Impact of Entrepreneurial Orientation on Performance of Quoted
Breweries in Nigeria
OLUREMI OLUWATOSIN JOHN, MAY IFEOMA NWOYE, PAUL KANWAI YAYOK
Department of Business Administration
Nile University of Nigeria
Cadastral Zone C-OO, Research & Institution Area, Airport Rd, Jabi 900001, Abuja
NIGERIA
Abstract: - This empirical study investigated the impact of entrepreneurial orientation (OE) on organizational
performance (OP) of quoted breweries in Nigeria considering the mediating effect of organizational
embeddedness in the OE-OP relationship under the theoretical lens of the Resource Based (RBV) theory. The
focus was on the five quoted breweries in Nigeria- Guinness Nigeria Plc, Nigeria Breweries Plc, Champions
Breweries Plc, Golden Guinea Breweries Plc and International Breweries Plc. The study used survey design.
Data were collected from 1,120 employees of the five quoted breweries through a questionnaire and analyzed
by Partial Least Square - Structural Equation Modeling (Maximum Likelihood). The result showed a significant
positive relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (risk-taking, innovativeness and proactiveness) and
organizational performance (organizational effectiveness and employee satisfaction) and concluded that
organizational embeddedness positively mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and
organizational performance. The findings of this study provide organizational performance guidelines for
management of the breweries. The research work considers the effect of the mediating role of organizational
embeddedness in the entrepreneurial orientation – organizational performance relationship. This is a gap that
has not been fully investigated in the literatures reviewed.
Key-Words: - Organizational embeddedness, Entrepreneurial Orientation, Organizational Performance,
Innovativeness, Risk-Taking, Proactiveness, Employee Satisfaction and Organizational
Effectiveness.
Received: May 20, 2021. Revised: April 9, 2022. Accepted: May 6, 2022. Published: May 26, 2022.
1 Introduction
Globalization has pushed companies in various parts
of the world to face increasing fierce competition at
various levels and this has a significant effect on
their performance. Today’s corporate business
environment is the most dynamic that organizations
have faced in recent times hence their strategic
positioning to minimize the impact of price wars,
focus on continuous cost efficiency drives and
maximize opportunities in the marketplace [1]. New
challenges are continuously appearing and pushing
organizations to re-evaluate their environments
(internal and external) to improve their
organizational performance and sustain a
competitive advantage [2]. To this end, an
organization’s entrepreneurial orientation (its ability
to innovate, be proactive and take risks) must take
on instrumental importance. Its strategy therefore
has major implications for its relationship with the
market, structure, investments, and performance [3],
[4].
Most organizations are now striving to explore
product – market opportunities through risk taking,
innovativeness and proactive behaviors [5]. Several
anecdotal evidence suggest that most successful
organization possess an entrepreneurial management
style and a review of popular magazines (Business
Week, Fortune and Forbes) often gives the
impression that an entrepreneurial orientation
carries its own reward. To achieve its desired goals
and objectives, organizations need to focus on its
strategic orientations which paves way for its
strategic direction to achieve better business
performance [6], [7].
Over the past 30 years, research interest had
grown rapidly in the search for the effect of
entrepreneurial orientation on organizational
performance. It explains how new ideas are created
through vital entrepreneurial processes which has a
direct relationship with organizational performance.
It is the process of strategy development and styles
that organizations deploy in entrepreneurial
activities [6]. The popular model for entrepreneurial
orientation, as reviewed from many literatures,
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.59
Oluremi Oluwatosin John,
May Ifeoma Nwoye, Paul Kanwai Yayok
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
604
Volume 18, 2022
considers three (3) broad dimensions namely: - (a)
proactiveness, (b) risk taking and (c) innovation [8]–
[12]. Several literatures have explored these three
constructs in entrepreneurial orientation analysis
and have demonstrated that their combination
explains a unique variance that any individual factor
or a combination of any two does (Taheri et
al.,2019). Lately, there has been additional
managerial consideration to the initial three EO
construct that promotes entrepreneurial behaviour
such as (d) autonomy and (e) competitive
aggressiveness, this is referred to as the multivariate
construct [13], [14].
Several researchers have examined how
entrepreneurial orientation impacts the financial and
non-financial performance of organization however
the results of these research streams have been
mixed. Some find a strong relationship between EO
and Organizational Performance while others report
lower or no significant correlations between the two
variables [15]. A possible explanation for this
inconsistency has been the effect of several
moderators/mediators in the EO-Performance
relationship. Considering the importance of
entrepreneurial orientation to an organization’s
performance, EO can be a vital measure of how the
organization is structured to take advantage of
market opportunities [16], [17].
2 Problem Formulation
The Nigerian brewery sector’s performance has
been challenged over the years due to many factors
(macroeconomic environment, insecurity, rising cost
of raw materials, operational issue) despite the
opportunities associated with a rising population
estimated at over 200milliion people. A critical
review of the sectors performance in Q2-2021
showed that COVID-19 pandemic aggravated the
effect of structural challenges affecting the
industry’s operating environment
Data from the Nigerian exchange limited (NgX)
showed that only Nigerian Breweries (of the five
quoted breweries) grew its revenue to N209.3billion
from N151.8billion in 2020 while others made
losses. Post Covid, the sector is not out of the woods
yet as intense competition still presents limited
scope for volume growth while the impact of
regulation and higher cost pressures continue to
weigh heavily on the overall performance of the
breweries [18]. Data from NBS (National Bureau of
Statistics) showed that consumers spent the least on
alcoholic drinks.This is not unexpected given the
poor state of consumer's disposable income with a
slow CAGR of 1.7% in the last five years as well as
the discretionary nature of alcohol consumption
(NBS Report, 2020).
The recent increase in VAT to 7.5% and the new
excise duty introduced on wines, beer ad spirits
have all contributed to increase in cost of
production. Likewise, external risk factors such as
constraints to FX capital flows for the importation
of essential raw and packaging materials such as
barley and aluminum cans [19]. The incessant
insecurity issues in the country, especially in the
region where the breweries source their raw
materials, have affected effective supply of raw
materials and raised production cost. This has
shifted focus on backward integration which
however has led to increase production cost. Given
these changing dynamics and the limited room for
pricing, brewers have been compelled to actively
seek to improve efficiency and effectiveness across
the value chain [20].
