빠르게 변화하는 해외 시장 환경 및 소비자 니즈의 변화에 발맞춰, 기업의 혁신 전략의 중요성이 강조되고 있음에도 불구하고, 경쟁전략과 신제품개발속의 관계에 관한 연구가 많이 이루어지지 않 은 실정이다. 특히, 대기업에 비해 유무형 자원의 부족에 한계를 가지고 있는 중소기업에게 있어, 해외 시장 환경의 변화에 대처하는 경쟁전략의 선택은 중요한 의사결정 요소이며, 이러한 경쟁전략 은 신제품개발속도에 영향을 미치는 주요한 전략적 요인으로 작용한다. 이에 본 연구는, 차별화전 략과 비용우위전략이 신제품개발속도에 미치는 영향을 알아보고, 시장역동성이 이러한 관계에 어 떠한 조절효과를 미치는지 살펴보고자 한다. 이를 위해 한국 중소수출업체를 대상으로 설문을 진행 하였으며, 차별화전략과 비용우위전략이 신제품개발속도에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것을 확인하였 다. 나아가, 시장역동성이 높을수록, 차별화전략이 신제품개발속도에 미치는 긍정적인 영향은 커지 지만, 비용우위전략이 신제품개발속도에 미치는 긍정적인 영향은 약해지는 것을 확인하였다. 본 연 구는, 경쟁전략이 신제품개발속도에 미치는 영향을 제안하고 검증하였으며, 시장이 빠르게 변화할 경우, 경쟁전략의 긍정적인 효과가 달라질 수 있음을 확인하였다는 점에서 학문적 및 실무적 시사 점이 있을 것으로 기대된다.

기업의 혁신적이고 적극적인 성향 또는 활동인 기업가 지향성은 최근 국제경영 분야에서 중요하 게 연구되고 있다. 특히, 기업가 지향성은 기업의 학습 및 역량 개발을 촉진하고, 새로운 시장의 기 회를 인지하고 포착하며, 경쟁 기업들과의 차별화를 가능하게 한다는 점에서 성과에 긍정적인 영향 을 미친다는 주장이 있다. 일부 연구에서는 기업가 지향성이 오히려 성과에 유의미한 영향을 미치 지 않는다는 연구결과도 나타났다. 하지만, 기업가 지향성과 성과 간의 관계는 기업의 자원 및 역 량 등 내부적 환경에 따라 상의할 가능성이 크다. 본 연구에서는 기업의 내부적 요인으로서 흡수 역량이 기업가 지향성의 실행에 영향을 미치는 주요 요인으로 작용할 수 있다는 점을 고려해서 흡 수 역량의 두 가지 차원(잠재적 흡수 역량, 실현적 흡수 역량)이 기업가 지향성-수출 성과에 미치 는 영향을 실증적으로 분석하고자 한다. 한국 수출 기업들을 대상으로 기업가 지향성, 흡수 역량, 수출 성과에 대한 설문 조사를 실시하였다. 분석 결과, 기업가 지향성은 수출 성과에 긍정적인 영 향을 미치며, 기업의 실현된 흡수 역량이 높을수록 기업가 지향성의 긍정적인 영향은 강화되는 것 으로 나타났다. 이에, 본 연구는 기업가 지향성-수출 성과 간의 관계에 영향을 미치는 기업의 내부 적 요인을 검증함으로써 학문적 및 실무적 관점에서 의미 있는 시사점을 제공할 수 있을 것으로 기 대된다.

최근 기업들의 해외시장진출이 활발해지면서 글로벌 시장에서의 신제품개발속도에 대한 관심이 높아지고 있다. 본 연구는 신제품개발속도를 글로벌 관점에서 살펴보고, 더 나아가 기업특성과 시장 환경 특성이 글로벌 시장에서의 신제품개발속도에 미치는 영향을 실증적으로 분석하고자 한다. 이를 위해 한국 제조업체들을 대상으로 신제품개발 및 제품 성과에 대한 설문조사를 실시하였다. 실증분석 결과, 기업 및 시장 환경 특성 중에서도 기업 규모, 제품특성, 시장불확실성이 글로벌 시장에서의 신제품개발속도에 유의미한 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 이에 본 연구는 글로벌적 관점에서 신제품개발속도에 영향을 미치는 요인들을 검증함으로써 학문적 및 실무적 관점에서 의미있는 시사점을 제공할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

다국적 기업의 현지 사회적 책임 활동(CSR, corporate social responsibility)은 현지의 다양한 이해관계자 에게 정당성을 확보하는 방안 중 하나로써, 최근 그 중요성이 부각되고 있다. 이에 본 연구는 해외 기업의 현지 사회적 책임 활동이 현지 지원자의 구직 의도에 미치는 영향에 관해 실증적으로 분석하고자 한다. 더 나아가 국 가이미지(country of origin image)에 따라 사회적 책임 활동의 영향이 달라질 수 있음을 살펴보고자 한다. 국내 대학생을 대상으로 실시한 설문조사를 바탕으로 실증분석을 진행한 결과, 국내 구직자에게 있어 다국적 기업 해외자회사의 국내 사회적 책임 활동은 구직의도에 긍정적인 영향을 미치며, 중국기업의 경우 이러한 사회적 책임 활동의 긍정적인 영향이 더 커지는 것으로 나타났다. 이에 본 연구는 국가 이미지가 상대적으로 호의적이지 않은 신흥국 기반의 다국적 기업들의 현지 진출 시, 현지의 사회적 책임 활동이 현지 구직자의 지원의도를 높일 수 있는 중요한 기업전략임을 확인함으로써, 학문적 및 실무적 관점에서 의미 있는 시사점을 제공할 수 있을 것 으로 기대된다.

