Intangible assets in the process of internationalization

Bryl, Łukasz Article Intangible assets in the process of internationalization International Journal of Management and Economics Provided in Cooperation with: SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw Suggested Citation: Bryl, Łukasz (2020) : Intangible assets in the process of internationalization, International Journal of Management and Economics, ISSN 2543-5361, Sciendo, Warsaw, Vol. 56, Iss. 1, pp. 63-78, https://doi.org/10.2478/ijme-2020-0004 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/309704 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ International Journal of Management and Economics 2020; 56(1): 63–78 Łukasz Bryl* Intangible assets in the process of internationalization https://doi.org/10.2478/ijme-2020-0004 Received April 25, 2019; accepted October 30, 2019 Abstract: The aim of this article is to determine the current state of impact of various forms of intangible assets on the internationalization process. For the purpose of the paper meta-analysis was adopted as a method of the study. English-language peer-reviewed journal articles were analyzed only with the help of: EBSCOhost, ScienceDirect, Emerald, JSTOR, ProQuest and Wiley Online databases. The search was aimed at newest papers (after 2012), however some older articles (with regard to their value) were included in the analysis as well. Based on the conducted analysis, there was observed a significant and positive link between the level of employee education and internationalization probability and extent. The effect of the wages on internationalization is stage dependent. Under certain assumptions there is a positive and strong relationship between R&D intensity and internationalization. Advertising spending do not foster the process of internationalization. The practical contribution of this research is twofold. First, it provides valuable insight for practitioners which intangible assets and how foster various modes of the internationalization process. Second, it describes upon which conditions the interrelation between firm intangible assets and internationalization is significant and positive. Keywords: intangibles, intellectual capital, internationalization, literature review JEL Classification: F14, O34 1 Introduction Internationalization is a process of increasing international operations [Welch and Loustarinen, 1988]. It is considered as an expansion of firm through involvement of international operations, especially crossing the nations’ domestic borders [Kutschker and Baurle, 1997]. In the contemporary business environment, internationalization is one of the firms’ strategic choices. With the emerge of digital era, new resources (e.g., intangible assets) are perceived as significant factors in shaping the process of internationalization. According to Marr and Moustaghfir [2005], any valuable intangible resource gained through experience and learning that can be used in the production of further wealth composes a company’s intellectual capital. Kujansivu and Lönnqvist [2007] believe that intellectual capital represents all of a company’s nonphysical sources of value. According to Hall [1993], an intangible asset includes intellectual property rights in the form of patents, trademarks, copyright, contracts, trade secrets, public knowledge such as scientific works, networks, organizational culture, and reputation of products and company itself. According to Ghamari et al. [2012], patents, copyrights, trademark, and customer relationship are important determinants of internationalization. Similarly brand value is one of the most important intangible resources of the firm and performs an important relationship with internationalization [Mahnke and Venzin, 2003]. Early studies provide inconclusive results. For example, the study by Denekamp [1995] found that human capital Empirical Paper *Corresponding author: Łukasz Bryl, Poznan University of Economics and Business, Poznan, Poland. E-mail: Luka[email protected]l Open Access. © 2020 Bryl, published by Sciendo. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License. 64 Ł. Bryl (measured as share of lawyers in total employment) and structural capital (operationalized as R&D staff to total employment) are strong predictors of US outbound FDI during the 1980s, whereas study by Kotha et al. [2001] on US Internet firms indicates lack of significant effects of R&D intensity (measured as both R&D expenditures and R&D expenditures to total assets) on internationalization. However, due to the rapid global development, the above mentioned results may not be relevant any longer. As a result, the aim of this paper is to review up-to-date empirical research referring to the link between various forms of intangible assets and internationalization. Consequently, this proposed literature review is focused on the newest research and it relates to the papers not older than 15years. Additionally, 60% of the analyzed studies were published after 2015. This study contributes in two ways. First, it enables regulators and managers to focus on those intangible assets items that are effective in terms of fostering the process of internationalization. Second, it attempts to revive and foster the discussion of the relevance of intellectual capital items by the entities especially in the context of its influence of likelihood, forms, and pace of internationalization. For the purpose of this paper, the terms such as intangible assets and intellectual capital will be used interchangeably. The research question formulated is as follows: RQ. What does the discipline know about the intangible assets determining the internationalization process of firms? The structure of this paper is as follows. Section 1 is an introduction. In Section 2, the theoretical link between intangible assets and internationalization is examined. Section 3 depicts the methodical assumptions adopted in this literature review. In Section 4, the main findings of existing empirical research concerning the studied impact are presented. In Section 5, the obtained results are concluded along with limitations of the study and future lines of research. 