RE, MT, TT, CI, LI

2.658

0.738

0.727

0.081

0.075

Five-factor model: DBS+AC+EO+AR+RE, MT, TT, CI, LI

2.832

0.710

0.698

0.088

0.079

Four-factor model: DBS+AC+EO+AR+RE+MT, TT, CI, LI

3.205

0.650

0.637

0.100

0.087

Three-factor model: DBS+AC+EO+AR+RE+MT+TT, CI, LI

3.437

0.612

0.599

0.105

0.091

Two-factor model: DBS+AC+EO+AR+RE+MT+TT+CI, LI

3.798

0.555

0.539

0.117

0.098

One-factor model: DBS+AC+EO+AR+RE+MT+TT+CI+LI

4.316

0.472

0.454

0.128

0.107

Notes: N = 290; Digital business strategy (DBS), absorptive capacity (AC), entrepreneurial orientation (EO), accessing
relational resources (AR), relational embeddedness (RE), market turbulence (MT), technical turbulence (TT), legal
inefficiency (LI), competitive intensity (CI).

samples were appropriate and representative.

Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis
The purpose of descriptive statistical analysis

Table 4 reported the correlation analysis. It(Table 4) was to preliminarily observe whether theseshowed that DBS was positively correlated

samples were biased. We found that the mean value

with EO (r = 0.463, p < 0.001), AR (r = 0.438, pof the main variables in the model was between 4.76

< 0.001), and RE (r = 0.467, p < 0.001). In addi-

and 5.24, and the standard deviation was between

tion, DBS was positively correlated with AC (r0.69 and 1.21, which indicated that the investigated= 0.657, p < 0.001). AC was positively cor-firms had initially built digital business strategy,

related with EO (r = 0.489, p < 0.001), AR (r =and had a high level of absorptive capacity. In

0.501, p < 0.001), and RE (r = 0.501, p < 0.001).

addition, the standard deviations of these vari-

The verification of the correlation between

ables were within a reasonable range, which

variables provided preliminary evidence for theindicated that there was no obvious deviation in

research hypotheses, laying a foundation for thethe distribution of these samples. In all, thesefollow-up tests.

− 43 −

− 44 −

-0.046

0.048

0.059

2.78

0.88

11.TT

12.CI

13.LI

M

SD

1.09

2.22

-0.076-0.045-0.046-0.0070.008-0.002

-0.1

0.92

2.41

0.020

-0.012-0.041

0.085

0.006

0.002

-0.028

0.003

0.035

0.085

3

0.98

2.15

-0.127*-0.150*0.032-0.094-0.057-0.087-0.031-0.107-0.208***

4

0.89

5.11

0.085

0.050

-0.0750.167**

0.467***

0.438***

0.463***

0.657***

5

0.089

0.554***

0.499***

7

0.92

5.14

0.030

0.048

0.78

5.05

-0.075-0.124*-0.220*** -0.201**

0.179**

0.501***

0.501***

0.489***

6

0.87

4.93

-0.011-0.133*-0.0940.051

0.457***

8

0.012

10

0.69

5.24

0.9

5.17

-0.288*** 0.189**-0.255*** 0.165**-0.181**-0.056

9

0.79

5

0.056

0.056

11

1.12

4.76

0.386***

12

1.21

4.82

13

Notes: N = 290; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; Mean value (M), standard deviation (SD); Digital business strategy (DBS), absorptive capacity (AC),entrepreneurial orientation (EO), accessing relational resources (AR), relational embeddedness (RE), market turbulence (MT), technical turbulence (TT), legal inefficiency(LI), competitive intensity (CI).

-0.038

10.MT

0.003

8.AR

-0.005-0.012

7.EO

9.RE-0.021

6.AC-0.051-0.054-0.051

5.DBS

0.169**

0.049

0.085

3.year2

4.location 0.091-0.0741

2.scale1.typeVariable

Table 4 Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of variables
長崎県立大学国際交流研究センター『東アジア評論』
第 16 号（2024.3）

Good Strategy, Good Entrepreneurship? Examining When and How Digital Business Strategy Drives Firm Strategic Entrepreneurship

Endogeneity test

basis for the following mediating effect test.

In this study, the Durbin-Wu-Hausman test was

We used hierarchical regression (Baron &used to evaluate endogeneity (Tang & Rai, 2012).

Kenny, 1986) to test the mediating role of AC (Table

Because AC was a mediating latent variable, accord-

5). Regarding EO as the dependent variable, theing to the simultaneous equation, we only needed toregression results showed that DBS had a significant

test the endogeneity of the moderators. The MT andpositive impact on EO, but the coefficient decreased

TT were taken as dependent variables, and DBS and(β = 0.236, p < 0.001, M7), and AC had a significant

other control variables were taken as independent

positive impact on EO (β = 0.273, p < 0.001, M7),

variables for regression so that the residual errors of

so AC played a mediating role between DBS and

MT and TT were obtained and retained. Then, EO,

EO. Regarding AR as the dependent variable, theAR, and RE were regressed respectively, and theregression results showed that DBS had a significant

coefficients of the above residuals were obtained.

impact on AR (β = 0.186, p < 0.01, M11), but the

The results showed that the residual error of MT had

coefficient decreased, and AC had a significant posi-no significant regression coefficients on EO (β =tive impact on AR (β = 0.360, p < 0.001, M11), so

0.025, p ˃ 0.05), AR (β = -0.025, p ˃ 0.05) and RE

AC played a mediating role between DBS and AR.