Introduction The trade-off between cost leadership strategy and differentiation strategy is of importance and presents a key challenge to exporters because it is intrinsically related to innovation (Gebauer, 2008; O’Cass et al., 2014). Nevertheless, resources are limited, and firms must make choices in their allocation and determine the extent to which they will emphasize one strategy over another (Danneels, 2007; Lant, Milliken, & Batra, 1992). Although the individual roles of product strategies or innovation capabilities on export performance have attracted considerable attention (e.g., Hortinha, Lages, & Lages, 2011; Lages, Silva, & Styles, 2009), few studies have assessed their integrating impact - that is, the difference in the strengths of the relationships between cost leadership or differentiation strategy and innovation. Drawing on resource based view, we examine how innovation capabilities related with the relationship between cost leadership and differentiation strategies and exporters’ performance. Thus, we consider the moderating role of two distinct capabilities - exploratory innovation and exploitative innovation - on the relationships between product strategies and export performance. Exploratory innovation includes activities aimed to enter new product-market domains, while exploitative innovation activities improve existing product-market domains (He & Wong, 2004). The objectives of this study are to explore (1) impacts of cost leadership strategy and differentiation strategy on export performance, (2) moderating effects of exploitative and exploratory innovation capability on the relationship between product strategy and export performance, and (3) these relationships in the context of a comparison of Korean and Japanese exporters. Most empirical research about product strategy and innovation capability has been conducted in Western-based context. This means that managers operating in non-Western business environments have only Western-based empirical evidence to help them develop strategies for managing levels of market orientation in their international businesses. However, non-Western business cultures may be different from those found in Western firms, and therefore generalizing studies of exporting behavior from Western to non-Western business contexts may be misleading. Indeed, it is noted that there is a need for more studies into the transferability of Western research to the Asian business setting (Ambler, Styles, & Xiucun, 1999). Thus, in order to fill this imbalance, the purpose of this study is to attempt to investigate product strategy and innovation capability of Korean and Japanese firms in international markets. Conceptual background Porter (1980) argues that a firm can achieve a higher level of performance over a rival in one of two ways: either it can supply an identical product or service at a lower cost, or it can supply a product or service that is differentiated in such a way that the customer is willing to pay a price premium that exceeds the additional cost of the differentiation. A cost leadership strategy is designed to produce goods or services more cheaply than competitors by stressing efficient scale of operation. When a firm designs, produces, and sells a comparable product more efficiently than its competitors as well as its market scope is industry-wide, it means that the firm is carrying out the cost leadership strategy successfully (Campbell-Hunt, 2000). Thus, the primary thing for a firm seeking competitively valuable way by reducing cost is to concentrate on maintaining efficiency through all activities in order to effectively control every expense and find new sources of potential cost reduction (Dess & Davis, 1984). The differentiation strategy provides value to customers with the unique attributes or perceptions of uniqueness, and characteristics of a firm’s product other than cost. The firm pursuing differentiation seeks to be unique in its industry along some dimension that is valued by customers, which means investing in product R&D and marketing (Porter, 1980). Rather than cost reduction, a firm using the differentiation needs to concentrate on investing in and developing such things that are distinguishable and customers will perceive (Gebauer, 2008). Overall, the essential success factor of differentiation in terms of strategy implementation is to develop and maintain innovativeness, creativeness, and organizational learning within a firm (Dess & Davis, 1984; O’Cass et al., 2014; Porter, 1985). A firm’s ability to compete in the long term may lie in its ability to integrate product strategy and its existing capabilities, while at the same time developing fundamentally new ones (Lavie & Rosenkopf, 2006). Simultaneous investments in the exploitation of existing product innovation capabilities and the exploration of new ones may help create a competitive advantage (Soosay & Hyland, 2008). Organizational learning represents the development of knowledge that influences behavioral changes and leads to enhanced performance (Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999; Fiol & Lyles, 1985). Product innovation is a tool for organizational learning and, thus, a primary means of achieving its strategic renewal (Danneels, 2002; Dougherty, 1992; O’Cass et al., 2014). Exploration pertains more to new knowledge - such as the search for new products, ideas, markets, or relationships; experimentation; risk taking; and discovery - while exploitation pertains more to using the existing knowledge and refining what already exists; it includes adaptation, efficiency, and execution (March, 1991). Exploration and exploitation compete for the same resources and