2 Theoretical link between intangible assets and internationalization Theories of the firm internationalization: Uppsala model [Johanson and Wiedersheim-Paul, 1975], product’s cycle life theory [Vernon, 1966], network theory [Johanson and Mattson, 1988], born global and/ or international new ventures (INVs) [Oviatt and McDougall, 1994; Knight and Cavusgil, 1996] provide a comprehensive picture of companies’ foreign activity and directly or indirectly stress the role of resources which given firm possess, including tangible and intangible assets. It seems undoubtful that enterprises in order to be successful must possess and leverage information-based intangible resources, including institutional knowledge such as knowledge of laws and regulations [Eriksson et al., 1997]; knowledge of local conditions and opportunities [Chetty and Blankenburg Holm, 2000]; business knowledge of resources, capabilities, and market behavior of suppliers, competitors, and customers [Blomstermo et al., 2004]; and local relationships that provide “home court” advantages to local firms [Dunning, 2001]. Resource-based view theory states that firms enjoy sustained competitive advantage if they hold resources that are valuable, rare, and difficult to imitate or substitute [Dierickx and Cool, 1989; Barney, 1991]. Intangible resources, such as trademarks, brands, customer lists, patents, and also knowledge and skills, are particularly likely to meet these criteria and thus play a central role in explaining firms’ sustained competitive advantage on both the domestic and foreign markets. The most important classification of intangible assets distinguishes among human, structural, and relational assets [Edvinsson and Malone, 1997]. Human assets are usually measured as the level of knowledge, education, or experience in possession of the employees. Formal education represents an investment in human capital and it enhances entrepreneurs’ knowledge, problem-solving ability, discipline, and the capacity to introduce practices within the firm that may enhance business success. Completion of higher education in management studies increases business horizons and enhances Intangible assets in the process of internationalization 65 the ability of identifying and pursuing foreign business opportunities. In addition, employees in firms performing an internationalization strategy of rapid acceleration need a higher level of technical knowledge and skills which would allow the firm to simultaneously conduct business across markets around the world [Love and Roper, 2015]. Hence, the theory suggests that entering new markets requires unique knowledge and skills, thus the general higher level of human capital should work as an enhancer of internationalization. Structural assets are commonly attributed to the intangible assets that enable and foster organization in its innovative endeavors. There is a strong premise that product, process, management, and marketing innovations might drive exports at firm level [Cassiman and Golovko, 2011; Becker and Egger, 2013]. Apart from Oslo Manual typology of innovations, R&D and patent applications/granted are also commonly perceived as the indicators of firms’ innovation activity. Their advantages and disadvantages are well known [Mohnen and Hall, 2013], nevertheless common belief suggests that innovations lead to unique skills, knowledge, attractive products, and consequently competitive advantage that enables firms’ internationalization. With regard to relational assets, the network theory indicates that firms enter those markets where they have established contacts with other firms; therefore, mutual benefits arise from highly internationalized relational capital [Johanson and Vahlne, 2006]. The possible forms of relational assets are brands, customer relations, reputation, and business cooperation. As suggested by Mohr and Batsakis [2014], there are two mechanisms through which firms’ intangible assets increase the firms’ internationalization pace. Intangible assets either push firms toward rapid internationalization and/or facilitate already undertaken firms’ rapid internationalization. In this sense, scientific interest is put on the four variables: likelihood, speed, forms, and extent of internationalization. In terms of capturing the extent of internationalization, there have been many approaches created. Rugman and Oh [2011] concluded that scale metrics, such as export intensity and foreign sales over total sales, constitute the best choices. 