The impact of human, social, and psychological capital on academic spin-off internationalization

Human capital comprises many elements, including experience (financial, sector, international, and leadership), educational level, know-how, and training (Civera et al. 2020). In the entrepreneurship literature, a group of variables related to the entrepreneur’s profile has been identified, including elements such as their training and educational level, which can be interpreted as the entrepreneur’s ability (Nielsen 2015). The human capital of the founder or manager has been considered a valuable resource for internationalization (Kazlauskaitė et al. 2015). For Civera et al. (2020), international human capital allows for a more holistic perspective, different points of view, flexibility, intrinsic dynamism, and open-mindedness, which would lead them to become more acutely aware of the advantages of internationalization. For the internationalization of companies, international human capital is important, as it provides a key resource of international market knowledge. This international human capital can be derived from work experience resulting from international mobility, education, or training abroad, and even from vacation time (Sambharya 1996; Carpenter et al. 2003; Björnali and Aspelund 2012). Following Kazlauskaitė et al. (2015), international market knowledge “is usually gained through the entrepreneur’s international experience, in the form of education and work experience abroad” (p:56).

International experience, according to Johnson (2004), Lukason et al. (2021), and Wach and Głodowska (2021), is responsible for the early internationalization of high-tech start-ups. Some authors explain how the desire on the part of entrepreneurs to capitalize on their resources, such as international experience, can provide a reason for the internationalization of their companies (Bloodgood et al. 1996; Lukason et al. 2021).

International experience constitutes a necessity in the global business world and one of the most influential characteristics of managers or entrepreneurs in the internationalization of companies (Oviatt and McDougall 1995, 1997; Bloodgood et al. 1996; Sambharya 1996; Tihanyi et al. 2000; Athanassiou and Nigh 2002; Carpenter et al. 2003; McDougall et al. 2003; Herrmann and Datta 2005; Rivas et al. 2009; Nielsen 2010; Baum et al. 2015; Andersson and Berggren 2016; Dauth and Tomczak 2016; Volonté and Gantenbein 2016; Lukason et al. 2021).

Herrmann and Datta (2005) establish that international experience endows the manager with a personality and perceptions that positively influence international orientation. International experience therefore leads to a global mindset that helps entrepreneurs lose their fear of entering new markets (Laurell et al. 2013). Likewise, Nielsen (2010:188) points out that “international experience has an influence on managers’ perceptions and personalities and contributes to higher international orientation of top executives,” and hence, background and guidance would explain internationalization. International experience allows situations to be interpreted in a different way, which in turn affects the decisions that are made, since international experience reduces contextual uncertainty and dependency (Rivas et al. 2009). For these authors, having this experience leads them to better manage uncertainty and complexity, and to gain a lower perception of risk, which in turn promotes a more aggressive commitment to the resources that internationalization requires. Therefore, knowledge, mentality, and security are a consequence of this experience. Carpenter et al. (2003) communicate along the same lines when pointing out the relationship between international experience and risk, as do Leonidou and Katsikeas (1996) in relation to uncertainty. International experience makes it possible to reduce the complexity of the information available, to attain a greater capacity to make complex decisions, such as that involved in entering a foreign market, to view internationalization activity as less risky, to improve decision-making regarding foreign investments, and to increase alternatives. It also enables better judgments to be made regarding opportunities to enter foreign markets and to select more modes of entry into foreign markets: in short, to assess all the elements involved in the process of international expansion, to improve the negotiation process with partners or local suppliers, and to gain higher cultural and institutional awareness (Athanassiou and Nigh 2002; Nielsen 2010). According to Sambharya (1996), the international experience constitutes a proxy for the reduction of uncertainty and is a surrogate for the accumulation of cultural knowledge (Civera et al. 2020). With this background, the accumulated experiential knowledge constitutes the basis for the internationalization of companies, since the accumulated experience of the country, its market, and its institutions results in the better knowledge and understanding of international markets (Nielsen 2010; Kamakura et al. 2012).

According to these authors (Beechler and Javidan 2007; Dauth and Tomczak 2016; Wach and Głodowska 2021), international experience and training allows them to formulate international strategies, develop transnational skills, possess a global perspective, gain a greater capacity for relations with foreign companies, and enjoy greater local responsibility. For McDougall et al. (2003) and Baum et al. (2015), international experience may lead to the identification of opportunities, the knowledge of the market, and the construction of networks of relationships, all of which are aspects that promote internationalization by reducing the liabilities of foreignness. Therefore, the accumulated international experience helps managers explore geographically more distant markets (Nielsen 2010). For Bruneel et al. (2018), international experience leads to greater knowledge and the acquisition of international skills.

