The typology of entrepreneurial exporters: has it all been said? An empirical approach using latent class segmentations

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rero20 Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rero20 The typology of entrepreneurial exporters: has it all been said? An empirical approach using latent class segmentations Ana Ruiz López, Antonio Navarro-García & Juan Manuel Berbel Pineda To cite this article: Ana Ruiz López, Antonio Navarro-García & Juan Manuel Berbel Pineda (2021): The typology of entrepreneurial exporters: has it all been said? An empirical approach using latent class segmentations, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, DOI: 10.1080/1331677X.2021.2012497 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.2012497 © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 10 Dec 2021. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 341 View related articles View Crossmark data The typology of entrepreneurial exporters: has it all been said? An empirical approach using latent class segmentations Ana Ruiz L opez a , Antonio Navarro-Garc ıa a and Juan Manuel Berbel Pineda b a Departamento de Administracion de Empresas y Marketing, Business and Marketing Department, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain; b Departamento de Administracion y Direccion de Empresa, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Sevilla, Spain ABSTRACT The main aim of this work is to close the research gap that is the lack of a dominant typology of exporting firms in the area of international entrepreneurship (IE). It combines the principles of gradual or stage approaches, scale and scope, with those associated with international entrepreneurial behaviours: time to internationalisation and speed. Latent class segmentation is achieved using a sample of 136 Spanish exporting firms to uncover the nature and characteristics of the different exporters. The results enable us to identify four groups of exporters: true-born global exporters, early international and market concentration exporters, traditional exporters, and true born-again globals. The differences between these four groups are the earliness of their internationalisation, their pace of international expansion, their development of strategies for diversification or market concentration, and their level of international propensity. The results produce both academic and managerial contributions to the field of export activities. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 25 May 2021 Accepted 25 November 2021 KEYWORDS True-born global exporters; early internationals; traditional exporters; true born-again global; latent class segmentation JEL CODES M16; F29; F23 1. Introduction The literature on international businesses has long sought to uncover the nature and characteristics of the organisations that compete internationally (Coudounaris, 2018; McDougall et al., 2003; Vissak et al., 2018). But much work remains to be done in this area as there is yet no dominant, widely accepted typology (Vissak & Masso, 2015). One reason for this is the widespread adoption of a partial approach to the conception of the processes of internationalisation, one which regards the gradual approaches and those associated with IE as incompatible (Uppsala and innovation) (e.g., Johanson & Vahlne, 1977,1990; Johanson & Wiedersheim-Paul, 1975; Reid, 1981) (e.g., Cavusgil & Knight, 2015; Coviello, 2015; Oviatt & McDougall, 1994, CONTACT Juan Manuel Berbel Pineda [email protected] Departamento de Administracion y Direccion de Empresa, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, calle Real, 6 puerta 6, Sevilla 41013, Spain. ß2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.2012497 2005). Another reason is that the four variables currently regarded as the basic factors that distinguish between types of international firms –time to internationalisation, speed, scope and scale –have been treated as separate phenomena (Kuivalainen et al., 2012). The motivation for the present work is to help to bridge this research gap by linking them together. The main aim is to offer a typology of exporting firms that combines the principles of the gradual or stage approaches (scale and scope) with those associated with international entrepreneurial behaviours (time to internationalisation and speed). We also incorporate other variables that have been used in previous studies to typify international firms. These include age (e.g., Baum et al., 2011; Johanson & Mart ın, 2015; Knight & Cavusgil, 2004), size (e.g. Aspelund & Moen, 2005; Kuivalainen et al., 2007; Maciejewski & Wach, 2019), international experience (Baum et al., 2011; Johanson & Mart ın, 2015; Kuivalainen et al., 2007), having an export department (e.g., Navarro-Garc ıa, 2016) and being part of an international network (e.g., Baum et al., 2011). In order to do so, we employed a sample of exporting firms located in Andalusia, a region of Spain, using latent class segmentation as a typification tool. The present paper makes two main contributions. The first is that the degree to which exporting firms can be typified as internationally entrepreneurial