efforts in the firm. With a focus on exploring potentially valuable future opportunities, the firm decreases activities linked to improving existing competences (Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991). In contrast, with a focus on exploiting existing products and processes, the firm reduces development of new opportunities. However, firms must develop both exploratory and exploitative capabilities because returns from exploration are uncertain, often negative, and attained over the long run, while exploitation generates more positive, proximate, and predictable returns (Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991; Özsomer & Gençtürk, 2003). Researchers haveshown that both types of learning are essential to enhancing firm performance (Leonard-Barton, 1992; March, 1991). In this study, we use exploration and exploitation to describe two innovation-related capabilities that are critical elements on the relationship between product strategies and export performance. Hypotheses A firm that successfully pursues a cost leadership strategy emphasizes “aggressive construction of efficient-scale facilities, vigorous pursuit of cost reductions from experience, tight cost and overhead control, avoidance of marginal customer accounts, and cost minimization in areas like R&D, service, sales force, advertising, and so on” (Porter, 1980: 35). In addition, with a cost leadership strategy, firms focus on reducing costs through operational efficiency. The associated positional advantage is a cost advantage pertaining to the firms’ value offering and is based on the product’s price–perceived value proposition in the export market. On the other hand, a firm that pursues a differentiation strategy may attempt to create a unique image in the minds of customers that its products are superior to those of its competitors (Miller, 1988). Moreover, a firm may pursue a differentiation strategy by creating a perception in the minds of customers that its products possess characteristics that are unique from those of its competitors in terms of differences in design, physical attributes/features, and durability (Gebauer, 2008). Differentiation strategy aims to generate more outwardly focused product innovations that offer customers product differences that shape a distinctive value offering that is more responsive to their needs (Hughes, Martin, Morgan, & Robson, 2010; O’Cass et al., 2014). The associated positional advantage is a product or market differentiation advantage pertaining to the superior brand, quality, design, and product features that differentiate the firms’ value proposition from its competitors in the export market. Firms that position their products in a manner that co-aligns with their “home country competitive advantages” will, on average, tend to perform better than those that do not. The impact of home-country advantages is lessening over time as firms develop firm-specific global core competencies to replace home-country advantages. The corporate climate in Japanese firms is characterized by worker participation and long term employment. These factors not only tend to increase costs, but also may have a positive effect on product quality through better employee motivation and more knowledgeable workers. Japanese firms have the highest labor and taxation costs and a demand base that is more quality than price sensitive. This creates a home-country environment that favors higher quality. Therefore, Japanese firms most easily achieved a strategic fit with their home country business environment by pursuing a differentiation strategy. On the other hand, Korean firms tend to focus innovation on small, incremental improvements in process and product development, exploiting experience effects. Over time, this focus results in higher quality for Korean products and lower costs, thus creating the potential for Korean firms to use a cost leadership strategy. Moreover, Korea’s capital markets (which offer inexpensive capital below short-term market rates), a demand base that is price sensitive, and the Korean corporate culture’s emphasis on low prices all contribute to an environment favoring lower cost and lower price strategy. Hypothesis 1: Cost leadership strategy pursued by Korean firms is positively associated with export performance, compared to Japanese firms. Hypothesis 2: Differentiation strategy pursued by Japanese firms is positively associated with export performance, compared to Korean firms. From the generation of new ideas through to the launch of a new product, exploration and exploitation play a vital role in product innovation (Rothaermel & Deeds, 2004). Organizations can decide to use existing organizational competences to realize short-term results, or create new competences that may foster the development of innovations in the longer term (Atuahene-Gima, 2005). Both types of capabilities are considered to be dynamic in nature (Winter, 2003), given that their purpose is to transform existing resources into new functional competences that provide a better match for the firm's environment (Voss, Sirdeshmukh, & Voss, 2008). Although both exploitative and exploratory capabilities related to cost leadership and differentiation strategies, because of those different roles of capabilities in innovation process, the effects of those innovation capabilities on the relationship between product strategy and export performance might be different. In case of cost leadership strategy, firms focus on using and developing existing capabilities, promoting improvements in existing components and building on existing technological elements (Benner & Tushman, 2003; Rust et al., 2002). Similarly, exploitative