The educational level of their founders can be important in the speed of internationalization of ASOs, and in the case of academic entrepreneurs, they are usually highly qualified (Acedo and Casillas 2007; Pinkwart and Proksch 2014; Teixeira and Coimbra 2014). Specifically, with respect to international training, Lamotte and Colovic (2015) and Dauth and Tomczak (2016) state that it influences the internationalization of the company. The knowledge gained from international training can enhance the individuals’ understanding of customs and habits in foreign markets (Yeung and Ready 1995; Carpenter et al. 2001). This leads them to a greater understanding of foreign markets and this insight leads them to internationalize (Dauth and Tomczak 2016).

Both international experience and international training allow exposure to foreign markets. This exposure, according to Kuemmerle (2002), often gives rise to the idea of an international company. According to Oviatt and McDougall (1995), contact with international markets enables the understanding of the culture of the country where it operates, promotes communication, and the reduction of cultural conflicts.

In the case of ASOs, several studies have analyzed the impact of the international experience of academic entrepreneurs on their internationalization (Bialek-Jaworska and Gabryelczyk 2016), stemming from the international dimension of the relationships that their scientific activity implies, and from the international mobility and training abroad derived from the development of their academic and research activity. In this respect, the scientific and research activity of academic entrepreneurs is usually multicultural and based on international relations, whether it be with other academics, foreign universities, or international research centers (Bialek-Jaworska and Gabryelczyk 2016; Civera et al. 2020), which would entail a positive impact on internationalization. Furthermore, ASO promoter teams usually receive research funding through international grants, scholarships, and research programs, which often involve establishing international collaboration and stays abroad.

This mobility is a prerequisite in the application for these financial grants, and it provides academics with international experience and international networks that would accelerate the process of internationalization of ASOs, due to the effects of this experience and networks in the recognition of entrepreneurial opportunities, in the development of skills, in greater human capital and innovative capacity, and in the greater creativity that new ideas and perspectives would provide (Van Geenhuizen et al. 2015; Bialek-Jaworska and Gabryelczyk 2016; Civera et al. 2020). Furthermore, many of these entrepreneurs carry out international transfer activities, such as patents, which give them credibility in foreign markets, thereby enhancing their entry into international markets when they decide to commercially use their knowledge through ASOs (Bialek-Jaworska and Gabryelczyk 2016). In this respect, Civera et al. (2020) point out how scientists with more international experience enjoy higher productivity in terms of publications and patents, which would increase their credibility in international markets. Academics often participate in stays abroad that are necessary for their future university accreditation processes, which endow them with a better knowledge of foreign markets, as well as a network of international relationships. Therefore, regardless of the origin of this international experience, the consequence is that their academic activity endows them with a network of international relationships, a knowledge of foreign markets, and a global perspective that would create credibility in foreign markets, thereby promoting internationalization (Björnali and Aspelund 2012; Bialek-Jaworska and Gabryelczyk 2016; Evers et al. 2016; Civera et al. 2019). Finally, with respect to international training, the researchers promoting these companies have usually received academic training in the international context, whether it be via a master’s or a doctorate, which has allowed them to acquire and accumulate international experience that, without a doubt, would increase the potential of international expansion of their companies (Fernández-Alles and Ramos-Rodríguez 2021). In this respect, prior international training could be a sign of visibility and greater credibility in international markets (Civera et al. 2019).

From the arguments put forward, we deduce that the academic entrepreneur’s international human capital, through international experience and training abroad (courses, masters, even research stays, etc.), could provide important resources to build a global mindset, generate a greater understanding and knowledge of global markets, and reduce uncertainty and fear of expanding into new international markets. So, we propose the hypothesis:

For Hilmersson (2014), relationship networks constitute another key type of experiential knowledge for internationalization. Internationalization is defined as a process of building business networks in international markets (Ruzzier et al. 2006). The impact of international human capital on international social capital is widely supported in the literature (Oviatt and McDougall 1995; Laurell et al. 2013; Civera et al. 2020). On many occasions, confidence arises from international experience to build networks of relationships for business (Oviatt and McDougall 1995), while international mobility, whether for study purposes or other types of travel, may also cause these international networks to emerge that can facilitate the creation of new key networks for internationalization (Laurell et al. 2013; Civera et al. 2020).

