Internationalisation of Spanish family SMEs: an analysis of family involvement

134 Int. J. Globalisation and Small Business, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2005 Copyright © 2005 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd. Internationalisation of Spanish family SMEs: an analysis of family involvement José C. Casillas and Francisco J. Acedo* Department of Management and Marketing, University of Seville Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales Avda. Ramón y Cajal, No. 1, 41018, Seville, Spain E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author Abstract: The aim of this work is to analyse the influence of family involvement on a company in the context of the firm’s internationalisation. The work incorporates some of the most current perspectives from the international business field. From these reflections, we propose a causal explanatory model whose ultimate dependent variable is the firm’s level of internationalisation, considering independent variables both at the individual and company level (including family influence). The model is tested on a sample of 222 Andalusian firms (Spain), using a structural equation modelling technique (Partial Least Squares – PLS). The results show how the family involvement plays a mediating role when considering the internationalisation of family firms. Some of the conclusions may give useful insights for public agencies responsible for fostering SME internationalisation as well as for the academic world. Keywords: internationalisation; family firm; entrepreneurship; causal model; partial least squares. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Casillas, J.C. and Acedo, F.J. (2005) ‘Internationalisation of Spanish family SMEs: an analysis of family involvement’, Int. J. Globalisation and Small Business, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.134–151. Biographical notes: Dr. Francisco J. Acedo is Lecturer of Strategic Management at the University of Seville. He obtained his PhD in International Management from the University of Seville. His research interests include international management, international entrepreneurship and organisational behaviour. Dr. José C. Casillas is Associate Professor of Management at the University of Seville and Director of the Family Business Chair. He obtained his PhD in International Management from the University of Seville. His research interests aim primarily at analysing multinational firms and international strategic management and family business. A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2004 FBN-IFERA conference. Internationalisation of Spanish family SMEs 13 5 1 Introduction One of the main challenges faced by family-owned firms is the development of their ability to grow and expand their international activities for competing in a global market, and at the same time, keeping the control of the firm in the hands of the family. Nonetheless, there are numerous examples of family-owned firms who have successfully overcome this challenge and have become multinational family-owned companies. It is also possible to observe how some family-owned SMEs are initiating and developing activities abroad through exports in response to the current process of economic globalisation. However, up to now, there have been few attempts to investigate how the growth and internationalisation processes of family-owned companies occur. In family firms coexist both factors, the need of growth and the will of keeping the control, assisting and impeding internationalisation (Okoroafo, 1999; Gallo and Sveen, 1991). Although an extensive body of literature can be found on the internationalisation process, the possible impact of the family involvement in such process has almost never been analysed (Fernández and Nieto, 2002). The aim of this work is to analyse the influence of family involvement on a company in terms of the firm’s internationalisation. Our objective is to bring some light to the existing gap between the two spheres of study which, to date, have been separately developed – the fields of family business and international business. For this purpose, some of the most recent trends in the field of international business and internationalisation of family firms are summarised below. Taking these theoretical approaches as our starting point, we propose a causal model where the final dependent variable is the level of internationalisation of the firm. With regard to the independent variables, dimensions at the individual and firm levels (for the latter, the family’s influence on the firm) are considered and we posit a set of hypotheses about the different cause and effect relations. Afterwards, we expose the methodology applied and we give the results of both the measurement and the structural models. Such results allow us to confirm a large set of hypotheses, albeit not of all them. Finally, this study presents the main conclusions extracted, the main limitations of the work, and some of the future research lines. 