Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation in Exploiting Opportunities, Competitive Advantage, Innovative Ideas, and Performance in Corporate Entrepreneurship

Khansa Hameed¹, Kawan Sirwan², Hemin A. Neima³, Ali Mohammed Salih⁴, Kamaran Qader Yaqub⁵, Rezhen Harun⁶, Hawall Ibrahum Rasul⁷, Sumaia Muhammad Raheem⁸

¹Department of Agribusiness and Rural Development (ARD), College of Agricultural Engineering Sciences, University of Sulaimani, Sulaymaniyah City, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.

²Technical College of Engineering, Sulaimani Polytechnic University.

³Technical College of Administration, Sulaimani Polytechnic University.

⁴Independent Researcher, Dubai, United Arabic Emirates.

ABSTRACT: Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) represents an essential factor in company performance. The current study gives an essential message to assessing the direct influence of entrepreneurial spirit upon exploiting opportunities, competitive advantage, and growth in corporate entrepreneurship. The main goal of this paper is to define the concept of entrepreneurial orientation and its impact on effective corporate entrepreneurship. Moreover, it attempts to explain the concept and effect of the entrepreneurial orientation dimension (innovativeness, pro-activeness, risk-taking, autonomy, and competitive aggressiveness) on corporate entrepreneurship performance. The study gleaned that an entrepreneurial orientation is crucial for establishing competitive advantage, profitability, economic growth, and performance, and it improves the proactive capability to seek out opportunities and deal with conflicts, allowing organizations to join new markets and focus more on internal growth. Furthermore, commercial activity enhances and supports firms’ ability to better position themselves and separate themselves from competitors. It suggests that entrepreneurship businesses develop an entrepreneurial orientation early in their life cycle.

KEYWORDS: Corporate entrepreneurship; entrepreneurial orientation; innovativeness; risk-taking; proactiveness.

1. INTRODUCTION

Corporate entrepreneurship encompasses innovation and creativity in addressing challenges and identifying opportunities to optimize business processes and elevate organizational performance (Nadhiva et al., 2024). Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is rapidly being acknowledged as a realistic path to high levels of organizational performance in today’s hyper-competitive world market (Kuratko, 2010). Researchers have repeatedly emphasized the importance of corporate entrepreneurship as a development strategy (Stachel and Musante, 2022). Whatever shape corporate entrepreneurship takes, the key to producing value is to regard every value chain that acts as a source of competitive advantage. Similarly, the impact of corporate entrepreneurship on a firm’s strategic performance is greatest when it pervades all aspects of the company. It may be found in organizations where strategic leaders and culture work together to provide a strong urge to innovate, take risks, and actively explore new enterprise prospects. The term “entrepreneurial orientation” encompasses these notions (Sirwan and Harun, 2024; Dess and Lumpkin, 2005). Firms that seek to participate in effective corporate entrepreneurship must have an entrepreneurial orientation, which refers to the strategy-making procedures that firms employ to discover and develop corporate enterprises (Covin and Slevin, 1991).

Entrepreneurial orientation is a strategy-making process that provides organizations with a basis for entrepreneurial decisions and actions to create a competitive advantage (Rauch et al., 2009). There is widespread empirical evidence that supports a favorable link between entrepreneurial orientation and corporate performance, with Miller (1983) showcasing innovation, risk-taking, and proactiveness by introducing an enterprise-related orientation notion into the conversation. Two main but divergent concepts of business orientation have arisen based on Miller’s work. A one-dimensional conception is one conceptualization. The common or shared influence of the business orientation elements is emphasized in this approach so that entrepreneurial orientation may be seen as a persistent firm-level trait representing the single characteristic of risky, inventive, and proactive behavior (Abdulrahman et al., 2025). The second is a multi-dimensional conceptualization, with a business orientation as a series of separate dimensions, with every aspect having its impact on corporate performance (Hameed and Sirwan, 2019; Lomberg et al., 2017). As key indicators in assessing an organization’s entrepreneurial posture, the entrepreneurial orientation dimension contains (1) innovativeness, (2) pro-activeness, (3) risk-taking, (4) autonomy, and (5) competitive aggressiveness components (Hameed et al., 2024; Gedvilas, 2012).

Corporations that aspire to be successful in corporate entrepreneurship must have an entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurial orientation is the strategy-making method firms employ to discover and launch corporate enterprises (Dess and Lumpkin, 2005).