Research on the impact of relationship networks on the internationalization of companies has appeared in the literature on the internationalization of companies, to such a degree that since the studies by Johanson and Mattson (1985, 1988) which describe markets as network systems, thus emphasizing that internationalization processes are influenced by networks between companies. This gave rise to the so-called network theory of internationalization. Coviello and Munro (1995, 1997) argue that companies immersed in a network of relationships have a competitive advantage, which facilitates their expansion abroad. Certain authors have even argued that the advantages of owning this network of relationships could offset the lack of previous experience in a specific foreign market (Gajowiak 2013), by overcoming the liabilities of newness, smallness, and foreignness with the resources that these networks provide (Laurell et al. 2017; Peces Prieto and Trillo Holgado 2019). In this way, the density and size of the network would influence internationalization (Baum et al. 2015).

No consensus can be encountered in the literature on academic entrepreneurship nor in that on internationalization regarding the way in which the networks of relationships of companies are classified. Andersson et al. (2013) distinguish between local and international networks. Along these same lines, Laurell et al. (2017) highlight that not only are international relationships key to the internationalization process, but local networks are also essential, such as with universities and hospitals. Laurell et al. (2013), Mikhailova and Olsen (2016), and Franco-Leal et al. (2020) distinguish between academic, institutional, and social business relationship networks. Others, such as Coviello and Munro (1995), Rasmussan et al. (2001), Shirokova and McDougall-Covin (2012), Laurell et al. (2017), and Sekliuckiene (2017), distinguish between formal (business-related) relationships and informal or social (family and friends) relationships. Civera et al. (2020) include university colleagues among the latter category, while Senik et al. (2014) identify networks with government institutions, business partners, and personal relationships as the key networks for the internationalization of small and medium-sized companies. Wright and Dana (2003) and O’Gorman and Evers (2011) present another typology of networks, and categorize them into horizontal networks (such as trade associations, competitors, joint action groups, industry cluster EPOs, consultants, and government agencies), vertical networks (clients, buyers, and suppliers), and trans-industry networks (other agents that participate in the value chain). Ratajczak-Mrozek (2017) distinguishes between primary relationships (suppliers and buyers) and secondary relationships that include technology, materials, knowledge, trust, and Marketing-based relationships. Finally, Fernández-Alles et al. (2015), in the field of ASOs, distinguish between networks of academic and market relationships.

Regardless of the classification criteria adopted, the literature has specifically indicated the set role that certain agents play in the internationalization process. In particular, research on the impact of vertical relationship networks on internationalization is the most prolific. In the field of internationalization, the critical agents are market agents related to commercial resources, financial resources, and to networks of personal relationships (Fernhaber et al. 2009; Peces Prieto and Trillo Holgado 2019). Regarding commercial agents, those in sales stand out, since this interaction allows a better understanding of the context and of the clients, the preparation and validation of the offer, and the construction of long-term relationships (Lehto 2015). Roberts and Senturia (1996) establish that relationships with international clients and distributors could constitute an important boost for internationalization.

O’Gorman and Evers (2011) and Liu et al. (2021) expand this range and highlight clients, suppliers, and distributors, who provide important resources for internationalization. These authors also point to an intermediary agent, such as an export promotion organization, as the key to internationalization, since it enables opportunities and foreign clients to be identified, these clients to be accessed, knowledge of the foreign market to be provided, and resources to be supplied for the development of the export capacity of the company. Oviatt and McDougall (1995) highlight financial agents, customers, and suppliers. Andersson and Berggren (2016) deduce the relevant role of distributors and agents.

Holmlund and Kock (1998) point to the agents and the company’s sales team. According to Zahra et al. (2003), technological networks influence the speed and degree of internationalization. On the other hand, in relation to financial agents, Fernhaber et al. (2009) indicate the networks of relationships with internationally renowned venture capital companies, or with companies with international experience as promoters of the internationalization of the companies they finance, by the reputation that these relationships confer upon them. Finally, the support of public or private institutions (for example as part of an incubation program with financial and technological support), research with partners, and investor relations (such as venture capital companies) are defined by these authors as signs of openings into foreign markets (Civera et al. 2019).

