International Entrepreneurship: A Critical Analysis of Studies in The Past Two Decades and Future Directions For Research

J Int Entrep (2012) 10:279324
DOI 10.1007/s10843-012-0096-3
International entrepreneurship: A critical analysis

of studies in the past two decades and future
directions for research
Indujeeva K. Peiris & Michle E. M. Akoorie & Paresha Sinha
Published online: 14 October 2012

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012
Abstract International entrepreneurship (IE) is an emerging field with a rapidly

growing body of knowledge. This paper examines gaps, issues and trends of
the IE in the last two decades. First, it suggests an integrative framework based
on international business, entrepreneurship, strategic management, social network and marketing theories. The suggested model highlights the significant
role played by the entrepreneur/team, firm and network resources that act as
antecedents to international opportunity development and value innovation.
Second, it suggests four typologies of firms (born global, enduring global, early
exporter and mature exporter) that can be studied under the IE theme. Finally,
we discuss future research directions.
Keywords International entrepreneurship . Born global . Opportunity
identification . Knowledge and capabilities . Value innovation
Introduction
International entrepreneurship (IE) research emerged in the early 1990s as a response
to the dynamic nature of newly internationalising firms, which is perceived as
anomalous to the traditional patterns of firm internationalisation (Oviatt and
McDougall 1994; McDougall et al. 1994). Over the last two decades, the IE domain
has developed extensively by drawing on various theoretical perspectives, such as
I. K. Peiris (*) : M. E. M. Akoorie : P. Sinha

University of Waikato, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand
e-mail: ipeiris@waikato.ac.nz
M. E. M. Akoorie
e-mail: mema@waikato.ac.nz
P. Sinha
e-mail: psinha@waikato.ac.nz
280
I.K. Peiris et al.
international business (IB), entrepreneurship, strategic management, network

(Mtigwe 2006) and marketing.
This growing body of knowledge has not only provided rich insights into entrepreneurial internationalisation behaviour but also made the IE theory fragmented and
devoid of a unifying theoretical direction (Keupp and Gassmann 2009; Coombs et al.
2009; Zahra and George 2002). However, IE research benefited much from past
literature reviews, which added academic and methodological rigor to the field. They
predicted the resource-based view (RBV)s growing influence on IE field (Peng
2001); highlighted the review methodologies, methodological issues and multidisciplinary approach to IE (Coviello and Jones 2004; Etemad and Lee 2003; Young et al.
2003; Aspelund et al. 2007); review a decade or more of IE literature to identify gaps
and inconsistencies; and deliver suggestions for future directions (Rialp et al. 2005a;
Coombs et al. 2009; Keupp and Gassmann 2009). The recent contribution of Jones et
al. (2011), presents an overview of the domain, and they highlight these inconsistencies and complexity by building an inventory of subject matter and domain constructs
giving a broader perspective of the IE studies to date.
Building on these previous works, this study systematically reviews 291 IE-related
articles, with the intention of broadening the IE paradigm by integrating multiple
theoretical perspectives. We assert that a unifying theoretical direction is a challenging task, but it is timely, given the need for the future development of IE domain.
Our study makes three contributions to the extant literature. First, it analyses the
context of IE studies in terms of country-, industry-, theoretical-, environmental- and
firm-level characteristics. Second, it offers a synthesis of issues, dominant theories
and gaps and suggests an integrative model to ground the IE domain in broader
theoretical constructs. We emphasise key elements that have not been discussed
previously in an integrative manner. They include entrepreneurial, firm and network
resources that function as integral parts in the process of international opportunity
development. In turn, these opportunities are developed and exploited to create
superior customer value as a result of the co-evolutionary nature of entrepreneurial
knowledge, capabilities and learning. Finally, it outlines ways to improve future IE
scholarship, in view of increasing its rigour and scope to include both new and mature
firms.
Methods
This paper reviews 291 journal articles published in peer-reviewed journals between
1993 and 2012 inclusive. We used systematic review methodology to structure the
review process as set out by Tranfield et al. (2003).
First, the review planning process was guided by the IE definition provided by
Styles and Seymour (2006) to identify the articles that are closely related to the topic
at hand.
Behavioural processes associated with the creation and exchange of value through the
identification and exploitation of opportunities that cross national borders (p. 134).
The Styles and Seymour (2006) definition was selected as it presents a holistic
view of IE domain and incorporates opportunity-related behaviours, events and
281
processes, that goes beyond the legal entity of the focal firm and considers multiple
firms, actors and resources (Chandra et al. 2012). Unlike other definitions, it makes
the IE domain independent of firm size and age and enabled us to set the objective
criteria for screening the articles that are closely related to the status quo of the field
and to focus on key identified areas from a multi-level perspective (entrepreneurial,
firm, networks and environmental factors).
Second, our search process included key word searches (international entrepreneurship; internationalisation; international firms; international new ventures; born
global; born-again global; international marketing; global start-ups; early, rapid or
accelerated internationalisation; and export ventures) using electronic databases such
as Ebsco-host, Elsevier Science Direct and Proquest. We excluded books, book
chapters and conference proceedings since journal publications are considered as
having the highest impact in the management field and considered as validated
knowledge (Tahai and Meyer 1999; Podsakoff et al. 2005).
Third, a bibliometric search was also conducted to identify highly cited
articles using citation databases: ISI Web of Science, SCOPUS and Publish or
Perish (software) (Harzing 2007) that uses Google Scholar to obtain raw citations.
Using this method, we limited keywords to international entrepreneurship, born
global and international new ventures. The objective here was to recognise the
articles that had a significant impact on IE research and the extent of their dependence
on building the existing IE knowledge base (Etemad and Lee 2003).
Fourth, we conducted a search by going through all the journals that had
published three or more articles on IE studies during the last two decades
(19932012). These journals were: European Journal of Marketing (9), European
Management Journal (9), Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (8), International
Business Review (34), International Marketing Review (13), International Small
Business Journal (7), Journal of Business Venturing (11), Journal of Euromarketing
(6), Journal of Global Marketing (4), Journal of International Business Studies (26),
Journal of International Entrepreneurship (59), Journal of International Marketing
(17), Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Development (5), Journal of
Small Business Management (12), Journal of World Business (17), Management
International Review (11) and Small Business Economics (8). We did not limit the
search to incorporate only top journals in the respective fields (entrepreneurship and
small business management, IB, marketing and strategic management); rather, the
article selection was based on the aim of capturing the theoretical and empirical
contributions that have added value to the IE field.
Articles found in the above search methods were screened after reading the
title, abstract and the conclusion, which resulted in shortlisting 366 articles
that had a bearing on IE studies. After a thorough review, we selected 291
articles which all three authors agreed were highly relevant to IE literature for
the final analysis (see Appendix 2). The theoretical base of the IE research has
become very broad, multidisciplinary and extends over two decades. Therefore, a
careful assessment and positioning of the literature relevant to this study has been a
challenging task. This selection is not fully exhaustive but includes highly relevant
and representative selections of academic work. The excluded articles either focused
on SME internationalisation without looking at entrepreneurial intervention per se or
they were focusing on issues related to multinational firms, export performance
282
I.K. Peiris et al.
measures, foreign direct investment, globalisation and macro-environmental

influences.
Analysis
The selected scholarly literature was analysed using an interpretive synthesising
approach (Noblit and Hare 1988), where key categories were identified as higherorder concepts (entrepreneurial, firm, environmental and networks) that integrate
various theoretical approaches such as entrepreneurship, IB, strategic management,
marketing and network theories (Dixon-Woods et al. 2005). We used a combination
of thematic and content analysis (Weed 2008) in order to capture the quantitative
(frequency) as well as qualitative (explanatory value) aspects of the data. We prepared
a summary table where each article was coded and categorised systematically, based
on topic, year, firm size, country, industry, time frame, theoretical framework,
analytical approach, variables (independent, moderator, mediator, dependent and
control) and key findings. These facilitated theme identification and provided detailed
description related to the higher-order concepts and refinement of constructs of the
integrative framework.
Results
The study identified IE articles published in 38 peer-reviewed journals across multiple disciplines during the period 1993 to 2012. We started from Rennies (1993)
article about born-global firms, where the term born global first entered the IE
domain and the seminal work of Oviatt and McDougall (1994) where the first seed of
IE field germinated (Autio 2005). Since then, the IE literature has expanded exponentially drawing from multiple theoretical perspectives, adding rigor, refining and
broadening the conceptual foundations to reach the present state (see Fig. 1. There
were only five articles in 2012, so we omitted this value).
Table 1 summarises where and when the articles were published. Out of 291
papers reviewed, 52 % were in IB journals, 19 % in entrepreneurship journals, 18 %
in marketing journals and 12 % in strategic management and other related disciplines.
A surge of literature appeared from 2003 to 2008, mainly due to increasing interest in
the international new venture (INV)/born-global (BG) phenomenon, which
40
35
30
25
Number
of
articles
20
15
10
5
0
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
Fig. 1 Growth of IE articles
283
Table 1 IE article representation in journals

Journal
93
96
97
00
01
04
05
08
09
12
Journal of International Entrepreneurship
12
23
24
59
International Business Review
12
10
34
International Business
Percentage Total
52 %
151
Journal of International Business Studies
15
26
Journal of World Business
13
17
Management International Review
11
Journal of International Management
Regional Studies
12
Entrepreneurship
Journal of Small Business Management
19 %
55
Journal of Business Venturing
11
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
International Small Business Journal
Small Business Economics
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise

Development
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development
International Journal of Entrepreneurship
Marketing
1
18 %
51
Journal of International Marketing
17
International Marketing Review
13
European Journal of Marketing
Journal of Euromarketing
Journal of Global Marketing
Journal of Marketing Management
Industrial Marketing Management
European Management Journal
9
4
Strategic/General Management
12 %
34
Academy of Management Journal
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
Journal of Management
Academy of Management Executive
Scandinavian Journal of Management
Academy of Management Review
Asia Pacific Journal of Management
International Studies of Management and

Organization
Journal of Management Studies
Long Range Planning
Strategic Management Journal
Thunderbird Intl Business Review
284
I.K. Peiris et al.
Table 1 (continued)
Journal
93
96
97
00
01
04
Journal of Family Business strategy
Technovation
McKinsey Quarterly
10
24
Total
05
08
09
12
Percentage Total
61
117
79
291
contributed to over 70 % of the articles. A number of special issues focusing

on IE (European Management Journal, 2008, issue 26; International Marketing
Review, 2006, issue 23) and early and rapid internationalisation of the firm
(Journal of World Business, 2007, issue 42) were published during this period.
With the emergence of the dedicated journal for IE in 2003 (Journal of
International Entrepreneurship), IE-specific article numbers steadily increased
adding breadth and depth to this emerging field. Furthermore, the Journal of
International Business studies published some of the most highly cited articles
in IE to date (Coviello 2006; Jones and Coviello 2005; Mudambi and Zahra 2007;
Zahra 2005; Zhou et al. 2007; Oviatt and McDougall 1994). Except for the
European Management Journal (nine articles), the Academy of Management
Journal (four) and the Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences (four), the
IE literature had hardly made an appearance in the core strategic management
journals.
Global focus
The studies clearly indicate that IE research is found in every part of the world (see
Table 2). To conserve space, we have only shown countries with two or more studies.
Studies emanating from European region has the highest representation (53 %)
followed by Oceania (15 %), North America (13 %), East Asia (11 %), Middle East
(3 %), South Asia (2 %), East Asia (2 %), Africa (2 %) and South America (2 %). As
an emerging economy, China (eight articles) is attracting attention from researchers.
Yet, the attention given to other emerging BRIC countries such as India (two), Brazil
(one) and other developing country markets, especially, agriculture-based traditional
exporters in Asian countries is negligible. Literature about how companies in emerging countries enter into international markets in the Middle East and South Asia is
almost non-existent.
There were 30 multi-country studies (see Table 3) that focused on countrylevel differences in rapid internationalisation (Loane and Bell 2006; Gassmann and
Keupp 2007), comparison of internationalisation processes (Hadley and Wilson
2003; Gankema et al. 2000; Spence and Crick 2006), attitude differences (Sommer
2010), impact of cultural context (Brettel et al. 2009; Thomas and Mueller 2000),
positional advantage (Blesa et al. 2008) and entrepreneurial characteristics (Turan and
Kara 2007). This highlights the importance of collaborative publications by IE
285
Table 2 Countries studied

Country
9396
9700
0104
0508
0912
Percentage
Total
Finland
13
13 %
22
USA
11 %
18
Sweden
10 %
17
UK
10 %
17
Australia
9%
16
Spain
11
9%
16
New Zealand
7%
12
China
5%
Germany
5%
Canada
4%
Ireland
2%
Italy
2%
Turkey
2%
Greece
2%
Malaysia
2%
India
1%
Japan
1%
The Netherlands
1%
Singapore
1%
Slovenia
1%
Taiwan
1%
Total
2
170
scholars to enrich our understanding about the influence of different research

contexts.
Industry and firm type
The most prevalent sector for IE studies has been manufacturing (142) (see
Table 4). Supporting the findings of earlier studies, an increasing number of studies
have focused on High-Tech manufacturing (49) and ICT sectors (17) (Coviello and
Jones 2004; Zahra and George 2002). Other sectors of interest were services (five),
trading (three) and agriculture (three). There were also comparative studies of
traditional and new industries (Dimitratos et al. 2004; Mort and Weerawardena
2006; Gemser et al. 2004; Chetty and Agndal 2007; Agndal et al. 2008; Bell et al.
2001).
The focus of IE research appears to have narrowed down to high-technology
firms, new ventures (95) and SMEs (with <500 employees; 161) (see Tables 4
and 5). The under-representation of large firms can be attributed to how scholars
defined the IE domain in the early stages (McDougall 1989; Oviatt and McDougall
286
Table 3 Number of multicounty

studies
I.K. Peiris et al.
Number of studies
Sweden/New Zealand
Australia/New Zealand
UK/Australia/New Zealand
Australia/Canada
Austria/Belgium/Finland
Austria/Belgium/Finland/UK/The Netherlands/
Norway/Sweden/Switzerland
Austria/Switzerland/Liechtenstein/Germany
Canada/UK
Canada/Ireland/Australia/New Zealand
Czech/Germany/France/UK/USA
Czech/Austria/Slovenia
Finland/Ireland/Norway
Germany/UK/France/Italy
Germany/UK
Germany/Thailand
Greece/Caribbean
Greece/Norway/Finland/Italy
Israel/Finland
Norway/Sweden/Finland
Norway/Denmark/France
Norway/France
Sweden/Finland
UK/USA
USA/Canada
Total
30
Table 4 Industry representation of IE research

Industry
9396
9700
0104
0508
0912
Percentage
Total
High-tech
Traditional
19
15
24 %
49
11
19
21
27 %
Mixed
54
10
15
19 %
39
Manufacturing
ICT
8%
17
Services
2%
Agriculture
1%
Trading
1%
Mixed (manufacturing and services)
14
16 %
33
287
Table 5 Size of firms studied under IE theme

Firm size
9396
9700
0104
0508
0912
Percentage
Total
SME
14
34
55
53
82 %
161
Large
6%
11
14
12 %
24
Mixed
1994), which gave prominence to new and knowledge-intensive firms (Zahra

