International entrepreneurial culture as a booster of early and rapid internationalisation: A comparative study of Born Globals vs non-Born Globals

BGs are companies that internationalise early and rapidly and sell a high proportion of their output abroad, perceiving the world as a marketplace (Cavusgil and Knight 2015; Hennart 2014; Madsen and Servais 1997). These companies build up their capacities and abilities to enter international markets over a short timeframe, in many cases preferring to ignore their domestic markets to overcome obstacles (Efrat et al. 2017; Rialp et al. 2005).

In recent years, the literature has provided various definitions of BGs, despite a lack of consensus in qualitative and quantitative terms (Ferguson et al. 2021). Knight and Cavusgil (1996:11) maintain that BGs are “small, [usually] technology-oriented companies that operate in international markets from the earliest days of their establishment (…) exporting at least 25% of their production within a few years of their formation”. In addition to their intense level of exports, BGs should simultaneously internationalise within 3 years of their own launching (Knight and Liesch 2016; Kuivalainen et al. 2007; Choquette et al. 2017).

While typically small in scale and with only limited tangible resources, BGs essentially compete according to their distinctive intangible resources and capabilities (Cavusgil and Knight 2015; Hennart et al. 2021). Their emergence interlinks with changes in the prevailing market conditions, especially the number of niche markets observed, rising levels of specialisation and investments in R&D, innovation, and ease of access to networks (Baronchelli and Cassia 2014; Wadeson 2020). To the extent that facilitating factors expand the opportunities for companies to look beyond their domestic markets, BGs tend to reach out and explore larger markets to expand their potential returns (Knight and Liesch 2016).

BGs also display international propensities, innovative cultures, and performance levels higher than their peers across various dimensions (turnover levels, employment, and number of export destinations) (Cavusgil and Knight 2015; Choquette et al. 2017). These companies play a key role in generating employment, economic growth, and high levels of commerce in the global economy (Ferguson et al. 2021; Knight and Liesch 2016).

IEC enables the capture of various facets of the organisational cultures of international companies that actively seek to explore opportunities beyond their domestic markets (Zahra et al. 2005). It involves the entire organisation, providing a holistic and multidimensional perspective on the IE of SMEs that seek to explore opportunities internationally (Dimitratos et al. 2012; Dimitratos et al. 2016a, b). Hence, companies with strong IECs are more likely to engage in international activities and are more aware and active in the search for opportunities (Buccieri et al. 2020; Dimitratos et al. 2012).

Dimitratos et al. (2012) develop and discuss a six-dimension conceptual framework for IEC: proactiveness, innovativeness, and risk-taking (IEO dimensions), international market orientation, international motivation, international learning orientation, and international networking orientation with competitors and non-competitors.

The IEC supports the international performance of BGs and their competitive strategies. BGs may overcome their lack of resources and develop their capacities and strategies to accelerate their growth by nurturing a strong IEC (Buccieri et al. 2020, 2021; Gabrielsson et al. 2014). Additionally, this may equally improve their adaptability for operating in unpredictable and turbulent environments (Buccieri et al. 2020).

Buccieri et al. (2020) add that a wide-reaching IEC spans a set of routines and knowledge for developing the international scope, designing innovative processes, calculating risks, undertaking market research, and developing alliances. Gabrielsson et al. (2014) report that international motivation, the propensity to innovation, the attitude towards risk, market orientation, and proactiveness (IEC dimensions) positively shape progress in the initial growth phases of INVs. In turn, international learning and networking positively enhance the growth of INVs throughout every phase in the life cycle. Zhang et al. (2009) conclude that international entrepreneurial capabilities generate a positive effect on the performance of INVs compared to traditional exporters. Zahra et al. (2005) suggest that INVs need to adopt an IEC to deal with shortcomings in their resources and obtain distinctive capacities. Buccieri et al. (2020) state that the IEC enables INVs to develop the necessary innovations and marketing capacities that facilitate international integration.

Miller (1983) and Covin and Slevin (1989) first proposed this concept, initially made up of three dimensions: proactiveness, innovativeness, and risk-taking. As an extension of the entrepreneurial orientation, the IEO encapsulates the firm’s overall innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking in the pursuit of international markets and obtaining global guidance (Covin and Slevin 1989; Freeman and Cavusgil 2007).