(β = -0.020, p ˃ 0.05), and the residual error of TT

Lastly, we regarded RE as the dependent variable.

had no significant regression coefficients on EO (β =The regression results showed that the regression-0.009, p ˃ 0.05), AR (β = 0.016, p ˃ 0.05) and RE

coefficient of DBS was significant (β = 0.215, p <(β = -0.042, p ˃ 0.05), which indicated that this0.001, M15), but the coefficient decreased, and AC

study had a good control of endogeneity.

had a significant positive impact on RE (β = 0.254, p< 0.001, M15), so AC played a mediating role

Hypothesis test

between DBS and RE. Therefore, H3a, H3b, andAfter incorporating the control variables into

H3c were confirmed.

the model, this study used SPSS 24 software to carryout regression analysis to test the hypotheses (Table5). First, we found that DBS had a significantly positive impact on EO (β = 0.424, p < 0.001, M5), AR(β = 0.434, p < 0.001, M9), and RE (β = 0.390, p <0.001, M13), so H1a, H1b and H1c were confirmed.
At the same time, DBS had a significantly positiveeffect on AC (β = 0.690, p < 0.001, M2), so H2a wasconfirmed. In addition, AC had a significantly positive effect on EO (β = 0.419, p < 0.001, M6), AR (β= 0.475, p < 0.001, M10), and RE (β = 0.387, p <0.001, M14), so H2b, H2c and H2d were confirmed.
The above direct effect test results provided the− 45 −

− 46 −

0.015
0.015
0.730

AC
M1
5.311
-0.020(-0.063)-0.041(-0.051)
0.022(-0.06)-0.094(-0.057)
0.025(-0.053)
0.002(-0.049)-0.165**0.110*(-0.046)
0.184**(-0.053)-0.163**(-0.054)0.013(-0.047)-0.055(-0.059)

M3
5.134
0.027
(-0.046)-0.008(-0.037)-0.061(-0.044)0.051(-0.042)0.006(-0.039)-0.016(-0.036)0.788***(-0.059)(-0.058)
0.435
0.506
0.420
0.491
31.041*** 21.724***

M2
1.594
0.012
(-0.048)-0.011(-0.039)-0.020(-0.046)
0.031(-0.044)0.026(-0.040)-0.028(-0.037)0.690***(-0.048)

0.030
0.030
1.476

EO
M4
5.870
-0.006(-0.053)-0.075(-0.043)-0.006(-0.051)-0.038(-0.048)-0.084(-0.045)-0.028(-0.041)0.419***(-0.044)

M6
3.647
0.003
(-0.046)-0.058(-0.037)-0.015(-0.044)0.001(-0.042)-0.094*(-0.039)-0.028(-0.036)

M7
3.151
0.011
(-0.045)-0.054(-0.036)-0.026(-0.043)
0.030(-0.041)-0.090*(-0.038)-0.038(-0.035)
0.236***(-0.059)
0.273***(-0.056)

0.251
0.270
0.309
0.220
0.240
0.058
13.466*** 14.891*** 15.700***

M5
3.586
0.014
(-0.047)-0.057(-0.038)-0.031(-0.045)0.039(-0.043)-0.083*(-0.039)-0.045(-0.036)0.424***(-0.047)

0.031
0.031
1.503

AR
M8
5.554
0.017
(-0.059)-0.001(-0.047)0.007(-0.057)-0.097(-0.053)-0.128*(-0.050)0.027(-0.046)

0.475***(-0.048)

M10
3.031
0.027
(-0.051)
0.019(-0.041)-0.003(-0.049)-0.052(-0.046)-0.140**(-0.043)
0.026(-0.040)

RE
M11
M12
M13
M14
M15
2.639
6.546
4.443
4.492
4.039
0.033
0.021
0.039
0.029
0.036
(-0.050)(-0.045)(-0.039)(-0.038)(-0.037)
0.022-0.009
0.009
0.007
0.011
(-0.041)(-0.036)(-0.031)(-0.031)(-0.030)-0.0120.014-0.0100.005-0.005(-0.048)(-0.043)(-0.037)(-0.036)(-0.035)-0.029-0.084*-0.013-0.048-0.021(-0.046)(-0.041)(-0.036)(-0.034)(-0.034)-0.137** -0.114** -0.114** -0.124*** -0.120***(-0.042)(-0.038)(-0.033)(-0.032)(-0.034)
0.019-0.135*** -0.152*** -0.136*** -0.145***(-0.039)(-0.035)(-0.030)(-0.029)(-0.029)0.186**
0.390***
0.215***(-0.066)(-0.038)(-0.028)0.360***
0.387*** 0.254***(-0.063)(-0.036)(-0.046)

0.218
0.281
0.301
0.121
0.356
0.379
0.42
0.187
0.250
0.082
0.121
0.235
0.258
0.064
11.253*** 15.753*** 15.112*** 6.494*** 22.297*** 24.568*** 25.424***