2005). A few attempts were subsequently made to broaden the conceptual
boundaries through definitional changes (McDougall and Oviatt 2000; Zahra
and George 2002; Mtigwe 2006; Styles and Gray 2006; Jones and Coviello 2005;
Styles and Seymour 2006). We see a positive trend in this regard; Table 5 shows that
current focus is shifting towards IE studies becoming independent of firm size
and age.
Theoretical frameworks
The rapid growth of IE literature over two decades has added an impressive
volume of research on international entrepreneurial ventures using different but
overlapping concepts. With the objective of consolidating the theoretical and
terminology differences, our review perceives, Born Global (Knight and Cavusgil
2004; Madsen and Servais 1997; Rennie 1993), International New Venture (Oviatt
and McDougall 1994, 2005c), Born International (Kundu and Katz 2003), New
Entrepreneurial Ventures (Brettel et al. 2009), Global Smaller Firm (Dimitratos et
al. 2010), Instant Exporters (McAuley 1999) and Early Internationalizing Firms
(Rialp et al. 2005a) as a subset of IE theory and therefore focuses on both
new and established ventures that engaged in cross-border value-exchange
processes.
The contribution of conceptual (51 articles) and literature review (12) articles in
the last two decades exemplifies the emerging sophistication of IE theory and
exemplary efforts taken to place IE as a distinct domain in IB literature. These
conceptual developments have shed light on key constructs that constitute the
boundary of IE research (entrepreneur, firm and resources). Appendix 1 presents
the most frequently used contemporary theories in empirical research. We found 49
articles to be devoid of a clear theoretical underpinning. However, on a positive note,
it is encouraging to see IE research using, multiple theoretical perspectives to
examine this complex phenomenon as recommended by IE scholars (Etemad
2004a; Johanson and Vahlne 2009; Chetty and Cambell-Hunt 2004; Crick and
Spence 2005; Mathews and Zander 2007; Freeman et al. 2010; Mejri and Umemoto
2010; Jones and Coviello 2005).
The seminal work of Oviatt and McDougall (1994) and some highly influential
conceptual and empirical papers emerged throughout 20012012. The next section
focuses on their work and the impact of some of the influential theories that
contributed to the development of IE research domain.
288
I.K. Peiris et al.
Theories guiding IE research

Resource-based view
Oviatt and McDougalls (1994) introduction of INVs, and integration of strategic
management with entrepreneurship was a key breakthrough that diverted scholars
attention from mainstream IB theories (see Appendix 1) to the INV perspective. They
contended that sustainable competitive advantage of INV depended on having access
to and being able to control unique resources, giving particular attention to knowledge as a key resource. RBV (now resource-based theory (Barney et al. 2011)
emerged as a main contender to the traditional internationalisation (process theories)
theories and remains until today as one of the dominant and widely used theoretical
perspectives (49 empirical studies) in understanding the IE phenomenon. The RBT
identifies the firm as a unique bundles of accumulated tangible and intangible
resources stocks (Roth 1995), such as assets, capabilities, processes, routines and
knowledge. From the IE perspective, this means unique tacit knowledge about global
opportunities and the capability to leverage such knowledge to gain competitive
advantage (Peng 2001). IE scholars have focused on firm-level knowledge (Knight
2000; Knight and Cavusgil 2004; Knight and Kim 2009); influence of top management exposure (Bloodgood et al. 1996); entrepreneurs human capital (Westhead et al.
2001), market knowledge (Lamb and Liesch 2002), organisational (firm size), enterprise (psychological predisposition) and technological intensity (Dhanaraj and
Beamish 2003); network resources (Coviello and Cox 2006; Loane and Bell 2006);
institutional capital (Lu et al. 2010); and intangible resources (people-dependent
human capital and people-independent intangible resources: organisational capital,
technological capital and relational capital), firm capabilities (individual interactions
and organisational routines) (Rialp and Rialp 2007) and entrepreneurial capability
(Zhang et al. 2009). The RBT influence in IE is critical to the future development of
the field. However, it is evident that the scholars have used RBT to ground their
variables to explain the internationalisation process paying little or no attention to
how these resources come into existence and the process of resource development for
sustainable competitive advantage. Furthermore, we still have inadequate knowledge
about the specific type of resources that are critical to entrepreneurial internationalisation process and their influence.
Knowledge-based view
Our review suggests the knowledge-based view (KBV) has filled this gap partially by
identifying knowledge as the most important resource of all (Yli-Renko et al. 2002).
From the time since Uppsala model was first developed (Johanson and Vahlne 1977),
experiential knowledge has been studied extensively by IE researchers, but the
application of KBV and organisational learning perspective in IE-related studies did
not emerge until the year 2000. KBV in IE is primarily associated with the concept of
knowledge intensity (the extent of dependency in existing knowledge base of the
firm) (Autio et al. 2000). Yli Renko et al. (2002) found a positive relationship
between knowledge intensity and international sales growth. On a similar note,
Gassmann and Keupp (2007) suggested the integration of social capital (SC) theory
289
with KBV in order to understand the basis and realisation of competitive advantage of
the BG firm. However, we found that there is still limited understanding with regard
to knowledge-acquisition process (Weerawardena et al. 2007); process of knowledge
generation (Freeman et al. 2010); relationship between knowledge, capabilities and
internationalisation (Kuivalainen et al. 2010); and knowledge types that affect internationalisation (Mejri and Umemoto 2010).
Dynamic capabilities
In 2002, the dynamic capabilities (DC) perspective first entered the IE literature
through the conceptual work of Knudsen and Madsen (2002). They highlighted the
importance of unique knowledge creation and information flows through exploration
of new capabilities and exploitation of current capabilities and regarded them as key
drivers in export strategy development. Jantunen et al. (2005) found empirical
support for the DC perspective from a firm-level reconfiguration of capabilities, such
as implementing new strategy, structure, methods and business processes in relation
to a subjective measure of profitability but failed to establish a positive relationship
with the degree of internationalisation. However, focusing on a specific networking
capability of the entrepreneurial owner/manager, Mort and Weerawardena (2006)
found strong support for identification and exploitation of market opportunities and
international market performance of BG firms. Extending the same view, Weerawardena
et al. (2007) conceptualised that the capability building process is entrepreneurially
driven and consist of knowledge acquisition through market and internally focused
learning and networking capabilities. There is support from the literature about the
positive impact of certain capabilities, particularly related to networking and learning
(Schweizer et al. 2010; Evers 2011) capabilities in the internationalisation process.
Nevertheless, our knowledge about dynamic capabilities and its impact on the
internationalisation process is still in its infancy. There is still confusion about what
exactly a dynamic capability is. Moreover, the boundary between a resource and a
capability seems to be blurred. As such, scholars have considered general experience,
having access to finance, learning and relationship building as individual-level
capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation (EO), marketing orientation, ambidexterity, R&D, product diversification, customer orientation and unique resources as firmlevel dynamic capabilities (Kocak and Abimbola 2009; Kuivalainen et al. 2010;
Evers 2011; Prange and Verdier 2011) which are related to firm performance.
Integrating DC perspective into IE research is advantageous to the development of
the field. Understanding DC from an entrepreneurial perspective will enhance our
knowledge about how entrepreneurs or the entrepreneurial team adapt, build, integrate and reconfigure knowledge and resources to build sustainable competitive
advantage of the firm.
Network and SC theory
Network theory has made a significant contribution to the IE domain and has become
a widely used approach in understanding the internationalisation process of entrepreneurial firms (49). Both business networks and social networks have been widely
studied by scholars; the former has shed light to the understanding of the antecedents
290
I.K. Peiris et al.
of internationalisation, primarily from an inter-firm perspective, whereas the latter has

broaden the scope to include all of entrepreneurs interpersonal ties (Ellis 2011). Out
of the studies that focused on tie strength (19), some have found weak ties to be
important than strong ties at the venture formation stage, whereas others found both
strong and weak ties important at different stages of the firm internationalisation
process (Gemser et al. 2004; Freeman et al. 2006; Evers and OGorman 2011;
Kontinen and Ojala 2011). Though there are differences in these two types (in terms
of amount of time, emotional intensity, intimacy and reciprocity), trying to ascertain
which one is more important is not going to be a fruitful debate in the future. We
believe it is prudent to focus on the exchange value that these ties generate in terms
of trust and transaction-cost perspectives (Tsai and Ghoshal 1998; Prashantham and
Dhanaraj 2010; Ring and Van De Ven 1994). Furthermore, scant attention has been
given to understanding network structures. We found only three articles focusing on
issues related to network centrality, density and structural holes (Zhou et al. 2007;
Al-Laham and Souitaris 2008; Coviello 2006). Coviello (2006) found growth of
networks positively relates to firm growth and increase in centrality but leads to a
decline in network density. However, there is lack of empirical support for these
findings. Therefore, future studies need to see network structures from a multi polar
networks perspective (Wright and Dana 2003) in order to understand the strategic
importance of network relationships.
We aver that SC theory is capable of providing a strong foundation for the network
perspective in internationalisation research. SC has emerged as a recent phenomenon in IE
research (we found only nine empirical studies), but it has the capability of providing rich
insights into liabilities of networks, growth and decay of ties, as a bundle of resources and
the dynamic roles it plays (serendipity, efficacy and liability) in reducing uncertainty in the
international market (Yli-Renko et al. 2002; Chetty and Agndal 2007; Agndal et al.
2008; Tuppura et al. 2008; Musteen et al. 2010; Prashantham and Dhanaraj 2010;
Kontinen and Ojala 2011; Prashantham and Young 2011; Evald et al. 2011).
Future researchers may find it beneficial if they clearly identify the differences
between organisational-level networks and individual-level networks and the interaction between the two. Another interesting direction is to study the network influence based on formal and informal organisational and interpersonal-level
networks. Table 6 summarises network themes emerging from the studies related to
the internationalising firm.
Marketing theory and value creation

In todays competitive environments, customer value creation can be considered as
the key fundamental element in marketing (Moran and Ghoshal 1996). However, IE
scholars have given almost negligible attention to the value creation aspect in the
internationalisation process. When it comes to creation of value, researchers have
primarily focused on innovation at product and process levels (Dib et al. 2010; Crick
2009; Mort and Weerawardena 2006; Weerawardena et al. 2007; Gassmann and
Keupp 2007) with the exception of a few studies that have focussed on
organisational-wide innovation (OCass and Weerawardena 2009; Kocak and
Table 6 Advantages of networks

and SC
Themes
Provide knowledge/information/expertise
Internationalisation opportunities
Values represent frequency of

themes and not the number of
articles
291
Frequency
12a
10
Access to resources
Client followership
Support innovation/new ideas
Learning opportunities
Motivation
Compensate lack of experience
Build reputation and trust
Reduce uncertainty
Increase scope
Abimbola 2009). Other studies have looked at sources of value creation (Rialp et al.
2005b), value-maximising strategic choices (resources and competencies) (Mudambi
and Zahra 2007), nature of value-creating activity (marketing, distribution, production and R&D) (Meln and Nordman 2009), value-adding capability (Prange and
Verdier 2011) and risk management and resource leverage for value creation (Mort et
al. 2012). Table 7 represents the results of the thematic frequency analysis, in
identifying how firms create value in their respective markets.
Recent research that focuses on a business model construct offers an alternative viewpoint to value creation from a broader perspective encompassing
upstream (suppliers) and downstream (sales partners and customers) value
exchange. It identified value creation drivers (novelty, complementarity, efficiency or customer lock in) and ways of linking the firm with value-adding
partners (contents, structure and governance) indicating a possible future direction with regard to the impact of value-exchange interface in IE research
(Sainio et al. 2011).
Integration of process theory and INV theory
Our review found support for the integration of process theory with INV theory
(Schwens and Kabst 2011). The process theory continued to attract IE researchers
because of its simplicity and understandable nature of the internationalisation process
and the similarities with the INV theory (Meln and Nordman 2009). Some research
found no significant differences in BG and traditional firms when it comes to strategic
and financial performance, innovativeness and risk-taking propensity (Zhang et al.
2009). Table 8 indicates that stage theory is widely applied in the traditional manufacturing and service sectors in mature organisations. However, there is an overlap
and stage theory has been used in both sectors, suggesting the possible integrative
nature of the two theories.
The outcome of this literature review section evidently illustrates the importance of
using multiple theoretical perspectives in understanding the IE phenomenon. In the
292
I.K. Peiris et al.
Table 7 Factors contributing to value creation and competitive advantage of the firm
Theme
Frequency
15a
Unique product/global product

R&D intensity/patents
14
Strategyniche focus
14
Organisational knowledge
12
Superior quality
10
Technological advantage/competence
10
Channels development
Customer focus/value/relationships
Innovation
Managerial/resource commitment
Organisational learning
Unique intangible assets
Brand name/branding strategy
Market knowledge
Network knowledge
Strategic planning
Growth orientation
Market research
Structure and systems
Capability to use resources
Values represent the frequency of times these themes were identified as important to the firm and not the
number of studies since two or three themes may occur in one article
next section, we focus on the impact of entrepreneurship theory and entrepreneurial

behaviour on the internationalisation process.
Entrepreneurship theory
Since the first INV conceptualisation, the role of entrepreneurship in IE research has
been identified as a key aspect of the field, but its application has been a recent
Table 8 Process and INV theory application
Theoretical perspective
Knowledge intensive
Young
Mature
4
4
Stage theory
Supported
INV theory
Supported
26a
Integration of the 2
Supported
Others
Mixed
Young
Mature
13
16
12
Values represent the number of studies that used either or both of these theories
Mixed
293
phenomenon. Three main streams have emerged in entrepreneurship theories. First,

Jones and Coviello (2005) and Etemad (2004a) theorised that the entrepreneur, the
firm and the environment are core concepts in IE theory and this accentuated the
value of capturing entrepreneurial behaviour over time in the cyclic process of
internationalisation. Another theoretical paper looked at the speed of internationalisation (Oviatt and McDougall 2005a), initiated by entrepreneurial opportunity. International opportunity identification became an emergent theme in IE research from
2006, with many scholars contributing to comprehend the interplay between opportunity and variables such as commitment and knowledge (Johanson and Vahlne
2006), to understand and define the IE domain (Styles and Seymour 2006), rationalise
accelerated/successful internationalisation (Mathews and Zander 2007; Di Gregorio
et al. 2008; Muzychenko 2008) and introducing the opportunity-based view in
understanding the IE process (Chandra et al. 2012).
The second stream of research has focused on having the right mind-set, its
development and impact on choice of opportunities and value creation in foreign
markets. Zahra et al. (2005) used the cognitive perspective (motivation and influence
of: experience, environment, self-efficacy mental models, heuristics and learning), to
examine opportunity identification and exploitation to explain the BG phenomenon.
This study signifies the value of knowing the minds of entrepreneurs and their mental
models that can guide and shape internationalisation decisions. Similarly, Butler et al.
(2010) used the cognitive approach to explain why some individuals are able to notice
opportunities in international environments albeit with high levels of uncertainty, by
focusing on the ability of the entrepreneur to absorb uncertainty and use creativity to
take entrepreneurial actions.
The third and most recent theoretical contribution comes from the seminal work of
Sarasvathis (2001) effectuation logic (a process initiated by a set of means as given
and creating possible outcomes with that set of means). Since 2010, effectuation
theory has been used to understand the venture creation and early development process of
the BG firm, from the entrepreneur and network perspective (Andersson 2011; Evers and
OGorman 2011), effect on entry modes (Harms and Schiele 2012), exploitation of
contingencies and decision making (Schweizer et al. 2010; Mort et al. 2012).
Significance of the entrepreneurship theory
The IE process starts with the exploitation of international entrepreneurial
opportunities (Oviatt and McDougall 2005a; Ellis 2011), discovered by individuals
(Venkataraman 1997). Therefore, it is safe to say that the IE process is founded and
driven by the acts of the entrepreneur or the entrepreneurial team (Etemad 2004a, b).
The central role played by the entrepreneur is a more recent development and is still
in its infancy. However, there is no clear agreement of which elements are the most
influent aspects of entrepreneurial capacities and resources. Our thematic analysis
results identified the leading aspects of entrepreneurial competencies used by IE
studies (see Table 9).
Apart from the themes identified above, the majority of IE studies have
looked at strategic orientations or mind-sets of the entrepreneurs or of the firm.
Some of the most commonly used constructs include risk taking, innovativeness
and pro-activeness which when combined, is also called EO (Covin and Slevin
294
Table 9 Entrepreneurial competencies/resources that affect