Subsequently, Lumpkin and Dess (1996) incorporate competitive aggressiveness and autonomy into the entrepreneurial orientation. Both dimensions have been incorporated into the internationalisation literature and generate a synergy effect for the internationalisation (Boso et al. 2017; Li et al. 2018; Lumpkin et al. 2009; Nave et al. 2024; Raats and Krakauer 2020).

Any IEO consists of the beliefs, preferences, and behaviours that determine internationalisation and the entrance into new markets (Covin and Miller 2013). This leads companies to constantly monitor the international environment to identify and explore newly emerging international opportunities at an early stage (De Clercq et al. 2005; Freixanet et al. 2020; Nave et al. 2024). A high level of IEO associates with high levels of international performance (Chen et al. 2020; Escandón-Barbosa et al. 2016; Kuivalainen et al. 2007) and eventually represents a key factor characterising BG firms (Moen et al. 2022).

Specifically, international proactiveness captures the trend for companies to recognise and explore business opportunities in a pre-emptive and commercially aggressive stance (Boso et al. 2017; Lumpkin and Dess 1996). This reflects how the company perceives the market and new entrances through a future-focused perspective (Lumpkin and Dess 1996, 2001). Proactiveness stems from the interactions of the activities ongoing with clients and partners (Dimitratos et al. 2010), conveying the business commitment and attitudes towards internationalisation (Ciravegna et al. 2014). Ciravegna et al. (2014) conclude that companies that actively seek clients in external markets tend to export a greater proportion of their sales and enter a larger number of markets.

Proactiveness also generates positive influences over the early internationalisation processes and growth phases of INVs (Gabrielsson et al. 2014; Gerschewski et al. 2016; Messina and Hewitt-Dundas 2021). Chandra et al. (2012) highlight how BGs are extremely proactive. Furthermore, we posit that BGs can also resort to proactiveness to accelerate their internationalisation processes and achieve differentiation, resulting in the following research hypothesis:

Innovativeness reflects the tendencies of companies to experiment and foster new ideas, moving on from established practices (Lumpkin and Dess 1996). The propensity for international innovativeness portrays the capacity of companies for supporting ideas, new and original products, and creative processes in international markets (Dimitratos et al. 2016a, b; Knight and Kim 2009; Kosała 2015; Lumpkin and Dess 1996).

This embodies a crucial dimension to the success of international entrepreneurship, influencing the resulting performance of SMEs (Knight and Cavusgil 2004). Therefore, organisations with the capacity to introduce innovations engage in bolder and more aggressive approaches, developing long-term presences in the international arena (De Clercq et al. 2005; Knight and Kim 2009).

Innovation also significantly associates with both the internationalisation of BGs (Cavusgil and Knight 2015; Prieto-Sánchez and Merino 2022) and their financial performances (Buccieri et al. 2020; Kim et al. 2011). Nave et al. (2024) conclude that innovativeness positively affects the early internationalisation of SMEs. International innovativeness provides a driver for successful BGs, enabling them to improve their competitiveness, as a means of differentiating themselves from the competition and ensuring their own survival (Baronchelli and Cassia 2014; Efrat et al. 2017; Freeman and Cavusgil 2007; Knight and Cavusgil 2004). BGs with internationally innovative positionings reduce barriers and enhance their own likelihood of expansion (Efrat et al. 2017). Gabrielsson et al. (2014) highlight the role of innovation across the different growth phases of INVs. Buccieri et al. (2020) emphasise how the capacities of INVs to innovate enable them to attract and retain clients. Incremental and radical innovations should constitute a key priority for INVs within the scope of remaining competitive (Buccieri et al. 2020). Hallbäck and Gabrielsson (2013) detail how innovation determines the ability of INVs to compete in various national markets. Furthermore, this may enable INVs to overcome resource constraints on innovating products and entering new markets (Faroque et al. 2017). Additionally, innovativeness contributes to a company’s likelihood of turning BG (Prieto-Sánchez and Merino 2022). When compared with more generally internationalised companies, BGs appear as more innovative (Kowalik et al. 2017), leading to the following hypothesis:

International risk-taking constitutes the inclination to accept risks regarding uncertain international markets (Covin and Miller 2013) and includes the level of commitment towards adventurous activities and the perception of opportunities internationally (Dimitratos et al. 2016a, b; Gabrielsson et al. 2014).

