From the background presented and at the time of the study, a gap in the literature existed in scientific research and data-based evidence, from a consumer perspective, of a relationship between IB and EO. Therefore, this study focused on a particular iconic brand in South Africa’s food retailing sector to research the relationship between IB and EO from a consumer perspective. Firstly, when management has a clear understanding of this relationship, it allows for better manipulation of such relationships, and secondly, from a theoretical perspective, scholars will value empirical support for such relationships between IB and EO.

The external perspective experienced through consumer engagement provides insights for a consumer-responsive business strategy, which is fundamentally important for the profitability and sustainability of an entrepreneurially orientated business (Chen & Lin 2021; Cuevas-Vargas et al. 2019:2). Therefore, the primary objective of the study was to investigate whether consumers perceive a relationship between IB and EO. The secondary objective was to establish whether specified categorical variables, that is, the gender, shop preference and shopping history of consumers, play a role in the relationship between IB and EO.

The literature gap on a consumer perspective of the relationship between IB and EO necessitated this research, with the research questions formulated as follows:

The EO literature extends to internationalisation as the term international EO refers to truly global businesses with sales in multiple export markets (Kuivalainen et al. 2007). Hsieh et al. (2019) contend that internationalisation is influenced by the EO dimensions of proactiveness, innovation and a risk-taking attitude. Covin and Wales (2019:4) and Wales et al. (2021:564) argue that there may be multiple definitions of and perspectives on the EO construct. However, they also concur with Fiet (2022:35) who concludes that EO is the total of a firm’s radical innovation, proactive strategic action and risk-taking activities manifested in support of projects with uncertain outcomes.

Proactive entrepreneurs change business performance by seeking new opportunities in the market (Zehir, Can & Karaboga 2015) and taking risks. Diandra and Azmy (2020:235) and Kuratko and Audretsch (2022:269) describe entrepreneurial risk-taking as cleverly thought-out ways of mitigating, shifting and sharing risk when undertaking business activities for profit and superior performance. This includes entering new markets, supporting untested technologies, financial exposure and reputational damage to the organisation should the risk lead to failure (Fiet 2022:1; Linton 2019:1). This type of risk tolerance with the probability of loss is referred to as risk-return and trade-off, an ever-present reality of active EO (Gunawan, Jacob & Duysters 2016:575).

Hamilton and Price (2019:187) highlight the value of proactiveness in EO as a forward-looking stance where entrepreneurs constantly plan by scanning the business environment for internal and external trends and events to be ready with appropriate responses to the marketplace. Covin and Wales (2019:4) argue that entrepreneurial proactiveness is about leading aggressively by creating the business environment ahead of competitors instead of reacting to it to plan for consumer needs and rivals’ responses. Cho and Lee (2018:124) concur that entrepreneurially orientated businesses consider first-mover advantage as a core business strategy. Therefore, they prioritise the study of consumer trends and prepare to satisfy market preferences ahead of competitors (Bature et al. 2018:2).

West, Clifford and Atkinson (2018:322) observe that the history of branding dates back to ancient economies when entrepreneurs first thought of trading goods for profit and exploring the principles of EO such as innovation, risk-taking and proactiveness. In addition, Aaker (2020:1) and Keller (2020:997) purport that branding is the establishment of tangible and intangible attributes (such as associations) embodied in a trademark, a logo or other visual elements (such as images or symbols) that, when optimally managed, yield value and influence for the brand. These introductory premises lay the foundation that a brand can be embodied as associated with EO dimensions such as innovation, risk-taking and proactiveness.

As with the concept of a brand, branding in its contemporary form has evolved from being owner-centric to stakeholder-centric after the critique (Batra 2019:535; Ha 2021:2) of its entrepreneur-centric focus. Subsequently, it is essentially an overarching brand-building strategy characterised by brand reputation, encompassing distinction, innovation, reputation and meaning to brand stakeholders. Today, a brand encompasses distinctive associations beyond mere consumption, including products, places, people and services. Even more pronounced is an iconic brand, which is a largely superior-performing business widely admired for its excellent value perception (Aaker 2020:1; Reeslev 2020:5). Mills and John (2020:1) and Dias and Cavalheiro (2022:58) assert that communicating the brand story is a coordinated, strategic branding approach for businesses to highlight to consumers that they are better than the competition.

