Development of consulting services to support export entrepreneurship

The article focuses on improving consulting services to encourage the effective development of export entrepreneurship. It emphasises two key points. Firstly, it emphasises the importance of popularising and implementing the core principles of organisational ambidexterity. This should improve the financial results of small and medium-sized businesses involved in export activities, making them more stable and predictable for owners in the long run. Secondly, it discusses how consulting services for exporting firms should be differentiated based on their life cycle stage and experience in export entrepreneurship. This ensures that the support provided is clear, valid, and timely. This study is significant both theoretically and practically in that it enhances the validity of the list of consulting services offered to enterprises interested in engaging in foreign trade amid increasing restrictions. The proposed recommendations can form the basis for improving the quality of consulting services for exporters, helping them to avoid difficulties and minimise errors when selling their products, while also optimising their resources for entering international markets. Further research could focus on identifying the factors that influence customer satisfaction with consulting services in export entrepreneurship. Another area of research could involve economic and mathematical models to determine the direction and strength of the relationships between these factors.

1. Vasilchenko A.D., Sapir E.V. (2021). Barriers to entry into foreign markets and their overcoming: The experience of regional exporters. In: Modern problems of management in the field of foreign economic activity: III International scientific conference of students and postgraduates: collection of articles. Moscow, 76: 37-46. (In Russ.)

2. Epanchintsev V.Yu., Shumakova O.V. (2023). Information and consulting support at different stages of the life cycle of small agricultural business entities. Bulletin of the Kursk State Agricultural Academy, 2: 173-182. (In Russ.)

3. Kuklina E.A., Korshunova A.A. (2019). Consulting as an element of the infrastructure for supporting small and medium-sized businesses in Russia. Management Consulting, 2: 44-54. (In Russ.)

4. Nalbandyan G.G. (2022). Formation of a strategy for entering foreign markets for industrial companies: dis. for the degree of сand. sci. (еcon.). Moscow. (In Russ.)

5. Revenko N.S., Sklyar A.A. (2022). Export development institutions: Vectors of improving performance efficiency. Russian Foreign Economic Bulletin, 1: 7-26. (In Russ.)

6. Sidorov A.A. (2023). Access to foreign markets: Theoretical approach and factors. Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2: 86-107. DOI: 10.52180/2073-6487_2023_2_86_107. (In Russ.)

7. Trachuk A.V., Kolobov A.V., Linder N.V. (2024). The impact of organizational ambidexterity on the performance of multi-industry industrial enterprises. Russian Journal of Management, 22(1): 131-153. (In Russ.)

8. Ahmad B., Yuan J., Ashfaq M., Shahzad K., Zhang T. (2024). Does salesperson bricolage matter in fostering service-sales ambidexterity in B2B markets? A perspective through the sales management control system. Industrial Marketing Management, 121: 115-130.

9. Asadi A. (2023). The role of the mindsets of small business owners in using business consulting services. Journal of the International Council for Small Business, 4(2): 143-154.

10. Belas J., Gavurova B., Kubak M., Rowland Z. (2024). Quantifying export potential and barriers of SMEs in V4. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 21(2): 251-270.

11. Bernard A.B., Jensen J.B., Redding S.J., Schott P.K. (2007). Firms in international trade. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(3): 105-130.

12. Brix J. (2019). Ambidexterity and organizational learning: Revisiting and reconnecting the literatures. Learning Organization, 26(4): 337-351.

13. Casas C., Diez F.J., Gonzalez A. (2017). Heterogeneous exporters: Quantitative differences and qualitative similarities. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, working papers: 16-26.

14. Chakma R., Paul J., Dhir S. (2021). Organizational ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71: 121-137.

15. Chen C.-T., Khan A., Chen S.-C. (2024). Modeling the impact of BDA-AI on sustainable innovation ambidexterity and environmental performance. Journal of Big Data, 11(1): 124. DOI: 10.1186/s40537-024-00995-6.

16. Fedotova G.Y., Tereshenkova A.Y., Leontiev D.N. (2023). State digital resources development as a basis for identifying the subject of a transaction to reduce the risks of foreign trade. In: Digital challenges: What is the response of the economy? Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

17. Gianzina-Kassotaki O. (2017). Leadership and ambidexterity: A multilevel analysis of the aerospace and defense organizations. PhD thesis (management). Warwick Business School. http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/95904/1/WRAP_Theses_Gianzina-Kassotaki_2017.pdf.

18. Gonzalez R.V.D., De Melo T.M. (2018). The effects of organization context on knowledge exploration and exploitation. Journal of Business Research, 90: 215-225.

19. Mai Xuan D., Le Tan B. (2024). Relationship among government export support, perceived export stimuli, barriers and export performance. Cogent Business and Management, 11(1): 2336646.

20. Martínez-Falcó J., Marco-Lajara B., Zaragoza-Sáez P., Sánchez-García E. (2024). The effect of organizational ambidexterity on sustainable performance: A structural equation analysis applied to the Spanish wine industry. Agribusiness, 40(4): 773-803.

21. Pandey V.K., Rathore N.K., Bhosale N.P. (2024). Intelligent automation computational modelling for contextual consulting services using Industry 4.0. IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 13(3): 2557-2565.

22. Raišienė A.G., Raišys S.J. (2022). Business customer satisfaction with B2B consulting services: AHP-based criteria for a new perspective. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(12): 7437.

23. Smara R., Bogatyreva K., Laskovaia A., Van Wagoner H.P. (2024). Does striking a balance pay off? Implications of innovative ambidexterity for SMEs during COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 16(3): 649-674. DOI: 10.1108/JEEE-05-2022-0139.

24. Tsyganov A.A., Bryzgalov D.V., Rybakov S.I. (2024). Cargo insurance in the Russian Federation: Current state, efficiency and development paths. Studies on Russian Economic Development, 35(1): 126-134.

25. Wang X., Zhang J., Zhu Y. (2024). Barriers to digital services trade and export efficiency of digital services. Sustainability (Switzerland), 16(17): 7517.