Risk also positively influences the growth phases of the INVs (Gabrielsson et al. 2014). A swifter approach to international markets may significantly raise the expected value, especially when the BG’s own domestic market is only limited in scale. Managers of such companies register a lower propensity to wait, observe, and imitate the risk-taking decisions of their peers (Huang et al. 2020). Nevertheless, Knight and Cavusgil (2004) point out how BGs imitate their peers in their respective industrial sector out of the objective of reducing the uncertainty prevailing in international markets and returning better results.

There would seem to be a consensus around BGs intrinsically displaying a greater propensity to risk in their rapid internationalisation strategies when compared to those companies that gradually internationalise (Huang et al. 2020; Kowalik et al. 2017; Oviatt and McDougall 2005). Hence, we may propose the following study hypothesis:

Competitive aggressiveness refers to the intensity and posture towards challenging and overcoming the competition to either enter a new market or improve the position in existing markets (Boso et al. 2017; Lumpkin and Dess 1996; Sundqvist et al. 2012). This interrelates with how companies react to market trends in international markets (Dimitratos et al. 2016a, b; Knight and Kim 2009), focusing on defending and attacking in various markets more effectively and efficiently than the competition (Boso et al. 2017). Competitive aggressiveness may also actively leverage the results for other entrepreneurial activities, such as innovation or proactively constructing and sustaining competitive advantages (Lumpkin and Dess 2001).

Nave et al. (2024) report that the implementation of an internal culture based on competitive aggressiveness drives a rise in the probability of companies engaging in early internationalisation. Despite that, studies on the dimensions of competitive aggressiveness in international contexts remain scarce. We would posit that competitive aggressiveness represents one of the distinctive characteristics of BGs, given their ambition, flexibility, and capacity to overcome their competitors in international markets, thus underpinning the following research hypothesis:

As regards the function of autonomy, this encapsulates the independence, flexibility, and self-determination necessary to take decisions regarding the exploitation of opportunities, advocating new ideas, concepts, and new business ventures (Lumpkin et al. 2009; Lumpkin and Dess 1996). According to Lumpkin et al. (2009), autonomy provides the independence necessary to pursue entrepreneurial activities.

Autonomy relates positively to the early internationalisation of SMEs (Nave et al. 2024). Chhotray et al. (2018) highlight the importance of autonomy and decision-making authority in BGs. BGs should nurture a culture that supports their staff’s daily activities and decisions, with their managers clearly communicating their intentions to employees, endowing them with the knowledge, autonomy, and freedom to take decisions (Chhotray et al. 2018; Faroque et al. 2017). Styles of leadership that incorporate the delegation of responsibilities and recognise the autonomy of the work by members of staff enable the early internationalisation processes of BGs (Chhotray et al. 2018; Nave et al. 2024), fostering an innovative culture focused on the results from exports (Faroque et al. 2017). Given this, we may therefore assume that BGs grant autonomy to their employees as a means of gaining traction in internationalisation processes and surpassing their competitors. We may thus put forward the following hypothesis:

Market orientation refers to a firm’s focus on market needs and its sensitivity to changes in the market environment (Moen et al. 2022). On the international panorama, the IMO captures the propensity of companies to seek out greater value for their clients (Dimitratos et al. 2016a, b; Knight and Kim 2009) and external stakeholders (Alotaibi and Zhang 2017; He and Wei 2011). This derives from the ways in which companies draft strategies to grasp and improve their satisfaction of client needs in international contexts (Buccieri et al. 2020; Escandón-Barbosa et al. 2016; Nakos et al. 2019).

The IMO enables companies to establish effective strategies for R&D, production, monitoring the competition, and the services provided to clients while also contributing towards selecting the more distant international markets (He and Wei 2011). Zhou et al. (2006) refer to how this constitutes a unique and intangible variable that is difficult for the competition to replicate.

Knight and Kim (2009) and Nakos et al. (2019) note that, in addition to knowledge about international clients, SMEs need to monitor their competitors’ actions to improve their organisational structures through the alignment of their resources. These actions improve the performance in international markets (Alotaibi and Zhang 2017; Escandón-Barbosa et al. 2016; Nakos et al. 2019).