2 Internationalisation process of family businesses 2.1 The internationalisation process of firms Since the 1960s, the study of the factors that have an impact on the internationalisation process of the firms has been one of the main research topics in the field of international business. Firm internationalisation is considered as a dynamic process, which encompasses a large number of different variables of both internal and external types. The internationalisation process is a long-term decision, which entails the implementation of in-depth changes in the firm’s internal structures. This is aimed at adapting to new (geographical) environments, which are different from the national one. The complexity of the internationalisation process justifies the diversity in the conceptual approaches used to study it. Although different types of approaches have 136 J.C. Casillas and F.J. Acedo been proposed, it is safe to state that internationalisation has been analysed from three perspectives: 1 the economic-rational approach 2 the sequential approach 3 the strategic approach. The economic-rational approach considers that decisions made in the internationalisation process are primarily based on the assumption of bounded rationality. Within this approach, we should distinguish between the contributions made from the Transaction Costs Theory, employed mostly in the explanation of the selection of the entry mode (Anderson and Gatignon, 1986; Hennart, 1991; Hennart and Park, 1993), and those of the Eclectic Theory (Dunning, 1980; 1989; Agarwal and Ramaswami, 1992; Kim and Hwang, 1992). Although the sequential approach is based on the classical ideas exposed by Vernon (1966), Buckley and Casson (1976), it reaches its maturity through two parallel approaches: (1) The Uppsala School (Johanson and Wiedersheim-Paul, 1975; Johanson and Vahlne, 1977), and the Innovation Approach (Bilkey and Tesar, 1977; Cavusgil, 1984; Reid, 1981). Both trends agree in the fact that internationalisation, by making cumulative decisions (Root, 1987), is an evolutionary process in which the firm develops progressive levels of commitment to international markets as it moves ahead through a series of sequential stages, being therefore, a learning process (Andersen, 1993). Several academics, from a strategic perspective, propose that decisions associated with the internationalisation process are conditioned by two types of factors: internal dimensions (organisation’s structure and capability, internal coordination, CEO’s attitude and idiosyncrasy, management and human resources, etc.) and external dimensions (risk associated with the target country and strategies of competitors, etc.) (Young et al., 1991). The strategic approach tries to avoid the aspects of the two former approaches that have been most widely criticised (i.e., the assumption of rationality of the economic-rational approach and the evolutionary determinism of the sequential approach). Recently, new contributions from different conceptual fields have enriched the study of the internationalisation process of companies; here as well, significant differences are notable as to whether the focus of the work is external or internal. These new perspectives attempt to explain some aspects of the current international behaviour of companies in those areas where the classical models appear to be ineffective. One such situation is the appearance and development of very young companies (known as ‘born global’ companies) with a high degree of internationalisation (Oviatt and McDougall, 1994). In this area, two conceptual approaches clearly stand out: 1 Integrated studies on cognitive styles within the field of international entrepreneurship (Oviatt and McDougall, 1994; Hirsch et al., 1996). 2 The contributions derived from institutional theory (Lautanen, 2000; Lu, 2002; Laurila and Ropponen, 2003), which states that companies within a single location or industry tend to become similar in time, either because they are willing to engage in relationships that allow for the diffusion of knowledge and abilities or because they seek social legitimation (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Scott, 1987; Oliver, 1991). Internationalisation of Spanish family SMEs 13 7 2.2 Internationalisation and family firms Little investigation, which addresses the internationalisation process of family firms, has been carried out to date. On the one hand, the analysis of the internationalisation process has not been paid enough attention by the field of study of family businesses for it to deserve a remarkable research effort. On the other hand, the sphere of International Business has almost not considered the influence of ownership and management (family or nonfamily) on international expansion decisions. For this reason, we wonder if the degree of family control in a firm has any impact at all on its decisions with regard to the internationalisation process. Gallo and Sveen (1991) propose that there are certain factors that either foster or restrain the development of the internationalisation process in family firms (objectives, structure, culture, life cycle and international characteristics). More recently, Okoroafo (1999) carried out a study on 187 firms in the US state of Ohio, which leads to the following conclusions: • Family firms are less inclined to engage in operations abroad. • Those family firms that have not internationalised during the first two generation owners, will hardly start their internationalisation processes later on. • Most of the family firms engaged in international operations, operate internationally through exports and joint ventures. Fernández and Nieto (2002) analysed some panel data with more than 10,000 Spanish firms to ascertain the influence of the type of ownership (family versus nonfamily) on the export intensity of the firm. The results show that family-owned firms are less likely to engage in international activities. However, second and third generation owners are more prone to engage in this kind of operations than the founder’s generation. Finally, our work tests that those family businesses that open their equity to other shareholders are more active in the international marketplace. 