Determinants of SME Internationalisation: An Empirical Assessment of Born Global Firms

Comments

Response

1. The difference between ‘determinants’ and ‘drivers’ of internationalisation is not clear. Also, ‘inducers’ and ‘elements’ are used at some places making it very vague.

Thank you for your insightful comment. We acknowledge the inconsistency in terminology and the resulting ambiguity in our discussion of factors influencing internationalization. To address this, we have standardized the terminology throughout the manuscript. ‘Determinants’ are now consistently used to refer to the structural and contextual factors that shape a firm’s ability and decision to internationalize (e.g., firm size, resources, and market conditions).

‘Drivers’ are used to denote the dynamic forces or motivations that propel a firm toward international expansion (e.g., competitive pressures, managerial vision, and technological advancements). We have removed the terms ‘inducers’ to eliminate redundancy and improve conceptual clarity. These changes ensure precision and consistency in our theoretical framework and discussion. We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, which has enhanced the clarity and coherence of our manuscript.

2. The distinction between 'globalisation' and 'internationalisation' is not clear.

Thank you for your insightful comment. We acknowledge the need for a clearer distinction between globalization and internationalization in our manuscript. To enhance clarity, we have revised the relevant sections to explicitly define these concepts and ensure consistency in their usage, emphasizing that our study focuses on internationalization as a strategic process rather than the macroeconomic phenomenon of globalization.

3. The study is on SMEs. It is not reflected in the title.

Thank you for your insightful comment. To accurately reflect the study’s focus on SMEs, we have revised the title to “Determinants of SME Internationalisation: An Empirical Assessment of Born Global Firms”. This modification ensures alignment with the research scope and enhances clarity for academic and practitioner audiences. The revised title explicitly conveys the study’s emphasis on SMEs while maintaining consistency with the existing literature on born-global firms.

4. Please consider rewriting section 1: Introduction, to make it more concise and crisp.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised Section 1: Introduction to enhance conciseness and clarity while maintaining the depth of our argument. Redundant explanations have been removed, and the key themes are now presented in a more structured and focused manner.

5. Motivation of the study is not clear.

Thank you for your feedback. We have clarified the study’s motivation by explicitly stating the research gap and contribution at the end of the Introduction section. The revision highlights the lack of research on Born Global firms in emerging markets and introduces an internationalization index to address this gap. This ensures alignment with the research objectives and enhances clarity. We appreciate the reviewer’s insight in improving the manuscript.

See page 3.

6. Describe the Push-Pull Model

Thank you for your feedback. We have provided a clearer description of the Push-Pull Model in the revised manuscript.

See page 3.

7. Please refer to "For simplicity, the determinants were divided into three categories, i.e., Push Factors (PUF), Pull Factors (PLF) and Internal firm-specific characteristics (IFC) and assumed to have an impact on the internationalization index (II)"..pg 2, line 86-87. Will you get different results if all the factors were studied together instead of dividing them into three categories.

Thank you for your insightful comment. The decision to categorize the determinants into Push Factors (PUF), Pull Factors (PLF), and Internal Firm-Specific Characteristics (IFC) was based on established internationalization frameworks that distinguish between external and internal drivers of firm expansion (Dunning, 1993; Coviello & Munro, 1997). This classification allows for a structured analysis of how distinct forces influence the internationalization index (II). While studying all factors together could yield holistic insights, it may obscure the differential impact of external market forces versus firm-specific capabilities. By categorizing them, we can assess their relative contributions more precisely, ensuring a nuanced understanding of internationalization dynamics in emerging markets.

8. Please refer to "The research also wants to aid in identifying the elements that will enhance early internationalization and try to draw the attention of young entrepreneurs as they begin the internationalization process. This research also prioritizes the factors responsible for early internationalization." ... pg. 18 line 479 to 482. How did you differentiate between early internationalisation a later internationalisation. Please develop this part further.

Thank you for your insightful comment. We have clarified the distinction between early internationalization and later internationalization by defining each concept and elaborating on the key differences in terms of timing, firm characteristics, and strategic approaches. The revised manuscript now explicitly differentiates Born Global firms, which internationalize within a few years of inception, from firms that follow a gradual, staged approach to internationalization over an extended period. This addition strengthens the conceptual foundation of the study and aligns with existing literature.

See page 14.

9. Implications of the Study to be included.

Thank you for your suggestion. We have now included a dedicated section on the Implications of the Study.

See page 14.

10. Further, "However, the literature offers several strategies that might be investigated, along with the potential to include additional factors that we will look at in further research in this domain".....pg. 14, line 507-509. Consider offering some strategies based on your results.

Thank you for your insightful suggestion. We have revised the manuscript to include specific strategies based on our findings, outlining key approaches that firms can adopt to enhance early internationalization. These strategies are now explicitly discussed in relation to the identified determinants, providing practical insights aligned with the study’s results.