depends on their having previously developed rapid internationalisation processes that are wideranging and/or large-scale. We therefore classify exporting firms into four groups. (a) The first is ‘True-born global exporters’; they are entrepreneurial exporters par excellence, firms centred exclusively on exporting as an entry mode abroad. Their internationalisation was early (3 years), fast (entry into 1–2 countries per year), high-scope (ratio international sales/total sales >50%) and broad (>15 countries). (b) The second is ‘Early internationals and market concentration exporters’, which is a mixed category. They have achieved an international propensity of over 25% and they were early in beginning their internationalisation processes (4 years) and their market concentration strategies. But their scope is narrow (<10 countries) and the pace of their international expansion is slow. (c) The third is ‘traditional exporters’: conservative firms that are not very internationally entrepreneurial. They started to internationalise over 25 years ago, but their scope is small (<10 countries) and the speed and scale of their internationalisation are low (20%). (d) True born-again globals internationalise very late (>30 years), but when they go international they do so with a global orientation, very quickly (3–4 countries per year) and achieve an international propensity of over 65% and wide international scope (>35 countries). Also, true born-again globals coordinate the other activities of the value chain as they undertake foreign direct investment (FDI) in the form of business or production subsidiaries. The second contribution is methodological. This work uses latent class segmentation to identify different types of exporting firms, whereas previous studies have used other, less robust methods, which casts doubt on the results obtained. The following section reviews the most relevant literature in order to determine the typology and denominations used for international firms in previous studies. Then, the key dimensions are presented –time to internationalisation, speed, scope 2 A. RUIZ LÓPEZ ET AL. and scale –which must be considered in identifying international entrepreneurial behaviours. Next, the methodology is set out, explaining the sample, the data collection, the measurement scales and the tools used: latent class segmentation. The last section includes the results, the discussion, the main conclusions and, finally, the limitations and suggested lines of future research. 2. Theoretical framework Table 1 presents a summary of the main approaches considered in the identification of international company typologies. The first works that offered a typology of international firms accepted the gradual, or stage, internationalisation model (Uppsala approach; innovation model). They regarded a firm’s ratio of international sales to total sales as the most critical relative measure of its internationalisation (Vissak et al., 2018). They established three groups of exporting firms, broadly defined: experimental exporters, whose international propensity is <10%, active exporters, with an international propensity between 10 and 40% and committed exporters, with an international propensity >40%. The seminal article of Oviatt and McDougall (1994) changed the paradigm in the typology of international firms. It questioned the foundations of gradual approaches Table 1. Approaches used in the identification of international company typologies. Approach Main contributions Uppsala model; innovation model Cavusgil (1980, 1984) Czinkota (1982) Czinkota and Johnston (1981) Gankema et al. (1997) Lukason and Vissak (2017) Samiee and Walters (1991) Accepts the gradual or stage internationalisation model, considering the ratio of international sales to total sales as the primary variable in determining the stage of internationalisation a firm has reached. International New Ventures: INVs Autio (2005) Coviello (2006) Fan and Phan (2007) Kuemmerle (2002) McDougall et al. (2003) Mudambi and Zahra (2007) Oviatt and McDougall (1994) Oviatt and McDougall (1994) typology of international firms also includes the international scope (number of countries) and the coordination of distinct value-chain activities. Born Globals: BGs; the traditional approach Andersson and Wictor (2003) Aspelund and Moen (2005) Autio and Sapienza (2000) Cavusgil and Knight (2015) Chetty and Campbell-Hunt (2004) Coviello (2015) Freeman and Cavusgil (2007) Knight and Cavusgil (1996;2004) Rasmussen and Madsen (2002) The identification of BGs includes both the time to internationalisation and the degree of internationalisation. BGs have a high degree of internationalisation from early on. Born Globals –BGs –new approach Bell et al. (2001) Bell et al. (2003) Catanzaro et al. (2011) Kuivalainen et al. (2007) Kuivalainen et al. (2012) Olejnik and Swoboda (2012) Vissak and Masso (2015) There are different types of BG. For a correct typification of BGs, we must include the following variables: time to internationalisation, speed, scope and scale. Source: Own Elaboration. ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 3 by introducing time as a variable, distinguishing between organisations that went international at, or very soon after, their inception from those that did not. The term ‘international new ventures’, INVs, was coined: organisations which from very early on have oriented themselves towards foreign markets in search of new opportunities. They need fast growth and are willing to take on the risks and uncertainty of very early internationalisation. Oviatt and McDougall (1994) typology of international firms also involved international scope and the coordination of distinct value-chain activities. These factors have been at the centre of much research, for example, Autio (2005), Coviello (2006), McDougall et al. (2003) and Mudambi and Zahra (2007). A further kind of international firm, the ‘born global’(BG), was identified by Knight and Cavusgil (1996,2004). Their definition became another of the dominant concepts in the literature and was discussed by a wide range of authors, such as Autio and Sapienza (2000), Cavusgil and Knight (2015), Chetty and Campbell-Hunt (2004), Coviello (2015) and Kuivalainen et al. (2007). BG firms achieved a high degree of internationalisation early. They are defined as ‘entrepreneurial start-ups that, from or near their founding, seek to derive a substantial proportion of their revenue from the sale of products in international markets’(Knight & Cavusgil, 2004). A widely accepted definition proposed by Knight and Cavusgil (2004) suggests that BGs export at least 25% of their sales within three years of inception. Therefore, the identification of BG must consider both the time to internationalisation and the degree of internationalisation. Although Knight and Cavusgil (2004) recognise that BGs can be similar to INVs, they point out that they are different in some ways, one of which is that they are young firms with limited resources, using exporting as the main form of international entry. BGs exhibit a high degree of international entrepreneurial orientation. They seek better international performance by applying knowledge-based resources to the sale of outputs in multiple countries (Knight & Cavusgil, 2004). Therefore, internationalisation scope must also be taken into account in identifying BGs, which tend more to market diversification (number of countries 10) than to market concentration strategies (number of countries <10) (Aspelund & Moen, 2005). Later works, adopting a post-initial foreign market entry view, have typified organisations as BG on the basis of the rate at which they internationalised (e.g., Chetty & Campbell- Hunt, 2004; Coviello, 2015; Kuivalainen et al., 2012). BGs, then, are firms whose internationalisation was both early and rapid. Some authors, however, have questioned whether BG is a unique typology. Bell et al. (2001) and Bell et al. (2003) introduce the category of born-again global firms, characterised by a sudden, swift internationalisation after being active only in the domestic market for a specific period: typically less than five years. This process of sudden and quick internationalisation by born-again globals can be as structured, proactive and flexible as that of newly created firms (Baldegger & Schueffel, 2010). Kuivalainen et al. (2007), combining degree (ratio international sales/total sales) and international scope (distances of markets), distinguish between ‘true-born globals’ and ‘apparently-born globals/born internationals’. True-born globals are firms which, having internationalised in the first three years after inception, attain a high degree of internationalisation (international propensity >25%), spanning distant markets and 4 A. RUIZ LÓPEZ ET AL. multiple regions/continents. They are called ‘apparently-born globals/born internationals’when their exporting activity is limited to nearby or geographically concentrated markets. Late international starters/born-again internationals are similar to this but have restricted their activities to their continent of origin. 3. Key dimensions of entrepreneurial exporters typology Four variables must be considered key to identifying the international entrepreneurial behaviours of exporting firms (Navarro-Garc ıa, 2016): time to internationalisation and the speed, scale and scope of internationalisation. These dimensions must be considered together in order to obtain a valid typology of international firms (Kuivalainen et al., 2012). The following subsections will describe each of them and establish the cut-off points used for the typification. 