There have been several studies on drivers of
organizational performance in the brewery industry
in Nigeria. Researchers looked at leadership style
[19], [20], impact of management accounting
system and perceived environmental uncertainty
[21], impact of globalization and total quality
management - TQM [18], corporate re-engineering
and environmental influence [22], environmental
turbulence [23], [24], business process re-
engineering [19] while others looked at workforce
diversity and organizational performance in the
breweries [25]. Of the literatures reviewed none has
looked at the impact of entrepreneurship orientation
on organizational performance in the brewery
industry in Nigeria, it is against this backdrop that
the current study explored the linkages between
entrepreneurship orientation and organizational
performance under the mediating effect of
organizational embeddedness - with quoted
breweries in Nigeria as a research context.
2.1 Literature Review
2.1.1 Entrepreneurship Orientation
Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) is part of
competitive strategy model that has become an
important topic in entrepreneurship [6]. Many
literatures discussed the relationship between EO
and performance [9]. EO has been linked a key
success factor for organizations positive
performance and to build competitive advantage
(Mullens, 2018).
Pursuant to this, EO is defined as the processes,
structures and decision-making of firms that
exemplify innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-
taking [6]. Risk-taking corresponds with taking bold
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.59
Oluremi Oluwatosin John,
May Ifeoma Nwoye, Paul Kanwai Yayok
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
605
Volume 18, 2022
actions, including taking on debt or significant
resource commitments, under uncertainty and
ambiguity. Proactiveness is about beating your
competitors to the market and involves exploiting
opportunities identified through careful scanning
and monitoring of the environment (Mullens, 2018).
Innovativeness is the ability to generate new ideas,
service, process, or products. It is the ability to
creatively improve upon an existing process [8].
2.1.2 Organizational Embeddedness
Organizational Embeddedness (OE) is the totality of
forces (fits, links and sacrifices) that keep and
sustain people in their current organization. It is the
collection of forces that encourages employees to
remain in an organization. It connects people with
their organization, giving a sense of belonging and
acceptance [26]. This sense of belonging is made of
the three proxies of organizational embeddedness
namely: fit, links and sacrifice.
Fit looks at the extent to which an employee’s
ability is compatible with that of the organization
and its internal and external environment. It also
describes how well people fit into their organization
with regards to personal values, career goals and
plans for the future. Links speaks of the number of
formal and informal connections that an employee
has with his workplace in a social, psychological
and financial web with a number of strands while
sacrifice is defined as what employees would have
to give up or what opportunities they will forgo
should they decide to leave their place of
employment [27], [28].
2.1.3 Organizational Performance
Performance is considered as the result of activities
and includes the actual outcomes of a strategic
management process. It is defined as a state of
competitiveness of the economic entity, reached by
a level of efficiency and productivity that assures a
sustainable presence on the market [29].
It is a multidimensional concept and research has
shown that the relationship between
Entrepreneurship Orientation (EO) and
Organizational Performance (OP) may, to a large
extent, depend on the indicators used to access
organizational performance. It can be defined in
several ways depending on its purpose and set of
goals. It could be a measure of how much an
organization achieves its goals which are broadly
divided into financial and non-financial metrics or
how it copes under fluctuating factors such as
profits, employee satisfaction, productivity, business
and social survival [30]. Observed weaknesses of
financial measures are short-term reward, short-term
sight, cause management frustration and resistance,
inhibit innovation which are often inconsistent with
strategic priorities and helps to create a competitive
advantage for organizations hence the decision of
non-financial metrics (employee satisfaction and
organizational effectiveness) as measures of
organizational performance in this study [31], [32].
2.1.4 Entrepreneurship Orientation and
Organizational Performance
The entrepreneurship orientation and organizational
performance link has been studied by scholars in
different countries across many industries and the
result obtained has also been mixed. Several
scholars studied the mediating/moderating effect of
several variables in the EO-OP link with varying
results confirming the impact of the moderating /
mediating variable which has either been negative
or positive. Research has shown that organizational
culture and management style moderates the
relationship positively (Jeong et al., 2019).
Customer satisfaction acts as a positive mediating
variable [33]. International experience and external
competition moderate the relationship between EO –
OP [34]. Others looked at TQM [35], Structural
infrastructural capabilities [36], entrepreneurial
competencies [37], Government support and
Internationalization [38].
While some scholars agreed that all proxies of EO
have a positive impact on organizational
performance [13], [39], [40], some proxies of EO do
not have a significant effect on organizational
performance such as risk-taking and proactiveness
[4], risk-taking [41]–[43], Proactiveness [44],
innovativeness and risk-taking (Loong le et al.,
2019) while others confirmed that all three proxies
have no significant impact on organizational
performance [45].
EO act as a reliable predictor of business success
with transcultural validity [11]. On the effect on
new ventures, [14] found that EO contributes to the
survival of new ventures while [46] and [47]
concluded that SMEs do better in turbulent
environments. Their findings showed that risk-
taking reduces innovative speed of the organization,
innovativeness increases the innovative speed while
proactiveness has an inverted U-shaped effect on
same. Proactiveness diminishes when it reaches a
certain level and becomes negative when it is above
that level. The conclusion therefore is that the
allocation of intangible resources of the firm, as
supported by the Resource Based Theory, can help
improve firm performance and organizational focus
should be on value creation rather than value
appropriation [48].
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.59
Oluremi Oluwatosin John,
May Ifeoma Nwoye, Paul Kanwai Yayok
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
606
Volume 18, 2022
[14] illustrated innovation as a missing link between
entrepreneurship orientation and performance
relationship. They highlighted the need to
understand innovation speed in the context of
organizational performance and concluded that
innovation enhances superior performance of the
organization while autonomy and competitive
aggressiveness only increase the innovation speed.
