Rethinking internationalization processes: toward a circular framework

Vol.:(0123456789) Review of Managerial Science https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00719-9 1 3 REVIEW PAPER Rethinking internationalization processes: towardacircular framework ElenaDomínguezRomero1,2· SusanneDurst3,4 · AntonioNavarroGarcia1 Received: 14 March 2023 / Accepted: 18 November 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract Why should models and theories that have set images and boundaries of the internationalization process in the past remain constant over time within International Business research? Despite a recent emphasis on its nonlinear nature, many still view internationalization as a forward-moving process, overlooking its dynamic nature involving enter, re-enter, and exit decisions during the process. To discuss this issue, this paper rethinks the existing International Business literature to retain its explanatory power as an essential discipline by developing a circular framework to capture firms’ non-linear internationalization process. The authors propose a circular framework with the decision-making process as the unit of analysis and four statuses: Enter, De-Internationalization, Re-Internationalization, and Operation Internationalized. The decision-making process guides firms through the statuses simultaneously or individually, in the same or a diverse temporal dimension. With this circular framework, the authors wish to contribute to future International Business research; research that can keep up with the “real” world. Keywords Non-linear internationalization process· International business· Circular framework· Decision-making process· De-internationalization· Re-internationalization JEL Classification M1 * Susanne Durst [email protected]; [email protected] 1 Department ofBusiness Administration andMarketing, University ofSeville, Seville, Spain 2 Department ofBusiness Administration, Tallinn University ofTechnology, Tallinn, Estonia 3 School ofBusiness, University ofSkövde, Skövde, Sweden 4 Department ofBusiness Administration, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland E.Domínguez Romero et al. 1 3 1 Introduction In today’s fast-paced business world, internationalization is critical for firms seeking global expansion. Particularly, high-tech companies with a digital core, such as fintech, are either adopting or evolving in new ways to internationalize. This evolving landscape suggests that a linear or non-linear approach as a forward-moving construct is no longer sustainable for explaining the internationalization process of many companies (Axinn and Matthyssens 2002; Cahen and Borini 2020). Several scholars (e.g., Caputo etal. 2016a, 2016b; Welch etal. 2011, 2022) have highlighted the shortcomings of existing international business (IB) frameworks, specifically regarding critical variables such as time, context, and their interconnection with the internationalization process; aspects we will explore in more depth in this paper. One can acknowledge that, over the past five decades, IB research has made significant contributions to advance our understanding of internationalization and related concepts. Outcomes of this work are renowned frameworks and models such as Dunning’s OLI (Ownership, Location, Internalization) framework (Dunning 1979, 1988) or the Uppsala Model (Johanson and Vahlne 1977). These frameworks and models have demonstrated considerable merits in guiding companies through the internationalization processes and illuminating aspects that facilitate firms’ entry into global markets. These aspects include critical factors and processes (Agndal and Chetty 2007; Doh etal. 2016; Blackburne and Buckley 2019; Erramilli and Rao 1993; Gaur and Kumar 2018), optimal entry modes (Anderson and Gatignon 1986; Benito et al. 2009; Brouthers 2016; Canabal and White 2008) and strategies to achieve superior performance in foreign markets (Crick and Crick 2016; Gerrath and Leenders 2013; Hennart and Slangen 2015; Hitt etal. 2016; Johanson and Vahlne 1977; Johanson and Wiedersheim-Paul 1975; Ragland etal. 2015; Purkayastha and Kumar 2021). The discussion of these aspects thereby points to a linear understanding of internationalization, i.e., a process that proceeds in predetermined steps focused on entering the market. This seems to have contributed to an internationalization process being seen mainly as a forward-moving construct or process (Hoorani etal. 2023; Welch etal. 2011; Tsoukas 2017). Thus, internationalization has been placed in a scenario dominated by a linear progression, where firms move from lower to higher levels of resource commitment, risk, and control to determine the modes of market entry (Cavusgil et.al. 1987; Cavusgil etal. 1979; Johanson and Vahlne 1977, 2009). However, this scenario changed with the emergence of new forms of companies (e.g., Born Globals or International New Ventures). These companies were able to avoid slow, gradual, and linear internationalization by implementing alternative governance structures (Oviatt and McDougall 1994, 2005; Cavusgil and Knight 2015; Fuentelsaz etal. 2020; Park and LiPuma 2020). Since then, there has been increasing evidence that many companies in sectors such as hightech (Pham etal. 2017; Saarenketo etal. 2004) do not follow a gradual path in their internationalization process. This emerging path is perceived as a non-lin- ear internationalization process (Hoorani etal. 2023; Welch etal. 2011). This process involves multiple decisions to enter, re-enter, and exit foreign markets, 1 3 Rethinking internationalization processes: towardacircular… emphasizing the importance of the time and context variables to better understand the behavior of these companies (Mudambi and Zahra 2007; Vissak and Francioni 2020). Hence, in this paper it is argued that numerous companies are likely to make the internationalization decisions simultaneously, which in turn, stresses the importance of time and context in this process and questions the conventional thinking of internationalization being a forward-moving process. Although the non-linear internationalization process clearly departs from the traditional step-by-step approach, it is still commonly perceived as a forward-moving process, akin to linear internationalization (Kafouros etal. 2022). As a result, one could argue that the existing IB literature may not comprehensively address non-linear internationalization paths (Bernini etal. 2016; Dominguez and Mayrhofer 2017) and their time and context-responsive decision-making processes. Against this background, this paper focuses on decision-making processes in conjunction with internationalization within the organization, representing the unit of analysis. These processes hold undeniable importance in today’s global markets (Neubert and Van Der Krogt 2017, 2018). Thereby, these decision-making processes are addressed using high-tech firms as an illustrative case considering their different approaches in this regard. We believe that there is a need for studying this new scenario and the growing importance of the decision-making process in more depth. In particular, it seems important to include certain variables such as time more strongly. The existing literature suggests that, firstly, little effort has been made to theorize and enrich our understanding of internationalization from a perspective that goes beyond the prevailing view of a forward-moving process: However, this could be of particular relevance for the high-tech sector. Secondly, the existing literature is largely focused on linear models and seems to