Small Firms in Regional Clusters: Local Networks and Internationalization in the Southern Hemisphere

Abstract

This paper reports on a three‐country comparative study examining the internationalization of family winemakers in distinct regional wine clusters of Argentina, Chile, and New Zealand. In‐depth interviews were conducted with owner–operators, to understand the drivers and barriers to internationalization of their businesses. Key findings reveal that while size and age are not determinants of the ability or propensity to export wine, the existence of an independent industry body has a positive impact and greatly speeds up the internationalization process, providing an effective route for small firms to establish their very often, relatively unknown brand(s) in lucrative foreign markets.

Collaboration and Internationalization of SMEs: Insights and Recommendations from a Systematic Review

“…However, research on mediators/moderators has only recently begun investigating the mediators and moderators between antecedents and internationalization outcomes (Felzensztein et al . 2019; Qian et al . 2018; Nakos et al .…”

Internationalizing the Coopetition Construct: Quadratic Effects on Financial Performance Under Different Degrees of Export Intensity and an Export Geographical Scope

“…1 First, coopetition was expected to have a quadratic relationship with financial performance (Crick and Crick 2021; Luo, Rindfleisch, and Tse 2007). Second, export intensity and export geographical scope were anticipated to positively moderate this nonlinear (inverted U-shaped) association (Chetty and Wilson 2003; Felzensztein, Deans, and Dana 2019). Third, the outcome variable (namely, financial performance) was controlled for firm size, firm age, and competitive intensity, as additional factors that might explain its variance (Crick and Crick 2020; Leonidou et al 2013; Vorhies, Orr, and Bush 2011).…”

“…They argued that because of the economic and health-related shocks that the novel coronavirus has caused, various firms (small and large) have found that it is beneficial to work with rivals to access vital equipment and information, as well as sharing certain risks and costs that might make the difference between surviving and failing in these volatile circumstances. Although motives for engaging in coopetition activities vary, the underlying aim is to obtain mutually beneficial outcomes rather than employing an individualistic business model (linking with Bengtsson and Kock 2014; Felzensztein, Deans, and Dana 2019; Hannah and Eisenhardt 2018). Nonetheless, the management of coopetition relationships is likely to be complex because of competitive forces that might limit the performance outcomes of these interfirm partnerships (Mattsson and Tidstrom 2015; Park, Srivastava, and Gnyawali 2014).…”

“…With regard to coopetition, both resource-based theory and the relational view highlight the importance of managing high-quality interfirm partnerships to leverage resources and capabilities effectively and foster amicable professional networks (Dyer, Singh, and Hesterly 2018; Lavie 2006). If firms are competing for predominately domestic markets, the coopetition paradox may be challenging to manage (Crick and Crick 2021; Felzensztein, Deans, and Dana 2019). As an illustration, if firms sell their products to domestic establishments (e.g., restaurants, hotels, bars), the number of customers is likely to be limited.…”

“…Prior experiences may result in decision makers not following a forward-moving internationalization path and instead entering and exiting overseas markets (Crick, Crick, and Chaudhry 2020) or amending their modes of market entry (Elia, Larsen, and Piscitello 2019). However, if managed effectively, the mutual benefits of sharing resources and capabilities potentially reduce costs and the level of rivalry between firms in a coopetition relationship (Felzensztein, Deans, and Dana 2019; Felzensztein et al 2014).…”