There are numerous studies that affirm that relationship networks positively impact the mode, speed, and scope of internationalization (Coviello and Munro 1995; Oviatt and McDougall 1995; Holmlund and Kock 1998; Coviello 2006; Coviello and Cox 2006; Weerawardena et al. 2007; Gajowiak 2013; Laurell et al. 2013; Senik et al. 2014; Baum et al. 2015; Mikhailova and Olsen 2016; Sekliuckiene 2017; Wach and Głodowska 2021). It is generally accepted in previous research that international networks stimulate connections with international society by supporting global development (Mikhailova and Olsen 2016), which affects the dynamics of various aspects of international entrepreneurship (Leite et al. 2016; Liu et al. 2021). Networks could provide the resources necessary for internationalization, as well as the credibility and legitimacy, which would facilitate the development of new capacities for low-risk international expansion (Zaheer and Mosakowski 1997; Wright et al. 2007; Laurell et al. 2017). In addition, networking is even more important for small companies, making it easier for them to obtain the necessary resources for internationalization (Dana 2001). Of all the resources that relationship networks can provide, Coviello and Munro (1995) and Liu et al. (2021) concluded the importance of commercial resources, such as market studies, customer services, and access to distribution channels and credibility resources, which enable the selection of new markets and entry therein.

In the same way as international human capital, networks reduce uncertainty and risk, by facilitating access to markets and providing financial support and support for market learning (Baum et al. 2015). More specifically, the literature argues that international networks enable the following: (i) information and contacts to be obtained, thereby reducing the risks perceived by the entrepreneur (Oviatt and McDougall 1994, 1995; 2007; Ellis and Pecotich 2001; Zahra and George 2002a, Zahra and George 2002b; Welch and Welch 2004; Herrmann and Datta 2005; Loane and Bell 2006; Peiris et al. 2012; Shirokova and McDougall-Covin 2012; Leite et al. 2016; Bai et al. 2021); (ii) the identification of foreign partners (Shirokova and McDougall-Covin 2012); (iii) the acquisition of tacit knowledge regarding international business practices (Sharma and Blomstermo 2003; Haahti et al. 2005; Bai et al. 2021), advice, and experiential and assistance learning in the negotiation process (Oviatt and McDougall 1995; Zhou et al. 2007; Bai et al. 2021), and commercial and political knowledge, which is the key for both entrepreneurs and companies to be informed of aspects related to internationalization (Welch and Welch 2004; Schweizer et al. 2010; Bai et al. 2021; Liu et al. 2021); (iv) the formation of an international vision and an opening for management (Yeoh 2004); (v) reputation, trust, and commitment to be attained in order to exploit international opportunities (Oviatt and McDougall 1995; Zahra and George 2002a, Zahra and George 2002b; Zhou et al. 2007; Shirokova and McDougall-Covin 2012; Sekliuckiene 2017; Bai et al. 2021). According to Turcan (2013), the first way to achieve external legitimacy in international markets is to establish agreements with partners or alliances with relevant organizations that would allow them to enter international markets (Vapola 2011); (vi) the development of R&D activities (Zhou et al. 2007; Bai et al. 2021), since networks constitute a portal for technology and innovation; (vii) access and development of competitive resources (Oviatt and McDougall 1994; Coviello and Cox 2006; Amal et al. 2008); (viii) the recognition of international opportunities that overcome the disadvantages of being new and foreign (Coviello and Cox 2006); and (ix) the development of social capital that promotes the ability to expand abroad (Shirokova and McDougall-Covin 2012).

In the case of academic entrepreneurship, Laurell et al. (2017) point out that, in early stages, the relationships of companies are those of the entrepreneur at the individual level, and hence, these networks are usually personal. However, the academic entrepreneur presents a particular case. As a consequence of both their training abroad and the multicultural nature of their scientific and research activity and their international mobility, the founding academic entrepreneurs of these companies are usually endowed with a network of collaboration in their international research (Civera et al. 2020; Fitzgerald et al. 2021), which could encourage the internationalization of these companies (Björnali and Aspelund 2012; Evers et al. 2016). Despite the limited network of relationships that these companies have with market agents (Fernández-Alles et al. 2015), collaboration with foreign universities and with other international research centers for R&D could undoubtedly promote the development of strategic alliances, access to distribution channels, the building of customer relationships, the search for solutions in the development of new products, and “cash in” investments in R&D, intellectual property, and know-how, all factors that facilitate the internationalization of ASOs (Bialek-Jaworska and Gabryelczyk 2016). The reputation of the universities of origin, of the research centers or institutions with which they collaborate in their publications, and even of the entities that finance ASO research, would act as reputational networks and symbolic signals, increasing the credibility of ASOs both in national and international markets (Civera et al. 2019).