3.1. Time to internationalisation and speed The time to internationalisation is the period between the firm’s inception and when it goes international, that is when it begins to obtain sales from one or various foreign markets (Acedo & Jones, 2007). During this interim period the firm generates essential knowledge of external markets, so it is a time of commitment and learning (Chetty et al., 2014). But how many years must be taken as a reference? In the literature we find a range from two to 15 years (Dzikowski, 2018). Rennie (1993) and Moen and Servais (2002) suggest two years, while McDougall et al. (2003) and Zahra et al. (2000) argue for six years for an INV. A proposal widely accepted in the literature is that by Knight and Cavusgil (2004): BGs export at least 25% of their sales within three years of inception. Three years is also the time to internationalisation considered in other studies (Andersson & Wictor, 2003; Glaister et al., 2014; Rasmussen & Madsen, 2002; Zhou et al., 2007). It will be the cut-off point taken as the reference point by this work. On the other hand, speed is the dimension of IE that has attracted the attention of researchers and academics in the last decade (Schwens et al., 2018). It has been considered essential in the definition of INV, fast internationalisation processes and BGs (Paul & Rosado-Serrano, 2019). Speed is a key aspect of firms’international strategies, and firms need to balance their resources and the international opportunities available (Chetty et al., 2014). Definitions of speed need to take into account post-entry internationalisation; that is to say, the pace at which the firm grows and is developed in foreign markets (Kuivalainen et al., 2012). The most commonly used measurement is the quotient of the number of countries where the firm is present and the years of internationalisation, although some authors have instead used the number of subsidiaries created annually (Li et al., 2012; Vermeulen & Barkema, 2002). A faster international expansion forces the firm to develop organisational structures, routines and processes that allow it to adapt more effectively to the requirements of the international markets. How well the firm adapts determines the levels of competitive and sustainable advantages it achieves, and therefore the business results it gains (Schwens et al., 2018). Although the literature offers no cut-off reference point, the pace of ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 5 international expansion will depend on the rate at which the firm develops strategies for market diversification or concentration. We consider that a rate of international expansion of one to two countries per year can be considered high, and three or more very high. 3.2. Scale and scope of internationalisation The scale of internationalisation determines the firm’s level of international propensity. It is measured by the ratio of international sales to total sales and is an indicator of the firm’s orientation towards external markets relative to the domestic market (Kuivalainen et al., 2007). A greater scale of internationalisation enables a firm to have a more global view of international businesses and encourages the development of sophisticated market intelligence capabilities (Navarro-Garc ıa et al., 2016). It also tends to increase management’s commitment and proactiveness in the search for business opportunities in foreign markets (Gallego & Casillas, 2014), contributing to the development of structures (e.g., export department) required for international expansion. All this will help sharpen the firm’s international competitiveness, reducing costs via economies of scale and driving the achievement of better business results (Zhou & Wu, 2014). There is no consensus in the literature on the appropriate level of this ratio for a firm to be considered internationally entrepreneurial or for them to be considered BG, although Oviatt and McDougall (1997) argue that it must be set at a ‘significant’ level. But how much is significant? The criterion most often mentioned is 25% of total turnover (Knight & Cavusgil, 1996,2004; Kuivalainen et al., 2007,2012; Madsen et al., 2000; Moen, 2002). This percentage of 25% is adopted as our reference in the current research, although clearly there are strong grounds for suggesting 50%. The scope of internationalisation is a measure of the number of foreign markets in which the firm sells; it is referred to in the literature as equivalent to the firm’s geographic extension or diversification (Ruzo et al., 2011). It is an essential variable in distinguishing the born globals from the rest (Kuivalainen et al., 2007;2012). A broader international scope allows a firm to diversify its international risks and generate economies of scale in production and commercialisation, which helps in terms of the structure of its costs (Fernhaber, 2013). It also forces the internationalised firm to organise and plan its international movements more effectively, which is evident in the creation of specific structures (e.g., export departments) which support decisionmaking in the international area (Navarro-Garc ıa et al., 2016). Yet, how many countries must be taken as a reference to identify real international entrepreneurs? There is, again, no consensus in the literature, and in defining BG, Oviatt and McDougall (1994) did not establish a number, although they clearly considered that the geographic scope must be broad. It seems reasonable, nevertheless, to assume that a truly global orientation requires the development of a market diversification strategy covering at least ten countries (Aspelund & Moen, 2005; Ruzo et al., 2011). In the current work, therefore, we will take ten or more countries as the cut-off point for defining wide high international scope. 