The IMO generates a positive influence on the growth of INVs (Gabrielsson et al. 2014), while preceded by entrepreneurial orientation and early internationalisation (Ripollés et al. 2012). These companies must develop their capacities to deepen their market-related skills to rapidly introduce changes to their products and services in international markets (Buccieri et al. 2020). The specific characteristics of INVs include strong adaptative capacities, frequently adopting entrepreneurial marketing strategies (product innovation, co-creation processes, branding, cobranding, sales channels, etc.) to be highly successful. Ripollés et al. (2012) also argue that early internationalisation contributes to developing an IMO favourable to advancing high levels of commitment to these markets. We, therefore, argue in favour of BGs being able to develop superior IMO levels through rapidly accessing foreign markets, especially when compared to other internationalised companies. We thus arrive at the following research hypothesis:

DiBella et al. (1996:363) state that organisational learning reflects “the capacity within an organisation to maintain or improve performance based on experience”. This may value learning through the behaviour of entrepreneurs in conjunction with their staff members (Voudouris et al. 2010) while also involving the creation, acquisition, sharing and application of knowledge (DiBella et al. 1996; Jerez-Gómez et al. 2005), and the commitment to learning from its success and failures (Moen et al. 2022).

Regarding the ILO, Gabrielsson et al. (2014) and Dimitratos et al. (2016a, b) refer to the propensity to energetically extract intelligence on foreign markets before effectively deploying this knowledge in these markets. This equally interlinks with the depth of the vocation of companies for seeking out opportunities globally to boost their competitiveness and expand beyond their domestic market (Alegre et al. 2012; De Clercq et al. 2005; Knight et al. 2020).

Pre-existing knowledge about international markets influences business intensity and promotes access to new markets for younger companies (Casillas et al. 2015; Nave and Ferreira 2023). Furthermore, improving the ILO drives the acceleration of adaptation processes (Åkerman 2014). Learning holds particular importance to international markets, plays a role in reducing the risks and uncertainties caused by physical distances (Johanson and Vahlne 1977; Knight et al. 2020; Swoboda and Olejnik 2016), and also generates positive returns in domestic markets (Nave and Ferreira 2023). This foresees learning as impacting on the international growth of companies (Autio et al. 2000), potentially strengthened through the relationships with clients, suppliers, staff, and competitors abroad (Voudouris et al. 2010).

A robust body of literature associates international learning with the growth of INVs (Åkerman 2014; Alegre et al. 2012; Gabrielsson et al. 2014; Sapienza et al 2005; Voudouris et al. 2010). Ding et al. (2022) identify how the ILO influences the entrepreneurial bricolage and international performance of INVs. Gabrielsson et al. (2014) highlight that learning prevails throughout every growth phase of INVs while Zahra (2005) maintains these firms tend to learn from their international experience and thereby boost their growth. INVs that leverage cultures of learning also boost their innovative capacities for exploring international opportunities, displaying a greater commitment to innovation (Buccieri et al. 2020, 2021). The literature tends to report a strong ILO among BGs compared to non-BGs as many operate in knowledge-intensive industries and continuous learning (Moen et al. 2022). Therefore, we put forward the following hypothesis:

IM encapsulates the origins and strategies of managers and employees in relation to external ventures (Dimitratos et al. 2012; Dimitratos et al. 2016a, b; Gabrielsson et al. 2014).

Significant differences exist in motivations for entering international markets (Braga and Queirós 2017). Dunning and Lundan (2008) point to seeking out resources, new markets, efficiency, and strategic assets. On the other hand, Braga and Queirós (2017) highlight how the diversity of opportunities and the challenges of international markets lead companies to explore them.