Proactiveness was seen as the largest contributor to
innovation speed due to its ability to take
opportunities offered in the marketplace faster than
its competitors. Poudel et al. (2018) argued that
technological capability and innovations contributes
to firm performance and enhance their competitive
advantage
Entrepreneurially oriented firms are advised ,
especially small and medium enterprise to enhance
their position in the marketplace by conceiving
innovative strategies that result in boosting their
performance which ultimately helps them to build
competitive advantage and outsmart their
competitors. [11], [14], [45]–[48].
From the empirical review above, the findings posit
different interplays between the proxies of
entrepreneurship orientation and organizational
performance but none considered the effect of
employee commitment in the EO-OP link hence the
decision for this study to consider the mediating role
of organizational embeddedness which is the gap
the research seeks to address.
What effect does the connection of the employee to
the organization has on the EO-OP link? Taking the
literature discussion into account the following
hypotheses were explored.
H01: Innovativeness of quoted breweries in Nigeria
has no influence on employee satisfaction of
its products.
H02: Risk-Taking capacity of quoted breweries in
Nigeria has no impact on its employees’
satisfaction.
H03: Proactiveness (response to market demand and
changes) of quoted breweries in Nigeria has
no influence on the employee satisfaction
H04: Innovativeness capacity of quoted breweries in
Nigeria has no influence on organizational
effectiveness.
H05: Risk-Taking capacity of quoted breweries in
Nigeria has no impact on its organizational
effectiveness.
H06: Proactiveness (response to market demand
and changes) of quoted breweries in Nigeria
has no influence on the organization’s
effectiveness.
H07: Organizational embeddedness does not mediate
the relationship between entrepreneurship
orientation and organizational performance.
Fig. 1: Conceptual Framework
2.1.5 Research Methods
Data Collection and Sample Representation: To test
the hypotheses, a survey of permanent employees of
the breweries was conducted. Data collection took
place between July and September, 2021.
Proportionate sampling was used for this study. An
online questionnaire was also developed targeting
those who could not be physically assessed. The
questionnaires were filled and returned by 1,232
respondents, incomplete and non-valid
questionnaires were discarded, obtaining a final
sample of 1,120 valid questionnaires. This is a 91%
response rate.
Measures: To measure the models constructed, five
-point scales adapted from previous literatures were
used. Items were adapted from [49] for the
constructs of Entrepreneurship Orientation (risk-
taking, innovativeness and proactiveness). [50] and
[51] for organizational effectiveness while the
construct for employee satisfaction were adapted
from the works of [52] and [53]. All were on a 5-
point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree).
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.59
Oluremi Oluwatosin John,
May Ifeoma Nwoye, Paul Kanwai Yayok
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
607
Volume 18, 2022
3 Analysis and Results
Partial least square (PLS) structural equation
modeling (SEM – maximum likelihood) was used to
test the proposed model. PLS is more suitable than
other methods, such as covariance-based structural
equation modeling, when the conceptual model, is
complex and includes many indicators and latent
variables and constructs with formative indicators
[54]; [55].
3.1 Hypothesis Testing
Structural Equation Model Path illustrating the
relationship between the dependent and
independent variables.
Fig. 2: Structural Equation Modelling Path
Table 1. Regression Weights - Parameter Estimate and Model Summary
The SEM analysis in figure 2 above shows the
structural linkages of the dependent and independent
variables. The parameter estimates show a strong
and significant regression coefficient between the
variables. The strongest link is between
Innovativeness and employee satisfaction while
risk-taking and organizational effectiveness shows a
regression coefficient of 0.14.
H01: Innovativeness of quoted breweries in Nigeria
has no influence on employees’ satisfaction of its
products.
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R
Square
EMS
.769a
0.592
0.591
OEF
.789a
0.623
0.622
DV
IV
Estimate
S.E.
C.R.
P
EMS
<---
FIN
0.447
0.03
17.64
***
EMS
<---
RIT
0.043
0.02
2.722
0.01
EMS
<---
PRO
0.352
0.02
16.39
***
OEF
<---
PRO
0.293
0.02
15.08
***
OEF
<---
RIT
0.14
0.02
8.938
***
OEF
<---
FIN
0.39
0.02
16.76
***
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.59
Oluremi Oluwatosin John,
May Ifeoma Nwoye, Paul Kanwai Yayok
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
608
Volume 18, 2022
The variable innovativeness has a regression
coefficient 0.447. The innovative capacity has a
positive significant impact on employee satisfaction.
Thus, suggesting that an increase/change in the
organizations innovative capacity will result in
0.447 unit increase in the level of employee
satisfaction. Considering that the p-value is less than
5%, it is concluded that the innovativeness of the
breweries has a direct significant influence on
employee’s satisfaction.
H02: Risk-Taking capacity of quoted breweries in
Nigeria has no impact on its employees’
satisfaction.
The variable risk-taking has a regression coefficient
0.043. This implies that the organizations risk-
taking capacity has a positive impact on the
employee satisfaction. Thus, suggesting that, any
increase/change in the organizations risk-taking
capacity there will be 0.043 unit increase in the level
of the employee satisfaction. Considering that the p-
value is less than 5%, it is concluded that the risk-
taking capacity of the breweries has a direct
significant influence on employee’s satisfaction.
H03: Proactiveness (response to market demand
and changes) of quoted breweries in Nigeria has no
influence on the employees’ satisfaction.
The variable proactiveness has a regression
coefficient 0.352. This implies that the organizations
proactive capacity has a positive impact on the
employee satisfaction. Thus, suggesting that, any
increase/change in the organizations proactive
capacity, there will be 0.352 unit increase in the
level of employee satisfaction. Considering that the
p-value is less than 5%, it is concluded that the
proactiveness of the breweries has a direct
significant influence on employee’s satisfaction.
H04: Innovativeness capacity of quoted breweries in
Nigeria has no influence on organizational
effectiveness.
The variable innovativeness has a regression
coefficient 0.390. This implies that the
innovativeness has a positive impact on
organizational effectiveness. Thus, suggesting that,
with an increase/change in the organizations
innovativeness, there will result be 0.390 unit
increase in the level of organizational effectiveness.
Considering that the p-value is less than 5%, it is
concluded that the innovativeness of the breweries
has a direct significant influence on organizational
effectiveness.