innovation is aimed at improving existing product-market domains. The cost leadership strategy creates value through existing competences or competences that have been slightly modified (Voss et al., 2008). It promotes a routine-based and repetitive approach to organizational changes (Rust et al., 2002). Because exploitative innovation builds on existing knowledge and extends existing products and services for existing customers (Soosay & Hyland, 2008), exploitative capabilities helps firms pursuing cost leadership strategy to reap the benefits of improvement they make to their products and to continue making incremental improvements (Brucks, Zeithaml, & Naylor, 2000), which are designed to allow the firm to continue its superior performance (Griffin, 1997). Compared to cost leadership strategy, differentiation strategy is characterized by radical change, risk and experimentation and that allows for the creation of new methods, relationships, and products. Because exploration focuses mainly on trying to create variety, to adapt and hence exploit ever-decreasing windows of opportunity (Soosay & Hyland, 2008), this capability is more beneficial to the kind of product innovativeness to the firm (Augusto & Coelho, 2009). When exporters pursue differentiation strategy for acquiring new knowledge and developing new products and services, exploratory capability helps to engage new insight into the design of new features and benefits of a given product, that product is guaranteed to contain new ideas (Cho & Pucik, 2005; Yalcinkaya et al., 2007). In contrast with exploitation aimed at improving existing product-market domains, explorative innovation requires fundamental changes in the way an organization operates and represents a clear departure from existing practices (Menguc & Auh, 2006). Hypothesis 3: Exploitative innovation capability moderates the relationship between cost leadership strategy and export performance positively. Hypothesis 4: Exploratory innovation capability moderates the relationship between differentiation strategy and export performance positively. Results This study conducted survey data from Korean and Japanese exporters, regarding to product strategy, innovation capability, and export performance. 223 usable questionnaires were obtained in Korea, and 124 usable questionnaires were obtained in Japan. With regard to number of years of international experience, international experience averaged 15 (S.D. = 23.54) for Korean samples and 37.95 (S.D. = 21.90) for Japanese samples. In addition, export intensity by total sales over exporting sales averaged 15 (S.D. = 23.54) for Korean samples and 36.91 (S.D. = 26.15) for Japanese samples. Using survey data from Korean and Japanese exporters, the findings indicate that cost leadership strategy enhance export performance for Korean firms. On the other hand, for Japanese firms, differentiation strategy is more related on export performance positively. Moreover, exploitative innovation capability strengthens the relationship between cost leadership strategy and export performance, while exploratory innovation capability enhances the link between differentiation strategy and export performance for both Korean and Japanese firms. Discussion Focusing on product strategy through the application of the RBV has provided theoretical insights as well as empirical evidence as to which capabilities are required to achieve these critical product strategy outcomes. The support from this study provides further evidence of the usefulness of applying the RBV to the export setting and should encourage researchers to examine the other aspects of export strategy. Based on organizational learning perspective, in addition, this study found that exploratory and exploitative innovation capability are essential to the firm because they act as vehicles for renewing product strategy to achieve superior export performance. By considering product strategy with exploration and exploitation simultaneously, we present a new perspective of the roles of these product strategies in the development of firms’ innovation capabilities. Our results indicate that cost leadership and differentiation strategy are pivotal in ensuring a proper balance between exploratory and exploitative innovations. Furthermore, this study found that different effects of product strategies on export performance in line with home country competitive advantages. Understanding the nature of marketing strategies employed by Korean and Japanese firms as well as its different effects may provide a useful reference point for exporters from other emerging countries in Asia. One of the main implications for managers is that both exploratory and exploitative product competences should consider in parallel when developing product strategy. The findings underscore the need for managers to invest in cost leadership and differentiation strategy to ensure the development of exploration and exploitation. Therefore, resource allocation decisions should, consider the firm's needs for innovation capabilities and, on the other hand, be guided by the firm’s product strategy. Exporters operate in highly complex environments, characterized by high levels of technological and market uncertainties and highly diverse and dispersed customers (Kleinschmidt et al., 2007; Mohr & Sarin, 2009). Therefore, in addition to the product strategy toward the development of innovations using state-of-the-art technologies, managers of these firms need a similarly strong focus on understanding both current and potential exporting markets. By acknowledging the need for product strategy, managers can ensure the balanced innovation capabilities.