6 A. RUIZ LÓPEZ ET AL. 4. Methodology 4.1. Sample, data collection and measurement scales An empirical study was undertaken using a database provided by the Agencia Andaluza de Promoci on Exterior (Trade Promotion Agency of Andalusia) (EXTENDA), made up of 1635 exporting firms located in Andalusia (Spain). A questionnaire was designed in which respondents answered a wide range of questions on entrepreneurship and the internationalisation of firms. The questionnaires were sent online between January and March 2019 to firms’executives in charge of international activities. One hundred and thirty-six valid responses were obtained: a response rate of 8.3%. Table 2 shows the variables analysed and their measurement scales. All the variables included in the latent class segmentation are objective (number of employees, number of countries, etc.). Subjective variables 1 have been considered for the discriminant analysis, associated with managerial perceptions (5-point Likert scale; 1 –Very low ….5 –Very high). 4.2. Latent class segmentation Latent class models are techniques based on statistical segmentation models. They involve minimal arbitrariness in the choice of the segmentation criteria and the possibility of generalising the model to other contexts. They are very useful and effective tools for market segmentation because they allow us to estimate both the usefulness of the segments and the probability of each person belonging to each segment (Wilson-Jeanselme & Reynolds, 2006). Whereas traditional models (e.g., regression, cluster or logit analysis) contain only parameters that describe the relationships between the observable variables, latent class models include additional parameters that describe the relationships between the observable variables and one or more latent variables (Vermunt & Magidson, 2003). Latent class models are a type of mixed model. They deal with the heterogeneity of the parameters of a population model, imposing a ‘mixed probability Table 2. Study variables. Latent class segmentation Variables Measurement scale Size Number of employees Age-general experience Number of years since inception International experience Number of years since the firm went international Time to internationalisation Number of years after the firm’s inception that it went international Speed Ratio countries/ number of years internationalised Scope Number of countries in which the firm has activities Scale Ratio (%): international sales/total sales FDI Number of business and/or production subsidiaries Sector 1. Agri-food 2. Consumer Goods 3. Industrial/Technological 4. Services Export department The firm has or does not have an Export Department International network The firm has or does not have an International Network Source: Own Elaboration. ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 7 distribution’in some or all of its parameters. It is assumed that the parameters of the model are heterogeneous between individuals and that they follow a distribution of the population which can be inferred as continuous or discrete (Wedel & Kamakura, 2002). To sum up, latent class models enable the identification of groups that gather the cases that share similar interests and characteristics. They also include a latent variable (the K-category), and each category represents a different cluster. The classification cases within each group are based on the probability of the member belonging to this group according to the direct estimation of the model (Bond & Morris, 2003; Vermunt & Magidson, 2003). 5. Results 5.1. Description of the sample The majority of the firms included in the sample are small and medium-sized enterprises -SMEs. Small firms predominate: 70.37% have less than 50 workers, and there is a significant number of micro-SMEs, with less than ten employees (45 firms; 33.34%). The firms’age or general experience is notable: 45.19% are more than 20 years old, the average age being around 23 years. The average international experience is 12.76 years; some firms started to internationalise more recently (37.78% have an international experience of fewer than six years), and another group is more experienced in foreign markets (31.11% have over 15 years of international experience). The average time taken to go international is 10.35 years, although 60% of the sample (81 firms) went international within five years of their inception. At the other extreme, another group of firms (34; 25.29%) were slow, having taken more than 15 years to go international. The average international scope is 12.52 countries. 48 firms 35.55% –are present in more than ten countries, while 62 firms 45.93% – are centred on country-market concentration, doing business in less than six countries. The average pace of internationalisation is 1.63 countries/year with, again, a wide spread. A group of 40 proactive firms (29.63%) set a pace of 2þcountries per year, and another group are much more conservative: 49.63% internationalise at a pace of less than one country per year. Similarly, there are notable differences in the intensity of degree of internationalisation, whose average is 24.75%. While a small group of firms (26 firms; 19.26%) show a high level of international propensity, over 50%, another group, the majority, have a degree of internationalisation below 25% (87 firms; 63.97%). Most of the firms in the sample do not have business or production subsidiaries, which generally are found in larger firms. In terms of sectors, industrial and technological firms (34.98%) and agri-food firms (31.85%) predominate. Having a structure dedicated to supporting international decision-making is important for most of the sample’s firms: 56.30% have an export department. Likewise, it is important to be able to use an international network that helps the firm seek and exploit opportunities in foreign markets (77.78% have such a network of professional contacts). 