internationalisation
I.K. Peiris et al.
Entrepreneurial competencies
Frequency
Global focus/vision/intention
22
Network capability/knowledge
20
Technical knowledge
13
Commitment
13
Skills/competence
13
Creativity and innovation
13
Risk taking
12
Attitude
10
Experiential learning
10
Proactiveness
10
Experiential knowledge
Education
Ability to identify opportunities
Self-confidence/self-efficacy
Persistence/perseverance
1991; Lumpkin and Dess 1996; Miller and Friesen 1978). EO is a behaviour that
investigates firm-level strategic orientation as having an influence on various
outcome variables such as performance and venture growth. Even though some
studies found evidence that all three dimensions were associated with rapid
internationalisation (Dib et al. 2010; Dimitratos et al. 2010; Acedo and Jones 2007;
Pla-Barber and Escrib-Esteve 2006; Acedo and Florin 2006), opportunity identification (Chandra et al. 2009) and international performance (Kropp et al. 2006), one
study did not find a connection between EO and degree of internationalisation
(Jantunen et al. 2005) and some studies found only the innovative dimension as a
significant predictor of international performance (Kropp et al. 2006; Zhou 2007).
Furthermore, Frishammer and Andersson (2009) did not find innovativeness or risk
taking having any significant effects on performance. These results raise doubts over
using EO as a main construct in determining the entrepreneurial behaviour of an
internationalising firm.
The over emphasis on EO has ignored the importance of the opportunity recognition
aspect of the IE process. The existing theories assume implicitly that internationalisation
is preceded by opportunity recognition, but provide little explanations about this process
or the capabilities individuals need to identify these opportunities (Chandra et al. 2009;
Acedo and Jones 2007). We found support for both serendipitous discoveries of an
extant prior opportunity as well as finding an opportunity that was waiting to be
discovered as a result of active search. A third related but distinct category is
where entrepreneurs actively create opportunities that can be exploited using
innovative approaches and products that promote faster market entry (Mort et
al. 2012). This opens up a novel and a much broader way of looking at opportunities
incorporating marketing as well as environmental factors in order to understand it in
its entirety.
295
Entrepreneurship scholars consider creativity as a fundamental element in the

entrepreneurial process (Brazeal and Herbert 1999; Kirzner 1999; Ward 2004; Ko
and Butler 2007; Wiklund et al. 2007; Baron and Tang 2011) which is capable of
explaining the creative combination of resources and innovative outcomes. However,
IE scholars are only beginning to appreciate the importance of the role played by
creativity in understanding its impact on the internationalisation process (Styles and
Seymour 2006). Similarly, self-efficacy plays an important role in shaping the level of
effort, resilience to adversity and perseverance (Chen et al. 2004; Bandura 1997). It
has the capacity to provide insights into why entrepreneurs see opportunities instead
of risks and their level of commitment in pursuing international opportunities. Fillis
(2001) suggests that SME behaviour in the internationalisation process could be
better understood by looking at the entrepreneurs marketing skills, resource availability, creativity and identification of opportunities. These constructs are found to be
a robust measure of explaining entrepreneurial actions (Baum and Locke 2004; Baum
et al. 2001; Erikson 2002; Ardichvili et al. 2003; Forbes 2005; Shepherd and
DeTienne 2005; Zahra et al. 2005; McGee et al. 2009).
The existing entrepreneurship literature supports the notion that alertness,
creativity, cognition, prior knowledge and optimistic behaviour is correlated
with opportunity identification (Ardichvili et al. 2003; Butler et al. 2010;
Lumpkin et al. 2004; Shane and Venkataraman 2000; Zahra et al. 2005; Gaglio and
Katz 2001). However, current research on opportunity identification does not specifically look at the role that learning plays in this process (Corbett 2005). This is an
important element that connects the constructs such as previous knowledge, selfefficacy and creativity and uncovers how individuals combine these constructs with
existing knowledge stocks (Kolb et al. 2001; Rae and Carswell 2001). Baron (2004)
argues that entrepreneurial abilities are dependent on how we acquire, store, transform and use information. To date, the IE literature offers little explanation as to how
individuals acquire and transform this information, thereby questioning the pivotal
role of learning.
Knowledge is referred to what is known (either explicitly or tacitly) and
learning refers to the process by which knowledge is generated (Harrison and
Leitch 2005). Autio et al. (2000) state both knowledge and learning are critical and
have an impact on international growth. Entrepreneurial learning occurs when
knowledge is acquired through learning by doing or by direct observation (Minniti
and Bygrave 2001). On a similar note, Johanson and Vahlne (2009) state that
opportunity development is an interactive process, characterised by gradual development of experiential learning.
Environmental dynamics
The impact of external environment is fundamental to the internationalising firm. It
continuously interacts with the internationalisation process as a moderator variable
and a driver of change (Jones and Coviello 2005). Table 10 highlights the three
influential factors in the environment: market, industry and competitive factors. We
found that having a limited domestic market is a major reason for firms to enter
international markets. The integration of domestic and international environment into
296
Table 10 Environmental influences in IE research
I.K. Peiris et al.
Theme
Frequency
Lack/hostile domestic market
25
Industry specific/global integration
17
Market demand/size/profit potential
15
Competitive dynamics
10
Government support
Changing ICT
Culture
Geographic location/country of origin
Globalisation
Regulatory change
Institutional environment
Changing consumer preferences
Changing manufacturing
Resource availability
the IE process maybe a useful way forward for IE researchers. IE process is a

complex phenomenon and in order to appreciate its breadth and depth, future research
must focus on the overall configuration of these activities and their associations to
organisational performance.
In the next section, we suggest a definitional change and refine the IE constructs to
incorporate the existing knowledge base to build a conceptual model and define the
boundary of IE domain.
The future of IE research

McDougall and Oviatts (2000) definition can be considered as the first formal
definition of the field: a combination of innovative, proactive and risk-seeking
behaviour that crosses national borders and is intended to create value in organisation (p. 903). However, the establishment of entrepreneurship theory into IE emerged
from the work of Zahra and George (2002). They introduced the notion of opportunity discovery and exploitation into the IE research that was later recognised as a
critical element in the field (Chandra et al. 2009; Johanson and Vahlne 2006, 2009;
Freeman and Cavusgil 2007; Butler et al. 2010).
We believe Styles and Seymours (2006) definition holds great promise as a basis
for IE theory building. However, we suggest that this definition needs to incorporate
the cognitive perspective of the entrepreneur, i.e., intentions. Grounded in Ajzens
(1991) theory of planned behaviour, we posit that without intentions there will not be
an entrepreneurial behavioural process to begin with.
Therefore, we redefine IE as the cognitive and behavioural processes associated
with the creation and exchange of value through the identification and exploitation of
opportunities that cross national borders.
297
Having a broader definition paves the way for more integrative approaches and
inclusion of all types (born global, traditional and born-again global) and size of firms
that are in different stages of the internationalisation process. Styles and Seymours
(2006) conceptualisation with the inclusion of entrepreneurial intentions highlights
some key concepts related to the IE domain, such as identification of opportunity,
value exchange, human action, learning, creativity and innovation. Also, this enables
us to look at pre-founding stage of the firm, which is now considered as an important
aspect of understanding the internationalisation process of the firm (Arenius et al.
2005; Evald et al. 2011; Prashantham and Dhanaraj 2010; Rialp-Criado et al. 2010).
Towards an integrative model of IE
The IE domain is a much broader concept than it was first conceptualised two
decades ago and a distinct field of study now focuses on entrepreneurial internationalisation. Hence, developing an integrative framework is a challenging task given the
nature and complexity of cross-border activities. However, IE scholars made a
noteworthy attempt to develop integrative models depicting the core concepts and
constructs in the entrepreneurial internationalisation process (Zahra and George 2002;
Jones and Coviello 2005; Madsen and Servais 1997; Bell et al. 2003; Li et al. 2004;
Oviatt and McDougall 2005a; Weerawardena et al. 2007; Gassmann and Keupp
2007; Rialp and Rialp 2007; Dib et al. 2010). Although, these models have greatly
enhanced our knowledge about the constructs related to IE process, we see an
opportunity to extend their work by accentuating the time-dependent, co-evolving
and integrative nature of firm resources, networks and the entrepreneurial behaviour
leading to sustainable competitive advantage of the firm. Taking this view, we
propose an integrative model that focuses on five fundamental constructs related to
IE field: entrepreneur, firm, networks, environment and competitive advantage.
We are interested in understanding the international entrepreneurial behaviour that
leads to competitive advantage of the firm. Therefore, by establishing the entrepreneur or the entrepreneurial team as a focal point in the internationalisation process, we
highlight opportunity identification, evaluation and exploitation as integral parts in IE
process. As such, rather than focusing on the firm-level characteristics, we first need
to identify opportunity as the unit of analysis (Chandra et al. 2012). We need to
identify the entrepreneurial factors that lead to the opportunity-identification process
since opportunities are identified and exploited by individuals and not firms (Shane
and Venkataraman 2000). Second, we need to understand how entrepreneurs evaluate
and exploit these opportunities to gain competitive advantage in international
markets.
Opportunity identification is an intentional process and intentions are considered
as a strong predictor of planned behaviour (Krueger et al. 2000). Strategy scholars
equate intentions to goals of agents and of founding entrepreneurs (Katz and Gartner
1988). We found strong support from the IE literature with regard to the positive
effect of managerial vision and intention (see Table 9) on firm internationalisation.
Therefore, we start our framework with the entrepreneurial intentions (Bird 1988;
Ajzen 1991). However, we postulate that it is influenced and driven by a complex and
dynamic process of inter-connected variables consisting of four levels (entrepreneur,
298
I.K. Peiris et al.
firm, networks and environment).We see the firm as a bundle of resources (tangible
and intangible) that is static in nature without human intervention and the whole
process is embedded in the external environment context.
Drawing on previous IE and entrepreneurship literature and building on the work
of Ardichvili et al. (2003), we conceptualise entrepreneur/team-related variables that
contribute to entrepreneurial resourcefulness: first, we suggest that prior knowledge
and experience, self-efficacy, creativity and perseverance (perceived ability to overcome adverse circumstance (Stoltz 1997), represent higher-order cognitive and
behavioural constructs. Second, we suggest that entrepreneurial learning entrepreneurial knowledge and entrepreneurial capabilities represent the entrepreneurs
dynamic capabilities. Both of these are needed to integrate and combine resources
for opportunity identification and exploitation leading to value innovation and sustainable competitive advantage of the firm (Kim and Mauborgne 2004; Prahalad and
Ramaswamy 2004).
Entrepreneurial capacities, such as self-efficacy, creativity and prior knowledge act
as antecedents to opportunity identification (Ardichvili et al. 2003). Entrepreneurs
who persevere, act proactively (Fillis and Rentschler 2010) and show endurance and
resilience in the face of setbacks discover new ways to achieve their goals (Baron and
Shane 2004). However, these conditions are necessary but not sufficient to identify
and exploit value-innovating international opportunities. Entrepreneurs need to have
access to resources through internal (firm) and external environment (social networks,
institutions, industry and markets).
According to the RBT, existing firms are endowed with idiosyncratic resources,
such as financial, physical, human and organisational capital. Even for entrepreneurial new venture creation, one must have access to these resources. Social capital is
another valuable, rare and inimitable external resource capable of providing
privileged access to information (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998), and it connects
external resources embedded in networks to firm-level resources. An entrepreneurs
SC can derive from both internal (individuals within the firm) and external (social
networks that lie outside the firm boundary) (Yli-Renko et al. 2002).
These resources are inherently idiosyncratic to the entrepreneurial firm, but firms
do not have superior performance because they have access to superior resources.
Therefore, the ability of the entrepreneurs to identify opportunities and to exploit
them by combining and re-combining the resources to create value, demands certain
entrepreneurial capabilities. First, entrepreneurs must have the ability to learn in the
face of changing environment coping with uncertainty. According to Minniti and
Bygrave (2001), entrepreneurs acquire knowledge through direct experience (specific
knowledge such as technical) and by direct observation (learning by doing). We use
entrepreneurial learning (acquire and assimilate resources and organise newly
formed knowledge through experiential and observational learning), (Holcomb et
al. 2009) as our first construct in the entrepreneurial capabilities.
Entrepreneurship scholars perceive knowledge as a competency that is important
in three ways: (1) any discovery of opportunity is knowledge, (2) knowledge assists
additional discoveries and valuations and fit assessments of opportunities and (3)
knowledge supports the development of capabilities that support exploitation of
299
opportunities (Markman 2006). IE scholars perceive knowledge as a key value

adding resource of a firm and treat knowledge as a central enabling and driving
resource (Yli-Renko et al. 2002). However, there is no clear consensus about what
type of knowledge and the roles they play in regards to entrepreneurial internationalisation process. Based on the seminal work of Katz (1974) and related work in the
entrepreneurship, IE and IB domains (Johanson and Vahlne 1977; Eriksson et al.
1997; Yli-Renko and Autio 1998; Rasmussan et al. 2001; Blomstermo et al. 2004;
Mejri and Umemoto 2010), we develop the entrepreneurial knowledge construct and
view it as the entrepreneurs/teams explicit (theoretical) and implicit (practical/
experiential) newly formed knowledge about the technical, conceptual (knowledge
about markets, industries, consumers, political and economic forces and general
management activities of the organisation) and social elements (knowledge pertaining
to resources embedded in individuals, networks and institutions).
Drawing on the DC perspective, we propose a third construct focusing on the
individual/team level to capture entrepreneurial capabilities. It is the ability or the
capacity to build, adapt, integrate and reconfigure resources and knowledge to sense
and shape opportunities (Teece 2007). This consists of: technical capabilities (ability
and proficiency in performing a specific task, activity, procedure, process or a
technique), conceptual capability (ability to identify and adapt to market trends,
industry changes, quickly evaluate and modify organisational functions, plans and
strategies) (Katz 1974) and social capabilities (leveraging internal external relationships by leading, motivating and networking with outsiders, adapt to social situations,
ability to read others accurately, make favourable first impressions, ability to identify
resource complementarities and proactively co-ordinate resources in networks)
(Baron and Markman 2000; Markman 2006; Mort and Weerawardena 2006; Agndal
and Chetty 2007; Tolstoy and Agndal 2010).
The co-evolving nature of knowledge and capabilities must be facilitated by
entrepreneurial learning as indicated in the previous section. As such, entrepreneurs
identify new opportunities by learning, generating new knowledge and using their
capabilities to identify new opportunities to reconfigure the firm, network, environmental and entrepreneurial resources to match the requirements of a changing
environment (Kogut and Zander 1992). This process of management of resources is
the main way in which firms create value for customers. Entrepreneurship scholars
link innovation and value creation to entrepreneurial activity, though it may take
place inside organisations. As such, the opportunity exploitation involves a decision
to act on the value creating activities of the firm.
The concept of value has always been at the centre of marketing and strategic
management. However, the strategic management literature has primarily focused on
barriers to industry competition, generic strategies and firms value chains, paying
little attention to consumer perspectives (Lepak et al. 2007). According to Lepak et al.
(2007), value creation involves innovation that establishes or increases the consumers valuation of the benefits of consumption. Based on this assumption, we focus on
the nexus of opportunity and value innovation by integrating strategic entrepreneurial
actions that lead to value innovation. We refer to the work of Kim and Mauborgne
(2004) and use four strategic action drivers: eliminate (eliminating factors that
300
I.K. Peiris et al.
companies and industry have taken for granted even though they no longer add
value), reduce (reducing the cost structure as against competitors), raise (raising the
current standards well above the industry standard) and create (offer entirely new
sources of value for buyers by creating new demand and shifting the strategic pricing
of the industry). In essence, firms achieve superior value creation by simultaneously
implementing cost leadership and differentiation strategies. Therefore, entrepreneurial opportunities may be identified in relation to any one or more of these action
drivers in order to create value for its customers.
Finally, the moderate impact of external environment is taken into account at every
stage of the framework. We assert that the entire process of international opportunity
identification and exploitation is embedded in the external environmental context and
must be interpreted with reference to the industry, market and competitive forces.
This relationship is depicted in Fig. 2.
Understanding the boundary of IE activities
The IE field is no longer limited to researching the behaviour of INVs. It is
expanding into the study of large and older firms, demanding the need to
extend the IE boundaries to capture the dynamics of these firms. The first
matrix model depicting the four typologies of INVs developed by Oviatt and
McDougalls (1994) focused on the level of integration of value chain activity across
multiple countries and the scope (number of countries involved). Since this development, IE scholars have extended the same line of thinking by focusing on the different
stages of BG (Hashai and Almor 2004); new venture resource combination and cross
Environmental factors
(industry, market, competition,
culture & institutional)
Firm resources
Financial
Physical
Human
Organizational
Intention
Ent. knowledge
Technical
Conceptual
Social
Ent. resources
Ent. learning
Prior
knowledge
Creativity
Self-efficacy
Perseverance
Experiential
Observational
IOD*
Ent. Capabilities
Competitive advantage
ability to build,
adapt, integrate
and reconfigure
resources &
knowledge
Value innovation (eliminate,