only consider time as a speed term and overlook other significant factors or variables (Hoorani etal. 2023; Mandrinos and Lim 2023). Thus, there are open calls for more research to enhance our understanding of contemporary internationalization and develop conceptual foundations in the form of frameworks to inform future IB studies in this area (Lim 2022; Mandrinos etal. 2022; Mandrinos and Lim 2023). At this stage, our analysis of the current landscape suggests that many companies are deeply engaged in a new internationalization scenario marked by evolving markets triggered by advancements in Information and Communications Technology (ICT). These developments have not only led to decreased transaction costs but also to an ongoing redefinition of company boundaries (Bellucci etal. 2022; Bembom and Schwens 2018; Chen and Kamal 2016; Kafouros etal. 2022). In such an environment, we argue that non-linear internationalizing companies operate beyond traditional timelines, making time a critical variable. Furthermore, we posit that these firms’ decision-making processes seek to adapt to current market conditions and opportunities rather than following a deterministic internationalization pattern, underlining the role of context. We believe there is value in rethinking established notions of internationalization to capture this ongoing scenario more effectively (Autio and Zander 2016; Bellucci etal. 2022; Hoorani etal. 2023) and thus advance existing IB research. Such an attempt entails paying particular attention to time, dynamism, context, and the non-linear internationalization decision-making process (Hoorani etal. 2023; Mohr etal. 2018). E.Domínguez Romero et al. 1 3 We consider that rethinking the current situation is crucial, as IB research would be more comprehensive if it had more knowledge about the complexity of non-linear internationalization behavior. This behavior is driven by a non-deterministic pattern where interconnected elements such as timing, pace, rhythm, choices of market entry modes, foreign market learning, and knowledge recombination assume an important role throughout the internationalization process (Coviello etal. 2017; Laplume etal. 2016). Without this rethinking, the internationalization process could remain a mythical concept (Altissimo 2020; Neubert 2022). To develop a deeper understanding of the complexities of today’s internationalization, there have been calls for the need for comprehensive frameworks (Tsoukas 2017). These frameworks should address two specific gaps in the IB literature. They should (1) consider time as a whole temporal dimension and not only as a speed concept and (2) capture the dynamics of non-linear decisionmaking processes in internationalization (Kafouros etal. 2022; Welch and Paavilainen- Mäntymäki 2014). Against this backdrop, we propose a dynamic circular framework with the aim of (1) advancing the current IB literature by inviting a shift in perspective and (2) providing a more comprehensive explanation of the non-linear internationalization process, i.e., decision-making processes in this regard. The proposed circular framework accommodates non-linear internationalization with non-deterministic patterns, where firms decide to enter, re-enter, or exit foreign markets without fixed sequences. This study specifically focuses on high-tech firms, with a digital core serving as the illustrative case, addressing the research question: How is the current internationalization process structured, particularly for high-tech firms with a digital core? The framework, named “DYSTA”, which stands for a combination of the terms dynamic and status, is the outcome of a critical analysis and synthesis of the existing IB literature. In developing the framework, we were inspired by a recent paper by Hoorani etal. (2023), which highlights the role of time and context and their intertwining. We added to this interconnection the non-linear internationalization process. DYSTA consists of four statuses: Enter (E), De-Internationalization (DE), Re-internationalization (RE), and Operation Internationalized (OE). These statuses represent various stages or conditions that international companies can encounter during their internationalization process, which involves a significant decision-making process. The circular framework displays the various statuses of international companies, which can coexist or occur independently. 2 Theoretical background In this section, the relevant IB context is briefly outlined. 2.1 Main theories, models, andframeworks ofinternational business research The seminal papers in the field of IB, such as "The Internationalization Process of the Firm: A Model of Knowledge Development and Increasing Foreign Market Commitments" by Johanson and Vahlne (1977) and "Location and the Multinational Enterprise: A Neglected Factor" by Dunning (1998), have introduced key 1 3 Rethinking internationalization processes: towardacircular… theories, models, and frameworks. These include the Nordic or Uppsala Schoolbased approach, the Eclectic Paradigm, Transaction Cost Economics, the Network Corporation’s approach, and International Market Orientation. These influential theories and their frameworks have shaped our understanding of IB dynamics. The most popular stream in IB related to the internationalization process until now has been led by the Uppsala model´s scenario, which has created a strong streamline that is apparently still valid today. According to this line of thinking, a firm is either entering the international market, developing operations abroad gradually, or following a step-by-step orientation based on a linear internationalization process, i.e., a forward-moving process (Brambilla 2014; Johanson and Vahlne 1977). In this line of research, it is assumed that the first step abroad involves entering the nearest countries. For this reason, the culture of the country in question has become an important factor in the selection process (Hofstede 1983; Shenkar 2001). In the early 2000s, the practice of entering into collaborative arrangements, e.g., an alliance, together with an increasing digitization indicated that knowledge and resources could be obtained and shared more quickly than the Uppsala model initially estimated. This had the consequence that some steps of the incremental model could be skipped. Therefore, internationalization became more effective through collaborations (Shi and Gregory 1998; Schellenberg et al. 2018). At that time, firms that entered international markets directly, without following the steps recommended by the incremental school, e.g., born globals and international ventures, also emerged (Bell etal. 2003; Coviello 2006; Oviatt and McDougall 1994, 2005; Paul and Rosado-Serrano 2019). In other words, these are companies that follow a potentially non-linear internationalization process. Hence, IB research underwent a significant change in which the traditional step-by-step approach proposed by Johanson and Vahlne was challenged, and now companies of any size could undertake internationalization and achieve success (Chetty and Campbell-Hunt 2004). This shift gave rise to a non-linear internationalization process, characterized by firms utilizing networks and adopting hybrid structures to compete globally (Kujala and Törnroos 2018). This novel approach enabled companies to have a superior networking access to a diverse range of resources that would otherwise be constrained, and to begin a unique and uncharted internationalization process (Kraus etal. 2020b; Stoian etal. 2018). The other mainstream is the eclectic paradigm, which deals