IM is present throughout the initial growth phases of INVs and constitutes a sine qua non condition for their robust expansion (Gabrielsson et al. 2014). Furthermore, this also shapes and influences how INVs configure their international operations, determining the scale and scope of international operations (Zahra et al. 2005). Internationally focused INVs are open to developing deeper learning levels and generating better ideas for the exterior (Buccieri et al. 2021). The international vision and motivation support the capacities of INVs to develop innovation for global markets while they explore the prevailing landscape in search of new opportunities (Buccieri et al. 2020). Prieto-Sánchez and Merino (2022) report that IM establishes the foundation for the prevalence of BGs. We would additionally maintain that BGs may be more internationally motivated and committed to accessing new markets than non-BGs. The launching of BGs derives from the desire to explore and take advantage of international opportunities and correspondingly exhibit higher levels of international motivation than late internationalised counterparts. Thus, this results in the following hypothesis:

The INO reflects the propensity to engage with competitors and non-competitors through alliance formation in foreign markets to gain access to resources (Dimitratos et al. 2016a, b). Networking relationships are the core activity enabling the overcome of financial and human resources restrictions while simultaneously facilitating entrance into external markets towards the export performance (Acosta et al. 2018; Faroque et al. 2017; Knight and Cavusgil 2004). In the networking approach, companies become dependent on resources controlled by third parties (Gerschewski et al. 2015).

Building and deploying networks is crucial to the ability of BGs to compete in international markets (Etemad 2023; Faroque et al. 2017; McDougall et al. 1994). BGs rely on networks more than any other type of company (Hennart et al. 2021). Furthermore, networks with competitors and non-competitors are fundamental to INVs that otherwise lack the financial and human resources to engage in international markets (Buccieri et al. 2020, 2021; Gabrielsson et al. 2014).

Networking also provides INVs with the complementary marketing resources necessary to identifying and retaining global clients (Buccieri et al. 2020; Mort and Weerawardena 2006). Hence, INVs need to stimulate networks involving entrepreneurs and companies to support innovation processes and strategic planning and achieve higher export performance levels (Boso et al. 2017; Faroque et al. 2017). These networks enable INVs to leverage their clients and suppliers and coopetition strategies to support their internationalisation processes (Buccieri et al. 2020). We, therefore, consider the scope of BGs developing INOs better than late exporters in keeping with the aim of accessing international markets more quickly. Given that BGs are recently founded companies, without major financial resources and with a strategic focus strongly directed towards foreign markets, BGs are clearly more likely to develop INOs with competitors and non-competitors than their counterparts, thus underpinning the following study hypotheses:

We drafted and tested (pre-test) a structured questionnaire with 17 respondents holding academic and business profiles to identify and correct potential problems. Subsequently, following certain improvements, we circulated the final version of the questionnaire among Portuguese companies between January and April 2022. The questionnaire was developed on an electronic platform and access took place via email.

To generate a probabilistic sample and maintain impartial criteria of choice, we consulted the AICEP Portugal Global (trade and investment agency) database, which returned the contacts of Portuguese SMEs engaged in international activities. We strove to ensure the respondents were the founders, CEOs, directors, or managers responsible for the internationalisation of their SMEs (Dimitratos et al. 2012).

The companies needed to consecutively comply with the following criteria, as proposed by Dimitratos et al. (2012): (i) SMEs in any sector of activity (less than 250 workers and with a turnover of less than 50 million), (ii) undertake international activities (i.e., reporting international sales), and (iii) be independently owned (i.e., not subsidiaries of corporations).

As a means of encapsulating the differences between BGs and non-BGs, we adopted the definition of BGs put forward by Choquette et al. (2017:452): “firms that within three years from inception export at least 25% of their turnover” that represents the most consensual definition in the literature (Ferguson et al. 2021; Knight and Cavusgil 2004; Knight and Liesch 2016). To categorise the BGs, we attributed a dummy variable (0: non-BG and 1: BG). We also consider that BGs may belong to any sector of activity and thus extending beyond the high technology sectors (Choquette et al. 2017; Wadeson 2020). We obtained responses from 249 companies, with 81 questionnaires excluded as they did not comply with at least one of the three aforementioned criteria. Thus, the final sample contained 168 companies, including 66 BGs and 102 non-BGs. Table 1 sets out a summary of the sample characteristics.

To capture the various facets of the IECs of BGs and non-BGs, we integrated the Dimitratos et al. (2012) measurement scale into the questionnaire. This instrument contains six factors: IEO, IMO, IM, ILO, and INO with competitors and non-competitors. In addition, we here take into consideration the relevance of adding two further dimensions to the IEO, specifically, competitive aggressiveness and autonomy (Lumpkin et al. 2009; Lumpkin and Dess 1996, 2001), adding items for both dimensions in accordance with Boso et al. (2017). We produced the questionnaire in an electronic format, featuring multiple choices and a 7-point Likert scale (1—totally disagree and 7—totally agree). Table 2 details the items applied in each dimension.