H05: Risk-Taking capacity of quoted breweries in
Nigeria has no impact on its organizational
effectiveness.
The variable risk-taking has a regression coefficient
of 0.140. This implies that the organizations risk-
taking capacity has a positive impact on the
organizational effectiveness. Thus, suggesting that,
any increase/change in the organizations risk-taking
capacity there will be 0.140 unit increase in
organizational effectiveness. Considering that the p-
value is less than 5%, it is concluded that risk-taking
has a direct significant influence on organizational
effectiveness.
H06: Proactiveness (response to market demand
and changes) of quoted breweries in Nigeria has no
influence on the organization’s effectiveness.
The variable proactiveness has a regression
coefficient 0.293. This implies that the organizations
proactiveness has a positive impact on the
organization’s effectiveness. Thus, suggesting that,
any increase/change in the organizations
proactiveness there will be 0.293 unit increase in the
level of the organization’s effectiveness.
Considering that the p-value is less than 5%, it is
concluded that the proactiveness of the breweries
has a direct significant influence on organizational
effectiveness.
As seen from Table 2, the coefficient of
determination returned a value of 0.591 for
employee satisfaction (EMS) which means that
59.1% of employee satisfaction in quoted breweries
in Nigeria can be explained by its innovativeness,
proactiveness and risk-taking capacity as
independent variables, while 41.9% can be
explained by other factors outside the regression
model analyzed.
Similarly, the coefficient of determination of the
regression model obtained Adjusted R-square value
of 0.622 for organizational effectiveness (OEF)
which means that 62.2% of organizational
effectiveness in quoted breweries in Nigeria can be
explained by its innovativeness, proactiveness and
risk-taking capacity as independent variables, while
37.8% can be explained by other factors outside the
regression model analyzed.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.59
Oluremi Oluwatosin John,
May Ifeoma Nwoye, Paul Kanwai Yayok
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
609
Volume 18, 2022
Table 2. Regression Weights: (Model Estimate with the effect of the mediating variable)
H07: Organizational embeddedness does not
moderate the relationship between entrepreneurship
orientation and organizational performance.
As seen from Table 2 above, organizational
embeddedness returned a parameter estimate of
0.459 with a p-value that is less than 0.05 (5%) level
of significance for its mediating role on employee
satisfaction. Thus, implying that organizational
embeddedness has a positive and significant
mediating effect on the relationship between the
entrepreneurship orientation variables and the
employees’ satisfaction. Similarly, as also observed
from the model estimate table above, organizational
embeddedness returned a parameter estimate of
0.541 with a p-value that is less than 0.05 (5%) level
of significance for its mediating role on
organizational effectiveness. Thus, implying that
organizational embeddedness has a positive and
significant mediating effect on the relationship
between the entrepreneurship orientation variables
and the organizational effectiveness.
Thus, we reject the null hypothesis and conclude
that Organizational embeddedness does mediate the
relationship between entrepreneurship orientation
and organizational performance.
The coefficient of determination (R2) is used to
measure the ability of the model to explain the
variation of independent variables. As can be seen
from Table 2, the coefficient of determination of the
regression model obtained Adjusted R square value
of 0.591 for Employee Satisfaction (EMS) which
means that 59.1% of employee satisfaction in
quoted breweries in Nigeria can be explained by
Innovation, Proactivity and Risk Taking as
independent variables, while 41.9% can be
explained by other factors outside the regression
model analyzed.
Similarly, the coefficient of determination of the
regression model obtained Adjusted R square value
of 0.622 for Organizational Effectiveness (OEF)
which means that 62.2% of organizational
effectiveness in quoted breweries in Nigeria can be
explained by Innovation, Proactivity and Risk
Taking as independent variables, while 37.8% can
be explained by other factors outside the regression
model analyzed.
3.2 Discussion of Findings
In a rapidly and competitive business environment
(in which the breweries operate), entrepreneurial
orientation offers strong contribution to improved
business performance. The research results showed
that all dimensions of EO (risk-taking,
innovativeness and proactiveness) have positive and
significant relationship with organizational
performance of the breweries [8], [9], [18], [19]. It
can, therefore, be inferred on the basis of the
findings that EO has direct relationship with
business performance and the overall contribution
made by the three independent dimensions of EO on
performance is 59.1% on employee satisfaction and
62.2% on organizational effectiveness. However,
integrating entrepreneurial orientation can play a
significant role in firms’ positive performance [43].
Developing economies are characterized by
unfriendly business environment. Consequently, EO
should be priority for developing economy (as in the
case of Nigeria) because it can be used as a
mechanism to compensate constraints imposed by
limited access to financial capital and an
environment where new opportunities rarely appear
(Wiklund & Shepherd, 2009). The structural
equation modelling (SEM) result revealed that
innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness
enhance firm’s performance. This result further
confirms that EO enables firms to influence the
market and market behaviors by offering innovative
products [58]. Together these results provide
important insights on the improved performance of
the breweries.
Drawing from the Resource-Based theory, the first
intent is to advance knowledge in the
entrepreneurial orientation literature through the
provision of more insight into the intermediate
structure in the entrepreneurship orientation –
organizational performance link. To test this
Estimate
S.E.
C.R.
P
OEM
<---
PROa
0.644
0.085
7.563
***
OEM
<---
FINa
0.14
0.095
1.466
0.143
OEM
<---
RITa
0.166
0.057
2.911
0.004
EMS
<---
OEM
0.459
0.017
26.681
***
OEF
<---
OEM
0.541
0.016
33.079
***
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.59
Oluremi Oluwatosin John,
May Ifeoma Nwoye, Paul Kanwai Yayok
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
610
Volume 18, 2022
theoretical model, data were collected from
employees of the five quoted breweries in Nigeria.
Building on the empirical findings, the results
showed that entrepreneurial orientation has direct
positive effects on risk-taking, innovativeness and
proactiveness. The finding is in line with previous
research work which revealed a positive relative
between the two constructs [56]. Also, it was
discovered that the three proxies on EO have direct
positive impact on both employee satisfaction and
organizational effectiveness. The result
compliments the findings of several researchers who
have found a significant positive relationship
between EO and OP [12], [13], [40]. It also shows
that employing an integrative approach of EO yields
greater returns than a disaggregate approach.