3 Literature review design The purpose of this proposed review is to present a possibly comprehensive overview of the existing research on the interrelation between intangibles and internationalization. Meta-analysis was adopted as a method of investigation for this study. Meta-analysis is an advanced technique utilized to merge the results of a number of studies in order to provide a better overall picture of the underlying relationships between the studied variables in terms of particular field of interest [Quazi and Richardson, 2012]. The review comprises English-language peer-reviewed journal articles only. Following databases were used to gather needed journals: EBSCOhost, ScienceDirect, Emerald, JSTOR, ProQuest, and Wiley Online. The search was aimed at specific publication period (after 2012); however, some older papers (with regard to their value) were introduced to the analysis as well. A systematic search process in the mentioned electronic databases was performed. The initial set of keywords (“intangible assets,” “intangibles,” “intellectual capital,” “structural assets/capital,” “relational assets/capital,” “human assets/capital,” “internationalization,” “entry mode,” “foreign markets,” “foreign expansion”) was formed by general readings, common belief, and the author’s experience concerning the possible link between intangible assets and internationalization. Figure 1 presents literature review adopted in this paper. Figure 1 depicts general design of this proposed literature review. The impact of the intangible assets on internationalization was divided into the influence of intellectual capital three dimensions: human, structural, and relational assets. To conduct the analysis of the empirical studies, each intangible assets dimension was assigned given set of items along with possible measures (operationalization). Guthrie and Petty (2000) intellectual capital disclosure framework was utilized to identify given intangible items within the intellectual capital categories. With regard to the internationalization, the possible impact was analyzed in terms of probability to export, intensity, form, and pace. 66 Ł. Bryl 4 Findings For the purpose of this paper, the proposed review is divided into the analysis of structural, human, and relational assets’ influence on the internationalization process. Descriptive statistics of the studied papers is shown in Table 1. The methodology adopted in the analyzed papers referred mainly to the regression models (16 papers). Four studies adopted a multiple case study method. Most quantitative analyses included control variables and some studies performed robustness test. Only two papers took into account lag time of variables effect and it was 1year. Studied sample varied significantly, from 52 to 5,800 firms (excluding case studies) originating mostly from the developed nations (USA, Western Europe, and Japan). Eight articles analyzed the impact of intangible assets on internationalization in the context of explicitly developing countries (India, Russia, Argentina, Chile, and Visegrad group countries). Out of all the studied sectors, the most prevailing one was manufacturing. Most research employed dynamic approach, and the average time extent of the analysis was almost 5years; however, only one study may be truly described as longitudinal one (Table 2). Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the studied papers No. of papers 20 Publishing years of studied papers 2006–2018 Time span of the empirical studies 1985–2017 Average length of empirical studies 4.6 National context 60% developed, 40% developing nations Methods adopted Regression analysis: 80%, case studies: 20% Sample—industry Manufacturing as dominant industry Source: Own elaboration. Figure 1. Forms of intangible assets and internationalization—literature review design. Source: Own work. Intangible assets in the process of internationalization 67 Table 2. Intangibles and internationalization—summary of literature review (oldest to newest) Intangible assets component* Study Research design** Sample Empirical approach Findings Size/national context Industry Years of analysis Intangible assets proxy Form of internationalization Method of data analysis Human and relational Hitt et al. (2006) To study the influence of human and relational capital on internationalization 52 largest U.S. law firms by total revenue Law firms 1992–1999 Human and relational capital Number of foreign offices and the number of lawyers in each office LSDV model involving a generalized least squares estimation, 1year time lag between variables The extent of human and relational capital generally had a positive effect on internationalization. Structural Filatotchev and Piesse (2009) Interrelationship between postflotation R&D efforts and internationalization 1 110 IPO’s from UK, Germany, Italy and France Various, excluding financial sector 1985–2004 R&D intensity Export growth Regression analysis, control variables included R&D intensity positively influences internationalization. Intellectual Li et al. (2012) Role of R&D, advertising, international experience, and alliance in the early internationalization 278 US STEs Biotech products, computer products (peripherals and components), electronics, semiconductors, software, telecommunications, test and measurement equipment, transportation equipment 2004–2009 R&D intensity, advertising intensity, international experience, forming alliances Early internationalization understood as establishing foreign operations within 3years or less of their founding Regression analysis, control variables included Early internationalization is positively influenced by R&D intensity, whereas advertising intensity and alliance formed are not significant. Relation between international experience and degree of internationalization takes an inverted U-shape. Human Brambilla et