with actions in international markets and traces back to Dunning’s eclectic paradigm. The eclectic paradigm identifies a framework with factors such as ownership, localization, and internalization (OLI) as influential in the entry and growth of companies in international markets (Collinson etal. 2006). Furthermore, in conjunction with internalization theory, the eclectic paradigm appears to be one of the two dominant theoretical perspectives on multinational evolution (Dunning and Lundan 2008; Narula and Verbeke 2015; Surdu and Narula 2021). Internationalization theory, specifically the eclectic paradigm, addresses the entry modes into foreign markets, cultural distance, and time dimension, but only from the perspectives of speed and multinational enterprise (MNE) performance (e.g., Anderson and Gatignon 1986; Brouthers and Hennart 2007; Canabal and White 2008; Quer etal. 2007; Sarkar and Cavusgil 1996). E.Domínguez Romero et al. 1 3 IB scholars have extensively explored various aspects of internationalization, including foreign direct investment (FDI) and its nature (Aharoni 2013; Hymer 1960), the emergence and evolution of MNEs (Dunning, 1979, 1988, 2015; Buckley 2009; Laanti et al. 2009; Mudambi, 2008), and the transition from internationalization to globalization (Buckley etal. 2017). However, these studies have often focused on a static context, utilizing comparative statistics to predict how changes in the business environment at time "t" affect MNE strategies and performance at time "t + 1" (Eden 2009). This emphasis on a static perspective is paradoxical considering that IB is founded on the assumption of a constantly changing market (Reuber and Fischer 2021). Consequently, there is a growing recognition within the field that time should be considered as a broader and more relevant dimension (Hoorani et al. 2023; Hassett and Paavilainen- Mantymaki 2013). Existing IB research often draws from the above-mentioned theories which have evolved, albeit partially, to address contemporary challenges such as nonlinear internationalization in dynamic markets (Guercini and Milanesi 2022). Most of these theories typically have their origins in a US-American economic perspective (e.g., Axinn and Matthyssens 2002; Bilkey and Tesar 1977; Cavusgil etal. 1979; Cavusgil and Naor 1987; Coviello and Martin 1999; Kafouros etal. 2022; Purkayastha and Kumar 2021) and commonly focus on large manufacturing companies with a linear internationalization process as their main point of reference (Bembom and Schwens 2018; Canabal and White 2008; Crick and Crick 2016; Hennart and Slangen 2015; Morschett etal. 2010). Therefore, it is reasonable to acknowledge that existing IB research highlights a prevalent tendency among many researchers to adopt a narrow perspective and consequently focus on a limited set of research questions and topics. These include inquiries into why and where MNEs exist, early or accelerated internationalization, entry mode decisions, and how they differ in undeveloped countries from developed countries (Buckley etal. 2017; Fuentelsaz etal. 2020; McDougall etal. 1994; McDougall and Oviatt 2000; Park and LiPuma 2020; Werner 2002). Building upon the information presented above, one can discern that the existing models and frameworks, despite their valuable contributions, offer only partial insights into the complexity of today’s dynamic internationalization process. Furthermore, there exists a knowledge gap with regard to the non-linear internationalization process, particularly when dealing with the intricacies of multiple entry and exit decisions and time as a critical variable (Bernini etal. 2016; Dominguez and Mayrhofer 2017; Vissak and Francioni 2013). Even with the continuous evolution of different theories, models, and frameworks, there still seem to be difficulties in adequately researching the specific behaviors of newly emerging companies. Figure 1 highlights the most prominent theories, frameworks, and models over time, as well as the categories within which they have been encompassed, such as the economic view, the ecological view, the behavioral view, the "new" international entrepreneurship, and the integrative models. 1 3 Rethinking internationalization processes: towardacircular… 2.2 What toexpect fromtoday’s international business literature ontheinternationalization process For scholars working on the internationalization process, it is essential to understand the multiple aspects of this process. Luo and Tung’s seminal work in 2007 underscores the significance of grasping the motivations, intricate dynamics, operational processes, and challenges that are inexorably intertwined with the dynamic and constantly evolving landscape of IB and thus influence the firms’ decision-mak- ing. Prior research has encountered notable challenges in adapting to more dynamic environments. Such challenges frequently stem from the oversight of the ever-evolv- ing political and sociological dimensions (Arikan and Shenkar 2022; Buckley etal. 2017), which are highly dependent on both time and context variables within IB. By considering these variables, a more holistic context could be offered for understanding the internationalization process. To date, these variables have not received the attention they deserve. Consequently, IB research has faced criticism for losing its direction, indicating a disconnection with changing times, such as a lack of dynamism in the current understanding of the internationalization process (Arikan and Shenkar 2022). Therefore, while this process is inherently a dynamic process, much of the mainstream research has been static and reliant on deterministic frameworks. These frameworks do not adequately explain how new types of companies such as those with a digital core leverage developments in the global market to move beyond the linear steps outlined in traditional theories, models, and frameworks, and embrace non-linear internationalization processes. Figure2 highlights some of these key challenges. The world has experienced substantial economic, societal, and institutional transformations over recent decades, yet much of our work remains entrenched in theories developed in the previous century (Arikan and Shenkar 2022; Brambilla Fig. 1 Theoretical perspectives and frameworks in internationalization. Brief timeline, including later upgrade dates. Source: Authors’ work based on Ribau etal. 2015 E.Domínguez Romero et al. 1 3 2014; Buckley etal. 2017; Canabal and White 2008). Thus, it can be concluded that traditional IB theories or theories from other disciplines are inadequate to explain or predict the behavior of today’s businesses. Specifically, IB scholars must move beyond the historical perspective of considering the internationalization process as a linear one, but they should also include non-linear internationalization processes. To sum up, we should expect a contemporary study of the internationalization process to undergo a shift toward a more comprehensive perspective of firm internationalization. Fig. 2 List of some key challenges and big questions for International Business. Source: authors’ own preparation based SLR at level 1 1 3 Rethinking internationalization processes: towardacircular… 3 Methodology The research methodology entails a systematic literature review (SLR) to establish a rigorous and comprehensive approach. An SLR allows for a thorough evaluation and interpretation of previous research pertaining to the specific theme of interest (Alderson etal. 2004). By utilizing an SLR, this study seeks to improve the reliability of its findings and mitigate bias, as