This novel theorizing and empirical analysis make
several contributions to entrepreneurship,
organizational embeddedness and performance
literature. Unlike most of the existing literature
testing the EO-OP nexus by examining wide
ranging boundary circumstances [57]; [43], this
study incorporates a unique mediating variable -
organizational embeddedness (ink, fit and sacrifice)
to break up the direct relationship offering different
and complementary explanation for the inconsistent
findings gained from previous research [43], [57].
The result of this work demonstrates the advantage
of a strong organizational embeddedness and the
firms performance in the face of all three
entrepreneurial orientation proxies.
Taken together, it can be seen that organizational
embeddedness is an important strategic intermediate
variable that links EO to the firm’s performance. It
therefore suggests that exploring the opportunities
of entrepreneurship orientation in an organization’s
operation lead to improved performance in sales,
profitability, operational effectiveness and employee
satisfaction [6], [7], [11], [12]. Results from
empirical study indicate that success in business
performance and competitiveness of manufacturing
organizations is highly influenced by organizational
(job) embeddedness of their employees. This
finding is consistent with the works of [59] and [60]
which revealed the positive and significant
relationship between business performance and
organizational embeddedness of their employees.
4 Conclusion
The study makes an important contribution to the
field by concluding that RBV is sufficient to explain
EO and organizational performance in the brewery
sector. Rather than focus so much on the external
strength of the Breweries, it must be noted that there
are significant gains to be made internally through
strengthening internal capabilities and taking
advantage of them through an innovative approach
in the management of human and material resources
in the organization. The findings of this research
revealed that risk-taking showed a positive effect on
performance. To this end, organizations should be
more focused on initiatives that is focused on
promoting the performance of their businesses.
They should understand that to survive in their
highly competitive environment, risk-taking is key
to their business success. It is required that they
consider both financial and operational risk with a
focus on mitigation strategies should the expectation
from such ricks is not achieved.
Managers should give attention to proactively
anticipating customers and markets needs with a
view to addressing them as fast as they can. This
helps organizations to build competitive advantage
through the creation of innovative products geared
towards addressing the gaps as captured from the
market. It often leads to a change in production
processes or a marketing / sales strategy as long as it
is geared towards addressing critic customer needs.
Several research works have shown a clear
connection between proactive organizations and
their performance. It is seen as one of the best
competitive strategy for organizational performance.
It is the ability to take strategic decisions with the
desire to control the market through identification
and exploitation of market opportunities ahead of
competition. This helps to create competitive
advantage and sustain initiative by discovering new
opportunities through strategic demands,
development and launching of new
products/services in the marketplace [43].
In a highly competitive business environment,
organizations need to focus a lot on innovation in
development of new brands and products. Attention
should be to products that will appeal to various
segment of the market. To upwardly mobile young
men and women and adults. A segment of the
market is looking out for products with low alcohol
content and some are focused much more on their
health hence the need to innovatively develop new
products that appeal to such demands. Focus should
be on increased output at reduced cost through
sourcing of cheaper raw materials and reducing
waste in the plants. Employees should be asked to
suggest ways of reducing cost and increasing
efficiency of man and machines. If properly
engaged, employees will support the cost reduction
drive at their areas of work. Each department can be
encouraged to form an operational efficiency team
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.59
Oluremi Oluwatosin John,
May Ifeoma Nwoye, Paul Kanwai Yayok
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
611
Volume 18, 2022
that will be saddled with the responsibility of
improving output and reducing cost [46]–[48].
Since the study established the fact that
organizational embeddedness mediates the link
between entrepreneurship orientation and
organizational performance, management should
focus attention on all activities that ensures that their
employees find a good fit within the organization,
creating excellent link with their fellow colleagues
and are ready to make sacrifices for the growth of
the organization knowing fully well that the growth
of the organization guarantees their develop and
rewards. To this end, attention should be on
improving employee welfare to attract the best
hands in the industry and ensure that they constantly
review that at per with competition, create a
conducive work environment that will make their
employees find a connection with their place of
work and desire to stay, motivate their employees
through good renumerations and incentives system
that takes care of their family / dependents and
finally create a robust retirement plan for all their
employees that still guarantees access to some
benefits they enjoyed while in the employment of
the breweries [43], [56], [57].
If managers work on EO they may be able to
indirectly (re)configure their strategy in an effort to
create superior products and customer value.
Despite the high number of challenges encountered
by breweries in Nigeria, they can succeed by
appropriately engaging their tangible and intangible
resources to improve their performance.
References:
[1] B. Smith and T. Jambulingam,
“Entrepreneurial orientation: Its importance
and performance as a driver of customer
orientation and company effectiveness among
retail pharmacies,” Int. J. Pharm. Healthc.
Mark., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 158–180, Jul. 2018,
doi: 10.1108/IJPHM-07-2017-
0038/FULL/HTML.
[2] M. Ajmal, P. Helo, R. K.-B. A. I. Journal, and
undefined 2017, “Conceptualizing trust with
cultural perspective in international business
operations,” emerald.com, Accessed: May 18,
2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/1
0.1108/BIJ-06-2016-0101/full/html
[3] C. Dewi, M. Erna, I. Haris, I. K.-J. of T.
Science, and undefined 2021, “The Effect of
Contextual Collaborative Learning Based
Ethnoscience to Increase Student’s Scientific
Literacy Ability,” tused.org, vol. 2021, no. 3,
pp. 525–541, doi: 10.36681/tused.2021.88.
[4] Y. Cho, J. L.-P. J. of I. and Entrepreneurship,
and undefined 2018, “Entrepreneurial
orientation, entrepreneurial education and
performance,” emerald.com, Accessed: May
18, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/1
0.1108/APJIE-05-2018-0028/full/html
[5] J. Al-Henzab, A. Tarhini, B. O.-: A. I. Journal,
and undefined 2018, “The associations among
market orientation, technology orientation,
entrepreneurial orientation and organizational
performance,” emerald.com, Accessed: May
18, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/1
0.1108/BIJ-02-2017-0024/full/html
[6] J. Covin, W. W.-E. theory and practice, and
undefined 2019, “Crafting high-impact
entrepreneurial orientation research: Some
suggested guidelines,” journals.sagepub.com,
vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 3–18, Jan. 2019, doi:
10.1177/1042258718773181.
