A born global’s radical, gradual and nonlinear internationalization: A case from Belarus

Setbacks, interruptions and turnarounds in the internationalization process: a bibliometric and literature review of de-internationalization

“…These studies typically use a longitudinal approach (e.g., Vissak et al 2020 ), and look at export behavior as an accessible entry mode for smaller and younger firms (Dominguez and Mayrhofer 2017 ). Three studies (Dominguez and Mayrhofer 2017 ; Vissak and Zhang 2016 ; Vissak et al 2020 ) investigate internal and external factors influencing firms’ nonlinear internationalization processes, including lack of knowledge, lack of network relationships, effectual behavior, home and host country constraints, and global competitiveness.…”

“…To contrast the experience of successful early exporters with others that exited under similar circumstances. Dominguez and Mayrhofer ( 2017 ); Vissak and Zhang ( 2016 ); Vissak et al ( 2020 ); Yayla et al ( 2018 ) To compare the de-internationalization or market withdrawal trajectory of born globals and late internationalizers, examining the nature and types of business networks Deng et al ( 2017 ); Huang et al ( 2019 ); Vissak et al ( 2020 ) To analyze the role of knowledge and international experience (of different kinds) in the likelihood of exiting and re-entering, as well as the time span between these decisions Choquette ( 2019 ); Sandberg et al ( 2019 ); Surdu et al ( 2018 ); Surdu and Narula ( 2020 ); Vissak et al ( 2020 ) Subsidiary Divestment To further investigate the impact of previous international experience (general and specific to the host country) on divestment decisions. Arte and Larimo ( 2019 ); Schmid and Morschett ( 2020 ); Sousa and Tan ( 2015 ); Souza and Ogasavara (2018); Tan and Sousa ( 2015 ); Wang and Larimo ( 2020 ) To study the effects of strategic orientation/choices/ goals/mandates in defining the divestment of certain foreign subsidiaries and not of others.…”

A literature review on CEE firms’ internationalization: success measurement, achievement and outcomes

“…In addition to the above-mentioned internationalization processes, some firms have also experienced less typical paths : for instance, Atnashev and Vashakmadze (2016), Gorynia et al (2015) and Zemplinerová (2012) studied some firms that internationalized slowly but started their international expansion from foreign acquisitions, while Nowiński and Rialp (2013) and Witek-Hajduk et al (2022) explained that it is also possible to internationalize successfully via using e-commerce: for instance, through online intermediaries’ digital platforms. Moreover, Vissak and Zhang (2016) described a firm that initially experienced fast internationalization, but thereafter, the owners slowed the process down, while Vissak and Masso (2015) found that firms’ internationalization process is not usually linear or straightforward: fluctuations are normal. Finally, according to Vissak (2022b), firms that have managed to re-enter previously exited markets can be also regarded “successful”.…”

“…From foreign market and/or industry conditions, studies have mentioned favourable economic policies like trade liberalization (Békés and Muraközy, 2012), financial incentives and a favourable investment climate (Gorynia et al , 2015). Foreign customers’ willingness to pay (Nowiński and Rialp, 2013) or buy more (Ciszewska-Mlinaric et al , 2016; Elo, 2016), and, thus, the potential to earn higher profits (Coşkun et al , 2022; Ďaďo et al , 2015; Fonfara et al , 2021; Vissak and Zhang, 2016) can also motivate firms to enter foreign markets. In addition, geographical proximity (Ciszewska-Mlinaric et al , 2016), availability of low-cost resources (Gorynia et al , 2015) and lack of language barriers (Panibratov and Latukha, 2014) can affect location choice.…”

“…From other outcomes , revenue growth (Éltető and Udvari, 2019; Panibratov et al , 2022; Srbinoski et al , 2022; Vaivode, 2018), reduced financial risk and higher survival due to earnings from multiple markets (Roolaht, 2017; Steinerowska-Streb et al , 2022; Vissak and Masso, 2020), increased financial stability (Coşkun et al , 2022), high profitability (Barłożewski and Trąpczyński, 2021a; Bulis et al , 2021; Çela et al , 2022; Ciszewska-Mlinarič et al , 2012; Kalotay and Sulstarova, 2010; Lukason and Vissak, 2016; Srbinoski et al , 2022) and constant profitability (growth) during several years were used to characterize successful internationalizers (Vissak, 2013; Vissak and Zhang, 2016). In addition, in some studies, employment growth (Srbinoski et al , 2022; Svetličič et al , 2007; Vissak and Masso, 2020), high productivity (Benkovskis et al , 2020; Brodzicki, 2017; Damijan et al , 2017; Jaklič et al , 2017), improved reputation (Ciszewska-Mlinarič et al , 2020), increased value added (Ciszewska-Mlinarič et al , 2012; Trapczynski, 2016b), gaining access to new technologies via successful investments (Götz and Jankowska, 2019) and increased innovativeness (Ermolaeva et al , 2018) and competitiveness (Trąpczyński et al , 2016) were mentioned.…”