2. THE CONCEPT OF CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP (CE)

Corporate entrepreneurship can be considered an extension of employee participation programs; deliberate efforts to instill entrepreneurial practices within corporations are meant to improve the firm’s ability to produce or obtain new products or services and manage innovation activities. Corporate entrepreneurship, as a firm-level activity, aids the development of new businesses. Corporate entrepreneurship is a firm-level activity that supports developing and commercializing one or more inventions that are judged to be strategic and financially compatible with the organization’s objective (Khansa et al., 2022; Hasan et al., 2019; Kemelgor, 2002).

Corporate entrepreneurship refers to entrepreneurial activity inside existing organizations, such as innovation, venturing, and strategy renewal. Corporate entrepreneurship was first proposed in the mid-1970s. (Peterson and Berger, 1971) initially described it as a strategy and leadership style used by large firms to deal with rising market instability. Corporate entrepreneurship did not become a separate research issue until the early 1980s, thanks to the works of Burgelman (1983) and Miller (1983), and especially when Pinchot’s (1985) book on entrepreneurship was written (Sakhdari, 2016).

3. THE CONCEPT OF ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION (EO)

Researchers have paid close attention to the notion and manifestations of entrepreneurial orientation since they were originally proposed more than three decades ago. It is one of the rare examples of stabilized notions in management science (Gupta et al., 2015). The concept of entrepreneurial orientation started with (Miller, 1983) where he suggested the extent to which a company’s level of entrepreneurship is marked by innovation, risk-taking, and proactive action: A business enterprise engages in product-market innovation, takes on risky undertakings, and comes first to ‘proactive’ innovations, to confront competitors (Achtenhagen, 2020).

According to Le Roux and Bengesi (2014), entrepreneurial orientation refers to the management’s or business owners’ strategies, processes, and decision-making procedures used to perform business. Furthermore, Lumpkin et al. (2009) defined entrepreneurial orientation as the processes, structures, and behaviors of businesses that are characterized by pro-activeness, risk-taking, competitive aggressiveness, and autonomy. Entrepreneurial orientations are stated by Dess and Lumpkin (2005) as the procedures that corporations utilize to find and launch new corporate enterprises. It denotes a mindset and viewpoint on entrepreneurship that are represented in a company’s continuous procedures and culture (Fatah et al., 2025). The entrepreneurial orientation notion is based on previous research that looked at strategy in terms of generalizable action patterns or decision-making styles. Entrepreneurial orientation is a strategic process that gives a business a platform for making entrepreneurial decisions and taking action to improve performance (Harun et al., 2025; Rauch et al., 2009). In addition, entrepreneurial orientation, according to Anderson et al. (2009), is a firm-level strategic orientation that captures an organization’s entrepreneurial strategy-making procedures, management philosophies, and firm behaviors.

4. THE IMPORTANCE OF ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION (EO)

Burgelman (1983) recommended that firms establish a well-formulated diversity-and-order strategy that guarantees a competitive advantage to thrive. The business activity offers essential diversity when structure and planning come to an end. Entrepreneurial activity fosters the overall economic growth and performance of individual firms. Entrepreneurial activity is, therefore, one of the main features for achieving competitive advantage and improving financial value (Hameed et al., 2025; Hudhud et al., 2015; El Shal and Kadery, 2021). Entrepreneurial orientation provides an essential conceptual framework for investigating organizationally relevant phenomena by allowing for a distinct knowledge of key entrepreneurial players and how they impact the behavioral predisposition of the whole enterprise (Neima et al., 2023; Wales et al., 2013). Entrepreneurial orientation as growth-oriented, pragmatic, compromising, charismatic leaders, new product releases, creative production and logistics, risk-taking, aggressive, seek unique solutions, research, and development emphasis, active opportunity scanning (Harun et al., 2018; Morris and Paul, 1987).

According to Knight (1997), entrepreneurial orientation enhances the proactive capacity to search for opportunities and solve problems that allow firms to enter new markets and concentrate more on internal development. In addition, business activity strengthens and supports the capacity of corporations to better position themselves and differentiate themselves from rivals. The procedures, techniques, and decision-making activities that lead to new entry are referred to as entrepreneurial orientation (Child, 1972). It entails the intents and behaviors of key actors in a dynamic generating process aiming at the formation of new ventures. Entrepreneurial orientations’ essential characteristics include a proclivity for acting autonomously, a desire to innovate and take risks, and a proclivity for being aggressive against rivals and proactive when it comes to market prospects (Basso et al., 2009). Moreover, Lechner and Gudmundsson (2012) stated that firms with a higher entrepreneurial orientation are more likely to adopt specific strategies and have a varied impact on performance (fatahet al., 2025). Taking risks and performing connected duties, including risk management, exploitative coordination, sense-making, and arbitrage, are all part of an effective entrepreneurial orientation for businesses (Brathwaite, 2018).