M9
3.214
0.038
(-0.053)
0.018(-0.043)-0.020(-0.051)-0.018(-0.049)-0.127**(-0.045)0.009(-0.041)0.434***(-0.053)

Notes: N = 290; Digital business strategy (DBS), absorptive capacity (AC), entrepreneurial orientation (EO), accessing relational resources (AR), relational embeddedness(RE), market turbulence (MT), technical turbulence (TT), legal inefficiency (LI), competitive intensity (CI); * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

R²
∆R²
F

TT2 ×
DBS

TT × DBS

TT2

TT

MT × DBS

MT

AC

DBS

LI

CI

Location

Year

Scale

Variable
Model
Constant
Type

Table 5 Regression analysis results
長崎県立大学国際交流研究センター『東アジア評論』
第 16 号（2024.3）

Good Strategy, Good Entrepreneurship? Examining When and How Digital Business Strategy Drives Firm Strategic Entrepreneurship

Moderating effect test

the interaction between TT and DBS had no signifi-

Before testing, the independent variable andcant influence on AC (β = -0.055, p ˃ 0.05, M3), butmoderators were processed centrally, and the inter-

the interaction between DBS and the square of TT

action items were generated. Test for the moderating

had a negative influence on AC (β = -0.165, p <effect of MT: the interaction between MT and DBS

0.01, M3), indicating that TT played an inverted

had a significant positive impact on AC (β = 0.184, p

U-shaped rather than a linear moderating role

< 0.01, M3), which indicated that MT had a positive

between DBS and AC. Therefore, H4b was con-moderating effect between DBS and AC, and H4afirmed. Lastly, we drew a simple moderating effectwas confirmed. Test for the moderating effect of TT:

diagram (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 The moderating effect of MT and TT

Robustness test

cally met the requirements. We found that (Figure 3)

According to the practices in the literature

DBS had a significant positive impact on EO (β =(Chen & Liu, 2020), we used structural equation

0.236, SE = 0.071, p < 0.01), AR (β = 0.186, SE =model (SEM) of Mplus7.4 software to check the

0.087, p < 0.05), and RE (β = 0.215, SE = 0.051, p <robustness. We used bootstrap method to test the0.001). Therefore, H1a, H1b and H1c were con-mediation effect through 5000 repeated sampling,firmed. Then, DBS had a significant positive impact

and the confidence interval was set to 95%. The fit-on AC (β = 0.770, SE = 0.062, p < 0.001), and H2ating index of the model (χ2/df = 2.640, CFI = 0.939,

was confirmed. At the same time, we found that AC

TLI = 0.852, SRMR = 0.041, RMSEA = 0.075) basi-

had a significant positive impact on EO (β = 0.273,− 47 −

長崎県立大学国際交流研究センター『東アジア評論』
第 16 号（2024.3）

SE = 0.072, p < 0.001), AR (β = 0.360, SE = 0.084,

that AC played a mediating role between DBS andp < 0.001), and RE (β = 0.254, SE = 0.052, p <the three dimensions of strategic entrepreneurship0.001). Therefore, H2b, H2c and H2d were con-

(EO, AR, RE). Therefore, H3a, H3b and H3c were

firmed.

verified again. In addition, MT had a positive mod-We also found that digital business strategy

erating effect (β = 0.170, SE = 0.062, p < 0.01) andpositively affected EO (β = 0.210, SE = 0.056,

TT had an inverted U-shaped moderating effect (β =95%CI[0.100, 0.322]), AR (β = 0.277, SE = 0.069,-0.160, SE = 0.060, p < 0.01), so H4a and H4b were95%CI[0.149, 0.418]), and RE (β = 0.195, SE =verified again. In conclusion, this study passed the0.042, 95%CI[0.114, 0.279]) through AC. It proved

robustness test (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 The robustness test

Discussion

the entrepreneurial orientation of firms. In addition,

Conclusions

the network effect of digital business strategy pro-Based on dynamic capability theory, we linkvides firms with opportunities to connect multiple

digital business strategy, absorptive capacity, market

platform participants. These opportunities allow

turbulence, technological turbulence, and strategic

firms to freely build social relationships to accessentrepreneurship and draw the following conclu-

relational resources efficiently. In addition, as digitalsions through empirical research. First, digitalbusiness strategy is characterized by collaboration

business strategy promotes firms’ strategic entrepre-

and sharing, firms must carry out in-depth communi-

neurship. Specifically, digital business strategy

cation and cooperation based on mutual trust andrealizes digital technology integration and innova-

reciprocity to achieve win–win results, which willtion and provides firms with the latest entrepreneurial

lay a good foundation for their relational embedded-

resources and opportunities, which are conducive toness. Second, absorptive capacity has a mediating− 48 −

Good Strategy, Good Entrepreneurship? Examining When and How Digital Business Strategy Drives Firm Strategic Entrepreneurshipeffect between digital business strategy and strategic

turbulence. Moreover, they do not have to worry too

entrepreneurship of firms. Although digital businessmuch about the risk of absorbing outdated technolo-

strategy provides firms with substantial knowledge

gies.

and resources, it also relies on the ability to transform knowledge into actions (Jantunen, 2005).