reduce, raise, create)
Intl. performance
Social capital
Internal
External
Extent/Scope/Speed/Growth
Profitability/Survival
Fig. 2 An integrative model of IE. IOD* international opportunity development, Ent entrepreneurial, Int
international
301
border opportunity identification (Di Gregorio et al. 2008); and simplifying the Oviatt
and McDougalls (1994) classification by using the percentage of foreign sales to
total sales, instead of value chain activities to classify the four typologies (Baum et al.
2011b). Independent of this development, using a network approach, Johanson and
Mattson (1988), proposed a broader classification based on the degree of internationalisation of the firm by identifying four types of internationalising firms: early starter,
late starter and lonely international and international among others. However, these
matrix models or classifications did not capture a critical factor in understanding the
processual nature of the internationalisation process, i.e. time.
The concept of time in international process is essential to capture the
time-based dynamics of internationalisation (Freeman et al. 2010; Jones and
Coviello 2005; Sharma and Blomstermo 2003a). The internationalisation process is
path-dependent and involves gradual/rapid knowledge and resource development and
deployment of the firm. Therefore, the concept of time is essential to understand the
distinctive behaviour of new and mature firms and the speed of internationalisation.
This not only facilitates clarity in defining the IE boundaries but also allows the
researchers to expand their scope of study to use rich insights from IB (integration of
process theories) and other management disciplines identified in this paper.
Based on the above two dimensions: the degree of internationalisation of the firm
and time, we propose four typologies of firms that can be researched under the IE
theme. They are: BG, enduring global (EG), early exporter (EE) and mature exporter
(ME).
First, in order to operationalise the four typologies, we need to identify a threshold
for the degree of internationalisation and time dimensions to differentiate the BG firm
from the others. There is a strong empirical support for the BG phenomenon in the
international entrepreneurship literature. BGs are capable of generating significant
value innovation activities in international markets (Knight and Cavusgil 2004;
Rennie 1993; Meln and Nordman 2009). They have distinct characteristics such as
faster internationalisation, higher foreign sales to total sales ratio and are highly
innovative, entering diversified markets using multiple entry methods to exploit
market opportunities. However, the conceptual development of BG firms has been
substantially hampered by the way BGs have been defined (Chandra et al. 2012).
There is still no commonly accepted BG attributes in the IE literature. Widely
accepted definitions consider a firm as BG when it enters into international markets
within 3 years of its inception using a quite arbitrary figure of 25 % (with a range of
575 %) of foreign sales to total sales (FSTS) ratio (Zhang et al. 2009; Knight and
Cavusgil 2004; Hashai and Almor 2004; Tuppura et al. 2008; Meln and Nordman
2009; Nordman and Melen 2008).
However, the 25 % threshold is also applicable to majority of firms that have
significant domestic market involvement rather than international markets. If we
consider the first BG conceptualisation developed by Rennie (1993), BG firms were
identified as having an average FSTS of 76 % compared with traditional firms.
Furthermore, our analysis of empirical studies in this literature review revealed that
the BG firms showing an average FSTS ratio of >70 % within the first 3 years of
operation (Moen and Servais 2002; Chetty and Cambell-Hunt 2004; Gabrielsson and
302
I.K. Peiris et al.
Kirpalani 2004; Rialp et al. 2005b; Kuivalainen et al. 2007b; Evers 2010). In order to
identify the distinct multinational characteristics of BG firms, a change in the
currently accepted FSTS levels is timely. If we turn to the IB literature, to determine
the MNEs degree of internationalisation, IB scholars employ 70 % threshold based on
Wrigley/Rumelts strategic product and market differentiation categories (Grant and
Jammine 1988; Michael Geringer et al. 1989; Vachani 1991). However, using any
percentage to determine the threshold is arbitrary, but for empirical testing to determine high and low levels of FSTS of the BG phenomenon, we see significant merit in
using a 70 % FSTS in future studies.
The second important factor is about the BG entry timing. There are
different time frames used in the literature spanning from 2 to 15 years (Dib
et al. 2010). Like the export intensity threshold, scholars have used arbitrary
measures to determine the time span between firm inception and its first international
sale. Entrepreneurship scholars have used 6- and 10-year thresholds to determine the
new firm survival stage (Audretsch 1991; Shepherd 1999; Brush and Vanderwerf
1992). Based on this, IE scholars have used a 6-year threshold to identify new firms
(Shrader et al. 2000; Zahra et al. 2000; McDougall et al. 2003; Hallback and Larimo
2007; Prashantham and Dhanaraj 2010; Evers and OGorman 2011; Chandra et al.
2012). Therefore, the 6-year period to distinguish a new firm from a mature firm
provides a meaningful measurement to draw the time boundary of a BG firm.
Once the thresholds are established to identify BG as a distinct category, we can
next identify other three categories using these two dimensions (see Fig. 3). Our
second category is called EG. It is similar to BG firm in terms of degree of
internationalisation (>70 % FSTS) but has survived the initial phase of internationalisation (>6 years). The EG firm has exhibits the maturity in operations, with access
to more resources, knowledge and continuity of value innovating activities. In this
phase, we can identify the BG firms survival patterns and factors leading to their
successful survival. Using the FSTS as the initial identifier, scholars can further
expand this measurement to include related (expansion into relatively homogenous
cluster of countries/products) and unrelated (expansion into heterogeneous geographic regions/products) international geographic and product diversification
(Vachani 1991) to identify the scope of BG and EG firms.
The third category EE depicts a firm with low FSTS (<70 %) but has
initiated some activity in the international markets from the inception
Degree
High
Born Global
Enduring Global
(BG)
(EG)
Early Exporter
Mature Exporter
(EE)
(ME)
of
internationalization
Low
Young
Mature
Time
Fig. 3 Typology of IE ventures
303
(<6 years). The EE firms primary focus is the domestic market, but it actively
searches for international opportunities in physically close countries because of
the limited, prior experience (entrepreneurs/teams knowledge and experience
before the venture formation), knowledge about international markets, product
offerings and network connections.
The fourth and final category ME (<70 % FSTS and >6 years) depicts a
firm with a higher level of international involvement than the EE firm, as a
result of their long-term exposure to the international markets. However, compared with the EG firm, the EE firm lags behind on the basis of market and
product differentiation with relatively low-value innovation capability in the
international market. Their internationalisation path is gradual and heavily
dependent on the success of domestic market activities. This categorisation
aligns with the process view of internationalisation and also considers the vital
role played by time element (Jones and Coviello 2005). It further enables the
researchers to identify the factors that lead to a firms transition between each of these
categories, such as why a BG firm becomes a EG or falls to the level of a ME. It may
also help explain why the EE will suddenly become an EG (explaining the born again
global behaviour (Bell et al. 2001) or continue with the domestic market focus (ME).
Figure 3 depicts the matrix model illustrating the four typologies.
Conclusions
The IE field has been described as being phenomenally based, potentially fragmented
and suffering from theoretical paucity (Jones et al. 2011). Are we any closer to
achieve necessary theoretical rigour in establishing IE as a distinct field of study
after two decades of empirical and conceptual contributions? In this paper, we
attempted to narrow this gap by highlighting the specific theoretical constructs
needed to ground IE research by focusing on the nexus of entrepreneurship, IB and
strategic management. As such, this study emphasised the importance of the integration of IB theories, strategic management (RBT, KBV and DC), entrepreneurship
(opportunity identification, cognitive dimensions and effectuation), network (SC) and
marketing theories (customer value creation) in understanding the dynamic process of
entrepreneurial internationalisation.
IE is a global phenomenon. Yet, there are underrepresented regions such as South
Asia, Middle East, South America and Africa. Scholarly contribution from these
areas would significantly enhance our understanding about the international behaviour of emerging and developing country entrepreneurial firms. Future studies could
focus on how traditional agriculture-based industries and low-value adding
commodity-based entrepreneurial firms operate and compete in international markets,
how do they innovate and how low-value adding products contribute to the survival
of the firm.
This paper identified different types of resources necessary for entrepreneurial opportunity identification and exploitation. It also highlighted the critical
role played by the entrepreneur/entrepreneurial team in combining and recombining these resources to create value innovating outcomes. In addition, when
we consider a firm as a bundle of resources, the suggested integrative model
304
I.K. Peiris et al.
provides insights as to how entrepreneurs build and develop these resources

using their knowledge, capabilities and learning abilities to identify opportunities to build and reconfigure unique assets. Future studies could focus on the
role of firms structure, systems and processes in maximising the value creation
aspect from an effectuation logic perspective.
SC research is still merging both in network studies and in the IE literature. This
gives the IE scholars the opportunity to clearly distinguish firm level (structures and
processes) and interpersonal (formal and informal) resources embedded in network
relationships and their dynamic nature from a cross-broader perspective. Like opportunity identification, relationships are developed by individuals and not firms. As
such, we need to understand what makes the firm central in these interpersonal
network relationships by examining the network life cycle of the firm and its
international co-evolution with the focal firm.
Unlike large organisations with structural rigidities and decentralised decision
making, IE research primarily focuses on independently owned entrepreneurial
ventures and entrepreneurially driven corporate ventures that exhibit dynamic
management and decision making styles. We believe by focusing on the
concept of value innovation, IE scholars could capture this dynamic value
creation process not only from the innovation perspective but also from a cost
minimisation and from efficiency building perspectives by understanding the
entire business process and customer interfaces.
In order to capture the dynamic nature of entrepreneurial behaviour, the integrative
framework is built on three key elements: (1) entrepreneurial intentions, (2) international opportunity identification and (3) customer value creation. The suggested
model shows the antecedents of these elements and their interactions. We hope that
the conceptual model developed will be tested empirically in the future and encourage others to refine it further.
The introduction of the four typologies of firms that can be researched under the IE
theme takes the focus away from BG venture creation and extends the research focus
to their survival. Furthermore, it broadens our understanding about BG internationalisation and also draws our attention to domestically focused traditional firms that
enter into international markets gradually and their possible development paths. This
paves the way for looking at possible trajectories these four types of firms could take
along internationalisation process.
This study is not without limitations. We do not intend this to be an exhaustive list
of constructs but a synthesis of accumulated IE knowledge that will lay a robust
foundation to future research. Our initial intention was to offer a complete picture of
current status of IE and develop a way forward. However, in trying to fit in so much
information into a limited space may have contributed to the omission of some
aspects that need to be covered in more detail such as the constructs in the model.
We also excluded books and book chapters (Prashantham 2008a; Yeung 2002;
Zucchella and Scabini 2007; Bell and Young 1998; Zahra et al. 2004; Etemad
2004b) that would have assisted us further in justifying our theoretical developments.
We leave that to future scholars.
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the three anonymous reviewers and the editor
Hamid Etemad for their insights, helpful comments and suggestions in improving this article.
1999
2011
2012
14
19
17
13
16
21
12
12
42
15
09
49
17
37
49
Total
INV international new venture, OLI eclectic paradigm, TCE transaction cost economics, Opp opportunity development, Cog cognition, EO entrepreneurial orientation, MO
marketing orientation, LO learning orientation
Agency theory
Behavioural theory
3
1
LO
Institutional theory
Evolutionary economics
4
2
2
2
2010
MO
Organisational learning
2009
2008
2007
2006
Marketing
2005
EO
2004
Effectuation
2003
Cog
Entrepreneurship
Opp.
KBV
DC
RBT
1
2
2002
Social capital
2001
Strategic management
1
1
OLI
Networks
1
1
2000
FDI
1998
TCE
1997
1996
Process
1995
1994
INV
International business
1993
Table 11 Theoretical frameworks

305
Appendix 1
306
Appendix 2: List of authors

Acedo and Florin (2006)
Acedo and Jones (2007)
Agndal and Chetty (2007)
Agndal et al. (2008)
Al-Laham and Souitaris (2008)
Andersen and Buvik (2002)
Anderson et al. (2004)
Andersson (2000, 2004, 2011)
Andersson and Wictor (2003)
Arenius et al. (2005)
Armario et al. (2008)
Arranz and De Arroyabe (2009)
Aspelund et al. (2007)
Autio (2005)
Autio et al. (2011)
Autio et al. (2000)
Axinn and Matthyssens (2002)
Baker et al. (2005)
Barkema and Drogendijk (2007)
Baum et al. (2011a, b)
Bausch and Krist (2007)
Bell (1995)
Bell et al. (2001)
Bell et al. (2003)
Bell et al. (2004)
Blesa et al. (2008)
Blomstermo et al. (2004)
Bloodgood et al. (1996)
Boter and Holmquist (1996)
Brettel et al. (2009)
Brouthers and Nakos (2005)
Brouthers et al. (2009)
Burgel and Murray (2000)
Burpitt and Rondinelli (2000)
Butler et al. (2010)
Buttriss and Wilkinson (2006)
Cadogan et al. (2009)
Calof and Beamish (1995)
Cassiman and Golovko (2010)
Chandra and Coviello (2010)
Chandra et al. (2009)
Chandra et al. (2012)
Che Senik et al. (2011)
Cheng and Yu (2008)
Chetty and Agndal (2007, 2008)
I.K. Peiris et al.
Chetty and Cambell-Hunt (2003a, b, 2004)