[7] A. Asemokha, L. Torkkeli, A. R. Faroque, and
S. Saarenketo, “Business model innovation in
international performance: the mediating effect
of network capability,” Int. J. Export Mark.,
vol. 3, no. 4, p. 290, 2020, doi:
10.1504/IJEXPORTM.2020.109525.
[8] W. J. Wales, J. G. Covin, and E. Monsen,
“Entrepreneurial orientation: The necessity of a
multilevel conceptualization,” Strateg. Entrep.
J., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 639–660, Dec. 2020, doi:
10.1002/SEJ.1344.
[9] W. Wales, V. K. Gupta, L. Marino, and G.
Shirokova, “Entrepreneurial orientation:
International, global and cross-cultural
research,” Int. Small Bus. J. Res. Entrep., vol.
37, no. 2, pp. 95–104, Mar. 2019, doi:
10.1177/0266242618813423.
[10] C. Lomberg, D. Urbig, … C. S.-E., and
undefined 2017, “Entrepreneurial orientation:
The dimensions’ shared effects in explaining
firm performance,” journals.sagepub.com,
Accessed: May 18, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/e
tap.12237
[11] C. Lomberg, D. Urbig, C. Stöckmann, L. D.
Marino, and P. H. Dickson, “Entrepreneurial
Orientation: The Dimensions’ Shared Effects
in Explaining Firm Performance,” Entrep.
Theory Pract., vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 973–998,
Nov. 2017, doi: 10.1111/ETAP.12237.
[12] M. Karami, J. T.-I. S. B. Journal, and
undefined 2019, “Entrepreneurial orientation
and SME international performance: The
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.59
Oluremi Oluwatosin John,
May Ifeoma Nwoye, Paul Kanwai Yayok
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
612
Volume 18, 2022
mediating role of networking capability and
experiential learning,” journals.sagepub.com,
vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 105–124, Mar. 2019, doi:
10.1177/0266242618807275.
[13] Y. Zhai et al., “An empirical study on
entrepreneurial orientation, absorptive
capacity, and SMEs’ innovation performance:
A sustainable perspective,” mdpi.com, doi:
10.3390/su10020314.
[14] P. Shan, M. Song, X. J.-J. of B. Research, and
undefined 2016, “Entrepreneurial orientation
and performance: Is innovation speed a
missing link?,” Elsevier, Accessed: May 18,
2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S0148296315003811
[15] B. Soomro, N. S.-S. A. J. of B. Studies, and
undefined 2019, “Determining the impact of
entrepreneurial orientation and organizational
culture on job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and employee’s performance,”
emerald.com, Accessed: May 18, 2022.
[Online]. Available:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/1
0.1108/SAJBS-12-2018-0142/full/html
[16] J. McGee, M. P.-J. of small business
management, and undefined 2019, “The
long‐term impact of entrepreneurial
self‐efficacy and entrepreneurial orientation
on venture performance,” Taylor Fr.,
Accessed: May 18, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j
sbm.12324
[17] S. Kraus, M. Breier, P. Jones, M. H.-I.
Entrepreneurship, and undefined 2019,
“Individual entrepreneurial orientation and
intrapreneurship in the public sector,”
Springer, Accessed: May 18, 2022. [Online].
Available:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s1136
5-019-00593-6
[18] E. Agbo, P. A.- Economy, and undefined
2020, “The Influence of Demographic Factors
on Investment Behaviour of Individual
Investors: A Case Study of Edo State, Nigeria,”
core.ac.uk, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 69–77, 2020, doi:
10.20448/journal.502.2020.71.69.77.
[19] O. Olajide, O. O.-J. of B. and Management,
and undefined 2020, “Effects of Business
Process Reengineering on Organisational
Performance in the Food and Beverage
Industry in Nigeria,” nepjol.info, vol. 3, no. 1,
pp. 57–74, 2020, doi:
10.3126/jbmr.v3i1.32029.
[20] N. Guinness, B. Plc, E. City, and N. State,
“Leadership Style and its Impact on
Organizational Performance: Guinness Nigeria
Plc, Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria,” 2021,
Accessed: May 18, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/
409626/Aghahowa_OsakpamwanMoses.pdf
[21] N. Etim, E. Udoh, E. K.-J. of S. Commerce,
and undefined 2022, “Entrepreneurial
Orientation and the Performance of the Agro-
allied Enterprises in Akwa Ibom State,
Nigeria,” celebesscholarpg.com, vol. 2, no. 1,
p. 2022, Accessed: May 18, 2022. [Online].
Available:
http://celebesscholarpg.com/index.php/jommer
ce/article/view/6
[22] A. P. Opute, N. O. Madichie, S. B. Hagos, and
J. Ojra, “Entrepreneurship behaviour of
African minorities in the UK: ‘Demystifying
cultural influence,’” Int. J. Entrep. Small Bus.,
vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 298–322, 2021, doi:
10.1504/IJESB.2021.119232.
[23] R. Muriithi, K. Ngina, … K. K. R. in B. and S.,
and undefined 2019, “Assessment of the
Relationship between Involvement,
Entrepreneurial Orientation, and Performance
of Christian Faith based Hotels in Kenya,”
ssbfnet.com, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 2147–4486,
2019, doi: 10.20525/ijrbs.v8i3.291.
[24] U. A. Usman and J. N. Kamau, “Determinants
of Entrepreneurial Orientation among Muslim
Students in Kenya: A Case of United States
International University-Africa,” Univ. J., vol.
1, p. 61, 2019, Accessed: May 18, 2022.