Theoretical implications

Absorptive capacity is a dynamic capability that

This study provides important theoreticalplays a key role in identifying, acquiring, digesting,

implications in several ways. First, the link between

and applying resources. It can provide an impetus

digital business strategy and strategic entrepreneur-for firms to implement strategic entrepreneurship,

ship has expanded and enriched the literature on

thereby forming competitive advantages. Third,

digital capabilities and strategic entrepreneurship.

market turbulence has a positive moderating effectExisting relevant literature on digital business strat-

between digital business strategy and absorptiveegycapacity, whereas technological turbulence has anachievements, such as firm performance, innovation,

inverted U-shaped moderating effect. When market

value creation, and strategic development (Mithas etturbulence is low, firms can implement or improveal., 2013; Khin & Ho, 2020; Karimi & Walter, 2021;

their market strategies according to the existing mar-

VanZeebroeck et al., 2023). Studies on specificket information, instead of spending too much costbehaviors before the generation of organizationaland energy to build digital business strategy. How-

achievements are limited. Strategic entrepreneurship

ever, as market turbulence increases, market demandhas the interactive connotation of taking entrepre-

becomes unpredictable. In this case, firms need toneurial actions from a strategic perspective anddevelop digital business strategy to increase absorp-

taking strategic actions from an entrepreneurial per-tive capacity so that they can continuously access

spective,

critical market information. When the technologicalopportunity seeking and advantage seeking. In real-

turbulence is low, the existing technologies can meet

ity, strategic entrepreneurship is one of the basic

the technical requirements of the firms. However,driving factors of firms’ competitive advantages,

when the technological turbulence is very high, theprofitability, survival, and growth (Ireland et al.,technologies change rapidly and become obsolete

2001). Therefore, this study on the relationshipeasily. On the contrary, absorptive capacity has the

between digital business strategy and strategic entre-

characteristics of path-dependence and time-accu-

preneurial behaviors may provide a better insightmulation, thereby making most of the technologies

into the internal logic of firms’ development. Sec-

absorbed by firms obsolete. Hence, investments in

ond, from the perspective of dynamic capability

digital business strategy will lead to the greatest

theory, absorptive capacity is introduced as an inter-

return when technological turbulence is at a moder-

mediary variable to open the black box that digitalate level. The reason is that firms need to rely on thebusiness strategy affects strategic entrepreneurship.

absorptive capacity to learn and apply new technolo-

Dynamic capabilities occupy a central position ingies in response to the moderate technologicalthe field of entrepreneurship research characterized− 49 −

wasmostlyincludingreflected

twoinorganizational

specific

behaviors,

長崎県立大学国際交流研究センター『東アジア評論』
第 16 号（2024.3）

by dynamics and strategic management research on

Managerial implications

seeking competitive advantages (Teece, 2016).

Firms should attach importance to the con-Therefore, dynamic capabilities provide a logicalstruction of digital business strategy and focus on

basis for explaining strategic entrepreneurship. In

improving digital business strategy. First, firms

addition, Mithas et al. (2013) pointed out that future

should cultivate their own digital corporate culture

studies on digital business strategy should consider

and values and then scientifically set up phased digi-

more dynamic capabilities to analyze the potential

tal strategic goals and plans. In addition, firms

intermediary mechanisms of the digital businessshould pay attention to the development and mainte-

strategy. Therefore, this study takes a specificnance of relational resources to empower theirdynamic capability, that is, absorptive capacity, as

digital construction. The options include building

an intermediary variable between digital businesstheir digital business strategy or actively participat-

strategy and strategic entrepreneurship. In this way,

ing in digital platform cooperations, carrying out

this study not only responds to the call of Mithas etindustry–university–research collaboration, intro-al. (2013) but can also better explain the specificducing digital technologies and talents, and others.

transformation process from digital business strat-

Improving digital business strategy in a short time isegy to strategic entrepreneurship. Third, market

not easy. Firms should cultivate dynamic capabili-

turbulence and technological turbulence are intro-

ties to cope with the changes brought by the external

duced as the moderating variables to expand theenvironment and achieve a spiral rise in the longboundary conditions between digital business strat-run.

egy and absorptive capacity. With the change in theFirms should improve absorptive capacity toeconomic model and the acceleration of firm trans-

transform external knowledge and resources into

formation, firms need to consider environmental

competitive advantages. Firms should also actively

factors when carrying out strategic behaviors (Li &strengthen the connection with external stakeholders

Atuahene-Gima, 2001). Current studies on absorp-(e.g., customers, scientific research institutions, andtive capacity mostly take individual factors as

business partners). Then, they should carry out

boundary conditions but lack the consideration of

in-depth cooperation and high-quality relational

the overall external environment. In the present

embeddedness based on trust and reciprocity to

study, we draw the conclusions that digital businessincrease the opportunities to acquire the latest

strategy has different effects on absorptive capacity

knowledge and resources. In addition, the rules andunder the conditions of market and technologicalatmosphere of knowledge sharing need to be estab-turbulence. To some extent, the conclusions are con-lished within the firms to promote the digestion andducive to clarifying different boundary conditions

integration of new knowledge. Most importantly,

between digital business strategy and absorptive

firms should integrate motivation into the process of

capacity. They will help to enrich the research on

knowledge application. For example, they canboundary conditions of absorptive capacity.