See page 14

Comments

Response

1. The authors of the study strive to explore the influence of the following three types of factors – push, pull, and internal firm-specific factors, on the degree of internationalization of Indian SMEs. I suggest the authors sticking to this goal which will improve substantially the quality and scientific soundness of the paper. Introducing the Internationalization Index or Index of Internationalization (II) complicates the research design since it requires application of specific methodology for index development.

In the final paragraph of the Introduction section, it is written that “a key innovation of this study lies in the development and application of the Internationalization Index (II), which quantifies the degree of international market reliance”, and “… this research addresses the unique challenges faced by Indian SMEs, such as resource constraints and cultural proximity…”. Both are not presented in the research.

Thank you for your feedback. We have now thoroughly reviewed and updated the content to ensure they reflect the most recent and relevant literature in the field.

2. If the authors decide to persue a goal related to the development and implementation of a new Internationalization Index, they should explore into more details the key established indices measuring the level of internationalization, including their methodologies.

Thank you for your insightful comment. However, we respectfully disagree with the need to expand on established internationalization indices in greater detail. While indices such as the Transnationality Index (TNI) (Ietto-Gillies, 2012) and the Degree of Internationalization Index (DOI) (Sullivan, 1994) provide valuable insights, they primarily measure the internationalization levels of large multinational enterprises (MNEs) rather than early-stage SMEs and Born Global firms. Given the distinct characteristics of SME internationalization, our study focuses on developing an index tailored to entrepreneurial firms in emerging markets, which existing indices do not fully capture. Rather than reiterating traditional indices, we emphasize a context-specific approach that better reflects the challenges and enablers of SME global expansion. However, we have clarified this distinction in the revised manuscript to strengthen our methodological positioning.

3. Literature review needs improvement. The text is rather chaotic. Many concepts related to internationalization are presented but the logical framework to keep them in a coherent form is missing. For example, it is not clear why market entry modes are considered important for this research goal and how they are related to the Internationalization Index.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have restructured the Literature Review to improve coherence and ensure a clear logical framework. The revised section now follows a systematic progression, starting with foundational internationalization theories, followed by key determinants of early internationalization, and culminating in the relevance of market entry modes within the context of the Internationalization Index. These revisions enhance clarity and ensure a more structured presentation of the literature.

4. If the authors decide to persue a goal related to the development and implementation of a new Internationalization Index, they should explore into more details the key established indices measuring the level of internationalization, including their methodologies.

Thank you for your feedback. We have strengthened the research gap by incorporating updated references from recent studies in relevant journals. These additions clarify the unresolved issues our study addresses and reinforce its relevance within the current academic discourse.

5. Literature review needs improvement. The text is rather chaotic. Many concepts related to internationalization are presented but the logical framework to keep them in a coherent form is missing. For example, it is not clear why market entry modes are considered important for this research goal and how they are related to the Internationalization Index.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have restructured the Literature Review to improve coherence and ensure a clear logical framework. The revised section now follows a systematic progression, starting with foundational internationalization theories, followed by key determinants of early internationalization, and culminating in the relevance of market entry modes within the context of the Internationalization Index.

6. It is important to reveal the difference between internationalization and globalization. It seems that these two terms are used interchangably throughout the text. There are seminal theories in the field of internationalization of the companies which are not mentioned.

Thank you for your insightful comment. We acknowledge the need for a clearer distinction between globalization and internationalization in our manuscript. To enhance clarity, we have revised the relevant sections to explicitly define these concepts and ensure consistency in their usage, emphasizing that our study focuses on internationalization as a strategic process rather than the macroeconomic phenomenon of globalization.

7. A clear operationalization is needed for the term “born global”, e.g. “companies who have reached a share of foreign sales of at least25 per cent within a time frame of two to three years after their establishment” (Kudina, Yip & Barkema, 2008). (see Anzam, 2009 for details).

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have now provided a clear operational definition of the term "Born Global" in the manuscript, aligning with established literature. The revised text explicitly defines Born Global firms based on foreign sales share and time frame criteria, ensuring clarity and consistency in conceptualization.

See page 3.

8. Authors should avoid terms like “key innovation” when describing their work without proper justification.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have carefully made the necessary enhancements and adjustments.

9. The topic is relevant to the field, and it could be considered original from applied point of view taking into consideration the limitations of this study and the comments provided above.

Thank you for your valuable feedback.

10. Research methodology needs improvement. Sampling should be presented into more details, including statistical justification of the sample size calculation. There is a limitation stated in the abstract that research is focused on manufacturing-related SMEs chosen from manufacturing clusters in India, while in methodology section it is written that the SMEs are from of all sizes and industries. Measurement scales should be provided together with respective calculations for validity. Hypotheses should be explicitly defined in methodology section.

Thank you for your detailed feedback. We have improved the Research Methodology section now in the light of the suggestions.

11. Conclusions correspond to the research results. The authors should provide clear implications for the SMEs aiming to internationalize their business

Thank you for your suggestion. We have now included a dedicated section on the Implications of the Study.

See page 14.

12. The references are appropriate and adequate.

Thank you for your suggestion.