We performed Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) according to the PLS-SEM method to assess the reliability and validity of the constructs. To confirm the factorial structure of the instrument applied, we examined the reliability and validity of the indicators applied in the representation and measuring of the theoretical concepts (Sarstedt et al. 2019). We then tested the construct validity by (i) composite reliability (CR > 0.7), (ii) factorial validity (≥ 0.5, ideally ≥ 0.7), (iii) convergent validity through the average variance extracted (AVE > 0.5), and (iv) discriminant validity (AVE_j ≥ R²⁾ (Fornell and Larcker 1981; Sarstedt et al. 2019).

To test IEO (H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d, and H1e) and INO (H5a, H5b) dimensions, we deployed Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), considering them as dependent variables and the factor (BGs; Non-BGs). Hair et al. (2010) recommend using Pillai’s trace as this represents the most powerful statistic for samples in which categorical variable categories have small and different dimensions. When the BG variable produced a statistically significant impact on the dependent variables, we estimated the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for each dependent variable and the respective multiple linear regression models. To test hypotheses H2, H3, and H4, we applied one-way ANOVA between the dependent variables (IMO, ILO, and IM) and the factor (BGs; Non-BGs). The MANOVA and ANOVA procedures served to test for differences between BGs and non-BGs in the constructs. We verified the assumptions for MANOVA and one-way ANOVA and may report no significant violations of normality with Levene’s test indicating homogeneity among the two groups and overall constructs. We performed all these calculations through recourse to SmartPLS (v4.0.8.4) and SPSS software (v28).

For all the constructs, we removed any item that returned a factorial weighting of below 0.5. Following the elimination of these items, CR and AVE returned values above the limits required, 0.7 and 0.5, respectively. To test whether the constructs were sufficiently mutually different, we inspected the discriminant validity in accordance with the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criteria that state the AVE of any construct must be greater than the square root of any other construct. Table 3 details the results stemming from the descriptive, reliability, and validity statistics. Based on Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criterion, the square root of the AVE of a construct is greater than the highest correlation with any construct (see Table 4). This correspondingly observes how the various constructs display high levels of reliability as well as factor validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity deemed valid and reliable for usage.

MANOVA served to evaluate H1 and revealed a significant effect of the BG factor on the IEO (Pillai’s Trace = 0.07; F(5,162) = 2.435; p < 0.05). The five one-way ANOVA tests calculated for each dimension of the IEO demonstrate that the BG-related variable only returns a statistically significant impact on autonomy (F(1,166) = 8.12; p < 0.01). Non-BG companies (3.72) register significantly lower average levels of autonomy than BG companies (4.39). Thus, these results underpin the allowed validation of H1e and H1a, H1b, and H1c, while H1d fails to attain validation (Table 5 in the Appendix presents all these results). Figure 1 sets out the BG and non-BG averages for the IEO constructs.

We performed three one-way ANOVA tests on IMO (H2), ILO (H3), and IM (H4) (Table 6 in the Appendix presents all the results). The ANOVA with IMO as the dependent variable (H2) only reports statistically significant differences between BGs and non-BGs to a 10% significance level. Furthermore, we also encountered tendentially significant differences in the average IMO scores between BGs and non-BGs, with average BGs (3.71) tending to be higher than non-BGs (3.29) (F(1.166) = 6.02; p = 0.061). As regards H3, the ANOVA did not reveal any statistically significant differences between BGs and non-BGs (F(1,166) = 2.46; p = 0.119), thereby not validating H3. The ANOVA procedure performed to evaluate H4 returns statistically significant differences between BGs and non-BGs (F(1,166) = 10.37; p < 0.01) on the IM scores. BG companies (6.07) attain significantly higher average levels of IM than non-BG companies (5.46). Figure 2 displays the BG and non-BG averages for the constructs IMO, ILO, and IM.

Finally, we performed MANOVA to evaluate INOWComp (H5) and INOWNComp (H5b). The results show no significant differences between BGs and non-BGs regarding the overall dimensions of the INO (Pillai’s Trace = 0.01; F(2.165) = 0.709; p = 0.494). We obtained identical results from the two one-way ANOVA tests (Appendix Table 7 presents all these results). Figure 3 displays the averages for BGs and non-BGs for the INO constructs.

