Why Method Matters: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Marketing Capability–Performance Relationship

This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesises 88 effect sizes from 88 peer-reviewed journal articles to evaluate the association between marketing capability and firm performance. Studies were identified in Scopus and Dimensions for the period 2000–2025 and were eligible if they reported a construct identifiable as marketing capability, at least one firm performance outcome, and sufficient statistics to compute a correlation. Random-effects pooling indicates a positive and practically meaningful correlation between marketing capability and performance (r = 0.44, 95% CI [0.40, 0.48]), with a 95% prediction interval from 0.06 to 0.71, indicating that marketing capability is an important correlate of performance outcomes. Subgroup analyses show stronger correlations for reflective first-order models, weaker estimates for higher-order and formative specifications, and wider prediction intervals when confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is reported. Contextual differences are also evident: business-to-consumer samples exhibit the largest effects, business-to-business samples moderate effects, and mixed samples smaller effects. Small-study patterns were examined with funnel plots, Egger’s test and trim-and-fill, and sensitivity analyses using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML), Hartung–Knapp, and multilevel models produced similar pooled estimates. Most included studies were cross-sectional, which limits causal interpretation, so the findings should be read as consistent associations rather than proven effects. Taken together, the review shows that construct design, validation practice, and market setting systematically shape both the size and spread of the marketing capability–performance association and provides benchmarks and prediction intervals that future studies can use for theory development and research design.