5. DIMENSIONS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION (EO)

Analysis and integration of the strategy and the entrepreneurial literature might draw upon the outstanding characteristics of entrepreneurial orientation (Eggers, 2013). Many fast-growing young corporations attribute much of their success to entrepreneurial orientation. Firms often rely on an entrepreneurial orientation to enhance their corporate venturing activities (Dess and Lumpkin, 2005). Five dimensions were used to assess entrepreneurial orientation, which is innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, competitive aggressiveness, and autonomy, as independent dimensions of behavior (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). That technique examines entrepreneurial orientation using a collection of common traits or characteristics, which are independent of each other because businesses might be high in some dimensions and small in others. This methodology examines entrepreneurial orientation’s features since these traits are commonly individually and without reference to entrepreneurial orientation in business literature (Wales et al., 2013). The use of dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation helps to ensure that corporate entrepreneurial processes are well-planned, reducing the negative effects that various levels of organizational transformation can have (Barreto and Nassif, 2014).

Innovativeness is defined as the desire to promote innovation and experimentation in bringing new products/services, as well as novelty, technical leadership, and research and development in building new processes. Risk-taking is defined as a proclivity for taking bold acts such as entering unknown new markets, investing a large amount of one’s resources in questionable endeavors, and/or borrowing extensively. Proactiveness is considered as a company’s ability to respond to market possibilities by taking the initiative in the marketplace. Competitive aggressiveness corresponds to how businesses respond to market developments and demands. Competitive aggressiveness relates to how businesses respond to market developments and demands. Autonomy is described as an individual’s or a group’s ability to take autonomous action to develop a business concept or vision and go through with it to completion (Neima et al., 2021; Li et al., 2009).

5.1 Innovativeness Dimension

Innovativeness is a “tendency of the business to engage and encourage new ideas, news, research and creative processes that might lead to new goods, services and technical processes” and it reflects a fundamental readiness, to move beyond the current state of the art and to move on from current technologies or methods (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Innovativeness is defined as the predisposition to participate in innovation and experimentation via the introduction of new products/services as well as technological leadership via research and development in new processes, according to Rauch et al. (2009). Moreover, Lechner and Gudmundsson (2012) defined Innovativeness as promoting and embracing new ideas, exploration, and innovation. Innovativeness is the efforts of a company to develop new solutions and new possibilities. It involves innovation and experimenting that leads to new goods, new services, or better technology. However, the task of controlling innovation may be quite difficult (Dess and Lumpkin, 2005). The willingness to innovate, introduce new features via creativity and experimentation to generate new goods and services, as well as new processes, may be defined as innovativeness (Martens et al., 2015). Innovations require companies to move beyond the current state of the art and to diverge from established technology and processes. Even if their effects are uncertain, inventions and innovative ideas should be encouraged. However, efficient innovation production, assimilation, and exploitation can be a significant way of attaining competitive advantages in today’s context of fast change. There are various sorts of innovations. Innovative technology primarily involves research and engineering to produce new goods and processes. Product market innovation comprises advertising and promotional market analysis, product innovation, and creativity. Management systems, monitoring techniques, and the organizational structure mean innovation in the field of administration (Hamel, 1997). The desire to diverge from established technologies or methods and explore beyond the current state of the art is exemplified by innovativeness (Dess and Lumpkin, 2005).

The source of excellent development and strong company growth can be innovation. However, severe setbacks for companies investing in innovation are also present. Research and development expenditure to find new items or processes might be a resource waste unless effort yields. The competitive climate is another hazard. Even when a business innovates or successfully implements a technology breakthrough, another business might invent or find a more profitable application of a comparable innovation. Finally, research and development initiatives and other innovation activities are generally among the first to be reduced during an economic crisis.

5.2 Risk-taking Dimension

The possible disparities between theorization and testing may best be explained based on our results on the consequences of risk-taking rather than shared effects. In high-tech businesses, we note that a risk difference not matched with contemporaneous changes in other dimensions might have a diametrically different influence on performance when compared with the other dimensions (Richard et al., 2004). Risk-taking is making decisions and taking action without knowing what the likely consequences would be; such ventures may also need considerable resource commitments in the process of moving forward (Covin and Slevin, 1991). Furthermore, corporate risk-taking refers to managers’ willingness to undertake substantial and risky resource commitments, for example, those with a plausible chance of negative outcomes. Firms with a strong emphasis on risk-taking and exploration generate an excess of undeveloped innovative ideas (Wang, 2008).