al. (2012) To study how exports and export destinations affect the utilization of skilled labor 901 Argentinian firms Manufacturing 1998–2000 Wage levels Export intensity with the division on destinations based on income OLS, control variables included, robustness test checked Exporting to high-income countries induces firms to hire more skilled workers, but exporting per se does not. Structural Altomonte et al. (2013) To identify correlation between innovation intensity and internationalization 14,759 large firms from Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain, and UK Manufacturing 2008 R&D financial incentives, R&D-related tax allowance Exports, imports, FDI, outsourcing OLS, control variables included, robustness test checked Unit increase in innovation intensity leads to an average increase of around 0.3 in internationalization intensity. No significant cross-country differences are observed. (Continued) 68 Ł. Bryl Table 2. Continued. Intangible assets component* Study Research design** Sample Empirical approach Findings Size/national context Industry Years of analysis Intangible assets proxy Form of internationalization Method of data analysis Human and structural Teixeira and Coimbra (2014) To study the impact of structural and human capital on the internationalization speed of USOs 111 Portuguese USOs Energy/environment/ sustainability, bio/ pharma, medical devices/diagnostics, microelectronics/ robotics sectors, ICT/software/digital media, agri-food 2012 Experience, education, R&D intensity, no. of patents registered Time lag between the founding of the firm and the firm’s first international operations OLS, control variables included Technical skills of entrepreneur affect speed of internationalization positively and R&D intensity negatively. No significant impact of patents registered. Human and structural Mohr and Batsakis (2014) Impact of intangible fixed assets and international experience on internationalization speed 144 global firms (majority from USA, UK, Japan, Germany, France) Retail 2003–2012 Intangible fixed assets, depth and breadth of international experience Speed of internationalization (average number of foreign outlets divided by the number of years since the firm’s first international expansion) Generalized least squares (FGLS), control variables included Intangible assets, depth, and breadth of international experience perform a positive effect on the speed of internationalization. Intellectual Moisés et al. (2014) To determine the role of intangible assets in born globals and Uppsala models firms 3,690 firms from 80 countries Various 1999–2000 Tobin’s qExport intensity Tobit regression, control variables included Intangible resources are more important for the performance of the born globals than for the Uppsala firms. Human Lafuente et al. (2015) Impact of intangible assets on likelihood of export entry and export sustainability 319 Romanian SMEs No information 2008 Managerial studies, labor experience, presence of an entrepreneurial team, perceived risk Probability of export entry and export sustainability Multinomial logit regression, control variables included, robustness test checked Completion of management studies and existence of entrepreneurial team increase the probability to engage in exporting. Labor experience foster export sustainability. Human and structural Rodríguez and Nieto (2015) Impact of innovation capability and cooperation on the propensity to internationalize 1,839 Spanish firms Knowledge-intensive business services (NACE M72, M73, M74) 2003–2005 R&D intensity, training expenses, R&D personnel Export intensity Probit model, control variables included R&D expenditures and cooperation with other firms and/or institutions positively affect export growth. (Continued) Intangible assets in the process of internationalization 69 Table 2. Continued. Intangible assets component* Study Research design** Sample Empirical approach Findings Size/national context Industry Years of analysis Intangible assets proxy Form of internationalization Method of data analysis Human Bell and Cooper (2015) To study the role of intangible assets in the internationalization 9 Canadian SMEs Pharmaceuticals No information Entrepreneur background, knowledge, networking activities Number of countries internationalised Multiple case study Most studied companies evaluated entrepreneur background, knowledge on foreign markets, and networking activities as vital factor of internationalization. Human and structural Panda and Reddy (2016) Impact of human capital, advertising, and brand investments on internationalization 46 public and private Indian banks Banks 2008–2012 Number of employees, advertising, and brand investments International advances and borrowing intensity number of countries served Pooled OLS, control variables included Intellectual capital has a significant positive influence on the internationalization of banks in terms of international advances intensity and number of countries served. Advertisement and branding expenses are significantly negatively related to the international borrowing intensity. Human Onkelinx et al. (2016) The role of firmlevel human capital in the internationalization of SMEs 5,800 Belgian SMEs Manufacturing 1998–2005 Weighted average education level of newly hired employees and the average wage level of all employees Export intensity Hierarchical Tobit regression, control variables included analysis 1year time lag Findings indicate a significant curvilinear (inverted U) association