This study employs the resource-based view to understand how product strategy influence export performance. According to the organizational learning perspective, moreover, the ability to manage existing assets and capabilities and the development of new capabilities are arguably among the most relevant innovation success factors. Based on these theoretical backgrounds, a model is proposed to analyze the effects of cost leadership and differentiation strategy on export performance, as well as the moderating effects of exploitative and exploratory innovation capability. Using survey data from Korean exporters, the findings indicate that the cost leadership and differentiation strategy enhance export performance. While exploitative innovation capability strengthens the relationship between cost leadership strategy and export performance, exploratory innovation capability enhances the link between differentiation strategy and export performance. Introduction The trade-off between cost leadership strategy and differentiation strategy is of importance and presents a key challenge to exporters because it is intrinsically related to innovation (Gebauer, 2008; O’Cass et al., 2014). Nevertheless, resources are limited, and firms must make choices in their allocation and determine the extent to which they will emphasize one strategy over another (Danneels, 2007; Lant, Milliken, & Batra, 1992). Although the individual roles of product strategies or innovation capabilities on export performance have attracted considerable attention (e.g., Hortinha, Lages, & Lages, 2011; Lages, Silva, & Styles, 2009; Molina-Castillo, Jimenez-Jimenez, & Munuera-Aleman, 2011), few studies have assessed their integrating impact - that is, the difference in the strengths of the relationships between cost leadership or differentiation strategy and innovation. Drawing on resource based view, we examine how innovation capabilities related with the relationship between cost leadership and differentiation strategies and exporters’ performance. Thus, we consider the moderating role of two distinct capabilities - exploratory innovation and exploitative innovation - on the relationships between product strategies and export performance. Exploratory innovation includes activities aimed to enter new product-market domains, while exploitative innovation activities improve existing product-market domains (He &Wong, 2004). The objectives of this study are to explore (1) impacts of cost leadership strategy and differentiation strategy on export performance, (2) moderating effects of exploitative and exploratory innovation capability on the relationship between product strategy and export performance, and (3) these relationships in the context of Korean exporters. The Korean exporting firms are more concentrated on international markets because of limited size of domestic market (Nugent & Yhee, 2002). These characteristics of Korean exporters are more useful to examine the effect of product strategy and product innovation capability of firms on export performance in international markets. Conceptual Background Product Strategy and Competitive Advantage Porter (1980) argues that a firm can achieve a higher level of performance over a rival in one of two ways: either it can supply an identical product or service at a lower cost, or it can supply a product or service that is differentiated in such a way that the customer is willing to pay a price premium that exceeds the additional cost of the differentiation. A cost leadership strategy is designed to produce goods or services more cheaply than competitors by stressing efficient scale of operation. When a firm designs, produces, and sells a comparable product more efficiently than its competitors as well as its market scope is industry-wide, it means that the firm is carrying out the cost leadership strategy successfully (Campbell-Hunt, 2000). Thus, the primary thing for a firm seeking competitively valuable way by reducing cost is to concentrate on maintaining efficiency through all activities in order to effectively control every expense and find new sources of potential cost reduction (Dess & Davis, 1984). The differentiation strategy provides value to customers with the unique attributes or perceptions of uniqueness, and characteristics of a firm’s product other than cost. The firm pursuing differentiation seeks to be unique in its industry along some dimension that is valued by customers, which means investing in product R&D and marketing (Porter, 1980). Rather than cost reduction, a firm using the differentiation needs to concentrate on investing in and developing such things that are distinguishable and customers will perceive (Gebauer, 2008). Overall, the essential success factor of differentiation in terms of strategy implementation is to develop and maintain innovativeness, creativeness, and organizational learning within a firm (Dess & Davis, 1984; O’Cass et al., 2014; Porter, 1985). Innovation Capability in International Markets A firm’s ability to compete in the long term may lie in its ability to integrate product strategy and its existing capabilities, while at the same time developing fundamentally new ones (Lavie & Rosenkopf, 2006). Simultaneous investments in the exploitation of existing product innovation capabilities and the exploration of new ones may help create a competitive advantage (Soosay & Hyland, 2008). Organizational learning represents the development of knowledge that influences behavioral changes and leads to enhanced performance (Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999; Fiol & Lyles, 1985). Product innovation is a tool for organizational learning and, thus, a primary means of achieving its strategic