Risk-taking dimensions in entrepreneurial orientation refer to the readiness of a company to grab a venture even if it does not know if the company will be successful and acts courageously without considering the implications. Three risk categories are available: corporate, financial, and personal. Firstly, corporate risk entails the unknown without knowing the likelihood of success; this is the danger that untested markets may enter or unproven technology will be used. Secondly, financial risk refers to the inclination of a firm to take on debt or invest resources for growth. In this context, the risk is used to allude to the risk/return bargain prevalent in financial analysis. Thirdly, personal risk refers to the risks a manager takes to choose a strategic course of action; managers that take such risks affect their whole business, and their decision-making may also have substantial effects on their careers (Hameed, 2024; Dess and Lumpkin, 2005). Venkatraman (1989) stated that this dimension represents the degree of risk represented in different resource allocation choices, as well as the selection of goods and markets, representing a criterion and a decision-making process at the organizational level. While risk-taking means opportunities, gambling does not. The best-managed firms analyze the repercussions of different occasions and generate scenarios for probable results. Their objective is to lower the risk of corporate decision-making. To increase their competitive position through risk-taking, two techniques may be used by two companies:

1. Research and evaluation of risk variables to reduce uncertainty.
2. The use of proven processes and approaches in other fields.

The potential of risk must constantly be taken into account by policymakers. Drucker believes that successful entrepreneurs are not often risk-taking entrepreneurs in his book Innovation and Entrepreneurship. They take action rather than danger reduction through careful comprehension. As a result, the risk is avoided, and the opportunity remains focused (Sirwan et al., 2025; Drucker, 2014).

5.3 Proactiveness Dimension

Proactiveness refers to the efforts of a company to grab fresh opportunities. Proactive businesses watch the trends, identify existing clients’ future demands, and foresee changes in demand or new challenges that might lead to new entrepreneurship chances. Proactiveness does not just perceive changes but also being prepared to take action in advance of competitors. Strategic managers who work proactively are looking forward to new growth and development opportunities (Dess and Lumpkin, 2005; Sirwan et al., 2019). Pro-activeness is a forward-thinking, opportunity-seeking mindset defined by the launch of new services and products ahead of the competition and working in expectation of future need (Rauch et al., 2009). In anticipation of future market circumstances and leaders seeking and exploiting opportunities, proactive firms obtain a competitive advantage on the market. Such leadership generally requires less comprehensive or accurate knowledge than a less proactive method, which suggests that proactiveness demands a calculated risk (Putniņš and Sauka, 2020). Proactiveness is particularly useful in building competitive advantages since it enables competitors to react to successful efforts (saeed et al., 2025). The advantage earned by companies that are the first to enter new markets, develop brand identity, use administrative practices, and embrace new technology in an industry is called the first-mover benefit (Lieberman and Montgomery, 1988). Furthermore, Proactiveness is concerned with anticipating and developing future demand, anticipating competition, and favoring originality; it is less concerned with efficiently meeting present demand. For example, research suggests that Japanese businesses’ domination of the cost leadership approach is connected with the conventional late arrival of Japanese enterprises and a lack of proactiveness (Lechner and Gudmundsson, 2012).

To achieve a proactive strategy that results in competitive advantages, careful monitoring and scanning of the environment and significant study into feasibility are necessary. Companies that do successfully exhibit significant expansion and internal development frequently, many of them have for years enjoyed the benefits of proactiveness.

5.4 Competitive Aggressiveness Dimension

Competitive aggressiveness is intensity in an endeavor by an aggressive offensive stance or response to competitive threats to leading competitors (Rauch et al., 2009).  Competitive aggressiveness refers to the efforts of a company in exceeding its rivals in the industry. Aggressive-oriented companies are ready to fight competition. They might cut prices and forego profits to acquire a market share or aggressively spend on productive capacity as a way to develop and expand firmly (Smith et al., 2001; Ismaeel et al., 2019). According to Le Roux and Bengesi (2014), competitive aggressiveness refers to a firm’s capacity to challenge and surpass its competitors in the market to retain or gain a competitive position. Moreover, it relates to a company’s response to gaining a competitive advantage, which is an essential component of an entrepreneurial orientation. In small businesses, competitive aggressiveness differs from differentiation logic. Cost leadership is driven by economies of scale; to take advantage of scale economies, organizations compete more aggressively in the industry to generate market share and adequate production volume. Competitive aggressiveness determines how competitive tactics are executed (Neima et al., 2023; Lechner and Gudmundsson, 2012). Competitive aggressiveness may be linked to the urge for accomplishment as well as extraversion. Moreover, competitive aggressiveness may be particularly strong in drawing on the outcomes of other entrepreneurial operations such as proactiveness or innovativeness. Strategic managers can use competitive aggression to fight trends in the business that endanger the company’s existence or position in the market. Sometimes, companies have to protect the competitive position that made them a leader in the industry. Firms usually need to be aggressive to take advantage of new technology or meet new requirements in the marketplace. Two means of improving their entrepreneurial position include competitively aggressive companies, involve:

1. Markets are entering at significantly cheaper pricing. Smaller firms are mainly worried about the arrival into the market of resource-rich larger firms. Because larger firms normally have substantial pockets, prices may be lowered without being severely affected by increased limits.
2. Imitating successful rivals’ business tactics or approaches. We’ve all heard that the highest form of flattery is imitation. However, it may also be utilized to imitate competitors. And as long as no intellectual property legislation protects the concept or practice, that is not criminal.

It is the intensity with which a company strives to surpass competitors, the creation of lofty market share goals, or aggressive acts such as price reduction (Lechner and Gudmundsson, 2012). Finally, the most useful approach is competitive aggressiveness. Companies that actively develop their competitive position and utilize profits actively can maintain their competitive benefits over the long term if they want to move beyond their opponents rather than annihilate them.

5.5AutonomyDimension

Autonomy is defined as an organization’s members’ capacity to explore and advocate promising entrepreneurial ideas and agendas on their own, instruments for collecting competitive aggression as a metric (Wales et al., 2013). Autonomy is an autonomous activity of entrepreneurial leaders or teams to develop and realize a new business (Rauch et al., 2009).  Autonomy denotes the skill and drive to self-direct chances. It is an activity that is free from corporate limitations, especially when used in an organizational environment (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Entrepreneurial activity is fueled by the independent spirit and independence required to start new businesses. As a result, the autonomy dimension is an important aspect of entrepreneurial orientation (Lee and Peterson, 2000). Autonomy is linked to the formation of entrepreneurial activity, the formation of an entrepreneurial environment, and the behavior of looking for and exploiting opportunities (Salih et al., 2025). The addition of autonomy to the notion of entrepreneurial orientation as a type of firm-level entrepreneurship adds an essential organizational component required for implementing a competitive strategy (Lechner and Gudmundsson, 2012). The greater the depth of the planning locus, the greater the organization’s autonomy. This increased autonomy gives you the freedom to explore new ideas with vision, perseverance, and unwavering inventiveness (Tellis and Golder, 1996).  Autonomy refers to an individual’s or a group’s ability to start an idea or a vision and see it through to completion. A company that values autonomy empowers its people to act freely, make crucial decisions, and move forward (Sirwan, 2024; Kapaya et al., 2018). To optimize customer happiness, differentiation is heavily influenced by customer focus. Autonomy is a key requirement for customer orientation because it allows employees to be creative, generate new ideas, communicate openly, and focus on customer engagement and orientation (Slater and Narver, 1995; Hughes and Morgan, 2007). Companies wishing to expand through corporate ventures generally purchase existing or internally established companies. The alternative is the financing of corporate ventures, which is to invest in independent start-ups that are utilized by companies that wish to become entrepreneurs but remain self-employed. Two other techniques that firms may employ to promote enterprise effectively via autonomy include (Dess and Lumpkin, 2005):

1. To promote autonomous thought and activity, use “skunkworks.” To support managers and other staff, corporations typically build autonomous work units called “skunkworks.”
2. Reorganization of work units to boost entrepreneurial ambitions. Corporations often need to do more than build separate think tanks to generate new ideas to support entrepreneurship. It may also be important to change the organizational structure. To remain competitive, established companies with traditional structures frequently have to break from such molds. It has become evident in the usage of teams and autonomous working units that the coordination and management of organizations and the exchange of tacit knowledge among members increase the number of innovative ideas (Pfeffer and Jeffrey, 1998).

4. CONCLUSION

This study’s fundamental goal was to better understand corporate entrepreneurial orientation and how innovation, competitive advantage, and superior performance are developed while considering the function of the corporate life cycle. The research provides theoretical insights into entrepreneurial orientation dimensions (innovation, risk-taking, proactiveness, aggressiveness, and autonomy). The most widely utilized and well-established methodology for researching organizational entrepreneurship is entrepreneurial orientation. While the content of entrepreneurship reflects entrepreneurial orientation, the process of firm development is explained by entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurial orientation is a strategic process that establishes a basis for entrepreneurial decisions and activities to improve performance.

