The internationalisation of born global and international new venture SMEs

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine whether differences exist between born global (BG) firms and international new ventures (INVs) in respect of their performance in overseas markets. These terms have arguably been used as interchangeable to characterise firms that internationalized rapidly, typically but not exclusively within three years of their business start‐up. The term “global” suggests firms have a presence in at least the world's triad regions and arguably a commitment spread across them. INVs, however, may have internationalized quickly to address opportunities but without necessarily a global presence.Design/methodology/approachThe methodology in this exploratory study employs both quantitative but also primarily a qualitative methodology involving 21 technologically oriented small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) based in the UK. This methodological approach is used to assess the strategies used by the two types of firms after their start‐up phase and the factors that shaped their international trajectory and performance.FindingsThe findings provide some initial understanding of the two types of firms' patterns of internationalization and more specifically suggest foreign market strategies can be formulated in various ways, i.e. some planned and others by serendipitous means, but that BG and INVs exhibit different characteristics. BGs focused globally in comparison to the more regional focus of INVs.Practical implicationsThe implication of the findings is to suggest that researchers should not use the terms interchangeably to characterise different types of firms and behaviour.Originality/valueThe main aspect of originality is to offer insights into managerial practices of different types of firms that have to date been viewed in some studies as representing the same international marketing behaviour.