3 Conceptual model and hypotheses The conceptual model proposed in this study is based on a multilevel and multiparadigmatic approach, which considers aspects at the level of the individual and of the firm in an interrelated manner (see Figure 1). This study attempts to incorporate family involvement as an internal variable within a global model of international behaviour. This model is based upon the premises of the Uppsala and the strategic theories. With respect to the incremental approach, we have included factors related with the firm’s age as well as some other characteristics related to the manager. With these variables, we try to reflect the experience and knowledge acquisition influence on the individual risk perception. This last variable appears as a proxy of the opportunities that come from the environment related to the internationalisation process. 138 J.C. Casillas and F.J. Acedo Figure 1 Proposed conceptual model 3.1 CEO’s characteristics, firm characteristics and international level With regards to the individual’s characteristics, some previous papers identify differences in the export behaviour of the firms in terms of their CEO’s demographic characteristics (Aaby and Slater, 1989; Chetty and Hamilton, 1993). Similarly, other works introduce the characteristics of decision-makers as a decisive explanatory variable of export behaviour (Miesenbock, 1988; Caughey and Chetty, 1993). Dichtl et al. (1990) distinguish two types of CEO’s characteristics: demographic characteristics (age, education level, experience, language skills, number and variety of trips abroad) and psychological characteristics (risk aversion, change aversion, strategic preferences, personal ambitions). Normally, it is considered that the demographic variables are approaches to variables of a psychological nature, which are more difficult to measure. In this regard, Reuber and Fisher (1997) argue that the experience variable (either on the part of the individual or of the top management team) has an impact on the firm’s international behaviour by means of a decrease in the perceived risk (Gray, 1997). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: H1 A negative relationship will exist between the CEO’s experience and training and the perception of the risk that arises from international activities. According to the Institutional Theory, the firm may tend to exhibit a certain behaviour due to three kinds of external pressures: mimetic, coercive and normative (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). The coercive isomorphism occurs when a company behaves in response to the pressures of its political environment (Mizruchi and Fein, 1999). Thus, public administration has a bearing on the firm’s behaviour, especially on its international behaviour, as it is the main entity which deals with the establishment of programmes that would support and promote international activities (Oliver, 1991; Moini, 1998). Therefore, it can be expected that those individuals with a lower level of international H13 (-) Manager characteristics Family implication H3 (-) H4 (+) H7 (+) H8 (+) H10 (+) H11 (+) H12 (+) Level of internationalisation Firm’s age Risk perception Firm’s size Export promotion H9 (-) H1 (-) H3 (-) H5 (-) H6 (-) H7 (+) H8 (+) H12 (+) H2 (-) Internationalisation of Spanish family SMEs 13 9 experience and training will be more likely to turn to this type of institution for support. Additionally, the firms that resort to these public organisations acquire a series of knowledge and skills enabling them to operate in foreign markets; therefore, they reduce the risk involved when entering the international marketplace. Hence, H2 A negative relationship will exist between the CEO’s experience and the need to resort to public entities that support internationalisation. H3 A negative relationship will exist between the use of public entities that support internationalisation and the perception of the risk that arises from international activities. Concerning the firm age and size, several studies suggest that both variables are usually interrelated in terms of the development of the life cycle of the firm (Churchill and Lewis, 1983). Similarly, the Theory of Resources and Capabilities asserts that the differences in the firm’s revenues and strategies are a result of the combination of resources and capabilities owned by the firm (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991). Therefore, both dimensions are good indicators of the available resources of the firm. Thanks to this greater availability of resources on the part of the largest firms, they are able to recruit better CEOs, hold a more solid position in the marketplace and, as a consequence, implement strategies associated by other firms with higher levels of risk. This smaller perception of risk therefore contributes to a higher level of engagement in international activities