renewal (Danneels, 2002; Dougherty, 1992; O’Cass et al., 2014). Exploration pertains more to new knowledge - such as the search for new products, ideas, markets, or relationships; experimentation; risk taking; and discovery - while exploitation pertains more to using the existing knowledge and refining what already exists; it includes adaptation, efficiency, and execution (March, 1991). Exploration and exploitation compete for the same resources and efforts in the firm. With a focus on exploring potentially valuable future opportunities, the firm decreases activities linked to improving existing competences (Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991). In contrast, with a focus on exploiting existing products and processes, the firm reduces development of new opportunities. However, firms must develop both exploratory and exploitative capabilities because returns from exploration are uncertain, often negative, and attained over the long run, while exploitation generates more positive, proximate, and predictable returns (Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991; Özsomer & Gençtürk, 2003). Researchers have shown that both types of learning are essential to enhancing firm performance (Leonard-Barton, 1992; March, 1991). In this study, we use exploration and exploitation to describe two innovation-related capabilities that are critical elements on the relationship between product strategies and export performance. International markets are turbulent and diverse with respect to customer needs, cultures, and competitiveness; therefore, innovation assumes a primary role (Kleinschmidt, De Brentani, & Salomo, 2007). Firms can leverage their innovations by securing business opportunities in those markets and thus increase their innovative capabilities (Knight & Cavusgil, 2004). Through exploratory innovation, firms develop new competences and thus enhance superior export performance by product strategies (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). Exploitation activities are also important to exporters because they facilitate the lower-risk extension of export operations. By searching for solutions in the existent competence base, exploitative innovation increases efficiency and productivity. Accordingly, this study based on organizational learning perspective to support the idea that innovation capabilities are a vehicle for a product strategy, and achieving superior export performance. We advance the literature by allowing for a role of product strategies while also considering moderating effects of innovation capabilities. Moreover, we provide insights into how choices about emphasizing one product strategy over another relates the balance between exploration and exploitation. Hypotheses Product Strategy and Export Performance Porter’s cost leadership and differentiation strategies have been linked to the achievement of superior performance by many studies (Campbell-Hunt, 2000; Dess & Davis, 1984). A firm that successfully pursues a cost leadership strategy emphasizes “aggressive construction of efficient-scale facilities, vigorous pursuit of cost reductions from experience, tight cost and overhead control, avoidance of marginal customer accounts, and cost minimization in areas like R&D, service, sales force, advertising, and so on” (Porter, 1980: 35). A firm can, therefore, gain a competitive advantage over its rivals by having significantly lower cost structures in an industry without ignoring other areas such as product and service quality (Amoako-Gyampah & Acquaah, 2008). Thus, the maintenance of a strong competitive position for an organization pursuing a cost leadership strategy places a premium on efficiency of operations and scale economies that enable them to achieve and sustain their performance for a considerable period of time. In addition, with a cost leadership strategy, firms focus on reducing costs through operational efficiency. For example, they might exploit existing facilities and learn how to reduce costs through automation, modernization, capacity utilization, or economies of scale. Efficiency, control, planning, and variance reduction represent the key elements of a cost leadership strategy, and a typical example of a cost leadership strategy involves the implementation of an experience curve, on which cumulative production determines reductions in unit production costs. Firms engage in economies of scale and/or scope when they apply their knowledge and facilities from existing product lines to product line extensions. The associated positional advantage is a cost advantage pertaining to the firms’ value offering and is based on the product’s price–perceived value proposition in the export market. Hypothesis 1: Cost leadership strategy is positively associated with export performance. A firm that pursues a differentiation strategy may attempt to create a unique image in the minds of customers that its products are superior to those of its competitors (Miller, 1988). A firm creates these perceptions through advertising programs, marketing techniques and methods, and charging premium prices. Moreover, a firm may pursue a differentiation strategy by creating a perception in the minds of customers that its products possess characteristics that are unique from those of its competitors in terms of differences in design, physical attributes/features, and durability (Gebauer, 2008). Differentiation strategy aims to generate more outwardly focused product innovations that offer customers product differences that shape a distinctive value offering that is more responsive to their needs (Hughes, Martin, Morgan, & Robson, 2010; O’Cass et al., 2014). The associated positional advantage is a product