From a theoretical perspective, this article makes significant contributions to the literature on international entrepreneurship and deepening the stock of knowledge about IEC, a theme understudied in the literature despite its broad relevance (Dimitratos et al. 2012; Nave and Ferreira 2022). More specifically, we examined the differences between BGs and non-BGs as regards the set of dimensions making up the IEC.

In particular, the expectation was that BGs would display higher levels of IEC when compared with the profile of companies that do not actively seek to establish a presence in international markets (Dimitratos et al. 2010). However, the results of our study identify BGs as displaying significant differences to their counterparts across only three dimensions of IEC, specifically autonomy, IM, and IMO.

Exploring these results and characterising the IEC of BGs, we may conclude that these display differentiated levels of autonomy, greater self-determination, and dynamism at the global scale (Lumpkin et al. 2009; Lumpkin and Dess 1996). The employees take on a determinant role, self-directed towards the international market in harmony with the leadership (Chhotray et al. 2018; Knight et al. 2020), in detecting and exploring international opportunities. In general terms, these results for the IEO lead to the proposition that BGs are not more internationally active in detecting and exploring market opportunities (Freixanet et al. 2020; Knight and Cavusgil 2004) than their peer companies. Furthermore, there is the possibility that they do not attain higher performance levels than their non-BG counterparts that internationalise at later phases (Chen et al. 2020; Kuivalainen et al. 2007; Swoboda and Olejnik 2016; Thanos et al. 2017). Maintaining the capacities for innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking are fundamental factors for successfully competing and obtaining the best sales performances and profit levels (Acosta et al. 2018).

In comparison with the non-BGs, the BGs equally display distinctive levels of IM (Gabrielsson et al. 2014), thereby conveying a greater willingness to learn, innovate, and develop new ideas for global markets (Buccieri et al. 2021; Zahra et al. 2005). Complementarily, this set of companies displays higher levels of IMO and may well arise from proximate relationships and the capacity to generate added value for international clients and partners (Dimitratos et al. 2016a, b; Knight and Kim 2009).

Furthermore, the IEC of BGs did not emerge as any higher than that of their counterparts as regards the remaining IEO dimensions (proactiveness, innovativeness, risk-taking, and competitive aggressiveness), in the ILO and the INO. These findings run counter to the premise that BGs display a higher level of IEO (Buccieri et al. 2021). Nevertheless, the literature has already approached and better clarified the relationship between IEO and BGs (Covin and Miller 2013; Freixanet et al. 2020; Gerschewski et al. 2015; Nave et al. 2024).

By suggesting that the BGs do not display significant differences in seven (out of ten) dimensions of IEC, we may presume that they do not exhibit a higher level of international performance that differentiates them from their late exporter peers. Despite this, and as defended by Escandón-Barbosa et al. (2016), prematurely entering international markets and achieving a significant percentage of sales internationally does not actually or necessarily guarantee a better standard of international performance. We would also argue that BGs may display fairly heterogeneous characteristics while mutually dependent on the prevailing domestic macroeconomic environment (Gabrielsson et al. 2014; Madsen and Servais 1997) and the specific characteristics of the industrial sector (Freeman and Cavusgil 2007), which may also condition and shape their IECs.

The internationalisation of these companies may also have taken place reactively and stimulated by fortuitous events due to their scarce resources (Ciravegna et al. 2014; Hennart 2014; Messina and Hewitt-Dundas 2021). Additionally, the nature and intensity of the IEC may fluctuate over the growth phases of BGs (Gabrielsson et al. 2014). The assumption over linear behaviours stems from the limited knowledge available about the behaviours of BGs as they evolve and deal with the results of internationalisation (Messina and Hewitt-Dundas 2021). In summary, our results and findings align with those of Ferguson et al. (2021), who highlight how BGs do not always outperform other exporting companies, and also with Choquette et al. (2017), who identify how BGs are special but not in every aspect. The notion that BGs deploy exceptional resources (Hennart et al. 2021) and are superior to companies that adopt more gradual internationalisation processes (Wadeson 2020) does not stand up to scrutiny.