Chetty and Holm (2000)
Chetty and Stangl (2010)
Chiao et al. (2006)
Clercq et al. (2005)
Collinson and Houlden (2005)
Coombs et al. (2009)
Coviello (2006)
Coviello and Cox (2006)
Coviello and Jones (2004)
Coviello and Martin (1999)
Coviello and Munro (1995, 1997)
Crick (2009, 2011)
Crick and Spence (2005)
Dana et al. (2008)
De Chiara and Minguzzi (2002)
Di Gregorio et al. (2008)
Dib et al. (2010)
Dimitratos and Jones (2005)
Dimitratos et al. (2004)
Dimitratos and Plakoyiannaki (2003)
Dimitratos et al. (2010, 2011)
Ellis (2011)
Eren-Erdogmus et al. (2010)
Eriksson et al. (1997, 2000)
Etemad (2004a, b, c)
Etemad and Lee (2003)
Etemad et al. (2010)
Etemad and Wright (1999, 2003)
Evald et al. (2011)
Evangelista (2005)
Evers (2011, 2010)
Evers and Knight (2008)
Evers and OGorman (2011)
Fan and Phan (2007)
Fernandez and Nieto (2006)
Fernhaber et al. (2007, 2008)
Filatotchev et al. (2009)
Fillis (2004)
Fink et al. (2008)
Fletcher (2001, 2008)
Fletcher and Prashantham (2011)
Forsgren (2002)
Freeman and Cavusgil (2007)
Freeman et al. (2006, 2010)
Frishammar and Andersson (2009)
Fryges (2009)
307
308
Gabrielsson (2005)
Gabrielsson and Gabrielsson (2011)
Gabrielsson and Kirpalani (2004) Gabrielsson et al. (2008)
Gabrielsson and Pelkonen (2008)
Gankema et al. (2000)
Gassmann and Keupp (2007)
Gemser et al. (2004)
Gilbert et al. (2006)
Hadley and Wilson (2003)
Hallback and Larimo (2007)
Han (2006)
Harms and Schiele (2012)
Harris and Wheeler (2005)
Hohenthal (2006)
Hughes et al. (2010)
Hurmerinta-Peltomki (2003)
Hutchinson et al. (2005)
Ibeh (2003)
Ireland et al. (2001)
Jantunen et al. (2008, 2005)
Johanson and Vahlne (2003, 2006, 2009)
Jones et al. (2011)
Jones (1999)
Jones and Coviello (2005)
Julian (2003)
Julien and Ramangalahy (2003)
Kalantaridis (2004)
Karagozoglu and Lindell (1998)
Karra et al. (2008)
Keen and Wu (2011)
Keupp and Gassmann (2009)
Kiss and Danis (2008, 2010)
Knight (2000)
Knight and Cavusgil (2004)
Knudsen and Madsen (2002)
Kocak and Abimbola 2009
Kontinen and Ojala (2010, 2011)
Kropp et al. (2006)
Kuemmerle (2002)
Kuhlmeier and Knight (2010)
Kuivalainen et al. (2007a, b, 2010)
Kuivalainen and Sundqvist (2007)
Kundu and Katz (2003)
Lamb and Liesch (2002)
Leonidou (2004)
Li et al. (2004)
Liu et al. (2008)
I.K. Peiris et al.
Loane (2005)
Loane and Bell (2006)
Lopez et al. (2008)
Lu and Beamish (2001, 2006)
Lu et al. (2010)
Madsen and Servais (1997)
Majocchi and Zucchella (2003)
Malhotra and Hinings (2009)
Malhotra et al. (2003)
Martin and Papadopoulos (2007)
Mathews and Zander (2007)
McAuley (1999)
McDougall and Oviatt (1996, 2000)
McDougall et al. (2003)
McDougall et al. (1994)
McNaughton (2003)
Mejri and Umemoto (2010)
Meln and Nordman (2009)
Michailova and Wilson (2008)
Moen (2002)
Moen and Servais (2002)
Mort et al. (2012)
Mort and Weerawardena (2006)
Mostafa et al. (2005)
Mtigwe (2006)
Mudambi and Zahra (2007)
Musteen et al. (2010)
Muzychenko (2008)
Nordman and Melen (2008)
Nummela et al. (2005; 2004)
Nummela and Welch (2006)
OCass and Weerawardena (2009)
Ojala (2009)
Oviatt and McDougall (1994, 1995, 2005a, b)
Pajunen and Maunula (2008)
Pangarkar (2008)
Papadopoulos and Martn Martn (2010)
Peng (2001)
Perks and Hughes (2008)
Pinho and Martins (2010)
Pla-Barber and Escrib-Esteve (2006)
Pope (2002)
Prange and Verdier (2011)
Prashantham (2005)
Prashantham (2008b)
Prashantham and Dhanaraj (2010)
Prashantham and Young (2011)
309
310
Rennie (1993)
Reuber and Fischer (1997, 2002)
Rialp and Rialp (2007)
Rialp et al. (2005a, b)
Rialp-Criado et al. (2010)
Ripolls and Blesa (2012)
Ripolls-Meli et al. (2007)
Robson et al. (2009)
Ruokonen et al. (2008)
Ruzzier et al. (2006, 2007a, b)
Sainio et al. (2011)
Santos and Garca (2011)
Sapienza et al. (2006)
Sasi and Arenius (2008)
Schweizer et al. (2010)
Schwens and Kabst (2009a, b, 2011)
Servais et al. (2007)
Sharma and Blomstermo (2003a, b)
Shaw and Darroch (2004)
Shrader et al. (2000)
Solberg and Durrieu (2006)
Sommer (2010)
Spence and Crick (2006)
Spence et al. (2011)
Steen and Liesch (2007)
Styles and Seymour (2006)
Szyliowicz and Galvin (2010)
Tan et al. (2007)
Taylor and Jack (2012)
Thai and Chong (2008)
Thomas and Mueller (2000)
Tolstoy (2010)
Tolstoy and Agndal (2010)
Tuppura et al. (2008)
Turan and Kara (2007)
Turcan (2011)
Vila and Kuster (2008)
Weerawardena et al. (2007)
Welch and Welch (2004, 2009)
Wennberg and Holmquist (2008)
Westhead et al. (2001)
Wickramasekera and Oczkowski (2004, 2006)
Williams (2011)
Wolff and Pett (2000)
Wright et al. (2007)
Wright and Dana (2003)
Yamakawa et al. (2008)
I.K. Peiris et al.
311
Yip et al. (2000)