implement a reward system for product research anddevelopment, incorporate innovation performance− 50 −

Good Strategy, Good Entrepreneurship? Examining When and How Digital Business Strategy Drives Firm Strategic Entrepreneurship

into performance appraisal and promotion of

future research can extend the timeline and collectemployees, and create a working atmosphere thatnew data through a longitudinal survey. In addition,encourages trials and errors.

for the questionnaire survey, avoiding respondent

Firms should always pay attention to the exter-bias is difficult, and objective second-hand data cannal market and technological trends and dynamically

help verify the results. Second, we use the dynamic

adjust their business strategies. When market turbu-

capability theory to explain the mechanism that digi-

lence is low, firms can build learning groups totalgradually improve the overall grasp of market infor-

entrepreneurship through absorptive capacity inmation. When market turbulence is high, firms

uncertain environments (market and technologicalshould not only pay attention to the cultivation of

turbulence). Although the perspective works, it may

digital business strategy but also increase the devel-

not be unique. We believe that other perspectives,

opment and maintenance of marketing channels andsuch as social network theory, strategic choice the-recruit or train more talents to absorb more market

ory, or diffusion of innovations theory, can help us

information. When technological turbulence is low,

provide more new insights for understanding thefirms can maintain their development by keeping therelationship between digital business strategy andexisting technologies. When technological turbu-

strategic entrepreneurship. Third, future researchlence is moderate, the investment in technologies

should develop the current theoretical framework in

produces the greatest benefit. Therefore, firms

this study to determine its applicability in othershould increase their investment in digital businesseconomies. Our sample is mainly from an emerging

strategy and increase the research and development

economy (China). Although our data can explain theof digital technologies. For example, they can intro-

relationship between digital business strategy andduce the latest technologies at home and abroad,strategic entrepreneurship in emerging economies,

build innovative incubators, and support employee

whether it can be extended to developed economies

intrapreneurship. When technological turbulence isis unknown. Therefore, we propose that future

high, firms can grasp the dynamic trend of technolo-

research could test the proposed theoretical frame-

gies

with

work in developed economies and compare thepartners and regularly observing the new direction

conclusions with ours. Finally, as for the boundaryof the industry.

conditions of digital business strategy and absorp-

throughincreasing

communication

businessstrategyaffects

strategic

tive capacity, except for market and technological
Limitations and future researchturbulence, many other possible variables have not

Although this study has made some implica-

been taken into account, such as the alliance net-

tions, some limitations still exist. First, the data used

work location (Gulati, 1999) and organizationalin this study were collected from April 2020 toroutines (Feldman & Pentland, 2003). In the future,

November 2021. The data from a one-year interval

we should consider more boundary variables so thatcannot strictly be used to evaluate the long-term

the research conclusions will have higher authentic-

causal relationship between variables. Therefore,

ity and wider applicability.

− 51 −

長崎県立大学国際交流研究センター『東アジア評論』
第 16 号（2024.3）

References:

The effects of experiential market learning versus
vicarious market learning. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14 (3), 444-469. https://doi.

Alberti-Alhtaybat, L. V., Al-Htaybat, K., & Hutaibat, K. (2019). A knowledge management andorg/10.1002/sej.1350

sharing business model for dealing with disrup-

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The modera-tion: The case of Aramex. Journal of Businesstor-mediator variable distinction in social psycho-

Research, 94, 400-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

logical research: conceptual, strategic, and statis-jbusres.2017.11.037

tical considerations. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182. https://doi.

Aldrich, H., & Dubini, P. (1991). Personal andextended networks are central to the entrepre-org/10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173

neurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 6Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic Capabilities: A Review(5), 305-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026

of Past Research and an Agenda for the Future.

(91)90021-5

Journal of Management, 36 (1), 256-280. https://

Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery

doi.org/10.1177/0149206309350776

and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneur-

Bingham, C. B., & Haleblian, J. (2012). How firms

ial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1learn heuristics: Uncovering missing components(1-2), 11-26. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.4of organizational learning. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6 (2), 152-177. https://doi.org

Alvarez, S. A., & Busenitz, L. W. (2001). The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal ofManagement, 27 (6), 755-775. https://doi.org//10.1002/sej.1132
Blaschke, M., Haki, K., Aier, S., & Winter, R.