by the firm. In fact, various authors have analysed the relationship between size and internationalisation, and find a positive relationship (Bonaccorsi, 1992; Calof, 1994). On these grounds, and considering the indirect relationships among the described variables, we propose that: H4 A positive relationship will exist between the firm age and its size. H5 A negative relationship will exist between the firm size and the perception of the risk that arises from international activities. H6 A negative relationship will exist between the perception of the risk that arises from international activities and the internationalisation level of the firm. H7 A positive relationship will exist between the firm age and its level of internationalisation. H8 A positive relationship will exist between the firm size and its level of internationalisation. 3.2 Family involvement in the firm and internationalisation level Next, in Figure 1, it can be observed that the model incorporates a series of relationships with a focus on the extent to which a firm can be considered as a family business. According to numerous authors, ownership, management and continuity seem to be the main elements which define a family firm. For some authors, a firm can be considered as a family firm when it is family-owned (Landsberg and Perrow, 1988; Barry, 1989), whilst 140 J.C. Casillas and F.J. Acedo others consider that ownership control – being a necessary condition – is not enough for a business to be considered as a family firm, and they require either of the two other characteristics: the involvement of the family in the management and direction tasks of the firm (Gallo and Sveen, 1991; Barnes and Hershon, 1976; Church, 1996; Donckels and Frohlich, 2001) or the integration of subsequent generation owners in the firm (Gallo, 1995). Various authors uphold the idea that family firms are less likely to expand internationally because of several reasons such as the lack of resources, the resistance to change of family leaders, etc. (Ward, 1988; Gallo and García-Pont, 1996). Recently, Fernández and Nieto (2002) identifed a negative relationship between family ownership and internationalisation level. Consequently: H9 A negative relationship will exist between family involvement in the firm and its level of internationalisation. Nevertheless, this negative relationship is due to various reasons, which bring about the need to identify mediating variables between the type of ownership (family or not) and the internationalisation level. First, the firm growth and its international expansion are based on the existence of a given mix of resources and capabilities (Penrose, 1959). As for the former, two are significantly worth noting: 1 top management resources 2 economic and financial resources. In terms of top management resources, human resources constitute a vital resource for every organisation. As mentioned earlier, throughout the last decades, the impact of the CEO’s characteristics on their internationalisation decisions has been extensively investigated (Tihanyi et al., 2000; Athanassiou and Nigh, 2000; 2002; Sambhraya, 1996) based on Hambrik and Mason’s “upper echelons” model (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). This idea is also included in the institutional theory as the normative isomorphism, which is based on the diffusion of behaviour by structured activities called ‘routines’ and is reflected in professionalisation (Mizruchi and Fein, 1999). In this sense, the relationship between the CEO’s level of education and experience and family ownership is not clear. On the one hand, Gallo and García-Pont (1996) stated that family firms will prefer to recruit family members for their senior management positions, aimed at increasing the family control of the firm, and that this criterion will outweigh the recruitment of a qualified manager in the sphere of international business. Now, second or subsequent generation family businesses might have more qualified managers, as they have access to a type of education more oriented to international activity (studies abroad, language skills, development of cross-cultural capabilities, etc.). Although we agree with both positions, we think that the second argument is more intense for family firms that have survived for many years. These firms would have developed international capabilities precisely because they have been able to promote the firm professionalisation – professionalisation being construed here as the recruitment of managers with a sufficient level of training and experience (either family members or not). Thus, we propose the following hypothesis: Internationalisation of Spanish family SMEs 141 H10 A positive relationship will exist between the CEO’s experience and training and the level of family involvement in the firm. On the other hand, according to various authors, family firms develop a more conservative behaviour and are less prone to risks assumption (Fernández and Nieto, 2002). Among other reasons, a previous work (Wright et al., 1996) indicates that in family businesses, a high ratio of the family wealth is concentrated in the company; therefore, if the firm’s performance is bad, it provokes an enormous economic problem in the family sphere. Consequently, this greater conservatism of family firms will probably be reflected in their internationalisation decisions, in