Firms with a stronger entrepreneurial orientation are more likely to use certain techniques and have a wide range of performance effects. Risk-taking and related responsibilities, such as risk management, exploitative coordination, sense-making, and arbitrage, are all elements of a business’s effective entrepreneurial orientation.

When the corporations have the characteristics of entrepreneurial orientation, it involves innovation and experimenting that leads to new goods, new services, creativity, and competitive advantage. Also, helps the entrepreneurship corporation to play a significant role in tapping for resources and encouraging more people to seize an opportunity to come up with intriguing new ideas. Moreover, it gives the corporation a forward-thinking, opportunity-seeking mindset defined by the launch of new services and products ahead of the competition and working in expectation of future need.

To sum up, entrepreneurial orientation is essential for an Entrepreneurship Corporation. We recommend that corporation entrepreneurship should involve entrepreneurial orientation as a major component, which might lead to better performance.

REFERENCES

1. Abdulrahman, R.R., Salih, A.M., Hussein, H.H.S., Aivas, S.A., Ahamd, K.H., Fatah, N.A., Karem, L.E., Yaqub, K.Q. and Bayz, H.A., 2025. The role of agriculture sector in eradicating poverty: challenges, policies, and pathways for economic growth in less developed countries. Education, 5(2), pp.208-213.
2. Achtenhagen, L., (2020). Entrepreneurial orientation–An overlooked theoretical concept for studying media firms. Nordic Journal of Media Management, 1(1), pp.7-21.
3. Andersen, E. S., & Jessen, S. A. (2003). Project maturity in organizations. International journal of project management, 21(6), 457-461.‏
4. Anderson, E. T., Hansen, K., & Simester, D. (2009). The option value of returns: Theory and empirical evidence. Marketing Science, 28(3), 405-423.
5. Barreto, J. C., & Nassif, V. M. J. (2014). Entrepreneurial Leaders And The Dissemination Of Entrepreneurial Orientation [o Empreendedor Líder E A Disseminação Da Orientação Empreendedora]. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios.‏

1. Basso, O., Fayolle, A., & Bouchard, V. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation: The making of a concept. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 10(4), 313-321.‏