Yli-Renko et al. (2002)
Young et al. (2003)
Zafarullah et al. (1997)
(Zahra 2005, 2003)
Zahra and Hayton (2008)
Zahra et al. (2000)
Zahra et al. (2005)
Zahra et al. (2007)
Zain and Ng (2006)
Zarei et al. (2011)
Zettinig and Bensonrea (2008)
Zhang and Dodgson (2007)
Zhang et al. (2009)
Zhou (2007)
Zhou et al. (2007)
Zhou et al. (2010)
Zucchella et al. (2007)
References
Acedo FJ, Florin J (2006) An entrepreneurial cognition perspective on the internationalization of SMEs. J
Int Entrep 4:4967
Acedo FJ, Jones MV (2007) Speed of internationalization and entrepreneurial cognition: insights and a
comparison between international new ventures, exporters and domestic firms. J World Bus 42(3):236252
Agndal H, Chetty S (2007) The impact of relationships on changes in internationalisation strategies of
SMEs. Eur J Mark 41(11/12):14491474. doi:10.1108/03090560710821251
Agndal H, Chetty S, Wilson H (2008) Social capital dynamics and foreign market entry. Int Bus Rev 17
(6):663675. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2008.09.006
Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179211
Al-Laham A, Souitaris V (2008) Network embeddedness and new-venture internationalization: Analyzing
international linkages in the German biotech industry. J Bus Ventur 23(5):567586
Andersen O, Buvik A (2002) Firms internationalization and alternative approaches to the international
customer/market selection. Int Bus Rev 11(3):347
Anderson S, Gabrielsson J, Wictor I (2004) International activities in small firms: examining factors
influencing the internationalization and export growth of small firms. Can J Adm Sci 21(1):2234
Andersson S (2000) The internationalization of the firm from an entrepreneurial perspective. Int Stud
Manag Organ 30(1):6392
Andersson S (2004) Internationalization in different industrial contexts. J Bus Ventur 19(6):851875
Andersson S (2011) International entrepreneurship, born globals and the theory of effectuation. J Small Bus
Enterp Dev 18(3):627643
Andersson S, Wictor I (2003) Innovative internationalisation in new firms: Born globalsthe Swedish
case. J Int Entrep 1(3):249275. doi:10.1023/a:1024110806241
Ardichvili A, Cardozo R, Ray S (2003) A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and
development. J Bus Ventur 18(1):105
Arenius P, Sasi V, Gabrielsson M (2005) Rapid internationalisation enabled by the Internet: the case of a
knowledge intensive company. J Int Entrep 3(4):279290. doi:10.1007/s10843-006-7856-x
Armario JM, Ruiz DM, Armario EM (2008) Market orientation and internationalization in small and
medium-sized enterprises. J Small Bus Manag 46(4):485511
Arranz N, De Arroyabe JCF (2009) Internationalization process of Spanish small firms: strategies, transactions and barriers. Int Small Bus J 27(4):420441. doi:10.1177/0266242609334968
312
I.K. Peiris et al.
Aspelund A, Madsen TK, Moen (2007) A review of the foundation, international marketing strategies,
and performance of international new ventures. Eur J Mark 41(11/12):14231448. doi:10.1108/
03090560710821242
Audretsch DB (1991) New-firm survival and the technological regime. Rev Econ Stat 73:441450
Autio E (2005) Creative tension: the significance of Ben Oviatts and Patricia McDougalls article Toward
a theory of international new ventures. J Int Bus Stud 36(1):919
Autio E, Sapienza HJ, Almeida JG (2000) Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on
international growth. Acad Manage J 43(5):909924
Autio E, George G, Alexy O (2011) International entrepreneurship and capability developmentqualitative
evidence and future research directions. Enterp Theory Pract 35(1):1137. doi:10.1111/j.15406520.2010.00421.x
Axinn CN, Matthyssens P (2002) Limits of internationalization theories in an unlimited world. Int Mark
Rev 19(5):436
Baker T, Gedajlovic E, Lubatkin M (2005) A framework for comparing entrepreneurship processes across
nations. J Int Bus Stud 36(5):492504
Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. W.H. Freeman, New York
Barkema HG, Drogendijk R (2007) Internationalising in small, incremental or larger steps? J Int Bus Stud
38:11321148. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400315
Barney JB, Ketchen DJ, Wright M (2011) The future of resource-based theory: revitalization or decline? J
Manag. doi:10.1177/0149206310391805
Baron RA (2004) The cognitive perspective: a valuable tool for answering entrepreneurships basic why
questions. J Bus Ventur 19:221239
Baron RA, Markman GD (2000) Beyond social capital: How social skills can enhance entrepreneurs
success. Acad Manag Exec 14(1):106116
Baron RA, Shane S (2004) Entrepreneurship: a process perspective. South-Western, Mason
Baron RA, Tang J (2011) The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: joint effects of positive affect,
creativity, and environmental dynamism. J Bus Ventur 26(1):4960. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.06.002
Baum JR, Locke EA (2004) The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent
venture growth. J Appl Psychol 89(4):587
Baum JR, Locke EA, Smith KG (2001) A multidimensional model of venture growth. Acad Manage J 44
(2):292303
Baum M, Schwens C, Kabst R (2011a) International as opposed to domestic new venturing: the moderating
role of perceived barriers to internationalization. Int Small Bus J 0 (0):127
Baum M, Schwens C, Kabst R (2011b) A typology of international new ventures: empirical evidence from
high-technology industries. J Small Bus Manag 49(3):305330
Bausch A, Krist M (2007) The effect of context-related moderators on the internationalizationperformance
relationship: evidence from meta-analysis. Manag Int Rev (MIR) 47(3):319347
Bell J (1995) The internationalization of small computer software firms. Eur J Mark 29(8):6075
Bell J, Young S (1998) Towards an integrative framework of the internationalization of the firm. In: Hooley
G, Loveridge R, Wilson D (eds) Internationalization process, context, and markets. Macmillan Press
Ltd, London, pp 528
Bell J, McNaughton R, Young S (2001) Born-again global firms: an extenstion to the born global
phenomenon. J Int Manag 7:173189
Bell J, McNaughton R, Young S, Crick D (2003) Towards an integrative model of small firm internationalization. J Int Entrep 1:339362
Bell J, Crick D, Young S (2004) Small firm internationalization and business strategy: an exploratory study
of knowledge-intensive and traditional manufacturing firms in the UK. Int Small Bus J 22(1):2356
Bird B (1998) Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention. Acad Manag Rev 13:442453
Blesa A, Monferrer D, Nauwelaerts Y, Ripolls M (2008) The effect of early international commitment on
international positional advantages in Spanish and Belgian international new ventures. J Int Entrep 6
(4):168187. doi:10.1007/s10843-008-0026-6
Blomstermo A, Eriksson K, Lindstrand A, Sharma DD (2004) The perceived usefulness of network
experiential knowledge in the internationalizing firm. J Int Manag 10(3):355373
Bloodgood JM, Sapienza HJ, Almeida JG (1996) The internationalization of new high-potential U.S.
ventures: antecedents and outcomes. Enterp Theory Pract 20(4):6176
Boter H, Holmquist C (1996) Industry characteristics and internationalization processes in small firms. J
Bus Ventur 11(6):471
Brazeal DV, Herbert TT (1999) The genesis of entrepreneurship. Enterp Theory Pract 23:2946
313
Brettel M, Engelen A, Heinemann F (2009) New entrepreneurial ventures in a globalized world: the role of
market orientation. J Int Entrep 7(2):88110
Brouthers LE, Nakos G (2005) The role of systematic international market selection on small firms export
performance. J Small Bus Manag 43(4):363381
Brouthers LE, Nakos G, Hadjimarcou J, Brouthers KD (2009) Key factors for successful export performance for small firms. J Int Mark 17(3):2138
Brush CG, Vanderwerf PA (1992) A comparison of methods and sources for obtaining estimates of new
venture performance. J Bus Ventur 7(2):157170
Burgel O, Murray GC (2000) The international market entry choices of start-up companies in high
technology industry. J Int Mark 8(2):3362
Burpitt WJ, Rondinelli DA (2000) Small firms motivations for exporting: to earn and learn? J Small Bus
Manag 38(4):114
Butler JE, Doktor R, Lins FA (2010) Linking international entrepreneurship to uncertainty, opportunity
discovery, and cognition. J Int Entrep 8(2):121134. doi:10.1007/s10843-010-0054-x
Buttriss GJ, Wilkinson IF (2006) Using narrative sequence methods to advance international entrepreneurship theory. J Int Entrep 4(4):157174
Cadogan JW, Kuivalainen O, Sundqvist S (2009) Export market oriented behavior and export performance:
quadratic and moderating effects under differing degrees of market dynamism and internationalization.
J Int Mark 17(4):7189
Calof JL, Beamish PW (1995) Adapting to foreign markets: explaining internationalization. Int Bus Rev 4
(2):115131
Cassiman B, Golovko E (2010) Innovation and internationalization through exports. J Int Bus Stud 42
(1):5675. doi:10.1057/jibs.2010.36
Chandra Y, Coviello NE (2010) Broadening the concept of international entrepreneurship consumers as
international entrepreneurs. J World Bus 45:228236. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.006
Chandra Y, Styles C, Wilkinson I (2009) The recognition of first time international entrepreneurial
opportunities: evidence from firms in knowledge-based industries. Int Mark Rev 26(1):3061.
doi:10.1108/02651330910933195
Chandra Y, Styles C, Wilkinson IF (2012) An opportunity-based view of rapid internationalization. J Int
Mark 20(1):74102. doi:10.1509/jim.10.0147
Che Senik Z, Scott-Ladd B, Entrekin L, Adham K (2011) Networking and internationalization of SMEs in
emerging economies. J Int Entrep 9(4):259281. doi:10.1007/s10843-011-0078-x
Chen G, Gully SM, Eden D (2004) General self-efficacy and self-esteem: toward theoretical and empirical
distinction between correlated self-evaluations. J Organ Behav 25(3):375395
Cheng H-L, Yu C-MJ (2008) Institutional pressures and initiation of internationalization: evidence from
Taiwanese small- and medium-sized enterprises. Int Bus Rev 17(3):331348
Chetty S, Agndal H (2007) Social capital and its influence on changes in internationalization mode among
small and medium-sized enterprises. J Int Mark 15(1):129
Chetty S, Agndal H (2008) Role of inter-organizational networks and interpersonal networks in an
industrial district. Reg Stud 42(2):175187. doi:10.1080/00343400601142696
Chetty S, Cambell-Hunt C (2003a) Explosive international growth and problems of success amongst small
to medium-sized firms. Int Small Bus J 21(1):527
Chetty S, Cambell-Hunt C (2003b) Paths to internationalisation among small- to medium-sized firms: a
global versus regional approach. Eur J Mark 37(5/6):796820. doi:10.1108/03090560310465152
Chetty S, Cambell-Hunt C (2004) A strategic approach to internationalization: a traditional versus a bornglobal approach. J Int Mark 12(1):5781
Chetty S, Holm DB (2000) Internationalization of small to medium-sized manufacturing firms: a network
approach. Int Bus Rev 9:7793
Chetty SK, Stangl LM (2010) Internationalization and innovation in a network relationship context. Eur J
Mark 44(11/12):17251743. doi:10.1108/03090561011079855
Chiao Y-C, Yang K-P, Yu C-MJ (2006) Performance, internationalization, and firm-specific advantages of SMEs in
a newly-industrialized economy. Small Bus Econ 26(5):475492. doi:10.1007/s11187-005-5604-6
Clercq DD, Sapienza HJ, Crijns H (2005) Internationalization of small and medium-sized firms. Small Bus
Econ 24(409419). doi:10.1007/s11187-005-5333-x
Collinson S, Houlden J (2005) Decision-making and market orientation in the internationalization process
of small and medium-sized enterprises. Manag Int Rev (MIR) 45(4):413436
Coombs JE, Sadrieh F, Annavarjula M (2009) Two decades of international entrepreneurship research: what
have we learned-where do we go from here? Int J Entrep 13:23
314
I.K. Peiris et al.
Corbett AC (2005) Experiential learning within the process of opportunity identification and exploitation.
Enterp Theory Pract 29(4):473491
Coviello NE (2006) The network dynamics of international new ventures. J Int Bus Stud 37:713731
Coviello NE, Cox M (2006) The resource dynamics of international new venture networks. J Int Entrep 4
(2):113132
Coviello NE, Jones MV (2004) Methodological issues in international entrepreneurship research. J Bus
Ventur 19(4):485508. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.06.001
Coviello NE, Martin KAM (1999) Internationalization of service SMEs: an integrated perspective from the
engineering consulting sector. J Int Mark 7(4):4266
Coviello NE, Munro HJ (1995) Growing the entrepreneurial firm, networking for international marketing
development. Eur J Mark 29(7):4961
Coviello NE, Munro HJ (1997) Network relationships and the internationalization process of small
software firms. Int Bus Rev 6(4):361386
Covin JG, Slevin DP (1991) A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as a firm behaviour. Enterp Theory
Pract 16(1):724
Crick D (2009) The internationalisation of born global and international new venture SMEs. Int Mark Rev
26(4/5):453476. doi:10.1108/02651330910971986
Crick D (2011) A study into the international competitiveness of low and high intensity Tanzanian
exporting SMEs. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 18(3):594607
Crick D, Spence M (2005) The internationalisation of high performing UK-high tech SMEs: a study of
planned and unplanned strategies. Int Bus Rev 14:167185. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2004.04.007
Dana LP, Hamilton RT, Wick K (2008) Deciding to export: an exploratory study of Singaporean entrepreneurs. J Int Entrep 7(2):7987. doi:10.1007/s10843-008-0032-8
De Chiara A, Minguzzi A (2002) Success factors in SMEs internationalization processes: an Italian
investigation. J Small Bus Manag 40(2):146153
Dhanaraj C, Beamish PW (2003) A resource based approach to the study of export performance. J Small
Bus Manag 41(3):242261
Di Gregorio D, Musteen M, Thomas DE (2008) International new ventures: the cross-border nexus of
individuals and opportunities. J World Bus 43(2):186196
Dib LA, Rocha A, Silva JF (2010) The internationalization process of Brazilian software firms and the born
global phenomenon: examining firm, network, and entrepreneur variables. J Int Entrep 8(3):233253.
doi:10.1007/s10843-010-0044-z
Dimitratos P, Jones MV (2005) Future directions for international entrepreneurship research. Int Bus Rev
14(2):119128. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2004.06.003
Dimitratos P, Plakoyiannaki E (2003) Theoretical foundations of an international entrepreneurial culture. J
Int Entrep 1:187215
Dimitratos P, Lioukas S, Carter S (2004) The relationship between entrepreneurship and international performance:
the importance of domestic environment. Int Bus Rev 13(1):1941. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2003.08.001
Dimitratos P, Plakoyiannaki E, Pitsoulaki A, Tselmann HJ (2010) The global smaller firm in international
entrepreneurship. Int Bus Rev 19(6):589606. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2010.03.005
Dimitratos P, Voudouris I, Plakoyiannaki E, Nakos G (2012) International entrepreneurial culture: toward a
comprehensive opportunity-based operationalization of international entrepreneurship. Int Bus Rev 21:708721
Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A (2005) Synthesising qualitative and quantitative
evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy 10(1):4553B
Ellis PD (2011) Social ties and international entrepreneurship: opportunities and constraints affecting firm
internationalization. J Int Bus Stud 42(1):99127
Eren-Erdogmus I, Cobanoglu E, Yalcin M, Ghauri PN (2010) Internationalization of emerging market
firms: the case of Turkish retailers. Int Mark Rev 27(3):316337. doi:10.1108/02651331011048014
Erikson T (2002) Entrepreneurial capital: the emerging ventures most important asset and competitive
advantage. J Bus Ventur 17(3):275290
Eriksson K, Johanson J, Majkgard A, Sharma DD (1997) Experiential knowledge and cost in the
internationalization process. J Int Bus Stud 28(2):337360
Eriksson K, Majkgard A, Sharma DD (2000) Path dependence and knowledge development in the
internationalization process. Manag Int Rev 40:307328
Etemad H (2004a) Internationalization of small and medium-sized enterprises: a grounded theoretical
framework and an overview. Can J Adm Sci 21(1):121
Etemad H (2004b) International entrepreneurship as a dynamic adaptive system: towards a grounded
theory. J Int Entrep 2(1):559. doi:10.1023/B:JIEN.0000026905.90552.b5
315
Etemad H (ed) (2004c) International entrepreneurship in small and medium size enterprises: orientation,
environment, and strategy. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham
Etemad H, Lee Y (2003) The knowledge network of international entrepreneurship: theory and evidence.
Small Bus Econ 20(1):5
Etemad H, Wright RW (1999) Internationalization of SMEs: management responses to a changing
environment. J Int Mark 7(4):410
Etemad H, Wright RW (2003) Internationalization of SMEs: towards a new paradigm. Small Bus Econ 20:14
Etemad H, Wilkinson I, Dana LP (2010) Internetization as the necessary condition for internationalization
in the newly emerging economy. J Int Entrep 8(4):319342. doi:10.1007/s10843-010-0062-x
Evald M, Klyver K, Christensen P (2011) The effect of human capital, social capital, and perceptual values
on nascent entrepreneurs export intentions. J Int Entrep 9(1):119
Evangelista F (2005) Qualitative insights into the international new venture creation process. J Int Entrep 3
(3):179198. doi:10.1007/s10843-005-4204-5
Evers N (2010) Factors influencing the internationalisation of new ventures in the Irish aquaculture
industry: an exploratory study. J Int Entrep 8(4):392416. doi:10.1007/s10843-010-0065-7
Evers N (2011) International new ventures in low tech sectors: a dynamic capabilities perspective. J
Small Bus Enterp Dev 18(3):502528
Evers N, Knight J (2008) Role of international trade shows in small firm internationalization: a network
perspective. Int Mark Rev 25(5):544562. doi:10.1108/02651330810904080
Evers N, OGorman C (2011) Improvised internationalization in new ventures: the role of prior knowledge
and networks. Entrep Reg Dev 23(7/8):549574. doi:10.1080/08985621003690299
Fan T, Phan P (2007) International new ventures: revisiting the influences behind the born-global firm. J
Int Bus Stud 38(7):11131131. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400308
Fernandez Z, Nieto MJ (2006) Impact of ownership on the international involvement of SMEs. J Int Bus
Stud 37(3):340351
Fernhaber SA, McDougall PP, Oviatt BM (2007) Exploring the role of industry structure in new venture
internationalization. Enterp Theory Pract 31(4):517542
Fernhaber SA, Gilbert BA, McDougall PP (2008) International entrepreneurship and geographic location:
an empirical examination of new venture internationalization. J Int Bus Stud 39:267290. doi:10.1057/
palgrave.jibs.8400342
Filatotchev I, Liu X, Buck T, Wright M (2009) The export orientation and export performance of hightechnology SMEs in emerging markets: the effects of knowledge transfer by returnee entrepreneurs. J
Int Bus Stud 40:10051021
Fillis I (2001) Small firm internationalization: an investigative survey and future research directions. Manag
Decis 39(9):767783
Fillis I (2004) The internationalizing smaller craft firm: insights from the marketing/entrepreneurship
interface. Int Small Bus J 22(1):5782. doi:10.1177/0266242604039481
Fillis I, Rentschler R (2010) The role of creativity in entrepreneurship. J Enterp Cult 18(1):4981.
doi:10.1142/s0218495810000501
Fink M, Harms R, Kraus S (2008) Cooperative internationalization of SMEs: self-commitment as a success
factor for international entrepreneurship. Eur Manag J 26:429440. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2008.09.003
Fletcher R (2001) A holistic approach to internationalisation. Int Bus Rev 10(1):25
Fletcher R (2008) The internationalisation from a network perspective: a longitudinal study. Ind Mark
Manag 37(8):953964. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.09.008
Fletcher M, Prashantham S (2011) Knowledge assimilation processes of rapidly internationalising firms. J
Forbes DP (2005) The effects of strategic decision making on entrepreneurial self efficacy. Enterp Theory
Pract 29(5):599626
Forsgren M (2002) The concept of learning in the Uppsala internationalization process model: a critical
review. Int Bus Rev 11:257277
Freeman S, Cavusgil ST (2007) Toward a typology of commitment states among managers of Born-Global
firms: a study of accelerated Internationalization. J Int Mark 15(4):140
Freeman S, Edwards R, Schroder B (2006) How smaller born-global firms use networks and alliances to
overcome constraints to rapid Internationalization. J Int Mark 14(3):3363
Freeman S, Hutchings K, Lazaris M, Zyngier S (2010) A model of rapid knowledge development: the
smaller born-global firm. Int Bus Rev 19(1):7084. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.09.004
Frishammar J, Andersson S (2009) The overestimated role of strategic orientations for international
performance in smaller firms. J Int Entrep 7(1):5777
316
I.K. Peiris et al.
Fryges H (2009) Internationalisation of technology-oriented firms in Germany and the UK. Small Bus Econ
33(2):165187
Gabrielsson M (2005) Branding strategies of born globals. J Int Entrep 3:199222
Gabrielsson M, Gabrielsson P (2011) Internet-based sales channel strategies of born global firms. Int Bus
Rev 20(1):8899. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2010.05.001
Gabrielsson M, Kirpalani VHM (2004) Born globals: how to reach new business space rapidly. Int Bus Rev
13(5):555571
Gabrielsson M, Pelkonen T (2008) Born internationals: market expansion and business operation mode
strategies in the digital media field. J Int Entrep 6(2):4971. doi:10.1007/s10843-008-0020-z
Gabrielsson M, Kirpalani VHM, Dimitratos P, Solberg C, Zucchella A (2008) Born globals: propositions to
help advance the theory. Int Bus Rev 17:385401. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2008.02.015
Gaglio CM, Katz JA (2001) The psychological basis of opportunity identification: entrepreneurial alertness. Small Bus Econ 16(2):95111. doi:10.1023/a:1011132102464
Gankema HGJ, Snuif HR, Zwart PS (2000) The internationalization process of small and medium-sized
enterprises: an evaluation of stage theory. J Small Bus Manag 38(4):1527
Gassmann O, Keupp MM (2007) The competitive advantage of early and rapidly internationalising SMEs
in the biotechnology industry: a knowledge-based view. J World Bus 42(3):350366. doi:10.1016/
j.jwb.2007.04.006
Gemser G, Brand MJ, Sorge A (2004) Exploring the internationalisation process of small businesses: a
study of Dutch old and new economy firms. Manag Int Rev (MIR) 44(2):127150
Gilbert BA, McDougall PP, Audretsch DB (2006) New venture growth: a review and extension. J Manag
32(6):926950. doi:10.1177/0149206306293860
Grant RM, Jammine AP (1988) Performance differences between the Wrigley/Rumelt strategic categories.
Strat Manag J 9(4):333346
Hadley RD, Wilson HIM (2003) The network model of internationalisation and experiential knowledge. Int
Bus Rev 12(6):697
Hallback J, Larimo J (2007) Variety in international new venturestypological analysis and beyond. J
Euromark 16(1):3757. doi:10.1300/J037v16n01_04
Han M (2006) Developing social capital to achieve superior internationalization: a conceptual model. J Int
Entrep 4(2):99112. doi:10.1007/s10843-007-0003-5
Harms R, Schiele H (2012) Antecedents and consequences of effectuation and causation in the international
new venture creation process. J Int Entrep. doi:10.1007/s10843-012-0089-2
Harris S, Wheeler C (2005) Entrepreneurs relationship for internationalization: functions, origins and
strategies. Int Bus Rev 14:187207. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2004.04.008
Harrison RT, Leitch CM (2005) Entrepreneurial learning: researching the interface between learning and
the entrepreneurial context. Enterp Theory Pract 29:351371
Harzing AW (2007) Publish or perish. Available from: http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm
Hashai N, Almor T (2004) Gradually internationalizing born global firms: an oxymoron? Int Bus Rev 13
(4):465483
Hohenthal J (2006) Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods in research on international entrepreneurship. J Int Entrep 4(4):175190. doi:10.1007/s10843-007-0010-6
Holcomb TR, Ireland RD, Holmes RM Jr, Hitt MA (2009) Architecture of entrepreneurial learning:
exploring the link among heuristics, knowledge, and action. Enterp Theory Pract 33(1):167192.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00285.x
Hughes M, Martin SL, Morgan RE, Robson MJ (2010) Realizing product-market advantage in high technology
international new venture: the mediating role of ambidextrous innovation. J Int Mark 18(4):121
Hurmerinta-Peltomki L (2003) Time and internationalisation: theoretical challenges set by rapid internationalisation. J Int Entrep 1(2):217236. doi:10.1023/a:1023856302314
Hutchinson K, Quinn B, Alexander N (2005) Internationalization of small to medium size retail companies:
towards a conceptual framework. J Mark Manag 21:149179
Ibeh KIN (2003) Toward a contingency framework of export entrepreneurship: conceptualisations and
empirical evidence. Small Bus Econ 20(1):49
Ireland RD, Hitt MA, Camp SM, Sexton DL (2001) Integrating entrepreneurship and strategic managment
actions to create firm wealth. Acad Manag Exec 15(1):4963
Jantunen A, Puumalainen K, Saarenketo S, Kylaheiko K (2005) Entrepreneurial orientation, dynamic
capabilities and international performance. J Int Entrep 3:223243
Jantunen A, Nummela N, Puumalainen K, Saarenketo S (2008) Strategic orientations of born globalsdo
they really matter? J World Bus 43(2):158170. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2007.11.015
317
Johanson J, Mattson LG (1988) Internationalization in industrial systemsa network approach. In: Hood
N, Vahlne JE (eds) Strategies in global competition. Croom Helm, NY, pp 287314
Johanson J, Vahlne J (1977) The internationalization of the firma model of knowledge development and
increasing foreign market commitments. J Int Bus Stud 8(1):2332
Johanson J, Vahlne J (2003) Business relationship learning and commitment in the internationalization
process. J Int Entrep 1:83101
Johanson J, Vahlne J (2006) Commitment and opportunity development in the internationalization process:
a note on the Uppsala internationalization process model. Manag Int Rev 46:165178
Johanson J, Vahlne J-E (2009) The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: from liability of
foreignness to liability of outsidership. J Int Bus Stud 40(9):14111431. doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.24
Jones MV (1999) The internationalization of small high-technology firms. J Int Mark 7(4):1541
Jones MV, Coviello NE (2005) Internationalization: conceptualising an entrepreneurial process behaviour
in time. J Int Bus Stud 36(3):284303
Jones MV, Coviello N, Tang Y (2011) International entrepreneurship research (19892009): a domain
ontology and thematic analysis. J Bus Ventur 26:632659
Julian CC (2003) Export marketing performance: a study of Thailand firms. J Small Bus Manag 41(2):213221
Julien P-A, Ramangalahy C (2003) Competitive strategy and performance of exporting SMEs: an empirical
investigation of the impact of their export information search and competencies. Enterp Theory Pract
27(3):227245
Kalantaridis C (2004) Internationalization, strategic behavior, and the small firm: a comparative investigation. J Small Bus Manag 42(3):245262
Karagozoglu N, Lindell M (1998) Internationalization of small and medium-sized technology-based firms:
an exploratory study. J Small Bus Manag 36(1):4459
Karra N, Phillips N, Tracey P (2008) Building the born global firm developing entrepreneurial capabilities
for international new venture success. Long Range Plann 41(4):440458. doi:10.1016/
j.lrp.2008.05.002
Katz RL (1974) Skills of an effective administrator. Harv Bus Rev 52(5):90
Katz J, Gartner WB (1988) Properties of emerging organizations. Acad Manag Rev 13:429441
Keen C, Wu Y (2011) An ambidextrous learning model for the internationalization of firms from emerging
economies. J Int Entrep 9(4):316339. doi:10.1007/s10843-011-0081-2
Keupp MM, Gassmann O (2009) The past and the future of international entrepreneurship: a review and
suggestions for developing the field. J Manag 35(3):600633. doi:10.1177/0149206308330558
Kim WC, Mauborgne R (2004) Value innovation. Harv Bus Rev 82(7/8):172180
Kirzner IM (1999) Creativity and/or alertness: a reconsideration of the Schumpeterian entrepreneur. Rev
Aust Econ 11(1):517
Kiss AN, Danis WM (2008) Country institutional context, social networks, and new venture internationalization speed. Eur Manag J 26(6):388399
Kiss AN, Danis WM (2010) Social networks and speed of new venture internationalization during
institutional transition: a conceptual model. J Int Entrep 8(3):273287. doi:10.1007/s10843-0100051-0
Knight GA (2000) Entrepreneurship and marketing strategy: the SME under globalization. J Int Mark 8
(2):1232
Knight GA, Cavusgil ST (2004) Innovation, organizational capabilities and the born-global firm. J Int Bus
Stud 35(2):124141
Knight GA, Kim D (2009) International business competence and the contemporary firm. J Int Bus Stud 40
(2):255273
Knudsen T, Madsen TK (2002) Export strategy: a dynamic capabilities perspective. Scand J Manag 18
(4):475
Ko S, Butler JE (2007) Creativity: a key link to entrepreneurial behavior. Bus Horiz 50(5):365372
Kocak A, Abimbola T (2009) The effects of entrepreneurial marketing on born global performance. Int
Mark Rev 26(4/5):439452. doi:10.1108/02651330910971977
Kogut B, Zander U (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of
technology. Organ Sci 3:383397
Kolb DA, Boyatzis RE, Mainemelis C (2001) Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. In:
Sternberg RJZ, Li-fang (eds) Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, pp 227247
Kontinen T, Ojala A (2010) The internationalization of family businesses: a review of extant research. J
Family Bus Strateg 1(2):97107
318
I.K. Peiris et al.
Kontinen T, Ojala A (2011) Social capital in relation to the foreign market entry and post-entry operations
of family SMEs. J Int Entrep 9(2):133151. doi:10.1007/s10843-010-0072-8
Kropp F, Lindsay NJ, Shoham A (2006) Entrepreneurial, market, and learning orientations and international entrepreneurialbusiness venture performance in South African firms. Int Mark Rev 23(5):504
523. doi:10.1108/02651330610703427
Krueger NF, Reilly MD, Carsrud AL (2000) Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. J Bus Ventur
15(5):411432
Kuemmerle W (2002) Home base and knowledge management in international ventures. J Bus Ventur 17
(2):99
Kuhlmeier D, Knight GA (2010) The critical role of relationship quality in small and medium-sized
enterprise internationalization. J Glob Mark 23(1):1632. doi:10.1080/08911760903439636
Kuivalainen O, Sundqvist S (2007) Profitability of rapid internationalization: the relationship between
internationalization intensity and firms export performance. J Euromark 16(1):5969. doi:10.1300/
J037v16n01_05
Kuivalainen O, Lindqvist J, Saarenketo S, Aijo T (2007a) International growth of Finnish software firms:
starting points, pathways and outcomes. J Euromark 16(1):722. doi:10.1300/J037v16n01_02
Kuivalainen O, Sundqvist S, Servais P (2007b) Firms degree of born-globalness, international entrepreneurial orientation and export performance. J World Bus 42:253267
Kuivalainen O, Puumalainen K, Sintonen S, Kylheiko K (2010) Organisational capabilities and internationalisation of the small and medium-sized information and communications technology firms. J Int
Entrep 8(2):135155
Kundu SK, Katz JA (2003) Born-international SMEs: bi-level impacts of resources and intentions. Small
Bus Econ 20(1):25
Lamb PW, Liesch PW (2002) The internationalization process of the smaller firm: re-framing the relationships between market commitment, knowledge and involvement. Manag Int Rev (MIR) 42(1):726
Leonidou LC (2004) An analysis of the barriers hindering small business export development. J Small Bus
Manag 42(3):279302
Lepak DP, Smith KG, Taylor MS (2007) Value creation and value capture: a multilevel perspective. Acad
Manage Rev 32(1):180194. doi:10.5465/amr.2007.23464011
Li L, Dan L, Dalgic T (2004) Internationalization process of small and medium-sized enterprises: toward a
hybrid model of experiential learning and planning. Manag Int Rev (MIR) 44(1):93116
Liu X, Xiao W, Huang X (2008) Bounded entrepreneurship and internationalisation of indigenous Chinese
private-owned firms. Int Bus Rev 17(4):488508
Loane S (2005) The role of the internet in the internationalisation of small and medium sized companies. J
Int Entrep 3(4):263277. doi:10.1007/s10843-006-7855-y
Loane S, Bell J (2006) Rapid internationalisation among entrepreneurial firms in Australia, Canada, Ireland
and New Zealand: an extension to the network approach. Int Mark Rev 23(5):467485. doi:10.1108/
02651330610703409
Lopez LE, Kundu SK, Ciravegna L (2008) Born global or born regional? Evidence from an exploratory
study in the Costa Rican software industry. J Int Bus Stud 40(7):12281238. doi:10.1057/jibs.2008.69
Lu JW, Beamish PW (2001) The internationalization and performance of SMEs. Strat Manag J 22:565586
Lu JW, Beamish PW (2006) SME internationalization and performance: growth vs. profitability. J Int
Entrep 4(1):2748
Lu Y, Zhou L, Bruton G, Li W (2010) Capabilities as a mediator linking resources and the international
performance of entrepreneurial firms in an emerging economy. J Int Bus Stud 41(3):419436.
doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.73
Lumpkin GT, Dess GG (1996) Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to
performance. Acad Manage Rev 21(1):135172
Lumpkin GT, Hills GE, Shrader R (2004) Opportunity recognition. In: Welsch HP (ed) Entrepreneurship:
the way ahead. Psychology Press, New York. pp. 7390
Madsen TK, Servais P (1997) The internationalization of born globals: an evolutionary process? Int Bus
Rev 6(6):561
Majocchi A, Zucchella A (2003) Internationalization and performance findings from a set of Italian SMEs.
Int Small Bus J 21(3):249268. doi:10.1177/02662426030213001
Malhotra N, Hinings CR (2009) An organizational model for understanding internationalization processes.
J Int Bus Stud 41(2):330349. doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.75
Malhotra NK, Ulgado FM, Agarwal J (2003) Internationalization and entry modes: a multitheoretical
framework and research propositions. J Int Mark 11(4):131
319
Markman GD (2006) Entrepreneurs competencies. In: Baum JR, Frese M, Baron RA (eds) The psychology of entrepreneurship. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp xxxi400
Martin OM, Papadopoulos N (2007) Internationalization and performance: evidence from Spanish firms. J
Euromark 16(1):87103. doi:10.1300/J037v16n01_07
Mathews JA, Zander I (2007) The international entrepreneurial dynamics of accelerated internationalisation. J Int Bus Stud 38(3):387403. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400271
McAuley A (1999) Entrepreneurial instant exporters in the Scottish arts and crafts sector. J Int Mark 7(4):6782
McDougall PP (1989) International versus domestic entrepreneurship: new venture strategic behaviour and
industry structure. J Bus Ventur 4:387400
McDougall PP, Oviatt BM (1996) New venture internationalization, strategic change, and performance: a
follow up study. J Bus Ventur 11:2340
McDougall PP, Oviatt BM (2000) International entrepreneurship: the intersection of two research paths.
Acad Manage J 43(5):902906
McDougall PP, Shane S, Oviatt BM (1994) Explaining the formation of international new ventures: the
limits of theories from international business research. J Bus Ventur 9(6):469487
McDougall PP, Oviatt BM, Shrader RC (2003) A comparison of international and domestic new ventures. J
Int Entrep 1(1):5982
McGee JE, Peterson M, Mueller SL, Sequeira JM (2009) Entrepreneurial self efficacy: refining the
measure. Enterp Theory Pract 33(4):965988
McNaughton RB (2003) The number of export markets that a firm serves: process models versus the bornglobal phenomenon. J Int Entrep 1(3):297311. doi:10.1023/a:1024114907150
Mejri K, Umemoto K (2010) Small and medium-sized enterprise internationalization: towards the
knowledge-based model. J Int Entrep 8(2):156167. doi:10.1007/s10843-010-0058-6
Meln S, Nordman ER (2009) The internationalisation modes of born globals: a longitudinal study. Eur
Manag J 27(4):243254. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2008.11.004
Michael Geringer J, Beamish PW, DaCosta RC (1989) Diversification strategy and internationalization:
implications for MNE performance. Strat Manag J 10(2):109119
Michailova S, Wilson H (2008) Small firm internationalization through experiential learning: the moderating role of socialization tactics. J World Bus 43(2):243254. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2007.11.002
Miller D, Friesen PH (1978) Archetypes of strategy formulation. Manag Sci 24(9):921933
Minniti M, Bygrave W (2001) A dynamic model of entreneurial learning. Enterp Theory Pract 25(Spring): 615
Moen O (2002) The born globals: a new generation of small European exporters. Int Mark Rev 19(2):156175
Moen O, Servais P (2002) Born global or gradual global? Examining the export behavior of small and
medium-sized enterprises. J Int Mark 10(3):4972
Moran P, Ghoshal S (1996) Value creation by firms. 1996/08//1996. Acad Manag 4145. doi:10.5465/
ambpp.1996.4978175
Mort G, Weerawardena J (2006) Networking capability and international entrepreneurship: how networks
function in Australian born global firms. Int Mark Rev 23(5):549572. doi:10.1108/02651330610703445
Mort G, Weerawardena J, Liesch P (2012) Advancing entrepreneurial marketing: evidence from born
global firms. Eur J Mark 46(3):542561
Mostafa R, Wheeler C, Jones MV (2005) Entrepreneurial orientation, commitment to the internet and
export performance in small and medium sized exporting firms. J Int Entrep 3(4):291302.
doi:10.1007/s10843-006-7857-9
Mtigwe B (2006) Theoretical milestones in international business: the journey to international entrepreneurship theory. J Int Entrep 4(1):525
Mudambi R, Zahra SA (2007) The survival of international new ventures. J Int Bus Stud 38:333352.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400264
Musteen M, Francis J, Datta DK (2010) The influence of international networks on internationalization speed
and performance: a study of Czech SMEs. J World Bus 45(3):197205. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2009.12.003
Muzychenko O (2008) Cross-cultural entrepreneurial competence in identifying international business
opportunities. Eur Manag J 26(6):366377
Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. Acad
Manage Rev 23:242266
Noblit GW, Hare RD (1988) Meta-ethnography: synthesising qualitative studies. Sage, Newbury Park
Nordman ER, Melen S (2008) The impact of different kinds of knowledge for the internationalization
process of born globals in the biotech business. J World Bus 43(2):171185
Nummela N, Welch C (2006) Qualitative research methods in international entrepreneurship: introduction
to the special issue. J Int Entrep 4(4):133136
320
I.K. Peiris et al.
Nummela N, Saarenketo S, Puumalainen K (2004) A global mindset a prerequisite for successful internationalization? Can J Adm Sci (Can J Adm Sci) 21(1):5164
Nummela N, Puumalainen K, Saarenketo S (2005) International growth orientation of knowledge-intensive
SMEs. J Int Entrep 3(1):518
OCass A, Weerawardena J (2009) Examining the role of international entrepreneurship, innovation and
international market performance in SME internationalisation. Eur J Mark 43(11/12):13251348
Ojala A (2009) Internationalization of knowledge-intensive SMEs: the role of network relationships in the
entry to a psychically distant market. Int Bus Rev 18(1):5059. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2008.10.002
Oviatt BM, McDougall PP (1994) Toward a theory of international new ventures. J Int Bus Stud 25(1):4564
Oviatt BM, McDougall PP (1995) Global start-ups: entrepreneurs on a worldwide stage. Acad Manag Exec
9(2):3043
Oviatt BM, McDougall PP (2005a) Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of
internationalization. Enterp Theory Pract 22:537553
Oviatt BM, McDougall PP (2005b) The internationalization of entrepreneurship. J Int Bus Stud 36:28
Oviatt BM, McDougall PP (2005c) Toward a theory of international new ventures. J Int Bus Stud 36(1):2941
Pajunen K, Maunula M (2008) Internationalisation: a co-evolutionary perspective. Scand J Manag 24
(3):247258. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2008.02.001
Pangarkar N (2008) Internationalization and performance of small- and medium-sized enterprises. J World
Bus 43(4):475485. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2007.11.009
Papadopoulos N, Martn Martn O (2010) Toward a model of the relationship between internationalization
and export performance. Int Bus Rev 19(4):388406. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2010.02.003
Peng MW (2001) The resource-based view and international business. J Manag 27:803829
Perks KJ, Hughes M (2008) Entrepreneurial decision making in internationalization: propositions from
mid-size firms. Int Bus Rev 17:310330. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2007.10.001
Pinho JC, Martins L (2010) Exporting barriers: insights from Portuguese small- and medium-sized
exporters and non-exporters. J Int Entrep 8(3):254272. doi:10.1007/s10843-010-0046-x
Pla-Barber J, Escrib-Esteve A (2006) Accelerated internationalisation: evidence from a late investor
country. Int Mark Rev 23(3):255278. doi:10.1108/02651330610670442
Podsakoff PM, Mackenzie SB, Bachrach DG, Podsakoff NP (2005) The influence of management journals
in the 1980s and 1990s. Strat Manag J 26(5):473488
Pope RA (2002) Why small firms export: another look. J Small Bus Manag 40(1):1726
Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V (2004) Co creation experiences: the next practice in value creation. J Interact
Mark 18(3):514
Prange C, Verdier S (2011) Dynamic capabilities, internationalization processes and performance. J World
Bus 46(1):126133
Prashantham S (2005) Toward a knowledge-based conceptualization of internationalization. J Int Entrep 3
(1):3752
Prashantham S (2008a) The internationalization of small firms. Routledge, Oxon
Prashantham S (2008b) New venture internationalization as strategic renewal. Eur Manag J 26(6):378387.
doi:10.1016/j.emj.2008.09.005
Prashantham S, Dhanaraj C (2010) The dynamic influence of social capital on the international growth of
new ventures. J Manag Stud 47(6):967994. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00904.x
Prashantham S, Young S (2011) Post-entry speed of international new ventures. Enterp Theory Pract 35:275292
Rae D, Carswell M (2001) Towards a conceptual understanding of entrepreneurial learning. J Small Bus
Enterp Dev 8(2):150158
Rasmussan ES, Madsen TK, Evangelista F (2001) The founding of the born global company in Denmark
and Australia: sensemaking and networking. Asia Pac J Mark Logist 13(3):75107
Rennie MW (1993) Born global. McKinsey Q 4:4552
Reuber AR, Fischer E (1997) The influence of the management teams international experience on the
internationalization behaviors of SMEs. J Int Bus Stud 28(4):807825
Reuber AR, Fischer E (2002) Foreign sales and small firm growth: the moderating role of the management
team. Enterp Theory Pract 27(1):2945
Rialp A, Rialp J (2007) Faster and more successful exporters: an exploratory study of born global firms
from the resource-based view. J Euromark 16(1):7186. doi:10.1300/J037v16n01_06
Rialp A, Rialp J, Knight GA (2005a) The phenomenon of early internationalizing firms: what do we know
after a decade (19932003) of scientific inquiry? Int Bus Rev 14:147166
Rialp A, Rialp J, Urbano D, Vaillant Y (2005b) The born-global phenomenon: a comparative case study
research. J Int Entrep 3(2):133171
321
Rialp-Criado A, Galvn-Snchez I, Surez-Ortega SM (2010) A configuration-holistic approach to bornglobal firms strategy formation process. Eur Manag J 28(2):108123. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2009.05.001
Ring PS, Van De Ven AH (1994) Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships.
Acad Manage Rev 19(1):90118. doi:10.5465/amr.1994.9410122009
Ripolls M, Blesa A (2012) International new ventures as small multinationals: the importance of
marketing capabilities. J World Bus 47:277287
Ripolls-Meli M, Menguzzato-Boulard M, Snchez-Peinado L (2007) Entrepreneurial orientation and
international commitment. J Int Entrep 5(3):6583
Robson PJA, Haugh HM, Obeng BA (2009) Entrepreneurship and innovation in Ghana: enterprising
Africa. J Int Entrep 32:331350. doi:10.1007/s11187-008-9121-2
Roth K (1995) Managing international interdependence: CEO characteristics in resource-based framework.
Acad Manage J 38(1):200231
Ruokonen M, Nummela N, Puumalainen K, Saarenketo S (2008) Market orientation and Internationalisation in small software firms. Eur J Mark 42(11/12):12941315. doi:10.1108/03090560810903682
Ruzzier M, Hisrich RD, Antoncic B (2006) SME internationalization research: past, present, and future. J
Ruzzier M, Antoncic B, Hisrich R (2007a) The internationalization of SMEs: developing and testing a
multi-dimensional measure on Slovenian firms. Entrep Reg Dev 19(2):161183. doi:10.1080/
08985620601137646
Ruzzier M, Antoncic B, Hisrich RD, Konecnik M (2007b) Human capital and SME internationalization: a
structural equation modeling study. Can J Adm Sci/Rev Can Sci Adm 24(1):1529. doi:10.1002/cjas.3
Sainio L, Saarenketo S, Nummela N, Erikson T (2011) Value creation of an internationalizing entrepreneurial firm: the business model perspective. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 18(3):556570
Santos V, Garca T (2011) Business motivation and informational needs in internationalization. J Int Entrep
9(3):195212. doi:10.1007/s10843-011-0077-y
Sapienza HJ, Autio E, George G, Zahra SA (2006) A capabilities perspective on the effects of early
internationalization on firm survival and growth. Acad Manage Rev 31(4):914933
Sarasvathy SD (2001) Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to
entrepreneurial contingency. Acad Manage Rev 26(2):243263
Sasi V, Arenius P (2008) International new ventures and social networks: advantage or liability? Eur Manag
J 26(6):400411. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2008.09.008
Schweizer R, Vahlne J-E, Johanson J (2010) Internationalization as an entrepreneurial process. J Int Entrep
8(4):343370. doi:10.1007/s10843-010-0064-8
Schwens C, Kabst R (2009a) Early internationalization: a transaction cost economics and structural
embeddedness perspective. J Int Entrep 7(4):323340. doi:10.1007/s10843-009-0043-0
Schwens C, Kabst R (2009b) How early opposed to late internationalizers learn: experience of others and
paradigms of interpretation. Int Bus Rev 18(5):509522. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.06.001
Schwens C, Kabst R (2011) Internationalization of young technology firms: a complementary perspective
on antecedents of foreign market familiarity. Int Bus Rev 20(1):6074. doi:10.1016/
j.ibusrev.2010.06.003
Servais P, Zucchella A, Palamara G (2007) International entrepreneurship and sourcing: international value
chain of small firms. J Euromark 16(1):105117. doi:10.1300/J037v16n01_08
Shane S, Venkataraman S (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Acad Manage Rev
25(1):217226
Sharma DD, Blomstermo A (2003a) A critical review of time in the internationalization process of firms. J
Glob Mark 16(4):5371. doi:10.1300/J042v16n04_04
Sharma DD, Blomstermo A (2003b) The internationalization process of born globals: a network view. Int
Bus Rev 12(6):739753. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2003.05.002
Shaw V, Darroch J (2004) Barriers to internationalisation: a study of entrepreneurial new ventures in New
Zealand. J Int Entrep 2(4):327343
Shepherd DA (1999) Venture capitalists assessment of new venture survival. Manag Sci 45:621632
Shepherd DA, DeTienne DR (2005) Prior knowledge, potential financial reward, and opportunity identification. Enterp Theory Pract 29(1):91112
Shrader RC, Oviatt BM, McDougall PP (2000) How new ventures exploit trade-offs among international
risk factors: lessons for the accelerated internationalization of the 21st century. Acad Manage J 43
(6):12271247
Solberg CA, Durrieu F (2006) Access to networks and commitment to internationalisation as precursors to
marketing strategies in international markets. Manag Int Rev (MIR) 46(1):5783
322
I.K. Peiris et al.
Sommer L (2010) Internationalization processes of small and medium-sized enterprisesa matter of