such a way that: H11 A positive relationship will exist between the level of family involvement in the firm and the perception of the risk that arises from international activities. Finally, both the firm’s age and size are two contingent variables that can be associated with the level of family involvement in the firm. With regard to age, very young firms can hardly be considered as family firms, according to the third dimension identifying family businesses (i.e., the involvement of second generation owners in the firm). Most of them are family businesses in the first stages of the family firm’s life cycle. Similarly, one of the main factors determining the family firm’s survival in the long run is the family involvement in the firm (Gallo and Amat, 2003). Many prior studies uphold a negative relationship between the size of the firm and the involvement of the owning family. The main reason behind this negative relationship is that family firms are not very interested in growth, as this growth could involve the lost of control on the part of the family (for instance, with the entry of third-party investing partners) (Harris et al., 1994). For this reason, we outline our two last hypotheses: H12 A positive relationship will exist between the firm’s age and the level of family involvement in the firm. H13 A negative relationship will exist between the level of family involvement in the firm and the firm size. 4 Methodology 4.1 Data To carry out the empirical study, the top chief executive officers (either the chairpersons or the general directors) of 222 firms in Andalusia (South of Spain) were interviewed. All of them answered a questionnaire related to their perceptions on the internationalisation of their firms. By visited them personally, we tried to avoid the problems produced by the short response rate of postal surveys. The firms were randomly selected from an overall database of Andalusian firms. Firstly, seven sectors were selected, with the only requirement that there be a significant ratio of exporting companies; and in order to avoid any bias, this ratio should be similar for every sector. Such selection was made as follows. 142 J.C. Casillas and F.J. Acedo Firstly, a global database of firms was made by combining three regional databases of firms. This global database contained 19,863 firms. The export tendency (ratio of the number of exporting firms to the total number of firms by sector) was calculated for each sector (at the three-digit level), and it was subsequently weighed in terms of the representativeness of the sector within the global database (ratio of the number of firms in the sector to the total number of firms in the database). Depending on these results, those sectors with a value close to 50% (similar number of exporting and nonexporting firms) were selected. In total, the database is comprised of 3597 firms from the selected sectors; therefore, the selected sample represents the acceptance of a sample error of 6.3%, with a confidence interval of 95%. Table 1 displays the main characteristics of the firms in the sample. Table 1 Description of the sample Industry code Industry Number of firms Export Nonexport 153 Preparation and preservation of fruits and vegetables 37 (17%) 31 6 154 Oil and fat manufacturing 17 (8%) 11 6 158 Other food products 38 (17%) 18 20 182 Clothing, textiles and accessories 33 (15%) 10 23 252 Plastic products manufacturing 25 (11%) 10 15 361 Furniture manufacturing 59 (26%) 19 40 362 Jewelry manufacturing 13 (6%) 7 6 Total 222 (100%) 104 118 To verify the response reliability, a second survey was conducted in every firm. This time, the interview was addressed to any person within the decision-making structure of the firm, other than the chief executives (for example, the director of the administration, sales or export departments, etc.). The first respondent was informed of this second interview. In this way, the consistency of the responses to the two interviews conducted in each studied organisation was tested. 4.2 Variables Family involvement in the firm (FAMINV): In order to measure the level of family involvement in the firm, we have considered three various aspects: ownership, management and continuity (Neubauer and Lank, 1998; Gallo, 1995). Thus, the respondents had to answer the following three questions: 1 Is the share capital of the firm controlled by any family group? 2 Is the firm’s general director or are most of the persons in a firm’s top management team members of that family? 3 Does any member of the second generation of the family already work in the firm? Classification of firms in only two groups (family versus nonfamily business) was avoided. We agree with Shanker and Astrachan (1996), who propose that family firms Internationalisation of Spanish family SMEs 14 9 Athanassiou, N. and Nigh, D. (2000) ‘Internationalization, tacit knowledge and the top management team of MNCs’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.341–359. Athanassiou, N. and Nigh, D. (2002) ‘The impact of top management team’s international business experience on the firm’s internationalizacion: social networks at work’, Management International Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.157–181. Barclay, D., Higgins, C. and Thompson, R. (1995) ‘The Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach to causal