between the level of human capital and the firm’s export intensity when firms choose a strategy of accelerated internationalization. Human Almodóvar et al. (2016) The role of human asset quality in the internationalization of SMFEs 610 Spanish SMFEs Manufacturing 2006–2010 Weighted average education level, R&D staff ratio Export intensity Tobit panel data analyses, control variables included Relation between education level of the employee base, ratio of R&D staff to total employees, and internationalization take an idiosyncratic S-curved shape. (Continued) 70 Ł. Bryl Table 2. Continued. Intangible assets component* Study Research design** Sample Empirical approach Findings Size/national context Industry Years of analysis Intangible assets proxy Form of internationalization Method of data analysis Intellectual Danik et al. (2016) To study motives of early internationalization 10 Polish SMEs Various, nonfinancial No information Founders background, knowledge, personal relations network, experience Funding born global and early internationalization process Multiple case study, descriptive statistics International “vision,” previous experience, and strategy of the management are very important in funding a born global firm and later internationalization process. Human Arte (2017) To examine the role of experience and knowledge in new venture internationalization 6 Indian SMEs Various, nonfinancial 2015 Experience, market and technological knowledge INVs Multiple case study International, entrepreneurial, and industry experience are perceived as the important factors in the process of internationalization along with the market and technological knowledge. Intellectual Jardon and Molodchik (2017) To explore the role of intellectual capital in each phase of the process of internationalization 1,687 Russian firms Manufacturing 2013–2014 Education, internal coordination system, cooperation (various forms) Six staged internationalization index (within the framework of the Uppsala model) Logistic regression, control variables included Cooperation (in its various forms) is the most important determinant of internationalization at all stages, followed by structural capital. Structural Cieślik and Michałek (2018) To determine the relationship between different forms of innovation and their export performance 1,374 firms from Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia No information 2011–2014 Process, product, management and marketing innovation, R&D spending Probability of export initiation Probit model, control variables included Only process innovations, R&D spending, and employees with higher education positively affect export likelihood. (Continued) Intangible assets in the process of internationalization 77 Brambilla, I., Lederman, D., Porto, G. (2012), Exports export destinations and skills, American Economic Review, Vol. 102, pp.3406–3438. Chetty, S., Blankenburg Holm, D. (2000), Internationalisation of small to medium-sized manufacturing firms: a network approach, International Business Review, Vol. 9, pp. 77–93. Cieślik, A., Michałek, J.J. (2018), Process and product innovations, multi-product status and export performance: firm-level evidence from V-4 countries, Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 233–250. Danik, L., Duliniec, E., Kowalik, I. (2016), The Polish born global firms: founding processes and motives of early internationalization, Transformations in Business & Economics, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 111–130. Denekamp, J.G. (1995), Intangible assets, internationalization and foreign direct investment in manufacturing, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 493–504. Dunning, J.H. (2001), The eclectic (OLI) paradigm of international production: past, present and future, International Journal of the Economics of Business, Vol. 8, pp. 173–190. Edvinsson, L., Malone, M.S. (1997), Intellectual capital: the proven way to establish your company’s real value by measuring its hidden brainpower, Piat, London. Éltető, A., Udvari, B. (2018), Factors influencing the export of Hungarian SMEs, International Journal of Export Marketing, Vol.2, No. 2, pp. 104–124. Eriksson, K., Johanson, J., Majkgard, A., Sharma, D.D. (1997), Experiential knowledge and cost in the internationalization process, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 28, pp. 337–360. Filatotchev, I., Piesse, J. (2009), R&D, Internationalization and growth of newly listed firms: European evidence, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 40, No. 8, pp. 1260–1276. Ghamari, M., Saeidina, M., Hashemi, M., Aghaei, M. (2012), Intangible assets reporting, Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, Vol. 1, No. 11, pp. 70–73. Guthrie, J., Petty, R. (2000). Intellectual capital: Australian annual reporting practices, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 241–251. Hall, R. (1993), Framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 607–618. Hitt, M.A., Bierman, L., Uhlenbruck, K., Shimizu, K. (2006), The importance of resources in the internationalization of professional service firms: good, the bad, and the ugly, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, No. 6, pp.1137–1157. Jardon, C., Molodchik, M. (2017), What types of intangible resources are important for emerging market firms when going international? Journal of East European Management Studies, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 579–595. Johanson, J., Mattson, L. (1988), Internationalization in industrial systems – a network approach, in: N. Hood, J.