On the other hand, academic entrepreneurs maintain relationships with other foreign scientists, who are born or trained in other countries, derived from their scientific activity that would contribute positively to the internationalization of their companies (Krabel et al. 2012; Libaers and Wang 2012; Van Geenhuizen et al. 2015). These relationships exist, first, because foreign scientists can recognize entrepreneurial opportunities that do not exist in their home countries (Krabel et al. 2012), and second, because foreign academics are better at attracting research resources than exploiting their inventions (Libaers and Wang 2012). In this vein, Andersson and Berggren (2016) declare that the researchers themselves attend international conferences and fairs that allow them to support and promote products internationally in global markets.

Based on these arguments, we suggest that the social capital of the academic entrepreneur could be related to internationalization. Therefore, the social capital of academic entrepreneurs, academic and market networks, could be key to accessing and entering new international markets. So we propose the following hypothesis and sub-hypotheses:

Psychological capital originates from a stream of positive psychology that focuses on studying individuals’ positive strengths and on how to develop and nurture said strengths (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000; Peterson 2006). Positive Organizational Behavior arises from positive psychology and is defined as the study and application of the psychological strengths and capacities of positively oriented people, which can be effectively measured, developed, and managed for the optimization of human management in the context of employment and applied to organizations and human resource management (Luthans et al. 2007b). Psychological capital originates from within Positive Organizational Behavior and is made up of four constructs: hope, resilience, optimism, and self-efficacy (Luthans et al. 2006, 2007b). In these terms, psychological capital is conceptualized as the state of positive psychological development of an individual (Luthans et al. 2007b) which implies four elements: first, perseverance in achieving objectives and, when necessary, redirection of the routes to achieve goals (hope); second, capacity to adapt to problems and adversities when they arise, and even to emerge stronger from said situation to achieve success (resilience); third, creation of positive attributions regarding current and future events (optimism); and finally, belief in one’s own abilities to make the efforts necessary to achieve success in challenging tasks (self-efficacy).

Several studies have applied this concept to the business environment (Luthans 2002; Wright 2003; Luthans et al. 2004, 2007b; Nelson and Cooper 2007; Luthans and Youssef 2007; Wright and Cropanzano 2007; Avey et al. 2010a), and more recently to that of entrepreneurship, by linking it with business success and entrepreneurial intention, respectively (Luthans et al. 2004; Envick 2005; Hmieleski and Carr 2008; Baker and Sinkula 2009; Hayek 2012; Baluku et al. 2016, 2018, 2021; Zou et al. 2016; Machmud and Ahmad 2019; Wang et al. 2019; Pathak and Goltz 2021; Villanueva-Flores et al. 2021). However, to the best of our knowledge, no empirical studies can be found that analyze psychological capital in the field of academic entrepreneurship, although in the literature certain theoretical work refers to the relationship between this capital and the internationalization of companies (Beechler and Javidan 2007; Clapp-Smith et al. 2007; Khilji et al. 2010; Dauth and Tomczak 2016; Mathews 2017).

The impact of psychological factors in the internationalization of companies shows how the personality, abilities, and internal psychological factors of managers can constitute relevant elements (Cabral et al. 2020; Wach and Głodowska 2021). This analysis has been addressed in research such as that by Lai et al. (2017), according to which the internal psychological factors of senior management exert a greater influence on the strategic decision to enter foreign markets than do external factors.

Other research, such as that by Maitland and Sammartino (2015), considers that the decision on internationalization is based on managers’ cognition, rather than on their demographic characteristics (Sapienza et al. 2006; Cabral et al. 2020; Wach and Głodowska 2021). Furthermore, Anwar et al. (2018) show that the personality of managers is closely related to the degree of internationalization of their companies. More specifically, several theoretical studies highlight how the personal characteristics (including psychological capital) of the entrepreneur, manager, or leader are related to their mentality, culture, and global leadership, and, therefore, to the internationalization of companies (Beechler and Javidan 2007; Khilji et al. 2010; Dauth and Tomczak 2016; Mathews 2017). Along these lines, Beechler and Javidan (2007) posit that the attributes of the psychological capital of managers are critical components for success in internationalization because they need both self-efficacy to face high levels of ambiguity and difficult tasks in various parts of the world and trust in themselves to face such challenges. Optimism and hope also play a major role in this process, since they provide motivation for the search for alternatives and for the belief in a successful result, regardless of the magnitude of the challenge. Resilience is also relevant due to the higher probabilities of experiencing obstacles in global markets and to the resulting need to continuously adapt.