Aaker (2020:1) and Rodriguez (2020:9) define a brand story as the essential message conveying the brand’s history and reputation to its audience. An effective brand story must be clear and relevant, so consumers find it relatable and engage with it as part of their consumption experience. Furthermore, Mills and John (2020:1) and Dias and Cavalheiro (2022:58) assert that an entrepreneurially orientated brand story is an essential resource to build and project the brand’s innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness.

Therefore, as evident in the literature, there is a relationship between branding and being innovative, as a premise that links IB and EO. It is understood that the EO (innovation) of the firm drives its IB. Innovation is the initiation of new knowledge, new products and services, and new ways of communication characterised by creativity, uniqueness and usefulness (Covin & Wales 2019:3; Van Vuuren & Alemayehu 2018:2). Furthermore, the brand story sub-construct was accepted in the study as directly presenting IB at the measurement level.

Aaker (2020:1) and Mikalkina and Cantous (2015:59) propose that a unique innovation strategy is inherent in iconic brands, so they are universally known as superior-performing businesses. Hence, Chen and Lin (2021:1) and Cuevas et al. (2019:2) notice that, in the swiftly changing global economy, innovativeness is essential for brands to remain aggressively competitive. Innovation is a key approach to competitive strategy for IB in the 21st century, as opposed to domination in the 20th century, because it entails collaborating with stakeholders to create value in unusual and inspiring ways (Chohan 2020:1; Ha 2021:2; Keller 2020:997). Manohar, Mittal and Marwah (2019:406) agree that there is a strong positive association between a brand’s reputation and its innovativeness. Therefore, Van Vuuren and Alemayehu (2018:2) describe innovation as the initiation of new knowledge, products and services and ways of communication characterised by creativity, uniqueness and usefulness.

Furthermore, modern innovation strategies necessitate moving away from closed innovation, which focuses on new ideas controlled within the organisation. Instead, they promulgate open innovation and sourcing and partnership business models with external stakeholders through licensing agreements in which data are sanctioned to flow freely even among competitors, facilitating smarter and more profitable brand performance (McGahan et al. 2021:49).

Based on the literature above, there are links between a brand story and the innovativeness of a business. This raises the question of whether an iconic brand’s consumers perceive a relationship between its brand story and its innovativeness. Therefore, it was hypothesised that:

An iconic brand that takes calculated risks to sustain its superior business performance is perceived as inherently entrepreneurial (Iriantini, Budiyanto & Suwitho 2021:1; Rohrbeck & Kum 2018:106). Moreover, as Fiet (2022:36) and Linton (2019:1) observe, iconic brands are typically created by risk-taking entrepreneurs with audacious goals that attract and inspire consumer loyalty. In the EO literature, Diandra and Azmy (2020:235) and Kuratko and Audretsch (2022:269) describe entrepreneurial risk-taking as cleverly thought-out ways of mitigating, shifting and sharing risk when undertaking business activities for profit and superior performance. This may include entering new markets, supporting untested technologies, financial exposure and reputational damage to the organisation should the risk lead to failure (Fiet 2022:1; Linton 2019:1).

This type of risk tolerance with the probability of loss is referred to as risk-return and trade-off, an ever-present reality of active EO (Gunawan et al. 2016:575). However, an iconic brand that is willing to take risks may have a positive or negative effect on consumers’ perception of its identity value (Tezer, Bodur & Grohmann 2022:27). Based on the literature that provides links between a brand story and risk-taking, it raises the question whether consumers of a brand perceive a relationship between an iconic brand’s brand story and its risk-taking. Therefore, this study hypothesised that:

Hamilton and Price (2019:187) and Covin and Wales (2019:4) argue that, while innovativeness is required for EO and IB, its impact on superior business performance requires proactiveness and boldness. Proactiveness and a keen disposition to accept unique business opportunities are characteristics of IB. Nafizah, Roper and Mole (2023:1) observe that ‘first mover advantage’ and ultimate superior business performance for an iconic brand are outcomes of its proactiveness. However, Halberstadt et al. (2022:11) argue that first-mover advantage is not always successful because it depends on internal and external brand factors. The main criticism of first mover advantage is the lack of a holistic understanding of the market because of over-enthusiastic competitiveness (Xie, Donthu & Johnston 2021:1163).