attitude? J Int Entrep 8(3):288317. doi:10.1007/s10843-010-0052-z
Spence M, Crick D (2006) A comparative investigation into the internationalisation of Canadian and UK
high-tech SMEs. Int Mark Rev 23(5):524548. doi:10.1108/02651330610703436
Spence M, Orser B, Riding A (2011) A comparative study of international and domestic new ventures.
Manag Int Rev 51(1):321. doi:10.1007/s11575-010-0065-9
Steen JT, Liesch PW (2007) A note on Penrosean growth, resource bundles and the Uppsala model of
internationalisation. Manag Int Rev (MIR) 47(2):193206
Stoltz PG (1997) Adversity quotient: turning obstacles into opportunities. Wiley, New York
Styles C, Gray S (2006) Advancing research in international entrepreneurship. Int Mark Rev 23:461466
Styles C, Seymour RG (2006) Opportunities for marketing researchers in international entrepreneurship. Int
Mark Rev 23(2):126145
Szyliowicz D, Galvin T (2010) Applying broader strokes: extending institutional perspectives and agendas for
international entrepreneurship research. Int Bus Rev 19(4):317332. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2010.01.002
Tahai A, Meyer MJ (1999) A revealed preference study of management journals direct influences. Strat
Manag J 20(3):279
Tan A, Brewer P, Liesch P (2007) Before the first export decision: internationalisation readiness in the preexport phase. Int Bus Rev 16(3):294309. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2007.01.001
Taylor M, Jack R (2012) Understanding the pace, scale and pattern of firm internationalization: an
extension of the born global concept. Int Small Bus J. doi:10.1177/0266242611431992
Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable)
enterprise performance. Strat Manag J 28(13):13191350
Thai M, Chong L (2008) Born-global: the case of four Vietnamese SMEs. J Int Entrep 6(2):72100.
doi:10.1007/s10843-008-0021-y
Thomas AS, Mueller SL (2000) A case for comparative entrepreneurship assessing the relevance of culture.
J Int Bus Stud 31(2):287301
Tolstoy D (2010) Network development and knowledge creation within the foreign market: a study of
international entrepreneurial firms. Entrep Reg Dev 22(5):379402. doi:10.1080/08985620903168273
Tolstoy D, Agndal H (2010) Network resource combinations in the international venturing of small biotech
firms. Technovation 30(1):2436. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.06.004
Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidenceinformed
management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207222
Tsai W, Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks. Acad Manage J
41(4):464476
Tuppura A, Saarenketo S, Puumalainen K, Jantunen A, Kylheiko K (2008) Linking knowledge, entry
timing and internationalization strategy. Int Bus Rev 17(4):473487
Turan M, Kara A (2007) An exploratory study of characteristics and attributes of Turkish entrepreneurs: a
cross-country comparison to Irish entrepreneurs. J Int Entrep 5(1):2546
Turcan R (2011) Toward a theory of international new venture survivability. J Int Entrep 9(3):213232.
doi:10.1007/s10843-011-0075-0
Vachani S (1991) Distinguishing between related and unrelated international geographic diversification: a
comprehensive measure of global diversification. J Int Bus Stud 22:307322
Venkataraman S (1997) The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. Adv Entrep, Firm Emergence
Growth 3:119138
Vila N, Kuster I (2008) Success and internationalization: analysis of the textile sector. J Glob Mark 21
(2):109125. doi:10.1080/08911760802135178
Ward TB (2004) Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. J Bus Ventur 19(2):173188. doi:10.1016/
s0883-9026(03)00005-3
Weed M (2008) A Potential method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research: Issues in the
development of meta-interpretation. Int J Soc Res Methodol 11(1):1328. doi:10.1080/
13645570701401222
Weerawardena J, Mort G, Liesch P, Knight GA (2007) Conceptualizing accelerated internationalization in
the born global firm: a dynamic capabilities perspective. J World Bus 42(3):294306. doi:10.1016/
j.jwb.2007.04.004
Welch CL, Welch LS (2004) Broadening the concept of international entrepreneurship: internationalisation,
networks and politics. J Int Entrep 2(3):217237
Welch CL, Welch LS (2009) Re-internationalisation: exploration and conceptualisation. Int Bus Rev 18
(6):567577
323
Wennberg K, Holmquist C (2008) Problemistic search and international entrepreneurship. Eur Manag J 26
(6):441454. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2008.09.007
Westhead P, Wright M, Ucbasaran D (2001) The internationalization of new and small firms: a resourcebased view. J Bus Ventur 16:333358
Wickramasekera R, Oczkowski E (2004) Key determinants of the stage of internationalisation of Australian
wineries. Asia Pac J Manag 21(4):425444
Wickramasekera R, Oczkowski E (2006) Stage models re-visited: a measure of the stage of internationalisation of a firm. Manag Int Rev 46(1):3955
Wiklund J, Patzelt H, Shepherd DA (2007) Building an integrative model of small business growth. Small
Bus Econ 32(4):351374. doi:10.1007/s11187-007-9084-8
Williams D (2011) Impact of firm size and age on the export behaviour of small locally owned firms: fresh
insights. J Int Entrep 9(2):152174. doi:10.1007/s10843-011-0073-2
Wolff JA, Pett TL (2000) Internationalization of small firms: an examination of export competitive patterns,
firm size, and export performance. J Small Bus Manag 38(2):3447
Wright RW, Dana L-P (2003) Changing paradigms of international entrepreneurship strategy. J Int Entrep 1
(1):135152
Wright M, Westhead P, Ucbasaran D (2007) Internationalization of small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) and international entrepreneurship a critique and policy implications. Reg Stud 41(7):1013
1029. doi:10.1080/00343400601120288
Yamakawa Y, Peng MW, Deeds DL (2008) What drives new ventures to internationalize from emerging to
developed economies? Enterp Theory Pract 32(1):5982
Yeung HW (2002) Entrepreneurship and the internationalization of Asian firmsan institutional perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cornwall
Yip GS, Biscarri JG, Monti JA (2000) The role of the internationalization process in the performance of
newly internationalizing firms. J Int Mark 8(3):1035
Yli-Renko H, Autio E (1998) The network embeddedness of new, technology-based firms: developing a
systemic evolution model. Small Bus Econ 11:253267
Yli-Renko H, Autio E, Tontti V (2002) Social capital, knowledge, and the international growth of
technology-based new firms. Int Bus Rev 11:279304
Young S, Dimitratos P, Dana L-P (2003) International entrepreneurship research: what scope for international business theories? J Int Entrep 1(1):3142
Zafarullah M, Ali M, Young S (1997) The internationalization of the small firm in developing countries
exploratory research from Pakistan. J Glob Mark 11(3):2140. doi:10.1300/J042v11n03_03
Zahra SA (2003) International expansion of U.S. manufacturing family businesses: the effect of ownership
and involvement. J Bus Ventur 18(4):495512. doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(03)00057-0
Zahra SA (2005) A theory of international new ventures: a decade of research. J Int Bus Stud 36
(1):2028
Zahra SA, George G (2002) International entrerpeneurship: the current status of the field and future agenda.
In: Hitt MA, Ireland RD, Camp SM, Sexton DL (eds) Strategic entrepreneurship: creating a new
mindset. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp 256288
Zahra SA, Hayton J (2008) The effect of international venturing on firm performance: the moderating
influence of absorptive capacity. J Bus Ventur 23(2):195220. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2007.01.001
Zahra SA, Ireland RD, Hitt MA (2000) International expansion by new venture firms: international diversity,
mode of market entry, technological learning and performance. Acad Manage J 43(5):925950
Zahra SA, Cloninger P, Yu FJ, Choi Y (2004) Emerging research issues in international entrepreneruship. In: Dana L (ed) Handbook of research on international entrepreneurship. Edward
Elgar Publishing Ltd, Glos
Zahra SA, Korri J, Yu J (2005) Cognition and international entrepreneurship: implications for research on
international opportunity recognition and exploitation. Int Bus Rev 14(2):129146. doi:10.1016/
j.ibusrev.2004.04.005
Zahra SA, Neubaum DO, Naldi L (2007) The effects of ownership and governance on SMEs international
knowledge-based resources. Small Bus Econ 29(3):309327
Zain M, Ng SI (2006) The impact of network relationships on SMEs internationalization process.
Thunderbird Int Bus Rev 48(2):183205. doi:10.1002/tie.20092
Zarei B, Nasseri H, Tajeddin M (2011) Best practice network business model for internationalization of
small and medium enterprises. J Int Entrep 9(4):299315. doi:10.1007/s10843-011-0080-3
Zettinig P, Bensonrea M (2008) What becomes of international new ventures? A coevolutionary approach.
Eur Manag J 26(6):354365. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2008.09.009
324
I.K. Peiris et al.
Zhang M, Dodgson M (2007) A roasted duck can still fly away: a case study of technology, nationality,
culture and the rapid and early internationalization of the firm. J World Bus 42(3):336349.
doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2007.04.005
Zhang M, Tansuhaj P, McCullough J (2009) International entrepreneurial capability: the measurement and a
comparison between born global firms and traditional exporters in China. J Int Entrep 7(4):292322
Zhou L (2007) The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and foreign market knowledge on early internationalization. J World Bus 42(3):281293
Zhou L, W-p W, Luo X (2007) Internationalization and the performance of born-global SMEs: the
mediating role of social networks. J Int Bus Stud 38(4):673690. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400282
Zhou L, Barnes BR, Lu Y (2010) Entrepreneurial proclivity, capability upgrading and performance
advantage of newness among international new ventures. J Int Bus Stud 41(5):882905.
doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.87
Zucchella A, Scabini P (2007) International entrepreneurship: theoretical foundations and practices.
Palgrave Macmillan, NY
Zucchella A, Palamara G, Denicolai S (2007) The drivers of early internationalization of the firm. J World
Bus 42:268280. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2007.04.008