In the context of ASOs, several of the personality traits that characterize these entrepreneurs have been studied (Kolb and Warner 2015; Obschonka et al. 2019) among the motives of academic entrepreneurs to create an ASO (Bercovitz and Feldman 2003; Ambos et al. 2008), including certain peculiarities inherent in their academic profile (Jain et al. 2009; Guerrero and Urbano 2014; Nielsen 2015). However, no studies on their psychological capital can been found, although certain components have been related individually to academic entrepreneurship. From the literature on entrepreneurship, it is expected that academic entrepreneurs, due to the fact that they have had the courage to commercially exploit their research results, possess certain personality traits related to their entrepreneurial intention, such as presenting high levels of self-efficacy (Prodan and Drnovsek 2010).

Thus, entrepreneurial self-efficacy constitutes a fundamental characteristic that academics must possess in order to overcome their business and entrepreneurial deficiencies and acquire confidence in their abilities and capacities to act in the industrial context, which requires characteristics and a culture that differ from those of the university context (Hannibal et al. 2016; Ju and Zhou 2020). According to Hannibal et al. (2016), entrepreneurial self-efficacy motivates academics to act in the markets, which helps them overcome their initial limitations. This self-efficacy has led them to an individual perception related to their ability to successfully complete a task, and consequently the literature has related this variable to entrepreneurial intention (Zhao et al. 2005; Ozgen and Baron 2007; Guerrero et al. 2008; Díaz-García and Jiménez-Moreno 2010; Prodan and Drnovsek 2010; Mathieu and St-Jean 2013; Shinnar et al. 2014; Fernández-Pérez et al. 2014; Huyghe and Knockaert 2015). Self-efficacy can be a mechanism to overcome the financial, technological, and legal uncertainty, which is often associated with entrepreneurship and development in new markets (Markman et al. 2002; Obschonka et al. 2010). Therefore, these levels of self-efficacy can also lead them to perceive that they will be able to successfully tackle the challenge of internationalization. Many of these academic entrepreneurs also come from research fields that lead them to select uncertain environments (Nielsen 2015), such as those that could be related to internationalization.

On the other hand, studies, such as that by Kolb and Warner (2015), indicate that scientists possess high emotional stability, related to self-efficacy and optimism when faced with the high pressure not only of developing excellent research and achievements from their publications, but also of a high workload. These same authors identified a high degree of extraversion in this type of entrepreneur: “A scientist who decides to establish a spin-off is strongly convinced about the business idea, and values the potential outcome of the process highly promising” (p: 403). Within the studies that analyze optimism in the field of academic entrepreneurship are those that indicate that optimism leads entrepreneurs to greater probabilities of starting up a business activity (Díaz-García and Jiménez-Moreno 2010; Abreu and Grinevich 2013; Alonso-Galicia et al. 2015; Iorio et al. 2017).

Regarding resilience, Duchek (2018) relates flexibility to resilience, and authors, such as Zou et al. (2019), point out the high degree of flexibility required of academic entrepreneurs due to their need: to face changing environments; to play a hybrid role, which leads them to manage the conflict inherent in said dual role (Jain et al. 2009); and to manage the distribution of time between the two types of tasks that each of these roles requires. This conflict of roles also leads them to develop different ways of thinking and making decisions. Guerrero and Urbano (2014), for their part, point out how academics take risks and respond to challenges, such as those presented by the internationalization of their businesses. Academic entrepreneurs may encounter multiple issues, ranging from self-motivation issues to social processes in the business venture (for example, they must convince investors and potential employees, customers, and business partners) and must maintain persistence, personal effort, and optimism during the critical and challenging moments of the entrepreneurial process (Cardon et al. 2013).

Finally, to act in an entrepreneurial way and to achieve business objectives requires will power, proactivity, creativity, risk-taking, resilience, and persistence (Cardon et al. 2009). This could be related to the hope component, since those individuals with high levels of hope can maintain the will power and persistence to reach their goals, and to creatively design alternative routes to this end (Avey et al. 2010b).

The above arguments, and in the absence of studies that focus on the psychological capital of the academic entrepreneur, lead us to suggest that the psychological capital of the academic entrepreneur is important for internationalization. Self-efficacy makes them believe that they have the necessary capacity to face the challenge of internationalization. Regardless of the magnitude of the challenge, optimism and hope encourage them to take the risk to undertake a business venture in global markets, and the motivation to seek alternatives to achieve it. Resilience helps them adapt to the obstacles presented by these global markets. Therefore, the psychological capital of the academic entrepreneur could influence the internationalization of ASOs.