8 A. RUIZ LÓPEZ ET AL. Andersson, S., & Wictor, I. (2003). Innovative internationalisation in new firms: Born globals– the Swedish case. Journal of International Entrepreneurship,1(3), 249–275. https://doi.org/ 10.1023/A:1024110806241 Aspelund, A., & Moen, Ø. (2005). Small international firms: Typology, performance and implications. MIR: Management International Review,45(3), 37–57. Autio, E. (2005). Creative tension: the significance of Ben Oviatt’s and Patricia McDougall’s article ‘toward a theory of international new ventures’.Journal of International Business Studies,36(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400117 Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. J. (2000). Comparing process and born global perspectives in the international growth of technology-based new firms. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 413. Baldegger, R. J., & Schueffel, P. E. (2010). An entrepreneurial perspective on SME internationalisation [Paper presentation]. United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Conference Proceedings (p. 41). United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Baum, M., Schwens, C., & Kabst, R. (2011). A typology of international new ventures: Empirical evidence from high-technology industries. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(3), 305–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2011.00328.x Bell, J., McNaughton, R., & Young, S. (2001). Born-again global’firms: An extension to the ‘born global’phenomenon. Journal of International Management,7(3), 173–189. https://doi. org/10.1016/S1075-4253(01)00043-6 Bell, J., McNaughton, R., Young, S., & Crick, D. (2003). Towards an integrative model of small firm internationalisation. Journal of International Entrepreneurship,1(4), 339–362. https:// doi.org/10.1023/A:1025629424041 Bond, J., & Morris, L. (2003). A class of its own: Latent class segmentation and its implications for qualitative segmentation research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(2), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750310470064 Catanzaro, A., Messeghem, K., & Sammut, S. (2011). Towards a typology of born again international SMEs [Paper presentation]. ICSB World Conference Proceedings (p. 0_1). International Council for Small Business (ICSB). Cavusgil, S. T. (1980). On the internationalisation process of firms. European Research,8(6), 273–281. Cavusgil, S. T. (1984). Organisational characteristics associated with export activity. Journal of Management Studies,21(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1984.tb00222.x Cavusgil, S. T., & Knight, G. (2015). The born global firm: An entrepreneurial and capabilities perspective on early and rapid internationalisation. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.62 Chetty, S., & Campbell-Hunt, C. (2004). A strategic approach to internationalisation: A traditional versus a ‘born-global’approach. Journal of International Marketing,12(1), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.12.1.57.25651 Chetty, S., Johanson, M., & Mart ın, O. M. (2014). Speed of internationalisation: Conceptualisation, measurement and validation. Journal of World Business,49(4), 633–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.12.014 Coudounaris, D. N. (2018). Typologies of internationalisation pathways of SMEs: What is new? Review of International Business and Strategy,28(3/4), 286–316. https://doi.org/10. 1108/RIBS-12-2017-0119 Coviello, N. (2015). Re-thinking research on born globals. Journal of International Business Studies,46(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.59 Coviello, N. E. (2006). The network dynamics of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies,37(5), 713–731. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400219 Czinkota, M. R. (1982). Export development strategies: US promotion policies. Praeger Publishers. Czinkota, M. R., & Johnston, W. J. (1981). Segmenting US firms for export development. Journal of Business Research,9(4), 353–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(81)90012-6 ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 15 Dzikowski, P. (2018). A bibliometric analysis of born global firms. Journal of Business Research,85, 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.054 Fan, T., & Phan, P. (2007). International new ventures: Revisiting the influences behind the ‘born-global’firm. Journal of International Business Studies,38(7), 1113–1131. https://doi. org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400308 Fernhaber, S. A. (2013). Untangling the relationship between new venture internationalisation and performance. Journal of International Entrepreneurship,11(3), 220–242. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10843-013-0104-2 Freeman, S., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2007). Toward a typology of commitment states among managers of born-global firms. A study of accelerated internationalisation. Journal of International Marketing,15(4), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.15.4.1 Gallego, A., & Casillas, J. C. (2014). Choice of markets for initial export activities: Differences between early and late exporters. International Business Review,23(5), 1021–1033. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.03.004 Gankema, H. G., Snuit, H. R., & van Dijken, K. A. (1997). The internationalisation process of small and medium sized enterprises: An evaluation of the stage theory. Entrepreneurship and SME Research: On Its Way to the Next Millennium, 185–197. Glaister, A. J., Liu, Y., Sahadev, S., & Gomes, E. (2014). Externalising, internalising and fostering commitment: The case of born-global firms in emerging economies. Management International Review,54(4), 473–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-014-0215-6 Johanson, M., & Mart ın, O. M. (2015). The incremental expansion of Born Internationals: A comparison of new and old Born Internationals. International Business Review,24(3), 476–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.10.006 Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (1977). The internationalisation process of the firm –A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies,8(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490676 Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (1990). The mechanism of internationalisation. International Marketing Review,7(4), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651339010137414 Johanson, J., & Wiedersheim-Paul, F. (1975). The internationalisation of the firm: Four Swedish cases. Journal of Management Studies,12(3), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-6486.1975.tb00514.x Knight, G. A. (2001). Entrepreneurship and strategy in the international SME. Journal of International Management,7(3), 155–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1075-4253(01)00042-4 Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (1996). The born global firm: A challenge to traditional internationalisation theory. Advances in International Marketing,8(1), 11–26. Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2004). Innovation, organisational capabilities, and the bornglobal firm. Journal of International Business Studies,35(2), 124–141. https://doi.org/10. 1057/palgrave.jibs.8400071 Kuemmerle, W. (2002). Home base and knowledge management in international ventures. Journal of Business Venturing,17(2), 99–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00054-9 Kuivalainen, O., Saarenketo, S., & Puumalainen, K. (2012). Start-up patterns of internationalisation: A framework and its application in the context of knowledge-intensive SMEs. European Management Journal,30(4), 372–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2012.01.001 Kuivalainen, O., Sundqvist, S., & Servais, P. (2007). Firms’degree of born-globalness, international entrepreneurial orientation and export performance. Journal of World Business, 42(3), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2007.04.010 Li, L., Qian, G., & Qian, Z. (2012). Early internationalisation and performance of small hightech ‘born-globals’.International Marketing Review,29(5), 536–561. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 02651331211260377 Lukason, O., & Vissak, T. (2017). Failure processes of exporting firms: Evidence from France. Review of International Business and Strategy,27 (3), 322–334. https://doi.org/10.1108/RIBS- 03-2017-0020 16 A. RUIZ LÓPEZ ET AL. Maciejewski, M., & Wach, K. (2019). International Startups from Poland: Born Global or Born Regional? Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe,27(1), 60–83. https://doi.org/10.7206/jmba.ce.2450-7814.247 Madsen, T. K., Rasmussen, E., & Servais, P. (2000). Differences and similarities between born globals and other types of exporters. Advances in International Marketing,10(2), 247–265. McDougall, P. P., Oviatt, B. M., & Shrader, R. C. (2003). A comparison of international and domestic new ventures. Journal of International Entrepreneurship,1(1), 59–82. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1023246622972 Moen, Ø. (2002). The born globals: A new generation of small European exporters. International Marketing Review,19(2), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330210425015 Moen, Ø., & Servais, P. (2002). Born global or gradual global? Examining the export behavior of small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of International Marketing,10(3), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.10.3.49.19540 Mudambi, R., & Zahra, S. A. (2007). The survival of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies,38(2), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400264 Navarro-Garc ıa, A. (2016). Drivers of export entrepreneurship. International Business Review, 25(1), 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2015.05.007 Navarro-Garc ıa, A., Peris-Oritz, M., & Barrera-Barrera, R. (2016). Market intelligence effect on perceived psychic distance, strategic behaviours and export performance in industrial SMEs. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,31(3), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-03- 2013-0065 Navarro-Garc ıa, A., Schmidt, A. C. M., & Rey-Moreno, M. (2015). Antecedents and consequences of export entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research,68(7), 1532–1538. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.047 Olejnik, E., & Swoboda, B. (2012). SMEs’internationalisation patterns: Descriptives, dynamics and determinants. International Marketing Review,29(5), 466–495. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 02651331211260340 Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies,25(1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs. 8490193 Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (1997). Challenges for internationalisation process theory. The case of international new ventures. Management International Review,37,85–99. Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internationalisation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,29(5), 537–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00097.x Paul, J., & Rosado-Serrano, A. (2019). Gradual internationalisation vs born-global/international new venture models. A review and research agenda. International Marketing Review,36(6), 830–858. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-10-2018-0280 Rasmussen, E. S., & Madsen, T. K. (2002). The born global concept [Paper presentation]. Paper for the EIBA Conference, December (pp. 1–26). Reid, S. D. (1981). The decision-maker and export entry and expansion. Journal of International Business Studies,12(2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490581 Rennie, M. W. (1993). Born global. The McKinsey Quarterly,4,45–52. Ruzo, E., Losada, F., Navarro, A., & D ıez, J. A. (2011). Resources and international marketing strategy in export firms. Implications for export performance. Management Research Review, 34(5), 496–518. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171111128698 Samiee, S., & Walters, P. G. (1991). Segmenting corporate exporting activities: Sporadic versus regular exporters. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,19(2), 93–104. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF02726001 Schwens, C., Zapkau, F. B., Bierwerth, M., Isidor, R., Knight, G., & Kabst, R. (2018). International entrepreneurship. A meta-analysis on the internationalisation and performance relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,42(5), 734–768. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1042258718795346 ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 17 Vermeulen, F., & Barkema, H. (2002). Pace, rhythm, and scope: Process dependence in building a profitable multinational corporation. Strategic Management Journal,23(7), 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.243 Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2003). Latent class models for classification. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis,41(3-4), 531–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9473(02)00179-2 Vissak, T., Lukason, O., & Segovia-Vargas, M. J. (2018). Interconnecting exporter types with export growth and decline patterns. Review of International Business and Strategy,28(1), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/RIBS-07-2017-0056 Vissak, T., & Masso, J. (2015). Export patterns: Typology development and application to Estonian data. International Business Review,24(4), 652–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.11.004 Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W. A. (2002). Introduction to the special issue on market segmentation. International Journal of Research in Marketing,19(3), 181–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0167-8116(02)00075-7 Wilson-Jeanselme, M., & Reynolds, J. (2006). The advantages of preference-based segmentation: An investigation of online grocery retailing. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing,14(4), 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jt.5740190 Zahra, S. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (2000). International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. Academy of Management Journal,43(5), 925–950. Zhou, L., & Wu, A. (2014). Earliness of internationalisation and performance outcomes: Exploring the moderating effects of venture age and international commitment. Journal of World Business,49(1), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.10.001 Zhou, L., Wu, W. P., & Luo, X. (2007). Internationalisation and the performance of born-glo- bal SMEs: The mediating role of social networks. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4), 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400282 18 A. RUIZ LÓPEZ ET AL.