or market differentiation advantage pertaining to the superior brand, quality, design, and product features that differentiate the firms’ value proposition from its competitors in the export market. Hypothesis 2: Differentiation strategy is positively associated with export performance. Moderating Effects of Innovation Capability From the generation of new ideas through to the launch of a new product, exploration and exploitation play a vital role in product innovation (Rothaermel & Deeds, 2004). Organizations can decide to use existing organizational competences to realize short-term results, or create new competences that may foster the development of innovations in the longer term (Atuahene-Gima, 2005). Both types of capabilities are considered to be dynamic in nature (Winter, 2003), given that their purpose is to transform existing resources into new functional competences that provide a better match for the firm's environment (Voss, Sirdeshmukh, & Voss, 2008). Although both exploitative and exploratory capabilities related to cost leadership and differentiation strategies, because of those different roles of capabilities in innovation process, the effects of those innovation capabilities on the relationship between product strategy and export performance might be different. In case of cost leadership strategy, firms focus on using and developing existing capabilities, promoting improvements in existing components and building on existing technological elements (Benner & Tushman, 2003; Rust et al., 2002). Similarly, exploitative innovation is aimed at improving existing product-market domains. The cost leadership strategy creates value through existing competences or competences that have been slightly modified (Voss et al., 2008). It promotes a routine-based and repetitive approach to organizational changes (Rust et al., 2002). Because exploitative innovation builds on existing knowledge and extends existing products and services for existing customers (Soosay & Hyland, 2008), exploitative capabilities helps firms pursuing cost leadership strategy to reap the benefits of improvement they make to their products and to continue making incremental improvements (Brucks, Zeithaml, & Naylor, 2000), which are designed to allow the firm to continue its superior performance (Griffin, 1997). Hypothesis 3: Exploitative innovation capability moderates the relationship between cost leadership strategy and export performance positively. Compared to cost leadership strategy, differentiation strategy is characterized by radical change, risk and experimentation and that allows for the creation of new methods, relationships, and products. Because exploration focuses mainly on trying to create variety, to adapt and hence exploit ever-decreasing windows of opportunity (Soosay & Hyland, 2008), this capability is more beneficial to the kind of product innovativeness to the firm (Augusto & Coelho, 2009). When exporters pursue differentiation strategy for acquiring new knowledge and developing new products and services, exploratory capability helps to engage new insight into the design of new features and benefits of a given product, that product is guaranteed to contain new ideas (Cho & Pucik, 2005; Yalcinkaya et al., 2007). In contrast with exploitation aimed at improving existing product-market domains, explorative innovation requires fundamental changes in the way an organization operates and represents a clear departure from existing practices (Menguc &Auh, 2006). Hypothesis 4: Exploratory innovation capability moderates the relationship between differentiation strategy and export performance positively. Discussion Focusing on product strategy through the application of the RBV has provided theoretical insights as well as empirical evidence as to which capabilities are required to achieve these critical product strategy outcomes. The support from this study provides further evidence of the usefulness of applying the RBV to the export setting and should encourage researchers to examine the other aspects of export strategy. Based on organizational learning perspective, in addition, this study found that exploratory and exploitative innovation capability are essential to the firm because they act as vehicles for renewing product strategy to achieve superior export performance. By considering product strategy with exploration and exploitation simultaneously, we present a new perspective of the roles of these product strategies in the development of firms’ innovation capabilities. Our results indicate that cost leadership and differentiation strategy are pivotal in ensuring a proper balance between exploratory and exploitative innovations. One of the main implications for managers is that both exploratory and exploitative product competences should consider in parallel when developing product strategy. The findings underscore the need for managers to invest in cost leadership and differentiation strategy to ensure the development of exploration and exploitation. Therefore, resource allocation decisions should, consider the firm's needs for innovation capabilities and, on the other hand, be guided by the firm’s product strategy. Exporters operate in highly complex environments, characterized by high levels of technological and market uncertainties and highly diverse and dispersed customers (Kleinschmidt et al., 2007; Mohr & Sarin, 2009). Therefore, in addition to the product strategy toward the development of innovations using state-of-the-art technologies, managers of these firms need a similarly strong focus on understanding both current and potential exporting markets. By acknowledging the need for product strategy, managers can ensure the balanced innovation capabilities.