[Online]. Available:
http://41.204.183.105/handle/11732/5025
[25] M. Ikon, M. O.-O.-G. J. of H. Resource, and
undefined 2017, “Workforce diversity and
performance of Nigerian breweries Plc‟,
Enugu, Nigeria,” researchgate.net, Accessed:
May 18, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-
Ikon/publication/334397851_workforce_divers
ity_and_performance_of_nigerian_breweries_p
lc_enugu_nigeria/links/5d27327c458515c11c2
5e3c8/workforce-diversity-and-performance-
of-nigerian-breweries-plc-enugu-nigeria.pdf
[26] S. Singh, B. Bhowmick, D. Eesley, … B. S.-F.
and S., and undefined 2021, “Grassroots
innovation and entrepreneurial success: Is
entrepreneurial orientation a missing link?,”
Elsevier, Accessed: May 18, 2022. [Online].
Available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S0040162517315457
[27] M. Anwar, T. Clauss, W. I.-R. of M. Science,
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.59
Oluremi Oluwatosin John,
May Ifeoma Nwoye, Paul Kanwai Yayok
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
613
Volume 18, 2022
and undefined 2022, “Entrepreneurial
orientation and new venture performance in
emerging markets: the mediating role of
opportunity recognition,” Springer, Accessed:
May 18, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s1184
6-021-00457-w
[28] H. Tahmasebifard, … A. Z.-… E. & B., and
undefined 2017, “The role of entrepreneurial
orientation in achieving agility capability,”
aebrjournal.org, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 137–156,
2017, Accessed: May 18, 2022. [Online].
Available:
http://www.aebrjournal.org/uploads/6/6/2/2/66
22240/joaebrjune2017_137_156.pdf
[29] O. Adedoyin, O. Victoria, H. B.-I. J. of, and
undefined 2021, “Entrepreneurial orientation
and market share of selected quoted consumer
goods manufacturing companies in Nigeria,”
papers.ssrn.com, Accessed: May 18, 2022.
[Online]. Available:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstra
ct_id=3827683
[30] Y. H. Cho and J.-H. Lee, “Entrepreneurial
orientation, entrepreneurial education and
performance,” Asia Pacific J. Innov. Entrep.,
vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 124–134, Sep. 2018, doi:
10.1108/APJIE-05-2018-0028/FULL/HTML.
[31] M. Abdulrab et al., “Effect of entrepreneurial
orientation and strategic orientations on
financial and nonfinancial performance of
small and medium enterprises in Saudi
Arabia,” J. Public Aff., May 2020, doi:
10.1002/PA.2305.
[32] R. Masa’deh, J. Al-Henzab, A. Tarhini, and B.
Y. Obeidat, “The associations among market
orientation, technology orientation,
entrepreneurial orientation and organizational
performance,” Benchmarking, vol. 25, no. 8,
pp. 3117–3142, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-
02-2017-0024/FULL/HTML.
[33] H. Cuevas-Vargas, … N. P.-M.-S., and
undefined 2019, “Effects of entrepreneurial
orientation on business performance: The
mediating role of customer satisfaction—A
formative–Reflective model analysis,”
journals.sagepub.com, vol. 9, no. 2, Apr. 2019,
doi: 10.1177/2158244019859088.
[34] M. C. Wang, P. C. Chen, and S. C. Fang,
“How environmental turbulence influences
firms’ entrepreneurial orientation: the
moderating role of network relationships and
organizational inertia,” J. Bus. Ind. Mark., vol.
36, no. 1, pp. 48–59, Jan. 2021, doi:
10.1108/JBIM-05-2019-0170/FULL/HTML.
[35] S. Sahoo and S. Yadav, “Entrepreneurial
orientation of SMEs, total quality management
and firm performance,” J. Manuf. Technol.
Manag., vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 892–912, 2017, doi:
10.1108/JMTM-04-2017-0064/FULL/HTML.
[36] E. Isichei, K. Agbaeze, M. O.-I. J. of, and
undefined 2020, “Entrepreneurial orientation
and performance in SMEs: The mediating role
of structural infrastructure capability,”
emerald.com, Accessed: May 18, 2022.
[Online]. Available:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/1
0.1108/IJOEM-08-2019-
0671/full/html?casa_token=1nqQA6eNamoAA
AAA:k72g2vp4xAnjpRa9JkQdP-4aMCa-
1lE3843ZorAACd_85_lNxDSQs7D-
pW9LzfcIG_6eqr9nEwZUGFSN1NP8_8MjIT
Xb1d3F-fjT7nGyQ80-drMyQwhP
[37] S. H. Khan, A. Majid, M. Yasir, and A. Javed,
“Social capital and business model innovation
in SMEs: do organizational learning
capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation
really matter?,” Eur. J. Innov. Manag., vol. 24,
no. 1, pp. 191–212, Jan. 2021, doi:
10.1108/EJIM-04-2020-0143/FULL/HTML.
[38] M. Ismail, … Z. Z. A. R. in B. and, and
undefined 2018, “The effects of
entrepreneurship orientation, government
support and internationalization on Malaysian
SMEs performance,” researchgate.net,
Accessed: May 18, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Zukarnain
-
Zakaria/publication/327620652_The_Effects_o
f_Entrepreneurship_Orientation_Government_
Support_and_Internationalization_on_Malaysi
an_SMEs_Performance/links/5b99ccf2458515
310583f0dd/The-Effects-of-Entrepreneurship-
Orientation-Government-Support-and-
Internationalization-on-Malaysian-SMEs-
Performance.pdf
[39] E. Genc, M. Dayan, O. G.-I. M. Management,
and undefined 2019, “The impact of SME
internationalization on innovation: The
mediating role of market and entrepreneurial
orientation,” Elsevier, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.01.008.
[40] L. J. Stanley, R. Hernández-Linares, M. C.
López-Fernández, and F. W. Kellermanns, “A
Typology of Family Firms: An Investigation of
Entrepreneurial Orientation and Performance,”
Fam. Bus. Rev., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 174–194,
Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1177/0894486519838120.
[41] G. Linton, J. K.-J. of B. Research, and
undefined 2017, “Configurations of
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.59
Oluremi Oluwatosin John,
May Ifeoma Nwoye, Paul Kanwai Yayok
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
614
Volume 18, 2022
entrepreneurial orientation and competitive
strategy for high performance,” Elsevier, 2016,
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.022.