the SLR represents a transparent and reproducible method, as suggested by Kraus etal. in 2020a. Furthermore, an SLR can provide valuable insights into the existing body of literature and identify future research directions, as scholars often highlight research gaps and unanswered questions (Kraus etal. 2022; Sauer and Seuring 2023; Petticrew and Roberts 2008). In the context of developing a new circular framework, this method is particularly suitable as it allows for the synthesis and assessment of relevant research that meets predefined criteria (Tranfield etal. 2003). Therefore, an SLR enables a more robust examination of the existing literature, providing a solid foundation for the development of the circular framework proposed in this paper. Additionally, the paper adopts a framework-led approach to synthesize the literature and align it with the current landscape of internationalization processes, following the recommended steps outlined by Denyer and Tranfield (2009) for conducting a systematic literature review. These steps include the problem formulation, literature search, data extraction, data synthesis, and drawing conclusions. The SLR has been effective for reaching conclusions, structuring the relevant research in the IB field, evaluating its contributions, and elaborating clear conclusions regarding existing knowledge gaps (Kraus etal. 2022). This process allowed us to propose a framework that is anchored in the relevant and recent literature. The concrete steps taken are outlined in the following. 3.1 Step 1 defining theresearch problem andresearch questions Grounded in the philosophical framework of critical realism, this research endeavors to overcome the limitations imposed by positivism and traditional views prevalent in the IB field. Positivism, with its emphasis on linear and forward-moving processes in internationalization, has restricted the exploration of alternative forms of internationalization that deviate from this established trajectory. Drawing insights from "Re-Anchoring the Ontology of International Business" by Norder etal. (2021), it is recognized that positivism has hindered the exploration of IB’s intrinsic complexities and the development of new theories, models, and frameworks to capture market intricacies (Poulis and Poulis 2018). To address this, the authors intentionally use critical realism as a theoretical lens to investigate IB’s inherent complexities and to develop the proposed circular framework. To ensure the above-mentioned, the SLR was conducted at two distinct levels. At level 1, the primary focus was on formulating an overarching research question that aimed to explore the underlying mechanisms and steps behind the prevalent view of the internationalization process. This involved a thorough study of relevant E.Domínguez Romero et al. 1 3 digital core operating in plural markets. By building on non-linear internationalization and the various exits and re-entries, the framework provides a more comprehensive understanding of the internationalization process (Fig.5). DYSTA goes beyond relying solely on prior accumulated experience for making decisions at the international level. The circular framework particularly emphasizes the relevance of incorporating time, context, and internationalization as interconnected elements. Additionally, the framework is based on a non-linear process story, and additionally influencing factors hampering or supporting the non-linear internationalization process. DYSTA’s structure consists of three parts. The first section encompasses time, context, and internationalization process as intertwined and inseparable components (Carney etal. 2016; Goodall etal. 2004; Hoorani etal. 2023; McGaughey 2007; Tsui-Auch 2004). The second section focuses on the "non-linear process story," while the third section proposes a new set of factors that influence the non-linear internationalization process. These parts are presented in the following sections. 5.1 Time, context, andinternationalization process Time is a crucial component of internationalization (Mayer and Floriani 2022; Welch etal. 2016). Despite the widely recognized view of firms’ internationalization as a process that unfolds over time, most studies have paradoxically overlooked the incorporation of time (Buchnea and Elsahn 2022; Welch and Paavilainen-Män- tymäki 2014), resulting in a lack of dynamism in the existing frameworks and models. Nonetheless, in today’s business environment, time continues to emerge as a relevant and explicit dimension (Mayer and Floriani 2022), inseparable from the context. Therefore, in the DYSTA framework time is recognized as a significant factor that influences not only the initial internationalization path but also the transitions of and between the different statuses. Thus, we also respond to Buckley etal. (2017) who stressed that an effective framework for comprehensively capturing the internationalization process is one that incorporates the dimension of time, especially in relation to unforeseen temporal changes that may arise in this area. These changes include global climate change, migration, conflicts, as well as other crises, which reinforce the role of the temporal aspect within the internationalization process. The acknowledgement of the intertwined nature of time, context, and internationalization enables the DYSTA framework to account for both expected and unexpected changes, as it makes possible the interaction with the past, present, and future of the decision-making process inherent in internationalization (Wood etal. 2021). This is especially evident in the domain of internationalizing startups, where a startup’s operational context and its evolving decision-making processes are intricately bound to its internationalization journey and, ultimately, its survival. This underscores the critical role this context plays in shaping time-dependent trajectories (Child etal. 2022) and guiding these trajectories. Such pathways can rapidly propel high-tech firms into non-linear internationalization (Child etal. 2022; Musteen etal. 2014). By thoroughly considering these dynamic, time-sensitive trajectories and recognizing the intricate interplay of time, context, and the internationalization process 1 3 Rethinking internationalization processes: towardacircular… itself, DYSTA effectively captures the complex and disruptive nature of internationalization processes in today’s companies, particularly those operating in the hightech sector. DYSTA tries to overcome the rigid vision of time and the underdeveloped discussion of the interconnectedness of time, context, and internationalization in the current literature which has contributed to a situation that still sees the internationalization process as a process that follows a linear step-by-step approach (Poulis and Poulis 2018; Welch etal. 2016). DYSTA embraces a non-linear and intertwined perspective of these three key dimensions. Thus, DYSTA appears to be more inclusive than the other frameworks and models. 