국제 광고 전략은 실행의 효율성 및 효과성 측면에서 국제 경영 및 마케팅 분야에서 중요하게 연구되고 있다. 특히, 광고 표준화는 규모의 경제 및 비용 효율성, 단일 브랜드 이미지 제공 등으로 인해 기업의 성과에 긍정적 인 영향을 미친다는 주장이 일반적이다. 하지만 대부분의 연구가 광고 표준화를 단일 변수로 보고 있으며, 어떠 한 프로세스로 기업 성과에 영향을 미치는지를 규명한 연구는 거의 이루어지지 않고 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 광고 표준화를 광고전략과 광고집행으로 구분하여 이러한 표준화 프로세스가 기업 성과에 미치는 영향의 차이를 살펴보고자 하였다. 또한 광고 표준화에 영향을 미치는 선행요인으로, 외부 환경 요인인 소비자유사성과 시장유 사성을, 기업 내부 요인인 비용 절감과 시장세분화 전략을 구분하여 광고 표준화에 미치는 영향을 살펴보고자 하 였다. 이를 위해 한․중․일 동북아 3개국에 진출한 주한 다국적기업의 마케팅매니저를 대상으로 한 설문조사를 바탕으로 실증분석을 실시한 결과, 동북아 3개국에서 광고표준화는 다국적 기업의 전략적 성과와 재무적 성과를 향상시키는 것을 알 수 있었다. 특히, 광고전략을 표준화 할수록 전략적 성과 및 재무적 성과가 향상되는 반면, 광고집행을 표준화 할수록 전략적 성과가 향상되는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 광고 표준화의 선행요인과의 관계를 살펴본 결과, 기업 내부적 요인인 비용 절감과 국가 간 시장세분화 전략이 광고 표준화를 실행하는데 유의한 영 향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 광고 표준화를 광고전략과 광고집행으로 구분하여 선행요인과 결과요인 과의 관계를 살펴본 점에서 의의가 있으며, 동북아 지역에 진출한 다국적기업의 광고 전략에 대한 실증 분석을 통해 광고 전략 수립 및 실행에 있어 실무적 시사점을 제공할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

국제 마케팅 분야에서 제품 전략과 수출 성과의 관계에 관한 연구가 활발히 이루어져 왔다. 이러한 제품 전략과 수출 성과의 관계는 기존 역량의 활용뿐만 아니라 지속적인 혁신활동이 뒷받침되어야 한다. 이에 본 연구는 자원기반이론 관점에서 제품 전략이 수출 성과에 미치는 영향에 관해 살펴보고자 하였으며, 나아가 조직학습관점에서 혁신 역량이 제품 전략과 수출 성과의 관계에 미치는 조절효과에 대해 알아보고자 하였다. 한국 수출업체를 대상으로 한 설문조사를 바탕으로 실증분석을 실시한 결과, 제품 품질 전략과 제품 혁신 전략이 수출 성과에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 활용적 혁신 역량이 제품 품질 전략과 수출 성과의 긍정적인 관계를 강화하는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 제품 전략과 혁신 역량 간 적합성을 통해 제품 전략이 수출 성과에 미치는 긍정적인 효과를 높일 수 있음을 시사하며, 향후 이와 관련한 선행요인 및 결과요인에 관한 추가적인 연구가 활발하게 이루어질 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

The underlying changes in biological processes that are associated with reported changes in mental and physical health in response to yoga breathing (prānāyāma) have not been systematically explored yet. In this study, the effects of a yoga breathing program on prefrontal EEG were tested with middle-aged women. Participants were collected as volunteers and controlled into two groups. Two channel EEG was recorded in the prefrontal region (Fp1, Fp2) from the yoga breathing group (n=17) and control group (n=17). QEEG quotients were transformed from the EEGs and analyzed by the ANOVAs on gain scores. As a result, α/δ (left, right) and CQ (correlation quotient) for yoga breathing participants were significantly decreased compared to control group (p〈.05). α/βH+α/δ (left, right) were increased significantly (p〈.05). For those significantly changed QEEG quotients, the interaction effects of Group x prefrontal alpha (α) and beta (β) asymmetry were tested. Only the α asymmetry showed main effect on the gain score of α/βH+α/δ (right) with F (1, 34)＝5.694 (p〈.05). Pearson's correlation coefficient between α asymmetry and gain score of α/βH+α/δ (right) was .374 (p〈.05). The gain score of α/βH+α/δ (right) was increased for the right α dominance of yoga breathing group. On the contrary it was decreased for the left α dominance of yoga breathing group as well as the control regardless of the dominance. The result of this study implies that yoga breathing increases stress resistance and is effective in the management of physical stress. Emotionally relaxed people may have greater instantaneous stress reduction after yoga breathing. Moreover, yoga breathing could be also beneficial for depressed who may be more vulnerable to stress.

This study was conducted to develop radish as a food product for home meal replacement using superheated steam (SHS). Also, the change of quality characteristics was studied during their storage. The radish cuts were treated with SHS for 0, 3, 5, and 7 min, respectively, followed by complete drying at 80℃ for 6 hours. The results showed that radishes restored with mixed solution (drinking water:sugar:vinegar:salt=2:1:0.8:0.1) were harder than those restored with drinking water. All radishes were stored at 5, 10 and 15℃ for 56 days to investigate the changes of quality characteristics during the storage. Radishes in the control group, restored with drinking water and stored at 15℃, were spoiled after 7 days of storage. The radish in the experimental group did not show any change in the water content; except an increase on the first day of storage. The hardness of radish decreased with an increase in the storage period. It was found that microbial growth was inhibited due to low pH of the mixed solution, in which radishes of the experimental group were immerse.

The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of superheated steam (SHS) and high hydrostatic pressure (HHP) techniques on the improvement of the quality of Bulgogi product during manufacturing process. Bulgogi product was treated with four different cooking/treatment process: conventional cooking (CC), SHS cooking (SHS), CC and then HHP cooking (CC-HHP), and SHS and HHP cooking (SHS-HHP) samples. SHS treated product increased moisture content, and decreased crude protein. Additionally, hardness, gumminess and shear force values were significantly different among the samples (p<0.05). In safety experiment after 14 days of storage at refrigeration temperature indicated that the bacterial population was lower in the case of SHS-HHP as compared to CC-HHP. Changes in texture during the storage periods at 10℃ for SHS-HHP was lowest values with compared to the initial, while shear force values for both tended to decrease with increasing storage period. The TBA and VBN values for SHS-HHP increased to 0.48 (5℃)-1.68 (10℃) mg MD/kg and 25.14 (5℃)-45.14 (10℃) mg%, respectively after 15 days of storage. Overall, it was found that the combination of SHS and HHP reduced microbial growth, thus leading to improved product quality and sanitation.