Hamilton and Price (2019:187) highlight the value of proactiveness in EO as a forward-looking stance where entrepreneurs constantly plan by scanning the business environment for internal and external trends and events, ready with appropriate brand responses to the marketplace. Covin and Wales (2019:4) argue that entrepreneurial proactiveness is about leading aggressively by creating the business environment ahead of competitors instead of reacting to it to plan for consumer needs and rivals’ responses. Cho and Lee (2018:124) concur that entrepreneurially orientated businesses consider first-mover advantage as a core business strategy. Therefore, they prioritise the study of consumer trends and prepare to satisfy market preferences ahead of competitors, which includes shaping their brand (Bature et al. 2018:2). Based on the literature, there is an apparent relationship between brand story and proactiveness, raising the question whether a brand’s consumers perceive a relationship between an iconic brand’s brand story and its proactiveness. Therefore, the study hypothesised that:

Joiner et al. (2012:370) found that females have a different perception of a brand’s IB and EO than males do. Sultan and Wong (2019:332) purport that the differences in perceptions may be because males and females are motivated by different sources of knowledge, beliefs and subjective insights, which influence their perceptions of a brand’s IB and EO. The arguments above align with the fact that consumers repeatedly buy their chosen brands because of their consumption goals (Manishimwe et al. 2022:1; Punjaisri & Wilson 2017:91), which ostensibly differ between genders. The following null hypotheses were developed to test these conclusions:

The research was designed as a quantitative case study to investigate respondents’ perceptions from an objective and verifiable viewpoint (Ahmad et al. 2018:2828; Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2019:132). This design enabled the testing of hypothesised relationships (Schindler 2022:595; Schoch 2020:245) between the IB and EO of the brand of interest (BOI) as perceived by its consumers. The philosophy of the study was epistemological because the knowledge acquired was validated from a positivist perspective (Ryan 2018:41), and deductive reasoning was provided for logical and valid inferences to be made from specific findings (Junjie & Yingxin 2022:10; Saunders et al. 2019:132).

A research study population refers to a complete set of elements such as events, objects or individuals characterised by distinguishing features based on a subset or sample of the population about which extrapolations can be made, otherwise known as the population of interest (Majid 2018:3; Rahi 2017:3). In general, a population of interest is large, and it is not feasible to observe all the members; therefore, a sample matching the population characteristics is used to extract valuable knowledge about the population. The population of interest for this study was people who shop at the BOI, that is, the case study organisation.

When a random sample is used, the researcher can accept that the features of the sample represent those of the whole population (Leedy & Ormrod 2021:200). A random probability sample was used in this study to ensure that respondents drawn from the consumer pool of the BOI received an equal chance to give their perspectives on the relationship between its IB and EO. It is important to consider the sample size and the soundness of the association between variables when assessing the suitability of the dataset. The generally accepted criterion for determining the sample size is to have 10 respondents for every statement or question in the measurement instrument (Schreiber et al. 2006:17). Based on this criterion, a minimum sample size of 340 respondents was appropriate for this study. Gay, Mills and Airasian (2012:139) offer a guideline that when a population is beyond a certain point (N > 5000), a sample of 400 is sufficient. In this study, the population was certainly more than 5000 and a sample size of 499 respondents was achieved, thus complying with the two cited criteria.

The study questionnaire was designed to facilitate a scientific enquiry whereby responses to statements made can be measured validly and reliably (Dele-Ijagbulu 2019:163). The questionnaire contained 34 questions and was administered electronically. Different measurement scales were used. Firstly, a nominal scale was used to measure the following categorical variables concerning whether respondents shopped at the BOI: gender and shop preference. Secondly, an ordinal scale was used to measure the following categorical variables: shopping frequency and shopping history. Thirdly, an interval scale, on a five-point Likert scale, was used to measure all the non-categorical sub-constructs of IB and EO. Using the Likert scale allowed for a wide range of descriptive and inferential statistics to be applied (Amrhein, Trafimow & Greenland 2018:262; Kaur, Stoltzfus & Yellapu 2018:60).