International Entrepreneurship: A Critical Analysis of Studies in The Past Two Decades and Future Directions For Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Entrepreneurship: A Critical Analysis of Studies in The Past Two Decades and Future Directions For Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Int Entrep (2012) 10:279324

International entrepreneurship: A critical analysis

Published online: 14 October 2012

Abstract International entrepreneurship (IE) is an emerging field with a rapidly

I. K. Peiris (*) : M. E. M. Akoorie : P. Sinha

I.K. Peiris et al.

international business (IB), entrepreneurship, strategic management, network

International entrepreneurship: A critical analysis

I.K. Peiris et al.

measures, foreign direct investment, globalisation and macro-environmental

Fig. 1 Growth of IE articles

International entrepreneurship: A critical analysis

Table 1 IE article representation in journals

Journal of International Entrepreneurship

International Business Review

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of World Business

Management International Review

Journal of International Management

Journal of Business Venturing

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice

International Small Business Journal

Small Business Economics

Journal of Small Business and Enterprise

Entrepreneurship and Regional Development

International Journal of Entrepreneurship

Journal of International Marketing

International Marketing Review

European Journal of Marketing

Journal of Global Marketing

Journal of Marketing Management

Industrial Marketing Management

European Management Journal

Academy of Management Journal

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences

Academy of Management Executive

Scandinavian Journal of Management

Academy of Management Review

Asia Pacific Journal of Management

International Studies of Management and

Journal of Management Studies

Long Range Planning

Strategic Management Journal

Thunderbird Intl Business Review

I.K. Peiris et al.

Journal of Family Business strategy

contributed to over 70 % of the articles. A number of special issues focusing

International entrepreneurship: A critical analysis

Table 2 Countries studied

scholars to enrich our understanding about the influence of different research

Table 3 Number of multicounty

I.K. Peiris et al.

Table 4 Industry representation of IE research

Mixed (manufacturing and services)

International entrepreneurship: A critical analysis

Table 5 Size of firms studied under IE theme

1994), which gave prominence to new and knowledge-intensive firms (Zahra

I.K. Peiris et al.

Theories guiding IE research

International entrepreneurship: A critical analysis

I.K. Peiris et al.

of internationalisation, primarily from an inter-firm perspective, whereas the latter has

Marketing theory and value creation