-E. Vahlne, (Eds), Strategies in global competition, Croom Helm, Londres, pp. 287–314. Johanson, J., Vahlne, J.E. (2006), Commitment and opportunity development in the internationalization process: a note on the Uppsala internationalization process model, Management International Review, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 165–178. Johanson, J., Wiedersheim-Paul, F. (1975), The internationalization of the firm – four Swedish case studies, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 12, pp. 305–322. Knight, G.A., Cavusgil, S.T. (1996), The «born-global» Firm: a Challenge to Traditional Internationalization Theory, Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 8, pp. 11-26. Kotha, S., Rindova, V.P., Rothaermel F.T. (2001), Assets and Actions: Firm-Specific Factors in the Internationalization of U.S. Internet Firms, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 769–791. Kujansivu, P., Lönnqvist, A. (2007), Investigating the value and efficiency of intellectual capital, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 27–2287. Kutschker, M., Baurle, I. (1997), ThreeOne: multidimensional strategy of internationalisation, Management International Review, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 103–125. Lafuente, E., Stoian, M.C., Rialp, J. (2015), From export entry to deinternationalisation through entrepreneurial attributes, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 21–37. Li, L., Qian, G., Qian, Z. (2012), Early internationalization and performance of small high‐tech “born‐globals”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 536–561. Love, M.B., Roper, S. (2015), SME innovation exporting and growth: a review of existing evidence. International Small Business Journal, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 28–48. Mahnke, V., Venzin, M. (2003), The internationalization process of digital information good providers, Management International Review, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 115–142. Marr, B., Moustaghfir, K. (2005), Defining intellectual capital: a three-dimensional approach, Management Decision, Vol. 43, No. 9, pp. 1114-1128. Mohnen, P., Hall, B.H. (2013). Innovation and productivity: an update, UNU-MERIT Working Paper Series 021, United Nations University, Maastricht Economic and Social Research and Training Centre on Innovation and Technology. Mohr, A., Batsakis, G. (2014), Intangible assets, international experience and the internationalisation speed of retailers, International Marketing Review, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 601–620. 78 Ł. Bryl Moisés, A., Osuna, A., Reynoso, C.F., Figueroa, L.E.O. (2014), The internationalization performance: the role of intangible resources and regulatory capabilities in the Born-Global and Uppsala models, June 2014, DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1005.5367, Conference: XXVIII Congreso Anual AEDEM, At: España, Volume: Retos Actuales: La conquista de nuevos mercados. Onkelinx, J., Manolova, T.S., Edelman, L.F. (2016), Human capital and SME internationalization: empirical evidence from Belgium, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 818–837. Oviatt, B.M., McDougall, P. (1994), Toward a theory of international new ventures, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 45–64. Panda, D., Reddy, S. (2016), Resource based view of internationalization: evidence from Indian commercial banks, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 41–60. Pettersen, I., Tobiassen, A. (2012), Are born globals really born globals? The case of academic spin-offs with long development periods, Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 117–141. Quazi, A., Richardson, A. (2012), Sources of variation in linking corporate social responsibility and financial performance, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 242–256. Rodríguez, A, Nieto, M.J. (2015), Cooperation and innovation in the internationalisation of knowledge-intensive business services, in: Reshaping the boundaries of the firm in an era of global interdependence, Published online: 08 March 2015, pp. 247–270. Rugman, A.M., Oh, C.H. (2011), Methodological issues in the measurement of multinationality of US firms, Multinational Business Review, Vol. 19, No. 2., pp. 202–212. Sapienza, H.J., Autio, E., George, G., Zahra, S.A. (2006), A capabilities perspective on the effects of early internationalization on firm survival and growth, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 914–933. Stewart, T.A. (1999). Intellectual capital: the new wealth of organizations, Currency and Doubleday, New York. Sveiby, K.E. (1997). The new organizational wealth: managing and measuring knowledge based assets, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Teixeira, A.C.A., Coimbra, C. (2014), The determinants of the internationalization speed of Portuguese university spin-offs: an empirical investigation, Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12, pp. 270–308. Vernon, R. (1966), International investment and international trade in the product cycle, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 80, pp. 190–207. Welch, L.S., Loustarinen, R. (1988), Internationalization: eVolution of a concept, Journal of General Management, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 34–55. Wernerfelt, B. (1984), A resource-based view of the firm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 171–180.