The sub-construct used to measure IB in this study was based on Holt’s (2004:5) seminal and established sub-construct of IB, the brand story (Norris et al. 2020:19). It must be observed that the BOI refers to the case-study organisation that was studied. The EO sub-constructs (innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness) were based on the sub-constructs used in the Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument (Hornsby, Ireland & Kuratko 1990:49), used in similar studies worldwide (Hornsby et al. 2013:937). The use of these sub-constructs by Lotz and Van der Merwe (2013:15) is also consistent with their use in the Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument by Khoza, Groenewald and Schachtebeck (2017:102), Scheepers, Hough and Bloom (2008:59), and Van Wyk and Adonisi (2011:3047). Table 1 presents the questionnaire statements used to measure the study’s sub-constructs.

Knekta et al. (2019:2) and Turrado-Sevilla and Canton-Mayo (2022:82) define validity as a measure of accuracy regarding the degree to which a research result relates to reality. Therefore, a valid measuring instrument must be appropriate to accurately measure the constructs the researcher intends to assess. Reliability refers to the extent to which an independent application of the same instrument consistently yields the same or similar results under comparable conditions (Moses & Yamat 2021:206; Sürücü & Maslakci 2020:2707).

The following steps were taken to assess the validity and reliability of the measuring instrument:

The reliability of the measuring instrument was established by high values (greater than 0.7) of Cronbach’s alpha. This indicated a reliable measuring instrument (Barbera et al. 2021:257). Table 2 shows the Cronbach’s alpha value for all items, with the lowest being 0.944. The measurement instrument was valid and reliable.

Data were collected using an online questionnaire that contained 34 questions. The unit of analysis was any individual who responded to the questionnaire, and 499 respondents completed and returned the electronic questionnaire. The responses were coded and processed using the University of Pretoria’s statistical program R, which produced a statistical data analysis report for further analysis and interpretation.

Ethical approval to conduct this study was obtained from the University of Pretoria Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences Research Ethics Committee (reference no. EMS203/19).

The ANOVA test was applied to Hypotheses 1 to 3 by testing the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the IB and the EO constructs in the eyes of the consumers. Table 4 summarises the results of the ANOVA test.

Table 4 indicates an F-value and a p-value or Pr (> F) for each hypothesis when an IB variable was treated as either a dependent or independent variable and then tested against EO variables and vice versa. The decision rule states that when a p-value (Pr [> F]) is less than the significance level of 0.05, then the null hypothesis must be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis (Wegner 2020:236). Therefore, the finding was to reject H_o1: to H_o3. In other words, there was a statistically significant difference in respondents’ perceptions of the IB variable (brand story) of an iconic brand and its EO variables (e.g. innovativeness).

In non-statistical terms, the respondents did not associate the IB variables with the EO variables of the iconic brand; in their perception, there was no relationship. Having applied the ANOVA test to the overall sample and established a statistically significant difference between the IB variables (brand story) and the EO variables (innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness), the researchers conducted the Fisher’s exact test to establish the influence of the categorical variable gender on the relationship between the IB and EO variables, and the results are now presented and discussed.

Fisher’s exact test was applied to discover whether the hypothesised conclusion that IB and EO constructs are perceived as the same could be drawn from gender-specific responses with the results shown in Table 5.

Table 5 indicates a Pr (> F) of 0.001 for both tests when the IB was tested against the EO from the perspective of male and female respondents. As the p-value was less than 0.05, the finding was to reject both H_o:4 and H_o:5. In other words, there was a statistically significant difference in the male and female respondents’ perceptions of a brand’s IB and EO. In non-statistical terms, both male and female shoppers did not associate the IB of a brand with the brand’s EO.

The MANOVA test was run to test for a statistically significant difference between the IB variable (brand story) and EO variables as a group. It was a more comprehensive investigation of the research question about whether consumers perceive a significant difference between IB and EO. Table 6 presents the results of the collective test. This MANOVA test automatically assumes the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between the variables.

Table 6 indicates an F-value of 113.65 and a Pr (> F) of 0.001 when the brand story was tested against innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness. As the p-value was less than 0.05, the finding was to reject the null hypothesis. In other words, there was a statistically significant difference between respondents’ perceptions of the brand story of the iconic brand and their perceptions of its innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness. In non-statistical terms, consumers did not perceive a relationship between a brand’s IB and its EO.