10.1177/014920630102700609(2018). Capabilities for Digital Platform Sur-

Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. (2002).

vival: Insights from a Business-to-Business Digi-

The strategic impact of external networks: sub-tal Platform. Association for Information Sys-

sidiary performance and competence develop-

tems, 1-17.

ment in the multinational corporation. Strategic

Chen, J., & Liu, L. (2020). Customer participation,

Management Journal, 23 (11), 979-996. https://and green product innovation in SMEs: The

doi.org/10.1002/smj.267

mediating role of opportunity recognition andAutry, C. W., Grawe, S. J., Daugherty, P. J., &exploitation. Journal of Business Research, 119,Richey, R. G. (2010). The effects of technological151-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.0

turbulence and breadth on supply chain technol-

5.033

ogy acceptance and adoption. Journal of Opera-

Chen, X., & Wu, J. (2011). Do different guanxi

tions Management, 28 (6), 522-536. https://doi.

types affect capability building differently? A

org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.03.001

contingency view. Industrial Marketing Management, 40 (4), 581-592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

Bao, Y., Wei, Z., & Di Benedetto, A. (2020). Identifying the tacit entrepreneurial opportunity oflatent customer needs in an emerging economy:

indmarman.2010.12.014
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorp-− 52 −

Good Strategy, Good Entrepreneurship? Examining When and How Digital Business Strategy Drives Firm Strategic Entrepreneurshiptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning

Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. Uni-

and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1), 128-152. https://doi.org/10.2307

versity of Chicago Press.
Helfat, C. E., & Campo-Rembado, M. A. (2016).

/2393553

Integrative Capabilities, Vertical Integration, andCohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1994). Fortune

Innovation Over Successive Technology Lifecy-

Favors the Prepared Firm. Management Science,cles. Organization Science, 27 (2), 249-264.

40 (2), 227-251. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.

https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1045

40.2.227

Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic man-

resource-based view: capability lifecycles. Strate-

agement of small firms in hostile and benign envi-

gic Management Journal, 24 (10), 997-1010.

ronments. Strategic Management Journal, 10 (1),https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.332

75-87. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250100107

Hiatt, S. R., Carlos, W. C., & Sine, W. D. (2018).

de Reuver, M., Sørensen, C., & Basole, R. C. (2018).

Manu Militari: The Institutional Contingencies of

The Digital Platform: A Research Agenda. Jour-

Stakeholder Relationships on Entrepreneurial

nal of Information Technology, 33 (2), 124-135.

Performance. Organization Science, 29 (4), 633-

https://doi.org/10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3

652. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1178

Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Recon-

Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R.

ceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source(2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An

of Flexibility and Change. Administrative Science

institutional perspective. Information and Organi-

Quarterly, 48 (1), 94-118. https://doi.org/10.23

zation, 28 (1), 52-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

07/3556620

infoandorg.2018.02.004

Flatten, T. C., Engelen, A., Zahra, S. A., & Brettel,

Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton,

M. (2011). A measure of absorptive capacity:

D. L. (2001). Strategic entrepreneurship: entre-

Scale development and validation. European

preneurial strategies for wealth creation. Strategic

Management Journal, 29 (2), 98-116. https://doi.

Management Journal, 22 (6-7), 479-491. https://org/10.1016/j.emj.2010.11.002

doi.org/10.1002/smj.196

Granovetter, M. (2018). Economic action and social

Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based

structure: The problem of embeddedness. In The

research in entrepreneurship: A critical review.

Sociology of Economic Life (pp. 22-45). Rout-

Journal of Business Venturing, 18 (2), 165-187.

ledge.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00081-2

Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning:

Hughes, M., Hughes, P., Morgan, R. E., Hodgkin-

the influence of network resources and firmson, I. R., & Lee, Y. (2021). Strategic entrepre-

capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic

neurship behaviour and the innovation ambidex-

Management Journal, 20 (5), 397-420. https://

terity of young technology-based firms in

doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199905)

incubators. International Small Business Journal,

20:5<397::AID-SMJ35>3.0.CO;2-K

39 (3), 202-227. https://doi.org/10.1177/026624− 53 −

長崎県立大学国際交流研究センター『東アジア評論』
第 16 号（2024.3）

2620943776

neurship and Creating Value in Response to

Hughes, M., Morgan, R. E., Ireland, R. D., &Digital Disruption in the Newspaper Industry.

Hughes, P. (2014). Social Capital and Learning

Sustainability, 13 (5), 2741. https://doi.org/10.

Advantages: A Problem of Absorptive Capacity.

3390/su13052741

Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8 (3), 214-

Kaynak, H. (2003). The relationship between total

233. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1162

quality management practices and their effects on

Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., Camp, S. M., & Sexton,

firm performance. Journal of Operations Man-

D. L. (2001). Integrating entrepreneurship andagement, 21 (4), 405-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/

strategic management actions to create firm

S0272-6963(03)00004-4

wealth. Academy of Management Perspectives,

Khin, S., & Ho, T. C. F. (2020). Digital technology,

15 (1), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2001.

digital capability and organizational performance.

4251393

International Journal of Innovation Science, 11 (2),Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003).

177-195. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-08-2018-0083

A Model of Strategic Entrepreneurship: The Con-

Kibbeling, M., van der Bij, H., & van Weele, A.

struct and its Dimensions. Journal of Manage-(2013). Market Orientation and Innovativeness inment, 29 (6), 963-989. https://doi.org/10.1016/

Supply Chains: Supplier's Impact on Customer

S0149-2063(03)00086-2

Satisfaction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30 (3), 500-515. https://doi.org/10.1111/

Jantunen, A. (2005). Knowledge-processing capabilities and innovative performance: an empiricaljpim.12007

study. European Journal of Innovation Manage-

Kodama, T. (2008). The role of intermediation andment, 8 (3), 336-349. https://doi.org/10.1108/14

absorptive capacity in facilitating university–

601060510610199

industry linkages—An empirical study of TAMAin Japan. Research Policy, 37 (8), 1224-1240.

Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.014

of Marketing, 57 (3), 53-70. https://doi.org/10.

Kohtamäki, M., Heimonen, J., Sjödin, D., & Heik-

1177/002224299305700304

kilä, V. (2020). Strategic agility in innovation:

Jun, W., Nasir, M. H., Yousaf, Z., Khattak, A., Yasir,

Unpacking the interaction between entrepreneur-M., Javed, A., & Shirazi, S. H. (2022). Innovation

ial orientation and absorptive capacity by using

performance in digital economy: does digital plat-

practice theory. Journal of Business Research,

form capability, improvisation capability and118, 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.20

organizational readiness really matter? Euro-

20.06.029

pean Journal of Innovation Management, 25

Li, F. (2022). Sustainable Competitive Advantages(5), 1309-1327. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-

via Temporary Advantages: Insights from the

10-2020-0422

Competition between American and Chinese Dig-

Karimi, J., & Walter, Z. (2021). The Role ofital Platforms in China. British Journal of Man-

Entrepreneurial Agility in Digital Entrepre-

agement, 33 (4), 2009-2032. https://doi.org/10.

− 54 −

Good Strategy, Good Entrepreneurship? Examining When and How Digital Business Strategy Drives Firm Strategic Entrepreneurship

1111/1467-8551.12558

1111/etap.12254

Li, H., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2001). Product Inno-

Nee, V. (1992). Organizational Dynamics of Market

vation Strategy and the Performance of New

Transition: Hybrid Forms, Property Rights, andTechnology Ventures in China. Academy of Man-

Mixed Economy in China. Administrative Scienceagement Journal, 44 (6), 1123-1134. https://doi.

Quarterly, 37 (1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.2307/

org/10.2307/3069392

2393531

Li, T., & Chan, Y. E. (2019). Dynamic informa-Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P.,tion technology capability: Concept definition& Lee, J. Y. (2003). The mismeasure of man(age-and framework development. The Journal ofment) and its implications for leadership research.

Strategic Information Systems, 28 (4), 101575.

The Leadership Quarterly, 14 (6), 615-656.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.101575

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.08.002

McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. C. (2000). The

Rai, A., & Tang, X. (2010). Leveraging IT Capabili-

entrepreneurial mindset: Strategies for continu-

ties and Competitive Process Capabilities for theously creating opportunity in an age of uncer-

Management of Interorganizational Relationshiptainty (Vol. 284). Harvard Business Press.

Portfolios. Information Systems Research, 21 (3),Mikalef, P., & Pateli, A. (2017). Information tech-

516-542. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0299

nology-enabled dynamic capabilities and their

Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M.

indirect effect on competitive performance:(2009). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Business

Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. Journal

Performance: An Assessment of past Researchof Business Research, 70, 1-16. https://doi.

and Suggestions for the Future. Entrepreneurshiporg/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.09.004

Theory and Practice, 33 (3), 761-787. https://doi.

Mithas, S., Tafti, A., & Mitchell, W. (2013). How aorg/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00308.x

firm’s competitive environment and digital strate-

Sarkar, M. B., Echambadi, R., Cavusgil, S. T., &gic posture influence digital business strategy.

Aulakh, P. S. (2001). The influence of comple-

MIS Quarterly, 37 (2), 511-536.

mentarity, compatibility, and relationship capi-

Müller, J. M., Buliga, O., & Voigt, K.-I. (2021). Thetal on alliance performance. Journal of therole of absorptive capacity and innovation strat-

Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (4), 358-

egy in the design of industry 4.0 business Models

373. https://doi.org/10.1177/03079450094216- A comparison between SMEs and large enter-

Schweisfurth, T. G., & Raasch, C. (2018). Absorptiveprises. European Management Journal, 39 (3),capacity for need knowledge: Antecedents and333-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.01.0

effects for employee innovativeness. Research Pol-02

icy, 47 (4), 687-699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.

Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital Entrepreneurship:2018.01.017

Toward a Digital Technology Perspective ofSheng, S., Zhou, K. Z., & Li, J. J. (2011). The

Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory andEffects of Business and Political Ties on Firm

Practice, 41 (6), 1029-1055. https://doi.org/10.

Performance: Evidence from China. Journal of− 55 −

長崎県立大学国際交流研究センター『東アジア評論』
第 16 号（2024.3）

Marketing, 75 (1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1509/

petitive performance impacts of supplier-facing

jm.75.1.1

process capabilities. Journal of Operations Management, 30 (1-2), 85-98. https://doi.org/10.1016

Shirokova, G., Vega, G., & Sokolova, L. (2013).
Performance of Russian SMEs: exploration,/j.jom.2011.07.001

exploitation and strategic entrepreneurship. Criti-

Täuscher, K., & Laudien, S. M. (2018). Understand-cal perspectives on international business, 9ing platform business models: A mixed methods(1/2), 173-203. https://doi.org/10.1108/1742204

study of marketplaces. European Management

1311299941

Journal, 36 (3), 319-329. https://doi.org/10.1016

Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007).