5.2 Non‑linear process story As mentioned before, DYSTA consists of four statuses. These statuses are presented in more detail in the following. Enter (E) status.This refers to entering or initially entering a new country, region, segment, or with a new or improved goods/services in a new or existing market. De-Internationalization (DE) status This is when the firm decreases or even stops its international commitment (Santangelo and Meyer 2011). It could encompass the total or partial withdrawal from the foreign market (Kafouros etal. 2022; Welch and Welch 2009). De-internationalization does not have a negative connotation in the DYSTA framework but could be the result of a strategic choice (Benito 2005; Vissak and Francioni 2013). Re-internationalization (RE) status This is when the firm re-engages in international operations after having previously exited foreign markets (Vissak and Francioni 2013; Welch and Welch 2009). It describes a process involving a period of international business activity that after an exit is followed by a time-out period of some duration ending up in a re-entry where the international operations are renewed (Kafouros etal. 2022; Welch and Welch 2009). Operations Internationalized (OE) status This is when the firm has already internationalized its operations, i.e., has a presence in that market, and thus is ready to have its goods/services be consumed, produced, or available in the market. Across all these statuses, a firm could place its decisions and have a presence in several statuses, both at the same time and in different temporal situations. To exemplify this situation, we consider a hypothetical scenario: a company with a diverse product range decides to expand into a new country with a new product while discontinuing the sale of an existing product in another country. From the firm’s perspective, this situation involves the statuses of "DE" and "E", as the company withdraws from one country while entering a new one. However, if the same company enters a country with a new product, after completely de-internationalizing a different product in that country, it would be seen as a re-enter decision since the company had operated there before. From a product perspective, it would be regarded as a new entry since it is a new product being introduced in that country, resulting in the statuses of "RE" and "E". During that previous de-internationalization phase, the company would have E.Domínguez Romero et al. 1 3 been simultaneously operating in the country while preparing to de-internation- alize its product, falling into the statuses of "DE" and "OE" (ongoing operation). It is important to note that other firms may also de- and/or re-internationalize selectively, opting to enter different markets after de-internationalization without re-entering all their previous markets (Javalgi etal. 2011; Vissak and Masso 2015; Welch and Welch 2009). When considering the circular framework from various perspectives, including those of the firm and the product, it becomes essential to recognize the importance of the decision-making process as the central focus of the framework (its unit of analysis). This decision-making process plays a crucial role insituating the company across different statuses and in understanding the circular framework. On the one hand, when a company chooses to enter a new country with a new product, it is classified under the "E" status. Regardless of the company’s existing operations in that country with another product, the introduction of a new product would still result in the company being categorized under the "E" status. Simultaneously, the presence of a different product in that country would place the company in the "OE" status. On the other hand, if the decision is made to de-internationalize a product, the company falls into the "DE" status. Furthermore, if the company subsequently decides to re-enter the same country with a previously de-internationalized product, it transitions into the "RE" status. Some companies may choose to de-internationalize and/or re-international- ize partially, without re-entering all their previous markets (Javalgi etal. 2011; Vissak and Masso 2015). They may decide to enter different markets after deinternationalization without re-entering all their previous markets. After partial re-internationalization they may become less international than before deinternationalization. Therefore, DE and RE statuses could be fully or partially performed depending on the concrete situation. This is why it is suggested that re- and de-internationalization be considered in two key dimensions: (a) whether the firm’s re-entering or exiting from foreign markets is partial or complete; and (b) whether it is voluntary or forced. Partial DE and/or RE refers to situations in which a company exits/re-enters some of its foreign markets (while remaining present in others) and/or reduces its scale of its presence in certain foreign countries. These movements could be seen as a future call for scholars to study how they are used to deploy strategic action, seeking a sustainable competitive advantage (Kafouros etal. 2022). Another possible scenario occurs where firms navigate through the statuses. For example, when a partial de-internationalizer has reduced operations in one/more foreign market(s), keeping some international activities or entering different countries after exiting previous ones (Blum etal. 2013; Katsikeas 1996; Lawless 2009; Vissak 2010), being in statuses “DE”, “RE”, “OE”, and “E” simultaneously. Figure6, which builds upon the classification by Vissak and Masso (2015), summarizes patterns that can provide valuable insights for determining whether decisions within the DE or RE statuses are partial or complete. These patterns help explain the networks and serve as a guide in this regard. 1 3 Rethinking internationalization processes: towardacircular… 5.3 Factors influencing thecircular framework’s internationalization process This introduces the new factors derived from the SLR at level 2 that can influence the non-linear internationalization process captured by DYSTA, especially for high-tech companies. These new factors are necessary because, as Kalinic etal. Fig. 6 Patterns describing status DE and RE interrelationships. Source: authors’ own preparation E.Domínguez Romero et al. 1 3 (2014) suggests, traditional factors like risk, control, and resource commitment, which were historically considered drivers of internationalization success due to their role in gaining experience before entering foreign markets, have a uniform and static impact. This static nature restricts the dynamism introduced by the circular framework. Furthermore, some scholars provide evidence that modern companies are now making well-informed international decisions without depending on these conventional success factors (e.g., Kalinic and Forza 2012; Nielsen and Nielsen 2011). These factors identified during the SLR at level 2 were Governance, Social capital, Networks/Partnerships, Digital technology, and Knowledge management. The discussion that follows explores the significance of each of these factors. Governance is a factor present in the circular internationalization process beyond the ownership structure term (Oliva etal. 2022; Wang etal. 2020). For instance, it could be focused on the way that governance shapes the decision-making process across different statuses in case some planned or unplanned extra factors appear, such as economic frictions, or geopolitical conflicts. Social capital has been identified as a key factor that impacts and boosts the internationalization processes of high-tech firms. Studies by Agndal etal. (2008), Lindstrand and Hånell (2017), and Nordman etal. (2011) have shown that social capital is essential in facilitating internationalization in high-tech firms. In particular, the acquisition of foreign market knowledge and building trust within partnerships have been found to be crucial in enabling rapid internationalization (Nordman etal. 2011; Presutti etal. 2007). Social capital plays an important role in helping firms achieve sustainable competitiveness (Hallam etal. 2018; Ul zia etal. 2023), making it an important