Entering new markets, particularly at the international level, involves a high level of commitment to strategic and financial resources (He and Wei 2011). Hence, as regards the practical implications, we would propose that recently founded SMEs, due to their limitations, adopt and develop strong IECs as a means of overcoming the restrictions in the resources allocated to international markets, developing distinctive competitive advantages (Zahra et al. 2005), and thus categorise themselves as BGs. Thus, the IEC becomes a desired combination of intangible, unique, and hard-to-imitate resources, and therefore needs developing and incorporating into organisational culture through means of the replication of routines. We suggest that companies convey and instill this mentality from the top management team down throughout the hierarchy.

A strong IEC confers flexibility on BGs, avoiding inertia (Buccieri et al. 2020) and providing a formula for prospering in unpredictable and volatile markets (Buccieri et al. 2021). These combinations require complementing with other critical factors for the international performance of BGs, especially the focus on product and service quality (Gerschewski et al. 2015).

However, developing and simultaneously exploring all of the dimensions of IEC in an initial phase may be both complex and risky for SMEs with limited resources. Thus, the need arises to get involved in international markets without incurring excessive risks and overly ambitious external approaches, especially in the company’s first few years. Our study suggests that SMEs that seek to engage early and rapidly in international markets and thus differentiate themselves from their counterparts only need to develop three dimensions: autonomy, international motivation, and international market orientation. We hereby corroborate Lumpkin and Dess (1996) by demonstrating that success may also derive when only some of these dimensions undergo operational implementation.

Regarding autonomy, we would propose to suggest that the top management team focuses on attracting and training its human resources as a means of accelerating the internationalisation process (Nave et al. 2024). This implies developing capabilities to recruit and retain highly qualified talents and providing them with additional training in key areas (e.g. foreign languages, international trade, negotiation, logistics, marketing and sales management, communication, and international protocols). We believe that the role of staff in BGs is significantly more important than in non-BGs. Therefore, the staff must display good autonomy levels to engage in management and sales tasks and participate more actively in defining the international strategy, endowing this with a competitive advantage and higher levels of export performance from the very outset. As stated in other studies (e.g. Choquette et al. 2017), BGs compete essentially through intangible assets, such as their human resources.

On the other hand, the evidence from our study indicates how SMEs, seeking to differentiate themselves and secure early access to foreign markets, must display high motivational levels as well as be highly committed and internationally focused. Therefore, BGs must allocate their resources to these markets as they present significant dimensions and a multitude of profitable opportunities. These markets must become the leading priorities, especially for BGs operating in niche technological and/or technology-intensive sectors. High motivation and an international focus may, therefore, be decisive in anticipating internationalisation and surpassing competitors.

Finally, the study results point to the relevance of IMO. Therefore, the findings convey how SMEs aiming to internationalize rapidly should focus on their foreign customers, strengthen connections, deepen contacts, and project monitoring. In addition, companies must commit to providing value to their customers, especially remaining available for new challenges, introducing innovations, and developing and adapting new products and services for international markets. These combinations may be relevant to differentiate themselves and anticipate other companies with international ambitions and thus gain an advantage in exploring competitive advantages across borders.

The key results of our study tell us that BGs are more likely to demonstrate certain characteristics than non-BGs.

This study incorporates certain limitations that may represent future lines of research. Firstly, we sought to establish a random sample and obtained a more limited number of BGs from a few companies from the technology and knowledge-intensive sectors. As a norm, such types of BG display more entrepreneurial characteristics. A larger sample of BGs derived from these industries may lead to greater significance levels across other facets of IEC. It would also be beneficial to control for the age of the companies in the sample as well as the market conditions during the beginning of the internationalisation process.

Future research might also replicate the objectives of this study in other geographic contexts and make cross-national comparisons and is clearly necessary to contribute to a deeper understanding of the IEC of BGs. Additionally, it would be interesting and relevant to verify whether any of the dimensions of the IEC hold predictive powers for BGs. Hence, this would ascertain whether the development of BGs may be ascertained based on these variables. Studies with qualitative methodologies may provide a differentiated vision that captures greater details, thereby complementing studies with similar objectives.

Overall, given both the under-exploration and relevance of the IEC concept to the international entrepreneurship literature, we recommend that future studies explore this topic more thoroughly. This might address the IEC in terms of access to international markets, international performance, market expansion and diversification, strategic adaptation, etc.