Table 7 presents the results of the MANOVA between innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness, and brand story. As the p-values were less than 0.05, the finding was to reject the null hypothesis. In other words, there was a statistically significant difference in the respondents’ perceptions of the iconic brand’s individual EO variables and IB brand story. Furthermore, the respondents did not perceive a relationship between the individual EO variables and the IB brand story. Thus, the MANOVA result has built on the basic ANOVA results, providing the researchers with more knowledge (Huang 2020:56).

Having tested for a significant difference between the IB and EO variables, the MANOVA test statistically corroborated the ANOVA test and Fisher’s exact test findings that consumers did not perceive a relationship between IB and EO. There was, in fact, a statistically significant difference in how the two constructs were perceived, confirming the results for all hypotheses tested. Therefore, it can be decisively concluded that respondents did not perceive IB and EO as reflective of each other. This raises the question of why this is not the case, as it contradicts the theoretical expectations shaped through the available literature on the topic. As was alluded to earlier in the article, it could be that the management of iconic brands is not sufficiently aware of this issue and is not doing enough to enhance the further value of their IB by incorporating additional EO dimensions, such as innovative imaging and messaging, which reflect proactiveness of the IB. This is a unique opportunity that results from the findings of this article and is a unique contribution of the study to the management of an IB.

As indicated in the ‘Hypotheses 1 to 3: Iconic branding and entrepreneurial orientation’ section, Null Hypotheses 1 to 3 were rejected, meaning that consumers perceived a statistically significant difference between IB brand story and EO variables. Therefore, it can be deduced that respondents did not perceive the IB of a brand as a reflection of its EO. These findings are contrary to the reviewed literature, which generally asserts that a business that is perceived as an iconic brand is also characterised as an entrepreneurial business (Lee et al. 2019:1; Rodriguez-Pena 2021:2). Also, Mills and John (2020:1) and Dias and Cavalheiro (2022:58) assert that an entrepreneurially orientated brand story is an essential resource to build and project the brand’s innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness. Furthermore, the study’s findings do not support the perception that an iconic brand taking calculated risks to sustain its superior business performance is perceived as inherently entrepreneurial (Iriantini et al. 2021:1; Rohrbeck & Kum 2018:106). Finally, Aaker (2020:1) and Mikalkina and Cantous (2015:59) propose that a unique innovation strategy is inherent in iconic brands; however, this study found the contrary: It is not inherently perceived as such among consumers, for both males and females.

Null Hypotheses 4 and 5 were rejected, as presented in Table 5, because both male and female respondents perceived a statistically significant difference between IB and EO. In other words, neither males nor females perceived the IB of a brand as a reflection of its EO. Consequently, gender did not play a role in how respondents perceived the relationship between a brand’s IB and EO. For example, in support of the findings on Hypotheses 1 to 3, males and females separately did not perceive that the reputation (IB) of an iconic brand reflects its innovativeness (EO). Sultan and Wong (2019:332) emphasise the differences between the information processing methods used by male and female consumers because gender is motivated by different sources of knowledge, beliefs and subjective insights, which influence their perceptions.

The MANOVA test was conducted to assess whether there is a statistically significant difference between IB and EO variables as a group. This test automatically assumes the null hypotheses tested to assess whether there are statistically significant differences between individual IB variables and EO variables as a group and vice versa. All the null hypotheses were rejected, meaning that consumers perceived a statistically significant difference between IB and EO. This corroborates the ANOVA findings of Hypotheses 1 to 3, which tested statistical differences between the individual IB and EO constructs. Consequently, it can be deduced that respondents did not perceive a brand’s IB as a reflection of its EO.

Based on findings that consumers of the BOI in this study perceived a statistically significant difference between the BOI’s IB and the EO variables, the following conclusions can be drawn:

While it was not the focus of the study, it found that there is no statistically significant difference between physical store shoppers’ and online shoppers’ perceptions of IB only and of EO only. Consequently, the following conclusions can be drawn:

Therefore, the overall lesson for management is that a brand’s IB and EO are intangible resources that hold value for its profitability, and both must be constantly fostered in the eyes of its consumers, who are important stakeholders.

It is recommended that future studies on the relationship between IB and EO be conducted:

The limitations of the study are as follows: