https://doi.org/10.1177/02662426231181531 Small Firmsisbj International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 2023, Vol. 41(6) 569 –589 © The Author(s) 2023 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/02662426231181531 journals.sagepub.com/home/isb Corporate governance in international new ventures and born global firms Natasha Evers Trinity College Dublin, Ireland Stephan Gerschewski Heriot-Watt University, UK Zaheer Khan University of Aberdeen, UK; InnoLab, University of Vaasa, Finland Tim King University of Vaasa, Finland Olli Kuivalainen LUT University, Finland Pushyarag Puthusserry University of Kent, UK Abstract International new ventures (INVs) and born globals (BGs) play a significant role in the global economy. These firms have rapidly expanded into foreign markets offering unique products and services. Despite the role such ventures play in the global economy, we know relatively little about the role of corporate governance (CG) in INVs and BGs and the challenges these firms face in foreign markets. This introductory article and the papers included in this Special Issue provide important insights into the role of corporate governance and the rapid rise of INVs and BGs and their evolutionary process, and highlight the topics where more research is needed. We also contribute to the current literature by examining corporate governance in early internationalising firms and discussing what sets them apart from well-established multinational enterprises. Corresponding author: Pushyarag Puthusserry, Kent Business School, Parkwood Road, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7FS, UK. Email: p.n.puthusserry@kent.ac.uk 1181531 ISB0010.1177/02662426231181531International Small Business JournalEvers et al. research-article2023 Article 570 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 41(6) Keywords corporate governance, boards of directors, international new venture, born global Introduction In an increasingly complex, technology-driven and networked global economy, corporate govern- ance (CG) has become an important factor in managing and leading organisations. With its theo- retical roots traversing the various disciplines of economics, finance, accounting, law, sociology and management (Durisin and Puzone, 2009; Zattoni and Van Ees, 2012), corporate governance looks at how firms are governed so that they operate effectively and efficiently (Strange et al., 2009). More specifically, corporate governance can be considered as a set of processes, rules and structures for controlling and leading organisations. Such corporate mechanisms encapsulate how relationships between firm management, company shareholders and stakeholders are governed (Ching et al., 2006). In the area of international business (IB), many studies have examined corporate governance, primarily in the context of multinational enterprises (MNEs) (Aguilera et al., 2019; Bhaumik et al., 2019) and internationally mature small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Jones et al., 2011; Kuivalainen et al., 2012; Li et al., 2020). Research has extensively supported the relationship between corporate governance mechanisms and firm performance across a variety of institutional contexts (Bhaumik et al., 2019; Strange et al., 2009). Although IB scholars have recognised the importance of corporate governance and executive leadership decision-making in MNE manage- ment, studies with a specific focus on young, rapidly internationalising firms, such as international new ventures (INVs) and born global (BG) firms, are surprisingly few (Coviello et al., 2017; Gerschewski et al., 2018; Romanello and Chiarvesio, 2019). In addition, we tend to have more of an understanding of how INVs and BGs compete rather than how they are actually governed (Zahra, 2014). Consequently, new studies on corporate governance in the context of INVs and BGs have the potential to provide valuable insights into existing research predominately based on advanced economies (Aguilera et al., 2019; Puthusserry et al., 2021). There are some fundamental differences, which set INVs and BGs apart from well-established MNEs in the context of corporate governance processes and functions (Gan and Erikson, 2022; Garg, 2020; Puthusserry et al., 2021). For example, the traits and characteristics of entrepreneurs – who are entrepreneurs and why people become entrepreneurs affect governance – for example, they may want to be their own ‘boss’ and/or desire to grow and run an IB. Such motivations are undoubtedly important, and we know from existing literature that motivation in its various guises plays a key role in early firm internationalisation and international entrepreneurship (IE) (Autio et al., 2000). As INVs and BGs often naturally aim for rapid and early international firm growth, they often need (or even exist because of) external capital funding. Further, an entrepreneur’s desire to be their own boss may lead to conflicts with their own board of directors (BoDs) and other influential stakeholders. Ownership characteristics, especially from the family firm perspective, have also been studied in relation to ownership concentration and stewardship attitudes (Kontinen and Ojala, 2012). However, given the critical roles of corporate governance structures in both large MNEs and SMEs in a globalised world economy (Aguilera et al., 2019; Bhaumik et al., 2019), a deeper understand- ing of the roles of board effectiveness (including, e.g., returnee BoDs, Lin et al., 2018), individual executives (CEOs and Managing Directors) and top management teams (TMTs) present increas- ingly important avenues for research in the context of INVs and BGs. Evers et al. 571 Consequently, there could be many avenues to explore when considering governance in early internationalising firms. When we set up the call for this Special Issue, we had four key aims: (1) to understand what makes BoDs, executive leadership groups, and TMTs effective in INVs and BGs; (2) to examine the relationships between BoDs, TMTs, structures, processes and effective- ness; (3) to build an intellectual framework for discussion related to various dimensions of upper echelons at micro- and macro-levels of corporate governance in INVs and BGs; and (4) to advance multi-disciplinary studies by integrating the literature strands of IE, IB, organisational behavior (OB), finance, sociology, law and human resources (HR). However, this call proved to be rather ambitious such that we have left some of these topics for further research particularly given a dearth of multi-disciplinary papers. What we do have, how- ever, is an interesting collection of articles, which study the phenomenon of corporate governance in INVs and BGs in different country settings by adopting different theoretical approaches and investigating the phenomenon from different perspectives. Governance can, for example, be stud- ied from macro-economic, institutional (focusing on connections with external stakeholders), board level and decision-makers (focusing on TMT, entrepreneurs and microfoundations) perspec- tives, which leads us to the purpose of this introductory article to this Special Issue. The objective of this article is to provide an overview of the three papers included in this Special Issue and to provide a research agenda highlighting potential further research avenues. Brief background literature A generic definition of BGs is: ‘business organisations that, from or near founding, seek superior IB performance from the application of knowledge-based resources to the sale of outputs in multi- ple countries’ (Knight and Cavusgil, 2004: 124). This definition reflects the INV definition pro- vided by Oviatt and McDougall (1994), ‘a business organisation that, from inception, seeks to derive significant competitive advantage from. . .the sale of outputs in multiple countries’. As a result, INVs and BGs, by definition, commence their international operations early. The timeframe for commencement of international operations in the empirical literature has normally been between 2 and 8 years after their foundation (note that there are differences in the cut-off points in empirical studies, see Kuivalainen et al., 2012). INVs and BGs are often described in relation to their youth (Zahra et al., 2000), (possible) lack of experience and (possible) paucity of resources (Cavusgil and Knight, 2015; Knight and Cavusgil, 2004). Further, extant research on INVs and BGs has naturally considered the unique characteristics of early and rapidly internationalising SMEs – and to a certain extent, their managers and/or entrepre- neurs (Puthusserry et al., 2020). Several factors that enable early and rapid internationalisation, such as entrepreneurial and managerial knowledge, international knowledge, flexibility and ability to learn new things, effectiveness in building global networks of collaborators, and superior inno- vation and knowledge creation processes, have been elaborated in the literature (Autio et al., 2000; Cavusgil and Knight, 2015; Coviello, 2015; Knight and Cavusgil, 2004; Puthusserry et al., 2020; Zahoor et al., 2020). In some studies, strategic choice, proactiveness, knowledge and learning on an individual level are highlighted (Andersson, 2000; Oviatt and McDougall, 1994). These attrib- utes may lead to ‘less-rational’ or non-systematic decision-making about the dispersion and struc- ture of an organisation. As smaller and younger entrepreneurial firms, INVs or BGs may not always have a clear strategy, or their strategy may be rapidly evolving in response to the environment and opportunities (Evers and Andersson, 2021; Evers and O’Gorman, 2011; Vanninen et al., 2022; Zander et al., 2015). Corporate governance can be considered as a set of processes, rules and structures for control- ling and leading organisations. Such corporate mechanisms encapsulate how relationships between 572 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 41(6) firm management, company shareholders and stakeholders are governed (Ching et al., 2006). Research suggests that well-governed companies experience long-term financial performance and sustainable growth (Singh and Pillai, 2021). Similarly, for BGs and INVs, good corporate govern- ance practises can elicit better monitoring and control of operations and processes across foreign markets, leading to greater international market growth and performance for the firm (Singh and Pillai, 2021). In the context of IE, the governance aspect has been surprisingly little studied (Gerschewski et al., 2018; Zahra, 2014). This means that there tends to be less evidence on how the attributes linked with INVs and BGs affect, for example, decision-making on the market selection, entry mode choice and configuration of operations (Child and Hsieh, 2014; Laufs and Schwens, 2014). While some studies have focused solely on initial internationalisation, others have taken a broader perspective by examining the process, including post-entry activities and their subsequent performance consequences (Gerschewski et al., 2018; Hagen and Zucchella, 2014; Khan and Lew, 2018). The age of the INV and BG firms can be linked to their internal development as well, and this is where organisational life-cycle models might be able to contribute. A few life-cycle models have been suggested in the extant literature to describe the evolution of INVs or BGs (e.g., Gabrielsson et al., 2008; Hagen and Zucchella, 2014). These models, consisting of several phases or stages, have focused on triggers, motivations and eventual changes within the organisation. For example, there is a ‘time before the initial internationalisation’, ‘the actual start phase’, followed by ‘inter- national growth’ sometimes reaching also ‘consolidation’; this could relate to the phase when an INV or BG firm has become ‘mature’. This may mean that internationalisation has become ‘busi- ness as usual’ for a firm or, that there have been some major changes such as mergers or acquisi- tions making creating a large firm or even one that could be deemed multinational (Agustí et al., 2023). The evolution of INVs and BGs could have significant implications for corporate govern- ance regimes, and it is not well known how corporate governance supports the evolutionary trajec- tory (lifespan) of early internationalising firms as they move through various stages of development and growth. Thus, there is a need for future studies to examine the role of entrepreneurs in the initial stage to the role of professional managers, TMTs and formal and informal boards as INVs and BGs become mature with independent subsidiaries operating in multiple markets. Along with the evolution of firms, the role of younger, middle and mature entrepreneurs and their interactions with BoDs in supporting INVs and BG evolution (initial entry, post-entry survival, growth and exit) across different markets could offer important insights on an early internationalising firm’s performance and opportunity recognition and exploitation. For this article, we conducted an extensive literature search to consolidate our knowledge about corporate governance in INVs and BGs. Based on Dzikowski (2017), we used the Web of Science database (https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/summary/4b0b78a5-9b77-49c7- a356-0a6c4857eeb7-82b48a1b/relevance/1) and searched for the following terms: born global born globals international new venture international new ventures rapid internationalisation new global business new global businesses Evers et al. 573 fast internationalisers early internationalisers This yielded 849 results for the period 01-01-2000 to 31-12-2023. Building on this search, Table 1 further shows the total number of publications in relevant jour- nals ranked as 3* or higher in the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS) list com- pared to All other (relevant) journals. Then, we created variables from the underlying data consisting of the full sample of 849 journal publications; this was used to produce the figures below using the statistical software programme Stata, StataCorp. In each figure, the corporate governance terms relate to papers that mention any of the below list of corporate governance terms in either the ‘author keywords’, ‘keywords’, or the ‘abstract’. These CG terms were as follows: corporate governance corporate board corporate boards boards advisory board director directors manager managers executive executives Based on this rigorous methodology and analysis, we compiled the following figures related to corporate governance in the literature (where the sample includes all relevant publications): As can be seen from Figure 1, the number of times corporate governance terms appear over time in the literature shows a steady increase from 2000 until 2023. Notably, from 2015 onwards, there seems to be an increased interest in the literature regarding corporate governance, as evidenced by the increased mentions. Figure 2 below details the number of published papers with and without CG terms. Similar to Figure 1, we can see an increase in the number of papers published from 2000 until 2023. Figure 3 highlights the total citations per year for papers with CG terms and without CG terms. As can be seen from Figure 3, it is noticeable that there was a large total citation count in 2007, which can be probably attributed to the Global Financial Crisis in 2007/2008 and the result- ing corporate governance implications for firms and organisations. The key theoretical perspectives for understanding corporate governance in INVs/BGs What are the theories that could be used to explain how corporate governance is being organ- ised in INVs and BGs, and, more generally, in internationally operating entrepreneurial firms? In this section, we discuss three key theories that are pertinent to investigating issues related to this topic. More specifically, we cover the theories of agency, resource dependence and upper 574 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 41(6) T ab le 1 . N um be r of p ap er s pu bl is he d in le ad in g m an ag em en t an d in te rn at io na l b us in es s jo ur na ls b et w ee n 20 00 a nd 2 02 2. Jo ur na l N um be r of p ap er s % o f to ta l 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 A ca de m y of M an ag em en t Jo ur na l 1 0. 30 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A si a Pa ci fic Jo ur na l o f M an ag em en t 4 1. 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 Br iti sh Jo ur na l o f M an ag em en t 4 1. 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 En tr ep re ne ur sh ip a nd R eg io na l D ev el op m en t 7 2. 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 En tr ep re ne ur sh ip T he or y an d Pr ac tic e 5 1. 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Eu ro pe an M an ag em en t R ev ie w 1 0. 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 H ar va rd B us in es s R ev ie w 1 0. 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In te rn at io na l B us in es s R ev ie w 77 23 .1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 2 5 3 4 5 4 4 11 7 9 5 7 3 1 In te rn at io na l J ou rn al of E nt re pr en eu ri al Be ha vi ou r an d R es ea rc h 8 2. 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 4 0 In te rn at io na l J ou rn al o f M an ag em en t R ev ie w s 2 0. 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 In te rn at io na l S m al l Bu si ne ss Jo ur na l 17 5. 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 4 2 1 2 0 1 Jo ur na l o f B us in es s R es ea rc h 31 9. 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 2 3 3 5 6 1 5 Jo ur na l o f B us in es s V en tu ri ng 8 2. 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Jo ur na l o f I nt er na tio na l Bu si ne ss S tu di es 39 11 .7 1 0 1 0 1 2 5 1 4 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 5 0 4 5 1 0 2 3 0 (C on tin ue d) Evers et al. 575 Jo ur na l N um be r of p ap er s % o f to ta l 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 Jo ur na l o f I nt er na tio na l M an ag em en t 14 4. 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 Jo ur na l o f M an ag em en t 3 0. 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Jo ur na l o f S m al l Bu si ne ss M an ag em en t 15 4. 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 3 2 2 Jo ur na l o f W or ld Bu si ne ss 46 13 .8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 5 0 1 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 4 5 2 0 Lo ng R an ge P la nn in g 4 1. 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 M an ag em en t In te rn at io na l R ev ie w 30 9. 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 6 4 3 4 1 1 2 1 3 1 M an ag em en t an d O rg an iz at io n R ev ie w 1 0. 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 O rg an is at io na l R es ea rc h M et ho ds 1 0. 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sm al l B us in es s Ec on om ic s 9 2. 70 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 St ra te gi c En tr ep re ne ur sh ip Jo ur na l 4 1. 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 St ra te gi c O rg an iz at io n 1 0. 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 To ta l 33 3 10 0% 0 2 0 2 3 6 3 14 14 6 6 16 11 10 21 20 19 29 26 28 23 31 29 14 T ab le 1 . (C on tin ue d) 576 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 41(6) Figure 2. Number of papers published with and without corporate governance terms. Figure 1. Number of times corporate governance terms appear over time. Evers et al. 577 echelon. While agency theory was generally the dominant focus in early corporate governance research, subsequent work has expanded to include other theories, such as resource dependence and upper echelons, either in combination with or as a reaction to agency theory (Aguilera et al., 2019). Agency theory Corporate governance has been initially examined from the perspective of agency theory, which suggests that the fundamental aim of corporate governance is to mitigate agency costs and conflicts of interest between financial capital providers (principals) and users (agents) (Filatotchev and Wright, 2011). The concept of agency costs encompasses the expenses associated with monitoring and efforts required to align the interests of principals and agents, as well as to mitigate information asymmetry, adverse selection, moral hazard and shirking behaviours (Shleifer and Vishny, 1997). According to agency theorists (Jensen and Meckling, 1976), ownership is a key factor in creat- ing incentives for making risky decisions. Insider directors have valuable insights into the com- pany’s projects and can contribute to board discussions (Baysinger and Hoskisson, 1990), but they may lack objectivity because they rely on managers (Chen, 2011; Ruigrok et al., 2006). Conversely, independent external directors play a crucial role in controlling agency costs, monitoring and pro- viding resources (Hillman and Dalziel, 2003) and aligning the interests of shareholders and manag- ers (Jensen and Meckling, 1976; Tihanyi et al., 2003). By aligning the goals of agents (such as top management teams and CEOs) with principals, opportunistic behaviour can be mitigated (Eisenhardt, 1989). It is also worth noting that agents may become risk-averse if their personal Figure 3. Total citations per year for corporate governance (CG) papers and non-CG papers. 578 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 41(6) wealth is tied to firm performance. Therefore, improving board effectiveness may be achieved by appointing more independent external directors (Chen, 2011). In INVs and BGs, TMTs are often both founders and owners, which can help to mitigate prin- cipal–agent problems but may not address principal–principal issues (Dharwadkar et al., 2000). Although TMTs hold a significant ownership stake, they may not always act in the best interest of other owners. For example, internationalisation may benefit all shareholders, but TMTs and inter- nal directors may avoid pursuing it due to the potential negative impact on their wealth (George et al., 2005). According to Jensen and Meckling (1976), the perception of risks associated with internationalisation may vary based on the ownership stakes of TMT members, with external own- ers having a distinct viewpoint from internal owners. Sanders and Carpenter (1998) suggest that as owners, CEOs and TMTs have a vested interest in assuming potential risks linked to international expansion. Resource dependence theory The Resource Dependence Theory (RDT), developed by Pfeffer and Salancik (1978), highlights the importance of influential individuals within a company, such as the BoDs or TMTs. These individuals play a crucial role in providing strategic resources to the company, which may include information, legitimacy, communication channels with external organisations and access to addi- tional resources, according to Aguilera et al. (2019). This is particularly relevant for INVs and BGs as they face complex and uncertain situations due to resource constraints, legitimacy issues and unfamiliar host environments (Puthusserry et al., 2014; Zona et al., 2018). In order to overcome resource constraints, gain legitimacy and obtain critical advice, these firms establish linkages with external actors through board capital and interlocks (González, 2019; Mizruchi, 1996). Transnational interlocks and international networks (social capital) of the Board or TMTs can enable INVs to establish connections with suppliers, distributors, customers and regulatory agen- cies in host countries (Gerschewski et al., 2018; Puthusserry et al., 2021). Directors or TMTs with significant international experience and exposure to foreign markets (human capital) can also act as boundary spanners by developing awareness of host-country environments, regulations, institu- tions, business norms, markets and competitors, through building bridging ties (Roberts and Beamish, 2017). Establishing relationships with reputable companies and institutions can enhance the legitimacy and visibility of INVs and BGs in new markets (Gulati and Higgins, 2003; Ryan et al., 2019). Therefore, we argue that the RDT framework is a valuable tool for investigating the role of the board, TMTs and interlocking directors in mitigating the challenges that INVs and BGs face during both pre- and post-internationalisation phases, as well as the power dynamics of boards and owner/manager of INVs/BGs. By leveraging external connections and acquiring strategic resources, firms can strengthen their competitive edge and overcome obstacles that impede their expansion into foreign markets. Upper Echelon theory Upper Echelon Theory (UET) highlights the significance of TMT characteristics in established organisations (Hambrick, 2007; Hambrick and Mason, 1984). The theory is based on the notion of bounded rationality, which suggests that complex and uncertain situations cannot be objectively known but only interpreted (Cyert and March, 1963). The UET posits that the experiences, values and personalities of executives significantly influence their interpretation of situations and decision- making, which affects their strategic decisions and behaviour (Jin et al., 2017; Neely et al., 2020). Consequently, organisations tend to mirror the characteristics of their TMT (Hambrick and Mason, Evers et al. 579 1984). The UET is based on the concepts of individual and group cognition and explains that cogni- tive models influence how individuals process information, which, in turn, affects the decisions and actions of executives (Finkelstein et al., 2009). Generally, the cognitive processes of TMTs are evaluated based on their demographic characteristics (Hambrick, 2007: 335). Studies that adopt UET suggest that the composition of TMTs, including their personality and human capital diversity, can promote innovative thinking and improve organisational adaptability in dynamic environments (Bengtsson et al., 2020; Carpenter et al., 2004; Puthusserry et al., 2022). The heterogeneity of team characteristics provides a wider range of knowledge and expertise, allowing for strategic decision-making with fewer constraints and more accurate predictions of changes in the external environment (Jin et al., 2017; Koryak et al., 2018). However, diverse TMTs can also lead to conflict and decision delays, but these challenges can stimulate constructive debates among team members and ultimately improve decision quality (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). While UET has been applied in IB studies on MNEs and corporate governance to understand how top TMT composition influences international strategies and performance (Aguilera et al., 2019; Carpenter and Sanders, 2004), there has been a limited focus on applying UET in the context of INVs and BGs (Jin et al., 2017; Popli et al., 2022). As previous studies suggest, INVs and BGs are subject to bounded rationality, which limits their ability to process information and make informed decisions (Andersson, 2000; Oviatt and McDougall, 1994). Therefore, drawing upon insights from the UET perspective is valuable in understanding how entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial teams in these firms overcome these challenges during both pre- and post-internationalisation phases. The articles in this Special Issue The aim of this Special Issue was to examine the antecedents, determinants, and processes of cor- porate governance of INVs and BGs (and other types of early and rapidly internationalising firms), and their respective consequences. Corporate governance in IB has been studied from a number of perspectives, including transaction cost economics, resource-based view (RBV), agency theory, resource dependence theory, upper echelons theory and institutional theory (Aguilera et al., 2019). We encouraged contributions from a variety of theoretical lenses, research methods and studies analysing corporate governance in diverse types of entrepreneurial firms and institutional contexts across different countries and contexts. To this end, and in order to solicit submissions, we devel- oped the following topics listed below: •• What is the role of the board of directors (BoDs) for INVs and BGs? •• How do BoDs affect the post-entry performance of INVs and BGs? •• What are the unique features and characteristics in the corporate governance of INVs and BGs as compared to ‘traditional’ firms and large, multinational corporations? •• To what extent do BoDs help in overcoming the liabilities of smallness and foreignness and help in establishing legitimacy in host markets? •• What is the role of BoDs in different foreign market entry modes of INVs and BGs? •• What is the relationship between the strategic orientations of INVs and BGs and corporate governance? •• How do dynamic managerial capabilities enable INVs and BGs to address corporate control and resource allocation issues? •• What are the impacts of (foreign) ownership structure and corporate governance on the strategy and management of INVs and BGs? •• What is the relationship between institutional contexts and BoDs? How do BoDs help in overcoming psychic distance for INVs? 580 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 41(6) •• Which theoretical approaches can help explain the corporate governance of INVs and BGs? •• What is the role of BoDs, venture capitalists, and angel investors in the early development phases of INVs and BGs? •• What is the role of returnee board of directors in INVs and BGs? In terms of the selection process, our call for papers elicited a strong response, whereby we received 13 submissions covering a wide variety of topics related to corporate governance in INVs and BG firms. After a rigorous review process, three articles were selected for inclusion in this Special Issue. These are summarised in Table 2. In the first article of this Special Issue, the paper by Sinkovics, Fielder, Fath and Sinkovics examines how the nature and extent of board of director’s role change over time in facilitating an INV’s knowledge and network acquisition. Based on the knowledge-based view (KBV) and net- work perspective, and adopting a qualitative study of 18 founders/CEOs of New Zealand-based INVs plus three expert interviews, Sinkovics et al. find four patterns of board’s involvement, for- mal and informal. In addition, they find key distinctions between the initial market entry and post- entry stages. The study contributes to the literature by examining the mechanisms by which formal and informal boards of directors may act as an accelerator (on ramp) or decelerator (speed bump) during the different phases of INV internationalisation (e.g., initial foreign market entry, post-entry growth expansion). Building onto the work of Sinkovics et al., future studies could examine the resource provision, strategic, and monitoring role played by boards as well as the composition of the boards during the lifespan of INVs and BGs across different institutional settings. Such studies could draw insights from the agency and comparative institutional perspectives and investigate the changing nature and dynamics of corporate governance as INVs and BGs mature (cf. Aguilera and Jackson, 2010; Filatotchev et al., 2006; Hall and Soskice, 2001; Pye and Pettigrew, 2005). The second article by Deng et al. (2023) examines the intriguing research question of whether domestic political connections facilitate or hinder the rapid internationalisation process of INVs. Adopting an attention-based view, the authors conduct a quantitative study based on secondary data of 1034 INVs based in China. The results indicate that domestic political connections hinder new venture internationalisation by exerting negative effects on the earliness of foreign market entry and the speed of international market expansion. In addition, the authors find that subnational trade openness mitigates the negative relationship between political connections and international market expansion. The key contribution of the study relates to examining the previously underre- searched role of political connections on INV internationalisation. In addition, the authors contrib- ute to the literature by incorporating the previously neglected mechanism of attention distribution of decision-makers in INVs. Going forward, scholarship could investigate the political connections of boards along with the political ties of the entrepreneurs in home market as INVs and BGs expand into foreign markets, and whether such home market-based political connections enable INVs and BGs originating from emerging markets to establish legitimacy in host markets. As gov- ernments of emerging markets tend to increasingly liberalise their economies and INVs and BGs expand into foreign markets with different governance regimes in place, it would be interesting to study the evolution of boards during the different life stages of INVs and BGs. The third and final article of the Special Issue by Crick, Crick and Chaudhry investigates how an INV’s governance structure may affect the decision-making regarding their re-internationalisa- tion activities. Drawing upon the effectuation perspective, the authors conduct an instrumental case study using semi-structured interviews with 16 INVs. They find that contrary to the existing litera- ture, the role and experience of the initial founding owners in decision-making may not be as influential as previously suggested. Instead, they find that the role of stakeholders, and, in particu- lar, angel investors, as part of an enhanced INV governance structure, may be instrumental in Evers et al. 581 T ab le 2 . Su m m ar y of t he a rt ic le s in cl ud ed in t hi s Sp ec ia l I ss ue . A ut ho rs R es ea rc h qu es tio n( s) T he or y/ pe rs pe ct iv e M et ho do lo gy K ey fi nd in gs Fi ed le r et a l. (2 02 3) H ow d oe s th e na tu re an d ex te nt o f b oa rd o f di re ct or ’s r ol e ch an ge o ve r tim e in fa ci lit at in g an IN V ’s kn ow le dg e an d ne tw or k ac qu is iti on ? K no w le dg e- ba se d vi ew a nd n et w or k pe rs pe ct iv e Q ua lit at iv e st ud y of 18 fo un de rs /C EO s of IN V s in N ew Z ea la nd p lu s th re e ex pe rt in te rv ie w s Fo ur p at te rn s of b oa rd ’s in vo lv em en t, fo rm al a nd in fo rm al In iti al m ar ke t en tr y st ag e an d po st -e nt ry s ta ge D en g et a l. (2 02 3) D o po lit ic al c on ne ct io ns at h om e fa ci lit at e or h in de r th e ra pi d in te rn at io na lis at io n of IN V s ab ro ad ? A tt en tio n- ba se d vi ew Q ua nt ita tiv e st ud y of 10 34 IN V s in C hi na D om es tic p ol iti ca l c on ne ct io ns h in de r ne w v en tu re in te rn at io na lis at io n by e xe rt in g ne ga tiv e ef fe ct s on t he ea rl in es s of fo re ig n m ar ke t en tr y an d sp ee d of p os t- en tr y ex pa ns io n Su bn at io na l t ra de o pe nn es s m iti ga te s th e ne ga tiv e re la tio ns hi p be tw ee n po lit ic al c on ne ct io ns a nd in te rn at io na l ex pa ns io n C ri ck e t al . (2 02 3) H ow d oe s an IN V ’s go ve rn an ce s tr uc tu re af fe ct d ec is io n- m ak in g re ga rd in g th ei r re - in te rn at io na lis at io n ac tiv iti es ? Ef fe ct ua tio n th eo ry Q ua lit ia tiv e st ud y of 16 IN V s In st ru m en ta l c as e st ud y C on tr ar y to t he e xi st in g lit er at ur e, t he r ol e an d ex pe ri en ce of t he in iti al fo un di ng o w ne rs in d ec is io n- m ak in g m ay n ot be a s in flu en tia l T he r ol e of s ta ke ho ld er s an d, in p ar tic ul ar , a ng el in ve st or s, as p ar t of a n en ha nc ed g ov er na nc e st ru ct ur e m ay p la y a ke y ro le in IN V s’ d ec is io n- m ak in g IN V s: In te rn at io na l n ew v en tu re s. 582 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 41(6) decision-making. The study contributes to the literature by providing new insights on the impor- tance of decision-makers validating internationalised business models and exhibiting an ability to pivot product-market strategies. Building onto the work of Crick et al. future scholarly work could examine the role of both internal and external governance systems (e.g., the role of angel investors, venture capitalists and private equity and founding entrepreneur) in the initial entry, divestment and re-entry-related decisions undertaken by INVs and BGs in different markets (cf. Collewaert et al., 2021). Such studies could also explore the impact of external governance systems on the business model scaling up by INVs and BGs across different foreign markets. Future research trajectories of corporate governance in INVs and born global firms The key aim of this Special Issue was to understand the role of corporate governance in INVs and BGs, given the significant role such firms play in the global economy. The three papers included in this Special Issue cover a wide range of issues concerning corporate governance in INVs and BGs. These encompass the role of the board’s changing involvement at different internationalisa- tion stages (Fiedler et al., 2023), external issues, such as the role of political connections in new venture internationalisation (Deng et al., 2023), and microfoundations elements, such as the role of the individual founder in the decision-making process versus the role of external stakeholders, including angel investors (Crick et al., 2023). In addition, the three papers in the Special Issue adopt different theoretical perspectives, such as KBV, attention-based view and effectuation the- ory, along with different institutional contexts, ranging from small and open economies (e.g., New Zealand), and countries with stronger government interference in business, such as China. However, there are still several potential areas for future research on the topic of corporate governance in INVs and BGs, which we identify below. Evolutionary process of INVs/BGs and corporate governance INVs/BGs go through various stages of development (Gabrielsson et al., 2008; Hagen and Zucchella, 2014), and they face different sets of challenges during their lifespan (e.g., initial stage, growth, mature and decline stage, etc.). Thus, it would be interesting for future studies to track the challenges associated with each of the life cycle of INVs/BGs, as well as the corresponding chal- lenges faced by the entrepreneurs/managers and boards. Such studies could provide important insights into the organisational dynamics and the role of boards during the life cycle of INVs/BGs (Bonn and Pettigrew, 2009). Future studies adopting the life-cycle approaches and longitudinal research design could offer valuable insights about the role of corporate governance in enhancing the competitive advantage and sustainable businesses of INVs/BGs across different institutional settings. In addition, along with the evolution of INVs/BGs, the role of younger, middle and mature entrepreneurs and their interactions with the boards in supporting the evolution of these entrepre- neurial firms (e.g., initial entry, post-entry survival, growth and exit) across different markets could provide insights on the performance of early internationalising firms and opportunity recognition and exploitation in different markets. For illustrative purposes, Figure 4 presents an example of the evolution of the governance dur- ing the internationalisation in both INVs/BGs and firms which follow the incremental internation- alisation path. The change in the stages of internationalisation may be caused by critical incidents (Bell et al., 2001) that also have consequences from the governance perspective. For example, as the firm enters the growth stages of its life cycle, financial, regulatory or market-related factors may require changes both in the management (e.g., entrepreneur steps down) and in boards (e.g., Evers et al. 583 someone having experience from new target countries or from the target industry would be recruited). There would also be a difference between INVs/BGs and traditionally internationalising firm governance. First, there is evidence that many internationally growth-oriented firms have a found- ing team instead of sole entrepreneur (Hashai and Zahra, 2022). Second, external investment often brings ‘smart money’ and therefore, the influence of external board members can occur from start- up phase if such funding becomes essential for INVs and BGs to internationalise (Andersson et al., 2013; Moen et al., 2008). Microfoundations of corporate governance in BGs and INVs An interesting area of future research for IE scholars is to examine corporate governance and board decision-making. In particular, investigating the relationships between composition of the board of directors, decision-making and its impact on international performance would likely advance our knowledge at micro-foundational level. Microfoundation decision-making in INVs and BGs can be examined from many angles. For example, gender diversity on boards has captured only recent attention in IE. Wang et al. (2022) investigated the relationship between gender diversity in boards of directors and firms’ IE, assessing how state ownership and ownership concentration moderate this relationship. Future studies could examine the number of women on the board as well as the optimal degree of gender diversity and the ways in which it enhances INVs/BGs performance and survival in host markets. A further branch of this topic would be to examine the influence of family involvement on boards and IE in family firms (Casillas and Moreno- Menéndez, 2017). Research is emerging into the impact of experience and reputational value of external actors on boards, such as venture capitalists, on the internationalisation of new ventures (Park and LiPuma, 2020). Also, future studies could investigate the role of board decision-making in addressing the grand chal- lenges of sustainability, corporate social responsibility/political strategies of INVs/BGs in different host markets. Figure 4. Internationalisation and governance changes. 584 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 41(6) The role of context in developing economies When compared with internationalising SMEs from developed economies, good corporate govern- ance practises can become a greater challenge for internationalising SMEs from developing econo- mies. Such challenges can arise from weaker institutional, legal and regulatory mechanisms (Wen et al., 2023). Going forward, the influence of national and institutional context is important in understanding corporate governance and its impact on INVs and BGs. A further avenue of research could therefore, be to examine corporate governance practices and the internationalisation of SMEs in developing market contexts. Adoption of multi-disciplinary approaches with multiple theories Another interesting potential area for future research relates to adopting multi- and inter-discipli- nary approaches to studying the phenomenon of corporate governance in INVs and BGs. For example, the finance literature and Organisational Behaviour/Management literature may provide further insights when studied in the context of IB and IE. As mentioned earlier, the three papers in this Special Issue are mainly grounded in the IB and IE literature. Future research may adopt a multi- and/or interdisciplinary approach with multiple theories to advance our knowledge in this area (e.g., agency theory, resource-dependence theory, etc.) (Aguilera et al., 2019; Filatotchev and Wright, 2011). Funding issues (internal vs external) The role of the boards in INVs and BGs in terms of funding and role of external financiers is another pertinent issue for further exploration (see also Figure 4). More specifically, it would be interesting to examine the differences between external funding from external stakeholders, such as angel investors, venture capital and internal financing/funding (Chemmanur et al., 2016; Humphery-Jenner and Suchard, 2013). The finance literature could provide valuable insights in this respect. Adoption of diverse methodologies There is also a need to examine the role of corporate governance in INVs/BGs from diverse meth- odological approaches. Majority of the extant studies on corporate governance are quantitative in nature; thus, future studies could adopt diverse approaches such as experimental research design, longitudinal process studies, ethnographic and multiple qualitative case studies from different con- texts in order to fully capture the role of boards in creating or destroying value for INVs/BGs. The dark side role of boards can potentially provide novel insights about the negative impact of boards in value creation and capture by INVs/BGs across different markets. Unit of analysis (individual vs firm vs network) The unit of analysis is another potential future research area in that it is critical that studies should clearly define their unit of analysis (e.g., individual vs firm vs network). Traditionally, the entre- preneurship literature tends to focus on the individual (e.g., manager, entrepreneur), while the IB literature often adopts the firm or network as the unit of analysis (Gerschewski et al., 2016). Future research may embrace multi-level studies investigating the complexities of corporate governance structures and practices from multiple angles and perspectives, thus providing an integrated view of these phenomena in INVs and BGs. Evers et al. 585 In conclusion, we believe that this introductory article and the three papers in this Special Issue have advanced our knowledge of corporate governance in INVs and BGs. Going forward, we hope that this will spark the interest of scholars and practitioners in this key area of organisational struc- ture and strategy. Acknowledgements The authors are listed alphabetically, and all authors contributed equally to this article and the editing of the Special Issue. We are thankful to Professor Susan Marlow for her valuable editorial guidance, and to Valerie Thorne for her assistance. We also want to express our gratitude to all the authors and reviewers whose impor- tant contributions made this Special Issue possible. Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. ORCID iDs Stephan Gerschewski https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4976-1033 Zaheer Khan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5538-3123 Olli Kuivalainen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5291-2592 Pushyarag Puthusserry https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0878-1169 References Aguilera RV and Jackson G (2010) Comparative and international corporate governance. Academy of Management Annals 4: 485–556. Aguilera RV, Marano V and Haxhi I (2019) International corporate governance: A review and opportunities for future research. Journal of International Business Studies 50: 457–498. Agustí M, Kuivalainen O, Ramos-Hidalgo E, et al. (2023) Maturing international new ventures: Short- and medium-term insights. Journal of International Entrepreneurship. DOI: 10.1007/s10843-023-00327-4. Andersson S (2000) The internationalisation of the firm from an entrepreneurial perspective. International Studies of Management & Organisation 30: 63–92. Andersson S, Evers N and Grigot C (2013) Local and international networks in small firm internationalisa- tion: Cases from the Rhône-Alpes medical technology regional cluster, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development: An International Journal 25: 867–888. Autio E, Sapienza HJ and Almeida JG (2000) Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal 43: 909–924. Baysinger B and Hoskisson RE (1990) The composition of boards of directors and strategic control: Effects on corporate strategy. Academy of Management Review 15: 72–87. Bell J, McNaughton R and Young S (2001) “Born-again global” firms – An extension to the “born global” phenomenon. Journal of International Management 7: 173–189. Bengtsson M, Raza-Ullah T and Srivastava MK (2020) Looking different vs thinking differently: Impact of TMT diversity on coopetition capability. Long Range Planning 53: 101857. Bhaumik S, Driffield N, Gaur A, et al. (2019) Corporate governance and MNE strategies in emerging econo- mies. Journal of World Business 54: 234–243. Bonn I and Pettigrew A (2009) Towards a dynamic theory of boards: An organisational life cycle approach. Journal of Management & Organization 15: 2–16. Carpenter MA, Geletkanycz MA and Sanders WG (2004) Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management 30: 749–778. Carpenter MA and Sanders WG (2004) The effects of top management team pay and firm internationalisation on MNC performance. Journal of Management 30: 509–528. Casillas JC and Moreno-Menéndez AM (2017) International business & family business: Potential dialogue between disciplines. European Journal of Family Business 7: 25–40. 586 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 41(6) Cavusgil ST and Knight G (2015) The born global firm: An entrepreneurial and capabilities perspective on early and rapid internationalisation. Journal of International Business Studies 46: 3–16. Chemmanur TJ, Hull TJ and Krishnan K (2016) Do local and international venture capitalists play well together? The complementarity of local and international venture capitalists. Journal of Business Venturing 31: 573–594. Chen HL (2011) Does board independence influence the top management team? Evidence from strategic decisions toward internationalisation. Corporate Governance: An International Review 19: 334–350. Child J and Hsieh LH (2014) Decision mode, information and network attachment in the internationalisation of SMEs: A configurational and contingency analysis. Journal of World Business 49: 598–610. Ching KW, Tan JS and Chi Ching RG (2006) Corporate Governance in East Asia. The Road Ahead: Korea and Japan. Prentice Hall. Collewaert V, Filatotchev I and Khoury TA (2021) The view of angels from above: Angel governance and institutional environments. Academy of Management Perspectives 35: 9–24. Coviello N (2015) Re-thinking research on born globals. Journal of International Business Studies 46: 17–26. Coviello N, Kano L and Liesch PW (2017) Adapting the Uppsala model to a modern world: Macro-context and microfoundations. Journal of International Business Studies 48: 1151–1164. Crick JM, Crick D and Chaudhry S (2023) Governance considerations and non-linear international scale-up behaviour among INVs. International Small Business Journal 41: 647–681. Cyert RM and March JG (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, vol. 2. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, pp. 169–187. Deng Z, Yan J and Meng S (2023) The role of political connections in rapid internationalisation: A study among Chinese international new ventures. International Small Business Journal 41: 623–646. Dharwadkar R, George G and Brandes P (2000) Privatisation in emerging economies: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Review 25: 650–669. Durisin B and Puzone F (2009) Maturation of corporate governance research, 1993–2007: An assessment. Corporate Governance: An International Review 17: 266–291. Dzikowski P (2017) Born Global Firms WoS dataset. Mendeley Data, V1. Eisenhardt KM (1989) Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal 32: 543–576. Evers N and Andersson S (2021) Predictive and effectual decision-making in high-tech international new ventures – A matter of sequential ambidexterity. International Business Review DOI: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101655. Evers N and O’Gorman C (2011) Improvised internationalisation in new ventures: The role of prior knowl- edge and networks. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 23: 549–574. Fiedler A, Fath B, Sinkovics N, et al. (2023) On-ramp or speed bump? How boards influence the internation- alisation of international new ventures. International Small Business Journal 41: 590–692. Filatotchev I, Toms S and Wright M (2006) The firm’s strategic dynamics and corporate governance life- cycle. International Journal of Managerial Finance 2: 256–279. Filatotchev I and Wright M (2011) Agency perspectives on corporate governance of multinational enterprises. Journal of Management Studies 48: 471–486. Finkelstein S, Hambrick DC and Cannella AA (2009) Strategic Leadership: Theory and Research on Executives, Top Management Teams, and Boards. Strategic Management. Gabrielsson M, Kirpalani VM, Dimitratos P, et al. (2008) Born globals: Propositions to help advance the theory. International Business Review 17: 385–401. Gan D and Erikson T (2022) Venture governance as a syndicate. Journal of Business Venturing Insights 18: e00330. Garg S (2020) Venture governance: A new horizon for corporate governance. Academy of Management Perspectives 34: 252–265. George G, Wiklund J and Zahra SA (2005) Ownership and the internationalisation of small firms. Journal of Management 31: 210–233. Gerschewski S, Lindsay VJ and Rose EL (2016) Advancing the entrepreneurial orientation construct: The role of passion and perseverance. Review of International Business and Strategy 26: 446–471. Gerschewski S, Lew YK, Khan Z, et al. (2018) Post-entry performance of international new ventures: The mediating role of learning orientation. International Small Business Journal 36: 807–828. Evers et al. 587 González C (2019) Transnational board interlocks as a source of non-experiential knowledge for the firm in foreign markets. British Journal of Management 30: 459–472. Gulati R and Higgins MC (2003) Which ties matter when? The contingent effects of interorganizational part- nerships on IPO success. Strategic Management Journal 24: 127–144. Hagen B and Zucchella A (2014) Born global or born to run? The long-term growth of born global firms. Management International Review 54: 497–525. Hall PA and Soskice D (2001) An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In: Hall PA and Soskice D (eds.) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–70. Hambrick DC (2007) Upper Echelons Theory: An Update. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management, pp. 334–343. Hambrick DC and Mason PA (1984) Upper echelons: The organisation as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review 9: 193–206. Hashai N and Zahra S (2022) A double-edged sword? Founder teams’ prior international experience and INV international growth. Journal of World Business 57: 101309. Hillman AJ and Dalziel T (2003) Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review 28: 383–396. Humphery-Jenner M and Suchard JA (2013) Foreign venture capitalists and the internationalisation of entre- preneurial companies: Evidence from China. Journal of International Business Studies 44: 607–621. Jensen MC and Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3: 305–360. Jin L, Madison K, Kraiczy ND, et al. (2017) Entrepreneurial team composition characteristics and new ven- ture performance: A meta-analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 41: 743–771. Jones MV, Coviello N and Tang YK (2011) International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing 26: 632–659. Khan Z and Lew YK (2018) Post-entry survival of developing economy international new ventures: A dynamic capability perspective. International Business Review 27: 149–160. Knight GA and Cavusgil ST (2004) Innovation, organisational capabilities, and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies 35: 124–141. Kontinen T and Ojala A (2012) Internationalization pathways among family-owned SMEs. International Marketing Review 29: 496–518. Koryak O, Lockett A, Hayton J, et al. (2018) Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation. Research Policy 47: 413–427. Kuivalainen O, Saarenketo S and Puumalainen K (2012) Start-up patterns of internationalization: A frame- work and its application in the context of knowledge-intensive SMEs. European Management Journal 30: 372–385. Laufs K and Schwens C (2014) Foreign market entry mode choice of small and medium-sized enterprises: A systematic review and future research agenda. International Business Review 23: 1109–1126. Li H, Terjesen S and Umans T (2020) Corporate governance in entrepreneurial firms: A systematic review and research agenda. Small Business Economics 54: 43–74. Lin YH, Chen CJ and Lin BW (2018) The dual-edged role of returnee board members in new venture perfor- mance. Journal of Business Research 90: 347–358. Mizruchi MS (1996) What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology 22: 271–298. Moen Ø, Sørheim R and Erikson T (2008) Born global firms and informal investors: Examining investor characteristics. Journal of Small Business Management 46: 536–549. Neely Jr BH, Lovelace JB, Cowen AP, et al. (2020) Metacritiques of upper echelons theory: Verdicts and recommendations for future research. Journal of Management 46: 1029–1062. Oviatt BM and McDougall PP (1994) Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies 25: 45–64. Park S and LiPuma J (2020) New venture internationalisation: The role of venture capital types and reputa- tion. Journal of World Business 55: 101025. 588 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 41(6) Pfeffer J and Salancik GR (1978) The External Control of Organisations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Popli M, Ahsan FM and Mukherjee D (2022) Upper echelons and firm internationalisation: A critical review and future directions. Journal of Business Research 152: 505–521. Puthusserry P, Khan Z, Knight G, et al. (2020) How do rapidly internationalising SMEs learn? Exploring the link between network relationships, learning approaches and post-entry growth of rapidly international- ising SMEs from emerging markets. Management International Review 60: 515–542. Puthusserry P, Khan Z, Nair SR, et al. (2021) Mitigating psychic distance and enhancing internationalisation of fintech SMEs from emerging markets: the role of board of directors. British Journal of Management 32: 1097–1120. Puthusserry P, King T, Miller K, et al. (2022) A typology of emerging market SMEs’ COVID-19 response strategies: The role of TMTs and organisational design. British Journal of Management 33: 603–633. Puthusserry PN, Child J and Rodrigues SB (2014) Psychic distance, its business impact and modes of coping: A study of British and Indian partner SMEs. Management International Review 54: 1–29. Pye A and Pettigrew A (2005) Studying board context, process and dynamics: Some challenges for the future. British Journal of Management 16: S27–S38. Roberts MJ and Beamish PW (2017) The scaffolding activities of international returnee executives: A learn- ing based perspective of global boundary spanning. Journal of Management Studies 54: 511–539. Romanello R and Chiarvesio M (2019) Early internationalizing firms: 2004–2018. Journal of International Entrepreneurship 17: 172–219. Ruigrok W, Peck SI and Keller H (2006) Board characteristics and involvement in strategic decision making: Evidence from Swiss companies. Journal of Management Studies 43: 1201–1226. Ryan P, Evers N, Smith A, et al. (2019) Local horizontal network membership for accelerated global market reach. International Marketing Review 36: 6–30. Sanders WG and Carpenter MA (1998) Internationalisation and firm governance: The roles of CEO com- pensation, top team composition, and board structure. Academy of Management Journal 41: 158–178. Shleifer A and Vishny RW (1997) A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance 52: 737–783. Singh K and Pillai D (2021) Corporate governance in small and medium enterprises: A review. Corporate Governance 22: 23–41. Strange R, Filatotchev I, Buck T, et al. (2009) Corporate governance and international business. Management International Review 49: 395–407. Tihanyi L, Johnson RA, Hoskisson RE, et al. (2003) Institutional ownership differences and international diversification: The effects of boards of directors and technological opportunity. Academy of Management Journal 46: 195–211. Vanninen H, Keränen J and Kuivalainen O (2022) Becoming a small multinational enterprise: Four multina- tionalization strategies for SMEs. International Business Review 31: 101917. Wang K, Pellegrini MM, Wang C, et al. (2022) Board’s gender diversity and international entrepreneurship: Intensity versus quality? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 28: 676–697. Wen K, Alessa N, Karifala M, et al. (2023) The impact of corporate governance and international orientation on firm performance in SMEs: Evidence from a developing country. Sustainability 15: 5576. Zahoor N, Al-Tabbaa O, Khan Z, et al. (2020) Collaboration and internationalisation of SMEs: Insights and recommendations from a systematic review. International Journal of Management Reviews 22: 427–456. Zahra SA (2014) Public and corporate governance and young global entrepreneurial firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review 22: 77–83. Zahra SA, Ireland RD and Hitt MA (2000) International expansion by new venture firms: International diver- sity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. Academy of Management Journal 43: 925–950. Zander I, McDougall-Covin P and Rose EL (2015) Born globals and international business: Evolution of a field of research. Journal of International Business Studies 46: 27–35. Zattoni A and Van Ees H (2012) How to contribute to the development of a global understanding of corporate governance? Reflections from submitted and published articles in CGIR. Corporate Governance: An International Review 20: 106–118. Evers et al. 589 Zona F, Gomez-Mejia LR and Withers MC (2018) Board interlocks and firm performance: Toward a com- bined agency–resource dependence perspective. Journal of Management 44: 589–618. Author biographies Natasha Evers is Associate Professor in Business Strategy at Trinity Business School, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. Her main research lies in the field of international marketing strategy of SMEs and international entrepreneurial growth. She has co-authored two international books editions: Technology Entrepreneurship: Bringing Innovation to the Marketplace (2021 and 2014) and published in international journals such as: International Marketing Review, International Business Review, Journal of World Business, Management International Review, Journal of Business Research; Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Journal of International Marketing among others. Natasha is Visiting Professor of International Marketing and Entrepreneurship at Halmstad University, Sweden and is a Research Fellow at the Strategy and International Business Group, Molde University College, Norway. Stephan Gerschewski is Associate Professor in Strategy & Enterprise at Edinburgh Business School, Heriot-Watt University, UK. His main research interests are in international entrepreneurship, SME internationalisation, and export performance & strategy of firms. He has published in journals, such as Journal of World Business, International Business Review, Management International Review, The World Economy, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, International Small Business Journal, and Critical Perspectives on International Business. Stephan is Visiting Professor of International Business at University of Tuebingen, Germany. Zaheer Khan is Professor in Strategy & International Business at the University of Aberdeen, UK. He is an elected Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences and Royal Society of Arts. His research focuses on interna- tional alliances, knowledge transfer, non-market strategies, international new ventures, and internationalisation of firms from emerging markets. His work has appeared in leading journals such as the Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of World Business, Global Strategy Journal, British Journal of Management, Management International Review, Human Relations, and Journal of Corporate Finance, among others. Tim King is a Professor of Finance at the School of Accounting and Finance, University of Vaasa. He also serves as an external examiner for the University of Glasgow and Heriot-Watt University. Previously, he worked at the University of Leeds and the University of Kent where he also served as Director for the Centre for Quantitative Finance. His research is in the areas of banking, FinTech, Corporate Governance, Corporate Finance, CSR and ESG. He has published in leading journals including Journal of Corporate Finance and British Journal of Management, and is also the lead editor as well as a contributor to the book ‘Disruptive Technology in Banking and Finance: An International Perspective on FinTech’ published by Palgrave Macmillan. He also regularly disseminates his work at leading conferences and invited talks as well as contributing and interacting directly with industry – for example, he has acted as an expert judge for UK banking sector awards and contributed regu- larly to industry-focused reports. He holds an Undergraduate degree in Business Studies and Economics, Masters degree in Banking and Finance, and a Doctorate in Banking and Finance – all from Bangor University. Olli Kuivalainen is Professor of International Marketing and Entrepreneurship at Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology (LUT), Business School (Finland). His research interests are in the areas of inter- national entrepreneurship, marketing and international business. The current research topics relate to deci- sion-making in internationalisation, digitalisation and its effect on value chain, long-term consequences of early and accelerated internationalisation, governance among internationalising SMEs, and changes which take place in the firm during the internationalisation process. His academic work has been published in many journals such as Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of World Business, International Business Review, Journal of International Marketing, International Marketing Review, and Technovation. Pushyarag Puthusserry is a Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) in International Business and Strategy at Kent Business School, University of Kent, UK. His research focuses on corporate governance, INVs, SMEs’ internationalisation, social capital and learning. His work has appeared in, amongst others, the Global Strategy Journal, British Journal of Management, Journal of World Business, International Business Review, Management International Review and R&D Management.