factor for consideration in the internationalization process of high-tech firms. Networks/Partnerships are a factor that allows certain technological interrelationships between high-tech firms, enabling the sharing of complementary technology resources, facilitating innovation-creating dynamic capabilities, mutually profitable partnerships, and a shortcut to obtaining knowledge about a host environment for developing internationalization plans (Buckley and Casson 2009; Eisenhardt and Martin 2000; Kalinic etal. 2014; Lew etal. 2013; Oviatt and McDougall 2005). In short, networks are both weak and strong ties that help overcome the difficulties associated with the entry, re-entry, exit, and operation in a foreign market (Coviello 2006; Johanson and Vahlne 2009) either as a deliberate process or as an unplanned adjustment to the environment changes (Chandra et al. 2009; Gulanowski et al. 2018; Vissak etal. 2020). Digital technology firms leverage digitalization for internationalization to enter, exit and re-enter a foreign market without minimum costs. Also, it is used to achieve a huge spread level of the business across the entire society, quickly building a reputation online (Kraus etal. 2019; Reuber and Fischer 2011). However, digital adoption has not been widely discussed or included in a framework as a factor (Falahat etal. 2018; Lee etal. 2020; Neubert 2017; Zhang and Tansuhaj 2007). As observed by Autio and Zander (2016), digital technology has reduced location dependency, keeping assets in both home and host countries, and enabling greater transferability of firm-specific assets. (Coviello etal. 2017). In addition, digital technology has 1 3 Rethinking internationalization processes: towardacircular… drawn new borders between countries, challenging the traditional linear internationalization process (Laplume etal. 2016). Knowledge management is a relevant factor for high-tech services because the firms rely on the creation, configuration, reconfiguration, and transfer of knowledge to achieve a competitive advantage (Ashok etal. 2016; Ganguly etal. 2019; Garrick and Chan 2017), which is the foundation of the internationalization decision-making process (Ashok etal. 2016; Ganguly etal. 2019; Garrick and Chan 2017). The management of knowledge has received substantial research attention in the literature on internationalization as a learning process (Vissak etal. 2020). However, it is time to consider it as an active factor intervening across the statuses in the international growth of a firm. 6 Conclusions The literature on internationalization has undergone a significant development, transitioning from a focus on the incremental view to rapid internationalization. This development has provided valuable insights into the factors contributing to high performance in internationalization processes (Brockman etal. 2022; Findlay etal. 2022; Fuentelsaz etal. 2020; Kafouros etal. 2018, 2022; Park and LiPuma 2020). However, this progression has been primarily driven by linear internationalizers who view internationalization as a step-by-step process with time directly linked to speed. Consequently, non-linear internationalization, especially in high-tech firms with a digital core, has been notably absent in IB research. Non-linear internationalization involves multiple entries, exits, and re-entries in the international expansion of companies (Guercini and Milanesi 2022; Parente etal. 2018), following a nondeterministic pattern. Therefore, neglecting the distinctive trajectory of non-linear internationalization processes represents a significant gap in our understanding of the complexities of today’s global market. To address the gap in the relevant IB literature, our paper makes three contributions. First, we introduce a circular framework called DYSTA, tailored to align IB research with the real-world dynamics of companies such as high-tech firms. This framework stands out from traditional approaches by emphasizing the non-linear internationalization decision-making process within these companies, as demonstrated in our article. DYSTA consists of four statuses: Enter (E), De-International- ization (DE), Re-Internationalization (RE), and Operations Internationalized (OE). Within this framework, time is considered a multidimensional variable closely intertwined with context and the internationalization process (Hoorani etal. 2023). This triad, consisting of context, time, and the internationalization process, is relevant for two primary reasons. First, time and context are intricately linked and influenced by internationalization when companies enter new markets, shaping local contexts, and prioritizing time in their decision-making. Second, context and time actively guide internationalization, affecting various statuses in the process, as depicted in our circular DYSTA framework. This reciprocal relationship between internationalization, time, and context is underscored by some scholars (e.g., Child etal. 2022; Mayer and Floriani 2022) who highlight how this dynamic E.Domínguez Romero et al. 1 3 interconnection accommodates more effectively both anticipated and unforeseen changes that influence the past, present, and future of internationalization decision-making (Wood et al. 2021). Consequently, further exploration of DYSTA’s implications for IB research is warranted, as its capacity to unravel these intricate connections offers substantial promise for enriching our understanding of internationalization and its broader implications for global market strategies and dynamics. Secondly, our paper contextualizes non-linear internationalization beyond the traditional lens of a forward-moving process. Instead, we propose a simultaneous process where fluctuations can occur without undoing previous decisions, thus challenging the notion of a straightforward back-and-forth movement. This perspective is based on the concept of non-linear cyclical movement and emphasizes the significance of the decision-making process within a circular framework. This decisionmaking process is pivotal for situating the firm within various statuses and comprehending the circular framework. For instance, when a company chooses to enter a new country with a novel product, it assumes the "E" status. Irrespective of any pre-existing operations involving a different product in that country, the introduction of a new offering still classifies the company under the "E" status. Concurrently, the presence of a distinct product in that country positions the company within the "OE" status. Opting to de-internationalize a product shifts the company to the "DE" status, and subsequent decisions to re-enter the same country with a previously deinternationalized product leads to transition into the "RE" status. By addressing this situation, we have taken steps to address the pressing requirement of reevaluating the status of the internationalization process within today’s global market, a concern underscored by some scholars (e.g., Kafouros etal. 2022; Tsoukas 2017; Welch and Paavilainen-Mäntymäki 2014). Our third contribution lies in the circular framework’s capacity to bridge gaps in IB and frameworks. It achieves this by integrating re-entry and exit decisions, along with considerations of time and context. This enhances our comprehension of the internationalization process. The four proposed statuses encompass the complexities of contemporary internationalization processes, characterized by multidisciplinary and strategic decisions in companies. Additionally, our paper provides some insights into significant factors such as governance, social