/j.emj.2017.06.005

Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic Environ-

Teece, D. J. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and entre-

ments to Create Value: Looking Inside the Black

preneurial management in large organizations:Box. Academy of Management Review, 32 (1),

Toward a theory of the (entrepreneurial) firm.

273-292. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.23466

European Economic Review, 86, 202-216. https://005

doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.11.006

Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994). Does Competi-

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997).

tive Environment Moderate the Market Orienta-

Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.

tion-Performance Relationship? Journal of Mar-

Strategic Management Journal, 18 (7), 509-533.

keting, 58 (1), 46-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/002

https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266

224299405800104(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z

Srinivasan, A., & Venkatraman, N. (2018). Entrepre-

Terawatanavong, C., Whitwell, G. J., Widing, R. E.,

neurship in digital platforms: A network-centric& O'Cass, A. (2011). Technological turbulence,view. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12 (1),supplier market orientation, and buyer satisfac-

54-71. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1272

tion. Journal of Business Research, 64 (8), 911-

Sutherland, W., & Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). The sharing

918.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.09.003

economy and digital platforms: A review andTerstriep, J., & Lüthje, C. (2018). Innovation,

research agenda. International Journal of Infor-

knowledge and relations – on the role of clusters

mation Management, 43, 328-341. https://doi.org

for firms’ innovativeness. European Planning/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.07.004

Studies, 26 (11), 2167-2199. https://doi.org/10.10

Swartz, E. M., Scheepers, C. B., & Toefy, T. (2022).

80/09654313.2018.1530152

Women entrepreneurs’ opportunity identification

Timmons, J. A. (1999). New venture creation: entre-of digital platform start-ups: emerging evidence

preneurship for the 21st Century (5th ed.). Home-

from South Africa. International Journal of Gen-wood, Illinois: Irwin-McGraw-Hill.

der and Entrepreneurship, 14 (3), 352-374.

Todorova, G., & Durisin, B. (2007). Absorptive
capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization. Academy

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJGE-06-2021-0096
Tang, X., & Rai, A. (2012). The moderating effectsof supplier portfolio characteristics on the com− 56 −of Management Review, 32 (3), 774-786. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275513

Good Strategy, Good Entrepreneurship? Examining When and How Digital Business Strategy Drives Firm Strategic EntrepreneurshipTsai, K.-H., Liao, Y.-C., & Hsu, T. T. (2015). Does

effects on new-product development speed andthe use of knowledge integration mechanisms

creativity: The moderating role of technologicalenhance product innovativeness? Industrial Mar-turbulence. Journal of Business Research, 70,

keting Management, 46, 214-223. https://doi.

127-135.

org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.030

08.027https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.

Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge Transfer in Intraorgani-

Yan, M.-R., Hong, L.-Y., & Warren, K. (2022). Inte-zational Networks: Effects of Network Position

grated knowledge visualization and the enterpriseand Absorptive Capacity on Business Unit Inno-

digital twin system for supporting strategic man-vation and Performance. Academy of Manage-

agement decision. Management Decision, 60 (4),ment Journal, 44 (5), 996-1004. https://doi.

1095-1115. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2021-

org/10.2307/3069443

0182

VandenBosch, F. A. J., Volberda, H. W., & Boer, M.

Yunis, M., Tarhini, A., & Kassar, A. (2018). The roled. (1999). Coevolution of Firm Absorptive Capac-of ICT and innovation in enhancing organiza-

ity and Knowledge Environment: Organizationaltional performance: The catalysing effect of cor-

Forms and Combinative Capabilities. Organiza-

porate entrepreneurship. Journal of Businesstion Science, 10 (5), 551-568. https://doi.org/

Research, 88, 344-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

10.1287/orsc.10.5.551

jbusres.2017.12.030

VanZeebroeck, N., Kretschmer, T., & Bughin, J.

Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive(2023). Digital “is” Strategy: The Role of Digi-

Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, andtal Technology Adoption in Strategy Renewal.

Extension. The Academy of Management Review,

IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manage-

27 (2), 185-203. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134351

ment, 70 (9), 3183-3197. https://doi.org/10.1109/

Zhao, S., Jiang, Y., Peng, X., & Hong, J. (2021).

TEM.2021.3079347

Knowledge sharing direction and innovation per-Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic capa-

formance in organizations. European Journal ofbilities: A review and research agenda. Interna-Innovation Management, 24 (2), 371-394. https://tional Journal of Management Reviews, 9 (1),doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-09-2019-0244

31-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.

Ziyae, B., & Sadeghi, H. (2021). Exploring the rela-

00201.x

tionship between corporate entrepreneurship andWickham, P. A. (2006). Strategic entrepreneurship.

firm performance: the mediating effect of strategic entrepreneurship. Baltic Journal of Manage-

Pearson Education.
Wong, C. Y., & Karia, N. (2010). Explaining thecompetitive advantage of logistics service providers: A resource-based view approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 128 (1),51-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.08.026
Wu, L., Liu, H., & Zhang, J. (2017). Bricolage− 57 −

ment, 16 (1), 113-133. https://doi.org/10.1108/
BJM-04-2020-0124