7. Brathwaite, J. (2018). Impacts of strategic project management on entrepreneurial orientation relationship with internationalization. International Journal of Business and Economic Development (IJBED), 6(2).‏
8. Burgelman, R.A., (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative science quarterly, pp.223-244.
9. Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. sociology, 6(1), 1-22.
10. Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P., (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 16(1), pp.7-26.
11. Dess, G.G., and Lumpkin, G.T., (2005). The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(1), pp.147-156.
12. Drucker, P., (2014). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Routledge.
13. Eggers, F., Kraus, S., Hughes, M., Laraway, S., and Snycerski, S., (2013). Implications of the customer and entrepreneurial orientations for SME growth. Management Decision.
14. El Shal, B. and Kadery, M., (2021). Organizational Project Management Maturity Effect on the Relationship Between Entrepreneurial Orientation and Organizational Performance in Egyptian Organizations. Journal of Business, 9(1), pp.36-49.
15. Fatah, N.A., Bayz, H.A., Yaqub, K.Q., Karem, L.E., Ahamd, K.H., Hussein, H.H.S., Salih, A.M. and Aivas, S.A., 2025. Beyond economic growth: neo-liberalism, alternative theories, and the future of economic development. British Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 2(4), pp.1-15.
16. Fatah, N.A., Omer, G.M.D., Bayz, H.A., Karem, L.E., Ahamd, K.H., Mustafa, W.O., Yaqub, K.Q., Salih, A.M. and Aivas, S.A., 2025. Conceptualization of the capital maintenance. British Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 2(3), pp.134-148.
17. Gedvilas, A. (2012). Entrepreneurial Project Management. Developing and Testing the Concept (Master’s thesis).
18. Gupta, V., Gupta, A. and Balasubramanian, S., (2015). Book Review The Concept of Entrepreneurial Orientation: Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, Volume 11, no. 2., 55-137, 2015. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 11(2), pp.55-137.
19. Hameed, K. (2024). An exploration of entrepreneurship in agriculture: an initial framework for sustainable development in the Kurdistan Region-Iraq. Doctoral dissertation, University of Sulaimani, College of Agricultural and Engineering Sciences, Agribusiness and Rural Development Department.
20. Hameed, K., & Sirwan, K. (2019). Effects of training on beekeepers performance. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences, 10(11), 589-593.
21. HAMEED, K., HARUN, R., & FATAH, A. O. (2024). The Economic Sustainability of Industrial Potato Production Within Entrepreneurial Strategies. Bulletin of the University of Agricultural Sciences & Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca. Horticulture, 81(1).
22. Hameed, K., Sirwan, K., Omar, Z. O., Mohammed, E. F., Sourkan, S., Salih, A. M., & Yaqub, K. Q. (2025). Addressing the issue of Poverty, Economic Growth, Health Matters, and Environmental Challenges. International Journal of Scientific Research in Modern Science and Technology, 4(3), 18-32.
23. Hamel, G., (1997). Killer strategies that make shareholders rich. Fortune, 135(12), pp.70-84.
24. Harun, R., Chiciudean, G. O., Sirwan, K., Arion, F. H., & Muresan, I. C. (2018). Attitudes and perceptions of the local community towards sustainable tourism development in Kurdistan regional government, Iraq. Sustainability, 10(9), 2991.
25. Harun, R., Hameed, K., Sirwan, K., Ali, R. A., Sdiq, S. J. M., Rasul, H. I., … & Yaqub, K. Q (2025). The Effect of Human Resource Management on Employees and Business Performance: An Environmental Perspective. Contemporary Research Analysis. Perspective, 2(03-2025).
26. Hudhud, H.A., Shata, M.A. and Ismael, K.S., 2015. An economic study for the production of poultry meat in the province of Sulaymaniyah. J. Agric. Econom. Social Sci, 6(2), pp.153-63.
27. Hughes M and Morgan R (2007) Deconstructing the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and business performance at the embryonic stage of firm growth. Industrial Marketing Management 36(5): 651–661. Hulland J (1999)
28. Ismaeel, K. S., Hamafarj, K. H., Harun, R., & Muresan, I. (2019). Productivity Gains from Training: The Views of Beekeepers in Sulaimani City. ProEnvironment Promediu, 12(39).
29. Kapaya, S. M., Shayo, F. A., Jaensson, J. E., & Stanslaus, V. (2018). The role of entrepreneurial orientation on business performance: Empirical evidence from Selected Tanzanian SMEs. The Pan-African Journal of Business Management, 2(1), 15-34.‏
30. Kemelgor, B. H. (2002). A comparative analysis of corporate entrepreneurial orientation between selected firms in the Netherlands and the USA. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 14(1), 67-87.‏
31. Khansa, H. A. M. E. E. D., SIRWAN, K., & SALAR, L. (2022). Tourists Attitude and Perception Toward Rural Tourism Development. ProEnvironment Promediu, 15(50).
32. Knight, G.A., (1997). Strategy and entrepreneurship in a developing free trade area: The case of the textiles/apparel industry in Canada. International Journal of Management, 14, pp.237-249.
33. Kuratko, D. F. (2010). Corporate entrepreneurship: An introduction and research review. Handbook of entrepreneurship research: An interdisciplinary survey and introduction, 129-163.
34. Le Roux, I. and Bengesi, K.M., (2014). Dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation and small and medium enterprise performance in emerging economies. Development Southern Africa, 31(4), pp.606-624.
35. Lechner, C., & Gudmundsson, S. V. (2012). Entrepreneurial orientation, firm strategy, and small firm performance. International Small Business Journal, 32(1), 36–60. doi:10.1177/0266242612455034.
36. Lee, S. M., & Peterson, S. J. (2000). Culture, entrepreneurial orientation, and global competitiveness. Journal of world business, 35(4), 401-416.‏
37. Li, Y.H., Huang, J.W. and Tsai, M.T., (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The role of the knowledge creation process. Industrial marketing management, 38(4), pp.440-449.
38. Lieberman, M.B. and Montgomery, D.B., (1988). First‐mover advantages. Strategic management journal, 9(S1), pp.41-58.
39. Lomberg, C., Urbig, D., Stöckmann, C., Marino, L.D. and Dickson, P.H., (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation: The dimensions’ shared effects in explaining firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), pp.973-998.
40. Lumpkin GT, Cogliser C, and Schneider D (2009) Understanding and measuring autonomy: An entrepreneurial orientation perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33(3): 47–69.

41. Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G., (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), pp.135-172.
42. Martens, C. D., Carneiro, K., Martens, M., & Silva, D. (2015). Relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and project management maturity in Brazilian software firms. Iberoamerican Journal of Strategic Management (IJSM), 14(2), 72-91.‏
43. Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29: 770–791.
44. Morris, M. H., & Paul, G. W. (1987). The relationship between entrepreneurship and marketing in established firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(3), 247-259
45. Nadhiva, M., Purnomo, M., & Purbasari, R. (2024). Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy Initiative at Gojek Indonesia. ITQAN: Journal of Islamic Economics, Management, and Finance. https://doi.org/10.57053/itqan.v3i2.47.
46. Neima, H. A., Hassan, K. M., Sirwan, K., & Hameed, K. (2023). Trends in broiler chicken meat production and food security in the sulaymaniyah governorate. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, 35, 701-707.
47. Neima, H. A., Sirwan, K., & Hameed, K. (2021, November). Consumers choice and preference for chicken meat in Sulaymaniyah. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 910, No. 1, p. 012028). IOP Publishing.
48. Neima, H. A., Sirwan, K., & Hameed, K. (2023). Consumer purchasing intention and behaviour toward chicken meat in Sulaymaniyah City: Empirical evidence from a field survey. Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development, 68(2), 169-178.
49. Peterson, R. A., & Berger, D. G. (1971). Entrepreneurship in organizations: Evidence from the popular music industry. Administrative science quarterly, 97-106.
50. Pfeffer, J. and Jeffrey, P., (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Harvard Business Press.
51. Putniņš, T.J. and Sauka, A., (2020). Why does entrepreneurial orientation affect company performance? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14(4), pp.711-735.

1. Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G.T., and Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future,Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3): 761-787.
2. Richard, O. C., Barnett, T., Dwyer, S., & Chadwick, K. (2004). Cultural Diversity in Management, Firm Performance, and the Moderating Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation Dimensions. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 255–266. doi:10.5465/20159576.
3. Saeed, M.S., Salih, A.M., Ahmed, R.K., Hussein, H., Hama, Y.O. and Yaqub, K.Q., 2025. Amplifying Awareness: The Media’s Role in Environmental Advocacy in Iraq. Int. J. Sci. R. Tech, 2(3).
4. Sakhdari, K., (2016). Corporate entrepreneurship: A review and future research agenda. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(8).

56. Salih, A.M., Saeed, M.S., Ahmed, R.K., Hussein, H., Hama, Y.O. and Yaqub, K.Q., 2025. Amplifying Awareness: The Media’s Role in Environmental Advocacy in Iraq. International Journal of Scientific Research and Technology.
57. Sirwan, K. (2024). Exploring the value chain of agricultural products: a multiple case study of local products in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, Doctoral dissertation, University of Sulaimani, College of Agricultural and Engineering Sciences, Agribusiness and Rural Development Department.
58. SIRWAN, K., & HARUN, R. (2024). The Value Chain and Sustainable Efficiency of Industrial Potatoes Through an Entrepreneur. Bulletin of the University of Agricultural Sciences & Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca. Horticulture, 81(1).
59. Sirwan, K., Hameed, K., & Neima, H. A. (2019). The Constrains and Challenges of Beekeeping in Sulaymaniyah Governorate, Kurdistan Region, Iraq. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences, 10(10), 569-572.
60. Sirwan, K., Hameed, K., Rasul, H. I., Salih, A. M., Mahmood, A. A., Sdiq, S. J. M., Raheem, S. M., Omar, Z. O., Muhamad, A. O., & Yaqub, K. Q. (2025). United States’ monetary policy and climate action: How the US Federal Reserve supports renewable energy. Contemporary Research Analysis Journal, 2(3), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.55677/CRAJ/03-2025-Vol02I03.
61. Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63-74.‏
62. Smith, K.G., Ferrier, W.J. and Grimm, C.M., (2001). King of the hill: Dethroning the industry leader. Academy of Management Perspectives, 15(2), pp.59-70.
63. Stachel, R., & Musante, L. (2022). How Corporate Entrepreneurship Practices Impact Innovation—A Pilot Study. Research-Technology Management, 65, 25 – 33. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2022.2118474.
64. Tellis, G. J., & Golder, P. N. (1996). First to market, first to fail? Real causes of enduring market leadership. MIT Sloan management review, 37(2), 65-75.‏
65. Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic orientation of business enterprises: the construct, dimensionality, and measurement. Management Science, 35(8), 942-963.
66. Wales, W. J., Gupta, V. K., & Mousa, F.-T. (2013). Empirical research on entrepreneurial orientation: An assessment and suggestions for future research. International Small Business Journal, 31(4), 357–383. doi:10.1177/0266242611418261.

67. Wang, C. L. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 32(4), 635-657.‏
68. Hasan, K., Neima, H., Ismael, K., Harun, R., & Salih, C. H. (2019). Consumers perception of canned agri-food products in Sulaymanyah City, Kurdistan Regional Government Iraq. ProEnvironment Promediu, 12(39).