capital, networks/partnerships, digital technologies, and knowledge management that influence the decision-making process for internationalization, warranting further investigation. While this paper makes valuable contributions, it does have some limitations that could be addressed in future research. First of all, DYSTA and the situation of this framework has not been tested for relevance and robustness yet. Additionally, a more detailed explanation of the interrelationships among context, time, and the internationalization process within the framework is needed. Hence, this work calls for broader debates across multiple dimensions, including how firms can leverage the circular framework’s statuses to navigate the various challenges brought about by the internationalization process and the surrounding factors. Future research could explore the factors highlighted in the DYSTA framework and their impact on the internationalization process more comprehensively. Furthermore, future research is encouraged to assess the reliability of the proposed statuses through empirical studies, such as conducting in-depth case studies to observe how effectively the circular 1 3 Rethinking internationalization processes: towardacircular… framework represents the internationalization process and whether it enhances the strategic decisions of contemporary companies. We hope that the circular framework proposed in this article serves as a starting point for more research. In summary, this paper questions the prevailing belief that traditional internationalization theories, frameworks, and models, often grounded in linear perspectives, can be universally applied to explain emerging internationalization processes. It is important to acknowledge that these traditional models and frameworks were never intended to serve as universal theories of internationalization. While they may retain relevance in specific cases, their adaptability and transferability to diverse contexts and the ever-evolving dynamics of the present are in doubt, even within their original domains. However, our study makes a significant contribution by enhancing our comprehension of the dynamic, discontinuous, and heterogeneous nature of internationalization processes, aligning with Hoorani etal.’s 2023 groundbreaking work on understanding time in qualitative IB research. This contribution holds particular relevance within the context of high-tech firms with a digital core which are challenging traditional assumptions about internationalization (Yu et al. 2022). We underscore the importance of recognizing the behavior of non-linear internationalizers, those who follow a non-linear cyclical movement in the context of international growth. To address this, we introduce the circular framework DYSTA, which encompasses re-enter, enter, and exit decisions in the form of statuses, challenging traditional assumptions about international growth. DYSTA provides a comprehensive understanding of internationalization by considering past, present, and future perspectives, intertwined with the context and the internationalization process. Therefore, by bridging the gap in the existing literature, our research offers valuable insights for scholars and practitioners, and it also opens new avenues for further exploration in the field of international business. Author contributions We, the authors of the manuscript titled Rethinking internationalization processes: Toward a circular framework, hereby declare our authorship contributions in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Journal and Publisher. EDR (First Author): Substantial contributions to conception, design, literature review analysis, and interpretation. Drafting and critical revision of the manuscript. Approval of the final version for publication. Accountability for the work’s accuracy and integrity. SD (Second Author): Substantial contributions to conception, design, literature review analysis, and interpretation. Critical revision of the manuscript. Approval of the final version for publication. Accountability for the work’s accuracy and integrity. ANG (Third Author): Revision of the manuscript. Approval of the final version for publication. Accountability for the work’s accuracy and integrity.We adhere to the guidelines regarding authorship and have ensured that all contributors meet the criteria for authorship. Contributors not meeting all criteria have been acknowledged as per the provided guidelines. The corresponding author, SD, has taken primary responsibility for communication with the journal and will oversee all administrative requirements and authorship details. All authors collectively endorse the accuracy and integrity of the work. Funding Open access funding provided by University of Skövde. The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work. Declarations Conflict of interest All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials dis- E.Domínguez Romero et al. 1 3 cussed in this manuscript. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/. References Agarwal S (1994) Socio-cultural distance and the choice of joint ventures: a contingency perspective. J Int Mark 2:63–80. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10690 31x94 00200 205 Agarwal S, Ramaswami SN (1992) Choice of foreign market entry mode: impact of ownership, location and internalization factors. J Int Bus Stud 23:1–27. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ palgr ave. jibs. 84902 57 Agndal H, Chetty S (2007) The impact of relationships on changes in internationalisation strategies of SMEs. Eur J Mark 41:1449–1474. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 03090 56071 08212 51 Agndal H, Chetty S, Wilson H (2008) Social capital dynamics and foreign market entry. J Int Bus Rev 17:663–675. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ibusr ev. 2008. 09. 006 Aharoni Y (2013) A few lessons from my long experience in IB research. AIB Insights. https:// doi. org/ 10. 46697/ 001c. 16943 Alderson P, Green S, Higgins J (2004) Cochrane reviewer’s handbook. Wiley, Chichester, UK Altissimo A (2020) Internationalisation myths and transnational realities. Beings, belongings and places. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp 3–12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 658- 31364-7_2 Andersen O (1993) On the internationalization process of firms: a critical analysis. J Int Bus Stud 24:209–231. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ palgr ave. jibs. 84902 30 Anderson E, Gatignon H (1986) Modes of foreign entry: a transaction cost analysis and propositions. J Int Bus Stud 17:1–26. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ palgr ave. jibs. 84904 32 Arikan I, Shenkar O (2022) Neglected elements: what we should cover more of in international business research. J Int Bus Stud 53:1484–1507. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ s41267- 021- 00472-9 Arregle J-L, Hébert L, Beamish PW (2006) Mode of international entry: the advantages of multilevel methods. Manag Int Rev 46:597–618. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11575- 006- 0117-3 Ashok M, Narula R, Martinez-Noya A (2016) How do collaboration and investments in knowledge management affect process innovation in services? J Knowl Manag 20:1004–1024. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ jkm- 11- 2015- 0429 Autio E, Zander I (2016) Lean internationalization. Acad Manag Proc 2016:17420. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ ambpp. 2016. 81 Axinn CN, Matthyssens P (2002) Limits of internationalization theories in an unlimited world. Int Mark Rev 19:436–449. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 02651 33021 04452 75 Bartelsman EJ, Doms M (2000) Understanding productivity: lessons from longitudinal microdata. J Econ Lit 38:569–595 Bell J, McNaughton R, Young S, Crick D (2003) J Int Entrep 1:339–362. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/a: 10256 29424 041 Bellucci C, Lavarda RAB, Floriani DE (2022) Open strategizing and accelerated internationalization process in different contexts. J Strat Manag. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ jsma- 10- 2021- 0207 Bembom M, Schwens C (2018) The role of networks in early internationalizing firms: a systematic review and future research agenda. Eur Manag J 36:679–694. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. emj. 2018. 03. 003 Benito GRG (2005) Divestment and international business strategy. J Econ Geogr 5:235–251. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ jnlecg/ lbh041 1 3 Rethinking internationalization processes: towardacircular… Benito GRG, Petersen B, Welch LS (2009) Towards more realistic conceptualisations of foreign operation modes. J Int Bus Stud 40:1455–1470. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ jibs. 2009. 54 Bernini M, Du J, Love JH (2016) Explaining intermittent exporting: exit and conditional re-entry in export markets. J Int Bus Stud 47:1058–1076. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ s41267- 016- 0015-2 Bilkey WJ, Tesar G (1977) The export behavior of smaller-sized wisconsin manufacturing firms. J Int Bus Stud 8:93–98. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ palgr ave. jibs. 84907 83 Blackburne GD, Buckley PJ (2019) The international business incubator as a foreign market entry mode. Long Range Plan 52:32–50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. lrp. 2017. 10. 005 Blomstermo A, Deo Sharma D, Sallis J (2006) Choice of foreign market entry mode in service firms. Int Mark Rev 23:211–229. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 02651 33061 06600 92 Blum BS, Claro S, Horstmann IJ (2013) Occasional and perennial exporters. J Int Econ 90:65–74. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jinte co. 2012. 11. 002 Brambilla FR (2014) What top 25 most cited JIBS articles can tell us about the firm’s internationalization process? Desenvolv Em Quest 12:68. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21527/ 2237- 6453. 2014. 28. 68- 103 Brockman P, Dow D, Phan HL etal (2022) Young aspiring globals (YAGs): early-stage strategies of knowledge-focused international entrepreneurs. J Knowl Manag 26:1540–1565. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ jkm- 05- 2021- 0375 Brouthers KD (2002) Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance. J Int Bus Stud 33:203–221. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ palgr ave. jibs. 84910 13 Brouthers KD (2013) A retrospective on: institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance. J Int Bus Stud 44:14–22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ jibs. 2012. 23 Brouthers KD, Brouthers LE, Werner S (2008) Real options, international entry mode choice and performance. J Manag Stud 45:936–960. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467- 6486. 2007. 00753.x Brouthers KD, Geisser KD, Rothlauf F (2016) Explaining the internationalization of ibusiness firms. J Int Bus Stud 47:513–534. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ jibs. 2015. 20 Brouthers KD, Hennart J-F (2007) Boundaries of the firm: insights from international entry mode research. J Manage 33:395–425. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06307 300817 Buchnea E, Elsahn Z (2022) Historical social network analysis: advancing new directions for international business research. Int Bus Rev 31:101990. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ibusr ev. 2022. 101990 Buckley PJ (2009) Internalisation thinking: from the multinational enterprise to the global factory. Int Bus Rev 18:224–235. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ibusr ev. 2009. 01. 006 Buckley PJ, Casson MC (2009) The internalisation theory of the multinational enterprise: a review of the progress of a research agenda after 30 years. J Int Bus Stud 40:1563–1580. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ jibs. 2009. 49 Buckley PJ, Doh JP, Benischke MH (2017) Towards a renaissance in international business research? Big questions, grand challenges, and the future of IB scholarship. J Int Bus Stud 48:1045–1064. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ s41267- 017- 0102-z Busch ET, Fayerweather J (1979) International business strategy and administration. Acad Manage Rev 4:477. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 257211 Cahen F, Borini FM (2020) International Digital Competence. J Int Manag 26:100691. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. intman. 2019. 100691 Canabal A, White GO III (2008) Entry mode research: past and future. Int Bus Rev 17:267–284. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ibusr ev. 2008. 01. 003 Caputo A, Marzi G, Pellegrini MM (2016) The Internet of Things in manufacturing innovation processes: development and application of a conceptual framework. Bus Proc Manag J 22:383–402. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ bpmj- 05- 2015- 0072 Caputo A, Matteo Pellegrini M, Dabic M, Paul Dana L (2016b) Internationalisation of firms from central and eastern Europe: a systematic literature review. Eur Bus Rev 28:630–651. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ ebr- 01- 2016- 0004 Carney M, Dieleman M, Taussig M (2016) How are institutional capabilities transferred across borders? J World Bus 51:882–894. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jwb. 2015. 12. 002 Cavusgil ST, Bilkey WJ, Tesar G (1979) A note on the export behavior of firms: exporter profiles. J Int Bus Stud 10:91–97 Cavusgil ST, Knight G (2015) The born global firm: an entrepreneurial and capabilities perspective on early and rapid internationalization. J Int Bus Stud 46:3–16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ jibs. 2014. 62 Cavusgil ST, Naor J (1987) Firm and management characteristics as discriminators of export marketing activity. J Bus Res 15:221–235 E.Domínguez Romero et al. 1 3 Welch LS, Luostarinen R (1988) Internationalization: evolution of a concept. J Gen Manag 14:34–55. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 03063 07088 01400 203 Welch C, Nummela N, Liesch P (2016) The internationalisation process model revisited: an agenda for future research. Manag Int Rev 56(6):783–805. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11575- 016- 0302-y Werner S (2002) Recent developments in international management research: a review of 20 top management journals. J Manage 28:277–305. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06302 02800 303 Wood MS, Bakker RM, Fisher G (2021) Back to the future: a time-calibrated theory of entrepreneurial action. Acad Manag Rev 46:147–171. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amr. 2018. 0060 Yu H, Fletcher M, Buck T (2022) Managing digital transformation during re-internationalization: trajectories and implications for performance. J Int Manag 28:100947. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. intman. 2022. 100947 Zhang M, Tansuhaj PS (2007) Organisational culture, information technology capability, and performance: the case of born global firms. Multinatl Bus Rev 15:43–78. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 15253 83x20 07000 12 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.