The theoretical model proposed is shown in the following figure (Figure 1).

The database includes the population of 628 Spanish ASOs created by Spanish universities with the support of their TTOs during the period 2003–2018. The ASOs in our sample are, on average, 8.57 years old and belong to five different activity sectors. Specifically, 84 ASOs are engaged in professional, scientific, and technical activities; 9 ASOs are engaged in the educational, health, and social sectors; 24 ASOs are engaged in information and communication; 23 ASOs belong to the manufacturing sector; and the remaining, 12 ASOs, are engaged in administrative, auxiliary, and artistic activities. In order to build this database, a formal request for collaboration was requested to RedOTRI who sent an email to all the TTO managers included in this network. The following information was obtained from the managers of 70 Spanish TTOs of ASOs: phone number, email address, web site, company name, founder name, year of constitution, industry, research group, and the identity of the leader of each research group. Subsequently, to design the questionnaire, an exhaustive literature review was generated in order to identify key variables and their measurements. From this literature review, a preliminary questionnaire was designed that was first pretested through in-depth interviews with the academic entrepreneurs and managers of three ASOs in 2018, and their recommendations were considered. The final version of the questionnaire was composed of 21 questions. This questionnaire was sent, by email, to the main founder of each of the 628 Spanish ASOs in our database. These ASOs were created within the university context and their founders are academics, who were still linked to the ASOs at the time the email was sent. Those academic entrepreneurs who failed to respond to the questionnaire by email were contacted by phone. Considering these ASOs and those that participated in the pretest, our sample consisted of 173 established ASOs (response rate: 27.6%). In order to ascertain whether there were mean differences between the respondent and non-respondent ASOs in our database, the non-response bias was analyzed. To this end, a t-test was applied on independent samples for the comparison of respondent and non-respondent ASOs regarding age and size (number of employees). From these results, it could be demonstrated that there were no mean differences between the respondent and non-respondent ASOs in terms of number of employees (p = 0.310) and age (p = 0.139). Therefore, non-response bias poses no problem in our empirical data, and therefore, our sample can be assumed as representative of the total population of Spanish ASOs.

Structural equation models (SEMs) are employed to test the proposed hypotheses using the EQS 6.4 program. SEMs are a multivariate statistical analysis technique used to analyze structural relationships. SEMs can perform factor analysis and multiple regression analysis, and they could be used to study structural relationships, between measured variables and latent constructs. This method allows multiple and interrelated dependence to be estimated in a single analysis. Specifically, we used SEMs to perform, first a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), in order to guarantee the validity and reliability of our scales (Bagozzi et al. 1991), and then, we performed the regressions. They are therefore employed to analyze the structural relationships between variables and latent constructs and enable the estimation of multiple interdependence relationships that may be interrelated in a single analysis.

Subsequently, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is performed to ensure the reliability and validity of the measurement scales. The CFA results are shown in Table 1. One factor is obtained for human capital (t = 5.34) and another factor for psychological capital (t = 3.87).

Table 2 shows the relative information to guarantee the reliability and validity of the scales following the Fornell and Larcker procedure (1981). Composite reliability is greater than 0.7 in all cases, thus ensuring the reliability of the scales. The average variance extracted (AVE) is, in all cases, greater than 0.5, these values indicate that the convergent validity is guaranteed.

Discriminant validity is also assured. The results collected in Table 3 show that the square roots of the average variance extracted (AVE), which is the data that appears on the main diagonal, are in all cases superior to the correlations between the different variables selected for this study.

The hypotheses proposed in this study are tested using structural equation models. The results show a direct and positive relationship between human capital and internationalization. It can therefore be confirmed that Hypothesis H1 is accepted. It is also observed that there is a direct and positive relationship between academic relational capital and internationalization. However, market relational capital does not significantly influence internationalization. These results allow us to ensure that Hypothesis H.2.1 is verified but not Hypothesis H.2.2. There is a direct and positive relationship between psychological capital and the internationalization of ASOs, and therefore, it can be stated that Hypothesis H.3 is verified. Regarding the control variables, the age variable positively influences the degree of internationalization. However, the activity sector variable is not significant in any of the cases (Table 4).

We contribute to RBV and NT, as well as to the literature on academic entrepreneurship and internationalization, by explaining how the profiles of academic entrepreneurs influence the international projection of their business initiatives, in terms of their international human capital, international networks, and psychological capital. The three capitals of the academic entrepreneur are key resources for the internationalization of ASOs. This is both through the entrepreneur’s human and psychological capital, as well as through the international academic networks.