modelling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology studies’, Special Issue on Research Methodology, Vol. 2, pp.285–309. Barnes, L.B. and Hershon, S.A. (1976) ‘Transferring power in the business’, Harvard Business Review, July–August, pp.105–114. Barney, J.B. (1991) ‘Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage’, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.99–121. Barry, B. (1989) ‘The development of organization structure in the family firm’, Family Business Review, Vol. 2, No. 3. Belsley, D.A. (1990) Conditioning Diagnostics: Collinearity and Weak Data in Regression, New York: John Wiley and Sons. Bilkey, W.J. and Tesar, G. (1977) ‘The export behavior of smaller Wisconsin manufacturing firms’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 9, pp.93–98. Bonaccorsi, A. (1992) ‘On the relationship between firm size and export intensity’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.605–635. Buckley, P.J. and Casson, M.C. (1976) The Future of Multinational Enterprise, London: McMillan. Calof, J.L. (1994) ‘The relationship between firm size and export behavior revisited’, Journal of International Business Studies, Second Quarter, Vol. 25, pp.367–387. Carmines, E.G. and Zeller, R.A. (1979) ‘Reliability and validity assessment’, Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, N. Beverly Hills: Sage, pp.7–17. Caughey, M. and Chetty, S. (1993) ‘Pre-export behaviour of small manufacturing firms in New Zealand’, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.62–68. Cavusgil, S.T. (1984) ‘Organizational characteristics associated with export activity’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.3–22. Chetty, S.K. and Hamilton, R.T. (1993) ‘Firm-level determinants of export performance: a meta-analysis’, International Marketing Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.26–34. Chin, W.W. (1998) ‘The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling’, in G.A. Marcoulides (Ed.) Modern Methods for Business Research, New Jersey: Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher, pp.295–336. Church, R. (1996) ‘The family firm in industrial capitalism: international perspectives on hypotheses and history’, in C.E. Aronff, J.H. Astrachan and J.L. Ward (Eds.) Family Business Sourcebook II, Business Owner Resources, Narietta, Georgia. Churchill, N.C. and Lewis, V.L. (1983) ‘The five stages of small business growth’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.43–54. Dichtl, E., Koeglmayr, H-G. and Mueller, S. (1990) ‘International orientation as a precondition for export success’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.23–41. DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983) ‘The iron cage revisited: instiutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, pp.147–160. Donckels, R. and Frohlich, E. (2001) ‘Are family businesses really different? European experiences from STRATOS’, Family Business Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.149–160. Dunning, J.H. (1980) ‘Toward an eclectic theory of international production: some empirical tests’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.61–77. 150 J.C. Casillas and F.J. Acedo Dunning, J.H. (1989) ‘The study of international business: a plea for a more interdisciplinary approach’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.411–437. Fernández, Z. and Nieto, M.J. (2002) ‘International involvement of SMEs: the impact of ownership’, Working Paper No. 02–58, Business Economics Series, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981) ‘Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp.39–50. Gallo, M.A. (1995) Empresa Familiar. Textos y Casos, Barcelona: Editorial Praxis. Gallo, M.A. and Amat, O. (2003) Los Secretos de las Empresas Familiares Centenarias, Ed. Deusto, Bilbao. Gallo, M.A. and García-Pont, C. (1996) ‘Important factors in family business internationalization’, Family Business Review, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp.15–47. Gallo, M.A. and Sveen, J. (1991) ‘Internationalizing the family business: facilitating and restraining forces’, Family Business Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.181–190. Gray, B.J. (1997) ‘Profiling managers to improve export promotion targting’, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.287–321. Hambrick, D.C. and Mason, P.A. (1984) ‘Upper echelons: the organizations as reflection of its managers’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, pp.193–206. Harris, D., Martínez, J.I. and Ward, J.L. (1994) ‘Is strategy different for the family-owned business?’, Family Business Review, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.159–174. Hennart, J.F. (1991) ‘The transaction cost theory of joint ventures: an empirical study of Japanese subsidiaries in the United States’, Management Science, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp.483–497. Hennart, J.F. and Park, Y. (1993) ‘Greenfield vs. adquisition: the strategy of Japanese investors in the United States’, Management Science, Vol. 39, No. 9, pp.1054–1070. Hirsch, R., Honig-Haftel, S., McDougall, P.P. and Oviatt, B. (1996) ‘International entrepreneurship: past, present and future’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.5–8. Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.E. (1977) ‘The internationalization process of the firm: a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 8, pp.23–32. Johanson, J. and Wiedersheim-Paul, F. (1975) ‘The internationalization of the firm’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.305–323. Kim, W.C. and Hwang, P. (1992) ‘Global strategy and multinationals’ entry mode choice’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.29–53. Landsberg, I. and Perrow, E. (1988) ‘The succession conspiracy’, Family Business Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.127–147. Laurila, J. and Ropponen, M. (2003) ‘Institutional condictioning of foreign expansion: some evidence from Finnish-based paper industry firms, 1994–2000’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.725–751. Lautanen, T. (2000) ‘Modelling small firms’ decisions to export – evidence from manufacturing firms in Finland’, Small Business Economics, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.107–124. Lu, J.W. (2002) ‘Intraand inter-organizational imitative behavior: institutional influences on Japanese firms’ entry mode choice’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp.19–37. McDougall, P.P. and Oviatt, B.M. (2000) ‘International entrepreneurship: the intersection of two research paths’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp.902–907. Miesenbock, K.J. (1988) ‘Small businesses and exporting: a literature review’, International Small Business Management, Vol. l6, pp.42–61. Mizruchi, M.S. and Fein, L.C. (1999) ‘The social construction of organizational knowledge: a study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp.653–684. Internationalisation of Spanish family SMEs 151 Moini, A.H. (1998) ‘Small firms exporting: how effective are government export assistance programs?’, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.1–16. Neubauer, F. and Lank, A.G. (1998) The Family Business. Its Governance for Sustainability, London: McMillan. Nunnally, J. (1978) Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill. Okoroafo, S.C. (1999) ‘Internationalization of family businesses: evidence from Northwest Ohio, USA’, Family Business Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.147–158. Oliver, C. (1991) ‘Strategic responses to institutional processes’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.145–179. Oviatt, B.M. and McDougall, P.P. (1994) ‘Toward a theory of international new ventures’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.45–64. Penrose, E.T. (1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Reid, S. (1981) ‘The decision-maker and export entry and expansion’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 12, pp.110–112. Reuber, R. and Fischer, E. (1997) ‘The influence of the management team’s international experience on the internationalization behaviors of SMEs’, Journal of International Business Studies, Fourth Quarter, Vol. 28, pp.807–825. Root, F.R. (1987) Entry Strategies for International Markets, London: Lexington Books. Sambhraya, R.B. (1996) ‘Foreign experience on top management teams and international diversification strategies of US multinational corporations’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp.739–746. Scott, W.R. (1987) ‘The adolescence of institutional theory’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp.493–511. Shanker, M.C. and Astrachan, J.H. (1996) ‘Myths and realities: family businesses’ contribution to the US economy – a framework for assessing family business statistics’, Family Business Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.107–119. Sitkin, S.B. and Weingart, L.R. (1995) ‘Determinants of risky decision-making behavior: a test of the mediating role of risk perceptions and propensity’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 6, pp.1573–1593. Tihanyi, L., Ellstrand, A.E., Daily, C.M. and Dalton, D.R. (2000) ‘Composition of the top management team and firm international diversification’, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, pp.1157–1177. Vernon, R. (1966) ‘International investment and international trade in the product cycle’, in P.J. Buckley and P. Ghauri (Eds.) Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1993, Vol. 80, The Internationalization of the Firm, Londres: Academic Press, pp.190–297. Ward, J.L. (1988) ‘The special role of strategic planning for family businesses’, Family Business Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.105–117. Wernerfelt, B. (1984) ‘A resource-based view of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.171–181. Wold, H. (1979) Model Construction and Evaluation When Theoretical Knowledge is Scarce: An Example of the Use of Partial Least Squares, Cahiers du Département D´Économétrie, Genève: Faculté des Sciences Économiques et Sociales, Université de Genève. Wright, P., Ferris, S.P., Sarnin, A. and Awasthi, V. (1996) ‘Impact of corporate insider, blockholder and institutional equity ownership on firm risk taking’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp.441–463. Young, S., Hamill, J., Wheeler, C. and Davies, R. (1991) ‘Penetration and development of international markets’, Estrategies and Management, Madrid: Plaza and Janes. Zahra, S.A. and George, G. (2002) ‘International entrepreneurship: the current status of the field and future agenda’, in M.A. Hitt, R.D. Ireland, D.L. Sexton and S.M. Camp (Eds.) Strategic Entrepreneurship: Creating an Integrated Mindset, London: Oxford, Blackwell, pp.255–288. View publication stats