[42] C. Lechner and S. V. Gudmundsson,
“Entrepreneurial orientation, firm strategy and
small firm performance,” Int. Small Bus. J.,
vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 36–60, Feb. 2014, doi:
10.1177/0266242612455034.
[43] J. Rezaei and R. Ortt, “Entrepreneurial
orientation and firm performance: the
mediating role of functional performances,”
Manag. Res. Rev., vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 878–900,
Jul. 2018, doi: 10.1108/MRR-03-2017-
0092/FULL/HTML.
[44] B. M. Buli, “Entrepreneurial orientation,
market orientation and performance of SMEs
in the manufacturing industry: Evidence from
Ethiopian enterprises,” Manag. Res. Rev., vol.
40, no. 3, pp. 292–309, 2017, doi:
10.1108/MRR-07-2016-0173/FULL/HTML.
[45] S. Lee, S. L.-S. business, and undefined 2009,
“Entrepreneurial orientation and the
performance of service business,” Springer,
vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–13, Mar. 2009, doi:
10.1007/s11628-008-0051-5.
[46] S. Kraus, M. Breier, P. Jones, and M. Hughes,
“Individual entrepreneurial orientation and
intrapreneurship in the public sector,” Int.
Entrep. Manag. J., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1247–
1268, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1007/S11365-019-
00593-6.
[47] B. Taheri, U. Bititci, M. J. Gannon, and R.
Cordina, “Investigating the influence of
performance measurement on learning,
entrepreneurial orientation and performance in
turbulent markets,” Int. J. Contemp. Hosp.
Manag., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 1224–1246, Apr.
2019, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-11-2017-
0744/FULL/HTML.
[48] W. Wu, H. Wang, H. Y. Lee, Y. T. Lin, and F.
Guo, “How Machiavellianism, psychopathy,
and narcissism affect sustainable
entrepreneurial orientation: The moderating
effect of psychological resilience,” Front.
Psychol., vol. 10, no. APR, 2019, doi:
10.3389/FPSYG.2019.00779/FULL.
[49] J. L. Naman and D. P. Slevin,
“Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: A
model and empirical tests,” Strateg. Manag. J.,
vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 137–153, 1993, doi:
10.1002/SMJ.4250140205.
[50] J. Hughes and J. Hughes, “The Role of Teacher
Knowledge and Learning Experiences in
Forming Technology-...,” J. Technol. Teach.
Educ., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 277–302, 2005.
[51] S. McDonald, C. J. Oates, C. W. Young, and
K. Hwang, “Toward sustainable consumption:
Researching voluntary simplifiers,” Psychol.
Mark., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 515–534, Jun. 2006,
doi: 10.1002/MAR.20132.
[52] D. Jutla, P. Bodorik, and J. Dhaliwal,
“Supporting the e-business readiness of small
and medium-sized enterprises: Approaches and
metrics,” Internet Res., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 139–
164, 2002, doi: 10.1108/10662240210422512.
[53] W. Li et al., “Angiotensin-converting enzyme
2 is a functional receptor for the SARS
coronavirus,” Nature, vol. 426, no. 6965, pp.
450–454, Nov. 2003, doi:
10.1038/NATURE02145.
[54] J. F. Hair, J. J. Risher, M. Sarstedt, and C. M.
Ringle, “When to use and how to report the
results of PLS-SEM,” Eur. Bus. Rev., vol. 31,
no. 1, pp. 2–24, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1108/EBR-
11-2018-0203/FULL/HTML.
[55] M. Sarstedt, E. E. Rigdon, and C. M. Ringle,
“On Comparing Results from CB-SEM and
PLS-SEM: Five Perspectives and Five
Recommendations”, doi: 10.15358/0344-1369-
2017-3-4.
[56] J. Jiang, C. Dun, T. Huang, and Z. Lu, “Graph
Convolutional Reinforcement Learning,” Oct.
2018, Accessed: May 18, 2022. [Online].
Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.09202
[57] B. S. Anderson, P. M. Kreiser, D. F. Kuratko,
J. S. Hornsby, and Y. Eshima,
“Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial
orientation,” Strateg. Manag. J., vol. 36, no.
10, pp. 1579–1596, Oct. 2015, doi:
10.1002/SMJ.2298.
[58] T. Gruber-Muecke and K. M. Hofer, “Market
orientation, entrepreneurial orientation and
performance in emerging markets,” Int. J.
Emerg. Mark., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 560–571, Jul.
2015, doi: 10.1108/IJOEM-05-2013-
0076/FULL/HTML.
[59] A. Ghosh, L. Gao, A. Thakur, P. M. Siu, and
C. W. K. Lai, “Role of free fatty acids in
endothelial dysfunction,” J. Biomed. Sci., vol.
24, no. 1, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1186/S12929-017-
0357-5.
[60] S. Ato Sarsah, H. Tian, C. S. K. Dogbe, B. A.
Bamfo, and W. W. K. Pomegbe, “Effect of
entrepreneurial orientation on radical
innovation performance among manufacturing
SMEs: the mediating role of absorptive
capacity,” J. Strateg. Manag., vol. 13, no. 4,
pp. 551–570, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1108/JSMA-
03-2020-0053/FULL/HTML.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.59
Oluremi Oluwatosin John,
May Ifeoma Nwoye, Paul Kanwai Yayok
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
615
Volume 18, 2022
Contribution of Individual Authors to the
Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting
Policy)
-Oluremi Oluwatosin John carried out the
conceptualization and manuscript drafting.
-May Ifeoma Nwoye provided guidance for the
overall strategy of the work and provided
supervision.
-Paul Kanwai Yayok guided the statistical analysis
and supervision.
Conflict of Interests
The Authors have no conflict of interests to declare.
Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a
Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself
This research received no specific grant from any
funding agency in the public, commercial, or non-
for-profit sectors.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
_US
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.59
Oluremi Oluwatosin John,
May Ifeoma Nwoye, Paul Kanwai Yayok
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
616
Volume 18, 2022