In relation to our first result, and given the existence of conflicting results regarding the impact of human capital on the internationalization of companies, we have valued the importance of the experience, training, and international mobility of academic entrepreneurs for the resources that they could provide for internationalization. Although the work that revolves around this subject has largely been focused on the study of management teams and entrepreneurs, a few have been oriented towards the analysis of academic entrepreneurs, who, due to their research and scientific activity, have extensive experience and international training that undoubtedly contribute to the internationalization of their businesses.

Second, we contribute towards the NT, by analyzing the peculiarities of the networks of relationships of academic entrepreneurs on internationalization. Since these entrepreneurs come from an academic context, their network of relationships has certain particular characteristics that undoubtedly affect their propensity to commercialize their research results in international markets. On the one hand, these are fundamentally university networks, and on the other hand, they are international networks derived from their collaboration with agents and institutions with which they work for the advancement of their academic activity.

Regarding the literature on academic entrepreneurship, an important contribution of our work entails the study of the psychological capital, whose analysis has hitherto been largely dismissed in this literature, together with the other two capitals of interest: human and relational capital. Therefore, our results bring to light the analysis of the impact of the profile of the academic entrepreneur in the internationalization of ASOs, by employing three capitals of this entrepreneur that have not previously been considered empirically in this literature together.

This article therefore increases the knowledge regarding antecedents in the analysis of the internationalization of ASOs, since it improves the understanding of the factors that influence the decision to enter international markets. Therefore, international human capital, academic networks, and psychological capital should be considered as important international business resources.

On the other hand, this work contributes towards the literature on internationalization, by specifically analyzing the internationalization of ASOs. ASOs are created with a strong international vocation, not only due to the type of sector in which they operate, the market niches towards which they are directed, and the major investments that must be profitable, but also in light of our results, because these are companies run by people with high level of international experience, academic networks of global relationships, and with a personal predisposition to self-efficacy, resilience, optimism, and hope. All of these variables are related to the challenge and difficulties involved in tackling non-domestic markets.

Our results, given the importance in universities of knowledge transfer and, in accordance with the triple helix model, revealed certain practical implications. Firstly, regarding human capital, academic institutions should help academic entrepreneurs, by means of advice or training, to enhance the internationalization of their ASOs through the recognition of global opportunities, the development of business plans aimed at foreign markets, and the identification of potential customers, needs, or non-domestic marketing channels, based on the international experiences that they have accumulated as a result of their collaboration networks, their training, and international mobility. Secondly, institutions should encourage the establishment of collaboration networks with agents from the international university context, from the conviction that these close relationships, from the context closest to the academic entrepreneur, seem to be decisive for the internationalization of their companies. To this end, more resources should be allocated to building these relationships with other universities, research groups, foreign TTOs, and with other non-local academic institutions. Thirdly, in relation to psychological capital, our results highlight significant implications for academic policies, which should carry out psychological capital interventions to develop academic entrepreneurs’ psychological capital (Bandura 1997; Masten 2001; Luthans et al. 2007a; 2010; 2015; Hizam-Hanafiah et al. 2017). Consequently, training programs could reinforce their psychological capital, since this could help them overcome their doubts and fears about embracing international entrepreneurship, thereby enhancing the probability of incorporating risky strategies such as internationalization. Self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience of academic entrepreneurs can be effectively developed in short training interventions for them to face new challenges, such as those involved in approaching foreign markets. These implications, focused on the academic entrepreneur, are especially relevant given the unfavorable context for entrepreneurship in Spain.

There are three limitations in our work that must be taken into account. The first limitation involves the way of collecting the network data. Since networks are dynamic and change over time, the collected data may suffer from memory bias. Scholars have found that the effect of networks can be temporary and is influenced by the external environment. Secondly, our sample draws from Spanish ASOs, and therefore the results achieved could differ for samples from other countries. Thirdly, the opinion of the other co-founders is not taken into account, and only the main founders of the ASOs was asked to respond to the questionnaire. For future research, we recommend that the proposed model be validated using samples from other countries to establish comparisons. In addition, it would be of great interest to study the impact between the three capitals, as some authors have shown that psychological capital can influence social and human capital (Envick 2005; Zhao et al. 2020). Finally, further analysis is necessary to study how the impact of networks can be observed longitudinally.